October 16, 2025 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[5:09] October 16th, 2025 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. I'm going to head to going to go ahead and call us to order and ask for a roll call, please. Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. And good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us. We'll start tonight's roll call with Council Member Adams. Benjamin >> present. >> Council member Marcus is absent. Shoeard >> here. >> Spear >> present. >> Wallick >> present. >> Winer. >> Terra. Well, while we wait for Alicia, I think you skipped somebody. >> No, I was getting to you and and Tim.

[6:02] Yeah. >> Council member Winer is present. Mayor Brockett >> present. >> And Folk Mayor Pro Tim Faulks >> present. >> I threw a wrench in the soup tonight, sir. Mayor, we have our quorum. >> Great. Tara, are you there? We may have She is here. She may be having some audio issues. Okay. Um, I'm going to then ask for a motion to amend the agenda to add item 3E, which is consideration of a motion to adopt resolution 1368 regarding support for Boulder County ballot issue 1B, mental and behavioral health sales and use tax. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and second. All in favor, please raise your hand. >> Okay, I'm here now. >> Okay, great. Terra, we're voting on the motion to amend the agenda. Are you in favor? >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. So, that's unanimous. It's 70.

[7:02] >> This is Taisha. I'm also here. >> Oh, great. >> Good evening. >> Welcome Taiisha. Okay. So, if we can go to open comment, please. Elisha, if you can start with our public participation guidelines, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. And good evening again, everyone. I will now review with you the public participation at city council meeting guidelines. Thank you for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the voter revised code. This is 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. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. 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.

[8:00] This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. Our remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscinity, other epithets based on race, gender, or 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 so much, Elicia. All right, so we have um 19 people signed up to speak because one person withdrew. Each person will get two minutes. Oh, excuse me, Mark. >> Uh just to let my colleagues know, I'm going to be ducking out at six o'clock. Uh I have a previous engagement with some Cub Scouts. >> I'll be back by 6:30. >> Great. Thanks for the heads up. Um so

[9:00] each we are going to be varying in between in person and virtual speakers and each person will get two minutes to speak and I will be strict about that time limit in the interest of fairness. So our first three speakers are Lisa Donahghue in person, Evan Ravitz in person and Enrique Mistas virtual. So Lisa >> um ma'am if you can go to the podium over there and speak to the microphone please. Long time first. >> Welcome. >> My name is Lisa Donahghue. I'm a mother and a grandmother and a resident of Central Boulder. I appreciate so many things about this place, including my city council's commitment to meeting community expectations through a framework of ethical alignment for our investments. I've seen and read through the sustainability, equity, and resiliency framework whose purpose is,

[10:00] and I quote, "Our community prepares, adapts, and thrives in response to current, emerging, and sometimes urgent social, economic, and environmental shocks and stressors. meeting community expectations for our core service delivery and ensuring that the root causes of inequities are eliminated through city policies, practices, programs, and financial decisions. I believe that our city has the potential through the investments of our tax dollars to address these root causes of inequities and to impact and influence other cities throughout Colorado and beyond. My question to all of you is, are you willing to consider revisiting in dialogue with members of this community and I know that you have all experienced some meetings and in particular the open comment sessions like this one that were fraught with emotion as people expressed

[11:00] their frustration. people who were endeavoring to take their responsibilities as citizens seriously, including the responsibility of holding our representatives accountable, and I'm talking about those members as well. Are you willing to consider revisiting the ways in which the city of Boulder keeps their commitment to include socially responsible factors in its financial investment decisions. Abolitionist Ruth Wilson Gilmore tells us that where life is precious, life is precious. >> Thank you for your testimony place. >> Thank you for hearing my words. >> All right. Now we have Evan Rabbitz in person and then Enrique Mestus virtual and Nick Alfonso in person. citizens, council members Mark Wallak, a lawyer, and Nicole Spear, a PhD, as well as

[12:00] former councilman and lawyer Bob Yates, have all recently written publicly that a city rule stops council from taking a position on national affairs unless they affect Boulder. There is no such rule, though other counselors previously pared it. Councilman Shuchard has read the actual law here and it's been in the camera. The law says council shall not act on a foreign policy or national policy issue on which no prior policy has been established unless sufficient time and resources can be allocated to assure a full presentation of the issue. That full presentation is easy because the lengthy reports of the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, all human rights organizations, etc. All

[13:02] agree Israel is committing genocide. Boulder did boycott South Africa and Burma and protested the Iraq war. Citizens, don't vote for people who lie to you who pay their salaries, especially about the law they are sworn to uphold. Copying Hitler's and Trump's and Netanyahu's big lie policy is poison to everything decent and real in this world. copying Hitler's final solution as Israel is does affect Boulder more than anything filling the news media open comments etc. I will vote for Aaron Stone, Max Lord, Rob Spoke and Rachel Isacson. >> Time is up. Thanks. All right. Now we go to Enrique Mestus online then Nick Alfonso and Ma Morales

[14:02] in person. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. Okay. Um, I'm Dr. Endestas, PhD. Um, we are inde you may know us as Eastern Apache and Apache Buffalo Hunters. Boulder Valley is part of our ancestral land. Gathering together, we decide. This is the name of our book just published by the University of Arizona Press, 2025. We are the people of the land and the waters. We hold these mountains sacred. Being indigenous people is a way of kinship. Not necessarily blood ties, but relations made sacred. Gathering together, we decide. We recognize the n you know as you as indigenous to this land and the da you know as Navajo are also indigenous to this land. We appreciate the Arapjo and Cheyenne and other tribes that consider this land their home and our native

[15:01] people with history here as well. We declare our unity and support for our indigenous relatives, especially those suffering violence, incarceration, and persecution. The immigrants being attacked who are from south of our Rio Grand all the way to the tip of South America are indigenous peoples of the Americas. We stand in support and solidarity with the indigenous people suffering in Palestine, Sudan, Congo, and all of the communities of the world under US imperial invasion and attack. We must unite to stop the militarized terrorism against all of our communities by the USA, Israel, and the billionaires. We recognize that black people are indigenous people of the Americas as well as Africa. We recognize the indigenous people who are federally recognized American Indian tribes and that they are a small percentage of the

[16:00] actual indigenous people who live here in these United States of stolen lands. But they cannot represent or speak for all of us. I come from a time of indigenous unity in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. >> Your time is up. Thank you for your testimony. All right, now we have Nick Alfonso and Ma Morales in person and then Renee Bashur's virtually. I want to start by focusing on a quote from council member Lauren Fulgurts. Lauren, on August 21st of this year, you said we, meaning the city council, do not have the power to solve international issues, but you and this council do have the power to disentangle Boulder's investments from international issues, namely the genocide in Gaza. Almost $17 million of Boulder City funds are invested in two companies identified by the UN as directly involved in supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza and

[17:01] apartheid in the West Bank. Microsoft and Caterpillar. Microsoft, a company that Boulder has invested $6.5 million in, has long been a partner with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The Israeli military specifically uses Microsoft's cloud and AI technology to support their mass surveillance of the Palestinian people by storing the recordings of millions of phone calls and locations. This intel is used to inform the IDF's air strikes and targeted assassinations of journalists, aid workers, healthare workers, and other civilians. $6.5 million invested in a company with an unconscionable amount of blood on its hands. The remaining $10.5 million is invested in Caterpillar. You might have seen their excavators and bulldozers being used in construction. What you might not know is that they have provided the same equipment to the IDF for decades to demolish Palestinian homes, roads, buildings, and infrastructure, even running people over. In March of 2024, D9 bulldozers

[18:02] participated in the IDF's raid and destruction of Alshifa Hospital in Gaza City. Patients and medical staff were still in the building and sheltering on the premises. 90 of them were killed. Do these companies comply with our values as a city? I'd like to think not, but time and again, this council has shown that its interests align with these atrocities. I'll leave you with a quote from Taiisha Adams. Please do not let anyone gaslight you into thinking that our city has no power here. I urge this council to divest from catapult. >> Thank you for your testimony. >> All right. And quiet in the audience, please. All right. Now we have Ma Morales in person, Renee Bashur's virtual, and Elliot Flayton in person. Good evening. I want to talk I want to speak tonight about what the s what what silence costs in this room. Mayor

[19:02] Brackett, you are from the land of the strange fruit. You keep quiet rooms well. You thank us for sharing but never hear the screams beneath. Terra Winer, you defend the quorum like a saint on the stopwatch. Your rosary is the rule book. You tell us we're out of order for naming genocide. While you couch and leave the room to not hear our voice, where is the decorum there? If you hide, you hide your grief. You hide your grief and call it procedure. Mark Wallik, you build walls out of parliamentary language. You call it civility, we call it silence with a salary. Matt Benjamin, the concistador of consensus. You raise your hand to proclaim indigenous people's day, then lower it to send an indigenous woman to jail. You call it process. We call it conquest with a smile.

