October 9, 2025 — City Council Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[5:04] 6 o'clock. So, let's go ahead and get started. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Thursday, October 9th, 2025 special meeting of the Boulder City Council. I'll go ahead and call us to order now and ask you for a roll call. >> Yes, sir. Thank you and good evening everyone. We'll start the ro tonight's roll call with council member Benjamin >> present. >> Mayor Brackett >> present. >> Mayor Pro Tim Faulk >> present. Council member Marquis >> here. Shuhart here. Spear >> present >> and Walla >> right here. >> Mayor, we have our quum. >> Thank you so much.

[6:01] So, I now would ask for a motion to amend the agenda to remove item 4 C, which is a request for not of three to conduct research regarding ebike and e- scooter regulations, noting that that is being rescheduled to the October 23rd meeting. So moved. >> Second. >> Have a motion and second. All in favor, please raise your fiscal hand. >> All right, that's unanimous. >> Agenda has been amended. So um let's go to the consent agenda, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. The consent agenda is item number two on tonight's agenda, and it consists of items 2 A through 2 G. And uh Nur or Teresa, I believe you had uh something that you wanted to highlight before we get started on that. >> Sure, I can jump in. Are you able to hear me?

[7:00] >> You're very quiet, actually. >> Sorry, I was my button wasn't working. Do you want to do that, Teresa? Do you want me to? >> If you could, that'd be great. >> Sure. Uh we just wanted to say thank you mayor for um for flagging us and uh apologies for the late buttoning. Um we just wanted to bring your attention that item 2C the AT AT&T wireless lease uh amendment. The memo says that there is uh four five-year terms and the attached lease amendment in attachment B says five five-year terms. Um, we will need to that lease agreement has a typo in attachment B stating that extension as a five five-year term agreement. Um, the memo is correct, but the addendum is wrong. And so, if approved by council tonight, we will correct the lease before signature. AT&T is aware and we are working on that revision right now. >> Thanks for a heads up. And do you need anything in the motion language or

[8:00] you'll since it's essentially a typo, you can just fix it? I believe that is correct. Okay. >> And I see Teresa nodding. Great. All right. Any uh questions or comments on the consent agenda? I got Matt and then Tina. >> Thanks Aaron. Um, just want to follow up on a conversation that started I think when we were approving a Verizon Wireless and then was again brought up when we were talking about wildfire with uh ODM director Mike Chart regarding any outages andor uh dead spots and cell coverage. So, I just want to double check that we're working with these service providers to make sure that we've got full coverage since we rely on this almost solely for emergency communications throughout our city and making sure we don't have dead spots so that people actually get those alerts and warnings. >> I see Chris popping up to answer that. >> Yep. To answer that. And Matt, yes, Mike Chard in our office of disaster management has uh begun that outreach

[9:01] effort. Um they they don't like to share maps. Uh, but we're going to do our best to uh try and see if we can get some more details on coverage. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> And Chris, can you introduce yourself, please, for the record? >> Oh, thank you. Apologies. Chris Mchuk, deputy city manager. >> Thanks so much. All right. Uh, Tina. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I first had a question on item F. In the item, it refers to a report that's given to council that talks about the rebates, incentives, or waiverss that have been extended. And I was just wondering if um there's a way for the council to get that report on a regular basis. I think this is one of the reports that isn't regularly flagged and whether there's a way to make it regularly flagged so we understand what's being extended out into the community. >> I see Mark at the ready for that answer. >> Yes. Thank you, Nur and Tina for the

[10:00] question. Mark Wolf, assistant city manager. Uh we're more than happy to be on a regular cadence. Um the memo contemplates an annual report and so happy to kind of build that in uh on a regular uh basis. Um you know, timing uh certainly up to what is most effective for council. >> Okay, great. And so I don't feel that needs an amendment. Just that is that administrative I think we can take it as such. >> We can. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um and then my second question is around item G and I am curious if we are able to when we extend a short-term festival license if we're able to do a couple of things. One is just to collect information whether it's a primary or secondary um occupant and second whether we can give ourselves the latitude to revoke a license in certain situations rather than just extending a violation or a fine and if that can be

[11:02] administrative. >> I see Chris Mche popping up to answer that question. >> I am back. uh Chris Mchuk, deputy city manager. And um to your first question, Tina, um yes, as a part of the application form, the the applicant has to submit an affidavit of ownership where they describe how they own the property. And we can include as a part of the application form for them to classify um their property as either their principal residence or a second or vacation home. So we can collect that data. Um and that would not require an ordinance amendment. And then uh to your question on uh violations. Um yes, both in the application there is language now uh um that we will include uh for the license as well that uh that you you are subject to revocation of your license for for violation of the

[12:00] the code or uh false information on the application, things like that. And then uh our typical process, there's both civil penalties if you uh do break the rules. Um, and those scale based on the violation from $400 to $1,250. And then if there are certain violations, like major safety violations or really kind of nuisance, egregious violations, we will revoke the license. For a safety violation, we typically start with a six-month revocation, and it would scale based on the scale of the uh the severity of the violation. >> Okay. Okay. And then just out of curiosity, in the case of the festival license, if someone rents a home and doesn't get the license, but is reported by a community member, what happens then? >> That's a great question. We would we would investigate that um like we do other code violations. Uh and that would result in the same kind of penalty or or violation process that I described. >> All right. Thank you so much for that. I

[13:00] really appreciate it. >> You're welcome, >> Tina. Thanks for raising those. And it does to me sound like a good idea to track that information about primary or secondary residents. Nuria, do you need any additional direction from council in order to do that or or have the comments so far suffice? >> Uh we don't actually, mayor, we have an interest in tracking on our own and so we are able to do that um uh in our own administrative purview and so just appreciate the conversation uh and the suggestion and know that we too have that interest and so we'll we'll move forward. >> Great. Thanks so much, Tina. Do you have anything else? >> No, I'm all set. Thank you. >> Great. Um, seeing no other hands, perhaps a motion on the consent agenda. >> I move the consent agenda. >> Second. >> I think Lauren got that one. So, motion by Nicole, second by Lauren. Um, can we have a roll call, please?

[14:00] >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 2A through 2G with council member Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brockett, >> yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Folks, >> yes. >> Council member Marcus, >> yes. >> Shuhart, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> And Walllet, >> yes. The consent agenda items are hereby approved unanimously with a vote of seven to zero. >> So much. All right. Uh let's go to our first public hearing then, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Our public hearings are item number three on tonight's agenda and 3A is the introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only ordinance 8719 adding a new section 8-2-26

[15:00] transportation maintenance fee to the BRC1981 implementing a fee to offset the cost of maintaining transportation infrastructure and facilities within the city and setting forth related details. Thanks so much, Alicia. And uh mayor, mayors of uh members of council, I'll say that we have had a lot of conversation about the transportation maintenance fee um and why this is coming. Now, I'll say this has been, as you know, in the works for many, many years. We finally have the legal analysis based on um some of the work that advisory groups have done in the past. Uh and the fee uh that legal analysis is now ready for you uh to take a look at. It is transportation funding is a critical issue for our community. It's been a topic of conversation for many many years. We're bringing this issue uh at the same time we're bringing uh the budget. Um in part because it has been the time in which it's uh been

[16:00] completed for the work, but it's also when you have usually uh policy discussion on fees themselves. And I know that perhaps in Q&A or as Charlotte kicks us off, there may be more discussion on that, but I know it's been a question as we have been thinking about it. I will say that's also been a key aspect of the goal council has identified for the long-term financial strategy and being able to continue to provide to the community the services they desire uh as we move around and think about our transportation um maintenance and needs across the city. as a city organization moves away from dedicated funds. Something that came up as part of the blue ribbon commission, something that has come up in our discussions in the long-term financial strategies, the urgency for diversifying funding for transportation has been very very clear and that is why the city is primarily bringing this forward now and starting with this transportation maintenance fee. So, I will stop speaking and pass it over to Charlotte um to say a few

[17:02] words before we hand over to our transportation team. >> Thanks, Naria. Charlotte Husky, uh budget officer for the city of Boulder. Good good to be here with you this evening. Before we present uh the transportation maintenance fee, I want to share a few words about how this relates to the city's broader long-term financial strategy effort in the 2026 budget. The long-term financial strategy prioritizes our financial future in line with policy recommendations for the last two decades, including the blue ribbon com commission report that Nuria mentioned of 2008 and 2010. Across the organization, we have been exploring options for diversifying current funding, reducing over reliance on sales tax, emphasizing flexibility of funding, recognizing the difficulties of restricted funding, and creating additional funding streams that are sustainable and reliable over time. The transportation maintenance fee is just one of several enhanced revenue measures

[18:01] that we will talk about later this evening as part of the 2026 budget. Because this is a new fee, it requires council approval of an originating ordinance to enact the fee. And this item on the agenda is for that originating ordinance. There will be an assoc there will be associated updates to the city's fee ordinance for the transportation maintenance fee that's considered in the next item uh this evening within the 2026 budget. We greatly appreciate the partnership with our colleagues on this key item and early action on the citywide long-term financial strategy. And with that, I'd like to hand it over to Valerie for for a few words before staff's presentation. And thank you, Charlotte. Um, good evening, council members. Valerie Watson, deputy director, transportation and mobility. Our new director, Bllythe Bailey, is not able to join us tonight due to a previously planned family trip, and he wanted to thank staff across the city organization for their work on the

[19:01] transportation maintenance fee. As Charlotte mentioned, this fee is one of several enhanced revenue measures proposed as part of the 2026 budget. In Colorado, a transportation maintenance fee is an annual or monthly fee paid by residential and commercial property owners to cover the cost of unfunded and underfunded capital maintenance activities. This includes things like pavement management, sidewalk repair, street safety, asset management, and bridge replacement. The transportation maintenance fee proposed for Boulder has been thoroughly vetted and recommended by two community working groups as the most equitable way to distribute the cost of maintenance across our community that relies on and expects a well-maintained system. And in 2024, council elevated the transportation maintenance fee along with the citywide long-term financial strategy as a council priority at the 2024 retreat. As the city's transportation system has expanded and matured, the cost to

[20:00] maintain and operate it, has grown beyond the city's annual dedicated sales tax revenue and budget. Sales tax, the primary source of funding for transportation, can be variable and unreliable depending on economic conditions. The city is making strategic decisions on an annual basis to maintain current transportation levels of service and state of good repair for the community. However, given the rates of cost escalation, economic uncertainty, and diminishing sales tax revenue, reductions in level of service are now on the immediate horizon. This new fee is specifically focused on a select array of the most critical underfunded and unfunded maintenance needs to help shore up our city's transportation funding future. And these reliable fee revenues will give us more flexibility with the sales tax dollars that fund the majority of transportation operations and maintenance, including the more operational activities like minor pothole patching and snow and ice response. I'd like to recognize the team

[21:01] for bringing forward this thoughtful approach to providing the well-maintained transportation system our community deserves, consistent with our citywide goals and long into the future. and we appreciate council's consideration this evening. Now over to Chris for staff's presentation. Thank you, Valerie. Is my presentation up? Excellent. Uh good evening, council members. Chris Aglin here, principal project manager with from transportation mobility and I am supported tonight by a variety of colleagues uh and leadership from transportation finance, the city attorney's office and utilities as well as our consultants on the fee study uh Tishler Vice. The purpose of tonight's public hearing is to introduce the first reading of the transportation maintenance fee or TMF

[22:01] ordinance 8719 which would establish 8-2-26 as part of the border revised code. 8-2-26 is the originating ordinance that authorizes the city uh uh authorizes the fee and what the revenues can be used for. It is paired with another ordinance brought forth by finance later tonight which will establish 4-20-78 to include the transportation maintenance fee in uh the list of fees collected by the city. Before we go further, I'd like to define what a transportation maintenance fee is and provide an explanation of how fee revenues would be used. Essentially, a TMF is a fee paid by residential and non-residential or commercial properties to maintain transportation infrastructure. It provides a stable, predictable, and scalable source of revenue to ensure that the city can

[23:01] perform essential maintenance uh to its most critical transportation infrastructure. The rates that a property pays is based on the proportional share of its maintenance costs based on its relative use of the system. In our case, based on the amount of both vehicular and non-vehicular trips generated by a property, otherwise known as person trips. The revenue from a TMF would be used to pay for underfunded and unfunded maintenance of our transportation infrastructure. Underfunded refers to maintenance that is already being conducted. Uh but the current level of funding allocated to that maintenance activity is insufficient to meet current levels of service. Unfunded refers to maintenance activities that are not currently being done but ideally should be done to properly maintain our transportation infrastructure. The focus of fee revenue will be used for capital maintenance activities including pavement and street

[24:02] safety asset management, bridges, sidewalks, multi-use paths, roadway markings, and bus stops. It is important to note, it's been mentioned earlier uh this evening, that the TMF is a critical component of the city's long-term financial strategy, which specifically asks staff to identify specific alternative funding opportunities such as fees given the city's current and projected fiscal situation. While the TMF is part of the long-term financial strategy that was initiated by council in April 2024 and coming to you as part of this 2026 budget, it has a very long history in Boulder. It was first identified as a potential finance mechanism in the 2009 transportation funding report, which was one of my very first projects that I worked on when I was uh first joined the city. Um that

[25:02] report was initiated following the 2008 blue ribbon commission report which urged the city to diversify and increase revenue for transportation and specifically for transportation maintenance. Following the transportation funding report, the city spent uh a few years evaluating different potential funding mechanisms, culminating with a 2013 community working group which identified the TMF as the most viable funding mechanism to provide additional revenue for transportation maintenance. However, prior to moving forward with the fee, an opportunity came up to move the 0.15 cent open space fund sales tax to the transportation fund. This transfer increased transportation's dedicated sales tax up to 75 cents and as a result, the TMF did not move forward at that time. In 26 to 20 or 2016 to 2017, staff

[26:04] focused on updating transportation excise tax and impact fees. Uh despite the added sales tax from the open space fund, the financial issues facing transportation and transportation maintenance returned and staff were asked to bring back the TMF in 2018. Uh in 2019, a second funding working group again concluded that the TMF was the best mechanism to move forward with and those findings were presented to council at a June 2019 study session. Staff were scheduled to bring the TMF to council in the spring of 2020 and to proceed with the legal uh legally required fee study when we all know what happened in 2020 and COVID hit. And again, the TMF work uh and the proposed fee study work paused. However, the TMF resurfaced again as part of the long-term financial strategy

[27:02] which was initiated by council at that 2024 retreat. staff proceeded with the required nexus study in the spring of 2025 and began uh stakeholder engagement engagement with TAB uh with the TMF which is now included as part of this 2026 budget process. As a backdrop to this conversation, I would like to just provide a quick overview of how transportation is funded in Boulder. As detailed in the memo, the majority of transportation funding comes from the dedicated sales tax. The amount collected annually through this dedicated sales tax can vary over time and with economic conditions. The 6% sales tax portion which the voters approved in 1967 does not expire and will continue to be devoted to transportation. However, the additional 1.5 uh cent sales tax from the open space

[28:01] fund is scheduled to revert to the general fund in 2030. Uh this brings in approximately $7.7 million annually. While it is scheduled to revert to the general fund, it can still be used by transportation and mobility. Additionally, while annual budget allocation for transportation operations and maintenance has remained mostly constant year-over-year, cost escalation for labor and materials has led to significant diminishing purchasing power. This reliance on sales tax and the need to create more flexibility with its funding is why the city is looking at this proposed TMF as part of the long-term financial strategy. As the city organization moves away from dedicated funds, the urgency for diversification of funding for transportation is clear and the city is taking action. Starting with this TMF,

[29:01] the TMF twice came out on top through two different rounds of staff analysis and two different community working groups uh of stakeholders for several reasons. It is a legal mechanism in the state of Colorado and already implemented by close by cities uh of Loveland and Westminster as an example. The fee can be enacted by council. It does not require going to the the citizens for a vote. It provides reliable, predictable, and perhaps most importantly, scalable funding, meaning that it can either be tied to inflationary indexes like the Colorado Construction Index or annually adjusted as part of the budget process and fee updates. It can be paid by both residential and non-residential or commercial properties and spreads the cost of maintenance widely across the community. As a feed, the city can create waiverss uh to address e equity

[30:01] concerns or economic vitality concerns as well. Later in the presentation, I will provide some specific examples of how the fee can help our underfunded maintenance activities. To enact the fee, the uh the city is required to conduct a fee study to establish a rational and legally defensible nexus between what a property pays and and how the revenue is used. The fee rates are based on a methodology which determines a property's fair share of maintenance costs based on its proportional use of the system. In the fee study, the methodology used to measure use of the system is based on that person trip generation which I spoke of earlier. Person trip generation is a calculation of the total vehicular and non-vehicular i.e multimodal trips that a property generates. The person trip methodology was selected due to

[31:00] Boulder's multimodal travel behavior, the investments we've made in our community, and the availability of local data from our resident and employee ser uh surveys, which we've been conducting since 1990 instead of only measuring use of the system based on vehicle trips only. Different types of properties generate different types uh or a different number of person trips. For example, a retail property generates far more trips than an office per square foot. And in general, a single family detached home produces more trips than a multif family attached home. The city hired Tishler Bice, a consultant who also worked on the city's last round of impact fees and excise taxes to conduct the fee study and determine the rates for different types of properties based on size and their proportional impact on the system and then their fair share of the maintenance costs with a target of $6.4 million in revenue. The results of

[32:03] this work are presented in this table shown. It is important to note that waiverss are possible to as I mentioned to reduce the cost of equity and economic vitality uh concerns and that state and federal institutions do not have to pay city fees. However, it is possible to uh work with those entities and sign intergovernmental agreements to provide voluntary contributions. Based on the fee methodology and projected growth rates, it is estimated that over the next 10 years, the fee could bring in over $70 million in needed revenue for un underfunded and unfunded maintenance. The figures in this chart do not account for the partial year of collection uh which would likely be 2026 or the annual cost indexing which is part of the annual process to adjust fees based on maintenance costs.

