Docstoc

INDEX OF ATTACHED INFORMATION ITEMS

Document Sample
INDEX OF ATTACHED INFORMATION ITEMS Powered By Docstoc
					      INDEX OF ATTACHED INFORMATION ITEMS
                      Received by the City Clerk’s Office
                 for the March 23, 2010 City Council Packet

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:


1.   North I-25 Project Commuter Rail Alignment by Dale Rademacher, Director of
     Public Works and Natural Resources
2.   Downtown Parking Safety and Utilization by Dale Rademacher, Director of Public
     Works and Natural Resources
3.   Study Session Meetings at Remote Locations by Rigo Leal, Public Information
     Officer
4.   Status Report on El Comité’s Compliance with Provisions Included in Its 2010
     Contract for Services with the City of Longmont by Karen Roney, Community
     Services Director
5.   Building Inspection February Monthly Report Chris Allison, Chief Building Official
6.   Accept Communications from Board, Committees, and Commissions by Valeria
     Skitt, City Clerk

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1.   City of Longmont Finance Department, Sales and Use Tax Division, Analysis of
     Taxes, January 2010




                                                                                          253
BLANK PAGE




             254
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

MEETING DATE: March 23, 2010                    ITEM NUMBER: 1
TYPE OF ITEM:        Information
PRESENTED BY: Dale Rademacher, Director of Public Works & Natural Resources,
              303-651-8355
              Don Bessler, PWNR Natural Resources Manager, 303-651-8992
              Dan Wolford, Open Space & Trails Manager, 303-774-4691
              Nick Wolfrum, PWNR Engineering Services Manager, 303-651-8307

SUBJECT/AGENDA TITLE: North I-25 Project Commuter Rail Alignment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Attached is a letter recently received from the U.S Department of
Transportation requesting an acknowledgment of the proposed North I-25 Commuter Rail. This
plan for future commuter rail has been identified through the North I-25 Environmental Impact
Study effort, and would plan for the future extension of commuter rail from the north Denver,
through Longmont, and north to Fort Collins. The alignment would bisect the eastern boundary
of property owned by the City. Specifically, the communication requests that the City include in
our future master plan of the Boulder Creek Estates Open Space property, an alignment corridor
adequate to accommodate this future transit project. Staff has met regarding this project and
does not see any significant impact to the property in the proposed alignment and supports the
request. This request is consistent with the City’s position on commuter rail service to
Longmont through this corridor and, unless directed otherwise, will respond in the affirmative.

COUNCIL OPTIONS: Direct staff otherwise if desired

RECOMMENDED OPTIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPACT & FUND SOURCE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A

BACKGROUND AND ISSUE ANALYSIS: N/A

ATTACHMENTS:
U. S Department of Transportation letter dated March 9, 2010
North I-25 EIS project area alignment map




                                                                                                   255
BLANK PAGE




             256
257
258
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

MEETING DATE: March 23, 2010                     ITEM NUMBER: 2
TYPE OF ITEM:         Information
PRESENTED BY: Dale Rademacher, Director of Public Works & Natural Resources,
              303-651-8355
              Nick Wolfrum, PWNR Engineering Services Manager, 303-651-8307
              Bob Ball, Transportation Engineer, 303-651-8323

SUBJECT/AGENDA TITLE: Downtown Parking Safety and Utilization

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: During the second half of 2009, about 110 on-street parking
spaces were added during the Kimbark Street Rehabilitation Project and with ongoing
maintenance of pavement markings. New angle parking provided most of the parking gains east
of Main Street. At Council’s request, staff has reviewed occupancy and safety of new angle
parking areas.

Nearly all comments and feedback has been positive about parking changes related to these
additional parking spaces. Parking occupancy has been high in most new angle parking areas,
especially near the Library. There has been only one reported crash related to angle parking,
involving a car parking next to a car with a door open.

In December staff further refined downtown parking with changes to underground Library
parking and adjacent streets. The goal of these changes was to improve parking near the Library
and other City facilities. Based on customer comments and our recent data collection, staff is
planning to implement a few more changes in late March that will include re-establishing several
Library Customer parking spaces in the underground parking beneath the Library.

COUNCIL OPTIONS: None Required – Information

RECOMMENDED OPTIONS: None Required – Information

FISCAL IMPACT & FUND SOURCE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: None

BACKGROUND AND ISSUE ANALYSIS:

Downtown Angle Parking - The availability of convenient parking in downtown has
consistently been a topic of concern for downtown businesses, customers and downtown users in
general. In summer of 2009, Kimbark Street between 3rd – 9th Avenues was scheduled for
rehabilitation. City staff evaluated parking supply and demand, traffic operations, street widths,
and identified locations where we believed additional on-street parking could be provided in a
safe manner. About 55-60 parking spaces were added east of Main Street between 3rd – 9th
Avenues in conjunction with this street rehabilitation project. Most of this additional parking
was provided by converting from parallel to angle parking along several streets.




                                                                                                     259
Soon afterward, City staff performed similar evaluation west of Main Street. In Fall of 2009,
about 55 parking spaces were added along Coffman Street and nearby cross streets between 2nd –
8th Avenues. Most of these gains were provided by “infilling” more spaces into existing parking
configurations, though new angled parking was added along sections of 4th, 5th and 8th Avenues.

Last Fall Council requested that staff evaluate the use (i.e. - occupancy) of parking in areas with
new angle parking, and any safety issues that may have been created.

Comments and feedback related to these parking changes has been almost entirely positive in
nature. Staff reviewed crash records related to angle parking after these parking changes were
installed east of Main Street. Between August and December, 2009 there was one reported crash
where it appears that a door of a parked car opened while another car was parking next to them.
While 5 months is a relatively short period when review crash data, we view these results to date
as positive and encouraging.

Staff recently evaluated parking occupancy in street sections converted to angle parking, and
other parking in this vicinity, as summarized in the following table:

 Downtown Parking Occupancy Surveys
 February - March, 2010

                                                              #
                                                           Parking
     Street & Side / Lot Location          Between         Spaces      % Spaces Occupied
                                                                      mid-           mid-
                                                                      AM    Lunch     PM
 5th Ave, south side whole block        Main - Kimbark       10       15%    60%     35%

 4th Ave, south side whole block        Main - Kimbark       13       77%       69%      85%
                                          Kimbark -
 4th, south side, whole block               Emery             7       71%      100%      57%

 Kimbark, east side S of Xwalk              3rd - 4th        22       39%       55%      54%
 Kimbark, west side, S of Xwalk             3rd - 4th        5        40%       7%       27%
 Kimbark, east side, N of Xwalk             3rd - 4th        16       85%       73%      77%
 Kimbark, west side, N of Xwalk             3rd - 4th        12       61%       33%      56%

 Kimbark, west side, glass shop             4th - 5th         5       73%       67%      80%
 Kimbark, west side, N of glass
 shop                                       4th - 5th        17       67%       47%      69%
 Kimbark, east side, whole block            4th - 5th        29       83%       80%      76%

 Emery, west side, whole block              3rd - 4th        23       50%       78%      57%
 Emery, west side, N of Xwalk               3rd - 4th        15       91%      100%      87%

 Library Surface Lot (along Emery)                           25       95%      100%      87%
 Library Underground Lot                                     37       72%       73%      76%

 Note - survey data does not include HC, Fleet Reserved, or Bookdrop / Volunteer parking spaces




                                                                                                      260
This data shows that there has been high utilization of new angle parking on all streets adjacent
to the library and along 4th Avenue (Main – Kimbark). There has been medium utilization of
new angle parking on Kimbark next to the Civic Center and along 5th Avenue (Main – Kimbark).

Parking Time Limits and Other Restrictions - City Transportation staff establishes time limits
and other parking restrictions on City streets. Time limits for parking are typically needed in
locations such as the downtown commercial area where there are not enough parking spaces for
heavy parking demand. Time limits are established during times when they are needed, such as
during weekday work times. Other parking restrictions during certain periods of the day may be
necessary to improve safety and operations, such as near schools during drop-off and pick-up
times.

Staff considers the following factors when evaluating parking time limits and other restrictions:

    x    needs of adjacent property owners, businesses, schools and residents
    x    needs of the surrounding commercial area and/or neighborhood,
    x    parking demand and supply on that block and nearby blocks, and
    x    operational and safety characteristics.

Adjacent streets, and even sections or sides of an individual block, can have very different
parking characteristics and needs, and therefore different parking restrictions. Parking needs can
also change over time. As a result, each block is evaluated on a case by case basis. For most
proposed parking restriction changes, staff discusses parking needs and issues with adjacent
businesses or property owners, and with LDDA staff in the downtown area.

Staff continued to refine downtown parking this winter by increasing City staff parking in the
underground parking lots, and changing parking time limits adjacent to the Library and Civic
Center. Our goals were to more fully use underground parking that had been mostly
underutilized, reduce on-street parking by City staff, and increase availability of convenient on-
street parking for customers of downtown and City facilities.

Staff collected new parking utilization data in this vicinity, received comments from library
patrons and local businesses, and discussed parking issues with several local businesses and
LDDA staff. As a result, the following parking changes are being implemented this month:

   x    East side of 300 Kimbark block - convert the first12 spaces from 30 minute to 2 hour
        south of the mid-block crosswalk, in an effort to improve parking for the library and other
        nearby uses; while keeping ten 30 minute spaces from 3rd Avenue to just north of the
        Civic Center entrance for short term Civic Center customers,
   x    East side of 400 Kimbark block - convert 7 spaces from all day to 2 hour in front of three
        local businesses,
   x    Underground library lot – Restripe to add four new parking spaces, and assign several
        spaces for Library Customer use (2 hour limit) near the entrance.


ATTACHMENTS:

None



                                                                                                      261
BLANK PAGE




             262
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

MEETING DATE: March 23, 2010                      ITEM NUMBER: 3
TYPE OF ITEM:         Information
PRESENTED BY: Rigo Leal, Public Information Officer (303-651-8840),
              rigo.leal@ci.longmont.co.us

SUBJECT/AGENDA TITLE: Study Session Meetings at Remote Locations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In February, the Longmont City Council expressed interest in
holding some study session meetings at a variety of locations throughout the city in an effort to
make them more convenient for the public. Staff has researched the costs of moving these
meetings and the detailed information is provided below.

COUNCIL OPTIONS:
  1. Direct staff to schedule remote meetings with a video recording from Channel 3.
  2. Direct staff to schedule remote meetings without a video recording from Channel 3.
  3. Convert some study session meetings into open forum meetings at remote locations.
  4. Convert already scheduled town meetings into open forum meetings.
  5. Direct staff to keep study session meetings in the Council Chambers.

RECOMMENDED OPTIONS: The City Council meetings are currently held on a regular
basis at the same time and location, making it easy for citizens to interact with their elected
officials. Moving study sessions will be costly and may make it more difficult for citizens to
“keep track” of the locations. The annual Council open forum meetings have been very
successful in the past, in fact more successful in general than the town meeting format also
suggested by Council. It is staff’s recommendation to keep study session meetings in the
Chambers and if the Council is interested in holding meetings in various locations, to convert
already scheduled town meetings for 2010 into additional open forum meetings (not televised),
with all Council members in attendance.

Staff was asked to provide the options for this idea (details below), but planning for the April
town meeting is already underway. Staff will continue with the current planning for the next
town meeting unless otherwise directed by Council.

FISCAL IMPACT & FUND SOURCE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is estimated
that hosting study session meetings at remote locations would cost approximately 2,000 per
meeting.

BACKGROUND AND ISSUE ANALYSIS:
In an effort to make meetings more convenient for the public, Longmont City Council has
expressed interest in holding some study session meetings at a variety of locations throughout the
city. The City Attorney’s Office has determined that there are no legal constraints preventing the




                                                                                                     263
Council from hosting study session meetings in remote locations. There are several options for
the Council to consider.

OPTION 1: Hosting study session meetings at off-site locations has some challenges including:
    x The rental and set-up costs for sound the sound system – including speakers,
        microphones for Council Members, staff members and the general public – are estimated
        at $2,000 per meeting.
    x Hauling cameras, microphones and editing equipment for remote videotape production is
        estimated to take an additional 3 hours of Channel 3 staff time.
    x The Clerk’s Office would need an additional 3 hours of set-up time for laptops, note-
        taking, projectors, screens, chairs, tables and beverages.
    x The “paperless packet” process would be interrupted and Council Members would have
        to use a paper packet; VDIs (virtual desktops) at each Council station would be
        inoperable at remote locations due to lack of internet connections.
Of course, these obstacles can be overcome if Council Members would like to exercise the
option to hold study session meetings at a variety of locations throughout the City.

OPTION 2: Another option is to give Channel 3 staff the night off and hold remote study
sessions without video, which would save some time and money.

OPTION 3: Rather than hold formal study session meetings at remote locations, Council could
decide to convert these meetings into open forums and schedule them for remote locations. The
open forum format has been positively received by both the public and Council Members and
taking it “on the road” would offer an opportunity for more people to participate.

OPTION 4: Another option for Council Members to consider is using the town meetings that
have already been scheduled (Saturday, April 10 and Saturday, October 9) and converting those
into open forum meetings, with all Council Members in attendance.

OPTION 5: Finally, the Council could direct staff to continue with study session meetings in the
exact format that we currently use.


ATTACHMENTS: None




                                                                                                   264
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

MEETING DATE: March 23, 2010                     ITEM NUMBER: 4
TYPE OF ITEM:         Information
PRESENTED BY: Karen Roney, Community Services Director, ext. 8633

SUBJECT/AGENDA TITLE: Status Report on El Comité’s Compliance with Provisions
Included in its 2010 Contract for Services with the City of Longmont

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As background, at its September 22, 2009 meeting, City Council
modified the recommendations from the Longmont Housing and Human Services Advisory
Board (LHHSAB) regarding El Comité’s 2010 funding allocation. LHHSAB recommended a
reduction in El Comité’s 2010 human service agency funding from the City due to concerns it
had with some of the agency’s nonprofit agency management practices. The City Council,
however, revised the LHHSAB’s funding recommendation as follows:

       El Comité’s initial allocation of $10,000 for 2010 will stand, but the agency will have the
       opportunity for the City to reinstate its funding to 2009 levels ($17,000) should the
       agency demonstrate improved performance by June 2010. The City will develop a
       performance-based contract with El Comité that contains clear performance expectations
       and a quarterly reporting system.

At its October 8, 2009 meeting, the LHHSAB established the following performance
expectations and reporting schedule to include in El Comité’s 2010 Contract for Services with
the City of Longmont. The El Comité Board of Directors reviewed and accepted these
conditions at its October 11th Board retreat, and staff incorporated these into El Comité’s 2010
Contract for Services.

