June 26, 2025 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[4:56] 6:00 p.m. So, let's go ahead and get things started.

[5:03] Welcome everyone to the Thursday, June 6, 2025 special meeting of the Boulder City Council. Alicia, can you uh do a roll call, please? Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and happy council meeting Thursday. We'll start tonight's roll call with council member Adams, present. Benjamin, present. Mayor Brockett, present. Mayor Pro Tim Faulks, she was here. Uh, Lauren, I don't think we heard you. We can't hear you for some reason, but she's here. All right. Marquis present. Shuhar here,

[6:02] Spear present. Wallik here and Winer present. Mayor, we have our quorum and noted that council member I mean Mayor Pro Tim Folk is present. Very good. Thank you. All right. I would now like to request a motion to amend the agenda to add item 6A discussions on methods to improve open comment. So moved. Second. That's a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your physical hand. I got eight. All right. And um and then all not in favor. Okay. That's Sorry, Tish. I didn't see your hand on either either one of those. Did you want to I didn't hear what the question was. So, uh, so this is the motion to amend the agenda to add item

[7:00] 6A, discussion on methods to approve open comment. Okay, I'll be an I I'll be a yes on that. Okay, thanks so much. That's a 90 vote. So, the motion passes and the agenda has been amended. Uh, can you go to the consent agenda, please, Yes, sir. Our consent agenda is item number two on tonight's agenda and it consists of items 2A through 2K. Any questions or comments from anyone about that? Uh Ryan, and then we can raise our virtual hands, please. Thanks, Mayor. Just briefly wanted to say something about item uh letter F, which is the uh the one on traffic engineering. This will create a more human- centered definition of the concept and um specify that land use is part of um part of that domain. And I just wanted to thank uh a lot of staff who worked on this uh over the last year and really looking forward to um getting this um making this work. Thanks.

[8:02] Thanks, Tina. Yep. I just wanted to make a comment on Jay, which is the vacation of the easement to allow for the um parking garage that's currently planned at 750 spaces across from Boulder High. Um I know that that's sovereign um sovereign from CU uh and I just sincerely hope that there is a lot of coordination with Boulder High when they add um that parking garage there. And uh if you're not aware of that layup on the across the street is the parking lot for the athletic and the dirt lot for the athletic fields as well as the staff parking which is next to that parking. Um, and it's just uh I also just want to comment that it's it's interesting that we're talking about parking minimums and how parking doesn't support some of our transportation modes and yet we'll be uh

[9:02] tonight um making a path forward to making one of the larger parking lots that we've approved since I've been on council. So um you know I think that we need to think about this partnership. it with CU not just in terms of the programming um but also trying to coordinate some of our transportation goals and uh I hope I hope that there's some consideration uh there was some impact from the limelight onto the views from the football and playing fields for the students that are at Boulder High and I hope that they consider minimizing the impact of the students of Boulder High with this um proposed parking garage. As you're aware, many of the buildings will be seven stories in that area, and I totally appreciate the need for housing, but I hope that they consider a design that um does not lock in Boulder High with tall buildings. So, that's it. Thanks, Tina. Mark,

[10:01] um I I want I have a question relating to the uh design of the 30th Street project. Um actually, a couple questions. first. So, Mark, Mark, I apologize for interrupting you, but that'll be next in our call check-ins. So, just finishing up the consent agenda here. So, any other questions or comments on the consent agenda or perhaps a motion? I move approval of the consent agenda. Second. We have a motion and a second. Elicia, can you do a roll call, please? Yes, sir. Thank you. A roll call for the consent agenda items 2A through 2K. We'll start with Council Member Marcus. Uh, yes. Shuhar, yes. Spear,

[11:01] yes. Sorry, I hit the wrong button. Wallick. Hi. Winer. Yes. Adams, yes. Benjamin, yes. Mayor Brockett, yes. And Mayor Pro Tim Folks. All right. Thank you, ma'am. The consent agenda items 2A through 2K are hereby approved. unanimously. Thank you. Um, can you go now to the call-up check-ins, please? Yes, sir. Our callup checkins, call-up check-ins are item number three on tonight's agenda. 3A is the North 30th Street Preliminary Design Project, Community Environmental Assessment Process, known as C.

[12:01] Good. So, Mark, this is your chance to ask questions about 30th Street. Okay. Uh my first question is with respect to the calculation of additional time that it will take to traverse 30th street. How is that done? I'll invite our friends in transportation to come on down. I see Valerie. Good evening members of council. Valerie Watson, interim director transportation and mobility. I'm actually going to call on some of our fantastic project team who are here tonight um ready to answer technical questions of this nature. Um given you're asking about um the travel times that were assessed in our seep um I'm going to ask one of our consultants um to explain um the the methodology by which um those numbers were determined. Yeah, sure. That's probably me. So I'm

[13:00] Chris. Chris Vogeling with OB Consulting on the project team and I'm a traffic engineer and um that's a that's a great question. So I'll kind of start um with the broadstrokes so I can go as detailed as you'd like uh councilman. So so the way we do that is um we use a a micro simulation a traffic micro simulation program. So we start with collecting existing traffic data and collecting existing uh conditions and characteristics of the corridor such as turn lanes the you know signal timing characteristics where traffic signals are all that so we can build a model that um is calibrated to existing right so that's step one we build a essentially a a computer model of reality make sure it represents reality through that data check um and then that gives us a starting point. And then what we do is we modify things in that model such as um in this case um removing travel lanes in certain areas

[14:01] um changing the signal timing uh assumptions because we have some special needs for signal timing related to bicycle and pedestrian safety and different things like that. So we make adjustments to those parts of the model and then we run the model again and the model is sort of a stochcastic model where it takes multiple sort of computer runs of um of the data. So not every run is exactly the same, right? So it'll run, we'll tell it how many, and in this case, say we run it 10 times. And then that gives us 10 answers that are sort of in a a group. And then we look at those answers and come up with, you know, it tells us what the um what that data tells us in terms of statistically what the average is, what the max is, what a 95th percentile time is, and those sort of things, right? And and what we did here um with the times that you saw is we used that that multiple runs approach of

[15:02] the uh proposed conditions and then used the maximum travel time increases as a um as a start point. I think you would have seen that presented. There was probably like we saw average and then maximum um and that's how that's calculated. They'll um so that's the process and I can I can go deeper um if you'd like or you had specific questions maybe you're coming from a certain uh viewpoint that I didn't address. No I my interest is that your models are are not based on actual traffic performance. They're based on the theory of the model is that so that is true for for future right so the the existing so the the calibrated model is what we call it we do check the existing conditions in the corridor versus the model predictions of what they should be for existing and we can check those against each other right

[16:01] and then we can see if the model is predicting reality as it exists today accurately And then in the future, you're correct. The model uses those those um algorithms to predict future performance. I'm sure you've done this on other streets and either in Boulder or elsewhere. Um what's the sort of percentage divergence of predicted performance from actual performance in terms of of uh traffic times? Yeah. So I think what um if I could restate and you tell me if I understand properly. So I think what you're saying is if we take capacity away will people choose different routes and how do we sort of figure that out? Is that what you're asking? I'm asking if the projection is uh a minute 40 seconds additional travel time here. In other cases where you have done this analysis,

[17:01] to what extent have actual conditions diverged from the projection? I see what you're I see what you're asking. So you're kind of getting at how much do we believe the answers, right? And have we truth those answers against outcomes in in other places? Um right. So so that is also a great question. Um generally uh so I would say we we haven't uh in as an industry or specifically done a lot of followup um us as the consultants the model developers. So the there's a in this case we used a model developed by a company called transcad that's called transmodeler. Um you guys used it for an arterial um arterial assessment project the city of Boulder did citywide and that was a good starting point for us. they've done those kind of follow-up studies to see if the model is predicting properly. Um, we have not as consultants. Often what happens is we do the project and then we have correct

[18:01] recommendations and then conditions change all the time, right Councilman? So, so like you might have different development than you thought the land use transportation mix like and all that stuff. So what I can tell you is um based on on this model and the changes we made and um not assuming so I I will also say we didn't assume any diversion of traffic. So Chris I apologize for interrupting you but we've got a long tonight so you might so um just has has there been truth testing and maybe yes or no. Okay. So I would say uh based on that question I would say that um yes the model developers have done that. Have we done that in bolder or or a specific thing? No. Does that does that help? Okay. Okay. And Mark if I can just check in because we do have a we do have a long evening tonight. Um just question you might think about questions that are relevant to your decision about whether to call the project up this evening. And just

[19:01] one more short question. Um do I correctly understand that we secure financing for this project? So um council member was the you cut out for a second the question um have we secured financing for the project? Yes. Um we have secured um grant federal grant funding for this project. Yes. receive the money or is it one of them subject to cancellation at the whim of of the administration? It is undetermined at this time um uh when we will be able to move forward with um the the funds. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. So I would ask if anybody has any desire to call this up. Go ahead. Okay, Mark, I got a one hand raised for Mark. Mark, do you want to make a motion to that effect? No,

[20:00] there's no point. Okay, so it looks like uh no interest in calling this up. Uh Valerie, thanks for being here. And I just do wanted to say I thought staff did a remarkable job in creating that hybrid alternative. I thought that was very creative what you all put together. I thought really phenomenal work staff on that. All right. Uh Elisha, can we move to 3B, please? Yes, sir. Thank you. 3B is the consideration of a water and wastewater service agreement between the city of Boulder and the University of Colorado at Boulder for the North Boulder Creek campus. No questions or comments or desire to call this one up. Not seeing any hands raised. So, that will be a no. So, if we can go to 3C, please. Yes, sir. 3C is the consideration of a concept plan review and comment request for a proposed redevelopment at 2955,

[21:02] 2969, and 2995 Baseline Road and 735 through 730 7 I'm sorry, 735 through 775 South Street as two 4 to fivetory multif family student housing buildings with a total of 100 units. This is reviewed under case number LUR2025-000012. [Music] Thank you. Any questions, comments, or desire to call this one up. I see a hand raised. Lauren, I just had a comment and we can hear you now, so that's good. Yes, that's so exciting. Um so I just wanted to commend the design and development team on this. I thought especially for concept plan. It was a really detailed um and well thought through level higher level of design than we

[22:01] typically see at this stage. Um, and I appreciated the facades along um, and they're breaking down the scale through the recesses and extrusions and kind of the pattern that that created. Um, I was kind of I the only thing that popped up for me wasn't the corner of 30th and baseline. that corner of the building, you have fairly monotonous facades in both directions. And I might recommend to the design team that, you know, to have a better pattern and break down the scale, it might be nice to change material a little bit around that corner in a way different than what they currently have done. Thanks for that. And uh I thought planning board had some really good comments on this concept plan as well. Anything else? Seeing none, that'll finish out our call check-in. So, can we go to our first

[23:00] public hearing, please? Yes, sir. Thank you. Our public hearings are item number four on tonight's agenda. 4 A is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8703 designating the property at 337516th Street, City of Boulder, Colorado to be known as the Orchard House as an individual landmark under chapter 9-11 historic preservation BRC191 and setting for related details. And with this council, we'll go straight to Marcy Gerwin who does such a great job uh at these uh landmark items. Well, thank you and good evening um council members. It looks like I need permission to share my screen just real quick.

[24:03] There we go. And here we are. Okay. So, good evening. I am Marcy Gerwing, uh, principal planner in planning and development services. I'll begin this presentation with the quas judicial process. First, council members will note any exparte contacts, conversations about this uh application or site visits, which you can do now. wait a couple seconds. Uh we'll then go into the staff presentation followed by any questions that council may have. Uh the applicant and homeowners will then uh speak to council followed by council questions and the public hearing is then opened for community member comments uh followed by council questions again. After the last public comment speaker, the applicant has the opportunity to respond to anything that was said. Uh

[25:00] the public's uh comment period is then closed and council then discusses the decision. A motion requires at least uh five members to pass and motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. Finally, a record of the hearing is kept by staff. As part of the quasi judicial process, the criteria for your decision this evening is found in 9116 of the Boulder Revised Code. And that's focused on whether the designation meets the purposes and standards found in 911A and 9112 of the Boulder Revised Code in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Looking at those two code sections, the first defines the purpose of the historic preservation code, which is to preserve, protect, and enhance historically significant buildings and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, or people, and to develop and maintain appropriate settings to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and

[26:00] interest, and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage. The second provides the type of designations council may pass, including individual landmarks on a single site containing special character in historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. And the third part of your decision is whether the designation is in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which sets a vision for future development and preservation in the city of Boulder and Boulder County. These comp plan policies are relevant to the application, which includes protecting sites with cultural or architectural value, encouraging new designations, and working to support historic places so they continue to contribute to the economic vitality of the community and foster meaningful connections to Boulder. The options in front of you this evening are to approve the designation, modify and approve the designation, or deny the designation.

[27:00] If designated, the property will become Boulder's 221st individual landmark, and future exterior changes will be reviewed through a landmark alteration certificate. Owners will receive a bronze plaque and be eligible for historic preservation state tax credits. Uh, looking back at the application process, this application came in at the end of last year and a landmark alteration certificate was issued to construct a rear edition. On May 7th, the landmarks board unanimously voted to recommend designation of the property and first reading was on your June 5th uh consent agenda. So, this property at 337516th Street is located on the southwest corner of 16th in Iris in Old North Boulder, also known as the West Hawthorne neighborhood. The house faces east onto 16th Street and there are no accessory buildings on the property. It is not located within a potential or designated historic district. The building is a one and a half story

[28:00] craftsman bungalow with classic side gable roof and exposed rafter tails. The facade includes a full width porch recessed under the main roof with a low shed roof dormer clad and painted wood shingle above the porch. The porch with its substantial square porch post and wood decking and front dormer are character defining features of the house. Other character-defining features include the tapered window and door surrounds, brackets, and the combination of wood shingle and narrow horizontal siding. The surrounds, including multiple mature trees on the property, gravel drive, and a rural feel of the property also contribute to its character. This house has had only five owners since it was built 128 years ago. Roland Dickin Sheets likely commissioned the house, but never lived there. We believe that these are three of his children on the picture on the left and George and Mary Minkx bought the house in 1918. The Minkx were longtime residents of Superior where they were fruit farmers

[29:00] in the 1870s. They semi-retired and lived in this house for about a decade and then the Warren family bought the house in 1929. James Warren was a successful minor in Boulder County and his wife Pearl raised their three children here. Members of the Warren family lived in the house for 74 years, although they sold most of their surrounding land after the death of James in 1965. The yellow square uh marks the area with that the Minkx family acquired the Warren uh and the Warren family purchased within Parsons Park. Parson's Park was platted in 1907 by a fellow named Charles Parsons. He owned most of the surrounding area and had orchards throughout the development. and Jesse D. and Cora G Gertude Curtis Long purchased the lot south of Hawthorne in 1916. This is still a thriving farm widely known as Long's Gardens. JD Long's good friends and business parter Roland Dickin Sheets purchased half a block in the northeast

[30:00] corner of Parson's Park. In the house up for your consideration tonight was one of the first to be built within Parsons Park. The property remained undeveloped in a significant part of the area until the property was uh subdivided and developed in the 1970s. The property is also eligible for designation based on its architectural significance. The bungalow form was popular in Colorado from around 1900 to the 1930s due to its simplicity and utility. Characteristic elements of this form include the gently pitched side gable roof, overhanging eaves, broadfront porch supports, and the central shed roof dormer, as well as the exposed rafter ends. We don't know who the architect or builder were, but suspect it might be a kit house based on the date of construction and design. As for the environmental significance, the house was constructed as the farmhouse for a larger area of a truck garden. The site still includes mature trees and a gravel driveway that reflect the historic rural characteristics of

[31:01] the site. Although the larger area was subdivided in the 1970s, the corner lot retains some of its landscaping and rural feel from the earlier period. The massing and scale of the house and the property's mature vegetation is compatible for its residential setting and the house is a familiar visual landmark within the neighborhood and a vestage when this area was mainly orchards. Staff in the landmarks board recommend that the house be named the orchard house for its agricultural history and that the boundary be established to follow the property lines of the lot which are consistent with current and past practices of the national register guidelines for establishing boundaries. Uh the boundary and the name are both supported by the property owners. So with that, staff in the landmarks board recommend the city council adopt the ordinance and designate the property at 337516th Street as an individual landmark to be known as the Orchard House. Thank you. And I'd like to acknowledge that the owners, Michael and Sedra Burstein, are

[32:01] here. And on a personal note, it was just a real pleasure to work with them and um welcome their young children to our landmarks board hearing and and know that these children would be the next generation in this historic house. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thanks so much for that, Marcy. That was a great and illuminating presentation. Uh does anyone have any questions for Marcy about this? And maybe we can take the presentation down and maybe just if the motion language could be pasted in the chat that would be helpful and if not we can find it somewhere else. Okay, I'm not seeing um any questions and um I we already heard that the um owners are present. So, thank you for being here and joining us and for submitting this application. So, we can now go to the public hearing. Um, Elicia, can you read our rules

[33:02] for public engagement, please? All right, sir. Let me get all my buttons and presentations up. All right. Thank you everyone for joining us. I will now go over the public participation and city council meeting guidance. 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 council, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, we ask that you please visit our website at bouldercol.gov/services/productive-mospheres and the boulder revised code section 16B.

