Then looks like after accomplishing success with our technical difficulties, we are ready to go. So, I'd like to go ahead and call the April 20, 2020 Longmont City Council regular session to order. Could we please start with roll call, please? You bet, Mayor Brian Bagley. Here. Councilmembers, Christensen. Could we lose Polly here? Here. Okay. Councilmember Hidalgo-Fairing. Here. Councilmember Martin. Here. Councilmember Peck. Here. Councilmember Rodriguez. Here. Councilmember Waters. Here. Mayor, you have a form. All right, great. Let's go ahead and say the Pledge, no flag, so just imagine it in your heads. The Pledge of 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. For all. All right. Just a quick reminder. Anyone wishing to speak during first call, public invited to be heard. Or on a public hearing item, that's item seven and item nine. We'll need to watch the live stream of the meeting. Instructions for how to call in to provide comment will be given at that time. Comments are limited to three minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. So moving on to item three, approval of minutes on for April 14, 2020 regular session. Do I have a motion? I'll move approval. I'll second that. Second. All right, great. It's been moved by councilmember Waters seconded by councilmember Peck. Any further dialogue debate or changes to suggest? All right. All in favor 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. direction to staff and have them come back next time. Well, let's just go ahead and say it. All right, well, I just wanted to make certain. Yeah, I was gonna say it. Here are the two questions. One is there's activity with and around the stamp, well, north of Union Reservoir. I had a chance to visit with Dale earlier today about that activity. And I asked Dale several questions, I got good answers from Dale, but I do think the questions and the answers are worthy of those who are watching this meeting, both hearing the questions and the answers. And if there are follow-up questions from the public, chance to know what they're following up on. I could bring that back, but I think it'll be a better use of Dale's time if we just deal with it. And if that's the case, here are the questions. What's the status of the stamp? Well, it was to be put with our agreement.  It was gonna be plugged, I think it coincided with the production of the night well. That was the contingency for it severing that flow line. All that got done last spring, but there's now activity with the stamp well is apparently pumping oil. It's being pumped into a tank. So it'd be helpful to know how, why is that? Number one, number two, how long will that continue? And associated with that pumping, there's been some methane gas released or flared. And my question are, what are the risks, health risks associated with whatever that release or flaring has been? Is Dale here? You'd like Mayor Bagley and Councilman Waters, I can respond to that quickly. Couple of things. Council member Waters is correct. The stamp well was shut in, is the terminology that's used around last June, May or June of last year. At that time, the gathering line, which was a line that passed through the eastern part of the city of Longmont, was decommissioned and taken out of operation. It was effectively cut off and abandoned so that we did not any longer have that gathering line going through neighborhoods in East Longmont. That being said, the stamp well is not plugged and abandoned as of yet. It is in that shut in state. And what that means is that it is still a well that can operate technically.  So as to hold the leases for all of the mineral rights underneath that well that are owned by top operating. And in that shut in state, the well does continue to produce a small amount of oil. Something on the magnitude of a couple of barrels, up to maybe 20 barrels a month. The tank that is out on the side is about a 300 gallon tank. And so it's a small amount of oil that is being produced. Even because the well is not abandoned yet. It also will produce a small amount of natural gas that will come up the borehole. And that is burned on site with the emissions control device that is authorized through the COGCC and is done in accordance with the state procedures. That all being said, the well will stay in that condition. It was intended to stay in that condition until such time as the Cub Creek begins a production of wells from the night site, which is another consolidated oil and gas site north of Union Reservoir. That was included in the agreement between the city and top operating and Cub Creek last year. And so that is what I believe is the activity that Councilman Waters is referring to. Dale, can you comment? I asked you earlier today, and I understand you're not the scientist on this and you're not, I'm not trying to set you up to be the analyst with the final word on this. But I didn't ask you earlier today, and I think it's a question that others will be interested in. And that is what are the risks associated with either the flare or the burn of the methane that is associated with that, with the oil? You're correct, Councilman Waters. I'm not a scientist on those matters, but it is generally my understanding that, again, it is being controlled in accordance with COGCC procedures and practices. That being said, I would suggest that in the absence of being in very close proximity to the well, you're not going to experience an impact from it. It is nonetheless one of literally thousands of wells in that area of our state in Well County. And certainly whenever it does have a burning of that propane, excuse me, of that methane, there are some emissions, obviously, that will come from that. I have also been told by Top Operating that they did a forward-looking infrared camera test of the well not long ago, and there were no leaks or emissions coming from the well head. So to the best of my knowledge today, I don't believe there is any ongoing leakage at the well. Nor do I believe it is being operated in any way that's inconsistent with state standards or the state regulations or gas wells. And all of that is consistent with our agreement. Yes. And Dale, just the other related question to this was, for how long, is it an unknown timeframe? It's like contingent then upon the night side? Correct, it's sort of a performance type of timeframe. The performance or the action that needs to occur is the completion and production of a well at the night site. Given today's situation with oil and gas and the markets, I don't believe that it's known when the wells, they were originally intended to be drilled here. I have not talked with Cub Creek to see if their plans have changed. I can do that and certainly report back to council on that information. I have one unrelated to that, Mayor Bagley. I have a second question, but others may, I'll be quiet here, others may want to.  Well, the second question really has nothing to do with the oil that has to do with masks. We get, we receive emails from time to time from residents wondering why we haven't been more assertive in or directive to residents requiring that people wear masks if they're outside or in grocery stores or in proximity to other people. And I labor into the perception that there are some issues over which we do not have authority or some options that people might exercise even with the governor's order. So I don't know if this is a Eugene question, but I am curious, what are the limits of our authority to direct people to wear masks and under what circumstances? So before, hold on one second. So Harold, can you answer that? And then Joan, I think you had a motion coming forward. And so this has been the topic behind the scenes. Harold, could you talk about the answer Dr. Water's question and then also talk about what the county health director is going to be doing? So I'm going to give you a high level answer to the question and Eugene can go into details, but we've been looking at that related to, there were some conversations on cities talking about creating an order for masking. Eugene has looked into that and we would have to go through our emergency order processes outlined by the charter, which actually at the end of the time period only reduces it by five days in terms of implementation. Today, this afternoon, I was on a call with the county health department and then some of you all saw the update that they were going to provide. At this point, various county health departments are in the process of putting together some guidance and it looks like an order in terms of the requiring masks to be worn. And we were told that we should see that information by Wednesday or no later than Friday. So it appears that the health departments are going to be taking that action. Up until this point, it has really been a suggestion by the state. And so we'll know more between Wednesday and Friday in terms of what they're going to do. And that just came out this afternoon before we went on to the meeting. Thank you. All right, anything else? That's it, right? Hold on one second. Joan, I see you, Marcia, I see you, but it's Joan's turn. Council Member Peck. Thank you. Actually, this is a continuation of that topic. I think that I was called by the mayor of Lewisville and I think Mayor Bagley, you were as well. And several cities are thinking about and are willing, cities in Boulder County, of doing a temporary ordinance as a mandate for wearing masks inside of businesses or at drive-ups in grocery stores.  One of the reasons I am for this is because of the cities in the counties, basically to the southeast of us, northeast that are not adhering to any of the governor's rules and regulations and suggestions. So as they come into our city, as we start relaxing our businesses, our restaurants and other facilities like massage parlors, et cetera, if they are not used to wearing masks and in their city or their county, they are not told to do that, they will not come into our city expecting that. So the example was given to me was no shirt, no shoes, no service, there'd be no shirt, no shoes, no mask, no service. So what I would like to move then is that we, based upon what the public health department comes out with on Wednesday, you said, or Thursday, that if they do not come out with a policy, I would like to move that the city have a temporary ordinance requiring everyone doing business inside a business at a drive-up window, anything where there is contact that is not recreational be mandated to wear a nose and mouth covering of some sort, preferably a mask. So that is my motion based upon the public health department's decision and what they come up with. Because if we wait for another week to do this, then the next regular session, it'll be two weeks. So is the motion specifically, and it hasn't been seconded yet, but I just want to clarify is the motion you're making about the people who run the business and work at the business wearing masks or about requiring people- And whoever goes into the business. For example, I've gone to, as most of us have, to take out to drive up windows, both for coffee or whatever, and no one there was wearing masks and I actually had to tell some people, you need to be wearing a mask. If you're touching my food, if you're talking to me, if you, so it's for people working in the business as well as those going inside or to the business. But the motion is dependent upon what the public health safety Older County and the other counties come up with. If they make it a mandatory suggestion, not a mandate, then we wouldn't have to have an ordinance because it would be a mandate by public health. But I personally don't want to wait another two weeks for a regular session to do this because things move too fast. So do you want me to repeat my motion? I think we got it. Okay. Councilor Martin. Well, I would second it if it's a valid motion to make because I've been hearing