November 2, 2023 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[3:22] Channel 8 reports they're ready great now normally we have the meeting up on the screen over here right

[5:20] to the Thursday November 2nd 202 through regular meeting of the Boulder City Council we're going to start with one announcement which is about the better public meetings project so the city of Boulder is partnering with the national Civic lead on an 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 about your experiences with our meetings so we invite community members who are either in person or online for a council meeting uh starting a few few weeks ago and running through our December 7th meeting to rate your experience we have an online scor card that takes about 2 minutes to fill out the link to it is on the screen now and for the online audience we're putting a link in QR C code into the chat you may

[6:01] complete the scorecard once for each time that you participate in a council meeting over the next three months so thanks for helping us to make our meetings better and with that I will go ahead and call us to order if we can start with a roll call please Ela yes sir thank you and good evening everyone we'll start the roll call as usual with council member Benjamin present mayor bronet present council member ferts present friend here Joseph present spear present mayor Pro Tim Waller here council member Wier and Yates here mayor we have our quum thanks so much if I could get us started by asking for a motion to amend the agenda to add item 3 F4 which is consideration of a motion to approve and authorize the city manager's determination to note donate or otherwise dispose of items of City prop property with an estimated accumulative value in excess of25 ,000 to the Boulder

[7:00] Public Library District in conformance with the terms the IGA between the city and Library District for the benefit of the Boulder Public Library System just note this is part of a suite of measures motions we're considering about the library district tonight and that one just happened to not make it into the uh public agenda before publication so moved second got a motion in second all in favor raise your hands and that's everybody so and mayor I wanted to just put one more request out if this just I wonder if we could put that QR code up again sometimes in the meeting like where we explain uh that people can give us feedback on the meeting if they weren't here right when it started they won't know to do it and my understanding is we don't have a ton of them getting answered yet so could we make that easier flashing it up every now and then give us feedback going forward so You' like to get that reposted maybe later on in the meetings so people could see it again maybe before public hearings maybe at the end of a meeting did you hate what you saw did you love what you saw

[8:01] give us feedback sure yeah great thanks for making a suggestion to make our public meetings better Rachel there to get more feedback on making our public meetings better okay and with that um we are now going to move to our Declaration of the evening which is a transgender day of remembrance uh presented by council member Benjamin and I believe we have folks in the uh audience here to receive this declaration if you could come on up please uh for the reading of it thank I just don't want to block everybody all right transgender people in Boulder have long been and continue to be valued and important members of our community transgender people are often and discriminated against in areas of

[9:00] housing employment and Healthcare social stigma a lack of comprehensive protections ensured eraser and inadequate welcoming spaces limits this community's ability to fully Express themselves access services and hold equal rights under law on this day we honor transgender people whose lives cut short in the acts of transphobic violence in addition to the threat of violence transgender people often have inadequate access to income employment adequate Medical Care housing food and acceptance of public life moreover these disparities are compounded for our transgender community members of color in particular black and Latina transgender women are murdered at disproportionate rates and face uniquely complex system of discrimination and violence today we honor transgender people in the death of their fullness of their lives and identities their Joys their contributions to the community and their connections with their loved ones the city of Boulder welcomes and Embraces our transgender community members and will continue to uphold our

[10:00] shared values of belonging inclusion and uh equality by creating an inclusive community and not tolerating acts of violence or discrimination against any transgender people the city of Boulder will continue to directly advocate for transgender cultural competency training expanding programs to support transgender people and providing access for equal representation of transgender people in the decision-making process of our city government of note in 2022 our esteemed Partners at Boulder County championed legislation to mandate demographic Health data collection thanks to their work this information can soon be used to address Health disparities across spheres of sexual orientation gender identity disability status race and ethnicity as implementation moves forward the city will align our data practices with the state so we can better understand and respond to the unique needs of all community members on November 20th of each year we honor the memory of transgender people who have been murdered because of their identity

[11:00] and acknowledge the level of extreme violence and fear faced by transgender people nationally and internationally we the city of uh City Council of the city of Boulder Colorado declare November 20th 2023 as transgender day of remembrance there you go and we have Lucy and Avery here representing out berer County and I think Lucy is going to say a few words thank you so much for that declaration it means the world our community to know that the city is recognizing our important to the Boulder Community to Society at large thank you to all of the council for being considerate of this and also just making room within our system to be able to address our issues directly so thank you thank you guys thank you for thanks for being here appreciate [Applause] it thanks so much for that Matt and thank you for our esteemed guests for joining us here today and I'll just mention it's personally very meaningful to me as someone with trans kids so I'm

[12:01] glad that we could do this declaration here today okay um we are now going to move to open comment so uh Brenda I believe you're going to give us our public participation guidelines please good evening everyone um I am happy to share our public parti participation guidelines for those who are there in person as well as folks who are joining us online um I'm Brenda rittenau with our communication and engagement department the city has sorry one second the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations this Vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members staff and for Council Members as well as supporting democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspective perspectives to learn more about this

[13:01] vision and the community engagement process we went through to reach it please visit our website bouldercolorado.gov and put productive atmospheres in the search bar the following are examples of rules of decorum that are found in the boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this Vision these will be upheld tonight during this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to City business no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person obscenity racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by and individuals who are testifying online must display their whole name before being allowed to speak currently only audio testimony is

[14:00] permitted online in-person participants are asked to refrain from expressing support or disagreement verbally or with Applause with the exception of support for our declarations traditionally support can be shown silently through American Sign Language Applause or jazz hands thank you everyone for being here tonight and with that we can continue thank you Brenda all right we've got eight people signed up to speak in person and two virtually each of you will have 2 minutes to speak I'll call three names at a time as your time is approaching if you could move on down towards the base that would be much appreciated and our first three speakers are Jill tappert Marie Juliet bird and Charles Clark so Jill thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening I'm Jill taer president of the board of Boulder swim team and Boulder swim team is one of the founding members of the Boulder

[15:00] Community Aquatics Coalition I encourage you to please revisit the letter that we submitted on October 18 and the testimony on October 19 regarding the likely devastating impact to the boulder Aquatics Community if addition if Lane space for lap swimming is not increased prior to its decrease as part of the planned East bould Community Center and South Boulder recre Recreation Center improvements we remain committed to the idea that Winter Rising Scott Carpenter Park Pool is not only the best solution to the immediate problem at hand but is also a good long-term outcome for the community I'm here tonight to raise two additional points the first is that Boulder parks and wreck perhaps just pursuant to its regulations divides all of the people who use the rec centers into two categories humans and user groups with all respect we want to remind city council and parks and W that behind the user groups we're humans we

[16:02] directly represent over 1,200 individual swimmers youth through adult age 8 to 89 we are the humans that the Boulder parks and rec department has a mission to serve and second we would like to request your continued involvement directly in the reassessment and decision-making process prior to our appeal to you last meeting we had reached out to parks and W on numerous occasions and we were informed that they would not reconsider their prior decisions nor their upcoming plans despite the Urgent situation that had been developing and despite the new facts since we have spoken with you progress has been made and that is promising but we believe based in part on the communications we are hearing that your continued involvement is critical to finding a solution to the immediate problem at hand thank you thank you

[17:00] chill now we have Marie Juliet bird Charles Clark and Michelle Rodriguez and by the way for people who are new to the process we do have responses at the end of all the testimony is Marie Juliet here no uh in that case Charles Clark it's your turn Charles Michelle looks like it's your turn and then we'll have Mimi Krueger and Elanor hodby minut I wasn't quite ready um hi guys Michelle Rodriguez um I wanted to say congratulations and thank you um I exited the room really quick last was it the week before last last week already um after the decision on letting the police monitor and the police and the police go forward um I'm still every day hoping to be made a little bit whole holer if that's such a word Holier Hol

[18:01] Holiness how was that word uh and my apologies uh this morning Rachel I almost ran into you on the road you were 30 that was me off a pine um but um and on deputy chief Redfern on that issue I I I want to say personally that I think it takes more of a man and more of an officer to stand up and to repent and to admit when you're wrong and to stand with Integrity for what it's right um where he's testifying with the prosecution and I appreciate that and I say stand strong and um I'm still hoping to be made a little bit holer and I'm missing um Nua there and I missed you guys and whoever's gone after this next vote I'll miss y'all I think as a whole you guys are one hell of a power team and and I appreciate all of y'all down to y'all okay have a good one thanks Michelle now we have Mimi Krueger

