City Council - Regular Meeting

music music

I would now like to call the August 25th, 2026 Longmont City Council regular session to order. The live stream of this meeting can be viewed at the city's YouTube channel or on longmontpublicmedia.org forward slash watch or on Comcast channels 8 or 880. Can we begin with roll call, please?

Absolutely. Mayor Hidalgo-Ferring? Present. Mayor Portemacoy? Present. Council Member Christ?

Present.

Council Member Kalkhofer? Present. Council Member Marcing? Here. Council Member Popkin? Here. Council Member Prieto? Present.

Mayor Yovacor? Great. Let's stand for the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

In accordance with the council's rules of procedure, the rules for providing public comment are as follows. Only Longmont residents and employees of City of Longmont may speak during first call public invited to be heard. You must provide your address at the sign up sheet before the meeting or I will not call your name. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. Anyone may speak on second reading or public hearing item, and you are asked to add your name to the speaker list for the specific item before the meeting. Anyone may speak during final call public invited to be heard. Members of the audience shall refrain from disruptive, vulgar, or abusive language. heckling, applause, or other actions that interfere with the orderly function of council. We're now on to item four, approval of the minutes. Can I have a motion to approve the August 11th, 2026 regular session minutes? So moved. Second. Okay, so the motion has been made by Mayor Pro Tem, seconded by Council Member Christ. Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, that carries unanimously. We are now on to agenda revisions and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas. Do we have anyone in the queue? Council Member Kalkhofer.

There we go. Thank you, Mayor. I'll start with the motion. I move that council direct staff to bring the compost rate options to this... Sorry, you lost the words, the sustainability advisory board at the September 16th meeting for feedback before the items returned to council in October using the best availability available, high, medium and low framework and asking SAB to focus its feedback on affordability, equity, likely participation in alignment with the city climate and waste diversion goals.

okay so the motion has been made by councilmember Kalkhofer to refer the composting rates discussion or item to the sustainability advisory board for feedback and input and that was seconded by councilmember Popkin Okay. Do we have any questions?

Mayor? Yes. Becky. Yeah.

Go ahead. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I might ask for a little flexibility because I'm not certain that September 16th is going to work. Okay. We might also need some clarification. Typically, we do not bring rate information specifically like rate structure options to bodies other than the council before the packet is published. We can make that work by publishing the Council packet Wednesday morning for our Wednesday afternoon presentation. Or if you would like to provide direction that it's okay to really show those options that we're planning to bring to Council before you see them, then that's direction that would be helpful to us. Okay.

Council Member Kalkhofer.

Thank you, I'm OK with them seeing the rates because it's something that we want the public to kind of be behind and I don't know how other members of the dice feel about that, but I do feel like we should be getting the community's input and I think the sustainability board would be a great board to get that ball rolling.

Councilmember Christ. Thank you, Mayor. I was just going to bring up my minutes because my recollection is that the motion that we passed did not actually have rates, but it asked staff to bring back a scheme where we would revise the trash sizes, the containers for composting, and that we would then figure out a subsidy. Am I remembering correctly? So I don't know if there were specific rates there, but maybe all those topics could be discussed.

Thank you for that. Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. Just to respond to Councilmember Christ here, rate options were part of that motion. The first part of that motion was to realign the rate structure to achieve the goals that we had specified in that. So I think that was very much front and center in at least the first half of that. I think you were correct, though, Councilmember Christ, that the second half was more about the different options of sizing and bin options for the public. Again, not forcing anyone to be required to subscribe to a certain thing, but providing those options. I don't have a problem with the timeline that staff or flexibility that staff requested as the second to the motion.

Okay.

And you're good with a, okay. So let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that carries unanimously. And I also see that there was an amendment to the date in Section 2 for Item 9C, Resolution 2026-50, a resolution for the Council of the City of Longmont, Colorado, finding that the petition for annexation of a parcel of land located in Boulder County, State of Colorado, known as 8513 St. Vrain Road annexation. The date should be October 20th, 2026, and a revised resolution is on our dais in front of you. And then Don, do you have the public invited to be heard list? I need to go grab it, Mayor. Okay, thank you. Because that's coming up. Thank you. And so do we have anyone else adding agenda items? So seeing none, we're going to move on to the city manager report. Does the city manager have a report?

No report, Mayor, Council.

Okay, and there are no special reports and presentations. So we are now on to public invited to be heard. As soon as the list comes, I will call the first name. I was going to say I already lost the list. I was here for five minutes. Great, so I'm going to call the first five people and if you could make your way to the front row or the empty chairs over here. The first person on the list is Ingrid Moore. After Ingrid is Carla Behrens, then Nia Wasink, Kristen Bose, and Paul Tiger. Okay, and then when you're ready, Ingrid, you can go ahead and begin.

Just turn on the mic there, Ingrid. There's a button there.

There you go.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm here tonight to speak to you in support of Councillor McCoy regarding the ethics complaint before you tonight. Sean McCoy is a good and dedicated public servant. In the years I've known him, he's shown nothing but ethical character. He should not be the victim of ad hominem attacks or harassed by people who don't like a representative speaking for their constituents if it disagrees with their personal view of the airport. McCoy is representing those who are negatively impacted by airport operations. This includes me and my neighborhood in Southwest Longmont, not just his own neighborhood. I've talked to him personally about these issues. Those of us under the noise dome have been frustrated for decades by restrictions imposed on the city council by the FAA in controlling airport operations. I appreciate Mr. McCoy's attempts to at least try to do something to address this issue within what the council can do. In filing this complaint, Mr. Meester's actions appear petty and vengeful. He says he's open to different perspectives, but in my personal experience with airport enthusiasts, that's not really true. If you share your concerns, You're met with hostility retaliation and attempted intimidation from airport insiders I've personally had people buzz up my street at low altitude because I took photos of skydivers landing off the airport grounds. So Mr. Meester seems willing to impugn a good person who serves the many to advance the interests of a self-concerned few. I think the complaint should be dismissed or disregarded, and that's what I'm asking the council to do tonight. Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you, Carla.

Good evening council members and mayor, I mean vice versa, excuse me. My name is Carla Behrens, I live at 904 Little Leaf Court in Southwest Longmont. And I'm here also to support Sean McCoy and all of his constituents. and all of Longmont residents. As has been seen in many articles and many different discussions, the area of Longmont impacted by the touch and go and the noise and the pollution, et cetera, has enlarged way more from 2009. It's not just Sean McCoy's precinct. And I think that he's supporting all of us. And I would like to say that during the lawsuit some years ago, a noise consultant, a certified national noise consultant, clocked 80 decibels by the skydive plane above my house. And it's just something that has never stopped. It keeps going and going. But that's not the only issue. I've read a lot that other people are more impacted by the touch and go flights from the flight schools from the surrounding area. I do not think it's fair for Longmont residents supporting with our tax dollars an airport that can be used in many ways It's not fair for them to have free access forever from flight schools that don't even pay taxes or don't even live here. Thank you. Thank you.

Nia.

Good evening, Mayor and members of council. Lovely to be in front of you, Neowasink 1471 Alpine Street. I'm here to talk about a pretty familiar topic to most of you, the childcare crisis we have in our community. Our past councils, as well as our city, continue to see that this is a major issue in our community, and we've done incredible investments. I mean, the Project Descent is a great example where the city of Longmont has stepped up and into this space. But now it's time for a systemic moment to address this. The last 18 months in our community, this issue has been exacerbated. Federal cuts, federal funding insecurity or potential freezes, leading down to state cuts. For new parents in our community right now, it is near impossible to find, and if you find it, afford childcare. This doesn't just impact those families though. This isn't just a human crisis, it's an economic crisis. Everyone relies on somebody who relies on childcare. When our firefighters, our teachers, our accountants, our restaurant hostesses, when they don't have solid childcare, the rest of us all feel the brunt of that. And Longmont businesses are saying that they are feeling this right now. So tonight before you, you have a resolution to support the Brighter Start Boulder County ballot initiative. If passed, this would provide truly transformational funding into our early childhood system. The kind of funding that would make it so that families could live and stay in Boulder County, which we desperately need. So I'm encouraging you to please stand up and also lead the other L-towns who will be considering this measure in the coming weeks and show that Longmont stays here and supports families and children. Great, thank you.

Kristen.

Hi, Kirsten Base, 402 Grant Street. I have written many emails and spoken to many of you about my concerns regarding Longmont Airport. I know the leaded fuel is a public health hazard. I know the pilots are unaware of or blatantly ignoring the recommendations of the voluntary noise abatement policy. I know the airport manager isn't addressing violations of the VNAP nor encouraging compliance. I have said that my house has been targeted by low flying aircraft since I began speaking to council on this issue. But as an individual, I am powerless. So I need an advocate like Councilman McCoy to ask the questions. In fact, I need more of you to advocate for me and not for you to silence the one person who has had the guts to do it even when he knew people in the airport community weren't gonna like it. You all took this role to represent the interests of Longmont's residents. I can't imagine that any of you would want to be silenced on a topic that is important to your constituents, so please don't do that here tonight. Don't try to silence us by silencing our advocate. Thank you.

Thank you. Paul Tiger. And then the next five, Kurt Slow, Amy Carlo, Rick Hogue, Penny Hodges, and David Hodges.

Good evening, Paul Tiger, somewhere in Longmont. So I'd like to say that all of you did not lose your rights to free speech and expression when you became council members. So I wouldn't want people to recuse themselves or that we say, they're being unethical, they're speaking true to their nature. I am actually here about something entirely different, which is Third and Alpine, a crosswalk that I've been talking to council about for 20 years. Diane is going to find a place for me to intersect with Vision Zero to talk about this, but that's actually why I became involved with Vision Zero. I really actually wasn't interested in everybody else. I was interested in my intersection, which has had fatalities. And there is a business park on one side, jobs on one side, and residences on the other. Every day, my wife and I see people crossing that intersection. Traffic engineering thinks that they should go to cross at Lashley. There's no signage that indicates that that's what traffic engineering would like you to do. I understand that it's probably about a $50 fine for malicious mischief to put a crosswalk installed myself. I understand that I would then be paying the recouping costs for taking the striping away. I want you to think about this intersection and know something about it and stay with me while I document that with you for 20 years. But if we're going to have crosswalks, and by the way, we have crosswalks. going east and west a long third, but nobody in their right mind would travel that close to traffic, and that's why we have a nine-foot-wide sidewalk on the other side of the street, but no crosswalks. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Kirk?

Kirk Slow? The last time I was here, I ran out of time and I was speaking on the whole police, public safety, asking for more money, et cetera, et cetera. Now continuing and bringing in the shooting that happened two weeks ago, there were multiple police and one unarmed individual. Haven't seen the video yet, but There were multiple police and one unarmed individual. Couldn't other methods have been used, taser, other non-lethal methods? I've seen most of the cops in this town, they're big guys, they're much bigger than me. And multiple people should be able to control a situation without putting the person, the victim, not the person who is the hostage, at risk. Now, these are people who have qualified immunity, and the same department is asking not just for money, but, oh, give us surveillance cameras so we can have plausible deniability, you know, AI. The cameras are always right, which other people will tell you the cameras aren't always right, and surveillance tech is not perfect. Now, are we, and all of this is in the name of public safety. Do we just roll over and say, the cops, give the cops whatever they want? Or is this going to be properly studied and for once say no?

Thank you.

Amy? Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Amy Carlo, and I'm a Longmont resident. I'm here tonight to ask for your support of the Early Childhood Care and Education Initiative, also known as Brighter Start Boulder County. I've spent more than 20 years working in early childhood education. During that time, I've been a preschool and a kindergarten teacher, a program director, and today I work with early childhood providers throughout Boulder County. I'm also a parent. Because of these experiences, I've had the privilege of seeing firsthand what happens when children and families have access to high quality early childcare and what happens when they don't. The first few years of life are the most important years of a child's development. During this time, children are building the foundation for future learning, relationships, health, and well-being. They need stable, nurturing relationships and environment that support their development and where they feel safe. We know that high quality early child care programs can provide that foundation, but too many families in our community just can't access the care that they need. Families are struggling to find care they can afford, and that's especially true for infants and toddlers. And at the same time, providers are doing everything they can to serve families while they're facing significant financial challenges trying to be sustainable and do so. Through my work, I hear from families every day who are piecing together childcare arrangements. This is delaying work opportunities, they're losing work opportunities altogether, and they're having to make difficult decisions because they simply can't find or afford care. I also work with childcare providers who are deeply committed to children and families, but they're struggling to keep their doors open. This is not just a challenge for individual families. This affects our workforce, our economy, and the long-term well-being of our community. That's why I believe Brighter Start Boulder County is so important. This initiative is an opportunity to make a meaningful local investment in young children and the families who are raising them. It would help more families access affordable care, strengthen and support our early childhood workforce, and expand access to high quality early learning opportunities throughout Longmont and our community. As someone who's dedicated my career to this work, I know there's no better investment we can make than in young children. When we support children in their earliest years, we strengthen families, support local businesses, and build a healthier and more vibrant community for everyone. I respectfully ask for your support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Rick.

Mayor, get this a little higher here. Mayor, members of council, my name is Rick Hogue. I reside at 353 Grant Street in Longmont where I lived with my wife Cindy for over 45 years. I was also a member of this council back in the late 1990s as a member at large. So I do have a deep abiding interest in this town. And I want to basically just read a letter that I sent to all, an email sent to all of you regarding my support of Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem Sean McCoy. I support him in his efforts to address the growing resident frustration, regarding the operations of the Vance brand municipal airport as an at-large council member Sean McCoy represents the entire Longmont my view is that he has not crossed any ethical violations with his zealous efforts to try to and move forward with the lack of action by the staff and management out of the airport. The fact that we had to even go get federal grants to take care of our own taxiways is, in my opinion, showing that the airport is failing in its efforts to be a Longmont enterprise activity. Well, I've not read every single communication, email communication, with this matter. I have read the complete report from the Times Call, and I have read the entire summary report from the ethics officer. That set forth pretty clearly the allegations and so forth with the complaint. Serving on a public council requires making some very difficult decisions that will not please everyone. As a representative of the people, you must focus on the long-term best interests of the community. COUNCILMAN MCCOY HAS DEMONSTRATED HIS COMMITMENT TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF LLAMA CITIZENS EVEN IN THE FACE OF CRITICISM FROM THE MINORITY WHO OBVIOUSLY HAVE SOME SELF-SERVING INTEREST MOTIVATIONS IN FOR THEMSELVES. ANY SORT OF REPRIMAND OR RECUSAL IN MY OPINION IS ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED FOR. I agree with actually two things, item 2.18.010, C3 and C4 in the report from the ethics advisor. I totally, I disagree with the findings of part C2.

Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate your time.

Penny Jo Hodges.

Hi, thank you all for being here tonight and letting us talk. First, I wanted to thank Senator Katie Wallace. She showed up to our meeting last night about the mass surveillance. I just want to make sure that this stays on the table. And thank you, Councilman Popkin, for showing up also. That was really appreciated and eye-opening and had some great conversations. So thank you so much. I'm not going to belabor this. I just want to keep this on the table. And I'm sorry, I'll get back to my... thing here and words of wisdom from Thomas Jefferson there is no justification for taking away individuals freedoms in the guise of public safety please listen to our founding fathers and thanks for being here thank you David and then the next five Lance Whitaker Steven Steve Altshuler Meg Thornberry Ashley Berkowitz and Abigail Miller

Hello, I think you all know me, or sorry, you know me, and my stance is against the LPRs. I thought I'd take a different approach tonight, and while I believe Axon's greatest strategy is that they're not flock, there's some other things that I wanted to share that I'll be doing, and So first thing is I already have an application filled out and I'll be submitting to go on a ride along to greater understand how our police officers, their challenges and what they go through on day to day. I'll also send research to each of you on the challenges ALPRs pose to the community. I'll be submitting a FOIA request to gain a better understanding on how Axon is used in our community. And finally, I'm willing to look at and consider any data City Council, Public Safety, or the Police Department has that supports ALPRs as long as it's not Axon sales material. Thank you.

Thank you. Lance.

He's taller than I am. More in Mayor and Council. My name's Lance Whitaker, 1750 Collier Street, if you haven't memorized that. All right. Today is National Banana Split Day. It's also National Kiss and Makeup Day, but I have to have a fight with my girlfriend in order to do that, and that's not good. National Park Service Founders Day. National Secondhand Wardrobe Day.

Yay.

National Whiskey Sour Day. Maybe if we get out of here early enough, I can go have one of those. We've got a lot of birthdays here. We've got Billy Ray Cyrus, Gene Simmons, Rachel Ray, Regis Philbin, and Sean Connery. It also was Elaine's birthday on Monday, and at 86, she still raced up three flights of stairs for her birthday party. So good job, Elaine. Unfortunately, today is also the day Dolly Parton died. So I hope everyone has a song or two in their head. So thank you for that.

We need a break. Oh, my God, I did not. I was in meetings all day.

I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you. I know. Code of many colors. I'd also like to advocate again for HB19-123. As you guys know, I've been an advocate for that for quite a while. Please review your staff work and bring this back up to council, please. We had a three-to-three vote with one abstain, so hopefully we can get that back in and at least get it settled.

I see you eyeing me.

I love you, though, Susie, and you know it. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Thanks, Steve.

And good luck, Sean.

Okay, thanks, Lance.

Good evening, Steve Altshuler, 1555 Taylor Drive. For the people behind me, I know you can't call out and say anything, but could you raise your hand if any of you make more than $150,000 a year? Wow, no one makes more than $150,000 a year. That means everybody here, their kids would be eligible to get discounted daycare. $150,000 is a hell of a lot of money. I never made that in a year in my entire life in business. But some people want to start providing free or discounted daycare to literally everybody in Longmont. 60% of kids in Colorado cannot read, write, or do math at grade level. And that's a well-known number. And now you want to take more money from the people of Longmont to provide free daycare for teachers that have never even proven that they can teach kids reading, writing, and arithmetic at grade level. This is a ridiculous waste of money. I was at the meeting on Sunday. I asked specifically, is this program going to be available for the kids of illegal residents in Longmont. They absolutely refuse to answer that, which tells me, yes, it will be. So people come into our country illegally. And besides free health care and discounted housing and food benefits, now we're going to be giving them free daycare also. This is not right for the taxpayers of Longmont. If you're going to have your kids, you should raise your kids, you should take some responsibility for your kids, and you should do what it takes to get your kids at least into public school. So I've got more to say, but that's about that on the daycare. So I hope you reconsider. I hope you look at this. And if nothing else, just think about Minnesota with all the leering centers, where they were ripped off by $9 billion with daycares that didn't even have kids in them. So are there going to be securities to make sure that these are legitimate schools? Or is this more taxpayer money stolen? Also on number F here, There's another area where you want to raise our taxes to provide for police officers, which is great, dispatchers, firefighters, emergency support staff, and purchasing the necessary equipment, vehicles, and facilities. That to me is, I could be wrong, but that's what is going to be needed for the city council to approve of seven, 10, and 14 story buildings. So it's like a first step here towards going in another direction that I don't think should be done for a long month. Right now we can't have seven, 10, and 14 story buildings because the fire department doesn't have enough people or the equipment to handle it.

Thank you. Meg.

Hello, members of council. Good to see you all again. I'm back from vacation, so excuse me if I talk about something that has already been covered because I was very much on vacation and not paying attention to Longmont for a little bit, which was a lovely break, but I'm glad to be home. I just wanted to bring up a couple sort of statistics and based on Steve's point about early childhood education. Having strong education is actually one of the biggest indicators for preventing crime. So if we don't have enough money for our police officers, if we want to focus from the other end of reducing crime, investing in early childhood education is one of the best things that we can do. And I did find some statistics for this. that were from the Center for Justice Research. And they went and they looked at the reallocation of police funds into other categories and its impact on crime rates. So the first thing that they found, and I believe this is updated for 2026, but it was originally done around 2020, between 20% and 45% of local municipality discretionary funding is allocated towards law enforcement departments. So kind of crazy that a third of most cities department or budget goes towards that. Since 1977, the United States policing budget has nearly tripled to 115 billion despite a decrease in crime. Studies show that investment in non-carceral systems such as healthcare and high quality education decreases crime. And finally, the recommendations that they make then are auditing fiscal budgets to identify needed reduction in police budgets and reinvestment opportunities for improved community services. Developing partnering relations in municipalities with community mental health and social services service agencies to tailor intervention services, establishing partnerships with local colleges, as we love to do, to measure the quality and quantity of police citizen contact requiring specialized social and mental health services, and then continuing to fund programs that are concentric with this. So I hope that we can use the evidence-based data here to inform our decisions about where our taxes are going. And I want to make sure that we are doing the best for as many people as possible because I'm worried about the way that our society has suddenly shifted with this surveillance technology away from being the cops needing to prove you guilty into me needing to prove myself innocent. And I'm really not okay with that switch, and it feels like the mass surveillance has been a very clear indicator of when that pivot happened. So I would like the police to work hard to prove me guilty instead of me having to do my own job of proving my own innocence, which is by default unconstitutional. So that is my concern there. And then finally, again, with all of this, can we please see the numbers about how much it actually helps? If this is a thing that the police are arguing is absolutely necessary, I would like to see proof. Thank you.

