 Good evening everyone and welcome to the 2023 Longmont City Council debates produced by a Longmont public media in partnership with the League of Women Voters and Sponsored by Sustainable Resilient Longmont. This is the mayoral debate and I'm your host John Williams. In alphabetical order from left to right here, we have Ethan Ogreen, Terry Goon, and Joan Peck. I will call on each candidate to give a one-minute opening statement beginning with Ethan. My name is Ethan Ogreen. I'm 43 years old. I've lived in Longmont for six years. I have a master's degree in environmental leadership from the Europe University in Boulder. I've worked in grassroots environmental and social justice activism for more than two decades. I've won multiple leadership awards and I serve this country in AmeriCorps. And I'm running because as a sustainability expert I've seen the city claims to care about environmental issues yet we are taking a dangerously misguided approach on several important issues. One being that we are clear-cutting thousands of acres of pristine forest in our headwaters at Bunton Rock Reserve. For no good reason. Another issue that I care about is clean energy. The city's made a commitment to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030, yet we are not taking action to actually implement that. We can ask to the verge of an energy cliff where we'll see blackouts and skyrocketing electricity costs. We need new leadership to address these issues. Okay, thank you. Okay, Terry. Hi, I'm Terry Goon and I'm running to be the next mayor in Longmont because I thought there was time that another voice was heard on city council. Right now our city council often chooses to make itself the I guess the fixer of all problems. And all wants and things that are going on in town rather than keeping to the lane of government. Government is meant to be there to protect rights and municipal government in particular. You know, you've got the police, you've got the the court systems, that sort of thing. And as a municipal government, you've got utilities to deal with in transportation and zoning. But we've with these three ballot measures that have been added, they're all increases in taxes that are for wants and not needs. And I believe, you know, one of the major problems around here is expenses. Well, we keep paying for more and more. And this is one of the problems. Thanks. Okay, thank you, Joan. Hello, everyone. My name's Joan Peck and I'm kind of, I am running to continue the work that we've been doing on city council and within the city. You know, the past surveys that we've had in the past couple of years, Longmont has been rated as a great place to live. The residents on the whole are pretty happy with what we're doing. Some of the things that have been mentioned by my other challengers is that we seem to be asking, we seem to be running the city, but in fact, we do not. The city council is not, the city is not a mayoral run city. It is a city manager run city. Council makes policy and the staff tells us if the policy can work and how, and we work together to see if it can't work. So I'm asking you to re-elect me for mayor of Longmont to continue the work that we have been doing. Thank you, Joan. All right, next I will read the rules of the debate and ask the first question of candidate Ethan Auger. The candidate on the left will be asked the first question which they will have one minute to answer. When the answer is finished in their one minute and their one minute is up, each of the other participants says 30 seconds to rebut or extend the first answer. Rebuttals move left to right beginning on the answerer's right and moving around Robin. When all candidates are spoken, the candidate to the answerer's right becomes the next answerer. I will then ask a new question of the next answer and the rebuttals proceed as before. At the 25 minute mark the current round of questions and rebuttals is completed and the lightning round begins. In the lightning round each candidate answers the same question with a one word answer. Five questions will be asked. The first question will be answered left to right, second just down the line. When the lightning round is over the second half of the debate begins it proceeds as above with steps one through four. At the 55 minute mark the debate ends after the current round of questions and rebuttals is completed. I will then call on the candidates left to right to make a one minute closing statement. Okay all right so our first question tonight is to Ethan and here you go. Through the Federal Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act there are billions and billions of dollars available for assisting municipalities and governments with their transition to clean energy. How would you ensure that Longmont is able to capitalize on this and get as much support as possible? The first step is having an actual plan to achieve clean energy in the city. It's been five years since we initiated this goal for 100% carbon free by 2030 and variable actions been taken. There's a lot that we can do on a local level. What we can do within city limits is increase the use of solar. We have a button solar in Colorado and I think that we should pursue all grant opportunities including from the Inflation Reduction Act. There is a great opportunity I think for distributed solar generation within city limits and that's a missing link in the achievement of maximizing carbon free electricity. Teri. So 30 seconds or buttles are the answer. 