January 7, 2020 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] foreign [Applause] [Music] thank you [Music]

[1:03] anybody here you guys ready hey good evening this is the city council first city council meeting of uh 2020 my name is Bob Yates I'm mayor Pro tem Sam Weaver our mayor is not feeling well tonight so I'm going to sit in the chair for him this is the meeting of city council for January 7 2020. Lynette would you please call the roll council member Brockett president friend here Joseph here here Nagel here sweat lick here Wallach yeah Weaver Yates here young President we have a quorum great thank you just a few announcements before we get going um we have no amendments to the agenda so we're good to go there open comment closed at six o'clock and we'll take open comment here in a

[2:00] few minutes we have one public hearing tonight and that's on ordinance 8372 which amends our rules relating to accessory dwelling units if you're here for that please don't speak at open comment instead please sign up with Heidi over here for the public hearing on that which will probably start around seven or seven fifteen so if you hang tight on that public hearing that would be great everybody else please if you've signed up and have been notified that you are on open comment please kind of come up when we call your name in a few minutes um just one announcement tomorrow January 8th we will be opening our annual applications for appointments to the various City boards and commissions is a great way to be involved in our community you can go to the boards and commission subpage on the city's website the applications will be open from tomorrow morning through Friday February 14th at 5 pm and we encourage folks who are interested in serving our community to look at the various opportunities and

[3:02] to consider applying you can apply actually for more than one board so if you have more than one you're interested in please don't hesitate I think the only requirements uh generally speaking are that you have to have lived in Boulder for one year you do not need to be United States resident to serve but you need to excuse me citizen you must be a resident Boulder for a year thank you Aaron but you don't need to be United States citizen that was a rule we changed a few years ago you must be 18 years old age there are a few requirements within some of those boards and commissions as far as living in a certain District or other things you'll you can see that all on the boards and commission website anything else folks a wave announcement okay I think we're good to go so let's start with open comments I don't have the list so just a reminder everyone has two minutes please respect that and please um regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the speaker don't make any um out loud comments if you agree you

[4:00] can wave your hands Darren thanks hi Darren O'Connor joining you tonight um you're being handed uh the petition that you probably read a number of times we got almost 300 by the end of the day today and I will stop that petition from getting new signatures and sending you more but I hope that the volume of emails is indicative of the desire of our community to see severe weather shelter opened every night of the the year right now I know that what's being contemplated is only for the winter but I would encourage you to consider the Martin V Boise case and the Supreme Court deciding not to hear the appeal on that which said that if people cannot get access to shelter that it is cruel and unusual punishment to make shelter illegal

[5:00] unfortunately Boulder is cruel and unusual in the volume of tickets that we give we in a study from d.u law gave out more tickets for camping than any other than all the other cities combined in this state I would add that you're going to hear a lot of numbers from staff and from service providers tonight and those numbers are not backed up I have tried to do open records requests to verify them and have been denied multiple times I've modified my application still been denied and I would remind you that I've emailed about this that Kurt fernhober who will probably speak with you tonight has in one memo in December of 2018 said that we've never turned anyone away from shelter and then in 2019 one month later in January wrote in an internal or excuse me I have them backwards but in

[6:02] in a follow-up memo said that yes we we have turned people away it it's really important to realize that these these numbers are soft and that there's no data backing them up the last thing I want to say is that we need to follow outcomes for people we're not finding out what happens to them and I encourage you to include that thank you thank you Elise Hudson Edson and after release will be Corey hugg is Elise here Corey you're up if you're here only Corey will be Pat Murphy so firstly I'm going to comment again that two minutes is an adequate amount of time for any sort of communication to happen here beyond that Boulder deserves a full-time city council earning medium wage and not holding second jobs this allows the members to hold more Community forums and be more and directly involved with the community as

[7:00] their role as policy makers second affirmative proactive action taken by government to register and inform voters on all topics that affect them election officials should inform through town halls education videos and by going door to door especially amongst the poorest populations to encourage voting Boulder needs to lead the way in implementing ranked Choice voting with a no confidence vote option um on creating building regulations we can create regulations that encourage green roofs and circular structures with green Greenery in the middle Gardens and whatnot as far as homeless shelters um when I was in Afghanistan we had to build inside of a 40-foot conics a shipping container enough room enough beds to account for 60 to 80 troops with bags and all sorts of gear Boulder can't

[8:00] seem to manage to offer housing to people on the street we did that in two days with three people with hammers and nails and Boulder can't seem to house the people that are dying on the street I think that's the most serious problem that we can possibly imagine so the fact that we can't utilize the tools at hand to build these people's shelters because of inappropriate laws or inappropriate codes is inappropriate in itself also well that's the end of my time thank you Corey if you have more to say just feel free to send us an email Patrick Murphy the following Patrick Murphy will be Lynn Siegel my name is Patrick Murphy I live in Boulder this is the continuation of the 24

[9:00] articles of the muni naughty list the muni naughty list Article 4 taking 4.3 million dollars from other departments and a 1.4 million dollar loan with no certainty of repayment from Muni profits we have been taking money from ourselves the way addicts steal from their own families the muni is an addiction that has lost touch with reality notice that the addiction now demands more time and more money with lots of excuses this is the pattern of an addiction Article 5 outdated and inaccurate engineering and cost analysis as a basis to form a Muni and because of that a court case was needed to end the paper Muni in the first few years bad estimates and assumptions were the basis of immunity we wisely passed restrictions and requirements on the muni to protect us from uncontrolled

[10:00] Beauty Addiction we ignored those restrictions and denied that we ignored them and then city council created a paper Muni the courts finally brought this delusion to an end the paper Muni is again a vapor Muny article 6 ignoring the fact that new Renewables like excel's billion dollar Rush Creek wind farm and the 750 million dollar Cheyenne ridgewind Farm to be completed this year have already increased the stranded cost and a failure to even include stranded cost in recent cost analysis for eight years the stranded costs have been given a value of zero in the financial analysis that's all the financial projections are corrupt stranded cost will never be zero to be continued with article 7 through 24. thank you Patrick and Siegel are you here

[11:00] okay moving on to Alice Gunther following Alice would be James Duncan good evening I wanted to speak tonight about mobile homes and lot rents I want to thank the city of Boulder for instituting zoning laws that keep the use of land under the mobile the home I own more secure however with the housing bubble here in Boulder there is a current unforeseen consequence I and my neighbors are living with right now random uncontrolled rent increases in Boulder Meadows our lot rent has in been increased three times in one calendar year in October 2018 my lot rent was 690 Dollars January 1st 2019 it was

[12:02] increased to 725 dollars August 1st 2019 it was again increased to 747 dollars and January 1st 2020 it was upped again to 776 dollars with my water bill I now pay around 812 dollars a month in one year I and all of my home owning home owning neighbors are paying almost a hundred dollars a year more to live on the only place we can land zoned for mobile homes please remember that mobile homes are the number one unsubsidized affordable housing in the United States so you see just changing the zoning will not protect us we need to have rent control as the corporations and individual companies will just keep raising the rents until we can't afford to stay in our homes

[13:02] thank you thank you Alice Lynn I see you come in are you ready now Linda you want to go now or do you want a few minutes to get I'm just okay James why don't you come on up and then Lynn if you go after James that'd be great thanks father I had one comment to Alice oh yeah oh I'm sorry yeah Alice just so you know this is going to be a topic at the state legislature this year so it's very important that you mobilize and speak to that perfect thank you great thanks thanks Adam James uh good evening Council my name is James Duncan and I'd like to yield my time to Evan ravitz thanks Evan ravitz North Boulder one reason I've worked for 30 years for better direct democracy is so that people can participate in law making without running for office Eleanor Roosevelt said I'd rather be

[14:02] chloroformed than run for office but personalities dominate politics now the whole world is suffering in Trump's farce field and Boulder is being run by City attorney Tom Carr and city manager Jane brodigam who regularly undermine Council and the community I call for you to fire them here is a recording of Tom misleading counsel in two ways I'm going to remind you that this is unprecedented no one's ever done this before anywhere in the world done online petition signing we we have a product we have asked the elections working group to re-engage with us so we scheduled a meeting on December 16th to have them go over the contract provisions and the plan and to get their input before we finalize the contract so they finalized the contract and notarized it one day before our meeting

[15:02] and Tom also said this was the world's first but Arizona has had online petitioning for candidates for seven years the only difference is the text of the petition um I've been I informed Tom in an email including Council but he continues to lie about this these folks told Council and voters that their 27 Charter amendment 2q is a charter cleanup when it actually messed up the part of our Charter regulating initiatives and referendum this rep this resulted in Council creating our campaign finance and elections working I think seven um Lynn I called your name before before you got here do you want are you ready now great thanks Lynn Siegel 538 Dewey um I went to a gathering at the Depot last night and there was so much smell in the lower level

[16:02] um I had thought that this was resolved because as you know there's an E coli issue with CU at Folsom Field into the the affluent into Boulder Creek and my understanding was that oh geez the city of Boulder had fixed up the um the sewage issue into Goose Creek at the Depot and I was surprised to find most people would not could not sit there one person had Wheezy in their throat and everything luckily I can't smell so that's where all this development is like Biz Biz West it's like development as far as the eye can see around here and if we can't even support our basic infrastructure that's a problem the person that put on this Gathering is not gonna do it at the Depot again as a result then I come home and my neighbors are talking about all the asbestos that is

[17:01] flying around for from 311 building site and we have these huge wins it's spreading all over Boulder so can we please get a handle on things that's been a blighted area for two years there's um then two fires up there on the property and we as the neighborhood can't police it ourselves the other thing is these small efficiency units people need more open space when they live in the small efficiency units and we're underfunded on the open space for 400 million dollars and this is a problem and the transportation is just this town isn't designed for this kind of growth so please put a break on the growth um and people like me you know people without the family anymore three thousand feet and they're staying in their houses I want more people than two more in my house when many others can

[18:01] have you know quite a few people in their house um thanks Lynn thanks Eileen Monday and after Eileen it will be Mark Cal band hi I'm speaking to you tonight to ask for your help in fixing our broken Health Care system and to also ask you to put forth a resolution in support of a single-payer Universal Health Care System I'll start by sharing the stories of some people who've fallen into the darkness of our current system uh these people are my patients I work as a PA at Clinica Family Health a community health center my first story is about Maria who is uninsured Maria fell at home on the stairs and badly fractured her forearm her arms her bones in her forearm were badly displaced and she had some loose fragments in her wrist Maria clearly needed surgery but no orthopedist would accept Maria's case the only option that

[19:00] I had was to put a cast on Maria's forearm and hope for the best healing possible so now Maria's left with a deformed forearm that's poorly functioning and it impacts her ability to do her work in housekeeping it also impacts her enjoyment and even picking up her grandchildren my second story is about Linda Linda had recently gotten a promotion in a pay raise at work so now Linda was able to buy more than the basic necessities the bad news was that Linda no longer qualified for Medicaid and in addition when low-income people go on the health exchange they see plans where they will have to pay hundreds of dollars a month to get a plan that has a five or ten thousand dollar deductible and that's money they don't have so it makes no sense for them to pay hundreds of dollars and then have no money to pay the rest of the bills for nothing so Linda chose to go without insurance that same Year Linda found the lump in

[20:00] her breast and as we worked up that lump it turned out to be breast cancer so now Linda was left with a breast cancer diagnosis and no health insurance so in closing I'd like to ask you to put forth on a resolution in support of Single Payer Health to help the lindas and the Marias of our community and to help prevent the 45 000 deaths a year that happened because of lack of Health Care coverage and not to mention the half a million million bankruptcies a year in the U.S thanks Eileen Mark after Mark gelband Bill sample Mark galban 505 College I'd like to call your attention to um section 617 of our Municipal Code titled improper care of animals prohibited and I'd like for you to just read it when you contemplate the 48 people who died last year an animal is deprived of

[21:02] minimum care if it is not provided with care sufficient to preserve the health and well-being of the animal considering the species I'd say to all of you that in essence you guys have not only not been caring for the human animal who are unfortunate to live on the streets of Boulder but you've gone so far as to being complicit in negligent homicide of those 48 people and anyone else who dies on the streets let me continue in section A3 and K in the case of a pet or other domestic animals other than livestock or poultry access to a barn or dog house or other enclosed structure sufficient to protect the animal from wind rain snow or sun and which has adequate bedding to

[22:01] protect against cold and dampness I want to thank Darren O'Connor for all the work he's done to consistently be here in front of you and call attention to this issue but I will just say that it is morally reprehensible for any of you to sit up there and allow one more person to die on the streets of Boulder because they can't use a sleeping bag on the coldest night of the year they can't lay down with a blanket or a raincoat or something that gives a tarp on a night when it is cold because I can tell you this if I left my little dog pirate out on a cold night in December and he died I'd have a ticket or I'd be in jail for animal cruelty thanks Mark oh please please no um no um out loud Expressions just wave your hands if your supportive bill after Bill simple Madeleine Goldstein good evening Bill sample I'm a city of Boulder resident and I'm the board chair of the Colorado Foundation

[23:01] of Universal Health Care and in line with our mission to create simple guaranteed health care for All For Life I ask if the council passed the resolution in support of improved Medicare for all we really can pay much less and cover everyone with Better Health Care and all three of these are important paying less covering everyone in Better Health Care many other many others and I see no other way to accomplish these important goals with without except with the much administratively simpler improved Medicare for all indeed the majority of Americans support Medicare for all and across the country volunteers are going to the cities and counties and their school boards asking you to pass a similar resolution the importance of speaking up

[24:00] is that the cartel of the insurance drug and big hospital corporations is adamantly opposed to Medicare for all the successful well-funded powerful cartrail takes the necessary resource of our need for health care limits that resource by having uninsured and underinsured and then charges us whatever that's why we paid twice as much per person as other countries that cover everyone and they have better outcomes we need health care that serves our needs and not just the needs of those at the top of the insurance drug and big big hospital corporations we need a politics that supports our pursuit of life liberty and happiness essential to wish is having health care that each of us can afford please join us in the other governments across the country with a loud voice and

[25:00] resolve that the city of Boulder supports Medicare for all thank you thanks Bill Madeleine Goldstein followed by Nicole Perlman metal in here Nicole you're up after Nicole will be Lilo Rosenthal thank you so much I really appreciate everybody's time tonight um I'm an old lady 17 years ago I got a master's in public policy and what mostly stuck with me from that experience was that really good public policy is based on two things it's based on a good understanding of data but it's also based on ethics so the issue I wanted to briefly talk about tonight was the homeless policy first of all when the city made certain decisions in 2017 they were based on a really really bad data basically you had a decision that the severe weather shelter would only be open certain nights because the data showed that people died regardless of whether it was open or not first of all I would say this is a horrible relationship between causation and

[26:01] correlation but also if you look at the data from this year 48 people died so obviously following the city's own logic having the severe weather shelter closed on certain nights caused people to die if you follow that logic but beyond that I would argue that looking depth is a really really low bar I mean can we really sink any lower I mean the average cost to treat hypothermia or frostbite for an ER visit can rage anywhere from 150 to 20 000 so even if people aren't dying on the streets somebody's paying for their health care if they're outside freezing at night and guess what it's the taxpayers um so you have a bad policy based on bad data but second of all if you think about the ethics look we tell people in the city of Boulder they have to prove they're a resident here for 60 days to get access to homeless Services how is a homeless person supposed to prove they're a resident here I'm sorry about 60 days six months and then we say oh well we do such a great job serving the people that have been here for six months well guess what

[27:00] that's really cherry picking the data because you have hundreds if not thousands of people who have still been here for longer than six months who can't prove they've been here for six months and still need Services those people are not allowed to camp but if the severe weather shelter is closed they have nowhere to go for shelter so what's their option you basically saying if you're homeless in Boulder you're illegal thanks Nicole Leela Rosenthal followed by Nino hamabale hello my name is Lila Rosenthal I'm here today to request that the Boulder City Council adopt a resolution in favor of single-payer Universal Health Care in our city I've been a practicing family physician for 12 and a half years in Colorado and for most of that time I had the unique privilege of running a private practice taking care of the amazing people of Boulder County my practice was called my family doctor and I took care of all comers from folks dealing with homelessness to the

[28:00] extremely well-off and in March of 2019 I made the incredibly heart-wrenching decision to close my practice the reasons were many but Chief among them was the decision to stop allowing myself to be abused by for-profit insurance companies who systematically denied payments for basic services including sometimes immunizations because they can get away with it and because providers can only fight so many battles there's nothing like being in private practice to understand very intimately the many ways that big insurance is squeezing doctors and in turn patients you frequently hear about burnout among Health Care Professionals but I want to make it very clear that burnout is a blame the victim term and many of us are starting to use the term moral injury to convey the abuse that we feel on many fronts but most egregiously from for-profit insurance companies there's a bumper sticker that says if you aren't completely outraged you're not paying attention and I know there

[29:00] are so many fronts for outrage in American public life today but I sincerely believe that if we all had the same insurance card in our wallets cards that don't have restricted provider networks cards that stay with us whether we lose a job get a divorce move out of state other or otherwise fall on Hard Times cards that level the healthcare playing field that it would be a rising tide that raises All Ships single-payer Universal Health Care such as improved Medicare for all would make this a reality thank you so much thanks Lila you know Mobley followed by Ali Catherine Wild hi thanks for having me um I wanted to speak about keeping the emergency shelter open I imagine that almost all of us have been affected by addiction mental illness under or unemployment or unforeseen emergency oh on foreseen emergency expenses I know

[30:03] that in my own family I have an adult childhood would be homeless um if I were not able to support him misery and suffering do not cure addiction or other illnesses much less homelessness people deserve basic shelter and care all of us deserve support and kindness the very least we can do is provide shelter in any weather on the other hand we could also follow the model in Seattle and build a village to house the homeless people thank you Nina Ellie Catherine and after Ali Catherine we have Marie Adams good evening I'm Ali Catherine Wilde I live at third and pearl glad to be a resident of Boulder glad to see everyone

[31:00] and happy New Year so I had a complaint to make but I got to tell you A lot of it has been worked out with the help the direct hope of Diane Marshall and Debbie Stamp especially Diane Marshall because I was having difficulties having my files uploaded I cried because I couldn't get my files uploaded because I like show and tell the difficulty is the show and tell and the reason for my concern so this is It's a chunk of sidewalk it's very new it was poured in a construction site and the complaint is uh oh it's not Ada I live at third and pearl which is Glen Willow City housing of Boulder and I wanted accessibility for people who need accessibility it's the only path that would allow somebody to reach um laundry and maybe garbage so so here right this is this is what I cried about I gotta show my pictures

[32:03] ultimately what happened from Diane Marshall's suggestion she said why don't you talk to planning so I called planning and do you see the big happy blue stripe over there that's legal Ada and the foreground is another ramp that is probably at 18 grade and I think the Ada is limit is eight percent now because I learned this today the inspectors did come out so I went to planning ultimately they said hey call we'll send the inspectors out and the inspectors came and they said we don't deal with internal sidewalks but we can help so I believe see this is an unport area I wanted to make sure that there was going to be accessibility for on our site wow my time is up your time's up Ali thanks so much for saying nice things about the staff and it sounds like you're on the right path thank you