[33:02] An example of one of the most critical underfunded maintenance activities is pavement maintenance. Pavement maintenance is the single largest line item in this uh transportation's annual budget and one of the largest assets that the city is responsible for maintaining. Consistent and timely maintenance of of pavement saves the city significant money in the long run as it is far more costly to reconstruct neglected roads than to adequately repair them at regular intervals. The city's goal and an industry standard is to maintain the systemwide pavement condition index at a score of 75. Maintaining an average score of 75 means this uh that the city can adequately uh perform routine maintenance at a pace to avoid cost or to avoid roads from deteriorating to the point where they need to be reconstructed. Reconstructing roads, as you can imagine, comes at a

[34:00] far higher price than routine maintenance. Given the amount of pavement to be maintained in its overall condition, the city estimates that it needs to be spending over $8 million per year. Currently, we spend only about $5 million per year at current spending levels. By 2034, our pavement condition index or PCI will decline to approximately 60 uh somewhere between the green and blue lines in the graph shown on the slide. Without the additional TMF revenue for pavement maintenance, the overall condition index will continue to decline, leading to significantly higher costs when roads uh have to be uh fixed. If a TMF is implemented, it is estimated that in 2026, uh, which would likely be a half year of revenue, an additional seven centerline miles of street would be resurfaced or treated annually with this additional

[35:01] fee. Uh, with a full year, the city will double these figures. Under the current pavement management program, a city street is treated about once every 10 years. With the additional funding for the TMF, the PMP will be able to reduce that to 7 years. On the safety asset management side of things, the TMF would allow for an additional 50 ADA pedestrian ramps and other safety treatments to be constructed as part of this expanded pavement maintenance program uh in 2026 and doubling that number over a full year of revenue. It's important to note that when we do uh a repaving project, it is often an opportunity to also maintain or improve those safety uh assets. Another great example is bridge maintenance. At current funding levels, we already have about 52 bridges or about 16% of our inventory that are past

[36:02] their expected life service of 75 years. This means that we are already behind in replacing bridges uh similar to our pavement management program. um the future cost is much higher to replace them than if we can start fully funding regular maintenance. The city needs to replace approximately five bridges per year, but under current funding, we can only manage to replace about two to two and a half per year. Uh with the current funding allocation of this potential TMF, the city could provide major maintenance to two additional bridges per year, significantly expanding their lifespan. Uh and that's with the 2026 revenue. With a full year of transportation maintenance fee revenue, the city could replace approximately 3.5 more bridges per year. Uh in addition to this fee, the city uh could also replace uh one additional multi-use path bridge annually as flow.

[37:03] While the TMF has been thoroughly vetted over many years, uh, with the relaunch of the transportation maintenance fee as part of the 2026 budget, staff did initiate some new engagement, including the development of a fact page and a a fact sheet and a web page, uh, presentations to staff and our uh, financial strategy committee, coordination with CU and Boulder Valley School District, outreach uh, with support of the Boulder Chamber, and Boulder Chamber transportation connections to the business community as well as outreach to past working group uh members and the stakeholders that they represented. In general, while no one really wants to pay additional fees uh or increase the cost of living or doing business in Boulder, most people and stakeholder representatives the city has engaged with agree that maintaining transportation infrastructure is critical to the long-term livability and economic vitality of the city. The city

[38:02] has a responsibility to maintain roads for the benefit of the community was often heard. Primary concerns though were on the residential side could include the impact on lowincome residents or affordable housing. Uh on the non-residentidential side or the commercial side, the concern uh on the fees impact was on locallyowned small businesses especially retail and restaurants which have smaller profit margins uh with uh corresponding larger square footage. Others questioned why we keep expanding our system uh with new enhancements while we can't properly maintain our existing infrastructure. Additional themes included waiverss uh for certain types of businesses um uh particularly vacant uh properties in the downtown. Uh request to delay nonresidential fees or commercial fees uh was also asked for since businesses

[39:01] like the city are already engaged in their 2026 budgets and haven't accounted for this new fee in their uh in their process. Following the first reading and introduction of the ordinance, the second reading is scheduled for October 23rd. If passed, staff will shift to ordinance implementation with an estimated time of revenue collection uh in the third quarter of 2026. Uh implementation work includes determining uh the specifics of the collection process, establishment of any waiverss and the timing of revenue collection. Uh this slide provides the suggested motion language and also concludes staff presentation. Thank you for your time. >> Would you like me to unshare or >> Yes, you can go ahead and take the

[40:00] presentation down. >> Um appreciate that very much. Uh do we have questions for staff on this topic? All right, we got some hands here. We got Nicole, Mark, Tina, Matt. >> Thank you. Um, thanks so much for the presentation. Um, it's exciting to see all this work coming forward. My question is, um, in terms of the feedback that was received, um, during the engagement, how did that show up in what you brought us tonight? Uh well, one example is that uh we exempted mobile homes as one of the first steps. Um throughout the process of looking at the fee methodology, we also considered looking at residential housing size as another option. Uh since data shows that houses of larger size produce more trips and thus have more impact on the system. uh although that would be ideal to go to

[41:02] uh the data needed to collect and implement that type of system is is rather large. Uh so at this time we're not suggested doing that but that is something that could possibly done in the future with some additional um work on that. I think some of the other concerns were about the businesses and the possibility of having some some waiverss uh for different types of businesses. So that I think would summarize the main ones. >> Thank you. And um can I just one one followup there? Uh was the implementation in quarter three did that have anything to do with the feedback um about kind of waiting just a little bit to implement? Well, that that's really about just the time it would take from once the ordinance is is passed. Uh if you know uh one option is to use our current utility billing system and if that is done you know it will take some

[42:00] time to implement uh giving more information and data would need to go into that system. So mostly that's really about implementing it. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks uh Mark. >> Thank you for that presentation. Um it was most informative. I have a couple of questions. Um you spoke of IGAS with state and and federal institutions. Um do we have any in process? Do we how many do we anticipate and what how much revenue do we anticipate from those? >> So we we have uh begun engagement with CU and BBSD uh in particular. We have not uh begin began to draft any intergovernmental agreements. Uh in previous work on this TMF uh the the inter uh intergovernmental agreements were discussed uh but we haven't gotten to that point. Uh the fee study was

[43:00] really just finalized. We have the numbers. We have really just opened the door uh with engagement with those entities. Um, are these uh expenses something that could be uh paid for using CCRS funds either now or later if if there's a um a a perpetual renewal of the CCRS tax? >> I will pass that on to one of my other colleagues. >> I think perhaps our colleagues with the attorney's office or finance could speak to that. Good evening, Council Member Charlotte Husky, budget officer with the city. Um, can you hear me? Okay. I froze on my end. >> No, you're good. >> Okay. Uh, good evening, uh, Charlotte Husky, budget officer with the city. The, uh, CCRS tax, which we'll share more in detail during the 2026 budget presentation, is currently, uh, planned.

[44:01] the current revenues are structured in a way over this six-year capital improvement program that supports nine capital projects uh both significant infrastructure projects as well as smaller maintenance uh projects. So in terms of the flexibility to utilize CCRS revenues to support uh the unfunded and underfunded needs that are supported by the transportation maintenance fee. Currently CCRS tax as we'll talk uh more in detail about during the 2026 budget presentation are uh maxed out in the sixyearcip. >> Okay. Um the program was described as scalable. Uh do I correctly interpret that to mean that we can increase it at at whim? We we can increase it if if the fee could be indexed to something like the Colorado construction index. So when the

[45:01] cost of concrete, asphalt, rebar goes up, it can be tied to that and so it would increase with that. It could also be just part of our regular budget process where we do increase fees as part of, you know, kind of the process that we're going through right now. Um, I can't speak to like the endlessly ongoing uh nature. Uh, but perhaps someone else could >> go ahead. >> Do you mind if I call on that? >> No, not at all. >> Um, but Chris, we we couldn't go beyond the levels outlined in the Nexus study, correct? I mean other than the inflation of construction prices um we are tied to the nexus setting we can't increase it past that correct >> I think I'll refer to uh I think we have our consultants on the line and perhaps they can answer that >> Carson sorry took me a while to uh to click my

[46:02] buttons I'm assuming you can hear me correct >> yes >> yeah so no So, so you could So, so the way the nexus study is is designed, uh, the nexus is between the amount that you're trying to recover. So, if the city wanted to make a a change and say, you know, the the the the number we're try the unfunded maintenance uh need that we're trying to recover is now $10 million. You could you could change it to $10 million and the fees would go up commensurately. The nexus is between how do we allocate that 10 million over the person trips. >> But that number of whether how many dollars you're trying to recover has to be tied to the actual transportation maintenance needs of the city. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh but I would say that um you know there there it's it's it's a um yeah to to to to the extent that

[47:01] you know what are you trying to recover in terms of the demand or the the unfunded demand for for transportation maintenance. Yeah. >> And thanks for that. I just and I'm just trying to make the point that we can't increase it indefinitely without it being tethered to the analysis that's been done. >> Correct. >> My point. >> Correct. and and then Carson, don't mind just introducing yourself, please. >> Yeah, sorry. Carson Vice, president of Vice, Bethesda, Maryland. >> Thanks, Mark. Thanks for indulging me. Back to you. >> Not at all. In fact, I want to key off of that. Uh, subject to the Nexus study. However, uh do I correctly infer that that if we can make the case that uh costs have increased um and it's reasonably related to the uh expenses we we must incur that there are no other guard rails with respect to increasing uh the amount of fees that we can assess. >> Yes, you are correct. I mean, you have a lot more leeway with this than you would an impact fee where you are tied to, you

[48:02] know, not correcting existing deficiencies where you the fee has to be based on, you know, your your current levels of service. So, it's it's a very different animal than an impact fee. It just happens to have more of an impact fee methodology in terms of creating the nexus and how do we allocate the costs but it's it's much like you know if you were to to design a fee for you know what does it cost us to do development review right our direct and indirect cost and then how do we allocate that it's the same sort of exercise what are our unfunded transportation needs and what's the best way to allocate that >> and my last question should be short um I have read I I think it was to the materials furnished to us that threequarters of this fee uh will be paid for by the business community. Is that correct or um am I fantasizing? >> I I believe it's more like a 2/3 one-third proportionality with 2/3 from non-residential, oneird from

[49:00] residential. >> Questions? Thank you. >> We got Tina, Matt, Ryan, and myself. Yeah, thank you for this and thank you for those previous questions. I I did have one question is first can we increase the fee just by the rate of inflation? Is that something that's done typically with a fee like this? >> I would I would say that it it's possible, but again perhaps bring back Carson to answer that. You know, we had discussed the indexing to to something related like to the Colorado construction index since it's about materials. Yeah, again Carson Vice, president of Tisher Vice. Uh yeah, so it's fairly standard uh that you know a lot of communities whether it's impact fees, utility rates, other types of of fees and charges will you know sort of between those sort of five-year windows between when you update all the assumptions as you peg it to something

[50:01] like Colorado construction index or the RS means construction index or the engineering news and record uh index which has you know sort of aggregate increases but also for you know some of the data has it for specific materials and that sort of thing but basically what a lot of jurisdictions do partic you know I'm just going to use you know if you were on a July one fiscal year is that every July one the fees get pegged to that and and increase commits >> um and then another question is I was looking at the Laram County transportation maintenance fee which they use just for new development um and to pay for new projects to support development does Boulder already have a transportation fee that is more tied to new development. Yes, we have a transportation impact fee and a transportation development excise tax currently and those are paid by new development to you know pay for things that you know the impact of the development on our transportation system

[51:02] >> and the impact fee would they be charged possibly both fees at the same year or you'd get the impact fee the first year and then move on to the maintenance fee. Um I I am not sure how the sequencing of that I don't know if anybody else uh from our legal team or or our consultant knows that. I mean I again Carson Bice Tisher Bice I mean I it depends on how you write the ordinance but yeah you would expect that you know you're going to pay the the transportation impact fee and excise tax at the time of building permit and then you're going to get an annual bill for the transportation maintenance fee. Uh even though it's you know technically the maintenance is is somewhat of a capital cost. Uh it's it's more like an annual operating impact versus a one-time transportation capacity charge. >> Okay. And in our case, do we I I didn't

[52:02] I don't think I read it closely. I didn't Are we doing it both at the same time or just in consecutive after the project is complete? Uh I that depends on how the ordinance is written and the phase in and that sort of thing whether you're going to charge it monthly versus annually. But again, the the the impact fee is a one-time charge, >> right? >> Transportation maintenance would be something that's ongoing. >> I see Teresa's hand up. Yeah. >> Can't hear you at all, Teresa. Give trace a moment. >> No, >> you may be able to call in if you need to.

[53:00] >> Okay. Why don't we move on to the next question while we're waiting on Trees? >> And I just had another question is where will people who whether you're a business or a a resident where will you see the fee which bill will it be that we all receive? >> Uh that is to be determined. We do have options available to us. Something you know through the utility billing system um already get the u u like a storm water bill. could be added as an item on that, but we haven't determined the exact collection process because we do have have some options to consider. >> Okay. And then for our afford affordable housing um areas, are we charging the fee there too, but then giving exceptions where we need it? Is that the plan? >> The plan would be to charge them now. Um >> Okay. >> Unless we had direction to do something else. Okay. Um All right. And then when we're

[54:01] speaking with BBSD in particular, we heard, you know, feedback from BBSD when we charge them a a pretty hefty impact fee, which is unusual for a municipality, not ours, but other municipalities don't do that. Would there be a way to think about offsetting and I and I know that they don't need to pay this fee, but to think about how that fee could be used as sort of a we charge you that so we don't need to really pursue this line of collecting fees anymore. Have we thought about kind of that balance there? >> Yeah, I'm sure that could all be worked out as process. It will be a process of negotiation since it would be a voluntary contribution through ag. So I think that would could be part of the negotiation process. >> Okay. And then my final question is um Valerie mentioned in the very beginning just a just those words snow and ice and I am curious whether as we so we're going to still have money in our

[55:00] transport. So this is purely incremental this fee. So it has it's not offsetting any other changes in the budget. Is it possible then to use some of the money from the other transportation tax to give a little bump to snow and ice um so that we can meet some of the community needs in that arena um while still enjoying this benefit and increase in revenue on other maintenance projects. >> Yeah, I believe uh Valerie Watson will take the snow and ice question. >> All right, thanks. Um Valerie Watson, deputy director, transportation and mobility. Um thank you for that that question, council member. I think um you know, one of the things that the the assurance and the reliability of the maintenance fee allows us to do is is take a a broader, more holistic look across our operational needs that are going to continue to be funded through um sales tax. um that that 6% that that Chris

[56:02] mentioned in the presentation. Um it allows us more flexibility when we free up um you know dollars that that are um you know right now kind of programmed towards some of those those needs such as pavement management or bridges that that the transportation maintenance fee would start to um help shore up. And so, um, one thing that we did offer council was an information packet about our, um, current snow and ice response program. Um, the levels of service that that we are moving forward with for the next snow season. And right now, we estimate um, and we mentioned that in the staff memo as well, that we are still about $800,000 a year um, underfunded just to continue meeting those stated levels of service. And so right now what we'd want to do is examine if this fee were to be um enacted um how that flexibility would

[57:01] allow us to um start to shore up um that that underfunded need um if our dollars are more flexible. And so before we can really look at adding enhanced levels of service to our snow and ice response, we really um do have more immediate needs um for for maintaining the current levels of service that we are committed to. >> So that is so that would be including the new um 2.5 million for next year and the 6.5 million for the following year plus the revenue from the transportation tax. with that new $6.5 million even then you don't think there's any wiggle room to increase the snow and ice response. >> Yeah. And I think that goes back to a major theme of of the presentation tonight and and what what we you know really want to um illuminate for you all as our policy makers is that um across the board um we do have um capital

[58:00] maintenance needs that are are underfunded. Um and so the the cost relative to um you know continue to allow that deferred maintenance will cost the city a lot more in the long run. Um and so that's why this fee is really focused on capital maintenance um because we just stand to lose more ground um with deferred maintenance on our physical infrastructure. Um so that I think is one one consideration. I think the other is that um you know as as we've reported to council we we are really um you know when we talk about things like snow and ice response um we can budget for what um you know we've traditionally budgeted for um but it's a very unique kind of service that we provide in that um we can't predict the number of storms that they're going to be a year. We cannot predict the type of snowfall that's going to happen. And so what we're finding as we continue to to

[59:02] move forward um is that that those are are truly underfunded needs as it is. Um and so I think the answer to your question is we do have to look at th at shoring up that program before we can really contemplate adding enhancements to that service. >> And is are the the snow and ice budget for last year and this year they're the same? Is that right? >> Um relatively the same. That's right. Um, we haven't added any additional funding. Um, and that's, yeah, been detailed in our reports to council. >> So, I mean, it it feels like effectively because the cost of everything grows the that it's a we're actually reducing snow and ice slightly from year-over-year. >> That's right. And that's why we're kind of identifying in our latest um information packet to council that that we really have that kind of $800,000 um underfunded need. >> Okay.

[60:00] >> Can I call on Tina just one of your questions? >> Sure. >> Valerie, you were saying that um we basically and this came up in the presentation. If we don't start taking care of some of the um repairs now, um we're going to have to do much more costly replacement later. Where would that come from? Where where does the money for like a full road replacement or pavement replacement come from? >> Right. So all of um operations, maintenance, um that all comes from our transportation sales tax, which we are, you know, really talking about tonight as being um unreliable in it and how it fluctuates with the economy. Um and so this the certainty of this fee would allow us to start t like chipping away and tackling some of those deferred maintenance items that are the most critical so that we can continue to have um vehicles driving over bridges and things like that. And and then I just had a the last question is the the maintenance fee.

