City Council - Regular Meeting

I would now like to call the city of Longmont regular session September 8th, 2026 regular session meeting to order the live stream of this meeting can be viewed on 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?

Mary Dahl-Ferring? Present. Mayor McCoy? Present. Council Member Christ?

Present.

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

Very present.

Council Member Prieto? Present. Mary of Corm? Great. Let's stand for the pledge.

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

In accordance with the council's rules of procedure, the rules for providing public comment are as followed. Only Longmont residents and employees of the city of Longmont may speak during first call public invited to be heard. You must provide your address at the 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, applause, heckling, or other actions that interfere with the orderly function of the council. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the August 25th, 2026 regular session meeting? Okay, the motion has been made by Mayor Pro Tem. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, seconded by Councilmember Christ. Seeing no one in the queue, 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 agenda, future agendas. City Clerk, do we have any agenda revisions?

Mayor, I do not. Okay, great, thank you.

I was like, what was your name over there? Wherever you are. Do we have any members of council wishing to add an agenda item? Councilmember Kalkhofer.

Thank you for I don't know if this needs to be a motion or not, but I'm going to be traveling for a transportation summit on the 29th and I don't know if we're going to be having council or not. So I don't know if I need to make a motion for me to be absent September 29th. If I need to make a motion to be absent for a study session or if I can just let you all know that most likely I will not be present since I'll be at a transportation summit.

okay and then the only time that you would need to make a motion we would need to make a motion is if we accept you for remote participation so but thanks for letting us know okay so seeing no one else in the queue we're going to move on to city manager's reports no report mayor council thank you special reports and presentations there are none we are now on to first call public invited to be heard So, and we have a few names on this list, quite a few. So I'm going to call five at a time so you can make your way forward. I'll start with Sharon O'Leary, Bryce Shashinka, Rebecca Vlason, Debbie Odom, and Ginger Johnson.

Just turn on the microphone there.

And then if you could lower the mic and turn it on when you're ready.

sharon o'leary 534 emory street mayor and council members i'm here tonight over concerns affecting the historic east side neighborhood longmont's oldest neighborhood which is also a registered neighborhood with the city the surrogate side neighborhood was organized prior to there ever being any city support first communication is a friend to all good news bad news The pizza festival, no advance notice was given to the neighbors. This was by far the largest impact on our neighborhood to date. Lacking parking gave way to violations and blocked driveways. Good news, we've had a successful event on our hands and we just had a dress rehearsal for the Sundance Film Festival. Bad news, lack of communication and no parking enforcement. Let's use this as an opportunity to better prepare for all events. Next, communication again. Atwood multifamily housing with 72 apartments at 3rd and Atwood. Good news, affordable housing. Bad news, traffic impacts in the neighborhood and no one thought it should involve the historic east side registered neighborhood with communication from the city. Finally, the biggest travesty of all, the closure of Fifth Avenue at Atwood. There are five internal east-west streets within our neighborhood. Eighth was permanently closed in the 80s as a trade off in a two for one with the railroad. Sixth Avenue was permanently closed to create a plaza for downtown events. Fourth Avenue is being closed more and more often for downtown events such as Unity in the Community and Pizza Fest. Fifth Avenue was to be closed permanently because, again, it was being used as a two-for-one closure with the railroad. And we were told it would be sensitive to pedestrian and cyclists. So that means that on any given day, only Long's Peak is permanently open. Due to a neighbor reaching out to the city, we have come to find out that 5th Avenue will have a curb and a fence that will extend from 4th to 6th Avenue, so there will be no walking around it. You have literally divided our neighborhood. It's as though we never had thoughtful conversations. I am begging you to stop the closure of 5th Avenue permanently. I realize it costs more money. It's cheaper to do a two for one. Why not earmark profits from the Sundance to pay for the added costs that it will take to permanently keep Fifth Avenue open? All neighborhood traffic now will be forced onto Ninth or Third Avenue. There will be multiple accidents just waiting to happen. It's so very wrong to close off a neighborhood that will create traffic hazard. We have paid the price. We have been involved. We work on committees. We've been on boards and are still on boards. It's time to step up. The east side has to suck it up way more than west of Main Street ever has had to. Please do the right thing and save lives.

Thank you. I appreciate you. Yes, thank you. And then rather than standing up, if you want to come sit down over here or in the front row, might be better. And then if you can restate your name, please.

Yes. Good evening. My name is Bryce Shashinka. Thank you, Matt, for getting that right. You're welcome. I'm new to Colorado. I just moved this summer for work. I picked Longmont because of its advanced stance on technology and issues. the recent flock controversy going on nationally led me to read into more about the technology progress here and i was glad to see that there is a board being formed to advise council on technology matters originally i was going to ask that item 9b be removed from the consent agenda to get some modifications before it was proposed But I reached out to council over the weekend and received some substantive responses from members Popkin, Marsing, and Kehlhofer. Hope I got those right. And I've changed my ask. I'm comfortable with what we're doing here. The only remaining concern that I have is the statement about access being through staff. Obviously, it needs to be in accordance with all the laws and regulations for privacy. That's the whole point of me being here. um but i want to make sure that the final ordinance actually empowers the board to execute their mandate and that we don't end up just having another board that is there for show so that's all i have to say thank you very much great thank you

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Dr. Rebecca Vlasheen and I live at 318 Carter Lane in Longmont. I'm here tonight to speak about a critical piece of city infrastructure our community desperately needs to protect, early childhood care and education. Right now, working families in Longmont are facing an unprecedented crisis. We have over 1,300 children sitting on a wait list for CCAP. That number also represents more than 1,300 parents struggling to maintain employment or to finish their education because they simply cannot afford childcare. Boulder County is the most expensive county in Colorado for childcare. A typical young Longmont family spends 20 to 40% of their gross wages on childcare costs simply to go to work. We have just shy of 300 local early childhood businesses in Boulder County that are bleeding revenue and struggling to continue to operate. But this crisis isn't just about young families or business friendly communities. It's equally about the professionals who do this vital work. We have around 2,000 early childhood professionals in Boulder County, and they are the backbone of our local economy. They are the workforce behind the workforce, yet they are not valued for the immense service they provide. Many in this career make less than a parking lot attendant or a dog walker, even though they require advanced qualification and training to care for Longmont's vulnerable children. Because we don't pay our teachers a sustainable wage, we lose them to other industries or other communities. And when our local childcare businesses lose staff, they're forced to reduce classroom capacity, which only further hurts our local economy. This fall, we have the opportunity to address this directly through Brighter Start Boulder County. And if it passes, the initiative could generate dedicated funding to support a living wage for providers, helping us to attract and retain high quality caregivers right here in Longmont. Just as importantly, it actively expands capacity so we can finally start moving those babies off the wait list and into safe nurturing environments. My own children are grown adults, so why do I care about this issue? Because when skilled young leaders in our community drop out of the workforce because they can't access childcare, Longmont businesses lose the talent we desperately need to keep our economy healthy. My sons who grew up in Longmont can't stay here to raise their families. Childcare costs are untenable even for high paid professionals. And I urge the council to recognize the immediacy of this issue and lend its voice to the cause. Supporting our early childcare workforce and getting our city's children off the wait list isn't just a family issue, it's a vital economic imperative for the future of Longmont and everyone who calls Longmont home. Thank you and thank you for the service.

Debbie Odom. And then Ginger Johnson.

Can I just ask a question before my time starts? I know you're not allowed disruptive outbursts while you're here or talking or anything. I feel like the signs behind the people are just as disruptive to the people who stand up here to talk about something that's important to them, but all they can see on the screen, besides no offense to you, but it can be very distracting for the people who are watching.

Thank you for bringing that up. We actually had a debate, discussion on that. About whether no you are not acknowledged at this time. This is a business meeting and she's been called to the podium So yeah, I would ask that you know if you could kind of take take your You know if you have a sign just make sure you're kind of off the screen. We looked at maybe centralizing because the important what our focus on being here is a business meeting. So we are passing resolutions, we are passing ordinances, we're having discussion on the business of the city. So I appreciate that. Thank you. If people could be considerate to do that, that would be greatly appreciated until we have something codified in language. Thank you. We're going to keep. But I would appreciate the, thank you. Okay, thank you.

Yes, now go ahead. Okay, good evening. While I speak tonight, I'm going to play a recording I made from my backyard just this morning, a Tuesday morning, not a weekend, right after a busy holiday weekend. Before anyone draws the wrong conclusion, I'm not playing this because I'm asking the city to regulate air point noise, I'm not. I'm playing it because I want you to hear just how much aviation activity we're talking about when we discuss Vance Brand Airport. This recording has not been looped. It represents approximately five different aircraft over a five minute period from my back patio this morning. And while you're listening to this activity, I want you to think about it differently tonight. Those are customers of a city owned enterprise. You've already sent a website from Darren that uses actual airport data to show in real-time and touch-and-go activity at Vance Brand at the revenue the city could potentially collect through reasonable fees for that use. If you happen to look at it today, you'd see about 200 touch-and-gos on a quiet day. And on a side note, it's unfortunate that residents have had to create this resource so that you can all have a clear picture of what's actually happening at a city-owned operation, rather than the operation itself providing you that information. But tonight, I want to focus on the budget you're in the midst of working on. You proposed a 2027 budget specifically identifying the airport fund as a budget challenge. It says capital projects requiring local matching funds are being deferred because adding them back would cause the airport fund balance to decline even faster. At the same time, the city's own website says Vance brand is required to be as self-sustaining as possible and to maintain a fee and rental structure that enables it to do so. And because it's an enterprise fund, revenue generated at the airport goes back towards maintaining and operating the airport. So why are we leaving a potentially significant source of revenue at zero? Why haven't you charged for the almost 200 touching goes that you would have been able to collect on today? Look at another city enterprise, our municipal golf courses. According to the budget you're considering, the golf expects nearly $4.9 million in revenue next year and actually expects to put money back into its fund balance. Why? Because people pay to use the resource. Imagine telling golfers, come play 18 holes. Come play it twice. Come play it again tomorrow for free. You don't have to pay for it. You can tear up our grass all you want. That's all right with us. We're just not going to charge you for it. We wouldn't do that. Oh, sorry. Another airplane passing by. Golfers pay fees to the city owned facility and those fees help pay for the operation that they're using. Why should repeated use of our city owned runway be fundamentally different? I'm not asking you to charge pilots to make them go away. I'm asking you to consider reasonable, legally compliant fees. Because they're using a service that the city provides. Advance Brands certainly has customers, a lot of them. You're hearing some of them right now. And I understand the rates and charges are scheduled to come forward, but you're not suffering from a lack of customers here. Thank you.

Now Ginger Johnson. And then the next five, if they can make their way to the first row, Kristen Gregory, Sonia Marquez, Emily Flake, Cheryl Pritz, and Andrew Palmer.

Hi, I'm Ginger Johnson from 9147 Fleetwood Avenue. And thank you for this opportunity. So I am a home child care provider, and I do accept CCAP. CCAP is woefully underfunded. It's been frozen for two years, and the need is very great. I can only allow one of my 10 slots to go to a CCAP child because they pay the provider so little. I would love to offer more CCAP spaces. In fact, my fondest dream is to have all CCAP. But that is not financially feasible for a home child care provider. who has to live off the income provided by the tuition. Childcare is very expensive, but it doesn't cover costs plus salary for home childcare providers. And the cost of attending any national conference which would benefit the children and families in my school for years to come is completely out of the realm for me. I cannot attend them. I have a master's degree in education, and in the public schools, I would earn three times what I earn as an early childhood teacher. And yes, that is my choice, but it should not be a sacrifice to care for our youngest and most vulnerable children. Thank you.

Thank you. Kristen.

Hi, thank you. I'm Kristen Gregory and I live at 620 Rider Ridge and I'm here to ask you to endorse the brighter start initiative for world our county. I am a local child care director. I am also a adult educator in the field of early childhood education. One of the things that I have seen over the past two years with the CCAP freeze is the impact it has had not only on centers and families but on teaching staff. When we reduce the amount of funding and assistance that we're giving to families, they're no longer able to send their children to our centers. That means less kids, that means less centers, less teachers, inconsistency, and centers are closing down. with this initiative, it is so well-rounded, and one of the things, we talk about the CCAP spots and helping with that, but also our teachers, as the woman before me was talking about, giving them access to training, and not only training, but on-the-job support to help them take what they learn out of the classroom and into their work and their programs and we're talking about our most vulnerable our children we know studies show that the greatest development is in those first three years this is our future I hope that you will help us and supporting the our future of Longmont by supporting bright start and Boulder County thank you thank you Sonia

Good evening, Mayor, council members. My name is Sonia Marquez. I live at 900 South Broad Street. Nice to see so many familiar faces and new faces. Thank you for your hustle for our city. It's important. I'm here today asking you to please support and endorse as a council the Brighter Start ballot initiative. This is really important for me. I'm here as a mother and as a kindergarten para. I have the pleasure and opportunity to work in our district and I see children coming in through kindergarten, many different abilities. Oftentimes we see ourselves trying to catch up these children instead of moving ahead and advancing them. And there's many reasons why, right? There's many different layers as to why our children need these types of services. And really, I see that it's a lack of opportunities, lack of understanding, lack of resources. And this is an opportunity for us as a community, as a city, you all as a council, to make your voices be heard and to take a stand for our community and our education. My daughter was diagnosed with some special needs. She needed services. Luckily, I was able to advocate for her just by the connections in this community and found an incredible place within TLC who has changed my life dramatically. TLC not as only provided for the last five years services for Luna that I could never have imagined doing that on my own would have been just impossible not only have they helped her I was just there today picking her up but just having an extra adult they're trained professionals to come in and really help her but help me understand as a family they've been there too see me cry, see me laugh. It is incredible. And I know that I'm privileged in that opportunity to provide for her that many other people don't have and need. And so we have an incredible opportunity to make history here and to really, really invest in our community and in our children. And so thank you for the opportunity tonight and thanks again for all you do. Thank you. Let's see, Emily Flake.

Hi, good evening. My name is Emily. I live in Longmont and I want to thank you guys for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. I would like to ask you all to endorse the Brighter Start Boulder County initiative. And I want to talk a little bit about the impact and effect having affordable childcare can have on a family as a parent. Child care is extremely difficult to find. There's limited slots. It's very expensive. So when you find that spot, find that program, a lot of times you can't afford it. And to offset that cost, we look at programs like CCAP. I personally had to apply for CCAP three times. The first time I had just one child and was $200 over the income limit. My second time I had two children. And it was $100 over the income limit. My third time, I had three children and there was a freeze and a wait list. So I qualified, but I could not access that assistance. I didn't quite realize how important affordability was to me personally until I found myself in a situation where I could no longer make that affordability sacrifice. My son had UPK, he's five now, and between August when childcare ended and middle of August when childcare began, a total of 13 school days, I determined I couldn't afford childcare for those 13 days. During those 13 days, I took a day off work, my husband took a day off work, and my son went with me to school, where I work at a school, five times. So for me personally, that six days, if my employer hadn't been flexible, I would have missed work over 13 days. Child care is extremely important. It allows families to work. It allows me to work. It allows me to grow my career and explore my passions. I can't stress enough how unsustainable it is to work and not have childcare. I cannot afford childcare, but I cannot afford not to have it. It is unfortunately a conflict that shouldn't exist. And I believe initiatives such as Brighter Start Boulder County will help eliminate this conflict. It will help make it more affordable. It will help allow access to funds like CCAP or that gap between CCAP and affordability if you end up $200 over the income limit and allow parents to continue working as well as get quality education, I can't stress that enough, for the children while they are working. While they are growing, the children are growing and giving them foundations that they will take with them for the rest of their lives. So I hope you all consider endorsing this initiative. I believe it's time for Longmont to put some money, unfortunately that's what it is, money into early childhood education. So thank you so much for your time and allowing me to speak. Thank you. Cheryl.