[33:01] Marie Adams after Marie we'll have Michelle Rodriguez hi Marie Adams 4507 Southampton Circle in Boulder 80301 I'm here to ask you to pass the resolution in support of Medicare for all right now the current system is unsustainable a few years ago a report came out that uh Paul Ryan quoted 32.6 will be the cost over the next decade but what he failed to tell you is that at the current system it's going to be 50 million to us um in addition to that Employers in 2019 a family of four with employee or paid Health Care paid sixty six thousand and fifteen dollars out of

[34:00] the twenty thousand five hundred and seventy six dollar premium Now take that to our level here at the state and then down to the city of Boulder how much would this municipality cost a pay if Medicare for a while was available on a government program it was fun that the city that they pay insurance premiums for the employees can be put to the services that are now underfunded the school boards would not have to negotiate every year and save money and some of the other things that would be affected would be right now employees as I said or employers are paying 20 576 dollars per employee with a 4.5 personal tax

[35:00] um that would save people over twenty seven thousand dollars a year employers would pay 7.5 per employee sorry sounds like you got a lot of information feel free to email to us well when you give you booklets which I think and please go through them because there's a lot of pertinent information um that would on a local level save this municipality money that could be used elsewhere thanks so much Marie Michelle Rodriguez and after Michelle Steve Whitaker hi I'm Michelle um I'm one of the voters formerly homeless people I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of uh needing year-round shelter but I want to remind y'all that you'll see my face again because last year I spoke on April 16th here and it was about being criminalized as a homeless person I've since had my day in court and I was found not guilty of my charges my reason of self-defense against the Boulder Police Department I'll have you guys know they recommended I uh Sue and do a

[36:03] tort claim instead of doing any kind of uh criminal charges against the police officers and I'm being denied restraining orders against these officers I also want you guys to know um I memorialized 4849 of our homeless people the other day and this week will memorialize parts of of one of our homeless people a gentleman Steve Agro he's been in respite care I'm not sure if they still have him in respite care I'm not sure why he's still got the tips of his fingers because all of them are due to be surgically removed due to frostbite he stops he suffers from substance abuse he's one of the many and mental issues he deserved shelter he deserved shelter year round he has a Housing Voucher he doesn't have the support he needs we've done a lot but we haven't done enough I was criminalized to the point where I was chemically sedated out here right

[37:00] here in front of your municipal building that's what I was found not guilty by reason of self-defense by I had one of your largest police officers testify proudly to having been on my back I was found to be sober I had no warrants I had no mental health holds I need you guys to wake up we're not only dying from exposure to the elements we're dying from exposure to the people and the elements the people that just can't see through us or rather are looking right through us as people thank you for listening thank you Michelle Steve Whitaker followed by Rachel Daly I'm Steve Whitaker uh nearly 47-year resident of Boulder and why we would want to rent forever when we can own our electric our electric distribution system

[38:02] is beyond me yes it will be expensive to buy yes we have spent a lot of money so far but I view this as a down payment required to own our distribution system and to have the freedom to choose our source of electrical power in a competitive Marketplace who among those who are renting their residence don't wish that their monthly payments were going towards ownership of the property renting makes sense when the property under consideration is going to be used for a short or an uncertain period but the city of Boulder is going to be here for a very long time hopefully forever we should make our financial decisions

[39:00] accordingly while the initial costs seem steep the long-term benefits are great both economically and environmentally we need to take the Long View while spending hundreds of millions to own our electrical distribution system seems daunting let me remind you that as Renters of this system we will pay all of that and many times more over time and never own any of it stopping our quest for a municipal electric utility this year would be a huge mistake we have spent millions of dollars and years to get this to this point let's stay the course until we see what the full cost will be and then decide thanks Steve

[40:02] Rachel Daly followed by Sarah Gene Cohen hi I want to talk today also about um the homeless the issue with the homeless shelter not being opened every night um as Nicole said I don't think that the metric should be just deaths that we're looking at this is a human issue there's a lot of different kinds of suffering besides just death that I think we need to look at and I think we do need to make sure that we're keeping track of some kind of data I'm I'm concerned so I I did write to council and I got um an email back and one of the things that was said was that you're currently working to perform an Architectural Review to determine the feasibility of certain specific sites Etc et cetera so what I'd like to say um is that because we did see so many people die last year on our streets we

[41:00] need to not only make sure that emergency shelter is available because there will always be a need for that but we also need to reconsider our camping ban and um just think about what it means to criminalize people who don't even have enough money to have a roof over their heads so please please consider leaving the severe weather shelter open especially during these winter months where even if it's not the temperatures the wind as we all saw last night um that can cause I mean I just can't even imagine how it must have been to be sleeping outside last night so please consider that and remember that these are people are part of our community too thank you thanks Rachel sir Jane Cohen sir Jane here oh there you are sir Jane take your time you're our last one

[42:06] hello my name is Sarah Jane Cohen I'm going to read this because it's a lot I've lived in the city of Boulder for over 50 years and have worked as a volunteer with the homeless Community for over 40. as you review the report on homelessness tonight please consider these three points one the city cannot make sleeping on public property illegal unless there are legal sleeping options available the right to sleep is a constitutional right two the city may not impose conditions on those sleep options Beyond minimal rules of conduct designed to support the reasonable functioning and management of the venues three the these rules apply to anyone in the city not just residents however that's defined City staff say that because there are empty beds at the shelter and path to home legal sleep options are available and therefore the city May arrest and prosecute people who sleep on public

[43:01] property this argument is disingenuous and misleading both the shelter and path to home have eligibility requirements for homeless men and women to use their bids as part of the agency's structured programs the only walk-up shelter available to all is the severe weather shelter which is only open half the year and then only on nights when the weather is bad enough people who don't want or to or or who have been deemed ineligible for the structured programs face many nights with no legal sleep options referencing open beds and structured programs is meaningless when some people are borrowed from using those bids there are people in institutions in Boulder including but not limited to the faith community prepare to help the city meet its obligation to provide legal sleep options for unhoused men and women but the city must provide the leadership resources and support Boulder prize itself on being a progressive and compassionate City but

[44:01] unfortunately on this issue the city is providing no leadership at all rather it is being shamefully punitive and short-sighted thank you thank you sir Gene oops please um we're just going to turn this that's the end of open common turn to staff for any um comments or statements no real additional information though of course we have a session later tonight under Matters from the city manager to talk about the homeless strategy and we'll be having some data with regard to the unfortunate deaths in our community so thanks Jane anything from you David I'm available for questions came in questions from Council Members Mary so this question is for staff um in the um rule making for the mobile home legislation that passed last year I believe there was an allowance for a

[45:04] lease that would prevent rent increases twice a year is that am I remembering correctly I don't I don't know so David yeah I I would I would have to just look that up and I can follow up um after the meeting that'd be great um because that would be at least one way to prevent one um extra rate um rent increase during the year so um so that's one question and then um I had another question about the state and federal legislative agenda is um Healthcare currently in the legislative agenda you know Mary I I don't know I've talked with Carl about it and Carl Castillo our policy advisor and my understanding is that he is hopeful that the council will refer the question of Medicare for all to the council's legislative committee and that when that group meets

[46:01] I think in February that this particular issue will be discussed and then brought back to council about whether or not to add that to the legislative agenda and the next opportunity to add it to the legislative agenda is I what I saw today on the forward-looking agenda is that there would be a meeting of the committee in February and it will come forward at the March meeting I think the first meeting in March great thank you yes Aaron so um Ms Wilde brought up questions about ADA complaints on internal walkways at a BHP property and she was mentioning that maybe inspector said well we don't look at internal walkways but but I assume there would be Code Compliance right that you would any uh structure would be required to be code compliant it's a fair statement that's a fair statement so maybe we can just check in with her to make sure that the the right inspector or the right people are contacted to make sure that those walkways are code compliant

[47:01] great thank you thanks Ryan no alley Catherine but but um but thanks for calling that to our attention we'll follow up on alley Catherine thank you and feel free to follow up with an email Rachel do you have something okay anybody else questions okay great ready to move on your consent agenda tonight contains items a through G okay do you want to call out that um I with the help of Mary proposed an amendment item 3E which is resolution 1276 in support of the Community Choice energy which I believe is in the white sheet the reviser draft if folks won't accept that amendment is on the white sheet on our diets of any any comments or discussion on the consent agenda before we take a motion Mary I just had one question with regards to Item B

[48:00] um the Rifle Club um authorization there was a mention in there of thirty thousand dollars that they're going to pay for improvement on user experience and I was just curious to know what kind of user experience can be bought for thirty thousand dollars I don't think that that has been programmed yet okay yeah okay great that that was my question that's all you know the questions or comments Rachel um I also had one on the Rifle Club agreement it it in in the materials that um it's currently used for disposal of explosive materials and that just concerned me a little bit combining that with guns I just wanted to make sure we thought through that or or clarify if there were concerns yeah okay I'll I'll take a look at that okay

[49:02] um and then on The Vaping text I think we got an email about cigarettes and I wanted to clarify does this only apply to e-cigarettes and not cigarettes being taxed through what we're looking at tonight that's correct thank you you know the comments or questions on the consent agenda not I entertain a motion to um move the consent agenda and please indicate if you do whether you um accept the amendment to resolution 1276. so I'll move the consent agenda with item e as amended Mark seconds this um roll call or it is a roll call okay we begin with council member Yates hi Young yes rocket Hi friend yes Joseph yes the motion passes unanimously thank you what's next

[50:01] you have one call-up check in this evening it's an easement vacation for 69.49 Winchester Circle anybody have any interest in calling this up see no takers we'll move on your public hearing is second reading of ordinance 8372 amending the subsection on Accessory units so staff's getting settled in I'm going to make us maybe a process suggestion because this is a pretty meaty topic with lots of little Parts in it so we're going to hear a presentation I think from Staff first and then we will have an opportunity to ask Steph any questions about their presentations then we'll open the public hearing and by the way if you haven't signed up yet and you want to sign if you want to speak to this Ada matter please do sign up here in the next few minutes and then after public hearing we'll ask any follow-up questions to staff and then staff has kind of five propositions for us to consider and I might suggest because it gets a little complicated as to which amendment applies to which that we might go through and discuss each one one through five and maybe take a little bit of a mini straw poll on each of

[51:00] those as we go through and then based upon how those straw polls come out David maybe you can help us determine what we're what we're actually going to pass here tonight you know with attachment b or attachment C or whether there's any modifications necessary does that make sense to everybody okay good evening council members uh the purpose of tonight is for Council to consider second reading of ordinance 8372 which seeks to make some code clarifications and code cleanups related to accessory dwelling unit standards in the land use code there also are some additional attachments that we'll talk about that are to be considered as amendments when if approved as the Amendments would require third reading of the ordinance and we'll go into detail on those so just a little bit of background the accessory dwelling unit or Adu regulations were actually originally adopted by the city over 20 years ago as

[52:00] creating some an additional alternative housing choice for the city there was an update that was approved by City Council in December of 2018. those regulations went into effective February of 2019 so we're coming up on almost a year of implementation of those standards so during that time staff has been looking at the code implementation and and discovering some ambiguities that are in the code and some unanticipated situations that we felt should be resolved sooner rather than later because it has led to some applications being denied and obviously we're trying to make it somewhat easier for adus to be established in the city so we want to go over some of those so we've identified some barriers we've also found some someone like loopholes or ambiguities that exist in the code that we wanted to clarify so the overall intent of the ordinance when we started the project was basically to do these code cleanups and limited updates and then doing some more

[53:01] extensive changes later so moving on to the the content of the packet there are three attachments to the memo I'm going to talk about them in kind of a high level and then Andrew's going to go into a little bit more detail on each so the first is attachment a which is the original ordinance that staff had prepared which is focused on these code cleanups and code clarifications so what that includes is some new language related to the roof pitch ratio for buildings that are between 20 and 25 feet in height these are detached structures where we're trying to encourage conversion of existing buildings to adus there's the cleanup of the Adu occupancy language that's proposed in the ordinance there's also um an architectural design consistency provision that we're proposing that applies specifically to new construction rather than all buildings

[54:02] uh and then also making a clarification that adus in a co-op cannot exist on the same property which is something that the code is silent on right now so attachment B actually contains the planning board recommendation so the the selections up on the screen that are underlined are those areas that are different between attachment A and B so a is the original ordinance attachment B has some changes that planning board had recommended so recom the planning board recommended that the architectural design consistency provision for all detached adus be removed they also wanted to make it explicit in the code that an Adu and a co-op could exist on the same property uh and they they said that that would be based on the condition that it be part of the co-op and that this there would not be an increase in occupancy it would have to follow the existing code regulations for occupancy for for co-ops that's in the code now

[55:00] one thing that came up after staff started developing the ordinances was an email that talked about some circumstances where in other communities there's been condominiumization of adus condominiumization cannot be prohibited by state law but it could be something that could happen in the city we've not seen any instances of it but we're proposing some code languages to address that so the the project began in um October of this year and we brought it to to a planning board on November 21st so planning board recommended approval of the ordinance with a seven uh to zero vote but they did ask for those changes that I was talking about so limiting um occupancy to the co-op allowing adus and co-ops on the same lots and wholly removing the architectural design standard these are reflected attachments uh B and then attachment C uh comes from planning board's requests that we address that condo issue that was raised

[56:03] so we'll talk about that foreign so since we started the project in October we've done published and online notices we've informed applicants and pre-applicants of the of the potential changes we also had the planning board hearing in November um attachment D contains some of the written public comments that we have received there's been a range of opinions on the project starting with some emails from the Boulder Community Housing Association which is Express support for allowing adus and co-ops on the same lot and you've seen some additional correspondence coming through over the past few weeks for and against that provision there has been also some instances where people are opposed to co-ops on the same lot with adus there's people on both sides about removing the architectural provision or keeping it in and then there's that that extensive email on the condo piece that's also found within the packet so I'm going to turn it over to Andrew now he's going to

[57:00] talk about the the code changes in more detail great and good evening Council so we'll go through each of these one at a time so you can pause if you want to have some discussion after each of these topics so the first two changes are to the Adu design standards currently legally existing accessory structures may be unable to reasonably convert to a detached Adu if the structure conflicts with the existing or the current 80 design standards specifically the requirement for a roof pitch ratio of 8 to 12 or greater for structures that are 20 feet or taller in height and also the requirement that the detached adub architecturally designed consistent in terms of its design with the existing residents or adjacent buildings on the side yards of the lot and these make sense to be applied to new construction they can incorporate these elements in the development but it's more difficult for existing structures to renovate to these requirements so this example shown here on the screen on the we have an existing legally

[58:00] existing accessory structure that does not meet the current roof pitch ratio standard of 8 to 12 or greater so it's over 20 feet in height a bus roof pitch is only 6 to 12 so it's too flat eight to twelve means it's the roof is eight feet vertically and 12 feet horizontally measured from the center point of the roof so the first proposed code change is to remedy the situation so again the current standard requires a roof pitch of 8 to 12 for all structures rather than 20 feet in height so the code change is simply to provide an administrative modification process to the standard and this is contained both within the proposed ordinance and attachment a and also in the attachment B alternative amendments the second proposed code change is regarding the architectural design consistency provision again this requires an architectural design such as the journal style or the facade to be consistent with the existing residents on this site

[59:00] um staff is proposing to modify this provision to apply only to new construction only as opposed to all detached adus the alternative Amendment and attachment B reflects playing board's recommendation to wholly remove the provision altogether a staff's recommendation is the proposed change in attachment a finding that a wholesale removal might be more of a change outside the scope of the project that might want more Community discussion before we move on to when we go ahead and take a pause here because I see people taking notes maybe it has people have questions while they're still fresh in their minds no questions of staff on um proposals one and two one or two anybody good okay oh Mark Jefferson do we know how many uh causes of property the

[60:00] uh I don't think you're online do we know how many Parcels of property uh the relief relating to roof pitch would apply to if we have a handful of applications that have come in over the course of the year uh seeking to convert some of their structures to detached Adu there's one I believe current case that's kind of pending this decision in terms of potential I'm not sure how many accessory structures you know are out there and that would be impacted by this um but okay thank you Mary as long as we're paused I have a question um is Staff keeping data on denials for adus I think Steph is we have a pretty extensive Matrix Matrix monitoring all the incoming applications and wait lists and everything so I believe we are okay I thought so when this comes in for its

[61:00] formal review we'll be able to see see some of that data okay great thank you you know the question some changes one and two Rachel make sure I'm following if we are we are limiting architectural design consistency for new construction let's say you have a house that is really dated if you're doing a new Adu you have to match that under this proposal you have to match like the house that's existing when we look at the house design we'd be looking at kind of the materials may not necessarily have to be like the same style but I think we look at color and materiality to determine consistency but let's say you have like a heinous home and you want to add an Adu to it you have to make that Adu match the house under this is that is that true so that's the existing regulation today to all detached a to use would be the house on the lot or the adjacent houses along the side yards of the lot that would be the requirement today okay and so just to follow up on Rachel so the um alternative Amendment attachment B would

[62:02] would avoid the heinous house situation is that right because it wouldn't require matching correct okay thanks any other comments questions on one and two go ahead and move on to three then okay great so the third proposed change is regarding Cooperative housing units and adus being developed on the same property this was not a scenario that was anticipated at the time of the co-op or Adu regulations adoption in 2017 and 2018 respectively as such the code does not currently expressly indicate whether you can have an Adu and co-op on the same property however there are different standards for each regarding occupancy that would require interpretation for such a scenario to be implemented today under the current regulations that does it's not clear if such an allowance was actually intended during the adoption of these codes so the third code change as Carl talked about is to address his existing ambiguity in the code the proposed ordinance was simply

[63:00] proposing to prohibit The Establishment both the co-op and the Adu on the same property this is an attachment a the attachment B alternative Amendment option reflects the planning board's recommendation so this would expressly allow both the co-op and Ade on the same lot or property with some additional clarifications at the occupancy would be limited limited to that of the co-op only there'll be no increase in occupancy with Adu the Adu would also by the residents of the Adu would have to be part of the co-op as well and then any additional Adu saturation calculations there's a 20 limitation and the RLS and mean districts in terms of the number of lots that can have an Adu that currently counts a co-op as part of that calculation there's a clarification that simply states that in this instance it would only count once when it be counted twice in that calculation okay so let's pause there take on any questions on on change number three Aaron yeah thank you for that so um I understand that when you were saying before that the issues you you're

[64:01] bringing this forward because you felt there were issues that needed to be resolved and my impression was that planning board tried hard to resolve those issues and I'm wondering if you see any lingering problems given planning words approach to it like that would require us to say no to this I don't think we've identified any problems with the modified language to reflect the planning board recommendation I think our recommendation to not adopt it now is more along the lines of this hasn't had a lot of public discourse it kind of grew out of the planning board discussion and and we felt that maybe it needs more time and consideration before it gets adopted but we didn't identify anything wrong with the language as it's written now okay so you don't have any objections to the approach they took you just feel like maybe we should talk to folks a little more now we don't uh based on on the content I mean it's a configurational kind of situation within the co-op it's not increasing the occupancy but again we want to make sure that you know

[65:00] people are aware of it okay thank you other questions on change number three Rachel was there any public engagement at planning board there were some folks that came and spoke to the planning board for and against some of these changes any other unchanged number three Mark how many existing co-ops are there in town There's only there's eight existing uh co-ops under the regulations and then three existing non-conforming approved uses that function as co-ops as well and are there any pending applications no no applications in the previous year currently okay Mary so we've got a letter from the boulder Housing Coalition that talked about how there are two co-ops that essentially have attached adus um I believe it was to attached