[19:00] elanar hodby and Phoenix ELO do we have Mimi in the room uh then Elanor hodby thank you uh I'm also part of the Boulder Community Aquatics Coalition uh and I represent mesa's summer swim team Mesa was founded in 1975 and provides Boulder kids uh from ages 5 to 18 with community daily practices and inclusive me swim meets throughout the summer vacation our membership is over a 100 families 95% of whom are Boulder residents scholarship funds cover our very modest fees if they are needed but we are struggling mainly due to pressure on pool space at City facilit here are some specific examples for the last two years every home meet has been held in Broomfield because we can't get pool space in Boulder with the climate crisis and poor Su air quality we desperately want to keep our

[20:00] activities local at our recent preseason event just a couple of weeks out from the first practice we were unable to confirm practice days times or even locations at City facilities we have lost swimmers as a result last winter we ran the only dropin swim program in Boulder uh for kids who are Beyond learn to swim lessons but pool space was a real headache and limits our ability to run this unique program again to protect volunteer run nonprofit Community swim programs like Mesa lap swimming capacity must be expanded before taking the limited existing facilities offline for re renovation and I want to emphasize that time is critical here because childhood is short my kids are 9 and 14 they need more pool space now before their childhood swim opportunities have passed vague Promises of a fancy Aquatic Center in Boulder and 10 or 15 years time is of zero relevance to current

[21:02] Boulder kids a seasonal roof on Scott Carpenter would instantly double the lap swimming capacity in Boulder for a small fraction of the cost of renovating just one existing rec center and we're asking for a plan for that winterization to be made urgently thanks thank you elanar now we have Phoenix Salo and then Brandon Miller hi Phoenix zillu um I was thinking about the RTD system and wondering if there has been any consideration for the revitalization I know that there's a lot of changes that have happened with coid and everything and so um directly looking at my circumstances with first off having a route through fulam I know there was someone a number of people actually talking about all of the

[22:00] changes that need to be made so I was wondering if there could be a consideration put into those plans for that bus route extending down fulam Avenue and then um in general just the efficiency of it I spend a lot of time taking the bus one direction to go do one thing only to spend most of my day trying to get home so there's a lot of um navigation that has to be done where it's either timing or multiple buses that I have to take luckily as a student I have the capability of getting around without paying for every part of it um but just in general I think that if there was more planning and adjustment I think people would be able to get around easier and then we wouldn't have to have so many cars so yeah that was all I was thinking thank you thank you Phoenix Brandon Miller is our last inperson

[23:10] speaker hello first off I would like to say thank you for your time from all of you who been W ra the mic up a little bit there first off I would like to say thank you for all of you that represent what the will of the people is in Boulder today I want to talk about uh it starts it started as a project it's called the universal libertarian human right to life project and this project is a publicity and awareness campaign that ascertains an ultimatum in Penal Code City to City locally now this I'm presenting as a city ordinance and I am prepared to press the issue with petition form and this is a three-phase process you can see that there's a three parts to it the first part starts here in Boulder

[24:02] Boulder Colorado a city ordinance that requires all business owners pay one5 of their profit after cost of goods sold and before they're taxed to the employees who make up the positions ultimately providing the uh business uh machine for their customers these employees they often live paycheck to paycheck some people in town live in town and they work in town both now this creates what's called a frenzy stimulus a real stimulus without having to take a loan from A bank without a business owner having to reap a benefit from a government subsidy 20% 1 of the cost of everything is incorporated into uh the tax write off as well so the business owner only loses probably about 10% of its profit and 20% gets uh d and a derivative to the employees they every

[25:02] week every paycheck additional from their uh hourly wage and this creates an excess in City uh sales tax expenditure from the employees themselves and it also creates an income tax increase uh from the employees themselves a real stimulus for the community thank you I present this in a yay or nay thanks Brandon your your time is your time is up so this is this is last I've just through you without me going petition form if you'll pass this ordinance thank you okay thank you you can follow up with an email if you'd like um an additional email right you've emailed us before uh we have two people online um speaking the first one is Lyn seagull and the second is Lisa Spalding so Lynn you're up I do not currently see Lynn online so I'm saying this slowly so that Lisa has time to be ready to speak because Lisa you are

[26:04] up thank you Brenda Lisa Spalding for una the University Hill neighborhood association request that you choose ordinance 8605 under item 3G one would assume that imposing uniform standards for restaurants brew pubs and taverns in all BMS zones would reflect the fact that all zones are similar however liquor licenses on University Hill are unique and deserve special attention the green squares in the following slides are Hotel restaurant licenses the maroon squares are Tavern licenses and the light blue circle indicates a beer and wine license next slide please Uptown Broadway has four liquor licenses two restaurants that 00 and two Tavern licenses a Monte Uptown a coffee shop that closes at 300 p.m. holds one and an event center holds the other next slide

[27:02] please West Pearl has no on premise licenses the Red Square marks the West End wine shop next slide please Boulder Junction has three BMS zones and one beer and wine license for a pizzeria last slide please UJiT has a 13 has 13 on premise licenses 12 of these are Hotel restaurant licenses and five of them were grandfathered with late cloes in 2013 state law prohibits alcohol sales within 500 ft of a school and almost all of EIT lies within that zone only Hotel restaurant licenses are exempt from the prohibition EIT has almost three more liquor three times the liquor licenses that all the rest of the BS BMS zones combined before 2013 the hill had 17 bars most were opened it till 2 a.m. and when the bars released their Dr drunk and disrupted patrons the impact on the neighborhood was severe please choose

[28:02] ordinance 8605 and give us the chance to work with the business owners to revise special regulations in an appropriate manner thank you thank you Lisa all right that uh brings open comment to a close and so now I'll turn to City staff to see if there are any comments and I know our city manager in nura is online and I just saw you raise your hand you have a something you'd like to add y thank you mayor and apolog that I am virtual though I'm trying not to give anyone coid uh lately um I just wanted to a than folks who are coming to speak today and in particular I wanted to um address the urgency we're hearing certainly from um those in the aquatics World um a I wanted to thank you for your continued conversation but also wanted to lift up uh how much I know that our Parks and Recreation Department comprised of individuals who really are committed to service and committed to everyone in community um are thinking

[29:02] about this have been thinking about it we'll continue to think about this issue I understand that they are setting up a meeting to talk about certainly Scott Carpenter talk about the future of rec centers and so Council I say to you that we should be hearing back from our Parks and Recreation Department soon and just appreciate everyone's continued dialogue thanks thater it's great to hear that a meeting is is being set up to address people's concerns thank you TR did you have anything nothing from me tonight great Council anybody Bob this is a question for you teres I think I know the answer um the last speaker um talked about U alternative ordinances under item 3G which is 8590 and um 8605 and this is first reading and so I I think our practice has been to often times if there's alternative ordinances to pass them both on first reading and then make a decision at second reading

[30:00] after a public hearing is that correct yes that's accurate so these ordinances ultimately would you will need to choose between um they are in the alternative however it is our practice it has been this council's practice to both pass both on first reading and then you can have a robust discussion at second reading and um make your determination at that time thank you Teresa very good uh seeing no nobody else then I'll just thank everyone who came out to speak to us tonight really appreciate you um lending us your thoughts so we will now move to our consent agenda and I believe City staff is going to say a few words um about one of them but Elicia if you could introduce it for us please yes sir thank you our consent agenda is item number three on tonight's docket agenda and it consists of items 3 a through 3i and I think uh City staff is going to speak to 3F a bit about the library district and the intergovernmental

[31:00] agreements so ner did you want to I I think I am thank you mayor um I just want to say for that particular item tonight before you you have the formal documents for the city library Department to transition to the boulder Library District Public Library District uh as outlined in State Library law since Council ratified the appointment of the new District trustees this spring the group has been furiously working and I mean that furiously working towards this transition I think they've been meeting every week and then some to support the transition so I wanted to thank the District Board of Trustees and specifically here tonight virtually I believe is Johnny Teeter board president um I don't know because I can't see but I believe Bonita Duran board vice president and Kim Cedar attorney for the district they've been great Partners to work with throughout this process I also want to thank our partners at Boulder County the collaboration with the county has been really integral to getting to where we are tonight and I know that

