October 13, 2020 — City Council Study Session

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] [Music] was announced today that um Boulder US News and World Report ranked Boulder is the best city in America to live in um yay and interestingly Denver was number two and four of the top five cities ranked were in Colorado which is pretty amazing another thing I learned is that we're ranked number seven in safety in the United States which is pretty high up there we will be issuing working on a press release and a congratulations note to all of our employees tomorrow awesome very exciting we're lucky to live here Sam did you send a special note to Mayor Hancock I did I sent mayor Hancock congratulations where you are in the rankings and there's only one place better to be and you're always free to visit

[1:04] very nice and I'll let Bob send the um note to John southers and and mayor [Laughter] Troxel fourth fourth and fifth are not too bad either NOP what was the one non Colorado City Austin Austin we knocked them out of number one they were number one last year we knocked them out go I figure they have to shake up the top rankings anyway right there used to be rolling stone used to have an award for the best concert venue in America and after Red Rocks won it 10 times they called it the Red Rocks um concert venue award and Red Rocks could no longer get it is there anything we can do just oh

[2:00] there was Chris was our CH folks are uh having to reset again so if you want to go ahead and start and then as soon as they can get the broadcast up they will do so if that works for you does that work for us works okay great everyone's here so um channel8 will get rolling when it can and I'm going to call this meeting to order uh no roll call required so welcome to the Tuesday October 13th 2020 study session of the Boulder City Council uh tonight we'll be discussing four items the 2021 elections and petitions Community engagement occupancy limits and ballot items but first we would like to recognize that yesterday was indigenous people's day and uh Mayor Sam Weaver is going to say a few words on this thank you Rachel on Sunday afternoon um I attended a right relationship Boulder event which was um had had me and Dan Burke and Elise Jones

[3:02] of Boulder County and many leaders um of the Southern and Northern arapo tribes and we had a two-hour discussion about relationships between the arapo tribe and Boulder it was really interesting and very um laid the groundwork for some of the things that I think we're going to do together going forward um in 2016 Boulder passed resolution 1190 the indigenous people's day resolution to acknowledge the following indigenous people in Boulder have as in all parts of Americas endured centuries of Cruelty exploitation and genocide the Boulder area encompasses ancestral homelands of indigenous people's Nations facing and acknowledging our past good as well as bad makes our community stronger and more resilient those now living on these ancestral lands recognize that harm was

[4:00] done and acknowledge that we have a shared responsibility to forge a path forward to address the past and prevent harm to indigenous people and the land so there are a few things that we talked about in that meeting um and we want to uh talk about Boulder's commitment to forging these relationships both with the arapo tribal nation and with many other tribal Nations who have a history here in the Boulder Valley and some of those commitments are we currently due and will continue to provide grants and coordination for indigenous people's Day events in support of sections two and three of resolution 1190 we'll continue to discuss and work with other local governments and agency on how best to support the local indigenous Community we'll continue annual consultations with 13 tribal Nations even if they must be

[5:00] held virtually and finally initiating the long-term management plan for the city's Fort Chambers property which is of particular interest to be a rapo and Cheyenne tribal governments due to the role it played in the Sand Creek Massacre so I just wanted to recognize these um the importance of indigenous people's day and the commitment that Boulder has to honoring uh resolution 11 90 thank you Rachel that's awesome thanks so much Sam um and so now I think I turn it over to Jane to kick off the staff presentations um with I think 2021 election preparations and online petitioning ESS and I have very little to say I will turn it over to Tom Carr who will be presenting on this matter Tom thank you Jane I'm going to share my screen um with I'll have a brief presentation on the preparations for the 2021 election

[6:00] um I hope you can all see that and um then I will talk about I will demonstrate online petitioning so as you all know we had a very rough year this year um in um getting to the ballot um lots of confusion um very regrettable um I want to go through the background a little bit um most of this you all know and in can you all see the screen yes okay um in 20 17 there were Charter amendments there were more amendments in 2018 they really weren't coordinated well enough um in 201 um that we had that was a result of a working group um we generally over the last 10 years we've had four petitions make the ballot uh the most P most petitions we've ever had in one year before were two we had five this year so it very much taxed our system uh the clerk's office had to bring in 13 people to assist them with

[7:00] the signature verification so in so many ways it was a challenging year and IT staff and I'm sure council's uh intent to avoid that in the future um so one of the areas that we have is is with respect to Charter amendments the differences between state law and the charter for those amendments you probably all know this we've been through this for months but I for those who who are watching at home or maybe not aware just want to go over it real briefly uh under state law a charter amendment can be circulated for 90 days from the date of filing with the clerk and it requires double signatures during special elections and special elections for for home rule cities are defined as any election not held at a time when you elect your principal officers so for us that would be every evene election uh the charter uh allows for people to circulate for 180 days and there's no difference between the U special and general elections so uh as you know we were sued over the bedrooms for people initiative

[8:02] um the court The District Court dismissed that lawsuit um and but this this is a summary of their the Court's concern the judge said this dispute appears to been created by the 2017 Charter Amendment language even though section 37 is is titled power to initiate Charter amendments and legislation and the first sentence includes language about petitions to amend Charter the city now maintains that sections 37 through 42 do not apply to petitions to amend the boulder Charter the city should consider cleaning up this language to avoid any confusion about whether the city Charter or state election law applies to petitions to amend the charter so this is Charter section 37 and the language that's highlighted in uh bold and italics was added in 2017 along with a bunch of other amendments the the amendments in 2018 changed everything but that um it seemed like the working group's intent was the charter Amendment would be governed by

[9:00] state law uh having this language in there led to some confusion um so Charter section 137 says this Charter may be amended as provided in article 20 of the Constitution of the state of Colorado I have some slides that can go through what article 20 says but there are conflicting interpretations of what article 20 says to say the least so Council may want to clean that up as well so I'm sorry I apologize there's some language in the memo but what I recommend is that Council uh allow us to draft a charter amendment that would uh replace the the language in section 37 with clear and unambiguous language stating that uh Charter amendments are governed by

[10:00] provisions of state law and that anything in the charter is intended to supplement but not replace them so and then the obviously we have the initiative and Charter Amendment guidelines that we publish every year um those were those were last revised after 2017 um and to some extent after 2018 they really need to be Rewritten to be clearer my proposal is that we revise them completely make it clear that they the state law requirements under the charter um and the charter requirements and then publish a draft no later than the end of January to uh let the community comment so that there is no question that by the time we start receiving petitions that the um the guidelines are clear that is my presentation Council questions all right Bobby AES thanks for that Tom Tom you mention mentioned that um there was some

[11:01] confusion or unclarity in I think it was chapter 20 of the state law also um the Constitution um section 20 of the Colorado state constitution I'm sorry thank you section 20 of the Constitution that's referred to by section 137 of our Charter you said there's some confusion in that section as well well there a question of interpretation most Municipal lawyers interpret uh article 20 to provide broad home rule powers to cities um there is an argument that under n of CH of article 20 there is language that says the state legislature shall adopt procedures for Charter amendments there's nothing about saying that those but it also says that the chart the city shall control how to amend their Charters and the the language that the that the legislature adopted includes um language that says that cities can supersede that those Provisions so there there is some confusion what I would suggest is that Council include an amendment to section 137 that says that state law prevails so there's no

[12:01] question of interpreting the chart of the Constitution okay or could we put that in section 37 I would put it in both places okay that's helpful so while there seems to be some confusion about whether chapter 20 of the Constitution allows us to supersede state law or not um with respect to the laws the legislature did pass um if for those cities who defer to state law um for the amendment of Charter which I think there's a number of cities that do that is there confusion within those rules about how many signatures are required or when they're required not if you follow state law state law is absolutely clear um that the number of signatures is 10% of the number of registered voters in the in the state I'm sorry 5% of the number of registered voters in the city um or 10% for a special election and the number of days is also very clear in that section yeah 90 days from the date of filing

[13:01] okay great thank you Tom okay Mary thank you Rachel um I just have one quick question um you um Tom you suggested that one way to clarify things in section 37 would be to add language that says this does not include Charter amendments could we accomplish the same by simply removing Charter amendments from the from section 37 uh yes you could Mary I'm not a big believer in subtlety when you're making amendments I believe you should if you you should absolutely clearly State your intent um so I would recommend making it it express I think that's one of the challenges we have with the 2017 and 2018 amendments they left too much wriggle room wiggle room I would prefer

[14:00] not to leave any wiggle room so we my recommendation was certainly that would achieve it but my recommendation would be to put a sentence in that says exactly what you mean okay and so so put in the sentence that says exactly what we mean and as well as removing Charter amendments from that first sentence or the sentence which is ambiguous yes okay thank you thank you hey we have Aaron up and then Sam so thanks for that Tom so are you looking for direction from us tonight to forward and and do these couple things that you proposed uh Direction objections suggestions obviously we have time before the 2021 ballot but I think for the community's concern relating to the the 2020 election it would be great if Council gave us clear Direction so the community could start to rebuild faith in our process okay great yeah I just

[15:02] wasn't sure what our the scope of our discussion was tonight um and I guess we'll have comments after questions but so but one other question for you like it felt like one of the surprises this year was that um this election was considered a special election and triggered uh additional requirements would and and honestly that that feels I to me a special election uh would intuitively mean an election other than one of the regular ones held in November uh as opposed to the ones not held when we elect our um city council members so would we be able would it be possible to to just uh also change the definition of special elections to say that um they would not be uh elections held in November as opposed to the state's definition um so Aaron I I my reading of

[16:02] the law is you could do that others will disagree with me there is some risk if you do that right because it gets into the question of whether we can supersede the state laws in this in this area yes and I believe that you can others do not if you want to be absolutely clear the answer to that question would be no okay thanks for clarifying that's it thank you thanks Aaron Sam Tom we left the language of section 37 as it is even mentioning Charter in the first sentence and added a last sentence that read amendments to this Charter are governed by section 137 of this Charter would that cover our basis it's 137 says it's governed by Title 20 um I don't think so Sam my concern there would be um article 20 has three different Provisions relating to Charter amendments and relies on state law that

[17:02] a lot of people seem to read uh without without the basic interpretation section so my preference is if you want it to be governed by state law you should say that it's governed by state law okay you could amend section 137 to say governed by the Constitution and any state law adopted thereunder and that would be clear okay so that would be the sentence at the end of Section 3 7 and then a slight change in the way section 30 137 reads yes okay thank you thank you anyone else with a question Bob or KCK off comments if that's where you're at no I just uh probably a question just to follow up on aerin's point while it sounds like we should probably either declare that we're going to be state law or local law and therefore if it's state law a special election is to defined under state law as an even for us an even

[18:00] number of year which sounds weird um we can't redefine state law but to aon's point presumably in our election guidelines we could spell that out right to Erin's point we could say and under state law a special election is an election and even number year so that be very clear to people that while that sounds like an unusual description of what a even number year election is people can understand that it requires more signatures for Charter Amendment exactly that would be my int okay thank you I think that's all the questions so any comments Mary I just had I just had another um question actually um just with respect to um the guidelines would would it make any sense to revise the guidelines um ahead of the charter

[19:00] amendments just to for people to review and make sure well just would it make any sense to do that yeah Mary that's my recommendation that we dra draft the guidelines uh and have them out for public comment in January and then proceed in the normal course to do the charter Amendment we can change the guidelines after the fact but having them in there and making it clear that that's what's council's intent and that we're changing the charter to conform to more clearly Express council's intent I think would be really helpful with the 2021 election okay thank you and um when you see the electronic petitioning system I think that you will see that it's going to generate even more initiatives than we've had in the had this year uh because I think it's relatively easy to use and will create more direct de democracy thank

[20:00] you Bob is your hand up again it is um if now that we moved into comments is that right go for it so I guess a comment and then a question followup question so Tom I support making those changes to section 37 and 137 to make it clear that um the state law applies I think that's where a majority Council was a few months ago and we should just be clear on that and I realize that requires a charter Amendment so the voters will have to vote on that in nov remember in the meantime as you just suggested we should um make sure that our guidelines are clear that it's the intention of council that state law applies um although this year that the threshold number of signatures is lower they still need to be aware petition gatherers still need to be aware of the fact that they have 90 days in which they GA the signatures so that was my comment my question is are there other provisions of the charter whether they relate to so I guess a comment and then a question followup question so Tom I support making those changes to section 37 and 137 to make it clear that um the

[21:00] state law applies I think that's where a majority Council was a few months ago and we should just be clear on that and I realize that requires a charter Amendment so the voters will have to vote on that in November in the meantime as you just suggested we should um make sure that our guidelines are clear that is the intention of council that state law applies um although this year that the threshold number of signatures is lower they still need to be aware petition gatherers still need to be aware of the fact that they have 90 days in which to gather signatures so that was my comment my question is are there other provisions of the charter whether they relate to elections or anything else quite frankly that you'd like to clean up as long as we're putting some Charter amendments on the ballot have you given some thought to other things that are on your laundry list of things to clean up I have not yet Bob and we usually bring those forward and we would have brought them forward um at the the last election so I'm not aware of anything that we're particularly concerned about right now okay as I suppose that's work for the charter committee that usually gathers I

[22:01] think in January or February to start looking at provisions of the charter so we've we've added the the first item to the list and the treasure committee may think of others yes um I'm going to call on myself here I think that we were also going to look at um some uh special powers in emergencies we never we didn't weren we going to go back to that I don't think we finish that conversation yeah well I thought where where Council left that was that you wanted to have more of a community conversation next year so and I think that's appropriate subject for the retreat to whether Council wants to consider that as part of the work plan going forward or not um so my recollection was that we were going to have a study session sometime in the fall um to go over that is that anybody else's recollection um and I'm looking to the Charter committee which is mirbi and Rachel yeah I thought we were going to have a broader discussion and then the charter

[23:01] committee would take it back and I think process things is where I thought we left it mirabi I'm in agreement on the study session or study session I I had the same recollection Mary [Music] okay okay Sam and then Aaron yeah I will uh point out that the section that that bothered me in the charger was the one that said the mayor could take over the police so I'll just put that in there a power to be removed I think um and then my other comment is I would add that sentence that I read and I can read it again to the end of section 37 to Mary's suggestion about whether we remove amendments from the first sentence I'm kind of ambivalent I mean I think the first sentence is stating intent but if we close with Charter amendments are governed by section 137

[24:01] and then modify the language in section 137 to say laws adopted under article 20 of the Constitution then I think that would clean that whole uncertainty up as to whether state law governs Charter amendments and if we want to remove the word amendments from section 37 that's fine with me but I think these are really simple cleanups and I think they're very straightforward to straighten out just that one part of this confusion is whether state law governs Charter amendments or not thank you thanks Sam Erin yeah well so I mean I I do feel like we would have a pretty strong case if we wanted to assert home rule authority over Charter amendments but I think the most important thing is that we establish absolute Clarity so that we avoid uh similar problems to the ones that we've had this year so I'm fine with moving forward as as you've

[25:00] outlined Tom so that we can get um so we can update the the charter to make it absolutely clear about uh what um rules apply uh those being the state's rules with these changes so I'm I'm fine with the way Sam phrased it or Tom if you have any objections that's fine too but I'm fine with moving forward with that I do remain con concerned about the even year elections requiring double numbers of signatures um but I think our goal this year or next year should be Clarity so I won't try to muddy The Waters by trying to alter that but something to keep an eye on for the future I'd say I'm gon to cqu on that and I have the same concern as Aaron about it just it doesn't seem logical to me to have different uh thresholds for signatures every other year so that's seems like a bummer outcome um but I agree that the goal here needs to be uh giving the community uh a very clear path forward for next year and next Mark wallet you uh Tom thanks for that presentation

[26:01] I think you've correctly summarized the problem and and the solutions to it uh I would probably prefer to take the reference to Charter amendments out of section 37 um as that was one of the sources of our confusion this year um I I think it would be better to enumerate everything but Charter amendments and deal with those either with a sentence at the end um or uh or else uh leaving that that reference to Charter amendments in I do not think uh serves the cause of clarity and uh I'm with Aaron on this I think Clarity is is critical as we go forward any other questions or comments I just want to agree with Mark on uh removing the charter amendments from the first sentence and so I'd like to ask a question on then because section 137

[27:01] says what law governs amendments um it doesn't say that people can refer um uh proposals to the city for a vote so do we need to then if we remove Charter amendments from section 37 do we need to say restate part of that sentence in 137 that says the people may initiate Charter amendments the charter may be amended as provided in Artic article 20 of the Constitution I think we want to be perfectly clear if we take it out of section 37 that people can still initiate amendments I I agree Sam I think that's helpful I think article 20 section 9 does say that you can petition people can petition for signature for for amendments and the state law provides clear Pro procedures for that but having it in our Charter would be

[28:02] helpful in other words I think it's covered by the reference to article 20 okay it seems like stating I mean I like the first sentence of section 37 because it explicitly says people can bring measures to The Ballot Box and so saying that again in 137 in exactly the same way and then saying state law governs seems to me would cover our bases and be super clear about what want can I colly on that um I think you hit on something Sam could we do a 37a and a 37b and 37b would be the partial restatement of 37a to cover Charter amendments with obviously somewhat different language yes okay I think that that would be in my view a very clean way of doing it I'm very clear with yeah very good I like that okay any other comments

[29:01] questions going once um all right so Tom do you feel like you've got um adequate direction from Council I what I've heard is that we agree that we need to be as crystal clear as possible in sections 37 and 137 and make the requisite changes with additions possibly subdivisions and removal in one spot I believe of 37 um that that state law is going to apply to these yes okay anybody disagree go ahead could I ask a question does council just wish this to be brought forward in the normal course uh as starting with in May with Charter amendments or do you want to do something earlier I think am any any any hands up Adam I would like to do it earlier let's put this to bed as quickly as possible yeah mark I had the same thoughts I'm with Adam

[30:01] thumbs up from Sam I agree as well anyone want to hold [Music] off okay okay I think I think we're good with that half of this agenda item great thank you and now that what I think is the fun part so this is uh the website for Boulder de direct democracy online um it is live on the internet uh it's not open to the public yet it will be soon uh we are in the final stages of testing we have hired the city of Denver to do a um Brute Force attack they have coders in Denver who do that sort of thing to try to see if they can break through our security which is the last step before we send it public where our goal is has always been to get it ready for well January 1st 2021 uh I believe it will be ready I believe it's pretty much ready now um although as you all know and as you've stressed to me the one of the

[31:01] most important things is that people's information and the voting system is secure um and so a lot of the system as you'll see is designed to make it as secure as possible we have done everything we can to test it uh but a Brute Force attack from people who know how to hack systems is the final step if it passes that uh we will be able to put online if it doesn't we will make whatever changes are necessary to make it past that um so this is the welcome screen as you can see um it's it's fairly straightforward there in this test system there are three petitions that are available for um for for review and they're in three different statuses you'll notice that up in the upper right hand corner it says log in so this is a screen that anybody would see without having previously logged in the system is set so that a person can actually read the petitions and I've clicked on training petition number two they can read read the petitions without actually logging in so they will be able to uh

[32:02] check them out even though they haven't gone through and anybody in the world will be able to do that they haven't gone through the login process they will also be able to click over here and see voter information this is a list of everybody who's already endorsed the petition and as you can see it's Diane and Taylor um it only has their name and the date they endorsed no other information you can also see the names of the committee members over here in the lower right hand corner so they you get this information before so I said that there are three statuses so petition number two has passed its end date and it's been certified insufficient you can see that in the lower leftand corner petition number one is has been closed that means that its dead deadline date has passed and we haven't yet certified whether it's it's it's got enough signatures or not I want to point out one other feature you see here under where it says closed it says four of 33