To be completed before the end of December 2009:
x Submit 2008 Agency Financial Review.
x Submit a copy of the agency’s 2007 strategic plan.
x Submit the agency’s self-assessment of its performance in the areas outlined in the City’s
   2009 monitoring check list/form.

To be completed within the first quarter of 2010 (January – March):
x Apply for a technical assistance grant from the Boulder County Collaborative, which is
   administered through Foothills United Way. At a minimum, the request will be for technical
   assistance with Board development/governance and fiscal management.
x Report the results of El Comité’s 2009 grant from the Longmont Community Foundation to
   establish an Access data base for program statistics and fundraising. Demonstrate that this
   new database is operational and being used by staff.
x Address the conflict of interest situation on the Board of Directors in that a spouse of an El
   Comité staff member serves on the agency’s Board of Directors and is listed as co-treasurer
   of the Board.




                                                                                                     265
To be completed within the second quarter of 2010 (April – June):
x Complete an agency operational plan for 2010, based on strategies and goals outlined in the
   agency’s 2007 strategic plan. This plan should include specific steps the agency will take to
   implement this plan. The City will provide some examples of agency operational plans, if El
   Comité would find this helpful.
x Partner with a designated staff member from the City’s Accounting Division to conduct an
   on-site review of the agency’s cash handling and financial controls. From this review, the
   City will suggest any improvements that the agency should make to its current policies and
   procedures.

Reporting Schedule:
x El Comité will submit monthly progress reports on the first quarter requirements on or before
   February 10 and March 10, 2010. A final report on the first quarter accomplishments is due
   on or before April 7, 2010.
x El Comité will submit monthly progress reports on the second quarter requirements on or
   before May 12 and June 9, 2010. A final report on the second quarter accomplishments is
   due on or before July 7, 2010.

Contract Payment Schedule:
x The City will establish a monthly payment schedule based on a $10,000 annual contract, as
   has been typical of past City Contracts for Service with El Comité. At the end of the second
   quarter, the LHHSAB will assess El Comité’s performance of all requirements outlined in
   this memo. Should these conditions be satisfactorily accomplished, then the City will amend
   its contract with El Comité to $17,000; will amend the scope of services based on any further
   recommendations for continuing performance improvement; and will adjust the remaining
   contract payments accordingly. Should El Comité fail to perform satisfactorily, the
   LHHSAB will determine what further recommendations to make to City Council at that point
   in time.

Staff is pleased to report that Bob Norris, Chair of El Comité’s Board of Directors has worked
closely with City staff to comply with these conditions and, thus far, has met all of the conditions
outlined above in accordance with the designated schedule.

Should Council members have any questions, please contact Karen Roney, Community Services
Director at 303.651.8633.

COUNCIL OPTIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDED OPTIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPACT & FUND SOURCE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A

BACKGROUND AND ISSUE ANALYSIS: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: N/A




                                                                                                       266
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

MEETING DATE: March 23, 2010                     ITEM NUMBER: 5
TYPE OF ITEM:         Information
PRESENTED BY: Chris Allison, Chief Building Official

SUBJECT/AGENDA TITLE: Building Inspection February Monthly Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A

COUNCIL OPTIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDED OPTIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPACT & FUND SOURCE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A

BACKGROUND AND ISSUE ANALYSIS:

Attached please find the February, 2010, Monthly Report for the Building Inspection Division. A
total of 223 permits were issued with a construction valuation of $2,491,338. There were no
permits issued for single family residences. There were no new commercial permits issued for
the month of February.

      Following is an update of the fee rebate program:

FEES REBATED                                February          YTD      1988-2009     Total to Date
 Economic Development Fee Rebates         $       -    $        -    $ 2,284,801   $   2,284,801
 Low/Moderate Income Residential          $       -    $        -    $ 2,664,484   $   2,664,484


There were 3 DDA permits for the month of February totaling $3,758 and transferred to the
Developer Incentive Program (DIP) administered by the LDDA.

     Building, Electrical, and Elevator Inspectors performed 1855 inspections in February. The
Plan Reviewers performed a total of 55 plan reviews in the month of February.

       In the contractor licensing program 22 new licenses and 21 renewals were issued,
resulting in $3,790 in fees received. Four contractor tests were given resulting in $400 in fees
received.

Attachment:

2-Year Summary




                                                                                                     267
                                                             Building Inspection Monthly Summary Febuary 2009 and 2010
                                                                           2010                                                               2009
TYPE OF PERMIT                                 PERMITS            VALUATION        PERMITS        VALUATION      PERMITS          VALUATION          PERMITS          VALUATION
                                                Month               Month            YTD             YTD          Month             Month              YTD               YTD
Commercial
 Commercial New Construction                                 0              0                 0              0                0               0                  1          650,000
 Commercial Other***                                        31        217,810                71        400,920               15       1,333,917                 30        1,666,074
 Commercial Remodels/Additions                               3        381,156                19      1,018,093                6       2,187,787                 16        6,466,310

Municipal                                                                                     0             0                                                     0                0
 Municipal New Construction                                  0              0                 0             0                 0                0                  0                0
 Municipal Other                                             1         29,000                 2        32,000                 0                0                  2            2,000
 Municipal Remodels/Additions                                0              0                 1        10,000                 0                0                  0                0

Residential                                                                                 0                0                                                    0               0
 Single Family Residence, Detached                            0             0               2          587,682                3       1,019,415                   4       1,268,261
 Single Family Residence, Condos                              0             0               0                0                0               0                  20       2,362,546
 Single Family Residence, Townhouses                          4       775,126               8        1,210,252                4         609,775                   7         957,792
 Multifamily*                                                 0             0               0                0                0               0                   0               0
 Other Residential New Construction**                         0             0               0                0                0               0                   0               0
 Residential Remodels/Additions                              22       507,851              39          882,618               14         317,171                  35       1,118,543
 Residential Other***                                       152       563,199             279        1,155,589              193         984,374                 288       1,396,391

Other Permits                                                10         17,195             29           45,382                7          17,495                  20          50,270
                             Grand Total                    223      2,491,338            450        5,342,536              242       6,469,935                 423      15,938,188

Fees, Waivers                                  PERMITS              FEES           PERMITS          FEES         PERMITS            FEES             PERMITS            FEES
 DDA Fees                                                     3         3,758               4           3,808                 0              0                    0              0
 Economic Development Fee Waivers                             0             0               0               0                 0              0                    1         14,570
 Affordable Housing                                           0             0               0               0                 1         14,061                    3         26,054
 Total Fees Collected                                        na       124,612             n/a         289,527               n/a        311,882                  n/a        961,868

Licenses                                      LICENSES              FEES           LICENSES         FEES         LICENSES           FEES             LICENSES           FEES
 Renewals                                                    21            1,715           42           3,380                10              650                 19            1,440
 New Licenses                                                22            2,075           44           4,110                18            1,430                 39            3,370
 Contractor Tests                                             4              400           10           1,000                 2              200                  4              400

Productivity                                   ACTIONS                             ACTIONS                       ACTIONS                             ACTIONS
 Plan Reviews                                             55                 na           151              n/a               60               n/a             120                 n/a
 Inspections                                            1855                 na         3,447              n/a             1405               n/a           2,905                 n/a
 Code Enforcement Inspections                             na                 na            na              n/a              512               n/a             979                 n/a



* duplex, triplex, fourplex, > 5 family dwellings
** accessory dwelling units, mixed use dwelling Unit
  units added to existing residence,
  commercial units converted to residential
*** detached garage, lawnsprinkler, fences, swimming pool

                                                                                                                                                                                268
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

MEETING DATE: March 23, 2010                ITEM NUMBER: 6
TYPE OF ITEM:      Information
PRESENTED BY: Valeria Skitt, City Clerk (ext. 8650)

SUBJECT/AGENDA TITLE: Communications from Boards, Committees & Commissions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A

COUNCIL OPTIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDED OPTIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPACT & FUND SOURCE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A
BACKGROUND AND ISSUE ANALYSIS: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
   1)    Art in Public Places
         a. Agenda – March 11, 2010
         b. Minutes – February 11, 2010 (Draft)
   2)    Board of Environmental Affairs
         a. Agenda – March 17, 2010
   3)    General Employees Retirement Board
         a. Minutes – February 19, 2010
   4)    Historic Preservation Commission
         a. Minutes – February 11, 2010 (Draft)
         b. Special Meeting Minutes – February 18, 2010 (Draft)
   5)    Longmont Downtown Development Authority
         a. Retreat Minutes – January 29, 2010
   6)    Longmont Housing Authority
         a. Agenda – March 16, 2010
   7)    Longmont Housing and Human Services Advisory Board
         a. Minutes – February 11, 2010 (Draft)
   8)    Library Advisory Board
         a. Minutes – February 18, 2010 (Draft)
         b. Agenda – March 18, 2010
   9)    Money Accumulation Pension Plan (MOPC)
         a. Minutes – February 16, 2010




                                                                             269
10)   Museum Advisory Board
      a. Minutes – February 17, 2010 (Draft)
      b. Agenda – March 17, 2010
11)   Senior Citizens’ Advisory Board
      a. 2009 Annual Report
12)   Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
      a. Minutes – February 17, 2010 (Draft)
      b. Agenda – March 17, 2010
13)   Water Board
      a. Agenda – March 15, 2010




                                               270
                                     DRAFT MINUTES
                            ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION
                          LONGMONT MUSEUM & CULTURAL CENTER
                                     400 QUAIL ROAD
                                     February 11, 2010
                                     6:00 PM – 8:00 PM


1. Meeting Called to Order
   • The meeting of the AIPP Commission was called to order by Bruce Pizzimenti at 6:04 pm.

2. Roll Call
   • Present: Trisa Baxter, Kris Binard-Carlson, Julie Clement, Martha Clevenger (Museum Director), Leigh Ann
     Dillinger, Dan Ditslear, David Fox, Lauren Greenfield (Administrator), Ruth Lorenzetti, Sean McCoy (City
     Council Liaison), Dan Orner, Scott Pirnack, Bruce Pizzimenti, Marvin Ratzlaff, Richard Showers, Lisa
     Truesdale.
   • Absent: Andrea Mathwich, Tom McCoy.

3. Public Invited to Be Heard
   • None, but Bruce reintroduced the new City Council Liaison, Sean McCoy.

4. Approval of the Minutes
   • January Minutes: Richard moved to accept the minutes, Ruth seconds. Motion passes.

 5. Public Art Projects

       A. Mile markers along McIntosh Lake
           • These will now be referred to as “distance markers” because we’re not sure whether they will have
             miles or kilometers or both, or whether they’ll mark each mile, or half mile, etc.
           • Cindy McIntosh, a city staff member, is a descendant of the family. Her cousin has published a
             history of the family that we might be able to use as a resource.
           • Project will likely start after the summer.
           • Task Force: Tom, Trisa, Ruth, Lisa

       B. Unisex Restrooms Along St. Vrain Greenway
           • Lauren met with Paula and Steve; got good information on location and details. One will have an
             equestrian theme and horse trailer facilities.
           • Task force needs to meet and tour site.
           • Task force: Dan D., Kris, Bruce, Scott

       C. Art on the Move 2010
           • Task force (Ruth, Lisa, Andrea, Scott, Dave, Julie, Martin) is meeting Feb. 17 at the museum.
           • There are 25 qualified entrants from Colorado but only one water piece.
           • The damaged piece from AOTM 2009 has been picked up; we are still looking for the broken piece
             that may be buried in the snow at the plaza. Scott volunteered to pick up the new piece in Denver.

6. Maintenance & Conservation (Lauren)             (Dan O. arrived and took over from Bruce)
     • Bird Bath at Rough and Ready Park: Lauren talked to an engineer about fitting it with a new collar to
       eliminate the swaying in all directions. Budget: $1,000.




                                                                                                                  271
7. Outreach Committee Report
    •Richard reported on the meeting the Outreach Committee had at the museum before the regular AIPP
      meeting. Projects discussed included ways to “get the word out” and hand out at events, such as a
      display board, playing cards, a video. The committee wants to come up with a mission statement and
      goals to define the purpose of the committee.
    •There’s competition to get in the city bike map but AIPP will still be prominent. A grant was received from
      LiveWell Longmont to incorporate other features into the map.

8. Executive Committee Report
    A. Treasurer’s Report (Bruce): The budget is better than we thought. Copies were handed out to all
    members. Line 241 was renamed Contingency Fund; used to be Grounds Maintenance. We had budgeted
    $10,000 for the Pinata Poles but never used it. No action needed.
    B. Nominating Committee Report: Trisa and Marvin will bring a list of nominations to the March meeting.

9. Administrator’s Report (Lauren)
      A. Uptown Relocation: Won’t be as easy as we thought; Martha and Lauren have been studying the
      municipal code. The artists have not been contacted yet. Lauren will send a copy of the artists’ contract to
      all commissioners for review. If the piece is being moved, it needs to be completed by the May event in
      the plaza.
      B. Fire/Police Dept. Project: AIPP must approve all art in the city that is financed in whole or part by the
      City; we have specific policies regarding original bronzes, a 50-mile radius, etc. An informal show of
      hands revealed that AIPP commissioners agree that the Fire/Police Dept. should continue their plans if
      they agree to follow the guidelines set in place.
      C. New Business: None.

10. Commissioners’ Comments
  Richard commented that the Fire/Police will not want to wait for our decision because they are anxious to get
  started; Lauren will draft a letter to them.

11. Adjourn
  • 7:59 p.m.




                                                                                                                   272
                                         AGENDA
                            ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION
                         LONGMONT MUSEUM & CULTURAL CENTER
                                     400 QUAIL ROAD
                                      MARCH 11, 2010
                                     6:00 PM – 8:00 PM


         1.     Meeting Called to Order
         2.     Roll Call
         3.     Public Invited to be heard
         4.     Approval of February2010 minutes
         5.     Public Art Projects
                    A. Mile markers along McIntosh Lake
                    B. unisex restrooms (2) along St. Vrain greenway
                    C. Art on the Move 2010-11
                    D. LUAU
                    E. Uptown relocation

         6.      Maintenance/Conservation status report(Lauren)
         7.      Election of Officers
         8.      Executive Committee Report
               A.      Police/Fire Department project
         9.      Outreach Task Force report
         10.     Administrator’s report
               A. Fire/Police Dept project – status
               B. New City projects
               C. New Business

         11.    Commissioners’ comments
         12.    Adjourn



Please note: if someone needs special assistance in order to participate in the meeting they may
contact Lauren Greenfield, AIPP Administrator at 303.651.8924 to make arrangements.




