[1:44] >> Good morning. Welcome to

[1:46] Colorado Springs City Council

[1:49] meeting for AUGUST. 25th 2026.

[1:49] >> Will the clerk please call

[1:56] the roll? Councilmember kc

[1:57] Councilmember Crow Anderson,

[1:58] here, councilmember Donaldson

[2:00] here, councilmember gold. Here

[2:02] I am councilmember Present in

[2:05] person. Councilmember line

[2:09] Weber. On his way excused.

[2:11] Councilmember raining here.

[2:13] Councilmember Risley here,

[2:15] Councilmember Williams here.

[2:18] Present one en route. Please

[2:21] stand for the invocation. We

[2:27] have the pleasure today.

[2:28] >> With MR. Gene or Pastor

[2:30] Chaplain, actually, it's

[2:31] chaplain James to occur from

[2:32] Stone Church. Thank you. Thank

[2:35] you.

[2:36] >> Before I offer scripture

[2:39] and prayer. We had to Socorro

[2:40] State Patrol officer shot this

[2:45] morning. On highway 24. Few

[2:49] pass. Please keep there. Their

[2:57] families and Good morning to

[2:57] city council and the staff

[3:03] into all you in this room.

[3:04] Trump's homes I would like to

[3:06] read the Lord is my light and

[3:09] my salvation whom shall fear?

[3:13] The Lord is the stronghold of

[3:13] my life of whom shall I be

[3:18] afraid hero Lord. When I cry

[3:19] aloud, be gracious to me. An

[3:24] answer me. You have said seek

[3:27] my face. My heart to you your

[3:29] face, Lord, I do seek MAY we

[3:32] bill? Our heads in prayer.

[3:33] Almighty GOD, as we gather in

[3:36] this room today. Seeking the

[3:40] presence of the spirit. Over

[3:45] Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[3:45] And as I have commissioner

[3:46] servant to pray for City

[3:50] Council and staff. We can not

[3:56] run. A government or lines

[3:57] without the presence of our

[4:04] Lord. Made this council. All

[4:06] of us Sheikh your face daily.

[4:10] Seeking the wisdom to

[4:11] strengthen the purpose of life

[4:14] through Jesus Christ. And as

[4:14] the city Council governs the

[4:18] city. Maybe they do so as you

[4:21] guide and direct each one. We

[4:24] asked this blessing now. Upon

[4:25] this gathering in the name of

[4:27] our Lord Christ. Amen. And

[4:31] then.

[4:34] >> pledge allegiance to the

[4:37] flag. United States of America

[4:39] and to the Republic for which

[4:41] it stands. One nation under

[4:44] GOD, indivisible, with liberty

[4:51] and justice for all.

[4:53] >> We will now consider the

[4:54] consent calendar. These items

[4:56] will be acted upon us a whole

[4:56] unless a specific item is

[4:57] called out for discussion by

[5:01] councilmember a citizen.

[5:01] Wishing to address council. Is

[5:02] there anyone who wishes to

[5:03] pull an item off of the

[5:05] consent calendar? Can I get a

[5:10] motion? And a motion from

[5:10] council members, Lea second

[5:11] from COUNCILMAN Casey all in

[5:13] favor. Please say Aye. In the

[5:19] Post. Moving on to item Will

[5:21] the clerk please read item

[5:26] into the record?

[5:27] >> City council appointments

[5:28] to boards, commissions and

[5:29] committees.

[5:31] >> This morning, we have

[5:33] several appointments starting

[5:34] with the airport Advisory

[5:35] Commission. A vacancy occurred

[5:36] on the airport advisory

[5:36] commission due to complete a

[5:40] term. Council members. Roland

[5:40] Iranian Kimberly Gold

[5:43] recommended elevating Mike

[5:46] Bird. He was served as an

[5:46] alternate member since OCTOBER

[5:49] of 2025. To a voting member

[5:51] position. Additionally, they

[5:52] recommended a reappointment of

[5:53] John Eastman Council members

[5:56] to have anything to

[5:57] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[5:59] And good morning. All that are

[6:02] in Rome and of course, online.

[6:03] The one thing I will say is

[6:07] airport. The advisory

[6:08] commission is always that

[6:10] quiet group in the background

[6:11] and a lot of people don't get

[6:12] to see their interactions and

[6:16] what they're doing for us. On

[6:16] behalf of the citizens of

[6:19] Color Springs at our airport.

[6:22] And the people that volunteer

[6:23] their time its to

[6:23] professionals. And what I mean

[6:28] by that is some are just

[6:29] regular volunteers, but

[6:32] majority of them are

[6:34] individuals that have career

[6:36] in aviation have ran a small

[6:39] general aviation airports. So

[6:39] we're getting the best of the

[6:42] best on these commissions and

[6:46] it was a very easy decision to

[6:47] recommend individual to level

[6:48] from primary on the

[6:54] commission. Matter of fact,

[6:56] that individual ran a small

[6:57] out in Kansas City. And and of

[6:59] course, now he's here. Former

[7:03] Airflow Marine retired. So I

[7:05] think a phenomenal choice.

[7:06] Great individual and more than

[7:07] happy and excited to actually

[7:08] have him be active member on

[7:13] the commission. Now.

[7:14] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT,

[7:15] I'd like to echo councilmember

[7:16] Remy statements and just give

[7:17] a big thank you to John and

[7:19] Mike for their continued

[7:20] service. The airport is the

[7:22] front door of Colorado Springs

[7:23] and they're doing a lot of

[7:25] unglamorous behind the scenes

[7:27] things to really elevate our

[7:28] airport. So thank you,

[7:29] everyone for their service.

[7:29] And thank you, MADAM

[7:31] PRESIDENT.

[7:32] >> Next we have Pikes, Peak

[7:33] Area Council of Government

[7:36] Community Advisory Committee.

[7:37] A vacancy occurred on the

[7:38] Pikes Peak Area Council of

[7:39] Government Community Advisory

[7:40] Committee due to a complete a

[7:42] term on JULY. 24th Council

[7:45] real and rainy, interviewed

[7:47] applicants. Gregory Charter is

[7:47] recommended for appointment as

[7:48] a voting member council. Of

[7:51] have any comments.

[7:52] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[7:52] And once again, this is

[7:56] another commission that I'm

[7:57] liaison to.

[7:58] >> And I will tell you, the

[7:59] speaker calls for government

[8:01] Community Advisory committee.

[8:02] >> Their role and

[8:05] responsibility is you to

[8:06] integrate? Find out what's on

[8:09] your mind and bring that back

[8:10] to the advisory committee

[8:11] granted to have very specific

[8:14] areas that they focus on

[8:15] dealing with transportation,

[8:18] military land use. Entering

[8:21] But these are folks that are

[8:22] out there engaging with all of

[8:23] you in the community. And I

[8:23] know they're going to continue

[8:28] to do that. Lot of great that

[8:31] was tough. One of the probably

[8:31] most tough interviews that

[8:37] I've had 13 well qualified

[8:37] applicants Merritt at down

[8:40] made this election and the

[8:41] individual that we end up

[8:42] selecting is someone who's

[8:44] really integrated into the

[8:45] community. And I'm looking

[8:46] very much forward. Not think I

[8:49] see him in the room. I thought

[8:52] I did that Gregory is going to

[8:53] represent you all well. So

[8:54] thank you very much, MADAM

[8:55] PRESIDENT.

[9:00] >> Next, we have county city

[9:01] drainage board. A vacancy

[9:02] occurred on the county city.

[9:04] Drainage were due to a

[9:05] complete a term on AUGUST 18

[9:06] Councilmember Kate and Casey

[9:09] in Paso County Commissioner.

[9:09] Bill, why someone with a Paso

[9:11] County drainage plan planning

[9:13] manager and engineering

[9:15] manager the City Public works.

[9:16] Division manager, an

[9:17] engineering technician and the

[9:20] board chair. Interviewed

[9:21] applicants. Tim Martin was

[9:22] recommended for appointment as

[9:23] a voting member council Casey

[9:27] comments.

[9:28] >> Just that, MISTER Tomorrow

[9:28] will be ago. Excellent

[9:29] addition to the to the

[9:31] transport.

[9:34] >> If there are no additional

[9:35] comments, we have a motion

[9:36] from COUNCILMAN Gold in a

[9:37] second from councilmen, rain

[9:49] or Casey. Let's bow.

[9:51] >> The motion passes 8 to 0.

[9:52] Moving on to item 6. Is there

[9:55] any mayor's business today?

[9:57] >> Yes, just a few just

[9:58] reminder that this is so cold

[10:01] start of week. And so we've

[10:05] got a host of events and their

[10:05] community celebrating in

[10:06] assisting folks that are

[10:08] starting small businesses and

[10:13] a number of members of council

[10:13] been involved in small

[10:14] businesses starting up and

[10:17] continuing. Want to make sure

[10:18] that folks have an opportunity

[10:19] get to start up week. You'll

[10:22] see. About a dozen more events

[10:25] still to take place this week.

[10:28] And at the end of the week, we

[10:28] have the legislative barbecue

[10:31] down at Colorado State. Fair.

[10:32] And so those are a couple of

[10:35] special things going on and

[10:36] then Thursday morning there is

[10:37] a special announcement Weidner

[10:39] field and that'll be great for

[10:41] our community. Thanks.

[10:44] >> Uganda item 8, a will. The

[10:46] clerk please read item 8 a and

[10:50] 8 be into the record.

[10:53] >> It an ordinance amending

[10:53] part 5 claims management

[10:54] article Finance management

[10:55] procedures. Chapter one

[10:56] administration, personal

[10:58] finance, the code of the city

[10:59] of Colorado Springs in upper

[11:03] teens claims management ab in

[11:04] ordinance amending parts. 6

[11:05] workers compensation article 5

[11:06] finance management procedures

[11:08] to provide administration

[11:10] personal finance the code of

[11:11] the city cars from 2001 is in

[11:12] the Upper 10. You to workers.

[11:13] Compensation claims

[11:13] management. Good morning,

[11:17] John.

[11:18] >> Good morning. PRESIDENT

[11:19] Kerr Iris and pro temp Risley

[11:20] and members of City Council.

[11:24] My name is John Hunter. With

[11:25] Car Springs Utilities. And I'm

[11:29] here this morning, too.

[11:32] Present on the proposed city

[11:34] code amendments. This

[11:35] presentation will cover both

[11:39] items to 95 2.96. If we go

[11:41] ahead and go to that site.

[11:53] Should work. There's really 2

[11:56] key points to these code

[11:58] amendments. The first is a

[11:59] more formal separation between

[12:02] the city and the utilities for

[12:05] their claims and workers comp

[12:06] funds. They are currently

[12:08] separate funds that are

[12:10] tracked separately. But this

[12:12] code change would formalize

[12:15] that separation. And secondly,

[12:16] the transfer of the management

[12:19] of these 2 funds from their

[12:21] current state with the city

[12:24] cfo being the manager overall

[12:26] funds to amending that to have

[12:30] the utility cfo manage the

[12:31] claims and workers come fund

[12:35] for utilities. And that's all

[12:36] I have. Unless you have any

[12:43] questions. At this time, I'd

[12:48] like to Tim Shriver are from

[12:51] the city attorney's office to

[12:51] tweak to one of the

[12:57] ordinances. Good Morning City

[12:58] Council. 10 shatter the city

[13:00] Attorney's office and the

[13:01] Tribune Office.

[13:04] >> And Item 8, a we're

[13:08] amending Article 5 Chapter one

[13:10] section 1, 5, 5, 0, 3, The

[13:13] very first line, it says

[13:13] currently says.

[13:15] >> The city and utilities show

[13:18] investigate. It should say the

[13:20] city or utilities. And so we

[13:22] asked when you make the motion

[13:24] to prove this, that

[13:25] acknowledge that amendment. So

[13:31] that portion. Thank COUNCILMAN

[13:32] Dawson.

[13:33] >> Yeah, MADAM PRESIDENT, sir,

[13:37] if you could say up there.

[13:38] I've made the motion

[13:39] electronically. So I would

[13:40] just like to clarify that for

[13:46] the city clerk to amend its my

[13:48] motion is amended to states.

[13:53] Rather than and. That. That's

[13:54] correct, right? Correct. And

[13:57] Section 1, 5, 5, 3,

[13:58] >> COUNCILMAN Hinton, are you

[14:01] good, sir?

[14:02] >> I am. I would just request

[14:05] the email that to so that we

[14:06] get the right line. Number

[14:07] page number cited in the

[14:08] minutes. Please. Yes, I'll do

[14:11] that.

[14:12] >> Yes, thank you, MADAM

[14:12] PRESIDENT it. Could you just

[14:17] explain the importance says

[14:18] because the each fund is being

[14:22] managed. Separately, each.

[14:25] >> Utilities and city will

[14:25] each investigate and settled

[14:26] or compromise their own

[14:30] claims. So as it's currently

[14:32] it's just really reading is

[14:33] basically saying that both

[14:34] city and utilities well

[14:36] investigate both claims. And

[14:37] so we're just making a

[14:39] distinction that. Both

[14:42] entities are going to

[14:42] investigate, settle compromise

[14:47] their own claims separately.

[14:49] >> Have a motion from council

[14:50] Madonna Senate, a second from

[14:51] COUNCILMAN, rainy. Let's vote

[15:03] on item 8, a

[15:03] >> and the motion passes 8 to

[15:06] 0.

[15:14] COUNCILMAN Donaldson. It went

[15:18] away. Okay.

[15:20] >> 8 have a

[15:22] >> motion from COUNCILMAN

[15:24] Donna Son in a second from

[15:25] COUNCILMAN, rainy. Let's vote

[15:35] on item 8 b. And the motion

[15:41] passes 8 to 0. Moving on to

[15:42] item 8 c will the clerk please

[15:46] read item 8 c into the record.

[15:47] Public hearing for the

[15:48] consideration of proposed

[15:50] changes as provided in colors

[15:51] from she till it is JULY 2026.

[15:57] Net metering rate case.

[15:58] >> Good morning. Thank you.

[15:59] Good morning. I'm Chris Widlic

[16:00] senior attorney with the city

[16:01] Attorney's Office Utilities

[16:03] Division.

[16:03] >> I'm going to get you

[16:04] started on utilities rate case

[16:06] this morning by running

[16:08] through the instructions

[16:08] explaining the process that

[16:09] will be followed in today's

[16:13] hearing. The City Council's

[16:14] authority to establish reach

[16:16] charges and regulations for

[16:17] utility services. It's

[16:18] contained in the Colorado

[16:21] Constitution. Cars, statutes,

[16:21] city Charter City Code

[16:22] Council's rules and

[16:27] procedures. Article 20 of the

[16:29] Colorado Constitution provide

[16:30] City Council with the

[16:31] authority to establish

[16:32] electric, natural gas, water

[16:33] and wastewater rates, charges

[16:34] and regulations. Article 6 of

[16:37] the city charter also provides

[16:38] the 30 to operate those

[16:42] systems. The power to

[16:44] establish tariffs for electric

[16:44] and natural gas services

[16:45] provided inside municipal

[16:46] limits lies exclusively with

[16:50] City Council. City Code

[16:53] Section 12, 1, 1, 0, 8, e

[16:54] directs the city council to

[16:54] establish rates for electric

[16:58] and natural gas service that

[16:59] are just reasonable sufficient

[17:03] and not unduly discriminatory.

[17:05] Under Colorado revised statute

[17:08] section 43.5, 102, the city

[17:10] council's rate setting

[17:11] decisions for electric natural

[17:12] gas customers outside

[17:14] municipal limits are not

[17:15] subject to review by the

[17:16] Colorado Public Utilities

[17:19] Commission so long as the

[17:20] rates and charges are dental

[17:24] those inside municipal

[17:24] Typically rates or consider

[17:26] just unreasonable if the rates

[17:28] balance one, the utilities

[17:29] interest recovery of

[17:31] legitimately incurred costs

[17:31] and a reasonable return on

[17:32] investment, dedicated utility

[17:37] service and 2, the customer's

[17:38] interest in being assessed

[17:39] charges that approximate the

[17:39] cost associated provision of

[17:43] utility service. Part 4, the

[17:45] rules and procedures of City

[17:47] Council together with Section

[17:49] 12, 1, 1, 0, 8, of the city

[17:50] code set forth a process that

[17:51] govern City Council hearing

[17:57] hearing today. In setting

[17:58] rates charging regulations for

[17:58] electric service, utilities,

[18:00] rules and regulations. City

[18:01] Council is acting in its

[18:05] legislative role. The written

[18:06] materials you have received as

[18:08] well as the oral presentations

[18:08] and testimony of this public

[18:09] hearing will constitute the

[18:13] record of that hearing. Today.

[18:14] You'll hear the JULY 2026 net

[18:17] metering rate case which

[18:18] involves tariff proposals to

[18:18] the electric service and

[18:19] utilities rules and

[18:21] regulations. At the conclusion

[18:24] of the hearing. I will assist

[18:26] determining what issues have

[18:27] identified and asked for a

[18:28] preliminary decision on those

[18:32] issues. Based on that, I will

[18:32] draft a just decisions and

[18:36] orders for your review. Those

[18:37] decisions and orders will be

[18:38] reviewed at your work session

[18:41] meeting on SEPTEMBER. 21st.

[18:42] And you'll be asked to adopt

[18:43] the resolutions at the regular

[18:46] meeting on SEPTEMBER 22nd. For

[18:47] an effective date as was to

[18:48] his proposals of APRIL. First,

[18:53] 27. At this point in the

[18:54] proceeding. I would ask that

[18:56] of any city council members

[18:57] had any material

[18:57] communications related to the

[18:59] rate case. Prior to today's

[18:59] hearing that they be included

[19:03] for the record. Council.

[19:06] Michael Williams. Good

[19:10] morning. Thank you. PRESIDENT

[19:13] I'm just curious as to why

[19:16] that's question us because got

[19:17] rid of

[19:18] >> the expert, a portion of

[19:20] this. But does this to play a

[19:21] role?

[19:23] >> There's no prohibition on

[19:24] those communications. We do

[19:25] ask that they be included now

[19:27] so that all councilmembers are

[19:28] aware of all material

[19:30] communications related to the

[19:31] rate case.

[19:32] >> So that all councilmembers

[19:33] are working from the same

[19:35] collection of facts and making

[19:37] your decisions. How much time

[19:38] do you have for us to list all

[19:38] those communications? I mean,

[19:41] we've all had.

[19:42] >> Communications right with

[19:45] countless individuals. So how

[19:46] would you like us to? That's

[19:47] why we asked for it to be

[19:50] material or a summary of.

[19:51] >> For example, I received a

[19:53] number of communications firm

[19:56] constituents concerned with x,

[19:59] y z so that it's understood

[19:59] that everybody's aware of what

[20:02] communications have happened.

[20:03] Okay. Maybe I speak for all 9

[20:04] of us name but it can object

[20:09] that we have received.

[20:10] >> Countless emails. Had

[20:12] meetings with constituents and

[20:13] communication, Kerr Springs

[20:16] utilities as well. So I'm

[20:17] pretty sure that holds true

[20:18] for myself and probably the

[20:23] other 8 of us. As Williams

[20:26] >> that's COUNCILMAN Line

[20:31] River. Yes, I've countless

[20:33] meetings emails and I've

[20:33] talked to utilities and all

[20:37] stuff that Brandi said.

[20:42] >> COUNCILMAN Donaldson.

[20:42] >> Yeah, thanks, MADAM

[20:46] PRESIDENT and also received

[20:49] I'm not sure dozens, maybe

[20:49] maybe 50 to 100 emails and I

[20:51] tried to reply to every one of

[20:51] those except the ones from

[20:58] this morning. Very few

[21:00] in-person meetings. That's it.

[21:05] >> Thank COUNCILMAN

[21:06] >> I thank you, MADAM

[21:06] PRESIDENT. Yes, I too, have

[21:08] received dozens and dozens of

[21:11] I don't know. Since the

[21:13] beginning probably well over

[21:15] 100 emails. I have had

[21:17] conversations with numerous

[21:20] rate pairs with a net metering

[21:23] customers. I have spent

[21:25] probably more time than

[21:26] Tristan would care to remember

[21:28] with the cfo seeking to

[21:32] understand the rate case. And

[21:33] I've done a fair amount of

[21:34] research and reading on my own

[21:43] as well. Thank you. Thank you.

[21:52] Okay. Moving on to the council

[21:58] in kc.

[21:59] >> Yeah, participated in all

[22:01] Coral Springs, Georgia board

[22:02] meetings and discussions

[22:03] regarding that received read

[22:04] all of the all council e-mails

[22:05] regarding that bitter.

[22:10] >> COUNCILMAN Gold. COUNCILMAN

[22:14] Remy, I mean, this Sorry,

[22:17] Risley same as everybody else.

[22:18] >> I also received many emails

[22:21] and I have met with

[22:22] constituents utilities.

[22:26] >> And so did I just want to

[22:27] make sure for the record that

[22:30] I stated it.

[22:34] >> Are you on the record a

[22:35] long record? All 9 on the

[22:38] record. I have a down. Thank

[22:39] you. Next up, turnover to

[22:42] utilities for their

[22:43] presentation. Utilities has

[22:43] requested that questions be

[22:44] held until the end of the

[22:47] presentation. If possible, so

[22:48] they can be efficient in

[22:49] presenting their material as

[22:49] quickly as possible. Thank

[22:55] you.

[22:55] >> COUNCILMAN, whenever have a

[22:56] comment or used, have your

[23:01] name up. Yeah. Let's that

[23:02] continues to happen this

[23:12] morning. Thank you.

[23:15] >> Good morning. Good morning.

[23:17] Members of City Council. My

[23:18] name is Tristan. You're hurt

[23:18] and the cfo, Colorado Springs

[23:23] Utilities. Diving right into

[23:23] the great options that we

[23:25] would like to be able to

[23:26] discuss today. I wanted to

[23:27] start with the underlying

[23:30] issue. We're trying to solve.

[23:32] The net metering program has

[23:34] been successful helping our

[23:35] customers adopting rooftop

[23:36] solar and bring renewable

[23:40] energy to our system. This

[23:41] proposal is not about the

[23:44] value of solar energy. Our

[23:46] current rain challenge is that

[23:46] solar customers can earn

[23:50] energy credits. 4 d time

[23:51] production. When powers

[23:55] cheaper. Well, still relying

[23:56] on the utility's grade when

[23:57] solar production is reduced or

[23:58] unavailable in our cost of

[24:00] powers more expensive. The

[24:05] helpful analogy. Is your line.

[24:07] Blackout dates. The airlines

[24:07] know that they have a small

[24:10] number of travel days but are

[24:11] their busiest of the entire

[24:14] year. The plan for those days

[24:17] and terms of infrastructure

[24:18] employees, all of the things

[24:19] that they have to be able to

[24:19] support those days and the

[24:21] price, according. Our utility

[24:24] system. Electric System

[24:27] operates in a similar fashion.

[24:28] We have a small number of

[24:30] hours that we build our system

[24:31] forward to be able to handle

[24:36] our peak capacity. We have to

[24:38] make sure that we maintain

[24:39] enough generation substations,

[24:43] transformers transmission. And

[24:44] distribution facilities to our

[24:46] highest on demand. Peak hours

[24:51] for all of our customers. The

[24:52] difference is that airlines

[24:53] use those peak periods to

[24:56] maximize profits. As a

[24:57] municipal utility. We're

[24:57] focused on equitable

[25:01] allocation of costs. Our goal

[25:03] is to ensure all customers who

[25:04] depend on the grand

[25:08] contributed appropriate share

[25:08] of the cost required to

[25:09] maintain the road reliability

[25:17] for our grid infrastructure.

[25:18] District. This graphic in

[25:19] front of you shows why the

[25:23] peak demand matters. Utilities

[25:25] builds 22% of our electric

[25:27] infrastructure for 4% of the

[25:30] time get any given year.

[25:33] That's almost a quarter of our

[25:34] infrastructure that's there to

[25:36] support 4% of the time in any

[25:37] given year. And most of that

[25:40] is a very focused time from

[25:42] really around 03:00pm until

[25:42] 09:00pm that we're building

[25:49] that 22% of our system. We

[25:49] cannot build our system for

[25:50] average. Get for only average

[25:54] conditions. Our system must

[25:55] support moments when everyone

[25:58] wants power. At the same time.

[25:59] The need for peak capacity is

[26:00] what drives a significant

[26:05] portion of our costs. The key

[26:06] takeaway is that while daytime

[26:07] net metering energy credits

[26:10] reduce energy purchases, they

[26:11] do not eliminate peak

[26:11] infrastructure that we must

[26:21] build maintain. Approximately

[26:22] 7 per cent of total

[26:23] residential peak demand comes

[26:26] from that metering customers.

[26:28] Based on our cost of service

[26:29] analysis serving that 7% of

[26:30] net metering customers cost

[26:30] about 6.5 million dollars a

[26:36] year. In infrastructure costs.

[26:37] Under the current net metering

[26:39] rate structure, only about

[26:41] 2 million of that 6.5 million

[26:42] is recovered from net metering

[26:43] customers through kilowatt

[26:46] hour charges. The remaining 4

[26:48] and a half million. It's not

[26:49] recovered from those net

[26:50] metering customers whose usage

[26:51] does contribute to the peak

[26:53] demand that we must serve.

[26:57] Those costs don't disappear.

[26:58] They're built into into total

[26:59] rates, passed on to non that

[27:04] metering customers. As an

[27:09] organization 4 and a half

[27:10] million dollars is effectively

[27:12] a starting in the hole. And we

[27:13] look at other virtual power

[27:13] plant programs and demand side

[27:18] management programs. This

[27:19] hampers our ability to fund

[27:20] programs that can bring more

[27:23] value from renewables.

[27:24] Batteries, powered batteries

[27:25] paired with solar. A game

[27:27] changer as they have the

[27:31] ability reduce peak demand. In

[27:33] all of the discussions we've

[27:35] had as we've been going the

[27:36] net metering conversations.

[27:37] I've discussions with many

[27:40] customers on that have solar

[27:42] some customers that have solar

[27:44] and battery seeing the way

[27:45] that the battery operates with

[27:45] that solar is truly a

[27:47] game-changer for us as a

[27:49] utility company. It allows

[27:52] those solar installations

[27:54] truly reduce the need of that

[27:56] peak infrastructure. And

[27:56] that's where we would like to

[27:59] be able to get to as a utility

[28:00] as being able to encourage all

[28:01] those things. But when we look

[28:02] at the dollars that are

[28:04] available and we're starting 4

[28:05] and a half million dollars in

[28:06] the hole, it is hard to be

[28:07] able to get the math calculate

[28:14] out for those programs. That's

[28:17] a quick overview of the rate

[28:17] case of why we're bringing

[28:20] this before City council. With

[28:21] that, I'm going to turn over

[28:23] some of the details of the

[28:23] case to our pricing rates

[28:39] manager, structural.

[28:40] PRESIDENT

[28:42] Cry Ruston PRESIDENT Pro 10

[28:44] risley members of City Council

[28:45] enterprise rates. Happy to be

[28:48] here this morning. And before

[28:49] we dive into the really the

[28:52] details of the case.

[28:53] >> Want to state for the

[28:54] record that are filing does

[28:56] comply with city code and the

[29:00] rules and procedures as

[29:01] outlined by the time line and

[29:03] the procedural compliance.

[29:04] Particularly and we'll go

[29:06] through all the states. But

[29:07] with our pulmonary filing to

[29:08] the office of the city

[29:10] auditor, our distribution of

[29:11] our rate filing to the city

[29:12] clerk, members of council

[29:14] posting it for the public as

[29:16] well as the city attorney's

[29:19] office on JULY 14th City

[29:21] Council did set today's rate

[29:24] hearing date and then MR. Win

[29:25] over the cap. The schedule for

[29:33] the decision in orders.

[29:35] Proposal does include changes

[29:38] to our electric rate schedules

[29:41] as well as rules and

[29:42] regulations. Go over the

[29:43] changes to electric rate

[29:44] schedules in more detail on

[29:46] the next slide. Before I leave

[29:49] this light, I wanted to cover

[29:50] the proposed changes to

[29:50] utilities are rules,

[29:55] regulations. Particularly our

[29:57] proposal always gives net

[29:58] metering customers the benefit

[30:01] of their own production. So

[30:03] that always are able to use

[30:04] their own generation to offset

[30:04] their consumption from the

[30:08] grid. Clarifying that in our

[30:09] rules and regulations for rate

[30:12] options that have a demand

[30:13] charge. We're adding a

[30:16] statement in our rules and

[30:16] regulations under the building

[30:19] demand definitions to clarify

[30:19] that for net metering options

[30:22] with the demand charge that

[30:23] demand is measured off the net

[30:24] demand. So the demand really

[30:29] pulled from utility system.

[30:29] The other change to utilities,

[30:32] rules and regulations is

[30:34] clarifying that for our

[30:37] commercial industrial dynamic.

[30:38] Great stretch with Switching

[30:41] its part me that that also

[30:41] applies to net metering

[30:45] customers. So utilities.

[30:46] Commercial and industrial rate

[30:47] classes are defined by the

[30:49] size of the customers load,

[30:50] for example, small commercial

[30:54] customers. Our customers under

[30:54] kilowatts, medium commercial

[30:57] customers are between 10 and

[30:59] 50 kilowatts, large commercial

[31:02] or are between 1500 kilowatts

[31:03] and industrial customers start

[31:07] over 100 kilowatts demand as

[31:09] customers loads naturally

[31:11] change over time through

[31:13] expansion or other drivers. If

[31:13] they grow from a from a load

[31:20] 10 kw 2, 12 kw, for example,

[31:21] or from 12 kw. 22 w they moved

[31:23] to the appropriate rate class.

[31:24] And we're just adding that

[31:25] clarification that works for

[31:26] our non solar customers over

[31:29] clarifying. That also works.

[31:31] And what we're proposing is

[31:32] that same principle apply to

[31:33] net metering commercial and

[31:37] industrial customers. MR. Bit

[31:38] like indicated that our

[31:39] proposal is for these rates to

[31:40] take effect. APRIL. First in

[31:43] the filing that we provided to

[31:44] counsel and to the clerk's

[31:47] office on JULY, 7th, of

[31:48] course, contained the full

[31:48] detail of our proposal,

[31:50] including our reports

[31:52] resolutions, tariff sheets and

[31:53] all the support of materials

[32:00] and worksheets. Really diving

[32:01] into detail of the proposed

[32:02] changes to the electric rate

[32:04] schedules. You see there

[32:06] really categorized into the 6

[32:08] main categories with the

[32:08] predominant one being the

[32:10] addition of new rate options

[32:12] for residential and commercial

[32:15] net metering customers and

[32:16] we'll go over those. Yeah, a

[32:17] little more detail in the next

[32:20] few slides. But both energy

[32:23] wise, great options for

[32:23] residential and small

[32:24] commercial customers as well

[32:26] net metering demand options

[32:27] for residential commercial

[32:29] customers. Probably. Our

[32:32] proposal does include

[32:33] establish an of a 5 year

[32:37] grandfathering. Period for

[32:38] existing net metering

[32:39] customers so that they can

[32:42] stay on the current frozen

[32:43] rate schedule for a period of

[32:46] 5 years. So any customer that

[32:48] has a net metering agreement

[32:51] dated prior to APRIL of 27 can

[32:52] maintain can remain on the

[32:52] frozen rate schedule that

[32:56] they're currently on until

[32:57] 2032 at which time maybe

[32:59] transition to one of the new

[33:06] great options of their choice.

[33:07] Additionally for industrial

[33:08] customers that are currently

[33:11] on a frozen industrial rate

[33:11] schedule for proposing that

[33:15] they be moved to the standard

[33:16] energy wise, right option for

[33:17] that class to customers that

[33:22] they're in. Additionally,

[33:23] we're proposing the removal of

[33:24] the indefinite Kerry for

[33:28] adoption currently. Electric

[33:28] rate schedules provide a net

[33:29] metering customers. The option

[33:33] of choosing to. Continually

[33:35] roll forward their excess

[33:36] production credits not only

[33:37] month to month, but at the end

[33:38] of the calendar year. The

[33:38] standard is for customers to

[33:41] receive Bill credits at the

[33:42] end of the calendar year for

[33:45] their bank of excess

[33:47] production credits. Our

[33:48] proposal is to in that

[33:49] indefinite Kerry for option

[33:50] that customers currently

[33:52] elect. We do propose that

[33:53] customers that have made that

[33:56] selection prior to APRIL 27.

[33:58] It can maintain that option as

[34:01] long as they remain on the net

[34:03] metering demand option of rate

[34:07] as the energy wise, net

[34:10] metering option does not have

[34:10] that carryforward aspect to

[34:15] the kilowatt hours.

[34:16] Additionally, we're proposing

[34:19] increasing the current limit

[34:22] on system size which is

[34:24] currently limited at 120% of

[34:27] the customers annual Killen.

[34:29] Our usage we're proposing to

[34:33] increase that to 200%. And as

[34:35] MISTER, your heart indicated,

[34:36] this increasing system size

[34:36] peers very nicely with future

[34:43] battery programs. Also

[34:43] proposing to broaden net

[34:45] metering in the industrial for

[34:48] industrial customers to

[34:50] include availability 2 meters

[34:52] that are total lies or

[34:53] aggregated loads. There's a

[34:55] small number of industrial

[34:57] customers that are on a campus

[34:59] type setting. So they have a

[35:02] large facility continuous

[35:04] campus and they MAY receive

[35:07] electric service for multiple

[35:09] points and for their billing

[35:11] purposes, we total lies those

[35:12] individual meters and

[35:14] aggravated loading, do them

[35:15] appropriately so that their

[35:16] overall campus is being billed

[35:17] for their total usage and not

[35:18] having to build each

[35:21] individual meter. Currently,

[35:23] our net metering rescheduled

[35:27] does limit. Net metering

[35:28] service to U.S. Servicemen are

[35:29] so they only be able to

[35:29] receive service at one of

[35:32] those individual meters. We're

[35:33] proposing to broaden that in

[35:36] the circumstances so that the

[35:36] whole aggravated lower the

[35:37] Custer customer can be net

[35:46] metered. We've included table

[35:47] here just as a reference of

[35:48] which rate options we're

[35:50] proposing to be available for

[35:54] different customer Class s

[35:55] particularly you can see for

[35:56] residential and small

[35:57] commercial customers. As I

[36:01] indicated, customers that have

[36:02] net metering dream. It's dated

[36:06] prior to APRIL. First of 2027

[36:06] MAY remain on the frozen rate

[36:08] schedule for 5 years. Honoring

[36:10] there. Previous investments in

[36:14] their solar system. That is a

[36:16] default grandfathering. So no

[36:17] action is needed on the

[36:18] customer's behalf to be

[36:19] grandfathered if approved by

[36:21] City Council. And that is true

[36:23] for both residential small

[36:24] commercial customers as well

[36:24] as medium and large commercial

[36:26] customers remain on their

[36:28] frozen rate schedule through

[36:34] 2032. New net metering

[36:34] customers. Customers with

[36:35] agreement after APRIL. First

[36:40] 2027. The standard option for

[36:41] residential and small

[36:43] commercial customers. Is that

[36:46] an energy wise net standard

[36:46] option, which provide more

[36:48] details on that on the next

[36:50] slide. And then in addition to

[36:52] that standard option, they

[36:54] have alternate choice option

[36:57] of the net metering demand

[36:58] option for customers in the

[36:59] residential and small

[37:01] commercial customer Class s.

[37:02] 4, medium and large commercial

[37:07] classes. Proposing that any

[37:08] new customers. So again,

[37:09] customers with net metering

[37:12] agreement stated after APRIL.

[37:13] First 27, their standard rate

[37:14] would be the net metering

[37:15] demand option. And as I

[37:18] mentioned on the previous

[37:20] slide, there's a small number

[37:21] of industrial customers that

[37:21] currently our net meter. But

[37:25] on the frozen industrial rate

[37:26] schedule for proposing that

[37:27] they moved from the frozen

[37:28] rate schedule to the standard

[37:30] energy wise rate schedule.

[37:30] Apply couple to that rate

[37:39] class. Really going over more

[37:41] detail on our proposed rate

[37:42] options and the rates shown on

[37:43] this slide are really

[37:44] applicable to the residential

[37:48] net metering customers. And

[37:49] this again, the standard

[37:52] option that's being proposed.

[37:52] For new customers starting

[37:54] APRIL first. 27, if approved.

[37:57] The rate design for would be

[38:01] the standard for grandfathered

[38:02] existing customers starting

[38:08] APRIL. 2032. I would add that

[38:10] grandfathered customer with

[38:10] the next 3 meter new agreement

[38:12] dated prior to APRIL. First,

[38:14] 27 wants to go on one of these

[38:16] new options. They're free to

[38:18] do so. But they're able to

[38:20] maintain remain on the frozen

[38:21] rate up until APRIL first. 32,

[38:26] if they choose. The rate

[38:27] design for the energy, why

[38:29] standard option includes the

[38:31] access and facilities spurred

[38:34] a charge. The great access

[38:36] charge. It really covers the

[38:37] cost MR. Gearhart described

[38:38] that infrastructure cost of

[38:41] serving the people odes is

[38:42] included in that one dollar

[38:43] per day charge of the new grid

[38:48] access charge. Again, rate

[38:49] option includes the energy

[38:51] wise on and off peak rates. So

[38:55] customers are only build the

[38:56] on and off peak rates for

[38:58] their next consumption, energy

[38:58] that their polling from the

[38:59] grid during the applicable on

[39:01] or off peak periods and any

[39:02] excess production that they

[39:06] have during those. On and off

[39:07] period. So any production that

[39:08] they have in addition to what

[39:09] their their systems generating

[39:12] addition, what they're using

[39:16] compensated in terms of. In

[39:18] terms of monthly bill credits

[39:18] at the applicable on an off

[39:23] peak rates as well. So it does

[39:25] maintain that one to one value

[39:27] between what is being charged

[39:28] for energy and what is being

[39:31] credited for energy based on

[39:33] the applicable on an off peak

[39:36] period rate. And then just

[39:37] like all customers, these rate

[39:38] schedules are subject to the

[39:39] electric cars to adjustment as

[39:40] well as the electric capacity

[39:45] charge. Some advantages of

[39:47] this rate are that they are

[39:48] consistent with the energy

[39:50] wise rates that likable

[39:54] broadly residential and

[39:55] commercial customers really

[39:56] all customers with the on and

[39:59] off pricing windows, the great

[40:02] access charge does provide

[40:03] Bill stability. There's been

[40:04] some comments concerns about

[40:08] the demand option and how MAY

[40:11] have bill volatility because

[40:14] of the 15 minute Grays peak

[40:16] demand. The grid access charge

[40:17] really does provide a

[40:19] averaging effect of that

[40:21] infrastructure cost across

[40:23] time frames across across the

[40:26] whole set of customers. So it

[40:27] provides great they'll

[40:28] stability but still recovers

[40:29] that infrastructure costs that

[40:30] utilities incurs to serve the

[40:35] people oats. There are

[40:36] opportunities for this rate

[40:38] option to work with a battery

[40:39] in terms of avoiding those net

[40:41] consumption on charges. But

[40:45] also being able to just shift

[40:49] usage to peak period to

[40:51] minimize the amount energy

[40:52] customers pulling from the

[40:53] grid during those on peak

[40:58] hours. And again, the the key

[40:59] distinction between this

[41:00] option in the next option that

[41:03] will cover is that this option

[41:04] credits a customer for their

[41:08] excess production monthly in

[41:09] terms of dollar amount. Bill

[41:12] credits to their electric bill

[41:13] and those excess Cohen hours

[41:14] do not carry forward to the

[41:21] subsequent month. Covering the

[41:23] next option. So again, this is

[41:24] a alternate rate that's

[41:28] available by choice for

[41:28] customers and the residential

[41:31] small commercial classes. This

[41:33] rate design is also that is

[41:36] the one that is standard for

[41:36] medium and large commercial

[41:38] customers. The rate shown here

[41:39] again are the residential and

[41:41] small commercial customer

[41:43] rate. But it does feature the

[41:45] access and facilities charge

[41:46] per day covering all that

[41:49] customer related costs. That

[41:50] the man charge is based on the

[41:52] greatest 15 minute demand in

[41:55] the billing period. It is

[41:55] seasonally differentiated. So

[41:59] it has not a lower winter

[42:01] demand charge rate and a

[42:02] higher summer 8 really

[42:02] nearing. That's the cost of

[42:06] our system cost. And the

[42:06] demands in our system which

[42:07] are highest during the summer

[42:12] period. It also features the

[42:14] access and facilities per kwh

[42:15] charge. So this is the energy

[42:20] Charge Bay Street portion so

[42:21] this charge along with

[42:22] electric cost adjustment and

[42:24] the guests, the electric

[42:25] capacity charge are those net

[42:28] meter charges that are

[42:29] essentially when there's

[42:30] excess production, the value

[42:32] of these energy charges is

[42:34] carried forward from month to

[42:35] month, similar to under the

[42:37] current rate structure. So

[42:41] this operate just as the

[42:42] current net metering rate

[42:43] options do with that monthly

[42:44] carryforward in for customers

[42:48] that have elected that

[42:48] indefinite carryforward option

[42:49] prior to APRIL. First, 27.

[42:53] Continues to carry forward

[42:55] indefinitely. That distinction

[42:56] here between this rate in the

[42:57] current rate again is really

[42:59] that new demand charge

[43:00] covering that system.

[43:00] Infrastructure costs for

[43:05] certain picked a man. The

[43:07] bandages with rate is at the

[43:08] customer, really values that

[43:08] one to one carry forward, an

[43:12] offsetting future usage with

[43:13] previous excess production.

[43:13] This rate option allows them

[43:17] to do that. And again, this

[43:19] option can complement the

[43:20] battery program and really

[43:24] help a customer offset

[43:25] minimize that the man charged

[43:27] if they're using a battery to

[43:28] mitigate the amount of demand

[43:30] during those on peak periods.

[43:31] But even without a battery, a

[43:35] customer can have opportunity

[43:38] for Bill savings either

[43:39] shifting usage to the off peak

[43:41] period just as all of our

[43:42] solar customers can try to do

[43:45] under energy wise. But also by

[43:47] staggering usage of appliances

[43:48] across the Olympic period and

[43:50] not stacking appliance use on

[43:51] top of each other, which is

[43:52] what drives demand to kind of

[43:54] add incrementally on top of

[43:55] each other. Those 2 things

[43:59] help even demand through

[43:59] through the month in lower

[44:10] demand charges. Slide

[44:12] illustrates the estimated bill

[44:13] impacts. We did utilize

[44:15] comprehensive set of data of

[44:17] over 8400 net metering

[44:19] customers to complete this

[44:20] rate design has really

[44:25] documented in our work sheets.

[44:27] And this table really

[44:27] illustrates estimated impact

[44:32] of these proposed rates. Or

[44:33] and and these these are shown

[44:35] in 2027 terms. But again, with

[44:36] the 5 year grandfathering

[44:38] period, these are the

[44:40] estimated impacts after that

[44:41] five-year period when the

[44:41] customer transition to one of

[44:45] the new rate options, you can

[44:46] see that the under either

[44:49] option, the estimated impact

[44:51] is to be approximately $38 per

[44:53] month again, that's average

[44:54] throughout annual period. So

[44:59] averaging 12 monthly bills.

[45:01] And it's really if you look at

[45:02] the different colors on the on

[45:04] the chart, it's really

[45:08] distinguish between the the

[45:10] great option, the energy wise

[45:12] with the grid access being

[45:15] option that blue portion of

[45:17] the bill being that great

[45:18] access charge. Really? That

[45:19] average unit that average

[45:23] impact. Of that infrastructure

[45:24] costs being recovered that

[45:26] charge. But through a stable

[45:29] rate and then through option,

[45:31] too. It's really the demand

[45:34] charges making up the the cost

[45:36] of that infrastructure cost

[45:37] again, subject to customer

[45:40] control of that demand. In

[45:40] both cases recovering that $38

[45:44] per month, which is that

[45:46] estimated amount that

[45:47] infrastructure costs currently

[45:47] not being recovered and are

[45:52] pure volumetric charge. So

[45:52] with that just wanted to

[45:59] highlight. Not only did

[46:01] utilities engage in public

[46:06] outreach to. Explain and

[46:07] promote our proposal. But we

[46:11] engaged in extensive customer

[46:12] research and engagement in

[46:12] developing this proposal

[46:13] really started really started

[46:16] last fall, but really

[46:20] accelerated this JANUARY with

[46:22] comprehensive customer both

[46:24] solar customers and non solar

[46:25] customers in an open survey

[46:29] really to collect feedback

[46:31] what's important to net

[46:32] metering customers. And then

[46:33] narrow the focus there with

[46:36] some focus groups on to

[46:37] collect some additional

[46:39] information as we started to

[46:40] draft this proposal that

[46:42] included really the 3 pillars

[46:46] of, you know, great access

[46:47] option, grandfathering,

[46:49] period. And then the demand

[46:52] charge as an op alternate

[46:53] Customer choice, provide an

[46:53] opportunity for customers

[46:56] provide input on our on our

[46:58] draft proposal, we engaged in

[46:59] extensive outreach to

[46:59] utilities board with

[47:02] presentations at the Working

[47:03] Committee meetings really

[47:04] through this spring and into

[47:07] the summer. And once we had a

[47:11] proposal, maintain

[47:12] communication with our

[47:14] customers through the net

[47:15] metering newsletter posting

[47:18] information on csu dot org as

[47:20] well as social media postings

[47:21] and other forms of

[47:26] communication. So with that,

[47:26] that concludes my

[47:28] presentation. And there's an

[47:30] opportunity here for the city

[47:31] auditor to make comments on

[47:34] their on it. Great. Thank you.

[47:37] Good morning. Natalie. Level

[47:38] City auditor.

[47:40] >> And we the office of the

[47:41] City Auditor's mandate under

[47:43] the city charter is to review

[47:44] the rate changes for

[47:47] mathematical accuracy and

[47:48] consistent methodology not to

[47:51] recommend or oppose changes.

[47:53] We completed our review and

[47:54] concluded that overall

[47:55] modifications included in this

[47:56] rate case filing report and

[47:59] the supporting schedules,

[48:01] we're prepared accurately and

[48:03] consistently methodology

[48:04] changes were properly

[48:06] disclosed. In the utilities

[48:07] filing report changes were in

[48:09] alignment with the rate design

[48:10] guidance approved by the

[48:12] utilities board and were

[48:13] supported by the five-year

[48:14] rate case approved by City

[48:16] Council effective JANUARY one

[48:16] 2025, you can take any

[48:23] questions or any. I don't see

[48:25] questions. So we'll move on to

[48:29] public comment at this time. I

[48:33] have a list of. Public comment

[48:37] signed up in opposition.

[48:45] We are now doing public

[48:46] comment. And if you signed up

[48:47] for public comment, you will

[48:55] have 3 minutes. You'll have to

[49:02] go sign up for public comment.

[49:03] Just want to clear name.

[49:04] Please come forward. Make sure

[49:06] the green button is on.

[49:07] Introduce yourself and limit

[49:10] your comments to 3 minutes.

[49:10] >> First up, we have John

[49:25] Lindsay.

[49:41] >> MR. And John Lindsay, I'm a

[49:43] retired teaching professor of

[49:45] electrical engineering Uccs 2

[49:54] are from this. I'm proud that

[49:54] some of my former students now

[50:00] work for utilities. I'm here

[50:02] today as engineer and as a

[50:04] customer and as a voter. And I

[50:05] want to point out right off

[50:10] the bat though, how solar

[50:11] panels and our net metering

[50:12] rate is grandfathered in for 5

[50:15] years. This fund rate. Is

[50:16] still going to be fought 5

[50:21] years from now. Sometimes I

[50:24] like to think of the great is

[50:26] a victory with central power

[50:26] plants at the base and the

[50:27] trunk and branches going up.

[50:32] The leaves and customer own

[50:34] rooftop. Solar sits out on

[50:35] those leads and when we

[50:37] produce excess energy and

[50:37] export it, it goes right our

[50:41] neighbors. In fact, the trek

[50:42] to neighbor across my driveway

[50:44] shared driveway is John Hunter

[50:46] and I know that when we're

[50:47] exporting power, John's using

[50:55] it. That that. Tip to leave to

[50:57] transmission of power is an

[50:59] advantage and offer some

[51:00] advantages that his central

[51:01] power plant 20 miles away can

[51:05] match. By relying on a cost

[51:08] based study. Csu found a

[51:12] 4 million dollars subsidy of

[51:12] customers like me from non

[51:16] solar customers. But if you

[51:18] look at cost benefits, the

[51:18] cost benefit study, it looks

[51:25] very different. So 2, totally

[51:25] independent methodologies,

[51:28] both scale to csu size

[51:29] suggests millions of dollars

[51:32] of savings. 2021. Very

[51:33] technical peer reviewed

[51:37] engineering study. Suggest

[51:39] 7 million dollars of annual

[51:41] savings mostly due to

[51:43] transmission and

[51:44] infrastructure costs. That's

[51:45] not generation. That's

[51:49] transmission and distribution.

[51:54] Infrastructure. But the study

[51:56] noted props, solar increases

[51:57] even modestly, there could be

[52:01] up to 25% annual savings

[52:03] generation costs. That's

[52:04] really eye-popping number that

[52:05] you MAY be able to roll around

[52:07] in your head, thinking about

[52:08] this plan for planned

[52:09] infrastructure, that utilities

[52:17] hats. That's why it what do we

[52:21] need to do to ensure fiscal

[52:22] Fairness? City Council should

[52:23] the proposed net metering

[52:24] changes and tell us, yes, you

[52:27] can make a transparent

[52:32] independent. Comprehensive

[52:33] cost-benefit analysis of just

[52:37] what these changes too. Thank

[52:38] you for your time. I had

[52:41] another side to never

[52:42] >> COUNCILMAN Donaldson,

[52:45] nothing's been present. And

[52:47] I'm right Dave, Donald sites

[52:47] have a question for you,

[52:48] especially considering your

[52:51] background.

[52:52] >> kind of highlighted

[52:57] transmission. Distribution

[52:58] benefits because it goes

[53:02] neighbor to neighbor. But

[53:03] 07:30pm, tonight, when the sun

[53:06] sets.

[53:07] >> Will your system be

[53:10] transmitting any electricity

[53:11] Mr? Hunter?

[53:13] >> It won't right now because

[53:13] my batteries not configured

[53:17] explore tech energy. Okay. If

[53:19] we have a virtual power plant,

[53:20] it could be configured to

[53:21] that. So if if all the solar

[53:22] customers had batteries, then

[53:26] what year? Describing, seems

[53:29] to me? That would be accurate.

[53:33] But without the batteries.

[53:36] That that is absolutely true.

[53:36] You know, at noon at 1

[53:38] o'clock, 2 o'clock up to that

[53:41] point The problem is when we

[53:46] hit our peak Biden 9 is one of

[53:46] the solar producers rooftop

[53:53] solar goes offline.

[53:56] >> MR. Gearhart touched Cs

[53:58] used desire to come up with,

[53:58] say I'm working on it, come up

[54:00] with a battery program for.

[54:03] >> For the rooftop solar

[54:05] customers. But I think the

[54:07] issues currently we don't have

[54:10] that yet. And so that happens

[54:10] every day.

[54:13] >> Is there is small Spahn

[54:16] second meant If you look at

[54:17] the actual consumption of what

[54:21] houses are using, the peak is

[54:22] not. I don't believe 5 to 9. I

[54:25] believe it's a little bit

[54:28] earlier. But at that time my

[54:29] house generate using the power

[54:32] regenerate and peak now

[54:36] appearing a little bit later.

[54:37] It's Howard Solar is falling

[54:40] off. The actual peak of usage

[54:42] was a little earlier in the

[54:44] day. And that does reduce the

[54:47] distribution and transmission

[54:48] costs.

[54:51] >> You know, ask Mr Your heart

[54:51] address when that when the

[54:52] peak occurs, we have that data

[54:53] for every 15 minutes. So get

[54:57] to that. The reason we have

[54:58] peak rates from 5, 9, is

[55:00] that's that's what our peak

[55:01] sucker. But thank you very

[55:02] much, especially with your

[55:02] background. Thank you for your

[55:03] comments. Thank you. Thank

[55:03] you.

[55:05] >> Next step we have Rona

[55:19] cope. Thank you for your time.

[55:20] My name is Rana Cope and I'm

[55:22] an engineer as well. What I

[55:23] did was I took my actual bill

[55:26] and built a model so that I

[55:27] can compare my current rates

[55:28] versus.

[55:30] >> Option. One option, too.

[55:33] And make an informed decision.

[55:38] Next slide. We do that. That

[55:39] in building that model iPhone

[55:41] 3 problems. Number one was

[55:45] that after 28 days and 3

[55:46] hours, your we're told,

[55:49] download gives you 0 data. And

[55:50] so if you're not looking for

[55:51] that, you get Ron de Gea

[55:52] download model, doesn't work

[55:54] garbage in garbage out. Second

[55:55] problem is my bill doesn't

[55:59] match my date. So when I

[55:59] download the data and I

[56:00] compare it to the date on my

[56:03] bill. It's not accurate in for

[56:07] the last 6 months. If it's not

[56:08] accurate and the dates than

[56:10] the number of days off. And

[56:12] when you go to this proposal,

[56:13] it involves a number of days

[56:19] being accurate. The 3rd

[56:19] problems little more

[56:22] insidious. Will this one shows

[56:25] the actual data down there the

[56:26] 4 months where the data does

[56:26] not match my bill over 6

[56:30] months accurate. For the 6

[56:31] months, my bill doesn't match

[56:32] the dates. So there's

[56:36] something off there. The last

[56:37] polls, Lou, more insidious.

[56:40] And that is if you look at

[56:44] JUNE, I'm actually in producer

[56:45] between 5, 9 and obviously

[56:47] producer and the off hours.

[56:48] And my bill is still higher

[56:51] than it would be. So the model

[56:52] is not right. That shifted

[56:55] some way. So I said, ok, I'm

[56:57] customer. I understand that.

[57:00] But let's just take that to an

[57:01] average cost of an average

[57:04] customer. We'll be producing

[57:06] at great of what they're

[57:08] using. And their bill came out

[57:11] 3 times what it was. So this

[57:12] broad a study that said that

[57:14] it will be only $38 higher.

[57:15] Believe this is bogus. When

[57:16] you look at actual

[57:18] conservative data. So my

[57:19] recommendation is, c#

[57:19] #

[57:20] . Can

[57:26] go back. So I don't have a

[57:31] glass slide. My recommendation

[57:32] is fix that. Fix the process

[57:33] so I can get good day to in a

[57:33] good data out. Make it

[57:38] accurate. Second thing is

[57:39] really look at this because I

[57:41] think I've given you enough

[57:41] fear, uncertainty and doubt to

[57:42] say that the model is not

[57:45] correct. Have customers use

[57:47] this model? It's free. I'll

[57:48] give it to anybody wants to

[57:49] use it. Look at your Look at

[57:51] your bill compared to actual

[57:53] data and you'll see that that

[57:55] model is underestimating

[57:55] drastically. Amount of money

[57:56] you're going to be charged.

[57:58] Are there any questions,

[58:02] COUNCILMAN Hinch him?

[58:03] >> Yes, MADAM PRESIDENT, thank

[58:04] You simply thank you for your

[58:05] sides. And I would like to ask

[58:09] staff if I could have printed

[58:10] copies of these these slides

[58:11] as well as the previous lights

[58:12] and and probably any other

[58:16] sites that come up in

[58:16] presentation. Go ahead and

[58:18] e-mail those out to the full

[58:23] count. Ok, perfect. Thank you.

[58:36] Next step we have Bob one

[58:37] >> I guess my concerns over

[58:40] the whole grandfather issue.

[58:41] We installed a system few

[58:47] years ago. And size the system

[58:48] because it was bigger than

[58:49] what we actually needed.

[58:53] Excuse me at the time, as you

[58:53] know, over 20 years, the

[58:56] financing for the panels, the

[58:57] amount of output will go down

[59:01] 5 to 10%. And so we deliver

[59:01] really want to bank kilowatt

[59:02] hours that we would be able to

[59:07] tap into. So put a limit on

[59:08] those are undervalued and

[59:10] those.

[59:10] >> Down the road really

[59:11] disturbs the whole financial

[59:14] decision that way. The other

[59:18] one make sure you understand

[59:19] that the kilowatt hours that

[59:20] we banked, I think should be

[59:24] on a peak peak basis. We cause

[59:28] continually go home. And we

[59:28] will turn off the ear to ear

[59:31] way up. So it's not pulling a

[59:32] lot of power at the time

[59:33] during the peak. It will use

[59:39] it at night. And if we're not

[59:40] a county for that properly,

[59:41] they were really waste our

[59:43] time. Had to say peak energy.

[59:49] >> So that's that's it.

[59:50] >> Thank u next step. We have

[59:59] Kathy, one

[1:00:00] >> Hi, I'm Cathy Worley. And

[1:00:01] just to add to his we've had

[1:00:02] our system for 3 years. We

[1:00:04] have never want. Used more

[1:00:07] than we produce. So the net

[1:00:08] metering fee would just be

[1:00:12] punitive for us. I sent a

[1:00:13] letter out to everybody. I

[1:00:13] hope they got it. They didn't.

[1:00:15] I'm just going to read it. I

[1:00:16] think she issues over

[1:00:18] complicating the issue. Their

[1:00:20] goal is to was the payments

[1:00:21] made by both solar and non

[1:00:22] solar customers by charging a

[1:00:25] net metering fee for the peak

[1:00:27] in non peak hours. Very simple

[1:00:31] solution for this is to make

[1:00:31] both solar and non solar

[1:00:32] customers pay the same rate

[1:00:36] without a net metering fee.

[1:00:37] Number one, csu buys all the

[1:00:38] energy solar customers produce

[1:00:42] at the current kilowatt hour

[1:00:43] charge, which is what they

[1:00:44] would pay to purchase it from

[1:00:46] an independent producer at the

[1:00:47] hour rate. It is produced

[1:00:51] rates peak our rates. Number

[1:00:52] 2, the amount paid for solar

[1:00:53] customers. Energy will be

[1:00:56] banked and their accounts as

[1:00:58] credits. Then number 3 csu

[1:00:59] will then charge all

[1:01:02] customers, including us for

[1:01:02] their usage for the current

[1:01:04] kilowatt hours peak and non

[1:01:05] peak that we were up in

[1:01:08] exactly the same thing you're

[1:01:10] using our solar that we're

[1:01:12] producing. And we're just

[1:01:13] banking at no money exchanging

[1:01:15] hands. Never It is not

[1:01:16] necessary. Everybody pays the

[1:01:20] same rate. See issues able to

[1:01:22] use the powers produced by the

[1:01:24] solar customers. Solar

[1:01:25] customers will be compensated

[1:01:25] for the energy they produce is

[1:01:28] credit to their counts from

[1:01:29] which their monthly uses will

[1:01:30] be subtracted and they will be

[1:01:32] billed for any over. It's just

[1:01:35] as any non solar customers

[1:01:38] would be. Keep in mind that,

[1:01:39] you know, we have an

[1:01:40] additional $195 a month that

[1:01:41] we're paying for the solar

[1:01:44] panels that we purchase and

[1:01:45] good faith that we would be

[1:01:46] able to use them in the

[1:01:48] future. The net metering fee

[1:01:49] is definitely going to

[1:01:50] discourage future solar

[1:01:50] customers because why would

[1:01:52] they want to get solar if

[1:01:53] they're going to have to pay

[1:01:55] an extra fee anyway. Also,

[1:01:58] Denver and Pueblo, neither of

[1:01:59] them charge net metering fees

[1:02:00] and they all have much more

[1:02:04] customers and csu csc. You

[1:02:04] need think of a better way.

[1:02:07] And I think this is the best

[1:02:08] way, but I just causing it

[1:02:08] completely across the board

[1:02:11] for Peak and Non peak and

[1:02:12] again, to reiterate, we have

[1:02:15] never use more during peak or

[1:02:16] non peak hours. And then what

[1:02:17] we are producing. And that's

[1:02:20] without a battery. So I think

[1:02:21] this metering fee is just

[1:02:26] punitive. Thank u next step.

[1:02:28] We have mentors cut could ask

[1:02:28] one question. And yes, the

[1:02:30] nice lady.

[1:02:31] >> No, ma'am. Are you saying

[1:02:35] that in DECEMBER you're

[1:02:37] producing more energy from 5

[1:02:37] to 9 from your solar panels.

[1:02:39] Then you use.

[1:02:41] >> If I count what I have.

[1:02:42] >> Produced during the year.

[1:02:46] Yes. Because I am banking what

[1:02:47] I'm producing. I'm making more

[1:02:49] than I'm using for the whole

[1:02:50] year.

[1:02:51] >> And I just point ask Mr,

[1:02:53] Trusting your heart to address

[1:02:55] this. That's the problem we

[1:02:57] have to build our

[1:02:59] infrastructure to cover you

[1:03:00] and everyby else from 5 to 9

[1:03:04] in DECEMBER. Also. So if

[1:03:06] you're exactly right, perhaps

[1:03:08] in JUNE is your pre seeing,

[1:03:10] you know, solar energy that

[1:03:11] whole time. But the problem

[1:03:15] is, we're just trying to

[1:03:16] really identify why do we need

[1:03:20] to change rates as we have to

[1:03:22] build or buy contracts to

[1:03:22] provide energy to everyone

[1:03:26] from 5 to 9. DECEMBER. So we

[1:03:27] have to do it. We can't just

[1:03:28] do it, you know, for some

[1:03:31] months because you'd be in the

[1:03:33] dark and

[1:03:33] >> we are not using your

[1:03:34] energy and DECEMBER were still

[1:03:37] using our energy. Colorado's d

[1:03:39] second most highest state for

[1:03:42] daytime out daylight hours for

[1:03:42] Sunshine.

[1:03:43] >> Alright, all are going to

[1:03:45] clarify that in Worth.

[1:03:53] >> Courtney Grant. Okay. Hi.

[1:03:54] Good morning. My name is

[1:03:56] cutting grant and that meter

[1:03:58] customer and also work local

[1:04:00] solar installer. The company

[1:04:01] work for has been installing

[1:04:02] solar in El Paso County since

[1:04:02] 2013. And we're deeply

[1:04:04] concerned about the economic

[1:04:05] impact. This proposal will

[1:04:07] have on our business and the

[1:04:09] local solar industry as a

[1:04:12] whole with the elimination of

[1:04:13] the federal tax credit. 25 d

[1:04:14] we've already seen a 55%

[1:04:16] decline in sales this year

[1:04:17] from last year. And it's not

[1:04:19] just our company. It's we've

[1:04:20] heard similar sentiments

[1:04:22] throughout the solar industry.

[1:04:24] I spoke with our local

[1:04:26] distributor last week and they

[1:04:27] echoed sentiment saying that

[1:04:27] their sales are 50 to 60% down

[1:04:31] this year as well. In 2025,

[1:04:32] there were 850 solar permits

[1:04:34] polled at Pikes, Peak Regional

[1:04:36] Building Department this year.

[1:04:37] As of yesterday, there have

[1:04:40] only been 290 permits pulled,

[1:04:41] which echo what we're

[1:04:43] experiencing. And so we're not

[1:04:43] just concerned about the loss

[1:04:46] revenue from new sales. The

[1:04:47] proposed rate structure state,

[1:04:49] any existing solar customer

[1:04:50] who chooses to expand system.

[1:04:53] After APRIL 2027 will no

[1:04:53] longer be grandfathered in and

[1:04:56] will be considered a new net

[1:04:58] metered customer since current

[1:04:58] rates are more favorable to

[1:05:00] the proposed ones, customers

[1:05:01] will opt out of expanding

[1:05:02] their systems. Otherwise they

[1:05:02] be financially penneast

[1:05:05] penalize for doing so. We're

[1:05:06] worried that the proposed net

[1:05:08] metering rate structures will

[1:05:09] exacerbate the decline in

[1:05:10] sales we've already seen and

[1:05:11] will force even more companies

[1:05:14] to downsize and or file

[1:05:16] bankruptcy. We saw 3 companies

[1:05:16] closed their local offices

[1:05:20] just last month. If our

[1:05:20] company had to close 8 people

[1:05:22] were directly lose their jobs.

[1:05:23] And many of the sub's that we

[1:05:23] use would be negatively

[1:05:26] impacted as well. The solar

[1:05:29] industry works with

[1:05:30] electricians, roofers, energy

[1:05:31] consultants, banks,

[1:05:32] distributors manufactures,

[1:05:34] nonprofits, cetera. The

[1:05:36] financial ripple effects. This

[1:05:37] rate proposal have been El

[1:05:38] Paso County, a greater than

[1:05:40] just the solar installers one

[1:05:41] solar installers go out of

[1:05:43] business. That leaves their

[1:05:44] customers orphaned. We've

[1:05:45] noticed an uptick in adoptions

[1:05:46] this year as more installers

[1:05:48] close their doors, folks are

[1:05:49] left scrambling to find

[1:05:50] someone local in qualified to

[1:05:52] help get their systems back up

[1:05:55] and running. If no one is left

[1:05:56] installing in Paso County, the

[1:06:00] existing 11,000 plus, net

[1:06:00] metered customers will have an

[1:06:03] even harder time finding a

[1:06:05] qualified, affordable and

[1:06:06] timely installer to help

[1:06:07] service them get their system

[1:06:08] back up and running, expand

[1:06:11] its or with every roof. So in

[1:06:12] short, the tax credit going

[1:06:14] has already have a drastic

[1:06:14] effect on the solar industry.