[33:00] 3,336 signatures or 0% in the real world that number would be bigger and there's a progress bar so anytime in the process anyone can go in and see how a petition's doing um and that's available both from reading the petition and from the homepage you can see there it tells you the status of petition so this one is open this is save the black bear um making the black bear the official animal of the city of Boulder so if I want to endorse this petition you see it's got the same information you can see who's already endorsed it you can see um you can see the committee members names and then I can click this endorse button what happens when I click the endorse button is it then triggers me to sign in so I can do it that way or I can go through the login button and get the same same screen I going to walk you through this screen briefly before I fill it out you'll see

[34:03] that uh you'll see that there's a link to the Colorado Secretary of State's website and I'll click that it's live and this takes you to the website where you can review your voter information and update it uh so in this system there so so then I would enter my first name last name you'll see this little check box here it says please check if the voter information does not include a first name there are three voters in the city of Boulder who don't have first names so they would still be able to endorse as long as they click back box so I'm entering the information this is not by the way my real information nor my year real year of birth that's confidential um and I'm not going to tell you what it's before or after 1950 uh so I filled in some information I

[35:02] purposely made a mistake so if if I don't fill in correct information I get this error screen again it gives me a link to the the same site Goot colorado.gov which is a secretary of state SL s site um and it gives me an opportunity to look at contact information if I want to call or email somebody now you notice it says please allow two to four days for any updates made online before trying to log in again the reason for this is the way we get this information so we have anou with Boulder County to get the Boulder County voter database so we get the boulder the city of B Boulder gets the Boulder County voter database every day uh 365 days a year at 400 a.m the city runs a program against that database to eliminate all the non city of Boulder voters uh so the database will only contain voters registered in the city of Boulder um we

[36:00] then pass that database on to runback which keeps it on secure server and runs against that database we do all that in one day it takes two to four days however for the Secretary of State to update its database which is where the delay is um so we're doing it as fast as we can on our side it's also important to know that the city of Boulder cannot um or nor runback cannot write to the Boulder County uh voter database so we have readon access which means that if if someone gets in and changes the data in our system they're still not going to affect the Boulder County system the Boulder County system is as secure as it was before we can make no changes so I've now remembered that my voter record is under the name Tom car not Thomas and I will tell you I said this is fake information I tried this last week with my real information because we're actually getting the real database and it worked so um this is not just a test database I could run this with my real

[37:01] information but I don't really want to give you all that information on television so now uh this is the second part of the two-part verification so you have to have to work use a system you'll have to have a phone number in the voter database and I've updated my record to include a phone number so those are the last real last four digits of my phone number so if I C click request code will let me uh it'll send me a message I can also click for a phone call if I click for that it will leave it will either I will get a recorded message on my phone if I answer it I can just write it down if not it will leave one on my voicemail so I can be working at the library and if I don't have a cell phone have it call my home phone and get it the code is good for five days after it's created um it's good for 24 hours after it's first used but if you don't use it you have it for five days so I'm going to click uh request

[38:00] code and I should get a code I did you may have heard the click and I'm G to enter the code now Tom can I interrupt for one second yeah sorry um um a couple people reached out and said that they're still having trouble with channel8 so I just want to make sure um that we all have the right information to respond to people it sounds like Channel 8 is um working but people have to click maybe a different link Chris us or Sarah good evening this is Sarah Huntley director of communication and engagement we are having technical difficulties live streaming on Channel 8 but the meeting is live streaming on YouTube so I sent in the note in this meeting and I've also posted to the top of the channel 8 web page the link where people can watch via YouTube YouTube it's one of the redundancies we have in place in our system so I would encourage people to

[39:01] watch on YouTube until we can get the channel 8 equipment broadcasting via our web page we're also recording this meeting in its entirety in zoom and that will be public record after the meeting concludes and zoom gets us the recording which is usually the next day thanks Sarah um and since I don't usually lead meetings or run into technical difficulties is would we normally just proceed and assume that people will find their way or or would we want to pause and give Channel 8 a few more minutes that would be probably to other council members I guess I'll jump in and say I think we should proceed and make sure that we're very clear about how people can access the recording of this meeting um because Channel 8 goes out periodically and even when it comes back up you can't be sure that it's going to stay up so that's why I would go ahead move forward with this and I'm sure that

[40:00] once this goes live there will be lots of ways that we direct people to the test system so my suggestion is keep going so people can watch live right now on YouTube and uh Channel a just indicated to me that they're going to put a crawl notice at the um on their actual broadcast page so even though it's a black broadcast they can have some words go across the bottom so that will also notify the public to click on the YouTube link or to go there awesome any objections from anyone on Council or M okay no let's keep going sorry for the interruption no worries so the next verification is your address verification you'll see that this is the way it'll appear with the your the house number um and everything else blocked out with your ZIP code available so you have to click one if I click this is not my current residential address I am thrown out of the system it tells me that uh you have I have to make updates to do it and I'll need to sign back in

[41:01] to ver to do it so now I'm back to the login screen and I I'm gonna go through this relatively quickly and then I don't I already have a cord I wanted to mention we got an email about someone who was concerned about the um Secretary of State having uh their phone number and it turns out that under state law the secretary of state is required to give anybody who asks um name address and political affiliation uh a date of affiliation and phone number um so there is that concern that political parties will have your phone number just like they have they can get your address now so one of the things I did yesterday was I went on Google Google voice and it's Google voice is one of several programs where you can get a free phone number so I got

[42:01] a free phone number and I updated my U voter registration address with that phone number so it'll use my Google Voice phone number and not my regular cell phone number so the campaigns will not have that and with Google Voice and the other systems you can check text messages online so uh we're we will'll probably need to do some training material so people who don't have access to a phone at all or a cell phone can still set up a Google Voice or other free telep number account on um on the internet on a computer in the library and still be able to use this so now I'm going to verify that that's my residential address and I certify that this information is accurate so I'm now going to confirm the endorsement and I will have endorsed save the black bear uh we set up the system so you cannot unor there are two reasons for that um one one you can unor with paper once you sign you've signed um although

[43:02] there are some there are some people who come in and demand that the clerk remove their signature it's rare and difficult um so we wanted to mirror paper as much as possible also I talked about this progress bar and the transparency of the system um it does it allows people to know where they are and the community know where an initiative is If people could un endorse that number would change um and then finally we were worried a little bit about mischievous Behavior if I were opposing an initiative and perhaps a little bit UNS scrupled I could get say 500 of my friends to endorse uh once it got over the number and was Clos right before it closed I could then get them all to unor and the petitioners would be short um the sort of thing we wanted to discourage we we thought safe is just to go ahead and stay with the way we have the have it now we also have recommended and drafted it so that only um you have to use either electric electronic or

[44:01] paper uh it's my view that people are going to want to use electronic because it is so much easier um the the uh challenge with using paper and um and electronic at the same time is that then you have a complex system of deduping uh we would basically lose all of the staff efficiency savings that we get from not have to check paper signatures because we'd have to check them we'd have to put them in a database and if we're expecting to continue to get more of these uh it would require more sufficient Staffing um also this system operates on any electronic device you can do it on a phone you can do it on a tablet so if people want to use solicitors they could still do that they could have a solicitor with a tablet with this system set on it standing in front of the library and getting people to sign the petition um that would unfortunately lose one of the benefits of this which is that uh people can sit down and read and research and think

[45:01] about a petition before they endorse it but it if people wanted to have petitioners they could still do it with this system they don't lose that ability um and they save the the use of paper so we strongly recommend and the system is really designed only to be used without uh without mixing the two runback recommended this and I believe mat mat light recommended too that we not mix the two um so that is the end of my presentation any questions I've got Sam yeah so that was a great walk through Tom and it's great to see it live um it's always more convincing than seeing a bunch of screenshots so that's cool um so it was pretty concerning that state law says that the secretary of state has to give out um a phone number because I can see the reason for the other things you can if you're running a campaign you can buy the the list of

[46:00] Voters it's got the name and the voter ID right there all Associated but you usually don't get a phone number with that so one takeaway for me is that we want to change that state law because that is there a reason that you know of why that exists no I think they just don't consider a phone number number personally identifying information and the things that they exclude from giving out being given out are social security number driver's license number month and date of birth signature and email address so they protect email but not phone number okay that that's got to be changed we'll take a note right thanks s Erin yep thanks for that Tom appreciate it um so I I this is entering into some of my areas of professional expertise so I've kind of a wonky question for you one of the failure points for systems like this is in the um night exchange of the files and um sometimes those can fail silently so I'm curious do you know

[47:03] um what Provisions we've made to kind of have double checking that um the uh syncing of information is going correctly well you're out of my area expertise Vonnie do you know Vonnie K who is the project manager for this is on the line and I'm so sorry well I didn't quite follow what what overnight what will happen overnight was the question pertaining to so you're exchanging files with the county clerk is my understanding right to get the voter database oh okay so um they make it 00 a.m. in the morning um city of Boulder grabs it and we filter out City uh the because it's Boulder County city of Boulder residents and then this is a secure file transfer secure file transfer to the vendor they incorporate it into their back end this is all done within about an hour of the file becoming available right great so my question is is what kind of error tra do we have to make sure there I guess there are two actions that need to happen one on the city side and one on

[48:01] the vendor side either one of them could fail or and it could fail silently potentially so what kind of measures have we taken to ensure that we know if those processes are not working we have a few alerts going we'll have an alert if we're unable to for some reason retrieve the file and then if there's any uh uh problem on the vendor side receiving the file also we're looking at kind of differences in the voter data if any kind of hacking happen in Secure file transfer if we're going to see an enormous amount of increases in voters maybe somebody's trying to infiltrate the secure file transfer or they're trying to remove a lot of Voters so they can endorse so there's all kinds of alerts going on in the connections on the whole passing of the data does that answer your question it does thank you for reassuring me okay uh Mary's next and then Adam thank you Tom and to um all of staff for their hard work on this um my only question is would there be how

[49:02] would a person whose first language is not English um be accommodated by the system so I I think we're going to have to translate I don't know they know that's done been done yet I think that's is that is that in the work plan Bonnie well we have Spanish translation and the vendor will do the stock pages and at the city clerk they will use a legal translator to actually translate the um petition language thank [Music] you Adam thanks Rachel and thank you for the presentation Tom uh my question is rather than changing state law why didn't we just go with email for the verification process considering email is free as well just as accessible as having a Google Voice number and not personally identifiable yeah email is one of the confidential pieces of data that Boulder County won't share with

[50:01] us no and I I totally understand that was that a Crux that we couldn't we had to use a personally identifiable piece uh to verify we had to use information that Boulder County would give to us okay gotcha can I Adam for a second yeah yeah I was gonna have a follow up to that question yeah um so what were all the options and it was not email but it is phone what were the other options that we could have done instead of the only other one I think well they wouldn't give us driver's license number either would they we talked about driver's license number but that seemed harder and I don't I I that's also the information that they won't turn over so go ahead I think the only option was phone so I'm going to prob agree here as well I bet the county clerks are limited by that state law right so if the state law says you can give out phone number but you can't give out email address

[51:02] then the clerks may have to follow that from the secretary Secretary of State further I'd be very afraid using email addresses because there are lots more folks who don't have email addresses and don't use email than don't have phones so there's always going to be a hole in a system like this um and I think it's really weird that the phone number is considered you know per it's personally identifiable so how can you possibly um want to share that I mean I guess we have to have something for two Factor authentication and maybe that's why it's just speculative but it would be interesting to find out from the Secretary of State what the ration is for what can be shared and what can't because I bet the clerks are limited by that law and my followup sorry if we change that

[52:01] so you know would we then not be able to use phone numbers for the verification process because then all of a sudden so then we're back to where we started or Worse Well we'd want to make sure that if they changed it they made an exception for home R cities using online databases these laws were all written not in contemplation of what we're doing I want to step back and say how extraordinary this is the county is is doing is cooperating with us there's nobody else doing this you Denver has a system but Denver is a county so they have election data there's no provision in the state to give this data to a city and so the negot the Boulder County in good faith negotiated an mou with what they thought were within the bounds of what they could do and this is where we are I mean hopefully we can make it easier in the future so so I want to ask a followup as well on this if everybody already has to have a phone number in the database or can choose to have a phone number in the database then there's no privacy uh

[53:03] decrease by them signing a petition that includes their phone number right and so when people go to register to vote or change their registration are they required to put in the phone number or not no but to use a system you'll be required to and so there's there's two levels of security on Secretary of State's database when you go to update it so you can go in and look at your in your basic information your voter ID and your name and address uh by just putting in your name and date of birth if you want to see the phone number your email address and all that other those other things you then you have to e you have to add your driver's license ID or the last four of your Social Security number so so when you you go to make the update they have levels of protection it's not available to the public unless they have all of that information your date of birth your your driver's license or your your social security number I see and and so if someone doesn't have a phone

[54:02] number in the datab base um they haven't registered and included their phone number and they go to use this system and they put in their phone number that doesn't go Upstream to the county clerk and the secretary of state does it yes so if they put in their phone number the secret it's on the state Secretary of State's website that is downloaded to the county um in 48 to 72 hours I got that but say that they don't have a phone number in the state or the county database and they use this system we're not using their phone number to verify they're who they say they are we're just using it for two- Factor authentication right so them putting in a phone number doesn't put it up in the the clerk and the Secretary of State database right it does because the only way we get it is from the state and the county so they they have to put it into use our system can I cqu Sam yeah um so

[55:03] I think I have a similar question like I think the Secretary of State probably has like four cell phone numbers AO of mine so if I go and try and um sign a petition and I'm using you know a my current Boulder phone number but the secretary of state state has an Indiana phone number for me when I enter that 303 number and it kicks up to the Secretary of State they're not going to validate it same thing if I didn't have a phone number registered with them in the first place so then I've given you a good phone number but the Secretary of State doesn't have my good phone number in there I guess then what like I'm not validated right so let me clarify there's no provision for you to enter your phone number in our system so what you get is the a phone The Prompt is the phone number that's in the Secretary of State's database so what you would get is that screen that shows the the last four digits of the phone number number and you would say oh no that's the phone number I have in Indiana I can't use that and then the prompt will tell you

[56:01] to go to the Secretary of State's website and update your phone number and if I have no phone number will it prompt me to go to the Secretary of State and give them my phone number so that it can go Upstream as Sam was saying and then come back exactly thanks for letting me call Sam do you have a followup on that and then Adam I think you may have another followup still I don't I'm done thank you all right my only followup is it's kind of interesting that the whole phone number thing is actually sort of a farce you're not really presenting necessarily your own phone number it's just a way to get to you essentially um so I'm gonna object to the word Force Adam just for fun um so so the the thing that we're doing is trying our best to make sure that the person who's validating is the person who's the registered voter right and so to put the phone number in the system you have to get through two levels of security at the Secretary of State's office you have to have a lot of information that only you should have so if you've got it in

[57:02] there then we can we only get it from them that's why we don't let somebody enter their phone number we have a thirdparty source that's giving it to us so they've already validated that you are who you say you are we're validating that by getting the phone number from the Secretary of State yeah I totally understand it's it's a security requirement just the phone number itself doesn't have to be yours is is what I was getting at exactly it it can be any phone number you have access to right um okay my last followup was uh I know we briefly talked about postcards as a system for two-factor identification can you roll through again why that was sort of decided against yeah we talked about this in March uh when we got the same suggestion there's several reasons why we did not want to use postcards one they're not secure obviously the postcard is something anybody can read um two the Mail system since March has degenerated and I'm not sure when a postcard would get there we certainly couldn't

[58:00] guarantee um 48 to 72 hours uh three some level of postcard is going to be rejected we would have to have a business practice in the city with that would be staffed to deal with the postcards from one way or another so there were several reasons why we didn't think that was a good idea U and basically the challenge is we want only the person who should have the code to have the code printing it on an open piece of cardboard that anybody can see defeats that security purpose and so our security advisor suggested strongly against it got it thank you that was it for me thanks Rachel thanks Adam okay uh Mark just a quick question Tom I want to make sure I didn't mishar something when this system is up and running you have to choose between a paper process for um Charter Amendment uh or ordinances versus using the electronic system yes and I should make

[59:00] clear I didn't say this this system will not be available for Charter amendments okay because Charter amendments being governed by state law state law requires an inperson signature and it requires a a signature and ink it doesn't allow for electronic petitioning yet but if you wanted to do an initiated ordinance with in in the oldfashioned way you could still do that you could still do you would have the alternative to do paper or you could do electronic but you couldn't do both at the same time and the specific difficulty with doing both at the same time again is the duplication so with this system once you once somebody is endorsed and we verified who they are we have that signature and we're pretty much done with it if someone is out there Gathering paper signatures with for the same initiative we then have to have a system to create a database with all of these signatures take all of the paper signatures put them in that database and dup which put exactly back where we are today I'm not I would think there will

[60:00] be some portion of the electorate that is not going to be entirely comfortable with the electronic process and I I also think we kind of lose a valuable interaction when people get the opportunity to question discuss um and and talk about an initiated ordinance um with a live human being um so both both in terms of the nature of the interaction and the fact that there will be some people who are just going to look at this process and go you know throw their hands up and and say I'm not this is not for me um I I I would not want it to be something that actually suppresses participation rather than Fosters it can I call Mark um so my impression is a signature gatherer with a cell phone could do the same thing that you can do with paper right

[61:01] meet somebody outside the grocery store say we want to have you sign our black bear petition and then they can have that conversation and then the signature gather would do the electronic work in other words they would walk through with the person that's there just like you do when you sign a written petition so it seems to me like um there's a workaround for people who want to do written petitions which is just they can use their cell phone to do the same work you that's that's the way Denver system works with a tablet Mar Mark does that make sense or it does although it seems to me that the that standing in a um uh in a parking lot trying to do the two- Factor verification uh on somebody else's tablet is going to be very very slow indeed um and you're going to be you

[62:01] know if you get signatures that way it's going to be a very very inefficient and difficult way to get them Sam and Mark do you mind if I redirect that over to the discussion portion and wrap up questions absolutely all right sorry and and I did have a Cy question on Mark's um real quick which is could we do like a hybrid for a couple years while people gain trust in the system so we're doing electronic but you could either also gather paper or gather a certain number of paper signatures to um again just kind of help coax people along understanding there's going to be some additional burden on staff for a a period of time I'm sorry Dian don't hate me for that no um we'd have to rechange the system to create the output that would do allow you to do that so uh we'd have to we'd have to have it we we did not write the system to create electronic Outlook that could be dropped into a database that can then be compared against paper signatures um and

[63:00] we've talked about this all throughout we said this in March so we'd have to rewrite the system to some extent it would be a change order it would probably create some delay my recommendation is try it free year if people are unhappy then we can go and add that as a modification to the system okay um I I have Mark is your hand up again oh no no no all right any other um questions okay let's move over to discussion please Sam so I think this is a good idea um and I think the fact that we've worked hard to get it ready for 2020 means that that it won't be completely smooth there will be hiccups as we go forward with this um and I think Mark to your point about it being slow for somebody who's

[64:00] gathering in a parking lot I would assume that the person who's um Gathering the signature could offer hey you can put it in here if you want or I can do it for you if you want to give me the information and I can do it you know with your agreement um so I think you know the only concern will be security for me you know I think the fact that people can choose written next year they can do it just the same way they did it this year or they can choose a different way to do it so for me I think this is a good place to start um it's interesting that phone numbers are shared in this way um but that's another discussion I think we should go ahead and go forward with this thanks Sam um next up Aaron yeah this is great this very exciting thank you for all your hard work and it's a big step forward and it is uh path breaking here to some extent so I think it's something to be proud of