                                                                                                   273
                                  AGENDA

                     Board of Environmental Affairs
                            Water Conference Room
                            Service Center Complex
                            1100 S. Sherman Street

                               March 17, 2010
                             3:00 – 5:00 p.m.

Allotted
 Time      Item
 (min)       #    Description
             1    Roll call; determination of a quorum
      2      2    Approval of March 17, 2010 minutes
      3      3    Agenda revisions
      5      4    Public invited to be heard
     45      5    Follow-up on Radon
                      a. Update on building code changes and inspection
                          requirements for radon mitigation Chris
                           Allison, Chief Building Official
                      b. Summary of Boulder County radon programs- Cal
                          Youngberg
                      c. Review Richard Juday’s presentation and
                          recommendations from 3/17 and discuss next steps
                          Board and Staff
                      d. Discussion about public education strategies Board
                          and Staff
     45      6    Discussion of possible BEA activities or projects for 2010

     10      7    Matters from the Board

     10      8    Matters from Staff
                   Integrated Sustainability Plan Update
                   Results of watershed emerging contaminants study
                   Stormwater annual report to State

       - 9        Adjourn




                                                                               274
                                                           General Employees’ Retirement Board
                                                                    Old Hire Fire Board
                                                                   Old Hire Police Board
                                                                    Study Session Room
                                                                 February 19, 2010 - 10 am
  1.      Roll:
GERP Board:                              Old Hire Fire Board:                     Old Hire Police Board:                  Other Attendees:
x    Gordon Pedrow                 x     Mayor Baum                        x      Mayor Baum                          x     Peter Mustien
     Tony Brewer                   x     Council Member Santos             x      Council Member Santos               x     Scott Middleton
x    Kerry Felix                   x     Jack Whisman                             Roger Mauck
x    Alisa Darrow                  x     Bob Carlson                       x      James Stritchko
x    Wes Lowrie                          Richard Hayes                     x      Jim Peterson
x    Jim Golden                    x     Jim Golden                        x      Jim Golden
x    Bill Powell
Handouts: Innovest Portfolio Solutions performance review; capital market review and asset allocation report.
                                                                        Minutes
                                                                                                                                              Due
Topic           Summary                                                                                      Action   Follow-up               Date
Approval of     Jim introduced Bill Powell, a new member to the general employees’ board. Another
minutes         new member in attendance is Mayor Bryan Baum, who is on the old hire boards.                 Motion
                                                                                                             passed
                Jim asked for approval of minutes from 11/12/09 if there were no questions or
                comments. Gordon made a motion to approve, Wes seconded. All approved.


Agenda          Jim said annually, the board has to set a posting place for agendas. It’s historically       Motion
Posting place   been the vestibule at the west side entrance to the civic center. Wes made a motion to       passed
for 2010        approve the same location, Gabe seconded. All approved.

                                                                                                             Motion   None
Investment      Scott Middleton and Peter Mustein covered the performance review and asset                   passed
review by       allocation study prepared by Innovest Portfolio Solutions.
Scott                                                                                                        Motion   None
Middleton       Scott said he and Peter plan to cover a lot of ground today. First they will cover the       passed
and Peter       five year outlook for capital markets, then they will review an asset allocation study and
Mustein         lastly, performance data for the plan.

                Scott reviewed the five year outlook. As an investment consultant firm, Scott said part
                of their duty is to look for opportunities as well as risks. The cornerstone of strategic
                planning is expectations and time horizons. The economic outlook drives their

  1 of 6                                                                                                                                             275
             projections. They evaluate the current environment and economic outlook for the US
             and other major industrial countries; then they examine the relationship between the
             economy and asset class performance patterns. Finally, they test projections for
             reasonable results. Scott reviewed some graphs depicting historical market returns.

             The current economic environment. The Fed has been doing all it can, major fiscal
             stimulus is still underway. Growth returned in the second half of 2009, but employment
             probably will not revive until the second half of 2010. Steep recoveries often follow
             steep recessions. However, financial recoveries are usually slow, so expect a
             subdued recovery. Lower oil prices offer some cushion.

             Economic theory says inflation has to take off. Unprecedented global monetary
             stimulus. Interest rates are at historic lows; commodity prices are itching to rise at the
             first sign of growth. The dollar should weaken furthering pressure on inflation. The
             practical reality is inflation is a very real threat and may be three to five years off.
             Interest rates may rise sharply without a surge in inflation. Commodity prices
             represent a wildcard threat in a shorter term, particularly a supply-side disruption.

             Themes to explore with the 2010 expectations. Inflation is no longer negative in 2010,
             equity may have used up its bounce and treasury yields are very low; spreads have to
             come back substantially.

             Investor considerations: Fixed income, active management and liquidity were
             highlighted as major themes. Strategic asset allocation and tolerance for risk are
             crucial. Scott reviewed some new strategies such as opportunities in fixed income,
             hedged equities, distressed debt, direct real estate and liquid low-correlated hedge
             funds. They are looking for diversified income streams that may help protect capital in
             a rising rate environment.

Asset        Asset Allocation Review: On page eight is the asset allocation pie chart and
Allocation   distribution of assets. They believe the stock market will continue to do well, but not at
Review       the pace it has been. Scott reviewed the cumulative performance return chart and risk
             versus return chart. Last year they really liked high yield bonds because they were
             giving high returns with relatively low risk.

             Real estate going forward isn’t expected to be as good as it was last year. In fact, they
             expect it to be off quite a bit going forward. Real estate historically lags stocks quite a
             lot in a recovery period. Commercial real estate average increase in value has been
             more modest, about 2%.

             Basically, forward looking opportunities are more important. If you really look at the
             second bullet point, diversification is essential. Hotels, apartments, etc. managers that
             they have tapped into that asset class are creating opportunity. They buy properties

  2 of 6                                                                                                   276
         with a pool of money and allow investors to share in that; more diversification than the
         normal REIT. Every other asset class has pretty much rebounded, so there isn’t as
         much opportunity to get in traditional products. As for an entry point into this product,
         the prices are dramatically lower right now. Scott suggested the board perhaps
         consider putting a portion of the portfolio in one of these pools of money in direct real
         estate. He said he will cover it more in depth during the asset allocation review. Scott
         said that was a high level view of the capital markets presentation and asked for
         questions.

         Gordon asked about the recommendation to add the direct real estate and how soon
         they recommend we act. Scott said, first of all, they model what portion would be
         reasonable to add and types of products they have done their due diligence on. They
         like the managers with lower debt and a long term perspective. Appropriate to look at
         candidates as far as timing, the next three to six months would be optimum.

         Jim asked him to contrast that with a REIT product we are currently in. Real Estate
         Investment Trusts trade like a stock and move more like a stock. For example, REITs
         over the last year have come up in price dramatically because expectations are that
         real estate is going to rebound. They aren’t as attractive now because they’ve already
         rebounded. Listed REITS trade on stock exchanges, non traded REITS don’t. Their
         expenses tend to be high and aren’t very liquid. These pools of assets in private
         partnerships are really what most defined benefit plans our size have. Scott said they
         like to see a product with lower expenses that adds diversification. Jim asked why this
         wasn’t a consideration when we added the ING Global REIT to the plan, not that long
         ago. Scott agreed it wasn’t that long ago, but the environment has changed since
         then.

         Scott said let’s take a look at the asset allocation report and see what changes in
         expectations have done to the plan going forward. For those who have been through
         this exercise before, let’s look at page 2, they have taken last ten years and look for a
         pattern. There is no individual asset class that is always at the top. A lot of investors
         diversify because of that. To graph that concept, they’ve added a balanced portfolio
         mix in black that is the traditional balanced portfolio. You can see it becomes more
         stable than most other assets classes. They put a diversified balance mix in there as
         well and you can see the broader your diversification is, the more the returns are
         smoothed out. Page five shows all the asset classes; standard deviation and
         correlations.

         Page six shows our IPS and our current mix and potential 2010 alternatives; mix 1, mix
         2 and mix 3. They are projecting a more modest return on investments. They have
         several different scenarios to look at with different percentages in different asset
         classes.


3 of 6                                                                                               277
         To reach higher expected returns, we would need to take on larger position in
         international and large cap and they aren’t recommending that; in fact, that is what has
         happened to PERA. To reach more aggressive returns, they don’t see taking on a lot
         more risk. But, in order to potentially gain more returns with less downside risk, there
         are limited options for doing that. When they model reducing REIT exposure to zero
         and adding real estate, it does bring up the return without dramatically increasing risk.

         Scott said if the board is willing to consider direct real estate in the portfolio, it could
         enhance the portfolio over the next 5 to 10 years. It adds more return and less risk.
         Increasing returns going forwards is challenging, this is a modest way to potentially do
         that. The IPS would need a slight change in wording to the REIT definition.

         Jim asked for questions. Gordon said he is having trouble understanding the concern
         Scott expressed about the portfolio and liquidity. Jim said it’s a small percentage of
         the total package, liquidity of one investment by itself is an issue; but they aren’t saying
         the plan isn’t liquid as a whole. Scott said a lot of assets in some plans were not liquid
         and they aren’t recommending we put a high percentage of our assets in that type of
         fund.

         Direct real estate is when physical properties are owned by a pool of investors. They
         are responsible for management of the property or hiring a property manager to do it.
         Some of these investor pools own hotels, apartment buildings, shopping centers. They
         are highly occupied with stable rent inflow. Investors share in the income.

         Bryan said it seems like if you are going from a regular REIT to an unregulated
         situation with direct real estate then it is a major difference. He said he’s a little bit
         troubled by that philosophy and he believes more in the traditional type of REIT. Non
         traded REITs and the value of the real estate are some of the issues. It takes large
         sums of money to be invested in real estate in the market. This is something that he’s
         been focused on for a number of years. Right now, the situation is the limit on Freddie
         Mac, FHA and Frannie Mae. He said there is a lot to retail which is out of favor right
         now. The valuation of real estate and speculation and the lack of equity in a particular
         entity or anything under 50% are in trouble right now based on regulation. REIT’s are
         picking up under valued assets and buying them cheap. He sees real estate as being
         a stronger asset class then some of the others. He has some expertise in this area
         and thought he’d add that. He’d like to see less in large cap, but he thinks that real
         estate has more opportunity then what they are saying. Jim asked them to show the
         risk and the over all volatility if we increase our allocation to REIT’s. Scott said part of
         their concern is primarily in the long term; especially if interest rates rise and slow
         down real estate. Financing may also tighten.

         There was discussion between Bryan and Scott on commodities and real estate
         investing. The board asked Scott and Peter to bring back more comparative analysis

4 of 6                                                                                                  278
              regarding REIT’s and Direct real estate to review in a month.

              Peter reviewed the quarterly performance report starting with Headwinds: New supply
Quarterly     of treasuries spiked to an all time high of $1.5 trillion in 2009 up from $340 billion in
Performance   2008. The fiscal 2009 US deficit totaled nearly 12% of GDP. GMAC received an
Report        additional $3.5 billion in funding and the federal government lifted a $400 billion cap on
              support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Unemployment rose by .2% in the quarter to
              finish the year at 10%. The US economy lost nearly five million jobs in 2009;
              historically when the unemployment rate has fallen after recessions it has done so at
              an average rate of 1% per year. Consumer confidence is wary of job prospects and
              health of the economy. Weak holiday sales, but higher than last year.

              The US equity market is long overdue for a correction; from March 9 to December 31
              the S&P 500 rose 67.8%. Investors are concerned about the potential rise in long term
              inflation. Commercial real estate values and financing have not begun to recover.
              Concerns about possible defaults hit government bond investors in Greece, Spain and
              Ireland.

              On the brighter side, tail winds: Economic growth appears to be accelerating, due to a
              jump from most cyclical areas including autos, housing and business equipment
              inventories. Most economists forecast GDP to grow to 2010 by 2.5 to 3%. Housing
              starts were 28% higher than lows in early 2009. Several large banks repaid
              outstanding TARP funds including Bank of American ($45 billion) and Wells Fargo
              ($25 billion). Core inflation remained tame (excluding food and energy). Low factory
              utilization and high unemployment should constrain inflationary pressures. The Fed
              remained convinced that the inflation threat is low. Short-term interest rates are likely
              to remain low for most of 2010 to support a growing economy. In anticipation of higher
              income tax rates, investors poured over $72 billion into municipal bond funds in 2009.
              Interest rates on tax-free bonds were at 40 year lows at the beginning of the quarter.

              Current economic environment indicates a recovery. Indication that we’ve pulled out of
              the recession; one of the worst recessions in history and paralleled the Great
              Depression. There is still a weak lending environment, unless a big spike in oil prices,
              inflation should remain tame.

              Page seven is the investment policy statement and how our portfolio is allocated. This
              was also shown in the asset allocation study listed by strategic allocation and
              performance benchmarks. Page eight is a summary of assets in the plan at 9/30/09
              and 12/31/09.

              Page nine is performance of the plan; page ten shows benchmarks and how the total
              fund did compared to the custom benchmark. The plan out performed the benchmark
              and realized the benefit of diversification by out performing with less risk.

  5 of 6                                                                                                   279
              Another facet that drove returns last year was a low quality bias. That is not
              uncommon, what happens is that low quality loans that were hit the hardest, bounced
              back the highest. i.e. Ford Motor Credit wasn’t in trouble last year, but had lower
              returns at year end compared to companies that received bail out funds and had more
              room to “bounce back”.

              There were no concerns on the report card for the managers. Page 16 is the watch
              list; there are a couple concerns going back to rolling three year periods, but they are
              comfortable with those managers at this time. Peter briefly reviewed the performance
              data on each manager; all the managers did really well with no concerns.

              Jim wanted to go back and ask about rebalancing and do we need to do that or were
              they waiting for the asset allocation results. Scott said the only asset class that is off
              target a bit is fixed income. Normally, they don’t like to rebalance too often in order to
              keep the costs down unless it is way out of target range and this one is still close to it.

              Jim asked if they can show what is driving our returns for the whole account. Peter
              said he didn’t know if they could do that, really what they are isolating is manager
              selection and underlying funds. How would the asset classes perform on their own if
              just in the index, so the custom benchmark is in the 22 percentile so if there were no
              active managers, performance would have been what our custom benchmark is. Jim
              said yes, but what style is driving most of the return or can it be isolated? Peter said
              he didn’t think they could isolate it. Jim said it’s like the high yield decision and how
              much of that decision is driving our returns now. Jim said he’s not asking about a
              specific manager, he just wants to see style difference, but if it’s not something you do
              normally, don’t worry about it, he was just curious.