[34:03] The city will enforce the rules of decorum found in the voter revised code section 16B, including participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. Our 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. And lastly, obscinity, other epithets based on race, gender, or

[35:01] religion, and other speech and behavior that will disrupt or otherwise impede the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you for listening and again, thank you for joining us. Thanks for that, Elicia. We have one person signed up to speak. So, Lynn Seagull, you get three minutes. And just a reminder to please uh keep your comments to the ordinance in front of us for consideration at this public hearing. Thank you, Mayor. I do not see Lynn online right now. In that case, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to council for deliberations or perhaps a motion. There is motion language in the chat. Lauren, I move that we adopt ordinance 87 8703 designating the property at 33rd75th

[36:00] 16th Street, city of Boulder, Colorado to be known as the Orchard House as an individual landmark under the city of Boulder's historic preservation ordinance and setting forth related details. Second. We got a motion in a second. Uh, Elicia, can we have a roll call, please? We can't hear. Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of ordinance 8703 with council member Schuard. Sorry. Yes. Spear. Yes. Wall-E. Hi. Winer. Yes. Adams, are you sure you're Yes. Yes, I am. Yes. Thank you, Benjamin. Yes. Mayor

[37:01] Brockett, yes. Mayor Pro Tim Faulkers, yes. And Marquis, yes. Ordinance 8703 is hereby adopted unanimously. Okay. Excellent. Thanks everyone. Thanks again to the um the owners and thanks to Marcy for ushering this through the system. Really appreciate all your amazing work. And with that, can we go to our second public hearing item, please, Elicia? Yes, sir. Thank you. Item 4 B on tonight's agenda is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt the following two ordinances. First, we have ordinance 8700, which is amending section 2-2-15, neighborhood permit parking zones, and chapter 4-23 neighborhood zone neighborhood parking zone permits to update standards for on street parking management. Our second ordinance for

[38:00] adoption is ordinance 8696 which is amending title 9 land use code BRC1981 to modify off streetet parking requirements and amending chapter 2 of the city of Boulder design and construction standards originally adopted pursuant to ordinance 5986 to modify standards for motor vehicles and bicycle parking. Uh as you'll see uh council in a moment, this is an item that has been uh a long time coming. It has been worked on for many many years and has been uh a huge cross departmental effort. Uh and with that, I will pass it on to our director of planning and development services, who I hear lost an arm wrestling match to go first. Uh so Brad, take it away. That is correct. Uh good evening, council. It's good to see you uh this evening. Uh I am Brad Mueller, director of planning and development services and as Nuria noted uh we are very excited to

[39:00] bring this to you um after what is now 11 years of work in various forms um on a an important topic that really touches on so very many different policy uh items that are a legacy of Boulder and and certainly a goal of council to advance uh more than we really will have time to touch on in our presentation tonight. really uh really speaks to and advances many many different goals the city has held. Uh as Nuri also mentioned very much across departmental which is a great opportunity and also a testament to the fact that many of our complex problems in the city um do require all the greatest minds of multiple disciplines and departments to work on that. uh this one in particular, uh my colleague Valerie and and the transportation mobility and and that whole team and certainly the city attorney's office as well. Uh we are bringing you two legs of the three-legged stool. Uh we've talked about several times with you in in

[40:01] preparing for this evening. Uh the parking uh minimums and then also the curbside management. uh the TDM which we'll also talk about this evening proved to be uh complex in its innovation and also just frankly uh kind of is pushing the limits of staff workloads in and all of the departments but we will be back and look forward to bringing that to you in the late summer early fall um to bring forward as well. Uh the two items tonight are are great in their own right. Um and also as a matter of course help advance uh a state deadline for the parking minimums um element in particular. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Lisa Hood who is a principal planner with the department and the lead on this project. We appreciate her work. So here is Lisa. Thank you Brad. Good evening council. As Brad said, my name's Lisa Hood. I'm a principal planner with Planning and Development Services. I'm joined by my

[41:02] team, Chris Hagglin from Transportation Mobility and Samantha Bramberg from Community Vitality. We are really excited to bring the access management amps project to you tonight. Um, I know we've talked to you several times about this project before, but we're um so enthusiastic about bringing these two ordinances um to your attention tonight. Um, you've seen this triangle graphic before. Brad did a great job introducing this, but we've been reviewing all three of these topics that align with each of the departments um, over the last year, year and a half, all together holistically because all of them revolve around access and parking through the city. And so they are all very intrinsically intertwined. Tonight you'll have ordinance 8700 related to on street parking management strategies and ordinance 8696 related to the off- streetet parking standards that you'll be reviewing. And then as Brad said, there's another ordinance forthcoming, the final leg of the stool which you'll

[42:01] see in just a couple of months related to transportation demand management or TDM. I know you all have heard this many times, but if there's anybody um listening or watching the video um who uh hasn't heard this before, just to clarify some of those terms, when we talk about off- streetet parking, so ordinance 8696, we're talking about the parking requirements on private property. Those are usually through zoning. When we talk about on street parking, it's just that, the parking that's on the street, the public right ofway. And when we talk about travel or transportation demand management, we're talking about all of the different strategies and methods that are used to efficiently get people around in our communities. So whether that's walking or biking or driving or transit, as Brad also mentioned, this project's been going on for a very long time. We are on year 11, the third phase of the project. There's been kind of starts and stops due to COVID with this third final phase. Um, but we are aiming for completion of the on street and off-

[43:01] streetet part of the project by June 30th, which I'll explain more related to the state bill. Um, and then the TDM ordinance will come shortly afterwards. We've worked with you over many different meetings to refine the project scope. The original scope of phase 3 was to implement the final outstanding recommendations of the 2017 AMPs report that was adopted by council back then. There are only two remaining items that we have the city has not completed yet from that report. The first is updating our off- streetet parking standards and the second is the TDM plan ordinance for new developments. As we've been uh restarted phase three, we've added a few more things into the scope. The first was in reaction to the state legislation that was passed last year related to minimum parking requirements. Once that happened, we wanted to make sure that we were bringing the on street parking management side of things into the fold so that we really could look holistically at all of these different

[44:00] aspects related to access and parking in Boulder. Also, through the many meetings with council, planning board, and transportation advisory board over the last year, we've heard a lot of interest in the bicycle parking standards, specifically um some topics of interest related to design standards. So since we were in the same section of the land use code, um we have included some design standards, but I will note that wasn't part of the original scope of the project. In terms of applicability, like any land use code change, um these changes will apply if they're adopted to new development and redevelopment. So that means they don't apply retroactively um unless somebody is or they don't apply unless there is some kind of action being requested from the city like a building permit or license or things like that. Um I've mentioned we've received a lot of really helpful direction and guidance from council, our transportation advisory board and planning board over

[45:00] the last year with many different check-ins to guide and refine the scope. And then over the last month, we've also been at transportation advisory board and planning board for public hearings and their recommendations. In terms of general public engagement, we really focused on mostly a consult level of engagement, but because there are aspects that are mandated through the state, um some portions have been more on the informed side of things. We've had notifications in the planning and development services newsletter um frequently throughout the year. We have a detailed Be Hard Boulder page and city web page and uh staff held several stakeholder meetings with bike advocates in the community like community cycles and bike boulder to help inform those bike parking design standard changes. We focused our engagement on uh what we called community consultations um which were several different community meetings both in September of last year where we talked about parking and housing with residents of affordable

[46:01] housing communities. And then our big focus public engagement window was in March of this year where we had meetings with the Boulder Chamber, the um neighborhood and community leaders, our community connectors and residents um residents of our affordable housing communities and other underrepresented groups as well as kind of our frequent applicants or technical experts um that um apply for building permits or land use approvals frequently. I mentioned we went to transportation advisory board for a public hearing on May 12th. They did recommend approval of both ordinance 8700 and 8696 and wanted staff to consider comments that the TAB members made in their meeting and the comments that had been submitted from community cycles. They also wanted to note their support for supporting a future work plan item, a different project where we could do a bike parking utilization study throughout the city, similar to what we did for motor vehicle parking, which I'll talk about later.

[47:00] We also went to planning board on May 20th. It actually took two meetings. Um, we had a public hearing, the public hearing on May 20th where we talked about off- streetet and on street parking and then the TDM discussion was the following week um to give feedback on that part. Planning board did unanimously recommend approval of the ordinances. Um, they did make 18 additional motions. The vast majority of those were related to bike parking and I'll get into those as we get further into that topic. um we have incorporated many of the changes that they recommended based on the motions. So the way we'll do this presentation is similar to how we've done it um in the past for you. I will talk about off- streetet parking standards. Sam will talk about on street parking management strategies and then Chris will follow up with TDM. Again, Sam and I we have the ordinances that are for your consideration tonight. And then Chris's portion is more for feedback to um further refine the ordinance that's still under development.

[48:00] So some of this is going to seem familiar to you because you've heard me say it many times, but again for others who might have not heard this before, some background on the off streetet parking standards. We have had parking requirements in our zoning code since 1954. Almost every community in the country um has some kind of parking standards or incorporated some kind of parking standards after World War II. They've had a very significant influence on urban form and development of our community and communities across the country as well as the mobility options of residents of those communities. In almost all of these communities, it follows a similar formula where there is a requirement of a number of parking spaces per square foot of a different kind of land use. So there's some examples of how that works in Boulder. Because it's not a perfect science, we do have some levers for flexibility. Um, namely our parking reduction process. And in doing this proc this project, we looked back over the last 15 years or so at our major development projects. And

[49:01] almost half of those major development projects did include a parking reduction to reduce that requirement. Um, parking reform has been a major topic in planning and zoning over the last decade or so, especially after 2017 when B uh Buffalo, New York was the first major city in the United States to eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide. Since then, almost 80 cities have eliminated all of their minimum parking requirements and almost a thousand have reduced their minimum parking requirements. States have also been taking note of this um with many states passing legislation in recent years and that includes Colorado. So that's where we get to the state bill that I mentioned. House Bill 24304 was passed last year and what it does is prohibit jurisdictions like Boulder from having those minimum parking requirements for properties that are located within the transit service area. So those are the blue areas as you can

[50:00] see on the map on Boulder. Um, it only applies to certain land uses. So, it's only to multifamily residential or for mixed use that includes residential. Um, but as we've talked about before in previous meetings, as staff went back and analyzed the impact of the bill, we saw that we Boulder has a lot that qualifies as transit service area. So, um, over threearters of the city would fall into that transit service area. And the direction we've gotten repeatedly from council, planning board, and transportation advisory board throughout this project is to consider um expanding that to apply citywide and to all land uses, not just multif family. For the state bill though, compliance for those particular items is required by June 30th, which is Monday. Um so this is very timely and um just a reminder that the the rationale that the state passed in the bill for why um why they passed the bill was that uh several studies have found that local minimum parking

[51:00] requirements increase vehicle miles traveled greenhouse gas emissions and also increase development and housing costs. I've talked about this in detail before, so I'll just quickly go through this, but because the AMS project has been taking place over the last 11 years, we've had the opportunity to do lots of parking supply and utilization data collection. So, we've looked at over 16,000 parking spaces at different points in time over the last decade to understand how much our existing parking is actually being used. And time and time again we come to the same conclusion which is that we have more parking available than is actually being utilized. Now this differs based on different land uses. Some are more highly utilized than others. You might be thinking of certain certain parking lots might be higher utilized than others but on average we do have significantly more parking um than is being used this time around. We also looked at some of those larger development projects that have had parking reduction. So um

[52:01] they built less parking than even the code required and what we found is even those are not fully utilizing the parking that they've built. So a quick summary of what's in a very long ordinance um is the main thing is eliminating the minimum parking off- streetet parking requirements citywide for all land uses. So going beyond what the state bill requirement um is by Monday, but applying it to all land uses throughout the city. And in the last 70 four years or or 71 years of having zoning um include parking, uh that means that parking is intricately intertwined to many parts of our land use code. And so there were lots of accompanying code updates that needed to be made, which is why the ordinance is so long, just references to parking and required parking and all the parking reduction processes and things like that. Um, the ordinance also includes some of the topics that we've talked about in previous meetings. So incentivizing

[53:00] shared parking, so making sure that the existing parking that we do have is being efficiently utilized. Um, so we've made some changes in the ordinance that better allow for that and facilitate the sharing of parking. We've talked before about EV charging. Um, we've updated a small update in the energy conservation code to reference the EV spaces to ensure that we're still getting electric vehicle charging spaces based on the spaces overall parking spaces that are required rather than it being based on or that are provided rather than what is based on required, which is what it previously said. And then finally, the bike parking standards. Um, we have updates that improve the security and usability. I'll go a little bit more into detail on bike parking because it was such a big topic of conversation with planning board and transportation advisory board. Um just so you understand the changes that are in there. So the first change is that we've added a new requirement that 5% of spaces be larger sized. So those are for

[54:02] larger sized bikes like cargo bikes and that kicks in wherever 10 spaces are required or more. We've also added a limit for vertical or tiered racks that there's images for examples um where those can only be a maximum of 25% of required spaces and they have to have a mechanically assisted lifting lifting mechanism to help people get their bikes up there. We've also added a um requirement that where there's 100 bike parking spaces required, at least 5% of those need to have um the ability to be charged location near an outlet so that ebikes can be charged. And then through those stakeholder meetings that I've mentioned, we worked a lot on um increasing our emphasis on security of bike parking. So, we've added language about tamper tamper resistant anchors, heavy duty locks, transparency, surveillance, illumination, all really trying to get towards crime prevention through

[55:00] environmental design principles and just further strengthen those standards we already had. We also added standards related to improving wayfinding so that folks are able to find the bike parking that exists. Um, just to highlight those planning board and tab changes. So based on the motions that planning board made and the recommendations of TAB um we did add some specific standards for schools that's just um related to the distance that the bike parking has to be from the entrance and not using those vertical or tiered racks for elementary or middle schools. Um planning board actually reduced that maximum for vertical and tiered racks based on um from what staff had originally recommended. So, they reduced it down to 25% and we've made that change in the ordinance. We've added required signage for those larger spaces as well as modified the the number of larger spaces that are required and exempted detached dwelling units that don't have a private garage from those long-term standards. There

[56:01] were a couple changes that um planning board had recommended that we didn't make um or that we did not ultimately put into the ordinance. They had several recommendations for future work plan items like the bike parking utilization study that um TAB had also recommended as well as looking into vehicle dimensional standards um and a few other uh monitoring items related to these changes. Um as well as they noted a desire to exempt bike parking from floor area ratio. Um we didn't get to this in the meeting but um it actually was a change we had recently made in the zoning for affordable housing project. So that one had already that box had already been checked. So there was no change to be made for the the ordinance tonight. So with that I will close um my section and I will pass it over to Sam who will talk about on street parking management strategies. Thanks Lisa. Good evening members of

[57:01] council. Samantha Bramberg, senior project manager, community vitality, here to talk about on street parking management strategies. To better manage on street parking as the city grows and transportation patterns evolve, Boulder is planning to update the neighborhood permit parking or NPP program. The goal is to expand NP availability to all neighborhoods, not just lowdensity areas, and to introduce new tools to the residential access management program or ramp. These updates will help us more effectively address potential parking impacts from new development and redevelopment projects in light of the potential elimination of parking minimums. Next slide, please. Based on our research and what we heard from the community, we're proposing to reduce the residential permit allocations from two to one per licensed driver. Engagement showed that most NP households own about as many vehicles as they have licensed drivers. So for many this change will have little impact. Permit data also suggests this shift

[58:00] could reduce the total number of permits issued by about 15%. The proposal supports one of the key goals of the project which is to encourage better use of off- streetet parking and reduce the number of vehicles stored long-term on public streets. For households without off- streetet parking who still need more permits, there is a backup option, flex permits, which I'll get to shortly. To help manage demand in higher density areas, we are also recommending giving the city manager the authority to cap total residential permits in a zone when we're going through the public zone creation process to ensure that we aren't able to issue more permits than there are available curbside spaces. Um, in addition, we heard clearly from the community that the current guest and visitor permit system is confusing and underutilized. A lot of folks said it's hard to understand the difference between guest and visitor permits and what rules apply to each. Um, we do have data that backs that up. Most people only use guest permits a few times a month or not at all and visitor permits even less. To simplify things, we're

[59:01] proposing to replace both with two new streamline options. Day passes um, is one and flex flex permits is the other. So with day passes, households will get 25 per year. Each one is good for 24 hours and can be used one at a time or backtoback across different days and vehicles. Based on feedback received from residents, 25 should cover the needs of most households for the year. With flex permits, they'll be valid for an entire year and are meant for long-term guests, extra household vehicles, or regular visitors like caretakers or service providers. They'll be priced the same as regular residential permits to reflect their higher value and higher use of curbside space. The new setup is designed to be simpler, more flexible, and to better match actual usage, uh, while also discouraging misuse of those permits. Next slide, please. To stay ahead of parking issues that can come with big new developments or redevelopment projects, we're proposing a new process. Whenever traffic

[60:00] assessment is required based on Boulder's design and construction standards, Community Vitality will conduct a parking review. The review, which is a separate from the development review process, will look at parking occupancy, how many trips the project is likely to generate, and how easy it is to get around by other modes like biking, walking, or transit. The information will help us decide whether to proactively propose a new MPP zone, adjust an existing one, or remove a zone if it's no longer needed. Next slide. To help with school access and ease ease congestion, staff is recommending that the city manager be given the authority to create park and walk zones in NPPs near schools. In these zones, people could park twice a day for 1 hour each, making it easier to handle both drop offs and pickups, plus school events rather than just one longer parking session as our current rules allow for. This change will give the city permission to implement the program. And once this has been granted, staff can work with BBSD to determine our approach

[61:01] to implementation. Next slide. Based on feedback from city council, staff is proposing a pilot program in the Goss Grove neighborhood. The pilot will switch from time limited parking to mobile pay only paid parking for people without permits and provide free eco passes to all residents of Goss Grove. Goss Grove was chosen because it scores high on parking demand, transit access, and housing density. This pilot is going to help us find out two things. First, can paid parking revenue cover the cost of giving residents free eco passes? And second, how does switching to paid parking change parking demand and behavior on the street? The paid parking will be managed through Park Mobile and will track transit usage to see the overall effects. The goal is to reduce reliance on cars, improve parking management, and see if paid parking can support our transportation demand management efforts in the long run. Next slide, please. Thanks. Uh staff completed a financial analysis to make

[62:00] sure the proposed changes keep ramp financially sustainable. The analysis looked at removing underperforming NP zones, which was Rebecca re sorry recommended in the 2024 ramp report, limiting how many permits are issued, replacing guests and visitor permits with day passes and flex permits, adding paid parking, and offering eco passes to residents at no cost. The table on the slide shows the analysis for all these proposed changes except for the pilot program, which was included in the memo. And the pilot program is also expected to maintain cost recovery. Overall, the program should stay financially stable with these changes. That said, if ECO passes were to be offered in all NPP zones without revenue from paid parking, permit fees would have to double to maintain cost recovery of the program. As you can see, off- streetet and on- street parking are intricately intertwined as we evolve our approach to parking regulation in the city. The

[63:00] third important part for you to consider when thinking of parking and access in Boulder is transportation demand management or TDM. Ordinance 8700 and 8696 are before you tonight for your consideration to modify on and off streetet parking as well as the mentioned TDM ordinance is currently under development but will come to council in just a few months. I will now pass it off to Chris to go over the significant work that has already been done on this topic. Thank you, Sam. Uh Chris Hagglin here uh principal project manager in transportation and mobility here to discuss the TDM ordinance for new developments which staff is currently working on and we'll be bringing to boards and council in August and September respectively. Next slide please. Under our current process, TDM plans are tied to site review and often connected to a request for parking reductions. plans focus on what infrastructure and amenities can be provided by a developer and uses a customized approach for the

[64:00] TDM programs and services for each project. Often plans include a 3 to fiveyear financial guarantee that are held by the city and then used to cover the cost of that three to five years of EcoPass participation. Issues with the current process have been identified. Many stem from the fact that most TDM programs and services can only be implemented by tenants and not necessarily by developers. At the time of site review, occupation is sometimes years away and the future tenants are unknown, which makes it difficult to design an effective TDM plan. Without a comprehensive ordinance that clearly defines trip reduction goals or dictates a process to monitor compliance, there are limitations to the clarity and effectiveness of the current process. Next slide, please. Staff was asked to develop a new ordinance to address these issues. The purpose of this new ordinance is to mitigate the impacts of new development on our surrounding transportation

[65:01] system, adjacent properties, and neighborhoods. also to enhance our multimodal access and TDM programs and ultimately contribute to the city goals by changing travel behavior. Some of the key factors we use in determining our approach are that developers can provide infrastructure amenities. TDM programs are implemented by the tenants and that most of the uh most impactful TDM programs, services and policies have annual costs. Next slide please. So when designing our ordinance uh we based and based on those key factors staff has identified many different policy dials that can be turned up or down uh within the ordinance uh providing some significant flexibility of the design and implementation. For example, the ordinance could apply to all developments or it could be limited based on size, type or impact.