Good evening. I'm Cheryl Sprates and I live at 4225 Frederick Circle in Longmont. My husband and I have lived in Longmont for the last 22 years and in those years we've seen pretty remarkable changes here in Longmont. revitalization totally of the downtown area the construction of lots of affordable housing units the Longmont Museum and the senior centers continue to offer more programs and the schools are doing amazingly well Longmont knows how to invest in its future. Tonight, I'm asking the council to extend that same visionary support to our most vulnerable citizens, our babies, our toddlers, and our children under five. Neuroscience tells us that 90% of a person's brain growth occurs before the age of five. Trillions of neural connections are formed and pruned during these early years, building the foundation for language, emotional regulation, and cognitive ability. It is a critical once-in-a-lifetime window of opportunity. Yet the vast majority of public educational funding targets ages 6 to 18. Meanwhile, safety nets are breaking, just as everyone has said about CCAP, which froze enrollment in 2024 and has a long waiting list of families who qualify. Nationally, the United States ranks 32nd out of 37 developed nations for public investment in early childhood care. Here in Colorado, barely half of our children enter kindergarten fully prepared to learn. When children start behind, too often they stay behind. They require more costly interventions, they struggle academically, and face higher rates of disciplinary issues. While Colorado's universal pre-K is a welcome step, it is not the complete solution. It primarily serves four-year-olds for 15 hours a week. The Brighter Start Boulder County Initiative would hopefully fill some of those critical gaps that UPK leaves behind. It expands funding for children under four, supports full-time care for working parents, and helps stabilize our local childhood workforce. Longmont has proven time and again we invest in what matters. I urge the council to formally endorse the Brighter Start Boulder County Initiative. Let's ensure every single child in Longmont has a strong start. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Andrew And then the next five if you can make your way forward Ashley rumble Jenny Hodges or yeah Dave Hodges, oh, I'm sorry penny Penny Hodges Dave Hodges I recognize the names peg Thornberry and Alexandria Rushford

Hi, my name is Andrew Palmer, 2406 Sherman Street. I rise today in support of 202658, the ordinance to establish a technology policy advisory board. I want to thank the members of council for bringing this to the agenda and for supporting it. We live in a fast changing world and the only way responsible governments can keep up with the pace of technology is to be proactive. This board will allow the city of Longmont to do just that by creating and maintaining a policy framework and by alerting the manager of the council of emerging technologies that could impact citizens' lives both for better and for worse. This latest draft of the ordinance explicitly does not give this board the power to review procurement processes that are in work. I understand why the city manager's office controls the operational aspects of the city, but another caution is warranted. Everyone here has accepted many terms of service from tech companies, so we all know how much they try to get away with in those agreements. Longmont's legal and procurement teams are professionals, and although I have not met them, I trust their skills and their fields. However, some of those caveats require technology expertise that they may not have. I urge the council and staff to figure out a way to allow for expert review of these contracts by a third party, or to create a mechanism that these contracts must be in line with city council policy directives that complies with our system of governments. There are other technologies that the city uses now that may need more scrutiny as we continue to improve our city, and there will also be many that improved our lives dramatically. My wife and I's hope for this board is that it can help city council and the manager differentiate between the two, which is not always a simple thing. For Longmont to thrive, I believe governance has to stay ahead of the technology we used to govern, and this board is a major step towards this goal. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Ashley.

Good evening, my name is Ashley Rumble. I am a mother of a beautiful and precocious three year old and a nine year resident of Longmont. My spouse works for the city of Boulder and I have spent my career serving and working in non-profits. I'm here tonight to urge city council to vote to support the brighter start initiative. For a decade, I worked at the Emergency Family Assistance Association with Crystal. It's a Boulder County non-profit that supports low income families with food, housing, resource navigation and financial assistance. During my time there, I learned firsthand the value of a CCAP voucher. Much like a Section 8 voucher, it was highly coveted, under-available, and a deeply impactful form of assistance. That was before the freeze. A CCAP voucher was the pathway towards stable work and a stable living situation. It was the ability to show up to work consistently, knowing you had dependable and safe childcare for your little one. So vulnerable to send your little one out in the world and to have that stability. The value of that assurance was abstract to me until I had a child of my own. Knowing that Thatcher was on his way, we put our names on the waiting list of three different infant care providers, six months before he was even born. When the time came to return to work with my three month old, not a single slot had become available. It was at that time that my husband decided to quit his job and stay home and provide care for our infant. We've been very lucky to have found a wonderful home-based care provider. And they, my son and them, have formed a wonderful and tremendous bond. He is safe and he is cared for and well loved. And it breaks my heart to think that those care providers have to forego living wages in the service of trying to ensure that all families, all working young families have access to childcare. Tell me that isn't broken. And they are already giving so much. And just for the record, they too have a wait list this fall. I learned from EFA how stable subsidized child care means the difference between crisis and stability. And then I lived the other side, unable to find care as a working middle income family. We've gotten to know, love, and trust a couple of wonderful and gifted educators. And they shouldn't have to bear the cost of our burdened and broken system. The Brighter Start initiative begins to fix these problems. Please vote yes tonight and give the city's support of this important initiative. Thank you.

Thank you. So now Penny Hodges.

Hi, I'm Penny Hodges. I'm here in Longmont. Thank you to the City Council as always and thank you for the tech board. This is well overdue that we need this. I'd like to make sure that as part of that tech board that the safeguards for the residents are considered as well. I feel like that's the overlook. That's when it's come to the mass surveillance that we have not looked at how this is affecting the individuals and the safeguards of the people that live here. and some things for consideration and i think we might know the answer to this one but i'm not certain so if the board can at some point come and talk to the residents and make it available with these answers is um is axon nearly capturing the photograph of all the passing vehicles or are they also using the automatic license plates to convert the image into searchable data and if they do have that searchable data then who has access to that information which city employees police officers outside agencies the federal agencies will they have access will information be shared with other jurisdictions or searchable through any external base um Will privacy attorneys be considered constitutional law experts, data security professionals, civil rights organizations, independent technology experts, or members of the public? Will they be consulted as well as to what we want for our city when it's looking into the technology board? Can we include this to have the safeguards? website axon.com, the way they word it is that they have a 90% read accuracy but this doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as a rate of false alerts mistaken identity and incorrect hot list matches and this goes back to how is it being gathered and who's it being shared to um and So that means that one out of ten are going to be false by their own admission. And so what are we doing to put safeguards for the people that are falsely accused with this? And is there a person that you can actually talk to that we don't have to go to their website to have to prove our innocence? So please consider the safeguards that how this is affecting the individuals. What procedures will be required when the system generates a false alert? I just don't feel like these things have been addressed yet, and they do need to be addressed. And if we can consider that with the technology board, if it all blends together, that'd be great. I feel like that would make us feel a little bit safer. We're trusting that you just look at us and help us as individuals of the city. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Dave Hodges, please.

David Hodges, I want to thank the Mayor and Council for considering the Longmont Technology Advisory Board. While Longmont's been at the forefront of technology with the Innovation Center and NextLight, there's concern for the all-encompassing nature of Axon. Well, I knew there was a lot until I poured through the contract. I didn't realize, and I think many don't realize, how encompassing it is with regards to our whole justice system concerning that a corporation who's not concerned about the community, a corporation that's concerned about profits could control Longmont's whole justice system. And they're getting very close. I just wanted to list a few items that would be great if the technology board could review. Starting off with one of the more concerning ones, Axon DFR, which is drones as first responders. I think that's the program and then Axon Air is the actual drones. Right now we're saying they're first responders, which could in a way be construed as good, but where does that go to? How long are they allowed? Are they allowed to sit over your house and watch you for hours? Are they allowed to carry a taser, a firearm? I think you could see it could be a pretty slippery slope. Axon Skidio, which allows officers to request a drone. axon dead drone which feeds drones data allowing them to fly currently they have to have line of sight but axon dead drone allows them to be in a remote um operations center and control them Axon Fusus One is a cloud-based real-time crime center map interface. If you want to know what that is, watch the opening scene of the second making of RoboCop. They have a map that sounds just like this Fusus One. Axon Light Post, which simply turns our regular street lights into a surveillance camera with a bracket. Axon Fleet, which is in-car video surveillance in the police car. Obviously, we already have Axon Taser body camera. We have Axon Evidence that ties everything together. The interview room cameras and microphones, not to mention Axon Outpost, which are the ALPR cameras. I'm running out of time now, but I think you can quickly see that it's concerning that along with 9-1-1, which we don't have, how this could allow a company to control our justice system. Thank you.

Thank you. Meg Thornberry.

Maybe not.

Hi, I'm Meg Thornberry. I am here as always with the Visible Government League and would like to invite you to our next social, which is going to be this Monday from 7 to 9 at St. Brains Cidery. So we hope that you can make it. We are so excited to get the tech board here and thank you to everybody who is here from Visible Government League. It's, yeah, a lot of people in this room. So if you're interested in joining, we would love to have you there. We are trying to do some more action steps, including stuff at the statewide level. So please come join us. We'll be doing some fun and exciting things. I wanted to also make sure that for our tech board, we want to make sure that it is as expansive as possible. We want to make sure that it is able to continue evolving with all of the emerging technologies as they continue to emerge. and that is able to adapt rapidly because the advancement of technology is exponential. So I would want to make sure that what goes into it is able to handle rapid responses as well. I think we're going to be having more and more of those opportunities. And I understand that government intentionally is meant to run slow, but I'm hoping we could potentially have a board that gets to run a little bit faster. I also just wanted to go and give my support for the early childhood education. As a therapist, it is so critically important for those years, not only brain development wise, but also on a more of a womp womp note, there is so much abuse that happens as soon as there is financial stress in a household. Um, so if we are able to alleviate that financial stress, we are going to be protecting children from child abuse. Um, so this is an incredibly powerful thing that we have the opportunity to do. Um, cause you know, as much as I enjoy being a therapist who works with children, it's kind of sad to have this much job security. Would kind of like to have fewer clients actually that would be nice So I think that this valid initiative is going to be a really strong move towards that so I appreciate the council Considering it and I hope that you guys do vote to endorse it I think In terms of the protecting the children and surveillance point, there is a lot of the, oh, but what if it's my child that gets kidnapped logic that comes out in here. And I think that we are able to find a way that we are able to protect children, but I do not think that ALPRs are the way to do so. I think a lot of the times I kind of want us to take a step back in technology. Just one step back. We're not going back to cassettes, but something that goes enough backwards that it is not scanning every single license plate into a database that can be searched by almost anyone at the end of the day. So I would absolutely still support there being some form of surveillance around schools, but it just needs to be less smart, like dumb surveillance, please. Anyway, hope you can join us Monday. Thanks.

Thank you. Alexandria?

Hello, Alex Rushford, 2715 Crystal Springs Lane. Good evening, mayor and members of city council. I'd like to share my story about childcare in Boulder County and ask you to endorse Brighter Start Boulder County. I'm a wife, a mother, and one half of a two income middle class working household. For 12 years, I was an elementary school educator here in Boulder County until I left the classroom to start my family. Finding quality childcare was hard, so hard that I initially became a stay-at-home mom, partly because of cost, but also because I couldn't find a spot for my son at all. Around four months old, it became clear he'd benefit from a rich infant room with peers. We toured facility after facility, only to be told there wouldn't be an opening for eight, 12, even 18 months out. Then we toured TLC Learning Center in Longmont and we fell in love. They had one spot just one day a week. We snagged it and got us in the door. I don't believe childcare is just daycare or babysitting. It's an environment for growth and development, and that requires quality educators and caretakers. At TLC, neurotypical and neurodivergent children learn side by side, with therapists working alongside teachers. My son is learning empathy and patience there in ways I couldn't have taught him myself. That's what happens when a program is built around every child, not just the easiest ones to serve. But programs like TLC are the exception, not the rule, and that's the problem. Childcare in this county is in a crisis hiding in plain sight in nearly every family's budget. It's not just cost, it's scarcity. We don't pay and support our early childhood educators enough to keep them in the field. Low pay drives higher turnover, which means fewer trained teachers. Longer wait lists and centers like TLC that can't scale to meet the need. This isn't just a family issue. Childcare is infrastructure. It's what lets parents work, keep businesses staffed, and keeps our local economy running. That's why I'm asking you tonight to support the Brighter Start initiative and plan a plan that makes childcare affordable, expands infant and toddler slots, and invests in the teachers and providers who make programs like TLC possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, and I'm gonna call the last five or six. Corina Contreras, Evie Rios, Anessa Holmes, Brianna Holmes, is that? Oh. Oh, okay, so for three minutes or, oh. Yeah, just one after the other, because you do each have three minutes. Yeah. Okay, got it. Okay, I think I understand. You're just going to stand behind and support, correct? Okay, that's fine, yeah. Okay, and then, go ahead, you may begin.

Thank you. Good evening and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Karina Contreras, address is 209 South Bowen Street. I'm a Colorado native and I was born and raised in Longmont. I'm asking for the council to endorse Brighter Start. I'm here not just as a parent, but as someone who understands firsthand how important access to affordable childcare can be in changing the direction of a family's life. I became a mother at the age of 14 and was emancipated at the age of 15 as I struggled to raise a child while also trying to build a future, continue my education, work, and become financial independent. There are many moments where the odds could have easily been against me. However, with CCAP, I got my GED at 16 and started college all while working. CCAP gave me something incredibly important, the ability to work and continue moving forward while knowing my child was in a safe and stable environment at Jumpstart Early Learning Center, which is 98% CCAP. Childcare assistance is so much more than paying for daycare. It gives parents the opportunity to maintain employment, pursue education, advance their careers, and ultimately become more self-sufficient. Because I had access to resources like CCAP, I was able to keep working, build a career, provide for my family, and eventually become a VP in Human Resources. Today, I'm raising my children from a very different position than where my journey began, but I have never forgotten the programs and the people who helped make that possible. When we invest in early childcare education, we are not simply investing in just childcare. We are investing in workers, parents, children, employers, local businesses, and the long-term strength of our communities. There may be younger mothers or fathers today who just need that opportunity to keep going. I hope we continue making sure that opportunity is available to them by endorsing Brighter Start.

Thank you. Thank you. Evie Rios and company.

Hi. Hi, my name is Eve Rios. I am the owner, operator of Jumpstart Early Learning Center on 209 South Bowen Street. I too have been a member, I mean a resident of Longmont for many years and have worked with this council before, at least a decade ago, on changing some other ordinance with childcare in the past. Today I'm asking if you guys can please vote with the bright start because of the impact that it has on our community and will have on our community in the future to come. So I want to thank you guys all for taking the time to see us today. So I've been proud to serve in the Longmont community through childcare. We started as an in-home childcare and grew into a large center. And for the past ten years I've worked alongside my director and for six years my assistant director. Together we have built a center that deeply is committed to families like Karina's. And the community. We have now experienced two CCAP freezes and the impact has been devastating to our community. Our center relies on CCAP approximately 90% of our enrollment is CCAP. Sorry, I'm a little bit nervous. Because of the current freeze, we have lost more than 50% of our enrollment, forcing us to downsize, close classrooms, and let go of wonderful teachers. But the biggest impact has been on our families that we serve every single day. For years we have watched families rely on CCAP so they can work, attend school, and provide for their families. Now many are struggling financially, facing employment challenges, and trying to find affordable child cares. These are not just numbers, they are real families, and we watch them in our lobbies almost every day asking for help, and we try to do the best we can. Child care centers are struggling too. Some have already closed and many more are at risk. Every center that closes means fewer child care spaces for families and fewer opportunities for parents to work. CCAP is not just a program, it's a support for our families, our workforce, and our economy. After 19 years in this community, I know firsthand how important affordable, reliable childcare is. We want to continue serving Longmont families, but we cannot without the support of the city of Longmont. We need to fund and activate CCAP for the families who have been desperately waiting. We cannot afford to let more families struggle and more classrooms close and more childcare centers disappear. Childcare is an investment in our children, our families, our workforce, and our future of Colorado. Thank you so much for hearing us and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Brianna?

And if you could state your names when you're up there. I saw a lot of crossing out here.

I'm Brianna and this is Anessa and we work at 209 South Bowen Street at Jumpstart Early Learning Center. And we together have been able to see firsthand how important access to affordable child care is for the families in our community.

We wanted to share some of what we are seeing at our center because we think it's important to understand the impact that CCAP really has on families. We have had parents come to into our office in tears because they are losing their CCAP benefits. Their biggest concern is not knowing how they are going to continue working if they can no longer afford childcare. They are trying to support their families, but without assistance, childcare can become an expense they cannot manage. Recently, we had a family who had just moved to Colorado. Mom was trying to find a job and needed childcare. She was excited for her daughter to start with us, and her daughter was very attached to her. Mom was looking forward to having the opportunity for her to socialize with other children, build relationships, and gain some confidence and independence. Unfortunately, the family was placed on the CCAP wait list, and they were not given a time frame. Because they did not know when they would be able to afford care, Mom did have to withdraw her daughter from our care on her first day. The situation really shows the challenge families can face. Mom needed childcare in order to look for work, but she couldn't afford childcare nor commit to childcare without knowing when she would receive assistance.

We have also seen this affect our staff. We have had teachers who were interested in working at our center, but they had to decline the position because they could not make the finances work without childcare assistance. They wanted to work and we also needed the teachers, but paying for the childcare would have taken up so much of their income that working was no longer financial possible. As a child care provider, that is difficult to see. There is a cycle that we are seeing more and more. Families need affordable child care so they can work. And the child care center needs qualified teachers so we can provide that care. But some of the people who want to work in child care also needs affordable child care themselves. CCAP helps make that possible. It is a full circle program.

We do our best to meet the parents where they are and offer child care at a lower rate for families. Most families come back saying, I don't even know what I can afford and are still not able to afford any care. For the families we serve, CCAP can mean being able to accept a job, continue working, attend school, support their families, or simply have consistent care for their children. For providers, it helps us serve families who otherwise may not be able to afford care and help support the workforce. we need in our classrooms and more importantly our community.

I understand that funding decisions are complicated and I know that there are many different needs in our community. I simply want to make sure that the experiences of the families and providers are a part of that conversation. When we talk about CCAP, I hope we remember that we are talking about the real life family trying to work, provide the childhood and create stability. Thank you.

You did it. Damaris Bia? And then Scott Stewart, last speaker.