30 seconds. You know I would just say that in general part of the big problem with affordability in Longmont has to do with all of the money that is being spent by the federal government. So do we need to capitalize on it? Sure. We should make it for individuals so come up with some grant opportunity so individuals can choose to do something like solar or some sort of you know environmental sustainable thing there versus coming up with a city-owned project that would go forward. Thanks. So at our last council meeting I made a direction to bring back the code allowing green building in our city that all new development needs to be green as far as electric development only no gas. We are also having a pilot program of a community solar garden because if everybody puts solar on their house what will happen is that because not everybody can afford it we have so we're going to do a community garden solar. Okay thank you. All right our next question goes to Teri. Here you go. Council members receive many complaints about noise and danger caused by street racing during summer months. Is this just a part of life in Longmont? What policy changes would you support to reduce this problem? Well I actually think that is a function of government where we're taking care of making certain that the the ordinances are followed within Longmont. The police if they need to be you know they may need to be expanded I think that they're they're struggling with finding people who qualify and can be hired so whatever that takes to help them with that problem I don't know if that's salaries or you know different levels of immunity what it what is the problem that people aren't it's not working out for them to get hired but certainly we need we don't from what I understand there's not many people on patrol at any one time so certainly speeding and you know racing down streets is a problem in Longmont and it can be a danger especially to pedestrians. Thank you. So the problem with police is actually a legislative problem which is too big of a topic right now to get into but we are having license plate cameras installed on light poles in different places in the city because we cannot read the license plate when they are going so fast so if we can get that done then there's a way to track down who the speeders are and when they were speeding. Ethan? Well I'm not sure why the speed limit is not being enforced but obviously that's number one is to enforce the existing law. I think um city council could pass ordinance where if you're not just speeding but speed racing that could be an enhanced penalty or a fine to discourage that behavior. Okay can we do a rebuttal into that? Um no okay no um so but the next question is for you Joan. Here you go. What should the city's approach to deal what should be the city's approach to dealing with the part of our unhoused population that refuse housing assistance? Once again that is problem a challenge for us because of state and federal laws around how we deal with unhoused people. We have two different elements of that. Unhoused people are people who may be educated, have been evicted, have a family problem where they can't they can't make their mortgage payments. Homeless people might be a different aspect of unhoused people. People with drug problems, people with medical problems uh so there are two different types of homelessness. We are we just had a ribbon cutting on the Zinnia project which is a wrap around services apartment complex for people to get into housing and um wrap around means that there's going to be addiction services, medical services um whatever services that we need will be in the apartment complex all the time so that our homeless do not have to run around the city looking for services. Thank you. Ethan? Well I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution. I think what's needed is to get to know individuals on an individual basis so what would have the city do is activate resources to employ mental health professionals and social workers to proactively get to know homeless individuals and I would also personally go out and get to know these people too and I think Mike Johnson and Denver is doing that and homeless folks appreciate that there are city officials who care about them enough to get to know them on an individual level. And I believe your question was specific to the homeless people that didn't want to have help so I'm not sure how the project that Joan was talking about it sounds like a cool project I don't believe the city should be in charge of it but I don't think that's one of the projects that would actually help so I would go back to the you know police need to be covering if there's quality of life sorts of issues going on with drug use or you know public urination or whatever whatever it might be that's going on you know certainly continue to talk to those that are unhoused and not wanting to be housed. Okay thank you so we're back to you for the next question. The question is all right council members are often asked by residents why weren't we allowed to vote on this or that issue and your opinion is the policy balance between what is put to popular vote and what is decided by elect elected representatives about right or do we have too many votes or is council too powerful? I would love to put more issues to public vote in fact a few of my proposals are to do just that when the issue I'm campaigning on is repealing the fee tax the local fee tax 3.6 tax on groceries I think we should put that issue to the voters and let them vote on whether they want to continue paying a tax or repeal that tax and then be able to put more food on the tables. Another issue I think that people should vote on because it's a pocketbook issue is renewable energy energy transition I would put together a comprehensive plan and ask the voters to support or reject that because I think that it's an area where there needs to be a bigger community dialogue and we need that input. And I would think that it could be the right mix if the if the government in general the municipal government would stay focused on the things that it should be in charge of and not be extending to other other areas like like housing like like banking and that sort of