[66:01] apartments and an approved boarding house with 18 units so it also would not be impacted by this change little just click on continue to operate okay thank you other questions on change number three Mark so if I understand correctly this change would apply to precisely zero uh properties in town at the moment that's that's correct there's no of the eight co-ops that we know of that are currently approved none of them have an Adu on their property there have been some um folks that have expressed interest in this option so it's why we're okay addressing it Adam you might not have the answer to this but if a co-op were to want to build an Adu would they collectively just have to raise the money in order to do so like are there rules surrounding how co-ops change their physical existence I mean they would have to follow the Adu

[67:00] process and as owners on the property they would have to all sign the application but they could and that wouldn't present any issues in itself having up to what is it eight or ten people signing an Adu application cool Mary so that raises kind of a follow-up question um with respect to the existing co-ops how many of them are ownership co-ops and how many of them are rental co-ops because you probably wouldn't do this if it's a rental Co-op look at that table now um seven of the eight are rental co-ops and then one is listed as a not-for-profit slash affordable Cooperative that would be operated by probably a third party um Housing Partnership thank you other questions I had a question um how would um the parking rule the respective Park parking rules coordinate because we have two types of adus that

[68:00] have two different type of parking requirements and then we have a separate set of parking requirements for co-ops how would they can you speak to that I mean I think we'd have to look at them both but they do have different requirements so co-oper eggs said that you just have to submit a parking plan right and you have to demonstrate that no more than three vehicles will end up in the public right-of-way the Adu regs just require one additional parking space on the property so we want to want to make sure that we look at both of those and that those two requirements are met and then we have another type of Adu which if it's permanently or not probably affordable it's an affordable edu I think we call them type twos or whatever we called them when we made this up that don't require a parking requirement is that right that's right so if they met that affordable requirement there wouldn't be a parking requirement for that so okay so just since we're writing laws here what would the what do we tell the public the rules are with respect to parking on these if ever there wasn't exist if everyone anyone came forward and said I want to do a co-op slash Adu what are the rules

[69:01] um again it's going to be you know if they're if they're not going to do an affordable there'd be an additional space requirement on the site for the Adu so we'd have to make sure that that's met and then secondarily you know the co-op regs are are somewhat discretionary in terms of the parking plan it's basically they have to demonstrate to the city that they're not going to present any impact more than three cars in the right-of-way so we're just gonna have to look at both of those together so your interpretation would be even though the co-op rules are relatively discretionary may not require parking if there's an Adu on site they would have to comply at least with the IDE rules is that right that's right okay I think that's helpful Judy thank you I'm just a little bit confused because if for instance the original building is probably bigger than the Adu so why would you even require extra parking because I think that would just make it this restriction would make it even harder for someone to get access to Nadu

[70:01] it could I mean the occupancy would still be the same the same standard between the two but certainly an option of counsel is to amend that to not have that requirement okay anything else on number three let's move on to four okay so the fourth code change is a uh cleanup to the Adu occupancy language and definitions uh currently there's inconsistent terminology across the accessory units and occupancy section of the code as well as definitions the language shifts at different points and times between persons and rumors in a consistent manner so this is a fairly straightforward code change it just aligns a code language in a more consistent fashion between persons and rumors it creates a new definition for rumors and the code and updates the access for dwelling unit definition as well importantly it does not change the number of occupants are allowed it simply clarifies the existing language and this is found within both attachment a and attachment B options

[71:02] great many questions on change four pretty straightforward go ahead so the last proposed code change is regarding the issue of a separate sale and condominium membership of adus as Carl mentioned uh planning board requested this consideration as a additional item for this proposed ordinance state law does prohibit local governments from prohibiting condominium form of ownership and here in Boulder the creation of Condominiums occurs with a recording of a plot and other documents with the county clerk's office there's no City Review process for it regardless of the ownership regime any development including an accessory dwelling units tools to comply with the city's land use code standards and the Declarations of use that are recorded as well again as Carl mentions we're not currently aware of this being an issue here in Boulder yet with adus being condoed out and sold separately um that said the proposed ordinance has passed on first reads and I addressed

[72:00] this issue as it was raised after the ordinance was drafted the attachment C option would expressly prohibit the sale of an Adu independent of the principal drilling unit on the law or parcel and staff is recommend the approval of that option at this time so great great questions on change number five Aaron let me just give a quick uh rationale for for your recommendation yeah essentially the Adu is an accessory dwelling unit supposed to be incidental to the principal drilling unit of the of the latter parcel and so I think in our minds keeping that connection is important if you start to sever that it starts to be in some some ways to different principal drill units in addition having that common kind of ownership and operation because those tourists keeping incidental to the principal dwelling unit thanks any other questions number five very so right now this could happen based under state law where we can't have

[73:01] prohibition it could happen and because it's done within the plat there is no notification to the city that this has happened so we don't really know if this has happened or not is that correct um so if if we were to is there a way that we could do this and allow the condominiumization um and with the caveat that the Adu be a permanently affordable unit could we do something like that so probably not and so the primary there's a part of the condominium statute that talks about the condominium form of ownership and one of the principles that it sets into it in terms of how local governments regulate is that you don't treat a property that is

[74:02] condominiumized different from a property that is not condominiumized and so if you were to say you can go condo if you give us some goodies you're treating a condominium form of ownership differently than you would treat like the traditional lot and block type ownership thank you any other questions on change from Rachel thanks um I so I think I'm still trying to figure out like what the threat is and why we would want to prohibit this so if if I have a house and I put an Adu on it and then I sell the Adu right that's the the loss of common ownership and and then and then what like so we've got the Lost common ownership is the threat that I can then put another Adu on my property because I've gotten rid of that first or what are we protecting against here I think when that um kind of the underlying policy rationale of of How It's structured now

[75:01] is is that you have an on-site owner always on the property along with a rental property so the idea is is that with on-site ownership uh I guess the hope would be that you would have more active Land Management and make you know making sure that everybody um fits well into the neighborhood and um yeah I think that that's that's the primary public policy rationale for why we group them together and then I guess the other part is you know in terms of how we load the property with occupants it's it's attempted it's not completely equal but it's certainly equivalent to how it would have been occupied even if you didn't have an Adu on the property so you're just spreading it out a little bit I just want to ask a follow-up question to Rachel's are you done um with um just kind of add on to that David would if we remember we had the type 2

[76:01] edus which was the ones that were contractually affordable would that complicate that contractual relationship with the city if if the Adu could be kind of minimized and sold off I I don't think so because if it were condominiumized and sold off you would still have the Covenant the I don't you know that the Covenant was on the land was it well and also it was about rental rates right right so I think you would lose the affordability right because you would then have an owned property but the Covenant is on the rent yep that's correct yeah that's that's the concern thank you yeah thank you Mary yeah so that raises a question of so someone could um get the extra square footage for an Adu and say that they're going to make it um permanently affordable rent wise and then condominiumize and then we would lose

[77:01] the affordability of it yeah if it's not being rented okay in a condominium structure don't you have to create separate tax slots for each property you have to create separate under the statute they call them units and the units can be either two-dimensional or three-dimensional how could we get to the same place simply by prohibiting subdivision of the property on which both a house and a condominium rather a house and an Adu is located well that is already prohibited by our Zoning for a traditional lot and you know lot and block type ownership so this would be basically placing that same restriction that we have for lot and block on a condominium form of ownership is the problem that that state law doesn't print doesn't allow us to approve it condominization is that right yeah you uh yeah condominium you can

[78:00] this the statute allows um you know if you can build it and you've got three-dimensional spaces the Condominium Act or the common interest ownership act will allow you to three-dimensionally split it up even without a lot split even without a lot split correct but under our zoning we would not allow a lot split yeah the questions on number change number five we'll never we'll have another questions but let's if it's okay with you guys let's go to public hearing what do we have signed up we have eleven eleven what's our rule you guys remember 15. so we're gonna go over three minutes each are you guys okay with that so three minutes each there's 11 you Eric Bud you're up first followed by Charlotte Pitts

[79:08] hello uh Eric Budd uh I live at Ingram Cooperative um I came here tonight because I was really interested in talking about uh being able to adopt a change of civil laws that would allow housing cooperatives and adus to be on the same site and the way I see this as uh someone who lives in a Cooperative is someone who's on the board of Boulder Housing Coalition which provides non-profits affordable housing in Boulder you know we see this as an opportunity to give flexibility to new cooperatives um Lincoln Miller sent an email today is talking about how we have to adus in our in our cooperatives today and when I hear the discussion I think

[80:00] there's some really great discussion about this and seeing what the planning board the modifications that they had come up with um I really urge you to take the putting boards uh suggestions and allow the cooperatives that need to use on the same site you know as someone who participated a lot in the public process the past four years on cooperatives and adus I know that we came up with a lot of laws a lot of very detailed specific restrictive regulations to a lot of these to happen and the biggest things we did were we restricted the occupancy and we restricted the parking impacts and so really the whole the whole part point of this public process was really to reduce the impacts and what I hear is by putting these two on the same site the impacts are no greater in fact you could say it's even more restrictive if you adopted the idea that the both of the

[81:02] parking regulations would be additive you know I think you've got something that's that's uh really addressing a lot of the concerns that we were trying to address in this process and something that I ask to give flexibility one other side project I've been working on the past year is I started a meetup group of people in Boulder who wanted to start cooperatives we started that last February we've been meeting every month and it's been really awesome and after a year we've created exactly zero cooperatives and I just tell you that story just to say like it's really hard to do this it's challenging to make an a to you it's 10 times more challenging to start a co-op and just asking you all to consider that and support another way that we can have more affordable housing in Boulder thanks thanks Sarah oh did you hold on secondary Eric did you have any intention of creating an Adu in the

[82:00] Ingram Court Co-op or some sort of plan to you know maybe do it in the future no I don't think so like Boulder Housing Coalition doesn't have any plans it's more just thinking out outside of the boulder Housing Coalition like and seeing seeing that we have models in our houses that work and seeing that that could work elsewhere thanks thank you Charlotte after Charlotte Pitts I'm Joshua Merriman [Music] Charlotte Pitts I live in Boulder I'm standing before you this evening to express my support for a number of amendments with regards to the Adu design code firstly I want to encourage Council to support the staff recommendation for subsection 964a of ordinance 8372 that removes the architectural provision for existing accessory structures that are subsequently converted into an accessory dwelling unit the conversion

[83:00] of an existing structure into a dwelling space Not only removes the potential economic hurdle that comes with new construction costs but equally and portent this repurposing process reduces the city's environmental impact so the foundational idea of this proposed change ultimately aligns with Boulder's economic social and environmental goals um according to the U.S inventor Energy Information Administration in 2018 new residential and commercial buildings accounted for 40 of the total U.S energy consumption that year and the carbon emissions within in this industry will inevitably continue to rise so Boulder really does have an opportunity here and should therefore work to incentivize the ReUse and repurposing of an existing structures and follow through on its commitment towards a more ecologically minded approach to housing strategies secondly

[84:01] with regards to the proposed amendments to the design standards for new accessory dwelling units ordinance 8256 I strongly recommend that Council heeds the concerns of the community to remove the provision requiring that new adus be architecturally consistent with the existing structures or adjacent structures the new the um it's the aesthetic of an Adu and therefore the homeowner's right to self-expression but perhaps more importantly the economic burden of a rigid aesthetic code can be debilitating for homeowners um and an owner of a brick and mortar Residential Building would have to clear huge financial hurdles to mimic that style today and as someone who works in the Adu industry I understand the ways that these design costs can accrue and potentially derail a project that would have otherwise provided housing for an

[85:01] elderly familial member or would have provided housing to a person in need of a rental space so you know therefore if Boulder wants to see if older seeks to to make Alternative forms of housing possible for different economic groups I urge you at the very least to start by removing these Superfluous architectural requirements and that's all I have to say tonight thank you thanks Charlotte Joshua oh I'm sorry hold on a sec Charlotte Charlotte somebody's got a question for you hi um thank you for coming out tonight I have um you mentioned that you work in the Adu industry and I was wondering um how many folks have come to you and to kind of feel out the situation for whether or not they should build an Adu and they come away going oh it's just not going to work yeah um at least

[86:01] almost a dozen individuals a number of people have backed out of projects due to um restrictions within their neighborhood so they would have had to get on a waiting list and wait um so that that is one reason but another reason is you know someone who lives in an old older house like a stucco home um you know that is of a certain square feet and they're not able to um you know accommodate those you know architectural requirements as they are currently written in code similarly with like a modern home someone who wants to do a Gables isn't totally not possible um and then just a crude construction costs can really um as I mentioned just kind of throw us a wedge into a project so yeah there are many people in Boulder who wanted to use thank you yeah thanks Charlotte Joshua and uh followed by Robert Ross

[87:02] [Music] hello Council hello everybody in Boulder my name is Joshua Merriman I've lived in Boulder two and a half years or so when I first moved here I worked for vo Mobility Services I was a bus driver it was uh one of my first uh what I call Big Boy jobs I was kind of like it came from pretty pretty low lifestyle I was born to a single mother didn't have a father figure growing up and uh in 2017 I was here in Boulder working for Via and some unfortunate situation happened with my living situation and I didn't have anywhere to live I turned to the cold weather shelter and it was a pretty unfortunate situation I held my job through the entire time during all of this um all of my family is in another state in New Mexico on top of that I'm probably still even being on the streets

[88:02] the most successful person so far being one of the first people to graduate high school in my family at the cold weather shelter they said they'd work with me on my on the hours that I'd be available to to get into the place because I had to be to work at 4 30 in the morning for my shift but you had to be present at 9am for coordinated entry in order to be able to be guaranteed a spot in the shelter the fought that same night so sometimes there was a proper person there who understood my situation who would find a way to make it work for me but that wasn't always the case so some nights I'd be get a spot other night so I wouldn't be guaranteed to spot those nights I slept underneath the stairs at my job um whenever I was in the shelter I dealt with crazy amounts of sickness I had a lice issue at one point and as far as right now I've been in a

[89:03] somewhat stable position in my life I don't have my own place that I'm on a lease for but I don't sleep outside and I don't have to sleep in a shelter um at the end of the day I know there's a huge need for all sorts of crazy amounts of affordable housing and I don't know where to start it's awesome hearing Eric Budd talking about you know the new Adu I remember meeting him when he was running for office a couple years ago when I was first fired up in this Arena um but I just wanted to share my story that's really it thanks Joshua thanks for sharing I'm going to close the sign up for the public hearing uh next is um Robert Ross and then David Adamson hi Robert Ross 2605 Mapleton I'm an

[90:00] architect here in Boulder and I wanted to discuss the subjective language related to architectural design for detached adus which states architectural design shall be consistent with the existing residents on the site where the adjacent buildings along the side of the Yards a lot the planning board unanimously approved having this language and I support that decision when the planning board discussed this it was noted that yes this language is a carryover from the original Adu regulations but it was stated that that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good code in fact it is a piece of code that many if not most homeowners or design professionals even really knew about until the adoption last February when Adu sort of came on a lot more people's radar and they started approaching us so how can something so subjective be fairly or equitably reviewed by staff you know outside of historic districts staff does not really review or regulate design for new homes additions accessory buildings wife for an Adu only so if maintaining compatibility is the goal

[91:00] this approach seems short-sighted really as neighborhoods have and always will change over time we should consider the existing housing stock is there a reason that split level homes or brick ranches repeated down the block or not what inspires homeowners or those of us in the design profession when designing something new people want something they can make their own which is evident when you see the remodels throughout the city most of our neighborhoods are already an Eclectic mix of architectural Styles it makes for Street capes that people streetscapes that people talk about makes for next more exciting built environment when I walk down the alleys in our neighborhoods the architecture often does inspire at least me the variety of character from historic garages and modern accessory buildings to Funky sheds or DIY chicken coops our backyards and alleys have always been a place for beautiful and experimental architecture building small often frees up resources or opportunities to do something different something unique I

[92:00] believe that any reference to this architectural design should be struck entirely from this ordinance since it doesn't really have a place in the regulation of our backyards I would like to add to somebody who works with staff and planning and these guys a lot they do a great job they have a really full plate and if there's like one little thing that from my perspective could maybe make their job a little easier would be to take a regulation like this this subjective and hard you get pushed back on it there'd probably be value and making their life a little better as well as those who try to present this to them thank you great thanks Robert David Adamson and then can you scroll forward and see who's next Lincoln Miller after David Adamson 815 North Street and the executive director of Goose Creek Community Land Trust and one of the expert co-op housing organizations and I want to welcome our new members and I want to thank you all for our

[93:00] service including our fine staff I believe I want to speak specifically about the um Co-op allowing you to use along with co-ops especially and I think this issue was surfaced in our pre-app with Carl where in our attempts to add more middle-income housing to North Street as a part of our gentle infield that we're trying to do there we we wanted to make sure in our Mech one that we could have a co-op I have an Adu as part of a co-op if we decided to develop that and he said it's likely but it it seems like there's been an oversight here so and it could get changed after people get concerned about it so I just want to address this issue as a developer and to follow up on Eric Bud's point which is you know we haven't had many co-ops it's a hard thing to do we want the market to uptake this and do a lot more of these

[94:00] we spent a lot of time in this City trying to allow this and this I just don't understand why would we prohibit this there's no occupancy impact to this it only makes it less likely to have families to have diverse you know more diversity in this city and um you know we're seeing that in our attempts to work with Eric to create more co-ops in town we see a lot of wonderful interest in co-ops by seniors by families but but they like the idea of having some more maybe some more privacy you know it would be so great to have a family to be in Adu in the back you know that's where they're members of the co-op but they have a little more private space there so that really opens it up to families it really opens it up to different kind of living groups it just provides flexibility so I just want to really this is a new Council this is a

[95:01] new time we have an urgent housing crisis in this city urgent this is a beautiful way that the city of Boulder developed to try to create more housing so a vote I'm sorry I love the staff but a vote for this staff recommendation is a vote against families against affordability against diversity I just don't understand why we would do that there's no good reason and cleaning up the car it can easily be cleaned up in a way that promotes affordability and diversity so I just am passing out a little bit of a point about how we're really going backwards on affordable housing in general because we have all this mcmansion development and so I hope for the retreat you can consider these ideas that were provided two years ago thank you so much for your service again thank you David Lincoln Miller that's okay David Lincoln Miller followed by Mark gilband

[96:01] good evening Lincoln Miller 2711 Mapleton I'm also on staff for your expert Cooperative Housing Organization or Echo David is on the other one um so I just want to clarify on the existing adus in the co-ops that we have they're not using the Adu ordinance they are functional adus meaning they are at detached Cottage into attached Apartments what they've done beautifully is provide permanently affordable housing to low-income families a lot of single parents want to live in adu-like structures within co-ops and we've seen that over 25 combined years so I really want to encourage you to adopt and look at the planning board recommendations

[97:00] it's very important as a housing developer that's trying to do affordable cooperatives that we have options it's very difficult to do development so allowing us to do development with adus and keeping those properties on the table that have adus can be very powerful per potentially providing future affordable housing I guess the other thing I want to say is in the six years of political work that it took to get the co-op ordinance passed during that time land values pushed the price of single-family homes further and further higher and higher away from us so that now even with public subsidy it's very difficult to use the co-op ordinance to do permanently affordable housing this is going to continue and what we're looking at is a potential nightmare scenario where every single family home in this city

