October 26, 2023 — City Council Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:58] f five inches it's not

[1:03] bad and mountains all right it's six o'clock are we good for Channel 8 Emily just sent me a message she's checking with them now all right thanks everyone for your patience we are good to go excellent can you start recording please all right well good evening everyone and welcome to the October 26 2023 special meeting of the Boulder City Council I'm going to start with an announcement here so this is about the better public meetings project the city of Boulder is partnering with the national civic league on a nationwide effort to make Council meetings more engaging and satisfying for everyone who participates as part of this effort we want to hear

[2:01] about your experiences with our meetings we invite community members who are either in person or online in this case all online for Council meetings starting a few weeks ago and running through our December 7th meeting to rate your experience we have an online scorecard that takes about two minutes to fill out link to it is on the screen now and for the online audience which is all of you we're putting a link and a QR code in the chat you may complete the scorecard once for each time you participate in the council meeting over the next three months and with that I'm going to go ahead and call us to order and Elicia can you a roll call please yes sir thank you and good evening everyone we'll start with council member Benjamin present mayor bronet present council member falr present friend here Joseph present beer present May protim wall

[3:02] here council member Wier present and Yates here mayor we have our Corel thank you Elicia and I believe you're going to walk us through our public participation guidelines right yes I am sir good evening again everyone I'm Elicia Johnson your city clerk and Records manager you're also I'm also your co-host for tonight's meeting I'm joined and assisted by our Deputy city clerk Emily Richardson I just want to take this opportunity to remind everyone of our guidelines for public participation so that we can all come and participate in good productive conversations together thank you for being here the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic

[4:00] conversations this Vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members staff and Council as well as democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives for more information about this vision and the community engagement processes please visit our website at Boulder Colorado go and search for productive atmospheres the following are examples of rules of decor found in the boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this Vision these will be upheld during this meeting our remarks and testimonies shall be limited to matters related to City business no participants shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person obscenities racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct a meeting are prohibited participants are required to

[5:01] sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently we only offer audio testimony thank you for your attention with this matter and mayor we can begin our public hearings thank you so much Elicia and I will turn right back to you to get us started on our first public hearing please all right thank you our public hearings tonight are item number three three on the agenda 3A is the council input on the proposed 2024 policy statement on regional state and federal issues good n you want to get us started well I'm GNA send it straight to uh our incomparable Carl Castillo good evening everyone um thank you um so tonight going to provide you with an update of some of the policies that are

[6:01] expected to get Traction in 2024 with a specific focus on on those that will be considered at the state house and also on the proposed revisions for your 2024 policy statement on regional state and federal issues um we'll be receiving I'll be U receiving your direction and in terms of what kind of changes you'd like to make and I will be bringing a revised policy statement back that reflect those changes on November 16th um ideally that would be on consent agenda but that's up to you if it needs to be brought back for another public hearing or or matter we can certainly do that as well um and finally the final goal for this evening is to prepare Council to participate in advocacy uh throughout 2024 beginning with the December 6 meeting that Council has scheduled with its state legislators

[7:02] um just real quick I'm not going to describe the process so much because you all have been through this before some of you multiple times but uh as you know that the purpose of the 2024 policy statement or any policy statement for that matter is the describ council's policy goals um it's both goals and also examples were possible so there's some level of specificity and the idea is that that policy statement once adopted can inform the city's actions on specific external policy proposals that influence Boulder so uh we will be taking the policy statement and then we will connect the dots when specific bills or other regulation or administrative action comes up um before we get started I wanted to say a few words about a very good question that that council member wall posted on hotline which is why now why why are we considering this now when we

[8:02] have a uh a new Council that will be elected and sworn in uh not to not too uh within a few weeks and um the answer is in the past we used to bring the we used to seek feedback on the policy statement from the new Council and um a few years ago uh Council made the decision that that was too much bit of an overwhelm for a brand new Council to be asked to to review and comment and ultimately consider adopting policy statement that had a lot of positions and a lot of meat a lot of history um I am not going to Pine on whether one is right or wrong Council can tend certainly let's just say there's there's a uh benefits and disadvantages of either but the direction that we received from Council was that we should be asking the

[9:01] outgoing Council for this direction uh typically no later than October which is what we're doing now and then we should convene the intergovernmental Affairs committee which ideally would have the appointments from the new Council on it um in December or January or as soon as possible I mean that's that's going to be one of the things that's up up for you to decide uh when you want to appoint new members to the committee and then we would come back to the full council with any recommended changes approximately in February so that is that was the thinking understanding that a new council could certainly bring a new philosophy and frankly just have different views on one or more policy stated positions so that is the idea um uh certainly one that you all can revisit but I wanted you to have a history of of why we are doing it and what seems to be an OD time with with an

[10:00] outgoing Council um so with that I like to introduce Adam iberg who is part of our team from um Headwater strategies and he's goingon to say a few words about what we can expect to see in 2024 at the state house with specific focus on those issues that are of Interest or that we believe are of interest to the city of Boulder Adam if you're on if you wouldn't mind great thanks car uh nice to see you all um Carl asked me to pull out my crystal ball and predict what the legislature is going to deal with this upcoming session and well it's a little bit of murky a little bit more than murky um I think there are a couple things that rise to the top that I'm fairly certain we know we're going to see and I'd like to run down a few of those things um and as Carl said he's asked me to focus on uh those particular policy issues intersect with the um

[11:01] City's uh policy statements and particularly policy statements that you're either going to uh prioritize or change uh in the document in front of you so I'd like to start with land use as uh you all know there was a robust conversation last year around a bill known as Senate Bill 213 that ultimately didn't make it through the process um the core components of that bill are going to return in the 2024 session those core components being uh something around uh adus accessory dwelling units I think a focus on strategic growth initiatives and then a focus on uh Transit oriented development or Transit oriented communities and then uh fourth Focus uh will be funding and incentive packages to support the last three I think we can expect that the bills will it will be broken up it will be uh

[12:00] multiple bills this session not a singular bill I think honestly the thinking is last year there was something in that bill for everybody to hate uh when everything in the whole world was in there and this year I think breaking it up uh allows people to um have more of a menu of things that they can choose to support and I think the thinking from The Advocates is that they can get to 18 in the Senate on each of those components that I talked about I think there will ALS be some ancillary or orbital bills around them dealing with some of the other issues that popped up last year but for the most part those four things will be the focus um there will also be a focus this upcoming session on Transit I think that will take the form of both some work around reform of the uh RTD and Broad funding for Transit Statewide um I believe what I have heard that those things will likely be combined into a omnibus kind of Transit bill that uh

[13:01] will obviously intersect with and complement the land use package um there is lots of talk as there always is around gun violence protection prevention sorry gun violence prevention um there are a handful of bills being talked about I don't know that The Advocates have settled on exactly what will be forthcoming but I I believe that we'll see bills uh a lot of bills in that space face this coming year um one of the interim committees uh has referred or will refer next week uh a bill around overdose prevention centers or harm reduction centers as they were known last year um the bill this year I've seen a draft of it's uh I believe it's public and posted um but the draft will allow local communities to make the decision on whether or not they want to allow um op CES over those prevention centers in their communities

[14:01] and then lays out some guidelines and puts together a task force to form some rules and thinking around them um the next piece uh which I'm sure you're all familiar with is uh what happens if uh HH the bill around property tax uh I'm sorry the uh ballot measure around property tax is unsuccessful in a couple weeks I think that there will be a robust conversation around property tax um whether it passes or not but certainly if it doesn't pass I think there will be a lot of pressure and I think probably folks saw yesterday the Republican caucus is calling for a special session to deal with it before the property tax bills go out at the first of the year um so far the Administration has been reluctant to commit to that um they're putting their uh their hopes and dreams into HH and I think we'll have to wait till election day to see what happens um and then finally uh before I can take some

[15:01] questions is uh I know that there has been a focus from the city on Reproductive Rights and there were several bills last year around it this year The Advocates are going straight to the 20124 ballot with a constitutional amendment to enshrine the um uh enshrine the same rights that they put into statute into the Constitution so I believe it will be a life year at the state capital around Reproductive Rights but a very very active year going into the November 2024 ballot around those issues so it's just a little bit of uh of my crystal ball um I'm sure that there are things that I have missed but hopefully that gives you a flavor for what's coming and Carl I'll turn it back to you or answer questions if anyone has them yeah thank you Adam that was very helpful um uh mayor um mayor rocket if it's okay with you I'd like to give your

[16:01] colleagues an opportunity to ask questions of Adam before I provide updates on the proposed revision to of policy statement is that appropriate sounds good Carl I can I can run that if you'd like so who who has uh questions for Adam I see marksan yeah Adam uh um I know the governor doesn't much care for the concept of uh rent stabilization or rent control bills but is there any possibility of creating a distinction for manufactured home Community pad rents where the consequences of inability to uh control costs uh are are much more consequential for the people who live there uh I to be honest I don't know that I've ever heard anyone ask that question with that much uh specificity so you're correct that the governor has expressed expressed over the years his

[17:01] um uh dislike of General rent control bills and those kind of bills have moved through and then seen their demise I think there will be another active session around renters rights and a couple of the bills that didn't make it through last time coming back onto the legislative agenda but with regard to a specific bill that carves out uh specific rights for mobile home renters or pad renters I I don't know it's something that I'm happy to ask about and get back to you well and is it too late to contact uh our uh representatives to see if they have interest in promoting such a bill I don't know that it is too late um and I think that Carl when are we all getting together with the delegation I believe it's December 6 and so yeah go ahead Carl well I was gonna quickly say that um we do have a

[18:00] policy statement position both in support of a local option for for rent control as well as the more specific request that council member wak is making which is uh allowing rent control in the specific cases of mobile homes um we we have had that conversation in the past as you know we we we have worked and ran and and and passed many mobile home bills um in the P we have gotten pushed back but there's certainly nothing to prevent us from making that request this year and is December 6th too late no probably so well I think if we're if we're interested in if I I think Carl you and I should talk about um at least floating it ahead of time because that is pretty late in the process I it's not I mean to be honest given who your delegation is and the control control and power that they hold