thing that people do get upset about because they didn't have a say in it. Thank you. So I agree with Ethan on the food tax. It's a great idea. However, Platte River Power Authority has eight members of the four cities on that board of which I am one and it was the four cities with our utility company that agreed to move to 100% renewable by 2030. It wasn't just something that we thought of, it was also our sustainability groups within the city. It was many different organizations that helped us decide what to do. Okay, thank you. So the next question we go to is Terry's. Given Longmont's air quality concerns and shortage of affordable housing, would you commit to voting to voting against any tax incentives intended to bring new businesses to Longmont? Yes, I would. I just don't think that one we need the incentives to bring business to Longmont and I just don't believe that we should be, I guess, you know, choosing one business over another. What's the worst thing that happens is when you've got your cell phone bill and you find out that they're offering new customers this great deal that you can't get even though you've been with them forever. I mean, it's infuriating. And that's kind of what happens with you offer tax incentives to new business to come to town and you're not getting the same breaks to those who have been here and been loyal Longmont businesses forever. It does start to get to you, especially when Longmont is such an attractive area. There's no need to beg businesses to come here. They want to come here. Thank you. So that's correct. Businesses do want to come here and when businesses want to come here, they ask the planning department in the city what is the, what are the plans? What do we have to do to come here? And we as the operation of the city, the planning department tells them everything they need to do and what we can help them with to bring them here. We don't, we do not choose partners or decide what businesses can be here and what cannot be here. It's up to them if they want to be here. Thank you. So our next question. Oh, sorry, sorry, go ahead. I'd like to reduce taxes across the board. I think tax incentives are a valuable tool when used in a strategic and targeted way. And two areas where I think that could be used. One is to bring a quality discount grocery store to Longmont. Another is to bring a modular home building factory to Longmont. I think those are both things that we don't have yet, but affordable housing and affordable food are very pressing issues for our constituents. And tax incentives could be a way to achieve that. Thank you. All right. This is one for you, John. The mayor typically represents Longmont on the board of the Platte River Power Authority, but any council member may be appointed to serve on that board. If you were a board member, would you work to reduce PRPAs investment in general, in generation facilities that burn fossil fuels? First of all, not any council member can be on that board. It's just the mayor and the utility operator within the city. Can you repeat? Sure. Okay. So the mayor typically represents Longmont on the board of the Platte River Power Authority, but any council member may be appointed to serve on the board. If you were a board member, would you work to reduce PRPAs investment in generation facilities that burn fossil fuels? Yes. Ethan. I've studied this issue in a lot of depth, and I think I have a very broad grasp of this topic, and I've written a lot about it on my website, Ethan, for Longmont.com. It's just not possible to get into it in depth in 30 seconds, but bottom line, yes, we should reduce dependence on fossil fuels. We need to do that in a way that balances sustainability along with affordability and reliability, and that's not easy to do. So we need to have a very strategic focus while thought through planning. Thank you. Okay, Terry. And you know, that's an odd way to put the question, would I help them if that was their goal, the union on the board, and that's what you want to do? But honestly, I think that the coal-fired plant that we have there, we have the cleanest coal in the country right here that we've been using, and then they're starting a natural gas plant, or they've got a natural gas plant that is also incredibly clean, that we definitely need for a system that is reliable and efficient that can handle the loads that we put on it. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So our third round of questions go to, begins with Ethan, what question it is. All right. Do you support a camping ban within the city of Longmont? Is that a yes or no question? No. Or you can elaborate on your position. I do support a camping ban, but I don't think that there should be, I don't think it should be a criminal, criminalization of camping or homelessness. I think we need to get people the support that they need to get off the streets. I think something we should have, and I am a libertarian, so I say this with respect to homeless individuals, but I think there should be a process of registering if you are homeless at the city, can know who is homeless, who needs help and support, and can direct those resources to individuals to help them get off the streets. Thank you, Terry. I would support a camping ban, though I think it's been, hasn't it been deemed illegal? I remember it's in place, but I would support a camping ban. I mean, you can't, it's a, these, you know, the public parks that we have here are meant to be for all the public to use, and if you have campers taking it over, then it's a campground. It's not a public park. Thank you. Thank you. John. So we have a team comprised of police software mental health workers, our housing homeless team that goes out and speaks to, educates themselves, gets to know who the homeless people are, and we do have a database of who they are. And one of the things that is