City Council Pre-Session - September 8, 2026

I'm going to go ahead and get us started since it's already 6:01. >> Okay. >> Um FYI, just in case I start coughing. >> Oh no. >> Oh my god. It is bad. It was >> since last Wednesday. >> Started school. >> Yeah. >> Freaking germ. >> Germ. It's a germf. Okay. So, um, I'm going to call the city council presession September 8th, 2026, 6 pm meeting to order. And we'll go ahead and start with roll call. Mayor Fering Pro, >> Eugene May, city attorney. >> Carol Dominguez, city manager. >> Council member Matthew Coffin, Council Member Caler. >> Uh, Council Member Marson, >> Councilwoman Diane Hurst. >> I'm fine. And um well, >> council is the most important. >> Yeah, council is the most important since this is ours. Um and recently though, I did not get notification that she wasn't going to be here. Um >> did you know? >> No. Okay. >> So, that'd be great. Thank you. But, um let's go ahead and get started with item A. Um topics to be discussed. And I'll go ahead and let you lead the conversation on these and I'm just going to ask questions moving forward. And some of these, you know, I'm looking at they're kind of pref, you know, preferencing, >> if I'm understanding this correctly, to kind of make a motion for council. >> Yeah. >> Because we can't do council direction during these presessions, but it's just to discuss and understand. >> Well, this is just >> Go ahead. This is just something that I had seen uh other communities are starting to look at. I think there's a lot of different ways of interpreting this, but with AI and the you know potentially bursting in a a bubble of of employment and uh and everything. I'm concerned that uh everything kind of shifts downwards is my concern and it's about the vulnerable people at the bottom somewhat in the sense that they are the ones holding some some of these different positions and they've already been kind of edged out by a technology there. Uh and there are places in the world that maybe they don't have as they even have more advanced technology because of their populations that eventually the whole cart could be uh scanned at once and you'd have you know just somebody to take your payment or not even that. And so I'm concerned that we need to be uh a little bit aware of this and and it's not like we have a ton of business in the town that do this except I saw you know 10 uh selfch checkckout at uh Home Depot and two people managing it and that's now and yet I saw 10 people using every one of the slots and getting and paying. So my concern is is that this is This is a somewhat of a trend of things coming. We are starting to see smaller retailers like uh Whole Foods take this on. Although bigger retailers like uh Costco and Sam's Club have kind of steered away from it or have a have a check in the process of having somebody check you as you walk out the door and things like that. >> I have a question before because you know you're coming into the um you know the rationale and but I heard a lot of it. What is it? >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to I thought people >> and I have it, you know, and I think really for the for public. >> Okay. For the public, it's a automated checkout workforce impact fee. Okay. >> Some sort of thing like that. And and I'm I'm open to anything or at least any sort of considerations, any sort of >> tweaks or twists on this. I think it's important. >> Sorry. >> So that that sort of thing. I just think that that uh my concern is is that when you take people out of the here >> um take people out of the equation uh work-wise, it it was probably a cute thing at first, but now it's starting to also have a bigger impact. I mean, we're starting to see that some places are getting away from uh the issue of uh of having this because of their store loss >> and >> so having um selfch checkckout altogether. Yeah. Is that what you're talking about? >> Yeah. And so I don't know if if it's something that we might want to just take a look at and consider, you know, some perspectives and some ideas about is there some need for that because I'd hate to have this continued the trend that it is and that is everywhere has a selfch checkout and that's eliminating employees and right now we decided that we didn't need to have a minimum wage but uh at some point uh and that was because the market was was >> we said we didn't need to increase the minimum wage >> that we weren't going >> yeah we very much >> I mean okay I'm saying to do that incremental >> uh process for raising the minimum wage >> and everything, but there might be a time that that might change and so it's just something for us to look at and consider. >> Okay. So, and it would be for council would be creating a an impact fee for retail businesses that use checkout or selfch checkout. >> Check out. Okay. Do we have any question? Go ahead. Council member Kuffer and then pop. >> Thank you, council member. Um, so is it if they So like Sam's Club, Sam's Club has scanning. You can scan everything in your cart and then walk out the door. Home Depot has the the pen and registers to people. So are you saying that the impact fee would be on those that are manned and unmanned or no only those that are unmanned? I mean, they might have somebody there to stand there to just check for loss and that's and but we've seen a a reduction in and then in employment uh because of this now I think that uh it's it's just something that we should keep an eye on for certain. So, if you close your eyes and think of an establishment that comes to mind, are because right now I can't envision any place that has them that would have this impact fee. >> Well, I would think that uh Home Depot and Lowe's. >> So, those do so those are >> those are ones because they even if they have somebody there, they don't have one at every check at every grocery. >> So, like McDonald's also, they don't have any cashiers. It's all touchscreen. So that would be something similar >> I think. So but I was thinking more of of more retail type of locations like stores like Safeways uh Walmart uh >> larger retailers. >> Yeah. Walmarts, Targets, those that have decided this is their approach to, you know, human shortages that maybe is that they just need to raise their pay and they'll get more people that would be interested in entering the job market. Thank you for the work for 18 hours. $18. >> Um, thank you for bringing this forward here. I appreciated the the spirit of where this coming from. Um, this is one of those policies where I always kind of try to think about where actually the intent I largely agree with and the execution is kind of where the devil is on this and I'm trying to >> why I'm asking. >> Yeah. Yeah. And so this would be the kind of thing where I would be a little bit worried