2026-10-15 - Federal, State & Intergovernmental Relations Policy Committee

00:00It looks like we're still got a couple

00:01more people to get in, but I think I'm

00:03going to go ahead and go ahead and get

00:04started with the meeting. Welcome

00:06everyone to our Pfizer meeting of

00:08October 15th.

00:10I'm going to call the meeting to order.

00:12Approval of the We have no consent

00:14items. Approval of the minutes. Council

00:16member Wild, do you approve the minutes

00:18of September 17th?

00:20>> Yes, I approve.

00:22>> Okay, I approve as well.

00:24We're going to go to item number four,

00:26which is our federal legislative update.

00:28This is regarding for a midterm

00:31elections we have two outside speakers.

00:33We have Keith Stern from Cornerstone and

00:36Jimmy Peacock from Cornerstone. Are you

00:38both available and welcome to the our

00:40Pfizer meeting?

00:43>> Yes. Hey, thanks for having us.

00:46>> Okay.

00:47>> Okay.

00:48>> I'm going to let you go ahead and get

00:49started with your presentation and

00:51welcome.

00:52>> Awesome. Yeah, and we'll we'll keep this

00:53relatively informal. Can you guys hear

00:55me okay?

00:56>> Yes, we can. Thank you.

00:57>> Okay, great.

00:59Well, first off I'll be very brief just

01:00cuz I know your your time is precious.

01:03We

01:05are in an environment that is obviously

01:07extremely

01:09every data point every trend is looking

01:12like it's going to be a big night for

01:13Democrats here in 3 weeks. I don't think

01:15that's breaking news to any of you

01:17on the call who follow politics. Before

01:21coming to Cornerstone, I was Senator

01:23Schmidt's chief of staff from Missouri

01:26and then previously worked for

01:28Congresswoman Hinson in the Iowa

01:30delegation who's now running for Senate

01:32and and ran her campaign. So I have a

01:34hybrid of official and and official

01:37government service and and campaign

01:39experience.

01:41And if you look at all of the I'll focus

01:44on the Senate and then and then we'll

01:45turn it to Keith for a Democratic

01:47perspective on the house and and other

01:49areas, but definitely feel free to

01:51interrupt me.

01:52Big picture

01:54is the election is all about

01:55affordability and Democrats to this

01:57point based off the data.

02:00It you know, you can have gut feelings

02:02on everything, but we're I I try to

02:03follow the data. The data is that

02:05Democrats are winning those

02:06affordability arguments

02:09and that Republicans are going to bear

02:10the brunt

02:12of that, the cost of gas, the cost of

02:14diesel.

02:16And and in what is a Republican map just

02:19based off the states where there are

02:21competitive races that would typically

02:22favor Republicans, the impact of high

02:25diesel prices, high gas prices is

02:28significant particularly in Iowa and

02:31Alaska where you're where

02:33the cost of diesel is a lot of people's

02:35livelihoods in in rural parts of of both

02:37of those states, which is which is sort

02:40of a bad a bad storm in two states that

02:42otherwise would probably elect a

02:43Republican

02:45at this point.

02:46The

02:48>> [gasps]

02:48>> you know, it's all the states you're

02:50talking about. Georgia and North

02:51Carolina at this point are not viewed as

02:54competitive. I think we can spend a lot

02:57of time focusing on Maine,

02:59Ohio,

03:01Texas,

03:02and Iowa at at this point in terms of

03:05what's going to decide the Senate, but

03:08the electorate is angry and I think you

03:11all are

03:12well-versed in politics. People are

03:14upset about the cost of living. I think

03:16there's very much an anti-

03:18corporate, anti-billionaire

03:21sentiment among and I and I really think

03:25that transcends one party. I think

03:26Republicans feel that way, Democrats

03:28feel that way is that people are being

03:30left behind and and I think AI fuels

03:32some of that. Obviously, the data center

03:34debate fuels a lot of that,

03:37but really it's an electorate who's

03:39dying for stability and for um

03:43frankly, just to trust that everything's

03:44going to be okay. It's just I think

03:46there there's this chaos that's sort of

03:47taken over the the national narrative

03:50that I think is really aiding Democrats

03:51both in the polls and and likely

03:54on election day.

03:56In in Ohio, you see data centers playing

03:58a huge role and and what is the

04:01messaging about local impact? I know

04:03that those are all issues you deal with

04:05quite a bit. But generally,

04:08um it's affordability, it's diesel, data

04:11centers, AI of impact AI impact on the

04:14workforce.

04:15Um and just a general sense that things

04:17are out of control and there and there

04:18needs to be a check on the president.

04:20That that's clearly, if you look at the

04:22data, where where folks are in in all of

04:25these states. Um but to keep us on

04:27schedule, I can sort of keep it there

04:29and then we can go into individual

04:30questions

04:32uh you all may have after Keith gives a

04:34Democratic perspective.

04:37>> Okay, I have a question for you, Jimmy,

04:39but I will wait till Keith finishes. Um

04:42>> Or go ahead. If

04:43>> No, go for go for it.

04:44>> Just a question because I don't want to

04:46forget my question. So, I'm pretty geeky

04:48about looking at what's going on in the

04:50political world. I look at all news news

04:53things, but what I'm I'm I understand

04:56that the the Democrats, they're they're

04:58talking about affordability. But what I

05:00haven't heard, and I'm not even talking

05:02as a political official, I'm just

05:03talking about a person, a voter, is

05:06what is the plan? I hear about, "Okay,

05:09the gas is high." Yeah, we know that.