really hard for us is that if we don't have enough beds for homeless people to sleep in overnight, then they cannot stay on public property. We can move them on. Okay. Thank you. So is it time for the lighting round on this? Do one more question. Okay, so we'll move to Terry's question. Here you go. Do you support a regional minimum wage for Boulder County and the included cities? Why or why not? You know, it's so expensive to live here and I do not support a regional minimum wage. I do believe that people should have the right to contract with each other on whatever terms that they're agreeing to. If you're not happy in a job that you're, you're working at because you're not making enough money, then there are other jobs. So there's nothing that requires you to stay put in one job. There's, and so the contracts there should be between private individuals and the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. From what I understand, a lot of our, I mean our, the Boulder County is talking about going up to $25 an hour and a lot of the people in Long Island are already making, you know, over what is the minimum wage. Mostly it's, you need something for teenagers. You need something for kids. You need, you know, maybe people just want to get some part-time work done and it's not every job is valued at $25 an hour. So no, I don't support a minimum, a higher, higher minimum wage here. Thank you. So Boulder County has amended that ask. They are only asking at this point to go to 15, I think 16 cents an hour. The reason that minimum wage started was because contractors, I mean, I'm sorry, businesses were not paying their employees a living wage. So when you say that it should be between the employee and their business that they work for, then has it worked? That's why a minimum wage was instituted. Okay. Thank you. I think we're ready for our lighting round. Oh, sorry, Jason. Jason, it's the tree. I think that increase in minimum wage should be pinned to increases in the rate of inflation. If you increase the minimum wage too quickly, then that will increase inflation. We've already seen too much inflation in the economy. I think increasing to $15 would be good, but not 25. That will be too fast, too high, and that will have devastating effects on the economy overall. Okay. Thank you. All right. So now we're ready to begin our lightning round. I hope you're excited. All right. So I'm going to ask these questions, and it's a yes or no answer. And we're just going to go right down the line. And we're going to start with you, Ethan. Have you ever ridden a city bus? Yes, today. Okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. Back to you, Ethan. Sam's or Costco? Both. Neither. Costco. Okay. Ethan, would you ban plastic straws if you could? No. No. Yes. Okay. Back to you, Ethan. Should Longmont freeze annexations of land? No. No. No. Okay. And our last is for you, Ethan. What would be your vehicle of choice if money were no object? I ride a bicycle, so I'd like to get a new one. New bike. Jeep Wrangler. Yeah. Bicycle and ID for Volkswagen. Okay. All right. Thank you. So that finishes our lightning round, and we're ready to move on to the last part, which mirrors the first part. And we're going to begin with Joan. And your question is, okay, describe how you see the role of municipal government paying particular attention to whether protecting individual rights versus ensuring that vulnerable populations are not left behind is more important. Oh my gosh, I don't think either one is more important than the other. I think that they need to be balanced when individual rights are a cause for something going off the grid for vulnerable people that we need to look at those rights and say, have they gone too far? Are we interpreting them correctly? And how do we, within those rights, protect the vulnerable people? Protecting individual rights is paramount. And protecting individual rights goes a long way towards protecting the rights of vulnerable populations. For example, with the COVID response cracking down on individual rights also affected the rights of vulnerable populations. So I think they go hand in hand and I will protect the freedoms and liberties of individuals, all individuals. And I think individual rights are the number one. And Ethan's right, it goes hand in hand with the vulnerable people. Because as you focus on the purpose of government with the individual rights, that leaves fewer people in that vulnerable position because they've got less government oversight over what they're doing and how they're spending their money and what kinds of taxes and things are put upon them, which can often help the situation. Okay, thank you. So our next question is for you, Ethan. Okay. What about you? Oh, did Joan, did you get this one? Did I? I did. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Ethan. So this is yours. So what is your position on the proposal for a center for arts and entertainment? And how do you believe that Lamont can position itself as a thriving hub for the arts generally? Well, I think it's a great idea and I appreciate the battle proposal. I just think that needs more detail. We don't know where the center is going to be built. We don't know what the design is. So I'd like to see those details before I endorse that kind of proposal. A lot of people who I talk to think that we already have sufficient opportunities for arts and entertainment in Lamont's. Personally, I'd like to see an outdoor amphitheater and I think there are spaces perhaps along the river where we could have that kind of a space for a lot less money than building a new Magnificent Center. I think a center of arts and entertainment is an amazing idea and the the concepts that I've seen outside out by the Sugar Factory look it looks pretty cool. And I think it would be very exciting to have that. I just don't believe that