[98:00] is a 7 000 square foot mansion haunted by a very wealthy retired couple like that's what the market is pushing we need every possible creative solution that we can come up with adus and co-ops are one very small example let's be bold when it takes 45 minutes to explain our simplified Adu ordinance that's not what bold looks like what with Portland you can go to their planning department and you can get off the shelf pre-approved Adu building plans yes pre-approved and they're affordable contrast that with the kafka-esque experience that is our planning department and you'll see what a bold action looks like again in California the entire state two adus per property in the entire State that's what bold

[99:00] action on affordable housing looks like I encourage you to take those actions thanks Lincoln Mark gilban followed by Eli McCutchen good evening all Mark lban 505 College um when the Adu ordinance was passed Sam said we've just done something with radical we've created radical flexibility that's a joke it's just heard by Lincoln gave some examples of what radical flexibility looks like and I would say that's not even that radical but I also want to Echo something that Lincoln said and that this Council should come to grips with Ash at this community that our built environment all the mansions that we've seen built that I've seen built in the 30 years that I've been here are a reflection of slow growth control councils and the policies that we've created that is what this Council and council's previous have

[100:00] incentivized and uniformly people say they're against that and I'd ask everybody here as I look out my neighborhood window I see 10 houses with about 40 000 square feet and about 30 empty bedrooms housed by a couple's wealthy retired couples is that sustainable or encouraging people to build smaller homes whether it's a condorized Adu whether it's eliminating a Victorian occupancy limit so someone like me could you know put three renters in my house now that three kids are gone and gone off to college so think about that what we have the built environment we have a reflection of the rules that we have on the book we're trying to add equally as restrictive rules when it comes to adus and then I want to just speak for a minute about legal non-conforming and the fact that you added legal non-conforming buildings to the 10 to 20

[101:00] calculation one that legal non-conforming calculation is inaccurate on the city's Maps um non-conforming buildings as of solar Ordnance and as of um uh compatible development have not been updated or added or not accurately reflected and then I'll also just want to say in my subdivision the Vermont subdivision where out my window I see 10 homes 40 000 square feet 30 empty bedrooms more than half of the homes are duplexes triplexes eight plexes they are all legal non-conforming let me tell you what that means it means they were there before all the single-family homeowners and the one in particular who spoke to get this pass this Lisa Spalding were there before she showed up on the scene they're there because density was built there there and Wittier because that's where density exists already they are there on the hill because that's where we need density so instead of including those areas we need to get rid one we need to

[102:00] get rid of that 20 anyway but legal non-conforming means that was the character of the neighborhood before the huge single-family home showed up thank you thanks Mark I'm Eli and then Claudia hello my name is Eli McCutchen and I am a local born and raised to boulderite and I lived in a couple other parts of Colorado for the majority of the last 10 years but on coming back I was really surprised at how limited the options were for a living here for people that weren't already in Boulder and adus in particular something that I'm really really interested in because like people have echoed before it's one of the best ways to make affordable living possible at a at a quality of life that is something that most people would want a lot of the co-ops I'm also

[103:00] the most recent member of the Chrysalis Co-op community and we have 14 people there in one house which is a lot of people in a very small house and that's okay for people you know like me who are single and you know not necessarily planning on starting a family in the next five or so years um but if I were a single parent or if I had a family Co-op living wouldn't really be possible or at least comfortable and the adus are a way that that small families could potentially have a quality living situation within a co-op so um I think the the main fears around the Adu that might have led to this coming up uh this proposal coming up are the increased occupancy and increased parking problems which as other people have already said would not be an issue with the adus and co-ops because they would already be included into the occupancy for for the co-ops so

[104:00] yes that's all I have to say thank you thanks Eli Claudia after Claudia Lynn Siegel good evening members of council Claudia Hansen theme I live in Boulder and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Boulder Community Housing Association which some of you know as bocha which is a group founded in 2013 to support and advocate for diverse forms of Community Living in Boulder members of bocha were surprised to see language related to co-ops amongst the suggested revisions to this Adu ordinance and we were disappointed that staff even after a long and constructive conversation with the planning board continues to support additional restrictions on these forms of housing that as you've heard support So Many of Boulder's housing goals the staff memo suggested that co-located co-ops and adus would generate additional impacts to neighborhoods that were not intended and to be honest our

[105:01] group is not sure what those impacts could be we don't think there's anything about allowing an Adu on a property that necessarily overrides elements of the co-op ordinance that were put in place precisely to safeguard and reassure Neighbors Co-op occupancy limits are set at 12 persons in low density residential zones and we see no reason that adding an Adu would change that limit it simply changes how people are distributed on an existing lot and the co-op ordinance also mandates strict limits on Resident parking regardless of size co-ops must limit their on-street parking to three cars and again this requirement would not change with the presence of an Adu we know that occupancy limits in parking were major concerns in the community and a lot of process went into addressing those in both the co-op and Adu ordinances and we actually don't see how combining co-ops in adus would change those impacts meanwhile we think there are good reasons to allow these types of housing together

[106:01] first doing so would expand the number of properties available for Community Living only a small fraction of Boulder homes are suitable for Co-Op occupation so including homes with adus preserves flexibility for people trying to organize them as Eric spoke to a second benefit of Co-op and Adu combinations and this one is quite personal for me is that semi-private living actually opens up shared housing to a broader cross-section of our community currently living in a co-op house requires an intense commitment to sharing space and it typically attracts young adults single people and others who are comfortable in group settings but the economic and social benefits of Community Living are also attractive to families with children older adults and people who simply desire more privacy in their 80 in their day-to-day lives adus can provide this option for them at its November 21st meeting planning board largely supported our reasoning with no identifiable negative consequences to allowing co-ops and a to

[107:01] use together and so we hope that you will take a look at attachment B in the memo before you we appreciate the efforts of planning board to get that in front of you and hope that you will allow co-ops and adus together in the future thank you thanks Claudia Lynn Siegel and after Lynn Curtner back [Music] thank you Lynn Siegel um in my situation personally with Adu I've already put 30 000 bucks into one but I don't want to throw more money at it because I was deactivated from Airbnb and that's the only way I can get housemates and I don't join with the co-op people and get co-op communities I get people by they're staying in my house they're coming here maybe temporarily and not this is not short-term Airbnb is not short-term it's just a way to get people in your house when I started in 2012 I was doing Craigslist and now Craigslist is

[108:02] impossible nothing zero you get from Craigslist scams and I'll just live in my place 2600 square feet with nobody that's okay you know and that's the way I'll live if I have to but I need something that encourages me and I don't know if this was partly I got deactivated from Airbnb also possibly because of city of Boulder issues I know there was a lot of stress that might have you know translated to Airbnb in the way they run their system but I support Airbnb for the Adu and the main house it's kind of none of the city's business if I had my way I do it in my I mean I can't do Airbnb so it's useless for me but if I had it in my main house I wouldn't really worry about it too much having it with the Adu because I'd have people coming through my main house and I can screen them for the Adu but um

[109:01] as far as parking issues um there's 34 parking spots for the same amount of seniors at fruit house as there are 304 parking spots for the same amount of seniors at 311. to me there's a parking problem here if we're quibbling over parking here and there you know how can how can we be building this massive amount of housing I mean how parking because parking is a direct assault on housing you know each flood is worth 200 000 bucks you know like I was saying and you know how many people in China are living in the size of one's parking space so it's a very big deal and when Boulder has the hypocrisy of 304 parking spaces at 311 and 34 at fruit house we've got problems um as far as the design I kind of like the

[110:01] same design in the neighborhood a little bit but um on the other hand if you have a house with a weird design you know a rogue house and it goes out then you have to design that to your Adu and your Adu to that I could kind of see the points of the people with eclecticness as far as separating directly you know a separate unit and people can buy that separately I can also see the kind of problems that there might be with you having more people with different interests whereas you have one person on the property that's kind of you know watching over like what happens in the neighborhood and maybe that would temper things a bit thank you Lynn Kurt followed by Marta hi curtainard back 777 Delwood Avenue Boulder staff have struggled to explain the justification for their proposals

[111:00] regarding the combination of co-ops and adus and condoization of properties with market rate adus the proposals seem designed to avoid imaginary harms while creating actual measurable Harms I'm the treasurer of Boulder Housing Coalition so the success of co-ops is critical to me others have pointed out that staff's proposal regarding co-ops could pose an additional hurdle to creating a co-op allowing adus at co-ops on the other hand would provide a form a form of housing that could be particularly appealing to small families and older residents who might otherwise be less able to partake of the financial and Community benefits of Co-op living staff have said that we need additional public process on this change but there has been considerable public input already as the proposal came to planning board and now before you moreover if additional public process is Justified to allow the combination of

[112:00] co-ops and adus then logically additional public process should be justified to prohibit them regarding condoization the middle income housing strategy identified home ownership as the biggest hurdle for middle-income residents more of a hurdle than renting allowing properties with market rate adus to be condoized would provide a unique homeownership opportunity for folks who want to live a lower carbon life in a smaller more efficient and more affordable home the concerns about loss of affordable adus are valid but could be addressed by restricting sale price as he's done with other forms of affordable housing in Boulder please allow co-ops to have Aid use and allow condoization of properties with adus thank you thanks curtain Marta [Music] good evening Council and and Boulder my

[113:00] name is Martha lotumin I live in Longmont I'm currently running for Boulder County Commissioner my background from a career standpoint is as a housing Advocate over the last 20 years I have been working on these issues of accessibility of making sure that all residents who live in the U.S in the state of Colorado and in Boulder County have access to as long as they can qualify for a mortgage to a mortgage product which means docket means eye tenant means everybody so this topic is super fascinating to me for two reasons one an hour and a half ago or so I'm not sure what time it is now we were here talking about a policy of emergency shelter affecting folks who are experiencing homelessness in the city of Boulder and then we're also having a conversation community-wide about the fact that housing stability and safety is really where our community members can start to even address of the other issues that

[114:00] are that everybody is facing so one of my piece one of my questions here is why would we not open our arms and be dynamic in the city of Boulder to opportunities that will give people access to housing this idea of being I heard what Rachel said about what is it exactly that we're trying to protect ourselves from um two pieces from a Housing Industry standpoint a condominium is typically the first way that somebody accesses home ownership we talk about home ownership not just in the city of Boulder not just in the county but from a national perspective owning a home is the way to build generational wealth it is the way to invest in your community and I've seen families over the last 20 years go from moving moving moving myself included into being able to own a home and I've seen kids lives completely change when they become part of their community and start knowing their

[115:02] neighbors and start going to parks and activities and get more involved in their schools so there's a piece that from my perspective from a housing background is why wouldn't we invest in our community and open up all of these different creative opportunities to create more accessibility we know we have an affordable housing issue in the city of Boulder and so the change five I believe it was called to give that opportunity for someone to condolize a property and Adu is an excellent opportunity what folks may not understand is that the reason why we have so little condo inventory around the state of Colorado is actually a legislative issue and so that's why there was a complete stop on the building of condos but that was truly for a lot of people the one way to start investing and start having home ownership and start building into our communities so I would encourage you all to look at it very seriously I think any

[116:02] question yeah um would you be okay with losing a permanently affordable rental by someone coming in and condoizing one of those that was built um what I heard from this conversation right now was that there wasn't any structure set up that would make an Adu a permanently affordable property in which case I'm not sure how we would lose a permanently affordable property that wasn't um set up to be that to be able to give an opportunity for somebody to correct I'm just asking since there is the option that someone builds a permanently affordable rental that's actually bigger than a general Adu and then someone comes in and condolizes it that is a potential if we allow condoization the that we may want to look into from an industry piece is that the word condo I think maybe Has a Miss interpretation and a perception because we actually have condos that aren't I think what people are interpreting so there is a way to pull in our the lot in Block piece to make a

[117:02] condo that's not the traditional condo that you're talking about that might be an alternative as well thank you thank you let's close the public hearing and return to Council for final questions and then we'll maybe do a bit of straw polling on the um the various um changes and maybe Cobble together a resolution any follow-up questions Aaron and then Rachel so on the the condominium I can't even say the word the condo option um would it be possible for us to Outlaw the condo approach for the type 2 adus only I don't think so what's up I don't think so because you would be treating the condominium you would be treating the condominium form of ownership differently well we wouldn't be prohibiting condomization in general it would be saying you could do them to some things

[118:01] not others and you're saying that would be yeah it sounds it sounds like so you know I think that the common interest ownership act says if you build a space you should be able to divide it up kind of however you want to and if the if the local government has building requirements it has to treat that box basically the same as it would treat it with a more traditional form of ownership you cannot treat the condominium form of ownership differently from a regulatory perspective so can you show us the attachment C again if you wouldn't mind okay I guess not as a lawyer it's we're

[119:00] here we're saying you can't sell an Adu independently for the principal drawing unit and you're saying we couldn't distinguish which kinds of adus we would prohibit from being sold independently and it just seems like it might not be caught up in what you're talking about well I'll take a look at what's in the existing code okay well David's doing that Rachel okay yeah I guess I'm confused by the by the um you know the only thing that I see as a threat would be as Adam suggested the loss of affordable units um but right now if I get an exemption and and go into category two and can build more square footage in an Adu do I ever have to rent that out to begin with no you don't have to so it I mean it may be that we I don't know how many affordable units we have in the program right now and how many are being rented out and doesn't sound like any um this we don't think this has happened at all to begin with so I guess I'm

[120:01] still confused as to like if there's a real threat that we're looking at and if there's a real possibility of losing affordable housing and I'm hopeful that Aaron's also on the right track that we could maybe um prohibit that somehow and again just the motivation between behind attachment C is just that the general intent of the Adu regs even going back more than 20 years has been that it be an accessory unit and that it have some owner oversight you know in a rental situation I think that so we were again coming at it from that approach and that if it becomes its own ownership entity then that might be in conflict with that it would still have an owner like the new owner presumably also wants to get along with the neighborhood and and keep the I mean it's not an automatic rental in that situation right it's got a new owner May well live there affordably

[121:02] yeah I mean they could it's just again you know it's it's an accessory unit so it when you allow a sale of that unit it it's more of a just a principle dwelling unit on the property Mary so just to follow on that so what you're saying is that if the condoization I'll leave out the middle letters um a um does away with the the principle or it makes the Adu a principal dwelling unit um effectively what you've done is subdivide is that I think so maybe there's something there

[122:00] that can be let me ask a follow-up question um when we approve an Adu and it complies with all the rules we we Grant out we the city Grant a license to the principal property owner right permitting that Adu and as long as they they stay in compliance as far as occupancy and parking and all the other requirements the license continues and if they were in violation of the owned the property owner was the violation of the license we would have the right to withdraw that license and they'd no longer be allowed to have an edu there if the Adu could be sold off as a separate unit where would the license would still be with the original property owner right how would you enforce let's say that the the new owner of the the new now owner not the president they went gone from a tenant to an owner violated one of the rules you know occupancy rule for example or something like that um what recourse would you have against um for that violation because because

[123:01] you now have a license that's been issued to a property owner but he doesn't care about the Adu because he's already sold it out he's got his money right but what would be the recourse against that Adu owner I don't I don't see that from a practical perspective that you would have any kind of real property kind of remedy because I don't see us kicking somebody out of a home that they own um so you know the remedy that you would have it would be like zoning enforcement so for example um you know if somebody were gonna it would be complicated if somebody were to condo an Adu off of the main unit as you mentioned they're still subject to the original approval so but you don't have that unified ownership to kind of manage the permit you have two people managing the permit so it just adds another kind of level of complexity with how you would regulate

[124:00] um and you know so you know kind of like the owner occupancy if they both rented it out you know you lose that kind of on-site how do they how do the two people that own it agree who's going to be the on-site person versus the rental rental unit I don't see those as insurmountable problems but they're just complicating issues I think okay thanks other questions okay let's just um I'm going to suggest that we discuss these change by change and maybe as we discuss them maybe wrap up our discussions with a little bit of um straw pulling and then depending on where we end up we can figure out you know which attachments are um are relevant is that okay do you have a holistic options slide if you where we could go by the individual I'd say that I found that more confusing I mean if you guys want to go off that that's fine but we may end up doing something that's not up there I mean that's a button ability right yeah so if you don't mind thanks for doing that but

[125:01] maybe we can just go change by change okay and then yes just to follow up on Aaron's question if you were to just break out the affordable units I think you could do that without violating the statute you know so let's let's do can you scroll forward a little bit farther and what David just said so you're saying that you would not allow condom minimization of those properties that have the type two yeah yeah so you would um you know you would tie it back to the affordable accessory units the regulation in the code and you would apply it across the board to all of those units and you would just say rather than no condominiumization it would be no condemnation kind of minimization of that type of unit it would uh the same rule applies to

[126:00] um you know under our existing zoning and that we would not allow it to be split off so it does seem like you would be treating it the same under both scenarios great when when we get there we can talk about it okay good so let's take change one any first any comments strong feelings um Mark you want to say something I'm on the roof pitch issue this seems to be relatively de minimis and impact and if it keeps uh Property Owners from having to go to through extensive and expensive modifications of their home that exists I'm just not sure that it's worth the candle to to require that the you know the existing roof pitch okay people tend to agree with Mark anybody disagree okay thanks for leading us the network number two choices here comments or statements

[127:00] I found the heinous house argument too the heinous argument is hard to to go against so far thanks you know Rachel that'll be the headline of thoughts paper right the council allows heinous house or exceptions non-competitively anybody um so that are we leaning towards Mark you want to say something yeah I I am uh more supportive of keeping the uh architectural design requirements for new Construction but I would like to ensure that there's some sort of reasonable application of it so that yes if you have a bricken and mortar home you don't require an Adu to be built at a brick I mean there are and there were really two standards one is consistency with the house and two is consistency with what's going on in the neighborhood and maybe the neighborhood is a little different and give you a little greater flexibility um to approve

[128:00] um but I don't I don't think abandoning all architectural design requirements is really a good thing maybe one of you who have served in the planning board can speak about compatibility that requirements that would still be in place or maybe the staff wants to speak to that I mean they're a little subjective I think but one of the things that comes to my mind and trying to think this through right now is that when you're talking about adjacency and adjacency that was one of my questions that got answered during the discussion adjacency includes the homes in the adjacent property so if you live on an alley so you you would have one to your left and to your right adjacency and you would also have adjacency to the rear of you so as time would

[129:02] um march on you would probably get changes from adjacencies so I I guess I'm right now I I need to listen to more discussion because I'm kind of on the fence here oh well I just I think it's it's a staff level review and I think they do their best to to look at context and and I don't think they're super strict about it but at the same time they they do require some little consistency so it is you know somewhat subjective it's not just your home it's also other people's homes that are near you which to me can seems like it might be a little onerous to have to comply with the appearance of neighboring houses that aren't yours and you might not even like Mark but wouldn't that in effect be liberating in the sense that if you've got four homes surrounding you you can be consistent with any one of them not consistent with all of them but just

[130:00] something that's relatively compatible you know with a sort of a rule of Reason applied to the application um not trying to get homeowners to have to mimic any particular style but something that just flows with the rest of the neighborhood on every property in the neighborhood but at least one Rachel could there also be an environmental aspect aspect to it so if I'm complying with some fall of all four houses including mine and the ones near me are 50 years old and and they're conforming to a less you know climate friendly type of building structure then we are requiring people to do not the most Innovative and resilient builds still be bound by the building code energy code can you still coming or do we move to Adam yeah it would be subject to our our energy code I don't think that we apply