[65:01] and I think you know this is going to make uh petition signing much more accessible to many many more people so I think it's it's going to in general is going to be a big um accessibility step for de direct democracy and I think people will find ways to make it more accessible to maybe folks who wouldn't find this as easy to do I I agree with you mark that maybe not a grocery store parking lot May not be the best spot anymore but you might have a a meeting at the library or at a community center you know where you people can take a few minutes and and learn about the petitions and learn about the system so uh thanks for getting this done looking forward to seeing it in action next year thanks aarin um next up we have Adam and then Mark I want to make sure that we that I didn't cut you off completely from your thoughts so I'll call on you after that Adam yeah I also share the same concern of doing all this in a parking lot um it's a lot you know you don't need to double verify yourself while you're signing a petition but uh this is

[66:03] progress in in a way for sure um the other part that I wanted to mention was I just lost my train of thought for a second so we can go through Mark if we want to and come back to me real quick all right over to Mark know I I I I still have concerns about the conf potential confusion uh I am in particular the fact that that this is not going to be applicable to Charter amendments and so we're still going to have one system uh paper based uh and and based on individual contacts for Charter amendments and a holy different system for initiated ordinances um I think is is potentially problematic um uh I think this is a big step forward in in a lot of ways I'm just concerned about um making sure that it's not exclusionary for those people who are a little less comfortable with

[67:00] the process thanks Mark um Adam yep I remember now um the having a Google voice setup or having training around that being such a critical component of wanting to preserve your personal information I think that's a pretty big step to ask especially for you know people who are not is familiar with technology who haven't been raised using Google um as part of their everyday life so that part is a major concern for me and I'd love to see specifically what the plan is and where the training um is going to be sort of part of this even potentially you know a link to that on the website itself um might be super helpful and you know more of a way to sell it for me great idea any other um anyone we

[68:01] haven't heard from have some thoughts on this very yeah I think um we proceed with this I share both Adam's and Mark's concerns and I just want us to um make sure that as we start moving through the process that we keep good track of all of the suggestions and um the difficulties that people might find with it and um and make sure that we address them in the following year Mary anyone else want to weigh in Adam is your hand up again or yeah it is sorry um it may even be worth stating explicitly that if you put your phone number in the database it is publicly accessible and I think it's important that people understand that because then they will know if you don't go go through a safer

[69:02] process um like having a Google Voice set up they could get additional calls yeah well it it seems to me you get emails I put my my vote my my email my phone number in the database about a month ago and I was wondering why I was getting all these election texts I haven't got any phone calls yeah even still you know I don't like unsolicited text either um as I'm sure most people do not yeah but that that's that's a good suggestion I I should have mentioned that on the front page of the web of the of the program we have an active link to the Secretary of State to the city's elections website and to what we're calling the BDO website where we can put all of this information and we will these are all great suggestions thanks Tom thanks Adam anyone else so Tom were there any um specific questions that we need to answer you feel we we will be bringing bringing

[70:01] forward an ordinance to authorize this as you see I think it's in two weeks maybe a little bit later than that um so you'll have another chance to discuss all the parameters then and we'll have a public hearing on that okay great um I think that you know to summarize it sounds like there's a lot of concern over phones and uh we hope there's better way for that going forward and and as well as um good education and it would have been nice if there was a a paper combination for people who are slow to get on board but overall good progress so thank you great thank you I think that wraps up that one um which moves us on to the engagement subcommittee recommendations so over to Jane for that yeah just quickly Sarah Huntley has a presentation that she'll be bringing up and then of course the engagement subcommittee will weigh in as well so Sarah good evening

[71:00] Council um Emily can you ceue up the presentation for me please thank you so just as way of reminder I'm Sarah Huntley I'm the director of communication and engagement and I have the privilege of working with our subcommittee engagement subcommittee which consists of your two council members uh Bob Yates and Rachel friend so we wanted to present some information to you this evening um they may have some additional comments to share with you as subcommittee members but I'll provide you with a staff presentation to begin with Emily can you adjust uh Advance the slide please thank you so the purpose tonight is to respond to community feedback about online participation in City Council meetings as you know we had to go online as a result of the covid pandemic and we have made a decision as a city with your um approval as a council to stay online only between now and the end of the year for safety reasons we want to make sure that as we

[72:02] determine the best ways to apply the technology that is available to us we're balancing security concerns with the principles values and commitments contained in our strategic framework next slide please so um as you may recall we put out a press release earlier this year announcing a listening session in this summer um for people who wanted to give us feedback on their experiences with the online Council meetings good bad and otherwise or if they have not been using the online Council meetings to help share some input with us on what their barriers have been so we could try to address them we had a listening session that both Bob and Rachel were on live we had about 20 participants in addition to that we invited people to email Council we received 12 emails plus during the course of the pandemic we've received occasional feedback here and there from community members and we included all of that in evaluating the input on this

[73:02] issue we received quite a bit of positive feedback um people were saying that online participation both an open comment and public hearings is very convenient they can monitor progress of the meeting while they're at home they don't have to drive to and from the meeting so that's easier for them in terms of time and more sustainable from a transportation perspective interestingly we've also found that folks who maybe are a little bit more introverted or not very comfortable with the formality of the council chambers tell us that they feel much more comfortable participating from their homes and it's less intimidating for them so we've seen a positive Silver Lining from this pandemic in terms of perhaps having more um diversity in the people who are participating and lastly several residents noted that they hope that even when we go to um inperson meetings we may find a way to be able to have online participation next slide please um in terms of the suggestions

[74:01] for improvement and there were quite a me quite a few they generally fell into four thematic buckets so one was had to do with visibility use of video the second had to do with inclusion and accessibility of um a digital platform altogether the third had to do with Logistics which was really more about how people sign up for open comment and public public hearing and the last was a strong desire for there to be some kind of social aspect to these meetings and creating connections that um don't exist when you're not in in-person environment next slide so of the feedback we heard there were some things that staff could take immediate action on and we have done this I'd like to quickly run through the things that are in the works already our Target is to make these things live on October 20th um or in advance of the October 20th meeting we wanted to wait just in case any of you had feedback for us that would change our approach but

[75:00] the things that we have agreed to do and have figured out technologically how to do are the following we will be making the timer smaller so I think you know that typically we present the timer during open comment and public hearings so that community members and Council can kind of track where people are in their time limit the way we've been doing that blocks pretty much the entire screen we um are going to use it as a little small tile in the screen moving forward so people will still be able to see their council members when they're addressing them we are going to allow community members to use slide presentations but just like with in-person meetings they must submit those in advance and the person at the presentation computer will control the slides just like Emily is doing for me this evening um it is important to say that when we're in inperson meetings we do not broadcast those presentations because there are FTC FCC requirements so we don't want to run a foul of those

[76:00] so likewise we wouldn't broadcast them in Zoom but presenters can show them to people who are in the zoom meeting we are improving our signup system for open and public comment um we are going to use formstack instead of Eventbrite and it will be embedded nicely in the council participation page we're also going to have clearer messaging for those who CH are chosen to partic ipate through the randomization process and open comment including account of how many people wanted to speak that evening we are going to as part of the new signup system include the rules for participation that you all approved in the signup sheet so that we hopefully don't have to go through as much detail at every meeting that was one of the things the public said particularly for people who participate in these meetings frequently was um not efficient use of time so we will still be a able to recap or review the rules if the presiding officer wants us to at the beginning of each meeting and I suspect that will be

[77:00] based on how many people are in the meeting and what our sense is of how many people might be approaching for the first time this particular format lastly the other change we're working on right away is to post speaker lists consistently and provide more information for participants about when it will be their turn to speak one suggestion that was made is that we invest in a sort of buzzer system similar to what restaurants use um and currently we're not planning to do that um first of all we're not in person so I don't know how we would get the system to individuals it if it is something we need with a hybrid system we can reexamine it later next slide please okay so the next series of slides that I'm going to get into are potential changes that your subc Community member subcommittee process me process subcommittee members felt ought to come to the full Council for consideration I think there's six or seven of them what I'm going to propose is that there's one

[78:00] per slide and I can actually see what Rachel would like to do as the presiding officer we can either go through all of them and then go through each one at a time because your feedback will be requested or we can go through each one and then open it up for Council feedback and and Direction after each one Rachel what is your preference tonight let's do it one at a time okay great so Emily next slide okay so this was the one um I think this might be an easy one it's the one where people said you know even when you go back to iners it really does increase participation for me to have this option would you consider a hybrid system we are um seeking your input this evening but I do want to tell you that we've already begun to investigate and work towards a hybrid system anticipating that it's likely Council would want us to do this so we are um securing the appropriate equipment and considering Staffing Resources and that

[79:00] would be covered under the proposed 2021 budget your subcommittee supported this unanimously but I guess um now it be a time for me to inquire of the larger Council to see if you um agree with that direction and and that whether staff should continue working towards this and and let's go ahead and condense um questions and comments so anybody have a question or a comment on continuing with an online option after we return to inperson meetings Aaron Brocket well Absolutely I'll just note we did do this a handful of years ago we allowed phone call-in participation and we didn't get a lot of uh participation back then but I'll bet we'll get a lot more now so I'm glad we're doing this thanks Aaron anyone else or Bob you want to chime in as subcommittee member no let me just suggest I think some of these are going to be somewhat uncontroversial so let me just suggest by way of process that if people um don't weigh in with an objection we'll assume that you're in

[80:00] agreement sounds good any objections going once twice okay Sarah next okay Emily next slide please okay so this one um we had a lot of feedback from people both in terms of the timer taking up the speed uh the screen as well as Council memb periodically turning their cameras on and off that it is very important to people who are addressing you that they be able to see you as their elected officials and be able to see your reactions um and I know that we've had a lot of discussions about the issue of Zoom fatigue and leaving cameras on at all times but this potential recommendation or this recommendation that was supported by the subcommittee is that we want to encourage council members to leave their video on as as much as possible during the parts of the meeting where you're taking public testimony so during open comment and public hearings this would allow

[81:02] community members to see the reactions of their elected officials when addressing zoom them also though has a trade-off of potentially exacerbating Zoom fatigue so I think the subcommittee wanted to see if um council members understand the need for this and can um try to um adjust their ways in relation to this feedback thanks Sarah we have Adam up yeah I totally understand this one um and I think we all when we were in Chambers made our best effort to stay around when public testimony was going on and we would only leave um if we ever left uh during a staff presentation because we knew we could be watching that on the screen as well so maybe it's just best practice to try to leave your camera on during all public testimony and use those breaks during um presentation

[82:02] times great thought Adam thanks uh Mary's next yeah thanks Rachel um so in the past what we've when we were doing um inperson meetings sometimes we would get emails from people saying that um they wished we wouldn't be eating um during the meeting but really it was the only time that we could eat and um so I guess my my question for the committee is did you did you all have a conversation and if you did what was it um regarding um when when you can take a break to eat and if it makes sense to turn it off because it's I just think that if you're eating on camera it it tends to be more accentuated need did um and so was there any conversation about um having

[83:00] exceptions for having dinner um there was um Bob and Rachel do you want to weigh in uh no go ahead Sarah this was one of the um the pieces of um discussion that we did have over this in general just if you're eating dinner or you need to take a break um and I think the hope is that um open comment is um usually it's a limited time and then generally there's presentations in between when you get to um public hearings I don't know what the solution is originally we had some disagreement on our subcommittee um when this was just encouraging council members to leave video on as much as possible during the whole meeting because there is a recognition that this has an impact and eating on camera is a little different than eating from afar on the Das for example um but the recommendation is that as much as you

[84:01] possibly can during the public testimony aspects but again this will be up to the council to decide whether they can um respond to this feedback in this way thanks Sarah Sarah I have a question um is there a way that we could just um because sometimes it's just the way my metabolism works I need to eat at a certain time and oftentimes that is during public comment so I'm just wondering um if we could have some sort of a somehow just let people know that that's what's going on I'm still here and listening but having dinner or something like that just just to I mean you know um I think that we can try to to definitely strive

[85:00] towards leaving the camera on as much as possible but also to have the ability to um take care of of um eating so what happens when you are not on camera is generally speaking viewers can see a box with your name in it so um we could signify to people that you are in the meeting and it would be up to your um public participation liazon during your meeting or the presiding officer to explain to the public why your camera is off if that's the direction of council okay we have Aaron and then marbi yeah so I'm I'm fine with saying that we should generally try to keep the camera on as much as POS possible with the focus on public hearings and public testimony I just think to me it's important though that it not be like an

[86:00] absolute expectation or a feeling that you're doing the wrong thing if you turn off your camera and to Mary's point like I mean I'm hypoglycemic like I have to eat to keep my blood sugar up and I think viewers would rather have a blank box than to see me chewing in their face um so I I it's important to me to be able to reserve the ability to turn my camera off for um you know 5 or 10 or 15 minutes here or there and in no way does it mean that I'm not paying attention and so you know I just this is a good goal I just would like to make sure that we make the point that um that council members are present and paying attention even when their cameras are off because none of us are going to leave the room for 20 minutes right absolutely not you know you you may stand up and stretch or fill up your water glass while you're still listening but um we're here uh for the people in the public throughout the entire meeting but but we need some ability to turn our cameras

[87:00] off thanks Aaron Mar and then Mark I'm with um Mary and Aaron in terms of food needs um right now I'm about to turn my camera up because my very kind husband has cooked for me and so I'm not going to let my warm meal get cold and that just happens sometimes where he cooks for me on Council nights and it happens to be that it's ready when public hearings or we have a lot of public hearings right after open comment and there's just no chance and then I or 10 and and so I think yeah we can all commit to doing our best but I'm sorry I kind of got to eat when I got to eat so that's where I'm sitting on that one thanks mby Mark yeah I I also agree with the prior three speakers um I'm happy to be encouraged but you know when you have a to 1:00 um there will be those moments when um you're going to take a break of one kind or another whether it's to eat a meal uh

[88:00] or stretch your legs or occasionally been tempted to go grab a beer but that's I would I wouldn't do that on camera but the point is is that you know best efforts I think is is something we can uh all agree to but it it it can't be um so mandatory that we you know we can't uh behave like uh normal people occasionally and and that means you know being able to have a meal or get up and and walk around a little bit happy to do it during open comment and public hearings that that's not too much of a burden I think but uh I think we need to make this a a best efforts um prescription not a not a mandatory one thanks uh Mark and I just c a little bit on that which was that the subcommittee recommendation is that we encourage as much as possible you know we weren't we weren't thinking we were going to arrest people I'm I'm with marbi like um we often order pizzas on

[89:02] Tuesday nights I have no control over when that arrives um so when it gets here I I go off camera and eat um and and also we recognized at the subcommittee that that public hearings can go on for many hours and it's not going to be sustainable or realistic to think that people aren't going to um you know sometimes like I you get a headache and like I will turn off the camera and turn off the lights for a couple minutes just to like tone it down so we weren't suggesting that it be um you know that we kill ourselves to do it just encouraged um next Sam yeah I agree with the advice of trying to keep the camera on as much as possible um one one way that I've Chang running the meetings over prior Mayors is I've tried to stick in a break and the reason that sticking in a break is so we have a chance to take care of those needs and so on so it's just something for the public to realize as

[90:00] well when we take a break it's only so that we can take care of our human needs and then come back and start so we are human believe it or not and it mean means it we'll need to break sometime so thank you thanks Sam um Erin did I see your hand up but now it's not up again well well just say I I feel like we've been doing pretty well at this so you know I have my camera on you know 90 plus percent of the time at the meeting so I do feel like we we're pretty good at this already awesome thanks um Sarah I had one question actually um is is it possible that like if the expectation is we're on camera when there are um during open comment and public comment is there any expectation that we can be off camera then at the other times and is there um is there an expectation that maybe Channel 8 would show the staff and the staff presentation rather than us when

[91:01] like not asking questions typically speaking um Channel 8 is showing the presentation on the live broadcast or on the YouTube broadcast which is also live so um I can see the presentation for example now and there are a few of you on right hand side um showing up his video but not all of you are so that is a time when you may not be seen on camera but it will depend on where you are in anybody's lineup on their screen um I do think generally speaking that's a better time to turn off your camera I think what we're hearing from the community is that they really want to have that interaction with you in their moments of speaking I suspect some community members would ask that you have them on all the time but understanding the balance you're trying to strike I think when the presentation is showing it's probably a better time uh for you to not have your camera on okay thanks um any other feedback on

[92:03] this one you got what you need there Sarah I did thank you next slide please okay so this one is a little bit complex um one of the things we've heard from many participants is that they really would like to be able to have their own video camera on when talking with you as you know they currently participate Audio Only um their feeling for that again is because they're seeking a sense of connection with you and to be able to show you non-verbal communication through facial expression the challenge with this um is both a technical Challenge and a legal challenge so as you know when we were Zoom bombed pre earlier this year we did have some individ ual I don't believe they were members of our community but we did have some disruptive individuals who were showing um in appropriate

[93:00] images and activity using their video camera our city attorney's office was concerned about the position that this puts our staff facilitators in because if they turn those cameras off or remove individuals from the meeting they are potentially making content-based decisions which could open them in the City up to um some liability so in in um response to that we made a decision to utilize this platform in such a way that people testify by Audio Only um if counil wanted to begin to allow people to testify by video what we are suggesting is that in order to minimize this idea of a staff member having to make a content-based decision we would put some requirements in place that would require anybody who wanted to testify by video to use a pre-approved

[94:01] background similar for example to what Sam is using We could decide as uh what background that would be but it would be something generic or if they cannot do that because their computer will not let them because older computers often don't um have that availability of that function we could tell them that they could have a plain wall behind them which would allow a staff facilitator to um would would exempt a staff facilitator from having to make a decision about whether anything on the walls were problematic now this doesn't stop somebody from doing something with their person or in their hands so there is some challenge there but this is a potential compromise that staff has thought through with consultation from our legal team that could potten work I mentioned there's a legal complication to this which I just addressed there's also a little bit of a technical complication so as you know we use zoom

[95:01] webinar for these Council meetings primarily because it offers better security in order for people to be able to have their video turned on the facilitator of your meeting so Brenda or Ryan or I would need to temporarily promote each attendee to analyst for the time period in which they're speaking that's the only way we can give them to turn their video on so that adds you know a few seconds almost a minute probably on either side of the testimony which is probably not a problem if we only have 10 people testifying but as you know there have been some nights with many more than 10 people testifying in public hearings and so it does have a meeting management um component because of these complexities we really got no consensus um the staff recommendation is that we explore this when we also go to

[96:00] in-person meetings so right now the process is Equitable to everybody they don't like it necessarily but it is Equitable everybody who's testifying is testifying through audio the concern is that when we go to in-person meetings you will have some people who have the privilege of standing in front of you at a Podium and there is a perception even if it's not reality that people who are in front of you might get a little bit more um difference or you might be listening a little bit more to their perspective so we do think there could potentially be an equity issue when we're doing both systems and this might be one way to address it we also think if we have in-person and um online you we'll still have some portion of people who come in person so hopefully that would keep your online list a little B bit more manageable if we have to add this time on either side of allowing people to testify by video so we wanted to see what council