Good evening, my name is Amaris Villa, I'm 1872 Mount Sneffles, and I'm also a director at the Wild Plum Center. But before I was a director, I was a parent, and I had my child in Head Start program. I know firsthand what access to affordable, quality childcare can do for a family, because it changed my life. When my child was young, I needed childcare so I could work full time, continue going to school, and build a career. Without programs like Wild Plum Center, I would not have the opportunity to keep moving forward. Someone cared for my child so that I could work toward a better future for my family. Today I have the privilege of being a leader at the same organization that once supported me. And now I see families facing the same challenges I once faced, but the childcare crisis has become even greater. the loss of ccap didn't just disrupt child care it shook families to their core i've sat with parents who are doing everything right working hard showing up trying to build stability and still find themselves without care i've heard fear in their voices when they say i don't know how i'm going to keep my job and i've seen children bright eager full of potential lose access to the early learning they deserve At Wild Plum Center, the impact is heartbreaking. We have teachers ready to teach. These are people who show up every single day with open hearts, ready to pour love and care into our children. They are the soul of our program, but we also have classrooms sitting empty. Not because we lack staff or space, but because families can't access the care they need. And all of this is happening while Head Start itself is at risk nationally, with proposed changes that could weaken the protection children rely on. When you combine national pressure with local funding gaps, the early childhood system that holds our community together is stretched to its breaking point. That is why Brighter Start matters, not in a small way, but in a life changing way. Brighter Start is not just a measure, it is a lifeline. It is a chance to reopen empty classrooms, keep teachers in the profession they love, and give families stability, dignity, and hope. It ensures that children, especially those facing the greatest barriers, have a safe, nurturing place to grow. Brighter Start creates a dedicated local funding stream of about 30 million that can help protect Head Start from federal shifts and cuts. Local investments gives us something Washington cannot, stability, flexibility, and protection from changes we cannot control. And your vote will shape what happens next. Your vote will impact children, whether they walk into a classroom filled with warmth and possibility, or stay home waiting for a chance that never comes. Your vote will impact our staff, whether teachers can stay in the field they love. Your vote will impact families where parents can work without fear of losing childcare and finally breathe again knowing their child is cared for. And your vote will impact our entire community. Childcare is the quiet engine that keeps Boulder County running. When families have reliable care, businesses stay staffed, employers can count on their workforce, and our community becomes stronger and more resilient. So tonight I'm asking you to understand what is at stake, and your vote has the power to fill empty classrooms with laughter again. Thank you.

Thank you. Scott Stewart.

Mayor, members of council, Scott Stewart, 229 Grant Street. Airport has issues. What should be done following the airport rules and regulations seems to be a reasonable starting point. Violations at the airport rules might include unregistered vehicles parked and operating and operating on the airport property. Start requiring incident reports. Yes, reports are in the rules. Does council know that Sunday there was another aircraft operating at the airport that ended up on a property outside of the airport property? Okay. Was an incident report filed for this skydiver that landed outside of the drop zone just the other day? The incident report's required. Second issue, we're heading into another budget year. At last week's meeting, We got a glimpse of the airport budget request. Just a really quick one. Why does the airport continue to seek financial forgiveness for services provided? This forgiveness comes at the expense of the general fund. The airport is an enterprise fund. Why hasn't the airport taken any action to adjust their rates and charges to address this issue year after year? Does management honestly not have additional revenue ideas? The simple one that could be added to the airport's toolbox is a weight-based landing fees. Other ones might include parking fees, a simple gate fees. These are fees that are used at other airports. For the airport to come up with no ideas and to ask you guys for forgiveness and not adjust the rates, it's mind blowing. Did you know that the airport is paid to recertify fire extinguishers for private hangar owners? The certification is required for hangar operators, not the airport staff. This happens in the same year that the city has asked for budget help. What are we doing? The airport is not being managed properly. Hire the proper number of staff. One guy's not doing it. Read the airport rules and regulations and start proper management of the city amenity. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one on the list, no one else on the list, I will now close public invited to be heard. And Don, can you please read the consent agenda into the record?

Absolutely, Mayor. The second reading and public hearing for ordinances introduced tonight will be held on September 22nd, 2026. Item 9A is ordinance 2026-57, a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2026. Item 9B is ordinance 2026-58, a bill for an ordinance amending Title II of the Longmont Municipal Code establishing a technology policy advisory board. Item 9C is ordinance 2026-59, a bill for an ordinance directing city staff to process an application for an increase in tap size for an extraterritorial water service for Hygiene Fire Protection District's firehouse. Item 9D is ordinance 2026-60, a bill for an ordinance directing city staff to process an application for an additional extraterritorial water service for Hygiene Fire Protection District for fire suppression system. Item 90 is Ordinance 2026-61, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the consent to Vance Brand Municipal Airport lease assignment for hangar parcel H33D to KLMO hangar 38D LLC. 9F is Resolution 2026-57, a resolution of the Council of the City of Longmont, Colorado, finding that the petition for annexation of a parcel of land known as the Longmont Gateway Northwest Annexation, generally located at the northwest corner of US Highway 287 in Park Ridge Avenue within the southwest quarter of Section 22 Township 3 North, Range 68 West. Substantially complies with the Colorado Revised Statute Section 312-1071. 9G is Resolution 2026-58, a resolution of the Longmont City Council to approve a non-substantial modification to the Southeast Longmont Urban Renewal Area, removing certain properties from being part of the Southeast Longmont Urban Renewal Area. Nine H is resolution 2026-59, a resolution of the city of Longmont, Colorado approving the first amendment to the tax increment revenue agreement with the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority for the first and main urban renewal plan area. Nine I are four resolutions concerning exclusion of certain properties within the city from the Mountain View Fire Protection District. i1 is resolution 2026-60 resolution concerning exclusion of village cooperative properties within the city of longmont colorado from the mountain view fire protection district i2 is resolution 2026-61 a resolution concerning exclusion of meadowview estates properties within the city of longmont colorado from the mountain view fire protection district 993 is Resolution 2026-62, a resolution concerning exclusion of the Enclave Annexation 27 within the City of Longmont, Colorado from the Mountain View Fire Protection District. 994 is Resolution 2026-63, a resolution concerning exclusion of the Enclave Annexation 26 within the City of Longmont, Colorado from the Mountain View Fire Protection District.

Great, thank you. Does anyone want to pull any items for either a no vote or amendments? Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to pull item 9B.

9B, okay, thank you. Council Member Christ.

Thank you, Mayor. I too am interested in 9B, but also 9E.

And are you voting that to, are you pulling it to vote it down or to make an amendment?

I'm going to make a motion for it. Not to pass it, but to table it. Okay.

I see. So you're doing something different than just accepting it. Correct. Got it. Thank you for the clarification. Council Member Prieto.

Thank you, Mayor. I was also going to pull 9B to table.

It's already being pulled.

No, just want to let you know so you know to come to me. I don't know how that works if everybody's putting motions.

Yeah, you put your name. Yeah. No, B, it's already being pulled. So, okay. Thank you.

But also have a motion if it doesn't get tabled. Okay, thank you.

Can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda minus items B, E, B, and E? Okay, the motion has been, I heard a so moved Councilmember Kalkhofer, and it was seconded by Councilmember Popkin.

Okay, no, I heard him.

Okay, seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Sorry, may I?

I'm spinning.

Okay.

I'm going to do a hand vote. we can do a verbal vote um so all those in favor of approving the consent agenda minus items b and e please say aye aye all those opposed okay that carries unanimously We are now on to items, ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. We have item A, first and main transit project. And we'll start with item A1, 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. designated such area as appropriate for an urban renewal plan and finding that the clearance, rehabilitation, and 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. Are there any questions from council on this? Okay, seeing none, I will now open the public hearing on Ordinance 2026-54. And I don't have the list. Okay, so there was one person on the list, if you know who you are. Mack Childress? Come on down.

Go ahead and turn on the microphone. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mac Childress. I live at 1529 South Terry Street in Longmont. I was looking at this before the meeting because it was out there, and I found it pretty difficult to find a lot of details about it, but I did find on the website that the parking garage is gonna be five to seven floors, which I'm not actually against, But I just want to say that Longmont is named after the beautiful mountain view that we have from here. And this project is happening in kind of a local minimum topographically speaking, so I don't think it's going to have a huge impact on the views, but I want to make sure that you know people care moving forward like in other places that are higher up it is a big impact on the community when you can't see the mountains it makes me really happy every day when i go see the mountains because i go on pike a lot and down pike when you're heading west it's just gorgeous um I have a lot of friends who are in other areas and have other streets that they would name. Mountain View Avenue is a classic one. I used to live near 17th, which could have some nice views in some of the areas, but I just want to make sure that It remains a priority to make sure that Longmont's mountain views are preserved in general, even though I'm not against this project. I actually really like this project. Thank you. Thanks for that.

Okay, seeing no one else on the list, is there anyone who would like to speak? Come on down and please state your name.

This is Scott Stewart, 2-9 Grand Street. The lady's comment just kind of triggered something the other day, or that I was reading through the other day, and you might say I'm wrong on this or what have you, but when we adopted Governor Polis's new zoning restrictions or whatever for accessory dwellings or what have you, there's part of that that basically says if you have something that exists in other words a five-story building you can't restrict future development to a standard that's lower than that and what i'm saying here is if you approve seven stories you've approved seven stories everywhere because you will be setting a precedence within it it's worth looking at maybe i read it wrong Thank you.

Thanks. No, thank you for that. Okay, so anyone else? Go ahead. Yes. Yeah, just lower your mic, please. And you will have three minutes. Yes, and please state your name.

My name is Helen. I'm a Longmont resident. Helen, what's your last name? My name is Helen Schneider, Longmont City Council meeting 9826 at approximately 8.30. I'm speaking before Longmont City Council spontaneously because there was an attempt to silence me at this meeting.

Oh, ma'am, I'm sorry. I'm going to call that. This is a public hearing for Ordinance 10A, Ordinance 2026-54. We were not looking to silence. I was actually talking to everybody who had signs. And it wasn't for you to put them down. It was just to kind of add a courtesy statement We have it in our rules of procedure, any action that interrupts the orderly function of the building or of the meeting is deemed in violation. Okay, so that's it. You can still have your signs, I'm just asking you if you could sit a row back. It's not silencing your speech. And this is out of order, ma'am.

Okay, so is there going to be an opportunity later? At the end of the meeting, yes, for a second call.

Yes, thank you.

Because I'm sorry, I thought you called for anybody else. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one, I will now close public hearing for Ordinance 2026-54. Council Member Popkin, are you making a motion? Go ahead.

I will in one moment, Mayor. Many of you, if you've been watching or attending these meetings regularly, may have seen us talk about the amount of staff capacity that goes into different projects or what do we have available to handle new things that come our way. This item right now, even though we're not going to spend a lot of time discussing it tonight because we have discussed it for many, many meetings over many, many months, if not years, has consumed an immense amount of our staff capacity and city council time as well to do this right. It's a complex project. It's a transformative project, an anchor project down in our lower downtown. I believe it's a five-story building. Am I correct, Harold and Jen, on that? Five-story parking garage? Just to clarify the public record. Thank you. Yep, five-story parking garage there. And I look forward to supporting this and wanted to just kind of let people know that when we talk about staff capacity and the time, This involves many, many departments across the city, many, many staff, multiple utilities going into this for this major public project that's partially funded with RTD funds, partially funded with city funds. With that, I'm going to make a motion to approve item 10A1, ordinance 202654.

so the motion has been made to pass ordinance 2026-54 and it was made by council member popkin seconded by mayor pro tem okay see no one else in the queue let's go ahead and vote and you need a verbal vote okay okay oh not on mine i'm gonna refresh oh that's what you brought i heard that i know it wasn't a secret

Okay, that carries unanimously. We are now on to item A2.

ordinance 2026-55 a bill for an ordinance authorizing and 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 so are there any questions from council and again this was another one that we spoke at length about several pre-sessions several Laura all all the things um so yeah I'm glad we do not have questions I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 2026-55 is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this and I guess this one would have been more appropriate to have the discussion around the parking garage or any one of the items They're all connected. Okay. So seeing no one in the audience, I will now close public hearing. Can I have a motion to go ahead, Council Member Popkin?

Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to approve Item 10A2, Ordinance 202655.

Okay, and I'll second that. Okay, so the motion has been made to pass and adopt Ordinance 2026-55. It was made by Councilmember Popkin and seconded by myself. Seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that carries unanimously. We are now on to item a 3 ordinance 2026 56, a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of the sewer public sewer easements located generally located at 11th South main street. Are there any questions from council? Seeing none, I will now open public hearing on ordinance 2026-56. So is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will now close public hearing. And can I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-56? Council Member Popkin.

I'll make a motion to approve item 10A3, ordinance 2026-56. All right.

Okay, so the motion has been made by Councilmember Popkin to pass and adopt Ordinance 2026-56, and it was seconded by Councilmember Christ. Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, that carries unanimously.

Mayor, can I provide you with a brief update on this project? Definitely, this has been a lot of work getting here. I wanted to let council know that as we're moving into the construction phase, the work is getting harder. and more complicated to give a sense of what we're doing now as we move into construction on these projects with Kauffman Street, the quiet zones, the parking garage, the multi-family housing, Boston Avenue and the signalization of Boston and Kim Pratt and Boston and Maine connecting Boston through and then South Parkway Bridge, which you saw in your capital improvement projects. we're now entering into a phase where we're taking a higher level coordinated approach to where you have six or seven different projects that we're managing as an overall master development and we're having to work on timing of those projects and when they move forward to ensure that we're limiting disruptions to the community managing the traffic flow in the area so i just wanted to tell you we're now moving into the construction phase and it's probably more complicated than it was getting to this point. Just to give you an update on where we'll be moving, and we'll be communicating with the public on a regular basis regarding all these moving parts and council.

Great, thank you. Okay, so now we are on to agenda item 11, items removed from consent agenda. Before we move on to the ones that council members pulled, we do have a reconsideration of resolution 2026-52, a resolution of the 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 child care and preschool for the for boulder county families with young children by lowering the cost of care increasing the compensation of child care and preschool teachers and staff and expending capacity to serve more children and reduce wait lists and this motion will be our this ballot measure will be on the ballot on november 3rd 2026 in the coordinated municipal election ballot and council member kolkofer did you You brought it for reconsideration. Was there anything you wanted to speak to on this before? And I'm going to let, yeah. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me about that. Council Member Marcin.

Thank you, Mayor. As a signed signatory on both the executive committee for the campaign and someone who, tonight very clearly the public made the case as to why I believe this is the most important thing I've ever worked on professionally. I will be recusing myself from this conversation.

Okay. Thank you. Then we'll continue the conversation. Okay, Councilmember Kalkhofer.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I did bring this back up for reconsideration. And originally, I wanted us to table it just until we had all of the information that was going to be on the ballot, the ballot set. I do believe this is something that we need to reconsider and urge the residents of Longmont to vote in favor of yes. So I'm happy to have a discussion if anybody has any questions on this.

Okay. I was just going to say if you wanted to move it, you could as well. Let me scroll down. Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. First off, I too want to clarify that my vote two weeks ago was to table this until the ballots were released was purely procedural. And I wanted to understand or ensure that I and others had a full view for every measure that I recommended voters prioritize over others. This is because now there are at least seven different measures proposed that will either raise or restructure taxes on the ballot. And I think it's important that we have full eyes wide open as we consider this. Secondly, I want to acknowledge that early childhood education is not an issue I have personal experience with or an issue I was previously well versed in. Many folks smarter than me have been digging into this for years and I've greatly appreciated learning from them over the past weeks and months. I've also talked with many parents of young children about the challenges they've faced or still face in affording childcare. And I've talked with local childcare operators who have been incredibly scrappy in trying to navigate rising costs and funding disruptions outside of their control. Before I cast my vote on this, I want to take a step back and share what I've learned for those who may be on the fence or trying to understand this more deeply and why this matters. Here are five things I've come to understand. Number one, early childhood education, the crisis is a market failure. When the childcare market fails, the costs don't disappear, they shift. It shows up as reduced local economic activity, increased reliance on other public assistance programs, and higher turnover costs that ripple through the broader service economy everyone touches. Direct predictable funding through a mill levy like this is arguably more efficient and less regressive than absorbing it through those other diffuse downstream costs. Number two, the demand for childcare is still very high with long wait lists. We heard from comments before from this directly. Supply should meet demand. Basic economics would suggest that supply should meet demand. But instead people are scrambling to find inadequate and insufficient options for care and childcare providers are struggling to train and retain staff as well. Yet positions at many facilities are hard to retain or are being eliminated due to budget constraints and the financial impact of federal cuts rather than because of performance or normal employee turnover. One of the questions I was regularly asking is why this proposed measure is proposed as a perpetual increase. This isn't about just closing a near term gap, it's about a long term market failure. My understanding is that this will make a huge impact for our most vulnerable residents and our providers. Creating further cliffs and uncertainty only makes it harder for providers and families to plan. There are also long term societal benefits to early childhood education well beyond those specific years of education. Public safety and health impacts, multiple entities from the Council on Criminal Justice to Texas A&M, the Federal Institute for Educational Sciences have found that children who have access to Head Start or preschool programs or other early childhood education programs are less likely to engage in criminal behaviors, are more likely to graduate from high school, graduate and enroll in college, and are less likely to face a serious criminal conviction in adulthood. There are health and other juvenile incarceration benefits that do not result when people have more access to early childhood education as well. And lastly, we already fund our K through 12 school system on property taxes. That is just kind of a fact of how our system works across the country. It's just not one of the most critical parts of early development. We don't fund that with our property taxes currently. That's not controversial, how we fund our K through 12 school systems, at least not that I usually see or hear. And increasing research highlights how critical this educational investment is in the early years of development. I, like many Longmont residents, But unlike others on council do not have children. Regardless of whether you do have children though, I want people to understand that both the quality of childcare and the cost of childcare impact every single one of us, directly or indirectly. This is not a city-led proposal and I cannot promise that the Brighter Start initiative here will address all of these issues. In fact, it most likely won't. But I can say with high confidence that if we do not invest in ECE when funding is being cut and costs are rising, we will see far greater challenges down the road. childcare providers will still need to innovate to stay competitive. With that, I sincerely hope voters will consider supporting this measure and I look forward to supporting it.