[19:00] I think that it's honestly never too late but better to raise it early in the conversations that Carl and I are having on your behalf well I I I don't presume that this Council necessarily endorses that but it's something of interest to me and hopefully to my colleagues thanks for that Mark and if I can do a quick cqu you know that that was a portion of Representative Bas Necker's Bill a couple of years ago that it did I believe get stripped out at the governor's uh request um so he might be a good one to contact for the latest on this particular topic um okay uh Nicole yeah this was um sort of a follow-up question a little bit different um so to Mark's Point uh the manufactured home communities are some of the most affordable housing um in our city and you know thinking about housing Bill kind of coming back is there any possibility of kind of linking pad rent control to any of the housing

[20:03] um opportunities that are housing any of the ways that the housing bill is being split up I again I it was this is I not an issue that I'm super familiar with um as the mayor pointed out it was included in Basin eer Bill several years ago and hasn't resurfaced since so I don't know that anyone at the legislature is talking about it um and so I think as we we can explore whether or not anyone's interested in building it into one or more of the bills that are moving this year thank you thanks Lauren yeah I was thinking I would just make it a little more General I mean the pad rent piece is obviously a really important one but if there were any version of rent control with any amount of safeguards on it that the governor was willing to move forward with I think

[21:01] we would support that and be interested in knowing if there is any possibility there I guess it's not a question more of a statement point point taken Lauren let's see seeing no other questions Carl I can turn it back to you for the next phas okay thank you mayor and again just to be clear we already have direction from Council to support both rent control in general and more specific rent control for mobile home parks given the fact that that is a particularly unique situation where people are particularly vulnerable given the fact that they own the pad but not the land underneath it or actually they own the home but not the pad um so we've certainly had made that argument before I guess I'll just generally say if it's not obvious that the governor's General disposition is to favor affordable housing more as it's brought

[22:01] about through market rate mechanisms and he's not as fa is not as supportive generally speaking about affordable housing that is brought through regulatory approaches uh that's that's a huge generality and he might not appreciate me saying that so so for what it's worth um but but we heard everything you said about that and uh we certainly are well aware of our council's interest in it and we'll continue to carry that forward um I like to now just talk about some of the proposed revisions and I'm going to focus because there's a lot of revisions and and you all have read the packet so I don't want to reiterate things unnecessarily but focusing on ones that are that we're expecting to see some traction on and also ones where some council members had asked questions um on hotline uh for example or more specifically uh so so the first rision is to position number one which we

[23:02] propose to rename to call Harden infrastructure against climate change and the specific changes that we're proposing to make there is to remove barriers to undergrounding of overhead utility lines in in areas of high risk and vulnerability and I'll just pause to explain of of course overhead utilities can cause their own catastrophes they can cause fires uh especially if it's electrical not sure if that's so much with the case of telecommunications um especially if they're in an area where it's particularly let's just say they're old or it's particularly windy that area and also if they are not undergrounded they can they can deny our community with with the both electricity and telecommunication that uh telecommunication that they need um so there's a lot to this one um this is one that we're proposing as a state policy priority as well so it's both position

[24:00] number one and it's also a policy uh priority as we're proposing it the second aspect about it is to free state and federal resources not just for these private utilities to be undergrounded but for the many City Water Utilities that we have storm water flood um just about all of them really are impacted um um in terms of how how things will change in terms of climate change so that's the first position again that is a proposal for State policy priority and I am going to interweave these so I'm basically going down in sequential number through the policy statement and I'm going to just mention those that are are not just positions but are being called out as policy priorities uh the second one is position 11 and this is one this this one deals with electric and motorized uh electric motorized vehicles generally

[25:00] speaking um council member W had some good questions again about um three aspects of this the first one was uh and and when I say he had questions the these were sent out on hotline um we had indicated waned to support position or actually a new example of how he could further disposition to support uh Advanced Queen Cars 2 which was a renewal and expansion of the Mandate for electric vehicles it consist of 82% of sales in Colorado by 2023 and advanced Cen truck rules which uh essentially would require medium and heavy duty vehicles to sell an increasing percentage of zero emission vehicles of their annual sales from Models model year 2027 and Beyond C suggested that this might require some more uh discussion part of that I just perhaps have answered because I gave a

[26:00] little more uh information here but uh bottom line these just were adopted by the air quality control commission um the the Advanced Clean Cars 2 you might have read about it was adopted just last Friday by the aqcc we didn't expect it to occur that that quickly uh we were part of the we we per we were one of the Advocates along with or as part of our membership through the our climate at CC 4ca organization um anyway it passed so it's no longer relevant so with your permission I would be striking this example from position 11 as no longer being relevant because both the advanced Queen truck rules and the advanced Queen car cars two rules have passed and yes at some point we'll want to update those even further um but I think it be unnecessary at this point to have language about this the second as aspect of position 11 is um

[27:00] 11d and in it one of the things that we add added was advocating for for um or indicating support for policies that would encourage EV charging during the time of day when the largest amount of clean energy is available on the grid Council W said U well we could really use a little more explanation about what that's about how that can be done and um checking in with our we energy experts they indicated that essentially this is um a docket that's already before the Pu that would lead to changes in rate design and program offerings and other solutions that would allow for um basically encourage people to be plugging in and charging our vehicles when we have the greatest amount of green electrons on the uh on the grid uh the third uh part of this position of lot has to do with electric buses

[28:00] um coun Wallock suggested that the focus on you know having lower costs for electric buses was was way too General and we needed more detail and I totally agree with him and um rather than Wordsmith here I I'll just commit to you that if uh if you agree that this this needs to be um fill out what we can do is we can bring back a little bit more detail I actually have some language before me but I'd rather not get into the uh the challenge of of of U word smithing during the presentation we can Circle back to it as well the next position uh that is a change is position number 19 this is the newly proposed position has to do with reforming the cart's construction defect law uh this has long been an issue it's one that we actually got involved in seven years ago it's challenging because

[29:00] um we all want to make sure that people who buy condos retain the right to sue when and if there is any defects uh so it's a consumer rights issue at the same time there's been quite a bit of uh belief that there's too many barriers in terms of the threat of being sued and that it's essentially preventing developers from building certain types of homes condos in particular ones that a type of home that is is an important part to have as part of our housing stock so the position that we proposed is very general um it's almost like a placeholder because um the intergovernmental Affairs committee was one that suggested that this be brought forward they were aware that there was a couple of specific ideas out there by the Home Builders uh Association ation they were also aware that those detailed

[30:00] proposals weren't necessarily ready to be endorsed and I know um that there is actually a couple of other ideas that are coming from a different perspective but but that are also aimed at addressing the the barriers or let's just say the the the disincentives for developers to build condos um so what we propos is very general language which Council pointed out was um you know of questionable value because it's it's so vague and I and and that was quite intentional that was kind of a reflection of what the committee had asked for um it it is basically being proposed as a for a lack of a better word I would say a not self-executing um position because we would not we I certainly could not act on it without getting further direction from our intergovernmental Affairs committee at a minimum about is this what you meant because Details Matter

[31:00] here quite a bit um so acknowledgement that it's General it it recognizes the the tensions that exist between encouraging development while not denying consumers their their rights uh and the warranties that they they buy they buy with those uh those condos um moving on to the next one position 22 land use is PR is almost completely kept the same way as it was before the L position um that the one change is that we've talked to our our attorney's office and our water our water folks water utilities folks and they really said it's it's going to be super important for us and for any local government for that matter to have the ability to determine that they have enough water supply and and water and sewer infrastructure um sufficiency um before they can allow

[32:02] themselves to be mandated by the state to build more um so this is a challenge of course last year just came up and the way it was dealt with in in 2113 was that the legislation essentially allowed local governments to self-certify and say that that that you know if they did not have the ability to provide the water infrastructure to serve at increased density they would have the ability to certify it of course I think we can all agree that that could allow for abuse um but nonetheless um speaking with our attorneys and our water water professionals they do think that it is essential that we retain that kind of ability to do some sort of self assessment um it isn't the kind of thing that we could Outsource at state or Department of local Affairs so the lany's position is being proposed to be expanded to include that qualif application it is also being proposed by the intergovermental Affairs committee

[33:01] as being elevated to one of our state policy priorities um that certainly was appropriate last year given the amount of work we did on it and I know we are given the opp we are being given the opportunity to do quite a bit of work with the um uh the sponsors and with the governor's office this year as well let me pause on this one again to say two things one is this one is also not self-executing and that um I would I would make sure that any bill was brought forward at at a minimum to the intergovermental Affairs committee before conveying a position of City support and opposition uh recognizing just how highly political it is um would not want to risk misreading council's intent on this um the other thing is um lost my train of thought I think I think that that was most most important part of it um anyway it is being proposed as a state policy

[34:02] priority um the the next change I want to highlight is position 23 which is about reducing homelessness um we are proposing to maintain this as a as a state policy priority uh some of the changes that we're proposing are adding the term and prevent so reduce and prevent homelessness and when we talk about preventing homelessness that's where we go into certainly some of the issues about uh rent whether that's rent control or rules related to eviction or making sure that there is fairness and and and support as necessary to you know it's one of the easiest way to prevent homelessness is to make sure that people don't lose their home in the first place especially um in situations where it is unnecessary uh the other addition we did make here is to indicate not just that we need more State funding but more

[35:02] coordinated uh support for prevention and Supportive Services um I think we're seeing that here as we're working on the high utilizer effort how important it is and and the the the results that we're starting to see the benefits we're starting to see because we are coordinating more greatly with our um you know with the county with the da with the sheriff with the mental health partners the hospital the hospital foundation so we're basically asking the state to do the same with the revision to this statement um speaking of the High utilizers um right now this position does not have any very specific requests that we can act on nor do I know that the state has anything that they're ready to move on um with council's um I guess I'll just throw out there you don't you don't have to weigh in on it but one thought that I had was

[36:02] that um it could be valuable for our inter agency task force uh on Boulders on House High utilizers perhaps one thing they can work on is a a short policy statement of their own on what are those things that we need to advocate for to reduce homelessness um certainly you can tell me that that's not a good idea uh but um that would bring the value of this cross Agency Group to uh the bear on some um on some some on one of the city's biggest priorities um so we can speak more about that uh reproductive freedoms and right to access abortions um so um this is position 25 and we are proposing to expand a position to focus on privacy protections as well as um laws that prevent harassment of people seeking care and council member Benjamin uh had some good

[37:03] suggestions on how this could be expanded even further and he did some research and I'll at the end of this presentation I'll ask him to speak towards that idea um but that I'll just say right now that I will be proposing that the council consider it with his additions uh then there's position number 47 which has to do with um supporting the local option permit harm reduction centers certainly a contentious issue that our Council arrested with last session um but one that they landed on um they supported um you all supported housef 23 1202 what we did not do is codify that we never did memorialize it into the policy statement so the interg government Affairs committee um directed me to propose that and that's what position 47 is is just documenting what we understand to be this council's current position on that and I will

