September 18, 2025 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[6:45] 30. I would like to call to order Thursday, September 18th's meeting, regular meeting of the Boulder City Council.

[7:00] What's that? >> And Elicia, will you call the role? >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We'll start tonight's roll call as usual with Council Member Adams, >> present. >> Benjamin, >> present. >> Mayor Brockett is absent. Mayor Pro Tim Folks, >> present. >> Council member Marquis, >> here. >> Shuhart >> here. Spear >> present. >> Wallik >> here. >> And Winer >> present. >> Mayor Pro Tim, we have our quorum. >> Thank you so much. With that, um, will you go over our public participation guidelines um so that we can start open comment? >> Yes, ma'am. I will be happy to do that. I will go over now our public participation at city council meeting guidelines. Thank you again for your participation at tonight's council

[8:00] meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the voter revised code. This includes participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendees 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 and law and any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscinity of other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior

[9:00] that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you for listening and again, thank you for joining us. >> Thank you so much. Um, I will call the first three speakers on our list. We have Elliot Fleeten, Megan Chicaros, and John Knap. Uh, the first two are virtual. >> Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Can I begin? Twice a month, the same lies repeated by people with neither the skill nor the will to read statutes or case law. namely that Israel is committing a non-existent genocide. If not outright racists, they are at best naive pawns repeating a definition altered solely to smear Israel for being largely Jewish. Those of us who correct this distortion are not met with reason debate. We are met with screaming, racial epithets,

[10:02] insults like zonazi or genocide denier directed at ourselves and even our children. Our refusal to misuse the word genocide is twisted into grounds to strip us of our humanity as if to mark us for future violence. This dehumanization thrives in a national and local climate that has grown ever more radicalized with at least implicit celebration from portions of the anti-Zionist crowd both locally and nationally of events like the Kirk shooting, Luigi Maji case, the alleged assault on Councilman Benjamin's wife, and the run for their lives firebombing. This is not principal descent. It is fascism. celebrating the use of violence to silence those who disagree. So I ask, what comes next in Boulder? When extremists celebrate violence and racially demonize their neighbors, no one, neither council members nor ordinary families like mine can feel safe. I now wake up wondering

[11:02] whether one day I will myself be a victim just because I rebut a falsehood. I hope this country can return to debates not met with dehumanization and violence, but instead with civil disagreement. So, if a fascist opposing that dream in the name of stopping a non-existent genocide decides to shoot a bullet through my throat and leave my children fatherless, please remember that hope. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up, we have Megan Chicaros, John Knap, and Leslie Glstrom. >> Mayor Prom, I do not see Megan online tonight. >> Thank you. Um, so we will go with John Knap, Leslie Glstrom, and then Linsen Seagull. Um, good afternoon. My name is John Knap, and I live at 7th in Forest in the Newlands. On Sunday, August 31st, I was near the playground in North Boulder Park with my

[12:01] five and sevenyear-old sons. A demonstration came through the park. At the front of the group was a person dressed in military gear carrying an assault rifle across his chest. This happened right next to the children's playground. Unformed Boulder police officers walked with the demonstrators, but when I asked one officer to remove the armed person from the area, I was told they were simply exercising their first and second amendment rights. I also called the non-emergency Boulder police, but no action was taken. I was left shocked. As a parent, I cannot understand how the safety of children in a playground can come second to the presence of an armed demonstration. I ask for unanimous support from city council to act so this does not happen

[13:02] again. very specifically. One, prohibit armed demonstrations near playgrounds, parks, and recreation areas. Two, ban the open carry of firearms near playgrounds and recreation areas. Three, ensure police protect children first, not only demonstrators. At the very least, families should be warned when such activity is happening nearby. As a citizen, I support the safety of all people exercising their First Amendment rights. And I vehemently oppose the senseless exposure of children to any dangerous activity, particularly military weapons and guns more generally. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up, we have Lesley Gluestrom, Lyn Sing Seagull, and Carolyn Beninski.

[14:09] Good evening, uh, Mayor Prom Folkertz and rest of the council. Thank you for this opportunity. Uh, my name is Lesley Glustrm. I'll primarily be talking about Excel and what's happening with our electricity costs and reliability. Um, but of course I'd like to add my voice to those that are asking for a reasoned and balanced resolution on what's probably the defining moral issue of our time, which is Gaza. So, just add my voice there. Um the you've heard from me about Excel's profits, 782 million in after tax net income from Colorado in 2024, running 22% ahead of that halfway through 2025. The second half is likely to be stronger. That's all money that's coming out of all of Boulders's residences,

[15:03] businesses, lowincome folks. Um, we could do better for sure. Last time I spoke, I talked to you about the vast amount of money, the billions of dollars that Excel is spending. I see that as putting expensive band-aids on a system that's really from the last century and largely broken. I've handed out a couple PowerPoint slides from the Public Utilities Commission where, as you know, I've spent 20 years of my life. Um, and first of all, seven of the 15 worst feeders in 2024 were in Boulder. If you turn it over and look at the map, I was too cheap to put it in color. But all that black squiggly stuff in the upper left corner is is areas in Boulder. It's like having a tattered shirt. You just can't sew it back together. We need to find a new system. That's usually

[16:00] something in the neighborhood of resilience centers. Mary Pedigrew will speak to you more about that later tonight. I'd like to ask that 1% of the climate initiatives budget be used to build us a new system. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up, we have Lynn Seagull virtually, Carolyn Beninsky virtually, and Susan Hall in person. Mayor Pro, we do not see Lynn online tonight. >> Thank you. How about Carolyn? >> Hi, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh, I want to commend and thank Councilwoman Tisha Adams for your courage in bringing forth the divestment issue and for standing up for justice. I'm disappointed that the rest of the council have criticized you for this. In

[17:00] July, two prominent Israeli rights activist stated Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. In addition, in September, a panel commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have both concluded that Israel is engaged in acts of genocide in Gaza. I want to quote from a letter by Tom Mayor that was published in the camera on September 20 september 2nd. Quote, "The most important issue facing the city council is the ethical character of the Boulder community. Something to which the council is a major contributor. Ethical standards are extremely important because they determine the principles with which all important issues are approached and also the heritage a community gives to the future. I support Aaron Stone and Rob Smoke, two city council candidates committed to D. That was the end of quote for Tom and this is mine. I

[18:01] support Aaron Stone and Rob Smoke, two city council candidates committed to divesting Boulder funds from the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Aaron Stone and Rob Smoke are courageous, intelligent, and will bring a strong sense of morality to the council. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up, we have Susan Hall, Bella Wesler, and Anna Ben Hammond. I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name. Um, Susan Hall, I don't see. >> Okay. Oh, there we go. Thank you. >> Perfect. I shouldn't be thrown out for tear tape or my friends thought that was so funny. I don't know. I don't know if I thought it was funny. Anyway,

[19:01] my name is Susan Hall. Um, >> will you pull the microphone down closer so we can hear you? Thank you. As Israeli forces launched a major ground offensive in Gaza City on Tuesday, a United Nations investigation committ commission concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The commission's determination carries no immediate legal enforcement power, but creates significant obligations for countries around the world under international law. Universal obligations for all countries under international law. All countries have certain duties regarding genocide prevention regardless of whether they are signed whether they signed the genocide convention to what happened. These universal obligations include the duty to prevent

[20:00] genocide where states have the capacity to influence the situation, avoid providing assistance that could enable genocide, investigate and prosecute genocide committed by their nationals, and cooperate with international investigations. I have here a form, I'm sure you guys have all seen it, of different companies that do contribute to the genocide. We have asked you a multitude of times, please divest, but now that this is an official notice, I hope you'll take it more serious, especially for PL Palunteer. Um, also I thought I would show Gotta hurry here. The people are starving in Gaza and as a US Green Beret has reported when they

[21:01] hand out the most meager amount of food in Israel, they shoot them. Um, they are hiring Americans to do this. Your time is up. Next up, we have Bella Wexler. Anna Ben Belim and Patty Fster Aguilera. >> Okay. Can you hear me? >> Okay. All right. Yes. >> Hi, my name is Bella Wexler. I grew up in Boulder and a part of the Jewish community. I'm here today to ask you, the city council, to do what is possible within your power to stop the genocide in Gaza. My asks are that Boulder divest, as everyone has been mentioning, from Microsoft, Caterpillar, among others, and release a ceasefire resolution calling for an end to the American funded Israeli genocide of Palestinians. I'm sure you've heard

[22:00] every possible argument at this point. Um, and I don't believe that more statistics will sway you. Uh it may seem one more city in Colorado doesn't have the ability to impact a conflict across the ocean, but that's not true. You can be leaders among the other American and international cities who have made steps to cease their involvement and call out the unspeakable violence. Just this week, the UN Human Rights Council has found Israel responsible for genocide. We must act with urgency. I remember when I was a little kid learning about the Holocaust in Sunday school. Classic. How could anyone just sit by while this happened? And now I see it all around me. My people say never again about the Holocaust, but never for who? Just for Jews? Just for us? Never again for everyone. Thank you. You have the opportunity right now to choose to be on the right side of history. What will you say when your grandchildren ask you what you did to stop the genocide? ZedC do. Justice, justice shall you pursue. Um,

[23:02] okay. I'm going to read a quote from Omar Al Akmed's book. Oh, sorry. One day, everyone will have always been against this. The moral component of history, the most necessary component, is simply a single question asked over and over again. When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying is that one way or another, everyone is forced to answer. Thank you. Free Palestine. Thank you. Next up, we have Ya Ben Bellim online, Patty Fooster, Aguilera, and Ed Halterman. >> Mayor Prom, I do not see Ya online tonight. >> Thank you. How about Patty? >> Hello. Can you hear me? Yes,

[24:02] I spent all day yesterday trying to get enough money for the two families in North Gaza whom I talked to regularly. They are trapped in North Gaza and they need to get safely to the south. You are seeing this. They have intensified the bombing. Nobody's safe. There is no safe place anymore. It cost $2,000 US dollar to move a family to the south of Gaza because people make profit of their desperation. Boulder makes profit, too. Boulder invests $35 million in this genocide and you all refuse to divest. I send a big chunk of my salary every month to Gaza and many hours of my time crowdfunding because there is nothing else I can do. My representatives do not listen to me and my tax dollars are making this genocide happen. My tax

[25:01] dollars are killing them because of people like you that refuse to do the minimum of divesting. The UN is confirming now that Israel has and is committing genocide. We makes the US complicit. We makes you all complicit in this genocide. And there are legal repercussions to that. I know that some of you like to abuse your power by incarcerating our indigenous siblings that remind you that you are complicit in genocide. and the others. You are no different either because all of you are perpetuating the narrative that speaking against genocide is violent and makes you feel not safe when we are begging you for two years to do some act of solidarity with the Palestinians to show that you care. So shame on all of you and so seeking my stomach and I really hope that the souls of all these children in Gaza haunt you forever. You are guilty. You are complicit. We see you and we will make sure you are persecuted for these acts as you persecute us and our siblings.

[26:01] Free Palestine now. Thank you. Next up we have Ed Halterman, James Duncan, and Eve Partridge. Good evening. My name's Ed Halman and I'm not here to talk about Gaza. Um, I'm here to encourage the council to learn more about proportional representation and to consider offering it for Boulder City Council elections. Proportional represa representation is the most fair and democratic way to elect a multi-member body like this the city council. I'm a statistician and I've designed surveys for a living in questionnaires and uh it is clear that proportional voting method would provide a more

[27:02] representative view of our community that our current winner take all uh voting method would not. Um today with the extreme polarization we see uh the winner take all voting methods we use in Boulder only make uh that polarization worse. Proportional representation will give more people a voice in government. With more voices uh the important decisions can happen in government offices and not on the streets. Let's give people a truly democratic and representative voice. Uh I am asking the city council to hold a study session to at least learn about proportional representation and why it's favored by dem democracy advocates

[28:02] everywhere. Um, I do have some uh information on proportional representation that I'll ask the clerk to hand out. Also, the uh for your information, this the Longmont City Council has committed to holding a study session on this. Uh, thank you. Uh, and maybe Boulder could join them. >> Your time is up. Thank you. Next up, we have James Duncan, Eve Partridge, and Freda Silva. Good evening, Council James Duncan. It's uh good to be back. I wanted to thank you for your service. I was on a bit of a hiatus. Um maybe that should be you hate us. No, I'm kidding. Um, and uh, but I want to thank you for your service

[29:00] because I I I do appreciate all the work that you guys do. Um, I'm wearing a t-shirt that says Black Lives Matter. I colored the uh, lettering for Native American colors to represent the like the land acknowledgement that we, you know, are on stolen land, that we genocided the the Native Americans. And uh so so that that the irony uh indigenous people's days is coming up. So uh just keep that in mind. Um I'm going to title this talk Zuck up to Trump. Zuck up to Trump. Uh it was on it was recorded that Mark Zuckerberg uh confided to Trump uh a figure of $600 billion dollars. All right, that he would invest in the US, right? Um, and he uh confided that because he says, "I didn't know what number you wanted me to throw out." Which means that, you know,

[30:01] we all know this system, money rules, right? And uh Trump could end this uh this genocide with one phone call. By the way, the the UN rapure on uh from the uh reports that the death toll is at 680,000. That's the true figure, 680,000. Um and then it was also uh recent news that um the finance minister from Israel says Gaza is a real estate bonanza. Um, we we are discussing with the United States how to divide percentages of the land. That's the Israeli pos. Yeah. Thank you. >> Your time is up. Thank you. >> Next up, we have Eve Partridge, Freda Silva, and Zo Silverman.

[31:02] >> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Today I want to talk about the right to rape and how you are supporting the legacy of pedophiles and genocidal child murders. This has been a topic in Israeli media recently when discussing its gang rape of prisoners and numerous human rights abuses of now 11,000 Palestinians detained. There are thousands of these reported abuses since before October 7th. Israeli media praised the rapists on television and did interviews and many even fought to release IDF soldiers that were held to some account for the rape and torture of Palestinians. I've watched the video of the man that was almost raped to death by soldiers. Since Israel and US are in alignment as proxy for each other in terms of foreign policy, it appears you support the mass detention and rape of indigenous populations here and abroad along with our mild and mediocre judicial system around rape in Colorado. I've read recently that many white

[32:01] identifying people cannot identify with non-white bodies. If this is the case, I am here looking at a majority of mostly white women who are actively protecting and supporting Israeli's right to rape in this genocide. This council actively supports the right to rape by supporting a country that flaunts its right to rape in genocide. There is no different difference than in Sudan and Congo where women are raped daily and hung from trees so we can have the exploited minerals for an iPhone. As we now watch John Benet Ramsay's case unraveled, does your stance remain the same? Two young women are dead on the creek, one of which trafficked and gang raped, and 47 homeless people have died last year. There are thousands of indigenous people in detention centers here in the states. I'm a little pissed off by Zionists telling me how I would be raped and hung by a pole by Hamas when we are living in a massive rape culture already. Either way, you know who you are. you know what you were doing and have a nice day.

[33:04] >> Thank you. Up next we have Freda Silva, Zo Silverman, and Mary Pedigrew. >> All righty. Can you all hear me? >> Yes. Perfect. All righty. Well, Boulder City Council, thank you all for suspending me again for the second time in a row. I hope you all feel very good about that. But none, nonetheless, that's not going to deter me deter me from demanding that the city cut its contracts with companies complicit in genocide, namely Microsoft, Caterpillar, Toyota, uh Cisco. And you know, I we the people know that at the end of the day, you all will use the same t tired argument um that the city of Boulder should focus on local issues, that we shouldn't get involved with foreign affairs and we should focus on what s what Boulder cares about. But

[34:01] that's not true. If that was the case, you all wouldn't be trying this hard to suppress voices that are holding you accountable for complicity and genocide. That's called fascism. You all are fascists. Manipulating decorum rules, suspending anti-enoci, anti-genocide fighters. You guys have been trying really, really hard to suppress our voices and the movement. And that is because, drum roll, the city and the country benefits from a raging genocide. War equals profit. And you all are sick. We the people are demanding that our tax money stop being used in Israel to carry out a genocide. Y'all's the Zionists really have you by the balls and that is embarrassing for you all. You all are sick and time is on our side and this will be your legacy and we will not let you, your kids, your great grandkids

[35:03] forget this. This will haunt your lineage for all and eternity. Thank you. Up next we have Zo Silverman, Mary Pedigrew, and I believe Lynn Seagull is online. >> Can you hear me? >> Oh, hello. My name is Zoe Silverman. I'm a resident and registered voter of Boulder, Colorado. I am also here to talk about the ongoing genocide in Gaza. I'm sure the city council is tired from hearing from us, but I cannot imagine how tired they are in Gaza. They are being actively killed with taxpayer dollar. My taxpayer dollar. Your taxpayer dollar. We have as a city the

[36:03] power to divest and call for a ceasefire. Not only do we have this power, we have this obligation. We cannot promote justice and unity within our community while staying silent during a genocide. If any of the council members have kids, I'd ask you, what would you tell your kid if they saw another child being bullied? Would you tell them to stay silent? Would you ask them to make a profit? Genocide is a simple issue. There is only one stance and the stance is vehemently against genocide. As a Jewish resident of Boulder, I feel strongly opposed to genocide and I feel strongly opposed to any of my elected officials staying silent. I do not want my city to be complicit in a genocide any time or anywhere. This is a local issue. This is

[37:01] a personal issue. This is a national issue. This is a city issue. As the council, who will you listen to? Will you listen to your constituents? Will you listen to the United Nations? Will you listen to the ICJ? When will you implore humanity? I I implore you to immediately divest from genocide and to promote a ceasefire measure. The legacy of Boulder cannot be one of silence and violence. >> Thank you. Up next, we have Mary Pedigrew and Lynn Seagull. >> Hi. Hello. Uh my name is Mary Pedigrew. I'm a Boulder resident, business, and homeowner and parent. I'm part of a local grassroots organization working to accelerate the transition to a socially just clean energy economy called Empower

[38:02] Our Future, also known as EOF. I really appreciate the opportunity to share with you about a grant that EOF got earlier this year to create educational materials about how solar and storage, meaning backup uh battery backup, can save money on utility bills, but also create energy resilience for a community. A battery charged by solar panels can power a building during outages, making it what we call a resilience hub, a safe place with power to get updates, charge your phone, store temperature sensitive medications, and so on. These hubs are especially beneficial when located in disproportionately impacted communities at trusted locations such as churches and community centers. Why? uh because individuals in these communities are much more likely to be adversely affected by extreme weather and power

[39:00] outages and they often have a harder time recovering from these events. The EOF community resilience team has developed a number of fact sheets about the benefits of solar and storage, energy resilience, and funding options. Um these will all be posted on the EOF website soon. Uh, community resilience is also the topic of our September 30th empower hour. Uh, it's a webinar. We'll be talking about our local efforts and hear from a rep from the New Orleans Lighthouse, which we view as a role model for resilience hubs. Uh, please consider joining us on September 30th at 6 to hear more about how communities in need benefit from energy resilience. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh, next up we have Lin Seagull. And um, if we could check if Megan or Ya uh, joined that would be great. Thank you.