[97:00] thinks about this again we have some options that would minimize our legal risk but probably not eliminate it and if you want to ask Tom any questions about that I believe he may still be on the meeting um and then I just also want council members to understand the meeting management component of this thanks Sarah um Adam and then Mary thanks Rachel um to me I really like staff's suggestion of hopefully getting video along with speaking when we actually go back to inperson I think that makes it super Fair um up until that point though I think you know we've had five hour testimonies on this Council already and to add maybe another hour of time to that simply switching people in and out is probably an undue burden um there's nothing I don't think I haven't been able to hear in someone's

[98:01] voice that they would Express um if we could see them as well at least from every person that I've heard um you know it's pretty clear what their thoughts and what their feelings are and uh I don't think we necessarily need video uh in this instance but as soon as we're back to in person if we do provide um sort of that remote option still which I think we should then yes I think video would be to keep it fair thanks Adam Mary thanks Rachel um did did the committee consider um accepting video testimonies that could be played um if somebody so somebody um was accepted or chosen for as part of the lottery to to provide testimony could they as an

[99:00] alternative record a two-minute video and send it in and it would be played um and or as another alternative um could a photo of the person be provided that could then be put up instead of having just their name on the black Square um so I guess it's two options and questions about the two options or yeah so I'm going to address the second one about the photo um when I turn off my camera there typically is a photo that I have provided there however I do want to point out that unfortunately when we had disruptors in the meeting and we turned off their camera there was at least one who had a pornographic image in place of their name as a still photo so um that doesn't necessarily protect us from that security risk in terms of whether people

[100:00] could submit their photo in advance or their video testimony um I may ask the attorneys to be prepared to weigh in but the challenge with that is um that somebody on staff has to look at that information and make a determination about whether it's appropriate or not um and and that's that's the Crux of the problem in terms of trying to not put staff in the position of making a content-based decision to prevent somebody from showing the video so again I really believe that most of our community members would act in good faith on this but the challenge that we face is that if we have somebody who doesn't and we not and we choose to not show their video um that could potentially be problematic IC now I do believe that council members have a little bit more protection um than a staff member in terms of immunity and so

[101:00] if we did do such a process then perhaps we would have to have the presiding officer look at the content in advance but again that creates an extra layer of process and I'm not sure if Council um is is prepared to implement that at this time we will however take direction from you this evening and if we need to adjust um will do so accordingly I just want everybody to be aware of the nuances to this thank you Sarah thanks Mary um Sam's next well I gotta say Sarah your technical knowledge of this is impressive um it is a complicated issue and um I think the staff recommendation is perfect that it's a sad thing that people who are disruptive take away away privileges from many other people who aren't disruptive so thanks for bringing this this one was so much technical background very

[102:01] helpful thanks Sam Mark yeah um I assume Tom is still here Tom and if so I'd like to get an understanding of what is the actual legal risk involved um other than perhaps being required by a court to show a a presentation or a video that we did not show because we thought it crossed certain lines well which we be we could be liable under section 1983 for constitutional tort for violation of constitutional rights um so there's person there's potential personal liability U particularly for a staff member who decides that something isn't appropriate um so that's my that's my main concern yeah you could get an injunction but there you're also subject to damages in attorney's fees under section 1983 and how would those damages be calculated um actually usually in 1983 actions the

[103:00] damages are the attorney's fees okay they usually strip the monetary damages but uh I'm very uncomfortable Mark with having a staff member decide what is and isn't appropriate speech I'm uncomfortable with anybody deciding it but occasionally we're seeing examples of highly inappropriate speech and I think it's it's a detriment to the process to not be able to address you know um being Zoom bombed or uh people using uh vulgarities and and and you know disparagement uh of a an extremely personal nature um I think 99% of the people don't do that but but there are one or two who think that's their preferred mode of of communication hey Mark I might um

[104:00] suggest that you hold on to that thought I think that the subcommittee is going to recommend that we talk at the end of this conversation a bit about decorum okay but not relevant to online um cameras okay not to cut you off though anything else I'm done thanks um anyone else okay so Sarah sounds like the consensus is to um adopt staff recommendation there okay thank you next slide please okay so one of the other pieces of feedback we heard is that um council members are sometimes broadcasting from their homes without a virtual background are sometimes using virtual backgrounds the virtual backgrounds differ from from each other and there's some concern about um sort of the busyness that people are seeing so one of the pieces we heard was that we require council

[105:01] members to use a consistent virtual background this did not have consensus on our subcommittee um there um were differences of opinions about the busyness differences of opinions about whether it's okay for individuals who want to just show the background of their home um there was a question that if at some point we start to allow communities to use members to use their video and we require community members to use a pre-approved background then there could be an equity argument for also saying Council needs to um staff doesn't really have a recommendation on this we just uh feel like it was our obligation as it was one of the pieces of feedback we received to share it with the subcommittee and also the subcommittee wanted to share it with the larger Council to see if there is is any consensus let's open it up anyone have thoughts on this using a consistent um virtual

[106:00] background Mark wallik I'm just not sure there's any there there I I just don't see this as a major issue um some people like to use backgrounds I don't um I I just don't see it as as being something that requires a lot of uh alteration of the way we we conduct ourselves thanks Mark mirb I'm kind of with Mark I think it's a bit of an overreach into what we're doing so um I would vote against moving forward with anything about having a unanimous background thank you uh Sam well I'm hopeful that in a few months we'll be back in Chambers so then we'll all have the same background um so I don't really want to go forward with this right now because I think it will be complicated and some people won't like it and the reality is we

[107:02] hopefully we'll all have the same background soon thank you thanks Sam um anyone um want to require council members to use a consistent virtual background I think everything all the other feedback has been no thanks okay thank you next slide please okay again um the subcommittee was um actually I believe that they did not reach consensus on this this says their recommendation is no but I think they did not reach consensus so one of the pieces of feedback we heard from community members is that they are frustrated that we are not always consistent in cutting off speakers right at their 2 minutes there's a feeling that perhaps some people get the permission to go a little bit longer um the challenge with this is that I think

[108:00] and Sam could probably speak more to this as the person who presides most often when there's public testimony is you're trying to balance letting the person complete their thought so balance of showing respect with a request by some community members that we be really consistent in our treatment so we either can continue with a policy where the presiding officer uses his or her judgment to let the person finish their thought or we can decide to immediately cut people off um as soon as they reach the twom minute Mark or the three minute Mark depending on how much time they've been allotted we do have the capability to mute microphones in Zoom but um again there was no SubCom committee consensus on this and um we're s there is no staff recommendation we're simply sharing the input um so I will invite people to weigh in and I'll speak um and then ask Bob to maybe time in from the

[109:00] subcommittee perspective we were split um I was in favor of cutting people off at at two minutes and just cutting off the mic because I have experienced as a constituent and and observed uh as a counselor that sometimes you know somebody's like raging they they pretty well get cut off um and other people you know if they're um know saying something nice about the Arts or whatever they may get an extra 20 seconds so I do think there's an an equity and favoritism piece and and I also think like when I used to testify I would I would time it like I would know what my two minutes were and I would um do it accordingly so I would I think for Equity I would just cut it and it will also um I think help meetings to run more efficiently if it's just you get two minutes and then the microphone cuts off and then I think people would probably start um getting in under two minutes and and it would improve the flow that was me over to Bob yes I'll take a slightly different view I think Sam's done a good job of um of cutting people off at 2 minutes or

[110:02] 203 or 207 letting them finish their sentence I think it's um it's polite to let people finish their sentence but he's also been good if they launch into a second or third sentence after that of cutting them off um I also know that um sometimes people stumble and Bumble in first 10 or 15 seconds they're not sure if we're hearing them they say are you there and that kind of stuff and so I think the Sam has sometimes given people another five or 10 seconds at the back end when he knows that they lost five or 10 seconds at the front end I really haven't seen abuse of this um and I I think I'd like to leave it to the meeting facilitator to have a little bit of discretion it'd be one thing if the if we had a history of letting people go for two and a half or 245 or three minutes but we don't really have that we're everyone's pretty much at two occasionally might be 205 or 210 210 to finish their sentence or to accommodate um a late start but I think this is um this is another problem that's um

[111:01] another solution that's looking for a problem I don't see a problem here thanks Bob Mark yeah I think I'm I'm with Bob on this I think Sam for the most part and Bob on occasion have done very well in in terms of how they uh deal with people I don't see any pattern of cutting off uh People based on their views or what they're espousing It's just sometimes that uh it's appropriate to let somebody run for another five or six seconds to finish a sentence and I I really don't have a problem with that uh because it's not directed at any one point of view it's sort of a game time decision um and I'm again this is this is not something I think that requires change in our procedures thanks Mark Sam yeah I wouldn't support this either um some people like you Rachel and me when I testified um try to get your

[112:00] message right at two minutes right you get everything in and then you stop um other people are testifying spontaneously right and they're as somebody said they're fumbling around at first trying to get their bearings and they're nervous because they haven't done this before and you know I try and make sure that doesn't get much Beyond 2 minutes but in some cases like when the timer hasn't started or the timer started late or whatever um the discretion really is more about process for them than substance I really don't think that I've cut people off on substance very much because I feel like my job is to let people get their message to us so if I if I'm not doing a good job in some meeting or in some subject area please let me know um but I I wouldn't support

[113:01] this all right thanks Sam anyone else want to chime in otherwise I think the consensus is H continue uh with discretion for the two minutes okay thank you next slide okay so this was a challenging one for staff and the subcommittee um it sounds as though folks who regularly come to in-person meetings are really missing the social connection and the ability to connect with people who maybe are like-minded with them or chat with people who have different perspectives that happens in an in-person setting so people often will congregate in the lobby before or after they speak um there's not that kind of conversation typically going on in council chambers but there are these other places ancillary places that an in-person opportunity allows for this social connection so we were asked by some community members to consider providing

[114:01] a similar type of function during our meetings we did some research on this as staff just from a technological perspective um Zoom does have some breakout room capabilities but Zoom webinar does not so we would have to make a whole wholesale platform change to have any kind of breakout meetings either right before the meeting right after the meeting or during the meeting and as I said earlier we've chosen to use the zoom webinar platform because it offers better security um so there would be some issues res resulting from a platform change we also think we would probably have some requirement to staff those rooms so there are resource implications so the question that the subcommittee wrestled with and ultimately came to a unanimous feeling that the support for this is is not existent or that there is no support for this is the question of you know

[115:01] although it's nice that this is a function that people get to enjoy in imperson meetings is it the city's responsibility to provide it and what about community members who might prefer not to be contacted by others we have one Community member who has repeatedly asked us for the names and emails and address email information and addresses and phone numbers if we have them of everybody who has signed up to speak in public comment we have not provided that as a city and we've heard from some people who participate in our process that that would be chilling for them and they do not want that provided so you know there are challenges associated with this again the subcommittee's recommendation is that we not create these opportunities um I would say that the staff recommendation is consistent with that as Sam said hopefully we will I'll be back in person for people who choose to exercise um their um ability to address their counsel in that way to be able to network um but we wanted to

[116:00] again see what the whole Council felt about this particular piece of feedback any takers going want Mary yeah thank you um I'm wondering if there isn't you know these these gatherings the the social pieces of it are um in person they tend to be more organic and it's it's um it's not something that the city is um um pulling together it's more of people happen to be in the same room and they start chatting or they gather afterwards um and so I'm wondering if there isn't a more organic way to do something like that so for instance um a speaker could um provide their email

[117:02] address email me at this email address and I will send you a zoom link and we can get together afterwards um something like that and that in that way whoever's interested in that kind of gathering would have to give up a little bit of their public testimony time to provide their email address um but then it would be on the members of the public um to gather as a and and making it kind of more like real life in its organic nature so is there did did the committee consider anything like that we talk about sorry go ahead I forget that there's committee members here who can answer for themselves why don't you go ahead Rachel I just going to say we talked a bit about like most of the time in this world now you can find somebody on Twitter or Facebook and

[118:02] so if if there's a you know some kind of connection generated through the public comments you could you could generally reach out and find people was was what I remember us talking about and and we were sensitive to wanting to facilitate that and um it it it just proved to be too cumbersome I will say we have had people share their email addresses or if they're members of a a particular group for example sometimes they have shared their website information as part of their testimony and we certainly wouldn't tell people that they cannot do that um but it sort of depends I guess on whether individuals want to use a second or two of their time to share that information and invite people to join them in their cause um I'm just going to cqu if that's okay um I wonder would it be helpful if we you know offered people if you want to include your Twitter handle in your

[119:00] name you know when you're signing up go for it I probably wouldn't do that personally but that's to get to Mary's Point like or or your email address if you want that shared publicly we could put because we already put their their name up right with the timer maybe for us the name comes in based on how they've registered on Zoom um so somebody would would have to have a little bit of technical expertise to change their name when they come in in Zoom webinar attendees cannot rename themselves in the software I can rename them but I would have to know their Twitter handle and know they wanted us to be renaming them in order to make that happen maybe we can put a pin in that and discuss it the next happy to do so um Mary did you have anything else if not Aon no that's it and I I I would agree um Rachel that if somebody wants to find somebody I think people are pretty um

[120:02] findable these days yeah and I just say I don't feel like this is a function that the city needs to provide and I think it's really great that it is a social occasion um when it's in person I look forward to going back to in person and resuming that but in the meantime don't see a real role for us thanks Aaron Mark yeah I I miss that social engagement as much as some of the U uh participants do um but I support staff and the committee's recommendation on this it's not something to address at the moment okay thanks any um anyone want to go the other direction with this all right Sarah I thank you got that one thank you next slide okay I think we're almost done I think this is the second to last slide so I appreciate you all bearing with us we are wanting to be do right by the

[121:02] community members who gave their input and just make sure we're running these things by the full Council so one of the questions is should we give the public access to chat during meetings um as you know we currently have I think you know the chat box is currently available for community for panelists so for council members and staff to be able to communicate with each other um it is also available for us to do one-way projecting of messages to panelists and attendees who are community members I did that for example this evening when I shared the alternate um link for the YouTube channel but it does not we have currently um disabled the chat to prevent attendees from being able to talk to all of the panelists we've done this for a number of reasons first of all it can be very distracting to panelists who are trying to listen and or present at the time that people are pinging them second of all it creates

[122:02] yet another public record if people are giving commentary about their views on a particular issue third of all there's an equity concern because if people are sharing their input with councel through the chat box individuals who are participating by telephone don't get to see that so we made the determination to try to have as much of the discourse happening from an in an audible and vide supported kind of way so that everybody could hear what people were sharing with um the decision makers um however we do have some community members say to us that having the chat function on so that they could chat with other attendees would also be a way for them to make connections subcommittee did not support this staff does not support this Sam you're up well I don't support it either I mean we've got both boxes Q&A and chat and chat is a very valuable

[123:00] function for panelists to be able to coordinate with each other you when going through speaker lists and people are pulling time and everything that goes on in there having the chat function just for panelists is very helpful the Q&A box people can type in to from the audience right Sarah that is correct people can type in from the audience to the Q&A box if they're on the meeting through a computer sure there is a challenge for people who are on the telephone that they can't um use the Q&A function I guess the point I'm kind of making is I check the Q&A box periodically during the meetings so if people really do want to have inbound communication to us they can put it in the Q&A box and maybe we'll get to it or if it's a technical thing uh for an audience member for Sarah they put it in the Q&A box and then Sarah clears it or whoever's managing the meeting um from a technical

[124:02] standpoint so I agree with staff and the subcommittee this would be a bad idea thanks Sam anyone else uh anyone who wants to give uh public access to chat chime in um okay think you got that too Sarah yes thank you next slide okay so I think this is the final slide um we uh currently provide the link to this meeting to anybody who is signed up to speak in this meeting for meetings where there is a public participation component so for this evening for example you do have a couple attendees on the line I believe they are reporters and we give them this link just in case there's a technical problem broadcasting the meeting there are some folks who are much um um more comfortable being or want to be in this

[125:00] meeting as it's live unfolding via the zoom platform they are not happy that they need to watch it um in one of the many ways that we broadcast it so when we are not having technical difficulties we are actually broadcasting this meeting live in three different ways um I think you know we broadcast live on channels 8 and 880 for Comcast subscribers who live in the city of Boulder we broadcast live on our website City website both of those were having issues tonight so we do have a redundancy built in where we also broadcast live via YouTube so our current policy is people who want to watch the meeting but are not signed up to speak watch using one of those methods part of the reason for that is because we're trying to control how widely shared the link is um because we have had issues where it has been shared on social media and disruptors have managed to get that often through automated means and begin um causing

[126:02] problems both in our meetings and meetings by other local governments and other governments in general um but people do tell us that they feel like the experience of being in the zoom meeting is a more fulfilling experience so that's a piece of feedback we received um in a simple in a case like tonight if we did not have YouTube as a redundancy I probably would have recommended that we post the zoom link to the city website and let people watch this meeting because it would be the only way to watch it live right otherwise they would have to wait until tomorrow but because they um have the ability to watch it live um our staff recommendation is to try to continue to share the zoom link only with people who need to be live in the meeting I.E they've signed up to speak the subcommittee did support this staff

[127:00] recommendation thanks Sarah um Adam you're up so the only thing I'd say on this one is I haven't been super pleased with the reliability of Channel 8 um since we've had to go online and that's sort of been a ongoing concern to me and you know maybe we could put a time limit on how long we go through a meeting without it being broadcast um before we open up that link like Sarah you just said that you probably would have posted that link maybe council could decide a time when that's appropriate I just want to make sure that people are able to you know for open records purposes see the meeting as best as possible live um and if we aren't going to have the reliability that we have um when we're in C Chambers then maybe we should address that thanks Adam Aaron I guess Sarah I'm I'm a little confused about like if we if we gave out

[128:01] the zoom link on Demand right like so somebody would have to email in and ask for it you know it seems like you would have a fairly limited number of people uh that would then get that link and so can you tell me like what would be the risks or the downsides of having I know 10 or 20 additional people as attendees who could not speak so um I have a couple of thoughts to respond to that question Erin uh the only downside really is that it creates a much longer potentially longer attendee list and in meetings where you already have 60 to 100 people signed up to speak as the meeting host on the back end it's already a little challenging to find those folks in the queue because they move around in the list is the way how it works in Zoom so it could be a little bit of a meeting management issue um again though I don't know whether we're talking 10 people or 50

[129:00] people um the other thing is that we have found that asking people pre to pre-register for the link has been helpful and that is a best practice that Zoom requires so if Council wanted to provide a link to people who asked for it I think we could probably put something on the sign up form that says I want to attend the meeting and watch it and need the Link versus I want to speak and maybe have two separate lists we have experienced even with the way that we're doing things now that some people get the link because they've signed up to speak and though although we ask them not to share it they do they share it with their neighbors or they share it with people who have similar interests as they do and in fact the second meeting that we had um just ruptor appear in you don't know that we did because we were able to use the system to our advantage and we'd learned a lot to keep them out of your meeting but it was because a particular group had broadcast the link and asked their

[130:01] supporters to join I'm not suggesting that those supporters were the disruptors but because they shared the link via social media we did have a problem we were able to contain it okay thanks for that I I guess you know given the some the reliability problems we sometimes have uh like tonight and even though we do have a backup it this seems like a you know a fairly minor request that we could potentially accommodate so it seems worth considering to me thanks Arin Mark what are you thinking I I want to go back to uh Adam's point which I think is a good one and it's been bothering me for some time I um it seems on most of the meetings that we have I'm getting emails from people uh complaining about the unreliability of Channel 8 or 880 and I'm wondering if uh the interest of Better Community engagement there's anything we can do to enhance that