05:11"The food prices are high." Yeah, we

05:12know that. But I haven't actually heard

05:14a plan. Like, how are they How is the

05:17Democrats or how are they going to bring

05:20down these costs? I haven't actually

05:21heard, "Okay, this is what we're

05:22proposing. This is what we're thinking

05:24about." All I hear is affordability. All

05:27I hear is this, but I haven't actually

05:29heard a plan. And what I'm worried about

05:33is that if the if with the Democrats

05:36take control of either the House or

05:38both, is it just going to be

05:41um the same type of things, these legal

05:43things, which I know that's going to

05:44happen, and then you're going to forget

05:46about what the American people are going

05:49through, housing, you know? And so,

05:52that's what I haven't been hearing. Now,

05:54maybe some other people are hearing

05:56something, but that's just the messaging

05:58hasn't been clear to me. So.

06:01>> Yeah, and I'll I'll wait Keith. I'm not

06:03going to pretend to be an expert on on

06:04Dem messaging tactics, but I will tell

06:06you to your point one thing that I think

06:08people

06:09and that is both suppressing Republican

06:12turnout and uh motivating Dem turnout is

06:15the war in Iran and and the lack of a

06:17clear message around it because it feeds

06:20people can understand, okay, war in

06:21Iran, higher gas prices. That's a

06:23translatable message to the electorate.

06:26And by voting for a Democrat, Democrats

06:28are consistently with war powers

06:29resolutions or everything else, real

06:31people, real voters are picking up the

06:33fact that Democrats have tried to stop

06:35the war. Whether that's fair or not

06:37fair, reality from a Republican

06:38perspective, that is something that the

06:40we're clearly seeing in data is that

06:42Republicans

06:44Trump unpopular, particularly with his

06:48base, right? He he ran on sort of this I

06:50don't want to say isolationist, but

06:52that's probably the the appropriate

06:53word. And the [snorts] Iran war really

06:55cut directly into that. So, not only is

06:57it hurting, you know, Republican

06:59enthusiasm, candidly, which is a huge

07:00problem um from a Republican

07:03perspective, but it feeds uh sort of

07:05this chaos message and it's so

07:07translatable

07:09that the Iran war, oil comes from there,

07:12price is up. And it's just it's really

07:14simple and it and it's really been uh

07:17harmful. And so, I think if you're

07:18Democrats, it's such top of mind for

07:21people and they can process that message

07:23that it makes sense for them to frankly

07:25be on offense from traditional political

07:28operative thinking than it does to try

07:29and come out with another plan. I do

07:31think to your point the temptation for

07:33Democrats to go after impeachment on day

07:36one and they're going to have lots in

07:38their caucus that are that are

07:40frustrated, whether it's corruption or

07:41ballroom or anything else. If you're a

07:43Republican, that's good news to you

07:45because because the American people are

07:46pissed and they certainly want

07:47accountability, I think. If you look at

07:49data again, not my personal opinion, but

07:52if it's just on investigations all the

07:54time, that's going to give a lane for

07:55Republicans to to really come back, I

07:57think, quickly in 2028. And uh I think

07:59Democrats are aware of that, but trying

08:01to contain your caucus is another

08:02another situation and nobody knows that

08:04better uh than Keith. He's a former

08:07floor leader, so we'll we'll turn it to

08:08him.

08:09>> Okay, thank you, Jimmy, for answering

08:10that question and thank you for

08:12addressing that.

08:13>> Yep.

08:13>> And we'll always take Jimmy's advice on

08:15my side cuz he's one of the smartest

08:16guys out there that even if he's

08:17politically wrong. Um, I I'm a House

08:20Democrat. I came out of the House

08:21Democratic leadership of

08:23Speaker Pelosi's floor director,

08:25um, as well as a number of other roles

08:27over 25 plus years. And um,

08:30I'll just do a couple of quick touch

08:31points here and then we can have if

08:33there's any other questions here. I

08:34think, you know, your question was

08:36actually spot on was was the how how I

08:37was going to lead into this is that

08:40going into this election, Democrats

08:42benefited from being out of power across

08:44the board. So, the alternative to a

08:47Trump, a Republican Senate, Republican

08:49House

08:51was the our Democrats. And

08:53if and when Democrats do win either both

08:55chambers or at least the House,

08:57Democrats would be foolish to think that

08:59they have a mandate from the voters with

09:01there as an alternative to where we are.

09:03And and that the the pressures that

09:05American voters are facing right now are

09:08across the board. Housing prices, food

09:10prices, gas prices,

09:12um, unsettling world dynamics and local

09:15dynamics. And none of that changes just

09:18because the parties change in, uh,

09:21in DC. The DC parties need to figure out

09:24how to actually address some of this

09:26back at home. And you're hearing that in

09:28a number of different races out there.

09:30Um, so, that's a Now, it's also a

09:32tactical point of not putting a plan out

09:34there because the dem- national

09:36Democrats are saying "W- Win this on a

09:38local election. You're trying to defeat

09:40sitting members of Congress." So, talk

09:42about your affordability, whether it's

09:44in Colorado, whether it's in Michigan,

09:47whether it's in Mississippi, and take

09:48that while privately national Democrats

09:52are looking at the what is the

09:53affordability agenda. And what, uh, what

09:56will happen are there will be

09:58investigations, there will be an effort

10:00by some to impeach everyone from Trump

10:01on down, but there's also going to be a

10:04pushback from the leaders to say no,

10:06here's where we need to go and here's

10:08how we need to look at,

10:10um

10:10our oversight agenda. And the way

10:12they're talking about it now is any

10:15oversight that is done must be tied back

10:17to affordability, tied back to the

10:18reason why the voters have empowered

10:20Democrats to take over the majority, and

10:23not just to go back after the

10:24administration just because the

10:27perceived problems or real problems that

10:29are there with the way the

10:31administration's going.

