 Hello, I'm Sergio Angelos, Executive Director of Longland Public Media. Today we're going to be discussing with Tim Waters, a volunteer of Longland Public Media about some ballot questions for the 2022 election in Boulder County that specifically are about Longmont. So Tim, you're an awesome volunteer for Longland Public Media and you're also a council member and I'm sure there is a backstory perhaps of this specific ballot question which I'll read just so people know what I'm talking about. In the ballot question, so the city of Longmont ballot question 3B, Charter amendment to prospectively vacate office and it says, shall the city of Longmont home rule charter be amended by revising section 2.8 of the charter to give elected city officials running for another elected office the option of prospectively vacating their current office to avoid the burden and expense of a subsequent election. So, Sergio, thanks for the opportunity to talk about this. Yeah, as a volunteer for Longmont Public Media, a few folks in town will know that I host the back story, which is about storytelling and featuring what's going on in Longmont. There is a back story on this ballot question. This question is on the ballot because honestly I raised my hand or asked for a recognition one night at a council meeting and moved that we changed the charter to accomplish what this ballot question would accomplish and here's the reason. Some folks who watch this will know that I ran for mayor in this last election cycle. Before I announced for mayor, I checked with our city clerk to ask if it was possible for me to resign my seat as award one representative, effective election day. So to continue to serve until election day, but announce a vacancy so someone who would want to represent ward one could run and if I won the election, I would have become mayor. There would have been continuity in ward one. Somebody could have been elected basically in a special election at that time. Had I lost, which I did, whoever would have run would just fill that seat and I would be back in civilian life. So there were two of us who were sitting council members who ran for mayor, myself and Mayor Peck. Had there been an option for each of us to resign our seats, effective election day, we could have served in those seats until election day. Individuals could have declared their candidacies. There could have been a special election for both her at-large seat and my ward one seat, whichever of us won mayor would step into that role. Both those council seats would have been filled. There would have been continuity. We've got a year without an at-large representative to fill the seat that Mayor Peck vacated. No fault of anybody's except it was an odd year. We were doing the county clerks were kind of responding to the census and recalculating districts and they had to do that across the county for legislative districts, house districts, those kinds of things and they were just overwhelmed. So they didn't really have a way to squeeze us in. Had they had the time to squeeze us in, the price tag we heard for the special election would have been $300,000. And we decided as a council that wasn't worth that to the Longland taxpayers. When I was elected, I was elected in a special election back in 2018 and as I recall it cost the city somewhere between $65,000 and $85,000 to run that special election and that was what was in my mind when I checked with the county clerks. Well, why would I subject the city to that expense and the potential discontinuity that we have experienced with a seat now that's been open for a year? The solution to that would be to give me as or not me in the future, anybody who was in a similar situation the option to say I will resign effective election day, declare that opening, let that whoever that is finish their term or finish that year till the election. And then if they move into the mayoral seat, great, if not, they're back in the civilian life. But the residents and the voters of that ward or in the city would have had continuity and the city would have been saved an expense. So I know there's been confusion about this. When people read that and I've had a number of questions, what does this really mean? Not only does it not cost the city anything, it will save the city money. If sitting elected officials volunteer to do that, and it would create or ensure continuity that we've not enjoyed or experienced in this last year. Okay, so to make sure that I understand maybe the viewers understand. So the way the current process works and if you were to vote no on this, how it would continue working would be anytime there's a mayoral election, which is held every two years, current council members or other members of residents of the public of LaMont can sign up to be, you know, try to try to become the petition to petition to become the mayor become a candidate. If a current sitting council member gets all the necessary signatures to be the candidate for a mayor, that seat should the council member win would then become vacant. Correct. Which then would lead to another special election, which of course has, we didn't do one this year, the city of LaMont did not do one for the reasons that you stated. So is that correct in how that process currently works? That's a correct summary work. Yep. It would save both the expense of the special election and it would ensure continuity for the ward or the at-large seat. And what I proposed, which is now on the ballot, was that it would be done voluntarily. My intent was not to impose this on elected officials who were elected dutifully and legally by either ward voters or city at large. The intent was not to corner people and to require a resignation, but to make it an option. So it's an option. It's an option. It's not required. So some voters might say, well, so what good is that? Who would actually volunteer? I would have. And I suspect others might in the future because of, in particular, what we experienced this year, right? An empty council seat for a year