I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Alright. Okay, let's go ahead and remind the public anyone wishing to wishing to join public invited to be heard. You're going to need to watch the live stream and call in only when the public comment is called. And then so you'll go ahead and call that number, enter that meeting ID and then you'll be called according to the last four numbers your phone number. And now and move to the approval of minutes. Can I have a motion to accept the minutes of the September 22 2020 regular session Councilmember Christensen so moved. Second. It's been moved by Councilmember Christensen and seconded by Councilmember Peck. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, it passes unanimously. Let's move on to agenda revision submission of documents or motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas Councilmember Christensen. I would like to move. Since we didn't discuss it last time. I would like to move that we amend the vehicle parking regulations to create to break out unregistered vehicles from junked and abandoned vehicles because unregistered vehicles are not junked and abandoned vehicles. I gave everybody a copy of this last time from Louisville. It reads no person shall park abandoned or otherwise leave unattended on any public street or right of way. Any unregistered vehicle or vehicle with an expired registration for purposes of this and unregistered vehicle is a vehicle for which there is no current or prior certification of registration by the current owner. The reason this is necessary is because currently it is not clear and they are classified under junked vehicle and they can be towed. The vehicle with a lapsed registration sticker is not junked or abandoned. It should get a ticket. It should consistently get a ticket. This should not be left up to the whims of the officer. $25 if it's lapsed 30 to 60 days beyond the 30 day grace period or up to $200 if there's a six month lapse. If it is not towed within six months, I mean if it is not, if no one has taken care of this within six months, then it should be towed with a 48 hour warning. Do I have a second? I will second that. All right. The Councilor Peck. Thank you. I agree that we need to do that. But Councilman Christensen, we have this ordinance where that paragraph is stated coming up in the RV discussion. So are you amending that ordinance? Or are you? The RV thing is part of our vehicle parking violations. Correct. We've discussed it for several weeks and I've been trying to bring this up for several weeks. And this seems to be the only way I can do it is to bring it up as a separate amendment to that part of our organization, of our vehicle parking violations, rather than have it be part of the registered, the RV discussion because this does not apply to RVs. It applies to any unregistered vehicle. I understand that. And I just wanted to make a clarification because I didn't hear when you made the motion that it was an amendment to that ordinance. It's an amendment to our code on vehicle parking violations. So Councilman Christensen, just to reiterate. So what you're saying is the motion is to have city staff bring back an ordinance to discuss that would permit cars that are unregistered up to six months to be permitted to park on city streets. Is that what I'm hearing? No. It is to create an ordinance that is separate from the junked and abandoned vehicles because somebody who has simply forgotten to fill out their registration. Send in their registration fee should might be towed. And right now people can be towed. And this has been affirmed by the committee. Somebody wrote, I asked about this six months ago and somebody wrote us and said, yes. Indeed, somebody can be towed. We don't usually do that. But nevertheless, it does happen. We should not be towing vehicles for somebody who is 30, 30 days out of violation of having their sticker. I'm going to turn off the phone. Who has not, who has neglected simply to take care of their parking registration. That does not constitute a junked or abandoned vehicle and it should not be treated like a junked and abandoned vehicle. You should not be, this city should not be in the business of towing people's cars without notice. Yeah, that's me. That's, sorry. That's theft. So council member waters. Thanks. I'm just trying to understand. We're on that part of the agenda that is submission of documents, motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas is. So I'm just, I can't I'm trying to track what the motion is here relative to future agendas. And I can repeat it. This is based on the Lewisville ordinance and I sent you all a copy of this last week. It is to clear to clarify our city code on parking violations. So, so is that is it is the motion to direct staff to bring an ordinance back to the council. Yes, based upon the Lewisville ordinance. Thank you. So I am going to support this and the reason being is I've had several instances of folks that I've either friends friends of my children, parents, who, you know, who are living paycheck to paycheck. And so when their registration comes around, they can't afford it. So they are trying to actually save money in order to be able to afford it and I have heard all these tricks of the trade of things that people are trying to do to keep their vehicles from being towed so they can be able to to not have their car towed away while they're trying to make the money in order to pay the registration. I do agree with your sentiment, Council Member Christensen, and that we need to be we are we should not be in the business of towing cars. I think the, the, the consequence is too severe for the infraction. So, you know, it could be a citation. So I agree. That's why I'm supporting this. I think we can definitely talk about it in the future, of course, but just my firm building to deal with this a whole lot. It rarely happens. And the definition right now of a junk vehicle is that that you're not registered, and you don't get towed if you're on private property. Let's go ahead and vote. If you want to put it on a future agenda, we can do that on favor of putting this on the agenda. Future agenda say hi. Hi. So raise your hand if it was an eye. All right. Nay. Nay. All right, passes four to three with Council Member Christensen, Council Member Rodney dog affairing Council Member Rodriguez and Council Member peck four and the three of us against. All right, thank you very much. Okay, let's move on to city managers, COVID-19 report. First, I missed Mayor Council tonight. We have Rachel art from Boulder County Health. Rachel, if you can, there you go. And Erica will run your presentation. Rachel's going to present tonight on the data that they have. And you need to unmute. There you go. Oh, there we go. There you go. So Rachel take it away. Erica will call your slides up so. Okay, great. Thank you for having me. Longmont City Council and Harold. You can go to the next slide. I just wanted to start off the presentation by giving an update on the CDPG dial and mitigation metrics that Boulder County Public Health tracks as part of our requirements for the state. Next slide please. As for everyone's reference wanted to share the existing CDPG dial levels. So these three criteria are the new cases, the percent positivity and hospitalizations and so we're required to track the incidence of new cases percent positivity, and then also hospitalization so determine where we stand in CDPG dial. So our first status was safer at home level to and I'm pleased to report that we are still in safer at home level to next slide please. Our two week cumulative incidence rate for COVID-19 is 124.1 cases per 100,000 and that really puts us right in the middle of the new cases, the incidence rate for safer at home level to next slide please. Our two week testing positivity rate right now is 2.7. So that puts us actually in the protect our neighbor phase we've been really lucky that CDPG has contributed to and stood up a free drive through testing site that is currently located at the end of the road that site has been utilized pretty substantially and because we have so many more cases or sorry so many more tests being conducted. It's helping our positivity rates in the county next slide please. And then again just wanted to share some good news although I do have a slide later in the deck just that our hospitalizations are currently stable although they are on a little bit of an upward trend and just have an update from Jeff for you all later in the presentation next slide please. The topic of interest for many in our community has been the University of Colorado. I've been working with the University of Colorado and the city of Boulder. For the last six or seven weeks on the surge in cases that we saw on campus. And I'm pleased to report that while we did have a really, really high incidence rate of cases among 18 to 22 year olds just one week ago over 1500 that we are now down to right around 470 cases per 100,000 for 18 to 22 year olds So the numbers are starting to trend in the right direction. In addition, the testing has been consistent that the University of Colorado has been conducting they have both surveillance testing through a saliva based test and then also the diagnosed diagnostic PCR testing. Again the positivity rate among 18 to 22 year olds in Boulder County is right now 6.2% as of Sunday and continues on that downward trend. Today at noon our director and the area command agreed that we would be moving to level a for students and this allows students that see you to gather in groups of six and also for the University to consider sponsoring some events for students that include social distancing and proper COVID practices. Next slide please. So I just wanted to also share with you some of our case numbers by day next slide. You can see the light blue in this graph represents the number of positive cases among CU students and affiliated faculty and staff. Earlier this month in or earlier last month in the beginning of September through the beginning of this month, the largest proportion of cases were among CU affiliates and now we're as our cases are starting to decrease. So that ratio shifts back to Boulder County residents. Next slide please. Again, you can see the five day average number of cases for COVID-19 among Boulder County residents was getting pretty close up to that safer at home level three with 156 cases per 100,000 and now we're back down to 23 and that is due in large part to the tremendous work of the University of Colorado City of Boulder and students for following the public health orders that were released a couple of weeks ago. Next slide please. I also wanted to share some demographic data with everyone just on the cases that we're starting to see and tried to meet some of Harold's requests to get some long month specific data as well so we can go to the next slide. This slide represents the incidence rate, which is normalized among each city within Boulder County. As you can see, we, especially because of the large surge at the University of Colorado, the rate is much higher for the city of Boulder but in the last 10 days. 40% of our new cases are a little bit more have been in the city of Boulder and a third of them have been in Longmont so we're starting to see more of a normalization of cases across the county. Next slide. Again on this slide then we see the number of weekly COVID cases by a select group of municipalities and so you can also see that shift with Longmont represented as the light blue and the city of Boulder is the dark blue. Next slide. I wanted to share this graph as well because I think it's important to really understand where the disease has been in the community and so this steep peak and then fall represents 18 to 22 year olds within Boulder County so we can see at the height of the outbreak at the end of the year the incidence rate was actually over 3700 cases per 100,000 and now we're back down to 470 with the rest of the population still being below the the 175 rate for safer at home level to next slide please. We have the breakdown here on this slide of race and ethnicity for total population COVID cases hospitalization and deaths and I did on the next slide ask our epidemiologists and data branch to break this down for Longmont specifically as you can see we do have a pretty big disproportionate rate of hospitalizations and and COVID cases among our Latin X and Hispanic community versus our white and if we go to the next slide specifically for the city of Longmont. So you can see that a much higher proportion of the community that is Latin X has been hospitalized or diagnosed with COVID, then as representative of the Longmont population. Next slide please. Just during the the last surge our cases were among white non Hispanic community members. However, we have seen an increase in the relative disparity for the Latin X community members over the last two weeks. This means that although the absolute number of cases among Latin X community members has remained steady over the last four weeks. We're sending an increasingly larger share of the COVID cases that we're seeing so you can kind of see that orange bar increases a proportion of the total cases. Next slide please. Just wanted to give a really quick update on testing. Next slide. To date, we have conducted almost 80,000 