Longmont, Colorado

Let's [music] go. Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Hey, [music] >> [music] >> Hey, [music] hey, hey. >> [music] >> Hey. Oh, hey. >> [music] >> I told you. Heat. Heat. Hey, [music] feel me. [music] >> [music] [music] >> Yeah. >> [music] >> Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. N. >> [music] [music] >> Take away. >> [music] [music] >> Um, thank you. You're welcome. I took the toppings off. [laughter] >> It is seven. >> Okay. I would now like to call the June 23rd, 2026 Longmont City Council regular session to order. The live stream of this meeting can be viewed at the city's YouTube channel and longpubdia.org/watch. org/watch or Comcast channels 8 or 880. Can we go ahead and um start with roll call? Mayor Hoga Fairing >> present. >> Council member Christ >> Council member Coloffer >> present. >> Council member Marcy >> here. >> Mayor Pen McCoy >> present. >> Council member Popkin >> here. >> Council member Prietto >> Mayor, you have a quorum. >> Great. Let's stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In accordance with council's rules of procedure, the rules for providing public comment are as follows. Only Longmont residents and employees of the city of Longmont may speak during first call public invited to be heard. You must provide your address at the signup sheet before the meeting or I will not call your name. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. to be heard. Members of of the audience shall refrain from disruptive, vulgar, or abusive language, applause, heckling, or other actions that interfere with the orderly function of the council. Uh, can I have a motion to approve the June 9th, 2026 regular session minutes? >> Okay. Okay, the u motion has been made by Mayor Prom. >> Second >> and seconded by council member Marcine. Okay, let's go [clears throat] ahead and vote. Seeing no one in the queue. >> Okay. Do you approve? >> I approve. >> Okay. So, she's a yes. Yeah. I think you have to hit the regular session meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And that carries unanimously. Um, we are now on to agenda revisions and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to the future agendas. And I do want to point out that there was an error on item 9A, resolution R2026-35. Um, council has a substitute resolution at your in front of your desks if you had a chance to see that. Um, in exhibit A, section 3.8, A it says West View Acres would provide the required housing for Francis Street Development. However, Francis Street Development will provide its own housing. So, um so that is um >> so the in exhibit A section 3A um the language in the public comment or the public section was Westview Acres would provide the required housing for Francis Street Development. However, Francis Street Development will provide its own housing. So, that's and the substitute document that's printed out has the correct language. Okay. And then are there any other U motions? Council member Christ. Thank you, Mayor. So, we had a discussion at um coffee with council about having u more of a referral process to boards and commissions and realize that one of the reasons why we don't do that is we don't really have a process. So, um, in answer to that, um, I would move that new policy measures first be referred to the community engagement team to assess community impact and then recommend engage an engagement pathway, including referral to appropriate boards, commissions, impact teams, task force, or other public input opportunities before the final language is presented to council. unless the matter is administrative, time-sensitive, legally required, or otherwise exempted by the city manager or city attorney. >> Right. And I will second that. Um, do we have any discussion on this matter? Um, council member Popkin. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. A clarifying question for you. Um, Council Member Crest, if I heard your process correctly, you were saying that any new pol any new substantive policy issue would I'm trying to remember exactly what you said. Would we refer it to the community engagement team that would then recommend a board and commission engagement process? Is that correct? You can use my mic if >> you can use my mic if you [laughter] >> I aim [laughter] to share. She has her own. >> Uh, yes. This was recommended um by our assistant city manager, Sandy Cedar. We had um conversation at Coffee with Council, and she reminded me that we have a community engagement team ready to advise us as to how to engage with the community, including our boards and commissions. And and that seemed like a very streamlined way to say, "Okay, this has just come up. Let's refer to the community engagement team and tell us where do you think that touches, you know, does it go to transportation? Does it go to sustainability? Should it be discussed at both? >> Yeah, I thank you. I see the value in asking about potential channels with the broader community in terms of our advisory board engagement. Isn't that our discretion and our like our intention to like say like we have a sustainability advisory board to advise us on X Y and Z so therefore this policy issue if relevant and if we want their input should go to that board. >> I agree and but what came out of this is I realized we have a lot more available to us than we ever access you know like we have impact teams and task forces. Um there's other public opportun opportunities like the fishbowl that we did. um to engage with with various stakeholders and then um so it's a way to get feedback um from people who know where all this is and are used to working in this arena and to make suggestions to us. It is always our decision what we do with it. >> Okay. I appreciate >> and I want us to kind of steer away from the back and forth. Uh >> yeah, I was most I was just mostly asking for clarification on that. I'll just I think that >> my my initial reaction I'm open to hearing from others. My initial reaction on this is this adds a process where a process isn't inherently needed and if we haven't been referring certain measures I would suggest when something is proposed that that discussion among us suggest hey shouldn't this be referred to X Y and Z as well um and or ideally and in the discussion with staff when we're thinking about a certain proposal to bring forward we have that conversation about what potential pathways might exist before even introducing it. So that could be it's a little bit more of a preemptive approach than what you're suggesting. Rather than we say, "Hey, we're going to propose this. Let's direct it to the community engagement team for them to then come back and tell us where." That should be part of our co-creation process before it even comes forward from my initial thought on this. And I'm reacting in real time, but thank you for the clarifications. >> Um, so I am going to weigh in a little bit on this and then I'll call um, Council Member Marcen. I do support this. What I have seen just in my time on council is that we often while we say and I've heard from several councils over the years that we want to engage our boards, how do we do this? There are policies that come to us or that we propose and we don't know don't always um know which ones would would be the right that right conduit. And so and before what our pra what our based on our policy and our practice is that staff will not do that. They will not um recommend or give any recommendation of oh this should go to sustainability or oh this should go to transportation unless we give direct in um instruction on that. And especially now as we have in our retreat, we have um all stated I I think I've heard it from everybody about wanting to involve the business community in the decision-making process. And you know, if we'd all didn't say it, you know, I apologize, but I just heard agreement that we want to make sure that we're engaging um affected parties and and really tap into our advisory boards, but also our business impact teams and other task force that are available to us. and staff knows which ones would be the best based on, you know, their experience in government and um and what um what groups are out there as far as our not just our advisory boards but various task force um our business impact teams and um community engagement team and I have heard from staff on the um who who do work with um community engagement who have expressed interest and it was like use us, tap into us. And so this way it's just already a given that anything we bring forward it um they'll they'll be itemizing and looking at which groups would be the best um the best boards to seek or task force to seek input from and have that included in our packet. So it's engaging them early on in the process rather than an afterthought. So, I think when um even like with the prairie dog um ordinance, we had added to kick it to the business impact teams, but it almost would have been better had I thought of it way back when it very first came to us in a general session item when the the residents were here presenting. So, all we're doing is then delaying the progress the process. So, I think it's just I view this as an opportunity to just kind of build those efficiencies in our systems. So, that's that's why I would be supporting it. But, um, go ahead, C. So, >> mayor, could I clarify the motion real quick? >> Yes. >> Um, is are you debating the motion to to change this process or to bring it back to a future agenda item for discussion? >> Um, what would be I mean I I it looks like what I under Well, I'll let Diane speak to this. I'll let council member Chris speak to this because um I interpreted it as we're just adding this as a policy here, but um I couldn't be misinterpreting. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, mayor. And um acting city manager, >> could you um could you just clarify your question for me again? >> So, just to check in, this section is changes to agendas, future agenda items. And so I didn't I I wanted to clarify whether you're making the motion to change the process right at this minute or if you were making the motion to bring it back to a future agenda for a future agenda discussion, >> further discussion. >> It's all right. Either way, I just wanted to clarify which way you were going. >> I I would like to change it now going forward. >> Okay. Um sounds good. Um Council Member Marcen. >> Thank you, Mayor, and thanks, Council Member Chris, for the clarification because that does make it clear for me. I I'm not comfortable moving forward with with that specifically because for me this would be I think a pretty dramatic change to how we initiate policy in the city of Longmont and for us to and you know for us to make that change and I think about the data center example and I have a question for you Sandy. You know, the data center ordinance, for example, that we just passed, what was that, a week ago, two weeks ago? If this process existed, it would have or could have potentially significantly slowed down the adoption of that ordinance. Am I am I right? Am I wrong in how that would have played out? >> Almost all engagement generally takes time. >> So, it would have significantly potentially slowed down that process. Who knows how long depending on, you know, what board it needs to wind up with. what I I I agree with the spirit that we need to engage our boards, but I think I'm much closer to where council member Popkin is regarding the the the way we direct that process. I think we should as a council and I think this is a good preession conversation figure out a better process for how we do that. I don't think this is now like I don't think doing it right now. Like if we were to say let's talk about this more later, I would be open to that conversation. I I'm not ready to make a policy change that I feel is fairly substantial in terms of how policies get executed in our city. Um that could potentially delay progress when it needs to move quickly cuz the the motion the language of the motion is I move that new policy measures that's extraordinarily broad. Um and I'm not comfortable with that. So I'm a no on this right now. Okay. >> Okay. Um Council Member Coloffer. >> Thank you, Mayor. And I appreciate the the spirit of this motion and I do want to get the community engagement. I would I would much rather see staff bring this back to us in a future agenda. I am I'm all for this, but I want more information because I haven't had enough time to digest this, ask questions to staff. I like where this is going, but I want more information before we pull the trigger. So, I like this, but I don't like making changes without getting more information from staff and how it's going to affect them. So, I'm in favor, but I want to slow this down a little bit. >> Okay. Um, Council Member Chris, would you like to make an amendment or do you want to hear the rest of the arguments first? I would bump you I would bump you up if you had a motion to make >> this direction. >> Uhhuh. Um, Mayor Pro. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I'm kind of leaning towards what uh council member Mars has been uh uh saying about this is that uh I think in the general sense we often say that uh hey we think that sustainability uh board should look at this along with uh maybe the uh planning department or uh board or or something like that. Uh and so I think it's it's kind of not necessarily necessary. So, I I think for now I'm going to uh be a no vote on this. >> Okay, Council Member Prietto. >> All right. Um I think this is a great idea, Councelor Chris. Um I think many times things move fast up here. Uh, and due to open meeting laws, we're not always able to sit and have the dialogue that we need to about important issues. Uh, which I hate, by the way, [laughter] cuz, you know, that's that's where ideas and solutions come to play and and we're not able to do that as council. We're limited in our time up here. Um, and Susie will tell you, she times us, [laughter] but here I think. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're not able to sit and have the dialogue around it. Um, but our boards and our impact committees can sit and talk about like community impact, who does it impact, what intended consequences are there, maybe they might even have better ideas on how to approach it. Um, I do agree. I think one of the first initial thoughts I had was I don't know that everything should get passed on. So, like thinking about like our utility change that we had, that was kind of a no-brainer, right? Like I don't think we have to really pass that on. That was just pretty straightforward and simple. And a part of the conversation that councelor Chris is is referring to, I was I was a part of that conversation as well and talking about like what can we do as counselors up here around like making sure like we're checking ourselves like does this align with priorities, right? Because it's it's easy to chase squirrels. um who does this impact like and so I think if we can create some type of checklist that allows us to ask certain questions that would then help us to identify which motions pass on to that process I would I would be for that like simple ones we're all in agreement maybe don't need to go to that extent but for the larger ones where we can't sit and have dialogue but we know it's important I would absolutely be open to that >> okay >> thank you, Council Member Christ. >> Well, thank you, council, for having the discussion. Um, my original motion was quite a bit more simple and I did uh send it to um Sandy Cedar and she sent it to the community engagement team and they came back with um some more specific language and added the idea of policy measures because I was just saying any measure. So, kind of along with what um councelor Prito is saying is we just need some verbiage to remind us that we need to have this conversation as we're discussing what we're bringing forward. And then we'll get some feedback and we say, "Well, yeah, let's let's take that to PRA. I noticed that PRAB weighed in on one of our initiatives in our packet without uh us um referring it. So, we're we're in that situation where we want their advice, but then sometimes we feel like it's a stretch if they give it to us without us asking for it or, you know, that they come back to us with things that we weren't particularly asking for. And and so this is just a mechanism and we just realized that we didn't have the mechanism even though we in in essence agree that we need to be doing it. >> So this is the discussion. What is the mechanism we want to use to do this? >> Would you be willing to amend to add a >> I would be willing to amend. I think this is a group decision and and like I said I this language here is something that I already got back from the community engagement team. >> So to amend >> I'm open to more input. >> So amend to bring it back for discussion. on on making this change. >> We don't have to do it today going forward. >> I'll choose plan B instead. >> Okay. So, do we understand what we're voting on >> that it would be it would come back for further discussion so we don't have to hash out everything tonight, but if you're willing to have this discussion in the future, um we can have a more robust and in-depth conversation to that. Uh yes and I think or I think Crystal's it looks like Crystal might be working on that >> to bring back to a future agenda. Not the other Crystal. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Okay. And then um Council Member Popkin, did you have a clarifying question or um are you wanting further debate on this issue or >> Okay, make it make it quick because we we haven't even started the meeting. >> Yeah. Well, let's go. [laughter] >> Can I get the mic? >> Yeah. Oh, yes. >> Thank you. Look, we've started the meeting. We're discussing a process to discuss a process to discuss another process. And and I I I say that somewhat jokingly, but I I do appreciate, Council Member Chris, where you're coming from. I think we can address the true intent of this. If we gut check ourselves when a new proposal is introduced, and we and we all represent different facets of this community, we've talked about that in different ways. And I think if we say, "Hey, I want to propose to do X." And Council Member Koffer says, "Well, have you thought about this community that I know that might be interested in this?" and council mayor promcoy says have you thought about this community that you know I think might be interested and council member Christian you say we should probably send this to the water board then I said okay let's discuss that relevance that would be the optimal time when we're giving direction to our staff to provide that and even ask them for input there I would also say we should do that as pre-work before introducing a proposal if we haven't thought about where this is going to go we we probably shouldn't introduce it yet when I brought forward for example two data center motions at the end of April one one motion was on updating our standards with like three or four boards in mind and the other one was a policy choice that I thought council could handle. Um, and that would have also been an opportunity for people to say, you know what, we should have input from these other folks if if we thought that that was necessary. I think that this process is a little bit like people want government to be nimble. >> They want it to be adaptable. And I think this to Council Member Mars's point slows us down and makes us less nimble if we institutionalize this. even the amendment here to discuss the process to do this process. I think it's unnecessary right now because I think we should be that gut check for ourselves. I agree with the spirit of where you're going with this. I think we should do this with each other collaboratively. I'm not sure we need another process to institutionalize this. If we want a sticky note that's a checklist in front of us, happy to write that up. >> Great. Thanks. Uh let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And that carries four to three with council members Popkin, McCoy, and Marcine in opposition. Okay. Um so now seeing no one else in the queue, let's move on to the next. Uh we have the city manager report or assistant city manager report. No report, mayor. Okay, great. And we're now on to special reports and presentation. Uh this is a presentation of the city of Longmont annual comprehensive financial report and independent audit for 2025. And we have um chief finance officer Terresa Mallaloy coming down to um introduce the item. Good evening mayor and council. Theresa Malloy, chief financial officer, and this evening we are presenting our 2025 audited financial statements. Before we get into any specifics, I wanted to take a few moments to let you know that accounting has once again received the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting from GFOA for our 2023 comprehensive annual comprehensive financial report. GFOA established the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting program in 1945 to encourage and assist state and local governments to go beyond the minimum requirements of generally accepted accounting principles to prepare annual comprehensive financial reports that evidence the spirit of full transparency and disclosure and to recognize individual governments that succeed in achieving that goal. The goal of the GFOA program is not to assess the financial health of participating governments, but rather to ensure that users of their financial statements have the information they need to do so themselves. There are 19 separate categories that financial reports must meet in order to receive this award. and the city has received this award for 46 years. This speaks to the dedication and experience of our accounting team to ensure our financial reporting and tracking really does go beyond the minimum requirements of generally accepted accounting principles. While members of our accounting team are not necessarily providing a direct service to the community, they are a critical part of our city operations. I'm extremely thankful for Deian Hansen, accounting manager Sarah Tuttle, Sammy Coulson, and Susie McInley, who is also with us this evening, and the rest of the accounting team for the hard work and dedication it has taken to win this award. I hope you all will join me in congratulating and thanking them. I'm confident that the 2025 report and audit you are about to hear about will also meet the requirements to win the award for the 47th time. And now I'll introduce Deianne Hansen and she will say a few words and then she'll turn it over to your auditors who you will hear from next. Thank you, Teresa. Um, I'm Deian Hansen. I'm the accounting manager for the city. Um, I want to thank you for your time tonight and allowing me to present. I'm just going to, um, present brief highlights of where the city ended up at the end of 2025. Um I too want to give a special thanks to um Susie McInley, Sammy Coulson and Sarah Tuttle who are our um lead accountants and then the rest of my accounting team for all the help they have given in the preparation of this audit and the financial statements. They are you know a big part of the team and it's a big job to put this report together. Um, we engaged plant Moran to do the audit of the financial statements. William Bricky and Josh Edy directed the audit and I will introduce William Bricky in just a few moments to present auditor comments and if there's any questions that the council may have on the audit audit themselves, they will be able to answer that. Um so to briefly summarize um where we ended up in 2025 um the city finished with a total net position of um 1.785 billion. The governmental activities make up 735 million of that and business type activities make up 1.5 billion of that. Um, that's an increase in net position of 75.1 million from 2024. You can see financial highlights associated with the citywide net position um in the management discussion and analysis starting on page 29 of the financial report. Um, there's more relevant information pertaining to fund balances and the change in fund balance of the major governmental funds. Um, and that can be found in the balance sheet for the governmental funds on page 48 in the statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for the governmental funds on page 50. Um, as well as a summary of fund balance in your council communication. The major enterprise funds net position um, and restricted unrestricted working capital information can be found on 50 page 54. through page 57 of your report. And I've summarized this briefly on page five of your council communication. And then just to summarize um our retirement benefits, we had uh 262.5 million dollars in um assets held in trust for the city's retirement plan. And this information can be found on pages 239 through 240 of the acter and it is summarized briefly in the council communication. Um did you do you have any questions for me before I bring William Berkkey up? >> Do we have any questions at this point? >> Okay. Nope. Thank you. We can >> Thank you. So, William Berkeley is our um auditor in charge and he directed the audit. So, I'll bring him up there at this point. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dean. And and good evening, council. And and Deian, you got to call me Bill. And when you say William, I think my mom's yelling at me. So, very um but anyway, good evening. Um, as mentioned, I'm the the lead partner on your account and here to talk about the audit results for the year ended December 31, 2025. So, really, when we talk about the audit, there's really three separate items that we refer to. There's the financial statement, which is the large annual comprehensive financial report, which includes our audit opinion. Then, we also have an audit of your compliance with federal grants, which also includes opinions from us on whether you complied or didn't. And then finally, we have our end of audit letter uh just about various audit topics that we're retired required to talk to you about uh once we do complete an audit. So these are included in your in the council packet tonight from pages 38 to 52. And so what I'd like to do is is really highlight uh what those letters are and kind of talk through the results here. So I'll try and refer to what pages I'm talking to uh as I go through everything. Um, you know, you know, certainly I know a lot of people have thanked your accounting team already, but I I certainly want to thank Deian and her team. The audit process, just to put it into perspective, it really starts in January once the year ends and we do some planning and then we really do our primary work in April and May. And then the audit this year was issued on June 4th. And so really your team does a great job putting up with the auditors, preparing for the audit, and really helping us complete complete the engagement in an efficient manner. So, we really appreciate uh all of their e efforts. So, the first item I want to I want to talk about is our opinion on your financial statements, which is included in the packet on page 45 through 47. And really, that's the primary purpose of the audit is for me to give you an opinion on those financial statements that tells the reader, can they rely on these financial statements or not? and happy to report that the city did receive what we refer to as an unmodified audit opinion again in the current year, which essentially means those statements are in compliance with all the rules and regulations. It doesn't speak to whether the good numbers or bad numbers. It just attests that these are in fact the the right numbers uh and they can be relied upon. The other thing you'll notice in in that opinion letter is we do reference um the Longmont Housing Authority and the fact that we do not audit them. They're audited by a separate auditor and because they're included in your financial statements, we we just let the reader know. Plantar man didn't audit that. The the housing commission, another auditor did, but they also issued an unmodified opinion uh on those statements. The other opinions that are included in your packet are pages 48 through 52. And these are the opinions on your compliance with federal grants. So whenever uh whenever you receive more than $1 million in federal funds, you have to have a federal single audit, we call it. Uh and that's really testing that grant compliance. And in the current year, the city did h did expend about $10.1 million in federal funds. And so because of that, we we specifically tested your compliance with $1.6 million spent in the home investment partnership program grant and 90 $900,000 in the hazardous mitigation grant program. and happy to report our opinions on those grants are also unmodified opinions. Meanings meaning we did not have any findings. We didn't have any question costs. Everything was in um compliance with those federal grant agreements that that you agreed to do there. So happy to report that. Uh in addition, uh we did not have any financial statement findings either. So if we had any, we would report those to you um today. And then the final document I want to I want to reference is in is on page 38 through through 44 in your packet. And this is what we refer to often as the end of audit letter. So under the auditing standards are a variety of things we have to communicate to you in your role as those charged with governance. And um if we had any audit findings they'd be included in there. But again because we don't uh there's a lot of statements in there like we didn't have any disagreements with management. We didn't have any uh audit audit issues. But there are two items I want to highlight uh just to bring to your attention. One, you know, we are required to disclose any significant estimates that are included in the financial statements. And the two most significant estimates for the city are the valuation of your pension plan. How much is that liability? And the retirey healthcare plan again, how much is that liability? And and the city hires actuaries to calculate that. And we audit the assumptions that the actuary use. And then we also audit uh the way the city records those liabilities in the books and happy to report that everything u there was done to our satisfaction and and we have no issues with those estimates. And then the other the other thing we have to report to you is anytime we come in if we have to either change the books because we identify any journal entries that need to be made or if we identify any um any items that we feel should be different than they're currently reported. And in the current year we just had one minor item to discuss. So, so in the letter there's a section called corrected and uncorrected misstatements. And we did we did identify one uncorrected misstatement related to the way the city recorded the sick and vacation liability, the compensated absence liability. So, how much do you owe employees for what they've they've earned in their in their in their vacation banks? And our estimation is that the liability was overstated by about $1 million. Um and and the and the city chose to leave it at the amount recorded and we agreed that the difference was immaterial and a million dollar seems like is a lot of money but in in comparison to the city's total liabilities of 140 million it was less than 1% and so we we agreed that it was not significant to the financial statements and this was really just a difference in in the in the accounting method that was used in the current year there. Um so except for that one item as as mentioned we have no audit findings. Overall the city continues to have strong internal controls in process which which leads to clean audits and the continuing uh reception of that award from the GFOA. Uh so those are all my prepared comments. Happy to answer any questions that you may have related to the audit. >> Do we have any questions related to the audit? Um council member Popkin. >> Thank you mayor. Um, and thank you to the team there that was looking at this so diligently. Um, I'd emailed Teresa uh, one question that I was maybe hoping to pose to you as well here, which was based on your findings. Were there any it I'm guessing the answer is no, but I did want to ask to be uh clear. Were were there any findings or observations in your analysis that um would potentially have consequences on what the city's future borrowing capacity or um ability to manage like a revolving loan fund kind of with credibility and authority would result in? >> No. No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Council member Christ, >> thank you and thank you for very comprehensive um letters. I'm I'm looking at the auditor's governance letter to mayor and council and the significant Gazsby proposal worth watching. >> Yes. >> And and I'm curious about how that might look on our future um financial information from the CFO. Could you explain what you what what um this fourstage process is um compared to what we're doing right now? >> Sure. So, so the the government accounting standards board, they're the ones that set the standards and say this is what needs to be included in your financial statements. This is how they need to look. This is how it needs to be reported. And so there are um things in the works there of potentially changing the rem the reporting model which would essentially make this financial statement look different and some of the revenue recognition policies that are currently in place could change. Um, so that's something that we're at plant brand staying very close to and we'll make sure that if something actually is getting pushed out and is going to change, it will likely be a multi-year implementation process and there would be plenty of time to make sure that there's training information out there, all of that. But some of the proposals that we've seen would just significantly change the way that that document looks and reads. Are they suggesting that we recognize revenue sooner or that we um record expenses as they're as they're occurring even though maybe they haven't we haven't met the incumbrance level? What what >> it's more on the revenue side and and when to recognize it and and you know there are a lot of nuances in governmental accounting with when you recognize you know revenue whether it's you know received within a certain period of time things like that. So, it's really more on the revenue recognition side and the overall the way the financial statements would look and read. >> Okay. And and you don't anticipate seeing that in 2026? >> I do not. It will not be in 2026. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, that looks like it that's it for questions and we do need to to vote to accept the report tonight. Nope. Or I I saw a yes and a no. [laughter] Um, it did say on the council column to accept it. >> Okay. Yes. >> Okay. So, we have a motion made by Mayor Prom, seconded by council member Popkin. I heard him split a hair of a second earlier. Um [laughter] Um, so very good. I see no one in the queue. Let's go ahead and vote. Great. >> Okay, that carries unanimously. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. And we are on to p uh first call public invited to be heard. Um the first person on the list is Keith James. Um you can come on down and you have three minutes and please state your name before begin speaking >> as you called. My name is Keith James. Uh so mayor, members of city council, you guys are great. I just needed a few minutes to deescalate myself. Um, I'm here at a master level professional in behavioral health field. I currently have somebody at my house. I've had the police there 19 times. This person does not live at my house. I think our police need some updated training or training on the dynamics of ci civil residency, if someone lives there or not. If you guys are at my house maybe two weeks ago, they didn't have residency. Why would you come to my house this time doing the same thing to escalate somebody that's trying to deescalate my own health? Don't like mil the police at my house. You know, that's ridiculous. I lived there 15 years and in the last year they've been there 19 times. That shows something. Um I'm asking for whatever advice. I don't need it right now, but this is something that I've I've sent you guys a letter. You guys probably have seen something. So, currently as we speak, this person is at my house and I was told by the police that they would not do anything and they just come into my house and refuse to leave. If I do something, it isn't my private residency. They don't have residency there. I've been saying this for a while. I'm not trying to say that I'm going to do anything bad, but you guys see what the outcome could be. Correct. I I'm I'm deployed a bunch. So, I I'm trying to relax my own house, not have you guys there escalating me. That's a deescalation issue when they don't read the notes previously. That would that would deescalate a lot. So, thank you. That's all I have. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Brian Cook. >> Good afternoon. Good evening, Councilman. >> My name is Brian Cook. I live at 1933 Warren Avenue. So, I'm I have a problem with my next door neighbor. He come my scooter transportation um to where I can't use it. He told that so I can't do anything with it. Tried hire repairs people and they can't do anything. Um and then on Monday, yesterday he threatened to harm me. So I called the cops and the cops couldn't do anything. So, I'm having the same problem as the last guy is I don't know what's going on with the city, but we're not able to dees the cops aren't able to dis deescalate. So, I'm moving to a different apartment. I wrote a court order. I used the city council form, not form, but the the will of the city council. not you guys, but the personality to write a court order. Um, and then nobody could take it. So, I don't know. Like talking about finances, I don't I'm wondering how do I apply my court order when I apply I send it to my church and my church takes it and they see it as money. But I take it to banks, they don't see it as money. I take it to the new rental place that I'm going to move at. They don't take it. So, what's going on with our money system? We're not Federal Reserve agents under 12 USC 411. But we can't use Federal Reserve notes. So, what do we do? How do we use money to pay for a house so I can move away from my next door neighbor who's threatening me? But on the bright side, I appreciated Saturday's meeting with the city council. That was really good. First time I was relaxing. I enjoyed just going there and talking and having fun there. That was good. So, thank you for that. >> Thank you. Um, okay. Yeah, go ahead. Um, next person on the list is Lance Whitaker. Thanks for being here. >> Thanks for coming. >> Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Lance Whitaker, 1750 Collier Street. I've been a resident for over 45 years now. I keep saying that. I'm pretty soon it'll be 46. Um, Wish Ride went great. So, thank you all for attending that if you had attended it. Um, today is National Peacon Sandies Day, Detroit Style Pizza Day. It's also National Pink Day, and National Hydration Day. Um, we're not going to talk about birthdays today because the person who made Chucky doll and it's his birthday. So, let's just avoid that all together. [laughter] Um, on this day in 1784, a 13-year-old uh boy makes his first balloon flight in the US. So, the first balloon flight in the US was done by a 13-year-old boy. So, young aviators. Yeehaw. >> Thank you and have a good day. >> Um, thank you. Uh, so the next person, Kristen Bose, >> uh, Kirstston Base 402 Grant. Good evening, mayor and members of city council. I've communicated with many of you regarding the airport, and the response I receive often includes that you are frustrated because you are unable to make the changes you would like to see because you are bound by FAA grant assurances. Well, under consideration tonight are multiple FAA grants that I urge you to vote no on. To be completely clear, saying no to federal funding is not saying you are on a path to closing the airport. It's saying you're on a path to making the airport self-sustaining. It is entirely possible, legal, and practical to operate a locally controlled airport by our own rules without being perpetually beholdened to the FAA. Yes, FAA grant money has been taken in the past, and we currently have obligations because of it. However, the FAA's funding model functions as a trap. It resets our commitment to the FAA for another 20 years. Yet, it does not provide enough upfront capital to run our airport for 20 years. The system is an endless cycle, forcing cities to return for more funding every few years, resetting that 20-year federal obligation clock each time. This dependency cycle never ends until we explicitly refuse the next grant, and tonight is that time. We do not have to continue down this road of compounding federal restrictions. Airport can and should be self-funded and self-sustaining. The financial math behind this transition is incredibly simple, equitable, proven by successful airports nationwide, and has been presented to council before. Landing fees, assistant city manager Sandy Cedar's analysis from a few months ago already highlights significant revenue potential from landing fees, showing a realistic path to net positive revenue. While the upcoming rates and charges study will formalize the exact framework, the 2025 baseline of 137,000 flight operations proves the immediate viability of this model. There's a $2 solution. A modest $2 landing fee accounting for collections and minor diverted traffic generates roughly $220,000 annually. Over four years that completely funds this $850,000 project. Or there's the $3 solution. A $3 landing fee completely pays off this exact improvement asset in just three years. Why would this council vote to lock our city into another 20-year or potentially forever federal obligation for an amount of money that our own local flight operations can independently raise in less than four years? Please wait for the rates and charges study to reveal our true revenue capabilities. Let's protect Longmont's municipal autonomy, build a self-sustaining asset, give future council members the ability to make changes, and vote no on this FAA grant tonight. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and I do want to let um people know there are a couple of names because they're outside of our city boundaries um or they didn't have an address on there. Um, you are welcome to speak at final call public invited to be heard. The next person on the list is Megan uh C. It didn't show up on the I have the copy so I don't didn't show up all the way. Yes, it's Megan Cieros. Okay. Um, so my, um, comments are actually in relation to the first two comments that are over here. Um, I can go into it, but we need to house the homeless. Um, I understand that you guys don't have funding for that, but these are emer this is an emergency situation. We're coming up on one of the um, third um, worst El Nino in recorded history. So, we need to have our homeless housed. So, if you come over here and you're like, "Okay, well, this person's coming into my house and they're threatening me." of course they're going to threaten you because one we have to have self-defenses and two we have to have everybody housed. So both of those things are holding people to subpar standards to tell people that the the things that they're experiencing are mental health. You can see that all mental health or most mental health deals with poverty the poverty level. So we could you know we can petition the government for government for universal interactive and skill-based income. That's something that we need to do. I'm trying to write on that. I'm also grieving because my children were stolen. But that's beside the point right now. Um the point that I'm here to make is that we need to house these homeless. We need to house all of the homeless before um before El Nino comes because there's going to be intense freezes. We have a shelter. The shelter isn't going to be good enough. And if somebody goes into another person's house, the solution isn't to put the man in jail. Yes, it's housing, but it's still subpar standards. They're not being treated like they're humans. to tell people that they can't defend themselves regardless of whether that's the person inside the house or regardless of whether that's the person outside of the house um or you know the person that's coming into the house is ridiculous. You need to be able to have self-defense and that self-defense needs to be taught as social skills and we can't consider that behavior management anymore because we can see the trends in South Africa. We can see the trends in other uh other states and countries where there's huge gaps between the proletariat and we have in our state a 55% margin of people under the poverty margin that means 200% for our state. In some states that's 130%. Okay. The the understanding that that brings is that if there is something like Donald Trump restricting our resources because there's more than a 6% margin on our food stamps so we don't get food stamps and all of that, we're gonna have a huge criminal population. Okay. Okay. And what that brings what that brings to us is that we need to have one self-defense taught in schools for people that are in their homes and two that there needs to be a social skill because people who are grieving that grieve in that manner are not being acknowledged. It is being acknowledged. It's it's being marginalized. It you can talk about yin and yang. You can talk about it however you want. It is part of the human condition. It is part of the human experience. This is not saying I want to go and hit people. This is saying that I know a lot of people that are being marginalized because it's being pathized. And so we need to address that. We need to address the homeless issues and we need to address several other issues that we're dealing with. And considering things mental health is going to it's marginalizing too large of a percent of the population and we need to actually address it for what it is. First the poverty line and two everything that's not poverty line is basically social skills. There's self-defense skills. There's spirituality um that people are So yes ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Chris Alred. >> Good evening, Mayor and members of council. Hi, my name is Chris Olred, resident of Longmont for about 10 years. And I just wanted to first start by saying thank you to the council and the city for continuing to have good cultural events offerings for people around the community, the Junth celebration at Roosevelt Park over the weekend, and then I see the Nepali Jatra Festival coming up too. Both great events. So, I just want to commend you on that. And tonight I've also just been this has been brought to my attention that at our home we received this notice of violation. I brought the physical copy here. It's about a tree branch that's too close to the sidewalk. It needs to be 8 ft above the sidewalk, right? So really not that big of a deal. But um this the language of this letter really just was strange for my roommates and friends who I've told this about. I just want to read this to the council just so it's public. So this is talking about the the correction required that please trim all tree branches to a minimum of 8 ft vertical clearance over sidewalk. Failure to do so may result in city action to abate the violation. This may result in permanent damage or death of the vegetation that is in violation and all costs will be build back to the property owner. That just seemed harsh. Like why is that? Why are we receiving a letter that failure to comply may result in death of the tree? I'm sure there's more skilled technicians with trees that won't result in the death of the tree. it just I'm just letting everyone know what what letters are going out to residents and I think that that language could be re-evaluated. So, I'm just asking if the staff could maybe tone that down a bit because I spoke with them on the phone and everyone's really friendly over the phone. Why does the letter have to be so harsh? [laughter] So, that's all I just think, you know. >> Yeah, >> that's all for tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for letting us know. Um, yeah. Uh, Kirk Slow. >> Okay. Continuing from two weeks ago on the surveillance camera issue. Now, with this rush to do the license plate, well, there's always surveillance creep. Nstazzi would be proud of you. And Nstazzi for those under 50 are the famous East German secret police that love surveillance and used it very effectively to keep the people of East Germany from escaping to the Western freedom. Anyway, they would be proud of you because this is an outsource of surveillance to the private sector and the use of capitalism to get around the laws on the books. After all, the NSA is forbidden from using surveillance on US citizens, is it not? How? But if we say it's for the children, all of a sudden we're going to throw public funds at a private company to have surveillance done on citizens of this country. I find it abhorent. This is bigger than us and this does affect people right now. If you the company doing this and the police department enter into this contract surveillance contract have nothing to hide. Let it see sunlight. Now I'm going to move on to second part of this. I still got a little bit of time. The argument that surveillance is safety. You know like flock put safety in their name. And I'm going to use the city of London, their statistics as they've been doing surveillance a lot longer in a public environment than we have and their crime numbers are going up and this is public information. So surveillance does not equal safety and this certainly is not for the children. Thank you. Mhm. Thank you. Stan Tol. [snorts] Yeah. I would like to thank uh the mayor and and council. Um, reason I'm coming up here, I was going to repeat again the need to we have kind of a crisis situation with our trees. Uh, one that we're not watering a lot of the turf and we need to um uh try to make sure that people uh actually water the trees at some point because the trees are adapted to where the tur where there's been the grass has been growing and if you don't water them they're they get horribly stressed. The other issue is the emerald are the Chinese emerald ash boore that's attacking our ash trees and killing them. Um there's some treatments for it, but the main thing is is that um hopefully the city can try to um inform people. uh you know because a tree it only looks like a little bit at first but the thing is if you wait until it gets bad the trees destroyed. Um the third thing is um if we want to try to encourage natural control of of the emerald ash boore and also other boring insects. Um there is some biological controls mostly from uh like there's two species of woodpeckers. I'll just call them the larger ones and also the little smaller ones. Uh the critical need that these guys have is nesting areas. And one of the problems these birds are having is that we'd like our trees to be neat and tidy. And we cut down all the [snorts] uh dead trees which these birds need for um uh nesting. So putting a having a program to actually putting up nesting areas for these birds is one way to control this epidemic. And then there's um you mentioned to your treat your people here um that there is a um I think a the federal agriculture department uh has a uh parasitic wasp that goes after the admiral ash boar and that they need if they get in contact with the federal people they can get these insects. Thank you. >> Thank you. Great. Thank you. Um Meg Thornbury. Hello, Meg Thornberry at Foxridge Apartments. Um thank you all so much for being here. This goes to everybody in the room. Again, it's just so exciting to see so many more people here each and every week um as we all slowly but surely learn uh the many rules of Roberts. Um, I'm trying to come up with a bingo card so that you can every time you hear a point of clarification or emotion or whatever, we can play bingo in the background. But anyway, if you want to do other fun government themed stuff, um, the Visible Government League is still meeting. We just had a great social last night. Um, our next one will be, I believe it's July 13th. Um, so we'll have a little bit of break in there, but in the meantime, we just uploaded some videos on our social media on Instagram and Facebook about the various different types of cameras that you will see around town. So, if you need a quick little guide, it just sort of has some pictures, tells you what brands they are, and just sort of where you can commonly see them. So, that is available if you guys are interested in learning more or sharing with other people who would also like to learn more. Um, another thing that came up at our social that I just wanted to echo here is the idea of doing a fishbowl discussion for technology and surveillance technologies specifically if there is some way to sort of facilitate potentially a little bit more of that back and forth and a little bit I think that that format would be really helpful for all of the things going on at this time just because it's such a constantly evolving thing that I feel like a fishbowl would be really helpful for that. One of the things that is now newly coming up that I just wanted to put on everybody's radar that we are also concerned about um is that there is a company called Verata which has just made a contract with SBVSD. They are an AI and cloud connected camera provider. Um, and I don't like the idea of I mean, I understand why we have cameras in school, but whenever we are recording footage of children, I just want to make sure we are being extra extra careful with our data in that process. Um, so we were just hoping to get a little more insight on that. Um, and since they work closely with Axon, we were curious to see if there were any interactions with our existing Axon contract from the city and SVVSD. So anyway, we are just keeping that on our radar and um yeah, hope to have more of a discussion around that. Um and then just sort of last but not least, I just wanted to make sure that you guys all heard the news that there has been an increased ICE presence in Longmont over the last week. Um so just a quick little know your rights shout out. Number one, do not open the door without a warrant that is signed by a judge. And number two, if you are talked to by the law enforcement whatsoever, just say nothing. your your best thing to say is lawyer and the second best thing to say is nothing. And if you say lawyer, don't say anything after that either. But just please, you know, be aware. Check in on your neighbors. We're going to get through this together. So, thank you so much for being here. Longmont's awesome. Thanks. >> Thank you. And I do recommend you speak to go to the school board. >> Yeah. Always tell people go over there. [laughter] Go bother them. Just kidding. Okay. Next name on the list is Charlie Schilling. Flop, flip, flop, flip. >> You're good. >> Hello, >> Hello. I'm Charlie Schilling and I live at 224 Francis Street. Uh I have to say it's always good to be here and understand other people's concerns. Um tonight in particular, it's pretty humbling and uh kind of made me think maybe I shouldn't even get up and talk, but [laughter] I'll get up and say what I was intending to say because it is important to me and it's important to a lot of people here in Longmont. I'm here to advocate for a better airport, one that works well for all of Longmont, is financially self- sustaining, and has the trust and exhibits the goodwill for all of Longmont. So, there's a lot of confusion about these grants, particularly what's going on tonight, uh, with these grants. So, to help build trust, I think we should really understand the following when considering this vote on FAA grants. Um, the rates and charges study should reveal a path to financial independence. Um, do we really need to rebuild this tax taxi way? Has anyone outside of the airport management really seen this and justified this? I mean, I've been on HOA boards where we talked about pavement. We own pavement and it's really difficult and we found creative ways to keep keep the pavement good without completely rebuilding it. Three, does the city council have a complete understanding of the grant as assurances and are they able to articulate them to the public? For example, do these grants wipe out environmental justice, human rights, climate action, and community safety and enable ICE at airports, force us to sell lighted fuel forever. That's what I'm seeing in these grand asurances. Do you guys see that? Do you understand that fully or is that just kind of like we think kind of stuff? because you're signing a big uh you're making a big decision and you should really really understand this. Can the FAA change the terms and conditions like they've done in recent past. Can they do you know this? Understand what's going on with other airports grants? Do we really understand that or are we guessing on that? And last but not least, um we really should have a clear vision for the airport that includes and understands grants and financial independence. um we should not just accept these grants because that's what we've done in the past or just say it's just another grant. It's not a big deal. That's not good governance and it does not build trust. So, we need to stop the endless cycle of FAA grants with all kinds of unrealistic and unreasonable um and changing terms and conditions, also known as grant assurances. Now is a great time to change how we run our airport and start thinking differently and thinking in a way that builds trust for the community, all all of the community. So vote no on accepting these grants and start thinking in a new way. Thank you. >> Thank you, Scott Stewart. >> Mayor, members of the council, Scott Stewart, 229 Grand Street Airport. years ago, the city set the airport up as an enterprise fund. Doing this allows the airport to set rates and charges to meet the budgetary needs. If you dig into the airport's finances, I think you'll find that the way the airport is being managed does not align with the fundamentals of enterprise fund. When is the last time the airport adjusted the base rate for land leases? What is what ideas has the airport provided to increase income to meet the budgetary needs? Why is the council continuously being asked to approve grant funding? Is it because the airport vision doesn't include saving for future obligations beyond the 5% needed to meet grant guidelines? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the airport doesn't seem to be financially structured for its own success. Look at the last 20 years of grants received at the airport. It's not a lot of money over time. It is a lot of money if you haven't planned. We take grant money because we need it at this time. We take grant money because it's not financially [snorts] structured to operate without it. I'd like to encourage the members of the council to look at the video from the airport advisory board meeting April 11, 2024, minute 40. 40 seconds of the video, you'll see a member of the airport advisory board give the game away. The board member speaks about a Longmont airport not having the same problem that Boulder does because we take their money. It's not hard to understand what's going on here. Being dependent on FAA grants allows the airport a level of protection from local oversight. This means the local government government is restricted from implementing something as simple as restricting repetitive flights before 7 a.m. When is when when is the time that Longmont will begin to operate the airport so that is less in less conflict with the growing community? Enterprise funds allow the airport to set rates and charges to meet budget needs. Why does the airport continue to ask the city council for forgiveness of 50% of the ATF? Council members should understand the taxpayer funded services are being discounted year after year when the airport has the tools to fund this obligation. This is like a 40-year-old child living in your basement complaining because his parents want to ask him to pay for his own cell phone bill, car insurance, or groceries. There's quite a bit of money in the airport fund and more than half of it seems to have been acred during the time taxpayers have been paying that other half of the the obligation. Just like the grown-ups living in the basement, it's time for them to be responsible for this themselves. They should ha they have the tools at their disposal. It's past time and let them fly on their own. Thank you. >> Thank you. And um seeing no one else on the list, I will now close. Um, public invited to be heard. Okay. And we're on to item nine, consent agenda, an introduction and reading by title of first reading ordinances. Um, clerk, can you please read the consent for the record? >> Yes, mayor. Item 9A is resolution 2026-35, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving a voluntary alternative agreement for the West View Acres Subdivision. Filing number two, development as satisfaction of the city's inclusionary housing requirement. Item 9B, resolution 2026-36, a resolution of the Longmont City Council authorizing an agreement between the city of Longmont and Chuck Mock for the purchase of real property north of Union Reservoir. Item 9 C, resolution 2026-37, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving contract amendment number five of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city and the state of Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health for the Co-responder Program. Item 9D is resolution 2026-38, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the state of Colorado concerning an aviation grant for taxi lane reconstruction at the Bansbrand Municipal Airport. Item 9E, resolution 2026-39, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and the Federal Aviation Administration for two grants concerning taxi lane reconstruction at the Vansbrand Municipal Airport. Item 9F, approve two capital improvement program amendments. And item 9G, the town of Superior's request for Longmont Amicus participation in its town of Superior versus Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court reant airport noise. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And um I will be pulling 9A. We do need to pull 9A. So, we're voting on the substitution document um in front of you, not the um the document on our in our packet. And then I will be pulling 9G as well because you there is one of four options that we'll be voting on. So, we we do have to identify which option will be we will be voting on. Um council or mayor prompor, I'd like to pull 9E. >> Okay. Council member Friette though, >> I was going to pull 9D and E. >> Okay. So, and 9D U, it is a state grant, so it's not a federal grant. So, >> but doesn't it go with E? >> Um, no, we can vote for it. That's why we're voting on it separately. >> Okay. >> So, >> then just E. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, can I have a motion to ex accept the um or approve the consent agenda minus AE NG? Um, Council Member Popkin. >> Sorry, Mayor. I wanted to build on Council Member PTO's uh intention for a second just to clarify because it's a it's referring to a state grant, but my understanding is that it's it's a state match that is related to the overall federal grant. Can we can we get some clarification on that? >> Okay. Um, >> we don't get it unless we approve. C. Um, I'm gonna kick it to assistant city manager >> because I'm looking at even the council com there and I see 95% for the FAA and then 2.5 for state, 2.5 for local. >> So, I know that one was on where is it? Where'd he go? I thought I saw him back there. >> Levi's [laughter] here. >> Yeah, >> in the back. >> Come on down. >> And to be clear, I just want to make sure we pull the right things. >> Yes. Yes. >> Well, because that's a state. I mean I think that if for if in the event it we do not move forward on E then D becomes a moot point. Is that am I interpreting that correctly? I do believe that that is sorry. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Mayor. >> Yeah. Yes. Go ahead. >> Sandy Cedar, assistant city manager. And I I see Levi coming down here as well. Um you know I believe the C dot grant is to assist with the match for >> with the match for the other. >> Let's let's ask him real quick. Okay, because we did have I don't know, Levi, if you caught the discussion. Um, item E is being pulled. Item D, because it's a state grant, we were going to keep it on, you know, what we're voting on right now is to accept the consent agenda, including D. So, if we if we're pulling E, should we pull D as well? >> Uh, both of those are part of the same project. Yes. on the airport. It's a taxi way rehabilitation project >> uh via FAA direction. >> Um I guess that's kind of up to you. I will say that of those two grants D the deadline for that one is the end of the month. >> Yeah. >> So June 30th is the deadline for that. >> Okay. So and then in the event that we pass D and E does not what then eventually then we just withdraw. >> You could certainly withdraw. >> Okay. So rather than pulling both items, we we would just vote on it and then we can just withdraw. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> E doesn't pass. Okay. >> No further questions. >> Very good. >> Okay. And so uh Mayor Prom has moved the consent agenda minus AE and G. Do I have a second? >> Okay. And council member Kuffer has seconded that. Let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And it looks like council member Prito's a thumbs up. Okay. And that carries unanimously. Okay. We are now on to ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. Um, item A, ordinance 2026-37, a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning in January 1st, 2026. Um, at this time, are there any questions from council? Okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing for ordinance 2026-37. Um, there's no one signed up on the list. Is there anyone on the audience who would wish to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. May I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-37. >> Okay, the motion has been made by council member Coloffer, seconded by Council Member Christ. And seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And that carries unanimously. We are now on to item B, ordinance 2026-38, a bill for an ordinance amending titles 69,13,15, and 20 of the Longmont Municipal Code to abolish the board of board of adjustment and appeals. Are there any questions from council at this time? Okay. Council member Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief. Uh, no, no question. But in the spirit of sometimes written language sounding harsher than is intended, uh, when we talk about abolishing the board here, this is really a consolidation with the planning and zoning commission, which has already been doing this responsibility for a couple years already. So, this is just a consolidation. There are no current members of the board of adjustment and appeals. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I mean, and you could have also done it after we made the motion to approve. So, so we can stick with questions in this part. Sorry. Thank you. Um, okay. Um, seeing no other questions from council, I will now open the public hearing on ordinance 2026-38. Um, there is no one signed up on the list. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. Um, can I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 20 2026-38? >> Okay, so the motion has been made by Mayor Prom, seconded by council member Popkin. Seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And that carries unanimously. We're now on to item C, ordinance 2026-39, a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting chapter 11.04 of the Longmont Municipal Code regard regarding the traffic the model traffic code adopting the 2024 edition of the model traffic code for Colorado by reference. Amending title 11 concerning traffic violations, amending chapter 11.12 concerning the authority to issue tow orders, and amending chapter 11.16 concerning parking violations and fines. Are there any questions from council? Okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will now close public hearing. May I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-39? So move. >> So the motion has been made by council member Marcine, seconded by council member Christ. Seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And that carries unanimously. Item D. Oh, do we are >> Never mind. >> Okay. Thank you. Like you're throwing my You're throwing my queue. [laughter] >> No, I thought you said there was Any comments after? >> Oh, so it there is I do after the motion has been made and it has been seconded. That's when we move away from questions because questions are already answered and then we enter into a debate. >> Oh, >> are you in debate? >> Uh, no. Just more of like an informational like popin. >> Oh. Um, okay. [laughter] I I will I I did go kind of fast so I will I'll own that. Um go ahead and put your name in the in the speaking. >> Um push your button. >> Yes. Okay. >> You scared me with your eyes. >> The eyes [laughter] get you. >> I was like maybe I don't want to speak. >> I can shut down a whole class. >> Um I just want the public to know that you know I did ask questions surround this ordinance. um just making sure we're not making people's lives harder who may not have registered their tags in time that you know public safety and code enforcement are going aren't going around and trying to tow people and um and so you know I did have a conversation with staff around this and making sure that you know some of the tow orders are like literally for cars obstructing traffic and um you know if people do have expired tags we're we're not bothering them unless it's like a public nuisance or things like that. So, I just want folks to know that the changes that came forth are not to target folks or make life harder. It's really just an efficiency thing on code and uh public safety. So, but I did ask the hard questions and making sure that we're being fair to our entire community. Um and so, yeah, I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. And um so on to item D, ordinance 2026-40, a bill for an ordinance to enact by reference the amended city of Longmont public improvement design standards and construction specific specifications um sections 400, section 500, and section 600 and appendices. Are there any questions from council? Okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing on ordinance 2026-40. Um, there was no one signed up on the list. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this? Okay, seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. Um, can I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-40? >> Okay, so that carry or the motion has been made by Mayor Prom and seconded by council member Coloffer. Okay. And seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And that carries unanimously. Item E, ordinance 2026-41, a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities for the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning in January 1st, 2026. Um, are there any questions from council? Okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing for ordinance 2026-41. Same thing, no one signed up. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this? Okay, seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-41. >> Okay, the motion has been made by Council Member Coloffer, seconded by Mayor Prom McCoy. Okay, seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, that carries unanimously. Item F, ordinance 2026-42, a bill for an ordinance approving a phase 2 development agreement with Vertical Richmark LLC to develop and construct a mixeduse development. Are there any questions from council? Okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this matter? Okay. See, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. May I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-42? Um, I will Oh, council member, are you wanting to move this? >> Oh, got it. Okay. Well, I make a motion to move this item. Do I have a second? >> Okay. So, I have made the motion to move um to pass and adopt this ordinance. Seconded by Mayor Prom, Council Member Popkin. Thank you, mayor. Um, I just wanted to make a few of us made a point last time during the presentation about kind of and I'd say maybe there's a the there was a really like kind of tactical targeted comment and then a broader bigger picture comment that I wanted to add here. The comment that was made one I think there there was broad excitement about this moving forward. But I think the re initial reaction to the concept plan was and and even more detailed than initial concept plan was the amount of parking and maybe the lack of fluidity between this urban campus and the other assets that we have in our community from the first and main parking uh parking garage and transit station to our greenway. And so I wanted to really stress that at for both the community sake and for staff as we continue to move forward with design and our partnerships here with Vertical and with Front Range Community College, if this is a community college that we drop on a city block, we're missing an opportunity. >> And if this has more fluidity and connects into our greenway system more like I know there's a street I know there's a street in the way. I know it's Boston, right? I think it's Boston that goes right there on the south side. But we have an opportunity to really connect this urban campus into our whole greenway system that helps connect with pedestrian and bike access. Uh it kind of makes it more of like an actual campus, not just a city block campus. And so I think that's a real real opportunity for uh future students and staff uh and faculty there as well as our community in general. So, I think we're missing a huge opportunity if we don't think about that fluidity both on the southeast side and then as well on kind of the west side that um and I know we have 287 there, but again thinking about the integration and connectivity there. Um th those will make or break whether this really fits in or just fits on that area. So, I just wanted to really stress that before casting my vote in favor of this. >> And I have a question. I saw you taking notes, so [laughter] jot it all down. um after this vote after this the next process. So are there opportunities for public engagement and input following this vote? Uh mayor Sandy [snorts] Cedar, assistant city manager, you know, I think every design process has that opportunity. Uh so I would certainly think that this one would as well, but of course I'm not sure that we're in charge of the design since it's really front range. But certainly what I've heard from them uh is that they're really looking to to make sure that this is a a stupendous extraordinary campus for their students and we'll be engaging um them and of course we'll be assisting with the neighbor neighborhood um impact as well. Impact as well. And then um Molly, did you want to add anything or Okay. >> Just in case. Okay. I saw you on the on deck and um you know and I I think as we start figuring out you know our our roles what we envision and making sure that this gets executed you know us as policies like I've often talked to to folks we're actually more like our governmental structure looks more like the school district than the city of LA or the city of Chicago as far as and even Denver where it's mayor directive and Um, so I think you know how understanding I don't want to say where our lanes are because there's always room for us as council you know we come in with the background and with our set of experiences and and bringing that that forward. So, you know, I want to make sure that, you know, in this and, you know, I don't want to I want to make sure that too that policy doesn't get passed because we're caught up on, you know, maybe a design or maybe something that's outside of our policy lane, but where are other opportunities for council to engage on behalf of advocating for for projects or, you know, for design and and kind of knowing where that fits, like when does that discussion happen? Does it happen here? Does it happen in maybe town different town halls, community meetings or direct contact with you? I I I still think you know I'm just figuring it out and I've been here since 2019. So, you know, the understanding the process and when is the best time to insert our um you know what what we passionately feel. [laughter] Mayor, I certainly appreciate that and this is such an exciting process, you know, and project. how how how could we not include the community in and what's happening? Um I I would say that certainly if there are public processes or public design or public input that the council would be notified about all of those. So keep an eye on your mayor and council calendar for those opportunities. That's kind of how we do it with city projects. So, I'm going assume if there are opportunities that come up, we would put them on your >> calendar from Front Range and so we can participate in those as well and and add our our input because I I I want to make sure too it doesn't get lost in this dialogue because this is not what we're voting on, right? >> It's Yeah. So, that that was my purpose for getting a little more detailed to that. Um, Council Member Marcen, >> thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate that. I I I I do and I see the intent. I I am a little bit concerned because from where I sit, we're committing a great deal of money to a and a and a land deal essentially to a project that from our end needs to benefit our goals as a city in addition to benefiting Front Range. I want Front Range to stay here. I want, you know, alum I want Front Range to be here and to be here for a long time. Um, echoing some accounts member Popkins concerns, I I you know, I I understand that we as a council do not control the ultimate outcome of the design, but if we're going to commit the amount of money we're talking about into the pre-development process, I want to make sure that the money we're committing is going to wind up with a project that that's going to benefit us as a city. Um, Front Range being the driving force behind that to me does not necessarily say that they should be able, you know, that they they um that they I'm trying to frame this the right way. Um I will back up and say just echoing council member Pogman I I too am really concerned about the amount of surface parking we've seen in the design thus far. I'm concerned about how conceptually thus far in my view the project is not shaping out in the way that I think many of us when we first talked about it inside both public meetings and in other conversations um not shaping out at least in my mind the way that I would have think thought a lot of us would have been envisioning it. speaking to council member Pawkins point about interconnectedness about the you know interconnected nature between being right next door to first and Maine. Um, so I I would just again encourage staff and I I I have spoken about this with folks and staff to really continue to drive home that point um to the point that and I guess I have a question about phase three as well and the phase three development process on this. You know, we commit this pre-development money. Phase three comes back to us with what would be at that point a final design, I would imagine, before we go to construction. Am I correct on that, Molly? Mostly. And then and then that gives us the opportunity one last time to say thumbs up, some thumbs thumbs down. >> That's correct. Okay. So, I will just go as far as to say that for me personally as one member of council who wants this project to be successful, if that development proposal is is where if the if the design proposal is where it was last time, I'm not going to be excited to vote for it. Um I I just don't feel like it meets our needs as a city, even if it may meet Front Rang's needs, and I understand that it probably does. Um, but I I need to see some significant movement on on specifically surface parking and additional classroom space and additional interconnectedness between city services on at first and Maine. And that I know is a a thing to say, but I'm putting it out there now. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, council member Coloffer. >> Thank you, Mayor. I also want to echo um the last two comments. Uh, there's a lot of surface parking. There's parking across the street, First Main. I do want the community to have engagement in the design process. I know there's if you know if there's too many cooks in the kitchen then it's going to take forever to do something. But this is in the heart of our city and I want to make sure that it fits uh with the heart of our city. I also want to make sure that LDA has a voice in this as well because this is either in their boundary or the edge of their boundary. So I want to make sure that um they are also um accepting of the design and um how this is moving forward. So, um, taking a page from our earlier book, I want us to get some additional engagement from all of the other stakeholders as well. So, I'm excited about this project, but I have some hesitation as well because I want to make sure we have a place for people and not for either empty parking asphalt and or cars. >> Okay. Thank you. See no one else in the queue. Let's go ahead and vote. >> Mayor, yes. Could I just mention one other thing? I just want to remind the council that that a good chunk of the community engagement for this project was done years ago as part of the steam project. >> Yes. >> Um you >> maybe prior to me even being on council. >> It could have been absolutely and part of the main street redevelopment process. And so those all of the feedback from that work has been incorporated and will be incorporated into what you were about to see. >> Um I do think that the community engagement really is focused on the students with respect to Front Range. But if there are specific things that you want to make sure that you're seeing, would you please send those to me and I'll make sure that Harold and the development team see those. So send them my way. I've already taken notes on what you said tonight. I do think they're moving extremely fast. Um and and I do think that significant engagement or at least >> six to nine months of my life was spent making sure that we were providing amenities and feel and vibe and different things that the community wanted at the time. >> Now now we're into the, you know, more hardcore design. And so, um, I certainly would value your feedback. Please send it my way and and I'll make sure that the team has it. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so is Okay, Council Member Popkin. [laughter] >> That's fine. I'll just make the comment. We can keep going. Um, just Sandy, I think that's really helpful. I just wanted to share maybe a quick informational thing that I was based on a conversation I had with some folks at the Colorado Municipal League conference today on this very topic of like a design being done 10 years before like the actual thing moving forward. Communities change and evolve in that time and I know that's part of the process. Just hearing some of my colleagues feedback as well and knowing where I'm at on this. I'm just wondering if maybe there's some gut checks that we should be thinking about before like running full steam ahead um with every aspect of this as we continue to proceed. Just wanted to kind of offer that we can move on for now. >> Absolutely. Noted. Thank you. >> Uhhuh. Thank you. And that item carries unanimously. [laughter] So um no well we've already voted so we're going to go on to items removed from consent agenda and we are starting with item A 9A which is resolution 2026-35. Uh there's no discussion needed for me. It was just we are voting on the um hard copy that you received with the language change. Um, can I have a motion to approve this item? >> So, move. >> Okay. And so, the motion has been made by Mayor Prom. Can I have a second? I'll second that. And, um, Council Member Christ. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Molly. I I just have a concern about this. So when we talk about inclusionary housing, basically we want it to be included in the development and this is moving it out of the development and moving it to a a lower income neighborhood. So I have concerns about segregating um housing into lower income areas >> and um and I don't disagree but Molly can you speak a little bit because there was a rationale and for this particular project rather than making it the norm. >> Sure. So I first mentioned that we do have a presentation ready if council wanted it and the applicant uh Mr. Jack Bestl is here just in case we need it. Um, generally the code does allow flexibility within our inclusionary housing ordinance to select either providing on-site or coming to council and requesting an alternative arrangement like this. So that is allowed within code. Generally from the housing policy perspective, it's good to have a range of options. Um, and so I would say that in this case, this proposal is is well thought out um, from the developers side of things, which I appreciate. Um, and it does bring that housing closer to um, walkable businesses and walkable areas, closer to transit lines. Um, and also it is in a lowinccome area according to income data from the census. However, there actually is not that much deedestricted income deed restricted income aligned housing in that area so far. It's mostly naturally occurring affordable housing. So, when some things that I look at are okay, it's in that census track designated area, but could that benefit the people that are living there by being walkable and based on location and that type of thing? >> Okay. >> So, I would say that staff thought that that was a a a good solution. >> Thank you. And do we need would council want to see a pre the presentation like a thumbs up thumbs down? >> I think I would. >> Okay. Okay. So, as long as we have one, we'll Mr. Best. >> Oh, it's >> Yes, applicant presentation and then staff Melissa Barrier here is our inclusionary housing coordinator and she and I are available for questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Right. This is my first presentation with this and I didn't come out and practice. So, I'm gonna see if I can figure this out real quick. One of these. >> Oh, awesome. This one. >> Great. And then try this. There you go. Perfect. Okay. So this oh Melissa Barry um with the housing and um community investment department or division I should say. Okay. So this agenda item is the review of a um voluntary alternative agreement or VAA just to make it come out a little easier. Um this is Westview Acres Subdivision. Um and again this is um based on their inclusionary housing requirements. As you know, the city does have an inclusionary housing ordinance. Um, and it requires any development that includes residential uses um to have just overall city um housing affordability addressed. Um it, as Molly said, there are a few different ways that um an applicant can address it. Um two of the basic ones are on-site and then also there is a fee in L. Um you've seen recently a land donation. That is something else that we allow. Um this is the voluntary alternative agreement. As Lie said, this is if the um um applicant has a different way they want to try to address the affordability and um so there is an allowance for um the applicant to come to council to consider that it meets the intent of the ordinance. Okay. So, this is just going to walk through you through what this presentation is going to be like. Um, after this int um introduction, the applicant will come up and um explain to you what the proposal is. I'll come back with a staff analysis because there are some things in the code that you need to consider when you make the decision here. Um staff is recommending approval of this. Um we've gone through it and um we do think it there's more of a benefit than a um impact to the area. and then you'll have time for some questions and u make your decision on the um resolution and the agreement. So Westview Acres is a subdivision um proposed over on Airport Road just north of where it comes in intersection with Diagona Highway. So it's on the southwest corner of the city. Um it is a 7acre property. The proposal there is for 24 lots um and for residential single family detached units. Uh if this was going to be an on-site um um units, affordable units on site, um the requirement would be 12% and that's three units. Of course, the applicant can choose one of the other options. um if this does not um get approved most likely will be a fee in Loo if I'm not um talking out of line which is what a lot of these developments have done. So there's a lot of precedence on the fee and ll for this kind of situation. So um I just want to put that note out there that that is one of the considerations we um had when we were considering whether or not to support this. So, I'm going to pass this over to Jack Bastl who's the applicant and then I'll come back with the analysis and then you'll have some time for questions and your decision. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Uh Jack Bestall uh Bestall Collaborative uh representing this project. Um we're really actually very excited about it and um how do I move this forward now? This one here. Okay. Um, are we using the arrow? >> Okay, I can use this. Okay, thank thanks very much. Um, it does have the three units for West View acres, which would be at 1220 1240 Francis Street. So, there's 22 for sale affordable units is the is our intent at on Francis Street. um the you know these would be 80% and less u for sale units. We we really saw this as an opportunity to do more than just the three units. Frankly, that's kind of we've been working on the Francis Street project for >> I don't want to say six years, maybe let's say five. But we've worked with the church and we've worked there's a parsonage there that this wraps around. So we subdivided that property and we the parsonage was sold and we're still working with the church to bring in another faith-based group to to occupy the church as well as make the improvements and the drainage improvements on the entire site and bring a water line through this around [clears throat] uh looping up Frances Street. So this is um kind of that's why we're kind of really excited to do this. It kind of came together with Westview and uh we are asking for additional time to to make sure we could develop this and bring in so because it would be a 22 unit project. uh if if we don't if we have a concern and the timing isn't quite right, we develop more quickly, for example, a house at Westview, then we have the units done at the three units done at uh Francis, then we will fall back on the fee in Lou and pay that. So there that's the that's the security in in the project. Um I think that's in in a nutshell the the the idea. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Council Member Christ. >> Ah, thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Pascal. I'm really glad to see this project going ahead. I remember last time we talked about it, he said it was frustrating. You really wanted to get it going. Um, here are my concerns. Um, Francis Street is kind of a a horse of a different color. We got to give it that because it was organically grown the way it is. but doesn't have a lot of great job opportunities there. So, um if you're trying to find a good job in town, you're still, you know, you're still traveling quite a ways probably. >> That is actually one of if I may answer this and then >> respond to it. >> Okay. Um I'll let you respond. This is um your >> project. I was going to put Google Maps up. It might help. >> I can respond quickly. >> Okay. >> We're >> This is crazy. We're we're within this. That's one of the things that we got excited about when we took this when we got made arrangements with the church. >> It's very much in a large a fairly decent employment area there. Not only is there there's the hospital which is just two three blocks away and then there's a lot of allied health there. There's also commercial to the southwest and there's employment and frankly it's not that far from Main Street. So we see this as a real kind of integrated uh opportunity on this site uh not only to provide a larger cluster of affordable attainable but um to really really tie it to transit and to employment. >> Do you have any idea what they're going to look like there? >> It's a DIY world. Um [laughter] maybe I'm sure we can get some input. Yeah, we do. [laughter] That's Council Member Bar. I'm hearing you loud and clear. Um, >> no, no, I think we do actually. You know, these are gable structures. Um, and there it's a it's a a compact development on a on a parcel that's immediately adjacent to the church. And we also have uh, you know, it's walkable. I I think I think it's going to be have a good character and it is a variety of one and two story. And I do also want to point out there are three schools, a high school, a middle school, and an elementary school within walking distance. And in areas of town where we're seeing low enrollment, Sanborn, an established neighborhood is closing because of lack of students. So, there's an opportunity to build some some housing. People could purchase and um with children and filling up the schools. So, I I I support it. Well, one of the things that happened over at um um the heart of Longmont Church where they donated land is they they put in really some beautiful town homes there. They don't necessarily match with the neighborhood and and um which is a good thing. But um part of that is that the values don't doesn't hold their value if they're surrounded by different style homes. In this case, it's not that they're smaller, but they're just older. So, I'm not dinging it for that. I think this could maybe fit, maybe actually work because of what you're showing here. You haven't shown us any pictures, which, you know, we kind of like >> there. [laughter] >> Uh, but just looking at your your mockup, you're kind of trying to make it match with the roof lines, I guess, is what I'm saying. Maybe a little above, a little. Mayor, if members of the council, if we want to talk design, I'm in. Um, but I think there's there's really good precedence for having a mix of designs in a neighborhood as much as there is for it to be very much the same. Like all houses have gables. A lot of the a lot of the structures in this neighborhood have flat roofs. There's there's really a variety, especially if you go a block or two either way. you know, we happen to go with a gable design because we and we we think we can build these cost effectively. You know, we're taking a little risk on that to to meet the market, but uh in this case, the affordable market, but I think I you know, our whole goal will be for it to fit. H just I'm bringing up the the housing values because that is uh just to respond to um the mayor's comment that is sometimes why there is underfunding for schools in those areas. I know it's not supposed to work that way, but I know that often that does work that way. um property tax, you know, they they don't collect as much property tax, so the schools are not as as well cared for maybe as in other neighborhoods. Um so those are my concerns. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But I appreciate this is all for sale. So >> Okay. >> Yay. >> Okay. And we have other people in the queue. Council member Kuffer. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh thank you, Mr. Bistoff. Um, I am also very excited that this is for sale because I'm starting to get tired of not having for sale properties and this is starting to fit what I want to see and what I hear the community want to see. Um, I'm excited about this, but when do we think, you know, one of the first units can be available for purchase? How how far away are we? >> I'd say a year and a half to two years. We have to do we have the zoning. We've already done a site plan for the entire site, but because of the detail of this particular lot, we will be going back through a site plan process with uh with the you know, the planning required that. So, we we hope to expedite that and get through so we can get get under construction. >> That's great. And I'm very familiar with this area because I used to live in this um this part of town and there's uh parks and there's schools, a hospital. Um Hoverver is really close by as well. Main Street's very close by. It's kind of in in between both Hover and 287. Um I'm really excited about this and yes, we also need more young families and I believe this is the starter homes that I've been yearning for um that that I think we're missing. So I'm in favor of this. >> I agree. Um Council Member Popkin, >> thank you, Mayor. I cannot believe that you are taking this out of W 2 and bringing it to W three. No, I'm just kidding. Um the uh I I I love what you're doing with this. I want to clarify a couple things for council here. So first of all um our decision tonight is not what this looks like. >> No, >> our decision is not the design. Our decision is not even on the concept plan. Our decision is just on this voluntary alternatives agreement whether we are okay with the applicant uh Mr. Bestall's option for the on-site affordable although it's on a different site. Uh I think this is a creative approach to this and I really commend that. Um it's the on-site versus a fee and ll that's really what we're talking about. If if this was displacing on-site from one area to another, that would be a different conversation. I'm sure the applicant gave some thought to it and this is what is within his right to bring to us. Um what our code allows for and frankly I think does to my fellow council members comments make a ton of sense in this area given the surrounding amenities, schools, parks, and uh walkability and bikeability and frankly drivability to just near-term near near destinations for employment, shopping, whatever. Um, so, so really our decision tonight should be based on whether we want to accept this alternative proposal. Um, I I appreciate Council Member Christ and Council Member Marcing to have the presentation because I think it was productive. We had a for for the public who maybe didn't download the whole packet. We had a 1,286 page packet um for this week um which was a fun journey uh with many things. So, I think this is good to just kind of take a step back, dig into this because this is exciting. This is a creative approach. Mr. Best doll, thank you very much um to really thinking about this thoughtfully. Thanks for bringing more affordable uh for sale housing into this part of town and into Longmont in general. Um >> okay, >> that's all I got to say. >> Okay. Um we have other people in the queue. Um so don't make a motion yet. [laughter] Um Council Member Prito um I'm like where' they go? >> Hi. So, you're you're required to build three, but you're giving us 22. Is that right? >> Special deal. >> Oh my goodness. And what planet are you from? >> Yeah. Well, [laughter] we we actually hunkered down in Longmont eight years ago because we really liked Envision Longmont Plan and we really wanted to be dialed in on affordable attainable housing. So, we've, you know, we we have the you're familiar with Atwood Commons. That was one of our that's one of our projects. >> Uh, you know, we have another one on Main Street, but we really were trying to get to for sale. And so, this is the this is one of the opportunities that we've had and we've really enjoyed working with the church and kind of doing a real infill which is kind of a which already had the zoning for multif family. So, yeah, that's we see this as that opportunity and we think we think we could cluster it there. Yeah, I and I Oh, go ahead. >> Council member Prito, if I could, I just want to clarify the 22 units, three of them will satisfy the Westview Acres project, two of them will satisfy the on-site the project itself. The remainder are going to be banked as credits for future projects that they could apply this to, but then those proposals would have to come forward later. So, it's not 22 for three necessarily, it'll be 22 for 22 eventually. >> Okay. I wanted to add one other thing is that >> Oh, the mic please. >> This one. Okay. >> I just want to add one other thing is that a lot of the developers actually I've had about three or four that have come up with a similar proposal. Um but it it is that um new example, but it sounds like there's efficiencies in it and um it it allows a lot of opportunities um especially if they um are also working with the larger lots there's still demand for and and allowed in certain zonings. So I thought this was very interesting and so um Mr. Bastella is our guinea pig to see if you guys are receptive because we've got about three or four others that are trying to >> not necessarily also in a low or medium income, but just trying to >> um get that affordability in, but not necessarily on the exact site and using the e efficiencies of the development to um allow a lower price. >> Perfect. >> And they're for sale as well. >> Yeah. No, I think it checks all the marks and I think this is really like opening that door to, you know, how are we getting creative to bringing more for sale affordable attainable housing here in the city. And so I love it all the way around. I'm excited to see what comes of it. I think my only concern is not that not about the design or the neighborhood or the businesses. It's more so that you I don't want us to have to pay the fee in L or receive the fee in L. I really want to see these come to fruition. So, >> I'm I'm I'm confident that you'll be able to work with the city to make it happen. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Council Member Marine, >> thank you, Mayor. Be quick. Uh, Jack, for the record, I don't think you look anything like a guinea pig, but I appreciate it. Um, I I was going to put you on the spot a little bit and like push you just a little bit on the Westview project because I do think there's a slippery slope for us as a council when we think about these kind of alternative agreements where we're consistently moving affordable product into a different part of town and allow you know I there there's a yes I I I'm to be clear I'm very excited about this. I think this is like good on you. You have checked literally every box that I think I've been looking for in a project. This is probably the most excited I've been. But there is a in my mind I'm like okay if this is if this becomes the norm where we're moving for you know lowincome for sale pro or lowinccome product into different parts of town and and development and other that that is something it's a pattern I'm going to be aware of. I I don't necessarily just wanted to put that out there. But Jack this this Mr. Btol this is um this is great. I'm excited to support this. this checks every box that I'm looking for and I think um the the the the moving forward these kind of alternative agreements are something I am looking forward to seeing more of as long as we're mindful of the kind of the the the transient nature and and redlinining and all of those kinds of things. So >> and that's also that also accounts fee in Lou. So, I I noticed one of the issues in the past and the reason why we decided to streamline and look at options to for developers to build on-site affordable housing was that what I noticed was that there was a lot of people just paying the fee in loo and then that in itself creates its own redlinining. So, do you have a point of clarification? Okay, I'm trying to keep it short, but go ahead. >> Thank you. I just wanted to add to the bingo card. Um the point of clarification I had mostly for council member Mercing and other members of council is keep in mind that affordable is different from low income. >> So that's are you clarifying us or are you wanting the clarification because a point of point of clarification is for you to receive >> sorry point of information then you can add that to the bingo card. Just as a point of information afford an affordable product is different from a lowinccome product and I did want to make that distinction. >> Okay thank you um mayor prom. All right, thanks. I'll I'll >> check my own box here. Um, >> so yeah, I'm track people. >> Um, so I want to thank all of you. I think this is uh the sort of thing that we need to do instead of fe and and even if it means that we have 22 uh different uh okay >> uh transitions here uh from one one location to another sometimes you've got to you got to take it when the iron's hot and I think in this case here uh the iron's hot I think it's a great location and I think uh with having the schools right there you you've really hit it on the head so thanks for your Okay. Uh, thank you, Council Member Christ. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move resolution 2026-35. >> Second. >> Okay. Oh, many seconds. Um, so >> who won? [laughter] >> Uh, Council Member Christ uh made the motion to approve uh 2026-35 seconded by Council Member Marcen. Yeah. Let's go ahead and vote. >> Okay. >> Okay. Oh, >> okay. And then council member Chris, we're waiting on you. Oh, no worries. Like focus, focus. Thank you. >> That carries unanimously. We are now on to item E, resolution 2026- um 39 and that was item was pulled by uh Mayor Prom. >> Well, >> go ahead. >> Thank you, mayor. I I really am concerned about some things uh in regards to this. I'm I'm concerned about the FAA grant assurances. Uh you know, I I'm concerned that uh uh we are Let me get this closer. >> Um we are Let me get my timer started. We're getting too many things moving at once here. um that uh we have asurances that uh are likely to go on uh for 20 years at least and in uh perpetuity uh possibly. I think uh I'm concerned about the environmental impacts. I'm concerned about uh the uh uh things written in there for uh diversity, equity, and inclusion that would would be taken out by the Trump administration that uh are being added to grant assurances. And I'm concerned about how we treat uh immigrants and minorities in our community and how ICE gets involved with that. I think that's uh uh one of the things that I'm not willing to uh bend on. And uh you know I I think that in this case here uh we have not heard uh where we're at with the uh um pending uh rates and charges uh conversation. So I would like to move to table this item pending completion of the rates and charges review and clarity regarding the city's uh obligations under the FAA grant assurances. >> Second. >> Okay. So that motion has been made to to table and it has been seconded by um council member Marcine. I do want to um point out so there's a couple of questions I have and I'm going to before I start calling other people um if we table till after the rates and studies charges what the deadline that I read on on the packet is we need to have it signed by July 24th. So go ahead. [laughter] >> Correct. >> Okay. And so then you know looking at at that timeline it's not really meshing well. Um the other the other piece is my understand if I recall correctly this was one of two parts. Yeah I think >> one of two two part two of two um of another grant for the taxi for the taxi line that we taxi lane that we have already or the other council had already approved. So could you speak to a little bit about why it was separated out into two seps or in the along the timeline? And I don't care either either one of you. >> I'm going to I'm going to get started and then bring in Levi when I'm over my head. So >> uh so for [laughter] historical context. >> Yes. >> And I'm going to I'm happy to try to answer as many of um Mayor Prom McCoyy's questions as well. So the way that the FAA works with a good chunk of their grants is that they take a look at what is the capital needs of the airport and they make a plan similar to the way that the city makes a capital plan where they plan to fund different aspects of airport infrastructure at different periods of time. We're required to have a 5% match at that time for those different grants. But it's it's not like we apply for a a $2 million grant and get it. It's part of a collaborative process between the FAA and the city where we are taking a look at what are the needs of the airport in order to ensure its safety and safe operations. So last year's CIP funded the planning and design for the taxi way similar to the way that you see it in our CIP programs and then this year is the construction. So by delaying it past the rates and charges conversation um you you miss the grant deadline um for that. I will say that all federal grants and this is coming from my experience with the FEMA grants. I was gonna get into that. >> Yeah. All federal grants do have grant asurances that are very similar. Um in fact when you think about the FEMA grants, all of the work that we did in the river, we are required to maintain it in perpetuity because they gave us the money to build it. We must maintain it. And so and and perpetuity is kind of tough when you talk about a river. Taxi way is a little easier because there is an end of useful life of the taxi way. So the federal grants for everything I mean all the things that we do in transportation and other areas require that infrastructure be maintained until the end of its useful life generally around 20 years and that's where you get that kind of 20-year grant assurance. Um it's been interesting to watch what's happened in other airports around you know the if if they don't maintain it or if they don't take grant assurance you know if they don't take grants moving forward um the FAA has in many cases said or at least in one very notable case [laughter] has said well that's that still needs to be maintained that's infrastructure that the federal government paid for but I don't want you to think that it's something that's unique to the FAA it's also part of what happens with DOT it is part of FEMA >> it is most federal grants >> so I mean, we are applying for several federal grants in different departments and they all have the same language in regard to the discrimination, the DEI, you know, and and we have been very cognizant and I've seen the inner workings is selecting grants that don't put us and our residents too much in risk in risk. So, it's looking at the language that is very general or um and only going for the ones that are going to give us more bang for our buck. And mayor, I think just to be clear on where the federal government is right at this second, of course, these things are changing all the time. >> All the time. >> Um and and you know, >> I do think that the federal government can change their rules and regulations as they go at any time. >> However, it does it it's a contract that we sign. It's a government agreement. So once one is signed, it's very tough for them to go back and say, "Okay, now we need to change what's already existing." But they can and will and should and do change things moving forward. The the DEI things that you have been hearing around is certainly something that we have raised as a concern. When you look at the language, they talk about not violating anti-discriminatory act, which we are not doing. And so therefore we have continued to apply for federal grants based on the the wording that is the current requirement. If that changes we will assess it at that time. >> And then that was and that was the direction from the previous council was that if language does change becomes more egregious that it will come back to us for discussion. >> Yes. I'm not sure if I caught the all the questions but I'm happy to keep going if you like. So I think you did so understanding the historical component of it but also what what would happen if this if this does not pass tonight what what happens >> if if this weren't to pass tonight and also not to pass on the 14 if it just doesn't pass. >> Yeah. >> Um you know then we would not accept the federal grant and we would have to we still have to maintain the taxi way. The FAA uh gave us funds to create the taxi way in the first place. We must maintain it. these are the grant funds to do so. If we don't do it, then we have to fund that out of the general fund or find a different funding source to be able to do it. >> Okay? So, you know, as we look at a very tight budget, you know, I I'm weighing all these all these considerations. So, it's not just, you know, and I I often hear from people, why did you do it this way? Why did you do? Because I'm also having to look at the whole system and how one decision impacts a myriad of other departments and things outside of the airport and then in turn actually impact community. And so I'm you know it does force us to make some very difficult decisions. Um I I do support the idea of tableabling it but I would recommend that we at least have our conversation on our vision. So as we are looking and I have added it to a presession on July 14th where or that's our only topic of discussion is to discuss our vision for the airport. So we can really have a grounding. And so when we are looking at these grants or anything that pops up in RA um our rates and char um rates and charges study looking at all of that that we have a grounding and a direction that we have all agreed upon moving forward. So um I I am okay if you are willing to wait to have it on the 14th. So, in the event that it does pass, we make we hit we hit the deadline. >> So, you're saying >> so rather than waiting until after the 28th um when we hear the rates and and charges study that we would actually do it the meeting after our preession on our airport vision. >> I'm willing to consider that. Okay. Second is >> Okay. And then whoever seconded, are you will Okay. So, um, Council Member Marcen. Oh, did I not? No. Yeah. Oh, that's weird. I put you on. [laughter] >> No. >> Yeah. See, it's fat fingers, man. I'm like, >> thank you, mayor. Um my my question is why can't we move like if is there is like is the is the rates and charges study going to be finished on the 27th and or the like is there a reason we can't move up rates and charges in order to be able to catch this deadline? >> Uh council member Marcy I think we are reliant on the consultants to come and be able to present to you. We could certainly ask if they could move it up. The 14th is a pretty busy agenda as well. >> There's a lot going on. Um, is there 20? Do we meet the 21st? >> No. >> No. Okay. >> Okay. >> No, your next your next meeting is the 14th. That's your next meeting. Oh, that's right. >> Because the 30th you're we've switched the two meetings and the 7th is the open forum with several of you. >> Um, >> I that's tough. I I I'm you know, I haven't I don't obviously don't The mayor's familiar with what's coming more than I am. Um, I I'm not I I would like I I understand that the tension here. Um, I think I would like to see this on the 14th. I think I would like to see it associated with rates and charges and be able to have that data um before so I can make an informed decision as well about whether or not as we heard from the public some of the things that that is out there about how we support our airport, how we finance our airport, what our options really are here. Um I think that allows me to have a better picture individually. Um so I'm I'm I'm not comfortable um with with >> So then do you withdraw your second? Are you are you holding the motion? >> No, I'm just trying to see where you were at. >> Yeah, I'm I'm not comfortable moving it. Um Okay. Because I I would I would like to see this come on the on the 14th. And >> wait, this would come back on the 14th. The rates and charges study is going to be on the 28th. Are you We're talking about this. >> I understand that. I'd like to see that. I'd like to see rates and charges come back on the for I I'd like to see rates and charges. >> That's not what we're voting on right now. So it is >> we would only support this if rates and char and charges came back on the 14th. >> I would like to have that. >> We're not it's out of order to give direction on that item at this time because we have an open motion. >> I understand. I what I'm saying is my preference would be to have that rates and charges data in order to support this. So I'm not comfortable removing my my second. >> Okay. >> That's what I'm saying. >> So you're not comfortable keeping your second >> if he changes the motion? if he changes the motion. Okay. So, um, Council Member Brito, >> I um actually pulled this to vote no on it. >> Okay. Um, and and it's not that I don't love grants because I come from the nonprofit world and I love grants, [laughter] but other types of grants are not like the FAA grants with so many strings attached. Um, and I do have a vision and foresee us having an airport that is self sustainable. Um, you know, not to say that we're not going to utilize grants, but us as a council coming together and making sure that we're in agreement on what grants we want to utilize for what and what strings are attached to those grants. Cuz if I'm understanding correctly, and we still have to do a lot of research and talk to staff and have discussions because none of that has really started. And last time I checked, we don't have an airport board. So, um, a lot of the grants that we take do impact certain decisions that the city can make in certain areas, whether it's development or other things, right? And I think those conversations are important to have. Um, I don't foresee us having the rates in study or the rates and charges study or myself, I can speak for myself. I don't see us having that conversation and then being like, "Yeah, I'm all in." Like, I know everything. I'm confident. I have a good vision. I just heard from you that we are going to have that conversation. So that is also reassuring cuz I'm like why are we making decisions on anything regarding the airport when we haven't even sat down as a council and and other than our retreat which was jam-packed with a bunch of other things. >> Why are we making financial decisions when we don't even know what's happening, >> what finances are coming in, what the future picture looks like. Um and and and and I and I'm not voting no cuz I don't think we should take it. >> I don't feel like I'm in a position to make that decision because we haven't had those conversations. And if there's a deadline, I'm sympathetic to that deadline. >> I really am. But also, if if we got rid of our airport board, >> it's because now we're taking on that responsibility to start thinking through these things and making these decisions and not just going mambby pami with whatever is coming up and approving it just to approve it. >> And so, and I'm like got the whole head bobbing over here. >> Sorry. [laughter] Um, and I just want to say, you know, I I feel like I would encourage my council, my fellow council members, yes. Is it a lot of money? Of course. Can we use it? Yeah. But have we had the discussions that we need to? Do we have a clear vision of where we're going? Do we understand what the needs of the airport are? Do we understand what the rates and um charges study, what kind of financials those are going to bring in and and what things we can use those finances on because the FAA also dictates what though that the like if we do implement landing fees, right? They do dictate what we can spend that money on. So, I think we really just need to have a clear picture before we make any decisions regarding their airport. So, I'm a no on this. I don't foresee us by July 14th, 28th, whatever dates you said, >> us having like a come to Jesus moment and being like, "Yeah, we know it all. We have a full plan. We understand what we're doing. This is what we're where we're going." I don't see that happening. And that's my opinion. >> Okay. Um could I could I make a suggestion? So, >> um this is an interesting loop. So, the city took FAA grants. >> Yes. And please listen to this because there's details >> as taken FAA grants for pretty much the entire existence of the airport. >> As part of that, they built we built a taxiway which now we need to maintain because of the grant asurances from decades ago. >> This is funding to maintain that grant assurance and therefore creates a new grant assurance, right, for the end of the runway again for another 20 years. Um, and so if you don't pass the grant and you don't fund the taxi way, you have to find this amount of money somewhere else this year. And so what I would suggest just just as tossing it out as a suggestion, this is a decades problem. >> So my suggestion would be >> this is not this isn't just started tonight. It's >> not today. >> This has been ongoing for decades. >> Yes. And I do think that part of the financial stability of every airport does include FAA grants as part of that. >> I would say and my suggestion would be that if you were to decide to pass this tonight and then let's have all of these conversations about what you want to do next, you're you're required to maintain this taxiway. These are the funds to be able to do it. And you're right, it creates another grant assurance. Um, but it's no different than the one that that you did last year to also maintain the same taxi way. Yeah. So, I would say that even though I recognize it sounds very daunting, it's it's a loop. It's a cycle that in my mind we need to have the full conversation starting on the 14th, continuing on the 28th, um, and continuing from there. Because if you are making the decision to end grant assurances for the from the FAA and and you're you're deciding not to take these grants as a council, that will require a whole lot more financial feedback, information. Um, you know, I I would suggest not to make that that kind of decision tonight. And I'm not saying that you should necessarily pass it or not pass it. I'm just saying that >> if you decide not to pass it, we're going to need to um scramble to figure out what the next funding mechanism looks like. Whereas, if you wait till you have your vision on the 14th, then you have all the information on the 28th, you go ahead and and pass this grant, for example, you can make decisions at that point that can then change the trajectory for the next decades. Yes. From that point forward. >> Yeah. >> Just just as a suggestion. >> Yeah. And I, you know, I do want to remind council and this is hard because I've done this too and I've stepped in it and I've had to come back and who my bad u acting on emotion and when things get heated and you know or or it's it's so overwhelming the process but we have to understand that there were so many things that happened that brought us to this point in this moment today and and you So, if we don't fund this this particular taxi taxi lane, then are we pulling from general fund dollars where we're just hearing and we're going to hear later tonight the lack of funds available for public safety? And then so whose job are we going to cut? What program are we going to cut? So, I mean, this money just isn't coming out of thin air. So, we have to be very strategic. We have to be fiscally responsible and un look at the the scope as a whole. rather than just acting on emotion or getting heated up. And so, you know, and I understand that because I've been part of this conversation for years and as you and I do want to come to solutions, but is this going to be the thing that's going to get us to the solution that we are needing? I say no. So, that's that's my council member Koffer. >> Thank you, mayor. Yeah, this is heated. And just for just for everybody's knowledge, >> uh we we get information on on Thursdays for Tuesdays. >> Um our council packet, as council member Popkins said, was 1,26086. >> And that hasn't been the worst I've seen. >> No, no, no. And and has it hasn't been the worst. Um but we also had um the advisory board interviews and their packets to review. So there there was a lot of information and looking at some of these terms and conditions of these FAA grant assurances. Um one of them you know 34 and 35 is pavement um maintenance management program which binds us to making sure that we have a safe taxi way. >> I'm I'm I'm okay with giving us some more time on the 14th. I am nervous um that if we don't do our due diligence that we will put our our residents on the hook for this money that we will then have to take away from somewhere else. So I I I am okay with taking some additional time because we did have a lot of material to review. But I'm nervous. There is a lot of terms and conditions in here that I'm not comfortable with either. But 34 and 35 are the ones that make me the most uncomfortable. When was the last time we took an FAA grant? So when >> how last year? >> Last year. >> So we're about 19 years. >> I I believe we take them pretty much every year. Yeah. >> Yeah. And by by stopping taking FAA grants, you know, let's say we run the clock out, you know, the 19 years, can we operate our airport on our own without having any FAA oversight? >> No. the FAA would still have oversight over the airspace regardless of, you know, kind of >> what the ownership of the property is. They have more oversight obviously because of the grant asurances that the city has taken for years. Um, and it's unclear. This is a great question. I think we're going to bring back some more information about airport governance. um actually just before the July 28th meeting I believe this would be a great question to ask them [laughter] because the the current court cases as I understand it is that even cities who have not taken grant assurances for 20 years and decided they wanted to do something different with their airport have not been able to because it's still under the FAA's oversight and they've not taken the grants then all that period of time and so that's that's my read of it I'm not an attorney but Um, and >> yeah, I think it's it's way it's just it's much more complicated. >> Have we done an assessment of our I'm not a pilot. I'm not an aviator. Um, have we taken an assessment of our taxi way? What what is the condition of this asset? >> Yeah, I think that's a Levi question. >> Yeah, that's a Levi question. [laughter] Um, so this particular piece of taxi lane is at its end of useful life. So it rates essentially a zero on the scale of the pavement index when it was rated. So, it has been determined that it just can't be an overlay. It has to be dug up and replaced. So, hence the nature of the why it's a $ 1.5 million total project because it's it's a larger project. >> So, we can't resurface it. We can't ship seal. It has to be redone. >> And that was something that was determined by the FAA in our uh ACIP, our airport CIP meetings last year. They said, "This is the next thing on your report that needs to be taken care of." >> Got it. And if we don't hit this deadline, there's not another opportunity to have a another application for a grant >> next year. >> Next year. So we >> and there may be there may be other grants in between um >> for taxiways. >> Well, this is like I said, it's part of a CIP process. And so last year they funded the design. This year they're funding the construction. They're the ones telling us that we need to do it and they're giving the funding for it with a 5% match from the city. Mayor, I I'm okay with us taking a little bit more time to review this, but I am nervous that we're we're footing the bill and putting it toward reser concerned about that. So, yes. >> Um Okay. Um Council Member Christ, >> thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Levi, and um Assistant City Manager Sidi or Cedar. Um I'm concerned that the um motion has changed that we will wait until after the rates and charges study. We can't wait that long. >> Original. Yes. >> Um because we need to make this decision before the deadline, which is July 24th. And so >> on the 14th is our next time to talk about this. I [snorts] I want to um I want to point out just a couple of things to the people that spoke here to today. Um if we took a a grant in 2025 that will be 20 years will be 2045. If we take the grant this year that only pushes us to 2046 not an you know it's another 20 years but it's really just another year another additional year on what we already have in terms of grant assurances. Another way to look at this also is there's there's maintenance work that you have to do and maintenance income that matches that work capital improvement projects. And then when we're talking about rights and charges, what we're really talking about is operational income. So that's not really going to affect this taxi lane at all. It's going to be about how we operate the the airport. So those two items are not really connected. um they might be in our grand vision but not in a financial decision making. So I am in favor of passing this tonight and and just getting you know clear the pallet and go back to what is our vision >> when we get to it on the 14th. >> Okay. Um Council Member Marcy. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I I want to clarify a little bit from what I'm hearing from Council Member Chris. My reading and this is I think a Levi question. My reading on this specific grant term is this is not a flat 20-year grant. this is for the life the useful life of this of of of this taxi way. Is that correct? >> Um it's that's often it's kind of the way as Sandy previously pointed out it's kind of often the idea of why they're 20 years but effectively it is 20 years. So let's say the useful >> because that's the useful life of a taxi way. >> Let's say the actual useful life of that taxiway only turns out to be 5 years. Well those grand are still good for 20 years. So they'll still hold us to the standard. So if something happens and the and the tax away melts down in 5 years, they'll come back and say, "You got to rebuild it, you know, until the end of this 20 years." They won't just magically say, "Okay, your grand assurances are gone at that point." >> So here's where I'm concerned. I I I I completely understand the practical implications here, and I see very nervous faces and a very and I see I see all of it, right? >> Angry eyes. >> I see angry I feel them. Um I really do. I I think for me and and there's a reason for this and I'll get to it in a second. I need some clarification I think from staff here. For me, I went back and looked at at what just a quick search through the agenda management portal, which by the way is amazing at what federal grants I've seen since I've been on council and the only one I could really find was the allroads grant that we looked at. There is no language there related to diversity, equity, or inclusion. I I I I searched it. That that is not in that in that grant. I am deeply concerned. So the the the saying this is in this is boilerplate language from the Trump administration. I I'm I'm not there. Um I am concerned specifically about about 29B in in the grant assurances which is just um the sponsor agrees to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting diversity, equity or inclusion that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws. And I understand there's the federal discrimination that yes, my concern there is how the administration would choose and how the FAA would choose to interpret that. So I guess it's a question for city attorney potentially on how broad a scope we're looking at here and what that actually ties us into in terms of the work we do on equity, which I know the mayor cares deeply about, the work that we do as a city in this space. I'm deeply concerned about accepting for what I believe would be the first grant that has that kind of language in it for me. Mayor and Council Eugene May. >> Uh so with this type of language, I believe uh the interpretation of laws is a job for the judicial branch. And so the administration can say its position on these laws, but judges determine what the laws say. So we'll figure it out in court. Is your answer is is that like if we were to if if if the administration were to come after us and say that the equity work the city's doing is in viol is a very hypothetical thing, right? That is it violation of the equity work that the city's doing. I mean I I don't I'm I'm trying to square circle here. >> Yeah. U you know we certify we don't violate any federal anti-discrimination laws. I believe that's a true statement >> as determined by precedent and court opinions. >> Okay. Um to certify that it does not operate any programs proning diversity, equity, inclusion. I I >> that sure that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws. I I am if we determine that there are other ways to support the airport financially as part of rates and charges whatever that may be and those are operational expenses right to council member Chris's point that for me is a really reliable data point into the broader conversation that we will have about the airport. I am concerned because this it's a resolution so I didn't think this comes back to us. Yeah. So, I'm concerned about giving the green light on something with these kind of grant terms that I I understand council has seen before. I don't know that I've seen them before where I can confidently say that that that's the best choice for our community considering an administration that operates in the way that it does. And I I don't need to say more there. Um I I'm curious to hear other mics, but I am I'm deeply concerned about accepting these dollars. >> Okay. Um yes, go ahead, Eugene. And one other comment, uh, last summer I think the administration was really ramping up its new terms in federal contracting and this language on a scale from 1 to 10 compared to what the trajectory looked like >> is like a three. >> Yeah. A lot. >> And fortunately, that trajectory did not continue. I think they lost some uh >> uh court cases including the state of Colorado. Uh, and so I think this is where they've settled. I think the language that um references violating applicable federal anti-discrimination laws is a reasonable compromise in their grant conditions and much better than what we feared. >> Let me add one other piece to just >> also mayor just for clarification. I think council member Chris said that the operations is different from the capital. It is and it isn't. I mean, a self- sustaining airport needs to have enough rates and charges to not only operate, but also to have that 5% match back to the FAA. So, it's a little capital. It's a lot of maintenance. It's a lot of operation. It's a little bit of both. So, I think you'll hear some of that in the rates and charges study. I don't think there is a consultant out there that would tell you that the FAA grants are not part of that mix, that financial mix. Um, and I also think we have at least one other grant that also went through that had this language. >> Gosh, I feel like Mayish. >> Yeah. >> Um, one of the transportation ones. So, >> yes. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, council or I'm sorry, Mayor Prom. >> All right. So, um I'm I'm uh concerned about taking away our home rule rights and signing them away. Uh that that that's a concern of mine. Uh you know, we talk about decades and over the decades we've had opportunities to have the airport self- sustaining. Uh and then the airport pilots advocacy organizations and the pilots uh should have maybe supported their self-sustaining opportunities. decades ago. Maybe the pilot should be part of Yeah. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> part part of uh advocating uh to this current administration to stop loading these grants with these unnecessary specific rules. You know, I think these are things that that uh shouldn't happen. And I I know we could wait for the lawsuits to uh to get through the courts. Uh that has been the uh way Roy Conn and Trump have always conducted business and uh I'm not willing to play that game anymore. I think it's really serious that we try to figure out some way of funding this and and I and I do think that sometimes there's a point where we absolutely have to maybe look at our our um agenda for a certain week and uh certain things need to be potentially pushed off. So, I mean, that's something to consider. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Council Member Prietto, >> it's my second time mayor. >> Uhhuh. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> And just a quick comment. Um, like I don't want to spook everybody and be like, "Oh man, she's going to like stop taking all the grants." >> Um, but I just I just want to clarify like my position is I feel like we as a council need to come together and figure out what kind of feathers we have and what direction we want to go. Uh, because I feel like we're all kind of in a different space. And so it's not that I'm against taking these grants. It's not that I'm not concerned like I'm the first one to advocate like don't be pulling out the general fund because I'm deeply concerned about community needs >> and needs much greater than pavement at the airport in my opinion. Right. And so I I my position today is just solely we need to come together and figure out if we're an airport that's going to continue to take federal grants or are we going to be an airport that wants to move in another direction. And then after we come together and decide as a whole what direction we might want to move forward, then we can move confidently together in that direction and not be kind of pulling from all these different angles. And so I just wanted to clarify that for the public. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Popkin. You've already spoken twice. >> Thank you, mayor. This is my first time commenting on this because >> No, I'm sorry. We're fine. I'm >> in our rules of our council procedure. >> Two times per topic. That's it. >> It was in response to a question raised to me from Mayor Pro. That's in regards to the motion. Um, >> it's a quick question. >> Okay. We need to put a bow on this now. So, go ahead. >> Thank you, [snorts] mayor. Um, this is my first time speaking on this because I wanted to hear >> your first time. >> I wanted to hear what my fellow council members thoughts on this were. >> Um, couple questions for staff and then I have a couple points I want to make >> because I think we're getting off base here with this conversation. >> Um, Eugene, a question for you first. Um, >> we are. >> Do we have an obligation to complete this taxi lane? >> I believe we do. We need to maintain what the prior federal grants FA grants built. >> Thank you. Um am I reading the So looking at the end of uh this is section 40 clause 40 40 access to leaded aviation gasoline. There's a public comment raised about this and I just want to make sure I'm understanding our our commitment or or lack or or what what we are committing to with with an assurance like this 40 section B. That's the last page of that. Uh it says the requirement remains uh to provide access to leted aviation gasoline until the earlier of December 31st, 2030 or the date on which the airport or any retail fuel seller at the airport makes available an unleted aviation gasoline that has been authorized for use by the FAA as a replacement. That's not a 20-year commitment, right? This is at latest December 31st, 2030 when we are no longer obligated to provide access to leted aviation fuel. Correct. >> True. And that's and that's consistent with the FA's policy or position to shift towards unled fuel. Correct. >> And it's also consistent with our unled fuel transition plan. >> Thank you. Um while you can keep your mic on Levi Levi, uh maybe a question for you and Sandy here. Um on July 28th for the rates and charges presentation that many of my council members have like tried to anchor to here, that wouldn't be a decision on our rate structure, right? This is the first time that the information is being brought back to us. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. I mean, I think the idea is to give you the information and give you some options for us to pursue and then create the correct ordinances. There there's a process once the rates and charges have been determined by the city council >> um to actually take it to the airport advisory board, have it posted. I believe most of that language has now been removed. >> Correct. But we still have an obligation to to public participation, public hearings, all of that. That would so there would be no decision made on July 28th anyway. Right. >> So, I want to just make sure my fellow council members understand that even if we waited until the rates and charges study was introduced, that is performative at best in terms of the amount of detail we'd be digesting, the analysis that we wouldn't have done, and the commitments we may not have been making. So, I I understand the the conceptual logic of wanting to try to think about the entire future of the airport at the same time. I'll get to my position on this in a moment, but I do want to make it clear like that's not a oneanddone conversation, >> Sandy or Levi. When's the last time we got over uh anything or let's When's the last time we got $1.5 million from the FAA? >> That's a Levi question. >> That's And I kind of wish I'd printed out our cheat sheet that we had for all the grants. Um I guess I have it. >> Oh, he's got it. Look at that. >> So, you could certain you can see line by line. We have every year we have um essentially given money to us that we we can acrue. We put together. That's particularly why this one grant was split up because we had some grants. >> Do do you recall any time we've gotten above a million dollars from the FAA in the last 20 years? >> So not personally in my tenure here. >> I feel like it was the last taxi way. [laughter] >> It was likely taxiway Bravo. >> Taxiway Bravo. That would have been before 2000. That would have been >> not seeing it in the sheet here. >> Again, I wish I had my sheet in front of me. Um, for the for the record, I'm referring to an April 22nd email from Sandy to all of council that we have on the taxi way. Maybe that was 2015. Uh, what was that? It doesn't say which Bravo or Alpha there. Um, here's my point on this. I like in fact the last time I think we got anything over $700,000 was not from the FAA was not anytime in the last 25 years. And and so we are, you know, I'm actually to to build on council member uh Prito's point before, I'm actually really glad we don't have an airport board right now because we should be wrestling with this. We need to understand this and figure this out and make responsible decisions for our community in a lot of different ways. And that's and we haven't for years if not decades. So to be clear, I am supportive of this amendment to to wait and make a decision on this until after July 14 uh July 14th. I I think it would be irresponsible to put it later. And and I'll tell you why here. The This is a one-time capital investment of 1.6 million, 1.5, 1.6 million. It's one year off from last year. The obligation extends one more year beyond our current obligation. And so my question to everyone here is thinking about it. Are we really about to jump off the high dive for the most amount of money we've gotten for the FAA in 26 years for one more year? because I want you to think about that and the financial responsibility and obligation that commits us to to Council Member Pto's point pulling money from somewhere else because we're not going to solve all of the rates and charges financial sustainability in this like next couple months as we work on next year's budget right now. So, I want us to really think long and hard over the next couple weeks, presuming this goes forward to give us a chance to think about this over the next three weeks, what we're actually committing ourselves or not committing ourselves to. At best, from my perspective, this feels like an unnecessary side quest right now when we're trying to solve a lot of bigger things with the airport. I get that this is in response to frustration that we've heard from many folks in the community. This is probably not the the thing to take it out on. And I think it it >> I call the question >> after he's done wrap it up. >> This is my first time speaking, Council Member Chris, and I listen to everyone comment on this >> and the last thing. >> Yes. So the last thing I will say is there is a major difference between financial sustainability and financial independence. If we truly want financial independence that is a very different financial calculus and if we want both fine we have to aim for both then but that is a materially significant difference between financial sustainability of how do we maintain what we have with whatever rates charges and fees we want to set versus the independence of our airport financially from from the main source of funding we have had over the last 26 if not 80 years. So, I want us to think long and hard about this, presuming this passes to get us to the next to July 14th. Um, >> because that's what we should be focusing on for this decision and then we should focus on the long-term financial sustainability at at minimum for the airport for the rates and charges discussion, but [clears throat] that is a vastly different conversation. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we do have a mo um a call the question. Um, it sounds like we're wrapping up a conversation. Um, do you want to vote on the call the question or do you want to hear? >> If you give me the opportunity, I think you like what I what I have. >> Okay. Do you resend? >> Okay. >> Okay. She rescends. >> So, I think the broader concern that I have and the reason I didn't want to pull it back initially is because of the broader question of airport vision and I think rates and charges is the data point for me that I've been looking to for the last year year almost um in this conversation. I am willing to wait for us to have that conversation on the 14th and to say what is our vision around FAA funding as part of that conversation. >> Um and does that allow us to meet this deadline? >> Yes. >> So can would Mayor Prom would you be comfortable moving after the rates and charges study until the basically the 14th as opposed to on the timeline? >> Well, you know what a reasonable guy >> Oh, hold on. Yeah, but you're okay. >> Well, you know what a reasonable guy I am, so absolutely yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I Yeah, I think that's the right approach here. And I'll I'll I'll having heard the conversation, I'll do that. >> Thank you. >> Um so the language will now read until um so tableabling this until the 14th after our presession on the vision. And that is what we're voting on right now. >> Can't you tell we love each other? >> I'll get over it. >> [laughter] >> I always do. >> Um, okay. Um, C, Council Member Coloffer, and this is your second time? >> Yes. >> Until after. Uh, I thought it was just until >> Well, after the July 14th presession. So, then we can at 7 o'clock when we have our regular session. That is technically after the presession. 14th. >> Perfect. I'm okay with that. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. Let's vote. I'm ready to rip a head off. [laughter] >> Yeah, I know. Okay, so that carries unanimously. Lord have mercy. Okay. Um, we do have one more item on consent, but let's go ahead and take a five minute break or 10 minute break. Yeah. >> [music] [music] >> Hey, hold down. Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Mhm. [music] >> [music] >> Hey, Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Happy birthday. >> [music] >> I would like to call council back up front and we're going to move on to item G. Um, pulled from the consent agenda, the town of Superior's request for Longmont's amicus brief participation in the town of Superior versus Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County appeal to the sup um Colorado Supreme Court in regard to the airport and um airport no noise. And on your council comm um there is a statement that um I have added in there uh in the executive summary. And so the and the statement is what you have four options. option by motion to the presented statement and response or you could choose to adopt and amend the statement and response [laughter] or the uh motion to move forward with an amicus participation or for take no action. So um for public I um concern um I will go ahead and read it. Uh so the um city received a request from the town of Superior to file an amicus brief in support of their appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court related to their ongoing lawsuit against Jefferson County and Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport. The city held an executive session on June 16th, 2026 to receive legal advice regarding Superior's request. This agenda item presents uh for con council consideration the following statement and response to superior's request. So the actual statement that we would be submitting if approved is the city received a request from the town of Superior to file an amicus brief in support of their appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court related to their ongoing lawsuit against Jefferson County and Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport RMMA. Superior is appealing the court of appeals decision that held federal law preempts a court from ordering RMAa to red uh restrict aircraft noise. In other words, the town of Superior is asking the courts themselves to require RMMA to restrict aircraft operations due to noise that residents have experienced. Courts have consistently held that regulation of air traffic is ex is the exclusive role of the Federal Aviation Administration FAA and the town of Superior is appealing this decision. They have asked Longmont City Council to support their appeal. The city uh the Longmont City Council has also heard many complaints from residents about airplane noise in the community. the city takes community concerns over noise seriously, you know, and we've all council I've seen that we are very serious about um how we can address that and come up with solutions. So, I did derail from the statement, but um we also recognize the city's authority over its airport operations um and is subject to various federal laws and regulations. As a result, the city is working to address these concerns where possible, including improving its voluntary noise abatement procedures, adopting a voluntary saturated pattern policy, which limits the number of planes in a pattern. Staff is also working with airport pilots to help understand help them understand and comply with these voluntary procedures. As the owner and operator of Vance Brand Airport, the city's position is different than the other local governments um in the area that are participating in the Supreme Colorado Supreme Court proceedings. Um and they do not own an airport. Uh the city believes that taking that local control over airport operations is important and these rights should not be taken by the courts. The city is committed to continue exploration of ways to collaborate with its regional partners to address community concerns as well as work with FAA directly in these efforts. However, the city will not be filing an amicus brief with the Colorado Supreme Court at this time. Um, and the reason why in in conversations that I felt this is the direction we should go is going back to our vision. We have not had that conversation on vision. We have not had conversation on how we want governance and advisory board to look like and so there's and looking at the rates and charges. So there are several pieces that we have not addressed yet. So the timing of this and you know the fact that we own our own airport it's we're in a different situation. Um council member Marcine. >> Thank you mayor. I I don't see any other lights on so I will go ahead and make a motion and move option one adopt by motion the presented statement and response. Seconded. >> Okay. So, the motion has been made by council member Marcen to adopt option one and it has been seconded by Mayor Prom. Okay. Um, Council Member Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. I just had a clarifying question for uh legal here. Um, Eugene, there there have been some questions from the public about who we've been receiving legal advice from on this matter, and I wanted to ask who did we did, I mean, I'll just put it bluntly. Did we receive to the best of your knowledge any legal advice from Kaplan and Kersh, our special, our aviation special counsel on this particular matter? >> Mayor and council, Eugene May, no, they are conflicted out. they are representing the uh Rocky uh Jefferson County in the appeal and therefore cannot be advising us because they have a conflict. >> Thank you. Who did provide us legal advice on this? >> Me me and [laughter] me and Chris. So in so this was in uh city staff city city legal staff >> city legal staff only. >> Thank you. Okay. >> No further questions. >> Uhhuh. Thank you. And seeing no one else in the queue, let's vote. Okay. And that carries unanimously. We are now on to general business. Um, my gosh, flipping through so many pages here. Um, consideration of recommendations for Longmont's 2026 affordable housing fund and attainable housing fund allocations. Um, Molly O'Donnell will be presenting from Housing and Community Investment Division. >> Control L. All right. Um, evening, Mayor and members of council. I'm going to keep this as brief as possible tonight. I hope you would appreciate that. So, I'm going to move with some pace. Um, we opened up our HCI funding cycle. Um, here is information that we share each year about how we get the word out. Um, and then we brought together the applicants and got recommendations from the housing and human services advisory board back in May. Um just a to frame it out, we do have our new area median income limits for 2026. These are out and in effect now. Um this is just to kind of frame the conversation of the areas that we worked within. So, capital A affordable um it generally refers to the areas below 80% AMI but for rental in Longmont um we look at 60% AMI and preferably 50% AMI when it pairs with our inclusionary housing ordinance in that 100% to 120% AMI that's our middle income folks this is what we call attainable housing so these are our targets for those areas for our funding cycle the affordable housing fund is a revolving loan fund and so that is intended to eventually get paid back over time so that it can replenish the fund and put that money out for good use again. Um so generally it offers lowinterest loans for housing development projects. We do um use grants in some limited capacity for some of those either smaller scale projects or public service projects. Um, and then this year, for the first time, we'll be considering the 2027 affordable and attainable housing tax. This is the Boulder County sales tax that first started generating revenues in 2025. This is the first year where the timing has lined out that we can put it out for competitive um application to our community partners. Um the reason we're doing it for 2027 is um Boulder County will want to bring forward recommended projects as part of their budget process later in the year. So we want to make sure we are well ahead of that and getting applications in. But that also means that the exact number is not going to be known towards the end of the year. So right now we're using an estimate and then uh that'll get finalized when it comes through Boulder County. and they offer grants. Specifically, uh the attainable housing fund, this one is still tied up in 2026 to support True North. Um and it will be until approximately 2027 to help fund all four phases of True North. So, we did not put out any competitive awards for that one. Uh for the affordable housing fund budget, here's our total budget for 2026. Um, and this is something that we work with on our city approved budget from 2025, then work in our carry forward amounts and determine how much we can put it out for competitive award. So, this is a look at our general revenue sources and I will say that um the fianl received was 2.9 million and we could not do these these awards out to our community partners without that. So when when housing staff talks about a healthy mix and Lou does end up going back out to support affordable housing and that is one of our key tools. Um this just a summary of some of our non-competitive proposed expenditures. Um and so a couple of the highlights here the big amount 5.3 million that's car contracts from prior years. So those are awards from last year that will get awarded get actually expended this year or in the next year. Um, we have our administration that's always built in to fund the staff that does all this good work to get this out. And then a couple of the big ones, uh, Tetra Tech $200,000 contract for consultant planning. We've talked about that pretty much every time the opportunity has come up because it's so popular and helpful for some of our smaller affordable developers. Um, we do have, FYI, our local match. We have two grants that um, we are working on. One is for the housing needs assessment and one is for looking at our ADU program which will be kicking off in the end of 2026 and into early 2027. That is our um our stock plans, ADU stock plans and then building some incentive program around that. And I can always come back if you have other questions about these. So here's our budgeted funds available for competitive award. we had 2.9 a million available in the affordable housing fund and then that estimate of 2.8 for the what we're calling the AHT that Boulder County money. Um you already and in April you already approved that advance award to support the Atwood Commons project to get going. So that's uh shown here. It's the 742,000. Um, and then we for the first time since I've been in this position have been able to um recommend awards for 100% of the requests. So that is unique this year. Um, a lot of that is because of the 2.8 million. I will say that that is certainly a a new source that is helpful. Um, so I'm going to dig into these projects a little bit. Brickwell Atwood Commons. uh you already know about this project, so I won't dig in on this one, but I do want to highlight the total city cash subsidy to support each unit, and I'm going to do that throughout these projects. Can you so you can see what it takes. This does not include fee wavers or or other development incentives. It's just the the cash incentive needed for gap financing. So, we're at $24,000 per unit for 72 units at Atwood Commons. And again, this is rental at uh third in Atwood. Habitat for the Humanity of St. Brain Valley. The um city has supported this project the last two years before 2026. Um the total funding request tonight is the 2.8 million of the AHT grant. Um, when you bring that together with the prior money that the city has already invested, the cash subsidy right now passing through the city is 4.9 and change, that comes up to $142,000 per unit. So, this is something that I've been um kind of showing you as we go along what it takes to build affordable home ownership and what it takes to build affordable rental. But, this would be 35 forale homes. This is at the Faith Point Church property. Um the reason why this is a great fit for EHT is that um first of all, well many reasons on the policy side for you, but on the implementation side for staff um is that Boulder County AHT program right now, the program guidelines out there have have been a challenge. Um it does not support landmaking for future for building out the pipeline. It has to be spent within approximately two years. There's some some wiggling with that with start of construction versus the funding amount, but or funding timeline, but generally having to spend that all of the money in two years to to show the delivery, which is a very worthy worthy endeavor, but it really puts a challenge on us in terms of what we can actually fund and how fast we have to move to do it. complicated further by the fact that there's no admin allowed under that uh that revenue source and so we do not we cannot hire additional staff per se to help deliver these projects in that tight timeline. So, this is this project is a really good fit for 2027 um to help hit the priority also fit the timelines because we they have been working on this for some time and they're really getting close and they need that amount of subsidy to get the get the get it off the ground. They also have a smaller project, a handful of duplexes on Sunset. Um, and so the total uh request here is $630,000 in affordable housing fund loan. Um, and that uh subsidy per unit is 157,500 needed to get that one done. The in between uh we've heard about this project in the past, but uh the in between is in a really good place with this project in terms of being shovel ready. They were not unfortunately successful at getting a low-income housing tax credit award in the 9% round in February because they really were um wanting this commitment if city council makes it to come with that application. So they are very well positioned for next year and would be able to if they're awarded would be able to break ground next year for sure. But this would be serving very low incomes um with rentals and would also provide office space for the in between >> um which is a need of theirs. So, the recommendation is the full funding of the $1.2 million affordable housing fund lowinterest long-term cash flow loan. Um, and that total subsidy per unit needed to get this project done is $30,000. And then we have our community-based projects. We have hosted the paintathon in 2026 and they would love to work with us again in 27 and 28. So, this would be using 2026 money to just do um an award that spreads out over time. It's not a commitment of future funds, but it was a super successful event. Um, and the goal would be to complete 10 um rehab, well, I should say painting projects and some minor repair projects that come with it for um older adults or disabled homeowners that are income qualified. And so that would be a $50,000 total grant to serve two years. Okay, that hopefully that was fast but not too fast. >> Thank you. Yeah. No, it was it was very good. Um, so do we have any questions? Council member Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, Molly, great work. Um, love love seeing where this is going. Um, I think building on some of my fellow council member comments from earlier when we were looking at uh Mr. Bestl's property and the the voluntary alternative option. Um, I mean, many of these projects are getting towards a more affordable forale homes. >> Mhm. And that's like an endangered species here. We're working to make that take that off the endangered species list. And this is fantastic. Um, and this is one of the ways we get at that. I do want to highlight and remind my fellow council members, we had a discussion with that alternatives analysis before on like the value of the fee and loo versus on-site. This is case in point why the fee and loo is also a valuable option for creative forale housing. So, I think the market signal that we should be trying to send as a council is that we are open to creative ways >> to address that goal of more affordable and attainable forale housing in general. And whether that is that on-site need, a fee and loo or a voluntary option alternative, all of those are valid ways to get at that. And so, I hope that we really take that away from today's conversations um in multiple ways. Um, on that note, Molly, we emailed about this before. Because there are multiple proposals, can you just clarify how many total for sale affordable units are being recommended in this? >> Was it 20 25? >> It's so it is the 35 at Habitat Faith Point plus the four for Sunset Duplex, but So, it's 39. >> It's a 39 total affordable for sale. >> Yes. >> Great. Um, plus the 22 we were looking at earlier, right? >> Correct. >> But that's separate. That's a future future delivery. Great. Um I also see a bunch of duplexes proposed which is great. It's filling more of that missing middle more kind of lower middle um housing options. Does that run into like the same construction defects challenges that we see with some town home projects. >> So it's interesting. I I uh spoke to Dave Emerson of Habitat. He's not here tonight. He's he's at the World Cup matches. So I don't feel bad for him. Um but >> uh so some a couple things go into that. First of all, they have not done a project at the scale of Faith Point yet. And very often what we learned on True North is once you get more than I think that the number was eight duplex or attached product within a development then that's kicking in your insurance requirements. So they haven't done a large scale one yet where it's come through as a requirement. But Habitat is also a very unique financing uh model. They self-fund their mortgages. they have a, you know, a a great larger organization than just St. Vin Habitat that they tap into. They self-und the mortgages and then sell those in bundles after the fact out on the market. So, they pass through that. So, often >> the funders, the lenders are who are requiring the insurance policies for construction defect. So, there could still be a construction defect claim, but the insurance policies that add the front-end cost are not so far a thing for Habitat. And I want Dave to answer that for himself, but that is the analysis that we did together. >> Great. Thank you. Um, I noticed that like this isn't all just pure grant funding. Some of this is gap financing and loans. Are we expecting like a payback from this? Are we expecting like or is this like a forgivable loan in like 10 years? We're like just in case. So, we are we are definitely the most flexible funding option that most of these projects ever get. Um, when it's for sale because they get their return at the point of sale, they do pay back the loans at that time. >> Um, and we want a payback because that's how we help flush the fund to be able to reuse, right, and recycle. On rental side, it's typically a cash flow loan because rentals are not earning that that large chunk right off the bat. So, it's it's like if you have it, if you're making enough money and you have money left over, then pay repay your loan. So, they are repaid out over time. And typically, uh they we often when it's a tax credit project, we often do not get that payback within that 15-year tax credit compliance period. It's just not done by then. And so if they are redd syndicating and re um re-upping the deed restriction essentially then we have been flexible to allow um that loan to just flow over and be essentially recycled back to the next one. So very slow repayment. So it's not officially forgivable. Feels kind of like it as long as they're serving the purpose. >> Sure. Uh that's super helpful. Uh just two last comments here. Um first of all I want I know Mr. Mr. Best is no longer here, but since he's also doing the Atwood Commons, I just want to say like a huge kudos to the Atwoods Commons team, Habitat for Humanity and Dave's team and the in between. Um, not only for these the projects as they are already, but also how they're thinking about the longer term costs and utility costs for the residents. Um, these are going to be all electric uh projects, which means they're not paying a gas bill. Um, we also set the rates for that so there's less volatility and that's all an investment in Longmont's utility system directly. Uh, the Atwood Commons project will have on-site solar as well to also reduce the on-site energy consumption. I think you might be wondering why I mentioned the energy aspects, but affordability comes in multiple forms. It's not just what people pay for rent and mortgage. It's also their ongoing operational costs and utility costs. Um, so I'm really glad to see that and I think that that reflects a lot of the design goals. Um my last question slug suggestion. We get a lot of comments and nudges from our county commissioners uh mayor um and Sandy on like what what is Longmont doing to build more forale affordable housing. We we hear that in a lot of different settings specifically from our county partners and not only like we we hold up true north of like hey we we're doing this but we've just discussed multiple properties tonight where we're doing this and funding this and supporting this. Can mayor, unless you have an objection, I I would love for us to be very intentional about informing our county commissioners, all three of them, that we are doing this these projects, partly using county funds, partly using city funds, partly using market partnerships, and making sure that they understand that while not every project that we do is going to be affordable for sale because it's very difficult, we are trying to pull this off the endangered species list. So I I do want to encourage us to consider that information sharing once assuming that this passes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um did you have anything you wanted to add? >> Okay. So we're good. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Make it official. Mayor Promp. >> Thank you, Mayor. I don't see anybody else in the queue. I Oh, >> well, I do now. I'll >> uh It doesn't matter. >> Okay. >> I was going to move uh uh general business item 12A. uh with uh council option one. >> Second. >> Okay. So, the um motion has been made by Mayor Prom to approve um to approve the funding recommendations and it was seconded by Council Member Marine. And Council Member Marcen, go ahead. >> Just very quickly, Mayor, I I also want to shout out the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board for their work in evaluating, you know, this this side of that that board's structure over the course of the year. I think they were all very excited to be able to to for the first time and that that I think any of them and my time on the board to be able to fully fund affordable housing requests and create 61 for sale units in one council meeting is uh something. So, um that's awesome. So, I'm I'm I'm excited to approve these and move forward. Just wanted to shout out the board. >> Great. Thanks. Um Council Member Koffer. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll be very quick. Um great work. I love all the affordable uh during our conferences today. Um, some of us went to the luncheon with Governor Polus and I I'm very concerned with the erosion of home rule and we are a great [clears throat] example of us pushing affordable and attainable housing. Um, so I I want to broadcast a message to the governor and um our elected state officials that we are we are doing the work and we are doing the work without you forcing our hand and you know we're able to do this because we care about our community. Um, but we don't want those shackles either of home rule erosion. So, yeah, good work to the team. Thank you. >> Well, and that's that that whole discussion and listening to the governor speak at that dis uh yeah, look, I'm not going to go into it more. Um, you know, and this is what this is because we have the autonomy to be able to produce housing that meets the needs of our residents. what it looks like here is going to be totally different in Rocky Flats, in Westminster, Denver, and so to have, you know, the the importance of preserving home rule and, you know, and we see the outcome of it and putting great minds to work. So, thank you very much. Uh, let's go ahead and vote. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Council member Prito, have you voted? Did it show up on there? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. No. Focus. Focus. Okay. [laughter] That carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Molly. Um, now we're on to item B, the um public safety tax options. >> Yes. Okay. And Terresa Malloy, you will be presenting this item. A team. We have Zach Artistis um from public safety as well. Yep. This is a team effort today. >> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Yes, Mayor and Council. Terresa Malloy, chief financial officer. Um, so we are going to tag team this presentation for you this evening and I'll start us off. Um, maybe that one doesn't seem to be working. Thank you. >> All right. What did you do? >> This one's not. >> Okay. >> All right. I think we're ready. Um so uh thank you for having us back to present some options on um the public safety needs and um potential tax increase uh to cover those needs. I think it's important to um kind of start the conversation again with the challenges that we had um over the past couple years in the public safety fund and the actions that we had to take to um overcome those um revenue challenges to balance the fund um in in both 2025 and in uh 26. So these these first two slides you have seen before um but again I wanted to to just touch on them really briefly. In 2025 we had a um def deficit of $1.2 million. Um and that really was over the past two years. It it really was um in inflationary increases both in staffing costs as well as um operating costs outpacing um the generation potential of the of the sales and use tax in that fund. Um, and to overcome uh that deficit in 2025, we did have to take some pretty drastic steps um to to balance that fund. Um, and and that included the elimination of several um vacant positions um as well as moving three police officer positions out of the public safety fund and into the general fund. Is it working now? >> And then in 2026, we had another $1.2 million deficit. Um again, um just expenses outpacing the the revenue generation in that fund. Um and uh again, we had to take some pretty serious steps to overcome that deficit. We had to move some uh police officer positions out of the public safety fund and into the general fund again, but this time that that was not a essentially an FTE move. It was a a flip-flop of higher paid positions for lower paid positions. Um so we have managed to balance this fund um through different actions each year but it it it is a challenge and will continue to be a challenge. We are projecting that it will continue to be a challenge for the next 10 plus years. Um and and I think what we're trying to show in this slide really is um the the pace of the expenses will continue to outpace um the the revenue potential. I think what really is um driving the the revenue the I think the reason it's so ex exasperated in in this fund versus the general fund for instance um is because this fund is solely reliant on s on the sales and use tax. it doesn't have um the number of of revenue sources that the general fund does. Um so um the the sales and use tax in all five sales tax supported funds um has not been keeping pace with with expenses. It's just in this fund um it really is is much more of an issue because this fund is solely reliant on on the sales and use tax. And so by 2036 we we are projecting we will have a a $2 million deficit. expenses we are projecting increasing at at a pretty modest actually 4% and revenues at 3% and that overtime is what produces that $2 million gap by 2036. Um and now I'll turn it over to Zach. Mayor, city council members, assistant city manager Zach Artis, uh Lamont Department of Public Safety. Wanted to just remind council, as you recall, we were back here just talking about the current staffing needs of public safety, uh looking at 2026 into 2036. So, a 10-year plan. Um the numbers that we presented um about a month or so ago and the numbers here tonight, this is the same chart that we presented. This is the number of personnel we should have within public safety as of today. Uh it is not asking for an abundant amount or additional amount beyond uh what we need today. We do recognize that the city is looking at close to slowing down is what we call buildout. We anticipate there may be somewhere between another 10 to 15,000 people uh that may move within into our community. Um but right now we anticipate that we've seen some of the largest growth so far and over the next 10 years that growth will slow down. Um and so these numbers that we presented uh to council about a month ago and what we're presenting again tonight um is moving to 43 police officers, 40 firefighters and 12 other staff position which is typically within our collaborative services. Uh there have been some questions um and I know this chart is a little bit hard and difficult to read. Um but this again is the breakdown uh that we built out to show from year to year uh what we would be adding within uh public safety over the 10 years if council chooses to move forward with some some combination of supporting uh these positions financially. Um this is how it would break down. Um I know that there are three positions highlighted in yellow. Um what I do want to say is we have been both in collective bargaining agreements with both our FOP and our IIAFF. Um during the collective bargaining agreements with IAFF, uh some of the conversations around looking at some overtime and uh not having built in additional folks to come in and cover because they fire has been operating so lean uh has really driven up our overtime costs. Um and so I will have uh Chief Higgins here in a moment come in and talk a little bit about a slide and some things, but Mr. Dominguez um city manager Harold Dominguez made a decision uh within the last week or so that he is going to fund uh nine firefighters um immediately within that position to help with some staffing major staffing issues that we have on the fire side. Certainly happy to talk about that a little bit more. So that's why you see those three that are highlighted. um those are in immediate need and immediately being filled um as we talk. Um and those if I'm not correct, if I'm if I'm not mistaken, are coming out of the general fund. Um so we're using some overtime funds that exist to offset the costs, but uh moving forward uh with with nine of those positions. And I believe uh Chief Higgins informed me the other day that we have five of those nine already filled based on a waiting list that we had. uh it will take us a few months for the next academy class to get ready for the additional amount, but that relief is coming. Um and so we're much appreciative of of that uh and Mr. Dominguez decision. The next slide I just want to talk about there there's a lot of questions about um salary and benefit positions and costs. Uh there is ongoing cost per person and then there is what we would call onetime cost per position. Um this is for a basically a police officer which is currently under our collective bargaining agreement. Um you can see on the left these are just the traditional or these are typical yearly expenses that we see but as we add a new police officer uh there are things that needed to be added um their one-time cost whether it's a uniform body armor laptops their body cameras their vehicles docking stations and you can see that onetime start off cost is about 106,000 what I will share with you because I think it's important to understand um is when we look for example we look at police uh in 2017 to buy a police vehicle in an outfit, it was $40,000. Um, today when we look at buying $40,000 2017, it's the last public safety sales tax increase we had. In 2026 to buy a police car and outfitted is $82,000. When we look at officer salaries, um, the last number I could go back and get was 2018. We paid $60,000 for a base rookie uh police officer coming out of the academy or going into the academy. Today that cost is $87,312. So you can see about 105% increase in in vehicles. And then you can see about a 45% uh just in salary um for uh police officers. The next one we did, we broke down, we just wanted to look at well what is it to take to get a fire position. So those nine positions that are coming along that Mr. Dominguez has approved uh to move forward with uh there is an on a onetime cost and of course ongoing cost for for those positions. Also uh just to give you some context uh a fire truck back in 2018 when we ordered just a pumper not a special truck. So a traditional fire truck that you think would show up uh was just under $600,000. So it's about $591,000 was our last one that we purchased in 2018. In 2026 that number is 1.2 $2 million almost $1.3 million uh increase that we can see. So again for our firefighter salary in 2017 we were hiring for $52,920 and in 2026 those salaries starting for a rookie firefighter $78,753. So again, what you can see is is our inflated cost, and we didn't break it down for each individual item here, but what these costs were in 2017 for a flashlight, bunker, gear, SCBA, has drastically increased um to what it is today. So again, 119% increase in firet trucks and about 48% increase in salary for um for the firefighter salary. One of the other things that we included and again I want to put it we should have put an asterric by this. So one of the things that that we have been looking at is how do we do some uh improvements in certain facilities that we have across whether it's at our fire stations or whether it's at our training center. And so these have been typically CIP projects. Uh they're typically not funded due because there's limited dollars for those CIP projects. Um and because of the way that the public safety sales tax could potentially be structured, we listed um items that we would like to try to get done because as you know, we won't be able to hire 95 people all at one time. And so there will be additional one-time dollars. And so this is a list of projects and again depending on as our conversation goes this evening and city council considers number one whether to put this out to a vote or two options of what they're going to do. We may not be able to complete all these things on this list, but these were things that we included uh with an idea of being able to use those one-time dollars per year uh to fund that have traditionally not been funded within either in the budget or in the CIP budget. Um and so just wanted to make sure um that was addressed here. But again, just consider this to be an asterric because again, we don't believe we'll be able to do all of these things based on potential decisions that city council makes tonight. Um I would like to ask Chief Higgins just to talk a little bit about the need. As I mentioned, uh there are nine firefighters that we're moving very quickly for to get online. Uh five of those are going to the academy. Again, additional uh four will be brought on um shortly after that. Um, but I wanted him to talk a little bit about how significant that impact is and what that will do to overtime and how we are going to move forward to cut back on the overtime and really the the additional work and the call back as I think as some of you heard as we talked right now our firefighters based on the numbers that we have and the overtime shifts and other things uh they're looking at close to 400 hours of overtime each and so again I think what what Chief Higgins is going to talk about here just briefly is is really go through is talk about how this this staffing adjustment is just the beginning, but how it's going to help um some of that relief. Chief Higgins, >> Madame Mayor, councilors, uh Dan Higgins, fire chief. Um I think Zach just wanted everybody to have a turn tonight, so I'll come up and speak to you. But uh yeah, so uh just to add on to what he was saying about what we have going on right now. So we do have minimum staffings every minimum staffing levels every day and to meet those obviously there's going to be vacancies for sickly vacation injury different things. Um and right now we are running so lean we only have one extra spot per shift uh above just vacation. So pretty much every day we have overtime. Uh and this year's been uh particularly heavy for a variety of reasons. Um but with that that requires us to call firefighters back. You know, to some level overtimes okay, but once you reach a certain breakover point, uh it's just not sustainable. Um for a number of years, u since since I came into this position and prior, uh we have been over in our overtime budget. It's just been covered by, I'll be honest, been covered by the police budget because they've been short on personnel. So overall in the public safety budget, um the vacancy, I'm sorry, the position savings, salary savings from police has covered our overages, but again, that's not sustainable. And then it's just the workload on our firefighters. That's um we're just really grinding them down. Um to Chief Artist's point, it's average of 400 per firefighter hours, but overall we're going to hit about uh we're on pace for about 54,000 hours of overtime for 2026. Um so with that recognition, uh speaking with um Teresa and uh the city manager, we're discussing options on how we can stop the bleeding, so to speak, on this one. as soon as possible. And that's where uh it was discussed what we can do is we will take some of that overtime budget and put that towards these new positions and get them hired immediately. So, we did have an active hiring list. Um we were able to get five job job offers for that so that they will go into the fall 2026 academy. Um when those come out of the academy, it'll take a little time to get them up and running. So pretty much first of the year they'll be independent being able to work on an engine on their own um as a as a third as a firefighter. Um and then the second group we have another um application process we just closed um to get those people into the spring 2027 academy which will then get them functional on shift probably July of 27. So immediately it won't cure the overtime ills, but it will make great progress to get ahead of that and so mid 20 well we'll slow it down beginning of 2027 and then uh reduce it even more mid 2027. Um so I think that about covers it. >> It does. I'd like to just take a little time out. Does any everyone does anyone have any questions about that? We're essentially taking overtime that is paid at time and a half and hiring full-time staff with that backfilling that with one time until we get there. >> It doesn't look like >> Okay, thanks. >> Thank you. Okay. So, um the need um that was presented by public safety was 95 positions. Um as has been mentioned, we will be funding nine of them in 2027. They have started the hiring process for those right now. Um, so the the net um position need is now at 86. So all of our um slides that we're going to be be presenting to you for the rest of the evening um on the options for funding this are based on 86 as opposed to 95 positions. Um, so the total cost of those 86 positions plus the $2 million that um is the funding gap projection by 2036 in in the existing tax um is $20.8 million. Um so the I the way that we have arrived at this number is this is the 2036 um projection for costs for the full 86 positions because they'll be added over time. We want to size the the new tax whether it's a a sales tax or property tax or some combination of it >> to meet that ongoing cost by 20 by the time that we are hiring the last FTE in 2036. Um and then again it includes the $2 million deficit in the existing tax. It it also um assumes that we will need one-time funding of about $75.7 million to meet those needs that um was just discussed in the prior slides by Zach. The challenge though is going to be um we are are projecting that the tax will not generate enough fund balance in those early years to cover that full 757 $75.7 million. So, we will have to make some some choices regarding um the what we can fund from a one-time perspective for facility improvements or um other equipment needs. Um and and I'll try to kind of explain this to you as we go through it. Um the intent is to size the the tax to meet the ongoing costs and and not include any of the one-time costs in it because there will be fund balance that will be generated in those early years by us not using the generation of the tax. the revenue that's generated from the tax in those early years because we're phasing the the additions of the SF FTE. So, so that fund balance that is generated in the in those earlier years is what will cover the one-time needs. So, so again, the the tax numbers that we're going to present to you tonight are solely based on ongoing um the ongoing costs for the positions and not the one time. >> So, I want to just be clear. I want to go back to um let me see this two seconds. So, the $75 million I want I want to just want to be clear. that includes $69 million for improvements. So, you're really when we talk about onetime cost that we covered in the slides about police and fire, >> it's only somewhere in the neighborhood, my math is not great, but about six to 7 million that we would need onetime cost for the positions. So, that's why I said there's an asterk to this slide is because we recognize that we won't be able depending on the option that that is selected, we won't be able to fund all of these and so we would have to prioritize. And so because you collect the full amount beginning year one, >> you have those extra funds because we won't hire 95 people year one. And so I just wanted you to make do that's a big number for 75 million, but that includes 69 million of improvements to facilities uh that we requesting. So oops, there you go. Thank you. >> Um and then before we go on, we do have a question from council. >> Thank you, mayor. Um it's actually just for council here for a second. So, we're at 10:40 in the night and I just wanted to like I think this is a really important conversation that we should try to finish, but I wanted to make sure we have the appetite to go deeper and do that. >> And so, to do that, I'm going to motion to extend the meeting past 11. >> Second. >> Okay. So, the motion has been made to extend the meeting um by council member Popkin, seconded by council member Marine. >> Thank you. I didn't want to interrupt discussion if we're >> Oh, before it gets too deep. Yeah. Thanks. Okay. So, before we get into the >> Oh, hold on. We're going to vote on whether to extend the meeting. Um, and yeah, so that carries six to one with council member Christ in >> opposition. So, okay. Now, >> thank you. Before we get into the actual options that that we wanted to present tonight, um Sandy is going to talk to you about just a a couple of other things. >> Thanks, Teresa. So, when we were pulling together this presentation for city council, we we kind of thought of it. Zach mentioned the choose your own adventure books. You may remember. Um, so we're going to we're going to walk through the different options with y'all and and as you decide one, that'll that'll help us to figure out what the next option is that we'll be presenting. So, hang in with us. We're going to get there. Um, you know, we are talking about tax increases, potential tax increases. And so just a reminder on the election piece and um you know certainly council member Popkins motion was is appreciated because we would need to notify the county tomorrow uh if this is something they would like to do. So um yes. Okay. So we're going to we're going to continue on with the um options. Okay. So this is the question at the beginning of this segment of the presentation and it will be the question at the end. So this is what I want for you to consider. We're proposing four different options and that is to increase sales tax in order to meet these needs. Um increase property tax to make these meet these needs, some split of those types of things or some absorption of some of these positions in the general fund and then back to the first three options. That's why this is kind of a choose your own adventure. So option one, two, three, and four is what we're going to be talking through and what the ramifications of that looks like. Um and then we'll be asking for a decision this same slide at the end. >> Okay. And then um before we go on to the next part, Council Member Marcen. >> Thank you, Mayor. Really quick, and I want to ask this now before you go through the options because there's obviously a reason that you've given us sales, property, some combination of the other. A lot of this, and I mentioned this in the last meeting, we're talking about upfront capital costs. Is there a reason, just because I'm dumb, is there a reason that bonding is not part of this conversation in terms of financing the upfront capital costs as opposed to the sales tax increase or is that like because it clearly these are the options before we get into them. Is that off the table? >> Um, Council Member Mars, that is not off the table. Okay. um our our proposal um for the tax increase does not um assume a a tax increase that would cover bonds >> um the debt service on bonds. And the reason the reason is is because in our public improvement fund, our current bonds that we are paying out of that um dedicated that tax that goes into that public improvement fund um those bonds are paid off in 2039. >> Um which would then give us some capacity to potentially bond for some of those capital costs. Now granted, that's not until 2039. Um but um it the our proposal to you tonight does not include um anything for a tax increase to cover bonds. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And then um Council Member Prietto and Go ahead. >> All right. Um, so I'm happy that you guys brought up number four because I think I was thinking while you folks were talking, at what point did we shift some of these departments to the public safety fund? And although it makes sense on a program level, is that impacting us financially? And so I do see that it's like move some positions back to the general fund. So maybe as you continue forward, maybe just discussing a little bit like why we made that transition and if some of those additional departments are impacting that overall fund like I know like animal control is a part of public safety. I know like core and lead and some maybe some other like I think it's um um yeah there's there's a bunch of stuff and so you know is is there a reason why public safety is not just kind of those police fire EMS kind of departments and then the other ones are separate so we can make sure that the taxes that are coming in are funding those critical needs and then we're getting creative elsewhere for the others and you don't have to answer that now but maybe as you continue >> I think it's okay to answer that now um council member prito okay mayor had fairing so first of all you need to understand that public safety funds the public safety services at one time were completely funded with general fund um and then when we added the public safety tax that was for future officers and and programs and so there's kind of a line in the sand these officers continue to be funded out of the general fund today and things that came on that were new and enhanced services were funded by the public safety fund. Um I I'll certainly turn it over to Chief Artist to talk about lead and core and some of those other pieces, but I just I want to be clear that that's kind of how we got to where we are today. Um those officers are still being funded um out of the general fund. It's the new programs um based on the wording of that particular ballot question. >> So as far as coron go ahead. >> Yeah. So I mean it when two when I believe 2009 and 2017 when both of these bond measure or I'm sorry public safety sales tax requests went to the public uh the documents show that we we asked for very specific for accountability to the community of what would be funded and in some of those are the core and lead positions and other positions that are specifically requested and so as as assistant city manager Sandy Cedar said um when in the budget currently and it gets complicated for us at times because there's public safety fund and general fund. Those positions that were created under either 2009 and 2017 as public safety are still paid out of public safety. We can't move a general fund position into public safety. Uh but they can move a public safety fund out into general fund. And so that's when when uh Miss Mallaloy mentioned about moving the three officers out in from public safety to general fund. They can do that, but they can't move it the other way. And so when those thing when those um requests went to the public in 2009 2017, it didn't just list police and fire. It listed a a variety of positions that at that time that administration felt that was needed u to meet some of the I guess emerging issues within the community and that included some some mental health and some other uh pieces that we currently have as an organization today. >> Yes ma'am. >> Yeah. And just to let you know, a lot of those positions are grant funded and have been grant funded for quite a few years. And so, um, we will run into the same challenges as grant funding begins to be cut. We now have to figure out how to fund or keep those programs because they're not covered under either general fund or public safety fund. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So, I'm going to have you go on and then we'll go back to to council questions. >> Questions here. >> Um, so no. Well, I think they need to present first. So, let her give finish the directions. >> Yeah, that's Yeah. Yeah. We'll we'll go ahead and kind of lay lay this foundation and then depending on where you decide to go, then we can take it from there. >> Um, okay. So, first of all, this is a great chart as far as the highlight, but what this shows us is the Colorado municipal tax comparison. And so the reason it's so busy is because I asked to include as many communities as possible so that you understood on the left hand side where our property tax our current property tax sits with respect to comparison to the other communities. Um and on the right you can see where the city sales tax is in comparison to other communities. Now what this doesn't take into effect is this is the city sales tax the 3.53 I mean sorry the um the average city sales tax being 3.53 and ours is I think 3.4. 428, right? [laughter] Um, but it doesn't include the fact that when somebody is paying sales tax, it also includes other taxes, taxing entities including the state, the county, the RTD, all that kind of stuff. So, this is not the total sales tax that somebody spends. This is what the municipal sales tax looks like in comparison. >> So, I wanted to give you that framework. This is where we sit today with respect to the region. And then um also because I I'm seeing some there's a possibility that some of these cities have a fire authority or fire district >> some of them. >> So then that also you know we also have to be considering some of these municipalities maybe they're lower >> but they're also paying a fire >> district special district >> separate >> that is separate and ours is included in our municipal. So, I just wanted to also make sure that that's thought about. >> They're not 100% apples to apples, but but certainly just wanted to give you a flavor for what it looks like. [laughter] >> So, [clears throat] we're going to go through a couple different funding options. And so, what Teresa is going to do, those options one, two, three, four, she's going to go through what does that mean for the the taxpayer? Um what does that mean as far as purchase power? What does that look like? What does it include? So, this is option one. I'll turn it over to Teresa. >> So, the first option is if we were to fund the need 100% of the need from a new tax. >> Um, and if if we were to do that um from a sales tax, it would be a 48% rate. an increase um to the existing tax of 48%. That's um roughly 4.8 $4.80 per,000 purchase. So that would be the impact to our community. If we were to fund that from uh property tax, it would take 8.13 mills to generate the revenue that we need um to add those 86 positions. So that's about $249 on the purchase of on a $500,000 home. if we were to do it um split it 5050 between sales and property. And and this is we're not saying it needs to be 50/50. We're just kind of throwing these out here for you all to to consider. That would be a.24% sales tax and a 4.06 mill levy. Um so again it would cover the 86 positions um which from an ongoing perspective is 18.86 million um plus the 2 million um that we're showing as a a projected gap in the current sales tax. Um, so this scenario and and well, so let me back up. So, if we were to cover um if we were to fund the full 95 positions from a new tax, um we came very very close to generating enough fund balance over that 10-year period to cover the all the one-time needs that Zach was talking about 5.8 million of it in um position related costs and the 69.9 million for those facility improvements because we have already committed to funding the nine positions for fire from the general fund in 2027 budget. the the rate the sales tax rate andor the property tax rate is now lower. Um and so the capacity to generate one-time fund ba one-time funds from fund balance um is less and we know that we will not be able to generate enough fund balance over that 10 10year period to cover that $69.9 million. So again, it goes back to to choices and and do we need to potentially look at other funding sources to um cover those facility needs. So that is the first set of options for you. The second set of options is to um shift more of the positions to the general fund. And I will um kind of highlight and note for you this may depending on how revenues come in in the general fund year-over-year, it may require um cuts elsewhere in the general fund to achieve the same 86 positions. Okay. the so so we've got essentially two scenarios under this um cost shifting model. The first one is to fund an additional 18 positions in the general fund over over the 10-year period. So, we're funding the 9 in 2027 and then from 28 to 36 funding an additional two per year in the general fund. That reduces the sales tax rate need to 37% or 37%. >> And the mill levy need to 6.33. Or you could do a combination um of a 50/50 at.19% sales and 3.16 mills. One thing I want to point out, you may be asking, well, can we do 100% of these positions out of the general fund? And I can tell you that we would not be able to do that without reducing critical services to the community. But, you know, and it does depend on the revenues does determine whether we would be able to fund these off of whatever the revenue enhancement was in the general fund or whether we would be coming back to the city council in these out years asking for what corresponding cuts do you want to make. So, it's it's hard to predict that, but I just wanted to make sure that you knew that that's not an option that we're presenting. And then our second scenario is to um fund an additional three positions per year from the general fund. >> Um so that would leave 59 positions that would need to be funded over the over the 10-year period from the public safety fund. So that is a.32% increase in sales tax and a 5.49 mil levy. >> Or again, you could do a 50/50 or some combination of a a mix of both sales and property. So I'll kind of stop there and and see if you all have questions. I appreciate that. Thank you. Um >> or would like to chat because the next the next question really will be >> how do you want to move forward? Are you interested in sales tax? Are you interested in property tax? A mix a general fund mix. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. And then um so let's go ahead and start with some questions. Um Council Member Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. And uh thank you Sandy Teresa, Chief Artis, Chief Moore, Chief Higgins, and the whole team has been looking at this. Um I know you don't bring a tax increase request lightly to the table and and I I I commend that you've been bringing the information forward in stages so that we can digest that. I will say given the hour that it is and the complexity of the mechanisms that we have and options I I'm I I I'm gonna be comfortable saying at a very high level like I do think we should proceed with a ballot measure in some way shape or form. >> I I would really like to sit with the numbers, the mechanisms and and and think more before we give like a yeah, let's do 50/50 sales and and property tax. Like let's do it. Um I'm not there yet. I don't know what the right combination is, but I think we should take that really to heart and and seriously before we put forth a ballot measure that we are then going to ask residents to vote on >> because how we approach that really matters. >> Um, so I have a few thoughts here that might shape how we approach this and then I'll leave you with one final thought to maybe shape where we like what we can look at between now and the next couple weeks because it's a slightly different >> way of thinking about the investment cycle here. Um, so but but a couple questions first. You mentioned the grants are running out and and so I wanted to come back for that because the Department of Justice COP has a cops hiring. It's an acronym COPS, but it also funds cops um hiring grants program. It's due July 29th. Did we look at applying for that? And why like and and what are we doing with that? >> Yeah. So um there is a COPS grant. Mhm. >> Uh there is a language included in there that we must cooperate with immigration. Um and the city nor the state can have any type of um law or ordinance or anything to prohibit from that. Um, and so it based on council's direction and based on the city, similar to what the conversation this council had about some language about diversity within the airport uh contract, uh, we have not chosen to pursue that and we've had opportunities to look at other grants, >> uh, for public safety and we've steered away from that um because we are not because um, we want to respect council's direction but also respect the community that we serve. Yeah. and we don't want to put ourselves nor the uh the community in a weird position to where all of a sudden we're violating state law or city city direction or even you know maybe some of our own principles. And so uh we're not pursuing the cops grant this year because of that language that that exists in there uh creates a real trouble and real issue for us as a public safety serving the city of Longmont and our community. Okay, that >> council may remember that there's a state law that actually forbids our local officers from >> that's that's really helpful and I guess I just want to say like I I agree with the same spirit where council member Marcen was coming from earlier on the airport grant and that's good to know that we're looking at and so you're in this case the DOJ grants specifically have different language. >> Yes, sir. It's it's actually listed pretty much on the main page. Yeah. and it outlines that that this will happen and so again we yeah it just yeah we we are deciding not to pursue that and we decided not to [clears throat] pursue other grants in public safety that have similar or same language to it. >> Thank you. Um second question the coun council annexed two dispensaries back in May I think we approved that and part of that funding um is is sales tax and the special marijuana tax that goes directly to public safety. Do we have a projection yet as to like what revenue we're anticipating on that? I know it's not I'm not trying to solve everything with weed. I I just think that I I just want to know like is that a tiny dent? Is that like a meeting a meaningful portion there? Like what are we doing? Did you have that on the bingo card? >> And I I wish I could say it is more than what it really is going to be. It's it we're not going to the public safety fund is not going to see a huge impact from that. >> Okay. So it'll be minor operational. will be minor. It it will be helpful, but it's not >> it's not solving this problem. Got it. That's just what I wanted to understand. Um and I'm glad that it'll be helpful still. Um I >> the the next question and this I I wanted to pose this now because I know we're going to have a conversation on short-term rentals and Sundance, but relevant to that, I I'm thinking about like what are what are the lesser regressive structures we can set up? Like what what impacts that people This is relevant. >> Yeah, I know. I was just wondering if we could hear from other council people first and then kind of entertain that. But if you want to throw that question out. >> This is the I'm going to put an idea. I'm planting a seed here so that we can think about it at a future date. >> Okay. >> When I think about less regressive structures, I think about like what are some of the other ways we can add kind of capture some revenue to support some of the needs. Again, not panacea here, but um I I I might encourage us to noodle on the concept of a public safety fee for short-term rentals um as we think about this again as a partial way to to nip at this too. And so this all would go into the equation of what are we trying to solve for, which is why I bring it up right now. Um Sundance is a 10-year commitment in the region, and we're looking at a 10-year horizon right now as as I think about this, too. So I just I don't want that to get lost here and I want us to try to connect some dots over some of the multiple conversations we're having. Um the last the last thought mayor that I wanted to offer here um is that you know we're partly um my inclination here given the the growth the sprawl that we have seen in the region and in parts of Longmont. Um the the growth that we're trying to support in our downtown core areas including the front range and first and main uh transit station that we were talking about earlier today. I'm super excited about those. But we need to ensure that our public safety and emergency response can handle that too. And so that plus the wildfire risks the region's facing. I I'm inclined to suggest that we try to frontload this more. And what I mean by that is when we look at I know staffing will take time to build up. That's more of a a buildup. But like when I think about a structure, I think it would be one more more operationally valuable, safer and more resilient for our community if we were to basically create a little bit more of a spike in funding first in revenue collection first. Say like a higher percentage through like 2030 and then have that drop and make that promise to voters that hey, we're going to invest now in this infrastructure and in more of these positions. boost that revenue collection and then we we also will make a promise to you that we'll drop it to a a sustainable level for our operational needs but also frontload that because capital's investments are only getting more expensive. Fuel costs are only getting more expensive. Construction is only getting more expensive. Let's build that fire station 7. Let's build let's expand those other two fire stations. Now that's a tangible improvement for our community that folks can think about and then and the rescue units. I mean, those are all supporting those key resilience needs and then we can ramp up staffing gradually, but that also means that we can drop down the funding again or drop down the percentage. So, I don't think of this necessarily as a linear percent increase and I want us to think more about that spike to drop. >> Thank you. And that is time. Council member Koffer. Mayor. Yes. Oh, go ahead. >> I just want to I want to clarify a couple things that council member Popkin >> made and I I want to make sure we're all on the same page tonight. >> Sure. So, you mentioned Sundance sunsets or ends in 10 years or potentially they could they could decide to move after 10 years. Um, the funding that we're talking about and any increase that's done doesn't ever sunset. So, if that if that revenue went away after 10 years because Sundance left, the city still has to figure out a way to fund that >> year 11 so 2037 2038 because those positions would be filled. The other thing I think that I want to when we talk about capital the the what I don't want us to get confused is when we talk about frontloading because that is exactly there was there's a there's a plan that's put in place to frontload the capital because to your point year one we collect $18 million if we go with this >> I I can't hire 95 people in year one so that so there are millions of dollars left over to meet those capital needs probably the first three probably the first three to five years there's not much left after year five because it is now being eaten up by salary and so that is why we built in the capital pieces. If you removed capital and said we don't want any capital the cost is still $18 million. We just have a surplus years 1 2 3 and four because we can't hire enough people. Now we could try to hire 95 people in the first three years. it's going to be a little challenging and so that's why we built that's why with the additional money coming in we will build those items as much as we can. We have to prioritize based on the dollars but we recognize by about year four and five there is very little extra money left over because we are starting to see additional people being hired and it's eating up that 18 million. And so 18 million comes in day one and or year one and year 10 18 million come in by year 10 we will have had all of those folks hired and in place and there will be zero dollars for any capital improvements. So I just wanted to be clear that if council's like well we're spending way too much on capital the money still sits there. We we still have to have enough money day one to be able to hire 95 people. So it isn't a gradual increase nor is it a gradual decrease over time because we still have to find funding for those positions even after year five. To your point is if it's this high number and then years five through 10 we reduce the rate well that funding either has to come from general fund or somewhere else within the city because those positions are already filled and so we're losing that revenue stream. And so I just want to make sure we're clear as we go through and we talk about that that that's a critical piece to remember. Capital is only in there because we we know we will have additional dollars the first few years to do some things that have not been able to be to be completed through our CIP or budget request in the past and so that's why we listed those there. So >> okay, >> thank you. >> Thank you. Um go ahead, Council Member Coler. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I appreciate all the time that you all put into this. Thank you. Um can you go back to the slide with the 70ish million? Um, I have a question on >> the 69 million. >> I have to keep going back. The one with all the line items. >> Other one. >> Another way. Keep going. Other way. >> Yeah. >> All the way back to the beginning. >> Yes. This one. >> Yeah, this one. Um so for the new fire uh station 7 and [snorts] fire station 4 expansion um are we looking for those to expand our um EMS to bring that in-house our transport or is that something that we would still be outsourcing uh to a third party councelor uh Dan Higgins fire chief. Um, no. Uh, in-house transport wasn't included in this proposal. Um, that's something that could be talked about, but those would be different numbers and >> some some adjustments would have to be made with that, but they weren't included. We were we were trying to deal with um the near-term staffing issues across the board and in response. >> So, this would be still using a third party contracted transport agency. Um, one thing to consider, I would like to see that in the future. I do appreciate all the stones that you all are turning and I appreciate the the additional staff that um, we're looking to to fulfill with the overtime. I don't take I I I know none of us want to propose a tax increase on a resident. Um but at the same time when we call emergency services we don't ex we want them to be fresh and we want them to be alert and we want them to be um recharged and we want them to be ready for that call. Um I don't think I when I called 911 for my daughter having a terrible nose bleed did I ever consider how long has this firefighter been working and you know are they tired? Are they providing the best care possible? So I I do want us to make sure we get this right. Um, Tanny, I don't know if if if we can digest this or if we need to have an answer right away. I I do like um what council member Popkins said where, you know, I would like to move forward with something, but can we have some time to digest these different options or do you need to know tonight which option we're going with? >> So, Mayor Hoggo Fairing, would you flip back to the just go ahead and flip back to the ballot issue question. >> July said say July on there. I was like that's it's actually should be June. Sorry, it's June 24th that we need to let the county know something. But what we don't need to let the county know is what it is. Um so you actually have three items that which we mentioned um a couple weeks ago that there's actually three ballot questions that well one question and two issues um that you are considering. Um so we need to let the county know that something's coming. Um we don't have to do any wording finalization until August. And so, um, as far as giving you a little time to digest and think about it, and I recognize that this is a very, very tough decision to make, um, and to work through. Let me share with you a little bit about agendas. So, let's say that you didn't make a decision tonight on what the mix or the split is, but instead you did decide that you wanted to levy something. >> That gives um our city clerk enough opportunity to be able to let the council to let the county know that something is coming. Yes, we are participating in this election because we don't have any council members that are up for election during this particular um November election. So, normally >> and we have already moved the open space. That's you have we already did we already voted? >> Not it's coming back. Um it's coming back I think on the 20th. We haven't finalized it was the answer for that one. So, you haven't given actual direction for any ballot issue yet, but you could tonight to say we're going to have something. We know we're going to have something. Please let the county know that. >> Okay. Um, and then when ballot wording needs to be finalized, there's two readings in August. Uh, the August 11th and the August 25th meeting. So, you have to decide what the ballot wording is before August 11th. So, just looking at your agendas, you have uh open forum for your next meeting, which is July 7th. You have um July 14th, which I think currently now has the airport item back on, a presession on airport visioning. Um, there are a couple other items that are mid, I would say. um you know, range as far as the depth of need. And then on July 28th, you have airport day um with all the rates and charges and and all of that kind of stuff. And so then that next meeting is the August the next regular session is August 11th. So do you need to decide the mix today? No. Uh but it would be nice to know if you're going to put something on the ballot so that the um so that Don can let the county know that. I think it is important tonight that we hear all of the options with not necessarily um >> deciding on which which option yet. So, choose our own adventure yet. Um but I do want to you know and I've had opportunities to speak with every single department in this city and our admin and and coming from a public employee person um when we are told have you thought of this? have you thought of this? I'm about ready to say, "Yeah, no Sherlock." Um, they have they have thought of every option and looking at what has council passed in the in the past. They have thought through all those things because that's their job and they and our staff is very thorough and looking at what are all these options and what's going to give us the biggest bang for our buck. And so they're only presenting to us what is going to really address at the heart of the matter. So I mean I'm gonna speak as an individual and from a public employee perspective. It is really annoying to sit and hear when I hear schoolboard people say well have you done this or legislators and why don't we just pass this and this and without fully understanding the ramifications of our um statements. So and I'm not trying to diss anybody. I'm just trying to just get it out because I also want to make sure that our staff stays with us and it gets to a point and I've seen this in my profession is people get fed up with it and they're out. They're going to go find another municipality, they're going to find another um jurisdiction, wherever to to work um uh special district, whatever. And we want to make sure that we are retaining, not just recruiting and having that funding for the initial, but retaining the staff. And I have heard over and over again that these pres these items presented here tonight were in discussion with our fire union, with our FOP, with at the negotiations table. at you know there were several discussions all around the pipeline through cross departmental to come up with what's what's in front of us today. So I I do want us to be cognizant and respectful of of staff in that capacity and you know I just because it's lived experience for me so [laughter] I I do get a little um passionate about that. >> So um yes go ahead and I'll let you go back to your because you still have the floor. I'm sorry. Actually, hang on one quick second. So, Don just corrected me. It is July 24th. She needs to inform the county. >> You just only have one other regular session until then, which is July 14th. So, my apologies. It is July 14th. >> There's a lot going on. >> So, I know we just went back and forth and back and forth. It is July 24th. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> I'll wrap up pretty quick. Um, so I'm nervous. there's a lot of uh initiatives coming on the ballot that's asking for tax increases. So, I'm nervous. Um so, I do want to make sure that we're picking the right adventure. Um also, I know how volatile sales tax is. Um so, the way that I'm leaning is um I do like the, you know, absorbing some into general fund and then doing uh some kind of a combination with sales tax and property tax. uh because that way it it kind of shares the load and it's a a little bit easier to forecast where sales tax is very difficult to forecast and I don't want to be in the same position because we've already done this twice for sales tax. Correct. >> Yeah. >> So, uh by doing another sales tax increase, I think we're going to just kick the can down the road again. So, that that's my two cents. >> Okay. Okay, >> mayor, I just want to clarify something that council member Koffer said >> when were you talking uh about >> looking to add EMS services to the Lamont Fire Department as a internal service? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. So, one of the things that just, you know, Chief Higgins and and his assistant chief Scott Opie and I, we've had conversations, I think day one since I've gotten here for the last five years and and we've looked at that cost and and so we have plenty of figures on that. what you would anticipate. I'm just going to throw this out very quickly. If that is something the council wants to consider, you need to add another 30 firefighters to the current here. Now, they're not paid at firefighter pay. They're paid paramedic pay, which is a lot more than a basic firefighter/ EMT. So, there's a cost there. There's also a cost for the ambulances because we don't own the ambulances. So, that would be probably close to half a million dollars per ambulance to completely outfit it. And that's a two-year weight currently that we have on ordering ambulances. We do currently have a great relationship with our our vendor. They actually live in our stations and so uh we actually do supplement and run uh an ambulance. I'm going to call it an ambulance. Has a special name like Alpha Car. Oh, what is it called? >> Omega. Sorry. Oh, it's alpha. Okay. Alpha. Um so we do we do supplement uh to make sure that we do have additional resources in the city. We have um but we do have a great partnership that doesn't cost the city a dollar right now. And so that's a that's a factor that we've considered internally in our conversations is right now we're looking is how do we just get the firefighters on the trucks and answering the calls because they also respond to those emergency calls. And so we are run not basic life support we run advanced life support which means we have paramedics on our truck. And so when you get a truck you just don't get the ambulance. You get the same resources to an extent as far as personnel and knowledge uh and some of the equipment and tools to provide those services. But I just wanted council to consider that is yes there is some funding mechanisms where you can get money back from federal government based on Medicaid Medicare calls but there's not enough there to s be self- sustaining and so it would take several years to get that into place but this number would create increase by at least another 30 firefighters paramedics um and we would also need the additional administrative staff to handle all the billing that would need to take place in order to to recoup the cost from transports uh all the things that we need as far as the the medical supplies that we used, plus filling that paperwork out for either the federal or state to try to to claw back some of that money. And so we >> plus we've run these numbers a couple different times over the last 10 years, and it does not pen out >> right now. It doesn't work for us. Now, if our partner came back and said, "Hey, I need $3 million." Then that's a conversation with city council going one way we're going to pay for it or the other. And we believe running our own would be better versus doing this. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Um, and so we have those numbers. We're happy to provide those to you at a later date if you want. >> Um, let's run through the other folks first and then um because I want to I want to avoid a back and forth. >> Thank you. Um, Mayor Prom, >> thank you, Mayor. Um, Teresa and Zach and all, thank you so much for everything you do and and I really want to reiterate the mayor's point of we want to avoid burnout from all of our employees. So, we have to be careful about certain things here. Teresa, if we could move forward on a couple of slides slowly. Uh, okay. So, let's let's stop right here at the one that you just had up there. I think it was uh 14. >> The next slide. >> The next slide. Yeah. And I look at this right here. You know, when you look at property tax uh mill levies and the highest and lowest there, I mean, really take a a look at this line here. We have still been one of the most competitive uh housing markets around, you know, based on on this right here. And and you can see here, Castle Rock is extremely regressive because they turn around and hit their uh everybody from their poorest to their richest uh in regards to uh uh their sales tax. And so even moving it up uh a little on our part here uh and I'm thinking that combination of the two still puts us in a very competitive uh area in regards to you know attracting uh talent and also not putting our our um uh community in a uh vicarious situation. Could we move forward to 15? Uh, okay. So, now as I look at the uh 50/50 sales tax and 5050 uh property tax there, you know, I I look at the the difference when we start getting into the general fund, I I'm a little nervous about um adding in that perspective there because I think that u uh we don't know. I mean the buffoonery that we have seen from the federal level of uh of literally uh this tariff and that tariff has just been so ridiculous that I can't imagine uh uh how we could uh try to throw in the uh uh some sort of element of the general fund uh because our costs seem to be you know on a on a roller coaster and so you know I think with this at least uh it doesn't hit anybody too hard and and so when I when I think about uh this sort of uh element. I I know all this is somewhat speculative uh and everything, you know, new housing coming on uh and uh and how much those uh homes uh you know, go for and then uh in regards to how many people are going to be out there uh you know, with the $1,000 purchases and sales tax associated with that. But I still think that uh we have um uh probably our best position if we're analyzing this and and I really would like to kind of somehow if we're going to spend the time on this uh I think you know I'm in a position as I as I look at this that if we're going to to I I kind of get a feeling that people are willing to have some sort of uh funding mechanism and ask of the uh community. I don't know that uh when you look at $1,000 uh that $2.40 is a deal breakaker. And I'm not certain on 100 uh a 500k home, $124 is a dealbreaker either. When you when you really look at this and analyze it, I think people are willing to do that is when you start getting in general fund and we don't know some of the things. It's the Romansfeld moment of not knowing what we don't know. uh sort of thinking is that thinking that we have to um uh add in something like that. you know, those sales taxes are regressive to uh the poorest in our community, but uh and I don't think that in any in scenario three here, we basically do anything other than um I don't think it's going to uh change the the rents dramatically uh on uh uh uh homes. Uh I don't think that somebody who uh is a property investor is going to turn around and uh jump that uh uh that rent up uh uh you know just to that amount. It it comes across a little punitive. If you're going to if you're going to make a uh increase in rent, you probably want to make it pretty serious uh increase. So, I think that I think what what we really need to do is is move forward on this uh you know, the option three there, which is that 50/50 sales and property taxes. And and I think people are smart. I think they're capable uh of uh discerning this information and looking at it and going uh we we really don't want to have our general fund uh you know impacted by this because we we really can't tell what the future's going to bring. >> And did we have other slides after the next one? >> Just the first one again asking okay what direction you like. >> What direction? Okay. Um council member Prito. Yay. I'm [snorts] super fast. All right. Um, just some initial thoughts. I like holding this off, >> doing our research, >> making sure we're >> not tired and it's like 11:00 at night. Um, two, I like the idea of a sales tax. I feel like public safety is utilized by everybody, >> not just property owners. And if we do a 50/50, then our homeowners are not only paying a property tax, but they're also paying sales tax. So, they're getting like double whammedied. >> I'm not sure that that's fair. Um, I'll spend 480 on $1,000 all day. And I'm not the richest person in Longmont. So, um I I think I mean I don't see that as anything significant, especially when it comes to our public safety. Um and then the last note is I have a have you thought about sorry Susie but actually this another way this uh have you thought about was asked um in a since I wasn't here at the first presentation I did email um a few staff in your defense it was titled like thoughts around the presentation so you may not have caught the questions within um but one of my questions that I had asked and I'm thinking now I'm moving toward our one-time costs. Um, and let me just go to the email. Um, in the beginning, so in the in the beginning, I'm just playing. That's like Okay. Anyways, I'm getting sidetracked and it's late. Um but in the first presentation you had discussed a public safety uh emergency reserve of 8% totaling approximately $9.8 million. Now when we look at the facility costs that's like a drop in the bucket, right? But then when we talk about like fire trucks and different things that we might need right away. Um my question in the beginning was um let's see could you provide additional clarification on what constitutes an emergency under that policy and whether any of the current staffing or operational concerns could potentially qualify under that definition. And so I'm curious if we could utilize some of this fund also in addition to this, but to help make up kind of where we're at right now and some of the emergency funds that we need, whether it's one time or maybe the staffing that we had to pull from general. Um, yeah. And I'll shut up and you guys can talk. Okay. So that is always an option. I think it's comes with tradeoffs though, right? Choices. You just it's it's a choice between do you want to set the tax rate at this level? Then you're going to have to make choices on what you're going to use that one time funding for. >> Um you can always choose to increase the rate. I mean we sized this rate to cover the costs of the the ongoing costs of just the staff. >> It doesn't include any additional um funds to establish a a you know a a replacement reserve um or maintain any sort of replacement funding on an ongoing basis. We could include that. Um it's just not included in these numbers. >> Okay. And and but it doesn't have to be like >> So yeah. Um I'll have you come back. Um >> council actually um >> I have not heard from Council Member Christ yet in this round. I think we've Did you? >> Yeah. Okay. Council Okay. Council member Christ. >> Um go ahead. Okay. >> And then [clears throat] you'll go after. Well, thank you, mayor, and thank thank you, Teresa, and Chief Artist for your presentation. Um, I I think just practically speaking, we have to admit that it's not a certainty that something would pass. So, we have to kind of hedge our bets a little bit. And so, one of the things we might consider is is utilizing the general fund somewhat. what we have going for us is the sales tax has been improving. The sales tax revenue has been improving. Um, so how do we enhance that? I I tend to favor some of what uh councelor Popkin is saying in that the marijuana tax should help with that and we have um public safety fees that we could add on for our short-term rentals. I also floated the idea of um having paid parking downtown that is getting cheaper because you don't have to have a meter at every spot. You know, they have these kiosks now where they just put in your your uh so it's computerized. You just put in your um license and then then your you know pick how much parking you want. And I know u businesses will say what what are you talking about? actually um evidence shows that people cycle out of parking quicker if it's paid. So, actually could raise some revenue. And I'm just saying all this could help fund public safety could help fund the general fund and it's more of a luxury tax. So therefore, not doesn't impact those who can't afford it as much. I I think that our area can't handle a48% increase in sales tax cuz we already have 58. So you're actually looking at $1060 on a $1,000 purchase. I'm not saying that's that's so much, but it does add up. And uh when you think of lower income folks who tend to be more impacted by these types of taxes also um when you look at our charts they're they're a little bit misleading in that um let me I don't have your slide up here but when you look at u we were talking about Castle Rock and >> oh the comparison I think you had it on this one. Um, yes. Yes. But I'm looking at um Westminster uh combined tax rate is 9%. Ours is 8.86 and Castle Rock is 8.1. So, we're actually not that far apart, but we are on the higher end of an aggregate um sales tax. And the problem is that our surrounding cities only pay six and a half. So, it's very easy to go to Firestone. It was very easy. Go to Loveland and, you know, buy more expensive things there. Uh, I know we talked about that when people were talking about the grocery tax. So, um, Teresa, something that hasn't come up is about our our bond issue guarantees or often guaranteed with our sales tax. And so once we install a sales tax, it's hard to remove it. Is that correct? So the intent for this sales tax again would would be a permanent tax >> um because it is funding staffing that is >> really ongoing >> permanently needed to meet the need. >> Yeah. So, I I would prefer to have um have us rely on the general fund somewhat and not completely I don't like the idea of property tax either. So, I'm just saying we have to we have to figure we may or may not get this past this election period. So, let's hedge our bets a little bit in terms of how we create some revenue because we need our public safety to be solid. >> Yes. Um, >> okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Marcen. >> Thank you, Mayor. Council member Chris, that was a lovely uh segue to what I wanted to chat about. I'm a I'm a political guy in a lot of ways, as I think a lot of us up here are. And so, there is a political consideration here for us as policy makers about we need to make sure that our public safety department is well funded. We need a tax to pass, right? So, if a tax is going to pass, what's going to be the most effective way that we can talk about this with our community? What's going to be the most effective option? looking at what is likely coming to the ballot and I agree completely. We are not ready as a council I think to give you full full direction on what the best option is. I have my personal opinion and I'll lay it out here shortly. Um for me it's But before I do that, two quick questions. Number one, and this might be a Dawn question. Do we if it were to be the 50-50 split, would we need to run two ballot measures or just one? >> I think you can answer that. Um, Council Member Mars, we did check into that on council and we have run them as a single question in the past and we can continue to do that. >> Fantastic. Um, and then are we being aggressive enough, Zach? Are we are we really doing is is the number you're giving us? I understand nobody likes to to raise taxes, but the worst thing I think you can do is raise taxes and three years later realize you haven't actually met the need. Um, are we being aggressive enough? >> Yeah, I think when we look at take a realistic look of where the city of Lammont is today, where it is going to go in the next 10 years, uh, even in the next 15 years, unless something drastically changes with the city and somehow we're able to develop open space and we're not landlocked anymore and we we annex the city of Boulder, um, you know, then yeah, we're going to have a different conversation. But >> I move. No, >> I think where I think where we sit and I sat down with staff. I think um where we're at today is it is not the exact number if you want to do the calculations of per 10,000 of where we think the city's going to cap out in 2036 around that 112 to 115,000. But I think what happens is the adjustments we've made over the last five years that I've been here and the addition of actually getting the the correct numbers we need today, uh, we're in a much more better manageable position. Even if we added 10,000 or 12,000 more people to the city, we can meet those needs without coming back to ask for, hey, we need another8 billion. Right? It we're not taxing our employees. We're not overworking our employees. We're retaining folks. Um and again we're we're meeting and being more proactive than reactive which we're currently being now. >> Um we also considered that is is what our concern as many of you have have shared is that yeah it's a terrible year to ask for a public safety sales tax increase. Everything is up whether it's gas whether it is your property tax whether it's your insurance. Uh we recognize that it's an economic struggle for everyone. Um, like many of the folks that are here in the auditorium or listening online, I have those same struggles of paying for my car insurance and my property tax going up because there was a Marshall fire a few years ago and and everything is increasing in the state of Colorado. Uh, I recognize that, but it wouldn't be fair to the community nor to my employees if I didn't come here and tell you that we need the numbers to get to where we're at today. And if the voters decide not to, then I have some very difficult decisions that I have to make as a public safety chief to protect my employees. And I respect and recognize whatever council's decision is. And I also respect the community's decision. And we'll continue to provide the best level of service, but I know we can do better and we can do more. We just don't have those resources. >> I appreciate that. Um, so I I think th those answer my questions and then I want to just hit on the politics quickly for our for our consideration. um as we kind of as I imagine what we're going to do is move off into the ether and come back to this. Um what I happen to know to be the case because I have looked at a lot of polling related to this exact question is where is voters's attitudes related to po to property taxes and sales taxes because as some folks know I'm I'm deeply involved in the upcoming ECE ballot measure that will come forward that is going to be referred um to the county commissioners just for context as a property tax. That is likely what's going to come forward. So voters are are going to be asked locally to consider a property tax increase to begin with. Um so that's just a piece of context. And then from there I think about okay what is most likely in a ballot that's going to be long but actually is not going to have a lot of true tax increases. We're really only looking at FRPR this and ECE here locally potentially. Um what are the easy what's the easiest path to get to passage? And in the purely political context, my argument would be likely sales tax. And that actually is what the polling is telling folks is is more palatable right now. And I appreciate Council Member Prietto's comment because I agree. I've always believed sales taxes are more regressive. They are fundamentally. But when you pick up the phone to call 911, I don't think it matters if you're the wealthiest person in Longmont or the lowest income person in Longmont. There's a shared burden involved in public safety that I think everybody understands. From a messaging perspective, there's also a real need to be able to tell the community very clearly and plainly what this is and how we're moving it forward. Um, I see the the sales tax option as the um cleanest option. It's how we funded public safety and the public safety fund for since the public safety fund has existed. Um, I think I think muddying those waters now doesn't make a lot of sense. And I will be very clear, I have zero interest in touching the general fund. Um, zero interest. I think the the the idea that we would cut other core positions um I I just I don't I don't think that meets this moment. And I think when it comes to any tax that the public is likely to approve, I think it's this one and I think we get it right if we go the sales tax route. I understand my colleagues are not ready to move forward in that direction. I completely understand that. It's almost morning. Um but that's that's where I'm at and just laying that out for consideration. >> Okay, great. Mayor, yes. One thing to consider is as folks are giving their opinions, if there's information that would help you to make this decision, I recognize that there's the, you know, a good night's sleep quality to that, but also if there's additional information that we can bring back to you, please mention that as well because we're happy to pull together additional information. >> Or I would I would also add if there is additional scenarios or additional split of the tax that you would like us to pursue. >> Okay. Well, then we can actually veer off of what the options were. I know that. Okay. Absolutely. And then, you know, cuz I was thinking also, you know, as we're looking at 50/50, if people if the C council was feeling having a split in there, could it be something where it's more than 50 for sales tax and less for property tax or vice versa? Um, I do, you know, I actually do want to look at options internally, um, through the general fund. I know that through negotiations there were some um misinterpretations of how I think it was the leave that was being used or um I'm trying to think if it was vacation or something that was not being used. Haroldan mentioned it and I don't know if this is striking a bell to you but where where they were able to kind of reclaim some dollars through um clarifying some some steps that were misinterpreted in the in the um contract. Does that make >> Sarah? I think you're speaking about our pre our uh parental leave. >> Parental leave. I knew it was some kind of leave. But so >> it didn't have a it didn't have a financial impact impact. >> Um exactly. But >> I think but didn't it help cover? >> Trying to think. You know what? It's getting late. I can't I [laughter] can't remember. But so like really looking at some of those um what are some ways to to fill in you know those inefficiencies or you know making sure that how we're um how the contract was being adopted. I really I I'm going back to the conversation that Harold shared from negotiations and where there was an aha moment and disconnect where it was kind of brought together. So through those conversations, but you know, I'm thinking also too commit to that general fund dollar because, you know, we we've have I I've seen for years that the city grows, we have these, you know, these projects, these ideas, and all these these shiny vision things that we want to get to. As we're putting in general fund dollars to see these through, we are also leaving behind core services that help keep these to help our growth. And so I I feel like we're also addressing a hemorrhage right now and that what are some solutions that maybe it is a mix of all three. I am open to to everything, but really giving giving that um that allowance to come up with varying ideas that that could be brought forward as well. Um, Council Member Popkin, >> thank you, Mayor. I'm adjusting slightly what I'm going to say based on what you just said. Um, I think Council Member Marc I think you made you raised some really good points here and I think that that's going to give me something to sleep on >> tonight. And I think if our goal is to get something passed, we really need to be very thoughtful about that. And I think part of that also, mayor, I know like I I'm not trying to have a have you thought about this moment, but I think it's really important for the public to understand that we have thought about it >> and for the multiple media sources in the room when they're talking about this conversation >> to know that we have thought about it and that we have looked at federal grants and said, "Nope, that's not going to cut it this time." And we have looked at the marijuana dispensary annexations and we realized that's not going to cut it this time. That's not this. It's a different scale fundamentally that we're looking at because that's what we're asking voters to to weigh in on. Um I think to Council Member Mars's point, the more tangible things that we can like make like I I don't want to be overly reductive right now, but for the sake of it being 11:45 p.m. I will. Like if if we're asking voters to say a sales tax increase to fund two fire station expansions in a fire station, like that's tangible. It's clear. I'm not saying that's all we should do, but I'm just saying like the more we can clearly articulate what people are paying for, the more likely I think it will pass. Um, I I do I I know we won't solve the short-term rental fee conversation right now or in the next month, but I don't think we should dismiss that as a >> as a parallel move here because that shifts the cost off of the the that that shifts the regressive nature of this and it just separates it out from this. So even if we still plan with like a fairly solid ballot measure here to try to get at what we're solving for that objective here and I think all of us on council are saying we have the same goals effectively funding our public safety needs. >> Like that's what we're aiming for. >> Yeah. Council member, I just want to say that I I think really we recognize that we didn't I don't think we anticipated city council tonight could take it's very complex and and make a very quick decision this evening. I think uh we didn't expect that. I think we wanted to bring as many possible options for consideration uh for council to really to stew on it. The the piece is is that there is a secondary piece once council decides. I mean either they say no, we're not taking anything to the voters or a we are going to take this thing to the voter. There is another mechanism in place waiting to move forward that gets to the heart of what you're talking about is is giving the people those tangible things and telling them exactly what they're voting for. in both in 2009 and 2017 that was handled outside of the city by both FOP and IIAFF and both of those organizations are prepared to come along once council make if council makes a decision to move forward with some type of funding. Uh both of those organizations are already waiting to have those and create that communication and create that information uh and begin to do those things with the community so they clearly understand what this tax is and that it isn't just funding just a lump sum of money that where it's specifically going to be spent and why it's going to be spent. So that mechanism piece will immediately kick into effect once council decides their direction. And so I just want to be clear that um that will happen um and has happened in the past. >> Great. My last question here and then I'll offer my final comment and then I think we can probably like I I'll pass over. Um what if we you tap into the general fund here? Building on the mayor's po points and council member Mars's points. What are we trading off? What aren't we doing if we tap into the general fund? Okay. >> Like, >> do we have a sense of the scale of cuts elsewhere? Do we know where that's coming from? >> Um, at this point, I would say that we're still working on what the revenue projections are going to look like for 27 and and moving forward. Um, you may remember that the last two years we funded no new initiatives or any expansion in staff in the general fund outside of I mean, you know, in the general fund, I would say. >> Yeah. Um and so because you know certainly for utilities it's a different ballgame but um you know within the general fund we haven't increased any level two requests. So first we would have to look at the revenue to determine what does that look like. We do try to fund what we call level one requests which are things that are going to increase regardless of you know any changes in programming. But you know we would certainly look at the revenues first. this would be the first thing that would need to be funded potentially even over level one requests and then we would be bringing back potential cuts to you if if they were needed at that time. So what are we not funding is a good question because people have submitted their budget requests. Um we've we've had a week of budget hearings uh already around all of the different things that people are interested in moving forward with and so um you know we could certainly present those to you during the budget season. >> Sorry. >> Thank you. Um yourself one minute. Sorry. Yeah, I'll take 10. No, I'm just kidding. Um, the 30 seconds >> here. Here's what I'll say. I >> I I definitely I think I'm largely hearing from my colleagues that like we some type of ballot measure is going to move forward. So, I'm going to say like I'm I'm there the exact measure. I'm not I I need to sleep on. Um, mayor, I I think this is maybe a question we can take offline, but >> I think this is a deeper conversation than we could have in another meeting and we might want to have a separate session. And I don't know if it's a stud like a study session, a presession, an a pre-p preession. I don't know what it is, but I think we should probably do that. This is this is such a critical conversation for us. >> And so I for the community. So, one of the reasons why I'm kind of delving into this conversation and, you know, we've had some people who have technically spoken twice, but um I think having to to accept another, you know, more more input because that's also going to guide what is that going to look like in the next council discussion? Is it going to be a general session topic? Is it going to be a presession? Is it going to be a study session item? I mean, we it's it's getting close and our our our schedule is getting pretty packed as I look the weeks down the line. Um, so I do want to be cognizant of that. So, I was hoping that we could get as much feedback from you all and thoughts right now to just kind of get that out so we can concise something for future discussion and really just kind of hone down that conversation so we're not having, >> you know, but this is why I was kind of trying to the earlier conversations. But, um, >> yeah, I don't want to short change this. I want to do this right. And to Council Member Marson's point, if we're going to do this, we got to do it really strategically. we have to be super clear and this has to be this most straightforward ballot question that solves the objectives we're trying to to address here. So, >> and and I I know that when we're looking at different sources of bringing in funding, um I I kind of want to avoid that conversation right now because I want to focus on the ballot measure itself, but you know, when um Sandy had mentioned and offered up, you know, send me your suggestions >> for other things. So that that might be a good platform for that. I just don't want to muddy the waters. >> I will and I appreciate that invitation. I think we shouldn't have this conversation solely in a vacuum and when we're talking about ballot measures, we get fixated on that and I don't want us to negate the other surrounding conversations that we have been already started to have. We talked about short-term rentals a month ago. Yes. >> Or so like so that's all I just we shouldn't have this in a vacuum. It's too >> No, I I understand that. Um I just want, you know, for clarity. So, we're just talking about we want it clear, but if we're talking about all these other things, that muddies the situation. So, >> we want the ballot question clear. >> I want the ballot question clear. And that's what [laughter] Yes. Thank you. Um, crystal clear. Speaking of which, Council Member Crystal Prito, >> sorry, mayor. So, when I was speaking earlier, >> I asked a question to staff and then I was cut off for the remaining amount of time. So, I just wanted to follow up. Um I so with my suggestion on the emergency fund um I already stated my opinion sales tax I agree with council member Marc um if you guys I don't know if that was even discussed or talked about but if it is going to be something that's going to be helpful as far as the emergency fund if you guys would just let council know if that's just based off what you're looking at as far as one-time funds getting started getting these new positions started started needing a new truck, maybe capital improvement, and you can build that out and put back into it over that 10ear span or I just wanted to put that on the table. And again, you don't have to answer yes, we think it would be great or no, actually, we think we could do it without it. Um, just know that that is a tool in your tool belt that I'm willing to explore and I'm also thinking that maybe other council members are as well. And that's all I wanted to say, Mayor. >> Uh-huh. Thank you. Um >> oh mayor >> I can I yes please go ahead >> clarify are you referring to our general fund stabilization reserve >> when you are talking about the emergency fund >> it's an emergency reserve at 8% >> oh emergency reserve at 8% is that our budget >> two stabilization >> you spoke of one don't touch you can't touch it if you wanted to >> and then the other one uh it you stated that council would have to declare an emergency in order to utilize the funds. >> Yes. Okay. So, so I'm with you now. So, in the G, this is so this is the um fund balance reserves in the general fund and and you are correct. There are three um different tiers of the emergency reserve, the Taber reserve, and that's the one that I said we can't touch. >> Um it's basically an an unusable pot of money. um the 8% emergency reserve and then we have the stabilization reserve and it is that stabilization reserve that we did tap into um this past year when our sales tax revenues did not come in as we expected. Okay. >> Um so I guess I just want to understand your thought process here. Are you thinking can we use those funds to get a jump start on on hiring the staffing. >> I'm Yeah, basically for the emergency reserve, could that be utilized for some of the onetime costs, right? Like the trucks, uh, like, you know, the fire trucks or anything that is coming down the pipeline that we're maybe not going to gather right away. I just I think of it as kind of a savings that we've put together for public safety and and this seems kind of like an emergency situation to me that we're kind of falling behind by the time this ballot measure comes through the taxes actually start to you know gain um you know where are we going to be at and so can we tap into this to cover some of those upfront costs whether it's one time and or ongoing and then eventually replaced with if the ballot measures So using those funds to cover ongoing expenses would violate our financial policy. >> Okay. >> Um >> so the one time is what my original suggestion was. >> Yeah. And and so I'm just kind of thinking [clears throat] out loud here. Um the emergency reserve policy was established by you all. Those thresholds were put in place by through a financial policy that you all prior councils and then you all annually ha adopt. Um we could um you know if if that is your desire we could change those thresholds freeing up those funds to use it for essentially non-emergency um one-time uses. >> Yeah. and not necessarily my desire. I'm basically looking at the city public safety finance to say based off of what you guys are looking at this financial picture looking at some of the the costs that you you know you had shown in the presentation it looks like there we have a lot of needs and so I'm saying this is a resource that we potentially have would it be beneficial to tap into it does would staff be interested in that I'm not going to sit here and say I think or you know I I want to hear more so I want you guys to know it's something that I'm interested in exploring and if you feel like it's worthy of exploring and would be helpful to public safety, then come back with any recommendations or ideas. But we have a $9.8 million bucket of money that's sitting there. And so I'm saying, hey, let's if we need it, then let's use it. >> And that would require a policy change. So that would >> Yes. And mayor, council member Prito, I I appreciate the the comments that you made about this money and using it one time. Uh dollars onetime dollars gets difficult because you can only use it one time. And what the bulk of the public safety sales tax request is is I won't need one-time dollars for personnel if I don't have personnel. And so it's the salary piece. And and what I would say and and and I we may take you up on a conversation later on. If this council or the public safety sales tax doesn't pass, then maybe that's a broader conversation for some of the capital items that exist there that we would come back and maybe have a conversation about. Um, but I don't think at this moment in point in time, um, it wouldn't be helpful for me to ask you for that or ask this council to consider that simply because it it is about the personnel and the cost with the personnel. those those capital items you saw for 69 $69 million >> that's with the additional >> those are those are things we'd love to have and we know that if the sales tax passed we could fulfill most of those if they don't then that's a broader conversation within public safety of what is critical that we have to have that we Mr. Dominguez can't um you know can't find the funds to do and maybe that's a broader conversation that Mr. Dominguez and public safety comes back to you and says, "Hey, would you consider giving us a small portion of that to do this thing?" Um, and so I I think it's very generous and I appreciate the comments that you made, but I think at this point it would be a conversation if the public safety sales tax didn't pass and there was a critical infrastructure one-time need that we needed, we would certainly appreciate having that conversation. So, thank you. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you for that, Zach. Um, Council Member Marcy, >> thank you, Mayor. Everybody having fun still? Great. Um, I have a motion. Let's to to kind of wrap this up and to to just make sure that that they have the direction they need if you think it's helpful. Um, because it sounds like you do. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Yeah. It sounds like you do want the formal Yes. Let's go. So, the motion that I have, and I've sent the most recent text over to Crystal, is uh I move we direct staff to return with final options in a regular session for ballot referral for an increase in the public safety tax prior to the August deadline that was mentioned on language uh with the intent to refer the measure to voters and further direct staff to notify the county of that intent prior to the July 24th deadline. >> So, >> I'll second that. >> Come back to us. Yeah, >> we want to move forward. Basically saying we intend to refer something. Bring us back the final options based on the feedback you've heard and do it before. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Does that sound >> that is >> um is there anything that you would need from us? Thank you. >> I'm just curious whether council would entertain a special session to discuss. That's that would be the if I were Harold, I would be asking Yes. would you be up for a special session? Because right now you have your open forum on the 7th. Yes. >> Um you have your um regular session on the 14th. >> 14th. >> Um it's a Laura meeting on the 21st and then a regular session on the 28th >> and so if if you would if you would entertain a special session otherwise we'll put it on the 14th. >> Okay. Now the other option could be and is if we bump Lura to 5:30 >> and then have council that would be our special session. So, we're reserving that Tuesday instead of trying to find another day of the week. >> You you could absolutely do that as well. >> Okay. So, I saw a couple of thumbs up over there, but we have already bumped an LHA meeting. So, the plan is to have an LHA meeting after the lura meeting. >> Okay. But I >> I say stack them up. >> Stack them up. No, I don't want to do [laughter] that. Okay. So, we'll we'll work on the scheduling of that. >> But that's what I hear is more the preferences. Let's keep it to the Tuesdays. >> Um, >> does that sound >> Tuesdays? I mean, I see one that says flexible Tuesday. >> Yeah, for the sake of my marriage. Yeah, >> Tuesdays. Yeah. I mean, >> and I think staff as well. It can be embedded in our >> mayor. We'll chat more about it. >> We'll chat more about it. And if you have if you have serious thoughts or shoot me an email >> and any other ideas any other ideas, send them my way because what I heard was parking fees, marijuana fees, um potentially using the emergency fund. I heard short-term rental fees. So, we'll we'll take a look at some of those things to see if there's anything that we think would generate that or some magic mix that would. And if you have other ideas, send them my way, please. >> Okay. And Sandy, if I may, um, if I mean it to me it sounds like most of you are interested in some sort of mix of of property sales tax perhaps. >> I I am. And then I see some nos. So >> So keep >> I don't know if we can get that. >> So I don't know if we're not Yeah. >> Yeah. If we still they're not ready for that yet. >> Yeah. So if we still have some options where it's one option only, a sales tax only. Okay. >> And then I think there I've heard some other desire to have a mix. So if that is weighed in as well. >> And so I guess for those that are so for those that are interested in a mix, if if it's not 50/50 and you're really thinking it's some other mix, if you would let us know. I will do that. >> We can we can run those numbers for you. That way Teresa can get her spreadsheet. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Mayor, I apologize. I just want to I want to make sure that I understand Councilman Marcen's motion so that staff can be prepared. >> Yes. >> We are going to have another meeting that we're going to talk about so council can talk through their their next direction. >> Are you anticipating at that meeting we will have final solutions or are you anticipating there'll be a a follow-up meetings brought back to council for final solutions? The next meeting we talked about with the lura meeting, we would bring back final solutions for city council, which is basically kind of what we brought back today. >> I Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um I think you know because I what I heard from council and correct me if I'm wrong, people needed time to process these. >> Sure. Absolutely. So, even if they are coming back, the same options, you know, I didn't really hear people wanting um Well, no, I I heard a little bit of everything. I think um so we bring it back and then we're able to digest it more clarity. >> I think what we'll do is we'll bring back what we have and then if a specific council member wants something looked at differently, we'll also bring that back for so the rest of the council consider it. Okay. So, we would just ask that if if you wanted it not a 50/50 split, but a 7525, if you'll let Teresa and I know, we can adjust that and bring that back as consideration of final decision, a final option for council. >> Yes. >> Um, and so I just wanted clarification because it is a very complex and there's a lot of things we threw and we just want to make sure council has all the options available to them. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, and before we vote, we do have um couple of people in the queue. Uh, Council Member Popkin. >> Yeah, I was just going to on that note in terms of when we come back correct me if I'm wrong. It was a 1300 page packet, but maybe I missed this, but I didn't see the numbers actually like the scenarios and numbers broken down in the packet. If we can get that in advance, like I know you'll send us this, but if we can get that in advance of the next meeting, that would be incredibly helpful so that we can actually digest some of that and not work through it together >> for for any of these financial conversations, airport, this, all that. like we need that in advance if we're going to be making a decision. >> We will send you this presentation so you have this whole piece in detail. >> Yes. >> Um and you're right that we're just running up against deadlines. >> I get that. I'm just that that'll help us be able to give clearer direction as well. Thanks. >> So, and seeing no one else in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. >> Okay. And that carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all. So hopefully you don't have to come in early in the morning. >> Yeah. No, no, no. To these guys, they're leaving. >> We have negotiations with the fire department at 9. >> 9:30. >> 9:30. So, um, okay. 9:30. So, okay. So, we are now um >> Hold on. Let me get my let me get my script. Okay. So, um um so I need a motion to recess as on the Longmont City Council as the Longmont. Oh, wait. Go ahead. >> Oh, yeah. >> Also, >> is that so needs to be housing authority board of commissioners >> commissioners and so that does say that on my script. >> Um so, thank you for that. >> For the housing authority board appointments. So moved. >> Okay. >> So So [laughter] >> second move. >> Okay. So uh Mayor Prom made the motion to recess as the Longmont City Council and convene as the Longmont Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. And that has been seconded by Council Member Popkin. [laughter] >> Wait, didn't you say second? >> So moved. >> So moved. Well, he said so. He said it first. You said it's second. So >> there we go. >> All right. >> So >> So commissioners, >> yes. Oh, and all those What's that? >> So go ahead and vote and then we'll convene as >> Actually, commissioners, this housing authority >> item, um there's one seat uh available. You had three candidates. Uh, we thought you might be able to handle this one by motion. Do not have a ballot prepared for this. >> Okay. But we still need to recess as the housing commissioners to >> which you just did. >> Yes. >> Well, we have to finish. We're waiting on on um Council Member Chris, can you please place your vote? >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. I'm waiting [laughter] for it to finish the blank and reconvene. >> Okay. And that carries unanimously. Now, go ahead, Don. >> Now, commissioners, thank you. Sorry. um one seat on the housing authority advisory board to appoint for a term ending June 30th, 2029. You had three candidates. Um given that there's just one seat, we were thinking that a motion would be maybe a way to handle this one. Don't have a ballot prepped. Okay, that is that is fine. Um Council Member Marcen. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move we appoint Arlene Zortman as the uh one regular member term ending June 30th, 2029. Okay. So, the motion has been made to um accept Arlene Zortman um or to approve her appointment and it was seconded by council member Popkin. May >> you mind just a show? >> Do we just need a show of hands, please? Okay. If you all agree, raise your hand. >> Okay. And that carries unanimously. >> Okay. So, now I need a motion to recess as the Longmont Housing Authority um commissioners and reconvene as the city council. So, um, motion has been made by council member Popkin and seconded by Council Member Christ. >> Do you need a hand vote? >> Um, no. I think it's showing up there. Okay. >> Okay. And that carries unanimously. And we are now on to the city advisory board and commission appointments. Okay, mayor. Um, so I want to just walk through very quickly. We have 12 boards with vacancies. We received 36 applications for the 26 positions to be filled. Uh, two of the re the boards that have vacancies did receive no applications. So, of course, there's nothing to vote on. Those are not in consideration tonight. Master Board of Appeals, Senior Citizens Advisory Board. We will readvertise those vacancies in the fall recruitment cycle. Um, five uh of the boards have fairly similar to the housing authority one seat or one candidate. Uh, so we were going to approach five of these boards with some motions and I'll walk you through those one by one. Uh, those are Callahan group, MOPC, sustainability and water. And then the other five we will vote. Um, you will vote using your phone. We're going to distribute a QR code that will take you to a ballot. Um, and we will see how the first round goes, if we can get through it with one ballot. If not, um, Crystal's going to help me adjust on the fly the second ballot based on what happens with the first ballot. So, little bit of a process, but we think hope it'll go quickly. So, we're first going to jump to Callahan House Advisory Board, and you all have your sheets. Um, we put a tracking sheet that was distributed to you in email, but we put a copy at your desk, uh, in case that's easier for you. So, we're going to skip Art and Public Places, go to Callahan House has one unexpired regular member term and one candidate, one applicant. So, thought that maybe a motion >> would be easy there. >> So, okay. So, the motion has been made to accept the recommended candidate. Um, it was made by Mayor Prom McCoy, seconded by council member Prietto. Um, >> uh, it was an Angela >> Manati. >> Many. Yes. >> I don't know the pronunciation, but yes. >> Okay. Mani. Okay. >> And then if you just want to raise your hands. >> Yeah, let's go ahead. If you can >> Who made the motion? >> Um, it was Mayor and then PTO. >> And council member Prietto. So um just just with a show of hands, do you approve this recommendation or this um Angela Maniachi to the Okay, so that carries unanimously. >> Great. So Callahan will have one new board member, Miss Maniac. Moving on to the general employee uh retirement pension board uh group. There are two applicants and two seats. Uh so again, we thought mayor, you sat in on these um interviews that maybe you might lead a motion, but not critical that you do that. >> Um >> one term ends June 30, 2031, one ends in June 2029. So if you like both applicants, the question really is who, where? So my I my motion is to approve Travis Green for the one regular term ending in 2031 and then Josh Sherman for the one unexpired regular term ending in June 30th, 2029. >> Okay. So, I made the motion seconded by um Council Member Popkin um to accept Travis Green for the um regular member 20 June 30th, 2031 and Josh Sherman for the unexpired ending in June 30th, 2029. Um can we all those in favor? I Okay. And that carries unanimously. >> Excellent. See, we're cruising. Thank you. >> Uhhuh. Jumping forward on the back of the first page to MOPC. Uh another pinion board mayor. You sat in on those. Yes. One seat, three candidates. Um we will mark Josh Sherman off because you just appointed him to GERP. So two candidates. Um Nikki Davidson or Jennifer Finley. >> Okay. Um so Council Member Popkin. >> Yeah. I'll motion to appoint uh Nikki Davidson to the regular member term. Okay. No, you're good. So, that motion has been made by Council Member Popkin, seconded by Council Member Marcy. And with a hand vote, um, all those in favor? I. U., okay. And that carries unanimously. Great. Thank you very much. Move jumping down to sustainability. Uh, one seat. You have three applicants there. Uh, Mr. Hodgees withdrew his application. So, just three applicants. Uh, council member Caloffer is the uh, liaison to that board. >> Do we have does is there anyone who would like to to make a motion? Um, there were two that were recommended, Johnny and John. Um, and then there's also a third if you want the other John. Um, council member um, Marcine, go ahead. >> I move we appoint John Lemi to the sustainability advisory board. Okay. So, the motion has been made to um appoint John Lumpky to the sustainability advisory board. And this um it has been second motion has been made by council member Marcy and seconded by council member Koffer. Um with a show of hands, raise your hand. Okay. So, we have well one two three four. So, that does carry unanimous or it carries. It's so we have Kuffer. Do you need me to to state the names of council members? So, we had council member Kuffer, Marcine, um Prietto and um council member Popkin. >> Four >> four and then Yeah. Okay. >> Got it. Thank you. >> All right. So, Mr. Lkey will be appointed to sustainability. The last one by motion um at least initially by motion will be waterboard uh one one seat open ending 2030 and two applicants uh Mr. Duster and Mr. Wright. >> Okay. >> One of the third applicant withdrew. So you have two candidates there >> to choose from. Okay. >> Council member Christ is the liazison. >> Council member Christ. I move that we appoint Thomas just Thomas Thomas Duster to the one regular member term ending June 30th 2030. >> Second. >> Okay. So um so the motion has been made to appoint Thomas Duster to the waterboard term ending in June 30th 2030. Um made by council member Chris, seconded by council member Coloffer. Uh with the show of hands. Okay. And that carries unanimously. >> Awesome. All right. So, now we are going to go back to the other five boards. Crystal is going to distribute to you a sheet with a QR code. Please use your phone camera pointed at the QR code. We'll take you to a ballot. You will be asked to enter your initials. All you need are your initials uh and then move through the ballot to to make your to place your votes. So you will be voting on the uh three seats art and public places. The four seats on housing and human services advisory board. You will see those are broken up into the different seats. The library advisory board also broken up into seats. Museum and then transportation. Thank you for putting them off. always. [laughter] >> Mine is not going very fast. >> There's a new Wi-Fi password in here. If you need that, I can share that. >> Longmont 155 with a capital L. It's coming up for everybody. Yes. >> What's the name of the network? >> Pabet. Yes. >> And then you're probably gonna have to change the password >> because it's they you changed it this week, right? yesterday. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. That was just yesterday. [laughter] >> I think it was days ago. >> Oh my god. >> Okay, there's none. >> Don, question on the in the packet. It made it seem like housing human services had three available seats, but I only see two options. >> There's one there two. Sorry. >> QR code. Four seats. Housing services. >> Yeah, council member Pria. There are four seats. You'll see those. Mhm. >> I didn't go down yet. >> Okay. Okay. [laughter] Keep scrolling. >> There are two regular terms, one shorter term, and then an open seat. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It's not letting me change. >> [clears throat] [laughter] >> He's missing out. >> Do you Randy, did you forget the network? >> I'm trying to reset it all. >> Just got to click forget the network. >> I'm on there. >> Yeah. What did you say? Longmont. >> Longmont 155. >> I like that. >> Then if you need to, you can use my phone too. Yeah, >> the three the three healthy ones. >> Yes, >> I wanted to sit back >> and be available for you guys if there were questions. >> I I didn't treat it the same way. Okay. I think the AC stopped. >> I know. >> Anybody know any good dancers? >> Dancing. >> Popping. Do you have your piano? Yeah, I see the two guys down at the end with hot flashes. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. I'm like the two the two guys on council. Young guys are the hot flashes. >> What am I doing? >> Unless you want to join them. [laughter] >> Oh, >> you are right. Okay. >> Okay. >> How many times you gone after midnight? >> Yeah. I'm going to say it's nothing to be proud of. [laughter] >> Okay. >> I think we have a couple of people left like three. >> Yeah. >> Oh, there you go. >> We have three. >> You can see the initials. >> Okay. Okay, mayor and council member. >> Okay, >> so they're still working it looks like. >> can I make my council comment now while we're waiting or >> I know I would love that multitasking. >> This was so much easier than last time. >> I was like so I was like this was like the scariest thing on the agenda tonight for me. >> Oh, really? Okay. >> Yeah. Now it's not so scary. No. No. >> Now I feel >> great. So we have seven seven votes >> submitted. Let's see how we did. >> So Art and Public Places, three regular member terms. >> Um, >> okay. >> Looks like Tissa Baxter, >> Eve Lacy, Jennifer Miller. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to go in and look here in a second. Housing and Human Services Advisory Board. The two unexpired terms. Looks like we have >> Oh, interesting. >> Janine >> or Jennica, I don't know her name as a clear. >> Yes. >> Winner. Uh, I want to look at the backside. Crystal. Well, um, the one unexpired term >> looks like Kevin >> Housing and Human Services Advisory Board. >> Yes. >> Um, I want to look at the backside to see the tally of the votes. It's showing a percentage. And then the one for 2026 is a do not fill, a clear do not fill. >> Um, which is what we anticipated. >> Okay. >> Uh, because you don't have enough people. >> Yeah. >> So now, don't we still >> Oh, go ahead. Well, um, >> Council Member Marcen, >> thank you, Mayor Don. Don't we still then have a vacancy on HHSAB? that cuz there are four vacancies on HHSAB and we took one Kevin was the overwhelming choice for the shorter term. >> Uhhuh. >> And then we were split between and Jennica was the leader for the other term and then Brentton who just for the record the committee was the strong felt the strongest about of the the folks. So I just am clarifying if we have an open vacancy there that we need to move by motion or not. >> Um So the just just one second. >> Yeah. So hold on. >> Yeah. >> Before we move on, >> I can't tell because >> let me display a different screen. [snorts] >> Okay. >> I don't know the answer to your question. Let me go back to a different screen because >> Okay. >> It will show us >> the tally, which is what I wanted to see. >> There you go. So we can see how many. But why won't we slide? There we go. All right. >> So on AIP, you can see Tissa has six votes, Eve has seven, and Jennifer has six. The percentages weren't uh secure enough in my mind. So that those are clear appointees. >> Housing and human services advisory board. And I'll come back to your question in a moment. >> [laughter] >> Um, Housing and Human Services Advisory Board. For the two seats, you do have two clear winners. Kevin and Bretton McNamera appointed. >> No, actually, Jennica. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Jennica. I overlooked her. Sorry. One clear winner. >> Janice Jennica is clear. Um, you actually need to revote. Um, however, if you go down >> for the one >> for 2027, >> Kevin was >> Kevin is the clear one for that. >> Kevin is not. He only got three. >> Oh, never mind. >> I was looking at the percentage, >> right? So, we will need to revote on >> um do it by motion. >> Yeah, >> if you'd like to do it by motion. >> Let's do it by motion. Council member Marcen. >> Thank you, Mayor. And this is following the preference of the of the board. Um I would move that uh Brettton McNamera be appointed to the unexpired the other unexpired regular member term ending December 31st, 2028 and that Kevin Bonedz be appointed to the 2027 term. >> Okay. So, the motion has been made to appoint um Breton Breton McNamera [clears throat] >> um for the uh unexpired regular >> team term 2028 and Kevin Bonedz to the unexpired regular um term ending in 2027. And that was seconded by made by council member Marcy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tim McCoy. All those in favor, raise your hand. >> Okay. Um, Council Member Popkin, did you not have your hand? Oh, you did. >> Sorry, I didn't catch that. Okay. So, that carries unanimously. >> And that leaves us with that six-month vacancy open December 31st, 2026. That >> and it's just open. >> It's just open. >> Um, does that answer your question, Council Member Morris? Are we good then? Okay, we're in better shape now. Great. >> Uh, moving along to So, we move through housing library advisory board. We have three open seats. You have three uh with four or more votes. Mr. Dolman, I guess I shouldn't say Mr. Jeff Dolman, Carrie Dumpy, Charlene Kelsey are your three appointees. >> Okay. >> To library advisory board >> to the regular terms 2029, right? >> Yes. >> Then the unexpired uh Brian Litwin >> is the appointee by a clear vote of five. >> Okay. You're doing great. Done. Good. >> You guys did great. >> Museum Advisory Board, we need three seats. You all clearly agreed. Uh Kaylee Cordova unanimously. Haley Gould unanimously. Casey Sharer unanimously. >> You're making this very easy. >> Great. Thank you. On to tab. We have one un one regular term ending in 2029. We have one uh clear winner there. Gina Burough's >> vote of six and then your other seat is the unexpired term ending in 2027. Pretty closely aligned. Amy Wilkins >> will fill that seat. >> Okay. >> And mayor and council, we are done. >> Awesome. Oh my gosh. Yay. >> That was easy. Thank you very much. >> That was easy. No, I I appreciate. >> How was it for staff this process? the >> just the whole thing the whole thing >> since we since this round um I haven't actually heard talked to board okay uh staff le secretaries to get their feedback and haven't heard any >> from staff >> directly okay >> which >> is maybe a good sign >> maybe it's a good sign >> um >> from our office you know our office was questioning how did it feel for you all and how we gave you the materials back and >> you know gave you voting sheet was the organization of it done well that kind of thing. >> Okay. Okay. >> I will just Yeah, if you can ask that would be that would be amazing. So, we are now at final call public invited to be heard. Are there any members of the audience who would wish to speak? Come on down and thank you for waiting for such a long meeting. John Krensfeld. Uh 229 Airport Road is where I have my business, the Longman Airport. And I think you really missed an opportunity tonight uh for a slam dunk. Um you know, the airport is also a public safety issue. It serves us in in times of wildfire, disaster, floods, uh and it's really critical to prevent uh the city of Longmont. I agree with uh the terrible things that this administration is putting into virtually every contract grant uh research uh grant uh something that you know my business is involved in. Um but if you think that you know resisting it uh will in any way insulate Longmont from what they uh have been doing to communities, you know, you're incredibly naive. It's no insulation whatsoever. Um, the taxiways are in terrible shape. Uh, it's to the point where it's now marginal for my aircraft to exist at Longmont. There are plants growing out of cracks. There are rocks. It's not just the area that the FAA has proposed to repair. The whole airport is in disrepair. Um, so this is a public safety issue and it's something that really needs to be addressed and it will either be addressed with FAA grant funding or with city general funds. Um, where do those city general funds come from? Where do the FAA funds come from? Well, the FAA funds come from our taxpayer dollars whenever we travel. Uh, in a given year, I put $2,000 into the FAA uh aviation trust fund, and I want that money to come back to Longmont. Uh, when somebody flies to Madison, Wisconsin on United Airlines, they are paying into that fund. when somebody from Longmont flies there. I just picked that randomly. Uh that money should come back to us and it and it has historically and we pay into that fund uh so that it can come back and support our great city. If this was an issue with the condition of the roads, people would be outraged. This room would be full. People would be demanding that you fix the roads. Um and by the way, the roads are in pretty bad shape. Um and and people do complain. >> Yeah. Uh in my aircraft there's a little button and it says fire test and I push the button and it tests the fire sensors in the engine compartment. Uh there are various ways you can test those engine sensors. One is you push the test and a master alarm goes off that says fire and you know that the sensors are working. The other would be to light a fire in the engine compartment and see if the fire sensors are working and tell you that yeah there's a fire there. uh the council is thinking that lighting a fire uh will be the right thing to do by resisting, you know, FAA and not taking their money. Um well, there are millions of dollars at stake uh that we've passed up on and that money will have to come from Longland taxpayers and I'll follow up with a note to all of you. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um anyone else in the audience? Um, Meg Thornbury and then we have one person behind you, so thank you. Okay, I'll be short, but you know, well, I'm already short. Just kidding. Um, but um I just wanted to say when it comes to the whole public safety thing, um I appreciate all of the work that Longmont um does. It's frustrating to me that the public safety and um the sorry the police and the fire departments have become conflated because speaking to the ballot measure if you said like hey we're going to do capital improvements for fire everybody would be like great if you say public safety people are like wait. Um so just a little bit of that and then just also in terms of like as a social worker coming from the perspective of the up the river versus down the river approach. So, if you don't know, it's the hypothetical tale of a a town that keeps on rescuing all these people out of the river. They get the best services and they can do it in record time and they're doing all these things, but nobody's asking why there are so many people in the river. And so, the idea is you go back up the river and you say, "Oh my god, there's this horrible cliff that there's not a guardrail and now all these people are falling off and going into the river." So with just with all of these approaches, I just want to make sure that the long city of Longmont is taking the up the river approach in the public safety standpoint. I believe that that involves a whole lot of the additional responding roles, which I was disappointed to see in their chart that those were going to be very very slowly and scatteredly implemented along with all of the officer positions. So, in terms of that long-term thing, I would love to see more funding going towards those support roles so that hopefully there are fewer needs for full officer roles later. So, um yeah, and again, thanks everybody. It's late. >> Great. Thank you. >> Good morning. It's Dave Cop, 229 Airport, Road number 13. I'm uh an officer with the Longmont Owners and Pilots Association. First thing I want to do is congratulate Sandy Cedar on her assistant city manager or acting city manager. Hope that leads to good things. [laughter] >> I wanted to key off some of uh Sy's points to make sure you got them. She pointed out that even airports uh or cities that don't take any grants for 20 years are still subject to all the FAA rules. Doesn't mean you're out. Doesn't mean you can sell the airport just because you own it. You've got an awful lot of commitment there. The grants you've taken. You and all your predecessors have been extremely conservative on grants. In fact, you're just about the lowest of you are the lowest of a city your size. I got 25 years of data here. I just don't have the last six years. But Fort Collins has taken 25 million. In those 25 years, Gley's taken 35 million. Uh Durango's taken 20 million. And you're on every page here. Fort Morgan's taken 11 million. And uh you're at 8 million in those 25 years. That doesn't count the last six years. And uh and even there's even smaller ones here. You got Pagosa Springs 40 million uh meer 20 million every city here and you're you're in the top 10% of the size. This is just the outstate not the big metros. So he John's right. You you're got an opportunity to get a $1.5 million here for 75,000. A nickel will get you a dollar and it doesn't get you any more commitments than you already got to the FAA, but it's going to be a lot better airport and it's going to be a lot safer. I know a lot a lot of you think I'm just an evil pilot, but we're not evil. Yesterday, I spent uh a great time. I went up to a little church just north of Longmont here. I flew in with my helicopter and 250 kids came down and asked me questions and got in a helicopter and got pictures taken. That's the kind of stuff we do. Two more pilots are flying up there this week. They got a uh aviation uh theme going on up there. So, they were excited about it. Crawling all over that helicopter. Ask me every question you can imagine. It's a magic carpet ride and they love the discussion on it. When we have a when we have these events at the airport, every every aircraft's out there said do not touch. I can't even touch them. So the point is these kids got in it. They got to touch and feel it. This is a significant event for them. They had fun. That's what's going on. So when that when you get back to your discussion, I think on the 14th, approve it. It's the best thing for you. >> I'll leave this with Sandy to see that. Thank you. >> Um, anyone else? Scott, come on down. Mayor, Council Member Scott, 229 Grand Street. Um, call me a cynic. Um, asked to see the end, uh, the end of life use report that, uh, Levi was referring to earlier. Um, ask for the maintenance schedule for the taxi way over the last 10 years. Uh, part of your grant assurance, it's number 11, pavement, uh, preventive maintenance, uh, stuff. You're required to have a program for maintaining this stuff. As >> John said a little bit ago, it's not just this piece of taxiway that's got a problem with weeds growing up and what have you. Bottom line is we're not managing this airport appropriately. Forget about the grant money. We're we haven't been doing it. We haven't been meeting our grant obligations. The airport has a problem. It has a revenue problem. It needs to find additional revenue sources. This is why landing fees were proposed. The airport community jumped up and down and said, "You can't have more fees. You can't do this. You can't do that. You haven't given us an opportunity to come up with other sources." Has anybody heard of a different source of revenue since that time? No, it's been silent. The only source of revenue is grant funding, grant funding, grant funding. Look at the look at the grants that we've taken. When you guys want to do repairs or maintenance to taxiways, we actually ask for grants for that. We ask the state for grants. We're not we're not reserving for this >> these assets, which we should be doing reserve for it. This threat that the money for the airport needs to is going to come from the from the general fund. Do we not have an airport fund? What's the amount of revenue in the airport fund? and then create a revenue stream to replenish that revenue f that that airport fund. The airport is an enterprise fund. It's been set up to accommodate itself and run as a business on its own. Let's start running it that way. Golf was up here the other week. We're talking about budget stuff for the golf. Golf got what? $3 million approved by taxpayers in order to do the uh to do the um irrigation system. They realized that they didn't have enough money. What did they do? They adjusted their rates and charges so they're going to self-fund to what was it? $8 million they're going to have for their own stuff. They're operating it like they care and they're not going back to taxpayers asking for more money. What's wrong with the airport that it can't charge rates? Adjust things. When's the last time it adjusted the base rate for a land lease? If you really want to operate this airport, adjust the rates and start thinking about owning some hangers and having a revisionary clause at the end of their term. >> Okay, thank you. Um, anyone else? Okay, see none. We Oh. Um, well, just one one person per session. [laughter] >> Um, yeah, send us an email or catch us. Um, so now we're on to mayor and council comments. Do we have any comments from council? >> What? I'm already thirsty. I was like, I have nothing to say. [laughter] >> Very quick. Yeah, this was a long one. Thanks to staff for hanging in. Thanks for the public. Thanks for the media that's here. I'm kind of curious how long uh the recap's going to be for a meeting that's went this long. Um there was a couple items that sustainability brought up, but it's too late to go into that. So, I'll bring that up during the next meeting. >> And I think we are going to block at the last council meeting for comments where it's only focused on council updates >> and and mayor that that would have been tonight's meeting. Oh, never mind. Um, except that I think we're I think we're had kind of thought we would start all these things in July. >> July. So, >> okay. [laughter] Okay. >> That doesn't help necessarily because I think council member Kofheer actually has things from SA. >> Go [clears throat] ahead. >> No, no, no. I'll bring it up next meeting. >> Are you sure? Okay. Cuz I don't know if it's it's timely. >> Yeah, it it is timely and we're all tired and we all have uh the CML tomorrow. So, yeah. >> Yeah. Council member Koko for if you want to send them to me, I'll send them to the council so you can consider them prior to the next meeting. >> Perfect. >> Okay, that would be great. >> I'll do that. >> Okay, thank you. And um and thank you for your thoughtfulness on that. Um Council Member Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I appreciate the discussion on multiple topics tonight. I just want to encourage recognizing the time is 12:43. I just want to acknowledge that like we went on a couple side quests tonight and we should pick our battles and I'm going to get some angry emails about the comments I made earlier on the FAA grants and I'm and it would be an irresponsible decision for us to ultimately turn down that money. Let's pick our battles. Let's not go on too many side quests. Otherwise, we're going to pull from the general fund. We're going to make some mistakes and that's going to put strains on other things that we ended up talking about tonight as well. So, please, please, please don't think about each thing we vote on in a vacuum. Nothing happens in this city in a vacuum. Uh, agree or disagree? Uh, thank you to everyone who's still here. Staff, public, y'all are champs. Hope you learned something. I know I did. >> Okay. Um, great. Thank you. Now, on to city manager remarks. >> I learned a lot. >> Oh, yes. Thank you. Do you have a whole new appreciation for Harold? >> Thanks for your patience. Absolutely. >> No, thank you. Thank you for your patience. Oh my god. Okay. City attorney remarks. >> No comments, mayor. >> Okay, great. Thank you. You're my favorite person. Okay. We have a motion to adjourn. Okay. And that has been second many times. All those in favor? >> I. Okay. We are adjourned. [music] >> [music] >> for me. >> [music]

[music] Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Hey, hey, hey. >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Hey, daddy. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] Heat. Heat. N. [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. >> [music] [music] >> Jane, are we set? Okay, go ahead and we will call to order the Long Mountain Planning and Zoning Commission June 17th, 2026 meeting. >> Let's do roll call. >> Chair Poland >> here. >> Commissioner Edgely Wells >> Commissioner Lang >> here. >> Vice Chair Earl >> Commissioner Arment >> here. >> Commissioner Boon >> Commissioner Jordan >> here. >> Council member Popkin >> Chair, you have a quorum. >> Thank you very much. Uh next is the land acknowledgement statement. We acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne, Arapjo, Ute, and other indigenous peoples. We honor the history and the living and spiritual connection that the first people have with this land. It is our commitment to face the injustices that happened when the land was taken and to educate our communities, ourselves, and our children to ensure that these injustices do not happen again. Next is communications from Grant Penland, Planning and Zoning, Planning and Development Services. Good evening. >> Good evening, chair. >> That's it. >> I don't have any communication. [laughter] Okay. Thank you very much. Next is the initial public invited to be heard. This is a chance for the public to speak to us on items that are not on the schedule for today and will not be quasi judicial items coming before the commission. Uh nobody signed up for this. Um, I will go ahead and give everybody a chance if they want to come up and speak. You get five minutes if there's something other than what's on the agenda today to speak to. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out the public invited to be heard initial. Next is approval of the minutes. First, we'll take the May 20th, 2026 meeting minutes. Are there any comments, questions, or motions? Commissioner Arman. >> Motion to approve those amendments. >> Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. Uh, any other questions? No. Jane, let's go ahead and take a vote. >> Commissioner Edgely Wells, >> yes. >> Commissioner Lang, >> hi. >> Vice Chair Earl, >> Chair Poland, >> yes. >> Commissioner Armet, >> hi. Commissioner Boon. Hi. >> Commissioner Jordan. >> Yes. >> Chair, that passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> Thank you very much. Next is the May 27th, 2026 meeting minutes. Once again, do we have any questions, comments, or motions? Commissioner Jordan, >> I move to approve the May 27 minutes. >> Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Commissioner Boone, >> I will second that. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Uh, seeing that there's no questions or comments, Jane, let's go ahead and take a vote on that. >> Commissioner Edgely Wells, >> yes. >> Commissioner Lang, >> I. >> Vice Chair Earl, >> yes. >> Chair Poland, >> Commissioner Arment, >> hi. >> Commissioner Boon, >> Commissioner Jordan, >> yes. >> Chair, that passes unanimously, 7 to zero. >> Thank you very much. Next is public hearing items. We have one item on the agenda today. It is the Long Mount Gateway Northwick Northwest annexation zoning and concept plan. Senior planner Christine Cotay presenting. Good evening, Chairman Poland and commissioners. My name is Kristen Cody. I'm a senior planner in planning and development services. And tonight I will be presenting for your consideration the Longmont Gateway Northwest annexation zoning and concept plan application. [clears throat] >> [snorts] >> The application before the commission tonight is the annexation of approximately 266 acres into the city of Longmont, zoning to residential mixed neighborhood and approval of a concept plan [clears throat] establishing the general layout and development framework for the property. This request does not establish any entitlements and future applications and reviews are required to establish those. [clears throat] The subject property is generally located at the northwest corner of US 287 and Parkidge Avenue. The property is approximately 26 acres, is currently um located in unincorporated Boulder County, and is adjacent to an existing single family residential development to the west, which was developed in the 1950s to 1960s. Existing conditions, the property is currently vacant land with a abandoned agricultural farm site that exists. This site is west of US 287, which is a regional corridor with existing urban development located to the west, east, and south of the property. The site is also located within the Longmont planning area and municipal service area. [clears throat and cough] This exhibit provides a view looking um from the south across the property. This is a depiction of that the north extension of the property looking south. You can see the farm site and the ad adjacent residential development. This shows the gated Rosland um rightaway access in the Willis Heights neighborhood. And this is the abandoned farm site which exists on the property. The structures do remain part of the overall site context in reference to its historic nature and have been reviewed by the historic preservation commission. The historic preservation commission indicated through a motion that the owner developer shall [clears throat] prepare a plan for preservation of the historical aspects of the property with particular consideration given to preservation of the original farmhouse which may include relocation of the structure on the property. The proposed development. The proposal considers development under the residential mixed neighborhood zoning district which allows a range of housing types and densities from six to 18 dwelling units an acre. Housing types may include single family attached, detached, duplexes, town homes, and multif family residential, [clears throat] excuse me. The concept plan identifies an anticipated density range of approximately 6 to 18 dwelling units per acre. Final unit counts and development intensity will be determined through future development review applications and must conform to any approved concept plans. If the pro if any proposals would not adhere to a approved concept plan, that would require a public hearing and a concept plan amendment. And this is a depiction of the concept plan which shows the proposal for lower density residential adjacent to the um residential single family subdivision located in unincorporated Boulder County with higher density residential adjacent to US 287. And this is the subdivision plat of the adjacent westerly subdivision which this area shows the plan connectivity at Rosland [clears throat] compatibility analysis. Compatibility with surrounding properties is a question that is proposed in your review criteria. Compatibility does not require identical lot sizes or identical development patterns. The proposed concept plan contemplates a transition in residential intensity with lower intensity residential located adjacent to existing neighborhoods and higher intensity development located near to US 287. The mixed neighborhood designation anticipates a range of housing types and densities with transi transitions between lower density neighborhoods in more intensive uses. Future buffering, landscaping, lot layout, and architectural design would [snorts] be evaluated through future review applications. [clears throat] Neighborhood feedback. staff received a significant amount of public input in throughout this review process, including neighborhood meetings and written correspondence. Some common concerns that have [clears throat] been expressed have included traffic access, pedestrian safety, density, drainage, and neighborhood connectivity. The commission has received copies of these comments with their packet. [clears throat and cough] Boulder County referral comments. Boulder County comments generally focused on transportation capacity, roadway impacts, drainage, infrastructure coordination, and emergency access onto the rightway connection and access configuration. Because annexation is a highlevel conceptual process, approval of the annexation would require continued coordination with Boulder County and their concerns would have to be reviewed and addressed through future development review processes. Staff evaluation. While in review, staff eval evaluated the application bas based on the applicable review criteria which includes consistency with the comprehensive plan, compatibility and transitions, transportation access and circulation, urban service availability, multimodal connectivity and public and agency comments received during the process [snorts] with [clears throat] the consideration that annexation is a high level review and important details such as access, water and sewer service are all finalized as the site pro proceeds through additional applications that establish entitlements. Comprehensive plan alignment [clears throat] staff finds that the proposal is generally consistent with Envision Longmont policies regarding growth management, housing mix, transportation connectivity, um compatible transitions and multimmodal planning. [clears throat] The proposal also supports development within the municipal service area adjacent to existing transportation infrastructure and urban services. [snorts] This map is the future land use map from Envision Longmont comprehensive plan. So this illustrates the city's long-term vision for growth and this shows the 287 corridor which includes very a very small amount of single family residential adjacent to US 287 at the very southern portion of the city limits. Commissioner's review and recommendation tonight is guided by section 1502055 of the land development code which is the which is the review including comprehensive plan consistency, infrastructure considerations, compatibility, transportation planning and mitigation of impacts. In addition to the review criteria for all application types, annexation requests must also comply with the municipal annexation act and additional annexation specific review standards which include being located within the municip municipal service area and long planning area, the ability to integrate into the surrounding land in the city and conformance with applicable state statutes. What happens next? This annexation request will proceed to city council for final consideration. Future subdivision and site development reviews would evaluate detailed roadway design, drainage, utilities, landscaping, architecture, and more if this um annexation were to be approved. Decision options. The commission has three decisions before them this evening. Approval without conditions, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff recommends approval of the Longmont Gateway Northwest annexation residential mixed neighborhood zoning and concept plan application based on compliance with the applicable review criteria and standards of the Longmont Land Development Code. That concludes my presentation. The applicant team also has a presentation for you this evening and staff is available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Chris Neils. I work for ACTIS. Address 755 Delaware Avenue, Longmont, Colorado 80501. I'm here with several other members of our team. Frank Diana, we have Candace Bernett from uh Kimley Horn who's the planner, James who is our civil engineer, and Jeff who's the traffic engineer. So, we're all here to kind of give you a broader understanding of the project and answer any questions that you may have. Um, I know some of you were here for our meeting several weeks ago. Um, and some of you are new, so I'm going to kind of go through a little bit more robust presentation than last time based on some of the feedback we got. And, um, thank you for bearing with me, those of you are here. And, um, for those of you who weren't, um, [clears throat] look forward to giving you some of the details. So I wanted to start with just kind of where we are in this process. And there's kind of three things that I want to take away from this. One is kind of I look at this project in three big chunks. The first is just establishing the land use and the concept plan. That's where we are. As we move forward, we'll go into the subdivision and the actual kind of infrastructure details. And then the third phase is actually site plans and building permits. And you know every stage we will come back in front of this commission. So tonight we're here to talk about the annexation, the zoning, the concept plan with that feedback which kind of establishes the rough parameters of what we do in the next phase. We'll put together the subdivision and the infrastructure plans. Come back through this organization to talk at that level of detail. Um, and then as we move forward, get into the actual site plans and building permits and to the extent that it's a major application, which I think it probably would be, we would come back here again. So, there are a lot of opportunities for us to discuss the details of the nitty-gritty of this project going forward. Um, so a little bit of history. You know, this project has kind of been in the pipeline for about five years. It was originally brought in front of city council for annexation by Meritage Homes, which is a national home builder. Uh they had a presentation um of about 99 single family residents. U back in 2021, the city council reviewed their application. They unanimously approved to move ahead with the annexation referral, but five out of the seven members who made comments talked about how they would like to see more density here. that given the location of the property and some of its nuances that there was really an opportunity to do more and better than just 99 single family homes. Um, following that, Meritage Homes decided the business that they're in is building single family homes. This project didn't really meet the requirements of what they were looking for going forwards and they decided to walk away. um act as a local developer here kind of saw the vision of city council and said, you know, we really think that that would be the right thing to put here going forward and um got into contract and purchase the project. And um we hired Kimley Horn um who's here this evening to kind of do the planning and really figure out what the right way to do a mixed neighborhood was. taking into account the sensitivities to the neighbors to the uh west and the south and then understanding that we had a major highway to the east um and kind of figure out some of those details. So it went back in front of city council in 2024. I think at that time the council members expressed appreciation that their previous comments were listened to, addressed, and it felt like there was a really good alignment between the vision that we were presenting to them and kind of what they all had in mind. Um, again, it was unanimously approved to move forward with the annexation. Now, despite that unanimous approval, um following that meeting, um given the public comment and the comments that were given to us by the county of Boulder, um we took a step back and had really rethought the way that especially the transportation connectivity worked in this project and spent another almost year and a half kind of retooling how all of that works, adding a stoplight at the north part of the uh project, which required a a lot of coordination with C dot moving the RTD to the north part of the project which required a lot of coordination with RTD and through that um you know we got all of those things addressed and we're ready to come back into the process and came in front of you guys this evening. So I'm going to turn it over to Candace to talk a little bit about kind of the goals of the project and what we envision. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Candace Bernett and I'm with Kimy Horn. Um we're part of the project team doing and preparing uh the con conceptual planning uh land planning looking at really what the intent of your um envision Longmont plan is about your zoning designations working with some of your staff when you were going through part of your code updates and looking at some of your new opportunities for some of the urban planning designations and really taking that as a great opportunity especially as we paused after the first council meeting and looking at what how the site really should be designed to optimize those opportunities and design, you know, design the site to really um pull together those pieces, come up with a better vision and come back to the table with this with this new goal in mind. And with that, we looked at the site and we wanted to really create a um a project that provided a neighborhood that is not only thoughtfully designed, but really provide a mixture of housing opportunities and typologies. We knew that the city's goal is to create this community that's has um these unique housing types that really appeal to all different types of families um whether you're growing in or growing out of a house um and appeal to different income levels and different strategies as you go through um the housing economics. So with that in mind, we also understood that we had some limitations in terms of b border conditions um edge conditions with um a major highway condition on the 287 and we really wanted to optimize how should the site be designed and also accommodating the fact that you do have some great provisions in place with shopping opportunities and future transit and how does that all work and align with creating a great walkable community and neighborhood that really fits fits in the context of what's already existing. um not changing it necessarily but making it better. And so with that we looked at how does this fit, how does it complement and how does it create a new community within an existing good community. And so as part of that um the key outcomes we looked at how do we enhance the diversity in the housing opportunities that are here but also are not existing. And so that's part of what we're looking at in terms of the zoning and also envision Longmont and how do we um take those policies that you have in your plan um and capitalize on the existing plan planned and existing infrastructure um and then also the fiscal sustainability of the community um and and deliver housing units that are not only more affordable but in a sustainable way. One of the things that I also want to note that's really important is that this project not only is thoughtfully designed, but it will provide a variety of housing opportunities with access to existing shopping. Um, the full project would create opportunities for new shopping, but also that's not only walkable, but within a short driving distance as well. Um, with existing transit and also future transit while still being sensitive to the existing community around it. So, we looked at the land use um what made sense, what would work within the context of Envision Longmont. And so, that's where this proposed zoning designation came in. Um what would provide a mix of housing types with the correct density range because you don't want to over plan it as well. Um something with a higher density really doesn't work. So, it's creating something that a lower density in that six range that really creates a nice community edge. Um where there's a single family neighborhood, that's a detached product type. um blending over to 287 where you got some where you could have something at a higher density range providing that uh higher density at a different price point. And so there's that transition between the lowest density to the highest density across the site. Um also we looked at the new design standards, this uh urban design, urban neighborhood design that was um Longmont approved those standards in January 2025 and how would that be applied to the project. And so we really wanted to make sure that we were looking at the future of how this project would eventually be built out. So with that in mind, we also think about how is this going to live? What's the pedestrian scale of the community? How is it going to be built out? And so we want to make sure that we've created a nice space that has parks that's going to um have community spaces and edge conditions that's going to connect to future trails and that will live well. So, people do want to buy and live in this community and stay. Um, as part of the con concept plan, we know we're only looking at the west side of 287, but it's important for context to see the entire um concept plan at the higher level. Um, we understand that there's not a lot of detail here, but that's on purpose because it's really intended to be kind of a zoomed out scale of the project site at this point. We know we're getting at the micro level eventually. We're coming down to get in the weeds where we're going to design the site. We're going to come back with the housing products. We're going to show you the street layouts and where the parks are. But at this point, we're really looking at, you know, where's those transitional zones, where are the edge conditions, where will those kind of park and connections and future utilities. Um, so with that in mind, what we look at at this point is kind of that higher concept. Where are those zoning designation layers? Um, how do they live across the site? And that's what we look at today in terms of how the project feels, how it fits together, and then how it will actually transition across 287 to the east side as well because it's not just living as one component. It's actually a full project. Um the utilities have to connect. All of that infrastructure eventually has to connect. And then you also want to look at things like walk circles within, you know, a half mile, quarter mile, how things will uh coordinate in terms of um is it going to be pedestrian friendly? Do you have enough connections to other types of facilities? So, those are all of the things we looked at when we looked at concept planning for the site. And with that in mind, we also really did dig into your Envision Longmont. We looked at your goals and policies and we wanted to make sure that this plan will meet the intent of the of your goals in terms of are we providing enough opportunities for housing? are we meeting a demand and need because eventually we're trying to provide for that missing middle um opportunities that you currently don't either e either provide or that you just have a lack of in terms of the housing products. Um and so this is an is a project site that will provide some of that in terms of just providing a mix uh of size and scale and also just unique housing types. um whether it's higher density, lower density, and or just a variety of uh density types. Um the other thing is we really did want to capitalize on the fact that we're close to transit and also future transit as the RTD site uh builds out. Um and with that in mind, I'm going to go ahead and turn it back over to Chris. >> Great. Thank you, Kenneth. So, I'm going to take a few minutes to just talk about why this matters to Longmont. And so Longmont, like most communities in the Front Range, is experiencing some challenges with growth. We have rising housing costs. We have a housing stock that doesn't necessarily meet the needs of all of the community members. We have pressure on workforce housing trying to get the people who work here the opportunity to live here. There's increased regional commuting and more desire for transit oriented neighborhoods. And so we pulled a few stats that we thought were relevant to this project in that about 87% of Longmont's housing stock is either single family or apartment. We kind of think about it as a a barbell. It's one or the other. And there's a fairly large component missing in the middle. And that's what this project's trying to address. um within commuting um a root policy study done in 2023 that's actually getting updated right now um said that 72% of the residents who live in Longmont and have jobs actually work outside of the city and that 66% of the jobs within the city are filled by people who live outside the city. And so there's kind of clearly this missing um workforce housing opportunity to give people the opportunity to both work and live um in this city. And then um just the amount of money that's getting spent on the bus rapid transit system between up and down 119 um as part of this project will be giving RTD 4 acres. So will be the north terminus of the RTD bus rapid transit system. So we think that this proposal addresses a lot of those challenges and by being a slightly more compact and connected development. It creates the opportunity to make naturally occurring more affordable housing um more convenient housing less environmental impact from spread out housing and the regional commuting. Um and it gives us the opportunity to have less kind of outward expansion to meet the needs of the city. And again, kind of harpening back to Envision Longmont, there's a section in there that says, "How will we know if we succeeded?" And I know it's really small, but as you look at kind of the left portion of the chart there, um there's kind of the buzzwords of density, successfully developing in areas of change, which this which this project is a part of, and achieving a mix of housing types. So, we really think that this proposal addresses what Longmont needs. Um just to dig in a little bit more on the mass transit proximity. Um there's a map kind of on the left side of the screen of kind of the broader connectivity under the new mass transit and then on the right side showing kind of where RTD is. They are very eager to get their hands on this land and get going. They already have done an early concept plan and they want to build this out ASAP, maybe in two phases, just recognizing that the stop blade's probably going to take a little bit longer. that would concentrate on the right side or sort of the east side of the the property just to get this in motion and get a little bit more robust um station up there relative to kind of what they're doing on Park Ridge kind of right in front of Walmart today. Um the greenway proximity um you know I think Longmont's done an amazing job of building out this greenway. There's still some chunks missing and I think this project's a big piece of that. But this project will have greenway on the northern piece of the west side and then the east east portion of the west side and the west portion of the east side. So along 287 um and on the kind of right side of this screen you can see how this connects into the broader network. And I think it's a really neat opportunity for um the residents that live here to be connected into the rest of the city in a very pedestrianfriendly way. And then also, you know, the connectivity through this project gives the rest of the town an opportunity to connect further north once [snorts] that is built out. So, why this matters to Longmont from city budget implications? I know city council's definitely going to ask us this question, so we figured we'd address it tonight as well. But, you know, relative to single family, a more compact development, I think, has some benefits to the fiscal policies of of Longmont in that, you know, the buildout of a more dense community is going to create higher upfront use taxes and connection fees. Um, you know, Longmont's really special and unique in that municipally owned power, municipally owned um fiber connectivity, municipally owned water and sanitary and all the connections here will contribute into that system. And I think everybody probably knows that development in Longmont pays its own way. So, you know, the development team will pay for all of the utility connections and turn those over to the city at the end of the project. Um and then just denser communities have a little bit lower infrastructure burden relative to more spread out single family. So just providing the emergency services, snow removal, infrastructure replacement, um that type of thing is is a little bit more efficient in this type of development. [snorts] And then public benefits. So I think from our perspective probably the biggest public benefit is reducing the deficit of workforce housing. And I think that matters to everybody. Um, if you're a business owner, it's finding ways to be able to hire good people. If you're a consumer, it's being able to get good service at a reasonable price. Um, you know, for the city staff, being able to hire teachers and firefighters and police um that get to live locally. I think this addresses that need for more workforce housing. On top of that, kind of increased public open spaces, the RTD, which we've touched on, and then um an improved arrival experience at Longmont's Northern Boundary. This is one of the things that the city council kind of keyed in on in the 2024, um discussion that we had with them about annexation and just providing a a much nicer experience coming into town on the northern side. And I think on on the screen here, there's a picture of kind of the way that the dual greenway frontage at Harvest Junction works um both on the north and south side of 119. And we've always kind of looked at that as a really great um example of how that could look and what it would be somewhat like um here. Um, I think Kristen also touched on the fact that we've gotten a lot of feedback from Boulder, from neighbors, from Rough and Ready Ditch, from Ced DOT. And I I just want to take a moment to say all of those comments have been heard. They've been considered and addressed where pop possible. And um you know, we're not able to address every comment from every person, but we're certainly listening to them and thinking [clears throat] critically about how we can bring this project forth with as minimal impact as possible. And we commit to continuing to do that through this process as it gets into sort of deeper levels. So with that, I will kind of part and say, you know, recommending the annexation and zoning here we think is a great next step in implementing the city's housing and land use goals um while thoughtfully addressing the important nuances of this particular site and our whole team's here to answer questions and we look forward to taking those. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, next on the agenda, this is a public hearing item. Uh, as such, the public gets a chance to go ahead and voice their comments to us. Uh, we do did have a signup sheet. We do have 12 people on the signup sheet. Um, and then after those 12 are done, it will be opened up if anybody who has not spoken would like to come up and speak, they will still have a chance to speak. Um, and just to let people know what I'm thinking is that given the number of people speaking and given where we are timewise, uh, probably at the end of the public invited to be heard comments, we'll take a 5m minute break and then come back for the discussion of the commission. So, we'll begin. I'll open up the public invited to be heard. And first on the list is Susan Felix. Once again, you have five minutes and please state your name and address for public records. Thank you. >> My name is Susan Felix. I live at 12890 Coline Drive in the Willis Heights neighborhood and I was here last time at the meeting. I'm an ex realtor, so I know a lot about building and procedures. Some of you have not been here last time and some of you have. Did you know about the letter that was supposed to be in your packet from Boulder County giving you the comments of why they do not really want to do this? Um, our neighborhood was never asked about any of this. We all found out about this in the last year or so. Um, and I made a list of some comments. Uh, one of them is from the county sheriff in our neighborhood. He was in our neighborhood the other day cuz the residents were having problems with people sleeping in their backyards and they're coming over from Walmart and the and the apartments across the road. And the sheriff is patrolling now every night at 2:00 a.m. And his comment to us and he was the sergeant. He said that if they put this building in on this property, it's just going to cause more crime and more people sleeping in the neighborhood. Um the other um factor is there's no sewers, there's no amenities, the traffic is awful. We have over 2,000 cars all day long, twice a day, three times a day, coming all the way down from Fort Collins down 287, which is a state highway, in through downtown Longmont and onward into Boulder. Um the accidents from the sheriff and what we've seen is terrible. Every week there's an accident the corner of Park Ridge and 287. Just people coming out of Walmart, people coming down 287 or even us getting out of our neighborhood. It's terrible. Um so he wanted us to make that aware to you. We've already known that. I've reported that before. The other thing is um you're talking about an RTD service. Really people I live there. I've been there almost 27 years. You know how many people get off the RTD bus at Walmart or King Supers? Maybe one or two. Nobody rides the bus. I mean, it's there people to use it, but they don't ride the bus. They drive cars. We have a lot of cars on the road between Highway 66 and 287. It's just crazy, and it's going to get worse. The other thing is, I looked it up. I gave you guys pictures last time. Not only do we have the bald eagle in the area, we have, and you may not care about this, but we do. We have owls, we have osprey, we have red tail hawks. And I looked it up on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife. It's a state and federal law. You cannot build within two football fields, 1,320 ft. So that starts from Hillrest and goes all the way to 287 and more. And if you do that, you're going to disturb the birds that live in the neighborhood. That's just the way it is, you know. Um, we like them there. We live in Colorado because of the views and the mountains. We don't want it to be New York City. So, that's my comments. >> Thank you. Uh, next on the list is Bruce Felix. Bruce Felix. I live at 12890 Coline Drive. You people that are sitting here that are developers, how many of you live in Longmont, put your hand up. One person, they don't live here. I do. These people do. The traffic is going to get worse. I just noticed a new intersection going in at 287 down on the corner or diagonal when it comes in the long. It's going to get bigger. That's the main route. Hover up to 66 66 up to 287 287 to love or 287 or uh 66 to five. Those roads are backed up. Yeah, they're going to upgrade 66. I know that it's in the plans. You put a light in, which these people want to do, and then they want to put, I estimate about 2,000 people and about 2,000 cars in this whole plan that they have. this puff piece that they're presenting you that's going to be put in that area with a light. What do you think's going to happen to the traffic at 5 to 10:00 in the morning in Longmont? Those people are coming down from Lovelin. They're coming from Highway 25. It's already gridlocked. When you do this, you ain't going to believe what's going to happen. You know what's going to happen? Walmart's going to move cuz they don't want it. They're going to use the street in front of Walmart for access. You think Walmart wants that? No. got two minutes. I want to know a current traffic count and not one done on the 4th of July like they did last time. I want a week or two week count so we can see what is going up and down these highways. Do we have that? No. What's the latest count? It's got to be at least two years old. Two years ago, we didn't have this kind of traffic. They building in thousands of homes in in Leland. What is this? The third version of this development. I've seen two or three versions of it. It looks like the third version to me. And they still have on there that they want to have access to our neighborhood. That's county. You're trying to convert this from agriculture to high density. I don't want to hear that. It's not high density. It's high density. Did you talk to any of the owners in the neighborhood? No. Do you really care what these people think? No. I hate to be this way, but I didn't have anybody knocking on my door asking me how I felt about this. How'd you like to have Bill next to you? The impact on this development is going to be crime, noise, and a lot of people going through our neighborhood. We move there because it's quiet. We all have large lots. We saved our money hard to get into that development. That's not a typical development in Longmont. They're wide streets and big lots and big houses. And we want to keep it quiet. Not this. Not Not what these people are planning. It's going to ruin our our neighborhood. You can forget about the wildlife. They're going to be gone. We're surrounded by open space. You guys want to take county open space and turn it into high density. That's what you're trying to do here. Every That's what this is all about. There's a Come on. The roads can't take it. I want all of you to go down to that intersection at 6:00 in the morning, any day of the week, and see what it is. >> Okay. Thank you. Next on the list is, and I hope I pronounced this right, Philip Duchess. >> Uh, good evening. My name is Philip Ducllo. >> Oh, Dlo, sorry. I live at 12968 Hillrest Drive. Been there about 28 years. Um, we experienced an increase in traffic through our neighborhood when Walmart was built and uh, it brought additional crime. It brought additional traffic. It brought both foot traffic and car traffic. This development will do the same thing. Um, hard to say what to what extent. Um, but you can't build it in isolation. It has to be [snorts] associated with the neighborhood and bringing in highdensity housing as was done on the east side of the street um, you know, has brought more traffic uh, additionally through our neighborhood. People going to Walmart or going to the apartments. Now the the traffic patterns are such that you can't actually drive across either way at Park Ridge. It's left turn only, right turn only, but people don't care. Um, there was a lot of discussion about uh pedestrian traffic. There is no pedestrian access on the west side of 287 from Park Ridge down to 66. And so any pedestrian traffic would have to occur on the east side. So, you'd force people to either walk on the the dirt, which is what some of us do, um, or cross over, which is what some of us do. There's not a lot of pedestrian traffic today. even, you know, even going up the east side, even heading from uh the west side of 66, the west side of Main Street south of 66 of new apartments there, there's not a lot of traffic, uh pedestrian traffic. There is a lot of car traffic. Everybody drives to Walmart. Everybody turns on Park Ridge east of uh 287. Uh, a lot of talk was made about RTD. Nobody rides a bus. Sorry. Uh, it's a great concept. I'm supportive of it. I've ridden it myself commuting down to Boulder, but nobody uses it. Um, you can see the buses over by Walmart today. It's not an official bus stop. They're just parked on the side. Um there's plenty of access down a king supers down on uh 23rd. Um we don't really in my opinion need a new RTD lot. Maybe there's studies that show ridership supports that. Maybe there's predictions that ridership would support that. Could be. I haven't seen them. The new light. So, uh, Boulder County's objections, uh, were primarily concerned with access through our neighborhood. And believe me, that is the number one issue is more cars. I don't know if you've looked at Willis Heights, the roads are really, really wide. And [snorts] what that means is people put the pedal to the metal and and it's not safe when people come screaming through our 25 mph neighborhood at 40, 50 miles an hour. If you connect our neighborhood to this subdivision, as you probably would be required to do just for fire access, you're going to direct all that traffic through the county roads that we pay for and Boulder County fails to maintain, which is a separate issue. You know, you're going to direct more traffic through our neighborhood, and we're not in favor of that. Not in favor of that. Uh we're talking about density. Willis Heights is one of the least dense neighborhoods in in the Longmont area. So there's there's two to about four houses of dwelling units per acre in Willis Heights. The the number that was presented here was 6 to 18. Well, that's that's a step function jump in density. Um the high density, various high density of the very highest density was all along 287. 287 is a noisy road. So we're going to build highdensity housing right along that just 50 ft, 100 ft from that noisy uh 287 Carter. I don't see a lot of demand for that. All of the development on the east side, all of the highdensity development is all set way back. It's all north of directly north of long of Walmart or to the east of Walmart and the noise, you know, distance helps with noise. Um, you know, the traffic lights a great idea, uh, but we don't need the development. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the list is Tim Sha. Yeah, evening all. My name's Tim Sha. Um, I live at 12707 Hillrest. Um, yeah, I'm mainly here to talk about the traffic. I'm got grave [snorts] concerns. I mentioned that a month ago when I was here. I've run some numbers now. Look, it looks like Copper Peak 2 is going in. That's 2 to 400 units. Um, looks like the B prey farms is going in. And that's 4 to 800 units. If I'm doing my math right with the numbers, that's it's 3 31.4 acres that they want to put the the housing on. So that's 4 to 800 units. So that right there is six 600 to 1,200 units within a mile and a half of each other. We're smack dab in the middle of both of those. Um and that's if they don't even add on 25% if they put in affordable housing. Um, so my thing is like I I I I'm hearing what they're saying. I appreciate the new urbanism. I was doing landscape work for Kiki Wallace in the mid 1900s when he built Prospect New Town, so I understand it very well. Um, I I and I agree with it. I I think it's a great way to to build new housing. Um, I agree with the affordable housing. We need that. Here's the thing. We're in Longmont cuz we got priced out of Boulder. That's life. Housing in America is is a is a right. It's not a privilege. Or I'm sorry, I got that backwards. It's privilege. It's not a right. You got to have money in order to have housing. And unfortunately, not everybody has enough housing. So that's why we need more affordable housing. I'm all for that. So when I hear people say, "Oh, the housing prices go up as a homeowner." I'm thinking that's not a bad thing for me. This is part of my retirement savings, my house. Right? So I realize that sounds a little selfish, but you know what? We bet we bited our time living in Boulder. I had a 5minute commute and we saved our money and when we could afford a house in Longmont, we bought it. And now I had then for the last six years of my work life, I had a 30-minute commute. Sometimes you just got to do what you got to do, right? Having said that, I don't want to make it sound like I want to just exclude all these people on the low end of this social, you know, the socioeconomic scale, right? It's it's hard for people that are coming in to work minimum wage to be driving 30 40 minutes up and down a highway, especially I25 is a nightmare at times. So, to get back to the the the uh um uh the traffic, right, we know CX is not getting shut down, right? We just found out from the county a couple months ago about that. That's 100 trucks going through that intersection at 287 and 66 every day. That's CX numbers. That's not my numbers. That's Cmax numbers and it's been estimated at even higher. Rocky Mountain Park opened up. Now we got all this is 66 is the main traffic that goes up to Rocky Mountain from this side of the highway. Right? So you got all this additional traffic. I've been in my backyard every hour of every day and there's always cars on 66 and 287. There's that much traffic even at 2 3 4 in the morning. I knew it when I bought the house. I accept it. I'm okay with it. Right? Same with the train. I know they're not going to move the train tracks just because I don't like the train whistle at 6:00 a.m. Right? So, but the bottom line is you guys got all this housing that you're building and now you want to add another what was the number here at the end there? 156 to 468. So, that brings the the total low end 756 to 1668 within a mile and a half, right? And that still leaves us as um an island of the county in the city. So the only benefit we get from the tax revenue is like if we were a tourist going to Rocky Mountain Park, we're driving through the city, we get the benefit. Otherwise, we don't get the benefit of the tax revenue that I know you guys and the city council really want. And the other thing is we have no political power. We can't vote the city council out in the election because we can't vote in the city election. So, we're stuck in this island where we got no power. I looked at your map when you put it up again. I looked at it last month. There's other places to build. You're already building B prey farms. You're already building Copper Peak. Why stick this one right there in the middle and add another 500 units. You know, it's just a lot of pressure on us. It I'm, you know, I'm running out of time, so I can't even talk about, you know, I won't even go to get into the whole safety issues that people have already been talking about. You know, I'm standing out in my front on my front sidewalk and people are going by me at 40 miles an hour. People come off of Park Ridge and they don't they don't even stop at the stop sign. They just blow right into because they're they're trying to get around. I watch it all the time when when the traffic's backed up from uh from 287 westward on 66 for a quarter mile or more. People turn on to Hillrest because then they can get around that corner. They can get up there, get out, wait for the light. I'm telling you, this is it's too much in one area. You know, I get the idea. I appreciate how how you guys want to build. I really do. I I agree with new urbanism, but it's too much in one area. So, >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next is Rebecca Chef. [snorts] >> Hey, I'm Rebecca Shaft. I live at 12707 Hillrest and um okay so I got a bunch of stuff. So I looked at the Envision Longmont plan and um strategies to support a safe, healthy and adaptable community. Two of the things are strategy 4.1 ensure the city has an updated emergency operations plan. This is under the responsibility of public safety. Um it talks about city departments and partner entities during large-scale disasters and emergencies. Um strategy 4.2 uh also included is public safety um Boulder County and other stakeholders on initiatives to make slashkeeps resilient. I'm assuming that comes under the heading of safe. And then also um let me find this other one that I wanted to mention. Um, strategy 117, um, align the city's capital improvement plan with the goals and policies of the plan to ensure that the proper level of service for infrastructure is in place before new infill or redevelopment projects are approved. So, it doesn't say um, specifically emergency services, but it does say service. So, I just wanted to point that out. Um, so I just found that. Um, so I I would I just want to focus on addressing basically traffic and safety. So um, and I'm going to talk again about traffic a lot. Since the Walmart expansion, there's been an increase in non-resident traffic at excessive speeds on Park Ridge and Hillrest. The sign at eastbound Highway 66 at the left turn lane onto Hillrest that reads no access to Walmart has stopped nobody. The light at eastbound Park Ridge at Highway 287, where drivers are required to turn either left or right, is used regularly by Scofflaw drivers as a throughway to Walmart. I told you some of you were here last time. I regularly have to sit behind drivers when I'm making a right turn who are going to go straight through to go to Walmart. It's illegal. I have never once seen anybody be pulled over for that. I've lived here seven years and I've talked to many of my neighbors who have lived here ever since that Walmart went in and nobody has ever seen anyone get pulled over for that. Um, so this means that that the traffic mitigation that was promised to the neighborhood before that Walmart was built, that has not worked. And so I'm really skeptical of when these guys are saying, "Oh, we're going to mitigate this, you know, this traffic problem." you know, oh, we're going to make sure that it's fine. I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I don't think it Okay, so um so yeah, so the point is we have a lot of non-resident traffic going through. We don't have many patrols. We don't see people getting pulled over for these things. Um and a few people have mentioned there's that stop sign on the corner of Park Ridge and Hillrest. A lot of people do not stop at that stop sign. We got a lot of elderly people and children in our neighborhood. They're out walking their dogs. They're walking together. They're trying to enjoy the neighborhood. People are speeding through our neighborhood and it's dangerous. Okay. So um anyway um so I want to talk about I I want to know what you guys ha have what these what these guys what she what people have come up with for ideas for how to handlemer the expansion of need for emergency services for fire and for police because we I talked to my neighbor she's the public information officer for fire for the western United States for the federal government and she told me, I didn't even know this, but Mountain View Fire is for Boulder County and they kind of ring around us. And wait, I wrote this down. Um, so Mountain View Fire is our fire district for Boulder County. Station 5 in me is a closest to us, but we rely on what's known as it's called closest resource, which in our case is Longmont Station 4. It's on Main and 23rd. And so when this increased population goes in, if it goes in, the calls for emergency service at Longot Station 4 are going to increase, right? So has there been any discussion of how much that's going to increase? What you know, what's that going to be about? Um, and how are you going to respond and like what have you guys studied this? Like what do your studies show? And so I was really concerned about that um and like what the change in response time is going to be. So, I started searching about that and I found this article in the Times call from May 20th that says, "Lmont city staff on Tuesday warned the city council that rising public safety demands and slowing revenue growth could force difficult budget decisions in the coming years, including a possible public safety sales tax increase." >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And then I searched on what would happen if the voters do not approve it, and it's a big problem. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Next is Dura Falcons. Did I say that right? >> It's just bad handwriting. >> My name is Deon Felix. >> Oh, Deon. >> And I'm live at 12958 Waterbury Road and I'm about 26 years old. I've lived at this neighborhood almost my whole life. So, I've seen every nuance. I've seen every single change that's happened. I saw the Walmart go in. Me and my friends kind of enjoyed that. We made quite a few trips across the way. But, uh, let me tell you, making that trip now, it's a death sentence. And I' I'd like you all to take that very seriously cuz crossing that highway in any regard, the amount of people that just blow through the right turn only lane for us merging, I mean, I've almost been rear ended several times. Sorry. But um you know, me and my friends used to all be able to walk wherever we wanted to go. We used to be able to walk to the old fish and trout place that was right next to the even the nursery home that's across the way. We were able to walk to that. I mean, the amount of traffic that is increased, it's impossible to get out of our neighborhood walking. It's I I appreciate the sentiment and the thought of us having the ability to, you know, walk to shopping centers and all that stuff, but the reason we're in this neighborhood is cuz we're away from the shopping centers. We don't want that right next to us. You know, we have Walmart. That's inevitable. That happened. Sure, whatever. Okay. But have has anyone noticed the amount of traffic decreased that's going to Walmart even though they have apartments living right next door because that Walmart is full of crime. I mean, I have several friends who work there and they can tell you it's the highest crime store in Longmont. There's a lot of poverty in the area. I understand low-income apartments kind of have some residuals of not the nicest people hanging around, but I've we we've pretty much gone from having you could leave your door unlocked to you have to have locks on everything. You know, I can remember back in 2014, we've had our trailer stolen. Things happen. Retra, you know, replaced everything, got a new trailer. Now we keep it in the garage. It's just one of the things that we got to live with now, right? You know, we've seen several changes of people walking through the neighborhood all hours of the night. You know, I have camera systems. I can see the people that are walking around and it makes you wonder, you know, how did we get to the point of having so many people walking around and so much unwanted traffic through the neighborhood and where is it really coming from? You know, I work for for Mobility Plus, which is in Longmont. So, I live in Longmont, work in Longmont. That might be the rarity in this situation, but I drive probably 250 to 500 miles a day, depending on where I'm going. I drive from Cheyenne all the way down to PBLO. You know, I see every part of this state. But what Longmont is turning into looks a lot like Colorado Springs, Arvvada, Denver, places that people in Longmont don't want to be near. It's the reason we moved here. Some of us came from Boulder. A lot of us don't want to be near Boulder. You know, a lot of us have really come to love this place as home. And a lot of people my age are going to inherit these homes eventually or they'll be sold and for, you know, x amount of money and things will move on. You know, I can't afford a house in Longmont, not by myself. I have to have a girlfriend who makes the same amount of money than me and then we can move in together. That applies for house, apartment, townhouse, anything. Build a house, whatever. Well, you know, one of the things I noticed in the past commission was one of the things they were worried about was how much money they could get from this project. You know, one of the things that they switched from single family to multif family is they were worried about how much money they could get from it. I understand that as from a business perspective, but a company that makes $3 billion in annual revenue is worried about something as trivial as what 105 million at Longmont, it just seems a little concerning to me that there's a different motive for this project. You know, I appreciate the fact that we have town, you know, Longmont's expanding. I like that as a young person. I like being able to hang out in Longmont, you know, going around to pool bars and bowling alleys, you know, movie theater, whatever. But, you know, we used to have a mall. We don't have a mall anymore. You know, if you want to go have fun, if you want to go out, you go to Denver, you go to Boulder. You know, there's not a lot of people my age hanging around in Longmont because the only thing here is apartments, town houses, restaurants. You know, where's the entertainment? Where's everything else? I agree. We need some, but I just don't think it needs to be here. Thank you guys. Thank you. Next is Diana Dy. Diana. >> I'm Diana Dhy. I live at 12692 Grand View Drive. Um, we've lived up there now for 20ome years. Um, we moved up there because we had elderly parents living with us and that was one of the few ranchstyle homes available in Longmont to us that we could bring my parents into. Um, we've loved the area. Um, I don't know what the plan is because we are all on septic uh tanks for our sewer. if we're going to be expected to join this annexation, are we going to be forced to join this annexation uh for that purpose? Um I noticed on your maps that Rosland is probably going to be opened up to this annexation, which would mean much traffic coming through our our subdivision. There really are no straight streets through our subdivision, so they would be winding through. And again, people are talking about speeds. Yes. Especially when they come off of 66 or off of 287 and go around that intersection right there because it is traffic gets bound up there all times of the day. So, um, people are looking the fast way to get around that and they come through our subdivision, which, um, is dangerous because most of us don't drive that fast up in there. We know how fast we can go and we know what the speed limit is. And, um, I just I don't want to see my life change. [laughter] Um, I don't want to see high density in that part of town. And I mean, we've got so much high density that has been built down in the south part of Longmont. I mean, you've taken up just about every spare um vacant land and put condos or um apartment buildings. The apartment buildings down at 119 and Hover look like criminal places. Um I I just don't want to see it. I'm sorry. >> Thank you, Frank Doerty. >> She said it for me. >> Okay. Thank you, Mary Brown. My name is Mary Brown. I live at 12933 Coline Drive. And uh first I want to thank you guys for being here. I know that you're all volunteers uh showing up to hear us. So, thank you for that. Um, I was born in Boulder and I can't afford to live in Boulder and don't really want to and I feel like what's happening around us is looking like Boulder. Um I keep hearing uh in a lot of these uh presentations future application to the proposed plan. So there's a plan they proposed but on almost every screen she had up there there was going to be a future application to those plans. So changes changes changes to what they're even proposing. Uh one of the things that was on the uh list of things that they like to see for annexation is the ability to integrate surrounding land into the city. So this land they want to annex is uh surrounded the north is a land consery and the rest is surrounded by Boulder County uninccorporated land. So I'm not sure how they're going to integrate all of that into the city. Um, access through Rosland Avenue, as Susan said, is not approved nor wanted by Boulder County, but yet it keeps being referred to as access. Uh, somewhere along the line, it was said it would just be emergency access. Now, I'm just seeing the word access. And Rosland seems to kind of deadend on private property back in there. I've tried to kind of look back in there to see how how that could happen. and it it it doesn't look like it it it goes through uh to the annexed property. Uh tonight I'm hearing shopping uh shopping shopping and I'm not sure if that's also being proposed on the west side because this plan is so poorly presented and poorly laid out. Uh I haven't seen the same plan at any of these meetings that I've been to. So, it's very confusing and um the first thing you do when you buy a piece of property is you make sure you have legal access to it. And I don't think that's happened uh here. They want in the beginning. So, now they've created this stoplight to get access to it. And that's, you know, one one access. But if there was a disaster, emergency or anything, you know, how are you going to get all those people out of that area with that one access and one little road that did, you know, I I don't see Rosland being being viable. Um, lots of benefits to the city. I get that. lots of tax revenue, lots of benefits, very little benefit to the community and really I would say to the the area, the city at large because of the traffic issue. Um it doesn't appear like they have their ducks in a row. I'm not even sure that they know what the ducks are. And uh the pictures that we saw tonight were beautiful. They're they were just gorgeous pictures. That's not reality. And um I tried to take my granddaughter to summer school the other morning at 8:00 in the morning and I tried to exit our subdivision onto 66 off of Hillrest and there were three lanes of traffic coming down 66. Well, there aren't even three lanes there, but there is so much traffic. People are making their own lanes coming down that highway. So, there's no way I was going to endanger myself and my granddaughter by trying to pull out onto that highway. So, I I turned around and went back to the light and and then, as somebody said, took my life in my hands trying to get out onto 287 at 8:00 in the morning uh to to get her to summer school. So, um just to reiterate, it's a it's a bad idea. It's a bad plan. And uh thank you for listening and thank you for being here. >> Thank you. Uh next is Laura Wallally. My name is Laura Wallally and I live at 10572 Hillrest Drive. Um, and I've been a resident of Willis Heights for 40 years. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight regarding the proposed Longmont Gateway North annexation. I'm here because I have serious concerns about the long-term impacts of this annexation that it could have on our neighborhood um, as well as local infrastructure and the character of our area. Over the past four decades, I have watched our community grow and change. I understand that growth is inevitable and that communities evolve over time, but I'm not opposed to development in principle. However, I believe the growth should be thoughtful, balanced, and compatible with the neighborhoods and residents who are already here. The residents of Willis Heights, many of which I spoke with over the last week, already experience increasing development pressure, and you've heard from them tonight. We have concerns about traffic, road safety, water resources, and the ability of existing infrastructure and public services to keep pace with this additional growth. Expanding Longmont further north through this annexation appears likely to intensify these issues without providing clear benefits to the existing county residents. I'm concerned about the increase in traffic congestion and the impact on the roads that many of us use every day. More vehicles means more delays and greater safety concerns for residents, families, pedestrians, and our cyclists. I'm also concerned about the strain this level of development could place on infrastructure and public services, which you heard about as well. Growth has consequences, and those consequences are often felt most directly by the people who already live in the surrounding area. Another concern shared by many of my neighbors is the potential impact to this development could have on our property values. Many of us have invested our life savings into our homes and properties. We chose Willis Heights for its lowdensity rural rural residential character and for the quality of life it offers. The introduction of large mixeduse development, including higher density housing adjacent um to our neighborhood on larger lots um raises understandable concerns about neighborhood compatibility and how future buyers may perceive our community. For many residents, our homes represent our largest financial investment, and we believe these concerns deserve careful consideration. Water availability is another concern. In Colorado, water is one of our most precious resources. As development continues, we have a responsibility to ask whether proposed projects are sustainable over the long term and whether adequate consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts of continued expansion. I'm also troubled, as are my neighbors, by the precedent this annexation could set. Approving this proposal may encourage further expansion into unincorporated Boulder County and gradually erode the open spaces and rural character that have long distinguished this area. Perhaps, however, my greatest concern um is that many of the residents of Willis Height do not feel that our voices have been heard throughout this process. Many of us have attended meetings, submitted comments, asked questions, and participated in good faith because we believe deeply in our community. Yet, there's a growing sense that our concerns have not been acknowledged and have not been meaningfully addressed. For me, this community is more than just a place on a map. It's been my home for 40 years. Today, I'm caring for my my parents in their home here. Willis Heights has been a quiet, safe neighborhood where generations of our family have lived, worked, and supported one another. The decisions you make tonight will directly affect not only my future, but my parents ability to continue living comfortably and securely in the community they have called home for decades. I recognize that the decisions before you are not easy and I appreciate the responsibility you carry and the many competing interests you must consider. But I ask that you remember that behind every application and every development proposal are real people whose daily lives, financial security, and sense of community will be shaped by the choices you make. I respectfully ask that you can carefully consider the concerns of the residents who already call this community home before supporting this annexation. Please ensure that the voices of Willis Heights residents are giving meaningful weight in this process and that any decision reflects not only does the desire for growth but also the values of compatibility and respect for existing communities. Thank you for your time, your service and your consideration. >> Thank you. Next is Ted Wallally. Ditto. >> Okay, another Ditto. >> Okay, thank you. Uh, Alan Broer. Hi, I'm Alan Brutder. Uh, I live at 12886 Coline Drive. We've been there for almost four years now. And part of the thing that draw drew us here was uh the openness and more space and not being surrounded by what seems to be developing around here. Now, uh I'll try [snorts] I I have to agree with all my neighbors, all the comments they've said, so I'll try not to repeat all that. Uh but I I'll just bring up uh at the last meeting there was a comment that the uh city council previously several years ago didn't want the previous developer to put single family homes in this parcel and they wanted higher density. I just don't know how valid that is anymore because just in the last few years there's been several apartment buildings uh built at the southwest corner of 66 and 287 and then at the northeast corner by Walmart. There's been the uh big Copper Peak and Notch 66 developments. You know, many apartment buildings there and they're probably going to build more in there. I just don't know that it's necessary to have highdensity apartment buildings in this little parcel. I'd actually be okay with some development there if it were something like twin plexes. If you drive down 66 towards Pace from Main Street, you'll see some twin plexes over there as they transition into apartment buildings. Uh I think that might be appropriate for that area, but um multi-story buildings I just don't think would fit. And uh like uh one of the previous people said, I think it would hurt our property values and a lot of us feel like uh we just don't have a voice and some of this uh high density or I'm not sure what they mean by med medium density, but high density like they've got over on the other side of 287 uh would absolutely u affect property values in our little neighborhood. And uh I think uh you know some of the comments about more crime I think they're very valid and I think I I've lived in apartment complexes before and they're a lot of times are more uh more criminal elements there you know even if it's like property crimes not violent crimes but uh I think I think even businesses in our area think that there's more crime if you go to Walmart and at uh you know across the way there. You have to go through turn styles to get in and out. Uh if you go to the Walmart out on 119 near I25, you know, they don't have turn styles there. Most Walmarts don't have that. So Walmart's kind of telling us that they think that their customers are criminals and they're stealing from them. Even the King Supers, you know, now you got to go through turn styles there because they think their customers are stealing from them. So that doesn't make me feel real good about that. But, uh, like like I said, I'd be okay with some development, but I think the appropriate level of development would be something like the twin plexes you see, uh, you know, like singlestory twin plexes that you see along uh, 66 as you approach pace. They've got twin flexes and then they transition into the higher uh, uh, multi-story apartment buildings. Thanks. >> Thank you. We are through the list, but as I mentioned, if there's anybody in the audience who would like to come up and make comments, who has not spoken to us, you can please step forward to uh let your comments be known. Once again, we just ask that you give your name and address for the public record and you'll be given five minutes. >> Hi, my name is Wayne Winkler. I live on Hillrest. I've been here a number of years. Um, one of the things I was listening to all this, but one of the things talking about affordable housing and what is the target price on these apartments that are going to be built if they build them and also the homes. You know, this is going to be expensive to build this development. Any new development is expensive. And what's a target to get the cash flow out of those apartments? Currently, if I look in Longmont, the average price is around 1,600 a month for onebedroom. And there's a lot of people working as weight people, various jobs like that that can't afford that. So, one of the benefits of this program would be to have affordable housing. But let's see what those numbers are. The other thing there's a lot of traffic up there right now and it's not in Longmont's control really or these people. It's really from building a lot of houses in Leland or me with no jobs. But and I don't think when when Walmart first was proposed, I come down and listen to there's a lot of objections to it, but in a way we're lucky because now we got that traffic light at Parkeridge. Otherwise, we'd be trapped like a rat. [laughter] And I shop at Walmart. So now I feel like a hypocrite that I was mad about it. But anyhow, [clears throat] [gasps and laughter] and at the uh Copper Peaks in those apartments, I really at first thought there'd be a high volume of traffic in and out of there, but I don't see that. I'm surprised at the number of units and a small number of cars that actually come out uh westbound out of that uh thing. But anyhow, I think my concern is to look at the actual is there a lowcost housing going to be provided here or something that will help people making $17 an hour. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to come forward? I see somebody coming forward. Okay. Thank you. [snorts] I'm Robera Tanner. I live at 12761 Woodland Drive in Longmont at in Willis Heights. Um, my comments are very small and focused on our neighborhood and and focused on this development. [snorts] Someone stated that when Walmart went in, the city and the county made certain promises for traffic through our neighborhood that it would be would be limited. Um, and it has not been enforced and we have not heard any real substantive responses from the developers about how to m mitigate traffic going through our neighborhood if this development occurs. Um, I live pretty close to Park Ridge near 287 and we have currently many, many cars coming through our neighborhood to avoid the stoplight at 66 and 287. Um, if a development this of this size is built on the west side of 287 north of us, what's to stop people from coming down 287, turning into our neighborhood, through our neighborhood, and down 66. I can just see the traffic increasing substantially as well as the going home traffic coming from 66 to Hillrest through Parkridge to avoid that stop light at 66 and 287. And I've not heard any comments on how that could be avoided. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi, I'm Kim Falcons. Lived at 12958 Waterberry Road. Um I've lived in Willis Heights about 27 years. I've lived in Longmont since like 1975 and I have seen good changes and bad changes. Um, Longmont talks a lot about its character and its agricultural history and that's not going to show very well I think by building these highdensity things when you're coming into Longmont. It gives an impression of just apartments everywhere. I I don't like it. Um, I I agree that we are going to have some kind of development happened there. And I also would go for single family housing versus high density. Um I can't remember what else I was going to say. Not a public speaker. Um I have never the the argument of people living and working in Longmont I think is irrelevant. I've lived there for 40 years and I've always driven at least 30 minutes to work. Boulder, Naiwat, wherever. Denver, South Denver. I mean, I don't think that's a valid argument. I think a lot of people do that. I think people chose Longmont because it was more affordable and a bedroom community of Denver so that they could work at other places and live in Longmont. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> [snorts] >> I'm Janine Hopping and I live at 12953 Hillrest Drive. And um I don't know it's I wasn't going to say anything tonight, but what she just said and another comment made earlier made me think, you know, I I'm just going to come up and say it. Uh, one of these people mentioned how we were going to have a really nice entryway into Longmont and they're going to design something that probably has a really cool sign and it probably has some really nice landscaping and it probably will look pretty nice. But right now, as you come into Longmont, this is a Longmont issue from these areas, it's kind of like beautiful, right? I mean, honestly, um, fields, um, a few farm houses, and it is pretty cool. We like that in Longmont. Well, it reminded me of when I got a chance to be in Hungary, um, many years ago. and the man that was driving me into the town or the city of Budapest. We were driving along and he couldn't speak much English, but I could speak less Hungarian and so we really weren't talking much. But as we were driving into the area, there were these really tall concrete buildings with windows. And then there was another one and another one. And all he said was Soviet because those were the buildings that had been built. And I have to tell you that as I go down south now because I have that memory and it was kind of funny to me but also kind of cool. I go through Longmont now and every once in a while I look at my husband and I go Soviet. And so that's not really what Longmont wants people to be doing. So that's something to consider as you come in. Right now we have the rule. We won't have the rule. And if it keeps getting pushed further and further out, it'll be like going down uh 119. Now, as you get into Boulder, where they've always had their rules, you know, that it's going to stay cool Boulder, but now when you go N down 119, they've got um apartments between the two um roads. And it just it's [clears throat] just weird to me because it is changing what it looks like where we live. and I liked it better the old way. We have the chance to somehow keep it that way, but it does take effort. So anyway, that's all I wanted to say. >> Thank you. One last call. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out the public invited to be heard. Um, as I mentioned, sir, you've already had your five minutes. So, please, >> I'm going to take two minutes. >> No, no, no. Sorry. You've had your five minutes. We We have our >> You asked if anybody want >> who hasn't already spoken. >> Thank you. Um as we mentioned earlier um we will go ahead at this point take a fiveinut break and then come back at approximately 8:35 [music] Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> down. Hey [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> We're going now for we'll be beginning in one minute. So, if you can please take your seats. Okay, we're going to go ahead and start back up. Uh we'll go ahead and start with questions, comments from the commission. uh vice chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try my best to organize this in city and applicant and probably fair fail miserably, but I do have a list of questions here. Um, I do want to start off though just um as a comment to everyone who made a comment. I listened very carefully to everything you said. We took notes up here. I listened to the last meeting as well. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be here in person, but I did listen to every one of those comments. Those do inform um the way I'm thinking about this. Um so please know that your comments do matter, that they are being listened to, they are important. Um I may not agree with all of them, but that's a whole separate I am listening and I'm trying to understand and I hope that you'll see that reflected in some of the questions that I'll ask to the city and the applicant uh to make sure I understand the project and I want to start with traffic and maybe this is the applicant this is not actually traffic study so much as just entry access points. So what I believe I heard in the last meeting when we were talking about it wasn't specifically this project it was the amendment to the comprehensive plan was that there was not going to be public site access through the Willis Heights subdivision and yet the sub and yet the concept plan we're seeing shows site access onto I want to say Roslin um and several of the documents talk about access onto Parkidge I want to have that clarified because as is right now that seems to be a one a disagreement between the various documents and two certainly a concern that I have and that I know the neighbors have. Um so I don't know if someone from the applicant maybe can clarify what the what what the entry exit points are. [snorts] >> Again Chris Neils from the applicant. Um, so it's been the topic of a lot of discussion. So, um, originally there was going to be a park ridge connection moving south. That has been eliminated eliminated in favor of the light to the north, a midblock um, right in right out only on 287. And then there's the Rosland Avenue connection. Uh, there's been a lot of discussion about it. Um the applicant has suggested that it be emergency access only um to prevent further cut through understanding the concerns of the neighborhood. I think there's and Kristen, chime in if I mischaracterize anything. I think there's kind of two big things on this. One, when the Rosland neighborhood was platted, a future connection point is on that plat. And so it seems to the city that by the codes um both the international fire code and then also the codes that um govern connectivity that that kind of pre-decided connection point should stay. Um again I think from the perspective of the applicant um we would be open to not having public access there. Um certainly we do need to address the emergency elements and then also the safety elements um if to kind of give the residents of this an access um towards the east and also the um Willis Heights neighborhood another way out of their neighborhood in the event of an emergency. So I think that those are details that certainly are being discussed and are kind of ongoing. >> Okay. I mean, I think it's a really important detail for us tonight cuz I think if you're saying emergency access and you're saying pedestrian bike, that's, you know, I I think one thing and I I don't remember if it was in your document or in one of the resident comments that talked about that. Um, having it be a full public access back and forth certainly feels like that's putting a lot of burden in the neighborhood. Yep. >> Um, given the traffic, it's not something that's reflected in the traffic study either. So, it's really hard for us to evaluate if that's what's on the table for it. Um Kristen, I don't know if that's you or somebody else at the city who can talk to a little bit of just what that plan is. >> Certainly. And we do have Mark Samson who's our assistant fire marshal and he can discuss the um components and the requirements that have come with that being um an emergency access. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is it going? >> It is okay. [snorts] Good uh g good good evening chairman Poland assistant fire marshall commissioners assistant fire marshal city of Lont fire department. So every time we've gone through this development we've always stated that it did they proposed the applica proposed emergency access only but with the number of units more than 25 we require two points of access per the fire code and local amendment. The two points that they're showing off of 287 are not separated by the half the diagonal. That's that's why the roland connection has to be connected. We were going through parkland through the church on the original submitt. Boulder County didn't allow that. So that's why we went over to Rosland. It's been platted for connectivity to [snorts] this land and it's also required by the fire code to be separated by half the diagonal. And so the current design you can't get the two off of 287 separated by the overall dimensional um diagonal of the lot. So that's why the ras connection is there. And does that have to be public access in order to meet that? >> Yes. [snorts] >> Okay. Um, is there any alternative to that per the fire code and and I mean >> I don't want to speak for the applicant but yeah but uh right now with that many units or the high density that they're proposing I don't believe that it'll be used regularly but [snorts] it would serve I think it' serve the people at Willis Heights to go through the new subdivision come up onto the road and then they'd have a signal as the intersection if they were going north. >> Um, so the issue is the two access points on 287 are not >> they're not separated enough. >> They're not separated by half the diagonal and you can't move it closer to Park Ridge because then you wouldn't meet the collector spacing or the arterial spacing for the intersection. So you they put the right in right out as far as they could the 660 away. Yeah. >> So, but that doesn't meet the overall half the diagonal. >> Okay. >> Understand that. Don't like it, but I understand what you're saying. >> I understand. >> Okay. No, thank you. That that answers the question at least. >> It is in the interest of public safety, though. >> Understand that. Um I I think I have a concern not with the public safety requirement to be clear, >> but [clears throat] that it is a kind of full public in out and that we don't have an impact in the traffic study that helps us evaluate that and we have both resident concerns and Boulder County concerns about the traffic. It's not the it's not that there's an access point there that is available for safety. It's it's kind of everything that comes from that [clears throat] >> that I'm concerned about just because we don't have the ability to fully evaluate it in what's in our packet in my mind at least. >> Okay. >> So, no, thank thank you for answering the question. >> All right. >> Um Kristen, two questions for you. So, I have not seen an application that has comments from a historical commission before. So, I'm hoping you can just walk through kind of what that impact is and what we need to be thinking about at this point and what we need to be thinking about in a future point. >> That is a great question. I could try to walk you through, but we do have our historic um planner, Jennifer Huitt Apperson, here, so I would ask that she come down and and represent that. Thank you. >> Thank you. I didn't want to be presumptuous, but I did see her. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Good evening, uh members of the commission. Uh, Commissioner Earl, uh, Jennifer Huitt Apperson, principal planner with the city of Longmont, I am the staff liazison to the Historic Preservation Commission. So, per the code, um, both within the land development code, but especially within our historic preservation code, when you are looking at, uh, proposed development that has the potential to impact um, prop properties um, structures that are more than 50 years old. um the Historic Preservation Commission can request that it be reviewed. Um so in this case for this property, the applicant was required to um conduct a um historic site analysis, a cultural survey of the property. This had been done previously for prior development proposals. It was updated for this one. Um there was the determination that the historic farm structures had some significance in terms of agricultural history of the area because it was a very intact group of structures. Um however it it happens to be located where that um right in right out entrance would be onto 287. So when we're the commission is looking at things like this at developments like this the role then becomes how can we memorialize the the property's history, whether that be through buildings, whether that be through an interpretive plan of some sort. So ultimately the commission has recommended in this case as they have in many other um development applications for annexations and resonings and such major development applications that a condition be put into the annexation agreement that in conjunction with future development applications a preservation plan would be um created and ultimately go back to the Historic Preservation Commission for approval to um basically determine how to best um you know memorialize preserve the history of the property. One of the um items for discussion in this case was that the um primary farmhouse um was in not terrible condition. So um the condition um proposed by the historic preservation commission was that a preservation plan as when it gets developed give um particular consideration to relocating that particular farmhouse on site. So, it's really a way to um you know, this is something that we we definitely see in in many develop in in many developments um primarily in larger developments where there might be older prop older properties, older structures on the property. So, hopefully that adds some clarity. >> It it does add clarity. It does lead to a follow-up. Um because you said that there would be a condition in the annexation agreement. >> Yes. >> I'm at least not seeing the annexation petition. Is that not the appropriate place we would see it? >> No. Um the annexation agreement is a formal agreement that gets approved by city council that memorializes all of the conditions um for the annexation. So in this particular case, there would be a condition um that reflects the motion made by the historic preservation commission at the meeting where this was discussed. >> Okay. No, it's helpful cuz I was trying to square those two together. So understanding when it comes in is really helpful. >> Great. Thank you. I appreciate it. Kristen, I think this one is probably you this time, maybe. Um, there were concerns about wildlife. There's an environmental assessment that's in the packet that we have that talks about a whole lot of things, but wildlife isn't one of them. I am guessing wildlife's going to be in a future um part of this, but I I do want to understand when that comes up, how that's reviewed, um kind of what that impact is on construction given the concerns that were raised. >> Certainly, I can try to address that. I don't know that our environmental planner is here this evening but um I will discuss what I can. So in preparation of this project, there was a species and habitat report um that study was done. It was submitted. They do have um some minimization and mitigation techniques because of you know there are prairie dogs on the site, some vegetative removals requirements for nesting birds, raptors, buring bur buring owls etc. It is very brief as it is with annexation because it's very high level and conceptual at um different if this annexation is approved as I've stated many times um it has to go through multiple rounds of review to actually establish entitlements. So subdivisions, site plan reviews, etc. higher detail and more detail is required at at those levels um for evaluation and um mitigation requirements can be established at that time or will be established at that time. >> If if I recall right when we've seen previous ones, we've seen those studies, we've seen the maps of where the bird nests are, all the rest of it. The fact that I'm not seeing it now doesn't mean it's not it won't be done. It's just not at the appropriate time to get to that detail. Correct. >> Correct. the level of detail will be much dialed in if this project goes forward. That is correct. >> That's what I have for right now. I certainly may come back, but um Mr. Chairman, I'll um yield for now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Amen. >> Okay. Um I believe this would be the applicant. Um and and I might bounce around a bit. Sorry if I play a bit of musical chairs, but um I know a lot of I was at the previous meeting. A I appreciate that. I feel like um this presentation was a lot more polished, so I just wanted to appreciate that. Um on the drain on the drainage, it seems like that has been updated. Uh would you like to speak to what updates have been made because it looks like there's a new detention pond on this plan? >> Again, Chris Nails from the applicant. Um, on the topic of drainage, I think we have done enough work to understand that it is feasible. Um, we have definitely had Tyler Dell and Josh and Meline involved in understanding the strategies of how this site could drain. And I think kind of the big takeaways for where we are at this particular point in the project is that the city has satisfied itself that there is a feasible way to drain this project in compliance with all of the city codes and regulations which do address the concerns of the neighbors and of Boulder County that there won't be kind of external drainage with a negative impact. exactly how that gets done um is still up for some discussion. There's been a couple of different paths evaluated as part of that feasibility study. Um, and certainly there are details that need to be ironed out. And I think what we've kind of talked about and what we talked about after last meeting is that I think the city has said applicant, I think you need to know there's some risk on your side of the ledger for exactly how this gets done and how expensive it'll be to to do it. But we're confident that you guys can find a way to do it that's in compliance with what needs to be done. >> That's all I wanted to hear. Thank you very much. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Also, I'm not sure who on the applicant side would like to field this question, but um and I know this is a conceptual level, but what strategies are going to be used um because we're adding a new signal and pedestrian connectivity was brought up a lot. Is there any thought to pedestrian connectivity across 287 here? I know that that would fall partially under the purview of uh C dot, but I don't know if anyone could speak to that. Good evening. James Waller with Kimley Horn. Um, regarding pedestrian connectivity with the traffic signal, yes, there's plan to have uh pedestrian connectivity going across 287 from the west to the east side. We will make any necessary improvements at the intersection of Park Ridge Avenue and 287 287 as well along with the 50-foot gateway buffer that will be on both sides of 287 where there will be a uh 10T 10ft walk along 287 that will be used for multimotal travel. >> Okay, that makes sense. Um and then I guess along that stretch of 287 there's going to be the right and right out. Is any other modifications to that stretch of 287 envisioned or is it going to remain as is? >> There are active discussions with CDOT for any measures that uh can be implemented with their design. They're doing safety improvements from Berthid to Parkridge Avenue and then from the south side of Longmont all the way down to Lafayette. So, we're actively working with them for safety improvements. That would be um any improvements within 287. >> Okay. Yeah, >> that makes sense. Thank you very much. >> Yeah, of course. Um I think those were my main questions for the applicant. Um I don't um oh this was another question I had um regarding internal circulation uh within the site and I know this is just very high level. Has there been thought put towards traffic calming and um other such measures for internal circulation because I know that is a concern of the neighborhood. um some consideration. It is still preliminary. We're looking at potential street layouts uh throughout the site with some potential street layouts. There will be it will be public rideway. >> Mhm. >> Um for the majority of the roadways going through here. So, we're going to need to meet current city standards for that with any um signage and traffic calming measures along there. >> Okay. So, then yeah, I know city restraints on road with and stuff. I just wanted to emphasize that I do think um to what extent possible there should be an emphasis placed on slowing traffic down through this neighborhood so that it might discourage people cutting through to Willis Heights. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um I think that's all I have for now. Thank you, >> Commissioner Boon. >> All righty. Okay. Thank you, Chair Poland. Um, first of all, thank you to all of the homeowners who spoke tonight. Um, I appreciate all your comments and I too would just like to have it on the record that even though I was not at the initial meeting, I listened to that entire 4-hour meeting and studied the minutes. Um, so I am up to speed on the project and on the one on the east side as well. Um, you know, that's part of our job. Sometimes we can't come to the meeting, but we did get the information. Um, I want to just verify a couple of things. Um, probably with uh Kristen. So, to the north of the proposed project, which is also the north of the Willow, is it Willow Heights? >> Willis Heights. Willis Heights subdivision is open space. >> That is correct. >> Is that always going to be open space? >> That is my understanding that that is preserved open space in Boulder County. >> Um that was my understanding too and I would say to the residents that live in Willis Heights, you are really lucky to have this preserved open space to the north of your property. Not many of us that live in the city of Longmont have that. So, be thankful for that. Um, and then as I'm understanding, to the west of Willis Heights is zoned as mixeduse corridor. Or maybe it's not zoned yet, but it's it's designated as mixeduse corridor in the Longmont area planning maps. Is that correct? >> That is correct. and that includes a lot of things including commercial and other types of residential and other things. And um I would really just like to encourage the the neighbors who are upset about this um area being developed to look at the at the whole picture because you you are kind of an enclave at the north end of the city and there is going to be development all around you and um many of you have been here many many years but Envision Longmont has been around for a long time and that information has been available for a long time. So people who have just bought into the neighborhood thinking that they're living in the in the country forever um you know they just don't have all the information. That's just a comment. Um, so originally this parcel was designated in the land use plan as single family. In my mind's eye, putting single family lots up against 287 is a bad idea. I can only think of one place in the city of Longmont where we have single family lots backed up against 287 and that's way that's Southmore Park way down south. and the entire rest of the 287 corridor um has at least mixeduse neighborhoods or commercial or things other than big single family lots. Um, I also feel like the proposed development is truly a good transition between the big lots, single family homes that you have in Willis Heights and what's going on the other side of 287, which is a higher density. This particular parcel is not high density. There are single family lots that back up to the the Willis subdivision on the west side and and then we've got duplexes and triples and fours and maybe some um the maybe some um little higher density, but this is not high density. This is medium density. So, in my mind's eye, it's really an appropriate transition going from the rural lots in in Willis through this subdivision and then as you cross 287, the higher density is over there. So, I commend the developer for presenting that and making that work in my mind. Um, let's see. The other thing that I just wanted to bring up is that I think there's going to be more people from the Willis subdivision driving through this new subdivision to get up to the north exit than the other way around. Um, I don't see any reason I don't see any reason for the people in this proposed subdivision to be driving west through the Willis subdivision. Um, there there might be a little bit, but I really see most of the traffic going the other direction. Um, so those those are just comments. I support what um this developer is proposing. I think it will address not necessarily low-income housing, but certainly middle inome housing, which is what we need. As you all have mentioned, we've got an awful lot of apartments. And um this is something other than just high density apartments. We've got the smaller lot single families. We've got the duplexes and the triples. and I think it's a creative solution. I'm interested to see the next phase. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Edgely Wells. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, I have a question related to the Kimly Horn traffic study. I believe that's going to be for Mr. James Wabby, possibly, >> whomever. Go ahead, Jeff. Go. Hi, thank you. Um, so the traffic study, uh, so I was one of the commissioners not at the last meeting and there was a lot of discussion on, um, some of the proposed changes only being applicable after the platting of the neighborhood. So, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of if I'm able to ask these questions as they apply to the annexation, which we're regarding. Um, how much of the recommendations in this traffic study uh will be, I guess, accounted for during this annexation. Does that make sense? >> So, when you go through the annexation, it's more of a conceptual level. And so, that's going to change. The traffic study is going to need to be updated as you go through site development plan. Um the the topic of conversation that is being brought up is the access to Roseland. Um adding the traffic to a local street with driveways is not desirable. Um all along from a traffic engineering perspective, you know, we feel the two points of access is sufficient and the third should be emergency. Um but that'll be properly vetted in the future um with updated traffic study if it is required without a waiver. Well, I'm more so asking some of some of these suggestions or recommendations in the traffic study are based on growth, not necessarily um not necessarily the concept plan itself from what I'm understanding. So, um I'm just wondering like some of these are recommended that R11 stop sign be installed on the exiting approaches that each of the three remaining new site accesses assuming that a center median is not constructed along US 287. It is also recommended that an R32 no left turn sign be installed underneath the R11 signs. I'm just trying to get a better There are lots of recommendations here. There's a lot of concern on traffic safety and I'm just trying to get a better handle on which of these can be applied to today. Um, so the improvement recommendations will not change much. It's been reviewed by the city of Longmont. It's been reviewed by C DOT. We've had coordination with all them. The auxiliary turn lane recommendations along the C dot highway are to standard to code. That will not change. The traffic signal is warranted. Um, that would not change. Um, the signage that you're talking about would not change. If a raised median happened to go in along US 287, the signage recommendations would change. instead of a no left turn, you would have a one-way um sign. And so both of those options were provided in the traffic study contingent on the raised median um along Park Ridge Avenue, the eastbound left turn lane into that access, the 75 ft of storage. That would not change. Really, the only thing that would change in the traffic study is if it is 100% required that Rosland is a public access, we would have to distribute some traffic that way. I can definitively say right now we don't have that traffic study. The volumes wouldn't be high enough. It would operate acceptably. It may not be a desirable condition, but the volumes wouldn't be high enough to trigger unacceptable level of service. Um, that's not to say you would want additional traffic on a local street with driveways, but it would operate acceptably. From a traffic engineering perspective, emergency access would be the most desirable condition in that case, but we have to continue to work through that with the city and the fire. And um Ced's not going to allow another point of access. We were lucky to get two points of access along the COT highway. Part of that was um the rigorous efforts to do a speed study, putting in the traffic signal, having additional development. You know, we're going to have the speed limit lowered from 65 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. The traffic signal is going to provide a natural sense of traffic calming. The two points of access, it will provide a natural sense of traffic calming. Um the roadway classification is going to change from regional highway to NRB, which is a lower classification with a lower speed limit. So that's going to, you know, increase safety. Um all those will stay the same. Does the traffic study right now um evaluate Rosland? No. Will it operate acceptably? Yes. Do I want access on Rosland as a traffic engineer? No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It's good. Thank you. I'm done. [clears throat] >> Uh next is Commissioner Jordan. >> Thank you, Chair. Um couple questions. Uh let's see here. Uh Kristen, let's start with you. Um there were some concerns brought up by the community about resource availability and I do have a specific question about water but just covering let's just say police, fire, other utilities. Um this is also somewhat of a procedural question because I know some of this is going to be more uh let's just say rigorous and a part of our review criteria at the preliminary plat at a concept plan. How how material is that resource availability? >> So basically with an annexation when you're looking at it, it's a very conceptual process. Can this property be brought in the city? Does it meet the annexation statute requirements to bring it into the city? And can it be served by the city? So that is what is evaluated initially with the annexation. I mean all reviewers have um come to a point where the plan is acceptable that they believe it can be served by the city. What happens as it goes forward in development and it gets dialed in as you get more specific details which then kind of establish your final dwelling units per acre numbers and those sort of things. So can it be served? That is what the annexation is looking at. um and the reviewers have indicated that it can be served appropriately and then that will get more dialed in as the process goes along if this is approved. >> So let let me paraphrase to see if I got that correctly. Um that when we talk about say like we talked about Longmont Police, Longmont Fire, you know, sewer, water, that sort of thing, uh electricity at first blush looking at an overall concept, we think, okay, we have we don't see any red flags. We can move forward with an annexation. the concept, but we're going to have to review when we have more detail. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, this isn't like a hard gate, but we don't initially see any red flags with the um the public services that we've looked consulted with yet. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Uh I did want to thank you that that uh that answers that question, but I wanted to go a little deeper on the water. Uh specifically, I see that we have about a 74 acre feet water deficit. And I know that water availability and uh let's just say um uh sustainability was brought up uh as as as one of the concerns around here. We if we get to preliminary plat and the applicant is not able to come up with that 74 acre feet of water rights. I don't know if if I'm saying that correctly. Does that mean that they have to scale the plan back? >> That is a great question. I've that uh Chris from Actis will address. Thank you Chris. Thank you. >> Yeah, it's a very good question and you know I think we're really fortunate in Longmont that we've done a lot of long range planning around water and are in a much better position around water than most other front range communities. I've been working with Wes Lowry um for three years about this water deficit. He has helped our firm secure water rights that will be dedicated to the city as part of the annexation. And then there's well actually it'll be required as part of the annexation and it will get actually dedicated um when we start to build. Um and then also um city council has a cash and loo for any water that's not um provided via water shares. And so, um, there is an opportunity to just pay your way on that. I think it's quintupled in the last four years. Um, so it's gotten much much more expensive, but it's still a viable option. Um, but I feel very confident that we're going to be able to address the raw water needs on this project. >> Okay. And I'm going to paraphrase that again. So you're working you're working with le West Lowry to secure those water rights, but if you don't, you might have to make up the difference in cash on maybe a 5x. I I think, you know, those of us might be a little concerned that cash might be easier to build in this economy than water. I don't know, but you know, that's not a review criteria. I don't believe at a concept plan. Is that correct, Kristen? >> That is correct. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I won't belabor it, but I appreciate that you are being sensitive about those. >> Sure. One little clarification. The 5x is just that currently in Longmont, every acre foot of water that's not dedicated via water rights, um, there's a $59,650 cash and loo payment. And >> for every foot. >> For every acre foot. >> Oh, wow. >> Um, and 3 acre feet per acre are required to be dedicated to the city. Um, and so that number does continue to climb because Colorado has difficulties with water and Longmont's been really forward thinking about securing water rights and being a part of some of the big projects like the Windy Gap. Um, they are able to serve the city both in drought times and um, better years. >> All right. Uh, Chris, while you're up here, Sure. One other quick question and it's I I'll make it very quick because I understand this is we're we're before any preliminary plat. You're in an interesting position uh because you have both sides of 287 in this case. We've talked a lot about pedestrian safety uh and an entrance to Longmont and RTD access and it seems like you would be in a great place to build a lovely pedestrian bridge to address the safety of our residents as a gateway to Longmont as it were. Uh just throwing that as aside. Um I I don't know if that has been something you've considered. >> It hasn't come up. Um I don't even know how to answer the question because I don't know what constituencies are involved in deciding whether that's warranted, whether that's legal, whether that's the right thing to do. Um if that's something that is asked of us very broadly. I think we're >> 287 is a very wide road. have a lot of people who don't as we've seen today. I'll I'll respect the laws of traffic. Uh I personally wouldn't feel very comfortable crossing uh as we go from a 65 to 45 transition zone. Um so I think some mitigation there should be addressed. Again, concept plan. I understand we're ahead of the game here, but I I just brought wanted to bring that up because traffic has been probably the most um I've I've been counting and I I wanted to thank everybody from kind out here. I've been doing tick marks as we're talking about traffic and and uh access through the neighborhood and safety and all these things. Um and because we are talking a lot about a transportation hub with RTD and whatnot, pedestrian safety, um you know, vehicle safety, those are all really important things. Uh and you are in a unique position, which is why I brought it up because of both sides of the road there. >> Heard. So, um some other thoughts then I'll yield. Um I know there's been a lot of conversations with everyone about crime. I don't believe we're talking about highdensity apartments on the west side here. I think we're talking about single family, transitioning to multi- family uh duplexes, triplexes, as as Commissioner Jerry had mentioned. I believe that will actually address your homeless uh problem when this area is developed. I don't think the kinds of people who can afford a multi00,000 dwelling or, you know, $1,600 a month in rent are going to be the kind of people who are going to be bringing uh homeless into your neighborhood. Looking at the traffic though, uh I also wanted to echo that I think that it's going to be kind of the the kind of trips I would expect that residents of this new development would take through your neighborhood would be to go westbound on 66 m. That that would be about it. I think I think if you're heading s if you're going westbound on 66 coming south on 287, you have a right merge lane that doesn't uh isn't lighted at that intersection. And that merge lane extends almost it looks like uh all the almost all the way to Hillrest. So I'm not sure that it would be advantageous to go through your neighborhood, although I understand there would be some trips there. Um I think that's that's all my comments there. Ultimately, um I do think that this is a good transition development. I think that you'll have single family housing that is abuing your direct borders, but we're going to have to wait and see at the prelim at a later stages what the actual concept uh what the the specifics look like, but I'm in support of it at its current state. >> Thank you. Chris, can you please step back up? >> Yes, sir. kind of danced around this a little bit and um the public has been indicating higher density and and maybe that's partly because on the concept plan it says higher density residential but not specifically high density and a couple of the commissioners have kind of made the comments about what they are anticipating for lower residential density and higher residential density but from you the developer and I know you don't have numbers And but what are you looking at for let's say the higher density residential section? What kind of uh units are you going to try to put in there? Are you thinking about putting in there? And then also for the lower dens density residential, what kind of units are you looking at putting in there? I don't care about numbers. Just, you know, just kind of rough feel. Yeah, we're thinking it's probably going to be this type of development. Yeah, we've looked through a number of different plans and we've kind of held off on getting really into those weeds until we know what the land use designation and the zoning are going to be. I think as we've talked about this project at every stage um we've committed to the idea of single family homes around the perimeter um and then scaling the density up towards the highway. I think today where the the market needs product is in the less dense than apartment. I I think a lot of people have correctly stated a lot of apartments have been built in in Longmont and that need has been to a certain extent satiated. Um and I think this project wants to be at a little lower density than that. So, um I I don't have exact numbers, but I think we're very committed to the transition from west to east and from south to north on on how that transition works. Okay. Thank you. Um I'm just going to put in my two cents about the traffic. Um and this is just for when you start uh going through the platting uh and putting in your roads. Um, if there's and people have talked about rec uh traffic calming, but also maybe offsetting roads just to make it a little good. Uh, a little less convenient for people to cut through. I really don't think there's going to be many. I think if people are going to cut through actually, they're going to still take Park Ridge. That seems uh a little bit more direct. And um but if you can put in roads that are just kind of offset, maybe something like that. Um that may be the deterrent that would help people say no, it's too windy to try to get through. Um then I also have a question, Kristen. Um Rough and Ready Greenway and and this is getting back to one of the things that um Commissioner Jordan brought up. Um, but right now on the north end we have a dedication for the rough and ready greenway. And if I remember right, they're also showing it coming down along 287 on both sides of 287. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. And this is getting to what Commissioner Jordan said. If and then it I believe it connects to something further east. Correct. >> That is my understanding. >> Okay. So, if that's going to be like a major greenway, I I would hope that we could at some point in that area do maybe some kind of bridge to make it easier for people who want to use the rough and ready in the future, start thinking about now and make it easier and they don't have to worry about crossing at lights across 287. Um, that's my thoughts. Um, but anyways, that's just that. Um, and then I had one final question for Jeremy. So, currently, um, the concept or sorry, the, uh, comp plan is still waiting with city council, right? They have not approved anything that we recommended from our last meeting. Correct. >> Correct. So, um I know that the city recommended approval with no conditions, but do we need to add a condition that for approval for this that the comp plan amendment has to get approved? >> Good evening, Chair Poland. Jeremy Terrell, senior assistant city attorney. I I feel comfortable not adding that condition. I think annexation at the last meeting I discussed how annexation could proceed even without the comprehensive plan change or with it and I I feel confident just um just to consider the annexation concept plan zoning request before you and then we'll figure it out at the city council level if we need to. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh at this time I'll go ahead and send it over to commission or uh to councilman Popkin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to offer two clarifications um both for the commission and for the residents who are here. Um first of all, my role here is non- voting today. So, if you're curious of of what I feel, uh that's not what my position is today. I do serve on city council for the county residents who may not have been to a Longmont Planning Commission uh meeting before, but I won't vote until the city council decision. My role here is as a liaison to city council. And so the goal is for me to absorb the public comments, understand this in detail, absorb the applicant's presentation, absorb that in detail, understand uh our our staff's work through this and the commission's comments. Um I also was not at the May meeting, but I did watch the whole thing online as well um so that I could understand where we are getting to today. So, I just wanted to let you know where what my role is here and that the comments that you're offering um do factor into the feedback that I will provide to city council as a whole um if or when this gets to city council's decision. So, I just wanted to let you know what my role is today. The other thing I wanted to clarify builds off of what uh Commissioner Boon was sharing earlier on the open space because I saw a lot of furrowed brows that went around of just like what does that mean and and what are we talking about there? And so I just wanted to offer a definitional clarification here and bear with me because there are a few definitions that are relevant for this. The the first thing is when we uh some people colloquially might think of open space of just like things that aren't developed on. Um in Boulder County and in the city of Longmont, there are multiple legal definitions as to what open space actually is. And so I just wanted to uh read you into what that means. In Longmont, open space specifically refers to protected natural areas funded by open space dollars. That is not what this is. Um, what this is is a county conservation easement. It's the Wood Meadows County Conservation Easement. Uh, and we're talking by this, not the not the subject property. We're talking about the property just north of of what we're talking about. Um, just north of is that Hillrest? Is that the north road that would be at the top there? Am I getting that right, Kristen? Um, so anything north of what is basically proposed is a county conservation easement. um that also has restrictions though different restrictions from what Longmont open space would be. Um and so I just wanted to let you know what that is. You can find the county's open space map which includes this conservation easement online at uh bouldercount.gov openspace map. Um if you're curious to learn more about what that is. The last thing I wanted to just clarify is this is in Envision Longmont in because it's within our area. It is zoned community parks greenway open space. that area north of again the subject property. So Longmont's intention is not to develop under envision Longmont at any level of development. The area just north of the subject property that we're talking about. So when Commissioner Boon is referring to kind of your you're the northbound boundary is is open space that is in bulk what what she was referring to. But I wanted to just clarify the different definitions both for the commission um and for the members of public. It's a county conservation easement that is zoned community uh in Longmont for parks, recreation or parks, greenway or open space purposes. So, I just wanted to let you know in terms of just north of what we're talking about today, what is surrounded up there um because I did hear some comments that were trying to that were concerned that development was going to just keep spreading there and that's not the intention based on all of the plans that exist at the county and city level. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I remember my other question, Kristen. Um before I send it over to vice chair, um there were multiple people who um had issues or or were um indicated that they were wondering would we want to um annex in the community to the west? Can we address that to some degree? I can just briefly address it in that I have heard no plans of that. There's no indication that that is any consideration. Uh our planning director may have more information in reference to that, but that is nothing I'm aware of. >> And correct me, would that annexation generally come from actually the property owners before it would come from the city? >> I mean, there's different ways to annex, but I believe the property owners would be a component of it. Grant. >> Yeah, just to add um on what Kristen said, um this particular property would have to petition uh to annex because it isn't eligible for an onclaim annexation. Um to the north essentially is, as we noted before, Boulder County. So, it has not been surrounded nor would we anticipated being surrounded. Okay. Thank you for that clarification, Vice Chair Earl. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For a a second round here, and I'll be brief. Um, Mr. Neils, did I get that right? >> Yes, sir. >> uh, the chairman asked you a little bit about kind of the balance of, um, single family, multif family, kind of what you were thinking. The question I didn't hear or he didn't ask and you didn't answer is what's the balance of for sale and rental? And recognizing we're not putting this in the record. This is not binding, but just where are you thinking on that topic right now? >> Yeah, I think it's too early to tell. I think we have a long process ahead of us and markets move faster than development plans and I think the current tenor within the city is that there is a need unressed need for for purchase housing. Um but I think it would be really hard to commit to that at this stage and so I think we're open to assessing the market as we get closer to being able to deliver units >> at least at this stage. And again, we're this isn't going in the anything, so it's not a binding statement, but there's not a plan that this is strictly for rent or build to rent or for that matter even strictly for sale. That is all a little bit to be addressed as we go. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um I think you've probably heard from members of the community broadly in Longmont. Um you've probably heard from this count from this commission before. You know, there certainly is that need for for sale. Um, I would certainly encourage you to take that very seriously as you develop the plan. >> Um, see where the market goes. >> Absolutely. >> I think we're very much watching developments like True North very carefully to understand kind of where the demand is and how that product that I think in some ways is similar to what we're envisioning here um, is received as it gets delivered. >> Thank you. Um, I I will just kind of make a broad comment. Um, I I really like this project. I think it's in a good location. I like the the higher density closer to 287. I like the buffer to the neighborhood. I'm really uncomfortable with the access into Rosland right now. I'm uncomfortable that we don't have a traffic study for that. Um, I mean, I I I would really like to vote for this project for everything except that aspect. Um, I I am certainly not an expert in this. I am not a public safety officer. I'm not a traffic planner. There are other neighborhoods in the city where we do see emergency only access um when there's even into a county um into uninc incorporated Longmont next to a development. We certainly see it in sorry, Willow Creek onto North 89. This is something we've addressed in a previous um application that came before us. I believe last year uh for a quail road project. Um I'd really like to see if there's a way that we can do that here um to help the needs of the help ensure that we're not putting traffic in. I appreciate that we'll probably see offset roads and we'll see traffic mitigation and a whole lot of other things, but it just it it's a little hard to accept right now and we have both the community and Boulder County pushing against it. Um, for the community itself, I independent from this project, I am sorry you have people cutting through Parkridge and Hillrest to go between 287 and 66. That sounds miserable. I would encourage you, and this is I'm a volunteer commissioner in the city of Longwitt who has no authority on this whatsoever, but I would really hope Boulder County could do some traffic calming through there. um whatever that looks like, whether that's speed bumps or anything else, that is well outside of any of our purview to even suggest that. But I I hope that there's an option there to address that. Um and I hope you appreciate that we're trying to not make that worse um with anything that we're talking about tonight. Recognize that traffic's going into Longmont traffic is getting worse. Um it is a top concern. I I can't address what's already in in the situation, though. So I at least I hope you appreciate that that is is on our minds. Thank you, >> Commissioner Lane. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, to jump off of Harrison's question regarding that, you know, public safety access through Rosland Avenue, could we not put like a Knox box and an automatic gate there for for fire access only? Is that not a possibility? >> I will ask Mark Samson to address that. I believe it has to do with the half diagonal situation. >> Diagonal. >> Yeah. >> The axis spacing. >> Commissioner P, Chairman Poland, uh, Commissioner Link. Um, Longmont Fire has just currently adopted the 24 like IFC amendments [snorts] and those go into effect July 1. So by the time that this comes through, section 503 503.3 states specifically when more than 25 dwelling units are built, two independent full two independent public accesses are required. Okay. Public means anyone can drive through there. Correct. >> And that's 503. Did 503 just Did you say it's just coming into effect on July 1st or it's already currently adopted by city council? It takes effect July 1st. And while I have you up here, just I didn't understand. When you say diagonal, what do you mean? >> The overall lot, the overall lot northwest to southeast. >> Okay. You put a line through there and then >> then you measure >> divide it in two. >> Divide it in two. Then that's your distance that the two points of access have to be separated by. Okay. So this first one would be north northeast corner northeast corner and the second one would be the Rosland >> Rosland Rosland whatever. Yeah. Okay. Because the right in like I spoke with Commissioner Earl before the right in right out off of 287 they're too close together. Okay. I I think I see what you're saying now. I'm looking at the concept plan. Okay. Okay. >> Thank you for that. >> We good. >> Good. >> Thank you, sir. >> Uh the farmhouse you're saying that definitely will get relocated. Is that correct? And I know you said it's not we maybe with other as with other things maybe a little ahead of ourselves on this one, but that will not be demolished. Is that correct? So too early to say specifically. However, the condition um recommended by the historic preservation commission >> [snorts] >> essentially says that priority should be given that special consideration should be given to relocating that house elsewhere on the property over demolishing it. So that's something that the commission specifically directed the applicant to look at as an option. >> And you guys have looked at that and built that in or sort of >> it it would need this this plan would need to be developed um as part of future development applications. So at this this stage it's the this is one of the things we're going to look at moving forward. >> I grew up here and I actually knew the previous owner of that house. I spent time in that house. So it's a cool house. I mean, I'd hate to see it get demolished. Um, okay. Right there. >> Just real quick, what about our historic value? >> Yeah, >> cuz when you put all these brands, >> I understand if you had five minutes to speak for your home, but >> we all live here and love this town. We love our >> that that's understood but we've got we have our the way that we handle the meeting and people have had their time. So >> um >> okay um the next thing uh affordable housing have you guys addressed affordable housing in this plan? >> It has not been addressed at annexation but activists can address what their thoughts have been in reference to affordable and requirements of the city. >> Yeah, I mean I think there's it's probably a bit of a moving target. Um there are certainly code requirements and we would um adhere to those. I've had several conversations both with Kylen and um most recently Melissa um about creative ways that we can address affordable housing here. Um there's certainly it's a very important topic and I think the city has great people um looking out for it and we're happy to work with them and look forward to figuring it all out together. >> Okay. Um I know in lie of is usually a popular route. I'd encourage that to not be a [clears throat] possibility if if at all possible. I mean I know that's down the road a little ways, but I feel like it's a little too easy for a developer just to pay some money to not build affordable housing. And while I got you up here, um, in this Kimberly Horn, what is it? Attachment, uh, project description to, it's like a four pager, five pager. Um, you talk about, you just go into a little bit kind of off of Harrison's question as well, uh, rental versus ownership, but it says, um, you know, initially, where is it here? Sorry, this thing's going crazy on me. um you would have so many lots that would have um you you could maybe sell in or develop in the future. Here it is. Um approximately 17 lots that will not have structures developed on them initially but will allow the development of approximately single appropriately sized single family housing on those lots. The project would also allow development of approximately 230,000 ft of multif family housing with approximately 204 units and approximately 11,000 ft² accessory clubhouse. That's on page three of that thing of that five pager. Um, does that mean you're looking at potentially even subbing this out to someone else where you guys would sell part of the land down the road for someone else to develop as a multi-tenant unit kind of thing? >> Can't commit to anything at this point in time. This is certainly a very large project um for a small local developer to take on. I think we would love to be able to do it. we will have to get money from somewhere other than our company. Um, so h how we do that is something that we'll have to address. Um, and we'll do it at the appropriate time. That's all I can say. >> Okay. Okay. And I I'm in agreement with a lot of people here that we need I don't particularly want, you know, acreages. I don't want a bunch of multi-tenant units stacked on top of each other. that missing middle is an an issue in Longma and it's someone pointed out, you know, the average rent is like 1,600 bucks for a I mean, that's nuts. But it's I think more importantly than the cost of living is the availability and the ability to get a house and own a house cuz for probably most of us in this room, that's our primary asset, period. If you own a house, if you're lucky enough to own a house. So, um I know that's still as with a lot of things here, it's it's too far down the road to really know what it's going to look like, but I would hope that there'd be a lot more stuff available no matter what the scale to buy as opposed to rent. Um I think people just make owner occupied properties or are nicer kept. They're people take pride in them, you know. They >> Mhm. >> they just I I've got a neighborhood that's got one guy that has an Airbnb on it and it drives me crazy because he doesn't live in town, so he's got to rent it a month at a time. But still, those people have no interest in keeping that property up. It's just it's just a a stop on the road for them. So, yeah, any any kind of no matter the scale, I think it's important that ownership be a possibility. I know there's a lot that goes into that in terms of the housing market on the front range. It's tight. I get it. It sucks. Um but to have people to be able to have the ability to buy something whether it's 1,000 ft or 5,000 square ft is is huge. So um >> Yep. >> Okay. I think and and I want to echo the person's comment on public safety. That article who brought that up out there? Somebody. Yeah, that's a that was a great article and the Times call and I I work for public safety and that article pointed out very clearly that as a city we're falling behind in terms of demand and resources. Um I actually helped maintain the 911 system for this town. So, I see that, you know, they're they're constantly getting the more development, the more demands, the the higher harder it is to keep up staffing, dispatching, and and policing is getting much more technical than it was even 10 or 20 years ago. And so, that's that's tough. So, that that that department in the city feels that pretty heavily when you add whether it's 200 houses or 500 houses or whatever, it's going to it's going to make an impact. So, it's going to be tough for them. And I know they're going to come back. Is that right, Matthew? Like they're going to come is staff going to come back and talk about public safety maybe and how the budget's going to look and potentially a a tax increase or what? Said something about that at the end of that that article, I think, and I'm I'm done asking things. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh thank you, Commissioner Lang and and Mr. Chair. Uh that is that is correct. There was an initial presentation I want to say couple weeks ago um I think it was early midmay um from our public safety team about the challenges that police and fire um are facing and the need for additional funding. Um they will be coming back I think it's in late July for an additional update and discussion on different potential approaches and how much they might uh need if it was to go to a ballot measure or other strategies that we could take to try to meet that need. So yes, thank you for the question. >> Commissioner Amit. >> Um Kristen, I believe this would be a question for you. Um while I was reviewing the documents the applicants submit, I did notice that they had a note on pocket park location to be uh determined. I'm just wondering what what requirements would be have for green space and park space in this new development. And I know that again conceptual like high level but >> certainly so um our landscape standards actually to discuss pocket park size I believe at the pocket park requirement begins at 50 units for a multi multifamily property and the requirement is 1 acre for 200 units which can be you know if it's less than 200 units it is reduced accordingly. Um so that will come up at um as as I've mentioned many times additional application sites but yes we do have requirements for pocket park and they are in our landscape portion of our code and we would expect that they adhere to those. >> Understood. Thank you very much. Um I think oh the other question I had um and this might be for I'm not sure who would want to feel this if it's Kristen or the applicant but um I am wondering about cuz the lower density was mentioned and there was concerns brought up of compatibility. Um what mechanisms do we have to limit things such as height and density like I I don't know if there's any strict requirements on compatibility. I know and again conceptual I'm just wondering >> definitely that is a great question. So this would fall under the RMN standards for development if this application were to be approved and go forward. So there's the there's a 35 ft maximum height. There are some different um allowances in reference to offering affordable that can be uh looked at in reference to that height requirement. But 35 ft is a requirement as mentioned in code. The minimum lot area is 4,000 square feet. So it would be the RMN standards which would dictate that continuing development. >> Understood. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Do we have any questions, comments? Anybody like to make a motion? >> Commissioner Amen. >> Uh seeing no other questions, um I'd move to Let me pull up the actual title so I have it. um approve 20 uh PZR 2026-8A um to approve the Longmont Gateway Northwest annexation. >> Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Boone, >> I will second the motion. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further comments? I will say that um going through the approval uh that this uh does meet uh an application for the Longmont Gateway Northwest annexation RMN zoning and concept plan has been submitted. That's checked. Said application was found to be complete through the DRC review process. That's checked. Said application was considered including the record presented with it during a public hearing opened on June 17th, 2026. Checked. Proper notice was given according to section 150204J of the law line development code check and said application conforms to the applicable applicable requirements of sections 1502055 and 1502060 A2 of the Longmont Land Development Code. given that I will be for this also. Any further comments? If not, Jane, let's take Oh, Commissioner Lane for uh you fellas. Um I'm, you know, not brand new, but fairly new to this board. Is this a typical process in terms of annexation, zoning, and concept plan all in one fell swoop? So you don't typically just annex something and then try to figure out well maybe now we need to figure out how to zone it. You want to do it at the same concurrently. Right. >> Correct. Our our code requires that an applicant for annexation present a concept plan and zoning at annexation. >> Okay. >> So they all come together as one. The exception being like enclaves or city initiated annexations. >> Okay. So, like when we brought in Old County Road something a couple years ago, I'm not sure if you're in the commission at that time, but it wouldn't have been a concept plan because it was coming in as a public right of way and city initiated. >> Okay. I think eventually this property is going to get annexed. Um whether it's now or in the future, I don't particularly care for the concept plan. I don't feel it's fleshed out enough. I know there's a lot of variables in play there. So, I'm not sure if I'll be supporting this tonight, but thanks for that answer. >> Do we have any other comments, questions? If not, Jane, let's take the vote. >> Commissioner Edgely Wells, >> yes. >> Commissioner Lang, >> no. >> Vice Chair Earl, >> Chair Poland, >> yes. >> Commissioner Arment, >> hi. >> Commissioner Boon, >> yes. >> Commissioner Jordan, >> yes. Chair, that passes uh 5 to2 with commissioners Lang and Vice Chair Earl dissenting. >> Thank you very much. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you are unfamiliar with council procedures and intend to appear before city council, please contact the planning division for further information at 303 6518330. Thank you to everyone who came here. Uh thank you to the applicant and thank you to the staff for presentation. Uh let's go ahead and the next item. Let me see if I can get this closed down. Uh final call public invited to be heard. This is a chance for anybody in the public who would like to come and speak about something that we did not talk about today. Jane, did we have anybody on? Nope. Nobody signed up for it. I will open up to the public. Somebody would like to come forward. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out. Final call. Public invited to be heard. Next is items from the commission. The commission's quiet today on this item. Okay. Next is items from Council Representative Popkin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, commissioners, thank you to those of you who uh sat um participated in a multi-phase journey for for this uh project. Whether you were on the commission for both uh live or whether you watched and caught up, really appreciate that. Um I I also want to just note, you know, I want to thank staff, members of the public, and the applicant for their participation and patience through this public process. It's not over. Um, and there are still more parts of this, but we do have public hearings for many reasons and that doesn't always make the process inherently easier, but hopefully you also understood that there are the comments that uh people shared reflected questions that were asked and inform another layer of this which I just wanted to uh add on to this. Something that I shared last week at the city council meeting was that there were multiple uh complex uh planning applications that are going through the process right now. this being one of those and that I I really appreciate the planning and zoning commission's thorough consideration of this and other projects and and frankly even code updates when you talk about like the bike parking code updates too and I think the questions that you all asked um even if you weren't all unanimous in vote what I directed what I not directed what I encouraged my colleagues on city council to pay attention to was not just what's in the packet but all of the questions that you all asked in the recording here um because I think some people learn through visual, through reading, and through oral discussion. And we don't have the time, much to my chagrin, to clarify all of these fine points that you have all been doing uh today and last month as well among, you know, just the last two months in particular. And so I I hope that they will uh continue to pay attention to those because you got into the weeds on this in a very productive way. um so that people could really understand what's happening with the different exits, what's happening with the different parts of traffic safety mitigation, the county roads versus the city areas, um what's happening on the northern boundary on 287 pedestrian bridge. Interesting idea. Um so thank you for for all of those finepointed questions. I know this this was part of a much longer packet as well and I know there was multiple discussions in May about how the how long the previous packet was. Um, and so thank you for the diligence and the time that you all spent there. That was not lost on me either. Um, and uh I I do hope that we will consider the volume of information that uh comes. I know that isn't every week, but uh I do realize that that is uh difficult to sift through um especially in just one week. So, I'm I'm in some ways glad that this was continued even though it did make for a bit of a longer process for everyone and some folks had to come to uh the least exciting thing to do on a Wednesday night twice um to offer your feedback as well. So, so I really do appreciate that. Um hopefully you saw that these folks um did offer a really really thorough discussion here that will inform how city council thinks about this too. Um, unrelated to this specific proposal, I did want to cue the commission into uh council's presentation discussion of the phase 2 for the Front Range Community College um down at near First and Maine uh last week. Uh if you haven't seen that presentation, highly encourage you to go watch that. Um not that it inherently concerns any business before the commission at this moment, but as it concerns land use uh growth considerations, transit oriented development in our community. Um, I thought it was an exciting update and phase two of what I believe will be four phases for the planning and design and construction of the Front Range Community College urban downtown campus and the first and main transit center overall. Um, also already mentioned the bike parking code updates, but uh, as someone who sees that both for PNZ and on the transportation advisory board and actually I think helped kickstart this with the commission a couple years ago um, for the code updates. really appreciate everyone's uh direct comments and kind of nuanced uh questioning of kind of how people are thinking about that, how our staff has been working through that meticulously um and the hopefully productive changes that come with that too. Mr. Chair, I think that's it. Thank you very much. Items from planning director Grant Penland. Chair Mor just a quick update regarding uh schedule for July. Um, as of right now, we do not have uh any items for the July 15th. Um, there's a very very short window uh in which we could have something, but as of right now, uh it doesn't look like it. However, uh July 22nd, we do have an item um that is very time-sensitive. Uh I think I alluded to it previously, uh URA related items. Um don't know if it's going to be one or two, but because of the timing of that, it appears that July 22nd is the only date that may work. So, wanted to generally get a sense if uh we we may be able to make that special meeting work in order to accommodate. Uh but yeah, long story short, that might actually be the only item in July. Thank you. Uh then we are in adjournment. Thank you everybody. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music]