[66:01] uh we can be very prescriptive uh in which TDM programs or services are required or we could be even be more agnostic to how vehicle trips are reduced just as long as trips are met or trip targets are met. Uh as said the vast majority of TDM programs have annual cost and there are limited number of entities who can pay those costs. Primarily we see the developers or owners or the tenants themselves. The amount of uh the amount paid by the developer owner could also be dialed up or down. Uh either to cover the full cost of implementing a TDM program just covering the hard cost things like EcoPass or Bcycle memberships or reduce to a level where those uh funds simply subsidize what the tenants are required to implement. And finally, those requirements can also change in terms of the duration. Uh this could be an ongoing uh requirement or we could have

[67:00] it limited in the number of years uh as we typically have now with three to five years but we could extend that. Next slide please. Based on the input we've received, uh staff's approach is that this ordinance would apply to all projects including by write uh site review and form-based code uh that meet size and thresholds of a tiered approach. Since the most effective TDM programs have those annual costs, the approach would be used to extend our current financial guarantee model to ensure that funding is available to implement the TDM programs once tenants are occupying the building. In this approach, the developers or the property owners pay those annual financial guarantees which are held by the city. Uh once tenants occupy the buildings, final TDM plans can be designed and approved by staff and then implemented by the employer, tenants or residential property managers uh using the funds provided by uh the owners.

[68:00] Owners have clarity on the level of funding that they have to provide, but there's still flexibility in how those funds can be used based on the tenants either employee or resident needs or travel demand. For developments that meet requirements of the duration and frequency of monitoring is limited, but those properties out of compliance, there's ongoing adjustments made uh to those funding levels until the targets are met. Next slide, please. In previous discussion with boards and councils, they supported a tiered approach uh to ensure that the focus is on our largest and most impactful developments and that we manage staffing needs required to manage this type of ordinance program. Uh following additional work, staff recommends using a three- tiered approach. Uh tier zero, the smallest projects would be exempt. Tier one would have required staff approved TDM plans and an annual financial guarantees but would not have targets or ongoing monitoring. Tier two,

[69:01] the largest projects would have a trip generation target based on land use location and size, annual and remedial financial guarantees and would be monitored for compliance. Um besides those uh the smallest projects in tier zero, staff is recommending some other exemptions. These include zones MU4, RH6, and RH7, which already have a trip reduction ordinance tied to them. And then we're also currently um discussing how to deal with uh 100% affordable housing with either full or partial exemptions. Certainly, we don't want to increase the cost of affordable projects, but we also know that the residents would clearly benefit from these types of TDM programs and currently do in many of their uh developments. Next slide, please. Uh based on our best practice review, Stafford recommends using vehicle trip generation as the metric of success for these TDM programs uh due to its

[70:01] accuracy. uh we will use surveys of tenants as a backup method if the context uh is such that vehicle trip uh studies are are not viable. Um rates and methodologies for measuring those vehicle trips are well established. Uh and uh this approach also takes into account all the trips generated by the site not just by resident employees but also trips like package delivery visitors etc are all part of the IT trip generation. Uh staff recommends that a third party would conduct these surveys using a standard methodology and reporting template that would be designed by staff. Next slide please. Uh our approach really uh expands our current use of financial guarantees where financial guarantees are paid by the developer or the owner held by the city and then dispersed to the tenants or property managers to implement staff

[71:00] approved TDM plans. Remedial funding uh guarantees are uh for our highest tier tier 2 are also used to augment annual funds if the property is exceeding its drip generation target and is out of compliance. In that way, a portion of the remedial funds are added to the annual funds to increase the overall amount which then can be used uh in enhanced TDM programs uh to meet the the needs of those employees or residents. Uh initial financial guarantees rates would be based on the size which is also a proxy for estimated uh employees or residential units. Uh we could also look at bedrooms or square footage uh as well for the residential units uh and that would be based on this uh and also based on the estimated cost of the required TDM elements. Next slide please.

[72:00] While the use of financial guarantees uh will increase annual costs uh to the developers and owners of properties, uh we understand that the removal of parking minimums, which is part of this project, will very likely translate into significant one-time capital and also ongoing annual maintenance costs. Parking is very expensive to build and very expensive to maintain. So when a developer can build less parking, those cost savings could literally pay for years, perhaps in some cases even decades of TDM programs for their tenants. Next slide, please. As I mentioned, for the tier 2 project, staff recommends uh that there is a required annual monitoring which would include a vehicle trip generation study conducted by a third party uh and a final report on the effectiveness of the TDM program which would be evaluated by transportation mobility staff. If a property's uh vehicle trip generation is below the target, three consecutive

[73:01] years, then we can cease annual monitoring but have a cadence of perhaps every five years just to keep tabs on each of those developments. If a property exceeds its vehicle trip generation target in the following year, a portion of those remedial funds are used to augment the annual funds. This allows for an enhanced TDM plan uh to be designed and funded. and then a new three-year cycle starts in terms of the monitoring. Next slide please. In terms of ne next steps uh based on additional input we hope to receive uh staff will continue to refine the ordinance approach uh likely in terms of land use designation and and the exemptions I spoke of determining annual financial guarantee and remedial financial guarantee rates. uh looking at the TDM and parking management program services or or policies that would be requirements in certain circumstances

[74:01] and then also detailing our compliance and enforcement process. Uh we hope to return in August to boards and then council in September. Uh and then once uh we pass an ordinance, staff would then focus on the implementation steps, including the internal standard operating procedures that we need to manage this type of program, developing a toolkit for both developers and property owners, but also tenants and then all the external phasing TDM ordinance program information and education that we need to have uh available to people. uh and then developing our implementation timeline when the ordinance would go in effect when all these uh things are created and approved. And with that I will pass it on. Thank you. All right. Thanks Chris. Thanks ma'am. So you would have seen in your memo we have laid up two key issues for your discussion related first to the public hearing ordinances. Does city council

[75:02] recommend any modifications to either ordinance 8700 or 8696? But as we're still under development of the TDM ordinance as well, we're also asking for any additional guidance you might have regarding that TDM ordinance um that will complement the ones that are before you tonight. We have a suggested motion on the screen and also in your memo, but I will stop sharing and we're happy to take any questions. Thanks so much, Lisa, and the other presenters. That was jam-packed full of information. Appreciate all the effort. All right, clarifying questions for city staff. We've got Tina, then Tara, then Matt, then Lauren. Hey, thank you for all the information. Um so my first question is when we did our parking utilization study of spaces are we sharing that information with CU as they are developing and can building

[76:02] a lot of parking as well? I don't believe we've directly shared it with them but we are happy to collaborate and share all of that data that we've collected over the last decade. Okay. because they're building um a significant amount of parking garages throughout the city to support their campus and it might be helpful when we collect data and they're also about 30% of the city are residents. So it might be good to start incorporating that together. Um the other piece uh piece is do we know what the utilization is of our EV spaces that are being provided? That's a great question. We did not um specifically count that with the most recent count that we had, but that would be an interesting future study. Definitely. Okay. Because I also get concerned about the availability of EV parking and um want to make sure that people who don't have dedicated garages or live on a sidewalk where they can run a cord also have the opportunity to

[77:01] charge. Um, another question I had was about um the engagement of private schools or well first I'm just clarifying when we say schools it only means private or religious schools uh prochio or religious it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the schools that are public schools. Correct. Correct. Because of the legal jurisdiction of BBSD um they are exempt from most of our requirements. However, we still say public and private schools in our land use code, but it doesn't but that's not So, we say that in our land use code, but it doesn't apply to the ones the public schools. Correct. They have they have preeemption, I believe, is the legal term. Okay. I found that to be really confusing when I read it. And um I'm wondering if there's a way that we could clarify that so that if someone is reading through the code, they understand without having to check with staff that it does not apply to

[78:01] uh public schools. Is that a possibility? Yeah, I would I would want to check in with our city attorney's office because that gets into um kind of legal jurisdiction issues and I know we've talked about it in the past. Um, and so it's been like that for a long time where we have both public and private schools explained in the land use code. I see Brad popped on so maybe Brad wanted to add anything or Hello. Yeah, Brad Mueller just that very thing that um there are some legal nuances to that and and calling out any other laws that already exist in other books. But Hel is here too. So Hel maybe you can expand. Yeah, I think we've had standards and new standards for public schools um and our code for a long time and there hasn't really been a court decision in Colorado on preeemption, but I think it's likely that the city would be found preempted from applying its land use regulations to schools and BVSD is asserting that we are preempted

[79:02] from that and in in fact the regulations haven't been applied for a long time. However, if a new school is constructed, there is an opportunity for the city and in particular the planning board to provide input on that school site and the design and that was done most recently with the new Vista school and we do utilize those standards to provide recommendations at that point in time. So, there is some use for them. But that said, they could also be eliminated from the code. Then we wouldn't have any standards for public schools. Uh did we have engagement with the new construction of Shining uh Mountain the Waldorf school school in North Boulder? Yes, that was all approved under the city's regulations because it's a private school. Okay. Um Okay. And then did we engage with the private schools when we added this new motion? Were they brought into the conversation? That's a great question. So as this was the

[80:01] changes that relate to schools actually were brought up by planning board. They weren't something that had been brought brought up in the previous six meetings that we had had. So it wasn't a topic that we had targeted for engagement and um planning board passed that motion on May 20th. Um so there was not specific um engagement on that. We incorporated it into the ordinance that's before you tonight. Okay. Um then a question about the cargo bike parking. Um what was the can what was the engagement like with the developers on the specific increase in requirements for those new design standards? Yeah, that's a great question. So we had I mentioned the community consultations that we had and we had a technical expert one with some of our um frequent applicants. So they they saw the um proposal related to cargo bike spacing um or larger larger spaces for bikes. Um and then we've also been in communication with sending out drafts and things like that. Um so

[81:02] that's what that's how we targeted those changes to those folks. Okay. Um and then uh so for the Goss Grove experiment or pilot program, I shouldn't call it an experiment. Um will we also be tracking whether developers increase the parking that they build in response to the parking program? Is that and I know there probably won't be a lot of new development in that neighborhood, but is that something we'll also be tracking? That's a great question. I feel like that go that's maybe towards me but also towards um Lisa um because in community vitality we we don't track those sorts of applications. Uh that said I we will starting like if they trigger the traffic study we will begin to start tracking that. So, we can certainly look at that and see if there's any construction plan for that area and if those come across, we can factor that

[82:02] into the evaluation analysis that we do of the pilot. Okay. Because I I would just be curious if one of the consequences of limiting on street parking would be the increase in off- streetet parking. And we're sort of seeing that with CU's parking garages. As they go into dense neighborhoods, they're increasing their off- streetet parking. And that's kind of where that's coming from. Um, okay. Uh, this is great. Um, and I, uh, that's all I have for now. Thanks. You, we got Tara, Matt, Lauren, Nicole. I see that we have to, um, we have to uh, approve this or ordinance by the end of June. So, if we want to make suggest some changes, do we even have time to do that? Certainly there it's the purview of council um to delay the ordinance adoption. Um I will say if there are even minor changes to the ordinance we

[83:01] would have to push that to a later meeting which based on the recess would be um the end of July which would then push the effective date to the end of August. It makes things a little more complicated um in terms of um complying with the state bill. However, we can still there are still some processes where we'll be able to comply through some administrative um variances for projects. It would I guess suffice it to say it would be a lot simpler to have the ordinance um passed tonight. Well, for instance, let's say the 5% um ebike charging availability. I think that is really not enough, but it doesn't really have to do with, you know, um it doesn't exactly have to do with the um parking minimums, right? Because it's about biking. So, can we push this back without pushing the rest

[84:00] of it back? Because there are maybe one, two, three, four things that I would like to see different, but I don't feel like there's space for it. procedurally procedurally um any changes to the ordinance would require a third reading and maybe even a fourth reading. So changing the ordinance that's before you since it's already had its first reading um would delay the overall adoption. However, like I said, there's another way um to comply with the state without the the ordinance adoption if council wants to make changes to the ordinance. Can I call Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, if I could just pop in here. I mean that even if we pass the ordinance as written tonight, it technically doesn't go into effect for 30 days past the uh deadline. So I mean we're going to have to use those administrative tools for at least a little while regardless. So I would say to council tonight if you think there are important changes, we should consider them uh rather than worrying too much about the schedule would be my feedback. C can I call aqu on that process? Could we I

[85:01] mean is it is it technically possible to strip out a section and pass that on emergency tonight? I actually don't know the answer to that. So I would look to Hela. Um it it seems like then we don't have a full ordinance in front of us with an ordinance number and so forth. I don't know. That seems technically challenging. The other thing um we considered when we brought it forward, we thought about whether or not to bring it forward as an emergency ordinance. The findings have to show that it's an emergency. Um state statute seems to for the preservation of public peace, h peace, health, and property. And we thought that was a little bit of a stretch. Okay. All right. Yeah. I'll just I'm just going to pop in one more time just pardon for for taking over here, but um we are still ahead of

[86:02] the class by um having an effective date of 30 to 60 days from now. Like in terms of the cities that are subject to this requirement, we're still going to be well ahead of of many of them. So I think I think if we handle it administratively, we'll still be okay in terms of state law. I'll now go back to to I got uh chair, where are you done? Yeah. All right. So, we got Lauren, Nicole, Arc, Matt. No, I had my section. I think my hand just got taken down. So, I appreciate that. I don't know why I did that. I was right after Terra. All right. So, um uh so so sort of sort of answered the process question, but I think we'll come back to that in maybe comments. Um, the question the question I have kind of centers around where we ca where we came up with the standard of two bike parking spaces per residential unit because when I sort of looked around at sort of comparable cities that have sort of

[87:01] similar values and similar certainly values towards biking I see standards of like 0.5 you know bike parking spaces per unit and and at the a high water mark of one. So I'm wondering where we got two from and what other comparable cities do that. Yeah, that's a great question. So actually it brings us back to the first phase of AMPs. So the bike parking standards, the quantitative, those were adopted in 2014 as the first major work item of AMPs. And so um those were pushing the boundaries. And we as part of the um analysis for this part of the project, we compared ourselves to 40 comparable communities. And we have higher bike parking requirements than um all of those communities. I believe even some other cities that you might think of like Portland. We have significantly higher bike parking standards for certain uses. So we do have some of the highest bike parking requirements um in the country. Obviously, we haven't looked at every single city, but for the

[88:00] ones that we've looked at, um there are some cities that have higher per unit um bike parking standards because they base them on bedrooms, but that really differs um differentiates based on what um what type of units you have. So, if it's a property with a lot of one or two bedrooms, we'll end up having a higher bike parking requirement than the higher um bedroom count communities. But other than that, um, we do tend to have higher bike parking requirements than most. I appreciate that. The other question kind of comes around, it's more of like a it's a it's kind of a cart in the horse question because it looks like planning board re unanimously recommended to do a bike utilization study. And so I'm kind of wondering why that didn't happen first because we did that with parking and and long before the state, you know, sort of forced our hand uh to eliminate parking standards. We were leaning on that parking utilization study to lead us towards eliminating parking minimums without the state intervention. And so I'm wondering why why we're doing the

[89:01] bike parking be regulations before we've done a study to even know what the utilization is. To Terra's point, she said 5%. I I I mean I worry we're just throwing darts at the board without a study to give us a baseline and then a way to estimate from that baseline of what the true needs are down the road. So I'm just sort of wondering h how did we get there without the study and the data to drive these decisions? Yeah, that's a great question and that speaks to the numerous meetings that we've had with council and boards where they've indicated an interest in some of the more design standard types types of things related to bike parking. We have tried to limit the scope and we haven't changed like the overall requirements per unit because we do really think that there would be great value in having that utilization study. Like I said, bike parking was phase one of amps and now it's been 11 years. So, it wasn't actually intended to be part of this phase. Um, it was more that the boards and council um feedback indicated such

[90:00] interest that we wanted to incorporate the design standards that we've incorporated. Okay. Um, okay. Perfect. Well, well, those those answer my questions. Thank Thanks, Lisa. Appreciate it. Thanks, Matt. Now, we got Lauren, Nicole, Mark. Thank you. Thanks for that presentation. Um, I guess I will start with um kind of back to this timeline issue. It sounds like um if we wanted to make some changes, we could do that tonight or we could maybe ask for something to come back in the future. Um if we did that, it sounds like it could be a couple of months. Like if we made if we made some minor changes or if we asked for some minor changes to come back to us in the future, there might be several months between our adoption of this and maybe the adoption of the

[91:00] changes. Does that sound like potentially accurate depending of course on the scope of what those changes might be? And um how many projects might we expect to come through in that kind of time period? Yeah, another great question. So, it usually I think the fastest ordinance to get through all the planning board and city council readings and things like that is probably at least two months um to get through the process. Um so, uh but keep in mind that we do have a third leg of the stool that will have a third ordinance coming to you in August and September for TDM. So, that could be a good opportunity to roll in any additional changes. And then now I'm forgetting your second question. How many projects How many Okay, thank you. Well, that's that's a that's a really good one because that's what we were considering because with that 30-day effective, so if you pass something tonight and we have 30 days, there are not many projects that are going to especially with a holiday and things like that um need their final approval

[92:01] within the next um 3 weeks. And uh the projects that would be waiting for those changes or something like that, I'm sure would be happy to wait um for the the changes. So, um I would say we have about 12 site reviews that on average that are approved per year. So, that's about one per month if you can think through that. And then, um many more building permits and things like that that would come through, but um uh we don't anticipate that the month delay um would incorporate very many projects. Thank you for that. Um, and then related to to residential bike parking requirements, um, are there different ways that developers can fulfill those requirements? Like could a storage locker or like a yeah lockable storage area be potentially a way to meet a bike parking requirement to provide

[93:01] flexibility for people who might not use it necessarily for biking but to make sure that that's opportunities there for them. Is that something developers do sometimes? Yeah, there's some flexibility in that. You just have to meet the long-term bike parking standard. So that can be a lockable room, something with security nearby. Um there's a number of different standards. It can even be a fenced in area as long as um the fence is secure. Um and also I'll point out we have a bike a bicycle parking reduction process um where you know if it's a use that maybe is like um I'm trying to think of like a hospital or assisted living or something where you might not have the same level of bike utilization. um developers or applicants can make the case that they should have a reduced bike parking and it's a relatively um simple administrative um process that can reduce that parking requirement. Perfect. Thank you. And that was going to be my next question.