[38:01] reiterate because it's so important especially for the community that this is merely a local option and that I'm well aware that both our staff and our Council have expressed no interest in actually doing this certainly not in the in the short term but they are supportive of uh at least at the last time they spoke they are supportive of having the option and certainly of giving other cities the option to pursue this position 48 has to do with gun violence prevention and as I'm reading this I'm like just in awe of how controversial all these topics are so obv obviously this Council doesn't shy away from some some difficult issues um what I proposed is seven new examples of policy approaches that the city could support the further dur gun violence prevent prevention goal um Adam spoke briefly about them we can go into the detail on them they are they are listed out in your proposed policy statement um I can't remember exact lettering but

[39:00] it's position number 48 I'd be happy to answer any questions about that we expect some moralities to get some traction position 61 is one that is is a a new position that we separated we used to have just a position in support of transportation funding and and the one that we have was mostly focus on infrastructure we realized that it was important to focus on Transit funding specifically Transit operation program funding and that is what position 61 is it's a proposal to U support that and to make it a policy priority um I for one I'm seeing this as being talked about in many regards I've heard it being spoken about as as a way to move forward on the governor's land use bills in other words there was criticism that how can you mandate cities to build greater density in transit oriented areas if they don't have enough Transit in those areas um so there is certainly

[40:00] an expectation that a bill or more will come forward to provide Transit funding there's also talk about a ballot measure or two that would uh bring Transit funding to to our state um and as I mentioned this it's important to to to acknowledge that this is not about necessarily transer money to RTD um it could include funding to RTD could also include money going straight to the county or other uh service providers we're proposing to make this the state policy priority recognizing how important Transit is to our community and to our Council um and with that I'll just leave it I'll leave it up that I I I certainly have more information if you'd like to speak more about it uh position 65 has to do with um it takes a very outdated position that we had about col Department of Transportation and it revises it to talk about how it's

[41:00] important for us to encourage CED do to maintain our roads as best they can in our community um I will acknowledge that the way it was drafted was pretty um basic it did not have any details however since then council member friend did contact me and explained the many ways that she thinks that it could be expanded and working with our transportation s we have proposed uh some language that uh she then took and made made her own and sent on hotline and by making her own I mean she she endorsed it which is important for her for for your you to know that this is coming from one of your your colleagues um so um position 65 on SE do is uh is both what is proposed in your packet along with the enhanced version that you've that you have saw that you saw through hotline uh we're coming to the end here

[42:01] so just two more uh position 67 has to do with vision zero or or safety objective keeping pedestrians and and bicyclists and Transit Riders save this is an existing position um but we are proposing a new focus on vulnerable what what's been termed vulnerable Road users protection fees or vulnerable Road users Enterprise interesting concept which basically recognizes that bigger cars heavier cars are more likely to endanger people and as such the heavier the car you have a a greater fee may be appropriate uh levied through the registration process through the County registration process so this has been proposed both through the transportation legislative Review Committee um and so that it will come forward as a p r c Bill to the full general assembly and it

[43:00] is also being proposed by bicycle Colorado for non-commercial Vehicles so in in two different through at least two different um packages we're expecting to see this come forward um we are proposing that this not that the city not only support this but that they make it one of their priorities to get behind it and make it happen um it is cons consistent with our commitment to trying to save lives um I know again how much Council attention and how much Community concerned there is about making sure that we are keeping the roads safe and this is seen as a way to uh I wouldn't say discourage big cars because the fees is not going to be big enough to do that but it is to provide a funding mechanism that would go to the state and result in Grants to cities for for them to use it on improvements that would keep people

[44:00] safe um I understand that that the way the TC bill is has been introduced that would include the use of expanded photo radar enforcement for example but it could also be it could also include engineering of our roads to keep people safer lastly um we are proposing a new position that is overdue uh I believe position 69 and it's focusing on minimizing the impact of local airport overflight noise and pollution on neighborhood communities um this is something that we have already been working on um through Congressman deus's office who's been really good at turning to us uh for our expertise partly because he recognizes that uh John Kenny or airport manager has so much information so we can provide an expert advice um and I uh did just meet with

[45:01] with a legislator who was talking about a proposed uh State uh pilot program to um provide grants so that local airports could pay for the infrastructure necessary to have a dedicated unleaded fuel tank um because apparently the planes can already take unleaded fuel the challenges the cost uh and the resources is necessary to have a separate tank separate hoses I imagine um so this position has being proposed to allow us to both support continuing work with the federal government to make sure that we have a local control where appropriate to address uh overflight noise and both at the state and federal level to look for mitigating measures to pollution perhaps most specifically leted fuel which is which has been shown Rec recently and um and a lot of studies to cause problems to people who live below

[46:01] local or near locals um lastly uh this is not a state policy priority but on the federal priority side of of The Ledger uh we're proposing um to do two things one is to support congressionally directed spending requests so we have been successful in two of the last three years in getting funding for our ear request thanks to our awesome delegation uh weren't successful for 2024 but we will have another opportunity for 2025 so essentially making it a priority this for debt you may be wondering what is the request well we haven't identified it yet um so um certainly something we can bring back to you if you'd like uh but uh it is consistent with our general position our general principal actually to seek um Federal funding for uh City programs the other federal policy priority is is is

[47:01] more specific which has to do with furthering the U the construction and and and and funding of the Northwest rail line through the Front Range passenger rail as you all know until the Front Range passenger rail became in a a possibility it seemed like the Northwest rail line was hardly worth talking about because it seemed so impossible well now now Confluence of events we have quite a bit of uh promising possibilities and 2024 I would say is going to be one of the biggest years to actually uh move forward with it we are right now in the running for what's known as the corridor identification and development program uh it's a FR program that would award us some money that will allow us to consider uh more thoroughly and the Front Range pass the rail uh Amtrak is looking to expand and they have money through the infrastructure act to do so but only so

[48:00] much funding and we are in competition with other other uh States and even other regions uh seot has dedicated uh people to work on this including our our beloved John Putman who I think many of you know because he was he has served on at least three of our our our boards in commissions and he's now dedicated as their railroad liaison special advisor uh what is having having had previous experience as the general counsel Department of Transportation in DC I would say he's hard to imagine a better Advocate to work with us on these issues and of course rtd's continued work to um the we on the northwest rail um all this is to say there is an opportunity there's a lot to do in 2024 the governor's office as has been reported in the paper is um wanting us to consider when I say us those who lie along the line of the the Front Range

[49:01] passenger rail the the the proposed taxing district to consider an actual tax at next year's ballot and in order to do that of course we would need to have so many questions answered I think most of us would probably immediately say that's too soon the challenge is the infrastructure funding that would allow the expansion of Amtrak for a new rail Vine isn't going to be around is not funded um in a guaranteed way past next year and and passing a uh a a a a tax is an important way for us toensure that we're ready to go so uh just something for you to be aware and I think that um we've been working on this through the Met uh us36 Mayors and uh the Northwest Mayors and commits Coalition so it's been proposed as a priority so that we can continue to work on it um as a priority in reflection of your priorities okay so I've done a lot of speaking I am eager to stop and turn it

[50:00] back to you and and field your questions yeah thanks so much for that car uh for all those details and all the great work you've done to cre the policy statement uh what I would suggest is maybe we can ask Carl questions now on these proposed changes and then do the public hearing and then have council member council members advocate for particular changes that they're interested in whether those have been sent out over hotline or perhaps there's something else that people haven't brought up yet does that work for as a structure for folks okay great so then let's do questions for Carl right now before we go to public hearing please Nicole thanks Carl and uh thanks IG as well um a lot of work going on here um my question I've just got one it's on um policy position 40 I think it was and it's just a clarification is this referring to um some of the issues that have come up around bond statutes and whether low-level offenders can be held in custody um so I can wrestle with this

[51:02] one but I think we might have our municipal judge on the line and if so I would ask him to uh speak up uh judge Khan if are you on the line give it a couple seconds to see if you are I am Carl uh if everybody can hear me so yes you're right counselor spirit I think this is uh related to that it came about as a request for mayor protm Wallock who submitted it to Carl and then Carl reached out to others to see if we could get some language together so uh I offered some language just so that we'd be clear of what the need might be going forward to try to reduce the the cycle that we've got there where low-level offenders who get cited and fail to appear and then warrants get issued uh are then then arrested potentially arrested when the jail is accepting our warrants but when they are arrested the

[52:01] state statute currently requires that we give them PR bonds upon request within 48 Hours of being in custody and that results in quite a bit of cycling with people who don't uh take a plea and they don't set their case for trial they just ask for the pr Bond and then they get other charges and so we end up with multiple people with multiple failures to appear on multiple offenses and so in the perfect world we would have the opportunity as judges to at some point say we're going to hold you for trial and so my hope would be that perhaps at some point I don't know that this legislative body at the state will do it but would consider modifying that statute and judge Khan could you introduce yourself please the record yeah Jeff Khan the municipal court judge for the city of Boulder thanks Nicole did that answer your question yes I did thank you great we got Bob thanks Aaron um I'll have some

[53:00] comments on position number 22 after the public hearing but I did have a question for you Carl about position 22 and I'm looking at the uh the sentences that are at the bottom of uh page 17 and the top of page 18 of the memo I'm sorry there's two two different paginations there's there 17 or or 29 one one of those things but but it's the uh it's the second paragraph of position 22 that reads for these reasons the city support state policy changes that incentivize and encourage local governments to adopt land use policies such as Transit oriented development period oh um I'm sorry I'm on the wrong yeah I'm on the right place that that sentence is fine the following sentence says the city may also support state policies that go beyond incentives if such policies meet the following conditions and then lays out a number of conditions so when we say policies that go beyond incentives I'm trying to understand what that means does that mean mandates or does that mean

[54:02] something that's kind of halfway in between an incentive and a mandate and if if it's if it's that can you describe what what's meant by that sentence yeah thank you it's it's a good question and certainly something I thought about when we drafted this um Beyond incentives means just that and the question I guess really is is is there anything between incentives and mandates is it an automatic that once you go P incentives for example encouraging cities through funding which the state has done in the past uh does that become a mandate um the intention was that this would be anything between there assuming that there is such a thing the only example that I can think of of a of something that might not that would be Beyond an incentive but yet um uh less than a mandate is denying the city funding that it otherwise would get for example from the federal govern government let's say the highway users tax fund um or trust