it should be built on the backs of taxpayers. I believe that people who want to see that built should gather their money up and have it built helping the developer or whatever it takes to get that done. I think it's a cool idea. I think it's fantastic. So I hear both sides of this. First of all, council is not raising your taxes. We are asking you would you vote to raise your taxes yourself to get some of the amenities that we're proposing. The Arts and Entertainment Center does not have a site that has been designated for it. It is the developers and landowners of the Sugar Factory that have said they would like to have it in their proposed area. And as far as people who want this should be raising the money, $35 million has to come from the arts community before we invest a dime in it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Terry, next question is yours. Okay. What life or work experience do you have that informs your position on climate change and how will you address it on council? I have zero life or work experience on climate change. And I would actually not really if I had my dreaders, what council would be would be there to be the vision for Long Lawn in a manner that says Long Lawn needs to reduce itself down to what its original purpose is, which is to protect individual rights and to do the municipal things like the utilities and the roads and that sort of thing. They just need to stay out of there. They are not the fixer of all the problems. We have we have the zero carbon situation that we've, you know, we've signed on to with Platte River Power and the other cities. And that's only raising our prices on electricity and things, which I'm not certain that's the way to go. We're going to have less efficient electricity, less efficient heating and cooling in our, in our homes, and more expenses for, for vulnerable populations, which is who we keep talking about, who we want to protect. And I think that the market should cover. So before I was on council in 2012, I led the petition drive to ban fracking in Long Lawn. And we made it so that it would be on, it would be in our charter so that it could never be taken out unless the people voted to take it out. And the reason that I did that was because we had a well leaking into our Union reservoir that at some time in the future is going to be residential drinking water. And on council, I put it, I got more things done. I do consider myself an expert on this topic. Like I said, I have a master's degree in environmental leadership. I worked on these issues for many years. One thing I counted is that smart meters are not the answer. Smart meters will not magically give us the, the weather that we desire to stabilize the climate. What we need to put for us are regenerative solutions, planting trees, building healthy soil. Those are things that should be on the forefront and they've been on the back burner for the city. Thank you. So Joan, you get the next question. The covenants of homeowners associations or HOAs can often overrule city code. Do you concur with this practice? How would you work to change it or why do you think it's appropriate the way it is? Oh boy. Some HOAs are great. Some are not. And the covenants are made by actually the people who live in the HOAs and the board. But changing those is on a state level. Yes, they do overwrite some of our codes, but I think our city has a good relationship with HOAs and we work pretty well with them. So we don't have really a lot of complaints about HOAs. All right, Ethan. I agree with Joan. I do live in an HOA. I haven't seen this be an issue in my HOA and I haven't really heard it come up as an issue for the city in general. I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. There may be grievous instances where the city needs to take action. But in general, I think HOAs, we should support the decentralized governance of HOA structure. And I would assume HOAs would have a more strict code in that the neighborhood has agreed to certain codes, certain rules within the HOA. And so yeah, I think the city's role in dealing with this would be to make certain that everybody's following what was agreed upon in the HOA. Okay. So brings us back to you, Ethan. Do you believe that density increases for infill development should be limited to a percentage of density over adjacent neighborhoods? I don't think, again, there's a one-size-fits-all solution for density. I think it depends a lot on the context of neighborhood and community input. I will listen very strongly to community opinions on developments in neighborhood surrounding where they live. Depends on parking. It depends on conservation goals. There are just many different factors that I don't think it's really appropriate for a one-size-fits-all solution for density. Yeah. And I think I would agree with Ethan on that. It's not really a one-size-fits-all. Ideally, you want to get some infills. And part of the deal with keeping long amount affordable or as affordable as possible often means that you need smaller homes, two or more homes within a lot that used to be a one-home lot. So as long as it's working out with the zoning, I don't have a problem with that. So my one concern about density and infill, especially in older neighborhoods, is the infrastructure. We're an older city. We have homes and areas of the town that are 100 years old. That infrastructure is 100 years old as well. So we have to be very careful that the new infrastructure that we're putting in for the development can coincide with the old infrastructure that is in the development around it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. The next question is for you, Terry. Should the city subsidize training for in-home child care providers? No. The city should not provide subsidized training for in-home child care providers. I think it's a great idea. And I suspect that