PCR. Those are diagnostic tests in Boulder County. As I stated earlier in the presentation, our positivity rate is 2% and that continues to be pretty steady with what we saw just over a month ago. And this is this is good news where we fall on the CDPHG dial for testing is actually in the protector neighbor phase so we're doing enough testing to adequately find COVID positivity in our community. Next slide. And this is the slide that I was discussing earlier so this represents the number of patients that are hospitalized due to COVID. And you can see that we are on an upward trend of hospitalizations in Boulder County, just as the region this and I have a text from Jeff that I asked and if there was anything he wanted me to share tonight and he said that social distancing across the state is lower than we would like to see and this is, this is being clouded as one of the reasons that the hospitalizations are increasing. And so Jeff just wanted me to reiterate that with us coming into the fall flu and holiday season, you know right around the corner that we need to be really diligent about social distancing and masking. And those are the slides that I have for today but I'm happy to take questions. I'm not the expert in every one of these areas but I can bring. I can bring questions back and make sure that they get answered. If folks have them. Let me jump in to help answer some of them with Rachel. You're jumping on but I don't see any. Okay. So I do have a question around the quarantining of entities, whether it be businesses schools. What, or city operations. What. When you have and I guess what I have been seen is that we have some people who are quarantined for 72 hours, and others who are asked to quarantine for two weeks. Can you please explain the difference of why we would go one that would just be a few days as opposed to the full two weeks. I'm not an epidemiologist and unfortunately and I'm not aware of any quarantine guidance being less than I think the 10 or 14 day time frame so if you could I can look that up and I can send it to you. That would be great if you could. So let me jump. I mean so we also have that issue it's interesting one of the things I was going to update you all on today was basically. So today we receive notice of someone testing positive who work in our development service center. It's a little bit interesting because we think that's going to go in through well County versus Boulder County and so the relationship on the tracing was something we had to work through. So what we do is we closed today we closed the development service center. Just based on the nature of the individual we then have a protocol where we work with a specialized cleaning company that does command and clean the facility. We are going to open the facility up tomorrow. And I'm saying this because for you all. It's easier for us to manage but then in the tracing component.  And we really and so we work with both Boulder County Health and Kaiser who is who's our insurance provider. And so the questions that we ask her. We find out a who was a person associated with and then we asked those individuals were you. Were you engaged with that person for longer than a 15 minute period of time. Depending on the answer then we get so if it was longer than 15 minute period of time.  And so but depending on those answers you get you get then a probable exposure to a possible exposure or to an unlikely exposure. And then that starts setting for us the parameters that we put in place. Or that we suggest that we put in place for those individuals. So it depends based on what that looks like where someone will fall. Okay, and depending on where they fall. Is there a level of number of days that they should be out of commission. So that depends on the depends on. It's very granular so. So if you for example were positive. And I interacted with you. Seven days ago. And let's say some more say seven days. Yeah, you know then you get into the incubation cycle which I think is five to seven days. Rachel's incorrect. Five to seven days. A little bit longer a little bit longer so then they start doing the math to then the math will then dictate what you need to do for that individual and how long they need to be out. So that may be part of it. And so I can't I mean it is very you get pretty deep in the nuances of each individual case and what that looks like. And then in some cases what we'll find is they haven't been associated with them in the time period where they think they were infectious and so then we don't require them to quarantine. Okay, okay. And then so the other piece is we have a section of long and I know it's a small section of long month that is well county. Do we, you know how come we're not presenting that information. In terms of, of the number of people that live in there we don't have I mean it is mainly. What am I saying, there's like five people the five homes, yeah five homes, it's mainly commercial establishments and so then what I tend to look at is the state's websites on outbreaks. Okay, because that then will show a lot of that and. And I would say for council I think I've showed this to you all before. And I can try to call that up really quick. Let me do this for you all. So when you look at this, this sheet right here. This is the outbreak. And so if you let me back up so you can see the outbreak data based on where it is and then you can as you zoom in you see older. And then I'll take you to Longmont. And so we really haven't had anything out here so for example if you, you know we have some industrial plants here they're not showing up on that. If you think I've done this for you on me zoom in a little bit more. So here's some that have been resolved so there was one that was the kidney center of Longmont that's been resolved. But then if you go to for example this one. It gives you the word where it occurs. How many people. How many probable. And then if they get into more serious issues it's there so I watched this too for some of that. And what ends up happening is as well County reports it as a southeast section and I think I've showed that to you all before. And most of those we report within Frederick and Firestone, I think most of those cases are there but we could try to get that data, but there's not many people that live in those areas. Okay, no thank you I appreciate that. Yeah, because I get questions occasionally. And I just want to be able to have solid answers in responding. So thanks. I also email you a link to the quarantine guidance that's on CDPG's website but Harold is right. There is a really detailed case investigation that occurs and that's how it's determined how long someone needs to quarantine based on all of those factors so I'm happy to share that overall guidance with you. That would be great thank you. Yeah. Marcia I think you had your hand up earlier is there something that I can answer for you. Ah, yes, thank you. I'd almost lost track of it. The spike in hospitalizations that we're seeing now. Is that a consequence of the spike of infections that we had a couple of weeks ago. Or is that unrelated. We don't believe that it is necessarily linked it's really hard to determine that. But like Jeff said in his message, what we really think it's due to is a lack of social distancing so the social distancing has actually been decreasing. And so that is one of the main factors, and we use kind of that Google mobility data to look and see how well people are social distancing on a high level for the county and that has been decreasing across the entire metro region. And we're seeing a similar trend not just in Boulder County, but regionally as well so that leads us to believe that it has to do with the reduced social distancing. Anything else? So a couple of things. And this really is something and we have the ledp meeting on Monday and we had. Today's not my day for names Lonnie and Tina. Is that correct him. And Tina Johnson, Tina Johnson, who is the CEO of Longmont United and Lonnie Kramer is the CEO of UC health and a couple of things that they passed on to us. So in terms of the hospitalization data that Rachel touched on, you know, there was a time where LUH didn't have any patients. And I think they moved up to four based on what Tina said and then I heard today I think they went down to three so they have had an increase but there was a time where they didn't have any but the two things, the thing that Tina and Lonnie both both stressed to us was really wearing the mask and socially distancing and good hygiene practices and the second thing was get your flu shots because the big piece that we're seeing from our medical community is they want everyone to get their flu shots because when you bring the flu and you bring the COVID together what they're really concerned about is the overall impact of the medical system with people coming in and presenting very similar symptoms. And so for me that was a good reminder. Continue doing what you're doing. Get your flu shot because of the way it starts integrating into this. And then today I had a reminder that even I'm going to talk to the organization about is, as we get further away we still need to be mindful because it still impacts our operational capability. And we still need to be careful so when I do my citywide WebEx on Thursday. And I work with my team on Thursday those are going to be things that I'm going to focus on because we can see what the impact does to our operational capability and how we're continuing to work so wear your mask, socially distance, get your flu shot and good hygiene practices. I think that just continues to be the message. Right. Thank you. That it Harold. Okay. All right, great. Thanks. Let's go on. Thanks Rachel. Do we have any special reports and presentations Harold? All right, let's go ahead and do first call public invited to be heard. Let's take a three minute break as we load the queue. Hi everyone thanks for joining us. Just a few notes as we let you into the waiting room here please just pay attention to your phone and not to the live stream on YouTube there is approximately a 30 second delay. And then just remember that when I call your number you'll be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and then you will have three minutes for public comment. So just hang tight here and when we resume we'll go ahead and start calling them folks one by one. All right, how we doing we all back yet or how many's in the queue or how many are in the queue? There are nine mayor. All right, let's go ahead and start calling them in shall we. All right, give me just a second here mayor. As it takes a little bit of time for them to read the message and call in we're going to leave it unlocked as the first caller begins. Okay, thanks. All right caller ending in 054 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and then you have three minutes. Caller 054. All right, I'll move on to caller one two full. Are you there 054. Hi. Excellent. This is Kristen Thompson with the green solution. I actually want to speak on the medical marijuana ordinance and I'm not sure if this is the right time or if you're going to open it up back that at that time I would prefer to speak when it's up at that. Yeah, yeah, then we'll go ahead and you'll want to join us during the, you'll want to call back in during the ordinances to be read on second reading. Okay, terrific. I will do that. Thank you so much. All right, thank you. All right, let's move on to caller number one two five. Caller one two five. Can you unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Hi, yes, this is Shannon Fender with native roots. I'm also going to be calling in for a second reading on the medical marijuana delivery. So caller you'll want to hang up now and wait for us to prompt again during the live stream. All right, let's do caller number 429 caller 429 you're welcome to unmute and state your name and address for the record. So caller 429. All right, we can move on to caller 499 caller 499. Are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Go ahead to the next one. Right, looks like caller 710 caller 710. Can you unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. 710. Hello, there you go. Yes, go ahead and state your name and address for the record and then you have three minutes. Hi, my name is Evelyn Fontanez I live at 711 Elliott Street in Longmont. And the only thing I'm calling about is the RV parking. And there are a lot of homeless people that are living in their RVs at this time. I did listen to last week's meeting that you will help some of the RV people that are willing to help themselves to better themselves. But I'm not understanding what's going to happen to the people that just want to live in their RV and don't want to follow any rules. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's try guest 429 caller 429. Are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yep, go ahead and state your name and address. Yeah, thank you Longmont City Council. My name is Marty Pfeffer. I live at 100 Sandler Drive in Lafayette. I'm making written and live comments to you for the last number of City Council meetings about the idea before you to downgrade the electric meters in Longmont homes and buildings from the current analog meters to smart meters in a so called advanced metering infrastructure or AMI system. I live in Longmont. I go there often for work for dining and to visit friends. The microwave microwave radiation that emanates from wireless devices knows no borders and doesn't check IDs for residency to have its effects. I'm very concerned that you're considering such a backward step, compared to the brilliant public utility program of your next light broadband service bringing internet to everyone wire to the premises and under local jurisdiction. The model of self reliance and real democracy for the whole nation.  