Thank you. Ashley.

Ashley Berkowitz, 204 Fourth Avenue. I'd like to start with a quotation. It's probably going to be pretty familiar, but I think it bears repeating. the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized That's the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. And there is a more or less identical article in the Colorado Constitution. So I'm obviously here to talk about the ALPRs. I think it would take a significant amount of effort for me to imagine a technology that would be more invasive of the general rights of people. except perhaps a subcutaneous implant would reach the level of public monitoring of alpr cameras and i'm glad that the council decided not to renew with flock but i don't think flock is the pro well That's wrong. Flock is absolutely the problem. But I think that ALPRs more broadly go against one of the foundational principles of American jurisprudence, which is the idea that crimes must be investigated. We investigate crimes to find suspects. We don't investigate communities to find crimes. Well, I guess we do. Ignore that. But anyways, what I'm saying is ALPRs are casting a wide net. The term used with flock is dragnet. But the point stands that there's no requirement of probable cause. And we don't live in a society where a person is automatically subject to search at any time. That's why we created the Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment. The one place where society has decided that universal searching is more or less okay is airports and borders, basically, to stop very bad things coming into our country and to stop terrorism. But when it comes to these cameras, we're talking about diminishing the rights of everyone and creating a network of... surveillance that is not founded in the idea of the Constitution. It is founded in the idea that the state has the right to its people's information, which it doesn't. Thank you.

Thank you. Abigail Miller.

Hello, I'm Abigail Miller. I reside at 701 James Street. I'm a second generation Longmont resident. I own both a home and a commercial property in Longmont and for 20 years I've operated a commercial childcare center in Longmont serving hundreds of Longmont families. The quality and affordability of childcare is very important to me and the families that I serve. Despite that, I am here today to oppose the Brighter Start initiative. While some of the sponsors of this bill are personal friends and people I greatly respect and organizations that I believe are great assets to our community, I believe the likely effect of this initiative on my program and the families I serve will be to increase the property taxes and operating expenses for my program, jeopardizing its viability and increasing the amount that I would have to charge the families I serve. The Brighter Start proposal permanently increases Boulder County's already exorbitant property taxes to raise $30 million to try to solve a temporary problem, a CCAP freeze. If this had been a narrower proposal, raising $10 million to temporarily fund CCAP with a sunset provision, I would be here speaking in favor of it. But that is not the case. The plan will spend $8 million providing CCAP to 800 waitlisted children at $10,000 each. Given that the proponents say the average market rate for care in this county is $19,000 to $23,000 a year, and that the CCAP wait list likely already exceeds this number of children, this seems like an inadequate amount. As to the rest of the proposal, the other $20 million, it's difficult to be in favor of it because it's unclear what it would do or what the effects of it would be. The approach appears to be increase taxes, create a $30 million fund, and then decide. The plan says it will provide another 12 million in tuition assistance to parents and families of infants and toddlers making less than $150,000 a year. On page 11, they said there are 6,000 of these families. On page 21, they estimated that the target would be 1,500 to 2,000. They can't tell you how many families would be served. They can't tell you what the average rate of the subsidy would be. And they can't tell you what the providers would be required to do to accept these funds. If there are 6,000 families and they have 12 million to spend, that averages to $160 for a month. That would be unlikely to permit a family to enroll their child in any licensed childcare, especially if the rates are really 18 to 2,000. The other priorities they identified already exist in the status quo. The effect of this program is likely to increase my property taxes. The county has already lost 26 licensed childcare facilities in the last two years. because they could not afford to operate here. I urge you to use extreme caution in evaluating increasing expenses and operational costs to these facilities.

Thank you.

Okay, and that was the last name on the list, so I will now close public invited to be heard. We are now on to the item nine, consent agenda and introduction and reading by title of first reading ordinances. Don, can you please read the consent agenda for the record?

Sure, Mayor. The second reading and public hearing for ordinances introduced tonight on this consent agenda will be on September 8th, 2026. Item A has three ordinances, all related to the first and main transit project. A1 is ordinance 2026-54, a bill for an ordinance approving the first and main urban renewal plan, finding that the first and main urban renewal area is a blighted area, designating such area as appropriate for an urban renewal plan. and finding that the clearance, rehabilitation, conservation, development, redevelopment, or a combination thereof of such area is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the citizens of the city. Ordinance 2026-55, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the financing of the construction of a parking garage with associated improvements and other capital improvements of the city through the execution of one or more lease purchase agreements and the execution and delivery of certificates of participation. Ordinance 2026-56, a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of public sewer easements, generally located at 11 South Main Street. Item 9B is resolution 2026-49, a resolution of the Council of the City of Longmont, Colorado, finding that the petition for annexation of a parcel of land located in the County of Boulder, State of Colorado, known as the Dry Creek Annexation, generally located along Airport Road between Quail Road and Clover Basin Drive, Substantially complies with the Colorado Revised Statute, Section 31-12-107-1. 9c is Resolution 2026-50, a resolution of the Council of the City of Longmont, Colorado, finding that the petition for annexation of a parcel of land located in Boulder County, State of Colorado, known as the 8513 St. Rain Road annexation, generally located east of Airport Road and north of 9th Avenue within the southeast quarter of Section 31, Township 3 North, Range 69 West. Substantially complies with the Colorado Revised Statute Section 312-1071. 90 is Resolution 2026-51, Resolution of the City of Longmont, Colorado, authorizing the assignment of the city's private activity bond allocation for 2026 to the Longmont Housing Authority, providing other details in connection therewith and providing an effective date. 9E is resolution 2026-52, a resolution of Longmont City Council urging Longmont electors to vote yes on the ballot issue increasing Boulder County property taxes by 2.579 mills to address the shortage and high cost of childcare and preschool for Boulder County families with young children by lowering the cost of care, increasing the compensation of childcare and preschool teachers and staff, and expending capacity to serve more children and reduce wait lists on the November 3rd, 2026 coordinated municipal election ballot. 9F is resolution 2026-53, a resolution of Longmont City Council urging Longmont electors to vote yes on the ballot issue, increasing the city's public safety tax for the purpose of maintaining and increasing the level of public safety services, including hiring additional police officers, dispatchers, firefighters, emergency support staff, and purchasing the necessary equipment, vehicles, and facilities. on the November 3rd, 2026 coordinated municipal election ballot. 9G is resolution 2026-54, resolution of Longmont City Council urging Longmont electors to vote yes on ballot question amending the City of Longmont Home Rule Charter to add open space to the lands that require voter approval for sale or conveyance on the November 3rd, 2026 coordinated municipal election ballot. 9H is approve four capital improvement program amendments and 9I is accept eight capital improvement program amendments approved by the city manager.

Okay, great, thank you. And I did receive a request from staff to pull item A, items one, two, and three for a brief presentation. And then I do want to remind council, according to our operating agreements, only pull items that you are intending to vote against or propose an amendment. Okay.

Council Member Marcin. Thank you, Mayor. I actually need to pull item E for the purpose of recusal so that there's a separate vote on that.

Okay. I guess do we, yeah, I get it.

Council Member Christ. Thank you, Mayor. I would also like to pull F and G. Okay, thank you.

And Mayor Pro Tem.

Well, I'm sorry, folks, but I want to pull B and C for a vote.

A no vote?

A no vote.

Okay. Okay, so can I have a motion to accept the consent agenda for, well, I know, minus items A, B, C, E, F, G. You guys are killing me. Yep, yep.

Yeah, Mayor, the system is capturing items you're not pulling, so I'll fix that just so you know. Okay. Yeah.

Yes, okay.

Well, I move we move the consent agenda.

Mine is- B, C. E. B, C, E, F, and G. And A, yes. Okay, so the motion to accept the consent agenda minus items A1, A2, A3, B, C, E, F, no, yeah, E, F, G. Let's start singing the alphabet. And that has been seconded by Councilmember Popkin. Let's go ahead and vote. okay and that carries unanimously we are now on to item 10 ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter we have item a 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. are there any questions from council Okay, seeing none, do we have any comment from staff? Nope, okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing on Ordinance 2026-49. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I will now close public hearing. And is there, may I have a motion to pass and adopt Ordinance 2026-49? So the motion has been made by Mayor Pro Tem, seconded by Councilmember Christ. Seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, that carries unanimously. Now we're on to item B, ordinance 2026-50, a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 15.02.08.D of the Longmont Municipal Code and trialing of the new short-term rental license type for major regional events. And it was amended at first reading. Are there any questions from council? Seeing none, I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on ordinance 2026-50? Come on down. Oh, you know what?

What did I do with that list?

Look right here.

Ah, yes, Megan.

Come on down. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Good evening. My name is Megan Fanstiel. Can you hear me?

Yeah, I don't know if I'm too far or too close. Good?

Okay, thanks. Thank you. I'm not very experienced with microphones. Anyway, my name is Megan Fanstiel and I'm speaking on behalf of the Boulder Area Rental Housing Association. We represent housing providers who collectively manage or own more than 16,000 rental units in Boulder County, which of course includes Longmont. First, I really wanted to thank council and staff for your thoughtful and collaborative approach to preparing this draft ordinance in anticipation of Sundance and the opportunity to send in comments. Also wanted to thank you for incorporating the technical changes we recommended on first reading, particularly regarding subleasing. We believe that those changes will make the license more practical for property owners and tenants while maintaining APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT. I DID WANT TO TALK, SPEND A MINUTE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, WHICH WE DID ALSO MENTION IN OUR MEMO. we request that you consider possibly still waiving the residency requirement on this initial foray into this ordinance. Because this license is limited to a designated festival period, we believe it's different from a traditional short-term rental license. We believe waiving this requirement would give existing property owners the opportunity to make a unit available when you're gonna have more people coming to town. And realistically, it's likely just gonna affect vacant units because those are the folks that would have owners wanting to do this other than tenants. And we know that there's certainly concern about the idea of someone coming and purchasing properties to take advantage of this. which is one of the reasons, well, the main reason we support the Longmont Chamber's idea that they put in their comments about requiring someone to own the property for a certain period of time, and that could potentially eliminate that. I mean, the reality is we don't really know what's gonna happen in January. I mean, it's a little bit of a crystal ball, right? And the idea of allowing this in this initial year is that more units means more people coming to Longmont Supporting businesses paying taxes all that kind of good stuff. That's good for the economy And I know that you guys are going to be or my understanding I shouldn't say I know that you're going to be looking at this in a year So the thought was maybe consider this now and when you review it say hey this worked or didn't work So I just wanted to bring that up again and also thank you for your thoughtfulness in this process So and we're happy to answer any questions or do anything that you might need. Thank you. Thank you

Okay, is there anyone else in the audience? Okay, seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. And is there anyone from council who would like to make a motion to pass and adopt Ordinance 2026-50? Okay, so the motion has been made by Councilmember Kalkhofer and seconded by Councilmember Popkin. Okay. And seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, the question did pass because I did ask for questions. Yes, thank you. So let's go ahead and vote, please. And if you'd like to do a verbal vote, too. I'm still waiting. Okay, that carries unanimously. We are now on to item C, ordinance 2026-53, a bill for an ordinance concerning funding for the public safety and in connection therewith amending chapter 4.04 of the municipal code for the city of Longmont, Colorado, increasing the sale of City sales and use tax rate from 3.53% to 3.86% beginning in January 1, 2027, authorizing an increase in the city property tax of not more than 2.44 mils beginning with tax collection year 2027 and referring said tax increases to a vote of the qualified electors, and it was amended at first reading. Are there any questions from council? Okay. Seeing none, I will now open the public hearing on ordinance 2026-53. There's no one signed up on the list, but is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Go ahead. Come on.

I'm not in favor of any. Tax increases on properties.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no one else, do we have, come on down.

Paul Tiger, somewhere in Longmont. I'd really prefer it if you wouldn't endorse your own tax increases.

So, okay. Okay, seeing no one else in the audience coming down to speak, I'm going to go ahead and close our public hearing. And may I have a motion to pass and adopt Ordinance 2026-53. Thank you, the motion has been made by, okay, and Council Member Popkin.

And I think you're just on this motion. This is the second reading for this and I just wanted for folks who are just tuning in for tonight. We've had multiple discussions on the sales and property tax balance here and whether whether you agree disagree with had multiple discussions on that so that's why you aren't seeing that tonight. If you're interested in doing that the multiple articles in the times call or Podcasts about this or previous meetings on YouTube you can watch to catch up on where this discussion has been. The other thing I wanted to clarify for my council members on this motion is that this bill is not about supporting the ballot measure. This is about putting it on the ballot.

No, no, and I understood what he's getting at because the resolution that was pulled and now we're going to talk about it after voting on this. So I just wanted to make that clear. Yeah, but I do want us to kind of stay germane to this particular- That's all I had, Mayor. Yeah, thank you. So let's get back on task. Let's go ahead and vote. okay and that carries six to one with council member chris in opposition and now we are um backed items 11 back to the items removed from consent agenda and the first one was item a so um assistant city manager jen newton i'm going to start this off okay

So Mayor and Council, we've obviously been, we've had many conversations in terms of 1st and Main and the work that's going on there. One of the things that you noticed in this agenda is that we're actually starting to group all of these items together so that we can make it easier as we're working through this process. This is the first This is another step of many to come in terms of moving this project forward. Molly's going to break it down from a project overview. Jen's going to discuss the urban renewal component. Teresa's going to discuss the bond initiative. And then we also have staff available if there's any questions on the vacations of easements.

Good evening, Mayor and members of Council. I'm going to be introducing the projects today, and then I'll be handing it off to my coworkers here as we go along. So you have a couple of, well a few, requested council actions tonight. The first main decision point will be on the urban renewal plan, and Jen Uten will be presenting on that. The second will be authorizing the financing of the construction, and Teresa Molloy will be presenting on that. And then we did want to ask you before we went all the way through all three items, if you would like a presentation on the vacation of the public sewer easements, or if you would like to skip that part. Okay, did I hear that everywhere?

I'm sorry, yes, it was Skip. Okay, thank you.

Okay, so I'm gonna start by giving a project overview for the myriad of transit-oriented development projects that are going on down in this lower downtown area centered with the transit station. And so here is our latest rendering of our new transit station with a title of Longmont Station. Just a reminder, you've seen this in prior presentations, but none of this would be possible on this aggressive timeline without our public-private partnerships. And many of these projects that encompass the transit-oriented development area are not possible without public-private partnerships. Just to refresh, this is our entire area that this is a figure that is used specifically by the Front Range Passenger Rail that highlights the Colorado Connector or COCO that would be planning to come in just north of our future transit hub. Um, just highlighting other areas on here, the front range community college campus across main street, um, and South of first Avenue. We also have some other transit oriented projects that we're not going to be discussing tonight, but one 80 Emory is a future affordable housing project. Um, there on the other side of Emory, and then this is kind of showing our connection to our other, um, multimodal connections up to the downtown area as well. So the first key project that is instrumental in allowing all of this work to happen is the Kauffman Street Extension project. That project is set to go out for bid for construction coming up here in September. And so this will provide multimodal connections down Kauffman Street on the east side of the transit station garage itself. and leading down into, you can see the connections down into the Greenway, and then we've got our infrastructure that goes along with that, including the stormwater infrastructure that's needed. And then we just have a photo here of the improvements to Kauffman that have happened up north, just to give a brief example of what the look and feel will be like once we get through Kauffman Street. So that construction will be happening in this fall and coming into 2027.

Actually, they're constructing the wastewater, the wastewater line right now. So in case people see it, we break this up into separate contracts. So there's actually work starting now on the wastewater line.

And our transit center hub itself. So it is proposed to include five stories, have approximately 700 parking stalls, and 10 bus bays serving RTD's bus rapid transit, and then future passenger rail, other general parking needed for the downtown areas to visit businesses and residences, et cetera. This one is that public-private partnership agreement where we have completed phase two of that development agreement that came back to council previously. And that's getting us up to the construction point. So we have some very great progress to report that we do plan on being able to start clearing of the site by September 15th. And then we're planning a groundbreaking celebration in that late September, early October timeframe. And then the vertical construction would begin around November. So we'll see some fun progress soon. Associated with that transit center, the land that is west of the garage, fronting Main Street, south of First Avenue, down to Boston, that is all privately owned land. We did need to partner with the developer of that land to ensure that we had coordinated construction across both. because the garage will be wrapped by this private mixed use development. So this is some of our first renderings of what that building would eventually look like. And the city is working on development agreement negotiations right now with that developer and landowner. This kind of shows how that wrap actually works. So this is if you're looking from Kauffman Street. You can see the garage there fronting Kauffman with the wrap product around the edges. And then the bottom figure is if you're looking north from Main Street, you would see that wrapped mixed-use product and then the garage there to the left. Moving across Main Street, we're working on the Front Range Community College campus as well. You have seen some development agreements come forth in relation to that as well recently. This is in the heavy design process right now. Lots of meetings between Front Range and the architect doing program planning, space planning, and really trying to accommodate Front Range's needs for now and into the future. So I want to highlight on here the Front Range classroom building is what's shown in the blue. That is currently under design. The red figure to the north, that is the proposed office building, and that is also being worked out right now. We do not have any renderings of that one quite yet. Future potential developments that are intended to come forward later that are not included in a current development agreement specifically are shown in orange. There would be a need for additional parking, presumably in the future to serve these future needs. There would be a need for potentially housing, maybe student housing and some sort of partnership in that regard. And then potentially other commercial or retail uses as well. The red small box down in the bottom, those are the city-owned parcels down south of Boston. That's also a potential future use that could go there that is still to be determined. Oh, I should mention, that office building to the north, we do intend to bring next light into that location. This is just an example of how that design work is progressing for Front Range. They are being really intentional about designing that boulevard connection that would come up to Main Street and then offer good, safe pedestrian connection to the transit center garage. They're looking at treatments there to make that really pedestrian, multimodal friendly, and have space for placemaking and students and staff members and people visiting for businesses, et cetera, to really be able to hang out. So that's just kind of an overview of all of the things in the mix. There's even more details that stem from those. But I will go ahead and turn it over to Jen to start focusing on our urban renewal plan.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council. Jen Newton, Assistant City Manager for External Services. And tonight, also, I'm representing the Urban Renewal Authority as the Executive Director. I'm presenting on Ordinance 2026-54, which is the consideration of the adoption of the first and main urban renewal plan and certain legislative findings. The approval process for an urban renewal plan is guided by state law and includes conducting a blight study, negotiating tax agreements with taxing entities to finance urban renewal efforts, and presenting the plan to the Planning Commission to review its work being in accordance with a comprehensive plan. So in this diagram we're on step five. As you've heard a little bit this evening and in previous presentations, Longmont has set the stage for development to catalyze new investment in the southern downtown core. And for this area to serve multi-modal transportation and to move forward ideas from the STEM area plan including the higher education, maker space, mixed use buildings and parking structures. The first and main urban renewal plan covers approximately 29.5 acres in downtown Longmont, bounded by First Avenue to the north, Boston Avenue and Ida to the south, Kaufman Street, the new Kaufman Street to the west, and South Martin Street to the east. the plan is intended to help finance public infrastructure improvements and a regional transit center as you've just talked as we've just talked about while using those investments to catalyze transit oriented development and redevelopment within this area as you can see on this map this area is being carved out of the existing southeast longmont urban renewal plan That's due to a change in state law under which urban renewal plans must be drawn as narrowly as possible. And it includes that the funding that's generated within this area must be used specifically for the particular urban renewal area and projects. So the plan amendment for what we affectionately call SLRP will be on the September 8th agenda. We're asking this evening for you to review information about blight criteria that are established in state law and whether this area meets the threshold of having enough blighting factors to clear the bar to be eligible for the tool to be used for urban renewal projects and activities. State law requires that at least four blight factors would be required to be found to be eligible. There are 11 criteria for blight within the state law and Pioneer Development conducted a condition survey earlier this year that identified the presence of eight of them. The survey found a mix of vacant and underutilized properties, aging infrastructure, poor street connections, floodplain limitations, environmental concerns. And I'm going to point out a few excerpts from the White study moving forward here. One of the blight criteria is the predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. Field observations identified defective and inadequate street layout throughout the first and main transit center condition survey area. So I will note that this blue area is the area where we did the whole conditions survey, and the actual urban renewal plan is smaller than this area, but we surveyed this whole area to determine whether or not there was blight. While adjacent arterial streets provide regional access, the plan area exhibits a consistent pattern of poor internal circulation, incomplete street networks, and limited emergency access, which constrain safe movement and redevelopment potential. Another blighting condition is deterioration of sites or other improvements. Numerous vacant and underutilized parcels exhibit neglected landscaping including bare dirt lots, overgrown grasses, noxious weeds, and unmanaged vegetation. Many of these parcels contain scattered trash, discarded materials, broken asphalt, and concrete fragments, pallets, fencing remnants, and other debris. I won't go through all of the components that are in the plan, but collectively with the prevalence of neglected landscaping, accumulated debris, deteriorated fencing, cluttered yards, and aging signage establishes a clear pattern of declining site conditions across this area and supports the inclusion of factor E, which is the deterioration of site or other improvements. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities is another blight criteria. A lack of internal street circulation is a defining condition throughout the plan area. Large parcels on the east and west ends as well as several properties in the central area lack a connected internal street network. Access is often limited to dead end drives, informal dirt or gravel paths. or indirect connections to surrounding streets. This absence of internal circulation reduces parcel accessibility, limits efficient site planning, and constrains coordinated redevelopment. Blight factor K.5 is the existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements. The most prevalent condition supporting this factor is the presence of large vacant parcels that remain underutilized. I won't go through all of this, but in the southern portion of the plan area, parcels currently used for outdoor storage or junkyard type activities occupy large sites. that are not developed to their functional or economic capacity. And then also environmental contamination of buildings or property. So we have two areas that are identified in a circle. I would say a red circle, but just wanted to identify that there are two dots that are orange on this that I'm trying to highlight. The Longmont plan area included a limited number of properties where documented environmental contamination associated with historic petroleum storage and release. Available state and federal environmental records identify those two parcels with the plan that have been assigned a minor to moderate petroleum release classification. I will just note that as we've been moving toward the development of the site for the transit center, we identified asbestos containing material at 23 South Main in a former building slab and then have also been working on remediation of impacted soils and working with state agencies and that cleanup is anticipated to be completed in advance of that transit center moving forward. So here is that legal description that shows that that area is smaller than what was included in the condition survey that we did. I will note that there is a parcel that, let's see if I can identify right here. This right here is a county enclave and it also includes some rights of way around the area as well, including what would be the future extension of Kauffman. State law requires the negotiating with taxing entities for the use of tax increment financing, which is essentially the urban renewal plan can be thought of as a financing document. And so we have been hard at work doing those negotiations with those taxing entities. So before any urban renewal plan containing any tax allocation provisions that allocates any taxes of any taxing entity other than the municipality, Representatives of the authority and the governing body of taxing have to meet and attempt to negotiate an agreement. We've done that. Included in your packet is a list of those agreements that we have with the taxing entities. I will note that there is an overlap for a number of parcels with the Downtown Development Authority. Staff will need to embed the language that's included. in that addendum that's in your packet this evening. As it's intended or written today, the Downtown Development Authority would be receiving those tax increment dollars that we've negotiated from those other taxing entities, which is about 61% of the available property tax increment, and then remitting it to the Urban Renewal Authority, We actually think that what's gonna happen is that the reverse of that, where the assessor's office would remit that to the Urban Renewal Authority, and we then would remit to the Downtown Development Authority the five mills that they have where they're gonna keep those mills for their work. So we're working on an IGA, and the Downtown Development Authority will hear that tomorrow. So how does tax increment financing work? It's not a new tax. The tax increment is generated solely by new development in the plan. It would not increase taxes on the community and it's not leveraging the existing revenues. Rather, it's property taxes created by new projects and that property tax that's new is reinvested into the plan and specifically pledged toward making the projects within the project area come to fruition. So that, in this first and main area, there are three phases. One, which includes the transit-oriented development, including the transit center, the parking garage, but more importantly, the multifamily and commercial space, which is taxable. Phase two includes the modeling for plans for privately-owned commercial office space. That is included on the west side of Main. And then phase three envisions the multifamily within the plan's vacant properties on the eastern side. And with that, our recommendation is for council to approve ordinance 202654, which is the approval of the first and main urban renewal plan, finding the first and main urban renewal plan as a blighted area, designating such as appropriate for urban renewal plan, and finding that the clearance, rehabilitation, conservation, development, redevelopment, or combination thereof, such area is necessary in the public interest of public health safety morals and welfare of the citizens of the city with that i'm open to any questions that you have okay okay and i don't see anyone in the queue can i have a motion to adopt and pass ordinance 2026-54 council member popkin