[20:00] Lauren Folkarts, the architect of OMOS. You draft empathy in pencil and erase it before the vote. Nicole Spears, doctor of neuroscience, mapping empathy in the lab, but losing it in the chambers. You know how the nervous system fires when fear meets truth. You how silence floods the brain like anesthesia. And yet you administer it here to the working class who dare to feel out loud. You post your about justice and belonging, but your votes protect comfort, not conscious. You call it professionalism. We call it proflyis. A science of quieting the body that resists. And through it all, Lauda, Freda, Patty, and Eric stand like a storm. And Lynn, stand like storm. Sirens in the rain of decorum suspended but never silenced. You weaponize procedure to protect power from truth. So tonight we write your names not in respect not in record not in an time is up please stop speaking.

[21:01] >> All right. All right. Quiet everybody. So if you want to express support you can do this but please stop with the snapping. So we need quiet in the chambers. All right. Now we have Renee Bashures virtually and then Elliot Fleeten and Sarah Napier in person. >> Yes. >> Good evening. My name is Renee Bishore. I'm a North Boulder resident and small business owner. I am here tonight representing the North Boulder Alliance. According to the city's most recent community survey, crime remains one of Boulder's top concerns. Yet, the community has not received a public crime update from Chief Redford since May 2024. These updates were once provided regularly. With the new reimaging policing strategy in place and ongoing issues in some neighborhoods like mine, the lack of communication is both disappointing and concerning. I've emailed each of you today with updated data showing that crime in North Boulder has not improved. In fact, average

[22:02] monthly crime levels have increased 100% since 2022. That is 100%. Theft, vehicle theft, assault, harassment, and property damage remain persistent problems. We are also seeing a significant increase in calls for service. As of September 30th, North Boulder recorded 3,499 calls, 24% of which were linked to a single location, the All Roads facility. This represents a 26% increase compared to the same period in 2023. Notably, service calls from other parts of North Boulder rose by just 5% during that same time frame. The 24% increase in calls for service to all roads places a persistent and growing strain on first responders, disrupts nearby residences and businesses, and stretches city resources for services that serve the entire county. While comprehensive city-wide comparison data is not yet available, it is reasonable to assume that North Boulder's call for service are disproportionately high, largely driven by the ongoing demands associated

[23:01] with all roads. We, North Boulder Alliance, respectfully ask council to schedule a public crime update from Chief Red as soon as possible and ideally before the election. It's important that the people know what's happening. We also ask that you pause any relocation of additional nonprofit services from Central Park to the All Roads facility as proposed in the clutch report until proper and transparent neighborhood outreach is conducted in the existing safety and nuisance issues in the area are meaningfully addressed. >> Thank you. All right. Now, we have uh three inerson speakers, Elliot Fleetton, Sarah Napier, and Jason Wy. With the exception of one comment tonight, every single comment has been gaslighting racist double standards on genocide that have been big lie in essence. And I don't say that lightly. I brought receipts. Each of you should have a binder with documentation. If you turn to tab one of that binder, it is the Geneva Convention on Genocide. You will see highlighted that genocide is a

[24:00] specific intent offense. It is not enough to intentionally kill civilians. You have to kill them with a specific purpose to defeat a genocide. Tabs two and three are ICJ case law that you can review excerpted highlights. From that you will see that the standard for that specific intent is fully conclusive evidence with no other reasonable inference. Then since some of these reports from these human rights organizations have been mentioned, if you turn to tab four, you will see the Amnesty International report. Page 101 of that report, which is page two of the tab, it has Amnesty admitting that it departed from the ICJ standard, finding it too cramped. Similarly is the Bet Solomon report also referenced. If you turn to page three of tab 5, you will see that similarly Bet Solom departed from the standard saying that they were seeking to adopt a broader analytical framework. Finally, if you turn to tab six, that's excerpts from the International Association of Genocide Scholars. They have been previously held

[25:00] out as expert as excerpts on this. But if you look at that tab, you'll see that their membership includes two dogs and a cookie monster. And if you read the resolution that they condemned Israel with, they not once mentioned the standard from the ICJ. This is not the law of genocide. The law of genocide is not from fancy letterhead having an NGO condemning on a racist background or a group of activists doing the same. It is holding countries to the same standard. No matter how many times activists, a narrow group come to this council and tell you otherwise, the standard is not met and you can tell this by looking at the details of the report and each time you will see they change the standard. Thank you. Thanks. All right. In person now, we have Sarah Napier and Jason Wy and then Freda Silva virtually. There's a special there's a special place in hell for people that don't see the truth that this is a genocide and it

[26:01] hasn't ended. Israel has since October 10th, Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement 36 times. They have killed at least 24 people. They still occupy 58% of the Gaza Strip. People cannot re Palestinians cannot return to their homes after two years of genocide of forced starvation. They can't go home. They're deni Israel is denying aid. There is aid trucks literally at the border of Rafa being denied entry because Israel is stopping them. Hamas has not broken the ceasefire agreement. Israel has and you have stood by Israel this whole entire time. You are breaking international law. You're standing with a genocidal country. When are you actually going to do

[27:01] something? It's sickening. You talk about indigenous people day and you don't respect the indigenous people of that land who are Palestinians. That is a shame. You're just trying to cover your asses. This won't stop and we won't stop until everyone is held accountable. Until you are taken to court and you are prosecuted for your atrocities that you have committed. That is you and that goes all the way up. But it starts with you guys because you have not done your job for over two years. Children are still dying at your name and children here in Colorado are unhoused, don't have food. >> Your time is up so please stop speaking.

[28:03] >> Okay. All right. Okay, now we go to Jason Wy in person, then Freda Silva virtually, and Robert Morse in person. >> I have a hand out for the council members if that's possible. >> You can hand it over here. >> Hello, my name is Jason Wy. I've worked in public gardens for the last 20 years, including the Portland Japanese Garden, the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, director of horiculture at Boyce Thompson Arboritum, and now I'm a horiculturist at C Boulder. I also come from a family of firefighters. I've started a community initiative and an initiative that is being reviewed by CU Boulder uh for creating a fireresistant water-wise and climate adapted landscape botanical garden for Colorado's front

[29:00] range called the Front Range Firewise Botanical Garden. As you can see in the rendering here, this project aligns directly with C Boulders's climate sustainability and wildfire resilience goals. It combines research, education, and demonstration gardens that show residents which plants and design practices to reduce wildfire while maintaining beauty as well as biodiversity. Tonight, I'd ask uh the council to consider scheduling a study session or briefing where I could present the project in more detail and also to identify potential pilot sites such as medians, park edges, and civic properties for firewise demonstration beds. This project can help Boulder become a national model for climate resilient landscaping while providing a hands-on education for residents and students. Thank you for your time and for your leadership on wildfire and and water