where there would be a a regional locality effect where we would implement a fee but then Target shifts over to or Walmart shifts over to Firestone and then that's obviously it depends on what the the rate is or what the fee is. It depends on kind of what the workforce impact is. Um, but that's where I could I I would see this more as like a more interesting state policy rather than like a rather than done it at a city level or county level, per se. But I I'm curious, have you had a chance to talk with any of the e economic impact folks yet? >> No, I think I was trying to see if there's any interest in it with you guys and then we can pursue that. I don't want to start as a council member coming out here talking to them privately about that. Yeah, I mean if someone's looking to site another large retail enterprise or if they're just trying to think about how do they cut some costs in a really challenging economy, you know, I think automation has always been at various levels industrial revolution one of the ways to do that. Now what that looks like and the human impacts vary widely. Um so I I want to hear the rest of the discussion. That's kind of where I am right now. like scared of this greedy intentionally about what the execution would look like and >> well the execution I don't have the full >> yeah grasp of >> cool so this is more con conceptual >> okay go ahead >> um first of all thanks for putting together this this nice discussion draft was very helpful um you think any um change in this type magnitudes would need to be forwarded to the impact and also I think it would be helpful to have local data which I think you mentioned um let's see now um it's really helpful to have these sources cited as well Sean um the outplacement firm challenger I think it was highlighted softer commu consumer spending cost pressures store closures and broader cost cutting pictures as one reason for automated checkout. And so um I would add to that that the discussion I keep hearing is public facing positions and customer service jobs are a lot harder to fit for most businesses. Um younger generations become very techsavvy but human averse. Uh also they are a smaller generation. There aren't as many of them. And um how many times do we hear from business that we can't find workers for certain positions, you know, um mentioning Walmart specifically, I can say that um they have cost containment methods for their corporate structure such as position positioning stores outside of city limits. Um, both of our Walmart stores are just outside and so they charge I just happen to have a a Walmart receipt near near one of my desks and I they are charging 7.43% which ours is that the one on 118. >> This is the one on Kimcraft. >> And Kim Crafted into the city >> county. Oh, that's Well County. >> Yeah. The one on 66 is that >> they're they're both within our corporate boundaries. >> They just >> it's a county tax. >> Yeah. Yeah. So that one's 1.435 less. Say um and I think they particularly look for those types of spots. for that reason. >> Well, I think that uh people are kind of a uh really slaves to their habits >> some and I think that they'll they'll they may temporarily go somewhere else to but not uh for the the long long haul. We're seeing people even with Target that are very angry with Target and now they're we're starting to return you're starting to see a return on on people going into Target and shopping and so I I think that's I think it was people that were trying to somewhat >> but okay so just to wrap that up what I was going to say is they um Walmart particularly has a very low margin so they make their on volume and I think that is somewhat true for Home Depot and Lowe's and they're very competitive with each other but I think if we had other attracted other businesses that aren't so worried about that that small profit margin you like talking about Amazon those jobs are going to be um better paid and less even though there's a lot of automation in them just like at Mlan there's a lot of automation but those jobs are well paid >> and Maybe like a Trader Joe's, >> which everybody wants, >> but we're not seeing >> and they tend to not automate. >> We're not Yeah, they're not seeing We're not seeing it at our Ace Hardware type of places. We're not seeing it at at Sprouts. We're not seeing it at uh at at our you know, places like PetSmart and others like that. It it's it's really only a small portion of uh of them and they are the some of the biggest retailers. you're not seeing it at at other places. And and I was just specifically thinking of retailers, not necessarily like the the kiosk at uh >> Yeah. So anyway, I was thinking if you're concerned about lost jobs, I think we could, you know, increase the number of jobs that we have available that are maybe even better paying than the checkout counter if we focus on businesses that have better margins. Well, I'm I was concerned about potentiality of future tech bubbles bursting with uh in the future here and everybody shifting down because they have to find employment uh to to keep themselves you know in some sort of you know positive financial situation. So the idea is that the concern is the people at the very bottom uh you know that get dropped off because they're low skilled uh low education whatever cases that might have in the past taken some of these positions. >> Okay, that's about all I have to say. >> Go ahead. Uh, one of the things I'd like to see is, you know, and I don't know how we find this because these companies are so large, but it would be interesting to know, you know, what the true reason is for them doing it. Is it because of lack of workforce? Is it for cost savings? Um, because there's two things that I'm worried about. One, if we do have this impact be, are they going to be passing it along to >> the customer? because right now we're already dealing with a lot of inflationary pressures and adding in an additional tax that everybody pays to supplement that um is going to raise the prices for everybody and make it more unemployable. The other thing that I'm concerned about is you know if we we do need some of these anchor businesses to want to be in town and if we send out a signal that we are not wanting these anchor establishments that could hurt us in the long run. So for me it's like what are we trying to solve? what is the problem that they're trying to solve and how do we come to a middle ground once we understand the motivation behind why I'm thinking of more future situations and in regards to potential losses you know we have kind of a high-tech sort of industry around here and uh people that are you know going to be shifting in that pyramid that concerns me. That's primarily the rationale for even looking into this. And it really is only