 All right, let's go on to the consent agenda. Don, Ms. Quintana, City Clerk? Mayor, item 8E, resolution 2020-17, has been removed by staff from the consent agenda. It will be brought back due to an error in one of the attachments. So 8A is resolution 2020-13, resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city acting by and through its water utility enterprise and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for location of a camera to monitor the St. Vrain Creek. 8B is resolution 2020-14, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between Boulder County and the City of Longmont for the Environmental Sustainability Matching Grant Program. 8C is resolution 2020-15, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between Boulder County, City of Boulder, City of Longmont, City and County of Broomfield, Town of Erie, City of Lafayette, City of Lewisville, Town of Superior, Town of Netherland, Town of Lyons, regarding the Boulder Area Trails Mobile Application Project. And 8D is resolution 2020-16, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city and State of Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety for compliance with the Elevator and Escalator Certification Act. All right, Dr. Waters. All right, it's been moved, the consent agenda has been moved by Councilman Waters and seconded by Councilman Peck. You need to debate, dialogue, questions. All right, let's vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say an aye. All right, that's enough. Yes, we're done. No, so that passes unanimously. All right, let's move on to ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. First is 9A, ordinance 2020-08. Billford and Ordinance authorized the City of Longmont to execute a lease extension of real property known as 1140 Boston Avenue to Longmont Win Air Company. Are there any questions from Council? The staff has a report, have a report, anything like that? All right, seeing none, let's go ahead and open this for public hearing on ordinance 2020-08. Would anyone in the public like to speak on this matter? All right, seeing no one, let's go ahead and close the public hearing. Can I have a motion? All right, Councilman Peck. I move 0-20-20-08. I'll second that. It's been moved by Councilman Peck, seconded by myself. Let's vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, say an aye. All right, passes unanimously. All right, no items have been removed from the consent agenda. So let's go ahead and move on to general business. 11A, DSC and Creation Station Space Needs. Mayor Begley, members of Council, Joni Marsh, Assistant City Manager. So the item before you this evening is a request for Council to give direction regarding the Creation Station, which is the little building attached to the Development Services Center. Used to be the print shop for the city. Community Services has been using that at the direction of Council. Council actually voted and made a motion four years ago. At this time, we're really out of space at the Development Services Center and are looking for places to put staff, which don't exist. So we have spoken with Nancy at the library, Karen Roney, as well as Jeff Friesner at RAC and taken a look at what that programming looked like and that whether or not they would be able to relinquish that space and they have determined that would be reasonable for them to do so. So we're just asking tonight for Council to give some formal direction if we could move forward with moving into the Creation Station with Development Services Center employees. So there's a motion on the floor to allow staff to go ahead to change the use and occupy the ex morgue of the city. So let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, that motion carries and passes unanimously. Let's move on to 11B, Peppler Neighborhood Concept Plan Amendment. It's continued over from 1.1420. I believe staff has an update on the discussions pertaining to that little handwritten questionable phrase. So give us an update. Correct, and I'm gonna ask Don to make his way up closer to me so he can help me fill in the blanks. So obviously there was a platenote that existed regarding the development of this property. There was some concept plans. I think it was ambiguous in terms of what was actually contemplated in there in terms of the platenote and there was a number of questions. We had per Council's direction we had entered into conversations with the developer of that site trying to find a solution based on some of the ideas that the Council threw out during the previous conversation and some ideas that I and worked out with Don and we had real time in there. And we were moving through that very slowly. The conversations were difficult in terms of what we were trying to accomplish to be completely candid on Friday of last week we received a letter from Legal Council representing the individual and we were actually prepared to come in tonight to postpone this item to a date certain of March 31st so we could have the time to do the a fair amount of legal research to really evaluate our position. Prior to this meeting, we had a meeting with the applicants and what we were trying to really work on was trying to fit in for deed restricted single bedroom affordable housing units and that was something we talked about and then the question comes in well what is a civic purpose? I think what I was trying to really work off of is that the Council has set a goal of affordable housing being important to