[94:00] So, good job rolling in. Um and uh finally, sorry about my puppy dog. Um are developers I've heard some confusion around this. Are are developers still allowed to provide parking even if we eliminate these parking minimums or will it make it so that no new developments have parking? Great clarification. Absolutely. Developers are allowed to provide parking. Um the intent is that they would provide the parking that they think they need rather than the city setting the formula standard. And so, um, one of, since I mentioned Buffalo was the first city that did this, they've done studies on what happened afterwards, and about half of projects provided just as many parking spaces as they would have before, and half had, um, less parking than they would have before the elimination. So, um, it kind of just leaves it more up into the applicant's perview of what that number

[95:01] should be. But based on feedback with council and boards, we decided not to set maximum parking or anything like that. So, it really is up to the applicant. Thank you so much. That's it for my questions. So, we got Nicole, Mark, and Tara wants to come back. Thank you. Um, Tara and Lauren were asking some of my questions, and I'm just I'm going to dive in a little bit more on this uh aspect of timing. Um, can you just say a little bit more about the cadence for checking in or following up on these policy changes and their impacts? So um you know there's a lot of other cities who have done this already. Do we have any indications from the other cities uh who've done this on when when they had information on impacts if any? Sure. Yeah. I think the Buffalo study that I just mentioned I think they maybe waited four years to to look back. the development timeline is quite long um

[96:00] between when a a development is actually um like conceptualized to the city and then fully built and built out and things like that. Um so it would take a few years for larger development for us to see what the impact is. However, I will note that we have a lot of like small businesses that are currently held up by parking um parking processes that could immediately open their business if if not for this parking issue. So, we will see some more immediate impacts for some of those smaller developments where um projects that we might not have seen go through or would have been through a much more complicated process um are facilitated in um moving forward quicker. No, thank you. Um, and is that is this sort of follow-up study something we would typically do in four or five years or whatever this is? Yeah, actually I was I um almost said that earlier in another question, but um for some of the changes that we've made like our ADU changes for accessory dwelling

[97:00] units, we've gone back every three years and looked at how many permits did we get, what you know, did we eliminate the barrier here? So the plan is to do and actually that was one of planning board's motions was to um make sure that we are monitoring and understanding the impact that the changes have. Well, thank you. And then um if this were to pass tonight, uh would that be a natural place to in to have some data to inform possible revisions? Or is it just something where we would collect some data and then not really do anything with it? or if the data were suggesting that there needed to be revisions, is that something that a future council um would look at based on the data? Yeah, I'll go back I'll go back to the ADU example. So, we used that evaluation to inform the changes when council identified ADU barriers as one of your priorities. We used the evaluation looking back at a change that had happened three years before to understand which changes had, you know, moved the needle, which had not, and then that informed the ordinance that we

[98:00] brought to council. So, we would anticipate doing something similar to that. Okay, cool. And would that need a council like to make it a work plan priority or something in the future to do that or is that just sort of part of what you all do in your ongoing efforts to continually improve things in the city? I we do it as on part of our ongoing I guess I can look to Brad who plans my work plan for me, but um we do try to keep up on those. So, um I would say that maybe not like at a specific year, but um you know, at a regular cadence, we'll look back and um see what the impacts have been. So, is it it just fair to say that if the data were showing that something was seriously wrong, if we were leading to a lot more traffic or a lot more parking problems or something like that, that's something that you all might naturally bring back to a future council in three or four years when when those data are coming in. Absolutely. And we don't even need the like if there's a major problem going on that's being raised. Um we

[99:00] would we would want to address that like you've seen in code changes or code cleanups and other ordinances that we've brought to you. Yeah. Just to elaborate a little bit on uh Lisa's comments. Um we know there are certain items that are perennial in city governance and housing and and transportation are certainly some of those. So it might be tied to a project for future enhancements. It might be um just certainly if there is a problem that's becoming clear anecdotally we we would prioritize that. But I think it is safe to say that on some version of a cadence of three to five years we would be looking at at that fairly closely and scientifically. Great. Thank you. Um, and then I just have one last question which is uh related to the TDM ordinance that we'll see later this summer. Um, can the owners change their approach over time? Like is it adaptable? So you maybe they're the population living their um shifts or something like that and they

[100:00] want to try out some new ones. Is it it's not locked in, right? It's a little bit malleable over time. Yes, I would say there's flexibility and customization, especially if we have use changes, uh change in tenants, we could re-evaluate, uh the staff approved TDM plan, look at the available funding we have through financial guarantees, and make adjustments that that fit the needs of the tenants, whether they're employees or residents. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks. Now, we have Mark and then Cher, if you don't mind letting Ryan go next, and then we'll come back to you. Um, I only have two comments and they're both derivative. Uh, first I want to support um, so Mark Mark, sorry to keep in clarifying questions right now. We'll do deliberations in a little bit. I'm sorry. No worries at all. Ryan Lisa, thanks. I have heard two concerns that I want to uh, run by you and see if you can uh, field. Um the first is what

[101:01] if any costs um in terms of added floor area requirements that would lead to higher costs in that way. Um what additional costs do do you foresee with this policy compared to the existing state or is there is there any assessment done or way a way to think about that? Um, do you mean like off- streetet parking or bike parking or particular parking? Yeah, thanks. Sorry. Um, I I I think I'm mostly thinking about developer standards to create uh uh increased floor area essentially floor area for bike parking. I think that's the really the concern I've heard. So, is there any way to comment on that? Yeah. Um, I can't comment exactly on the cost. I will note that we didn't change the number of spaces that would be required. um the overall number that we talked about. So technically they would have the same number of bike parking spaces, URAKs, things like that that

[102:01] they would need to incorporate. However, I will note um in terms of incorporating the larger cargo bike spaces, those on average, I talked to my the engineers about this. On average, they take up about three times the space of a typical bike parking space are what we allow now. And then those vertical or tiered racks take up about half the space. Um so oftentimes developers will choose to do those vertical or tiered racks because it takes up less of the floor area. Um keep in mind in most of our zoning districts like I mentioned um the the F the floor area for those bike parking is exempted. So it's not necessarily um impacting the um approval process or things like that, but it that doesn't mean the space doesn't exist just because zoning is saying that it doesn't exist. So um by incorporating the ebike spaces, the cargo bike spaces and reducing the amount that can be vertical tiered space, we do expect that larger bike parking areas would be

[103:02] needed to to meet the requirements. Thanks. Um the second one is um is is there a concern that with without a parking regulation for developers that would encourage reductions uh developers could they not actually end up creating more parking because you wouldn't have a process where they're you know we're we're we're inducing them to you know create reductions against the standard. So I guess if you would accept that premise then my question is is there anything that will cons now constrain the byite ability to create lots of new parking and if not is that something that a concern that we just need to be watching watching for? Yeah, I think that's something that we'll need to monitor, but we discussed that when we brought um the idea of maximum parking requirements to you all and to the boards, and we just don't see many projects where um um applicants try to

[104:03] build a lot more parking. As Chris kind of briefly mentioned, parking is extremely expensive to build um especially if it's underground or um in a garage. And so oftentimes developers are not trying to um build more parking than they will actually utilize. So we do still have some site review standards um related to not not having an excess of pavement and things like that. So we have some standards in the in the land use code that would allow planning board to make a discretionary um decision based on the amount of parking, but it's something we'll need to monitor. Um many other cities do adopt maximum parking requirements, but when we looked at uh the studies of that, it didn't actually um support um the the the administration of a maximum parking requirement didn't support the um like it didn't change the numbers enough uh to make it worth having that. Got it. Thank you. And

[105:00] that's all for my questions. Sarah, we'll come back to you before we wrap up questions. Uh just real quick, and this is kind of a colloquia, I guess, to Ryan. Um so my question is is let's say that it's student housing and the developer or the doesn't think that they're going to need a 5% of spaces to be for the cargo bikes because most students don't ride cargo bikes. Is there any way for them to get a variance or an exception already or do I have to ask for that later? That we we already have that. So in the bike parking reduction and our very smart engineers made sure that this language was incorporated in the ordinance. So our bike parking reduction um also says that they can reduce the percentage of cargo bikes um or ebikes if for the same reason like if it's a use that's just not going to need that high. Um, so they can reduce the overall requirement and they can reduce those

[106:00] certain percentages that we've added. Do you think that's a better way than me asking for you to reduce from 5% to a lower number? Be do you think it's better to just leave it as is? We um staff thought that 5% was a without having the bike parking utilization study, we thought that 5% um was a reasonable amount for folks to meet. And then um the anticipation or we anticipate that once we have that bike parking utilization study we'll be able to tweak all of these numbers including the overall requirement um if we need to whether that's higher or lower. So are you saying that no matter what we pass tonight or let's say on third reading that we could change it after the bike utilization study? Yes. If it's made a priority by city council as a work plan. I see. Okay. Thank you. Can I colloqui on Tara's comments? So, do we know do we have any um idea right now what the

[107:00] utilization is of cargo bike parking? No, we have not done a study of that. Okay. And then for the developer to get the exemption, would they then have to go to planning board? No, it's a very simple administrative review process. Um doesn't even have an application form. It's just they have to make the case that they um you know explain the case of why they would need a reduced requirement and then staff would be able to reduce that. Okay. And they could do that in less than a week. I mean it would just be rolled into all the rest of their applications. Okay. And so then but let's say like how much time could that add to a project do you think on the high end the bike parking reduction? I don't think it would add Yeah. anytime. All right. So that we've reached the end of our questions. So we can now go to the public hearing. We have one person signed up to speak which is Lynn

[108:01] Seagull. And I do see that she is present in the meeting. So Lynn, you'll have three minutes to speak and then just please do confine your comments to the ordinances that we're considering as part of this public hearing. I was at a um police um oversight panel meeting so I didn't get to hear so I declined speaking. I don't want to speak without having heard what was going on specifically. Thanks. Thank you. We will now close the public hearing and bring it back to city council to consider the two questions that um staff has for us. The first qu let's just do them one by one. Um the first question is does city council recommend any modifications to draft ordinance 8700 or 8696. So we can work through that question and then that might lead us to a motion potentially to pass those ordinances. But any suggestions for modifications? I've got Nicole and Terara.

[109:02] Um it's no for me is the answer to that question. Um I think there'll be some regular time in the future where this will come back. Um, but I would uh after how many years is this? Over 10, right, that we've been working on this, um, I am eager to, uh, put this to bed so we can move on to some other things knowing that, um, a future council will have the opportunity uh, to weigh in with some data on any impacts or things that may need additional tweaks in the future. Thank you. And amazing work. Thank you so much. Thanks, Tina. No, Tara, Tina, Lauren. Good point, Nicole. Um, but I'm going to just say my thoughts even though so just for the record because you know it's the last minute and I don't I'm just pulling numbers out of a hat as somebody said earlier. Um, so for the 5% ebike charging availability, I would like to see 25%. So I'm just adding a two in front of the five. That's not that big.

[110:01] And then for the vertical, I feel like those vertical, what are they called? Vertical. Vertical. Vertical or tiered racks. Thank you. Vertical or tiered racks. I feel that as a short weak person that they would be useless for me and I'm not going to say all women, but probably some. I feel like it's in my opinion a way to just check a box for bike parking and it's definitely I don't know very many bikers they say it's their favorite so I would like to reduce it further to 15% and I also pulled that money number out of my hat not that I ever wear hats because I don't and um that is what I have that's it. Thanks Tara. We can um as we move through people's ideas, we can straw pull some of these things as we get get towards the motion. Uh Tina, then

[111:01] Lauren, Matt, Mark, Ryan. Thanks. Uh I would like to remove any references to schools because it applies to such an incredibly limited amount of um schools. It's only private, but we're not able to differentiate that in the code. So it adds length and complexity to an important code and I think dilutes the value of the rest of the code. Um this is because we're in a area with the declining amount of kids. I think this probably won't even go into effect anytime soon. I don't imagine we'll have new construction and this only applies to new construction or major redevelopment. So this is not an urgent request, but I think for clarity and for our goals of simple code, we should just remove it because I I think it's a very very extremely low impact. I don't think it will I don't think we'll see any impact for decades. So um and then the second thing is in general I I'm okay with the code the way it is,

[112:00] but I'm concerned about creating so many specific regulations around bike parking without having done a bike study. And I um I feel like we hear from developers a lot about how it adds complexity to projects. And um you know, we're what the the parking minimum language in the state legislation is very clear that developers probably know the parking needs the best. And I don't think they they necessarily know the biking needs the best yet, but I'm I'm I'm wondering if they know better than we do already. and they tend to build what creates value uh in their projects. So to the extent that we need to regulate it so specifically, I'm I'm actually a little hesitant, but I do want to promote bike parking. Um so I think I'm okay with it where it is, but if we can move along with this study and and make sure that we're generous with reductions, um and then hopefully we'll have a

[113:00] better idea of what's really needed. Thanks. Thanks uh Lauren then Matt Mark Ryan. Thanks. I just wanted to put in a thank you for um the Goss Grove pilot project. I remember I think it was my first year on council asking for a work plan item related to seeing about paid parking and paying for busing and um yeah, so I just appreciate that getting worked into this. Thank you so much and I thought Tina's comments were great. Good. U Matt Mark Ryan, appreciate it. I want to first say thank you for staff especially on the bike part on the uh just the regular car parking stuff. I mean I I know I as long as I've been involved in city stuff. This has been discussed since as long as I can remember about what to do with with parking minimums and and all of that. So it's great to finally be here um with a helpful nudge from the state. Um, you

[114:00] know, ju I just want to dubtail a little bit on Tina's comments about, you know, usually the developers know what they need. Hence why they were all, you know, half of half these projects were demanding parking reductions because they realized they didn't need all the parking. Um, but they pro really the answer here to the bike parking thing is less about regulate overregulating it and creating the demand. And so things like CAN and the work we're doing to promote greater usage of biking and movement through our city with bikes is the vehicle to get the best bike parking we need because then we've created the demand that the developers will then have to respond to um just like they do with everything else. They're responding to the demand pressure. So so ultimately I think that's the that's the best impulse here to get the change that we want. um rather than mandating on the front end that they must have a certain amount even if the demand's not there yet. Um so so I think I think we kind of maybe have this a little bit in reverse. Um I do think there's a phase two here. Absolutely. I mean we heard it in

[115:00] planning board and tabs feedback um that I still think the study should come first before we regulate it. I I think we've got it a little backwards there. Uh like geometric standards and and most importantly we've discussed this before. I know I know Ryan's discussed this as well is how do we provide a simplified streamlined way for existing developments to reclaim their unneeded parking without having to go through site review and a large discretionary process. Sure, if they want to add a three-story addition, you got to go through our process. But if they want to just put out uh you know take 20 spaces and do some grass, some tables, and a nice little palapa for you know uh their their workers or residents to have a space to eat in the in this hot summer. There should be a really easy way for existing developments to to do that. And and I really hope that a phase two sort of works in earnest to do that. Um because we've mandated a lot of parking that we don't need and now people are feeling a little bit out of luck like great I built this thing now I don't need it. Now you got rid of the requirements to have it. Um, I think we

[116:01] can reverse engineer this quite simply. Um, and candidly, I think we might be rolling back some of this bike parking standards. So, um, a phase two of this to me seems inevitable. Um, and and I just hope that we we move forward with that. U, but great job to staff to get us here on a lot of the parking fronts. Um, and I'm and I'm eager to see what a phase two can be to make this really what Boulder wants. Um, because I think we're pretty close. Appreciate it. Thanks, Mark Gran. And then I'll call on myself. Okay. Um my my comment is is more procedural than anything else. I don't have any specific um amendments to the ordinance other than to say that um I'm a little uncomfortable doing things on the fly and we've had a number of interesting um suggestions. Um, and I I kind of lean on u Mayor Brockett's comment earlier that the sky is not going to fall if we end up with a third reading. Um, I would

[117:02] like to see the the uh suggestions for amendment um articulated by council members uh and I'd like to see them considered. I I go back to Matt's uh issue with respect to the number of of bikes per unit and it seems that that was arbitrary. Um as if we were winning a prize for having the highest number of bikes per unit. Um and I would like to understand how we got there and whether that's the appropriate number uh for us to to have. So I you know I we may well pass this today but I think it's being a little bit hasty. Um nothing is going to happen to us if we give full consideration to the suggestions of members of council and the issues that they are raising. Um I don't think the state is going to come

[118:01] down on us like a load of bricks. I I I think that there is um simply an opportunity here to deal with the last few issues um that have been raised and get them right uh as opposed to coming back and and fixing something later that we have already memorialized. And that's about it. Thanks, Mark. I got Ryan and now Taiisha and then I'll call on myself then come back to Nicole. on the immediate decision. I would prefer to keep it as is and vote on it. And uh I think it strikes the right balance of doing what we know now and actually being somewhat conservative in the in some of the the the the percentage figures with with um bike requirements and then doing a study for the rest. Uh the bike parking numbers per unit has been established for some time. We've heard that there's a pretty

[119:02] um small additional that's what I've taken to be a pretty small additional um floor area requirement associated with with what is what is new here. Um and I we've also heard uh I think a really important uh improvement that um the the bike parking uh requirement has been eliminated um for with floor area requirements. So I I think the critical pieces are here. look forward to uh voting and and moving it forward. Um I would like to make a more general comment and speak to where we go from here and and pick up a thread or two that I heard. Um so this is a really big milestone that will stand on its own. Uh incredible amount of work from this community and actually multiple generations of community members working on it and hope everybody can pause and appreciate that. Um but but when that's when we're done uh pausing, I would like to propose some future directions. while it's all very fresh right now, as fresh as it's ever going to be. Um, so two things. First on um some just cleanup

