City Council Regular Session - August 11, 2026

Well, to the audience, um, members present, thank you for your patience. Um, we've had some issues with the audio and the live stream, so we're working to get that trouble, you know, just some troubleshooting here. So, we will be getting be continuing on in the next couple of minutes. And yeah, that's >> I think go ahead. >> Okay, so we're gonna continue on now. Um, we left off at items to add to future agenda item or future agenda items. There was no one in the queue to bring up anything. So, we're on to uh city manager report. >> No, no report. Mayor, council. >> Okay. And now we're on to special reports and presentations. The senior citizens advisory board presentation. So, whoever is presenting, come on down. I see Rody Mayness senior citizens advisory board staff liaison. >> Nice. Get that fixed. Good evening, uh, mayor and council. Um, Ronnie Mina, senior services manager here tonight and we're here to with the senior citizens advisory board to, uh, provide you with our annual report. And I'm sorry, I'm trying to get the our PowerPoint going. >> Control L. Perfect. Sorry about that. Uh would like at this time like to turn it over to our senior citizens advisory board chair, John Higgins, and our vice chair, >> John. >> John and John. I know better. Mr. John Pman. Sorry. What time advance? >> I got you. >> Good evening, mayor and council. John Higgins for the advisory board. 50 years this November, the city council demonstrated the recognition of unique needs of Longmont Senior and created the Longmont Senior Center. 40 years later, city council once again memorialized those needs in in the 2016 envision Longmont plan, which they stated on page 13. I'll read to you, "Older adults are set to become the largest segment of the population over the next 20 to 30 years, and they will retire housing and services that meet their unique needs." Good call, but we're ahead of schedule on the how fast that population is growing, which John will cover shortly. the other John. >> Those unique needs in addition to housing, transportation, and sustainability have now come to include food security, employment, and a need to survey what those needs are, the analysis of those needs. All areas of the senior center advisory board are focused on and addressing and bringing to your attention. The Longmont Senior Center, as you will see see shortly, is a city's hub to gather, promote, and disseminate information to Longmont's 55 and older population, a significant demographic in our city. Next slide, please. Nope, back one. Back one, that one. So, we've done the introduction advisory board. We're going to talk about our past and present focus, updates you all on the food security initiative which we started in 2024 and John Pilman will cover current focus 2627 outreach employment and senior needs survey. Next slide please. What we found when we began this process last year, actually 2024 on food security, housing, transportation, and healthcare have been addressed by the city. But food security nobody likes to talk about because there's a stigma when having to ask for something as basic as food. >> So we came to the board last year. That was our focus. The current focus is spreading out into employment, outreach and needs because we found that when we asked about housing, transportation and food employment and outreach and needs came up much more significantly. Next, the senior center this, as I said, marks our 50th anniversary. Roughly 30% of long lost population are 55 and older, significantly ahead of the projections in 2016 by the city council. In the past three years, over three th000,000 visits by seniors to Longmont Senior Center. They walked through our doors. In 2024, the advisory board began to focus besides on transportation and housing on something we found that was woefully underappreciated and that is food security. As we went through that, we found there were much more demands, scab benefits being reduced, retirement monies not being properly allocated, food security is an issue, and it leads us to the issues around employment and onto other outreach issues. Last year, we came before the board actually in 2024, we began to look at food security. We found out through community food share which a major provider of food to to Longmont that 9.25% of seniors in long in Colorado are under fit under food insecure. What that what happens in one issue only. Adults who are even marginally food insecure will present as 14 years older than their actual age which leads to bunch of health issues that are here in the slides and sorts of impact services in the senior senior center which you have to apply for people. We also found from community food share over 1 million pounds of food are distributed monthly to broomfield and to Boulder counties. Most of that comes to Longmont. Yeah, >> most of that food, 1 million pounds, comes to Walmart every year. Now, city council and the city recognize the need. They fund various groups now for food security. But again, cutting in SNAP benefits, Medicare benefits, it's starting to be an issue. Again, it's stigmatized and no one likes to talk about it because why do you have to ask for food in this country? Next slide. 2025, the last year, we appeared last for the board. May of 2025, we were beginning to have Saturday once a month food table. In the past year, from May to April of 2026, we've fed over five 858 households, fed over 2,000 individuals, and distributed more than 16,000 pounds, hour and a half, one Saturday month to seniors only and their families. Part of what happened as the food table took took effect is we had a lot more input from the friends of the senior center and there's advisory board and friends members sitting here. So glad to have their support. The food the senior friends of the senior center started this food cart. Currently they're they're going through about 40 pounds of food sustainable shelf stable food per day. >> We had an advisory board meeting last Wednesday. The table was the carts were filled at 9:00 and they're empty by 12. There is a need, a significant need for food product for seniors. Next, how do we do it? Volunteers, advisory board, friends. If you look closely, you'll see a number of city council members on that. Um, we need that support. And as you go through the lines, people will tell you how much they appreciate the support of the council and of the city and and the Walmart city center. We really do appreciate that. Next slide. John Phil is going to go forward what we're doing next to cover the growth what we see issues that seniors now facing around outreach. >> Mayor Halago Perry Council members appreciate the opportunity to talk to you tonight. Um you can you can blame me for if you weren't in the previous pictures. Um, John gave me up about a hundred of them and I I kind of messed up. Sorry. Sorry, Mark. >> So, I want to talk to you about um obviously we've been pretty busy the last couple years. Um, but we're focusing this year on three areas with um employment outreach and and need survey. And I I'll go into why we're focusing on those areas in the next slide. There we go. Um, so I'll I'll say it again. Um, seniors make up 30% of Longmont population. It's the largest population segment in Longmont and it's the also the fastest growing. Um, seniors over 80. There's a slide that's going to come up after this that I think really visualizes things quite clearly on this, but um, the the largest segment is the over 80 population that's projected to grow by 220%. And um, so the needs there. So, we know we're doing the right thing for for the right group of people that that the need's just going to only increase. Um, when it comes to employment, um, 21% of seniors, uh, 65 and old older are actively seeking work. I found a a study, it's not in the slide here, but, um, that's double what it was in 1985. About 11% of seniors over 65 were still employed in 85. And now it's 21%. So obviously it's it's becoming critical. Zip Recruiter um I would pull I I did some googling this morning. Zip Recruiter report this year says that 42% of people 60 plus that were surveyed will never fully stop working. It's it's getting pretty serious, folks. So anything we can do to help with employment we're going to try to do. Um the last thing I want to say is that um with this growing population, outreach is critical. So we we're really trying to um make the senior center more aware um to our senior community. Um there are quite a few that come through the doors. Um there could be more, but there's some other things we can do that um as far as outreach goes that actually go be way beyond just bringing them into the senior center. It's going us going out in the community. Go next slide. So that, you know, picture says a thousand words. Um, we're we're a big part of Longmont and we're going to become an even bigger part of Longmont. So, um, it just says what, to me at least, it it it really underscores the worth and the value of the senior center and just how much more it's it's going to be critical in our future. You probably hear from Ronnie a lot that the two things that he needs are space and people. And you can understand that if the population's increasing by this much, um space and people are going to be just so critical to the operation of our seniors. Next slide. Um so as far as outreach goes, um there's a couple things we're doing. Um one is we're starting to um partner up with the Chamber of Commerce and we're going to some Chamber of Commerce events and we're talking to the employers and we're asking them what they're doing to hire seniors. Um I talked to um I was at a job fair um that workforce held. were also partnering with workforce and uh met a woman there who was in charge of about 18 different bank. She worked for Beimo Bank. She was in charge of 18 different branches and she's like we love seniors. They because they work they're reliable. They work part-time and we need part-time employees especially as tellers. So we do see a really a really big opportunity there. Um just so you all know there's a job fair that's taking place at the senior center September 15th. Um, so we're already starting to plan to do some outreach there to try to get as many employers as possible to come. Excellent. Um, the other thing we're doing, um, is we're going to the Lount Housing Authority properties, especially the this ones that focus on seniors or their senior focused housing um, and letting them know who we are, what we do, and uh, you know, let them know that we're available for them. Um Marta has been heading up some things um more recently with the Latino community to make sure that uh they are aware of what we do with the senior centers too because we you know what we can do for non-speaking we can do for for Latinos as well at the senior center. We have a lot of bilingual um employees on staff as well. So um yeah um so I mentioned about the needs uh survey um so if you've got this massive population coming through um and massive growth in in the senior community we need to understand what you're doing. So um our goals and objectives here you know assess the needs uh identify what services and programs are u working and perhaps not working or not fully utilized and then we'll submit that to to to the city council for um your consideration. Um I will say and if you go to the next slide um we were able to get some questions um added to the uh community survey this year. There were about six questions that we were able to working with I believe it was uh Linari uh with the city and so there are and what we'd like to do is make sure that as those uh as those surveys come out that there's more opportunity for us to focus on seniors and gather more data on what our seniors are are needing in in our communities. Okay. So, in summary, you know, we've got a 50-year track record. We've been around a long time. I like to believe that's because we're doing something right. Um, our, as John stated and I've stated, you know, our 50 plus, especially our 60 plus is the largest population segment we have in Longmont, and it's the largest and fastest growing population segment in Longmont. Um, and your board is committed to serving the needs of Longmont and serving the needs of our community. Can you just raise your hand if you're part of either the friends or you're part of the Longmont advisory board? So, I think most of our folks are represent. >> Yay. There you go. Okay. Anyway, do you have any questions or do you feel like we're is there something we're missing? Do you feel like we could something we could be doing better? >> Well, thank you for the presentation. This was great. And thank you um friends of the and um the senior center and the senior center advisory board folks for all your work and commitment. You know, I I have occasionally come in and help with the food distribution and just all the hands- on deck and it's it's amazing. It's what makes Longmont great. I love it. Um, Council Member Christ, >> thank you, Mayor, and thank you, John and John and Mr. Mayness. Um, I do have a couple of questions. Well, first, a couple of comments. First, I was happy to see that you um get food from the growing gardens because we're very much invested in continuing that project there by the YMCA. And I just want to point it out to the u my fellow counselors how important that is not just to the senior center but to other communities as well in um in Longmont. Then we just want your input. Um, in in my word, I have about um five different senior housing facilities, and I'm wondering about transportation because none of the buses go by any of those buildings. And how do they get down to the senior center or are you considering maybe having uh an extension or satellite up near some of those facilities? Some of them are housing authority properties. When we first looked at doing this in 2025, transportation was an issue to get out to solve that problem. And we were we wanted to look at the patterns of people coming before we got out to find transportation. Now that we have some numbers, we can come forward and try to do that with the city or with the senior center. So, it's in process at this point. >> Okay. So, you're you're going to attack that. Um, also I think senior citizens are the best to hire. For one, you're part of a generation that can actually talk on the phone. Okay, this is serious. And but when I've talked about um advertising at the senior center, I have to come up with a flyer and you know the problem is that people need help to pre prepare a flyer. You know what I mean? Because we're looking for administrative help usually with clients that I work with and what have you. So, I'm just wondering if there's an easier way if there's a way we can have a billboard or some place to a website to post on quickly. You know, this is what we're looking for administrative assistant to do this for part-time. Call this number. >> There's a couple different ways. There's a what's happening that goes out every two weeks out of the senior center. >> Yeah. >> We also have a billboard where you can post flyers of any sort to make make it available to people that come through. was right by the door to the senior center. >> Anything else? >> Diane, I also wanted to do a shout out real quick to Longmont Food Rescue, >> right? Because um they're a huge partner with us um and have been really critical to our success. They're the ones that provide the food on Saturdays as you probably know. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That that 16,000 pounds comes delivered by them to us. >> Nice. >> Yeah. for an organization. >> Is that is that convenient for seniors to get down to the senior center to do that? I know it's packed every every time every month that it comes around, right? But um I'm just wondering, we have this problem in all sectors that our our town is grown wide and tall. So, how do we get to all the, you know, outside areas of town? And most of our facilities are central. So I'm just wondering are you getting people coming in from from those four corners of the town or >> I think most of the people come are are within a sort of radius of of the senior center just because of transportation whatever >> right >> but we open at 10 for delivery and they're people arriving at 8 >> to be ready for that. >> I think it's part of the issue with getting transportation is can we get enough food in there to support that. So it's a balancing act at all times for us. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah, thank you for your presentation and for your input. W >> with that, I'd like to also add the work that the advisory board did to take a look at what uh opportunities currently existed at that time uh before making the recommendation to have this service provided out of the senior center. meaning meaning uh when when we're looking at those resources available, we were in a position where you know where seniors did not have access to uh to those opportunities. So the recommendation for the advisory board was to we should do this out of the senior center to make it more accessible >> uh within the community. >> So it's a beginning and then it can grow from there. >> Absolutely. That's our hope. >> Okay, great. Thank you for all your hard work. >> Thank you. I can >> I do want to point out um uh Council Member Popkin gets to see everything firsthand, the hard work, time, energy this advisory board puts into um just everything they do. You know, we we you had an opportunity to learn about the the groundwork they do in our community, uh the conversations they have at the advisory board meetings and the work they do outside of that. um the the research that John Filman has done on employment, uh the research John Higgins has done for food security and everything in between with advisory boards as a whole. This group is very dedicated to providing support for seniors in our community and making sure that they're moving forward recommendations that can that can help make life better for seniors when when when everything's so tough right now. So, for that, I just want to say thank uh thank you to to the advisory board and the work they do with our friends at the Longmont Senior Center just to make a difference for seniors in our community. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, >> Council Member Marcy. >> We've got more for you. >> Yeah, don't. We're not done. >> We got green lights all the way up here for y'all. We got >> uh So, first of all, thank you both so much and thanks to all the members of the advisory board. I I am a nerd who when I'm driving around will listen to our advisory boards and watches at least some of most of the meetings. You're the work you all are doing is exceptional and the organization um that you have for your advisory board and that the time that is very evident that you put in is exceptional. So, thank you for the work that I know that you're doing because it it the the discussions are always interesting. I learn something every time I engage with with them and and thank you for that work. Um, I did have a question that was actually raised kind of on the transportation point and it's I understand you're not it's not a data point necessarily. It's more anecdotal information about senior access for specifically for our microtransit service ride long. I'm curious generally have has how accessible do you view that that service is for the seniors that the senior center is serving? And this may be a staff question as well um because I you know we talk about barriers to access and ways to make sure that we're expanding and we're looking at expanding and etc etc. So I wanted to ask about ride long specifically. How much is it used would you say um has it been a conversation the advisory board at all to kind of make those connections? >> I I can probably speak to it from another volunteer opportunity I do. So I I work with the with the SCTC the tech lab folks. So, we have people that come in, right, that have computer issues. And and I would say that there's a a I don't have the numbers, but I would say that out of the hundreds of people I've helped, there's been a significant number of those that used Ride Longmont to get in there >> um to meet with the SCTC lab folks. So, if that's, you know, for what that's worth, um they're using it to come into the senior center for that activity at least. >> Yeah, that's helpful. Yeah. to further on that when again when we started doing this we had no idea about what participation would be like now we have a year 16 almost 16 months of data uh the city said to us Ronnie said to us others said to us give us the numbers and we'll we'll help in any way we can so I think transformation is out there we to be able to say what we need and what we need it for >> I appreciate that thank you so much >> council member Prito Thank you guys so much for all the work that you do. Um, in a lot of the spaces that I attend and when we're having conversations around uh, seniors and u, one thing that I hear just commonly from people outside of Longmont is you guys have the best senior se ever. So kudos to you guys that not only do the residents here understand and see the hard work that's going in and and the services that's being provided to them, but people outside of Longmont are see like looking at you guys is kind of like how do we become more of like Longmont Senior Center. So another way that Longmont's leading is via its senior center. So big congratulations to you guys. Um I'm also happy to see that one of the focus areas is uh helping to connect seniors to employment. Um that's huge. It's such a gap in our community and you know I'm I was trying to say the word in my head but the state demographer what is it? Can I say that right? >> Uhuh. Yes. >> You know they were talking about when I went to that event um how we had an aging population and our workforce was essentially going to go away. But hey, our seniors can work, too. And and they're some of the hardest workers. My mom's 62 and she runs circles around me. I thought, you know, she's one of the hardest working people that I know. And so, definitely a need there. And especially just to kind of subsidize the additional income that seniors need these days to to meet those the extra grocery costs or unexpected um you know, emergencies that might arise. So, that's really exciting. And I can say that I saw that event that the senior center is going to be hosting for um the job fair and I sent her an invite. So I'll see you guys there because I'm going to go with her. So I'm excited to see how that goes and and further get the word out in some of the community spaces that I'm already a part of to see how can we strengthen this moving forward and how can council support you guys in that. So that's huge. Um also just looking at some of the um you know going back to helping seniors be competitive and marketable in in these spaces you know in a in a world of AI and where people you know employers you use algorithms uh on resumes and things like that you know seniors sometimes don't have that knowledge and so it's going to be really important that we're you know getting ahead of the game and really helping them in that area. Um and yeah so that's that's pretty much it. I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work. I'm excited to support you in any way that I can get the word out and then I'll see you at the event. >> Great. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Koffer. >> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you both for the presentation. Thank you to the advisory board. Thank you for um also the Longmont Food Rescue for the great work and all the volunteers that go to that. Um I've had the pleasure with going with my family to that event and it's very heartwarming. Um, something that's concerning is, you know, you saying that the food cart that's there every day is filled by 9:00 and gone by noon and also that that food distribution is only once a month. Are we are we not providing enough opportunities for food distribution? Um, is once enough once a month enough for, you know, distributing food? >> It's it's probably I mean it's never enough, right? But um I think we need to keep in mind that again we partner with Longmont Food Rescue. I mean the the number of locations that they do food drives, right? We're we're one of many, right? And we're we're senior focused as John said, but um they do an incredible number of food drives. In fact, I'm going to be distributing food for them next week to various locations where they're going to be doing food drives. So there um there are plenty of o never enough, right? But there are other opportunities for seniors to have access to food throughout the week and throughout the month than just the senior center. Now that being said, I mean if it was in a perfect world be great if we could do it every weekend, but I think realistically um we make a difference and I think there are other opportunities throughout long run as well that do. >> And I know that Meals on Wheels is also in the the senior center and I had the pleasure of doing a ride along uh once before. Do we know how many of um the participants that come to the senior center also go to Meals on Wheels? >> Well, interesting. Interestingly enough, where we put the food carts is right outside the cafe where they do serve the food. So, I'm guessing a lot of those people pick up a snack or pick up shelf stable items when they come out. So, I think there's a good collaboration that way and they've been very supportive of the food table as far as storing food, whatever for us. But in answer to your question, the easy answer is as John said that we can always use more, but then we have issues with transportation or whatever. But I think we'd like to come back to the council at some point with a plan on how to reach out and be a little more effective. There are other city facilities where we might be able to set this up, but it's a lot more planning and now we have the data to show what's happening, especially with the growth in population, but need the need is only going to grow. >> Great. Thank you all. Really appreciate your time >> w with that. uh Meals and Wheels annual numbers increase every year. Uh whether it be on-site services or uh delivery, uh they see the same huge increases every single year. Um our door count last year, we had 11,000 more visits. Um they're seeing those huge numbers as well. So, we're both kind of trying to figure out what we could do to um to to again meet the various needs of our seniors in our community. And um you know, we're really outgrowing our our our cafeteria space right now with that. So, you know, they're scratching their brain right now. Do they need to just move to delivery, right? And uh to to meet the needs of more seniors uh who can't um not only come into this senior center, but even if they are there, there's not a place to sit. There's sometimes where we have to open up our classrooms. If there's a classroom available at that time, we'll put some tables in those classrooms as an overflow location for our senior participants to eat. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor U. John. John, um I appreciate that you guys uh brought up the survey results. I think we're really eager to see the the community survey feedback as well. And I'll just let my fellow council members know that this group is very eager to dig into that data, too. So, um we're very much looking forward to that. the folks on the senior citizen advisory board do so much. um the monthly meetings are merely a snapshot um of kind of what not not their responsibilities but what they actually do um in the role and and it's it's so greatly appreciated from attending regional meetings on different topics outreach that you spoke to John um the thoughtful meeting structure you guys run well well-run meetings it's a pleasure to be part of those um and so much more so thank you for your thoughtfulness your in inquisitiveness your curiosity um and and your time um and thanks for coming tonight um just as a PSA for everyone here. As a reminder, you don't have to be named John to serve on the senior citizens advisory board. Um I I do have a question for one or both of you. If people walked away learning one new thing from tonight or about the senior center and the senior uh citizen population, what do you want that to be? >> That long cares. >> That's what I want people to know. I don't know if I want to spread that word too far in Longmont, but to see. But the law does care. Council members show up, food advisory, board members, people from the community, Longmont Food Rescue. >> It's a it's a group effort. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. So, yeah, Walmart cares. >> Yeah. And and I'll just add to it there was a comment made earlier about I think it was you, Council Member Prito, that uh other communities look to the OneMai Senior Center. Um, we're we're appreciated. I mean, people know what a valuable resource the Wmont Senior Center is and they appreciate it and it makes us makes it makes our job easy because we know we they we we know that they love what we do. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> And council uh Mayor Prom. >> Thank you, Mayor Ronnie, John, and John and the whole uh senior uh citizen advisory board. I want to thank you all for coming down here and and and really talking about the need of the community. It's it's despicable that we live in a country that that uh uh we have such great need. uh and uh that uh I want to just thank you all for all the work you do and and the uh community share uh group does as well because it's just uh it's such a needed experience to to be there and help people uh who you know really are appreciative and uh so thank you all for everything you do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, yeah, thank you so much for for all you do coming out and I really I loved I think it was John who you had said it that you know the long bond cares which John Yeah. that was this John um John on the right. Um yeah that you know when I think about what makes a city a community it's people and how the people engage with each other and support each other and you thank you so much and I like I said before whenever I can be there I am there to bag up that food I've become quite efficient >> and I'll have a picture of you >> yeah no that's okay I'm okay because usually my pictures are all like I'm looking off in some weird direction so it it is all okay thank you very much >> okay so we are now on to public invited to be heard. And there are some names on here that I see that are connected to a um uh the Juniper Street and we you will have an opportunity to speak during that hearing and in order to keep with our own policies with quasi judicial proceeding. Um, I will ask that those comments be reserved during um the time that we hear the actual um appeal of denial u of a variance the variance application. Um so to to kind of keep with our historical structure in that in that regard. So I have three folks on this list that I will be skipping but I will be calling you back up on um general business item 12B. Um, the other thing too is I see a couple of people either that did not um put their address or a um or you're a Longmont resident. I um I will call you first on second call. Our final call public invited to be heard as well as anyone speaking on any of the um ordinances on second reading. You will have a public hearing to talk about the micron agreement, the um rank choice voting as well as the rank choice voting with staggering of council members and uh the uh open space of um the um open state open space ballot measure. So the final reading on that. So, if you're speaking on any of those uh public um items that will have a public hearing, I'm going to ask that you wait until the actual public hearing for those. Um so, every everybody else uh first person on the list is Elva Estrada. >> And you will have three minutes to speak. >> Okay. >> Need to just turn on your mic. >> Oh, yeah. And can you turn on the mic? >> Ready? >> Yes. Hello mayor and council members. My name is Elia Estrada. I'm a resident of Logmon. I would like to propose something that we the families with children with a spectrum disorder need to have in our community to keep our kids safe. My idea is to provide us with signs indicating there are autistic children in the area and drivers should drive a low speed. In my case, I have a serious challenge. My son is eight years old. He is autistic level four and he is nonverbal. He runs away and he doesn't know about dangers. These signs will help to prevent car accidents and inform the community to be careful. Thank you so much. >> Thank you for that. >> I have a copy for you. >> Yeah. No, if you want to leave it with the um city clerk over at the end, that' be great. Thank you. Next person on the list, Tom Smith. >> I don't think I see him anymore. Okay, so Jean Canela My name is Jean Panella. I live on Judson Street here in Longmont. I was um it was suggested by Alex uh that I talk to you about um issues with the alleys and pickup of trash and um recycling. Thank you. Um 15 years ago when I moved to my house, everybody put out their trash cans on trash day and picked them up in the evening so that the alleys were open and um passable. The concept that I think now has um evolved is out of sight, out of mind. the bins are left and they're left on the ground. They're left with tops open. Um the the the alleys have become a place where you can throw any kind of trash. Um my next door neighbor has a sofa now in in her part of the alley. Um she didn't put it there. I used to regularly um take pieces of beds, um furniture, uh styrofoam and food and pick it up and put it in my own bin or I'd take it to the recycle center. I don't mind doing that, but it's become an issue with the raccoons and the squirrels and the bees and anybody else who finds an open um container. So, I would like to propose that for a threemonth period, oh, and the street or the alley that I back into, um, they're putting up a new set of apartments. So, not only the three sets of apartments that are there now, but there will be a whole new set of apartments. And I think um the issue is going to become worse because of the number of people involved. So, my proposal is what about a three-month um uh trial where everyone is asked um to pick up your bins emptied at night, put them away, and bring them back out the next week when the when your trash um is uh picked up. If people say to me, I don't have I don't have space, they all have space. >> Thank you. Sorry. >> Thank you, Kirk. Slow. Thank you. >> Uhhuh. Thanks. >> Good job. council. First off, I'd like to propose that the open forum be increased from twice a year to four times a year quarterly. Now, picking up where I left off the last time, I'm going to read an abstract here from a paper. For hundreds of years, political leaders and thinkers have deemed public safety the first duty of government. But they have defined public safety rather narrowly primarily in terms of the protection function protecting individuals from violent harm to person or property from third parties and also from natural elements. As the first duty, the protection function is privilege. witnessed today how we valorize police and other first responders, defer to their decisions without close scrutiny, and immunize them from liability for their mistakes. Yet, is protection really all there is to public safety? For most people, being safe depends on much more. food, clean water, air, clean water and air, housing, a basic income, and the means to obtain that income through an education and a job. It might also include health care, health insurance, and freedom from discrimination. now on the ballot. Well, the proposal is there to increase money for public safety, and I'd like to know what scrutiny is involved in that. That one's rhetorical. Uh, I know the police wear many hats. They're expected to be police, but they're also expected to be mental health professionals with a gun. social workers with a gun. Now, to bring this all together, I'm going to reference a shooting that happened yesterday under the current budget. If we dug a little deeper, could that situation have been resolved if we didn't expect the police to wear all these hats instead of resorting to what police do? And I don't have all the facts, of course, you know, but somebody died. Whether that person was armed or not, I don't know. I wasn't there and I don't know if that's been released. Anyway, uh coming back to Oh gosh, I'm out of time to be continued >> as usual. >> Thank you. Oops. Uh thank you, Kate Gardner. And then it does say RCV on here. Um, if you're going to be speaking to that, I'm going to ask that you speak at the public hearing. Perfect. >> Yeah. Uhhuh. Of course. And ABSD Delo. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> The D also stands for de lo, so it's kind of >> Oh, okay. >> Good evening, council. Good evening, mayor. Um, I'm AB, short for ABSD. I use they them pronouns, and I work for the Earth. And so I'm here tonight to ask council to align compost rates with city goals, specifically to highlight our waste diversion goals to divert 75% by 2030. To achieve these goals, I'm advocating for a rate subsidy that would incentivize composting and provide equitable access for to composting for lower income households. A rate subsidy is done to advance community goals and priorities. With rate increases approved and set to increase again. These actions are actively discouraging residents from participating with this city service. I'm asking city to I'm asking council to direct staff to pursue policy to reduce compost rates and develop a new rate ordinance for 2027 to 2028 which will better align composting and solid waste rates with community sustainability goals through a subsidi subsidization of composting charges. This action would build a foundation for tangible change to achieve our goals. Compost is bad for our trash. Our landfills are filling up. If we take action now to discourage composting behavior, we are creating further unintended consequences while losing sight of our larger Longmont city goals. This year during the Longmont Cleanup Cup, which you're all invited to participate in, we're having an education week on compost. We're doing this education to highlight the importance of this action. It takes a head of lettuce up to 25 years to break down in a trash bag in a landfill. And in the composter, it only takes up to a 100 days. I'm 30 years old. That's 5 years younger than me. That's a long time in a landfill. This decision about rates matters because money is a direct motivator for behavior changes. So, increased rates will decrease our involvement. I'm asking council to direct staff to pursue policy to reduce compost rates. This not only aligns with council goals, it aligns with city goals, but also highlights residents goals of living in a sustainable holistic community. I work for the earth. She's hiring. You all can accept the job. A rate subsidy when incentivized compost and continue to highlight Longmont as an equitable community for all. Thank you for all you do for the community. >> Thank you. Let's see. Now, skipping a few names here. Sherry Malloy. >> Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Portan, and council members. Colorado diverts less than 20% of the municipal waste it produces. We're doing better than that in Longmont, but still nearly half of what's in most residents trash can't be recycled or composted. I'm here to advocate for option one to support compost subsidies. Item 12A on the agenda. This would adjust rates to better align composting and solid waste through subsidi subsidization. You jinxed me of composting charges. Doing so align our community sustainability goals considering concerning waste diversion and combating climate change. So why support compost subsidies? Roughly 40% of trash being landfilled is organic, such as food scraps and yard waste. Landfilling organics results in the production of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 84 times worse than CO2 in causing global warming. When organics are composted and applied to soils rather rather than landfilled, it helps fight climate change because it stores carbon. Soils enriched by compost remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon is sequestered longterm and top soil health is improved. Less fertilizer is needed and water saved by increasing soils water holding capacity. Healthier soils help plants be more resilient, less sustainable to susceptible, sorry, to disease, and develop stronger roots, improving drought vulnerability. Composting not only improves production, it improves taste and nutrition. That's why homegrown and farmers market produce tastes better and is healthier than the supermarkets. With wildfires raging, our air quality suffering, and the highest July temperatures on record since the dust bowl, one wonders, why aren't there laws banning organics from being landfilled when our planet is in peril and our health impacted? Well, we can't solve that problem tonight, but we can do our part in Longmont. Currently, only 27% of residents are opting in for compost services. Council raised compost rates 50% last year while only raising trash rates 9.6%. 6%. I believe this was a well-intentioned oversight. Tonight is your opportunity to help correct that, support our sustainability goals, and help offset climate chaos. Not raising or even reducing costs help increase compost participation. Subsidizing rates can easily be done by charging more for trash, especially the 90-gallon containers. Again, 40% of what's in residents trash can be composted. So, people have options to reduce the trash they generate by purchasing habits, recycling more, and adding compost services. As one of the only municipalities providing waste services in the whole state and the only one in Boulder County, Longmont residents are paying 30% less than the rest of the county and state. So, we're already getting a bargain. As your council communication states, no negative fiscal impact. Thank you. >> Thank you. Lance Whitaker. >> Evening, mayor and council. My name is Lance Whitaker, 1750 Collier Street. Been a resident for 47 some odd years. Um, I'd like to say hi Elaine. I followed your friend. Um, today is National Sun and Daughter Day. So, pay attention to them brats. Um, National Raspberry Bombay Day and Play in the Sand Day. Maybe you can do that with your son and daughter. Um, it is also President Joke Day. So, anybody has Oh my god. Why did President uh Washington never get any sleep? >> He couldn't lie. >> Steve Waznjak and Hulk Hogan both showed the same birthday today. In 1929, Babe Ruth had was the first person to hit 500 uh home runs. >> So there you go. 1929. >> Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you, John Limpy. >> Good evening, mayor and city council. Here to talk about something I don't normally talk about. Uh may some of you may have met Chris McGill from uh Front Range Community College. I wanted to share with you a happy story. Uh I recently started working at Sierra Space as the operations manager and uh pushed us to go up there for a recruiting event uh a few months ago and uh the director of the integrated manufacturing program asked us would you allow students to work part-time and I said I don't know we don't have any part-time people uh right now uh but I did go and push our HR team to allow me to open uh some part-time roles and I have two students uh that are active ly enrolled at Front Range Community College uh working on my team and hopefully when they graduate they're going to join us full time >> and so I really wanted to share a happy story. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Thanks >> uh Katie Bond. >> Hello mayor and city council. Um, my name is Katie Bond. I'm a resident of Longmont and um, I'm the board chair of Sustainable Resilient Longmont and I am a member of the Zero Waste Committee. Um, and I'm here to speak on behalf of our organization. Um, we are here to urge the council to further direct staff to develop a specific policy to reduce compost rates and develop new rate ordinances for 2027 2028 um, which will better align composting and solid waste rates with community sustainability goals through some subsidization of composting churches. We are not advocating for full subsidization of composting. um we just want to ensure that the rates will incentivize residential composting um in Longmont and we'll take into consideration the barrier to access that higher rates may pose. Um so as staff has previously noted rate subsidy is done to advance community uh goals and priorities. In this case, the city's sustainability and waste diversion goals support the partial subsidy of composting services through higher solid waste charges as a way to incentivize composting and increased waste diversion from the landfill. If we want to reach our zero waste goals um of our targets of 75% diversion by 2030, we will need city policy to incentivize diverting more waste from landfills. Um, I think AB and Sherry both did a really good job of kind of explaining the why behind all of that. So, I'm not going to go into that, but I just, um, so we're only currently at 39% of waste diversion. And so, um, we need to get to enact higher composting rates um, to dis or sorry, enacting higher composting rates costs uh, will only disincentivize new subscriptions for residential composting. Um just anecdotally from kind of speaking to people around the community um I'm hearing from people that the barrier some of the barriers and I'm sure the city knows more but uh staff knows more but the barriers are bin size the you know the single bin size uh lack of awareness on the waste cart size options. I think I see that a lot in my own neighborhood that a lot of people who probably could downsize aren't aware that they could. um and uh and lack of options for multif family residential. So addressing these concerns to increase adoption of compost could also address some of the equity concerns that we have around subsidizing compost and help us reach our sustainability goals. So tonight I am just here to ask that you please direct staff to develop composting subsidy options subsidy options that will support our city's waste diversion goals. Thank you. >> Thank you. Last person, Scott Stewart. >> I'll wait for last call. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, seeing no one else on the list, I will now close. Public invited to be heard. And we are now on to consent agenda and introduction and reading by title of first reading ordinances. Don, can you please read the consent for the record? >> Sure. M mayor, second reading and public hearing for all ordinances introduced on this consent agenda will be on August 25th, 2026. Item 9A is ordinance 2026-49, a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2026. Item 9B is ordinance 2026-50, a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 15.02.0D 08 point D of the Lont Municipal Code in triing a new short-term rental license type for major regional regional events. Item 9 C has three ordinances, three options for the public safety fund tax ballot language. C1 is ordinance 2026-51, a bill for an ordinance concerning funding for public safety and in connection there with amending chapter 4.04 4 the municipal code for the city of Langma Colorado increasing the city sales and use tax rate from 3.53% to 3.77% beginning January 1st 2027 authorizing an increase in the city property tax of not more than 4.06 mills beginning with tax collection year 2027 and referring said tax increase to a vote of the qualified electors. Second option is ordinance 2026-52, a bill for an ordinance concerning funding for public safety and in connection there with amending chapter 4.04 of the municipal code for the city of Longmont, Colorado, increasing the city sales and use tax rate from 3.53% to 3.82% beginning January 1st, 2027, authorizing an increase in the city property tax of not more than 3.25 mills beginning with tax collection year 2027 and referring site increases to a vote of the qualified electors. The third option is ordinance 2026-53, a bill for an ordinance concerning funding for public safety and in connection therewith amending chapter 4.04 of the municipal code for the city of Lama, Colorado, increasing the city sales and use tax rate from 3.53% to 3.86% beginning January 1st, 2027. Authorizing an increase in the city property tax of not more than 2.44 mills beginning with tax collection year 2027 and referring said tax increases to a vote of the qualified electors. Item 90 is resolution 2026-45, a resolution of Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for the conduct and administration of the 2026 coordinated special election to be held on November 3rd, 2026. 9E is resolution 2026-46, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Weld County for the count and administration of the 2026 coordinated special election to be held on February, 2026. And item 9F is resolution 2026-47, a resolution of the Lmont city council expressing the intent of the city to be reimbursed for certain capital expenses relating to the acquisition, construction, installation, and equipping of a parking garage with associated supporting public improvements and other capital improvements of the city. >> Thank you. Yes, thank you very much. Um, so we will need to pull item C so we can pick which option to take. So that's the first one. Um, Council Member Marcen. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to pull item B as well. >> Okay. Oh, and that's it. >> Okay. So, can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda minus B and C? >> So, move. >> Okay. So, the motion has been made by Mayor Prom McCoy, seconded by Council Member Christ to approve the consent agenda except for items B and C1, C2, C3. Let's go ahead and vote. or do you want to wait for >> or do you want to do a verbal vote? >> Maybe it wants me to go home. >> I got it now. >> Okay. >> Oh, waiting. I can do a verbal. Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. And that carries unanimously. We are now on to um ordinance item 10, ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. The first item is item A, ordinance 2026-45, a bill for an ordinance amending an economic incentive agreement with Micron Technologies Incorporated. Um do we have any nothing given to us? And are there any questions from council? Okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing on ordinance 2026-45. Are there any members of the audience who wish to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. Um, >> I move. >> So, we have a motion. Yep. >> Ordinance 2026-4. >> Seconded. >> Okay. So, um, we have a motion to approve for council member Chris. Ordinance 2026-45. and it was seconded by Mayor Prom. Okay, seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, that carries unanimously. We are now on to item B, ordinance 2026-46, a bill for an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the city of Longmont, Colorado at a special municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026. amendments to the uh city of Longmont home rule charter concerning the use of certain forms of rank choice voting to elect future mayors and council members and it was amended at first reading. So, do we have any questions from council council member Christ? Uh well, I'm hoping that uh the group that brought us an alternative plan are going to propose that again um during discussion of this ordinance because it's come to my attention that um the secretary of state um put forth a amendment to the house bill 26-113 regarding section 17307. I had to look all this up. I'm sure my um gentleman to the left is also looking it up. um regarding hand voting and um coming up with methodology for that because I believe this initiative is actually in the works. So um interested to see if anyone else is here to speak on this topic. >> Um you know I do have a question for Eugene our legal counsel. Um so as we go through public hearing we are only discussing so even with item 10B if people are talking about the staggering of elections that's item 10 C. So you we are only hearing testimony or comments related to yes I support this or no I do not support the um rank choice voting to elect future mayors and council members. Is that correct or is that cor? Help. >> I think it is 10B. >> 10B. Okay. >> Yeah, >> help me out here. >> Mayor and Council Eugene May, I believe there's no motion pending. So, it's any discussion related to the council decision to go to a different voting method. I think council member Chris is proposing a sort of counter proposal to what the ordinance is. So even though this is a public hearing, the public hearing then can discuss anything outside of this particular item. >> I think it's related to the item of choosing a voting method. >> Okay. Okay. That's I just wanted to make sure. >> Okay. So thank you. And so seeing no one else in the queue from council, I will now o um open the public hearing for ordinance 2026-45. We have a few people on the list. So, I'll start with Tal. Um, can you repeat your last name? >> Miner. >> Minier. Okay. >> Turn on your your speak >> and you will have three minutes. >> Hello, mayor and members of city council. I would like to surprise surprise encourage you to vote yes on this ordinance and refer the question of ranked choice voting to the community. I want to quickly address some misconceptions I've seen I've seen floating around both for council and anyone listening in. First, rank choice voting is still one person, one vote. When using RCV, you are not voting for multiple people. You are expressing your preference. Only your choice in that final round of tabulation counts towards the results. Second, it's not like allowing multiple answers to to questions on a multiple choice test because elections aren't a test with one correct answer. Many times people have several candidates they like. Rank choice voting makes it more likely that each voter's views are represented in the eventual winner. And third, our founding fathers had both good and bad ideas. I don't think we should limit ourselves to systems used by slave owners. Personally, I put little stock in what Thomas Jefferson did or did not endorse. And lastly, I just want to say thank you, mayor and members of city council, for moving this ordinance along. It's been a long road and I'm super grateful for everyone who has supported it. Thank you so much for your part in advancing democracy and for voting yes on this ordinance. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Kathy Reeves. >> Thank you, mayor and city council. I'd just like to point out uh one example. There are of course thousands of examples of rank choice voting as it's been used in many places at many times. Um this is one example where the results were changed. The 2022 election in Alaska for Congress had 48 candidates. Sarah Palin was the clear favorite with over 40% of the vote. The top four candidates moved on to the general election which was tabulated by an instant runoff or ranked choice voting. After the instant runoff algorithm was applied and all the second, third, and fourth place rankings were redistributed, they declared Mary Pela the winner. Mary was in fourth place in the primary and she magically won the instant runoff election. Mary is a Democrat and Alaska's 60% registered Republicans. So as you can see the candidate that the majority supports is unlikely to win when using the rank choice voting method. So in long for example a particular group has the majority. I would like members of this group to consider that ranked choice voting could result in the majority no longer winning elections. So many communities have tried rank choice voting. They didn't like it and then they reversed it and went back. Um in fact 85% of jurisdictions across the US have tried ranked choice voting over the last 100 years and later repeal it. Thank you. >> Thank you Peg Cage. Thank you for letting me speak even though I'm outside of the city limits. Um, thank you, mayor, and council members. Um, I would highly recommend that you do not uh refer rank choice voting to the ballot. I think it would not only be un um it would be a very bad thing for you guys because it's unconstitutional and you don't want to be tied up with recommending that your people that you are supposed to be supporting would actually use an unconstitutional method of voting. But if you do choose to refer that, as Diane Chris was mentioning, I would also like you to put on the ballot a um referendum saying, "Shall Longmont conduct standardized transparent elections with single day voting in person with minimal exceptions with photo ID to verify eligibility and citizenship with paper poll books at the precinct level on paper ballot ballots voted in secret, cast by the voter and handcounted in public view on on site by bipartisan voter volunteers with the candidate or issue receiving the plurality of votes being declared the winner. And I would also like to invite you all to take place in such a handc count election and actually compete against other teams that have done this before. And they are coming to the Boulder County Republicans office Saturday morning from 10 10 to 2. And uh we're going to have a little a little competition. So, you're all welcome to join a team of four or five or come and and join one of our teams and and experience a hand count that is self auditing. You're making a duplicate cast vote record. So every ballot, every mark on every ballot will be there and you will be able to handc count them and come up with your total of the votes cast in just a matter of minutes, hours. So thank you. >> Thank you Jill Watson. Hi, my name is Jill Watson and I just wanted to speak to the rank choice voting as well. Um, I live here now, but I originally came from Utah and we are phasing out the whole rank choice voting statewide now. it's going to basically go away. And I just wanted to notice that there's a lot of young people here and I love your passion and I love that you're here that you're participating and being involved. But we grew up in a time when it was so easy to just to walk in to a pool house in our community at a precinct level and you showed your ID, you got a paper ballot and we never lost our um our chance for the cast vote. So, the whole thing that I'm against rank choice voting, and I hope you guys will consider this because I just got through fighting this in Utah, I move here and here I am again fighting this again. It separates you from your vote. I don't care how you cut the cake. And I appreciate, like I said, everybody's passion here, but when you do anything on the machines, there is not, you cannot, and I got in a little discussion with everybody here earlier before we walked in. there's no way to truly audit it. And I did meet Sarah Palin, by the way, right after that happened. I was up in Idaho doing the same thing. And I'm just saying if they can take countries that are doing 30, 40 million people and do precinct level hand count in one day. We can do this here in the United States, you guys. It's not that complicated. And here's my last point. Anytime you use a machine and use software, whether you call it an algorithm or any kind of code that's written into this thing, to me, I'm getting disenfranchised because I can't fully audit. And we have one side of the country saying, "Oh, we're all being disenfranchised." Well, if you go forward with rank choice voting, I feel that you're disenfranchising my vote because I can't fully audit it. Win or lose, I'm willing to come to the table, count them. It was really easy. We even had kids in high school back in Utah coming in and counting them and we give them pizza and they had so much fun doing it and participating in the civic duty and it's really not hard and we had a formula down where we could do it like 300 people in a half hour is that easy. So if you have 8,000 people you just do the formula you have teams of four and it's really not that complicated. So thank you. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you Dylan Ranken. This is like Thank you, mayor, members of city council. My name is Dylan Ranken and I helped to run rank choice voter Kongwan. I am so thrilled um that we're finally here at second reading. Uh and would strongly urge you to vote yes on on this ordinance. Um, we're so excited that we're going to have the opportunity to go out this fall and make the case to voters that rank choice is a a gold standard voting method to add to our gold standard election system. It is an amazing way to give voters more choice in elections. Uh, and to basically allow them to vote honestly as opposed to strategically by saying this is who I really want. This is my first choice, but if they can't win, I'd love for my vote to count for my second choice or my third choice. So, it makes elections more open. It makes them more positive because candidates have the incentive to compete for second choices and it makes the ultimate results more reflective of the will of the voters. Um and and on this this this counter proposal that I'm hearing, I I do just want to say like that is a fundamentally different issue than rank choice voting. Um you can handc count a rank choice voting election if you wanted to. We don't handcount our plurality elections that we conduct in the city now. So that's an entirely different issue. I am personally um in favor of the the way we do things now because we we know that we have the data that says that hand counting or human error is is is prone to um making more mistakes than than machines are. But but that's entirely different. And so if if if that merits its own policy conversation, let's have that conversation. But I think that in any case, no matter how we're counting these ballots, rank choice is the way to go. Um and I just want to give a huge shout out to you guys for for for giving us this time, for listening to us, for coming to this uh and formulating this proposal together. It really means a lot to be heard and and and in that way. Uh and and yeah, you guys I I've spent a lot of Tuesday nights with you guys. Uh and I'm really excited to finally be at this point and I really appreciate it. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Lance Whitaker. Mayor and Council, uh, Lance Whitaker, 1750 Collier Street. I like to keep it nice and short and sweet, don't I? >> I'm not in favor of it. Please don't vote for it. Um, if you do vote for it, I know me and my old lady will be voting against it in the ballot. So, one way or another, I'll get my vote counted. Have a good day. Uh, >> thank you, uh, Charlie Oswald. Hello. I'm I'm here to ask you to not pass this. Um, as someone who's tried very hard for a long time to get people to participate in elections, and we know that historically voter turnout is lower than we would all want. Um, disenfranchising voters is a big issue. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on. And I believe that this type of new process, how are we going to educate the people? How are they going to know that if you don't fill it out exactly right, your vote is automatically disregarded. I think when people hear that that's going to be a big distance um um it's going to discourage people and the other aspect is there's no curing process like there is when people if there was a question about their ballot currently they would be notified and they would have an opportunity to make their vote count. In this case, your ballot is tossed out if it's not accurate. And when you have a lot that you're filling out in several different races, think of the amount of errors that are possible in just one individual's ballot. So, I'm concerned in that process as well as um cost. Do we know that there's not going to be an additional cost to the taxpayers in putting on this new process? And if so, is that going to be disclosed to the voters? Um, how is it overseen? Are are all all parties allowed to see how this process is changed once once the first count is done and now the new counts are going um reallotted? Who oversees that and how do we know how that is accurate? Those are my concerns and I would ask you not to approve it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Kate Gardner. >> Hello all. I'm Kate Gardner, 4054 Hawthorne Circle. Um that's precinct 608 ward 2. And I would like to speak directly to Councilman Popkin. >> Um I'm sorry. You have to direct to the chair, but he hears you. >> Okay, good, good, good. Sorry. Um, so, um, Councilman Popkin won his, um, ward seat with 53% of the vote and, um, that's a real undisputed majority, um, under our current system. So, in my opinion, that's proof that a plurality voting works exactly as it should with voters um who have a clear preference. Plurality voting isn't broken in my opinion. It's how democracies have run elections for centuries. And a candidate winning with the most votes reflects the genuine unforced will of the electorate exactly as it was expressed not as some formula uh reshapes it meaning a mathematical formula. So rank choice voting 50% is a ma manufactured majority not a real one. It's built through elimination rounds and maybe some of this has been covered July 14th, etc., etc., but I still think we need to be reminded of this and vote transfers, meaning the declared winner can be someone who wasn't even most voters first choice. Moreover, ballots can get um exhausted along the way, as we know. So the final so-called majority isn't even a majority of everyone who voted. And at the moment when trust in our elections uh is already fragile uh sadly uh adding this kind of mathematical complexity in our community in Longmont in my opinion uh only deepens public confusion and distrust rather than strengthening confidence in the outcome. So, since attending the last council meeting, I've asked my neighbors, my church friends, my my friends, people in volunteer groups I'm a part of, what they know about rank choice voting coming to Longmont. Overwhelmingly, uh, in general, they had no idea this was even being considered. I know we've done a really good job. You guys are doing a great job. You're here, as we say, every Tuesday night. I really appreciate it. I really do respect it and truly appreciate it. Uh but this is moving forward in my opinion without public understanding of the implications. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Um so is there um there's no one else on the list, but is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? >> Okay. Oh, come on down and then just ple please state your name. Hi, my name is Celeste Landry. I don't know how much I'm allowed to divulge here. >> Oh, >> just speaking on the on the item. Yes. Rank choice voting. >> Uh I live in uh Boulder, by the way. >> And um one of the things I wanted to say is that my house this year was designated a historic landmark because it was a polls and registration house. That's its official name. In 1917, Boulder became the second city in the nation to adopt multi-winner RCV back before the RCV term ever came into being. Um, and we used it to elect three city council members at a time. Sound familiar? Um, and they counted it all by hand, it turns out, and there were a lot fewer people there then, but they were able to do it. So, I just want to say it's um it's something that I think the county clerks should be able to do with the Secretary of State's help. Um and um some of the issues that were brought up about curing ballots, that has nothing to do with the tabulation. That has to do with whether you signed the ballot correctly and you put the right ballot in the form, things like that. Um, yes, uh, ranking a ballot is a more complicated way to mark a ballot, but that's the power of it. Voters get to say more and and I'm so proud of Longmont for working on letting voters express their will more in a nuanced fashion and and say more than just choosing one. So, thanks for listening. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else seeing Oh, go ahead. Um, yes. >> And then I will close public public hearing. >> Yeah, I've spoken before on this. My name is Helen and I'm a Longmont resident. >> I'm sorry. What's your last name? >> Oh, you need my last name. >> Helen. Yes, I would just Helen Schneider. Thank you. And regarding the rank choice voting and a multiplechoice test, it is not fair to allow more than one answer on a multiple choice test. The whole idea, everybody knows going to school the task is to pick the best answer, the best choice. Sometimes some of them look almost as good, but you're supposed to choose one answer. And then also, I spoke on this before reminding there's like 193 member states in the United Nations, two non voting members. Only five countries allow rank choice voting. Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, and they're trying to add it here. And that's that's my point on that >> and thank you for letting me speak. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So now I will close public hearing. May I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-46. >> Okay. So the motion has been made by council member Marcine. Uh do I have a second? >> Okay. Seconded by council member Coloffer. Okay. Um seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Oh, thought we got away with it. Council member Bobkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. Just a brief comment here. Um, listening to some public comments and seeing some of the emails we received, I just wanted to note that um, the timing for if if this were to pass on the ballot, it would take effect in 2029. And so that would give us time to implement this and make sure people are educated, understand how this works. That is really, really important. I think that we do that well. And I know our staff have been thinking about that intentionally. um so that if this were to pass, we would know how to implement this thoroughly and that people would know what they're getting themselves into and how how to participate in this effectively. So, just wanted to note that I think that's really important for any voting system um regardless of what it is. And I appreciate council's thoroughess on this. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. >> Oh, yes, Council Member Christ. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh well, my opinion first of all is that I think we should save the money and not put things on the ballot. Um if we don't spend the money that we have funded for ballot initiatives, that means we don't have to replenish it in the next year. So basically, we'd be saving the 93,000. And just to the comments that were brought before us, there would be an extra fee for uh rank choice voting, which would start in 2029, I guess. Um about a h 100,000 is what the city clerk mentioned. So there is a little bit of a cost to the voters that's higher and then when we put issues on the ballot that comes out of our budget as well. Referring to our earlier discussions, we do have an aging population. And so I have to note that some of what was um said at the podium is is particularly timely in that there is more complexity to this type of system and the data does show that after about 2 years the interest in voting in this type of system does drop off. So the question is how do we how do we support our election system so that people feel it's reliable so it's transparent so that there's more confidence in what we are what our vote is representing and maybe there's a hybrid here but I'm against this initiative at this time and and other ballot initiatives >> Marcy >> thank you mayor quick question for Don just to council member Chris's point we are all I mean assuming because this is not the only initiative that we plan to go to the ballot to. Correct. So we incur the cost regardless of whether you know if we go to the ballot and organize an election, it doesn't necessarily dramatically escalate the number of initiatives we put on if we organize the the election. Correct. Which we're already planning to do on two other measures. >> Mayor Dgoing, council member Marcing, that is correct. There's a proportional cost for space we take up and if there's a tab uh piece to that. Um, but we are already referring other items to the ballot, so we will incur those expenses. >> Yeah, we're already incurring the cost to begin with. So, I appreciate the concern, but >> I don't want to go through and respond to everything we heard in public comment because I I I there's a lot there. Um, and I think we've talked about it quite a bit. What I will say is I'm very appreciative to the advocates who've worked on this for a long time. And what I've thought is, you know, regardless of whether you're going to support this or not, probably one of the most wellorganized and effective local organizing efforts that I've seen in this city in my lifetime. Um, no, honestly, like since since like the 2012 fracking conversation is kind of the last like that's the last one that I was like, wow, that so good work from all of you to to carry this fight forward. And I think it's a fight worth having. It is RCV is constitutional. It's been upheld by the court over and over and over again. and it goes back to 1915 when it was first used in a city council election in Ohio. This is not a new system. We are already doing this in Boulder County. There is a cure process that we have in Boulder County that was available and used during the 2020 uh for Boulder mayoral race. I checked with the source on that one uh while I was up here. We have the tools in place to make this effective. Um, and I think that, you know, to the complicated point, I would just say I trust voters to be able to write the number one through however many on a ballot. I, you know, I still count with my fingers and I can do that. So, I I trust our voters to be able to effectively execute this and to use it as a system where their voice is heard. Um, and ultimately we are saying to the voters, um, you decide and Lance and all the all of the opponents have the right to vote no. And, uh, I I will not be doing that, though. So, I look forward to to referring this. >> Great. Thank you very much. Um, you know, I do want to point out Oh, actually, Council Member Prito, I'll let you go first. >> Yeah, you want to go last, Mayor. Um, and I think, so I just wanted to mention, I think, um, Council Member Chris was talking about the additional costs that come with the education campaign and all that fun stuff. It does cost more money. So, just for voters information, it is going to cost a little bit more initially, but then it goes down after a while after we kind of get the ball rolling. Um, in addition to that, um, I just kind of wanted to restate my position on this. I, as it stands, I'm not someone who's like in favor of our CV, but I am in favor of letting the voters decide. I I feel like that is an a decision that every member of our community should make and not just one person from the dis. And so and I do agree with council member Mars. It has been um very inspiring to see the turnout uh from the RCB folks, just your commitment and engagement and and and the thing is is we have a few years to really educate our community and hopefully by then I'm educated enough to feel confident about it if it passes, right? And and I do want to in assure um residents that if this does pass, if RCV does pass on the ballot in November, that I have full confidence in our city and staff and and even the RCV folks to make sure that this campaign is successful and that people are are um given the knowledge and skills and tools that they need to fill out their B ballot accordingly. that is a concern if you don't fill it out. There are some nuances that go with that. And so I think the biggest thing is just making sure people fill out their ballot correctly and that campaign is going to be really important. But I have full confidence in our staff that that you know we can make sure that we get that information out. So again, I just wanted to restate that I am not for RCV, but I am for the voters deciding on this one. So thank you. >> Thank you. And thank you for that. Um, and thank you for reminding too that, you know, technically we could as a council have just put this as an ordinance change and not even bring it to the voters to decide. The only piece that would need to go for a charter change that would be, you know, the electric voting on would be the staggering of um of seats. But this particular one, the reason why we decided to as a collective to bring it forward as a ballot measure was so then the people of Longmont can decide the direction they want their voting system to go. And so I feel you know this is taking this route really would demonstrate the will of the people. And then you know the second one of course is a charter change and um where you all sit on that is what the voters decide. So, um, see no one else in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. >> Okay. And that carries 6 to one with council member Christ in opposition. And we are now on to item C, ordinance 2026-47. A bill for an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the city of Longmont at a special municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026. an amendment to the city of Longmont home charter home rule charter concerning the realignment of the staggering between council uh between the members of Longmont City Council elected from the from wards and the members of Longmont City Council elected from the at uh the city at large uh and it was amended at first reading. Do we have any questions from council? Okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing for ordinance 2026-47. I have two names on the list. Dylan Ranken. >> Oh, yeah. If you want to leave it with Don. >> I can wait. >> Oh, yeah. >> Um, thank you, uh, mayor, members of city council one last time to bug you, Dylan Rankin. Um, I am super excited about this ordinance as well. Um, thank you for all your hard work on it. We think that realigning the election cycle so that all at large seats are elected in one cycle and then all the award seats are elected another makes a lot of sense first and foremost just from a simplicity standpoint so that our election cycles are are simpler. I more than probably anyone else have gone around and explained to people how Longmont City Council has set up over the past couple years and they follow me. Okay, mayor at large seats, word seats and then I'm like okay. And then in one cycle we've got two of one type and one of the other and then two of the other type and one and people are like what? Whoa, that's crazy. So, I think that this makes sense from a simplicity standpoint, but the main reason we're here is because this is a huge augmentation for the rank choice voting ordinance that we u that that you all just adopted. Um if we pass this, we're able to elect um all three members of at large members of city council on the same ranked ballot, which has a proportional outcome, which means that the results reflect the uh electorate as a whole. If if 60% of the electorate is one way on a certain issue, then 60% of our atlarge representatives will be that same way on a given issue, then the the the system guarantees that. Um, and it's really really cool in in terms of uh increasing voter turnout, increasing voter engagement, and it has some really amazing benefits as well. So, we hope that you pass it. We have one small um ask before you do and that is that on first reading you adopted an ordinance to basically delay this change taking effect by a couple years by making the shortened term that um the atlarge seat would serve uh be from 2031 2033 as opposed to 2027 2029. We would love for you to reverse this change and go back to the ordinance as originally written. Um because if you as originally written, it got us a three-winner multi-winner rank choice contest as you can see from the the the handout that I just gave you in 2029. So it would allow voters to experience the full breadth of the benefits of rank choice voting, the very first time they got to use it in 2029, which we think is a really, really, really valuable additional benefit. Um I understand that second reading amendments are a rarity. Um but uh we had no advanced warning that the first reading amendment was going to be offered at all. uh had we known we would have come here and made these points uh the the the first time. So, we're addressing this at the at at as soon as we possibly could um given the circumstances um and what is second reading, if not an opportunity to iron out all the kinks and make sure the proposal is exactly the strongest place it possibly could be um before uh before it goes to the voters. So, um we we think that if you're able to swing this and and and make this small change, it would make a really awesome proposal even awesomer. Um, but stepping back from the amendment, uh, we're really excited that this change is going to go to the ballot, uh, to allow Longmont voters the opportunity to simplify their election cycles and significantly augment the benefits of rank choice voting in one fell swoop. So, thank you so much for your work on this and we hope that you vote yes. >> Thank you. Um, Tal uh, Mini Miner, I'm like I'm trying to break the syllables in the correct spot. Hello again. Uh, I agree with everything that Dylan said and I would like to encourage council to un amend this ordinance so that the stagger begins in 2027 instead of 2029 because if it begins in 2029, our first three winner race won't be until 2033, which is a full seven years after voters would have adopted this method. I think this is an unfortunate and unnecessary delay. Uh, if the stagger alignment starts in 2027, our first three-winner race would be in 2029. I also wish we had a warning that this amendment would have been offered in first reading because I would basically be saying what I'm saying now, but back then and generally I just think it's detrimental to voters to make them wait seven years after adopting RCV to use it in a three-winner way to use it in a three-winner race. However, I understand that changes in second reading are rare. I just hope you'll consider taking a look at removing this first reading amendment and going back to the ordinance as it was originally written. I know you all want what's best for the community and I just think a second look at the dates would be beneficial. But beyond the start date of stagger realignment, I am super happy with this ordinance and would love to see it referred to to to voters. And in fact, I would rather see this referred to voters with a uh with the stagger beginning in 2029 than not see it referred to voters at all. Um, thanks again for all your work on this and hearing me out two times tonight. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, there's no one else on the list. Is there anyone in um who would like to speak on the staggering? Okay. So, I will see no one else. >> Oh, where's >> Oh, you have my info. >> Yes, it has. It seems like we >> And I'm sorry, you are Kate. >> I am Kate Gardner. >> Gardner. Okay. Thank you. >> In ward two. >> And I'd feel really comfortable about having an opinion about this if we had a clear uh study from you guys on what your opinions are. I haven't heard yet what each person's opinion is about which version of rank choice voting we're going to do. >> Okay. Oh, you know what? I'm going to Are you done speaking? >> I can be done. So, I would like to just >> recommend we um you guys get back to us. >> Okay. Um I I I believe that our vote is our opinion. Um you know so is it and so um and we don't do dialogue so in public hearing you're just making your comment and um yeah so of course thank you. Okay come on down. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Oh my name is Helen. I spoke before. >> Um my concern with rank choice voting is um as you've seen, I've been holding up signs uh showing that I'm concerned about us our government switching from a constitutional republic to socialism or communism. Um I don't know if you could read all the signs that I have, but there were 45 communist goals for the United States read into the congressional record January 10th, 1963. Um my concern is that the elections can fall under number 15 and 32. Okay. Uh and because obviously the socialist communist and of course there's no such thing as socialism. It's the gradual or creeping conversion to communism. When the money runs out, socialism converts to communism. I do have a copy of this. I don't know if you guys have read it or are aware of it. And so, and I've annotated other items on here that are not related to elections, but things that have happened in our country, >> and it's kind of like very eye opening. So, I'm going to submit this. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I realize you guys probably just voted on it, but yeah, >> it's kind of like >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Maybe it wasn't. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Okay. Now, seeing no one else, um I will um now close public hearing on ordinance 2026-47. Eugene, I was eyeing you. >> I think you read my expression, >> mayor and council, Eugene May. Uh while I would agree with some of the members of public that amending on second reading is disfavored in this circumstance, it's really a choice between the first reading ordinance where the stagger starts in 27 or the second reading ordinance where it starts in 29. If you want to go back to 27, it's very easy. We've already drafted the ordinance. >> Okay. Okay. Um Mayor Prom. Well, I was going to move the ordinance as presented. >> Oh, okay. Um, >> second. >> So, we have moving the ordinance as presented. Um, when it was seconded by council member Popkin, um, Council Member Marcen, go ahead and let you speak right now. >> Thank you, Mayor. I I >> since we have an active motion. >> Yeah. And I will speak to the motion directly. Um, you know, I I this the motion being presented first puts me in a little bit because that is not honestly not the guidance I would have expected from city attorney. >> Yeah. No. And I I've I've said, "Okay, if we bring something now, I'm pretty sure they're going to choke me, but >> Yeah. >> reach on over and >> Yeah. And and I mean I I >> and I want to be mindful of that. >> And I do want to be mindful of staff capacity. I also want to be mindful my my concern to the to the public comment the issue of the the stagger in the amendment that was made on first reading. My concern is, you know, we start messing with numbers on seconds and what winds up happening is we don't get the chance to see it again, right? So, we pass it without having the chance to publicly review it. It has to be reposted. There's a process piece here that that bothers me. But I have battled all week a little bit with the notion of of public um of of the not public pol of not public input necessarily, but what the right policy outcome is here. And I I do have some concerns. I will say if city attorney's office is giving that guidance, mayor, I do have some concerns with us saying we're going to wait for another seven years before theoretically we get the full impact of our CV. Um, and if and if that's the guidance from to the attorney that it's a matter of just going back to the old ordinance, I feel maybe a little bit different than I did walking into tonight. And I would wonder, I mean, there's an active motion on the table. Um, >> which I would have to vote for because I'm supportive of the motion and I wouldn't vote against it necessarily. So, I would wonder if we can have that discussion. Um, and if the maker of the motion would be willing or able to to pull back so we can have that discussion and if not, I mean, then we'll move forward. But I I if city attorney is advising that this is not as big a lift as maybe I and I was concerned about. Yeah. >> Cuz I was concerned it was going to be a big lift as well. And I'm just curious to know procedurally what would happen if we changed went back to the original language where the 2027 the the one atlarge position is a two-year term as opposed to a four-year term. I think that's the only change in 2027. >> Yep. And I'm looking for the clerk for backup. We just republish the ordinance in full and move on. >> Okay. And we don't have to do a public hearing. We don't have to do bring it back to council. I was also concerned about time. >> Nope. This would be second reading. We'd be amending it on second reading. >> Okay, good to know. Um do you um so council member Oh, yeah. Council member McCoy. Um think about it. Council member Chris um Prietto, >> just a just a a question for staff, maybe our city manager or clerk. Um, I know that the the original intention for the 29 date was to it was I well I know as far as myself there was a budget concern and a staff capacity and making sure that folks are uh informed and knowledgeable around voting that we have enough time to really lay this out people are comfortable and voting um on an RCV ballot. Um, can I get some feedback around would this change us being able to make sure we have the funds available and the capacity that we would need to roll this out if we were to do a sooner date? >> Harold, do you want me to answer you? >> You can jump in and then I'll jump in. I was going to say I think um Mary Delgle Fairing, Council Member Prito, it still gives us some time to educate um the the electorate about how this works. Uh and we have the benefit of the information that City of Boulder already has out there. They've already done a big public campaign about how it works, how to mark your ballot. Um so we have a a head start, if you will, in terms of educating voters. Um, I can't speak for communications. I don't know what's on their plate in the coming year ahead of the next council election. I don't know if Sandy is in the room. She might be able I don't know if she would know. But, uh, in terms of budget, it would mean we would need the increased budget for >> Well, no. RCV doesn't start in 27. >> It would start in 29. >> It starts in 29. Correct. The issue that was the stagger >> would start in this election under the current format which there would be some additional communication >> based on the fact that explaining that this is a staggered term >> but I don't know that it creates issue that you're talking about because that doesn't start until 2029. So then I guess I'm a little confused on the >> So in 2027 then we'd have the mayor, ward one, ward three, and at large. But rather than having the atlarge at four years, it would be two years. So that would be the only thing we'd need to convey to voters in the 2027 election as far and it's still going to be through you just pick your top vote. It's the polurality. Um, and then in 2029 was be the actual rank cho you're ranking your your people. >> Okay. And then, uh, Don, quick question. Um, regarding the language on that going into the ballot, if the stagger is approved, who who determines the language? >> I'm sorry. Do you mean who determines the ballot language? Yeah, the ballot language >> it's drafted by the city attorney's office generally. So Tim Tim Hull a senior assistant city attorney was is the main attorney on this >> like if if the stagger were to be approved like say that like say it was approved and this November we're going to vote under the approved stagger um that language that says pick your top three or two or whatever like just >> theoretically who writes that language would it be the city of Longmont or >> you mean the ballot instructions? ballot instructions. Yes, >> the county clerk is responsible for that >> and they have experience. >> And I think my only concern with that is is when um Council Member Marcen and myself were running this last election, um people were even confused on choosing two. And so what we were seeing was a lot of people were just choosing one, not knowing that they could choose two. >> And when Council Member Marcy got the majority vote, people thought that he won and I didn't. But there was two seats. Yes. >> And so I my only concern is just that we're very cautious around the language that's going to be put out and that voters know >> that there's x amount of seats with >> Yes. >> and they can choose x amount of council members. I think that's my only concern as far as that goes. But >> if we're just talking about the stagger here, I'm not necessarily opposed. So >> Okay. Thank you. Um Council Member Koffer. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm also in a pickle uh because I I I want to vote for this, but I want to vote for the originally written um way that it was brought to us the first time. Um, so I I want to vote for that, but not not how we're >> You'd want to see this amended with the uh >> the first with what the first reading had. >> Yes. Okay. >> So, >> thank you. Um Whoops. Council member um Popkin. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that we were like completely clear on what's happening here. Yes. Um so irrespective of rank choice voting, you could realign the the cycle the election cycles and and frankly from the simplicity standpoint, having the atlarge positions all on the same ballot and the ward one, W two, W three actually isn't a crazy concept. It's a very practical concept. I think what where council got to last in first reading on this discussion if I recall correctly and I don't want to speak for everyone but I think a lot of the thought was we would realign the election cycles if this because this is contingent on rank choice voting passing and we would just start in 2029 because that's when all of the changes were happening. Um but that that was I think the the pragmatic logic of trying to pull those together. So, if other council members feel very strongly about realigning the cycles starting next year, again, that wouldn't start rank choice voting next year. Those any costs that would be associated with that wouldn't start next year. Um, there would be time for voter education next year. Um, this would simply and it wouldn't even change who's running next year. It would just change the term length of the at the single at large position that would be normally up next year from four years to two years. So that that could just realign two positions, mine included, um or the word two position included in 2029 would have to be two-year terms to then kind of reset and realign all of those positions. So just so we're all clear, that's all we're talking about with this >> ordinance right now and this ballot language that we go to. >> Okay. Um so yeah, put yourself back in there. Um do you have a an amendment? Yeah. So, so my so because we have an active motion on the table, mayor, my concern is exactly that. So, I would I I would ask through the chair the maker of the motion if he would consider it. Uh a I know we don't really do friendly amendments, but if he would be willing to accept an amendment to the motion um where we I mean and I guess city attorney, I need to know if that would be appropriate or not to or if we need him to pull the amendment. If we need to to pull the motion, make the amendment and then move it as amended on seconds. What would be the appropriate choice? >> Back to the original >> or if I can just say, hey, you know, maker the motion. Are you okay with moving this? >> You could do it either way. You would you could amend >> the current motion. I mean, that that seems more straightforward. >> So, okay. >> So, he says no. So, he says no. Okay. >> Um, now if this fails, what happens? Somebody can make a different motion. >> Okay. Okay. So, having >> Go ahead. No, Council Member Marcy, you still have the mic. >> Thank you. Is there a matter of having voted on the prevailing side in order for reconsideration under Roberts? >> I would think so. >> Yes, you can do it that way. >> Thank you. Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, let's go ahead and vote on this. And this is for the restaggering that would start in 2029, not 2027. Okay. Okay. And that fails um 3 to four with um Council Member Marcen, Council Member Prito, Council Member Koffer, and myself in opposition. Um yes, go ahead, Council Member Marcy. >> Thank you, Mayor. Having voted on the prevailing side, I move that we reconsider ordinance 202647. >> Okay. And so the motion to reconsider has been made by council member Marcen, seconded by council member Koffer. Um, yes. And go ahead. >> Then we just have to cast the vote to reconsider. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. And there's no one in the queue. >> Oh, yeah. I'm just going to >> Yeah. >> I'm not >> Okay, I see what you're doing here. Oops. Waiting on me. >> Okay. And the motion to reconsider carries with council members Christ and Mayor Prom McCoy in opposition. Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you, mayor. I would move uh that on and I sent this text over to Don that on page three lines 12 through 15 of the ordinance, we strike the term of the W 2 council member to be elected in the regular city election in 2029 shall be two years and the term of the atlarge council member elected to a full term in the regular city election in 2031 shall be two years and insert the term of the atlarge council member elected to a full term in the regular city election in 2027 shall be two years and the term of the W 2 council member to be elected in the regular city election in 2029 shall be two years. The intent of this motion is to revert to the ordinance as it was presented on first reading. >> Okay, very good. And I will second that. >> Okay. And so the motion has been made to amend ordinance 2026-47. Um a bill for an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of city of Longmont, Colorado at a special municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026. an amendment to the city of and I don't think it has the language um the city of Longmont the um home rule uh charter concerning realignment of the stagger between the members of Longmont City Council elected from wards and the members of Longmont City Council elected uh from the city at large to revert to the first reading ordinance language. Okay. The motion was made by council member Marcine, seconded by myself. Uh seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And that carries five to two with council members Chris and Mayor uh Mayor Prom McCoy in opposition. Okay. Um yeah. Wow. That was quite the discussion. Um before going on to item D, does anyone need to take a break >> or do you want do we want to run through the last one? Can we finish it then? >> Yeah, let's go ahead and finish. Um, okay. Just making sure. Check y'all. Don't leave you hanging. U, okay. So, we are now on to item D, ordinance 2026-48, a bill for an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the city of Longmont, Colorado to amend the city of Longmont home rule charter to add open space to the lands that require voter approval for the sale or conveyance. Um, are there any questions from council? Okay, seeing none, I will now open public hearing on ordinance 2026-48. And it doesn't look like I have anyone. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this? Yes. Sher Malloy, come on down. >> Turn down the mic. >> Yep. >> Hello again. Sherry Malloy, 1632 Sherman Way. Um, thank you, Mayor, Mayor Prom, and council members. Uh, first I'd like to um recognize my friend Celeste Landry who spoke in favor of RCV. She is running for Secretary of State under the Colorado Forward Party. So people might want to check that out. She's been a longtime um supporter of um election integrity and um >> we're on public hearing for open space. >> Yes. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. My my bad. >> So thank you. Um so yes, so um thank you for moving forward RCV and this issue. I think, you know, any anytime you're giving voters more voice in um in our democracy, it's it's a beautiful thing. And so, uh letting the voters decide about future creative proposals for open space just makes sense. And uh you know, it just let let the voters decide. So, thank you for, you know, for empowering um voters by moving this forward, you know, regardless of your opinion on it. So, thank you. >> Uhhuh. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing no one, I will now close um public hearing. May I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-47? >> Second. >> Okay. So, the motion has been made by Mayor Prom, seconded by um Council Member Koffer. Um and Council Member Koffer. Yes. >> Thank you, mayor. I do want to thank staff uh for all the hard work on this and I know this is part one of three. So, I know after the decision that happens in November, um there's going to be more to come. So, thank you to staff. I know this was a lot of work. So, I appreciate all the hard work that you all did for this and I'm looking forward to voting. >> Okay, great. Seeing no one else, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. Okay. And that carries 6 to1 with council member Christ in opposition. And um before we go on to items remove confirm consent agenda, I I am going to take a fivem minute break. Thank you. trying to sneak out. All right. Are you sure? I just took that one down. I think it's okay. We might be next. Why not? I don't want to go. Yeah. I mean, so first time I met Anyway, presentation Well, I sent the video to >> Nobody's old footage folder. So I don't know. in DC and New York City. So when you drive into the How much? >> I don't like that. Okay, council members, please make your way back to your seats. >> Thank you. >> I think I almost broke my gavvel. >> You know, in my classroom, I've got the form. >> Exactly. Exactly. Okay, we are now on to items removed from consent agenda. And we had item I believe it was B. >> Well, I Yeah, B. Um, council member Marcen, you pulled B, correct? >> Okay, >> go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Um, not really a question for staff. I I I pulled the item specifically because I I wanted to make what what I see kind of as a a technical amendment primarily. Um, I'm supportive of the pilot. I I and I want to be very clear publicly that my goal here is to keep the core guard rails that we've already established as a council intact. So, no, no affordable housing units, defined event window on this. I'm not touching residency protections that we've talked about. I think that's important. Longmont homes for Longmont people. Um there are two technical cleanups um that I think make sense which are if a property owner has an authorized property manager or an agent that that person should be able to sign the authorization form on the owner's behalf and if subleting permission is documented through a lease addendum rather than the original lease um that should count too. So, I have a motion. Uh, and I do you want to or >> Well, yeah. I'm trying to And were these was this clean? Was this based on the recommendations from um for for um potential and the potential feedback amendments or is this >> Yes, one of them is. And and yes, and I can and I'll send that >> Yeah, repeat that. >> Yeah, I'll send it to Don, right? I sent it >> to me. >> Yeah, you have it. Okay. Um, so I move to amend ordinance 202650 to uh modify the type B subleting documentation provisions to allow an owner's authorized agent to execute the required authorization form and to allow a lease addendum or similar document signed by the property owner or authorized agent and tenant as accessible evidence of owner authorization to sublet. >> Second. >> Okay. And that would have been items two and three, correct? on our council >> comm. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> No, the recommendations, the potential council amendments for recommendation. I believe it was based on what we heard from um Bara. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> The signature piece. Okay. Okay. And then did I get a second on that? >> Seconded by >> Mayor Prom. Okay. Um, Council Member Christ. >> Sorry, I'm looking at too many documents here. >> So, um, thank you for making that um, motion. Um, councelor Marsing, I'm in favor of the bar bar uh, amendment as well. And I just want to mention that in there they talk about um standard property management policies which I'm hoping will will require background checks because I have had some conversations regarding and concerned about safety um in terms of not knowing who your neighbor is now and and someone related an assault that had happened in another town under the same type of circumstances and in talking to Megan from Barha I think that um this is something that leasing agents generally require. So I think it is a a um as term in terms of a standard process for leasing and so I think it is a good amendment in terms of adding that. >> Okay. Um Okay. So, you're just concurring with Council Member Marcen. Okay. >> Okay. >> Got it. Thank you. Um, Council Member Popkin. >> And thank you, Mayor. I'm just curious, did we have a chance to run this language by legal before? >> Yes, they have thumbs up. >> Thank you. Then, can you just give me 10 seconds to like digest the terms and names that you said? >> That's fine. I'm trying to do the same as well. >> Much appreciated. Yes, Council Member Coloffer. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, and this is for staff. If if this goes through, when does it go into effect? Uh Don Bett, Planning Development Services. Um Councilman Kharer, the ordinance will take effect after publication and then staff will go ahead and we will start working with the administrative staff on getting the documentation, everything ready. Um, we would still need ultimately for the type B license either bring a resolution to the plan to the council to adopt for setting the dates of the event of when it would be open or give if you leave that the way it is. We could also go to Harold, but I think we would come here would be my preference for the first one for you to be able to see how it would work. >> Perfect. Yeah. Thank you. So, >> thank you. Okay. Um, see no one else in the queue. Let's go ahead and vote on the amendment. Okay. Okay. And so the u motion to amend has carried unanimously and now we are on to the main um motion. Go ahead. Um council member Prietto I have you in the queue. I would like to add another amendment to this motion. Okay. Um, I move to amend the ordinance by removing the provision that excludes affordable sorry affordable housing units from participating in the type B licensing program and I can answer any questions if you guys have any. >> Okay. Um, I'll I'll I'll go ahead and second that. Um, and then actually if you wanted to speak to to your rationale to to make that change. So, I recognize that this exclusion was included based on previous council direction, but I'm asking council to reconsider the direction because I don't see a policy reason that categor categorically excludes affordable housing residents from participating if otherwise meet if they otherwise meet all the requirements. So, essentially, it just to me it doesn't seem inclusive. I feel like if they're meeting all the requirements, they then they should be able to participate in this type of license. In addition to that, um it is up to the landlord um for them to decide and not necessarily something that I feel should be coming from council. Um we're not excluding any other groups or housing types in this ordinance and so I would like to remove them as a part of that. >> Okay. Um thank you. And with the provision for affordable housing, I interpreted it as if somebody had a Habitat home, they would not be allowed to participate. Is that a correct assumption or because it is affordable housing? >> Mayor and council, specifically to your question, I think it would be excluded under the current language. Yes, >> I would want to check with the housing community investment team as well as Tim. There may be deed covenants or other things that would restrict the use of those units. Okay. I just don't know right now. >> Okay. Okay. Um, Council Member um Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, Council Member Prito, I I really appreciate the spirit where this is coming from and and actually largely agree with it. I I was just curious, have we had there there's a couple legal dimensions to this and I'm wondering if we had a chance to clear to like have legal review this and then that's a question for you and then I'll ask my second question just for staff to start thinking about in thinking about how we delineate or define affordable housing units. Is there you mentioned deed restrictions before as a possible factor? Is there a I don't know Prop 123 or other fun state funding factors that we need to keep in mind for certain units that I I I guess what I'm getting at is do we need to be more specific in the type of unit than just designated affordable but like those like if like do we need to look at that more carefully in terms of the type of unit. I put both questions out there and I will let the chalkboard microphone there just completely destroy your ears. Um, so maybe Council Member Pto, you can speak to my first question. Thanks. >> Um, thank you for your question, Council Member Popkins. So, I did send this question out to staff and it looks like it was initially council direction. Um, not necessarily something that came from the city. Um, as far as affordable housing and any type of legalities come into play, I would assume, for example, if we're talking about an LHA property, um, the LHA landlord would then implement those restrictions for tenants. And so it's not I don't think it's necessarily something that we need to worry about up here, but it's more so the property manager's job to make sure as this new um ordinance or motion comes out and this new type of licensing happens um they can determine if their residents are eligible. Um, but to blatantly exclude all affordable housing, I just I it just it doesn't seem like it's appropriate in this motion at this time from this council. Um, but again, you know, I'm sure there is something in, you know, as far as affordable housing goes and grants and things like that. But again, the property managers know what what's allowed and what's not and they'll be regulating that. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, if I can jump in in terms of the rental side, um, if you look at it from the standpoint of rental affordable housing properties, you are going to have the management component that's going to have to be part of that. The risk for someone that lives in affordable housing, and again, this is where the management comes in, is really understanding what the income requirements are in terms of what you get and how that changes your status. So that's really in those that live in the property. If you look at it for those that have housing choice vouchers that are living in other properties, they still have to have the property manager approve it. Um it gets a little more difficult in really communicating to them that this could impact their qualifications based on the income that they're pulling in because they will have to report that income. Um, if council moved forward with this in terms of the rental component, the HCV staff could send a notice out to all of the HCV voucher holders saying, you know, you need to be very careful with this and talk to us if you're considering it because it could impact the status of your voucher, what you qualify for, >> as in someone could potentially be could income out of their housing >> potentially. I mean, I don't I don't know what the values are and what that really looks like and I don't know that they income out, but it may reduce the amount that they could get >> based on that. But I mean, we could communicate that to them. So, that's on the rental side. >> Gotcha. >> On the on the for sale side, I think to um the city attorney's comments, it it really is going to be dependent on are there deed restrictions that prevent someone from doing it. Um, you know, I'm thinking just of the True North project where we require um in that project in terms of the deeds that it is owner occupied. I don't know how that deed would actually be impacted by this because it's a short duration of time. But I think those are the traps that we need to look look into. I don't know what um Habitat puts in their deeds. So, um I think we would have to really dig into the details a little bit on this one. Um I think there's two options. Uh we could dig into it and bring it back as a separate conversation solely looking at this based on what we find. Um or council could say, you know, obviously you can either say no, I don't want to do it. Yes, I'm interested. we can come back and bring this piece back later or you could say yes, we move forward as long as you're in compliance with all the rules, regulations based on the properties that you're living in and and that kind of catches it all. So, I mean there those are the options as I can think through them right now. >> Thank you. Uh thanks Harold. So, I guess here's where I'm at with this. I actually really do like the spirit of this and and and creating more opportunities for people. I would not feel comfortable voting on this amendment today, but it's also on first reading. And so my my preference would be if you're able to talk with the city attorney's office and staff over the next two weeks to see if whether it's the catchall language that um Harold was just kind of thrown out there or if there are other parameters we should be just factoring into this before before I want to vote in favor of this. But I do want to vote in favor of the intent. Um, so my suggestion would be to not um spend that much more time tonight on this, but that we take it up at second reading when we can make amendments on things as long as it's been workshopped with staff. Thank you. And we could also make an amendment. So, I think about the amendment that I made to add to the public safety tax um prior to second reading. I mean, is that would you be willing would it complicate the process if so let's say next week there's oh I you know I want to amend this um this item to add such and such. Could that be done? Would that complicate the process from staff's perspective to to add that during um future agenda items? I'm just trying to think about what would be the best mechanism to weave. >> So So there's a piece that I think Eugene's going to have to answer in terms of >> I do think the amendment's actually pretty simple because you're really just striking >> the the pro, you know, that piece. It's not like we're adding language. You're just striking that piece. >> I think the work that we have to do between now and second reading >> is actually closing the gap on is there something that we're not seeing >> more on the for sale side because the the rental side's pretty straightforward because depending on the programs that people are in. If you're in a LITC program, the LITC rules are going to govern that. If it's a HUDfunded program, the HUD rules are going to guide that and that's really the property manager's responsibility to to say yay or nay. >> Okay? >> And and we have to know our rules. >> It's the housing choice voucher side where they're utilizing the voucher and they're in there. >> We have to check that a little bit. But then the big question is really on if you're in a true north project or you're in a habitat project, what are what's in the deed? And so if we come back and see something that's different, then we can just say no, the deeds are going to prohibit it. >> But we're going to have to answer that question either way. But I think the adjustment's relatively simple by striking the language. >> Okay. Okay. So, um, Council Member Prito, would you be willing to pull this item for now? >> No. >> Okay. So, okay. >> And I just want to speak to that. >> Okay. Well, hold on. Um, Council Member Marcen. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I I do appreciate the spirit of where Council Member Prito is coming from on this. I I agree with the spirit. My concern that I'm wrestling with is unoccupied afford designated affordable units. I'm I'm concerned about a large I mean I we can even use LHA as an example a large property owner of multiple numbers of affordable h of a lot of affordable housing stock basically turning affordable units into a in like any time in my mind that afford and so I'm I'm asking a question more than anything if if there's any time that an affordable unit is offline even 30 days for a type B permit that reduces the amount of affordable housing stock that we have available and I'm struggling with that as and I I agree with the spirit of wanting affordable pro like residents in affordable housing to take advantage of this. I'm concerned about an unintended consequence of that being look I own a you know I own a bunch of units that are designated affordable. I'm going to hold off on leasing them to take advantage of this type B permit and and and make as much money as I can and even for 30 days that's a that's a gap. that's that's you know a month of the year that folks who are looking for affordable housing can't access it because those property owners are using it to make money off of Sundance theoretically. So that's a that's a concern that I have and I wonder if if that's something that you've thought about or if there's a or if I'm missing something in that that thinking because it's I this is the first I've really thought about it. I'm curious about. >> So, I did have a chance to speak to a couple of the Bara and um yeah, you know, um other chamber. >> I'll Harold, go ahead and speak to that because you look like you were ready to talk. >> Well, so we've been talking through this. So, I think you're talking more of the rental side. >> Yeah. >> And and so, um on the rental side, you know, and talking to Eugene, the HAP contracts in the case of HCV actually do prohibit that. So that's where the guiding documents um on the HCV voucher will come in and say you can't do it in each property. I think the question that you're really getting at is more from a property manager standpoint in terms if they rent it in that case. Um, and there's a difference between um, and I will say capital A affordable housing, which it has the funding restrictions and all of that, which I would probably say we're not allowed to do that just based on what I know. There is the naturally occurring affordable housing, which don't have those restrictions, which I don't think this would apply to anyway on the rental side. But I do think the more I work I'm kind of looking through this, the rental side's going to be incredibly hard. I think the real question is really on the ownership side in terms of the deed restrictions because they don't necessarily have the same requirements. >> Okay. Um, council member or I'm sorry, Mayor Prom McCoy. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um to my council member uh PTO, I I'm concerned. Um this is one of these situations we just keep hearing over and over again that we don't know what we don't know >> and I and I hate to have uh I feel that there's too many complicated things associated with this. I would really highly encourage you to pull it because I think we've got these answers and since we've gotten in the habit of of adding amendments uh in the uh second uh reading uh tonight uh you know then I think uh we can uh probably fix this there and I would prefer it to to be fixed there because of all the questions that were being brought up here and the fact that our legal team would would climb through this and do you a a big favor as a friendly way of saying it to you. I I think that that would be the best way of doing it because we all feel like, hey, this would be a great opportunity for people, but I also see some people that would really be risking some stuff because they would be like see the dollar signs and not realize that it was going to harm them in the long run. So, I mean, that's just my my gut feeling about it. Oh, >> we lost a council member. We have a wandering duck over there. >> I I I can tell you that the the on the rental side to the question, as I was pulling some up, it does appear that the tax the tax credit law does prohibit um a unit from being used on a transient basis, which is short-term rentals. >> Okay. >> So, it does look look like on the rental side that that's going to be prohibited by federal law. >> Okay. Okay. Um, yeah. And additionally, this is a one-year pilot, so we can also go back and re-evaluate um based on what we've seen this first year. Uh, Council Member Prito. >> Yeah. And, you know, >> and this is your second time, right? >> Thank you. coming from like a diversity, equity, and inclusion lens and background, we can talk about all these nuances on all these different properties and property owners and rules and their loans and but we're not doing that on regular property owners and we're not doing that on other types of properties. And so I'm having a lot of I'm having a hard time understanding why we feel the need to nitpick the affordable housing sector more so. And and this may be like totally unrelated, but this is the only example I could come up with my in my head at this moment during this conversation is like I want to make sure that we're not falling into kind of, you know, some of the legislation that was proposed like a while ago around well should people who get food stamps be able to buy sugar products with their food stamps? this feels very much in alignment with that type of ideology is like I think we can do a catchall as long as it falls within the regulations of wherever you live, right? And and not have to identify affordable housing in here. People have autonomy. People are smart. They know what's good for them. They know how to navigate their leases. they understand the income eligibility and requirements and um you know what how their section 8 voucher works even more so than we do. So who are we to say affordable housing is excluded? It it just it does not sit well with me and that is coming from the lens and expertise and perspective that I have in this field. And so I would urge my council to >> approve this >> because I'm not un amending or however whatever the language >> pull the item. >> I'm not pulling it. >> Okay. Um and so Harold, you did say rental affordable housing. No. Um right. So >> on very quick research, it does it does appear that uh the tax credit rules do not allow for that because they don't allow for transient rentals. >> Yes. >> So um that appears that it would apply for the the HUD properties as well. >> Um and it looks like it's also in the HAP contracts. >> Okay. So, on the rental side, in affordable housing, if they're in a formal program, it does not appear that they will be able to >> um participate in short-term rentals. Okay. >> We'll have to do more research to verify it, >> but on a quick look, that's what it that's what it appears. >> Okay. So, then it would it be even necessary to to have a a provision that restricts it? I did look at it also quickly for Habitat for Humanity and it does appear that there's maybe some deed restrictions that also >> prohibit >> prohibit it as well. Again, we'll need to do some more digging into this. >> Okay. >> And and so I think generally what I'm I'm hearing the com conversation is if you're talking about capital A affordable, >> I think there's a lot of rules behind this. >> Yes. If you're talking about organic, affordable, I don't know that anything applies >> simply because they're not in a formal program. >> Okay. Okay. >> But we can still do our research and bring it back at the next meeting and council. So, even with some of the lower um cost um apartments or rentals, you know, I think about, okay, if they're holding a unit, and this is where I had a chance to kind of weigh through your possible scenarios. I mean, these these units would be vacant. So, they would have to furnish them in order to have I mean, that was something we were kind of I was with different groups I was talking to, we were kind of mulling around. So what would be really the reality? So are we trying to address a problem that may not even be an issue that may not even exist? Um and then you know in going back to the affordable housing piece if there's a low lower income unit that's not capital A affordable housing but it's just a lower you know just below market then you know I worry does then then that fall in that category of that would be restricted. So, if they have an a housing choice voucher and they have a HAP contract, the answer is yeah, it does look like they're restricted because the voucher prohibits that. >> But if it's just a a naturally occurring >> it's just a normal if if they're not using a voucher and it's naturally occurring, it I don't think this section applies. >> So, even though Yeah. excludes affordable housing units. So, >> so we're really talking about the deed restricted affordable housing units and and that looks different based on the group that's doing it. >> Okay. To answer your first question, if you're in a LITC program program as the owner manager, >> which most affordable housing units are in some version of that, either the 4% or the 8% tax credits, >> I don't think the manager can legally rent it out to a short-term rental because that violates the the tax credit agreement. Okay. >> So, it's almost like even to remove this is I mean it there's no harm in removing it. I mean it almost seems like it makes sense to just remove it because it would be redundant to what is um current >> potentially but I can't answer completely that that's the case. >> Okay. Um I would suggest that because it is a relatively simple revision >> let us do the research and really get the details and then we can bring that back on second reading because >> okay >> this is fast research that I'm doing right now and I don't want to >> give us >> I want to be very clear this is >> quickly looking at it and I could be wrong on certain things and I want to make sure that I'm not wrong on those when we give you the final answer. >> Okay. Can So then would you be willing to make rather than making the choice tonight make the choice when it comes back in second reading? >> So So couldn't we remove it and then in second reading they bring back whatever revisions they needed to make based off of the information they found. Doesn't it work the opposite way as well? >> Uh yeah, we could do it that way. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Then my motion >> stands >> stands. >> Um, Council Member Christ, >> well, for more clarification, >> yes. >> Is it originally written um that it excludes affordable housing or does it exclude restricted affordable housing? And would that make a difference? >> The language is any unit that is within the city of Longmont's affordable housing program is prohibited from receiving a type B license. So that kind of specifically says restricted but in a different way. Yes. >> Okay. >> Mayor, I just wanted to add because this is probably the best time to say it. >> We're the ones who are going to try to figure it out at the permit counter. >> Okay. And so if it's the obligation of the person who's coming in to get the permit to make sure that they're not doing anything wrong with their lease, their contract of purchase, that's on them. >> But us trying to explain to somebody at a counter why we're denying a permit puts us in a bad situation. And I'm not saying that we can't do it. Yeah. >> But I'm just saying that that puts a lot of pressure on our folks to have to relook at these things and to contact affordable housing. Does this qualify or not? Not sure. Let's talk to the attorney's office >> from from an implementation standpoint. I I just worry that if that stays in there, that's going to be hard for us to have to to handle. So I appreciate that. >> Thank you. Um >> it it also seems that it might put um someone's housing at risk um because because it is complex and people might think well we'll just do it anyway and we have had we've h have had individuals that exceed and lose their h housing choice vouchers and that's a tough thing. Yeah, I think to Don's question, we know everybody that's in our program that's still in it that hasn't essentially gone past the the deed restrictions where it applies. I mean, so we have a list. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, you'd rather that we wait until you have more clarity for us? >> Well, ult ultimately you all have to make a policy decision on this. Mhm. >> What what I'm saying, I guess what to be very clear is that based on quick research, we think there's a lot of areas in this where it's prohibited. But I can't tell you with 100% accuracy that I have covered all of those areas just based on the time that I've gone through this. Um, if council, as I stated earlier, if council wants to consider this, we will have the answer for you at second reading that is detailed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And and the way it's written now doesn't really exclude private market affordable housing. So, so I think I I'm not going to support it for you, but um I'll be interested to hear what they come back with. >> Okay. Um, thank you, Council Member Coloffer. >> Thank you, Mayor, and thanks, Don, for all your work on this. I know this has been a lot, and I appreciate you coming up because I was thinking before you came up that this shifts the burden um to us um from us. And I'd rather the resident have the conversation with the landlord um to figure out what is um permissible. And then also, they know their program better than we do. Um, you know, I want to make sure that we're also helping our staff to reduce some additional burden. This does shift the burden to the the landlord, though. Um, I am in support of this. >> Yes, I agree. Council member Marcen. >> Okay. I'm trying to follow. Um, maybe I'm I'm dumb. I don't know. Um, what I'm hearing from staff is that the exact is that this is all that that allowing affordable housing units that are designated affordable to be transient to have these kinds of transient uses is already prohibited by federal law. Correct. Or maybe possibly. And that and that amending the ordinance in this way would potentially put us in violation of federal law. >> No. Okay. >> No, it's only the act of doing it. So, if it's LITC funded, >> okay, >> if it's in the LITC funding, you know, which is under the tax code, appears it's prohibited. We're only in violation if we as the owner >> allow it to happen. So, as an owner, you know, our answer is going to be you can't do this based on >> the the federal tax requirements. >> Okay. Um >> we won't give them permission. So even though we're we're not exempting them within the ordinance, we're still not going to let them do it. >> Am I >> not? Not I mean like within at the permit counter, right? >> No. No. So for example, >> okay, >> we know what LITC projects exist. >> Yeah. We'll give a list that says if somebody comes in in Village on Maine or Spring Creek or Fall River or any of those projects, they're not allowed to do it. So, we're going to pro proactively tell the permit folks if it's at this address, they can't do it because it's a violation of >> the LITC rules. Okay. >> As the housing authority, that's how we will do that. Okay, thank you. >> So just for clarification, so by us accepting this amendment of removing the provision that excludes affordable housing units, it actually makes it it streamlines the process at the permit counter. If we have this um provision that excludes affordable housing unit in our ordinance, it's one more step that the permitting counter has to go through um which then elongates and it clogs the system. >> That's okay. And that is why I'm going to be supporting this. Okay, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And that carries unanimously. Thank you. >> Lordy, Lord. Okay. Now we are back to the um actual ordinance 2026-50 if there are no more amendments. So move. >> Okay. So, the motion to approve ordinance 2026 uh-50 has been made by Mayor Prom, seconded by council member Prito. >> As amended as amended. Yes. >> Um, mayor promto seconded it. Yes. Okay. And that carries unanimously. Uh we are now on to item C, the public safety tax ballot language optional ordinances. We have three choices to pick from. Um item C, I guess. How do you do you want us to go through each one or are we going to pick one and then vote on that one? >> Yeah, Mayor. I think um you choose which one moves forward and the others die by not moving forward. Okay. The other right. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Do we have any council members um with a preferred choice? Um council member Marine. >> I'll stick my neck out there first. May um I I I pretty strongly prefer um option C3, which is the um 7030 option. And I think that comes from feedback we've heard not just from um kind of residents but the business community specifically um about the burden that that um that that were that that you know they they do deal with in the property on the property tech side. Also the you know I spoke to this when I supported 100% sales the first time around that this is a shared community need. Um and I I feel that that more investment from the broader community makes sense. I understand the desire for some stability on the revenue side which property can generate but I would um >> I mean I see other mics on but >> I I mean so I I don't should I just should I just move >> I move I move that we adopt um item C3 ordinance 202653. >> Okay. So the motion has been made to adopt um to approve item um C3 ordinance 2026-53. Uh, the motion was made by Council Member Marcen, seconded by Council Member Prietto and Council Member Christ. Well, uh, the thing that I'm waiting for is I'd like to hear more input from the, uh, Longmont Chamber and the LDDA. We know we heard from LP, but um there's um they really work with primary employers, which they they have big installations, so they're mostly worried about the property tax because most of their sales are out of state, so they're not actually paying a sales tax increase. They're would only be paying the um property tax increase. So, I feel that we're choosing a little bit early because we haven't heard from the small businesses in town, which would be the LDDA and the um from the chamber and I was there Friday um with for the policy committee and they said they would be forwarding a position soon, but they had not put it together yet. So, >> okay. And I know because of timing of getting ballot measures put in, um, you know, my hope is that we could get something between now and second reading. Um, >> that's true. But >> um, but I I I am hesitant to hold off on on this because we have deadlines to meet. Um, do Yeah, go ahead. Te technically to make the ballot we have to move it today so we can have second reading. Yeah the next time or we won't make the deadline. >> Okay. So uh council member Popkin. >> Thank you. To be clear like the the main reason to not amend something on second reading in most situations is so that we don't like propose language that hasn't been fleshed out. It's it's perfectly fine to add an amendment even like >> is this in regard to this item? >> Yep. I'm about I'm about I was just saying like on on a procedural basis like we can do this that is that is it's just discouraged when it's like a a complicated thing that's changing a lot of wording and we haven't reviewed it more >> um on this I I will just uh I I appreciate uh Council Member Marcen moving this forward. I I was on the same page as uh he was in terms of really I think supporting a full sales tax approach on this um sharing the burden equally. I mean we talk about housing affordability a lot here and we just did um in the previous discussion too and you know even even property taxes if you don't own property gets passed down into like into the rent like it all gets passed down to people in different ways and so I think it's just important that we keep the the downstream impacts of of any tax increase in mind regardless. Um, I was leaning more towards the sales tax approach on this, but um, I will be voting favor in favor of this since this is of these three the most sales tax uh, emphasized version. Thank you. >> Okay, Council Member Coloffer. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, and Councilwoman Chris, I did speak to somebody in the the business community and I got some numbers and I'm not going to say specific, so I appreciate the person who sent this to me, but uh, sent this to me. Um, I did get an example of a primary uh employer that's on the west side of town on Nelson Road. You can try to figure out who it is. Um, if we did a 2.44 mil increase on that, um, it would raise their property tax burden to 60 $67,297. Uh, a new restaurant that opened up on Main Street, if we did that, it would raise their tax burden $2,85 according to this source that that I had. Um, this is tricky um because I I also am nervous about us sending with sales tax sending folks to Firestone or Frederick to do their shopping um you know a thousand $1,000 purchase. were already more expensive by um a couple hundred dollars and it makes me nervous but I do believe that this is the the right cut the 70 uh 30 um just because the the folks that will be coming uh to town will also be sharing some of that burden as well. So I mean it's a report >> uh council member Marcen. >> Thank you mayor. This is messier than I would like it to be um on on what I'm about to do. I >> God then don't do it. Well, no. I had a small amendment that I wanted to add, but I wasn't sure which one we were going to move forward with, and it sounds like there's consent, maybe consensus around which one we're moving forward with. There's a line that I would like to add to whichever one we wind up moving forward with, and I I'm looking to CEO as to whether now is appropriate since I made the the motion, if I can add it as potentially a friendly amendment to the one that I adopted, if if the seconders appropriate is is comfortable with it. Um, which would be Council Member Pritch. I can read I can read it. >> Yeah. >> Um and I Is this out of order? Because I I it was messed I I should have waited for consensus before I and then tried to move it before I moved it. >> Um >> I can do it on seconds because you already have the language, but I prefer not to make to get into that habit to mayor's point. >> Oh, I appreciate that. Um typically we amend then approve the amended ordinance and you move the ordinance. >> I know. >> Yeah. And I guess you could amend your own motion. >> You made the motion. >> I did because I I know I screwed it up. >> Okay. >> I I will acknowledge that. Can I Can I withdraw? >> You can withdraw and >> I'm going to withdraw my motion now that I know which one. So watch. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to I'm going to withdraw my motion >> and I am going to move >> and it's I'm going to name the ordinance. I'm going to move to amend >> point of privilege. >> Okay. So we have a point of per personal privilege. Yes. >> Does the seconder have to agree to remove >> even? >> No, they don't. >> Don't have to. >> Okay. >> I think you'll like it, Council Member Prito. I promise. Okay. Um, so in this case, since it I move to amend ordinance here, 202653. Don, do you have this? I think I think. Yeah. To add a seventh line to the legislative declaration on page one below line 22. And that would be uh quote seven period behavioral health response, crisis response, co-responder services, diversion programs, and other preventative public safety services. The goal of the amendment is to add the full spectrum of the public safety department uh including our core team, our prevail team, uh in in the work that that the ordinance in the legislative declaration specifically speaks to. Should have done that before, but I wanted to to get that in before we'd got it. So, I I move that. >> Okay. So, um and I was trying to find the email. Well, you already have it listed. So, um the motion was made to amend ordinance 2026-53. Um the 70% sales tax, 30% property tax split, and add a seventh line to the legislative declaration page. Um let's see. Uh item number seven, a number seven behavior to include behavioral health response, crisis response, co-responder response, diversion programs, and other preventative public safety services. And it was seconded by council member Prietto. Okay. Council member Koffer. >> Sorry, this got messy. >> Yeah, I'm very confused. I'm I'm >> Skip me, please. >> Okay. Okay. That was your first time. No, just kidding. Council member Chris. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, just to be clear, um when we look at this chart, um Teresa, $3.30 on a $1,000 purchase is in addition to our 8.65 8.865%. So what does that total um in full? See 33 >> what roughly $12 or so >> $12 I have $12.165. So that would make us the highest tax in Colorado. The highest sales tax in Colorado. So >> yeah, you know, um, uh, counselor, yeah, the other, uh, Winter Park has 11%. They are typically the highest, but who knows if they're maybe they're raising their rate. Um, but councelor Koffer mentioned uh, Firestone is opening five new retail establishments 12 minutes from my ward. I'm just saying. I um >> I think a lot of retail sales are going to go out of town. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Council Member Popkin. >> All righty. On the specific motion to amend, I have a question. Um I I I believe your intent was to add more specificity into that. I would argue that we already have that covered under bullet five personnel to support emergency public safety responders. Um that it's inclusive there and not exclusive of the the folks that you carved out. I understand that you might wanted to make that more specific. I believe your amendment though only amended the legislative direction of the the uh legislative um intent like it was just on page one, right? >> That you were proposing that for that's not actually the language that would go on the ballot. >> Correct. And so your intent is not to modify the language on the ballot, but to modify the ordinance that and the the ballot language refers to those bullets, too. So this wouldn't actually make it into what people would actually see on their ballot. >> So I guess I' I'd love to know like why are we doing this? >> Okay, council. >> Thank you. Thank you. I will acknowledge this is I will acknowledge this is some of my messier work. Um what I will say is I think I think what especially when we consider the conversation that mayor brought to us recently about the prevail grant about the challenges that we're facing as a community about how we address diversion about how we address mental health response I think and we've heard a lot from the community about the specific desire to include that in this broader conversation. I I don't know that necessarily saying you know personnel to support emergency public safety responders is enough. Um, and in reading the the declaration, I felt that a seventh line was reasonable, and I was hopeful that it would be a quick thing. I probably should have waited for more consensus on knowing which one we would do and then amend it. Um, the goal really is to specifically say as a city and as a council, we view public safety as a broader issue than just police than just emergency dispatch than fire. It is all of the above and the the diversion pieces as well, which is not specifically called out currently under the council findings section. And so I wanted to include it there and that's the amendment. >> Okay. And um and I will um be supporting this as well. You know, just over the years I've seen different councils have different priorities and different interpretations of our ordinances. And you know this then codifies to ensure that we have that that priority embedded in public safety. Uh, council member Prietto >> in in addition to that I think to it gives public safety more flexibility to adjust with community needs as they as we move forward. What today's community needs may be may not be tomorrow's. And so if it's a new program, new personnel, different types of services, then this gives us the flexibility to do so. And I am in support of it. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Council Member Popkin. >> Thank you. Uh, I appreciate the explanation. I I fully support the intent of this. I just don't really know why we're amending the legislative declaration and not the ballot language. If this is important to stress that we want people to vote on specifically, why not have the bullets match up? If not, I don't really understand why we would specify it in the ordinance and not in the ballot language. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And so that carries um six to one with council member Christ in opposition and having accepted um ordinance 2026-53 the other two are voided. Right. We don't have to >> we don't have >> Yeah, we have to move. Do we have to move them? >> Okay. Oh, we have to move this one as amended. Yes. >> So move. >> Okay. Never mind. Okay. Jumping ahead. >> Okay. And so it look it was moved by Mayor Prom, seconded by council member Marcen. Um ordinance 2026-53 is amended. >> Yes. Okay. And that carries six to one with council member Christ in opposition. And now the other two items, they're just done. Okay. So now we are on to general business. Item A, a policy discussion on uh potential subsidy for composting services. And thank you all who came out this evening. It's too late. All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh Chris Huffer, director of water and waste. Um we'll try and make this as quick as possible. Um but uh if you'll uh recall last year we came to you with a rate study uh for uh all of our waste management uh services. Um and we had a a rate that was uh based upon uh the cost of service uh that uh we presented and council adopted that. uh but there was a request to come back to have this policy discussion about how that rate uh for specifically composting uh was created and how we should move forward in the future. Um so that's what we're here tonight to talk about. Um we are very fortunate to have with us tonight uh Ann Gibbs from SR consultant who's been working with the city for uh many years and they have helped us put together the program that we have today. Um, so we'll go over uh quick information for you um and then we can have uh discussion. I have also uh with me tonight uh Lance Smith uh the director of business enablement. Uh I also have August Hend Hendrickson who is our uh waste services manager as well. So we can answer the technical questions as well as uh anything that we have uh related to rates. So with that I will turn it over to Ann and she'll go over our information. >> Thank you Chris. So, as Chris said, my name is Ann Gibbs. I work with Lisa Skumats at Skumats Economic Research Associates or SER. And at SR, we have been in the solid waste evaluation business for over 40 years. And we do a lot of analysis on things such as pay as you throw and other hard to measure effects. Tonight we're going to go over a little bit about how we got here, where the current composting program in Longmont is today, and then get into the policy discussion and looking at kind of our two paths forward before your discussion tonight. So, I'm going to start off with some background on composting. And this is to just make sure everyone is up to speed. So, as Chris said, S has been studying composting with the city of Longmont for over 10 years. In 2015, Sierra conducted a residential household survey that found that there was strong support for composting within the community. In 2022, SR did another study with the city of Longmont on different diversion tactics the city could take to help meet its diversion goals. And that study reaffirmed that composting is one of the lower cost but higher diversion choices among the options that were studied. Which brings us to this year where this year's rate increase prompted a request to explore subsidizing composting through the solid waste charge. And the goal with that is to help grow participation and diversion. Currently today, composting or curbside composting organics collection is available to all City of Longmont residents. However, it is an opt-in service, meaning that residents do need to request and choose to be part of the program. This does come with a monthly cost of just under $10. And there's two types of organic material that are collected in these compost bins. Your first is yard waste. So, think your grass, your leaves, your small branches, as well as your food waste, such as fruits, vegetables, dairy products, meats, and bones. This year, the composting fee saw about a 50% increase in rate uh or in cost. Um, it's went from its original 2017 $6.60 charge up to about $9.90. Earlier studies did anticipate that this raise could reduce participation in the city, but luckily we haven't seen that and participation has stayed constant at about 28% of residential customers participating, which is in line with what that 2015 the 2015 study projected to try and anchor us in just a few numbers. So again, 28% of Longmont households are currently part participating in composting. If we're looking at tonnage, about 2500 tons per year come just from that residential curbside composting collection. That and that number goes up to about 8,000 tons when you also take into account the Long Mount Recycle Center. Last year in 2025, the total citywide diversion was at 39%. Now, that number is expected to increase this year due to the expanded commercial and multif family recycling from the URO. >> And just a reminder that the city's goal is 75% in 2030. >> Getting back to those costs and why we saw that rate increase this year. First, there was inflation from 2017 to 2026. But on top of that, it does cost the city about $150 per ton to process composting versus only about $30 a ton to landfill garbage. >> Now, compost is currently hauled to a private sorter, Western Disposal, where it is then cleaned uh sorted and cleaned of contaminants and then hauled another about 50 miles to A1 Organics, which is our regional compost processor. That is really where that extra costs are coming from is that excess processing and hauling steps. And again, we're looking about 8 to 10,000 tons a year of total organic composting that is being diverted by Longmont residents. So that finishes up a bit of our background and moves us into the policy discussion that um we're having tonight of how much if at all should com curbside composting be subsidized. We're really looking at two different paths here. The first is where composting fully covers its own cost. This is where we're at today. So the cost stays rate based where customers are paying the full price of the service. This will likely keep participation around that 28% although that participation present may decrease or drop if rates continue to rise. This also comes with this path also comes with our lowest risk of cart contamination. The effects of this are somewhat less efficient collection routing, higher tons collected per participating household, and less contamination. The second path that council might choose to take is looking into subsidizing composting through the solid waste charge. Now, the cost to the customer will be reduced because part of that composting fee will be shared a month into the solid waste charge. This could range anywhere from a small reduction, so from 9.90 a month down to 8.25 25 a month up to almost a completely subsidized fee. This could, depending on the level of subsidy, could meaningfully increase adoption above that 28%. But with more participation does come the risk of more contamination. The effects from this path are potentially greater coverage of or potentially greater coverage, greater tonnage capture across more households, which is in line with the city's diversion goal. However, it may also come with the need for more carts, revised routes, and even possibly more collection vehicles. So, if composting were to be subsidized, we would still keep it as an optin system where residents would have to request a cart in order to participate. And this will help keep that participation intentional and it will also help with contamination. So a large subsidy could mean that we see carts for those who are more who are less active or non-active participants. It could bring new routes and it could possibly bring more collection trucks. And a smaller subsidy we would see many of these same effects but on a smaller scale. Contamination risk is going to scale along with that size of that subsidy. So again a larger subsidy could is going to reduce that signal that cost signal could lead to much more participation which is going to lead to higher contamination. Although a smaller subsidy will keep some more of that price signal in per household recovery will likely be lower under a large subsidy. So on average the amount collected per household will drop but the overall citywide tonnage will increase just because there are more households participating and a subsidized rate would spread the cost of composting across more households. So, the discussion that we're asking you to have tonight is should the city continue full cost recovery or does uh do you want to explore reducing the composting rate through subsidizing with the solid waste charge? Now, based off of tonight, if council is in favor of a subsidy, staff will return with some rate options. However, if council prefers to keep full cost recovery, so what we are at today, then no further action is needed. So that is the end of my presentation, but I am going to jump into a few slides that we had for some questions. We did come up with some questions to help facilitate your discussion tonight and some things to keep in mind. What are the desired outcomes of the subsidy? What are some of the benefits and the costs of the subsidy? How large should a subsidy be if there is one? Where will the subsidy come from? And how trans transparent will this be to the community? Now, I heard concerns of equity come up earlier. >> Uh, just we wanted to make sure that we pointed out that the CARES program currently does not include the solid waste charge, which might be something that council wants to consider. >> There's also a lot of concerns about adding on the cost of the uh carts or uh the adding on the cost of composting to everyone. But even right now, if we look at composting, adding composting allows households to move to a smaller container, which these this uh chart right here is straight from the city's website, these are your current rates as of today. And looking at the very bottom, the volume package without composting, you're looking at a little over $26 a month. However, whoops. Moving down to the value package, so the 48gallon trash bin if you add on composting. So even if you're adding on a 96 gallon bin, now you have added on an additional 48 gallons of disposal at your house, you're actually saving yourself $2. So composting right now even saves households money. Now, subsidizing that composting does spread that cost across all residents and overall will reduce that composting cost, which could make it more could make composting more accessible or at least could reduce the inaccessibility of composting. I've brought up contamination a lot because it's always a huge concern. Communities who have moved from a voluntary, so what long has now over into a more mandatory curbside organics collection see contamination between 5 and 10%. And the good news is the tipping fee at Western does not change based on the long months contamination. However, you do have to keep in mind that those contaminants that will add to the overall tonnage and the costs that are being processed. And just in case you guys were curious about what other communities are doing, whether or not they are subsidizing their compost rates, that answer itself is actually very difficult to answer. Uh, another way looking at it is what programs are mandatory versus often. And there was a 2023 nationwide study um where over 250 communities that currently have some form of curbside composting participated in that survey. about 40% said they have mandatory, about 40% said they have opt-in, and the remaining 20% fell on some sort of spectrum in between. A little case study, so Denver originally had composting um that was grant curbside composting that was grant funded and they had about 3,000 households sign up during that initial pilot. After about two years, that grant ran out and the city had to start charging for composting. They started charging a separate fee and they lost about a thousand households in the process. So now Denver actually does only have one single solid waste fee in which that composting fee is now absorbed within that and I believe they're currently a little over 40% participation. So with that I will now formally finish. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Council Member Popkin. >> Thank you Lisa. Thank you mayor. Um, I I will just project to my fellow council members, I do have a draft motion prepared on this. Um, so as I'll I'll leave time for questions and discussion on this, but I do have a proposal to offer um that's I've shared with the clerk um that I intend to offer, but I won't offer it right at this moment. Um, so I guess two I'll offer a comment, then I have two questions for you, Lisa. So, we we've been talking about public safety taxes, raising rates. This isn't that. This is realignment of rates. We're not proposing to increase fees. We're we're changing fees. So, like we're not increasing net fees here. This is just a a factor of taking the current fee structure and saying, "Hey, is this serving our current goals?" Not necessarily or not at all actually increasing the overall volume of of rates. We we had a conversation earlier today in our presession. Um, you know, I see this as revisiting how we use our rates to reinforce and achieve policy goals. You frame this as a subsidy. That's not incorrect, but really I think what we're what's on the table and and how I'd encourage my colleagues to think about this is how do we realign the rate structures we have in service of the policy goals that we have. Otherwise, we are from my perspective being more inefficient in how we try to address the waste diversion goals that we have. Um, I guess my my one question that you brought up or prompted from from your presentation, Lisa, you said if we were to lower the rates, the contamination rate might increase. I understand the logic there, but we just increased our compost rate by what 50% last year. If hypothetically it was just lowered back to or subsidized back to the rate that it was, we wouldn't expect, we shouldn't expect any inherently meaningful difference of contamination rate than what we had before, right? >> Yeah, I would agree with that. So, if you're lowering it down to that 660 or something similar to that, >> even anywhere in between that, >> yes, you're probably going to just maintain your current subscription base. So, >> sure. And ideally, we might increase a little bit. I mean, the goal of this would be to try to the goal of realigning rates would be to try to better achieve our goals and to do so without increasing taxes or having to have more staff to do more things and have to pay for that. Um, what I don't like right now about our current structure is we're actually kind of we're we're subsidizing trash. I mean, maybe not legally speaking subsidizing trash financially, but we are incentivizing trash. Maybe that's the more accurate way to say it. our current if you can we put up the chart again that you had of our current structure and I know we have multiple different packages but just to use this. So the difference between the uh value package without comp post posting and the volume package without composting is actually a difference of um what is that 12 $1220 between the 1410 and 2630. That is less than 2x but you're actually incentivizing more trash. That's the opposite of what we're trying to do. And I think that's where I get hung up on this and and that's informing the spirit of the motion I'll offer soon is is we're currently incentivizing throwing out more. We're saying that is more cost effective. You can throw things out in bulk for cheaper. I I that is contrary to the goals that we have set as a city long before I was even here. Um, so that's that's where I I would like us to try to think about this so we don't have a rate signal that's running backwards to what our goals are. Um, just to be clear, we wouldn't be changing what types of things can be composted, right? It would still be the food and yard waste, right? That wouldn't be changing. That's related to the facilities and the contamination and all that. >> Correct. >> Great. That to me is pretty straightforward. I think people understand yard waste, food waste, organics. That's that's all that's what goes in the compost, everything else. And ideally, to your point, Lisa, you can actually downsize to a smaller trash bin if you want if you're throwing out less. Um, my hope is that we could, as if we do move forward with realigning the rates, we could actually try to incentivize the lower trash bin level a little bit more intentionally, recognizing that people, myself included, will be throwing things out still um, and sending things to the landfill, but that we'd actually be incentivizing having the smaller amount there. And I think that kind of solves multiple it feeds multiple birds with uh, the same scone, right? Um and and so that's that's where I'm hoping we can go with that. Um I'll pause for questions in a moment, but I do just want to note that when we're um talking about the broad goals here, it's not just our waste diversion goal. We are talking about public health. Landfills are not the most optimal place in our society from a public health standpoint in terms of air, water, and soil pollution. um that directly relates to the guiding principles of sustainability and resilience in Envision Longmont that we have not just our waste diversion goals. Um we we talked we had some public comments on like the carbon dioxide and some of the greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is really one of the byproducts of the landfill and that is one of the most potent greenhouse gas emissions far more than any of the carbon dioxide we have. >> That is um that >> um so council member Kuffer. Yeah, >> thank you, mayor. Um, thank you, Lisa, for the presentation. Um, I am in favor of subsidizing composting. Um, but one of the things that I would like to see, and I don't know if this is appropriate to bring up now, but I would like to see two different sizes for composting as well, and I don't know if our current equipment um has the capability of doing it. Um, but our trucks can pick up the 48 gallon and the 96gallon trash cans. Um, so I'm wondering, is it possible for us to add two flavors? And I'm using flavors because we're composting food. Um, if we can have two varieties of composting bins and have the smaller 48 gallon because I can't fill my compost bin maybe once a month. Um, especially in the winter time, it's probably once every two months because food scraps don't fill the bin. So, I I'm wondering if if we have the ability to have two varieties for compost. >> Mayor, council August Hendendrickson waste services manager. I already have them all. I needs a phone call. I could drop it off tomorrow. Sweet. >> Okay. >> At a lower rate, >> same rate. >> So, one of the things that I would like to see is the smaller bin u be at a more affordable price. Uh not not for me, but if we're going to subsidize it, you know, let's also um we have issues with uh spacing in alleys. Um and these large bins take up a lot of space. Um, so I would like to see the residents have an option and maybe the smaller cart has, you know, a very small price and or free and then if you need the the larger one, it's a very small incremental cost. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, Harold, you put on your Okay, never mind. Um, Council Member Marcen, >> thank you, Mayor. Um, and thank you for the presentation and for the work. Can we can we go back a a few slides to the slide that talked about the the data since the rate change occurred, the behavioral data, the 28% number? Um I I want to pull that up. Oh, sorry. Um maybe maybe it was the the previous one. It was what happened basically after the rate increase where we were a little surprised it sounded like that the that we did not see the behavioral change maybe that you would have expected from a rate increase. Is that a a fair characterization that we didn't actually see behaviors change here? We just, you know, people who were composting still composted. We didn't see them reduce the amount of compost in the city. Is that correct? >> Roughly. >> Yes. Oh, go ahead. >> I was say uh my understanding is that there has been some fluctuation, but overall we've maintained about or the city has maintained about 28%. And and I'll be real that that concerns me a little bit when we talk about a subsidy because I don't necessarily see it as as as just um you know if we're going to I want climate policy that changes outcomes, right? And and not necessarily just lowers bills for people who are already doing the thing while spreading out that burden for folks that either can't compost, don't compost. Like that's a concern that I have. um where if we're going to say we're going to subsidize solid we're going to subsidize composting with solid waste, what that in in my brain means is we're asking folks to if it's not going to change behaviors that that's a concern for me. So, and what I'm seeing here is that the data shows that maybe this isn't necessarily a behavior change. Is that an improper characterization? Like can put it put another way, do we have confidence that a subsidy would change behavior rather than primarily just lowering bills for existing compost customers while raising them for non-compost customers? >> Do you want >> uh mayor and councilman Marc um I think that what we're seeing is that uh the part of our community that wants to compost is composting. Yeah. >> Um and that when we had a lower rate, we met that as we raised that price that it like you said, it did not change um uh people's perception or the way that people acted. So I don't know that we have any information that says that lowering it back down that we're going to increase substantially over the 28% that we have now. >> And that's kind of the core question you're bringing us. And so for me, I I'm I I appreciate the idea that we want to achieve this waste a diverent goal. I'm with it. What I'm concerned about is in the economic climate we're dealing with um for working folks that we're talking about a subsidy for 39% of our community that isn't actually going to meet the goal that we're trying to have it meet because the data doesn't back that. So that's the concern that I have from like a like I I compost. I want people to compost. I think composting is amazing and good. This is not about discouraging compost. It's about what's what actually is going to impact the most people positively. So I I appreciate the feedback. I right now am not supportive of a subsidy um because of that the the behavior issue until maybe we can see because I think your your point is exactly right like folks who want to compost are going to compost and we need to continue to to to spread the the the gospel of compost as as part of you know our overall strategy and if rates aren't changing the behavior asking you know working folks who can't compost because of whatever reason to subsidize I just I'm not there. So, thanks. >> Thank you. Um, Council Member Christ. >> Oh, thank you, Mayor. I thought I had a long wait. Uh, well, I I agree with Councelor Marsing. High five. And actually with uh Councelor Popkin, another high five. Uh I think we are um incentivizing trash and that maybe we should consider smaller bins for trash as a standard and then offer uh offer our composting at the at the price it costs. Um, there still be a savings to people because they'll be charged less for the smaller bins for trash and they'll be incentivized to to shift some of that that was going in that bigger bin into another bin, the recycling and the and the composting. Um, because I I think if I'm reading this correctly, to councelor Marsing's point, at $6.60 it was 28% and at $9.90 it was 28%. So those are the people are going to compost regardless. What we're trying to attract are the people who need more space basically and so they're willing to add on the compost bin, you know, because now they have a small trash bin. And that's really really you have to shift your idea that not everything can go in the trash. So what goes in the recycling and what goes in the compost? I think that's honestly the way forward to incentivize composting. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Popkin. >> Uh, thank you. I want to respond to one one question about the data here. So, we we just the rates went into effect when January 1st. So, we have approximately what six and a half months of data to speak to the rates. I I just want to say like I I I do if if we had five years of data, I would say, hey, maybe the behavior maybe we to think think about this differently. I don't think we're there yet. And I think that the what we know through behavioral economics and the all of humanity is that people respond to price signals pretty clearly. Might take a little while. There's an adjustment factor. There's an education factor, sure. But 10 cents on a plastic bag at the grocery store and a lot of people are carrying cloth bags around or bringing their bags, that's 10 cents per bag, right? And so as people start to pay attention to these things, that is one of the clearest tools that we do have and it doesn't cost us more. And I think that's there there are other ways to increase composting, too. And I hope we do re like I appreciate my colleagues and fully agree with you and like let's have more size options. I think that makes a ton of sense here. Um, but this is one of the clearest tools that we have that doesn't raise taxes more, that doesn't add more operational burden to our staff, and that really uses rates as a policy tool to achieve the goals we already have. Um, so with that, I'm going to make a motion on this. And, uh, if you don't think it has everything in this that you would like to see, um, I'm open to friendly amendments that speak to size. So, I'd like to motion direct the city manager to develop a new ordinance for 2027 to 2028 sanitation rates that realign our rate structures with the city's zero waste resolution target of 75% diversion by 2030 by one subsidizing the cost of curbside composting service through the trash rates. And two, funding that subsidy by widening the price differential across the tiers for existing programs and packages to incentivize lower trash volumes and greater composting participation. while continuing to recover the full cost of service to the sanitation fund. >> Second. >> Okay. So, let me switch my screen. So, the motion has been made to direct the city manager to develop develop a new ordinance uh for the 2720 2027 2028 sanitation rates that realign our rate structure with the city's zero waste resolution target of 75% diversion by 2030. by one, subsidizing the cost of curbside composting service through trash rates, and two, funding that subsidy by widening the price differential differential across the existing tiers for pay as you throw waste services uh packages and additional containers to incentivize lower trash volumes and greater composting participation while continuing to recover the full cost of the service to sanitation fund. and thank you for sending me the the language. Um, and that was seconded by Mayor Prom McCoy. Um, do we have any comments or question? Well, comments. >> Yeah, I had a question. >> Prito Uhuh. >> I had an initial comment. Uh, I mean, you guys already got a new customer right now. Like, you told me yard waste can go in these compost bins. Like, do you know how often I fill my freaking trash can? This is crazy. I'm like, where have you guys been my whole life? Again, I think a lot like spreading the gospel of compost, like Marcing said, I think that alone does so much. I think if we could re boost like an education campaign to residents and really like do some phone calls and targeting areas like people with yards, people with big yards. I'm just saying I think we would have some an increase in users and if you can incentivize like first year at this price and then it goes up after that especially since we don't have a lot of snow. I anticipate my yard work is going to go through until December. So, I'm just saying um I think knowledge is power and just getting the word out there of what you can compost and deals that the city has to offer is powerful. um comment or question for u council member Popkin is um so I if I'm reading this correctly you're proposing that we increase we subsidize it by increasing the rate for trash. >> Yes. So so the this is where the rate realignment conversation comes into play. So I I the motion from my understanding and staff please correct me if you have a different understanding but my my intent of the motion and I believe as it's written it would be to do two things. One to subsidize the cost of composting but in order to preserve the cost like to meet the cost obligations we have we would need to basically realign a couple of the other rates um and I don't want to discourage recycling because that's aligned with our um waste diversion goals. So, it would be yes, increasing marginally the the trash rate much less. And I'm I'm curious if you could speak maybe briefly to like how much you think you'd have to tweak the the trash rates recognizing you haven't done all the modeling yet, but just so it's not it does it's it's not as dramatic as I think you might think given the number of customers we have in that. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council Lance Smith. Um to answer your question, uh because about roughly a third of our customers, slightly less than a third of our customers are participating, um for each dollar, we would decrease the composting. We would have to increase that solid waste charge by about 30 cents. Thank you. So it's it's spreading the cost out across more of a user base for that. Um and again hope the other piece of uh the the motion that I offered was to actually widen the price differential. So if you were able to reduce your amount your volume of trash, you would actually still have a lower rate. And I would hope that we could look at kind of really how do we flip the incentive structure so it's not incentivizing bulk trash throughout but like actually having the smallest bin you get the best price there and that so it those work in tandem and so that still supports people. It doesn't mean you have to go to a zero waste household. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, thank you, Council Member Coloffer. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, Council Member Popkin, I'd like to ask for a friendly amendment because I would like there to be two different sizes for compost because I don't think right now I'm trying to reduce the amount of grass that I have on my property. And I'm I'm nervous that if we're we're also incentivizing people to have a lot of yard waste by having this very large bin. Um, so I would I would like a friendly amendment to add two different um compost size bins, please. >> Again, there are two different compost size bins currently. Sorry. >> Prices. Okay. >> Yes, I guess. >> Yes. >> You >> I I accept. Can >> Okay. >> So, um, do you accept or do not accept? >> I I do accept that and I would just add it as like a number three to add uh two different size bins and pricing accordingly. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, and mayor, while I have the mic for a second, I just wanted to clarify on the motion because you actually read slightly different wording, >> okay, >> than what was actually in there. >> So, I'll reread it um when we before we vote. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, Council Member Marcen, >> question for staff. Sorry, potato chip. Um, do you do you feel that that and to Council Member Popkins point, which is a good one, do you feel 6 months is a is a reasonable time span to have at least seen some behavior modification in in the data or or not? And I'm asking the expert's opinion because I I don't know. I'm not a not a waste services expert. And it's like, yeah, if it's an I don't know, that's fine, too. >> I I Yeah, I would say I don't really know. um it's been 6 months that that uh customers have seen their utility bills increase. They might not have dissected that to fully understand >> whether they know that. >> And and that kind of speaks to the the core question of of >> Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Okay. And so the active motion is to direct staff to develop a new ordinance for the 2027 2028 sanitation rates that realign our rate structures with the city's zerowaste resolution target of 75% diversion by 2030 by one subsidizing the cost of curbside composting service through the trash rates. and two, funding the subsidy by widening the um price differential across the tiers of existing programs and packages to incentivize lower trash volumes and greater composting participation while continuing to recover the full cost of service to sanit to the sanitation fund. And three, to add pricing for different size bins for composting and this will come back for us for further discussion as well. Correct. Okay. Yeah. I can we wrap it up? Good. We're going to put a bow on it and vote. >> Okay. Yeah, we're ready to vote. >> One clarification. >> It's relevant to the wording change. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Thanks. This is what I was going to say before. So, I the what I removed from that motion was the specificity on just looking at the pay as you throw away service packages and additional containers. I want staff to have full latitude if you think that a different structure or format makes sense. >> So, are you changing the language right now? >> Okay. So, okay, then let's vote on this, please. >> Okay. And that carries 5 to2 with council member Marcen and council member Prito in opposition. And I do want to remind us on our norms um for speaking efficiency. We do have you um keeping our uh remarks focused as well as no need to fix, save, rescue or set others straight. Um I believe that we've all kind of interpreted um this. We've clarified the language. Staff has what they need. And I just I want to make sure that we are not beating a dead horse, so to speak. Um Thank you. or any horse. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Um >> Okay, so we do have one more item. >> No. Um actually, well um and we have five minutes left. >> Okay, so we have a motion to extend >> specific time specific >> and um no um so to extend past 11 and the sec it was seconded by who? I will second that. Um okay. Yes. And we do have one um item that is timely that is on a time constraint. So >> yes, mayor the the variance needs to be heard. >> Okay. And um I will be moving our item C on a future agend u meeting. So it's just this item. So uh and then you just need to vote. >> Yeah. Okay. And that carries 6 to1 with council member Prito in opposition. Okay, let's go ahead. We are now at the appeal of denial of a variance application by planning and zoning commission regarding a setbacks variance at 1820 Juniper Street and consideration of resolution 2026-48, a resolution for the Longmont City Council upholding the decision of the planning and zoning commission to deny setback variance request for 1820 Juniper Street. and Molly Day. >> Good evening. Thank you, mayor. Hello, city council. My name is Molly Day. I'm an associate planner with planning and development services for the city of Longmont. This evening, I will try to give you a very brief presentation on the appeals procedure, as well as a brief overview of the specific appeal of a denial of a variance for 1820 Juniper Street. The subject property located at 1820 Juniper Street is shown here on this aerial map. It is part of the Wood Meadow Filing 3 subdivision. It is zoned residential single family and its future land use designation and envision Longmont is single family neighborhood. So, the applicant this evening is requesting an appeal of a denial for a variance request concerning the continued existence of a concrete patio along the southern portion of the property. The original variance request was heard on May 27th by the planning and zoning commission. This request was one of four variance requests for this property heard at that meeting on May 27th. The other three variance requests were approved or approved with conditions. This one was denied and this is the only one for appeal this evening and the only one that will be discussed. The request was for a variance of 3 feet to allow a zero foot setback along the southern property line for an existing concrete slab patio where a three-foot setback is required. On this slide, we have the ILC survey of the property and the portion of the concrete patio impacted by the denial of the variance is highlighted in green. On this slide, we have the resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the request, citing that the application did not conform to the applicable requirements in sections 1502055 and section 1502060I of the Longmont Land Development Code. So, a brief overview of the appeal hearing procedure. The first step is my presentation and an overview of the actual appeal report. Following my presentation, a representative for the applicant will come up and we'll present their argument for why they think the denial should be overturned by city council. Following the applicant's presentation, the city council may then augment the record with any evidence that they deem necessary. and then they will have to answer some questions in order to come to their decision and then vote on how to decide. These are the three questions before city council this evening. Don't worry, I will return to them on another slide. And then these are the decision-making outcomes of how you answer those questions will impact the decision that's made. So the review criteria for all application types when considering a variance application as the planning and zoning commission did can be found in section 15 02055 as shown on this slide and continued here. And the specific review criteria for variance applications can be found in section 1502 0605 as shown here and continued on this slide. So the three questions before the council this evening are one was planning and zoning commission's decision to deny the variance plainly in error because the decision was not supported by any competent evidence in the record. Two was planning and zoning commission's decision to deny the variance plainly an error because the decision was plainly inconsistent with the review criteria in those previous sections I just showed. And three, was planning and zoning commission's decision to deny the variance plainly in error because planning and zoning commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the code or charter. These three questions are what you will be analyzing in order to then make your decision prior to voting. Thank you. That does conclude my portion of the presentation. So, I would now like to welcome the applicant's representative to the podium to speak. >> Hi, Council Mayor. Um, my name is Heather Harrington and I'm actually speaking on behalf of um part of the Shicone family. This is Leo Shakona as well. Um, I'm actually not here to aru argue that property lines don't matter. They absolutely do. I'm here because I believe that this is actually a very unique situation considering that this is a unique circumstance. The Shone family has called this home almost for nearly three decades. When it came time to reconstruct their existing patio, they were able to approve long-standing condition on their on their property and create a space that was safer, more accessible for family members, and more functional for their family. This project wasn't built as a luxury upgrade or simply just to enhance their property, whether it did or not. Accessibility was an important part of the decision along with improving the drainage and creating space that would better meet their family needs. It's also important to understand that this was wasn't an expansion farther for toward the neighboring property. The previous patio that had existed for many years during the reconstruction, they actually reduced the footprint of the original patio by bringing it farther onto their property. They were trying to improve an existing condition, not make it worse. They are being asked to remove that work that they have put their hard-earned money into. If that happens, I think there are a lot of important questions that would deserve a lot of answer of what the plan would be to maintain the drainage of this project and what the plan would be if it was the homeowner's responsibility. If removing the patio creates future drainage issues or requires redesigning, who is responsible for those costs? But perhaps most importantly, is requiring the is requiring removal really the most resable outcome when we're talking about a long-standing existing patio that was reconstructed with a smaller footprint for accessibility, safety, and drainage. When I think about this, I also think about the kind of community we want to be. A strong community should encourage homeowners to maintain and improve their properties, address saf safety and accessibility needs, and work towards solutions um when unusual circumstances arise. I understand that this is an easy decision, but I hope that you'll consider that not only technical requirements of the code, but also the purpose of this variance that's put into play today of the process itself to recognize that situations where unique circumstances may warrant flexibility. The Shaone family has lived in this home for nearly three decades. Like I had mentioned, they weren't trying to encroach farther onto anyone else's property or disregard concerns of fellow neighbors. They reconstructed an existing patio, reduced its footprint, addressed drainage that would um further allow their home to be livable, and created something safer and more accessible for their family. I'm asking you to consider the people beyond this request, the purpose behind the project, the history of the property, and whether requiring its removal truly serves the intent of the code when reasonable alternative also may exist. Leo, >> thank you, Heather. Uh, again, my name is Leo Chicone. I'm the son of Hector and Teresa Chicone, uh, 1820 Juniper Street. Um, we live in the Garden Neighbors neighborhood, the Garden Acres neighborhood. And what I've noticed about that neighborhood being there since I was 10 in 2003 was that the city lines, none of them are actually followed in the entire neighborhood. There is property extending onto everybody else's property, including concrete, um, patios, awnings, trees, things that extend to other neighbors uh, property and over their property lines that was never actually dealt with as a problem. considering that the neighborhood cohesively, aesthetically, and for the function of all the families that live in that neighborhood never had an issue with property lines. Um, with that concrete that we're specifically talking about today, it was made with the intent and the purposes of several things. I saw that the senior spoke earlier today and they said Longmont cares. So did my parents. And that is also partly why that patio extends past that property line in the three feet. And most apparently, you'll also notice that someone coming up here later needs a medical device in assistance of walking. Removing that patio creates a danger not only for my parents, but also that neighbor that has the domain over those three feet. Now, in the Colorado Reed statutes, specifically, I believe it's title 38, it talks about property and personal property as well. In that, it also talks about imminent domain, which my parents do have, considering that since I've lived there in 2003, we've always had some patio or an entire deck over that 3-foot line without any other complaints. And in addition to that, if we do take out that concrete, it'll be nothing but dirt that is leveled out, which is going to create a risk for water collecting there and damaging the um property, not only ours, but also the foundation of of the uh residents that filed the complaint. This has been over 10,000 $10,000, if not significantly more, taking all of our time. and we're here going up until midnight for a simple complaint that never ever had an issue since they built the house in 1985 going forward. So, I don't understand why if we're going to compromise our patio, which provides safe access not only for our family, but our neighbors on the property and create a possibility for water damage because there is no plan that they I believe they have to really amend any kind of water damage or how the water is going to leave that area. So, who if it does damage our property, who's going to fix that? If somebody is in accessing our backyard and gets hurt, who's going to pay for those injuries? Right now, it goes without a zero foot setback. But I think it's very interesting. And it brings up a unique point that if we enforce this code and that my parents have to rebuild it, what it'll do is it puts on the table, do all of the other neighbors in that neighborhood have to abide by that code now, including the neighbors that filed that complaint where their patio has zero foot setback to the to the fence on the south side of their property. So, if we have to enforce my parents to abide by these codes, I believe that everybody else should be held accountable to that as well. And I don't know how the city of Longmont feels, but having to send out an a letter or something to all residents in Garden Acres neighborhood that they have to make their property to code is going to create a big financial burden, especially in this economy for all those neighbors in that neighborhood when there was no pre-existing issue before other than this complaint that was possibly made out of a spite. But my parents always took the concern of their health and accessibility in our both of our properties, always maintained and kept everything in pristine shape without the help of the also adjacent property that filed the complaint. So that's why I think that we should not have to set back or reconstruct our patio. The patio will become so thin that you can literally walk in the backyard in a single file line if you're not going to walk on the dirt. um they don't have a plan for any filler. No rock, no cement or anything of that sort, which also acts as a hindrance for us to actually provide a fire um structure with the cement so that if anything does happen fire-wise, it doesn't continue onto the falling property because of the debris or anything that's left on their three feet that I know they will not maintain. And they have not since 1985. >> So, thank you. >> Sorry for my shaky voice. I get really excited so I'm like little Chihuahua up here. So, Yeah. >> No, thank you. >> Um Okay. And then so that's um that's the final. Okay. And then so we are now on part three which is the um what what do I have? Augment um the record. So we did have a couple of other people on um public invited to be heard. So um if council is is fine with this, we would like to give them the opportunity to speak. Okay. So, um, first name, uh, Patrick, um, Barrett. >> Good evening, mayor and members of the council. My name is Patrick Barrett. I bought that house in 1985. My wife and Deborah and I have lived live at 1816 Juniper Street. and we ask you to deny this appeal. I want to start with one simple fact. The concrete next door just sit doesn't just sit close to our property. It crosses the line onto our land and it comes within about 6 ines of our home's foundation. We do not agree to that. We never we were never asked. I also ask you not to be misled by the claim that this has been there for 25 years. It has been. It has not. This work is recent and our and your own chief building counselor put it in writing last October. The permit was in his words mistakenly approved without verifying the setbacks. So this didn't slip through decades ago. It happened recently on a permit the city admits should never have been issued. This wasn't harmless either. When the concrete went in, it splattered and damaged the siding in our house. Our landscaping along the side was torn and the drainage which had been in place was removed. So when the appeal says there's no evidence of harm, the harm is already done and it's on our property. We understand the family raised an accessibility need and we generally don't take that lightly. But the answer to that need is to build a safe level patio on their own lot within their own setbacks. The answer cannot be to build it on ours. Their need doesn't change where the property line is. They've now offered to pull the patio back to the line and add a swale, but pulling it back to the line still leaves no zero setback, creates a d a drainage issue, roof runoff, and doesn't meet the setback requirements for fire protection. This still doesn't restore what was taken out on our site. All we're asking is for the code for what the code already requires and what every other homeowner on the street has to follow. The city planning commission unanimously denied this. We're asking you to deny the appeal, uphold the violation, and order the concrete and everything in our setback removed and our property put back the way it was. And I've been under a state of trespass since October because of this permit that was put in that should not have been put in. It's not right. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Um the next name, Deborah Barrett. >> Okay. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Deborah Barrett. I live at 1820 Juniper Street. me 1816 Juniper Street. >> Um, all of this this concrete was put in October 13th last year, 2025. So, we're 10 months into this. Um, we had discussed it with, you know, with the planning department, Grant, Matt, everybody's been involved. Molly, um, >> can you move the microphone closer to >> Oh, I'm sorry. No, thank you. >> Um, you know, so this has been ongoing. The concrete is six inches from our house. Setbacks are made for a reason. They're not put in for any code, you know, other than to maintain the property. You know, our property was perfect on that side. We didn't have any issues. There was four feet of rock for drainage. Now there's six inches of mud and a few rocks. They removed all of it, took it and put it in the dump. So, all of that was gone without any discussion with us. We just happened to come across it and called the city. We did try to discuss it with them. They totally dismissed us and said it would be okay. And if we needed somebody to get in there professionally to work, they would have to figure it out. And they did cut back the patio cover, which was also 6 in from our house. How can you work on your house when it's that close? We can't get foundation work done. God forbid we need it. What damage have they done to that? So, we're just asking that you deny this appeal and they have to cut it back. I know that we own three feet of that property. They put a lock on the gate, so we can't maintain our property, but there's also a deed warranty that comes into effect where yes, they can be on that property. It's on their side. You know, they've had a waterfall over there. They've had chairs. So, they've used it, but there's always been four or five feet of rock over there. They do have their flat rocks in their backyard that were there before the pavers. So, it would be safe for them to walk on if it's put in correctly and level. So, we're just asking you that you deny this so that we can protect our property rights like any other person. Patrick had this house built in 1985. He's been there since then maintaining it properly. >> So, thank you. >> Uhhuh. Thank you. Um I do see an Aurelio. Is that was that you >> if you come on. Um >> I guess um so you have already spoken. I >> Yeah, that's I did speak. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So yeah, I think Yeah, we're just going to um and that and Heather Harrington, that was you. Okay. No, I was just clarifying that because you spoke during the appellet time. Uhhuh. >> Okay. So now do we have now we're on the next part which it would be questions and discussion from council. So um moving on to this and then can you go back to the questions? Um you know this is this is tough. I've always you know when these have come forward yes go ahead >> mayor and council. Uh the next step would be rebuttal of the additional evidence by staff or the appellant if >> okay. So then they do have that opportunity. Okay. So, do we have any rebuttal? So, now um Aurelio, if you wanted to respond back. Thank you, Eugene, for that. >> Yeah. Or staff if staff wants to interject as well. >> Um, yeah. So, there is something that I'd like to make as a clarification. Um, no one up here, I mean, everybody's been in the same room for the last 20 minutes. Nobody said that the the petty was there for 25 years. I was saying that there's always been a structure in some form of that has always been over those three feet. Also, the maintenance of what they say are alleged to do or will have done if given the opportunity to get access to the three feet on my parents' property. Um, I know that they don't have the resources, the funding, the ambition, the motivation or anything of the sorts to maintain their home that they did purchase in 1985. Oh. >> Um, >> there's multiple water damages done to the side of their housing that they also claim that my parents did, which I never knew that in order to build a patio, you had to use a power hose. Um, and then, you know, also the sense is that yes, this does provide a a space for our family to have access safely in our backyard. And it also is in the favor of himself or them that if they go into our backyard they can also go in and have accessibility in a safe manner. Now also this concrete does provide a shielding over that uh you know the foundation issue. If this if like I said if my parents have to cut down that concrete and they have to have dirt there that's leveled the water will collect. My parents will not fund any renovations for the drainage system. In regards to water runoff, we all have gutters on our awnings. Um, my parents spent a lot of money in order to make sure that that was in place to evade any damages done to our property and also the unmaintained property that was neg grossly negligently non-maintained over decades. Um, so if that is an issue, yes, they can have their three feet, but in that sense, to make it safe for our family to have accessibility to our house that we've had for over two decades, are they going to put rock in there? The plants and rock that they talked about were the plants and rocks that my parents bought. And they bought it because they bought it for both sides of the house and all throughout the backyard, all matching. Had they have ever boughten anything to make have maintenance over their side of the three feet, it wouldn't have our rose bushes. It wouldn't have our flowers. It wouldn't have our benches. It wouldn't have a rock that my parents have spent tens of thousands of dollars on to maintain. Also, the maintenance of the front yards are also going over the property line that my parents have for eons ever since I've lived there in 2003. Always maintained. I've never seen them ever cut parrot like grass. I've never seen them paint anything other than the trimming that had to be replaced. So, and you know it is a fire hazard. Looking at the siding of their house, that thing can go up like that, especially with this heat. And now my parents have to put their house at risk because what would have been a a deterrent from, you know, we all live in Longmont, their houses are extremely close together. It was a bad design in the 80s. Um, so if something, god forbid, something happens to their side of the house, why does it have to why do my parents have to take the risk of them not maintaining their property and putting our property in jeopardy while minimizing our accessibility? >> You know, we do have people that have to have certain accessibility um to our house that is on flat surface because of ankles >> and because of wheelchairs. Um, and like I said, Longmont Cares and my parents aren't getting any younger and neither are our neighbors, obviously. So, >> thank you. Um, okay, staff, do you have any >> clarification? Thank you, mayor. I don't have anything to add, but I am available for questions if any. >> So, now we can move on to the next to the next part, which would be questions from council. Do we have any questions from council? So, as we look at these questions, this is where I was going to go back to. I mean the questions are pretty black and white. Um and you know if you want to read through those those three you know it's yes or no from us and um and it's really based on the decision. I know it's hard to want to the tendency to want to get emotional, but it and that's why these are always really hard for me when they come back because it is you're looking at it from the decision that PNZ made um to deny. Uh council member Prito, >> uh question for PNZ, um can you just give a little bit of background information as to when this was originally approved? Um, and what might have been missed during that time >> since I'm the one who missed it. >> I uh, Mayor and Council Mete, chief building official. Um, I think it was in late October. Um, I believe what Mr. Barrett said was correct. October 25th. >> 25th. Um, I did approve the permit, which was a mistake because we did not have the site plan that you saw earlier, >> which was malf. >> Um, and I just I missed it. And as soon as um the barist had called in and said, "Hey, this is really close to our house." Our inspectors went out and did look at it. Um, and that inspector returned pictures to me. And that's when I was that's when I realized my mistake. >> Okay. Um immediately after that I started conversations with planning the planning department as well as the city attorney's office as to our next steps. >> Okay. Thank you so much for sharing that. And then um >> there's questions regarding the property line going over their their propert I'm sorry the concrete goes into the adjacent properties >> um property. Um, has that always been like that way or is there a fence that runs along that has always kind of been used as kind of that property line? I'm just trying to get an understanding here as to like how that could have happened. Sometimes we have fence that fences that run aligned and then when we do like the numbers or we measure then we we figure out oh actually it's supposed to be pushed back or could you talk to to us a little bit about that? which is where the previous speakers point about how this was a poorly designed neighborhood from the 80s. >> Um, so as you can see on on the screen, the property line is at the edge of the bottom edge of the green. That is the official property line. There is a three-foot easement from the property line to the north. So from the official property line um essentially the easement allows the use um for the owner of lot 13 in which case would be 1820. The use means that they can spend time on it. That doesn't the easement doesn't if correct me if I'm wrong Molly that doesn't allow them to build on an easement. So regardless of what the easement's for you're not allowed to build on an easement. Um, and so the fence line that you asked about is coming right off of the um corner of the house for 1816 and goes back to the back fence. And so that's hence the confusion of this whole neighborhood because this whole neighborhood is set up exactly the same way. >> Okay. >> And there is definitely the point which I did bring up to Grant that this could start a domino effect across the this whole neighborhood. Okay. And then um what what have we done in the past? I mean, I guess my concern is is it was a bit of an oversight on the city's end and concrete is not a inexpensive thing to put in. Um what have we done in the past as far as PNZ to where we help residents fix or I'm not sure >> remediate or resolve other than adding additional cost because I guess my concern is you know when we talk about just the cost of anything on your property sometimes it's savings for certain folks and and there may not be the additional monies available for folks to draw back or do another one or >> which as far as I Now, we don't necessarily have a process >> for what you're describing. >> Okay. So, this is probably like a something that's happened that's it's been a it's probably kind of a one-off. >> Yeah. I mean, I know this hasn't happened since for the last 10 years that I've been with the city. >> Thank you so much for answering my questions. Harold, did you have something to add? >> So, I think anytime we have situations like this, I think um there's two different pieces. So you're you're dealing with this in terms of a planning and zoning component. The other side is a risk component that something would have to come in there um to risk management and and look through the processes that we have there because it's two different questions. >> Okay. Okay. That's all my questions for now. >> Um Council Member Marcen, >> I'll I'll I'll pass mayor on this one. Okay, Council Member Koffer. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, so for this, um, thanks for having this this slide up. Um, so 7 and 12 ft is what I'm assuming the the concrete is. Is that correct from the house to where it's sitting? >> Um, this particular outline isn't 100% correct because it the the concrete as of right now does go up to within a few inches of the neighbor's house. At least last time I was there. Gotcha. And they wouldn't have to remove the entirety of it. They would have to cut it and remove whatever's on the easement. Is that correct? And the the three foot. >> So I believe that the current ask is to cut it back to where the green is showing because that would be the zero lot line. Right now that the concrete patio extends past the lot line. And so what um the applicant is asking is to um leave it at the lot line. Understood. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. U Council Member Popkin, >> thank you, Mayor. Um Matt, you can stay up there for one more moment. Um, in just building on uh the questions that council member PTO was asking, um, the letter revoking the permit back in November of last year, I believe stated that the rationale for revoking that was due to incomplete or inaccurate information providing the application. You're speaking to some operational errors on our on the city's side, too. Was there also inaccurate or incomplete information submitted? So there was never there wasn't an ILC like the one you see on screen that was never submitted. So I didn't we didn't have any official survey to show the property lines or setbacks. >> So there was incomplete information submitted as part of that. And then you're saying there was a lack of due diligence there and basically kind of following through on that. >> Okay. Thank you. Um this is tough and first of all I just want to say thank you to everyone who is still here tonight. Um, I know it's late and I know this is the second of these kinds of meetings you probably didn't want to be sitting through, whether it's the Shakones or the neighbors. Um, I know you probably didn't want to be here for a whole host of reasons. So, thanks for bearing with this. Um, we have a process that's trying to orient as consistent and as uh fair a process as as we're able to apply to um, you know, all residents and businesses throughout the city. I I'll just echo a little bit of what the mayor was saying before that our job tonight is to evaluate whether the planning and zoning commission errored in its decision >> um in in approve and denying the setback variance request um PNZ already granted multiple variances with conditions um as Molly presented um and this specific variance request was not granted and that's why we're that's what really the question before us Um, I also want to remind council that uh, and having been through a few different variance hearings as well, both on planning and zoning before and um, now on council, um, upholding this decision is not a critique of anyone in particular. It isn't a critique of a property owner, isn't a critique of a neighbor or an individual in this. It is a decision rooted in fairness and following our process that we have um in service of the city's standards and property rights for all residents, businesses, and their neighbors. Um so I I personally appreciate the credibility and the thoughtful consistency of the planning and zoning commission's thorough hearing on this on multiple variances related to this back in May. um and they spent about two hours um discussing and asking questions of staff on this um and and you may have watched this as well. So, just want to acknowledge the plan zoning commission's journey throughout this and staff support through this too. >> Okay, Council Member Marstein. >> Thank you, Mayor. And I I want to echo that this is hard. This is the first appeal of this kind that I've seen, and I know that there are intense emotions involved in it for everyone. These are people's property rights. These are also people's homes and there are very real human pieces of this. Um, as has been said that is unfortunately not the question in front of us. The question in front of us are very strict review criteria related to whether or not you know the choice. >> Can we go back to the question please? I was going to mention them um >> because it is helpful to illustrate that that while I can be sympathetic to the needs for accessibility and other issues, the challenge in front of me in a quasi judicial appellant setting is that frankly none of these questions are related to those. Um the challenge in front of me is whether or not the decision was made. So I do have some questions for staff. Um the the ILC, right? Should should an applicant in our process typically submit submit that that piece? Is that a typical part of our process? >> That is a typical part of our process. >> And we just we just missed that that wasn't part of the process. >> Yep. I just completely overlooked it. >> And I I I did watch the hearing and I appreciated our our understanding and our saying in in the PNG hearing that that that was a mistake that was made certainly, but that the applicant did not necessarily provide that information to us in that process. Um and that's challenging. Um, and just in terms of the specific review criteria that PNZ settled on, can can staff identify if there was one piece of specific evidence or or in the hearing and I just, you know, for everyone's understanding that PNZ relied on to deny the setback if there was one specific piece of evidence um for the patio and explain why that evidence was sufficient under the variance criteria. >> Thank you for the question, Council Member Marcen. Yes. Near the end of the meeting, I believe it was Commissioner Boone who brought up the fact that the drainage was a concern for the neighboring property considering where the patio is located. >> And then I believe it was also Vice Chair Earl who brought up the fact that when reviewing this specific request, there is the exceptions to setbacks that can be found in table 1503 080. I think I have that memorized. Feel free to check it. Um, and that's where it provides that any slab patio can um, be 3 feet away from any property line and encroach into any setback by 3 feet. Um, which is not what they're requesting. And so I believe it was those sections of the land development code that they were looking at specifically when then looking at the review criteria as a whole. >> I I appreciate that and that's a pretty direct answer. Um, >> yeah, I I know we have an additional part and additional microphone on, so I'll >> Okay, thank you, Council Member Colopper. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, yeah, this this one's tough, and our question is not whether we personally like the outcome, but whether the planning and zoning commission was plainly an error under the appeal standard of our code. Um the appeal concerned only one narrow piece of the project. The request for a zero zero foot setback on the concrete patio slab um which requires a minimum of three foot separation from the adjacent property line for slabs and patios. Our code puts the burden on the applicant uh applicant to show that PNZ's decision was not supported by any competent evidence in the record which was plainly inconsistent with the variance criteria or exceeded PNZ's authority. Uh, I want to acknowledge that the family's real accessibility needs and frustrations with the permit history. They relied on the city and they have a daughter and aging parents who um, level surfaces are important. That matters. Um, but our job tonight is to apply the law consistently. Given the evidence in the record and the criteria we adopted, I don't see a basis to say that PMZ was plainly an error with refusing the three-foot setback uh, into a zero foot for the slab. >> Okay. Um, thank you. So when we go through the questions, if I recall correctly, you pose the first one and we have to answer with a yes or no. Is that correct? I mean, we could. So, was PNZ's decision to deny the variance plainly an error because the decision was not supported by any competent evidence in the record? So, if we think about, you know, with a yes or no, >> we have a break. a break. Well, I think I think there's information that was presented tonight that's also new and like to move like I just need time to process and think and five minutes would be sufficient >> just to be fair considering >> yeah because I mean really we are looking not at the issue the thing but it's PNZ's decision so based on what was in our packet. >> Yes. And so that's >> um I I would prefer that we move on. >> So >> it's I mean >> it's notice >> so you know what um I'm actually going to call this out of order >> so thank you. Um your mic is not on and you were not acknowledged to speak at this time. So the first question at hand is was PNZ's decision to deny the application not supported by any competent evidence in the record. So that was based on what we saw in the packet based on testimony and our presentation. So um just going down yes or no. Yeah. Go ahead council. >> Thank you mayor. Just just on the questions here and the process here. My understanding from the the appelllet letter and maybe staff can clarify this is that they were only like these are the questions technically before council yes that we have to answer in this process but the appellant only alleged to my understanding number one >> that there was not competent evidence in the record. Am I correct on that? >> I my thought was because I I've I've seen this before but I thought we've had to answer on all three questions. If that's your preference, I don't mind. But >> um I mean we can >> No. Yeah, I know what you're referring to in the letter, but when we are considering I thought when we are considering um a reversal of a PNZ decision, we have to analyze all three questions. >> Mayor and Council, Eugene May, city attorney. Uh I believe uh council member Popkin is correct that the only criteria that they alleged in their >> appeal letter is the lack of competent evidence. >> Yes. Okay. So that would just be number one. So we don't even have to answer the other two >> that those were not raised in the appeal. >> Okay. >> We we can for the sake of uh just clarity mayor we can just acknowledge like those are not relevant >> based on the appellent letter. That saves a little bit of time here. And the resolution does address all three criteria for completeness. >> Yeah, >> thank you for clarifying. >> Yep. Thank you for that. Okay, so um so this is basically a yes or no. Um so where do we feel? So I'm going to just come down the aisle if I recall correctly. Um, we could just So, Council Member Kuffer, um, was PNZ's decision to deny the variance plainly an error because the decision was not supported by any competent evidence in the record? >> Yes or no? No. Okay. Council member Marcen, >> no. >> Council member Christ, >> no. >> No. My answer is no. >> Mayor Promp, no. Council member Popkin, >> no. >> No. And Council Member Prito. So, it's number one. Um, was PNZ's decision to deny the variance plainly an error because the decision by the commission was not supported by any competent evidence in the record? >> I mean, I'm not a lawyer and I've tried this language >> and I think I can argue that >> with the initial decision >> Yeah. >> and then the drawback >> Yes. >> Okay. So you're saying yes. So we do have six to one um who agree that um who who do not agree that the decision was uh to deny the application not supported by any competent evidence in the record. Yeah. So the no the negative. So then the um so that means that the denial stands. Is that correct? Help me with the language here. It's getting late. May mayor and council if that's the direction that council is going you can make a motion to approve the resolution which would >> uh formalize the decision >> uh into our resolution uh by approval of the resolution. >> So let me go back to that document. So um can I have a motion to >> then okay >> move resolution 2026-48. Okay. So, the um motion to approve the resolution 2026-48 was made by council member Christ, seconded by council member Kulkopper. Okay. Seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay. Okay. And that carries six to one with council member Prito in opposition. Okay. Thank you. This one's always confused me because it's the the negative which is then the affirmative because it supports. >> Yeah, the motion. >> Okay. So, um we have skipped we're going to be bringing back our action plan email organization boards and commissioner feedback um at a future meeting. So um it's earlier in the evening. Uh we are now on public invited final call public invited to be heard. Do we have any members of the audience wishing to speak? >> Okay. Um if you are going to speak, please come make your way down. Thank you. And you will have three minutes. >> Oh, can you please put on your mic? >> There we go. I'm filling in for Linda who was supposed to talk to you. She had to she had to leave because she has make donuts in four hours. So, she's gone. But she um emailed each of you the video. I know a couple of you have made comments that you've watched it. I'm hoping that it touches your heart because Longmont was part of this situation and you guys really helped back then. But last year we came and asked you to consider us for your budget and we never heard anything back where we have gotten um support from small towns around um the situation of where this happened. So we're hoping that you would like consider put that us into the budget. Um this is important because this is the reason your ex your >> sorry continue. >> This is the reason that your suitcase is x-rayed. This is um a tragedy that happened that helped 9/11 have laws changed so this would be prevented again and help with their situation. This has been forgotten by Colorado. I'm upset by it because this is important. It should be in the the school books. Um if 911 is so broadcast, why is this one not? And I just really hope that you guys would read through what she said and take it to heart. Um, in the brochure that she's going to pass out to you, there's a picture of a man in here. His name is Conrad Hops. He is 89 now. He was 17 at the time. There were 40 bodies that landed on his property, his dad's property, and his future wife. They drove around and circled the bodies that night. It's it's she says to me when I interviewed her recently because we're going to have a sign for the 150th um anniversary from history Colorado has put us into a grant that we are going to be historically marked. But she said back in the day they came and they removed the bodies and took it up to Gley to the armory had them identified. They took the plane and reconstructed it at Stapleton airfield and no one ever came back and checked on them at Weld County. They had no help with their emotions with even their field was left, you know, a mess. So, this is really a tragedy for them and they're getting to the end of their life and we're just hoping that they can have this memorial before they're gone. And there's a lot of videos you can watch on Denver 7 has been very supportive. This last year on the 70th, two generations came back and um met each other. They had never seen each other and one of them drove down and put actually on one of our signs on the lake flowers, a picture, and their name. So, if you guys would even want to go by and look at that, we are off of Highway 66, Colorado Boulevard, Ronald Reagan um Parkway >> and Blue Stem. It it goes um Fairlakes. >> So, it's marked. So, thank you. >> I was going to talk to after that, but that's okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Um anyone else? Oh, >> speaking. >> No. Okay, come on down. >> Good morning, Mayor, Council Member Scott 229 Grant. >> Not yet. 15 minutes. >> Good evening. >> Yeah, >> sorry. Um, non-ag non- major enterprise funds. Sanitation Golf Airport. Sanitation came to you tonight because they had a uh a budget issue. um they're solving it internally by adjusting the rates and charges and moving money around and what have you. This is how the enterprise fund is supposed to go. Um G golf had a problem. It was a big problem. They went to the ballot box um to address the irrigation issue. That was a $3 million issue. The city voted on it. We said we'd support G. Golf understood once they got into their project, they actually had an $8 million issue. Not the $3 million they asked the voters for. What did they do? They changed their rates and charges and they're solving their own $8 million issue over time. This is how you run an enterprise fund. The airport has left their base landing rate lease at the same for years and at the same time they're asking the city to subsidize the budget. What's different here? What's different here is you've got management that can actually operate those other two funds, yet the airport refuses to charge reasonable stuff. That subsidy, it's more than 10% of their budget. It's beyond 10% of their budget. That's ridiculous. And we're subsidizing that. Provide the airport with the financial tool to tools to operate the enterprise fund. Self-supporting, self-funding, start running this airport like it matters. And at some point, maybe we can get away from FAA obligations. But in the beginning, ATF's got to go away. >> Thanks. >> Uhuh. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Seeing none, um I will close. Um public invited to be heard. And we are now on to mayor and council comments. Okay. Seeing none, city manager remarks. Okay. City attorney remarks. >> No comments, ma'am. >> Okay. Can I have a motion to adjurnn? So, we have a motion to adjurnn. It is seconded. All those in favor? >> I Okay, we are adjourned.