[1:06:16] And if this proposal passes,

[1:06:17] as is, it would likely be the

[1:06:19] nail in the coffin for

[1:06:20] industry as the demand for

[1:06:21] energy increases faster than

[1:06:24] we can keep up with. We should

[1:06:25] be training policies and rate

[1:06:27] structures that incentivize

[1:06:27] solar and other sources of

[1:06:32] clean energy, not penalize it.

[1:06:32] I'm asking town council

[1:06:34] members vote no on the 2026

[1:06:34] years. You net metering right

[1:06:44] proposals. Thank you. Next

[1:06:54] step we have Brian staff on.

[1:06:54] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, MADAM

[1:06:55] Mayor and members of council,

[1:06:56] my name is Brian Safin and I

[1:06:57] live in the rock from a

[1:06:58] neighborhood of Colorado

[1:07:00] Springs. I'm asking you to

[1:07:01] vote no on the net metering

[1:07:02] rate proposal from Colorado

[1:07:03] Springs utilities because of

[1:07:07] economics in real estate.

[1:07:08] First, this proposal will have

[1:07:09] a negative impact on our local

[1:07:11] economy because of the

[1:07:11] disproportionate change in

[1:07:13] monthly bills for net metering

[1:07:15] versus 9 net metering

[1:07:17] customers given the still

[1:07:19] relatively small number of net

[1:07:21] metering customers amongst all

[1:07:22] utilities, customers. If an

[1:07:24] average net metering customers

[1:07:26] bill were to increased by $38.

[1:07:28] The noon on net metering

[1:07:29] customers. Bill would decrease

[1:07:32] by only $2 per month. The

[1:07:34] problem is that a $38 increase

[1:07:36] is far more noticeable. Then a

[1:07:39] small to dollar reduction and

[1:07:41] much more likely to result in

[1:07:43] adjustments to monthly

[1:07:44] spending habits. That means

[1:07:46] that net metering customers

[1:07:47] could annually spend 5 million

[1:07:50] dollars less in our local

[1:07:50] economy. 5 million dollars

[1:07:51] less to local businesses,

[1:07:53] small and large tips to

[1:07:55] restaurant servers. Servers

[1:07:56] and local charitable

[1:07:59] donations. 5 million dollars

[1:08:00] less spending on which city

[1:08:02] taxes can be collected and

[1:08:04] then take out the secondary or

[1:08:05] flow through spending that

[1:08:09] will never happen. Asking this

[1:08:09] council to avoid creating

[1:08:11] these economic headwind for

[1:08:14] local economic growth.

[1:08:15] Secondly, while utilities

[1:08:17] proposal includes 2 options,

[1:08:18] they don't actually offer a

[1:08:20] choice to customers if they're

[1:08:20] both intended to raise a net

[1:08:22] metering customers, bills.

[1:08:24] Average of $38 per month.

[1:08:26] That's an illusion of choice.

[1:08:29] So really we have no choice.

[1:08:31] Related to that false

[1:08:33] Optionality. I didn't think of

[1:08:35] my solar panel system as a

[1:08:36] speculative investment. It was

[1:08:38] an investment in my home where

[1:08:39] raise my children and made

[1:08:41] family memories. We made this

[1:08:42] huge investment because we

[1:08:43] thought it would protect us

[1:08:45] from rising electricity rates

[1:08:47] while utility certainly has

[1:08:48] the right to change the net

[1:08:48] metering rate structure from

[1:08:51] the status quo. I'm obligated

[1:08:52] to pay the loan every month

[1:08:55] for another 20 plus years far

[1:08:57] longer than the 5 year

[1:08:58] grandfathering proposal in

[1:09:01] that respect. This a totally

[1:09:03] different situation than

[1:09:05] energy. Wise rates for non

[1:09:07] solar customers. While

[1:09:08] utilities can change its rules

[1:09:09] and even apply different rules

[1:09:10] for different groups of

[1:09:12] customers. I have no choice

[1:09:13] and don't have the luxury of

[1:09:16] changing the rules as elected

[1:09:17] officials. I'm asking you to

[1:09:18] protect folks like me from

[1:09:19] utilities attempt to devalue

[1:09:22] my home. In closing, please

[1:09:24] support our local economy and

[1:09:26] home values. Vote no on this

[1:09:26] net metering proposal. Thank

[1:09:33] you.

[1:09:34] >> Next step we have Darrell

[1:09:49] Cooper.

[1:09:53] >> My name Earl like the.

[1:09:58] That's great Belt. I'm here to

[1:10:02] sathat. I think the what the

[1:10:03] utilities wants to do is very

[1:10:04] complicated and still is not

[1:10:06] well understood. By vast

[1:10:09] majority of the rate payers.

[1:10:11] So I sent a note to each and

[1:10:16] every one of you in email

[1:10:16] explaining that I had visited

[1:10:21] with utilities department and

[1:10:22] then I is listen to what they

[1:10:23] had to say. And then I sent a

[1:10:25] response back. Never got a

[1:10:27] response back from them. So

[1:10:33] then I. You a copy of that

[1:10:35] letter and let me explain that

[1:10:37] very simple terms. I used to

[1:10:41] have a business and I know the

[1:10:42] difference between fixed costs

[1:10:46] and variable cost. Utility

[1:10:48] rates, the stuff that you pay

[1:10:50] for you paid for by Kilowatt

[1:10:56] basically. Fixed rates are the

[1:10:57] infrastructure to get that

[1:11:01] there and not everybody pays

[1:11:01] not over, but he benefits from

[1:11:07] the same sort of. Of. Benefit

[1:11:09] from the utility from those

[1:11:10] fixed rates that you charge.

[1:11:12] That's an average across all

[1:11:15] the people. And so some people

[1:11:15] are in paying more. Some

[1:11:17] people are paying less for

[1:11:18] that. So that's not any

[1:11:19] different than what we have

[1:11:23] now. So what I'm suggesting is

[1:11:26] utility keeps all their rates.

[1:11:27] They're fixed rates in the

[1:11:31] fixed rate bag. Not. Mixing

[1:11:32] them in because I think that's

[1:11:37] part of what happens. And

[1:11:39] giving us credit if we

[1:11:40] generate electricity during

[1:11:46] period of time when. When

[1:11:48] utilities are very cheap to

[1:11:50] buy, then give us what you

[1:11:52] have to purchase. I mean, act.

[1:11:56] Users or customers as your

[1:11:57] suppliers, which they are,

[1:11:58] they're supplying you with

[1:12:01] electricity. If that's the

[1:12:07] case, then. Those dollars, not

[1:12:08] the hours, not the kilowatt

[1:12:10] hours, but banks, the dollars

[1:12:13] that we saved you that the

[1:12:14] utility since they didn't have

[1:12:14] to purchase that from somebody

[1:12:16] else, they they got it from

[1:12:19] the solar panel faults. So.

[1:12:22] Let that be the rate that you

[1:12:26] re reimburse us with that way.

[1:12:26] Everybody is treated equally

[1:12:30] in my opinion and as equally

[1:12:32] as possible. So that's my

[1:12:37] position. Questions. I don't

[1:12:37] see any.

[1:12:41] >> I don't see any Next step

[1:12:52] we have Lonnie and Linda.

[1:13:00] Pillsbury.

[1:13:01] >> My name is Linda. Pillsbury

[1:13:03] and I live in Colorado

[1:13:04] Springs. Last year we

[1:13:07] installed solar on our roof.

[1:13:08] We did it because it was the

[1:13:11] right thing to do. Decreasing

[1:13:14] air pollution, reducing our

[1:13:14] carbon footprint, generating

[1:13:16] electricity for ourselves and

[1:13:18] our neighbors. We also did it

[1:13:20] because it was a smart thing

[1:13:22] to do. We could invest in the

[1:13:25] upfront costs and then

[1:13:25] producer own electricity at a

[1:13:27] cost that would be consistent

[1:13:29] over time. We spent a lot of

[1:13:34] money. The system cost over

[1:13:35] $37,000 asset by the federal

[1:13:38] tax credit of about $11,000.

[1:13:39] I'm very upset about the

[1:13:42] proposed changes to net

[1:13:43] metering under these changes.

[1:13:45] We will not recoup our

[1:13:47] investment. We are 71 years

[1:13:50] old in the 10 year timeline

[1:13:51] matters. We have an

[1:13:53] all-electric house which is

[1:13:55] healthier and we cannot shift

[1:13:55] our need for heat and cooking

[1:14:00] into non peak hours. The

[1:14:00] proposed changes also

[1:14:03] represent a breach of trust

[1:14:05] less than a year ago. We based

[1:14:06] our decision on the

[1:14:07] relationship. We thought we

[1:14:10] had and signed with our

[1:14:12] utility. It does not seem fair

[1:14:13] that the utility wants to go

[1:14:15] back on their agreement and

[1:14:17] more than double the rate of

[1:14:21] the 11,000 solar customers. No

[1:14:22] other individual customers are

[1:14:23] having their rates and fees

[1:14:26] increase as much. The proposed

[1:14:27] changes will also destroy the

[1:14:31] local solar market as a very

[1:14:31] few people will buy a system.

[1:14:33] They can't recoup their

[1:14:36] investment and work will dry

[1:14:36] out for the local contractors

[1:14:40] who supply solar. I thought

[1:14:41] Colorado Springs was an area

[1:14:42] where protection of the

[1:14:44] environment and open spaces

[1:14:48] was not a partisan issue. That

[1:14:51] virtually everyone believes we

[1:14:52] need to. But here is a

[1:14:54] proposal that actively

[1:14:57] discourages solar with 240 to

[1:15:00] 250 mostly sunny days a year.

[1:15:01] We are ideally suited to

[1:15:05] promote solar, not destroy it.

[1:15:06] They urge you to vote no on

[1:15:07] this proposal and instead to

[1:15:11] do mo research, look at it

[1:15:13] analyze the community benefits

[1:15:16] as well as the costs of

[1:15:17] rooftop solar benefits like

[1:15:19] grid, resiliency and local

[1:15:21] production. Use the you pack

[1:15:22] and other clean energy experts

[1:15:25] to help identify what other

[1:15:28] cities and community utilities

[1:15:29] are doing as they face similar

[1:15:31] problems come up with a

[1:15:34] proposal that is fair to the

[1:15:35] 11,000 solar customers who

[1:15:36] have already made an

[1:15:37] investment in our community,

[1:15:40] clean energy production come

[1:15:43] up with a proposal that

[1:15:44] encourages rather than

[1:15:45] discourage is future solar

[1:15:47] investment come up with a

[1:15:47] proposal that actually

[1:15:50] benefits or community vote no

[1:15:58] on this one. Next step. We

[1:16:09] have windy Crawford. Was

[1:16:10] windy. Crawford has been I've

[1:16:12] lived in this city for 32

[1:16:13] years.

[1:16:14] >> We're live on the northeast

[1:16:15] side. We added solar to our

[1:16:17] home 2019.

[1:16:19] >> We made this decision and

[1:16:20] significant upfront, financial

[1:16:22] investment. As a way to

[1:16:25] control our electricity costs.

[1:16:26] As we look towards retirement

[1:16:30] and a fixed income. The

[1:16:30] proposed csu changes to our

[1:16:33] net meaning agreements. Tony

[1:16:35] the cost benefit that we

[1:16:35] relied on when we made this

[1:16:39] decision. We would not have

[1:16:41] made the $40,000 investment in

[1:16:45] solar. If we knew then csu

[1:16:45] would not stand behind their

[1:16:49] net metering agreement. The

[1:16:50] proposed see issues changes

[1:16:51] make fools of all solar

[1:16:53] customers.

[1:16:54] >> I attended the public event

[1:16:57] last AUGUST. I attended the

[1:16:59] entire day Long session here

[1:17:00] last SEPTEMBER. I'm here again

[1:17:04] today. At this point, this

[1:17:05] feels like harassment from

[1:17:10] csu. Is there part of their

[1:17:14] strategy to wear us down? If

[1:17:16] csu has decided to move on to

[1:17:17] move from one of the most

[1:17:18] solar friendly utilities in

[1:17:21] the state to a hostile one

[1:17:21] that allow them to amend the

[1:17:23] net meeting agreements going

[1:17:28] forward for future homeowners.

[1:17:28] Homes in Color Springs

[1:17:29] turnover on an average of

[1:17:31] every 5 to 8 years. This in

[1:17:33] effect will cause most current

[1:17:34] net metering agreements to

[1:17:39] sunset. Naturally. See issues

[1:17:39] new agreement can be put into

[1:17:40] place with the new homeowners

[1:17:44] them. The csu proposal changes

[1:17:46] to solar are not fair, but at

[1:17:48] least the new homeowners. What

[1:17:49] have the facts before they

[1:17:53] made their investment? This

[1:17:54] change in net metering will

[1:17:56] significantly solar home

[1:17:57] sales. We're not going to see

[1:18:00] the appreciation. We expected.

[1:18:02] The solar, local solar

[1:18:02] industry has not recovered

[1:18:06] since covid. Today there are

[1:18:06] less than a handful of

[1:18:09] installers in El Paso County.

[1:18:09] To last issue to make this

[1:18:11] change retroactively is not

[1:18:13] fair. It's wrong and it's flat

[1:18:15] out dishonest. This is wrong

[1:18:17] to do last DECEMBER by

[1:18:19] SEPTEMBER. It's wrong to do

[1:18:20] now and it'll be wrong in

[1:18:24] 2032. As fun. It is as it is

[1:18:26] to be with you guys. I'd like

[1:18:30] to not have to do this again.

[1:18:30] Please make a decision and put

[1:18:34] this to rest. If the council

[1:18:35] also feels solar should not be

[1:18:36] encouraged going forward.

[1:18:38] Well, I disagree. But if you

[1:18:39] decide that's the direction we

[1:18:41] want to take the city, at

[1:18:44] least uphold the current

[1:18:44] meeting agreements,

[1:18:46] grandfather the existing solar

[1:18:48] customers, the made their

[1:18:48] investment based on the

[1:18:51] promises that csu made to us

[1:18:52] do not pull the rug out under

[1:19:02] us now. Thank you.

[1:19:04] >> Next step I have a mandate.

[1:19:05] Romero seeding time to John

[1:19:09] Hopkins. Amanda. Yes,

[1:19:10] PRESIDENT, how you spend your

[1:19:11] city your time to John

[1:19:13] Hopkins. Yes, thank you. You

[1:19:17] have 6 minutes. Thank you.

[1:19:18] >> I thought it was going to

[1:19:20] need 6 minutes today, but

[1:19:21] everybody that spoke before me

[1:19:22] did such an excellent job and

[1:19:23] I'm not going to rehash

[1:19:24] everything that they are. He

[1:19:25] said, but I'll just bring up a

[1:19:26] couple new points for you. I

[1:19:27] do have a couplerocers. Can

[1:19:40] I give these 2 guys? So for

[1:19:41] the record, name is John

[1:19:42] Tompkins. I'm a resident here.

[1:19:44] I moved here in 2010 about a

[1:19:48] house in 2014 when we bought

[1:19:51] our house, my wife and

[1:19:52] basically we the primary

[1:19:53] reason we bought the house. We

[1:19:55] did is because the house had a

[1:19:56] south facing roof so we could

[1:19:57] put solar panels on as fast as

[1:20:00] possible. In 2016, our house

[1:20:05] was destroyed by And we lucked

[1:20:06] out because we did the roof

[1:20:07] and the solar at the exact

[1:20:11] same time. So it helped

[1:20:12] electrical engineer by trade.

[1:20:14] I've been a part of this

[1:20:15] process since last year. I

[1:20:15] appreciate everybody voting no

[1:20:18] against this last year. And I

[1:20:19] encourage you all to vote no,

[1:20:22] again, this year. A couple of

[1:20:23] the new things that will bring

[1:20:25] up that nobody else brought up

[1:20:26] is the fairness factor that

[1:20:28] everybody keeps talking about.

[1:20:33] This is absolutely unfair and

[1:20:34] it's especially unfair when

[1:20:35] you compare certain solar

[1:20:38] users to other solar users.

[1:20:40] Solar panel user with 6 panels

[1:20:42] will pay the same fees or

[1:20:44] fines that a solar panel user

[1:20:47] with 50 solar panels will pay.

[1:20:48] Those people are the people

[1:20:50] that were trying to protect

[1:20:54] here. I have 32 solar panels.

[1:20:56] I have 32 solar panels on

[1:20:58] Meyers. I also have batteries

[1:21:01] both of these plans option

[1:21:02] option to actually save me

[1:21:06] money. The about 20 or $30 a

[1:21:07] month. I'm still asking you to

[1:21:12] vote. No. Because solar should

[1:21:12] be encouraged, not

[1:21:16] discouraged. Open the

[1:21:19] conversation on this with

[1:21:20] everybody including csu of

[1:21:21] spoken Scott directly have

[1:21:22] spoken with Tristan through

[1:21:24] emails. We're trying to come

[1:21:27] up with better solutions.

[1:21:28] There are a few better

[1:21:29] solutions out there. One of

[1:21:31] them would be meter colors,

[1:21:32] which I don't think we're

[1:21:33] using it. But we might be

[1:21:34] thinking about using in the

[1:21:40] future. Meter will reduce the

[1:21:44] cost to install the systems,

[1:21:46] the battery systems, the solar

[1:21:47] systems and therefore provide

[1:21:47] and said incentive to get

[1:21:48] through that peak 5, 9,

[1:21:52] period. Right now. I don't run

[1:21:54] my batteries too much from 5

[1:21:55] to 9. We're on kilowatt hour

[1:21:57] for killer water credit. I've

[1:21:58] heard a lot of other people

[1:22:01] already talk about. Compromise

[1:22:02] here. And that's what I'm

[1:22:05] asking for is a little bit of

[1:22:06] compromise. If we went to a

[1:22:07] dollar for dollar system, I

[1:22:11] feel like it doesn't. And csu

[1:22:12] said it doesn't complete

[1:22:13] completely negate the cost

[1:22:18] shift, but it does help a lot.

[1:22:20] And whenever I talked to

[1:22:23] people, my friend when I talk

[1:22:23] to them and say, hey, there's

[1:22:24] a cost shift, but $2.3,

[1:22:28] dollars a month. They're more

[1:22:29] like why are we even talking

[1:22:30] about this? Why are we wasting

[1:22:33] time? I was surprised by the

[1:22:34] csu studies and the the

[1:22:35] outreach when they actually

[1:22:38] did it this year that the non

[1:22:40] solar users were just kind of

[1:22:41] like I would. What are we

[1:22:42] talking about? Like 2, we're

[1:22:43] talking about $2 cup about

[1:22:44] pennies here. The entire grid

[1:22:50] built on cost shift. I right

[1:22:52] next to a transmission plant.

[1:22:53] It doesn't cost as much to

[1:22:56] deliver electricity to me than

[1:22:57] it does somebody 20 miles away

[1:22:58] from away from a transmission

[1:23:03] plant. So what I'm asking here

[1:23:04] is just for a little bit of

[1:23:06] compromise. And then the last

[1:23:07] 2 minutes of my time, open to

[1:23:08] conversation or questions or

[1:23:10] anything like that. If anybody

[1:23:11] had anything, they want to

[1:23:19] chat about. COUNCILMAN Remy.

[1:23:20] Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT, I

[1:23:21] thank you for the brochure

[1:23:24] that you provide it.

[1:23:25] >> Quick question I have

[1:23:29] there's an example. But then

[1:23:32] the brochure of unattached

[1:23:32] Bill model is like a qr code

[1:23:35] at the bottom. Think it Is

[1:23:37] that something that you build

[1:23:39] because you mentioned that you

[1:23:40] spoke with csu. Is that

[1:23:42] something that you

[1:23:44] collaborated on a little bit?

[1:23:47] Yeah. So the originals Excel

[1:23:47] spreadsheet.

[1:23:48] >> If you don't trust qr

[1:23:49] codes, you shouldn't. But I

[1:23:50] promise you can trust me. It's

[1:23:54] not a virus but if you don't

[1:23:56] want to scan the qr code to

[1:23:57] get to my Excel spreadsheet, I

[1:23:58] did what another resident

[1:23:59] already did that built an

[1:24:00] actual cost model to figure

[1:24:01] out what this is actually

[1:24:03] going to cost people. A couple

[1:24:06] examples of just I'm not

[1:24:12] speaking. Too far out. So a

[1:24:15] heat pump as 5,000 Watts.

[1:24:16] That's $37 on demand charge

[1:24:17] clothes, dryers. 3500 Watts.

[1:24:21] That's $38 on the man charged

[1:24:21] air-conditioners or 4,000

[1:24:22] wants. That's 43 minutes. $43

[1:24:25] on demand charges. If you do

[1:24:26] any of these things in

[1:24:28] combination, you're looking at

[1:24:31] $100, easy on-demand, churches

[1:24:32] along and csu solution. As by

[1:24:38] a $23,000 battery. Spent

[1:24:39] $23,000 on solar panels. I

[1:24:41] don't want to spend another

[1:24:42] 23,000. I didn't saw batteries

[1:24:43] because they do see the

[1:24:44] writing on the wall. I do see

[1:24:45] the advantages to peak load

[1:24:47] shedding and everything like

[1:24:48] that. I understand that there

[1:24:51] is I need to get rid of that

[1:24:51] demand usage between 5, 9, and

[1:24:56] I do support that. To your

[1:24:58] question. The Excel

[1:24:59] spreadsheet was by Nice, Ali.

[1:25:03] And I did send it to Scott

[1:25:04] Scott Peer reviewed it for me,

[1:25:05] made some notes and some

[1:25:06] changes on the rates because

[1:25:07] the rates this year a little

[1:25:09] bit different than last year.

[1:25:14] So with that, I did it just

[1:25:15] it. But you can go in and you

[1:25:16] can put your bill into this

[1:25:16] and I have brochures for

[1:25:20] anybody else who wants it. You

[1:25:20] can put your actual usage in

[1:25:23] the U.S. And it will tell you

[1:25:24] exactly what these changes are

[1:25:25] going to cost. And I guarantee

[1:25:31] you it's more than $23. Mark.

[1:25:31] Thank you. Anybody else have

[1:25:34] questions I don't see a need

[1:25:35] to Thank you very much. Thank

[1:25:41] you for your time. Next step

[1:25:43] we have Heather.

[1:25:53] >> You now.

[1:25:54] >> good at like one of those

[1:26:00] pressures. Hi, my name's

[1:26:01] Heather. But now and our home

[1:26:02] has been on that metering

[1:26:05] agreement since 2018 with the

[1:26:06] exception of about 2 months

[1:26:08] last year, our electric bill

[1:26:09] has been equal to the

[1:26:11] connection charge. So in

[1:26:12] effect, we produce all the

[1:26:13] energy we need for our

[1:26:15] household. We invested a

[1:26:16] significant amount to build

[1:26:17] our system each month of

[1:26:18] savings, guards goes towards

[1:26:21] paying off that investment. As

[1:26:22] you might imagine, the

[1:26:23] discussion of an extra fee

[1:26:24] whether we choose option one

[1:26:27] or option 2 means that initial

[1:26:28] investment was made an

[1:26:28] assumption that now MAY no

[1:26:30] longer be valid. We will pay

[1:26:34] more each month. In fact, some

[1:26:36] solar advocacy groups estimate

[1:26:36] that the average time to pay

[1:26:39] off a system. We'll go from 7

[1:26:40] years to over 30 years with

[1:26:42] this rate change, there would

[1:26:43] be no way to pay less or even

[1:26:47] pay that we currently pay. We

[1:26:47] have no real control of our

[1:26:48] bill without a further

[1:26:49] investment into a battery

[1:26:51] pack. And when I asked for a

[1:26:52] quote on the yesterday, it was

[1:26:56] $30,000 to do that.

[1:26:57] Furthermore, the Web page that

[1:26:58] describes the options very

[1:26:59] hard to interpret my husband

[1:27:00] and I have both read it in

[1:27:02] detail. We can make

[1:27:03] assumptions as to what the

[1:27:03] terminology means and how it

[1:27:07] applies to us. But there is no

[1:27:08] example are simple calculation

[1:27:08] to follow to estimate the

[1:27:09] effect of these changes in our

[1:27:12] household. It has been

[1:27:12] suggested that everyone will

[1:27:14] see an increase of $30 per

[1:27:15] month. But I don't see how we

[1:27:17] could confirm Except maybe

[1:27:22] not. And the education piece

[1:27:22] of this puzzle is missing. It

[1:27:23] also builds distrust and

[1:27:27] frustration. Finally, there

[1:27:27] are the questions of legality

[1:27:28] of this move as well as the

[1:27:29] lack of listening to solar

[1:27:32] customers. The survey we were

[1:27:32] sent was a series of questions

[1:27:35] with no good answers. I wasn't

[1:27:37] even sure I should submit it

[1:27:37] because it gives the

[1:27:38] impression of preferences that

[1:27:40] I don't have. I chose the

[1:27:42] least bad of multiple bat

[1:27:43] answers. I don't feel heard.

[1:27:46] And I know other solar users

[1:27:47] have suggested more fairways,

[1:27:50] converting energy inputs and

[1:27:50] to monetary terms that could

[1:27:52] be applied to higher rates

[1:27:54] that would allow us some

[1:27:56] control. The current situation

[1:27:57] permanently settle this with

[1:27:58] an extra fee and no confidence

[1:27:59] that they will increase again

[1:28:04] in the future. I guess my

[1:28:05] question is, do we want to

[1:28:07] encourage or discourage

[1:28:09] rooftop solar? Are we entering

[1:28:11] into an ai age or increased

[1:28:12] energy needs require that

[1:28:13] every source of energy be

[1:28:15] explored and utilized. Why

[1:28:16] would you disincentivize solar

[1:28:18] installation and use at this

[1:28:20] time? Also, we'll time of day

[1:28:22] rates and a man charges even

[1:28:24] make sense in the age of ai

[1:28:25] data centers churning through

[1:28:25] vast amounts of energy during

[1:28:29] the work day. I ask that this

[1:28:30] net metering change be

[1:28:30] reconsidered and a fair

[1:28:33] solution to be adopted. Please

[1:28:34] include more so users in the

[1:28:36] discussion and educate the

[1:28:37] public about how potential

[1:28:47] changes would apply to them.

[1:28:48] >> Next step we have Deborah

[1:28:54] Fortenberry.

[1:28:57] >> Good morning and thank you.

[1:28:58] My name is Deborah Fortenberry

[1:29:00] and the Colorado Springs

[1:29:02] Utilities, customer. I

[1:29:04] appreciate the time that many

[1:29:05] of you have given me and

[1:29:08] speaking directly with you.

[1:29:09] It's been a learning process

[1:29:10] for me and one that I've

[1:29:14] enjoyed one of the things that

[1:29:17] I've learned is that the

[1:29:20] founding fathers in 1918, 71

[1:29:21] named to the city of Colorado

[1:29:24] Springs, the city of Sunshine.

[1:29:26] And of course, this follows a

[1:29:29] long tradition of the Native

[1:29:31] American peoples who are

[1:29:33] shining mountain to the which

[1:29:36] means a sun mountain. So this

[1:29:41] long-held consciousness of the

[1:29:41] benefits solar energy and

[1:29:43] presence in our community.

[1:29:44] It's something I feel like is

[1:29:46] an opportunity that we can

[1:29:48] step into rather than than

[1:29:50] impeding, which is what I

[1:29:51] believe the current rate

[1:29:53] proposal rate increase

[1:29:57] proposal does. It will impeach

[1:29:58] solar it's an additional in

[1:29:59] position to solar because, of

[1:30:02] course, we are limited to 120%

[1:30:05] build out when we darse

[1:30:07] rooftop solar 5 years ago and

[1:30:08] that limitation is continuing

[1:30:11] to this day. So now on now

[1:30:12] that we've converted so many

[1:30:15] of our appliances and heating

[1:30:17] system to rooftop solar, to to

[1:30:20] electric. We have to go back

[1:30:21] through a construction

[1:30:22] process, pay new fees that new

[1:30:22] construction, new permitting

[1:30:24] fees to build out our solar to

[1:30:26] what we actually need to

[1:30:28] produce 100% of the energy we

[1:30:30] use, which is our goal. We

[1:30:34] don't yet have batteries,

[1:30:35] which I think is the great

[1:30:36] opportunity here that I want

[1:30:38] to see color springs utilities

[1:30:44] step into if we focus on the

[1:30:46] opportunity to store the solar

[1:30:48] power that we can generate

[1:30:50] locally, we keep these funds

[1:30:54] in our neighbors pocket right?

[1:30:57] And we can close this gap on

[1:31:00] what is perceived to be and

[1:31:02] energy storage gap that makes

[1:31:04] solar unreliable. I think it's

[1:31:08] not appropriate to see solar

[1:31:09] is not reliable energy source,

[1:31:11] but rather one that we need

[1:31:14] and we need sturridge

[1:31:16] opportunity to close that gap.

[1:31:19] And so my request. I believe

[1:31:22] that we can do better. I

[1:31:23] believe that we can come up

[1:31:25] with a fair rate. That also

[1:31:27] accomplishes this great

[1:31:29] opportunity. If we do that, if

[1:31:31] we saw the storage gap, we

[1:31:35] could be able to avoid

[1:31:36] building replacement power

[1:31:38] production when Nixon has to

[1:31:41] retire. So that I think is a

[1:31:43] great opportunity here. If we

[1:31:45] focus instead on the battery

[1:31:45] storage opportunity, my

[1:31:48] request is that you prefer

[1:31:52] both issues to the you pack,

[1:31:53] engage them, let them do a

[1:31:54] comprehensive analysis and

[1:31:57] report to city council. And,

[1:31:58] you know, we I think there's a

[1:31:59] great opportunity here. Thank

[1:32:06] you very much. Thank you.

[1:32:07] COUNCILMAN Hand. Thank you

[1:32:09] very much. And Denver, thank

[1:32:11] you for speaking in

[1:32:12] particular. Number of people

[1:32:14] have mentioned this,

[1:32:19] >> I just received note the

[1:32:22] attorney, a at csu, Renee Kohn

[1:32:24] done that. Not recommending

[1:32:25] that this code to pack because

[1:32:27] this is a legislative matter

[1:32:29] and I am in disagreement with

[1:32:30] that. I actually think policy

[1:32:35] is driving this rate case and

[1:32:36] we've had this discussion

[1:32:37] before as as a board and as a

[1:32:40] counsel, I don't think. I'm

[1:32:41] pretty confident not everybody

[1:32:44] agrees with me, but I would

[1:32:45] like to actually, if not now,

[1:32:49] maybe after public comment.

[1:32:51] Determine which is best MADAM

[1:32:53] PRESIDENT, but I would like

[1:32:55] for the Condon, the attorney

[1:32:55] to address this question about

[1:32:58] you pack. After public

[1:33:01] comment. That's fine.

[1:33:02] COUNCILMAN Duncan.

[1:33:03] >> Yes, thank you, MADAM

[1:33:04] PRESIDENT. And I would just

[1:33:06] point out for my colleagues

[1:33:07] that you pack is as its name

[1:33:12] implied. An advisory committee

[1:33:14] about policy, not about rate

[1:33:14] structure. We keep you back

[1:33:17] out of that. So. If we adopted

[1:33:21] this today, I would

[1:33:21] potentially support having you

[1:33:24] back then look at different

[1:33:28] battery to to bring in. To the

[1:33:30] offerings of csu, but but not

[1:33:31] to look at the rate structure

[1:33:34] itself.

[1:33:34] >> Next step we have Rick

[1:33:49] Allen.

[1:33:53] >> It's my first time in front

[1:33:55] of any city council. But I

[1:33:59] feel strongly about My name is

[1:34:01] patrol around my home about a

[1:34:03] year ago, we built our House 3

[1:34:06] years ago on the West side.

[1:34:07] It's the first and to my

[1:34:07] knowledge, the only certified

[1:34:10] passive house in the city. And

[1:34:11] therefore and claim it is the

[1:34:14] most energy efficient house in

[1:34:16] the city. We have 12 inch

[1:34:17] thick, insulated walls, triple

[1:34:20] pane windows and doors. No

[1:34:21] firm. There's no baseboard

[1:34:23] heaters. Know we see just and

[1:34:26] no gas. Just electricity in

[1:34:30] the we need? We didn't do that

[1:34:32] to save the planet. We did

[1:34:35] that because as an engineer, I

[1:34:36] think I'm now the 3rd

[1:34:37] electrical engineer to stand

[1:34:41] up here. I like efficiency.

[1:34:43] Oppose the changes. Csu was

[1:34:46] proposed is the current rules

[1:34:47] were critical factor in our

[1:34:48] cost-benefit calculation to

[1:34:49] install solar in the first

[1:34:50] place. And now they want to

[1:34:54] change the equation. We

[1:34:56] invested $27,000 after tax

[1:34:58] credit in order to reduce

[1:34:58] monthly bills and protect us

[1:35:00] from future impacts like this

[1:35:04] one. Neither of the 2 proposed

[1:35:07] options are acceptable.

[1:35:08] Particularly the one that

[1:35:10] takes where the rover is

[1:35:16] offensive, either warm. Would

[1:35:17] dramatically increase. I was

[1:35:18] actually horrified by the

[1:35:22] church that he shared. There

[1:35:24] would show massive increase in

[1:35:25] the prices for the electricity

[1:35:26] that we occasionally have to

[1:35:34] pay. I also agree with My

[1:35:36] fellow engineer here that it's

[1:35:39] incorrect to say that solar

[1:35:39] customers are raising the

[1:35:42] costs and other customers. It

[1:35:44] would be inherently unfair to

[1:35:46] increase our approaches when

[1:35:47] we invested in this

[1:35:48] installation under the current

[1:35:52] rules. We chose to to install

[1:35:56] a battery as others are said,

[1:35:58] which usually gets us through

[1:35:58] the night. Definitely gets us

[1:36:00] through the 05:00pm 09:00pm

[1:36:01] Peak hours. So we only take

[1:36:02] power from the grid during off

[1:36:05] peak terms. We'll still get

[1:36:10] penalized under this plan. I

[1:36:11] think if there is a problem

[1:36:16] and the professor explain

[1:36:20] that. It does not. There are

[1:36:21] many other options. So you've

[1:36:22] heard today and I think it

[1:36:27] would be well within your.

[1:36:28] Requirement to investigate all

[1:36:30] those options. Not just these

[1:36:31] what are considered pretty

[1:36:35] terrible options. So I ask you

[1:36:35] to protect fair amount,

[1:36:38] metering vote against this

[1:36:39] proposal and investigate other

[1:36:47] options. Thank you

[1:36:48] >> COUNCILMAN Hinton, thank

[1:36:49] you. MADAM PRESIDENT, I would

[1:36:51] just like to make a request of

[1:36:52] our cfo. Tristan, when you

[1:36:55] come back up to speak, if you

[1:36:59] I just what I thought was an

[1:37:00] incredibly powerful argument

[1:37:00] that this particular customer.

[1:37:01] I don't know if he's a unicorn

[1:37:03] or not, but would in fact be

[1:37:06] penalized by this rate case

[1:37:07] based on what shared. And if

[1:37:11] if that's true, you can do it

[1:37:12] later. When you come back

[1:37:12] trust and I just want to put a

[1:37:14] place holder and ask you to

[1:37:15] please make a note of that.

[1:37:18] Thank you.

[1:37:20] >> Men PRESIDENT, if we could,

[1:37:21] i would. But after us and just

[1:37:23] address it right now, while

[1:37:23] everyone remembers what

[1:37:26] exactly was stated and

[1:37:28] suggested cause I remember

[1:37:29] talking. Yeah. I read it all.

[1:37:32] Every male that's come in.

[1:37:36] Talked with Tristan about this

[1:37:38] 6 Pacific example. I think

[1:37:39] this this This is what we want

[1:37:40] to go to batteries with these

[1:37:43] with this rate case going

[1:37:44] trust In this case, I believe

[1:37:44] the rate structure that we

[1:37:47] have set up.

[1:37:47] >> Is beneficial for anyone

[1:37:49] that has a battery. So if you

[1:37:53] have a battery already with

[1:37:54] your system that using that

[1:37:55] battery from 5 to 9, can you

[1:37:56] would avoid that? A man

[1:37:58] charging option number 2,

[1:38:00] completely option. Number 2,

[1:38:01] you are able to continue to

[1:38:01] roll over your credits from

[1:38:04] month to month. And so from a

[1:38:07] cost impact standpoint, there

[1:38:10] isn't any impact. You also

[1:38:11] have the opportunity when that

[1:38:11] matter e use power in such a

[1:38:12] different way that you can

[1:38:15] come out ahead based on the

[1:38:16] time of day rates that would

[1:38:20] put in place on option That

[1:38:21] would be an option. One, an

[1:38:22] option to its still standard

[1:38:26] Kilowatt lot out. One for one

[1:38:28] exchange. So all of those

[1:38:29] things with a battery making

[1:38:30] just a huge amount of

[1:38:32] difference. That's what we see

[1:38:36] with this might the hold on

[1:38:37] explanation that I gave at the

[1:38:38] beginning was we've got a peek

[1:38:40] system issue that's going on.

[1:38:44] So from 05:00pm to 09:00pm, we

[1:38:46] megawatts that are from 800 to

[1:38:47] right up to our peak, which

[1:38:51] was set JULY JULY, 20th

[1:38:53] 04:45pm 1034 megawatts. That

[1:38:56] was our all-time system peak

[1:38:58] from 5 to 9 through the

[1:39:00] summertime. That's when we see

[1:39:02] that 22% of additional needed

[1:39:03] infrastructure. That's 800

[1:39:04] megawatts up to 1000 that were

[1:39:06] we're building to be able to

[1:39:07] cover during that time. That's

[1:39:10] where the costs come from.

[1:39:11] During that same period of

[1:39:12] time, we see only about 30%

[1:39:14] production from panels of

[1:39:18] solar customers. That means

[1:39:20] 70% of that time, at least 70%

[1:39:21] of the time they're leaning on

[1:39:23] our system. And that's the

[1:39:24] calculations that come back to

[1:39:25] the 6 and a half million

[1:39:26] dollars of contribution to the

[1:39:31] peak infrastructure. There's

[1:39:32] 394 customers of are

[1:39:33] approximately 11,000 solar

[1:39:34] customers that have batteries

[1:39:37] right now. Those customers

[1:39:39] when see any change,

[1:39:40] potentially and the way that

[1:39:44] they choose those options,

[1:39:44] batteries changes that.

[1:39:46] Changes the math. We need to

[1:39:47] recognize that and make sure

[1:39:48] that our rates are set up in

[1:39:50] such a way if you're not

[1:39:51] contributing to that demand

[1:39:53] through the use of a battery

[1:39:54] that it doesn't natively

[1:39:56] impact batteries can do that.

[1:39:58] As we look at the programs and

[1:39:59] things that we're trying to

[1:40:00] evaluate from both a virtual

[1:40:02] power point, virtual power

[1:40:05] plant standpoint dsm programs

[1:40:07] demand side management

[1:40:09] programs it would be looking

[1:40:10] at and going and saying what

[1:40:11] is the value of the baton? If

[1:40:12] you want to own a batter

[1:40:13] yourself already investing

[1:40:14] that. What rebates should we

[1:40:16] be giving you calculations and

[1:40:18] matter in the works. But

[1:40:20] again, it's when we do the

[1:40:21] calculations of that and we're

[1:40:22] starting with 4 and a half

[1:40:22] million dollars under the

[1:40:25] programs. Don't pencil out. If

[1:40:26] we're able to get those things

[1:40:28] taken care from rate

[1:40:30] structure, standpoints, we

[1:40:31] haven't potentially rebate

[1:40:33] dollars that are available

[1:40:33] that we can evaluate anyone

[1:40:35] that wants own their own

[1:40:37] battery. And we're also

[1:40:38] investigating programs to

[1:40:39] companies that offer hosted

[1:40:40] batteries on both solar and

[1:40:45] non solar customers

[1:40:46] properties. Those programs

[1:40:49] vary in cars. Some of them

[1:40:50] have month a month charge is

[1:40:51] somehow a one-time uptime

[1:40:52] upfront fee. That's all

[1:40:55] customers pay and it would be

[1:40:55] enough to be able to cover

[1:40:56] their use. Plus, have

[1:40:57] additional power that they

[1:40:59] could send back to the grid.

[1:40:59] These are all things that we

[1:41:00] would love to investigate, but

[1:41:01] we just can't do that. If

[1:41:04] we're starting from a negative

[1:41:05] in the whole standpoint and

[1:41:05] being able to cover

[1:41:07] infrastructure costs. It's

[1:41:10] been my number. I just wanted

[1:41:14] to kind

[1:41:15] >> Elevate what you just said

[1:41:17] a little bit because there's

[1:41:19] understanding when we take off

[1:41:24] power that we generate through

[1:41:25] solarwinds. So if the if the

[1:41:26] wind's not blowing and the sun

[1:41:26] is not out, so we got a big

[1:41:27] cloud or something like that.

[1:41:31] Whatever. Our current

[1:41:34] generation of power, Israel is

[1:41:36] roughly like we're going want

[1:41:39] to try to get out. Is Nixon.

[1:41:39] We were going to have to take

[1:41:43] down in 2028. And utility

[1:41:44] successfully got that delayed

[1:41:48] until 2033. But that's what I

[1:41:48] see remember. And this wind

[1:41:53] mean help recalling that's 400

[1:41:56] megawatts, 2, 100 megawatts

[1:41:56] for MR. Ok? So that's we're

[1:41:57] going to lose 200 megawatts

[1:42:00] wind that goes down and 33

[1:42:03] right. So currently, what are

[1:42:05] we just what are we able to

[1:42:07] generate with just basically

[1:42:09] natural gas? That's really our

[1:42:11] only other option at this. No,

[1:42:11] we do have some hydro up. But

[1:42:14] that's pretty small. You know,

[1:42:15] when we look through that

[1:42:18] portfolio and you know, our

[1:42:19] system, folks can correct me

[1:42:20] and we can get that number

[1:42:21] exactly if we want to. But we

[1:42:23] have approximately 500

[1:42:24] megawatts from front range

[1:42:25] power. That is a combined

[1:42:27] cycle. Natural gas plant. We

[1:42:29] have approximately 150

[1:42:31] megawatts from gas units that

[1:42:32] are at the Drake site. Those

[1:42:35] fast resources that are there.

[1:42:37] So we that that comes through

[1:42:39] at the Nixon site as well. We

[1:42:39] have 2 deaths peaking units

[1:42:42] that are 30 megawatts each. So

[1:42:42] there's 60 megawatts that

[1:42:48] comes from that. Hydro

[1:42:48] allocation. Tesla. Hydro,

[1:42:52] which sits at the Air Force

[1:42:54] Academy and drops water down

[1:42:55] for import reservoir about 28

[1:42:56] megawatts waters flowing

[1:42:58] through there we get a federal

[1:43:00] allocation of hydro power,

[1:43:01] which is about 50 megawatts

[1:43:02] that they deliver from to us

[1:43:03] as well. When you look at all

[1:43:06] of those resources and that's

[1:43:07] not counting any of our

[1:43:09] renewable contracts that we

[1:43:11] have. That gets us pretty

[1:43:12] close to the 10. 34 still

[1:43:15] being able to be covered with

[1:43:16] Nixon in the mix. The 200

[1:43:18] that's there from Kuwait. And

[1:43:19] that's what really trying to

[1:43:20] get or we hit our max and our

[1:43:22] max is not going to be our

[1:43:23] max. We're going to keep

[1:43:24] pushing that as we as more and

[1:43:28] more people get up electric

[1:43:29] cars and more and more people

[1:43:30] go electric and there's more

[1:43:32] electric demand. We're going

[1:43:37] to be losing next. So we're

[1:43:37] actually going to go into

[1:43:38] deficit on power production

[1:43:40] between 5 and 9. So we we have

[1:43:43] to find a way to kind of

[1:43:45] replace that kind of

[1:43:47] infrastructure. And that's the

[1:43:49] cost that the whole city has

[1:43:51] to bear. So that's that's the

[1:43:52] reality of it is like, how do

[1:43:56] we? How do we generate power

[1:43:59] during 5, And it and it's even

[1:43:59] more of an impact because

[1:44:05] we're going to lose. Nexon and

[1:44:07] 2033. That's correct. I didn't

[1:44:09] leave out one other resource

[1:44:10] that we've recently added

[1:44:11] within the last couple of

[1:44:13] years. 100 megawatts

[1:44:14] utility-scale battery. And I

[1:44:15] like to highlight that just

[1:44:16] for a moment, if that's right

[1:44:21] and her 100 megawatts of

[1:44:21] battery as we've entered into

[1:44:22] the market, the surf first

[1:44:24] year in the southwest Power

[1:44:25] pool market. So we've seen how

[1:44:30] batteries can operate dirt in

[1:44:30] that market. So we regularly

[1:44:33] see during the day time

[1:44:35] period, solar generation, not

[1:44:36] necessarily right in Colorado

[1:44:37] Springs, but in the

[1:44:38] surrounding connected market

[1:44:39] that's priced in the middle

[1:44:42] part of the day. 4, as much 50

[1:44:43] to $80. They will pay us to

[1:44:45] take that energy so we will

[1:44:48] pay you 50 to 80 dollars per

[1:44:50] megawatt hour to take the

[1:44:52] excess solar generation that's

[1:44:52] out on the grid. We can put

[1:44:56] that right into a battery. And

[1:44:58] then 5 tonight is happening

[1:45:00] and costs greatly increased.

[1:45:02] We are able to flip that

[1:45:03] battery and turn the exact

[1:45:08] other way and push out energy.

[1:45:09] Both onto our grid and solid

[1:45:10] into that greater market. When

[1:45:13] prices are hitting $50600,000,

[1:45:14] a megawatt hour and that

[1:45:14] market. So I will make sure

[1:45:18] her to write that we're not

[1:45:19] pain for solar energy certain

[1:45:20] times of the day because of

[1:45:22] this battery bank. We're

[1:45:25] actually getting paid to take

[1:45:30] So it's a critic. I mean,

[1:45:31] Guest, right? That's the in

[1:45:32] there are transmission costs

[1:45:33] that come along. When you look

[1:45:36] at all that when you're down

[1:45:37] in the negative 50 to $80

[1:45:38] range, we're getting paid to

[1:45:39] take solar power on to our

[1:45:41] system. If we have the room to

[1:45:43] be able to use an honor system

[1:45:43] now but there's one more point

[1:45:47] to this with that we we with

[1:45:49] our solar customers were

[1:45:52] locked in at a fee that when

[1:45:54] we can go and get power a

[1:45:57] credit of $50 or whatever it

[1:45:59] is, we're locked in at a

[1:46:01] payment to solar producers at

[1:46:04] what rate it's about $0.13 a

[1:46:06] kilowatt to a lot work pain,

[1:46:07] $0.13 a kilowatt for the solar

[1:46:09] panel. When we could go get

[1:46:12] that and actually be paid 50,

[1:46:14] that's that's those are

[1:46:14] extreme cases. It was not the

[1:46:18] 13 thirteen's lot. But there

[1:46:20] are times during the day where

[1:46:21] the power in the middle of the

[1:46:24] day is so cheap that it's

[1:46:26] really difficult. And that

[1:46:27] definitely wasn't the case

[1:46:28] before. When we first started

[1:46:31] this program in 2006,

[1:46:32] saturation of solar was not

[1:46:34] what it is now. Been so much

[1:46:37] utilities, scale solar that

[1:46:39] has been added that it just

[1:46:40] makes it a huge amount of

[1:46:42] change in that in those for

[1:46:47] about. 3 to 4 since we can

[1:46:49] purchase we have a purchase

[1:46:50] power agreement with our

[1:46:50] largest utility sites, solar

[1:46:54] array and we're paying $0.13

[1:46:55] for the generations that

[1:46:58] that's coming from rooftops.

[1:47:00] When it was a small amount of

[1:47:01] customers. The cost shift was

[1:47:01] small enough that it wasn't

[1:47:05] worth it. All of this effort,

[1:47:06] we're up to 4 and a half

[1:47:06] million dollars. That's not

[1:47:08] being covered right now. But

[1:47:09] that grows with every single

[1:47:10] installation of another solar

[1:47:12] customer at these current

[1:47:16] rates. If we don't comment fix

[1:47:17] the rate structure problem,

[1:47:18] which has those energy credits

[1:47:19] that are happening in the

[1:47:19] daytime to avoid system costs

[1:47:22] in the nighttime and I I get

[1:47:23] there are many customers the

[1:47:25] roll over from year to year,

[1:47:26] but they still rely on our

[1:47:27] electric grid in the evening

[1:47:28] time. And I have to build just

[1:47:32] as many transformers just as

[1:47:34] many substations all of that

[1:47:34] distribution infrastructure to

[1:47:35] make sure that we have power

[1:47:37] for those customers as well.

[1:47:40] But because they're cashing in

[1:47:41] those credits which we maybe

[1:47:41] aren't over paying for the

[1:47:44] daytime a little bit. Now.

[1:47:47] It's also knock. It's now on a

[1:47:47] way that they are not paying

[1:47:48] for all of the infrastructure

[1:47:49] that they're using during

[1:47:51] those peak times that we have

[1:47:53] to build. So there was a

[1:47:55] suggestion of being a have

[1:47:59] honest charge to what solar 8

[1:48:00] actually are that very

[1:48:01] complicated because it's such

[1:48:03] a volatile fossil me every

[1:48:07] hour things changed right? And

[1:48:08] so it be very, very difficult

[1:48:09] to probably come up with

[1:48:09] something like that. Maybe

[1:48:11] down the road. You know, we

[1:48:15] had more ai, but that would be

[1:48:18] very, very challenging. So

[1:48:20] pricing differences. And I

[1:48:21] think what I heard from

[1:48:22] customers was just put us on

[1:48:23] the energy wise rates on that.

[1:48:24] We're asking from all the rest

[1:48:27] of our customers. And that's

[1:48:28] part of the proposal that we

[1:48:28] have an option. One is to go

[1:48:30] to those rates when we did the

[1:48:31] math and said don't put a grid

[1:48:32] access fee on there, just

[1:48:35] charge the the energy rates

[1:48:35] from on and off peak in

[1:48:37] credit. Those if it's lower in

[1:48:39] the daytime Ps, what on

[1:48:43] daytime energy wise costs are

[1:48:44] and pay for the evening

[1:48:44] production used both of those

[1:48:48] when we applied those to 8400

[1:48:49] customers that had a full set

[1:48:54] of years worth of data of

[1:48:55] reads on their system. It

[1:48:56] covered about a million

[1:48:58] dollars of the 4 and a half

[1:48:59] million dollar shortfall. It

[1:49:01] just does not work because you

[1:49:03] are exchanging on a burial

[1:49:05] little basis per kilowatt

[1:49:08] hour. It's never going to

[1:49:08] catch up because of the

[1:49:09] interplay that happens.

[1:49:10] There's long as credits in the

[1:49:12] daytime Houston the evening

[1:49:14] hours. It will never catch up

[1:49:16] no matter where you set those

[1:49:18] rates that we have tied them

[1:49:19] back to exactly what we have

[1:49:20] for the rest of our code.

[1:49:21] Customers over energy wise and

[1:49:23] it makes up a million dollars.

[1:49:24] 3 and a half million dollars

[1:49:25] still left hanging out there.

[1:49:27] The girls with every single

[1:49:28] customer that comes if went

[1:49:30] with option, that's why we're

[1:49:31] trying to make sure that we

[1:49:34] have the rate structure to

[1:49:35] ensure that everyone pays for

[1:49:36] their part of the grid. That's

[1:49:36] what the proposal comes down

[1:49:42] to come. So I guess what I'm

[1:49:50] wanting just to leave this we

[1:49:52] csu was out a publicly held

[1:49:54] utility and was a private

[1:49:55] utility, would we be having

[1:50:00] this conversation? Probably

[1:50:00] probably not. I think it's

[1:50:04] really because profit factors

[1:50:06] that are there with the other

[1:50:08] utilities. So when they look

[1:50:09] at 4 and a half million

[1:50:11] dollars investment for a lot

[1:50:12] of especially large investor

[1:50:13] owned utilities falls very

[1:50:15] much inside of the guaranteed

[1:50:16] profits that they get for

[1:50:16] every piece of infrastructure

[1:50:20] that they built. So they have

[1:50:24] winds of net profit. Grosse

[1:50:25] read our net revenue that

[1:50:26] comes back at the end of the

[1:50:28] day that they can invest into

[1:50:31] these programs. All of our

[1:50:33] costs generated on a cost

[1:50:34] service basis. What is the

[1:50:35] cost to put the infrastructure

[1:50:36] in place? We charge that to

[1:50:37] our customers. We don't have a

[1:50:38] net profit mine that we can go

[1:50:40] back and say let's let's look

[1:50:42] for programs that we can do

[1:50:43] based on that. That's why I'm

[1:50:46] saying when it comes to

[1:50:46] battery programs and other

[1:50:49] things, we have to get playing

[1:50:50] field level aisd. So it's the

[1:50:52] same across all of our

[1:50:53] customers. From that

[1:50:54] standpoint, we can look at

[1:50:55] what the value is. We can make

[1:50:56] those calculations. We can see

[1:50:58] how much value comes from our

[1:50:59] entry into the spp market for

[1:51:01] having batteries that are

[1:51:02] available during that on peak

[1:51:06] period of time and making

[1:51:07] appropriate calculation of

[1:51:07] this is what a rebate should

[1:51:08] be for anyone that's already

[1:51:09] installed the battery or

[1:51:10] anyone that's planning to

[1:51:12] install a battery. And we can

[1:51:15] look further into programs

[1:51:17] that have 3rd party hosted

[1:51:18] batteries and what some of

[1:51:19] those options are. They could

[1:51:20] be very attractive for

[1:51:22] customers that have solar and

[1:51:23] for customers that don't have

[1:51:23] solar, but just are looking

[1:51:25] for back up on their system.

[1:51:27] Well, and I think that's what

[1:51:27] I wanted to kind of highlight

[1:51:30] those because we're community

[1:51:36] health facility. We company.

[1:51:37] We often reduced there.

[1:51:39] There's been plenty of times

[1:51:40] where reduced rates where

[1:51:40] you're not going to find that

[1:51:42] early in the private industry.

[1:51:45] That doesn't really happen.

[1:51:48] And so that's the beauty here.

[1:51:50] And in so when we compare our

[1:51:52] energy rates to electrical

[1:51:55] companies in in the state, we

[1:51:58] are incredibly lower and a lot

[1:52:00] of companies as it is right

[1:52:02] now, our electric rates, which

[1:52:02] we price on a quarterly basis

[1:52:03] are showing about 15% below

[1:52:07] the front range average for

[1:52:09] electric bills and that we do

[1:52:10] really based on the way that

[1:52:11] we've been able to do things

[1:52:15] like with our 100 battery see

[1:52:16] a decrease that we're ready to

[1:52:19] propose for OCTOBER. 1st

[1:52:21] discussed that utilities board

[1:52:23] this month. So because we're

[1:52:24] able to optimize some of our

[1:52:25] resources, both or gas in our

[1:52:26] battery and all of the other

[1:52:28] resources we have. We've done

[1:52:29] well for our customers and the

[1:52:30] way that we've been able to

[1:52:33] use our energy outside of the

[1:52:34] system, those benefits we need

[1:52:35] to be able to pass on her

[1:52:36] customers and we can do that

[1:52:37] through mechanisms like the

[1:52:38] electric cost adjustment. All

[1:52:42] right. I think you. Next we

[1:52:53] have Robert Blake, them.

[1:52:57] >> Robot lace them up in a csu

[1:52:59] Now, Tanya is a feel-like over

[1:53:02] those 10 I've done everything.

[1:53:02] The Cs first change my

[1:53:06] lightbulbs to cfl's. Then you

[1:53:09] told me my Christmas lights to

[1:53:10] these and that change my house

[1:53:14] lights to led these everything

[1:53:16] you asked. You asked me to

[1:53:17] reduce consumption. So I made

[1:53:20] it $20,000 investment to

[1:53:22] further reduce consumption and

[1:53:26] Now it turns out csu doesn't

[1:53:28] like custom. Those don't use

[1:53:29] much energy. When I look at

[1:53:32] the practical reports, it's

[1:53:36] very clear. You cover

[1:53:36] infrastructure costs. 6

[1:53:41] charges, but on usage. So as a

[1:53:44] low usage I'm not paying much

[1:53:45] the infrastructure notice some

[1:53:52] of my neighbors who do have is

[1:53:53] much So are you going to do

[1:53:56] the same? He going to

[1:53:58] introduce Dumont, touched

[1:53:59] everybody. He uses less than

[1:54:02] the average power to out

[1:54:04] Colorado Springs talk a lot

[1:54:07] about seems very me. I want to

[1:54:12] be pass the solution. Try and

[1:54:13] reduce my 2 2 in the peak

[1:54:14] times, even though it gets me,

[1:54:17] no incentive. So I'm willing

[1:54:21] to to pay something to to tour

[1:54:22] a new power wind and solar is

[1:54:24] not available to me. You could

[1:54:28] meet 2 options. One option is

[1:54:33] I just pace fix charge. It

[1:54:34] doesn't incentive finds me

[1:54:39] reduce my usage. It's just a

[1:54:41] fix charge and blows. 25%

[1:54:45] savings. Otherwise just roll

[1:54:46] the dice, the charge of tried

[1:54:50] for over a yeah to get

[1:54:51] information from csu. They

[1:54:55] don't have it. They come

[1:54:57] provide that. So what you're

[1:55:00] going to do is to 15 minutes I

[1:55:05] get to choose my Muncy writes,

[1:55:06] I accidently turn onto

[1:55:08] appliances and that sets my

[1:55:11] team charge them so that these

[1:55:13] 2 options really do

[1:55:16] incentivize me to save energy

[1:55:17] Su last open. The many thank

[1:55:24] you.

[1:55:36] >> Except we have Day.

[1:55:36] >> Thank you all for your

[1:55:37] service. I appreciate you

[1:55:41] being here. My name is Linda

[1:55:44] Day. I live at 8, 0, 9, 0, 4,

[1:55:46] And I'm going to go script

[1:55:47] here for a minute because I

[1:55:49] hope that you're listening to

[1:55:50] us to the people that have

[1:55:53] solar. I have deny. Have a

[1:55:58] tap. Solar panels. I wish I

[1:56:02] didn't have to be here again

[1:56:04] to justify the value of

[1:56:06] rooftop solar. Not only for us

[1:56:12] for you. For Colorado. The

[1:56:14] Colorado Springs for that are.

[1:56:19] >> By the world.

[1:56:22] >> My husband and I invested

[1:56:22] in solar.

[1:56:26] >> To give back to society.

[1:56:28] >> And to endorse the value.

[1:56:33] Evan, not having fossil fuels.

[1:56:35] We also thought that having

[1:56:37] solar might lower our

[1:56:38] electricity use when we are

[1:56:42] old and we are old now. So you

[1:56:46] would like to how a way to

[1:56:46] offset escalating health

[1:56:53] cough. Arcelor works. We've

[1:56:57] had what do you call it? That

[1:56:58] comes back we've had credit

[1:57:02] comeback to You're welcome.

[1:57:08] Respectfully. I asked you to

[1:57:09] call for a comprehensive and

[1:57:14] road Reevaluation of solar.

[1:57:19] For utility company. And to

[1:57:20] change every utility user to

[1:57:25] the same rage. I reject the

[1:57:29] guests use rate proposal and

[1:57:29] ask you to reject the proposal

[1:57:38] and demand. Eatery. Thank you.

[1:57:50] Next step we Derek Law.

[1:57:52] >> My name is Derek Law.

[1:57:54] Retired Air Force and Space

[1:57:56] Force veteran Colorado Springs

[1:58:00] resident and solar customer.

[1:58:00] Currently serving as acting

[1:58:01] chair of the southeastern

[1:58:02] chapter of the Colorado

[1:58:05] Renewable Energy Society. Back

[1:58:06] before net metering for the

[1:58:08] second year in a row last

[1:58:11] year, my request was simple.

[1:58:12] Transparency. If Colorado

[1:58:14] Springs utilities believes

[1:58:15] rooftop solar customers are

[1:58:18] shifting significant costs and

[1:58:18] to our neighbors. Show us the

[1:58:22] math. Since then, csu has

[1:58:23] conducted surveys focus groups

[1:58:24] and public outreach. I

[1:58:27] appreciate the effort, but

[1:58:28] respectfully, that was not the

[1:58:32] homework assignment. The one

[1:58:34] thing we needed was a

[1:58:36] transparent reproducible

[1:58:36] calculation showing how csu

[1:58:37] arrived at claimed cost

[1:58:40] transfer. We still have not

[1:58:45] seen it. That is especially

[1:58:46] troubling because independent

[1:58:48] research points in a very

[1:58:50] different direction. Studies

[1:58:50] including research from

[1:58:53] National Renewable Energy Labs

[1:58:53] and found that the impact of

[1:58:55] rooftop solar on non solar

[1:58:56] customers is generally very

[1:59:00] small. Does not automatically

[1:59:01] prove there's 0 cost shift in

[1:59:03] Colorado Springs. But it does

[1:59:04] mean csu has the burden to

[1:59:06] prove its local claim before

[1:59:07] imposing new solar specific

[1:59:11] charges. And that analysis

[1:59:12] needs to include both sides of

[1:59:14] the equation. The actual cost

[1:59:17] of serving solar customers and

[1:59:19] the value rooftop. Solar

[1:59:20] provides through reduced

[1:59:24] electricity purchases. Export

[1:59:25] local generation and reduced

[1:59:27] demand on the system. My

[1:59:31] second concern is grandfather.

[1:59:32] 5 years is not meaningful.

[1:59:35] Grandfather. I financed my

[1:59:35] solar system through a home

[1:59:37] equity line of credit. I still

[1:59:39] have about 10 years before

[1:59:41] that debt is paid off. I made

[1:59:43] that investment based on c s

[1:59:44] use existing net metering

[1:59:48] structure. Using my own meter

[1:59:49] data and see us use proposed

[1:59:52] time of use rates. I calculate

[1:59:53] these changes would cost my

[1:59:56] household roughly $800 per

[1:59:56] year. If I can estimate the

[1:59:59] impact using my own data, csu

[2:00:01] should be able to show us the

[2:00:03] calculations based on its

[2:00:03] claim systemwide cost

[2:00:07] transfer. That is money. I

[2:00:08] would lose. Well, I'm still

[2:00:10] paying for the system and it

[2:00:11] could extend my payback period

[2:00:16] by more than a decade. I

[2:00:17] cannot undo that investment

[2:00:20] after csu changes the rules.

[2:00:21] Existing systems should be

[2:00:21] grandfathered for the life of

[2:00:26] the system. Singling out

[2:00:28] rooftop solar customers for

[2:00:30] special charges without first

[2:00:31] demonstrating that we actually

[2:00:33] impose additional costs raises

[2:00:35] serious question under the

[2:00:35] city's requirement. But

[2:00:37] utility rates be just

[2:00:39] reasonable and not unduly

[2:00:41] discriminatory. Requests are

[2:00:43] simple shows calculations

[2:00:45] prove the cause shift account

[2:00:48] for the value of rooftop solar

[2:00:49] and permanently grandfather

[2:00:51] existing customers until csu.

[2:00:52] Does that please reject this

[2:01:00] proposal?

[2:01:01] >> Next step we have Carolyn

[2:01:04] desks or

[2:01:07] >> I hope I said that right.

[2:01:08] For some reason, it's building

[2:01:11] its Carolyn Dickerson. Getting

[2:01:12] que somewhere. There's a v and

[2:01:15] there. Well, Caroline

[2:01:17] Dickerson, cook it. First.

[2:01:20] Thanks. Thanks for your

[2:01:21] service. It's not easy to sit

[2:01:24] there and listen to each

[2:01:24] different perspective and

[2:01:27] every different person and

[2:01:29] >> it can be if it's tedious

[2:01:32] for us it's to street. So

[2:01:33] thank you. As you consider the

[2:01:34] needs of our community

[2:01:36] utility.

[2:01:39] >> I keep hearing reliability

[2:01:41] is really sought-after valued

[2:01:44] and important. I get that. As

[2:01:47] with many admirable goals.

[2:01:49] There's a point of diminishing

[2:01:51] return when pursuing

[2:01:56] reliability. They're suing

[2:01:58] reliability past that point

[2:01:59] MAY lead to a willingness to

[2:02:00] settle the community with

[2:02:05] that. For example, planning

[2:02:08] for the Porsche. The really

[2:02:12] cool new nuclear power when

[2:02:13] the known proven Chevy that

[2:02:15] gets the job done by pairing

[2:02:18] solar battery and wind. That

[2:02:22] does the job. Pursuing

[2:02:25] liability past that point MAY

[2:02:26] lead to alien needing the

[2:02:30] community. You represent. As

[2:02:32] you move in ways that really

[2:02:34] out of step with the

[2:02:38] community's values. Pursuing

[2:02:39] liability past that point MAY

[2:02:40] even lead you to work against

[2:02:44] the free market. Adding

[2:02:46] unnecessary fees selecting one

[2:02:47] part of our community to pay 2

[2:02:49] or 3 times the cost per

[2:02:50] kilowatt hour that the rest of

[2:02:53] the community pays. Slowing

[2:02:57] growth where it's growing.