[120:02] and simple fixes that logically follow what we're doing um as staff has capacity. There's a few things and they've been they've been referenced, but I just want to outline them again. Uh, one is to address the the elim potentially eliminating the dimensional standards for car parking except so those that are critical like where there's ADA requirements or blocking emergency services um in order to eliminate um excuse me align with the elimination of perspective elimination of parking minimums. Uh the second one is to clarify uh what will hopefully be the simple process for existing developers or or facility operators to reclaim their mandated parking for higher uses. Um and then the third one is to do this uh this comprehensive needs assessment of bike parking that would need to address a number of things. Um charging needs as highlighted in the in the memo, development of a more integrated cross- departmental approach to bike parking security and the overall user experience. um

[121:00] potentially making some adjustments like reducing the percentage of vertical bike parking. Um possible exemptions if if there's a case for it with um a cash and loo kind of a kind of a model and then other creative solutions, flexibilities and modifications. So look forward to that when it's time. I would put those those items in the category of logical followup as staff has time hopefully. Um and then additionally as a second matter uh I do like the idea of us thinking about a next generation of substantive enhancements that will improve access and other community benefits in the in the future in and around parking. So a few things that I I hope that we'll we'll keep in mind. uh one to develop a uh and implement a comprehensive bike parking improvement program that will cover the existing landscape of existing facilities which I I I can there's implicitly some frustration that we can only do so much with with developers with new developments because it takes so long to get those going. Um so I look forward to talking about how we do that

[122:01] through a combination of requirements including just targeted like large grocery stores with large balance sheets and then also wider incentives education and matchmaking with contractors and so on. Um so something around that and then also how to um looking at how to um eliminating sorry h how parking minimums and this and reducing them and well eliminating them will actually deliver on their goals of unlocking housing and using the resources in a more high value way and just validating that this works like we think it's going to work and making some some of those adjustments that we we did we talked about um watching for. And then um the the last I've got just two more. The the um next one is uh park looking about looking towards how to develop parking that is consistent with the city that works well for smaller slowmoving vehicles in which there are fewer barriers between the vehicle occupants and other vehicles and and figuring out how to how to make parking really support that kind of an environment. And then finally to with

[123:00] our parking to strengthen partnerships to help meet our our objectives including as Tina talked about coordination with CU um with how we just do all of this as we go forward together and also exploring potential new work with employers and the idea of a binding some kind of a de a binding process um for all the employees coming in. So, thanks for listening to all that, but I just wanted to get it out um while it's fresh and um I'll I'll yield and uh thanks for this. That's right. I got Taiisha and then I'll go to Nicole. Um thank you very much. I will be brief. Um I wanted to echo of the I want to echo the concerns around not having a a study that's specific to our area around the biking. However, I do feel comfortable with the comps that were provided um by the staff um in lie of having that information and by having a starting point. So, I do feel comfortable with that aspect. If there is any section that I would recom that

[124:02] would agree with changing at this point, it would be with Tina's request on the schools. And that's just for my you know, I just agree that our policy should um align with our practice and our authority. Um, and I I have concerns with it being that other part as well, but we do what we can. So, um, those are the two comments that I have at this time. Thank you. Thanks, Aisha. All right, I'll go. Um, I'll just say a huge thank you to City Staff for all your amazing work on this. I have been around for the entire 11-year life of amps and I remember when it first came up when I was on planning board 11 years ago, I thought, hey, maybe this will lead to the elimination of parking minimums and maybe it won't even take that long. And so 11 years later, I'm very excited to be finishing up the project and getting rid of parking note. So thanks to everybody for for the work on it. Um the in terms of modifications, um you know, I'm Tara, I'm not quite sure about your numbers. Maybe changing those a little bit, maybe not quite to those, but we'll

[125:00] get to that in a minute. And then I thought Tina's point was good. I was uncomfortable that um planning board was sort of doing that on the fly without any engagement with the school communities. So, those ideas may be good ones, but I don't feel like I have enough information and would want to consult with existing schools and ones that are thinking about expansions um before adding in those additional school related requirements. So, agree with Tina on that. And that's all I got. All right, we got double dips from Nicole and Terra. We are overtime, so I'll ask her swiftness. Thank you. Um and I just had a question, not so much a comment. Um it's a trade-off question. So staff, you've been absolutely swamped the past few months, including the city attorney's office um who's going to have to make any changes, even though um you know, a lot of folks are already behind on the work because of all the things that have been added to people's plates this year. Um, so my question is, especially as we're heading into budget season and we have a lot of other work plan priorities that we're trying to

[126:00] wrap up before the next council is seated, what gets delayed or paused, if anything if we do more work to wrap up this set of ordinances because there I mean there there are always things that I would welcome changing and most of the things we do, but at some point we have to call it good enough and move on. So, I'm wondering how does this impact your work and the other things that this council is trying to get done before December? Yeah, I'll be happy to start uh the answer on that. Appreciate the uh question, Council Member Spear. Um, you know, I think we alluded to it earlier and it came up from from some of you on council as well that if we're talking about relatively discreet items or tweaks, a number or phrase or taking something out that can be incorporated in what is um been envisioned as a as a third reading. U beyond that it gets harder to say because uh anything that involves research, anything that

[127:00] involves uh a lot of um ordinance drafting or even even even minor ordinance drafting can create its own challenges. Um you heard uh Lisa describe that there is an interplay of all of these uh in the parking and there's a lot to untangle uh with even relatively small tweaks. So, I wouldn't want to represent that it's uh impossible, but but the impacts would be real. And when it comes to things that represent um actual studies and such like the uh bike utilization study that's been uh suggested by various boards and yourselves um and and certainly well received by staff as well. um that really though becomes a discrete work plan item that would be in future years and a trade-off against other kinds of uh work plan items and budget priorities. So I hope that's uh specific enough. Um Nicole, but but let me know if I can clarify that more.

[128:03] Teresa, do you want to weigh in on this? I would. From a city attorney perspective, the same person is working on landscaping, WOOI, transportation demand management, all of this. And so, um, something would get delayed. Something would get delayed and council could choose what that is, but um, uh, the plate is full. Fair enough. Uh, Terry, you got something quick? Yes. So, with that, I don't want to wait 11 years, which is why I'm going to just quickly sell my point. I did watch the planning board's entire um May 20th discussion on bike parking, and there was one beloved um planning board member who wanted enough bike charging for every single bike. Now, that was a lot. But he also made a very good point that now is the time. We

[129:02] we've waited so long for this and now is, you know, that if you have your single family home, you can come back from your bike and uh bike ride and you can just plug your bike in and people can't necessarily do that now. And like removing in the packet, it said, "Well, people want to remove their batteries." Well, how many people remove their batteries now? Most bikes you don't have to do that anymore. So because I don't want to wait 11 years, I'm asking us to please increase that 5% which was I think random to a higher number of approximately how many ebikes we think people have right now compared to regular bikes. um with also the ability of uh variance because let's say student bike let's say students mostly use um what are the other ones that they use b cycles and they also have a a lot of students still have a lot of regular bikes so that's why I'm going to push for that you have a slight smile on your face and the other thing I want to say

[130:01] is I also want to push for reducing those vertical tiered watch jigots because they are annoying And I think 25% is just too much and I also don't want to wait 11 years for that. So those are my two things I have to say as Okay, good. Well, we'll we'll engage with that. Uh Terara, so do you want to can you please provide a specific number? So you would like to change the 5% of um spots with um charging ports to what number? Well, I was going to say 25%, but I'm actually open to any amount because I think 5% is just too little. I'll suggest 15, but Okay, let's suggest 15. Nicole's got her hand raised. Yeah, I was just wondering um Erin, if we could do a straw poll just to see um for sort of this trade-off question because I hear that even if it's not tonight we're making a trade-off question, we will be making a trade-off

[131:00] question. And so as as people are about to propose some changes and things like that, I would just like to know are people okay with the um uh Teresa, I think you said it was the WOOI, the TDM. Um there may have been one other uh ordinance in there that um is potentially at risk uh if we continue work on this one. I would just like to see us draw a poll and just see that folks are are comfortable with making that that trade-off. So, Nicole, I can I can if I can clarify. I think if the ordinance were changed to use the number 15 instead of five, I don't think that would impose a significant work requirement on city staff. I think that just means a third reading and it takes 30 more days. But Teresa, can you confirm that? Mayor, that's accurate. Yeah. So, so I think I think the points about the trade-offs were would be if we continued with larger future initiatives rather than just tweaking the ordinance

[132:00] that we have in front of us tonight. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And and I would just ask that if there is anything that comes up in the uh people's ideas for changes that that might put something else at risk um can we know that and just make that decision? Very good. So staff please flag if anything comes up that would impose that kind of trade-off. Brad, did you want to add to that? I I did want to um just to clarify a point that I think is being misunderstood. The 5% um and I'm not making this up observation to advocate one way or another, but just the 5% was based on a um casual but but not comprehensive review of other communities. So, it's not entirely random. Um but certainly, you know, there's the possibility to do more Ryan, a thought before I start. Thanks. Just a call. Erin, yeah, I I just was kind of making thinking a more general point that I heard Nicole saying, which is um do we have would it be possible to

[133:01] do a straw poll to see who is interested in voting tonight and not going to a third reading? I mean, we're doing a bit of a technical analysis of staff work plan and like all this stuff. But there seems to be a threshold question about are we comfortable moving this to beyond recess and what all might come with that. And I would be interested to vote on that if you would be willing to support. Okay, really quick. Who is interested in entertaining possible small amendments tonight that would push us to a third reading? Raise your physical hand if you're interested in considering this. I got four, five. Okay. So, we got we got a threshold to at least consider checking in on it. Thanks for that clarification, Ryan. So, I'm going to and let's do this quickly. All right, we got Terara's suggestion to change the 5% uh number of charging ports to 15%. All in favor of making that change, raise your physical hand. We got four. Okay, so Tara, no go on

[134:02] that guy on that one. Um, your other one was about vertical racks from 25% maximum to 15% maximum. Is that correct? Okay. All in favor of changing the maximum number from 25% to 15%. All right. We we got four on that one. Okay. So So no go on that one. And then Tina, I'm going to turn to you. Do you want to restate your uh suggestion? Yes. Just to remove the new school requirements that were made during the uh planning board. They're just two of them. the distance of the school and eliminating vertical parking. Uh so all in favor of that modification, raise your fiscal aid. We got we got seven tips eight. We got eight on that one. Okay. So here's going to be and and so

[135:01] that's it. That's all the things that were on the table. So here's going to be my request to city staff. We still have another question from staff to answer. I wonder if our attorneys could have specific amendment language uh put together to implement Tina's because that's not quite in official motion form. Is do you think that would be doable over the next few minutes? Uh no. Okay. I mean not not to be too difficult about it, but we're we have to if with that change we have to go to third reading anyway. And so, um, if you wouldn't mind, we we can go through and strike the relevant provisions, but, um, it's a substantive change, so it will require a third reading now. Well, of course, it requires a third reading. I was just wondering if you wanted the detailed language about exactly which sections to strike or if Tina's more um, uh, high level language was sufficient. Oh, thank you for the clarification. Um, I think that council member Marquis um,

[136:01] adequately identified what she was looking to strike. Okay, great. Thank you for that. In that case, why don't we finalize this by making some motions on on this the ordinances in front of us? But Nicole, you have a thought? Well, I I just have just one more question. My understanding was that this this piece is not anything that would have impacts for potentially a decade or more. Um I I just wanted to clarify that that was the case because I you know to your point Tina when you were talking about it we weren't really looking for new schools or anything like that. Um not really any plans to have new schools coming in with our population declining and stuff like that. So is this anything that we expect to have an impact because if it's not going to have an impact before the time that we would naturally not we next council future council will look at it again. Is there value in adding another reading is is where I'm at. Well, Nicole, we did just have a All right, he Yeah, we did just have a straw poll on

[137:00] the question. So, you know that it would happen the next time a private school did a significant expansion or a rebuild and we don't know when that would happen. Terry, you want a final thought before we vote or make a motion? I realize that uh it's a no, but now that we're have a third reading anyway for all the people that voted, we needed one more vote. I'm assuming we can't re reitigate that, correct? or can we? I mean, I just said to Nicole, we we just had a straw poll on that, so I think we probably should let that let that stay. Sorry, Terara. Um, we have a couple suggested we have suggested motion language in the chat if anyone wants to take that up, Tina. Sure. I'll try to do this. I move to adopt the motion to adopt ordinance 8700 amending section 2215

[138:03] neighborhood permit parking zones and chapter 423 neighborhood parking zone permits to update standards for on street parking management and setting forth related details with the changes suggested during this meeting. Should I do the second one as well or just do that one? Just one at a time. But maybe you say with the with the change that you specifically proposed with the changes that I specifically proposed around uh not including the planning board's motions around schools. Do we have a second? Second. Matt got it. Okay. Uh Elicia, can we have a roll call, please? Sorry everyone, trying to maneuver those buttons. All right, we'll start the roll call for the amended 8700 with Council Member Spear.

[139:02] Yes. Wallik, yes. Wer, yes. Adams, yes. Benjamin, yes. Mayor Brockett, yes. Mayor Pro Tim Folks, yes. Council member Marquis, yes. And Shuhard, yes. Ordinance 8700 is hereby amended and passed unanimously. Thank you. Um, can we can we do a clerical correction to the record? I'm sorry. which is it's not amending 8700, it's amending 8696. Oh, thanks for catching that. Okay. So, Tina, you're you're going to have to resay that for the next motion if you want to make the next motion.

[140:02] Okay. So, motion to adopt. I move that we adopt ordinance 8696 amending title 9 land use code BRC1 1981 to modify off- streetet parking requirements and amending chapter 2 of the city of builder design and construction standards DCS originally adopted pursuant to ordinance 5986 to update standards for bicycle parking and setting forth related details uh as amending during the conversation by removing the uh planning board suggestions around the uh schools. Second. All right, we've got a motion and a second. Uh Elicia, can we have a roll call, please? Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for the amended 8696 with council member Spear. Yes. Wallik. Yes.

[141:01] Winer. Yes. Adams, yes. Benjamin, yes. Mayor Brockett, yes. Mayor Pro Tim Folks, yes. Council member Marquis, yes. And Shuhard, yes. So that I'm clear, ordinance 8696 is hereby amended and passed. and will be scheduled for a third reading. Thanks so much for that. All right, our last thing to address as part of this agenda item is the second question for us, which is, does city council want to provide any additional guidance regarding the TDM ordinance currently under development that will complement the ordinances 8700 and 8696? And and if you don't have any feedback, that's totally fine, too. But raise your hand if you do have additional feedback.

[142:05] Tina. Uh yes, I uh would just ask that um we get some time to understand it a little bit better and work on how we can simplify the language when we talk about TDM uh both to developers and to tenants. It's it's a little hard to follow sometimes and I'm newer to this area. Uh, so I think anything that could help introduce our community in a way that feels really accessible would be fantastic. Right. Chris gives the big thumbs up, Nicole. Yeah. My only feedback is um, this is great. I really love where we're going. Appreciate the standardization of some of the things we're already doing. Um, and I think this is going to work very nicely with the other ordinances that we just passed. So, thank you, Steph. I'll ditto what Nicole just said. and and Ryan. Yeah, I just wanted to say something similar that this was

[143:01] originally going to be part of the, you know, this the thing we're setting today and um it's really important for helping with with neighborhood impact um traffic impact mitigation. So, I just hope we all remember that as we get into it. And if I could, while I'm at it, I just want to say for the record, I liked Tara's motion. I probably would have voted for it if it if it was already established we were going to move forward um on a third reading. I just um am really nervous about going to a third reading. So, anyway, thanks everyone. All right. Well, that wraps us up. So, huge huge thank you again to city staff. This has been very complicated. It has been very many years in the works. So, really appreciate you getting us to this enormous milestone and we look forward to finishing it out with TDM in September. Mayor, if I may, I just want to make sure the record is clear with the recorded vote that we took for ordinance 8700. That ordinance is hereby adopted and not amended and passed. So I just wanted to make sure the record was

[144:00] clear. Thank you for that. Okay. Um we still have two things uh to discuss. We are running a little bit behind. So let's see if we can make up some time on item 5A. All right. Thank you, sir. Five. Item 5A is um our matters from the city manager and it is the polling survey results on the 2025 potential tax ballot measures related to long-term financial strategy. Thanks so much. And our uh new CFO is getting quite good at our council meeting. So I'm going to pass it on directly to Krista. Well, thank you Nuria and good evening Mayor Brockett and members of city council. Christrista Morrison, chief financial officer. The city's the city of Boulder's long-term financial strategy is a 2024 council priority and multi-year initiative that focuses on the development of a comprehensive

[145:00] financial strategy to help guide decisionmaking and long range financial health of the city. For background, the long-term financial strategy um upon prior guidance from the blue ribbon commission 2008 and 2010 reports and budgeting for community resilience report of 2019. These reports call for a comprehensive financial plan, cautioned the city's over reliance of sales tax and dedication of funding sources, and encouraged the development of an outcomesbased budgeting system. One of the four initiatives of the long-term financial strategy is to develop a multi-year ballot measure strategy for 2005 and 2006 to support unmet needs. Tonight's meeting will focus on the polling results for the 2005 two ballot items that city council um wanted to pursue further information.