[131:00] reliability so people are not scrambling to find some way to see the meeting um should they be so inclined to do so the reliability issues that we've been having have stemmed from a variety of different problems in some cases it's because we were implementing new software and Technology to try to make this situation work and there were some bugs and things that needed to be worked out and we've been working with our software vendor to address those I'm told tonight that we might actually have a fiber issue um which is something that um is a lot harder to resolve in a quick way we definitely understand that we've had reliability issues and we want to apologize to council and the community for that we are attempting to use our equipment in a whole new way however that was not envisioned when it was set up and established we have made some Investments to improve that um but as we saw tonight sometimes even the best investments um don't always work out so

[132:00] I understand the concerns and as your director of communication and engagement I want you to know that we take these very seriously we also believe that we have a good redundancy in our YouTube channel which is why this particular crew set up that um workaround um previous but we obviously can also if people want to make the zoom meeting available to people if we have technical difficulties or as a matter of course for all meetings we can take that direction thank you Sarah thanks Sarah anyone else have thoughts oh back to Adam I'll just go back to my previous point then maybe Council can decide on a a time into a meeting where we're having continued technical difficulties that we would share the zoom link link um so do we want to put something out for that like if if we're 15 minutes into the meeting if I'm understanding Adam's Point correctly then we automatically share it like we we have a

[133:00] policy in place to address that is that what you're asking Adam that is my request or suggestion all right I support that I felt pretty uncomfortable tonight that you know knowing that channel 8 wasn't up and and still going forward so that's logical to me um Sam and then Mary same I support the suggestion that if we're having technical difficulties we put the zoom link on the crawl so that people can get to it or just project it um whichever can be done so I support if there's Channel 8 problems that we provide the zoom link um Mary's next I just want to ask a quick cqu can um Can Channel 8 not just show the YouTube channel I would need to ask our production staff if that's possible um we can provide the link and people can watch YouTube but I believe it's a separated

[134:00] system okay um Mary yeah I was going to make a slightly different suggestion um given given the redundancies that we do have um especially the YouTube option that people can go to I was going to suggest that um providing the zoom link if we get to um the first item of um of uh of the agenda so like a public hearing so if we haven't resolved the problem by the time we get to the beginning of a public hearing item that that's when we provide the zoom link um because it seems to me that that's those are the critical pieces of um of when people want to participate if they aren't signed up for public participation then um they can be

[135:00] watching on YouTube and the critical pieces um for engagement I would think where people are really interested in participating would be the public hearing so um that that's my suggestion can I call on that's suggestion you sure M uh my my only concern with that is like tonight I thought most of what we were talking about was pretty critical but there was no public input so you know tonight we wouldn't have provided that link at all on that basis um so in which case um yeah for study sessions it would be slightly different and I didn't thank you for that Adam I didn't think that went through to study sessions all right thanks Maran Adam juny thanks Sarah I do have a question do we have a cap on how many people can

[136:01] enter or Zoom room oh that's a good question juny so um I would have to check it for you I think it's 500 in our webinar subscription yes Brenda is confirming for me because we checked this recently it is 5 00 people we can upgrade but it becomes very cost prohibitive to do so and then my next question is I'm not very good with technology although I'm a millennial when someone enter or Zoom room is there access because I know when I enter somehow I can just be a visitor and not have access to the chat but just watch it and then somehow some someone else I guess move me from being a visitor or just a watcher to a full panelist yes that's a function of Zoom webinar so the way we work with zoom webinar currently is everybody who's

[137:00] going to enter this meeting uses the public link to enter which brings you in as an attendee staff usually myself or Brenda rittenau or Ryan Hansen watches for you to come into the meeting and as your name appears if you are a council member or a staff presenter or an invited guest presenter we promote you to panelist which is what allows you to mute and unmute yourself and use your video and have full Independence in terms of participating in the meeting but community members are essentially listening to the meeting they can watch it if they're on their computer but they cannot mute and unmute themselves until Sam calls their name and instructs us to do so okay thank you I think I guess the issue becomes because it's only 500 people who can get in what if we have 500 in one person what happened to that one person so based on that I'm a little bit not sure whether opening or not given the link is

[138:03] appropriate what when it comes to that one or the next 20 people who come after the 500 and also but if you were to give the link the person can just be a just be an attendee I just don't see where is the security risk if they can just have it and just be an attendee unless you upgrade them right so that is what helped us the last time so the first time we were Zoom bombed we were in Zoom meetings which has an entirely different security interface the second time we were in webinar and because they were attendees although they tried a couple times to raise us on the Q&A box and get us to turn them on we didn't do that so there is definitely um there are builtin measures in Zoom webinar that do prevent significant damage from happening assuming you have a a relatively Savvy facilitator of your meeting they tried

[139:01] some pretty creative ways to try to help us think that they were community members who needed to be turned on the 500 um limit question just to provide a little context is so far the biggest uh most attended council meeting meeting had about 300 people on um we did get a little concerned with our community briefings we had one that approached almost 400 in a first briefing and we were getting a little nervous that we were going to hit that 500 threshold I'm not saying it's not possible that we could get there on a controversial issue but so far we've been you know well within the limitations of our account thanks juny thanks Sarah um I'm gonna make a recommendation that we try and um put a stake through this one and um just go over what the subcommittee and Bob correct me if I'm overstating our position here but what our thinking

[140:00] was um first of all even in real life meetings not necessarily everybody can fit in the room so there is some you know capacity limit and so um it's reasonable that people who are you know speaking at the meeting and and some of the meetings we've had a lot of public commenters um an open comment you know 25 additional people so there is um to some degree a capacity issue when you um think about staff having to try and go through and say you know with every speaker um Sam will ask Sarah Sarah is so and so here and then like if she's scrolling through 300 people versus 40 people that's a much more onerous job for her and and adds a lot of time so given that we do have like a pretty foolproof way to watch on YouTube as well as ordinarily Channel 8 um the subcommittee felt like this wasn't really a necessary step so I would recommend um that we and again Bob invite you to chime in too but that we

[141:01] um move forward with uh staff support if if we can get to a five on that and add in Adam's suggestion of or Adam and Mary's um of you know deciding one time that we're going to or or you know some L the time uh during which Channel 8's broken or not working on a given meeting and send everybody the zoom link or post it on Channel 8 so thoughts on that Aon yeah that's fine I just uh rais we could move on I'm sorry you cut out for me a little bit I don't know if that was true for anybody else um I'll try again so that's fine um I just raised the other idea as something U maybe to think about but it's that's fine we can move on uh anyone else are we okay saying like uh well we

[142:00] can go back to subcommittee with the amount of time to after which we would send out the zoom link if that's okay I'm okay with the committee um suggestion okay thanks Mary thanks everyone I think we're good with that Sarah um but um Bob if you're there do you w to um tea up a a quick additional subcommittee um can I just ask Emily to ensure that there's no more slides to this piece all right I think this is the end but Emily can you perfect okay so yes I understand Council may want to discuss another issue I will say I have a couple of slides providing context that to that particular issue if it's helpful but I'll let Council go with the conversation that you would wish to have this evening um awesome well those um slides might be great Bob do you want to um te this off yeah I do thank you um you know with the Indulgence of the U Council agenda committee Rachel and I wanted to do a little bit of a debrief

[143:00] on last week's meeting and we had um some folks both in open comment and then at the first public hearing who um use some abusive language both um both both in the words that they use but perhaps worse in um the things that they they directed at to at staff members and so I want to maybe make three observations um and we don't have to bottom this out now but I want at least te up the conversation we can talk about a little bit tonight and then perhaps talk about it more at the retreat in a in a a couple of months one is um I and this is just my opinion I I think you people can say anything they want to council members we all signed up for this and um I don't mind if people are unhappy with me or with Council but I do think I do get um concerned and upset when um when community members are disrespectful of our staff because they work very very hard and I thought there was disrespectful things said of our staff last week I think there's been some disrespectful things said of our staff

[144:00] um in uh recent weeks and I think this is something that is concerning and um in retrospect I wish I had said something um not to interrupt the speaker but at the end of the speaker sessions to indicate my displeasure with that I know Tom did I really appreciate that Tom that you did that and I think as council members we should consider whether if um if there is abusive thing set of our staff members whether we want to interject um at the end of the um hearing or the end of open comment and indicate our um views on that so that's number one number two is um I I'd like us to take a look at our rules of decorum and this is probably something where Tom needs to support us um actually between open comment when there was some instances um and the first public hearing I was actually reading very quickly our our our rules of decorum online trying to find uh grounds to um to restrict some of the

[145:00] things that were said in the open comment for fear that they might come up in in public hearing and I couldn't find um those um those things in the rules ofum that would have allowed me as the meeting facilitator to have cut those people off so I I would like to understand a little bit better about what where the first amendment allows us to um regulate um time place and Manner and where we simply have to smile and let the person say whatever they want to say so that's really probably a task for Tom if that's the will of council and review our rules of decorum and see if there are things that we can do that um give the meeting facilitator more Authority and then third i i i it'd be really easy to say well gez some people were inappropriate or they were abusive or they were offensive um but I think we also need to look at ourselves as well because if if you have someone who is expressing themselves in those desperate terms I think you need to consider the

[146:00] fact that there may be some powerlessness um that um that person feels and that person might feel that the only way they can get across the message is through um expressive and sometimes what might be observed as offensive language so I think think that we should do some reflection and why it is that people um in our community some people in our community feel that the only way they can communicate is through that very uh uh challenging and offensive language and perhaps there are things that we can do in the form of Engagement so those people feel heard and are less likely to communicate in that way so those are the three observations I would make on last week I wish that the things that were said had not been said I wish that I and others had stepped up and at least defended our staff and I would like us to figure out how we can um handle these things better in the future thanks Bob um I'm just gonna add on to that starting with your last Point um and as somebody who did uh often come

[147:01] and speak to council as a community member um I can remember one time when I cried because I I just felt like so um so not seen and not heard and like you had to have a certain station maybe in this community or you know a certain level of power to have the ear of people and and especially if you feel like you're talking about something that that feels pretty desperate it can it it it can be corrosive and so I want us to to really look hard at how you know before we say um or as part of saying we can't have a level of of like abuse towards our staff we also can't um or shouldn't treat our community members um on a first class and second class basis so it would really encourage us to dig deep and think like you know do we return calls um with Equity do we return emails with Equity are we meeting you know um are we giving the the community

[148:01] equal opportunity chances to engage so that they don't have to like you know wind up to appear on Tuesday nights you know wanting to explode because um they feel like they they can't be heard and not just feel like they can't like sometimes can't be heard so um I I appreciate you making that point Bob and just want to Echo it and then I do want us to look at um how do we um preserve staff safety I don't think that working for the city of Boulder should mean that you are are chronically subjected to um verbal or emotional abuse like I don't I don't think that should be part of the job and we have lost staff members and and chased staff staff members away um I've certainly seen it on the C South project from from not protecting them so I I think it's a worthwhile discussion and um one that I hope we will dig deep on with that I see Sam's hand up yeah I mean this is a naughty issue

[149:03] um that has been dealt with by many councils in previous years um the I want to separate it into two parts the staff part and then the language part and with the staff part way I've tried to handle it if it's in a small group I usually try and cut someone off you know if they start abusing staff we're in a room together I speak up as the elected representative and say look if you want to give somebody heat give it to me or give it to other council members but staff is doing the best they can and we're directing them so in Council meetings when this happens I usually Let It Go On and try and pipe up immediately afterwards and I don't call down the speaker I say let's all realize that we're humans here and we're trying to do the best that we can and remind the speaker that

[150:01] are to come that we want to have decorum because I don't think in a council meeting it's appropriate to cut somebody off even if they're abusing staff um I would love to hear staff's feedback about that practice um but so that's what I've done in the past that's just my thoughts on it as far as language goes um we have been very permissive over time you know even if the language gets pretty offensive um I can't remember us cutting people off um or call back out to a meeting that apparently Bob was at when Seth Brigham started taking his clothes off and he was allowed to do so and then escorted out by the security officer there the police um but I don't think he was interrupted in the middle of what he was doing so I guess my point with language is I feel like we should air very much on the side of permissiveness right um

[151:02] and if it's abuse of Staff in a private setting smaller group meeting I try and protect and deflect and say come at me and if it's in Council I feel like we need to let them finish um because of First Amendment issues and then remind everyone uh we like like better Behavior going forward than we just saw thanks Sam Mark yeah I I I agree with Bob um I am also very regretful of our Collective inaction at the abusive comments that that were made last meeting and I also agree with the distinction between what we have to permit as council members versus what we expect our staff to endure and I I think I disagree a little bit with Sam in terms of

[152:02] um permitting uh abusive speech towards staff I mean again you know we signed up for this uh there are probably few things I haven't been called so far and I'm only into this for a year um but our staff should not be treated as patas and um it doesn't mean you can't express yourself with passion uh you doesn't mean you can't be critical um but when it gets to a a very very deeply personal level um I I don't think this is simply a situation where you just let it ride and and hope the next person does better I I think it's appropriate to say you know this is inappropriate uh behavior um and especially so when it's being when our staff is being put under that kind of uh abuse I I I find that to be intolerable again you can call me anything you want

[153:01] and uh you know my skin is thick but people who are uh in the employ of the city and are doing their very very best for this city need to be supported by this council at at least with respect to to you know decent human behavior um and I'm very reluctant to say that you know we can't do anything about it but we'll you know we should simply exhort the next speakers to be more polite I I I think there's got to be a better answer than that and I'd like to discuss it at our Retreat thanks Mark [Music] Aaron yeah I mean I agree about um abusive language towards staff um that I think that that we should have a real low tolerance for that um agreeing with what Mark and others have said there then the challenge is to to Define what abusive is right because you know um being critical should be fine right um

[154:01] saying I disagree with that decision of yours should be fine um but uh very abusive things is not so then we just would need to spend some time thinking about what kinds of lines we would draw there so that we don't leave it just up to Sam in the moment to have to make a snap judgment about what constitutes abusive behavior and what what does not um and I'll just say like uh in terms of the [Music] theage thing um you know we probably don't want to censor People based on on um uh the perceived vulgarity of the words I think the the place we should draw the line is in um the abusive treatment of our um staff members and probably I would say other members of the public as well so you know the I think kind of EX accepting ourselves is fine because as people have said we've signed up for this we should have thick skins uh we're here to represent the people um and if

[155:00] people are kind of insulting towards us fine we can take it but I would I would say the similar things about members of the public that if a speaker is abusive towards other members of the public I think that's also not something that should be tolerated great point and it looked like you got a thumbs up from Mark wallik um Sam and then Adam so if you'd allow me Rachel I I thought i' invite um our senior staff to comments on this like whether there's distinctions pardon me of abuse for senior staff like the City attorney and Shane or um and how they feel about that for people who may be presenting more junior staff so I'd love to hear from from Jane and Tom about that sure um so I I've been listening to what you have to say and I I would have to agree with um some of what you're saying that

[156:00] if persons want to use like naughty language and dirty words to um throw epitet at me or at staff we can take that but when folks make comments that go to our very person that are cruel and hurtful that I think crosses the line and I believe that it's very hard to describe that and that in the moment it's difficult for council members to react to it um but it it weighs heavy on you as a person when that happens repeatedly and I want to stand up for the not only myself and not only Tom Carr but also for all of the staff members that work with us and especially them um because it is not fair to be attacked as a person you we it's fine to criticize

[157:02] the work that we do um but but not us as people thanks thanks Jane Tom did you want to weigh in on anything I don't think I could say any better than Jane did I I worry about I mean Jane and I are used to this and it's fine and I worry about our war junior staff and um you you know um it's hard to come and present before you uh it's scary it's intimidating I talked to a lot of Staff members you know most most people you see do it maybe once in a a year and sometimes once in a career so they're nervous and then to have people come and say nasty things about them it's really discouraging I mean in many ways coming to to you should be the the highlight of their year and often it's it's it's something they're very afraid of doing and it shouldn't be um so I I couldn't agree more with Jane we have a we have a terrific staff and um anything you can do to support them better is just would

[158:00] be really terrific thanks Tom Adam and then Mary so recently I understand um the issues that a lot of people have been talking about are essentially human rights based and and in comparison to someone's life you know someone's feelings probably don't seem like they matter that much but I I think the opposite couldn't be more true simply because you're never going to win an argument by using hateful rhetoric or you know bringing up you know someone's personal attributes um that's just not how public policy ends up getting getting made so you're actually doing a disservice to your cause whenever you use personal attacks and hateful rhetoric and um I hope that the community with our reinforcement will start understanding

[159:01] that um you're actually driving people away from your cause the more you do that because honestly a lot of a lot of the testimony I I agree with in principle but in you know execution I couldn't be more turned off on uh wanting to help people who have those points so um I think it's important that we reinforce that you know um every policy that this city has is enabled by the nine of us sitting here and you know nothing gets past us in that regard so if you want to yell or scream direct it to one of us because because at the end of the day it's us that's allowing it and if we can continue to make that ever more obvious then I think we're doing our jobs correctly thanks Adam uh

[160:02] Mary I want to Second what Adam just said um and and I would just like to add that um as we allow that kind of language to um continue even if it is directed at us it is difficult for people not to begin to normalize it and the more it gets normalized even if it is at the nine of us it starts to spill over into other aspects um and so I worry that um that if we let it continue and and um and let epithets be at homonym attacks be hurled at anybody um it just it just makes it easier for the next person to

[161:00] do and so um and that's kind of what we're seeing with what's happened at the national level right so many things have become normalized we've gotten so numb to so many things so I just whatever we can do do to draw a line toward more um Cooperative language I guess um I would be in favor of that because I just I just don't want us to start to um get to the point where this is just the way it is and um yeah I would like us to rise above [Music] that um thanks Mary I have Sam and then I will um maybe ask Bob uh if we have an ask for staff um I don't think we could take a vote tonight but is as a subcommittee are we asking for some action tonight and also

[162:00] um Sam thanks for bearing with me here want to make sure that we don't lose the second half of this which is the introspection on our part for how we improve engagement so people don't get to this point Sam you're up um so as the person who's going to have to enforce whatever we come up with I think we do need to speak about it at the retreat so that we get super clear um around what constitutes abuse because in the moment it's often hard I mean there's some extreme cases where it's easy but there's been people who speak who are abusive in a sense to Tom and Jane because they'll turn to them and they'll blame them for whatever is going on I don't know if that rises to the level where I need to interrupt them because they're blaming them for their decisions but they're not being ad hominum about it so one thing that want to bookmark for me is a discussion at

[163:01] The Retreat for an hour or something where we try and come up with examples that do cross the line and examples that don't cross the line because that's a a key thing in the moment um it if hard to interrupt somebody unless it's super clear because of the how do you make the distinction between what they're trying to say politically and it gets personal so I I just want us to think about that I don't disagree about protecting staff it's more of a question of how and when um and then it sounds like we're all pretty aligned on language so it doesn't sound like we've got much work to do there but as far as when and how to cut someone off and then when we figure that out we can apply it in subcommittee meetings and other interactions with the public um I'm not saying I wouldn't be willing to do it um it's fairly rare like Suzanne may have

[164:01] done it once or twice in her two terms as mayor cut somebody off often her mode was the one that I was talking about using which is calling people down immediately afterwards but I think if we want to do this and I'm willing um we need to figure it out at the retreat I'll make a further distinction which is in the zoom meetings it's really easy right you said to do it I've got the ability to mute somebody with the click of a mouse so that's easy in Chambers it's really hard because in Chambers it becomes a shouting match so if the mayor tries to call down the speaker you're just yelling over each other and so I would just point out we need to work through some of those detail details so I understand Bob understands what we need to do when and in Chambers it's it's a different game and it's easy enough just talk over them but they still got a mic as well so if we