[40:03] >> Yeah. Um, you know, I love Mary Pedigrew. We worked for five years, I mean 10 years, five ballot measures for municipalization in Boulder. And now, you know what? Your rates are going to go up two to three times. And you think we got budget troubles now and we're just going to charge more people, you know, charge more at the rec centers. How are people going to pay more at the rec centers, Mark? you know, when already we've got food inflation, everything inflation, and we've got Sam Weaver who went with Rachel Friend and solicited the Open Space Board of Trustees member Hal Hollstein to undo our municipalization effort. My brother went door todo 2017.

[41:01] He captured. We were so good. Five ballot measures. What are you going to do when we've got two to three times our energy expense for our citizens? This is unconscionable. And you know, Sam Weaver endorses Jen Robbins. Sorry about that. Sam Weaver was in the middle of all of our work and he betrayed us with Bob Yates and Alice Jackson at a football game. They made an agreement for the partnership. That's what they did. That is so unbelievably unethical. And it's it's it's so bad for Boulder. We need that. We need transactive energy. We need geothermal heat pumps. We need our own energy sources and free

[42:01] Palestine. You got it, Tara. Free Palestine. >> Thank you. Um, do we have any of the other um members who weren't here when I called them? >> U Mayor Prom, I do not see either of them online. >> Thank you. Uh, with that, Nuria or Teresa, do you have any followup? >> Thank you so much, Mayor Prom, and thanks as always to the community who shares their voices. I do want to address uh Mr. Nab in particular. I I'm troubled about what you have shared um particularly as it relates to um uh that type of weaponry near playgrounds. I had the opportunity to reach out to the chief. It's the first time I've heard of it. It's the first time he's heard of it. So, I may be following up with you to hear a little bit more details um as we look into this uh as it is concerning. But thank you for bringing it up. >> And could you maybe remind us where

[43:01] we're at with uh our assault weapons ban since that was part of that comment as well? >> Uh yes, currently we are uh embroiled in litigation. With respect to the assault weapons ban, there's a hold um a stay of enforcement of certain provisions. Um I would have to I'm afraid I didn't review that before coming here this evening, but I'm happy to review that and get back to you all. I think that's sufficient for me. Thank you. Um, do we have any council member quick comments? Oh, questions. Okay. Yes, Ryan. >> Also, thank you, Mr. Nap, for um speaking with us. I I had um maybe just sort of a broader question and I think it's a it's a procedural question because I don't want to expect an answer on the spot but I did hear a few um

[44:00] proposals or requests for ordinances to consider and I would be curious to know I guess across the three of them what is the current legal situation with respect to to those issues and what might be options for us to to consider action and I guess my procedural question is I don't know if this is to Nuria or Teresa, but um c can you just propose a way forward on that? Like does that need a not a five and not a three? Is that just a quick come back to you next week or maybe maybe you need to think about it, but put it put it to you. Thank you. >> Yeah, thanks for the question. Um happy to look into that and get a sense of the scope of that and get back to you to let you know if that would require a a not of three or not of five to to move forward. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ryan. I see Tina also has a question. >> Um, just following up with Ryan, it might be helpful to remind council at that same time, what are the current

[45:00] laws around open carry in the city of Boulder and in and around schools. >> I appreciate it. And I I think we'll take it back. It sounds like this may be a CAC conversation for an agenda item to discuss. I'm just jotting down a quick note about that as well. Um, all right. Any other questions? Any quick comments? Taiisha, thank you. Um, I just want to thank everybody for coming out again. I want to um just I really appreciate um the the willingness to continue to come. Um, I also want to thank Jonah Goose for some reason on the co-sponsoring of humanitarian aid and just knowing that um, you know, that changes are happening and I'm hopeful for more change um, because we know um, that that needs to

[46:01] happen and I'm especially concerned about the increased um, settler violence in Nablas and our sister city. So again, just thank you for reminding us of of the relationships, not just the policies. Thank you. Thank you. Um, with that I think we can move on to item three, the presentation and questions on for our annual comprehensive financial report. >> Oh, sorry. We're taking a break. >> Sorry, number three is next on my list. But first, that's right. Thank you for the reminder. We take a break until 6:30.

[63:45] Levity here. We

[64:52] 6:30. I'd like to call us back from our recess. It sounds like first off we have item

[65:02] number three, a presentation and questions for the annual comprehensive financial report. Thanks so much, Mayor Prom. And we are delighted to have our audit committee's outside financial at search from CU, Dr. David Gross. We will go directly to him. >> Hi. Um well, uh my name is Dave Gross. Is this too loud? My name is Dave Gross. I'm a teaching professor of finance at CU Boulder. Uh my PhD is in financial economics and separate from my academic um activities, I do this kind of audit and accounting and financial oversight for uh numerous nonprofits and some government organizations. And this is my seventh year on the city's audit committee. So my seventh year doing this presentation. Uh Mark's looking at me going really? But yeah, it's been seven years. Um uh committee consists of myself, uh Taisha Adams, and Mark Wallik. and it's our job to assess and interpret the audit of the city's 2024 fiscal uh year financial statements.

[66:01] It's not the job of this committee in any way and nor will this report address uh the stability or health of the financial position, the priorities or the efficacy of its financial activities. Uh that of course is the job of the council and all Boulder residents and stakeholders, but without the work done by this committee, that could not be done effectively. Uh the motion on the consent agenda for later this evening is to approve and accept the city of Boulder 2024 audit and the annual comprehensive financial report, the ACTUER. And so I'll just talk about uh what we found. Um and not to bury the lead, there was a material weakness found in uh the report this year. It resulted in a reporting error, but not a recording error. And I'll talk about that in a bit. Uh the city discovered that it incorrectly recorded some specific federal grants as incorrectly reported them as state grants. And so there is a document that has to be filed listing all federal grants. And of the $22 million in federal grants, a million dollars was missing because of this um

[67:00] reporting but not recording error. And I'll talk a little bit more about that when uh in a few minutes. Okay. So just a brief description of the four-part process that led us to this point. First, the staff records all financial transactions as they occur. Second, the staff uses this information to prepare financial statements. Uh they prepare financial statements for each of the city's funds including general and open space, transportation, municipality. Uh each of these gets three different financial statements. It gets a statement of revenue, expenses, and change in net position. This is effectively a P&L or an income statement. Uh there's a statement of net position. This is effectively a balance sheet. And then there's a statement of cash flows and this can be used to assess whether or not um certain organizations engage in a lot of credit transactions. So they stall up but they don't get collect they don't collect payment or inventory sits on the shelf for a long time. Uh this is not an issue for the city of Boulder. Most of the transactions are cash transactions but they still prepare this document. Okay. So these documents are prepared. Uh

[68:00] these financial statements are public and they can be used by anyone to understand well all these things about the city. How does the city operate? How is it spending its money? Is it doing so um according to priorities? Is it stable? Is it healthy financially? Uh and how effective are these activities? But again, these can only be assessed if the financial statements are correct. So the next process is the record of these transactions and the financial statements are given to the auditor Clifton Larson Allen. And in addition, the auditors work with the city staff in order to gain an understanding of the processes used to record the transactions and produce these documents. And they make sure that these are done according to the government accounting standards board rules, the Gazsby rule. So we've heard of GAP for for profit and Gatsby for government. Uh and the results of the audit was that the auditors gave the city a clean opinion. Uh this is the best possible result. So all the transactions were proper. All of the recording of the transactions were proper. All the financial statements were proper. But

[69:01] again, we'll get to that one thing. So summarizing page 17 of the 322page ACER, the auditor wrote, quote, "In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly and in all material respects the respective financial position of the government activities, the business activities and each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the city. So a clean and unqualified opinion uh for the city. Okay. So in performing these audits, auditors look for three things. They look for deficiencies, significant deficiencies, and material weaknesses. Uh a deficiency is a flaw in a process that might allow for an error. There have been no deficiencies for the last five years. A significant deficiency is a series or combination of small deficiencies uh that might again merit attention but again nothing there. The third is a material weakness and this is a large deficiency or combination such that

[70:01] there is a possibility of a recording or reporting error and unfortunately there was a reporting error. There was a material weakness. So I'll try to describe it very briefly. I'm happy to sort of give a little bit more detail if if necessary but if you want a lot more detail I'm gonna have to refer you to staff. Okay. So, uh, since 2019, the city of Boulder has been the host city for the Boulder County Small Business Development Center, the SBDC. Grants from the Office of Economic Development and International Trade, the Colorado Office, the OEDIT, go through the SBDC, to small businesses. Uh, we're not done yet. I got one more. Uh all of these should be reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, the F the SEFA, because the city uh incorrectly recorded these as state grants because they came from this Colorado office and I've been to the website. It kind of looks like a Colorado entity. It's a little confusing. Uh they reported them as

[71:02] state grants. They missed reporting them on this federal uh this federal document on the uh on the SIFA. uh this in no way affected anything but the SIFA. The way these are categorized on income statements and on other documents didn't change at all. Nothing had to be restated except of course this one federal document. Um during the meeting the city discussed the change in how grants will be uh reported and uh they're centralizing this process in a way that should mitigate these errors going forward. Uh I I speak for the committee the committee and then more importantly the auditors were satisfied that this change in process would mitigate this kind of error uh going forward. Uh okay. So the fourth and final step is the audit committee interprets and acts on any recommendations from the auditor. Uh the only recommendation concerned the the the CIFA and I think that the city

[72:03] again in you know my opinion the auditor's opinion and the committee's opinion the city has acted correctly on this. Uh next, the audit committee considers the audit findings and makes a recommendation to the council on whether to accept the audit and the uh the the annual comprehensive financial report. And it is the unanimous recommendation of the audit committee that the council approve and accept this audit and this report. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Do we have any questions about the audit or I see Mark with a question. >> Just a quick one, David. Are you convinced that we have resolved the issue so that there won't be a recurrence of this mischaracterization of grants? >> Yes. And I would also point out that this had no effect on the city's ability to borrow or on any evaluation of how anyone would financially rate the city.

[73:01] Again, this is an unfortunate error, but the consequences of it are extremely minor. And I would take this moment to sort of uh point out what a pleasure it is to be working with uh with Joel and the rest of the, you know, the the finance uh the people I've been working with as it was to work with an for many years. And so, yeah, I really just commend the city's uh the city's finance group. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I see Tara also has a question. Uh, any other questions? >> Yes, David, I did enjoy the 300 plus pages. I read it and I thought it was great. Seriously, really interesting. >> I mean, in my day job, I'd ask you to tell me about it, but uh, okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Thank you so much for that presentation. and I always appreciate the energy that you bring to financial audits. O06

[74:02] Taiisha, >> thank you. >> My apologies. It has been a pleasure serving on the audit committee and I just wanted to lift up some things that came up in that conversation that were outside of the bounds of the audit itself. Um, specifically around the FEMA conversation, um, that we've been having. Sorry, I heard my voice go up. um specific to the move away from having reimbursements for things that are preventative um and things that the city had been reimbursed for previously were no longer going to be reimbured reimburseable um which then cuts into our reserves and so it just kind of opened a conversation around our reserves and at what point and what implications that that would have so I just wanted to lift that up to the long-term financial planning committee um as an additional consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you for that uh information and

[75:00] thank you Dave Gross for the presentation. Next up on our agenda is the consent agenda, items 4 A through 4 I. I'll start with any comments or questions related to the consent agenda. And I see Ryan has his hand up. >> Thank you, Mayor Prom. I would like to speak to item E which is performance evaluations and salary adjustments for the three council employees. I am privileged to be a member of the council employee evaluation committee along with um council member Spear and our human resources director David Bell. Uh just will say a word about our year in review of council employees uh which are Nuria Rivera Vandermite, our city manager, Theresa Tate, our city attorney, and Jeffrey Khan there, our midfield judge. Uh the recommendation in the memo comes from the feedback in the 360 uh degree review which has included

[76:02] every council member uh along with staff who report to the employees and peers and the recommended salary adjustment is fairly automated. It is corresponds to average scores that fall in pre-established bands. But what is not automated is that we heard broad-based confidence and support um from council members as well as staff personnel and Nura Teresa and Jeff are making such important leadership contributions to our city. Um it is also clear that each of you are real sources of bright spots in our challenging times and uh on behalf of this EEC I'm very grateful for your commitment and very thankful for your service. Um so thank you and also I'd like to just thank again um David Bell uh HR director for his support and guidance and look forward to working with everybody in the future.

[77:01] >> Thank you Ryan. Any other comments on the consent agenda? I see Taiisha. >> Yes. I just wanted to actually have two. One is for item G and I just wanted to say thank you to the property owners who were interested in being a part of the habitat conservation area program. Um it's wonderful to see um the expansion of that program as habitat loss continues to be a concern or not concern was my concern but um just the the amount of of habitat that has been lost around us in the 14 years that I have lived here and it's going to really require a lot of our property or owners to stand up and say we're going to we're willing to conserve more of our property um to be a part of this habitat conservation program. So I just wanted to say thank you to that. Um and then um I also wanted to say thank you um for the opportunity um as it relates to item E. Um unfortunately I will be voting no to that item. I have outstanding

[78:00] questions still uh related to the process. um particularly as it relates to the 360 review, ensuring that every employee um that is um a part of the who are being supervised uh by our incredible um staff are part of that 360 review. I also had some outstanding questions around access to documents of this round as well as previous uh documents. Um unfortunately um the request is taking um more legal time than we have. Um and so uh unfortunately I will be a no. Uh but it certainly isn't a cast on the on the employees. It's more on the process and concerns around transparency and accountability. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I see Mark also with a hand up for a question or comment. >> Um my comment uh is with regard to D um

[79:02] the study session summary uh regarding the healthy building stronger community roadmap. Um uh in that memo um there were some characterizations of um sort of contrary views and I I really thought that those descriptions were a little bit downplayed. I know I had some fairly serious reservations about the direction in which we're heading and the cost at which we are doing it and I don't think that summary adequately reflected um the nature of that that disagreement. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Uh is that something what would be the process for that? Is there anything that you're requesting in particular at this time or just making a note? >> Um I'm just making a note because uh I don't think it u warrants putting it to

[80:01] a vote or or uh editing on the fly. >> Thank you. With that, I think we might be ready for a roll call vote on this item. >> Sorry. >> Yes, please. Thank you. Um, can I get a motion? >> I move we approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> With that, I think we might be ready for a roll call vote. >> No, but I'm sorry. I I um point of clarification or order. Um I only want I don't want to do the whole thing because I'm not going to vote yes on all of them. So what is the process for me to take off E? >> When I call your name, Council Member Adams, you would say yes on all items except for E. >> Thank you very much. >> Of course.

[81:05] Okay, we're ready. All right, we'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 4 A through 4 I with Council Member Adams. >> Yes, except for E, where I'm a no. Thank you. >> Thank you, Benjamin. >> Yes, Mayor Pro Tim Fulkers. >> Yes. >> Council member Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhart, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. Wallik. >> Uh, yes, except for D. >> Thank you, sir. And Winer, >> yes. >> Thank you. The consent agenda items 4 A through 4 I are hereby approved with the noted naz unanimously. >> Thank you. And I believe uh Nuria had some comments she'd like to make. Just quickly, Mayor Prom, and and I think I

[82:00] speak on behalf of my colleagues here just to thank you for your support. Um it is hard to be a an appointee I believe in this day and age and uh it is hard work that we do but we could not do it without the support of council uh as we look forward and certainly uh staff uh who does a lot of the hard work that we stand up here and um provide uh sort of cheerleading because staff really does the heavy lift in the city. Um but we want to thank you for your support um because we couldn't do the work without your policy guidance. So, just wanted to thank you for what you do every day. >> Thank you. >> Don't open his door. I'm in a meeting. >> Thank you for that note, Nuria. And um >> no, >> I'm so excited that Yeah, >> close the door. >> Lovely that we were able to move that all forward. Um with that, Elicia, will you read our next item into the record?

[83:02] Our next item are our callup check-ins which are item five on tonight's agenda. 5A is the consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to relocate an existing accessory building currently outside the designated boundary to within the designated boundary at 2940 20th Street. This is referenced under HIS2025-0000147, an individual landmark. Thank you. Does anyone have any We're not getting a presentation on this item, I assume. Does anyone have any questions or comments um that they would like to make? Do I see any interest in calling it up? Seeing none, um let's move on to our next item.