[55:00] fund from the state or or the federal government gas tax revenue um how that's allocated um the state is oftentimes a pass through agent if not the state Dr kogas or n and so I can imagine that the those entities can say uh City you you know you shall not get this money unless you adhere to the following land use requirements and that scenario it's up to you to decide that if you agree if that's a mandate or or if that's something short of it um but I could see that being kind of a hybrid because you know cities don't have to do it but going to lose money not to argue with you but mandates usually involve a penalty for failure to comply right you shall do this and if you don't something bad is gonna happen that would be a mandate right yeah yeah and so if if the state would have the power to withhold something to which the city would otherwise be entitled if they don't do what the State requires how how do you distinguish that from a mandate that I just described yeah I I'm not in a position

[56:02] to um to say well let's just say um if if you want if if it's council's will to clarify that anything short of of an incentive is a mandate I I will not argue with that um I I don't uh I don't know if it's correct to say that uh there is these hybrid situations so okay well I'll see my comments till later I just wanted to see if there was there was a third flavor of that ice cream and it sounds like there may not be thanks yep right seeing no other questions then we can go to the public hearing uh we have one person signed up to speak which is Melissa adalo quar Melissa you'll have three minutes to speak and we can start when you're ready all right Melissa you should be able to unmute yourself and

[57:00] speak sing thank you so much um thank you council members for the opportunity to speak on Boulder's policy statements my name is Melissa Hidalgo qu and Boulder has been my home for 28 years today I'm representing Cobalt I'm the Cobalt abortion fund director Colorado's largest independent abortion fund we partner with and work frequently with Boulder Valley Health Center as well as clinics and Healthcare Providers throughout the state our fund pays for abortion proed procedures without any requirements or barriers as well as practical support which is travel and lodging support for people in need to reach their appointments this year we have already spent over half a million dollars and helped over, 1500 clients those who cannot afford the travel costs child care or a safe place to say if they're traveling far are of course the same people who cannot afford abortion procedure costs in the first place especially because Colorado's Medicaid insurance program is forbidden from covering abortions there is therefore a de facto

[58:00] abortion ban in Colorado on those who cannot afford private insurance plans or to buy an abortion procedure outright which typically costs hundreds of thou hundreds of dollars but can reach thousands Cobalt and our Coalition of Colorado's reproductive Health rights and Justice advocacy organizations believe that this must change we are running a ballot initiative to put a measure on the to put a measure on the 2024 general election ballot to ask Colorado voters to amend the state's Constitution to establish abortion as a constitutional right thus eliminating the discriminatory ban on abortion insurance coverage for state and local public employees and people on government health insurance plans we know how to win this campaign we're the same Coalition that fought to pass the safe access to protected healthc care package of three bills which it which this year gave Colorado a shield law against outof State attacks on our health care patients and providers and mandated private insurance plans to

[59:00] cover abortion our campaign research shows voters are with us voters are upset to learn that people insured through Medicaid as well as public servants like firefighters EMTs state county and city employees and over 55,000 teachers are excluded from coverage that others get Colorado voters are motivated by a sense of fairness and believe that money or type of employment should should not be a prerequisite for their rights we ask for your support in this fight and for Boulder to lead the state in advocating for good life-saving policy we respectfully ask for your approval of the updates suggested by council member Benjamin to the 2024 city of Boulder policy statement thank you thank you Melissa all right uh that is the only person signed up to speak so I will go ahead and close the public hearing and um bring it back to council do we have any uh follow-up questions before we go to suggested

[60:02] changes Bob do you have a question or a comment okay I'll get to you in a second um Juni did I see your hand did you have a question yes but not on the testimony that just happened so you might go to that first and then come back to me thank you any questions on the testimony that just happened not seeing any so Juni go ahead with your question then we'll get to comments thank you I just have a question for you call on number 41 which talks about the policing and criminal justice section and I just wanted to ask you if any part of that for instance number 41 if it was stakeholder with some of the organizations in the community such as cir NAACP or

[61:00] Amistad uh thank you council member Joseph um so this is actually a hold over position that has not been changed in many years and so I guess the question would be has it been stakehold it since or at the original time when it was drafted um I would say this is at least 10 if not 15 years old and this was in response to a time when so make sure we're reading the right one position 41 as I have it is prevent local government mandates to enforce Federal immigration laws yeah so at the time there was um an Administration that was um both at the state and federal level um coming down pretty hard that local governments had to play a of role and that otherwise uh they'd be Sanctuary cities and if they and if and if they were Sanctuary cities

[62:01] they could be denied some some state if not federal money um looking at this now and I admit that I had not looked at this in a while um that was the purpose of this and we certainly did have a lot of people who came and spoke to our Council about urging our Council not to play a role and enforcing Federal immigration laws that we should be a welcoming community and that we should not um um you know take on the responsibilities that the federal governments have so that's my initial response from what I recall like I said it's been quite bit quite a while yeah thank you for that I mean I know you've worked on this a lot and I read it it's it's not how do I put it I wish it was a little bit more

[63:00] comprehensive because I do understand what you're saying especially my understanding Boulder is is a sanctuary City and we value immigra immigrants in our community and as well knowing or current C's political climate as well or climate around policing having something that is more forward looking and that reflects the community ideals or what some may agree is or Community Values um I think this may need to be worked on as of right now I I don't want to Wordsmith it but I think having more conversations with community members who are particularly interested in this piece itself should be welcomed yeah thank you thank you and I'll just say that um oh I'm forgetting her name uh one of her preeminent uh attorneys who works on immigration

[64:01] issues think her name is Laurel Heen um that's who comes to mind as somebody I could follow up on uh the kind of um updating making sure that this is still reflective of of Our Community Values so I could certainly do that thank you and and cir might be a good organization to contact as well car just mentioned okay uh if we want to do comments and we can if you want to ask for specific change as part of your comments please do and we'll consider those proposed changes I got Bob and then Lauren thanks um I have com comments on two positions but before I get into that I I want to make a kind of drafting suggestion because I I got a little confused and maybe I wasn't the only one so we have priorities one through numbered one through five and then we have positions numbered one through I don't know 69 or 70 and uh when you're flipping back and forth is a little bit confusing so my suggestion my drafting

[65:00] suggestion would be if you can have those top five priorities at the top label them something other than one two 3 four five because we got Priority One and position one and they don't cor they don't correspond and so call them ABCD or or something else or Roman numerals or some something other than the one two three and then the second thing I would do is I would I would parenthetically note where that position might be found because those first five priorities are not the first five positions so that's just a drafting suggestion for you Carl yeah and it wasn't too many years ago when we didn't number these positions at all you might remember that that it just was just one big massive blob of of something that went on for like 30 or 40 pages and I think some of us suggested numbering so we're we're we're we're almost all the way there on on organizing so if we could do that that would be really great uh my first comment of the two positions is relates to um position number 23 which also happens to be priority number two and that relates to uh encouraging the state to assist us

[66:02] with um a number of homelessness situations issues from Supportive Housing mental health treatment substance abuse treatment and I think that's great it's fantastic I wouldn't make a change to that the one suggestion i' like to offer to my Council colleagues is in addition to asking the state for that assistance that we also ask the county for that assistance the county is our closest health department and I think that there's a decent chance that their uh ballot measure uh I think it's is it uh is it 2B will be passed which does have the word support in it and and that could be used to to to bolster perit support of housing I know that we don't historically Lobby the county I'm not sure why um why we stop why we just do the state and federal legislature or not the the County Legislature but I'd like to suggest that we include the word County and Carl can draft this in position 2 three to also Advocate to the county for support on homelessness services so Bob can we pause and maybe

[67:02] straw pull this I saw some nodding heads does anybody want to have a response coming or can I just call for a show of hands if who's interested in this um the only thing I'll say from a process perspective is um uh Bob is right we haven't typically indicate we haven't used our policy statement to indicate positions that we're lobbying for our Pure local government County School District University but we can and there's no reason we we can't we can't do that I know that I personally would not want to be in that role so but but nonetheless that doesn't matter because I think I think what you could do if if you follow Bob suggestion here is um this would be the kind of advocacy that we would really rely on the elected officials on almost exclusively um I think it's kind of bad form for City staff for example to be involved in advocating uh before the County Commissioners or or County staff Maybe I'm Wrong maybe I'm missing

[68:00] something but um I think that's a little bit why we haven't used it in the past um so I'm just thinking out loud I think it's um it makes a lot of sense but I'm also just looking for political landmines where they may exist well and Carl if I can respond I'll note that this policy document serves as guidance for uh council members as well when we're considering about positions that we might take when conversing with other elected officials I think it could be helpful in that sense yep absolutely with that in mind if I just get a show of hands of people who think this is worth changing IDE do change okay I got I got a majority maybe unanimous okay so we can incorporate that please call and Bob you want to go to your other one yeah the second one I wanted to talk about is position number not surprisingly it's position number 22 which is also priority number three um and I had just just two comments on this one one I I I've already kind of made in the form of my question uh and that is that um those sentences uh that appear

[69:02] before the first set of a through d uh uh conditions or qualifications I think we we just need to call it one way or the other we either going to call it an a mandate or call an incentive I of course would prefer to call it an incentive uh if um if majoran Council wants to call it a mandate that's fine but I think we're probably being a little bit too cute by saying well it's not really an incentive is not really mandate I think it's kind of either one or the other so I would suggest going to incentive there or at least clarifying it my second comment um relates to um there's two a through D lists there which again Carly would probably suggest maybe doing some sort of different numbering so we not we don't have you know two um 22bs and two 22 C's you can clean that up a little bit um in the second set of a through D list um um a is qual qualified as incentives and then B and C are not qualified as incentives and then D is is just an analysis it

[70:01] doesn't really matter and I'd like to suggest to my Council colleagues that we make a and C all incentives as opposed to a incentives and then kind of Silent on B and C and then I'm not too sure if it's a mandate or an incentive so I'd like to either put incentive above the ABC have them all qualify that or or specifically say a incentive B is incentive C is incentive b i i afraid I lost you on exactly where you were there sure sure let me I'm sorry about that you're talking yeah so I'm I'm on page um either 18 or 30 of the memo because the Memo's numbered both ways but it's in section it's in position number 22 and you'll see um in position 22 there is an ABCD which are the conditions for this kind of incentive mandate thing and I'm not talking about that that set and then below that then there's four policy categories which are