[131:01] it that rigidly that it would we would say oh you have to do a substandard design I think it is applied reasonably but I don't think that we apply the Criterion strict enough that you get like a Frankenstein building that borrows from the four structures around it it's not like that okay Adam I'm looking at a 7-0 planning decision here so I think it takes a pretty strong argument to overturn that throw that out there so that's an argument in favor of it Hashem B correct okay and I will note that that the planning board does have a diversity of opinions does I agree they often disagree on things I'm kind of in the photos Mark is in terms of I think that I don't know if there's been enough community

[132:00] discussion in terms of if you understand what your neighbors are going to be putting up so to at least have some kind of I don't obviously want a Frankenstein as cows but if a bunch of the Neighbors on the Block don't understand what's going up and it's all of a sudden some super modern thing when you have more classic looking homes and now there's another building like that I think at least having something somewhat of a semblance of how the neighborhood is would be nice okay so that's a vote for a sounds like sounds like is that okay anybody else want to weigh in between A and B so we've got some Divergence of opinion okay no comments well let's just do a little quick straw poll here how many are attachment a sounds like we got two and are the rest of you for attachment B it sounds like we're leaning towards B on that one okay one to three this is the sexy one okay okay can we

[133:02] have an A versus B comments or arguments in favor of one or the other sure go ahead Mark you know this change may be entirely benign and it may even be positive but I have no idea I mean there's been very little analysis uh you know we're talking about relatively new ordinances staff hasn't come back with a um a review of how these ordinances have worked over time um this may be fine but I just think it's a little premature from a processing of you to be going in this direction frankly either one um I would I would if I had to vote I'd probably look for attachment a only because it maintains a status quo but I I'd want to make it subject to review um and I would have staff look at it hey you know come back and say look this is this is Much Ado About Nothing

[134:00] or if it's not I'd like to understand why arguments in agreement with Mark or in opposition to Mark's position Rachel I'm sorry Jenny Rachel then Judy so I I'd go for attachment B and and I would say actually that I disagree about um it being so if we prohibit it because right now the status quo is it's not prohibited or allowed so I think um either one of these is probably a change to the status quo and we should recognize that um but I'm I'm particularly swayed by the um affordability for families and uh I would Echo Adam's point that this was a 7-0 planning board recommendation and that is a pretty uh diverse Viewpoint board um and they they did have some public process when they considered it thanks Judy thank you I think for me as well it's a no-brainer that be and I'm sure you know

[135:01] the staff has a lot of expertise but I think it to me it goes back to values right what do we value in our own community and protecting families and ensuring that people have a place to stay should be at the Forefront of the policies that we put forward so to me B makes sense and I don't think tonight it's really about public process because if it is we can still vote on B and still put this caveat of public process so we shouldn't just prohibit things and say okay uh because we didn't have as much public process into it then we should just vote no so I think for me I think B is the more Humane alternative I think we had um Aaron and then Adam yeah I absolutely agree with um Jenny thanks for those comments because I think it's very insightful and I I think that there there were some potential um uh things to be figured out between allowing adus and co-ops like how would they interact and I thought the planning

[136:00] board did a great job of uh figuring out where the potential uh discrepancies or conflicts might be and then clarifying them so I think they've given us a great thing that we could adopt that playing board did unanimously but I'm particularly swayed by some of the the testimony and emails that we've got that I don't see any additional impacts from this because you have the same parking requirements as you had before you have the same occupancy limits as you had before instead there's only the opportunity for more housing flexibility and allowing folks say single parents or folks in multi-generational families to to live together and Co-op so I think it's it's I don't know how many of them they'll be but it seems like a harmless thing but might help okay got him so for this one there are seven seven of our co-ops or rentals that's the number I heard correct eight I think eight seven of the seven

[137:00] of the eight are one tools right so the likelihood of anyone building one of these in any short amount of time is very small we have no co-ops in the pipeline there's just not that much that's going to change currently with this rule in place if we went with B the only part that I'm going to play Devil's Advocate with is the final sentence the co-op with the Nadu would only count once in any requisite saturation calculation that's not necessarily going to sway my vote but I think it is worth thinking about slightly just because that's changing saturation saturation is something we just decided on to some degree um but again maybe seven at most currently are going to be affected by this not a it's not enough to argue about too much in my mind I mean that last point we'll just clarify that that that's basically keeping it as it is now we just wanted to make it really clear in the code that it wouldn't double count that that's why

[138:01] we propose that new language because each of those have such co-ops have saturation limits and adus have saturation limits and what you're saying is is you you would just count the time right that's right okay so there still would be just be the I think Mary was next yeah what Adam said I'm particularly swayed by the the planning board 7-0 vote and and the fact that there is a diversity of opinions there and oftentimes people that don't agree so um that has large Sway and also the two years um after two years of deliberation on the co-op ordinance we've only seen eight co-ops so I you know to Mark's earlier point it's seems like this would be pretty benign everybody you want to weigh in

[139:00] I'm none for me not for me I'm going to declare for B also uh you know I I think markways is a good point about um there could be a hybrid between A and B that provides for some sort of administrative review but um as Lincoln reminded us um co-ops involved a ton of review as it is right now and I think there is a pretty in-depth analysis by staff that happens in this and so I staff saw something in a co-op application that happened to have an Adu built into it my guess is they would flag it for reasons unrelated to the Adu I also want to remind us that to um particularly with respect to attached adus or internal adus all it requires is basically like a stove and a refrigerator and suddenly you've got an Adu I mean half of us probably have adus technically in our basements right now and um I think Claudia made a really good point or something maybe several of you make good points about you know having co-ops that are family friendly so that you can kind of section off a part of the co-op and have a separate

[140:01] refrigerator and bathroom and and still occupancy being seven in co-ops that's not my recollection could you refresh 12 up to 15 depending upon the zoning District that you're in okay thank you that's that's more my recollection so I heard a lot of bees do we want to do straw poll or do those who support a no my colleague Adam has convinced me okay so it sounds like we're kind of all in peace it's great well I'm sorry remember you were on a beat right okay oh you were B okay okay great number four any um opposition to this one language cleanup okay good number five okay somebody want to speak in favor of or against this one sorry since I'm going to be the outlier on these things um reading some of the literature and

[141:01] actually some of the emails um discussing this I don't think this is much more than an opportunity for a property owner to enhance the value of his property I don't think it's contributory to creating more affordable housing um it's simply an opportunity to put an Adu on your property condominiumize the entirety and then you know for four or five hundred thousand dollars sell off the Adu I don't know what it's going to do for us and if the objectives are to create more affordable housing um I don't I don't know how many people are going to want to live in a 600 square foot home that's going to cost them 350 to 450 000 dollars so to me at the end of the day this is this is mostly a boon to the property owner and doesn't do much for me in terms of the larger housing policies so you'd be

[142:00] in favor of attachment see I would be in favor yes okay others in favor attachment see we're opposed to go ahead so everybody for this um in my mind I do want to prevent someone going with a second option on an Adu and then having a much bigger Adu and no parking requirement and condolizing their unit I think that's something that needs to be avoided also I don't like the idea of making things even more complicated when it comes to a house being assigned in Adu essentially so that's it's a two-prong thing for me that I'm more interested in the attachment C okay everybody I'm with Mark and keeping the affordability okay we may have some opposition to pageant C so I'll just weigh in I'm also in favor of attachment see for the reasons that Mark and Adam have stated Aaron yeah so I I really as as Adam but I really don't want to lose the uh affordable the potential affordable

[143:01] rental in the Adu so I would absolutely want to prohibit that I found Marta's testimony to be fairly compelling about the potential for a small condo as an intro to home ownership for folks so I I don't feel super strongly about this but I I thought potentially the idea of disallowing it for the type twos only was interesting so if anybody else was interested in that you have further discussion yeah I I agree with Aaron that I would like to preserve the affordable and I think that's what Adam was getting at maybe as well that if we can um eliminate the possibility of getting the extra square footage and then selling and and profiting off of that but actually keep that uh as available affordable rental or affordable Adu units and if we can exempt that which I think I heard that that's on the table as an option yes yes so I would be in

[144:01] favor of that I think okay Mary you had a question um yeah I did but I forgot what it was okay Junie has something to say while you're thinking about yeah yeah it was just a little bit confused what we for me as well it goes It Go back to Equity this sense of equity and I'm thinking if really we want to build affordable housing we have to go it through it through the right processes and ensuring that you know however the development process goes when it comes to creating affordable housing and I can imagine as well as Mark mentioned that you know someone with a huge property decide okay I'm gonna build any of the Adu and just wait a little while however that process is going to sell it to someone for a really large amount of money so I think again we have to think about what are we trying to avoid and what we really want to do great meridi yeah and I don't think that I think this

[145:01] one just requires a little more um thought if we want to do it and I would just go with attachment C for now and um and what I'm thinking is that more than likely if we're able to um cordon off the affordable adus that you end up with what was it 550 square foot um home that would probably be um that could possibly be sold as a second home because to the property owner that would kind of be an ideal situation if you sold it to somebody as a second home there wouldn't be anybody there for a large part of the time so I just I think it could provide that another way to provide access into Home Ownership however I think it does need a little more exploration rather than us just saying we like the idea or we don't like the idea tonight I think it it

[146:01] needs more exploration and this one definitely needs more Outreach there hasn't been any Outreach at all in terms of anything that happened during the Adu ordinance so so if I could restate that Mary I kind of like what you're saying which is but let's go ahead and pass attachment c as effectively as in a moratorium so that this doesn't happen this is a hypothetical problem or maybe it has happened we don't know so that doesn't happen going forward but then we can revisit it because I know there's a plan for Adu Deep dive in what eight 12 months next year right to look at adu's conference these are kind of emergency affixes so I think Mary you're suggesting a past attachment C now but be open to revisiting it if there are maybe some exceptions later well I think this would be a work plan item so um maybe it's something we could discuss as a work plan item so I guess if we're inhibiting it without public input that seems no better than approving it or allowing it

[147:00] without so I would probably just do nothing and the next you know plan on on having the public input I would leave it as is because if we haven't had any input why why would we prohibit it and I don't think it's an emergency warranty and moratorium because as far as we know it's not happening so I don't know that we can say it's you know this is an emergency situation so if we're not going to pass it I would probably just leave it well if we left it we could lose affordable units because they would build a larger unit for the affordability and then if they condo it off then it would go and market rate the other thing I'm worried about is is the licensing issue because the license is held by the property owner and so this has always been subservient you know we've got the the house and then the little house or the the basement or the attic or whatever it is and it's a license granted to the owner and if the if if that can be parsed off and it kind of out there floating in space as its

[148:01] own you know um legal ownership you know we don't have a whole lot of recourse over that property owner to comply with the edu rules because the license is held by somebody who's got now a big bag of money and they don't care what happens you can take the license away he doesn't care because there is no longer a license to Adu effectively right there's an there is a property interest out there a condo property interest that's that sits out there and they got there through the Adu back door effectively and and now we really don't have any more control over that whether it's affordable or not affordable one that's really what I worry about 7-0 planning decision one last on this one didn't they say that we should look into it I don't know that they did they yeah they recommended this be further considered by city council so there's not a specific recommendation um to adopt one way or the other just one last comment um with respect to non-affordable adus I think there is more benefit to the

[149:01] community uh by having a 14 or 15 or 1600 rental than there is having a 300 to 400 000 uh for sale property I'm not insensitive to entry-level properties for buyers but I think our greater need is for people who can't afford even to rent here and I would also fear greatly that many of those properties will end up as pieta tears vacation homes Etc because instead of spending you know nine hundred thousand dollars to buy a home that you're going to visit a couple of months a year you now have done it for four hundred thousand dollars and that just takes it out of circulation entirely so I think I've heard two um two things one is attachment C which sounds like there's some people in favor of and then another version is attachment C um with but only applying to the non-affordable adus well can you know I

[150:00] can basically pull that one from my okay my perspective just what Mary said was a good point that I mean to me it's important to not lose the affordable Adu um units and so I would want to prohibit that but I think Mary's point that this probably does require some more analysis this is it's kind of a tricky technical subtle issue would the prices how would the prices of rental versus ownership compare so maybe we could put this on the the to-do list for when we get back to adu's um in a year or so okay so now we're down to two options which is we're going to revisit it no matter what the question is do we do we um put a Prohibition on it under attachment C subject to further change when we revisit this or do we let it ride for now um under test and not pass attachment C and revisit it so I guess that's where we're at Judy so if we

[151:01] if Rachel mentioned about public participation since we always we will revisit it and how long a year or so and within that time have that public participation that Rachel just mentioned question for staff I think well I think can we just say we assume that there will be public Outreach as part of the Adu update right yeah and so just include this as part of that Outreach okay other comments why don't we just go ahead and pull on this one and who's in favor of attachment C looks like we've got a majority on that one too okay and Rachel I assume you're the your post you can hold up that's fine so I think we've done it um we can get to anything else you need from us before we go to a motion I don't think so so if just counting votes if it felt like we had um either unanimity or at least a pretty strong majority in favor of attachment B

[152:01] and it looked like we had a strong majority on attachment C so I think that which option is that then I think it would be option two option two um well he said new further action but then your footnote is the Detachment C right that's right yeah we were recommending that you recommend that A and C or B and C okay great someone want to make a motion before you make a motion oh you're sorry David um I would like to propose one minor amendment to um attachment C and that would be it says no person shall sell if we could change that to no person shall convey okay um great just a little bit more inclusive okay language for good lawyer award yeah for look for real estate transactions so we want to make a motion what no go ahead okay I'll make it but I don't know what to say I'm just put it put in your own words and the lawyers will get it right so yeah okay yeah there we go start with that motion

[153:01] language and perfect and then do attachments okay uh motion to amend on second reading with language shown an attachment C to the staff memo ordinance 8372 amending subsection 964a accessory units BRC 1981 to modify the roof pitch standards for legally existing accessory structures that are converted to an accessory dwelling unit and to clarify existing Adu standards and setting forth related details and linking it to the attachment B version as part of that and linking it to the attachment B version and and does that incorporates a touch is that important includes attachment C then right so yeah I think it would just be um motion to amend on second rating with the language shown in attachments B and C of the staff memorandum as amended you okay with that yes and then the rest of this do we have a second second okay um Lynette this is a show of hands show

[154:02] hands all in favor it didn't matter it's up to you I mean all except for number five I'm not sure how to make that yeah unfortunately it's a package okay yeah you gotta do it on balance okay so I think I saw yeah did I see um eight one balance on balance okay we do that they're great it's unanimous I think this was going to require a third reading because of the of the attachment C so if it's okay with everybody else we're gonna um on emergency not emergency but on third reading in a couple weeks we'll pass this on consent okay good thanks Steph thanks guys good discussion thanks Rachel for thanks for everyone who came out to testify your next item is the homelessness strategy update

[155:07] fading fast but hanging on I don't want me to make it for two hours though what about a eight or something it's only just a few minutes settle down I'm going to stay as long as I can okay we believe what you need well I'd like to hear the information right if I can blue important topic if you see me snoozing what gave out

[156:08] Vicky I just want to say that I love your emails they're so comprehensive and thorough and responsive very much yeah foreign I think it's a hide issue you have to speak straight into that one I think so well [Applause]

[157:04] let's wait for one ish more use some push-ups one arm push-ups do a contest foreign nice

[158:04] there's a couple of you not using your mices thank you for that we'll uh we'll try to speak into the mic let's um go ahead and go great thank you um we're city manager and let me turn it over to Kurt fernhauber and Vicki Ebner who will be talking about home strategy and the homeless Memorial deaths review Kurt uh good evening Council so I'm going to start our what was our established presentation with a a um a short pre-presentation um so um at the request of Aaron Brockett and Rachel friend they asked for additional analysis on the information that was received from the homeless Memorial in December of last year

[159:00] um so I'll start off by saying that the the data around homelessness is is critical to the work that we do and having good data is incredibly important and so during the evening tonight we're going to be presenting a lot of data um to tell the story of what we've seen so far and um it's important to actually dive into that data to understand um what it means there was I believe a fair amount of amount of misinformation that would have been sent out um over the last few weeks I'm around this as well one I think being from The Daily Camera indicating that 48 deaths had occurred by people who were who were experiencing homelessness so we'll go into that data to understand that why that and some of the other information needs more clarity

[160:02] so out of the the 48 names that were were on the on the memorial um so I'll start from the bottom of the graph on the lower left so five of those deaths occurred in Longmont 19 of them were housed and we'll go into more information about those that were housed um one um uh passed away outside of Boulder County um I think it was near Grand Junction and there was 23 deaths for the remaining of Boulder County so that would that would include places like Netherland Lafayette so we analyzed this data with um the um the the Boulder County connect system which is a system that sort of ties our um our our homeless work together and that's that's the same information the bridge house would have used as well so out of those

[161:01] 23 individuals 56 percent of them were 13 had not gone to coordinated entry for screening they hadn't spent any days at severe weather shelter um and six of those deaths happened during the summer periods out of the the seven deaths that occurred during the severe weather shelter season um six out of the seven of them um severe weather shelter was open in in in in in in the majority of the cases of the shelter the the severe weather shelter had been open for several several previous nights on the one um death that occurred when severe weather shelter wasn't open the temperature that day was 71 degrees and it was 43 degrees that evening um then there was 10 individuals that

[162:01] went through coordinated uh entry through the screening process seven were referred to Boulder shelter for the homeless three went through navigation um and there was five of them who stayed at severe weather shelter for a period of time um and um and out of that two of the deaths occurred during the severe weather shelter season um and um uh and there was um um the severe weather shelter was open for for 15 days prior to their to their death so you um also wanted to know the the cause of death so um I also want to thank the the Waller County coroner for really assisting us with this work um this is a little bit um outside of their workload it was sort of a special request

[163:01] um so you can see the the various causes um along there the the two that I will point out um the first one is the uh the pneumonia there was three individuals that passed away from pneumonia two of those happened during the the summer months and one of them happened where there was 44 continuous nights of severe weather shelter that would have been um sort of last um the beginning of last calendar year as well as the the night that they passed away and they they did not go through coordinated entry the hypothermia would be the other one that would um would that would be curious um and um they again did not engage with the system the um the severe weather shelter was open for the 15 previous nights before their death and on the the

[164:02] evening of their death as well so Bob Yates um asked on Monday about the um the cause of deaths for those that were housed so we don't have the information on all of them because there's an outer Corner report for for all of those um but of the um the nine that did have a coroners report you can see um how that breaks down a couple of those individuals um um I'd like to make mention two of them had lived in housing for over 10 years um the the cancer patient um um I think is is worth highlighting as well that is someone who um while had been being diagnosed with cancer came to coordinated entry were immediately sent to the boulder shelter and they

[165:01] were sort of fast-tracked in in the housing queue and fairly quickly went into permanent Supportive Housing with surrounding services um and hopefully they died with a little more dignity as a result of those efforts versus dying on the street um so we're going to get into the severe weather shelter a little bit later on in the presentation so if there's any questions about the the data here we could stop for a minute um if you had further questions saw Aaron and then Mark Craig I appreciate that breakdown um I think one of the part of our question was why the numbers were so much higher than in past years because I think in past years they also included folks who were housed at the time of their deaths so do we have any theories on on why so