[84:01] Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Our next item is not item number six on tonight's agenda. It is our public hearings. 6A is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8713 amending title 9 land use code BRC1981 to adopt transportation demand management requirements for new development including related amendments to chapter 2 of the city of Boulders's design construction standards. originally adopted pursuant to ordinance 8986 and setting forth related details. >> Thank you so much, councel. And the next item is one that we have talked about a few times. This is one that we have um uh discussed. This is kind of the the third stool of a three-legged stool as we come forward. And while I should be talking a little bit about the background of this, I'm actually going to go a little off script and thank Miss Valerie Watson who up until now until this week uh has been serving as our

[85:00] interim director of transportation and want to just lift up all the extraordinary work she has done uh in that capacity uh as we welcome um our new transportation director who is also in the audience. Um um Ble uh thank you for coming today as you're joining but wanted to lift up Valerie today and so with that pass it on to you. Thank you so much for that, Nuria. Um, Valerie Watson, deputy director transportation and mobility and joined by my colleagues Steven Reho and Chris Hagglin tonight. And we are delighted, as Nuria mentioned, to also be joined by our director Ble Bailey who is here tonight observing and he won't be getting up here just yet. So um before we present on this body of work for the transportation demand management ordinance, I wanted to share a few words about how it relates to previous items that you have heard this year. The TDM ordinance is that

[86:00] third and final installment of the EPIC series known as AMPs, that third leg of the stool that Nuria mentioned, which is access management and parking strategies. the umbrella for many programs that shape how we move around the city. And this ordinance complements the off- streetet and on street parking reforms that you approved earlier this summer. It helps address not just our city goals around transportation and climate, but also the impacts of the other that the other two changes might have on our neighborhoods and our transportation network. And the three work together as a system. I want to thank the interdep departmental staff team that worked on this entire amps effort, including colleagues from planning and development services, community vitality, and the city attorney's office, as well as the consultant team, and thank them for pouring their expertise into what's in your packet tonight. As they have

[87:00] gathered feedback from boards, council, and the community over the last several years, and especially over the last year, staff have carefully considered how to create a TDM ordinance that delivers on the goals of a predictable, streamlined, and effective tool while also calibrating it to apply to only the new developments in our community where we have the greatest opportunity to realize its benefits for all. So now I'd like to hand it over to Chris Hagglin for our staff presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Valerie. Uh Chris Hagglin here. Hopefully you can all hear me well. I am live from New York City. Uh just coincided with a family vacation. Uh but I'm pleased to present to you this item on our transportation demand management ordinance for new development. Next slide, please. Uh as Valerie mentioned, this is the third leg of the stool. Uh you saw the

[88:01] two uh other legs earlier this year uh around residential access management and also the elimination of our minimum parking uh requirements. uh AMPs, the access management and and parking strategy program uh has been for a a while for a long time and these are really the the final projects uh that were listed in the 2017 report. Some other ones included curbside management, performance-based pricing, our uh successful uh Shiitaka access management program just to name a few. I also want to just provide a definition of transportation demand management. It's kind of a jargony term, but really what it is, it's a set of policies, programs, and services that manages demand by shifting travel behavior. That travel behavior can be shifted by mode, by

[89:00] time, by cost or other factors. Uh most well known in our city in terms of TDM programs is the EcoPass. Uh founded in the city of Boulder in in partnership with RTD. It remains one of our most effective tools for changing travel behavior. Other common TDM programs and services include things like vanpool and carpool subsidies, parking cash out programs, micromobility memberships, parking management strategies, and also alternative work schedules and teleawwork which really has uh come to the forefront following co. Next slide please. So why a new ordinance? Uh why was this included as part of our earlier AMP's work? Uh and staff was directed to create a new ordinance. Really, it's about improving on the current one we

[90:00] have. Uh we have a process that uh is only through site review. Um it typically involves the development of a customized TDM plan and for the most part it's been limited to three years. It does use a annual financial guarantee method uh that we are proposing to continue and expand in this new one. Uh with this new development, we're really hoping to clarify expectations for developers, staff, and the future tenants who will benefit from these programs. We are asked to design a new TDM ordinance for new development that sets targets uh for TDM plans that are meaningful. We were also asked to create a program that created a enforcement and monitoring process. And this monitoring

[91:00] process is not only for the purpose of monitoring new developments and its TDM plans, but it's really a part uh a process to improve the design of TDM plans, their implementation over time by continually monitoring and understanding the program and making adjustments to make it better. We also wanted to set some quantifiable goals for those TDM uh plans in terms of what is success uh for a TDM plan that's been implemented at one of these new sites. One of the things we also did is we uh through our history of of doing TDM plans and our look into best practices across the nation, we really developed three fundamental factors uh that guided how we developed our TDM ordinance. Uh, one thing we've learned is that developers can provide infrastructure,

[92:01] they can provide amenities, they can provide a parking supply, but when it comes down to TDM plans, they are really implemented by the tenants that reside in those buildings, whether they're commercial and tenants tenants with employees or residential attendants with with citizens. Um, the third thing is that TDM programs, the most successful ones, the ones that have been proven in our city, they have annual costs. Things like the Eco Pass or subsidizing van pools, providing Bycle memberships, they all have annual costs. And so when we designed the ordinance, we had to take all these factors into account. Next slide, please. when we uh conducted our work with boards and council in the past and with our key stakeholders throughout the amps

[93:01] engagement process with the other two legs of the stool. We developed an overarching purpose for this TDM ordinance. First, it is its purpose is to mitigate the impacts of new development on our transportation system, on adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhoods. We also want this ordinance to enhance access and use of our multim multimodal system which we have had significant investments over time and we wanted to provide access to these proven TDM programs and services uh for the tenants of these new developments. Um because this was part of this three-legged stool. The third purpose of the ordinance is to complement uh the elimination of the minimum parking requirements for new development. When you think about the supply of parking

[94:01] that is provided and the elimination of those minimum standards, the the use of TDM becomes more important to make sure that site works with the parking supply provided. And finally, we were asked to design a TDM ordinance that contributes to our transportation and climate goals by reducing vehicle trips and mobile emissions. Next slide, please. The TDM ordinance is complex. There are many moving pieces that we had to take into consideration and many decisions that we had to make along the way. Uh there were options within each of those decisions and we had to uh rely on our best practices uh research feedback from stakeholders and our experience with TDM plans uh in our

[95:01] own city. And so when we looked at each of these design considerations, we had to figure out what would be the best place to land for the city of Boulder. Some of these design considerations included the application of the ordinance. To which new developments would this ordinance apply to? Would it apply to every single ordinance or every single development project? Or would we limit the number of or uh projects that would trigger this types of ordinance possibly by size, impact or type? We also had to consider what type of TDM programs or services or policies would be required. Now, we could either take an agnostic approach where if we set targets for what we wanted the plan to achieve, we could say we don't really care how they get there. We want them to achieve their target. Or we could take a

[96:01] very prescriptive approach to say that these are three things that are required uh and they must do these things. Uh or we could land in the middle with some flexibility and the ability to customize and innovate. uh we also had to think about the source of payment. As I mentioned, one of the fundamental characteristics is that these TDM programs and the ones that we know work and and work in our city have annual costs. So, we have to think about who is covering those annual costs. We also had to think about how do we estimate how much money um some TDM programs are easy to calculate. the EcoPass, for example, you have to buy it for every employee to get that steeply discounted price or for every residential unit. But other types of TDM program, say vanpool subsidies or a car share uh program may not be taken up by

[97:02] everybody that it is offered to. So we have to look at best practices and our experience to come up with some assumptions on kind of the pickup of those different policies and programs. We also had to determine what was our measurement of success. What would we measure to say these programs, these TDM plans are working. They are mitigating the impacts of this new development. Um we could either be very quantitative uh in our measurement uh and look for verification of implementation or we could say give it your best shot. We also had to think about our monitoring requirements. How long would these TDM requirements be in place? How would we monitor to understand and measure the success of these programs? So over the next few slides, uh, I'll share with you

[98:00] kind of where we landed in each of these design considerations as we developed this new TDM ordinance. Next slide, please. In terms of the application of the ordinance, uh, staff recommends that we apply this ordinance to all new projects that meet thresholds for new floor area. So there has to be an addition of space or a full uh redevelopment of the area. Uh a remodeling of existing space would not trigger uh this types of ordinance. As you remember, our current practice is that TDM plans are only required for projects that are going through site review. So this expands the number of projects which this ordinance would apply to. We also took a tiered approach. Uh we're using a three- tiered approach where we have a tier zero which

[99:00] would be exempt. These are small developments uh that would not have to comply to the ordinance. Tier one would be our mediumsiz uh developments that would have some requirements and then tier two our largest most impactful developments would have additional requirements. Uh the purpose of this tiered approach is really to focus on our most impactful projects and also to manage staff time and cost for managing this types of ordinance program. As I mentioned, in terms of exemptions, we're looking at exempting those smallest projects, tier zero, uh, and the three land uses, MUT4, RH6, and RH7, which already have a TDM ordinance, uh, through 9-9-22, uh, applying to those zones. We also looked at the thresholds uh for the tiered approach and based on our

[100:00] current pipeline of projects that we see, we estimate under our thresholds that will likely see maybe about five different projects, both commercial and residential. Uh so five total, which would likely fall under uh this ordinance each year. Next slide, please. Uh next we had to think about what are the different TDM policies and programs and services which would be required through the ordinance. Uh to maintain some flexibility uh and some innovation we are recommending a package approach. Uh the first package which we have referred to as the EcoPass plus package is founded on uh the EcoPass as being one of the main requirements but also with additional requirements such as bike share memberships uh for commercial

[101:02] van pool subsidies on the residential side car pool uh car share subsidies participation in Dr. Cog's regional TDM program. Way to go. And then specific requirements for either the employee transportation coordinator of a commercial uh property or the property manager of residential pro uh uh residential projects who would uh manage these types of programs and currently do under our existing TDM uh ordinance process. Um, we do know that the EcoPass is our uh most proven uh TDM uh program uh even with some declining service levels which we're hopefully seeing uh return from RTD. But the EcoPass, when we look at uh employees with access to the EcoPass, they are six times more likely to use

[102:00] transit for commute trips and they were over four times more likely to use transit for non-work trips. And this is from our 2022 Boulder Valley employee survey. On the residential side, residents are four times more likely to use uh transit for any one of their trips uh than residents without access to an eco pass. And what really is interesting is residents who have an eco pass also walk and bike more and take significantly less single occupant vehicle uh trips. So this is really our number one package that we would like to see. However, we do know that the eco pass is not appropriate in all areas mainly based on location. So the second package is really looking at the use of a transportation wallet or maybe on the commercial side more of a parking cash out program that provides more flexibility for how the employees or the

[103:00] residents of those new developments use uh the funding that is provided through the annual financial guarantees to purchase uh the the passes or the memberships that they uh choose to. that will most help them uh with their travel expenses. Uh it's always important to remember that in a household budget, transportation is typically the second largest category of household expenditures after um renting, leasing, or owning a property. And so, anything we can do to reduce the costs of transportation uh for both our residents and our non-resident employees is important. Um we were also asked to have a third um package that was really kind of open. This was encouraged by our planning board and tab members to have the ability for a developer to come with a very innovative approach trying out something new. So package 3 is really

[104:01] kind of left open for that uh innovation. Next slide please. uh as I mentioned uh this uh new ordinance would continue our use of financial guarantees. So a financial guarantee is uh right currently is used when uh a new development has a requirement to purchase eco passes to make sure that we're going through uh and those are actually purchased then we're going to hold those and then once they have like a contract with RTD then re release those funds uh to pay for those types of services. uh annual financial guarantees would be used for both tier one and tier two projects. They would be paid by the owner and the developer uh to for the project uh for the uh ordinance. Uh the city holds these and then disperses the money to the tenants to fund those annual TDM

[105:01] projects. Uh for tier 2 projects, there would be a second uh funding source. This is the remedial fund. if they're not meeting their target, a portion of the remedial fund is used to augment the annual fund. Um, we base the annual financial guarantees uh on square footage or the number of units, but it is a little bit more complex like that, which I'll share on the next slide. Next slide, please. So this slide uh shows what the thresholds for the tiers are in some of our general categories of office, retail and light industrial and residential uses of what would trigger a tier one or tier 2 along with the estimates of what those annual financial guarantees would be. The annual financial guarantees for commercial were kind of based on what we would expect. Uh the cost of a TDM program based on providing those uh services and programs to those employees

[106:02] estimated around $200 per employee per year for tier one and 350 for year two. Next slide please. Uh we also pro provided some examples of what some of our tier one and tier 2 uh types of developments would be paying annually uh to pay for these uh required TDM programs and services. Next slide please. Um this does equate to uh annual costs uh borne by the developer or the owner of the property. But with our elimination of our minimum parking standards, it comes with quite a cost savings. Uh building and maintaining parking is expensive. Uh under our current environment without parking requirements, uh developers and owners

[107:03] of property can save significant amounts of money. Uh where one underground space in Boulder is costing close to $100,000 per space. Uh this some of this cost savings can be translated into TDM programs for the tenants of those new properties. Next slide, please. In terms of the metric of success, we're looking at vehicle trip generation. That is really what uh impacts the transportation system and adjacent properties and and surrounding neighborhoods. So, we're looking at a reduction in vehicle trips. These targets would only apply to tier 2. They are based on reductions from IT standards uh which are used in our other TDM ordinance uh which first came about in Boulder Junction. They would have to be done by a third party with a staff provided methodology. Next slide please.

[108:01] In terms of the monitoring process, this is really about tier 2 properties, our largest properties with a target of a 30% reduction below it rates. This is really applied to the residents or the employees. Uh we are not seeking uh to harm any retail establishments. So, we're not looking at customer trips, but really the trips affected by TDM programs, meaning the trips by residents and employees. Uh, they would be required to do an annual trip generation study and provide a report. Uh, if they are compliant three years in a row, uh, annual monitoring ends and we recommend shifting to just checking in every five years with that development. However, if they're out of compliance and not meeting their uh trip generation target, then a portion of the remedial financial guarantee is used to augment to provide additional incentives to those uh tenants and then a new three-year cycle

[109:01] begins. Next slide, please. In terms of board feedback, uh TAB unanimously recommends to city council that they adopt this ordinance. They did ask for staff to explore uh a graduated rate approach to annual financial guarantees. We don't think that's practical given how they're uh determined. Uh they also recommended that uh council direct staff to analyze how we can uh expand the TDM ordinance or requirements for TDM to existing properties retroactively which we have been looking at. In terms of planning board, uh planning board voted unanimously uh to recommend this TDM ordinance to city council without any amendments. Uh they also voted 52 in support of TAB's recommendations. They also had some other individual feedback, some of which we have acted on uh including uh making unbundling parking a

[110:01] requirement for both tier one and tier 2 residential. Next slide, please. In terms of next steps, if this ordinance is passed, then the focus will shift to implementation, designing the internal procedures uh and programs, software updates, everything that goes on with developing a new ordinance program. We'd also be developing developer uh and property owner toolkits uh and then developing the external uh web pages to provide information on the program. We estimate that we would be able to implement this likely after the second quarter of 2026. Next slide, please. Uh we do have a suggested motion uh for city council on that. Uh and at this time uh the presentation is concluded. Look forward to our discussion. Thank you. >> Thank you so much for the presentation. Do council members have any questions

[111:00] about the presentation? I see Tina. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, I had to look up. So, um, yeah, thank you so much for the presentation. Uh, I have a a few questions. So, my first question is, what kind of feedback did we receive from the developer community about the proposal and how were they engaged? Yes. So we engaged them as part of our kind of full amps project where we were looking at all three stools. So we had some uh engagement set up with some uh developers and other stakeholders. I think in general uh there was an understanding that you know this was a cost that would be borne by them uh but that there would be also significant benefits uh to providing these types of programs and services uh to those residents and that it was a tool that

[112:00] would enable uh their ability to build less parking actually be uh be viable and and and workable. and not negatively impact the system. So, uh there's certainly um knowledge and some concerns about that this is going to increase costs, but at the same time there was acknowledgment of benefits. >> Okay. And and at this point, because we've already gotten rid of the parking minimums, this specific move doesn't really connect to that at this point as even though project. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think this is all part of a project. it they were they were all meant to go together. We had to delay this one leg of the stool. But I think it's very critical that all three of these projects remained linked in understanding that when we require less parking supply, TDM becomes more important to make sure that level of parking works and there's not overflow

[113:02] and and uh impacts on surrounding properties or neighborhoods. >> Okay. And does this program apply to um developments in all kinds of special districts including metro districts were we to create one? >> Um well right now it would not apply in a place like Boulder Junction which already has its own uh source of funding for TDM programs through property taxes. If we were to create a special district and perhaps model the district approach uh that we use in Boulder Junction, I think it may be a more appropriate to uh look at a district approach that uses the property taxes to pay for them rather than um this process. So I I think we have options if the if a special district was created on whether we go kind of in this format or what we

[114:00] the process that we currently use in a place like Boulder Junction. >> Okay. Um and then how is the tenant involved in the decision for the method of TDM that they choose to invest in? >> Yeah. So I think this is really where we improve on the current process. So under our current process, oftentimes the developer is submitting a TDM plan, years before the development is even built or constructed and before there are actual tenants. What we're doing here now is we're saying that once tenants are in occupying in the building, we work with those tenants to finalize the TDM plan so that it works for their either employees or their residents. So I think it's a real improvement that we'll be looking at the needs and each year we can adjust the

[115:02] TDM program if we see something is not working and we want to try using the incentives and the funding in a different way. So I think it's a real improvement rather than just kind of guessing prior to even a building being built. We're really waiting till we have the tenants uh to finalize those plans. >> Okay. And is that is there a structured process for that to work with the tenants? >> Yes, that is kind of written in the ordinance about the finalization of the TDM plan. Um, we're want we're wanting to finalize and implement with the tenants involved in the decisions being made on how they're using the money provided by the developer or the owner. >> Okay. Um, and then my last question is, um, so we approved a development a couple weeks ago and it's student housing and it might be in the MU4, RH6

[116:02] or RH7 I think that you mentioned, but I don't know. But in this case, it's 36 units, so it falls beneath the two thresholds, but it's 109 beds. So in terms of people, it would be at the tier 2 threshold. How have we thought about that? um in that case because we're using the dwelling unit rather than a known individual person like we would for the retail or the student perspective just kind of how do we work with that? >> Yes, this was certainly an issue that was brought up and discussed. Um, one of the, you know, certainly what we know with the student housing, if they're university students, uh, they're, uh, attending CU, they already have a significant amount of TDM programs that are provided to them. So, that really kind of changes the equation in one way. Um, but another key factor is things like, you know, if it wasn't just all students, but it was based on a bedroom, things like the RTD neighborhood eco

[117:01] pass have a per unit pricing. Uh, so that was another factor that kind of led to us to continue uh with the units. uh as kind of the the main denomination or the the factor. But I think you know there certainly could be some adjustments we can make over time uh to if we have issues with kind of this new model of student housing that is really where they're leasing bedrooms. I think we could uh modify that uh and adjust over time if that becomes uh an issue for how the ordinance is applied. Uh but we did look at it uh a decision was made to stick uh with the per unit uh for you know the reasons that I mentioned. >> Okay. Thanks. And and that particular development was interesting because it had a lot of five and six bedroom units and I was curious if they're doing individual leases in which case we might have a different type of unit that we

[118:01] could calculate the TDM number on. Yeah, I think we, you know, certainly with that kind of bedroombased student housing, it may require us to make some adjustments for how uh we determine annual financial guarantees and also the types of TDM policies and programs that would be be required since, for example, CU students already have ECO passes and they already receive uh Bcycle memberships through their tuition fees. And then my last question is because we know sort of what the five developments might be this year. I think we have some knowledge of where it might apply. Have we been able to engage with those developers specifically to kind of co-create this? >> Uh I I would ask the city attorney uh for clarification, but I think if they're already in the pipeline, then this ordinance would not apply directly to them. Um, it may be interesting for us to to work with them and see what it

[119:01] how it would be impacting them, but I believe that they would not fall under this ordinance if they're already in our pipeline, but I think Hela can speak to that if necessary. >> Yes, thank you, Chris. Hela Penick with the city attorney's office. If projects already have filed for a site view application, they would be subject to the current standards in effect at the time that the application was filed. So, if it's a site review application, they would still be subject to TDM requirements, but the current ones that are imposed through site review. >> All right. Thanks. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Tina. Next up, we have Mark. Um, >> and then Matt, >> I think the goals of the program are are are wonderful, but one thing I did not see in the memo anywhere was a calculation of what this program is going to cost uh owners of properties um anywhere. I mean, have we done any

[120:01] analysis of for instance a $100,000$100,000 square foot R&D facility? uh what exact what cost are we imposing upon them? It's an annual cost and you know my concern is that it gets a little bit prohibitive. Um have we done that? Can can you answer that? >> Yes. >> Yes. So uh we have established annual financial guarantee rates uh by land use uh by square footage uh for commercial and per unit for residential. So, we have those. Um, and in the presentation, we did have a slide. I know I put it up briefly because I know my I was getting behind on time uh that provided some examples of of what properties in tier one or tier 2 would pay in terms of their annual financial guarantee. So, we have looked at uh some of those uh costs for kind of examples that we see in the

[121:01] city in terms of like here's a property that would fit tier one or tier two and what that annual cost would be. I think Stephen could probably put up that slide. Um, so this provides examples of residential and then four different commercial properties of what they would pay annually in terms of the annual financial guarantees based on what tier they are and the square footage and that would be the annual cost. Uh I know looking at some of these costs, they're relatively high. I think it, you know, important to understand that those TDM programs have these costs. Th that's what they cost. Um the city of Boulder itself, um prior to CO, we were spending over $100,000 a year on eco passes for our uh for our um our employees here at

[122:00] the city of Boulder uh government. Well, the the difference is when the city does that, it's a decision made by uh staff andor this council to employ public funds for that purpose. Um when we assess this against private owners, um that's a fairly robust assessment that we're we're making on them and it's an annual cost. Um and they're not going to pay it in the end. they're just going to increase lease rates since almost all of our newly constructed housing is rental. It's just going to be pushed down on the people who live there. And uh again, I I I think some of these examples show a pretty robust annual cost. And you know, we we we have a tendency um to treat the business community in this town um as oranges, you know, to be squeezed whenever we want a little more juice.