[2:02:57] Pursuing reliability is

[2:03:00] laudable.

[2:03:01] >> I get it and I know I don't

[2:03:02] know near enough to know how

[2:03:04] important that is. Pursuing it

[2:03:08] at great cost against the

[2:03:09] values of the community and at

[2:03:11] the expense of regular

[2:03:12] individuals puts all of us at

[2:03:14] risk of debt. And

[2:03:19] polarization. My question

[2:03:23] really to you is. Why is the

[2:03:24] cause shift with solar? The

[2:03:26] one that needs to be singled

[2:03:29] What about apartment dwellers?

[2:03:31] Apartment dwellers pay more.

[2:03:33] Then people have single

[2:03:35] residences even though people

[2:03:36] with single residences uses

[2:03:37] more electricity. What about

[2:03:41] the people with water that has

[2:03:42] to pumped way uphill for them

[2:03:43] to have water from utilities.

[2:03:44] Nobody asks me, do I want to

[2:03:47] pay for that pump when water

[2:03:50] just comes, gravity fed to me

[2:03:51] what I don't get, why solar to

[2:03:56] be the one. If the cause shift

[2:03:57] Israel and if it accounts for

[2:03:59] all the benefits of solar,

[2:04:03] what the group that right now

[2:04:04] is charged when other groups

[2:04:06] that have a cost shift or not.

[2:04:16] Thank you for thinking.

[2:04:16] >> I'm going take a 10 minute

[2:04:17] break. We have quite a few

[2:04:31] >> a lot of recess. Next step.

[2:04:36] We have James Burnham. James

[2:04:54] burned him. Graham clout. Dena

[2:05:10] cam.

[2:05:26] >> changes changes Is home.

[2:05:29] Saying to hear that and it

[2:05:31] states that callers Springs

[2:05:33] utilities aims to transition

[2:05:34] to a more sustainable energy

[2:05:36] system by reducing carbon

[2:05:37] emissions.

[2:05:38] >> And transitioning from call

[2:05:39] to renewable energy. The

[2:05:43] proposed solar rates do not

[2:05:44] align with that commitment. Cs

[2:05:46] used to propose options. Both

[2:05:48] result in the same estimated

[2:05:49] impact an increase of

[2:05:52] approximately $38 per month

[2:05:55] calculated using 2027 rates.

[2:05:57] This is a substantial new cars

[2:05:58] spread in place specifically

[2:06:01] on solar customers. So from my

[2:06:03] example and my energy star

[2:06:05] Energy-efficient 1700 Square

[2:06:07] Foot House was built in 2021.

[2:06:08] We also are using the peak

[2:06:14] reward. So adjust energy use

[2:06:16] at night. Winston Solar in

[2:06:17] 2022. To counter the expected

[2:06:20] rise in electricity rates.

[2:06:21] Here's what our actual utility

[2:06:24] billing shows in 2020 to be

[2:06:25] for solar. All right. Bill

[2:06:27] total, Bill water, the whole

[2:06:30] business was 2, 3, And since

[2:06:32] then are even including access

[2:06:35] charges has been $50 less. So

[2:06:36] we are saving wisler about 50

[2:06:38] bucks. So it's not a lot, we

[2:06:39] don't use a lot of electricity

[2:06:40] again because we have very

[2:06:47] energy efficient House annual

[2:06:47] access charge today is rapidly

[2:06:48] with the $19 access charge

[2:06:49] that it's today when we first

[2:06:51] got it was 15. So it's roughly

[2:06:53] $228 a year under the proposed

[2:06:58] changes that would jumped to

[2:07:00] $684 annually. That's the $19.

[2:07:02] Plus $30 times 12. That's what

[2:07:04] that is resulting in a

[2:07:07] tripling of that access fee

[2:07:08] before installing solar or

[2:07:09] annual bill was 23 91 last

[2:07:13] year with solar. It was 1934

[2:07:16] so we saved about 457 a year.

[2:07:17] The proposed change would

[2:07:20] increase our annual bill by

[2:07:21] 458. So it effectively

[2:07:23] eliminates all of our solar

[2:07:24] savings. In other words, csu

[2:07:27] proposal, but financially

[2:07:29] penalize residents who have

[2:07:30] invested in renewable energy

[2:07:31] do so in a way that

[2:07:33] contradicts the stated goals,

[2:07:35] the 2024 sustainable energy

[2:07:37] plan. This is not just a rate

[2:07:38] adjustment for people like me

[2:07:42] that have newer homes. This is

[2:07:44] a structural shift away from

[2:07:44] Reno lot adoption away from

[2:07:46] cost management commitments

[2:07:47] and away from the

[2:07:49] sustainability goals that csu

[2:07:53] public publicly set. It's More

[2:07:55] severe than a peak demand rate

[2:07:55] increase its a targeted

[2:07:58] reversal incentives that

[2:07:59] encourage residents to adopt

[2:08:00] solar in the first place. So

[2:08:02] I'm asking you to oppose the

[2:08:04] proposed changes and to

[2:08:06] advocate for 8 structures that

[2:08:07] support rather than undermine

[2:08:08] the city's sustainability

[2:08:09] commitments. Thank you. Thank

[2:08:13] you.

[2:08:13] >> Next step we have Tanner

[2:08:22] Cox.

[2:08:23] >> Thank you, MADAM.

[2:08:24] PRESIDENT, members of Council,

[2:08:27] my name is Terry a Colorado

[2:08:28] Springs resident in the first

[2:08:29] district. I am also the color

[2:08:30] at a program director for

[2:08:34] Solar United Neighbors today.

[2:08:34] I'm asking you to reject

[2:08:35] Colorado Springs utilities,

[2:08:37] net metering proposal as a

[2:08:39] quick aside, MR. Line Weber

[2:08:40] about your question earlier

[2:08:43] about for-profit utilities.

[2:08:44] Unfortunately, do see this a

[2:08:45] ton across the country and

[2:08:46] for-profit utilities and in

[2:08:50] fact, the roots of the cost

[2:08:51] shift argument coming from the

[2:08:51] Edison Electric Institute,

[2:08:53] which is the think tank for

[2:08:55] for-profit utilities, which

[2:08:56] makes me even more concerned

[2:08:57] that we're seeing this issue

[2:08:59] crop up and community owned

[2:09:01] nonprofit utility that is not

[2:09:02] trying to protect shareholder.

[2:09:05] Bottom lines. Last winter, I

[2:09:07] was able to sit down with MR.

[2:09:10] Deal, MR. Gearhart and our

[2:09:11] friends at the Colorado, Solar

[2:09:14] and Storage Association in

[2:09:16] that meeting expressed great

[2:09:17] gratitude MR. Gearhart links

[2:09:19] he's gone to engage the csu

[2:09:22] customers. I know he's

[2:09:23] probably responded to

[2:09:24] thousands of emails had dozens

[2:09:25] of in-person meetings and

[2:09:26] overall csu has tried to

[2:09:30] engage the community. Well, I

[2:09:32] do value. Those efforts also

[2:09:33] expressed that I feel like

[2:09:33] we're putting the cart before

[2:09:34] the horse a little bit here.

[2:09:38] And I stand by that sentiment.

[2:09:39] As I mentioned last year,

[2:09:39] utilities are allowed to

[2:09:40] design reasonable rates to

[2:09:43] account for projected costs.

[2:09:44] However, a decrease in revenue

[2:09:47] does not equate to a new cost.

[2:09:48] This is especially true in our

[2:09:50] case when the decreased amount

[2:09:53] solar owners pay represents

[2:09:54] merely one percent of csu

[2:09:56] Zahn, you electricity sales.

[2:09:58] It's important to note that

[2:09:59] neither the battle report nor

[2:10:01] underlying data show that its

[2:10:02] solar customers present any

[2:10:04] new or unaccounted for costs

[2:10:06] that non solar customers have

[2:10:08] to bear even more. The broader

[2:10:09] report makes a passing comment

[2:10:11] about the benefits rooftop

[2:10:12] solar provides, but it does

[2:10:13] not include any hard data to

[2:10:16] prove that, quote, those

[2:10:17] benefits do not amount to the

[2:10:17] full cost of providing

[2:10:21] service. When presented with

[2:10:23] underlying data. It appears

[2:10:25] that no benefit evaluation has

[2:10:26] been conducted at all on

[2:10:27] behalf of the 11,000 solar

[2:10:31] owners in Colorado Springs. I

[2:10:32] am not suggesting that we only

[2:10:34] look at the benefits rather. I

[2:10:35] believe we should take the

[2:10:36] costs and the benefits as a

[2:10:39] whole picture. You consider

[2:10:40] these changes, asked reflect

[2:10:42] on a few questions. First has

[2:10:43] customer behavior changes due

[2:10:47] to time their rates has csu

[2:10:48] evaluated any extra benefits

[2:10:48] rooftop solar provides during

[2:10:52] the early afternoon. Second

[2:10:53] has csu conducted any cross

[2:10:54] study of the Costa serve solar

[2:10:57] versus non solar customers.

[2:10:58] 3rd, given that we've never

[2:11:01] hit 100% renewables in

[2:11:02] Colorado Springs as he's you

[2:11:03] studied her rooftop. Solar

[2:11:05] offsets costly generation

[2:11:07] sources, even when wholesale

[2:11:07] solar electricity is

[2:11:10] exceedingly chief. Thank you

[2:11:11] for your time today. Happy to

[2:11:13] answer any questions. And ask

[2:11:14] you to vote no on this

[2:11:20] proposal.

[2:11:33] >> Except we have John Martin.

[2:11:37] Todd Dorton House. David

[2:11:49] level.

[2:11:50] >> Good morning. My name is

[2:11:50] David level and I reside in

[2:11:51] district 6 in the northeast.

[2:11:54] Part of Colorado Springs. We

[2:11:56] had solar system installed in

[2:11:57] FEBRUARY of 2022. To cost

[2:11:59] around 15,000. It would have

[2:12:01] been significantly more if we

[2:12:04] were not take were able to

[2:12:05] take advantage co-op that was

[2:12:10] organized by solar United. On

[2:12:11] an annual basis by panels

[2:12:12] generate a little over 6,000

[2:12:13] kilowatt hours. On average, I

[2:12:18] produce 4200 and use 3160.

[2:12:19] Thank you around 1000 kilowatt

[2:12:22] hours annually. My current

[2:12:24] bankable surpluses around 5200

[2:12:25] kilowatt hours. I'm not

[2:12:26] reimbursed for that surplus

[2:12:30] whatsoever. The following

[2:12:32] comments regarding a specific

[2:12:34] proposal. This issue has been

[2:12:35] argued on the basis of

[2:12:36] fairness. Solar users are

[2:12:38] being subsidized by non solar

[2:12:40] users during the peak demand

[2:12:42] period. What is ignored is the

[2:12:43] contribution solar producers

[2:12:45] provide during the peak

[2:12:45] production period of the day.

[2:12:49] Roughly 09:00am to 04:00pm. If

[2:12:50] you look at see issues own

[2:12:52] data, you will find that solar

[2:12:53] producers provide a

[2:12:54] significant dampening effect

[2:12:55] in electrical demand during

[2:12:58] this period of the day. I

[2:13:00] would argue that 11,000 solar

[2:13:02] providers are subsidizing non

[2:13:03] solar users during that time

[2:13:05] train and it's not available

[2:13:07] with further stress. The great

[2:13:09] significantly, this is

[2:13:10] especially true during the hot

[2:13:11] summer months when ac use

[2:13:14] region reaches its peak. I

[2:13:16] would ask why into the peak

[2:13:16] demand option. The fuse based

[2:13:17] on the highest use during the

[2:13:19] peak demand period and not the

[2:13:22] average or median value. We

[2:13:24] don't We don't calibrate Suid

[2:13:25] rates based on the highest

[2:13:26] water use period of the

[2:13:27] summer. What are we doing? So

[2:13:29] for peak demand. I have a

[2:13:32] bankable surpluses. Csu. The

[2:13:34] proposal seeks to charge me

[2:13:35] for electricity and not using

[2:13:37] simply because of the time of

[2:13:38] day issue. Just like I cannot

[2:13:40] change when I generate

[2:13:42] electricity. Csu cannot

[2:13:43] dispute that I'm producing

[2:13:44] more electricity than I'm

[2:13:47] using. The peak demand

[2:13:48] periods. The designed to

[2:13:50] incentivize the shift to fuse

[2:13:52] to time frames other than 5 to

[2:13:54] 9. What is the incentive for

[2:13:55] solar producers? The

[2:13:56] impression is we will be

[2:13:59] charge regardless. Based on

[2:14:02] the csu assumption that the

[2:14:03] peak demand rate is roughly

[2:14:04] equal to the flat rate fee.

[2:14:06] What is a difference in

[2:14:07] options was a flat rate. Fee

[2:14:11] for electricity. We are using

[2:14:12] proposed instead to church. So

[2:14:13] uses a premium per kilowatt

[2:14:15] hour fee for electricity use

[2:14:17] during the peak demand period

[2:14:17] bounced against their monthly

[2:14:22] production. As currently

[2:14:22] presented a proposal being

[2:14:23] considered based on the

[2:14:25] highest use during the peak

[2:14:25] man period. And what without

[2:14:26] the consideration for

[2:14:29] electricity? Produces more

[2:14:31] revenue issue than a fairness

[2:14:33] issue when fully implemented

[2:14:34] the revenue generated based on

[2:14:39] 30 to $38 monthly fee would be

[2:14:39] 360 to 4.56 per household.

[2:14:43] 45 million per year as a

[2:14:44] result of the negative impact

[2:14:45] to 11,000 producers in the

[2:14:47] local solar industry. I stand

[2:14:48] opposed to this current net

[2:14:49] metering proposal. I hope you

[2:14:50] vote no. Thank you for your

[2:14:55] time. Thank you.

[2:14:55] >> Except we have Andrew

[2:15:10] Maverick.

[2:15:13] >> Good morning. My name is

[2:15:15] Andrew Maverick and I'm a

[2:15:16] resident district 3 and a net

[2:15:20] metering us for. Thank you all

[2:15:20] for being here and listening

[2:15:27] to today. Appreciate it. I

[2:15:31] understand that net metering

[2:15:33] customers need to pay share of

[2:15:34] like I need to pay my share of

[2:15:35] excess some of these charges,

[2:15:38] though. I do. Think we're

[2:15:39] making a pretty big fuss of a

[2:15:44] pretty part of c s use budget.

[2:15:48] So I support the basic idea of

[2:15:48] the proposal, but I think it's

[2:15:50] unfair. And for 2 main

[2:15:52] reasons, first, it would

[2:15:54] greatly restrict the number of

[2:15:55] solar customers who could roll

[2:15:57] their unused energy forward.

[2:15:59] As far as I can read from the

[2:16:02] materials only existing

[2:16:02] customers who choose that. A

[2:16:04] man charged option with still

[2:16:09] be able to roll forward. This

[2:16:10] restriction on rolling forward

[2:16:11] conflicts with a proposal to

[2:16:14] increase the maximum allowed

[2:16:18] solar system size from 120% to

[2:16:19] 200%. Why would anyone build a

[2:16:21] bigger solar system if they

[2:16:22] would just be giving away

[2:16:27] their excess energy for free.

[2:16:29] Option. 2, the demand charge

[2:16:30] claims to give us more control

[2:16:34] over our bill. To have real

[2:16:37] control. We need 2 things,

[2:16:37] neither of which most solar

[2:16:40] customers, half. To begin

[2:16:42] with. We need to know how much

[2:16:42] power we are using at any one

[2:16:46] time. We can get generic

[2:16:48] estimates. But that isn't good

[2:16:50] enough. As other speakers have

[2:16:52] pointed out that little

[2:16:54] accident of leaving appliances

[2:16:56] on at the same time can cost

[2:16:56] you big at the end of the

[2:17:02] month. The bar chart in the

[2:17:03] csu presentation shows that

[2:17:04] demand charges will average

[2:17:07] over $50 per month. And that

[2:17:07] means some will be much higher

[2:17:10] than that. Because had a very

[2:17:13] informative article about

[2:17:16] companies that are feet facing

[2:17:18] huge increases in electricity

[2:17:18] bills because of demand

[2:17:24] charges. Suppose my bill shows

[2:17:26] a big demand charge and I

[2:17:29] think it's wrong. I won't have

[2:17:31] any information that I can use

[2:17:33] to support my argument that I

[2:17:36] got an incorrect bill. So

[2:17:37] overall, I urge you to

[2:17:41] preserve rolling forward for

[2:17:43] all present and future solar

[2:17:44] customers and to help us get

[2:17:47] the information we need for

[2:17:47] the demand charge to be a

[2:17:51] viable choice. I have a few

[2:17:52] seconds left. So I want to not

[2:17:55] just negative. Want to see

[2:17:57] something positive. The

[2:17:58] presentation from csu also

[2:17:59] noted the imbalance between

[2:18:01] solar power generation in the

[2:18:04] daytime and peak demand in the

[2:18:06] evening discussed battery

[2:18:08] options. This would this kind

[2:18:10] of thing would benefit

[2:18:12] everyone. And I look forward

[2:18:12] learning more about these

[2:18:17] plans. Take.

[2:18:18] >> Except we have Tom

[2:18:29] Harrington.

[2:18:30] >> Good morning. I have a live

[2:18:32] in Colorado Springs. 34 years

[2:18:34] now in. That's the engine

[2:18:35] district. I installed panels

[2:18:37] on my house in 2022. Primarily

[2:18:39] for environmental concerns,

[2:18:41] but also in order to control

[2:18:41] my expenses of the head into

[2:18:48] retirement. I don't know

[2:18:50] whether this plan is intended

[2:18:51] to wipe resident resort, but

[2:18:51] it certainly look to the lab

[2:18:55] that affect implemented. Based

[2:18:56] on estimates that csu has

[2:18:58] presented meetings of the

[2:19:01] monthly and annual cost of.

[2:19:03] Either of their options over

[2:19:08] the of my panels. Fees to csu

[2:19:08] will exceed the costs of

[2:19:09] getting house in the first

[2:19:13] place. So that. More than half

[2:19:14] of the costs of having solar

[2:19:15] power will be not getting. The

[2:19:17] panels will be paying month by

[2:19:18] month for the privilege of

[2:19:21] using them. If proposal had

[2:19:23] been in effect in 2022, I

[2:19:27] would not have content. If

[2:19:28] this goes into effect. I'm not

[2:19:31] sure whether even worth keep

[2:19:33] my current panels active

[2:19:33] recall. They should just check

[2:19:34] to see its money on the

[2:19:38] monthly fees. And this well,

[2:19:39] my panels consistently

[2:19:43] generate more power There's

[2:19:44] talk about how much it costs

[2:19:50] too used to much it cost csu

[2:19:50] too. Compensate solar

[2:19:51] customers for par, Janet.

[2:19:54] During the day. But a pretty

[2:19:54] significant chunk of the

[2:19:56] parliament house and

[2:19:57] generated. He's in credits

[2:19:58] that I will never It would

[2:20:00] never come it from forming at

[2:20:01] all. And that's fine. I don't

[2:20:04] mind that a bit. But I do

[2:20:04] object to being charged for

[2:20:12] having done that. That they

[2:20:16] argue that If I'm concerned

[2:20:18] about the monthly charge that

[2:20:19] man charged option will give

[2:20:20] more control over the bill and

[2:20:23] maybe it will. But that still

[2:20:23] even more than a year after it

[2:20:27] was first proposed. It's still

[2:20:27] a complete and must far as

[2:20:30] getting most of the calls,

[2:20:30] have no way of knowing what it

[2:20:32] MAY cost me based on the past

[2:20:34] use and the way predicting

[2:20:36] what might be in any given

[2:20:38] month so it's maybe a control

[2:20:40] might cost, but it's

[2:20:40] essentially rolling the dice

[2:20:44] and hoping that I went out.

[2:20:46] But also knowing that I lose

[2:20:47] if I happened to the site to

[2:20:48] cook dinner during the evening

[2:20:49] hours or heat my home during

[2:20:53] that time. They keep on

[2:20:54] plugging if they purple at

[2:20:56] last year. Council voted done

[2:20:59] once already and they brought

[2:21:00] back and I don't know to wear

[2:21:01] down or what, but I feel like

[2:21:03] there giving us this this,

[2:21:05] like I said, rolling the dice

[2:21:06] and hoping for the best and

[2:21:06] maybe come out ahead. Maybe

[2:21:08] you want to. But in a like

[2:21:11] that. I would not have

[2:21:13] installed panels of time. I

[2:21:14] don't know whether I should

[2:21:17] keep panels under this plan. I

[2:21:17] hope both put against Thank

[2:21:23] you.

[2:21:23] >> Next step we have Wolf

[2:21:28] Sterling.

[2:21:29] >> Thank you for allowing me

[2:21:33] to speak my name is Bill

[2:21:36] Sterling. I'm a nuclear

[2:21:37] engineer. My background is an

[2:21:39] operating in designing nuclear

[2:21:42] reactors. Why is that

[2:21:43] important today? Well, they

[2:21:44] important today's Colorado

[2:21:46] Springs Utilities has this

[2:21:46] huge presentation on how they

[2:21:48] want to subsidize our electric

[2:21:51] with nuclear power. And that

[2:21:54] is just magical thinking. The

[2:21:54] cost to produce nuclear power

[2:21:57] in this country. It's about

[2:21:59] $15,000 per kilowatt takes

[2:22:01] about 27 years to build a

[2:22:03] player. We have nowhere to put

[2:22:03] that nuclear waste and we

[2:22:08] never will. The only way we

[2:22:09] solve our power generation

[2:22:10] problems is through renewable

[2:22:12] energy. And the people in this

[2:22:13] term, including myself and

[2:22:18] invested in MR. Donaldson has

[2:22:18] repeatedly mentioned along

[2:22:22] with issue, we have a problem.

[2:22:22] Renewables don't generate

[2:22:24] during peak hours. And their

[2:22:27] solutions to that problem. For

[2:22:31] example, Colorado Springs has

[2:22:32] a series of reservoirs which

[2:22:34] are currently not being used

[2:22:34] and there's no plan to use

[2:22:37] them for pump power storage.

[2:22:40] We could have batteries. But

[2:22:43] what csu doesn't tell you, is

[2:22:44] it huge purse? The town

[2:22:47] especially district, one. The

[2:22:50] system is at 208 volts, which

[2:22:52] you cannot connect battery,

[2:22:57] too. It has to be 220 votes

[2:22:58] and csu. We'll not upgrade a

[2:23:03] solar user from 208 to 220

[2:23:03] votes until the transformers

[2:23:08] in that neighborhood fail. Csu

[2:23:09] wants us to reduce peak power.

[2:23:12] Agree we should. There are

[2:23:15] things like Condensing dryers

[2:23:18] that use 70% less power than

[2:23:18] traditional dryers try and

[2:23:21] find one in the store here. Or

[2:23:22] even get someone who knows

[2:23:25] anything about that. We have

[2:23:25] lots of ways to reduce peak

[2:23:28] power. And we're not doing any

[2:23:32] of them. Csu has a single.

[2:23:36] >> Option. Punish older users

[2:23:37] because we don't produce power

[2:23:40] in the evening, but a better

[2:23:42] option is to say how do we as

[2:23:44] a city ensure the reliability

[2:23:46] of this really cool thing? We

[2:23:49] have. We own our own utility

[2:23:51] and we want that. We share the

[2:23:54] thing. We want our utility to

[2:23:55] be reliable. Nuclear power is

[2:23:55] never going to happen. Never

[2:23:59] going to happen. And I do that

[2:24:00] because of an expert in this

[2:24:00] field, I build nuclear

[2:24:03] reactors. We have to find a

[2:24:06] way to reduce peak power. Let

[2:24:07] everyone have batteries. And

[2:24:09] this proposal doesn't do it

[2:24:10] all this does is punish people

[2:24:12] who invested in the city. And

[2:24:15] invite you and ask you, we

[2:24:16] don't have to say no to this

[2:24:18] forever, but we have to say

[2:24:21] it's yes to a better solution

[2:24:24] that reduces peak power usage

[2:24:25] and allows batteries for

[2:24:26] everyone, not just the people

[2:24:29] in the new neighborhoods, but

[2:24:30] in the old neighborhoods. MISS

[2:24:31] Williams, you represent. Thank

[2:24:34] you for your time.

[2:24:41] >> a next step. We have Amy

[2:24:44] Pascal.

[2:24:56] >> Amy Pascal. I think it's it

[2:25:01] on. All right. Thank you so

[2:25:04] much for the time to speak. I

[2:25:05] appreciate it. Good afternoon

[2:25:07] or morning council members. My

[2:25:09] name is Amy Pasco. I am state

[2:25:12] representative for House

[2:25:16] District 18. I am also a solar

[2:25:18] user and I am really impressed

[2:25:18] by all the testimony that I

[2:25:22] have heard some so far. We

[2:25:23] have some very expert people

[2:25:24] here. Some people have done

[2:25:28] deep thinking data analysis

[2:25:31] I'm sure this is deeper

[2:25:32] information that what's yes,

[2:25:33] you got from their survey. So

[2:25:33] I think this is really

[2:25:35] important information. I hope

[2:25:36] y'all take it to heart and

[2:25:39] listen to it I'm not going to

[2:25:42] go deeply into the rate case

[2:25:43] is because I think people have

[2:25:46] covered a lot of that. But I

[2:25:47] do think that there are some

[2:25:49] issue areas here and this is a

[2:25:50] better rate case than the one

[2:25:51] last DECEMBER. But I don't

[2:25:53] think we're quite here yet. I

[2:25:54] think there's a little bit

[2:25:55] more work to do. And I do urge

[2:25:57] you to vote no, I did want to

[2:26:00] touch on something. I've heard

[2:26:02] repeatedly. It what a cfo

[2:26:05] Gearhart said earlier about

[2:26:06] the fact that having

[2:26:07] residential solar paired with

[2:26:09] a battery is a game changer.

[2:26:11] And I think that's absolutely

[2:26:13] true. So what that speaks to

[2:26:15] me is that we want to get our

[2:26:18] solar users using batteries.

[2:26:19] They are expensive. I know

[2:26:22] that I bought one last

[2:26:23] DECEMBER band, especially the

[2:26:25] folks who are on solar right

[2:26:29] now, especially they've the

[2:26:31] folks that are on fixed income

[2:26:32] that put their plan together.

[2:26:33] There is no room for them to

[2:26:36] purchase a battery. And for

[2:26:37] the folks said who need the

[2:26:40] help the most? The lower

[2:26:41] income folks who were using

[2:26:42] battery or who have solar. But

[2:26:45] don't have a battery. They are

[2:26:46] also least able to pay for a

[2:26:50] battery. So my suggestion is

[2:26:52] let's have a battery rebate

[2:26:53] program that pays at least 50%

[2:26:55] of the cost even more. Now, I

[2:26:57] also heard cfo gear how we

[2:26:59] need the math. Doesn't map on

[2:27:01] that. I totally get it. I have

[2:27:03] a suggestion. There's

[2:27:04] something else going on city

[2:27:06] right now. Data centers. I say

[2:27:10] that for data centers, part of

[2:27:11] the large low tariff or the

[2:27:13] agreement for them to be able

[2:27:15] to operate here is putting in

[2:27:16] a chunk of money into a pool

[2:27:18] of money that we can use to

[2:27:21] fund batteries for folks

[2:27:21] Income-qualified least able to

[2:27:23] pay for itThat's my

[2:27:30] suggestion. Next step we have

[2:27:41] Mike. But

[2:27:42] >> good. Almost afternoon

[2:27:43] members of City Council. My

[2:27:44] name is Mike Foot on the

[2:27:45] general counsel for coast of

[2:27:47] the Colorado Solar and Storage

[2:27:49] Association. We represent

[2:27:50] about 250 solar and storage

[2:27:51] related businesses throughout

[2:27:52] Colorado, including the csu

[2:27:56] service territory. I'm

[2:27:57] assuming you're at the 3

[2:27:57] letters sent by or ceo in

[2:27:58] opposition to see issues that

[2:28:00] metering rate hike. I would

[2:28:01] like to offer a few thoughts

[2:28:04] in addition to those letters.

[2:28:05] First, while the city council

[2:28:07] is relatively new to this

[2:28:09] issue, hearing it last fall

[2:28:09] and again, this summer as part

[2:28:11] of a longstanding trend of

[2:28:13] utilities attempting to reduce

[2:28:14] the adoption of rooftop, solar

[2:28:17] and their service territories.

[2:28:18] Putting it simply rooftop.

[2:28:19] Solar doesn't help their

[2:28:21] bottom lines and they realize

[2:28:22] the best way to stave it off

[2:28:23] is to eliminate the cost

[2:28:24] benefits to residents who MAY

[2:28:24] choose solar and a revenue

[2:28:29] problem is solved. Several

[2:28:29] utilities and other states

[2:28:30] have been successful in doing

[2:28:32] just that. And they've seen

[2:28:32] soared option plummet as

[2:28:35] intended. But that's not been

[2:28:37] the case here in Colorado

[2:28:38] because of the 2008 state law

[2:28:39] that we outlined in our

[2:28:42] letters. The state statute

[2:28:43] does not allow with csu is

[2:28:46] asking you to do here. Unlike

[2:28:47] statues and other states, it

[2:28:49] does not have qualifiers like

[2:28:53] you MAY not unduly charge

[2:28:53] discriminatory rates to net

[2:28:54] metering customers were. It

[2:28:58] can't be unreasonable.

[2:28:59] Colorado a net metering law

[2:29:00] prohibiting discrimination

[2:29:00] discriminatory rates is

[2:29:03] unconditional. And it applies

[2:29:04] to all utilities and their

[2:29:05] governing bodies throughout

[2:29:06] the state. In other words,

[2:29:08] there is no municipal carve

[2:29:10] out utilities in Colorado are

[2:29:11] prohibited from doing it

[2:29:13] regardless of what kind of

[2:29:13] utility where the

[2:29:14] reasonableness of their

[2:29:16] argument. Not that some have

[2:29:19] been seriously considered it.

[2:29:20] And one investor owned

[2:29:21] utilities south of here

[2:29:22] actually tried it about 10

[2:29:24] years ago, but was rejected by

[2:29:26] the Public Utilities

[2:29:27] Commission. But when the other

[2:29:28] utilities are alerted to the

[2:29:30] state law and they further

[2:29:31] consider it, they almost

[2:29:33] always choose to not pursue it

[2:29:35] further. That just happened

[2:29:36] last month with the Rural

[2:29:37] Electric Co-op not too far

[2:29:38] from here. Csu is the outlier,

[2:29:43] though. Now as a matter of

[2:29:44] policy and personal belief,

[2:29:45] you MAY find see issues

[2:29:46] arguments about why they

[2:29:48] should be allowed to charge

[2:29:49] discriminatory rates. Tim at

[2:29:49] net metering customers

[2:29:51] persuasive. And that's fine.

[2:29:54] And that's not out of bounds.

[2:29:55] But it doesn't change the

[2:29:57] black letter law on the issue.

[2:29:58] The only way to do that is to

[2:30:01] go to the state legislature.

[2:30:03] And get the law changed rather

[2:30:03] than pass rate increase that

[2:30:08] violates it. Conclude by

[2:30:09] saying coast is always keen to

[2:30:10] work until a tease to increase

[2:30:11] the value solar and storage.

[2:30:12] Their system and would welcome

[2:30:16] the opportunity to do so. Here

[2:30:17] we do it virtually every day,

[2:30:18] but we cannot support net

[2:30:21] metering discriminatory rates.

[2:30:22] And that's the council to

[2:30:23] reject them as well. And thank

[2:30:27] you for considering arguments.

[2:30:32] >> School. Councilman

[2:30:34] Williams. Can I just ask us a

[2:30:36] favor? We are running way

[2:30:37] behind if we can hold or

[2:30:38] applies just so we can get to

[2:30:40] this fast or not. I understand

[2:30:41] your enthusiasm, but it does

[2:30:42] take time off the clock and we

[2:30:44] are stopping at 12 o'clock,

[2:30:44] which means you're going to

[2:30:47] lead comeback at one. I just

[2:30:48] want to drag in Anwar. So I

[2:30:50] appreciate the enthusiasm that

[2:30:51] we got to keep this rolling.

[2:30:53] COUNCILMAN Williams, Chris,

[2:31:06] but human respond to Please.

[2:31:07] >> Thank you again, Chris City

[2:31:07] Attorney's Office utilities

[2:31:13] Division the question just

[2:31:14] presented was whether the

[2:31:15] proposed rates fail to meet

[2:31:15] the discriminatory

[2:31:19] requirements. Within the state

[2:31:20] statute. And it is absolutely

[2:31:21] accurate to say that the state

[2:31:21] statute prohibits

[2:31:25] discriminatory rates. Also has

[2:31:27] to be addressed is the

[2:31:27] discriminatory rates are well

[2:31:28] established in Colorado case

[2:31:34] law. Within Colorado case law.

[2:31:35] Discriminatory does not

[2:31:35] inherently coming to play

[2:31:36] based solely on there being a

[2:31:40] different rate. The key is

[2:31:41] whether there are reasonable

[2:31:42] bases for those distinctions

[2:31:46] between rates so the question

[2:31:47] is not does discrimination

[2:31:49] apply just because there's a

[2:31:50] difference? The question is,

[2:31:52] are the difference is

[2:31:53] supported based on what's

[2:31:56] being presented the difference

[2:31:57] is fit with needed decisions

[2:32:01] that are being made. I'm happy

[2:32:01] to read from that that useful.

[2:32:03] But I want to extend further

[2:32:04] time. If you're looking to

[2:32:13] quickly. COUNCILMAN, I never

[2:32:13] have quick.

[2:32:17] >> Thoughtful up with that. So

[2:32:21] I guess looking at that. Does

[2:32:24] it apply so rate credit? So,

[2:32:27] you know, we I'm and I'm a

[2:32:27] salir user. So so I'm one of

[2:32:35] you. We credit. But what's

[2:32:36] happening with this new bill

[2:32:38] change is that we're not going

[2:32:38] be able to ply that credit to

[2:32:41] a large part of our bill. And

[2:32:44] I'm wondering if that it is.

[2:32:46] That could be a problem with.

[2:32:51] This particular legislation.

[2:32:52] That's a slightly separate

[2:32:53] question but does go to look

[2:32:56] out question under the state

[2:32:57] Renewable energy standard,

[2:32:57] which is the law that was put

[2:33:01] in place in 2004 municipal

[2:33:02] utilities are required to have

[2:33:04] a net metering option for

[2:33:05] their customers. And then one

[2:33:06] of the factors that is

[2:33:08] required to be available to

[2:33:10] customers is that month to

[2:33:13] month 1, 2, one roll over.

[2:33:14] That is available. Utility

[2:33:18] second demand option. Because

[2:33:18] an option is presented that

[2:33:21] meets all those requirements.

[2:33:22] Utilities has met the burden

[2:33:25] of that statute. The statute

[2:33:26] itself does not prohibit any

[2:33:29] additional options. Under

[2:33:30] Colorado statutory

[2:33:35] interpretation. When a statute

[2:33:36] does not prohibit something,

[2:33:38] courts will not read in that

[2:33:40] prohibition on the argument

[2:33:40] that the Legislature could

[2:33:41] have enlisted such a

[2:33:44] prohibition desired. So we

[2:33:45] believe there is strong

[2:33:46] support that because one of

[2:33:48] the options doesn't meet those

[2:33:49] requirements. There is no

[2:33:50] prohibition on a secondary

[2:33:56] option as well. Thank

[2:33:57] >> Next up, we have Jason

[2:34:01] Jason chart.

[2:34:02] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT,

[2:34:03] thank you council for being

[2:34:05] here. Flooding democracy

[2:34:06] Uchitel is a great part about

[2:34:08] being in our great country. So

[2:34:09] appreciate that. I wanted to

[2:34:10] speak to the discriminatory.

[2:34:10] It's interesting. Utility

[2:34:12] starts with legal. We have

[2:34:13] legal questions. I don't think

[2:34:15] this is settled. I do think

[2:34:16] that if this moves forward, it

[2:34:17] will be challenged. And I

[2:34:19] think a lot of times things

[2:34:20] like this, our clear Jake, the

[2:34:22] judiciary ways and and it's

[2:34:23] unfortunate more and more. We

[2:34:27] have to go. The judiciary to

[2:34:28] solve these things in our

[2:34:30] country. So just know that

[2:34:31] this is disputed. And I think

[2:34:32] there are disagreements and

[2:34:34] you can hear multiples today.

[2:34:36] Point being it's not agreed

[2:34:38] upon. I would also speak to

[2:34:39] the problem utility presented

[2:34:40] with peak demand and I would

[2:34:42] argue that the solution has

[2:34:44] nothing to do with peak

[2:34:46] demand. I would also argue

[2:34:46] that the battle report that

[2:34:50] the utility commissioned has

[2:34:50] nothing to do with solving

[2:34:54] peak demand, nor does it ask

[2:34:54] for benefits of renewables,

[2:34:56] nor does it look at other

[2:34:57] cautious. There are many

[2:34:59] cautious where this is a

[2:35:00] public service. This is a

[2:35:02] council that serves the public

[2:35:06] good. Snowplowing. We do fire

[2:35:07] mitigation. We provide water.

[2:35:11] You charge different rates

[2:35:13] based on the cosh. If that

[2:35:15] occurs for people who live in

[2:35:16] areas that need more fire

[2:35:17] mitigation and others. I don't

[2:35:18] believe you do so. Why are we

[2:35:20] going down the road for solar?

[2:35:21] I believe that's indicative of

[2:35:23] this being a discriminatory

[2:35:26] case right here. I think you

[2:35:27] can do better one of the

[2:35:28] elegant things about net

[2:35:29] metering is it challenges

[2:35:31] utilities to solve real

[2:35:34] problems? It's saying let's

[2:35:35] them. Peak demand designer

[2:35:36] rate that addresses peak

[2:35:39] demand, not designer 8. That

[2:35:40] penalizes the people who want

[2:35:43] to be part of the solution.

[2:35:44] And most of the people who've

[2:35:45] invested in renewables want to

[2:35:47] be part of the solution. We

[2:35:48] have a 10 million dollar

[2:35:48] project for low-income

[2:35:49] multifamily housing here in

[2:35:53] color. Springs. You have

[2:35:54] millions of dollars of private

[2:35:56] sector money coming to try to

[2:35:57] help solve this problem.

[2:35:59] Consumers are worried about

[2:35:59] reliability. We have more and

[2:36:03] more wildfires. And people

[2:36:04] have increasing rates and you

[2:36:07] would be denying people the

[2:36:08] opportunity to invest in

[2:36:09] technology that provides power

[2:36:12] during those fire issues.

[2:36:13] There's a problem in Ohio.

[2:36:13] Currently we're I think first,

[2:36:14] there's been people without

[2:36:17] power for a week and why are

[2:36:18] we why are we trying to make

[2:36:19] it more expensive for people

[2:36:20] who want to solve this problem

[2:36:24] for the local community? The

[2:36:26] csu according online,

[2:36:27] according to Google's 2.0, 2,

[2:36:28] 2 billion, 200 million

[2:36:31] dollars. And even if there's a

[2:36:33] 4 million dollar cost shift,

[2:36:34] that's less than two-tenths of

[2:36:37] one percent of your budget. So

[2:36:38] trust us if you give us 2

[2:36:42] tenths of one percent will

[2:36:43] deploy batteries. In the

[2:36:44] meantime, let's penalize the

[2:36:46] people who want to be part of

[2:36:47] the solution and are the most

[2:36:50] likely people that are vest in

[2:36:52] batteries to add their

[2:36:52] systems. So give people a

[2:36:54] choice. Listen to your

[2:36:56] constituents. Don't shut this

[2:36:58] down and cause a legal case.

[2:37:00] Do better go back to the table

[2:37:01] and do better to solve the

[2:37:11] real problem to me. Thank you.

[2:37:15] >> Next step we have Lawrence.

[2:37:16] GOD only I hope I said that

[2:37:22] right. Gio deal. Why? Alex

[2:37:26] Antar and 2 pounds

[2:37:30] >> thank you. Yeah. See that.

[2:37:31] >> I or is that it would get

[2:37:32] to show up here. But thank you

[2:37:32] for being here. Thank you for

[2:37:36] listening to this. Ceo of a

[2:37:37] solar company. So I want to

[2:37:39] talk a little bit more of the

[2:37:41] commercial. We've installed a

[2:37:42] 200 kilowatts system for Ace

[2:37:46] Hardware and their circle.

[2:37:50] They're now a net 0 hero and

[2:37:50] the same Scott Barnes that

[2:37:53] owns that Ace Hardware. Once

[2:37:54] the put solar in all 5 stores

[2:38:00] full systems 0, of course, no

[2:38:01] We're also talking to ymca

[2:38:03] owner of the 5 when says here

[2:38:04] in town, they also want to go

[2:38:06] net 0 hero and we're talking

[2:38:08] about 3 and a half megawatts

[2:38:11] of solar for these communities

[2:38:12] and the cost of solar is

[2:38:14] cheap. So I understand where,

[2:38:15] you know, they're paying under

[2:38:18] $0.10 a kilowatt for energy.

[2:38:20] The proposed rates here for

[2:38:21] different situations are 36 30

[2:38:26] cents. A kilo. 3 times the

[2:38:28] rate. And I think that's

[2:38:29] egregious. I don't think, you

[2:38:29] know, it's not we're not

[2:38:31] talking about a quarter. Or

[2:38:33] 25%. We're talking about a big

[2:38:34] hike and increase. It's not

[2:38:40] going to work I'm a little

[2:38:41] nervous because as you know,

[2:38:43] first time speaking all of you

[2:38:44] guys. So I just appreciate

[2:38:45] your patience and your

[2:38:47] attention ready some part of

[2:38:48] your district. I could have

[2:38:49] told you that you're going to

[2:38:51] have this issue. Everybody.

[2:38:52] Every solar market goes

[2:38:53] through this. They get to a

[2:38:56] point where a lot of people

[2:38:57] are generating electricity and

[2:38:58] at 3 o'clock, you have a

[2:38:59] Nexus. California went through

[2:39:01] that everybody that has a big

[2:39:04] solar market went through that

[2:39:05] Xcel Energy in Twenty-twenty

[2:39:07] want get better every day

[2:39:10] program. $500 per kilowatt

[2:39:11] hour. You get a rebate, then

[2:39:12] they get to use your battery

[2:39:15] during peak demand times. That

[2:39:20] has not been done and my mom

[2:39:21] used to tell me a like your

[2:39:22] lack of planning does not

[2:39:22] constitute an emergency on my

[2:39:26] behalf. Your lack of planning

[2:39:29] does not constitute emergency

[2:39:30] on behalf of solar users,

[2:39:34] solar builders it doesn't

[2:39:35] work. Another question I want

[2:39:41] to ask is the 4% the 22% of

[2:39:42] usage or infrastructure goes

[2:39:45] to 4% of time. That 4% equates

[2:39:48] to 0.9, 6 of an hour for that.

[2:39:51] So it's not. You know, 3 to 9

[2:39:54] or 49 5 to 9 that the man

[2:39:55] you're talking about is 0.9 6

[2:39:56] of an hour or about 55 minutes

[2:40:00] a day. So it doesn't really

[2:40:02] make sense to have that. The

[2:40:03] man church, right? Let's

[2:40:04] settle that one hour of them.

[2:40:06] Let's go with that. Let's

[2:40:07] figure it out. Increase the

[2:40:10] rates, but our rates are low

[2:40:11] and let everybody pay for We

[2:40:12] know the rates are going to go

[2:40:15] up. But taxing solar and

[2:40:17] making solar impossible and

[2:40:20] not sustainable and not

[2:40:22] possible for nonprofits across

[2:40:24] the state across the city is

[2:40:25] silly and we're going to stop

[2:40:29] for 5 megawatts. So I employ 5

[2:40:30] people and this would be a 5

[2:40:33] to about project over the next

[2:40:34] 2 years.

[2:40:35] >> That that's an opportunity

[2:40:38] for our city to. Have those

[2:40:38] resources, invest in jobs,

[2:40:40] invest in infrastructure and

[2:40:42] instead the just like.

[2:40:45] >> Let's charge you guys. And

[2:40:46] it's really And we've heard a

[2:40:47] lot of you guys say that like

[2:40:49] my bill does not up. My bill

[2:40:52] does not up an electrical

[2:40:53] engineer as well the 4th

[2:40:54] electrical engineering here as

[2:40:56] well. The numbers don't add up

[2:40:58] for a lot of people. Thank you

[2:40:59] vote on this. It's going to be

[2:41:07] up. Thank you. Also, Madonna

[2:41:08] Centre.

[2:41:09] >> Yeah, MADAM PRESIDENT, I

[2:41:11] just I just want to correct

[2:41:13] something factually. I think

[2:41:14] the only time the kill,

[2:41:17] charges, $0.30 or above is

[2:41:21] during the peak hours and that

[2:41:22] on non peak hours and if Mr a

[2:41:26] year or come up here and and

[2:41:29] correct this, it's a $0.8 on

[2:41:32] the demand plan.

[2:41:34] >> Roughly, as is just, you

[2:41:35] know, looking at the plan here

[2:41:39] and 10. Even 10.

[2:41:44] I would have to have a Tristan

[2:41:48] or

[2:41:48] >> Scott come up. But I think

[2:41:52] the chill great there was,

[2:41:57] quote, it is is a peak rate.

[2:41:58] So for for 4 hours out of the

[2:42:00] day. That's true. But the

[2:42:01] other 20, it's not. And I

[2:42:05] think it's very important.

[2:42:06] >> On option one, it does time

[2:42:08] back to our energy wise rates

[2:42:12] right now. Energy wise off

[2:42:13] peak is about $0.7 per

[2:42:18] kilowatt hour on peak is about

[2:42:19] $0.29 in the summertime. 4

[2:42:22] months out of the year and the

[2:42:28] winter time. It's $0.14.

[2:42:29] That's what I thought and the

[2:42:32] other planned in on the other

[2:42:33] plan. It keeps things and one

[2:42:34] all around the clock price,

[2:42:36] which right now would be at

[2:42:37] about $0.13 per kilowatt hour.

[2:42:41] Ok, thank you.

[2:42:42] >> So that is going to

[2:42:42] conclude this morning's

[2:43:00] >> good afternoon. I am.

[2:43:00] >> There he is. She's waiting

[2:43:03] for you. Welcome back to city

[2:43:08] Council. AUGUST 20 20th. We

[2:43:10] are still in the public for

[2:43:15] utilities. Net metering.

[2:43:16] Giving him time to sit down.

[2:43:19] We will start We will Start

[2:43:23] where we left off with public

[2:43:24] comment. Next up, we have Bill

[2:43:39] Clay. Good afternoon.

[2:43:40] >> Okay, good afternoon. MADAM

[2:43:42] PRESIDENT Council members,

[2:43:47] staff community members.

[2:43:48] >> Bill Clay, my wife and I

[2:43:49] started solar power pros in

[2:43:53] 2013. We're small business

[2:43:57] where roughly 25 employees. We

[2:43:58] install solar and batteries

[2:43:59] for residential and commercial

[2:44:03] customers in Colorado. And I

[2:44:05] was really impressed with this

[2:44:08] morning's comments from the

[2:44:09] citizens in the community and

[2:44:10] their points today. And thank

[2:44:13] you all on council here for

[2:44:14] your patients and listening

[2:44:15] through this. We really

[2:44:18] appreciate it. I have 3 main

[2:44:19] points and I won't try not to

[2:44:21] really the points from this

[2:44:24] morning. My 3 main points for

[2:44:25] you are the proposed net

[2:44:28] metering rates will eliminate

[2:44:28] the solar only market in

[2:44:31] Colorado Springs. So just want

[2:44:32] to make sure that's

[2:44:33] understood. It will eliminate

[2:44:35] it. We've been doing this for

[2:44:36] 13 years. You know, we model

[2:44:37] the financials for solar

[2:44:40] systems for residential

[2:44:43] customers modeling this the

[2:44:44] debt, the demand option

[2:44:47] offered by csu is more

[2:44:49] expensive for almost all

[2:44:49] customers and it's going to be

[2:44:51] a nonstarter for those

[2:44:53] customers. The time of use

[2:44:57] rates impose a $33 flat charge

[2:45:00] and a 13% increase. On the

[2:45:04] often on that peaks to the 9

[2:45:05] net metering rates for net

[2:45:08] metering customers. So it's

[2:45:09] going to be more expensive for

[2:45:10] those customers. In most

[2:45:14] cases. The other point there

[2:45:16] is that in almost all cases

[2:45:17] just different system sizes

[2:45:18] putting different directions

[2:45:20] on different houses, different

[2:45:21] shading scenarios. It even

[2:45:23] when you pick the best of

[2:45:25] those scenarios, the payback

[2:45:27] period longer than the systems

[2:45:33] expected. 25 year life. Most

[2:45:33] customers aren't going to the

[2:45:34] purchase of the solar system.

[2:45:37] At that point, we install

[2:45:38] systems across 15 utility

[2:45:41] areas in the state. And just

[2:45:42] so, you know, this proposal is

[2:45:43] by far the most unfriendly to

[2:45:47] solar. Want to put that out

[2:45:47] there by far the most

[2:45:51] unfriendly to solar. It voted

[2:45:51] in. It'll kill the solar only

[2:45:54] market in Colorado Springs.

[2:45:56] You know, cause my business

[2:45:58] and other solar installer

[2:46:00] significant financial harm.

[2:46:04] Ok? So my second point it's

[2:46:06] illegal. No, I'm not a lawyer.

[2:46:09] You know, can take that to

[2:46:12] heart. But I did hear your

[2:46:13] legal counsels mention that

[2:46:16] about case law I just can

[2:46:17] suspect that that case law

[2:46:20] that he's talking about is not

[2:46:20] specific to Colorado net

[2:46:25] metering. The rates

[2:46:26] discriminatory and Colorado

[2:46:28] laws really clear on this

[2:46:30] point. You cannot pass a

[2:46:30] discriminatory net metering

[2:46:36] rate. But why even go there?

[2:46:39] We heard this morning several

[2:46:41] times that discussion about

[2:46:46] solar and batteries. Asking

[2:46:48] you to vote no on the proposed

[2:46:49] rate changes and instructor

[2:46:51] utility instead to look at

[2:46:52] solar and battery options.

[2:46:54] Thank you. Thank

[2:46:55] >> Next step we have Scott

[2:47:03] Carter.

[2:47:04] >> Good afternoon. My name is

[2:47:09] Scott Carter. Resident here in

[2:47:09] Colorado

[2:47:11] >> Have some solar that I put

[2:47:12] on myself paid itself off in 2

[2:47:13] years. So I set up financial

[2:47:17] thing. For me. It's see if you

[2:47:21] utilities keeps kind of saying

[2:47:22] that word shipping the charges

[2:47:26] to somebody else and well,

[2:47:28] yes, obvioly solar customers

[2:47:31] do use when those solar panels

[2:47:35] are producing. That's we're

[2:47:36] not looking at all the times

[2:47:39] where the solar is actually a

[2:47:43] benefit to the

[2:47:43] >> it would easy to say a

[2:47:45] senior citizen is, you know,

[2:47:48] using a whole bunch of federal

[2:47:50] money when they retire, except

[2:47:51] it's not looking into the fact

[2:47:52] that they actually put in that

[2:47:55] money earlier on solar

[2:47:57] customers have invested in

[2:47:58] capital expenses, but let's

[2:48:01] help out everybody let's look

[2:48:02] at some of the other things

[2:48:11] here. Places. The utilities

[2:48:13] themselves. They talk about

[2:48:14] having built for that peak

[2:48:18] demand. The peak. And all that

[2:48:19] infrastructure, that

[2:48:21] infrastructure is actually not

[2:48:23] used. The very peak of it is

[2:48:25] actually a 4 o'clock, not the

[2:48:27] 5 to 9. Their prices are

[2:48:28] higher from 5 to 9, but that

[2:48:30] peak is actually a little

[2:48:32] earlier. So they already don't

[2:48:32] that infrastructure. It needed

[2:48:34] to be there no matter what

[2:48:38] solar or not. Couple of the

[2:48:41] things we're solar. You know,

[2:48:47] early on solar helped. Past

[2:48:48] color springs utilities to

[2:48:50] meet the state's goals. You

[2:48:50] know, that's never factored

[2:48:55] in. A couple other things.

[2:48:56] Solar has actually lowers

[2:48:57] those prices as we're seeing

[2:48:59] during the daytime where we

[2:49:00] caller springs utilities

[2:49:02] actually making money office

[2:49:06] solar. That's not factored in.

[2:49:11] Even a very odd example was

[2:49:12] >> Texas had that crazy

[2:49:14] snowstorm, you know, and we

[2:49:16] paid crazy amount of money for

[2:49:20] gas. Just my system. Assuming,

[2:49:22] you I have to look at their

[2:49:24] numbers and I don't know

[2:49:25] exactly how many other plants

[2:49:26] are peak or not of mind minds

[2:49:30] like or not. But just looking

[2:49:31] at their numbers, I would just

[2:49:37] I saved the springs. $140.

[2:49:39] Just my solar system. If

[2:49:41] everyone else, the 10,000

[2:49:43] people, that would be 1.4

[2:49:43] million dollars that was

[2:49:44] saved. Obviously every systems

[2:49:48] not the same as mine, but you

[2:49:49] Not looking at all the

[2:49:51] advantages. Solar is actually

[2:49:55] giving is doing a disservice

[2:49:59] we look at this, maybe look at

[2:50:00] their initial assumptions.

[2:50:02] There might be some loss.

[2:50:05] Thank you very much. Thank

[2:50:06] you.

[2:50:06] >> Next step we have Tammy

[2:50:18] Green. Tammy Green.

[2:50:20] >> Jan Lubinski. So Pinsky.

[2:50:26] Thank you.

[2:50:27] >> Thank My name is Jans have

[2:50:28] been scam. A resident of

[2:50:30] Colorado Springs and also

[2:50:31] solar user. I'd like to

[2:50:32] comment today, but on the

[2:50:32] bigger picture that been

[2:50:36] involved here with. There's

[2:50:39] been a lot of substantial

[2:50:40] reasons why this particular

[2:50:43] price increase in fraud,

[2:50:45] method of willing seller is

[2:50:46] really not a good thing. But

[2:50:47] long term. You have to realize

[2:50:50] that you people are elected to

[2:50:54] develop and try to create a

[2:50:56] strong Colorado Springs in the

[2:50:58] future. And this plan as the

[2:50:59] previous gentlemen just talk

[2:51:00] is going to kill the solar

[2:51:02] industry here in Colorado

[2:51:04] Springs. And then. When it

[2:51:07] comes to the time gas is going

[2:51:08] to run out, you got to get rid

[2:51:10] of coal. What are you going to

[2:51:12] have? Nothing. And then

[2:51:12] there's the cost shift is

[2:51:16] going to be to the next

[2:51:17] generation that comes in here

[2:51:18] and feels you're not thinking

[2:51:21] about the future of Colorado

[2:51:23] Springs and the future of the

[2:51:24] country itself there this

[2:51:28] year, we've seen tornadoes.

[2:51:29] We've seen floods. We've seen

[2:51:32] heat domes. We've seen

[2:51:33] wildfires, everything. And if

[2:51:34] you don't believe part of that

[2:51:36] is the cause of global

[2:51:39] warming, you're mistaken.

[2:51:40] There are over the last 50

[2:51:43] years. I've seen city councils

[2:51:44] like you. I've seen businesses

[2:51:49] and people take short term

[2:51:50] seclude answers to their

[2:51:51] problems that are boost Lee

[2:51:55] Financial base. And that

[2:51:56] problem has led to where we

[2:51:57] are now. The cost in the

[2:52:00] future from all of this is

[2:52:01] going to be astronomical and

[2:52:04] it's going to be on our future

[2:52:04] generations and people that

[2:52:06] you have a responsibility to

[2:52:09] think about. Not just the next

[2:52:11] turn, harsh Colorado Springs

[2:52:13] utility has been very

[2:52:14] neglectful and not planning

[2:52:16] for this. Not looking. They

[2:52:18] had 6 years to come up with a

[2:52:20] plan for the energy trucks and

[2:52:21] they didn't do anything. The

[2:52:24] only reason they got their

[2:52:25] statement is that the the

[2:52:27] state is now requiring the

[2:52:27] springs utility to come up

[2:52:30] with the plan that is gross

[2:52:33] negligence. The springs

[2:52:35] utility are grossly

[2:52:37] negligible. So I just want to

[2:52:38] say, I think we have to think

[2:52:41] about the long term. We can't

[2:52:42] just be concerned It's going

[2:52:44] to cost $10. Hear more of

[2:52:45] that. We have to realize had

[2:52:48] 10, 15, 20 years, we're going

[2:52:51] to have an energy crisis here.

[2:52:53] And Colorado Springs utilities

[2:52:55] will not be in the position to

[2:52:56] handle it because they've

[2:52:59] neglected to do the planning.

[2:53:01] Now they've neglected to do

[2:53:03] the research and evolve. Find

[2:53:03] the methods that can save us

[2:53:04] from that problem. Thank you.

[2:53:07] Thank you.

[2:53:09] >> The next step we have Lani.

[2:53:15] I'm

[2:53:16] >> Chair fine. Can you say

[2:53:17] your last name for me and my

[2:53:21] Emily? Thank you. Scottish.

[2:53:24] >> Hi, I'm money.

[2:53:25] >> Part of a group of private

[2:53:26] citizens that provide

[2:53:27] one-fifth 2, 1, 6, the solar

[2:53:30] power for csu, clean energy.

[2:53:32] That's mandated by the state

[2:53:34] as part of his clean Energy

[2:53:35] program. This benefits every

[2:53:39] single csu customer. Now

[2:53:41] ironically bought my system

[2:53:42] because was concerned about

[2:53:43] rising energy rates. Do the

[2:53:44] same clean energy mandates and

[2:53:47] the installer so system. But

[2:53:48] csu sold me the net metering

[2:53:52] program. They knew within a

[2:53:53] few years unaddressed. Change

[2:53:54] program which would

[2:53:57] drastically increase my costs

[2:53:58] Cs, you seem to think I didn't

[2:54:01] even know this. Csu said I

[2:54:03] made a bad business decision.

[2:54:06] I did. I trusted csu and by

[2:54:08] extension, I trusted you all.

[2:54:12] Last year, csu said I was too

[2:54:13] the other customers by not

[2:54:13] paying that man charged for

[2:54:17] increased energy costs between

[2:54:18] 5 and 9. Their solution was to

[2:54:21] charge me twice the rate for a

[2:54:23] full 30 days instead of the 20

[2:54:26] days other customers will pay.

[2:54:27] Their example. They came up

[2:54:31] with a $25 charge per month

[2:54:32] this year with drastically

[2:54:34] reduced demand rates. The

[2:54:37] charge is $40 a month. Seems

[2:54:39] last year's estimate was a

[2:54:43] little disingenuous. Now

[2:54:46] there's an option where I can

[2:54:47] stopped hitting other

[2:54:47] customers and pay the same

[2:54:50] demand rates as But it will

[2:54:52] cost me a $30 a month access

[2:54:56] fee to do that. Plus, csu will

[2:54:59] graciously keep and sell

[2:55:00] excess energy and pay me

[2:55:06] nothing. These are examples of

[2:55:06] why question whether csu as an

[2:55:11] honest broker. Residential

[2:55:13] solar provides one 51 6 of the

[2:55:15] solar csu uses to meet the

[2:55:18] state mandate. Mandated clean

[2:55:20] energy program while most

[2:55:22] residential solar chair, the

[2:55:25] entire cost of this one one.

[2:55:27] 51, 6 portion when every

[2:55:30] customer come see issue

[2:55:31] benefits and every solar

[2:55:33] customer is not the same. Some

[2:55:35] produce all of their energy.

[2:55:38] Some produce only a portion

[2:55:40] below producers will now pay a

[2:55:42] significant penalty about $40

[2:55:43] a month part of which will

[2:55:46] subsidize the higher energy

[2:55:46] producers. Their burden will

[2:55:49] be much greater. Then the $2

[2:55:50] or so projected for all

[2:55:53] customers without this plan.

[2:55:54] Clean energy is more expensive

[2:55:55] than traditional energy

[2:55:57] sources. That burden should be

[2:56:01] shared equally. Residential

[2:56:03] solar help csu me cleaners

[2:56:06] mandates. This plan loads a

[2:56:06] larger in MARCH are cost

[2:56:08] burdened from that on a

[2:56:09] smaller and smaller

[2:56:12] population. I'm not arguing to

[2:56:16] pay nothing. But I don't think

[2:56:16] we've made of I appreciate the

[2:56:22] progress, though.

[2:56:23] >> Next step we have Kayla

[2:56:32] Mueller.

[2:56:33] >> Kayla Mueller, lifelong

[2:56:36] resident of Kyra Springs.

[2:56:37] Today. We've lots of lots and

[2:56:39] lots of public comments about

[2:56:39] this. I don't have the

[2:56:41] privilege of being solar user

[2:56:42] yet, but something that I want

[2:56:43] to point out to everybody

[2:56:44] sitting here, everybody in the

[2:56:46] room, everybody that cares is

[2:56:47] that the presenter on this

[2:56:49] agenda item is Travis Steele.

[2:56:51] He is not present in the room

[2:56:53] today after this board

[2:56:54] unanimously gave him a raise

[2:56:57] to $700,000, which is more

[2:56:58] than it pays to the

[2:56:59] beneficiaries of the publicly

[2:57:00] owned utility company cut

[2:57:03] matching They've been very

[2:57:04] nice to you. They presented

[2:57:05] their facts, hate my bills

[2:57:07] aren't here. Hey, this is off.

[2:57:11] I'm step farther and say that

[2:57:13] car springs utilities and the

[2:57:14] ceo specifically fundamentally

[2:57:17] misunderstand their purpose.

[2:57:18] It is a publicly owned city

[2:57:21] owned utility company. The

[2:57:22] idea that you guys could make

[2:57:24] any decision. Tip a#

[2:57:24] #

[2:57:28] off. The

[2:57:29] consequences of your lack of

[2:57:31] foresight to the literal

[2:57:32] beneficiaries of the utility

[2:57:35] company. It's embarrassing.

[2:57:37] Colorado Springs as a

[2:57:39] community. It is not a

[2:57:41] corporation. There are so many

[2:57:42] solutions to this peak hour

[2:57:43] thing in 23 days. There's a

[2:57:46] data center hearing. You could

[2:57:47] go ask rating and all these

[2:57:48] other 13 data centers in the

[2:57:51] springs and say, hey, this

[2:57:52] needs to be covered. And, you

[2:57:53] know, they probably say with

[2:57:54] their 100 million dollar

[2:57:55] project we don't really like

[2:57:58] that. But we understand. But

[2:57:58] instead you've taken the easy,

[2:58:01] dare I say, spineless route

[2:58:04] and tried to pass it on to the

[2:58:05] literal beneficiaries of

[2:58:07] utility company. As far as I'm

[2:58:07] concerned, you guys are lucky

[2:58:08] that you're not being smacked

[2:58:13] with a lawsuit right now

[2:58:14] because csu was fundamentally

[2:58:16] this understanding its purpose

[2:58:17] as a publicly owned utility

[2:58:19] company. I don't need to say

[2:58:31] anything else. That's it.

[2:58:32] >> Next step we have Janet

[2:58:34] room.

[2:58:37] >> Chair Donaldson. If I they

[2:58:39] could be recognized with MADAM

[2:58:41] PRESIDENT. The terms of trying

[2:58:42] steal our co not being here.

[2:58:44] My name is Mike, frankly, I'm

[2:58:44] chief customer officer

[2:58:46] covering for him. He's

[2:58:47] actually at the state level

[2:58:49] advocating on behalf our

[2:58:51] customers in terms of a lot of

[2:58:52] regulatory changes. So I

[2:58:55] wanted just let you know that

[2:58:56] he's actually trying to get

[2:58:57] here. But he had prior

[2:58:59] commitments. At the state.

[2:59:07] >> Thank you. Thank My name is

[2:59:08] to not cup I live in district

[2:59:09] 4 head-to-head solar since

[2:59:14] 2020. One of the meetings

[2:59:16] earlier here in City Hall,

[2:59:16] utilities admitted that they

[2:59:17] knew about this problem 9

[2:59:24] years ago. To me, that's crazy

[2:59:25] that they have allowed all of

[2:59:27] these solar customers to sign

[2:59:28] up with an agreement deal that

[2:59:30] they knew. Wasn't going to be

[2:59:31] valid and that they were going

[2:59:33] to have to change. I think

[2:59:37] that's horrifying. So in put

[2:59:40] 10 panels on my roof. I was

[2:59:42] fortunate enough that I could

[2:59:46] pay cash. So it was $14,000.

[2:59:47] Every month. I went to the

[2:59:48] utility site and I wrote down

[2:59:52] how much my you panels were

[2:59:56] bringing me in because I

[2:59:57] wanted to see if I was going

[3:00:01] to make a 10 year pay off. So

[3:00:04] it's like $24.26. Dollars. And

[3:00:05] I want know we're not going to

[3:00:09] pay this down in 10 years. The

[3:00:11] end of last year at a 3 more

[3:00:12] panels. So now I'm up to $30 a

[3:00:16] month. Still going to pay it

[3:00:19] off in 10, 15 years. A solar

[3:00:21] installation is not a one and

[3:00:23] done deal. It has to be

[3:00:26] maintained. The panel's

[3:00:28] degrade. So it's it's not a

[3:00:29] cost, but you can pay down and

[3:00:32] say I'm done. And I think that

[3:00:37] this charge. First solar

[3:00:39] customers only is patently

[3:00:40] unfair. There's been enough

[3:00:42] people here that have said

[3:00:43] that this is a benefit to the

[3:00:44] city. It's a benefit to that

[3:00:49] Earth. And when I did my solar

[3:00:51] installation, I got $265. Back

[3:00:53] from the from the utility

[3:00:56] company. That was my rebate.