yes thank you mayor i would like to make a motion to adopt uh to approve uh res uh let's see item r 2026 sorry no uh oh 2026 uh five four okay

So the motion has been made to pass Ordinance 2026-54, made by Councilmember Popkin, seconded by Councilmember Kalkhofer. Councilmember Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to briefly thank staff for the thoughtful presentation there. I know it was somewhat abridged. We've had these conversations for many, many months here, and I appreciate all of the work that's gone into this. I think we all do. And for those who are here, this is a once in a generation type project and redevelopment effort. And it's going to take a lot of hands on deck. And it's already shown that there are a lot of hands on deck here. And really, this directly relates to how we focus Longmont's growth. um how we use these projects to reactivate vacant sites and our tax base and how we attract new housing to these areas reduce the increase in growth of traffic and support our local businesses in a strong downtown so i look forward to very enthusiastically supporting this okay let's go ahead and vote

Okay.

And you can give a verbal vote as well.

I'm a yay. This is cool.

Okay. Yes. Okay. And so that carries unanimously. Is this for item A2?

Okay.

Going down the list. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Theresa Malloy, Chief Financial Officer. And this evening we wanted to cover the first and main financials for you. So, I am joined by Maria Harwood and Laura Witt from Butler Snow. Butler Snow is our outside legal counsel for debt and TABOR issues. And I'm also joined by Jason Simmons from Hilltop Securities. Hilltop is our municipal advisor for all financing issues, really. So, I'll ask them to make their way down maybe over here. because they are going to have some comments for you on the ordinance itself, as well as the certificate of participation. So we realize that we have not provided a high level overview of our entire project. And so what I wanted to do was start the conversation Showing you the the full financials for this project because it is a very complex project. We have had to Bring together multiple funding sources to really make this project a reality it is as you've previously heard from both Molly and Jen it it's this project itself is composed of two components a So it's the transit center hub and then the Kauffman Street extension. So what is on the screen for you this evening, this screen is focused solely on the transit center hub. And it, as I mentioned, is a very complex project that brings together a lot of funding sources. And the first item is funding that we have appropriated through our CIP process starting in 2018 through 2024. And that was $10 million over those years out of the public improvement fund for mainly land construction or land acquisition and then demolition of the site in order to build the transit hub. $16.4 million from RTD. You all are aware of that. There is also that $16.4 million is sitting in an escrow account at UMB Bank, and it has been there for a number of years. And it has been earning some pretty significant interest that is to date about $1.57 million. And we are in Conversations with RTD on on how that interest can be used Originally we were hoping we could use all of it to offset the actual construction cost of the transit center hub but That that may not happen there are RTD needs for Equipment and such that that they will need to purchase and to operate the bus bays and that whole ground floor of the transit center. And so what we are anticipating is that at this point, the city will be able to use or we are planning to use as much as half of that. to help offset the cost of construction for the site. And then there's the $4 million grant that you all are aware of. That grant was in the additional appropriation and the CIP amendment that you acted on earlier this evening. And then we will be getting permit fees from the private development, that mixed use RAP that was previously spoken about. that we are wanting to put back into the project. Originally, we had estimated about $1.8 million could be put back in the project, but when we actually started looking at the makeup of those permit fees, there is only really about $976,000 that can be used for this project. The rest is the earmark sales tax that needs to go to the street fund, the public safety fund, and the open space fund, as well as unfortunately that $1.8 million also counted county tax that we don't get. So we have about $976,000 from permit fees. And then the rest of the sources of funds is Funding that we have identified as we've been working through our 2027 budget and several, the last two items will be included in the 2027 budget that we're gonna bring you next week. The first 500,000 though is savings in the public improvement fund and some other projects that have already been complete and that funding is no longer needed to meet the needs of that project, and so that's been freed up and we're putting that back into this project. You will see that one come to you as a Herald-approved CIP amendment. at some point in the future. And then there is $672,000 that again will be in the 27 budget out of the general fund that we are gonna put into this project. That is fund balance. And then in the public improvement fund itself, there is another $1.6 million that we have freed up through shifting some other projects around and that 1.6 million dollars is going to be put into this project as well so that is a total of about 34.9 million dollars almost 35 million dollars of funding that that is coming from all those various sources for this project The actual cost estimates for the project are in the neighborhood of $60 million. So we do have a funding gap of about $25 million that we will, our plan is to issue certificate of participation to close that gap. So the uses of funds, the difference between the original estimate that was based on very high level, very early estimates, and the actual estimated column to the right, the estimated column is based on some more developed design documents we are also we are expecting that number hopefully to continue to come down as our developer gets final pricing but there's some pressures economic pressures out there that that may that we may not continue to realize any additional savings So the intent really is to issue around $25 million in certificate of participation to finance the rest of this project. And then I mentioned the project really consists of two components. The second one is the Kauffman Street extension, as previously mentioned. This is larger than just the extension of the roadway itself. It also includes utility improvements for that surrounding area. And again, we have pulled funding sources in from various different funds, utility funds, the street fund, the transportation community investment fee fund to make this part of the project a reality. And so we have I just wanted to point out that most of the sources on this slide were also included in that additional appropriation and CIP amendment that you acted on earlier. So out of the 850,000 for TCIF fees, there was an additional appropriation of $500,000. The rest of that was moved from TRP 137, which is the Main Street Corridor Plan project. For the $3.3 million of storm drainage funds in the original 2026 budget, there was $1 million that was from the storm drainage fund and the appropriation that you acted on this evening added the additional 2.3 million dollars and then um just under a million dollars from the water construction fund and 850 000 from the sewer operating fund both also in that appropriation So that is a total of $6 million in sources that we have found for this part of the project. The costs for this part of the project is $10.7 million. So we have a $4.7 million gap on this side of the project. So our total funding gap is just under $30 million. And as I mentioned, the city is going to be issuing certificates of participation to cover that gap. This is only the first COP issuance we'll do for this whole area. We are anticipating issuing, again, some additional certificates of participation for the Front Range project on the east side. And that plan is in early to mid next year. when we'll be back with that debt issuance. So with that, I am going to turn it over now to Maria, Laurel, and Jason. And they are going to go through the legal and financial components of the issuance of the COPs.

evening council my name is laura witt i'm with butler snow it's good to see you all this evening i'm here with maria who may interrupt me if i say something a little bit off um so there's a few documents in front of you today relating to the certificates of participation the first one is the ordinance and the ordinance itself sets the parameters around this release of certificates of participation certificates of participation are released through what we call a site lease and a lease. So this is where we have this leased property. You take the leased property and give it to, or you lease it to this trustee, and then they rent it back to you for payments each year, sort of like renting a property, renting a house, something like that. So that's done. All of this is laid out through the ordinance that you're looking at this evening. Within the ordinance, there's a few different things to note. The biggest one is that this sets the parameters for when we go out to the market to try and sell these certificates of participation. So you may have seen already in there, there are parameters specifically in Section 6. We just like to point those out because those kind of say this is the max amount that we're going to allow for all of the payments of these. This is the max amount for each year. This also is how long the site lease and lease can go out for. Those are all those sorts of dates that are listed in there. And then in addition, there's a few other documents that are on retainer with the city that we issue as part of this And so you'll see some of those mentioned throughout here and sort of the documents that we do one of those includes a disclosure statement or We call that a preliminary official statement or an official statement and that's mentioned in here as well and that just tells kind of the market what these are about what your town's about why they should invest in these and particular certificates of participation. So today what you are approving on first reading, though it's actually going on second reading, I guess, for next reading, but what you're looking at for first reading is this ordinance and whether or not you want to move forward with issuing these certificates of participation with these particular parameters.

Good evening, Council. Jason Simmons with Hilltop Securities, the city's municipal advisor. um so we help the city with their various debt and lease purchase agreement of financings um so this slide just kind of shows um estimated where we are today as teresa kind of laid out there's a various components here for the project funding we are looking at there's one component of here that we will be looking at the need to issue as taxable The need for us a taxable portion of COPs is driven by some potential private use on the site. So we can issue tax-exempt financing for municipalities for public purposes. But if there becomes private use, we do have to move into issuing a portion of this as taxable. We are working with the city to minimize that and looking at different options. But for right now, we are estimating we will need some level of taxable COPs. But if you look at kind of the... send out the columns to the left the one because the three columns are kind of breaking up into tax exempt piece a taxable piece and then the total transit center financing so we are trying to get financing uh for the project needs as teresa said in the prior size is about 25 million there are additional reserves that we are borrowing for capitalized interest to borrow some of the interest payments until some of those tax increment revenues start to flow after the project is up and running then we will be borrowing an additional about 4.7 from on a tax exempt basis for the Coffman Street extension. So overall, we are gonna try and fund about 30 million, just under $30 million from this issuance of COPs for the project funds. Then again, we will be allowing some other things, capital interest and other costs associated with this issuance.

And Jason, let me just add. So the taxable component will be for that private residential development. approximately 350 of those parking spaces will be dedicated for that private use and What the what the city will get in in return to help pay this annual debt is approximately 168 thousand in parking fees and and somewhere in the neighborhood of 400,000 of tax increment financing that will come from that mixed use wrap. And this is only a portion of the expected tax increment financing in the whole first and main area. The rest of it we plan to use for Front Range and possibly some of the other public or private development for public use. purposes on that side. There will be a component for the street fund for Kaufman, that Kaufman gap, as well as the public improvement fund.

Teresa, that's based on what we know is going to be private development that's generating the tax increment. One of the things that we're looking at in the overall project is additional tax generating projects that would then add more tax increment to help service the debt. But we wanted to take a conservative approach at this point.

So I would just point out, so again, in aggregate, we're looking right now under the current estimates about $33.8 million of project funds, reserves to be funded from these COPs. Right now, the kind of the aggregate combined interest rate we're looking at is at about a $478 million. And those are all subject to change. We'll talk about timing here as we move through in another couple slides. As Laurel mentioned, there are parameters in this ordinance authorizing the COPs, authorizing finance staff to move forward with issuance of these COPs under these parameters. As Laurel said, these are leases, so there's some time frames on the leases of how long this property can be leased under your city charter. It's 30 years. We have different lease terms in there for the taxable and the tax exempts. The taxables will be paid off first, and then they're a little bit more expensive. They're paying those off first. The taxable and tax exempts will be paid off after that. The aggregate principal amount we're asking to authorize is $38 million. As I pointed out before, we're looking for about $34 million. We're asking for authorization of a little bit more than that in case costs of the project go up, in case the need for reserves goes up a little bit. I think the big one there is F, the maximum annual repayment. That's a big number in there. We're structuring this over a 30-year lease. We're asking for a number in there that in case the market demands that we do this over a 20-year term, your city charter limits your ability to lease your property for 30 years. Usually, if we're doing a 30-year COP, we'd have a 10-year longer site lease with that. We think we will be fine, but we're just asking for a little bit of flexibility in that one. Then we have a total maximum repayment of 74 million. And then these will be callable. The city will be able to refund these or pay them down or pay them off if the funds are allowed within 10 years. And then we have that maximum not to exceed interest rate of 575. And as I said before, we're at about 478 right now. Obviously, the market has been quite volatile this year, so these are building in some flexibility to accommodate interest rate increases. The pattern that we've kind of seen this year is we see kind of quick run-ups over a week, and then they kind of trickle back down. Right now, we're in this kind of trickle-back-down phase. But the market has been operating very well. We've seen great response for the issuances that we've done so far in 2026, even though some of them are at higher rate. Working with Butler Snow and city staff to prepare all the legal documents, the official statement that, again, is on file. Second reading, as mentioned, was on September 8th in a couple weeks. Towards the end of September, we'll have a rating call. We have not had a rating call for the city of Longmont since 2022. The last COPs that we got rated were a double A, so that's a very strong rating for the city of Longmont. We would expect at least that for these COPs. Then as soon as we get the rating, we will post the documents to the market, and then we'll sell these COPs in mid-October and target closing these on October 22nd. So I will stop there and see if there are any questions about the financing.

Very good. Do we have any questions? And then are we able to go ahead and make a motion? OK. So Council Member Christ.

Thank you, Mayor. So just on slide 31, I'm just qualifying this. The taxable property, so the tax that would have to be paid on that, is that included in these numbers over here? Because I don't see it itemized. And I actually didn't see taxable, 28% might be taxable or 29% might be taxable. I didn't see that in the, in what I was reading. So I'm just kind of surprised. I haven't seen the numbers on it. But is that included in the total debt service?

Yes.

Okay.

That would accommodate. The numbers in there, the parameters would accommodate everything on this slide for essentially all. We're trying to get, again, $30 million of project proceeds with the reserves. Everything is encompassed in those parameters. So if you notice the interest rate, if you look down a little bit on that column under the taxable transit center portion, that interest rate's a little bit higher at a 537. Again, taxable rates are a little bit higher than tax exempt rates.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And then just one other question. Can you tell us what markets you will be selling the COPs?

The city goes through their city charter. They do what is called a competitive sale. So we notice the market. There's a document that we put together called the notice of sale. That's also part of the documents that are on file. That will alert the market. Underwriting community the broker dealer out there that the city of Longmont's holding a sale on that date I think is that October 14th the city will accept bids for the COPs And we award those bids to us into the lowest interest cost It's called the true interest cost as we award those two so we don't know who they're being sold to now because it's a public offering Those broker dealers, those underwriters who are buying it will turn around and sell them to other investors such as mutual funds or insurance companies. But again, we don't know that until after the fact.

Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. Would you like to make a motion? I would. I will move Ordinance 2026-55. Second.

So the motion has been made to go back to my screen to pass Ordinance 2026-55. Motion was made by Councilmember Chris, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem. Okay. Well, nobody wants to take it. I'll take it if you... Okay. Council member Popkin.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I had my mic on from before just for one more question. Oh, go ahead. And then we can get to that. I was noting in the council comm that we had a discussion that the years of when we would actually start the COPs were listed as starting in year 2029 through 2056, which is a little bit of an abridged timeline. It's like 27 years versus the 30-year timeline that you were outlining in your presentation. Can you just explain the discrepancy in that?

So if you look in the table above, the kind of second row down, the capitalized interest, so the COPs will be sold this year, so payments will start to be made next year in 2027. We're borrowing interest to pay those first couple years, so the city won't need to start making payments out of its own funds until 2029.

I see. So it's just referring to payments from our own funding sources. Correct. Got it. Thank you very much.

Mayor, I do want to focus on one thing that Teresa and Jason talked about. Excuse me. So when we're looking at the taxable component and the non-taxable component, we're also, in order to minimize the taxable component, working with Jason and looking at our budgets and seeing are there other projects that we can put in that are non-taxable, And then we work on the backside of it to take that funding then to help with the taxable component so that we're trying to lower the amount of taxable debt that we're issuing. And so we're going to continue working through that over the next few weeks.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. okay and that carries unanimously we are now on to item a3 ordinance 2026-56 oh do we do we don't have a presentation on this one okay okay so can i have yep that's right um thank you it was so long ago okay can i have a motion to um pass adopt and pass ordinance 2026-56 okay so the motion has been made by council member kolkofer and seconded by council member popkin seeing no one in the queue let's go ahead and vote Okay, that carries unanimously. We are now on to item B that was pulled. Resolution 2026-49 that was pulled by, oh yeah, that was the Mayor Pro Tem. Go ahead. Well, you are I'm just you're pulling it to vote. No. Yes. Is that correct? Okay. Can I have a motion to? Pass ordinate our resolution 2026 dash 49 Okay, so the motion has been made by councilmember Culcoffer and I'll go ahead and second it And Councilmember Culcoffer. Yes

Thank you, Mayor. So I want to be clear that we're not deciding on whether we like this annexation, the density, or future development. That discretion comes later. When the annexation ordinance itself comes to us on first and second reading, approving this resolution tonight does not annex the property.

That is correct, yes.

And doesn't commit us to approving it later. So my yes vote is participation that it meets the legal check mark.

Yes, okay, thank you. Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that carries 6 to 1 with Mayor Pro Tem McCoy in opposition. Okay, now on to item C, Resolution 2026-50. Was that passed by? Okay, that item was pulled by Mayor Pro Tem. So do we have a motion to approve? Motion has been made by Councilmember Kalkhofer to approve Resolution 2026-50. It was seconded by... Anyone? Seconded by Councilmember Popkin. Okay. Go ahead. Yes.

Yeah, I just wanted to basically ditto what Councilmember Kalkhofer said last time on this. And so if there were concerns or reasons to vote against, I'd appreciate for the sake of just understanding the rationale, if those are willing to share.

Yeah, I mean it's their prerogative if they want to share, but your vote is your opinion. So see no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that carries 6 to 1 with Mayor Pro Tem McCoy in opposition. And we are now on to Item E, Resolution 2026-52, and that was pulled by Councilmember Marcin. Was it to vote for a different? No. Okay.

Yes. Same here, yeah, because as I mentioned before, I am assigned a signatory on the executive committee of the ballot measure. I cannot be nonpartisan or nonbiased on any measure of this. I will be recusing myself from the vote. I'm going to go get a Coke Zero, and I'll see you guys later.