10:33Let me just touch on a couple things

10:34real quick. One,

10:35building up on the Senate, the Senate um

10:38privately Democrats feel very

10:39comfortable with the where the Senate

10:40map is right now. Not a guarantee that

10:42it's going to that the Senate will flip,

10:44but uh

10:46we hear frequently in DC that Democrats

10:49would rather be in the position we're in

10:50right now rather than where Republicans

10:52are. Um Jimmy laid out all of the

10:54different places that um

10:55need to flip or win, and um we can talk

10:58about that more if we want to. The House

11:00map continues to expand. Um in fact, I

11:03think that the real the biggest problem

11:04Democrats have right now with the House

11:06map is that Democratic money, this is

11:09the political money coming in, is

11:11finite. And at some point there were

11:13going to be races that could have been

11:14won if there was extra donations

11:16somewhere, and we just always face this

11:19this

11:20cap on money just because it's finite on

11:22the Democratic side, where Republicans

11:24tend to have more campaign money coming

11:25in. That being said, there are some

11:27people I've seen that have said that uh

11:29there could be a 230 to 240 seat um

11:33uh

11:35seat uh Democratic seats in the House.

11:37Uh which would be about 15 to 20 votes

11:40in the House to be able to um

11:41move legislation. That's an interesting

11:43place to be, and it will give um

11:46uh Speaker Jeffries a little bit more

11:47latitude in order to uh legislate across

11:50the board. A different way to say it is

11:52that there are Republican seats that

11:54Trump had won by 10, 12, 14 um

11:58percentage points that Democrats are

12:00contesting right now. There are some of

12:02these gerrymandered seats that came

12:04through over this past year that

12:06Republicans thought they were going to

12:07write some of these Democrats out, and

12:09they're uh they're running even with the

12:11with the Republicans in those seats,

12:13which just shows what the environment

12:14is.

12:15Um you know, Democrats over the last

12:18year or so have been able to win um

12:21or recruit some very good candidates

12:23that combined with the the the political

12:28atmosphere are allowing Democrats to be

12:30able to expand the map and Republicans

12:33are going to have to choose which

12:35districts they uh they have to defend

12:37and which ones they have to sacrifice in

12:38order to defend other seats to keep the

12:40um

12:41uh

12:42their losses to a minimum. Um so, that's

12:44the big picture on the house. Um one

12:47other place just cuz we're talking about

12:49Colorado here, I want to hit through a

12:51couple things in Colorado and then I can

12:53um go on. There are three Repub

12:56vulnerable seats right now ranked by um

12:58one of the non-partisan uh

13:00um

13:01groups that that looks at these. Uh the

13:03Cook Report. Um Evans is a true toss-up

13:05seat. We'll see where that goes. In an

13:08environment like this, you tend to see

13:10um toss-up seats go towards the party

13:12that wins the uh the chamber. We'll see

13:15what happens. Uh Crane is in the lean R

13:17category, which um

13:19Democrats are still targeting. And then

13:21Hurd is in the likely R um or like

13:23likely Republican. So,

13:25usually those rankings are you know, on

13:28the toss-up, we'll see what happens.

13:30Likely R means that it's still likely to

13:32stay in the Republican um

13:34uh side, but again, this is a very very

13:37volatile um electorate for the

13:40Republicans.

13:41There's already been a um a massive

13:43shift with uh Diana DeGette being

13:45defeated in her primary.

13:47Um

13:48that seat will stay Democratic and and

13:50Crow will be sworn in in January. So,

13:53we'll see what happens there. And then

13:55just as you look at the political

13:57dynamics in um Colorado, Joe Neguse is

14:02um slated to be the number four Democrat

14:05in the house leadership when he becomes

14:06the his assistant speaker. Um

14:10we'll see where

14:11uh things shake out over the next couple

14:13of elections. Um we know that he he and

14:16Jason Crow are interested in moving up

14:17to the Senate at some point. Whether or

14:19not that goes anywhere, we'll see, but,

14:21uh, in the next Congress, Joe Neguse

14:23will be, uh, at the leadership table.

14:28>> Um, before I go to Council member Wiles,

14:30um, and if, uh, Vice Chair Jackson is on

14:33here. So, my whole point was even as a

14:36leader in a municipality, what kind of

14:38goes on and those issues are real issues

14:41for cities. And being a local leader,

14:44that's why I was asking I'm not I I

14:46guess I'm not saying that the plan

14:48should be out. I just haven't heard

14:50anything like, "Hey, this is I

14:52understand the war in Iran and there's

14:53the next Of course, there's a nexus to

14:55that. But even before that gas prices

14:58were a little high, too. And there were

14:59some food prices issues. I mean, we've

15:01been dealing with inflation and

15:02affordability for a while. So, it should

15:04be would be interesting to just know,

15:07"Hey, voters, this is what we're

15:10thinking about doing in Colorado." Or,

15:12you know, um, "This is how we're going

15:14to bring it down."

15:15So, that's kind of what my whole

15:19speech was about, really. Just about

15:21that. Looking at it from a local leader

15:23perspective and then looking at it from

15:25a voter perspective of what I haven't

15:27been hearing and maybe that's something

15:29that I want to hear as well. So,

15:31no argument there. I'm going to let it

15:33go to, um,

15:34cuz I don't want to take over the whole

15:36Zoom call cuz I could talk about this

15:38forever. Um, so, I'm going to go to, um,

15:40Vice Chair Jackson, if she's on. If not,

15:43Council member Wiles. Do you have

15:44questions for Keith and Jimmy?

15:50Council member Wiles?

15:52>> I don't have questions. I agree though.

15:53I think it's going to be very

15:54interesting. I think this is

15:57there's a lot of dynamics playing right

15:59now and I think there's a lot of

16:01concerns that, you know, average

16:03Americans have and I'm just

16:06I guess I see both sides, right? I'm

16:07like, "Okay, are they going to look for

16:09this great help or hope with this

16:11election?"

16:12And then what happens if things don't

16:14change as fast I don't know. I just feel

16:17like there's so many unknowns. I'm just

16:19kind of sitting here going it's going to

16:20be a really interesting next few months,

16:23year, whatever. So, I appreciate all the

16:25information, though.