[3:00:57] Now those are Nobody gets a

[3:01:02] rebate. I think discouraging

[3:01:04] solar, which this deal will

[3:01:07] certainly do is a mistake. I

[3:01:08] said if we all win the lottery

[3:01:09] or solar customers win the

[3:01:12] lottery and I can put a

[3:01:13] battery in and I can go to

[3:01:16] 200% of my usage. Where am I

[3:01:17] going to find someone to

[3:01:20] maintain those crews can even

[3:01:21] this deal is going to kill the

[3:01:23] solar industry, which is a

[3:01:25] mistake for all of us, not

[3:01:34] just the customers. Next step.

[3:01:41] We have Melanie Richardson.

[3:01:44] Thank you so much. More.

[3:01:47] >> Your patients your time.

[3:01:48] You're tension. It occurs to

[3:01:52] me that there MAY be something

[3:01:57] of a simple solution here.

[3:02:00] We've heard lots about the

[3:02:00] problems and lots of blame on

[3:02:07] both sides. But it occurred to

[3:02:08] me that a possible solution to

[3:02:10] the 2 problems of citizens

[3:02:11] having to buy expensive

[3:02:16] batteries. And csu having to

[3:02:22] build new infrastructure. The

[3:02:28] eliminated. I'm recommending

[3:02:35] csu undertake a comprehensive.

[3:02:36] Comparative analysis of csu

[3:02:40] buying batteries. Versus

[3:02:44] building more infrastructure.

[3:02:47] Releasing the burden customer.

[3:02:51] Ensuring that our future with

[3:02:53] solar in alternative energies

[3:02:58] is secure. Thank you.

[3:03:09] >> Except we have Rick Hart.

[3:03:13] >> Afternoon, I'm Rick Hart.

[3:03:14] >> The talk today before Nancy

[3:03:15] and we've had some discussions

[3:03:17] with original installation

[3:03:21] high was one of them. So. My

[3:03:22] comments are the engineering

[3:03:24] allergies of net metering

[3:03:25] obligation csu created when a

[3:03:26] dedicated help early solar

[3:03:28] systems were built. First off

[3:03:32] from the inception of the

[3:03:33] program, through. I think 2020

[3:03:38] tell the funding one out.

[3:03:39] Regulators cell facing raising

[3:03:41] for mandatory shade analysis.

[3:03:41] Customers were not allowed to

[3:03:45] choose west-facing or time

[3:03:46] today up to my son's eyes. Csu

[3:03:47] mandate is south orientation

[3:03:49] because the program was built

[3:03:50] around maximizing annual

[3:03:52] kilowatt hours. Not time. A

[3:03:54] day performance. Those system

[3:03:56] where all exactly the way csu

[3:03:59] require. Now csu is proposing.

[3:04:02] Policies that penalize the

[3:04:03] people that install them for

[3:04:07] what csu required us to do.

[3:04:08] And so in the early parts of

[3:04:09] this program, you guys are

[3:04:10] begging us to basically

[3:04:12] install solar because of the

[3:04:16] state mandate. Debra Mathis,

[3:04:17] would send out an e-mail said,

[3:04:17] hey, guys, kids do this, do

[3:04:18] this. There's only about 200

[3:04:20] customers a year. Tell about

[3:04:23] 2, 2020, that we're installing

[3:04:25] panels. So I find it very

[3:04:27] frustrating that I put him in

[3:04:28] her. The design spent more

[3:04:30] money doing it that way. And

[3:04:32] then which case now you guys

[3:04:33] are changing, you know the

[3:04:34] rules. So if you had are why

[3:04:38] you can't do it. I can't do in

[3:04:40] our ally right now with the

[3:04:44] proposed been incorporated. So

[3:04:46] if you guys for the Colorado

[3:04:47] Peuc Xcel Energy and Black

[3:04:51] Hills, both tried to do this.

[3:04:52] The p uncc in Denver I've

[3:04:53] spoken with have actually

[3:04:54] filed a complaint with the

[3:04:55] Colorado attorney general's

[3:04:57] office regarding this issue.

[3:04:58] They've accepted the complaint

[3:05:00] to wait and see what you guys

[3:05:02] do. We can't have solar only

[3:05:06] charged. A man charged for us.

[3:05:07] But what they you see in

[3:05:08] Denver did which I think you

[3:05:10] guys should follow the same

[3:05:12] format was a grandfather,

[3:05:13] these systems and for 25

[3:05:14] years. And that's what other

[3:05:16] utility companies have done in

[3:05:19] the past. I gave Nancy lots of

[3:05:20] examples of what other

[3:05:22] utilities companies had done.

[3:05:23] I also talked with Dave, I had

[3:05:27] correspondence with Alex and

[3:05:27] they lost the city. Coral

[3:05:29] Springs lost my paperwork in

[3:05:30] the original people that

[3:05:34] participated in the program

[3:05:35] that showed what we had to do.

[3:05:38] What you guys, you know, csu

[3:05:39] dictated the design for the

[3:05:41] early stage implementation.

[3:05:42] There's no, I don't have any

[3:05:43] west-facing panels. Everything

[3:05:47] I put in was south-facing now

[3:05:48] on killed with both propose

[3:05:53] plans. So I was hoping we

[3:05:55] revisit the grandfathering

[3:05:56] systems in some systems. Only

[3:05:58] 3.5% of the customers actually

[3:06:02] put in solar. It seems like

[3:06:03] that if you guys are going to

[3:06:04] change the rules, which rules

[3:06:06] didn't change not change until

[3:06:07] 2027, we should honor these

[3:06:10] commitments made. To us that

[3:06:14] invested into this. And what

[3:06:15] about the older people that

[3:06:17] say solar companies came in

[3:06:17] said your payback is this and

[3:06:23] it's not even going occur.

[3:06:24] >> Next step we have Steve

[3:06:30] right foot.

[3:06:31] >> I'm the guy that drives

[3:06:33] that Lennon murdered truth dot

[3:06:34] com ban around. Believe it or

[3:06:35] not. I used to be the top

[3:06:35] producer, one of the top

[3:06:37] producers in my. Telemarketers

[3:06:42] room, ice to sell solar. Soler

[3:06:44] basically is a hedge against

[3:06:45] inflation. You get payments

[3:06:46] that are equal to or less than

[3:06:49] your bill is currently. Your

[3:06:50] system is paid off in 20 years

[3:06:51] and you've avoided all that

[3:06:52] inflation. Then a short you

[3:06:54] get about 10 years free

[3:06:55] electricity after, you know,

[3:06:56] 30 years, it's probably toast.

[3:07:00] But you saved about 25%. But

[3:07:01] what happens rules always get

[3:07:03] change by the system. The

[3:07:04] system is dependent on the

[3:07:07] electricity company in the oil

[3:07:08] companies that are the 2

[3:07:09] biggest institutions besides

[3:07:11] our military. And right now,

[3:07:12] for example, you know how the

[3:07:15] windmills. Create electricity

[3:07:16] with that little resistance

[3:07:18] grinding in that little turban

[3:07:20] box. If you put that

[3:07:20] technology in your

[3:07:21] automobiles, you wouldn't have

[3:07:23] to pay electricity or

[3:07:24] gasoline. The reason that's

[3:07:25] not being developed this

[3:07:27] because the oil companies and

[3:07:29] the electric companies run

[3:07:31] things and they're not letting

[3:07:32] that technologies through. So

[3:07:34] you're working all 20% more.

[3:07:36] Then you need to work to pay

[3:07:36] for gas and electricity. As

[3:07:39] far your car's concern, lot of

[3:07:40] electric cars require energy

[3:07:43] from your house. So they're

[3:07:44] looking at ways to stay in

[3:07:47] power. If this vehicle comes

[3:07:48] out, that transfers the energy

[3:07:50] of windmills turbines in New

[3:07:52] York automobile and gives you

[3:07:53] free recharging. You don't

[3:07:54] need all those batteries. You

[3:07:55] can get rid of half your

[3:07:56] battery pack. You can recharge

[3:08:01] your batteries as you drive.

[3:08:01] That other companies and the

[3:08:02] electric companies are going

[3:08:03] to do everything in their

[3:08:04] power to stop that. And I'm

[3:08:06] sure there is some.

[3:08:07] Shenanigans going on with the

[3:08:09] electric companies around

[3:08:10] here. Tuition. If you arms of

[3:08:12] the city council. So we're up

[3:08:15] against all that. But what I'm

[3:08:16] trying to point out, this is

[3:08:16] imagine I was the most famous

[3:08:19] human on Earth, stay in this

[3:08:22] in front of the world's

[3:08:22] biggest microphone. The road

[3:08:23] would change riding the

[3:08:25] coattails of a revolution that

[3:08:26] my GOD you didn't know

[3:08:29] existed. I'm the guy with the

[3:08:31] John Lennon story. The biggest

[3:08:35] nuisance Christ. For your

[3:08:38] sake, bring me forward. You

[3:08:39] guys. Have got to do something

[3:08:42] to stop the military

[3:08:42] industrial complex that

[3:08:46] controls your media. Keeps you

[3:08:47] stupid. Under Stephen King, no

[3:08:50] less. There's a spell cast on

[3:08:54] all of There's been a spell

[3:08:55] cast on the world since

[3:08:55] Stephen King shot John Lennon.

[3:08:57] You're afraid your government

[3:08:59] only Beatles music set me

[3:09:01] free. I op being afraid. I

[3:09:05] found evidence what you know.

[3:09:05] So these people, if you really

[3:09:08] want a cheap world to live in,

[3:09:08] many want things to be fair,

[3:09:10] you need a hero in your midst.

[3:09:10] I'm not ashamed to say could

[3:09:12] be that guy. But you got to

[3:09:17] bring the forward. Thank you.

[3:09:17] >> That concludes our public

[3:09:20] comment for this Public

[3:09:21] comment is now closed. We

[3:09:31] will. Now bring back to the

[3:09:33] Dias for council questions and

[3:09:34] comments before we address.

[3:09:36] The rebuttal.

[3:09:43] >> 6.

[3:09:49] >> COUNCILMAN Thank you. MADAM

[3:09:57] PRESIDENT I want to first and

[3:10:02] foremost, that. I've been

[3:10:04] taking notes madly through

[3:10:07] this entire hearing and

[3:10:08] listening to really each and

[3:10:09] every one of the customers who

[3:10:11] have come to speak to us. All

[3:10:15] in opposition, by the way. I I

[3:10:21] can not. Say enough about how

[3:10:26] thoughtful and measured and

[3:10:28] well researched and smart you

[3:10:29] all are and how you've

[3:10:31] approached us. Almost

[3:10:32] exclusively with the profound

[3:10:37] amount of respect. It's very

[3:10:39] impressive what you all have

[3:10:42] come to share with us I'm

[3:10:47] concerned that. This council

[3:10:51] is at risk of sacrificing a

[3:10:53] portion of our customer base.

[3:10:56] That is deeply committed to

[3:11:00] this utility to the planet to

[3:11:03] their own energy efficiency to

[3:11:04] the city. It said a re. We've

[3:11:08] heard it all for what is right

[3:11:14] now. 4.5 million dollars and

[3:11:15] is less than 0.2% of our

[3:11:17] overall budget. I just just

[3:11:20] don't get that foot. But I I

[3:11:24] do want to say. By the way,

[3:11:26] the number of electrical

[3:11:27] engineers and nuclear engineer

[3:11:29] interests regular customers

[3:11:32] who have learned a lot about

[3:11:33] energy production. And so like

[3:11:33] by virtue of choosing to put

[3:11:35] this in their homes, it's

[3:11:39] pretty impressive. But I

[3:11:40] really want to say very

[3:11:43] plainly that the proposal we

[3:11:43] are seeing today in a number

[3:11:45] of you even said this is

[3:11:46] better than it was a year ago.

[3:11:51] And I believe it is. And the

[3:11:52] 2025 analysis rested on a

[3:11:57] sample of 28 customers and

[3:11:59] this one uses roughly 8400. So

[3:12:02] that's an improvement. The

[3:12:03] utilities leadership did

[3:12:05] listen to this board to this

[3:12:08] council last year. They added

[3:12:10] a five-year transition when

[3:12:14] there was none before. They

[3:12:14] raise the system size kept

[3:12:18] from 100 to 20 120% to 200,

[3:12:19] although so if you've made a

[3:12:22] great case that it's going to

[3:12:23] be almost financially

[3:12:23] impossible to do unless we do

[3:12:24] some things different. But

[3:12:27] nonetheless, appreciate that.

[3:12:29] Spent 8 months of public

[3:12:31] process rather than 7 weeks.

[3:12:32] And I want the record to

[3:12:35] reflect that. I really

[3:12:38] appreciate that work. I'd say

[3:12:39] the vast majority that landed

[3:12:42] on Tristan and Scott and I

[3:12:45] have spent, as I said earlier,

[3:12:47] probably more hours with

[3:12:49] Tristan than he would care

[3:12:51] count. I respect him. I have a

[3:12:52] good relationship with

[3:12:53] Tristan. He's always been

[3:12:56] responsive. He's always worked

[3:12:56] to help me understand and

[3:12:59] answer my questions. And I sat

[3:13:00] down very recently with him

[3:13:01] one more time. And I've said

[3:13:03] publicly, I can't vote for

[3:13:04] something. I don't I can't

[3:13:07] explain to someone else. I'm a

[3:13:08] lot closer to being able to

[3:13:12] explain. And there's something

[3:13:13] new that's come into the

[3:13:14] picture, which I will talk

[3:13:19] about in just a few moments.

[3:13:20] So my questions are really

[3:13:21] about whether utility should

[3:13:24] recover its costs. That's not

[3:13:27] my my concern. Really. We do

[3:13:28] have some additional cost. And

[3:13:29] I think most of you recognize

[3:13:36] that. I want to consider how

[3:13:38] we might SEPTEMBER 22nd

[3:13:40] differently or this whole rate

[3:13:41] case differently but have a

[3:13:42] few things I want to address

[3:13:48] first before I offer that.

[3:13:49] There are 2 options for the

[3:13:51] net metering customers and the

[3:13:53] promise or suggestion of a

[3:13:55] promise for distribute battery

[3:13:56] storage. We haven't heard a

[3:13:57] lot about that. It's been said

[3:13:59] I'll speak to that a little

[3:14:02] bit more in a moment.

[3:14:03] Regarding the standard versus

[3:14:05] net metering demand. I just

[3:14:07] want to point out that it was

[3:14:09] only at the past JUNE 17th

[3:14:09] board meeting when

[3:14:11] Councilmember line Weber.

[3:14:13] Board member want what line

[3:14:15] Weber said that he had a

[3:14:16] problem with the single 15

[3:14:17] minute event during the month

[3:14:20] as as a methodology and that,

[3:14:24] you know, a year ago, it was

[3:14:25] an average you know, I think

[3:14:27] utilities basically said was

[3:14:31] intended at that time, place

[3:14:32] greater emphasis on customer

[3:14:33] satisfaction of Bill

[3:14:36] stability. And we lost for for

[3:14:37] 2 reasons that that they have

[3:14:43] explained. Also Councilmember

[3:14:44] Williams and I have had a

[3:14:46] number of conversations and

[3:14:48] she was very clear that back

[3:14:52] then that that. The demand

[3:14:54] calculation had been described

[3:14:55] 3 different ways and should be

[3:14:56] that it beyond a shadow of a

[3:15:00] doubt. And we have received a

[3:15:01] plethora e-mail, doesn't

[3:15:06] hundreds probably. We still

[3:15:06] receive from some very smart.

[3:15:08] So the customers who I would

[3:15:11] say don't feel like that has

[3:15:12] Kurt. That's kind of what I

[3:15:15] heard from a lot of you today.

[3:15:16] If you don't understand it and

[3:15:17] you're the customers, that's a

[3:15:22] problem. It is a problem. And

[3:15:24] then there's the cost

[3:15:25] causation. And if you could

[3:15:27] move it to slide 16, please. I

[3:15:33] appreciate it. Thank you.

[3:15:35] Talks about estimated impacts

[3:15:35] after the the 5 year

[3:15:38] grandfather. So I have a

[3:15:39] question and it is, I think,

[3:15:46] really Tristan. Is the $38

[3:15:46] figure that's derived from

[3:15:50] Costco station. Under each

[3:15:53] rate option or is it from

[3:15:53] dividing a revenue target by

[3:15:56] the number of solar customers?

[3:15:57] Because if the 2 are

[3:16:00] structurally different rate

[3:16:02] designs produced the same

[3:16:04] average that suggests a

[3:16:04] revenue target with rate

[3:16:09] components afterwards.

[3:16:11] >> The $38 month is the same

[3:16:14] on both rate structures

[3:16:15] because we priced to the

[3:16:16] average customer. And we used

[3:16:17] a man charged as one vehicle

[3:16:18] to be able to achieve that.

[3:16:19] And when he's great access be

[3:16:24] in the other. So going to your

[3:16:24] earlier point that you just

[3:16:26] mean last year, we didn't have

[3:16:27] averaging that we looked with

[3:16:28] only one option that we

[3:16:29] brought forward. Not one, 15

[3:16:33] minute increment. In this rate

[3:16:34] case we brought forward the

[3:16:38] pull one 15 minute increment

[3:16:39] because we do have an

[3:16:40] averaging option. That's

[3:16:41] option number one that takes

[3:16:43] the average of all of the

[3:16:44] customers across the system

[3:16:45] and says what is that on a per

[3:16:46] day basis and it comes back to

[3:16:48] the one dollar great access,

[3:16:50] the charge. So when we take an

[3:16:52] average customer, we see the 4

[3:16:54] and a half million dollar

[3:16:55] revenue shortfall and we

[3:16:56] calculate back how to recover

[3:17:00] those that short Paul, either

[3:17:02] you and with the demand charge

[3:17:03] with a great access being the

[3:17:04] energy wise rates. It comes

[3:17:12] out to $38 a month.

[3:17:12] >> That's the calculation

[3:17:13] we've made that something that

[3:17:17] will, you know, potentially be

[3:17:19] voting on. But I guess again,

[3:17:20] a number of our customers

[3:17:22] still don't don't fully

[3:17:23] understand appreciate that or

[3:17:26] feel is fair. And so I think

[3:17:28] overall I heard so many things

[3:17:30] today from all of you and one

[3:17:32] of the things that impressed

[3:17:32] me as many of you said, I'm

[3:17:33] not going to repeat that

[3:17:34] because it was already said

[3:17:35] which a lot of people when

[3:17:38] they come talk to us do. But

[3:17:39] you made additional different

[3:17:42] and very interesting point.

[3:17:44] And but overarching what I

[3:17:46] heard from you all.

[3:17:50] >> Is that you feel betrayed?

[3:17:51] You feel betrayed by a utility

[3:17:53] that you have trusted in for

[3:17:58] decades. Many of you. Who who

[3:17:59] entered a written agreement in

[3:18:00] a relationship and I know

[3:18:00] utilities and said, will you

[3:18:02] sign a contract and, you know,

[3:18:06] contracts have have, you know,

[3:18:06] closets and sore foot. Then

[3:18:07] you should realize you're

[3:18:09] entering business agreement

[3:18:11] and things could change. But

[3:18:13] but this is a publicly owned

[3:18:13] utility company. And you enter

[3:18:15] this in good faith and

[3:18:16] somebody just gave an

[3:18:19] incredible example of of I was

[3:18:22] told to put the panels on the

[3:18:23] east side of the house and it

[3:18:26] was never given the option to

[3:18:28] capture that ppp time when in

[3:18:29] the summer it when the sun

[3:18:32] still up, you know, so so

[3:18:32] whether it be betrayal by

[3:18:34] something as significant as

[3:18:36] that or he told me to to buy,

[3:18:37] you know, led lights. And I

[3:18:39] did that right. I mean, you

[3:18:44] have been good good customers

[3:18:47] of csu and trusted customers.

[3:18:49] And that has changed. And we

[3:18:49] have been hearing that as

[3:18:52] utility board. In our last

[3:18:56] meeting, we looked at our

[3:18:57] scorecard and our customer

[3:18:59] satisfaction mates are down

[3:19:01] and dropping. We did a pram

[3:19:02] survey recently in JULY that I

[3:19:04] haven't seen yet. But I'm very

[3:19:08] keen to see. I've heard that

[3:19:11] maybe not so great, great and

[3:19:11] matches customer satisfaction

[3:19:16] drop. I have a meeting to get

[3:19:18] cute up on that here. It's on

[3:19:19] my calendar. I'm not sure that

[3:19:20] the plan is to present that to

[3:19:21] the whole board, but I sure

[3:19:25] hope so. We have a trust

[3:19:27] problem with csu. There isn't

[3:19:28] a single person up here who

[3:19:31] wouldn't tell you that we are

[3:19:32] receiving emails every single

[3:19:33] day about the rate increases

[3:19:35] that people are experiencing.

[3:19:36] This is a very specific part

[3:19:41] of our population. I voted for

[3:19:41] that 5 case. I'm not saying

[3:19:43] that we don't.

[3:19:47] >> Have needs for greater

[3:19:48] rates and I won't go into that

[3:19:51] whole argument. But I'm not

[3:19:53] here to say that utilities is

[3:19:56] bad or or not with integrity.

[3:19:59] I'm challenging and I'm

[3:20:00] challenged by this one

[3:20:00] particular item, which you all

[3:20:04] have so well spoken to, which

[3:20:06] leads me to the promise of or

[3:20:09] the hope for. Battery storage

[3:20:11] solutions. So many of you

[3:20:14] mentioned this and in fact,

[3:20:15] you know, the guy who spoke

[3:20:18] who Scott Unicorn house, that

[3:20:21] sounds like you says no

[3:20:22] interest whatsoever is going

[3:20:24] to benefit because of of

[3:20:25] battery. But I understand

[3:20:27] Tristan say that people who

[3:20:30] choose the demand charge will

[3:20:33] also benefit from battery. But

[3:20:35] where is the support for

[3:20:37] battery battery distributed

[3:20:40] sort storage for for this

[3:20:42] group. And furthermore, I

[3:20:44] heard from Tristan and from

[3:20:46] Travis, by the way, I am

[3:20:47] disappointed who's not here.

[3:20:47] I'm glad he's working at the

[3:20:51] state. But more important

[3:20:52] thing is there right now for

[3:20:53] utilities and this rate case,

[3:20:55] I don't know. I don't know the

[3:20:56] details. Maybe there was

[3:20:58] absolutely no other way for

[3:21:00] him to do both at the same

[3:21:02] time, I can't make that

[3:21:03] judgment because I don't know.

[3:21:04] But I am disappointed that

[3:21:07] he's not here. But I heard

[3:21:09] from him and I heard from you,

[3:21:13] Tristan, that yes, we are very

[3:21:14] seriously looking into this

[3:21:15] and we want to present this so

[3:21:17] that you can support this. Now

[3:21:19] interest in you said numerous

[3:21:21] times when you came up to the

[3:21:23] podium today that we got to

[3:21:24] get that 4.5 million or we

[3:21:25] can't make it make make it

[3:21:29] pencil out. Sure. So my

[3:21:33] question, if Peak Energy

[3:21:34] rewards operates today under

[3:21:35] today's rates. And our rate

[3:21:36] design is firm enough to

[3:21:38] believe dance to it to come to

[3:21:40] this council and say we want

[3:21:42] to charge those rates, then

[3:21:45] why is it not firm enough? 2

[3:21:48] addressed battery now. I don't

[3:21:51] get that. Would you like to

[3:21:57] like to take that?

[3:21:58] >> the answer is we are

[3:22:01] starting from 400 or 4.5

[3:22:01] million dollars upside down.

[3:22:03] When we look at any dollars

[3:22:05] that we put towards a program

[3:22:09] that's either demand side

[3:22:10] related we have to be able to

[3:22:11] put those costs out. So if I'm

[3:22:12] going to go through and say,

[3:22:13] here's how much rebate per

[3:22:15] kilowatt for a battery, I'm

[3:22:16] starting at negative 4 and a

[3:22:19] half million dollars. So right

[3:22:20] now it would be I would like

[3:22:21] to charge you a little bit

[3:22:21] more for that battery to make

[3:22:22] sure that we can level out

[3:22:24] there the rates if we can get

[3:22:26] everyone on the same basis, we

[3:22:27] built rate structure that will

[3:22:28] allow you to avoid the demand

[3:22:29] charge because you have a

[3:22:30] battery and and if you would

[3:22:34] give the same thing that we

[3:22:35] see in the peak rewards

[3:22:36] thermostat program, which is

[3:22:39] ability to use battery during

[3:22:40] our peak time frame. We would

[3:22:42] be able to say here's how much

[3:22:44] we should give us benefit from

[3:22:47] that. Okay. So

[3:22:48] >> if you are working toward

[3:22:49] that, you're preparing that.

[3:22:51] But it just is like point were

[3:22:52] percent percent of our overall

[3:22:53] budget that you're saying

[3:22:55] we're under. What else in our

[3:22:58] budget is 4.5 million dollars.

[3:22:58] Just an.

[3:22:59] >> All of the things that

[3:23:01] total up to 4 billion dollar

[3:23:02] bill down over 5 years that we

[3:23:03] are trying to prioritize and

[3:23:06] looking at every one of those

[3:23:09] dollars as a as the cfo for

[3:23:10] the utilities. I care about

[3:23:14] all 230,000 of our residential

[3:23:15] customers and making sure that

[3:23:16] we achieve rate stability for

[3:23:20] all of them. When we look at

[3:23:21] these programs, we have to do

[3:23:23] with all of those dollars in

[3:23:23] mind. When we look at the

[3:23:25] programs that we currently

[3:23:26] offer, you have to be able to

[3:23:26] look at those things. If we're

[3:23:29] to look at these right now, we

[3:23:30] want even start looking at the

[3:23:31] rebate programs at these rates

[3:23:32] are place. We're starting from

[3:23:36] a place that does not have on

[3:23:37] equity amongst the rate

[3:23:39] structure. It's a no-go for

[3:23:40] us. So the idea that we would

[3:23:43] go back now and look at rebate

[3:23:43] structure when we have the

[3:23:44] inequity that is there, it

[3:23:46] would not happen. So.

[3:23:52] >> Tristan, what? Trying to

[3:23:53] appreciate that. I'm I'm not

[3:23:54] sure that I I fully agree with

[3:23:55] you. I think that's a choice

[3:23:57] that a policy choice that we

[3:23:58] could make that this council

[3:24:02] could make. And what I've

[3:24:03] heard from this group and what

[3:24:04] I actually heard from Travis.

[3:24:05] And I'm sorry, he's not here

[3:24:11] to speak to this. But that. We

[3:24:12] would offer this not just a

[3:24:13] solar customers, but to and

[3:24:16] the utility customer because

[3:24:19] having distributed storage. Is

[3:24:21] good for the entire system.

[3:24:24] And for the future and the

[3:24:25] climate challenge is that

[3:24:28] we've heard coming up and and

[3:24:29] we heard a nuclear engineer

[3:24:30] not want to get involved in

[3:24:33] the nuclear debate. You know,

[3:24:35] we did use a new pact by the

[3:24:37] way to look at new clear. But

[3:24:38] we don't want to have you

[3:24:41] pack. Look at solar policy.

[3:24:47] But that is ridiculously

[3:24:50] expensive right now. And we

[3:24:51] know that. And here is

[3:24:53] something that we could be

[3:24:54] doing for all of our customers

[3:24:58] and to create greater less

[3:24:58] demand at those peak hours by

[3:25:01] distributing battery storage.

[3:25:07] That technology out there. I

[3:25:07] guess I guess what I'm gonna

[3:25:10] get to my my final thing and I

[3:25:11] I see a motion and there's not

[3:25:13] a second. So I'm going to make

[3:25:15] a motion that there's a motion

[3:25:17] on the screen, but there's not

[3:25:17] a second for the rate case, as

[3:25:22] is. Now there's a make an

[3:25:24] amendment. I'm going to make

[3:25:25] suggest amendment. And

[3:25:26] Michael, if you would, please

[3:25:31] pass that out. So I want to be

[3:25:34] clear. With you all about

[3:25:38] where I am. I'm not asking

[3:25:39] this council to say that

[3:25:40] utilities MAY never adjusts

[3:25:46] net metering compensation. I

[3:25:47] think the cost recovery

[3:25:52] concern is real. And I think

[3:25:53] the 2026 analysis done some

[3:25:57] very serious work. I've talked

[3:25:57] about how much time I've spent

[3:26:03] on this already. I am now more

[3:26:05] clear that there is real cost

[3:26:09] to operations of the system to

[3:26:10] infrastructure, from moving

[3:26:11] electricity to and from a net

[3:26:13] metering customers home. But

[3:26:14] my ultimate concern is more

[3:26:17] about how how we have dealt

[3:26:19] with this known it for 9

[3:26:20] years. We just heard somebody

[3:26:22] say that. Customers who have

[3:26:25] been loyal. Who want to be

[3:26:26] loyal and a part of the

[3:26:28] solution to customer owned

[3:26:33] utility. So I am making a

[3:26:37] motion to amend the proposed

[3:26:39] tariffs to provide that the

[3:26:40] new net metering rate option

[3:26:43] shall not take effect until

[3:26:45] Colorado Springs utilities has

[3:26:47] filed city Council and City

[3:26:51] Council has approved a

[3:26:52] distributed energy storage

[3:26:55] program, including customer

[3:26:58] own battery rebate levels

[3:27:00] program, budget participation,

[3:27:02] capacity and enrollment time

[3:27:04] line with an availability

[3:27:05] date. No later than the

[3:27:06] effective date of the Strait

[3:27:10] options. That is my motion. I

[3:27:15] would appreciate a second.

[3:27:16] Present cars not address

[3:27:17] procedurally the rate case

[3:27:18] process here for a moment.

[3:27:22] >> Just want to clarify.

[3:27:22] Today. City Council is not

[3:27:24] giving a final vote on the

[3:27:26] proposed changes. So we're not

[3:27:26] looking for a motion to

[3:27:30] approve those changes today.

[3:27:31] Today put, I believe, council

[3:27:32] on number 100 will be

[3:27:33] proposing it to direct

[3:27:36] utilities to make those

[3:27:38] changes to its terror proposed

[3:27:40] tariffs so that then you could

[3:27:41] voted vote on those on

[3:27:45] SEPTEMBER 22nd. So that. I

[3:27:47] welcome you to address engines

[3:27:48] proposal. It's going to

[3:27:49] clarify that that would not be

[3:27:53] a motion to approve the

[3:27:55] proposed changes. It would be

[3:27:56] a direction to utilities to

[3:27:58] make those changes that will

[3:27:59] be presented for a final

[3:28:01] decision on SEPTEMBER 22nd.

[3:28:02] And to be clear, I was asked

[3:28:04] by.

[3:28:07] >> The attorney of record

[3:28:09] Renee Condon to make this

[3:28:10] motion today to die. Not City

[3:28:12] attorney and Renee Condon. I

[3:28:15] was I have documentation that

[3:28:19] you asked me to make this

[3:28:20] motion today.

[3:28:20] >> Condon know what I

[3:28:22] suggested was that if you

[3:28:24] wanted to make a motion to

[3:28:26] postpone that, you would make

[3:28:27] it today. That was the only

[3:28:30] emotion or procedural motion.

[3:28:31] What you're making is a motion

[3:28:31] of substance to substantively

[3:28:33] change the rate case. If you

[3:28:35] want to change the rate case,

[3:28:37] there's a portion of the

[3:28:39] agenda which I believe is an

[3:28:41] item 8 where you would give

[3:28:44] direction to MR. Bid lack. He

[3:28:45] would make the change in

[3:28:48] Consensus of the group, the

[3:28:49] council members, he would make

[3:28:52] the change to rate case. It

[3:28:53] will come back first for a

[3:28:55] work session where it would

[3:28:57] presented you all will hear

[3:28:58] that work session if you agree

[3:28:59] that he captured all of the

[3:29:01] comments and the directions

[3:29:03] then on the next day, which I

[3:29:04] believe the SEPTEMBER 22nd.

[3:29:04] Then you make the motion to

[3:29:07] approve as it was presented.

[3:29:08] So any motion today would be a

[3:29:10] procedural motion. So a motion

[3:29:15] to postpone or too, think

[3:29:18] maybe term but not hear it

[3:29:19] postponed to a date certain or

[3:29:20] postpone indefinitely. Those

[3:29:21] are the types of motions you

[3:29:24] would make today. You would

[3:29:24] actually make a motion on the

[3:29:30] substance today. Okay. Well.

[3:29:31] Thank you for that

[3:29:32] clarification. I'm sorry that

[3:29:34] we did not that. I did not

[3:29:36] have that clarification

[3:29:36] before. Just making this

[3:29:38] motion, then I will.

[3:29:39] >> Since I don't have a

[3:29:39] second, I willhange my

[3:29:43] motion. And it will be

[3:29:44] essentially what you have in

[3:29:47] front of you councilmembers.

[3:29:50] It would be simply to instead

[3:29:52] to amend the proposed tariffs

[3:29:53] to postpone the proposed

[3:29:56] tariffs to provide that the

[3:29:57] new net metering rate option

[3:30:00] shall not take effect until

[3:30:01] Colorado Springs utilities has

[3:30:04] filed with City Council and

[3:30:08] City Council has approved a

[3:30:09] distributed energy storage

[3:30:09] program, including customer

[3:30:12] own battery, be bait levels

[3:30:14] program. Budget participation

[3:30:15] capacity and enrollment time

[3:30:18] line with an availability date

[3:30:19] no longer than the effective

[3:30:22] date of these rate options.

[3:30:25] >> And can I clarify? I think

[3:30:26] you have to motions in One

[3:30:27] would be to postpone, which

[3:30:30] would be a procedural motion

[3:30:30] which you could make today,

[3:30:32] you could make a motion to

[3:30:35] postpone the entire rate case

[3:30:36] without making any changes. So

[3:30:37] it could be to a date certain

[3:30:41] indefinitely. That would be

[3:30:43] one motion different motion.

[3:30:44] Wouldn't necessarily be

[3:30:45] emotion. You would be a

[3:30:45] recommendation where you'd be

[3:30:47] seeking consensus of the rest

[3:30:50] of council to revise the rate

[3:30:51] case to incorporate the

[3:30:51] statement that that you just

[3:30:56] read. So. My greater decider.

[3:31:02] >> Than to postpone is to.

[3:31:03] >> Provide new net metering

[3:31:05] rate options that would not

[3:31:06] take effect until Colorado

[3:31:07] Springs utilities has filed

[3:31:09] with City Council.

[3:31:10] >> And City Council has

[3:31:12] approved a distributed energy

[3:31:16] storage program, including

[3:31:16] customer own battery rebate

[3:31:18] levels program, budget

[3:31:19] participation, capacity and

[3:31:21] enrollment time line with an

[3:31:22] availability date. No later

[3:31:23] than the effective date of

[3:31:24] these rate options. That is

[3:31:28] what I would like to have put

[3:31:29] into the rate case. Then in

[3:31:30] SEPTEMBER 20 and for

[3:31:33] SEPTEMBER. 22. If that if

[3:31:35] that's what I'm trying to

[3:31:38] accomplish, I'm asking you is

[3:31:39] that the is that the proper

[3:31:43] procedure? And do I need to

[3:31:44] wait to do that until later in

[3:31:45] the hearing? Yes, that is the

[3:31:49] park's teacher

[3:31:50] >> under the agenda, the

[3:31:52] agenda for the rate case. We

[3:31:53] first have city council

[3:31:54] questions or comments and then

[3:31:56] city Council potential for

[3:31:57] amendments. Those tend to

[3:31:59] merge is those conversations

[3:32:00] happen? I think it would be

[3:32:01] appropriate given that

[3:32:04] explained your position to

[3:32:05] request that the rest of

[3:32:06] council weigh in on that

[3:32:09] request. There if you receive

[3:32:11] a majority support for that

[3:32:13] request that would give us

[3:32:13] direction to make those

[3:32:15] changes prior to bring back if

[3:32:17] you are not to receive

[3:32:18] majority support, then we

[3:32:21] would continue on with

[3:32:21] additional questioning and

[3:32:23] proceed forward utilities

[3:32:24] requested proposal.

[3:32:25] >> Kristen, for clarification,

[3:32:28] dui. A thumbs up for what

[3:32:31] she's asking or do you want

[3:32:31] and vote?

[3:32:32] >> So this would be the thumbs

[3:32:33] up thumbs down because this is

[3:32:36] not a procedural motion. This

[3:32:37] is about direction for

[3:32:40] utilities to

[3:32:41] >> And MADAM PRESIDENT, I

[3:32:43] could just ask the question of

[3:32:46] you on our agenda for today.

[3:32:47] You know, item number 5 is

[3:32:49] city council questions.

[3:32:51] Comments for utilities to

[3:32:52] address. Yes, item number 6 is

[3:32:56] a break for utilities. Prepare

[3:32:57] those answers perhaps to a

[3:32:58] question one of my colleagues

[3:33:01] just asked item 7 is utilities

[3:33:02] responds to the public and

[3:33:06] city council questions and

[3:33:07] then after that, we deliberate

[3:33:09] and have a discussion of any

[3:33:10] amendments. Yes, the proposed.

[3:33:10] So I think we've kind of

[3:33:16] jumped. To item 8 without you

[3:33:17] know, completing 5 are due in

[3:33:18] 6 or 7. I would just ask that

[3:33:22] we can to get back on. I think

[3:33:24] it'll help us go in this

[3:33:24] sequence.

[3:33:27] >> I'm fine with following

[3:33:28] process and procedure. People

[3:33:29] understand know what I'm

[3:33:31] trying to accomplish. I want

[3:33:33] to do the best process

[3:33:33] possible. But now my fellow

[3:33:34] council members understand my

[3:33:38] position. So I will wait to

[3:33:39] introduce that and you let me

[3:33:42] know when thank you.

[3:33:44] >> So we are in 5 in

[3:33:44] COUNCILMAN Donna said, I say

[3:33:45] your name up earlier. So

[3:33:47] would.

[3:33:54] >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So

[3:33:59] first of it's a it's It's

[3:34:02] difficult to just to hear all

[3:34:03] that. And rather sit down and

[3:34:04] just have a discussion with

[3:34:06] each of you, but we can't do

[3:34:07] that. Kind of have to do some

[3:34:12] reason and things like that. I

[3:34:21] want you don't feel betrayed.

[3:34:22] The board of utilities,

[3:34:26] utilities itself. Works to

[3:34:29] take care of all rate payers.

[3:34:30] >> And has has actually been

[3:34:34] discussed here is working now

[3:34:37] to find a way to both recover

[3:34:37] the full amounts for the

[3:34:38] service that's provided to

[3:34:43] solar users. And on to 2 to

[3:34:45] recover that full amount and

[3:34:50] knots impose a cost, really

[3:34:51] try to keep your almost the

[3:34:55] same. That will probably be

[3:35:02] with the help of batteries. I

[3:35:03] think the question won't get

[3:35:05] into that short-term answers.

[3:35:06] There is a talk about, this is

[3:35:07] short-term thinking what

[3:35:10] you're doing today. I would

[3:35:11] say that the short-term piece

[3:35:14] of this has been since the

[3:35:16] 2006 recovery structure was

[3:35:18] put in place which never

[3:35:21] recovered the cost for csu.

[3:35:21] And as more and more citizens

[3:35:26] have with good intentions.

[3:35:27] Gone the solar, it has become

[3:35:29] a bigger and bigger gap for

[3:35:31] the utilities. And as our cfo

[3:35:32] was pointing out, that's

[3:35:35] really the crux of the problem

[3:35:36] when we do recover. And when

[3:35:38] utilities doesn't recover

[3:35:39] enough from those that are

[3:35:42] receiving the service. It

[3:35:44] comes from someone he's

[3:35:46] paying. And yesterday I

[3:35:48] received an e-mail from a

[3:35:50] woman is a regular rate payer.

[3:35:53] She's terminally ill. She's a

[3:36:00] senior citizen. And she's

[3:36:01] asking you what you need you

[3:36:01] to help us. And I forward that

[3:36:02] up we're going to do things

[3:36:05] that to help her. But there

[3:36:07] are, you know, we have 210,220

[3:36:08] 1000 other customers that are

[3:36:12] paying. Additional fees

[3:36:14] because we don't we have

[3:36:15] strict made is a rate

[3:36:15] structure which doesn't

[3:36:17] recover the full amount from

[3:36:21] from the solar customers,

[3:36:23] solar customers assist csu

[3:36:24] during the hours when you're

[3:36:28] generating electricity. And

[3:36:29] that's been described. But

[3:36:30] everything is brief here. You

[3:36:32] can't get into that really to

[3:36:34] details. But the fact is we

[3:36:39] have to build a infrastructure

[3:36:40] that will cover all of us when

[3:36:44] no one's using solar. And the

[3:36:45] feed, the costs for that is

[3:36:48] what we're trying to fund and

[3:36:52] is cfo pointed out? I think

[3:36:53] 22% of our infrastructure is

[3:36:57] only used 4% of the time. I do

[3:36:58] have a couple of questions

[3:37:03] directly. I do want to point

[3:37:04] this out to that. I don't have

[3:37:09] solar. My bill. We don't have

[3:37:10] a air-conditioning. My bills

[3:37:12] about $50 a month or Maybe 45

[3:37:16] almost half of that is is just

[3:37:19] access fees with if I used no

[3:37:22] electricity that month, I have

[3:37:23] to pay about. 22 23. 24 $1.

[3:37:26] Every month. So. There's been

[3:37:27] a lull. You know, I think

[3:37:32] there's been some. You know,

[3:37:32] unhappiness are concerned

[3:37:34] about that with solar. But

[3:37:35] that happens to all of our

[3:37:37] customers. There's an access

[3:37:38] fee and you interested. We

[3:37:41] have to correct me if I'm

[3:37:42] wrong and I for every service

[3:37:42] that we provide is kind of

[3:37:47] like. Joining a club or

[3:37:49] something like that. And you

[3:37:50] pay x amount almost like

[3:37:51] Netflix where you watch it or

[3:37:55] not. And then when you do use

[3:37:56] that service, then you pay a

[3:38:00] little bit more. As it just a

[3:38:04] simple analogy. So, Tristan,

[3:38:09] if you could come up. You

[3:38:12] know, and so either you can

[3:38:12] answer these questions now or

[3:38:13] after we take you give you

[3:38:16] some time, too. Put your

[3:38:16] thoughts together. You can

[3:38:23] come back and serve them. The

[3:38:25] point that, hey, some some of

[3:38:26] our citizens have made. I

[3:38:27] produce more energy. I used

[3:38:30] every month. Why should why do

[3:38:33] you need to have these kind of

[3:38:34] race? Why do I wiser going to

[3:38:35] be an increase for me? I

[3:38:39] produce more than I use. Yeah.

[3:38:40] And we definitely see that the

[3:38:41] production happens in the in

[3:38:44] the daytime hours.

[3:38:45] >> For a lot of customers on

[3:38:47] the way that they put those

[3:38:48] panels and it MAY be more than

[3:38:49] their total annual use. We sit

[3:38:50] and we can see that because

[3:38:51] many of the customers talked

[3:38:53] about there. Energy credits

[3:38:54] that have rolled over from

[3:38:56] year to year. My question

[3:38:59] would what is your when the

[3:39:03] sun goes down? So I mentioned

[3:39:05] before we have about 390

[3:39:07] customers that have batteries

[3:39:09] currently in the rest of those

[3:39:10] customers don't. At some point

[3:39:11] the sun goes down. The sun

[3:39:12] hits an angle where it's not

[3:39:13] producing energy. On on your

[3:39:18] panels. Our estimation is that

[3:39:20] during peak period of time

[3:39:22] where we're building that 22%

[3:39:24] of infrastructure, we're only

[3:39:25] getting 30% at most a

[3:39:26] generation from those solar

[3:39:29] panels. The other part to

[3:39:32] remember inside of that as we

[3:39:33] typically see electrical use

[3:39:33] by solar customers is about

[3:39:37] 30% higher than me. Non solar

[3:39:38] customer, which makes sense

[3:39:39] the been invested in solar

[3:39:40] panels are trying to find

[3:39:41] electric devices that they can

[3:39:45] use on with those credits. And

[3:39:46] so when you look at those 2,

[3:39:47] they basically offset each

[3:39:48] other and what we are now

[3:39:50] building during the the peak

[3:39:52] period of time is exactly the

[3:39:54] same amount of transformers

[3:39:54] that are needed if they have

[3:39:58] the panels or not. We have to

[3:39:59] be able to still provide the

[3:40:00] energy during that 5 to 9

[3:40:02] period of time. And we have to

[3:40:06] build just as much and when

[3:40:07] you look at what they're

[3:40:08] producing in the daytime,

[3:40:09] that's that's great. That's

[3:40:11] the energy that comes in. We

[3:40:13] credit for that. But the rate

[3:40:14] structure right now applies

[3:40:16] those credits against a time

[3:40:17] where there's not energy

[3:40:18] that's being produced and I

[3:40:18] still need to build the same

[3:40:23] amount of infrastructure.

[3:40:26] Thank you. Another

[3:40:29] >> it was pointed out by one

[3:40:30] this citizens installations

[3:40:36] have declined recently. We

[3:40:38] haven't passed this is there

[3:40:42] another reason the in your

[3:40:42] view have declined? And I

[3:40:44] believe the same customer

[3:40:46] mentioned the federal And at

[3:40:46] the end of this year, there

[3:40:47] were federal incentives that

[3:40:49] have rolled off incentives

[3:40:51] over time have changed. When

[3:40:53] we first started the program

[3:40:53] we hadn't sent some of our

[3:40:54] customers that MAY have

[3:40:55] mentioned some of those

[3:40:59] earlier incident installations

[3:41:00] receive significant rebates. I

[3:41:02] think you heard one customer

[3:41:03] say it was a few $100 by the

[3:41:05] time it was reaching 2020 by

[3:41:07] 2021, we have removed the

[3:41:10] rebate altogether based on

[3:41:10] what we're seeing happening

[3:41:14] with the cost shift for those

[3:41:15] early customers around 2006,

[3:41:17] it could have been thousands

[3:41:18] to tens of thousands of

[3:41:18] dollars that they were

[3:41:19] received in rebates at that

[3:41:26] point in time. We the csu if

[3:41:27] they identify the costs are

[3:41:30] being shift from this group to

[3:41:32] that group. Do we try to

[3:41:35] address across all groups and

[3:41:38] have the group pay for that,

[3:41:39] the expense or the cost to csu

[3:41:43] to provide a service to them.

[3:41:45] If we can see from a

[3:41:46] individual level, there's a

[3:41:47] group of customers than yes,

[3:41:48] and that's why we have

[3:41:49] different rate structures.

[3:41:50] That's why industrial

[3:41:51] customers have demand rates.

[3:41:54] They have 4.

[3:41:55] >> As long as almost as long

[3:41:58] as we've been in existence,

[3:41:58] industrial customers have had

[3:41:59] demand rates because they use

[3:42:01] the system differently.

[3:42:02] >> It's really part of the

[3:42:03] reason that we have our energy

[3:42:04] wise rates that went into

[3:42:07] effect last year. There's a

[3:42:10] different price structure from

[3:42:12] 05:00pm to 09:00pm we had to

[3:42:14] and utilities board last week,

[3:42:14] some information on the

[3:42:15] market. We saw the price

[3:42:17] difference that's going on

[3:42:19] when we're looking at the

[3:42:20] market prices during that 5 to

[3:42:20] 9 not just in Colorado

[3:42:23] Springs, but across that

[3:42:26] entire Southwest Power pool

[3:42:27] footprint costs and 5 from 5

[3:42:28] to 9 are significantly more.

[3:42:30] That's a trend within the last

[3:42:32] 5 to 10 years. That really has

[3:42:35] a brought forward. So energy

[3:42:36] wise rates were trying to send

[3:42:38] that pricing on there. If

[3:42:39] you're a customer that c

[3:42:41] versus a customer that doesn't

[3:42:42] have any There's caution if

[3:42:43] that was happening there,

[3:42:44] energy wise rates for the rest

[3:42:46] of our customers was a way for

[3:42:47] us to address caution that was

[3:42:47] happening amongst all of those

[3:42:53] customers. Do they do to rates

[3:42:54] which csu is recommended are

[3:42:56] they being done to discourage?

[3:43:00] >> Solar?

[3:43:01] >> Or is it to accurately

[3:43:03] reflect the cost to provide

[3:43:04] the service?

[3:43:04] >> It's all about making sure

[3:43:08] that we are collecting the

[3:43:09] cost of service in the areas

[3:43:11] that as we do, those cost

[3:43:11] service study. If we are able

[3:43:13] to see that there's costs

[3:43:14] specifically attributable to

[3:43:15] any group of customers. We are

[3:43:16] trying to set our rates and

[3:43:20] that way. It's not perfect.

[3:43:21] There's assumptions and things

[3:43:24] that go into all of those

[3:43:25] numbers. But once we're

[3:43:26] getting into millions of

[3:43:27] dollars, we can see those

[3:43:28] things and we try to address

[3:43:28] them through the rates that we

[3:43:32] put forward for customers.

[3:43:33] >> I think I understand what

[3:43:36] you are saying before we.

[3:43:39] >> Go down the road looking at

[3:43:44] rebate plans for.

[3:43:45] >> Residential batteries,

[3:43:46] which I believe very much what

[3:43:51] csu wants to do. We kind of

[3:43:53] have to plug the hole in the

[3:43:54] ship were taking on water. Now

[3:43:56] we're losing money. Every

[3:43:57] really with every new customer

[3:44:00] that comes on for solar. And

[3:44:05] so. What we want to do, what

[3:44:08] you're asking to do is let's

[3:44:12] address.

[3:44:13] >> price, the rate recovery

[3:44:16] now make it even and we

[3:44:19] simultaneously you're doing it

[3:44:20] now working towards a battery

[3:44:23] program to then help.

[3:44:27] >> solar customers. Move over

[3:44:30] to basically option to avoid

[3:44:31] all the the time of day rates.

[3:44:32] Can you explain it better than

[3:44:35] I just did?

[3:44:36] >> And so again, as we look at

[3:44:38] the rate structure, we see the

[3:44:38] 4 and a half million dollars

[3:44:42] that were not recovering. If

[3:44:43] we can that be able to get

[3:44:45] through rate structure

[3:44:47] stabilized, it enables us to

[3:44:48] go in really look and see from

[3:44:49] a cost standpoint. What are

[3:44:52] the benefits then 2 battery on

[3:44:54] that system? What we did from

[3:44:55] a peak infrastructure

[3:44:55] standpoint by having batteries

[3:44:58] as a part of that, if we have

[3:44:58] customers that want to own

[3:45:01] their own battery and

[3:45:02] participate in that, we should

[3:45:03] look at that like we do our

[3:45:03] thermostat program where if

[3:45:05] you're willing to give control

[3:45:08] of that battery so that we can

[3:45:09] use it during most expensive

[3:45:12] time for us. We should be able

[3:45:15] to dollars that go back to

[3:45:16] that. But and that and this is

[3:45:18] specific a a customer owning

[3:45:21] their own battery before we

[3:45:22] can get to those rebate

[3:45:23] dollars. If I'm starting 4 and

[3:45:25] a half million dollars upside

[3:45:26] down, I cannot get a map that

[3:45:27] says we should do that type of

[3:45:31] a program. Other programs that

[3:45:31] we do and continue to look at

[3:45:33] our rewards thermostat program

[3:45:34] is one that we will continue

[3:45:38] to look at in the market this

[3:45:39] year. We customers all of you

[3:45:40] that are participating that

[3:45:42] right now. Thank you. I mean,

[3:45:43] when we see from 5 to 9, we

[3:45:46] call on the thermostat switch

[3:45:47] automatically through the

[3:45:48] Internet goes in with a touch

[3:45:50] of a button. Virtual power

[3:45:51] plants aisle. We push a button

[3:45:54] and we see about 20 megawatts

[3:45:56] worth of the same thing. That

[3:45:58] would be generation that comes

[3:45:59] from the customers said we can

[3:46:00] turn your thermostat from 70

[3:46:02] degrees to 75 degrees. That's

[3:46:05] the program that they sign up

[3:46:06] There's value that comes from

[3:46:07] that. We should probably be

[3:46:09] looking at that with the

[3:46:10] market. Now to unseen is the

[3:46:12] $25 a year credit that we give

[3:46:13] the right level. We need to go

[3:46:14] back and look at that and see

[3:46:15] if there are additional

[3:46:19] dollars at the same time as we

[3:46:20] look what rebates should be

[3:46:22] per somebody that owns their

[3:46:23] own battery, that can perform

[3:46:24] the same type of a function,

[3:46:26] provides instantaneous power.

[3:46:27] And the 3rd part that we would

[3:46:30] want to look at it is a

[3:46:32] third-party that with own and

[3:46:33] operate batteries that we

[3:46:34] would have the ability to have

[3:46:36] a purchase power agreement

[3:46:39] from that takes excess of an

[3:46:41] oversize battery and gives it

[3:46:42] opportunity for us to use that

[3:46:45] just like we do with our 100

[3:46:45] megawatt battery that sounded

[3:46:48] at Jackson forward. We're

[3:46:50] interested in all of those

[3:46:52] programs. But starting from a

[3:46:54] place of we've got to our rate

[3:46:55] structure where it needs to be

[3:46:57] and increasing with each

[3:46:58] customer that comes on to an

[3:47:00] inaccurate rate structure puts

[3:47:01] us at a place where we can do

[3:47:02] all of those evaluations and

[3:47:04] have information out. We're

[3:47:05] not looking to drag our feet

[3:47:06] on this. We want line the

[3:47:10] timing of that to APRIL.

[3:47:11] First, when we say that the

[3:47:13] new rates are coming out for

[3:47:15] customers, new customers that

[3:47:15] experience the option. One an

[3:47:20] option to rates. We heard

[3:47:21] customers on and wanting to

[3:47:23] see about the investment they

[3:47:23] have. That's the grandfather

[3:47:27] and gives customers that have

[3:47:29] currently made this 5 years to

[3:47:29] figure out what's going to be

[3:47:31] the right solution with those

[3:47:32] things that will bring forward

[3:47:33] in APRIL to be able to choose

[3:47:36] the path of which of those

[3:47:37] options might be the ones that

[3:47:40] helped them the most.

[3:47:41] >> In all, there's a couple

[3:47:42] other council members that

[3:47:43] want to ask you questions. So

[3:47:44] I'm I'm gonna stop there.

[3:47:45] Thank you.

[3:47:48] >> COUNCILMAN Wine lover.

[3:47:55] Okay. Let me first say that.

[3:47:56] Thanks for the effort. I mean,

[3:47:58] I think we're getting better

[3:48:02] and better. But as I dive more

[3:48:02] and more of this, I get more

[3:48:03] caught the weeds gets more

[3:48:07] confusing all the time. So.

[3:48:07] Hopefully you can follow along

[3:48:11] with me here. So it. What

[3:48:12] we're basically looking at as

[3:48:16] we changed. The rate structure

[3:48:20] for non solar customers with

[3:48:21] energy lives because we wanted

[3:48:23] to address the peak season

[3:48:24] season. And so we did that now

[3:48:29] with that. They also pay.

[3:48:35] >> a connection fee

[3:48:38] >> 70 to $0.69 per day. That's

[3:48:43] correct. And and so which is

[3:48:44] roughly $22 a month. So so all

[3:48:47] non solar customers are paying

[3:48:52] to be connected to the grid.

[3:48:53] >> MR. Lane, where if I can

[3:48:53] explain on that specific

[3:48:55] charge access and facility

[3:48:57] charge per day, that is

[3:48:59] currently in a race this tight

[3:49:03] specifically back to customer

[3:49:04] related costs. So and every

[3:49:05] customer that is connected to

[3:49:06] our system has a every

[3:49:08] customer that's connected to

[3:49:09] our system billing software

[3:49:13] that we use to send out the

[3:49:13] bills to customers. We have

[3:49:14] staff that takes care of all

[3:49:17] of those things. We have

[3:49:19] payment center. We have those

[3:49:20] are all rather fixed costs

[3:49:21] that that we can say per

[3:49:22] customer. Here's how much you

[3:49:24] should pay for those things.

[3:49:25] That's what we're uncovering

[3:49:27] with the facility charge per

[3:49:31] day. That's that line item.

[3:49:31] >> So I agree with that. I

[3:49:34] think that's great. But under

[3:49:38] the option, one. Deal, what

[3:49:41] you're proposing is that

[3:49:41] >> solar customers will charge

[3:49:47] charge that. 0.7, 6, $0.9, a

[3:49:50] day. But you know, our $22 a

[3:49:51] month.

[3:49:51] >> Plus, an additional one

[3:49:54] dollar a day.

[3:49:55] >> Which you're determining as

[3:49:56] the grid access charge. That's

[3:49:58] right. Okay. And you're doing

[3:50:02] this because? Infrastructure

[3:50:03] generally is paid for based

[3:50:06] off of kilowatt hours that

[3:50:07] these non solar customers are

[3:50:11] all they see more power. So

[3:50:11] they're going to be paying

[3:50:14] more, which helps cover

[3:50:15] infrastructure costs.

[3:50:17] >> It's really if everything

[3:50:18] worked on the kilowatt hour

[3:50:19] basis and we didn't have that

[3:50:21] exchange of credit credits

[3:50:23] from daytime generation to

[3:50:25] evening. Then the math would

[3:50:26] still work out on per kilowatt

[3:50:28] hour basis because we have

[3:50:29] that application of credits

[3:50:31] from a different period of

[3:50:33] time. That's what causes the

[3:50:35] problem inside of the so yes,

[3:50:36] yes, sir, right. And that's

[3:50:39] the crux of the problem. One

[3:50:40] Dollar Day is to be able to

[3:50:41] cover for the connection at

[3:50:45] that peak time. And so it's

[3:50:47] trying to be fair because

[3:50:48] they're not using as much

[3:50:48] cook. But wait a second. I

[3:50:52] might not necessarily be true.

[3:50:52] >> solar customer, if I have 4

[3:50:58] panels. So 5, 4, panels, I'm

[3:51:00] going to be pain. Kilowatt

[3:51:02] hours during peak hours at a

[3:51:04] peak rate. So I will be paying

[3:51:07] for infrastructure through my

[3:51:08] kilowatt hours and I won't be

[3:51:10] pay. I won't be get off set

[3:51:11] because I won't have my 4

[3:51:14] panels actually working. But

[3:51:14] I'm going to have to dish and

[3:51:17] onto that have to pay a one

[3:51:19] dollar surcharge. Yes, again,

[3:51:21] as we explained option number

[3:51:22] one.

[3:51:23] >> And does have great access

[3:51:27] fee if we took that grid

[3:51:28] access the way changing to the

[3:51:30] energy wise rates takes care.

[3:51:31] Part of that 4 and a half

[3:51:33] million dollars. So but you by

[3:51:34] having those 4 panels and pain

[3:51:34] for some of the energy and the

[3:51:36] on peak period of time. And

[3:51:37] when we look at all of the

[3:51:39] customers into the analysis

[3:51:40] takes care of about 1 million

[3:51:43] dollars of the 4 and a half

[3:51:44] million dollars. We don't get

[3:51:45] all the way there with just

[3:51:46] energy charge. There's still 3

[3:51:49] and a half million dollars

[3:51:50] left of that peak grid

[3:51:51] infrastructure that serves net

[3:51:51] metering customers that's not

[3:51:56] covered. I can understand the

[3:51:57] one dollar charge for someone

[3:52:00] that has 50 Powell's.

[3:52:02] >> And needs to have

[3:52:04] reliability and other things

[3:52:05] because maybe maybe the 50

[3:52:06] pounds go down right person

[3:52:07] like that. They're going to

[3:52:08] have to lean on csu to keep

[3:52:10] things go on like that's a

[3:52:12] good insurance policy in my

[3:52:16] mind for a 50 pound home. But

[3:52:17] Warren having troubles is with

[3:52:20] the small solar panel user. So

[3:52:21] someone has a smaller system

[3:52:26] on a smaller house. They're

[3:52:27] not able offset their costs so

[3:52:28] that they pretty much are

[3:52:31] going to be energy wise. They

[3:52:32] just have this little bit of

[3:52:32] solar, the kind of helps out

[3:52:35] here and there. And then in

[3:52:36] addition, they're gonna have

[3:52:39] to pay a one dollar surcharge.

[3:52:40] So that's where I'm starting

[3:52:41] to have problems because you

[3:52:42] are you kind of double a

[3:52:45] little bit because you are

[3:52:46] getting them for kilowatt

[3:52:47] hours that they're going to

[3:52:49] use because they're not going

[3:52:50] to be able to offset. Get

[3:52:51] credits or anything like that.

[3:52:56] They're going to have they're

[3:52:56] going the smaller solar panel

[3:52:57] users going to have challenges

[3:53:00] with that option.

[3:53:01] >> And that's why we say so if

[3:53:02] it's a dollar a day, 30 days

[3:53:04] in the month, it's $30. You

[3:53:06] know, that's the the

[3:53:07] additional charge. But again,

[3:53:09] that relates back to person

[3:53:11] that has smaller amount of

[3:53:12] panels that are put in place

[3:53:14] is still connected to the

[3:53:17] utility system. We need a

[3:53:18] mechanism that can cover the

[3:53:20] demand related costs that 22%

[3:53:22] of infrastructure is not being

[3:53:24] delivered. Is the kilowatt

[3:53:25] hour charge because they're

[3:53:26] not they're not able to offset

[3:53:29] their charges. So their pain.

[3:53:30] >> We're not getting all about

[3:53:31] through the kilowatt hour.

[3:53:32] Charges is what I'm saying.

[3:53:32] But with the non solar

[3:53:36] customers, you are. Yes,

[3:53:37] because they are not

[3:53:38] exchanging credits made during

[3:53:39] the day during the evening.

[3:53:40] Course, it gets back to my

[3:53:42] point. What if you have a

[3:53:44] customer that just can't build

[3:53:45] up credits because they're

[3:53:47] they have a small system. If

[3:53:49] they have a small system, a

[3:53:50] small house or whatever, and

[3:53:51] they can offset their costs

[3:53:52] and they don't get any

[3:53:53] credits.

[3:53:57] >> They're not really getting

[3:53:57] the heat.

[3:53:58] >> You see there's like the

[3:54:00] smaller the system. You have

[3:54:02] you, the more of a you're

[3:54:02] going to get. I mean, it's

[3:54:03] really going to be

[3:54:06] disadvantaged to someone that

[3:54:07] put into small system just to

[3:54:10] try to offset some electrical

[3:54:10] costs? Well, in depends on the

[3:54:12] size of the system again and

[3:54:14] what they're overall

[3:54:14] electrical uses.

[3:54:16] >> So let's say that the peak

[3:54:16] that that person pulled was 2

[3:54:20] kilowatts. They would want to

[3:54:21] look at option number 2, which

[3:54:24] is the demand charge. It MAY

[3:54:26] be more of it advantageous to

[3:54:27] take the man charged said and

[3:54:29] that high as 15 minutes where

[3:54:31] their peak usage is to kill

[3:54:32] lots of that's their their

[3:54:33] case. That might be the better

[3:54:36] option. That's why we put 2

[3:54:36] different options that are

[3:54:38] there based on I'm just hoping

[3:54:39] to get to the place where they

[3:54:40] have a 3rd option, which is

[3:54:43] even better. And that is plug

[3:54:44] their soul and just going on

[3:54:45] solar. And that's where I'm

[3:54:48] starting to have a problem

[3:54:49] because I want people to be

[3:54:50] incentivized to be able to put

[3:54:51] solar on their homes because I

[3:54:54] want that But I think we're

[3:54:55] getting to a place where I

[3:54:56] don't think there's enough of

[3:55:00] a benefit. Were offsetting

[3:55:03] that particularly for someone

[3:55:04] that can't necessarily afford

[3:55:05] a large scale system that

[3:55:06] would cover their cough.

[3:55:11] >> You solar system.

[3:55:12] >> cost structure what we're

[3:55:14] seeing from a price

[3:55:14] standpoint, all accumulated

[3:55:21] costs. For for that customer.

[3:55:22] Proves out be are not covering

[3:55:23] all that peak demand. So if

[3:55:26] they unplugged the system, we

[3:55:28] are still having to cover

[3:55:29] that, that expensive customers

[3:55:31] covering enough of use that

[3:55:32] they don't need to be

[3:55:33] connected to our systems.

[3:55:34] That's what they would do, but

[3:55:35] solar customers without

[3:55:37] battery continue to be

[3:55:38] connected to our system. But

[3:55:40] you can even do it. You keep

[3:55:42] coming back to comparing all

[3:55:44] solar customers as the same

[3:55:44] time. And that's what I'm

[3:55:47] trying to refer to. Aren't the

[3:55:48] same type.

[3:55:50] >> There are small household

[3:55:52] solar systems.