See you later. Okay. So can I have a motion to, once he leaves, to approve or resolution 2026-52, Councilmember Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. I want to explain the motion I'm going to make in a moment before I make it. I firmly believe that the whole point of putting something on the ballot is that the voters can decide. And maybe some folks are more comfortable with taking a position on council for ballot measures. This is the first time that I've been on council and we've had ballot measures up for discussion. And so I respect that there could be different approaches to this. But I'd like to offer a procedural suggestion regardless of what your perspective on the topic is actually for this. And that's based on extensive public feedback that I've received over the last year and a half. Regardless of our decision tonight, this is going to be a long ballot for voters. And the feedback I've overwhelmingly heard from residents and businesses is that they did not appreciate when the city put multiple tax increases on the same ballot in 2023. And I know this is not the city putting multiple on. We have partly learned that lesson. We are putting one measure on, that's the public safety tax. All of those failed in 2023, and that reinforced that public input for me accordingly. I'd like to suggest that we actually table all of the resolutions that are at least financial. But I would probably suggest for consistency sake, we table all of the resolutions that are currently on the consent agenda until the 2nd meeting in September. That will be my motion in a moment. so that we can have a full picture of everything that's going on voters' ballots. I'd much prefer to discuss what ballot issues we're supporting as a council and as a city, or encouraging voters to support, especially when there's a proposed tax increase, and then we can consider this all among the proposed tax increases. If we support all of them, we're not helping voters understand the sense of priority. If we support none of them, we're not helping voters understand the sense of priority. I also want to be clear, this is not an effort to stall or block any particular resolution. This happens to be the first one of three tonight. So that's why I'm bringing it up now for consistency sake. I just want to make sure that we're casting our votes and encouraging people to cast certain votes if that is the direction that this council decides with the full context of the ballot measures that are proposed. So I guess I will not make my motion yet, because I see other mics on.

Well, was yours? Yeah, that's what.

Then I will make the motion to table this resolution, and I would intend to do it for the remaining two as well, until the second regular business meeting of September.

Okay, so the motion has been made to table this resolution. Who was seconding it? Okay, Council Member Christ has seconded this. And I do see names in the queue. I do wanted to, because I was trying to think of time, because there's a point in where, and I just go back to how Eugene described it, the Wild West, and then the vampire, like we can't, we have to kind of, our opinions then are no longer, we cannot, Make we cannot talk about it. We cannot weigh in so there's a window of time when we are allowed to state an opinion Pass a resolution and then there's a point in time during this process Where we can no longer is that? Yes, go ahead.

Maybe I can help with this a little bit while they're grabbing Eugene. Yes, thank you. Yeah, yeah. Very good. I think the window of time that at least from my perspective is that if the city council decides that they'd like to take a position of support, The only place that we can share that information is in our customary and regular publications, which in this case is the City Line document. The City Line document's deadline is tomorrow. And so if you want for this to be printed or some version of it, I think we're just going to say you've supported something and you can come back and look at it. That is one deadline. But as far as you being able to speak about ballot issues, those prohibitions really apply to staff and not to elected officials. with that tip i'll turn it back over to eugene but you can take as far as a formal resolution that's what i wanted to make sure yes you can take support resolutions you can speak individually to support or oppose particular ballot issues that's completely up to council and as elected officials you have that exemption city staff however once you set the ballot titles are no longer just able to spend any public money or any public time so then supporting or opposing if we

table this and then we pass it at a later time does are you still allowed then to dedicate time to put it on the city line it would be too late to put it in any kind of promotional piece because the balance come out on october 15th or so

And the city line that you're trying to hit is the September and that's where my reservation lies But or the October actually you're hitting the October city line. Yeah, so some people miss those resolutions in the first place Yeah, yeah, that's the only consideration as far as you all taking a position. That's that is a timeless. There's no time bound to the yes I'll make sure I'm correct there Mr. Attorney sounded all good

Perfect, thank you.

She's basically quoting from Fair Campaign Practices Act.

Thank you, and so that's why I will not be supporting to table it, because then it puts us past that deadline. Council Member Kalkhofer?

Thank you, Mayor. I am in favor of tabling it because we don't quite yet know if COCO is going to be on the ballot. And before all of these, we are looking at them individually, not collectively. And before we, we've already put our stamp on it by sending them to the ballot. So I'm in favor of tabling it until we see the total picture of the impact of what we're expecting in our community.

And just so you know, then we can no longer ask staff to put that out there.

In city line, correct.

In city line. And I would like it out there. Council Member Christ. Yes.

Well, thank you, Mayor. And in the interest of time, I'll say that I pulled E, F, and G for the same reasons, and that on principle, I feel that we should not be taking a position on how people should vote. I think we've put it on the ballot, but it's up to the voter to do their due diligence and to assess how they feel about voting for it. I don't feel like we need a resolution supporting and basically asking people to vote for it.

Okay, thank you. And Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with you. I think that it's important that this one's already on the ballot, but I still think that getting it in the city line shows that. I think it's important that community members understand that. Okay. And I'll be supporting the other ones as well.

Yes, and the other piece that I wanted to point out before I call the last person in the queue. Um, was, you know, the reason why I brought these three forward is because they're more localized in all the conversations that I've had at the state and national level. And it's really gonna now come up to communities to help prioritize and determine what is needed for our communities where we're setting. the guidelines, the barriers, we are managing those checks and balances within our own structure. You know, I think about public safety, that particular piece, the amount of money that our public safety is having to spend on personnel, oversight administration because of legislation that passed at the state and federal level. So then we are tasked, and that's putting officers out of their duties to work with people, work with people with severe mental illness, and work with our core team in getting people out there for folks who need that. And you know my stance. on this particular piece because we have had to depend and you know what sadly this is the structure of our nation this is how we have you know I've had a conversation with the governor and it was like well you know you want to fund more prisons just so you know you know and you know all of us all of us Colorado mad moms who've had kids in going through the mental health system and the fracture in that piece has now trickled to public safety. Because if we can't get care for our kids with severe mental illness, our family members, our loved ones with severe mental illness, and we cannot get that continuum of care through the health insurance side, through the medical and mental health side, what are we tasked to do? Call 911. When you call 911, who comes out? an officer. So we are making sure by having something like this, being able to promote that us as a body support this initiative, support early intervention like child care. And I realize we're not talking about public safety. We're talking about this resolution. So I'm going to take us back to this one. We are taking a localized, proactive approach to meet the needs of our constituents here. And the reason why I want to have this at this time is so then we can advertise. so that city can advertise that yes, we support, we find the needs for these more localized initiatives so we can, so yeah, so the voters know where we stand. I mean, we hear it all the time. Where do you stand on this? Where do you stand on this? And so here's an opportunity to show where we stand. Council Member Pietro, you took your name out? Okay. Okay, Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. I fully respect everything you were just saying. And again, my motion tonight was non-substantive. And I get that from your perspective, there's a consequence. I think from my perspective, there's also a consequence if we are putting our thumb on the scale when we don't even know what the scale fully looks like. And that's what we don't know yet. I don't know what the full ballot's going to look like. I want to just be able to say whatever decision that we recommend is in the full context of what the whole ballot looks like. And that's where I'm coming at this from. Again, this is not on this particular substantive topic of the early childhood education. It's not related to the public safety or the open space. I just think we should know what the ballot's going to look like before we put our thumb on the scale and offer guidance to voters based on our informed perspectives for the very reasons you just stressed.

And do not forget that currently, until after tonight, early childhood priority is one of our council objectives. So, Councilmember Prieto.

Thank you, Mayor. I absolutely see where Councilmember Popkin's coming from. And he makes a very strong and valid point. What we don't want is for voters not to vote anything in. And so I'm curious if this moves tonight and it goes into city line, if the city could add some communication around kind of that concern regarding, like, the city understands that there's going to be multiple issues on the ballot, and sometimes that could discourage, you know, sometimes the outcome could be that people don't vote anything in, but... really just encouraging residents to if they're not for a majority of them to at least consider you know just kind of some verbiage around that concern just just to kind of remind residents that hey there's going to be a lot on the ballot and you can still vote something in but Even if you feel like there's too much there. So I don't know.

No, I appreciate that. I can work with Sandy and we could see. These are relevant. These particular ones are germane to our priorities.

And maybe the communication can be like council understands that this is going to be a lot of pressure on homeowners, residents, et cetera. So not just the position that we're taking, but also kind of that piece of really talking to the residents to explain where we're at, why we're supporting, but also we understand maybe some of the concerns.

And certainly in the resolutions themselves, the very last line is that the city council really encourages voters to be aware of what they're voting for and to really research, take their time and research. So we could certainly add some verbiage around that. Yeah, I mean, the resolutions themselves basically say, this is why you're supporting it. This is what it is. This is why you support it. And we encourage voters to, you know, obviously do their own research.

Yes. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Yeah. And then, is this your second time? Okay, Council Member Kahlkofer.

Thank you, Mayor. And while I personally support all three of these, including ECE, I can't vote to put these through without seeing the total impact of what we're expecting our residents to pay. I have to see how much, if all of these pass, what burden we're gonna put on the residents before we put this out to our community. So I know Colorado, Coco they're gonna be voting on on Thursday on Friday whether or not to put that on the ballot so I need to see what the impact is gonna be by us saying yes to all of these because we're only talking about them individually and even though I support EC even though I support the public safety tax I really need to see the totality of what we're expecting our residents to pony up okay thank you see no one else in the queue let's go ahead and vote and this one is to table this

Okay, and that motion fails with three, yep. So three in support, three including myself, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Member Prieto in opposition, and one recusal. So do I have a motion now for resolution 2026-52, Council Member Popkin?

You don't have a motion yet, Mayor, because I wanted to flag. So we're at, there are six people right now for this one. And I wanted to be clear that I don't, My suggestion before was because of the, well, to quote Council Member Kalka, for the totality of kind of the decision. I do want to be clear for Council here. If there was a motion to approve this resolution and it's split 3-3, it fails.

Yes.

And so then we don't take a position at all.

We don't take a position at all. Yes.

And so I just want to be clear for my colleagues that that also could be a consequence here if that is important to you.

Okay. Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Can I have a motion, please? So moved.

Okay, so the motion has been made to pass Resolution 2026-52. And the motion has been seconded by Councilmember Prieto. Seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that fails. Three in favor and three in opposition with Council Member Christ, Council Member Popkin, and Council Member Kulkoff are in opposition. So we will no longer be taking a stance on Resolution 2026, the early childhood resolution. Now we're on to item F that was pulled by Council Member Christ. Oh, yep, and come on down.

We did. Thank you, Mayor. As I previously said, I will not be moving this resolution forward because, again, I feel that we should not be taking a position and telling voters how to vote on it. I do think I did have some feedback that we really don't have enough time to educate the public in terms of this resolution or in terms of this initiative, this taxing initiative. Guess I believe that but I you know Whatever you put out is is what the voters will get so I'm opposed to it on principle.

Okay. Do we have a motion for okay? So the motion has been made to approve resolution 2026 53 And I will go ahead and second that and now we have some names in the queue councilmember Popkin

Thank you, Mayor. I will reiterate the exact same concerns that I flagged before. We no longer have a six-person council for the vote. We have a seven-person, so that could change the outcome here, but I'm really hopeful that if this is important to folks that we can actually have this conversation when we have the full context and then be able to actually vote to put the things that we deem are important on the ballot. And so I was hoping we could again have a conversation on tabling this, having seen the previous outcome and where multiple fellow council members are on this.

Okay, and thank you for that. And considering that this now is not a county one, it's even more localized. It is a city ballot measure. I think it's very appropriate that we get this on the city line. And we show support for this measure that we passed to put on the ballot. Council Member Prieto.

Well, given the last one failed, now I'm concerned that we are taking a position of some over others. grant and even though that's not the case for anybody who's following and understands what happens now that it goes on the city line it's going to look like council only approves these and doesn't approve the others and so just something that i want council to think about and consider and it just kind of puts me as a counselor in a hard space because i feel like the previous one was very important and i don't want this to come across as well city council only wants only approves this one and is backing this one because that's not the case um now given i'm looking at london lyle over there given that i hear other councils concerns regarding tabling it it doesn't look like with the timeline that was really an option and so now we're kind of between a rock and a hard place and i don't know how we can go about Like letting the public, I don't know. I don't know how we can go about letting the public know that child care is just as important as our public safety talks.

Yeah. I mean, unless, of course, the prevailing side makes a motion to reconsider. So that is that isn't. option out there. Council Member Marcin.

Thank you, Mayor. Having absolutely no idea what the previous conversation was about at all.

And you might not be happy about it.

Well, no, I was just going to mention, I think the time to consider whether or not these resolutions should have existed in principle was when the Mayor made the motion to bring them forward. which we all, I think with one exception, voted for. We voted to allow these resolutions to come forward. That was the time to have this discussion, not now. That is my opinion. So I agree largely that I too am somewhat uncomfortable with us saying that we are, the act of putting the resolution on the ballot, in my opinion, is the act of us saying, we would like you to do this voters, please support this. But the ability to explain and help the community understand at large our logic for those that are not engaged in the conversation as a community makes sense to me as well. I will be reluctantly supporting this knowing that had we wanted to have this discussion, the time would have been two weeks ago.

Great. Thank you. And is this your third or second? First. Oh, I've heard you a lot, Lee. There you go. Go ahead.

And I have a question for Sandy. Sandy, I know the timeline for CityLine, if we don't do this now, passes. But are there other avenues where we can, as a council, talk about this? You know, City Line is important to me, but I don't know how many people, you know, truly read it. Is there other places that we can voice our support if we table this at a future time?

Certainly we can put that information on the website. That's the other information that's usual and customary, but we probably would not do like a press release or something like that because that's not what we've done in the past. That's not a normal kind of communication channel for reporting City Council things. But we could certainly put it on the website. We could certainly inform those who are interested in supporting or opposing, however you go with all the different ballot issues, that the City of Longmont City Council has supported it. You know, there's certainly some ways that we can get that information out.

So I'm pleading that we reconsider to table this until we have the total impact of everything that's on the ballot.

Okay, I see no one else in the queue. Let's go ahead and vote. okay and that carries four to three with council member chris council member popkin and council member kohlkofer in opposition and we are now on to item g council member um chris okay and then can we please limit side conversations thank you mayor um well so take three i guess same thing uh we have

Okay, this is the open space one. Yes. But same thing. And I think the next available meeting is September 8th. So that isn't that far off when you think of when the ballots are going out. If we could put it on the website.

Okay. So do I have a motion? So we have a motion to accept resolution 2026-54. Do I have a second? I will second it. And see no one else in the queue. Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that carries five to two with Council Member Chris and Council Member Popkin in opposition. So thank you. And that is it for items pulled. Is that correct? Yeah, I think you were the last one. So now we are on to general business, but I am going to ask, do we need a five-minute break? Yeah, I'm seeing some nods. Yeah, I bet you are good. Okay, we're going to take a five-minute break. Let's go ahead and get started. We are now on General Business Item A, Resolution 2026-55, a resolution for the City of Longmont, Longmont City Council establishing the fee for cash in lieu of water right transfers. Okay, and it says invite Chris Huffer, Water Waste Services Director. And Wes Lowry. Okay.

All right, good evening, Mayor, members of council. I'm Wes Lowry, Water Resource Manager for the City of Longmont. I'd like to give a quick overview of Longmont's Cash in Lieu of Water Rights program. To begin, I would like to start with a brief history of Cash in Lieu. Originally formed in 1963 as an advisory board to city council, the Longmont Water Board actively helps to ensure that raw water supply for future of Longmont through application of its raw water requirement policy. This cornerstone policy has helped the city to develop an extremely dependable water supply Longmont currently enjoys. As part of the raw water requirement policy, development activity is required to provide the city with three acre feet of water per acre of land prior to development commencing. While this is normally accomplished through dedication of water rights to assist the development community, the city offers an opportunity to provide cash instead of actual water supply. This is known as the Cash in Lieu of Water Rights program. This funding then allows Longmont to acquire water rights and develop water supplies sufficient for these development activities. Following the creation of Longmont Water Board and the development of the raw water requirement policy, the first cash in lieu payment was received in 1965. Originally this fee was based solely upon the price of Colorado Big Thompson project water. In 2013, the CBT price began to skyrocket and it was determined that a more holistic approach that looked at the actual cost of providing a full acre foot of water to the city's water rights portfolio be used. 2022 this cost was focused primarily on longmont's windy gap water and corresponding firming project now that construction of chimney hall reservoir is complete moving forward it is suggested that cash and lou should refocus on future elements identified in longmont's raw water master plan Longmont's Raw Water Master Plan is another cornerstone document for Longmont. This plan has identified several future opportunities for which funds collected from cash in lieu might be used. These include water rights acquisitions, water right change cases, water conservation programs, and look at future structural elements such as Union Reservoir enlargement and pump back pipeline, as well as the potential for Ralph Price Reservoir enlargement. Next, I want to briefly review the criteria used and evaluated when setting the fee for cash in lieu of water rights received. The raw water requirement policy section of the Longmont Municipal Code states, water board's recommendation to council on the fee for cash in lieu of water rights received shall consider the current cost of new water supply projects identified in the city's raw water master plan, the current market value associated with the purchase of units of Colorado Big Thompson project water, and the current market value of non-historical native basin water rights identified in the raw water requirement policy. Water supply projects identified in Longmont's Raw Water Master Plan include structural elements such as Union Reservoir Pumpback Pipeline, Union Reservoir Enlargement, and Ralph Price Reservoir Enlargement. Non-structural elements include purchase of additional CBT units and native basin water rights. Unfortunately, there is extremely limited financial transaction information for native basin water rights. And although CBT information is more readily available, the price associated with it has fluctuated dramatically over the years. This graph reflects how quickly CBT transaction prices have changed over time. Having a focus on cost associated with identified structural elements that help increase Longmont water supply is therefore recommended. Next, I want to quickly describe the cash in lieu fee setting process. Staff, water board, especially over the past five years, has spent considerable time and effort evaluating how the process for evaluating and determining the fee for cash in lieu is considered. During that effort, council recommended that this consideration include cash in lieu being changed at a time that is consistent with other fee changes, that limit the volatility of fee changes and provide the development community time to plan for changes that may affect their particular development proposal. Building upon existing structural elements of prior construction cost, Water Board in June of this year looked at the composite of these indexes as a basis for ingesting the most current information Longmont has regarding construction projects identified in the Raw Water Master Plan. These collective indexes take a more holistic and comprehensive evaluation of all costs associated with large storage construction projects, such as a future union reservoir enlargement. This adjusted composite index suggests a 5.7% increase for cash in lieu over the past 18 months, which was the last time cash in lieu was adjusted and is warranted. So consistent with prior direction staff and water board make the following recommendation to adjust the fee for cash in lieu of water rights received to $63,000 per acre foot. And for that adjustment to become effective January 1st, 2027. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them at this time. Thank you.

OK. Do we have any questions from council? Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. Wes, Chris, thank you so much for the work on this. I have a question for you both, and then maybe a question for our liaison to the Water Board as well. Is this cash in lieu, Wes, we emailed briefly about this, but I wanted to parse this out a little bit further. Is the cash in lieu set up to discourage growth that cannot provide required water rights?

The answer is no. It's not set up to discourage development. It's actually, I think, the cash and lieu fee that we have is to try to help the developers be able to have a method whereby they can satisfy their deficits.

And by deficits, you're referring to a deficit in existing water rights that they have on their property? Yes.

Correct. So before any lands can be annexed and developed in Longmont, they must first satisfy not less than three acre feet of water per acre of land. Or pay the cash in lieu. And one alternative to doing that is either acquiring acceptable non-historical water rights or paying cash in lieu.

or what was the non-historical water rights?

So historical water rights are transferred at time of annexation. That's per city code, per raw water requirement policy. And if the credit for that historical water was not sufficient to provide three acre feet per acre, the remaining deficit is made up at platting. And that can be done either through the transfer of non-historical water rights, which are specifically outlined in the raw water requirement policy, or they can do cash in lieu.

Thank you. And then to what extent is this cash in lieu related to our efforts to incentivize water efficiency? Or is that like entirely orthogonal or unrelated to our efficiency efforts?

Yeah, good question. So the cash in lieu is used to help support our water conservation program efforts. It supports that through many of the different programs that we have with our water conservation

um conservation program gotcha thank you and then maybe a question for our city council liaison to the water board just curious how some of the discussions with the water board have gone over the years as you've been uh exploring kind of the the cash in lieu process and kind of what its purpose is

Okay, and typically, we want to direct our comments to the Chair. I'm like, how do we do this? But Council Member Chris, would you like to weigh in as- Thank you, Chair. Yeah. As a member, a liaison to the Water Board. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. And I was going to lead with thank you, Mayor. Yes, to Councillor Popkin's concerns or questions. The Water Board has been discussing this for at least a year and a half, if not two years, as a way to make it more dependable for developers to know what they would have to pay. And after much discussion, and there's a lot of knowledge on that board, Wes came up with a metric that we could use that incorporates several different layers of water transactions. And we feel that it's really quite fair to developers, but also protects the city in terms of cost to procure the water. Does that answer your concerns or questions?