[30:01] wise sustainability issues. >> Thank you. All right. Now we have Freda Silva virtually and then the rest of our speakers are in person and the first two of those are Robert Morris and Rob Smoke. Rita, your mic is open. >> And if people can sit down in the audience, please Freda there. >> Freda, your mic is open if you'd like to unmute. All right, sounds like technical difficulties. We'll come back to Freda

[31:00] later if time permits. So, we'll go to uh Robert Morse, then Rob Smoke and Philip Oakran. >> Uh, good evening. My name is Robert Morse. I've been a registered voter in the city of Boulder since 1994. I'm here tonight to request that the council study proportional representation voting methods to determine which might be right for Boulder. As a voter, I've had experience with one method of proportional representation. Prior to my move to voter to Boulder, I lived for 17 years in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where I voted in city council elections using their method of proportional representation called rank choice voting. I found it easy to use. Candidates found that the hurdle to getting elected was lower than a winner take all system. And the city benefited in three particularly important ways

[32:00] that I can think of. one, a broader range of voices were represented. The method encouraged a city-wide view of issues, and the method also yielded a geographically diverse set of counselors since their constituents could be either neighborhood oriented or issue oriented. There was an interesting side benefit back in the era of handcounting. For a week, a school gym was filled with counters and poll watchers making sure that votes were properly assigned. Observers were welcome. It was the best spectator sport in town. No longer possible under computerized returns. However, I believe it would be well beneficial to the city of Boulder and your time to carefully and thoroughly study the several methods of proportional voting that are available. and I urge you to do so. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Rob Smoke,

[33:01] then Philip Ogrren, and Arena Cova. >> Can you hear me? Okay. Okay. All right. There you go. My name is Rob Smoke. I'm a city council candidate this year. And um I I'm running in part just because I felt very strongly that council was trending in just a terrible direction. I was here the night that uh there was an 8 to1 vote not to investigate and have a thorough discussion about divestment from uh Caterpillar, Microsoft, and a couple of other uh companies that are profiting from genocide. Why would we want to be part of that? I mean, we could, you know, we could we could easily part partner with the Cali cartel and it would have the same or similar level of morality. It's just wrong. And

[34:03] it it's a violation of sort of the moral fabric, the the basic moral um feelings that people have about their own identity. I mean, um, it's caused nothing but, uh, emotional duress, duress, and, uh, what, uh, clinically is sometimes called empathic distress where people who would do anything to help stop a terrible situation would, but can't even, you know, get the attention of their local elected officials. When I ran in 2007, um I had my cat as uh my campaign manager, so things were uh in a lighter mood back then. But um somebody came up to me at Whole Foods and said, "Uh, well, can I just vote for your cat?"

[35:00] And um it is humbling right now to experience things like that. But uh people can send a message. people can send a message to people who are suffering right now by voting for me. Thank you. >> Thanks. All right. Now, um, Philip Ogrren, Arena Kva, and Don Davis. >> My name is Philip Ogrren and I'm a member of the airport neighborhood campaign. A recent opinion piece in the Boulder Reporting Lab reminds us that the city estimates that it may cost more than $41 million to operate the airport for the next 15 years. That sounds like a lot of money, especially if you imagine that we must find this sum in the 2026 budget. But assuming we can spread that expense out over 15 years in some reasonable manner, then it comes out to less than $3 million per year. That's still a lot of money. way too much to be spending on a hobbyist playground that will never be financially self-sufficient, which is implicit in the appeals you are hearing

[36:01] from pro airport enthusiasts to accept federal funding. And let's be real, this is not serious transportation infrastructure. This is a dump of an airport serving a couple of hundred hobbyists rich enough to buy and operate private aircraft. I agree that we should be outraged by our obligation to maintain an airport that serves so few few people for so little benefit. But let's have some perspective. $3 million is less than half a percent of the city's budget and we are talking about an asset that is worth more than $350 million and appreciating. I would like to make the following bold predictions about the year 20 240. One, the airport will still be less than three miles from this building. Two, it will still measure 179 acres. Three, that land will still be worth boatloads of money. Let's think carefully about what obligations we leave future taxpayers, city or federal, by taking federal funding now and giving up our ability to control this valuable asset in the notsodistant future. A year and a half ago, when our campaign was collecting signatures for our petition to close the airport, pro

[37:01] airport supporters boldly proclaimed that leted fuel would be phased out in 5 years. Done deal. The good news is that this means we have just three and a half years of leted fuel left. The bad news is that babies born in Vista Village mobile homes or San Lazero today will be three and a half years old and will absorb the worst effects of exposure by then. But even worse, airport supporters will probably still be saying that we are just 5 years away from phasing out leaded fuel. Thanks for your attention. >> Thanks. Now we have Arena Kva, Don Davis, and Martha McFersonson. Hello, my name is Arena Kva. I am a resident of North Boulder. I'm here to urge Boulder City Council to divest from companies complicit in Israeli military actions like Microsoft and Caterpillar. The time has long passed to take a firm stance against the violence and theft that is perpetrated overseas, in our

[38:01] names, and with our money. In that thread, I urge Boulder City residents to vote for Aaron Stone and Rob Smoke in the upcoming council elections as they are some of the only candidates running on a divestment platform. Polls in August of 2025 showed that 60% of Americans and 75% of Democrats want the US to stop arming Israel. The council says it doesn't want to take official positions on foreign affairs. I'd argue that continuing to invest materially into companies and entities that engage in and profit from mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing is taking an official position. One that has grave material consequences that we are privileged enough not to face directly with this new ceasefire deal. We're told that peace has been reached. A peace where Israel can continue bombing and shooting and killing civilians. a piece where Israel can arm and fund gangs that kidnap and execute journalists who spent the past two years exposing Israeli crimes. At the same time, the more than a thousand Palestinian hostages released

[39:00] from Israeli captivity this week all detail similar stories of torture, medical neglect, and deprivation. There continue to be accounts of rape, and Israel released the bodies of more than 45 Palestinians who are tortured to death so brutally that their bodies cannot be identified. We must recognize this horror and terrorism for what it is and enact consequences for those responsible. Divestment is a bare minimum. The money invested into these companies supporting genocide could be repurposed and reinvested into local issues, especially housing and infrastructure, which we agree is so important in Boulder. Attempting to convince Boulder residents that these issues are divorced and to sweep these investments under the rug, is not working. The boomerang of US imperial violence has already come home. Vote Farah and Stone and Rob Smoke. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, we have Don Davis, Martha McFersonson, and Kristen Marshall.

[40:01] This is my first time to speak, so bear with me. Good evening, and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address the council. My name is Don Davis, and I live on 29th Street in South Boulder. Watering in the evening can provide hydration, but it increases the risk of fungal diseases and pests because the moisture can linger on foliage and around the roots overnight. While watering early in the morning is generally better for grass and plants, evening watering can be an alternative in hot climates, provided you water early enough in the evening for the leaves to dry before nightfall. Yes, watering plants in the evening can lead to fungus in Boulder because it leaves foliage wet overnight, creating an ideal environment for fungal growth. The lack of sunlight, warm temperatures overnight prevents the leaves from drying, which allows fungi like powdery mildew and leaf spot to thrive. Watering in the early morning is

[41:02] a better practice as it allows the foliage to dry throughout the day. When plants are watered in the evening, the moisture remains on the leaves and the soil surface throughout the night. This prolonged wetness is a perfect condition for fungi to develop, spread, and infect plants. Common problems include powdery mildew and leaf spot. While evening watering is problematic anywhere, areas like Boulder can be particularly susceptible to fungal issues due to factors like compaction and improper watering practices. Best practices to prevent fungal growth include watering plants in the early 00 am and 9:00 am to allow them to dry off during the day. I would like to know if the city would have the same requirements of CU regarding watering. It would only seem fair if our citizens are asked to water in the evening. I have witnessed the university watering

[42:01] grounds at Sterns Towers located at 30th and Baseline. Your time is up, but thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Now, we have Martha McFersonson, Kristen Marshall, and Laura Kaplan. >> Can hand up to her. >> Yes. My name is Martha McFersonen and I live in Boulder and I've been here several times. looking into the eyes of our local city council which I consider the commons. I feel like you that we hope to move by our words and yet all I see are eyes of vacancy with all of the facts and all of the

[43:01] figures that we continually bring up to you as far as what is happening. the fact that we are complicit with our tax monies and all you say is thank you. You don't act. I received this rather uh disturbing mailer from shortly after when I spoke the last time. and several other people also receive this and I consider it sort of an emblem of the Zionist creepiness that they pretend that there's a comparison to the horror that's happening to the Palestinians to the fact that what the Palestinians are killing animals on the side of their sidewalks to eat and they act like oh look at this horror it is unbelievable.