[123:00] And I I'm just not sure um that assessing a um a project close to $100,000 a year um uh isn't it's a form of a tax on them. And uh I know it's a fee, but it it it looks like a tax. >> You said that last week. You're stealing my line. >> I I'm sorry I'm stealing your line. Jump in. Um um my other questions are >> can I call? >> Yes, you can. >> Yeah. Um I thought in the presentation also uh there was a slide that was um also showing the cost of uh building parking, right? And um so I was just wondering if you could just talk through the the comparison there of what it costs to build parking um versus what it costs to do the TDM because we're also reducing the parking spaces. So, in theory, there's some savings there. Is that

[124:00] >> Yes. Um, if Stephen could put up that slide, uh, parking is extremely expensive, uh, to build and maintain, uh, with especially in the city of Boulder. Um, you know, a structured parking above ground, we're looking at $30,000 or more uh, a space underground. um costs are 60 to 100,000. During our engagement with some of our uh the developers that participated in our stakeholder meetings, many of them suggested it was closer to the $100,000 uh range to construct an underground space. Then top of that, there's annual maintenance costs. So, uh, by a project being able to eliminate 10 spaces, 20 spaces, uh, in our new environment of without the minimum parking requirements, that will save significant money. Uh, that then in turn

[125:00] a portion of that could be invested and pay for TDM for years. Uh, and so that is, you know, part of it. I also think, you know, there is a cost, but there's a significant benefit. Uh, as I mentioned, um, household transportation is typically the second highest in a family budget. Uh, things that provide, uh, ways to reduce costs for families, like the EcoPass, is a great way to reduce those costs. Uh, an Eco Pass for a unit starts at $120 per year for the whole unit. If you were to buy just two months of local passes for an individual, you would spend more than that money. So there there are costs, but there are benefits uh and also benefits to helping to meet our city goals. >> And just one or two other questions. Um uh in in terms of uh requirements put upon producers of affordable housing. Um

[126:00] was BHP brought into this conversation at any point? >> Yes. So BHP representatives were part of our stakeholder engagement process. Uh we were considering whether or not to fully exempt affordable housing projects, especially or 100% affordable housing. Uh BHP stakeholders uh recognized the benefit that things like the EcoPass and micromobility memberships have uh on their residents. So they were asked they they wanted to see these types of programs provided. uh where the city landed is that we would choose to subsidize uh those TDM programs at affordable housing programs. That's what we currently do. So essentially continuing our current program. Typically uh under our current system, if a neighborhood EcoPass is required for Boulder Housing Partners, the city subsidizes that at around a 39% subsidy each year. uh and that starts

[127:01] immediately as soon as residents are in the building. So we propose uh not exempting 100% affordable but continuing uh the city subsidies of those programs based on uh the value that BHP places on those types of programs like eco passes or Bcycle memberships. >> Okay. And my very very last question, I promise. Um, attachment D shows the annual financial guarantees um and remedial financial guarantees by land use. Is there an actual theory behind these things? I mean, they they they vary all over the lot from $280 a person for a tier 2 uh household uh to 60 cents per square foot for a hospital amount. C can you enlighten me as to how this stuff was calculated and and is there some sort of overarching uh theory that that ties them together?

[128:03] >> Yeah. So we we looked at the actual cost of providing eco like things like eco passes and other TDM programs that have known costs. We also had to make some assumptions on the pickup rate of programs that would be provided to someone. like if you provide vanpool subsidies, maybe you're looking at 5% of employees taking you up on the offer of that. Uh we also looked at the number of employees or the the square foot uh per employee there. Those vary differently between different types between offices and warehouses. The number of employees that you would have in a given space uh are dramatically different. So, we used uh standard uh kind of rates of how many square foot per employee for those different types and then looked at the actual cost of providing those TDM programs with assumptions of actual use

[129:02] and based on our best practices uh reporting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you, Mark. Next up, I had Matt and then Taiisha. And >> appreciate the presentation and the thoughtfulness certainly how it's the third leg of the of the tripod which is awesome. Uh just maybe some clarifying on how this package approach works. Is each tier in each tier of the package one two three are are those items like an eco pass plus be it eco eco pass bike share car share way to go property manager is is that kind of all a cart for the tenant to choose from once that package has been provided. >> Yeah. So I think you know we're going to look at what package is most appropriate for it and then within the package what are the different options within uh which are most appropriate for those

[130:01] employee tenants or the residents to take advantage of. Uh and we also have to factor in you know a tier 2 has specific targets to reach which may require a higher level uh of incentives. For example, a tier one, maybe you're able to provide a 20% subsidy on van poolool costs, but for a high a tier two where they have a target, you're expecting to to motivate uh greater behavior change, you that may require a higher subsidy amount. But what we really want to do is to within these packages approach be able to work with the tenants to find out what works for their uh employees or residents uh what different programs would work to change their travel behavior and then mitigate those impacts. So uh basically uh you know you start with a package uh and then you you can customize. Okay, that that was going to be my me next one in

[131:00] terms of can you sort of customize within that landscape just answer that call please. So when you said that we would work with the tenants to see what is the best option, is it the city or is it the developer or is it and who in the city is the we? >> Yeah. So we're looking at our transportation and mobility department and our TDM program uh to work with those uh tenants but also like Boulder Chamber transportation connections which is our local transportation management organization uh that is part of the chamber. They can also provide some technical assistance uh throughout this program, but it's really working with um city staff primarily to work with the tenants to finalize TDM plans, see them implemented, receive the reports at the end of the year, whether it's just the annual report or the annual report and the vehicle trip generation study, and then work with them on making any adjustments and improvements over time.

[132:00] So it's really a program that is focused on learning and improving over time uh to make sure that the the programs and the money is being used strategically and wisely and towards the result of changing travel behavior. My next question sort of is a sort of extends on that is in the past or maybe do you envision going forward where there might be a conflict between what maybe the tenants want versus what's being provided and how might that or what's being recommended and how might we reconcile that and what's that process? Well, I think you know for the for the annual reports if we're having some issues, I think part of an annual report is we can do a survey of residents, you know, as an example or survey of employees to get a better idea of why a program is working or why it's not working to make adjustments. I think it's it's critical to take into account the perspective of employees uh and

[133:02] residents in what uh specific transportation programs work for them uh and then making adjustments. Uh you know, we're essentially working within the financial guarantee and the amount of money that's available uh but then working within that to customize that approach. And you know, we may not get it right the first time. we we may have to make adjustments, but I think hearing from those residents uh and employees could be, you know, as a critical part of that evaluation and continuous improvement process. >> Sure. And maybe just the last piece of that is is how would we resolve a conflict? Would that be something that would be staff determined or would that come to council to sort of reconcile differences perhaps between tenants and neighbors and residents in that capacity? How how would we do that? What was that process? Yeah. So I think you know on in terms of the TDM plan and the requirements ultimately that is a staff

[134:00] approved um process. So staff ultimately has to approve uh how the program is implemented and how the annual financial guarantee is being spent. Um I would look to Hela um to perhaps um talk about you know what are the you know if things are driven up uh the the uh decision- making process you know how that is resolved. Generally the requirements of the TDM plan are on the property owner and the way we have the program set up um we set it up so that the property owner can work with the tenants to establish a program that actually works for them and each program requires a TDM coordinator to be appointed for the particular use with the TDM plan um as a as a person to work with the city and the property owner and come up with something that works. So hopefully through that process

[135:01] um there's feed a feedback loop to provide in the TDM plan what's actually desired and will be used and otherwise the program has great flexibility for amending TDM plans that were approved if something doesn't work or u I'm assuming that everybody is going to want to provide something that's actually going to be used. Um, I think we haven't thought so much about there being a a real conflict between the tenants and the property owner since it seems like it's in everybody's interest to find something that ultimately works. >> Fair enough. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Can I call aqu again? Um, who appoints the TDM coordinator? >> I think that would be worked out between the the property owner and the, you know, the the tenants. Uh the tenants would typically select their employee transportation coordinator. This is often someone who is in human resources

[136:03] for example who may be administering things like >> employee. It's a it's an employee of the developer the property owner the the >> correct correct so uh we use a system of employee transportation coordinators currently throughout our TDM work across uh existing businesses. So we worked and oftentimes they're either appointed by their employer or they're a voluntary position and they kind of uh serve as our source of contact uh with TDM programs and services. Uh and oftentimes, you know, we're working with uh a specific person within a residential property management company who uh oversees uh these types of programs. We do that uh and have been doing that for years uh with TDM requirements. We work with the property management company and usually you know there's a primary source of contact uh who serves as kind of that role that we would be working with.

[137:04] >> Thank you. Up next we have Taiisha and then Tara. >> Thank you. I should have uh um colorquad uh during Mark. So I'll do that now. Um on the developer engagement and I was I was looking again to try and find it in the document the information that I'm looking for but I'm specifically interested in the number of developers that you talked to um as well and or the percentage of developers that were engaged in this process. So that's number one. Number two, was there any consideration for uh of a use of a survey? And I guess where I'm going with this is um I care to know more about what they think and I don't feel like I have a sufficient grain size of information um to make that assessment. And so, um, yeah, I was just kind of curious like I'm I I I'm less interested in were they

[138:01] engaged and I'm more interested in um the extent to which they were engaged as well as um the percentage of whom, you know, you know, I I yeah, I just would love to >> know exactly more about that. And just in general in the future, I would love to have survey data with like comments similar to some of the surveys that have been administered by the climate team where they not only administered the survey, but then when there were negative comments, they actually responded back particularly with those that were outside of our areas of influence and authority and pointed them to the right direction. um or provided information as to the rationale as to why you know the direction that the staff is recommending um did not align with theirs. Thank you. Uh that's one qu that's one and then after that I have another. Thank you. >> Okay. Um I don't know offhand exactly how many individual different uh representatives we had from our

[139:00] developer community. Uh we did have a specific stakeholder process. Um, I probably should have linked to some of the earlier uh, AMPs memos that uh, may have described some of that engagement process in more detail because we were really looking at all three legs of the stool and we kind of went through a single engagement process with that. Uh but I did uh in addition to the process we had uh with stakeholders with representatives from uh developers and from the the chamber. Um I also received uh many phone calls and had discussions with with different developers uh throughout this process asking questions uh following the uh stakeholder engagement. But offhand I'm I'm not exactly sure of the count. Uh we did not conduct any specific survey uh of uh the development community in uh as part of

[140:02] this process. >> It was not part of our process. Um, and then my second question was around the Eco Pass. And as somebody who does not have a car at all anymore, um, and exclusively uses either my Eco Pass or my ebike, um, or, um, lifts or buming a ride. Um, I was curious if there had been any considerations for ebikes and scooters, um, especially for those, uh, areas that had been mentioned that were outside of the eco pass. Is that what the visioning was for the custom option? Uh well it's more that you know the eco pass we know is one of the most effective tools in travel in changing travel behavior but sometimes there are developments that are located in areas with very low uh transit level of service. So the eco pass may not be the most appropriate tool for for the job in that case. So that's why it's more that second package. uh in terms of uh access

[141:00] to uh ebikes or electric scooters, it's really looking through our public programs with our BCycle system uh which is uh electric uh assist bicycles and with our e scooter program. So, it's really looking at memberships within those programs, uh, and then access, you know, use of, uh, annual financial guarantees for for, uh, either something like discounted rides or credits for for ecooters, but it was really focused on that public element, not necessarily the the purchase of private uh, ebikes or scooters, although, you know, that's certain something that you could look at as potentially part of a customized package. age approach. >> Okay, so that is something. Okay. And I just say that because I walk a mile to the e to to use my e my my eco pass. So yeah, >> it doesn't work everywhere. Um, >> exactly. We know it's good. >> Thank you. Thank you very much.

[142:03] >> Thank you. And I just want to make a note that to stay on topic or stay on time, we would have to wrap this up in the next 30 minutes and we still have public comment to go. So, I hope you guys think about making your comments efficient. Next up, we have Tara. >> See, I'm going to suffer now because I'm the last one. >> Yes, I'm for comments. >> Well, first I want to colloqui. What do you call Koquy? Col. >> I love that. >> Colloqua. I'm Koqua. A question I have is I think I I'm not sure if Taiisha asked this or not, but can you explain how the B cycle and the lime scooters are they are a part of this, right? >> Correct. >> You're just saying that private ownership or private something is not >> like like someone purchasing their own ebike or scooter using the annual financial guarantee money. we were more focused on like supplying Bcycle

[143:00] memberships or using it as we do in you know uh we can do it uh where discounts are provided for scooter rides. >> Okay, awesome. I'm not cutting I have a very limited time so I'm not cutting you off because I'm mean but you know I got instructions from Lauren. So number two question is um just your opinion maybe Valerie because we talked earlier being that we're on a constrained budget and this program seems a little staffheavy i.e. Don't we at least have a half FTE or NFTT or something? Do you feel that it warrants this or is there a way to make it like less staffheavy? >> Is that for Valerie or >> That's for Valerie. Just G and I hung out today and we talked about it and so I you know >> I hope you're not offended. >> Yeah. And Chris feel free to jump in. Um I think I'll start by saying that uh you know the way this is designed and um you

[144:01] know staff was really mindful about internal resources that are needed to administer it and um we actually do kind of in um anticipate a decrease in like kind of the case processing time for our colleagues in planning and development services because we're really streamlining and standardizing I see a process that exists today and is like this oneoff boutique thing every time um you know a development is is going through this process. So okay um there is some kind of resource um efficiency in in what we've designed and that was very intentional. I do think over time and this is maybe many years down the road we may need to look at additional staff resourcing um if we start to just see a a higher volume of development projects that are coming through at these sizes. Um so I I really appreciate the question. Um, you know, I think uh the the care and attention that staff gave to to making sure that these things

[145:00] are spelled out in the ordinance so that it's very clear and predictable to developers will also help with >> predictability. Check. >> So my next and last final question is is you know obviously we can't force people to change their behavior. So if it's on the residents slash um you know workers to change do I don't understand do do the um developers and businesses get penalized monetarily if they can't you know make it work and how do could you just quickly but quickly just >> sure I would say you know um it's it's really about providing access to these programs programs uh and access to programs that we know that work. You know, I think a great example uh real quick is our downtown. In the downtown, we've created an environment with paid parking, but we provide eco passes for every downtown employee. Uh we're not

[146:02] forcing anybody to use their eco pass. They have access to it. What we see in our downtown is is approximately half of our downtown employees using a single occupant vehicle uh to get to work. uh which is an extraordinary number you know compared to other cities across the country. So it's really about providing that uh access to a tool. We know these tools are useful people use them. It helps them reduce their transportation costs uh and it provides a way to take advantage of uh the amenities and infrastructure that we've invested so much money on. >> That's not my question. My question is is do if it doesn't work out that they've met their goals, do they have to does the do the developers um businesses have to pay you? >> The there there's not a you know a fine system uh set up. Um it's more that you know for a property that doesn't meet

[147:00] it, we can use a portion of the fin uh remedial financial guarantee to increase the amount of incentives and programs we can provide. and we try again and then we can try again. But there's no uh you know penalty uh for not meeting those targets. We want to work with them and adjust the plan over time. Use the annual and remedial financial guarantees to to to find a program that works for them. But there is no additional fines or penalties for not for not meeting the target. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And I'll just add real quick if that's okay to that answer. Chris Chris is right. This is not a punitive process. And I think think of it as technical assistance coming from the city to help them uh tailor fine-tune what are the types of measures that will work and and help them reach those goals. And and also keep in mind that we're not looking for every single person who goes to a commercial property or a residential property to change their behavior every