[71:00] also labeled ABCD are you following me there Aon yep yeah and um I'm just suggesting that um so for example in B says create minimum average housing density standards is that meant to be and I know it's conditioned on on all the stuff above that that part I get but is that um meant to be a state mandate that we that we would support the state mandating that we create average housing density standards and similarly on C are we are we suggesting that it be a state mandate that we reduce the number of parking spaces again I'm just talking I'm talking about what we do as a city that's for us to talk about but my question is is that creating mandates for um housing density and parking spaces well and I just car you can maybe chime in but my the way that that I read it is um that it's control controlled by I guess the second paragraph of uh item 22 so it's that the city support state

[72:02] policy changes that incentivize and encourage various things and that may also support policies that go beyond incentives if they meet the following conditions and so think all four of those things would be controlled by that paragraph yeah so there there's two two issues with that one is again as I mentioned before I think it's a little bit unclear what what a policy that goes beyond incentives mean is that a mandate or is that some sort of hybrid between incentive and mandate it sounds like that might be cleaned up um but I think if that if we condition it on those things AB C and D the first ABCD there's a potential for a fight there because if if the state says we hereby mandate the reduction of parking spaces provided it's consistent with the B Valley comp plan then we're going to have people fighting over well is it consistent with the B Valley comp plan or not and so I I I just think I think I think this this whole position number 22 needs to be clarified are we are we adopting mandates are we supporting

[73:00] mandates or we supporting incentives if we're supporting incentives then that's great then let's just say that if we're supporting mandates under certain conditions um then we should say that uh and then I probably would not support this position 22 well I can look to uh colleagues for comments as well I'll just make point I think we we did have a public hearing on this last year where I think there was there was a disagreement right so there was there was not a unanimous vote um to support this position because I think it did it does include things Beyond incentives that may be encouragement or may be mandates um and there was disagreement on that right so that was this position had majority support but not but not unanimous support for that reason and if Lauren do you want to add something I got Lauren and terar both here yeah and I think one of the things that we talked about um in the committee was that there's a lot of complic you know

[74:00] the devil is in the details here and so this probably might not be enough Clarity for Carl to move forward on a bill um without bringing it back to the group and so things like whether it is meeting the goals of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan is I think where is intentionally not totally clear um and I like that being a part of it era Matt Jun now that I'm thinking about it um most of our policy decisions are unanimous here on Council and probably with most of the community whereas this particular one that Bob is mentioning there's more uh disagreement so because I like our our policy decisions to be mostly unanimous or let's say the majority of our community versus

[75:00] creating um turmoil fighting whatever you want to call it I would say that for me incentives is better for now I appreciate that I like where Lauren's going and and I and and having talked to Carl I think we all know that this these issues on land use were going to need to be coming back to all of us I don't think there'd be any way that would have scripted this so perfectly to have just this clear yellow bck road all the way to a passage or or of a bill so I I I think that's kind of an obvious thing and if we have to rubber stamp that this will come back that that's fine by me but I also don't think we need to delineate incentive versus mandate because we simply don't know and and maybe there's a mandate with u a complimentary piece that we say ah we'll exchange for that I I I we couldn't possibly forecast those pieces so I don't want to sit here and say one word over the other I'd rather keep it open and when the bill lands on our table then we have that formative discussion as an entire group not just the intergovernmental Affairs and we uh let the cards fall where they fall when when

[76:01] that comes to us uh but I don't think we should be dicing too far into the Weeds on this when there's so much more detail as Lauren porette pointed out that's got to come down the pipeline here really soon yes um I was looking at that section as well I think everything seems clear except for C C is in red it's a bit unclear I can see why an incentive is not the same as a mandate and I think I can't read Bob's mind but I think if we clarify that c well it was B at first then it turns to C it's just not clear at all I understand the idea that hey if there's water supplies and Sewer infrastructure that can either sustain the land use changes that we're making but I think because of the word mandated land use changes it becomes a little bit convoluted and com and complex and a

[77:02] little bit confusing as well because I think the other three they do match the city may also support state policies that go beyond incentives if if such policies meet the following conditions right they're narrowly tailored based on our comp plan there's flexibility and it also Clarity on how our local government already meet these standards so I see all three of them actually are pretty clear but that c part is a bit confusing so maybe fixing that piece could potentially get Bob closer to accepting that piece of or um of our proposal so I think working on that might be helpful thanks J I was actually referring to the other SE there there's two sets of seas in this one so it was it was the sea relating to parking not the sea relating to water okay okay can I cqu on that point juny just just because uh unless Lauren you wanted to cqu first or you have your hand up for

[78:00] something else okay I so juny on on that point of clarity I I'm trying to understand I mean it seems really clear to me that this is a perhaps even if it's a let let's say for instance even if this is a mandate that we don't support this would still be appropriate guidance for Carl and his team to say well we still want to make sure if this thing's going to pass we want to make sure that we've got clear support and guidance to determine if there's sufficient water and infrastructure to handle this mandate so I don't know if it if it dictates a position on the Mandate rather than a condition of that said mandate that we would thus still be advocating for even if this thing we don't support still ends up passing right so I'm I'm not understand I that that to me seems abundantly clear and I I don't know why we're caught up on the I'm just wondering why the Mandate issue is is there because this is just guidance for which side we want to play should we decide that yeah I mean I hear you that's the only place where the word mandate seems to be incentives and

[79:02] mandate seems to be parallel right because when you look at the next section in section c there is no word mandate there so these two are completely delineated and I understand them I don't see any issue with that but that's where I saw the issue at first but quite well taken map yeah and I mean conceivably that that word mandated could be changed to something like proposed you know so so that we're not pulling in that it must uh you bringing in the word mandate there it's a thought but so okay we got a couple more comments Mark and Rachel just very briefly I kind of like the idea of proposed um and the deletion of the the word mandates it's it's a hot button topic and I think that's a uh a way of creating useful ambiguity I like that word phrase

[80:01] Rachel I've never heard of useful ambiguity so well done on that one we all learned something I mean I think we're at good enough I don't really care if we change that one word or not I think realistically the um the message probably that that Carl wants to take away is that anything on something like homelessness or land use should come back to the full Council especially as we're about to have an election and people may want to move to the left or the right after that so I think good enough for our purposes for tonight change a word if we want I I'm not sticky about that but um probably probably you're going to have to come back and and check in again on on some of the stuff after the election I did want to speak to my um hotline if this is the right time or I don't want can I can I finish this one out and then we'll get back to you finish her out yep right thanks so uh Bob how how would you respond to Rachel's point of uh you know this is going to come back to the next Council for consideration kind of regardless of of how things are going

[81:01] well um it's a little bit weird because we so we have um we have 69 positions that Carl's is free to go off and run with and then or 68 of them and then the 69th one which which I guess he's not free to off and run with so we we either have a policy position or we don't uh you know uh those of us who are concerned about the language of 22 can simply vote against 22 when this comes back to us in two weeks and we'll say we support 68 of the positions we don't support number 22 and Carl will know that that he doesn't have a unanimous Council on on that particular point and so he'll probably be more cautious when the land use bills come forward and I'm perfectly fine with that so I'm not trying to to um wor Smith tonight I'm trying to suggest um something that we could all get behind but if if there's not unanimity on that then that we can just park this and recognize that some of us may be voting against position number 22 and then Carl will have to bring this back once he actually sees the bill yeah point point cqu just in that that you know you were asking him how he felt about mine I guess I think Carl's going

[82:01] to have to bring it back either way that was one of the lessons I feel like we learned in the last legislative section like there are some things that are so big and and so um so much of interest to the community even if we weren't having a new Council he's coming back with it and again I would say you know we saw that uh at least one thing and and this was uh so two counting this one as well so I I and I think that we as a council voted on this in the past and it was divided probably six to three and so we could try and get to language we agree on and I doubt it's going to happen so that's why I'm saying I think probably for our purposes we're good enough and and you'll probably be divided in some differing numbers on the next Council I'm sorry to say thanks for that Rachel and I um misspoke earlier I said it was last year wasn't like felt like more than a year ago but it was earlier this year actually that we had that public hearing and vote as we're going legislative session couple more comments before we we wrap this one up Tara and Nicole so can we consider proposed instead of

[83:01] mandates or did we not did we decide not to do that I can do I mean that was my suggestion I could do a quick straw poll how many people in first item C like changing mandated to proposed got we got a majority on it roughly okay thanks for that Terra Nicole yeah I was just going to say I think um at the start of the memo also it mentioned that if we're testifying on something in the policy uh position you know we can state that it's on behalf of the city and then we can state where we stand as an individual too so it was kind of giving us some some Freedom there to not you know we can still pass uh the whole legislative agenda even if we don't agree with each individual piece of it um that's certainly me on a couple of things

[84:06] so are we still live I'm confused I think Aon was muted maybe I think aon's muted and trying to say something maybe I was trying to can everybody read my lips when I'm muted I sorry about that I was gesticulating wildly um so now thanks for that so if we can move on to other proposed changes and we can start with Rachel since she was getting going before okay hand up hand down so I sent out um a hotline just suggesting that we Tinker a little bit with number 65 and maybe try and be a little bit more direct in our Communications to and about SE do because a number of times in in the last few years we've had issues where um it has been stated that that is C do perview and Rule and we can't do X Y and Z and so I'm suggesting that we just start advocating directly to C dot on a couple things the examples um that

[85:01] I gave which as as Carl alluded to were really Carl and Natalie staff's examples that I I um hotlined for us so thank you for that help Carl and Adie and others so for example increase their um funding for pavement management and road maintenance on their roads which we're kind of stuck with at uh currently also where they have speed limits that aren't in line with our vision zero policies uh asking them to reduce them um and also look at noise pollution mitigation uh it says during Highway construction projects but I would say just mitigate Highway noise would be great as relevant for them to do so that's my proposal and and and I believe we covered it elsewhere but in my conversation with Carl I was saying that there are a couple of I think it's administrative agencies that we have been um I guess butting up against their purview which are legislators can't do