16:27>> I will say what I think Jimmy will agree

16:28with me on this is that the good members

16:30of Congress, whether they're a senator

16:32or a house member,

16:34have their fingers on the pulse of the

16:35local levels. So, when Jimmy was a chief

16:37of staff, when I was a chief of staff,

16:39we were talking to our mayors and our

16:40council members all the time. You know,

16:41when when I was doing Massachusetts

16:43politics, it was selectmen and folks are

16:44on the ground to let us know what was

16:46happening and why we were either

16:49successful or not successful, what was

16:50going up because that's you guys are on

16:52the ground. And again, the good members,

16:55and that's not a partisan piece, it's

16:57just the good members that get elected

16:59know who's on the ground, who they can

17:00trust, and who they want to hear even

17:02even if they don't like the information

17:03coming to them, will still say, "Okay, I

17:06hear what you're saying.

17:07This is a big issue. Housing, you know,

17:09education, this I need to get involved

17:11in this or I need to direct my

17:13leadership to know that something is

17:15happening on the ground here that

17:16they're not seeing."

17:17>> Yeah, I would say the the one thing to

17:20that point of so much being up in the

17:21air is you will quickly see

17:25um

17:25I got to be careful how I frame this. I

17:27think that the president's team would

17:29ask Republicans in Congress to actually

17:31legislate

17:33more so legislate for the coalition that

17:35the president is drawing out, which are,

17:38you know, more pro-union,

17:41um

17:41you know, harder on, you know,

17:43anti-immigration.

17:45And there is going to be this reckoning

17:47in Congress in terms of the president's

17:49team pushing them to be more populist.

17:52You know, I think you'll see more people

17:53like Josh Hawley working with Elizabeth

17:55Warren on, you know,

17:57different initiatives that that are seen

17:59as pro-worker and and anti-corporate

18:01America. My sense is you will see a lot

18:04more of that because

18:06Republicans have relied on sort of

18:08culture wars

18:10to sort of differentiate themselves and

18:11to talk to the president's coalition,

18:14which is very different than a

18:14traditional Republican coalition. And at

18:17some point, Republicans in Congress are

18:18going to have to tackle economic issues

18:21that the president has spoken to in in

18:23his coalition, whether it's trade or

18:25tariffs or anything else. And right now

18:27that connect with Congress and the

18:29president's base has really not happened

18:30on a on a large scale, and that's

18:32definitely something to keep an eye on.

18:35Um,

18:36you know, assuming everything goes the

18:37way it looks like it's going to go.

18:39>> Yeah.

18:40Well, I appreciate it. I know data

18:42centers, AI, all that's going to be a

18:44big thing as well. So, it's going to be

18:45a very interesting

18:47couple years coming up. So, before the

18:50next presidential election.

18:52Keith and Jimmy, thank you so much for

18:55this update. It's really helpful to

18:56really have someone who's on the inside

18:58kind of giving us a great idea of what's

19:01going to be upcoming. So, I really

19:03appreciate you both being here and

19:04presenting to the Pfizer committee.

19:06>> Well, thanks for having us.

19:07>> Thank you.

19:08>> Thank you.

19:09>> Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you

19:10very much.

19:12So, I don't know. Do we still Liz, do we

19:15have a presentation with

19:17Lizzie or anything?

19:18Before I move forward?

19:20>> Yes, we do so have Lizzie and Shannon on

19:22the call to give an update on some of

19:23the other issues that we've been

19:24tracking.

19:25>> Okay. Um, Lizzie?

19:28>> Hi Madam Chair. It's good to see you

19:29all. Thank you for the opportunity to

19:31have our colleagues Keith and Jimmy on.

19:33They are political gurus, so Shannon and

19:36I felt very comfortable with passing the

19:37baton over to them.

19:39Um, in terms of updates, so the House

19:42and the Senate are out on recess. They

19:44will come back after the November 3rd

19:46midterm elections.

19:48The biggest piece that I think um, a lot

19:51of different committees in terms of

19:53professional staff members are

19:55considering on how to move forward is

19:57this permitting reform agreement that

19:59was brokered by Senate Energy and

20:01Natural Resources and then Senate Senate

20:03Environment and Public Works Committees.

20:06So, the four corners of those committees

20:08brokered an agreement right before they

20:11recessed.

20:12Um, the agreement is still in the

20:13Senate. The bill has been introduced.

20:15The bill has not been considered yet in

20:17the chamber.

20:18The bill looks at a number of different

20:19things for electric transmission. So,

20:22really trying to get um different

20:24electric projects, energy projects up

20:26and running. Looking at NEPA reform,

20:29reform to National Historic Preservation

20:31Act, amendments to the Clean Water Act,

20:35and then some additional um

20:37ability to look at how to best protect

20:40rate payers against increases according

20:42to data center developers.

20:44So, the package is pretty

20:47is pretty complex. It's over 400 pages

20:50long, the draft agreement. So, we've

20:53sent over to Liz and team some initial

20:56readouts. Our team is still, you know,

20:58updates day by day according to what the

21:02Senate staffers are able to negotiate

21:04and whether or not there going to be any

21:05changes to the bill.

21:06I am sure there going to be changes as

21:08we get closer to the November elections,

21:10but in terms of next steps for the bill,

21:14it's likely going to be considered

21:16immediately once senators come back

21:18after the midterm recess. So, they will

21:22move it to the floor for consideration.

21:24I'm sure there will be an amendment tree

21:26added in the Senate, a lot of different

21:28amendments considered to the overall

21:29package. There are some organizations

21:32that are in support. Um

21:34a lot of organizations such as utilities

21:37have been in support of some of the

21:38proposed changes. Some of them have a

21:40little bit of heartburn for some of

21:42these changes. I think specifically with

21:43some rate payer protection issues

21:45associated with that. A lot of the

21:47environmental groups um the further

21:50progressive groups have been adamantly

21:52opposed in some parts, but notably a lot

21:55of the the environmental groups have

21:57remained quiet as these negotiations are

22:00ongoing. And then some tribal nations

22:02have had some concern according to the

22:05text that has been released.