Thank you. Council Member Prieto.

I was going to make a statement and move it, but it looks like we have other lights on. So I'll just make my statement. Yeah, that's appropriate. Yes. Okay. So I would just like to think Councilman for bringing this back for reconsideration. I am excited to support this ballot measure and like another council member said earlier, it's probably going to be 1 of the more important measures that I support probably during my term. I also would like to just encourage our residents of Longmont to give this fair consideration and to approve it, actually. During these times, it's really hard to do anything about some of the issues that we're facing, like the cost of housing, cost of groceries. cost of childcare, and just staying afloat. And a lot of times we ask ourselves, just as human beings, what can I do? And is it even gonna make a difference? This ballot measure will make a difference. It is the one thing that we can do. And it's gonna have so much impact. And it really takes everybody, every single resident of Longmont to step in and being willing to commit to this. to really just change the trajectory of Long Ma, the families here. Someone mentioned something earlier about it keeps families here. They had stated that young families are unable to stay. And when we look at our aging population, it's important that our aging, our older adults, our mothers and fathers, have the support systems they need as well here in Long Ma. And Long Ma does have an aging population and they're going to need their children and grandchildren to be here to support them and this measure also does that so i just wanted to highlight that because i thought about it as well thank you thank you council member christ and then

Thank you, Mayor. So this is a county initiative. I just want to point that out to the public. There are a lot of initiatives on the ballot, many of which require tax increases. And I personally believe that We, from this day, should not necessarily tell people how to vote. I want to make sure or encourage all voters to do your due diligence. In other words, carefully examine what you're voting for because you're going to have some tough choices this time. And that's not to say that I disagree with childcare. I actually raised four children of my own, and so I'm very aware of the problems and the costs associated with childcare. So my vote will be no, but that is because I think I feel that people who are very passionate about this need to go out and inform the public rather than just the council. And I also feel that the public needs to do due diligence when they're voting. So I would like everyone to read very carefully what's on the ballot. I know it's long. And the county will offer also information to you in your mailbox. So thank you.

Thank You councilmember Kalkhofer Thank you, ma'am. I move that we approve resolution are Yeah, no we have one more speaker sorry then we'll come back to you okay mayor pro tem I

okay let me get this set here um well i i hear where people are at with uh you know many things on the ballot but i agree with many of my council members that this is probably one of the most important items that any one of us might ever see and ever support in our term in office here. And so I'll be supporting it because I think that young people of Longmont need this support. It's disappointing to hear that there's a freeze on CCAP. I suppose that comes from having to make sure that billionaires and trillionaires are uh taken care of uh with their big beautiful tax cut for them uh and i guess they needed to do that on the backs of children and that's disturbing at any rate so i'll be supporting this

Okay, before I kick it on over to you, since everybody's had a chance to say something. So I am gonna support this. I was vocal at the last meeting around early childhood education and childcare. It is a priority of our city council, so it aligns with our objectives and priorities. The other piece being an educator. I taught preschool for 10 years. I started in the profession in the early 90s and my starting pay was 525. Actually seven years later before I went to the city of Escondido, I went up 550 an hour. So it was a whole 25 cents over seven years and I had an early childhood Bachelor's degree, so during that time I had worked and got my bachelor's degree. I had all my ECE units, all the things that you have to do, and I paid out of pocket to make that happen. And it's very heartbreaking to hear that this is still a thing, that it's still an issue. And so much of our money when my kids were in childcare in Longmont. So much of what I made as an early career St. Vrain teacher went into paying for childcare for two kids in the preschool area, toddler and preschool. And we compensated for that knowing that I need the years, I need the experience as a teacher, so there were other things. But there was also a lot that, especially people who are not making a lot of money and are in the workforce, that they are giving up a lot in order to have their kids in childcare because there's so many other factors. However, as an elementary school teacher, I can tell you at third grade, I know which ones had preschool experience and which ones did not. I have had kids over the year who start my third grade class not being able to tell the difference between a letter and a number. I have had to work with children when just individual sounds. And kids who have that start, that jumpstart early pre-kindergarten are so much further ahead with background knowledge, with reading skills, with problem solving skills and interaction, social skills. So that was one of the things that we, okay, yeah, you're not with mom, but you were able to develop, gain a lot more from being around other children your age and developing and being around people who have the education to work and know how to work with youth. So I do support this on many levels, one being it is a council priority, and the other is just it enhance and supports and builds our community. And so that's why I'm supporting this. Now, Council Member Culcomber.

I also want to add something really quickly. I do appreciate everybody for coming out. I apologize for the feathers that I ruffled. Also for the folks in the public safety arena. It wasn't because I'm against any of these. It's because I wanted to make sure we had all the information.

And I apologize if I got very aggressive. That's okay.

um passion is um but i really appreciate everybody who came out to speak about it i know it's really intimidating to speak on camera and on microphone and i really appreciate it and i was holding back some tears so thank you for almost making me cry i really appreciate it um i do also have two young kids and i do uh also went through that so i move that we approve resolution r 2026 52.

Okay, so the motion has been made to approve the reconsideration of 2026-52 made by Councilmember Kalkhofer and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem. Let's go ahead and vote.

Let me just double check, Mayor. We're moving to approve the resolution. The reconsideration was already passed.

Well, the reconsideration of the resolution. The reconsideration already passed. Already passed. I'm sorry.

This is to approve. To approve the resolution. Sorry. I fixed the wording on your screen.

Thank you. I'm just reading around on the screen. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, I know, my cold medicine. Yeah, I apologize. As a preschool teacher, the germs have hit, so. So that carries five to one with Councilmember Chris in opposition and Councilmember Marcine recusal, yeah. I just see the exclamation mark. And we are done with that item. We are now on to item B that was pulled by Council Member Popkin. Oh, and you know what?

Do you want a break? Yes.

Okay, I'm getting eyes over here. I'm like, we're just going to keep plowing through here. It's like five hours. Let's go. We're going to take a five-minute break. Exactly.

Okay, so let's go ahead and get back to

Consent agenda item B, that was pulled by Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. I pulled this to make two amendments. And then I believe there are a couple other discussion items here from other people who had stuff. So I will make those two amendments and move those forward so that we can have the kind of full text in front of us.

Sure.

And then we can have a broader discussion if that's all right with you.

Thank you. And thank you for setting those to me ahead of time.

Absolutely. So back in the spring, I distinctly recall discussions intended to have the board advise on a request for information to really kind of try out a different mechanism here for empowering this board and giving them a little bit more opportunity to help get more market specific information to inform our decision making. on specific technologies or services and the potential use, misuse, and application for community and municipal uses. But I think that in kind of translating this draft to where it is now, I think some of that language got a little bit too broad for my liking. And so I talked with staff about just kind of honing in some of the language just a bit to get more at the intent. as we had discussion there. So I'm not trying to relitigate or rehash anything here. It's just focus this a little bit more. So I will make the first motion. I'll explain what it does and how it's slightly different and material different from what's there. Then we can discuss that. Then we'll get to second motion and then I'll open back up for broader discussion. So first, I would like to make a motion to amend Ordinance 202658, Section 2.95.050F to add the following second sentence. Quote, as relevant, the board may recommend that city council pursue market based research efforts, including but not limited to requests for information or RFIs and demonstrations that inform the annual outlook. and the city's understanding of specific technologies, services, and potential municipal and community use cases.

Okay, so the motion has been made and Don, did you capture it on here? Okay, so the motion has been made to amend ordinance 2026-58 section 2.95.050.F to add the following second sentence. As relevant, the board may recommend that the city council pursue market-based research efforts, including but not limited to, requests for information and demonstrations that inform the annual outlook and the city's understanding of specific technologies, services, and or potential municipal and community use cases.

Mayor, can I speak briefly to where this fits in here?

Yes, and now go ahead. And it was seconded by Councilmember Marci.

Thank you. So yes, I propose this specifically under Section F here, which discusses specifically, and that's of the text here, that's page five. That's Section F there on page five, which talks about advising city council on emerging technologies. and developing this annual outlook on what other cities are doing, how new technologies are impacting other communities, where coordination may be beneficial in the region, use and misuse cases, whether the technology is needed, ethical questions and other things. This sentence that I just proposed comes after that piece to basically kind of add a little bit more Not so much teeth, but more weight and value, I think, for the board to dig into this further. And specifies a couple mechanisms that are in bounds, but are not overly prescriptive for what the board has to do. So it's creating some options there that the board has, that we are empowering that board to have as they see fit. That is the main intent of that motion. Where I'm coming from on this is, and we had most of this discussion in the spring, so I won't belabor the point too much here. We're gonna see, I think, opportunities where the city either needs to get smarter on an emerging technology and we're trying to understand what companies might exist and what differentiates a company from another. We're gonna see situations where we might try to solve a problem but we don't quite know what the newest tools are and what their use cases are. We're gonna see a situation where technologies are growing or evolving quickly and try to understand what's most relevant for a city that runs multiple municipal utilities and not unrelated. We already have municipal fiber, extensive broadband that we run. for a majority of our population. What future services do we want to understand? This is all within the kind of bounds and scope of what is possible with these kinds of market based research tools that will help provide credible technologically market and industry relevant information coming through our board with their perspectives all to inform our decision making. So that is the intent of that. I will dodge your questions now.

Okay Councilmember Christ Thank You mayor I Actually had another piece that I would like to add to this section So and and it's very just very minor Should we well before we add to that should we vote to see if this passes?

And then you can add another motion to that one and adjust your language or if this doesn't pass then you can just make your motion straight out

Well, I have the feeling that both of them might pass and this is very very simple It's one word that I want to add to the same section F before before your additional text where it says ethical questions and considerations I would like to add ethical questions comma constitutional and other considerations

So, yes, go ahead.

Yeah, so as a point of parliamentary procedure, so because that's not touching my amendment, that would be a separate independent amendment. So I'm not going to accept that because it's not a friendly amendment to the text that I have.

And I'm going to rule this one. I thought it was. Yeah. Nevermind. So yeah, I guess I thought it was, that's no judgment on the entwined. I just feel like those should be two separate amendments. So let's vote on this one and then you can make an amendment after this one, after this vote.

Okay. Sounds fair.

Thank you. Okay. So see no one else in the queue. Let's go ahead and vote on this amendment change on this change. Okay, that carries unanimously. And then you had, yes, Council Member Popkin still has the floor. He had one more item, and then we'll kick it on over to you. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. This one is non-substantive, but is an effort to add clarity and reduce redundancy. So my second motion is to amend Ordinance 202658, Section 2.95.050G to delete the second sentence. Quote, at a minimum, the board will annually review emerging technologies and provide recommendations to city council on its potential use in any impacts to the community. As I just read before for the other motion, all of that is encompassed in less All of that is encompassed in more detail in what we have already amended and provided.

Okay, I'll second that. Okay, so the motion has been made to amend Ordinance 2026-58, Section 2.95.050.G to delete the second sentence. At a minimum, the board will annually review emerging technologies and provide recommendations to the city council on its potential use and any impacts to the community, and I had seconded that. Do we have any questions on this amendment? Okay, seeing none, let's go ahead and vote. And then you can put your name in the queue.

I'm still reading it.

Oh, no, no, no. I was just going to say put your name in there. Yeah, and then take your time. Okay. And that carries unanimously council member Christ.

Thank you, Mary. Let me go back to my ordinance here. So I'm looking on page five, um, 29 or 2.9 5.0 5 0 F again, would like to motion that we change the last line to say ethical questions, comma, constitutional and other considerations so just add those two words and a comma and

And do we have a second for that? I'm trying to find, what page is that?

It is on page five, yeah.

I was trying to process that before you go on.

Yeah, yeah, it's kind of hard to insert these, but just to address the issues that have come up about how this.

Council Member Christ, you don't have a second, so is there anyone, okay. Okay, so Councilmember Kalkhofer has seconded this. Go ahead.

So just to address issues with constitutionality, which have come up before the council several times in terms of overreach and search and seizure, Fourth Amendment. And just other issues related to privacy and how individuals interact with technology within the city.

Okay, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm not exactly certain that it's necessary to do that. All of our ordinances need to be in line with constitutional law. I think it would be a redundancy or unnecessary to do that, so I won't be supporting this.

Okay, Council Member Marcin.

Thank you, Mayor. I very much agree with the sentiment, and I think with what the intent here is, which is to have the board to generally consider the Constitution decisions they're making. The challenge I have is it feels like it would be outside of the scope of the mission of the board and could potentially lead to some expansion in ways that I don't know that I would be especially comfortable with. I want this board to advise us on technology policy and the city attorney's office to advise us on questions of constitutionality. That feels to me the better place to land. I'm curious as to whether the city attorney's office, not a position or opinion on this necessarily as a policy question, but whether this would be outside... the scope and norm of how boards generally are designed to offer advice. If the city attorney's office has any thoughts on that.

Mayor and Council, Eugene May, city attorney, the charter provides that I'm the legal advisor for the city. And so if there are other legal advisors in the city, then it could create some issues.

Yeah. That was my concern, is that would be outside the scope of what our boards are asked to do. And I agree with the sentiment completely. I understand what the goal here is. I think you will have folks who come to the board with Fourth Amendment concerns or other issues as well, and I think that's Certainly going to be part of the conversation. I would prefer to leave the city attorney's office as the arbiter of those issues and let the board focus on their work. I agree with the sentiment. I appreciate you bringing it forward, but I'm going to be a no.

Okay.

Thank you.

Seeing no one else in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Oh, Council Member Christ. And this is your second.

Well, thank you for the discussion. I am in agreement and will withdraw the motion. But I do have a second item I'd like to move.

Okay, so she's withdrawn that motion. Thank you. Continue.

That would be on page six, 2.95.050I. says to advise City Council on technology ethics social impacts analysis of beneficiaries total cost of ownership and risk of emerging technologies and what I would like to add is after social impacts and the 2 words privacy protections.

Okay, so the motion has been made by council member Chris to amend ordinance 2026 58, a bill for an ordinance, amending title 2 of the long municipal code, establishing a technology policy advisory board. section two point nine five point zero five zero point a to add after the word or the phrase social impacts and protection privacies on the list of privacy privacy protections okay so councilmember Popkin

Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. I will be brief on this. I'll just note that the overview of the section of powers and duties already states that the board shall advise the city council on policy matters related to the city's use of technology, data governance, and privacy, and to facilitate public understanding of city technology policies. I think it's already an umbrella coverage there. I don't have any opposition to this amendment if we want to have that specifically noted. I think it's already there.

Yeah, okay. Thank you. So seeing no one else in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that carries unanimously. So now I thought, there you go. Council Member Prieto.

All right. I would like to make a motion to table this item until we have the boards and commissions conversation so that we can get a better understanding of what boards will remain, which will be consolidated, and where staff capacity and funding might become available for new proposed ones, like the one on consent tonight. and the parent council, which is to be discussed in a future meeting. It is my opinion that both deserve... Okay, oh, a second.

Do we have a second to table? I'll second. Okay, so the motion has been made to table, Ordinance 2026-58, and it has been seconded by Council Member Christ.

Go ahead. All right. It's my opinion that both deserve fair review and council consideration, and... Just given the time commitment and some of the language that was in this ordinance stating that they still have to assign a staff member, we have to probably look at budget to see how we're gonna support this. We have the parent board that's also on the table, and not to say it has to be one or the other, but I would just like to look at both of them equally, fairly, see where the resources are, understand maybe what capacity might open up from our boards and commissions conversation, which is actually our next council meeting, Sandy, correct me if I'm, the 22nd, and so I'm not gonna be tabling it for too long. I just would like a more holistic understanding as to What boards are remaining? Which are being consolidated? Where does staff capacity open up? I did speak to Assistant Manager Sandy Cedar about this a little bit, tiny bit. And she had stated this could be a potential additional 20 to 30 hours a month for staff support. And so I just want to make sure, before we pass this one along, that the parent council doesn't come into discussion and, well, We already put all the resources and capacity into this one, and therefore it doesn't get the, I guess, consideration that it deserves as well. And so I would like to hear what my fellow council members think about that motion. Council Member Kalkhofer.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman Prieto. I do appreciate you stating wanting to make sure that we have space for the other boards. I do feel like this particular board we have been speaking about for a long time, and I want to make sure that we continue to move forward with this and also create space for having the discussions about our other boards and where those boards fit, including one of the ones that I sit on. So I'm not gonna be voting in favor of tabling this, but I do want you to know that I do support you in your scope to look at the family board as well.

And I do have a question. So when we talk about staff capacity, they're coming from different departments and buckets of dollars, correct?

Not necessarily a bucket of dollars, but different departments.

Different departments. So it's not falling on the backs of the same people. So it is safe to say that the creation of one board wouldn't necessarily eliminate staff capacity to have another board covering in another department.

Mayor Sandy Seder, Assistant City Manager. The only crossover for these two particular boards that you're discussing is that there is a youth council appointee at the Tech Policy Advisory Board. So that's the same staff. So the youth council staff that help the youth, sorry, say that again, the youth center staff that assist with the youth council will be helping us to recruit the youth council member for this board. And I would assume would have an integral piece in any parent board. So there's a slight crossover right there. Otherwise, the staffing of the boards are two different departments, both coming from the general fund.