[86:01] anything about so FAA would be another example of that we keep hearing well the FAA requires X Y and Z on the airport and wouldn't it be great if the FAA changed the rules instead of us just being stuck with what they say so I would love to see us directly advocating not just to um our legislators but to the FAA or in in the federal government case I don't see this in the language it's okay Carl I get it it was sort of a strange thing to request but that we we go to the Department of Transportation like Pete Buddha judge's level rather than just advocating to the FAA because the FAA is really sort of siloed in what's best for air travel and I think what we're finding as a city is that's not necessarily what's best for all of us so that was just sort of an umbrella of of this is the seed out example and I think we need to Advocate directly to some administrative agencies and and the county I like Bob's point to thanks and Carl if I can just turn to you s I think you were involved in this

[87:00] are you comfortable with the the language in terms of its approach yeah so everything that Rachel had said in the uh email is what I'm hearing her propose uh striking drawing Highway construction so as to make the uh issue of noise mitigation broader not just limited to noise Highway construction uh the issue about uh the FAA uh as an agency as well as uh us doot being being targets of of advocacy definitely well understood I I don't usually put the target of advocacy in the policy statement and that's why I didn't do it here uh but I have run it by John Kenny and and uh we're gonna talk more about that great okay any uh questions or comments on this before we go to a straw poll Lauren oh mine was just about that last C and now that you've clarified that I appreciate that striking the during construction part makes more sense than

[88:01] and I just wanted to say thanks again to Carl Natalie and anyone else who helped thanks yeah I think it looks great um all in favor of this proposed revision it's majority anyway oh maybe unanimous okay very good thanks for that Rachel uh Matt um now if you don't mind I'd love to speak to the suggested revisions that I put out on hotline for uh item 25 um and just for a little context as as I stated in in uh hotline those changes that are stated in red there are are placeholders these were things that that through conversation that that I've had with a number of abortion Advocates and and providers um certainly locally and around the state um there there's maybe back up after after the governor signed those really three major bills really expanding and protecting uh

[89:00] reproductive access and rights just this last year there was a sense of like okay well now what um what what what next are there any gaps in that are there what's the next level of maintaining and strengthening protections for people not just in the state but people certainly now coming here as you heard from Melissa from Cobalt I mean they they they've they've uh certainly funded about 1500 individual ual um in need and so that that's sort of been the the thought since those bills passes what what are those other pieces and so what was in there when we met the inter intergovernmental Affairs committee were placeholders and in hotline was a more sort of thorough and succinct write up um after some of that consultation and getting input from those stakeholders and so that that's why it's a change and then a change again because not all those stakeholders had provided that input by the time we met with the intergovernmental Affairs committee now that that input's been provided that's the product of that um and that's what you see here um and so some of that certainly touches on that bill that

[90:00] Melissa mentioned that that is going to be going through um among just sort of laying out what that next layer of protection and filling in those gaps for for folks that need that access not just in our state but certainly coming from out of state to seek access and support um and make sure that they're not unduly criminalized or chased across state lines um so in any event that that's what's in there and so I'm certainly happy to answer any question questions you have about how that sort of came about or any of those specifics um but I just wanted to put that out there in the context and how we got to this place great thanks Matt and Carl I think you were involved in this one some too are we Al this is in conformance with how we approach things m is just a recipient of of Matt's email and it's very clear so it can certainly Incorporated he any questions from that or comments on this before we do a St poll seeing none how many people are in favor of this revised language okay we got look like a unanimous V on that Mata really appreciate you doing stakeholding on

[91:01] that and doing the work how is that thanks for that uh anybody else have any proposed changes I am not seeing any so Carl is this give you the direction that you need to make the revisions to bring back to us it does it does absolutely and I just say thank you all for um your consideration of it I know there's a lot to it and I look forward to working with the committee and look look forward to knowing who the new committee is and to the legislative breakfast I guess I'll just say that we will probably look to assign people council members to be Chief advocates for the priorities at the legislative breakfast uh um so why don't I just throw it out there now that if you have a particular interest in one of these priorities and you'd like to um you'd like to be the

[92:00] one who pictures it at the legislative breakfast please let me know that's a question about that breakfast Carl is it is it correct that you're doing it like the day before the council Transitions and if so are we all supposed to go like is that is that an morning I'm expected to attend or no it's a it's it's really unfortunate I I I was not you know I'm so used to council being sworn in way before December um and Nori actually brought this to my attention and it's a sticky issue um I did I glad I daylighted it for you yeah yeah so so I'll just say that um of course all council members are invited but definitely I want to make clear that the council elect and the mayor elect um will be invited to sit at the table as equal and yes that might cause some confusion perhaps to our legislators but I think they can figure it out I think they know

[93:00] who's outgoing and and who's incoming uh so um the challenge is bottom line was that there aren't many dates that are legislative delegation are all available on that work for me that work for an area and so on so um if if all of you are comfortable with with that and you know yes there a little challenge so so Rachel you might be asking are you invited I mean yes you're invited uh but that may be up to you to decide if that's something you feel is both worth your time and and you know you feel comfortable there I don't think Rachel's asking to show up thank you juny I was more like is that it seemed weird to me that we were getting an invitation to weigh in when I'm out the door the next day so I would also say if it makes no sense for us to attend you should just email us and say you know we're welcome to sit in the back row but like it is we're going to be at table like so anyhow right try

[94:01] understand what that timing right or or being for me to tell any council member to sit in the back row so I'll let you guys police that but uh and and that's why I thought the most important message was to be clear that the newly elected council members even though they will know how to been not have been sworn into the next day or 100% invited to sit at the table uh existing outgoing council members can decide for themselves what they're comfortable with thank you great question Rachel and with that we can say a very big thank you uh to Carl for all your amazing work on this and Adam for joining us and all of your great uh advice and support and we'll see the this back on the consent agenda most likely subject to CC uh decision in a couple weeks or thank you all have a good night have a good night and with that we'll bring that item to a close and Elicia if we can go to our second public hearing please yes sir thank you our second public hearing tonight is item 3B it is the

[95:01] consideration of a motion directing the city manager to proceed with the negotiation of an agreement with a private party to deliver on community Broadband objectives thank you thank you mayor I I think this is a followup we had an August 24th council meeting or a council study session I should say and since then staff took your comments uh and um your feedback and has done some additional work and Mike Janti here is going to fill us in on all of that and give us a quick little overview so Mike I pass it on to you thanks Nua and good evening Council uh Mike Janan deputy chief Innovation and Technology officer and very excited to be here with you this evening is somebody from the clerk's office bringing up the slides for sure there we go thanks Emily we can move on to the next slide so just some really brief introductions uh as nor mentioned we have a very short

[96:00] presentation that I'll lead us through and then I have several colleagues on the line tonight to support any follow-up questions you may have including our CIO Jennifer Douglas our CFO car Skinner Andy fart from our city attorney's office and Tim Scott a Broadband industry expert who's been working with the city for several years now next slide please before I jump in I just want to remind Council again as nuia mentioned that the intent of tonight's public hearing is to align on a path forward to bring additional affordable fiber-based broadband internet to homes and businesses across the city uh we will propose a motion that asks Council to authorize a city manager to negotiate a backbone lease and a rightaway agreement with a private party and this action is requested again not not as the be all end all decision around broadband and Boulder but as an action to move us forward in 2024 to attract private Capital that we know is interested in coming to Boulder uh as an investment in in in much needed internet

[97:01] infrastructure here in our city next slide please there's somebody sitting outside my office window here playing quite loud music so hopefully that's not coming through um online here um so so tonight I I hope is a is quite a big milestone for this program and and I want to talk a bit about the road that we've taken to get here uh Broadband discussions were actually had as far back as 2011 uh and it became a fairly regular Topic at Council in 2018 and 2019 when Council unanimously passed a motion to construct our fiber backbone uh with the promise of of making a decision at a later date on how to connect homes and businesses to that Network extending off of the backbone uh as we know as I detailed in August and have spoken with several of you about uh the backbone Construction is nearing completion this year and and over the course of 2023 uh we've had the opportunity to have multiple conversations with you all through study sessions uh about deciding

[98:01] how the city would make the connection from the backbone to homes and businesses in our community our January study session uh we used to outline some of the highlevel options for doing this and you all requested that we go investigate uh all of the potential options in front of us or at least the major options that we had presented to you all uh over the spring and summer we conducted some extensive financial analysis on a city-owned and operated network uh we executed a public request for information to identify that there actually is very strong Market interest in bringing private capital in uh internet service operations uh from another internet service provider into Boulder we also studied the community and we learned through dozens of key stakeholder interviews with Business Leaders and other community leaders through a statistically valid Community survey and through focus groups uh that the community wants action and they want more choice in their internet service and they really strongly value

[99:01] reliability and affordability in their internet in August we we came back uh and we presented all this data to you um you did take an informal poll that evening where six of you concurred with our staff recommendation that entering into a RightWay agreement in a backbone lease with the private party to achieve these desired outcomes around Broadband was the right Next Step uh for for the city uh that night we highlighted that in in the current fiscal environment uh this option the staff recommended option is really the only approach that works financially for the City without nearly doubling our city debt uh and imposing a nearly $14 million annual burden on the general fund uh which would likely come in the form of a new sales tax increment this option is also the fastest time to Market of the options provided meaning our constituents would receive more Choice more quickly uh it's also the lowest risk for the city where we can take the position of of

[100:00] encouraging more investment from private providers uh both new and incumbent providers uh to improve the reliability and costs Without Really impacting the city's financial position in in the Broadband Market if if we were to do it on our own tonight is is the third time uh that this is a topic at city council this year and and it's opportunity for us to follow up on a few of your outstanding questions from August and and to hear from our community on what other thoughts they have uh before voting to formally authorize us uh to proceed in your desired Direction uh next slide please uh so with all that in mind I'd like to again uh reground Us in the community Broadband program's intended outcome and objectives uh again I think I've highlighted this slide at each of our now three meetings this year but these were first developed in 2017 they were reaffirmed at our study session earlier this year um the the ultimate outcome of this work is to achieve affordable high-speed fiber-based broadband internet access for the entire community and how we achieve that goal

[101:02] can take many forms as we've discussed at length uh and in making that decision on how we do it it requires consideration of of cost risk and and and level of control uh for this for the city um it also has a huge impact on how we achieve these six objectives that are outl here Citywide access creating a more competitive Marketplace having services that are Equitable and inclusive for all having infrastructure and a business model around that infrastructure that is future oriented having internet delivery for the entire community that remains net neutral and one that places the highest regard uh on on our consumer privacy uh next slide please so really quickly here I'd like to go through the three poten potential path forwards one more time and and I know we did this in in August but I think it's important to just quickly highlight what those three um potential options are uh again tonight U before we