              They will get back to Jim about scheduling a meeting for real estate.

Adjournment   The meeting adjourned at 11:30 am.                                                            Follow up with meeting on       March
                                                                                                            REITS and direct real estate.   2010




  6 of 6                                                                                                                                            280
1                           HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
2                                          Minutes
3                                      February 11, 2010
4
5    The February 11, 2010 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by
6    Chairperson Stefanie O’Malley at 5:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
7
8    1. Roll call

 9   Roll call: Present were Commissioners Kimberly Schulte, Peter Carey, Ryan Kragerud, Ruth
10   Sanders, Stefanie O’Malley, Teena Taylor, and Elizabeth Record. Also present were
11   Councilmember Sarah Levison and staff liaison Brien Schumacher. Commissioners Eric
12   Hozempa and Ted Hoeffer III were absent.
13
14   2. Introduction of guests
15
16   Applicants present were:
17
18   Dan Swanson – 1019 3rd Avenue
19   Donald Potratz – 1249 3rd Avenue
20   Grady Huff - 400 Main Street and 522 4th Avenue (Flatirons Bank)
21   Janet Katchuk - 400 Main Street and 522 4th Avenue (Flatirons Bank)
22
23   3. Approval of December 10, 2009 minutes
24
25   Commissioner Kragerud had a question on line 13 page 5 for Commissioner Sanders – did that
26   characterize the conversation “original windows should be preserved at almost all cost”?
27   Commissioner Sanders asked that the wording be changed to highest priority. Commissioner
28   Kragerud moved approval of the December 10, 2009 minutes as corrected. The motion was
29   approved unanimously.
30
31   Approval of the January 7, 2010 minutes
32
33   Commissioner Kragerud moved approval of the January 7, 2010 minutes as submitted.
34   The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carey and approved unanimously.
35
36   4. Report from Chairperson
37
38   No report.
39
40   5. Communications from the HPC staff liaison
41
42   The City was awarded approximately $25,000 for a Certified Local Government Grant for
43   additional survey work in 2010. The City will be moving forward with an RFP for bids. The
44   survey work will occur in the area between 9th and 11th Avenues and between Kimbark and
45   Alta/Pratt Streets, as well as the old Longmont High School, the old train depot at 2nd Avenue &
46   Main Street, the Castle Gas Station at Mountain View Avenue and Main Street, and the Harvey’s
47   Bakery building at 11th Avenue and Rodriquez Court. The survey work needs to be completed
48   by June, 2011.
49

                                                                                                        281
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 11, 2010 Minutes
     Page 2 of 8

 1   In conjunction with the grant work kickoff, Brien suggested conducting an open house in
 2   association with Historic Preservation Month in May to help to educate people of what’s being
 3   done and why. If the Commissioners have any additional suggestions for Historic Preservation
 4   Month, please forward them to Brien.
 5
 6   Brien distributed information about the St. Stephens Church administrative certificate of
 7   appropriateness and LDDA grant for replacement of two exterior doors.
 8
 9   6. Public invited to be heard
10
11   No public present.
12
13   7. Prior Business
14
15   A.      1019 3rd Avenue (George W. Booth House) request for a certificate of
16           appropriateness for a local historic landmark
17
18   On December 10, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed applications for
19   a certificate of appropriateness and preliminary state income tax credit for rehabilitation work on
20   this local historic landmark. The HPC approved the preliminary state income tax credit
21   application, excluding the proposed vinyl garden window and those kitchen appliances not
22   permanently installed – those items considered by the state as non-qualified costs.
23
24   The HPC deferred action on the certificate of appropriateness application for the vinyl garden
25   window and asked the applicant to consider an alternative window construction or design that is
26   more in keeping with the historic nature of the home.
27
28   The applicant contacted window specialists at Lowe’s and Budget Home Center regarding
29   alternative garden window materials. The applicant was informed that wood garden windows are
30   not available because they leak, and aluminum clad garden windows are not available.
31
32   The proposed exterior alteration includes replacement of a kitchen window on the east side of the
33   house. The owner is proposing to replace the window with a vinyl dual pane garden window.
34   The owner indicated that the existing window has broken counter weights and will not stay open,
35   it is a single pane window with an aluminum storm window, and the window was installed
36   higher on the wall because of an unusually high countertop height.
37
38   Dan Swanson has been in the G.W. Booth house for seven years and has taken the initiative to
39   register the home as a historic landmark. The family has invested approximately $50,000 in the
40   house and is now looking at a kitchen remodel. Part of this project is to replace the broken
41   kitchen window. Mr. Swanson presented images of his house on the projector which captured
42   the history of the upgrades made to the home.
43
44   Along with the kitchen remodel, the family would like to install a garden window. Per Budget
45   Home Center and Lowe’s, wooden garden windows are no longer available due to problems with
46   the design. A bay window is an alternative but there is only 30” of existing window opening to


                                                     2                                                     282
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 11, 2010 Minutes
     Page 3 of 8

 1   work with and a minimum of 48” is required for a bay window. Mr. Swanson hoped that the
 2   Commissioners might have some thoughts about acceptable alternatives.
 3
 4   Commissioner O’Malley noted that Kolbe Sash and Doors in Fort Collins carries wooden garden
 5   windows. Commissioner O’Malley commented that one of the things that she’s having trouble
 6   with is that the materials are not historically compatible even though the window would not be
 7   highly visible from the public right-of-way. Per Mr. Swanson, the window would be visible
 8   from the public right-of-way since it protrudes at an angle. It would, however, be trimmed out in
 9   red as the rest of the windows are.
10
11   Commissioner Kragerud reiterated that he doesn’t feel that the window detracts from the overall
12   integrity of the house. The garden window would not be located in a highly visible location.
13   When this project was reviewed for the tax credit, Commissioner Kragerud noted that the
14   window doesn’t meet the standards for the tax credit. When certificate of appropriateness
15   applications are considered, there is some latitude of how the HPC interprets the criteria
16   standards so that projects can be tailored to homes in old town Longmont. Down the road, if
17   someone would like to remove the window, they could do so without damaging the exterior of
18   the home.
19
20   Commissioner Carey noted that if it was an original window, he would have more reservations.
21   If the rough opening can be maintained as part of the criteria of approval, in the future, it could
22   be replaced and returned to a historic-style window.
23
24   Commissioner Sanders believes that the window is very visible and a vinyl garden window
25   doesn’t fit in with the character of the home.
26
27   Pubic Hearing Opened.
28
29   Don Potratz – 1234 3rd Avenue – He has done an extensive amount of research on windows and
30   Kolbe produces excellent products that are historically accurate reproductions. It is worth
31   investigating.
32
33   Public Hearing Closed.
34
35   Commissioner Carey made a motion that the owner of 1019 3rd Avenue investigates the
36   option of utilizing Kolbe windows. This project could then be brought back to the next
37   HPC meeting to consider different window options. There was no second to the motion.
38
39   Commissioner Kragerud made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for
40   1019 3rd Avenue. Commissioner Schulte made a friendly amendment that would require
41   the size of the original opening be maintained. Commissioner Schulte seconded the motion.
42   Motion passed 5-2 with Commissioner Sanders and Commissioner O’Malley opposing.
43
44   8. New Business
45
46   New Business
47

                                                     3                                                     283
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 11, 2010 Minutes
     Page 4 of 8

 1   A.      1249 3rd Avenue (B. F. Flemming House) request for preliminary approval of a state
 2           income tax credit for a contributing property in the West Side Historic District
 3
 4   Donald Potratz and Leslie Lewis have applied for preliminary approval of a state income tax
 5   credit for rehabilitation work at 1249 3rd Avenue. This property was considered to be a
 6   contributing property in the West Side Historic District when surveyed in 1986. Although the
 7   property is not a local historic landmark, it is considered eligible for designation. The property
 8   owner has indicated that they are considering designation of their property as a landmark.
 9
10   Proposed alterations include restoration, repair, improvements and/or replacement of existing
11   windows. This includes construction of custom-fitted wooden storm windows for all of the
12   windows that have been previously or are being repaired and restored with this project. Three
13   basement hopper windows are proposed to be replaced with awning windows. The basement
14   windows being replaced are not original and the wood has rotted. The applicant has provided a
15   preliminary project cost estimate of $29,950.
16
17   The proposed window repair, restoration, and replacement are considered a qualified
18   rehabilitation activity eligible for the tax credit.
19
20   Don Protratz noted that the project is basically total restoration of the windows which will be
21   taken out, reglazed, painted with a color consistent with the outside color, and the cotton cords
22   replaced. Most of the hardware would be maintained. The custom made storm windows would
23   go on the original hooks and would be 100% wood with insulating E-glass.
24
25   Public Hearing Opened
26
27   No public present.
28
29   Public Hearing Closed
30
31   Commissioner Kragerud and Chairperson O’Malley thanked the applicant for the process that
32   they are going through and noted that the window restoration process is exactly how things
33   should be done. Commissioner Kragerud believes that this home is Longmont’s only example
34   Craftsmen Transitional period of architecture.
35
36   Councilmember Levison added that craftsmen that specialize in this type of window restoration
37   should be kept track of and references made available for future projects.
38
39   Commissioner Kragerud made a motion to approve the preliminary State Tax Credit for
40   1249 3rd Avenue. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
41
42   B.      400 Main & 522 4th Avenue (Historic Longmont National Bank Building) request
43           for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for a local historic landmark
44
45   Flatirons Bank has applied for a certificate of appropriateness for the tenant improvements at 522
46   4th Avenue. The 400 Main Street and 522 4th Avenue property was approved as a local historic


                                                     4                                                    284
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 11, 2010 Minutes
     Page 5 of 8

 1   landmark in 2004. The certificate of appropriateness application is related only to exterior
 2   modifications to the building. The bank is also proposing interior renovations to the building.
 3
 4   The proposed exterior alternations include the installation of storefront windows, a night deposit
 5   box, window awnings, lighting fixtures, signage, and painting of the metal trim. The building
 6   entrance location will not change. The new storefront windows would be consistent with the
 7   other storefront windows on the building and would be located where storefront windows were
 8   previously in place prior to being bricked over.
 9
10   Grady Huff, 10619 N. 65th Street, Designer Architect for this project – This building originally
11   was Longmont National Bank and had a full length parapet. Through time, it was modified to a
12   step-in façade. Originally, in the right-hand corner, there were windows and awnings (in the
13   alley as well), that have been bricked over.
14
15   The proposal for the exterior façade is to leave the original window penetrations that are
16   currently there, leave the stained glass, and to add awnings. The left-hand west side would be
17   returned back to window facades down to the grade and awnings above with an infill on the
18   awning utilized. All horizontal lines would be continued salvaging all original metal work and
19   brick work. Only original bricks will be re-used; no new bricks. The color and shape of the
20   awnings is derived from the bank logo. In keeping form with the historical nature of the
21   building, the awnings used to drape very long onto the window glazing. The proposed awnings
22   will be an abstracted form of this but still maintain the solar value and block the south sun.
23
24   Commissioner Kragerud asked if the signage will be plastic backlit for the lettering as well as the
25   logo. Per Mr. Huff, the Flatirons Bank letters will be internally illuminated plastic face and the
26   logo will be externally illuminated.
27
28   Commissioner Kragerud asked if Mr. Huff has discussed with his client a sign that would be lit
29   with lamps in the older style since this is more of a pedestrian area. This would add more of a
30   historical feel to the lettering and signage. Mr. Huff looked at Ziggi’s sign and matched the
31   exact size. Per the sign standards for the downtown, there is 40 square feet allowed for the sign
32   and the proposed sign is 39 square feet; most of which is the logo. The site line from Main
33   Street was also a consideration. The logo sign itself will be externally illuminated with light
34   fixtures on arms. There will also be a light fixture above the night deposit box with an antique
35   character. The awnings will not be illuminated.
36
37   Commissioner Carey really appreciates what they are doing. The renderings really help to
38   evaluate the building. It appears in the photos compared to the proportions shown for the
39   building that the stained glass clear story window is much taller than what is shown in the
40   illustration. It appears to detract from what is really there. Mr. Huff has an accurate scaled as-
41   built drawing over the photo and rendering which is available for review. Commissioner Cary
42   also noticed that the steel band across the top on the historic photos has buttons marching all
43   along it and that they are missing from the rendering. Mr. Huff is hoping not to even touch the
44   band. The band and the windows will match the existing color.
45




                                                     5                                                     285
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 11, 2010 Minutes
     Page 6 of 8

 1   Commissioner Taylor noted that the brick to the left in the area where the night deposit box will
 2   be appears to be filled in and doesn’t match the rest. Per Mr. Huff, all brick used will be existing
 3   brick.
 4
 5   Commissioner Carey doesn’t understand where these new proportions from the window base
 6   come into play; they don’t seem to respect the traditional openings. Why can’t the bay be
 7   repeated? The stairs are in the way, but he doesn’t see what they need to be accessed from both
 8   sides. He suggested that the east side of the stairs be terminated so that the window bay can be
 9   pushed over to create four equal proportions for the windows. Mr. Huff would need to enter into
10   negotiations with Ziggi’s since the steps are used by them.
11
12   Commissioner Carey’s first thought is that the project looks like an ‘80’s strip mall; partly
13   because the rhythm is chopped up in the rendering. The awnings should come down to the
14   muntin location where there were historically. The awnings should be paired and striped like
15   they were historically. Per Mr. Huff, from a branding standpoint, striped awnings wouldn’t
16   match Flatiron’s Bank. Per Brien, the City is trying to keep things consistent according to the
17   Downtown Design Guidelines and to keep the historical character associated with the awnings.
18
19   Commissioner Kragerud noted that the Dicken’s Opera House recently installed operable
20   awnings which are a great example of appropriate awnings. The awnings should closely
21   resemble the historic awnings and then let the Downtown Development Authority dictate what
22   they would like to see in terms of the downtown design guidelines. Color is not the issue.
23
24   Mr. Huff is willing to return with details on what it would look like with the awnings connected.
25   He will need to check with the FDIC to make sure that night deposit box can be installed in a
26   store front. Regarding the stairs, this lies in the negotiations with the Ziggi tenant to see if they
27   can be modified. If we’re going to keep the stairs as is, how do we transition from a glass door
28   front with a concrete step coming in front of it? Mr. Huff can bring back a drawing that is an
29   overlay that shows as-built dimensions so there is no ambiguity of the façade itself.
30
31   Commissioner Carey routed his version of a drawing that depicted two longer awnings spanning
32   the four windows.
33
34   Commissioner Kragerud asked that the FDIC propose an alternate location for the night deposit
35   box if it’s not allowed to be within the store front; possibly in the alley with a bright light. Mr.
36   Huff doesn’t believe that the bank would consider a drop box in an alley due to safety reasons.
37
38   Commissioner Carey made a motion (Commissioner Carey sketch entered as Exhibit A)
39   that for 522 4th Avenue the Commission asks that the applicant maintain the proportions of
40   the historic window base and approach the awnings in a similar manner as the sketch
41   provided. Metal infill for the night deposit box and side window where the stairs are
42   currently located would be an acceptable alternative if a compromise cannot be reached
43   with Ziggi’s to remove that portion of the stairs. Commissioner Kragerud seconded the
44   motion.
45




