 Rodriguez, Martin, Waters, Mary of a Quorum. All right, let's say a pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, just a quick reminder, anybody wanting to add his or her name to the list of public invited to be heard, raise your hand now. If you don't get on the list, you won't be able to speak during the first round of public invited to be heard, but you will be able to speak at the end of the meeting. Everybody gets three minutes and then after that we'll cut you off, but anyway, approval of minutes. So I have a motion for the approval of the January 20, 2020 regular session minutes. All right, it's been moved by Dr. Waters and it was seconded by Councilor Peck. All in favor say aye. All opposed. All right, it passes unanimously and just by way, Marcia Martin, she's not presently because she's not feeling well, so she's ill. Next, the gender revisions and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas. Anyone want to say or do anything? Dr. Waters? Yeah, this is not this is not direction to staff. It's really just to confirm with council members in our Friday retreat. I brought up the topic of the 529 Jump Program and what I think the school district needs in order to get behind that the way we'd like them to and that that would require us basically backing the kindergartners and then doing the outreach. Mayor Bagley has agreed to work with me on that outreach. Yep. I've spoken with former council member Finley. She's willing to help with that since that was kind of her project. I just want to make certain in this setting that I'm still good to go with that. I just don't want to surprise anybody. Yes? I think you're going to go to anybody, Jack. Thanks. That's it. You're good to go. Thanks. All right, let's move on. City manager, do you have a report? No report, Mayor Counsel. All right, great. You need no special reports and presentations tonight, right? All right. Let's go ahead and move on to first call poll to be heard. Again, you have three minutes. I'm addressed the chair and we'll go with Regina Chaney first. My name is Regina Chaney and I live at 416 Main Street. On November 19th, 2019, I filed an open records request with our city clerk for emails to or from Councilwoman Peck and Christensen using their personal email for city business. I recall at the time, Polly said she had six emails from her personal account for city business and Peck said she had none. During the clerk's first round of investigation that concluded 12-12-19, the findings were 1,615 emails, 177 of these messages were under legal review. The second query by the city clerk completed 12-27-19, revealed that there were 2,043 emails sent or received by Peck or Polly. 359 of these were documents, 10 messages, confidential in nature or otherwise falling out, falling under an exception to the right of inspection under Cora. There were still 177 messages under legal review. The third and final response to my Cora request came on January 21st of this year. That review has been completed and addressed the 177 messages still under legal review. The total number of emails from Peck and Christensen isn't zero or six. It's 3,658 emails. Why is that? As recently as November 24th, 2019, I'm here five days after my complaint was filed, Christensen again sent an email to a private account saying I'm writing you on my private email because it is more convenient. Nowhere in this email does she actually give the recipient her government email address. Why is that? If she means by convenient, it's under the public radar. That's true. It's inconvenient to use one email address for your business and one for your personal, but I bet every one of you has two email accounts. Citizens have a right to expect ethical behavior from our city council. A manner that will preserve or restore the public's trust in government. We're talking about 3,658 emails here. Ethical violations erode public trust. Ethics regulations effectively inform officials what conduct is permitted and prohibited in public service. I think the entire city council knows that use of personal email for city business is prohibited. However, without a means to enforce the ethical requirements, the regulations become largely meaningless. That's what we have here. Why is that? Because there are no consequences. Nothing to deter further use of personal email accounts. There has been absolutely no ownership by pecker christensen of this abuse of public trust. There has been no ownership of anything. No public apology. We've seen only indignation. I call on city council to show council, women, peck and christensen that there are consequences and I demand a public apology. Thank you. Kevin Gartner. Kevin Gartner, but I won't you accountable. Thank you, Mr. Gartner. Thank you for handwriting. Thank you. You might want to. First of all, I'd like to thank you each and council member for your service to the citizens of Longmont. And with that, I think we all recognize that leaders are held to a higher accountability and responsibility. And with that comes ethical behavior. And my question to the city council is what are you doing to address the lack of an ethics committee and a lack of an ethics process, especially in light of this revelation of the violation of the sunset act with regards to emails. Thank you. Thank you. Justin Stober. Well, I'm Justin Stober. I live at 24 10 winding drive. I am here today to talk about, uh, I guess item number 11 be the pepola neighborhood concept plan amendment. Um, today I'd like to urge you to vote against this amendment. Um, just the ethics violations that happened through the whole planning process for this amendment should make you stop and think I've provided evidence of these ethics ethics