[148:00] single day. this is try, you know, set at certain kinds of targets that are really, you know, looking at shifting the behavior change just enough that we aren't having those negative impacts on the surrounding transportation system, surrounding neighborhoods. >> Tina, I was kidding. Of course, you can call. >> Thank you. Um, so the financial guarantee is funded by the developer. It's not a partnership between the city and the developer. Correct. It's just the developer. When we do use part of that financial guarantee in case we didn't meet the target, is that replenished by the developer or does it or and is or so and if they do meet the targets within three years, does it go back to the developer or does it stay in guarantee? >> Yes. So, um the we would use you know portions of the remedial financial guarantee that's that second pot of money. uh if that's exhausted with then we you know basically when the remedial financial guarantee is used it creates a new higher level for that annual

[149:00] financial guarantee so those programs and and services in at an enhanced level can be implemented uh and that would need to be replenished if it is unused they're in compliance after three years uh I believe the way we have it written is that uh money can be returned from the remedial financial guarantee All right. Are we good on questions? Can we um start our public comment? I see we have one speaker assigned up. Um Lynn Seagull. >> Mayor Prom. I do not see Lynn online tonight. >> She's here in person. Um, you see, I'd love to support something like this TDM. God, there's an echo here. Stand

[150:00] back. Um, but we don't have a population cap. And the way I see this is we have parking spaces and now we have this parking minimums that's been applied by the state that we have. We have, you know, we can no longer um give, you know, let let developers get away with less parking spaces. Now, they're going to give what parking spaces they want, but each space is, you know, a couple hundred thousand bucks. It's land, you know, and if it's surface, what they say is it's 30,000 or 50,000. I don't think that's correct. You know, this land's too valuable. My space is 1.4 four million and and it's 6,400 square feet my lot, you know, so divided up. It's a lot. The land value is hiking up all the time. And if you're not going to be in a parking space, you're going to be parked. You're going

[151:00] to be parked on the roadways in our community. You're going to be, you know, like congested big time, right? with Sundance, with Area 3 Planning Reserve, with CU South, with a Millennium, with the, you know, I mean, I watch this stuff all the time and, you know, people are not looking around at all the growth that's happening here, but I know ahead of time because I follow all these parts and I see how it's playing out and it's like unsustainable just from my overall, you know, I'm a seagull. the 30,000 foot view, you know, it's it's not good, you know. Um, and and I like the idea, but I I have a vision in 50 years that we're not going to we're not going to have all electric vehicles and we're going to have van pools. We aren't going to have these big buses. Even EV buses are big and dangerous and, you know, jamming up

[152:02] a lot of space. um we're going to have much more flexible com, you know, malleable transportation modalities and I I'm glad for all the things these people are doing. They're very dynamic, but it's just not ready for prime time for me to support at this point. Um I don't know where the Oh, I have some time. Sweet. Um yeah so so it's it's a matter you know and the other thing is we need the jobs housing balance implemented first as part of the comp plan which you know the more population you grow the more service jobs you have for all of that then the more you have to grow for that then you have to move people around still people are always going somewhere the more you densify this place into these apartment buildings they It looks like her time is up. >> They want to go up to the mountains and

[153:00] they want to go somewhere. So, not ready for this yet. >> All right. Now, we are on to comment. >> I saw Ryan with your hand up. I'm very supportive of this and um I agree with Tab's recommendation. >> Oh, no. Crush it. >> Um and I appreciate all of the hard work that staff has put into this and built on a a rich um many years of TDM programming. And I just would like to make a few comments. Um, first I like this because it provides a good supplement to the parking minifims um reform that we're doing which this was initially bundled um together within the same exactly the same package. Um and it it will do that by giving added incentives to those who are dwelling in larger buildings where going forward

[154:01] there might be less parking than there was historically. Uh, and another thing I I really like about it is that it improves on the existing TDM program by creating clear standards for how TDM works and more assurance for how um to to to make sure that TDM commitments are fulfilled. This has been a soft spot and it's it's really great to see what um what what's what it's doing. Um, and one thing I love about this is that it creates a needs assessment to talk with individuals about what they would like to do. And then furthermore, it allows for an annual or intermittent update of that needs assessment. Um, so when I was on tab, these were all features that I and others had wished that the program had. It now is coming forth and it's great. Um, and I don't say yes lightly, um, because creating more density does tend to support better economics of public transportation, including more frequent transit service. Um, and so I do think we need to be circumspect about

[155:00] creating more financial burdens that would inhibit more compact land use. But I see this proposal is crafted in a way that is targeted to the larger facilities. And I think it's appropriate to to do this now um with with the parking reform and um which as we saw will liberate costs at a at a to a far greater degree than this will will add expenses. We saw $30,000 per space um as an average that will no longer be required. So to conclude, what I see we have here is a package that is making a real sophisticated attempt at mode shift and reducing vehicle miles traveled that is led by freeing up money and giving um creating more services. And a lot of people are rightly concerned about the condition of our roads, traffic, and the danger in our streets. And what we are doing now with this policy is part of a wider ants package that will make a real meaningful attempt to create economics

[156:01] and incentives to tackle those challenges. So thanks team. >> Thank you Ryan. I saw Tara with her hand up. >> Ryan, well said 100% agree with you. I just want to add two things. First of all, I did sit in traffic on Arapjo Avenue by the hospital. That made me so badly like never want to drive a single occupancy vehicle ever again. But that's a side note. Um I think that I just want to say to staff that this was such an excellent um what do you call it? Packet piece. And what I liked about it was the part about equity when you talk when you actually talk to the people in the affordable housing. And they said um this was interesting. After conversations with residents, staff determined that the benefit of having access to these programs outweigh the costs. So, they were excited about this. It gives them more options and flexibility that they would say, "Well, we're okay to pay a little bit more so

[157:01] that we can have this, you know, awesome TDM, the awesome TDM benefits." And you know earlier today I was on the fence but you convinced me that this is really a great thing and we really need it to make sure that we can control the impacts of the new developments in the neighborhoods right near the developments so that the as Lynn said rightly so. Um you know the cars are going to park somewhere and people do like to go to the mountain so a lot of people do have cars and so I think we really need this um as the three-legged stool. Thank you for that great analogy. Done. >> Thank you, Tara. Do I see any other comments? Tina, Matt, Mark? >> Yeah, thanks so much for answering all of my questions. It was um really helpful to understand the program and um I'm going to be supporting it. I do just hope that we and and you've said this, so I have faith that this will happen,

[158:00] but continue to really monitor. Um, I am concerned about how much process is being put around in terms of staff time and developer time in order to help people facilitate their travel around town and hope that we remain open-minded to other ways of giving transportation flexibility to individuals that might be more expansive. It might make them use transportation even more. And also just being mindful for all the different people who have different types of lifestyles, whether it's people who have children and need to go to daycarees, which is very difficult to do in a bus or people who are disabled. Um, and so there there are a lot of different challenges people have with transportation. So I hope that the flexibility stays there. Um, thanks. >> Thank you, Tina, Matt, and then Mark. Yeah, I mean I think uh Ryan hit the hit the nail on the head in terms of all the benefits. For me, my only question really kind of leans towards Tina's a little bit in just a monitoring, but also how we check in. Not many of these projects get done in a yearly manner.

[159:01] And so because of that time frame, you know, you don't want to pick an arbitrary time in which case maybe one or two projects get done and maybe they're just having a difficulty versus or maybe they're really good and so it skews how we view it. So I I let's just not sort of give ourselves false benchmarks until there's maybe enough of these to have gone through so that we can actually evaluate successes. So I I just think we want to be flexible to that given that that these things don't happen these projects don't happen at the uh speed in which we would maybe like to evaluate it you know in six months that's just not viable. So um being aware and conscious of that timetable is is helpful for for us who may want to weigh in really quickly. We like to do that but but maybe not on this. It might be a future council that talks about this. >> Thank you, Matt, Mark, and then Nicole. >> I'm going to support this with a degree of reluctance. Um I I think the goal is is worthy. Um I I question the structure a little bit. I question imposing on the

[160:00] property owner uh not only the responsibility for paying for the program, but if the residents don't accept the program and do not meet their goals, we're effectively going back to the uh the property owner and saying it's your fault. Uh and now you have to up the ante and increase the program. Uh that just strikes me as a as a bit odd. Um, I want to just make a comment about an unrelated well, it's a related subject, uh, but it's it's not part of the decision for tonight. Um, in the memo, uh, it stated that the resolutions were passed by TAB and the planning board, um, asking us to examine the possibility of extending this program, uh, to, uh, properties that have already been developed. And uh assuming that doesn't constitute uh some sort of some sort of um uh retroactive legislation um and assuming it's legal,

[161:01] I would still uh strongly disagree with that. I think people developed their properties uh in the context that was uh valid at the time and retroactively imposing this requirement upon them I think will be a nightmare for administration, a nightmare in terms of the additional staff required to uh deal with this for an entire city. And I cannot express um more vigorously the fact that I I think this is um uh an ill-considered request of this council. So uh with that I'm done. >> Thank you, Mark. Next up we have Nicole. >> Thank you. Um I just wanted to uh give a word of appreciation to our transportation team um and also everybody in the city attorney's office who worked on this too. So I know it was a lot. Um, this has been a long time coming. Um, one of the things that I really like about this is how it's set up so that we are um, partnering with

[162:01] the property owners and developers um, to resolve their transportation needs in perpetuity. And I I think that's a really nice way for us to approach these kinds of issues. Um, and uh, I just hope that after um, tonight you can start using the stool instead of building it. Thank you, Nicole. Next up we have Taiisha. I'm absolutely supportive of this direction and my comments around the developers is more so around just making sure that it's you know going to be possible. I mean you know and and and also again this is a continuum of the conversations that I've been or the questions and concerns I've been bringing up around our qualitative um how we are sharing our qualitative findings. Um getting you know just having some consistency on getting comments like I'd like to read their comments directly. um as well, you know, if it's survey data or those kinds of things. But in general, I'm very strongly supportive of the of the shift away from single occupancy, but also mindful that there

[163:02] are um considerations and conditions where vehicles will will be necessary. So, I I feel like the team has found a a meaningful balance moving forward. Um, I also just wanted to lift up the comment around the retro and those who have already um, you know, have buildings and been through this process and I would agree with my colleague that it would be a challenge moving forward. Although I would wonder if there's a way to incentivize something for them to kind of buy in and and and I don't know where that could be, but um, certainly creating pathways where others can follow suit. I think we have similar issues around the wildfire um, ordinances that we have, right? um it only applies to the new, but the majority is already existing. Um and so it's wonderful to have these policies, but when the impact isn't sufficient to meet the demand and the needs of of the entire community, that's where I'm always looking for those inroads to bring those who um were use, you know, built pre the ordinance. How do we bring

[164:01] them along as well? But in general, thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um thank you for this work. And I don't know that I have anything else to add that has not already been said. So I wonder if we might entertain a motion. Brian, >> I'd like to make a motion. Just read it. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8713 amending title 9 land use code BRC1981 to adopt transportation demand management requirements including related amendments to chapter 2 of the city of Boulder design and construction standards originally adopted pursuant to ordinance 5986 and setting forth related details. >> Second. Do you have anything you would like to add to say to your motion you haven't already said? >> I I I I think I've made my comments have been are complete. Thank you. >> Great. >> Thank you. How about you?

[165:02] >> Okay. On that, I think we're ready for a roll call. Elicia. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Let me pull that up. The roll call for the adoption of ordinance 8713 will start with council member Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor pro Tim Folks. >> Yes. >> Council member Marquis. >> Yes. >> Shuhart. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> With the reservations I've already expressed. Yes. >> Winer. >> Yes. >> And Adams? >> Yes. Ordinance 8713 is hereby approved unanimously. >> Thank you. And with that, would you read into the record our next item? >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Our next item is item 6B on tonight's agenda and it is

[166:00] the second reading and consideration of a motion to amend and pass ordinance 8715 amending section 10-3-9 short-term rentals BRC1981 and creating a festival lodging rental license and setting forth related details. >> Thank you so much council. and as staff gets situated, I will uh just simply say um this is a new item for council's consideration. Um and I just want to appreciate uh all the staff that has worked on this. Uh it is not always easy to bring um sort of a new ordinance uh to council. Um but as we think about new opportunities um for community to avail itself, we are uh excited to bring forward this new option. So, with that, I believe Chris, I have bought you enough time to get situated. I turn it over to you. >> You have. Thank you so much. Uh, good evening, council. I'm Chris Meschuk, deputy city manager, and I'm joined here tonight by Brad Mueller, our director of

[167:01] planning and development services, to present to you ordinance 8715, which would create a festival lodging rental license. So, let's talk a little bit of the the purpose and goals. The this idea of this rental license came about uh as a result of the city being awarded and the community being awarded um the host city of the Sundance Film Festival uh starting in 2027 and beyond. As we set out to look at uh this rental license, we identified some goals. The first being to keep it simple. Um, so this license is based on the city's existing short-term rental license and then it uh subtracts from and adds to. Now, I say that we keep it simple when you actually sit and read the ordinance um because it is subtracting and adding from an existing section of code. It's actually really kind of confusing. It just cites lots of other code sections. So, we're going to try and describe it in plain

[168:00] language tonight as well. The other key goal is that we're trying to balance uh this opportunity to add additional lodging in the community during a festival with the desire to ensure that uh the primary use of most of our residential units in the city are for residents to live in our city. And so we're we're we really had that in focus as we crafted this ordinance. And then the last key piece is um right now in the city code you can only hold one type of rental license on uh your housing unit and we want to make sure that we retain that. So if you have a long-term rental license right now you would not be eligible for this festival lodging rental license or if you have an existing short-term rental license you don't need a festival lodging rental license. uh and so we've retained that requirement and I'll talk a little more about that here uh in a minute as well. So let's talk a little bit of what are the requirements for this new festival lodging rental license. Um and again

[169:02] it's based on the existing short-term rental license that we have in the city. Um what we will allow is additional property ownership types to hold this festival license. So, right now, a short-term rental license is restricted on who can even uh be eligible for it based on how they own their property, and we're going to expand that. One of the key aspects of that is that it will allow non-principal residences to hold a festival license. Right now, our short-term rental license is restricted to you can only get it on your principal residence, the house you live in. Um, our current short-term rental licenses require an annual reertification process. This new festival rental license will not require that annual reertification, but we will retain the requirements that you have to sign an affidavit uh to the unit being safe um providing your contact information and that you're going to comply with the existing

[170:00] occupancy standards that are in the building code uh for your housing unit. Then the key thing about this festival lodging rental license is we're going to restrict when you're allowed to use it to only when the city has issued uh a festival event license for a a large festival plus 10 days before that festival starts and nine days after the festival ends. And so that's the key thing about this is even though you have the license, we're going to tell you when the city has approved a festival that then makes your your license eligible to be used for those dates. We will require the $190 application fee um that we require on all of our rental licenses. That pays for the cost of the staff to process the license. It'll be valid for four years. So if you amortize that cost over the four years, it's $47.50 a year is what it would cost. So, now I've talked a lot about a festival, but as you read the memo and the ordinance, we don't actually define

[171:01] what a festival is. Um, and the the license is predicated on the city issuing a festival event license. That license does not exist today. We're in the process of creating that festival event license. And as a part of that, we're going to define what a festival is. So on the screen is a draft working definition of what we are thinking in terms of what's the definition of a festival. It would be something like an event with five or more consecutive days of duration. Uh attendance of more than 50,000 people expected to exceed the capacity of Boulder hotels. So that gives you a bit of an idea of like where we're setting the bar for these sorts of festivals. So if you think about uh a home football game for CU, not not a festival. um one of the many great weekend festivals or or special events that we have in our community um wouldn't meet this definition of a festival. So, it's really geared towards those really big festivals.

[172:00] Couple other considerations to mention is to think about this in kind of the broader portfolio of housing opportunities in the community for visitors is we have our hotels, we have our current yearround short-term rental properties in the city, and then this new license will add a a kind of timelimited opportunity for for residents or other property owners to rent their entire house uh or individual bedrooms for a festival. Uh this also this license creates that regulatory foundation for then a marketable program to homeowners um to be aware of this. And then the last point is the city will collect the the short-term rental tax for any nights that are rented uh by uh a homeowner uh under this festival lodging rental license. We did make some amendments to the ordinance between first reading and tonight. And so I wanted to just go over what those are. They're listed in attachment B in the memo where you kind

[173:00] of saw the highlights and and strikeouts. The first was we had put some language in this section Q3 that was duplicative to really reinforce you can only have one rental license and the language we used was per property. When we actually went and looked again at the section of the code where that language of restricting you to one rental license, the language in that section talks about building, dwelling unit, rooming unit. And so what we realized is our language doesn't match. So rather than copy paste that whole paragraph and duplicate it in this new section, we just deleted that sentence we added and we're letting that other section of the code stand on its own. So the restriction remains but trying not to duplicate code language. The second was um in uh 10-3-9M of the code. So that's the short-term rental regulations. Since we restrict short-term rentals to only be the principal residence, the house you live in, we also restrict that o one

[174:02] applicant or an applicant can only hold one short-term rental license in the whole city because it makes sense, right? It's your primary residence. So you you can only hold one for this license. There is the potential that if somebody owned two dwelling units in the city, they could get this festival license for both of those units. um but we didn't accept that requirement and so we've added that to the list in in Q3 uh as an exception and then the last was in this section Q4 which is where we define when you can use a license a festival rental license um and in the first reading version we had seven days prior and seven days after in conversations with a large festival that might be coming here in a few There's um some of the contractors of that festival um that support some of it come up to 10 days in advance uh and uh for setup and then stay for takedown after. Um, and so

[175:02] we changed the dates to be or the times to be 10 days prior, 10 days after, or nine days after, I should say. If you assume then a 10-day festival in the middle, 10 plus 10 plus 9 equals 29, which is the maximum number of days you could use a festival lodging, rental license uh, per year. So, it still all kind of fits together. So, with that, staff is recommending approval. Uh because there were amendments, it would have to go to third reading. If council passes the ordinance tonight, if you do pass it, we'll put that third reading on the October 9th consent agenda. And if it's passed that night, the ordinance would be effective on November 8th, uh within the first licenses to be issued in early December. If council passes the ordinance tonight, there will be a web page that the city has uh that would go live tomorrow explaining a little bit more, providing FAQs. It would also cor uh provide an opportunity for uh property owners to