                                                      6                                                      286
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 11, 2010 Minutes
     Page 7 of 8

 1   Discussion – Commissioner Sanders asked for clarification if the HPC is asking for the applicant
 2   to change the plans before they vote yes or no to accommodate Exhibit A? The applicant doesn’t
 3   know if they can accommodate Exhibit A because of the night deposit box issues.
 4
 5   Commissioner Carey proposed that the Commission moves forward with the motion and the
 6   applicant could do some quick homework and get back to the Commissioners early next week
 7   with a sketch that represents the changes to the best of his ability.
 8
 9   Councilmember Levison suggested conducting a short special meeting to go over the additional
10   information to satisfy the requirement of transparency of a public hearing and voting in public.
11   Everyone is concerned about the applicant’s timeline as well as the Commission doing their due
12   diligence. Per Brien, this public hearing could be continued without re-notice. A special
13   meeting could be conducted next week depending upon the schedule of the Commission.
14
15   Commissioner Sanders would feel more comfortable not voting on something that could cause
16   the applicant to have a real problem on their hands. Mr. Huff noted that they could do their
17   homework and prepare by mid next week. Brien will check meeting room availability for
18   Thursday, February 18 at 5:00 pm.
19
20   Commissioner Carey retracted his motion.
21
22   Commissioner Kragerud made a motion to continue this public hearing to Thursday,
23   February 18. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
24
25   Commissioner Kragerud thanked Flatirons Bank for their investment in the downtown area.
26
27   9. Comments from HPC Commissioners
28
29   Commissioner Kragerud asked that when the RFP is put out for the survey, please make sure that
30   a GIS component is included so that there’s a digital file of the surveys.
31
32   Chairperson O’Malley has window information for next month’s packet. The research that’s
33   been done between replacement windows and restored windows shows that the restored windows
34   are just as energy efficient and that replacement windows don’t last as long and aren’t made of as
35   good of a quality of wood.
36
37   Brien added that if other Commissioners have information from the conference that they would
38   like to share, please pass along to Brien and he will distribute to the Commissioners.
39
40   Commissioner Schulte attended the conference and the meetings that she sat in on were fantastic.
41   Look up Lake City, Colorado online to see what they have done and how they have promoted
42   their city through their historical assets. It’s worth Longmont looking in to. Thank you for
43   sending her. In the current issue of This Old House Magazine, there is an article on windows –
44   replacement windows, how to repair windows, etc. She will submit to Brien to share. Also, the
45   National Preservation Website has a 10-12 page article on historic windows.
46
47   10. Comments from Councilmember Levison

                                                     7                                                    287
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 11, 2010 Minutes
     Page 8 of 8

 1
 2   Councilmember Levison attended both days at the conference. Friday afternoon she was unable
 3   to attend a talk entitled Pueblo’s Eastside Neighborhood – Beyond Poverty with Preservation
 4   Planning. Due to the recent focus on some of the more humble houses in north Longmont, she
 5   would have loved to hear the talk. Commissioner Hoeffer knows the speaker and he suggested
 6   that the speaker come to Longmont to make a presentation. This could be done in conjunction
 7   with Historic Preservation Month. At the conference, Councilmember Levison listened in on a
 8   case study from Boulder which centered on tax credits. If you combine the federal and state tax
 9   credits along with energy savings, you could almost get back 30-40% on construction costs.
10
11   Councilmember Levison noted that there is a true link between sustainability and historic
12   preservation particularly associated with the sustainability policy. There is a compelling case to
13   be made to speak with the Board of Environmental Affairs who has done the Green Points
14   Program to possibly accommodate the idea historic preservation being part of Green Points. She
15   suggested that staff work with Ron Shaw, Sustainability Coordinator, around historic
16   preservation and sustainability.
17
18   Chairperson O’Malley sat in on a talk about oral history from the people that live in homes in the
19   communities and also the people that live around the area. Survey L.A. has a form that people
20   could fill out about their memories of buildings around town. This information could be
21   combined with the survey data.
22
23   11. Adjournment – Commissioner Carey made a motion to adjourn at 6:35. Commissioner
24   Kragerud seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
25
26   Respectfully Submitted,
27
28
29
30   Stefanie O’Malley
31   HPC Chairperson
32
33   /cm




                                                     8                                                    288
1                           HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
2                                   Special Meeting Minutes
3                                      February 18, 2010
4
5    The February 18, 2010 Special Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to
6    order by Chairperson Stefanie O’Malley at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
7
8    1. Roll call

 9   Roll call: Present were Commissioners Kimberly Schulte, Peter Carey, Ryan Kragerud, Ruth
10   Sanders, Stefanie O’Malley, Ted Hoeffer III, Alternate Teena Taylor, and Alternate Elizabeth
11   Record. Also present was Sr. Planner Brien Schumacher. Eric Hozempa and Council Liaison
12   Sara Levison were absent.
13
14   2. Introduction of guests
15
16   Grady Huff – Studio Lemonade
17   Janet Katchuck – Frontier Bank
18   Eric Smith – Architect of Record for Frontier Bank
19   Paul Kelly – Longmont Signs
20   Mary Murphy-Bessler – Executive Director for Longmont Downtown Development Authority
21
22   3. Report from Chairperson
23
24   No report.
25
26   4. Communications from the HPC staff liaison
27
28   No communications.
29
30   5. Public invited to be heard
31
32   No public comments
33
34   6. Prior Business
35
36   Previous business (the following item was continued from the February 11, 2010 meeting and
37   was previously noticed and posted as a public hearing). 400 Main & 522 4th Avenue (Historic
38   Longmont National Bank Building) request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for a
39   local historic landmark
40
41   Eric Smith, ESA Architects, 1919 – 7th Street, Boulder, Colorado – Thanked the Commission for
42   accommodating this special meeting. Mr. Smith presented a brief Power Point Presentation.
43
44   Night Drop – According to Mr. Smith, per the banking and insurance industries, the night drop
45   has to be on the street. Currently, the alley houses electric and gas meters, basement access, and
46   recycling/trash containers which also creates a problem.
47
48   Option 2 – Extends the awnings to the original metal column support on the left side of the beam
49   structure to the original brick column. The existing store front glazing will be maintained and

                                                                                                          289
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 18, 2010 Special Meeting Minutes
     Page 2 of 4

 1   the glass that’s underneath the awning will stay. The glass will be kept away from Ziggi’s stairs.
 2   A light has also been added.
 3
 4   Option 3 – Includes adding glazing on the far west side, tucking it back underneath Ziggi’s back
 5   stairs. This option is problematic since there is several access points right up against the glass.
 6   From a pedestrian perspective, there would not be much visual difference between the Option 2
 7   and Option 3.
 8
 9   Brien Schumacher spoke to Brandon Knutson, Owner of Ziggi’s. He expressed concern about
10   loosing the eastern portion of the back stairs as they are heavily used. Mr. Knutson is in full
11   support of the modifications that the bank is proposing.
12
13   Commissioner O’Malley asked about the potential liabilities with Option 3 with the glass panel
14   by the stairs. Per Mr. Smith, leaving the masonry in place, a rail system along the glass would
15   have to be developed and the glass would have to be tempered. Because the stairs will be
16   staying, there would be a gap behind the stairs where the glass drops behind which creates an
17   area that collects debris. Having a big glass panel would allow people be able to stand on the
18   landing and look down into the conference room. From a visual standpoint, a shadow will move
19   across the side of the south-facing building and having the glass so close to Ziggi’s glass door, it
20   would be better to retain a brick panel that would separate the entrances. There may be a
21   tendency for people to go in the wrong door if the glass is immediately adjacent to the door.
22
23   Commissioner O’Malley asked where the sign will be located. Per Mr. Smith, with the previous
24   drawings where the awning was gapped, there was a panel of brick that lined up dimensionally
25   with the size of the sign so it made sense to leave the sign in that location with the name trailing
26   off to the right. With the sign lined up and justified on the side, it may be more visible from
27   Main Street. The location of the sign is less of an issue for them than the façade improvements.
28
29   Commissioner Carey asked about the request for longer awnings. Per Mr. Smith, the concern is
30   that currently the awning starts at 9’. If we start lowering the awnings, they would interfere with
31   people being able to walk down Ziggi’s stairs so the right-hand awning would have to be raised.
32   It would look better to keep all of the awnings at the same height.
33
34   Commissioner Carey asked about the option for incorporating the deposit box into a store front
35   with a metal plate. Mr. Smith noted that installing a metal plate doesn’t help from an appearance
36   standpoint and the preference it to leave it secured in the masonry. Also considered was a
37   recessed entry with access from the side; however, the existing floor is wooden which brings the
38   outside over the top of an existing wood floor so it needs to be left as is.
39
40   Commissioner Carey asked if the existing masonry was part of the infill. Per Mr. Smith, there
41   were two separate infills; the infill on the west section and the infill that goes from the third
42   quadrant. There are three different types of brick. Commissioner Carey asked if the deposit box
43   installation would be done working with the existing infill brick. Per Mr. Smith, yes.
44
45   Commissioner Carey noted that the four equal proportions that represent the historic column
46   lines help. He agrees that if the awnings were lowered, they would interfere with the stairs.
47

                                                      2                                                     290
     Historic Preservation Commission
     February 18, 2010 Special Meeting Minutes
     Page 3 of 4

 1   Chairperson O’Malley noted that Option 2 is quite a bit different than what was originally
 2   submitted. Originally, the size of the windows weren’t equal. Per Mr. Smith, what we have now
 3   are equal windows.
 4
 5   Commissioner Kragerud asked if the awning return will it be a solid panel or will it be open so
 6   you can see into the underside of the awning? Per Mr. Smith, they think it should be closed as it
 7   is at Ziggi’s. If the sides aren’t closed off, nesting birds will become a problem.
 8
 9   Chairperson O’Malley noted that the awnings in the drawings have a much more modern feel
10   than Ziggi’s awnings. Per Mr. Smith, with Ziggi’s awnings the steel framework starts much
11   closer to the parapet and start at a much higher height at the top. We felt very strongly that with
12   the original steel beam, it’s important not to let the awnings start above the beam. Also reviewed
13   was combining the awnings; however, that approach would create an even more contemporary
14   look.
15
16   Commissioner Sanders likes Option 2 – there’s a symmetry there that is very pleasing. But, for
17   this Commission, the preservation of the stained glass that’s underneath and the preservation of
18   the architecture is what are important and Option 2 does accomplish this. Moving the sign over
19   to the left gives a whole different feel. It even changes the way the extraneous exit door at
20   Ziggi’s looks – it doesn’t look so bare. She really appreciates that the applicants were willing to
21   work with this and provide a more accurate rendering.
22
23   Public Hearing Opened
24
25   Mary Murphy-Bessler, LDDA – Thank you for allowing the applicant to come back so quickly.
26   She applauds them for coming back with a proposal that is doable and still honors what the
27   Commissioners interests are for this building. With commercial building renovations, things are
28   different than home renovations. We are in a different era from when the building was built
29   which requires that the look and appeal be different than what it was 100 years ago. She agrees
30   with keeping the integrity of the building and still honoring that the business is in 2010. Thank
31   you for your consideration and hopes that the Commissioners will support the project.
32
33   Public Hearing Closed
34
35   Commissioner Kragerud made a motion to approve Option 2 as presented. Commissioner
36   Hoeffer seconded the motion. Discussion – Commissioner Record asked if the sign will be
37   attached to the mortar versus the brick. Per Mr. Smith, yes. Commissioner Sanders asked if the
38   motion that’s on the table needs to incorporate a listing of the items that are being addressed with
39   Option 2. Commissioner Kragerud made a friendly amendment to the motion to approve Option
40   2 with staff’s recommendations. Passed unanimously.
41
42   Mr. Smith again thanked everyone for accommodating this item with a special hearing.
43
44   10. Adjournment – Commissioner Record made a motion to adjourn at 5:38. Commissioner
45   Kragerud seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
46
47

                                                      3                                                     291
    Historic Preservation Commission
    February 18, 2010 Special Meeting Minutes
    Page 4 of 4

1   Respectfully Submitted,
2
3
4
5   Stephanie O’Malley
6   HPC Chairperson
7
8   /cm




                                                4   292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
                              LONGMONT HOUSING AUTHORITY
                                REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING
                                        AGENDA
                              TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010
                                 8:30 AM TO 10:30 AM
                 LHA ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING, 1228 MAIN STREET
                           PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE REAR OF BUILDING OFF KIMBARK


1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2.  AGENDA REVISIONS AND SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
3.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 MEETING MINUTES
5.  PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD – ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
6.  REPORT FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – Program Updates
7.  EXECUTIVE SESSION – Section 24-6-402(4) (a) C.R.S. Executive Session for the purposes of
    discussing real estate and personnel matters.
8. NEW & OLD BUSINESS
9. BOARD COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
10. NEXT MEETING: APRIL 20, 2010 JOINT MEETING WITH LHDC
11. ADJOURN




 1228 Main St., Longmont, CO 80501, 303-651-8581, TDD: 303-651-8748, Fax: 303-682-2899 Office Hours 8am-5pm
                                                                                                              300
                   Longmont Housing and Human Services Advisory Board
                          Minutes of February 11, 2010 meeting

Members Present:   Alex Acosta, Joan Martin, Carlos Smith, Edward Evans, Eve Canfield, Leslie
                   Irwin, and Mary Vigil

Members Absent:    Heather Brandt and Deborah Cooper

Staff Present:     Karen Roney, Kathy Fedler, Molly McElroy, and Sally Raney

Agenda Item 1:     Call to Order: LHHSAB Chair Eve Canfield called the meeting to order at 6:05
                   p.m.

