August 13, 2019 Longmont City Council Meeting and “Our Summary” is now available.

This meeting was 2 hours plus and difficult to interpret at times. But I guarantee if you read this you won’t be disappointed with the usual “boring” moniker some have given it. Lol, there’s so much in this I really had a hard time condensing it to a digestible reading. There were accusations being hurled, hurt feelings on both sides and a “whole lotta esplainin’ to do Lucy!” (Ricky Ricardo and Lucille Ball reference; my own.)

Without further ado here is “Our Summary” of August 13, 2019 Longmont City Council Meeting:

“Our Summary” Longmont City Council meeting August 13th (8/20/2019 was canceled)

A brief statement:  The quality of the City’s youtube video was bad, indecipherable in parts and not available at first, etc;          As always, I did my best!

Longmont City Council Meeting August 13th, 2019

  1. Roll Call
  2. Pledge
  3. Vote to approve Meeting Notes/Minutes from July 23, 2019:
    Outcome: Unanimously Passed: one absent “running late but will be here” Councilman Tim Waters
  4. Agenda Review for revisions and submissions for the City Manager to add items or remove items from tonight’s agenda to a Study or an Executive Sesson
  5. City Manager Report
  6. Special Reports and Presentations
    1. Presentation of Kiwanis Club Check for the 2019 Longmont City Fireworks:

$27,000 Check; representing money raised and/or donated 3 mentioned only one was understandable Wyatt’s was one of the largest donors.

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA):

Plaque presentation: Longmont, Co officially recognized as a Level 5 in the National Rating for Flood Insurance Comparative Rating System.  Longmont is one of only 153 such communities nationwide.  This represents the fact the Longmont City Management worked directly with FEMA to lift approx 140 policies out of a possible 416 policies in Longmont out of the Flood Zone.  The savings is approx. $600 per policy in premium savings or an additional 10% off.  (according to FEMA)

  • First Call & Public Comment Section:

Opportunity for people to get on list to speak, not necessarily required.  Restricted to a maximum of 3 minutes and can be on agenda topics or not. 

Ingrid Moore:     Speaking in objection to the O-2019-46 Bill for an Ordinance Concerning the Funding of a Competitive Pool and Ice Rink (Est. $50 Million)
If approved, it would appear on this November 5th’s election ballot questions. 
No one asked the voters first if they wanted a new rec. center or two over the Ice and Aquatic Center; referred to a 2013 Nationwide Indoor Sports Exercise Equipment Study indicated that participants were 15 Times more likely to use Fitness equipment and Rec. Center equip. over Ice Hockey,  the percentage of tax payers that would actually benefit from such a facility, And No Sunset Provision on the tax funding mechanism that is being use to initially pay for the facility

Dale Lannon:       Concerns:  A lot of discussion around Boulder County is about how there is a climate emergency and yet Longmont’s and others has been at odds with that concern; Annexation of land, greater push for housing, strain on water availability, green house gases

Maryann Rigeye(sp?):   Lives at the Longmont Senior Apartment Living; wanted to thank the Longmont Housing Authority who took their complaint/request seriously and came out quickly and were very courteous, and after listening to Dale she “agrees with Dale”, “Go Green, Stay Green!”

Strider Vincent(?):         Statement: “I agree with everything that has been said in the last 12 minutes.”  “Jeff Session, Roy Cohn Heimlich Kilmer, well the president’s got his man so let’s see what happens.  Protest too much, very fine people on both sides, Epstien suicide  President has now officially passed 12,000 lies, El Paso, Tx got direct instruction from the president, you get a kid who drives down there and shoots 22 people in 20 seconds or something, that’s called stochastic terrorism, Endangered Species Act, Nixon, Greenland has lost 200 billion tons of ice. It’s good we’re building democracy here right, bottom up.  Mayor Begley            Times up… w:L

  • Agenda and 1st Reading & Move to Consent Agenda:
                Mayor Bagley:          It’s a doozy, I hope you brought your water bottle to the Ms. Kitaan(sp). 
    • O-2019-43      Designation of Local Landmark Status for HS Webb House
    • O-2019-44      Conditional approval of a vacation 30ft wide Easement/Public Utility Access to Prairie Village Subdivision