[61:00] Just be clear, it won't go to this money won't go to any new projects. It's only maintaining what we have >> for the maintenance fee. It is um very exclusively focused on those critical capital maintenance and infrastructure needs. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. Thanks. That's it for me. >> Good. All right. As we uh finish out our question, just keep in mind we're in a little danger of going over time. Um so let's be mindful of that. And then Charlotte, you had your hand up for a while, but are you good? >> Thank you, Mayor Brockett. I just wanted to chime in uh on behalf of of uh city attorney uh Teresa Tate. Um just to clarify, the process for uh annual fees uh re are reviewed on an annual basis. And so the fee changes that council members uh are talking about tonight related to the transportation maintenance fee uh are similar uh in the sense that we would bring forward and review fees on an annual basis and bring

[62:02] that forward during the budget process similar to as we're performing this evening. >> Thanks for clarifying. All right, we got Matt and Ryan the meat. >> Uh thank you. Um I'm going to touch on the get back to this sort of snow and ice thing. Can I ask why wasn't snow and ice as a critical function of maintaining our roads a part of this nexus study? >> Um I think I touched on that a little bit earlier, but I'm happy to um offer some more detail on that. Um, council members. So, um, all along through these, um, funding working groups, um, the conversation historically has really been focused on capital infrastructure maintenance. Um, that is really kind of this, um, the origin of of the um the way that these are enacted across the state and other cities and the precedents that we looked at. Um, you

[63:02] know, I think at the time of the funding working groups, um, you know, earlier in the decade and as as recently as 2019, um, you know, pavement management, pavement condition, um, was always a central focus. And you'll see in your materials that a majority of the proposed maintenance fee revenue goes towards pavement maintenance because that is a clear critical underfunded need that has been in um known for quite some time, right? Um and so to your question about why snow and ice was not originally um contemplated um I think we have thought about the inclusion of operational functions but truly to um you know kind of be a foundation for introducing a transportation maintenance fee to Boulder. Um you know the the nexus is very strong when you look at just capital maintenance needs um based on the precedents around the state. Um,

[64:00] and I think, you know, um, I want to assure council that that is of course something that's top of mind for us as well. Um, our our operational needs, whatever, um, might fall under that bucket, including minor pothole patching, um, median maintenance, those are all operational needs that, um, don't quite fit into the mold of of what we're proposing right now with this fee. Um they are something that could be explored in the future with a future work plan item, but it would really require a new um revised nexus study to provide that legal rational nexus to justify the inclusion of those items. And like I said before, I think we're very confident that if enacted, this fee will give us that flexibility to look at our operational needs. Um, you know, with the existing sales tax dollars that we do receive annually. >> Can I call it quick really quickly, Matt? >> I just I see Carson's hand up, so I don't know if you wanted to add

[65:00] commentary to that, but yeah, you could call it. I just see Carson's hand up. >> I just Oh, >> go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. No, I just wanted to clarify the the this new the money from the new fee cannot be used for potholes. >> It can be used for pavement management which involves the you know um reconstruction um resurfacing of roadways through our annual pavement management program. Um minor pothole patching that we do goodness after a snowstorm um throughout the year. Um that's more of an operational function. Um so both are contributing to the you know roadway surface but to truly maintain the the um roadway system um and its pavement quality we have an entirely dedicated pavement management program through our our CIP our capital improvements >> but it doesn't include potholes so like no so that's not this fee won't help the pothole situation

[66:00] >> that it will certainly help the pothole situation because if we're maintaining our streets in a state of good repair, then you're less likely to have potholes. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Matt. >> Well, same logic would be if you're plowing your streets regularly, we won't get the potholes, too. So, um but but um Okay. >> And did Carson, did you want to weigh in, too? >> Yeah. Just I just want to echo what Valerie said, uh related to the nexus. There's there's no nexus between snow removal and person trips or vehicle trips. So hypothetically, let's just assume the city's not growing at all. Snow removal is a function of how many storms you get. Road maintenance is a function of how many trips you have on your network. There's no relationship between trips and snow removal. The relationship between snow removal is the number of lane miles that you keep adding to your system that you now have to maintain. So from our perspective, you would need a

[67:00] different methodology in order to to allocate snow removal costs. >> Okay. I I appreciate that clarity. Um next question has to do with sort of where the trade-offs are now that um parking services and thus parking revenue is is now well let me parking revenue still general fund. Now that parking services are now embedded in in transportation long overdue mind you which is awesome. That money from parking revenues was general fund. Is there any projects that were transportation related, maintenance related that that general fund that community vitality was managing in the maybe downtown area was covering that the transportation maintenance fee might cover which frees up resources perhaps from the general fund for snow of ice. So, I'm just wondering if that recent change um because it's recent and this budget was done long before this change made changes any of the math in terms of where resources could be freed up for some of that operational need which we state is so underfunded. Right. You know, I'll just mention that the um Nexus study that we initiated

[68:01] with our consultant um you know was scoped in early sorry late 2024 and then um conducted throughout this calendar year 2025. Um I'm going to have to defer to my finance colleagues or um city manager's office to speak to um some of the more recent um organizational changes with community vitality. I'm happy to start Charlotte and maybe if you have something to add but I'd say this right those parking re and I appreciate the question council member Benjamin uh those parking revenues currently reside in the general fund shifting those to serve a transportation purpose would be essentially uh dedicating those funds for that purpose. It would also mean there's a trade-off to whatever those funds have been applied to the general fund uh functions would now no longer have a funding source and so we would have to then figure out what that looks like. That has not been accounted for. Charlotte,

[69:01] am I getting any basic math wrong? >> Uh not at all. That's exactly what I was going to chime in to say. >> Yeah, those are all my questions. Thanks uh Ryan and then me. >> Thank you. Just two questions. Um one, Mark was um probing at uh guard rails uh with respect to um the possibility of fees increasing in the future. Can you just um talk about the if if the program were to meaningfully be proposed to to change in the future, including around higher fees, would that be expected to go to council? >> Going to defer to our colleagues in city attorney's office. Thanks. >> Good evening. Um my name is Laura Wood. I'm with the city attorney's office. Hopefully you can hear me. I froze a little bit. Hopefully you can hear me.

[70:00] Okay. Um, with the fee dollar amounts, all of those are in the fee ordinance that we bring forward to council every year. So, those would have to be updated through that ordinance as currently drafted. Um, the same with if we were going to expand the nexus study to include other matters depending on what council would like to do, that might also have to come before council as well. >> Thank you. So, I heard there would be the guardrail of council would would need to approve, a future council would need to approve a >> absolutely and the nexus study as well. it would have to be connected to the nexus study. >> Thank you. And my other question is the uh the memo um talks about BBSD CU and and the federal labs. Um can you just say what what we expect them to contribute? Um, you know, we we as I mentioned earlier, we've only really entered into initial conversations with those entities and, you know, have not gotten to the point where we have any numbers about expected contributions. You know, we have certainly heard from them uh of

[71:01] the budget woes that they are facing. I know that BBSD itself has been asked to reduce several millions of dollars in revenue. Uh, honestly, I've had a very difficult time getting uh with the the federal labs uh and any uh information uh regarding their possible um voluntary uh contribution. Uh we've had most talks with CU. Uh in the past uh when we had um the TMF going through the other two working groups, there was very promising uh views of a of a comp contribution knowing how much they benefit from a well-maintained infrastructure. Uh but we have not gotten to that point of of discussing any actual numbers. >> Okay. Thanks. Then um just a quick followup. So in the memo it says the estimated annual revenue contributions and so on are there's dollar figures for each. So should we take that as that's the that's the target uh that we're we're hoping for is it what we're asking

[72:00] those institutions to pay >> uh that that would be you know that's their fair share proportional cost uh according to the methodology so yes I think that would set some some guardrails of of where we would want to see contributions >> got it okay thank you >> welcome Valerie did you >> I just wanted to add um just for reference um in terms of scale scale that those voluntary contributions from those exempt public institutions would only total around 7% of the total anticipated revenue. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thanks. All right. A couple quick questions from me. Um so kind of an easy obvious one. So if we adopt this fee then um the condition of our roads and other transportation infrastructure will be better over time than if we did not adopt this fee. Correct. >> Correct. it and save us significant money in the long run through better routine maintenance. >> Absolutely. And so my follow-up question is then will the um net condition of our

[73:02] system gradually get a little bit better than it is now? Like will our PCI numbers creep up um and other um references in terms of our multi-use paths and things like that? >> Uh I believe Garrett Slater is on the call and he manages that program. you may be able to provide some uh more detailed answer to that. >> Good evening, council. My name is Garrett Slater. I'm the uh senior engineering manager for capital projects for transportation and mobility. And I will cite an example of when we got a a three or four year substantial boost in funding and we saw our overall condition indexes improve uh in in a measurable way. And that was in the 2011 to 2014 capital bond which preceded the uh CCRS or CCS tax. And we got a big boost to uh provide additional funding to taking care of our bridges and our pavement. And we saw uh at the conclusion of that

[74:01] three-year period our PCI numbers jump up to about 80 and they have since fallen off from that time. So that's evidence that shows that when we start making those significant investments and maintaining our infrastructure, the condition index numbers will go up. >> That's great to hear. >> Did you want to add? >> Thank you, Mayor Brockett. Um I just wanted to add that um you know, we we earlier discussed the difference between um reactive minor um pothole patching and then like our more proactive holistic pavement management program that Garrett just spoke to. And um truly um you know something I want to highlight and in an answer to your question Mayor Brocka is that when we maintain our our roadways at a higher level of of pavement condition um that is that prevents the um instances of potholes. So it takes the pressure off of our operational budget not having to do as much minor pothole patching throughout the year. Um, so that is

[75:01] really a goal of our pavement management program is to get to a that that kind of industry standard level of quality that helps prevent all of that reactive maintenance that um, you know does pop up from time to time, but we're really trying to take the pressure off of that. >> Yeah, thanks for that. I guess an example of that would be the seed dot repaving on Canyon and Arapjo to this year that it eliminated many many potholes and there will be many fewer new ones on those roads in the in the years to come. So I I think we can safely say by adopting this we will be making significant progress on potholes as well. >> Yes. >> Great. That's all I had. All right. Uh that brings us to the end of uh questions from council looks like. So let's go to our public hearing. Um, we have two people signed up to speak. Um, each speaker will get three minutes and they're both seasoned speakers. So, I think we don't need to read the public participation guidelines um, right this minute. So, um, so we'll start with Lynn

[76:02] Seagull and then we'll go to Super. >> Mayor Lynn was online but she has not yet um, come back. So, uh, >> let's go to Sudan. All right, Sue, you your mic has been unmuted. You can begin speaking whenever you're ready. >> You got me. You can hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Oh, shoot. Thing is up. All right. Good evening. I'm speaking on behalf of Community Cycles and strong support of the Transportation Maintenance D. As an organization dedicated to promoting bicycling as a viable and substantial transportation, we understand the critical importance of well-maintained infrastructure. Every day, we see how deteriorating streets, bridges, and multi-use paths, and sidewalks directly impact safety and accessibility in our community. The TMF addresses urgent needs affecting all road users. The 6.4 4 million annual

[77:01] funding supports essential maintenance across our entire transportation network, including pavement repairs that eliminate hazards, multi-use path maintenance, bridge replacement, sidewalk repairs, improving connectivity, roadway markings, improving safety, and bus stop maintenance, ensuring our multimodal transportation options remain viable. Deferred maintenance puts vulnerable road users at the greatest risk. Potholes, cracked pavement, and faded markings create dangerous conditions that actively discourage people from choosing sustainable transportation options and cause expensive repairs to those who do drive. The cost of inaction is simply too high both financially and in terms of public safety. We know that every dollar now not spent on maintenance today becomes5 or $10 in reconstruction tomorrow. The TMF represents sound fiscal policy. After 15 years of analysis and extensive community input, two working groups identified this as the most viable funding mechanism.

[78:01] The usagebased structures equitable and predictable revenues allows the city to address maintenance before costs become exponentially higher. At just 54 annually for most homeowners, this represents a modest investment in in infrastructure that serves our entire community every single day. Finally, I want to connect this to our broader community values. Boulder's transportation system is essential to achieving our climate goals. Maintaining safe, accessible accessible infrastructure is fundamental to our climate commitments. Well-maintained paths and streets encourage mode shift away from single oency vehicles, reducing emissions, and supporting the sustainability values that our community holds dear. You cannot have a climate action p plan without reliable infrastructure. Community Cycle strongly urges council to adopt the transportation maintenance fee. This is not just maintenance. It's a necessary investment in the safety, accessibility, and sustainability of Boulder's transportation system and our

[79:00] community's future. Thank you for your consideration and commitment to infrastructure serving all community members. Thanks. >> Thank you. I understand we have uh Lynn Seagull back, so let's go to Lynn now. Thank you. It's not that I disagree with Sue Frant, although she did stop me from going into the Nomad candidate forum because she said I was disruptive. Um, even though Bob Wells gave me his ticket to go in because he didn't have time to go to it anyway. But um, someone took my signs and put them in someone's car and I was promised by Rachel Friend and Bobby Yates that my signs would >> So we're talking about the transportation maintenance fee. Yes. >> And and this is a problem for me when I have someone um um giving their presentation ahead of me and they're arguing for transportation. I ride my bike constantly. Today I rode

[80:01] down sixth and down to Spruce and I really um it's it's really dangerous for me. I'm 72 and there's a lot of ruts that are linear and potholes and on those streets and I re I ride to get places and I ride there to get there fast and it's very dangerous for me and so I want this support but not from attacks. I want it from the developers who caused the problem in the first place by overbuilding Boulder and over densifying and then not paying their fair share. So that's the dis distinction and it's really hard hearing Sue Pratt preach about how the transportation is supposed to be supported by the people when it's the progressives that she's very involved with that took illegally took my signs and put them in someone's

[81:01] car seriously and I had to miss a deescalation talk at the Jewish community, too. Transportation means >> that's that's about transportation. That's me getting up there. I had to drive my car that day. Well, there are problems on the roads, too. I I drive my car four times a year. I am constantly riding my bike, but I want the people who caused the problem to pay for the problem. That's that's what's going on here. It's not that I disagree with Sue that there need to be safety precautions given to the citizens of Boulder, but this is not okay. Um, and and it's not okay to be stigmatized by people because they disagree with me. And Sue and I disagree on this. Not that we we agree on the fact that transportation should be funded, but we disagree on who should

[82:00] fund it. And that should not be a cause for me being stigmatized. That's not okay. And I won't that won't happen to me. I'm 72 years old. This is like elder abuse. It's not okay. And I don't want to see that in my community. I I depend on my community in the people I live with. It's not right. So let the developers >> Thank you. >> All right. That ends uh the public hearing. Um, so we'll come back to council. Who would like to kick off our discussion about the potential adoption of this measure? Mark's gonna get us going. >> I certainly hope so. Uh, I have only a couple of comments on this. One is, um, we seem to be of the impression that everybody was aware of of this potential fee. I cannot recall one business person that I have spoken to who had even the slightest awareness of this. Um, and of

[83:01] course when they become aware they're fairly unhappy. And I don't think we've taken any of that into account. And my second and last comment is, and this is amazing for me because there I've never met an infrastructure um proposal that I didn't like and enthusiastically support, but I I think I I have to take issue with the concept that we don't have the money for these services. We do if we're not prepared to make any adjustments anywhere else at any time to provide that money. This $6 million represents one and a half% of the all funds budget of about $413 million. And I'm asking, well, how is it possible that we have no room anywhere to make adjustments to fund these uh very loudable? I mean, I'm in total supportive of what we're trying to do here, but how is it possible that we are incapable of funding any of this um

[84:03] with city funds that that already exist? And it seems to me that that's a an approach that we take to this issue. and and similar issues. Um it's one of the reasons that many people are frustrated with us. They they don't see us doing things that deal with economies uh merely doing things that increase fee and tax burdens. And so I don't know if if it's possible, but I I I have trouble thinking that we uh or believing that we cannot uh provide $6 million from our existing funds without raising a fee. that is going to be twothirds imposed upon our business community which as you know is has already been burdened with any number of of fees. So as I said this is problematic for me um because I am totally in favor of what we're doing but I am really not very much in favor of how we are doing it. Thank you.

[85:01] >> Thanks Mark. And um I should have said before you got started that uh we have time uh for about two minutes per person to stay on our schedule which Mark did. He was right about two minutes. So, um, keep that in mind if you don't mind. Rest of folks, Matt and Ryan. >> Thanks, Aaron. Some of what Mark said was was pretty powerful. I I mean, overall, I support where we're that this tax is that the maintenance fee is needed. Um, I just don't like the timing and the way we've gone about it. I mean, the fact that we're we we're only now talking with partners that may change the entire landscape of the math around that, be it be it school district or CU. I've talked to CU about this and I I don't know if there's there's optimism, but why why aren't we sorting that out now before we determine ultimately what this fee needs to be and who was burdened by it? I so I just think that we've got some of the order of operations backwards and my biggest concern is losing trust that we've worked really hard to build back with regards to our transportation work

[86:01] and and I'm worried that the way we've moved this through is going to hurt that trust and maybe hurt long-term potential for the work that we want to do. So, so I just think from process-wise, we we may have missed the mark here a little bit and I I want to see us get back on track. Um, because trust is essential, especially when we have hard economic times and our businesses and people are making really difficult financial choices. So, I I think we can we can do a lot better on that front. Um, I would like to see us really really sink down and figure out what we're going to do with snow and ice. um because that seems to be a big miss here so far and and I and I'm really concerned um that we're not maybe sinking in on the priorities that we're hearing from community. But but I'm going to vote in support of this. Um but maybe a little bit with my um uh nose plugged because it doesn't smell great, but but nonetheless, I think we're going to need to do it anyway. >> Thanks, Ryan. >> I think it smells pretty good. So, look, I don't think anyone wants to pay more fees. uh but we are all paying the cost

[87:00] of substandard pavement condition and we are all paying the higher total financial cost to the city that comes from that and uh yeah the timing in some ways isn't isn't wonderful but this has been going I mean certainly before I lived in Boulder this process was underway and um it's been going on for so long and um you know as it comes to us now we are facing headwinds with the national economy and uncertainty as are our partners and it's unfortunate but that's just where we are and um you know it's time to it's time to to finish this. So um I one thing I would just add is that I I think it's a it's a rigorous the approach is rigorous that the that is that is bared out in the analysis for the fee structure. Um, it's about $5 per month for most homeowners with an exception for mobile homes. Um, and I

[88:00] think I think it's good. I would just say, you know, as we go forward, uh, assuming we pass this in the future, I think it would be interesting to explore ways using future technology and innovation to, um, continue to look at equity in the fee structure and ways to create even more differentiation and uh, user costs versus impacts. But I think it's a wonderful start to build from. Thanks. >> Thanks, Nicole. Yeah. Um, thank you. I, you know, this is a, it's a mechanism that's that's very wellstudied and has been looked at for um, well over a decade, right? We're we're looking at a fee here. Um, that's imposed on users of our transportation system in proportion to how much they use. Um, that is going to help us maintain this system in a way that is really uh, essential for everything in our city. we can't exist without a transportation system. Um, so I'm really