those people that really care about such thing could best come up with their own plan for training versus having government do the training or subsidize the training. They can come up with a plan for the training and come up with grants for people who need subsidized, he helped to pay for that training within whatever it is that they're working on learning for in-home child care. I think that's a, I think it's a fantastic idea and people should do it, you know, whether it's red cross classes or things like that. Thank you. I do believe that the county has a program for in-home care providers. I had one when my children were little. I opened a daycare center because I couldn't find daycare in Longmont. That was quite a few years ago. And the county did a great job, but it's a choice. You can take advantage of it or you don't have to. It's great to have that backing though. I don't think this is the proper role for the city government. We are not education experts at the city level. I think education professionals should be in charge of this type of training. I'm impressed with the early childhood alliances proposal for a special district that would provide funding within Longmont and Boulder. So I look forward to seeing that project move forward. Okay. Thank you. All right. So Joan, the next question is yours. Economic development for Longmont is performed by a private non-profit, the Longmont Economic Development Partnership. It receives some funding from the city that LEDP can propose and negotiate financial incentives enticing businesses to relocate to Longmont. Such incentives are eliminated by statute and must be approved by city council. Should this arrangement be changed? And if so, how? No, I don't think it should be changed because I think this is a great oversight tool that we have to make sure that our city manager, city attorneys, everybody that's involved in bringing new businesses to our city, council can be the oversight for that. Everything that they do must come to council and we can make sure that we ask a lot of questions. Why are you here? How many people are you going to employ? What is their wage? What are their wages going to be? Why are you locating where you want to locate? Those are the questions council can ask. Operations, planning, need to follow the codes and zoning. So we can be, we work well together in that way. Not everybody's pleased, but it is the way our city works. Okay, Ethan. I think I agree with Joan, but could you repeat the question that was a complex one? Sure. Economic development for Longmont is performed by a private non-profit, the Longmont Economic Development Partnership. It receives some funding from the city. The LEDP can propose and negotiate financial incentives enticing businesses to relocate to Longmont. Such incentives are limited by statute and must be approved by the city council. Should this arrangement be changed? And if so, how? I don't see any problem with this program. I think it sounds great. Like I said before, I support use of tax incentives and business development incentives can go along with that to attract the types of businesses that will improve the well-being and safety and health of our residents. And I would suggest, I mean, the only change I would make is that if the city stops funding it, stops funding it, then, you know, the oversight part that Joan was mentioning, it almost sounds like there, you have to ask the city permission to start a business or come to Longmont. And that, that to me doesn't make sense. But if they're funding this group, then yeah, there needs to be some oversight. So it's, you know, it's a, this is one of those situations where I think we have too much government getting involved in too many things. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Our next question goes to Ethan. Should Longmont change its electric rate structure to encourage more people to install solar panels on their homes or commercial buildings? Why or why not? Yes, I do think that the incentive structures should be changed. And I don't think that we should be approving rate increases without having a plan for the achievement of 100% carbon free electricity by 2030. There is a move to increase rates by seven percent. And yet we still don't have that type of plan. I'd like to see PRPA come forward with a detailed comprehensive plan before we increase rates. And yes, we do need to work with PRPA to change the rate structure to allow more solar on homes. Thank you. Jerry? I, no, I don't think so. If only because of the inequity of it, it's, what happens is when you start subsidizing things that take government forms and government permissions and things like that, you have a group of people that always are first in line to get that new thing, the new shiny object, and it leaves the rest of the people behind. So you end up with your most vulnerable being hit the worst with the highest rates as it goes. And I know there's, well, that's enough. Okay. So I agree with that. What happens is that PRPA has to buy electricity from the market. They also sell it, but we buy it. And in order to buy it, we need to charge the residents to pay for what we buy. If we have more, and then those costs are spread equitably with, with throughout the city. So if the richer people can put solar on, then it is still spread out equitably, but it doesn't work because the people who have solar don't have to pay as much electricity. The lower socio-economic class pays higher rates. Okay. So our next question starts with Terry. What is your understanding of vision zero? If elected to council, would you vote to repeal the policy, accelerate its implementation, or leave it the way it is on a rough 20 year trajectory? You know, I gotta say, I actually have not looked much in division zero. I was under the impression that it was a, you know, a traffic thing where the goal is