[166:02] many more people in 2019 than in previous years um I I don't know that we have any theories that we would have any data to back it up so I would be reluctant to um to give that opinion okay thanks Mark do I understand that chart that they were no exposure deaths occurring when the severe weather shelter was closed that's correct well except for during the summer time and there's that one pneumonia they were it was also closed on that particular day and it was closed as a result of having high temperatures outside thank you kind of maybe fallen on Aaron's question the so it sounds like it's a combination of people that are housed that may have been formerly homeless at some point in time in their lives some people that were homeless at that time some people that were Bolder or

[167:01] Boulder County or maybe even a few people that are outside of Boulder County who um who makes the determination I mean where did the 48 come from who who who kind of put that together and it kind of goes to Aaron's question about you know you have one number one year and another number the other year and I guess what we're trying to Grapple with is was there a change in methodology there or was there in fact an increased number of deaths by people who were either homeless or formerly homeless who had some connection to Boulder County do you know the answer to that um I'll answer it the best that I can okay um and if I'm out of line um I think Bill Sweeney will wave his Cane at me um so um also Bill Sweeney works for bridge house and he's been um um he's been doing this process for a few years when I spoke with him a few days ago he indicated to me um that he felt that his process was consistent from year to year I believe that he

[168:01] um he's networked with this community and so as he hears about deaths through other non-profit organizations or people that he knows he um or or even through the the police department he would um he would record that during the year I asked him the same question why do you think there's more deaths this year he was also baffled um by that and so I think we're all a little bit baffled by it Rachel uh first thank you for getting that data and Vicky if you helped into the coroner if they're watching or listening thank you um to everybody who did that so quickly um so also following up on Aaron's question will there be more digging into comparisons to previous years or getting data from what were the causes of deaths in the last few years and seeing why it escalated so much or an effort to come up with a working Theory

[169:00] so we we typically use a different data set we use the coroner's report and they come out with an annual report every year the problem is it comes out at a different time of the year comes out to mid-year for the previous year um and um they have a a different but consistent methodology as well so the information for 2019 will come out mid-year 2020 but we can file that in fact I think it was either last year or the year before when we were up here we actually reported on on on on on the coroner's report and we we've used that as sort of a a data point as well so could we just make that request of you now whenever that comes out in mid-year and to the extent there's some Maybe we can do a two or three or four year however far back in time you look back

[170:00] so we can see for Trends because obviously you know there's there's probably some lumpiness from year to year just because or you know I was talking about a pretty small data set so I don't mean to be people or data sets but I mean these are relatively small numbers and so with small numbers you often seem variation so to the extent you can go back in time you know for however long that the corner has been doing this and then maybe report to us and if we can see something absolutely up or down or flat or sorry or what they are yep okay okay now we're going to start the presentation um I'm just going to do a little bit of an introduction here then I'm going to pass it over to Vicki and then she'll eventually pass it back over to me um there's a lot of information that we're trying to cover tonight um because this is a real priority um for the city where we would like to be as comprehensive as possible um so this is what we're going to be going over tonight these um these six different items um so

[171:00] um the background and again that was requested by council member Yates um because this is a new Council just a quick overview of our strategy what we're seeing from the results of that we'll spend some time looking at severe weather shelter in some of the information around that because we know that will be a clear point of discussion for this evening and then you know gaps and challenges where where are we not doing well or where are we concerned um and then I'm going to give at the very end just a couple minutes to to Heidi Grove from Boulder solutions for our Homeless Solutions for Boulder County which we this is part of a bigger umbrella um so on Monday Bob asked me to spend um uh five minutes talking about the history of everything that was actually Sam but I'm interested too okay well you're here tonight yeah

[172:02] um so I'm gonna I'm gonna try to be as brief as I can here and just highlight a few things um that are that are worth noting so um in the early 1980s there was a lot of changes in the federal governments um a lot there was a lot of closure of mental health facilities what we know is that people that exited those facilities about 40 percent of them became homeless in the first six months um it's taken a long time and we're probably we're not there yet in in providing the mental health services that we actually require in our communities the other thing I was looking at um today is our our budgets around housing um and um so this is sort of a little bit of a snapshot so in 1978 um the the budget for HUD was 83 billion dollars um in 1983 so five years later it was 18

[173:02] billion dollars so you can you can imagine the impact that that would have a lot of that is like Section 8 vouchers so there was a lot of people who lost that type of support housing support um during that time and it wasn't until the late 1980s the low-income housing tax credits began and started to replace um some of that damage our 2017 budget for HUD is uh is 43 billion dollars so the other interesting thing that I noted today is that in 2017 the tax credits that you get on your interest for owning a home was 144 billion dollars so we're subsidizing homeowners at three times the rate as were subsidizing those with like Section 8 type housing

[174:00] um I think that's something worthwhile taking note of um also in the in the 1980s there was a realignment of Social Security um and SSDI eligibility a lot of people came off um as a result of that um the AIDS epidemic in 1990s that really showed us that health and housing are are very interlinked and that's become a way that we particularly with homelessness health and health and housing are just go hand in hand um the development throughout the U.S started building fewer small units and more and and larger units during that time we've seen in our other presentations the disparity Even in our low or most importantly in our local economy between rents house prices and and incomes the Foreclosure crisis in 2007

[175:00] and then um you know since 2010 construction Nationwide of high income units has gone up by 36 percent low-income units it's gone down by by 10 percent um so that's sort of the more of the global picture um and homelessness is a an issue that is affecting um um cities across the country um cities that are um have better better weather and better Services have more homeless challenges because they are um they travel to those areas the city Boulder is a very attractive place to be so this is sort of the background of all the pressures that you know that got us to where we are today and I think that's that cities are seeing that they're having to take a lot more responsibility for both affordable housing and homelessness

[176:02] um so I'm going to pass this over to Vicki now thank you so as Kurt mentioned the disproportionate effect of our basic economy is that we've seen a major decline in the number of lower rent units that are being developed in the ma on the slide the red section over there is showing that we're one of the highest areas with sorry we're one of the areas with the highest decline in the in lower rent area it's also really important to understand that Colorado's economy is one of the fastest growing in the nation so if you look at people who are reporting unsheltered homelessness per a proportion of the total population it's actually going down our actual concrete numbers of people experiencing homelessness in Boulder is going up but as is the rest of the population

[177:00] one of the things we use to mem to track kind of how we are doing against other communities in the nation is the point in time count I will give you a caveat that it is not a good measure of actually how many people are experiencing homelessness in the nation it is merely a benchmark measure that is used throughout and it is good for looking at annual comparisons and Community comparisons with that being said while we don't want to ever see any kind of increases in the number of homeless people what we do see is that we have an increase that is actually lower than some of our partners for example Fort Collins Colorado is seeing a almost 43 percent increase the greater Denver area is seeing a which includes US is an eight percent increase and Denver city and county is

[178:00] up to 14 and a half percent uh we did include some of the other cities that are somewhat comparable to Boulder in the way that they're constructed meaning that their college communities that have some affordability issues and you can kind of see that we're they're a little bit all over the board thank you I just wanted to make a comment about Eugene Oregon because that's the city that um some council members and staff um visited a few years ago I think it was in 2016 and I did look at the population of Lane County where Eugene is and it's almost exactly the same as Boulder County it's a little over 300 000 and it was just very dramatic to me not only there are 32 percent increase year over year but also the fact that a county with roughly the same number of people as Boulder County has more than three times as many homeless people um so it's just an observation to make because I know that we went to Eugene Oregon to see how they did things right

[179:00] and um because I'm wondering if if they're a success story compared to some of the things that you guys are about to talk about I think they've done a lot of things that are really good um some of this is controllable by the local jurisdictions and some of it is not as Kurt mentioned there is an attractiveness for people to move to different locations whether they're housed or unhoused people are looking for better opportunities and better locations so some of their increase in homelessness may be related to just general migration patterns um but you know there are things that we can look at and I think things that we as a community have done really well with particularly around using data to make decisions and to look at things in an objective Manner and the way that we can best help people and reduce the overall homelessness population in the community great thanks Vicki so in 2017 late 2017 the council adopted

[180:01] homelessness strategy goals and so what we do is in line with all of these stated goals really focusing on how we move people to housing options how we make sure that we're preventing homelessness particularly in family situations looking at that data and more importantly using that data to provide access to the public of what we're doing and how we're doing and looking at a Continuum of services to meet people where they are one of the major tenets of our strategy is a concept called housing first housing first is used to do just that we provide housing before we worry about somebody's sobriety or somebody's ability to stabilize and what we've found through National research and best model programs is that it's actually the best possible platform that

[181:00] we can use to help people improve their their quality of life and all the services are designed to work toward supporting that housing stability as opposed to getting somebody clean or making sure that somebody is employable if they're employable it's also a very cost effective manner when you start looking at Community costs Community costs for not providing housing for having people remain unsheltered homeless is somewhere between Thirty to fifty thousand dollars per year per person um that includes things like emergency room visits impacts to our police departments Judicial Systems Etc we can provide permanent Supportive Housing which is not only rent assistance but the Supportive Services that come with that for twenty thousand dollars per person per year

[182:01] a lot of questions have come up about coordinated entry and how it works this diagram kind of shows how we deal with coordinated entry coordinated entry is our front door into our homeless services when somebody has come in to coordinated entry what we ask is if they have been in the community for six months or or more and I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify that that is a self-report there is not a proof document that is required when somebody says that they have been in Boulder County for six more years or more what we want to look at is is there a better manner which we can address their immediate crisis even if somebody is very vulnerable and has been in the committee for a long time if there is a way that we can help them with that immediate crisis instead of entering them into a Sheltering system then they're going to be better off and so we look at is this person divertable and I'll get in a little bit later what diversion services are

[183:00] um but if that person cannot be diverted then we look at their disability status and again this is self-report if somebody's reporting a disability then they're going to be screened to the boulder shelter for the homeless up in North Broadway um if they do not report a disability then they would go to our navigation Services which are currently provided by Bridge house at the 2691 30th Street location if somebody's not going to have their six months of Boulder County Community membership then they still have diversion services offered to them and they can also use severe weather Sheltering which is open to anybody experiencing homelessness on weather triggered nights one of the things we looked at when we're looking at our coordinated entry is what is the impact of residency status when people are coming through our front door as you can imagine when we first implemented the program the vast majority of the people were a long time

[184:01] community members as a matter of fact about two-thirds of the population was reporting at least six months of Boulder County residency and only about a third of them were saying that they were had been in the community for less than six months at this point we've flipped that and we flipped that almost identically so that we're looking at two-thirds of the population is coming to us new to the community a lot of that change has to do with transitioning people who are homeless into housing so a lot of the people who have been in our community for a very long time have obtained housing and so we're starting to see that new fill in from people who are newer to the community I mentioned diversion Services earlier this is a new program I should say it's it's an existing program that we're going to be improving

[185:01] currently Bridge house provides diversion Services as part of the part of their overall navigation program they refer to it as immediate response the diversion program is designed to be a very targeted and quick response it the idea is to reduce somebody's need for Sheltering because we all know that long-term shelters stay can be very debilitating for people and it provides where necessary and not for every client some small per client expenditures to help them with immediate crises and really the idea is about problem solving are your programs are two the first is the housing Focus shelter this is run by Boulder shelter for the homeless and it is structured to help the people who are the most vulnerable in our community so they are really looking at long-term housing options for people looking at connections to those medical mental

[186:02] health basic needs but really more importantly what kind of housing is going to lead to long-term or permanent supportive options our navigation program which is run by Bridge house focuses on case management but it's a little bit less intensive as I mentioned on the flow chart we're looking at people who have fewer barriers or are newer to homelessness so we target or I shouldn't say we Bridge house targets the responses and their interventions to that person's unique needs and so you end up with some really Creative Solutions for housing options for people or family reunification or getting people connected with longer term programming such as the ready to work program one of the questions that has come up is what happens after May 31st 2020 at the end of May our lease at 2691 30th Street

[187:03] does end I would add the caveat that this was a temporary location we knew it was a temporary location so we have been planning since the day we started as to what will happen and what will occur in order to make this a smooth transition coordinated entry while it's provided by Boulder shelter for the homeless Personnel it's actually run through the 30th Street location and we will be providing that service at 909 Arapahoe which is our aging well Center West the housing Focus shelter will continue at Boulder shelter for the homeless our navigation program will move from 30th Street to the Broadway location under the operations of Boulder shelter for the homeless our severe weather shelter does say TBD on there we are actively researching and working with Architects and feasibility studies for a few

[188:03] locations the primary location is the YMCA on Mapleton uh there are some things that we're looking through to make sure that that's going to be a good fit code wise so we are still looking at a couple other options and um you know I would say to that that we've been very purposeful in that research and we we've been making some serious progress on that and I'm going to turn it back over to Kirk okay so now we're going to talk a little bit about the the housing results um and so you'll see at the top that so this covers the last two two years or 25 months um so 754 individuals have have gone into some type of housing so 366 have gone into housing um a good number of them through the boulder shelter as well as Bridge house

[189:01] 270 individuals have been United with their their families or networks and 118 have gone into particular programs long-term treatment programs on the right is something that I find encouraging um so Vicki was talking about um some of the challenges of living in a shelter it's not a great place to um improve yourself in fact most people decline in the shelter environment so we're trying to reduce the length of time that they're in the shelter so you can look at this in the blue is the number of individuals that have 300 stays or more and then 200 to 300 and 100 to 200 stays so you can see that the number of individuals with those types of stays has gone down from one year to the other it's it's still too high and we need to continue to make progress on

[190:00] this remove on looks like we have a couple questions process question should we ask questions as we go are you okay if we interrupt with a few questions yeah go ahead okay um what happens to people who fail out of the system so you know say they become disruptive or they have you know mental disabilities that don't allow them to be within the system anymore what do we have for those people yeah so um both the um both of our shelters the boulder shelter as well as Bridge house do have um have rules um at their facilities it's kind of like having a sleepover every night for you know 130 of your best friends um and so they need they have rules that are required you know for the safety of the residents as well as the people who are working there um we we looked at the data and it showed that it's relatively about the same same number of individuals that are

[191:00] that are um having issues related to um being excluded from the shelter in in both facilities um and um the one thing that I um and there's there's different levels there's there's short-term and long term depending on the number of times or the the action that was that that was taking place um one of the things that we've um made some good progress on but we need to continue to make progress is working with the court system there are individuals that um that don't engage with the Shelter Systems or or our coordinated entry um and there's there's individuals that won't do well in the shelter system through the court system we've actually been able to transition people directly from the court system into housing without going through any of the shelters and that's really working with

[192:00] people on an individual basis so it sounds like to me that they're if somebody were to fail out or something along those lines there's still a gap there that sort of needs to be addressed and those those individuals um would also have severe weather shelter available to them I would also add that we did reach out to Boulder shelter for the homeless to get some data around the number of people who have been denied Services because of disruptions or whatever reasons one thing I would add is that even somebody who has been given a long-term denial that is not a forever situation at the end of the year they have the ability to appeal or to discuss it with shelter staff to come back into the Sheltering situation there's also Community mediation that is available that they can work with the different parties to get their cases heard we looked at the number of people who had

[193:01] been long-term denied the last year and people who had gotten a 60 night ban which is the second highest level of banning as a percentage of the total unique number of people they served which was a little less than 1300 people last year it was long-term denials were only 1.86 percent of the total people that they saw so it is a relatively low number it's fairly in line with other National uh High need shelters um so the the important takeaway from that is that while there are people who are not successful in shelters we do not give up on them we're still looking at as Kurt mentioned the court system we look through working with our hot team severe weather Sheltering General engagement looking at other programs that would work for people real quick can you give me the total number of people that were served just so I know what that percentage equates to older shelter yeah it was uh 1 290 people that

[194:02] they saw last their last fiscal year which runs from October to September um and people who had long-term denials there were 24 of them and do you have any data on when they do um sorry I forgot the term when they have back and forth when there's a disagreement um how many people actually get back into the system right away versus how many people are continued to be denied yeah we wouldn't have that information tonight for you and what I what I would say is after our discussions from a year ago when we had this at city council we put more effort into having our mediation team spend time at severe weather shelter navigation and the boulder shelter so just making themselves more available to Residents who may have those types of challenges so there there have been cases where our mediation team is assisted with that any other questions on Rachel

[195:02] real quick because I don't want to assume anything but I'm I am assuming that the results and Trends on the left we think produced the outcome on the right and it wasn't like the result of a change in procedure or saying you can only stay here you know three so I just want to make sure that the left produced the right and that's what we think absolutely yeah thanks Judy this is thank you I wanted to ask you a little bit about you just mentioned mediation and support for Grievances and I wanted to know if they are confidential because I would imagine if I were staying at the shelter even if there were a lot of you know mediators were around I would have a hard time going up to that mediator if it's right there so is it confidential and how is the process yeah so it is confidential there's also a phone number there so they can call or send an email to our mediation team in some cases that person has come to

[196:00] our offices where our mediation staff is housed and they can talk about their concern there as well yeah sure of course yeah process or your office so then they would they would reach out um to whichever shelter is involved and you know tell them that there's an individual that wants to have a mediation a mediation is always something that both parties agree to um and I don't know of any cases where a shelter hasn't agreed to mediation um so um that would be an overview of the process anybody else sounds repossed let me move on go ahead okay um so I remember um two years ago when Council approved

[197:00] this strategy and Council asked me um how are we going to get there with housing and I indicated there was two things we needed to accomplish one was units to put individuals in and the others was vouchers to help pay for it so this is a summary of of some of that success so you'll see at the top so we've got county-wide we've got the city of Boulder and city of Longmont and um um and and down at the bottom are sort of the four different bucket buckets of vouchers um so you can see that we've had a lot of success um with vouchers and quite frankly um in our community we hadn't seen an uptick in the number of vouchers um available for this kind of work um in a long time so when we started the process we were a little unsure how that would go so you can see the 200 vouchers have been added County Wide in the last 25 months also last week we learned that

[198:00] BHP had just received an additional 39 vouchers which is not on this list the last thing I'll add is that these vouchers also um and all the vouchers that we're working on WE coordinate the the Supportive Services with them so every person's receiving one of these vouchers has Supportive Services at the apartment where they're living so just to clarify those 39 new vouchers was it yes so those are for Supportive Housing specific correct great do and are they matched with units like would they go into their existing units correct because they're not project-based vouchers so they could go um they could go in units um anywhere in the community great yeah and just remind us again I think we passed um a rule about a year ago was it Mary um on the use of vouchers in market rate housing and prohibited discrimination is

[199:01] that right yeah that's um section eight that wouldn't apply to these then uh it would it would still apply to these yes it wasn't it wasn't specifically you know it was income it was source of income yeah the source of income so um uh with that being said um it's a challenge um and so we have we have housing we have housing exits teams um I think they meet um every two weeks looking at the vouchers the units that are available uh with a list of the individuals and are always looking to align those things including individuals that come through the court system great thanks so this is specific to the boulder shelter for the homeless in North Boulder um the little bars along the bottom indicate the number of individuals that exited from the shelter each month into

[200:01] housing um and then the the Orange is this the uh the cumulative uh impact of that so this past summer in 2019 city council approved an ATB increase to the budget for the voucher program that we had started as a pilot 18 months prior to that and we were so confident that you were going to approve it that we started planning beforehand and you could see in July that we already started housing individuals so we definitely saw an uptick from that contribution of the city so shelter consolidation that's something that you've been hearing from the public about and their their concern around that I'd like to point you to the the graph on the right first that's path to home navigation um and that's that has 50 beds