Here's a list of problems. One long term health concerns for all living things which the FCC won't allow us to talk to each other about to invasion of privacy and data collection without permission by smart devices in our homes. This is the biggest source of profit. Three fire risks from home meters. For estimates of 100 times more energy and efficiency with the use of wireless infrastructure and its larger global carbon footprint than wired infrastructure, notably mining of exotic exotic metals for batteries and cellular fabrication. Next wireless networks are not secure to cyber attack and other vulnerabilities. Next promotion of dubious new technology by corporate entities to local communities is an age old formula for siphoning and off money and control preemption is the legal instrument to accomplish this. The promise of efficiency with tiered pricing is a bait and switch scheme to profit absentee companies. Please take time to thoroughly study and consider before subjecting your community to these problems and dangers. Thank you. All right. Let's see. Let's guest 499 guest 499. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Okay, I'm finally unmuted. I was trying before. Can you hear me? We can. Hello. Yeah. Okay. This is this is Doe Kelly of Barbary Drive in Longmont. And I'd like to thank the mayor and the council for arranging the AMI study session at the council meeting next week. As a leader in fiber optics for fast internet Longmont would be well served to continue thinking and implementing outside the box as regards the proposed smart meter program. I heard mine and others comments and questions at various recent meetings. This time I would like to focus on what I would call the canary in the coal mine syndrome, beginning with a quote from a medical expert. Dr. Dietrich Klinghart MD PhD and internationally recognized specialist in integrative medicine who has an extensive working knowledge of the role that wireless electromagnetic radiation plays in the onset. It's a combination of many chronic disease conditions. Dr. Klinghart speaks of the canary syndrome does quote people that are electro hypersensitive are the blessed ones where their body still give them a warning signal that something really sinister is going on here and quote. We live in an age of chronic illness. Similarly, every body to some extent is affected and not exempt on account of youth or old age. When I teach boys, I see what I would call early onset digital dementia in music students as young as 16. Without exception, they all use cell phones and wireless devices whether at home school or work. The emf had been an area of interest for at least 25 years as my husband and I have shared and sold subtle energy emf protection, long before it was popular and before the electro smog was as advanced as it now is. I mentioned before I experienced microwave injury in 2016 when the next light wireless router was installed in our home. And so then ran another router in order to compare speeds. We failed to turn the second router off till hours later and by the evening my face and skin were burning my ears hurting.  In the span of a day, I had become a canary. So what is a canary in a coal mine? It is written early coal mines did not feature ventilation systems so miners would bring a cage canary into new coal seams. Canaries are especially sensitive to methane and carbon monoxide. And here you may as well substitute wireless emf, which made the canaries ideal for detecting dangerous gas buildups.  Now I ask you, have you done a risk benefit analysis on the AMI with canary such as myself in mind? And are you aware of growing numbers of emf quiet zones worldwide for all the canaries who That's about three minutes and 15 seconds, but we appreciate what you had to say. Thank you. One last thing. All right, next caller. All right, let's see. Looks like caller number 418. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Yes. Am I coming through? You are loud and clear. Stand tall welcome. Okay, yeah, this is stand tall. I found it interesting what Polly was talking about the unregistered vehicles. I don't want to know that under 42 3121 bracket one bracket a it's not unlawful to park a vehicle under state law on on the roadway. And in fact, it's only a violation if a vehicle is operating. So there is no violation of state registration law. If a vehicle is simply parked or is unmoved in the, you know, on a public street. That's not a violation of registration law. One reason I'm calling is because of the RV ordinance. One of the things is, is that I've sent an email, I hope it's gotten through to everybody is that we appear to be violating the open meeting laws, because people that are in the RVs really can't participate in these the they're not really connected to the internet in their vehicles. And there's also a problem in that other people will be allowed to connect with the city, and then they weren't. And so I have requested that the city pause this RV ordinance until such time that a true open meeting can be held for these people, I think the state law requires that. I guess that's it is my time still good. You've got another minute and 11 seconds stand. Okay, so the other thing is, is that I've, there's been a problem with the city issuing threats to impound vehicles, and they haven't set up any hearings. When I've gone in and tried to request a hearing when, when a vehicle is being threatened, I haven't been able to get any sort of hearing on that. And that isn't the municipal court, but they're requiring me to use computers and stuff to communicate with them I have a computer now so maybe I will continue that request. And I guess for all notices of impound have people have access be told that they can have a hearing within 24 hours, according to the state requirements. I guess that's it. And hopefully the RV ordinance will be postponed until people can fully have open hearings on that. Great timing that's three minutes stand. Thank you. Thanks. Is that it for the colors. We have two more collars. Let's get them in here then. Guest ending in 635. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. My name is Shaquille DeLal. I live at 609 Terry street. I'm calling regarding the ordinance banning the parking of an RV in the public right of way for more than 48 hours. I don't envy the members of council on this issue. Any solution has to traverse the difficult balance of the right of property owners to the quiet enjoyment of their homes with compassion for those facing the choice between living in an RV or having no home at all. It's easy for me to criticize when I have no constituents to face or any responsibility for the management of the city. I can't say that I know what the right solution to this problem is, but I do know that the ordinance at is it is currently being considered as morally wrong. During the presentation by Jeff Satter and Shannon Stadler last week, I witnessed something which I was disappointed by. During the presentation, city staff clearly declared their intent as improved by city council. And that intent was to draft a law whose text would be neutral but would be selectively indiscriminatorily enforced. Well, we often use the word discrimination to refer to racial discrimination. In this case, I'm using it with its broader meeting to treat people differently under the law because of who they are rather than what they have done. In response to questions from council over concerns that the law would be used against their landowning constituents, Jeff Satter reassured members of council that it would not. To quote Mr. Satter, quote, if a car belongs to a homeowner, we're not towing those cars unless they are clearly junk. In explaining his rationale, Mr. Satter said, that would be very rude and impolite. Mr. Satter has clearly stated his intent as directed by council to discriminate in the enforcement of the law between those who own land and those who do not. Now, despite common perception, discriminatory laws are not illegal. There are only certain bases on which it is illegal to discriminate in Colorado, and those are called protected classes. Some of those protected classes will likely be familiar to members of the council, and those are race, religion, national origin, and age. Homelessness is not among the protected classes, nor do I necessarily believe that it should be. Nevertheless, I find it morally wrong to draft a law with the deliberate intent of selectively enforcing it only against vulnerable people. This country has a dark history with laws whose text is neutral, but whose administration is discriminatory. Laws like poll tests and poll taxes, drug laws, and New York City's stop and frisk program. It would not be illegal for council to pass a law which explicitly stated that it is illegal for a person who is homeless to store an RV in the public right of way for more than 40 hours. If that is council's intent, it should have the courage to do so explicitly. Thank you. All right, and this is our final caller ending in 798. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Yes, my name is Virginia Farver, and I'm from Fort Collins, Colorado, and I'd like to address the AMI advanced metering infrastructure that you're planning on putting in. I'm actually in a film called Take Back Your Power, and you can access it online at some takebackyourpower.net. It's an investigation into the smart meters and the smart grid. I lost a son in 2008 from glioblastoma brain cancer and he was involved in a brain cancer cluster of people on the San Diego State University campus. And it involved a cell tower that is actually mission control for San Diego gas and electric. And, and in the meantime, I've worked closely with people from the World Health Organization. And this is how we got the class to be classification for wireless radiation back in 2011. And right now the NTP study and the Ramaninzi study both came out in 2018, which show clear evidence of harm by wireless radiation. The city of Fort Collins installed smart meters and there was an article in a US news and I brought it up that they estimated the smart grid at $350 million and at a cost of $322 per meter. Now this was back in 2009, and I'm actually trying to clarify things now. We had our mass deployments in 2013 and 2018 they had to replace 30,000 of these meters because they were not communicating properly with the grid. These meters are actually very, very, they're junk, to be honest with you. And it's going to be a, and it's going to end up being a huge boondoggle for most people. And the, the biggest thing I'm concerned about is the wireless radiation and each smart meter can transmit 1.8 miles of pulsed radiation. I am one of 11 petitioners right now suing the FCC over the health effects wireless radiation and this is through the CHD the Children's Health Defense Council. And this is with Robert Kennedy Jr. and also the EHT the Environmental Health Trust. And I really these meters are going to be obsolete in the coming years and I think if you want to go with a safe route. I, I recommend you guys keep going with fiber optics and somehow get our meters connected through the fibers networks so anyway that's that's all I'd like to say thank you. Thank you ma'am. All right, does that matter for the callers? That concludes our callers mayor. All right. Let's go ahead then and move on to the consent agenda. Don, do you want to go ahead and read us the Happy to the riot act it's a long one mayor. 9A is ordinance 2020-44 a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for the expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont. For the fiscal year beginning January 1 2020 public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2020. 9C is ordinance 2020-45 a bill for an ordinance fixing and levying taxes upon the real and personal property within the city of Longmont for the year 2020 to pay budgeted city expenses for the 2021 fiscal year. Public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2020. 9C is ordinance 2020-46 a bill for an ordinance fixing and levying taxes upon the real and personal property within the Longmont downtown development district. For the year 2020 to pay budgeted expenses of the Longmont downtown development authority for the 2021 fiscal year public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2020. 9A is ordinance 2020-47 a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a pedestrian trail easement associated with the 110 Emory minor subdivision plan and site plan generally located south of 2nd Avenue and east of Emory street. Public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2020. 9E is ordinance 2020-48 a bill for an ordinance amending section 15.03.80 of the Longmont municipal code on zoning districts measurements and exceptions. Public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2020. 