[89:01] glad that we all advanced it in 2024. I think it's this is really critical. Um, I think that, you know, to me this really represents where we're headed with a long-term financial strategy. This is sound fiscal management. we are um coming up with a solution that even though it might be um a little harder to do in the short term or feel hard to do in the short term, in the long term this is far better because if our bridges start going out if we have to replace entire roads that is far more costly for whoever is leading the city in the future than it is for us to do this now um in a way that you know we're able to um have the the vouchers and Sorry, voucher isn't quite right the right word, but um we're we're able to set in place exemptions and things for people who will have have hardships. And so, um to me, this is sound fiscal management. Um we've also talked about how, you know, Ryan got at this point. This is a public safety issue, too. We cannot have

[90:01] bridges that are going out. If our bridges get to a point where we cannot use them, we are closing them. We're closing roads in the city. And I think we would get a lot more push back at that point. Um, we also can't have a strong economy without a strong transportation system. Um, so it's helping with our economic vitality, too. Um, and to the point about becoming more efficient, um, I just want to remind us we cut seven 8 million off of this year's budget. We're cutting another seven eight million off of next year's budget. We are making these efficiencies and and um aiming for cuts, too. We're not just adding more. We're not just spending more. we're we're cutting too in in pretty significant ways for programs that mean a lot to to those who've been participating in our community. Um and and I just staff I just want to say this is what we asked you to do in the long-term financial strategy and it's what decades of councils have been asking you to do since the blue ribbon commissions as well. And so to see it

[91:00] come to some fruition, to see us taking this step to move toward a more sustainable way of funding critical core basic services for the city. Um I'm really excited about this and and you know, not necessarily excited about having more to pay, but also this is a good thing for our city. Um, and I know it's really hard to impose new fees on people, especially right now. But this is literally our job to do these hard things that are good for for our city's fiscal future, that are good for our economic vitality, that are making sure that our basic systems are staying in place and staying functional. So, um, I just want to thank you. To me, this this really is the direction that we need to be moving in. I know it's hard and also this is what we've been asking for and prior councils have been asking for for decades. So, thank you. >> Thanks, Lauren. And then Tina, did you have your hand up? >> No. >> Thank you. Yeah, kind of to the point um

[92:01] Nicole started with some of the images or in that presentation are scary. I particularly think of one that was I think a concrete bridge with um where the concrete had spalled off and there was some rusting rebar. I mean that's it's hard to know how deep that damage goes, right? That's one of the issues with rusting rebar in a concrete structure. So um yeah, potholes are bad, but uh failing bridges are worse. Um, I think that the best time for us to have done this was yesterday and the second best time is now. Um, I get that for a variety of economic reasons with everything going on that it's it's a hard time for us to do this right now, but that's why we need to make sure in the future we aren't putting off the maintenance, whether it's this or other departments, to make sure that we are um funding things uh at the levels that they need to be

[93:02] for long-term um success and to kind of reduce our overall deficit in terms of maintenance. So, I appreciate staff bringing this forward. I wish we had done it in a time when it was easier to do, but I think it's still critically important for us to do now. Thank you. >> Thanks, Lauren. I'm going to go ahead and call in myself, Lyn Mark. We'll get back to you for a second shot. Um, just uh staff, I appreciate your your work on this. Um, certainly one of the complaints that uh concerns that we hear most often from communities about the condition of our transportation system. So, I think this is going to be an excellent way to make progress on that. Um, I appreciate the work on the nexus study and bringing it forward for our consideration. Um, and thanks also for separating this discussion out from the budget. I think it's good to give this its own time, but I'm excited to support it and make progress on the condition of our transportation system and see that gradually get um better, even better than it is today. That's all I got. Um,

[94:02] Mark, you want to do a quick second? >> Very quick. Um, two things. One, this was never about the necessity of performing these these infrastructure improvements. Never. It's simply about the methodology of payment. And second, um I'm clearly going to be voted down on this, but I'd like to at least propose uh an exemption for affordable housing. They have a tough enough time doing what they do. I I would like to not burden them with these fees. Um that's all I got. Um, okay. So, we have a we have a proposal from Mark to exempt um affordable housing from the fee. I don't know if staff wants to speak to that concept at all. Obviously, we haven't talked about it before. Does anybody from staff want to address that? Getting silence.

[95:00] Well, I think we're looking for our city attorney's office. Perhaps there are possibilities. I'm not sure how that impacts the ordinance and mult you know having to come back with different readings. I think that would be uh one of the issues. >> Yeah. Um apologies for my delay. We were talking a little bit in the background with Teresa who can't be heard at the moment, but um she asked me to jump in and say it is something that we can consider in the future. Um it's something that would impact our long-term ability to collect fees on this to address some of those unfunded mandates. So that's something that to consider. One of the things that we can't do is if we exempt one area just like we did with CU, we can't increase the fees for everybody else to pay for it. So, if we exempt out this particular group, um, that means that we wouldn't be able to collect on behalf of those. And I'm just checking my teams to make sure that I didn't miss anything else. But,

[96:00] >> well, I I wasn't suggesting an offset. I was simply suggesting an exemption because of the mission of of providing affordable housing, not that we were going to get it back from somebody else. That was that was not the intent of my suggestion. And, uh, is there a process for making this a formal request for amendment? Um well, I think we might we might um we could straw pull it before we did a formal motion to amend uh potentially, but um Nicole, did you want to speak to this? >> Yeah. Well, I just I had a question for staff um along these lines. um you know, generally when when we're thinking about um exemptions or um reductions in fees or things like that, especially those that are income based, is that generally kind of a council thing or um is is that something that's more operational that you all are um kind of figuring out based on, you know, what what you know of and are aware of in terms of people who need support in community? Like I'm thinking about um the um the uh rebate

[97:02] for the food related sales tax. I'm thinking about um reductions on um energy bills, stuff like that. Like does that typically is that council directed? >> So for this particular one, because it's a fee versus a tax, we would need um some change in the ordinance itself to say that there is an exemption for this particular property. So, for example, for the CU example, we didn't bring an ordinance that included CU. We included those non-public um universities and things. So, we would need to include it into the language of the ordinance itself. >> Did we not >> to allow we not just exempt manufactured homes? >> Yeah, I heard that from um Chris, which we hadn't talked about that before this meeting, but it sounds like maybe that wasn't part of the Nexus study. Yeah, that that was part of the fee study and that was based on earlier versions of this that we had that as part of our methodology uh from previous input uh that we had received. So we included it in our

[98:01] methodology. >> We can do one. Why can we not do the other? >> So the reason that we would need to include it, we would just need an amendment that allows us to be able to exempt them out of there because it's part of the fee study. you'd have to include it in the language. >> The short answer is you can and we would need to know if there's a nod and a desire from council to do so. >> Fair enough. >> Just can can you just remind me on the um the and thank you Erin, sorry for jumping in there, but um if I remember the multifamily housing dwelling fee was like less than a dollar a month. Am I remembering that correctly? I I feel like it was already fairly low from the chart. It's $2 and a half dollars. >> Was It wasn't $11. I was thinking it was 11. Okay. Okay. >> Um Yeah. Chris, what's the what's the dollar amount um for multif family per year? >> Yeah. Let me I'm just flipping back to that slide just so I get it correct. So

[99:01] that's it's $42 a year. >> Okay. Nia, >> I I just want to note too that as you're thinking about um if there is a motion on the table, as you're thinking about that, I do not believe that staff I don't believe I know that staff has not um factored in what revenue impacts that would be. So, just know that we would not know what that would do to the um to the estimated fee we would collect. And so, whatever your decision is, just know that that would have a financial impact. So I'll I'll call in myself and so um Mark's an intriguing idea that it is a little bit in the surprise category but um it's an intriguing idea. I mean I will note that the um multifamily housing amount is already lower and the vast majority of our affordable housing units are multif family units. So there is there's a bit of a connection there. I'm a little concerned because we have had no an analysis of this before in

[100:01] terms of the unit count how we would um track that and um maintain it um the what the impact on the fees would be what the relative impact to family budgets is in in a sense that it might merit this. So I I think it's an intriguing idea. I don't know that I'm ready to enact it tonight. Um, but I wonder if it's something that we could ask staff to be thinking about as we move towards uh full implementation next year because we will have other uh bites as at this apple as Matt likes to say um as we um adopt different fee levels for different years. Yeah, I think we could, you know, look at the number of affordable housing units and, you know, have an estimate of what um the revenue difference would be uh if they were fully waved from the the TMF. So, I think we could we could probably in short order come up with what that magnitude is so you have that

[101:02] understanding. I think it's also you know there would be uh ramifications on administration of the fee and the fee program as well u you know at the administration of it that would also u come into play but I think the we could estimate the revenue uh difference >> if we are performing that analysis I will await the analysis and withdraw the uh the amendment for tonight. Okay. Okay. Thanks for the flexibility. Um Nicole, >> may I make a motion, >> please? >> Um I motion to introduce an um order published by title only ordinance 8719 adding a new section 8-2-26 transportation maintenance fee BRC1981 implementing a fee to offset the cost of maintaining transportation infrastructure and facilities within the city and setting forth related details.

[102:00] Second. >> All right, we got a motion and a second. Uh, Elicia, can we do a roll call on this, please? >> Of course, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for ordinance 8719 with you, Mayor Brockett. >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Folks, >> yes. >> Council member Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhart, >> yes. Spear, >> yes. >> Wallik, >> reluctantly, no. >> And Benjamin, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8719 is hereby approved with a vote of 6 to1 with the noted nay from council member Wall. >> Very good. Well, um, thanks again, um, Chris and everybody on the city staff who worked on this. I know it's been the product of years of effort. Um, so

[103:00] looking forward to seeing this implemented and our transfer rotation system conditions improving. All right, so that brings us to the end of that item. I'll I'll note that we were right on time for that item, but we're a little bit behind because of preamble stuff. So let's keep that in mind as we move to the next public hearing, please. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Our next public hearing is item 3B on tonight's agenda and it is the consideration of the following items related to the >> I'm sorry to interrupt you Elisha but Teresa seems to have something urgent. >> You still can't hear. >> What's that? >> Can't hear me. >> You're soft but we can almost hear you. >> We need a knot of five to move forward with direction. about whether to investigate inclusionary or affordable housing as an

[104:03] exemption. >> Okay. Um Mark, you want to make that request? >> I would like to request an auto five to do the uh research and analysis that we discussed five minutes previously. >> Uh Lauren, did you have a comment on that? I had a question and that was should we be aware of any tradeoffs um before we make this uh before we make this request >> directed at somebody on city staff I imagine. >> Yep. I'll see if staff wants to um come forward. I mean the main trade-off I would say um in terms of research I would imagine is time. Uh Chris, I imagine that there is some uh some time that there would be in terms of uh and not just you, but uh we would have to figure out what is the determination for what type of affordability are you

[105:02] looking at? What level of AMI? Is it 40% MI 60% AMI? Calculation of that unit, which would not be transportation. Uh and then once we have that category of housing, we would then go to how do we calculate those fees? So that would also involve HHS um and looking at it and then likely the city attorney's office. So there's a variety of folks involved in here. Uh I have bought you all some time to think about what that looks like in terms of your time. >> Yeah. I think the most important thing is defining what we would mean by you know which affordable housing or households would be exempt. I think first it's defining it um then determining how many of that is and then you know I think the calculation of the revenue impact is fairly straightforward. I think it's more on that front end of determining how we are defining it uh

[106:03] to move forward with the analysis. >> Um well I'll just note I mean I think I I believe our housing and human services department has some definitions in this area. Um, so that seems like it would be um they have they could help out and provide those I believe. >> Yes. >> Um, thanks for that. Okay, Nicole, and then maybe we'll go to the check on the notify. >> Yeah. Um, I was just wondering if we can wait to see how much of an issue this is and for who before, um, we commit staff time to it. um because you know I I appreciate the concern um for our affordable housing community and I also am just wondering you know we don't we don't know that it's an issue yet um and we won't really until we get closer to implementing it and so I'm just wondering if that um if we could maybe get some data before we decide to um

[107:00] dedicate staff time to exploring this and um Tina and then another comment by Yeah, I I just had a quick question. If you when you're dealing with a nexus study and you create an exemption based on a criteria that's not related to the nexus, are is there any risk for other kinds of challenges to the fee? I am not sure if you know uh an I think popped up. >> Okay. >> Apologies Chris. It took me a second to find my video. >> No worries. No worries. >> Apologies for that. Um so the biggest thing here for us is if you keep the rates the same for everybody else for their impact on the transportation, that's the amount that we want to make sure um is tied to the Nexus study. if you exempt other folks, it just means less money is going to transportation for these unfunded needs. That just

[108:01] means it means that less money is going forward and we don't have a way to backfill that. Um, so it's less about legal risks so much as impacts to the city and the money that you're trying to raise for. >> Yeah. >> Through this, >> I got Mark and then Lauren and would like to finish this discussion out if you can. >> I I think we're in danger of being a little circular. If you need a not of five to proceed, you can't really do the analysis first to determine whether you want to do a not of five. So I I you know I I just think we're kind of going around in circles and we just need to decide whether this is something we want to do or we don't want to do. And it's my suggestion that we do it. But that's you know the will of council prevails. Okay, Lauren, >> I had an alternative thought about maybe a first step which was around talking to our um affordable housing providers and understanding a little bit better how this fee would impact residents

[109:00] and potenti totally understand like with a section 8 housing voucher does this fee get passed on directly to a resident? Does it get paid part? you know, I'd just like to understand a little bit more the mechanics of how that works and who um ends up footing the bill >> that that and that might fall into the category of if there is an out of five that that would be information that we would request as part of it. Nura, did you want to weigh in here? I did and I I I I would agree uh mayor to that and I might suggest um if if council's amendable that perhaps um we could take this offline allow staff to think about what that could look like present a time estimate and come back and uh present what that would look like holistically. We have done this at other times when there has been a request at CAC for example. We can go back um and share with you what we think the trade-offs are in terms of time and workload. Um

[110:00] and then you can decide on whether or not you want us to proceed. >> Okay. Mark gives the thumbs up and that was his proposal. So that I think that's good on that. Nicole, did you have a final thought? Well, I mean, I was just wondering if it's helpful if there aren't five of us that are kind of or how a majority of us that are um open to moving this forward. If we could just kind of say that now and move on. >> Um I mean, Nur was talking about a level of um investigation that didn't rise to the need for not five. Um and Mark has said he would rather see that next. So, we don't have a >> Yeah, sorry. I think what what I'm saying is um is are there even enough of us that are interested in potentially nodifying later is is my question and I'm just wondering about that right now. >> Okay. So I'll what I'll do is then I will straw poll um how many people would like for staff to think about this a little bit more and then come back to us

[111:01] with um tradeoffs on whether to look into it further. Raise your hand if you'd like to get more information from staff about that. and we got that's five. So that there is interest. Um so Nur will take you up on your offer and we'll wait to hear back about what the potential trade-offs are. >> All right. Um having worked our way through that, Elicia, let's go back to what you were saying before, please. >> Okay. Thank you again. Item 3B is our second public hearing on tonight's agenda and it is the consideration of the following items related to the 2026 budget. We have four ordinances presented before council. Ordinance 8722 which is adopting a budget for the city of Boulder. or ordinance 8723

[112:01] which is establishing the city of Boulders's property levy mill property tax mill levies for 2025. Ordinance 8724 is appropriating money to defay expenses and liabilities of the city of Boulder for the 2026 fiscal year. And lastly, item 2 8727 which is amending various sections um related to tax imposed on non-residential non-residential and residential development imposition and rate of rental license excise tax parking penalties and fees. All four in all four ordinances will be introduced tonight. >> Thanks so much. I know we're a little tight on time, so I'll skip my little preamble. Um, and I am going uh Christa, Charlotte, should I go to Charlotte straight or Christrista, did you have something you wanted to share? >> Yeah, if I could just jump in real quick

[113:01] here with an intro. Um, just want to thank the city council for the review and consideration and thoughtful questions on the 2026 recommended budget introduced during the September 11th study session. I think it's important to share again for those that might be tuning in for the first time a brief background on the 2026 budget development. Boulder, like most communities across our region and throughout the country, are facing slowing economic growth and flattening sources of revenue. This combined with increases in the cost of services place us in a position addressing an anticipated a general fund shortfall of $10 million in the current fiscal year and $7.5 million shortfall in the 2026 budget development. The proposed 2026 budget is balanced. To address the shortfall, this required a multiaceted approach with departments, submitting proposed

[114:02] reductions, realignments of resources, and review of performance data and outcomes. Tough trade-off conversations occurred grounded in prioritizing community needs and alignment of services to support citywide strategic plan goals. Annual budget development begins as early as March of each year. It is a process that involves the work of all city departments. Department directors or their representatives are online this evening to help support questions on the budget this evening. You will recall hearing from Charlotte and our CU partners in May on the financial forecast. First sharing our deepening concern of flattening revenue. Since then, Charlotte and the budget team have managed unanticipated mid-year 2025 reductions and a 2026 uh budget development shifts to address the anticipated shortfall. This required

[115:02] quick coordination with departments and strategic approach to support informed decisions grounded in the sustainability, equity, and resilience framework. I want to extend again gratitude and recognize the tremendous work of Charlotte and the entire budget team. The importance of the long-term financial strategy work is highlighted in our current position. Boulder's largest revenue source, sales and use tax, a more volatile source of revenue and economic challenges or changes. This combined with 68% of the city's revenue dedicated reduces flexibility to maintain services during periods of flattening or declining revenue, rising costs, and emerging community needs. We'll continue to focus into 2026 the long-term financial strategy work to diversify revenue and prioritize services most critical to the community,

[116:02] ensuring the city is able to deliver exceptional service um expected by this community. I want to thank the city council for your leadership and support of the long-term financial strategy. Boulder is in a better financial position than many cities in our region and throughout the country, facing position cuts and major service level reductions. Your stewardship and leadership and policy decisions supporting best practices such as ensuring ongoing programs aren't created using one-time funding. and using long-term financial modeling to guide policy decisions ensures a sustainable Boulder not just today but also for the future. So with that brief introduction, I will pass this over to budget officer Charlotte Husky to talk about the 2026 proposed budget. >> Thank you, Christa. Good evening, council members. I'm going to share my screen.