And then really, as far as allocating dollars to fund boards or even consider it in the budget, if we don't have direction to you all, would you be carving out dollars in the budget?

Well, so I think there's two different questions here. One is the staff capacity to support these. So in this case, we would be utilizing existing staff to support that. So we would be adjusting work within our office to manage the board in question today. As we look at the other board, that would be a different group that we're looking at in terms of it. So there's not overlap in terms of... financial budgeting or budgeting for this we have not included anything in the budget based on the situation that we're in probably would need to look next year to see if there's any budgetary needs got it okay thank you council member Marcin

Thank you, Mayor. Question for staff, I think probably city attorney. Do we have a parent council ordinance in the hopper at any stage in process? Because I'm not recalling that we've made the formal, that we've given formal direction to move forward with. I know we've talked about it and I'm supportive of it very clearly, but I don't know that we have it fully in process.

No, I think council said to bring it forward and that's what's going to be coming forward.

It's part of the package.

Package on the boards and commissions.

Okay, that's helpful, thank you. And so I really appreciate Council Member Prieto bringing this forward, Mayor, because I agree with the concern. And I want you to hear me clearly that I'm with you on getting this done too. I also think if we decide as a council that we need to figure out how to do both, that our staff is capable and will figure out how to do both. And I think that's the direction that I'm going to move in. And especially because it would be the 22nd anyway that we'd be looking at this, which is when this comes back on seconds to begin with. So the timeline is kind of similar, whether we table it or not. I'm going to be a no on tabling and reserve the right to say, hey, I don't think We're moving forward appropriately, and I'll follow up with staff on do my own due diligence in terms of the work that's going on on the back end. So, I'm a no on tabling for now, because I do think the work that we've done needs to move forward on this piece. But I want. The public and families and other council members to hear that I'm committed to getting the other 1 done too.

So, okay, thank you council member Chris.

Thank you mayor. So my perspective was more in line that we may have other adjustments and amendments that we want to make to this creation. And I'm happy to hear how much staff time it's going to take. And we want to make sure that we take as little time of that as we need. So I was more concerned about having to make adjustments on second reading. But also wanted to know if Councilwoman Prieto would consider tabling it to a date certain, for instance, to the 22nd or possibly October 6th. We may want to get this done before we're actually voting on the budget, so let's be conscientious of time. But then we're not tabling it indefinitely. We're just giving a deadline for more changes and what else we might like to see added to it. Which I think we may get more input from the public in the next couple of weeks is what I'm thinking. Because we did have several comments here at the council tonight.

yes the only thing I would mention is that we will begin to recruit for this board because and if you decide in the end not to pass this board then we would end that recruitment but for right now just to keep on the schedule we our plan right now is to continue to recruit for this board for this next session starting January okay okay so councilmember Marcin and this is your second time on this yes go ahead

Thank you. Mayor Sandy took the kind of words right out of my mouth. So question for Sandy and Don, I assume as well in terms of process for this, because I think it's probably a little unique to recruit for a board that doesn't actually officially exist in code yet. Can you tell us both for our education for the public? What that process looks like? Are we recruiting for the full seven? Does the clerk's office have an idea of how that interview process will work? And it's relevant to this question because it informs my timeline and my thinking of how we move forward on this. So just a little more on how we're recruiting and what the interview process for this will look like, considering our changes that we made.

Mayor and Councilmember Marcingo, I'll give it a shot and Don can correct me. um so essentially we don't start recruiting until next week we made the assumption that if this board was passed on first readings that it would be relatively safe to at least start that process and then we can always cancel it if for some reason the the board didn't pass on seconds um you know but just to kind of try to keep with the time frame so we're planning to doing some some target marketing for particularly this board since it's brand new as well as including it with all of the other board and commission recruitments that we are doing as part of our You're in it campaign. That timeframe though is that it does take a few weeks to work through that process before you would see those applications. Our anticipation is that since this is a brand new board, we would be recruiting for seven members. We would be recruiting, and tell me if I get this right, Don, four of those members would have three-year terms. Three of those members would have two-year terms so that we could start the stagger of that board. And we're assuming that since there is no board to interview them ahead of time, that the council is interested in interviewing everybody. But of course, you can give us different direction if you'd like to on how that process will work.

Okay, Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. I was going to remind Council of the board recruitment cycle, so I appreciate that discussion. I will also remind Council, though, in an effort to avoid some whiplash here, the original motion when we moved forward to create this board was actually to have the board seated by January 1, 2027, which would mean the recruitment would start now. That was the message we sent to the public. That was the message we sent to staff and kind of asked to move forward here. To the motion to table and the rationale behind it, Council Member Prieto, I do, certainly as someone who just motioned recently to table some items so we could see the full ballot, I understand your intent here. What I will say is we've been adjusting our boards and commissions all year. When we think about dissolving the airport board, proposing the technology policy advisory board we just dissolved the golf board we have more discussions coming so this has been a little bit more of an iterative process and what i will say is if we need to make some room in other boards as we have this conversation or look at further consolidation i think that is all on the table but not on the table in terms of this motion so i will not be supporting that okay council member prieto

Thank you to my fellow council members for your input. I think just as a parent of a teenager and someone who's middle school and has had small children and really understanding the needs in the community and the needs of our youth. parent voice we just had a parent not too long ago talk about you know needs in the community for parents who have children with disabilities and etc and tonight's conversation around childcare and so I just want to make sure that we're giving this fair consideration I feel like this motion and this board has moved significant significantly quick and has had a lot of energy and approval. And I don't necessarily feel that we're giving the same energy and I would say attention to the parent board that it should be given. And so that was kind of the root of this tabling tonight was just to make sure that we're looking at them both. equally, giving them both the attention deserved, and being someone on this council that has children in the home who's navigated the childcare system, who's navigated the middle school years, the teenage years, the nuances and issues and challenges that families experience, that's kind of the heart of where this parent board comes from. Now I am in conversations with staff to determine what is this gonna look like, and I don't necessarily oppose this specific board tonight i absolutely approve this board but i would definitely get a warm and fuzzy just looking at all of the boards across the table where is staff capacity going and what you know what boards are being combined what does that allow for and so that was kind of the intention it doesn't sound like i am going to get Um, the votes needed tonight to pass this tabling. Um, and I would just ask that again when next week or on the 22nd when we discuss the parent board that you guys also give it the time and consideration that you've given this one. And with that being said, I will pull.

Okay. um and you know i just you know so we had just had a conversation around intent um trust among council so i don't want i i did not view that council was moving forward on this particular board any faster because there are also different hands that are touching staff hands that are touching this work and what is ready to move forward, what, you know, and then also the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, they're a lot smaller.

There's a lot less people.

So it's also, and they're tasked with interfacing with the kids, with the parents, so they do have other,

other roles and responsibilities so you know yes i want to make sure yeah this has nothing to do with children youth and families the council has moved this item which is tied to the work plan so you may remember we keep we've we've been bringing the items from the retreat back yes yeah and it got bumped three different times during the council meeting so it has nothing to do with children okay families okay because i was like well i didn't want to make sure that we're not

trying to push staff to move forward. It has nothing to do with that.

It has to do with the fact that this item has been moved several times. The reason it's on for the 22nd is because it is paired with the work plan. With the work plan.

So we'll be sending you that survey.

Thank you for that clarification. In the next day or so, so that you can prioritize your work plan. We'll bring those results back along with the boards and commissions conversation again on the 22nd. Okay, thank you for that. Thank you for that.

Yeah, yeah. I was like, no, I don't want to push staff. So that was my intent of bringing that. I want to make sure that we're not pushing staff as far as their capacity. I think this has just been a different conversation. It's just a different process and it was following a different vein and where the other, and I'm not planning on giving one less credence over the other. I think that's our role as council people and being professional and responsible as well as adhering to our rules of conduct.

Absolutely. And I didn't want to make it seem like, again, I use the word fail as in my own experience, which is valid because it's my experience. Not to say it's everybody's and or the truth for every person at this dais. And so just acknowledging that I'm going to go ahead and pull that motion. And I do want to make an amendment to the language in the current or I would like to add language to the current amendment. Okay. if possible since it's and then can you tell what page that will be on it is on it's right at the beginning hold on page well it's section one so what is it two page two okay um where it talks about youth council I would just. Oh, yeah. Was it on item A? Mm-hmm. Yes. Item A. On page two. Okay. Go ahead and make your motion. It's asking to appoint one youth council member to the board. And I just wanted to add in there, if for some reason the youth council were for some reason not able to fill that seat, that we could offer that seat to another youth in our community to fill who are wanting to engage and participate.

And I'm going to kick that to Sandy. Yeah, sorry.

Thanks, Mayor. Actually, it is somebody who is appointed by the Youth Council. It doesn't have to be someone who is on the Youth Council.

Oh. Yeah. Appointed by the Longmont Youth Council.

So they'll do our process for their group.

And it could be someone from the Youth Council, but it does not have to be.

Okay. I read that. I read it as in Youth Council. I was like, well, you know, we can do that. But also, I also want to make sure other youth can. Yeah. Perfect. Well, then I withdraw that one as well. Okay.

Council Member Popkin, and this is your second time. Go ahead.

My first. I'm going to make a motion to approve Ordinance 20658.

Okay, so the motion has been made to approve- Yes, with the amendments. Ordinance 2026-58 as amended. The motion was made by Councilmember Popkin and seconded by Councilmember Marcin.

Mayor, I would like to make two quick comments on this.

Yes.

On the motion itself now. Now that we're looking at the full picture of this, I just want to note two things. One, I didn't run on the creation of this board last year. In fact, no one here did. But I did run on good government. And this means government at all levels should be effective and forward looking in order to best serve our community's needs. This is where this new board fits in and where I believe Longmont can continue to be a leader among other cities in the US. And how we can leverage and learn from the human capital that we already have here in Longmont on technology related policy considerations. We're actually not chasing a trend with this board. We are one of a few cities across the country that are starting to build a standing proactive body rather than a reactive one. And I wanted to just acknowledge that for my fellow council members and the public on this. I think I only need two hands to count the number of boards that I've been able to find that are related to this across the country. Oakland, Kansas City, Lafayette, Indiana, Seattle, Chula Vista, California. They all have slightly different structures focused on different topics, but they are all options for us to compare to as our needs evolve. But also for us to join this small but growing number of cities that are starting to look at how do we think about the intersection of technology policy and our daily lives. We've been ahead of the curve on technology use for our community for years already. Next slide, how we manage our data, policies on data centers, all of these complement our educational and business investments as well. This board will help us keep up with and hopefully get ahead of, as best as possible, a fast evolving world.

Great, seeing no one else in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, that carries unanimously. We are now on to item E, and that was pulled by Councilmember Christ, Ordinance 2026-61. Can you put your mic on?

So thank you, Mayor. I pulled this item because in our rates and charges study for the airport, one of the recommendations had to do with reworking our leases for hangers. And this would be an assignment which has another 10 years on that particular lease. And I feel like we should have our conversation on the 26th or around the time that we consider this further. So I would like to move that we table 2026-61 until September 22nd for first reading so that we have a chance to discuss it during the 26th before we pass it. Otherwise we will pass this before we have our visioning session.

Okay, so the motion has been made to table this item, and it was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem. Council Member Popkin, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor, and Mayor, maybe a question for you, but my understanding is that this is an individual lease, and we've had some of these conversations before. I understand the spirit of where Council Member Christ is coming from, but in an effort to treat everyone fairly in our community, we should not be taking one out of the process that it would normally be on, as we continue to determine our leasing policies. There's a policy level conversation, and we had this discussion I feel like in January of this year, but there's a policy level discussion on what our lease policies will be, which will probably not be reviewed and finalized on the 26th of September. And then there's the individual leases according to our current policy, and I think that's kind of how we've always done that. In the same way, we don't make housing policy with relationship to one housing proposal. and one development proposal. So my strong suggestion and hopefully very efficient suggestion here would be that we do not table this and we just treat this normally because that's how I think it legally should be handled.

Yes, I agree. Thank you. Council Member Marcin.

I forgot what I was going to say, Mayor. I was so enthralled. I'll come back to me in a second.

I don't need to say anything more. Just ditto. Yeah. Okay, so seeing no one else in the queue, let's go ahead. I think I'm rubbing off on you. Thank you, I know, I'm a little foggy.

I too am getting my start of the school year colds coming on. I actually had a question for the maker of the motion, Mayor. I'm curious if that September 22nd certain date is firm for you, Council Member Christ, or if you would be willing to push that back to the following regular session, which I believe is the October 6th regular session, so that we can have the full impact of that conversation can happen before moving forward, or if you are going to keep it at the 22nd. That was my question.

Council Member Christ, I'll go ahead and respond.

Thank You councillor Marzing I actually had put either or on my notes because I had strongly considered October 6th that would be my preference would be a wait until October 6th okay I'm willing to change my motion to be until October 6th for first reading

Okay, and so the maker of the motion has changed the date from September 22nd to October 6th, and the seconder is in agreement. I will still not be supporting a motion to table just because It's in the process. So we still have to keep on moving forward. We still have to keep on going. while we're simultaneously having these conversations. So as these things pop up, there's legal ramifications. I don't know. If you want to weigh in, Eugene, go for it. But I feel like I've stepped in this before and I was a little traumatized. So we're just going to keep on going with these.

Mayor and Council, Eugene May, City Attorney, I would just say yes, there are legal ramifications.

Okay. Thank you. And I sat on the hot seat with that one, so I will not be moving to table this, or I will not be supporting this. Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. So wait, don't end it. So, Council Member Christ, yes?

Thank you, Mayor. We've gotten legal advice to the contrary, so I will remove the motion. Okay, great.

Thank you.

Are you in favor? Are you in support of this?

Well, it failed, so. Okay, so are you, yeah. So if you move, if you pulled it, you pulled it. So it doesn't matter what he has to say.

I think in life you've already read it.

So, um, okay.

Yeah.

So no, I have not read it. It was withdrawn. So, um, okay. So now would you like to make a motion or would somebody like to make a motion? Um, go ahead. Council member, Chris. Yep. Working on.

Thank you, mayor. Alternatively, I would like to move 2026 dash 61.

Okay, so the motion has been made to approve Ordinance 2026-61 and made by Councilmember Chris, seconded by Councilmember Kalkhofer. Seeing no one in the queue, let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that carries five to two with Councilmembers Marcin and Mayor Pro Tem McCoy in opposition.

We are now on to general business.

Item A, purchasing decision appeal to the City Council pursuant to the Longmont Municipal Code section 4.212.400. And Valerie Scott. Nope. Okay. Sandy Cedar.

Thank you. It's your night. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I'll explain why as we go through this. Okay. So tonight we are here because there is a purchasing decision appeal requested to the City Council pursuant to Longmont Municipal Code section 4.1 2.400. The way we're going to handle this is that I'm going to go ahead and lay out what it is that happened, what the situation is, And then I'm gonna turn it over to Tom Mason from OneSource, who's gonna be able to give you his perspective and make a few comments. And then we turn it back over to you to be able to render a decision. The process generally for this is that if a vendor has an issue with our purchasing process, encouraged to appeal that decision to our purchasing and contracts manager. In this case, that did happen and the appeal was denied. The next process is that if they are unsatisfied with that answer, they can appeal to the city manager. Hence, Harold has gone to the back, because he has also heard this appeal. And then the third option is to come to you for final decision on this particular purchasing appeal. OK, so that's why it's me instead of Valerie, because she has already rendered her decision on this. so let me explain what happened and then i'll turn it over to tom from one source so that he can give his remarks so the city issued a request for proposals on utility billing and a city line newsletter translation print insert and mailing turnkey services on may 19 2026. When the city issues an RFP, the city requires any RFP proposals from prospective vendors or contractors be submitted electronically through the BidNet Rocky Mountain ePurchasing System, or BidNet. As provided in the RFP, proposals for this particular RFP were due on June 17, 2026 at 5 p.m. On or around June 19th, 2026, one source attempted to submit a proposal for the RFP through the system, but they were unable to do it because the timeline had passed. One source attempted to submit the proposal to city staff via email on June 19th, but the proposal was rejected for being untimely. Shortly thereafter, one source submitted the written protest to the city's purchasing and contracts manager who denied the appeal, and then to the city manager who did the same. So basically, they have come to the city council with this appeal, and they are requesting for you to overturn the city manager and the purchasing and contracts manager. So with that, I will turn it over to Tom Mason, and then you can ask questions of either one of us and render your decision. Okay, great. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you. Good evening, members and members, mayor and members of the council. Thank you for the opportunity to present our appeal. As Sandy said, I'm Tom Mason. I'm with one source and Mike Martinez is my colleague. He's the CEO of one source. I do not intend to repeat our written appeal or dispute the importance of procurement deadlines. We understand why they exist. Our concern is whether the city's appeal process should allow any discretion when there is compelling evidence that a deadline was missed because of an honest mistake, no competitive advantage was gained, and when no other bidder was prejudiced. People use Google AI-assisted search and similar technology every day in the normal course of business. In our case, we relied on information that referenced BidNet, the city's designated procurement platform We now know that information was wrong. But honest mistakes can take many forms. A vendor could encounter a technology problem while uploading a proposal. A submission could appear to have been transmitted when it did not. Someone could reasonably misunderstand an amendment. An automated search or an AI tool could provide incorrect information as happened to us. Our position is not that every mistake should be excused. It is that the appeals process should provide some ability to examine the circumstances and exercise judgment like in this case. In our case, we provided the evidence that our proposal was complete before the deadline. There was no suggestion that we waited to obtain competitor's information, changed our pricing, or gained any advantage from submitting late. Nor are we saying that the city's procurement manager and city manager erred in their decision. They did not. They interpreted the municipal code as they saw fit. For 12 years, OneSource has produced and hosted, and we host securely in real time, more than 6.3 million city utility statements with greater than a 99% on-time performance. Yet the city never had the opportunity to determine whether our pricing, technical approach, experience, or past performance represented the best value because our proposal was never evaluated. We are simply asking the council to consider if the appeal process is capable of distinguishing an honest, harmless mistake from conduct that actually compromises fair competition. And if so, grant us relief and just allow us to bid. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from council or comments? Yeah, or any staff, yes, yes. So Council Member Kalkhofer.