[102:01] move into Q&A um the first here is the notion of creating a municipal internet utility like our neighbors in Longmont leveland and Fort Collins uh as we know all three of these cities have reaped the benefits of of control uh in in the Broadband Market both during construction and now operationally all three of these cities as is the same with our projections uh plan to ultimately be cash flow positive uh which is great um the main difference between these three cities in Boulder however is is the cost of build uh all of the three of these the most recent is Fort Collins and it cost Fort Collins about $1,900 per premise to build our estimates uh from our financial analysis that was built by our consultants over the summer is $3,700 per premise which is a stark difference from from what these other cities encountered and there are two major reasons for this difference number one is that these cities already own their electric utilities which provided over 50% of the

[103:01] needed conduit to run to run fiber and number two is they all executed the construction in the 2010s and and and a little bit now in the 2020s uh which occurred largely before the massive inflation that we've seen uh since the pandemic uh and and certainly before the major federal investments in broadband that have caused a crunch in the labor and material resources uh in the space so all that to say we have a number of challenges to consider with this option number one and probably the most important with this is the massive Financial Risk uh we will need to figure out a way to pay a $14 million annual subsidy it's an average subsidy uh over the 25-year term of the debt that it were required to build U this infrastructure um this is because as we look at our financial analysis right our revenues that we generate from the service will be on average this $14 million short of the operating cost and in The Debt Service over that term of the debt uh we also in this model stare

[104:01] at a very long time to Market as we'll need voter approval uh to issue the debt uh we'd go through a lengthy design process uh and it would take a long time uh to secure major contracts with construction and project management firms uh all of these things push the service delivery date many many years into the future uh and lastly as I alluded to on on that last slide while by entering the market as a third provider we will be moving our competitive Marketplace objective forward we we have to balance that uh with our need to stay financially solvent if we took this approach right in other words it it's conflicting to want to drive lower market prices through competition while we as that competitor also maintain the revenues that we need uh to to not require an even higher subsidy from the general fund next slide please the middle option here if you will is is creating a formal public private partnership this would require the city to bring some level of capital

[105:01] to the table and by bringing Capital to the table we realize some proportional increases in the potential benefits uh around control um the value of control and of course the financial returns uh post Debt Service are really limited by the stake that we have uh in in the Endeavor with a partner uh and in the full benefits of of controlling price to Consumer on the priority of the sequence of of the construction the things that we've placed a lot of value on during these conversations that really only comes when we have majority ownership which of course create many of the same Financial risks that I just spoke about uh related to the municipal internet utility um similar to the municipal internet utility uh this would have a likely a fairly long time to Market probably shorter because a partner would bring some of those economy SC economy of scale uh that we would need to to get going a little quicker but we would still need to go to the voters for the bonding Authority and potential tax increase for this next

[106:02] slide so lastly uh and and as mentioned here on the slide this is our staff recommendation um is the idea of creating a non-exclusive backbone lease and RightWay agreement with a third party uh that would bring both operational expertise into running an internet service uh and private capital to build off of our backbone uh into the neighborhoods and premises across the city uh there is very strong Market interest in this model uh and we're seeing variations of this model used all over the country including in many municipalities here on the Front Range it represents the lowest risk option for the city both in terms of of this deal and any potential future deals or Investments the city would like to make either on its own or or with other potential Partners um and to that point it it it's really the most flexible option and we talked about this a lot in in August right um if the if a future city council uh would like to take action um we have that freedom to do

[107:01] that to enter the market as a as a um as a competitor with the municipal internet utility or to supplement um some of the work that that this or our incumbent internet service providers uh would have in the in the market place uh so this Market scores very very well on most attributes as you can see here the one that it does not is control uh and for this particular approach the city's level of control would really be uh minimized to what we can negotiate um and or what we can do uh indirectly with revenues that we would generate from from backbone lease payments um so th this model really achieves those program objectives the six program objectives that I talked about not by Direct Control um but by really harnessing the the power of of more price competition consumer choice and and incentives of those third parties to grow their market share and rece see return on on their investment um so I think we can move on

[108:00] uh to the next slide um in August uh our staff question to you all was what additional information do you need um before taking a formal vote on on next steps which we're here to do tonight hopefully um and uh we provided some detailed responses to each of those questions that you had back in August and in last week's staff memo but I I'll summarize again very briefly here um the the questions largely centered around these five topics that you see on on the slide uh level of community awareness some additional questions about the financial analysis questions about success stories of other communities who have followed a similar path to the staff recommendation uh what terms might be negotiable in a backbone lease and what are the opportunity costs of of not creating a municipal internet utility so related to the level of community awareness and input as I've mentioned we've conducted extensive research in the community Through survey focus group interviews uh we've spoken to

[109:01] stakeholders in in pretty much every uh part of of this Broadband equation and we know that 60% of our community more than 60% of our community uh is interested in either the city providing services on its own or doing so with a partner so strong uh strong sentiment from from the community in that regard we also know that the community has a really strong desire for Council to invest City funds and in nearly $30 million of currently unfunded needs outside of broadband those are items like affordable housing support EMS implementation Parks maintenance implementing the reimagining policing plan and those are really just to name a few uh and and as I mentioned uh in in describing the three models in in this fiscally constrained environment uh we plainly don't have the fund FS uh to create a municipal internet utility while also achieving these other goals of of the organization related to the uh Municipal internet utility Financial modeling uh

[110:01] the question was asked about elongating the build period as a way to possibly ease The Debt Service burden and make it uh potentially more financially viable for us and uh we had several follow-up conversations with our consultants and and um Tred to work through what this potentially could look like and unfortunately um it it just wouldn't work uh a slower build would also mean pushing back revenues right so subscribers can only sign up and and generate revenue for the program once their homes are actually connected um and so in addition to achieving less variable revenue from from the build uh there's massive fixed operating costs that just startup operating costs that would need to be then spread across a smaller pool of customers and so that means uh the service would either be more expensive uh or we'd have to create an additional burden uh on the general fund for additional subsidy to make the the program work uh related to success stories of other communities uh in the memo we outlined a few including Pao Alto

[111:00] California Centennial and Colorado Springs Colorado um all three of them as well as many others have taken a similar approach to this of creating city-owned assets uh and then partnering with the private party to bring actual internet services and and in some cases like would be the case here in Boulder they also brought additional capital for the fiber premise uh build out um related to the potential negotiable terms in in the approach that staff is recommending here this will be sort of the the largest focus of staff for the next six uh six to 10 months uh determining if the city either wants to collect monetary payment for the use of our backbone and then use those revenues uh to to um achieve the objectives of this or towards other objectives of the city or do we want to negotiate non-economic terms like potentially free public Wi-Fi uh retail price guarantees or guarantees on on a full Citywide um buildout over some specific time Horizon

[112:02] th this will take a large cross functional staff team legal perspective um and and and several months of of figuring out what our negotiation perspective is and then actually working with a selected provider or providers uh to to sort of land on that and Council uh will have an opportunity and I'll talk about next steps minute here but Council will have an opportunity to weigh in before any sort of lease deal like that is signed uh and lastly here uh related to the opportunity cost of not building a mical internet utility ultimately this just means that we're yielding control of both the physical assets that are built by the private party uh and the operations of of the internet service to that private party uh or or their sub contractor uh it basically means that if the city does want some higher level of control on the internet Market uh it will need to make these Investments at at some later date next slide please so if Council does vote to move

[113:00] in the direction of staff's recommendation tonight we have a lot of work ahead of us over the coming year uh that I've outlined here in this uh very busy slide uh hopefully you had a chance to see it before the session tonight uh but we will immediately begin on requesting proposals from private entities uh we'll then select one or more of them to neg negotiate as I just mentioned a backbone lease and and create a RightWay agreement with them to access our RightWay to start building um we'll also take on an extensive body of work that's that's actually already started uh to plan for how the city will manage the permitting the construction the legal and the ongoing strategy components of this program with the private entity sort of involved I expect there to be at least two Council decisions in 2024 uh number one uh around an update date to the RightWay design and construction standards which I mentioned back in August uh if we do move down this direction we will need a standard to allow for permits that include shallow trenching uh which is a

[114:01] technique to construct uh Broadband conduit fiber conduit uh that's being used all over the country including in climates similar to ours um work on a proposal related to that again has already begun um and and that would be something that would come in front of council I also expect us to come back later in the year uh for you to hopefully adopt the terms of a lease uh of our of our backbone assets uh because it will likely be a lease that uh extends past the three-year limit requiring Council approval uh and we would obviously like your input on the uh the terms of that agreement next slide please yeah so so lastly uh before we go into discussion and questions I just want to reiterate that tonight is is really not about making an end all be all decision about Broadband access and Boulder it's really about taking a step to move our community forward using the Pro Power of private investment that we know is there in this fiscally constrained environment to answer these

[115:01] urgent calls from our constituents to take some action uh voting for this recommend recommended motion doesn't preclude us from any future options to make investments as a city uh in in any sort of Internet uh infrastructure uh or even providing internet service as a city organization but but doing so tonight does help us take a big leap towards um achieving the objectives of the program that that I outlined uh so with that I will pause and happy to take any questions great thanks so much for that all that information Mike uh very helpful so any questions for Mikel on this topic Mark yeah I I do have a couple um uh how does options three this page two of the memo um preserve the potential of soliciting additional private providers or entering the market as a municipal internet utility I would I would think

[116:01] whoever is doing all of this work would would want to address that in in the lease agreement thanks for the question mark yeah we we would likely and we see this in in most other markets where this where the municipality is bringing assets to the table where they're really signing non-exclusive lease agreements um and there's no agreement uh that precludes the city from doing any additional um construction or investment in assets so it's a pretty common um it's a pretty common thing and and uh we would expect the same would um and I assume you're GNA go out with an RFP on this that's right you have a sense of how many parties might be wanting to respond we conducted an RFI last May April May um of 2023 and we had eight responses um five of which we believe to be fairly viable options for us so hopefully at least five and part of part of what you said in um I think

[117:02] it was in the I think it was the staff memo but but it may been in the slides um was that a strong negotiating team was necessary as one of the downsides of entering into this transaction um anything particular you have in mind to create that strong negotiating team yeah I don't I I don't think it's a downside I think it's a challenge really um and and I think it would require a cross functional team uh that really represents the the the broad needs of of our constituents in this space uh we would likely need some outside councel um who has negotiated uh these type of deals uh before as well and and since I assume every entity would come forward with some kind of term sheet will we be approving having a an an ability to weigh in on the selection of the counterpart and the term sheet um was