[146:01] The first is an extension of the existing.3 community culture resilience and safety sales and use tax from an an uh excuse me and an an ending date of 2036. changing that to uh 2050 or permanently to continue supporting city infrastructure and maintenance projects as well as nonprofit capacity building and capital investments. The second item is the creation of a public realm or parks and improvements tax which would increase the uh the existing permanent parks property tax from.9 mills to 2.252 to 52 mills and expand the use of that tax more broadly in the public realm such as parks, open space, civic buildings, and areas such as rideaways, streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and

[147:01] multi-use paths. I want to take a moment uh first off to thank members of the financial strategy committee for your work on these initiatives along with uh budget officer Charlotte Husky who is here this evening. Uh the continued work on the long-term financial strategy along with the support of this city council to ensure that we have a financially sustainable Boulder. questions for council this evening and we'll touch on these at the end of the presentation is do council members have questions on the 2025 statistically valid polling survey and results of the two potential tax ballot measures for consideration on the 2025 ballot? And question two is, do council members have clarifying questions on the ballot language included within the polling survey of the potential tax ballot measures? We have this evening uh

[148:01] PBolski Research and they're here to present the 2025 polling results for city council's consideration and we are also here to support any questions. So, with that, I'll turn this over to Adam to um go through the detail of the polling results. Thank you very much. Glad to be here and uh it's been a pleasure working with staff uh getting to this point. Uh very a lot of coordination to to get here. Uh I'm going to show you the executive presentation. There's a lot of data behind this. So we can certainly answer questions tonight and we certainly have uh uh you know weeks and months to to dive in in other ways uh beyond beyond this evening. Uh there's hundreds of pages of data behind this that will can be used for for uh for strategy. So, uh, first off, uh, this is a very typical,

[149:02] uh, voter poll for a a ballot measure for revenue, uh, measure for for looking at where the city stands in in, uh, in front of the voters. Um, took about 20 minutes to complete. It was offered in English and Spanish. Multi mode, meaning we met the voter where they prefer to communicate, which is pretty much standard for today. on the phone, online. Most people choose to talk to us online. Uh it's just how we communicate today. And uh 400 uh completed uh responses. Uh context statewide, we might do 900 or a thousand. So in a city the size of Boulder, quite robust compared to what we might use statewide and be highly predictive of outcomes. Um and similar strategy we used in 2023 when uh we were a part of the successful effort uh leading up to 2024. Uh and as you can see about 2% of your uh likely voters, that's what the constituent le

[150:00] was here, uh chose to respond to us in Spanish. We always explain that doesn't mean they don't speak English. It means that's a preference. Uh and it doesn't mean our English respondents don't speak some other language. It's just what they prefer and what they responded with. So getting into the data um we ask a question that says uh you know do you generally approve or disapprove of the job the city's doing providing services to residents um you are in the positive 53% say they approve and while I I think um I can imagine this can feel like a sucker punch uh it doesn't feel good to have uh a big number of people say they disapprove we are in 2025 Um we are in an environment where many uh government agencies are upside down where disapprove is greater than approve. Uh and so you are in a uniquely positive position as as you know uh as as as you know difficult that might be to see

[151:00] here. Um and uh and it's just the reality. There's a national narrative that is telling us all wherever we live that that we're supposed to be disappointed in government. We're supposed to not trust government. uh and so so the fact that you are rising above that is uh is pretty impressive. I'll also explain here as we giving context going forward. This is not an academic exercise, right? We don't have an F here. Uh we have 50% plus one of Americans agreeing on something. It's it's kind of a hallelujah moment. 53%, you know, we're doing even better. So, it's it's a it's a strong number. The other thing we like to look at is kind of the delta. And, you know, we've got a a decentsized group of people, 10 or 11% people who are more likely to approve. It's it's it's a strong place to be comparatively. We ask people because we're getting into this whole concept of funding. We said uh thinking about city services uh you know where would you like to see funds increase? Where would you like to put

[152:00] money more towards? And we're asking a question that you know uh we're kind of putting people on the spot uh because this is not what they think about on a daily basis. It's it's not a part of their their their daily conversation. they're not thinking about you all. Uh and so when we we give them a list, they're going to think of what's top of mind and and what you know is most uh relatable to them. And you can see they're they've chosen some things uh they were able to choose three. So you're going to see more than 100% there. And uh you can see what rises to the top uh that visceral reaction of where they think you should be putting more resources towards. And you can see what those are. And none of these are to be dismissed, but clearly there's a couple there at the top where they'd like efforts to be be focused. Uh, and then we take away all the people the things that people uh answered for the ones that they answered and we say, "Okay, what would you say we should reduce?" And again, we're putting them in in a uh in a unique position uh kind of giving them control over the budget

[153:01] essentially and saying, "Where would you take away resources uh if it was up to you?" And you can see you we have a new one rise to the top there arts and culture programs not meaning that there's a clamoring to dismiss these programs. It just means if I'm you asking me a question I'm going to tell you and the the the plurality of you know not even you know 19 20% the highest number is that but you'll see also uh affordable housing support is is number two where it was where people wanted to dedicate resources. So you can see different people are are bringing in different things. Homelessness is also up there. Uh whereas you know it was it was high up in the list that speaks to tolerances right and maybe I don't have an exposure to to homeless uh as much as other people too and and that's why I might have a different answer. Um these are useful uh from a a messaging standpoint going forward. Um and and I can answer questions about them but maybe not so exciting to to look at at

[154:01] the moment. We ask them about infrastructure infrastructure specifically very you know very focused on physical plant and we say where would you like resources to be dedicated and you can see there's a pretty clear stand out there roads and bike and and uh bike lanes and sidewalks the the the me getting from here to there kind of message and and that's a uh uh that's something we can all relate to. uh beyond that, recreation centers, uh you know, renovations and and and replacements. And we always see uh snow and ice maintenance, uh you know, high on the list in Colorado. So, um this is where they're they're really want you to live and what you want to be focusing on. If you talk about the idea that you're going to be putting money towards infrastructure and you have a big backlog, you're going to have a a instant connection with your constituency. We then again uh took out those those items that people chose and asked them to say what would we cut necessarily and

[155:00] again it's a hard choice because uh these are all things that people care about and are really relevant. Um they choose at the top there police and fire stations renovations and replacements. This is something we see everywhere and this is a little bit difficult to uh understand perhaps because we want to always be uh have great facilities for for our first responders, but people don't necessarily think of it as as something that's necessary. Uh they're not so interested in the bathrooms for for for the first responders. They're more interested in things that they can relate to. So this is not so telling other than this is where they gravitate towards if you tell them they have to choose. We then test message efficacy uh and and we we ask them to agree or disagree with a whole series of messages and and you can see here uh those include uh a message that says hey delaying maintenance leads to higher long-term costs and emergency repairs. We we we

[156:00] ask them essentially to be economists at some level and understand that spending money today is is more economical than spending money tomorrow. Cost rise. We're all seeing that. So they can really relate to that and they understand the idea that that if something breaks and you have to fix it in an emergency, the costs are higher. 86% agree with this message. So to the extent that this is tied to the need and the the idea of why you're putting something on the ballot, you're extending a tax, then that is going to really be a strong message that you're going to want to talk about with with your public. You're, and I'll be clear here, and I'm sure city attorney will be clear, right? You're never as a city advocating for attacks, but you're certainly talking about the the impact of one passing or one failing. And this is a clear indicator of what you would talk about uh in that process. Again, you've got another 80% agreement message that says uh you know, you your residents expect a high level of service

[157:02] and that requires setting priorities, meaning you know, taking those limited resources and putting them where they uh where they most are needed. Uh so they're recognizing that you don't just have the money to spend on everything. Uh that's a a helpful thing because you can be grounded in that that they know that. Uh and then we have some other messages that um can kind of be helpful in in understanding the mindset of the voter. Uh and that is you know we talk about earmarking funds let's residents really steer resources where they want them to go. But then we also get down here to 56% where they say they understand um or or um I'm sorry 52% where they understand when you dedicate funds it limits the city's ability to make you know uh uh funding decisions where to put dollars. And so there there's different varying levels of of um of messaging here that that uh can be utilized over the course of the the outreach effort. getting directly into

[158:02] the vote and and I'll quickly show you this is a sunset uh opportunity and this is permanently extended. So, uh we tell them essentially what would be on the ballot. This is what they would see sitting at their kitchen table uh and how they would would fill out their ballot. And uh and you know, it's it's not so pretty with with some of the the details in there, but it's that's the way the law says it's got to be written. and uh explaining that we would take this to 2050. You have 61% saying they would look to extend it, that they would support that. Um now uh you certainly have um you know 25% a quarter of the voters saying no and 15% that are unsure. Uh the delta between yes and no is more than 2 to one. Very strong number to have. Uh this is a place where I think I've characterized it in in answering questions as good uh a good place to start from. uh and uh and an opportunity to to uh potentially if it

[159:02] were on the ballot to have success to have it pass. Um and you have 15% who just don't have context yet, don't know uh a chance to maybe educate them and and they may be more interested in being supportive. Interesting enough, when we give them we we did the split sample, so half the voters got into one of these messages, we tested the idea of permanently extending it, and that goes to 64%. Now, they didn't have context. They didn't know that we asked everybody else that it was only uh going to go to 2050, but it it essentially says that that it's either no difference or in this case a few percentage points better if you just let this thing go. The idea that that you know we don't have to address this again. Uh this can be a council decision on on on how these monies are allocated. We don't have to worry about coming back to the voters. They support that. U you know we here are not quite but approaching you know 3 to one scenario. So really uh a place that you know you'd want to consider the idea of no sunset if that's a policy the area you want to go to. Um we have some

[160:01] messages. Uh we talk about the idea that that um these uh this passing this measure would help you kind of reduce that backlog of $380 million in maintenance and repairs for roads, parks, you know, civic buildings. um 65% of your likely voters are more likely to vote yes based on knowing that's kind of where some of these resources would go to. Um the idea that you're already struggling to maintain uh and repair bridges, streets, roads. Again, talking about the the issue that they're most concerned about where they want to place dollars the most. We didn't know that initially, but this is kind of where we're lining up. And then the idea that you're really good at getting federal grant money, but uh we don't really know what's going to happen with that going forward. And there's a recognition by a majority of your voters that they get it. That that's like, okay, you're awesome for going after it and doing a good job at getting it, but wow, uh we're not sure where those monies are

[161:01] coming from. That's a a net positive in the idea that yeah, we're concerned about those monies maybe coming not coming from the feds. So, we might have to do it ourselves internally. Um we uh after a whole series of messages uh not just those but those are the ones that are most interesting to look at, we then ask them again the the the um uh the sunset uh question and you're at 56 59% and then the no sunset question, you're at 60 1%. The bottom line is uh you really don't have a big appreciable difference uh in in in uh after you've talked to them through those messages. Uh now you do uh you know move a couple people here or there uh but essentially uh it's it's a good thing to talk about those things and you also have generally supportive uh voters on this subject. They they understand the value proposition and they're they're on board with it. We then ask a question about the uh as

[162:01] was explained uh taking the the mill levy from you know 0.9 to uh 2.25 and you can see uh you don't have majority support. In fact, you're you're a little bit uh higher plurality saying they're voting no. Um a big group of people who say they are unsure. And uh this is, you know, not the place you want to start from, of course, if you're going to put something on the ballot. But I will say we have some messages that are are relevant to people. Um we talk specifically about putting these dollars toward uh land acquisition and parks and recreation, very specific things. Uh open space, where we put these dollars. Um and 62% are more supportive based upon that. And then also the idea when we very hone it in and get very specific about $80 on a million dollars. Uh what would we actually you know get out of this? Uh 56% become supportive based upon that.

[163:00] So there are there is a logic system that says you might have uh uh you know a message to talk about here but it's a uh it's a big pretty steep hill to go uh from here uh to to do that. Um and you know we we've seen uh we've seen it before and so you can see after some messaging you have 44% support and 40% opposed voting no. So you can see messaging actually moves that dial um with robust uh outreach and education uh not advocacy but talking to the the voters about what you can accomplish with the resources and what could happen if you don't have them. you may be in a position to have a um be in a stronger place. Maybe not in a year or two. Maybe it's a longer term proposition, but uh certainly something that you can talk about and get more support for over time. Uh just a quick talk about uh uh

[164:02] your your demographics. This is not your residents and this is not your voters. This is your likely voters. So it's very uh you know it's it's older, it's whiter, uh it's less diverse. Uh it is not who your your residents are. It is who the profile of who we expect to turn out in an election profile would be. So that's kind of an important component in here. Uh you are uh uh you look different as a community than this. Um, and you can see uh, you know, how people took the survey largely, you know, uh, uh, or the phone and online and how that kind of played out. Uh, and only 2% in Spanish. I know there's a lot of data uh, and uh, I'm happy to answer questions and as I said, we are on team Boulder for, you know, months and months to come. So, uh, if there's, uh, questions that we want to dive into more over time, uh, you know, we're here

[165:01] tomorrow, we're here the next day, we're we're engaged. Thanks so much for that, Adam. Uh, appreciate all the detail. I think we can all say that we're on team Boulder. So, glad to have you with us. Great. Um, so I'll ask council uh for clarifying questions. I will note that we did put out a request to have questions sent out in advance. Nicole, thanks for sending those in. We could go down a rabbit hole and ask 18 million questions. Uh but if we can keep it high level and only to those that are the most directly relevant to our discussion tonight, that would be great. That said, and who's does anybody have one? See, Tina and then Mark. Yeah, thanks for the presentation. And I just want to confirm that the um the CCRS tax extension at about a 60% approval is a is very likely to pass. Just uh so uh you know consultants are careful with their words. So uh I I will

[166:01] I will say and I think I characterize it here and and in in written form with staff uh I I think it it puts you in a good position. uh and and so my um expectation is that uh when you see numbers like that uh again I'm not directing things but the idea that you would have a significant outreach component speaking to your community and telling them about the dynamics here uh of what this could h what could happen with you know that's really you know the the the fair and balanced way of talking about something that I expect the city attorney would would appreciate um doing that uh would put you I think in a in a strong position for success. Thanks Mark and um what percentage of initiatives that poll as low as the public realm tax

[167:01] actually are put on a ballot and what percentage of those succeed? So, there's there's a couple different schools of thought and and I I'll my answer will probably be a little longer than you want it to be, but there's one school of thought that says um you only put something on the ballot if you have the expectation and the and that it will pass. And so, you know, as of this moment, there may be a recommendation that I would give if you ask me on that. um based upon the idea that you want it to pass uh and you have a a a you know that's your goal. There's another school of thought that says you put things on the ballot even if you don't think it will pass with the expectation that you may have to cut services dramatically or make a a significant uh uh you know impression on the voters that this

[168:00] failed and here are the consequences and demonstrate those consequences. I'm not suggesting you're punishing anyone. I'm suggesting that you're looking at your budget and based upon the fact that it failed, making consequential decisions that that are are significant in the eyes of the voters. Um, so so putting it on the ballot because you you have an expectation it'll succeed or putting on the ballot with the kind of idea that it'll fail and hopefully next time you'll have greater success. So my answer is um there's there's a muddied kind of an answer because there's two schools of thought that might have you move forward with that. Um, if you're looking for success, uh, I would say a very small percentage of, uh, public agencies would take a 44% yes, uh, you know, vote, uh, and put that on the ballot outside of a fiscal emergency, uh, or outside of, you know, some other extenduating circumstances. My only other question, um, could putting a a low polling initiative

[169:03] on the ballot have an impact on one that is polling very high such as CCRS? Uh, short answer is yes. I I I think there's absolutely a chance. Now I I don't have the um uh you know the statistic that says the exact correlation but I I think we can all collectively see if if I am uh inclined to press no or or fill in the no bubble uh in one case related to my city uh there there may be a greater chance that I would fill in that same no bubble on another uh another measure related to my city. So, uh, I think just using some common sense outside of just the statistics would say yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Eric, I um I don't know if this is for Adam or for staff, but question on in our packet. It discussed questions 16 and

[170:00] 17. One was with a sunset and one was without a sunset. It seemed like the text was exactly the same. So, I was wondering if that was an error. Yeah, I'll take quick that I will take responsibility for. Uh I've um there's a couple things in this report that I want to have updated and we'll have a final version to staff uh moments after uh after this uh this call um for for final versions and that will go into a report on results which has not been delivered yet which will have hundreds and hundreds of pages. So I appreciate that pointing that out and yes uh we will we'll make that clearer but it was uh in the survey itself it had 2050 as a sunset or extended permanently as the right language for that second uh right and so in 16 and 17 you saw that it was the same text right but it said with or without it a sunset so was that a mistake that that's my question yeah

[171:01] what I'm saying is in the reporting uh I I had the long text. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. Okay. Yeah. Um so then my question is is can you remind us or me if there was a big difference between the sun setting and not the sun setting? I mean as a person, as an average Joe, I would say that once I'm paying the tax, I don't care if it's sunset or not. Plus, you know, there's a good chance I'll be dead at some point and so it won't even matter at that point. But that's my gut is that it doesn't matter if it's sunset. It's better to just not sunset it because people don't care. Is that true or not true? Well, uh, if we gave them a choice, uh, you know, I I think there's a a logic that says that in the case of the poll, we gave half the voters the the sunset and half the voters not, and there was a three or four point jump for the people who got the no sunset. Um so what that says is

[172:01] if that was the will of the council then you know that would probably be a more logical approach because it gives you more flexibility and no sunset would be no no sense that would be flexibility. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So that's for questions. So um then they uh city staff has questions for us. So the first one of which um which we essentially just went through which was do we have questions? All right. So the second one is do council members have clarifying questions on the ballot language that was included within the polling survey of potential tax ballot measures. This is more specific. So I don't know if anybody has any extra questions on that topic specifically. And I'm seeing shaking heads. So that's what you all gave for us. Are you looking for direction from us about um what you want us you what we would like you to work on in terms of the next stage in terms of bringing back ballot

[173:00] language. I'm getting a little nod from Charlotte. Good evening uh council members. Uh Charlotte Husky, budget officer. Yes, that would be helpful for us and staff and our work with the city attorney's office and uh prepping for the ballot measures that that are upcoming in in July. I figured it just wasn't one of your questions to us. Okay. Um so yeah, let's so let's wrap up this discussion by giving direction we have on what we would like to see staff work on for the next ballot measure. I will say without putting my finger on my thumb on the scale that the um polling results may lead us to a pretty kind of obvious conclusions. I don't know that we have to talk about this for a really long time, but if people want to give your quick thoughts, Tina, Taiisha, Mark. Yeah, I would just pursue the CCRS tax without a sunset and I would think that uh staff in the polling could create the language that they think will work best.