Agenda Item 2:     Approve minutes from the January 14, 2010 meeting: Leslie Irwin moved and
                   Carlos Smith seconded a motion to approve the minutes from the January 14,
                   2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 3:     Consider request to allow a Community Housing Program home to be rented:
                   Molly McElroy explained to the LHHSAB that a home owner has requested
                   permission to rent his home outside of the normal Rental Policy due to the
                   hardship of having lost his job and to prevent foreclosure. The homeowner has
                   tried to sell the property in the past, but has been unable to due to the price he has
                   had it listed at. He received permission once before to rent the home under the
                   Rental Policy. He is once again working with a real estate agent to list the
                   property, but cannot wait until the required time period has passed to be in
                   compliance with the Rental Policy.

                   Carlos Smith made a motion to allow rental of property with a one-year time limit
                   and then re-evaluate situation if property has not sold. Alex Acosta seconded the
                   motion. Passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 4:     Provide any final comments to the 2010 – 2014 Consolidated Plan: Kathy Fedler
                   informed the LHHSAB that the Consolidated is open to final comments until
                   February 15th.

Agenda Item 5:     Status report on El Comité’s contract compliance efforts: Karen Roney provided
                   the monthly status report. The agency has completed all requests, and is still on
                   schedule for compliance; however, there was a question about program
                   duplication. Karen will follow-up on this.

Agenda Item 6:     Discuss and provide input on possible approaches for the City’s proposed
                   Poverty Initiative: Karen Roney explained to the LHHSAB that the Poverty
                   presentation at the Council retreat was well received. Council is interested in
                   implementing a pilot program for the 2011 funding cycle but desires to continue
                   providing funding for safety net services as well. Staff has asked the LHHSAB to
                   partner with them in developing recommendations for City Council regarding
                   how to approach this pilot poverty initiative, as well as a recommended approach
                   for designating funding for safety net services. Staff has found a consultant from
                   CSU that utilizes a deliberative dialogue method for gathering community input
                   on complex public policy issues; we might want to access this resource to help
                   guide us through the community involvement process.
                                                                                                   301
                                             Page 1 of 2
LHHSAB Minutes
February 11, 2010
Page 2

                    LHHSAB commented that before it can develop recommendations for funding
                    safety net services, the poverty initiative approach needs to be determined first
                    since that will help designate funds needed for the pilot initiative, how funding
                    will be used for the pilot and what remains available for other areas.

                    The LHHSAB developed a preliminary timeline for the 2011 funding cycle to
                    incorporate community involvement . Due to the time constraints the LHHSAB
                    decided to form a subcommittee that will provide guidance and support through
                    the community involvement process. All LHHSAB members will be invited to
                    subcommittee meetings and can attend as they are able. The community
                    involvement/deliberative dialogue portion of the process is targeted for April.

Agenda Item 7:      Other business: None.

Agenda Item 8:      Adjournment: There being no other business to conduct Mary Vigil moved for
                    adjournment at 8:45 p.m. Joan Martin seconded the motion. Passed
                    unanimously.




                                                                                                    302
                                             Page 2 of 2
                                      MINUTES
                              LONGMONT LIBRARY BOARD
                         LONGMONT PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD ROOM
                                 409 FOURTH AVENUE
                             THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2010
                                      7:00 P.M.

The February 18, 2010, meeting of the Longmont Public Library Advisory Board was called to
order at 7:00 pm by Chairperson Joan Peck.


   1. Those present were members Joan Peck, Nancy Carter, Paula Watkins, and Genny
       Michaels; Library Director Judith Anderson, Administrative Analyst Linda Murchison
       and Council Liaison Katie Witt. Absent: Vicki McKinney.


   2. Approval of minutes
      The minutes of January 21, 2010 were approved as written.

   3. Business
         a. The Board welcomed Marcia who was a candidate for the Board during the last
            appointment. All three candidates responded to an invitation to attend a Board
            meeting, but the other two were unable to attend this meeting.

          b. Karen Roney, Director, Community Services, gave a presentation on the web site
             LifeLongmontLearning.com. A campaign to inform the citizens of Longmont of
             the uses and advantages of the web site will launch in March and continue for a
             year. The site will act as a clearing house for all types of learning experiences
             and opportunities in the City of Longmont. The campaign will run for a year. A
             kiosk with a dedicated computer will be located inside the front door of the
             Library by April. Board members asked questions and offered suggestions for
             publicity of the kiosk.

          c. Director Anderson distributed copies of two versions of a Library Week
             promotion piece she had written and asked for comments and opinions on the
             two versions. Suggestions were offered for the upcoming Library Week activities
             which should include opening the kiosk for LifeLongmontLearning.com

   4. Reports and information items.
        a. A report of the latest meeting of Friends of the Library was given by liaison
            Genny Michaels.

          b. Library Director’s report


                                                                                                 303
          January marked the start of PC reservations for patrons as well as pay for
          printing. As a result, less paper is being used and 1114 library cards were issued
          to patrons to enable them to reserve a PC.
          Phone tree is being prepared and will soon be operational.
          Children’s Librarian search is in its final stages.
          Half time Librarian I hired.
          Stimulus grand was not funded.
          Some additional underground parking spaces have been created for the public.
          The author of Tall Grass is planning a book signing in the Library. Some details
          still have to be worked out.

5. Public comments

    Marcia was the only non member present and she expressed her appreciation at being
    invited to attend a meeting.

6. Library Board comments
   No comments from Board members.

7. Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm. Next meeting will be March 18, 2010, at 7pm.

                                        Respectfully submitted,



                                        Nancy Carter
                                        Secretary



                                        Joan Peck
                                        Chairperson




                                                                                               304
                                   AGENDA
                          LONGMONT LIBRARY BOARD
                     LONGMONT PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD ROOM
                             409 FOURTH AVENUE
                           THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010
                                   7:00 P.M.
Meeting Called to Order

1.   Roll Call

2.   Approval of minutes
           The minutes of the February 18, 2010 meeting require approval.


3.   Business
     a.     Introduction of visitors

     b.     Strategic Plan: Request for input identifying goals and stakeholders

     c.     Review: Homebound Program
                    Library collections: materials selection and materials challenges


4.   Reports and information items
     a.     Friends of the Library Report.

     b.     Library Director’s report

5.   Public comments


6.   Library Board comments


7.   Adjournment




                                                                                        305
Opportunities for Community Awareness

January


February
Love of Reading Month

March
2nd and 3rd Read Across America and Dr. Seuss’ birthday
March 7-13 Teen Tech Week
Life Longmont Learning messaging campaign


April
April 11-17 National Library Week
       Letter to the editor
       Proclamation
?? Kick off for Life Longmont Learning kiosk in library
April 18-24 Volunteer Appreciation Week (we may celebrate this later in the year)


April/May
Apr 28 Friends annual meeting
Apr 29 - May 2 Friends Book sale
May 1 – 7 Boulder County Family Week
Release of Library Annual Report

June
June 1 Children / Tween / Teen summer reading program begins
Children / Tween / Teen programming (4 programs/week)
“Longmont’s Reading” adult summer reading book and programs begin
       Tallgrass by Sandra Dallas

July
Children / Tween / Teen programming (4 programs/week)
July 31 Children / Tween / Teen reading program ends
“Longmont’s Reading” adult summer reading book and programs continues

August
“Longmont’s Reading” adult summer reading ends on Labor Day

October
Oct 17-23 Teen Read Week
?? One book, One Boulder County

November
November 20 Longmont Library Spellbinders Tellabration (held at the Museum)

November/December
Light a Candle fund raiser                                                          306
Additional ideas
Improved web pages; Twitter and Facebook
 Book mark for web pages and social networking




                                                 307
                                                           MOPC Board Meeting - Minutes
                                                                   February 16, 2010
                                                                  Study Session Room
                                                                        2:30 pm

  1.     Roll:
MOPC Board:                        I Wells Fargo                              Staff:
x    Greg Wagner                     x     Peggy Timm
     Shelly Hays                     x     Adam Varga                     x    Tammy Bality
x    Grady Halamicek                 x     Diane Smith
x    Gordon Pedrow                   x     Nancy Schafer
x    Jim Golden
x    Janice Kyner

Handouts: Wells Fargo performance review, educational handout

                                                                                                                        Due
Topic          Summary                                                                             Action   Follow-up   Date
Approve        Tabled to end of meeting.
Minutes
Wells Fargo    Jim asked Adam to do less of a financial presentation since we need to spend time
Fund review:   on the REIT options for review. Jim asked him to review significant changes;
               manager changes, grades that have gone up or down.

               Adam said there was a fund merger in July with Evergreen Funds and the growth
               fund we have on probation will automatically go away. He skipped plan stats and
               market review. He did mention the market finished strong in the 4th quarter.

               Van Kampen Comstock; there was a manager change in July 2009; Bob Banker
               leaving is news; Van Kampen Comstock was a retail product of Morgan Stanley
               that is being sold to INVESCO. Later next year this will become INVESCO/Van
               Kampen Comstock with a new ticker number. In terms of existing portfolio
               managers, they will remain with no changes in the people.

               American Century is rated a D again. The fund performance hasn’t really come
               around with a new strategy like they’d hoped; 10 year number is down 91 BP and
               the SP index is down in the bottom 5% of the pack. We are paying 70 BP along
               the way and the expense with the S&P is 25 BP; would have been better to just be
               in the S&P index. This is one fund to put on a replacement list. Going into it
               further, on page 21 the fund fact sheet shows 5 year annualized returns and the
               managers have detracted from the performance of this fund. This fund is not
               designed to go gang busters on the upside; it has down side protection when the

  1 of 6                                                                                                                       308
         market drops. It out performs on the down side; not a lot on the upside. It’s doing
         what it’s supposed to be doing. Since it’s an actively managed fund, we should
         get more for the expenses paid. The manager has been the lead manager since
         1990 and is retiring from American Century soon. The other two managers will
         remain.

         WF Capital Growth fund was a D bounced back to a C. The hit it took in 2008
         caused it to be more defensive. It was down 45.44% while the Russell was down
         38.44%. The fund came off a bad year in 2008, and had major bets on energy
         where it got crushed in 2008. It has toned down those positions since then. It is
         more defensively positioned with lower quality, higher beta stocks. Out performed
         peers and is overweight in technology now, expected to do well going forward.

         Victory Special Value has a top down, bottom up approach. It went from a C to a
         B; poor stock earlier in the year; coming back now with no issues.

         Fidelity Advisor is once again a D; fund up relative to peer and index, but for the
         year it underperformed both. It underperformed in 3, 5 year periods. The previous
         manager’s biggest mistake was she bet big in Japan in 2007 and 2008 when they
         lagged within the EAFE index, no payoff on those bets. Drag on performance;
         management change happened when she retired and Bill Bower came in to
         revamp the portfolio to be more like Fidelity Diversified. He hasn’t been able to
         turn it around totally yet. Adam said this is another one to consider changing out.

         T Rowe Emerging Markets have come back, but it is a very volatile fund.
         Emerging markets; in spite of the C they like it and if we understand the risks
         involved with the fund, it’s a good one. It was up 85.07% while other emerging
         market funds were up 73.81%. No changes suggested.

         Moving to the target dates funds. Adam said they have seen somewhat of a
         peculiar thing happen with grading on the target dates. They have gone from A to
         B’s and A to a C in one case. There is some error in benchmarking them. They
         are finding an element of tracking where they have to mimic the fund makeup so
         error is anticipated. Sometimes that can work in a funds favor with a positive
         tracking error; tremendous amount of inflows cash gave them positive tracking
         errors in 2009, but they saw the opposite with money going out and negative
         tracking error, which lowered their grade. Managers have to take larger amounts
         of dollars and invest them in a higher market. There is a drag from cash leaving
         the target dates in 2009. More of a difference in equity exposure as well. They
         have gone from an A to a C with one year’s worth of performance and given the
         nature of how they grade with a simplistic approach; there is no peer group to
         compare to. Just the spread between the index and the fund. Up 33.89%; greater
         than the expense ratio. No worries about the funds, the market has calmed down
         a little it should bounce back to a B or A.

2 of 6                                                                                         309
           Wells Fargo Diversified is changing because of the merger of Wachovia and
           Evergreen Funds are bringing a new line up. Some WF funds went away, some
           Evergreen Funds went away and some were merged; the redundancy is gone and
           there is a smaller number to offer. Growth equity will be removed from this
           strategy and merged into diversified equity (in July sometime).

           Adam said we map our participants balances from that fund into several funds to
           try to recreate the mix. Adam said, why did someone originally invest in this fund,
           probably because they didn’t’ want the dollars spread out in the plan, so rolling into
           diversified may make mores sense. Jim said there were only four choices in the
           plan when most people got into this fund, so he doesn’t agree that Adams
           assumption is correct. A lot of participants have stayed with the original choice;
           don’t know if it reflects them not wanting to make decisions or just staying the
           course instead. Jim thinks moving people from the growth equity fund to
           diversified is an odd mapping.

           Adam said the underlying allocation is the same. Jim asked why are you getting
           rid of the growth equity fund when there isn’t one to compare it to now. Adam said
           the nature of the fund or what it’s designed to do as a “one stop shop” and the
           diversified equity has a broader base, with a less aggressive approach makes
           more sense for philosophy. Jim said it’s the philosophy of no longer being a
           growth fund; they are not similar styles and have been different funds for 20 years
           and now you are saying they can be merged with no big deal.

           Adam said there is no difference to us in the plan. They looked at the two
           strategies and the reason behind the original funds diversified/one stop shop and
           how it is the same strategy that feeds into a master portfolio; they’ve collapsed the
           strategies so they got rid of aggressive equity and left diversified. Jim said
           regardless of our plan; you guys are eliminating growth equity and moving all
           assets into diversified now, as opposed to using the target date funds which is
           what you were telling us to do at the last few meetings.

           Peggy said she can appreciate that we are seeing them pushing target dates to
           us; but their upper management doesn’t necessarily agree. Different decisions
           have been made on levels above them. The fund to fund choice is not the same
           with Evergreen Funds. On the flip side we can prevent that if we decide to do
           something else ahead of time by replacing the fund(s) with new ones.

2. REIT    Adam gave an overview of what REITS are, the research team and how they
Search     narrow down fund families with relationships. They have an open architecture
           approach, so if they don’t partner with the manager, it may be possible to add
           them.

           The three REIT products the brought for the board to review are with AIM, T Rowe

  3 of 6                                                                                            310
         and First American.

         Adam said the reason to invest in real estate is for diversification benefits. Instead
         of having more of the same in the portfolio we are adding something that moves a
         little different than stocks or bonds; basic tenants of diversification. He explained
         positive and negative correlations on the matrix handout; showed various indexes.