[176:01] sign up to be notified when applications are live um if they are interested in applying for them. So with that, here is the draft motion language and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have. All right. Who's first up for questions? Mark. Uh, >> just a couple. Um, if a property owner can actually get a tenant um to lease for 11 months, um, why shouldn't they be permitted to have a festival license and then, uh, afterwards lease to an individual? And just to make sure I heard it right, why shouldn't they be allowed to have kind of an 11-month long-term lease and a >> and then a festival license for for one month? >> Uh, theoretically, they could do that, but most of our uh long-term rentals in the city are for are for a year. No, >> and we want our long-term rentals to be for residents who are living in our

[177:01] community. And so, um, you that's why you, we really don't want the ability for you to be able to carry both licenses and then kick your tenants out because you want to rent during a festival period under a festival license. So, that that's the construct behind it. Are you at all concerned that someone might take a property um if the economics work uh put it out for a festival license, make more money than they ever could with a 12-month um tenant, and leave that property vacant um simply to to take advantage of the userious rates that'll probably be charged to festival attendees. We we did uh play out those scenarios and actually we uh we took some properties that are kind of average an average single unit house and a condo

[178:00] for sale today and we analyzed then what what would that cost be of that that house? What's your down payment, your monthly mortgage payment uh plus utilities? and then looked at what could you rent a short-term rental for, assuming it would even be the the maximum 29 days. Um, it doesn't cash flow. And when you run the numbers, at least in some of the average models we looked at, the debt service coverage ratio is almost zero, if not one, some of them are below zero. Um, and so I'm happy to dive into that in more detail and and show you some numbers. Um, but uh we looked at that and that that's part of why we put a a date limitation or or a number of days limitation uh on the license to ensure that we don't kind of have that speculative let me buy a a housing unit and hold it vacant 11 months of the year. I mean, I don't know what the numbers actually look like, but

[179:01] um if you could rent your home for $4,500 a day, um and that is far in excess of what you can generate per month. Um are you not creating uh an incentive for people to do that and then leave their property vacant for the year? If you can make a year's worth of of income in 29 days or more than a year's worth of income, doesn't that incentivize one to get that income and and just leave the property vacant? And that's not something we would want to see. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I hear that concern and it's something that we look through, too. If you look at what the current kind of average um nightly rental rates are for short-term rentals here in Boulder, they average $150 to $1,500 per night. Uh and we anticipate during a

[180:02] festival, could those prices go up? Is there a premium during a festival? Yeah, there there probably could be. um the likelihood of seeing uh many of those going to that $4500 $5,000 per night rate based on just looking at the market economics um is is we think pretty unlikely. Uh and even if there is what part of what we've looked at is obviously this is this is the best kind of construct of a license that we have tried to put together. we're going to monitor it and if we start to see some of those things happening that maybe are are not in alignment with the goals that we have as a community, we can always bring back amendments and revisions to try and to try and put in those protections. So, it's something that we're we're really thoughtful about uh on the numbers. Uh but even if we look at some other communities that that host large festivals like this um that are

[181:01] even in maybe peak season of other winter sporting events that happen in their communities and you look at the nightly rental rates, they're they're not close to four or $5,000 a night >> because if those rates are attainable, I'll be calling in from Hawaii. >> Is that it, Mark? >> That's it. >> Okay. Up next we have Tina, Taiisha, and then I see Matt. >> Okay. Um, so the question I have is by expanding the ability of non-principal property owners to get the license. What types of houses are those in Boulder right now that we're talking about? So what is the stock and what are the number of homes and what do those who are they rented to now? How are they occupied? >> Yeah, is a great question. The current short-term rental license, and Brad, check me here if I get this if I get this right, is you have to be a natural

[182:01] person where your name is on the deed. Uh it could be that the house is owned by a trust where the beneficiary is a living person. Uh or a nonprofit corporation. Those are the three ownership types that are allowed to be used uh or allowed to apply for a short-term rental license today. and it has to be your principal residence. So, it's really set up that it's somebody who lives in in their house. Um, some additional scenarios, LLC's, if the house is owned by an LLC, they would now be eligible to apply for this uh festival lodging license. Um, there is the potential if there is a somebody who has a second home here in Boulder, they would then now be eligible for this festival license for that short duration period of time. So with the LLC when we think about so we know that the ownership model is an LLC but the other way to get it is if it's your principal residence. So if we just said it was your principal residence and said but then there's any

[183:01] ownership type would that meet the same objective or are you looking to tap into something else? uh we specifically are not requiring that it be a principal residence so that if there are uh homes that are uh the the kind of owner it's not their principal residence like a second home they would be eligible. I I think that's my concern with this wording and I my preference would be to see it as a principal home and the reason is because second homes then are given an extra ability to finance themselves and remain a second home. So it's actually an incentive to be a second home because you can cover the HOA and the rent. So, is there a way to make it because my hope had been to do a vacancy tax and reduce the number of second homes so that we had a more vibrant neighborhood, more people living in homes full-time. Is there a way to structure this so it gets to that goal rather than giving a a

[184:00] better financial standing for second home ownership? >> Maybe I can take a a little bit of a stab at that. So, uh, Brad Mueller again, planning and development services. I think unstated in this regulatory, um, am I not hurt? Okay. uh not not stated as part of this regulatory framework is really the opportunity for marketing which would live outside of the city's uh perview and and is envisioned as part of something that uh the festival or visit Boulder would do and really acknowledging that there is a high potential for the individual unit uh owner occupant types of homes to as Council Member Wallik speaks to maybe decide to leave for two weeks and and then make that home available. And if I can just share a personal experience which I think is backed up by some of the research that uh Chris and folks

[185:01] from the festival and visit Boulder discovered in in their research. Um, I was able to go to the Olympics for example in Barcelona and they were, you know, well well beyond what their normal housing was and I simply uh was able to room in somebody's spare bedroom and that was very deliberate. there was a whole program behind that and that's some of the uh as I understand it and maybe Chris you can validate this but as I understand it as the festival over the years has looked at those types of examples of Olympics and large festivals um this is where the opportunity lies so we we have a fixed amount of housing in in the community we have the hotels as Chris mentioned to the existing short-term rentals which we want to make sure that stays on balance but then but then there's the residents uh living in homes I don't know if you want to >> elaborate on that, Chris. >> In the case where you were living in someone's home, it was their primary home and I is that right? >> Right. And and and I guess that was the

[186:02] point I was making is that could be a point of emphasis for the marketing, but we also know there are going to be those uh smaller percentages of other types of ownership and it seemed prudent to to make those available as well. I'm wondering if we could just start with just primary o ownership and see how it goes and also um really be creative through marketing or through model contract language to um empower and incentivize landlords to allow tenants to rent their uh homes as well, their primary occupants so they would meet that definition. And there might be a way to um I think it would be really helpful for some people in the community who can't afford a second home, but instead are paying monthly rent. That's the group I want to see um enabled or empowered to rent their unit because that could be a real advantage for them financially. >> Yeah. And maybe I'll touch on a couple of those. Um I think as as Brad

[187:02] described, uh there is there's a balance there to strike, right? and and I think that uh the the economics of second homes is something that is we we want to be thoughtful about. Um and then then but ultimately it's kind of a it's a policy call on on the ordinance. Uh on the tenant front, I think that that raises a another interesting kind of really important piece of this and it actually is kind of similar to the the scenario that Brad described of of going to the Olympics of where he stayed in somebody's house. Um and uh for a tenant, the the use of that that unit is through a contractual agreement with their landlord, right? Of course, a lease. Um, and the rental license itself is tied to the unit um, applied for by the owner. So, the tenant doesn't hold the rental license. The

[188:00] owner of that dwelling unit holds the rental license. Um, but tenants are typically allowed to have visitors stay uh, in their their dwelling units um, for a period of time. Like for example, in Boulders, we have like what we call the model lease, which is like a template. Um there's a a clause in there that that visitors can stay for up to x number of days um without approval of the landlord. Um many of those are seven to 14 days based on some some initial research we've done or some of them are written as like up to x number of days per year like 30 days per year. Um, so we think there's actually great opportunities there also for visitors of large festivals to be able to do kind of the scenario that Brad described where you're essentially taking a an empty room in in a in a house that some maybe somebody is renting. Um, and so uh that's something that we are now working on and exploring is to create those opportunities as well. So that the the

[189:02] goal is to be able to house uh visitors during large festivals in the city so that they are not, you know, having to commute far. Um and because half of our housing stock is rentals, um we want to be able to figure out if there's a way through kind of a matchmaking program or something where people could have that opportunity. And I think there's some conversations there to have with with landlords as well. Then my other question is will the definition of festival then be um created and modified as an administrative task or will it be voted on through ordinance? Is is the proposal for it to be administrative and then after the adoption of the ordinance? >> We are trying to figure that out right now. So haven't landed on exactly whether it'll be created administratively or through through ordinance. So um we're working on that here in the next few months. >> Okay. Okay. And then if I want to because this is going to third reading and if I'm want to propose an amendment that we restrict it to start with to princ primary residence but expand it to

[190:02] an LLC. Um is that something I can do? Can I get help with that? >> Yeah, I think it would be an amendment to the ordinance. Yes. And I'm going to look to Teresa. Um but I think we we'd have to figure out exactly what that amendment is if that was something that that council supported. >> Right. And I think it would just be removing the expansion from the non- primary resident because I think we had that primary. So in fact, it would just be in fact a removal of a piece of language that we added. Is that correct? >> I I think so. I'd have to pull up the other section of the code and make sure we have the the code reference correct, but um I think that that's essentially what we would do. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Tina. Next up, we have Taiisha, then Matt, Ryan, and then Nicole. Thank you. Um, I actually was also uh having questions about the rental and I think it's important that we all remember that right now our budget has a $2 million and our renters are paying

[191:01] into that um more than homeowners. So, I just want to honor that this is not some charity quick program, but we are investing in this festival. We I'm a renter investing in this program. So again, I'm just curious about and to your point, although I appreciate the model language. We know that not all renters have that in their leases. So I don't know if you had a chance to see um the questions from former council member Jill Groano, but they were exceptional. And I'm wondering if you all had considered the sublet um pathway for tenants as well as the working with HOAs and for the existing property owners. Yeah, that's a that's an excellent question and um we did review that email and actually I had some exchange with with uh Jill earlier today and so we're going to dive into that because I think especially some of the HOA um language is really a key thing for us to to understand and see if we can figure out

[192:02] um if that's going to be a barrier how to how to potentially help folks. So yeah, we're set to to chat here uh in the next week or so. >> All right. although it doesn't uh it will have impacts. We're making decision before we have that information. So, I'm I'm a little concerned, but I am feeling I I actually support your your amendment at this time. Um and also just had a question about I'm feeling like there's a sense of urgency. Where is this coming from? And and yeah, I'm just curious is it because of the timing and pacing for the pieces and will a delay um or or and wanted to clarify that we can make additional amendments as we go on um for people listening. >> Yeah. The uh I'm going to take a sense of urgency. It was good. So, first just to kind of close out the rental piece since this is about a rental license and rental

[193:00] licenses are tied to the kind of whoever the the owner is of the property. I I think if you want to move forward with with this license now, we're still going to work on the renter piece, too. So, I think we're okay there. Okay. Um uh and then the the second piece on um timing is yes there is uh timing that we're trying to think about in terms of um uh the the 2027 uh Sundance Film Festival which we anticipate maybe would be one of the the festivals to be eligible for this uh license. Um the the dates of that we anticipate to be announced in January of 2026. And so if you think about if there are people who may want to rent their home during that time period, the idea was set up the license now so that then people could apply for it, get their

[194:00] license, figure out if they want to use a property manager um and then that would all happen before uh the dates of uh any large festival are announced. >> Okay, thank you. I'll save my comments for later. Thank you, Tasa. Next up we have Matt and then Ryan and then Nicole. >> Uh so thank you for this and these are some some good questions. Um so maybe just clarifying just again for those listening and those in community. This short-term rental license is for 29 days as proposed and that is for the whole year. So even if there were another f there were more than one festival an individual property would have to if they wanted spread that out but only over 29 days. A few days for this festival a few days for that one but no more than 29 throughout the days regardless of how many of these festivals we have in our community. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. All right. Just wanted to clarify

[195:00] that because I know there was some concern on that. Uh, another question I have is sort of around tracking and and ultimately how do we set up accountability, maybe penalties for abuse or non-compliance. So, could you explain how we would track this maybe like our current short-term rental stuff and and how would we go about if we see that there's abuse or non-compliance, how do we then create the accountability and maybe penalties, one for deterrence, but two also for uh reconciliation for for any set overs oversteps? >> Yeah, it's a great question and >> I can I can speak to enforcement. I think you could dive in on that. >> So, we would anticipate that it would be monitored in the same way we monitor all rentals right now, which is largely by um uh we have a whole uh software and a partner that we use to monitor the advertising of of rentals. and our current enforcement, which is hundreds a year, is to say, "Hey, you're representing this property as a short-term rental or as a long-term

[196:00] rental." And yet, we don't have record of a license. So, we have a conversation with those folks. Sometimes they're eligible for that and then they go ahead and get the license. Sometimes they're not. Um, we would use that same um technique in in monitoring this as well. Um, part of the benefit of having those advertisements well in advance is to be able to monitor that. We also know realistically that there would be a rush during the time and and some of that will um inevitably be anecdotal and and hearing what we what we uh hear from various property owners and what we see in the marketplace. But uh but we are confident that there would be a way to do enforcement on that. And then I think you had a second question. >> Well, I mean what is that enforcement? And again, I want to make sure I want to know that in this process that it's lucrative for folks that the known penalty for either not having it on a known website for us to track and therefore get the remittance of the sales of the of the short-term rental tax or do other things

[197:01] that are a foul of stuff that one, it's known that, oh, this carries a significant fine or some penalty. So, there's clear deterrence, but also should it happen, the city is made whole as a product of that overstep. So, so I know that we say enforcement. Do have we thought about what that exactly is and how we would do that and what those penalties would be? >> Yeah, thank you for that uh question, Councilman. I would say um that's good feedback for us to in think about whether we want to be monitoring that for some quicker action enforcement. We do have the tools in place already. Uh it is true that that tends to um be based on the fact that folks are trying to get an ongoing license or abusing that in a long-term fashion. And so we we take it through an enforcement process of escalating um which ultimately can start with fines but then go to a court hearing and that type of thing.

[198:00] Um, what I'm hearing as a a question from you is how do we do that in a time frame that's responsive and doesn't let just people kind of skate by? And so I think that's a good thing for us to both monitor and think further about. >> I would appreciate that because a lot of folks if they're coming in from the outside may not understand the values we hold and the seriousness in which we want people to play above the board. So I think being forward with that is an important thing for us to do. So, I'd appreciate you guys looking into that upon, you know, how we implement this and how we show um why we want compliance. Um the last one really comes down, I think you're hearing a theme here about, you know, concerns about the speculative investments and I get that it may not pencil out, but I do think that this is a dynamic thing that we want to be able to rapidly adjust to should things turn. may not be this year, but it could be in three years that the economics of this dramatically shift and we're put in a tough spot. And so I want to make sure that any of those remedies,

[199:01] if we look to implement them after we've done this, that aren't seen as retroactive and therefore perhaps we lose that tool. So it might be of consideration to have these guardrails in place on the front end than to think about it retroactively because as we've sort of seen there's an allergy to retroactiveness. But if it's there to begin with then we have a guardrail. So maybe just consider that on the front end. Even if it may not be implementable now or it may not affect properties now maybe it will down the road. And with that there's one example instead of the speculative of investing. I've actually talked to two folks that live on my street who are in their 70s. They don't pay a mortgage, so they don't have that cost and they're considering moving um in time to uh you know, whether it be the academy or Fraser Meadows, in which case they have now a financial incentive to hold on to their house. The the house costs them almost nothing. So they're house rich, cash poor, and they're going to downsize. in which case they can just be like, I'm going to hold on to the

[200:00] house, let this thing go, and maybe when I go in 10 years, the kids have something to sell, but in the meantime, it's not just a loss leader on the books because it can make, you know, 30, 40 grand a year for the short-term thing, and meanwhile, it sits empty on a street with two schools within a quarter mile. So, it isn't just the speculative market. It might be the inability for these homes to then be liberated back into the housing supply, which I think addresses one of the concerns that we're hearing here about constricting that housing supply and making sure it's liberated. So there's another side to that. >> Yep. No, I appreciate you sharing that as a another one of those hypothetical examples. And I think to your point, the being able to monitor this and if we see things to be able to bring forward amendments would be would be something that we're very much focused on. >> Thank you. Uh up next we have Ryan and Nicole. >> Okay. I have a I think a question or two. Um, so when we looked at the um, occupancy or the vacancy fee a few months ago, I remember that we heard

[201:01] there's probably between a,000 and 4,000 units vacant, something like that, more than half the year. My numbers may or may not be right, but just if you stipulate that we had a number, what I'm getting from this conversation is that there's concern that the economics will may change that number. And so, for example, you have an you have somebody who owns a rental property. It's $4,000 a month for rent. So, that's 48,000 a year. Somebody from um you know, a Sundance uh uh visitor says, "I'll give you 60K." Um it doesn't you don't have to call it a short-term rental. I'm I'll just give you 60K for the year. Um and so now you have 4,0001 or whatever. Um you know, you're add there's an adder to what our current stock is. So it feels to me like that's there's a collective concern here that we are ch might be fundamentally changing the economics and driving up rent and it's a little bit separate from what whatever you're you're calling the the the duration of

[202:01] the license if somebody's going to pay the whole fee. So, I guess if you'd maybe you're welcome to comment on my the premise, but assuming that that's close enough. Um, can I don't know if Nuri or Chris give a reminder on where do we leave it with the vacancy fee tax matter and is that coming up again soon and could be a part of this discussion? >> Yeah, maybe I'll start and then others can chime in here too. when we when we were looking at the that vacancy fee or vacancy tax, we did do some analysis um and there was some some data analysis that had been done initially that was wondering was it in that 3 to 4,000 housing unit range. Um the more refined analysis that we did based on um utility water utility usage, we found about 800 uh second homes in the community. Um so where exactly is that number somewhere in there. Um the discussion that council had as a part of ballot items was not to bring it forward for

[203:00] this year. Um but maybe that's a future year conversation. So that could be something and Nuria check me here. That could be something that's a priority conversation for council next year. Uh if you wanted to look at that. The the other thing that I'll maybe just bring up on the the economics and the other piece that I didn't share is is I think there is this fear that people are going to rent for like $5,000 a night. Um I think the thing to remember is we're in a a geographic region. Um and that geographic region is going to economically balance itself. So, if you're coming to visit for the festival uh or a festival and um you're trying to find a place to stay and you can get a hotel room in Broomfield for 200 bucks a night or rent a house in Boulder uh for $2,000 a night, you're going to make a choice there. And for some people, the location really matters to them and they'll pay a premium for that. For other people, they're gonna they're going to stay down the road and take the bus in. And so I think there's a just a