[165:00] want to implement this there may need to be a mic cut off button now I won't totally silence them but it will stop their words from being heard on Channel 8 or wherever so if if we're going to go forward with this we want policy um another thought I had was that we can have the mayor at the beginning of every meeting read the rules of the Quorum and in the past that hasn't really been necessary it was very rare to see something like you guys are describing from the last meeting but the rules of the chorum are posted in the chamber but for a while maybe we should adopt the policy that we read them at the beginning of each public hearing and open comment and it'd add a minute or two to each comment period but it might be a good thing to do at the moment where we want to make sure not to normalize it thanks thanks Sam um Bob anything to add

[166:01] or an Ask otherwise I think the um what I'm hearing is that we would like to uh prioritize this at The Retreat for discussion yeah I think we've accomplished what I at least IID hoped that we would end this brief discussion tonight which is to see if we were on the same page as far as as defending staff and it sounds like we are um so that's good um I think the two things that we need to talk about and I would suggest we do that that at the retreat is number one the rules of decorum and maybe Tom and his his team and working with Sarah can be think be looking at the rules of decorum between now and the retreat and recommend um changes or consider recommending changes to us we can either take that up at The Retreat or at a subsequent meeting and then and then third I I don't want to lose sight of the powerlessness issue and why is it that some people feel that that's the the way they need to communicate and is there something that we can do in the course of our engagement with with members of the community so they don't feel that um personal tax or

[167:00] inappropriate language is the way to get our attention and I think that is worthy of retreat discussion Mary and I are the retreat committee and we'll um put a heads together and see if we can come up with a productive way to have a discussion around that at the retreat all right thanks Bob Sarah do you have a question one thing I just want to add and it sounds like it's an appropriate topic to delve into more at The Retreat so I won't share slides this evening but I do want Council to know that we have been having a community conversation about this very issue with community members so you may recall those of you who were on Council when the public participation working group made its recommendations that group was very astute in saying that yes the city needs to change its ways to really have meaningful inclusive engagement but you know what the community also needs to show up in a way that promotes that kind of discourse and so we have engaged in a two-year effort that Brenda rittenau has headed to talk to community members about what constructive Civic discourse

[168:01] looks like we don't call it civil discourse we call it Civic discourse at its finest and what makes it hard so I would love to be able to um share some of those findings and the community's own perspective on this very issue The Retreat if Council would be interested thank you that's awesome thanks Sarah okay you feel like we we've wrapped up your um engagement question I just a quick question for Sarah um as part of the retreat committee how much time would you need for your presentation so I the slides I prepared for tonight with brevity in mind are six slides what I did didn't get into and I just provided a website is the committee's work on what makes these characteristics this Vision that we want to achieve so challenging so if I were going to go into that I probably would add a slide or two but it could be relatively short okay great so 15

[169:01] minutes I think so it would just depend on what council discussion followed the presentation but the presentation could be 10 minutes at the most okay great that that's very helpful thank you Sarah all right thanks Sarah um next we are on to occupancy limits and planning and development work plan discussion so Jane thank you so we have several people here tonight Charles pharoh and Carl Gyer I know for sure and I will turn it over to Charles to kick it off great thanks very much and I'm going to go ahead and Quest control great uh good evening mayor members of Council thanks for the opportunity to be here this evening um I'm Charles phoh I'm the development review manager in planning and development services um I think as most of you are aware there's been significant interest in the city's occupancy regulations this year most recently on September 15th

[170:01] Council entertained a motion to consider whether to allow households to temporarily exceed the city's occupancy limitations to provide additional housing options to those impacted by covid-19 and while the motion didn't carry through a notifi of Council expressed a desire to explore occupancy code changes at this evening study session so the purpose of tonight's discussion is really to get an idea from Council um as to the scope and scale of any desired changes to the city's occupancy regulations um which would in turn help to inform our code Amendment teams work program and help us manage our resources so tonight I have a very brief presentation ending with a few specific questions uh for Council to help frame the discussion then to help to clarify the dire ction to staff this evening but before we um get to our questions for Council um as you recall last month Tom Carr provided a very detailed uh memo and presentation related to how the city currently regulates occupancy and how

[171:00] it's enforced and my slides are not advancing there we [Music] go so I won't spend a lot of time um on how we regulate occupancy so briefly the basic rules related to occupancy and Boulder limit each household to three unrelated persons in what's considered our lower density residential Zone districts so rural residential rural estate rl1 four unrelated persons in what we consider are mixed use medium and higher density Zone districts so those are your Nu zones your R zones your Rh zones and then in all cases um allows unlimited number of family members to live together per the city's definition of family which I'll touch on in a moment um and it allows each family to have a maximum of two rumors and allows two people to live together with all of their

[172:05] children [Music] and there we go apologies um so just as a quick refresher uh family is defined in the city's code and I won't read this verbatim but the heads of households plus the following persons who related to the heads of households um then the definition goes on to describe the degrees of consanguinity so your grandparents great-grandparents grandchildren great unles and then the relationship typologies be it by Blood adoption uh domestic partnership so um it's a rather broad definition as um we heard last month when Tom presented that info so with regard to our code Amendment teams work program way back in January of this year Council prioritize several code changes that their Retreat for staff's focus in 2020 um so after the onset of covid-19

[173:00] this spring staff appeared before Council in May where Council reviewed and discussed the impacts to the 2020 Council priority code changes due to staff furlows layoffs uh budget reductions that were caused because of the pandemic so Steph um indicated that the community benefit and use tables projects could proceed a scheduled with completion plan no later than first quarter of 2021 and that work on the parking code changes would slow considerably due to reduction in staff resources and really our intent was to resume work on those in the second quarter of 2021 once uh Community benefit and use tables were wrapped up so similarly due to layoffs our code Amendment team has also assumed management of the oil and gas regulations which will need to complete by the second quarter of 2021 um so as of now given our current resources our capacity is fairly limited through the end of the first quarter of 2021 based on the the resources we have

[174:00] at hand today so with that said and that in mind to help frame tonight's discussion and clarifier Direction staff has some specific questions for Council we look forward to your discussion and your feedback this evening we're here to answer any questions thanks Charles um who has questions Mary is that I don't see your hand raised but I see a finger up is that question and now I see a hand up too go for it you're on mute but you're muted um on on the previous slide um Charles you showed that Community benefit was um to be completed um q1 2021 and then parking code changes um Q2 2021 um

[175:01] if both of those projects were slid um to Q3 and four respectively um would that be a um possible or reasonable way in which to open up some capacity in the first two quarters so I would um clarify Mary and I apologize if the slide isn't clear we would be wrapping up Community benefit and use tables in q1 of 2021 we would resume working par on parking code changes and Q2 of 2021 when those wrap up um but regardless to your point I think I think it just depends on the magnitude uh scope and scale of any proposed occupancy code changes and really the magnitude of the community outreach that would be associated with that but I think if we bumped the work

[176:00] on parking code changes and Community benefit um to Q3 and Q4 um depending on the scope I think that could be a possibility and Carl please feel free to um you know participate if you disagree no that that sounds accurate um the parking code changes are not actively being worked on at the moment uh we we did have more staff members as part of our code team earlier this year um we've we've lost one person on the team so we're we're also covering for other core Services uh within the development review VI team so it has made it difficult to to make progress on all these changes so at the moment we're not working on parking but I think pushing parking out uh could certainly um help you know prioritize this particular

[177:00] project um and Carl what about um Community benefit you know I think the the state of this year has certainly impacted all the code changes in terms of making progress um I think think Community benefit is a little bit more further along than some of the other code changes so after we got the input from Council at the last study session we've been moving ahead um with that project so I still think that we could uh attempt to complete that by quarter one of next year I think we've made a lot of progress we have our economic consultant who's looking at a lot of the information right now we're working on updates to the site review criteria IA so I feel like that can uh potentially be wrapped up as as we initially thought I think the use standards project has been impacted a little bit more because it wasn't as far along um and again like I said a lot of our our code team is actually working on

[178:00] uh development review projects at the moment uh because of of Staffing levels yeah and I would also add that there was a bit of initial paralysis um at the onset of Co um where we were kind of scrambling to figure out how were we you're going to continue to do meaningful community outreach um particularly for um use tables and a community benefit because they are so um um you know heavily influenced by our working groups in the community I think what we're looking at with the use tables project is is maybe breaking it into like three different ordinances that would go into like next year where the first ordinance would be more of the straight straightforward changes in the neighborhood centers that we talked about at the study session a lot of the technical changes a lot of the more straightforward changes could be brought in one package uh what I'm concerned about is is the amount of Outreach that we would have to do for like the 15minute neighborhood piece I

[179:01] think that in and of itself would be its own ordinance and would require a lot of effort uh and out Outreach with neighborhoods I have a clarifying question Carl the straightforward um changes that you're talking about if you were to break it into three parts so one is the more straightforward what were the other two parts uh well there would be the first piece would be this more straightforward neighborhood centers a lot of the changes that were identified by the planning board subcommittee that were kind of like structural changes or you know more loow hanging fruit like we talked about at the the study session that wouldn't require as much uh public feedback the second piece would be focused on 15minute neighborhoods um looking at different ways of mixing uses in areas that may not have mixed use the third part I think would would mostly rely on an industrial changes that would dovetail

[180:02] with the implementation of the East Boulder subc commmunity plan I see thank you thanks uh Mary and Sam your hands down now so if you had another question we raise that Aaron you're up yeah so question about the the oil and gas regulations I know we have an extension of our moratorium coming up in the next few weeks what's the proposed expiration date of that extension I think what we had talked about was by the end of Q2 okay which is why you have that on the schedule where it is I me might we consider a longer extension I mean I know the cogcc is still has a lot of work to do on finishing their Reg regulations seems like we would have uh some cause to have a longer extension of that moratorium that certainly would free up capacity Carl um again I would rely on you to determine how much when we factor in work on everything else that we have uring no I agree good to know thanks

[181:02] that was my only question thanks aarin um anybody else have questions otherwise I have one I'll go ahead um and I don't know exactly who this question is to um but when I think of the occupancy limits discussion I I think it's um not limited to planning and that may be because I'm naive and don't understand where everything fits but um I'm on the the hill I think revitalization work group along with our host Brenda um and and we meet routinely with members um from CU and um Hill property owners and landlords and students and like uh sorority liaison and um things like that along with um sometimes Tom's office will send a rep or uh mun court or police department and so a lot of the issues around occupancy seem to me that you know that people get heed about our

[182:00] um noise issues and parking um issues and not directly I think related to the number of bodies um in a home so I wonder is there some pre-work that can be done that's not that doesn't just implicate the planning department and are we looking at this issue holistically so that's my question is should we be talking about something other than just uh planning Bob no I think um and I think you're right uh there are definitely wide reaching impacts when it comes to changes potential changes in regulations and that's everything from you know more trash to more traffic to parking issues so um we would definitely need to be working across the organizations the organization with our partners in PD uh code enforcement certainly the city attorney's office um so it wouldn't just be planning this would have to be an internal staff team

[183:01] that would be working together um on any proposed code changes so that we we understand the impacts and um we're providing the right analysis all right thanks for that clar Bob yeah thanks Rachel I I want to go where where I think you're starting to go too I I think we just need to recognize the fact that um to the to the extent that Council uh undertakes an evaluation of the occupancy rules and perhaps even makees some changes in the occupancy rules that those changes may be different in different parts of town um and we have certain parts of town particularly those parts of those neighborhoods that are very close to the university that are probably most likely to be um impacted by occupancy our current occupancy limits and are also probably most likely to be impacted by um the collateral effects of high occupancy and so I think I first of all I'm very sensitive to the fact that the staff um

[184:00] is working the planning staff is working on some projects that we asked them to work on and I want them to keep doing that so I don't want to distract them from especially projects that are nearing completion here in the next quarter or two so let's not um let's not um pull them off of anything but I do think that there is work that we can be doing um in the near term as staff is is finishing those projects and I think in particular you know Rachel you mentioned the hill I think that would be a great place to start there may be a few other neighborhoods that that are near the university like um like Martin Acres or gos Grove or Aurora East but those neighborhoods that are right around the the University have have lots of issues um that relate to occupancy but are not directly um occupancy and and I think to the extent that we have some staffing capacity without interfering with what the Planning Group is working on right now to start laying that ground work and we've already got organizations we've got the the hill working group that you mentioned Rachel that you're on um

[185:01] stabed very aily by U by Brenda um uh I know that we've got some very strong neighborhood associations um I know the Martin Acres neighborhood association is one of the strongest in the town and I think that we have um community members um who are focused on this and I'd like to have some of those discussions get started now to the extent that we have maybe people in the communications group that can help facilitate there maybe need need to be a little bit of support from the lawyers to to talk about what the rules are now and what the rules could potentially be and it seems to me that's work we're going to have to do no matter what and so why not get that started here over the next quarter or two um and and get that groundwork laid and then um as the planning staff has availability maybe the middle of next year we can roll that that those recommendations those good findings up to a broader discussion about occupancy across the city that's just my

[186:00] thought Bob mayby just had a question and I don't know who it's for maybe Tom um but in terms of our occupancy limits and our laws where do we stand like Nationwide with similar towns meaning you know towns with our population size and our density size in terms of are we on par are we do we have much more strict uh laws than similar towns that are also college towns or are we far more lenient does that make sense yeah mayor by I can't say I've done a scientific study I know that we are probably near the low end in terms of occupancy um but then we have so many exceptions that it's hard to just look at that single number of three or four unrelated and say that's the occupancy limit um in many neighborhoods there are so many grandfathered occupancies and multifamilies and triplexes and duplexes

[187:00] that the effective occupancy is much higher um I think looking at this as in a holistic approach means looking at much more than what that number is uh if you just wanted to make it or six or something else you could do that very easily but that would have a a it would be interesting to understand the across theboard impact of that before you do it so for example if you've got a quadplex and you allow four per unit F that number to Six you go from um 16 to 24 um which is a big increase so there are lots of things to think about in this um I will tell you that the last place I worked Seattle it was eight unrelated um and my son lived in a duplex where there there was 16 kids living in what was formerly a one a one family house um so there are challenges that you you'll have to face if you as you delve into this um but so I I think it's good to start with the community and understand where they're coming from before we ask planning to do a lot of

[188:01] work okay great thanks Rachel do you mind if I mind if I yeah I was just going to answer mir's question to the best of my ability um we actually talk I of course um the city is a member of the National League of cities which is a uh um elected officials in in cities across the country cities large and small and the national leag one of the city's Council and that's a group of cities elected officials from cities that host large universities where the university is is a a big impactor so places like Berkley and Austin and an arbor and Cambridge and Boulder uh ases Iowa um Lincoln and um we talk about this um and most of the in response to your your question mby many many of those cities have occupancy limits that are similar to ours some actually even lower than ours um and that's not surprising as a matter of fact I think if you did a survey of cities across the United States without

[189:01] regards to whether they hosted colleges or not you'd find that most cities that don't host colleges don't have occupancy limits and most of these that do host colleges do and that's not a coincidence I I do think as part of um whatever exercise we agree we're going to undertake it would be nice to look at that scientifically I've seen that anecdotally I've seen some reports of that that are a little bit stale but it would be good to have our staff go out there and look to see what other college are doing and I think we're going to find that many of them have occupancy LS that look a lot like ours thank you Bob I appreciate the input as well thanks Bob um Mark and and then Aaron yeah I I I take a little bit of issue with the schedule that that Bob has laid out um I would I would prioritize this conversation uh such that we we addressed it uh earlier than the middle

[190:00] of next year um uh to some extent we suggested when we were having our discussions with the bedrooms are for people folks that um if they held back we would be prepared to put this on the agenda and take a look at occupancy limits I'm not suggesting we come to any particular conclusion but I think it's probably time to have the conversation um and to do so you know in my view in a way that that's properly protective of of the most vulnerable areas and to take a look at whether there are any meaningful changes we can make that um in parts of the city where where you know occupy is not not as sensitive an issue um but I would try to move it up a little bit um uh and if that meant sliding something else back I would be prepared to do that because I I I just think getting started on this in late uh late May or June is is

[191:03] probably a little late in the day and just just my view I I I would I would put a higher priority on it and and move it up thanks Mark uh Aon you're next yeah so Mark I I agree with what you're saying about the the schedule and that we want to get on this um sooner rather than later I do think the way that that Bob talked about approaching it um makes sense you know is about uh this is not um just a planning discussion right it's it it's a lot of it is about the community engagement and looking at the different issues that different parts of town face and so getting the community engagement started in a sort of holistic way um you know building on the existing like Hill working group and such uh you know and working with Folks up on the hill to talk about what their specific um issues are right because if we look at varying occupancy you know we also may want to uh change our um nuisance

[192:00] ordinances if they're not working quite well enough or if the enforcement isn't quite good enough right so that we're uh you know regulating on the problems rather than on the people so and I think that's that's a a commity Outreach that that we hopefully could get started pretty soon and the the whole burden of that uh wouldn't have to fall in the planning department so I know everybody's busy it's not like anyone else is sitting around tling their thumbs but I think if there's a multidisciplinary approach uh that could help move this forward um sooner rather than later I Ain I agree with you and and with Bob on that those points absolutely thank you thanks thanks Aaron uh Sam you're next yeah I think this is going to be a very holistic discussion because it's going to have a lot of impacts so changes um to this will have impacts that we have to think about ahead of time because unintended consequences can be very difficult to deal with so I agree that as soon as we can start

[193:02] engagement with the four neighborhoods that are really close to CU the hill gos grve Aurora and Martin Acres I think that would be very helpful at least three of the four of those have got very strong neighborhood organizations that we can work with um I really want to um defend the schedule for use tables you know having been on planning board that there's a lot of impacts that use restrictions or use permissions have as well and so I really don't want to push those back uh Community benefit is also important also pretty much done we heard it's further along even than the US Stables um so I think keeping both of those two going and not stopping them in the quarter in which they could be completed is really important I Aon I really liked your thought about moving oil and gas out by extending the

[194:01] moratorium and you're right C GCC is partway through their Ru makings and so I think that's one that could easily get moved out if we make the decision to extend the moratorium longer um and as far as parking goes that's also complex as I understand from previous Retreat discussions where we've wrestled with what do we do next and the parking rules seem to get moved down the road often and one reason for that is it's also complex and will have to be broken into smaller parts so my suggestion if we're going to make room for the occupancy discussion going forward would be to keep use stables and Community benefit where they are move oil and gas and parking down the road and I think if we're going to to do something on this I agree with Mark that we're g to need to have something complete is that we can

[195:00] look at Midsummer um or later at the latest so my suggestion on schedule is that we do it that way move parking and oil and gas out and preserve the schedule for Community benefit and use tables thanks can I call a real quick just to say I think that makes uh sense thanks thank you than Sam um okay juny mayab and then Mary thank you I just wanted to add in support of Mark I think we definitely need to have this discussion a lot sooner especially knowing that those Community groups that's been working on the ballot initiative will be coming back next year and they're already from my understanding they're already organizing so the sooner that we can get on the ball and you know maybe if we've made a

[196:00] lot of headways maybe they'll just allow us as a city to um to help solve that issue L than a ballot initiative I don't know but I just think it would be important that we get on it as soon as possible and I think my question is do we have data um Tom do you know if we have data by area for enforcement or I I don't want to finish the rest of my thought so that's the question do we have data by area uh I we have data on enforcement I'm sure we could break it down by area if that would be helpful yeah because I I I was wondering how did we what was the standard on how we choose those communities because again if I understand it correctly please allow me