9F is ordinance 2020-49 a bill for an ordinance approving the concert plan amendment for the bone farm rezoning and the annexation agreement located at 1313 spruce Avenue. Public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2020. 9G is ordinance 2020-50 a bill for an ordinance amending title 10 chapter 10.24 creating new section 097 of the Longmont municipal code creating a temporary prohibition on rental late fees due to COVID-19 related hardship. Public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2020. 9H is resolution R 2020-93 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the University of Colorado for socio technical design for a middleware information exchange hub. 9I is resolution 2020-101 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont. 9K is resolution 2020-103 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Colorado historical records advisory board for grant funding for digitizing videotapes. 9L is resolution 2020-104 a resolution in sort of repealing the Gallagher amendment by encouraging the people to vote yes on amendment B. All right, I'd like to I'd like to pull where to go where to go. G temporary prohibition of rental late fees. Councilman Martin. I would like to pull nine F and nine L. And you're muted mayor. I'm going to write these down so we have FLG councilor Christensen. I just like to call E for a brief comment. All right, great. Let's go ahead then and have a motion for the consent agenda less FLG and E. So moved. Second. All right, it's been moved by councilor Martin seconded by councilor they're all fairing. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, the motion passes unanimously let's move on to ordinances on second reading. If you are watching city council now is the time to call in. We're going to go ahead and take a two minute break while folks call in to be able to address the public hearings for each of these issues. Whether you're calling in for the medical marijuana delivery, or the, the stores, the real property lease, or the airport hanger lease all in now for any one of these four please. We'll be back in two minutes. We have a couple of callers joining us for the second round of public invited to be heard.  Once we get started again, I will call you by the end of your telephone number, and then you'll be able to state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes. So hang tight and we'll get to you very soon. Ordinance 2020-41 less likely that someone will call in late. Ordinance 2020-41 is a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Walmart to lease the real property known as Vance brand municipal airport hanger parcel h 74 to best steal LLC. Is there any comments or questions from council. Well, I apologize. I'm looking at our callers, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm pretty sure that nobody's going to want to talk on this will reboot if we do something wrong. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 020-2020-41. Is there anyone in the queue who would like to speak on this particular item. So I guess my question is at this time, how do we determine who wants to speak at what item please hit star nine and that will virtually raise their hand, I believe. All right, if somebody wants to speak on this particular item, please hit star nine. All right, seeing that nobody wants to speak on this particular issue. Almost go ahead and close the public hearing can I have a motion for ordinance 2020-41. Ordinance 2020-41. I'll second it. Oh, councilor Christensen will second. All right, I'll see no further discussion or debate all in favor of passage of ordinance 2020-41 say aye. Opposed say nay. All right, 2020-41 passes unanimously. Next, ordinance 2020-42 is an ordinance authorizing the city of Walmart to lease the real property known as Vance brand municipal airport here parcel h 32 to George and Evelyn Grell. There is no quite there are no questions or comments from council. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 2020-42 and you call her wishing to speak on this on this item, please, please push star nine to virtually raise your hand. All right, seeing no one let's go ahead and close the public meeting do we have a motion. I'll move ordinance 2020-42. Great. It was moved by Dr. Waters seconded by councilman Martin all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, the motion carries unanimously. Let's go ahead and go back to item a. Let's start with these now. All right, so ordinance 2020-37 is a bill for an ordinance repealing and re-enacting chapter 15.05.020 of the Longmont Municipal Code on the protection of streams, creeks, wetlands, riparian areas and 15.05.030 on habitat and species protection and amending chapters 15.8.070 on non conforming structures and 15.10.020 on all other terms defined. Specifically, anyway, that's that is the ordinance. So is there anyone in the queue that would like to speak at a public hearing we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. So if you would like please hit star nine. Is there anybody. All right, seeing no one will go ahead and close the public hearing is there any questions or comments from council on this matter. All right, can we have a motion. I'll second that Joan. All right, all in favor passage of ordinance 2020-37 say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, that motion passes unanimously. All right, let's move on to ordinance 2020-39 a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 6.70 the Longmont Municipal Code to prevent medical marijuana delivery. Mayor Bagley. Yeah. Do you want to deal with a one. No, or because it's it's basically the same ordinance, meaning it's what it's we passed it's the same thing ordinance 2020-37. But thank you like me to clarify the way the agenda is a one is the information carried forward from first reading is that exactly as you saw it. It's the new information. That's the model you'll see in this system. So let's go ahead ordinance 2020-239 a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 6.70 the Longmont Municipal Code to prevent medical marijuana delivery. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing on this matter I'm pretty sure we're going to have a few could you please hit star nine to raise your hand. We do have a couple of callers raising their hand. I see three so far. Alright, so Looks like three. Let's go ahead and let them in. All right. So let's see caller ending in 054 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address. Hi members of the city council. This is Kristen Thompson I'm with the green solution we are located at 206 South Main Street in the city of Longmont. We support this ordinance as introduced so I think on the agenda it would be a one. We do oppose allowing businesses from outside the city of Longmont to deliver into the city. We feel this is essentially permitting a new license business into the city without them having to meet all of the requirements. The current licensees had to meet including capital investment signage etc. This disparity is less important frankly for medical only deliveries. I'm probably just let it go but we don't want this to be the model should recreational be recreational deliveries be permitted in the future. This is for a couple of reasons. One is because there is only one store in Longmont that sells medical marijuana. It is not the green solution. But there is a reason that there is only one it's because Boulder County allowed medical marijuana sales starting in 2011. So there was a seven year lead time for businesses just on the other side of the border of the city to develop their customer base in Longmont before the city allowed sales. This is why you don't see stores in Longmont investing in medical marijuana sales the market was captured before we had a chance to compensate for this. TGS is very committed to the patient community. So us and our other competitors within the city offer discounts to anyone with a medical card that is standard practice really in any stores, including Aurora where they don't allow medical sales. I also want to emphasize this point. Boulder County currently does not allow delivery. So the businesses right on the other side of the city line won't be able to deliver medical product into the city. It's going to have to come from one from either the stores in downtown Boulder actually would have to come from the store in downtown Boulder. The stores in downtown Boulder nobody else allows delivery yet. That dollar fee that is charged as well as the tax money follow that delivery. I heard the case made by the licensees outside the committee or outside the city about proximity and serving patients and it is definitely logical. Only if the bordering stores are able to convince their own licensing authority to allow delivery and then to allow delivery outside the authority of their local regulatory body, which would in that case be Boulder County, which does not allow it right now. It will be interesting to see if Boulder County will allow the open borders provision that Longmont has proposed in the in the version that is being heard tonight. I also think this is an important data point. The city of Boulder is reporting that only 196 deliveries of medical matter of medical marijuana have been made in the seven months since deliveries of medical marijuana have been allowed. That is actually split among the five stores in Boulder that deliver. There are only 4500 medical marijuana patients in the entire county. Even with that that that low patient count is a very small portion. So I just want to make that point. It's for those reasons that we hope you will not allow cross jurisdictional delivery as it is proposed in the most recent draft ordinance, and we'll wait until neighboring communities make similar decisions. You have heard from two of your four licensees. I know both medicine man and the green solutions share concerns around delivery generally. But first and foremost, should you go forward with this model we would really like to hear from you that this will not become the model for recreational deliveries. So should the city decide to go in that direction in the future, which by no means we are suggesting you do. Thank you so much for your time and I am available for any questions. All right, thank you very much right next caller. All right, give me just a moment here looks like caller number one to five, you should be able to unmute yourself and raise your and state your name and address for the record. Yes, this is Shannon fender director of public affairs for native roots. And thank you so much to city council for being receptive to the amendments that we requested throughout this process and really for prioritizing an important service to our patients during this time. You have heard from our patients both through correspondence via email as well as calling into the meeting several weeks ago, on the importance of delivery on the import importance of choice on the importance of competition and so we're really grateful that long line is receptive to listening to what the needs of the community are prioritizing those needs. I want to note that delivery is a permit on an existing license. It is not a new license type, and we have been serving the Longmont community since 2014, both medical and retail sales and we are very grateful to be a member of the community and to be able to provide this service. We are in conversation with Boulder County, Boulder County is very much aware that we are working with you all in order to provide delivery. And we do expect that they will be bringing forward an ordinance at some point. However, long line has just moved a little bit more quickly. So thank you again, we do support the importance as it's been amended and asked for it to be passed tonight with no future amendments. Thank you. So, all right, it looks like we have one more on this topic which is guest 002. Let's see guest 002 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address. Yeah, hi my name is Michael song. Thank you for taking my call. I think about a month ago when you guys first had this up and I'd like to think of the city council because you guys have really been almost a leader and not a follower in this. I would like to talk about what the individual from the green solution kind of advocated for. I think that they are misguided. I think the most important focus now for the council is not about money. It's not about market share, but it's about public safety. And the fact that delivery, as as it is amended is going to be allowed. I think that is a strong argument for public safety in terms of what we're seeing right now which is an uptick in COVID cases. So, I just like to say as someone that's been involved in the industry from the law enforcement perspective, and it's trained law enforcement and city leaders and government officials. I do think this is the future. I believe that marijuana will eventually be legal federally, and that other counties and cities will also open it up for cross delivery. Longman is doing something that is proactive rather than reactive. And I would ask that the council approve the order as amended. And so that we can, you know, look to the future and also protect those individuals that deserve medical marijuana. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. One more person did raise their hand to speak on this topic. All right, let's go ahead. How many people are in the queue total, just, I mean, I'm wondering for other ordinances. 733 and it looks like there's at least one more person who hasn't spoken yet. All right, let's go ahead and have this person speak now. Thank you. Great. So, a guest ending in 733, you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address. Caller 733. Are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record? Okay. Star six is unmute. Great. We can hear you now. Please go ahead. Okay, my name is Ashley Weber and I live on Featherie Avenue in Longmont, Colorado. I would just like to thank the Longmont City Council for the amendments that were made and Colorado normal supports every amendment that was that was made. I would just like to point out, I guess, a few issues on the consumer side as far as delivery would be for patients as delivery with courier services outside of the town. We're going to need that service to come in for our dispensaries here in Longmont, so I just wanted to add that and make sure that that was noted on your guys' case in terms of courier services. Because we're not going to have them within Longmont City and if a courier service outside of the city limits would like to deliver for those, then we should allow that. So, I'd just like to support the amendments and thank you. Thank you. That's it for our callers. Assuming that we have no additional debate or discussion on this matter, can we have a motion for ordinance 2020-39 a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 6.7 of the Longmont music code for medical marijuana delivery. So moved. I'll second. All right, we'll go ahead. It was moved by Councilor Martin. It was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. All in favor of ordinance 2020-39 say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, the motion Councils. The motion carries and passes unanimously. All right, ordinance 2020-40 a bill for an ordinance amending chapters 2.68 on local licensing authority 6.70 on marijuana stores chapter 9.60 on medical and recreational marijuana. All in favor of ordinance 2020-40, is there anybody else in the queue that didn't speak on the last one? Or I guess they can speak again, I guess. We'll take a few seconds. Star nine. If you'd like to raise your hand. All right, seeing no one will go ahead and close the public hearing. All right, is there a motion or debate or dialogue from Council? The move ordinance 2020-40. Second. All right, it's been moved by Dr. Waters and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Seeing no further discussion or debate, let's go ahead and vote. All in favor of ordinance 2020-40 say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, that motion carries unanimously. We'll go ahead to last second ordinance is ordinance 2020-43 a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of access utility and drainage easements associated with the Highland subdivision generally located north of Highway 119 and west of County Line Road. We'll go ahead and sorry about that. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing at this time. If anyone is anyone else in the queue at all. The only guess we haven't heard from is caller 373. All right, caller 373 if you want to talk about the bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of access pertaining to Highway 119 and County Line Road one, let's go ahead and hear it. All right. All right, I'm guessing they're not here for that. So we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Does anyone like to offer a motion or offer dialogue or debate on this particular matter? All right, I'll preferably the motion first. I'll move the ordinance 2020-43. All right, the motion has been moved by Dr. Waters and seconded by Council Member Martin. Is that true Council Member Martin? I saw you waving your flagrantly. All right, so all in favor of ordinance 2020-43 say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye it'll make a big difference in the long run. Thank you. All right, great. Would you like to make a motion, Council Member? I move ordinance 2020-48. I'll second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the motion carries unanimously. Let's go ahead and Marsha, let's do yours now. F. Yes. The bond farm proposed development and annexation is in Ward 2. And last month when it was actually in August, when it was before the Planning and Zoning Commission, a citizen, Mr. John Pillman, contacted me with questions about parking and traffic, as is usual, when there's going to be a new development in someone's ward. So I, in turn, contacted Mr. Peter Spalding to try to get answers to Mr. Pillman's questions. And before that dialogue had ended, I was notified by the city attorney that because there is a change in the concept plan that a quasi-judicial, the council could end up acting in a quasi-judicial role with regard to this annexation. And that consequently, I should disclose this contact and put an end to it. I did that. My last contacts with Mr. Spalding or Mr. Pillman were on September 11th. When I asked them both, please not to contact me on this matter again. And so I am just making that disclosure. And if nobody else has anything to say about the bond farm development, you do, Joan. OK, go ahead. Well, thank you, Mayor. All right, it's all good. Marsha can do that. You guys can all get away with it. Go ahead. So I will approve the amendment. And I know that we're only supposed to vote on this change to the trail. But I am going to say that this concept plan, even though I believe in the work, what is the term? Co-housing. Live-work housing that gives commercial on Spruce. I am against that. I'm not against it within the co-housing development. But on Spruce, my reasoning is, and I want Peter to hear it, is that this is a very old narrow street that has no bike lanes. And it is used for a lot of traffic with skate borders, et cetera. And when we have on traffic going both ways, one lane has to stop to let the other one pass many times because there is on-street parking. And because I live in this area and travel daily, I know this and walk it. So my frustration comes in the fact that when we do these developments, planning and zoning looks at the codes and the zoning and make sure that those are all fulfilled. But the whole concept with the transportation department weighing in and not realizing that this angled parking they have on Spruce Avenue is very dangerous for all of the bike traffic that is trying to get off of 3rd Avenue so they go down Spruce. And all of the skateboards, all of the baby carriages, people pushing strollers and runners that are on the street, that angled parking is very dangerous. So I don't want to approve the concept plan at all because of that. And I think I voted against it at the onset. So I'm going to make a statement by not supporting this because of that problem in this concept plan. Thank you. Good question, staff. Is this, I mean, I might vote with you. This is the only reason I'm asking Council Member Peck. What is this a use-by-right issue with the bond farm development? Me meaning are they getting variances or any special treatment or is this just a flat-out use-by-right? They're well within their rights. Go ahead, Ava. I assume you're... Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. Ava Pehzefsky, Planning and Development Services. Just to answer a couple of questions, just first I wanted to address Council Member Peck's comments regarding the parking. Back in 2016, when the rezoning application was submitted, they had diagonal parking on a concept plan but working through the details of the constructability and the development overall, the applicant agreed with Public Works, it would be better to not do diagonal but to have parallel parking. So the parking that went forward to Planning and Zoning Commission is not diagonal. That was not part of the concept plan amendment itself because that is something that was in the right of way. It wasn't all the private property and that was something that they worked through with Public Works. So I just wanted to clarify that. There will not be diagonal parking on Spruce, it's just parallel. And to answer the Mayor's question, used by right, I mean, sort of, it was rezoned to a PUD to allow the mixed use. So yes, the mixed use component was allowed through the PUD zoning in the concept plan that was approved by City Council. So what was taken to Planning and Zoning Commission was just their preliminary development plan showing that it met all of the other land development code standards. I mean, I'm gonna vote for this then, but I guess my concern, I don't know to what extent city staff can or should. I guess I think it's a fantastic idea, but my concern is it's taking so long and in talking with some of the people who have invested money into the project, just, I mean, I guess I have some concerns that it's actually going to come to fruition in a way that people aren't going to be taken advantage of. I'm not accusing, I'm just saying I have a concern as I talk to people, but it's taking way too long. And there's a lot of people who are very hopeful or over, I'm just surprised how hopeful and naive they're being. And I hope that their hopes and their ambitions are not being misplaced. So I'll go ahead and vote for it because I don't wanna be the guy that stands in their way, but are we watching to see if the developer is actually following through on its commitments? Mayor, I just wanted to say Peter Spaulding, who's the applicant for this project, does have his hand raised. And I believe he'd probably be the best person to answer that question. So if you'd like to come on him. Let's go ahead and hear from him, that'd be great. Just a moment, I may have to unmute him, Mayor. And I am looking for him. So change your settings in the more area and he's up at the top of the list. Oh, there he is. Okay, I just couldn't find him in the list. Here we go, because he raised his hand. All right, Peter, you should be able to speak now. Good evening, Mayor Bagley and city council members. I just wanted to point out one thing about the parking and the parallel. Currently, the road that's constructed is narrow. It's by two feet and there's parallel parking, but the parallel parking that we have is actually set into the property. So even if cars parked on either side of the road, like they do on the rest of the neighborhood, they're actually, it's actually wider in our portion of the road. So it's a lot, lot safer. The co-housing, the reason why this project is taking a little bit longer is because in early 2019, I ended up firing my architect, landscape architect and CKA and had to go through rehiring process. And then in the second comment period, there are a couple of things in the, we were accepted in the old code and with the new code, there are enforcements that were put into place as far as changing the grade of the road. So there was a lot of re-engineering that had to occur. Co-housing is a niche market and people who want to buy into community, it's a very desirable product. So they hang in there for a long time. For instance, Washington Village, which is a project I worked on off of Cedar and Broadway in Boulder, took seven years to complete. Silver Sage in the holiday neighborhood took seven or eight years and Wild Sage took four years. So a lot of these take a certain amount of time because the community members are the people who are buying into it and they help to finance the projects. So yeah. Okay, but that was seeing a face, I mean, seeing your face again and hearing you say that. Like I said, I was gonna vote for the project. It's just, I mean, I know that I've just had some talk and some communication with some folks worried that that's all. I wasn't accusing. I was just, thank you very much for your words and rattling off those other projects and the length of time without referring to notes. If nothing else, I put my mind at ease. So thank you. Appreciate it. All right, come in. I guess, Councilman Martin, do you wanna pose a motion? Yeah. I move adoption of 2020-49. Councilman, okay, it's been moved by Councilman Martin, seconded by Councilmember Waters, Councilmember Christensen, would you like to say something? I was, I know there are many people in this community around Spruce Street who are really very sad about this. However, the truth is that as we were talking about, well, anyway, nothing stays the same. And this has been many different things. It was originally a brickyard, then it became a farm for a long time. And while that may seem very peaceful to people, actually cows make a whole lot of noise when they're hungry and whatnot. There's a lot of dust. It's always been different. And I know people are very sad. I've been walking down there for years and years and years. It's a lovely place to look at the mountains. But the truth is that the family does not wanna own that property anymore. Somebody was gonna buy it. To me, this is the least impactful thing of what could be going in there, which could be a chalk block with four-story high apartments or something that's far more impactful on the neighborhood. So, although I do sympathize greatly with the neighbors, I also think that this will cause less of an impact. And it's my hope that it'll be a very positive thing if I share the same reservations as the mayor, believe it or not. And if it comes to fruition, this could be a very, very good thing for Longmont as a whole and that neighborhood. So that's my hope is that it actually does come to fruition. They grow food down there like it was always, that was the use of it for many, many years. And I do hope that this comes to fruition in a very positive way. And in a faster way than it has so far. Thanks. And Council Member Christensen, don't worry. We're always in agreement except for when you're wrong. It's okay. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. Council Member Patten. Peter, thank you for that explanation about the parking. I do believe in this concept and I think it's going to be a good thing for the neighborhood. So I hope for it. I just hope that the city doesn't get a lot of complaints about this street going forward. I would like in the future to look at that along with the development. So thank you. All right, we have a motion on the table saying no further development or development from no further discussion or debate. Let's go ahead and vote. We have a motion to pass ordinance 2020-49. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, it passes unanimously. And what was your other one, Council Member Martin? It was. It was 9L. Yes, thank you. The problem with this new meeting viewer is that the voting stuff covers up the notes that Council Members take on the agenda. So it's very hard to do this from full memory. Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment about 9L which is a resolution encouraging the public to vote yes on the repeal of the Gallagher Amendment, which is Amendment State-level Amendment B. And a couple of weeks ago, I think, at the last regular meeting, three weeks ago at the last regular meeting, our CFO Jim Golden showed a slide about our revenue expectations if Amendment B passed and our revenue expectations if Amendment B failed. And our belts are going to be a lot tighter as a city, which means cutting services if Amendment B fails. And I can see Council Member Riddogal faring there, kind of raising a finger because the same is gonna be true for the school systems. And just as although Boulder County schools have some mitigations in place for nasty surprises from the Gallagher Amendment, our rural school systems, fire districts, hospitals, et cetera, that get revenue from property taxes don't have those protections in place. Our outgoing representative, Jonathan Singer, recently told me that there are school districts in the rural areas that he expects to fail if during the pandemic-related recovery, the Gallagher Amendment is not repealed. So this is serious stuff. It's not tax ideology, not this time around. It is we need this to hold things together during this very difficult time. So I really, really urge everyone to vote yes on Amendment B. Thank you. And now I move adoption of, thank you. Resolution 2020-104. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll second it. All right, that's been moved by Council Member Martin and seconded by Council Member Riddogal faring. Council Member Peck, do you have something you'd like to say? Yes, I do. I'm gonna vote against this, not because I pro-Orcon. I just don't think that we should be telling our residents how to vote on this issue. We can personally and individually tell them how we would vote as a resident if they ask, but I cannot ask them as a group to support something if I just can't do it. So I'll be voting against that amendment. Council Member Christensen. I'll be voting against it for the same reason. I don't want to tell, the residents of Longmont had a vote on an issue. I think they're capable of deciding that, but I do agree that we are really going to be in very big trouble if we do not overturn Gallagher. And it's a shame because the state legislatures, legislatures have had a long time to fix this and they haven't. So their fix is just to get rid of it, but that leaves the elderly in this state at a huge vulnerability. So I think it was really irresponsible of them to not fix this, to not put something in place so that we could work out of this and not leave the tax, the property owners vulnerable to huge skyrocketing things. However, we definitely need, I mean, my feeling is we have got, we have no choice but to get rid of this because the schools will fail and the municipalities, particularly rural municipalities that do not have any commercial tax base will be in unbelievable dire straits. So anyway, thank you. That's my Martin. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I just would like to make a few corrections because I have been producing informative material for the public about amendment B. The legislature can't fix it because of the interaction between the table, the Gallagher amendment, the Tabor amendment and there's one more amendment that makes it harder to fix the constitution that I can't remember the name of right now. So let's please not blame the legislature for it. The other thing I would like to clarify is that it will not, in fact, it cannot increase your residential assessment rate. All it does is freeze it and keeps it from getting driven down. Colorado has almost the lowest residential assessment rate of any state in the union. And given the fact that during the time that Gallagher has been in effect, our economy has grown, our property tax burden is way low in proportion to our economy. And I don't think that a resolution endorsing a ballot measure is telling people how to vote. I think it is telling people how the council feels about it based on the council's understanding of the legislative and legal implications of the ballot measure. And I hope that council member Peck and Christensen will consider changing their position when seeing it in that light. Council member Susie Edogell-Fairing. Yes, and so I understand the point of view where council member Christensen and council member Peck are coming from. My feeling and why I'm supporting this, yes, I do agree that we should not be telling voters how to vote. However, there is a powerful message in coming together as a collective to support a resolution or to support the repealing of the Gallagher amendment to support this amendment so that they understand the impacts that something like this would have on our public institutions. And I feel like as we are in public office, we need to support and be very vocal on supporting issues that will in fact have positive impacts on our public institutions. So that's why I am supporting this. Yeah, and I do concur with what council member Martin had said, thank you. All right, council member Waters. Yeah, I'm not gonna add any thinking to anybody else's thinking, but I do think it's important for folks to be clear on what we're doing here. This is an opportunity for us to say we stand together as a council in the interest of the city and that we would like, we are inviting the public to stand with us because their city, our city has a lot at stake with this vote. And if we were talking about a bond issue for the school district or an override election for the school district, I wonder if we would take the same position to say, we're gonna stand back and not encourage, not say we stand with the school board, we stand with the school district and all those interests together and with them to say to our community, we owe it to you for you to know where we line up on this. So I, council member Martin, I'm standing with you. Council member Hidalgo-Ferring, I'm standing with you because we're gonna stand together in the interest of the city and invite the community to stand with us. We're not telling anybody how to vote, except we're expressing how we're gonna vote and how we'd like the people, how we would like our constituents to think about supporting the city by standing with us. I just thought I was gonna say is, we encourage people to vote a specific way as a block all the time. I've been on the losing side of many of those, many of those votes. So let's go ahead and vote. We have a motion on the floor to a resolution 2020-104 resolution in support of repealing the Gallagher amendment, also known as amendment B on the state's ballot. I voted today. So let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say nay. Nay. All right, and they said it in unison, but they both said nay. So it passes five to two with councilman Rich Christiansen and Peck against. All right, and then last but not least, I wanted to pull the G, what was the G? Yeah, temporary prohibition on rental late fees due to COVID-19. I guess a lot of us, I guess a lot of us, we were going to talk about unintended consequences and all kinds of things, but this is just on the consent agenda saying, hey, let's go ahead and make it so landlords can't have this tool in their arsenal in order to encourage people to pay rent. And keep it in mind sooner or later, I mean, we're getting, we're flush with landlord clients who are now evicting or looking to evict their tenants. Calling for late fees is just one step that could actually help keep people in their homes. But anyway, what are the unintended consequences? Staff, we were going to look at that, talk about it a little bit. So mayor and city council, this is Karen Roney from Community Services and also on the call is Susan Spaulding and Carmen Ramirez. So mayor, what we plan to do is to bring back, if indeed this particular item passes on first reading, our intention is to come back for that discussion at second meeting and public hearing. We do have, I think council had recommended that we send out, we get some input from both property owners and tenants. And we have surveys out on the street right now collecting that input. And so we, it was hard to do that before first reading because we didn't really have much time. So our direction based on, I mean, our action based on your direction is to gather that and we will bring it back for second reading. All right, I'm not going to argue against it at this point but I'm going to actually move that we table this for two weeks until our next regular council meeting. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. Now the motion on the floor, let's go ahead and talk about the motion too. We're not talking about the ordinance itself now, we're talking about the motion to push it off two weeks so staff can bring back unintended consequences. Council member Christensen. Very late, this is already very late. We, Broomfield did this in August, passed it in August. By the time we pass it, it might be out of the government. The governor's order might be off anyway. We're sort of just dithering around about it. I would like to give an update before we vote on it from the County Boulder County consortium of cities. But if you just want to vote on tabling it without any kind of comment, that's okay. Do you want me to make a comment now? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So I was at the Boulder County consortium of cities and the representative Devin Schaff from Broomfield said they've already taken this to court and Eugene would testify to this because he talked to the lawyer who wrote it. The court has tested it and found that the tenant was in the right. Another member of the Boulder County Consortium is a Louisville property owner and property manager and they voluntarily, he and his family who run this and have many properties, they stopped charging late fees in April and 95. He said 98% of his tenants are still paying their rent on time. This is for a very small number of people who can prove that they have been affected by COVID. It's a very tiny amount of people that would help but it would help them. All right, Dr. Waters. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. You know, I would like, I voted to move this forward. I'd like to vote to protect tenants but I also want to do that knowing the effects on landlords and that's part of what we talked about. I thought before we would see an ordinance on which to act and then get data, we would have data at the time we were looking at an ordinance. So we are within days, we were told of having the results or recommendations from a working group appointed by the governor that would address this potentially and that we were gonna see data from tenants and landlords with some ideas of how we could frame this. So the whole objective is to keep people housed. That's what we want to do and I support that but I want to keep them housed and I don't want to push tenants out. If there's a way to structure this, we heard about CARES money and ways to keep tenants and landlords whole and I don't see any of those data or analyses. That's what I'd like to see before adopting an ordinance and I understand it would be two weeks later but if in the interim the governor's working group has a recommendation, we've already agreed we're gonna follow the governor's lead anyway on things. So if we had introduced this in August we'd probably be done with it but it was introduced what a week ago and now we're looking at it and I don't feel like that's dithering. It's come back way quicker than we normally see an ordinance come back. And for a point of order, the word dither Polly was phenomenal, by the way, well, great word. All right, Councilor Peck. Oh, I have lots of others like cockamamie. Oh, but dither was special, dither was good. All right, Councilor Peck. So thank you, Mayor. I saw Susan's folding on the phone on the call is she still with us? Because Susan actually has the interaction with the renters and the property owners and a point I wanna make is that we are discussing people living in RVs. We're going to have more people living homeless to not do something to protect them so they don't end up homeless or living in their RV. So we have to address them at a different angle. I think this is getting in front of the problem. So Susan, my question to you is, do we have in your interactions with the property owners, the landlords, the managers, are we having resolutions, compromises, funding that is working to keep people in their homes, in their apartments? And that is also backfilling the rent so that the landlords, property owners, et cetera are not feeling such a big take on their income. Can you address that? The only thing I can address is my experience dealing with the people that I deal with. I'm on a group called the Housing Retention Group that includes people from the county and the city of Boulder and we have worked with the courts to make sure that whenever an eviction is filed that the landlord gives information to the tenant on mediation and that mediation is encouraged, in fact, more than encouraged by the judges before they'll hear any eviction cases. And I think that that general attitude is filtering down to the landlords, at least in Longmont through our work with the landlords, that the landlords understand that mediation and resolving issues with their tenants proactively when they first arrive is the important way to deal with these kinds of issues. All I can say is we are trying to get the information out to everybody that we can. We have it on our website, because the county has it on their website, the R Center is giving people information. I've given the information at the landlord training groups about the resources that are available for both landlords through the POT program and to tenants through the CARES program and through other programs about rental assistance. I personally have helped many landlords and many tenants who have come proactively to our office get in touch with those kinds of resources. All I can tell you is anecdotal. That's what I can tell you. I didn't look at the responses that we've had so far to the survey that we put out to the landlord training group on late fees and to the survey that we put out to the tenants and I will say just preliminarily, looking at it, it doesn't surprise me what I see, which is late fees are not really the crux of the problem. They're not really, they don't really edit anything because a lot of landlords, many landlords now are not charging late fees voluntarily. I think that the tenant answers, most of the tenants, a majority 80% or more that have answered so far said late fees are not an issue to them. I don't, I'm sure it's a self-selected group of people but I think that there are other ways to deal with the issue of homelessness and landlord tenant issues that are much more impactful. And I agree with Tim, the governor is the eviction task force has recommended to the governor to look at late fees and from my point of view, if you have every jurisdiction having its own rules that are gonna be judicially enforced, they're gonna be enforced hit and miss. Okay, thank you very much. That was really, really, really helpful. All right, thank you, Susan. So we've got a motion on the table not about whether or not we're going to implement an ordinance about late fees, it's just to table the ordinance for two weeks until city staff has had a chance to collect the unintended consequences and present that to council. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. I'm okay. Aye. Aye. Great. Raise your hand if it was aye. All right, raise your hand if it was opposed. Nay. All right, so the ordinance passes six to one with council member Christensen opposed. All right, so we will see that back in two weeks. Thank you. No. I thought we just tabled it. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, it's tabled for two weeks though. It'll be back in two weeks. So, yeah. So yes, it will be back, but in two weeks. Or did you think we'd table it forever? I can, I can motion again. No, you just said we passed an ordinance which we didn't. Oh, no, no, yes. No, we passed a motion to table it for two weeks at which point it will come back, same ordinance. So thank you, Mayor Prottam, for clarifying that. All right, that concludes the consent agenda and the ordinance is on second reading. Jim Golden looks like we have another phenomenal 2021 budget presentation. Should we take a five minute break before we hear this? Jim, how long will it take, do you think? I don't think I expect. Mayor, it's too recent a lie. It should take us five minutes. Then let's go ahead and do that. Sorry for our comments. Joan's like, what? You promised to break. Can we do five minutes? And then, and then hopefully finish the meeting and we can all hit the bathroom and go to bed. No, my, my expression was that she said it would only take five minutes. Oh, okay. Yeah, okay. Disbelief. All right. Okay, Teresa, let's go ahead. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and City Council, Teresa Malloy, Budget Manager. And this evening's budget conversation is final direction from you all and then our second public hearing on the budget. What we are gonna ask for direction on one of the items we're gonna ask for direction on is the remaining one-time funding that is available that has not been allocated in the budget yet. The total is $507,727 from three sources, $170,169 from property tax, $132,558 from the 2019 marijuana tax and $205,000 from the 21 marijuana property, or marijuana special tax. During the September 29th council meeting, you all did give us direction to move forward with adding into the budget two items. The first one is 117,000 of one-time funding for the Longmont Public Media. And the second one was funding for the library budget request that was only partially funded. And I did wanna clarify the request was for 50,000 and the amount that was not funded once we take away the Wi-Fi hotspots for 15,000 that what will be funded by grants is 13,000. Also included in your council communication is information from Karen Roney and her staff on the library feasibility study as requested by council and they are suggesting that should council want to fund the additional phase of that library feasibility study for the financial analysis and modeling that they would recommend allocating up to $50,000 of one-time funds for that purpose. And then finally, before we get final direction on the 2021 budget, the capital improvement program, the pay plan and the financial policies, staff would recommend that you hold your public hearing in case there are members of the public that would like to speak to you. So that's my comments for this evening. So do you need a motion approving the 2021 budget right now? Well, I think if you have questions we can certainly answer questions for you. Our recommendation would be that you hold the public hearing before you give us your final direction. Perfect. And then once you have the public hearing do you want that final direction is really what I'm asking. Yes, we would like the final direction. We would also like direction on what to do with the remaining one-time funding that I was talking about and then final direction on the budget capital improvement plan, the pay plan and the financial policies so that we can bring back those resolutions and bring them to spring. We're gonna go through that list in just a second and you're gonna help me, okay? I will help you. All right, so there's something in my eye, I'm sorry. The Dr. Waters, you have some questions, comments? There was just a time, Theresa and Jim, that you would like motions on what to do with one-time funding? That is correct. So Mayor Bagga, there are three, for me there are three items and I don't know if you take them one at a time but I'll just lay them out and we can decide or you can decide. Let's just make motions one by one on all three. I'm gonna move that we approve $50,000 in one-time funding to complete the library feasibility study. Second. Do we have anybody, all right, let's just go ahead and vote on it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. A second item. Hold on one second, Jones lips weren't moving. Sorry. Were you and I, Joan? Or no? Nay? No, I'm an aye. It's just exciting. All right, so the motion passes unanimously. All right, Tim, number two. Just as a reminder to council, we made a commitment to the 529 Jump program just before we shut down, I think it was probably in February. One of the issues with the 529 Jump program in the school district was the school district was kind of in a bind to get behind the 529 program if it was only for Longmont kindergartners. And I brought to the council that concern and we agreed that we would kind of stamp, we would back all the kindergartners that come into the St. Rain Valley School District and then do the outreach we need to do to other municipalities to try to persuade them to put, it's $50 per kid, it's not a lot of money. But obviously it adds up if you've got a thousand kindergartners and it adds up to $50,000. So we haven't done the outreach. COVID set in right after that. But we made that commitment publicly and I just wanna remind us of that. We could cover that expense out of contingency or since we have one time funding, we could commit earmark something like $50,000 to support all the kindergartners with the 529 Jump program in the fall of 2021. I guess before we make that motion, Jim, do we have the money for that, do you think? So we're talking about for 2020 run, right? Yes. So yes, we have more than enough that amounts of trees to just identify. All right, do you wanna go ahead and make the motion then, Tim? Then I'll move, and this is an approximation, Jim. And I don't know if as council member Hidalgo-Ferring has the number, it's between 1,100 kindergartners, I believe district-wide. But the motion would be the budget $50 per kindergartner to follow through on our commitment to the 529 Jump program. I'll second that. All right, let's just go ahead and vote Mr. Hardcore discussion on this. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the motion carries unanimously. Can I offer my third, you're on a roll.  The third would be this, we budgeted $250,000, some in ongoing money and some in one-time funding in 2020 to support childcare. We have $100,000 in the budget now. I'm deeply grateful for 2021. Harold, you're looking, I see a frown on your face. I believe we have 100,000. We added 50,000, I think last time, or to maybe two meetings ago, to what was 50,000. So correct me if I'm wrong. But if we have the money available for one-time funding to not fund childcare at the same level in 2021 that we did in 2020, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And I know we're making $705,000 in CARES money available, but that has to be spent by the end of December and doesn't help us at all or help us much in 2021. So I'm gonna move that we had, we budgeted $250,000 and additional $150,000 in one-time funding for childcare and early childhood educate or early childhood learning programs in 2021. I think that's a great idea but Jim, just being financially prudent, we got that money?  We identified three sources of funding. I think council also talked about it for some reason, it was more than that amount, then we would go to the amount that we're gonna put into the stability reserve. So general answer to the question would be, we should have that much money. Okay, and then you'd let us know if there was a problem, right? Oh, always. I'll just check it. All right, there's a motion on the table to put $250,000 into early childhood education and daycare. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. The post, say nay. All right, the motion carries unanimously. Thanks, Dr. Warren. I just wanna clarify, I'm getting the cramp in my calf, that's why my face was making. We're almost done, this was genius not taking a break. This was last three, could have taken hours. Can I just say here, I'm glad you're not talking about me being a pain somewhere else. Pass out the adult guide. No more breaks from here on out. We're going hardcore politic in here from now on, no more breaks. Can I clarify the last one? You can. It was another 150 over what we put in already, right? Yeah, so 100 plus 150 for a total of 250. Right, okay, thank you. All right, so let's go ahead and open the public hearing at this time for the budget. And then we're gonna go ahead and put the number up and let's take a three minute break and then allow anyone to call in if they need to. And I'd be surprised if anyone calls in, but if they do, we'll deal with it. And then we'll have that and take a motion. So we're gonna take a three minute break. You're right back, bye. All right, this is the final call. The information is displayed on the screen and we're just taking a five minute break. And if folks are calling in, we'll admit you and call you one by one in just a little bit. Thanks. Yes, we do have one guest with us. Well, great, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on the budget. All right, give me just a moment. Here looks like a caller ending in 488. You should be able to unmute yourself now. Yeah, I'm actually needing to comment on the proposed addition of AMI wireless smart meters. I didn't know whether I should wait till later. Why don't you just stay on the line, sir, and we'll get you at the last call, public invited to be heard. Sound good? All right, great, thank you. All right, let's go ahead and close the public hearing then for this year's budget. Do we have a motion for the budget? All at once, people. I'll approve, I'll move approval. The 2020 budget, I will second that. So we'll go ahead. It's been moved by council member, go ahead. What do you mean? What's the right word, Jim? This is just the public hearing. You gave us direction. We're gonna bring the actions to you at the next regular meeting. I withdraw my motion. No, right now, I want to vote now. Let's just get it out of the way. Council member Peck. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I'm just gonna make a little venting statement. I totally approve of the 521 jump for education. I totally approve of putting as much money as we can into early childhood education. But I have to say, the center that we have in this city for everybody to go to get information to use computers to do research is our library for every age, every denomination, every walk of life. And last week when I wanted to put money in it, we had, it seemed ridiculous that we came up with 13,000 after everybody weighing in as to why we can't do this or where are we gonna get the money? I just have to say I'm frustrated with this because our feasibility study said we are hundreds of thousands of dollars underfunded on that library. So I wanna ask Jim, how much money do we have left in the one time spending budget after all of this?  And I just feel we are not funding the library which is the best source of learning we've got for everybody. So do we have any money left in that one time funding? Mayor Bagley, members of council. So what I've got, and Theresa correct me if you have a different number but after the directions you've given us I have about 177,000 less whatever we would need to put towards the 529 Jump Program which I don't have a number for right now. Okay, I will wait but I am going to make a motion next week when you have that figured out to give more money to that library. I just can't see not funding it when we're gonna give $50,000 just to study. It's just backwards to me. So that's my vent and I am always going I'm gonna keep pushing for that library. So that's it. So Jim, let us know what's left after you do the 521. So mayor and council Jim, Sandy did say she believes there's about 12, 1,295 five-year-olds in Longmont at $50 a piece that would be about $64,750. All right, I believe the motion was in conflict $50,000 versus $50 per preschooler. So is council do we have consensus that it's that number that Theresa just stated? Yes, councilor Martin. Was not the motion for all the St. Rain Valley School District children? Yes, it was. That would be a bigger number than what Theresa said because there are St. Rain Valley Schools outside Longmont. No, no, we're not funding. I don't believe the motion was to find kids that don't live in Longmont, was it? Yes, it was. That's what we agreed to do back in February. Okay, all right. And yes, that is true then. Meaning that... But I believe the number that Theresa just shared with us is the number of kindergartners district wide, not just Longmonters. Is that true, Theresa? I will need to confirm that with Sandy. She was the one that had given me that number and she stated that that was in Longmont. So Sandy, can you confirm? I'm a Bangley members of council, Sandy Cedar, assistant city manager. I looked it up on the census documentation for Longmont specifically. So it doesn't have that designation for St. Rain Valley Schools. We probably just have to ask. That's probably a question that the school district should be able to answer for us, I would think. So we could certainly ask that question. I was just doing an estimate of Longmont based on what the census information showed. Don, can you read back what the motion was please? I mean, I guess I'd have a concern of lions and mead. They've got their own city councils and own budgets. If I'm in a minority, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but I'm just curious what the motion was. Councilor Dr. Waters? Yeah. One second, Don. Okay. Well, if you want to get the motion, but I want to revisit it earlier. Yeah, and again, I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. I just wondered what was the actual motion? Just to fund all kindergartners in the school district that $50 per kid. All right, so that was the motion. It is passed. So if I didn't understand it, it doesn't matter. My bad. So nothing else to talk about. Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and move on to Mayor and Council Comments. We have some Mayor and Council Comments. All right, go ahead. Council Member Christensen and then Council Member Martin. Okay, everybody should have their ballots by now. Please vote. Just vote as soon as you can and vote. It's important. Thank you. All right, Council Member Martin? Yes, I'm always frustrated when we can't engage with people in public invited to be heard that need to be engaged with. And I would like to point out, first of all, that people who don't live in homes that are attached to next light can still call in to council meetings and speak using their cell phone. And there are not that many people who don't have one. So there are also places, at least for the first call for public invited to be heard, there are a number of public places where someone can access the internet from there. So I just want to say if you feel excluded from public invited to be heard, you shouldn't be. Because I think we can find a way to hear from you no matter who you are. The other thing I would like to say is, we do keep hearing, I guess this is for the study session, but we keep hearing about putting meters on the fiber channel or the fiber. And there is no manufacturer of meters that makes a purpose built fiber interface for the United States at the present time. It's probably three years away. And we have a climate emergency declared here in Longmont, and so that's a good reason for not waiting that long. We could do purpose built interfaces that we did ourselves. It would probably double the cost of installing the meters. Just saying. I just used to do this for a living. All right, great. Dr. Waters? Thanks, Mayor Bagley. We received from Michelle a couple of days ago, maybe it was yesterday, an update on the status of recruitment and the application process for residents interested in serving on boards and commissions. So first of all, the message, we appreciate people stepping up to volunteer to serve. I think we as a council took steps in the right direction in the last cycle of interviewing in creating more, I think more rigor in that process, more consistency in that process. I think we clarified some expectations for board and commission members in that process with respect to attendance and whatnot, and more accountability for those who serve. The people for whom we did none of that is us in terms of accountability, clarity on what our responsibilities are as liaisons. And what provoked me for this was looking at the fact that we're gonna recruit again, and then I asked Don, do we have, I'd never seen anything in my orientation about any written statement about what my responsibilities should be as a liaison. I've kind of made that up as I've gone along. Then I asked if we'd ever collected any feedback from boards and commissions on what council members could do or do do to add value or could do to add value or what do we do that is distracting? And it seems to me that it would be a bad idea to get some feedback from boards and commissions on what council members of liaisons should or should not do, do or do not do, to add value to their work. And that it would be prudent in my mind to put together some guidance, some agreements in terms of how we fulfill those responsibilities. So as we think about interviewing folks and we've taken steps for their accountability, I'm one that thinks we ought to take a step or two in a direction of creating more accountability for us by collecting data, translating those data into some expectations or some agreements for ourselves so that there's some level of, I have no idea whether or not I'm doing the job of liaison in ways that are similar to other members of the council. And should I? And what are you doing that from which I should learn that would be a greater service to the boards or commissions to which I'm a liaison? So as we anticipate interviewing one more time in the next round, I think that's working. It ought to be done before we interview again. It sure as heck ought to be done before we go through this interview process and the next one. So I don't know if anybody else cares about that but I'll think about that as we anticipate interviewing folks who we'd like to serve and who would like to serve. All right, great. Thank you. Councilor Peck. Thank you. I am actually gonna reach out to the people who are having the Saturday vigils at 6th and Main on both sides of the street. It is the right of everybody to protest but I am reaching out to ask you to respect each other's ideologies and your right to peacefully protest. And I would like to also remind the police department that as council members, we are neutral. We do not come in wearing anything that addresses our ideologies or our philosophies. We are here to represent everybody and do not push our ideologies. I don't know what the standard is for the police department but I am asking that when you go into these vigils please do not wear masks that represent your ideology. Please make them be neutral and not have signs on them or any sayings that would spark an ideology conflict between or among people. Let's all just live in the city peacefully and respect each other's points of view. Thank you. All right, great. Anybody else? All right, we'll go ahead and conclude Mayor and council comments. And I accidentally did that before we did our final call. There's that caller still on the line, correct? There is, correct. Give me just a moment here. And guest 488, you should be able to unmute yourself, state your name and address for the record and have three minutes. Hello, my name is Scott Cunningham. I'm a practicing internal medicine physician with a focus on integrative approaches. And I reside at 3771 South Narcissus Way in Denver. I have grave concerns about the proposed addition of the AMI wireless smart meters to Longmont's highly functional and safe optical fiber based next light telecommunication system. I'm addressing you not only from a scientific perspective but also as a patient who myself, I suffer from specific symptoms when exposed to the very telecommunication carrier wave frequency that the proposed AMI wireless smart meter emits. My own symptoms generally involve a dull headache often with drowsiness and debilitating fatigue and even accompanying joint pains typically requiring around 36 hours to recover from significant exposure to wireless radiation such as that emitted by the AMI meters. Many of my own patients also suffer from a variety of neurological and vegetative clinical symptoms attributable to this form of radio frequency radiation. So I am here to dispel the widely held myth that wireless telecommunication radio frequency waveforms are safe to biological systems. The actual fact is that radio frequency radiation in the microwave spectrum such as is used by the AMI meters has been demonstrated by thousands of scientific studies in the peer reviewed literature to cause harmful effects to every biological system ever tested, including humans. And I've previously supplied the council with a sampling of the scientific studies. So I applaud you for the council for facilitating the build out of NextLight which is truly a cutting edge state of the art system of optical fiber connectivity demonstrating your commitment to the health, safety and economic viability of the city that you have been entrusted with. In summary, I implore you to reject the addition of AMI wireless smart meters in favor of the safer and technologically superior options available to keep your fair city moving into a bright future. Thank you very much. All right, that's it. Is there anybody else in the queue? No, correct. Nobody else in the queue. All right, we'll go ahead and conclude. Final call public invited to be heard. It's currently 10-1, city manager, Harold. No, well, I didn't have one comment, sorry. The item that council member Peck brought up, I know Rob and I both received those emails and Rob has been engaging in conversation this week with his group. And so we talked yesterday, didn't have time today. I will talk to him about providing council with the information on that. Thank you. Sorry. No comments. All right, great. Eugene, anything from you? No comments, mayor. Great. Can we have a motion to adjourn? Council Member Peck, do you want to make that motion? I move to adjourn. I'll second it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Look at that. What solidarity passes unanimously. All right, so I'll see you guys on Tuesday. All right, later. Bye.