[3:55:53] >> That just supplement their

[3:55:54] steel and there are others

[3:55:55] that we heard from one

[3:55:59] gentleman that he's he's

[3:56:02] totally like. He's covers. All

[3:56:03] always like tickle needs with

[3:56:04] this house. I guess what I'm

[3:56:06] trying MISTER Lane Webber's,

[3:56:07] even those customers that are

[3:56:08] saying cover all of their use

[3:56:11] from a total number of

[3:56:13] >> kilowatts. They're not

[3:56:13] covering their peak usage.

[3:56:14] They still rely on the utility

[3:56:16] system from 5 to 9 small

[3:56:20] customer, large customer solar

[3:56:22] installations. They still are

[3:56:23] relying on our system. They

[3:56:25] are still contributing to the

[3:56:26] peak. They are still

[3:56:27] contributing to the 6 and a

[3:56:28] half million dollars to be

[3:56:30] able to look out the Some

[3:56:32] guys. I'm not really focused.

[3:56:33] I'm okay with the one dollar

[3:56:35] charge for my system that I'm

[3:56:38] offering okay. What I'm not ok

[3:56:41] is forsomeone that has a

[3:56:42] smaller system was say 12

[3:56:43] pounds or just I'm no

[3:56:46] engineer.

[3:56:47] >> But I'm calling here

[3:56:49] because if they have a small

[3:56:52] system, getting doubled Incas

[3:56:54] there, they kind of our energy

[3:56:55] wise user. They are paying

[3:56:57] through kilowatt hours because

[3:56:59] they can't. They're only

[3:57:01] supplementing. And so it's

[3:57:01] that one dollar doesn't seem

[3:57:03] like a fair rate to me. That's

[3:57:07] where I'm having issues. The

[3:57:08] one dollars still is there to

[3:57:10] be able to cover those

[3:57:12] infrastructure costs. Whether

[3:57:13] you're small user, you still

[3:57:16] contributing to the number of

[3:57:17] transformers that their

[3:57:18] numbers, substance subsidy.

[3:57:19] They will be paying for their

[3:57:20] kilowatt hour use. Okay. Which

[3:57:22] is going to be higher. Then

[3:57:25] what mine All right. So

[3:57:26] they're going to pay more

[3:57:28] through their kilowatt hour

[3:57:29] news and they're going to pay

[3:57:33] the one dollar surcharge. So

[3:57:34] they're they're they're

[3:57:35] actually going to be paying

[3:57:36] more proportionately. That's

[3:57:37] what I'm trying to And that's

[3:57:39] where it goes. And unfairness

[3:57:40] here to someone that has a

[3:57:44] lower. Economic position that

[3:57:45] couldn't afford a larger

[3:57:49] system. In all. All I can say

[3:57:50] is that that customer still

[3:57:53] has kilowatts that they are.

[3:57:54] I'm coming back and needing

[3:57:55] from Margaret. Otherwise they

[3:57:56] wouldn't want to connect that

[3:58:00] system to the grid. Again, the

[3:58:02] that ours that are happening

[3:58:04] in the daytime or producing

[3:58:05] any of that. Energy are being

[3:58:06] exchanged at the true value in

[3:58:09] option. Number one.

[3:58:10] >> Daytime, they're producing

[3:58:11] solar credits at $0.7. They're

[3:58:14] getting paid for those as that

[3:58:15] happens. That's a lower cost

[3:58:18] than the daytime and the trees

[3:58:19] up on that side. Even with all

[3:58:21] of that, taking that into

[3:58:23] account, it's still not going

[3:58:24] to have that customer pay for

[3:58:27] their fair share of the

[3:58:28] infrastructure.

[3:58:30] >> Well, that's I I just I'm

[3:58:30] going to have to understand

[3:58:32] the math that will more kuz.

[3:58:35] As I'm looking at it that.

[3:58:36] This is just one area that I I

[3:58:40] always think of someone. My

[3:58:40] problem, I think that we come

[3:58:42] to this is also our customers

[3:58:45] are one size.

[3:58:47] >> And that's just not the

[3:58:48] case. I that's what I think

[3:58:49] everyone's just like me

[3:58:53] because I'm a solar user. But

[3:58:54] that isn't the case. And

[3:58:55] that's what I keep hearing

[3:58:56] every time I have here.

[3:58:57] Customer comments is that lot

[3:58:58] of people have smaller systems

[3:59:01] and they're just they're just

[3:59:05] not in the same game. A lot of

[3:59:06] other people. And so I'm

[3:59:08] worried that they're going to

[3:59:11] be pain a lot for killer one

[3:59:12] hour usage because they're

[3:59:12] paying that. They're not

[3:59:15] getting the credit because

[3:59:16] they don't they don't generate

[3:59:17] enough power to get a good

[3:59:19] credit. And so then they have

[3:59:22] to pay the one dollar

[3:59:25] surcharge. So I think it's

[3:59:27] just seems like a a burden on

[3:59:28] people that I would prefer

[3:59:31] there not be a burden on. So

[3:59:32] that I think we'll just leave

[3:59:34] that. We're going to have to

[3:59:35] argue that through a little

[3:59:36] bit I'm going to have to

[3:59:38] understand the mask because

[3:59:41] I'm kind of roadblock. But my

[3:59:45] next piece I think is that I

[3:59:48] still have a problem with the

[3:59:48] peak demand peace. The highest

[3:59:51] thing. I mean, like I I said

[3:59:53] last time I said, you know, my

[3:59:54] my daughter was she would

[4:00:00] never do this. By the way. As

[4:00:00] sleepover party. And they all

[4:00:03] turn on their dryers blow

[4:00:04] their heirs, right? I mean,

[4:00:05] just as a lot. And then so I

[4:00:08] have this one charge. The

[4:00:10] happened during the 15 minute

[4:00:12] period. And now that's my rate

[4:00:15] for the whole months. And so I

[4:00:16] kind of feel like you need to

[4:00:18] like throw out the highest

[4:00:19] one. And then I'd be a little

[4:00:22] bit more happy with If there

[4:00:23] is some kind of way to say you

[4:00:26] throught the top one. We'll

[4:00:27] give you. You know, we give

[4:00:28] you an out of, you know,

[4:00:32] whatever. And then we take the

[4:00:32] next one down. And if that's

[4:00:33] one down is probably likely

[4:00:38] just right next to it. So it

[4:00:38] just seems worried about the

[4:00:42] spike. So 2 points Mr Line

[4:00:45] where we had to be ready to

[4:00:46] deliver that power when

[4:00:49] somebody has a party and

[4:00:50] >> decides that they're going

[4:00:51] to use that energy, we don't

[4:00:53] we can't say, well, it was

[4:00:54] just a party that happened one

[4:00:54] time in a month. We're not

[4:00:55] going to be ready to serve

[4:00:56] energy. We still have to

[4:00:58] deliver the power. So we have

[4:01:02] 2 options that are here.

[4:01:04] Option number one looks and

[4:01:04] says it's a reservation

[4:01:05] charge. Whenever you're going

[4:01:06] to ask me for the most power

[4:01:08] in a given month. I have to be

[4:01:09] ready to serve that that need

[4:01:12] to honor system. If that

[4:01:13] doesn't work because you feel

[4:01:13] like you're going to have

[4:01:15] those things that happen, then

[4:01:16] go to option number one that

[4:01:18] says it's a set amount each

[4:01:21] day and do the math on your

[4:01:21] your bill. We have the

[4:01:24] calculations that are there.

[4:01:25] We have had that many

[4:01:25] customers that have reached

[4:01:27] out to us and said can I see

[4:01:29] based on my data every one of

[4:01:30] those that that has reached

[4:01:31] out to us, we provided that

[4:01:33] back in an analysis. Does

[4:01:35] option one work better? Does

[4:01:37] option too. If you want an

[4:01:39] average your high load events

[4:01:39] than you should be looking at

[4:01:45] option number one. But we also

[4:01:48] want customers to incentivized

[4:01:49] to use less power. That's what

[4:01:52] I mean. The water wise was

[4:01:53] just amazing. That has been

[4:01:55] amazingly the set of eyes are

[4:01:56] customers to use a lot less

[4:01:59] water than realized.

[4:02:00] >> And I think we're going to

[4:02:01] have something similar with

[4:02:04] energy were already seen. And

[4:02:07] so it's been a big plus. I

[4:02:09] don't want to take away that.

[4:02:11] That's the thing. And that's

[4:02:13] where if you just would be

[4:02:17] able to remove the one $15. If

[4:02:17] there's one 15 minute that was

[4:02:22] high. That can go and it's an

[4:02:25] excellent that would in my

[4:02:26] mind. I would feel more

[4:02:27] comfortable sothing like

[4:02:29] that. But he's probably going

[4:02:35] to be the same. So I'm still

[4:02:36] not that. That's why still

[4:02:37] have an issue. It is. It's

[4:02:39] it's kind of like yo, you

[4:02:40] know, I keep thinking of water

[4:02:44] like you. You left the water

[4:02:45] on hopes, you yeah, you need

[4:02:48] to pay for that extra water.

[4:02:50] But we have a community that

[4:02:56] can absorb. A slumber party

[4:02:58] that's the piece that I keep

[4:02:59] coming back Well, I think

[4:03:01] that's the overall question of

[4:03:03] the entire 8 cases. Are we

[4:03:04] okay with that? Socializing

[4:03:05] costs across the entire rate

[4:03:06] base.

[4:03:07] >> I'm not sure that that's

[4:03:08] what our charges been to do

[4:03:10] it. And we want to look at who

[4:03:11] is driving the cost of service

[4:03:13] and who pays for that. And if

[4:03:14] there's somebody that's having

[4:03:15] a slumber party and we have to

[4:03:17] be able to deliver that power,

[4:03:17] should they pay for it or

[4:03:18] should their neighbor across

[4:03:20] the street pay for it? That's

[4:03:21] really what the question comes

[4:03:24] down to. We've laid it out for

[4:03:25] council over the last 2 rape

[4:03:27] cases. We've come back with

[4:03:28] different options that we feel

[4:03:29] like address some of those

[4:03:32] things. If you feel like I

[4:03:33] operate in a way that I can

[4:03:34] ship some of that usage on a

[4:03:37] one 15 minute block. I would

[4:03:38] not recommend going on the

[4:03:39] demand rate. I would recommend

[4:03:40] going on the one dollar a day

[4:03:45] option. I don't think it

[4:03:48] encourages people to be energy

[4:03:49] wise every day. So when you

[4:03:52] have a bad day, I mean, it is

[4:03:52] going to force people in

[4:03:53] option to that. Just don't

[4:03:54] want to think about every 15

[4:03:55] minutes of their day.

[4:04:00] >> that's I would like people

[4:04:00] to kind of think generally of

[4:04:03] conserving all the time. So

[4:04:07] I'm just trying to get a

[4:04:07] helpful solution to kind of

[4:04:10] get us to that place. So

[4:04:10] that's where I have a problem.

[4:04:15] So thank you. COUNCILMAN

[4:04:19] Williams, thank you.

[4:04:20] >> This is more of statement

[4:04:23] just when you come back up to

[4:04:26] address our questions and

[4:04:29] comments. It was mentioned

[4:04:30] that selections are made prior

[4:04:31] to APRIL. First 2027. I would

[4:04:33] like it's been on the record

[4:04:35] that that's not the correct

[4:04:36] date because I don't want to

[4:04:39] panic anyone in this room. So

[4:04:41] if you could clarify that for

[4:04:43] you right now are have made

[4:04:44] the election to roll over your

[4:04:45] credits from month to month

[4:04:47] and year to year. That will be

[4:04:51] in place until 2032.

[4:04:52] >> With the proposal that we

[4:04:54] haven't put in place at that

[4:04:56] point, all customers are

[4:04:57] choosing between options.

[4:04:58] Option if you choose option 2,

[4:05:00] which is the command rate, you

[4:05:01] will continue to roll over on

[4:05:01] a per kilowatt hour basis.

[4:05:04] Those energy credits and just

[4:05:05] so that I'm perfectly clear on

[4:05:06] option. Number one, there is

[4:05:09] roll over of that dollars that

[4:05:12] can happen in the summertime.

[4:05:15] If you have more energy than

[4:05:16] reproducing and you end in all

[4:05:18] of the cash out of those where

[4:05:20] you had a $5 credit at the end

[4:05:21] of the month that wiped out

[4:05:23] all of your access and

[4:05:24] facility charges, wipe out all

[4:05:26] of your energy charges. And

[4:05:27] there was a $5 credit. We

[4:05:29] don't just say that goes away

[4:05:30] and you start fresh the next

[4:05:31] month that $5 Bill credit

[4:05:33] roles for the next month. It's

[4:05:34] dollar terms. Not until a lot

[4:05:37] on option. Number one, option.

[4:05:37] Number 2, you can keep if you

[4:05:40] prefer to keep things on a per

[4:05:40] kilowatt hour basis. You can

[4:05:42] roll those over if you've

[4:05:45] already made that election.

[4:05:46] There's nothing for you to do

[4:05:47] in 2027. You don't have

[4:05:54] anything to do until 2032.

[4:05:56] >> I didn't see any other.

[4:06:02] >> Comments on the dice.

[4:06:06] >> Do you need 15 minutes?

[4:06:06] >> I think we'll be ok with

[4:06:10] 10. Okay.

[4:06:10] >> So in the next in our

[4:06:12] agenda is a break for

[4:06:13] utilities, utilities to review

[4:06:28] >> We are now back in session

[4:06:29] for the public hearing for

[4:06:32] consideration of changes too.

[4:06:33] Utilities moving on to 7 on

[4:06:36] council members agenda. We

[4:06:39] will have a response hi,

[4:06:43] Scott. Good afternoon.

[4:06:46] President pro Iverson.

[4:06:47] PRESIDENT Pro 10 risley

[4:06:49] members of City Council. Happy

[4:06:52] to get some responses. In

[4:06:54] response to some customer

[4:06:55] comments. Well, as some city

[4:06:59] council member questions.

[4:07:00] Leading into that at first

[4:07:04] like to. Really just state

[4:07:05] that we understand that this

[4:07:06] is a difficult issue, not only

[4:07:10] for net metering customers,

[4:07:11] but for our community and of

[4:07:13] course, for city council to

[4:07:14] this utilities doesn't

[4:07:15] recommend this proposal

[4:07:17] lightly, but it really comes

[4:07:22] on us as a requirement lot of

[4:07:25] the customers here today have

[4:07:26] made passionate statements and

[4:07:27] understandably so about the

[4:07:29] investments that they've made

[4:07:30] and the other community

[4:07:31] benefits that they provide

[4:07:34] because of their solar energy

[4:07:36] and utilities definitely

[4:07:36] supports renewable energy.

[4:07:39] We've actually added more

[4:07:40] renewable energy over the last

[4:07:43] several years to our overall

[4:07:44] energy portfolio.

[4:07:45] >> And we support customer

[4:07:46] choice in installing rooftop

[4:07:48] solar. We do have the

[4:07:52] obligation. Though, as we

[4:07:53] provide pricing for our

[4:07:54] services and proposing those

[4:07:58] to city council to propose

[4:07:58] rates that are based on our

[4:08:02] cost of providing service as a

[4:08:02] municipal utility. And as

[4:08:03] enterprise of the city,

[4:08:10] Colorado Springs we. Pay for

[4:08:10] operating building,

[4:08:11] maintaining our system based

[4:08:13] on services based on the. The

[4:08:16] rates that propose and the

[4:08:20] fees for services. So the

[4:08:23] proposal before you today is

[4:08:26] based on the cost of service

[4:08:27] relief specifically solar

[4:08:34] customers. With that proposal.

[4:08:36] Another comment that has been

[4:08:37] a recurrent several times

[4:08:40] through the hearing is maybe a

[4:08:41] little bit of a

[4:08:42] misunderstanding. What happens

[4:08:44] to excess production under the

[4:08:45] really the energy wise with

[4:08:48] the great access, the option.

[4:08:49] Customers always have the

[4:08:50] benefit of using their own

[4:08:53] energy. And then any time

[4:08:55] customer generate more energy

[4:08:57] than they're using. And the

[4:08:58] experts at to the grid. Our

[4:08:59] proposal compensates the

[4:09:02] customer at the full at the

[4:09:05] full rate. So at no time does

[4:09:06] you utilities take free energy

[4:09:08] from the customer if their net

[4:09:09] metering customer and excess

[4:09:10] generation, they're

[4:09:11] compensated at the full energy

[4:09:13] wise rate or under option to

[4:09:14] they're compensated in terms

[4:09:15] of a rollover kilowatt hours

[4:09:21] Carryforward month to month.

[4:09:22] Utilities did substantiate its

[4:09:23] filing when it filed its rate

[4:09:26] case with City Council on

[4:09:27] JULY, 7th, our rate filing

[4:09:28] contains comprehensive

[4:09:30] worksheets that demonstrate

[4:09:31] our calculations, the cost

[4:09:36] shift and the and the

[4:09:37] justification for the grid

[4:09:38] access fee and for the demand

[4:09:40] rates are all laid out in the

[4:09:41] worksheet that were included

[4:09:42] in that filing that was

[4:09:46] submitted to the clerk and

[4:09:46] that City Council received.

[4:09:47] And it's packet for the JULY

[4:09:52] 14th meeting. Several we've

[4:09:57] heard. Customers come in on

[4:09:58] some tools that they've self

[4:09:59] built to help evaluate their

[4:10:02] own impact of the proposal.

[4:10:06] And that's a what a

[4:10:07] compliment. Many of the

[4:10:10] customers on there. And their

[4:10:12] efforts to do so. And I have

[4:10:13] reviewed several of those

[4:10:13] personally. And I know I have

[4:10:15] request to review several more

[4:10:17] from customers in the last

[4:10:19] several days. I do acknowledge

[4:10:22] that it can be complicated

[4:10:23] when we're looking at 15

[4:10:25] minute granular data so meter

[4:10:28] rates for every 15 minutes of

[4:10:29] every day. And really it's

[4:10:32] twice that for net metering

[4:10:33] customers because it's 15

[4:10:35] minute reads for their net

[4:10:36] consumption with their polling

[4:10:37] from the grid. And then 15

[4:10:39] minute reads for their excess

[4:10:40] production that their system

[4:10:44] is producing. So that is a lot

[4:10:46] of data to poll. And we do

[4:10:46] have the known issue right

[4:10:47] now. If a customer tries to

[4:10:52] pull more than 21 days from my

[4:10:57] usage tool right My account

[4:10:59] portal. There is a time lapse

[4:11:01] issue that can cause the data

[4:11:06] kind of lapse out. So you need

[4:11:06] hold in smaller increments of

[4:11:07] time. But the data coming out

[4:11:09] of the system is accurate.

[4:11:10] Just a matter of

[4:11:13] interpretation, that data and

[4:11:14] sometimes it's not always as

[4:11:20] clear as we would like.

[4:11:22] Utilities is committed at this

[4:11:24] rate case is approved to

[4:11:24] develop tools that are much

[4:11:25] more automated for the

[4:11:27] customer just as we have for

[4:11:28] non solar customers on our

[4:11:32] energy wise rates. We have

[4:11:32] irate tool that customers can

[4:11:36] log in to my account and that

[4:11:37] meter data automatically flows

[4:11:40] into a rate calculator that

[4:11:40] displays based on the

[4:11:44] customer's historical usage.

[4:11:46] What estimated bills are for

[4:11:47] customer under the various

[4:11:48] energy wise options. Energy

[4:11:49] wise energize plus, in the

[4:11:51] thick, seasonal options, we

[4:11:52] anticipate doing something

[4:11:55] similar for that for for these

[4:11:55] not me turn options if

[4:12:05] approved. Just check my notes.

[4:12:07] Real quick Wanted to speak a

[4:12:08] little bit about the comp

[4:12:09] other complications with the

[4:12:10] tools and one issue in

[4:12:14] particular about believe that

[4:12:18] the question was. And really

[4:12:20] question in the calculations

[4:12:21] that we have in the validity

[4:12:23] of our our rate filing because

[4:12:27] the customer was seen a higher

[4:12:27] bill even when they were

[4:12:28] producing excess generation.

[4:12:30] During non peak time periods

[4:12:35] during summer months. To speak

[4:12:37] to that. The grid access

[4:12:40] option in particular. But

[4:12:41] Cosby's utilities using that

[4:12:43] cost of service method, the

[4:12:45] grid access option is based on

[4:12:48] the average of net metering

[4:12:48] customers. And again, we used

[4:12:50] a large data sample of 8400

[4:12:51] customers. So it's a broad,

[4:12:56] comprehensive set of data. And

[4:12:57] to calculate rates. We use

[4:13:00] averages across the across the

[4:13:01] data set. So based based on

[4:13:02] the average of those net

[4:13:08] metering customers, the the

[4:13:09] great access charges based on

[4:13:10] that infrastructure costs not

[4:13:12] currently recover through

[4:13:16] energy energy charges alone.

[4:13:18] There is, of course, within a

[4:13:19] set of customers. Always

[4:13:21] outliers on one end our the

[4:13:23] other. And so because of that

[4:13:25] outline affected as possible

[4:13:26] because the grid access option

[4:13:29] is based on average. Average

[4:13:32] on key contribution. If a

[4:13:36] customer outlier customer has

[4:13:37] excess production, which the

[4:13:37] average customer doesn't.

[4:13:40] During non peak hours but

[4:13:44] applying the $30 average good

[4:13:45] access charge to them. It is

[4:13:46] possible for them to see a

[4:13:47] bill increase under the

[4:13:50] option. One even though they

[4:13:51] have excess production even in

[4:13:53] the summer months, it all has

[4:13:54] to do with the tradeoffs of

[4:13:58] using a large data set and

[4:13:59] using setting rates based on

[4:14:00] averages recognizing that all

[4:14:02] customers are different. And

[4:14:05] that goes also into the

[4:14:05] proposal of providing options

[4:14:09] for our customers. Customers

[4:14:13] really desiring more granular

[4:14:14] impact for their particular

[4:14:17] situation. Can it. Option 2

[4:14:18] with the demand charts. It's

[4:14:19] really more tailored to their

[4:14:22] specific usage patterns.

[4:14:27] With that, I think I'll turn

[4:14:30] it over to trusting your heart

[4:14:30] to address councilmember line

[4:14:35] members. Questions. It's I had

[4:14:36] just a couple of other things

[4:14:39] that I wanted to be able to

[4:14:39] get. The first was MISTER

[4:14:40] Lineworkers question that we

[4:14:42] just have that the apologies.

[4:14:44] As I was thinking of things. I

[4:14:45] was thinking of from a

[4:14:46] customer that would want to

[4:14:47] have a nearing agreement with

[4:14:48] us. So.

[4:14:50] >> All of our net metering

[4:14:51] customers sign a contract they

[4:14:52] come in. They decide that

[4:14:53] they're producing enough

[4:14:54] energy that it makes sense

[4:14:55] that they would want to see

[4:14:56] some of that rollover from

[4:14:59] month to month or from year to

[4:15:02] year. If you're a smaller

[4:15:04] producer Mr Line members to

[4:15:06] your example, if you're a very

[4:15:07] small producer, you probably

[4:15:08] won't even want to sign up as

[4:15:09] a net metering customer. You

[4:15:11] could still put your panels

[4:15:14] in. You could still use that

[4:15:16] energy and you would not have

[4:15:19] axis our I'm sorry, the demand

[4:15:23] charge or the grid access fee.

[4:15:23] This would relate to things

[4:15:26] like balcony solar. So that

[4:15:28] has been approved by the

[4:15:30] state. That's a very small use

[4:15:31] of solar. Then back feeds into

[4:15:34] the system behind our meters.

[4:15:35] It lowers your overall energy

[4:15:35] bill because you're using

[4:15:38] solar for some of that. That's

[4:15:39] really your option. Number 3,

[4:15:42] if you're that small and what

[4:15:44] you're producing, there's no

[4:15:44] obligation that you have to

[4:15:47] sign a net metering agreement.

[4:15:47] You can just stay on a regular

[4:15:48] rates and keep that usage

[4:15:50] behind your meter. Does part

[4:15:51] of what you're looking for?

[4:15:55] Sure.

[4:15:58] >> Yeah, actually, does answer

[4:15:58] it because I I was just locked

[4:16:02] in on that. There's 2 options.

[4:16:03] But there actually is a 3rd

[4:16:03] option. And that is that

[4:16:06] someone can have solar.

[4:16:09] Receive a benefit because the

[4:16:12] solar offsets their energy

[4:16:14] use, but they're not

[4:16:14] necessarily. They MAY not get

[4:16:18] enough of a credit to really

[4:16:21] be able to maximize system.

[4:16:22] You know, I'm saying because

[4:16:24] it's the dawn of a larger

[4:16:25] system.

[4:16:26] >> Correct in that situation.

[4:16:27] And I think balcony solar is

[4:16:28] another one of those issues

[4:16:29] police relates to that it MAY

[4:16:32] be very small panel but does

[4:16:33] offset some of you. Some MAY

[4:16:34] just be your refrigerator that

[4:16:36] you're offsetting, but you

[4:16:37] still want offset that and get

[4:16:37] the benefit on your bill.

[4:16:39] That's an option to do behind

[4:16:40] the meter that's allowed

[4:16:40] inside of our system. There

[4:16:45] really is that 3rd option. The

[4:16:46] other thing, couple of things

[4:16:46] that I wanted to hit just real

[4:16:53] quickly when we talk about the

[4:16:55] 9 year ago date that relates

[4:16:56] back to this. We've working on

[4:16:57] technological advances in our

[4:16:59] system for quite some period

[4:17:00] of time. If you go back to

[4:17:02] 2006, when we started this

[4:17:04] program, we didn't have the

[4:17:05] ability to look at everyone's

[4:17:08] usage on an hour by hour

[4:17:09] basis. Really just as we've

[4:17:12] gone live with our mine have

[4:17:13] we gotten technology that

[4:17:16] allows us to look into every

[4:17:18] 15 minutes usage from

[4:17:19] customers? That's part of the

[4:17:20] reason why the timing was

[4:17:23] right now to do this. And

[4:17:24] that's not just for our net

[4:17:25] metering customers. That's for

[4:17:27] all of our customers. So as we

[4:17:30] deploy those smart meters, we

[4:17:33] wanted to make sure that were

[4:17:34] lining the information that we

[4:17:35] were now receding in much

[4:17:37] smaller periods of time.

[4:17:38] Really, from an energy. Why

[4:17:39] standpoint for all of our

[4:17:40] customers, we could see the

[4:17:42] day that the usage from 5 to 9

[4:17:43] and be able make the analysis

[4:17:46] that allowed us to say now we

[4:17:47] should look at rate structure

[4:17:49] for all customers. When we

[4:17:50] first started talking about

[4:17:51] changing that metering rates

[4:17:52] was at the same time that we

[4:17:53] started talking about energy

[4:17:56] wise rates in general. That

[4:17:57] doesn't date back to the 2018,

[4:18:00] 2019 period of time. There has

[4:18:01] been requirements and things

[4:18:04] that they've been looking at

[4:18:06] related to net metering in

[4:18:08] general. Some of the things

[4:18:09] last year related back to some

[4:18:10] decisions that the state that

[4:18:11] we were waiting for them to

[4:18:12] bring back that they never

[4:18:14] finalized. We still feel like

[4:18:15] we now have the technology

[4:18:16] that's in place through in my

[4:18:17] system that gives us the

[4:18:20] ability to look at a much more

[4:18:21] micro level. Information that

[4:18:23] comes from our customers and

[4:18:24] priced accordingly. That's

[4:18:27] part of the reason why now is

[4:18:29] the time that we've seen it,

[4:18:30] that it is the right time to

[4:18:30] bring this type of proposal

[4:18:34] forward. Just one last thing

[4:18:35] that I did want to be able to

[4:18:37] cover that we heard in

[4:18:42] customer comment. Have about

[4:18:44] one and a half million dollars

[4:18:46] a year. Is our budget for

[4:18:47] project Cope. I just wanted to

[4:18:52] highlight that part as well.

[4:19:00] >> COUNCILMAN Yes. Thank

[4:19:00] actually, Tristan, I was

[4:19:03] wondering, I think.

[4:19:04] >> Renee was going to relay

[4:19:05] some information to you from

[4:19:08] one of the customers. Rana.

[4:19:09] >> Who spoke about her, the

[4:19:12] second person to come up.

[4:19:15] >> Did you speak?

[4:19:16] >> Yeah, I believe I addressed

[4:19:20] that with the comments on ok

[4:19:21] now the grid access charges

[4:19:22] based on the average metering

[4:19:23] you like you to address that

[4:19:26] question. Thanks.

[4:19:28] >> Seeing no other comments

[4:19:30] from council and onto the

[4:19:31] item. 8 COUNCILMAN Hinge him.

[4:19:32] Here is where you would

[4:19:35] actually do your.

[4:19:37] >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[4:19:40] MADAM PRESIDENT. So I. First I

[4:19:47] want to say, I think, you in

[4:19:48] listening to people, you know,

[4:19:52] we have heard how people feel.

[4:19:53] And what their experiences.

[4:19:55] And we can't tell them to feel

[4:19:57] differently. That's part of

[4:19:58] the problem that we have as a

[4:20:00] utility company right now. And

[4:20:02] I think quite frankly, as a

[4:20:04] council that we sometimes come

[4:20:05] across as we know better than

[4:20:07] the folks. That we are

[4:20:09] representing. And I think

[4:20:13] that, you know, part of that

[4:20:13] public dissatisfaction that

[4:20:16] we're experiencing is not

[4:20:17] listening and people have come

[4:20:19] to us and they've said, can

[4:20:22] you please design a rate that

[4:20:23] supports people to be a part

[4:20:24] of the solution. That's what I

[4:20:29] heard. Quoted today. So, you

[4:20:32] know, respect us. I think I

[4:20:32] heard that were pinned him.

[4:20:35] People are feeling penalized

[4:20:36] who want to be a part of the

[4:20:38] solution who are asking us to

[4:20:39] do better. And I think we

[4:20:40] really can do better. And so

[4:20:43] what I'm asking of my fellow

[4:20:45] council members is to is for

[4:20:47] us to do better. We can get

[4:20:48] down in the weeds about the

[4:20:50] masks and you know, I think

[4:20:51] what's been made really clear

[4:20:54] is people still still don't

[4:20:55] fully agree or understand,

[4:20:56] even with all the explaining

[4:20:59] and all the going through

[4:21:03] everything. And so I what I'm

[4:21:04] asking for, what I'm asking

[4:21:06] this council, but my fellow

[4:21:07] council members to support is

[4:21:11] that. Very specifically that

[4:21:16] we make an amendment to put

[4:21:18] the proposed tariffs that are

[4:21:20] present to provide that the

[4:21:22] new net metering rate options

[4:21:25] shall not take effect until

[4:21:27] csu has filed with City

[4:21:29] Council and City Council has

[4:21:31] approved a distributed energy

[4:21:35] storage program. Including

[4:21:37] customer on battery rebate

[4:21:40] levels program, budget

[4:21:40] participation, capacity and

[4:21:42] enrollment time line with an

[4:21:46] availability date. No later,

[4:21:47] then the effective date at

[4:21:47] these rate options. In other

[4:21:50] words, we prioritize that. And

[4:21:51] one of the reasons I think

[4:21:53] this is really important. Is

[4:21:58] that. We have known about this

[4:22:03] for 9 years. Tristen, I

[4:22:05] appreciate your comments on

[4:22:06] the 4.5. And, you know,

[4:22:08] plugging this hole. We are

[4:22:12] making so many decisions about

[4:22:13] a rate case 5 years from now

[4:22:13] that we don't have all the

[4:22:18] details for. So let's do this

[4:22:19] thing right by these

[4:22:21] customers. It will help. I

[4:22:25] really believe it will help

[4:22:26] building rebuilding trust with

[4:22:28] this customer base who has

[4:22:32] loyal for many for decades. So

[4:22:34] I am asking my fellow council

[4:22:37] members to please support that

[4:22:41] amendment to this rate case.

[4:22:42] >> It's such a mask. One

[4:22:43] clarification on your intent.

[4:22:48] There. The effect, as I

[4:22:48] understand it would be to

[4:22:49] delay the effective date of

[4:22:52] what is proposed to a date to

[4:22:55] be determined based on the

[4:22:56] distributed generation with

[4:22:59] the intent. Also be too told

[4:23:00] the grandfather periods

[4:23:03] essentially all dates are

[4:23:03] shifted in parallel with the

[4:23:04] time it takes to develop the

[4:23:08] battery program.

[4:23:08] >> I hadn't thought through

[4:23:11] that. I don't know that. I

[4:23:15] want to complicate it by

[4:23:16] messing with the grandfather

[4:23:17] rate. I mean, I heard, you

[4:23:18] know, some good arguments for

[4:23:19] this group should be

[4:23:21] grandfathered for forever. I.

[4:23:22] >> I don't want to complicate

[4:23:25] it more. I would hope and

[4:23:26] based on personal conversation

[4:23:28] with Travis who, you know,

[4:23:30] just shared with me, not that

[4:23:31] long ago that he was talking

[4:23:32] with the Public Chamber of

[4:23:33] Commerce in the Denver Chamber

[4:23:36] of Commerce and others about

[4:23:37] how this technology is

[4:23:38] possible that we're working on

[4:23:39] this, that we're working on

[4:23:41] getting this done as soon as

[4:23:43] possible. So let's keep

[4:23:45] working on that and move it. I

[4:23:47] don't care. You know, if we

[4:23:48] can get it done a month from

[4:23:48] now or 2 months from now,

[4:23:51] let's do it 2 months from now.

[4:23:51] Let's get it done as quickly

[4:23:54] as possible. So I'm not gonna

[4:23:55] I'm not going to complicate

[4:23:59] things by messing with any

[4:24:00] anything else.

[4:24:01] >> The effect of the change

[4:24:02] would be specifically to the

[4:24:05] APRIL first 2027 date.

[4:24:06] >> Which would be removed to a

[4:24:06] date to be determined based on

[4:24:10] the further action.

[4:24:11] >> Based on the yes, the

[4:24:14] requirement that I stated,

[4:24:15] yes, it sure And I'm trying to

[4:24:17] keep it as simple as possible

[4:24:18] and as respectful as possible

[4:24:21] to the people who are net

[4:24:21] metering customers. Thank you.

[4:24:22] And all the customers. Thank

[4:24:24] you.

[4:24:25] >> So based on the request of

[4:24:26] COUNCILMAN Tension. But I

[4:24:31] would ask now is that sums up

[4:24:32] thumbs down peace because this

[4:24:32] is not a motion. This is

[4:24:34] looking at that direction to

[4:24:37] utilities. So I would ask is a

[4:24:38] thumbs up in support of

[4:24:39] COUNCILWOMAN Hinges proposal

[4:24:42] in a thumbs down to deny it

[4:24:43] and continue on with what you

[4:24:48] Tillis has proposed. He's

[4:24:54] excused.

[4:24:54] >> Make sure I understand I

[4:25:01] have 3 in favor and 5 opposed.

[4:25:05] >> So based on that. Utilities

[4:25:06] will not be directed to make

[4:25:08] those changes to the proposal

[4:25:11] with that, we're still agenda

[4:25:12] item. 8. So any further

[4:25:13] discussion or deliberation

[4:25:14] from council is welcome at

[4:25:19] this time. I don't see any at

[4:25:23] this time. So now do we do a

[4:25:24] thumbs up?

[4:25:26] >> so because there's no

[4:25:26] further discussion. This is

[4:25:27] when request that direction on

[4:25:28] how to proceed. Prepare the

[4:25:31] decision orders. Many years.

[4:25:33] You see me with a list of 30

[4:25:35] questions today. We simply

[4:25:37] have to. And that's because

[4:25:37] their proposed changes to both

[4:25:39] the electric tariff and the

[4:25:41] you are in both cases. I'm

[4:25:44] simply asking if there's

[4:25:44] direction to approve the

[4:25:46] proposed changes related to

[4:25:47] net metering. So this point I

[4:25:49] would ask for that sums up

[4:25:51] thumbs down on whether you

[4:25:54] approve would like me to

[4:25:55] indicate approval of utilities

[4:26:00] proposed changes. So to be

[4:26:01] clear, I have 6 in favor into

[4:26:07] a post. With that. I will

[4:26:08] prepare the decision orders.

[4:26:09] You'll see the draft of your

[4:26:12] SEPTEMBER 21st work session.

[4:26:13] And then your SEPTEMBER 22nd

[4:26:15] City Council meeting. You'll

[4:26:16] be asked to make formal

[4:26:18] approval of that fire

[4:26:20] resolution absent any

[4:26:20] additional questions. We don't

[4:26:24] have any further action here.

[4:26:25] Thank you. And at this time,

[4:26:26] this public hearing is now

[4:26:27] closed. Thank you very much.

[4:26:29] Moving on to item.

[4:26:35] >> 9. Will the clerk please

[4:26:40] read item into the record.

[4:26:41] >> And ordinance of the city

[4:26:42] of Colorado Springs solving

[4:26:43] know Colorado City, Downtown

[4:26:50] Development Authority. Emily

[4:26:52] haven't City Council

[4:26:53] administrator. I'm going to

[4:26:55] start this item here just to

[4:26:56] summarize this item for ski

[4:26:58] before City Council.

[4:27:00] >> On JUNE 8 in an executive

[4:27:02] session came to council in a

[4:27:04] work session on JULY 13th. And

[4:27:05] at that time decision was made

[4:27:07] by the council to postpone

[4:27:10] today Tuesday, AUGUST, 25th.

[4:27:12] For the record, the

[4:27:13] recommendation from

[4:27:14] legislative services remains

[4:27:15] to dissolve people. Word at

[4:27:16] this time. There's no

[4:27:17] additional information from

[4:27:18] legislative services regarding

[4:27:21] this item. As we move through

[4:27:22] this item today, city staff

[4:27:24] are available, including our

[4:27:26] planning director Kevin Walker

[4:27:27] for questions and I believe

[4:27:29] are also being joined today by

[4:27:30] our director, the Urban

[4:27:31] Renewal Authority to Ryan

[4:27:46] Walker. The

[4:27:57] we will now hear

[4:28:02] from da. The chair of the dda

[4:28:03] or whoever is representing the

[4:28:08] dda today. For 10 minutes.

[4:28:10] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT

[4:28:13] and members of Council, I'm

[4:28:15] Bob Gardner. I have the

[4:28:16] privilege of being a counsel

[4:28:19] to the old Colorado City,

[4:28:19] Downtown Development

[4:28:23] Authority. I am going to yield

[4:28:24] the balance my time. Very

[4:28:25] quickly stratum shaping who's

[4:28:27] the chair of the board. But

[4:28:30] before I do, I wanted to make

[4:28:34] clear of that. The downtown

[4:28:36] development authority of Old

[4:28:39] Colorado City is committed. To

[4:28:43] creating a viable. Workable

[4:28:50] and entity to develop the old

[4:28:51] Colorado City and the and the

[4:28:54] character of the community.

[4:28:55] There have been some concerns

[4:28:58] expressed earlier about

[4:29:01] council's ability to dissolve

[4:29:05] the authority. If there was

[4:29:06] debt. My reason for standing

[4:29:09] here before you is you have a

[4:29:12] resolution that there is no

[4:29:13] debt confirming that a

[4:29:14] resolution that they will not

[4:29:18] enter into any diet until such

[4:29:19] time as they have a revenue

[4:29:26] stream it And I love you

[4:29:27] counsel's obligation, the

[4:29:28] city's obligation to assist

[4:29:33] what has been adopted by a

[4:29:34] private counsel and voted on

[4:29:37] by the taxpayers of the

[4:29:39] district to assist them and

[4:29:40] becoming viable to give them

[4:29:43] the opportunity to do so. And

[4:29:44] with that, I will yield to

[4:29:44] MISTER Step in to make his

[4:29:56] presentation.

[4:29:57] >> As Bob I'm my name is Adam

[4:29:59] Stepan. I am the chair of

[4:30:01] credit city Downtown

[4:30:01] Development Authority and

[4:30:02] thank you, PRESIDENT. Thank

[4:30:03] you. Members of counsel for

[4:30:06] having me. If I could get the

[4:30:13] slides. And we'll give you one

[4:30:16] cabbie out. I suffering from

[4:30:17] invisible illness that decided

[4:30:17] to take the better me today.

[4:30:18] So I do have some right.

[4:30:19] Rheumatoid arthritis? Flare up

[4:30:22] stuff. Happening in Iman

[4:30:24] medicated. So my mind can be

[4:30:24] very sharp and stay on task.

[4:30:27] But just know that I'm going

[4:30:28] to struggle a little bit and

[4:30:35] just bear with me. Here today

[4:30:35] because the resolution

[4:30:36] proposes to dissolve a voter

[4:30:40] approved. Legally constituted

[4:30:41] entity before it has even be

[4:30:42] been allowed to execute its

[4:30:46] mission. Dissolution is an

[4:30:47] absolute new color option to

[4:30:49] administrative puzzle. And I

[4:30:51] want to show you why saving

[4:30:52] the dda is the only path that

[4:30:54] honors our voters protects

[4:30:57] small business equity and

[4:30:59] guarantees the responsible

[4:31:00] economic stewardship of

[4:31:00] Colorado Springs. Historic

[4:31:03] Westside. We move on to slide

[4:31:06] 2.

[4:31:06] >> You should be able to use

[4:31:07] the clicker. Don't think you

[4:31:13] dance.

[4:31:13] >> What's ground this

[4:31:14] conversation with history and

[4:31:17] democracy? This dda wasn't

[4:31:18] imposed by city staff were

[4:31:22] handed down by a developer.

[4:31:23] It's a years long, plural

[4:31:25] years long. Grass roots.

[4:31:29] Citizen led effort. And in

[4:31:33] 2024 our community community

[4:31:34] explicitly voted to start

[4:31:35] Sunsetting are outdated,

[4:31:37] special improvement

[4:31:38] improvement maintenance

[4:31:38] districts and transition into

[4:31:42] a modernized e d a. Local

[4:31:43] merchants but skin in the

[4:31:43] game. Spending over $70,000 of

[4:31:47] their own capital. To fund the

[4:31:48] consulting and structural

[4:31:51] engineering of his district.

[4:31:52] When we talk about dissolving

[4:31:54] this board today, we are

[4:31:56] talking about actively

[4:31:57] throwing away $70,000 of

[4:31:59] private small business

[4:32:00] investment and and doing a

[4:32:01] clear mandate given by the

[4:32:02] voters of the West side less

[4:32:05] than 2 years ago. Before a

[4:32:08] single project was launched.

[4:32:10] We are threatening to tell our

[4:32:10] constituents that their votes

[4:32:18] and their money do not matter.

[4:32:18] So I want to address some of

[4:32:20] the administrative hurdles

[4:32:21] head-on because opponents are

[4:32:23] painting a picture of

[4:32:24] stagnation that is actually

[4:32:28] false. The narrative that the

[4:32:28] dda hasn't produced anything

[4:32:30] is completely dead on arrival.

[4:32:33] We have already and this is

[4:32:36] really in 6 months. That we've

[4:32:37] been able to meet as a proper

[4:32:46] board. We have. As go, we have

[4:32:47] already finalize our first

[4:32:48] plan of development submitted

[4:32:49] to the city and the city staff

[4:32:50] has already completed their

[4:32:53] first round of formal review.

[4:32:55] We have received their

[4:32:56] structural comments and our

[4:32:57] board is actively working on

[4:32:58] those exact revisions for a

[4:33:01] final some middle right now.

[4:33:02] This system is working exactly

[4:33:07] as Colorado law intended solve

[4:33:09] this authority. What we are

[4:33:10] actively in the middle of

[4:33:11] collaborative revision process

[4:33:13] with city staff is fiscal

[4:33:14] oversight. It is

[4:33:21] administrative sabotage. So

[4:33:22] there's a push to does all of

[4:33:25] us in favor of rolling our

[4:33:25] corridor into the Colorado

[4:33:26] Springs, Urban Renewal

[4:33:29] Authority. It was a bid. He's

[4:33:30] been proposed. Will talk on a

[4:33:33] minute. This in front of you

[4:33:38] is You know, this, this

[4:33:39] existing boundary that we have

[4:33:45] that is the dda. And what Ryan

[4:33:46] Lloyd with Eco architecture

[4:33:47] has done with this filled in

[4:33:50] some blanks of blue spots

[4:33:51] being the site is completely

[4:33:54] vacant. Ready for immediate

[4:33:58] redevelopment. The its called

[4:34:00] red and are utilize side non

[4:34:01] historically contribution

[4:34:02] contributing and ready for

[4:34:02] development in the near

[4:34:05] future. And then black, as you

[4:34:09] know, and are utilize site non

[4:34:09] historically contributing

[4:34:10] ready for development as the

[4:34:13] economy improves. I will say

[4:34:20] that, you know. In 19 0, 7 was

[4:34:21] annexing crowded city. It was

[4:34:25] the original downtown. We are

[4:34:26] in a unique spot. It didn't

[4:34:30] get blown up. It's still here.

[4:34:31] So we are in a unique

[4:34:32] situation with our to

[4:34:33] downtown's. There are 2

[4:34:35] Central business district that

[4:34:38] have wildly different needs.

[4:34:38] And as you can see this

[4:34:43] project here. Is is decades

[4:34:45] first and a lot of it is not

[4:34:47] urban renewal. It is not

[4:34:48] casting blight on this avenue

[4:34:50] in our beautiful historic

[4:34:51] district. Infill projects.

[4:34:55] They're small projects. That

[4:34:56] drives team is not interested

[4:34:58] in doing. Now. I will say that

[4:35:01] we're here. Part of the reason

[4:35:03] because of this node. At the

[4:35:07] very end by the freeway. Now,

[4:35:10] I will tell you that I myself

[4:35:12] and the crowded city

[4:35:13] stakeholders did not initiate

[4:35:15] this being on this map and I

[4:35:16] have emails that I'm happy to

[4:35:19] share with all of you. That

[4:35:20] say that this came as a

[4:35:21] suggestion from urban planning

[4:35:25] from city staff. That this MAY

[4:35:27] be a good idea to include

[4:35:28] these for future development

[4:35:33] and future tough. If we had

[4:35:33] known that we would all be

[4:35:35] standing in this position

[4:35:36] talking about the solution

[4:35:37] because of the choice to

[4:35:37] include these, I can assure,

[4:35:41] you know, on what? And there

[4:35:42] are a lot of ways to adjust

[4:35:43] this boundary map if it really

[4:35:47] is. The real issue and the

[4:35:49] real meat I am here, but no

[4:35:52] one asked myself. No one asked

[4:35:52] the board to have a

[4:35:53] conversation about this. So

[4:35:58] how would I? How would I I

[4:35:59] don't know. I think it's

[4:36:01] pretty impossible. Moving onto

[4:36:05] the next slide. So a lot of

[4:36:06] talk has been just pivot a

[4:36:13] bit. Structurally a dda is far

[4:36:14] superior for our current needs

[4:36:15] because it captures growth

[4:36:17] through tax increment

[4:36:18] financing without forcing

[4:36:19] automatic heavy new

[4:36:20] assessments directly onto

[4:36:24] struggling small properties.

[4:36:25] But more important. Let's look

[4:36:26] at the financial political

[4:36:29] reality of starting over. The

[4:36:30] da is what our community

[4:36:32] already debated, agreed on and

[4:36:35] legally past. So abandoning at

[4:36:37] to start a bid means throwing

[4:36:40] out years of work, spending

[4:36:42] well over $100,000 in new

[4:36:42] legal consulting election,

[4:36:45] administrative fees. And

[4:36:46] furthermore, forcing our local

[4:36:49] businesses and residents to go

[4:36:50] back to the ballot box for a

[4:36:52] completely different tax

[4:36:53] structure structure triggers

[4:36:56] severe voter fatigue. There's

[4:36:58] a very high probability that

[4:36:59] an expensive new bit campaign

[4:37:02] would lose at the polls. And

[4:37:02] so I'd asked why is it that we

[4:37:04] would risk $100,000 gamble

[4:37:06] when voters have already

[4:37:08] handed U.S. And approved.

[4:37:15] Working tool. So this is a

[4:37:16] newish one. Let's talk about

[4:37:17] the equity across our city.

[4:37:20] Just a few weeks ago. This

[4:37:21] very council reviewed a

[4:37:23] massive $458,000. Supplemental

[4:37:25] appropriation of City tax

[4:37:25] dollars to fund the corridor

[4:37:28] security on South Nevada. The

[4:37:30] West side is not asking the

[4:37:31] city for a half-million-dollar

[4:37:35] hand up. The occ Didi is

[4:37:36] designed to be completely self

[4:37:39] reliant but utilizing tax

[4:37:40] increment financing. We are

[4:37:41] simply asking to capture a

[4:37:42] portion of the new sales and

[4:37:45] property tax revenue generated

[4:37:47] right on Colorado Avenue and

[4:37:48] put it back on our own

[4:37:52] historic streets. If you

[4:37:52] dissolve the dda, you're

[4:37:54] stripping the west side of its

[4:37:55] only sell funding mechanism,

[4:37:56] forcing our businesses to

[4:37:58] either decline or come to this

[4:37:58] council later begging for

[4:38:00] general fund handouts. Please

[4:38:04] let us pay from progress. So

[4:38:07] here's a path forward. We

[4:38:08] agree with counselor Williams

[4:38:11] that. There shouldn't be

[4:38:13] lingering questions. The

[4:38:13] solution to uncertainty is

[4:38:17] clarity. Not elimination. We

[4:38:19] have a clear immediate path

[4:38:22] forward and our board is

[4:38:23] currently finalizing the

[4:38:23] comprehensive plan of

[4:38:24] development. And we are ready

[4:38:26] to submit next month with

[4:38:29] Based on those comments.

[4:38:31] Wasn't my time. Yes, thank

[4:38:46] Thank you.

[4:38:50] We will now go to

[4:38:50] public comment and I will

[4:38:54] start with those in support.

[4:38:55] >> I'm gonna your name.

[4:38:55] Please. Come up. Make sure the

[4:38:57] green button is on and limit

[4:38:59] your comments to 3 minutes.

[4:39:00] We're going to start with

[4:39:11] Elizabeth Salinas. Good

[4:39:13] afternoon. Members City

[4:39:16] Council. My name is Elizabeth

[4:39:17] Salinas. Our family owns 2

[4:39:18] commercial property is located

[4:39:19] on West Colorado Avenue.

[4:39:22] >> Well, we've lived since

[4:39:23] 1979.

[4:39:26] >> I'm here today to object to

[4:39:27] severe lack of lack

[4:39:29] transparency. The statutory

[4:39:29] overreach, the flood boundary

[4:39:31] lines of the newly formed

[4:39:32] Colorado City.

[4:39:32] >> Downtown Development

[4:39:36] Authority. First and foremost,

[4:39:37] our properties are in Adams

[4:39:38] crossing formally known as no

[4:39:39] man's land. Not know. Colorado

[4:39:43] City. Adams crossing has

[4:39:44] already been addressed through

[4:39:45] a major public planning

[4:39:48] process. Westside Avenue

[4:39:49] Action plan,

[4:39:50] multi-jurisdictional public

[4:39:52] improvement took 3 and a half

[4:39:52] years. And 41 million dollars

[4:39:53] of taxpayer funding to

[4:39:56] complete. Throughout that

[4:39:57] process impacted. Property

[4:39:59] owners were notified and

[4:39:59] included before during and

[4:40:04] after completion in 2021. This

[4:40:05] is why must ask, how Adams

[4:40:05] crossing get included in this

[4:40:10] new old Colorado City dda. We

[4:40:12] never received notice. Legal

[4:40:13] ballot informing us that are

[4:40:14] too commercial properties run

[4:40:17] the dda. Instead, the only

[4:40:18] document we received was a

[4:40:18] highly unusual oversize

[4:40:21] ballot. 15 pages in total mail

[4:40:22] to our Residents of 3, 5, 1,

[4:40:24] 8, West Colorado Avenue. Where

[4:40:27] we are registered voters. The

[4:40:28] ballot did not come from the

[4:40:30] El Paso County clerk and

[4:40:31] recorder's office. It was set

[4:40:32] by a private law firm based in

[4:40:33] Denver. Looks like junk mail

[4:40:35] when I saw our property

[4:40:37] schedule members listed on the

[4:40:39] ballot along with the new tax

[4:40:40] obligation. We would be

[4:40:42] required to pay if the measure

[4:40:43] was valid. We voted and mail

[4:40:45] the ballot to the Denver law

[4:40:49] firm before doing so. I copied

[4:40:51] every page and save the

[4:40:51] envelope. I also caught

[4:40:52] contacted several of the

[4:40:53] commercial property owners and

[4:40:54] asked whether they received a

[4:40:59] nice being similar. If they

[4:41:00] believe the ballot I received

[4:41:01] legitimate. Not one property

[4:41:01] owner I spoke with had

[4:41:03] received such a notice.

[4:41:05] Several believe must be fake.

[4:41:07] This race up serious questions

[4:41:09] about this a boundary election

[4:41:10] validity, transparency and

[4:41:14] administration. The boundary

[4:41:14] map, especially in there

[4:41:15] instead of a focus district, a

[4:41:19] cohesive commercial court. The

[4:41:20] da is drawn us 4 mile corridor

[4:41:23] from I-25 to Manitou springs.

[4:41:24] The Lions also peer to run

[4:41:25] through the alley behind West

[4:41:28] Colorado Avenue creating a

[4:41:29] narrow ribbon that excludes

[4:41:30] cross street merchants in the

[4:41:31] historic shopping district.

[4:41:34] But my properties are included

[4:41:36] just despite being far beyond

[4:41:37] that core. Yeah. Under the tax

[4:41:38] increment financing, structure

[4:41:42] tax revenue generated by our

[4:41:43] properties growth. We'll be

[4:41:44] capture to submit subsidize a

[4:41:46] tourist trip down the road all

[4:41:47] while being physically sitting

[4:41:51] outside the tourist hub. We

[4:41:52] put they pay nothing because

[4:41:53] they happen to face across

[4:41:55] street. Dda election should be

[4:41:57] transparent, administered by a

[4:41:58] local up out of Pasco County

[4:41:58] officials and confined to a

[4:42:00] fair logical urban footprint

[4:42:02] should not be a four-mile tax

[4:42:04] dragnet deployed by front wage

[4:42:05] law firm that exam score

[4:42:08] business as well. Paralyzing

[4:42:09] properties like mine and

[4:42:10] others. A great distance away

[4:42:11] for these reasons. I

[4:42:14] respectfully request City

[4:42:16] Council sot the occ pda. Thank

[4:42:18] you for your time leadership.

[4:42:18] Thank you.

[4:42:22] >> Next we have Eric quiet.

[4:42:27] >> Hello. It's Li I've been

[4:42:30] here. 61 years. I've got 3

[4:42:36] companies town. I've got 2

[4:42:38] properties affected by what

[4:42:38] these other people are trying

[4:42:44] to do call russet. I just want

[4:42:44] to say I got 2 properties

[4:42:49] downtown and the development

[4:42:50] downtown project could

[4:42:54] evidence and did excellent job

[4:42:57] let me know exactly what was

[4:43:00] going on. And I said, yes, all

[4:43:01] pay the extra tax money and

[4:43:05] they've done a good job. This

[4:43:08] situation never received

[4:43:11] anything from people on 2

[4:43:12] properties. I've got one. 35

[4:43:15] 11 West Colorado Avenue. The

[4:43:18] other ones 35 33 wells the

[4:43:21] avenue and the only way I even

[4:43:25] knew anything about was the

[4:43:26] Mecca Motel. People say, hey,

[4:43:28] you know what's going And I

[4:43:33] said let And so chief filled

[4:43:36] me and showed me where they

[4:43:41] want increase mill So I tried

[4:43:42] Cole trying to find out what's

[4:43:49] going on. Got 0 went down to

[4:43:50] 30 they have new 7th floor,

[4:43:50] talked up, landing tart,

[4:43:52] everybody. They're trying to

[4:43:54] figure out, ok, will a

[4:43:54] play-in. What's going on?

[4:43:56] Phone numbers. Because I

[4:44:02] wanted They didn't have much

[4:44:03] information. And so I tried

[4:44:06] numerous times to coal.

[4:44:09] Whoever the boss was up. And

[4:44:11] Amber to let him know I I'm

[4:44:14] not interested in this.

[4:44:17] Finally, I made contact and

[4:44:18] they said all we sent that to

[4:44:21] you 3 times. I said, no, you

[4:44:23] didn't. I said I've never

[4:44:27] received anything then by the

[4:44:28] time we got down to the

[4:44:28] conversation, this you're a

[4:44:33] lawyer. And I said, I said,

[4:44:34] Well, that's gonna make me

[4:44:34] about to get here and say,

[4:44:37] well, I got say, you know

[4:44:37] what, they want to do some

[4:44:41] down in old Colorado City to

[4:44:42] prepare or least educate

[4:44:44] people. All the way on the far

[4:44:49] west end of Yeah, I'm not

[4:44:50] interested paying more taxes

[4:44:53] what they're doing down there.

[4:44:58] The way they went about it

[4:45:00] think-tanks if they would have

[4:45:00] maybe one about the right way

[4:45:03] and their people, we could

[4:45:04] have some fun series to talk

[4:45:09] about. But that didn't happen.

[4:45:10] You know, kind of speed this

[4:45:11] up a little boat. I encourage

[4:45:23] you Dismiss out and Bono. We

[4:45:23] got questions. I'll be glad to

[4:45:26] answer. We do.

[4:45:27] >> Okay. COUNCILMAN Ryan

[4:45:33] Weber, I want to make sure I

[4:45:34] don't get confused about the

[4:45:35] 17 properties that were.

[4:45:38] >> Moved. Are we did that. We

[4:45:42] talking about any of those.

[4:45:45] Ok? So these are all ones that

[4:45:46] are legitimately part because

[4:45:50] they're in general area of

[4:45:50] these addresses. It's

[4:45:51] confusing and that area that

[4:45:55] no man's land is still very

[4:45:55] >> So that their 17 properties

[4:45:59] that got removed from this.

[4:46:03] And I just wanted to have some

[4:46:03] clarity about.

[4:46:07] >> Are any of these properties

[4:46:07] that?

[4:46:08] >> So anyway, that's that that

[4:46:11] was my only under. That was my

[4:46:11] only question.

[4:46:12] >> Somebody's got a list of

[4:46:20] those 17 property And then my

[4:46:23] Yeah, I do. Those properties

[4:46:26] were in the county and that

[4:46:26] was the reason. Yeah, they

[4:46:28] were the county, not the city

[4:46:29] right? So if you're in the

[4:46:32] city limits owned county.

[4:46:34] Okay. Well, now the city has

[4:46:39] been approaching me for years

[4:46:40] because behind across from me

[4:46:44] to the side of it and they've

[4:46:47] offered to let me come in for

[4:46:47] nothing.

[4:46:48] >> now now. He is one of the

[4:46:51] 70

[4:46:53] >> Okay. Why haven't agreed to

[4:46:55] that? Well, that's what I'm

[4:46:55] saying. You're not in the city

[4:47:01] right? Or not. Okay, but they

[4:47:02] But you're not a part of this.

[4:47:03] You've already been taken off

[4:47:04] the list.

[4:47:05] >> But thank you for your

[4:47:09] cause I I do.

[4:47:10] >> But I've got nothing that

[4:47:12] says and they like, and, you

[4:47:16] know, could.

[4:47:17] >> So so now I'm I don't know

[4:47:18] why speaking. Someone else

[4:47:21] should be speaking to the

[4:47:21] spigots.

[4:47:22] >> I'm just asking the

[4:47:22] question. That's why I'm

[4:47:24] asking question. Does this

[4:47:25] uncertainty?

[4:47:27] >> We were told a couple of

[4:47:31] months ago of this district,

[4:47:32] 17 properties are actually not

[4:47:36] part of the city.

[4:47:36] >> So they cannot be a part of

[4:47:41] this. D a.

[4:47:42] >> But we do all those. So

[4:47:43] that's right. But say he

[4:47:45] doesn't even know that well,

[4:47:46] because he's clear if you have

[4:47:48] never been an ox into Colorado

[4:47:51] Springs. So if you're not,

[4:47:54] then you are one of those 17

[4:47:54] properties.

[4:47:55] >> But we have since taken

[4:47:57] care of that. So thank you for

[4:47:58] your comments.

[4:48:00] >> So you will not be a part

[4:48:04] of even if I was to set the it

[4:48:07] MAY be a part of a next step

[4:48:08] we have. But I mean, that's

[4:48:10] what it was a gym. But I mean,

[4:48:11] right, because of risk.

[4:48:12] >> So I just want to be clear,

[4:48:16] right? All right. I can

[4:48:19] understand your lips. I was

[4:48:21] going to say we are pulling

[4:48:22] that ordinance will be able to

[4:48:24] work with this gentleman to

[4:48:26] confirm his address removal of

[4:48:26] 17 properties. The council

[4:48:27] voted on. Okay. Thank u next

[4:48:28] step. We have Christine.

[4:48:35] >> And worked.

[4:48:35] >> that just shows you how

[4:48:37] much confusion has been around

[4:48:37] this right?

[4:48:41] >> Okay.

[4:48:42] >> I am Christy their word

[4:48:44] presenting to district

[4:48:48] recommendation and MAY reflect

[4:48:49] my opinions. I did receive a

[4:48:52] notice. Indicating meeting for

[4:48:55] residential and the proposed

[4:48:59] comments city on 4/30/2024. 2

[4:49:01] of the residents who are with

[4:49:03] me at that meeting, one of

[4:49:04] which had to leave at noon.

[4:49:05] But she was here to verify how

[4:49:06] many people were actually at

[4:49:10] this meeting. The member

[4:49:11] Pierce is in attendance with 7

[4:49:17] to 9. Project meetings in the

[4:49:19] West side that I've my 12

[4:49:20] years and the own board were

[4:49:23] heavily attended. This

[4:49:26] disparities in attendance

[4:49:27] cause me to start asking West

[4:49:29] Siders if they had heard about

[4:49:31] this proposed e d a

[4:49:37] >> I no one who had.

[4:49:38] >> This concern cause me to

[4:49:41] speak before on AUGUST. 27th

[4:49:45] 2024 session of the City

[4:49:46] Council, Colorado Springs. I

[4:49:49] address the issue of dda

[4:49:50] notification for the April

[4:49:51] 30th meeting with such small

[4:49:55] turnout. And the lack of

[4:49:59] clarity of the g 8 in general.

[4:50:02] I requested that the city

[4:50:04] console that all information

[4:50:05] on the notation pride, the

[4:50:06] notification process be made

[4:50:16] available. I also requested.

[4:50:20] The ballot delivery

[4:50:20] information be available

[4:50:22] because again, turnouts very

[4:50:22] small for a very large group

[4:50:27] of people. In closing. I have

[4:50:31] a question. Because I

[4:50:32] sincerely believe many people

[4:50:35] were not notified. And I

[4:50:37] suspect many people did not

[4:50:39] get about is we cannot confirm

[4:50:40] either because neither respect

[4:50:42] there are aspects of what I

[4:50:46] requested was dealt with. I

[4:50:49] need to ask just a lack of

[4:50:50] notification with the

[4:50:51] possibilities of know, mean a

[4:50:52] vote. No means of voting

[4:50:53] affect personal property

[4:50:58] rights. At this point, I think

[4:50:59] you've heard enough you've

[4:51:01] gotten e-mails enough to

[4:51:04] understand that there's a

[4:51:04] problem. This was not done in

[4:51:08] a normal fashion, in my

[4:51:10] opinion. And it generated

[4:51:10] result that very likely

[4:51:12] shouldn't of happened. Thank

[4:51:15] you for listening. Thank you.

[4:51:24] >> Next step we have McCAnn

[4:51:29] >> Keep this brief. I believe

[4:51:30] that you should. It does

[4:51:31] office. I believe it is an

[4:51:34] unnecessary tax on local

[4:51:35] family businesses.

[4:51:36] >> I believe that the way it

[4:51:37] went about where many of these

[4:51:39] businesses had no idea of this

[4:51:40] bill.

[4:51:41] >> Until I had already been

[4:51:43] passed very inappropriate. I

[4:51:47] also believe that the lack of

[4:51:47] knowledge that they had about

[4:51:49] what is in the bill, the lack

[4:51:49] of details that they're given

[4:51:55] about. Levy things that's it's

[4:51:56] uncomfortable. And I think

[4:52:02] that it gives people a lot of

[4:52:02] Availability to take advantage

[4:52:03] of smaller businesses when

[4:52:06] there's no. Specific things

[4:52:07] listed in the just gets a lot

[4:52:14] of Sorry, I'm That leaves too

[4:52:14] much leeway for people to get

[4:52:15] taken advantage of when

[4:52:16] there's not specifications.

[4:52:20] Thank you.

[4:52:21] >> Next step, we have great

[4:52:27] Saunders.

[4:52:30] >> Afternoon hours, everybody.

[4:52:34] My name is Grace Saunders of

[4:52:35] operating a business is beers

[4:52:37] in shares in the 3100 block of

[4:52:38] West Colorado last 3 years, I

[4:52:42] never received notice. I

[4:52:43] currently n property on 1700

[4:52:45] block as well. And I never

[4:52:46] received anything on that

[4:52:52] either. I see if the new tax

[4:52:53] lines and property on the

[4:52:54] property in which that I don't

[4:52:55] there in 1700 bucks a suspect

[4:52:58] in it. So myself and other and

[4:53:00] or my landlord from previous

[4:53:01] location of the 3100 block

[4:53:03] never received these notices.