      Outcome:       Voted and Passed Unanimously
    • O-2019-45      Amending Title 4; Chapter 4.04 of the Longmont Municipal Code for extending the current 3-Quarters Cent Street systems tax
    • O-2019-46(Amended)           Cannot decipher on video: BUT this is “concerning the funding of a Competitive Ice/Hockey Rink” increases the Sales and Use Tax from 3.53 percent to 3.71 percent – And No Sunset Provision on collection of the tax but only a reduction after time
      Peck:  Concern:        Ballot language change Sunset of the Bond and the part that is to be set in perpetuity which is the reduction to .03 – suggestion was to change it to the life of the facility but the City’s CFO was concerned about the vagueness of the suggestion
      Martin:          *Indecipherable*
      Voted Against: Bagley, Martin, Waters, Rodriguez, Finley
      Voted For:     Mayor Pro-Tem Christensen, Peck
      Vote:   Measure Failed 5-2
    • O-2019-47      Coordinate November 5th 2019 Election and amend the Home Rule Charter to allow for lease of City owned property for a 30 year lease
    • O-2019-48      Ordinance submitting to the Electors amending the Municipal Code Increasing the pay for City Council Members
      This one went off the rails quickly. 
      Mayor Pro-Tem Christensen brought this resolution for ordinance forward and while they all agreed that the workload is tremendous and not a normal volunteer position they did NOT agree on the best path forward on how and how much of a raise or what should the pay be and should they be asking the Chamber of Commerce or the People. 
      Current pay is $1,000/mo. Designed to basically cover expenses.  Pro-Tem Christensen argued veraciously for wanting the measure to be on this year’s ballot.  “to go before your bosses and ask for a raise and that’s what we want to do.”     And going so far a to draw people’s attention to the pictures of past Council and Mayors pointing out that “All but 2 are white males and if you want to change this picture”  and accusing fellow Council members of “changing around their votes” around because they were too afraid to ask for a raise.
      Mayor Bagley:           Gaveled in and held Mayor Pro-Tem Christensen “Out of Order”
      Mayor Bagley, Waters, Martin and Finley                        Against
      Rodriguez and Peck voted with Pro-Tem Christensen     In-Favor

      Vote:   Measure Failed 4-3 and NOT appear on this year’s ballot
  • O-2019-75      A resolution approving the Inter-governmental agreement with the City and Weld County for Coordinating Election Activity/Schedule
    O-2019-76      A resolution approving the Inter-governmental agreement with the City and Boulder County for Coordinating Election Activity/Schedule
  • O-2019-77      A resolution approving the Inter-governmental agreement with the City and Boulder County for its Circles program
  • O-2019-78      A resolution to establish the fee for Cash-In-Lieu of water rights transfers
    Martin:          Called Dale Redmaker Cty. Mgr. to explain the relationship of Cash-In-Lieu payments for water rights and Affordability of housing

Dale:   Competitive Survey amongst other municipalities found anywhere $31,000 to $47,000; Higher water rates increased the price of houses and decreased housing affordability. 
Martin:  So people concerned with water rates, affd. Housing and housing security you can’t have it both way higher rates and affordable homes

Outcome:       Voted and Passed Unanimously

  • Approve 3 Capital Improvement program amendments
    Martin:          Does this state that the crossing at Main St. Station and the 2.1 million price tag?  Does it mention that about 45% or $900k was matched by devleper?  The Quiet Zone and the crossing at 1sr & Emery?
    Tyler: Yes
    Outcome:       Voted and Passed Unanimously
  • Approve Colorado Communities for Climate Action 2019 Policy Statement
  • Ordinances on the 2nd reading and Public Comment:
    •       Making a resolution for making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities:          Teresa Malloy City Budget Mgr.      Don’t normally make appropriation presentations we have quite a large carry over.  $130.66 Million (Majority is Capital Improvement construction or funds being held until project completion for Budget Year 2018)
      There is just under $2 million in new appropriations (tax revenue)

      Total Appropriations:                      $132,656,295
      Total City Operating Budget:         $534,726,548 (Millions)

      Outcome:       Voted and Passed Unanimously
  • O-2019-41      An ordinance to Amending Title 11 Chapter 11.04 Section 123 regarding the current code dismounting of bicycle
    Mayor Pro-Tem Christensen
    : Forcing dismounts is comical and it’s not being followed, needs something with teeth, There should be No cycling or Scooters on sidewalks too many hazards, hopefully the new Park Rangers can enforce current laws against riding bicycles and scooters on the sidewalk, it’s need to be enforced and people fined
    Mayor Bagley, interjects and corrects Mayor ProTem Christensen that there is NO LAW AGAINST RIDING BYCYCLES AND SCOOTERS ON THE SIDEWALKS, IT’S A SUGGESTION. (Emphasis Mine)
    M. Martin:     Want to be clear, we’re not proposing anything new, we are rescinding the rule that you must dismount your bicycles or scooters at crosswalks, dismount rule not clear….  ***Indecipherable***

Public Comment:
Devine Quince:         spoke in favor of removing the ordinance.
Vincent:         also spoke in favor of repealing but expressed great concern about expanding future ordinances onto sidewalks
Outcome:       Voted and Passed Unanimously      No need to dismount at crosswalks for bicyclists or scooters

  • Peakview Estates Annexation:  2 Votes Resolution and Ordinance Vote   

R-2019-79      Finding parcel:         generally known as 2725 9th Ave and Zoning for residential homes.