Okay, do we have anyone else in the queue? Can I have a motion to approve the resolution as presented? So the motion has been made by Mayor Pro Tem McCoy, seconded by Council Member Christ. Seeing no one else in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that item carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And we are now on to item B, city council action plan, email organization, and board and commission feedback. And so we have assistant city manager Sandy Cedar who will be, do you have a presentation or?

Mary, we have a couple things to show you, but primarily what was in the packet, which was a very brightly colored work plan for you to be able to take a look at. We decided to go ahead and print it out so it might be more readable, but it doesn't actually look a whole lot more readable. No, it's really tiny. So we'll throw it up on the screen and see. Perfect.

Well, we can roll here.

So what we did was we put together a few pieces from the Council of Communications. So there's no new information. The three things that we're talking about today is the Council Action Plan. determine if there was any more direction on council emails. And then also Dawn is going to help with some presentation on the feedback she got back from the boards and commissions on your next round of changes for boards and commissions. So the first thing, let me just explain this process. This is real small.

Yeah, it is.

I mean, it's all small. Yeah, there's not a great way to go through this. But let me at least start here. So you may remember that during the retreat, we asked some questions about things that were important to the council, things that you found to be necessary for the next round of the work plan.

And this would be all of it.

That's all of it. Yeah, that's all of it. It's actually not all of it. Some of the things were combined because they were similar or these three things we're talking about, same type of thing. But what we did is we took all the sticky notes that you'd put together before the retreat and then also at the retreat. I put all of those pieces together, categorized them into these categories in which you gave some feedback on last time around creating a strong sense of character and place in our community. through innovative transportation and development, encouraging housing and neighborhood and human resilience, create economic and business ecosystem resilience, and then finally, provide reliable and equitable core services for a resilient community. So I had taken all of your stickies, put them into these categories, plus a fifth one that we ended up incorporating, and to all of the other ones. You all gave me feedback on those category types. That's what you see here at the top. But we also recognize that some of these things that you put together really meet lots of goals. So we wanted to make sure you knew which one of these actions that you are asking for met many goals. And that's what this first section in the work plan is. This is the Xs that you see. So for example, the first project here is First in Maine. We also felt like a project like First in Maine isn't that easy, and there are lots of components of First in Maine. So we asked the staff who are in charge of these projects to break out some components. So in this case, the transit station, FRCC, rail, the streets, and the housing components, and then private development. So, what you see is the gray is what you had on your sticky and then the components underneath is what the staff laid out to show you the different pieces that are involved in this particular direction. The X's across the work plan show all of the different categories that this affects. And then Harold asked our staff to rate these, to determine not only who's involved, which departments are involved, but what is the complexity, executive impact, financial impact, and staff resources of the various items. So you'll see that first in Maine is a all-in kind of effort from almost every department and probably every department But not every component is so this way you can start to see these are the different components that have either less complexity or less executive work or less Maybe it's less cost or something to that effect And that's what the gradations mean. We also wanted to make sure that you got to see what's the last thing that happened in this particular arena and what's the next step and There are a couple things that have no last step because we're just getting started on them because they were your ideas at the retreat. And that's how this whole thing is laid out. I recognize it looks pretty dang big, but what we're looking for today is approval of the action plan, of the work plan. until that happens council doesn't have the priorities or the work plans approved and the city staff even though we're still working on a lot of these things because like first domain has a lot of deadlines for example and airport visioning you've brought up separate pieces for the airport but that's one of the that's one of the work plan items etc etc so staff wants to make sure that we're on the right track around what the steps that we're taking that we've heard what it is that the council finds to be important. What you won't find on here is a prioritization. And that's certainly something we may need to delve into more.

Yeah, if I can jump in. I think one of the questions was, when we look at the individual components, it's like, where's the meat on the bones for some of these individual components? And the hard part is really We need to understand what the priority is in terms of these major components. How would you rank them as the policy-making body? Because that's really going to then inform how we put the meat, the muscle. You start with the bones, we then add the muscle, we add everything else. because without a priority, it's incredibly hard for us to start layering those components in, because the reality is, you can see on the top section of this when we talk about core services, and those are 10s across the board. The reality for us is, and we talked about this in the retreat, is that probably 95% of what we do is keeping the lights on. And the water flowing. And the water flowing and the trash collected. And in the mix of that, you know, we constantly have issues that develop in the core service function that take a lot of time because we're having to react to those issues. and they can be public safety issues, it could be challenges that we're having at our parks, it could be vandalism issues, infrastructure issues, throw a big water leak in there and that can really cause an organization to pivot. So just within the core services. On a daily basis, we're moving in terms of where we're putting our resources and what we need to focus on. When you combine that and you look at the legal component, a lot of times on the legal side, we don't drive those issues. It could be lawsuits and other things coming into the system that's taking capacity. and and so you know when you anchor off of that concept in the core services and what we're here to do and then you look at this really adding that next layer of information is really what we need is a prioritization of these major topics and putting them in ranked order there's some overlap amongst them and we may pull from this into this project But understanding the council's priority on the major components really allows us to then slide into the next step and then actually create deliverables for you all. It's impossible for us to create deliverables on all of these. based on the volume of work that's here. Now I can create a schedule that looks out over the next year and two years and three years to kind of set those things in motion, but to say we're gonna do all of this in a year what I will tell you is the opportunity for failure increases dramatically trying to take on all of this work at once and the ability to actually complete anything becomes even more of a challenge for us. So would like to see some prioritization on these major topics.

And, Harold, when you say the major topics, you don't mean the categories. No, I mean the gray. You mean like first and main.

Yeah, first and main, the gray, the sections, the major sections that are highlighted in gray.

And, of course, it does make sense based on the facilitation that there's lots of things on here because it was brainstorming. There was lots of ideas. So we're looking to make sure that we're, first of all, in the right direction. And then, second of all, if there's any way that you'd like to move forward to prioritize, we could also do that in a different session. But make sure that we're on the right path. Yeah. And then the other piece of that is just, you know, approving that. Obviously, we will bring back not only the last step and the next step kind of as a regular update for city council, but also any metrics and other things depending on where we go.

Okay. And, yeah, and what you captured was very thorough. And I really, really love... The color coding where you did the complexity, the executive impact. So categorizing those as well as. Us really seeing the number of red. So, I mean, and so this is so when I start getting stressed out about emails to staff and there are cities that do not, I've had chance to talk to other mayors where. Council members are not allowed to interface with staff. It has to go to the mayor and the city manager and then they determine if it's deemed relevant to pass on. I don't like that. I don't want to serve as a gate keeping and that even serves as more work in a time when we don't have that public trust. it goes in the opposite direction. But when I really want council to be cognizant of all those impacts, the number of hours that it takes to thoughtfully and thoroughly respond to questions that even might lead to research time and toggling on that line of giving a direction and know that while they're doing that, because I see you all, you all want to please us. You know, just tell us now, just tell us now. I'm not gonna hurt my feelings. But looking at how many hands are in, how many departments are in each of these major projects and other ideas that we have and how how that weighs and then members of the public who say, you know, well, you're not moving fast enough. And I'm like, well, look at look at all the red. You know, if you look at how much work goes into, you know, a single project and who all plays a role in that. And I think taking time important and I mean that's how we create the best the best outcome so I do thank you very much for for itemizing it that way and I'm hoping that we can kind of we can hone in on what our priorities there was something and I do want to point this out to rest of Council that in the last, so when it was Council Member Waters was still on the council, Council Member Martin was still on council, that when we had the sugar mill, that, okay, yes, it's a priority, but as opportunities lend itself. So you notice that as things happen, there might be an opportunity that presents itself that maybe wasn't in one of our priorities early on but it's one of those things that you know what if the opportunity presents itself let's bump that up on the on the the priority meter so you know something to think about as well if there's like one thing or two things on here that maybe we could just kind of put on hold because there's nothing happening but if it comes to us that we can act, that we as a council can kind of just be OK that, oh, if it's the sugar mill, let's go ahead and prioritize that. But now I'm going to throw it all out to you guys. Council Member Prieto.

Thank you, Mayor. Sandy, I'm open to any type of like session, like additional session to discuss these or if you want to do like a prioritization survey thingy where we rate and then you guys take that. We can do something like that. I'm open to whatever. I think all of them would be great. Two things I wanted to mention. One, as far as child care goes, I think. what's listed here could look a lot different if the brighter start initiative passes in November because then they're going to be tackling specific things within the community and areas and then maybe we could come in and make up the difference in the areas that maybe they're not addressing whether it's the at-home care I mean, there's a multitude of things. I know that the Brighter Start Initiative taxals, like making sure that we have people who are trained, making sure that we're helping folks open up centers, and then also making sure that we are assisting people with subsidies who can't afford the full cost. So I think, and I would like to get your opinion on this as well, Council Member Marcin, this could be like a priority issue, but kind of on the back burner for a minute until we see what happens there and then we can adjust how that looks because there's a lot of specific named things in these priorities which may not be relevant come after November or somewhere in the near future. So there's that, and then one moment before you answer that, Council Member Marcin. So as something else opens up, then that can kind of take that place, is kind of my proposal or suggestion there. In addition to that, I wanted to just name that one of my big sticky notes, and I should have just bought a big sticky note, just to emphasize how important this was to me as a council member, Pretty much like one of the main reasons I ran and reasons I got involved in just government and city and community is knowing how important our safety net is in general. And I don't see like anything specific. And I could be wrong because this is very small lettering. And to everybody who doesn't know me personally, I'm supposed to be wearing my glasses, so shame on me. So it says support, but I don't see anything specifically around really making sure that we are looking at all of these aspects and ensuring that organizations or the city is meeting these needs. I want to make sure that that's not missed. And in addition, especially when we're talking about the human service funding, I don't think that our human service team ever came back with a solid solution on how we're going to reduce the amount of agencies applying so that we can get to that place. And what I would hate is for that to kind of float further and further away and us not really get to the heart of that matter, which is so important. Also, with that being said, as far as the funding goes, you know, just recent reports, we have organizations in the community right now that are longstanding organizations that are in really difficult spots that could potentially go away. And so really bringing this to the forefront of this section and making sure, like, that us as a city are thinking about okay if someone needs food where are they going okay we know that they have community food share we know if they're senior they can go to the senior center if they need utilities where are they going if they need um child care where are they going and making sure we're asking those questions and looking at those safety net resources that they are here in longmont that they are being supported by the city and prioritized in our funding i think that's huge out of a lot of it So I just wanted to emphasize that. And then lastly, this is going to go, I wanted to mention it and it's going to go hand in hand with the parent council conversation that we're about to have. There are some things on here where parent council could potentially tie into if we decide not to go that direction. And so I just wanted to put a plug in there and have that conversation maybe when that comes up. And that's it.

And so Sandy, so I'm looking at the website. And if you go into community resources, it has a list of food pantry services, their numbers, their time. So it does provide that itemized list around mental health recovery, homeless prevention, resources for people experiencing homelessness, additional resources. And then we've had conversations with El Liberto and they've presented I guess how would that, I'm trying to visualize as far as a priority of our council and our policies, is there room to have further alteration of policy or is this a, I'm asking from your experience, your background. What are your thoughts?

I certainly think so the area that you're speaking of in the work plan the draft work plan is around strengthening community resilience And really dealing with things like mental health food security child care transportation and housing services under this we do have an action around consent continuing to leverage city dollars for food security because this was a Specific item that came from the council but if you wanted to add one to continue to have that conversation about health and human service funding We could certainly add that as one of these components because certainly that's the policy area that would be.

Yeah, because that's what comes to mind is when Christina and Eliberto come forward and they share the presentation. So if we could continue that conversation when they come annually to us. And I've had conversations with Christina over this for several years and even with Carmen about the service stacking and we're encouraging nonprofits to work together if they're service and serving us.

And that one is in here too, provide support and coordination for annual or semi-annual summit for safety net providers to kind of keep people, pull together.

So, you know, if like maybe if those pieces align with what you're saying, we could put like a little asterisk or something that we can certainly add a component. Or just like have it within embedded in those two sections that you pointed out.

so of course yeah so to be clear from i mean this is your work plan yeah this is your work plan so to be clear is that bringing the health and human service funding into this because it really sets in multiple subcategories if you look at it is this something that council wants us to bring in and add to it and it may be we highlight Health and Human Service funding evaluation, but you're going to see it in multiple subcategories, but I really want to hear from the council is that something that you all want to add to this?

Okay.

If there's a yes to that, give me a thumbs up. Are we ready to give a thumbs up or we need some more think time?

Just for this edition is all I'm asking.

For this particular edition. Yeah. So I think, yeah, so...

Just like, let's put a pin in it, and then we'll come back to that.

And I do want to hear from other council people, too, because as we're starting to prioritize in a way, do we want to be adding more or rethinking the language on some of these as well?

And I'd be happy to send out kind of a survey or some kind of an instrument if that's how you all would like to start a prioritization process. okay again we can put a pin in that too into the conversation because it could be seven different ways of prioritizing and none of them are the same i'm happy to set that up for you that's the direction you'd like to go yeah yeah right for me too council member marsing

Thank you, Mayor. And that was actually going to be my initial suggestion when I turned my light on initially was kind of, to Council Member Prieto's comment, kind of a point system. Hey, one to 10, how many points are you throwing at this project? For each of us, cumulative points, these are the things that scored the highest in each individual project. And then probably a pre-session conversation to sort through where everything's at and make sure we're comfortable. That, to me, feels like the best process. if it's amenable to everybody, council priority points. Mayor, I did want to mention my fellow council member a couple of points. As the HHSAB liaison, I do want to point out just for everybody in this conversation, HHSAB did take our direction. to work to set that cap specifically, and they did the two-tiered process that we asked of them, which was basically kind of arbitrary cap followed by standard deviation. They set that, the number off the top of my head is escaping me on exactly what they set that at, but they did set that to Council Member Prieto's concern, in a way that I'm fairly confident will give us a smaller number of overall applications, you know, quality over quantity and that kind of conversation that we had. So I'm confident we're going to get there. I do want to mention on the early childhood question, you know, not that I'm aware of anything that happened earlier this evening, but I will say it is in our action plan currently to support that ballot measure and I would just like to point that out. I said it. So what I will say to the question of holding off whether Brighter Start passes or not, I think the need in Longmont is unique and doesn't go away. There are FFN concerns that the Brighter Start plan gets to but doesn't fully meet. So I can't support the idea of any action plan that does not prioritize that for our families now, regardless of whether Brighter Start gets there. Because the Brighter Start process is going to take, if it passes, we're talking probably 18 months until we see serious distribution of those dollars. There would likely have to be an RFP process for a provider of the subsidy. So there's a whole gap that exists, so my term could be up by the time we fully see the impact of that. So I would just mention that, and I would very much like to see a survey that we can sort through later. I think us wedding planning this up here is probably not a good idea, especially with another item that we have to get to here shortly.

I am going to point out I've never seen the list this long, and I've been on council the longest here. Guys.

So some context, I think if we could say, if we could hear from council, yes, we're good with this list, we could even then we put a pin in this, then we send a survey out to you all where then you rank it. okay but I think there's a point of is this this was your information that we put into the list if you're good with this then we'll move forward with the survey and then we'll bring it back in terms of the ranking okay and to be clear what the survey does it means as we start moving through projects I'll just use first in Maine there there's a point between that where we'll release some people from work, but then we'll bring other people into work, but it's not the same people. And if we understand the priority and it's the person that we're releasing from this project that actually fits in the next priority, then we start, that's where we start managing that workflow in terms of keeping things moving, but knowing how we move through the order. Okay. Just to give some context. How the survey will work and how we will then operationalize it.

Okay. Very good. And I do appreciate, you know, council comments and feedback on this because then that's going to help inform my decision as we're going through the ranking. And probably so you all can have context as well. Council Member Christ.

Thank you, Mayor. Okay. So would you all fall out of your chairs if I said, let's just put that first transit hub, let's just table it?

There'd be a few issues with that. Contractual obligations with that. We have some contracts in play.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, so when I'm looking at like one through seven, that's already underway, we're making progress. Maybe, you know, we're talking about financing, we're kind of still at the beginning, but I think Molly said we'll be breaking ground on some of that. And when we're also looking at downtown projects, 12 through 17, some of that is the Safety and Justice Center. So I guess what I would like to see is when is the completion date for that? Because I feel like we're already in it. We're just running to the finish line. And of course the first in Maine, we just have to continue plugging along. But eight through 11, I don't see that as a big priority and something we could tackle immediately, like at the end of this year. I'm thinking like next year or the year after. Because look at all those red squares in there. That takes a lot of staff time. Okay, so then let's move down onto 18, innovative transportation. I think most of these areas we just need to fine tune. For instance, we got the e-bike share started, but it's all very centralized downtown, so it doesn't really, ADD TO OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. LIKE THERE'S NOTHING OUT IN MY WARD. THERE'S REALLY NOTHING FAR OUT IN WARD THREE EITHER. SO IF YOU WANT TO GET DOWNTOWN, YOU HAVE TO BE DOWNTOWN TO RENT ONE OF THOSE BIKES. SO I SEE IT AS MORE OF A IF YOU'RE STAYING AT THE HOTEL LONG MONTH, THEN YOU CAN TOOL AROUND TOWN AND And I think it'll build from there. But so I just think we need to fine tune it. I don't know if that is, it started and we need to stay on top of it, but I don't know if there's more that staff needs to do with it right now and except for help monitor and push it to being more of a transportation system. Let's see. I think 24 create an enhanced Ride Longmont and other microtransit systems. I think we've added on to Ride Longmont, haven't we? So maybe we just need to keep metrics on that, keep a pulse of how, and feedback, because I'm hearing that it's just not fast enough for seniors is what I'm hearing.

And before you go on to the next list, I'm going to look like Harold Wan.

So I think when we get in this, this is a good example that when we look at the transportation and we look at things like Ride Longmont, that's going to be an ongoing initiative. And then we look at part of it is developing the northern BRT route north of Longmont, which is part of the overall plan that's connected to this. that's then where I need the point of needing the ranking because it's a very small staff and so while there's pieces that they're continuing to do understanding the ranking lets me allocate that staff to really focus on projects so individually they may not look like a lot but when you take a lot of individual projects and it's impacting four people that's then when we start having issues of really finishing things and and staying on point and so that's where i kind of will send you the survey because then once i get the survey then we can start grouping these things and really then laying them out on a gantt chart to really start showing the interplay between all of those items

Okay, we're gonna have more charts, I like it. Okay, 28. The airport. We have something scheduled for the 26th, which I think will kind of inform for the next year. But I also think, for instance, 31, the rates and charges schedule, I think we have to be in the budgeting process to kind of figure out what the money looks like. And we'll, of course, be discussing our financial policies at that time, too. So we'll be doing that between September and October, all of that category. 32. Let's see, I was mostly looking at 34. I think we could actually have some help from outside developers and just bankers in general that could help if we're going to pursue for sale. So I don't know if that's something the staff needs to do or if it's something that council needs to get busy and get some people with projects coming in here and presenting. So I think we're at the beginning of that. We've already talked about the childcare, so I've marked some of these off as we're waiting for Bright Start to be determined. Okay, now.

Council Member Chris, that was time. Oh, can I? No, but you can put your name in the queue again because I do want to give.

Can I go back for number two?

I'm going to give folks who haven't had a chance to talk an opportunity to weigh in and then you can put your name back in the queue. Thank you. Uh-huh. So, it wasn't loud enough. Council Member Kalkhofer.

Thank you, Mayor. Errol, just a quick question. I see most of these already have progress going. Is that true with a few exceptions? There's a lot of work being done on a lot of these yeah I also would like to have a poll for us to rate them and then do the wedding planning after we kind of Get the score versus me going one by one I'd also i like the idea of having an estimated completion date because some of them i'm looking at the list like oh that's in my opinion almost done um so i think it would be helpful if we had an estimated completion date um on on the table making it just a little bit bigger and a little bit smaller on the paper but i think that would help me at least with the prioritization once we're rating them on our own thank you

Okay, thank you for that. And yeah, something for us to consider as well, even though it's like getting close to the end, if we take it off prematurely, they're no longer dedicating that time and or they're scrambling to make those priorities that we did set and then trying to complete contracts and deadlines.

Yeah, that's the piece because there's, You have the ultimate completion date, but then we have sub-completion dates based on who's coming in and when they're finishing those components, again, using first and main. When we get through the financing, that'll end on that piece, but then they slide into front range. So they're moving to another one, but we're bringing in a completely different set of the organization in terms of project management through the construction process. So, yeah, we have those Gantt charts built, but it's a bit overwhelming, so we'll try to condense it.

This was the simpler version.

Yes, yeah. No, I saw all the charts and...

But, yeah, we can simplify it to give you the completion date. And if there's sub-completion dates, we'll put an asterisk and explain that.

Or if it's an ongoing program.

It could be ongoing programs, too. Like early child care is ongoing. So I don't know that there's ever a completion date, rewind, core. So some of these will never end. It's just a continued refinement of the work that we're doing.