[44:00] And instead of passing uh ceasefire resolution, you did the anti-semitism ordinance. I feel like we need to do an anti-goyam ordinance. That's about as ridiculous statement as your anti-semitism ordinance. You are not under threat. You are the threatening people. Thank you. >> All right. So now we're going to go to Kristen Marshall, Laura Kaplan, and if time permits, James Duncan. 15. >> My name um thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Kristen Marshall and I live in Boulder. As you know, there is a kinetic stainless steel sculpture on the east side of this municipal building. A search for peace. It is called a

[45:01] search for peace. It is supposed to reflect and I am quoting our hope for peace in our hearts, for peace in our community, for peace in the entire world. Let's honor those words. Let's formally condemn the genocide in Boulder. Thank you. Gaza has formally condemn the genocide in Gaza. Genocide in Gaza diverse from companies contributing to the genocide in Gaza. We have a symbol for peace. Now let's take actions for peace. A just peace.

[46:05] Thank you. >> Thanks. Now Laura Kaplan and then James Duncan. >> Good evening, members of council and city staff. Um I'm Laura Kaplan. I'm here tonight as a member of the airport neighborhood campaign. Let's talk about the city's lawsuit and the question of whether to take FAA funds again. As you've seen in the news, the city's initial lawsuit filing against the FAA was recently dismissed on procedural grounds. I cannot stress enough that the judge did not rule on the critical legal issue at the heart of that case, which is whether the city's obligation to run an airport ends in the year 2040 or is perpetual. In other words, whether we, the people of Boulder, will control the land in 2040, which is what I believe the city believes, or if we are obligated to the FAA forever, this

[47:01] essential legal matter remains undecided. The case was dismissed without prejudice, which means the city can appeal or refile at a later time, and I'm sure you're getting good legal advice about that. Recently, council and staff has been subjected to an intense pressure campaign to give up, to resign the city to running an airport forever. Um, and to take that FAA funding, resume taking it. And I'm here tonight to urge you to stand firm and refuse any further extension of funding obligations until it is crystal clear what the city's obligations are after the year 2040. We have not taken FAA funds for 5 years. That means we are a quarter of the way into a 20-year timeline to run the airport. Let's not re-up that 20-year obligation and tie the hands of future city managers and city councils. Let's not throw away Boulder's 5 years of progress toward our goal of local control. The annual cost to run the

[48:02] airport is a fraction of a percent of the city budget even in these constrained times. And there are other sources of funding available which we would love to talk with you about. We are not so broke that we need to give up control over Boulders's land in exchange for a little grant money. Please be assured that our campaign stands ready to support and defend your actions to regain local control over this land. >> Thanks. Right, James Duncan is our final speaker. >> Thanks council. My name is James Duncan. Uh, thank you for your service and I enjoyed the Indigenous People's Day celebration at the museum. It was wonderful. I also celebrated Columbus Day by getting lost in a supermarket looking for spices. It's not about humanity. Excuse me. It's not about Palestine. It's about humanity. Being a responsible adult for

[49:02] others, especially children, to live, grow up in a world that would watch people, women, children, ripped to shreds, burned alive, starved to death, crushed to death in full livereamed view of the entire planet with support of my government at all levels. That's what it's about. Humanity. A poem by Rafat Alier. If I must die, you must live to tell my story. You Dr. Spear, you Lauren Folkertz, you Aaron Brockett, you Matt Benjamin, you Ryan Suchart, Mark Wallik, Tara Winer, and all of us. You must live to tell my story, to sell my things, to buy a piece of cloth and

[50:03] some strings. Make a white with a long tail so that a child can see somewhere in Gaza while looking heaven in the eye, awaiting his dad who left in a blaze and bid no one farewell, not even to his flesh, not even to himself. sees the kite, my kite you made, flying up above and thinks for a moment, an angel is there bringing back love. If I must die, >> your time is up. So, please stop speaking. Thanks. Oh, be quiet. >> Okay, so we're out. We're out of time. So, I don't know if Freda Civil came back, but we'll have to prioritize them for the next meeting. So, I'll look to city staff to see if there are any responses to what you heard from open comment. >> Thanks so much, mayor. Uh, two responses. Um, uh, with regard to Rene's

[51:03] comments, I just wanted to say, uh, we are happy to provide, uh, council with an update. I'll ask PD to provide us an update on crime stats. We certainly have not um, been providing one. We had received previous um requests from council given our tight agenda to perhaps um not have those unless we had time on the agenda. So if CAC would like us to schedule something, we are happy to do so. But in the meantime, we can certainly write and draft an update for council. Um, and while I won't comment on the airport litigation per se, I will say that we have previously said that we may consider taking state or other grants that would not extend our FAA current grant obligations or assurances. That position um remains unchanged at the moment. And so that's all I will say on that. >> Thanks, Teresa. >> Nothing from me. Thank you, mayor. Did

[52:00] any council members have questions for city staff on anything? >> Okay. Uh not seeing any hands then. Um do do any council members want to >> Oh, Tara. Terry, you have a question. >> It is really not easy to be alone. I'm going to say tell me um when is my chance to comment on some of these comments? >> We're just getting to that. >> Great. So, since we don't have any questions, is anyone to want to use up to 30 seconds to address what they heard from open comment? Tara, sounds like you would like to. >> Sure. I thought I could have two minutes like everyone else, but I'll take 30 seconds. Um, no, I'm kidding. I agreed to 30 seconds. I already missed 20 seconds. I just want to say that I'm very surprised that the speakers didn't mention how wonderful it was that there was a ceasefire, that the hostages were returned and also 2,000 um Palestinian prisoners were returned as well. I

[53:02] thought people would be more happy about that and and lives that are going to be saved. >> Thanks, Terra. Anybody else want to say something? Not seeing any other hands raised. That'll bring us to the end of the open comment period. We're going to take a 30 for the rest of the business meeting.

[64:54] 6:30. So, we're going to get started again.

[65:07] >> All right, I'm going to gavvel us back into session. and we'll leap right into the consent agenda, please, Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. The consent agenda is item number three on tonight's agenda, and it consists of items 3A through 3E. >> And if folks in the audience can please uh settle down and sit down or exit chambers, please, and no more talking. Okay. Items 3A through 3E on the consent agenda. Do we have any questions or comments on the consent agenda? Tara? >> Yes. Um, I'm going to be voting no on 3B, but not because I don't appreciate how staff reduce the flat rate of the um newly added floor area from 15 square feet to 11 square feet. I appreciate that. And also the impact fees u don't

[66:01] apply to homes under 2,000 square feet in total area which I also appreciated and the ADLs are exempt which was great but I just can't agree with the findings and conclusions of this sorry I'm having trouble breathing demand nexus study um and I'll talk more about that in the second reading but I just wanted to make my comment about that. Thanks >> noted. Thanks Ter. Anything else? Uh seeing no and quiet please in the audience if you know need to chat you can go outside. Um so perhaps a a motion on the consent agenda. >> I move the consent agenda. >> Second. >> All right let's do a roll call please. We have a motion and a second. Alicia quiet please. >> Thank you sir. We'll start tonight's roll call for the consent agenda items 3A through 3E with you Mary Bckett. Yes. Mayor Tim Mayor Pro Tim Folkertz.