[4:53:04] We haven't been able to vote

[4:53:06] on Feels that's unfair. And

[4:53:09] we're asking just because I

[4:53:15] >> public comment and support

[4:53:17] move on to public public

[4:53:18] comment in opposition and

[4:53:18] first step we have Megan

[4:53:31] Morris.

[4:53:33] >> Hi, my name is Megan Morris

[4:53:35] have been a small business

[4:53:35] center in old Colorado City

[4:53:37] for the past 5 and a half

[4:53:38] years every day. See what

[4:53:41] makes isis a special. It's

[4:53:42] historic heart of Colorado

[4:53:43] Springs. People come here

[4:53:46] because of its charm as local

[4:53:48] businesses and its unique

[4:53:50] character. But those are

[4:53:50] preserving that character

[4:53:52] doesn't happen on its own. Our

[4:53:54] small businesses need support

[4:53:55] that goes beyond territory.

[4:53:58] Days. We need year-round

[4:54:01] investment to keep our streets

[4:54:02] clean, safe, welcoming and

[4:54:05] thriving. We need a long-term

[4:54:06] strategy. The helps businesses

[4:54:09] stay open and succeed. That's

[4:54:11] why having the voter approved

[4:54:13] downtown development

[4:54:15] authority. It's so important

[4:54:17] the need for the da in

[4:54:20] Colorado City is no longer a

[4:54:21] nice to have. It's essential

[4:54:24] to our future. For years. The

[4:54:26] Old Colorado Cities

[4:54:27] Association has relied on an

[4:54:28] incredible group of

[4:54:29] volunteers. They poured their

[4:54:32] hearts into the district,

[4:54:34] organizing events, supporting

[4:54:36] businesses advocating for the

[4:54:37] neighborhood and helping

[4:54:39] preserve everything that makes

[4:54:40] acc special. But they're

[4:54:43] exhausted. Volunteers cannot

[4:54:46] be expected to carry the

[4:54:47] long-term responsibility.

[4:54:49] Economic development,

[4:54:50] unification, marketing

[4:54:51] business support and strategic

[4:54:53] planning. They are overworked

[4:54:55] and that model is simply not

[4:54:59] so stable. It is easy to

[4:55:00] overlook this when you're not

[4:55:04] living it every day. Those of

[4:55:07] us who owned businesses here

[4:55:07] work here, invest our lives in

[4:55:12] old Colorado City. We see the

[4:55:13] challenges firsthand. We also

[4:55:15] see the incredible

[4:55:17] opportunity. We know that this

[4:55:18] district could we know what

[4:55:19] this district could become

[4:55:21] with the right resources? We

[4:55:25] need dedicated staff,

[4:55:27] sustainable funding and a

[4:55:28] strategic plan just like

[4:55:31] downtown Colorado Springs Hass

[4:55:32] dda would provide the

[4:55:34] structure and leadership

[4:55:35] needed to keep our streets

[4:55:38] clean, improve safety,

[4:55:39] support. Small businesses

[4:55:41] ensure that this historic

[4:55:43] district continues to strive

[4:55:47] and not just survive.

[4:55:48] Investing in occ is investing

[4:55:49] in one a Colorado Springs,

[4:55:53] greatest assets. A thriving

[4:55:54] historic district strengthens

[4:55:56] our local economy. It supports

[4:55:58] small businesses that create

[4:55:59] jobs and it preserves the

[4:56:00] place that both registered

[4:56:03] residents and visitors love.

[4:56:05] Please not do away with the

[4:56:07] dda. Please give old Colorado

[4:56:09] City. The tools, resources and

[4:56:11] support it needs to continue

[4:56:11] thriving for generations to

[4:56:15] come. Really wish that we

[4:56:17] would have been able to be in

[4:56:18] sooner today. I personally

[4:56:20] close my small business to be

[4:56:23] here today. Interest I am.

[4:56:24] Along my other small business

[4:56:26] owners. This is so incredibly

[4:56:29] important to us. So thank you

[4:56:30] for hearing Thank you for your

[4:56:38] time. Next. Stepping up been

[4:56:53] fryer.

[4:56:55] >> I'm Robin I'm general

[4:56:56] manager family owner of the

[4:56:57] Rocky Mountain Chocolate

[4:56:57] Factory. That's been in

[4:57:00] operation since 1982. My

[4:57:02] family has been on our app

[4:57:06] Raiders for the last 25 years.

[4:57:07] We are merchants, building

[4:57:09] owners and restaurants of car

[4:57:11] to city area. Running a

[4:57:14] business. No cholera city

[4:57:16] coming challenges because we

[4:57:17] must rely on the volunteers

[4:57:21] all current is city

[4:57:21] Association are also merchants

[4:57:22] mark hard to raise funds to

[4:57:25] promote the area. The occ dda

[4:57:29] is an investment in our future

[4:57:30] and local businesses an

[4:57:32] organized and dedicated voice

[4:57:32] to market manage growth.

[4:57:37] Internally. Occ business

[4:57:39] owners and residents are prone

[4:57:40] violent part of the city of

[4:57:45] Colorado Springs. Local

[4:57:45] families bring their visitors

[4:57:46] to La Cara City, frankly, need

[4:57:53] experience. By different tour

[4:57:55] 5 different spring, roughly

[4:57:58] 6200 from MAY to SEPTEMBER and

[4:57:59] make it acc a destination on

[4:58:03] their trip to Colorado.

[4:58:05] Shopping, the quaint and are

[4:58:05] quite old town atmosphere and

[4:58:07] enjoying lunch restaurants

[4:58:10] where locals had that. Some of

[4:58:14] them as best of conduct I'm

[4:58:14] here today to ask you to vote

[4:58:19] no on dissolving the tva. The

[4:58:20] dda will o'Connor the city the

[4:58:24] opportunity to enhance the

[4:58:26] success of businesses increase

[4:58:28] property values and continue

[4:58:29] to provide the locals and

[4:58:30] visitors with unique

[4:58:32] experience and her historical

[4:58:34] area with in Colorado Springs.

[4:58:34] Thank you for your

[4:58:40] consideration.

[4:58:47] >> Next step we have to

[4:58:49] >> Thank you for your time. My

[4:58:54] name is Kesha Crespin. My

[4:58:54] family has been a part of acc

[4:58:56] for over 50 years. My

[4:58:58] grandmother had a beauty shop

[4:59:02] there in the 70's and today

[4:59:02] after retiring from the

[4:59:03] federal services. 21 e for 24

[4:59:06] years. I now run a small

[4:59:09] business on Colorado Avenue.

[4:59:10] I'm also a volunteer at Cos

[4:59:12] Hope warming center. Well, I

[4:59:17] see firsthand now how much cc

[4:59:18] continues to struggle and how

[4:59:18] much it still needs,

[4:59:24] coordinated support. I've

[4:59:25] traveled all over the country

[4:59:26] and in almost every city, the

[4:59:27] historic district is treasured

[4:59:30] and invested in. All Colorado

[4:59:31] City. The original heart of

[4:59:33] the city deserves respect.

[4:59:37] >> And resources. Westside

[4:59:37] businesses have watched

[4:59:39] corporate corridors and large

[4:59:40] developers received

[4:59:41] significant support and

[4:59:44] attention. Meanwhile, the

[4:59:45] small business is barely

[4:59:48] hanging onto c c. Receive or

[4:59:51] see the concept. Homelessness,

[4:59:52] aging infrastructure and

[4:59:54] safety concerns with no ported

[4:59:55] coordinated mechanism to

[4:59:58] address them. The dda finally

[5:00:01] gives us that mechanism. It

[5:00:03] gives over 400 independent

[5:00:05] Westside business is a unified

[5:00:06] voice and a structured way to

[5:00:09] improve district, removing it.

[5:00:10] Maybe we've this fragmented

[5:00:13] and I'm protected. As someone

[5:00:14] trying to retire into my shot

[5:00:16] and barely hanging on. I can

[5:00:20] tell you firsthand we need

[5:00:21] stability. We need investment

[5:00:24] and we need it. E d a. In

[5:00:29] closing. Urge you to vote no

[5:00:29] disillusion, respect

[5:00:30] democracy. This was voted by

[5:00:35] the people. Respect our

[5:00:36] election results allow the dda

[5:00:37] board to finish its

[5:00:39] development plan. Give a

[5:00:41] Colorado city. The dedicated

[5:00:41] represents representation it

[5:00:43] earned at the ballot box. And

[5:00:44] thank you for your time and

[5:00:49] your service.

[5:01:04] >> Next step we have vast.

[5:01:07] You

[5:01:13] turned it off. My Okay.

[5:01:14] >> Hey, everyone hates public

[5:01:15] speaking. So thank you so much

[5:01:17] for your time. As many of you

[5:01:19] know, I was on the

[5:01:19] organization of Westside

[5:01:21] Neighbors Board in Carta City

[5:01:23] partnership board since about

[5:01:26] 2015. So you might remember

[5:01:27] names like David Bracket and

[5:01:28] Jonathan Eley and well in

[5:01:30] Clark, lots of different

[5:01:31] volunteers that have been

[5:01:33] involved in spearheading a

[5:01:35] solution. Cause. You're right.

[5:01:36] It's confusing. Could we

[5:01:37] talked to? There's lots of

[5:01:38] different boards. And so this

[5:01:40] was part of the conversation

[5:01:41] to help our community in

[5:01:43] streamlining problem solving.

[5:01:48] So in 2018, these volunteers

[5:01:49] hired dci out of Denver,

[5:01:50] downtown downtown Colorado,

[5:01:52] incorporated to say what do we

[5:01:53] do? And so there is an

[5:01:54] assessment done and that

[5:01:58] assessment lead to hey, let's

[5:01:59] look at a special districts

[5:02:00] along with some really other

[5:02:01] fun things like the lights

[5:02:02] over colder in court. Really

[5:02:04] branding our community. But

[5:02:05] they said special districts,

[5:02:09] we raise the money. In fact,

[5:02:10] $30,000 of that 72 raised came

[5:02:13] from the city of Colorado

[5:02:16] Springs and we were surprised

[5:02:17] just like everyone else that a

[5:02:18] dd a was suggested instead of

[5:02:19] a bit. We thought it was going

[5:02:24] to be a bit. And guess who

[5:02:26] vetted that? The Mayor City

[5:02:27] council, every single city

[5:02:28] department we had to talk to

[5:02:29] to make sure we could have a

[5:02:30] second dda in that tool was

[5:02:34] correct. So I'm just reminders

[5:02:36] you've heard this already with

[5:02:39] some of our board members

[5:02:42] here, but there were focus So

[5:02:43] you're right. Some of the

[5:02:43] focus groups only had 7 to 9

[5:02:45] people because they're a

[5:02:48] business owners. And we really

[5:02:50] deep dive conversations. But

[5:02:52] we had tons of focus group

[5:02:55] meetings, tons of surveys and

[5:02:59] again, the dda was vetted and

[5:03:01] concluded upon because of the

[5:03:02] input of these surveys. So

[5:03:03] folks said they identified occ

[5:03:06] is the entire corridor not

[5:03:09] just a blocks of that shopping

[5:03:11] district. So again, concluding

[5:03:12] that this was the right based

[5:03:12] on the input from the

[5:03:16] residents. So I think that's

[5:03:18] super cool are willing to tax

[5:03:18] ourselves. We're willing to do

[5:03:21] that. And guess what? The

[5:03:22] people that don't want to

[5:03:23] we're going to go back to the

[5:03:25] ballot if you don't dissolve

[5:03:26] us and we'll have more

[5:03:27] opportunity talk to people

[5:03:29] about that tech scene question

[5:03:31] because that question didn't

[5:03:34] pass it. But the dda spreads

[5:03:36] the burden across that entire

[5:03:37] corridor. Instead of just a

[5:03:39] few blocks to. So the tax is

[5:03:40] less and that was on purpose

[5:03:44] as well. We do. The due

[5:03:45] diligence now need to get

[5:03:48] across the finish line. Let

[5:03:48] invest in ourselves and not

[5:03:49] dissolve the dda. Thank you.

[5:03:53] Thank you.

[5:03:54] >> Next step we have Julia

[5:04:04] Evans. Next step. We have

[5:04:09] Karen Hazelhurst.

[5:04:11] >> Good afternoon thank you

[5:04:12] all.

[5:04:15] >> My name is Karen Hazelhurst

[5:04:17] and I have been on Colorado

[5:04:20] City Association board for 8

[5:04:21] years.

[5:04:22] >> and I've been on the

[5:04:25] marketing committee for that

[5:04:26] long. And as Megan talked

[5:04:29] about the burdens.

[5:04:30] >> On the volunteer

[5:04:30] organization that we've had up

[5:04:35] to now. It's it's been great

[5:04:36] because we've been trying to

[5:04:40] help all the businesses I've

[5:04:41] taken calls from businesses

[5:04:42] talked through the night. I've

[5:04:44] been in others the worst. We

[5:04:48] want to really Colorado c

[5:04:49] develop and grow and have, you

[5:04:53] know, opportunity for

[5:04:54] restructure. And you can't do

[5:04:55] that with a volunteer board.

[5:04:58] And I was really excited when

[5:05:00] the voters voted to have this

[5:05:03] tda that would help Colorado

[5:05:07] City, you know, and it's

[5:05:10] already been voted. I will

[5:05:13] tell you, I live in all

[5:05:16] Colorado City out of the

[5:05:19] geographic district for me to

[5:05:22] I live on vision history and I

[5:05:22] have since I moved here in

[5:05:24] 2007, my husband on his or

[5:05:27] hers had since 2000, he once

[5:05:31] on city Council to so, you

[5:05:32] know, I understand the dilemma

[5:05:34] and the decisions that you

[5:05:36] have to make. But asking you

[5:05:38] to please, you know, look at

[5:05:40] this and help the West side.

[5:05:43] You know, grow with the

[5:05:45] dedicated team of people and

[5:05:48] money to do this. Volunteer

[5:05:50] organization can't keep up

[5:05:52] that growth for that long. So

[5:05:57] please vote no and let the dda

[5:05:59] Megan. I loved what Megan

[5:06:00] said. You know about the

[5:06:02] businesses about having an

[5:06:07] organized, the da and the plan

[5:06:08] is already being organized.

[5:06:11] Now, I know Adam has that in

[5:06:13] front of you. And you know, we

[5:06:15] plan to take that flow. You

[5:06:16] know, I I listened to some of

[5:06:19] the people that talked about

[5:06:21] not getting the paper work not

[5:06:24] getting all of that. I was at

[5:06:25] a lot of those meetings when

[5:06:28] the consulting company, you

[5:06:30] know, they had sent out all of

[5:06:31] that and gave everybody

[5:06:32] residents and commercial

[5:06:36] businesses, the opportunity to

[5:06:37] come in here about what was

[5:06:38] happening. And, you know, it

[5:06:39] might not out to everybody,

[5:06:41] but I know that they need to

[5:06:42] do that. And so police say

[5:06:46] now. Thank you. Thank you.

[5:06:49] >> Next step Timothy Talent.

[5:06:52] Timothy Trail.

[5:06:56] >> Sorry, I don't hear very

[5:06:58] The veteran try to brain

[5:06:59] injury, business center and

[5:07:01] occ pretty need there

[5:07:05] specifically chose that place

[5:07:05] because I'm at the people and

[5:07:10] it's a great community have

[5:07:10] dedicated myself to mental

[5:07:12] health working in that field

[5:07:16] for the last 25 years as a

[5:07:19] professor counseling know, cut

[5:07:21] especially in. And I've really

[5:07:22] been able to my wife and I

[5:07:23] started a little store there

[5:07:26] where we can just come meet

[5:07:26] with the community and really

[5:07:29] make something of it. We do

[5:07:30] need stability We do need

[5:07:36] support. I was just looking at

[5:07:37] over we got roughly about 400

[5:07:41] small businesses in that area.

[5:07:41] But let's just break it down.

[5:07:45] If we take 100 and that strip

[5:07:46] right there, it's about a

[5:07:49] little bit over 100 and at

[5:07:54] 3.0, 0, 7, tax that we get in

[5:07:57] revenue to goes to Colorado

[5:07:59] Springs. That comes to about

[5:08:01] 1.0, 2, 3 million dollars a

[5:08:03] year that we give to Colorado

[5:08:06] Springs threw ourselves tax.

[5:08:08] So I'd say we're doing pretty

[5:08:09] good. Even thanks. Only about

[5:08:11] 100 a little bit over 100

[5:08:12] businesses, not even including

[5:08:21] all the rest. So. Just in the

[5:08:21] last months to businesses

[5:08:22] close their door within 100

[5:08:26] yards me couple of weeks ago,

[5:08:27] another business down the

[5:08:28] street said they're going to

[5:08:29] have to close their doors

[5:08:29] after being open for several

[5:08:33] years. Not been there very

[5:08:34] long. Some of you have already

[5:08:38] said that they're struggling.

[5:08:39] We were only been there 6 and

[5:08:39] a half months. We're seeing

[5:08:42] that every day with their

[5:08:43] neighbors, how people are

[5:08:48] struggling in. Speeding is

[5:08:49] starting happen up. We had too

[5:08:52] many hit by a car couple weeks

[5:08:53] ago on things like that. It's

[5:08:53] just it's just very

[5:08:57] interesting thing to see. If

[5:08:59] we follow that. If we don't

[5:09:01] get the support we need, let's

[5:09:03] say we do people losing

[5:09:04] people. If we lose roughly

[5:09:11] 70%. Doors close over the next

[5:09:13] 3, 5, years, that's almost a

[5:09:13] million dollars a year. The

[5:09:15] Colorado Springs loses for

[5:09:19] free. I mean, in joint a time

[5:09:19] into I mean, that's a lot

[5:09:22] million dollars a year. And

[5:09:23] that's that's remember. That's

[5:09:25] a very conservative number.

[5:09:27] It's only based off of 100

[5:09:28] small businesses. There's

[5:09:30] around 400 in that area. So

[5:09:33] that's a huge number. Bigger

[5:09:35] than a million dollars year to

[5:09:37] roughly 160,000 to be exact.

[5:09:41] Pretty close to a million and

[5:09:43] for and for those and only got

[5:09:44] 14 seconds. For those who

[5:09:47] weren't guy wasn't either. But

[5:09:48] you don't know about the dd n

[5:09:49] stuff can be a part of it. If

[5:09:52] it if keeps going or if we

[5:09:53] have to keep volunteering on

[5:09:54] our own for nothing, come be a

[5:09:57] part of it. Neighbors said the

[5:09:59] family and be supportive.

[5:10:00] Appreciate your time. Thank

[5:10:04] you that.

[5:10:05] >> Next step we have Andrea

[5:10:11] Warner. Andria Warner. Jim

[5:10:18] Richardson.

[5:10:21] >> Thank you. PRESIDENT

[5:10:24] Council and the council

[5:10:25] members. My name is Jim

[5:10:26] Richardson. I'm a resident in

[5:10:33] old Colorado City I am a voted

[5:10:34] board member of the occ Dd

[5:10:39] a&m. Start is this way the

[5:10:40] downtown development authority

[5:10:45] dda. You know, Caryn his city

[5:10:48] is the result of a citizen led

[5:10:48] initiative approved by voters

[5:10:50] in 19. I'm sorry in 2024. Our

[5:10:54] goal. Was to let independent

[5:10:58] Westside business owners and

[5:10:59] residents have a say in how

[5:11:01] they want to they're the

[5:11:05] historical value of occ. The

[5:11:09] occ dda would give local mom

[5:11:11] pot shops. The market in

[5:11:13] vehicle that the historic

[5:11:14] district in management to

[5:11:16] manage the growth internally

[5:11:19] and not be in a mercy.

[5:11:21] Large-scale developers are

[5:11:24] retail chains. The bottom line

[5:11:27] again, he's the occ dda was

[5:11:29] formed to let the occ have a

[5:11:34] voice at the table. To achieve

[5:11:35] this goal. As mentioned before

[5:11:38] over thought 70,000 dollars

[5:11:40] are spent to hire a special

[5:11:41] district consultant Centro

[5:11:44] Incorporated. None of this all

[5:11:46] this money came first to pay

[5:11:49] for this consultant. Was

[5:11:53] donation? Some private funds.

[5:11:57] As well as stated early as the

[5:11:59] city's community development

[5:12:01] and economic development

[5:12:02] departments and the Colorado

[5:12:02] Springs Urban Renewal

[5:12:06] Authority. To engage

[5:12:10] stockholders are stakeholders

[5:12:10] Centro on behalf of the occ

[5:12:13] partnership. Mailed surveys to

[5:12:17] property owners and registered

[5:12:18] voters within those with saint

[5:12:21] in the boundaries. In question

[5:12:21] and held informational

[5:12:24] meetings for residents,

[5:12:26] business owners and property

[5:12:29] owners as well as occ related

[5:12:30] board members and city of

[5:12:34] Colorado Springs staff. With

[5:12:35] feedback and months of review

[5:12:37] in the best way to manage and

[5:12:41] fun improvements in occ. I Dd

[5:12:41] a was considered the best

[5:12:47] option. Based on this

[5:12:48] research, the council referred

[5:12:53] creation of the dda to a vote.

[5:12:54] Of residents and commercial

[5:12:54] property owners inside the

[5:12:57] proposed dda boundaries. The

[5:13:02] dda formation past. And a vote

[5:13:06] can of this community. I see

[5:13:08] no justification. Her

[5:13:10] rationale for the city council

[5:13:17] to dissolve tda. Is all it now

[5:13:18] completely overturned center.

[5:13:18] Matt Democratic will of the

[5:13:25] community. Urging to vote no

[5:13:28] on this. Dissolution. Thank

[5:13:32] you.

[5:13:32] >> Next step we have Melanie

[5:13:38] Richardson.

[5:13:46] >> said, Thank you so much for

[5:13:50] >> your time and your talent

[5:13:51] and especially for your ear

[5:13:55] and your consideration. My

[5:13:56] family made Colorado Springs

[5:13:58] are hit home over 100 years

[5:14:02] ago. William Palmer, Jackson.

[5:14:05] Palmer. Would be rolling in

[5:14:12] his grave. To see the

[5:14:13] dilapidated condition of this

[5:14:16] beautiful city of the We're

[5:14:23] all just care takers. How

[5:14:24] ironic it is that the sec

[5:14:28] merchants and businesses. Are

[5:14:28] having to close their doors

[5:14:34] today. To come here. To renew

[5:14:38] economic development. For Just

[5:14:39] strikes me as a little

[5:14:47] chillier. The residence of

[5:14:52] those cc voted in the dda and

[5:14:55] the city Council, in my

[5:14:57] opinion, has agency to to to

[5:15:04] mitigate that vote. Ignoring

[5:15:06] pardon me, ignoring the will

[5:15:10] of the residence of Old

[5:15:11] Colorado City is not just a

[5:15:15] sign disrespect. It is another

[5:15:18] sign that we must have group

[5:15:21] of citizens at the helm who

[5:15:24] are willing to begin to invest

[5:15:28] and move this beautiful city

[5:15:30] hit again with the same spirit

[5:15:33] as my grandmother and William

[5:15:37] Jackson Palmer. The occ dda is

[5:15:40] such a group. So I

[5:15:43] respectfully ask. That you

[5:15:45] vote against dissolving thank

[5:15:48] you.

[5:15:51] >> Next up, we have.

[5:15:54] >> Nancy Miller

[5:16:03] >> She's not. Annie Trejo.

[5:16:06] >> Good afternoon. It's on for

[5:16:07] help. It's so nice to be

[5:16:09] before you and appreciate all

[5:16:09] hearing us Small business

[5:16:13] owner in Oklahoma City excuse

[5:16:14] me, call on Circa Vintage,

[5:16:17] which stops in 2023. Coptic

[5:16:20] occ in 2020. But originally my

[5:16:21] business partner founded a

[5:16:23] business called which is

[5:16:23] located at 2 for 2 and a half

[5:16:26] north to Hunt Street. We would

[5:16:28] not have able to make that

[5:16:29] business happen without the

[5:16:30] downtown partnership,

[5:16:30] investing in small businesses.

[5:16:33] So we started to pop up. And

[5:16:35] with that pop up, we brought

[5:16:36] in 30 small businesses to come

[5:16:37] and be a part of a store

[5:16:39] front. They were not just

[5:16:40] people who would bring their

[5:16:41] goods to the storefront. They

[5:16:43] would actually work in the

[5:16:43] storefront. We would all work

[5:16:45] together and created this

[5:16:47] beautiful community. And very

[5:16:47] quickly, we outgrew that

[5:16:48] storefront and realized that

[5:16:52] we had more space excuse me,

[5:16:53] less space and more vendors on

[5:16:53] our waitlist. And so we

[5:16:54] started identifiable. Colorado

[5:16:55] City was the right space

[5:16:59] press. Just by virtue of

[5:17:00] happenstance. The connections

[5:17:05] that we made were with tools

[5:17:05] of somebody who I know which

[5:17:06] is that you are here. She told

[5:17:08] us, hey, let's be neighbors.

[5:17:10] There's so much retail space

[5:17:11] available in City and we were

[5:17:13] down like 3% occupancy

[5:17:13] downtown. There is nowhere

[5:17:16] else to go downtown. And so we

[5:17:17] looked at all Colorado City

[5:17:17] and we said this place is

[5:17:18] amazing. I love there for 3

[5:17:22] years as a resident and we

[5:17:23] understood that there was so

[5:17:23] much potential the historical

[5:17:26] nature of it. The fact that so

[5:17:27] many businesses had closed

[5:17:31] down and there was opportunity

[5:17:32] people like me in their 30's,

[5:17:34] women of color to come step in

[5:17:35] and be a co-owner of a

[5:17:37] business that would not just

[5:17:39] have Goodson there. But that

[5:17:41] would actually employ small

[5:17:43] business owners. So across the

[5:17:44] 3 stores, now we have 200

[5:17:45] small businesses that function

[5:17:48] out of our space. The

[5:17:49] community is vibrant. I don't

[5:17:51] know how explain that to you.

[5:17:52] And it is because of your

[5:17:53] citizens. It's because of us.

[5:17:56] We're the ones who are pulling

[5:17:57] our weight to everything that

[5:17:59] we can. And I knew that I

[5:18:00] wanted to get involved. And

[5:18:02] when I tried to get involved I

[5:18:02] knew it was there on model

[5:18:03] because I got burned out of

[5:18:07] year. I tried my best. And

[5:18:08] then when we started having

[5:18:10] conversations and much to say

[5:18:11] the fact that we're all kind

[5:18:11] of an agreement here about the

[5:18:13] dda being the best solution.

[5:18:15] >> Is a bit of a miracle.

[5:18:17] Okay? Because we tried so many

[5:18:17] solutions. We have tried

[5:18:18] solutions.

[5:18:22] >> As a community and I just I

[5:18:22] want you all to hear our

[5:18:23] hearts and our voices.

[5:18:25] Colorado Springs, last small

[5:18:26] businesses they love

[5:18:27] supporting local tourist come

[5:18:29] in and they beg us as a store

[5:18:31] front to come to their city

[5:18:33] and start a small business

[5:18:35] like theirs. So you have an

[5:18:35] opportunity to support

[5:18:36] something really incredible.

[5:18:38] And I know don't. How did not

[5:18:39] happen overnight? We all knew

[5:18:40] that that came because of a d

[5:18:41] d a we need the same thing in

[5:18:43] a car city desperately. We

[5:18:46] cannot keep doing this. You're

[5:18:47] going to lose. Small

[5:18:47] businesses are going to lose

[5:18:50] people who are attracted to

[5:18:52] our city because of Colorado

[5:18:53] City. Thank you so much for

[5:18:58] your time. Please don't know

[5:19:01] >> next step can't Hutchinson?

[5:19:08] Kit. That is correct.

[5:19:10] >> my name is Kate Hutchinson.

[5:19:12] And Ion Little Heart Rate cut

[5:19:12] is a small gift shop in old

[5:19:13] Colorado City. And I've been

[5:19:14] in business in the

[5:19:17] neighborhood for 8 years now.

[5:19:19] Well, Colorado City is a

[5:19:20] beautiful little historic gem

[5:19:21] in our city and deserves the

[5:19:22] care and attention that the

[5:19:23] main downtown district gets.

[5:19:25] We are all local small

[5:19:28] businesses and we are brings

[5:19:29] charm to Colorado Springs and

[5:19:30] makes the city desirable to

[5:19:33] visit and live them. It is a

[5:19:34] true second downtown in our

[5:19:36] city and I love being a part

[5:19:38] of it in the last 8 years,

[5:19:39] i've seen a number of

[5:19:41] different folks rise up as

[5:19:43] volunteers to run the various

[5:19:43] organizations that we have

[5:19:44] tried to support our

[5:19:46] neighborhood business district

[5:19:47] and eventually they all run

[5:19:48] out and have to hand the reins

[5:19:49] over to someone else. She

[5:19:51] heard repeatedly from all of

[5:19:53] us, as you can imagine, this

[5:19:53] inconsistency is not great for

[5:19:57] getting things done. We have

[5:19:58] really need paid staff who are

[5:20:00] trying to run their own

[5:20:01] business is to and can focus

[5:20:02] on building a sustainable

[5:20:04] future for our neighborhood.

[5:20:04] We are scrappy, but we are

[5:20:09] struggling. As a neighborhood.

[5:20:09] We spent a lot of money over

[5:20:11] the past few years to work

[5:20:12] with the city and a consultant

[5:20:14] to figure out the best

[5:20:14] direction for an organization

[5:20:16] that would support us

[5:20:18] appropriately. And the dda

[5:20:19] came out of that. And MAY I

[5:20:19] remind you, it passed in a

[5:20:22] popular vote. Dissolving it

[5:20:23] now is going against the

[5:20:26] public. Will it is

[5:20:27] undemocratic. It's also

[5:20:28] throwing your local small

[5:20:30] businesses under the bus. We

[5:20:30] would have to start over with

[5:20:32] a different plan that would

[5:20:34] cost even more money. But we

[5:20:36] don't have or businesses will

[5:20:38] just close or move somewhere

[5:20:39] else. And we will lose. All.

[5:20:40] Colorado City has a charming,

[5:20:42] historic shopping district.

[5:20:45] Please don't let that happen.

[5:20:46] The city claims to be

[5:20:47] supportive of small business

[5:20:48] and now is your chance to show

[5:20:51] us. But you support us. Please

[5:20:53] listen to the voters in our

[5:20:54] district who voted to pass the

[5:20:56] dda and listen to all the

[5:20:57] small business owners here who

[5:20:58] have taken time out of our

[5:20:59] very busy schedules to fight

[5:21:02] for our neighborhood today and

[5:21:05] vote against dissolving Rd d a

[5:21:06] give us a chance to get this

[5:21:09] tda up and running and get our

[5:21:10] neighborhood thriving. Thank

[5:21:16] you for your time. Next step

[5:21:20] we have pack stock. Allison

[5:21:31] Daniel.

[5:21:33] >> Good afternoon Council. I'm

[5:21:34] Allison Daniel and Iran.

[5:21:35] Stellar Propeller studio in

[5:21:38] old Colorado City. And I am

[5:21:39] new to the board as well like

[5:21:41] gyms. So I've been involved

[5:21:42] less than a year at this

[5:21:48] point. And so I wasn't around

[5:21:49] for the votes. I wasn't around

[5:21:50] when there was the confusion.

[5:21:51] I would like to personally

[5:21:54] apologize to you guys. I

[5:21:55] wasn't around when that

[5:21:56] happened, but I can see how

[5:21:58] that would be extremely

[5:21:59] frustrating. And I could see

[5:22:00] how you would assume that

[5:22:01] there's something nefarious

[5:22:06] up. With that situation. I can

[5:22:07] tell you from someone who's

[5:22:10] been serving on the board

[5:22:10] since the beginning of the

[5:22:11] year is not a nefarious group

[5:22:15] at all. Like we. We up and we

[5:22:16] really are trying to like

[5:22:18] figure out what will make

[5:22:19] business better for the people

[5:22:20] of Elkhart, a city like all of

[5:22:22] us really care. So I just want

[5:22:23] to say that, too. But I am

[5:22:27] sorry that happened. And I

[5:22:29] yeah, I mean, I agree with

[5:22:30] with what everyone else is

[5:22:31] said to like just going

[5:22:32] against the will of the voters

[5:22:34] is are really.

[5:22:35] >> feels like a slippery s#

[5:22:35] #

[5:22:36] #

[5:22:41] to me. Believe in democracy

[5:22:43] and I just I feel like I have

[5:22:46] tried to ask multiple people.

[5:22:51] Why a bid is better and no one

[5:22:52] has explained it to me. No one

[5:22:56] has given me any.

[5:22:57] >> Thing to grasp onto that

[5:22:59] make made it make sense. In

[5:23:03] fact, one of our last

[5:23:03] meetings, COUNCILWOMAN

[5:23:05] Williams, when I was trying to

[5:23:06] ask this, said it makes sense

[5:23:07] to me, but it doesn't make

[5:23:10] sense to you. Which is not

[5:23:12] really because I think I'm a

[5:23:13] reasonably intelligent person.

[5:23:15] I would just I would just love

[5:23:15] to hear from anyone like why

[5:23:18] is a bid better? And I think

[5:23:23] it would be fair. I also have

[5:23:26] I find it troubling that thing

[5:23:27] is to dissolve right now. But

[5:23:27] there's no plan in place like

[5:23:31] nobody came. And said this is

[5:23:32] not the right tool, but I have

[5:23:34] an idea. And here's here's

[5:23:37] why. This is better. This is

[5:23:38] how it's going to help the

[5:23:40] people more. So maybe let's

[5:23:41] try this. I feel like it's

[5:23:42] just been like, no, let's just

[5:23:44] kill it.

[5:23:47] >> And we we really want to

[5:23:48] help old Colorado City like we

[5:23:52] really care. So I've just been

[5:23:53] very dillusioned by this

[5:23:56] whole experience. And I and

[5:23:59] saddened to think that we

[5:24:01] might get slash before we even

[5:24:01] get started because we do

[5:24:04] really want to help people.

[5:24:05] Yeah, just asked, how would

[5:24:09] you feel if you volunteered to

[5:24:10] serve on a board and you're

[5:24:11] excited. It was counter first

[5:24:12] time and you like love the

[5:24:13] city and then somebody from

[5:24:16] inside your own board is like

[5:24:20] we're gonna get rid of it.

[5:24:22] It's been it's been very

[5:24:22] disheartening. So, yeah, I

[5:24:23] would ask you to please don't

[5:24:26] know. Just give us a chance.

[5:24:33] Yes, appreciate you.

[5:24:34] >> COUNCILMAN, Hold.

[5:24:36] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT,

[5:24:37] I just wanted to specifically

[5:24:40] say to you, Alison, you know,

[5:24:41] watched it from afar for a few

[5:24:43] years through your through

[5:24:44] your work. And I was really

[5:24:45] excited when last year your

[5:24:48] name came up and we were

[5:24:51] voting to have you serve on

[5:24:51] the board and regardless of

[5:24:54] the outcome of today's vote, I

[5:24:55] think you should be really

[5:24:55] proud of yourself for stepping

[5:24:58] up to the plate to volunteer

[5:24:59] for occ and for the advocacy

[5:25:04] it done best forward. I know

[5:25:04] this like one of your first

[5:25:06] experience really being on a

[5:25:09] board and what an experience.

[5:25:10] So again, regardless of the

[5:25:11] outcome, I think you should be

[5:25:16] really proud of yourself.

[5:25:17] >> Except have Michelle

[5:25:26] Garrett.

[5:25:27] >> All right. Good morning.

[5:25:28] Just getting afternoon. Now,

[5:25:31] Ron notes. Good afternoon,

[5:25:33] MADAM. PRESIDENT City Council

[5:25:33] members, my name is Michelle

[5:25:37] Garrett. A Colorado native and

[5:25:38] I live in old Colorado City

[5:25:41] and I own my own business. Its

[5:25:42] gratitude. Zero-proof

[5:25:43] beverages is the first

[5:25:44] non-alcoholic bar and Colorado

[5:25:48] Springs. We're located 28th in

[5:25:51] Colorado. You know, we're one

[5:25:53] of the handful of the unique

[5:25:53] independents stories that

[5:25:58] you'll find an occ. I'm active

[5:25:59] in my community. My employees

[5:26:00] live in the community. My

[5:26:02] regulars live in the community

[5:26:03] as a bartender, you often hear

[5:26:03] people talk about the

[5:26:06] neighborhood. What they need,

[5:26:07] what they don't need, what

[5:26:12] concerns them. I was voted on

[5:26:13] to the old Colorado City dda

[5:26:15] at the end of last year and

[5:26:15] has served as secretary since

[5:26:20] FEBRUARY. The West side of the

[5:26:21] unique location full of

[5:26:22] independently owned shops,

[5:26:24] timeless character in history.

[5:26:25] The history of Colorado Start

[5:26:29] tunnel. Colorado City. The

[5:26:29] oldest standing stone wall

[5:26:32] Paso County actually exists in

[5:26:32] my bar, which I repaired and

[5:26:34] brought back to life's bit by

[5:26:39] bit on my own dollar. In 2020

[5:26:39] for the people who live and

[5:26:40] work on the Westside voted to

[5:26:42] have a d d a not even 2 years

[5:26:46] later. COUNCILWOMAN Brandi

[5:26:47] Williams is now leading the

[5:26:52] movement to dissolve the dda.

[5:26:53] COUNCILWOMAN Brandi Williams

[5:26:56] sat on the occ dda board as a

[5:26:57] liaison to bridge local

[5:26:58] legislative goals with

[5:27:01] specific community operations.

[5:27:02] As a member on that board, I

[5:27:05] can say without a doubt.

[5:27:06] Brandi Williams did not bridge

[5:27:10] any gaps. She created them.

[5:27:12] From monthly meetings to plans

[5:27:13] of development council him and

[5:27:15] went William sat quietly Self

[5:27:16] admitted she had never read

[5:27:20] the 2024. Formation documents

[5:27:23] which included survey results

[5:27:24] dda versus bid budget

[5:27:26] comparisons, ballot language

[5:27:27] and he background information

[5:27:27] prior to her moving to

[5:27:30] dissolve the dda. The dda

[5:27:34] empowers. Local businesses

[5:27:36] such as mine and gives

[5:27:37] dedicated voices to manage

[5:27:40] growth internally. The website

[5:27:41] is not like the rest of

[5:27:42] Colorado Springs. When you

[5:27:43] drive here, it feels

[5:27:43] different. When you visit

[5:27:44] here, you feel that the heart

[5:27:48] of Colorado is beauty major in

[5:27:50] history. The stores that have

[5:27:51] been tirelessly run by

[5:27:52] individuals who want something

[5:27:53] different, something with

[5:27:56] charm, Souls, Spirit that

[5:27:56] large-scale developers do not

[5:27:59] possess. These businesses have

[5:28:03] fought for everything t exist

[5:28:04] without significant financial

[5:28:04] backing and still manage to

[5:28:09] make occ feel special. I hate

[5:28:10] to see the date of the shops

[5:28:11] and shop owners who poured

[5:28:12] everything they have into our

[5:28:12] community are wiped out

[5:28:13] because City council sees

[5:28:16] deeper pockets. I would like

[5:28:19] the city Council vote. No to

[5:28:21] the dissolution resolution. I

[5:28:21] believe that the citizens of

[5:28:22] occ must have their election

[5:28:26] results honored. I believe

[5:28:28] that the dda board needs to be

[5:28:29] given a chance to exist, to

[5:28:30] grow and accomplish what's

[5:28:31] best for the scene. You would

[5:28:36] need place called home.

[5:28:37] >> Next step we have family

[5:28:48] there.

[5:28:50] >> Hi, my name is Emily Fair.

[5:28:51] You MAY have read my email

[5:28:53] that I submitted on Sunday.

[5:28:54] The statement is meant to

[5:28:56] piggyback those thoughts. My

[5:28:57] husband and I opened our

[5:28:59] gallery and frame shop. 45

[5:29:01] degree in 2010, we bought our

[5:29:10] home. This is me off. So bad.

[5:29:11] We bought our at 11 think

[5:29:12] which are us in 2011. My

[5:29:16] history is as part of old

[5:29:17] Colorado City business

[5:29:20] community started in 2002 as a

[5:29:22] business owner and resident, i

[5:29:24] have lived it. The results of

[5:29:28] a dwindling. The result of the

[5:29:30] ongoing funding and city

[5:29:30] oversight in a vital Colorado

[5:29:34] Springs neighborhood. But the

[5:29:35] city Council and voter

[5:29:37] approved promise of the dda. I

[5:29:38] have been given a glimmer of

[5:29:40] hope. That my investments have

[5:29:43] not been in vain. The dda

[5:29:46] provides real hope. Hope of

[5:29:48] representation, cope of

[5:29:51] infrastructure, hope of

[5:29:52] economic identity, hope of

[5:29:54] recognition and hope for

[5:29:55] stability. The list goes on

[5:29:56] and But none of this will

[5:29:59] happen. If you dissolve the

[5:30:01] dda, there is simply no or

[5:30:05] funding to pivot. We need

[5:30:07] help. Now to dissolve the dda

[5:30:10] would be a massive mistake. It

[5:30:11] undermines Democratic will of

[5:30:13] the West side voters and kills

[5:30:15] a vital economic tool before

[5:30:17] it is given a chance to work.

[5:30:21] Vote. That is all a citizen

[5:30:23] voter approved authority is a

[5:30:25] blatant dismissal of the

[5:30:26] people who live work and

[5:30:26] invest in old Colorado City.

[5:30:34] Thank

[5:30:35] >> Next up, we have a neat

[5:30:45] pass shell. Michael hitting.

[5:30:52] Rebecca Powell.

[5:30:53] >> Hello, thank you for having

[5:30:56] us here today. That some fire

[5:30:57] for that it's under this

[5:30:59] circumstance that where you

[5:31:00] been here with all the time

[5:31:03] working out for it, that's in

[5:31:05] to putting this dda together.

[5:31:07] But it's important that

[5:31:07] everybody has a voice that

[5:31:09] means the residents. That

[5:31:11] means, you know, all the

[5:31:14] business owners and so on and

[5:31:14] so forth.

[5:31:15] >> I have to let you know that

[5:31:18] I am a member of this imd in

[5:31:19] Gateway.

[5:31:21] >> Which doesn't get much

[5:31:22] representation at all. And

[5:31:24] part of that, is that such a

[5:31:30] small little area, it was and

[5:31:33] 1988. So so a very old

[5:31:33] volunteer board and it we're

[5:31:38] headed by. City parks and

[5:31:42] pretty much what we do is make

[5:31:43] sure that our little areas

[5:31:43] clean, that the medians are

[5:31:46] taking care of and the, know,

[5:31:49] trash removal so on and so So

[5:31:52] he's a very basic maintenance

[5:31:55] district. Our operating is on

[5:31:56] the average of $10,000 a year,

[5:32:00] which isn't much. So when I

[5:32:03] started hearing about Colorado

[5:32:06] s I am the opportunity to

[5:32:07] bring gateway into that

[5:32:09] district gave me such hope for

[5:32:14] for our area and it and it a

[5:32:17] way to co-op with the old

[5:32:18] Colorado City and Gateway is

[5:32:20] it's the corridor between

[5:32:21] downtown and old Colorado

[5:32:25] City, which always love my

[5:32:28] first home when I 4 months and

[5:32:29] 12 street. So right into a

[5:32:35] Colorado block away. So and I

[5:32:36] now with my husband on a

[5:32:39] larger property that we live

[5:32:40] in in Gateway at 7th in

[5:32:44] Colorado. So that in mind our

[5:32:45] intention was never to get

[5:32:49] involved by a property. Tear

[5:32:54] it down. And as I've heard a

[5:32:56] certain members, city council

[5:32:58] say that we wanted to tear

[5:32:58] things down and redevelop.

[5:33:01] That's not the case at all.

[5:33:03] What we want to do is clean up

[5:33:05] the neighborhood. We have

[5:33:06] maintained these beautiful old

[5:33:07] buildings, keep the character

[5:33:12] that we that is always been

[5:33:12] credible. Colorado City in way

[5:33:14] like living here. The place

[5:33:18] that I love. So with that in

[5:33:21] mind, I'm asking you to vote

[5:33:24] no on solution and give us the

[5:33:25] opportunity to give us the

[5:33:27] opportunity to work together.

[5:33:30] Give us a small portion of the

[5:33:32] taxes that we pay in that area

[5:33:35] to stay there. I have a local

[5:33:36] business that only works other

[5:33:37] local independent businesses.

[5:33:40] We do not do anything. What

[5:33:43] chains or anybody outside of

[5:33:44] Colorado Springs and El Paso

[5:33:45] County because we want to keep

[5:33:49] that money. Local and they and

[5:33:50] it's very important myself. My

[5:33:52] husband, our employees that

[5:33:55] we're able to do that the rest

[5:33:56] of our property to other local

[5:33:58] businesses. Same way. So thank

[5:34:04] you. Thank you.

[5:34:04] >> Next step we have Kelsey

[5:34:10] Willow.

[5:34:12] >> that's right. The tallest

[5:34:17] one here today. Hi, my name is

[5:34:18] Kelsey Colorado Springs has

[5:34:20] been my home my entire life

[5:34:21] and old Colorado City has

[5:34:21] always been a heart in my

[5:34:24] story. I'm deeply invested in

[5:34:27] the future of this community.

[5:34:28] I'm the marketing manager for

[5:34:30] squash blossom, Ellie Blue and

[5:34:31] Stella and Bow in Old Colorado

[5:34:32] City as well as serving on the

[5:34:36] occ a board with 3 distinct

[5:34:37] businesses in this district.

[5:34:38] We have a unique perspective

[5:34:40] on both incredible potential

[5:34:41] of acc and the challenges are

[5:34:43] small businesses face every

[5:34:46] day. I'm here asking to keep

[5:34:47] the voter approved eta intact

[5:34:48] and allow the opportunity to

[5:34:49] do what our community voted

[5:34:52] for it to do. Our small

[5:34:53] businesses are already

[5:34:55] stretched thin. Business

[5:34:56] owners cannot be expected to

[5:34:58] run their business while

[5:34:59] simultaneously carrying the

[5:35:00] responsibility for the

[5:35:00] district-wide marketing

[5:35:02] events, advocacy economic

[5:35:03] development and communication

[5:35:04] with the city. That model is

[5:35:08] not sustainable. Old Colorado

[5:35:10] City needs consistent

[5:35:11] professional leadership. We

[5:35:13] need the ability to plan

[5:35:13] beyond the next event in

[5:35:16] Florida or fundraiser. We need

[5:35:17] reliable resources for

[5:35:20] marketing community events,

[5:35:20] advocacy and economic

[5:35:21] development so that we can

[5:35:22] make thoughtful long-term

[5:35:25] investments in this district.

[5:35:26] Because ultimately the her

[5:35:28] double car at a city is it

[5:35:29] small businesses? They are.

[5:35:30] What make this neighborhood

[5:35:31] vibrant, unique and worth

[5:35:33] visiting. We should we should

[5:35:34] be creating an environment

[5:35:35] where those businesses can

[5:35:37] thrive. Not simply just

[5:35:40] survive. And perhaps most

[5:35:40] importantly, this dda was

[5:35:42] created through a vote.

[5:35:44] Businesses and property owners

[5:35:45] participated in a process that

[5:35:47] made their voices heard. They

[5:35:47] voted to invest in the future

[5:35:51] of old Colorado City. I

[5:35:52] believe that vote deserves the

[5:35:52] opportunity to be carried

[5:35:56] forward. Old. Colorado has

[5:35:56] city has an incredible

[5:35:58] history, but this is about its

[5:36:00] future. It's about giving this

[5:36:01] district the structure and

[5:36:04] resources to remain beautiful

[5:36:05] economically strong and a

[5:36:06] place where community

[5:36:06] continues to gather for

[5:36:09] generations to come. I am

[5:36:11] asking you to respect the will

[5:36:14] of the voters that created the

[5:36:15] tva, keep it intact and give

[5:36:16] old Colorado City the

[5:36:16] opportunity to move forward.

[5:36:22] Thank you. That we have

[5:36:30] >> Daniel Ramos.

[5:36:31] >> Thank you, council. Thank

[5:36:34] you for your public service.

[5:36:35] Small business owners. Thank

[5:36:37] you for your time.

[5:36:38] >> It's our most precious

[5:36:41] asset.

[5:36:42] >> And it shows how important

[5:36:43] is that we're all here

[5:36:46] sacrificing our time today.

[5:36:47] For all the volunteers that

[5:36:50] have served past or present on

[5:36:50] the board.

[5:36:51] >> Thank you for your time.

[5:36:55] I'm working for them.

[5:36:58] >> My wife couldn't be here

[5:36:59] today. She's a college

[5:36:59] professor. Also public

[5:37:02] servant, working local

[5:37:02] university. But she would

[5:37:05] concur with that to say today

[5:37:06] we moved to Colorado Springs

[5:37:08] 13 years ago. 10 years ago, we

[5:37:09] bought our home in the West

[5:37:13] side. That doesn't seem very

[5:37:14] long to most. You guys have

[5:37:15] been here for much longer

[5:37:17] myself. But as somebody has

[5:37:22] lived in 18 states that is a

[5:37:24] long time. And the West side

[5:37:25] was valuable to that that's

[5:37:27] where we decide to put our

[5:37:30] roots down we like the

[5:37:32] community. We like their

[5:37:34] neighbors and we chose that

[5:37:39] open a business in 2021. There

[5:37:42] Here's my one shameless plug.

[5:37:43] We're about to have our

[5:37:44] five-year anniversary this

[5:37:45] Sunday. Come see If you have a

[5:37:49] cup of 30.

[5:37:50] >> But I thank you all for

[5:37:53] your public service and my

[5:37:54] previous lives. I also as a

[5:37:57] public service Army veteran. I

[5:37:58] also was a wildlife

[5:38:01] biologists. And work for

[5:38:03] multiple government agencies

[5:38:06] trying to conserve our natural

[5:38:08] resources. But public service,

[5:38:10] you know, it's an honor, but

[5:38:14] it's also a privilege as a

[5:38:19] public servant. Comes a

[5:38:19] responsibility. Both your

[5:38:24] country. And democracy.

[5:38:25] >> The da was put in place by

[5:38:29] a vote of the people. So when

[5:38:30] you vote to dissolve the dda,

[5:38:31] you're voting against

[5:38:37] democracy. Against so that's

[5:38:38] all end of the dda. You're

[5:38:38] voting for Democracy. Thank

[5:38:43] you.

[5:38:44] >> Next step have David ballot

[5:38:48] court.

[5:38:48] >> I mean it back just in

[5:38:52] time. Good afternoon,

[5:38:53] everybody. PRESIDENT And

[5:38:56] members of Council. My name is

[5:38:57] Dave Allen court. I'm West

[5:38:59] Side resident and occ

[5:39:00] homeowner now serve on the

[5:39:02] board of the Organization of

[5:39:03] Westside Neighbors, which

[5:39:05] represents over 8,000

[5:39:07] residents and a chair. A multi

[5:39:08] national committee at is Tim

[5:39:10] International, where I'd

[5:39:11] become quite familiar with

[5:39:12] governance and the importance.

[5:39:14] The process public trust

[5:39:16] depends on openness. Adequate

[5:39:19] notice. Honest analysis in

[5:39:21] clear accountability by those

[5:39:22] standards. This dissolution

[5:39:23] process should concern

[5:39:25] everyone in this room consider

[5:39:28] the timeline. Occ stakeholders

[5:39:29] raised their own money and

[5:39:31] hired an experienced

[5:39:32] consultant. The options were

[5:39:36] studied. Was recommended

[5:39:37] council approved a 2, 1, to

[5:39:39] refer it to electors in voters

[5:39:41] approved it council did not

[5:39:42] complete the board

[5:39:43] appointments until DECEMBER of

[5:39:43] 2025. The board organized in

[5:39:48] JANUARY. Just months after

[5:39:50] these volunteers were finally

[5:39:50] empowered to work, they

[5:39:52] learned with only 2 business

[5:39:53] days. Notice that council

[5:39:54] sought to dissolve this

[5:39:58] organization. Council cannot

[5:40:00] control, went aboard, becomes

[5:40:02] operational and then fall to

[5:40:02] that board for not producing

[5:40:06] years of results. That is not

[5:40:07] accountability. That is moving

[5:40:09] the goalpost. This board is

[5:40:13] made up of our neighbors.

[5:40:14] Private sector, small business

[5:40:16] owners, property owners and

[5:40:16] residents who have invested

[5:40:17] countless unpaid hours. And

[5:40:19] this voter approved

[5:40:20] initiative. They believe that

[5:40:23] old Colorado City where I live

[5:40:24] in one of Colorado Springs,

[5:40:25] historic crown jewels in a

[5:40:27] major visitor destination

[5:40:30] deserves better than chronic

[5:40:31] underinvestment. The da

[5:40:34] deserves support from council.

[5:40:36] Clear expectations and a fair

[5:40:37] opportunity not to be cut off

[5:40:39] at the knees before its work

[5:40:42] can begin. As I've heard

[5:40:43] councilmember Donaldson and

[5:40:44] many wise members of mentors

[5:40:45] of mine say let's not allow

[5:40:46] perfect to become enemy of

[5:40:49] good enough. Da is not merely

[5:40:52] a tool for new construction.

[5:40:53] Colorado law says its purpose

[5:40:54] includes preventing

[5:40:56] deterioration, protecting

[5:40:58] property values, preservation,

[5:40:59] anthoughtful reinvestment

[5:41:01] are exactly what old car City

[5:41:03] needs. If a bit is desired, it

[5:41:06] can and often does, as I

[5:41:06] believe downtown is included

[5:41:08] coexist with the dda. Solution

[5:41:12] is not required further,

[5:41:14] starting a bid would place

[5:41:15] another costly organizational

[5:41:15] burden on commercial property

[5:41:17] owners have already done this

[5:41:21] work, reject this ordinance.

[5:41:21] If councils unwilling,

[5:41:23] consider postponing it for 6

[5:41:24] months in establishing

[5:41:25] measurable objectives with the

[5:41:27] board within 30 days require

[5:41:28] completion of the plan review

[5:41:29] a transparent operating

[5:41:31] budget. No new debt during the

[5:41:32] postponement period in public

[5:41:35] progress reports.

[5:41:37] Councilmember Williams, you

[5:41:38] represent and serve district 3

[5:41:39] in currently serve on this

[5:41:42] board before asking council to

[5:41:44] dissolve it. I encourage you

[5:41:45] to use your position to Clear

[5:41:47] expectations and help it

[5:41:49] succeed with your budget

[5:41:50] experience in engineering

[5:41:50] background, you are well

[5:41:53] positioned to lead that work.

[5:41:54] The responsibility to lead

[5:41:55] should accompany the power to

[5:41:58] dissolve if put as a vote.

[5:41:59] Today come, the outcome will

[5:42:00] remembered as a test of where

[5:42:02] the consul empowers local

[5:42:04] enterprise and respects a

[5:42:06] voter approved initiative or

[5:42:07] adds New Thank you. Spent by

[5:42:07] forcing property owners,

[5:42:22] things.

[5:42:28] >> Thank you for your

[5:42:29] comments. I just want to

[5:42:33] clarify. The board was place

[5:42:34] from the time that the vote

[5:42:36] took place. So I don't want

[5:42:36] the audience to think that the

[5:42:38] board did not exist.

[5:42:41] >> Until the end of 2025.

[5:42:43] >> The board had been in place

[5:42:44] either. You know, right when

[5:42:44] the election happened or when

[5:42:47] that was ratified, we have to

[5:42:48] clarify the clerk, the board

[5:42:51] was not. Not in existence.

[5:42:55] That will time. So just a

[5:43:10] >> Next we have Kurt Hail.

[5:43:12] >> High I'm some of you guys

[5:43:15] actually know I am. Change my

[5:43:17] hair, role that, you know, try

[5:43:20] and make myself more presume

[5:43:22] will and the respective

[5:43:24] council members, which I

[5:43:25] personally that personally,

[5:43:28] when you run just, you know,

[5:43:29] it's kind of hard for ready to

[5:43:31] speak, which is so much

[5:43:34] support for people that have

[5:43:35] my bat even know I'm

[5:43:39] considered houseless is before

[5:43:44] causes. Don't you live on the

[5:43:48] well? I over and was your

[5:43:49] house this going to see people

[5:43:54] don't really get. In 2019, I

[5:43:59] mean, it it sorry. In 2006 to

[5:44:02] my wife passed away. Okay. And

[5:44:05] when we first got here as

[5:44:07] because we just and just

[5:44:11] stopping go and you have

[5:44:12] working in Beira fires on the

[5:44:18] north side town. And morning

[5:44:19] If we and I hope the West side

[5:44:22] would come over. I was west

[5:44:31] side. Those guys you know, on

[5:44:32] gene in JUNE. Really well,

[5:44:36] there. United. You. He

[5:44:41] forecast coalition and who

[5:44:42] sometimes that are from been

[5:44:44] part of town this is our site.

[5:44:50] You know, because okay, will.

[5:44:50] She's so she started inquiring

[5:44:53] with guys are wreck. He was so

[5:44:55] great about the let's say in

[5:44:57] the city because we have the

[5:45:00] respect. Just the people to

[5:45:04] community euros. Issue as

[5:45:07] well. Where's that was signed

[5:45:11] they go? Well, ma'am, no

[5:45:12] disrespect. Huge, especially

[5:45:15] to put just we're headed 2

[5:45:17] Chicago area and Chicago Scott

[5:45:23] was market. High. Our town

[5:45:26] working just fine to my wife

[5:45:29] well, I was asleep on the mat

[5:45:31] let you know if we shouldn't.

[5:45:35] Check it out or whatever. And

[5:45:35] there's no fact that when we

[5:45:39] got here. To just like

[5:45:43] blockages. Thank you, year but

[5:45:50] just respect, his His passion

[5:45:51] tours was expected to stay

[5:45:56] there for long. But just and

[5:45:57] this, I appreciate all of you

[5:46:02] guys in sport on donation.

[5:46:06] Where you from. And from the

[5:46:07] West side. But technically

[5:46:08] southwest side ethic. She

[5:46:17] grabbed Thank you guys.

[5:46:23] >> Next step we have Jay Gust.

[5:46:27] >> Well, good afternoon It's a

[5:46:29] way course, please vote. No

[5:46:30] write. We got that. We got

[5:46:31] that are in control. And I

[5:46:31] want to say thank you because

[5:46:32] heard from not only business

[5:46:35] owners, building owners,

[5:46:36] residents from Gateway

[5:46:38] residents from the center

[5:46:39] area. Residents from occ

[5:46:42] proper from all around the

[5:46:42] correct. I mean, this. This is

[5:46:43] a facts of this isn't like a

[5:46:46] once. I think this is like

[5:46:47] here's a subtle floor block

[5:46:48] slice that we're going to take

[5:46:49] care of the point. The da was

[5:46:50] to take a look at as a unified

[5:46:52] whole and really bring that

[5:46:54] together. And we've done that.

[5:46:56] And I think proven right here

[5:46:57] that this is happening now.

[5:46:58] This is just the start is a

[5:46:59] young boy that has really been

[5:47:00] developed. It is a had a

[5:47:02] chance to run. It still

[5:47:03] crawling its a baby. This is

[5:47:03] all that now be absolutely

[5:47:06] before jury because there's no

[5:47:07] there's too much money sitting

[5:47:08] stake. There's too much energy

[5:47:09] put behind her ready, get the

[5:47:12] chance succeed, get it funded.

[5:47:13] In fact, the next time I come

[5:47:15] up here, I would love to be

[5:47:15] asking, get on the ballot

[5:47:19] measure. Don't have to have to

[5:47:20] use a third-party company or

[5:47:23] use it get on our ballot. You

[5:47:23] guys going on that. That's

[5:47:24] what love to see. And that's

[5:47:33] really at this.

[5:47:34] >> That is the end of public

[5:47:34] comment. We will now move it

[5:47:36] to the diocese for.

[5:47:38] >> Question COUNCILMAN Casey.

[5:47:50] So on it was said

[5:47:50] >> He

[5:47:53] >> was all year.

[5:47:58] >> And speaking at

[5:47:59] >> I

[5:48:00] >> think everybody in

[5:48:04] opportunity.

[5:48:08] >> the meantime, COUNCILMAN

[5:48:12] Casey.

[5:48:12] >> Thank you. MADAM PRESIDENT,

[5:48:13] ever few questions for your

[5:48:14] eye worker. Urban renewal,

[5:48:24] Florida. So we're it's a

[5:48:28] discussion about dda vs this

[5:48:29] improvement district. Can you

[5:48:31] talk through that? And if the

[5:48:32] dd a word is old and a bit

[5:48:33] will swarm be the timeline.

[5:48:36] >> Process costs. Benefits to

[5:48:38] road to resistance and

[5:48:45] >> small business owners are.

[5:48:47] That's a long It's good to be

[5:48:49] a little review good to talk

[5:48:51] it. Just for the record dry

[5:48:52] Walker executive director of

[5:48:53] the Colorado Springs Urban

[5:48:57] Renewal Authority I think, you

[5:48:59] know, in the beginning of

[5:49:03] this, you know, I will say it

[5:49:03] you are donated to this You

[5:49:04] know, not only with some great

[5:49:05] volunteers. I think you heard

[5:49:09] months from the day, but we

[5:49:09] we're under the impression

[5:49:10] this was going to be a

[5:49:13] business improvement district.

[5:49:13] And actually, I was the one of

[5:49:14] the members of that downtown

[5:49:18] Colorado in custody that had

[5:49:19] looked at this area. And I was

[5:49:21] doing that is a volunteer at

[5:49:21] that point in time. The kind

[5:49:22] of came to that that solution

[5:49:26] at that point in order to do.

[5:49:28] Yeah. I mean, obviously with

[5:49:29] the dda, the problem that

[5:49:31] we're in now is that you've

[5:49:35] got Didi that's funded. But

[5:49:35] you've got no financial

[5:49:36] mechanism behind it. So, you

[5:49:37] know, while I can certainly

[5:49:39] appreciate a lot of the folks

[5:49:40] that said we want to be self

[5:49:42] Reliant Self funded. That part

[5:49:44] of this election actually

[5:49:47] failed. And so we creates this

[5:49:50] ambiguity of how do we you

[5:49:53] know, how do we do projects in

[5:49:54] this area? Is this a taxing

[5:49:56] entity or is this not a taxing

[5:49:59] entity? Unfortunately, is kind

[5:50:00] of a worst case scenario. You

[5:50:02] know, when you're going for d

[5:50:04] b a as far as the business

[5:50:06] improvement district side, you

[5:50:09] heard a lot of the comments

[5:50:10] that up here, you know,

[5:50:11] maintenance, cleanliness,

[5:50:12] marketing promotion, business

[5:50:15] support maintaining things

[5:50:17] investing. Most of that is

[5:50:18] geared towards business might

[5:50:20] find most of the people that

[5:50:22] spoke GOD bless them but are

[5:50:25] small business owners so the

[5:50:26] you know, typically when you

[5:50:28] start hearing those level of

[5:50:30] things, that year's more

[5:50:32] itself towards a business

[5:50:33] improvement district. Now,

[5:50:34] nice thing about business

[5:50:35] improvement District says it

[5:50:35] doesn't have to be just 5

[5:50:38] mills. It can be, you know, I

[5:50:40] think we got some in this

[5:50:40] community that are up to 50

[5:50:42] plus miles, right? Kind of

[5:50:43] depends on on their palate and

[5:50:45] what they want to do with

[5:50:47] that. But it does give the

[5:50:49] Brett to promote the

[5:50:52] businesses to do that.

[5:50:53] Placemaking there to kind of

[5:50:53] promote the events beyond

[5:50:57] territory days, etc in in that

[5:50:58] is typically you know how it's

[5:51:02] used in Colorado as far as

[5:51:05] this, you know, dda measure

[5:51:08] again, I to me you went into

[5:51:08] this hurdle and the reason why

[5:51:13] the eu or a was leery of the

[5:51:13] dda and why we said we didn't

[5:51:16] support it at that point in

[5:51:18] time was simply for the fact

[5:51:18] that the map was way too big.

[5:51:21] I think Adam and I really

[5:51:22] appreciate your comments a

[5:51:23] minimum. I'm sorry. You feel

[5:51:27] that too. That kind of eastern

[5:51:30] swath, right? That pickax

[5:51:34] peace, you know, of that map.

[5:51:35] That area was one of those

[5:51:35] areas where we're looking at

[5:51:38] saying this is not even really

[5:51:40] tying into, you know, the old

[5:51:40] Colorado City corridor and

[5:51:41] when you've even got

[5:51:45] properties north of Street, I

[5:51:45] think it's a stretch, you

[5:51:46] know, to think that that's all

[5:51:48] going to be one corridor. The

[5:51:50] other problem that we saw with

[5:51:50] the dda is that you really

[5:51:53] taking things from that

[5:51:54] business perspective. And

[5:51:55] again, that list that I read

[5:51:58] is mainly around businesses.

[5:52:00] You're putting that shared

[5:52:02] costs on residential units

[5:52:04] without as much benefit to

[5:52:06] them as it applies to the

[5:52:08] businesses themselves so weak.