[117:05] All right. Good evening, council members. Charlotte Husky, budget officer for the city of Boulder. Good to be here with you this evening on uh the first budget reading uh this evening and bringing forward the 2026 recommended budget. Tonight we will share an overview of major budget assumptions and find and are uh forecasted revenues incorporated into the 2026 recommended budget. Sheriff Ford, an overview of the 2026 recommended budget focusing on the operating budget as well as the six-year 2026 to 2031 capital improvement program and and also speak to the long-term financial strategy pointing to our funding outlook, our community conversations to come and future financial planning and rounding out with council questions, the public hearing, council discussions, and our motion language for this evening. So sharing forward an overview of our major budget assumptions and forecasted revenues as

[118:02] shared at the at the September 11th budget study session, the 2026 recommended budget was developed under elevated uncertainty and seeing flattening of our major revenue sources of sales and use tax uh and impacts of our major revenue sources for sales and use tax and property tax in addition to other city revenues declining or plateauing. With seeing this flattening of our major revenue sources as well as additional revenue sources, city uh revenues, staff revised our revenue forecast down compared to our original forecasts impacting budget considerations and major assumptions for the 2026 budget development. In addition, since January of 2025, economic uh and federal uncertainty has remained steady. This has not only impacted the city's revenue uh forecast, revising down sales and use tax and other uh taxes uh and revenues

[119:02] associated with economic conditions, but also the city has uh focused closely on monitoring potential impacts to federal funds received by the city on an annual or one-time basis. To date, no city federal award has been cancelled or terminated out of the 52 million remaining to be expended or received. With our revised res revenue forecast, staff identified a budget shortfall of 7.5 million in the general fund if left un unbalanced and unressed. The organization pivoted midy year to focus on shoring up this budget shortfall that was identified with emphasis across the organization on ongoing reductions, realignments of dollars toward highest and best use, taking care of our existing assets and core services in the city and flexibility across all city funds. Our heightened importance uh was also placed

[120:02] this year during the 2026 budget development on budgeting for resilience and equity and the long-term financial strategy which are frameworks for budget decisionmaking in the city. And this strengthened foundation uh in the organization serves as strengthened foundation for budgeting, financial planning and organizational resiliency. And as Kristen mentioned has position the city well compared to other jurisdictions particularly during this budget cycle in util in utilizing these foundational frameworks for decision-making. The 2026 recommended budget continues to uplift community priorities while maintaining investments in critical city services. As mentioned previously, our forecasted revenues for 2026 reflect slow revenue growth and continued uncertainty of economic conditions. Our total projected revenues for the 2026 budget total 507.2 2 million with the city's two major

[121:02] revenue sources reflecting flattening and slowing growth compared to our original forecast for sales and use tax which comprises 35% of the city's revenues. Year-over-year change is a decrease of.3%. With a budget gap compared to the original forecasts of 4.2 2 million across all six funds uh supported by sales and use tax and 1.9 million specific to the general fund in 2026. We do anticipate an uptick in sales and use tax beginning in 2027 and will continue to monitor uh sales and use tax with the forecast we perform with our partners at CU. Property tax, which comprises 12% of city revenues, is a 3.1% year-over-year increase. And while this is an increase in revenue, it's important to note that this increase in reassessment cycles is the lowest seen since 2011, where we saw 14% average

[122:01] growth in reassessment cycles between 2013 and 2023. And this impacted our original uh revenue forecasts with revisions downward by 5.2 million across all three funds supported by property tax and 4.4 4 million specific to the general fund in 2026. As mentioned and shared forward in the prior item as well as in the September 11th study session, the uh 2026 budget focuses on advancing the city's work on the long-term financial strategy, which is a key part uh of this strategy focuses on reducing over reliance on sales and use tax and increasing revenue diversity and stability of city revenues. The 2026 recommended budget incorporates these enhanced revenue measures and alternative funding mechanisms as part of our revenues for 2026, including as listed here, the transportation maintenance fee uh of

[123:01] 2.25 million in 2026. a longstied sustainable funding mechanism uh that we uh just heard from our partners in transportation supporting transportation maintenance and unfunded needs in bridges uh supporting bridges, streets and sidewalks. A 50 cent hourly increase in on street parking and garage parking fees in line with our performance-based pricing model. Speed on green photo enforcement for a total of 2.6 6 million uh consistent with vision zero goals and single and a single family housing expansion fee of an estimated 400,000 for the 2026 budget recommended at $11 per square foot for significant expansions of single unit dwellings. And specific to this fee, a reminder that city council will have a policy discussion upcoming on October 16th and November 6th specific to the single family housing expansion fee.

[124:01] So focusing on an overview of the 2026 recommended budget, this graph compares the city's adopted budgets from 2019 through the 2026 recommended budget. We can see that post pandemic in 2021 through 2023 there was strong revenue growth and in turn the city invested in new ongoing programs and services for homelessness initiatives, behavioral health programming, wildfire resilience efforts, public safety and affordable housing to name a few. The city began to see a flattening of sales and use tax beginning in 2023 and focused on uh strategic use of one-time fund balance and investments in 2024 and 2025. The city's revenues were further impacted by economic uncertainty and state legislation in 2025, resulting in an in in an identified

[125:02] shortfall and need to reduce the balance and need to reduce and balance the budget particularly within the general fund. And as seen in this graph in the 2026 recommended budget, declines and slows compared to prior fiscal years, the citywide budget, which is this top line on the graph, is an 11.6% decrease, primarily driven by slowing operating growth and reduced year-over-year capital investments due to project timing and funding availability. The citywide operating budget, uh, this middle line here in yellow is a 2.1% year-over-year increase, which represents the slowest operating increase in the budget since 2021. And the general fund budget is a 7.8% year-over-year decrease. And this decline is driven by flattening revenues that we pointed to earlier in the

[126:00] presentation and reduced use of one-time funds to bring forward a balance budget and general fund in particular to ensure fund sustainability. The 2026 recommended operating budget totals 47.7 million and supports investments across all all seven goal areas within the city's sustainability, equity, and resilience framework. This alignment is a reflection of the city's resources and dollars across all goal areas in alignment with budgeting for resilience and equity where we have aligned the budget across this greater framework and have continued to utilize program performance data, historical trends, outcome data to drive budget decisionmaking. This work continues to uplift and advance the citywide strategic plan as well as city council priorities identified in April of 2024. This budget also continues to utilize

[127:00] and uplift existing community engagement input received in 2024 and 2025 where city staff received valuable input from community connectors and residents as well as input from over a thousand community members in a citywide budget questionnaire last year. And as mentioned previously, given the financial landscape in developing the 2026 recommended budget, the 2026 budget comprises reductions, realignments, and few enhancements to support community priorities and core city services. While we shared a comprehensive overview of at the September 11th study session, I will share forward just a couple of highlights of significant changes included in the 2026 bud uh operating budget over the next few slides. One significant change incorporated into the 2026 operating budget is a reorganization of behavioral health programming. Based on two years of

[128:01] programmatic and outcome data, the 2026 budget proposes reducing the community assistance response and engagement or care program uh resources 3 FTE and reorganizing the remaining staffing resources or 4FT and 483 uh,000 uh dollars into a crossf functional behavioral health response team. Data demonstrated that while the care program responded to an average of less than one call per day, the additional staff enabled an increased res increased response to behavioral health crisis calls. This reorganized team of clinicians and case managers will continue to provide a high quality, flexible, and cross-f functional staff staffing response to crisis calls where clinicians will be accompanied by a police officer when conditions require, but have the opportunity to respond uh with other behavioral health staff when

[129:00] an officer is not needed. Incorporated into the 2026 operating budget are also realignments associated with homelessness to uplift the city's homelessness strategy that aims to streamline certain services toward more coordinated care across the full homelessness system. Included in the 2026 budget are several key changes, including reducing duplication of outreach services by removing the Boulder targeted homeless homelessness engagement and referral effort or be there program funding which can be supported by other nonprofit partners. This will continue to allow all roads to continue to focus on in shel in inshelter navigation services included as well as leveraging remaining state doula grant funds to allow for a one-time reduction in city contributions for the day services center. Incorporated into these realignments is also ending some municipal court case

[130:01] management services for people without active municipal cases as well as continuing for support for the urban park rangers and the safe and managed spaces program or SAMPS but with a reduction in staffing for SAMPS achieved through two uh uh reductions to two existing vacancies to better reflect current operational demand and signal a transition to more proactive solutions. s. And finally, in addition, the city will support efforts to end unsheltered homelessness by allocating funding for the building home program from the eviction prevention and rental assistance services fund and utilizing 275,000 from a one-time uh fund balance uh to support uh this program uh in 2026. Additional significant changes incorporated into the 2026 operating budget are supports for arts, culture, and heritage. With over 2.4 4 million in

[131:02] arts funding in 2026, a year-over-year increase of 27% is proposed for cultural events, operating arts grants, public art installations, and preparation for finalization and implementation of the arts blueprint in early 2026, as well as a a realignment of a portion of the fire rescue wildland unit or 7FT that comprise that unit to be supported by open space revenues where this team spends 90% of staff time on wildfire response and mitigation efforts such as p prescribed burns or wildfire training. Shifting to provide an overview of the six-year CIP between 2026 and 2031. The six-year CIP represents a comprehensive six-year capital plan for capital infrastructure across the organization and maintenance uh across

[132:00] the city, identifying all planned capital improvement uh projects and their estimated costs over a six-year period for the 2026 capital budget. This includes a total of 113.3 million supporting 115 capital projects and across the full six-year horizon a total of 789.5 million in planned spending to support a total of 173 capital projects. This graph provides an overview of the six-year CIP broken down by department. The funding for which is supported across 19 funds, 19 budgeted funds in the organization supporting capital investments across the six-year horizon with 75% of the total capital budget funding utilities and transportation infrastructure and maintenance needs. Over the next two slides, I'll provide a couple examples of major capital projects that are incorporated into the

[133:01] six-year CIP. Wildfire resilience efforts are a key priority in the city's operations and investments. And in the 2026 to 2031 CIP, there is 600,000 for wildfire resilient landscapes uh that will support fuel mitigation efforts along ditch corridors and performing forest thinning and vegetation management within the wild and urban interface or the WOOI and on open space lands. One important item to note related to our wildfire investments is that this represents one piece of the larger investments of wildfire across the city's budget which includes over an estimated 11 million in operating and capital investments across nine departments in the organizations led primarily by the cross-d departmental efforts of open space and mountain parks, fire, rescue and climate initiatives departments. Included in the in the CIP are

[134:01] investments for civic area phase 2 project with 3.5 million in 2026 and 18 million in total in the total project budget for park renovation and enhancements uh for the civic area park and staff anticipate debt issuance expecting to come forward next year for council review and approval using CCRS sales uh and use tax revenues to support debt issu uh debt funding this project. Incorporated into the CIP is the replacement of fire station 2 with a total of 25 million in project budget to replace fire station 2 at Broadway and baseline responding to approximately 2,300 calls a year. Land was purchased adjacent to the current station last year with construction anticipated to start in 2026 with opening in 2027. and staff also anticipate utilizing CCRS

[135:02] revenues, current revenues to support uh debt issuance for this project in 2026. The Primos Park development and Violet Avenue Bridge uh replacement is another major capital project in the six-year CIP with 4.5 million in 2026 and 8 million in total project budget for the development of park amenities, storm water improvements, and replacement of Violet Avenue Bridge in North Boulder. And rounding out for the CIP sharing forward an overview of the community culture resilience and safety tax. We have a total of 97.6 million in funding across the six-year horizon supporting nine capital projects with the existing CCRS tax. The projects that are funded by uh the current tax are prioritized based on uh community priorities as well as criticality. Uh and as mentioned

[136:01] previously, we anticipate bringing forward to city council debt issuances in 2026 as well as 2027 uh planned for the civic area, fire station 2, and East Boulder Community Center with the next phase of planning for CCRS determined by the 2025 CCRS ballot measure. and rounding out with the long-term financial strategy of funding outlook community conversations to come and financial planning. As named a top city council priority in 2024, the long-term financial strategy builds upon the recommendations of the blue ribbon commission reports of 2008 and 2010 and focuses on taking care of what we have, addressing a backlog of needs, recognizing flexibility of funding to meet community needs, uh recognizing the challenges of restricted funding,

[137:00] coordination of tax ballot measures with within broader city financial planning including alternative funding mechanisms and outcomesbased budgeting as our work uh continues with budgeting for resilience and equity and looking to distribute the tax burden more equitably and with policy guidance from the financial strategy committee and city council. staff have advanced the long-term financial strategy this year in 2025 by devel developing a multi-year ballot measure strategy for 2025 and 2026 including the 2025 ballot measure of the.3% permanent extension of the community culture resilience and safety tax and its associated increase in debt capacity. We've analyzed and incorporated alternative revenue sources as part of this effort within the 2026 budget as mentioned previously and we've conducted and published the city's first comprehensive fee inventory and incorporated in that into the our public

[138:00] facing budget and finally also developed an engagement framework for fund our future community conversations and on tradeoffs and service levels to come in early 2026. And with that, next steps in the 2026 recommended budget for this evening. First reading public hearing uh with our second reading occurring on October 23rd where staff will bring forward the budget ordinances for second reading as well as special district re resolutions for our eight uh special districts uh in the city. And then finally uh sharing forward uh for reference the clerical staff amendments to the ordinance that was shared forward via hotline earlier this afternoon. The two staff amendments uh that were shared forward via hotline include uh an amendments for ordinance 8727, the fees ordinance correct correctly

[139:00] removing uh fee ordinance section for the administrative parking uh reduction fee as approved previously by city council at the July 24th council meeting uh which was an agenda item on modifying off-street parking requirements as well as amending the transportation maintenance fees section to correct a rounding error on on the annual fee uh by land use type, rounding down uh $1 and clarifying categories of land use type to align with the nexus study. And this was updating terminology only. And with that, uh we will turn to council questions, public hearing, and when ready motion language. Thanks so much for that, Charlotte. Um, informationp packed but also pathy. So, appreciate that. Uh, council questions for staff on the budget.

[140:03] >> Tina, hi. Uh, thank you so much. And of course, this isn't our first time looking at this. So, um, just want to recognize that we've all been reading this and studying it and learning about it. Um the first question I had was when we look at the and I've brought this up before when we look at the um construction or the and the infrastructure programs and a good example would be the civic area and Primos Park where can we find sort of the the connected long-term maintenance burden that happens to maintain then that new asset? So in the case of Primos Park, it's newer and in case of the civic area, we know that we've had a maintenance issue for years and we would want to keep it wellmaintained moving forward as it's a centerpiece of sort of our future economic vitality. So how and so how can we find like what those operational impacts are maintenance?

[141:00] >> Yeah, that that's a great question, council member. It is something that we plan on an annual basis in partnership with the uh departments, our capital project managers as well as our uh facilities and fleet uh department in particular related to uh city facilities and have been intentional across the city's budget, particularly over the past uh recent budget cycles and investing more in uh in maintaining our uh infrastructure. um and and that is something that um we continue to prioritize and focus on as part of our uh annual budget development um process. And so when we're reviewing our uh capital infrastructure uh requests that are coming forward um we are identifying uh the needs uh for maintenance um and uh in uh intentional about um prioritizing

[142:02] our uh maintenance needs associated with infrastructure. Um recognizing that um uh we have unfunded and underfunded needs um as uh we heard in the prior uh presentation um uh but that is something that comes forward uh on an annual basis and is programmed uh uh as much as as much as possible within uh the CIP for um uh operations and maintenance of the city's assets. Okay. So any so overall would the expectation be the way we're budgeting now with the better focus on maintenance that we'll see the city like if you're a community member you'll see that when you're walking through our city and our downtown you'll notice you know fewer um fewer less unmaintained areas. Would that be an expectation? I uh I would say that as part of the

[143:01] city strategy, particularly over the past three years, it has been intentional about focusing on maintaining well uh our uh city uh capital portfolio. Um and so we have been intentional about focusing on uplifting that funding in each budget cycle over the past several years in particular. Um and so uh to to answer uh your question, we have been focused on performing that over the past several budget cycles and will continue to focus on performing that now as part of the support with the transportation maintenance fee, but also with the potential of the CCRS uh tax coming forward uh this November as well. Okay, >> Charlotte, if I can add to that, if you don't mind, council member, um I will say, you know, the the concept of total cost of ownership where you're really thinking about not just the structure, but you're also thinking about ongoing maintenance perhaps had not been something that had been included in the projects and now we're building that

[144:00] into projects. You saw that um emphasis when um the facilities and uh fleet department presented years ago um their strategic plan, the facilities master plan. Um and so that is we are continually building that in. So you will see that and as new projects come forward that is part and parcel of what projects will have. It is unfortunately uh had not been the case perhaps in the past and that is why we have so many unfunded needs but moving forward that is built into the projects that we have and built into ongoing asset management as we as we move forward in into the future. >> Great. Thank you. Um, so my next question is just about how we think about our cuts to the the broad category of um, human services and how we're doing that in coordination with the county. I I think we all just read that the county has done a bunch of cuts in

[145:01] our community and we're serving in many cases the same community, the same people, the same needs that are um happening that are that we we see and that are probably going to get more um worse over time. Um how are we how are we working with the county when we each make our cuts to each of our uh different areas? Yeah, thanks for the question, council member. And I see uh Kurt Fernho with uh director of HHS has has come on to chime in with response. >> Thank you, Charlotte, and thank you for introducing me. Um so we we work uh closely at a staff level with um uh with Boulder County at different levels. um we coordinate with them around uh um areas and organizations which they're funding and programs which they're funding.

[146:00] Um right now we're the city is further ahead in the process of their budget than the county is. Um although we they have announced um various cuts that they'll that they've made. Um uh sort of the details of that are yet to come out. Um, I I'd also say that we work um closely with public health and we communicate well with them. They have they also have programs that um overlap um and serve some of the same individuals that we serve. Um so that coordination will continue um as we receive or understand more information about um where their budget cuts are landing. >> Okay. And um thank you. And it's just uh it's interesting because as a city council person, you know, we read about a county cut and I'm trying to figure out, well, I hope we're not cutting the same thing as the county and how is what's an easy way for me to understand

[147:01] sort of the budgeting landscape by group that's in need of services and kind of who's taking the lead in which lane. So, you know, maybe something to think about. I wonder, you know, how can we make that more transparent um through the budgeting process? Um and then my other question is a little bit related. Are we so I feel like as we are learning about everyone, you know, dealing with cuts at the state, county, um and special district level, the CU and and the school district, BBSD, I would imagine we're all contemplating taxes. And are we thinking about coordinating earlier to um align the taxing strategy across the different entities? Because I would imagine with the next budget with the projected shortfall um that might be an option or or have we already figured out other ways we can address future revenue shortfalls without any kind of new taxes or fees?