us and the civic purpose was of providing affordable housing and evaluating that concept we were getting into a number of sit back issues related to how the parking was going to be structured and it just started becoming more problematic. Literally a few minutes before this Council meeting we agreed to with the developer to essentially take the square footage that would have been associated with those one bedroom single family units at a rate of $3.75 a square foot which is consistent with other things that I'm working on related to the affordable housing fund. They would then just pay us an equivalent amount for those units which amounts to $21,000 that would then be placed in the affordable housing fund to be used for the purposes established which is to provide affordable housing to our community. And so from my perspective and working with Theresa in this conversation we feel that it really, the civic purpose that we're satisfying is that we're actually putting additional funding into the affordable housing fund in order to help us provide affordable housing to our community. Granted, it's got to be accumulated with other funds. But that's where we are today. Council can consider that option based on where we are in the conversations. My opinion is based on the amount of legal research and the ambiguity in the Platinum and what we have to work through. We think that is an equitable way to resolve this issue. Yes, I move ordinance 2020-07A with the condition that the $21,000 contribution to the affordable housing fund be included as a condition to 2020-07A. I'll second that. All right, any additional comments or questions from the council members? All right, seeing no further debate. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. All right, the motion passes six to one, or I'm sorry, five to one with council member Martin absent, which I should have announced it, but you got that right, Don. All right. And then with Dr. Waters dissenting. All right, let's move on to 2020, item 11C, legislative bills recommended for city council positions. Hello, mayor and council, Sandy Cedar assistant city manager, and I have four bills for your consideration today. They are, I just handed them out to you, but they have also been posted in the designated spot and on the web. So the first bill is house bill 2011-92 concerning the use of money in the petroleum cleanup and redevelopment fund for development of fuel cell electric vehicle projects. Obviously this, so this bill basically would say that we could pull any kinds of money that comes out of the public safety funds for oil and gas cleanups to be able to be used for this kind of innovative work on electric vehicle projects. Since this really supports the council's sustainability goals, staff recommends that the city council support 20, house bill 2011-92. Senate bill 21-24, concerning adding the public school facility construction guidelines as a requirement to consult with the local electric utility. Our electric utility LPC thinks this is a good idea to get in at the beginning of these kinds of construction projects. And so therefore city staff recommends that city council support Senate bill 124. Senate bill 151, concerning the regulation of the regional transportation district. This one's pretty tough because it really requires a whole lot of new things of RTD, which of course I think we think that needs to happen, some additional auditing and some other things, just as far as transparency of the operations of RTD. But at the same time, the way that the bill is written is pretty bureaucratic and has a whole lot of reporting requirements that might actually not get you there. So several of the organizations, transportation organizations are planning to oppose unless it's amended. I think the concept makes sense, but we are unsure that the method makes sense. So we would like to just monitor this for a little while. I was just gonna mention something on that one. Okay. Go ahead. And then the last one, Senate bill 21-53, concerning the creation of an enterprise that is exempt from the requirements of section 20 of article 10 of the state constitution to administer a fee-based water resource financing program. This one would basically pull different fees and general funds to create a revolving loan fund, which doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when we are the ones that are planning for our own future and our own water utilities. We would encourage everybody else to do the same. And so staff recommends that city council opposes Senate bill 21-53. So this came up at the mayors and commissioners committee, the Senate bill 20-151. All it's doing is adding four new positions to the RTD board. It's going from 15 to 19, which, the what? I opposed it. Right, yeah. And so do I. And so I mean, I know that there was some talk at the metro mayors or the mayors and commissioners committee or the MCC because I know that there were allies who were championing the bill and we didn't want to hurt their feelings and people were kind of hesitant. And at the end of the day, I personally think that what needs to happen, and again, I think they need to redistrict. Like just like we do at a state national level, RTD, the RTD board keep 15, but adding more, subtracting more unless they redistrict to make it proportionate, there's no solution. So going from 15 disproportionate seats to 19 is just going from bad to worse. And so I actually move that we oppose Senate bill 20-151. Council