[201:03] um and the vars show the number of individuals that stay there um on on average um it's it's an average of 38 um um beds that are are being served at a time um out of the 50. um you'll see it's pretty consistent over time as well so um the the shelter it will be moving there um in another nine months or so um and um so we need to you know create capacity there so a lot of individuals have been saying are you are you going to you know create replacement beds for those 50 beds that are lost um the answer is no we're not going to create any more shelter beds we're going to create apartment beds um and so you can see from the slides before but that's what we've been focused on um getting getting people into permanent beds and so we're getting close we're not

[202:02] we're not there yet and we still have as I've just spoken about more vouchers that we can use we expect to expect that more people will be exiting the shelter um we need to get down to a number of about probably 120 130 to comfortably make that transition this is another way of looking at it which I found very helpful and it's 2019 and 2018 um so you can see in 2018 the average number of individuals staying in the program beds at the shelter and then what that looks from from 2019 so we're we're definitely on a a trend in reducing that foreign this is just one slide that I wanted to put in there this is about individuals but I wanted to talk just for two minutes about families

[203:00] um and so in 2019 the city invested 579 000 in programs that support homelessness around families it's it's more of a prevention strategy our our sort of our success story around that is the keeping families housed that was a pilot that was started with effa in 2017 um and in your ATB last year you also increased funding to that um and um it's it's it's actually had remarkable um outcomes and it's really gotten the the families more engaged with services in the community could you pause and um I seem to recall when a year or so into the pilot you had some some interesting and I don't mean to put you on the startup you don't have this data handy but we had some really interesting numbers that kind of came out of that as far as the number of families that um rebounded into a difficult situation and it was a pretty low number as I recall can you refresh our recollection on that I don't remember those numbers

[204:01] but I'd we'd be glad you could send a report out because I I especially in the next couple of months because I'd like us to talk about as we prepare the 2021 budget whether it's a program that we want to expand you know we've we piloted a few years ago looks like we bumped it up a little bit but I seem to recall you just had some phenomenal success stories I didn't have any Alpha did well I mean you conveyed to us some phenomenal success stories I think would be to the benefit of the community and the new council members to hear how this program is is doing absolutely um yeah and we could maybe even provide an update with that as well um okay severe weather shelter so this is sort of a summary of the 2018-2019 season um you know showing the the number of nights that it was open um It's You know open October through May um what what I find interesting which was similar to the previous year is the media nights was 3.5 so there's a number of individuals that are there for a very

[205:01] short period of time and then you know they don't return they're either people that um are are coming through town or um you know they're they're camping um but they're not um they're not using that but but there also is a category of of individuals that actually use severe weather shelter on a very consistent basis um and you can see 846 individuals that used it over that time um so down at the bottom that's something that reinforces what Vicki was saying earlier so 48 of the individuals going through coordinate entry have been here for less than been in the community for less than a month um and again 68 have been in the community for less than six months before we move off that's like you mentioned it was open 169 night nights that is the the trigger's worth um thresholds were triggered how many um is

[206:00] this October 1 to May 31 so roughly 210 potential nights last year it was 243 nights this year it'll be 244 because we have leap year yeah okay so 169 out of 243 is that we were talking about okay so you're roughly talking 67 of the Year okay although I'm going to guess that like May probably had very few nights open so if you or if you compress that to like October to Mid April or something it'd probably be a fair amount higher percentage that's correct so um I I look at it every day it's I I think it averages this time of year roughly about five nights a week sometimes six nights a week yeah so if we wanted that data if you wanted let's say we did a monthly basis you know we looked at Decembers and januaries and februaries you'd be able to show us um the utilization and maybe in January February it might be 25 or 26 nights out of the month and in May maybe it's one or two nights of the

[207:00] month would you be able to do it on a month absolutely okay we can pull it by month I can also tell you between October 1st and November 14th of last year it was open 23 of the 45 days uh between November 15th and March 15th it was open 112 of the 121 available days and between March 16th and May 31st was open 34 of 77 days okay okay so um uh this is a set of data points which I I think might be helpful in the conversation as well so this goes back to 2011 um um you'll you'll remember that boho was an important organization in our community at that time around homelessness and they had a different approach their approach was to expand services to a

[208:02] degree where no one would ever be turned away or denied Services um and they they went to every night as well so you can see they started off at in 2011 at about 60 individuals per night that's the blue line they got up to uh 225 individuals per night the um sort of the orange line that goes up and down that's actually um um turnaways from the boulder shelter so what we what we um surmised from looking at this data is that as boho grew and the capacity is of boho grew the number of homeless individuals in the community also grew and so there was actually also a higher need for a shelter requested Shelter From the boulder shelter so you can see that that went up

[209:01] significantly it's now down quite a bit I think I might turn over to Vicki here I think there was three or four nights last year where people were turned away for capacity reasons or can you clarify that for me well I can tell you that since I've been here which since since March we haven't had any turnaways due to capacity at Boulder shelter we haven't had any in in this in this season and that's also in part with sort of increased coordination between Bridge house and the shelter and trying to balance their capacities better um but but the turnaways um are are minimal um but the uh the fire chief has also been pretty clear to us um that we won't go over capacity um maybe this is a moot point since we we don't seem to be hitting capacity anymore but if if there came a night that we did hit capacity

[210:01] um would we provide transportation was our practice or our providers practice to provide transportation to alternative home sites what we do with severe weather Sheltering there are 72 beds for the actual severe weather shelter um the first wave is to use unutilized year-round program beds at 30th Street location so that location holds 122 people total between the two programs if Bridge house looks like they're going to be hitting capacity numbers then they work with Boulder shelter for the homeless to determine what they can take for overflow for their unused beds and Bridge house actually runs a trans they have their van that they take people physically over to the other location and this is really a major system Improvement that we've put it I shouldn't say we the two shelters work this out together to put that in place this year and that's why we haven't seen any nights where we've hit reported cat

[211:01] capacity limits um there have been a couple nights that have been close but generally yeah the other thing that I'll add is that um over the last probably 18 months all the organizations have been pretty diligent in their communication to the homeless individuals particularly particularly as the season starts indicating people to people that there is a maximum capacity of shelter in the community and they should take that into consideration when making plans for the season um did I hit the slide or not oh um yeah okay so um we're getting close here um so these are some of the the gaps and challenges that that um that keep us up at night um and the first one was highlighted in the data that I presented at the beginning um the real story there is that people who are not engaged do not engage with

[212:00] severe weather shelter with coordinated entry they're staying on the streets we're not getting them into housing those are the people that are ending up you know going going to Boulder Community Health um and um it's it's a challenge for our community so we have to um find new and better ways to engage with with individuals that are difficult to engage with meeting housing Supply with demand I'm actually surprised at how much success we've had with housing and getting people housed I'm not sure how long we can sustain that kind of growth I think over this next year we're going to continue to do well but I um the level of of housing that we're providing is going to be difficult to continue um so coping with capacity challenges we're

[213:00] dealing with more individuals so all the services in the community that are aligned with homeless Services we need to work with different organizations to make sure that their capacity can meet that like Mental Health Partners they deal with a lot of homeless individuals so ensuring that their capacity can meet that the last one is is a difficult one and it's certainly a policy question of balancing appropriate levels of service and what I mean by that is we have been focusing primarily on homeless individuals that are chronically homeless and most in need most vulnerable um and now we have to balance that with the number of individuals that come to our and come to and through our community what services are we going to focus on individuals that have been part of our community and what folk what services are we going to focus on those who are here for a short time

[214:02] um so I'm going to hand it over to Heidi for just a couple minutes she has two slides and then we're then we're done good evening Council I know it's late so thank you Heidi Grove Homeless Solutions for Boulder County with Boulder County Community Services and so Kurt and Vicki had asked for me to come tonight and present just kind of the overarching what is HSBC and how does it function and how is it structured so the executive board is the senior government officials Kurt is one of our executive members and it is a county com County Commissioner appointed position and so it's with health and human or housing and Human Services is represented all of our housing authorities are represented and so it's more of those that are bringing the funding services to the table to support the work that we are up to the second level is the management board and that would be all of our executive directors and all of our service

[215:00] providers and not just Boulder shelter for the homeless or Bridge house but we're talking all executive directors and policy makers across the homeless Continuum of services and so they make recommendations to the executive board around policy changes and really looking at gaps in the system and making recommendations on how to address that the middle level is the implementation staff so the management board makes recommendations to the executive board and then the executive board gives it to the city and county staff for us to actually Implement those changes and then the dedicated staff I think that's me and so the additional pieces so over the last six months I've been in my position since July and we have added way more work groups to really try to address those gaps that Kurt was just talking about so the systems work group was one of the standing ones prior so that's our

[216:03] service delivery organizations our partners that we actually deliver Services based on the implementation strategies that we have selected so we meet on a monthly basis to talk about boots on the ground how are things rolling out and where the challenges from a policy to implementation and everything in between our Communications Group is a new one which is really how do we tell the story on a regular basis so that people are fully educated and aware of where we're going in our process and what's what our successes are to as Kurt mentioned we have our housing exits which is every housing provider or every organization that has access to housing resources meets twice a month to really talk about what is a robust housing portfolio and what could it look like to make sure that we are addressing

[217:01] the needs of everybody across the Continuum of who touches homelessness Outreach is also new so we are I think we've had two meetings um we have our third this week to really talk about a cross-sector collaborative county-wide Outreach effort to engage those that aren't really coming into the door so we're actually going out and connecting with folks and then our other one that is also new is what we are calling the justice Services which is really looking at high utilizers across multi-systems and how do we best meet their needs whether they are Justice involved and have lengthy criminal histories or are the folks that are the revolving door in the healthcare industry how do we really address their needs and their challenges when it comes to housing yep so um when it comes to policy stakeholders can you give some examples

[218:00] real quick most of them are actually here so that would be like the executive director of attention homes the executive director of Boulder shelter executive director of harvest of hope we also have a 20th judicial probation that we just recently added the coordinated entry person for the Veterans Affairs which comes up from Denver every month to meet with us she's also coming so we're looking at it more from a regional perspective not just local but no elected officials no elected officials okay and second question is there anyone with lived experience yes the management board has representation of folks with lived experience and another thing that we're trying on for this year's point in time count is we're actually going to be utilizing folks with lived experience to help us we're going to Pilot it and see how that works and see where we can plug in folks with lived experience on a more regular basis great any questions

[219:01] I have a question so um thank you for staying late with us sorry I'm a little tired sorry guys [Music] um during the public comment we had somebody come tell us their story about how um they were struggling with um part of the system that um work coordinated entry coordinated entry didn't occur until 9 A.M and this person had to be at work at 4 30. is that something that the systems working group would be looking at how how to address something like that or where would that be addressed um actually it's a little bit of both so systems yes and Outreach so one of the things that we're piloting as we bring on diversion Services is mobile Outreach um or sorry mobile coordinated entry and so we've actually run this pilot project in Longmont and it's been really successful and we're going to be rolling

[220:00] it out in here in Boulder as well so it's yes there's the standing times but we're also going to be doing coordinated entry out in the field when we're connecting with you just to build on that is it is it could you envision a day where people can actually self-coordinate an entry through a mobile device I would love to get there um we that is something that we have talked about we're not there yet okay Maybe okay so to your question who are our key stakeholders for housing crisis resolution obviously we want to connect with folks that have access to Sheltering and housing resources and so those are our partners who really work on addressing those challenges for outreach and other Community Resources those are more of the intermediate service providers who are really great at building relationships and connecting with folks who those who then can

[221:02] connect folks those folks that they have great relationships with to housing resources and then additional entities are those more area expertise folks so domestic violence experts Veterans Affairs experts attention homes with their expertise on the young adult population and emerging adult population and then of course folks with lived experience and as reflected in the circle that is the makeup of the executive board any questions thanks so much for coming thank you Kurt is there anything else you wanted me to cover you're good thank you okay thank you so Council that's the end of our presentation so we're open to any questions or discussion that you'd like just just a process process Point um this this is um um largely informational for us you're

[222:00] not seeking a decision from us on any particular matter tonight this is to kind of catch us and the community up to where we've been where we are and where we're heading is that a fair assessment yeah that's correct as well as the challenges that we see right right okay um kind of closing either questions or comments for correct I saw on Mark first than Aaron well there's not so much a question I think I've reached my sell by date for the evening so I'm going to take off but before I go I want to commend you for that presentation I thought it was terrific and I think staff and all of the constituent organizations are doing fantastic work in this area it seems to be clearly data driven um rational and effective and I think you should all be very proud of yourselves whether it's staff Bridge house effer Boulder homeless shelter whoever I think you're all performing a very valuable service for the community and contributing a great deal so I thank

[223:00] you all remember that good night Mark we'll see you Thursday yeah yeah and thanks for sticking out with us good luck with your healing process I I had a couple of questions about things that you went over here before that maybe just to drill into a little bit so and it's kind of how things are evolving this year you know as we're going through the transition uh with losing the 30th Street site right and so um as you're so coordinated entry is is moving to the senior center so um so um it's been previously called the the West Senior Center it's been rebranded um to aging well Center okay in anticipation of you joining them too right the Aging well very good so uh coordinating entry will will be down there yeah so we've looked at a separate entrance on the west side of that building so it would be a separate piece of the building which is with separate

[224:01] entrance um separate bathroom um to really distinguish it from those Senior Services okay so you will be able to have it pretty separate then that's correct probably good um and so I I very much appreciate the focus on housing outcomes so I think it's been a signal signal success of the program for the last few years and I know you all have done enormously hard work on that as well as many of the folks service providers out here so absolutely to be commended so and and I love the fact that that what you're looking for is additional apartment capacity not shelter capacity fantastic but I remain concerned about the the as we're working on that about the sufficient capacity after the 30th Street location goes away because from looking at the numbers and the bars and in terms of um whether the demand will fit in the space

[225:00] it looks like we're not quite there yet which is I think what you said so um so we're getting close we're getting closer over time but it's seeming to me reasonably likely that by the time that the 33 location closes we won't quite have the same amount of space um at the shelter after that and and so what what's our plan for dealing with that because if we if we've if we've got those 50 beds that are going away but we've housed a lot of people but it seems like fairly likely that we're going to go over capacity sometimes what are we going to do with that situation I guess we'll both try that try our um to answer this um so um I'm more optimistic than you are about the what the capacity will be at the shelter um I'm probably more concerned about severe weather shelter than I am um the issue of moving navigation um the 50 beds of navigation to the

[226:00] shelter um I think we're on track of where we want it to be I think we knew when we started that process that it was that it was going to be difficult severe weather shelter is um you'll be aware that we don't have a huge budget for that in the coming years we've tried this as part of the strategy we try to shift our budget more towards Housing Solutions than shelter Solutions so we've been looking for a relatively inexpensive or free space even if you're paying for for space it's difficult to cite that type of use in the city of Boulder um I'm relatively confident that we'll have a place in but we'll have severe weather shelter in place by the Fall but we're not there yet okay well I appreciate the the optimism on on the capacity and gotta say just 100 hope that your optimism is validated

[227:01] but let's say that it doesn't go quite as well and there is a capacity problem what the question remains how would we handle that um I think that our shelter approaches have always been um relative to the capacity that we have um so no matter where you are in your amount of capacity there's always going to be that risk we've seen that um there's been an increase in the numbers of individuals that are seeking services that are from outside of the community um those are the individuals that we've been communicating with or our service providers have been communicating with on a regular basis to let them know what the capacities what the capacity for shelter in the community is I think the communication approach is really important

[228:01] because many people can go to various different places seeking Services it's important and responsible for us to indicate to people what services we have and what services we don't as we saw with boho when you try to take the approach we're going to serve everyone it becomes actually very challenging yeah and I don't think anybody's saying that we're going to try to serve everyone from everywhere right that's correct and we do have the six month threshold right for coordinated entry and going to services so folks that got here very recently are not going to be eligible right for those things I guess um I guess I remain concerned I know when when we talked about this last March I believe it was you know we we did give direction I believe I mean I looked it back up that this uh loss of capacity was something that was important to

[229:00] address and so I think the the answer I would be looking for is not just well we have less capacity and then we just service the capacity we have because we're we're scaling back right and so I'm I'm really hoping for some kind of mitigation if we if we don't if the losing the 50 doesn't quite fit our services into the space that we have have a kind of a mutual Aid arrangement with the two facilities in Longmont whereby if if we were a little bit short and they had a little bit extra we could transport someone there we don't have anything set specifically to that point um Longmont itself is going through some changes on how they're providing navigation so it'd be a little premature to say that that's an option for us I would also add that there's a couple pieces of evidence that would back up Kurt's optimism one is that gets lost in some of our shelter capacity conversations and that's the importance of finding housing

[230:02] for high utilizer shelter beds because not only are those people that are staying in shelters that need housing from a long-term standpoint but they use our high utilizers last year when we were looking at it was about 14 000 bed nights that could be made available to other people coming to the system and uh what's not shown in this presentation because the data was not available to us is that even in December which is extremely high utilization traditionally Boulder shelter for the Homeless was averaging 128 people per night when you combine that with our usual average for a path to home which passed a home because of the nature of what they provide is not very cyclical it's pretty straight line they average about 37 38 people so that put us on average only five people short in December um obviously that's five people short and that's an issue we're still working

[231:00] through the other thing I would add is that we were very purposeful with our city vouchers that we received from the council in 2019 and 2020 allocations that they are targeted for high utilizers of our shelter Services who also are very vulnerable and very in need of permanent Supportive Housing and is that direct targeting of that population that is going to do two things one is make sure that we're providing those permanent Supportive Housing resources to the people who really need them the most who are long-term Boulder County community members and thirdly that they are high utilizers of the shelter so that that those are some things that really make us feel like those are really doable things the other thing I would add is that bringing on a more robust diversion Services Program should help us address some of our high utilizers of path to home for example because we'll be doing a little

[232:00] bit more quicker intervention with them so we expect that some of the people who would traditionally have gone to a navigation program would be moving to more of diversion services so that would also reduce this the shelter census and I'll just add one more thing sorry and we we've had more resources this year than we had last year to help people with those diversion transitions that's all very encouraging and it seems like you're very much on the right track I think it would just be helpful to have a little bit of a plan B in case there is still some capacity question after the loss of the of the facility that's what I would ask for great before we move on to Mary I just want to observe for Council that we have um in the room tonight um Greg harms the executive director of the boulder shelter for the homeless we have Representatives Bridge house I think we have a police chief with us so if anybody has questions of those subject matter experts they're also available to come to the podium Mary just a question a question at Supportive Housing units

[233:00] are coming online in 2020 and were those included in that 200 number that we saw in the number of housing units um well as I mentioned there's others that are that have come on that are above and beyond those 39 yeah I think there's if I recall there's 18 vouchers that we have right now that we're trying to to place I'm sorry 56 county-wide that we're trying to to place yeah and um permanent Supportive Housing units coming online that the 39 are the ones that are going to come online that weren't included in that and just for clarification those are vouchers oh they're they're vouchers okay but housing units coming online then what's that number um so um that number is a combination of both um new housing or affordable housing

[234:00] projects that are occurring right now um so one example I would give is uh ceclo that's under construction right now um I think that will be coming on in four or five months um there's um uh um the one next to Red Oak Park on on Valmont um that's also under construction we'll be coming on later 2020 and then um some of our other partners both element and BHP um make some units available as they become vacant as people move out of like one bedroom units they have been making a number of those available to psh voucher holders so is that um when you when you put that together with the 239 vouchers then um is that kind of helping move people into permanent housing that then frees up