the same things and giving the same advice and seeing the same things. I would need an explanation of what kind of a procedure this actually is. The other thing I want to get clear, well, two things I want to get clarified is that the governor's orders do mandate that people working in essential businesses wear masks. So those people are in violation. And unfortunately, the governor has not been willing to say anything about what the consequences of a violation really are supposed to be. But when it's somebody handling our food, I agree with Council Member Peck. There should be enough consequences that proprietors will pay attention to it. And apparently the public feels the same way. The other thing is for most of the public, I was watching the Boulder County Health announcement this afternoon on Facebook Live and they lost their feed five times and it seems like they timed it precisely for whenever anything important was going to be said. So even by going back and looking at the fragments that were posted on Facebook, you still couldn't tell what happened. Could we, if anybody heard it in a continuous stream, can they please give us a recap of what the main points were? You cut out for I think everyone. Everyone, okay. So nobody knows. So the motion has not had a second. Yes, I seconded it. But I wanted, I asked for an explanation of how it would be done because I don't understand the parliamentary details of it. You can either second it or not second it, but conditional seconding it. I'm not conditioned. I just wanted to explain because I don't know how it works. I won't withdraw the second. I just want to understand. All right. So let's go ahead and Council Member Hidalgo-Ferring, did you raise your hand? Okay. Anybody else have something up there? Council Member Peck? So to address that Councilwoman Martin, I don't have those answers nor the details. And I would think that would be something that our city attorney and his staff would have to look at. And it would probably be just like, from my understanding after talking to a couple of other mayors that are interested in doing this, the understanding would be the proprietor of the business would could refuse service just like they do with no shirt, no shoes, no service. And I don't know, I am not going to discuss the legalities of that or anything because I don't know. And that would have to be something that staff would bring back to us. That's not my question. My question is how we can make a motion for a temporary ordinance. I've never heard of such a thing and I don't know how the parliamentary procedure would work. And we can just have it expire on a date, certain Marsha. So first of all, this right here, just to be clear, we're not voting on a motion to do anything. We're voting on a motion during this time to bring it back to discuss and then have a first ordinance and a second ordinance. That's not what Joan said. That's why I required an explanation. Right now, so right now our rules are such that these motions are to put motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas, not to make motions and debate the issue, if that makes sense. So when do you think this could be on the agenda? So what we would have to do, and this is the conversation that Eugene and I, we literally talked about it, I think, yesterday or this morning, and then we heard what the county was gonna do, which made it easier, actually, if they do it. And so what we would do is, I think they have something drafted or a skeleton drafted because we were anticipating this type of question. We would have to change the fifth to a regular session and then have the first reading there. Then we would have to have the second reading and then by charter. And here's where every city is different in this. By charter, we then, instead of the 10-day ratification period, it's five-day ratification period from the second reading. And so that's when we were starting to do the math. It starts taking that out over time, which was then today in that conversation when we heard that the county, the health directors were looking at placing that order. And it appears very likely that they're going to do that, and that's gonna come out the next within this week. We realized, well, that helps us a little bit, but your motion is, if they don't do it, then we would bring it back today and start that process. And then if council does pass this motion, then I will communicate into that group to say the council is supportive of this because they were also looking for that feedback as well. And perfect. So before I count on Mayor Pro Tem, I'm not gonna call a point of order, but we've already voted on something similar. And that is Polly made a motion a few weeks back about who we were gonna follow. We talked about the following, Boulder County Health Department, the governor, the CDC, was it Susie? Yes. Anyway, somebody made a motion and it was awesome. We all voted and we said, we're gonna follow the experts. And so I'm not gonna call point of order and make a big deal out of it. It's just my concern is, again, I've sat on these calls and listened to Mayor Hancock, Colorado's only strong mayor, kind of get into a political, I don't wanna say to use an inappropriate term, but he argues with Governor Polis about who can put the most restrictions on the state versus Denver. And I continued to be a big believer that we should follow the governor and that's what we voted on. And in the event that there's a contradiction that there's not here, we should follow the county. So I'm not here, I guess I had a conversation with the mayor of Louisville as well, Joan.  My only concern is that again, we're not experts, we're not medical doctors. I prefer we leave it up to the county and just follow their guidance. Because right now I saw a meme online that said, 40% wanna stay in their homes thinking they're gonna die. 40% think this is a hoax and 20% think this is 5G cell phone towers. Some plot to overcome the, anyway, it was supposed to be funny. But my point is that I'd rather, I personally would rather just follow the health department. If they don't think it's important enough to implement a requirement that we have masks, then I would ask why would we think it's important enough to have masks? Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I was also going to speak briefly on consistency as far as not creating a bunch of patchwork policies in the jurisdiction of the county. And then also I'd just be very interested in the actual specifics of the policy. I know that's not within what this vote is, but the specifics of the policy, considering folks that for maybe medical reasons cannot wear a mask, how enforcement works, age borders as far as two and under, six and under and how those are already working. For instance, with Walmart, already enacting a policy on their own as far as not allowing folks into the store without masks on. And I believe theirs is a two and under policy as far as children are concerned from what I was seeing. So I just want to make sure that if we do this, and I'm really hoping it's much more efficient, obviously if it comes from the county level, it'll take effect much more quickly than if we go through the whole ordinance process. But I would just hope that we can find some sort of consistency also there as far as what the policy ramifications would be of said mandate. So that's just my concern, but I will be supporting adding this to the agenda should the county not make a move. Thank you. Yes. All right. Anybody else before we vote? And again, this is just to add it to the agenda. All right. Councilman Martin. Yeah, I would just like to add that from what one could tell from the Boulder County Department of Health, the question was asked whether they would be doing it and they said they'd be supportive of doing it. I'm not sure what that means, but I would also like to add that Longmont has the highest number of cases per unit of population of anybody in Boulder County at the moment. So I think we should take action if they don't. Harold, have we, I mean, other states have been, have we heard anything about testing for antibodies? I mean, like New York, 21% of New York City have it, 13.9% of the state. Is anybody testing in Colorado to see actual infection rate? We don't have the tests. Right. I know that. Okay, Councilman Martin. I answer the question. I had an antibody test yesterday and got the results back today. And where did you go down? Yeah, right. But are we doing sample sets? I know it's available down at Denver Jewish, but is anybody in the government actually taking action to find out? It's available at most clinics in Longmont now. I went up to Quest Diagnostics on North Holder. Did you get it? So, yeah, I haven't had it. You haven't had it? Okay. Yeah. So the answer to that question is there's limited antibody testing right now and you're seeing it at different locations. I think they're waiting for a more robust group to come in. And as they indicated today in some of the calls, I think they feel that'll happen in a few weeks. And Dan can clarify that. I think the challenge right now with that is really understanding the efficacy of the specific antibody test and the error rate in it because each one has a different component to it. So, but they are working on getting that. Right now, they're primarily focused and move over some of this in the update. Right. So, as we vote, I mean, for example, the question I'd have is what about, I mean, if 10 to 20% of Colorado have already had it and therefore they've got the antibodies, are we gonna require them to wear a mask too? So, and then how do you tell? So, Susie, do you have something to say or do you just like your pin? No, okay. Okay. Councilor Peck, did you have something to say? No. Councilor Martin? Yeah, I happen to know the answer to that too, which is that it has not been established whether having antibodies confirms immunity or not, confers immunity or not. But the Abbott test has a 100% sensitivity and a 99.6% sensitivity, no, let's see. Anyway, the important metric whose name has escaped me, the Abbott test is incredibly effective. Some of the others are not and have error bars around 15%, but if you make sure you know which one you're getting, you can get a really good test right now. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor of putting this on the agenda for the next meeting, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Nay. Vote passes six to one with me against. But anyway, let's go ahead and- Mayor Eugene May here, could I just ask for clarification? So, I know what you guys are correcting, so I- In the event that the motion was, I'm sorry, the motion was that the next agenda meeting will be discussing putting a directing staff to put together an ordinance to be heard on the first reading that would require all businesses that are open and all people going in and using those businesses to wear masks. In the event that the Boulder County Health Director does not require it first. So, I have an ordinance drafted that would add to the city manager's emergency authorities explicit authorization to require members of the public to wear masks or personal protective equipment. I'm thinking we should just go ahead and put that on the next agenda. Okay. So, not an ordinance requiring it, but an authority of the city manager during a declared state of disaster or emergency. I think that works. And I also think my fellow city council members would like that put on the council agenda as soon as possible. So, let's just go ahead and put it on the- First reading of an ordinance next regular session, change the next study session so it's a regular session. Council member Christensen. I think that's a very good idea because it would, giving that authority to the city manager who deals with operations would make it a faster, more efficient thing. I mean, we can direct them to do that, but he can also just do that by himself as part of the emergency authority. So, I'm in favor of that. All right, so y'all good? Eugene? I got all I need, mayor. Thank you. All right, cool. All right, let's move on to city manager report on the COVID-19 update and emergency items. Yeah, so I'll go ahead and start off with a high level overview and then ask Dan to go over some data. One of the pieces that I was gonna cover is actually the information that we got received today from the county about possibly making the requirement of a mask, implementing that at a broader regional level. As I indicated earlier, the big component of that is, the timing of that would be sometime between Wednesday and Friday of this week based on what was communicated this afternoon. As you all know, there is a state right now where some counties have chosen to take the governor's directive and have began the loosening of those requirements. Obviously Boulder County, which was part of a group of counties extended it to May 8th. And there was a lot of confusion regarding what the governor meant when he talked about the release and what it meant in terms of timing on this issue. And so I have just received this evening a document that I'm gonna try to call this up really quickly, a document that really goes through and starts parsing the differences of what the governor said and what the Boulder County ordinance really means. And then talk a little bit about what they talked about during their webcast that may or may not have been cut out and why they did certain things. So generally, on the 27th, what happened was that the governor's order allowed the governor's order allowed for non-essential businesses to begin curbside sales via that order. It did not allow those non-essential businesses to open up. The Boulder County order essentially replicates that, that non-essential businesses can begin curbside sales. There's some questions that we're trying to resolve on the real estate side. We've had some questions from realtors. The Boulder County order says real estate showings for unoccupied homes only can resume at this point. And if there's questions on that, what we're doing is asking everyone to go into the call-in number that exists for Boulder County Health so they can give specific answers to questions. And staff on site are to continue minimum basic operations. Under the governor's order on May 1st, under the safer at home component, retail and personal services can open if they're implementing best practices. And so if you've seen some of the press conferences from the governor, they're starting to lay those details out. We're assuming again that tomorrow, during the press conference, there will be more details to that. We'll have that information. Under the county's order, they're still with curbside pickup for non-critical retailers. And the real estate stays the same and we're still under the same provision of the stay at home order. And then on May 4th, under the governor's order, operating under safer at home, the offices can reopen at 50% reduced capacity. Again, if best practices are being implemented. And so when we look at the Boulder County order and the orders that exist in some of the other counties, there is a seven-day difference between retail and when that can open for customers to come in, actually seven to eight days difference between what the governor's order is in the Boulder County's order in terms of retail. And then the other businesses operating at the 50% capacity, there is a five-day difference and from the fourth to the ninth when that would be reduced or the eighth depending on when that comes off. So it's a seven-day or a four-day difference. Again, there's going to be more specific guidance coming out both from the state and from the county health departments in terms of what that needs to look like and how people need to operate. So what the county's saying is on May 9th, all businesses operating under safer at home, retail and personal services can open if implementing best practices. Office can open at 50% reduced capacity. If best practices are being implemented, businesses should still use telecommuting to the greatest extent possible. On May 9th, these two orders now come in together where essentially what the county's saying is what the governor's saying and things are in alignment. Today during the conversation in what was put in the document, and I don't wanna put words in Jeff's mouth but what he did say is barring a significant change in the number of cases or hospitalization, specifically if hospitals are getting closer to the red line, this will be implemented on May 9th. And so they're watching the data to guide their decisions in terms of how they move through that process.  When we talk about just the amount of confusion in this when the 27th came out, we know that we had people prior to hearing what Boulder County was going to do thought they could open their businesses on the 28th. The reality was that never was allowed under the governor's order, but we didn't have those specifics in terms of being able to give definitive answers. And so as we start moving in this period of relaxation and this was a part of the conversation that we had on an administrator call is really keeping those phone banks in play to answer specific questions. When we look at just what we're trying to do now, I mean, there is an understanding of the orders and to give you a sense, the most recent order that came from the state was over 35 pages. There's obviously questions every time these orders are issued in terms of what does it mean related to these specific activities and how do we enforce it? And so we go through that process. And so if council will remember what we're really hearing what we went through as we were stepping into this where we were seeing orders going, we need to close this or we need to close this. And we were then trying to figure out what did that mean? We were literally going through the same kind of scenario as these orders are coming forward in terms of relaxing it. And talking to the Boulder County health group and conversations that I've had with them and what they talked about on their Facebook live item is there were a couple of things they were trying to do. One, I think because of the uncertainty in terms of what those specific requirements were going to be, what they indicated is that they really needed time in order to put those in place and they're going to try to get those out as soon as possible this week so that businesses actually have a chance to understand what they have to do because that was a lot of questions that we were having coming in is what do I need to do in order to open? Frankly, we were asking the same questions as we were trying to look at our facilities because we didn't know the answer to a lot of those things. And so that was a big piece for a lot of these folks to really get the rules in place so they could do that. The second piece and we touched on it which was really testing and making sure that the testing capacity was there in their Facebook live and in some of the briefings that I've had today, they are seeing that testing component moving along. And so I think in terms of the number of tests that they can do per day, that's a big component that they're looking at. Jeff did also talk about the fact that they are getting, a lot of these supply chains are now starting to come back online. So they're getting more certainty in terms of having the materials they need to perform those tests. And so that was a component of needing more time. The other component that Jeff mentioned in his conversation, multiple conversations today is it also times in to when the surge capacity at St. Anthony's Hospital will be ready. So right now, what you have in Colorado is you have surge capacity, I believe being built in Pueblo. You have the convention center in Denver. You have the ranch in Loveland. And then they're also looking at St. Anthony's in terms of surge capacity. And they're predicting that all of those things will be online about May 15. And if you, and Dan will go over some of the numbers but just to touch on a couple of things. When we actually look at the numbers for Longmont and what they're seeing is a big part of those numbers are actually related to our senior care facilities in terms of individuals that live there, the staff that works there. And so that's part of the surge. And if you weren't able to really catch that, what Jeff was talking about is that when those individuals tend to become hospitalized, they become hospitalized for a long period of time. And so part of the conversations that we're having in this process and that Karen's been working on and others when they talk about surge capacity is a level four facility. And a level four facility is really a place where people don't need the intense care that they normally would, but they can't go back to where they were living. And so the level four facility then allows them to transfer individuals to these locations. So they can keep the capacity available for those that need that higher, that more intensive treatment in there. So those are all the things that were in play when they were looking at the timeline and what they're trying to do. So, you know, barring some of the two significant shifts, they said they are committed to moving forward on the ninth based on what they're seeing at this point. And so, you know, we daily have, see a dashboard in terms of where the hospitals are and what they're trying to do. And what I will tell you all and tell the community in this update, every, when we have our CAN reports and we hear from the hospitals, we're also hearing what the capacity is. We also hear the cases that we're running from our fire and paramedic system. And so we know what's happened and based on the most recent update, there is ample, I wouldn't say, there's a lot of capacity in the hospitals, at least my last update. Dan may have to correct me on that based on if he's heard something new. One of the things when they talk about masking and many of the questions that you asked is actually what these county health directors are looking at in terms of what do we require, what can we enforce, how does all of that come together? Because what we're finding in many of these cases is the people that we have to actually get into enforcement combined with the enforcement that they have to do, we're doing a lot of triage. And so for example, instead of pushing some of the enforcement on some of the business calls that we've been receiving, going to the police department, we're actually utilizing code enforcement to do the first run and have the conversation with them and then communicate to the county health department. And only then, if it starts escalating, do we bring it in? Because it's also managing a broader capacity of the overall system as we try to move forward with this. At that point, I will stop and answer any questions and then I'll go to one more point and turn it over to Dan. All right, Council Member Christensen. You need to unmute, Paulie. You're meeting. Sorry, Harold, has there been any discussion about Weld County's, you know, Weld County has four times the number of people affected as we do. And they're six miles to the east of us. And is Boulder County discussing that at all and whether there can be any kind of an understanding between the counties so that we don't get heavily impacted by their poor practices? I want to share a screen with you all real quick. So there's a lot of conversation. And so if you look at Weld County and I went into their website and you look at their caseload and what they're really seeing. So I will start with this blue area here, which is essentially Greeley and Evans. And you look at their case count. That's about 1,242. When you look at the northeast corner, it's about 116. Southeast corner, about 165. And then