[32:00] that will continue into the future importantly I want to thank our city team who has negotiated the agreements before you led by our fantastic city attorney's office including our City attorney Teresa Taylor Tate Janet Michaels R Ward and David gear and I'll also say uh our own Deputy city manager Chris Meek who is there with you um has been invaluable to this effort but they have not been alone there have been a lot of Staff who've been working to really think about this trans and make it as seamless as we can and I will say not just for the district but for our staff too and our team uh to make sure everyone is set up for success and want to include in that staff support gratitude it facilities and Fleet Finance HR parks and wreck and Community Vitality there's one person who's been doing double duty since this began and I wanted to thank David farnon our library director who is supporting City Library operations and District transition operations at the same time and and I know that there's been incredible volume of work happening behind the scenes to

[33:00] make this transition really successful and smooth so before you were seven City documents including two igas four leases one assignment and I dare say a partridge and a pear tree but it's too early for that Teresa and Chris are ready to answer any questions you have on how we got to this language before you and so I will send it back to you in Chambers uh to get this started thanks for that nura and uh yes and trustee Bonita Duran is in fact in the room with us thanks Bonita for coming out and Kim Cedar's present online um so turn to you all for say maybe a few additional words uh yes so as Nara said you have seven documents before you tonight and what we're seeking is authorization from the city council for the city manager to enter into these agreements and substantially the form in front of you and so what that would mean is minor amendments that are administrative and nature or are substantively in line with what's in

[34:01] front of you would be authorized as well um that's that's what we're looking The Authority we're looking for tonight here and we stand ready to answer questions you know we've had a a robust discussion or two or three about these items and um you know we've Incorporated Council Direction uh hope that you had an opportunity to review these and look forward to answering your questions thanks so much for that well so what I might say is I might look to see if Council has any questions and then I'll just check in if anyone wants to suggest and or propose any changes so do do people have questions for City staff yep Mark um I rais these questions uh earlier in a hotline but it would be good to to get a couple of the answers um although it doesn't impact the transaction in my eyes anyway um Can someone speak to the value of the book books and property we're going to be conveying to the library

[35:01] district Chris do you want to take that one so yeah the the um fourth item that is uh a part of this is regarding a bill of sale to transfer all of the personal property inside the Library so that's the books the shelves kind of all the stuff inside the building um and um we believe that that is probably over $25,000 worth of value um we don't have a exact inventory and exact valuation to do that would actually we'd have to hire an appraiser to do that um uh but in getting guidance from uh David Faron our library director based on um how much we spend each year buying books and then the depreciation schedule of those books if we were to make an educated guess on the value of the books themselves probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.6 to2 million so that doesn't include book or the sh and all that sort of stuff but that at least gives you a very rough ballpark okay as I said it

[36:01] does at least for me does not impact the transaction but it's something good to know um my second question is with respect to section 2.3.5 uh if we intend to sell any of the properties we must first off offer them to the library district have we discuss the terms and conditions under which we must offer them to the district right of first refusal uh fair market value how's it going to work thanks for that question uh and it was you raised an excellent point we have not hammered out the details of how that ride of first refusal would work um I would look for additional Authority from this Council for us to hammer out those details and for you to authorize nuura to execute an agreement that is consistent um with whatever Direction you provide here tonight okay that that works for me um and and lastly

[37:00] um in conversation with uh Deputy seating manager uh Chris metek he points out that I I had made a comment um about language in the lease that permits um uh potential cancellation of the leases and he pointed out that the the language I was really should have been referring to was Clause 2A as opposed to um uh the the every three-year termination right that is provided elsewhere um and my argument or my comment at the time was um we put that language in to provide the library district with the means to initiate a conversation uh with the council um if they decided they wanted to uh obtain a conveyance of the library properties as opposed to a lease and as I thought about it my sense is it's unnecessary language because you can have that

[38:01] conversation at any time all you need is a counil that's willing to talk uh and a Library District that wishes to have that conversation I don't know that we've done anything there that that's really additive um for the library district that that conversation can occur six months from now or six years from now just depends upon the willingness of the council to entertain it and the interest of the library district in doing it um so I I guess I'm uh viewing that language as a as a bit redundant and not really furthering uh the interest of our agreement I don't know if you have a different view of it uh mayor Pro like I don't have a different view of it I agree with you that the parties could come to the table at any time to have these conversations uh council did direct this window for periodic review and uh because Council so directed we included it in our negotiations and in the agreement before you okay so again I will then turn at

[39:03] some point turn to my colleagues and say do we really need this language since it the the mechanism for that conversation already exists and that conversation can occur at any time and I so we'll come back to that shortly once we get through questions y great other questions yep Nicole thank you um and this is just a question about the nature of um the kinds of changes that the city manager might make um specifically this is in regard to an email we received from uh one of the trustees Johnny terer this afternoon just about a little bit of change in the language around the selection process to um kind of lift up making sure that there's a A diversity of geographic and um representation within the library district as well is that the type of change that the city manager would be authorized to make or is that something that you would need direction from us

[40:02] tonight we have heard clear direction from this Council that uh Geographic and demographic information is a an appropriate consideration um I will tell you that that is language we put forward the language has been negotiated here's where we are today um certainly we could we could move forward and continue to negotiate that language and if so authorized tonight it is exactly the kind of language that we could um move forward uh without bringing back to council but instead have executed by our city manager great Bob this is for any one of you that can um maybe address this there's been a little bit of confusion um around the maps um the license area and the the I know there's some buildings that are being leased I'm talking specifically about the main library a few few hundred yards away and then there's been some confusion over the non-exclusive lease or license I should say of the of the

[41:02] kind of the the land the grass and the pathways between uh this building and that building could you could one of you talk a little bit about that sure I'm happy to yeah I'll I'll start Chris can Chris and Janet can both jump in uh so there is a licensed area that is outlined in yellow on attachment a to the license and management agreement that area is larger than just the main library building uh there are not uh there there's not a lot of Provisions around that however there are some really important Provisions that attach by including that licensed area um first and foremost it it ensures that first amendment protected speech continues in that area which is a traditional public forum and gives an exp expanded area for people who perhaps are trying to um

[42:00] exercise those First Amendment rights outside of the library so that's um quite important uh secondly there are assets there that it would was unclear who would manage those assets without us calling them out some examples of that are the playground the walkways the grounds and so we needed clear delineation um because as you can imagine we haven't before had to think about whose responsibility is it to maintain each of these things and so for example you'll see that there are entryways outlined um entry plazas and those have a specific set of requirement for the care that is taken and who's responsible for that that's the library district uh likewise the licensed area we needed to be clear about who would maintain all of those assets and that's the city Chris anything to add no I think I think I think you covered it Teresa and that's the the key thing is the yellow line on the map

[43:00] really is just the everything in this agreement applies to everything inside of this yellow area and then as Teresa described it delineates whose responsibility is what and so uh outside of essentially the building itself um those entryway plazas the city is responsible for all the maintenance and the management just like we do today that that's helpful I'm just a follow question as the non-exclusive lensey the library district uh could not Grant uh people rights to do things in that space so for example they couldn't say oh folks can camp here or have a barbecue here or anything that the city was opposed to is that correct that is correct um in fact the the agreement specifically spells out that they have to that the library district would have to go through a permitting process like any other uh organization or entity or group of people would and that the city retains All rights and responsibilities of that property and so camping would

[44:02] remain illegal because that remains public land and so uh it would not be within the library District's Authority or purview under this contract um to to go around or abgate the law in that way thank you Teresa jie thank you so much I just have a same similar question along the same line is currently the library district that is responsible for the maintenance of all sidewalks and walkways currently that's not quite yeah go ahead I mean the library itself yeah go ahead right you mean right now right now our Parks and Recreation Department typically manages most of the walkways within the Civic area um uh under this uh agreement the library district will be responsible for the entry plazas which are outlined in green on the map outside of those the city will will still remain responsible for all of the sidewalks and the multi-use paths okay thank

[45:01] you great will you all ask my questions so looks like we're good on questions so would anyone like to suggest anything of potential Change Bob yeah getting back to the um the kind of writer refusal language I'm just going to throw this out there and see if there's a lot of nodding heads up here and if so that would provide Direction um I'd like to suggest that um if the city ever were to um contemplate selling one of the buildings that's being Le East that um one of two things would happen either the city would um go through an auction process or a bidding process in which case the library district can certainly be one of the biders and so there really would not be a need for any type of WR or first refusal they simply would submit a bid along with any other private purchaser if the city um alternatively if the city decided they wanted to try to sell one of the buildings in a private transaction that is without a bid or an auction type process that if if offer was received by the city from a third party that is somebody other than the library District the city would then be obligated to take that offer to the library district and