the the site the spots that are using my my thought my original thought is to have it only uh have that a fee or whatever impacted on the ones that are uh getting their their uh stuff paid for at that those selfch checkckout kiosks. Not not at the other registers that are being banned and handled by it. >> So that consumer would be paying that like convenience fee or >> that convenience fee at that at those selfch checkouts not not elsewhere in the store they had registered man by somebody. So it's really trying to drive that back to >> Well, you're trying to change consumer behavior >> a little bit. I think that's more of a a better focus on that others. It wouldn't be an impact fee that the city would charge for business. It would be a fee that if a person uses the self automated, they're charged. The consumer is charged. >> Okay. I like that. >> I see. Okay. >> Do we have any other questions, comment? If I didn't explain that, >> well, it would be nice if you could find the data and >> also like send it to the impact group and see what they're thinking so much. >> Well, I think before we can even do that, it has to be a vote of the council to direct um engaging the impact team. So rather than jumping ahead to try to put something on a general business item to discuss this, then maybe the first motion would be to um engage the >> then that would be fine. >> The impact committee or impact team to reach out to Trump. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just kidding. >> But yeah, I mean share this this document and >> I won't have it tonight, but I can >> No. Okay. I mean, we can >> for for in the future. It doesn't have to be tonight. >> What are folks thoughts on that? >> Well, I think more information >> because we have a lot of questions. >> I don't have all the answers either. what >> I like the bag fee model more than the impact it be on the business. Um >> yeah I >> in terms of >> the shift in consumer behavior >> rather than pun yeah rather than impact yeah I think my only concern is you're kind of pushing uphill with a very little you know you're digging into a very deep hole with a very little shovel in terms of our ability as the city of Longmont to change macroeconomic conditions in these retailers. I think where we're headed is what council member Coloffer mentioned where you don't interact with any person or any checkout lane. You interact with your cart. You load items into the cart. They scan them in and you probably use touchless pay or Apple Pay or something like that. >> Well, that's what we have already with Amazon basically. >> Yeah. And that's and that's where I think every retailer will be in the next 10 years. So, how from a labor perspective, it's a it's a question and I but I I don't I don't know if we can move them to that degree against >> and maybe it's a broader regional discussion. >> I think I think the state would be an interesting place to have that. >> That's where my thought went originally to this kind of statewide level would be >> that goes to the same point as a as that progressive minimum wage thing >> that issue that we talked about. Uh it seems like that would have been a logical place to start with that, but clearly that didn't happen. I mean, they they left it to the regional areas to to try to fix that problem. Am >> I correct? Yeah. >> Okay. So, any other was there anything else you wanted to add or Okay. Well, thank you for bringing that to our attention. Give us time to kind of think and process and um look at next steps. Um now we're on to item two or item B. Part two. Part two, >> new ideas for including citizens with a Longmont address but county residents in public invited to be heard. Okay. >> Yes. And the mayor asked me to look at this topic from a city council poll perspective. >> Oh yeah, I forgot to Yeah. >> Yeah. And so here >> so and also um I've got some input from various residents and and also some other counselor input. Um so including speakers slightly outside our city boundaries um meets the proposed city council goals um number three if I'm just going in order here of um encouraging housing neighborhood and human resilience and also number four in creating economic business ecosystem resilience. Okay. So, several times in the last two years, we have had housing and neighborhood concerns uh that have been maybe a little bit contentious uh especially where close neighbors are not allowed to speak on housing developments that are right across the street or adjacent to them uh during public be heard. This would be, you know, some examples would be the Quail Road annexation and which excluded the Schlago farm folks, the subdivision until, you know, the end of the evening. Uh, another example is like on our on our docket tonight with the Villis Heights neighbors that are surround the property at um the Gateway project there on 287. So, um what they those uh neighbors tend to do is they come to coffee with council. They try to get their opinions in, but there's only two of us there. You know, it really is most effective if you do it at city council. So, how do we allow free speech for people who are impacted with things that we're looking at? And one of the ways is to expand our list of people who can speak at public invited to be heard. And so um build community helps build neighborhoods because then you know people always like best what they have what they have offered or what being heard at the time that we're making decisions. Uh they'll be more satisfied anyway with the output we hope. Okay. So, um, additionally, we have people who have active businesses in Longmont, and they should have some say in the ordinances and policy that affect business. Uh, if we're going to build business resilience, um, so business owners uh should be able to speak at public to be heard. It builds and maintains business ecosystem. builds trust with our business community and particularly with business they're already invested in the city. So kind of important to hear their input. Um so I was going to suggest we consider two changes to rule five uh in terms of on the third item if you look at our you know the mayor has to read every time. >> Yeah. um to include Longmont residents, ordering Enclave residents or those within a thousand ft of a new development and Longmont business owners may speak during first call public invite to be heard and then continue on. And then something that um councelor Prito and I talked about was and this is her idea. If if you don't fit that exact designation, maybe there might be an opportunity to be sponsored by a counselor in terms of saying we know this person has an invested interest here and they could speak at this one time. I'm not saying we give 20 people sponsorship. I'm saying this one person has something to say about