violations. It's sickening. They've the planning department, I believe has just tried to ramrod this through. It's unacceptable. Um, the developer has said many times in these meetings and they're here tonight that 100% engineering has already been done for this, uh, put this project. That's not an excuse to ignore the concept plan and what is promised in that concept plan to the community, especially around Prairie Village. It's not an excuse. If they didn't 100% engineering work, that's on them. We do not need to accept this, this plan change what they have come up with and offered the city is two relatively useless pieces of land to try to satisfy this, the, the, uh, statement in the concept plan. It's not anything that can be used for civic purposes as dictated in the concept plan. And it's, it's egregious. So it's untenable. What they're doing is just ramrodding this entire thing through and I'm, I'm done with it. I'm sorry, but as council members, like you guys need to look out for the community. All right. It's not just about a developer, the developers coming here and trying to give you two useless pieces of land that the city is going to say, we can't do anything with, right? Of course, every department in the city is going to look at these little tracks and say, we can't do anything with, did the developer come up with anything new? Not in your agenda, not tonight. Nope, because 100% engineering has already been completed. That is not an excuse just to approve this project going forward. They have a responsibility to the community around Prairie Village and to the city residents for a land donation for civic purpose. All right. And what they're offering is nothing. They're hoping that you, the city turns it down. They're hoping that we turn it down. I'm not going to stand for it. I think it's wrong and, you know, I've already provided the city planning department with all the evidence I provided some of the council members here today with some of the evidence of the ethics violations of our planning department to get to this point. It's untenable and it's not right. Do not approve this concept plan change. Thank you. Thank you. Dwayne Lease. Oh, my name is Dwayne Lease. I live at 2686 Pearl Howlett Road. I came to thank the city for the tagging abatement program. We had a tagging on the back of our building on the corner of Longs Peak in Maine. And I had spent probably about two, probably four to maybe six hours just looking into how to get rid of the tagging and working on it. Finally got a response and the gentleman came out and did it. But what my thinking is is that there should be a very obvious and easy way for someone such as myself who can afford to pay for this service to be able to contribute to the city for the cost of what is essentially a valuable service to myself. I don't think it should be something that should be charged to every person in the community because some people can't afford it. But having the city not tagged is a value to all of us. I think it's extraordinarily important. And I want to thank you all for the work that you do and hang in there. Keep working hard. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lees. All right, let's go on to the consent agenda. Don, Ms. Quintana, City Clerk. Mayor item 8E resolution 20 2017 has been removed by staff from the consent agenda will be brought back. Do it an error in one of the attachments. So 8A is resolution 2020 dash 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 dash 14 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 dash 15 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 Louisville Town of Superior Town of Netherland Town of Lyons regarding the Boulder Area trails mobile application project and 8D is resolution 2020 dash 16 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, like waters consent agenda. All right, it's been moved. The consent agenda has been moved by Councilman Waters and seconded by Councilman Peck. I need to debate, debate, dialogue, questions. All right, let's vote all in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. 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 dash 08. The Billford 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 dash 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 0202008. I'll second that. It's been moved by Councilman Peck, seconded by myself. Let's vote all in favor say aye. All opposed say nay. 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 Bagley, 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 a print 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 REC, and taking 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 moved. Second. Alright, it's been moved by myself and seconded by Councilor Peck. Just a real quick question. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez for the record. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Just a real quick question. Prior to the creation station being a print shop, was it at one point a morgue for the city? Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, you are correct. Okay, I just wanted to put that because I'm a little bit of history to emphasize the creepy nature of but I like to anyway. Yes, I'll be I'll be I'll be in support. Thank you. I would move an amendment to make that the new Council offices. I'm just kidding. Dr. Waters. Was it also used as a maker space? In conjunction with the library? You know, I think at one point there was some use going on in that space prior to really the conversion to legitimate programming that went from the library in the Recreation Center. Yes. So from one extreme from a morgue to a maker space. It's pretty versatile space. So the one the one point I would want to make I understand it has not been utilized well as a maker space. But I do want to make the point that the library is is is we're overpopulated for the capacity of the library, in my opinion, has our liaison to the library board. It is the reason we're going through a feasibility study. And just a reminder that as we as we receive the results of that feasibility study, we've got for people who care about maker space, we've got a series of meetings scheduled. Now, through the rest of this month and into March, that feasibility study, I assume we're going to get by the end of April, maybe. And that's and I think that's a pretty close timeframe. And I'm assuming that we'll see in that feasibility study, some recommendations or possibilities for kind of state of the art maker space in conjunction with what a 21st century library should look like. So I just want to make the point as I drive by that or you walk out of Ziggy's having met with somebody for you know, some issue. And I look across and I see that space and think about what we what we could be doing with the kind of with with state of the art maker space for our creative class in in Longmont. And I support you need the space. I'm going to vote for this. But I want to make the point that we need space for those foot members of our community who have talents to bring and ideas to around what they want to create. And I want to keep that high on our list of or at least high visibility and high in the list of priorities as we go forward with the with the feasibility study. Councilor Christensen. I understand we're all kind of all the city offices really need need more space. I do think this is a good use of the Lashley Street station because it'll help. It's right up the street from it's very close to the elementary school and it's also right up the street from the youth center. So there might be some more synergy to be gotten between those two places as well. So I do think it's a really good reuse of this. But I also appreciate what Councilman Waters is saying the library really also needs space. So we're just going to have to figure out how to use our money wisely. But I think this is great because it is right across the street from the development services. So all right. So there's a motion on the floor to allow staff to go ahead to change the use and occupy the X 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 11 B Peppler neighborhood concept plan amendment. It's continued over from 1 14 20. 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 going to ask Don to make his way up closer to me so he can help me fill in the blanks. So obviously there was a plat note that existed regarding the development of this property. There were some concept plans. I think it was ambiguous in terms of what was actually contemplated in there in terms of the plat note. 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 council throughout during the previous conversation and some ideas that I and worked out with Don and we had real time in there. And you know we were 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 counsel 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 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 and the civic purpose was of providing affordable housing and evaluating that concept. We were getting into a number of sit back issues. There were 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 three dollars and seventy five cents 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 twenty one thousand dollars 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 in 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 not 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 in the ambiguity and in the Platte note and what we have to work through we think that is an equitable way to resolve this issue. Be happy to answer any questions. Councilor Peck. Thank you very badly. Harold these affordable units are they going to be always affordable or are they going to be when they're sold be sold at market value. So because of the issues in terms of placement with the setback there's not going to be affordable units they're going to pay us three dollars and seventy five cents a square foot. OK. To account for that piece. OK. I misunderstood. Thank you. Councilor Christensen. I realize that this will not please everybody and that who lives in that community who were expecting some civic element in that community. Unfortunately because of the way this contract was written a long long time ago people nobody's here from them maybe Johnny but this contract was not written in a way that was very clear and therefore I do think that because we did not it was not specified how much land or the location of land. I don't I think this is probably a good deal because this does serve civic purpose. It doesn't turn out that this was an agreement that gave the taxpayers some land was secured for the taxpayers of this city and I'm not willing to turn over a taxpayer land for nothing. So the taxpayers are getting something for this at large. The people who live in that neighborhood are not getting something particular but they are particular to their neighborhood. But as citizens of this city they are getting something in return which is some affordable housing units that we'll be able to you get for this payment in lieu. So I would vote for this. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Thank you very badly. So is there a payment in lieu or some sort of agreement concerning the regular portion of development not the the two lots that were designated as civic usage. So a little bit of history on that property when that property originally came in the development process they made the contribution of land which currently houses Spring Creek and Fall River which met the affordability the affordable housing requirements for the broader development of Prairie Village. If they had have put those four additional units it actually would have been beyond. I think the required affordable housing piece Council actually voted on saying that they had satisfied their affordable housing requirement based on those original land donations in a previous action. This is really above and beyond that. OK. And so in essence the the development has satisfied according to applicable ordinance now according to at least Council's decision that the you know inclusionary requirements and so therefore the proposal on the table is that these two small outlots if you will will then be a payment in lieu kind of concept correct towards the affordable housing initiative. And as such because of where we're at in the current economic market for for providing housing in our city as well as regionally any sort of contribution to the affordable housing fund is to me a civic contribution and much more usable than say 5,000 square feet of what would be considered pocket parking at best as I said jokingly to the mayor I'm like at the last conversation about this is no it's not much better than most people's backyards as far as single family detached homes are concerned as far as the size. And I think the problem really lies with the non prescriptive nature of the original writing of of the civic contribution it did not prescriptively say a certain amount of square footage or even a usage of that that donation. And I think that's where we really get into the weeds here a little bit as far as what the Planning and Zoning Commission had to decide on as well as what we have to decide on here at City Council. And I think that overall allowing the contribution to the affordable housing fund is probably the best way forward considering the utility of what's been proposed. Dr. Waters. Thanks Mayor Bagley. I get the concept. I'm not certain I get the number so I know you whatever you're working on you backed into a three dollar and seventy five cent per square foot for that for the number of feet. I think the combined what was the combined fifty six hundred square foot. But the two parcels what I what I am wondering about is that that you've been working on something but we do have a number in our ordinance an inclusionary inclusionary zoning ordinance for a payment of seven dollars and sixty two cents or ninety two cents per square foot as a payment. Yeah we didn't look at that because we had already they had already satisfied that component. I get that I get that I'm not questioning the over over time the serious commitment the developers made to land donations and what we've been able to do with it as we're as we are moving people into the fall group apartments as I speak or you know at this time. But it still begs the question if we're going to do this in the name of a cash donation or contribution to the affordable housing fund. Why we would not defer to our ordinance of seven dollars and sixty two cents ninety two cents. So seven ninety per square foot for finished market rate for sale housing in a dollar ninety per square foot for finished market rate rental house. Those are the numbers I recall. Well I was not quite recall the finished mark rate housing at seven ninety two as opposed to sixty two. I still wonder why I understand that's more money that some from a developer it's also more money in greater greater civic value. Why not that number. And I think part of it was to is that was sort of when I looked at it based on the three seventy five that was raw land and that's that's how we applied the raw land component to this. And so that was the genesis of the three seventy five. Thanks. Councilor Peck. Thank you. This is actually my statement has to do to the developer when we got this in our ordinance the last time according to our council come we had two sections one on east one on each side of this development that you're going to donate. I was not. I was not happy that the developer came up and at the last minute said oh no it's only going to be one part. So everybody was was taken aback really both staff and council. And this last minute update that we didn't have a chance to look at or even discuss in our ordinances are in our council come to me that is unacceptable. If a developer is going to be bringing something to us they need to do it in time for the council to be able to look at it to study it to understand what's going on as well as staff. So I I just wanted to put that out there that we need to have more respect for staff and not just pop things in on them at the last minute especially at the council meeting. So my statement. The other question is I think it was deed restricted rental not for sale is what they were looking at. And the dollar ninety. And I've got I've got a question. What's the city. What's city code on P. U. D. now. We wanted do we allow P. U. D. what we didn't we take action. I mean how does. How does that work now. Mayor Bagley down for Chet planning manager. We allow planning developments today. And someone could apply for a P. U. D. zoning and come in with an application for that. Specifically how is this property zoned today. Today they are zoned. The it would be commercial. I'm going to get my mind's zoning. One is on commercial one portion of it. The other portion is zoned residential mixed neighborhood. Right. Which is the council took action to make this piece of property zoned. Right. Correct. So the P. U. D. plan. I mean legally. I don't think they owe us anything. And so them being willing to pay twenty one thousand. When we did away with