[67:00] >> Yes. >> Council member Shuhart. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Winer. >> Uh, yes. Except no on 3B. I believe it's 3B. >> Thank you, ma'am. Adams, >> yes. >> And Benjamin, >> yes. accept no on 3B or on 3B. >> Thank you, sir. The consent agenda is hereby approved with the noted nays from Winer and Benjamin. >> Thanks very much. All right, let's launch right into our public hearing, please. Our public hearing is item number 5A on the agenda tonight and it is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8721 amending title 4 licensing and permits BRC1 1981.

[68:01] Title six health and health safety and sanitation BRC1981. Title eight, parks, open spaces, streets, and public ways, BRC1981. Title nine, land use code, BRC1981. Title 10, structures, BRC1 1981. And title 11, utilities and airport, BRC1981. This is related to matters related to landscaping, water conservation, and wildfire resilience and setting forth related details. >> Thank you. That was indeed a mouthful, Miss E. Uh, and it corresponds to your sneaky two for one council priority. Don't think I've forgotten about that. Um, I will send this on over to our director of planning and development services, Brad Miller. >> Thank you, Ne. Oh, hello. Uh thank you Nura. Uh we are super excited to bring

[69:00] forward this final element of the wildfire and water wise landscaping priority council initiative. We have shared uh as we have shared at the beginning uh this staff recognizes that this is a very important and timely manner and we appreciate that you've understood both the complexity around it and also the importance to the community. Uh tonight is about the landscaping code specifically. We've obviously addressed the the wildfire in the past, but I'd like to briefly elaborate on that complexity for a moment. Um, as I shared with the team at the very beginning of this project, I experienced the challenge of landscaping codes already back in Casarok during the 2001 Colorado drought. And the paradox is really this. A complete water conserving and fireprotecting code would implicate and suggest rock and dirt everywhere. kind of like Las Vegas regulations and yet a code that's designed to promote carbon exchange, cool the heat

[70:01] island effect to advance water quality and support the historic landscaping aesthetics uh that we've had in the city suggest the exact opposite. So we have a conundrum and our task has been as staff to balance these inherent competing interests and we believe that what we've uh have been presented to you in earlier study sessions and tonight carefully both move the needle in a meaningful way towards the fire safety and water conservation while at the same time recognizing the needs of property owners and also the potential impacts to them. So these changes are in a sense still incremental, but we hope that they're substantial enough at the same time to change some of the historic patterns that we simply can't uh perpetuate and are not won't be sustainable in the face of climate change. Um, as a quick aside, I do want to mention that there have been a number there seem to have been a number of misunderstandings uh that developed in the p public realm this

[71:00] last week or so about what is specifically proposed. So we hope to address those during the presentation. And I'll go back to the inherent challenge of balancing the valid and competing values. Um those may have been part of the reason that you haven't seen a code update for over two decades. But we're here tonight and we've appreciated your leadership in bringing forward this last year as a priority. So with that going to turn it over to our lead on this, Carl Ger, who's the manager of code amendments and appreciate all his work and the work of the team. >> Thank you Brad. Uh good evening council. I'm Carl Gler with planning and development services. Uh I'm joined by a number of folks that have been working with me on this project since it's been an interdep departmental effort. Um we're talking about the wildfire hardening and water wise landscaping ordinance that's before you tonight. So I'm joined by uh Chris Rickyardelloo who is our landscape architect uh with planning and development services. Lauren Fels who's with climate

[72:00] initiatives. Uh Kathleen Alexander who's with forestry and parks and wreck. uh Chief Lowry from fire, Daniel McNut from Fire Rescue, uh as well as Crystal Mory from Department of Utilities. So, tonight we're talking about ordinance 8721, which is meant to implement the uh work program priority that was uh started by council in 2024 that combines the wildfire hardening and and water wise landscaping efforts. The focus tonight is mostly on water wise landscaping, although there are some elements in the um wildfire hardening part of of the ordinance as well. So, just as an update, uh this is a map that's familiar to council. Uh in the spring of this year, uh we did have an ordinance passed uh that went into effect on August 1st that expanded the the wild uh fire urban interface to 16 over 16,000 parcels. Um it updated uh to meet the 2024 International Wildland Urban Interface Code uh with local

[73:01] amendments. Uh some of the highlights are just that fences that are built within 8 ft of any structure has to be of non-combustible materials. Decks have to be ignition resistant construction. There's a non-combustible zone that applies 0 to 5 feet from any new structure. Um where you can't have any uh plants or anything that can burn uh that can catch the structure on fire. Uh, and there's also a defensible space requirement where any new plantings have to be um, low flammability plants. And we're making some updates to this code tonight. I wanted to show some pictures that show what that non-combustible zone zone looks like. This is a example in Superior uh, where you can see there's a distance um, where the landscaping is pushed back so that you don't have embers catching buildings on fire. So, obviously the focus tonight is on regulations. There's a a a whole suite of of disciplines that address wildfire mitigation uh that were discussed at the study session on September 25th. We're talking about the regulatory element of

[74:01] this and that also applies same to the water conservation program. There's a number of different ways of conserving water, but tonight we're really focused more on the on the rules and ordinances. So, starting with water-wise landscaping, these are some pictures that kind of illustrate the direction we'd like to move in in order to conserve water uh but also try to mitigate or deter the spread of wildfire. It does not necessarily mean that we're going to be losing uh or the goal is to not lose trees and we want to really try to get more urban canopy particularly deciduous trees which are low flammability. They also can stop embers um by their they hold a lot of water and they can stop embers from falling into the understory. But we're really looking at moving in the direction of more native grasses, more native plants that are more low flammability. Um they can still be done attractively. They're colorful. Um so these are some examples. Some of this is influenced by state legislation that's passed in the last

[75:01] two years. Uh we've talked about this before, but uh Senate Bill 240005 uh was passed last year that relates to largely nonfunctional turf uh which is your traditional Kentucky blueg grass or high water grass that um gets planted in a lot of different parts of cities like streets uh rights of way, parking lots, medians, commercial, industrial institutional properties as well as on HOA lands where there's like common open space. It basically says that the cities are required to update codes to not uh allow non-functional turf um in those types of land uses. And the bill that passed this year actually expanded it to multi-unit residential. It basically says anything that's more than 12 units is also subject to this restriction. Uh the way it's written is that these rules would go into effect on January 1st uh 2026.

[76:01] So functional turf is basically what it shows up in the definition from the state that it's grass that might use high water but can be used for like sports fields, picnics, anything that has any kind of activities or that you can have functional turf in that sense. If it's used for those purposes, um, like golf courses, parts of golf courses, athletic fields, picnic areas where your kids or dogs might run, it's all allowed to be functional turf. What the bills really get at is nonfunctional turf. So, this is the definition in the in the state law is non-functional turf is turf that's not functional turf. But what that really means is grass that you largely just look at. And I think there's a lot of that in cities uh particularly in rights of way and portions of you know sometimes people's properties where they're never used. Um so we wanted to make clear that it's really just grass that you're looking at. And and one example that I heard earlier that was really helpful was it's

[77:01] really if if the only person that's walking on that grass is the person that's mowing it, it's probably non-functional turf. Um so that's what it's really getting at. So this is the schedule uh for the project. We're at the later stage. We're at the adoption phase. Um, and we've we've had a number of check-ins with with council back in December of last year and then July at the end of July of this year. So, uh, setting the stage on staff resourcing. Um, as I noted, we have one landscape reviewer who's with us tonight who largely is focused on the land use code implementation piece. Um he reviews a significant number of building permits and planning applications, does a ton of inspections, um has quite a bit of of work on his plate. Um so we have to keep that in mind and kind of look at where we're going with the regulations in the future to know what resources we need. So, what we're bringing tonight is really what we think can be handled uh by our landscape architect, but in the future as we start expanding some of

[78:01] these things, we we probably would be looking at uh having to bring um more people on when uh budget uh can allow. So, as part of this process, when we started, we did hire a consultant, uh Martin and Wood. Uh so, Logan Berba is also on the call tonight if there's any questions about best practices. um she's been helping us uh with a number of of the um the landscape manual development, the the ordinance development, best practices across cities. Um so we've been looking at a number of different um landscape manuals in different cities. These are some resources that we uh recently saw at a convention on water conservation and wildfire deterrence that I would encourage the public that's watching to take a look at these. These are do-it-yourself lawn conversion things where you can save water and also deter the spread of fire. And they're free and they're online. You can download them. Um, so a lot of the recommendations that came from Martin and Wood are attached to the packet in attachment H.