to get down to zero fatalities, zero, you know, zero fatalities within the traffic structure. And I think that's the main of it. But so I have not looked into the details because obviously there's some controversy because you're bringing it up as a question, which is to me, of course, you'd want zero traffic fatalities within Longmont. So I apologize to all the listeners out. I have not actually dug deep into vision zero to understand it. Vision zero is a program to bring awareness to people of all the fatalities and accidents that are happening. It's not just crashes. It's also pedestrian accidents. We have too many people running yellow lights. And because of that, we get pedestrians hurt, we get cyclists hurt. So we need to bring awareness to everybody that you need to slow down. Some municipalities have blinking lights that put on a siren on when you, when the yellow light comes on. Similar to Terry, I know the basics that vision zero has to do with reducing traffic accidents and fatalities. I'm not familiar with the details on the surface. It sounds great, but I've also heard that there are community members who have concerns with this being another technocratic authoritarian intervention into your lives. So I am sensitive to those concerns, but I'd like to learn more about the details before I present my own position on it. Okay. All right. So the next one's for Joan. And it says, should Longmont eliminate parking for multifamily dwellings, parking minimums for multifamily dwellings in residential zones? Yes. And the reason for that is we are trying to get people to use more multimodal. Take the buses, take bikes, walking. Don't take up all our land for parking structures. We need a way to end. To do that, we are, the city is putting out a proposal for a rideshare to get a company to come in to be able to offer ways to move around without taking a car or having to park a car. So we're moving more toward multimodal and not so much everybody having a car. Can you repeat that question? Yeah. Should Longmont eliminate parking for, let's say eliminate parking minimums for multifamily dwellings in residential zones? Eliminate parking minimums so that means that you can park as much as many vehicles as you have. Right. That's a tough one, but I'm going to say no. And I would disagree as well. I know that young people often want to use the multimodal transportation and that's the incentive and certainly younger people have a, they've grown up with the thoughts of climate change and are concerned about that. But currently we have a lot of cars on the streets already and it's difficult when you have a vehicle and most people need a car to get to where they're going that buses, public transportation doesn't always work for them depending upon timing and picking up children and going specific places. Thanks. Okay. And next question goes to Ethan. What is a council member's responsibility to respond to calls and emails from residents? Do you think they should have to answer all of it? Yeah, I think that a council member or the mayor should respond at least with a gratuity or to let the person know that you received their email or their call and I don't think that you need to be responding 24-7, but it's important to be responsive as much as possible. It's not a full-time job being mayor or council member so that needs to be taken into consideration but yes in general you should be responding to every single email call that comes in. And I would agree in the main that there's a responsibility there and our council has done a wonderful job about that. I've been in contact many times and they do great. They, you know, I don't believe they deserve abuse that needs to be responded to so I would disagree on certain, you know, I don't know what all they get so in the main yes. We get a lot. And for me being mayor is a full-time job and it is whatever you put into it. So yes we should respond to as many people as we can which is why I had the mayor meetups every quarter to just to talk to people on any subject you want. We have coffee with council, we have community meetings, emails, phone calls. I try to have coffee or a walk with as many people that want to. So anyway we can communicate with them we should. Okay thank you. All right so Terry you get the next one. The city has been approached by a team of designers, investors, and developers to redevelop the dilapidated former sugar beet processing factory in surrounding area. This will require a development partnership with the Steve Lamont. What are your thoughts on this and would you support public-private partnership? I do not support public-private partnership and it's that's another way of saying what can often be crony capitalism. You're once again picking winners and losers and I recognize that that's a dilapidated building with a lot of problems associated with it and this is a one-time opportunity to to get it changed. However by having the city get involved and then other all of a sudden it becomes everybody in the city is making that or the decision is being made for us. We all have to help pay for this because the city doesn't earn money it all comes out of taxes. So I don't believe it is up to the entire population to help with this development it's it's a good spot. Obviously there's problems with it but there is potential there and I just I think it should be privately developed. So it's not a it's a potentially dangerous spot. The sugar factory has tons of asbestos. We have teenagers in there all the time. It is falling apart. We finally have a group of people who want to develop it. If we don't get it developed it is going to be a huge problem for the city. The developers don't have enough money to do anything with it and we don't we don't have winners and losers when it comes to who we partner with. I agree with Joan on this one. Public safety should come