that P. U. D. it's a new owner. They've got used by right. They've got commercial and residential zoned lots. And so they're willing to. I mean I don't know if I'm right or wrong. That's not the city's position there. I understand what I'm saying is that we don't have a P. U. D. on this property right now. We do have a P. U. D. on this property. No I know the city's position is that we do. But my position in looking at it is that twenty one thousand to get out of a legal quagmire where their position would be that they don't twenty one thousand is a good. I mean I look at both sides and everybody's got a good argument and. So if they're willing to write a check for twenty one thousand avoid legal fees and move forward with the development and we get our affordable housing and we don't have to spend any more time on this. I'm all for it. You are touching on some of the questions as to why we were going to need to delay it to the thirty first. Right. OK. Well we don't have to now. I mean unless we decide to or. Yeah. So. All right. We have a motion one way or another. May. Yeah. Make a recommendation that if the council chooses to choose the option that. City manager presented you would want to make a motion to remove that note from the concept plan with but condition upon the payment of the twenty one thousand to the city of Longmont should we do that first. Go ahead. May I protect. Thank you. I would move to remove note twelve. No twelve with the condition that we accepted twenty one thousand. What's the exact number. Twenty one thousand even twenty one thousand twenty one thousand correct twenty one thousand even in as a contribution to the affordable housing fund. And mayor I'm sorry to interrupt we it is a public hearing item that we would need to open so just letting you know that we'll do that. We'll do that. OK. Thank you. Sorry. But. But we can vote on that first before we have to vote on that. I don't think we do. We can vote on that that have the public hearing on. No public hearing first. All right. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing for ordinance twenty twenty oh seven a and ordinance twenty twenty dash oh seven B. And we'll postpone voting on this particular motion until after we've had a public hearing. Thank you mayor Bagley. Council members I would still urge you to reconsider what I've heard tonight. You guys made a promise to that neighborhood to that community to the city. And I appreciate the fact that the civic purpose would go to affordable housing or to the affordable housing fund. But council member Waters is correct. You know why why the three dollars and whatever sense per square foot do it like you normally do it. If you feel like that's the right way to go. It sounds like to me with this whole process that the postponing and at least till March 31st or whatever that date was to figure that out to make this consistent with whatever other donation in lieu that you guys normally do on these types of developments. I mean it should be consistent. All right. I mean I. I think that it's wrong. I think that people made decisions in that neighborhood based on that concept plan based on what the city said it was going to be. And now it's something completely different. I understand there's new zoning and there's all sorts of stuff that's happened in the past years. I get that. But I'm just asking you to do what's right. Do what's right for the community surrounding that project and do what's right for the city of Longmont. Taking twenty one thousand dollars just to me isn't enough. I mean it's not consistent with any other donation in lieu or land or whatever that's called. Right. It's not consistent with what you've done before. And this developer D. R. Horton or it's subsidiary D. H. I. I mean they they have the money. I mean why are they nickel and diming the city. They're just trying to get around this because they already have a hundred percent engineering design drawings ready to go. And I mean that to me it's it's insulting. It should be insulting to you and it's insulting to the city. So there's another way to go about this. I understand that we that you guys want to make a decision. But I go back and ask for something else. I mean when you brought up the Miss Peck when you brought up the fact that they had two. Lots and then they came up right at the end said oh no we only met one. I mean is the twenty one thousand only for one or is it both or you know like. I mean. It blows my mind how non transparent this entire process is. I mean I honestly believe that the planning department and this is my personal opinion I'll state that for the record but I think the planning department promise them that they could get this. Concept plan note taken off and that's why they went ahead with a hundred percent engineering design and everything. I mean the transparency here is terrible the ethics violations from the planning department trying to get this railroaded through to your chambers to get this voted on if I mean it's it's really sad. I love the city. I don't love how this process has gone. It's not right. I'd urge you to tell them to go back rethink it make it if they're going to do a donation in lieu make it consistent with what they're doing in or what you're doing in other projects and call it good. All right. Don't just take this to make it easy. All right. Thank you. All right. Anyone else. All right. Seeing no one we'll go ahead to one else we'll go ahead and close the public hearing Eugene may and counsel Eugene may city attorney just a couple of procedural things so this is first reading we continued it at the last meeting on January 14th hearing councilmember Rodriguez's motion so there is an ordinance in the packet