[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] #
[57:19] #
[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] #
[5:22:35] #
[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] #
[7:25:02] #
[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] #
[7:25:05] #
[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] #
[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.