Peck:  asked if it included Affd. Housing. Mayor Begley confirms
Mayor Bagley: This is just to vote on the authorization to Annex said property NOT to authorize the annexation

Public Comment:
Connor:          Concerns:      Wildlife and pets that already live in the area; exacerbate mouse/rodent problems, Habitat around Golden Ponds, Traffic, power problems and brown outs and this project will further strain the system, noise from construction and new housing will be permanently disrupting

Sal Goldstein Concerns:      less than 1 mile from his house, the park is too small to support community, traffic problems, land owner has a right to sell his property but ***Indecipherable***

Adam Selrice(sp?)    Against the plan to annex and allow building, the applicant did not meet the City’s 180 deadline, does not meet the City’s requirement water and sewer hook/ups, no documents for environmental report, Golden Ponds still recovering from the flood and restoration work, Excludes Wetlands and wildlife, Algae bloom already in pond #1, the submitted traffic plan did not meet requirements and based on an old study ***Indecipherable***  went to a Planning Board Zoning meeting and approx. 40 people spoke or wrote letters and not 1 spoke in favor of the project, was told that “no amount of whining is going to stop this” and “it’s either housing or storage units” and the “board did not read the report but were there to rubber stamp it.” Keep the Rural Zoning until a better plan  Ending to an applause.
Mayor Bagley:          Gaveled down the audience as “applauding for a side could offend someone who doesn’t agree.”

Samuel Kemp(?)  Spoke against the proposed plan.
Mayor Bagley:          Jokes about proclamation of Coolest Beard

Claudia Vaughn of Rocky Ridge Civil Engineering:        On behalf of the applicant; Statement:  Made herself available to answer any questions that residents might have with regards to the proposal

Kylie Soliday(?)        Did attend meeting in May, the Environmental report was done 2 years after the flood it’s been 4 years now and a lot can change in that time, animals and natural occurrences, in May there were a few engineers there who were not able to answer any of the questions and it was disheartening

Council Woman Finley:       Brownouts: Called Karen Bryant
Karen Bryant:           Addresses the concerns that were just brought forth.  The zoning board called Longmont Power/Comm. And they will look at upgrading and improving the sub-station or just replacing it all together.  Wanted everyone to understand that this is the very early stages of planning and development and that the preliminary and final planning process will certainly address those items, Update wildlife plan, etc,  1st time Annex was brought up as it was rejected for non-compliance, then resubmitted with memo then deemed acceptable but they will still need to submit a new environmental and wildlife plan before any approval is given

Council Woman Peck
Concerned about annexations and old data/info and wanted to clarify if this would come back for another vote           Not on the authorization to annex the land. Moves to the responsibility of Planning and Zoning as to whether to approve or reject the landowners plans for development not the responsibility of Longmont City Council.       
Is this an old transportation plan? These annexations almost never comeback. Council gets the same questions from [constituents] though

Initial traffic study was small about 312 daily trips ***Indecipherable***  Total current volume on 9th Approx. 5,400per/day and the current # is about 5,100  it’s capacity is 10,000per/day, current plan will not meet the 2nd Entry (Emergency Equip.) could add a center turn lane ***Indecipherable*** 
Peck:  what about the question that roads are too close
Tyler: Good question it doesn’t currently meet that std. but they are looking at a center lane to help offset the problem
Peck: I know the answer but will we ever get to see if these changes are made *indecipherable*  Someone comes forward and says NO IT WILL NOT So it’s totally up to the planning board as to whether they make the changes or not.  YES
Martin:          Explains that this is just the question as to whether the property is annexed or not but Concerned citizens have expressed quite a large # of objections but we are just voting on the annexation How much is required now to be provided for our vote to consider the parcel for annexation vs what will need to be completed at final Plat?