[46:00] for a short period of time maybe 10 or 20 days the um the library district would have the O opportunity to match that offer and if they did not match that offer then then they would their right would be uh would be waved that's kind of something that I think um many organizations do to kind of often referred to as a wrer fierce refusal we can call whatever we want but that would give the library um two alternative ways to purchase the building if the city ever wanted to choose it and I'm guess I looked at my colleagues to say is that something that you all would feel comfortable with and then Teresa and her team can certainly draft that Mark uh I I would be comfortable with that but I'd make the time periods a little more lenient for the library district um I think 10 20 days is is is a little uh harsh um I would give them more time than that but the concept I think is is fine just call on myself if I may so Bob I mean those seem like very reasonable options it seems very

[47:00] specific I I might ask for the city staff to maybe say okay maybe something similar to this but subject to our legal experts and what you think might work best in some negotiation with the district General Lauren did you want to respond or yes if you don't mind um good cqu over here happening uh the charter Chris rightley and Janet rightly pointed out that that the charter does require that Council be involved in any disposition of property and so if this were to happen we would absolutely have to come back to council that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be helpful or advantageous to lay out the process now U but I did just want to remind you that that this would come back to before the council body okay Lauren yeah I think um I agree with Mark

[48:03] in terms of the duration I you know often these entities have to be able to put up a large amount of money or proof that they have the ability to purchase and so we might want to have a fairly substantial notification period even if it it might not have to be a contingent on the offer but just to ensure that I would be interested in having in ensuring that the library district has enough time to put together um a an a counter offer so how do people feel about this that Bob's thrown out some specifics and we say okay we let City staff iron out you know maybe go in a similar Direction but with discretion to alter some of the details keeping in mind more time being necessary and Rachel Just one thought um when we were on the other side in the CU

[49:01] South negotiation we wanted a first right of refusal and whatever amount of time we thought would be fair to the city there might be what is fair to the library here not in heads okay yeah I think um Bob I just have a question for you and I I think what I'm not understanding is what's the overall kind of goal of of doing this like what are we trying to achieve through this and I think then I can better answer the question yeah this is really a protection for the Library District itself in other words I I think they don't want the building sold out from underneath them and so if if I was the library district I would be asking for something like I'm proposing which is which is um if you're going to sell the building city um let us know first because we may want to be the buyer and I think this is really a protection for the library district um and I love Rachel's idea by the way of of some some terms that are very similar to what we did on CU South because we were on the other side of that that negotiation right yeah know and I mean I get from the the first right of refusal I'm just wondering just kind of the very specific proposals that you put forward yeah I was the days I was just throwing those out there I agnostic up the days

[50:00] they'll negotiate that I don't have any particular thing the one thing I would would suggest is is um if it's a very very long period of time um it does have a can have a chilling effect on a private buyer so you a buyer comes in and says okay I'll pay you this amount of money for the property and we say okay time out we got to go talk to the library district if that's a really really long time that buyer May exit so we just need to kind of balance those interests yeah okay thank you and and I think we might cover this by saying that City staff has the discretion to work and negotiate specific terms so are are people comfortable with this direction I'm going to look for kind of nodding heads or I have a question yeah go ahead J yeah I think I understand the right of first refusal and why it may be important but I guess my question would be um as part of that conversation well you go back to the trustees as well to get a sense of where they are as part of that conversation absolutely and and we would have to right so this is a IGA between

[51:02] both parties both parties would have to agree to the terms and so we absolutely will go to the trustees and work with them um and in the spirit of of what has been directed by Council and find a a a good path forward and um likely a compromised position thank you yep um I believe Johnny and Kim are on the call and I was just um wondering because Kim I know you've worked with a lot of different Library districts as as they were forming um and I'm just wondering if uh you have a sense of how other other cities have done this first right of refusal so great so question for Kim Cedar who I think just got promoted to panelist and so Kim if you wouldn't mind um answering that question uh the right of first refusal that was recomended and and I'm sorry Kim if I

[52:00] could ask you to start by introducing yourself okay I'm Kim CER the attorney for the library district from Cedar and vanderwal and um in response to the question uh what Mr Yates has presented with regard to presenting to the library district an offer received for the library to match is the system that's almost always used great that's very helpful hearing that thank you Kim are folks can I get nodding heads are people comfortable with this yep okay looking good great thanks for that Bob um any others I got one if nobody else does just calling myself here then if I if people don't mind so I I just would be following up from um from Johnny teter's email today that Nicole raised um I would be interested in giving exactly the kind of direction that you mentioned earlier to say uh how how can we make sure that that language includes all of the ideas of both demographic and

[53:00] geographical representation as well as seeking applicants of color like the County Commissioners so is that something that you all could could work on in negotiation and come up with a hybrid yes I believe so great Nicole yeah and I was just going to say um in demographic diversity of you know folks with disabilities lgbtq plus Community I mean sort of the whole Suite of uh historically marginalized individuals I understand we're not always going to get everybody there but um in my mind that's what I'm thinking of with demographic diversity so i' look can we get nodding heads on this one or people comfortable with taking that approach okay great so there's a second piece of Direction Mark did you want to speak to yours yeah um this would require I guess some support from my colleagues uh the Clause 2A uh that we put in that was put in at our request uh as I reflected upon it it just doesn't do anything uh because we can always have this conversation about

[54:00] the disposition of or change from lease to Grant um based on a a council that is willing to do it and a Library District that is interested in doing it and I just don't know that that language is additive to anything and my suggestion would be that there be a conversation with the library district to see if they were in fact uh willing to delete that language because I don't think has any um operative effect uh in terms of of how we deal with each other somebody want to respond to that proposal and Matt did I just don't know uh I appreciate the question mark I just don't know if that's a question staff could answer sort of real quick because it because it had intention and so if there's a reason why it's in there then that's a good reason cuz I hear that you don't think that there's reason but if there's one maybe you haven't thought of then do we need to go circle the wagons again to come back I I believe our reason at the

[55:02] time and this was this was something that we asked to be put in the document uh was to facilitate a conversation uh somewhere down the road about changing from leasing to disposition and uh you know as I read the document it just seemed to me not to be doing very much because that conversation can occur you know at any point in two weeks or in four years um the concept that somehow is going to be a termination of the lease in order to compel us to have that conversation is really kind of silly there's not going to be a termination of the lease there's going to be a conversation between the two parties as to you know whether it makes sense and how the library district has performed and whether it's something we want to do the the the concept of terminating the leas is is we don't want them to do it they don't want to do it um and and frankly

[56:02] if they did we would have to draft around what the consequences of that termination would be and I think that's a waste of energy and verbiage um so I I'm simply suggesting Teresa looking to tea up a response yep and I might go to our trustees as well Teresa you know uh just a thought and uh you know we're the will we're happy to carry out the will of council but um a thought uh that that here is that you know that's a requirement that uh the council asked for before seeing the lease and knowing that the opportunity would be written into the lease at any time and so I I just offer that as a as sort of a a framing thought thanks for that Teresa I might just check in to see whether um one of our trustees Johnny terer or Bonita Duran would maybe like to weigh in on their their thought about this potential change yeah thank you Erin I think that

[57:01] is not a change that we are really excited about and I Johnny I'm sorry to interrupt you can you introduce yourself please even though I kind of introduced you yeah sorry Johnny terer I'm a one of the trustees on the Library District Board of Trustees I would suggest that we ask himim to address that because I know he has some specific um legal thoughts that are behind our request for this kind of thing um so for us it would be a substantive change that I don't know we'd be in favor of Kim would you like to weigh in here um when I presented the IG draft to the Board of Trustees that was a very important provision um and we were pleased that it was offered by you at the last meeting um because the problem it resolves for us is that with the the 20-year leases and the the the um expenses of the buildings particularly maintenance backlogs and and additional improvements

[58:01] if we're coming up toward say four years left in the lease and there are huge expenses to be to to be put into the building the library district is really stuck um either putting in the improvements or waiting four years to go do something else and then it's just a waste of money so what we were looking for was some kind of provision that allows us to to come back to the city council and be able to negotiate a longer lease a renewal of the lease and or a purchase of the building so that that provision provided that perfectly um it uh without that we're kind of stuck with the buildings and with pumping money into them if a new Council you you guys have been very accommodating and that's great but another Council might not be so accommodating they might not be willing to talk about a sale or terminating the