[118:01] simply the counterpart and the proposed lease agreement exactly where will uh Council be asked to to weigh in our current intention would be to bring you uh basically a term sheet a lease agreement um for for our selected um our selected party or parties it's possible that we would have more than one um go through this process with us okay thank you thanks Mark thanks Mark PA yeah Mike thanks for the presentation I was going to go down the same path that Mark just did but then you confused me there at the end I thought I was following you but then you said in response to his last question you'll bring us a term sheet and a lease and those are obviously very different things the term sheet is kind of a a non-binding uh discussion point where people frame things up and we could see who the party is and what's the high level terms are and we could weigh in but at least you're pretty far down the

[119:01] road is are you going to bring to us a term sheet or whoever's on Council and and then leas later on or are you planning to do that all at once and kind of present it to us as more or less a f compy uh the latter thanks for clarifying that okay I'll have a comment on that when we get comments sure all right thanks for those questions I'm going to now open the public hearing we have one person signed up to speak so uh Jonathan singer you've got three minutes John you be able to unmute yourself thank you and good evening everyone you know I was thinking just before this council meeting I was listening into council member Benjamin's uh database dad jokes and uh I started wondering uh how our Broadband providers might feel about them and given you know our providers focus on speed and volume I have to imagine our providers would giggle all right that's thus ends the uh my I'm I'm GNA keep my dat job um at the

[120:01] boulder chamber uh we appreciate and have discussed uh with City staff uh their engagement with businesses of all sizes who are consumers of data and we truly appreciate the input that we've received um not only from the city but from our um members and large and small providers um we look favorably on the staff suggested motion language uh just to make a couple of highlights though um we're grateful that staff looked at this value proposition of the public private partnership and municipalization and other options um because with the city taking on major efforts on increased maintenance needs um other issues at the city like homelessness and our reimagine policing program um I wanted to suggest one thing that we often think about the cost of doing something or the cost of doing nothing um but what about the value of doing nothing um there's a certain value in making sure that our city priorities

[121:03] remain what they are given the limited resources that our city has um we're already seeing things like the docis 4.0 protocol launching in other parts of the state today this provides high-speed gig and above um s symmetrical Services um as well um we see some other great fiber options being provided with speed reliability ubiquity and affordability um all improving without additional significant government resources and other places there there's real value in letting the private Market proceed um whether um the city decides to move forward with fiber or Wireless um however they best hit those goals we'll leave that up to the experts all of that being said the staff suggested language does a great job of Rec recognizing we need to move forward and take significant steps in the right direction so I encourage Council to look at the costs as the staff is already identified overruns in other communities who had unanticipated or under anticipated costs

[122:02] and move forward with the staff recommendation once again my special thanks to council the staff um and the stakeholders who all provided input uh and thank you for your time and consideration thanks for that Jonathan all right I'm going to close the public hearing bring back to council for comments Bob it sound like you had one so sure thanks Ain um yeah Mike and and N I guess my suggestion to you um is that you bring this back to council several times during the course of 2024 I understand Mike's time timeline and where he wants to end it up but I think I think if you bring this back as a as a pretty fully baked thing um you you really run the risk of actually slowing things down because whoever's on Council may not like what you bring back and so I would suggest two or three touch points during the course of the year next year um you know I know you're going to issue an RFP mic and um and that's great and I I guess the first

[123:01] touch point would be to report back you know what the results of that RFP are and and who your preferred provider is that'd be you know that's probably just a study session it's a short presentation uh and then you're going to move on to a term sheet with that preferred provider and I would bring that back to council and see what council says about the post terms and conditions and then obviously bring it back finally for approval of the lease I I I really think this this is a really really big deal it's probably one of the more important things that that the city will do next year and I I don't think there can be too many touches with Council uh to weigh in because you want to find want to find that where where the landmines are early rather than than waiting till the very end because I think that's just end up slowing you down and embarrassing everybody so that's my my counsel to you is is to come back frequently um as you move through this process thanks Bob Lauren Matt and Mark thanks yeah I strongly agree with what Bob just said I think that um for a

[124:00] variety of reasons I mean I think a lot of the goals of this project you know in the slides it said you emphasized affordability over and over again and we talk about our community Broadband objectives being future oriented net neutrality consumer privacy all of these things we have essentially no control over except through the lease agreement itself and so I think that you know giving Council a lot of opportunity to provide feedback and you know participate in that process um and I would say also thinking about shorter lease terms because have having the opportunity to have impact you know future imp impact as this is rolled out I think is also an important piece and I know that that's not going to be appealing but I think that that is an important thing when we're talking about um an asset like this and wanting to

[125:03] preserve the flexibility of the city for a variety of options in the future thanks Lauren Matt Mark Rachel I appreciate that I kind of torn on this in the sense of where the comments lie I I tend to not disagree with sort of the touch points but I'm really worried we're going to be micromanaging this thing into Oblivion um so that that's a concern I have we are not the experts um maybe Bob is to some extent because this is what he did for a living so I I'll I'll give him that um but I'm just I'm worried that if we we we've run we've fallen into this trap before if we we're touching an object or or having so many check-ins we end up micromanaging ourselves into Oblivion and that and that itself is poor governance and so I

[126:01] I just want to be real mindful of of not baking in too much of that um and letting those that know what they're doing do the work um and it's effectively like kind of ma you know we're managing contracts we don't we don't do this with contractors who are building our buildings who are uh cleaning uh you know the the medians we're we're not micromanaging every of the thousands of contracts that Nu and her team are doing all the time so I'm not sure why we would want to do this here I know it's new I just the cautionary tale of of over over micromanaging thanks uh Tracy would you like to weigh in before I go to other counselors um as you have this conversation I I I do want to highlight that you know typically we would provide an agreement as part of the RFP process and so um rather than wait till the back end we probably would need to think about timing if Council wanted to weigh

[127:03] in okay thanks for that Mark well I I want to speak in support of of what Bob said and for one thing I'm not sure this Council has ever shied away from micromanagement um and this this would be an unusual circumstance uh if if we did so now um but more to the point I I think you know a term sheet might be digestable and we should be able to look at it by the time we get to the lease I don't think anybody's going to be going through paragraph 72c um to to see what the notice Provisions are so I think that the key is to have some Buy in from Council um upon the selection of the uh the vendor and the proposed basic terms of the deal uh

[128:00] and then let the negotiators go and negotiate something that is consistent with that uh and I think that will minimize um well to the extent possible our micromanagement um and at least give us one or two points at which we can at least take a look and and see if there's anything problematic about the vendor or problematic about the terms and conditions and you know we're talking about uh the major terms and conditions not you know as I said not the the notice provisions of page 172 so I think Bob um is correct you do want to have a couple of touch points here um where we can at least weigh in on on a general basis and then free up the negotiating team to go to its business thanks Rachel then Nicole I think I agree with everything everyone just said which almost doesn't make sense but I I I like Matt's idea of

[129:00] not micromanaging but I also like the idea of check-in so I just wanted to remind everyone that like council meeting minutes are so precious and you can meet outside of council so like we did have a a meetings right with Mike to talk about what he was looking at and you don't necessarily have to do it on a Thursday night so that might be a really um easy way to get a check-in you're going to have a new Council again so who knows what anybody's going to think so I like the idea of a checkin I like the idea of not micromanaging and I think probably you could do a check-in on a Thursday but not two or three of them so maybe just one at a a midpoint and then just make sure everyone's comfortable with the direction you're going so the extent anyone wanted it those are my thoughts tachel Nicole um yeah I think I'm um aligned with Lauren Bob mark on this one too um just because that idea of internet access is such an important one there's so much potential for um harm

[130:02] and also for just making sure that people have safe access to the data that they need to um not being charged more for certain types of um uses so I would like to see it a little bit more than usual and I'm typically very not micromanaging U but this is one that does feel really important and I think it would be good to have that and um Teresa you know I he heard you say a little bit more before we actually get to the um RFP and and um contract and everything and and I would be open to that um I think the idea of having some meetings outside um just one-on-one meetings with the team does sound like a good idea and there's also a lot of value in US coming together and talking about things in a way that we can't do um in these offline meetings thanks Nicole well I I'll go ahead and call myself kind of for summary purposes it sounds like there's some strong interest from Council in having an additional check-in or two um

[131:02] so of of some kind and so maybe uh this is something that you all could think about and maybe propose okay here's a good point where we could come back to council here's another one maybe there's an IP at some point maybe there's a study session at one point you know we're not going to figure that out exactly tonight um but definitely strong interest in in having some additional check-in with Council as we move forward um in this direction n do you have a thought on that yep I I would just say that I um I view the interest in an update as uh interest in passion in the subject and not a desire to be micromanaging so we'll take it as such um and so uh we're hearing it and we will make sure that we come to appropriate inter intervals when we um let you know how we're doing and what we're doing but we hear it and um much rather want to hear the perspective that Council has earlier on then later and so we will adjust accordingly very very well said thanks

[132:01] for that um flexibility and with that exchange I wonder if anyone might be interested in making a motion I know there's somebody out there uh Mike do you want to bring that proposed motion language up on the screen please I think Emily you have the slides right I can make a motion I got it right here okay I'll make a motion directing the city manager to proceed with the negotiation of an agreement with a private party to deliver on community Broadband objectives second a motion in a second um Elicia what kind of a vote do we need on this one I would prefer a roll call vote sir I thought you might let's do a roll call

[133:00] please all right thank you we'll start the rad call vote for item 3B the approval of the city manager to negotiate the agreement on broadband with council member Yates yes Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes also remember fuls yes Bren yep Joseph yes spear yes mayor protim wall absolutely and council member Winer yes item 3B is hereby approved unanimously fantastic well this is very exciting to see these next steps that are coming up Mike thanks so much for everything you and your team have done

[134:00] so far and for the what I'm sure will be the extraordinary work that you do in the coming months to get us to the next steps uh do you need anything else from us on this thank you mayor no no nothing else appreciate it very good um any final thoughts from anyone just that I think this might be a record Aaron thank you well I've got one final thought which is I hope you all have a very spooky week because we've got Halloween coming up so aren't we required to go to 9:30 I mean are we permitted to end this meeting early Mark if you'd like to start reading a newspaper out loud someone someone yeah someone's about to get censured for that that recommendation all right you crazy kids I believe 13 p.m have a great night

[135:16] everybody