[174:02] Great Tesa. Yes, this is just a general comment and again it is about our survey our surveying technique uh methods for um underrepresented communities here. And so although I appreciate the efforts of the 400 respondents, I have significant concerns that 2% of 408 people for black people and African-Americans in our community that is not sufficient. Similarly with our Latino, Latina, and Hispanic communities of which 6% responded at 400 and that's 24 people. And so once again, we find ourselves with an over representation of white respondents, 328 people. And so my request would be for the next round to do um just broader u engagement of um our racially and

[175:00] ethnically or or rather non-white residents and community members so that we have an appropriate stretch. I have, as I said, I have no idea that those eight what those eight people where they where do they live? Are they linguistically different? Are they African or African-American? Um, again, I just and um I'm sorry, Adam, this isn't a criticism of you specifically in your group. I actually was very happy to see um the racial and ethnic diversity of your staff. Um and and um so I know that that isn't the issue, but it is something that I've raised before around our community survey and just in general our surveying techniques as it relates to making sure that they align with equitable research practices. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I have one more area and it was just a question about fire and police and I would I I had some concerns because in this town we have obviously significant fire issues and I just wonder if those if that question was disagregated, one saying fire and another saying police if

[176:00] those numbers would have been different. Thank you. Thanks. You got Mark and then Matt. Um for me I think this is a a pretty clear and easy decision. Uh I believe we should uh pursue the CCRS extension without sunset and I don't think this is the year for the public realm tax. I would be very um upset if if the public realm tax dragged down the CCS uh approval. I think it's it the the support for it is is way way way below what I've always understood is necessary to get a tax initiative passed. Um I learned that from uh older and wiser members of council. Well, maybe not older, but uh uh certainly wiser. And uh I I just don't think we can go forward with that at least this year. Uh maybe another year the conditions will be more conducive, but I don't want to

[177:01] jeopardize one for the other. Thank you, Mark. Matt, Taran, and then I'll go. Uh appreciate it. I I'm going to sort of stick with the theme here. I think the CCRS with no sunset is the obvious way to go. Um and I think tableabling uh the public realm. You know, I have to go back and sort of say like I kind of saw that that was going to come. And I'd love to throw a bone to say that maybe if we're not doing it this year, the prudent decision going forward would be to first ask the voters to raise the cap of our self-limited mill levy uh request of voters before we ask to actually approve a tax. Um so so that we actually can if we do do that, we get more bang for the buck if that's indeed what the voters want. So the fact that we may not do that this year, I would like a rethink in terms of the order of operations because I think there's a perhaps a more prudent way to go about doing that. Sure.

[178:00] I agree with um yes the CCRS no sunset and uh not the public problem tax but I think it would would not be a bad idea although I know we don't have time tonight is to discuss what we should do like next year and what do the voters want do they want to see more constrained um more constraint on our parts before we touch property taxes you know there There was a lot of very interesting things in that um assessment. One of which is people actually do like dedicated taxes. I took the poll myself even though we wish they didn't, right? But they actually do. I took the poll myself and to me it reminded me of getting to yes the sales book getting to yes because it was like you believe this right and you believe that we shouldn't uh we shouldn't dedicate taxes right and you believe this right and you want a tax property tax increase right and then they were like no even though they were yes yes yes uh no so I feel like it will be a

[179:01] great thing for us to really understand better what's going on because we're going to need something to help us um so I'm hoping we can have that discussion sometime time in the future. Thanks Tara. I'll call on myself and then Lauren and Nicole. Um so just I think we have consensus here which is CCRS without suns setting and then no public realm. The polling points us there I think very clearly. So appreciate everybody's work to get us to this point and agree with folks on we'll have to reconsider what next steps are but I think that's for another day. So um Lauren Nicole your thoughts? Um, I yeah, agree. CCRS, no sunset. I would say while I agree that the public realm tax is unlikely to pass, I think that there can be benefits to running something even if it is unlikely to pass like Adam was speaking to. and I share the concern about that potentially bringing down the CCRS tax, but I would

[180:03] ha um and since we have our financial strategies committee people here weighing in, you know, I feel comfortable going with this and not bringing forward the public realm tax, but as part of how we think about all of these on the whole, I think that there could be a strategy in the future where we might end up running something that even if we believe it's unlikely to f pass either to try and get it to pass in the future or just as sort of a educational compon component. Thanks. Thanks. Um yeah, same. I I just I had a question for Matt actually. Um you were asking about ballot measure to raise the cap. I just want to make sure you weren't talking about that for this year, but that might be for something like a future thing. Correct. Yeah, just now that we have a chance to redo this, we could rethink our approach. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify. Um and then yes, to

[181:01] to everything everybody's been saying, um I agree with Lauren on, you know, running things when uh they may not pass um can be a way of raising awareness, but to Mark's point, I don't want to drag down um the CCS tax uh in that. And and I think too with just all the um everything we're doing with continued work on the long-term financial strategy and the great work that our uh both communications and finance department are doing, uh we're going to get a lot of the information that folks have been um wanting more of in the next stage of this work um next year, which will focus on exploring some additional revenue sources, potentially um new new taxes that we haven't thought of before. Um, I think we'll also get really good information out of the budget this fall and um both the fund our future project and the um the budget cycle this year are very likely to help with educating the public on what our budget situation is and uh the the risks that we are facing and the prioritization that we're

[182:00] going to need um to do. So, I think we'll have a lot of what we need moving forward too. So anyway, appreciate the the consensus. Um the numbers are pretty clear here, right? Okay, Ryan, bring us home. Similar. Yeah, I would say go forward with CCRS no sunset and then on the public realm tax hold for now and just continue to invest in the work of the financial strategy, long-term financial strategies um committee and trying to better understand our opportunities and also how things look, you know, for the next year. Um that's all. Thanks. Very good. Well, um, Charlotte and Christa, is there anything else that you need from us? No, we have all we need. Thank you so much, council. Yes, thank you. Great. Well, thanks to both of you and Adam, thank you for joining us as well. And uh, with that, I'll bring us to the end of this agenda item, which leaves us with just one more. Uh,

[183:00] Elicia, can you take us to 6A, please? Yes sir. Thank you. 6A is our last item on tonight's agenda and it is matters from the mayor and members of council and it is the discussion on methods to improve open comment. Okay, great. Well, thanks um for taking us into this. Um so Tina, I know this was your specific CAC request, but I think it was an interest shared by a number of us. Um, so but did you want to speak uh to it a little bit since this was your request? Sure. Um, thanks. But I I do think it was a shared interest. Uh, I'm interested in creating a a bit of a a healthier public comment environment and or open comment environment. I'm particularly looking for a more predictable time frame so that we are no longer uh sometimes putting agenda items onto future

[184:00] meetings because we've run out of time because of public comment. And this has been um an issue with us completing our work that we had planned to do. And I think this is a significant issue and finds us where we are today where we're hesitant about making changes to ordinances because we are getting a little bit backlogged. Um and the other piece is to ensure that people who participate virtually and people who participate by email um feel heard as well as people who show up in person. I I personally um sometimes am concerned that people who are in person have an outsized voice and influence on our meetings and I just want to make sure that we find a way to make sure that all people feel that their the way that they're participating is equally valued by us as council. So those are my goals. Thanks Tina. That was well said. Um I will say I would have made that request if you hadn't. So, thanks for for

[185:01] putting that forward with similar ideas in mind. And so, uh we did um put out a call for people to send in suggestions um about potential changes and uh people rose to that occasion and send in a number of different suggestions. So, I'm thinking about having um each of us who did send in um a suggested change to maybe speak up for that change or changes. we can kind of work through them. Um, I know this is a topic that, you know, we all care about. It's been a challenging subject. Um, and we have a lot of suggestions, so maybe we can try to move through them relatively expeditiously. Uh, but also give the time to discuss them. So, um, I wonder if somebody would like to start by volunteering to speak up about a change that they suggested. Ryan, thank you. I just wanted to start partly because uh I had a thought about goals that might hopefully help to frame

[186:00] things. But first, let me just say that uh anything I say I intend to keep uh to be content neutral. We're talking about open comment and we'll be looking to um Teresa, our city attorney, to help keep inside the boundaries of that. Um, and oh, and I should also say just for clarity for anybody following this, I read in I think it was an op-ed today that we that somebody had said we made a decision to put um open comment online in June or July. We have not done that as far as I know. We there was a single meeting that there was a um yeah, a hold on, but I just wanted to make sure that that's clear. Anybody can add to that if they like. But um anyway, with that, Brian, do you mind if I just clarify just that um please that our meetings in um this meeting and meetings in July are virtual because they're special meetings because of our council recess. So we have a few meetings that we are not having because of our council recess and so the rest of the meetings are uh special meetings and it is our practice to make those virtual. So this was not done in response to anything else to

[187:00] clarify. Thanks for mentioning that Ron. Thanks Aaron. Okay. So, I just wanted to start by suggesting that however we proceed here that that it would be helpful to start with the goals like what affirmatively are we trying to achieve and I would propose two things. Uh the first is that we um okay that we are seeking to reduce disruptions in open comment that delay and diminish the ability to conduct city business. And secondly, that we make are we are making open comment more accessible and more inviting to everyone. So I would welcome amendments to those goals. Um but I would just propose mostly that we start with what what are we affirmatively trying to achieve. So those are those are my goals. And with that, I I had suggested in my hotline a a few um I like the idea of of establishing a firm fixed end time for open comment rather than a fixed number of people who get to speak. Uh we

[188:00] set it such that we target the time to match with as we have had 20 speakers. Um but if we run out of time then we um we're out of time, we move on. Um I also like towards the goal of um both goals really. Um creating more parody with with speakers online and I would suggest we consider alternating the online speaker versus the um the inerson speaker. Uh and then finally I'm supportive as many others have talked about the um the idea that we can speak um right away to hate hateful inflammatory dehumanizing or the like speech. So, I put those out there. Great. And what I might suggest in terms of organizing is that maybe people can speak up for specific changes and then we'll have a list of changes and then maybe we can talk through um which one of those we might which ones of those we might like to implement. So, um, Ryan, I got you with the, uh, fixed length of

[189:00] open comment, um, the, uh, being able to respond at the time, and then, um, also the alternating in person virtual. Okay. Uh, I got Mark, Tara, and Nicole. Uh, I agree with almost everything Ryan said. I would add one other goal which is to promote the sense of safety uh that people are entitled to feel when they come to open comment and speak to their government. Um I will the only point of disagreement I have with Ryan is I'm a little troubled by uh setting a time limit and if you don't get in under the time limit, you have to come back next week. Um, it seems to me I'm we'd be better off setting a number whether it's 15 or 10 or 18 or 20 um and conducting open comment uh and allowing that number of people uh to express

[190:00] themselves. I just think it's unfair if you're number 18 out of 20 and we run out of time. Um, you know, we're that's too much on the clock for me. Um I have um consistently advocated for two things. One is uh stronger uh penalties for uh disruptive behavior. Um because I I just think it's it's appropriate to to do that. And two, um I have advocated for uh restricting open comment to uh items that are on our um uh agenda or the previous agenda or the following agenda because I think those you know that that gives us a focus on city business as opposed to anything else. I I I don't feel so strongly about it if if the will of council is that we want

[191:01] to let people excuse me express themselves on any subject whatsoever and we will deal with disruptive behavior as a separate category. But I I do think that restricting comment to um you know uh agenda items and and and possibly broadening it to include other aspects of uh purely city business. So if somebody wants to talk about the uh renovation of South Boulder Rec Center, they can do so. Um, but I am uh I am otherwise supportive of the things that that Ryan said with the exclusion of the um uh setting a time limit as opposed to a person limit. I just think it's disrespectful to people who get knocked off the agenda and have to come back next week simply to um express themselves to their government. I I just

[192:02] think that's that's a little harsh. Um, and that that's my thought. Okay. Thank you, Mark. We got Terry, Nicole, Lauren, and I will go. Just to uh add something to what Mark said. Um, maybe to make it more um palatable to city attorney. Perhaps we could prioritize the city business. And then if there's extra speaking time speakers like we can then add whatever you want to say to that. But to prioritize city business for me would be a important um specifically like the like he said the agenda or whatever is going to happen in the next two weeks or however we decide to do it. But that's just my opinion about maybe how to make that a little bit better and I'm not trying to change it. But my what I what I had proposed was to instead of having o comments to

[193:01] open comment at the end of the night would be to bring it back to the end of um open comment so that when there are hateful remarks uh we can deal with them quicker so that the community doesn't think that we are ignoring that. Um, but I did want to limit it to 30 seconds per council. Mostly 30 seconds because I don't want it to become like uh speeches or you know like a long thing. Just say your piece. This was disrespectful. This was racist. This was anti-semitic. And then you know it doesn't have to be long. Just 30 seconds. So that also I don't want I don't want us to run out of time with our agenda. Okay. That's it. Thanks Nicole. Yeah. So, um my uh my idea was just to have more predictability in the timing of the agenda items that come after open comment um to you know kind of the comments that Tina started out with. Um Denver does this and it seems more efficient from a time management

[194:00] perspective. I think we could allocate 45 minutes for open comment as we do now on the schedule. That's uh time for 20 people to speak for two minutes. Um, and and Mark, just to your point, you know, I I definitely understand the feeling of not wanting to come back to things, right? If if you don't get to take your time because somebody took too long or something like that or, you know, we didn't manage the meeting well or something, then I think it it is it is frustrating. Like I I just want to acknowledge that that that would be a frustrating thing, too. We have had to do that recently when we haven't gotten to um items on the agenda due to how long things have taken and had to you know punt them to a future meeting and it doesn't feel great when when you've um prepared like that. I think you know we could have a prioritization scheme that fits in with that where those who had signed up but didn't get um time to speak at a given meeting have first priority at the next meeting. um that way and and then you know maybe those who haven't spoken at all in a given period um could be next on the list and

[195:00] those who have spoken before recently uh would be in the next batch. That's how Denver does this and they don't seem to have issues there with people feeling unheard or frustrated. I think it's just a shift in mindset that um in process that people everybody would need to get used to. But I think it is something that um that we could get used to and probably you know once we have confidence that yep it still fits in you know 45 minutes most of the time um we could potentially even give out u well sorry I'm saying we very loosely staff when they're sending out lists of um speaker list they could let people know you know generally we are able to get through everybody but if you're you know in the last five people or something you may be in the the batch that um doesn't you know get called you will have priority 30 at the next meeting, something like that. Um, and I think the other thing that might be important if we go this route is to make sure that if we do go a timebased route um is to intermix the virtual and in person um

[196:00] because otherwise I think what might happen is the people who would typically be at risk of um getting bumped if folks are taking too long um would be the virtual speakers and that doesn't feel really um fair to me either. So anyway, just some thoughts there. Um but but I do think that, you know, Denver's had a lot of success with their timebased approach. Um we have 45 minutes versus their 30. Um so I think that's a a space where we still have room to get through um the typical number of people that we have and we're not having to restrict numbers of of speakers. Okay. Thanks, Nicole. And so we're we're still collecting potential changes here. Um and I've got Taiisha and Tina. Oh, no. T, I'm sorry. I don't have changes. I have comments, so I'll be up be up for when that. Thank you. Okay, we'll come back to you. Um, Tina, did you have a specific change? Uh, yes. Um, basically just what Nicole said and um

[197:00] to make it more cohesive and parody in uh going between virtual and inerson speakers, I would suggest the camera be off for the open comment period. Uh so that it um it's just it's it's there's more parody. That's it. Got it. Thank you. Um okay, then I'll I'll go ahead and go and uh address a a suggestion that I put out there, which was to start um the meeting uh a little bit earlier 30 and so have open comment be its own section of the meeting. So we 30. Uh council's there. you know, the key staff members for open comment are there. Um, we conduct open comment. Um, I I would propose doing it audio only as um as Tina just um just mentioned and then um we do we can work through the issues at the time. I would support Tara's suggestion of being able to have a a brief response uh at the end of open comment to address anything that we felt like was critical to respond to.

[198:02] Ryan mentioned that um as as an idea as well. Um, and I also support um, Nicole and Ryan and others idea about having a fixed length because I think that one of the ways that that open comment has been um, dysfunctional is that it has caused our meetings to go long and has caused the start time of agenda items to get really unpredictable and has caused agenda items to be postponed. Um, and so I think if we start a little bit early, um, we have it in its own section, we have a fixed length and then a short break and then are able to start at a 30, uh, potentially. Um, then the people who attend the business meeting section of it will know exactly when that starts. Um, and so that there can be predictability in scheduling there as well. And that also if there are um things that happen in uh open comment that would potentially make people feel unsafe in one way or the other that that is for the people the the nine of us if

[199:01] you city staff member and the people at open comment and not for everyone else who's attending or declarations or a public hearing or things like that. So that's that's my suggestions about that start time fixed length break and then start um the rest of the business meeting at a time certainly. Okay, I got um while we're still collecting things, I got Matt and Lauren. I appreciate that. Uh I just say it's music to my ears that we're going to it looks like we're seeking to make substantive changes so that the status quo is not there. So I I appreciate that. Um I I like what I'm hearing. Um Erin, I appreciate what you're saying about start earlier. I can support that. Um as well as the fixed timeline. I think that's good. You know, I think we're thinking about ver uh virtual and in person. I think for maybe ease of uh administering for, you know, Elicia and Emily that maybe you do it in two or three chunks so that there's a little bit of a routine and it's predictable for all. It's like two or three in person, two or three virtual. and then

[200:01] it breaks things up because sometimes we get into a runaway of amplification of disruption based on it being in a particular place or format in that sense. So I think that's a helpful way to think about it. I I I would also be interested in in maybe keeping some of what we you know some of the scope you know with with regards to you know what what city business that's happening either in that meeting or proceeding or subsequent. I do think that that helps us uh stay focused on the task at hand. Um which is important. Um, so, so I could see that being quite relevant as well, um, in the early stage of the stages of this. But anyway, I I like what I'm hearing and I could support just about any combination of these things. Thanks, Lauren. Thanks. Um, do we have an opportunity at this point to ask questions about any of these or that's going to be later? No. and and and thanks for those comments, Matt, but I am I am still trying to make sure we have the full list of ideas out on the table before we move to sort of the next phase of of discussions. So,

[201:00] does Lauren, did you have another proposed change to put on the table? Yeah. Um, I shared your um interest in seeing the meeting time changed and adjusted and having a break. I think um one of the things I've also been thinking about is sort of what the response is to comments that violate our rules or contain hate speech. And I think for me, I feel like having the person who's running the meeting have a more immediate response um directly after someone finishes speaking feels like the fastest way to address that. I will say that doesn't require a rule change, but also with some of the rule changes people are discussing in terms of having a set meeting time or having a set allocation of time for open comment that could be um makes get a little complicated.