[148:02] >> Thank you for the question, Council Member Marcos. It is something that we're continuing to look at as part of the multi-year ballot measure strategy that we have developed within the long-term financial strategy. We identified both for this year for 2025 as well as for 2026 framework associated with um uh the multi-year strategy. We will need to continue to monitor uh the the our revenue sources, our major revenue sources into next year. Um but in terms of uh general coordination, it is something that we discussed as a city as part of the work of the long-term financial strategy and looking at what other measures might be uh brought forward from other jurisdictions at the county and the state level um this fiscal year. And that would be something that we would look uh to coordinate uh and uh identify and understand as part of our larger planning effort for 2026

[149:02] as well. >> I'll just add that we do informally speak with our sister organizations periodically. I'll say timing is sometimes difficult because we approve our budgets at a different time and uh and when uh when our different organizations are speaking to their respective boards are at different times and so they may not know what they're exactly moving forward or not. So while we have informal conversations um it is sometimes difficult to know who's putting what forward at what time. We generally know what people may be thinking about, but we don't always know precisely what people will be moving forward until something is moving forward. >> Okay, I think that's all I have for now. Thanks. >> Okay, Mark, you want to add your hotline questions? >> Um, not really, but I have a I do have a couple of questions. Um, you know, we've

[150:02] been hearing about this $52 million of transportation grants that have been approved but not yet uh distributed. They seem to be just sitting there in stasis. Is there any motion on them? Have we made application for them? Any indication that we're going to be receiving them at any point in the near future or any indication that we won't? Thank you for the the question, Council Member Wallik. One clarifying point before tossing to uh uh Deputy Director uh Valerie Watson. The 52 million that is is that we continue to share forward is directly associated not only with transportation funding but also a range of federal funding that we receive for public safety um for uh housing uh affordable housing as well. So it is all inclusive uh in that number that we're sharing forward and Valerie feel free to

[151:02] uh chime in uh as well. Yeah, thanks Valerie Watson, Deputy Director Transportation and Mobility. Um I think since you asked specifically um Council Member Wallik about the um funding that relates to transportation, um we are still currently working um with um the FHWA to um continue to get those those grant funds allocated. Um so still in process. >> Well, let me just ask the corary question. If uh some portion of it is unrelated to transportation, are we seeing any movement on those or is everything sort of in limbo uh for the foreseeable future? And also what portion of the 52 million uh is represented by non-transportation related grants? >> Uh I will uh need to

[152:03] lean on my team for the the exact percentage associated with that. Um the the total amount uh I should I should clarify the total amount of funding uh that we have currently in active federal awards is 52 million that is yet to be expended or reimbursed. Those are active federal awards that we have. We do have a list of pending uh grants um some of which are associated uh with federal funds. The total amount of pending uh grants uh is uh um 34 uh million which is inclusive of uh our safe streets uh for all grant uh with the the department uh of transport the US department of transportation. >> Okay. Um and my only other question is

[153:00] um uh you were kind enough to share with me um that open space when I complained about the the lack of funding for um fuel mitigation, you shared with me that fact that open space uh has in fact $3.75 million of um funds that are going to go towards uh wildfire resilience. And in another place in in your responses to me, you indicated that citywide we may have as much as $11 million uh in spending that would be go towards that purpose. um at your convenience, would you be able at some point to give us that list of um uh funds of of of projects that are that are being uh uh funds are being spent on wildfire resilience because that's that's a very good uh amount. That's a very positive development. I'd like to see what you know what all is included.

[154:00] we uh would be so uh appreciate the question, council member. Staff has been working across all of the all of the departments that I mentioned earlier uh in uh in the presentation uh to identify wildfire investment costs. And so the early estimate shared for it is about 11 million across the organization. Um they are going through right now uh the exercise of identifying all of the projects, the programs and services that support wildfire resilience efforts in the operating and capital budget. And so once we have that compiled uh we can certainly send that forward and share that with council members. That is a a very very positive development for those of us who are kind of fixated on on wildfire resilience and it is nice to see that that uh their original estimates of what we were spending on that issue are in fact a small portion of what we are spending on

[155:00] that issue. So I would appreciate that information and that's my questions. >> Thanks Matt. Appreciate it. Uh good questions, Mark, especially on the wildfire. Um and and good update. Um my question centers around kind of general accessibility for our budget. Um certainly since my time on council, there's been sort of just an ongoing set of questions about how easy it is to find the information on open.gov. And so I'm just wondering how has staff compiled that list and how are we moving through the usability and user interface? So, not just folks like us who've been doing this stuff, still struggling, but let alone community who who more or less have to get lucky with a set of random, you know, mouse clicks to find the number they're they're looking for. So, I this is a bigger question, but every budget we kind of ask the same question about usability and accessibility. So, I'm just wondering what's the what's the impetus to sort of take the steps towards action

[156:00] in in in making this a little easier for folks to grab a hold to? Yeah, thank thanks for the question, council member. It is uh an item that uh with council bringing forward these questions uh in our uh online budget platform that we utilize for budgeting uh and and placing and publishing of our city budget. We have been working with our vendor OpenGV uh to understand their plans for implementing a potential search function um to be able to increase that transparency and accessibility to the uh online budget. Uh and we estimate in speaking uh with uh the vendor that they are uh currently working on a beta uh testing version of a search feature um that they estimate to come forward at some point next year. um we continue to work with them on a particular search feature um that would be a search tool

[157:03] for ease of reference for searching the document itself and in addition to that it's something that uh we are focused on increasing for uh accessibility usability uh of the document uh in addition to uh general engagement efforts um and sharing forward uh information to the broader community um to be able to understand the city's uh budget. So it is something that we're continuously improving upon year after year. >> May I call aqu on that? >> Uh please go for Mark. um you know there there are places in the budget where you get um history you know 24 25 numbers and then going into the the proposed budget and there are places where you do not and I think it's always useful to be able to see where we have been and in order to assess where we are and where

[158:01] we are going and so if it's going to be a search function I hope it will incorporate a greater use of historical data um at in all tables so that we can actually look at that function of of you know what have what has been the history for that set of expenditures. >> Appreciate that Mark. U my next question centers again about just kind a little bit about information. One thing that I struggle with is I see the budget but what I don't see is the sources of funds right there in an e. So, it's especially as we're really having this long-term financial conversation about dedicated funds versus general funds. It'd be nice to know that when I click on the open space budget, I get to see what fraction of their budget is from dedicated or from general. It would be nice to just see the pie of where that is because when we're tasked with offering suggestions, you know, at the 11th hour, I need to know where those funds are because if a department's fully

[159:01] dedicated, there's no taking any slices of that pie and moving it around. So whether it's community vitality or transportation, knowing the sources and seeing those pies next to each other again from a usabilities perspective allow me to to more rapidly be able to assess it and get you guys formative questions versus asking you guys to sort of babysit me trying to figure out where the numbers are because that's a waste of everybody's time. So that's something that I think is is helpful too. And I know we were talking about structural budget, but so much of this is about accessibility and how we start to even form the questions and understand it in detail um in that sense as well. >> Yeah, thank you for the the the questions uh and the comments. Council member, the uh specific question I believe related to the the dedicated source of funds is an item that we do publish on a table that is presented in each department page as well as in our budget in brief. Um, we also have a transparency portal that is available uh to search for all of the sources and

[160:01] uses across the city budget broken down by fund or revenue source. Um, and you know, happy to uh to to walk through that at any time. Um uh if there are questions uh around the specifics of the transparency portal itself, we do have published uh instructions on the 2026 budget and in our prior budgets of how to utilize the report tool and which which specific uh reports uh would be good to utilize. uh pointing to two in particular, our sources and uses report as well as our six-year uh capital improvement program uh breakdown. >> I I appreciate that. It's just, you know, been doing it four years and it should be just like bang bang bang super easy. So, we we that's just some usability stuff we can keep working on, but I appreciate that a lot. Those are all my questions. >> Okay. Well, seeing no other hands, then we can proceed to the public hearing.

[161:00] We have um eight people signed up to speak. Each speaker will get three minutes. And our first three speakers are Debbie Pope, Lynn Cluck, Maleb, and Deborah Molton. >> So, do you want me to read the public participation guidelines at this point or >> um Yeah, Alicia, please do. I think this would be a good time. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. and thank you for your participation in tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Clothe, including 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. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any

[162:01] lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting 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 or other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you again for joining us and thank you for listening. >> Thanks for doing that, Alicia. Appreciate it. Um, okay. So, first three speakers are Debbie Pope, Lynn, Cloa, Maleb, and Terra Molton. >> All right, Debbie, your mic has been unmuted. You should start speaking. >> Great. Thank you so much. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Perfect. Um, well, good evening, council members. I'm Debbie Pope. I'm the new executive director of EHA Emergency

[163:01] Family Assistant Association here serving the city of Boulder and I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. I want to share a brief but important update about what EPA is seeing in terms of some of our furring safety net and in particular our food bank and why we're requesting your support as we respond to a growing wave of need in our community. Since January, we've served more than 2,000 households through our food bank, totaling more than 15,000 visits, distributing nearing nearly 1 million pounds of food. And what we're starting to see is a significant increase. And even just last week, we recorded some of our highest food bank visit numbers this year, about 20% higher than our busiest day. And that rise in demand is part of a broader urgent trend. And food insecurity is growing. And we know many families, as you all are aware, are struggling to keep up with those rising costs. Of course, some of those factors that are really compounding the challenge include

[164:00] the federal SNAP benefit reductions that have already started impacting or we know are soon going to be impacting many of our participants. And roughly twothirds of EA participants rely on SNAP. Um, and we are starting to and expecting to see more families turning to us for more help as a result of that. Our partners who supply half of our food are facing up to a 30% in budget cuts, which could mean a 25% drop in food availability, even as we anticipate a 20 to 35% rise in demand. Um, as you all know, EA, we are taking action. We're diversifying our food sources through our store pickups, food drives, new vendor relationships. We're applying for grants and engaging donors. But we know these efforts alone will not bridge that full gap. EFA has committed an additional 200,000 toward food purchasing specifically for fresh produce, dairy, eggs, and culturally relevant staples to really ensure families don't go hungry. Listen, I

[165:01] fully recognize and listening to this whole discussion that the city is facing difficult budget choices. But if there's any opportunity to allocate dollars to support Epha during this critical time, I'm asking you to consider that. Um, we are, I promise you, working hand inand with our partners and our donors to stretch and leverage our resources and to continue being there for our growing number of families who are coming to us. I thank you for your time and for all you're doing to support the well-being of Boulder residents. >> Thank you. All right. Our next three speakers are Lin Clico Maleb, Deborah Molton, and Nick Forester. Lynn, you're >> Hi there. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Hi. Uh, good evening, Mayor Brockett, city council members, city staff, and other attendees. My name is Lynn Sio Maleb. I've lived in North Boulder for

[166:01] 22 years. I currently serve on the boards of Nobo Art District and Create Boulder and have previously served on the boards of the Dair Arts Center and Third Law Dance. Tonight I'm speaking on behalf of Create Boulder and also as a resident and a voter. First of all, I really want to commend the city for establishing the Office of Cultural and Economic Development just this week. It's an important step in recognizing that the arts and culture are an economic engine for Boulder. I'm here to speak about the community culture resilience and safety tax or CCRS which the city's website describes as funding our future and investing in a better boulder. As you know, the CCRS primarily funds city infrastructure, but also nonprofit capital projects. First approved in 2014 and twice extended, it will appear on this November's ballot as a proposed permanent extension. Originally promoted as an arts tax, CCRS

[167:02] has helped fund transformative projects. The Derry's the Dair Arts Center, the Museum of Boulder, Groundworks Art Lab, KGNU's new facility, all strengthening Boulders's creative identity and economy. Over time, however, the CCRS nonprofit share has declined from 30%, all of which was dedicated to the arts just to 10% with no assured allocation for arts and culture. In the most recent 2021 extension, nonprofit awards decisions were made internally rather than through the transparent citizen-led process of 2017. and only two and a half percent of the nonprofit awards of the tax actually went to arts projects. More importantly, none of the awards resulted in visible transformative capital projects that the community could be proud of and really address community needs.

[168:01] Um recently the artist census that was commissioned by the art the office of arts and culture um documents that there severe shortages in affordable studio performance exhibition and rehearsal space and we also have to consider the upcoming needs of Sundance. Um, a call today that the office of arts and culture and visit Boulder sponsored talked about five transformative cultural projects that could be realized in the next two to five years assuming their financing. This tax could play a role in some of those opportunities. Under the current tax about 18 million remains for nonprofit capital awards through 2036. If extended, the total would generate an estimated 30 million in today's dollars. >> But thank you for your testimony. >> All right. And I I didn't mention, but I

[169:00] um am strict on the time limits to be fair to everyone. Uh okay. Our next uh three speakers are Deborah Molden, Nick Forester, and Jan Burton. >> Deborah Malden. Deborah Malden I do not believe is speaking tonight. >> Okay. Let's see. I do not see Deborah in the list of attendees. So, we will go to um actually and I don't see Jan Burton either. So, we're going to go to Nick Forester, then Lin Seagull, then Shelby Bates. >> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. Thanks, guys. Thanks, everybody. And again, I'm always amazed by the work you do. Um, I really appreciated Mark and Matt's comments about accessibility and searchability in the city's budget um, and access to the details. I concur

[170:00] with Lynn's comments about um, the CCRS tax. Um, thanks for that, Lynn. And, um, and I also want to agree with her and just say all of us in the arts community are gratified to see two pretty s substantial shifts. um one moving the arts and culture um into the cultural and economic development department. That's thank you Nura and staff for elevating the arts into the area of economic development where it belongs because as you know studies shown that the arts funding demonstrates uh you know it provides a significant return on investment. Um secondly very happy to see an increase in grants earmarked for the 2026 budget. Um to quote Matt's earlier comments this evening regarding the trust of the citizens uh regarding city council um 75% of voters approved 2A dollars with the understanding that those dollars are going to artists and arts nonprofits. So I appreciate that trend. I also want to reflect Mark Wallock's uh comments on the hotline

[171:02] where he thought that 31% retained by the city seemed inconsistent with the will of the voters. And as um I know your budget constrained, but as we move forward, we're hopeful that more of those dollars can be distributed directly to the arts uh nonprofits that are struggling also with hard times. Um, in general, I uh I just appreciate the fact that with Sundance coming to town, it's the shiny object that everybody's excited about, understandably, but I also just want to speak up and speak out on behalf of the arts organizations that are here, many of whom are struggling and who do contribute significantly to our welfare, our vitality, and our economy. Thanks very much. Thanks again for all you do. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Lynn Seagull and then Shelby Bates and Alex Mitter. >> Well, this this discussion of the the

[172:03] budget really behooves you to think about our military budget and what we're doing in Israel and Palestine and how we need to stop that. >> So, please stick to the city. >> I'm sticking right to the city budget, Erin. And don't interrupt my time, please. I have my lousy three minutes, so leave me alone. This is the biggest thing you can do is defund from Israel. That's the biggest thing you can do. >> I gave you a warning. >> For 37 years, Aaron, for 37 years, I've been following your budgets and everything. >> Mute the mic, please. Thank you. Yeah, we just we do need people to address the public hearing that's in front of us right now. Um, okay. Our last two speakers are Shelby Bates and Alex Mitt. >> Hi. Can you hear me?