[204:01] the market is going to balance itself and we're going to monitor that of course too. Um but I I I do I do think this concern of four and $5,000 a night rentals um we're we're not seeing it in the data um at this point and again that we we'll monitor it to be sure but so I I I think there's a balance to to strike there. So I don't know Nuria if you have others to add. I just wanted to underscore what you were saying, Chris, and maybe a little bit by experience, right? Having um been in other cities where large festivals like these happen, right? You you just don't see this. To to Chris's point, the market does balance itself at some point. um >> being part of Austin City Limits, >> being part of Austin City Limits or Southby or even Super Bowl where you would think on a weekend things would um escalate or other large festivals in other cities that you look at. You you just don't see it. I know that there is a fear of that in community. Um and I

[205:01] think it's about really taking a hard look at it, but there are so many other options. We will be continuously looking um to see what that um what the impact is and frankly I think this is where enforcement tools will be a very important thing as we think about um are there folks that are abusing the system but I I will say that experience shows that um at at some point it really settles out because people have different options. That's that's just the reality. >> Thanks. Okay. I think I just have one followup then. So um um I'm thinking if we go we say okay let's be optimistic that this um in the first year we we shouldn't expect um a significant new number of homes to be you know just basically homes for this um for this festival to which would increase the the vacant the vacant homes. But let's say we let's say that's

[206:00] wrong. My question is actually can can we can we measure can we plan to measure that? So like let's say if we go forward with with the ordinance more or less as is can we make would we be able to make a commitment to checking and seeing what happens and then if we find out actually it did have an effect then we would be looking seriously at I guess the vacancy tax fee whatever we Yeah. >> Yeah. I think we could we could do a monitoring because we're creating a license now. We're going to know every property that holds that license. So, we could look at property ownership records and that sort of thing to see uh if it tells us anything and I think that's something that we could use as a monitoring tool. >> Okay, I'm good for questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ryan. Up next, I have Nicole. >> Thank you. Um and Ryan, that last question kind of uh led into mine. Um which is what is our process and plan for monitoring some of this? Um because I I've heard folks bring up things like um being worried about the festival rental prices being skyhigh. Um uh

[207:02] increasing the number of vacancies in the city. Um maybe increasing the percentage of second homes that people have um potentially having an impact on hotels. So can can you just talk a little bit about what I assume we're going to monitor somehow? >> Yeah. Yeah. And I would I would say we probably don't have a a full kind of monitoring plan set up now. Um but I think the factors that you just described are the sort of indicators that we would look for. So I think this is something that we can we can set up and have a plan for how we're going to do that while we're actually building the the application process here. Um so we're still very much on the front end. So, I think we'd be able to be set up to then be able to have monitoring uh kind of apparatus for lack of a better description uh in place before people start applying for licenses. >> Um and then I had a couple more questions. Um one is um did you talk with Park City, Salt Lake

[208:00] City around some of this and what they've experienced because they have 47 years of data and experience as well. So, just wondering if you could share a little about that. Yeah, the the city and various city staff have been connecting with kind of counterparts um in in Park City to learn about for the Sundance Film Festival specifically all of that experience. And so there's lots of folks that have had connections and so we're learning a lot of what they've learned over time. And one of the key things that that uh that they've experienced and that we have have seen that they've done is um they do iterate and evolve their regulations over time um as they experience new things or they learn something. And so we anticipate and and even in our conversations with the Sundance Institute staff, we all kind of have this mantra of we're going to learn a lot in year one. and we'll adjust for year two and we'll then adjust again for year three. And so, uh, I think that's very much a bit of kind of the ethos of how we're approaching this as well.

[209:01] >> Great. Thank you. Um, and then, uh, one other question, Justin, I I really appreciate you're thinking about um, how to make this work for renters as well. Um, with that, um, are we talking with TAC, HAB, Barhov, kind of some of the usual folks who who talk with us about those kind of things? Yeah, we've just started to kind of do the preliminary research, so we haven't enga done any of that engagement yet, but I think uh those are all going to be sort of critical audiences for us to think about and figure out who the right folks are to engage. Um uh and and so more to come on that for sure. >> Okay, thank you. Um and then just one last uh procedural question because I know some folks have talked about u making some changes tonight since we're sort of already going to third reading. If we make changes tonight, does that apply to third reading or does that kick it into another reading? >> Thanks for the question. Uh, it depends on how clear the those amendments are. If they're very clear, then we could we

[210:02] could proceed to third reading and be fine. Um, if if there's something that staff needs to draft and bring back, then we would need to go to a fourth. Was that it? Great. Um, I had just a quick question. Um, maybe quick. We'll see. Um, I noticed that the application fee is pretty similar for um the short-term rental license versus the festival license. And I was wondering a little bit about that just because it does look like the requirements are significantly less. So I would assume that the administration of it would be somewhat less. Maybe you could talk a little bit more about that. >> Yeah, it it's a it's a good question and and the way those fees are set up is it is to kind of cover the the cost of

[211:00] processing that application. Um, and the way that fee is set up in the in the code now, whether it's a long-term rental license, a short-term rental license, and if we add this festival rental license, it in the code, the the fee is just for a rental license, any one of those. Um, if it's a long-term rental license, there's a safety co inspection component that's an additional fee. Um, and so as we were looking at should we consider is it a different fee, the the kind of processing time of each of those applications is similar, the long-term rental that has the uh the safety affidavit and inspections that go along with it, that's that extra uh cost. And so we saw it is that I think it it made sense that for the actual just kind of pure application portion of it, they're they're on par. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[212:02] And I see Tina wants to go back for seconds on questions. >> Yeah. So, when we just talked about a lot of things, one is that the second home market might be around 800 units. The other is that we feel that the the the demand is going to balance out, that there's enough enough options in the surrounding areas that people can choose. My question is, how important is it for this strategy that we're pursuing to include those 800 second home units so that they have a new financial opportunity? Like is this a critical part of what we're doing or is this something that we could just put those 800 units off, do the rest, see how it goes, and not have to take something away? That's really hard to do. Um, so could we start this way and then add it if we see that we're we really can't house people the way they want to be housed? >> Yeah, I think it's a this is a great this is the policy conversation, right?

[213:01] So, if you really think about it of uh we for very round numbers, roughly 20,000 dwelling units in the city that are that are o owner owned and and not rented, not with a long-term rental license. um 20 to 25,000. So it's 800 of that. So is it is it critical in terms of numbers uh from a numbers standpoint? No, probably not. Would the uh would it be likely? Probably that somebody if they had a second home, would they want to rent during a festival if you know they've got it furnished and kind of ready to go? Yeah, maybe they would. Um but ultimately I think it's policy call. Um, and I think that's something that that ultimately you all could could decide. >> So, I mean, I think we have a couple colloquies on that too potentially. Well, I was going to call you on myself, but I'll let you guys call you for

[214:01] >> Well, I was wondering how that an ADU would play into this because say you have a primary residence that you're is your primary residence and then an ADU behind it that you typically don't rent out but is an ADU. um that am I correct in that that would not be a primary residence that it would be helpful to have this set up the way it is >> or >> is it how would that work with ADUs >> yeah that's a really interesting question because it is it's the question is is the ADU of your primary residence and because you don't live in the ADU you live in the primary house I I think, and maybe we'd have to research this further, but I I think that would maybe be uh that would exclude then ADUs from being eligible >> because I think if that's the case, then

[215:00] having this written kept the way it is would, in my opinion, open up quite a bit of housing. >> Brad may have a better interpretation. >> We can double check. I I believe that actually for the purposes of rentals, um the ADU is considered its own structure. that that gets to that qualifier. And so we do have situations already where there's a long-term rental in a um in the principal building and then the a short-term rental for example in the in the ADU. Um so the key point would be that you can't have more than one license as we've as we've emphasized. Um but I believe that they're considered a separate unit, but we'll we'll triple check that and get back to you for the purposes of licensing. Yeah, they're considered a separate unit. So if your primary residence is the house, then the ADU is not your primary residence. And if we exclude primary

[216:00] housing that is not the primary residence, we would exclude that ADU from being rented for this event. >> I see what you're asking. Yep. Potentially. >> Yeah, we would have to be careful with that. language. >> Thank you. >> Taisha, would you like Yes. Thank you very much. >> Um, and thank you for asking that question. I hadn't even considered that. Um, I was wondering if we have any intel from our surrounding cities that they may be considering something similar. Thank you. Okay. >> Uh I will say without committing our surrounding cities that I have heard interest in doing something and they are anxiously awaiting approval of this so that they may consider what this ordinance may look like um in their communities uh because they're curious about it uh favorably curious about it um because they know that the festival will be something that um is something

[217:00] that has regional impacts and so they're curious about it as well. So, I have heard very positive feedback um and am hoping to share once we um have approval on our short-term rental ordinance. >> Thank you, Tina, for your patience. >> Um is there a way to structure it so ADUs can be treated differently? Because I think we treat them differently frequently. So, even when we were discussing the legislation, we talked about different rules. if there was an owner occupied primary residence even though we lifted that kind of rental did no longer needed to be primary owner occupied right >> yeah I think I think kind of exploring this ADU piece is something we'd probably have to go and do some research and then figure out how to draft something around that probably not something we could do on the fly tonight but um Teresa is confirming my assumption there um but it's something that if if council is interested in that

[218:00] we could go do some work around And I I will say we we may not be ready to make decision. I may not be ready to vote on this ordinance tonight um given some of the outstanding questions. I'm just throwing that out for my colleagues. >> I agree. I just really have to think over the primary home thing. I just have to think it over. I saw Teresa reaching for her mic. Is there anything you would like to share with us at this point? A council member um who feels unprepared to vote on a particular item um has a couple of options. The first is a motion to continue uh to a date certain in the future. So um that that is a possibility. Um, as

[219:00] you'll recall, you cannot abstain from a vote. An abstension is a yes vote. Um, so so e either you vote tonight or you move it. Sorry. >> Or we could also vote no tonight on the motion. >> Well, yes. I I'm sorry. I meant to say you vote. I I didn't mean vote in favor or or against. That's up to you. Thank you, Teresa. Uh, Tina, >> can I have a >> Sorry, just a question on just but to clarify, if we voted no, then we can't do this again, right? We wouldn't be relitigating the same proposal. So, if the council were if the council were um to vote if a majority of council were to vote no on this tonight, uh then absent some direction to bring it back in some other form,

[220:02] it would be dead. >> Thank you, Teresa. >> I also have a process question. >> Okay, process question. If we want to clarify the AD issue, ADU issue, does it need to be a part of this specific motion? There are a couple of I got it. >> No, it's just >> I got a couple of options for you. Um, so the first is you could provide some direction tonight. Staff could go back and do some research and drafting. um and it could come back for a subsequent reading. Um I would recommend in that instance a motion to continue to a date certain and can we continue it to just the next date it was coming up which is October 9th I believe.

[221:00] >> Sure. That's plenty of time. >> It's just an ADU and a residence owner. Okay. I also have questions from Mark and Nicole, but >> are they on this piece? >> On >> would it be a qual a colloquy or is it a new question? >> Okay. Colloquy's questions on this part. >> It's not a question. >> It's just a comment. We're not in comments at the moment. >> I have a call. >> Okay, Matt. >> All right. So, call on here in ter. Okay. So, I just want to be clear. Uh saying no would mean obviously you explain that we could vote yes or date certain. Couldn't we also isn't there also a path that if we want to move this forward as is? There's still a way in which we could amend this in like if you were you know

[222:03] we passed this to give some certainty that we're moving forward and some predictability for folks community visit Boulder you name it partners pro perspective festivals and then come back in January or or something with like hey we have a little addition or revision and make it then so I just want to be clear that's is that also a remedy to some of the concerns I've heard rather than a date certain a yes or no vote tonight. Yeah, thank you, council member. You're absolutely right and um that was an option that I absolutely should have put on the table. Uh as we've said, we we expect we anticipate some lessons learned about this. So, we anticipate some additional amendments. Um that doesn't mean that we have to wait a full year for those amendments. And so, um you certainly could move this forward with some additional direction. >> Thank you for that clarification. I have colloqui questions from Nicole

[223:00] and Mark. >> Yes, thank you. I remember my question. Um, which is so you know, you're talking about continuing stuff forward tonight, looking into other things. I mean, you all already have full plates and then some. Um, so I expect that sort of makes it harder for you to continue working on some of the other things that you are tasked with as well. if we were to go and ask you to to look for new things right now this fall. >> Is that correct? >> Um yeah, if I can kind of uh give one perspective on that, we we've always known that leading up to the festival was going to be iterative and that we were going to lean into it and by creating some certainty and I appreciate the leadership of the city encouraging this kind of early thought process so that we can think about things. Also the feedback from council tonight about well maybe there's other things of enforcement we need to think about that's good feedback and this is work we can do and already anticipated. So I we

[224:01] always appreciate your you know acknowledgement of workload but um I would say this is part of a larger program we're already anticipating and it would actually frankly probably help us to to notch one certainty so that we can work on others. I was just gonna probably double down a little bit on what Brad described of of if if the will of council tonight is to uh approve this and whether it's with a a few small amendments tonight or not, but then have us go follow up on a few things. That would be probably our preference on approach. If if council's comfortable with that approach, um that that would be what we would prefer. I I would just agree and say this festival is going to ask a lot of new things of us, right? And we're going to have to move pretty quickly as we move forward. We know there will be amendments, right, to a variety of things that we are bringing. This is one domino. We will continue to work on

[225:00] additional amendments as we move forward. This is but one. There were a lot of things that need to come into fruition uh as we continue to work in partnership. um with the Sundance Institute, with other partners on this. Um so being able to continue to move forward is extraordinarily critical for us, but it also is critical to hear and to make sure that what we're doing continues to align with our values. So please know that we hear you and we will continue to move that forward as we're working on this. Um so we can do two continuous things. walk and chew gum right at the same time as we're moving forward and um just ask for your support. >> Thank you for that. Teresa, I see the light is on on your mic. Do you want to do you want to add to that or >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I think we're having a really great discussion. I did just

[226:01] want to do a time check. That is if we were to finish the item in the amount of time we have scheduled, we have 20 minutes left for it. Um, Mark has a question and Taiisha has a question and I would like us to get to our public comment soon. >> It's a question for the city manager. If we declined to proceed with this ordinance or vote it down, would that have a material adverse impact on our relationship with the uh sponsors of the Sundance Festival? >> Honestly, I believe it could. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Was a loaded question. >> Is that it? Okay, Taiisha. >> All right, with that I think we can move into public comment. Um, we only have one person signed up for comment tonight and that is Lynn Seagull.

[227:15] my aunt. She's not really my aunt. The Jewish side, she's my dad's cousin's wife. She always said I lived in I was born in Hollywood in Kaiser. On my birth certificate, it says Sunland Kaiser. So then we have this Kaiser thing like you know why did Park City get rid of Sundance you know have any of you really thought about that you know 83,000 people 2800 hotel rooms in Boulder this is like huge huge I'm a Hollywood girl

[228:01] if that's where I was born. But I think I'm really, it says on my birth certificate, Sunland, I'm really all about geothermal and solar energy to run my geo, you know. So, but I'm not really that Hollywood oriented, you know. I didn't get to vote for this. I'd love to, you know, vote tonight, but I, you know, like this is a huge thing and I didn't have this choice. And I love Sundance. I love independent film. I, you know, but it's like all of this hype hype. I haven't watched TV for 40 years, TV even, you know, and I'm I'm going okay. I'm doing okay without that stuff. I don't know. Uh, I say this is for continuence, you know, and and really it's for like I didn't want Sundance at

[229:00] all. I don't want to be a bully that I, you know, I'm I'm the one that doesn't want Sundance, but we got these football games that are like killer games. You know, we've got this just, you know, I'm sorry, my dad, he's still in me. You know, 48 50 in Boulder, 40, 1948 and 50, you know, it was too big then my dad. Um, so I'm going to say and and as far as this festival license, what's the necessity of that, you know? I mean, I was over occupied for years, you know? I had up to 17 people in my house at one time, but I was always there. I was around. I was on my bike. I could be there in five seconds, you know, but and I don't think it's gonna anyone else would do something like

[230:00] that, but just it's just a really a really lucrative opportunity here. This this giant movie thing. I mean, we've got Elon's brother here. We've got enough big stuff. >> Thank you, Lynn. Smaller's better. All right, comments. I saw Nicole. Yes. Um, Matt's last question got to where I've been coming to tonight. Um, which is that we're embarking on a citywide experiment. You all have done a lot of background research. um you've talked with a lot of partners both here in our community as well as in Utah um and at the state level and I think you've designed a really solid starting place um based on what you've learned. Um most of the things that we do are not

[231:00] static in the city. Uh they change a lot over time. Um I don't think that anything new is ever perfect. Uh but you've you've gotten us a a good chunk of the way toward where we're likely going to end up. And um I am totally comfortable moving this forward tonight knowing that we are going to be looking at this monitoring um seeing how the impacts are going to um come over time and that we will be able to change things. It is not we're not writing anything in stone tonight. Everything is flexible as we move forward. >> Thank you Nicole. Next up I have Taiisha, then Matt, then Ryan, then Tara. >> Thank you. Um, my grandfather said and taught us that our word is the most valuable thing that we own and to use it wisely. I have concerns about the second home component specifically. I'm fine with the ADU piece. I'm fine with the rental piece and knowing that those pieces will come, but I have a problem setting expectations for second

[232:00] homeowners that we would then potentially change within four months. Um, so that's my concern um with this piece. I'm also wanting to honor the comments from the racial equity tool that was explicit about this not being equitable to renters. So again, this is a city that loves to lift up their racial equity tool and this tool is telling us something very specific by a group that is actually the majority of our city. And so we know that second homes have a disproportionate impact to renters and therefore um I would be very open to any amendment that would just remove that clause. And as this group has said so beautifully today, we can make adjustments in the back in later on uh after we get a more robust analysis. And I'm especially interested in getting actual numbers from Park City and other places that have had these this large of a festival. I mean, I'm even open to looking at other international cities that have hosted something this large