this that we think council should hear. So, and I don't have ver verbiage for that. I was hoping Eugene might have some suggestions if it gets that far. I think beyond the sponsorship too, like even I think it just essentially creating a smaller process um versus like drawing new boundary lines and so on so forth that if someone is interested in speaking because I bet it's just a handful of folks that they can um go through the process and if they meet the criteria as in right outside the city hopefully the clerks could help determine that then they could have like some type of special pass or um card or something to where they could participate. Um, currently the person who vets to see who all that would be me and I let one slip. We was a little slippery heel that went right through me and um spoke. So that um yeah and so that that's hard. That is challenging trying to chair chair the meeting but then go through the list to make sure that they are within the resident um boundaries. I was on council when and I think you were on council too when we first made the change to the rule. >> I think I may have been in the chambers listening to this. >> Okay. So you were on >> Were you on or >> I don't think so. I don't think I was. >> Okay. So let's rewind and what why why were we here to begin with. So first of all people do have the opportunity to speak in public um invited to be heard. The only time that it is limited is during our regular session meetings during first call public invited to be heard. So study session I can speak at public invited to be heard at the beginning. Um they can speak at the end. They also have opportunity during um ordinances on second reading and public hearing. So when items did come up, when rank choice voting came up on public hearing, there were people who lived outside of Longmont who did speak to the matter >> and that was honored because it it was um speaking to the topic. >> Um the developments and >> Yeah. developments and annexation. Um, and there, you know, having it be a process where, um, once it gets to that public hearing, then folks in the neighborhood who live outside the city, >> you're talking about our public hearing or are you talking about >> our public hearing? Second, no, second ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. So, >> it does have that. Sorry, I just I don't want to cough on people. So, no, it's okay. >> It's not co It's not co I just the school year. >> It's the school year. >> So, I want It's the cooties. Yes, it is the third grade cooties. >> Well, under Mayor, >> hold on. I'm not I'm not finished yet. So, um when we made the decision, what was happening was in our regular session, and these are business meetings. So, this is where we conduct we pass our ordinances. These are business meetings. What was happening is we were finding especially on hot topics, people were coming to council, >> you know, maybe we wouldn't start council business, conduct business until 10:00 at night and then, you know, so then that's not fair to staff and visitors who are coming to actually speak on an item that we will be voting on. So the purpose of of um narrowing that first call public invited to be heard during regular session I um bit days was in order to get to the the business and then have opportunity to share with public. So that was that that rationale. I know we played around with looking at different options I think with enclaves and why didn't do you do you have any recollection of why that didn't work? >> Couldn't operationalize it. >> We couldn't operationalize it. Okay. >> And when I first came on council >> uh Crystal was next. I'm done now. >> Oh, go ahead. >> I was just going to say what if what if it's not that complicated? What if it's just a small role of like if there's more than five then they have to wait till after for those big show up crowds but if there's less than five then we'll accommodate and so you'll see on the list for the signup sheet if there's more than five names then we'll push them to the back. Maybe it's some just a simple rule like that. So that way for those who are outside of city city limits who want to engage more frequently or have something like a one-off to say then they're honored. But if it's one of those big events like the reason why we even implemented this rule to begin with then then it just automatically gets pushed to the end. Just an idea and and we don't have to change anything. No one has to review anything other than you at the dis with a list more than five. >> Go ahead. Um when I was on council the first time, uh Mayor Pernack before I came on decided to to eliminate uh public inviting be heard in the first beginning of the meeting. >> Yeah. >> And uh and when we came back on with Mayor uh Lang, we reimplemented that. And so I think we give plenty of opportunity for people to to speak that are not in the uh city limits. I I think this is a slippery slope that that I think we can just not we really don't need to go down. >> Council, >> I think one of the things we can if your mailing address just says the city of Longmont >> Oh, I skip them. >> No, no, no. Oh, if it just says the city of Longmont. No, if they don't put an address, I'm skipping. >> No, no, no. Like if you write your address, so like if you live in the uninorporated part of Longmont, still write city Longmont for >> Yeah. They they write their address and then Longmont Longmont address, >> right? So I I'm saying is if you if their address says Longmont for city, then we let them speak. If their city is Firestone or >> talked about that, too. >> I thought we talked about that. I mean the issue with the only issue there's I teach at Frederick High School depending on what you look at Frederick High School has a long address >> and and shares a long run. It depends. So so that's I mean because Long the footprint in Longmont is especially broad >> pushing it to Mayor. No, go for it. >> I I I appreciate the conversation. I I >> you know just having heard from the community folks, the Schlaggle folks are probably the loudest about it and there are lots of folks that that chime in on this. I I do think it's restrictive a little bit in a way that's not necessary and I totally agree with you. I'm less concerned about it than I was maybe in talking to them because there are plenty of opportunities for folks to adapt. >> But when it comes to the business meeting where the decision that they care about is being decided, they have to wait until after the decision has been made >> which I don't think necessarily is fair. >> So >> So yeah, they have just to clarify they can participate in a public hearing public hearing. Correct. Yes. on if it depends on if >> it's on consent agenda item um sorry to interrupt if it's on consent agenda >> you know people