if you can look in this area where you have Milligan, Johnstown, Barstone and Frederick, and then you start moving closer to County line, they have about a hundred cases. So the bulk of the cases in Weld County are actually occurring in this area around Greeley. Harold, we're not seeing your screen. That's okay, I can figure it out. So you're saying it's more concentrated in select areas? Correct. I know, especially the meat packing plant and old age facilities. Can you see the screen now? No, but that's it. All right. I told you Mike, oh too that the city of Greeley is not following Weld County's direction and is in fact following Governor Polis. Greeley came out a couple of days ago. Yeah, and obviously Greeley and Evans is really the area where they have the bulk of the cases when you look at the numbers. And in terms of that interaction, the governor was pretty pointed in terms of how they're going to approach areas that don't follow the state guidance on this. And specifically there is funding tied to it that they talked about. And I think on Monday specifically mentioned, one of the grants that we get for our emergency management system. And so they are holding funding if people don't follow the guidance on that. But we are talking about that. It is a topic of conversation, Malcolm from Erie. We both have this conversation because we're there. But again, most of the caseload is really in the Greeley-Evans area. Yeah, okay, thank you. All right, why don't we go ahead and move on to Dan? We've got one more update before we go to Dan. One of the things we're gonna be talking to you all about budget issues next week. And what we just wanted to say today is how we evaluate our revenue is really gonna be a monthly exercise for us. And we'll know better when the month is closed out and we balance it next week. But at this point it appears like March sales and use tax will exceed our projections for March. What I will say is there is no guarantee that that's going to continue for us. We saw really strong returns from our big box groceries, discount stores, as well as internet sales. At this point we're gonna continue to proceed in terms of what we described to you all with our budgetary controls and sales. And we really think, and we're trying to look at a lot of, we're trying to really work through this, but we think March may have been an anomaly just because of the boost in sales with that initial rush to the stores. So really getting through April is going to be really every month between now and the end of the year is going to be incredibly important to us to watch what we're really going through because we just have to see what's happening. We have some other theories that we will either have more certainty or less certainty once we see the April numbers, which won't occur until in May. And so we're gonna be lagging some of that data and trying to see that. The one thing that we did say is, any stronger results here on the front end could be needed to offset some of the impacts of the businesses that have been impacted today for longer than we projected in the two months or greater than a 5% recession for the rest of 2020 and what we're seeing in 21. And so I know we talked to you all during the last budget process about a recession. We're obviously thinking the same thing based on what we're seeing in terms of the data. So I wanted to let you know, you will see projections with very strong, a number that exceeded our projections with strong returns. That's a one month look and we're gonna have to be taking those one month looks as we're moving through the process. All right, now should we move on to Dan? Yeah. All right. Okay, good evening everybody. I think Harold did a pretty good job on the update. I'll just give you a few details here on some numbers. Like Harold mentioned, they're really looking at May 8th to really come in line with the safer at home order, barring a large scale surge. They're really looking at I think four real main points. The first one is making sure we can maintain the social distancing concept. They're really estimating that we're at kind of the 60 to 65% social distancing number now and really making sure that we don't go below that. The increase in testing would be the second component and they wanna get to the point where they can test 500 per day and we're at about 150 now. We're getting a lot more help from the state on testing kits and capacity. They're setting up a kind of a pilot community testing site at Clinica in Lafayette and we're hoping to get one up and going at Salud. They're working with places like UC Health and Centura to really increase their capacity too. So I think that's kind of good news on how we can increase the testing capacity and broaden it out to the community. But what goes with that is as we increase the testing capacity, obviously the amount of positive tests are gonna go up. So with that, we have to have the ability to do what's called contact tracing and it's public health essentially contacts all the positive tests and understands where they've been. Who have you contacted? Where have you been? And they do a little bit of detective work and contact all of the people that they have come in contact with so they can ask for self-quarantine, those kinds of things to make sure that we're getting to that test and isolate that really is gonna help contain the spread. Then the last piece would be what Harold mentioned on the businesses have clear guidance on what they really need to do to comply and that's really gonna come in the next day or week or so. The biggest concern by far right now in the county is the long-term care facilities. And the reason that is is the highest rate of hospitalizations come out of long-term care facilities and when those hospitalizations come from there, they're typically far more serious and they lead to things like higher ventilation, ventilation usage and longer stays. So a case coming out of a long-term care facility is normally more serious. So they're really trying to make sure that they're focusing a lot on the long-term care facilities. The hospitals have really through this whole thing stayed under capacity, act capacity, under capacity. There's no hospital in the state that's needed to resort to crisis standards of care. And then there's one kind of little data thing that I wanted to go over with you and I don't know if we successfully shared a screen or not but I'm gonna give it one more try to see if we can do it here. I'm gonna try this one. That work, it did. Oh, look at that. So this guy right here. So this is the website that shows the Boulder County positive tests. So you'll see this big spike right here on that's 423. And if you look at the state data, it's exactly the same. There's a big four-day spike of data that it's all kind of going along like this and all of a sudden there's a great big spike. So we talked to Jeff about that today and what that is, is they caught up on a backlog of cases that just needed to be entered. So it wasn't as though there's this big, gigantic kind of outbreak that day. It was just sort of a data anomaly. And it's also worth mentioning that these case numbers are what's called a lagging indicator. You know, when somebody contracts the virus, they're asymptomatic for a little while that's usually the time where they're the most contagious. So then they start exhibiting symptoms, then you go to your doctor after a couple of days, then it may take a day or two to get into your doctor and then you get a test and then it's another couple of days before you get the results. So that could be seven, eight days before the number actually hits here. So that's why a lot of the times you hear public health saying they wanna see an extended timeframe of cases either leveling off or going down because it is such a lagging indicator. Let's see, I think I just had a couple more things I wanted to go over here. Just on the general OEM side, we're gonna be moving to really support recovery next week and kind of moving into normal operations with severe weather and flood season coming. PPE supply chains are starting to become more robust and normalized. And there was kind of a little bit of a discussion about antibody testing. And I certainly am no scientist in this area either, but I think there's one important distinction that should be made is antibody testing is not to be used for whether or not you currently have the virus. That's not something it's used for. And then on the other side, it's helpful in trying to detect if you've had the virus, but really it's not a 100% effective measurement either because this is a novel virus. You can detect if there's antibodies in your system, but it's not a proof positive that you cannot get the disease again. They're telling us that they don't know that for sure, but it would be nice to have that robust testing capacity for the community too, but we're not quite there yet either. That's all I've got for you this evening unless there's questions from anybody. All right, no, thank you very much, Dan. We appreciate your work, keep it up. All right, let's move on to the Consent-O-Date agenda and end it up. Okay, Harold. Couple of points that they wanted me to reiterate for you, not so much for you all, but for the community. The big thing for us as individuals as we move into this next stage, social distancing, ensuring that we're doing that, and then masking. And I know that the masking piece is confusing, because when we started out, they said, well, that could be worse because you fidget and you put your hands near here. What they're really starting to find is that it doesn't keep you from getting it, but it keeps you from potentially infecting someone else because it reduces the way it spreads when you talk. And so those are two pieces that's gonna be really important for us as a community and as individuals in the community to really embrace as they're evaluating how we continue to move forward in this process, which is why I think they're talking about it at the county health director level in terms of these requirements. The second thing, and Dan touched on this, and today was a good example. For those of you all that didn't see Dale's email, we had a fire that happened to be next to a transformer. And so they had to de-energize some lines for the firefighters so they could actually do their function. But there are other things that are continuing to happen. And right now, as Dan mentioned, we're getting into runoff season. And so we're gonna have folks monitoring that and evaluating that situation. But then in the conversation with the county as a whole, they're also in fire season. And so they are also trying to look at their system as well because there's a potential where some of these other things can happen in the middle of this. And you're now managing multiple pieces. So just for counsel, there are other issues that we now have to monitor in light of all of this.  