Okay. And Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. I think something that, if it's easy to add or flag in some way, I think something that might help us with the prioritization is indicating if there are certain projects that would help us fund other things. And so recognizing what helps fund what might help us sequence the prioritization, because we could back end everything that's revenue generating, but that may make it a lot harder and slower for us to do other things. And so to the extent that we can indicate that if it's clear and obvious, again, there are multiple ways that we fund things. It's not just ballot measures and tax increases like we've been talking about. It's a whole host of different fee structures. It's a whole host of development projects. It's a whole host of strategies throughout our ecosystem of services that relate to what we can do and when. So I think that would be a helpful layer to add on this that would help us filter or prioritize. I had maybe two clarifying questions. So the transit service modeling, that's item 27 here, or row 27. Is that something that we are doing proactively or being forced to do because of state or regional challenges? Both.

So I would say there's obviously a component in the modeling. It's a well-timed question. There's a component that actually RTD is leaning into based on their financial condition and what they're dealing with. It also touches on COCO and what's Front Range Passenger Rail going to do. So there's a piece that we don't control, but we need to be part of the process to ensure that we're actively protecting our interests. There's other areas in this. where we will get more proactive in that conversation. So for example, in meeting with RTD today, when we have the executive impact, they've asked me to engage in some of those conversations. And so it's a little bit of both.

Yep. Thanks. And then the other clarifying question is it from from your professional opinion? I know we're helping set some of the priority here. And that's our job. But from your professional opinion, does it make sense to pursue other opportunities when we talk about for sale housing for future public private partnerships when we're still in the construction planning phases for part in for true north?

yeah so i think on that one there's a few things is we can bring partners in but it still takes a lot of work yeah and managing that partnership simply because to really hit the capital a and the attainable there's subsidies that that have to fall into that based on just the cost of materials The thing that we do need to be pretty mindful of, especially in today's market, and this has really been being driven by interest rates at its most basic level, is what you also don't want to do is cannibalize another project. meaning that if you've invested your dollars in a project, you really want to get to a certain point in that project where you have X amount of unit, X percentage units sold before you start bringing on new units. Otherwise, what you really run the risk of doing is financially cratering both of those projects because now you're cannibalizing each other in terms of the pool of people that are willing to buy it. Now, if interest rates drop, three percent then it's a different question so you're really managing these outside market trends to make sure that you don't destabilize the financial stability you don't create instability financially for a project that you've already invested money in yeah so when i see tens across the board for 7.2 which is on pursuing other opportunities

And it says opportunities as they come. This is really like, as True North continues to proceed, if something really drops in that market moment that we think is worth capturing, we can act. But that wouldn't be necessarily a concurrent opportunity.

10 by 10 there. Right, that would be one where we would want to phase it so that we lock it in where we can actually manage the workload but target that date where you want that new supply to come in.

Thank you. Last two comments I wanted to make. One, I just wanted to echo the comments on our community resilience at different levels. I think that's... If we are not a resilient community, a lot of the other stuff goes out the window. And then last but not least, Chair, we had a few comments or we had a comment about kind of items nine and ten here. And I just want to note that one, those are lower effort, but two, this council hasn't really seen some of the more active development proposals. yet that have come to us for discussion. There will be some annexations coming down the pipeline soon. There will be some other projects. We haven't really had those housing conversations much yet. And I just want to note that why creating kind of that zone to focus our growth matters is because it actually sets us up for success in that broader housing market conversation and redevelopment effort. from past examples and projects, it can feel very limiting in that moment when you're being asked to decide on a single project that has checked all the boxes and we don't have a broader system that is ready to receive. So I just really want to stress that while we obviously figure out opportunities and negotiations on some of these larger ticket items as they come, continuing with that mixed use innovation redevelopment zone is enabling for a lot of the goals that we have here. And I just don't want us to lose sight of that foundation.

Thank you and I'm also looking at in items 9 and 10 you know I see there's some green so there's less impacted departments as well as looking at what's already been done what's already been completed and what what would be the next steps and how labor-intensive are those and kind of thinking about what we've gone so far you know where we've gone so far with these so you know that you know i would ask that council consider that as your ranking and prioritizing that there's already work that's being done in it or it has a lower impact on the overall um organization um okay

I just want to note, technically this agenda item for tonight was council action plan, email organization, and board and commission feedback. Are we taking these one at a time? Is that how you want to handle it? Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

OK. So we've heard from everybody who wanted to speak. So Councilmember Christ, go ahead and finish your thoughts.

Oh, thank you, Mayor. I really am not that far off from finished. Looking at 59 we're doing, which is the level-up sports tournament, and 60 we're still exploring right now about e-bikes and e-motos. But just under the subheading of line 55, with third spaces and strengthening services for parents and providing spaces for youth. I just want to maybe add in the YMCA redevelopment, which will take two years. So we've got a ways to do it, but maybe just visioning what we might want to have there. Looking at line 79 about the advanced long amount 3.0 and on to the next page which is 87 small businesses we're talking about Maybe we have SBDC comes to Longmont one day a week and having some support classes for them. Potentially with the library, we're still talking about it through that. But these are things that already exist and it's just a matter of organization. So I think it's something we could accomplish pretty quickly. Let's see. And that would also tie in with line number 90, participation with the impact committee, because we would have their involvement to help do these things. One thing I didn't see on here was any concept about composting or raising our sustainability metrics, which we had talked about improving those at one point. And I personally would like to see us reduce single-use plastic. I'm done.

I was hoping we could get some stuff off the list. Looks like we're putting more on. But I see Sandy taking notes over there. Thank you. Council Member Prieto.

Just a quick comment for Sandy and staff. So when you build this survey or tool that we're going to grade, I guess it would be helpful to see like, you know, to kind of separate like, Because it doesn't make sense that the transit hub's on there, because, like, obviously that's priority. Like, it has to get done, right? And so maybe the questions can be formed as, like, after the transit hub and X, what are your next? Like, what would be your two and your three?

If you are all telling me that the transit hub is number one right now, if you're telling me that right now, then that's a direction, and we can then take that off of the survey.

Yeah, or, like, True North. Like, these are things that there's... We can't stop them. So they're almost a given, right? But I think the question is, after these are completed, then what is the priority? So I would like to see those big projects and then what comes after. And then maybe on some of the smaller projects, the question is, for the ongoing stuff, where would we like to see growth? Right. So is it in X or is it in Y?

And maybe a second conversation after we get through the first round of prioritization. Yeah. Yeah.

Like if there's, you know, like when we're talking about transit, like after the Kauffman Street extension, then where do we want to see growth and vision? zero or other areas. And then maybe having categories like what has a solid completion that are projects in play right now? What's ongoing? And what are our priorities as far as growth? And then what are the new items that the city really hasn't started but council had a desire for? And then having those categorized so that way you don't have the things that we're already working on being the top priorities, but there's also room for the additional stuff and expression for growth. And then... Um, I feel like I had something else, but like, yeah, so if you guys can just kind of break it up that way just to, you know.

make it easier for us and then we can have the session and further kind of critique and that was it okay so um you know as i'm looking at the list and you know we're looking at the project which council has named 19 projects or 19 components or no i guess projects yeah 19 projects and And within those components that hit that project in our action item, they're in there. I think it's very lofty for us to try to, in one survey, to try to put in everything. It's almost we have to do a first. This is what we want to prioritize as far as the projects go. And then after that, then we could start having another discussion where we can go into the weeds further as far as components and what are some things that are on a timeline that we can eventually move out and what is something we would want to put in that place, in that ranking, in that place.

So you'd rather me send something that has the first 19 projects as kind of a, your council priority points thing, and then discuss the components later?

And then we can go into a deeper dive, and then that would allow us then to have a second discussion where we're looking at timeline, and whatever is, once that project is complete, or once that component subcategory is completed, then what is it that we're wanting to put in its place? Does that?

I think one of the things that we can do, if council's okay with this, is we can send one that's We start here.

Massive, yeah.

And then as you're responding, we'll start leading it into more detail.

Okay.

Because we will start seeing trends from your responses. Sure, okay. And so if you're okay, we can work with our strategic integration group and kind of pare it down. And then I think we can bring you something that – has more detail to it.

I did kind of think we could include the components. So if your first round, if we give you a survey that says, OK, here are the 19 projects. Let's allocate your prioritization points to these. But then within each of these, here's a new set of prioritization points for the components within.

It could be embedded in there. I don't know why we couldn't do that all at once.

If you're willing to fill that out, if that's all right with you.

Are we willing to fill that out? A larger I am. Okay. So here we are.

I see one thumb, two, three. Okay. Perfect. And did you want me to take first and main off? I only saw one thumb to that.

Yeah, it's on the phone.

I still only see one thumb.

I would like to see a timeline. I don't want to divert. I mean, we still need to stay the course. And I'll leave it on there. I don't know if we're quite to that point. We'll see. Yeah, Isaac, no.

I mean, in reality, that section is probably not going to be through construction when we consider everything that's involved

mid-2028 okay yeah um with all of the pieces assuming that something else doesn't develop from a commercial standpoint that adds more complexity which is good because it adds revenue but yes so i would say mid-2028 okay and i i think it's really important that we have it on there because as a reminder for us that as we're putting in more ideas or more things wanting to bring put on the plate that hey you guys we still have this here And that is a priority. So yeah, I'm just going to let you all work your magic. I'm like, OK. Here's a thumbs up. Go for it. Thank you. Council Member Marcin.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to do something a little unorthodox here, because I know we have two more pieces of this item and then a fairly substantial item scheduled after this. And I think because we have guests here, it would be appropriate to know whether we're going to make it to that item or not tonight.

i could try i i well i i'm curious i i'm i move we extend the meeting beyond 11 o'clock i'm not ready to to entertain that yet but is there anyone who wants to second that okay council member um call coffer um uh yeah go ahead if it's motion has been made and okay because also to know that this is also eating time that we could have gotten Okay. Council Member McCoy.

Well, I'm not against having this, and I want to make it sure that the folks that were staying to talk about this, that it's not about the fact that we shouldn't have this, but I don't think we should have a conversation after 11 o'clock. There are people that are here and want to hear this and have this conversation, and I certainly am one of them. But I will tell you that I'm going to vote against it because this going past 11 o'clock because I think it's doing a disservice to people who really want to be part of this. And that's people that have chimed in tonight and also chimed in on email and also are interested parties. I think the community deserves better.

Yeah, I want to conclude. I'm hoping that the email is a yay or nay, that the other parts of our conversation can be very brief. And it sounds like we're coming to the end of this conversation. So again, nothing, I haven't seen very productive conversations and thought happening after 11 o'clock. So I would encourage us to wrap up our conversations. And did you? Okay. We have another comment, okay.

If we do not extend, what impact does that put on future agendas? Do we have space to continue this?

I believe we start budget next, so. Okay. There are consequences.

Let's go ahead and vote. We have an open motion on the table. Okay, so that fails. Three in favor, four against. With myself, Councilmember Chris, Mayor Pro Tem McCoy, and Councilmember Prieto in opposition. I would really encourage us that we wrap up our conversation. So let me see if I can help a little bit.

It sounds like everyone is okay with the action plan. If you're okay with the action plan, give me a thumbs up. And then the next step will be prioritization. If you're okay with the ads that came in from Councilmember Christ and from Councilmember Prieto, Would you give me a thumbs up to those? Okay, very good. And so then you'll get a survey. That'll be the next step. You'll get a survey and some additional information on this sheet. And I will make the print bigger.

Yes, yes. What the heck happened to it?

The next piece of this is your email system. You could certainly push that off until a later date. You can hang on to that one. But the boards and commission, we have a lot of people that give you feedback on the boards and commission that Dawn can give you. It's up to you if you'd like to push that portion out or if you'd like to hear her.

Let's hold off on the boards and commission conversations. The email... Yay or nay? I mean, do you want to move forward with the new system or even continue to explore a new system or let's just keep things as they are? Okay. If you want to keep things as they are, let's just do a thumbs up. Yeah, that would be fine. Keep things the way they are.

Okay.

Okay. So one, two, three, four, five. Okay. Okay. And who wants to put more work on staff and change things? Put your thumbs up.

Okay.

Okay, very good. Five to two. We're done with this conversation.

So we'll move boards and commissions to another conversation it sounds like. That discussion. I do just want to mention one quick thing under boards and commissions. The tech advisory board is planning to come back to you on September 8th. The boards and commission recruitment begins on September 14th. We are planning to recruit for tech advisory board members. And so I just want for you to know that on September 8, if that ordinance does not pass, then we'll pull that from the discussion. And the city and council would need to interview those folks if we get to that point. But I just want to tell you there's a real tight time right there. Tight time. Okay.

Okay. And we'll talk about that.

Anything else that was real critical, Dawn?

I was just going to ask if they could address the golf very quickly. Oh, yeah. It's the one simple one and it impacts recruitment.

Recruitment.

Okay.

Are there other ones that impact recruitment other than golf? That one.

The other ones really weren't. Actually, if you looked at our chart, there's not a lot to act upon except for golf.

Okay, so let's go ahead and do the golf one.

And I think Council Member Popkin has a motion ready. Okay, perfect. Let's do it.

Sure, I was going to make a motion to direct the city manager to dissolve the golf course advisory board and consolidate all relevant golf board responsibilities into the parks and recreation advisory board as staff deems appropriate. I think this is just a meaningful consolidation and indubitably just makes a more efficient process.

Second. Okay. so the motion has been made to condense to um dissolve the golf course advisory board and consolidate um golf board responsibilities with parks and rec advisory board and this it was seconded by mayor pro tem do we have any discussion on this topic um council member prieto

Mayor, my microphone was on before the motion was made.

Well, let's do this first, and then we'll address. Council Member Prieto.

I have a question, and that is we're consolidating responsibilities. Would we also be consolidating board members?

Yeah, because there was a recommendation to keep one member of the golf board on PRAB. So we'll have people terms, we would need to look at how those terms fall out, but their recommendation was to carry one person over for the knowledge.

And that was from golf?

That was from the board members, yeah.

Okay, so does this need to be, add that in, the motion?

I think maybe as recommended. As recommended.

As recommended, that's fine.

Okay. Okay.

I'm sorry, is that fine? That's fine. So Council Member Hopkins says that's fine. I said he says that's fine. Let's vote. And if you want to give a verbal vote, you can.

I'm a yay.

Okay, and that carries unanimously before we end the conversation. Go ahead, Council Member Prieto.

Well, Mayor, I was going to say before we started with the motion, I think that we can squeeze these out real quick, given the recommendation, and at least because we have 30 minutes until 11, and the document was kind of pretty self-explanatory as far as like what direction. So I would hate to push it forward if it's an easy like yay, nay, yay, nay.

I'm I yeah, I would like to give more attention to the final to the final just out of consideration to folks who've been here So, okay. Thank you. Okay so we are now on to the City Council review of code of ethics complaint and you have Yeah, you have your documents in front of you. Do we have city attorney or anybody who's going to... Okay, and just for public to know, this is the first time that we are following the process. So back when Mayor Peck was first elected mayor, we brought... that council at the time approved a system for addressing complaints, ethic complaints, violation, kind of an accountability factor. We didn't really have anything in place and it changed from council to council. So something more streamlined. So we are now actually trying it out for the first time and going through a process. So I do appreciate

the script in place um eugene is there uh anything you'd like to add mayor council eugene may city attorney no recommended sort of opening comments okay uh were suggested for the chairperson just to describe the process and what what set some expectations for how the hearing would be conducted

Okay, okay, so you, I believe it is in your council packet, the script that I will be reading. I was gonna add, everybody has a paper copy as well. Oh, they do have a paper copy.

Oh, wonderful, I wasn't sure, thank you.

There's more. Okay, so in front of you, you have the Longmont City Council City Council Ethics Complaint Review Recommended Procedure. So I will be following items one through seven. But let me go ahead and start with my opening comments. And do we have, yes. Hold on.

Mayor, I agree that the conversations happening after 11 o'clock are not ideal. Okay. I do not believe we can give this hearing the justice that it deserves and the process that it needs in 28 minutes. Okay. And I think attempting to do so would be a mistake. So I would either urge one of the individuals who voted on the prevailing side of the motion to not extend the meeting to reconsider that decision or to table this item. Because if we try to get this in in 28 minutes, we will be doing a disservice to the folks that have gone through this process.

So I'm looking through the time. I mean, we're getting close, and the more we debate the issue, the longer we're straying it out. That's what I was thinking. But okay, thank you. Council Member Popkin.

A question for the city attorney. So if it's a different motion to extend to like 1130, that is a finite time, does that need a reconsideration? Or can we just take a separate vote? It's a different proposal than an indefinite extension. Because I fully agree with Council Member Marsing. It would be a different motion. Thank you. I will make a motion to extend the meeting to 1130. Second. OK.

OK. We're just waiting for it to load. Yep. Yeah, so the motion has been made by Councilmember Popkin, seconded by Councilmember Marci, to extend the meeting to 1130. Ready to vote? Yes, we're ready to vote. Okay, thank you. And I really hope we don't have to carry it all the way to 1130. Thank you, Mayor.

Before we proceed.

Yes, and go ahead.

Yeah, so before we dive into this item, I wanted to disclose for the sake of transparency here that I have previously been subject to a now dismissed ethics complaint from the same complainant. And I wanted to acknowledge that on the record. It is my responsibility to disclose anything that could be perceived to impact my judgment on a certain topic. It is also my responsibility to disclose or determine if I need to recuse myself on this, and I do not believe I need to. I believe I can be impartial and neutral. This ethics complaint submission previously was dismissed by the hearing officer, and I look forward to being an impartial member of this body for this.

Okay. Council Member Marcin. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, was the subject of two ethics complaints from the same complaint, both of which were summarily dismissed by the hearing officer. And I, too, feel that I can be a neutral arbiter in this process since I am not named in this complaint or in any setting whatsoever.

Okay, thank you for that. So now I'm going to go ahead and begin with my opening comments. The City Council will now consider the allegations of an ethics violation regarding Mayor Pro Tem Sean McCoy by the complainant Daniel J. Meester, filed on July 23rd, 2026, alleging that Mayor Pro Tem, and I'm inserting it said council member, but the correct title is Mayor Pro Tem, McCoy has violated section 2.18.010. C2 of the ethics code by attempting to influence a city employee concerning a matter in which he has a conflict of interest. During this process, the complainant and the subject of the complaint will have the opportunity to present facts and an argument related to the complainant. It is not required for the city council to conduct a full public hearing or take public input on the complaint. And I will not be, we had members of the public who did comment during public invited to be heard and I allowed that. So we will not be taking time for members of the audience to weigh in as well. I really want to focus on Mr. Meester and Council Member McCoy. So after consideration of facts and arguments, city council shall determine whether to adopt or modify the hearing officer's written interpretation and or recommendation as final ethics opinion of the city council. Any council member whose conduct or circumstance Is subject of a hearing, officer's recommendation shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the city council regarding the opinion. So if the city council determines a violation of code of ethics has occurred, the following sanctions may be imposed. So the options that we would have to choose from, an oral or written reprimand. Monetary fine if the subject of the complaint has financially benefited. Censure as a formal official reprimand by the city council. Prohibit the subject of the complaint from receiving future confidential information or attend executive session on a particular topic. And the final one, suspend board or commission members or remove them from in accordance with charter article seven. Complaint, so now we're on to item two, complainant statement presentation. So this is the opportunity for the complainant to step forward. Okay, and you will have any time up to 10 minutes.

I read the rules.

Yes, so, well, not everyone in the public has, so I wanted to make sure it's out there.