[197:01] is University Hill gas grove these areas already have a lot of students and if we just focus on them and we know there are areas around older where there are a lot of big homes where there are fewer people so I'm just wondering how did we come up with the standard that we just GNA focus on the area that already has a lot of people but not necessarily the areas where there's greater opportunity to have more people in a house if we are going to raise occupancy limits I'll take a stab at that juny would which is I think it was just thrown out tonight I don't think that we scientifically are like picked areas yet I think my my sense was that was somebody's suggestion this evening well can I can I say I actually had a little bit of a different understanding which is that those were areas where you had to look particularly carefully at the

[198:01] existing conflicts you know um and potential issues with you know that are going on say with noise or something but at least my understanding and and this is not how I would think about it it's not that you would only look at occupancy changes potentially in those areas uh you might consider them Citywide we'd have to figure that out or um but that those are areas where you just have to look at the conflicts more carefully okay thank you I that's my only question and again I support moving forward a lot quicker especially I think we've talked about this on this Council so many times we are in a pandemic people are losing jobs they are losing homes and we going to have to start thinking more creatively to get people housed so that they're not just living on the street by the creek where a lot of people in the community still are having issues and emailing us and saying that you know you know are complaining about people living by the creek so we have to have housing for people so I

[199:00] think it's a real equity and inclusion issues that we are having here in this community even though we we are one of the best places to live I think we definitely have to work put this as a priority thanks juny uh mayor so I'd like to chime in with Sam and and say that I support his request for staying on the schedule uh this has been something that's been in the works the entire time I've been on Council um and I think even a little bit before my time so I do think we should continue to follow it through um I've seen this request for increased occupancy every single Council that's come on for for multiple years now um so this is nothing new and it's this the similar discussion that we've had over and over and over again um I think that the college rules um apply to our town in a significant way and I think that bringing something forward like this is just going to create so much work for

[200:01] staff because I think the level of community engagement that we're going to need for a well-rounded holistic discussion is going to be massive because I think this is going to this is one of our most um controversial topics and so I think people on both sides are going to have quite a bit to say as we can already tell from just what we've experienced the past few months um and even with this past what uni just brought up the suggestion about the lower density areas I mean this was somewhat brought up in a roundabout way with the Adu zoning um adjustments that were fought so hard against on the previous Council and kind of seem to fizzle out but I mean the push back that we received from that and this is kind of on this similar topic just coming at it from a different angle so I just fear that the amount of staff time and Community engagement and controversy that this is going to bring up is I think we're asking for a pretty

[201:00] big a pretty big lift so that's that's kind of where I'm sitting but I think at least if we are going to have the discussions which it sounds like it's somewhat of council's will to do so it really needs to be as holistic as POS possible and I would like to at least stay on the schedule um with planning that we already have existence um because again those have been in the work for a very long time thanks mirbi I want to make sure that I understood you correctly so you your preference would be that we don't pick this up as a as a work plan item um but that if we do we should stick with the um the current planning department schedule and you also mentioned that you agreed with Sam and I think Sam had had divided that into two so I agreed with him on the schedule the keeping the schedule that's the portion I agreed with him on okay but I think he only well I'll get back to that when we summarize but I think he only wanted to keep with two parts of the schedule and then maybe bump to so I'm just trying to clarify sorry

[202:00] sorry go ahead I I was okay with with what you had proposed so bumping to but keeping the community um uh the two that you proposed to keep for now is is fine the the table the youth tables and the community benefit all right cool thanks and then Mary's up Sam unless you still wanted to cqu there Mary you might be muted if you're speaking oh no I was waiting to see if Sam wanted to to say anything nope um yeah so um I support um delaying the the the uh both the oil and gas more or extending the oil and gas moratorium and um delaying the parking especially the parking since um everything may have

[203:01] changed um Been Changed by covid we don't know how parking will be affected by covid so we should probably hold off and and and see what the Fallout from that will be um I have a question for Carl to start off with um you mentioned Carl on the um the use tables that there were like three parts the second part you mentioned was the 15minute neighborhoods um and that um and that you had bundled it that way because of the amount of Outreach that it was going to take so I'm wondering if in that Outreach for the 15 neighborhood um portions of the use tables if um if some uh if some form of occupancy Outreach could be added to that Outreach I think we could potentially do

[204:00] that I've actually thought of that you know if we're going out to these neighborhoods anyway it might be an opportunity to get feedback on those issues it sometimes can be challenging to get a group together and talk about two separate issues and trying to keep them distinct without things blending together but I think we we could try to organize it in that manner okay well if you could um that but what um what were you thinking the timing was on that piece of Outreach well I mean I think the 15minute neighborhood discussion is definitely the most complex in the use standards and could be the mo most transformative for certain parts of of the city so I think we needed to figure out what you know what those changes might look like so that we can go out to the public and and see what their thoughts are so I was thinking you know in quarter one we might be doing that Outreach it gets more challenging to do Outreach as we get into the

[205:00] holidays I think the focus was like what are the relatively straightforward changes that could be developed in the last part of this year and then get that ordinance uh through adoption then start the public engagement uh in quarter 1 um and just kind of see how it goes um thank you Carl and that might dovetail with the kind of um organization that Bob kind of roughly outlined um but I I do agree with the sentiment that if we're going to do this it should probably get going sooner than later um because if um folks are going to come back with an initiative they'll be pulling a petition in what it what happens it's like early second quarter or something is when the petitions get pulled so we'll need to be

[206:00] kind of prepared sooner than later so um I do agree that it's it's it's complex and it will take um a lot of um different departments within staff so um but I would based on what we talked about tonight I guess my direction would be for staff to take a look at how we sort of roughly outline things and to see what we might be able to do um in a reasonable time frame to get us kind of in line with any petition that might be pulled and um signatures collected and certified and all that um and I don't know how another petition getting certified and then getting on the ballot how that would play with whatever work we might

[207:00] do here if it would completely um override it or so I'm a little confused about how that might work so um I don't know if I express myself very clearly but that's all I have I actually appreciate that um and if the the direction um because I guess first I would say um you know we've done a lot of work and spent a lot of um Consulting resources um particularly on community benefit um and I think a lot of work with the community um to Sam's Point for a couple of years now on Ed table so I think we're committed to seeing those through um at at the beginning of next year I just want to be clear that um our team at this point until those two code changes are finished um don't really have much capacity if any um so the opportunity maybe to think you know

[208:02] across the organization about who may be able to help support some of this initial Outreach to start scratching the surface on some of this um while work completing those two significant uh Cod change initiatives um I think would be helpful because I think there are going to be impacts on Sarah's team I think there's going to be impact on on Tom's team and I certainly wouldn't want to be able to speak uh for their resources thanks Charles thanks Mary thank you Charles um okay I I do want to ask does anybody still have a question because I've kind of let this get away from me we have uh just dipped right into discussion so are any of the hands up still a question if so let's do those first Bob and then Sam no I have a comment so nobody's got a question all right then I think it was um Adam next and then Aaron did you take your somebody else moved their hand Adam

[209:00] sorry so we'll go Adam and then that other hand if it wants to come back and then Bob and Sam I think Bob was ahead of me but I haven't talked yet so I'm going to take the Liberty um yes I think this needs to be addressed as I've stated well before I was even on Council and many many times after um one suggestion I might have is to get this to the housing Advisory Board as quickly as possible uh so that we can start doing community input through them and maybe share some of the lift here um but yeah this this is this comes with a deadline if we don't do our jobs and come up with something that the community can get behind then the the community is going to do it for us uh one way or another so um I would want to try to get this moving along in as many ways as possible as quickly as possible thanks Adam all right Bob and then Sam yeah I I also agree that we want to move quickly I I think my earlier comment was more just to be

[210:01] respectful of the two projects that that um Carl and Charles talked about that we didn't want to derail I'm perfectly happy with um postponing uh uh uh the work on oil and gas that we have a lot of flexibility around that and then parking which we haven't inserted but I think we should wrap up the two things that are almost done I I still would like us to um if possible get get started on this project through um the organizations that already are in place um who um represent communities that are going to be most likely impacted by any changes in occupancy which would be you know the hill and Martin Acres and in some of the other areas so if we can get started on that without adversely impacting the planning staff I'd like to do that now now as in like before the end of this year um and and have those groups and those communities weigh in so that when the planning staff does become available whether that's in February or April or whenever it is that

[211:02] we're that much further along rather than starting that um neighborhood engagement um after the planning staff is is available so that's really to clar if my position the second I know this is a process discussion but I would just want to kind of throw in maybe a slightly substantive observation you know with every with every problem we tackle we need to make sure that we're defining what the problem is and I'll just State what I think the problem is and maybe folks will agree or disagree I think the the problem that we're trying to solve is access and affordability and and if if folks agree with that then I I think we should keep that in the front of our mind in other words this is not simply about numbers because our our supply and demand um situation is so far out of whack that there it's not possible for us to add enough bedrooms to change the economics of the cost of living a boulder that we have 60,000 in commuters we can't possibly add 60,000 bedrooms um and so

[212:02] um I think that anything we do around occupancy in my mind needs to ensure that it increases access to housing and and more importantly affordability of housing which means there may need to be regulatory overlays that are put in place as part of any change in occupancy I don't think it's it's going to be sufficient for us to Simply say all right we're changing a three to a four or four to a five and then just hope that prices will go down because they won't go down so I'm just on a disclosure up front that's my bias going into this that there needs to be a a proven path to affordability for us to do anything can I call very quickly you sure May okay um I think one part that can't be forgotten here too is there's an argue of discriminatory uh sort of way of enforcing housing you know what a family unit is nowadays different than what a family unit might have been when these

[213:01] laws were put in place so we have to keep that in mind as well totally agree with you Bob um your basis is totally right but I don't want to forget that piece as well thanks Bob thanks Adam Sam can I can I do another just a real quick one I just it it we're way past time on our meeting already um so I don't think we have time for the substantive conversation but Bob I'll just say I do not agree with all of your statements just to be perfectly upfront but I don't think we should get into a conversation about all the substance of the issue tonight I appreciate that Erin I do have a question I thought we were doing okay on time I thought we enlarged the meeting do I am I we were supposed to be done by 10: and and we're on schedule to be done at this point all right thanks um uh and I'll cqu on errands which is I I also don't 100% agree with you on that Bob but I I agree that this is I think putting the the cart view before the horse to get into substantive on this tonight Sam okay to real let

[214:00] back into process one of the questions we have not answered for sta that I think is going to have a big impact is the second bullet that's on the screen and that I want to focus particularly on Zone districts um because if we are thoughtful about where um the most potential is because there's Zone districts that aren't controversial mixed use is not controversial I don't think there's going to be a lot of issues there um single family uh is going to be controversial and so I don't know if we can answer it tonight but my my in explanation for the Zone districts is to look at residential medium residential low and talk about those in specific because if if we make it everything you know that's going to open much more work out for staff if we focus on where is it that we see the potential

[215:01] where is it that um we can get the affordability and the inclusion everything else that we're going to be looking for I think we can make staff's life easier and our timetable um more accelerated if we look at the Zone districts as one way to parse out the problem um and I don't know Charles if you have a comment on that or not but I thought that was a really important point and before you answer Charles I just wanted to chime in on another um comment that I wanted to make and it it's it may be correct it may not um but on the it seems to me that the um the neighborhoods that are adjacent to the university are the ones that have associations related with them um so those are the ones that we could kind of get some input more easily in the beginning um and then the neighborhoods

[216:00] to which you will be doing Outreach to on 15minute neighborhoods um Carl are ones that are not like ly to have the associations and um the adjacency to the university is that a correct assessment it is and okay so if so if that's true then I think that could inform um the zoning that um that Sam was um referring to so just a comment that maybe looking at the way those are um that Outreach is already kind of falling into place sort of um could help us with um deciding which zone [Music] districts so Charles I'd invite you to

[217:01] answer is limiting by Zone districts helpful that's really I think it's really helpful for us the more um specificity we can have um you know the smaller box we can draw around this I think is helpful and again I would invite my colleague Carl to um you know to chime in if he disagrees but I think that to the the degree that we can be as specific as possible um I think would be helpful so I I'll respond to that I don't think we can tonight right I just give you a general kind of gestal about it being residential because I don't think we have a problem with mixed use so much much or or even residential high so to the extent that you can give us advice about what zone districts would be helpful I don't think we can do it tonight but I think that's something that if we get your advice that would be very helpful to

[218:00] me sounds good thanks Sam and Mary I think um aon's next I hadn't meant to have my hand up but I'll just say I I'm not 100% sure about the limiting it to certain Zone districts I think there there may be some common issues across all Zone districts so I we we could talk about the possibility but I'd want to see how staff proposed to look at before taking Zone districts off the table okay thanks Ain I don't have any other their hands up right now so I'm gonna say a couple more words and if anybody else um has something to add good time and then hopefully we can wrap it up um the first one we're talking about neighborhood associations and like targeting Outreach there that worries me a little bit because I feel like that's kind of one half of the equation and one point of view and if we look at like bedrooms are for people um you know it doesn't necessarily pull um them into the conversation and part of what we've said tonight is like we need to get this done so that like they're satisfied and

[219:00] I would hope that they'd be part of the conversation and not satisfied with something that we've done so want to make sure we're being mindful of who it is we're trying to um do Outreach to and include and that we have all the different stakeholders and I don't know that we get there just from targeting neighborhood associations so I will put out there again that I think the hill um work group has done a pretty good job with stakeholders and a lot of different Vantage points so I don't know if there's a way to expand that work group's purview and maybe add another council member and um some additional staff support I think that a lot of what we're talking about is going to need to maybe come from a city attorney's office um appreciate Tom chiming in on on how that might look for him um but it seems like we maybe need to to give some direction on like where this could land and um in a way that can get meaningful engagement and report back to council because I will say that a work group like that one has a lot of productive

[220:01] conversations but it feels like it's siloed so um Just one thought and then I'm going to try and summarize um where we are and then invite um I guess I don't know who it should be but it seems like we we haven't quite landed on perfect Direction but I think we have um buyin for doing uh occupancy adding it to the work plan and we have bayin for starting it sooner than later um we want to do some leg work outside of the planning department or including other departments uh that has intense Community engagement so it's a holistic uh Endeavor that we want to S Shuffle some of the priorities that are currently in the Planning Department per Sam's recommendation I think that's extend the OMG moratorium and um push off that and parking I was hoping Jane might tell us if that's like um something that's okay from like maybe Transportation I don't know who would

[221:00] who might be upset at that um and then keep I think it was uh use tables and Community benefit on track um I thought Adam idea to engage the hab the um housing board was a good one and then I think there's a question mark on on the Zone District so hopefully staff can report back on um maybe recommendations for if there are specific District or zones that make sense could I just make um just a a suggestion regarding um sending it over to the housing Advisory Board I think we need to have clear um direction for for the housing Advisory Board as to what we would like them to accomplish with respect to this um item rather than just saying here you go and and I think that they' they've they've had um that that kind of lack of Direction has been problematic I think for the

[222:00] housing Advisory board so I want us to be clear as to what our expectations would be before we send it over that makes sense and uh process question of what during a steady session can we um determine along those lines I want to make sure I'm not getting outside the scope but um so I again I think we have Clarity on that we want to do this and we want to start soon but I'm not sure what specific direction we need to give beyond that so invite uh commentary on that so so Jane did you want to speak up about the parking um schedule so right we've been wanting to work on parking for quite a long time and certainly I I would expect the transportation Advisory Board will love to get to it but the thing that's important is that the council address the issues that are most Salient in the community right now and certainly this

[223:02] is that issue so I I feel it that it's fine to delay the parking thank you great um all right so I guess then I would ask um staff is there more Direction that's needed on this and and also to co-c counselors is there something that we can te up that's a little bit firmer for housing Advisory board or should that be something that that is um drafted and then we can vote on it at a future meeting I I'm going to suggest that you draft something and vote on it at a future meeting you don't have enough time tonight to um beat that one into the ground and figure out what the right exact thing is that you want them to do so if you could let staff work on that and come back at a future time with a proposal that you could then kick around that would be your best alternative awesome um could that apply for the engagement and all the other issues that we've kicked around tonight

[224:00] as well it would be great if we could have a chance to think about it and write it down and and create a plan and bring that back anybody opposeed to that no all right great um Jane while you're here should we uh move on to the I think last agenda item yeah thank you Charles and Carl so the um last item is an item that CAC added because last week we were going so late that you didn't have a chance to weigh in on state ballot measures and so the legislative subcommittee of city council has already looked at these and had some recommendations that we have on a slide so if Emily could pull up that last slide we can talk about the state ballot measures uh Carl Casto is unable to be here this evening so the committee

[225:00] itself will be leading it and I'll help in any way that I can great do we have the slide I thought we did yes yay okay so Rachel do you mind if I jump in on this I've had it okay so there are 11 um ballot items we could take positions on and um though the legislative committee had some recommendations I feel like um I've heard from the community that they want us to look at other items so my proposal is that we go through all 11 and that we use straw Poes um and since we're not making a vote the point of the straw Poes here is to see if there's enough support on Council to support each one of the um ballot items and so I thought

[226:00] we could lay it out kind of like this first Rachel brings up the the ballot item and then do we want to take a position we take a straw pole and if a majority want to take a position then the next thing is do we want to support or oppose it and my proposal is and we can kick this around that it take a super majority so six of us to either support or not support and if people don't feel like they know enough about a particular item they can abstain and that will count as a no um that we don't want to support or oppose it and if the first straw pole results in a 54 split then we have a short discussion about that particular ballot item and then after a short discussion then we decide um what to do and if it's a super majority then we can go forward the idea here is that we don't beat each item

[227:00] into the ground if we already know that we want to support it or we know that we don't want to put it on as um part of our support then um we'll know right away and we won't have to have a a fulls discussion of that bid item um just to be clear once we give staff direction there's going to be a resolution that's going to come to us next week and that resolution we will'll have what whatever we've decided tonight and we'll get a final vote as a formal vote by council at NE next week's meeting but this straw approach is just to give directions to staff about whether there's going to be a super majority who wants to support or oppose an item so I think the first question for Council is do you agree with that approach or not okay I see a lot of head

[228:00] nods the only one that I um maybe disagree with his super majority I'm I hope it won't become an issue but I reserve the right to argue that point later I like reserve that right okay so it sounds like we're all okay with that approach so I'm going to go ahead and um read through each of the state ballot measures and then we will um use Sam's plan to do a straw poll here so the first one quick quick question Rachel how should we indicate our straw poll should we raise our hands can you see us all um I I will be able to see you all I think if I widen my screen here um maybe can you just use your raise hand button I can see that I think more easily okay just need to make sure and clear them between each one y um that's great and uh yeah maybe maybe one of the hosts maybe Brenda could could be helping with that too okay Amendment B

[229:02] is is a repeal the Gallagher Amendment summary is it repeals the Gallagher Amendment which requires a general assembly to periodically change residential assessment rate in order to maintain the Statewide proportion of residential versus other taxable property values um so can I get unless we need more discussion on that can I get a raised hand if you support us weighing in on this ballot measure I see one two if I raise my hand will it show y one two three four five six 78 um so it seems like we've got a a good majority on that one Sam I can't remember did you require you didn't require unanimous right no just majority to go to the next step so um next step is sorry it's G me another hand rais but do we want to um support this item so we would be um supporting repealing the Gallagher Amendment yeah and Rachel do you mind if