But in the every, the fire department, police, LPC did a great job. But those things are still gonna happen as we're continuing to move forward. And those are just ongoing challenges that are just on top of this. That's all I need to say. All right, great. Thanks, Harold. All right, let's go ahead. Now I'll move on to consented agenda and introduction and reading by title of first reading of ordinances. Don, can you do that for us, please? Mayor Beg, I think we have first call. Oh, yeah, you're right. Sorry, thank you. You're right. So let's go ahead and move on to first call public invited to be heard. So if we could go ahead and put up the information. So the public is invited to dial 1-669-900-6833 and when prompted enter the meeting ID which is 833-0860-6089 and we'll wait about 60 seconds to allow people to get into the meeting queue. Mayor, if I might, we did receive two email comments from people. So while we're waiting, we didn't see those. Let's read those. And by the time we're done, that'll be about six minutes. And if nobody's in, we'll go on. So go ahead. Sounds good. All right, the first one is from Ali Finnegan. And her address is 1837 Spruce Avenue. And she says the pandemic crisis has given me the opportunity to observe closely some topics that I otherwise may not have focused upon. Studies show a correlation between poor air quality and susceptibility to the virus. In December, the EPA required the state to reduce the ongoing severe air pollution along the front range. After the school district closed in-person classes, traffic on Sunset Street dropped to proverbial trickle. Sunset carries traffic for five schools. Thousands of individual vehicles cause bumper to bumper traffic. Weekday traffic, why? The coronavirus has negatively impacted a disproportionate number of Hispanic residents. City of Longmont job postings prefer or require Spanish speaking applicants. We have developed a culture wherein Spanish speakers are not encouraged to speak English. I view this practice as a disservice, a practice that has marginalized thousands. Now those residents have become a danger to themselves and to the public at large. It is time that this paternalistic attitude be revised to welcoming others and orienting them to the civic responsibilities of residing here. Mayor Bagley, through his, was what has lost respect and support. His juvenile rant during the council meeting with Boulder County Public Health revealed alarming ignorance, a public official following, and inappropriate public outbursts generally immediately issues in unequivocal public apology. Bagley's guest opinion and time's call is not an apology, he needs to resign. Comments published from the last city council meeting included Bagley stating he will be transparent about the negative impacts the pandemic has had on the economy. Television networks, radio stations, print media, and the internet continually carry this information. Bagley's transparency adds nothing. Other council members offered no planning, reassurance or action regarding the pandemic. The crisis requires local leadership determine individuals with vision. Leaders who put the wellbeing of Longmont residents above hand wringing and inertia. Now public health officials warn that after warning, warming over the summer months, the virus will reemerge. Whether virus is a wave or a surge will depend on our efforts over the next month. We need an infrastructure to manage the pandemic locally. What sort of infrastructure? A diverse group of dedicated resident ambassadors to facilitate downsizing of city staff, salaries and a reworking staff roles to support Spanish speakers learning in English to pandemic and civic protocols, to install an emergency warning system to replace the one we previously relied upon, to organize a call line for residents, to regularly host informational seminars using safe protocols, to assist businesses with reopening to secure a facility for those afflicted with COVID and to cover less away from their families to liaise with public health officials. Now's the time to mobilize in defense of our public health. Masks, hand washing and social distancing have mitigated the spread, but only cohesive consistent efforts will keep us safe until a vaccine is developed. Once public health rebounds, the economy will follow. One more. This one is from Daniel R. Pavon, general counsel and chief government affairs officer for medicine man technologies. And he states, I am writing in support of agenda item 9B allowing cannabis companies in Longmont to access new forms of capital, including those from publicly traded companies. As you are aware, last year the legislature passed House Bill 191090 that allows investment in cannabis businesses from out of state sources and redefined who is considered an owner. This change is not only timely, but pertinent to our changing economy. Cannabis companies do not qualify for the federal assistance other companies in Longmont can rely on without access to traditional banking services, including short-term personal or other business loans investors are critical to keeping our businesses open. This was true when legislation passed and it's even more important now. As one of the four licensees in Longmont, we ask you for your support of this change in the ordinance and look forward to remaining part of the fabric of the community. And that's all I have, Mayor. Mayor Begley. Don. We hear you. Okay, so is there anybody else in the queue? Did they call in? We have three people, Mayor. All right, let's go ahead and hear them. Caller that has a telephone number that ends in 470. I'm gonna unmute you. When you are unmuted, could you please state your name, your address, and you will have three minutes. Business loans investors are critical to keeping our businesses open. Hello. This was true when legislation passed and it's even more important now. Hello. As one of the four licensees in Longmont, we ask you for your support of this change in the ordinance and look forward to remaining. So it appears that she's listening to the feed and she can't hear, or he can't hear us. I'm going to try. Caller that has a phone number that ends in 119. I'm going to unmute you. If you are listening to the live feed and you can hear me, please mute your television or other device so that we can hear you on the phone. So Caller that has a phone number that ends in 119, I'm gonna unmute you. Please, hello. Hi, this is Karen Dyke. I'm at 788 in the court. I want to, Mr. Mayor and council members, I want to chime in on the remarks by council member Waters early in the meeting. I'm very concerned to find out that the stamp well continues to operate. And because the pipeline is plugged, they are flaring all of the substances that are present after the oil is separated off. This includes methane, propane, ethane, and various VOCs. And that would include things like benzene and toluene, which aren't good for us to breathe. Now that we are aware of this flaring, the high amounts of air pollutants found at the Union Reservoir monitoring station make more sense. And Boulder County Commissioner, Elise Jones and State Senator Fenberg wrote in an op-ed in the camera today. This is a quote, clean air seems more precious than ever these days. Not only is the world reeling from a respiratory virus pandemic, research shows that inflicts more harms in communities already suffering from polluted air. Along with our ever growing traffic levels, the extraction and burning of oil and gas in our region is a leading cause of lung burning ozone, burning us an F grade from the American Long Association. And that's the end of that quote. Jones and Fenberg were writing to support the esteemed air researcher, research scientist, Detla Hellnick, who was abruptly terminated at CU over his work with Longmont and Bermfield. Hellnick is also suddenly facing extreme scrutiny from the daily camera. In March, a very positive article about his work was written by a reporter. This month they pulled this story and quoted COGCC and COGA, saying that the stamp well was plugged in abandoned and that the reporter was inaccurate. We now know that the stamp well isn't plugged, isn't abandoned, and it's likely the source of the burst of methane, Hellnick described in the pulled article. So a reporter was fired, Hellnick was fired, and an associates of Hellnick was also fired. Three good guys all terminated. Someone with a lot of money and power must be extremely interested in shutting down our air monitoring here. I beg you to stay strong as a counsel and to continue this valuable monitoring. And I would just like to say to Gail that the oil and gas amounts is reported monthly to COGCC and you can find it if you stick hard enough through their pages. They burned off the last reporting that they've done this in January that they have reported every month. They burned off 14,000 cubic feet of gas in January. We also know that there was a workover rig at that site at the end of March, which means they're probably stimulating it for some problem or issue with that that well. This well has a history of bad compliance if you look through the COGCC website. Thank you very much. That's three, thanks, good timing. Next. All right, we're gonna speak with Coller that has a phone number and it ends in 470. I'm gonna unmute you. Now it is reported monthly to COGCC and you can find it if you stick hard enough through their pages. Hello.  She's listening to the broadcast again. Yes, let's try the other guest. I'm gonna unmute you. This is for the caller that ends in 633. Hello, can you hear us? You're online. Hello? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, it's Marianne. Hi, Marianne. I just have something brief to say. It's not gonna be a long, you know. Okay, before you begin. That's fine. Before you begin, can we ask you to please state your name and your address? Uh-huh, Marianne Regai. I've been to meetings before. 70 21st Avenue, Colorado. I mean, Longmont, Colorado. Yeah, okay. Yes, thank you. Okay. All right, I just am concerned. Am I on now? Yes, you are. Okay, I'm concerned about senior residences, especially those which are independent living because in the general public, for instance, we are to wear masks according to the governor's strong suggestions. I don't think it's an order, but he's encouraging us please to wear masks in public so that if we're near someone, I believe this is why, if we're close to someone, we could sneeze or cough on that person. And if we have the virus and don't have symptoms, or even if we do, we could transfer the virus to that person. So I think that's the reason, the strong reason why we're to wear masks in public. So in senior residences, there are public areas. And I don't think, possibly people don't think about this. There are public areas, including the lobby and the hallways. So when one needs to pass other residences anytime, day or night, in those public areas, one can get closer than one is supposed to accidentally or because there's not as much room in a hallway and possibly transfer the virus if one has it and doesn't have symptoms or if one does have it by sneezing, coughing or even breathing on or toward that person. So that's why I think it's important in senior residences to know that there are public areas within the building. Thanks for listening. That's all I have to say. Please make a note of that and be aware of that please. And if signs can be put up to remind people that they should be wearing masks, it's real important that they do. Thank you. Thank you. All right, thanks, Diane. All right, all right. Is that last person back with us? I will try one more time, Mayor. Great. Hello, caller that ends in 470, are you there? I think I am. Am I, I'm here, am I there? Yes, we hear you. Could you please begin by stating your name and your address for us? Very good. Thank you for Michael Belmont at 841 Tenacity Drive. So thank you and greetings, remote council members and very much appreciate your continuing good and earnest work during these challenging times. And I was just actually going to pose some questions also about the stamp well and some of the surrounding recent events and readings and so on. But a lot of those questions I think were answered and I appreciate council member Waters for his questions and then Dale for the good answers that he provided. But I would echo Karen Dyke's comments and observations in particular that in mid-March, the very professional and first rate air monitoring that was provided through Detlef Helmhug at the time at CU was registering extremely and unusually high levels of methane in mid-March which was peculiar, seems peculiar at the time. And then of course, as Karen pointed out, a resident apparently was at Union Reservoir recreating socially distanced I believe and noticed a rig at the stamp well and photographed the same which of course raised