Good evening mayor, members of the council, staff, fellow residents. My name is Daniel Meester. I reside at 310 Lincoln Street. I stand before you tonight in accordance with Longmont Municipal Code section 2.18.010F2, which grants me as a complainant the formal opportunity to present facts and arguments to this body. before a final decision is rendered on the merits of my ethics complaint against Mayor Pro Tem Sean McCoy. On August 4th, 2026, Independent Hearing Officer Victoria Aguilar Esquire issued a comprehensive written interpretation and recommendation to this council. following an exhaustive factual investigation the hearing officer conducted concluded pardon me that by preponderance of the evidence that i presented the exact legal standard mandated by ordinance o-2024-28 mr mccoy committed a clear and distinct violation of our city codes of ethics i'm here tonight to urge this council to adopt the hearing officer's written interpretation in its entirety To uphold our municipal standards and to issue the recommended formal written reprimand. This matter is not about personal animosity. I will mention that I voted for Representative McCoy. Nor is it a debate about airport policy. It is about the baseline integrity of municipal governments, the protection of our professional city staff from administrative coercion by elected officials, and the strict enforcement of the ethical boundaries that separate public oversight from personal interest. To understand the core issue before us, we must look directly at the wording of Chapter 2.8, which this council passed as Ordinance O2024-28, Section 2.18.010C2. And it explicitly states, with respect to any matter regarding which a local government official, has a conflict of interest, said person is prohibited from discussing with or otherwise attempting in any capacity to influence directly or indirectly any city officer or employee. Before delving into the substantiated violation of this section, it is necessary to address the counts that the hearing officer chose not to sustain. While the separate allegations under subsection C3 for preferential treatment and C4 for quasi-judicial participation were dismissed due to narrow technical legal definitions, the extensive factual record uncovered during the investigation does not absolve the respondent. Rather, it significantly strengthens my position. The evidence gathered on those counts demonstrates a consistent, unyielding pattern of behavior. It reveals an official operating under the profoundly mistaken belief that his title gives him the unilateral authority to dictate airport policy, disrupt established administrative lines, overrule both local management and federal regulations. While his action did not meet the strict technical thresholds required to prove third party preferential benefit or a formal judicial conflict, they provide the essential context For the central violation, a clear high pressure attempt to use this public office to influence city staff for localized geographic self-interest. A chronological record of the administrative pressure is as follows. The factual record in this matter is established by undisputed documentary evidence obtained by public records. Let's look at the timeline of Mr. McCoy's communications with airport manager Levi Brown throughout June 2026. On June 11, Mr. McCoy initiated a forceful exchange by forwarding flight tracking screenshots from a selected resident. In this email, Mr. McCoy bypassed public channels and wrote directly to the airport manager. He did not merely ask questions, he explicitly demanded that staff take action, writing, I strongly encourage you to speak directly with the pilots flying this unnecessary pattern day after day and direct them not to use the alternative. He went further, asserting that he would not stop punishing or pushing for punitive consequences for pilots and explicitly declared that the days of playing nice-nice will never exist again. On June 18, 2026, Manager Brown responded professionally and cordially, explaining the realities of general aviation operations at an untowered airport like Vance Brandt. He noted that the flight tracks appeared consistent with standard safety regulations and the city's voluntary noise abatement program, or VNAP. He explicitly stated that runway choices are safety decisions made in real time by the pilot in command based on prevailing winds, which frequently shift direction. and that he lacked the legal or operational authority to direct or punish individual pilots. On June 24th, Mr. McCoy escalated the conversation. Rather than accepting the clear operational boundaries provided by staff, Mr. McCoy escalated his demands. He issued an explicit warning to the airport manager stating, You report to Harold Dominguez, not to me, and I respect that. But I want you to know that if I continue not getting the answers I need to address this situation, I will be bringing it to Harold. As the hearing officer correctly noted, these phrases were aggressively combative, highly accusatory, and are reasonably understood by city staff as direct threats to their employment or operational commands. There's further personal conflict and geographic self-interest. Mr. McCoy has argued both in his signed statement dated July 31st, 2026 and in public discussions that his actions represented standard constituent advocacy. He claims that aircraft noise is a citywide issue and that his actions were meant to protect all residents. However, his own written words completely dismantled this defense. In his June 24th email, Mr. McCoy complained to pilots to figure out where he and the mayor lived. He wrote, we're both on the northwest side of town near Harvard and 17th with Mountain View as a cross street. They're making deliberate course adjustments that manage to put them directly over one of our homes repeatedly. A more direct routing would bypass our neighborhood entirely. By explicitly demanding that the airport manager divert traffic onto an alternative path that would bypass our neighborhood directly, Mr. McCoy is using his official position to seek a geographically specific direct and substantial benefit for his own property and immediate neighborhood. This is the exact definition of a personal conflict of interest under section 2.18.010A12. It is a benefit different in kind and degree from that experienced by the general public. Bypassing public comment to send high pressure demands directly to a subordinate city employee is a flagrant abuse of municipal boundaries. Further attempt to govern airspace. We're now at the most alarming aspect of the respondent's actions, the overt attempt to unilaterally govern the airspace and override established aviation science. Under longstanding federal doctrine, the FAA retains exclusive, absolute jurisdiction over the management of local airspace, flight altitudes, and air traffic control. As municipal airport sponsor, the city of Longmont has strictly circumscribed legal boundaries. As legal experts explicitly clarified during the July 2026 airport noise town hall, the city has no authority to mandate flight paths, enact curfews, or enforce mandatory operational restrictions. Yet Mr. McCoy attempted to substitute his own layman opinions for federal aviation safety standards. In his communications with the airport manager, Mr. McCoy actively sought to institute a local rogue air force enforcement mechanism demanding punitive consequences for pilots who are operating in full compliance with federal aviation regulations. Most disturbingly, Mr. McCoy attempted to rewrite basic aerodynamic safety rules to achieve his noise reduction goals. When informed by staff that pilots must land and take off into the wind to ensure aircraft stability, Mr. McCoy responded dismissively, writing that a student pilot occasionally landing with a slight tailwind is not unsafe and is arguably good training. This directly contradicts standard FAA flight training handbooks and traffic advisory practices which require pilots to land into the wind. Let's be completely clear about what this represents. Landing an aircraft with a tailwind significantly increases ground speed, alters the descent profile, drastically extends the required landing distance, and severely escalates the risk of a runway excursion or a catastrophic accident. especially for an uncertified student pilot. For an elected official with zero aviation credentials to leverage the power of his office to pressure city staff into advocating or directing unsafe aerodynamic maneuvers.

And that is time. That's time? It's been 10 minutes, yes. Oh my God, I speak quickly now. It goes fast.

Don't worry, the rebuttal is shorter.

Yes, there will be. Please. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem, you may begin. All right.

This was never about me. When I said my house, I sincerely believe and still believe that pilots were intentionally routing over parts of the neighborhood, but it was never really about me personally. I'm not here to be bothered by 10 months of the year, five days a week, I'm 15 miles away teaching at a school made of steel and concrete. I don't hear the planes. My neighbors do. My constituents do. If I phrase that badly in an email, that's on me. And I want to offer a sincere apology for that. And for anything in my choice of words that came across as being about my own comfort rather than my neighbor's well-being. That was never my intent, but intent does not erase impact, and I take responsibility for it. Going forward, I'll be more careful not to make it sound like it's about how it affects me personally. I also will be more intentional about how I raise concerns with city staff. Even where it wasn't my intention here, I understand how council members pressing staff on a matter close to home can carry even a hint of asking for preferred treatment. And I don't want to leave the room for that appearance again. I'll do better. What this was never about and what this has always been about is how my constituents are being treated. The noise, the disregard, the leaded fuel dumping over their heads with no accountability. That's at the heart of this. Number one point, I had no personal financial gain. Miss Victoria Aguilar said so herself. She found no evidence of fabrication concerns or acted for personal gain. That's not my framing. It's her official determination. The ethics codes exist to catch self-dealing. She looked for it specifically and there isn't any. Nothing changed as a result of my emails. No pilot faced any consequences and I gained nothing. Three nothing happened facts stacked together. If there were about personal gain, there would be no point, there isn't one. Number two, nothing is asked for was actually happened. And I checked myself along the way. No airport operations changes, no pilots were penalized, and Mr. Brown told me directly he couldn't direct individual pilots. I raised concerns, though, the only channel available to me and got no. That's advocacy, not coercion. And I'd be the first to apologize to Mr. Brown if I believed I had overstepped. I asked City Manager Harold Dominguez directly three separate times whether I had crossed the line. Three separate times he told me no. He would have told me if that had been the case, he told me. At no point while this matter was in play did Assistant City Manager Jen Uten or a city human resource employee ever reach out to me and tell me a complaint had been filed. I also don't know how my asking Mr. Brown a question would have affected Mr. Meester, since Mr. Meester is not Mr. Brown's supervisor. Point three, preferred treatment and charter open meetings violations were explicitly rejected. The complaint asked for four things, a preferred treatment finding, a charter violation, an open meetings violation, and a blanket recusal. I got one of the narrowest possible, one on the narrowest possible grounds. That's not a partial loss for Mr. Mester. That's a track record of the track record of overreach built into the complaint itself. What is left is finding about the tone of the channel. I'm not finding that I abused my office for personal benefit. Point four, my motivation was found genuine. Miss Victoria Aguilar concluded, I appeared to sincerely believe the flights represented retaliation for council action. A benefit, she said, materially mitigates the violation. Her own words, material mitigates the ethics codes, cares about intent. That's the central question, and she found my intent was genuine. This is not technicality. That's the question, and it went in my favor. Point five. The data backs up why residents were alarmed. Operations rose from 126,000 to 137,000 between 2004 and 2008 at 8.6 jump This wasn't just Old Town, Longmont states or other heavily populated areas of our community were being overwhelmed too. And particularly Longmont states, where it appeared pilots had discerned that the mayor and I lived. We were seeing a noticeable higher concentration of air traffic. I wasn't inventing a problem. I was responding to a documented increase that residents across the neighborhoods and many others were experiencing something we'd never experienced before. Blanket recusal was rejected. Point six there. This wasn't just about what happened, it's about whether I can keep doing my job for the constituents afterwards. Miss Victoria Aguilar drew a real distinction between legislative advocacy and personal conflict and found my conduct falls on the advocacy side. The recusal provision Mr. Meester cited doesn't apply to my general legislative role. That's not just finding about the past, it's finding about what I'm allowed to keep doing for this community and going forward. There isn't a single person on this council or anyone who served on the former airport advisory board who couldn't be accused of saying or feeling something similar if we let Mr. Meester's line of attack become the standard, including him during his own time on the board. My loan vote, point seven, my loan vote against the FAA grants was an obstruction. It was fiscal diligence. I didn't oppose the airport. I flagged funding conditions and pushed for a sustainable loan model like landing fees instead of federal strings. I want to see the airport succeed. It's an investment. Point eight, leaded fuel concerns is not fringe. Piston aircraft exempt from the lead restriction when cars were cleaned up in the 1990s. The EPA didn't formally find leaded aviation gas endangers, didn't formally find leaded aviation gas endangers public health until 2023, nearly three decades after the FAA had committed to establish. The FAA has also committed to establishing it by 2030, which confirms the danger was real, not manufactured, and the communications near general airports were exposed to decades before Regulators Act. Point nine, I represent people who felt unheard, not myself. For 10 months of the year, I'm teaching five days a week at a school and away from my home from approximately 7 a.m. until 5 p.m., either commuting or working full-time. It's hard to make a case that this was personally affecting me when I wasn't there for most of it. But it sure as hell affected my neighbors, and that was the intent, wasn't it? Two full terms on council are going on nine years now, plus 25 years of service is the pattern here, not the abbreviation. Planning, zoning, housing, and human services commission, and Boulder County Open Space, and now council. My record is constituency advocacy, not self-dealing. When I first ran for council, my slogan was that I wasn't running against anybody. or any issue I was running for along with to make it a better place to live, work, and play. That's the same thing I'm doing in these emails, advocating for my constituents, not arguing against anybody. If I sounded tough in these emails, it came after literally months of abusive behavior from specific members of the airport community, including ethics complaints that were unfounded or seemed designed to have a chilling effect on anyone who stands up for the general public. If this is what things have become, we've got a lot of work to do to get back to civil discourse. But the work isn't just mine to do. The abuse my constituents have received and that I've received as a humble servant to this community is unacceptable and should not be tolerated by any of us. And the last point here, I want to be honest about one thing I got wrong. My choice of words. When I said flights were happening over my home, I sincerely didn't mean that as being about me personally. I was trying to describe a pattern of- That is time. Thank you.

Okay, we are now on to no more than a five-minute rebuttal for each, for the complainant as well as the subject. So, Mr. Meester, do you have anything you wanted to add? Or, yeah, rebut.

I'll keep my rebuttal brief because it's getting late and I'm sure everybody doesn't want to be here until midnight and I don't either. We've heard a defense centered on constituent service, public interest, and the right of an elected official to speak freely. But none of these arguments change the undisputed facts written by the respondent's own hand. This complaint has nothing to do with FAA grants. It has nothing to do with leaded fuel. It has a lot to do with the abuse of a city staff member by Councilman Mayor Pro Tem Sean McCoy. Constituent advocacy ends where personal geographic self-interest begins. Mr. McCoy claims he was speaking for all of Longmont, yet on June 24th, he explicitly complained that flights were over his home and demanded an alternate path that would bypass our neighborhood entirely. True constituent service does not seek to reroute an established landing pattern away from officials' personal property line near Harvard and 17th. Second, we must reject the assertion that this was merely an ordinary citizen sending an email. An ordinary resident does not command direct access to a department head's inbox using an official city email. An ordinary resident cannot threaten an employee by stating that if they do not get the answers they need, they will bypass them and take it directly to the city manager. That is not citizen communication. That is administrative coercion. The Code of Ethics provides a specific path for officials to protect personal interest. They must speak from the public podium during public comment, just like any other citizen. Mr. McCoy chose instead to leverage his inside political authority. Third, the defense has attempted to frame his statements regarding flight safety as harmless policy opinions. They are not. When a council member tells an airport manager that student pilots landing with a tailwind is not unsafe and is arguably good training, he's attempting to override federal aviation safety protocols to achieve a personal noise reduction goal. Operating an aircraft with a tailwind drastically increases landing distance and elevates the risk of runway accidents. This is tantamount to someone who has never driven a car telling a student driver to accelerate on an icy road then brake heavily just before hitting a wall. For a layman official to pressure city personnel into advocating unsafe aerodynamic maneuvers violates the core principle of responsible governance. The city has no legal authority to govern local airspace and individual council members have no right to invent their own local aviation rules. Finally, do not be misled by references to dismissed counts. The technical dismissal of the preferential treatment and quasi-judicial counts under subsections C3 and C4 occurred because those sections require strict proof of third-party financial benefits or former voting conflicts. But the central charge of violation of section 2.18.010 for conflict of interest and improper influence stands fully substantiated by preponderance of the evidence. A validated ethics violation is before you. If this council fails to adopt the independent hearing officer's findings tonight, you will effectively signal to city staff that they are on their own when facing high pressure, combative demands from individual council members. I ask you to protect our professional staff and uphold the integrity of Chapter 2.18 and issue the recommended formal reprimand. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. This job is about advocacy. That's what it is. It's about everyday advocacy, pushing hard, asking hard questions, trying to get those answers to drive them, to drive our decision making. It's not easy being up there. It's not. And we have a lot of critics. Some are trying to come up with ways of sometime making sure that all of us are quiet. And in this situation here, that's what the driving force is here. It's not about me and a tone of an email. It's never been about me. It's all about the attempts to try to chill Our speech up here, I didn't lose my First Amendment speech rights when I came up here and got sworn in as a city councilman. I didn't leave them at the door. And I will tell each and every one of you that, you know, I'm not perfect. I stand here before you, you know, knowing my imperfections, knowing that I have shortcomings, just like every single last one of us here. And I will tell you that, you know, I get it. I do. I get that there are some folks that are angry about decisions made by council and that we all have to do better, including myself. I know it. And I will do better. I'm not going to stop fighting for my constituents. I'm not going to play some sort of legal game with people. I just want what's best for Longmont, including the airport, including the pilots, and everybody in this community. And I don't think anybody in this community deserves to be abused, whether it's any one of us. You know, I often think of the statement that no good deed goes unpunished, and oftentimes that's kind of where we stand. We do these good deeds, we're here late at night, we read packets, we try to do the right thing, and we still have credits that, you know, we're never quite doing it right. If we don't all just say yes to everything, what are we ever going to say no to? So I thank you for your consideration. I know that I can do better. I know all of us can do better. Thank you. Thank you.

And so that, so we are in the closing arguments, but Mayor Pro Tem, You know, in listening to that, that was a closing argument. So did you have any additional thing before I pass it back? Well, I'm going to pass it back to Mr. Meester for his closing argument. Because I don't think he had a rebuttal to your rebuttal.

Thank you.

And so you can go ahead and begin your... Rant?

Well, no.

Your five-minute closing argument. I'm keeping it professional.

I want to make a comment from something that Mayor Pro Tem said. Advocacy is a fine thing. It's a noble thing. But advocacy cannot include threats. And we've seen a prima facie example of that occurring. It's documented. It was in fact sustained. And I want to be forthcoming about the basics of these ethics complaints. They're not political. As I mentioned, I voted for Representative McCoy. They're not about the dissolution of the airport advisory board. All city advisory boards serve at the will of the council, and that is recognized. They're not about some imaginary group unhappy with the dissolution of that board. To my knowledge, no such group exists. The complaints are solely about an elected representative who's attempted to use his position to influence and threaten a city employee for the representative's personal benefit. In defense of that, Representative McCoy has stated that he was going to aggressively stand up for his constituency. Mayor and Council, I request you review the evidence cited in my complaint regarding the constituents Mayor Pro Tem McCoy is standing up for. They are well known to you. You are copied on their rants. They are vocal. They have legal issues which stem from their actions at the airport and at a specific local business. Yet Representative McCoy maintains his actions were in defense of that limited constituency. Are they representative of the greater Longmont populace, or are they a very small minority which the representative happens to be aligned with? Public service is a trust, and it must be regarded as such. The request Mr. McCoy made to airport manager Levi Brown are clear evidence that Mr. McCoy violated Section 2.18.010A.12 of Longmont's ethics rules. This has been verified by the hearing officer Aguilar. That is a violation of the public trust and is not behavior that an elected official should engage in under any circumstance for any reason. Again, I'll ask you to follow the recommendations of hearing officer Aguilar. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. And so we are now on to the council discussion and deliberation section. Oh, yeah. What's that? So, and the vote? Yeah. No. He can't participate. But does he have to? So, Don, does he have to leave the room?

I don't believe so. I don't think so. You just can't participate in the discussion.

Yes. So then, oh go ahead.

Correct. I would say the rules of procedure or the code of ethics doesn't say yes to leave, just not participate.

Okay. Um, so you can either sit there or yeah, you can chill out over there. Okay. So now we're going back to get back to us. Um, and so we are really setting precedent in our, um, discussions. I'm going to ask that, you know, we make sure that our questions are more, um, seeking clarity. and or in reference to what is provided in our packet, the item that we are deliberating. And yeah, so as we move forward with this, you know, no, this could be any one of us in the future. You know, as new people come to council, we have a system in place that this could be, you know, we could be put in that situation as well. So I want to make sure that as we set precedence in tonight's discussion and deliberation that we stay on point and keep our own comments brief. Council Member Marcin.

Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate that. And I did check with the city attorney about questions for the complainant and for the subject of the complaint. So I have some questions for Mr. Meester if that's okay, if he can come back down. I really appreciate it because I thank you for your time. And I want to be really careful here because I'm not trying to relitigate airport policy during this item. It's not about the airport, right? We're not here to decide airport policy. We're here because you filed an ethics complaint against an elected official. We are being asked to adopt or modify the hearing officer's recommendation. So I'm trying to understand the specific scope of what you're requesting. You're requesting that Mayor Pro Tem McCoy be recused from all current and future airport matters, correct?

No, I'm not.

That was what was requested in the report.

That is not within the scope of the hearing officer's recommendations.

I was asking you your position. My position? That was in your initial complaint in the packet.

That did not get granted.

Correct. No, but it was in the initial.

It was in the initial complaint.

Okay, and as you mentioned, you're aware that that didn't get substantiated. So I want to just clarify, because you're saying that both your ethics concern here is not personal, right, or related to the airport, and that it's limited to the June communications in the report, correct? Correct.

I would have to review it completely, but it may have gone into July also.

Okay. So I want to point to just Exhibit C, because I had a question about that. Exhibit C in the packet. I don't have that with me. It includes a February exchange between you and the Mayor Pro Tem. That's in February, before the June communications at issue here. And does this ring a bell at all, the February exchange? Vaguely. And in that exchange from February, long before the June communications of the subject of the complaint, you criticize the Mayor Pro Tem over the dissolution, and this is all in our report, over the dissolution of the airport advisory board and then threaten the possibility of an ethics complaint, correct? I don't think it's a threat. It was made. So you did say you would make the ethics complaint based on his position on airport issues?

I am not saying that. I'm saying that there was substantial evidence that an ethics complaint was appropriate. Evidence from what, based on- From CORA received requests.

But that was before the June communications. This was February before you'd filed CORA requests, correct?

I had been accumulating CORA requests and data for months.

Okay, that exhibit also includes your statement that you would, quote, no longer shovel his sister's sidewalk because of his position on the airport issues, correct?

Yeah, but we're all entitled to, in fact, I think he suggested this himself. We're all entitled to have a bit of a throw of anger.

Certainly, but it's hard to say that this is not a personal complaint.

No, it's not a personal complaint at all.

Okay. In fact, before those June communications, as you mentioned, you'd already filed multiple core requests on the Mayor Pro Tem related to this issue, correct? Not just the Mayor Pro Tem. No, myself and I think just about everybody up here, correct? No, that's not true. How many ethics complaints or related to council airport matters have you filed, supported, or participated in up to this point? I'm just asking for the scope of the work that you've been doing in this space.

File one against Representative Popkin, and I believe I filed one against you.

Two against me.

Okay.

Yeah, and which is fine. That's your right, right? And those were dismissed or not substantiated, correct?

I'm curious what they have to do with the complaint that is at hand that's been substantiated.

It points, Mayor, and I appreciate because I see you're about to step in. It points to a concern that I have deeply for consideration by my council teammates of what I see through this process has become, frankly, a weakness of our ethics process. That core requests, ethics investigations, et cetera, can be used potentially as a weapon against individuals that you have political or policy disagreements with.