Thank you, Mayor. And just out of curiosity for staff, how often does this bid come back up? Is it like every other bid that it's annual or is it every five years? What's the time frame for these bids?

There we go. Just beat it into submission. So it does depend. Each RFP, it does depend on what's going on. In this particular case, this particular contract was extended a few different times because we were still working on the new utility billing system and didn't want to change the printing of the utility bills midstream. So it doesn't necessarily come up every year, although it is subject to annual appropriations every year. but many of these contracts are a one-year contract with several years extension as long as the budget is approved by the city council so what is this uh is this not a one-year i think this is probably one with four extensions but let me look back at my purchasing staff yeah okay so one year with four possible extensions got it thank you pending appropriations by the council of course okay um council member prieto

I'm sorry, you might have asked this, but I didn't hear. Have we already chosen a bidder?

No, the process stopped once an appeal was requested.

Oh, interesting.

So this bidder was not able to bid on this work. The other bidders were able to submit their documents, but the process at this point has been stopped until this decision.

Okay, and so just for clarification, if we vote no tonight, then the process will resume with the current bidders who submitted in time. If we vote yes, then their bid will be considered along with the rest of the bidders. I think, let me just double check my wording here. Yeah, our choice is to uphold the decision.

So if we uphold the decision of the city manager, then the process... Then one source will not be able to submit their bid. Yes. And if you deny the appeal, then what does that process? Does everything go back to the beginning?

If you do not uphold the decision of the city manager. Oh, I'm sorry. We do not uphold. Or modify, yes. Yes. Then MidNet would have the opportunity to submit their bid into the process. It doesn't guarantee that they would get the work, but they would have the opportunity. Of course, they would be evaluated.

Just a comment. um thank you for coming up i understand that life happens technology information i i have trauma from college and submitting papers and i had those teachers that were like sorry too bad so sad and then i had the other teachers that were like Right, and so I empathize with you. That was my only question for staff. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. Question for the city attorney on this. To my knowledge and my experience here, this is the first appeal on procurement processes that I've seen. What's the experience of the city with appeals on procurement?

At least for my office, I don't recall any coming to this level, city council. I usually don't get involved in appeals to the purchasing manager, so I could not speak authoritatively on that.

So this is precedent-wise a relatively blank slate?

Right, for appeals to council. For appeals at this point. I've seen two in 28 years. In 28 years, okay. Yeah, and the other one was not the same situation. Sure.

And then just for context for us, since we don't see kind of the ins and outs of procurement on a regular basis at the City of Longmont. Maybe this is a question for you, Sandy, or for Valerie. On average each year do we have between 0 and 10 procurements? Do we have between 10 and 100? Do we have 100 to 500? More than 1,000? What is the scale of procurements? Because while that may not be specific to Mr. Mason's appeal here, when we have to think about what decision we're making here, we do need to think about, especially if it's an issue as foundational as a submission deadline. We should be thinking about what is the potential ramifications on other procurements. So Valerie, if you could hazard a guess, or if you had a precise number off the top of your head.

Yes, Mayor and Councilor Popkin, Valerie Scott, Purchasing and Contracts Manager. I've seen as many as 120 and as low as 49.

In the single year?

In the single year. I think typical would be likely around 60 a year.

Thank you very much.

For formal solicitations, I should clarify, formal.

Yes, I appreciate that. And then one more question maybe for City Attorney or for Sandy here in this, maybe I'll start with City Attorney. My understanding is that the appeal was based The appeal that really we should be thinking about, though maybe the mayor or city attorney have different approaches on how to run an appellate process here, should be based on the rationale for the appeal that was filed by one source initially with regard to this, not broader principles of our procurement policies. Is that correct?

Council Member Popkin, I think so. I mean, they are appealing the purchasing manager and decisions, I look towards sort of the Planning and Zoning Commission appeal process. And those are based, city council would base it on what was before planning and zoning and what they made their decision on. And to me that just seems to be the proper procedure for these sort of administrative appeals.

Thank you. And then just so I'm clarifying my factual record of understanding here, the original deadline for this procurement was June 17th, 2026, correct? And then the submission, one source of submission was June 30th?

19th.

Oh, you thought that the deadline was June 30th, thank you.

Well, can I just clarify? Yes. We thought that the deadline was the 17th, or I'm sorry, the 19th. We initially knew that it was the 17th when we conducted a search to find the amendment for the RFP, because when RFPs are generated, a lot of times there's questions and answers and there's an amendment issued. That was when we received the information back from the Google and the AI referencing bid net that said it was the 19th. But then when the 19th happened, I tried to reproduce the search and the search said June 30th, it was actually due now. And that was the screenshot that I took and I submitted it with the appeal. And so for me, it had said the 17th, I'm sorry, the 19th, and that's what I had written down. And that didn't strike us as something that's unusual because a lot of times, and maybe not so much in Longmont, but other municipalities, when they issue a question and answer, they might extend the date. So I was just like, oh, two days, that just makes sense. They're giving people more time to deal with the, and that's what I wrote down and that's, Then I went to submit it the morning of, and as you know, I wasn't able to get it in.

Sure, thank you.

Mayor, there's one other piece that I omitted. So just to reflect, the reasoning for denying the protest was LMC section 4.12.120D, which states the city will not open proposals it receives after the due date and time, and will reject such proposals as non-responsive.

And that is written in our ordinances. That's the charter code. Yeah, it's code. It's not. It's not charter. It's municipal code. Okay. Council Member Marcin.

Thank you, Mayor. I don't necessarily have a question for staff. Just more comment. This is fascinating for us. I think it sits at this very interesting intersection that we're dealing with now. And I appreciate your comments about technical issues. Issues that pop up, right? I think anyone who's to Councilmember Prieto's point, you've been a student, you hit the send button, you hope it makes it across the wire, you never know. I think there is, though, for us, and for me, the core of this question is actually a little more substantive than that and a little bit more it's just a little different and that is there like the core question of the appeal for me that I'm having to consider and again we're kind of setting precedent and chartering this and figuring it out is is there a substantive difference between technical error like the one you're describing at no fault of your own right at no fault of the bitter zone or like an AI hallucination driven mistake and what's the human responsibility in that and I don't And for me, I think the answer has, for me, the answer has to be that there is a human element of that, right? That you can see that the bid net yes is a cited piece of information within the Google AI result. But had we clicked on the actual posting, it would have said correct staff, it would have said what the correct date was, had we gone that extra additional click. And I am very sympathetic to the fact that the bidder had clearly done the work, was prepared. was ready to go. I think it's a real question for me as a policymaker, for me as an educator, for me as a human about how AI is going to continue to integrate itself into my workflows and a reminder that AI is not real life and that as we as a city navigate these processes, making sure that we're double checking our work. I see a light. I was going to make a motion, but I see a light, so I'll hold. I appreciate the work that went into preparing for this bid. I'm currently of the mindset that we probably need to uphold the decision of the city manager.

Council Member Kahlkofer.

Thank you, Mayor. This is interesting, because this starts to intersect my real life work and my council life. I'm in procurement, and I do this all day, every day. I do RFPs, RFQs. I do bids. I receive bids. And cities move much slower than medical device companies, and we move very slowly. And while I'm sympathetic to our current vendor, and I appreciate everything that you all have done for us and our residents, Being on the other side of it, waiting to close this out to get this moving is a feat on its own. And the source of truth is the bid net direct site. And I also am with Council Member Marzing to say, I'm with him saying we need to uphold what is on the source of truth, which is the bid net website, bid net direct, and not hallucinations that might appear on AI. And I'm sympathetic, and I'm hopeful that

we can see a proposal in the future from the company to provide services in the future thank you mayor Pro Tem thank you I'm concerned about reaching into the area of our of expertise that we have with our staff and and I think that At a certain point, everything that has been said I think is true there. And if we are not If we shouldn't be reaching in in other ways, I think staff knows what they've been given legal counsel, they've been given training, they've been given this. And I think all these things need to be taken into account. So unfortunately, I won't be supporting that. I just think that we need to have a little faith in them.

We don't think they erred, for the record. I mean, we think that they applied the code as it is laid out. I think our appeal is they applied the code, well, Valerie applied the code, the city manager applied the code and upheld Valerie's decision, but the appeals process, and they had to because that's the city, that's the code, but the appeals process, we think should take into extenuating circumstances, and that would land with you guys. And you guys wouldn't necessarily be overriding them. They can't, I mean, in fact, they did what they were supposed to do. If they didn't do what they were supposed to do, then that would be another discussion I would imagine that you would be having with your procurement team. But they can't, they weren't, I don't think that they were able to make that relief, and that's why we appealed all the way to you. Mm-hmm.

Thank you. Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. Having heard from most of my fellow council members already, I just want to first state, I too also work at the intersection professionally of procurement with municipalities directly. And one of the things that I regularly advise cities and counties that are moving to RFQs or RFPs is to think about the impact, the time, the effort that you are asking of respondents. Award or no award, there is a time commitment and investment that goes into that. So I just want to acknowledge that and obviously you all have been serving the city for many years. I think it is very fair of you to try to determine and make the case that there were unique circumstances here. I don't agree, but I think that is not an abuse of the appellate process here. A deadline is a pretty firm thing in the procurement space. In fact, it's an extremely firm thing. And that's one of the few things that I probably wouldn't budge much on. It's very much as close to written in stone as possible. I also don't fully accept the argument that incumbent status should be considered a unique circumstance.

We don't either.

It was written in one of your letters. It says, rather it is to request review of why the unique circumstances presented here, including our documented preparation efforts, incumbent status, active participation in the procurement, and existence of publicly displayed information. So all I say is that would have been actually an advantage, obviously, application from your perspective in terms of what you're able to speak to and the work history and reliability of services but in this case i i don't think i can consider that here as a unique circumstance and i just wanted to state that for the record as well um i i sincerely hope you'll consider um you know submitting again um but at this point i'm gonna make a motion to uh uphold the city manager's decision.

Second. Okay. So the motion has been made to uphold the decision of the city manager and deny the appeal was made by council member Popkin and seconded by council member Marcy. And do you have, yes, go ahead.

Thank you. And I just wanted to make one more additional comment because I really do appreciate all the things that have been brought here. And I agree that I think this is an appropriate use of the appellate process to ask counsel to look outside of the code and what exists within it and use our discretion. And so then the question to directly answer your comment, and I wanted this in the record, was specifically if you're asking us to consider what are the extenuating circumstances that forces us to make a decision, I think, about the choices made in this process on the company's end. And it's hard to say, for me to acknowledge a mistake was made. I feel incredibly sympathetic to you. But the extenuating circumstances were AI was fundamentally wrong, right? And a deadline was missed. And that has to be kind of the core basis for what we added. So I just wanted to mention that I think I am, in my decision, considering the extenuating circumstances. And that's actually why I'm going to support the motion to deny the appeal.

Council member Prieto just a quick comment.

I had a question earlier, but I didn't get to kind of state my position on this I'm actually Not going to I don't even know how to phrase it Support or uphold the decisions by our our department and our city manager. I think I we're people and we make mistakes just like ai makes mistakes you would think ai had it together okay and i think too it can be kind of confusing when you're using technology because ai got that from somewhere so somewhere in the web someone put the 19th and somehow it would it drew that information out i think one day I doubt that we even opened up the bids to see who all bidded because I think we were closed the 19th. Is that right? We were closed the 19th. So we didn't even, so, you know, I have grace and I think that there should be a grace period and, but not taken advantage of, right? If we have a bidder who continues to submit late, then there's also a boundary that we have to draw, right? But I don't necessarily think that what you're asking is totally out of question. I think had it been me, I probably would have been like, this time, but don't make it a habit kind of thing. And so I'm actually not going to be in favor with the decision. And I would like to see your bid be considered in a part of that process, especially since everything has been considered. Frozen or paused, and so I'm sorry that that happened. I think as a city, we run a tight ship, right? But also, in other processes, there's grace periods for people. In our car payments, in our utility billing system, because sometimes things happen. And so I think also looking at it from a human perspective and seeing that. what you're asking for is not necessarily out of line. So thank you for the time and energy that you put into this today. Thank you.

And yeah, this is a hard decision because I do want to be sympathetic and I do want to, you know, that idea of grace period and just even how we operate as a city, that compassion piece. However, I'm also looking at unintended consequences. So this is the first time since I've been here since 2019 that I've seen, and we have staff who have never seen an appeal process. So this is new. But during my tenure here, I've also seen a decision we make, the unintended consequences that follow. So if we approve this for a time issue, then what happens? You said 60 on average. If we end up with every time we have a request or proposals, that 60 times we're also having to go through the appeals process. So, you know, I also worry in that regard. This gives me pause to think, okay, well, maybe us as council, let's look at our ordinance and should we look at what would the impacts be on having a grace period? We have this date and then, you know, X amount grace period. But I think for this moment tonight, yeah, I'm going to move to support the upholding the city manager's decision. Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to offer one more perspective for my fellow council members here. So as you were starting to get at and to Valerie's response before, if we're seeing on average of 60 a year, that's on average of five different procurements a month. On average, it could be 10, it could be eight a month. I will say I have been part of procurement processes where we do review the proposals the day they're received. The deadline hits 9 a.m. that morning or whatever it is, and we are reviewing them that afternoon because there is a tight ship that needs to be turned around. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that has seen that. Sometimes they are less necessary to be reviewed that day than others. But the whole point of procurement is to offer a consistent purchasing experience that is fair to all vendors there. And regardless of the type of situation, unless there's truly an extenuating circumstance, And it is always the responsibility of the respondent and the bidder to follow the instructions that are presented. And that is the process as offered for a consistent experience there. So with that, well, I've already made the motion.

You've already made the motion, so. Okay, okay, thank you. Let's see no one else in the queue. Let's go ahead and vote. okay and that carries six to one with council member Prieto in opposition and I am sorry thank you thank you thank you for your bravery no I mean I appreciate your time yes thank you okay and next we have 2020 no 2027 proposed budget presentation Yeah, we can take three minutes. Three and a half. No, just kidding. Five minutes, that's fine.

Yeah, you're killing me. Oh, my God.

Do you need a ride?

No.

Okay, Ken, let's go ahead and get started.

Break is over.

Work your way. Good evening.

Yes, go ahead. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Teresa Malloy, Chief Financial Officer. And this evening we have two topics on our 2027 proposed budget to present to you. We'll be talking to you about employee compensation and benefits and then the DDA funds. So I am going to turn it over to Joanne to kick us off.

Good evening, Mayor and members of council. Joanne Zias, Chief Human Resources Officer. And I want to talk to you about compensation and benefits. And then I will turn it back to Teresa so that we can go through the pension plans and the fund. So Harold really set the stage for this last week when we were talking about the overview of our budget for this year. Our compensation philosophy has not changed over the past several years. What we're really looking to do with it is make sure that we're paying competitive and prevailing market rates. And a couple of reasons for that. We want to make sure that we're able to attract employees. We want to make sure that we're able to retain employees. And a lot of the work that we do is very specialized. And so if we spend a lot of time recruiting or losing employees and then bringing them back in training, it doesn't do us any good. We want to make sure that we're kind of keeping that market rate, keeping people in a good spot. Previously discussed with council, there was a philosophy that was passed of paying at 102% of market. And what that really came from was that slide that Harold shared last week, where we have a number of different city services that we provide where others do not. And we're still kind of pretty comparable in terms of our staffing rates. So we're asking a lot of our employees, and so that 102% was just a small acknowledgement of that. It doesn't really cover everything, but it was a way to be able to kind of say, we're asking more, we're going to pay a little bit more than the market does. In applying it to 2027, we have two things we typically do to get to our pay plan. One is we take a look at benchmarks throughout all of the market. We did that this year. What we found is that we weren't able to do market adjustments to match the benchmark for 2027, as well as cover cost of living throughout that pay plan. And so in prioritizing one, the choice was made to go ahead and focus on the cost of living adjustment and really just bring those benchmarks up to what 2027 would be in the aggregate and then hold that information for 2027 benchmarks individually so that we can cross compare it for next year. That's helpful to be able to balance the budget. It's also helpful to be able to spread that across through all of our employees so that they're able to see An adjustment for 2027, that is a 1 year departure from what we typically do. So when we get to next year, we will take a look again, see what that look like. See, if there is fluctuations in the market that we were able to smooth out by doing that and then take a look at market benchmarks from there to make sure that we don't get too far off the mark.