[59:03] lease and we would be stuck with four or five years and huge expenses um that would be very harmful to the district's operations if I a resp I I think that's already built in is it not I'm I'm going to turn to the uh City attorney um there are three-year termination rights already built into the documents are there not there are uh so we're looking at the main library lease document in case any of you are reading along main library lease document item two there's an A and A B and we've been talking about provision a which is uh the requirement to come to the table no less than fiveyear intervals to talk about a mutual agreement of a termination but I'll call your attention to 2B which I think answers your question and 2B provides that the tenant which is the library district here has the absolute right to terminate this lease

[60:02] on its anniversary date every third anniversary without consequences upon 90 days written notice M so there is that written in every three years there's that opportunity and and that's not the language I was objecting to because I understand that the district needs the right to move on from a facility that it can no longer maintain and operate under acceptable terms and conditions the 2A was what we put in in our discretion and I don't think that's additive to anything the three-year right of termination is I think addressing your concern um the fiveyear I don't think is addressing any concern other than what we we attempted to do drafting on the fly at our last meeting and I'm simply suggesting that that that Lang anguage no longer really really matters I apologize councilman well like

[61:00] I thought you were talking about eliminating the 2B not the 2A no I and in fact I made that mistake in my hotline so you and I are in the same boat on that okay um I'm talking about eliminating the 2A which is additive and and really has no purpose and simply doesn't do anything do you mind Mark if I respond yeah there so I I do see because I had thought you were talking about two as well so now I'm having to look at this again there is I mean some difference between them 2 a says landlord and tenant agree to meet in no less than 5year intervals to determine whether this lease should be terminated by mutual agreement so that builds in an every five-year meeting of of the parties to talk about what comes next to B tenant has the absolute right to terminate this lease on its anniversary date every third anniversary without consequences upon 90 days written notice to the landlord so that separately allows the library district to terminate every 3 years if they want to so one is like a mutual hey let's talk over what comes next and the other is hey they do get the unilateral right to terminate

[62:00] and I don't have a problem with the unilateral right I'm simply saying that anytime the library district has a subject they want to discuss with us they're going to pick up the phone and say can we have a meeting and we're going to take that call and we're going to have that meeting uh additional termination rights are are really not relevant because there's probably no basis on which they're going to exercise a right to terminate unless it's under 2B because they can't use the facility anymore but it it's go ahead I'm sorry sorry I I just don't see a a scenario under which um we're going to have that conversation that we were discussing at our last meeting about converting from um leases to Grants um we're not going to do it under any kind of duress we're just going to have a meeting um and I don't if the council is willing um we'll do it and if the council is not willing

[63:02] we're not going to do it um okay okay very good I got Nicole and then but did you want to weigh in Teresa I did want to just point out that there are a lot of documents here working in concert as you know so there's a three-party IGA and that three-party IGA requires an annual meeting and Report and at that annual meeting and Report the library district can bring up and and forgive me I I haven't turned to the right IGA in this moment but can bring up um really any matter of concern related to the library district and and city or Library District and County relationship um and so they could raise it at that time okay thanks for that Nicole and Jor and U the only thing I was just going to note was uh how challenging it can sometimes be to get counsel together with any other group I'm just thinking about um even trying to schedule with the three Commissioners and how long uh that took

[64:01] us so so that is my only thing that I think when it's on a calendar there's a little bit more planning and preparation and perhaps a little bit easier and I hear you know what what our uh attorney just said and I guess I have another question um for Kim which is now that we're all talking about uh the same same piece of this agreement um does that change your response at all um yes I I I think Mr wallik is right if if we're going to have um the opportunity to meet with future councils it's going to be at a request if it's every five years it doesn't it may happen every one year every month who knows if everybody's willing to talk we can always talk um but to be is the portion that's really important to to the Library District board okay I got jie and then JY did you want to weigh in so I'm trying to understand Mark is

[65:02] you believe 2A is redundant and from what I'm hearing from you Cam is that are you saying that 2A is not a substantive part of the agreement yes that was not the part that was very important to the library board but it is go ahead sorry we needed to be in order to have hate to use this word but some leverage in case we needed to to get out of the lease um two AES provides an opportunity for everybody to get together which you know as someone said earlier there's nothing wrong with that and having it on the calendar but um I suspect if something went really wrong the library district would just reach out to the city council and say hey we have to talk and it would either happen or not as Mr wock stated got it so if I might make a suggestion is that maybe we could also send this back to the negotiating people to work on this it sounds like it may well just be redundant um in which case you could

[66:01] just eliminate it but if if someone does say well actually you know this would provide some substantial benefit maybe we might keep it in but could we give that direction Mark with that satisfying are people comfortable with that okay great anything else okay see nothing else on this um I'll just say um this is an exciting Milestone uh I understand that we'll be the first body to approve this that goes to the other two bodies um I think we've all worked together extremely well I'm confident that those next steps will go well but just a huge thank you uh Johnny and Kim and Bonita and all the other trustees and to our city staff who've worked so incredibly hard on this this is an enormous Milestone and a big move for our library system so thanks to everyone okay um so that covers three F does anybody want to offer any other comments or questions on the rest of the consent

[67:01] agenda 3G go for it okay um well as this item which is first reading right as this item moves forward to Second reading on November 16th I would like us and staff to consider an alternative Closing Time a compromise of sorts for the University Hill so that we can balance uh the needs of the businesses with the desires and fears of the neighborhood and so I I do want to raise this in a few weeks but I thought I would just throw that out there now and also I wanted to I was wondering if there could be some research as to I know one one of our council members talked about that there were less House Parties there were more House parties on the hill now that there is a stricter ordinance and I'm wondering is there any data about that like is there more are less House parties so that would help I think make some of our decisions Great And to clarify Terry

[68:00] you're throwing that as an idea to be considered at second reading and then correct I just didn't want to do it first of all on hotline it's not my favorite um also I thought I'd give everybody advanced notice of that much much appreciated so we don't need to talk that through but it's a great idea to consider potential idea to consider a second reading great any other thoughts on the consent agenda yes just said I'm going to recuse from H due to a possible conflict with my day job yeah did you want to I got something on H yeah sure I sure I can um so speaking of H this is about the design and construction standard uh updates and just something that I've uh been in some communication with the community cycles and their advocacy committee and they some I'm hearing from them they feel like this is a really big step forward but there might potentially still be the opportunity to allow the director um to authorize a a study of hazardous conditions um even when the strict

[69:00] criteria are not met that that might be something that could still be at the discretion of the the uh director so I again I'm not uh like terara was I'm not proposing an amendment tonight but I just would like to throw that out there if City staff could get back to us on that potential uh for consideration at the second reading in a couple of weeks I would appreciate that y we hear you mayor thanks Nara um and while we're on just uh on the note of the DCS I would like to add with regards to the director and I and I see Brad and his capable staff especially Edward who's sort of highlighted as director this is sort of a relic of when transportation and planning were sort of one entity and so I'd love to sort of have the maybe a more open dialogue as to why the director couldn't reside within transportation again this doesn't have to be for now uh save your squats Brad um um but uh but just flagging it for next time about making just thinking about Transportation related studies being held within transportation and whether and how we and how we manage

[70:01] that but uh just want to highlight that is not a slight on Edward and his incredible and impeccable work at all more jurisdictional question very good so that can also maybe can come back to us about that and with that um not seeing any other hand do anybody want to would like to make a motion a move to pass the consent agenda second we got a motion in second I'm just guessing this is a roll call vote Elicia there's a lot of big stuff on here you are so correct sir thank you we'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 3 a through 3i with council member Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes council member fards yes friend yes yes except to H which I am recusing from thank you thank you manam Jo Joseph yes spear yes mayor protim wck

[71:00] I Wier yes and Yates yes the consent agenda items 3A through 3i are hereby approved unanimously with the noted recusal for item H excellent congratulations again on all that hard work that just got approved um moving on we have one callup checkin yes sir our callup check-ins are item number four on tonight's agenda for a is the concept plan review for a mixed use proposal to develop 5450 Airport Boulevard with 147 attached dwelling units and 20,000 Square ft of non-residential space in four three-story buildings 117 of the 147 units are proposed as efficiency living units this is reviewed under case number L 2023 d26 thanks any questions comments or interested in calling this up Lauren got Lauren and I actually have a question um due to a potential Financial conflict I'm recusing myself from this

[72:00] item duly noted um go ahead Mark uh first a process question uh if we do not call this up uh what is the process going forward on this so uh this was a concept plan that was reviewed by planning board and so they made some significant uh comments and feedback on the proposal and so I think the next step would be for the applicant to take that any consideration and either come back with a site review or another concept plan that took those comments into consideration okay that right yeah it seemed to me they they held this project in U minimum high regard and uh uh if if we're sending it back to them I'm fine if if not uh I would want to call it up appreciate that I have one specific question on this which is um I'm not sure who this goes to but I believe the should be there mayor Oh Shannon you're there online hi Shannon um so I believe the applicant was talking about making a multi-use path connection to Valmont

[73:01] city park into the bike park uh but I believe that required permission from a neighboring property owner do I have that correct good evening I'm Shannon Muller with the uh City Builder planning department yes um so there we just noted in the staff report like you mentioned there is just a missing link um between the subject property and the Valmont Bike Park um the applicant did Express during the hearing that they would love to work with that property owner and the city to try to get that Missing Link accomplished and I know we also have uh City staff from our open space um Department that has been looking into that issue as well so I think on multiple fronts there's folks that are interested in in making that connection thanks so much for that so then I might if I can just call in myself for comment which is that to Mark's point this planning war did give some really significant feedback on this and I thought their feedback was right on

[74:00] target um so I hope the applicant will take that into consideration and I'll just add that it seemed based on uh part of their proposal was really heavily relied on people being able to get to the park easily so it seemed like that missing connection would be important for them in order to make that case so hopefully they would work really hard on that before coming back to the next step of the proposal so I don't feel the need to call it up cuz the plan board had some with comments anybody else seeing none uh it sounds like we're not calling this one up so thanks for that Shannon and we can now go to our public hearing of the evening yes sir our public hearings are item number five on tonight's agenda it is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8601 amending chapter 9-3 inclusionary Housing section 9-2-1 14 site review and section 9-16 -1 General definitions BRC 1981 this is to modify affordable housing requirements

[75:00] and incentives and setting forth related details thanks Nara thank you mayor and and I got to say it feels a little weird to be on uh this virtual side and not be there with you I am hoping I'm giving enough time since I cannot see the room for our esteemed uh HHS director to kick us off this is coming back to council um after some conversation about inclusion area housing and some modifications so I will send it off to Kurt uh is hopefully he is situated and ready to go he is ready and raring to go I can just tell Kurt good evening Council uh Kurt fobber and I support of the Department of Housing and Human Services so uh good evening and um this is a a continuation from the uh September 7th meeting where you gave us input we've taken that input and um turned it into the ordinance that you're seeing tonight and um just as a a bit of an introduction and some many of you have heard this before the inclusion or

[76:00] housing ordinance is one of the most powerful ordinances within our city um in my view um and has created well over 2,000 homes of uh affordable housing for families in our community and um it's it was one of the first in the country this is another um update to that ordinance we last looked at it in 2018 and made some adjustments um with all things like this we track them and see how they perform with those changes we're bringing you back um more changes um that are incremental um and you know one of the big changes is really changing to a square foot approach um which was a suggestion of um a council uh person fartz um and this was part of your work your work plan item of 2022 um I also so tonight we have uh Aaron Poe from the city attorney's office Jay suet one of our housing

[77:02] planners um son Walbert and Michelle Allen um I'll make special recognition tonight to Michelle Allen um this is her last um presentation to the city council um when she joined uh the city as a staff member some of you um not all of you some of you are still in high school I think um she's been with the city for over 23 years she was also um a resident of affordable housing when she when she started off as were many other um of our staff and so she brings a a unique perspective um she was going to retire about two years ago and I said no there's another update coming on and you have to stay and um I'm thankful that she did that she'll be retiring at the end of the year so with that I will hand hand it over to Sloan and Michelle all right Kurt thanks for that

[78:00] introduction um so as Kurt said um this is basically just a continuation of our discussion on September 7th I'm just going to um as concisely as I can go through some of the changes and then we can have a discussion and questions um so tonight's item is a public hearing on ordinance 8601 to update the city's inclusionary housing regulations this update's been going on for about a year um and as Kurt said this is an update to an existing program that's been in effect for more than two decades and the IH program is evaluated and updated periodically the last update was in 2018 so um just to refresh your memory city council identified two priorities related to Middle inome housing um as part of the current work program the first was to consider um updates to inclusionary housing program and the other was to launch the middle inome

[79:00] down payment assistance pilot and um when we were on September 7th city council provided feedback on the majority of the changes that are within the ordinance um and at that meeting Council directed staff to remove the incentives that were proposed for middle- inome home ownership units from the scope of the project and um based on that direction a modification to the community benefit requirements is also proposed to remove the current penalty for not providing units on site just to kind of bring those into um in sync so this just shows the um project schedule we presented the changes on the to the program to planning board and hub about a month and a half ago um and we're moving into the implementation stage hoping to be hoping to have the ordinance be in effect at the end of

[80:02] January um in terms of board feedback um the housing Advisory Board heard the item on September 27th they were supportive of the proposed modifications to the program and voted recommendation of the approval of the ordinance um the board did say that they would like to see more aggressive e efforts to address the housing crisis but they did acknowledge that inclusionary housing is just one method to address the housing crisis and that these changes were a move in the right direction and then planning board considered the ordinance on September 26 and also unanimously recommended approval there was some board discussion on how cash andl contributions could be um used in a different way to address for sale middle- inome housing and they included a recommendation that was in the packet um that the council and staff explore the diversion of affordable

[81:00] housing funds to um for additional City acquisition of for sale properties um there was also a discussion about um an escalation metric used for the commercial linkage fee so in terms of community engagement we've been following the City's community engagement framework um the engagement in information sharing was summarized in the memo and then um as Kurt mentioned we did hire kaisar Martin Associates to support the program update and they did um a feasibility analysis of the current IH program and sort of described and explored Nationwide inclusionary housing best practices and based on that K analysis we know there'll be continued difficulty in on-site for sale outcomes and that a modification to the cash and lose structure and methodology is necessary

[82:00] to sort of align the program with Nationwide best practices so I wanted to include this slide to just point out that the IH update is just running parallel to other City efforts to address the current housing crisis and as I said the IH program is only one way to address housing needs um so we're hoping that that missing middle as a housing type continue can continue to be addressed through the Zoning for affordable housing project and for this project we're hoping that well structured inclusionary housing programs will act to not constrain production of a desired housing type so for example the proposed square footage methodology will remove the disincentives we currently have in the program for smaller more affordable units so um the first major item in the ordinance is to adopt a cash and L methodology that is assessed based on

[83:01] square footage which as I said is considered a best practice we currently have something of a hybrid of a square footage in unit size and project size approach this would adopt a base cash andl amount that scales with unit size and then rather than calculating the required number of units and then calculating that as a cash andl amount this would simply apply that um square footage amount to the entire residential floor area in a residential project also importantly it would remove the current 12200 foot cap we have in calculating casting glue for a single family home also just wanted to mention we would adjust that amount annually based on construction metrics and check feasibility at least every 5 years and that's the construction cost index and in the building cost index that was recommended by the consultant the second item is to adjust the required affordable rents for rental

[84:01] units provided on or offsite the current requirement is that 25% of the units must be affordable of that 25% 80% of that are affordable to 60% of the Ami and 20% is Affordable to 80% of Ami um we found that the 80% rents cause a lot of issues meeting state and federal funding requirements they also compete with some of the market rents in older residential projects in the city so the proposal is to change that 80% Ami piece of the pie to a 50% Ami requirement that would retain a diversity of affordable rents but provide for deeper affordability uh the next item is to increase middle income pricing for onsale on on for sale affordable projects either onside or offside sorry about that um the current requirement is that 80% are priced to HUD low moderate

[85:00] income which is about 70% of the Ami and 20% is priced to Middle income this change would increase that allowable affordable prices for all units to that middle income tier which is 100 to 120% Ami we still expect this to be a very little used option but it would allow for some more equity between the options presented to a developer in meeting the inclusionary housing requirements and then based on that policy Direction provided by city council we would remove the current incentives and penalties the so-called sticks and carrots in the code um that apply to on-site of for or ownership units so this would remove the requirement that half of any required for sale affordable units be provided on site and if not provided on site then they pay a penalty in cash andl um we know from the financial analysis by K that on site for sale units are not