[235:00] some more of those the high utilizers that you were talking about in the 14 000 bed nights it frees up as those units come online and those vouchers are available that's correct yes if you ever want to look at an exercise in complexity go to a housing exits meeting what we look at are the types of vouchers the types of people who are needing certain vouchers what makes sense who do we target what strategic placements need to be made are the right mixes there for example the uh housing authorities allow for up to 20 percent of vacancies to be utilized for a permanent Supportive Housing which then is matched with Sansa grant that the county has for Case Management Services we have recently gone through a process of reevaluating the criteria that we use in order to determine what's the best fit of the person that goes into those things I mentioned earlier the city of Boulder vouchers are very much targeted

[236:01] to certain populations there's our one home program which works through our regional partner that is really looking at people based on their vulnerability scores and is provided by metro Denver homeless initiative there there's a whole host of those things that go through down to this person's going to do better in a Lee Hill Apartment than they would do in a scattered site voucher so it's a tapestry of different interventions and housing opportunities and needs Adam okay I have quite a few things here so bear with me um first of all um what kind of happens to people who get into permanently Supportive Housing or um you know are permanently put in housing and then fall out for one reason another drug use mental illness that doesn't allow them to be their violations of that sort what

[237:00] ends up happening to those people so I don't have the numbers off top my head but there there is a percentage of individuals um who are not successful in housing for some of the same reasons that you mentioned however the Supportive Services that they receive they have a case manager so if they have a mental illness they're gonna the case manager is going to help them connect to the correct services for that mental illness so there's a lot of individual attention based on the needs of that of that person um um the the lease is an agreement between that individual and the landlord they are required to meet the requirements of a lease just like anyone else would gotcha okay um so I shared with Council a flow chart one of the things that I think

[238:00] we need to address more is just the comprehensive Suite of items that we could be utilizing in the city to actually help divert people away from homelessness or essentially you know more options for them to wherever they are in the system make sure that they don't end up at the level where they need even more help whether that be medical or anything along those lines so correct me if I'm wrong here but currently we don't have anything for people who are living out of their cars um we do have something for people who are coming out of their cars can you explain that a little bit please sure so they would they would go to coordinated entry they would park their car at 30th Street and they would use the services that are provided to anyone else so you don't necessarily have to stay in their in their vehicle okay gotcha

[239:00] but if they don't want to stay in the shelter and would prefer to stay in their vehicle can they leave the vehicle park there and stay there I don't think so so that's one perfect example is maybe a safe parking system for those people who again for any any reason they might not want to actually be in the system and we could divert them away from um ultimately having a worst case scenario so something along those lines Kurt I send this to you as well this flowchart so we can discuss this at a later time but I think it's really important to start looking at more of these items um and I'm going to bring this up again during the council Retreat it's one of my very few items that I'm going to bring that I think we should spend additional time looking at um also just on the the greater level it seems to me like all economic indicators all governmental indicators all climate indicators would show that

[240:01] the numbers of people who are going to experience homelessness are only going to increase Across the Nation and you know we're looking at probably a future downturn we're looking at a worsening climate that's going to force a lot of climate migration um and our government that currently isn't very interested in any drug addiction mental health or homeless service so um in my mind you know I think it's time that as a city we really have the tough question of how much are we going to be willing to pay to make sure that people aren't living on the streets anymore um it's a problem that I think in my short timeline Council we have the most consistent number of emails and people coming to speak about and it's a problem that I've only seen grow ever since I've been here for 13 years so um I think this is the opportunity and this is the council that needs to say that it's no longer an option

[241:02] for people to be living on the streets and you know whatever funding we need to divert because this hurts not only those people living there but it hurts people living in our community who are housed it hurts businesses it hurts everyone down the list and so um I'm just going to say I think it's really important that we take the time at our Retreat to come up with a more comprehensive Suite of solutions as Council that we're willing to look at to address this problem and if we need even some council members to be on a working group for this entire year um to actually make some progress on this because I think I'm countered amongst many people who uh don't want to see you know any more tent encampments on the streets because those people deserve to be housed and they don't want to see any more needles on the streets because those people

[242:00] deserve to have um actual Solutions in their lives that don't involve just giving them needles you want to add on to what Aaron Adam said or or disagree with how to put Adam said Aaron and then Rachel well so um I sent on out on on Hotline in the middle this afternoon bringing back up something that that Suzanne Jones and I brought up about a year ago which was the as a proximate step to some of the things that you're talking about Adam is the idea of opening the severe weather shelter throughout the winter season rather than having a temperature-based threshold um you know currently it's 32 degrees when the severe weather shelter opens or 38 degrees if it's snowing or raining when we as we were talking about before in in the coldest months that ends up being the large majority of the knights

[243:01] you know something 70 80 plus percent and so it just seems from uh that adding taking that to 100 of the nights during the cold months is a small change it's a small amount of funding but it means that that there's always a a safe place to sleep for someone a safe and and warm place to sleep so it just seems like in the in the winter months 34 degrees can still be a lethal temperature um and we do have these thresholds for accessing Services you have to have been in the area for six months and such and um it just seems to me like um it's the sort of Humane thing to do to allow folks to always have um a warm kind of cot to sleep on during those months so I want I want to bring that back up with the new Council for reconsideration Aaron would um Adam had a list of things that he said that he'd like us to and staff to to work on and think about during the course of the

[244:00] year and suggested I think appropriately that these would be topics that we could talk about at the retreat in a week and a half and talk about as far as the work plan we would have to talk about you know where the folks fully supported that and staff would let us know how much work that would involve and some things you might want to have looked at sooner rather than later or something's going to be it Aaron would you be would you be happy to to throw that that suggestion on to Adam's list and have that be a work plan discussion in a week and a half as well yeah sure I mean I think it's it's a fine I think having a discussion about our approach to homeless services that the retreat would be valuable way for the council to spend some time at our Retreat um I don't know that this this particular item has a huge work plan implication I mean I think maybe we could add staff to provide an estimate of dollars involved say for for this year if we were to move forward on that you know in the next handful of weeks um and then maybe we can if there's interest from Council we could look get more information about how it would work

[245:01] for a following shelter season great Rachel and then Mary so I I guess I don't know whether to really bring things up tonight versus The Retreat and how much time we'll spend on this issue at The Retreat it's also one of the very few things that I brought up for adding to the work plan but there are so many issues involved in this I think one that we're hearing a lot about and that I I agree with the community we need to look at is we've had two recent Court decisions the Supreme Court rejected the I think Martin versus Boise appeal um and then we had a decision out of Denver and there's I think some eighth amendment constitutional considerations that Merit further discussion about the camping ban um and and there are other issues attended to that as well so I think that's something we need to look at I agree with Aaron that we should be looking at the severe weather shelter being open all season I understand from talking to direct line staff that there may need to be safeguards built in to prevent abuse and and people choosing to

[246:01] go to severe weather shelter instead of um going through coordinated entry and and sort of that might not be purely optimal so you might have to build in some safeguards um I agree with Adam's point about capacity probably needing to grow because of uh climate migration and um poverty rates that I I think we all anticipate possibly getting worse but also note that Chris Nelson said that attention homes is already at capacity so we know that we already don't have enough capacity at least for some of our services we get a lot of complaints about the Ninth Street Bridge encampment and lack of enforcement right now um I think we need to look at day Services I think we need to have a robust discussion about possible meth epidemic in our community I think we need to talk about right to rest safe parking tiny homes Community we have to talk about people who can't really access service right now because they have pets or they're married or

[247:00] they're service resistant and there are a lot of pockets I think that we are at the gaps that were pointed out that we don't have awesome solutions for right now um and and then I think also do need to talk about the crimes and safety issues and and how to enforce but with compassion and Humanity I I'm reluctant to criminalize criminalize the process of sleeping or merely existing as a human or to to encourage more encounters with law enforcement in general so I think there's so much that we have to talk about and I think we need a a work group that has some council members on it a lot of community members a lot of people with lived experience the staff who has the expertise and the data and I think we need to do that sooner than later and I think you know for something like the severe weather shelter if we're talking about looking at that and you you know pushing it back a week and a half and then talking and it's the end of the season then before we do it and if we're really concerned about getting that in place this year I don't know if we want to delay so

[248:01] um I don't know what protocols have to happen to get a a work group together that can move pretty quickly on putting together sort of a a host of solutions as Adam proposed that we could have Community engagement in in one you know one lump sum and passed some um options that will help people to avoid housing instability and becoming homeless when this has come up in the past is that it wasn't a question of funding that it's relatively small amount of money but as I recall it was um how that change would impact outcomes and what comes to mind is that graph

[249:01] that was shown with the boho and then the turnaways and it I guess I would you know with that conversation um at The Retreat or now um as I would like to understand one of the one of the things that staff mentioned during the presentation was that communities that are seeing more homelessness actually have better services so I would like to understand that um and um and that graph of um boho and then um the number of turnaways that the shelter growing way higher than the rate of change of the boho um housing which was keeping things open every night as would a severe weather shelter so I just want to make sure that we're not working against ourselves with something

[250:00] like that where we end up um providing or or giving people a choice that is less healthy for them than focusing on housing which is what we're doing right now and um so I just want to want us to keep that in mind if I just real quick I mean mayor I think you're right that we need to make sure that we're focused on outcomes and I think our strategy overall is doing a great job of that but there are currently people who have no other option I'd say if you've been here for you know 21 days and you find yourself homeless and you know there's not another path for you at this point right so so while we want to maybe put some guardrails on it to maybe prevent overly High utilization or certain kinds of things we can talk about that currently we have a system that a safety net with cracks in it with that people can fall through and that's what I'm concerned about primarily

[251:01] Judy yeah I just wanted to mention I suppose for many of us you know housing housing homeless and providing better services to them is very important to many of us and I've heard a lot here about how well we're doing meeting or long-term priorities of housing people but I think there's a disconnect between the two you know the two presentations offered because you know Vicki mentioned you know we are really working really hard on meeting long-term goals as opposed to short-term but Kurt you mentioned that we are struggling with that and we still want to do better so my question to you what can we do I understand that Boulder wants to meet its long-term goals which is housing people but what can we do whether it's with the county to take care of some of the short-term needs because guess what in a community we

[252:01] can't just say we're just going to take care of the long-term goals which is great which is you know I mean I've been through the um on the housing tour and let me tell you I was very impressed as a new council person but nonetheless we still have to take care of the immediate needs so we have to bridge the gap and I think that's what many of the other Council members just mentioned today so if I could add to that thank you um so I think some of the efforts towards the short term and I think you're correct we've been on we've been focused on long-term goals some of the short-term activities though have really been the navigation which didn't exist you know 18 months ago um that that service provided by by Bridge house that's that's a new service that really helps a lot of people with those short-term challenges we're increasing that we've added more funding to it we have both diversion and

[253:00] navigation now and the staff that are doing that are going to be they're they're getting um training and support from other organizations that have different experiences with that um I don't think we're done progressing on that um and I think what the data showed us um is that people aren't dying because they don't have severe weather shelter they're dying because they're camping in the streets and that's that's a real challenge that we have I want to um Channel Heather Bergman here for a second who's going to be our facilitator at the retreat in a week and a half and I think what we um probably don't want our Retreat to be as a second version of this discussion around homelessness and and these great ideas that people would like to discuss because our Retreat really is about a work plan so I think Adam and and Rachel and Aaron have suggested some um things

[254:01] we might look at this year some of them may be things that folks the majority of council wants to look at sooner rather than later others maybe things that are longer term goals so I I guess my suggestion would be it sounds like some of you already put that on your list which we'll talk about in a second which is great my suggestion is is come prepared to The Retreat um with a discussion not so much about you know whether we should do this thing or this thing or we should change this program or change uh this system the exception may be the the severe weather shelter says something we probably could change pretty quickly but with respect to Adam's really really great list at the supplemented by by Rachel is is really talk about how those might fit into a work plan and hopefully staff got enough from that tonight that you could start to scope in your heads you know this is something that would take a lot of work and this is something that would not take a lot of work and this is something that could be done quickly or this is something we just don't think is a really good idea and here's why because other communities have tried it and hasn't worked so I think to the extent that we can have a discussion around I guess let's say process or prioritization as opposed to a

[255:01] substantive discussion about what we should do and what shouldn't do because I think to be for the staff they're probably not going to be ready for that and secondly we really haven't put the community on notice about some of these changes but we can certainly have a discussion about a work plan for some of these changes in that very maybe where it will involve a um a working group right a working group that aids dad and staff and things and sort of matter experts so I'm just suggesting that Adam yeah really short um I think a good way to frame it is you know we have a vision just Zero vision zero for transportation and um making sure that there are no deaths on our streets and I think that's sort of what we're looking at for this homelessness situation is you know how do we make a vision zero where people aren't sleeping on the streets and that's going to be a comprehensive end-to-end solution just like Vision zero is for transportation good well said anything else in this discussion okay Mary so I you know I want to just Echo what Mark said right before he left the work

[256:02] that's being done is phenomenal um I think back to just a few short years ago when we didn't even have any data we didn't have any plan all we were doing was Sheltering people and um and trying to increase the amount of shelter which wasn't really improving anyone's life beyond the short-term solution of putting a roof over somebody's head but it wasn't addressing people's long-term needs and now that's happening and we're we have data we have um I mean teams that are coming together once a month and talking about it we have an incredible collaboration going on between Bridge house and um and the boulder shelter for the homeless with the city and with the county and it's just what's happened in these short years is to be truly commended because

[257:01] it's it's hard to believe how far we've come so thank you for that agree I don't think I the the only um group that that Mary and Aaron I mean Marion Mark didn't mention that I would like to shout out for because they are at the front line of oftentimes our homelessness services and making sure that people that find themselves are unhoused get to the right place is our Police Department we have a homeless Outreach team that's dedicated to interfacing with homeless people not to cite them not to find violations but really to compassionately get them to the right place and often our police are the ones that are interacting most frequently on the street with people that are homeless that are confused about where to go they don't know the transportation systems they don't know what's available to them and so I do want to acknowledge not only the partnership of all the people that Marianne Mark mentioned but also the the police team because the police department can say are an integral part of this broader team yes and as well as and that's it's the homeless Outreach

[258:00] team and then the edge team as well Edge team as well can we also call out the municipal court and the Navigator there and judge and her team who did phenomenal work with all of that stuff is new in just the last few years so and and so many of the service providers in our community um as well like um in addition to bridge house in the shelter attention homes and effort keeping people off the streets and a lot of other providers as well so very we're very fortunate to have so many people of Goodwill working so hard on these complex problems anything else to close okay great great discussion great presentation guys yeah thanks thank you very much sorry we're not taking comments but we'll we're gonna be breaking in a few minutes so we'll join you down there in just a few minutes if you just be patient thanks we're almost done next is your retreat update and clarifying questions so um we're having a retreat study session on Thursday okay see you then yeah yeah okay good enough

[259:01] and then the um the [Music] yeah the resettlement of refugees yep yep and we'll be done so um do you Mary do you want to talk about the three things we're going to do on Thursday night or do you want to mention or the three things we're dealing with on Thursday night are um one is we're all going to have our little slide presentations of the letters from the boards and commissions folks about that folks thanks for coming tonight if you guys can move downstairs for your um goodbyes that'd be great thanks a lot um we're going to have uh spend an hour going through the emergenetics results and um and then briefly talking about the items that were sent in for the retreat those are the three things we're going to be facilitated by Heather Bergman who

[260:01] ultimately will be our facilitator for the retreat and we thought we'd take a pause here I think most if not everyone got into the net their list of priorities for the um for the work plan that we'll discuss how the retreat and we'll briefly discuss it on Thursday night but we also want to take a pause here to make sure that staff which is the recipient of that which is going to try to scope some of these out for us on Thursday night understood what it is that we logged in so I guess the question is Jane is there anything you didn't understand of what we sent in yeah so we have prepared a spreadsheet that we're going to hand out to you on Thursday night that I've gone through and we have three questions so um council member friend said under the proceed procedural items to change the voting method for more representative and Democratic result and I did not understand what you're thinking there is that under board Advisory Board appointments

[261:00] um no it was related in the same paragraph I guess you wrote In addition evaluate whether 9 is the right number it was then elections was the heading on that one um and so I'm that's talking about things like ranked Choice voting oh ranked transfunding okay as an example of something that's possibly more representative and Democratic got it thank you so much thanks um then we had a question for council member Yates this is under comment register City register for initiative comments by Community yeah thanks for asking I should have been more clear um the analogy is to the Federal Register if there if the federal government is thinking about promulgating a regulation or even a new law oftentimes they'll publish that and there'll be a central repository for community members across country to comment provide comments within a window time 30 days 60s went out and we've had some community members that suggested that because

[262:00] Thomas come to us in lots of different ways there's open comment there's public hearing there's emails to counselors meetings with counsel that one thing that we might create is a a community register not not to similar to the Federal Register which is a central place where people can put comments staff can obviously manage that and it would be up on a website and anybody could see it and council members could see it and be kind of a central place for all the comments too I proposed action the council might take yeah I just didn't know yeah exactly what you meant there I think I had one more yeah um it was councilman Burr Joseph's under improved Human Services one of the things that you were talking about is roll out of an online reporting survey system based on Social Service provision by providers and we just weren't sure what you meant by an online reporting Survey System but I is as Kurt mentioned the mediation

[263:00] process to having more of a forward front face online survey where you know different providers or the homeless shelter people who utilizes that system can go and report and it would be available how many how many people have a large complaint against different providers ah okay okay it's sort of a complaint reporting system okay thank you great so out of the very many things that you had we only had those three questions and we will have a spreadsheet for all of you on Thursday great look at all of the items that we'll put thank you so much um any questions about the retreat of what we're going to do Thursday night I have a quick question somebody said emergenetics results are Thursday we had to like present our our partners emergenetics something are we getting that information on Thursday to then discuss with our partners or is

[264:01] that supposed to have happened already okay yeah actually a couple things left on Thursday you'll get your results but also um there's a Woman by the name of Heidi Brickman who is the emergency specialist and she's going to walk us through what it all means we can ask questions should we bring our results from two years ago or they God I hope not because I have no idea where mine are they um I found mine I was cleaning out my house is she going to be able to she'll bring them for all of us even those who have lost them yeah okay thank you I'm so excited okay quick uh reminder about the retreat I have a wedding I have to be at because I'm in it yep so I have to leave at about two on Saturday okay let's remind Heather that when where she's here on Thursday so we can make sure that we're we'll look at take a little quick look at the schedule again we know this with us on Thursday and make sure that we we don't do anything important without you perfect yeah um we have one more item right we do um

[265:01] your next item your last item motion authorizing the continued resettlement of refugees any presentation on this there isn't a presentation we're just hopeful that you will authorize us to move forward with that someone would like to make a motion any statements good important okay is this a show of hands do we need to have a public hearing because this is under matters thank you for that yes we'll open a public hearing would anyone like to comment on this letter we're going to send to the federal government saying that we're happy to receive refugees okay we're gonna close the public hearing all in favor okay um any other business done by 10 30. any debrief on the meeting good job okay thank you I wasn't expecting to do this but I think at 10 28 we're adjourned right

[266:02] yeah I feel better to him Live from Paris I'll talk to my cat foreign