yeah it's when it comes to second reading where that public hearing >> unless the issue they care about a resolution or or correct >> yeah correct >> so I I I I hear you completely like the folks or an annexation question could come in in a in a public hearing I I think generally the simplest solution would be and something that would take off your plate, mayor, so you're not having I see you do the work. >> Oh my god. Yeah. >> I mean, could we >> literally draw a map, draw a circle, draw a circle, >> say if you're in the circle, you get to speak, and people would digitally enter their addresses to sign up, digitize that signin process, which we've heard about as well from others because folks come in late. They want to be able to sign up ahead of time. Um, it's a thought I rather than, you know, having to be here at 6:30 physically, you're able to sign up digitally earlier in the day and then you have that digital sign up available and it screens folks out either way. >> I It's a thought. I don't know. >> I I do understand why this is coming up. I think the unintended consequences vastly outweigh the potential benefits here. I think we have a lot of opportunities already as people have already said so I won't repeat that for really anyone to participate and when we're trying to get to regular business we're trying to get to business and we should be um I think the one exception I could consider and I think this would be pretty easy to implement >> would be a long business where the property owner doesn't actually live in law but or or if they own the business. Is there any reason why >> did we I felt like we also explored that too >> cuz it but but if they said I have a business and and we know that like the business is in law fund and like that's a very easy thing like they're either an operational business that pays sales tax to us or not. >> Um that that would be something I'd be open to kind of throwing into that because it's a very clear business address that we can very easily verify. >> No, because I've had people put in the airport address. I'm like, dude, that's the airport. >> Yeah, that's that's an interesting one, too. >> Yeah, good thing you're >> so then and so if we if we go to a property if we go to the business owner, we would include everyone who owns and operates a business or a piece of property in the city of Long Island. >> That would be the >> Yes. So, mayor, the operative language out of the charter is all regular and special meetings of the council shall be open to the public and citizens and employees shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. I believe it was Mayor Peek that instituted this language in public invite to be heard. I think um there were concerns after the attack, >> the Hamas attack that there were people flash mobbing council other >> and Mayor Peek at the time said long employees. >> I think it's unspecified in the charter. It's a reasonable interpretation. There are other opportunities for other people to speak to council. And so from a first amendment perspective, yes, >> you know, I wasn't that concerned. You have to provide alternative avenues for uh free speech. Uh so it's citizens and employees. >> It's a charter require requirement. It's not an open meetings requirement. Open meetings means you can observe. There's no right to participate. >> I think the other thing was that at the time council member Peek was also getting complaints from people who lived in Longmont about >> the fact that they were waiting for so long for their items to come forward >> because of the vault because of what was happening. So there were two things happening at once. >> Yes. >> People who had items were complaining because it took too long >> and we got I think a few of us on several of us on council got complaints about that >> about not being able to speak. >> I think this is a solution in search of a problem and one that risks creating more problems frankly. Yeah. >> Um here's what I will say and and I mentioned this at the end of last night's last time last week's council meeting. um like as we have more opportunities to include people we think are affected whether it's in the business community or whether it's county residents I mean they I've met many of the county residents you were just referring to council member Chris at the planning and zoning commission hearings when issu development proposals come up they are coming to those and speaking there I met and talked to them there I for the working group that I'm doing on the mir zone like there are uh two three county residents that are that I explicitly invited into that because I thought that they would have a relevant perspective to offer And I I would encourage us to just all kind of take an opportunity to include where we think they're relevant. I I think that the people who we are most accountable to >> first and foremost are the people who should be prioritized in our business meetings >> because of the unintended consequences. Um >> and and the potential risks to really delay are are other things that we need to do for all of the people we're accountable to. So I I think one of the things we're talking about here is what makes the >> the meeting more efficient because sometimes we still have a lot of people left over and it's getting towards 11:00 >> and we feel this pull that we need to you know go beyond 11 because people have waited so long to talk and is it better to frontload it and and more >> I know you have done a good job about saying if you're going to repeat the same thing just you know >> don't yeah >> let But yeah, to council's um point, if we say, "Okay, we're opening it, but you there's only so many people from the county." Pick your spokesperson and let them do the talking, >> you know, and you can >> we can pilot it. I mean, how mayor, how many people are usually on the like on average would you say? >> There's a couple every week. Couple every week. >> A couple every week. So on a one sheet night oh one one >> one sheet night a couple that are >> so so we're not going to get flash mobbed >> we if it's if it surpasses a certain amount they get pushed to the back but it also shows an initiative from our part >> to that we're listening so I'm going to let because you have you spoken on this topic yet >> once okay I'll let him and then I'll go Yes. Okay. Well, I like council member Mars. If we're going to pilot anything, that's what we pilot. We pilot a electronic uh signing and then we just see exactly who >> Yeah. >> there. And that way it saves you time because I was thinking that you know if someone if you're not feeling good >> Yeah. >> you're you're checking real quick. I know my job >> wouldn't have to read handwriting. >> Oh, I know. >> Yeah. And that that that really does, you