questions that the city was called and they assured that the stamp well was shut in which obviously now it must be differentiated from capped. So apparently there was a quote, a work over rig which I still am unclear about what that means was that actually continued or additional fracking or refracking, of course this flow line that was closed running to and from that well was sealed and cleared so no methane is being produced other than the little bit was noted for flaring but obviously there's some oil as well but I guess I share the concerns that the great effort that the council made and the agreement with Cub Creek protecting the city was wonderful it's just that this whole incident and the upsurge in at the worst time, of course it could be in this methane readings were unusual and finally I just wanna say too that I was extremely alarmed by the sudden firing of Detlid Helmhub who will see you who has a long history of stellar research as an atmospheric scientist, many, many years in fact decades as well as the journalist who reported on the high readings. So that's it, I just, could just. Thanks Michael, that's three, appreciate it. Very good, thank you mayor, bye bye. Okay, all right that concludes our public invited to be heard, let's go ahead, can we get the screen back please, yep. We have one more, do you want to let them in? Yeah, sure, let's go ahead. Oh no, I think that was the last gentleman that I put back into the waiting, we're good. Cool, I mean, can I get the, there we go, thank you. You're welcome. Could you go ahead and read our consent agenda Don? Third time's a charm. Good evening mayor and council. Item 8A is ordinance 2020-22, a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of seven utility access and storm drainage easements within the West Grange filing two subdivision, generally located south of Nelson Road and east of 75th street, public hearing and second reading scheduled for May 12th, 2020. Item 8B has approved one capital improvement program amendment for the 2020 to 2024 CIP. All right, do we have a motion for the consent agenda? Councilor Christensen? I'll move. I'll second that. All right, so you know for the discussion all in favor of passage of the consent agenda, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, consent agenda, the consent agenda passes unanimously. Let's move on to item nine, ordinance is on second reading. Just before we go through this, for any public wishing to speak on any of the three items on public hearing, go ahead and please call in now. Once again, the number is 1-669-900-6833. You can leave that on while we do this. And so when we're ready to hear public comments on each item, I'm gonna go ahead and ask the college to hit star nine on their phones. That allows Ms. Wollick to see that you've raised your hand to speak on that item. And then we will call on you based on the last three digits of your phone number, just like we did in public, invited to be heard. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed three minutes. So first, nine A, ordinance 2020-19, it built with ordinance authorized in the city of Belongmont to lease the real property known as Vance Brown Municipal Airport, Hanger Parcel SH-60 to Western Airport Development, LLC. Are there any questions from council? I can, can we go ahead and push back? Let's take that number off now. Perfect. Are there any questions from council? Council Member Peck. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I just actually have a couple of clarifications. In the executive summary, it says that this hanger will be used for private aircraft storage. But my concern is when we go down to the goals and goal B1 says that this lease allows for access to high quality public transportation. So I'm a little bit confused. If this hanger is only gonna be for aircraft storage, are we in since my concern is about charter aircrafts? Charter aircrafts. Since this lease allows for access to high quality public transportation, what does that mean? Exactly, because this is a private airplane. So why is it public transportation? I'm texting David right now. I think we left him off. Joanie, are you ready? Can you get this one? I can. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Joanie Marsh, City Manager's Office. So Joan, I see that the Council goal added to the comm here that you just read out. I'm not sure that that is the most appropriate goal that would have been placed on the Council comm in regards to the transportation, high quality public transportation. This is really additional private hanger development at the airport strictly. Yeah, I understand that. And I understand that B1 was a diverse housing stock. With higher densities accepts to high quality public transportation, food and jobs, but then it is restated, that it is about a high quality public transportation. And I just want to make sure that as we move forward, expanding this airport, et cetera, that when we have these statements, that it isn't a segue into charter planes or passenger aircraft without coming back to us. So I just wanted to make that statement. And with that, I will move item 9A. All right, anybody else want to make a comment? Council Member Christensen? All right, yeah, there you go. No, just to second it. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 20, 2019. Don, do we have anybody? Mayor, this is Susan. It doesn't appear that anyone has called in for this item. All right. Now let's go ahead and close the public hearing. It's been moved and seconded. So let's go ahead and vote. All in favor for ordinance 2020-19, say aye. Aye. Oppose, say nay. All right, ordinance 20, 2019 passes unanimously. Ordinance 2020-21, the Bilford ordinance of many chapters 6.70 with a law of municipal code on marijuana sales. Are there any questions or comments from council? All right, seeing none, let's go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 2020-21. Susan, is there anybody in the queue? No, mayor, no one has called in. Do you want me to display the number again? No, we've, yeah, I mean, you can, but we've already, I mean, they should have called in the beginning. So that was the instruction. So on the next sugar mill annexation, if anybody's listening, we're gonna go ahead and display the next list. Go ahead and display the number. We'll wait 60 seconds. And on all items for second reading, you need to call in now and get in the queue. So mayor, it'll take about a minute before it shows up publicly because there's a delay on our stream just as you know. Let's take a two minute break then, if that's okay. Anybody, is that okay for everybody? Grab some water. All right, all right, let's take two minutes. We didn't vote on marijuana, did we? Not yet. Okay, we're just taking a big break. We're just taking a big break, gotcha. To allow calling time, yes. Nice. All right, can we get the number off the screen and go back to the full view, please? Perfect. All right, yeah. Go ahead. We do have a caller. Perfect. Let's go ahead and councilman Martin. We didn't vote on the previous ordinance, did we? No, no, we're gonna, we have to open it up for public hearing. Okay, never mind. We did vote and it passed unanimously for the airport hangar, item A. And now we're on to a bill for an ordinance meaning chapter 6.70 of the Walmart means to call on marijuana stores. Okay. Sorry. Yep, so we're gonna go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 2020-21 and ask college wishing to speak on this item to go ahead and hit star nine. So, can we bring him in? Yes, mayor. Caller that your phone number ends in 054. I'm gonna unmute you, please. Go ahead and state your name and your address. Oh, hi, this is Kristin Thompson with the Green Solution in Denver. I just wanted to be available for questions. I think you have heard from us in the past and heard from my colleague, Mr. Pabone with Medicine Man and just wanted to be available for questions, that's all. Okay, great. Well, does anyone have any questions? And if no questions, does somebody want to make a motion? I'll go ahead and move. I'll go ahead and move ordinance 2020-21. I'll second it. All right, that was seconded by council member Hidalgo-Ferring. It's seeing that nobody has any other questions or comments. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor of ordinance 2020-21, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. All right, ordinance 2020-21 passes unanimously. Thank you very much for joining us. All right, let's move on to item C, sugar mill annexation. First of all, sugar mill annexation update revised annexation agreement. Harold, do you have a report? I think Eva's online for the report. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Yep. Good evening, Eva Pehsevsky, planning and development services. This is an annexation over in the southeast area of the city. I do have a short brief PowerPoint presentation which Susan will pull up right now and share on the screen. One minute. Good evening. So yeah, okay. So we're gonna just give you some background on this with the property location. Again, this property is Southeast quadrant of town. It's south of Highway 119 and east of Third Avenue in what's known as the Mill Village neighborhood. It is west of Countyline Road. You can see it there on your map. I'm sorry, but because Susan's sharing the screen, I don't think my mouse will work. So I'll just try and describe it for you. Oh, you can go back. Oh, thank you. And so this property is the one with a star there. It's about 17.44 acres undeveloped. As you can see south of the property, we have a city of Longmont Greenway and then we have the St. Rain Creek south of that. The property to the west is in Boulder County and its own general industrial. And then the river bend at Mill Village condos is just north of this parcel. This property, it's zoned ag in unincorporated Boulder County, but in our Envision Longmont plan, it's designated as Parks Greenway and Open Space. And the applicant property owner proposes zoning the property agricultural. So that would be consistent with the Envision Longmont plan. Next slide, please. Thank you. And so this is the applicants concept plan. As you can see on it, they have no development proposed, which is consistent with the ag zone. What they want to do though, is as you can see in northwest of this parcel, they have a 112 unit paired home development for sale project with affordable housing on it. And they would like to put their detention ponds on this parcel and add a sanitary sewer line to serve this property. However, because the property wasn't in the city of Longmont jurisdiction, it had to be annexed first. So that's why we're working through this, thank you, working through this process. So there won't be development per se. The property owner would just put in a detention pond, add the sanitary sewer line and then would leave it undeveloped, which is consistent allowable uses in the ag zone include, could be open space, parks, greenways, farms or golf courses. And one other thing of note is there's a ditch easement on the north side. You can see the black line running east to west there. That's the ditch easement that would be maintained. At the first reading of the ordinance a couple of weeks ago, council asked if there was a way to leave this agriculturally zoned in perpetuity, if you will, to prevent it from being rezoned in the future. And I gave you an amended staff report in there in your packet, we conferred as staff and determined that a conservation easement was the best route for this. Because again, it would require an active council to undo this. And so if you look through the annexation agreement in your packet, you'll see we updated that. And there's a clause in there that says the property owners shall engage in a conservation easement for this property once those improvements are installed. And so that concludes my, again, my nuts and bolts report