first and this is a plighted site that's environmental and safety hazard and does need to be addressed in some capacity and I think it's exciting proposal that the private developer wants to come forward and help remediate the site. But we do need to put those safety concerns environmental concerns at the front and make sure that it's being redeveloped in a way that is beneficial for the community. Okay all right Joan you get the next question. What climate-related hazards do you expect Longmont to face in the near future and what we do on the council to protect people from these effects? Well I don't think we are done with floods and I think what the city has done with the resilient St. Brain project is great and it will I know in our last when we had our last really heavy rains this past fall I was calling Harold and saying where are we what are the gauges showing what is what is happening out there and then on council I said tell us did the resilient RSVP work and he said absolutely we would have had flooding had we not done the work on a resilient state brain project which FEMA helped us grants helped us Boulder County helped us if we didn't have those partnerships we would never have been able to keep our city out of the flood plain we never would have been able to rebuild the bridges that our last flood totally destroyed so I think we're very very active in watching the weather watching what's happening around our country to keep our city safe. The number one concern I have is the protection of our excellent water quality we have clear cutting going on now in the head of waters about to rock preserve thousands of the vakers are being destroyed in the name of wildfire prevention but this is not the right approach to prevent wildfires you don't clear cut and increase the risk of flooding in the name of wildfire prevention so I would definitely change that policy and focus on protecting work quality as well as preventing wildfires in our headwaters and I agree that the resiliency and brain project did fantastic with these last rains I was keeping an eye on it myself and it was very impressive and I'm I'm glad the work was done I know it was very expensive the thing about what what Jill mentioned about it we never could have done it I don't think that's ever we've we've never seen that in action where government was so small that it was focused on one area in this obviously the safety issue is one of the areas so I'm not sure about the word never okay should be going to closing statement so all right things as to our final section all right so each let's see all right so I will now call on the candidates starting with Ethan to start with a one-minute closing statement well thank you so much for your concern and for paying attention to these topics and tuning in I bring a great deal of leadership experience and knowledge and expertise in environmental sustainability issues in particular but I'm not a single issue candidate I will protect the freedoms and liberties of all people who live in Lomond I will not discriminate against people who don't live in Lomond I think everyone has a voice whether you are an outside expert who wants to speak to city council or you live one or two blocks outside of the city limits I think you should be able to speak to the council not have your voice oppressed so it's one area where I disagree very much with Mayor Peck who's trying to suppress the voices of certain people and I will be a mayor who brings people together and works for a common solutions that really uplift our entire community and achieve freedom of prosperity for all all right Terry thank you yes thank you very much for listening as you can see I do have a different vision for what I believe government should be and I know a lot of people disagree with that and I think that's important to have a different voice on council to at least suggest different ways of taking care of things you know with the when Jonah was mentioning or these guys are mentioning about the hazard of the sugar beet factory that is an area where I'd say yeah it is a hazard and perhaps that's where the police are the safety public safety should step in and condemn the area and do something about it that would be to me a good use of tax dollars versus helping a developer afterwards then it could be developed with private funds so it's it's a matter it's a it's a different way of thinking I I recognize that it's it's different for a lot of people where the first the first thought is not how can the government fix this problem it's instead let's focus on what we're we're supposed to do and let the private sector whether it's non-profit or profit fix the problems so thank you for listening and thank uh love my public media for hosting this um I would like you to I would like your vote to reelect me so that we can continue the work that we've been doing I do want to go back because I totally misunderstood one of the questions about the minimum parking um no I don't think we should take away the minimum parking I think that one parking slot for multifamily developments is more than adequate um I am working in several areas transportation housing uh the utility companies um working with dr cog the environment with savior st vrain the sustainability it is a huge job being there and it takes a lot of time the the learning curve is really high and I spent eight years learning it so I would like to continue to do that and I ask for your vote thank you okay we at Longmont public media would like to thank our friends at the league of women voters of boulder county and sustainable resilient longmont for their help and support of this debate and this concludes our evening please leave the studio promptly so that the crew can close up candidates you may take your literature with you or if you decide to leave it please pick it up by 10 a.m. on Monday morning thank you