and an exorbitant cost to fill that seat. And actually, there were only very narrow windows where we even could have done an election this year because of the redistricting and the burden on county clerks. So going forward, it may very well be that it would be 10 years again, maybe before you'd have this extended period of time, but it wouldn't avoid the expense. There would be a vacancy for a period of time, no matter what, and the expense of a special election. You could overcome both those with a yes vote on this. Now, I'm not here as an advocate. I'm here trying to explain this, but my people need to decide what they think makes sense. But at the end of the day, not only does it save money, it increases the likelihood of continuity. And I think both of those are probably a good thing for the city. Would you say that there are any cons or, I mean, any reasons why maybe people might want to vote no for it? I mean, I know, like you mentioned, it's not required, right? The candidate has the option of resigning their seat. But are there any negatives to people voting yes on this? I don't think so. As a representative of Ward 1, what I had been elected by residents, what I didn't want to do was say, well, I'm going to go ahead and resign because if I'd done that, I could have done that three or four months in advance of the election, but it didn't left a vacancy. And I felt obligated to honor the commitment I made to Ward 1 residents. I guess somebody could argue that those people who elected, whether it was me or anybody else, would want you to continue to the end of that term. Now, that's kind of an arrogant response like, gee, they'd want me versus somebody else. But that's the, that would be the only downside. I think it's way more upside to say whether it's a Ward or at large representation, that the continuity of leadership, that there would be somebody in the seat representing either at large residents or Ward residents, I think way outweighs, far outweighs, you know, what might be some concerns about, well, that was my representative. And I'd rather they stay in that seat, rather than move off the council back in the civilian life. I know some people would just as soon see me in civilian life, but it's not the way it worked out. Well, no, yeah, I think that's extremely helpful. I for one was a little bit confused about that question. I'm sure many others were. What are your thoughts on some of the other ballot questions? Well, there are two issues in terms of the charter. One is just some cleanup language to make the business that the city does more efficient who can sign off on various levels of authority for purchasing. And it's just, it's just kind of cleanup stuff. The other is less cleanup and has more compliance. And that is the state election laws set some parameters for when newly elected officials are seated. And typically that's after ballots are certified. Our charter called or specifies a series of dates for newly elected council members to be seated. And what we what we experienced this last year, it was before ballots had been certified that we were in a position to be swearing candidates in. So it became it became a little dicey. There were some close elections. The mayor election was close enough, at least at one place at one point, that there was some concern about, well, are we going to be swearing in a new mayor or, you know, other council members before we have certified votes? There was enough of a difference. And by that time, I conceded the race and, you know, it wasn't an issue, but it could have been. And the other ballot question is just to clean that up, right? It just makes it clearer. It would just delays a week or two when new like newly elected officials would be seated to ensure that it happens after ballots are certified. Okay. The third question on there is about bonding, selling revenue bonds to cover the cost of the the sunset to overreach of the resilient same brain project. I do have I voted to put that on the ballot. So, you know, I have views on this rather than express my preferences. I do think it's in the interest of residents if you're watching this, to do your homework and decide for yourselves. But I will say that the reason this is on the ballot is it is it is maybe the most critical reach in terms of flood mitigation to prevent a repeat of what happened in 2013. And with all the great work that's been done in the restoration following the flood, if this reach doesn't get done, all the rest of it downstream is still vulnerable. It's at risk. If we were to have another event, not unlike we experienced in 2013, we'll be back to ground zero after $140 million have been spent. Wow. And I and I did this is just a good investment. It has to be done whether it's through the sale of bonds or through rate increases for drain water fees. And we've already the council's already increased fees for a drain water a storm water drainage. I said storm drainage storm drainage. Right. And and those fees will will cover the cost of the debt. Right. So there's no more, no taxes increases, no tax increases, no fee increases. If it fails, that work still has to get done. We're going to have to pay for it differently rather than bonding and amortizing over, you know, a 20 year period of time or 30 year period of time that gives a lot of people had a chance to cover that cost. We're going to increase. There's the only one other way to do it. And that's increase fees again and do it on a cash and carry basis. And that's just I don't think economically, the most responsible way to go about it. What we cannot do is leave the people and the property downstream at risk. And our largest affordable housing development in Longmont is still at risk. If we don't get this done. Okay. Well, thank you. That was incredibly helpful, Tim. Thank you for your time. Thank you all of you for watching. We do hope this was incredibly helpful in helping you make a decision on how you want to vote for these three city of Longmont ballot questions. Thanks for watching.