22:07On the House side, um we've been hearing

22:10from a number of different folks that

22:12Democrats look like the language, while

22:14not great, it's a compromise. Um part of

22:17the agreement was for the Trump

22:19administration to release some of the

22:21projects that they shelved when

22:24President Trump took back power. I'm

22:25talking mainly offshore wind projects,

22:29um some sustainable energy projects in

22:30that space as well. So, that release has

22:33really given them some momentum to

22:35consider the bill in its form and

22:37actually whether or not it comes to the

22:39chamber vote and support. And then we've

22:41also heard from House Energy and

22:43Commerce Republicans. There is some

22:45questions over transmission language, so

22:48language that was passed in the House

22:51versions of the permitting reform

22:52agreement. So, they had two different

22:54that were passed in the chamber. Um and

22:57again, kind of comes down to Senate

23:00versus House dynamics, um upper chamber

23:02versus lower chamber. So, something that

23:04they're going to have to reconcile as

23:05well as a bill proceeds through the

23:07Senate chamber and then over to the

23:09House for um consideration. Notably, the

23:12White House is in favor. This agreement

23:14was was brokered with White House policy

23:17staff. So, I think that's a pretty

23:19significant um

23:20dynamic that we're tracking as well.

23:23But than that, and I would be happy to

23:26turn it over to Shanetta if she has

23:28anything additional to report. That is

23:30the biggest report that we are tracking

23:32according to our municipal and local

23:34government issues.

23:36>> Okay, and um Lizzie, before I turn it

23:38over to Shanetta and then ask if Council

23:40member Wilds has some questions, um

23:42what's the and I think Liz told me this

23:44in a meeting that we had, what is the uh

23:47status of our CDS requests, our

23:48Congressional Directed Spending Request?

23:51>> Great question. So, we have not seen the

23:54Senate bills for the Appropriations

23:56Committee posted at this time. We were

23:58hopeful that when we came back from

24:00August recess that the bills would be

24:01posted. Whether or not they would be

24:03able to go through full committee markup

24:04was a separate story, but at least to be

24:06able to see where our projects landed.

24:09All All based on the midterm elections,

24:12we are now forgoing posting them before

24:14November and likely we'll see the

24:16release of that text after November 3rd.

24:18So, once we have a better idea of where

24:20the senators, especially there's one

24:23notable senator who chairs the Senate

24:25Appropriations Committee who is in a

24:27very tough reelect right now, then we'll

24:29have a better idea of what our projects

24:31look like. But, we're still

24:32communicating with staff to ensure that

24:34we're getting them all necessary

24:35information that they request.

24:37>> Okay. And just for the public, can you

24:38just tell tell us what the projects are

24:40so we can have that on So, if people are

24:42listening.

24:43>> Yes, and it's a pretty robust list. So,

24:46Liz, I would probably rely on you as

24:48well if you're able to

24:50>> worry about it. I thought it was just a

24:51few of the projects that we were Liz,

24:54can you just give us a thing just for

24:56the the In case people are listening as

24:58well.

24:58>> Yeah, so we have a list.

25:00>> Of course, you're awesome. Um for fiscal

25:02year '27, we have two projects that are

25:03in.

25:04Um currently, we have a fire project for

25:06a wildland rig um to help fight fires on

25:10our Eastern Plains. And then the

25:11secondary project is um for the Aurora

25:14Regional Navigation Campus for our roof

25:16replacement.

25:17>> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to In

25:19case people are listening,

25:21>> Exactly.

25:22>> [laughter]

25:22>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Liz.

25:24And then also just to flag for

25:25everyone's awareness as well, we are

25:26also tracking our WODA project. So,

25:29there was $10 million for Acorn Street

25:32that was included in the House WODA

25:34bill, and then $15.6 million or excuse

25:37me, I have that backwards. $15.6 million

25:39in the House, $10 million in the Senate,

25:41and we're hoping during conference it

25:43sticks to the House version.

25:45>> Okay. Um Councilmember Wiles, do you

25:46have anything for Lizzie before I let

25:48Shenetta see if she has any additional

25:50comments or updates?

25:52>> I don't. Thank you, though.

25:53>> Okay, Shenetta, welcome. Do you have any

25:56other further updates

25:57>> Yes, Madam Chair,

25:58as you asked for

26:00Madam Chair about the CDS request is

26:02Congress when they return from the

26:04elections only has a short time frame to

26:07pass

26:08the FY '27 appropriations. They really

26:11only have about 25 legislative days from

26:15November to December 11th when the CR

26:18expires. So, it's going to be a quick

26:19turnaround. It'll be a busy time here,

26:22but as Liz mentioned, a lot of that just

26:24won't be figured out until after the

26:26midterms.

26:27So, just wanted to give you the timeline

26:29of when we'll know more in November.

26:31>> Okay, thank you Shanette. I appreciate

26:33it. It's good to see you as well.

26:35Um, if there's no other further

26:36questions or updates, um, we will go

26:39Thank you both for being here as well

26:41and thank you for bringing your team for

26:42the other to give us the midterm

26:44elections update. I really do appreciate

26:46that.

26:47>> Our pleasure. Thank you.

26:48>> Okay, thank you. Have a great day.

26:51Okay, so we're going to go to item five.

26:52We're going to go to our state

26:53legislative update. Do we have Tautsie

26:56and Peggy? Hi Tautsie.

26:59>> Hi council members, hi committee and um,

27:02all

27:03everybody else who's on. Hey, um, I hope

27:06everybody's staying warm and dry, but

27:08this weather is quite refreshing,

27:10actually.

27:12Um, I'm going to talk about a number of

27:14issues, but a lot of this may be just

27:16reminders and rehash because things had

27:19kind of come to a standstill as members

27:21are more involved in their elections

27:24with that election just about two and a

27:27half weeks away.

27:29But I

27:29>> [clears throat]

27:30>> want to bring up some a couple of

27:32updates. So, since our last meeting, I

27:35met with Representative Baisley Nacker

27:37who told me that he is not planning to

27:39run a constructions defects bill, but

27:42Peggy met with Representative R. Stewart

27:45and she's running a bill combining last

27:47year's lot splitting and minimum light

27:50size lot sizes bills.

27:53We haven't seen the language as of yet,

27:54but Liz provided us with city staff

27:57comments from the two bills last year

27:59and I'm sure sure that Peggy has given

28:02those to Rebecca Stewart.

28:04Um, data centers, there's not a whole

28:07heck of a lot new

28:09on this. There um, rumors are still

28:12sticking that there will be six

28:15bills including a statewide ban on the

28:18facilities.

28:20There's one that would that one of the

28:22bills that Senator Kipp has been working

28:24on would impose environmental

28:26requirements on data center developers

28:30and the bill would be similar to SB

28:3226102

28:35that was supported by the environmental

28:37community.

28:38This would prohibit local governments

28:40from allowing data centers as a use by

28:43right and would require a public hearing

28:46when considering approve considering

28:48approving a project.

28:51It also requires a local government to

28:53consider data center developers

28:55cumulative impacts

28:58impacts analysis for a proposed

29:00development in a disproportionately

29:03impacted community.

29:05This is a bill that has given CML a lot

29:08of heartburn,

29:10but um because it limits local control,

29:13but Senator Kipp is still working in

29:16stakeholder groups

29:18as they as we get closer to session.

29:22Yet another proposal, which would be led

29:24by developers

29:26with the potential support from labor

29:28groups, would provide model codes for

29:32local government governments to permit

29:34data centers potentially offering

29:36incentives for development. This bill

29:39would be similar to HB261030,

29:43although it is believed that the scope

29:46of incentives may be less. Apparently

29:49this morning the Denver Chamber

29:52announced that uh

29:53Monica [clears throat] Duran will be

29:55carrying this bill as she moves into the

29:57Senate, but we'll keep you all posted as

30:01these uh

30:03the as these bills move forward.

30:06On license plate readers, um Peggy said

30:10in the last meeting that we expect two

30:12to three bill one to three bills rather

30:15on ALPR technology. Senema Senator

30:19Amabile is going to reintroduce her a

30:21similar well, introduce a similar

30:24version she's of her Senate bill 070

30:28that would include mandatory

30:29disciplinary policies that intrude on

30:33home rule municipalities

30:35employment matters, prescriptive audit

30:38auditing, logging, and reporting

30:41requirements, and provisions that treat

30:44AVAS and ALPR technology the same.

30:48Um Senator Marchman from Loveland is

30:51considering a separate proposal that

30:54would create a new private right of

30:55action with uncapped damages and

30:58attorney fee awards, as well as annual

31:02fees of up to $15,000 for local

31:05governments.

31:06And maybe other bills on this topic

31:08introduced by the law enforcement

31:11community.

31:13Also,

31:14another item that's new is that

31:16Children's Hospital has been working on

31:19a bill to address the impact of e-bikes

31:22and scooters on youth and the increase

31:25in injuries. Children's been tracking

31:29how state has been tracking

31:32and

31:33how stakeholders can collaborate on a

31:36broader communication plan around

31:38safety. They're seeking a minimum age

31:40requirement and also a helmet

31:43requirement.

31:44The group that's representing Children's

31:47now at the capital is a new lobby team

31:49to them,

31:50and I spoke with them this morning. They

31:53are meeting today and I will be given

31:55more information later because they're

31:57still trying to form a format the

32:00language in their bill and what they're

32:02really going after.

32:05Um we touched on use of force last time,

32:08and those meetings have still not begun

32:12as of now.

32:14Last month we discussed transportation

32:17funding and how that will be an issue

32:19again as the Restore Our Roads Coalition

32:22pulled its ballot initiative.

32:24Representative Weissmann Ecker told me

32:27that he believes that the

32:30legislation they're looking at will take

32:32a look at the fee structures put in

32:34place by Senate Bill 21-260.

32:38They may restructure fees by increasing

32:41the luxury vehicle fee and electric

32:43vehicle fees to begin with.

32:46They may also include oversize and

32:48overweight vehicles as well.

32:51However, he's not looking at delivery

32:53fee delivery fees.

32:55The goal here is to fund $125 million

32:58for bridge and surface repair. That's

33:01it. No new lanes.

33:04It's what he had told me. They also want

33:06to address the Montana loophole.

33:09Um Montana has no sales tax on vehicles

33:13and out-of-state buyers are establishing

33:16LLCs in the state to register vehicles

33:19there.

33:21The members in Colorado want to close

33:23that loophole.

33:25>> [clears throat]

33:25>> Excuse me.

33:27Basinette girl also said that they hope

33:30to refer a measure to the voters to

33:31increase taxes to and the goal there is

33:35to raise 7 billion over 10 years for

33:38road improvements.

33:40Um Council member Jackson, if you're on

33:44and I thought I saw you,

33:46um you asked at the last meeting if

33:48anyone is talking about bringing back SB

33:502697.

33:53That's the bill that would have discrim-

33:55decriminalized adult commercial sexual

33:57activity. No one is talking about that

34:00issue currently.

34:02But we expect everything to pick up once

34:06the election is over and I am willing to

34:10try to answer any questions.

34:12>> Okay. I'll go to my members first. Um

34:16Vice Chair Jackson, are you on?

34:19>> I am. Thank you, Chair.