I will say to that, um, it's a departure this year. It's not the first time we've had to depart from that philosophy. Um, since I've been here, there have been periods of time where we've given no increases. We've only given one time, uh, a one-time amount to employees, um, based on the financial condition. So, um, we have done this in different ways in the past.

So as a result, what that means is for 2027, what we would do is take a look, hold those 2026 pay plan benchmarks, and then apply a range movement across the board to those positions that are not collectively bargaining. We also would recommend continuing the exceptional pay budget. For those that are not familiar with that, what that is is a percentage and a half that is set aside for managers to recommend their staff that are performing on an exceptional basis. That process goes up through the assistant city manager level and then ultimately to Harold to approve on a person by person basis who is doing that exceptional pay. Once awarded, that is given to employees and needs to be re-earned on a year by year basis. And it's a way to be able to make sure that we're recognizing employees that are truly going way above and beyond. We also were recommending that we pay at 101% of market, so that target would still remain at 102, but the pay itself would be at 101. We do have some special positions that would be a little bit different in terms of the recommendations. Most of our positions are on a range. But LPC, we do keep on a step rate structure. And the reason that we do that is because all of the benchmarks that we pull are also on a step rate structure. And we want to make sure that we're trying to get as close to that competitive market as we can. And collective bargaining positions are always separate. We do have collective bargaining contracts coming back to this council on the 22nd for approval. For our benefits, we do have some things that are the same and some things that are changing a little bit. We are maintaining the Kaiser healthcare plan. We had a, it's funny coming from the purchasing presentation, but we did have a RFP that happened for healthcare this year. And we did keep the DHMO for Kaiser. All of our employees are currently on Kaiser. The DHMO is going to come in with a 10% total increase that will give employees the option to remain on Kaiser. What was changing is the UnitedHealthcare will be coming in to replace Kaiser's choice PPO plan. So employees will have the choice to either stay on that DHMO with Kaiser or move over to UnitedHealth. And if they move over to UnitedHealth, they would be essentially replacing that PPO that we currently have today. The percentages that you see on there are the percentages if they went HMO to HMO or if they went PPO to PPO. You can have employees that will move between the two. The 10.1% that you see up there with the Kaiser HMO is the total increase we would see from HMO to HMO, but there are differences within that. We didn't put all of that detail in this slide. But employees may be in a different tier. They may not be, for example, employee only will continue to pay, we will continue to pay the full amount so they would not see a 10.1% increase. Or we may have employees that are currently having a dependent child and we're going to pull in a four tier structure where we're going to have a spousal piece and a child piece. So some of those rates will be lower than that 10.1. The 10% is really a cap on what the increase could be. We're still working through those details with both Kaiser and with United to make sure that we have good amounts because the spousal piece will be a new piece for us. We have VSP a for vision care. We did get a flat renewal on that So there are no changes on that and we also received a three-year guaranteed rate on that and then we also have Delta dental We are going to continue to provide Delta. We have a six point three five rate increase for 2027 that is slightly higher than market, but They gave us a zero percent increase last year. We also had several years where we were flat with them and And I think we had one year where we were about 3%. So we're trending under market across the years with the 6.3 coming in for 2027. We've had Mines and Associates EAP for the past few years. We do want to continue to provide EAP services through them. The EAP with them is actually much more rich than we've been able to find in other EAP programs, and they include things like first responder benefits, and they're just really valuable for our employees, and they've also given us a flat renewal. This is new. We are going to offer for the first time supplemental insurance in voluntary life. So what that means is that employees are going to be able to purchase additional life insurance for themselves if they choose to do that. The benefit to that, as opposed to going out to the market on yourself, is one, you have a group rate, and two, there's a guaranteed issue when that's first given to the market to be able to provide to employees. So with that, they can go ahead and for the first time that they sign up for benefits, they have a guaranteed issue up to 150,000. And then based on, they can provide additional up to $500,000, but that would be subject to making sure that they were eligible for it. We have voluntary short-term disability, voluntary accident, critical illness, and hospital indemnity. We do have those currently through AFLAC, those last four, but what this will do is bring this in-house so that we can help them process through, and it'll be offered through UNAM. In the future, what we're looking to do is pretty consistent. We want to make sure that we're continuing to review employee benefits, continue to voluntarily offer benefits as it's appropriate to employees. And then also review our benefits that we're currently offering through the city, just to make sure that we're getting best value and that we're meeting everybody's needs to the best that we're able to. We also want to make sure that we're continuing to analyze compensation. We're always taking a look at what that market looks like. There's a pretty detailed explanation in the beginning of the pay plan if anyone's interested in taking a look at what we're comparing to. We'll continue to make sure that we're analyzing things, that the sources are updated, that we're getting correct data, and that we're using the best data that's out there. And we do recommend that we continue to have that 102% target. We may not hit it, but even without hitting it, it's a valuable target to make sure as budget and conditions allow that we're just kind of making sure that that's something that we're looking for. And I'm open for questions before I pass it to Teresa.

Thank you. Council Member Kalkofer.

There we go. Thank you, Mayor. So I see that so far the annual inflation rate is 3.4%. So with us going 3%, we would still be falling short of inflation. Is that correct?

What we were seeing in the market was we were seeing some 3%. We were seeing some 3.5%. That is a target. So I don't know if we'll fall behind or if we'll not fall behind. But the 3% is a conservative, at least our best effort to be able to keep up.

So when we, When we adjust the market rates, we look at what other, our comparables are estimating what their increase is going to be. The 3% is really just what we could afford financially. Got it, thank you.

And then curious, some folks in previous meetings, members of the public, were wanting us to cap increases at inflation. And I see some of, if you go back to some slides, some of our increases are 6%, 10%. Are we not able to negotiate a fixed increase to inflation? Is that a thing or no? No.

Okay. For each staff position or?

No, no, no. For insurance. For insurance. We wish. It's based on a number of factors. I will say this year, we have two things we deal with internally on insurance. And I'm just going to take this opportunity to explain it. So, Um, this was the first time when we did an employee survey that we saw choice really get really close to, to price. Um, and so we were seeing that within the organization, this was the first year that we actually had, um, a highly competitive, um, proposal on the choice side, as I indicated to you all, one of the things that we're actually looking at to kind of get to that spot that you're talking about. is by taking the step that we're taking now with United Healthcare and Kaiser, it actually starts positioning us to get data so that we can consider when is the right opportunity to start looking at moving into a self-insured insurance plan. The data we were getting, our consultants said it's really almost impossible to move from Kaiser into that. So it was a combination of factors then you look at claims experience and everything else that is involved to it So it's a pretty complicated process.

Yeah, and I appreciate how creative you all are are being looking at all the options So thank you for all your hard work. I know this is very complicated coming from my my real job being in the healthcare industry I know this is very complicated.

So thank you kudos Thank You councilmember Marcin

Thank you, Mayor. Can you go back to the slide on insurance specifically, the insurance increases? I just want to make sure I have that number. The 10.29 on the Kaiser. I think it was 10, yeah. Yeah, that one. Do we know, and if you don't have this number off the top of your head, I wouldn't blame you. Do we know what the overall premium cost is at the highest tier level for both of these plans for employees on average? So let's say, if you're going through a benefits guide, et cetera, what that number is. I know what it is for my insurance in the district. It's not good. I'm curious what, and there's a reason I'm asking this.

nine hundred dollars a month is what i pay anyway yeah um i think we can tell you what we're doing today yeah we're still in the process of negotiating and setting up the different tiers so when we when we have a good sense of what the tiers look like we can give you a better number i think yeah

I would have to send that to you. But what we do is we pay the full cost of employee only. And then we would pay about, I think we're running 80% of what the employee and family components would be. So then we're passing on the 20% cost.

It's employee plus family because you mentioned the spouse piece is new and I was trying to clarify what you meant.

So currently we have employee only. We have employee plus one and that could be a child or a spouse and we have employee plus two or more. So we have a three-tier system. We're going to switch that because what we found is that spouses are typically more expensive than children even if you had multiple children. So you could have four children and it would still be less than the cost of a spouse. So we are going to move to a four-tier system where the spouse is broken out.

Yeah. So I think the key point is 20% of the cost we pass on, make sure I don't get it reversed, pass on to the employee.

Yeah.

Okay. And the health fund is covering 80% of the cost of the family. Is that correct? Yeah.

Yeah. Having those real numbers would be helpful at some point. I don't think it changes my thinking, but it'd be helpful information in terms of the big picture here. I can share that. Yeah, that'd be great. 10.1% total increase to the Kaiser DHMO is eye-popping. And I imagine it's not going to necessarily, and I'd be curious in terms of the overall number for those plans, Just in my own personal experience, when I'm choosing insurance options, I'm looking at overall premium costs to me and who's going to give me – I appreciate what you said, Harold, that folks are making kind of that choice more and more between choice and cost and – I think that could cause some challenges. I just don't know enough about this process. Is there a negotiation that happens with Kaiser where they give us that rate overall? Or is it, hey, it's a procurement thing. This is our bid. This is what we're moving forward with.

So we've had a number of bids, and we've gone back and forth with them. Why you're seeing that 10.1 is because we are moving towards choice. and in the moving towards choice there's a premium that they put on the plans because they um the underwriters are saying that there's additional risk and so we did push on that pretty hard we could not get that moved at all um the average in the market is 6.5 so even with the premium for choice it's it's not the 10.1 was less than we've seen in prior years where we've tried to do the choice Last year when we tried to do the choice, we were running 22%, and we said we can't do it. And that's why we've been at 100% market up until this time. Okay.

Thank you. I have a suspicion that City of Longmont employees are going to be looking at United real closely. So anyway, thank you.

Council Member Prieto.

Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question. As far as pay increase, and I'm hearing it's kind of a rough and tough year. So it sounds like we're going with the cost of living increases. Did I hear that right?

We're doing a 3% adjustment to the midpoint for this year. So it looks like that, but we're just adjusting the midpoint upward 3%. Okay.

And when you say midpoint, elaborate.

So when we establish market for the positions, they go and they pull their data and then they average it for that position. And the average is the midpoint. And that's what we say is market. And then in this case, we add 1% to the midpoint based on 101. If we ever hit 102, it'll move to 102. And that's market. So then we're saying that market movement is going to be 3% next year.

Okay. Okay. And so the difference between that and a cost of living increase is that if someone's market is going up, but they're already higher than what that midpoint would be in that 101, they would not receive a 3%. It's not that everybody's getting a 3%.

That was my next question is to say, does that across the board and then kind of questioning some of the higher paying salaries within the city, like if they're already past that mark.

If they're already past the mark, they would not receive that.

So what we do with our exceptional pay is there are times when somebody gets exceptional pay and they move to like 105% of the market. When we implemented that program, we essentially had two choices. One is exceptional pay for one year. and then you remove it at the end of the year, or do you keep the exceptional pay in place? We chose to keep it in place. So then what we allow is, so if we're moving the midpoint of the market 3% and they're at 105, then they're catching up. So they're frozen. So they essentially get that increase. And then once the market catches up, then they're recycled into the process. And so what we were really seeing is If you think of a bell curve in terms of how we had employees, we oddly, prior to shifting this, realized a few things. One, we were combining positions in the market, so our process inherently had positions that were behind market and positions that were ahead of market because we were averaging averages. So we stopped doing that. Okay. then we were looking at the positions. And so we still had people on both sides and our goal was to get people to market. And so we've been getting closer and closer where we don't have that. So every position, I say every position, the jobs have the market and that is what we're competing with against other municipalities in cases where we're competing with private sector, that's factored into that as well to make sure that we're competitive in the hiring process.

And how does that work with entry-level positions and customer service positions? So we're averaging other customer service and entry-level positions for those positions?

Yep. And then we have a living wage component, too. So in some cases with the living wage component, if... We don't allow positions to fall below that. So we're also managing that. Typically the position that gets caught in the living wage is our custodians. But we've moved them. I don't know that they're getting caught in it anymore.

Not recently.

So we look at the market in a different way even for those positions. And so then when we hire someone, we know what the midpoint is for the market. We can then choose, do we bring them in on hiring at 95% of the market or whatever the number is? Then at six months upon performance, then we move them up again. And then the market starts moving over time.

And that's actually why you'll see so many different jobs in the pay plan is because we're really trying to find the benchmark for what those responsibilities are. And so you may see, for example, things with multiple levels. And that's because we're really benchmarking it level by level.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Go ahead.

Continue. I'm ready to pass to Teresa. To pass it on. Okay. Thank you. Uh-huh.

Thank you.

So I'm going to cover our pension plans and then as Joanne mentioned I'll I'll talk about the employee benefit fund and our two other internal service funds so the city administers three defined benefit pension plans. Two of them are for police and fire, the old hire fire and the old hire police plans. These two plans were for police and fire employees that were hired before April 8th of 1978. They are both closed plans and have very few members or beneficiaries remaining in the plans. Fire only has seven and police has six. And both plans are fully funded, have been for several years. The fire plan is very well funded at 156.1%. So it has essentially a surplus of $961,000. The police plan is funded at 109.7%, a surplus of $81,000. Neither plan, because of their funding status, requires any additional contribution from the city. And the old hire board at its August meeting recommended a benefit increase per year of 5% for fire. So that's 5% for 26 and 5% for 27 for members in the fire plan and 2% for members in the police plan. Our third defined benefit plan is our general employee retirement plan, or we call it GERP. It was fully funded through 2008, but since that time has been in an unfunded status. particularly at that point was just the market conditions. There was losses in the market that the plan took. So as of the end of 25 or beginning January 1 of 26, this plan is 86.1% funded and has an unfunded liability of about 39 million. So so it's not a small amount we have a lot of Beneficiaries a lot of members in this plan It is the plan for all non police and fire employees And since benefit and Benefit increases are not built into the plan. We cannot give an increase until the plan is fully funded. And members in this plan, retirees, have not had an increase, well, really since 2008. So they have been at the same rate for a number of years now. The actuarial report, or actuarial study that was done this year determined that the employer contribution is 8.6%. The city has actually been contributing above that amount and the fact that we have contributed above that amount has really helped gain some ground on that unfunded liability status. Last year, at the end of 2004, beginning of 2005, it was at 84.3% funded, with an unfunded liability of over 42 million. So we are making ground on it, but Unfortunately, until we are able to get it into a funded status, we cannot give increases to the retirees in this plan. There are other police and fire plans as well. So in 2022, the police and fire union decided they wanted to go back to FPPA, and so we What you see on the screen is the number of police and fire employees that move back into FPPA. And I say back into FPPA because between the time that the old hire police and fire pension plans were essentially closed, between that time and April of 2020, I've got the date here. Between April of 1978 and 2022, there was another city plan that employees were in, and that's that first one, the City D.C. Plan. The employees from the FPPA defined benefit plan, the hybrid defined benefit plan, and the hybrid money purchase plan, those are the employees that moved out of the city's plan and into FPPA. The city's DC plan is now considered a closed plan. No new members. It does still have the members that are on the board here, but from a new member perspective, it is a closed plan because all new hires in police and fire now go into the FPPA defined benefit plan. And so that is managed entirely and administered by FPPA rather than the city. Turned my microphone off instead of advancing the slide. On this slide, you'll see the contributions that we make to these other plans. So back on the prior slide, I showed you that we made a contribution of 9.4% per employee salary. To the GERP plan, we are making between 11 and 12% per employee to the FPPA and city police and fire plans. And then I wanted to cover the health benefit fund. So in your packet, attachment C is an operating statement that we included for this fund. City contributions, we are proposing to remain at 14.5%. And we do anticipate that that will cover the expenses, the plan benefit increases that Joanne was speaking about just a little bit ago. It also covers some additional health benefit fund costs, wellness type, employee physicals for police and fire, And we are projecting that the fund will end 2026 with a pretty healthy little over $10 million fund balance because of the increases that Joanne was talking about and because we are holding at 14.5% of salary as a contribution to this fund, we do anticipate a drop in this fund. And 9.3 million is still a pretty healthy fund balance. We do feel comfortable with that level of fund balance, even moving into and exploring options around becoming fully funded for, sorry, becoming self-funded for health benefits. And then we have two other insurance funds, self insurance funds. We have a liability self insurance fund and a workers comp self insurance fund. The liability self insurance fund ended 2025 with a fund balance of $4 million. We budget roughly $1.8 million as transfers from the operating funds into this fund. We are proposing that that be maintained for 27. We did transfer $1.8 million for the last two, three years. And so this fund has been pretty stable, been ending right around million dollars for the past several years the workers comp fund however we are proposing a reduction in in the transfer to that fund in 2026 it was at 1.3 million dollars and because the fund balance is now at six point eight million we feel like a seven hundred thousand dollar transfer from the operating funds for 27 We'll see a slight decrease in this fund balance, but our claims have also decreased over the past couple years. Um, we feel like the $700,000 is, is sufficient. Um, and that really did help us to the tune of over 300 and almost $350,000 from the general fund, um, help us balance that general fund. Um, so, um, that, that reduction I can't guarantee will. We won't have to go back up in 28 or maybe even 29 as that fund balance starts to decrease, but I think we're in a pretty good position at least for 27. Okay. And so I'll stop there. Yes. Because that's the end of our slides for employee benefits. Okay. Let's see if there are any questions.