on this. I am available for questions. The applicant's representative, Karen Henry, will be doing a short PowerPoint as well. And then if you still have questions for either myself or Karen, we're both happy to answer. Thank you. So Susan, if you want to queue up, Karen's. Council, all the one second, Councilor Martin. Yes, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be in front of that presentation or not. But my question was, was the conservation easement since it wasn't in the first reading, is that going to come back as a second ordinance or how does that work? Council member Martin, it's our understanding the attorney's office wasn't able to get that easement prepared in short order for your packet. So it will come afterward. Because it's part of the annexation agreement, which is part of the ordinance that you would be approving tonight. We can't finalize anything until the conservation easement is executed. It would not come back to you, but it is a requirement of the annexation. Okay, thank you. Alrighty. All right, let's move on to the next part. So the applicant Karen Henry is here to do a short PowerPoint and Susan will queue that up for us. Hi, for the record, my name's Karen Henry with Henry Design Group. Her address is 1501 Wazee Street, Suite 1C. I'd like to thank Ava, she did a great job in summarizing the annexation proposal before you this evening. I just have a couple of graphics I'm gonna run through real quickly. This is a bigger picture of how the sugar mill paired homes is sits in relationship to this annexation parcel. As she said, it's down in the southeast corner and then the paired homes are right at the confluence of Great Western Drive and Third Avenue. Next, please. Next slide. Maybe. This is just the annexation map that shows in the hatched area that the contiguity as required is being met with no problem. Next slide, please. This is just another view of the annexation concept plan. You can see the detention pond outlined in blue and the sanitary sewer line in the pink and purple. It puts it in a better, more visible aerial to show the relationship to the condos to the north and the sugar mill paired homes to the northwest. As a lot of the questions that came out of our meetings with the condos to the north was access across this parcel to tie into the trailway along the southern edge and given that this is going into a conservation easement and there will be a road over top of the access road for the sanitary sewer, the trail connection can be made. Next slide, please. And this is just an overall of how the sugar mill parcel paired homes sits in relationship to the annexation parcel. And as Ava mentioned, based on the concerns raised at the April 14th first reading, the owner of the property is committed to place this parcel into a conservation easement which will in perpetuity unless as she stated goes back before you guys will stay as open space. With that, I thank you and we're happy to answer any questions. I called on you, Paul, I was just muted. Council Member Christensen. Thank you. Ms. Henry, I just wanted to thank you and the developer for being willing to do a conservation easement. I think that'll clarify things and clarify everybody's commitment to keeping this a little open so that the people in Mill Village are not completely surrounded by development. Anyway, thank you. I think it'll be good for everybody. Thank you. Paulie, do you want to make a motion? Oh, I would move. Resolution 2020-36. No. Oh, okay. 2020-36, yes. Second. Second. All right, that's been, that was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Peck. One second. So let's go ahead and anybody have any other comments on that before we vote? All right, all in favor of resolution 2020-36. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Say nay. All right, it passes unanimously. Ordinance 2020-20. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the sugar relynexation. If you probably want to make that motion too. Sure. I move passage of 2020-20. All right, I'll second that. All right, actually Mayor Pro Tem seconded that. Anybody have any further questions, comments, dialogue, debate, et cetera? All right, seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. We do the public hearing. No, we didn't. Eugene, so let's, is there anybody in the queue? No mayor. I don't see anybody. All right, so we'll go, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. So there's been a motion made. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. All right, motion passes unanimously. All right, let's go ahead to D. Adopt changes the citizen participation plan for HUD funded programs to adopt waivers allowed under the CARES Act when considering actions pertaining to COVID-19 programming and funding and hold public hearing. Harold, do we have a presentation on this? Yes, Kathy. And then we would also ask all the callers again to call in now if you have it. Susan, did we lose Kathy? No, I didn't. Where's Kathy? All right. Good evening, mayor and council. Kathy Feather, housing and community investment division manager. And tonight I am bringing forward a change to our citizen participation plan for the CDBG and other HUD programs. This is coming before you because of the COVID CDBG-CV funding that we will be getting as well as our desire to repurpose some of our regular CDBG 2020 funding to address COVID related activities and projects. As part of the CARES Act, do you wanna go to the next slide please? So as part of the CARES Act, Congress and HUD provided a waiver to, not a waiver, but allowed for some reductions in the regular public notice timeframes and the public comment periods that are required as part of the citizen participation plan. So every community getting CDBG funds has to have a citizen participation plan. The regulations require a minimum public notice and a minimum public comment period when we are either amending our action plans or getting doing our consolidated plan and during our citizen participation plan updates. So if you go to the next slide, what the CARES Act allows is that we can go from a required minimum 30 day notice period to a five day notice period. And for a substantial amendment go from a 15 day notice period to a five day notice period. And then on the public comment period requirements, we can go from 30 days for each of those to five days for each of those. This is a change that's allowed just for the 2020 program year. So it'd only be in effect for this year when we're changing things around COVID activities. So what we are proposing is that we go ahead and adopt and change for the year 2020 to allow us to have a quicker comment period and public notice period that allows us to reallocate our funds more quickly. So what do you need from us? Well, we have to have, because we're changing the citizen participation plan, we have to have a public hearing. We've already given the public notice timeframe. And then just approval of the proposed changes if you are so inclined. The other thing, if you can go to the next slide, the other thing we are also suggesting we change as part of the citizen participation plan just for this year is to allow staff to bring COVID related funding recommendations to counsel directly while keeping the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board informed as opposed to going through the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board with applications, with suggestions, having them make recommendations and then coming to counsel. So that again would quicken the way to go. And we did run this all by the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board and they are in support of the changes to the plan. So basically you just need a motion approving the changes to the citizen participation plan. Right, after holding a public hearing. All right, so let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anybody in the queue, Susan? No mayor, not at this time. All right, so let's go ahead and give them about 60 seconds to get in the queue. If there's anybody, I don't think there will be, but. Not usually. Council member Redagall's bearing. Yeah, I have a question. So the numbers that you gave to shorten the time from the 30 to the five, where did those numbers come from? Were those recommendations? That's what's allowed under the CARES Act changes. Okay. They were allowed to make, yeah. And then I guess I was reading as through the, there is no really set like a formula for coming up with the plan that would really, that is full proof, I guess. And I read it on here, I'm trying to find it again. But is there a way that we can kind of reevaluate too if we're finding that how we are engaging the public during this time isn't really providing ample opportunity for those involved to participate? Do you understand what I'm getting at? Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying. So what I would say is that, yes, if we're finding that this is too short of a time period or there isn't adequate opportunities, we can always do more. You just can't do less than what the plan allows. Okay. Yeah, I was just wondering what are we doing to kind of reevaluate things as we progress along, right? And if I can add to that too, I think one of the things that we're doing as well as Boulder County is actually actively engaging our cultural brokers in conversation in order to make sure that we're trying to involve the breadth of the community when we're moving through these conversations. And so, for example, they're on the same calls I talked about earlier when we talked about this, they're part of that conversation. Very good. Yeah, because one thing that the online learning has taught me is we make these assumptions that, oh, well, kids have iPads, they can get online. Well, a lot of them, I mean, I only had three that were online. So it was connecting people who most need these resources to be able to get them to participate, to have these services, you know, just so that's kind of what I was trying to get at. No, that's a great point. And that's part of when we try to communicate is also getting information out via those cultural brokers so they can plug into their respective communities to make sure that we're handling all of those issues where people can't necessarily get it online and we're trying to evaluate, make sure how do people call in and do, you know, every approach imaginable when we talk about that kind of communication. Okay, thanks. Dr. Waters? Thanks, Mayor Begley. I think all this has been well done and well prepared. So, Kathy, thank you for that and to get us positioned to take advantage of funding and resources provided through the CARES Act. I do have one question, but it shows up two places. It's not about the substance of criteria or anything else. It is about how we notify people. And in the materials that we got, the packet, this was item 8C. So in the original packet on page 65, at the end of page 65, there's a reference to notification of all the above hearings will be published in the Longmont Daily Times Call. Then on page 82, there's a reference to published in a daily newspaper. And I guess for me, Kathy, the question is, are these guys, is this new, is this the changes you're proposing? Short-term in terms of just to get through the COVID virus or is this process gonna stand beyond the COVID virus? Because if it does, we know we're gonna have a new online news source in town, part of the Compass Project in probably 30 days. And we don't know that we're always gonna have a daily newspaper. So the reference on page 82 of a daily newspaper seems to me, we're gonna potentially have to come back and amend this if we don't have a daily newspaper. And to limit this to the Times Call, I think that does not make sense to me. So if the language in those two sections were to say local news sources, publicly accessible local news sources or something like that, I don't want a words method. But the wording, the way it is, has nothing to do with the substance of the plan, but it is, I think, important in terms of how we notify people.  