[79:01] So when we originally talked to council about this, um, these were the things that we brought forward. The pie chart is basically just showing the percentage of land uses that would be subject to the state bills. So when we talked to council in December, it was really just the blue part where we, you know, commercial institutional industrial properties that would have to meet um the non-functional turf that's been expanded by quite a bit when you add the multi-unit um residential. So it's a good chunk of our city that uh would would have to meet that non-functional rule. Um, so council basically told us to to focus on non-functional turf, firewise standards, soil amendment and mulch standards, and watering schedules. Um, so we've incorporated all of that into the ordinance and the landscape manual. Uh, we we didn't go into temporary irrigation or a water efficiency standard at this time because that was more of a maybe by council, but it was also something that would um potentially require more staffing to do. So there's some things that we had uh

[80:01] left out and we also left out the professional training and certification per uh direction from council. So since we've had the discussion at the end of of last year, we've moved forward with looking at best practices and soil and mulch specifications. Obviously having healthy soil leads to more healthy plants that can retain more moisture and can be more fire resistant. Um looking at more specific rules on turf, plant and tree specifications. uh wildfire resistance which we've talked about and we'll talk more about tonight and more water conservation and efficiency standards. Uh like I said this is an interdep departmental effort uh that's included um fire rescue, climate initiatives, urban forestry, uh utilities, open space and mountain parks, uh parks and recreation which urban forestry is a part of uh as well as planning and development services and the consultants that we've been working with. We've also been working with Amy Jarger who's um with the butterfly pavilion. So, she helped create the tree

[81:00] and plant list um that's before you tonight. So, we came back to council at the end of July. Um what we heard was general support for the direction that we were going uh with the wildfire hardening and water-wise landscaping efforts. Um there were some concerns expressed that the current changes would not be enough to deter uh wildfire uh given the scope and and the areas of the city that are prone to wildfire. Um there was an acknowledgement that there probably will need to be future work efforts uh to to uh increase education and do a number of things to really get the word out on how to deter wildfire. Um we had further discussions on retroactivity. We touched on junipers uh things of that nature. Uh urban agriculture was a topic of discussion concerns about uh standing in the way of urban agriculture. Uh there was support from council to um flow into this timeline of bringing the ordinance back at this time in the fall um with but

[82:00] based on current staff resourcing. So we brought the package of information the ordinance and the manual and the tree and plant list to planning board on September 2nd. Um the planning board did not uh where they basically failed to recommend adoption of it. There was only three members that voted for it. you would need four members to vote for it. Two members voted against it and two members were absent. Um so pointing out the positive from their discussion, the board was largely comp complimentary and supportive of the project and the completed work, the approach of moving the technical details from our code into a landscape manual. They were supportive of the tree and plant list uh and future updates to further city goals. Um where the concerns came up from the two board members that voted against it related to the combination of the low flammability plant requirements and potential removal of trees that were not low flammability and what that might do um in the sense of urban heat island effect. Uh and also

[83:01] just concerns about a more aerid appearance in the landscaping if we're getting more rock. Uh things like that uh that wouldn't necessarily help with urban cooling. Uh those were kind of the primary things that we heard um against the ordinance. Uh one board member felt that we should have more tree protection uh measures in the landscaping uh requirements now um on private land. The focus of the current manual is really just public rights of wage trees and we're not touching the private property at this time. So uh there has been some emails going around talking about requirements for certified arborists. those are only in the public rights of way trees, not private land. So, we we knew that that could be, you know, a contentious issue. We felt like there's going to have to be more public outreach um and more effort on that and to get people's feedback on protecting trees on private land. So, we left that out of this iteration. Um there was also concern that we weren't integrating graywater um into the ordinance and

[84:00] obviously the council is aware of the ordinance uh being brought forward um by utilities on that topic. Um there was also concerns expressed about the um changes in the scope of when landscape plans are required. I'll talk more about that, but they they did raise equity and cost concerns to that effect um that it would deter people from doing projects or may like make people do work without permits. So, we also brought this to our water resources advisory board. They were largely supportive of the ordinance and the approach to add more water conservation measures. Um they also commented on um there should be a more formalized process for moving forward with the city manager rules which I'll I'll talk about more. So obviously the focus of tonight is really the the ordinance 8721 that we're bringing to you for decision. The intent of landscaping codes from the beginning has largely been quality aesthetics and development um and also to soften the impact of devel

[85:01] development with greenery texture and color. Uh but obviously there's more contemporary considerations that we have to take into account uh like water supply and efficiency. It was touched on in 2003 when this landscaping code was last updated. Uh but obviously it's a more important topic today. Um the urban heat island effect and cool boulder goals and of course the wildfire threat as illustrated by what happened with the Marshall fire have really brought this forward as something that's really important to address. So we have a lot of policy guidance on these topics. sustainability and equity and resilience framework applies the citywide strategic plan, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, uh the water efficiency plan, and the community wildfire protection plan have all informed the work that we've been doing. So, what will ordinance 8721 do? Uh largely what it does is it focuses on the process, application standards, and basic requirements for landscape reviews uh in our land use code. But a lot of

[86:00] the technical requirements that have been in there for years um would move out of the code and into a landscape manual and be to be adopted by city manager rule which I'll talk about on a on a further slide. Um we've also been updating uh the purpose section of that landscape code and references to landscaping water use and wildland code throughout the code so everything kind of fits together and then points people to the wildland code because they're all interrelated. Uh we also added a section on that accepts certain projects from site review or minor modifications. If people opt to do turf conversions, there are some times where people make changes to their landscape plan and an amendment. A more involved process is required. This would exempt them from that that they could just go and like do the turf conversions because it's moving in the direction of what the city wants anyway. So, this ordinance, if adopted, would go into effect on January 1st uh of next year and would align with the state code

[87:00] um requirements for compliance um on the landscaping pieces. The ordinance also does include some wildland code updates which we anticipated because when the wildland code was updated in the spring, it referenced a state level um list of trees and plants. Uh we knew we were going to create a localized list of allowable plants or prohibited plants. So, it now references um the the boulder tree and plant list that uh we would be doing through city manager role. Um existing non-compliant plants would require removal um on properties for new buildings and structures. So, we wanted to create clarification because there was some confusion last time of when that would have to occur. It would not apply to additions or decks. It just applies mostly to new plantings when you're doing a permit. like new plantings have to comply with the tree and plant list, but removals of any kind of dangerous or hazardous uh vegetation would only occur through a like a complete rebuild of a property.