know, >> keeps you awake though. >> Well, it does. >> Susie's good at it. >> She needs an interpreter. >> Could it be a square instead of a circle? You know, I was looking at our map. It's all clear. >> Be any shape you want it to be? >> Go ahead. Council member Hawkins. >> Becky, is there any way to use the utility? Like if we were to go through a utility bill approach, is there any way that the utility bill would be a way to verify that just by putting in their number? >> Cuz then it's not just address. We have some people who do live outside of city limits. >> That that could maybe be something that's a quick check. It's not even an address check. So it's not even worried about like what's the circle we draw. It's truly just like >> do they do they pay utility bill? That would include businesses. >> Do they use their name instead of their number? Well, they to uh I don't know what would verify. It's probably a combination of name and utility bill number. But if they're putting into an electronic system, >> then it's not a public information. >> It's more like do I have to know my utility bill number when I >> you just have to know your address. >> Well, also your utility bill might be under your business name is the only thing. But >> sure, the system we have now has electronic signup. We don't use it because it uh doesn't allow an address input. It has two fields, name, first and last name. So, we've asked them if they could recode those to name, you know, name and address, but it doesn't have any kind of coding. >> I think that's the only way we could potentially like digitally like manage this. Otherwise, I think we're overengineering this. And I'll just say like >> it's not a flash until there is one. >> Yeah. >> And like it could be four beats in a row with three people. >> And then I have a question. Is that something that could be done operationally or do we have to make um >> No, we we could do it but it because it couldn't because the address is a rule and it's a point of >> an important point people state their address. >> Yes. >> Um >> we didn't want to put council in an awkward position. Yes. >> Putting a tool out there that couldn't be written. So >> we would need to go back to them and make sure that it name and address. >> Yeah. >> What does staff think about the different ideas? what's feasible which we think is possible. >> Yeah. >> I I I think the question becomes which idea because there are some that will be pretty difficult to operationalize. Um and then there's some that are less difficult maybe more costly. Um so it's hard to say generally. I think the question then is if we do it kind of again looking at the council work plan and and where we're managing staff capacity where do we want to put our energy >> y >> because it will push us to divert energy based on adding that into something >> some system and if there's only two each meeting does it constitute >> sorry >> uh yes council member koffer and then we're going to wrap up this conversation So we could do >> a very quick suggestion. Can we just change it to residents, business owners, and customers? And then just leave it at that. >> Customer >> because customer means like you're not a resident of the city of Longmont, but you are an LBC customer. >> Oh. Oh, that customer, you know, when my daughter comes to visit, she and >> you all don't want to hear what you resident business owner and or utility. >> What business are we in? How do we create a system to filter filter? >> We we go with the honor system that we're going with right now. >> And I have to check it because people still >> Yeah. >> So that's the mayor captism. >> Thanks for the discussion. >> Yes. Um and then the third item that was brought forward by oops closed off my tab. um council communication norms, institutional trust, and moving together as a team. Um, council member Marcy, thank I I wanted to kind of open this up with a mayor culpa a little bit in that um few months ago I uh you know, we had I think a a heated conversation, not heated, but I think a spirited discussion about a development proposal, the Walmart site, etc. And you know, in my reflection on that, you know, publicly communicated some things that that I I don't regret anything necessarily that I said, but I I don't I think I stretched the limits of of, you know, discussion after a decision's been made a little bit. I certainly didn't include motive or anything in in that conversation and, you know, disagreement, etc. I I think you know I I I just have been thinking about having the conversation as a council of how we communicate with with each other about each other when decisions are made and then ultimately move together as a team >> and reflecting on you know mistakes I've made etc human growth not relitigating issues in the press not going back and you know when a you know a reporter calls saying you know feeling like you have to comment on like I think there's a and so I really wanted to have the conversation. I don't have a particular direction I want to take it mayor. I think I would follow your lead. This is kind of your wheelhouse. But I would say from my perspective being able to say here's what we do. Here's what we've agreed upon in the past. Here's how we move forward together. So because ultimately I like I think this council despite any online chatter and I've followed a lot of councils. I think this council has been incredibly productive in the first seven months. I you know I don't know if Harold would agree this Gray hairs might run all over the place. >> Maybe too. I think we've gotten a lot I think we've gotten a lot done and a lot of good stuff done. And I think you know there is nobody here on this day that I would not want to have a beer with or coffee with or conversation with. I deeply respect and like everybody here and moving together as a team without in motives publicly in the press I think is something that we that is important um because I like everybody here and I want to do that. And I think over time, I mean, there's lot been lots of times this I've stepped in it. I was like, "Yeah, and I've been in Eugene's office. It's like, okay, help me navigate myself out of this like pivot, pivot." But and so it is a learning experience. And I think for me, you know, when I see people learning, you know, there's an opportunity to grow, you change, you you adjust. When the same mistakes keep happening over and over again because, you know, for whatever reason, it's like I don't care. I'm going to do what I want and I disagree with nor I go back to what we decided as a council during our retreat. So, and I think and it was Diane who brought it up. Council member Chris who brought it up about and I think it was started in justest with the the fireworks. >> Yeah. >> And then somebody had