Member Peck? I agree with the mayor. So that's a second. That's called a second. I'll call that a second. All right. It's been moved and seconded by myself and Council Member Peck. So, NATO, the Northern Area Transportation Authority also opposes this because of the addition of new board members. But the point here in this statement that reporting audits, I also wanna say that NATO is getting a very deep audit of RTD. Some of these things we're already going to do, we don't need a bill. So that's my input. Mayor Bagby, members of council, certainly from RTD, that's what we've heard, is that all of the stipulations of the bill are already things that are required of them. And so the only real change is the board member change. Right, so I mean, I don't know why we were, I mean, anyway, I know why we're hesitant, but I still think we should express concern. So there's a motion and a second. So the motion is to go ahead and direct staff to oppose Senate bill 20-151. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, cool. So that motion passes unanimously with council member Martin absent. We still have three others, however, do we have a motion? Council member Peck? I move the slate of bills minus SB 21-51 of the staff recommendation. As recommended by staff. As recommended by staff. I'll second that for you. All right, it's been moved by council member Peck, seconded by the mayor. Any further question, dialogue or debate? Seeing no further discussion or debate, let's go ahead and vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right, that passes unanimously with council member Martin absent. I do have one other question. Where have we, did we take a position on Senate bill 93? Hang on one second. That's Mike Foots arbitration bill. I just want backup from council before I do something. Council has not taken a position on 93. Right, so I guess the, I don't know why. So the Metro mayor's caucus, which I usually don't go to because we can talk about that in private if you'd like. But anyway, the Boulder County mayors are, have asked that I, so the way the Metro mayor's caucus works is by consensus. And if five or less, if less than five mayors don't oppose it, then there's a press release that basically says the Metro mayor's caucus is against it. Or for it or against it. So in this particular case, for some reason, the Metro mayor's caucus is coming out, asking for a consensus vote. Opposing Senate bill 93, which basically just sets some arbitration requirements, which I really don't understand why this rises to the importance of, I don't get it, but I do know it's really important to the other mayors in Boulder County and have asked that I join them in opposing their opposition. And I was gonna do that. What is the arbitration for? So the, it has to do with, again, sex assault victims. Do you wanna, can you pull it and just let us know? Mayor Bagney, I attended the Conroy Municipal League Muni Caucus today. I have no discussion about this bill. But like I said, it's strange why this would be an issue of debate. This is the Consumer and Employee Dispute Resolution Fairness Act, concerning protections related to mandatory agreement provisions in and connected with enacting a Consumer and Employee Dispute Resolution Fairness Act. Close, but keep going, yeah. Not you, me. Yeah, pretty good. The bill enacts the Consumer and Employee Dispute Resolution Fairness Act for certain consumer and employment arbitrations. The act prohibits the waiver of standards for and challenges the evident partiality prior to a claim being filed. It is mediation is what it looks like. It's a required mediation. That's right. So basically it's basically saying you can challenge an arbiter based on bias and whatnot. Again, it's not, it's a big nothing burger. But it's important to somebody and it's really important to the other mayors in Boulder County and they're asking, and it's important to Mike Foote and they're asking that I join them just to make it so that the Metro Mayor's Caucus does not have a consensus to oppose this bill. Is anyone opposed, Dr. Waters? Is Mike Foote sponsoring this bill? Yes, it's his bill. So he's asking the mayors to oppose the bill? No, no, Metro Mayor's Caucus came out to oppose it and the Boulder County mayors reached out and said, hey, Mayor Bagley, we need a fifth. Vote with us so the Metro mayors don't have a consensus so there's no position. It just goes away. So the council could support the bill, for example, or not oppose it. Or not even do anything and just tell me it's okay to add my name to the list, which I could do, but we haven't taken a position on it and I don't know a whole lot about it. And Mayor Bagley in reading this, and you all may remember that at the legislative dinner, Senator Foote did discuss this bill with you just briefly around the idea that it provides the right of the party to challenge the arbitrator, right? Because oftentimes arbitration is binding and that's that and this gives another opportunity, I think, for people to work out dispute resolution. So if we support what our mayor is asking, it would simply allow the bill to go forward and be heard without the Metro mayors expressing their opposition. Correct. Yes. Thank you. So they just, the mayors simply don't want the Metro mayors caucus to oppose the bill. So the city of Longmont does not have to support the bill. No, we're not, this is not, this is just, anyone have a problem if I oppose it? No. Okay. Anyone? No. All right.