         He said Morningstar published an opinion as of late that given the level of volatility
         with REIT investing there is a high correlation to other asset categories such as
         small cap value.

         AIM Real Estate; fund fact sheets page 9 overview. AIM was acquired by
         INVESCO; 80% of real estate companies have similar strategies in real estate.
         AIM is a 5 Star fund with a grade of “A” as well an “A” for First American Real
         Estate. Cumulative return history on page 14; manager vs. universe. Take out
         volatility on next age 16 with three year returns; excess return above and beyond
         the benchmark. AIM and First American Real Estate provide excess returns
         shown on the chart on page 17. The type of manager shown in the style universe
         chart; all are in the value quadrant so these funds act more like a small cap value
         fund.

         Gordon asked for the article Adam cited from Morningstar. He also asked if we are
         adding value with a REIT.

         Adam said there is relative performance to each other; returns on the x axis and
         risk is on the y; less risk and more return when you are in the left side of
         benchmark. Sharpe ratio quantified; AIM and T Rowe have a negative Sharpe; first
         American is zero.

         Page 21: Upside capture downside capture. Higher up side and lower downside
         is what you look for with a wide spread. Aim captures more on the way up and
         less on the way down; T Rowe about even with First American doing the best.

         Expense ratios: T Rowe is the least expensive and American Century is the most
         expensive. All funds have tenured managers; T Rowe is more concentrated with
         highest standard deviation.

         Greg asked what impact does turnover percentages make. Adam said higher turn
         over is more trading with potential capital gains so it’s not always a good thing in a
         non-qualified plan; but we are shielded from that with qualified plan. First
         American is more actively managed and the portfolio shows them not buying and
         holding. On the other hand, T Rowe is holding some for 10 years. He said is one
         better than the other, not really. A value oriented manager has fewer turnovers
         than a growth manager. In terms of our plan and participants, it’s not really

4 of 6                                                                                            311
                affecting them; but it can affect the expense ratio. With no further questions the
                board moved on to the next topic.


Educational     Jim said he had two different things on his mind; what type of opportunities we can
Opportunities   provide to our employees in-house and what kind of assistance we can get them to
                better show them what is available on the WF web page.

                Diane will talk about Wystar platform which will change in 2010, said Peggy as she
                introduced Diane.

                Diane said their strategy and what they’ve done with others employers is outlined
                on page 2; focus is participant materials to help employees have a secure
                retirement. They offer more education with different types of seminars; not just
                asset allocation, though that is a big part of puzzle. They will help our participants
                establish clear goals. She said they also want to know what works best for
                different segments, some people are web users and others need paper statements
                or direct mail to their house. They can help us identify participants and behaviors
                we want to change; measure results can be put a plan around that. They can help
                participants with investment choices that are reasonable and find ways for getting
                more people to the web so they can understand the tools and calculators.

                Other materials page 4, she highlighted three ways they communicate; person;
                print; electronic. They want to make sure the information is available any way a
                participant may want to receive it. Targeting participants groups; certain funds or
                by age or by retirement date.

                Wachovia has targeted messages and send them based on investor profile; and
                let them know what it will look like in retirement; projection statements. Visual
                because it’s personalized. Peggy added that they could target mailings to the
                boomers that are allocated 50% in emerging markets or something that just
                doesn’t make sense. Jim said yes, individual is good; but he doesn’t want to lose
                sight of the rest.

                The list on page 5 is of what they are offering. Great ways to make it relevant for
                our population. We have a big age spread and lot’s of participants near rule of 80.
                What to do with their money; options outside the MOPC plan; preparing for
                retirement, healthcare, Medicare etc. Page 7 shows a timeline though it is not set
                in stone. They project out meetings through the year; set them and prepare for
                them. Some things will change with Wystar and education on new website etc.

                Gordon asked about the on-site topics and live webinars; is it possible to have the
                on-site topics offered as a webinar instead. She said yes, and that way
                participants can watch it whenever they want. More flexible or we can even offer

  5 of 6                                                                                                 312
              the webinar on-site. She added that you don’t have to be logged on as a member
              to access some things; there are several you can watch without logging in.

              Two reasons; some forget pin; and as we advertise we have participants in other
              plans that might be interested in watching.

              Tammy said we can post them on our intranet with communication materials on
              our home page as well.

Minutes       Jim said let’s go back and act on the minutes. Gordon made a motion to approve,   Motion passed   none
              Grady seconded, all approved.

Other         Jim said we will get a communication to participants out real soon.                               Communication to
                                                                                                                participants       March
              Grady add that ICMA has the American REIT on their platform already.                                                 2010


Adjournment   The board adjourned at 3:40 pm




  6 of 6                                                                                                                                   313
                                  Longmont Museum Advisory Board
                                        Minutes of Meeting
                                        February 17, 2010

                                           - DRAFT -
1.      CALL TO ORDER: 6:01 pm.

2.      ROLL CALL: Board members present: Bryan Bowles, Camilla Beck Briggs,
        Oli Olivas Duncan, Rick Luke, Al Milligan, Bruce Montgomery, Rosslyn Scamehorn,
        and Donna Wetzbarger.

        Board members absent: Glendora Shaffer and City Council liaison Sean McCoy.
        Staff present: Martha Clevenger and Joann McCoy.

3.      PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD: None.

4.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bruce Montgomery moved to approve the minutes of the
        January 20, 2010, meeting as submitted. His motion was seconded by Rosslyn
        Scamehorn and unanimously approved.

5.      NEW ACCESSIONS:
        a.   Accessions to the Archives for January 2010: Donna Wetzbarger moved to
             approve the list of archival material offered for January 2010. Her motion was
             seconded by Oli Olivas Duncan and unanimously approved. In the accession is
             a Longmont Times-Call newspaper of November 2, 1955, covering the crash of
             the United Airlines aircraft brought down by a bomb near Longmont. Personal
             recollections of Longmont during the time of the event were discussed.

        b.      Accessions to the 3-D collection for January 2010: There were items accepted
                for potential accession into the permanent collection during the month of
                January. However, the curator of collections hasn’t completed the
                documentation yet. The January three-dimensional collections will be brought to
                the March meeting for formal acceptance.

6.      REPORTS:
        a.  Report of the Museum Manager: In addition to her written director’s report,
            Martha reported that the opening reception for Honky Tonk will be this Friday,
            February 19, at 7:00 pm.

                Bryan Bowles will serve as Museum Advisory Board representative at a special
                joint meeting with City-appointed board chairpersons and City Council
                members. The meeting will be Saturday, February 20, and likely will cover the
                roles, responsibilities and expectations of advisory boards. Board
                representatives also will have a forum to voice any timely issues they wish to
                bring before City Council. Martha will attend the meeting as well.


Longmont Museum Advisory Board                  1
Minutes of Meeting, February 17, 2010
DRAFT                                                                                             314
                Staff has submitted a grant to Colorado Humanities for digitization and online
                access to 500 historically significant glass plate negatives from our own
                collection. And, visitation was excellent during the month of January.
                Discovery Days currently is using the American Recovery and Reinvestment
                Act grant of $10,000. The federal stimulus grant’s purpose is to save jobs
                related to the arts and is subsidizing the salary of the Discovery Days facilitator.
                Discovery Days is open during the school year and currently is cost recovering
                all but about $7,500 per year, which will be supported by previous fund-raising
                efforts and the Friends of the Longmont Museum.

        b.      Report of the Chair: None. Bryan Bowles chaired the meeting in Glendora’s
                absence.

        c.      Report of the Friends Liaison: Rick Luke reported that the Friends of the
                Longmont Museum’s annual meeting will be on Wednesday, June 23, with
                featured speaker Anne Dyni. Dyni is a local historian who has written several
                books, one of which is about historical schools of Boulder County.

                Members of the Friends will enjoy free admission during the Bicycles! 150
                Years of Gears exhibit. The Bicycles exhibition will be the first special exhibit for
                which the Museum will charge admission fees. Patrons who wish to enter the
                special exhibits gallery will be asked to pay an entrance fee. The rest of the
                Museum will remain free. Staff is still refining the logistics of how to restrict
                entrance to the gallery. Colored lapel tags will be given to members and those
                who have paid at the front desk.

7.      OLD BUSINESS:
        a.   Museum auditorium update: Martha reported that the anonymous donor has
             indicated that they wish to redesign the addition to be a multipurpose space
             rather than an auditorium with fixed seating. The donor also has indicated that
             in addition to the $1 million gift already given for the addition, they would match
             any donation, dollar-for-dollar, up to $1 million.

                The City’s purchasing division has determined that it is permissible to have OZ
                Architecture bid for the redesign without putting out an entirely new request for
                proposal. OZ Architecture held the original contract for the auditorium design
                phase. If the City and OZ are unable to negotiate a new contract, the project will
                go out for a new RFP. The proposal from OZ is due next week.

                Bryan Bowles, Bruce Montgomery and Camilla Beck Briggs offered to serve on
                the committee that works with the architect to consider options and review
                designs. After public input and redesign, the new drawings and concepts will be
                presented to Council. The new design could be less expensive than the original
                auditorium design. The Friends will refresh their previous work toward a capital
                campaign.



Longmont Museum Advisory Board                    2
Minutes of Meeting, February 17, 2010
DRAFT                                                                                                   315
                                              - DRAFT-


8.      NEW BUSINESS:
        a.   2010 budget update: Martha reported that there were no budget cuts for the
             2010 fiscal year and no positions were eliminated. The vacant curator of
             exhibits position is still in the budget, although we are not authorized to fill it.
             As part of our long-range planning we will develop a set of alternatives
             regarding the position. We continue to be prudent with spending and are not yet
             spending any general fund money on future traveling exhibits.

        b.      Museum Long-range Planning: The board discussed long-range priorities in the
                face of contracting resources. Long-range planning issues to be discussed in
                conjunction with the staff at a future board retreat are:

                     •   Evaluation of and alternatives for the vacant curatorial position and
                         potentially shifting resources. Alternatives are to use temp labor or
                         contracted services, reclassify the position, and hire only part-time. Or,
                         shift resources into more educational programming and possibly split the
                         position between exhibits and education.
                     •   If programming is shifted, how are our demographics affected?
                     •   Examine the type and number of exhibits opening each year. Do we
                         mount fewer and have longer exhibit runs? How far out should we be
                         booking traveling exhibits with uncertain general fund support?
                     •   Overall consideration also must be given to appropriate projects closely
                         tied to grants. Granting agencies, especially the Institute of Museum and
                         Library Services (IMLS), require long-range planning. Future grants
                         could be written for the Longs Peak room interactive, school outreach
                         and collections rehousing projects.

                Oli suggested formulating dual plans, one for best case economic scenario and
                another where prioritization has been articulated.

                The board advocated to protect our core constituencies and programs such as
                Discovery Days and traveling exhibits, and is concerned that previous cuts and
                the erosion of economic conditions could render the Museum less vital. And, it
                was discussed that long range planning should be focused on balanced
                changes, that any one area not be severely reduced. Any additional cuts to
                Museum operations will be very difficult to reinstitute in the future.

                For our long-range planning discussion Martha is interested in bringing in Rich
                Smith, a private consultant well versed in museum and historic site planning
                and interpretation, to facilitate and will apply to SCFD for a technical assistance
                grant to fund his services. Martha will meet with Rich tomorrow.



Longmont Museum Advisory Board                     3
Minutes of Meeting, February 17, 2010
DRAFT                                                                                                 316
                                           - DRAFT -
        c.      Pertinent issues to relay to Council: As mentioned above there will be a joint
                meeting of City Council members and board chairpersons to discuss advisory
                board roles and responsibilities and issues board members wish to bring before
                Council. Bryan Bowles will represent the board. Issues the board feels are
                pertinent are: 1) long-term sustainability and viability of Museum; 2) impacts of
                further economic cuts to the Museum and the effects on its mission and
                programming; 3) unfilled curatorial position; and 4) staffing of the future
                auditorium/addition. Overall the Board feels there have been many positive
                things happening, including record visitation statistics and the general upward
                trend of Museum usage.

9.      BOARD COMMENTS: Rosslyn suggested that the Museum apply for an AAUW
        Community Action grant. Deadline is April 10, notification is April 30. $2,000 is
        available for educational purposes, and a scholarship grant is available as well. She
        also suggested that staff check out the recent exhibit on Boulder County ditches and
        150 years of Boulder County water history that was shown recently at the Boulder
        Public Library, Dairy Center and Boulder County Fairgrounds building.

10.     MEETING ADJOURNED: 7:35 pm.

Submitted,



Joann McCoy
Museum Executive Assistant
and Secretary to the Board




Longmont Museum Advisory Board                   4
Minutes of Meeting, February 17, 2010
DRAFT                                                                                               317
318
                               MINUTES
                 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
                            February 8, 2010


The February meeting of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board was called to
order by Rick Accountius at 7:00pm at the Parks Maintenance Building.

   I.     Roll Call
          Cathy Diesing, Board Secretary called the roll call. Those present were
          committee members; Rick Accountius, Ruby Bowman, Sharon O’Leary,
          Lisa Underhill, and Jim Wardell. Members Greg Braun, Doug Golliher
          and Councilmen McCoy were absent.

          Staff Present: Don Bessler, Jeff Friesner and Cathy Diesing,

   II.    Approve Agenda
          A request by Ms. Bowman to move New Business c) Information Item:
          Board Members Share why they were Interested in Serving on the
          Board to after IV. Public Invited to be heard. Mr. Wardell made a motion
          to accept the request, Mr. Accountius seconded the motion as
          amended, and the Motion passed 4-0. Ms. O’Leary arrived a few
          minutes late.

   III.   Approval of minutes from the January 11, 2010 meeting. Ms. Underhill
          made a motion to approve the minutes as written; this was seconded by
          Mr. Accountius. The Motion passed 4-1. Ms. Bowman voted nay as
          she felt more information was needed on Heaven Fest.

   IV.    Public Invited to be Heard - None
          *

   V.     Old Business
          a. Discussion Item: Layout 2010 Work plan/ Calendar. Mr. Bessler
          reviewed the PRAB work plan for 2010. Noted in the draft work plan
          were major policy decisions that the Board should plan to participate in.
          These include survey questions for the Customer Satisfaction Survey,
          the CIP process, Council Retreat topics, Field trip. An added item by
          Mr. Bessler was to have a Recreation or Parks staff person attend a
          PRAB meeting to discuss projects, programs, which would allow the
          Board to ask questions and get to know staff. The Board appreciated
          that thought but did not want it to extend the meetings past the 10 pm
          meeting and they agreed to bump that staff person if other agenda
          items were taking up the time.