[5:52:10] We create this weird dichotomy

[5:52:13] with you know what? What are

[5:52:13] the residential units get out

[5:52:15] of this? How does that all

[5:52:17] connect together, cetera. So

[5:52:19] even the downtown dda, the

[5:52:20] current one or the one in the

[5:52:23] downtown proper area, they

[5:52:26] started with the business

[5:52:27] Improvement District 2. And

[5:52:27] the nice thing about business

[5:52:28] improvement districts, they

[5:52:29] give you an opportunity to

[5:52:31] kind of start, you know, start

[5:52:32] out a ground level. Start

[5:52:34] basic can be able to chomp

[5:52:36] through some of these things

[5:52:38] that they want cleaned up. And

[5:52:39] that means level. And and, you

[5:52:41] know, either us what's just

[5:52:41] it's an easier pc. Typically

[5:52:44] just have to do a petition

[5:52:45] from this business owners to

[5:52:47] qualify for the ballot in from

[5:52:50] a cost perspective. You know,

[5:52:51] I know I've actually had some

[5:52:52] conversations with some

[5:52:55] members of the dda and I think

[5:52:56] there was one, you know,

[5:52:56] quote, that they got for

[5:53:00] $30,000 to win an election.

[5:53:01] I'm not sure. You know,

[5:53:01] obviously that's going to

[5:53:02] depend on on the private

[5:53:05] companies if they choose. But

[5:53:07] I don't think it would be an

[5:53:09] overwhelming costs, especially

[5:53:10] since you have so many

[5:53:11] business owners in that old

[5:53:13] Colorado City proper area

[5:53:13] that's in the support be some

[5:53:18] sort of self taxation.

[5:53:20] >> Process reform in the bid

[5:53:20] getting from a visit to

[5:53:21] separate measures was last

[5:53:24] time and the there some

[5:53:25] concern about what we already

[5:53:26] spent all for doing. Could be

[5:53:27] kind of wasted effort to start

[5:53:32] all over again.

[5:53:34] >> Yeah, I think, you know,

[5:53:36] they're made to me and again,

[5:53:37] I appreciate you know, I

[5:53:38] appreciate all the comments. I

[5:53:40] think the challenging thing is

[5:53:41] when you're when you're

[5:53:42] dealing with something where

[5:53:43] you have to like a designate

[5:53:45] or of you know, it doesn't

[5:53:46] need or of election, you know,

[5:53:48] status. So if you're a

[5:53:49] business owner, you have to

[5:53:49] actually be given a sheet of

[5:53:51] paper that says that you're

[5:53:54] going to vote as somebody you

[5:53:55] know, and you're going to vote

[5:53:56] for that business. If you're a

[5:53:57] sole proprietor or deed had

[5:53:58] doing business as you can get

[5:54:01] a ballot normally. But in this

[5:54:03] scenario, you have to actually

[5:54:04] feel something out in in to

[5:54:06] me. I think that's kind of

[5:54:06] what happened here. I think

[5:54:08] that's where huge disconnect

[5:54:09] actually occurred is that you

[5:54:12] had a lot of people I heard

[5:54:13] from a lot of people because

[5:54:18] the a lot of people confuse

[5:54:18] you or is indeed these 2. But

[5:54:19] I actually think you have

[5:54:20] people thinking I never got a

[5:54:23] ballot. And maybe they didn't

[5:54:25] get that designation form that

[5:54:25] they didn't know how to do it.

[5:54:26] So just over complicated the

[5:54:29] process a little bit. But as

[5:54:30] far as from a business

[5:54:31] improvement district level,

[5:54:32] those same businesses and that

[5:54:34] occ proper area, which I would

[5:54:38] classify, as you know, 21st

[5:54:39] the 31st. Maybe that's a

[5:54:41] little generous, you know. But

[5:54:41] that seems like what would be

[5:54:42] what that area would would

[5:54:47] become I would imagine with

[5:54:48] the outreach that they did. A

[5:54:49] lot of people that said that

[5:54:50] spoke hair. I don't think that

[5:54:54] would be a heavy lift to get

[5:54:55] that group to support a

[5:54:56] business improvement district,

[5:55:00] at least in my opinion. Thank

[5:55:07] >> COUNCILMAN Donaldson do you

[5:55:08] have questions for dry up?

[5:55:12] Because I do have MISTER

[5:55:12] Radcliffe here who wasn't on

[5:55:13] the list, but now is that I'm

[5:55:17] going to give 3 minutes to.

[5:55:18] >> Please do let the other

[5:55:20] speakers. I don't know if

[5:55:21] there are any others that

[5:55:22] chance. Just it's MR.

[5:55:23] Ratcliffe. But you do 3

[5:55:27] minutes.

[5:55:29] >> look at that. That's

[5:55:31] exciting. Good afternoon

[5:55:33] Council. My name is Matt Ryan

[5:55:35] Clift and I serve on the old

[5:55:36] Colorado City Associates Board

[5:55:37] and I'm asking you to not does

[5:55:40] all of the dda today. I'm also

[5:55:43] PRESIDENT Of Springs Ensemble

[5:55:43] Theatre, nonprofit theater

[5:55:44] company that moved into old

[5:55:48] Colorado City a few years ago.

[5:55:48] That's my time at the

[5:55:50] neighborhood. And I've seen

[5:55:52] firsthand through both of

[5:55:53] those things. The theater

[5:55:55] business and old Colorado City

[5:55:57] associates, just what it takes

[5:55:57] for all of these small

[5:55:59] business owners to keep their

[5:56:00] businesses alive. And for us

[5:56:04] to keep the life today around

[5:56:06] 700 people live within the old

[5:56:09] Colorado City Dva alongside

[5:56:10] 400 great local businesses.

[5:56:11] Many of which you heard from

[5:56:13] today longest that many good

[5:56:15] sampling. Award-winning

[5:56:18] theatre o run by people who

[5:56:19] have sunk their lives and

[5:56:21] savings into the neighborhood.

[5:56:21] Residents walked the same

[5:56:23] streets and deal with the same

[5:56:24] issues the businesses are

[5:56:26] dealing with next door parking

[5:56:28] revenue that's collected from

[5:56:30] o'Connor City reinvested in

[5:56:32] the city wide parking system.

[5:56:32] But the district next to

[5:56:35] control where any of that

[5:56:37] money goes independent website

[5:56:38] owned businesses rarely get

[5:56:41] the car in residence really

[5:56:42] get the kind of coordinated

[5:56:44] support, investment, bigger

[5:56:47] corridors take for granted. So

[5:56:49] residents and business owners

[5:56:50] from Old Colorado City got

[5:56:50] together research ways to

[5:56:53] reinvest in the neighborhood 2

[5:56:54] years ago they presented the

[5:56:56] case for why a dd a and not a

[5:56:57] bid was the best choice for

[5:57:00] all Colorado City. This

[5:57:01] council voted to put the

[5:57:03] question in front of voters.

[5:57:04] The first reading was 8 to

[5:57:05] one. The final vote was 7 to

[5:57:06] 2. That doesn't feel like a

[5:57:09] close call to me. Then the

[5:57:10] people of all colors city

[5:57:13] voted and they said, yes, they

[5:57:14] said yes to possible

[5:57:15] investments included in the

[5:57:16] proposal, city council

[5:57:19] reviewed and 2024 things like

[5:57:20] safety and homeless outreach,

[5:57:21] which is the top priority for

[5:57:24] 83% of residents and business

[5:57:26] owners support for fixing up

[5:57:27] aging building center signs,

[5:57:29] which was the resident second

[5:57:30] highest priority right behind

[5:57:32] safety programming and events

[5:57:34] that activate old Colorado

[5:57:36] City. The people voted yes to

[5:57:38] investing. And what makes old

[5:57:39] Colorado City a great place to

[5:57:43] live work and visit 600

[5:57:44] residents and business owners

[5:57:44] weighed in over 2 years to

[5:57:48] shape the plan. 78% said Old

[5:57:49] Colorado City needed some form

[5:57:53] of the new funding model. The

[5:57:53] da is a well thought out plan

[5:57:55] to revive him. Preserve old

[5:57:56] Colorado City. This council

[5:57:57] studied it and sent it to

[5:58:01] voters. The voters approved it

[5:58:02] dissolving it now before it's

[5:58:03] even had a real shot means

[5:58:04] overturning with the people of

[5:58:05] all Colorado City decided at

[5:58:08] the ballot box. Please do not

[5:58:10] dissolve the dda. Thank you

[5:58:11] for your time and your

[5:58:19] consideration.

[5:58:23] >> COUNCILMAN Donaldson.

[5:58:25] >> Yes, thanks, MADAM You

[5:58:27] know, the 2 votes were just

[5:58:27] referenced and vote twice on

[5:58:30] an ordinance. First was 8 to

[5:58:31] one. Michael Melia voted no.

[5:58:32] And then the second was 72 and

[5:58:35] I was one of the 2 cause. I

[5:58:36] was worried about the ballots

[5:58:38] and how that was going to work

[5:58:40] and that there could be some

[5:58:41] confusion. Sarah and I talked

[5:58:43] about that on the balloting,

[5:58:47] but it's it's been done.

[5:58:48] >> And the citizens of voted,

[5:58:50] the citizens within these

[5:58:50] boundaries voted and they

[5:58:54] voted yes to to have a d d a.

[5:58:55] >> So, you know, I'll be

[5:58:56] voting no today on this on

[5:59:04] this ordinance.

[5:59:06] >> There there's a unique

[5:59:07] history here, right found

[5:59:10] colony which became Colorado

[5:59:10] Springs wasn't even here on

[5:59:12] the open. Colorado City was

[5:59:14] here. So it makes sense that

[5:59:15] there's to downtown's. There

[5:59:17] really is a second downtown or

[5:59:19] maybe it's the first downtown.

[5:59:20] And this is the second

[5:59:22] downtown that we're in right

[5:59:24] now. So I know there was some

[5:59:25] conversation about that in our

[5:59:26] last meeting that will nobody

[5:59:29] else has to da's is crazy.

[5:59:30] Well, Colorado Springs has a

[5:59:34] unique history. I Colorado

[5:59:38] City was an extent in 1917. So

[5:59:39] that's why one of the reasons

[5:59:41] I think to the da's do make

[5:59:45] sense. And then finally, MR.

[5:59:46] Ramos as a foe Army veteran,

[5:59:48] I'll be there to to have a

[5:59:48] beer with you on your

[5:59:49] anniversary here on the

[5:59:54] weekend. And Michelle, if you

[5:59:55] have the oldest wall in

[5:59:56] Colorado a swing by there,

[5:59:57] even though I like alcohol,

[6:00:06] Madrid

[6:00:11] >> COUNCILMAN Thank you. MADAM

[6:00:12] PRESIDENT, dry actually just

[6:00:13] have a follow-up question for

[6:00:16] you on the the

[6:00:17] >> questioning from from a

[6:00:18] fellow council member here.

[6:00:21] Can Casey.

[6:00:22] >> So

[6:00:26] >> that.

[6:00:26] >> government, increment

[6:00:28] financing route that did not

[6:00:29] pass.

[6:00:32] >> The dda could go back out

[6:00:33] again to the voters. Correct

[6:00:34] in that.

[6:00:36] >> Could pass in. Can you

[6:00:39] explain what would happen? If

[6:00:41] they choose Well, I would

[6:00:42] assume they would have to

[6:00:43] choose to do this if they want

[6:00:45] some revenue to work with. But

[6:00:46] if you could explain that a

[6:00:49] little bit more and I and just

[6:00:51] just for the record, it's

[6:00:52] funny. Councilmember Donaldson

[6:00:52] went back and looked at it. I

[6:00:55] did as well.

[6:00:59] >> So yes, he He with mainly

[6:01:01] o'Malley, but in favor was

[6:01:02] council member of the lacrosse

[6:01:03] Iverson homes, tension Line

[6:01:05] Weber Leanne Talerico at the

[6:01:10] time in 2020.

[6:01:12] >> Again, for the record dry

[6:01:14] Walker Urban Renewal so the so

[6:01:15] the past and I I'm not sure if

[6:01:19] your question got a little a

[6:01:20] little mix up there, but they

[6:01:25] did pass the Taft portion

[6:01:26] technically, right? Because

[6:01:27] with the formation of the dda,

[6:01:27] that's what allows that

[6:01:30] component. But that's the

[6:01:31] component that goes to all of

[6:01:34] the taxing entities. So that's

[6:01:35] Cool. County library, City

[6:01:37] Water Conservancy district.

[6:01:40] That's that's those funds.

[6:01:43] What they didn't support is

[6:01:45] taxing themselves. So they

[6:01:46] didn't support actually paying

[6:01:48] out of pocket on their own

[6:01:51] properties to fund this

[6:01:54] effort. They passed keeping

[6:01:57] organic tip from. The taxing

[6:01:58] entities that that's what was

[6:01:59] passed. So that's an important

[6:02:02] distinction. There.

[6:02:06] >> Can you say more about?

[6:02:07] >> I'm not sure that I'm

[6:02:08] totally following I don't

[6:02:10] blame me.

[6:02:13] >> Oh, sure. Sure. Sure. All

[6:02:13] right. More of uk legal

[6:02:15] question. CHAIRMAN Goss, the

[6:02:19] Sea journeys office. So the

[6:02:20] tip question that was past its

[6:02:21] been commonly called to

[6:02:23] question, but it was really to

[6:02:24] let the dda retaining any to 4

[6:02:26] other funds that were

[6:02:28] collected. What did not pass

[6:02:30] was the no levee, which is the

[6:02:32] 5 mills that to the da's can

[6:02:35] impose on both residents and

[6:02:36] businesses. So since that did

[6:02:37] not pass their financing

[6:02:39] mechanism right now would be

[6:02:42] the tif. The tax increment

[6:02:45] financing base level tax and

[6:02:46] then anything over that level

[6:02:47] taxes. What would potentially

[6:02:50] go to the dda that would have

[6:02:51] to be up, Lou, approved

[6:02:52] through the plan development,

[6:02:54] which will come before City

[6:02:56] Council in the future,

[6:02:56] assuming it's not solved and

[6:02:57] city council would approve the

[6:03:01] tif at that time. So that is a

[6:03:02] separate to bucket of money,

[6:03:06] if you will, compared to the

[6:03:07] mill Levy. That was not. So

[6:03:08] then what they could do and

[6:03:09] probably should do is go back

[6:03:13] out for a military.

[6:03:13] >> They could go out for an

[6:03:14] mill levy. Again, that is a

[6:03:15] possibility.

[6:03:16] >> They would need Council's

[6:03:17] approval to do so.

[6:03:20] >> Okay. And I guess I don't

[6:03:21] know if I'm allowed to ask

[6:03:24] this question, but I am

[6:03:25] curious to know from somebody

[6:03:25] on the board that's an

[6:03:28] intention that they have. If I

[6:03:29] mean, the PRESIDENT Would be

[6:03:30] to acknowledge that person

[6:03:33] could speak. You can answer

[6:03:37] that question. Thank you.

[6:03:40] >> Yes, this is.

[6:03:40] >> Our this was our first

[6:03:43] order of business.

[6:03:44] >> Was planning out a mapping

[6:03:45] out a strategic plan to going

[6:03:48] back to the ballot Levy. I

[6:03:50] personally advocated and

[6:03:53] secured forgivable loan. For

[6:03:58] us to finance that. Forgivable

[6:03:59] component of it is that if by

[6:04:04] chance? The Levy doesn't pass

[6:04:05] and we do decide to dissolve

[6:04:06] as an organization. That the

[6:04:12] loan would be forgiven.

[6:04:12] >> Forgiven by who your

[6:04:14] personal money

[6:04:16] >> So Crowder City associates,

[6:04:19] but the money forward and what

[6:04:20] we did was we put out a vote

[6:04:22] not within the board cca

[6:04:25] personally, but all members.

[6:04:27] So we sent out a ballot over

[6:04:28] 200 members of al City

[6:04:31] associates and they voted and

[6:04:33] wildly high percentage numbers

[6:04:35] too, give this money pd and

[6:04:37] was the general percentage of

[6:04:40] that 57% to 7 personal

[6:04:41] population? Well, you know, I

[6:04:42] think last year for Colorado

[6:04:46] Springs, turnout was 20 4.7%

[6:04:48] and the dda vote originally

[6:04:51] was 25.6%. Okay.

[6:04:52] >> So let me just make sure I

[6:04:52] understand this really clearly

[6:04:53] you front of the money. Cca

[6:05:01] said. This fails. We as a body

[6:05:03] will will forgive that to one.

[6:05:05] And we will. We will pull our

[6:05:05] money and we'll pay you back

[6:05:06] some, which is why we will

[6:05:07] bit.

[6:05:08] >> If it had been

[6:05:09] indebtedness, we wouldn't be

[6:05:10] here having this conversation

[6:05:11] because the dda would be in

[6:05:13] debt already. Okay. All right.

[6:05:14] Thank you. Those are my quick

[6:05:18] COUNCILMAN Gold.

[6:05:20] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[6:05:21] You know, first had the

[6:05:21] opportunity visit Colorado

[6:05:24] Springs in 2009 long before I

[6:05:26] was a resident and I'm very

[6:05:27] fond memory there because

[6:05:29] there is a pottery shop that

[6:05:33] no longer exist I was able to

[6:05:35] do an imprint of my child's

[6:05:38] hand for their first birthday

[6:05:40] and thank GOD because that

[6:05:41] child is now huge.

[6:05:45] >> So

[6:05:46] >> And I was really surprised

[6:05:46] because I thought, oh, my

[6:05:49] gosh, what a charming

[6:05:49] downtown.

[6:05:50] >> And the person was like

[6:05:53] this is actually not downtown.

[6:05:53] So I think we have a very

[6:05:54] unique situation here in

[6:05:55] Colorado Springs where we have

[6:05:58] large geographic area. Was

[6:06:02] very unique hearts that add,

[6:06:02] too, don't they don't take

[6:06:04] away from Colorado Springs.

[6:06:05] And when I reflect on all of

[6:06:08] I've heard about the dda, it

[6:06:09] really appears to me that you

[6:06:13] all need more time. You guys

[6:06:15] have the alignment. You have

[6:06:17] the heart for this. You just

[6:06:18] need more time to get it

[6:06:20] sorted. So for that reason, I

[6:06:29] will be voting no on this. And

[6:06:30] also I just really wanted to

[6:06:31] acknowledge that we have so

[6:06:32] many small business owners

[6:06:35] here right now. And when and

[6:06:35] where you guys are small

[6:06:37] business owners in the context

[6:06:40] of you had to shut your shops

[6:06:43] down to be here. Your time is

[6:06:44] literally your money. You have

[6:06:46] lost revenue fighting for the

[6:06:47] cause today. And I acknowledge

[6:06:49] that and I thank you for your

[6:06:53] heart. And I hope that you

[6:06:54] guys should have namedrop. So

[6:06:56] at least you could have had

[6:06:57] advertising but I hope that

[6:06:58] you recoup those costs from

[6:07:03] today. Thank you.

[6:07:06] >> COUNCILMAN Ryan Weber.

[6:07:09] Yeah, I am.

[6:07:11] >> Couple of things. One just

[6:07:14] want to disclose that. I am a

[6:07:16] business on the left side and

[6:07:21] the but I'm not part of the

[6:07:22] originally. My business was

[6:07:26] going to be a part of it. And

[6:07:28] it was adjusted so that that

[6:07:29] my buses ended up not because

[6:07:29] I'm not really on Colorado,

[6:07:33] not really a part of that. So

[6:07:34] I wanted to just disclose that

[6:07:36] I have some connection to this

[6:07:36] community and understand it

[6:07:39] very, very well that might has

[6:07:43] been there, sir. That the

[6:07:46] well, the truth be told is

[6:07:47] that the business originally

[6:07:50] was located within the d a

[6:07:53] >> it was started in 1982.

[6:07:56] >> So it was on Colorado, but

[6:07:57] now it's it's it's on the

[6:07:57] quarter of 20st Street

[6:08:02] Highway. 24. So I want to

[6:08:04] acknowledge that second, I was

[6:08:07] part of the proceeding and

[6:08:10] that discussions when this was

[6:08:12] formed talked quite a bit

[6:08:14] about the bid and eta, and it

[6:08:14] didn't really appear that the

[6:08:18] dda gave a lot more options.

[6:08:20] >> For this community to move

[6:08:20] forward and there was great

[6:08:24] excitement about all of this,

[6:08:25] that it was really easy vote

[6:08:27] to say let the community do

[6:08:29] what they can do to really

[6:08:36] turn this into a great place.

[6:08:37] But I will say 3rd is that

[6:08:38] when you got all that

[6:08:40] excitement, you kind of needed

[6:08:40] the dot your I's and cross

[6:08:47] your t's. And that's part of

[6:08:47] why we're here is that there

[6:08:48] was a stagnation, the kind of

[6:08:50] took place in this unknowing.

[6:08:51] And so there was some

[6:08:53] uncertainty about is this a

[6:08:57] real thing? And so you have to

[6:08:58] stay engaged. You've got it

[6:08:59] like I mean, it's it's the

[6:09:03] it's the 3rd or 4th quarter.

[6:09:04] You gotta the game and get

[6:09:04] this across because you're

[6:09:05] going to have to get that

[6:09:08] funding done. Now I have a

[6:09:12] question. Is. Canned the

[6:09:13] borders of this dda be

[6:09:17] altered? Without voter can

[6:09:22] center at this point, can't it

[6:09:24] be read it? Can the board

[6:09:29] decide to reduce? Boundaries,

[6:09:32] not but reduce Trevor

[6:09:34] Gloucester, the c turns office

[6:09:39] to reduce There is no

[6:09:40] mechanism in the statute for

[6:09:45] the board reducing the

[6:09:45] >> da's boundaries.

[6:09:46] >> City council has some

[6:09:49] authority that as part of the,

[6:09:50] >> you know, it to which is

[6:09:53] what you do with the 17 Couple

[6:09:54] weeks back. But the board

[6:09:55] itself does not have the per

[6:09:57] statute.

[6:09:59] >> So if the board wanted to,

[6:10:01] they could approach a couple

[6:10:02] of council people and say,

[6:10:03] hey, we've got this idea that

[6:10:06] we don't want. This to be

[6:10:10] this. We wanted to be the if

[6:10:11] we're reducing the not bring

[6:10:14] anyone knew into it. I don't

[6:10:17] see the negative effect of

[6:10:17] that. I don't see someone like

[6:10:18] not wanting that, but but

[6:10:21] counsel could bring that

[6:10:25] forward. I subject to

[6:10:25] >> Limitations on debt and

[6:10:26] whether or not dead exist at

[6:10:29] time. Correct? All right. Down

[6:10:33] that that road. My other

[6:10:34] question is really to Sarah.

[6:10:40] No wake her up over that are.

[6:10:42] >> So if council wanted to

[6:10:45] step and help the West side

[6:10:48] then this, the da could could?

[6:10:50] >> We possibly what would the

[6:10:52] cost be for us to put there?

[6:10:58] Question on the ballot and go

[6:10:59] to just the residents of the

[6:11:01] da. Do you have that ability

[6:11:03] to do that and then if we were

[6:11:06] to try to push this to be on

[6:11:10] the APRIL ballot, for example.

[6:11:11] >> Okay. Part in the eye. Roll

[6:11:13] that the APRIL ballot.

[6:11:14] >> And there's a lot going to

[6:11:16] be on

[6:11:19] >> And sorry about

[6:11:20] >> I don't know the cost, but

[6:11:23] I would just say that.

[6:11:24] >> And then attorney, but I'm

[6:11:25] thinking the dda would have to

[6:11:29] pay.

[6:11:31] >> Reimburse the city for the

[6:11:32] cost of the election. Because

[6:11:33] seaman, there's no dissolution

[6:11:37] today. There is an entity and

[6:11:38] that entity would have to be

[6:11:41] for the election. And no, I

[6:11:41] don't know. Have any idea what

[6:11:45] cost

[6:11:46] >> Because sometimes we you

[6:11:46] know, and kind of, you know, a

[6:11:50] volume kite. Position. And

[6:11:51] then, you know, I don't know

[6:11:52] what the difficulty would be

[6:11:55] to kind of. I mean, we already

[6:11:58] do. We do. We do ballots

[6:12:01] districts, obviously. So we

[6:12:02] don't do citywide ballots that

[6:12:03] we can make a smaller thing.

[6:12:06] But you don't probably have a

[6:12:08] current district for the You

[6:12:11] have to create nearly down and

[6:12:12] it's a different type of

[6:12:12] election and that you're

[6:12:14] dealing with registered

[6:12:16] voters.

[6:12:16] >> You're dealing with

[6:12:19] property owners. There is the

[6:12:20] document that dry mentions. I

[6:12:20] don't know the legal name up

[6:12:23] where property only can

[6:12:24] designate.

[6:12:25] >> Someone to vote. So it's a

[6:12:26] little more convoluted than

[6:12:29] just mailing registered voter

[6:12:30] ballots. It's a little

[6:12:31] different creature questions.

[6:12:32] Just to understand what tools

[6:12:34] do I have as a council person,

[6:12:36] if I get 5 other members for

[6:12:37] their members, you know, is

[6:12:37] there something that we could

[6:12:41] do to help?

[6:12:42] >> This process move forward?

[6:12:43] Because I think that some of

[6:12:46] the thing is that they are

[6:12:47] anew organization that's

[6:12:50] trying to find its roots it

[6:12:52] and move forward and certainly

[6:12:55] coming off a no funding vote.

[6:13:00] Had to kind of. Change the

[6:13:01] dynamic a little bit with all.

[6:13:01] We've got this great thing,

[6:13:05] but we got no money. I mean, I

[6:13:07] think that was the

[6:13:09] conversation. I think everyone

[6:13:12] during that election season.

[6:13:12] So I'm trying to understand

[6:13:13] what council might be able to

[6:13:14] do to maybe support this

[6:13:16] moving forward.

[6:13:16] >> My first reaction to this

[6:13:20] is.

[6:13:21] >> Assuming, you know,

[6:13:21] dissolve the dda board would

[6:13:23] have to make the decision when

[6:13:26] they want to come to a ballot.

[6:13:29] And then come to you.

[6:13:30] >> I think I'm right in

[6:13:34] thousands of attorneys here.

[6:13:36] >> I think to come to you.

[6:13:39] >> 2

[6:13:44] >> trying to forward.

[6:13:45] >> Refer her.

[6:13:45] >> That 2 elections. I think

[6:13:49] the biggest question.

[6:13:49] >> Would be. Do you want

[6:13:53] election? And what election do

[6:13:54] you want it Do you want it on

[6:13:58] in APRIL? Do you want on a

[6:14:01] NOVEMBER different voters?

[6:14:02] Different aspects of its

[6:14:03] NOVEMBER. The county clerk

[6:14:06] would conduct Yeah.

[6:14:09] >> It's APRIL. It's or you do

[6:14:09] what they did before, which

[6:14:12] was a stand-alone, no action.

[6:14:15] Which is hires entity.

[6:14:18] >> Well, that's what heard. I

[6:14:19] heard and I think it's the

[6:14:20] board's decision might on

[6:14:21] verse Asians about we didn't

[6:14:24] get about it. And I'm trying

[6:14:29] to see if we can maybe help

[6:14:30] resolve that problem in

[6:14:35] getting it on a standard U.S.

[6:14:36] Attorneys The general process

[6:14:38] would be the dda board passed

[6:14:39] resolution saying they would

[6:14:40] like City Council to refer a

[6:14:42] question.

[6:14:42] >> City council within vote on

[6:14:43] whether or not they want refer

[6:14:44] that question to the ballot

[6:14:49] with regards to the timing

[6:14:50] person to taxpayer Bill of

[6:14:51] Timing is either in the fall

[6:14:55] of either year or spring in

[6:14:59] by, you know, yours, if you

[6:14:59] have well, if you're

[6:15:00] organizations really has

[6:15:01] by-elections with screens

[6:15:04] spring elections every other

[6:15:07] year, the city has elections

[6:15:09] dda board. Generally they

[6:15:09] don't. Actually have taxing

[6:15:12] authority for election storm.

[6:15:14] Lee. So whether or not they

[6:15:15] can piggyback off the season

[6:15:18] election is kind of a question

[6:15:19] for for us to look at see

[6:15:20] whether or not they're

[6:15:21] comfortable with that weather

[6:15:24] can be legally challenged the

[6:15:27] future. Either way the fall

[6:15:27] elections would be fine for

[6:15:30] refer measure. But we would

[6:15:31] have to work with the county

[6:15:36] and that point, if if it's if

[6:15:37] we're adding into the general

[6:15:40] ballot, yes, it would do is it

[6:15:42] is. There's a lot of city and

[6:15:44] county back and forth on those

[6:15:44] elections, ok and sorry, I

[6:15:46] believe MR. MR. Garner, just

[6:15:55] some art MADAM Thank you. And

[6:15:56] COUNCILMAN Mike Weber. I

[6:15:57] appreciate the question. And

[6:15:59] then.

[6:16:00] >> This support of of the

[6:16:05] neighborhood. My own sense of

[6:16:06] has been a shift counsel to

[6:16:10] the district. Is that their

[6:16:11] best path forward is to get

[6:16:13] their plan of development,

[6:16:14] which is in the planning

[6:16:18] Department now get it approved

[6:16:19] without that they cannot

[6:16:24] access the tax increment. Once

[6:16:30] they do. That number MR. Last

[6:16:33] MAY and know what it was. That

[6:16:35] number 4 last year, which was

[6:16:37] not accessed. This is $100,000

[6:16:37] or something along those

[6:16:47] lines. Which The funds to pay.

[6:16:48] To participate on about now.

[6:16:52] My own. Not having looked at

[6:16:54] this. I don't know of any

[6:16:55] taxing district that cannot

[6:16:56] piggyback on the ballot if

[6:16:58] they pay If they pay the

[6:17:02] freight on volume. But without

[6:17:03] a plan of development approved

[6:17:04] would say to get done. They

[6:17:08] don't have the revenue. To

[6:17:09] then get on the ballot and go

[6:17:12] for a military. But that in my

[6:17:14] mind is there's the path

[6:17:15] forward. Okay, that's helpful.

[6:17:18] Thank you.

[6:17:23] >> COUNCILMAN Williams. Thank

[6:17:24] you. I'll start off by saying

[6:17:25] thank you all for being here.

[6:17:27] Mayor Nick MAY not believe it,

[6:17:28] but

[6:17:28] >> I do appreciate you all

[6:17:33] coming. Absolutely o Colorado

[6:17:34] city. Like much ado here. I

[6:17:36] grew up here and spent lots of

[6:17:40] time old Colorado City. So I'm

[6:17:41] going to reiterate how we got

[6:17:46] here. How we got here is a lot

[6:17:49] of the reasons that you guys

[6:17:50] walked a pair and spoken to

[6:17:51] that microphone inside old

[6:17:54] Colorado City. Charm.

[6:17:56] >> It's all its spirit. O

[6:17:59] Colorado City is a treasure.

[6:17:59] >> For those of you who

[6:18:04] haven't. Then Gordon, a fun

[6:18:05] night to really read what the

[6:18:07] downtown Development Authority

[6:18:10] is. That is development and

[6:18:11] redevelopment. So I definitely

[6:18:13] want to clarify that. It's the

[6:18:16] exact papa says. I don't want

[6:18:20] to tearing things down, but I

[6:18:24] know that this and to an order

[6:18:25] to fund it properly and pay

[6:18:26] for the attorneys accountants

[6:18:27] and all the oversight that

[6:18:31] comes with it lends itself to

[6:18:32] development and redevelopment,

[6:18:33] which is why it's called a

[6:18:36] downtown development

[6:18:38] authority. It survives because

[6:18:40] of development because of that

[6:18:41] tax increment that comes with

[6:18:46] development. So we've heard

[6:18:48] from dry, the business

[6:18:49] improvemt district, every

[6:18:52] single one of you are business

[6:18:53] owners and every single one of

[6:18:55] you want that money reinvested

[6:18:57] into your business. I

[6:19:02] personally would rather do

[6:19:03] that. Then pay attorneys and

[6:19:06] accountants and other people

[6:19:07] to manage and authority that

[6:19:08] doesn't lend itself to old

[6:19:10] Colorado City. So that's how

[6:19:12] we got here today, depending

[6:19:14] upon how this vote goes. I'm

[6:19:18] pretty have all of your

[6:19:18] involvement to get this from 0

[6:19:22] to really putting money in old

[6:19:24] Colorado City to get what you

[6:19:25] on happening as fast as

[6:19:26] possible. So I just wanted to

[6:19:29] explain that for everybody

[6:19:30] here who was unable to make it

[6:19:32] to the previous meeting. So

[6:19:37] thank you, COUNCILMAN, rainy.

[6:19:38] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[6:19:40] And I would like to also start

[6:19:42] by saying thank you all for

[6:19:43] being here. Small business

[6:19:45] owners. I'm a small business

[6:19:48] owner. So I know exactly a lot

[6:19:49] of the comments I heard. I

[6:19:50] know exactly what you're going

[6:19:53] through, what you're feeling,

[6:19:54] especially about how we got

[6:19:58] here with particular dda. The

[6:19:59] couple of themes that I heard

[6:20:03] before I get into some process

[6:20:04] procedure items.

[6:20:06] >> Need help want to help

[6:20:10] support need it. Stability

[6:20:15] want it. Charm of Old Colorado

[6:20:15] City.

[6:20:16] >> Cleanup maintain economic

[6:20:19] development, marketing.

[6:20:21] >> Those are a lot of those

[6:20:25] items that dry executive

[6:20:27] director, that he mentioned

[6:20:27] when it comes to a business

[6:20:32] improvement. Things that they

[6:20:34] can lean into to make that

[6:20:37] happen. Ago, step further here

[6:20:37] because I think there's

[6:20:40] something that's missing

[6:20:41] pretty importantly. And you

[6:20:44] that

[6:20:49] This is a this is, in my

[6:20:53] opinion and opportunity for

[6:20:56] the mayor's office. Economic

[6:20:57] development to include the you

[6:21:01] to come together and figure

[6:21:01] out something.

[6:21:04] >> That will work.

[6:21:05] >> In conjunction with our

[6:21:07] downtown authority that is

[6:21:10] currently in place and baked

[6:21:10] in and figure out how to

[6:21:14] invest better into that area

[6:21:16] because everything that was

[6:21:16] mentioned, it's about

[6:21:20] investment into that area. So

[6:21:21] and now when I say investment,

[6:21:22] I want to make sure I'm very

[6:21:26] clear on this. Is that

[6:21:28] investment to what their

[6:21:29] needing as business owners in

[6:21:31] that area. That's first and

[6:21:34] foremost. Secondly. Going

[6:21:39] through quick items currently

[6:21:39] in the United States of

[6:21:41] America. There's 19,500 towns,

[6:21:45] cities, municipalities.

[6:21:47] 19,500. In entire United

[6:21:53] States. And the United States.

[6:21:55] There are 2 the da's 2 cities

[6:21:58] that have to the da's and

[6:22:00] sadly enough, the one other

[6:22:03] city that has to the da's.

[6:22:03] There's a reason for it. And

[6:22:04] if you actually been paying

[6:22:08] attention to the news lately,

[6:22:10] sadly enough, you're probably

[6:22:11] know the reason why actually

[6:22:13] did to da's. There's a whole

[6:22:14] lot there.

[6:22:16] >> And I want pounce on that

[6:22:17] particular city, quite if you

[6:22:18] haven't seen it, you will see

[6:22:19] it on things that are going on

[6:22:21] in that city. Thus that leaves

[6:22:24] us. In the state of Colorado.

[6:22:27] There's no cities. See that

[6:22:33] have to Deo's 0. So when I go

[6:22:34] back look at the historical

[6:22:38] timeline of how we got here

[6:22:38] and reading through the

[6:22:40] minutes from 13 AUGUST 2024,

[6:22:43] every last comment. And by the

[6:22:46] way, the lady who's here,

[6:22:48] thank you very much. On that

[6:22:51] day being here. Also speaking

[6:22:53] and then, of course, the

[6:22:54] minutes from AUGUST 27th of

[6:23:00] 2024. Every comment that is

[6:23:01] made in every.

[6:23:07] >> Messaging. Everyone said.

[6:23:10] >> be id every last person. To

[6:23:11] include members of council to

[6:23:13] include other stakeholders in

[6:23:15] the city and there was a lot

[6:23:17] of back and forward about why

[6:23:23] not be id. And it wasn't until

[6:23:24] couple other things that

[6:23:25] transpired that really evolved

[6:23:27] just staying into does dda

[6:23:29] another item. I would like to

[6:23:32] clarify because this is also I

[6:23:33] think, but somehow this has

[6:23:37] got lost in translation. Does

[6:23:41] not operate unto itself.

[6:23:42] Colorado revised statute. 31

[6:23:47] 25 801 through 8.22. Article.

[6:23:49] 31 excuse me, title. 31 out of

[6:23:52] the 25 governs. How do you

[6:23:53] need a da's operate here in

[6:23:55] the state of Colorado? And

[6:23:56] there's been several

[6:23:58] conversations and several

[6:23:59] comments made that they

[6:24:01] operate unto themselves. And

[6:24:04] that's not accurate. I had one

[6:24:05] member. I don't believe

[6:24:07] they're part of the dda, but

[6:24:10] they live in that area who

[6:24:10] came to me in a previous

[6:24:13] session in state. It. Well, we

[6:24:17] want the funds so we can

[6:24:17] determine upon ourselves on

[6:24:19] how to best do that. That's

[6:24:21] not how it goes. Funds operate

[6:24:26] in work. So I go back again to

[6:24:29] be id's being better suited.

[6:24:30] And I think also member

[6:24:34] Williams just hinted at it. Da

[6:24:36] is designed for large-scale

[6:24:39] infrastructure and capital

[6:24:39] development. And that's not

[6:24:42] what you're all looking for.

[6:24:44] That preservation of all

[6:24:46] Colorado City. Why go to

[6:24:47] certain candy shops down

[6:24:48] there? Why go to certain

[6:24:49] Italian restaurants down

[6:24:52] there? That preservation

[6:24:53] historical preservation. It's

[6:24:56] what you are wanting while

[6:24:59] still doing maintaining the

[6:25:02] Clinton this the up. Keep

[6:25:03] making sure your businesses

[6:25:03] can still thrive while

[6:25:05] maintaining at historical

[6:25:08] precedence is where we should

[6:25:10] be putting lot of our effort

[6:25:13] into and I do go back to the

[6:25:13] vote that transpired NOVEMBER

[6:25:18] of 2024, the actual formation,

[6:25:21] the dta that vote past 123,

[6:25:26] 2.90. The Mill Levy failed

[6:25:29] that vote fail. 98. Yes, 115

[6:25:33] know. Now the other 2 items,

[6:25:36] the debt authorization and the

[6:25:39] Revenue retention, those pass.

[6:25:45] But look how those past.

[6:25:47] Authorization pass 188. Yes,

[6:25:47] 105. No. However, the table

[6:25:51] review retention. But it past

[6:25:55] 105. Yes. And 100 and to know.

[6:25:56] So it goes to the heart of a

[6:25:59] lot of the folks that mention

[6:25:59] there are some people in some

[6:26:03] numbers that are missing year.

[6:26:04] There are people that were

[6:26:05] included that maybe voted

[6:26:06] probably shouldn't have not

[6:26:07] voted. And there are people

[6:26:09] that should have voted and

[6:26:11] somehow they got missed in

[6:26:16] this entire process. So I will

[6:26:19] tell you, I want something for

[6:26:22] you. I love Colorado City. I

[6:26:22] love the passion that you have

[6:26:25] for your business. Is. And I

[6:26:26] think there is something there

[6:26:31] that we collectively. Can lean

[6:26:32] into. Not what is that? Is it

[6:26:34] to be I d it is a is

[6:26:39] collaboration the I d with new

[6:26:40] form agreement with downtown

[6:26:43] what the current dda in place

[6:26:44] along with economic

[6:26:46] development, along with other

[6:26:47] items, whatever that looks

[6:26:48] like and what of that shapes

[6:26:51] out to be. There is something

[6:26:53] there for us to lean into.

[6:26:58] However, factor is I go back

[6:26:59] again. Minus the one city and

[6:27:02] they did it for a very unique

[6:27:02] reason. Do want to pass on

[6:27:05] that because it has whole lot

[6:27:06] rooted in a lot of negative

[6:27:09] things. But that makes us the

[6:27:12] only city out of 19,500 and

[6:27:13] United States that would like

[6:27:14] to have to the da's in the

[6:27:17] same city. So I think that and

[6:27:19] then when you look back at the

[6:27:19] minute, when you look at how

[6:27:21] we got here, I think we need

[6:27:24] to take a step back and just

[6:27:26] say, ok, how do we make this

[6:27:28] right? And I and I hate to put

[6:27:29] you on spot or I because we've

[6:27:32] had conversations. But he is

[6:27:36] already stand by. To help get

[6:27:38] this to what ever best

[6:27:40] mechanism. Is ready to move

[6:27:45] forward. And I've seen him in

[6:27:48] action. One of the most astute

[6:27:49] professionals I've ever ran

[6:27:51] across in my time. And he

[6:27:53] knows this stuff inside and

[6:27:56] out. So I would say leverage

[6:27:59] leverage those organizations

[6:28:00] less leverage, current

[6:28:00] organizations we have in place

[6:28:06] in the city. And let's not

[6:28:07] conflate confuse. Alright,

[6:28:09] look to use the word markup.

[6:28:13] We kind of mucking up dda is

[6:28:14] intended for versus what

[6:28:17] you're asking for. And I think

[6:28:19] this is why you finding United

[6:28:20] States. There's not any cities

[6:28:23] that have to da's. They're

[6:28:24] very unique unto themselves.

[6:28:26] But they're also governed by

[6:28:27] revised statute. They don't

[6:28:31] operate like of document unto

[6:28:33] itself. Only in your

[6:28:34] community. So this is where i

[6:28:39] will tell you. Moving forward.

[6:28:40] I think there's a lot of

[6:28:42] resources that we can lean

[6:28:44] into the right resources to

[6:28:46] get you where you need to be

[6:28:49] where we need to invt. And I

[6:28:50] might even go a step further,

[6:28:51] especially when it comes to

[6:28:53] small business because I just

[6:28:55] held a small business forum

[6:28:59] back in JUNE. And that to me

[6:29:02] is where we need to really

[6:29:03] start looking at giving you

[6:29:04] the support of resources that

[6:29:08] you need in old Colorado City.

[6:29:08] So with that being said, I'll

[6:29:09] turn it back over to you.

[6:29:14] MADAM PRESIDENT.

[6:29:16] >> Seeing no other comments

[6:29:17] from Councilmembers have a

[6:29:18] motion from COUNCILMAN

[6:29:19] Williams in a second from

[6:29:34] COUNCILMAN. Remy, let's bow.

[6:29:39] And the motion passes 5 to 4.

[6:29:40] Moving on to item 11 able to

[6:29:41] clerk. Please read item 11 a

[6:29:43] into the record.

[6:29:45] >> PRESIDENT. Can I just ask?

[6:29:51] I think. I want to let the

[6:29:51] citizens know that we vote on

[6:29:54] this again in 2

[6:29:55] >> We vote on this again in 2

[6:29:59] weeks. Going to line Will the

[6:30:00] clerk please read item 11 a

[6:30:04] into the record ordinance

[6:30:05] number. 26 37 amending the

[6:30:06] zoning map. The city Colorado

[6:30:07] Springs pertaining to 5.41

[6:30:10] Acres located it.

[6:30:10] >> But 3 to 5 MARCH. Sadly,

[6:30:14] all of our mixed use

[6:30:17] neighborhood scale was streams

[6:30:18] had a really to mixed use

[6:30:19] medium streamside overlay.

[6:30:20] This is the second reading in

[6:30:21] the public hearing.

[6:30:22] >> Today's hearing will

[6:30:24] proceed is the following city

[6:30:28] staff presentation applicant

[6:30:29] presentation public comment

[6:30:29] support public coming in.

[6:30:30] Opposition applicant rebuttal

[6:30:32] closing stop comments back to

[6:30:34] the dice. The questions,

[6:30:36] deliberation and decision.

[6:30:38] >> And then PRESIDENT, can I

[6:30:39] ask for a 5 minute recess or 5

[6:31:12] City planning. I'm here in

[6:31:15] place of Chris Sullivan this

[6:31:16] evening. He's a senior planner

[6:31:18] team and he was the case

[6:31:19] planner for this project. But

[6:31:22] he's unavailable tanks. So

[6:31:28] this project is one way to

[6:31:30] project is a proposed zoning

[6:31:31] change with land. Use a

[6:31:34] statement located at 5, 3, to

[6:31:38] 5 Mark Dabbling Boulevard and

[6:31:40] the proposed changes from mx

[6:31:41] an ss owns that is mixed use

[6:31:44] neighborhood scale streamside

[6:31:46] overlay to annex That is

[6:31:47] mixed. Use medium scale

[6:31:49] streamside overlay.

[6:31:56] As I said, the site is 5.4 1

[6:31:59] acres and is located on Mark

[6:32:00] Toppling Boulevard South east

[6:32:07] Interstate. 25. And existing

[6:32:09] home sites. There are some

[6:32:10] existing improvements. Couple,

[6:32:11] a small office buildings

[6:32:15] located on the site. Pix Peak

[6:32:15] Greenway Trail also runs

[6:32:16] through the center of this

[6:32:17] property at forming part of

[6:32:21] the regional trail system. The

[6:32:22] East property line Texans down

[6:32:22] at the center Line of Monument

[6:32:27] Creek as well. The property is

[6:32:27] surrounded by bp's own

[6:32:30] district, which is business

[6:32:31] Park, which allows primarily

[6:32:35] commercial industrial use as

[6:32:36] and so the properties to the

[6:32:38] northwest are primarily

[6:32:39] office. And then we also have

[6:32:40] a Monument creek to the south

[6:32:45] and some multifamily

[6:32:46] residential across Monument

[6:32:49] Creek and to the southeast.

[6:32:52] And in terms of the history of

[6:32:55] the the property was rezoned

[6:32:57] to office complex with

[6:32:57] Streamside overlay back in

[6:32:59] 2017 under the former chapter

[6:33:02] 7 with the supporting concept

[6:33:06] plan and this was to

[6:33:07] application development plan

[6:33:09] on variants and final plat for

[6:33:10] multi-family residential

[6:33:13] totaling 48 units. These

[6:33:15] applications were never

[6:33:16] approved due to a private

[6:33:18] company restriction and have

[6:33:19] been applied to the property

[6:33:20] that prohibited the

[6:33:21] development of residential

[6:33:22] uses and the proof concept

[6:33:26] plan expired in 2023. And the

[6:33:26] other associate almonds again

[6:33:32] were never proved. In 2023

[6:33:33] Office complex zone was

[6:33:34] absorbed into mixed use

[6:33:35] neighborhood scale as part of

[6:33:38] the bigger. Adoption of the

[6:33:43] Unified Development Code. And

[6:33:45] at that the multi-family

[6:33:45] residential use was no longer

[6:33:47] permitted by right? So we'll

[6:33:55] touch that a later. So again,

[6:33:57] the proposed rezoning is from

[6:33:58] mixed use neighborhood scale

[6:33:59] streams. I do relate to mixed

[6:34:01] use medium scale. The

[6:34:02] streamside overlay. So I have

[6:34:04] highlighted our Chris

[6:34:06] highlighted some of those

[6:34:06] dimensional standards what

[6:34:08] that change will look like on

[6:34:15] this slide. There is

[6:34:16] predominantly an increase in

[6:34:18] building setbacks between

[6:34:19] mixed use neighborhood and

[6:34:23] mixed use medium scale. We're

[6:34:25] going from 5 foot interior

[6:34:28] side to 20 feet. For example,

[6:34:29] 15 foot corner on a side

[6:34:30] street to 30 feet required.

[6:34:34] Setback. There are a few

[6:34:36] reductions, including the 20

[6:34:37] foot rear setback would become

[6:34:37] a 15 foot rear setback.

[6:34:40] Maximum building height

[6:34:41] permitted would increase from

[6:34:54] 45 feet 50 feet. Item I was

[6:34:56] initially submitted NOVEMBER

[6:34:57] 18, 2025. It went too far in

[6:35:00] cycles and it was ready for

[6:35:04] the agenda on JUNE 12th. And

[6:35:05] it subsequently went to City

[6:35:07] Planning Commission on JULY

[6:35:08] 8th 2026. And was approved on

[6:35:10] the consent agenda.

[6:35:16] And postcards were mailed to

[6:35:21] properties within 1000 feet

[6:35:21] their 25 postcards mailed out

[6:35:23] in 0 comments were received

[6:35:23] and a public notice occurred

[6:35:26] during administrative review

[6:35:27] prior to City Planning

[6:35:32] Commission. And again, prior

[6:35:34] no major agency comments I

[6:35:39] received at this time. All

[6:35:40] comments specific to the to

[6:35:41] the different agencies will be

[6:35:42] provided a time of development

[6:35:51] plans And this project was

[6:35:53] reviewed as well for

[6:35:54] compliance with plans us and

[6:35:58] was found to be in compliance

[6:35:59] with applicable visions. Big

[6:36:00] ideas and strategies of plan c

[6:36:05] s. And it was also evaluated

[6:36:08] for income hi and Sweat. The

[6:36:09] criteria for approval for his

[6:36:14] own map Amendment. There are a

[6:36:15] couple of things that Chris

[6:36:16] wanted to highlight as part

[6:36:16] his revere as the case

[6:36:23] planner. And those included.

[6:36:25] And the mx an for the current

[6:36:26] zoning. I'm is intended to be

[6:36:27] located on the edge of or

[6:36:29] internal to residential

[6:36:31] neighborhoods with eye court

[6:36:35] with were off neighbor, a

[6:36:36] combination of local streets

[6:36:37] and collector slash arterial

[6:36:38] streets where as the proposed

[6:36:42] rezoning next at and is

[6:36:43] intended to accommodate the

[6:36:43] development of new activity

[6:36:44] centers in emerging growth

[6:36:48] areas. Essentially provide

[6:36:49] some additional flexibility

[6:36:50] for the development of the

[6:36:55] site. Additionally, the

[6:36:57] Monument that runs through the

[6:36:57] site as well as a missing

[6:37:00] trail, does create time

[6:37:04] constraints on development of

[6:37:05] this site. And the multi the

[6:37:06] proposed potential

[6:37:09] multi-family residential use.

[6:37:10] I was identified as an

[6:37:10] opportunity to kind of

[6:37:12] activate the stream tight

[6:37:13] area. Further. And that was

[6:37:14] identified as a as a positive

[6:37:18] opportunity by staff. Add

[6:37:22] additional Leno other kind of

[6:37:23] negative impacts were

[6:37:24] identified as a consequence of

[6:37:30] this proposed reason. I'm so

[6:37:32] after a valuation this

[6:37:33] application at him, it was

[6:37:37] time to meet criteria. We have

[6:37:41] are optional motions here. And

[6:37:42] I can also answer any

[6:37:46] questions. Johnson and

[6:37:48] Johnson, I think. Thank you,

[6:37:49] MADAM PRESIDENT. And is the

[6:37:54] property owner here?

[6:37:57] >> Want to? And he's the

[6:38:01] gentleman says that. For this

[6:38:04] project or property.

[6:38:05] >> Yeah, there will be an

[6:38:06] applicant presentation

[6:38:07] falling. Stocks occasion.

[6:38:13] Okay. Rezone. Prior zoning

[6:38:14] does not allow data centers.

[6:38:20] That correct.

[6:38:20] >> ios or I'm sorry, the imax

[6:38:23] and zoning districts. I'm not

[6:38:26] sure about

[6:38:27] >> Does the request own

[6:38:39] allowed data centers. Working

[6:38:40] >> ok, that'll be my question.

[6:38:41] And can. You can double back

[6:38:42] after the applicant

[6:38:47] presentation. We'll need fun.

[6:38:53] >> Thank you know the

[6:38:53] questions we will not have the

[6:38:54] applicant presentation for 15

[6:38:56] minutes.

[6:39:03] Good evening this evening. Now

[6:39:06] PRESIDENT Crow, Iverson. Pro

[6:39:08] Tem Risley and council members

[6:39:10] minds. John ultimate urban

[6:39:11] landscapes. We are the planner

[6:39:15] for the property owner

[6:39:17] terrorize us as property owner

[6:39:18] is not able to join us this

[6:39:19] evening. He is a resident here

[6:39:21] in Colorado Springs and

[6:39:22] actually got an unknown. Know

[6:39:23] him, sir, playing pickleball.

[6:39:27] Interestingly enough. Rodrigo

[6:39:28] purchased this property. I

[6:39:32] want to say in 2022 2023. So

[6:39:33] it was right around the time

[6:39:36] of the utc. We go through the

[6:39:41] slides here. And just to

[6:39:41] answer your question, MR.

[6:39:43] Donaldson, I'm not exactly

[6:39:45] sure that was not ever use

[6:39:47] that was ever contemplated

[6:39:48] discussed by the property

[6:39:51] owner. So I'm not sure if it's

[6:39:51] allowed or not, but I'm sure

[6:39:55] they're looking to right now.

[6:39:57] So some history on this. There

[6:39:59] was unchanged, proved in 2017

[6:40:00] with the concept plan. It was

[6:40:02] looked at for affordable

[6:40:03] housing. So there was a there

[6:40:05] are formal plans put together

[6:40:07] for this. The site is very

[6:40:09] constrained with a lot of

[6:40:10] things. A lot of a lot of

[6:40:12] charm that goes into it, too,

[6:40:12] because of the the trail

[6:40:14] that's there. The creek is

[6:40:16] right there. You'd be all

[6:40:17] familiar with this being a

[6:40:18] cross from university village

[6:40:18] across the creek from

[6:40:20] University Village area. So

[6:40:21] the trail and there's very

[6:40:24] beautiful. And so the trail by

[6:40:25] sex, the property in quite a

[6:40:26] bit. And we'll look show that

[6:40:30] here in a minute. T previous

[6:40:33] zoning, which was pdi-p to eye

[6:40:34] way before. It was reason. I

[6:40:36] did believe did so. That's

[6:40:37] more of an industry will allow

[6:40:38] data center just for whatever

[6:40:40] it's worth. When it's an

[6:40:44] either zone.

[6:40:44] >> They're not allowed in

[6:40:49] either them.

[6:40:50] >> Thank you, MR. Williams. I

[6:40:57] mean, MR. Walker.

[6:40:59] >> So it what he was looking

[6:41:00] for in particular on this

[6:41:01] property, the property owners,

[6:41:04] he was looking to figure out

[6:41:05] how to get value out of this

[6:41:06] land. So when he approached

[6:41:09] us, we're looking at it for

[6:41:10] something along the idea of a

[6:41:13] campground, recreational

[6:41:13] vehicle, park clothes was

[6:41:14] really what he was looking at.

[6:41:15] And he was looking at more of

[6:41:17] a clamping kind of a the feel

[6:41:19] that would go along the creeks

[6:41:22] there. But he also didn't want

[6:41:24] he wanted have the multifamily

[6:41:24] allowance.

[6:41:27] >> As happens with us, seems

[6:41:28] like every project that touch

[6:41:29] things change when you're just

[6:41:31] doing his own change. An.

[6:41:32] >> And over time we've had a

[6:41:33] lot of interest in the

[6:41:36] multifamily side of things. So

[6:41:38] it's a it's a good fit. The

[6:41:40] idea is to really return

[6:41:40] zoning of the property back to

[6:41:42] what it was and what it

[6:41:43] allowed, which was the

[6:41:44] multifamily aspect and the

[6:41:45] campground recreational

[6:41:49] vehicle Park. So in 2023, the

[6:41:54] utc was adopted. And next, an

[6:41:56] which is mixed use

[6:41:58] neighborhood still streamside.

[6:41:59] So there's there's all those

[6:42:03] components to coach the site.

[6:42:04] This is the prior concept

[6:42:05] plans. So the if you look at

[6:42:07] Upper cross building on there,

[6:42:09] that's an existing structure

[6:42:13] that exists there today. I

[6:42:14] believe there's a home made

[6:42:18] lives in there right now. And

[6:42:18] with this plan, they were

[6:42:21] looking at it as a clubhouse.

[6:42:22] So just going to convert the

[6:42:22] existing building and then the

[6:42:24] larger building being the

[6:42:26] multi-family. This was done by

[6:42:27] America, West House and

[6:42:29] solutions during that that

[6:42:30] process to my knowledge, they

[6:42:33] never actually owned this

[6:42:34] property so they weren't able

[6:42:37] to go in and fulfill it before

[6:42:42] the economy did what it did.

[6:42:43] Here's a streamside overlay on

[6:42:44] here and you can see the

[6:42:45] overall site Israeli

[6:42:46] highlighted on there. You can

[6:42:49] see it expands across the

[6:42:50] creek. It's really quite large

[6:42:54] and the trail piece there.

[6:42:55] There there's a stream side

[6:42:59] overlay. I'm sorry. Property

[6:43:01] doesn't go across creek and on

[6:43:03] talking about streamside

[6:43:03] overlay. So it's 53. 85 on the

[6:43:06] map here. If I could. So know,

[6:43:11] doesn't work. There's another.

[6:43:14] There's friction site that it

[6:43:15] turns it rotates. That's

[6:43:16] confusing aspect. North is up

[6:43:19] now. Or we've got a lot of it

[6:43:24] in the inner buffer. Is the

[6:43:26] 1.7 5, I'm sorry. The powder.

[6:43:28] And look at notes here keep

[6:43:32] messing this up. That's the

[6:43:33] outer buffer of the

[6:43:33] streamside. The inner buffer

[6:43:37] is the the 40 feet.

[6:43:40] Development goals. As I

[6:43:42] mentioned, multi-family

[6:43:43] residential attached,

[6:43:45] single-family campground

[6:43:47] lodging. We've looked at all

[6:43:51] of these aspects and what can

[6:43:55] be done with site. It is

[6:43:59] chopped up. There's a big

[6:44:05] utility easement to comes to

[6:44:13] the site as well as the trail.

[6:44:22] And and the strange sight

[6:44:33] aspects. But it is still

[6:44:45] worthwhile to go after I put

[6:44:58] all these in here, the

[6:45:12] statement that you have has a

[6:45:24] much larger exhaustive list. I

[6:45:36] only put 5 19, an early read.

[6:45:49] These are all have to do with

[6:46:00] him. Still, you can imagine

[6:46:15] you've seen these before. You

[6:46:27] get the strategies and aspects

[6:46:37] of anything you see isn't

[6:46:47] change. And I mean, the backup

[6:46:59] and this turn this over for

[6:47:09] questions because that's

[6:47:20] really the nuts and bolts the

[6:47:32] property. The goals are really

[6:47:43] to just return it to what was

[6:47:55] allowed before. COUNCILMAN

[6:48:07] Hinton. Thank you, MADAM

[6:48:19] PRESIDENT, yet. Hey, John, I?

[6:48:31] >> Not really a question, but

[6:48:46] just more of a comment, I

[6:49:00] suppose, which is how we

[6:49:12] develop along the creek and

[6:49:21] along that trail.

[6:49:32] >> I you know, with the Pikes

[6:49:42] Peak waterways, vision of what

[6:49:51] can be possible with our creek

[6:50:01] >> well, that I'm blanking on

[6:50:11] the name of the shopping

[6:50:21] center across universe of

[6:50:31] illiteracy, diligence. It's

[6:50:41] nice. Unfortunately, they

[6:50:51] completely avoided the beauty

[6:51:01] of taking advantage of the

[6:51:11] beauty of looking over the

[6:51:20] water on to the mountains and

[6:51:29] I just hope that whatever gets

[6:51:39] developed here, it takes

[6:51:48] advantage of the beauty of the

[6:51:57] watershed in the water. The

[6:52:06] creek and activates that in a

[6:52:15] way, you know, continues to

[6:52:25] activate that because I think

[6:52:32] it's a fabulous, you know,

[6:52:38] it's fabulous. What we have a

[6:52:43] long that along that creek.

[6:52:47] >> Yeah, it really is

[6:52:51] beautiful with out there and

[6:52:54] can just walking around and

[6:52:57] going on the property. It's

[6:53:00] it's a fantastic piece. And

[6:53:03] yeah, that was a disappointing

[6:53:06] aspect of university village

[6:53:09] when that one especially with

[6:53:11] the 40 foot retaining wall and

[6:53:14] and the other aspects towards

[6:53:16] that

[6:53:19] >> this site, I think would be

[6:53:22] pretty hard to not engage the

[6:53:24] creek. You know, it's it's

[6:53:26] right there. There's

[6:53:29] floodplain aspects that go

[6:53:31] into this. But the creek is

[6:53:33] the major manatee Mark

[6:53:36] battling is. Not necessarily

[6:53:38] something you really want to

[6:53:41] front onto, but Creek,

[6:53:44] absolutely.

[6:53:47] See their questions at this

[6:53:49] time.

[6:53:52] >> have no one signed up in

[6:53:54] support of the project and we

[6:53:56] have no one signed up in a

[6:53:59] position.

[6:54:01] >> So we will now move to the

[6:54:03] applicant. There's no rebuttal

[6:54:05] so we will hear a final

[6:54:07] closing from staff if there is

[6:54:09] one. To the Dias for

[6:54:12] questions. I don't see any. We

[6:54:13] have a motion from COUNCILMAN

[6:54:15] In a second from COUNCILMAN

[6:54:16] Risley. Let's vote.

[6:54:18] We can do

[6:54:19] it. If you want to do roll

[6:54:21] call, we can do a voice, vote.

[6:54:22] And the motion passes 8 to

[6:54:24] one. Serene 8 to 0 with one

[6:54:25] absence.

[6:54:26] >> Moving on to lie to item 11

[6:54:27] b, will the please read item

[6:54:29] 11 b into the record ordinance

[6:54:30] number. 26 30 amending a

[6:54:31] zoning map of the city in

[6:54:33] Colorado Springs pertaining to

[6:54:34] 7.7 9 acres located at 42 90

[6:54:36] 43 10. 43 2043 30 43, 40

[6:54:37] backing him drive.

[6:54:38] >> From business Park with

[6:54:40] conditions or record to light

[6:54:41] industrial with conditions of

[6:54:42] our current secondary.

[6:54:44] >> Today's hearing will

[6:54:45] proceed following city staff

[6:54:47] presentation applicant

[6:54:48] presentation public comment

[6:54:49] support public. I'm in a

[6:54:51] position applicant rebuttal

[6:54:52] closing staff comments and

[6:54:53] actually dies for

[6:54:55] councilmember questions,

[6:54:56] deliberation and decision. We

[6:54:57] will now have from the city

[6:54:59] planning.

[6:55:00] >> Malia, Brian Plan 2 again.

[6:55:01] Chris Sullivan was the case

[6:55:02] planner. Those projects news

[6:55:03] on it is not available. So I'm

[6:55:05] here. And in his place. I

[6:55:06] neither application for his

[6:55:07] own map Amendment land use

[6:55:08] statements and this project

[6:55:09] site is located on Cunningham

[6:55:10] drive South east of the

[6:55:11] intersection of Centennial

[6:55:12] Boulevard. And got surrounded

[6:55:13] road. And these are 5

[6:55:14] currently vacant. Lots. The

[6:55:15] total site area, 7.7 9 acres.

[6:55:16] So again, the project proposal

[6:55:17] is a zoning map. Amendment out

[6:55:18] with land use statements.

[6:55:18] There are some existing

[6:55:19] conditions of record

[6:55:20] associated with the business

[6:55:21] park zoning. So existing

[6:55:22] conditions of record and that

[6:55:23] staff is proposing to remove

[6:55:23] include a 25 foot landscape.

[6:55:24] Buffer. And that to be

[6:55:25] provided Jason to the southern

[6:55:26] property boundary. There's

[6:55:26] another condition to service

[6:55:27] facilities, including looting

[6:55:28] and trash, including areas

[6:55:29] will be designed arranged to

[6:55:29] avoid adverse impact on

[6:55:30] adjacent property. Zoned

[6:55:31] residential. Facility shall be

[6:55:32] screened, buildings, other

[6:55:32] means acceptable by city

[6:55:33] planning. Director. So just to

[6:55:34] give a little bit more

[6:55:34] background on this it is

[6:55:35] currently zoned business park

[6:55:36] and with conditions a record

[6:55:36] and the surrounding properties

[6:55:37] to the north and east are

[6:55:38] predominantly zoned business

[6:55:38] park used for storage

[6:55:39] warehousing and light

[6:55:40] industrial uses and to the

[6:55:40] West. We have excuse medium

[6:55:41] scale. This is a commercial

[6:55:42] shopping center to the South,

[6:55:42] we have in our 5 districts

[6:55:43] that includes single-family

[6:55:44] residential. These existing

[6:55:44] conditions, a record that are

[6:55:45] associate with the zoning kind

[6:55:46] of considered to be sign read

[6:55:47] and given the tools that exist

[6:55:47] in the current unified

[6:55:48] development code. Again, I

[6:55:49] will touch on a little bit

[6:55:49] later. But as part of this

[6:55:50] rezoning request would be

[6:55:51] removing these existing

[6:55:51] conditions record and then

[6:55:52] imposing new conditions of

[6:55:53] record. And prohibiting the

[6:55:53] following me says Household

[6:55:54] living group living.

[6:55:55] Industrial hemp marijuana

[6:55:55] related services, natural

[6:55:56] medicine and indoor and

[6:55:57] Outdoor channel's, and I'm

[6:55:57] just for your information.