[88:02] The 0 to5 non-combustible zone is required around all new buildings and structures. As before, we just made a clarification that that uh non-combustible zone would apply to additions that are 200 square feet or greater uh and would only be required around the area of the addition. It also would apply around any new decks around the actual deck itself. And the deck would also still have to meet the rules that were adopted before for an ignition resistant surface. So the these are the key issues that we wanted to raise tonight and some of these topics came up in some of the community comments that have been coming through. Um, it removes the iterative landscaping requirements for for alley trees, the changes to the scope. But what we're proposing uh in the ordinance tonight is an is a change in scope where the existing code says that if you build an addition on a building and the addition is valued at 75% of the value

[89:03] of the existing structure, you would have to do a landscape plan and meet the landscape code. We're proposing that that be changed to 50%. And I know this has caused some concern, which is good to hear from from the community. Obviously, the reason we we did this is because obviously there were concerns expressed at prior study sessions that we're trying to get the scope of the project to address a higher number of properties so that we're actually affecting our goals of trying to mitigate wildfire, trying to conserve water. But we understand that this does raise concerns about um cost and equity. So, we do raise this as a key issue uh for council tonight. um internal res renovation projects today under the current code. If you're just not adding floor area, but your existing project exceeds 100% of the value of the existing structure, then the landscape code applies. In this case, we're proposing that that uh be 75%. But we certainly can change that if

[90:00] there are concerns about the scope. There's a new threshold that's also added in the ordinance and this is meant to meet the state law because we don't have anything like this today. But it basically says any land disturbance of more than 50% of the existing aggregate landscape area uh or more than 500 square feet on a lot or parcel would trigger um a landscape plan since they're doing more than half of their property. Uh it would trigger a landscape plan. Another concern that's been expressed uh by members of the community is the requirement for a licensed landscape architect. Uh the the ordinance doesn't require it for all properties. It just says any property that's over one acre in size. So we wanted to make that clarification. Certainly if that's a concern to have this requirement, it can be stricken in the ordinance. This is just something that was was raised as a best practice by some other communities um to have a licensed landscape architect prepare the plans. So that's mostly the focus of what's before the council tonight, but we will jump into the the the city

[91:02] manager rule documents which if the ordinance were adopted would be done through city manager rule at a later date preferably before the first of the year. So firstly with water wise landscaping um we want to make it clear that there's not necessarily a prohibition against rock mulch. It's just rock mulch is not the ideal mulch for for plants in terms of the heat that it can absorb and it's not it it doesn't retain moisture. So it's not the greatest for plants. Um, I know it's it's a it's obviously a, you know, not it's a fireresistant uh feature on properties, but what we're really trying to get at through the landscaping manual is moving away from the larger rocks to smaller rocks which do retain moisture and are more conducive to denser plantings of native plants that are fire resistant and that's called squeegee. So, we can certainly help answer some questions on the technical details um of that. So,

[92:01] that's what this slide is illustrating. I'm sorry. >> Oh, welcome. >> So, first I'm going to talk about the Boulder approved tree and plant list, which is an attachment C. This would be a regulatory list um that applies to all properties, including city properties. Uh it balances conserving water with only allowing lowflammability plants, particularly in the in the WOOI areas. It was developed by the consultant that I mentioned from the butterfly pavilion and it would also help us implement the state law which talks about more native plantings in landscape plans. We're proposing that it be adopted by city manager rule which is not uncommon uh with some aspects of our regulations. It's just done there's a public process. There's still public input. it just can be done more quickly and so it allows the code to be a little bit more nimble in responding to changing needs, methods or technologies or plant material availability. Um so that's that's

[93:02] something that we um that the ordinance would reference um as a city manager role. >> Same I'm just going to jump in for a second just to give a quick welcome to Cub Scout Troop 372. Thanks for joining us here this evening. Um, we're talking about changing our rules around landscaping. It's super exciting. So, I think you're gonna have a great time. >> So, thank you for being here. >> Carl, back to you. >> Yeah. >> So, sorry. Sorry, Mark. You want to chime in, too? >> Be careful. These kids are tough. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll watch out. Careful, Carl. So, I'll talk on the um landscape manual now. So, again, it's it would be easier to update if it was done by city manager role. A lot of other cities have have done this. I I'll touch on that on the next slide. Um this is a best practice that Martin Wood had suggested. Um it would update the regulations to comply with with the state bills on nonfunctional turf. It would add a new watering restriction that it not be

[94:01] 00 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily to avoid the water that can evaporate on hot days. Uh there there's the allowances for urban agriculture which we know has also generated some concern. We can talk about that tonight. Um, and again, just pointing out that this is just a foundational document. We expect that this is going to be the beginning of a lot of updates that will happen to it as we learn and lean into this. You know, there's going to be new things we learn. There's going to be um once we have more staffing, we can like expand certain aspects of it like the tree protection uh if that's desired by council. So, this is kind of the beginning the the foundation of the landscape manual uh if adopted. So, as far as some other communities that have adopted or switched to landscape manuals, a lot of local Colorado examples exist, Aspen, Aurora, Broomfield, Castle Rock, Colorado Springs, Telleluride, Lone Tree, and there's some outofstate examples as well have switched to landscape manuals.

[95:00] Uh, as I noted, there's future work that, you know, be dependent on future work programs, but things that we would um be looking to do like implementing more cool boulder measures could be done through updates to the landscaping manual, additional soil amendment standards, tree preservation and protection standards, new tree planting requirements, irrigation standards, temporary irrigation, more water efficiency standards, and also we're looking to do some updates to our design and construction standards where we might take some of those standards and put them in the manual to allow for easier adoption of changes through the manual as well. So, our engagement has kind of come from, you know, the water efficiency plan uh discussions that happened and kind of folded into this project with the wildfire uh piece of it. And we've been reaching out uh through a consult and inform approach. Uh we've been doing regular updates online doing uh sending out the newsletter and email updates to those that are interested. We did a Be

[96:01] Herd Boulder comment page which is attached to the packet. Uh we did have a number of noticed meetings with design professionals and plant specialists where we've gotten input that has informed our plant list. We've met with some uh contractors and property owners. We did office hours and we also talked to people at what's up Boulder. So our the feedback we heard from that is attached to the packet as well. So as far as next steps, if the council were to move forward with the ordinance, we would then jump right into the city manager rule process um to get the with the hope of getting the landscape manual and the tree and plant list uh updated to align uh with January 1 if possible. Uh we certainly can do later if need be. Um, but we would continue to have ongoing discussions with the community on education, on conserving water, and doing other things to mitigate wildfire. And we know that this is going to not end with this particular project, but keep going and maybe future work

[97:00] programming uh program efforts that we would work on. So, our recommendation is that uh city council move forward with the ordinance uh to put these all into place. Um, this would enable us to be more nimble in making changes to landscaping rules and it furthers our goals on water conservation, wildfire resistance, and urban cooling. Uh, consistent with the plans I talked about. There's also um the comp plan compliance criteria or the the policies that are listed on the slide that this would be uh moving forward towards. So, that concludes the presentation. And here's the recommended motion language which we can come back to and I'm happy to answer questions or defer to other experts that know more than me on certain things. So, >> all right, Carl, thank you for that information uh dense presentation. Um, very helpful and um also thanks so much for um the answers to the questions that went out uh to Lauren Sautine and then even to Mark's salt line when he didn't even ask for any answers. So, that was very fast. I appreciate that. Um, do

[98:00] people have any questions u for staff that have not already been answered by Carl's hotline responses? I have one, but >> thank you. Just a just a small one, Carl. The um I think slide 23 you touched on um if there's um the cases in which non-compliant tree trees would need to be removed, there was an exemption and decks are an exemption. Are fences an exemption, too? If somebody wants to put in a new fence, a metal fence to replace their wooden fence, would they be exempted from having to move their evergreen trees, junipers? >> Yeah, there wouldn't be a requirement to remove any vegetation for a fence. >> Okay. >> Or a deck. >> I saw a deck. I didn't see fence. I wanted to make sure. Thanks. >> Tara and then I'll ask one. >> You're muted. >> Can't seem to get the hang of that. I have two questions. The first is, do you know all the community members that wrote to us? And I've been a little out