Yes, Council Member Popkin.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Teresa. Can you just go back to that previous slide on the comp there? Yeah. This one. Correct. I think you were talking through this, but I just want to make sure I'm crystal clear on this. So when you say you were budgeting transfers at 1.8 and 700K, for 2027, is that transfers from the general fund to these funds or from these funds back?

Good question. It is the transfer from all the operating funds, so not just the general fund. Sure. But it's the general fund, the utility funds, essentially any major operating fund from those operating funds into this fund. And it is this fund where we pay the actual claims from.

Got it. Thank you. And so then for the... When you were saying we're reducing the amount we're transferring into the workers comp self insurance fund, that is reducing the amount from the general fund that we are transferring in this year?

For 27.

Correct, for 27, yes. Okay, and remind me how much are we, this is about 350,000 that we're not transferring in that we would have originally budgeted for?

budgeted for, well, it helped us. So it's just $350,000 less of transfer to the workers comp fund that we had to make from the general fund. So that helped us bridge that million dollar gap.

And that decision was made partly because there were fewer claims drawing on the current workers' comp fund anyway.

Experience. Yes. Correct. And there's a few things connected to this. A few years ago, tying into the retirement funds, one of the reasons that we ported um as part of the collective bargaining agreement um to what's it called theresa the collective bargaining no the the retirement fund that they're moving that they have the opportunity to move to FPPA. Part of that actually is because they have a 20-year retirement provision. And so one of the things that we were seeing in our workers' comp data is based on the way our plans were structured, people were staying longer. And so then the longer they stay, the injuries started accruing. So we actually have been looking at different components, understanding where our injuries are typically generated. Gotcha.

And do we have a sense, I know you showed a comparison of FTE and population last week. Do we have a sense kind of where we stand in terms of the, I guess the benefits we were talking about earlier in general for our staff and kind of comparable pay increases or decisions relative to some of our peer cities?

Yeah, so we've evaluated those a few times. I'm going to ask Joanne to come up. I think... when we've looked at it from the benefit side I think we are on the I would say probably on the higher end on the benefit piece when we've evaluated it yeah I would say we're definitely still on the higher end with benefits as a total compensation package right correct great thank you appreciate all the work on that so let's go ahead and move on to LDDA

Okay. I am going to kick us off with the DDA funds and then I'll turn it over to Kimberly and she's going to give you a couple updates on some programs. So the DDA through an IGA manages our downtown parking fund as well as our GID. The DDA itself has five different sub funds within the DDA. So the downtown parking fund gets its revenue from parking permits. We're projecting about $95,000 of revenue from the parking permits for next year. And the expenses is about 118,000. That is a decrease from 2026. And there isn't anything budgeted for the CIP DTR 023, the downtown parking lot improvement for 27. And that is because we are still utilizing carryover from prior years. there's sufficient funding that will be carried over to cover any needs in that area. The GID, their primary revenue source is the mill levy for the GID. And I will tell you that this fund, just very similar to the general fund, is we'll take a hit in 27 because of the adjustments in the ratios and the way that Residential is being assessed to the tune of about $66,000 so so that property tax number on the slide is roughly $66,000 than it was for this year and A slight increase in expenses from 2026 for the GID Okay into the DDA operating funds. So the first one is is the operating funds it is also supported by a property tax 5 mils and This one took a slightly less hit $15,000 in a property tax reduction due to the state assessment changes. It also gets a transfer from the construction fund for the administration of the CIP projects, or just all projects, sorry, not just CIP, all DDA projects. And the expense is a slight increase from current year. And then the permit fund, the DDA building permit fund. So this one, the revenue source is the DDA permits and the 2% use tax on those permits. So just the use tax that goes to the general fund and the public improvement fund gets transferred. If the permit that is pulled is within the DDA boundaries, that revenue gets transferred and given to the DDA. to support this permit fund. Their expense is a decrease, a pretty significant decrease from their 26 budget, and that is due to the incentive for the Longmont Hotel that was budgeted in 2026. And then the debt service funds. So in your packet is a lot of information about the TIF. I don't plan on going through that this evening with you, but if you do have questions, please let me know. This is the fund where the TIF revenue actually comes in. And then to use the TIF within the DDA, we have to establish a debt. And the way that we establish the debt is to do essentially an overnight Interfund loan with the fleet fund. So that establishes the debt. We pay it off pretty much immediately. But that is how we are able to access the funds in this fund. And these TIF dollars then get transferred to support the A&E fund and the construction fund. And in the A&E, so as I mentioned, their primary revenue source is TIF funding from the debt service fund as well as some intergovernmental revenue to support maintenance of their projects and such. And it does have a pretty healthy expense increase from 2026, and Kimberly's gonna talk a little bit more about what that's for. And then let me move to the construction fund. So this is the second fund where we use the TIF dollars. The TIF funds get transferred from the debt service fund here to support all the projects in the construction fund. It is a decrease from the expense budget is a decrease of $484,000 from 2026, and that is really due to the CAP project at 600 and Main Street. At 6th and Main.

OK. And then before you go on, were you going to make a motion? OK. Council Member Popkin.

I'm going to make everyone's favorite motion and make a motion to extend the meeting. I'm going to make a motion to extend the meeting past 11.

OK. So the motion has been made to extend the meeting past 11, made by Council Member Popkin, and seconded by Council Member Kahlkopper. Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, and that motion has failed. Okay, is there Mayor Pro Tem? Go ahead.

I'll make a motion that we extend the meeting till a time certain of 1115.

Okay, I will second that. I think we can do it. I have confidence. Okay, let's go ahead and vote. 1115. I'm not doing this again. I'm not doing this again, yeah. Okay. There you go. And that carries five to two with council members Marcin and Kalkhofer in opposition. Okay, let's continue.

All right, we just have a couple more slides for you, so we will be quick. So as I mentioned, there aren't any CAP projects for the construction fund. Most of the projects that will be funded from the construction fund are the same projects. They're ongoing projects, year-over-year projects, and I have them listed here on the screen. And I'm going to turn it over to Kimberly.

Just real quick, there are two new funds that are nestled underneath our Arts and Entertainment District Fund, and that is to run the local square project that just went underway a few days ago. Yeah, I know. I'm so glad. The first one is just general operating, so kind of the maintenance of that facility. The second one is programming. In that programming, we did include $30,000 for grants for the community to program that space with an emphasis on cultural grants, and we've really been working with the ELMAC folks, and we'll have others as well, and then replacing some of our larger events and concerts with pop-up markets and smaller ongoing music events. But we really want those to be programmed by the community. That's why we're putting the grants out. We are looking at other fundraising opportunities for investment in local squares. We continue to write grants and reach out to the community on that. And then we did reduce some of our arts entertainment district budgets when we added these two other ones. So even though it's increased, we decreased in other areas. And then just one thing I wanted to note of economic vitality is with the new hotel, we are bringing our first large conference into downtown next April. And that will be the Downtown Colorado Inc. Conference. It brings about 250 to 300 people, including elected officials. So we did put some money in to sponsor that and really think it is a way to showcase for everyone that this is a great place to host their events. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions from council?

Okay, yeah, thank you. Thank you for all your work you're doing, and I'm super excited to see. That's the square, right? On 6th and Main. Okay. I know, okay. Council Member Popkin? Yes, go ahead.

Yeah, Kimberly, can you just remind us, top level, the capital expenses for the square just from the beginning, and also completion date?

completion date is up in the air the first phase will be substantially complete by the end of November the second phase adding the shipping containers and the bathrooms and those type of things will be done probably by the beginning of the summer hopefully a lot sooner than that but you know just depending on whether so the budget is ever increasing it's probably close to about 1.2 million right now that is adding permanent bathrooms um quicker than we thought and the shipping containers and making some other changes we did get a 250 000 revitalizing main streets grant from cdot we got about a $17,000 grant from CDPHE for some of the remediation. And so, yeah, so we are continuing to reach out to the El Pomar Foundation and the Betcher Foundation and the Gates Foundation as well.

Great. And the LDDA budget is often a little bit, I mean, you guys are kind of an affiliate with the city here. Is there, if there was one thing you'd want us and the public to understand about kind of how LDDA operates and particularly around the financials, like what would that be?

I think that we're quasi-governmental is how we would kind of tell folks, but that mill levy that our business owners pay is really important to know that they are putting skin in the game as well, and they do get tax increment financing. The DDA tool I think has been great to, help make that revitalization in the core of our community but then help make it stay and make it stick as opposed to downtowns have gone up and down and up and down and up and down through the years and so the investments that we're making now are there's always going to be unforeseen circumstances but to keep it strong i will say i was just looking at our place or ai data our foot traffic is definitely up um so we're seeing lots more people down here on a regular basis. So I'm always thrilled when I see people here on a normal boring Tuesday. Not that today's boring, but you know, as opposed to special events, like people wanna come down here just on whatever day. So we are trying to see that too.

Thanks for all the work.

Your work has not gone unnoticed. I told you, and I'm going to share this for everybody, when my daughter came out to visit after being out of Longmont. Well, she moved six years ago, seven years ago. But she came after it extended three years of not being around. came back and she was thoroughly impressed with going up and down main street and we you know checking out the the hotel and so thank you so much yeah we appreciate it thank you council member Marcin

I'll be very quick. Christmas tree lighting in the square is the plan, I hear. Is that correct? Did Steve let on something he shouldn't have let on? Okay.

No, I wish it was the plan.

We'll talk later.

Yeah, the end of November date might make that tougher. Thank you. Yeah.

All right, and you're doing a great job. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Okay, and that is the end of that presentation. Let me get back on my regular screen. Okay, so we are now on to final call, public invited to be heard. Is there anyone from the audience who wishes to speak at this time? You have three minutes. Come on up and state your name.

Longmont City Council meeting it's approximately 11 p.m. Now on September 8th I'm drafted this speech during tonight's proceedings and I'm speaking before the council spontaneously because there was an attempt to silence me at this meeting tonight I realized that they already How do you put it adjourn this meeting or something you not to extend it past 11 it's No. No. No.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. We still have time. So no one is allowed to violate the First Amendment by chilling protected free speech. My signs were not held up in front of anyone's face and they did not talk over them to silence their speech. The speaker said that my signs were quote disruptive. was out of line and they were acting exactly like an alpha prime, treating me like an epsilon semi-moron right out of the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, which was on my sign. No one had any problem with 40 to 50 signs in favor of rank choice voting, RCV, which showed up on the screen behind speakers on July 14th, 2026. or any other person's signs or T-shirt messages in any other meeting. There were other T-shirt messages, same as mine. Anyone questioning First Amendment rights needs to consult with the Longmont City Attorney, yes, or other legal counsel. This behavior is consistent with socialism and communism, which suppresses free speech and diverse viewpoints and is also depicted in other books on my signs, Animal Farm by George Orwell and 1984, also by George Orwell. The three books I mentioned were written in 1932, 1945, 1949 as cautionary tales for our society then and now. It is fundamentally important not to ignore or gloss over behavior like this when it happens in real time. I am shocked and appalled that this happened to me this evening, and I feel that I should get a written apology from every person who attempted to silence my free speech at this meeting tonight. Thank you. And I noticed that the person who was out of line left the meeting right after I started speaking earlier at 8.30 PM.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Come on down.

So just in light of that, I think When I was very, like the first time that I came to city council, we were given the opportunity, oh, Matt Wellborn, 485, second main. Yeah, just the name. There you go. But the first time I came, it was unclear in the rules what kind of qualified as disruption, and then somebody was, and then for ranked choice voting, actually, people were like, oh, we could bring signs, and I was like, even like me personally, I was like, ooh, I don't know, like in my mind, I was kinda understanding the rules a certain way, and so just as somebody who is neurodivergent I think clarity of rules goes a long way and so I just want to encourage you know that we just have as clear rules as possible for things such as this so that we're not having to deal with them or like not deal with them that's not the way that I want to phrase that but like you know have unintended or interactions that are you know not how we all want to interact, you know? Because I know that we all want to have a good time, you know? So yeah, yeah. So I just want to encourage clarity of rules in regards to tonight's events and also historic events regarding disruptions and such.

Yeah, okay, thank you. And does anyone else need to speak one time? Just one speaker per session, that's our rules. So that's it, no. So you can have a conversation with the gentleman over there, but we're gonna conclude the meeting. Thank you. So in our, so I think about back when I got on council, and oh, yes, go ahead. Now, can they speak a second time?

No, Mayor. Okay, thank you. It's one time. And I was going to just point out that the council rules of procedure does provide that those attending council meetings shall refrain from disruptive behavior that interferes with the orderly function of the council.

Yes.

I think that one of our other speakers was saying that the upholding signs while she's speaking detracted from her speech and that that was disruptive. I think we have had conversations with the mayor and others that those signs that are meant to be shown during our broadcasts are disrupting the orderly function of the meeting. I will note that Helen was provided an alternative to come and speak at final call, public invited to be heard. We were not restricting her speech. We were just having it at a more appropriate time.

Yeah. So, I mean, each of our meetings, and thank you, because I was going to lead to that. To that point, but thank you for addressing the specific rules of procedure language that we have. Our meeting, it's a business meeting. And we have had ongoing discussion around making sure we're not stifling First Amendment speech. I want to make sure that people are being heard. but we also have business to conduct. We have matters to vote on. Um, we have time to speak for residents prior for residents and employees of the city prior to on regular session on regular session meetings. So during our study session meeting, anybody could speak during that public invited to be heard at the beginning of the meeting. So you're not having to wait until the very end. Anyone can speak during our study session meetings. At first call, public invited to be heard. That is the only time that we have public invited to be heard during our study session, but you have that opportunity there. The public hearing items, those are other opportunities for people who want to speak to an issue that we are hearing on ordinances on second reading. There were people who lived outside of the city of Longmont when we heard rank choice voting. second reading and you know and those the opinions and input is highly valuable so whether you are in opposition or in support of this so it's not an attempt to stifle anyone's my goal and my objective here in chairing these meetings is to ensure an orderly function of council meetings so we can conduct the business for the people the residents of the city of Longmont and we have our procedures and protocols not asking people to take their signs off however because I'm able to filter it out there are some people in the audience who cannot so when I'm talking about I'm not referring to one person I'm thinking everybody so maybe just kind of you know, take it to the side. I don't, you know, whatever helps our council stay focused, whatever helps speakers as speakers are coming up and not just public speaker, the public coming to speak, but I'm talking about presenters and people who've come are coming up for the first time to present a business item. So we want to make sure that we are keeping it, keeping things professional and orderly. So that's, that's my intent and it's not in any, it, action to try to stifle anyone's um free speech you know i i truly value that we just have an order and process on how these go in this in our council meetings and i'm adhering to it um do we have any other mayor and council comments go ahead

Okay, I just wanted to say what a fantastic event the Colorado Pizza Festival was. I looked at the numbers, and they were thinking it was going to be 3,000. It ended up being 7,000. There was a lot of things going on there, but we'll discuss that at a later point, that everything can be fixed in the future.

Great, thank you. Council Member Kahlkofer.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to try to go fast. I'm not going to read this verbatim, but this one's personal for me. I've known three people who have died by suicide, and their losses have been a painful reminder that many people in our community may be carrying struggles that are not visible to the rest of us. I want everyone to hear this very clearly. You are not alone. You matter and help is available. I'm not going to go through everything else I have because I know we have time coming up. There's help available if you dial 988-988 to reach Colorado Mental Health Line. It's free, confidential, and available 24-7. For immediate help, always call 911.

Thank you. Council member Prieto.

Just a quick comment, Mayor, regarding the signs. And I would just agree, especially when folks are talking, really just giving people space to talk. And that's kind of like passing the rock and it's your time to talk and your space. But then maybe like in between people talking, we can put signs up or whatever. no one's at the podium signs come up I think that would be appropriate because it's not distracting from any other business but if people are presenting I couldn't especially since they have a big screen in their face and they're like trying to present but then they're looking at the screen and then they're looking at the time stop it's already hard to present and so I We definitely want to encourage everybody's speech in this room and science is a part of that. But also just like I said, when someone's speaking, we're all listening and engaged to what they're saying and trying to understand what they're trying to say and come from. So we do thank everybody for their participation tonight.

And we have two minutes left. Council Member Christ, keep it brief.

I want to remind everyone that Friday is the 25th anniversary of 9-11. That is an emotional time, especially for those who have served in the military. So thank you for your information regarding suicide. And then also just acknowledge the child care providers that came to speak, because that is an occupation of love and almost a community service, really. So I appreciate all that everybody had to say tonight.

Thank you. Council member Popkin.

Thank you. A quick question. Do we give budget presentations or summary presentations to the economic impact team? I feel like that is such a core part of our economy that it's not irrelevant to just make sure that the LADP, Chamber of Commerce, those folks are aware.

Yes. So as we're going through the process, once we're finished, then numerous organizations reach out to me to provide them an overview budget presentation based on what we've come up with. We'll also do that with various boards and commissions as well.

We have 45 seconds left. Thank you.

Mayor, can I make a motion to extend by three minutes, please? I would like to ask the council a question related to one of the boards.

Can we, no. It's timely. No, no. Really? Yeah, because comments are just comments, not questions. So our discussion.

The Transportation Advisory Board was interested in presenting to council at some point. I hope you guys will think about it. Thank you. Thank you.

Council Member Marcin. Sunset Soiree, Friday. Yes. Be there, be square. Great, thank you. Okay, motion to adjourn. Okay. Oh, nope. No, they don't have anything to say. I already asked ahead of time. I read their eyes. Okay, we're adjourned.