What you have in front of you are two separate votes one is eligibility for annexation per State Statute and we rarely see one that isn’t; the ordinance evaluation is the overall application is to determine if criteria is being met for annexation and that its inline with planning and Envision Longmont.  Council always can vote against the annexation if the above have not been met or if you feel you don’t have enough information to make that decision

At the time of preliminary plat we will require all new reports and studies Traffic, Wildlife Environmental Impact, etc

If we vote yes the applicant will have the opportunity to remedy the concerns before it moves forward?
Joanie:  Certainly the applicant always has the option to address the issues or it won’t move forward to preliminary plat

Mayor Pro-Tem:       Sigh  the reality though is tonight were being asked to 1 do a resolution that it meets the criteria to annex it and the next thing that we will do is approve an ordinance initially approving the annexation and then it will move forward and we will never see it again unless it’s appealed and 5 years ago we changed the way appeals went.  I have not seen one single thing that was not approved. And I have a lot of questions and I don’t think they [Planning & Zoning] have done an adequate job.  This won’t drain because it’s in a valley and it will drain directly into Golden Ponds.  We’re taking a natural field and we’re turning it into homes which I think is a good idea maybe not there.  The homes will be a part of HOA or something and all the chemicals for lawns will run off into Golden Ponds; it’ll be a much different natural environment I haven’t seen anything that they are thinking about that, they didn’t submit some of thing in a timely manner and so I can’t go on rubber stamping all this stuff.  I’m not going to vote for this approval.

1:07:02 Waters          I just wanted to confirm what I heard; the first vote makes them eligible and the second would then annex the property?  I guess for me as I listen to the discussion what we have to decide is do we think our process and the delegation of authority to planning and zoning is the appropriate way of handling approval and permitting of plats or not.  Do we want it all to come to us? If we don’t think that planning or zoning or our staff are competent to carry out what they are charged to do then we should not approve any of these.  We won’t get much else done in the interests of the City.  I’m sympathetic to what I’ve heard and if I living there and identified these problems about this project; I would be at the podium but we have to do is decide whether we trust people like Joanie and her staff to hold the developer  to the standards we expect.   Every time we’re in this conversation we are talking about Affordable housing and the approval of plats *indecipherable*  We’re either serious about and I hear this a lot, stop building and solve the problems homelessness but we can’t do both we either need to build housing for people to live in or we simply need to let people know that this is not going to be an option.  I don’t get the thinking how we’re going to address increasing housing stock without it also including housing affordability, homelessness, housing security.  We need to be smart about it but we better be clear on what we need because we can’t have it both ways.     So I’m going to Vote Approval for both the resolution and the preliminary and I’m going to expect and hold Joanie and her staff to make sure they are doing our job and holding builders accountable

Peck    My questions were really designed to help our residents understand the process  I really respect our staff and we tried to make it easier with the New Wildlife plan to help better address your concerns *indecipherable*  You need to know what the process is and understand that we are going to bring those studies up to date.  Message to the builder “treat our residents with respect”

Rodriguez      thank you just want to tag onto what councilman Waters said; it would really bog down our work with the city if we took on their workload of planning and zoning.  I think we do a good job to increase protections in the process and as a former planning commissioner,  these commissioners are acutely aware of everything and the worries in the process this is really a 30k ft look and I’m always for annexation because it allows us more leeway as to what happens with that property.            Voting In-Favor

Mayor Bagley:          it just dawned on me there are lots of reason that plan and zoning exists and I can tell you that that I’m persuaded when a large group of citizenry show up and say you need to do this and one week shows up and says you need to do this, and lots of times they are conflicting.  One point we were talking about affd. Housing and we agreed that we need to increase supply and talk to builders developers, increase incentives for on-sitee affd hous. And incent people to build and some were fast tracked .  I’ve been on Council since 2011 and I’ve heard things that you were going to destroy the integrity of our neighborhood, ruin the environment this was going to be a disaster etc,.  At this stage of the process “we give permission to staff to move forward with the annexation” to make sure that all the concerns we are hearing tonight and that staff hear need to be addressed but if we decide not to move forward it will stay an open field until a future council decide to build something. I will also be voting for it.

Vote:   Passed Unanimously

George Marxmiller (?) Spoke in favor of the annexation but also said he wants the same ability to parcel and sell his property because he was told that he can’t previously.  I heard that they needed to gain access for a road to my property I’m not selling my property so take that off the table.  I had to give a Conservation Easement went limited me to 1 house and 1 barn, rural character neighborhood and I gave up the value of that property they get to place 27 hours on seven acres I should not have to get the Easement lifted I had to pay $85,000 an acre that’ s not fair.
Mayor Bagley offered to buy his property at $85,000 acres.

  • O-2019-42      Approving the parcel:          A bill conditionally approving the annexation

    Vote:   Passed 6-1 with Mayor Pro-Tem Christensen Against.

    Additional information regarding the annexation of Peakview Estates

  •             Items removed from the night’s agenda.
  •             General Business
  •             Final Call for public to be heard
  •             Mayor and Council comments:      
    There were some very interesting remarks made during this portion some of which we’ll outline as we move toward Election and Decision Day  (Me)
  •             City Manager Remarks
  •             City Attorney Remarks
  •             Adjourn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.