We're gonna post in offices and on websites and whatnot, but specifically to make reference to a daily newspaper, which may or may not be around forever, and to limit to the Times Call at the exclusion of other news sources does not make sense to me. Yeah, so Council Member Waters and Mayor, that's a good point. I actually, I think it originally said Times Call, and then we might have gone to daily newspaper because when we joined the consortium, we were often using also the boulder paper for consortium notices in the city of Boulder. So I think we broadened it out to that. I think in this version, one of the red line changes I think I made was to add the city's website as a place as well. So yes, continuing to evolve how we're getting the word out and what is official or unofficial posting places, but to broaden that as much as possible makes a lot of sense. So I think what we'll need to do once this is over and we'll probably have to amend after year 2020 to remove some of these references, even though I tried to be very clear, this was only in place for the year 2020, to also look at what else needs to be amended and to broaden out that public notification. So, and I will add to that too, and Eugene may have to jump in. What we don't know is a lot of times in some of the state and federal guidelines, and I don't know if it implied if it is in this specific case, they require us to post on the daily newspaper and this is going to be an ongoing challenge with us and some of these requirements that we have in different funding sources because- So the municipalities without daily newspapers with their news deserts, how do they comply? With, are they simply getting the water? They don't get to use CBD G-phones? They probably go to their- County newspaper. Or the closest one to them. It just seems to me to make reference to daily- I know, it is. Publicly accessible daily news sources, they, you know, eliminates any confusion or constraints or problems that you might encounter. So, you know, I don't want to obstruct putting a long amount in the position to take advantage of the funding. I don't think the language makes sense. And just specifically that language. All right, that said, do we have a motion to adopt the changes to the citizen participation plan? Did we close the public hearing? Oh, sorry, do we have anybody in the queue? I don't think we do. I don't see anybody. No mayor, we don't. All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Now do we have a motion? Councilman Martin, you're touching your computer screen. Why don't you make one? So moved. I move we adopt the new rules. I'll second it. Seeing no further debate, questions, comments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Kathy. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right, let's move on to general business. I don't think there is any. So let's go ahead and move on to final call public invited to be heard. Is there anybody in the queue? All right, let's go ahead and move on to mayor and council comments. Anybody? Councilman Christensen. I just want to say thank you for all the people out there who are holding on. I know this is an uncomfortable time and a difficult time for everybody but we've still got to find a way to laugh. We've still got to find a way to appreciate the spring days and keep things from piling up in our lives because you know that they will pile up if you don't take care of them now. So don't get into bad habits that you're just going to have to break. Keep on making masks, keep on wearing masks, keep on keeping on and we'll get through this. You know, people are being extremely creative. I tried to get us a goat to participate in our Zoom meeting but you know that's 60 bucks and I don't really have that so. Anyway, take care and everybody stay healthy and stay six feet apart. Paulie, I'm sorry, you said a goat? Yes, farmers are very innovative and they're losing money. You're literally going to get a goat. You're going to bring a goat to our meeting? That's awesome. To be one of the faces on a little Zoom thing. The goat doesn't really say much except the usual. You know, it's there. Very cool. That would be cool. All right. It's the money for a farmer. Council Member Martin. Thank you Mayor Bagley. I just want to congratulate Hidden Treasure 2 on distributing their 10,000th mask this week and all of the volunteers since I guess we don't know of all the mask makers who made the 10,000th mask. But somebody did and it was given out for free and I wanted to say I drove all the way up there today to get two masks that I ordered after I found out how much it's dealing with, it takes to keep them laundered even though I seem to hardly go out. But I got two masks from them, made a donation. I want everyone to know that. I'm not taking advantage of free masks, but and my masks were great. They have strings that tie in the back. It's so much more comfortable than that ear thing. So I don't know if all the masks are like that but I'm very happy with mine. So congratulations and thank you Hidden Treasure 2. All right. Anybody else? Council Member Ridogal-Fairing. Myself. Okay. So first of all I want to thank everyone who is practicing social distancing, being careful, staying at home whenever possible and only coming out when absolutely necessary. I was out today getting some food for some families and I saw that what Walmart was doing and I commend them for trying to manage the space, keeping the flow, the one way down the aisles. I know I was going the opposite of what until someone caught me and pointed the arrows out to me and it's a tough, a lot of these employees, they're young, they're younger than my kids and it's hard for them to have to come up and say, hey, you're doing this, you have to do it this way and then being yelled at by people. As I was exiting, I did see a man who wasn't wearing a mask and the person who was standing there, this is our policy, this is what we have to do, you have to have a mask and he's yelling at her and I know this is stressful times but we have to be patient with each other. We be respectful of one another. When you're not wearing a mask, it's not for your protection, you are preventing other people from getting sick, even if you don't think that you're sick right now or you can carry something without showing any signs of it. So be cognizant of that, be respectful, do your part as a Longmont resident, as a good citizen, being responsible and we're all going through some really tough, stressful times right now and it's just, please exercise patience. And the other thing too that I wanted to mention is as I said earlier, moving to online learning as a teacher, what I have discovered is the number of inequities that truly exist, not just in Longmont, but nationwide in our society as a whole. And I think if any good comes out of this, situation is that we will be able to really pinpoint where are these inequities are, where's the fault, what's happening in our society that we can fix and rectify. And so when we go back to normal, I don't want us to go back to normal. I want us to work to make real change. So that's all I have to say. All right, anybody else? All right, we'll go ahead and wrap up Mayor and council comments, city manager, Harold, you got anything? No comments other than as we learn more, we're going to be sending that your direction as we figure everything out. All right, cool. Eugene, anything from you? No comments, mayor. All right, great. I hope when we get back to live meetings, we can always get done at 9.15. This is awesome. So anyway, enjoy your week. We're adjourned. Actually, Joel, would you like to make a motion please? Are you always going to call on me, Mayor Backbeard? Yep, I am. Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. All right, I'll second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right, the motion carries unanimously. Joan, do you have something else to say? Oh, I just said have a good week. Okay, you two guys, we're adjourned. Thanks.


In the early morning of April 17, a missile was fired at the military airdrome located in Kankoi, Crimea. Local telegram channels reported on this. After the strike, a strong explosion and fire occurred. The extent of the damage and losses are not reported. According to some information, the airfield where Russian helicopters were located in Crimea was hit by attacams. Tsankoi is an active state airfield in Russian-occupied Crimea. The 39th helicopter regiment of the 27th Composite Aviation Division of the 4th Air and Air Defense Forces Command of the Southern Military District of the Russian Federation is stationed there. Additionally, there are three aviation squadrons with Mi-8, Mi-35M, Mi-28 and Ka-52 helicopters. Border service helicopters of the Russian Federal Security Service are also stationed at Tsankoi. Ukraine has not confirmed the responsibility for the explosions in Crimea. However, in recent months, Ukraine has intensified its attacks on occupied Crimea, targeting Russian military bases, which Russia used to attack Ukraine. Kremlin-appointed authorities in occupied Crimea reported later about the closure of a highway linking Tsankoi with the village of Pobiden. A military airfield is reportedly located in that area. Ukrainian partisans have discovered Russian air defense systems at the Tsankoi airfield. The partisans note that the Russian command is trying to close down important infrastructure facilities by all means possible, but there is a critical shortage of air defense systems. April 17, at the Krayaz airfield, which is located in Samara of the Russian Federation, the Soviet multi-purpose helicopter Mi-8 was destroyed, this is reported by the main intelligence directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, according to the Intelligence Agency, the Russians used the helicopter in the war against Ukraine. In particular, the enemy transported weapons in personnel in it, the cost of the Mi-8 ranges from 10 to $15 million, designed by Mil Moscow helicopter plant, the Mi-8 series the most successful in the history of Russia's helicopter industry. The Mi-8 series helicopters have one respect and admiration from helicopter operators around the world thanks to their advanced flight capabilities, high level of reliability and adaptability, ability to operate in a wide range of climatic conditions and ease of operation and maintenance. The Mi-8 boasts an ever-expanding range of operational capabilities thanks to Russian helicopters' ongoing upgrade programs. The helicopters can be fitted with a wide range of additional equipment to tackle a variety of missions. The helicopter boasts low levels of noise and vibration, is fitted with cabin climate control systems, and has emergency exits that meet the latest safety standards. Everything is designed to ensure passenger in-flight comfort and safety. A drone attack has been launched on the territory of Russian Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Defense Ministry reported. According to the report, the air defense system has been activated in drones shot down in the city of Yelabukhi over the factory where Shahid drones are manufactured. The workers of the plant have been evacuated from the area. No casualties are reported. The work of the local airport has been temporarily suspended. Note that this is the second drone attack on the Republic of Tatarstan. There were drone attacks on the cities of Yelabuga and Niznakams on April 2. As a result, an explosion in fire occurred at the Elaznevta product in Yelabukhi and Taniko oil refineries in Niznakams. At the same time, an attack was launched on the Alibuji Polytech factory engaged in the production of drones in the dormitory located in the Alibuji special economic zone.