[6:55:58] Household living includes

[6:55:59] pretty much all residential

[6:56:00] uses and the unified

[6:56:01] development code.

[6:56:02] Councilman tend to be question

[6:56:02] already. One way to finished.

[6:56:03] I would have a question at

[6:56:04] that's to make Yeah, thank

[6:56:04] you. Yeah, I just.

[6:56:05] >> And maybe we'll get more

[6:56:06] into this in your

[6:56:06] presentation. But I'm I'm just

[6:56:07] trying to understand the

[6:56:08] removal of the conditions of

[6:56:08] record and the addition of the

[6:56:09] conditions of record, how

[6:56:10] >> common is that in a rezone

[6:56:10] and why? I mean, I guess I

[6:56:11] just don't fully understand.

[6:56:12] >> All of that. So if you're

[6:56:12] going to explain it as you go

[6:56:13] on, that's fine. However, you

[6:56:14] want cover. That's fine with

[6:56:14] me.

[6:56:15] >> Right, absolutely. I'm

[6:56:16] about to go into the site

[6:56:16] history and I think that kind

[6:56:17] of helps to explain kind of

[6:56:17] how we got here. So at this am

[6:56:18] does include 5 parcels, as I

[6:56:18] mentioned, and they are

[6:56:19] currently vacant. And there

[6:56:20] are there's a history happened

[6:56:20] title months on the site and

[6:56:21] of which were ultimately

[6:56:21] developed. So there have been

[6:56:22] several different development

[6:56:22] plans that were approved for

[6:56:23] sports facility. A warehouse

[6:56:23] office use recreational

[6:56:24] vehicle storage. So several

[6:56:25] different projects that

[6:56:25] approved and ultimately not go

[6:56:26] forward. And so my

[6:56:26] understanding is existing

[6:56:27] conditions record were meant

[6:56:27] to provide mitigation for the

[6:56:27] properties to the south

[6:56:28] single-family residential

[6:56:28] properties in the case. That's

[6:56:29] something kind of more intense

[6:56:30] and industrial in nature was

[6:56:30] developed on these lots. So

[6:56:31] that 25 foot landscape buffer

[6:56:31] and also the extra screening

[6:56:32] and design standards for the

[6:56:32] loading trash enclosure areas.

[6:56:32] Intended to. Kind of lower any

[6:56:33] potential negative impacts on

[6:56:34] me. The adjacent residential

[6:56:34] neighborhood to the South.

[6:56:35] However, during this review,

[6:56:35] it was determined that at

[6:56:36] these these conditions, we're

[6:56:36] no longer and they were they

[6:56:37] were kind of redundant. As I

[6:56:38] said previously, just due to

[6:56:38] the tools that exist in the

[6:56:39] current unified development

[6:56:39] code. We do have a landscape

[6:56:40] buffering requirements from

[6:56:40] residential to industrial uses

[6:56:41] residential to commercial

[6:56:41] uses. And that does include 15

[6:56:42] foot minimum landscape for.

[6:56:42] And additionally, the way the

[6:56:43] site is oriented to Adam,

[6:56:43] which will see it would more

[6:56:44] like a 50 foot. But for a guy

[6:56:45] with between the landscaping

[6:56:45] and an act, access easement

[6:56:46] that runs across the south,

[6:56:47] portion of the property so

[6:56:47] during the review process, it

[6:56:48] was determined that those

[6:56:48] existing conditions record,

[6:56:49] we're no longer necessary.

[6:56:49] >> And then add

[6:56:50] >> Potential development of

[6:56:50] the site. Was intended to be

[6:56:51] restricted. Am too.

[6:56:52] Potentially some some less

[6:56:52] intensive uses. And that was

[6:56:53] at the suggestion of the

[6:56:53] applicants. That these

[6:56:54] following uses that you see on

[6:56:54] the screen would be prohibited

[6:56:55] with this because reason.

[6:56:55] >> So my men PRESIDENT I'm

[6:56:56] sorry and demand up there. But

[6:56:56] I asked my data center

[6:56:56] question on this property

[6:56:57] currently allowed in. The

[6:56:57] zoning would be allowed in the

[6:56:58] proposed zoning. So

[6:56:58] >> So it would be allowed in

[6:56:59] the light industrial zone

[6:56:59] districts that is post.

[6:57:00] >> Currently, it allowed to.

[6:57:00] Is yes.

[6:57:01] >> And dish just to clarify,

[6:57:01] this is only a zone change

[6:57:02] with land use statements. So

[6:57:03] we have not received any

[6:57:03] development plan applications

[6:57:04] for the site at this time.

[6:57:04] Additional mitigation measures

[6:57:05] would be considered at meeting

[6:57:05] on the intensity of use as we

[6:57:06] proceed with the development

[6:57:06] plan. Review the Unified

[6:57:07] Development Code does include

[6:57:07] landscape buffering

[6:57:08] requirements, parking

[6:57:08] requirements. Lots of

[6:57:09] different design standards

[6:57:09] that could be considered as

[6:57:10] part of that development

[6:57:10] process. So here we have the

[6:57:11] existing homes, some existing

[6:57:11] permitted uses in the business

[6:57:12] parks and distract contrast

[6:57:12] that with some of the

[6:57:12] permitted uses in conditional

[6:57:13] uses allowed a proposed light

[6:57:13] industrial zoning districts.

[6:57:14] And something else to

[6:57:14] highlight is that need current

[6:57:14] business park zoning and there

[6:57:15] are established building

[6:57:15] setbacks for all sides of the

[6:57:16] property. Then the propose

[6:57:16] light industrial zoning

[6:57:16] districts. There's only a

[6:57:17] minimum front setback 20 feet

[6:57:17] and the rest of the building

[6:57:17] setbacks. I would be

[6:57:18] determined by other factors

[6:57:18] such as landscaping, setbacks

[6:57:19] and poking setbacks. There is

[6:57:19] required 100 foot separation

[6:57:19] requirements. I'm from

[6:57:20] residential to development in

[6:57:20] the business Park Zone

[6:57:21] district specifically and that

[6:57:21] you specific standard that

[6:57:21] applies to this is partisan

[6:57:22] districts does not apply the

[6:57:22] proposed light industrial

[6:57:23] zoning district. So that would

[6:57:23] do away with that separation

[6:57:23] requirement. And then there is

[6:57:24] also an increase permissible

[6:57:24] building height from 45 feet

[6:57:25] in the business parks and

[6:57:25] districts to 60 feet in the

[6:57:25] late industrialist district.

[6:57:26] And so this application was

[6:57:26] submitted initially on MARCH

[6:57:26] 5th went through 3

[6:57:27] administrative reviews and it

[6:57:27] was ready for the agenda on

[6:57:27] JUNE 12, 2026. It went to City

[6:57:28] Planning Commission JULY 8th

[6:57:28] 2026. And it was heard

[6:57:28] Planning Commission did

[6:57:28] recommends approval to city

[6:57:29] council and that was 7 to have

[6:57:29] a recommended approval.

[6:57:29] >> And not during the

[6:57:30] Administrative review. And

[6:57:30] prior to both public hearings.

[6:57:30] >> 264 postcards were sent out

[6:57:31] to properties within 1000 feet

[6:57:32] of the site. Initially 3

[6:57:36] comments are received 2 of

[6:57:39] which were in opposition with

[6:57:42] concerns about potentially

[6:57:43] intense eu says that could be

[6:57:44] allowed in the light

[6:57:48] industrial zoning district.

[6:57:48] There specific concerns about

[6:57:54] higher noise impact. And and

[6:57:55] potential impacts across

[6:58:01] property lines. Additionally,

[6:58:02] there were 2 comments that

[6:58:04] received prior to the City

[6:58:05] Council hearing and that pass

[6:58:08] along to council staff for the

[6:58:10] council members. One was in

[6:58:11] opposition with concerns

[6:58:13] specifically about the

[6:58:16] potential for data center use.

[6:58:17] And then the other was in

[6:58:17] support of the proposed

[6:58:25] projects. U.S. Was evaluated

[6:58:30] by city agencies and there

[6:58:31] were comments identified

[6:58:33] during the review process.

[6:58:34] Additional comments will be

[6:58:36] provided when a development

[6:58:41] submitted city traffic

[6:58:41] engineering also identified

[6:58:45] right at my time find. So you

[6:58:49] got ring. Also identified that

[6:58:50] a trafficked traffic impacts.

[6:58:51] It MAY be question that kind

[6:58:53] of plan if that is

[6:59:07] appropriate. You use. This was

[6:59:08] reviewed for compliance with

[6:59:11] plans to us and the Unified

[6:59:12] Development Code. And this was

[6:59:17] found to be in compliance. All

[6:59:18] applicable plans and guiding

[6:59:33] documents.

[6:59:37] Staff can identify

[6:59:41] any potentially and negative

[6:59:45] impacts surrounding

[6:59:47] properties. As long as

[6:59:53] development plan. Excuse me.

[6:59:54] So the the specific use and

[6:59:57] development will be evaluated.

[6:59:59] Under a future development

[7:00:00] plan application. So we will

[7:00:02] look at things like

[7:00:06] landscaping and access

[7:00:07] building orientation to

[7:00:08] mitigate any of those

[7:00:09] potential impacts to the

[7:00:16] adjacent properties. So after

[7:00:17] a valuation the application,

[7:00:26] it was Oz, review criteria and

[7:00:26] I can add taking questions.

[7:00:28] Johnson, Casey.

[7:00:29] >> Thank you members and you

[7:00:33] can go back to the staff.

[7:00:34] Slide that shows you stuff

[7:00:38] with. Just curious where go.

[7:00:44] Didn't start the fire. Issues

[7:00:44] with this but industrial

[7:00:47] purposes, Parker's of to

[7:00:47] really.

[7:00:49] >> a process for SoFi are

[7:00:52] typically does not review zone

[7:00:54] change applications they

[7:00:55] typically will review

[7:01:01] potential time planted middle.

[7:01:01] >> packages come in. There's

[7:01:03] applicant response to public

[7:01:04] comment. Lot of public. I'm

[7:01:07] about see that in the record.

[7:01:11] In response to public comment.

[7:01:12] It can go to your map, the

[7:01:20] zoning I'm really trying

[7:01:21] struggle without light

[7:01:24] industrial fits in here with.

[7:01:24] Residential run. Next, a

[7:01:29] business exam. So with with

[7:01:31] Laden, with with previous

[7:01:32] business Park, real 100 foot

[7:01:35] setback from that? Our 5,

[7:01:37] housing development to the

[7:01:40] self now going to let we have

[7:01:41] no setback building. Lows will

[7:01:44] be some landscaping. Took back

[7:01:45] and the building heights get

[7:01:49] tolerate 60 Foot vs. Great

[7:01:50] 5.45? So so that could have a

[7:01:52] much bigger building

[7:01:54] overlooking their backyards.

[7:01:55] Pretty close to the fence line

[7:01:56] with some minor landscaping or

[7:01:56] whatever landscape,

[7:01:59] developments that

[7:02:00] >> Yes, they could potentially

[7:02:03] have up to a 60 foot building

[7:02:04] height.

[7:02:04] >> And you don't. It doesn't

[7:02:08] have her son, Pax or the other

[7:02:08] criteria.

[7:02:10] >> the applicant will get into

[7:02:13] potential building design more

[7:02:14] but.

[7:02:15] >> given the existing

[7:02:19] configuration of the lot.

[7:02:22] >> There is a significantly

[7:02:22] sized easement on the south

[7:02:25] portion of the property and as

[7:02:26] well as an access easement, a

[7:02:27] private access easement is

[7:02:27] easement that runs across that

[7:02:28] southern portion of the

[7:02:33] property. My understanding the

[7:02:35] applicant intends to retain

[7:02:38] and that as the as the main

[7:02:41] access point, which would not

[7:02:41] really create additional

[7:02:42] buffer to single family

[7:02:46] residential. Additionally.

[7:02:46] >> so I can that again, the

[7:02:50] main access 0,

[7:02:52] >> grows. So there is access

[7:02:52] easement that runs across the

[7:02:54] southern portion of the

[7:02:57] property north of and

[7:03:02] additional easement. So there

[7:03:04] is naturally going to be

[7:03:05] significant buffer created by

[7:03:08] those existing easements. Look

[7:03:08] at the 50 feet significant

[7:03:11] than yourselves. 53.

[7:03:22] >> site for ago. Thank u next

[7:03:26] up. We'll have the applicant.

[7:03:28] Presentation for 15 minutes.

[7:03:36] >> evening.

[7:03:37] >> Last but not least been One

[7:03:39] of the property owners with

[7:03:49] Bacon, Land Holdings, llc

[7:03:51] >> get So I'm gonna skip ahead

[7:03:52] to a couple of things and

[7:03:54] probably get some things are

[7:03:54] more interested discussing is

[7:03:57] the perfect one.

[7:04:00] >> So there's residents up to

[7:04:00] the south.

[7:04:04] >> And there is. And various

[7:04:05] different industrial uses

[7:04:07] every other direction except

[7:04:08] for the retail to the West.

[7:04:09] And that retails kind of the

[7:04:11] service area that retails.

[7:04:12] It's not.

[7:04:14] >> Customer face saying or

[7:04:16] anything and and I think

[7:04:18] what's most interesting about

[7:04:20] this resign as this is

[7:04:21] essentially history repeats

[7:04:26] itself. This was a reasonably

[7:04:28] zone. If you want you to think

[7:04:28] that was depending on the

[7:04:32] parcel is why there's an x in

[7:04:37] 2005 that was upsound to you

[7:04:38] to that to zoning remained

[7:04:40] until Believe when the new

[7:04:41] year the sea was put into

[7:04:48] place. So. Historically going

[7:04:49] to light industrial isn't

[7:04:50] necessarily an expansion of

[7:04:53] the historical uses its just

[7:04:54] restoring this. He says, I key

[7:04:55] to and light industrial are

[7:04:59] almost identical.

[7:05:00] >> And when the bp zoning was

[7:05:02] put in place, that was Don.

[7:05:06] >> You know, not buy.

[7:05:07] >> Discussion and the merits

[7:05:09] of that parcel by parcel of it

[7:05:10] was really just done as part

[7:05:12] of the implication, the new

[7:05:15] zoning. So by going back to

[7:05:17] light industrial, actually

[7:05:17] essentially the same zoning

[7:05:21] that was there since 2005

[7:05:25] >> so what we?

[7:05:27] >> You talking about access

[7:05:29] and things there currently is

[7:05:31] a easement on the east side.

[7:05:33] What's shown next to West

[7:05:35] Texas. 3 we share with less

[7:05:37] tech 3 that comes down. And

[7:05:39] then what you can see through

[7:05:40] the trees on the southern

[7:05:42] side, there's an existing road

[7:05:44] there, too. We planned

[7:05:47] utilizes exact roads, improve

[7:05:48] the U.S. That act as the main

[7:05:50] access to reconfigure sight of

[7:05:55] say 3 to 4 parcels.

[7:05:56] >> then

[7:05:56] >> the when we talk about

[7:05:58] building design, looks because

[7:06:00] the residential neighbors,

[7:06:00] that's the first thing that we

[7:06:01] want deal with and make sure

[7:06:05] we're listen to. The way this

[7:06:09] site with layout would be.

[7:06:10] Access to coming down. The

[7:06:10] east side wrapping around on

[7:06:14] the South side. There's a

[7:06:15] storm water ponds that were

[7:06:16] working through the details of

[7:06:18] that would axe lie in the

[7:06:20] South side there, too. Then

[7:06:23] you would have parking and

[7:06:24] we've agreed to have the

[7:06:24] orientation of any building so

[7:06:27] that the it. Let's say, from

[7:06:29] south to north, it is access

[7:06:33] and storm water, then customer

[7:06:35] parking. Then the building.

[7:06:37] And then if there's an outdoor

[7:06:40] are yar component to it to be

[7:06:42] on the north side so that the

[7:06:42] building the parking access

[7:06:45] all acts as a buffer. To

[7:06:49] mitigate. Any negative impacts

[7:06:56] as residences. Sea. Some of

[7:06:56] the things we've done with.

[7:06:57] From the perspective, we got

[7:06:58] rid of a lot of the uses that

[7:07:03] we felt that Dan Fit there you

[7:07:06] know, for odor for noise, the

[7:07:07] buildings and the way that

[7:07:09] we're planning now, this site

[7:07:15] oriented. Helps noise with

[7:07:16] dust. It's it acts those

[7:07:17] buildings themselves act as a

[7:07:19] buffer on top of that distance

[7:07:19] created by the various

[7:07:24] functions on the South side.

[7:07:24] >> and

[7:07:26] >> then this is just a quick

[7:07:28] snapshot of of within business

[7:07:29] Park. Business parking light

[7:07:29] industrial. The breath.

[7:07:30] Obviously part of the

[7:07:34] industrial umbrella. And

[7:07:35] within the zoning what I try

[7:07:37] to do here on the.

[7:07:41] >> The section with the Green.

[7:07:47] Everything that term on

[7:07:48] >> that is the list of

[7:07:49] everything that can be done

[7:07:52] right now. Business Park

[7:07:56] versus light. So anything in

[7:07:58] green requires an additional

[7:07:59] development standards to come

[7:08:00] and actually have a safe. And

[7:08:00] so there's additional

[7:08:02] mitigation this.

[7:08:06] >> Required by the code. If

[7:08:08] you take all those green ones

[7:08:10] that have that extra stop and

[7:08:10] eliminate, does your left at

[7:08:11] the top right? Which is where

[7:08:12] Scott, the blue.

[7:08:20] >> The blue actually.

[7:08:21] >> Sorry, I it's been a minute

[7:08:25] since saw this. But so let me

[7:08:25] back up the green. The green

[7:08:28] is conditional uses.

[7:08:31] >> So those are all within the

[7:08:32] light industrial. Those are

[7:08:32] uses that obviously are

[7:08:33] conditional. When you read

[7:08:34] conditional uses your left at

[7:08:37] the to operate with the blue.

[7:08:38] Those are the ones where those

[7:08:39] additional development

[7:08:42] standards come into play. So

[7:08:43] that's additional mitigation

[7:08:43] to get those uses that then

[7:08:46] the bottom right is what's

[7:08:48] left when you simply remove

[7:08:49] all those additional things.

[7:08:51] What is allowed by, right?

[7:08:52] That MAY not be allowed in. Bp

[7:08:53] puts a lot of my industry

[7:08:57] becomes those uses mere what

[7:08:58] essentially psp 2 was

[7:09:00] historically.

[7:09:06] >> COUNCILMAN Casey.

[7:09:06] >> could back to it. So I

[7:09:07] understand the uses that

[7:09:08] you're taking out that you're

[7:09:11] not considering that what you

[7:09:14] need light industrial forward.

[7:09:15] What proposed use is juicy and

[7:09:16] light industrial that are not

[7:09:17] are a lot bp or something like

[7:09:19] a mix that.

[7:09:19] >> Yeah, that's good question.

[7:09:23] So

[7:09:24] >> the biggest difference,

[7:09:25] there's some hesitation in the

[7:09:27] market and many of these where

[7:09:29] its business part and light

[7:09:30] industrial, they prefer to see

[7:09:32] light. So there's a lot of

[7:09:33] groups that want even proceed

[7:09:35] because there's some gray area

[7:09:36] in the late show. There's not

[7:09:36] obviously that many uses the

[7:09:40] ones that are important to us

[7:09:40] are.

[7:09:42] >> There is heavy equipment

[7:09:46] sales and construction sales

[7:09:47] and services. And the

[7:09:48] previously there used to be

[7:09:49] contracted. You are there was

[7:09:50] some different definitions of

[7:09:50] that with throughout their

[7:09:53] it's slightly changed here.

[7:09:54] Those capture those uses. But

[7:09:58] it's basically. You know. But

[7:10:00] we're trying to provide is

[7:10:02] theirs service businesses that

[7:10:05] need to supply the city. This

[7:10:05] is a central located location

[7:10:09] within a business park. And if

[7:10:09] designed this and come forward

[7:10:10] to the site plan doctors and

[7:10:14] the neighbors to the south of

[7:10:15] the residents.

[7:10:18] >> That

[7:10:19] >> we would like to be able to

[7:10:22] have some. You know, try to

[7:10:23] read right here, but the

[7:10:24] construction sales and

[7:10:25] service, for example, those

[7:10:26] ones that aren't allowed in

[7:10:28] business Park. And that is a

[7:10:30] category think with a lot of

[7:10:31] the users would fall into that

[7:10:32] would be perfect uses for that

[7:10:36] site.

[7:10:37] >> It just seems like

[7:10:39] something like heavy vehicle

[7:10:40] and couldn't repair would be

[7:10:40] noisy and going back to the

[7:10:41] public comment. That was one

[7:10:44] of the concerns that the or is

[7:10:45] this I would create versus a

[7:10:45] business park which is

[7:10:48] intentionally kind of designed

[7:10:50] to be later terms was impacts.

[7:10:51] Speak to that all that

[7:10:57] matters. You have. You have

[7:10:58] interest to companies that are

[7:10:59] interested in doing this or

[7:11:00] this rezoning to position

[7:11:01] yourself to be available to

[7:11:01] them or where we had in the

[7:11:05] process.

[7:11:08] >> So right now we don't have

[7:11:10] anybody identify specifically

[7:11:11] a lot of There is some

[7:11:12] hesitancy with the business

[7:11:13] park zoning. So it's hard to

[7:11:14] even go out there and do that

[7:11:15] without this being in place,

[7:11:17] which is I think part of the

[7:11:19] reason they went up to 4. But

[7:11:20] now we're trying to do that

[7:11:22] again. I think. Term member

[7:11:25] first questions are.

[7:11:27] >> I guess I'm just looking

[7:11:29] heavy vehicle equipment repair

[7:11:29] options like it would be

[7:11:30] noisy. And you put it on top

[7:11:34] of a residential that again

[7:11:38] going into my second part will

[7:11:39] This is Parker All-rounders

[7:11:40] seems to be developed as bp.

[7:11:40] So.

[7:11:43] >> I'm not sure quite. Why you

[7:11:44] think this would not be

[7:11:46] developed.

[7:11:49] >> So there's a couple things

[7:11:56] On the. Heavy equipment use.

[7:11:58] So there's there's a there's a

[7:11:59] unique list of things. There

[7:12:03] are a lot bp. One of those

[7:12:03] >> truck terminal, for

[7:12:04] example. She could have

[7:12:04] there's a truck terminal

[7:12:05] actually to immediately north

[7:12:06] of So you can have truck

[7:12:09] traffic right now coming in

[7:12:10] and out for truck terminal.

[7:12:13] Our warehousing are things so

[7:12:14] I don't know. That is

[7:12:15] significant different. We

[7:12:18] don't have a heavy equipment

[7:12:19] user identified sales and

[7:12:20] rental is something that I

[7:12:21] think there might be to

[7:12:22] insult. There's lack of

[7:12:26] visibility. So we'll see. But

[7:12:29] >> I there's other uses within

[7:12:30] business part that I think

[7:12:30] introduce the sound. The same

[7:12:31] tax earns potentially about

[7:12:39] sound. Going back to this site

[7:12:42] being developed, more business

[7:12:43] part. So this site in the 60's

[7:12:46] was part of that. Open pit

[7:12:46] mine by City, Colorado

[7:12:49] Springs. They would.

[7:12:50] >> executed

[7:12:52] >> it out.

[7:12:56] >> and Turner, then.

[7:12:57] >> I'm trying remember the So

[7:12:59] they excavated. They took.

[7:13:01] >> When they backfill that

[7:13:04] they use flash material from a

[7:13:07] Fire plant in Colorado Springs

[7:13:08] and backfill this site. So one

[7:13:09] of the neighboring size has 30

[7:13:10] foot to us.

[7:13:13] >> 45 foot layers of this

[7:13:14] flash. The flash doesn't

[7:13:17] support buildings. So in a

[7:13:18] similar to some of the other

[7:13:20] ones you see to the east. They

[7:13:24] have more building. Relative

[7:13:25] to the size of site that we

[7:13:26] would propose a lot because we

[7:13:27] don't have the Bering capacity

[7:13:30] of the soils because of the

[7:13:30] historic you. So we spent a

[7:13:31] lot of time with consults to

[7:13:34] go through and try it.

[7:13:34] Identify where these were in

[7:13:35] environmental concerns. Make

[7:13:38] sure we're covered there.

[7:13:39] >> But it is a reality that

[7:13:40] have to deal with and said the

[7:13:40] soils don't allow for that.

[7:13:45] So. Over time this site has

[7:13:47] become a nuisance. We've met

[7:13:47] with the police department out

[7:13:49] there multiple times. We've

[7:13:51] got homeless encampments as up

[7:13:51] there yesterday. We're doing

[7:13:52] our best to manage top of the

[7:13:55] only way we see that being

[7:13:56] mitigate is development of

[7:13:57] this site. And so. Currently

[7:14:02] we have. Probably quarterly.

[7:14:04] We have groups going to clean

[7:14:08] out the site. We've got.

[7:14:09] Homeless encampments a pop up

[7:14:11] again and they're mostly

[7:14:11] positioned along that southern

[7:14:13] property with industries

[7:14:14] backing up against the

[7:14:18] neighbors. And so a lot of the

[7:14:18] reason and I don't know for

[7:14:20] sure the history of why some

[7:14:22] of the previous partisan ago

[7:14:25] Fort that MAY be a component

[7:14:27] is this lack of the soils that

[7:14:29] allow for that? So we're

[7:14:30] trying to find productive use.

[7:14:37] But this land into Mitigates

[7:14:38] the concerns from his

[7:14:38] neighbors to the south. By the

[7:14:42] way, the site's laid out. But

[7:14:42] outdoor storage is allowed

[7:14:44] within business. Part. We're

[7:14:47] only. Trying to get a little

[7:14:48] bit more clarity to the uses

[7:14:49] of me a lot.

[7:14:56] >> Look at section 7.2 for one

[7:14:57] business park and talks about

[7:14:58] use a suitable for business

[7:14:59] and districts of operations

[7:15:01] that are quiet and clean to

[7:15:03] ensure the creation and

[7:15:03] maintenance of an

[7:15:05] environmental protect the

[7:15:06] occupants of the business park

[7:15:07] from wanted traffic noise and

[7:15:09] performance of bison. Just

[7:15:10] seems like a lot of those

[7:15:11] commercial uses. You're

[7:15:13] looking at But it does trail

[7:15:14] vehicle heavier are going to

[7:15:18] be noisy and, you know,

[7:15:18] potentially dusty and things

[7:15:20] like that as well. So that my

[7:15:21] concern. That to be the

[7:15:22] concern of the neighboring

[7:15:24] comments are present as well.

[7:15:25] If you have any response to

[7:15:26] that. But that's well as

[7:15:31] commercial banks.

[7:15:33] >> I mean, I don't totally

[7:15:34] understand as a night have

[7:15:35] that conversation. Some of the

[7:15:38] neighbors about that. The one

[7:15:40] >> public comment that came

[7:15:41] through for concerns about

[7:15:42] introducing uses to the

[7:15:42] neighborhood and things that

[7:15:44] was actually the person

[7:15:46] upsound it to be a key to

[7:15:47] prior. He's to be former

[7:15:50] owner. This and so that was a

[7:15:54] little surprising to me. But

[7:15:55] the rest of the neighbors,

[7:15:55] particularly ones that back up

[7:15:58] to this site. We've had

[7:15:59] conversations and try to try

[7:16:03] to discuss with them. I didn't

[7:16:03] have any nasa feedback from

[7:16:06] anybody. Only just the things

[7:16:07] that I've seen from other

[7:16:10] comment. Those minute.

[7:16:13] >> COUNCILMAN Donaldson.

[7:16:17] >> Yemen, PRESIDENT And

[7:16:18] >> For those here on council,

[7:16:19] this is page. This is from

[7:16:21] Page 7, 18 7.19. But it is a

[7:16:22] neighbor who maybe this is

[7:16:27] what you're referring to lists

[7:16:29] off concerns.

[7:16:29] >> One is the roadways with

[7:16:31] the intensity of use, the some

[7:16:32] of the things would be

[7:16:33] permitted. He's worried about

[7:16:37] that. Noise, visual and

[7:16:38] operational impacts uses such

[7:16:40] as heavy equipment repair and

[7:16:41] construction related services.

[7:16:42] Often all the outdoor storage,

[7:16:44] large machinery, Senate

[7:16:45] operating hours. These

[7:16:47] conditions are inconsistent

[7:16:48] with a quieter more controlled

[7:16:49] business park environment

[7:16:52] would negatively impact nearby

[7:16:53] properties and then

[7:16:54] degradation the area

[7:16:56] character. The Business Park

[7:16:56] designation reflects a

[7:16:57] higher-end professional

[7:16:58] development standard allowing

[7:17:02] uses such as major vehicle

[7:17:03] repair and heavy equipment

[7:17:04] operations would materially

[7:17:05] alter the character of the

[7:17:09] area. Introducing

[7:17:09] industrialist attics and

[7:17:10] activities that are not

[7:17:11] compatible with the existing

[7:17:14] vision. And then they go on to

[7:17:15] talk about how that's going to

[7:17:20] impact or property values. You

[7:17:23] know, they finish for these

[7:17:24] reasons that respectfully

[7:17:24] request that we deny the

[7:17:28] rezoning. The existing

[7:17:29] business park zoning allows

[7:17:32] for significant responsible

[7:17:34] permitted industrial uses. And

[7:17:36] they feel like this is going

[7:17:40] to change the character of

[7:17:47] What is your response to

[7:17:50] >> So that is the one he

[7:17:53] development they have is

[7:17:54] beautiful development and

[7:17:54] really glad it happened has

[7:17:55] never a very good job

[7:17:56] maintaining if you drive by.

[7:17:58] It's it's it's very

[7:17:59] professionally done. So I'm

[7:18:03] very glad that they're the

[7:18:04] neighbor.

[7:18:05] >> they came forward in 2000

[7:18:09] made in 2000. 3 that came

[7:18:12] forward with a plan that does

[7:18:13] exactly essentially eerily

[7:18:15] close to what we intend to

[7:18:17] They had sites laid out with

[7:18:19] access on the South Billings

[7:18:19] oriented on the south and to

[7:18:20] the site and yards to the

[7:18:22] North.

[7:18:24] >> And they their reasoning.

[7:18:27] As I understand it when they

[7:18:29] then came back in 2005 and up

[7:18:32] sound from Gap. You want you

[7:18:33] to introduce these exact same

[7:18:33] things that we're looking for

[7:18:35] at the time they were

[7:18:36] considered.

[7:18:38] >> Construction and or

[7:18:39] contractor yards, construction

[7:18:41] sales and well, sorry us. A

[7:18:43] new one construction indoor

[7:18:44] contractor yards was

[7:18:46] introduced by the by the

[7:18:47] rezone and vehicle automotive

[7:18:50] repair garage. Major.

[7:18:50] >> Was introduced by that

[7:18:54] reason to happy to.

[7:18:54] >> Those.

[7:18:58] >> We're all by that same

[7:18:59] public comment is the prior

[7:19:01] owner of this specific parcel

[7:19:05] site plan isn't extended.

[7:19:07] >> Again in 2010, when the

[7:19:08] weather would have otherwise

[7:19:09] expire to 2014 by that same

[7:19:12] group. So it's just a bit

[7:19:14] surprised by that because this

[7:19:16] was their original plan to

[7:19:17] win. They also on the property

[7:19:21] to the East.

[7:19:21] >> You're surprised by it, but

[7:19:29] how do Factually respond the

[7:19:32] roads will be fined.

[7:19:37] >> Yeah, So I think.

[7:19:38] >> The what we did do wish

[7:19:42] some of the it completely

[7:19:43] agree with that they hot and

[7:19:43] we really try to be thoughtful

[7:19:47] about, you know, I don't have

[7:19:48] in front of me, but I think

[7:19:49] there were some comments about

[7:19:51] some of those uses marijuana

[7:19:52] related things like that. I

[7:19:55] totally agree has to. And so

[7:19:56] >> we actually adjusted some

[7:19:58] of that.

[7:20:00] >> Prior to going to planning

[7:20:01] commission to account for some

[7:20:04] of those, whether it's noise,

[7:20:07] dirt, dust, there's certain

[7:20:09] things for dust in particular.

[7:20:11] We don't have a specific site

[7:20:12] plan yet, but when we do,

[7:20:14] we're looking at different

[7:20:16] materials. That would be a

[7:20:17] component. I think that the

[7:20:18] development plan stage that

[7:20:21] instead of having speaker

[7:20:22] aided by a yard that we can

[7:20:22] use different products on top

[7:20:25] of that to eliminate concern

[7:20:26] and have the ability to come

[7:20:29] forward in front of the

[7:20:30] planning department and

[7:20:31] propose what those things are

[7:20:32] dita out in Clea mitigate some

[7:20:33] of the other concerns that

[7:20:35] they I think from a traffic

[7:20:37] perspective, this is an

[7:20:39] industrial area. It's a closed

[7:20:41] loop. All industrial traffic

[7:20:42] and business. There's some

[7:20:43] flex properties to the ones to

[7:20:47] the East. But there is

[7:20:48] distribution warehouse.

[7:20:51] There's a truck terminal. I

[7:20:54] don't see the character of

[7:20:55] traffic being generated by a

[7:20:56] project here being any

[7:20:58] different than the existing

[7:21:00] traffic patterns and use of an

[7:21:05] types of traffic. The unc.

[7:21:08] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[7:21:09] And I see other questions at

[7:21:14] this time. Moving on to public

[7:21:15] comment. We have no one signed

[7:21:16] up in support and we have no

[7:21:20] one signed in opposition. No

[7:21:24] rebuttal. Of the back to the

[7:21:28] Dyess COUNCILMAN Pension.

[7:21:28] Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT, I

[7:21:30] a question that really is more

[7:21:33] of a curiosity bigger picture.

[7:21:35] Broad context. You've spoken a

[7:21:37] little bit to the history and

[7:21:38] the context and then actually

[7:21:39] directed to our planning

[7:21:42] director Kevin Walker. And

[7:21:44] I've always wondered in terms

[7:21:45] of how Colorado Springs has

[7:21:48] developed. Area of our city

[7:21:53] that you know, at the

[7:21:53] foothills of the mountains and

[7:21:57] really quite beautiful. And

[7:21:59] >> desirable as a place to

[7:22:02] live. Why that corridor has

[7:22:05] become set such a place for

[7:22:06] light industrial as opposed to

[7:22:10] something for their out east.

[7:22:11] It's just it's just never made

[7:22:12] a lot of sense to me. And it

[7:22:13] doesn't.

[7:22:14] >> Will it impact my vote on

[7:22:14] this at all, which him so

[7:22:18] much? We're going to vote. But

[7:22:19] do have context you could

[7:22:26] offer sure. I think that the

[7:22:26] context

[7:22:27] >> of the Garden of the Gods

[7:22:29] Corridor as an industrial

[7:22:30] corridor was a lot different

[7:22:32] in the 1960's when this was

[7:22:34] first started and first

[7:22:36] developed. So you didn't have

[7:22:38] a lot of the residential uses.

[7:22:42] They came later. And so the

[7:22:43] corridor itself was actually

[7:22:47] quite isolated. In those in

[7:22:48] those times. And it would made

[7:22:50] sense in that kind development

[7:22:52] pattern. And in those kind of

[7:22:57] development years. Industrial

[7:23:00] parks were separated from the

[7:23:01] city. They were along a major

[7:23:04] corridor just like this not.

[7:23:05] And I think that what's

[7:23:06] happened here is that the

[7:23:07] corridor developed

[7:23:08] industrially, but it was a lot

[7:23:12] of land. So it didn't

[7:23:12] completely develop. And this

[7:23:13] piece is a remnant piece like

[7:23:15] that. And then the residential

[7:23:19] piece developed up to them.

[7:23:22] That's where that used to use

[7:23:23] relationship. You issues have

[7:23:24] been really kind of created.

[7:23:27] So I think that gives

[7:23:31] >> So a combination of we were

[7:23:31] small enough at the time. And

[7:23:32] that was really far out.

[7:23:32] That's what you did with

[7:23:33] industrial parks. And I'm

[7:23:35] wondering if, know, the also

[7:23:36] the mining that happened upon

[7:23:38] the mountain where they were

[7:23:40] excavating that also probably

[7:23:42] kind of contributed. I'm

[7:23:42] guessing garden of the Gods

[7:23:43] corridor came straight out of

[7:23:46] the Industrial Development

[7:23:47] Handbook. So and that and I

[7:23:52] remember that.

[7:23:52] >> Brown.

[7:23:54] >> right here on your head.

[7:23:58] Okay. Thank you, Kevin.

[7:23:59] COUNCILMAN Drizzly.

[7:24:00] >> Thank you. MADAM PRESIDENT,

[7:24:02] unlike MR. Walker, I don't

[7:24:06] remember the 1960's.

[7:24:07] >> But I am very familiar with

[7:24:10] this area. My dad were killed,

[7:24:11] Packard I grew you know,

[7:24:14] hanging out with him that

[7:24:15] Packard. I have a couple

[7:24:16] questions for the applicant.

[7:24:16] If you don't mind coming back

[7:24:19] up.

[7:24:22] >> In terms of the surrounding

[7:24:23] this property. I certainly

[7:24:25] understand and hear what my

[7:24:26] colleague MR. Casey is saying

[7:24:27] with regard to properties to

[7:24:29] the South and I count.

[7:24:30] >> About 7 residences that

[7:24:32] backup directly to this

[7:24:34] property. But when I'm looking

[7:24:36] at Google Earth, I'm seeing

[7:24:37] that there appears to be a

[7:24:40] very significant existing

[7:24:42] barrier of trees to do those

[7:24:44] exist today. Are those still

[7:24:46] there? They do And it looks to

[7:24:48] me like this property actually

[7:24:48] sits up above in elevation

[7:24:49] higher than the resident

[7:24:50] residential properties to the

[7:24:52] South. You mean the our

[7:24:56] Several higher. It's actually

[7:24:57] it's it's very confusing.

[7:24:59] Buckingham is definitely

[7:25:00] higher the road as it comes

[7:25:01] around. And there's a steep

[7:25:01] s#

[7:25:02] #

[7:25:03] again on the West side

[7:25:04] where the retail is, there's a

[7:25:04] steep s#

[7:25:05] #

[7:25:06] , but the grid of

[7:25:08] our

[7:25:11] >> land relative to the

[7:25:12] PRESIDENT Says is almost a

[7:25:12] cent. Okay? Yeah. Yeah. That

[7:25:14] must be what's sort of

[7:25:15] deceptive is that the you

[7:25:16] know, Google obviously is on

[7:25:18] the roads and private property

[7:25:19] Buckingham. Definitely looks

[7:25:23] like it's up higher.

[7:25:24] >> Significantly. And then it

[7:25:24] goes up higher as you go

[7:25:30] further to the North.

[7:25:31] >> I understand that we

[7:25:34] comments from citizens about

[7:25:35] concern of the of this

[7:25:36] development adjacent to their

[7:25:37] properties. But I noted that

[7:25:38] there are only 2 speakers at

[7:25:39] the Planning Commission

[7:25:44] hearing. Both had the same

[7:25:45] last name. So think it's safe

[7:25:46] to deduce that they probably

[7:25:47] live in the same household in

[7:25:48] this neighborhood in some of

[7:25:52] their complaints. Actually the

[7:25:54] some of the things that you

[7:25:55] address, the trash and

[7:25:56] homelessness in some of the

[7:25:58] other situations that that

[7:25:59] occurring or

[7:26:03] >> are on your property now.

[7:26:03] And I think you commented that

[7:26:05] one way to cure that obviously

[7:26:06] is to activate the property

[7:26:07] and development and do

[7:26:08] something with that aside from

[7:26:12] just a vacant lot.

[7:26:13] >> You want to expand it on on

[7:26:14] that and maybe kind of the

[7:26:15] concerns of the neighbors had

[7:26:15] relative to the current

[7:26:18] condition of the site.

[7:26:19] >> Yeah, I think there is if

[7:26:21] if I remember right, they had

[7:26:22] 2 main concerns. One about are

[7:26:26] the condition of our property.

[7:26:28] >> One concerns about the back

[7:26:29] of the retail section, the

[7:26:29] back of the retail section.

[7:26:32] They were just that's where

[7:26:34] they have their dumpsters and

[7:26:35] trash enclosures and wind will

[7:26:37] blow that around. And so they

[7:26:40] are wondering, you concerns

[7:26:41] about that, which you

[7:26:42] obviously have no control

[7:26:43] over. That's not your

[7:26:44] property, right? Correct. And

[7:26:46] we would have the same concern

[7:26:47] of trash being blown around

[7:26:48] because we want professional,

[7:26:49] as you know, the tracks of

[7:26:52] sight. So does out of her

[7:26:53] control. That's one concern.

[7:26:54] The other one was there's

[7:26:55] been.

[7:26:59] >> It's there's there's

[7:27:01] campfires up against their

[7:27:02] fence lines. There's illegal

[7:27:04] dumping what we've there's

[7:27:08] been homeless camps, illegal

[7:27:09] dumping and it's assortment of

[7:27:10] other things that we've or to

[7:27:11] the police try to mitigate the

[7:27:12] best we can. There's what

[7:27:15] we've done is since we so we

[7:27:19] purchase property in MARCH.

[7:27:21] The previous owner had some

[7:27:22] financial difficulties which

[7:27:23] didn't allow them maintain it

[7:27:25] very well over that period of

[7:27:25] time.

[7:27:31] >> The and they did it on for

[7:27:32] that long.

[7:27:33] >> What we have since done is

[7:27:34] blocked off. The entrance has

[7:27:34] worked with the fire

[7:27:35] department. Make sure they

[7:27:38] have all the access they need.

[7:27:39] And then be able to push dirt.

[7:27:40] Now up to prevent the illegal

[7:27:44] something. Now we have on a

[7:27:44] quarterly basis. We're working

[7:27:47] to have those cleaned up and

[7:27:49] go through. But it's a

[7:27:52] constant battle. From what

[7:27:53] I've seen and heard is that

[7:27:58] once we any of issues they

[7:28:01] return within. 24 to 72 hours.

[7:28:02] So it's a constant battle that

[7:28:03] we're doing our best to try to

[7:28:04] keep that clean. But we do

[7:28:05] think the only way, really,

[7:28:08] because it's been. For so many

[7:28:10] years, this unknown place to

[7:28:11] go that ultimate development

[7:28:13] of the sites, best way to

[7:28:14] clean this up and kind of

[7:28:17] compliment that development

[7:28:18] and the investment that's made

[7:28:19] immediately service with the

[7:28:22] with the project there. And on

[7:28:22] that point.

[7:28:24] >> You know, you I think said

[7:28:27] that the business Park service

[7:28:27] surrounding your neighbors,

[7:28:28] that it's very well managed.

[7:28:30] Very well sort of kept

[7:28:34] business park. There are

[7:28:37] sections of do appear to

[7:28:38] nicely landscapes. But I see a

[7:28:39] lot and you've described it

[7:28:40] already there. There appears

[7:28:41] to be very heavy truck traffic

[7:28:44] coming out of a couple of

[7:28:46] these locations. There's one

[7:28:47] properties it looks like some

[7:28:48] sort of car storage, junk yard

[7:28:52] facility that's got these big,

[7:28:53] you know, metal canopies with

[7:28:57] cars parked underneath it

[7:28:57] dilapidated fencing and

[7:28:58] landscaping. That doesn't

[7:29:02] that's completely overgrown.

[7:29:05] In my mind, you know, if I had

[7:29:06] just seen pictures of these

[7:29:08] things, precast concrete

[7:29:08] warehouses, you know, pre

[7:29:12] engineered metal buildings. I

[7:29:14] wouldn't think that those are

[7:29:15] business Park uses if I

[7:29:16] wouldn't. If you were just to

[7:29:17] show me pictures of these

[7:29:18] buildings in these properties,

[7:29:19] I would say that definitely

[7:29:21] looks like some sort of an

[7:29:22] industry. You certain

[7:29:22] industrial zone? I would not

[7:29:23] have guessed a business park

[7:29:26] at all. And the reason I bring

[7:29:28] that up is that it, you know,

[7:29:32] again, understand the concern

[7:29:34] the compatibility to with the

[7:29:35] properties to the south, the

[7:29:36] residential properties to

[7:29:38] south. But in terms of

[7:29:39] compatibility, with all of the

[7:29:39] other property surrounding

[7:29:42] this area. You know, I really

[7:29:42] struggled to see how anything

[7:29:45] that you would propose is

[7:29:47] different from what's already

[7:29:47] there and going going back to

[7:29:50] MR. Walker's Point, you 70

[7:29:54] years ago, 60 years ago, this

[7:29:56] was the major industrial

[7:29:57] driver, Colorado Springs. This

[7:30:01] was the corridor and to his

[7:30:02] point, all of the residential

[7:30:05] you see up against it. Now.

[7:30:06] Grew their overtime. So people

[7:30:07] built these houses next to

[7:30:10] these major industrial

[7:30:10] complexes. People bought

[7:30:11] houses and moved into houses

[7:30:14] next to this. Not the other

[7:30:17] way around. And I think that's

[7:30:17] important thing to recall into

[7:30:29] remembering this conversation.

[7:30:30] Tiffany, thank from planning.

[7:30:33] Am just had final closing

[7:30:34] comments.

[7:30:36] >> One thing that staff would

[7:30:37] like to highlight is that in

[7:30:39] addition to the landscape

[7:30:40] buffering requirements I

[7:30:42] between residential.

[7:30:46] >> 2 commercial or industrial

[7:30:46] use they're also a variety of

[7:30:50] you specific standards. And

[7:30:51] that impact site design

[7:30:54] requirements those would be

[7:30:56] evaluating development plan

[7:31:01] stage. But many of the more

[7:31:02] kind of more intense potential

[7:31:05] use is allowed on site to have

[7:31:05] additional buffer screening

[7:31:06] requirements when adjacent to

[7:31:08] residential properties. Thank

[7:31:11] you. Thank you. COUNCILMAN

[7:31:19] Donaldson.

[7:31:21] >> MADAM You know, I

[7:31:21] appreciate the applicant's

[7:31:29] efforts take to clean it up. I

[7:31:30] garden of the gods is that

[7:31:31] corridor is changing and the

[7:31:35] proximity to. Gotten well to

[7:31:37] garden a garden of the gods

[7:31:40] and kissing camels. It's not

[7:31:42] the same as it was 60 years

[7:31:46] ago. And I do think we want

[7:31:51] maintain As professional and a

[7:31:53] static as we can. And

[7:31:58] therefore, I'd like to offer.

[7:32:00] A motion to deny the ordinance

[7:32:00] amending the zoning map. The

[7:32:02] city of Colorado Springs

[7:32:05] related to the 7.7 9 acres

[7:32:08] located at 42 90 43 10. 43

[7:32:10] 2043, 30 43, 40 Buckingham

[7:32:13] Drive from the currents zoning

[7:32:17] to the proposed zoning and I

[7:32:17] can read all that out. If you

[7:32:21] would like.

[7:32:21] >> And MADAM PRESIDENT, I had

[7:32:22] already made a motion to

[7:32:27] approve.

[7:32:28] >> With a second, it looks

[7:32:41] like from councilmember Remy.

[7:32:45] Sorry. Is there a question in

[7:32:45] this state?

[7:32:47] >> I believe that there is a

[7:32:50] motion to approve in a second.

[7:32:51] However, COUNCILMAN Donaldson

[7:32:55] has a motion. Believe he's

[7:33:01] goes first.

[7:33:02] >> You know, honestly, as

[7:33:06] speak tonight, I notice that

[7:33:06] COUNCILMAN Vice-PRESIDENT

[7:33:07] Risley had made it on the can

[7:33:09] on the screen. And so all

[7:33:10] accept that. But then I would

[7:33:13] like to to Make a motion for

[7:33:19] an amendment. MADAM PRESIDENT.

[7:33:23] >> 2 amends.

[7:33:30] >> The

[7:33:32] >> prohibited so use

[7:33:33] categories which are now

[7:33:33] currently, you know, a through

[7:33:37] f.

[7:33:38] >> to add an additional which

[7:33:39] would be g and that would be

[7:33:44] data centers. Do you have a

[7:33:51] second? Will find out.

[7:33:55] >> So COUNCILMAN Just wanted

[7:33:58] to the applicant was sort of

[7:33:59] If he if I could ask the

[7:34:00] applicant how he feels about

[7:34:05] that.

[7:34:06] >> We have no desire to build

[7:34:07] a data center. So that's

[7:34:14] totally fine to be.

[7:34:15] >> So in a motion from

[7:34:16] COUNCILMAN Donna Senate and

[7:34:16] the second from council and

[7:34:19] Gold.

[7:34:20] >> 2, the clerk. Can you

[7:34:24] verify the amendment?

[7:34:27] Shorthand to the main motion

[7:34:30] to prohibit data centers. As a

[7:34:33] condition of record.

[7:34:35] >> Which we will correct. Do

[7:34:38] the correct lane with full

[7:34:39] language in the minutes. But

[7:34:41] this was just a shorthand

[7:34:42] typing or you get that Are you

[7:34:43] good with that? COUNCILMAN

[7:34:43] Donaldson.

[7:34:44] >> Yeah, I believe that

[7:34:46] captures my intent. Okay.

[7:35:01] Let's vote

[7:35:08] >> And the passes from 3 to an

[7:35:11] end.

[7:35:13] >> To the motion from council

[7:35:13] members in a second from

[7:35:17] councilmember rainy, too. The

[7:35:20] proof with the conditions. Is

[7:35:26] that correct? To approve with

[7:35:28] those conditions? I just want

[7:35:29] write record a system is

[7:35:30] frozen again. Yes, you're

[7:35:32] voting on the and action.

[7:35:46] >> What's

[7:35:47] still present. Can

[7:35:48] we just points vote? Is that

[7:35:49] agreeable call the roll?

[7:35:50] Please councilmember Casey.

[7:35:53] All right. Councilmember

[7:35:55] Coronavirus an eye. That's a

[7:35:58] member Donaldson know.

[7:36:00] Councilmember gold. I that's

[7:36:04] the engine. Councilmember line

[7:36:05] members absent councilmember

[7:36:08] rainy, Councilmember easily

[7:36:09] right. Councilmember Williams,

[7:36:11] I have. And the motion passes

[7:36:20] 7, 1, Moving to item 13 when

[7:36:21] our citizens discussion for

[7:36:22] items not on today's agenda,

[7:36:24] per City Council's citizens

[7:36:25] will have 3 minutes to share

[7:36:25] their comments. Have a list of

[7:36:26] those who have signed up. When

[7:36:27] I your name. Please come

[7:36:27] forward, introduce yourself

[7:36:28] and limit yourself to talk.

[7:36:29] >> Books that are relevant.

[7:36:31] Germane to city business.

[7:36:41] First we have a j sir.

[7:36:44] >> Good Evening. City Council.

[7:36:48] Why speak you'll see 2 sets of

[7:36:49] footage. So the first damage

[7:36:52] to Rocky Ball Bistro. A local

[7:36:54] restaurant rammed by a stolen

[7:36:56] vehicle after a teenager fired

[7:36:56] rounds into the neighboring

[7:37:01] shop. The second is a walk of

[7:37:02] empty and abandoned

[7:37:02] storefronts directly across

[7:37:03] from City Hall in Nevada and

[7:37:06] around these you I counted

[7:37:07] multiple closed businesses in

[7:37:09] the short stretch and was even

[7:37:10] harassed by homeless

[7:37:13] individual while filming. I'm

[7:37:14] showing this because there is

[7:37:16] a clear gap between the

[7:37:16] mayor's public narrative and

[7:37:20] what residents actually see.

[7:37:22] The mayor repeatedly claimed

[7:37:23] small businesses are thriving.

[7:37:24] Homeless numbers are down and

[7:37:26] crime is under control. The

[7:37:26] footage and the empty

[7:37:30] storefronts say otherwise. On

[7:37:31] cross specifically, the mayor

[7:37:33] likes to highlight the last 2

[7:37:34] years. He rarely discussed is

[7:37:34] the first year of his

[7:37:38] administration. One federal

[7:37:39] border policy was still wide

[7:37:40] open and the problems were

[7:37:43] even more pronounced. Taking

[7:37:44] credit for improvements that

[7:37:45] track with larger enforcement

[7:37:47] shifts elsewhere is a pattern.

[7:37:51] Members of this body have even

[7:37:52] publicly noted that the mayor

[7:37:52] has claimed credit for work

[7:37:56] that they initiated.

[7:37:58] Everything becomes a photo

[7:38:00] opportunity. Senior centers

[7:38:02] dance studios start up week.

[7:38:04] Award ceremonies. Meanwhile,

[7:38:06] the storefronts stay empty.

[7:38:06] The cancer, Maine and small

[7:38:08] businesses absorb the costs of

[7:38:09] disorder that keeps getting

[7:38:10] worse. I go through the

[7:38:13] system. I look forward to the

[7:38:16] mayor's reaction after today's

[7:38:17] comments. Last time I brought

[7:38:18] video of encampments and

[7:38:19] challenge the numbers. A press

[7:38:21] conference appear the

[7:38:22] following day. The 15

[7:38:24] department homeless response

[7:38:25] team presentation seems to be

[7:38:27] the default slide deck.

[7:38:29] Whatever residents raised the

[7:38:31] issue, the same one already

[7:38:32] given to other neighbors,

[7:38:36] neighborhoods that complain.

[7:38:38] Springs taxpayer United

[7:38:39] attended the press conference

[7:38:40] and called it a nothing burger

[7:38:41] on Facebook. Residents are

[7:38:43] unimpressed least of all

[7:38:45] myself. Transparency means

[7:38:47] matching the press releases

[7:38:48] the reality of the ground. The

[7:38:50] videos are the receipt.

[7:38:55] Questions? All I got.

[7:38:56] >> Next step we have Taylor

[7:39:08] great.

[7:39:11] >> First of all, just time.

[7:39:15] First of all, on Sam bless his

[7:39:17] family. Congratulations for

[7:39:18] him. Let's give him racing.

[7:39:21] Bonuses had cast them.

[7:39:25] >> Also. I can't believe that

[7:39:28] all the people disappointed

[7:39:29] walk out again like it's so

[7:39:31] crazy to see a bunch of

[7:39:32] constituents come in here and

[7:39:32] tell you all that stuff. And

[7:39:35] then Mike Walkout all crying.

[7:39:37] You're losing the faith of

[7:39:38] people like that. That's also

[7:39:38] the same thing when the

[7:39:40] Freeman thing with the hotel,

[7:39:42] what I didn't see was a bunch

[7:39:43] of disappointed people walking

[7:39:43] out when there was the creepy

[7:39:46] hotel. Arming the creepy

[7:39:47] apartment. We're gonna put

[7:39:50] next to the school that was in

[7:39:52] prior to it. So this is a

[7:39:54] problem. We can't treat

[7:39:55] briargate like it's better

[7:39:57] than the south side of town.

[7:39:58] We need to be treating every

[7:40:01] we're like it's the same. I

[7:40:02] honestly believe that you guys

[7:40:03] would have allowed that hotel

[7:40:06] or that apartment if it wasn't

[7:40:06] in the briargate area and

[7:40:14] that's a problem. The data

[7:40:17] center Dave, thank you for

[7:40:18] really defending that. That

[7:40:23] was spectacular. We don't want

[7:40:24] that. And why are we amending

[7:40:25] some weird zones? It's real

[7:40:27] fishy. Let's just say,

[7:40:29] Kimberly. Well, yeah. Last

[7:40:31] time about not using our drug

[7:40:32] money to fund the police like

[7:40:36] we have a like at least as

[7:40:39] citizen. I know we let drugs

[7:40:40] in our city under the

[7:40:41] condition that we were going

[7:40:41] to use that money for schools

[7:40:43] and trails and you do not tell

[7:40:45] a Colorado resident that

[7:40:47] you're going to spend their

[7:40:49] money on trails and their kids

[7:40:50] and spend it on. Addressing

[7:40:55] people. My brother's doing

[7:40:58] very well. He was forced into

[7:41:00] some help. He's now home. He's

[7:41:01] healthy. He's off drugs and

[7:41:04] he's my brother again. So I

[7:41:05] just want to remind you, you

[7:41:06] can put that money somewhere

[7:41:08] where it can actually. But

[7:41:10] someone back into

[7:41:15] >> being an ok position? You

[7:41:18] know, we're going to have

[7:41:19] >> Project Taurus thing come

[7:41:20] up. Obviously everyone's

[7:41:23] thinking about it. I want you

[7:41:24] guys to really think about,

[7:41:26] you know, the Fremont group,

[7:41:29] this group that you just walk

[7:41:30] out like when everybody gets

[7:41:31] their butts happened here and

[7:41:32] comes in here and 6 are all.

[7:41:33] That's what you understand. It

[7:41:34] s#

[7:41:34] #

[7:41:34] . It's hard to get down

[7:41:35] here. It's hard. You guys have

[7:41:38] at least some nice chairs, but

[7:41:40] it's it's hard really, really

[7:41:42] think about the constituents

[7:41:43] points that when they come in

[7:41:44] here, how can entire room be

[7:41:45] like for something is against

[7:41:50] type of thing? I I want

[7:41:51] >> I want to look each and

[7:41:54] every one of you in the eye.

[7:41:57] >> Everyone, anyone. All of

[7:42:03] ok? When the vote comes for

[7:42:04] project Taurus, everyone is

[7:42:05] going to see, you know, one in

[7:42:08] this city wants a data center.

[7:42:09] >> So I don't care what

[7:42:11] millions of dollars of taxes.

[7:42:15] What they offer you. The

[7:42:16] answer is no. And you guys all

[7:42:17] know And I want to see that in

[7:42:21] action. And gold.

[7:42:22] >> Hi, Taylor. Thanks for

[7:42:23] being here. Just point of

[7:42:23] order because I think it's

[7:42:26] important to make sure that

[7:42:28] we're operating off the same

[7:42:31] page of information when we

[7:42:32] voted allocate the

[7:42:34] recreational marijuana

[7:42:35] revenue. It was for 3 buckets

[7:42:36] and those 3 buckets for

[7:42:39] specifically public safety

[7:42:41] programs, mental health and

[7:42:41] pts tree treatment for

[7:42:47] veterans. So those were the

[7:42:48] the last month, the matter

[7:42:48] told correctly, so that so

[7:42:50] it's not it's there's a lot of

[7:42:53] confusion about like schools

[7:42:54] and trails as you that we

[7:42:55] should be using it from the

[7:42:56] mental health peace, not

[7:42:57] security.

[7:43:00] >> COUNCILMAN, rainy. Thank

[7:43:03] you, MADAM PRESIDENT. That's

[7:43:04] right. It's same thing I just

[7:43:05] want to make to

[7:43:06] clarifications. Now a

[7:43:06] clarification number one on

[7:43:10] the Briargate project.

[7:43:10] >> That project fail

[7:43:14] unanimously body council. So

[7:43:15] just want to make sure just so

[7:43:19] weird. Usually guys failed But

[7:43:23] made a lot of person like

[7:43:24] comments about will in this

[7:43:28] area in this side of town.

[7:43:30] >> Let's not pretend I

[7:43:31] understand briargate. It's

[7:43:31] nice, but I want the entire

[7:43:34] city nice.

[7:43:35] >> And the to my colleague's

[7:43:40] comment. In that in those 3

[7:43:40] buckets. Yes, there's funds

[7:43:42] that went to public safety

[7:43:44] peace, but there are also

[7:43:46] funds that I actually lead

[7:43:48] that went to ptsd for

[7:43:49] veterans. So I just want to

[7:43:51] make sure I want to tell her

[7:43:51] that I just don't want any

[7:43:52] drug money going to hire

[7:43:56] folks.

[7:43:57] >> We're not the mob or

[7:43:58] something we did. We need to

[7:43:58] be careful what we spend our

[7:44:00] drug money on.

[7:44:01] >> just know, it looks

[7:44:04] different. It is different I

[7:44:05] appreciate Thank you for

[7:44:08] asking questions. I really

[7:44:11] appreciate you guys long, hard

[7:44:12] days. It's not always easy.

[7:44:13] Obviously some things.

[7:44:15] >> It could go either way. But

[7:44:16] I really do appreciate you

[7:44:17] guys. It's heart keep standing

[7:44:20] up.

[7:44:20] >> Thank u next. If we have

[7:44:33] Kyle Mcguffey.

[7:44:38] >> Hello, good afternoon. My

[7:44:39] name is Khan. We got the time

[7:44:41] today. I'm here today to speak

[7:44:41] about 2 separate transparency

[7:44:43] concerns involving project

[7:44:46] Taurus and the city's use of

[7:44:48] surveillance technology. First

[7:44:49] project Taurus is currently

[7:44:50] being appealed. And city

[7:44:51] council is scheduled to hear

[7:44:51] that appeal in SEPTEMBER.

[7:44:57] 17th. The issue I want to

[7:44:58] raise is not whether SEPTEMBER

[7:44:59] 17th falls within that time

[7:44:59] frame allowed by city code

[7:45:03] because it does. Issue is how

[7:45:05] that particular date was

[7:45:07] selected before the hearing

[7:45:07] date was finalize. That

[7:45:08] feelings were asked to provide

[7:45:13] scheduling considerations one

[7:45:15] it provided dates. They would

[7:45:16] be unavailable. And another

[7:45:16] proposed the last week of

[7:45:18] SEPTEMBER for the first week

[7:45:20] of OCTOBER, which was also

[7:45:21] workable for the other group.

[7:45:24] SEPTEMBER 17th was selected in

[7:45:25] both. The parent groups have

[7:45:26] documented conflicts with that

[7:45:29] date. The city responded that

[7:45:30] SEPTEMBER 17th falls within

[7:45:33] the allowable window. And that

[7:45:33] council has discretion to

[7:45:36] select the hearing date. But

[7:45:36] that answers whether Council

[7:45:40] can. But answers whether

[7:45:41] Council can choose SEPTEMBER

[7:45:43] 17th. It doesn't answer. Why

[7:45:47] SEPTEMBER 17th was chosen. The

[7:45:48] allowable window reportedly

[7:45:50] continues through OCTOBER.

[7:45:51] 3rd, if there's a specific

[7:45:52] reason SEPTEMBER 17th needs

[7:45:55] remain the hearing, I think

[7:45:56] council should simply explain

[7:45:58] that reason put it into the

[7:46:00] record books if there is. And

[7:46:01] I think council should

[7:46:01] consider another day within

[7:46:04] the allowable window that

[7:46:05] gives both appealing groups a

[7:46:07] meaningful opportunity to

[7:46:08] participate. I also want to

[7:46:10] raise a separate transparency

[7:46:12] concerning on JULY 28th I

[7:46:14] submitted a public records

[7:46:15] request to Colorado Springs

[7:46:16] Police Department Automated

[7:46:17] license plate reader records

[7:46:21] tied to a specific vehicle

[7:46:22] including detections access

[7:46:27] logs, alerts, access with the

[7:46:28] owners signed authorization.

[7:46:29] Cspd says an internal do day

[7:46:31] of AUGUST. 11th which a

[7:46:31] technician later acknowledged

[7:46:35] had been missed. The request

[7:46:36] was denied on AUGUST 17th. In

[7:46:37] that same day, I asked

[7:46:39] specific grounds for that than

[7:46:41] I do. I still have not

[7:46:42] received that written response

[7:46:43] citing the law or regulation

[7:46:46] supporting that. Under

[7:46:48] Colorado revised statute

[7:46:49] section 2, 4, dash, 7, 2, dash

[7:46:52] 3, 0, by subsection 6 when

[7:46:53] access to a criminal justice

[7:46:57] record is denied the requester

[7:46:58] can for a written statement

[7:46:59] explore explaining the grounds

[7:47:02] for that than I do in that

[7:47:02] statement must be provided

[7:47:06] within 72 hours. I've

[7:47:07] continued following up with

[7:47:08] Cspd. Sorry. I continue

[7:47:10] pulling up in Cspd has told me

[7:47:14] the request is being reviewed

[7:47:16] as technology expands,

[7:47:17] residents should be able to

[7:47:17] understand what the city

[7:47:20] operates. What it collects and

[7:47:22] why related records are

[7:47:23] withheld. I would prefer to

[7:47:26] resolve this administratively.

[7:47:27] But I am considering the

[7:47:29] courtroom money available

[7:47:31] under Section 2, 4, 7, 2 Dash,

[7:47:31] 305 subsection 6, if

[7:47:37] necessary. Whether it's a

[7:47:39] project tours or surveillance

[7:47:40] technology, the public to

[7:47:41] understand not just what the

[7:47:43] city can do, but why doesn't?

[7:47:45] Thank COUNCILMAN Gold. Thank

[7:47:48] you. MADAM PRESIDENT.

[7:47:49] >> Kyle, MAY I ask, how long

[7:47:50] have you been here today?

[7:47:51] >> Since 09:00am.

[7:47:55] >> I thought so ask how old

[7:47:58] are you? I'm 14 years old. 14.

[7:48:00] I don't have a specific

[7:48:01] response to the nature of your

[7:48:02] comments, but I just really

[7:48:04] want to commend you for your

[7:48:06] patience and your courage.

[7:48:08] It's really delightful to see

[7:48:09] somebody as young as you Sow

[7:48:10] engaged. Thank you. Thank you

[7:48:14] so much.

[7:48:15] >> And that does and our

[7:48:17] citizens comments for today.

City Council on 2026-08-25 9:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript