The debate over how to spend nearly $1 million of windfall money devolved into shouting during Longmont’s City Council’s meeting on Tuesday.
The city will be receiving $980,481 distributed by the Metropolitan Football Stadium District following the sale of the Denver Broncos. The letter said that the money must be used toward “youth activity programs,” but did not specify much more beyond the fact that the district will check back in a year to see how the youth programs benefited from the money.
A local nonprofit and three city council members have put forth proposals for the money, but council member confusion and frustration over how the process has been handled bubbled over Tuesday.
Mayor Joan Peck explained near the start of the discussion that she and some senior staff members would be speaking with a liaison of the stadium district to get further clarification on how the money is allowed to be spent on Wednesday. With that in mind, Councilmember Marcia Martin moved to table the discussion on how to spend these funds until after that meeting.
Councilmember Tim Waters expressed dismay over the fact that only the mayor would be attending the meeting and condemned that fact that it would not be public. It was later explained that the discussion would be for clarification only, and that the meeting could be recorded for interested parties.
Waters was the first council member to propose how to use the Denver Broncos money, drafting his own resolution to use $500,000 along with $1.5 million of oil and gas revenues for an expansion of the Longmont Museum’s Children’s Gallery. That initial vote was delayed, which Waters said he now regretted, adding that he would still like to have a vote on his resolution.
All council members voted in favor of tabling the discussion except for Waters. With it tabled, council eventually came to the conclusion that no vote could be had on Waters’ resolution.
“What’s transpired since (I brought forth that resolution) has been so confusing, so unclear,” he said. “... This thing has become a joke in terms of the process.”
Councilmember Susie Hidalgo-Fahring then tried to make a motion that had been mentioned before the Denver Broncos money discussion was tabled. As Hidalgo-Fahring was speaking, Waters interrupted to request a point of clarification.
Hidalgo-Fahring, who still had the floor, objected to the intrusion and expressed her frustrations with Waters’ actions drafting the resolution.
“If you’re upset about having private conversations with other entities: the conversation you had with the president of the Stewart Foundation and then surprised us all with your motion,” she said. “So then it prompted us, we had a conversation going. We were going to bring it publicly to the council for discussion before we moved on anything. Your motion was the catalyst.”
The two council members began shouting over each other before Peck declared a five minute break. The two continued debating animatedly for most of the break.
When the council returned, Hidalgo-Fahring moved to carve out $200,000 of this money to go toward nonprofits through some sort of application process. Peck and Councilmember Sean McCoy expressed hesitation at the idea, saying it would open up a “kettle of worms.”
Mayor Pro-Tem Aren Rodriguez said the motion gets closer to his preferred spending of the money.
“I would rather see the money all go to Children, Youth and Family Services and be done with this entire conversation,” he said.
Councilmember Shaquita Yarbrough expressed her frustrations with the conversations and a desire for the simplest process.
Not seeing the support she needed to pass the motion that evening and deciding it was better to wait until the city got further clarification on how the money could be spent, Hidalgo-Fahring withdrew her motion.
City Manager Harold Dominguez also clarified what would be discussed with the Metropolitan Football Stadium District liaison on Wednesday
“When you look at the letter, it says you can spend the money on youth activities,” he said. “There was a meeting with Boulder County. I wasn’t in that meeting; other staff was. What the individual said was, ‘We want you to do this.’ Our question is, is it a want or is a have-to based on statutory language?”
The discussion will return to council after the meeting with the liaison.
Waters and Hidalgo-Fahring apologized to each other later in the meeting.