[86:01] feasible right now so this would just be a little carrot to sort of remove those penalties that didn't disincentivize for sale onsite units so following that justification we would remove that on-site requirement um in the associated penalty from the community benefit standards um that was originally included in the community benefit standards just to be consistent with IH so this would just bring those requirements um to be consistent with each other there's also a number of other minor code cleanup items I'm not going to cover but we're happy to answer any questions about those and then when just looking at the update as a package um we're anticipating that we'll have roughly equal cash andl revenues but the cash andl by square feet will increase for larger units and decrease for smaller units which supports that zoning for

[87:02] affordable housing project helping to remove those current disincentives for the smaller more affordable Market units um and as you discussed in September that cash and lo can be leveraged to provide two to three sometimes four rental units offsite so the next steps um we're proposing the ordinance become effective 90 days after adoption as I said that's late January we're also hoping to pursue the Nexus study um to look at a linkage fee for demolitions and Replacements of single family homes or significant additions and with that staff recommends approval of the ordinance with the motion shown on the screen and as always we're happy to answer questions thank you SL that was very clear and also so concise appreciate that questions for staff Tara can you go back to to slide two for

[88:00] a sec one yeah I know we voted on this I'm not asking for a new vote how do you have a question we went from 80% to 60% to 50% you talked about there being U reasons for funding Federal funding could do you mind just explaining what that is do you want me okay um well there's certain projects especially those funded with litec funding that the 80% um just creates some issues for them meeting the requirements they're able to average incomes but most of the time we've learned that they just decide to go with all 60% it's not worth the extra effort to do the 80% um and especially because it competes with the market in most circumstances there's not a lot of benefit to it so were you saying here you went from 60% and 20% uh to 50% or is that just

[89:04] one phrase so the 60% piece of the pie would remain that 5% of the 80% Ami would change to 50% so it's taking those 80% rent and making them 50% so there's providing deeper affordability okay could we do 72% of the 18% instead super hard to explain it actually made sense okay if I can call a quick Tera um um the lower levels of affordability make the projects more competitive when you're competing for uh uh for you know uh funding under the litech programs um and and that's why you do it that the U uh 80% is not considered a as desirable an

[90:01] allocation thanks that um I really appreciated this presentation and the graphics were beautiful they're very cute I love them um there was one related to there were like five different things related to a for I can't quite remember there was a slide I really loved that I would love to have access to in the future and the slide deck did not come through in our email so I was hoping you could resend that out oh is it the missing middle one that's actually from American Planning Association but I'd be happy to share that with you stars on it yeah okay thank you any other questions mark yeah uh a couple of questions are we still um for commercial linkage fees are we still using the old uh Kaiser Maron um study from several years ago it wasn't it was a different

[91:00] consultant I believe it was titcher I believe or was it K okay okay yeah I'm stand corrected it was k um yes that's that is a different analysis and it is still based on there okay because that that one that one showed uh that we could justify linkage fees as high as I believe $128 per square foot which obviously we we declin to uh to do um but I was wondering whether it's that do we need to do a new analysis at any point well that was part of the discussion by planning board um it it's possible to do another analysis if that's what we desired it is being increased annually based on the same construction metrics as we're proposing um a couple of other questions do you know what the current current level is it's a table there's six categories there's different categories so I don't it's complicated sorry maybe if you

[92:00] wouldn't mind following up with those current levels i''d be interested to know it's in the fee schedule but I'd be happy to afford that thanks um with respect to the um uh removing the uh uh the penalty uh or the increase of Cil uh of 50% um uh if um it's paragraph 5 remove the current requirements that half of any required for sale affordable units be provided on site um and if not provided on site the Cil for those units is increased by 50% since nobody is doing it on site are we not simply depriving ourselves of some additional Cil by doing that that that was question one and question two is uh instead of getting rid of it entirely did we give any consideration to reducing it instead

[93:00] of 50% to 40 or 30 or 20 um we seem to have gone Whole Hog on that one well I think based on the analysis we got from K I mean they said that your current requirements are making it completely infeasible so I think that we were just looking at it as if we're not trying to go wholeheartedly to encourage that for sale on site affordable at least we could take whatever disincentives are in there I think initially we were hoping that that was the case that we would get additional cash andl but it's proven that it just makes it a completely infeasible option um with respect to paragraph 7 in the memo um we've increased the threshold for required design review from uh developments of five or more unit to 40 um what was the basis for the 40 as opposed to 30 or 20 or 15 or I mean it seems a

[94:00] little is is there a theory behind it so this is a kind of a back stop review for a project with affordable units that does not oh sorry that does not qualify for um site review or use review or form-based code review for that matter um we did have a project a few years ago that ended up having I don't know what it had maybe 70 or 80 units in it all 100% affordable and didn't go through any reviews so we kind of put this affordable housing review in place um but the threshold essentially uh five five it is too low uh we wouldn't want to review a project that small and so 40 is sort of the number of units that's the lower end threshold for a litech project which is where we're going to see okay that the affordable units on on site like that so that's where we came up with the okay and and lastly uh in in

[95:00] paragraph 12 in the memo I'm a little confused with the the the time of 10 years that we're giving to rebuild a uh uh a unit uh that suffers uh Calamity um and can be rebuilt with no uh inclusionary housing requirement um uh three years might be too short but 10 years seems awfully long doesn't it right now we don't have any time requirement um for to rebuild a a house that was removed by Calamity so um trying to remember might have been at planning board we had it originally at eight years and there was comments that that felt a little bit too short I've actually never seen a unit removed by Calamity that isn't isn't replaced pretty quickly cuz generally the insurance company requires that so well

[96:00] that's that's what I was asking and if our desire is to have more construction of housing um it seems to be a long period of time for it to to be laying there um if we want to offer an incentive for people if we want to offer an incentive for people to rebuild it seems to me that that that years is um is a bit lenient well they're not going to choose to rebuild entirely because of this time frame um but we just wanted to be sure they had adequate time if especially projects that are destroyed by fire that's where we've seen this the most um that they have ad adequate time to rebuild all right thank you any other questions seeing none we can go to our public hearing we have two people signed up to speak virtually um each of you will get three minutes to speak um those two um

[97:00] testifiers are Mike Marsh and Lynn seagull so Mike you can get us started can you hear me yes good evening I encourage Council to go a step further than just the staff recommendations on this issue remember you are fully allowed to add elements to a proposal I encourage you to do so in this case currently 25% of units in new residential housing developments are required to be permanently affordable that means we're getting one affordable unit for every three unaffordable market rate units I ask how do you expect to catch up at that ratio to meet the city's goal of 15% of Boulders housing stock being affordable we need to narrow that Delta between market rate and affordable units the current far too low in inclusionary housing percentage actually increases this Delta because you're getting three times more unaffordable units for each affordable one just staying even would require 50%

[98:02] affordable 50% market rate if you feel that's politically unfeasible at least increase the inclusionary housing percentage to 33% the the equivalent square footage at least we'd get two unaffordable units for each affordable one that way realize you have your in your hands two two spectacularly successful programs inclusionary housing and Commercial linkage fees they're the only guaranteed tools the city has to create affordability they've created thousands of affordable units there's no speculating with these programs by definition they create affordable housing unlike the unrealistic hope that unmanaged market rate Supply and density increases will somehow magically lower prices they don't in Boulder's atypical inelastic Market double Boulders market rate density and all you get is twice as much very expensive housing your only certain affordability tools lie before

[99:00] you tonight please increase both of them Boulders Comm commercial linkage fees have stuck been stuck at $30 to $31 a square foot for 6 years leakage fees in paloalto another infinite demand College housing market are now $68.50 a square foot and growth is thriving there there's room to increase Boulders fees if you're actually serious about affordable housing be Resolute like Palo Alto don't suum to developer arguments that they can't handle any increases they always say that it's their job to say that it's not your job to always buy their arguments remember in 2017 everyone from the Chamber of Commerce to developers said that raising commercial linkage fees to $30 a square foot was Draconian and would end commercial development in Boulder clearly that didn't happen the profit margin doing high-end commercial and residential developments in Boulder is massive asking developers to more meaningfully help our affordability

[100:01] challenges is completely reasonable many Boulder residents I speak with want you to increase these tools that actually create affordability rather than The Wishful Thinking Market rates Supply and density increases that don't create affordability in this market thank you thank you Mike our other testifier is Lyn seagull is Lynn present in the meeting tonight I do not see Lynn online this evening okay so seeing no Lyn that actually ends our public hearing so I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion uh does anybody want to kick us off Lauren I had a couple more questions oh more questions for IT um Okay so given um I was interested to hear what staff's feedback is on the planning board recommendations both related to the commercial linkage

[101:02] fees which I get is not part of the scope of this project currently um but when we might look at that and also um the purchasing of the middle income properties I picked heads and it was Tails um so it's a great question um I'm GNA actually defer it a bit because it it typically falls under the planning department um uh I think what we heard from the planning board though is that Council should potentially look at that as a city council priority in the next Council and that um it would be worth looking at and so you you heard one you heard Mike Mars speak to that as well and so we've also heard that from from

[102:01] other residents and then the using the inclusionary housing um program income to purchase middle income properties what about that portion are you saying that both of those are things that Council the next Council should look at no so so the second item that planning board suggested is to um we've also heard this from the the housing Advisory board so we as you know we currently have a program where when we have um additional Revenue we go out and purchase existing Market units and we uh um upgrade them and then resell them at a lower price um at at an affordable rate and um we're currently doing like four to four to eight units or four to 10 units a year um they would prefer that we use more of our cash andl resources um for that program and um so

[103:01] that's not something that Council would pass you know as an ordinance or um but if if Council wanted to um guide us on that um they would you know we would welcome that that conversation um currently I would say however we're balancing a lot of different affordable housing um uh you know competing interests um we've got lots of um projects in our Pipeline and some of those projects you can't just uh you know put on hold for a while um because that it would be very costly to do that um so balancing those things with the resources that we have is actually quite difficult but thank you for both of those questions thank you Kurt I also had a question related to the escalation Factor um so I believe we're using the

[104:00] national cost of construction table because that's the main published oh it is there is a local one I believe there is a local one or state one the only one I'm aware of that gets published regularly is the national one and I know that the city uses it for some other things so I was guessing that that was I was wondering if we had any data related to the rate of increase for that versus our local cost of construction increases I know that the the table itself and the cost of construction that they publish is significantly lower than the cost of construction that we actually see in this community um so I just had to look at the k report so it does look like you're right the construction cost index and the building cost index are looks like they're published nationally they did say there's a Mortenson local

[105:00] construction cost index for Den Denver Metro um they said they're unsure if they've ever used that to index fees but there's an option I suppose but that does seem to be the um sort of the best practice is to use those two metrics a little bit more J suet with housing and Human Services get into that mic there Jay J suet with housing and Human Services so um yeah so we would propose using the same one that's being used currently for the commercial linkage fee um and that according to Ken is um um in 2024 it'll be 3 and a half% um and it is a local uh and it is called the engineering news Rec record construction cost index for this area can't tell you what this area is but I assume it's somewhat local I appreciate that thank you so

[106:02] that's one reason we would do the five-year feasibility study to make sure that those um adjustments are keeping up perfect Lauren can I Cate with you sure um so your interest is in in what is the applicable per square foot constru production costs that we're using here or did I misunderstand my interest is in because it's not the actual rate it's the rate of increase right and so making sure that the rate of increase would match or exceed our community's rate of increase not you know I just wanted to make sure that that we are going to be looking at that and it we wouldn't start to see significant Divergence okay thank you do you have another question um and then I had some comments related to some other comments I heard earlier from you have the floor Mark yes okay so

[107:03] um I just wanted to address some questions that Mark had and kind of give my own opinion on them so one was um around the affordable housing review increasing to 40 units and so I think one of the things that's important to me is that this is specifically for projects that if they were market rate units would not be required to go through a discretionary review process and so I I personally would support eliminating that or moving it to the high as staff suggested much higher number because I don't I don't think it aligns with our values to to try and put affordable housing through a more rigorous review process just because it's

[108:00] affordable um and if anyone would be interested in moving forward with eliminating it completely that would be something I would support mind if I because I I was partly around for this I it was a little bit before I got on Council but I think the I think the issue that was raised is that there was perhaps some uh particularly poor design choices made and maybe some lower cost construction materials used and correct me if I'm wrong City but I think it was more in an effort to make sure that the quality of the design and construction for the affordable units were on par with market rate rather than to throw an additional obstacle in their way so Michelle Allen um housing planner so the project that you're bringing up Aon is um was offsite units so they were basically um being done by a market developer um not like a BHP like a funded affordable housing developer um

[109:02] and there was there were some quality issues and also just the general feeling at the time by both planning board and Council was that that type of project should have some kind of review and it's not discretionary I think it's feedback right like you can't turn down a project it's we we designed it to be an administrative review so it's um a kind of a site review light if you will um so that there would be some kind of review for for example an off-site project that didn't how it managed to not go through site review is I'm not quite sure but um just so you know since we put it in place that we've never used it we've never done it so please continue thank you and um that's good to know I appreciate that uh detail so and then I also had two more things I wanted to address so when we talk about

[110:01] not doubling the cash andl requirements for Onsite part of the reason why I support us just having the same cash and lo requirements for um essentially on-site ownership as rentals is because I think that having more multifam ownership opportunities in this community is important and so even if those aren't deed restricted affordable units I think that that because right now our Market is so out of balance most of the development we see is for rentals and not for um ownership units especially in the multif family area and so I don't think we want to tip that scale anymore than it already is tipped against us um

[111:01] and regarding the how long people get the credits after a rebuilding due to um fire flood that kind of a thing I think when we don't see those units rebuilt quickly afterwards it's tends to be single family and it tends to be due to some hardship whether that's lack of insurance or some kind of extenuating circumstance that makes rebuilding really hard and in those cases I don't think we want to tack on again the additional fee of paying into the affordable housing program because it's probably someone who is um suffering a lot of hardship financially those are my two SS okay any other comments from council members oh Rachel this is maybe a question for staff maybe Aaron and Bob I'm surprised at how

[112:01] little um feedback we've gotten on this discussion tonight we had one uh person testify usually on a a housing related topic as big as this we would have some cheerleaders some detractors so just wondering did that happen earlier in the project that we got a lot of feedback I think I got some uh before a study session but um does anybody have a good explanation for the dir like Are People Are People fatigued is this so perfect that nobody has any reason to weigh in where where where are the people before Kurt weighs in I think it's because of the extraordinary job that staff has done into putting together a perfect package of finely tuned recommendations here discuss I have nothing left to add um so if we look back to 2018 it was the same situation we we did a lot of community um Outreach as well we talked to developers and um we we had zero um input at that point um I I don't really

[113:02] know what what the answer is but um I think the community generally knows that this is a successful program um it's working and um even even when it's not in front of you um we don't hear a lot of negative feedback from the community generally about um the this ordinance and this work okay Rich well you have the floor would you like to do anything like make a motion or a comment or um just I don't know that I would change what's in front of us because we didn't get much feedback um you know I don't I don't have a sense of how uh the people that that work in this space would feel if we um tinkered with what's in front of us so I I would uh I don't have a motion in front of me but what I would make a motion to do is pass it as is look there's the a okay I make a motion to pass ordinance 8601 amending

[114:02] chapter 913 inclusionary housing do I need to go further section 9214 site review and section 9161 General definitions BRC 1981 modifying the affordable housing requirements and incentives and setting forth related details second great we have a motion in a second did you um you already spoke in favor did Lauren did you want to add a couple words to the on the motion I think I've spoken enough on this item already great seeing none could we get it a roll call vote please Elicia yes sir thank you we'll start the roll call for ordinance 8601 with you mayor Brockett yes council member fuls yes friend thanks for their perfection staff yes Joseph yes spear yes mayor Pro Tim wallet yes council member Winer yes

[115:03] Yates yes and Benjamin yes ordinance 8601 is hereby adopted unanimously well phenomenal work everybody thanks so much for for what you've done with this this is a great step forward and we need to honor Michelle here I don't know how meetings I've been at with you here has been a lot although I wasn't quite in high school I think when you started but um but just thanks for your extraordinary oh thanks thanks for pointing that out I really appreciate it thank you well in the future you know how the developers come in they say I talk to Michelle so they'll be like I talk to Sloan um so you should rest assur that all is well okay well thanks again and enjoy a very well deserve way to end end my time here with the city with this being passed so all right and with that any final thoughts from anybody seeing none I will gav US closed

[116:01] 55 p.m. what efficiency Yay good job that