34:21>> Okay, I'll let you go first. Do you have

34:23any questions or comments?

34:25>> Um

34:26Yes. Uh thank you so much Taxy for that

34:28update. Um

34:31You know, uh my only question to the the

34:33sex trafficking bill, I mean, the only

34:35reason I it's still on my mind is

34:37because I live in the area of Aurora

34:40where Colfax runs through and it's just

34:44notorious for I get a lot of complaints

34:47about you know, people soliciting folks

34:50for sex work and it's definitely an

34:52issue. Aurora Police Department has

34:54started a new human trafficking unit

34:57this year. So just I think a a piece of

35:00the puzzle is really this legislation in

35:03solving and reducing the amount of

35:06victimization that we see when it comes

35:08to things like

35:10sex work in particular. So that's the

35:13only reason why I keep bringing it up

35:15and pushing it cuz it does

35:16it's still in the conversation I'm

35:18having with many of my constituents

35:21and I know APD has done some work in

35:23this area as well. So thank you so much

35:25for your update. That's all I have.

35:27>> You bet.

35:28>> Thank you Vice Chair. Council member

35:30Wiles.

35:32>> Um no questions. Obviously the data

35:35center thing is a huge interest to me.

35:38I've called into some of Kip's working

35:40sessions just to like hear what they've

35:42been talking about. Um I've been talking

35:44to a couple other council members in

35:46other cities including Denver. So I

35:49think we're all kind of waiting to see

35:52you know, which which version all

35:54versions, what's going to happen. So

35:57yeah, just very interested to see what

35:59they end up doing with some of those

36:00bills.

36:02>> Understood. It's

36:04it'll be telling what happens after the

36:06election.

36:07>> I agree. I think it's it will

36:10It's going to be very interesting.

36:13Thank you though.

36:14>> And Toting, this is the question that I

36:16have on the transportation.

36:18And so what you're what the this

36:22Senator is he's he's a representative,

36:24right? Representative

36:25Okay. Representative is from Fort

36:28Collins. Okay. So what are they defining

36:30as luxury vehicles for the fee? I mean

36:34so if you have a are they defining it by

36:37price? How much the car or cost? Or they

36:40defining by what the car is? Is it a

36:42Audi? Is it a Volvo? Is it a Lexus? Is

36:46it a Mercedes?

36:48>> I have I don't know specifically, but I

36:52think that it will be Lamborghinis and

36:55high-end sports cars

36:58that

37:00you and I can't afford.

37:02I don't know, but let me let me ask him.

37:04Let me find out at that.

37:06>> is it really based

37:08on the based on the price point?

37:11>> or is it based on the brand? Because I

37:14don't I don't know. I have some hiccups

37:16about that because if I like Audi, okay.

37:21So, I got to pay this?

37:23>> Right.

37:23>> Because it it I mean or so I'm just

37:26asking is it based on what the price

37:27point is of the what the vehicle is or

37:30is it based on the brand of the car? So,

37:33I'm I mean I can't afford no

37:34Lamborghinis and stuff, but I'm just

37:36saying if we're kind of in that luxury,

37:38whatever that luxury will be. So, I

37:40would just be interested in that

37:41question. Price point versus what it is.

37:44>> Yeah, I'm happy to touch base with him

37:46again. He's great to work with. I'll

37:49figure it out.

37:50That's a really good question. I should

37:52have asked him when I was talking to

37:53him. Thank you.

37:54>> Okay. Thank you.

37:56All right, if there's no other questions

37:58on that, thank you Tutsy for being here.

38:00We look forward we got a a legislative

38:03session will be here. Oh my gosh, it's

38:05going to be interesting.

38:07For [laughter] sure.

38:08>> That's a nice way of putting it.

38:11>> All right, well thank you so much Tutsy

38:12for being here. So, I appreciate you as

38:14well.

38:16Okay, we're going to have our item six,

38:18our water update and we have Mike Foster

38:20here. Mike.

38:22>> Thank you, Madam Chair. For those of you

38:24that don't know me, my name is Mike

38:25Foster. I work in Aurora Water and I'm

38:28the

38:29new governmental relations program

38:32manager. I started back at the end of

38:33August.

38:35And I'm here today to talk to you about

38:37a bill that Aurora Water wants to

38:39sponsor, but before I talk about the

38:41bill, I want to provide some background

38:43and context.

38:45This past year House Bill 26 1340 was

38:48signed into law, which sets a number of

38:51rules, um, and and a series of things

38:55that need to happen when water rights

38:57that are tied to agricultural land are

38:59changed to a new use, for example, for

39:01municipal use or industrial use. And

39:041340 created a standardized process to

39:07verify that the land was properly

39:10revegetated or transitioned to dry land

39:13farming.

39:15Which is fine, but it relies on using

39:17outside third parties, uh, selected by

39:20local jurisdictions. Well, and when

39:23historically these types of decisions

39:25were really overseen and managed by

39:27water courts.

39:28Um, as many of you are probably aware,

39:30water law in Colorado is very, very

39:33complex, and water courts are experts,

39:37subject matter experts, in all of the

39:39nuances of water law. And so, we

39:41essentially think, believe that water

39:44court is the right place to make these

39:46kinds of decisions.

39:48Um, now, at the moment, 1340 only

39:51applies to the Arkansas River Valley,

39:53which is Water Court 2, which is

39:55southeast Colorado. Um, and that's

39:58because that region is generally warmer

40:00and drier than the rest of the state.

40:03So, it probably makes a lot of sense for

40:05that area of the state. Um, and where

40:08this presents a potential concern for

40:10Aurora Water is that we have reason to

40:12believe that there will be a statewide

40:14version of 1340 introduced in the

40:17upcoming legislative season. So, we're

40:20trying to get ahead of this by

40:22introducing our own legislation and

40:24hopefully getting approval from Pfizer

40:26to do so.