[202:03] And then yeah, I h just had questions around how staff feels about some of these, how easy or hard they would be to implement from a staff perspective. Thanks. Great. Thanks for that. Well, let me let me go ahead and list um what I've got and roughly the order that they were proposed and then maybe we could just um ask if staff has any um particular reactions or if you just feel like it's up to council to to discuss those. And so the what I've got uh on the table is the proposal for um a fixed length uh for open comment of 45 minutes of alternating inperson and virtual speakers whether that's one by one or two by two or 3x3. Uh stronger penalties for disruptive behavior. Um restricting open comment to certain agenda items or potentially prioritizing comment on uh existing agenda items. Um, and then responding to open comment at at at the end of so

[203:01] council members to be able to respond to open comment at the end of open comment, but maybe limit that to just 30 seconds per person. Um, an early start time for 30 um with a break and then a fixed start time for the rest 30. And the final thing of having a presiding officer uh spawn respond more immediately to um hateful or dehumanizing language. Uh Lauren, and then I think also whether it's audio only testimony or not is another separate piece. Ryan, you got your hand. Did I miss anything else? Yeah, I was just thinking that the question of of um whether it's fixed is sort of I think first threshold for fixed time. The second one is how much time does it take? For for example, I heard you say 45 minutes. Um I I I'm not 100% sure that that is exactly how we would would consider the the time that we currently do. I know it's supposed to

[204:00] be 45, but I think we build in an hour. So my my preference would be that we keep it to be planned for the the same duration. Um, so I maybe look to staff. Is that is like 50 or 55 minutes more like what is normal or is it 60 minutes or sorry Erin, your your turn meeting. Sorry, I'm just that's my thought process. Well, what I what I'd like to do next, if you don't mind, is turn to city staff and say, do you have any input on what I just described or is this just a council discussion? I think we've may I got distracted so I want to just add one more thing maybe that did you add and I'm not sure if you said this or not did you add Nicole's um bringing people back um like the next week did not so let's let's make sure that's part of it um that would be I think part of the 45 having it at a fixed length is giving priority um for me that that is a crucial part of it so that people don't

[205:00] feel you I left out. Thanks. Uh, mayor, to your question about um whether or not any of these um suggestions are doable from a staff perspective, they can be. Um, I guess the the biggest one we would think about is the alternative inperson and virtual. And while we don't need to get into the process right now, I know that our amazing clerk's team would be thinking about a process in which we would take speaker sign up, do our randomization process, and then figure that out as we think about notification. But could we do that? We could um as we move that forward. Um but certainly we uh would look to all of the suggestions as to the will of council, but are they doable? Yes. Teresa. Yes. Um I uh the vast majority of these suggestions

[206:00] are within council authority. The length of suspensions is within the city manager's sound discretion and is not a council decision, but is instead a a city manager and legal determination of of what is a appropriate and permissible amount of time for suspension. So I would suggest you all take that one off the table. Okay, I was actually I was going to ask about that. So, thanks for clarifying that. So, um that is not up to us. That is up to the city manager. So, we will mark with all due respect will strike that from the list for jurisdictional reason reasons. Okay. So, um so it's now I think it's our time to figure out which if any of these we would like to pursue. Um sorry point of clarification mayor. All right. I did have a question for Please go ahead. Thank you. Um I just wanted to clarify on um the question about limiting the

[207:01] topics to an agenda item. Wouldn't that be a content issue? Yeah, Council Member Adams, thanks for the question. Um that that would be a contentbased restriction. In a limited public forum, we could potentially do that. Uh what I would caution this council about is that um related to city business is quite a broad definition. And so um could you limit to things that are on the current agenda or the immediately passed um or or forthcoming agenda? Uh I I believe you could do that. um if we are asserting that we're a limited public forum. Okay. So there there may be some some challenges with with that one in one way or another. That's that's helpful to understand. Okay. Um and so any so um

[208:03] and Erin, mine was also a question for staff. Okay. Go ahead. If I may um I just again wanted to ask the trade-off question. Right. We've got a long list of things here. Um, I certainly expect that some of the details of how speakers are assigned and how we switch back and forth between virtual and um, in person that that's really more in the operational domain. So, I don't want to weigh in there too much, right? I think the So, so as we're going through this, Erin, I just I I would like us to not kind of get into operations and let staff figure out operations, but just thinking about, you know, the general general thing we're aiming for. But my question is, as before with um the uh ordinances that that we just passed, what's the tradeoff here, staff? Um because changes don't often just come out of the blue um with with all the uh you know, spare time you don't have. So just curious about that and if there are any of these changes that would be more

[209:01] um require more work than others. Uh Teresa, I leave some of that to you because we we would have to come with some of these with some rule changes. Um so a lot of this will have to be drafted. Certainly I will say the clerk's team um would have to if there are changes to how speakers are selected and the randomization process, I have full faith in our amazing clerk's team um to be able to figure that out. And we would have to we would have to think if that is your direction about a the process and then how do we notify folks in time for whenever that next meeting is but certainly we will take that offline and do some of that. Um if it it and again it depends on the changes. If the ask and the will of council is for example to uh only broadcast audio and not video that is a very simple change.

[210:01] It would need to be in the rule. So Teresa would have to change uh do some writing in that but from an operational standpoint that is a simple uh lift. It is just something. So a lot of this lift and Teresa I look to you uh there will be some writing involved. Um so uh I will pass the baton on to you. Thank you. Um the you know it's going to depend on the number of changes the council wants whether they're procedural or whether they relate to the code as well. Um I stand I stand ready to to do the will of council and can I call on that? Would is it possible that there might also be some gains for you in time uh if you're managing some of these issues less h um

[211:02] I I would say this and I'll start Teresa. So the question is certainly that the disruptions in at council meetings has taken staff time um whether that is increased recesses or frankly these conversations take time at meetings uh as we think about them right so all of it takes time um and the and if there are changes that will enable us to save time in the future then that is a good trade-off. So certainly there will be some time that Teresa may spend now that we can save uh in the future. So again to the time that we take now there will be perhaps some gains in the future but all of it will depend on what you decide tonight. Is that fair enough Teresa? Sounds good to me. Would

[212:00] you let us know as we were going through if there are any that you're like, you guys are going to have to potentially risk something else um if we do this? Sort of like what the what I asked for in the other one? Yes. Can I ask a quick question to staff about limited? Can you tell me uh as far as li doing limited public forum, which was how you said that we could limit Uh, how hard is that? And how time can would it take a long time and is it hard and do you have do you are you against I mean how do you feel about it? It's not up to me. That would be a court determination. Um I would point legal advice um that I cannot discuss publicly. Yeah, I don't want to put you on the spot with the legal advice Teresa. So, but so appreciate the question, Tara. Okay, before and here's what I'm thinking is

[213:00] that we can move through the consideration of these specific items and then we can wrap up and people can offer general comments. Taisha, I want to make sure that we get to your comments, but I'm also I'm trying to work through the procedure. But, Taisha, I'll if you don't mind, we'll we'll work through it and then we'll come we'll come to you. The one thing I um that other thing that did get called out, one of them was the presiding officer having an immediate response to hateful language and um I don't believe that's a rules change. Is that correct, Teresa? That's correct. Um that is a point of privilege that the chair holds. So, what I would say, Lauren, to that suggestion, I think it it has a lot of merit. And so, I as the most common presiding officer, I am can certainly say with um the assistance of my council members to help me think through which are the things that really need to be responded to immediately, I'm certainly willing to undertake that and respond immediately when that does happen to the best of my discernment and ability. So, um, and if

[214:00] other people, Lauren, you're the next most likely person to preside, so you could give yourself that direction. Um, but I would that be sufficient for that item. I've got a nod for more. Yeah, I mean, I guess I was interested in seeing if other people were interested in us making that change, but we could also just do it. It's fine. I'll still just drop it just just to because if everybody thinks it's a terrible idea, then maybe I shouldn't. um shouldn't do it. So, okay, then I'm I'm about ready to move forward in the order that we were given them, but um Nicole, you had a further thought? Yeah, just on on that one too, I believe it's consistent with our rules of procedure that any one of us can um kind of speak up with a point of order at any time. So, if there is anything right and we are not able to convey, it's any of us could also just do point of order um as well. So I I mean I don't hope we wouldn't start doing that all the time, but you know I trust Erin that you've

[215:01] got you've got this and on the chance that um something is missed we we can interject that way. So supportive basically of of that option. Thanks. Um okay so all right give me one second. just my dear spouse just brought me a little extra water here to finish out the discussion. Okay, so uh we'll we'll straw poll here and I realize that some of these have synergies with each other but um we can correct that if that seems to go wrong by the end. The first item is uh having open comment be a fixed length of 45 minutes but giving priority to people who were missed to be at the top of the order for the next open comment. All in favor of that idea, raise your fiscal hand. Three, four, five, six, seven. I got seven.

[216:01] Ryan, did you want to throw in a comment? Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I'm sorry if I missed the back and forth on this, but I'm I'm interested in the fixed time limit, but I wasn't sure about the 45 minutes. I I still had a question like, should that be up to an hour? But Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry. You did uh weigh in on the whether it should be But I I'll just say this, Ryan. Maybe what I'll do is I'll pull next um about the the early start time and the fixed uh resumption time because I think that feeds into that question. Is that all right? Fine. Thanks. So So the next one that since Ryan raised that is the proposal to have 30 with a then a 30 time certain. All in favor, raise your hand if this claim. Three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Okay. Um, so that that has eight supporters. And then so what I might say, Ryan, is is the we would have to have an amount of time that would work

[217:01] 30. So that would just be my concern about pushing later than 45 minutes. But let me if you don't mind, Erin, I just I mean I'm voting on the the principle that open comment is is planned to continue to be on average probabilistically the same amount of time that we currently plan it for. So my vote is based on asking staff like you know what is that time and if we 37 or yeah whatever like that's fine too. But to me I think just there's a principle of like keeping open comment to be planned to be the same amount of time. That's my hope. Can Can folks remind me when we have on the agenda how how many minutes do we allocate for open comment? I've seen it a million times, but I just want to confirm. We always allocate 60 minutes. Yeah. E, can you tell me? But I think it's it's an hour, but I think it's um 20 people times two minutes.

[218:00] It's 20 people times two minutes, but the code allocates uh 60 minutes. Got it. Okay. Well, um I think the code allocated, but that's what we've always Maybe Teresa is checking that, but we've always allocated an hour and it's two minutes per person for 60 minutes. I mean, for 20 people. So, code allocates just number of people who can speak, but just timewise. Oh, I'm sorry. Other way around. No, no, let me Hey, everybody, I got it. Okay. The code specifies both 20 people and 45 minutes. And so it would be helpful to have if you're going to impose a time limit to just impose the time limit because so for example, one person speaks, the meeting is disrupted, the meeting is recessed. It if you're looking to impose a time limit, I would not include a number of

[219:00] people. I would simply impose the time limit. The current time limit imposed is 45 minutes. We've not been disciplined or diligent about that. So I mean we can it is possible to change those things but it is currently at 45 minutes in terms of our practice and written down. So Ryan, do you want us to straw poll about sticking with the 45 minutes that's written down or No, it's fine. I I think that answers the question that the current practice is 45 that assumes 20 people. My concern was just that I wouldn't want us to do something where suddenly we realize, oh, we only expect to have time for 14 people. But what I'm hearing is we are we currently plan to have 20 people in 45 minutes. Uh there's a little bit of time in there, I guess, but um now with the rededication to to being on time, I think that that's fine. I mean that works. Thanks. Um Tina, yeah, just a quick question. Sometimes

[220:01] we actually don't fill up our whole open comment time and so we continue our meeting. In this scenario, would we always start our business meeting at 6:30? That's my proposal. Yes, because I think we need certainty for people who are attending the business meeting. So if we 05, there's just a longer break. That sounds great. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks. Um, okay. The next one is, um, alternating in-person and virtual speakers. And I think we could leave the details of the number of people in each alternation to our fantastic city clerk team, but who is in favor of doing that alternation between inerson and virtual plan? I got nine on this one. Okay, people like that. Um, and then there is the restricting open comment to c certain agenda items or potentially prioritizing speaking to certain agenda uh items on the agenda.

[221:00] Um, and we've had some discussion on this. So, I'll just ask people to raise their hand if they would like to pursue this option. I got three on that one. All right. And now we have the um at the end of open open comment speakers uh allowing council members to respond with a maximum of 30 seconds per response. All in favor raise your hand. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six on this one. Um then there is the does council support the presiding officer um uh doing an immediate response to hateful or dehumanizing language or potentially a council member with a point of order. All who feel like that would be good to do raise your hand. I got nine on that one. And the last one is having um it be audio only. So all in favor of that

[222:01] option. I got five. I got five on that. Those are the ideas. So um it sounds like we were supportive of um all of them except for the speaking only to agenda items. Teresa, does that give you what you need? Uh, mayor, can I uh can I just repeat back what I heard, please? And then ask a clarifying question. So, open comment would be limited to 45 minutes and prioritize people who didn't get to speak um because the cut off because they signed up for a particular meeting and the cutoff um meant that they didn't get to speak. 30, then 30 to start the business meeting at that time certain.

[223:00] The next is alternating inperson and virtual speakers. The next is allow council members to respond immediately following open comment. And I'm sorry, what was the time limit on that? 30 seconds. Thank you. um and then not a rule change, but that the chair will immediately respond to hate speech um or other council members will um take a point of order. So my clarifying question is this and also audio only. Oh, I'm sorry I didn't catch that one. Okay, thank you. Um, so my clarifying question goes to, so currently we have a limited number of speakers and a limited time.

[224:03] If we have a rolling list of people, so say a hundred people sign up for open comment and 20 get to speak, does that mean that then the remaining 80 get priority for all of the remaining meetings? Is that what you all are actually asking for? What I would suggest is that we would accept a maximum number of registrations that you could fit within 45 minutes. And would you like that maximum number of registrations to remain at 20 people? That probably makes sense because there's always a few seconds in between speakers. So 20 is probably your your theoretical maximum. Mayor, would you like to poll on that? Sure, I'd be happy to. Uh, we got some hands raised, but I just per Teresa's request, if we could just pull on continuing to allow 20 people to be selected per open comment period. All in favor, raise your hand. Does that mean

[225:02] other people would h I guess I don't understand how the prioritization would work. So, so here I mean in part I think to to Nicole's earlier point, we can leave operational details to our amazing clerk team. Um, but I think you know something to the effect of, you know, 20 people are allowed to sign up. If any of them do not in fact get to speak, then they become the top priority for the next one. So if there were three, it probably only take 17 new signups. And when you say only 20 people are allowed to sign up, what you mean is that we would do sign up the way we normally do and then prioritize 20 people from that list of people who apply. I think so. Not that we would like close applications for open comment at the first 20. Correct. That we would keep other procedures the same, including the randomization. Correct. The way we do it currently is no matter how many people sign up, they

[226:00] are then randomized. The first 20 are selected as speakers, be they virtual or in person. The remaining are not selected to speak at the current meeting. Good. And I I've got Nicole and Tina's hand up, but Nur, I saw your hand earlier. Did you want to add something? And you're I think Teresa got to it for the immediate list. I And the randomization, I think we're clear there. My additional question would be uh do we continue to do a rolling list uh as as folks, but I I think the answer is no um as we move forward, but I want to get through all your questions first. So, but Nicole and then Tina. Yeah, thanks. I just um had a couple of follow-up questions. So, um, if open comment is kind of set at 45 minutes and we have potentially 30 seconds, um, each

[227:02] to speak at the end, is that part of that 45 minutes? Is that extra? How is that? How does that play out? It's part of the 45 minutes. So then we would just need to um I mean maybe flag for you um or Lauren or whoever's facilitating the meeting that we're going to have some comments or something so that you know. So well I just Teresa you're nodding but I I just want to counterpoint to that because the the amount of time for our responses is uncertain. It could be up to five minutes right if we all took seconds plus a little space in between. So I I think cutting five minutes off of every meeting, you know, then then we're 40 minutes for people to talk. So I might suggest that our responses be flex time afterwards um rather than part of the 45 minutes. That that would be my suggestion. 45 minutes for people to speak to us. Then we have up to 30 seconds if we need to. Probably most of the time we won't. And that cuts into the break if we do. That would be my

[228:01] suggestion. Okay. So that was one of my clarifications. Thank you. That's helpful. And then um the other one is that I just want to confirm we still have the rule that we've had for many years now that people who've spoken at the prior meeting, the immediately prior meeting are kind of dep prioritized if we have, you know, 20 plus signups. Um and that's that's still there. That's something that we're changing. Like anyway, just wanted to see where that's at. Not ask for that to be changed. Yeah. So, so that will still be in place. Okay. Cool. Thank you. Okay. So, that that works through that. Then I want to pause and give folks if if people I know Taiisha has something that she wants to say and if anybody else wants to offer some final comments um we can um just so Taiisha you can have the floor and just get it keeping saying to all of us to keep in mind that we're close to 10 o'clock

[229:00] of course and I don't have all that much to say. It's more so just you know in my opinion public comment is a part of of our city's business. Um, and so I'm disappointed that there is this false sense of separation. Um, I do not equate public comment to receiving emails from the public because in that sense, um, those emails only come to council members, uh, and city staff, um, versus public comment, which is, um, much more open and allows for other community members to hear, um, what community members are raising and issues like, um, you know, the exceeding profit margins of Excel. when Leslie comes and talks about that and it's not on the agenda that reminds us and it also educates our public around topics and issues that are coming up. Um I was grateful that we did not vote uh to limit agenda items and content. Um so thank you for for not passing that. Um, and then I just wanted 30 start

[230:02] time, recognizing that this disproportionately impacts full-time workers from 9 to5 um, lowincome workers. Um, so allowing them only 30 minutes to potentially get across town um is in my my opinion discriminatory and and so um I'm I'm disappointed but hopeful that um people can find their way to to get to be able to get here. Um, I also honor that public comment tends to be one of the times where we get to hear from underrepresented groups that do not have proportional represented representation on council on staff um on our boards and commissions. Um, and so again recognizing that um public comment is more than um you know and I'm is more than what is on the agenda um and it is is inclusive of all city business which is my understanding. um business that we um anything that we are authorized and have

[231:00] the authority to weigh in on is technically city business. So, I'm grateful that we still have um the freedoms and for our public to be able to speak to anything that we have the authority to have action on. Um and again am concerned and disappointed by 30 start time. Thank you. Can I clarify something? Just a little colloquy clarification. Taishu, you you you interchanged open comment and public comment a few times. Were you specifically My apologies. Um um I am specifically um speaking to the topic that we've been talking about. Open comment. Yeah, open comment. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks for that. Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands raised. So, just confirming again, Nur and Teresa, you've got what you need uh to go to the next step here. We do. Thank you. Very good. Um well, in that case, that

[232:00] concludes our final agenda item. Um so, Elisha, tell me if I'm wrong, but I think we're done. No, sir. That's a wrap. Okay. Well, thanks everybody. I'll Gav is closed 47 p.m. Thanks, sir. Thanks. Have a good night.