[173:01] >> Yes. >> Okay. Hi, council. Um, I really can't think of a more difficult time to be a city council member than right now. So, thank you so much for being here. Um, my name is Shelby Bates. I'm here tonight to speak in support of Elevate Boulder, the city's guaranteed income pilot program that will come to an end in December. I was on the city task force to launch the pilot a few years ago. And my connection is as a disabled, low-income resident of Boulder, who also happens to be a social worker. From my personal perspective, I was thrilled when the city signed on to Maris for guaranteed income. And I think the project has really redefined what relationships between the city and our marginalized communities can look like. Elevate Boulder removed so many of the bureaucratic hoops that many of us sadly used are used to having to navigate just to get help um on things we're impacted by. I think the emphasis on resourcing low-income community members who face various oppressions has been a

[174:00] cornerstone of Elevate with 65% of recipients being people of color, 15% having a disability, and 3% identifying as transgender. The final evaluation report, which I'm sure many of you have seen, was released recently and shows tremendous results with participants sharing an increased ability to meet basic needs while experiencing a decrease in psychological distress. At a time when these communities are being targeted by the federal government and it will likely become even harder to access resources like Medicaid and SNAP, I believe now is the time to lean in and provide additional support to ensure marginalized community members can continue to call Boulder home. No strings attached, direct cash assistance is one way to provide that support. At the end of the day, I think diversity and race, ability, and gender make our community richer for us all. In addition, some council members have noted the idea to have a nonprofit house the project. And this is where my social work perspective comes in. I believe it makes strategic sense for the city to

[175:00] host the project, not a nonprofit. The framework, knowledge, consultants, and most importantly, trust between the city and the community have already been established. And we're already asking so much of nonprofit partners. So my ask for council is to make the strongest possible financial commitment for 2026 and 2027 to support the continuation of Elevate Boulder. Given the federal situation and the likely coming loss of additional benefits that support our low-income community members, I think now is really the time to lean in and commit to resourcing our most vulnerable community members. Two years of unrestricted direct cash has much deeper and longerlasting impacts when it is alongside other short-term restricted programs such as food vouchers or rental assistance. So this ask more broadly is to fund housing and human services to the greatest extent possible as a commitment to equity and justice in our community. It's also an ask for our community members to do the same as I know that private philanthropy is a

[176:00] critical player in this time when there are already so many budget constraints. I believe it's possible for us all to do better and be more intentional in your >> time is up but thank you for your testimony. >> Okay. >> All right. Our last speaker tonight is Alex Mid. >> Hi, good evening everyone. Um I'm Alex Mitt. live and work in the city of Boulder and I'm speaking as a participant in the Elevate Boulder basic income pilot program. Um, also really sorry I'll have to work this late. I appreciate your probably waning attention. Um, want to start by saying thank you for the decision to allocate ARPA funds towards cash assistance for residents of Boulder. Um, which gave me the opportunity to be a participant in the program. Um, I'll speak a bit about my experience. A few years ago, I experienced violence that resulted in having to leave in an unsafe situation, um, and losing housing. And so, this

[177:01] program was a huge part of my rebuilding process. Um, before entering, I was working two jobs in addition to a full-time job. And now I work one full-time job. Um, the unrestricted cash assistance gave me the agency to choose how I spent the money. Um, and I was able to pay off the debt that I acrewed while being unhoused. I also used it to meet medical needs that allowed me to stay employed and thus stay housed long term. Um, I'm also a case worker for families impacted by domestic violence. And a big piece of what impacts their ability to rebuild their lives, especially like that necessary piece of gaining and maintaining safe and stable housing um is just a lack of economic mobility because of how focused they are on just surviving. Um, so about I'll say about 30% of Elevate Boulder participants cited the cash assistance received through the program as a reason

[178:00] they were able to pursue technical training or educational courses in addition to their full-time work. Um, and that just allows for upward mobility for families. Um, the results from the survey also show participants experienced decreased stress, more time spent with children, a reduction in late rent and mortgage payments, and just increased housing stability. Um, this cuts a lot of costs for the city because it's way more expensive to provide services for someone who's unhoused than it is to assist someone in maintaining their housing. Um, so my ask is that in this politically terrifying time when funding for public services is being cut, um, there's a huge need for financial assistance for residents, um, including direct cash assistance to families in the budget will be helping Boulder families gain opportunities to invest in their local economy and just meet their basic needs without the need for invasive surveillance and extensive administrative work that's typically

[179:01] required for applications. for financial assistance. Um, and yeah, other Boulder residents deserve to be able to meet their basic needs and reser receive the same opportunities I got through this program. Okay, thanks for your time. >> Thank you. >> All right, that brings the public hearing to a close. Um, before we begin our discussion, I just had a a quick followup um question which we heard from Debbie Pope um at Epha about the increased needs that they're seeing in the community. may have heard that from many others as well. Can you outline I know we're supporting EA directly and in in one way or another um and we have other basic needs programs included in the budget. Kurt in a in a do are you able to do a quick summary of how we're addressing some of those issues in in our current budget or the budget that's proposed? Uh we can't hear you. Maybe you need to lower your microphone.

[180:05] Okay, now my video is not working. Um, >> hear you. >> Good. Um, okay. Kurt Fernhour, director of housing and human services. Um, thank you for the question, uh, Mayor Brockett. So, there's there's two two, uh, sort of buckets of support that, uh, we're providing. Um, EA one is the keep families housed um program which you've uh heard about in council in in previous years. That's uh 450,000 and 261,000 uh for uh shelter uh basic needs and medical assistance which also includes um some support for their food bank as well. the amount uh that's in your budget for 2026 is the same as it was for 2025.

[181:04] Thanks. I appreciate that summary, Kurt. Um and while I have the floor, I'll just say um thanks Debbie for joining us and talking about um all those needs there. Um and it would be fantastic to increase that amount, but we also in a very constrained budgetary situation as we heard outlined in the presentations. >> Can I call a quick Eron? Yes. >> Uh do we know how much the county is participating because they also participate and serve Boulder residents? Like it's not correct. >> I don't know that we would have that. I'll if um Elizabeth Crow knows um she can come up and answer that, but I would I would be surprised um if we had that information at our fingertips. >> Elizabeth, >> that's correct. Elizabeth Crow, deputy director, housing and human services. Um, the Boulder County's community partnership grants have not been announced publicly yet. Um, so I think

[182:02] as soon as that information is known, then then we'll know. >> Very good. Okay. So, I'll uh thanks for that those answers and um I'll turn to council uh for deliberations on the budget. Um just encourage folks to keep comments uh brief because we are already at time. Nicole. >> Um, I just want to thank staff. I mean, this is impossibly hard work. Um, it's, uh, excruciating to see us not be able to fund some of these programs moving forward. And I know that you all feel the same way. Um I know that uh everybody including everybody who participated in all the discussions and community um has really worked to balance all these different needs. Um I will be supporting the budget without um proposing any changes um for that reason. And I would just like to make a plea to the community to those who have

[183:00] the ability um to to consider um giving extra support to our nonprofits um to some of the programs for the uh Elevate Pro Boulder program. I know um our deputy director is working hard to set up a way of funding that. Um I think this is a time when everyone in the community needs to come together to um support the many groups that supplement the support that we can give as a city. So, thank you to staff and um really appreciate all the thought and intention and hard work that went into this. >> Well said, Nicole. Um, seeing no other hands raised at the moment, I'll just jump in and echo the thanks to uh, city staff uh, for an extremely uh, fantastic high level of work on a very difficult project in any year, but particularly this year given the highly constrained situation. So, uh, I've been very impressed with the thoughtful way that you've put it together uh, with the different approaches to revenues and expenses. Um, so I'm looking forward to

[184:02] voting yes here in a minute. um and and also um impressed on the way that despite those constraints, we're able to make progress on updating and and replacing some of our most important infrastructure like our um Eastbold direct rec center and our fire stations uh among others. Um and then one just one thing I'll note, I we we have gotten some community comments about um increased sizes of Boulder budgets and why that's happening. I did um just do a quick bit of math um Charlotte based on that graph that you uh gave us of the different the general fund versus the overall um budget and I thought the general fund was the most indicative in terms of budget growth because it's the those are the ones that are not dedicated to other specific purposes and in the last seven years from before the pandemic um the annual average annual growth rate has been 2.98%. So, a 3% growth is in line, in fact, below inflation. Um, so just wanted to get that out to the community. Um, in

[185:01] terms of the narratives that maybe we've been growing way too quickly on the budget side. Um, okay, that's it for me. Uh, Mark and then Tina. >> Yeah, I'll be brief. Um, I'm certainly going to vote in favor of this budget. I think it is an awesome amount of work. Um, the product that was delivered to us is very thoughtful. Uh it's a very difficult time and and uh some difficult choices were made but I I could not be more impressed uh with what staff has done. Uh my my real complaint my only complaint is I would urge some reconsideration of some of these allocations. I I they may be justifiable in theory but I I think in practice they are getting a little excessive with some of the departments. Open space is one and I think the the arts community is another. Um and I would like to work to maximize the amount of money they have

[186:00] not minimize it through the allocations and deductions. But having said that, uh I have no other complaint about this budget and I will enthusiastically uh vote yes because as I said this is a a monumental piece of work and uh you know I'm in full support. Thank you. >> Thanks Mark Tina. Yeah, I'll echo much of what Mark said and Nicole. Um, I will be supporting the budget and not only is it the work that you see, but it's also all the questions that we ask in the interim and offline as we try to understand the different details. Um the one thing as I sort of said before is um what because the city and the county are sharing the role of serving the community from a human services perspective. It would be um helpful to kind of understand how we're sharing resources, how the coordination is happening. And I think this becomes more relevant with the sort of the time

[187:01] that we're in. We already just heard a couple of needs, but they're just a a drop in the bucket of what's out there. So just um helping understand that landscape a little bit better and it might even help us focus. We do give out a lot of grants to a variety of nonprofits. Um and just understanding how that's all driving the outcomes that we want for our community I think would be great. >> Thanks. >> Thanks Lauren. >> Thank you. Um, like my colleagues, I appreciate so much the work that staff has done in getting us to the point we're at and and really preparing us fairly well for the position that we're in compared to some of our surrounding communities. While these cuts are hard, they're not um they're not the same level of pain that many surrounding communities are facing. And I I appreciate that. Um, we have been in a slightly better position. I hope we can find um support from our

[188:02] nonprofit partners so that we can run another um round of the Elevate Boulder program. I know that we're not in a financial position to fully fund that ourselves, but um I'm still really hopeful that we'll find um partners for that. I am also hopeful, ever the optimist that um our sales tax numbers will come in higher and maybe we can fund some of these basic needs that are seeing significant cuts at the federal level. Um you know, things are just predictable and unpredictable and I think the budget set up in the way it is is is good considering the the uncertainty that we're facing. Um, I'd like to agree with Matt regarding budget transparency and um really support all those things he brought up. I personally find it really difficult to track down information by

[189:02] myself looking through these even though again I've been doing this for years. Um, and I appreciated Tina's comments about coordination with the county and just wanting to make sure that we um to the amount that we can align and plan together. I think that sets us both up for better success. Thank you. >> Thanks, Matt. >> Mute button. Oh, the mute button. You think we've been doing this for a while? >> Uh, yeah. I I want to just echo what's been said. We're in much better shape than others and that's a testament to staff and more or less, you know, having the magic eightball to sort of look beyond the horizon the last few years and and see where we were going and and making sure we didn't sort of go off a cliff. So, so great job. Um, I think that's a great thing. I think as we go forward, I think there's still a clamoring for really stabilizing our core services. Um, and I think that's something that that we're

[190:00] we're we're close, but we're not quite there yet. And so I'm hopeful maybe in next year's bud budget we really solidify those core services because that's the truest commitment to our community is that those remain um as untouched as possible even through hard times and we really settle in and I think fund our future is going to help uh get us there. So uh great job staff and and hopeful that the next step steps just get us even more solid. >> Thanks Matt. Um, seeing no other hands raised, I might invite a motion, but let me just ask, um, do we need four separate uh, motions? And do we need roll calls on all four of those motions? >> That's a yes and a yes, sir. >> I figured. So perhaps somebody would like to get us started with motion number one. >> I'm happy to start with that one. U motion to introduce an order published by title only ordinance 8722 adopting a budget for the city of Boulder, Colorado for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth related details.

[191:01] >> Just uh if you just wouldn't mind saying I move rather than motion. >> Oh, sorry. I I move I make a motion. >> Great. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Um I assume you've said what you need to say already, Nicole. Uh so roll call, please. Elicia. Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call on the ordinance 8722 with Mayor Pro Tim Folks. >> Yes. >> Council member Marcus, >> yes. >> Shuhard, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> Wallik, >> yes. >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> And Mayor Brockett, >> yes. Ordinance 8722 is hereby approved on first reading. >> Very good. Nicole, do you want to keep going? >> Happy to can share it around as well. I thought I would take the shorter one, so I can keep going. Um, I uh move to

[192:03] introduce um an order published by title only ordinance 8723 establishing the city of Boulder property tax mill levies for 2025 providing that said levy be certified to the Boulder County assessor and setting forth related details. Should that be 2025? >> Yeah. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion in a second. Uh roll call, please. Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for 8723 ordinance with council member Marquis. >> Yes. >> Shuhart. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Yes. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brackett. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Pro Tim Folks? >> Yes. >> Ordinance 8723 is hereby approved on first reading. Two down, two to go.

[193:00] >> All right. Um, I move ordinance 8724 appropriating money to defay expenses and liabilities of the city of Boulder, Colorado for the 2026 fiscal year of the city of Boulder and setting forth related details. >> Second. >> Motion is second. Roll call, please. Elicia. >> Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for ordinance 8724 with council member Shuhart. >> Yes. >> Spear. Yes, >> Mollik. >> Hi, >> Benjamin. >> Yes, >> Mayor Brona. >> Yes, >> Mayor Pro Tim Faulks. >> Yes. >> And council member Marquus. >> Yes. >> Ordinance 8724 is also approved on first reading. I move ordinance 8727 amending sections 3-8-3 tax imposed on non-residential and residential development 3-20-2 imposition and rate of rental license

[194:01] excise tax 7-6-2 parking penalties and chapter 4-20 fees BRC1981 changing certain fees and taxes and setting forth related details >> second did we have to say the introduce an order published by title Did I miss that? Looks like not. Okay, great. We got a motion in a second. Um, roll call, please. Elicia. >> Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for ordinance 8727 with Council Member Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Hi. >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> Mayor Brockett, >> yes. Mayor Pro Tim Faulks, >> yes. >> Council member Marquis, >> yes. >> And Shuhar, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8727 is hereby approved on

[195:00] first reading. >> Very good. Well, that's all four of them. Um, so thanks again, uh, staff for your extraordinary work. We really appreciate everything you've done here. Thank you all for the support. It's uh we could not do this without your questions, without your uh asks. You represent community and if you're getting questions, we should hear about them. So, just thank you all for the support. It's an extraordinary finance team and the departments behind it who work year round on a budget. So, thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Very welcome. >> All right. And that brings us to the end of that public hearing item. So now we go to our first of two matters. We're uh 10 minutes over. Let's see if we can capture that time back. >> Yes, sir. Our matters from the city manager are item number four on tonight's agenda. We'll start with item 4A and it is the discussion on council's position regarding the Boulder County

[196:01] mental health funding ballot measure. >> Uh very good. Well, this was my request, so I guess I'll I'll tee us off, tee us up uh here. So, this is about the county's ballot measure 1B. We're all familiar um with it, but it would um add a new sales tax to increase significantly the funding for uh mental health and behavioral health services in the county. So, I was hoping that we as a city um council could take a position in support of this ballot measure. Um, I do know that we have had some concerns um over time with uh how the county has approached um certain spending priorities and taxes, but I do think that the need is so great in this area in our community that it um would be a very good thing to pass this tax and increase services in that area. So, that's my brief pitch. Um and so, um folks are welcome to respond to that and once we've talked it through a little bit, we can do um a straw poll to see if there is support for taking that

[197:00] position. All right, I got people queued up. Tina, Matt, and Mark. >> Yeah. Uh, my question is, is it just a straw poll or not of four or what is it? >> So, what it would be, thanks for asking that question. What it would be would be a straw poll to see if council supports this. If it if we do, we would be giving directions to to staff to come back with um something that we'd pass under consent at our next meeting formalizing our support for the ballot measure. >> Okay. Um, and with that, I am actually supporting this measure. So I'm fully in support of us uh taking a support position. Thanks. >> Thanks Matt. >> Bang me button. Um my question is um well question such comment I guess is this just going to say a support are we going to draft a letter because I think there's I think it's important for us to to to be clear of the significant concerns that exist with regards to this measure and and and addressing those in

[198:01] writing will allow us to maintain and hold accountability um for the county to hold true to that. um our support may not be completely unfettered and unrestricted, but if this is a three-year thing, I think all of us want to see this successful and that requires us holding accountability to the commissioner's office so that a lot of these metrics and outreach is done appropriately because we all want the transformational change which comes from probably a much bigger tax and really clear goals. So, uh, is this just a yes, we support or yes, we support, but here's what we're going to kind of hold you to, and here's what we're going to keep checking in on to make sure it's being done right. >> Thanks for that, Matt. Teresa, I saw you coming um on camera. Did you want to say something to that or shout at us so we can maybe hear it, but you're muted?

[199:02] >> Are you able to hear me a >> little bit? Okay. Uh so typically we would do a resolution of support >> or not do anything. And so um just historically that's the practice. >> Thanks for that Tracy. And so, Matt, here's here's what I would say is I think we don't we probably don't have time um to do a back and forth. Well, we definitely don't have time to do a back and forth with the commissioners before the election and we probably don't have time to to kind of come up with an exact letter before the election as well. But what I would suggest is I would also be interested in sending our um some of our detailed thoughts to the commissioners in terms of how we would like to see uh the tax benefit our community. So maybe my suggestion my my suggestion would be uh to go ahead and do the resolution of support but then also tee up work for maybe there are a couple of us who who write a draft letter you know something

[200:00] like that um so that we could um get something to the commissioners over before they start implementing the tax. How does that >> I mean it's obviously too late. This thing's fully cooked and so I think that's part and parcel to the problem that's at hand here is the lack of outreach and here we are. Um, so is it just we support or can it be hey we support with uh reservations and uh we'll send a letter expressing that or is it just binary yes or no? >> Um well maybe what we could do Teresa is about to come on but I don't know Teresa can can we pass a resolution of support and say please look for a follow-up letter outlining you know particular um desires and concerns that we have. >> Absolutely. Council can do that. Well, I appreciate that. I would love to hear what colleagues have to say, but that's an angle I'd like to lean on is that it's not just a flat tacit. Yes, it's a yes, but we're watching kind of thing. >> Got it, Mark. And then Nicole. Um, I support this, but I have the same

[201:03] reservations that Matt does, and I very much support uh expressing our the qualifications of of our position and our support. There's a reason this is a three-year tax and and not a permanent tax. It's because the u the county didn't have a full fullyfledged plan for how to do this. they have work to do and and basically we are permitting them to do it over the next three years to see if they can u actually make this thing work. Um and if not it's not going to survive after the third year. And as I said there's a reason we're doing this and that and that there was a great deal of opposition to this if it had not been a three-year limitation on term. So, I don't think there's anything wrong with our expressing uh the reservations that we have. Whether we do it in the resolution itself or in an accompanying

[202:00] letter, I don't really care. But I think it's important to let the public know that we're not just throwing up our hands and saying, you know, you know, go with it. Uh we're supporting it and we expect certain deliverables from the county uh in exchange for that support for the next three years. and if we don't get them, uh, that support is going to terminate. So, yeah, I would I would very much like to do some form of letter, um, that says we do support this. We think the need is there and and we hope the funds will be properly applied, but you have some work to do. We expect you to do it. >> Thank you, Nicole. >> Um, yeah. So, I mean, I, you know, I understand where where we're coming from in terms of what we're hoping the county can do more of specific to the needs that we're seeing here in Boulder. Um, but I I just want to make sure we're grounded in the knowledge that this was

[203:00] part of the county's behavioral health roadmap. Um, this is something that they have been looking toward um including and funding um for quite some time. So, it didn't just kind of come out of the blue, but what I hear us saying is that yeah, this is great and we need this because it's going to help provide a lot of the um prevention focused and um other kind of more more base level mental health support that even the clutch report was talking about needing. Um, but I also hear us saying that we we want them to consider some of the stuff that came out of our clutch report on what we are noticing and needing here in in our city. And so I think if we're going to send a letter, maybe we could try to ground it in um so yes, support this. Absolutely. We desperately need it um so much. But um if we're sending a letter, ground it in our clutch report and the pieces that um it was saying or suggesting that the county could play a bigger role in and just just note that so that we have some data that we're