made a comment I don't even know who was somebody made a comment about oh well you know not wanting the fireworks and then or not wanting to pay for it. I can't remember the whole like the line of conversation. So it was that was neither here nor there. It >> was probably me. >> But the part the So hold on. So the part that that stuck with me was what council member Christ had said in that, you know, once a decision has been made by this body, we are not Yeah. We're not going to relitigate this. We're not going to say, well, you know, this was a mistake because such and such or that, you know, that's as a because there have been things over the years that have passed that I didn't really care for or kind of gritted my teeth or maybe, you know, I I I was the conversation allowed us to create something that okay, I can accept rather than flat out oppose. So, h you know, just we that's how we work as a team, as a collective. So I you know I go back to my union values. My background is I don't stand in isolation. I stand in a cooperative. So you know an injury to one is an injury to all. So like I look at us as a team and as a as a unit as we move forward and make decisions. Um council member Kuffer hat and then I'll come back to you. >> Thanks Matt. Um, so I think it I think it is important for us to outreach the community whatever way we're comfortable with, but would it be appropriate if we're talking about something where we're communicating where we're saying, "Hey, this was unanimous or this wasn't a unanimous vote where >> and then here were the reasons maybe what but in a generality not I did this or they did that or you know like I think that becomes less combative, less decis device. >> Yeah. Because I think it's important for the public to also know like we're not rubber stamping things. >> No. No. >> I think I think it's good that the public knows that like not everything that we vote on or it was. Yes. And we finally came to this consensus that >> Yeah. So also the public is looking to to hear their voice in our votes. >> So and I think we can do that with grace and respect for each other. So whenever there's an interesting vote, you're going to get contacted by someone from the press because it gives them something to write about. They have a job to do >> and it does inform because you and I were in a coffee with council where somebody said, "Why did you vote that way?" And I said, "Well, actually, here's what what had happened." Because maybe they don't listen to all the detail. >> Yeah. And I think that was that question that copy was specifically about that that that Walmart or the apartment development Walmart. >> No, no, it was actually data. It was about the data center. >> Oh, the data center. That's right. That's right. >> And and so that's my like mayor, I appreciate you so much because this is such a unique body having been around different levels of government. It's way different from the legislature. We've got 100 different local politicians who are all trying to get their own press and all trying to get their own >> and and what's been really interesting to me is that community does not really see council as seven individuals, which is surprised me a little bit. It it really does to your point mayor it's a body and like and frankly I will acknowledge because I I will post on socials occasionally like I will just be blunt and say because I I posted on socials and have a newsletter and all those things like visibility is a double-edged sword too because when people are mad about stuff >> I like I I get I get people like I people people keep tagging me on Facebook and things but I had nothing to do I like I had nothing to do with that. Um, no I but but I will never and and I think council gets sees some of that too and Paul Cuffer is on next door a lot and so we all have our own different communication methods. I think that has been really interesting that what I want to consistently work to do is lay out the logic of my thinking in the vote in the discussion that we have >> and then let that stand for the record and if London or anybody else wants to take that quote and it's there for them to use and um kind of move forward because I think communicating that we are a team and we like each other and we have done good things is is is important. >> Um and then as far as with the press, you don't have to respond. And you know the other like we've kicked it I've kicked it to um who was it? >> Yeah, Lindsay. But before Lindsay was Rigo. So I had kicked a lot of stuff to him when CVS was reaching out to me. I'm like, "Okay, well if you go on the video >> twoour, you know, there you go. There's my quote. Okay, thank you." >> And AI makes that so easy now, too. Like AI summaries of our council meetings can send to the exact moment when >> that's what I said. And then or I'll email it rather than call because then that gives me the opportunity to go back and reread it to make sure that nobody can read into that comment. So that's that's something else. >> So I offered this comment at retreat and and I'll bring it back up again because it's relevant, which is council and other government bodies are off are a team sport with a lot of individual incentives. >> Yeah. >> And that's just the reality of it. And now that that I think I I do share a lot of the sentiment that Council Marc shared like we're most successful when we work as well as a team as possible. Um now and and I think there are ways to offer quotes or individual commentary without undermining the decision and I think those are different things, right? I just wanted to acknowledge that difference to to be quoted to to like talk to >> like there'll be times where I'll talk to London or some another reporter like I'm a data center. I did a bunch of interviews on that and people were reaching out but I wasn't throwing anyone under the bus. I was talking about what our decision meant and what it meant for the community >> large. Yeah. It wasn't throwing any It wasn't disagreeing. It wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone who disagreed with me in that. It was just trying to articulate what was the case, what was the situation, what was the decision, and why. >> Um I I I do wanted to so so I don't think that we have to always just say, "Oh, well, >> it has to be just one for all for one situation." But it's a question about are we throwing people under the bus or are we trying to actually have a just advance the public understanding of what the decision was. What I will say though is um I think there is a difference between relitigating an issue and learning from something and and maybe I haven't been as graceful at this in the past and sometimes fireworks will go off and stuff but like the you know sometimes it's about learning from