                                                                                      319
      b) Action Item: Select PRAB Retreat Topics. Five topics were presented
      to the Board for consideration as agenda items for the March 1, 2010
      retreat. It was recommended that two of the five topics be discussed.
      The agenda will include a team building activity to allow the board
      members an opportunity to better get to know each other as well as
      help improve working relationships. The meeting will not exceed three
      hours.

      After discussion the Board voted on Option 1, Review guidelines and
      current requirements for the Use of Public Places process as it relates
      to Parks & Recreation and Option 4, Presentation of the Business
      Models for Natural Resources and Recreation Services. Mr. Accountius
      requested that specific to the business models that the Board is given
      information on 2009 Actual Budget numbers.

      A motion by Ms. Bowman to have the three options not being discussed
      at the retreat added to agenda’s in the future: Marketing our Story,
      Amending city financial policy for open Space and Review of the City-
      School district IGA added to future 2010 agenda’s. This was seconded
      by Ms. Underhill, the Motion passed 5-0


VI.   New Business

      a) Discussion Item: 2010 CIP Discussion. Mr. Bessler reviewed the
      2010-2014 CIP Book and the various sources of funds that most
      directly impact Parks, Open Space and Recreation projects.

      Conservation Trust Fund, also known as Lottery Fund. The City of
      Longmont has historically designated 100% of these funds go to the
      St.Vrain Greenway or adjunct projects.

      Open Space Fund which is two-tenths of a cent sales tax on purchases,
      which sunsets after 2034.

      Park Improvement Fund, which is an impact fee that is paid on
      residential development to fund new neighborhood or community parks.

      Public Building Investment fee helps fund specific public buildings, such
      as fire stations.

      Public Improvement Fund which is the City’s use and sales tax used
      primarily for general fund type projects. As pointed out by Mr. Bessler
      the revenue is three million but expenditures are 2.6 million debt
      service. A discussion was held on the Conservation Trust Fund and the


                                                                                  320
       history on how it began.

       Ms. Bowman brought a citizens concern to the Board about the Uni-sex
       restroom at Lanyon Park. Mr. Bessler explained the design standards
       and capital and maintenance budget savings on building the Uni-sex
       restrooms vs separate facilities.


       b) Discussion Item: Joint Meeting Advisory Board Chairs and City
       Council Meeting. Mr. Friesner said on February 20, Council invited the
       chair of each Advisory Board to discuss issues and concerns, and how
       Council can be more supportive of the Boards. Mr. Accountius will take
       any items to the Council the Board may want him to discuss.

       *this agenda item was moved to after IV. Public Invited to be heard:

       c) Information Item: Board members share why they were interested in
       serving on the Board.

       Ms. Bowman is interested in serving the community as the board
       usually discusses Open Space issues. Ms. Underhill is interested in
       serving the community and becoming more involved in what is
       happening in Longmont. She enjoys using the facilities and services
       and wants to learn more about them. Mr. Wardell enjoys the
       opportunity to give back to the community. Growing up he participated
       in many recreation activities, so his focus is more with Recreation and
       youth activities. Ms. O’Leary got involved because Longmont did not
       have a recreation center, so she joined the board to help get one built.
       She is a teacher and feels that youth learn life long values with
       community recreation programs. She feels that Longmont is lagging
       behind in recreation opportunities. Mr. Accountius feels Longmont is a
       unique place where you have so much input into what goes on in the
       City. He wants to give back and be a part in community issues and
       participate in both recreation issues and the wild life.


VII.   Items from Staff
       1. Ms. Diesing reminded Board members of the Taste of Therapy on
       Saturday from 10am-1pm.

       2. Mr. Friesner announced that the 2009 cost recovery for the Ice Rink
       was 114%.

       Mr. Friesner attended a joint meeting of the St.Vrain Valley School
       District and City Council. One of the agenda items was in reference to
       the Joint Use Agreements between the two entities.


                                                                                  321
        It was also announced that the SVVSD is tabling the proposed
        improvements to Silver Creek High School as a part of the Dry Creek
        Park. The school district indicated that it needs to address their budget
        issues and to review their policies on School District programs versus
        Community programs and their internal practices. .


VIII.   Items from the Board
        1. Ms. O’Leary would like to start the dialog at the Board level to use
        the Conservation Trust Fund for recreation purposes. Open space has
        two taxing mechanism that go towards the St.Vrain Greenway and
        Open Space. The City has done a lot with buying Open Space and land
        acquisitions. When she looks at the recreation opportunities,
        Longmont is behind. Additional money could come from the
        Conservation Trust Fund and help recreational opportunities, such as
        parking at the Recreation Center.

        A motion was made by Ms. O’Leary to open the discussion on changing
        how Conservation Trust Funds are used. This was seconded by Mr.
        Accountius. The motion passed 4-1. Ms. Bowman voted nay.

        2. Ms. Underhill would also like to look at the Conservation Trust Fund.
        When we are in hard financial times, it is the time to look at the budget
        in different ways and have different discussions.

        3. Ms. Bowman asked if there is a maximum capacity for a district park.
        Mr. Bessler said no, only capacity in parking. She asked if the City
        would limit the access to the beach during the Heaven Fest. Mr. Bessler
        said the City already has plans to fence off parts of the beach. The
        beach areas will be monitored by City lifeguards to make sure beach
        bather- lifeguard ratios are not exceeded.

        Ms. Bowman asked what had happened to the ordinance for the
        disposal of the Open Space. In September of 2009, the Board did vote
        and discuss items to be added and it has not been back to the Board.
        Her concern is it will go to the Council without first coming through the
        Board like the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Mr. Bessler said staff will bring
        back a draft ordinance for the Board to review and the Board can make
        comments and then forward it to the Council. It will be a
        communication with the Ordinance from the Board to the Council.

        4. Mr. Accountius brought attention to a meeting being held at the
        Boulder County Open Space Building in reference to Lagerman
        Reservoir.




                                                                                     322
      A discussion was held on the Council retreat and that they felt they had
      been heard. The Board felt that they had some influence with the
      Council. The Board appreciated the invitation and felt they had freedom
      to discuss issues with out restrictions. Also there was Good Grub!!

IX.   Public to be Heard - None


X.    Adjournment
      There being no further business to come before the Park & Recreation
      Advisory Board, it was moved by Ms. O’Leary to adjourn the meeting at
      9:17 pm and was seconded by Mr. Accountius. The motion passed 5-0.




                                                                                 323
Signature Sheet for approving Minutes of the Park & Recreation Board meeting.



____________________________________
Committee Chair/ Vice Chair



_____________________________________
Cathy Diesing
Board Secretary




                                                                                324
                          Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
                                        Agenda

                                 Monday, March 8, 2010
                                        7:00 pm
                               Parks Maintenance Building
                                     7 South Sunset


I.     Roll Call

II.    Approval of Agenda

III.   Approval of Minutes from the February 8, 2010 meeting

IV.    Public Invited to be heard

V.     Special Presentation – Parks Supervisor - Bill Paul

VI. Old Business

          a) Discussion Item: Identify New CIP Projects for 2011 - 2015

VII.   New Business
          a) Discussion Item: Develop Questions for the Customer Satisfaction Survey

VIII. Items from Staff

IX.    Items from Board

X.     Public Invited to be heard

XI.    Adjournment


If you need special assistance to participate in a Park & Recreation Advisory Board
meeting, please contact Cathy Diesing, Board Secretary, (303) 774-4756, in advance of
the meeting to make arrangements




                                                                                        325
                                  2009 ANNUAL REPORT
                            SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD


                                       ADMINISTRATIVE

x   Welcomed new board member, Fay Reynolds and bid farewell to retiring member, Libby Barstow
    and City Council liaison, Karen Benker.

x   Reviewed and updated By-Laws which resulted in deleting the grievance procedure as this
    responsibility is best managed by staff.

x   Supported Senior Center operations by:
       o Recommending increased rental fees at the Senior Center
       o Advocating for the Senior Center becoming a “Zero Waste” facility
       o Establishing Volunteer Leadership Development as a goal for the year 2010 a result of the
          “Tamales and Talk’ efforts
       o Supporting staff’s recommendation to discontinue efforts to enclose the north patio

x   Provided information and support to both The Friends of the Senior Center and the City Council. In
    particular, the board assisted with decisions and processes in connection with the budget
    prioritization during this recessionary period.

x   Participated in the selection process for new board members.

x   Member Liaison Work - Board members served on a variety task forces, community groups, and
    coalitions throughout the year advocating, informing, and participating actively.
       o Technical Housing Group
       o Longmont Area Economic Council
       o Multi-cultural Task Force
       o Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council
       o Visitability Ad Hoc Committee
       o Friends of the Longmont Senior Center



                                  ADDRESSING BASIC NEEDS

x   Goal: To Increase Accessibility and Affordability in Housing - Members of the board attended a
    Grand Opening celebration in May at The Lodge at Hover Crossing. The September board meeting
    was held there and included a presentation by Michael Reis, Longmont Housing Authority Executive
    Director and a tour of the facility. The board voted unanimously to support an application for “The
    Lodge II”.

x   During October, a board member and a staff member attended a 50+ housing tour in the Denver
    Metro Area to learn about various housing options.




                                                                                                     326
                     PROMOTING SOCIAL AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

x   Goal: To increase participation in educational and social events with focus on older Latino adults.
       o Outreach efforts for Spanish speakers included:
               ƒ End of Life Planning, Chronic Illness Education and Alzheimer’s Education classes
               ƒ Increased from one to two pages of content in Spanish in the GO newsletter
               ƒ Offered two E. S. L. classes
               ƒ Initiated a Spanish Club which meets weekly to assist members in practicing the
                  Spanish language
       o Presentations focusing on the 2008 trip to Ciudad Guzman have been given by both board and
           staff members.
       o Board members visited the Pueblo Senior Center in an effort to learn more about how other
           Senior Centers with large Latino populations operate and how we might utilize some of their
           experiences to improve what we offer at our own center.

x   Goal: To increase outreach to the community: Members of the Board and Staff attended and
    facilitated outreach at Faith Community Lutheran Church, the Annual Caregivers Symposium and at
    a resource fair at Hover Community.



          OPTOMIZING PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

x   Goal: Promote Visitability: Board members attended meetings with various community members to
    gather information and establish guidelines for `Visitability’. At the June 17th Board Meeting, a
    motion was made to recommend to City Council that 50% of all new single family construction and
    existing single family if redeveloped from the ground up, meet visitability standards. City staff
    incorporated visitability efforts into existing building code revision and a proposal was presented to
    City Council in November and continues to be further studied and investigated with city staff. The
    definition of visitability is as follows:
        o At least one zero-step entrance with a minimum width of 36 inches on an accessible route
            leading from a driveway or public sidewalk.
        o All interior, main floor doors providing at least 32 inches of unobstructed passage space and;
        o At least a half bathroom on the main floor with appropriate handicap accessibility.

x   Advocated for hearing assisted devices which can be and are being utilized throughout the Senior
    Center.

x   A Senior Safety Seminar, coordinated by S.A.L.T. was held at the Longmont Senior Center.



             MAXIMIZING IN / DEPENDENCE AND SUPPORT CAREGIVERS

x   Safety for Seniors
       o The Board was a focus group for the Longmont Fire Department strategic planning input
            gathering effort.
       o Informational safety articles were published in each issue of the GO.

                                                                                                        327
                                    AGENDA
                               Longmont Water Board

                          3:00 P.M. Monday, March 15, 2010

                    Water/Wastewater Utilities Department
              Administration & Engineering Large Conference Room
                     1100 South Sherman Street, Longmont


1. Minutes, Regular Meeting, February 22, 2010

2. Water Status Report

3. Public Invited to be Heard and Special Reports

4. Agenda Revisions and Submission of Documents

5. Development Activity

6. General Business
      a. Cash-In-Lieu Review (The Board will review the current fee for cash in lieu of
         water rights for possible adjustment) [Staff Contact: Wes Lowrie 303.651.8814]

7. Items from Staff
       a. Water Supply Update (Staff will provide Water Board with an update on
           Longmont’s current and projected water supply) [Staff Contact: Wes Lowrie
           303.651.8814]
           http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/snow/ Natural Resources Conservation Service
           Snow Data
           http://nw.ncwcd.org/snowatch/snowatch.aspx Northern Water Snowpack Data
       b. 2010 Water Legislation (Staff will provide Water Board with an update regarding
           2010 Water Legislation) [Staff Contact: Nelson Tipton 303.651.8365]
       c. Water Conservation Update (Staff will provide Water Board with a review of the
           2009 efforts, anticipated 2010 programs, and solicit input from the Board) [Staff
           Contact: Nelson Tipton 303.651.8365 and Ken Huson 303.651.8340]
       d. NCWCD Spring Water Users Meeting Announcement (Staff will provide Water
           Board with a verbal update concerning this meeting and inquire of the level of
           interest of the Board in attending) [Staff Contact: Wes Lowrie 303.651.8814]
       e. St. Vrain Creek Riparian Protection Plan Update (Staff will provide Water Board
           with an update on this issue) [Staff Contact: Larry Wyeno 303.651.8628]
       f. Status of Longmont to Lyons Trail (Staff will provide Water Board with a verbal
           update on this issue) [Staff Contact: Steve Ransweiler 303.774.4532]
       g. St. Vrain Creek Water Quality and Water Supply Update (Staff will provide
           Water Board with an update on this issue) [Staff Contact: Ken Huson
           303.651.8340]


                                                                                               328
8. Items from Board
       a. Review of Major Projects Listing
9. Informational Items & Water Board Correspondence

10. Items tentatively scheduled for future Board meetings
        x Cash-In-Lieu Review (March, June, September, December)
        x 2010 Water Supply & Drought Management Plan (April)

Adjourn



Notice of Informal Meeting to be held between Water Board’s regularly scheduled meetings:

Members of the Longmont Water Board may attend the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District’s Spring Water Users Meeting. This meeting is a one day
informational meeting to inform users of the C-BT system about current operational aspects
of this project. One or more Water Board members may attend this meeting and informally
discuss issues. No formal action on any Water Board items will occur at this seminar. The
meeting will be held at the Radisson Conference Center in Longmont on March 10th.



If you need special assistance to participate in a Water Board meeting, please contact Karen
Chandler at 303-651-8722 in advance of the meeting to make arrangements.




                                            2                                                  329
BLANK PAGE




             330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:2/8/2012
language:
pages:95