[230:00] I make another quick suggestion um just um that when you uh propose supporting or opposing and I on a lot of the items the legislative committee made a suggestion maybe you start with that um which is what you just did but maybe that's a way to make this a little quicker over the yeah recommendations for support okay so looks like unanimous out of the subcommittee so for supporting I see if the hands could get raised I've got one two three four five six seven we're good so we support that one that is that how you're visualizing it Sam absolutely great okay Amendment C is conduct of char able gaming this would repeal the state constitutional prohibition of nonprofits hiring outside firms to conduct Bingo and Raffles um to raise money um the committee recommendation was not anything so my question would be Amendment C do we want to um I'll go with support repealing the

[231:00] prohibition no first that would be do we want to take a position do we want to take a position thanks Sam want to take a position on this one I see no hands so we're going to move right past that one if that's okay next is amendment 76 citizenship qualification of Voters requires US citizenship plus minimum age of 18 as a qualification for voting we had four opposed so does um who would like to weigh in on this NOP shouldn't we just see if we want to take a position first that's what I mean who would like us to weigh in take a position on this so we have one 1 2 3 4 five six would like to take a position so the um subcommittee was opposed unanimous so um all who would like to I'm gonna wait for the hands to go down all who would like to oppose this please raise your hand we have enough okay so straw poll

[232:02] says that one's good let's lower the hands um okay the next one is amendment 77 local voter approval of cat Casino bet limits in Blackhawk Central City and Creek um this would allow towns to uh change limits on bedding and restrictions so who would like to weigh in on that I see no hands okay so we're going to move on taxes on nicotine products gradually increases taxes on cigarettes um and nicotine um Revenue would be used to discourage tobacco use and teen vaping so this is prop e who would like to weigh in on this we've got one two three four five six more than enough um okay and the recommendation from the subcommittee on this was for in support so next question is who would like to support who would

[233:00] like that wants to weigh in on it one two enough okay great so we are supporting that one um next is prop 113 this would be to adopt the agreement um to elect the US president by national popular vote um who would like to weigh in on that assuming we all know what that one is we have one two three four five okay so um at this point do I need to stop and discuss or do we already see if we want to support this we have pardon me we haven't said support or oppose yet so that's what I'm asking I go to that point next okay so the committee recommendation was three in support so who would like to support proactively uh prop 113 I see one two three four I'm my hand

[234:01] oh five okay so it looks like there's five people who would like to support and I think this then warrants discussion yep correct y okay so we can lower our hands um and who that would like to um proactively support this would like to speak to it Sam and Aaron yeah I mean this is essentially what we did when we passed our vaping tax and ban flavors we said if the state does something we're going to follow the state rules so that PE people pardon me people won't be tempted to drive from one town to another to get cheaper tobacco products so the goal here of course is to prevent harm from tobacco but specifically focus on young people I um I might be having a a major

[235:00] like just brick here but I think the one that I thought we were talking about is prop 113 for um oh National popular sorry that's my my fault okay I know going quick so but maybe I'm goofing up but no not at all my fault completely would you like to to that one Sam so National popular vote right um The Electoral College is a remnant of Bargains that were made around the time of the American Revolution which balanced slave holding in agrarian States um against population centers and it has resulted a couple times in the last two decades in a president being seated who did not get the majority of the votes and there's no reason to use this archaic outdated um electoral college system

[236:03] when we want one person one vote for leader of the country so anyway I I think it's time that at least for President we broke through the deals that were made around the time of the American Revolution thanks you're here Aaron yeah well said Sam just there there's the core principle of here of one person one vote and there deep uh deep inequities baked into the electoral college system that I think our community would uh appreciate us no no longer supporting so that um every single individual in the country gets the same value as every other individual which is not um how the forefathers envisioned it unfortunately and should be changed thanks Ain um so I this my screen's a little so now we need a according to Sam which I'm still

[237:02] reserving my right to argue but we need a super majority that now to take a proposed position so does anybody who wasn't originally in the five which I think was maybe me Aaron Sam and marabi and one other person Mark well I could the hands went down Adam Adam would you like to speak or are you joining us or were you an original or the five sorry thank you the hand communication Adam I appreciate it um so um I think it's uh samon Adam and maybe let's just take a poll again let's see if we convince anyone let's do it who would like to support democracy me let's see one two three four okay so uh just to be clear I just wanted to speak about why I'm not supporting

[238:00] it because we would lose our voice as a state this is not a um we're not voting to change the Constitution we're work we're voting to this is a workaround um I thought that the boulder weekly had a pretty persuasive argument against it and basically what it's doing is it's um whatever gets um decided by other states is what we have to go along with um it requires the the Electoral College to vote with what the majority did and even if Colorado votes for it it still needs to be adopted by all of the states so we're not voting for a constitutional change which is what I think we need um and this is a complete workaround that is basically um

[239:02] causing perpetuating the division that our country is seeing so I that's why I'm not supporting this thanks Mary um Mark wallik and Aaron um I I tend to agree with Mary but um I guess I disagree with the uh with Sam's proposal uh the last one uh I I don't see why even on a 5 to4 vote and and I expect to be in the minority on this um if if that's the the the will of the council I I I think we should go forward with it I'm not voting for it but um I don't think it should take a super majority on that and that's fine I think we should have a vote on that because it may come up again the reason why I propose super majority is I feel like if we're going to take a position it shouldn't be a split

[240:01] position it should be something that a lot of a substantial part of council supports I I I hear you Sam I I and I can acknowledge that six to3 and 7-2 is better than five to four um but I'm not sure I I think that the will of the majority should be frustrated on on this issue I'm still not voting for it but um uh if there are five members who wish to to take a stand on it um I would say that there's that would be the way to go I'm gonna suggest maybe we put a pin in that and put this one to the side and see if it's the only one with this issue maybe it's not as um big of an issue but um next up Aaron and then Sam yeah well just to the process first I mean I thought the idea that if it's close that we talk about it was a good

[241:01] one so that we could kind of get a sense of what people's different feelings are on it but I I agree with Mark um and not just cuz I happen to be in the majority on this one um that it seems like a a simple majority of councils should probably be sufficient to to support something um and Mary I appreciate your your your points I'll just just a real quick response that the the end result is the same whether it's a constitutional amendment or this sort of effectively a workr the the end result would be that um the winner the popular vote would become the president which so you're counting every vote in the country and then the person who gets the most would become president but any I'll just um Sam I think is next yeah I have a process suggestion um why don't we vote on whether 54 is good enough to support So if we do that we'll clear it up and then we can move on so if we have a 54 vote

[242:01] on weather 54 vote is good enough do we have to start over again no no all right um there's a lot of hands up right now so let's just put our actual in the air would you um I think this is just a straw poll not a real vote because we're at a a steady session right um do you support 54 being the meaningful outcome for these discussions so I've got Adam juny me Aaron I can't see some people I think mirabi has her hand up yeah I have my hand up see it all right so that sounds like yes we are we are at a majority there okay super 54 it is okay so we're done with 113 then thank you for all that um discussion next is a reintroduction of management of grey wolves this is prop 114 it directs the Colorado Parks and Wildlife agency to reintroduce grey wolves in western Colorado starting in 2023 who would like us to take a position on this I see three raised hands so far I'm

[243:03] gonna raise mine okay so that gets us to five um six great so we can lower that and then the the um subcommittee recommendation um was for and support so who supports supporting the Wolves all right we are there all right moving on uh this one's proposition 115 prohibiting abortions after 22 weeks this is an abortion ban that would uh ban abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy unless a physician determines that the woman's life um is imminently threatened no no exceptions for situations involving rape or incest um and there were three opposed so who would like us are these all new hands up I'm sorry I didn't it looks like we have a lot in favor of us as long as these are new hands up um weighing in on this so let's lower the

[244:01] hands I'm wait make sure that happened great and then the um question is the recommendation was three opposed so who would like us to take a stand opposing the abortion ban I've got plenty of hands great okay so 115 is done there um next is state income tax rate reduction this reduces the state income tax rate from 4.63 to 4.55% it's estimated to shrink our Revenue by 327 million in the next two fiscal years we had four opposed so who would like us to weigh in on this we've got one two three four enough okay so we'll lower the hands and then um again the committee recommendation was for opposed so who would like to oppose this measure we have one two three four five six we're good okay um so the next one

[245:02] is prop 117 voter approval for certain new state Enterprises um this prevents State absent voter approval from creating any new fee based Enterprises that uh anticipate garnering at least 100 million in revenue for the first five years we had three opposed so who would like to weigh in on this one I see [Music] five okay so um lowering the hands here um it was three opposed at the committee so who would like to oppose this we have five so I think that means discussion and I hope I didn't brick on any other discussion no we don't want to discuss anymore or we still do want to discuss no you didn't brick on anything um so we do still want to discuss even though we're going five to four right and flush it out I think so

[246:00] yeah great um who would like um that favors opposing this for 17 to speak to that um I've got Mark and Sam's hands up oh my hand is down I swear it's up on my screen Sam how do you feel about it Sam and then Aaron so remind me again this is the Enterprise one right so I don't do that pitch the wrong one we're on correct 117 so so why do we need voter approval of something that's going to have a revenue Source other than taxes I really don't understand why we have to do it it's a roadblock to creating State Enterprises and it's the kind of thing that I don't believe there's a relationship between the Enterprise that's created which will be funded by fees typically um the legislature and the voters in fact needing to approve it um when they may

[247:00] not be well informed about it especially that it wouldn't have tax implication thank you thanks Sam Aaron and I'll just note that the the state has very significant fiscal problems um with funding the the desired programs and that has direct impacts on our local residents particularly with issues like the funding of higher education and of our school systems and Enterprises have been a way for the state to fund uh needed programs um and they they work well so we I don't think we want to constrain their ability to set up a um well-designed Enterprise program it'll just hurt our services thanks Aon um Mark I have your hand up I don't know if it's still now it is okay intention I view this as as purely an obstructionist um measure uh to impede the ability of the state to uh uh raise revenues for for needed purposes and on that basis

[248:02] I'm opposed to it thanks okay let's do another straw poll um who would like to proactively oppose this I've got one two three well we we got we changed some hearts okay that feels good um okay so we have a super majority for that one wonderful um and I think we're down to the last one which is um paid family medical leave this would establish a Statewide program providing 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave with premiums of about 1% of our um employees salaries paid 5050 by employers and employees and it applies to serious health issues um and such so there were four support out of um committee so raise your hand if you'd like us to weigh in on this one please we have a majority um let's lower the hands thank you for bearing with me and then um please raise your hand if

[249:01] you support we have another majority so we're on that and that is the end of the Statewide ballot measures um I'm not sure if there was more to this discussion item though than just that this is this conclude um since Carl's not here I wasn't sure if we were supposed to give any feedback no I think oh go ahead Jane I'm sorry yeah I believe that at um the CAC we discussed Council taking a position on the local the City ballot measures oh okay so um right um I I think I heard earlier that maybe there was a proposal that um Council take a position on the ballot measures that were unanimously approved by Council so um I don't I maybe that unless there is a a

[250:00] recommendation or staff presentation we could start there with seeing if um there's support for limiting our um recommendations and support for the items that we referred unanimously Adam your hands up yep I recall that being an option that was presented in our previous packet and that is what I would be in favor of doing I would not support anything that wasn't unanimous okay um anybody else want to speak to this I agree thanks Mary so let's maybe just do a show of hands if that's how we'd like to do it um I see I see Sam Aaron Adam Bob and I'm going to raise my hand so that's five in favor I'm sorry if I didn't call your name I can only see part of the screen um so I I guess I would like some confirmation though on on what that means we are approving I think it's um newer do we I believe that was unanimous

[251:00] um referral to the ballot um and then the Arts Charter committee right recommendation and probably not our mayor our choice or either of the mun measures that's correct okay so we are um proactively endorsing just the two um library and newer um Bob yats Arts oh sorry what did I say library don't even worry about it um arts and libraries they go together okay Bob question yeah I just I find it a little bit odd that first of all I'm find with the decision we just just made um I I wouldn't want a council member to to have to endorse a City ballot measure that he or she voted against so I think that's perfectly fine but I find it's a little bit odd that we're applying that rule on our own ballot measures but we obviously didn't have um unanimity with respect to the 11 State ballot measures and we're going to be asked to endorse

[252:00] those so I think that's a little bit inconsistent I think that's a really good point Bob I I for I for one will be if the if the 11 or nine or whatever we ended up with are presented as one set of endorsements I'll just simply be voting against it because some of them I support some I don't so I'll just vote against the resolution which I'm fine to do and maybe others will vote against resolution too it'll be a little funny if if if enough of us find enough things in the resolution that we didn't want to support that the the resol even though each of those elements passed by votes of five or better the resolution itself fails because no one can find enough in it that they love um but I I'll be voting against the resolution thanks Bob any other feedback on um the process here or concerns well I I think go ahead M no I was just gonna say I think um that that's why it had been set up for a

[253:01] super majority previously because essentially a 54 vote is kind of a split vote and for um I just feel there's I I agree with Bob it's a it's a total inconsistency well I make a distinction because these are State ballot items and we've already taken positions on the City ballot items right so we've weighed in on those already and this is our chance to weigh in with endorsements or opposition to State ballot items I agree with you about it needing to be a super majority so I would take the one that passed 54 off of the resolution personally because a super majority is a pretty strong statement of support and we required unanimity for um the state initiatives we wouldn't support many that I think are very important one person could block us doing uh

[254:02] supportive estate item which we have not previously in on City ones we have previously weighed in on thanks Sam Erin yeah I mean I think Sam those were good points I mean I think that that that what Rachel brought up from that recommendation from the packet was just a kind of a quick way of getting to what we want to um support as a council but I mean if folks are troubled by the inconsistency we can certainly run through the same process on the all the local ballot ones as well and you can weigh on on whether you think we should take a position so I'm I'm open to that um something that we could do Bob to your point um we could just uh have uh the consent agenda be a little long and have a separate resolution in favor of each of the ones that uh we gave our um straw poll in favor of and then people if they feel that they really strongly disagree with with some of them they can vote against those individual line

[255:00] items I actually I I I find us endorsing State Bel measures it just inherently a little bit weird I mean we're not endorsing anything on the federal level we're not picking like who our president's going to be among the nine of us um I know people care some people maybe care what we think but each of us can speak for ourselves with respect to the ballot measures the state ballot measures we've already spoken as to the state ones I mean the local ones we we've all voted on those and some were unanimous and some were not quite unanimous and so I don't think we need to reate our positions with respect to those obviously the two that we were unanimous on we we endorse them obviously we were unanimous so I'm not sure what what a second resolution that reminds people that we were unanimous on them does and I just I'm not philosophically I'm not a supportive I've never have been in the years that we've been been doing this so um I I wouldn't I'm not suggesting that we go down and vote on each one of the 11 of them because I mean all all we're doing is really just holding up our own

[256:00] personal ballots and saying this is how I voted uh and I'm not sure that that's appropriate either so I think if it's the will of council to pass one resolution on all of the state measures then go ahead and do it and some some will vote some will find enough there that they like or they think it's important enough that people will care what they have to say to vote Yes and others will think that um maybe we think a little bit too much of ourselves and it's not a good use of time so I like Aaron's suggestion I thought that was quite good just have a resolution per and people can vote against them but it's not that we're self-important or think a lot about ourselves exactly it's that our community wants us to speak for them to the extent we're their elected representative that's what we're doing and it's also the case that many of the supporters or opponents of these uh

[257:01] State resolutions or state ballot items want us to take a position we been asked to and so I view my role having a bully pulpit as wanting to do that so I'd like eron's compromise where we put them all out there as they've been passed and then you can vote against each they passed this study session and then that will be a majority for sure that's just five four will pass it um so I think this is an important function of being on city council is weighing in on these items which are they're organizational so we're not weighing in on candidates you know that's each individual's choice but we're saying these would have a positive impact on our community or would have a negative impact on our community therefore we want to speak out about them thanks Sam I'll call real quick and then um Mark Wall's got his hand up um I

[258:02] like aon's suggestion um to do it individually as well and I think that addresses is Bob's um concern with it so um supportive of that Mark I also like Aaron suggestion but but I will say in some ways I I see more value and point to weighing in on um the state issues uh because they don't we're not dealing with them on a day-to-day basis I'm not quite sure what the point is of um putting out a resolution in favor of things we've already approved at the city level um whether it's newer or uh or the Arts commission there's a certain to me anyway redundancy about doing that and then at the same time not endorsing other things that we have approved such as uh um to see um because

[259:01] it's not unanimous I I'm just not sure I'm seeing the uh the consistency and all of that or even the point of doing that since these are all things that have passed muster and been approved already sort of a special resolution to say we really mean it um I I I don't get it um I thought we meant it when we passed them well said H Ain I've got your hand up next I'm done all right um so I I don't know if we need to have further discussion on Mark last Point like do we want to undo and not have resolutions on local um and do we need to have a a straw poll for um aon's idea so I guess I just say can we do a straw poll for eron's idea and then that'll be buried who would like to have individual resolutions for the state ballot items I see Adam Aaron Sam myself and Mark and marabi I finally got to the

[260:01] second screen okay so that passes in a straw fashion um and then uh anybody want to have further discussion on whether it's um silly to weigh in a super special time on the local initiatives when we already passed them so Tom would you like to weigh and you made the request yeah so I I actually no well it's traditional that Council does this I I don't really have strong feelings there are some benefits under the election laws if you weigh in for the city being able to say certain things it's too late for me to remember what they all are and I'd also like to point out that to do five separate resolutions Carl is unavailable I'm supposed to be off tomorrow I was going to do this tomorrow morning before I was off and so it means I have to take a resolution that's already written and into five which is going to take me most of the morning tomorrow so I would prefer not to do it unless you really feel strongly because we really don't have the staff to do it we've left this till the last minute now you want to do it next week and you're telling me at 10:30 at night that I have to write five

[261:00] resolutions tomorrow because it has to be done tomorrow so let's maybe thanks for that Tom um letting us know the staff work so let's maybe do and correct me if this is the wrong way to go about it a straw a straw poll on will five people vote in favor of a single resolution such that Tom doesn't need to divide it 11 ways does that make sense yes no yes it makes sense okay so who is in favor or or who would vote uh in a straw poll here in favor of one resolution um supporting or opposing all the ways that we indicated by majority or super majority tonight who would vote for one resolution that combines all 11 with all 11 points so I see me Sam Aaron Adam Mark and marabi so that's six so if we stick to our word then Tom doesn't need to do extra work correct correct and Tom thanks for letting us know about the

[262:00] additional burden there I didn't realize it was a it was a tough thing to do so can I also ask is it clear that on 113 you did not take a position because that was 54 no we we took a position we agreed in a process fashion 54 was good enough okay soting 113 over Sam's objection yes we did great thank you thanks thanks for raising that Tom um anybody want to talk about Mark's point about and and Tom has responded now the the local initiatives I think it's a valid point so I see Bob Yates I agree with Mark I think we've already voted on them people know our positions I don't think we need to reor them thanks Bob Sam's next and then Adam I agree with Mark I agree with Mark okay so it sounds like we are going to undo our straw poll on supporting local

[263:00] initiatives that were unanimous and just not weigh in on them is that can I get it just like nodding yep it's not even that late and we all soon it's okay study sessions are supposed to be short so it feels extra late um yeah I'm sorry um okay so I think that that concludes this but Jane anything else that we or Tom might be overlooking here sorry I was on mute I think we're done for the evening which is great awesome so I believe that that concludes our Council business for tonight and we are now formally adjourned good job Rachel yeah definitely especially with that last one that was a tough item good job well done went a little late I was trying like PS I'd say all right thanks everybody good night good night good night