40:27Um,

40:29if 1340 were to go to statewide, the

40:31risk for Aurora Water could be increased

40:34costs, which would, you know, be

40:36increased rates to our our ratepayers,

40:38um, to acquire those new water rights or

40:40to revegetate farmlands. Um, it could

40:43extend the timelines to acquire water

40:46rights because a third party determines

40:49when the land has been successfully

40:51revegetated, and if there's a

40:53third-party that doesn't like Aurora

40:56Water,

40:57um that that timeline could become very,

41:00very protracted. Um so, really the

41:02bottom line is that local counties and

41:05municipalities in Division 2 would have

41:07kind of de facto veto or delay power

41:10over Aurora Water's water acquisitions.

41:13And again, we believe that the water

41:15court is the right place for those kinds

41:18of decisions. So, our bill establishes a

41:22statewide framework outside of the

41:25Arkansas River Valley for managing those

41:27impacts when agricultural irrigation

41:30water use is changed to municipal or

41:33industrial use

41:35by reinforcing the established practices

41:39through water court where the water

41:41right owner asks for permission to

41:44change how, where, and when a water

41:47right is used rather than extending 1340

41:51model statewide. Um the court would make

41:55its decision based on evidence presented

41:57in court rather than having those

41:59requirements imposed potentially through

42:03a local 1041 permitting process, which

42:05again would really extend protract

42:08timelines and and and really increase

42:11the costs for water providers. Um we

42:15believe that this bill would protect the

42:16water court's authority to set very

42:18parcel-specific recommend requirements

42:21based on the evidence and unique site

42:23conditions in those areas of the state

42:26where water uh the water proceeding is

42:28occurring.

42:29So, um while 1340 meets the unique needs

42:33of kind of southeast Colorado our bill

42:36creates predictability

42:38and stability for the rest of the state

42:41because water courts in those areas are

42:43really best positioned to make those

42:46local determinations.

42:48Um so far,

42:50um Representative Carter has agreed to

42:52be our bill sponsor and Senator Weisman,

42:57Representative Hamrick, and

42:58Representative-elect Woodson have all

43:00expressed a desire to learn more about

43:02this bill, and they'd like us to set up

43:04meetings with their respective offices

43:07after the November elections. So, um,

43:10we're

43:11that is what we're hoping to do. Like I

43:13said, we're trying to get out ahead of

43:14the legislative cycle, um, and so I'm

43:17happy to address any questions that, uh,

43:20the committee might have.

43:22>> Okay, Vice Chair Jackson or

43:24Councilmember Wells, do you have any

43:25questions for Mike on this particular,

43:28um, propo- potential legislation for

43:302027?

43:35>> I don't have any questions. Thank you,

43:37though.

43:37>> No questions.

43:39>> Okay, I don't either, Mike. I was kind

43:41of briefed on this, so you kind of have

43:43an idea. So, but I am glad that, uh, we

43:45have some representatives that are going

43:47to, um, help sponsor this. So, this is

43:50great. So,

43:51and we'll look forward to hearing about

43:53whenever the drafts come out or whatever

43:55comes out of the meetings, as well.

43:57>> Great.

43:58Uh, and would you like me to come back

43:59to Pfizer? What We have draft bill

44:01language. We've shared that with

44:03Representative Carter. He's he's got

44:05that embargoed, um, cuz we wanted to

44:07come to Pfizer and and talk to you all

44:09and engage with you before, um,

44:12moving forward with that. But, um, if

44:14Pfizer's in agreement, then, um, we can

44:16let Rep. Carter know to to start those

44:19next steps.

44:20>> Oh, yeah, with the committee. I mean, I

44:22yeah, I would agree with that. Uh, Vice

44:23Chair Jackson and Councilmember Wells,

44:25do you approve of that, as well?

44:27To let Vice, uh, tell Representative

44:30Carter kind of

44:31move forward with the initiation of the,

44:33um, drafting of the bill?

44:36>> Yes, absolutely.

44:37>> Okay.

44:40Uh, uh, Vice Chair Jackson, I didn't

44:41hear you, as well. I'm sorry if I cut

44:42you off.

44:44>> You're good. I do agree.

44:45>> Okay. All right. All right, so that's

44:48we'll move forward on that. So, thank

44:49you, Mike. I appreciate it.

44:50>> Thank you so much to you. I appreciate

44:52it. Have a good rest of your day.

44:53>> You, too. Okay, we have no state last

44:56minute bills. We have nothing on federal

44:58miscellaneous matters for consideration.

45:00Anything from the committee members or

45:02anybody that's on this this this

45:04meeting.

45:05Okay.

45:07All right. So, we're going to confirm

45:08our next meeting November 19th at 12:00

45:11p.m. Is that still good for the

45:13committee members?

45:20>> Works for me.

45:21>> Okay. Vice Chair Jackson?

45:29>> Yes, that works. Can we shift it 30

45:32minutes later? Is that okay? If not,

45:34that's fine. I'll just be maybe a little

45:36bit late to that.

45:37I have a meeting before that that ends

45:39at right at noon.

45:41Um

45:42Yeah.

45:43>> Okay. Well, Vice I mean Councilmember

45:46Wells, will 12:30 work for you?

45:50If we shift it 30 minutes later?

45:54>> Yeah, that should work.

45:56>> Okay. So, Vice Chair Jackson, we'll go

45:58ahead and for that meeting we'll start

46:00it at 12:30. Liz, can you make that

46:04change that we'll start the meeting on

46:05November 19th at 12:30? Is that okay for

46:08the

46:09Okay.

46:10>> I'll absolutely send out that calendar

46:11invite now.

46:13>> Okay. All right. So, with that being

46:15being said, we're we're in adjournment.

46:17Everybody have a great day and a great

46:19rest of your week.

46:21>> Thank you.

46:22Have a good week.