Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Advisory Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longmont council debates powers, youth seat and procurement role for proposed technology advisory board
Summary
Council members and staff debated a proposed Technology Policy Advisory Board's scope on June 2, including whether it could review procurements before contract signature, whether a youth-ex officio member should be included, and whether the board should cover data centers or autonomous vehicles; staff will send the ordinance to legal review and return for formal readings.
City staff presented a redlined draft ordinance creating a Technology Policy Advisory Board and asked council for direction on its scope and powers.
Sandy Cedar, assistant city manager, told council the draft would allow the board to advise on emerging technologies, ethics and social impacts, and to review RFIs (requests for information). Legal and procurement staff advised that the board could not review signed contracts or substitute for formal procurement processes, but could be briefed on RFIs and nonbinding market information before formal procurements.
Council debate focused on three flashpoints:
- Procurement access: Council members and staff agreed the board should see RFIs and market briefings but not review RFPs/RFQs in a way that would interfere with procurement rules. Council Member Marcen and others warned against giving an advisory board a role that would materially alter procurement decision-making.
- Youth ex officio seat: The draft included a youth council ex officio member. Some council members supported youth involvement for experience and perspective; others raised concerns about background checks and security clearances that could exclude a youth member from substantive sessions. Council took an informal thumbs-up to include a youth rep but asked staff to flesh out how the role would work in practice.
- Scope (data centers, autonomous vehicles): Council disagreed about whether to add broad topics such as data-center siting or autonomous vehicles to the board's charter. Several members argued data-center policy intersects with land use and economic development and belongs with other boards (planning, sustainability, economic development). Others, including Council Member Popkin, said technology-specific technical expertise would help assess environmental and infrastructure impacts. The council directed staff to separate policy framing from operational/legal constraints and to return with options.
Council members asked for clarifications in conflict-of-interest language, closed-session authority (to be handled per Colorado open-meetings law), and the board's diversity/appointment language. Staff said they would send the updated ordinance to the city attorney for legal review and return it as an ordinance for first reading in roughly a month.
Next steps: Legal review and a revised ordinance will be brought back for formal readings; staff will refine provisions on RFIs/RFPs, youth-ex officio attendance, conflict-of-interest language, and closed-session authority.