the there's two ordinances a has just a single condition if you wanted to add the twenty one thousand to a it effectuates the removal of note twelve requires submittal requirements we met within a year if you were to add the twenty one thousand then we have an ordinance to come back on second reading and we would modify that ordinance depending upon your motion. So we're only voting on one or the other one or the other right. So B had multiple conditions that was the landscape easement and a developer maintained part. Mayor Pro Tem do you want to redo your ordinance with the motion to pass ordinance twenty twenty oh seven a with your changes. Yes I move ordinance twenty twenty oh seven a with the condition that the twenty one thousand dollar contribution to the affordable housing be included as a condition to twenty twenty oh seven a. All second that. All right. Any additional comments or questions from council members. All right. Seeing no further debate let's go ahead and vote all in favor say aye aye. All opposed say nay. All right. The motion passes six to one or I'm sorry five to one with councilman Martin absent which I should have announced that you got that right now. All right. And then with Dr. Waters dissenting. All right let's move on to twenty twenty or item eleven C. 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. There 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 twenty eleven ninety two 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 release supports the council's sustainability goals. Staff recommends that the city council support twenty house bill twenty eleven ninety two Senate bill twenty one twenty four 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 one twenty four Senate bill one fifty one 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 going to mention something on that one. Go ahead. And then the last one Senate bill twenty one fifty three concerning the creation of an enterprise that is exempt from the requirements of section 20 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 oppose the Senate bill twenty one fifty three. So this came up at the mayor's or the mayor's and commissioners committee the Senate bill twenty dash one fifty one. All it's doing is adding four new positions to the RTD board. It's going from fifteen and nineteen which the what. Right. Yeah. And so do I. And so I mean I know that there was some talk at the Metro Mayor's or the Mayor's and Commissioners Committee or the MCC because I know that there were allies who are 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 fifteen but adding more subtracting more unless they redistrict to make it proportionate. There's no solution. So going from fifteen you know disproportionate seats to nineteen is just going from bad to worse. And so I actually move that we oppose Senate bill twenty desk one fifty one. Councilor 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 myself and Councilor Peck. So. Neda the Northern Area Transportation Authority also opposes this because of the addition of new board members. But the part the point here in this statement that reporting audits I also want to say that Neda 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. We're back the 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 I know why we're hesitant but I still think we should express concern. So there's a motion in a second. So the motion is to go ahead and direct staff to oppose Senate bill twenty dash one fifty one. All in favor say aye. Aye opposed. All right. Cool. So that motion passes unanimously with Councilman Martin absent. We still have three others. However do we have a motion. Councilor Peck. I move the slate of bills minus SB twenty one fifty one staff recommendation recommended by staff. I'll second that for you. All right. It's been moved by Councilor Peck seconded by the mayor. Any further question dialogue or debate. Councilor Christensen. No I'm trying to fix my. All right. Dr. Waters. Just to clarify we are we're talking about supporting the two bills that the staff recommends we support and opposing the third. Right. Yes. All right. Seeing no further discussion debate. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor. Aye. Opposed. All right. That passes unanimously with Councilor Martin absent. I do have one other question where have we did we take a position on Senate bill. Ninety three. Hang on one second. That's Mike Foots arbitration bill. I just want back up from council before I do something. Council has not taken a position on ninety three. 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 may if less than five mayors don't oppose it then there's a press release that basically says the Metro Mayor's caucus is 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 ninety three which basically just set some arbitration requirements which I really don't understand why this rises to the importance of. Of. I don't get it but I do know it's really important to. To. The other mayors in Boulder County and have asked that I join them in opposing. Their opposition. And I was going to do that. What is the arbitration for. So. The it has to do with sex assault victims. If you want to read you pull it and just let us know. Mayor Bagby I attended the Colorado Municipal League Muni caucus today there's no discussion about this bill. But it just seemed like I said it's strange why this would be a. 