I think I've made it very clear I don't have any political or policy disagreements. I have a very strong disagreement about Mayor Pro Tem's actions. Again, I'll remind you, I voted for him.

And then you told him you wouldn't shovel his sister's sidewalk.

I don't think that's germane in this particular concept. It's in the materials we have.

It was in our materials. It was in our packet.

I saw it was in your materials, but I don't think it has anything to do with- So last question for you, Mr. Meester.

I appreciate your time. Do you believe that the ethics process that this city has worked hard to adopt should be used to remove council members or otherwise discipline council members from voting on controversial policy issues when they have expressed strong views on those issues, especially when their views are different from yours?

Please repeat that.

Do you believe that the way that this ethics process has been used is appropriate, that you should be able to remove or otherwise sanction members of council for voting or engaging on difficult policy questions?

I think that any private citizen should be able to file an ethics complaint where one is appropriate. I think in order to remove a council person, that is generally done with a recall vote.

I was speaking specifically to voting on the issue as you initially requested in your initial request to the hearing officer that he be recused from all those conversations. But that's a separate thing. I do have a question for Mayor Pro Tem McCoy at the end of my time. Yes. Just very quickly. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem McCoy, I appreciate it. I have one question for you. Do you acknowledge that your language in the June emails crossed a line, particularly asking staff to direct pilots and referring to punitive consequences? Do you believe that crossed a line?

I didn't think I was asking him to go and be punitive with him. I was asking for- The way the language was received, perhaps. And I'm sorry, and I said earlier in my earlier statement that I'd be the first to apologize to Mr. Brown.

And going forward, you can commit to keep working on airport policy and routing through the city manager, et cetera, in a more appropriate way. I can always do that. Thank you.

Great, thank you. Okay, do we have any other comments or questions from council members? Or, so before us, ahead of us, before us, we have, our decision is to either uphold the officer recommendation, impose a different sanction, or dismiss the complaint. And, you know, and I guess, you know, I'm thinking about dismiss the complaint. I mean, we're already kind of dealing with some, you know, some disciplinary action in the hearing in and of itself. So, I mean, yeah, I don't think it would totally dismiss. If we vote to dismiss, we've already gone through all this. Council Member Christ.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you, gentlemen, for presenting your sides of the issue. It's really clear that the temperature is heating up over the airport. And it's coming to where it's not very pleasant for anybody. We belong to the same city, okay? We have pilots and we have non-pilots and you're both part of the city and you both deserve respect and we both deserve to be respected in our communication. We came up with an ethics plan and we all voted for it so that we can hold ourselves to a standard and I believe we should respect that. What else do I want to say? Ethics matter because it creates trust with the public, and they need to know that we censor ourselves as elected officials. For the staff, we need to make sure that we don't overstep. We don't want to ever make the staff feel bullied or put upon. We want them to know that we have their back. And so I do think that maybe an apology, and this is something that Mayor Pro Tem has suggested an apology to Levi Brown would be well received. And I know that the Mayor Pro Tem has the grace to carry that out well. We need to treat all point of views with respect, as I've said. And I would like to lower the temperature towards the council, towards each other, just in general. We know there's a noise problem at the airport. you know, I hope you know that we're working on it. And I hope that we have communicated why it's not just a slam dunk quick answer regarding this. And we do have something scheduled for September 26th. As counselors, I think we have to be the example of how we treat each other in town. So I am in favor of just an apology from the Mayor Pro Tem to Levi Brown. And then I would like to say, that we just put a moratorium on any oral or verbal communication about the airport. It's perfectly fine for the community to continue to send emails and share their opinions, but I think we should just say a thank you and leave it at that until we've had our chance to discuss in September what we envision for the airport. think that just protects all of us and also is a good example of how we're going to handle this situation with each other and thank you both I want you know both opinions are valid and there's a place for everyone here in Longmont okay yeah yeah all right thank you yeah thank you thank you for that councilmember Kalkhofer

Thank you, Mayor. You talked about precedent, so I'll leave that, and I appreciate what Councilmember Chris said. I also reviewed what the hearing officer is finding, and I agree that Mayor Pro Tem shouldn't have directed staff on the matter. That should have come from the city manager or the assistant city manager. In my opinion, the hearing officer and what they found, they didn't find any evidence of financial gain no evidence that he made up his concerns and there was no change on how the airport actually operated so I do believe that an apology is appropriate and I do believe in a normal situation if this were to happen it is the responsibility of the employees manager or the assistant city manager or the city manager to step in and say hey As one member of council, you are not able to direct staff without three other members. So I think it would be appropriate for Mayor Pro Tem to apologize.

Four other members.

One plus three.

One plus three. Okay, got it. Would be four. Four.

Four total. Correct. Four total to direct staff. And in a normal situation that... That's what would happen. So I do agree with Council Member Chris that an apology would be beneficial. And I do appreciate everybody for coming out. I know this is a topic that is passionate for a lot of people. And I also agree that the temperature has escalated. And as one member of this dais, I also want to work to improve the airport for our community and the folks who are impacted by either using it or the folks who are underneath it. So thank you.

Great. Thank you. Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Meester and Mayor Pro Tem McCoy for your thoughtful statements and clearly prepared remarks as well. Regardless of the outcome tonight, I think it's kind of indisputable that an independent hearing officer did determine some level of merit to the original concerns. And I think, frankly, pausing for us to evaluate this is necessary to not only ensure there's transparency, public accountability but gives us a chance to kind of reckon with the process that was set up years ago and hasn't been used. And so I think we're actively sailing this, we're building the ship as we're sailing it here and trying to follow as many instructions as we have. I had a question for the Mayor Pro Tem. One of the statements that repeatedly got brought up by the complainant, both in writing and in his oral presentation, was that, and I'll quote directly from the June 24th email, quote, you report to Harold Dominguez, not to me, and I respect that, but I want you to know that if I continue not getting answers that I need to address this situation, I will be bringing it to Harold. That's not a threat. It's just where this is heading if things don't change. Can you just shed a little bit more light on your mindset if you can recall two months ago there? Because I do want to take you at your word that it's not a threat, but I think we all want to also make sure that we're responsible in making sure that no one is threatening our staff as well, right? Yeah.

I didn't take it as a threat. I didn't mean it as a threat. I meant it as the frustration level that the community as well as myself was getting from just kind of non-answers. You know, we talked about the BNAP being a voluntary system. And I didn't see that asking him to go politely and respectfully and not casually and say, hey, do you guys realize what you're kind of doing here? You're going out of your way and flying everywhere. And if we look at some of these maps that we've seen from constituents that have been sent, they're flying absolutely everywhere. It doesn't seem to matter where the wind is blowing or what direction. That's the sort of expectation. It just seemed like, wow, can't we just get these guys to maybe have that sort of dialogue? And I wasn't planning on going with them or anything. Just, hey, you know, you've got to be a good neighbor. And that's what I've said repeatedly in this and in other emails as well. It's about being a good neighbor. And they have failed to be good neighbors. And so that's kind of where I was coming from. It's like you can't even – you see these people day in and day out or week in and week out. I don't think you can casually say, you know, you're not following the VNAP and you're also not – Following, you know, kind of what that good neighbor sort of behavior.

Thank you. And then just what in your mind, again, we're figuring this process out as you are here. And what in your mind is the difference or meaningful difference to you between kind of a formal apology to the staff involved and a reprimand?

Well, I think a reprimand is one of these things that later is used purposely, and that's my concern for political purposes. I feel that this has a chilling effect on anybody who ever, ever pushes back. I think in a form of apology, I'm happy to formally apologize. I'll send it tomorrow. You know, there was never any intent. You know, I went on a tour with Levi. We had a nice 30-minute conversation before Newton got there to do our tour. So I don't hold any animosity to him.

Sure. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you. And do we have, I guess, do you have motion? Perfect. I was just about to ask that. Council member Marcy.

Thank you, Mayor, and I want to thank everybody here for the process, Mr. Meester and Mayor McCoy. I do have deep concerns about, I think we need to take a look at the ethics process generally and how it's used. And now that we've kind of steering the ship, I do not believe this is the complaint to substantiate. I do think a formal apology would be appreciated in a lot of ways. So I move that council request Mayor Pro Tem McCoy issue a written apology to Levi Brown, but otherwise dismiss the ethics complaint. Okay. I second that.

Okay. Did you have?

Okay. And keep in mind, we have three minutes left.

Yes.

Yeah, I was just going to ask why dismissing the complaint. It was substantiated on the facts, and I think that we're determining what...

It does come back to us. That was a recommendation, so we are the final... We can decide to dismiss... So and that was the intent of the original ethics when this was brought forward is that we would be the deciding body, just like under our advisory councils give us a recommendation, we decide whether or not we want to pursue that particular recommendation. So.

Yeah, I guess I would just ask then for the maker of the motion if you would just amend, if you would be open to just making the motion that we ask Mayor Pro Tem to issue a formal apology.

It's the spirit of it.

OK. So do you want to otherwise dismiss the ethics complaint, eliminate that line? I mean.

Real quick, because we have a minute to figure this out. Yes. Can I move that we extend an additional 10 minutes to?

Well, I guess there's a motion on the table.

Yeah, there is a motion. I'll withdraw my motion, move we extend an additional 10 minutes to 1140. Okay.

So the motion has been made and seconded. I don't like doing it that way. And technically it's not debatable, and I debated it last time. So. Lordy, lordy. Okay.

Fine.

Yeah, not past 11.

Okay. So that carries 6 to 1 with McCoy recused. Something. Okay.

Mayor, if appropriate, I can speak to the question.

Yes, let me switch mics here. Oh, no, now you're off.

There we go. Go ahead. So I think I'm sympathetic to the concern that the mayor pro tem offers, which is that a formal written reprimand does have a legislative consequence, and it also has, you know, we're all elected officials. There's a political element in that as well, that there's a political consequence. I do believe that us formally directing that we would like to see a formal apology sent to Levi Brown is appropriate. I do think that the language was unfortunate in a number of ways. However, I maintain that the way that this complaint and the process here used our ethics process is something I'm fundamentally uncomfortable with. And validating that and using this as the precedent that we say this is the kind of complaint that we substantiate, which I'm not comfortable with that. So saying, yes, we agree that some of the language was harsh, please apologize, but formally adopting the complaint and the recommendations of the hearing officer feels a step too far to me. And so I would ask that we dismiss the complaint aside from requesting a formal apology, which is, I think, a step down from a written reprimand. Yes, it is.

Council Member Prieto.

I'm trying to not speak too much tonight, but I will be voting. So once the motion is made, it sounds like the consensus is an apology. And then to dismiss the complaint, I will be voting no on that. I feel like our processes are for a reason. We don't get to make up things as we go. I would hope that if there was ever a complaint that was substantiated against me and an outside hearing officer found me to be in violation of a certain ethics or ethic rule, that you guys would hold me accountable. It's not personal. I just think this is our process. If we're seeing gaps and holes in this process right now, I think then we come together afterward and make sure that we have protections in place to ensure that people can't use it as a tool, et cetera. But I will be voting no on that. My recommendation would be to go with the independent officer's recommendation. And yeah, so just wanting to kind of state my opinion on that. She reviewed all the evidence. She laid out everything accordingly. I wanna be as neutral as possible, taking relationships, previous conversations, heat with the airport, and just look at this process specifically. So yeah, so I will be voting no on that. My recommendation would be that we follow the hearing officer's original recommendation for a recommend and Yeah, thank you.

Okay. Thank you Yeah, and I for me the reason why I would be accepting this the motion if made Is you know, I go back to the you know being on council when this initial process was passed and there we had discussion on What you know, if we find that it is being used as a tool. What what do we have? What does any council have in the future? As a body can. You know, what do we have to ensure that things that. that it's not being used as a tool of punitive. So the conversation was, well, then we would be the deciding factor. So after everything goes through, just like an advisory board, we receive those recommendations, but we decide as a body whether or not to issue that recommendation or a separate one or dismiss entirely. So again, we are... building i was going to say flying the plane is reeling it but i'm not going to use that building the bridges we're crossing it so because yes um temperatures are high and um and people are passionate and you know when we were hearing oh well you know community members can't threaten uh during covid i mean people were threatening our lives um guy who ended up being you know found out was my neighbor was threatening to shove his ar-15 upper you know what um so um just to even have a conversation about gun safety so no it's not i've noticed and i've talked to other mayors that this is a hard time to be serving in public office tensions are high on every topic and you know again i you know i want to keep keep things specific to what I read in this packet. And I also wanted to bring some historical context as to when this came out, why this was put in place, and what avenues does the council have in ensuring that it's not used as a tool. I'm not saying, I'm not making allegations that anybody's using this as a tool. I just, I feel like, and I've warned other council members, and I've had conversations. I think of, what did I say? I pretty much yelled at everybody on here. I apologize. But, and really it's about, it comes down to if the seven of us fell off the face of the earth tomorrow, guess what, Longmont's gonna survive. However, if we lose key directors out there who've been there for a long time, this city is in a world of hurt. And so I really, really wanna caution That, yes, this can be any one of us. If we are not careful in keeping our boundaries as elected leaders, yes, we want to protect our constituents. Yes, we want to advocate for them. I read these and I was like, I get it because I'm hearing those same emails, those same frustrations, people yelling at me. And, you know, catching me in the grocery store, and it was like, why aren't you doing this? And so it's nonstop. And, you know, it's like, so yes, we are trying to balance this, telling our constituents, I empathize, I hear you, I'm experiencing what you're experiencing, because we've also been accused of, well, they're not... impacting you it's only me so you know I I I get where that comment of oh it's happening over our house because we're trying to empathize and I've I've done in conversations with constituents as well trying to find that that avenue of empathy and and connection to validate our constituents concerns and um you know I know but I think we we do thread you know we do tread a fine line in that advocacy piece. I was hoping to be the last comment, but I guess I made you all want to say something.

Council Member Christ. Thank you again, Mayor. I think the thing is, we implemented this in 2023. It's not been years and years. And the three of us, the mayor, myself, and Mayor Pro Tem, we're part of that group that implemented the ethics policy. And so I feel like we have to uphold it. Now reprimand is kind of a strong word. I think we have said that we would like to task the mayor pro tem to make an apology to staff particularly. And then I am suggesting that we task ourselves also to keep a very neutral tone when it comes to the airport. Just a thank you and you know Let's put it in our I put it in a file folder where I go back and read what people have said Until we have our meeting on September 26th. Okay, so I don't know if you consider that a denying the complaints. I don't think that's the right way to say it because we have to go through with our process and we have to say that that has meaning and it is a mechanism that the constituents can use and we value that. And so just out of solidarity, I'm saying all of us should take some of this responsibility to bring the temperature down when it comes to the airport. We need to holster our weapons. Stop slinging arrows at each other. And just realize that we're looking for solutions. We want to find solutions to this problem. And back and forth isn't helping. So what would you call that? We have to say that evidence was found and we agreed that we would follow what the outside counsel would say. We have two minutes left.

We only extended it for ten minutes. Do you have a motion to make?

Okay, I do have a motion. I have a motion that we affirm the need for an apology to Levi Brown from the mayor pro tem, and that the council will maintain a neutral position on the airport until we have time to discuss.

I would rule out of line that second part to what we're voting on tonight. So yeah, we got to. OK. OK. So do you have a motion? Excuse me.

Motion to extend the meeting by 10 more minutes.

You guys are killing me. No, there is no motion on the table. It hasn't been seconded.

We haven't declared it yet.

You guys are killing me.

Motion to test the mayor pro tem to issue A.

There's an active motion to extend the meeting to 1150. So we're not there, but there is no second yet. okay uh it is 11 40. we're adjourned wait do we have can do it's 11 40. so we could finish tbd cast the votes please just please just count okay okay okay yep thank you so okay it's carried unanimously let's finish this conversation please thank you okay thank you okay do you have a motion to make yes okay give us the motion please my motion is to affirm that

the decision of outside counsel and direct Mayor Pro Tem to apologize to Levi Brown.

Okay.

I feel like I have to say.

Okay, so the motion is to affirm the decision by legal counsel and request that Mayor Pro Tem issue a letter of apology to Levi Brown. Okay, is there a second of that? Okay, and so that's been seconded by Councilmember Prieto. Okay, do we have discussion on this topic? Yes, Councilmember Popkin.

Yeah, I wanted to, Madam Chair, I wanted to clarify with the originator of the motion, if affirming the decision of the hearing officer here in this case is accepting the reprimand aspect of this and the findings in the case, or is it accepting the

substantiated claims and saying as the follow-up action that it is the public apology yes the last one that's how i understood it yes so her recommendation for

So my understanding of this is that the hearing officer offered both a determination on the facts and then also a recommendation on.

Yes, so Council Member Christ, your motion would affirm the findings and the reprimand would be a letter of apology to Levi Brown.

Yeah, because there are multiple aspects. The reason I bring this up, because there are multiple aspects, is the facts of the matter and the substantiation in part from the hearing officer. And then there's the recommendation on what action or recommended sanction. And my understanding is that Councilmember Christ is not proposing the sanction that was recommended.

Mm-hmm.

And I think that's the differentiation that I want to make sure. I also actually don't mind that precedent of accepting the facts of what is determined to have occurred. In fact, the Mayor Pro Tem himself has not disputed those facts. on the record at all. I think the intentionality and what the goals were can be reasonably interpreted to be a different intention and I think that was what the discussion was. And so I actually think that, I mean he's already apologized in this conversation and I think formalizing that actually sets a kind of an in between that and it's not even a formal sanction in the same way. So I don't see it as violating what may or may not be able to be imposed.

And so I'm going to turn, hold on, I'm going to turn to Eugene with dismissing, I'm hearing, I'm buzzing, I don't know if it's me or, okay. In dismiss, are we interpreting this correctly? If we dismiss the complaint, are we rejecting her findings?

and Council Eugene May, if you were to dismiss the complaint, then you would be?

Rejecting.

Rejecting her findings. Yes. But the motion is to affirm the findings and have a different sanction.

Yes. So then, I'm trying to get that clarification. So Council Member Christ, in affirming and making sure everybody knows what we're voting on, is affirming the findings, then we're not dismissing the complaint, right? So we are, does that make sense? Okay, I'm seeing, I'm just reading the room here. So I was like, that's why I wanted confirmation. So council members Chris' motion is to still accept the findings that he violated section 2.18.010C2 and that he's, that he violated that code. And our sanction is not a reprimand. It's not a reprimand, but we're not accepting the recommended reprimand. But we are asking him to do an apology. So we're changing the discipline, but we're accepting her findings. Correct. So that's what this motion says. I was just looking at confused face. That's my understanding.

Look, I'll be honest. I think the mayor pretends actions overstepped. He acknowledged that. He apologized to us. And I think this formalizes and wraps this up actually fairly tidily. this is not the most egregious ethical violation that i've ever heard of in the the history of the world and i think we want to put it in context i think this does i appreciate the motion from councilmember christ and i appreciate the earnestness of which i think everyone tonight brought forward okay

So we have a motion on the table made by Councilmember Crist, seconded by Councilmember Prieto. Councilmember Marcin. Thank you, Mayor. I'll be quick.

I'm not especially comfortable with the language of affirm the findings. I understand the legal difference between the set of findings and the fact-finding operation versus the reprimand piece. I think the public still hears that as we accepted the report generally. And issued, you know, perhaps a lesser standard. I guess it'll depend on how London writes the story. But I do think, I will just say, to wrap it up, I do have concerns, I think, Mayor, about the process that's currently in place and the way that it can be used in the future.

And that would be us bringing it back before another one happens. Yes. Okay. So let's go ahead and vote on this. And this is the language and process we currently have. So I am, oh, I am, mine is the one that's not showing up. Okay, and so that fails three to three. So myself, Council Member Christ, and Prieto in favor, and Council Member Marcin. You were against. Oh, I'll let you read who went away.

Sorry, Mayor, I closed it too quickly. Yes. Marcin, Prieto, and Kalkoff are opposing.

Okay. So that has failed. Do we have another? We still have to close this conversation. And we have now two minutes left.

Okay, no, just- I'll restate my motion from earlier, Mayor, which would be to request that the Mayor Pro Tem issue a formal apology to Levi Brown. But I will use the term to otherwise dismiss the findings of the hearing officer. I will change the word findings, perhaps, to reject the recommendation, the sanction of the hearing officer.

Okay.

I know that sounds like semantics, but it, yeah.

Do we have a second?

Does that make sense, Don? Do you got that largely?

We'll see.

Okay.

Okay, so there is a formal apology, but otherwise, okay, so to request Mayor Pro Tem. Reject the recommended sanction. Issue a formal apology to Levi Brown and to otherwise dismiss reject recommended sanction of the hearing officer. Made by Councilmember Marcin, do we have a second? Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that carries four to two with Councilmember Crist and Councilmember Prieto in opposition and Mayor Pro Tem not voting. Okay, we have one minute left. OK, I'm going to skip it all. We're going to the end. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Second. OK, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? OK, we're adjourned.