something we did and trying to put that in context later on rather than trying to say well you guys how dare you make this decision four months ago I told you so like it's not about that saying oh we're looking for money for x y and z this is where this starts to become relevant Um, and so I I just share that to share kind of how I approach it. Not it's not from a relitigation standpoint on on those things. I just use that as one example here. But I do think it's important for us as a group, as a team to learn from decisions that we made in the past whether they were good decisions or not as good decisions. They could have been optimal decisions or suboptimal decisions. And I don't think learning from means relitigating inherently. It could be. It depends how it goes. But I think that's an important distinction for us to just keep in mind as we're having continued debate. And I'm not trying to say like don't post or don't comment on social media. Um I just like that is not my wheelhouse. Like you know just call me. Let's have a conversation. Let's Yeah. >> And that's that's how it should you on Facebook. I haven't heard from the mayor like >> I lost my password. >> I can't get on. So >> that's a good one. Yeah. Um, but I do appreciate when other people get on because then that minimizes the um amount of questions that come via email that um reduces the amount of making assumptions about why we went the direction we did because it's adding clarity. >> People still do. That's what's amazing too is like >> off the paper this week it was just like very >> Yeah. The only one more thing may that I just >> I I hope everybody here can like nobody's making a million dollars being on council, right? where we can trust each other's motives fundamentally like every single person here I think brings really remarkable skills to the table and a heart for service >> and if you come at it and say okay I trust is I trust these people like even on the Walmart thing that I offer a mayopa for even in that if you go back and look at it I explicitly lay out here's what folks who voted for it thought I understand that thinking completely here's where I disagree and that isn't necessarily something I would do again I wouldn't but I I think being able to say I trust the motive I understand what direction they were going even if I disagree is is how I I would hope we can move forward because everybody here is doing our best. >> Yeah, I mean we are doing our best. Um I Yeah, it was I had something on the tip of my tongue and I lost it. I guess you know one more um I guess for me you know in looking at um council communications. I mean we all have our different formats on how we um disseminate information to the public. Um, and you know, I and I trust that was is going back to the trust. Like I trust you all that, you know, you're sharing out with your constituents in the best, you know, in the way that makes sense to you. Um, I want to go back to thinking about when we look at our council communication and norms, like even when we're thinking about, you know, recusals or we're thinking about, you know, oh, well, did what was your intent? My I don't come in with what your individual intents are. I trust that you are looking at this through a professional lens >> and I look at it through my okay can I be objective with this item can I am I looking at our our rules so I really do a lot of self like critical you know reflection on my part so I'm the one so maybe you know I think about the um you know the last the um the ethics sorry I wasn't I said I was gonna but I mentioned it Sorry. Sorry, John. But you know, it's like we all when we recuse, we cannot ask other council members to recuse themselves. They have to decide, you know what, I've done this this this I think I'm going to recuse myself or no, I haven't been engaged in this. I I feel like I could be an objective vote on this. If you feel like you cannot be a neutral then you know you vote vote against it or recuse yourself or but don't make I just ask that we don't make assumptions about our council colleagues that what's your intent you know like that I just I think that that kind of sews those seeds of distrust and um just anger among each other and resentment. So, I think, you know, I do want us to to be a little mindful of that. And I I trust you all here. You know, you're >> I do. I do because I don't have the time and energy. Do not >> Yeah. I don't care. Leave me alone. Um but yeah, so no, thank you for bringing that up. And I think it's always important to come back and and re reexamine where we are, where where we want to move forward because the other thing that I don't want to have happen is these issues fester because if you don't talk about it, we don't get our >> our say then they end up just festering and then we build resentment. >> And I would just I would just add there >> I think that's the key like we are all on the council together. We're all professionals. >> Nothing's personal. Yeah, >> it's business. And if there's something that bothers you, I would hope that we can reach out to one another >> and discuss it. And then based off of that discussion, then it might alter how maybe we handle a situation in the future because now I know exounsil member might feel a certain way by ex behavior. So maybe I soften my language or preface it or have a pre-con conversation or >> because we all work with different types of people from different backgrounds with some are more >> into their emotions, others are more dry. I can crack up about something with one person that maybe I can't >> about with someone else. And so it is just that relational piece. And then in addition to that, um there is going to be things that I absolutely disagree with everybody on >> and that's okay. >> I think that's the same for all of us >> and and it is we are all in this boat and where it's a learning. We're all learning. Um and so yeah, we're moving together. We have we're I'm hoping to foster that collaborative relationship at least in the work that I'm doing. But also, I'm not going to be rubber stamping. I'm not I have my own input, my own my own intake, my my own thoughts about things. And I also don't want that to be lost because >> I'm trying to save face for others. And so, again, it is a fine line and and how do you >> work that situation and then alter >> as you go forward? But I don't think this there's any great solution to high stakes hearings and things that come to council and decisions we have to make like we're all >> you're going to feel some certain type of way at the end of that meeting and >> and it's about the relationship that we continue to have the open communication that we continue to have. >> Thank you. And I'm going to adjourn this meeting so we can get set up in the next