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. Not you me. Yeah. The bill enacts the consumer and employee dispute resolution fairness act for certain consumer and employment arbitration 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. That's right. So basically it's basically saying you can challenge. I'm an arbiter based on bias and what not. Again it's not. It's a big number. But it's important to somebody and it's really important to the other mayors in Boulder County and are asking it's important to Mike foot. They're asking that I joined 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 foot sponsoring this. Yes. So he's asking the mayor's 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 this 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 or not even do anything and just tell me it's OK to add my name to the list which I could do but you could I we haven't taken a position on it and I don't know a lot about it. And Mayor Bagley and 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 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. Thank you. So they just the mayors simply don't want the Metro mayors caucus to oppose the bill. So the city of Lamont does not have to support the bill. No we're not. This is not. This is just anyone have a problem. You're just checking if I oppose it. No. OK. Anyone. I just had a question on what the status is. So is it in committee. Is it on the Senate floor. I literally have no idea. It is in judiciary. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and seeing opposition. I'm going to go ahead and send that email just saying that I oppose the opposition. So. All right. Cool. Thanks. I'm going to pose the opposition. Yes. And that again then we'll just support the bill. We'll not even support the bill. Just just oppose the opposition. So Metro mayors caucus doesn't have a consensus. All right. So let's move on. Anything else on that or other issues. All right. Let's move on to final call public invited to be heard. I just want to point out scouts that you are seeing one of the shortest city council meetings ever. And so some day you're going to be. And so some day you're going to be sitting on city council running for mayor whatever you be like wait a second. I thought it was supposed to be way shorter than this. But that's not going to happen. So I'm just warning you now. So let's go ahead and do final call public invited to be heard. Anyone want to speak. All right. We're going to go ahead and close final call public invited to be heard. Let's go on to mayor and council comments. Council Mayor Peck. Thank you mayor Bagley. I want to respond actually to Regina Cheney and Justin Stober. Last at the last council meeting I made a motion that we move forward with getting a facilitator to facilitate facilitate and ethics and rules of procedure meeting among council. So that is already in the works. We get it that we need help and ethics committee. So the other thing that I want to explain is about emails. First of all I have no doubt over four and a half years that there are three thousand emails. But the core request is for everything that is on the city server. If it's on the city server it means that it has my city of Longmont address. Now I may have gotten and have gotten many emails from people to my private email address but I forwarded those to the city server. That's why you see my private email address along with whoever who ever wrote me that and we're all like that. I mean I've seen core requests from the mayor from councilman waters and they they send it to the city server as well with their city email address. Those did not come from the Indra Indra saver server or Google server because I don't have any of those which is what I told and I sat down with the city attorney and we looked at the ones that he had questions about and I said really small. The Longmont observer has released a lot of my emails. So if anybody's interested to see it's kind of boring who emailed me and what I said. Councilwoman Martin has put them on all social media. So anybody who wants to go read my emails there they're fine you can go read them. I'm not going to apologize because they're not on my personal email. They are on the city server which is what the core request was for. They were business that I forwarded to my city servers so they would be transparent. There were no emails that anybody got off the Indra server or the Google server. They all came from Joan Peck at Longmont colorado dot gov. So there you have it transparent. They're all on the city server. You can go read them. Thank you. Mayor pro town. Thank you Mayor Bagley. This is just a note for my fellow council members as well as the staff that there's a death in the family and I'll be out of town Friday through Sunday. Sorry to hear that. Dr. Waters. I just for the purpose for the sake of my own clarity and how I approach this issue of emails. There have been several core requests that people interested in my emails. Text messages calendar. So it's been my understanding that if if there is an email on my private email account that has to do a city business that's part of the public record. So I'm just asking our city attorney is that am I correct or incorrect. You are correct. So if whether I have or have not forwarded and I do the same thing when I have my wits about me copying my email at my city email account. But if there's been correspondence that I didn't think was city business. So I didn't any of those that have anything to do with the city of Longmont would be part of that public record. No matter what server there are correct. Correct location doesn't matter. It's about the subject matter. OK. I just wanted to just just to be clear. Thank you. All right. Anybody else. All right. City manager Marks. No comments. Mayor counsel Eugene. No comments. Mayor. All right. Let's go ahead and adjourn. Actually motion to adjourn. So moved. All right. Anybody opposed to the journey. All right. It's been moved and seconded and we're adjourning.