[233:01] because I know there aren't as many. And I'm especially interested in looking at cities that are comparable to the city of Boulder. Um, and the prices that we have here, the wealth that we have here. Um, I think it's really important when we're talking about com uh comparables that we we have that consistency um there. But in general, I think it's absolutely essential that we have this option. I I applaud the staff for for these different pathways and especially the willingness um to continue to refine particularly the ADU and the renter piece renter piece especially considering that we are giving more in taxes to make this festival happen than home owners. Um but uh again would be open to any amendment that would just remove the second home piece. Thank you. >> Thank you Taiisha. Next I have Matt, Ryan, and Tara and Tina. >> So, so I actually got a little heartburn uh in a little bit of the discussion

[234:01] that there was even a consideration of saying no to this. Um that to me seems a non-starter um given what we've done to create the opportunity for a festival like Sundance or others to come. We have immensely critical economic vitality issues and shots in the arm don't come that often. this and others will do that. So I think the most prudent thing to do is if there's concerns is to and certainly with what staff has said in terms of the flexibility, the living nature of this document to continue to tweak, modify, and make improvements, that most prudent thing is to take what we've got, there is a critical um a striking of a word for for for reasons I'll make an amendment for, but it's not not totally that substantive. But outside of that, we need to pass this and let staff continue to curate some of those changes. I think that's the most important thing for us to do, especially we we can say how it is for second homeowners or for or for festivals like Sundance. We need to do this for our

[235:00] local businesses and for workers in our community who are looking at this and saying, "Oh my gosh, this is going to come. This is an opportunity for us to to to do better economically. We need to give some certainty that that that will continue to be the case." So the most prudent thing I think we pass this with a small little uh scalpled amendment and then we allow staff to tweak the ADUs and come back to us with some of these other pieces. I think that is the the most prudent and best thing for us to do going forward. >> Point of clarification. So your request your recommendation is to to move forward except for the change that you want to make. >> No, no, no. It's it's it's based on an error in it was an error in the co in in the drafting. >> Okay. So this is not >> this isn't personal. It was a question that was raised which which illuminated an error in the drafting of this. >> Oh, from the one that you mentioned before the first bill. >> Yeah. I mean, I'll just say it now. I was going to bring up evaluate it in the moment if you want to, but it was >> not necessary. A drafting error. >> All right. We have Ryan and then Tara, Tina. >> Okay. Uh, a few things. First and most

[236:01] important, I would just like to um adopt what Nicole said. I think this overall is great and it's a big experiment and um there's just a lot of things that need to start moving to move forward. we'll have chances to refine and um and and also picking up on something Taiisha said I I do think it's you know this is the will be the first of 10 of 10 years um that we have to go and so ju just if we can adopt a clause here that is that we will be um trying something for the first year and we will need to be making a lot of evaluation and possibly revising as we go and that that should such that we should protect against you know portraying that we would be going back on our word if we changed after the first year. We should just make that clear to anybody who is seeking to benefit from whatever policy we put together that we're gonna have to just evaluate it after the first year and go from there. So, that's my first thing. Um the second thing is on the the HOA's um uh proposal idea that Jill Gray, I

[237:01] think this is so important. Most of our homes are in HOAs and um we if we seek to um unlock homes in HOAs to benefit from this, I I I think it we would need to work with HOA associations, administrators directly to help encourage and facilitate that. As a quick side note, this has come up in a couple of other um uh policy discussions recently on um I think around the BBCP and maybe the fire stuff. just the idea that um HOAs are they have a lot of power over how we enable homeowners. So maybe this becomes a vehicle to launch some more of that. Um and then the final thing is more on the substance of the policy and the relationship with the vacancy fee. Um I agree with the concerns I've heard a lot of colleagues say about the possibility that current rentals might be put to misuse. Um, I'm just I'm not sure about

[238:01] the solution. Um, I think this is actually a problem that is beyond the matter of short-term rental licenses. This is a problem of will a festival goer out compete a full-time resident on annual rent. That is the question. And I've heard some optimism from staff that that's probably not going to come to pass. Um, and so I think as long as we have the ability and a plan to just keep an eye on that and be prepared to, you know, come come forward to address it, I I think that's probably the right approach. Thanks. >> Thank you, Ryan. Next, we have Tara, then Tina, and then Mark. >> First of all, I think we basically promised Sundance. I don't think how we could say no. It's just not right. That's first of all. Secondly, I actually want people to stay here because I want their revenue. I don't want them to go to Lewisville. So, I think we should do everything possible to get people to be here. And it's also going to be really exciting. I am not

[239:01] going to be a Debbie Downer on this. Let's not be Debbie Downers. Let's be excited about this great experience that we're going to have. So, I'm definitely voting yes. Done. >> Thank you, Tara. Tina, and then Mark. >> Thank you, Tara. I'm so sorry to be your Debbie Downer. Um, what a bummer, huh? Uh, anyway, I do think we're going to be looking at this ordinance multiple times and we can think about how we can offset this idea that we're creating more financial vehicles for second home owners to remain second homeowners rather than going in a different direction, which is to limit second home owners. So, what I'm suggesting is that we make an amendment just to remove the um J exemption in the ordinance, which provides for the ownership, but allow staff to come back with a way of thinking about it where it includes measurement. It might include freezing the number of um or limiting the number of non uh owner short-term rentals. We

[240:04] could cap that so that it doesn't grow. um thinking about a different fee if you're not a primary residence owner and then accelerating work on the vacancy tax which is obviously a separate thing but I think that we know that we have a lot of support for vacancy tax or vacancy fee but I would like to see us remove it work on it just to make it a little stronger rather than let's hope it works out I I'm reminded that Park City is got a 70% vacancy rate that's a really high rate it's also a ski town and it's very small and it does not have contiguous housing as we do it very different, but it does make me concerned at the same time. So, um I would love to see us do that and come back and I I think we also need to clarify the ADU and we really need to clarify what the festival license is the definition and I I hope that council's part of that conversation. >> Thank you, Tina. Next up, we have Mark. >> Yeah. Um this is one of the first

[241:00] deliverables we're asked to provide to our counterparts. I think it would be a tremendous mistake for us not to deliver it. Um, I understand all of the issues that we have and I think all of them can be addressed in the fullness of time. I don't think Sundance cares that much about some of these issues. They care about a short-term rental statute that will provide housing for their people and for the guests of the of the um uh of the festival. So I would urge us to pass this tonight and over time we can make the adjustments that either arise out of experience or uh simply because we we we think there's a better way. But I would not like tomorrow's headline to be um council declines to approve the short-term rental license. it it's the wrong message to say to to to uh say to

[242:01] our counterparts. Uh and I I just think it's a very bad look for us. So I would urge us to uh go forward and pass this ordinance with the anticipation that there will be changes. uh and there may be a few changes, but it it doesn't change the essential nature of what we're doing tonight, which is to provide a structure for a short-term rental um situation. And so, it's if I'm the last speaker, I'd like to make a motion. >> I want to second. I think you >> Okay. I'd like to move that uh we amend and pass on second reading ordinance 8715 amending section 10-3-9 short-term rentals BRC1981 creating a festival lodging rental license and setting forth related details >> second I'd like to make a friendly amendment if I could

[243:04] >> okay Matt >> yeah so Um a question I posed earlier regarding the 29 days. Um the legislative intent as it sort of appeared from staff's answer was that if we have multiple festivals that 29 days could be spread among a couple different festivals throughout the year. But the language in 10-3-9 Q4 has the word con 29 consecutive days. And so that word consecutive would be in conflict with that clear legislative intent. And so all I would be asking is to strike out the word consecutive so that the language is very clear that it is not consecutive days. But if we had more than one festival, someone could do 15 days in this festival and then in the fall 14 days and still fall within the 29 rule versus if it is consecutive, they would effectively have to pick which festival to do it for and not be

[244:02] part of anything else. And so anyway, that's a that was a drafting piece based on what was clear in the legislative intent. I offer that as an amendment to clear that word up um and go forth. I would ask staff how does that impact u what you want to achieve tonight? So striking consecutive um would ensure that that only 29 days per calendar year may be used and that they could be used all at once or they could be used over a variety of festivals as long as it that as long as it does not exceed 29 days in any year. >> Oh well my question is are you okay with that amendment? >> Yes. Thank you. Um, so we're going to do all the proposed amendments first and then straw poll. Well, I guess >> you have to vote. You have to vote. >> Matt needs a second.

[245:00] >> Okay. >> Yes. I would need a second. >> Second. are voting on the amendment or the whole >> Oh, can I turn to our city attorney for recommendations on how we should proceed here? The cleanest way to proceed would be to uh vote on the amendment, the newly proposed amendment, see whether that succeeds or fails, and then take up the motion. >> Is that a vote or a straw poll? That that would be a vote. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Is a roll call of show show of hands. All right. Um, let's have a show of hands on this amendment to strike the word consecutive so that it is clear that the 29 days

[246:00] could be used separately throughout the year. All in favor? One, two, three, four. Looks like that is unanimous. Yes. Okay. Um, I'm very excited about the short-term rental and want to pass it almost in its full uh state, but I would like to strike the J exemption in section 10319 Q 3. Um, and with the hopes that it comes back with some thought about how to um think about limiting uh or not growing the second home market. So that's my amendment, but that second part's not part of the amendment. That's what I'm talking about. >> Clarify the exemption >> and that would be exempting just the second the issuing the rental license to someone who is not the primary occupant of the unit.

[247:03] Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second. >> I question. >> Yeah, a question. >> I have a question. Um, just trying to make sense of what Tina said versus what Mark said. I liked what Tina said originally. I like Mark's proposal that we should move this forward. So, I'm I'm trying to understand if we if we um if we say if we say yes to the amendment, are are we not moving it forward? I mean, I think we are, but conversely, if we say no, can we can we bring it up later if we so choose? As I understand Council Member Marquis's uh proposed amendment, it would be simply to strike the exception that that it be a primary residence. So, put another way because there's a lot of

[248:00] that's sort of confusing that way, right? So, what that would mean then is that the short-term festival rental license would still require that it be a primary residence. If council adopted that um and then wanted to provide direction that staff look into ADUs and bring that back for the future at some future date, staff could do that. and it and it would move forward. It would not Right. This this would still move the ordinance forward um with a proposed amendment if if council so chose. >> Thank you. I just want to make sort of an additional comment. So, and Teresa, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it to me it seems like whether we strike this now or strike the section as Tina has proposed or not, we

[249:02] have the ability to make a change on that in the future. And so ultimately I think we're going to get to a place at a future point that isn't quite what we're doing here tonight. And we can get to that either direction in a sense. Does that seem correct? There is a a portion though that is also what are we signaling I think to Sundance um in terms of the commitments we've made and um and supporting that effort going forward. >> Sorry the the legal question. So I believe the question uh is is there an opportunity to do that tonight and is there an opportunity to do that in the future and both both opportunities exist. >> Thank you. I did hear Tara having a

[250:01] question a little while ago before I spoke and I just want to check in and make sure. >> That was my question because I don't have enough information to say yes for that tonight. So I just want to make sure that we can bring it up again in the future. I'm just not ready to say let's do that. >> I see Tina and Mark and Nicole all having comments. >> I and I I'll just say the for me there's a little bit of a timing issue. So it is really important to get most of this passed now and signal the right message. I do want to have the conversation about is there anything we can do to make this a little less impactful on the second home piece that's that's and and when we say at a future date we can get to it but we are busy as we've said we're very busy and I guess I'm trying to say I really want to have the conversation so that's kind of what I'm voting for tonight is I want to do it before it's because my guess is the

[251:00] way this will go is it will continue just to be passed as is and that's okay and we could make changes but I think it'll be a long time. It's also very difficult to give something and take it back. And that's the part that I I struggle with a little bit is how do we do that? Um, and so if there we can give most of it, but people might start making plans and and and that's the part that I'm a little concerned about, but again, I'm very excited about this opportunity. I think it's going to be great. >> Thank you, Tina, Mark, and Nicole. Yeah, I I I don't want this ordinance to, you know, die the death of a thousand cuts. I think we have opportunity going forward to assemble all of our potential amendments and concerns and have staff address them. Um, nobody is going to be renting a house uh in early 26 because that's a year in advance. Um I think we will have that opportunity to put all

[252:01] things on the table. I would prefer that we um pass this ordinance as presented and you know basically send that strong message that we we are a partner that you can rely upon. >> So >> thank you Mark. And then maybe Nicole and after that I'm hoping we can get to a vote. Um yeah, and I think uh the other benefit of um not passing this with or not adding on amendments tonight is that we can wait until we have some data um in the future too because right now a lot of this is um kind of we're raising concerns that I think are valid and and they may be things that turn out to be issues down the road, but at the moment we don't really know if any of this is an issue yet or not. Um, I would really like to have some um information in place before we start considering changes. Um, so I'm I'm I'm going to say no to this one.

[253:00] >> Have a process clarification real quick? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, Teresa, is that um change with the amendment that was approved, is that a substantive change that will require a fourth reading or non-substantive and therefore passed tonight and then uh finalized on third? It's a substantive change as were the other amendments brought forward tonight. So it would require one additional reading which would be third reading >> even even passing this one tonight. We can pass it and still get it done on third. >> Correct. >> Okay. Oh, okay. Good. Good. Good. >> Thank you. >> All right. On that, I would like to see a show of hands um to for supporting the amendment to strike the exemption J. Thank you. All in favor, please raise your hand. I see two.

[254:02] So that amendment fails. And with that, we can go back to the um initial motion. Do you have any comments you want to make before we take our final vote? >> No, I think I've said everything that I want to say. >> Great. With that, I think we might be ready for our roll call vote. >> Wait, do we need to read the motion with the amendment for the record? >> Thank you. you know, for clarity sake, uh, if you wanted to motion on the on the floor, but but Mark, as the person who made the motion, you could um you could amend that to say uh the motion as amended.

[255:00] I will move the motion as amended uh and pass on second reading ordinance 8715 amending section 10319 short-term rentals BRC1981 creating a festival lodging rental license and setting forth related details. >> Second. Okay. >> All right. Now I think we are ready for a roll call vote. >> Okie dokie. We'll start the roll call vote for the amendment and the passing of ordinance 8715 as amended with Mayor Pro Tim Folks. >> Yes. >> Council member Marquis. >> Yes. >> Shuhart. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Yes. >> Winer. >> Yes. Adams, >> no. >> And Benjamin,

[256:01] >> yes. >> Ordinance 8715 as amended is hereby passed with a vote of 7 to one. >> Thank you so much. Um, with that, do we have any matter matters from the manager? All right, we have some matters from city council. I heard Tara and Taiisha. >> Yes. So, we've been getting some emails from the Hill people, folks on the Hill, and one of them, a few of them have to do with behaviors of I don't want to use the word bad actors, but people that aren't behaving. Let's say people that aren't behaving on the hill, whether it's loud parties, throwing bottles at houses that call the

[257:00] police on them, uh lots of fireworks and stuff like that. So families are already moving out, especially on 10th Street, by the way, which seems to be. So I remember in the four years that I've been here almost that at one point we said that we were going to do something about the properties that don't behave, whether I can't remember if it was the tenants, the landlords, or something, but whatever we were supposed to be doing, I don't think it's happening on 10th Street. Thoughts? Yeah, I think that was uh one of the reasons why we brought the chronic nuisance ordinance actually in the beginning. Um and frankly some of the reasons that we are taking some steps uh to um consolidate our resources. One of the things that we did in in that um in that or in in the work that we were doing, we also talked about bringing together some teams that are working across the organization and that is happening

[258:00] actually as well. Uh so that um division and PNDS is moving forward. Um I will say that we have seen that I've asked for some data about what that's looking at. We have gotten some calls and I know that um uh the chief has reached out to some uh folks that are up on the hill about some of the calls that we've been getting. Um I understand from our director of planning and development services too that we've had a lot of parking officers in the area as well. Um so far this year they've written 4,876 citations on the hill. Right. So we continue to move that forward. But I also think that as we I don't know why this keeps putting out as we continue to uh consolidate all our um code compliance functions together. I think we're going to continue to see uh increased efforts to address that. But that is precisely the the focus of chronic nuisance.

[259:02] >> So right now they do feel alone. I mean they call me so I know that they do feel all alone. Yeah. they don't feel anything's ever happening. I think when the one person who, you know, it's up to the people on the hill to make these calls and complain, >> somehow they get retaliated against by some of these homes >> with like throwing of glass. What even >> I will say that we've had extra I I'm understanding we've had extra blocks on that. I'll continue to work with PD and work with our folks in code compliance to think about what that looks like. There are times where we deploy differently. Um, so I'll continue to work with the team to see that, but we have done some proactive work up there. Um, and we'll continue to see what we can do about that. >> Thank you. Because I don't want to see families move from there really, honestly. Yeah. >> Thank you, Tara. Next, I have Taiisha. >> Yeah. Um, I just wanted to thank those who have those who have sent us emails

[260:01] about the roadless rule um that is being proposed. I wanted to um just let them know that um although we appreciate the the emails that in 2001 the state of Colorado and and Idaho both received a have a separate agreement with the Forest Service on those roadless rules and so they actually do not impact Colorado. I will also say that the rules that are under that agreement are not the very very best of the best but they are certainly better than not having any. So, I just want to say thank you again for those that are um submitting those. Um but unfortunately or fortunately for us um that does not um that will not be an issue. Although we are keeping an eye on the increase efforts to um uh create more uh timber uh and to um accelerate the timber uh in forest services that would potentially affect us, but this particular rule does

[261:00] not. So again, just wanted to say thank uh let them know about that. Um also wanted to um just thank Joe and Chris and Eric um and my fellow council mate uh for an exceptional visit um up to our watersheds um and just really very very grateful. Um I feel really honored um to to be a steward of these lands. Um and uh yeah, it was just very very powerful. So, um, want to thank them for that and look forward to the upcoming conversations around the integrated water plan. Um, and then lastly, um, wanted to thank, um, Alexander and the incredible students at CU and elsewhere around our, um, community who, uh, did the students demand action um, event at CU earlier this week. It was just really powerful to see the mom's demand group with the students demand group. um obviously looking forward to a CAC or uh continued conversation around um assault

[262:01] weapons and just doing what we can to um uh do right by our our present and our future. So that's all. Thank you. All right, with that, I want to thank everyone for your patience with my stumbles a little bit tonight, but a I'm glad we got everything um wrapped up. 47 and I'm calling um ending the meeting. Awesome. Thank you,