[204:00] including that it's part of um the strategy that we are looking at overall um for how how we can address this because I think a lot of the um the more significant needs that people um often talk about in our community is specific to the unsheltered um uh homeless community. And so I I would just like us to see us grounded in that, but separating it into um something that we also need, right? Um our community desperately needs this um this this base level of support that was part of the county's behavioral health road mapap um as well. >> Right. Thanks for that. All right. Um, so here here I'm going to make a revised um ask here, which is that we draft a we ask sta ask staff to draft a resolution of support to come back uh for adoption on consent at our next meeting and to include in that resolution of support to that. Um please uh be aware we will also be sending a follow-up letter outlining um desires and um concerns that we have

[205:01] about the implementation of the attacks. And then we some couple of us start working on that. Um and we'll determine that a little bit later exactly how that works out. Ryan, >> thanks. Just a process question on that, Erin. I I like the idea and hope it would land that way. Um I don't I don't know how involved that the the discussion or debate is going to be on the contents of that letter. And so um is there a possibility that we have a hard time coming together on a framework? And if so, what does that mean for how we set that up now? >> Yeah, I mean, there's certainly a chance that we won't agree fully on the contents of the letter. And so, but I'm I imagine there is some text of some letter that we can all agree on. Exactly what that is, I'm not sure, but we would have to work that through. >> Okay, sounds great. Thanks. Fully support. >> Great. Okay, Tina. uh given that ballots drop in a day or two, is there any way

[206:00] that this can be positioned where we are in support tonight and that that we can say that, but then also people can be referred to other information about that. >> Yeah. I mean, I think Teresa would probably tell us that that we can't be um officially in support as a city council until we've taken an official action at a meeting, which we can't do under matters, and so it has to be on consent the next meeting. But I think we could certainly say that city council has expressed their support. Um even though we the formal position that we take will not have to wait until next Thursday. >> Okay, great. >> Teresa gave the thumbs up on that. >> Lauren, just a process question. Um Could we I mean I know it takes a greater number of us but there we could I guess this is a question for Teresa. Can we do we have the option to suspend our rules to take an to make an official um motion. I not

[207:05] saying that's the best idea, but >> uh yes, mayor prom if the council were to vote to suspend its rules, it could take a vote under matters. >> Thank you. >> Okay, good point, Lauren. Personally, I would say I think the message will come out pretty clearly that we have taken uh that we are supportive of it and I would like to be um uh uh only wave our rules in cases where it's absolutely necessary. That would be my pitch. Okay, I saw nods on that. So, I'm going to go ahead and ask for a straw poll um to to um take the action that I suggested uh to give staff direction. Um, as I stated before, all in favor, please raise your fiscal hand. All right, that's seven. So, that's unanimous. Thanks everyone for the consideration. I

[208:00] appreciate it. All right. Well, we have gotten back some time, so nice work. Um, Elicia, can we go to our last item, please? >> Yes, sir. Our last item is item 4B under matters from the city manager and it is the um I'm sorry under matters from the mayor, members of council. My apologies. It is the council discussion of the s city of Venia, Ukraine sister city proposal and process. >> Thanks Alicia. And um now I know that that your office is the one that that takes care of sister cities. Um would you be the one to introduce this discussion? >> Uh yes. I'm not sure if Nuria has any um lead in for me or not, but >> no e I think because of the time I think it can go in but I just want to say that um I know you have been working on this program for a long time have looked at this and just want to appreciate your time and effort as you got this uh quick presentation together. So thank you so much E. >> Oh thank you and thank Pam and Emily as

[209:00] well. So Emily if you want to go up go ahead and pull up the slides. We'll go ahead and get started and I promise you this will be quick. Again, good evening, council. Elicia Johnson, serving you as your city clerk and records manager. I am supported here tonight by our deputy city clerk, Emily Richardson, and our assistant city manager, Pam Davis. And again, I'd like to extend my thank you to both of them for taking the lead on this while I was out on a muchneeded vacation. I just want to make sure you understand that our goal tonight is only to provide you with an overview of the information you already have contained in your packet regarding the sister city application submitted by the sister city of Venissia Foundation and that city of Venicia is located in Ukraine and answer any questions you may have regarding the process that is

[210:01] outlined in resolution 631. Next slide, Emily. Thank you. So, this slide outlines the questions we will seek input from council on at the end of the presentation. Next slide, please. Now, the sister city program overview. Now, Boulder has 10 sister city relationships currently. You see all 10 of those listed here. In 1992, council did pass a resolution number 631 establishing the criteria for existing and future city sister city relationships. And this criteria was updated by resolution in 2021. Now, resolution 631 emphasizes council's wish that sister city relationships focus on peopleto people exchanges and interactions, a commitment to human rights and community versus government responsibility for creating and

[211:01] maintaining each of those relationships. Now, the Phoenicia sister city application was submitted in December of 2024. So it says city council received that application but actually the city clerks received that application for formal consideration as we're presenting to you here tonight. And again it came from the Venicia Sister City Foundation. Now the foundation's anchor initiative for this relationship is the ongoing collaboration with the state pedagogical university in Venicia to address the long-term mental health needs of Ukraine and its care providers and potential future cooperation includes education, energy and sustainability, infrastructure and transportation and arts and culture. We want to provide you with some beautiful pictures of Venicia that was

[212:02] provided by the foundation. Now, when we received the application and we determined it met the below CR below requirements of city council resolution number 631, the first requirement was to have and maintain a 501c3 status as a nonprofit. The second requirement that we reviewed was having and maintaining a Boulderbased board of directors with the board elected by the membership with no member of the board being a part of any commercial venture in the sister city. The third requirement was to establish membership criteria. But membership may not be denied upon race, religion, nationality, membership in a minority group, membership in a particular social group, or because of the expression of unpopular political opinion. The last criteria that we reviewed was they had to have and maintain an annual budget, a

[213:02] work plan, and a fundraising report. So if approved, the Venius Sister City Foundation will be required to annually submit a status report to the city council by the 1st of March of each year, which shall show compliance with the criteria that's listed in the resolution. They will also need to make the elements required in the resolution in sections 3, four, and five available to the public. And they will also need to accept policy guidelines regarding human rights and the expenditure of city funds. So our next steps, if council indicates support this evening to move forward with a formal consideration of the application, the item can be scheduled on an upcoming consent agenda for the following actions. We would need to establish a new sister city relationship with Venia Ukraine and then authorize the mayor to sign a statement of cooperative agreement with

[214:00] the city and a letter of acknowledgement to Sister Cities International. And lastly, appoint a council liaison to the new sister city relationship. Next slide. So that's the end of our presentations and our questions to council are does council have any questions about the policy and process outlined in resolution 631? Our second question to address would be, does city council want to proceed with placing a formal agreement for approval regarding Venicia Ukraine Sister City Foundation on an upcoming consent agenda? And if yes to question two, do any council members have an interest in serving as the first liaison? I'll go ahead and put that those questions in the chat for you. And me, Emily, and Pam are here to answer any questions you may have. Thanks so much for that, Elicia. It's

[215:00] very clear. Um, so let's start with the first question. Do uh does council have any questions for Elicia or the team about the process here? Uh, I got Tina and Matt. >> Yeah, thank you so much. Uh, my first question is in resolution 631. it it doesn't seem to be updated with the current cities. Is that something we need to do simultaneously if we include a new sister city? I'm happy to start um with an answer to that question. Tina, as I understand the resolution, and legal friends can correct me if I'm wrong, it was a point in time that acknowledged here are our sister cities to date. Here's our process moving forward, but it's not intended to serve as a holistic library of sister cities that exists elsewhere through our individual agreements.

[216:01] >> Thanks, Pam. Can can you introduce yourself for the record, please? >> Oh, thank you. And sorry, I'm struggling with a cold this evening. Um, Pam Davis, assistant city manager. >> Thanks. >> Okay. And then the other question I have is when it says that the no member of the board can be involved in any commercial venture. Do we have a definition of what a commercial venture is? >> Not currently. We don't because it's not outlined in the resolution. So if that's something as part of the process improvement that we may want to add as we think about updating the resolution, we can add like specifics. And I I'll defer to Teresa if she has anything additional to add to that. But I would just, you know, not necessarily assume, I hate using that word, but I would think that it would be hold any type of business venture or business entity within this that particular city that would cause a conflict with the relationship. >> Right. Right. And I was just thinking about the the case of where someone has

[217:00] there's an artisan in the Ukraine and someone brings back objects to raise money for the for the group. Is that a is that okay? And >> that would be a commercial venture. >> So if you brought back a Ukrainian teacup and then raised money with that, you couldn't do that if you were on the board. >> And Teresa, can I can I clarify with you on that? Like if you were doing it to raise funds for the nonprofit that that wouldn't be a commercial feature, would >> correct? Correct. >> It would be forprofit ventures. I think it would qualify as commercial ventures. >> For profit, not for nonprofit. >> And in any event, the resolution doesn't speak to it. So it's a it is a ambiguity that I think can be fixed in the future. >> Okay. Uh thanks. That's all I have for

[218:00] now. >> Thanks for letting me jump in there, Tina. >> Uh yeah, so I had a question, but then Elisha kind of made me think of a different one. There I think Alicia, you mentioned that there would be like there's a there's a process improvement. Is that part of this resolution that this resolution for the sister city encomp there there's more in it or is that a separate thing that is in process or may be in process because you referenced it with regards to the definition and I didn't know yeah so where and what is that? Well, no. What I was insinuating um is that the current resolution has been noted is pretty ambiguous, right? And so as council is is reviewing the application and may feel like at some point we want to say outline more detail about what specific actions are to take place, then of course that's the process improvement that I was thinking about because this resolution is rather owed. there's certain things in it that are, you know,

[219:00] it's not clear and we want to just make sure that we take on any type of improvements because I came on on board and it was all new to me as well. And so, as I'm looking at my first application, of course, I'm thinking, okay, how can we improve this process personally? And so, of course, I welcome any kind of input from council on their thoughts, you know, down the road or in writing or however they want to relay those. But we do feel from an administrative standpoint, there are improvements that we think would benefit not only council's consideration when an application is received, but also our process on the back end to present that information to you. Okay. Uh that's helpful because I have noticed in the resolution there's a few or in in the general resolution there's things like um if a sister city relationship lapses over a period of time then maybe it should just terminate, right? There should be a process for that. or if the criteria aren't being met and the relationship isn't being met at its core principles. Then there needs to be a

[220:00] clause to sort of either put on notice or terminate. So I think that there as much as we have ones for entering, we need to also have clear mechanisms for exiting sister city relationships. So and I don't know what that process is going forward. I know you've mentioned that you've observed that. So I guess my question is does that need to be a council thing or if you and your office are already got the red line out and getting creative, is that just something you bring to us at some point under your own valition? >> I think that's the will of council actually. Um if that is, you know, council's decision to have us review it and possibly provide recommendations, you know, we are open to that to do that too. But that would be I think at the will of council how those improvements would be implemented. If I may clarify, >> go ahead. >> Tonight is is a decision about whether or not you want to move forward with a decision about Venitia or not. Um, I think Alicia is introducing an idea that could happen in the future and council

[221:00] could think about as a priority to clarify the sister city program and propose changes or improvements. And I think Nuria might have something to add. >> Yeah, I would agree and and just say that um I would add to that that if you think about the sister city program, it is not it was not intended to be an administrative operational program. It was created as a sort of a council program and I think unfortunately over the years I there is um I think that is why there is a lack of process uh and lack of procedure because there has not been that robustness built around it. If council in the future wanted to uh create something more, that would be something that would be kind of a work plan priority to think about, but we would need to know what council would want from that in the future. Um so that we could try to build something more robust around it. >> Great. No, it's two separate things. I appreciate the clarity. We'll we'll we'll cover the improvements later. Um

[222:00] but moving forward with this one, it sounds like a great idea. Thank you. >> Thanks, Matt. Okay, any other questions? We got uh Ryan and then Tina. >> Yeah, just one. Um, I think the application has a reference to a uh like a five-year renewal consideration, but now I'm struggling to find it. Um, is that is that right? And if so, Alicia, anybody, can you offer any thoughts on how that would work? Um, will that just naturally be programmed to come back to the council in five years from now or how would that work? I don't know if Teresa wants to take that on, but that was as part of their draft agreement that they submitted. And so what our thought process is is if council decides to move forward with this particular application, we would have the city attorney's office review the agreement before we present it to council for um approval. But there is no I don't think there's a there's a process that's a new clause

[223:00] that's not in any of the other previous signed agreements. >> Okay. >> It is proposed by them to have something that is autorenewable. It is something that they took from uh a previous consideration. They wanted to add that sunsetting clause or an auto renew clause so that it would come back to council at some point in the future. Yes. >> Good enough for now. Okay. I'll I'll hold my comment for I think number two which will probably address that. Thanks >> Dina. Another question. >> Yes. Just ult can we um if we do accept or move forward is I'm assuming there's an opportunity to say that if we make changes to the program that they that that will apply to any existing sister city. It won't be just a future kind of thing. I'm getting nods from Teresa. I feel good. >> That would be correct. Uh, and to quote the language because I just found it, you may have found it as well, but it says their suggestion is to have an agreement for five years that is renewable based on mutual satisfaction

[224:00] and demonstrated impact. So, they are opening that up. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Uh, not seeing any other questions. We'll go to the next item question for us which is does city council want to proceed with placing a formal agreement for approval regarding the Venitzia Ukraine Sister City Foundation on an upcoming consent agenda so we can address that. Um if people don't mind I'll call on myself first. I haven't seen any hands go up real quick but I'll just say that um I am in favor of this. I've spoken to the organizers a few times and I know they're they're working really hard on connections with people in Venitzia. Um, so there's a great back and forth that's already going on there. Um, and I know they're passionate about establishing and strengthening that connection. Um, and I, as you may have noticed, am a big, uh, believer in sister cities. Um, I think they're fantastic ways for people to connect with each other across the world and between different cultures and countries um, and people from different backgrounds. So, would love to see us

[225:01] move forward with approving this one. And of course, they meet all the criteria in the resolution. Uh that being said, I am in support of um uh revising the process. And so that's something that maybe at the next council retreat we could put on our priority list to tighten things up, resolve the ambiguities, think about how we discontinue inactive sister cities, things like that. So I think that'd be worth coming back to, but that's not what we're talking about tonight. So I am in favor. Okay. Other thoughts, Mark and Ryan? Um I agree with you entirely on this both in terms of the process of tightening up our agreements and in terms of approving Venitzia. I've met with them as well. They seem very very sincere about making this a success and I don't believe we have any other sister cities unless I'm misremember misremembering in that part of the world. I think that would be an excellent addition to our program. So I'm with you on both of those things Aaron. >> Very good. Thanks Ryan. Uh basically the same. Yeah, I'm really grateful to the

[226:01] applicants for their hard work and all the the the um all they put into this. Um and I'm really excited to bring Ukraine uh into our closer to our um our orbit with with the program. Um I I did just comment on you the looking ahead outside of this decision. Yeah, I did I did kind of scratch my head for a little while um as I got to understand that we have this embarrassment of riches of sister cities um that has kind of turned into a pretty long list without a lot of obvious kind of pro programmatic or administrative capacity to manage it. So I I also think um we would benefit from a discussion about that uh things like what does success look like? How do we report against that? had should we have some kind of a central portal for the for the um community to connect into? I wonder if that has to be a council work plan priority or it could be a future study session or disc I don't know but some kind of a discussion like that I

[227:00] think would be um a great idea. So uh thanks to the yeah thanks to the team for working on this. >> Thanks Tina. Yeah. Um I'm probably first and foremost most um excited about creating a council priority to look at our sister city plan and make sure that we have clear expectations across all of the sister cities about what it means um and what it doesn't mean. Uh there's been some like need for clarification with that over time. And I'll be supporting this. Um there's not a reason not to at this point, but I'm hoping that we can call the list and then maybe think about a cap at some point. Um and also to re think about the role of the city council liaison and how active or not active they need to be with that relationship. Um and I'm very very concerned about staff time being spent on the sister city relationships. So just given our budgetary uh landscape um I think that to the

[228:01] extent that staff this is a that this is a light touch program is important as well. Thanks. >> Thanks Tina. Uh I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Um I will note um that I did get um a text from Taiisha Council Member Adams earlier today. She's um sad that she's unable to make the meeting. She did say that um she's interested in relooking at the processes around sister cities and would like to not adopt any additional ones until that happens. So just wanted to pass along those thoughts from Taiisha. All right. So I'll go ahead and ask for a straw poll um to for us to give council direction on whether we would like to see this come back on consent. Um so all in favor please raise your fiscal hand. All right, that is seven. So that is unanimous. Um so we've given that direction, Elicia. And then our last question is whether um any council members have an

[229:01] interest in serving as the first leazison Nicole. >> Um yeah, my sister city has never been active, so um I haven't ever really had one. Um I will be happy to. Uh, also noting that I'm up for re-election in another month, but um, anyway, would be would be happy to take this one on given that I have yet to uh, do anything related to the sister cities. >> Very good, Mark. >> I am also interested with the same qualification that uh, I first have to win an election in order to serve. I don't know that I will um, but if I do, I am interested. So, thank you, >> Tina. I can be the backup. >> Great. I love seeing all the interest. Well, um we have a little bit of time to figure this out. So, I wonder if uh Nicole and Mark, you could talk offline and then, you know, thumb wrestle or flip a coin or something and um get and

[230:02] let city staff know who that person would be. But appreciate the interest. >> Aaron, it's got to be Game of Thrones. One of us must die. One of us must triumph. I'm gonna bring the dragons, Mark. >> I am gonna die. >> Love the support. Love it. >> It's gonna get uglier than than I thought. Um I just thought wrestling, but okay, great. Well, we'll uh wait to hear back from the two of you on the results of those discussions. And that brings us to the end of that item um and also to the end of our agenda for tonight. So, um, thanks everybody for a productive meeting. We did end up, um, finishing half an hour early with our last efficiency on the last couple items. So, um, thanks everyone for great work. Lots of important decisions tonight and have a wonderful night. I'll 46 p.m.

[231:00] >> Thank you everyone.