[99:00] of it as you know, so forgive me if you said this at some emails lately. Can you tell me if uh did somebody write back to them? Should we write back to them to clarify? >> Uh we did send out um the in the responses just some clarifications, but there wasn't a broadcast message to everyone about uh some of the things that were uh not entirely accurate. Okay, great. Um, I don't know if you're into this or not. I'm happy to send it to all the people. Is there a way to get a response so that we can send it out or should we tell them to listen to this meeting or what do you think we should do? >> I think we out if that helps. >> Par, say that again. >> I think we certainly can send out a clarification if that helps. >> I mean, I'm just interested. I'm curious what other council members think as well about that. So that's one. The second thing is is it is just not easy to

[100:01] >> I like to qual on that and say that I'm also interested. Tara, >> great. And I'll and I'll come back to that in discussion council discussion to see if there's the will of council to request that. >> Okay. And the second thing is is, you know, when it comes to fire hardening and conservation, it's a sweet spot between um doing what is, you know, best for Boulder and also not becoming, as people said in their emails, an HOA with their annoying rules. So, no offense to any HOA people that are listening. So tell me if you were to go back and instead of us just saying, you know, yes now, and look it over and I guess see what it maybe should be a suggestion versus a regulation or did you already think that through? So, in other words, just really thinking about if we're asking for too much for people and

[101:00] because I think a lot of the concerns were valid, not the ones that weren't accurate, but the other ones. >> So, do you understand my question or am I not being clear? >> No, I I I I understand it. I I think with everything we worked on, we kind of went through that thinking process about whether it's better as an education tool or whether to actually make it as a requirement. I I think we actually thinned down the manual considerably before bringing this forward because there was a lot that you know was it was even meteor than it is um tonight. So we we kind of brought forward the things that we thought were the most important. Um you know and we already have a process for you know landscape plan reviews where um people would be going through these processes anyway. We're talking about a change in scope obviously that would bring in more properties, but um they already there's already a lot of properties that would have to go through this and if there's extra things that they can do that can

[102:00] reduce wildfire threat or conserve more water, we thought that that was worth bringing forward. >> Okay. And my last question, glad I had a second to remember it was when we look tried to look for a landscape architect, we just couldn't, it was very difficult to find. So the last thing we want to do is create demand and not have supply. So my question is is why did how did you come up with one acre and why did you come up how and why on the one acre? >> We we felt that um one acre is not going to necessarily encompass a lot of the single unit residential areas of the city um and that it would more apply to the larger projects anyway. And many of those larger projects already do they elect to do a landscape architect, you know, for commercial properties or mixeduse properties. So, we just felt like that was a a good cut off of where

[103:03] it should be required versus not. Okay. Thanks, Tara. I got a question then I'll go to Taiisha and Lauren. My question is just the on the arborist um requirement. So, it's only on trees in the ride of weight. Can you just expound a little bit about how exactly that would work in practice? >> Um, I might need to defer to our um Kathleen Alexander and forestry, but I think it's a current requirement to have the arborist involved with any uh city rightway trees, but if I could call on her on this one. >> Hi, Kathleen Alexander with Boulder Forestry. Um, yes, that is correct. It is already a requirement. We have um a requirement for to be a licensed certified arborist if you're doing any work to trees in the public rights of way. >> Are you saying and thanks Kathleen for popping on. Are you saying we already have that requirement?

[104:00] >> We do. Yes. >> So like you can't trim a branch off a tree in the public rideway unless you employ a licensed arburrist. Currently, >> the it doesn't impose a burden on property owners if they want to prune a branch off, but it does not really apply to that. But if they want to hire someone, they have to hire a licensed certified arborist. >> Okay. If you're hiring a professional to work on the tree, it has to be a certified arborist. But that's not something that we're changing with this ordinance. It's an existing provision. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's very helpful. Thanks for clarifying that. Um, now Taiisha, I believe you have your hand up or something. >> Sorry about that, Mayor. That was uh to Kalqua with uh W uh with Councilwoman Wider. >> Okay. >> Although you mentioned that we'll be doing this at the discussion time, so I'll hold comment until then. Thank you.

[105:00] >> Thanks, Tisha. Lauren, >> thank you again for answering so many of my questions ahead of time, but I still have a couple more. Um, how do we determine the location of a tree? It sounds like a very simple question, but like are we measuring to the trunk? Are we measuring to the edge of the canopy? When we're saying a tree has to be 30 feet away from a structure, what what determines the location of the tree? >> Well, the the 30 feet that I think you're mentioning is is the 5 to 30 foot zone. Is that what you're referring to? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, that that would just be measured five to 30 feet from the perimeter of the structure. Then I'll pass it over to our landscape architect to answer the rest. >> Is this It is. Okay. Terrific. Uh Chris Ricardello, landscape architect with planning and development services. Uh location of trees are typically um

[106:00] identified on surveys clearly um and to the center of the tree is is essentially how it works. To the center of the trunk. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Just making sure. Um, and is there any possibility that we could allow limming up not just for remodels but as like on a case by case construct like option of new construction? One of my concerns is, you know, we have some pretty amazing trees in Boulder. And if you have like the best example of this particular kind of conifer that's rare or something like that, could we allow um even if there's new construction within 30 feet of it, uh for it to continue existing? I think we certainly could update the language in the wildland code to um reflect that. I would maybe defer to legal counsel on the case by case basis

[107:01] how that would work. Um >> good evening council. My name is Laura Whit. I'm with the city attorney's office and assistant city attorney. Um so the question that you ask about case by case basis we could put something into the code that says it will be evaluated or maybe we could do something like if you would like to request us to look at this then we could do that. Um you can like send it into staff or something like that. The one thing I would note is that it might become burdensome on staff because they would have to go look at it. Um and we don't have a lot of staff reviewing these at the moment. So that would be the pro and con. You might want to put some limitations around it too. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. Um Carl, you mentioned that the land disturbance threshold uh part of why we saw that included is to address state law, but my understanding was state law mostly doesn't affect lower residential

[108:03] uh lower density residential projects, but it seemed like that the way that that was written it would. Um is that correct? Mhm. That's correct. >> But we could potentially exempt single f or lower density properties. >> You could >> um Oh, and then I had a question about engagement. So, um, how many lands I didn't see in the packet, maybe I just missed it, but sort of what did the engagement for landscape professionals look like and what sort of was the specific feedback we received from that group? >> Uh, we got a a list of folks that um were identified by a number of different departments in the city and people we've worked with and we just reached out to a number of people and said, "If you're interested, we're going to have a

[109:00] meeting." Um, not everyone attended, but we did have a a handful of people show up at the meetings and, you know, we heard a lot of comments from them um, on the plant and tree list and the and the manual. Um, but like I said, we just kind of reached out and saw who was interested in meeting with us. >> Okay, thank you. That's it for my questions. >> All right, seeing no other hands raised, um, that brings us to the end of our questions. So, let's go to the public hearing. We have three people signed up to speak. Um, each of them will have three minutes to speak. All of them are signed up in person and they are Jason Wy, Megan Secarios, and Lynn Seagull. And I'll just remind folks um to speak to this particular ordinance in their remarks only. Again, I have a handout if you can.

[110:12] Good evening again. My name is Jason Wy. I had I'm a horiculturist with 20 years of experience in working in public gardens. I also come from a family of firefighters, including my grandpa, who was the assistant fire chief for the Thornton Fire Department for 40 years. Um, I want to say that I do support uh the wildfire hardening and wild uh water wise landscaping ordinance 8721 with a few exceptions. It may sound surprising that a landscape could reduce the risk of homes catching on fire, but research does show that 90% of homes ignite from windb blown embers landing on onto combustible vegetation, not from a wall of flames. When those embers find mulch or

[111:00] overgrown shrubs, they start spot fires that spread to structures. The encouraging news is that we can prevent this. Water-wise and firewise landscaping is not about creating a desert. When designed thoughtfully, it is a colorful, diverse, and full of life as shown in the picture here. It's not just a desert. Um it provides food uh nectar for pollinators. It reduces heat island um and it also helps uh create water infiltration for root systems and also creates biodiversity. Um compared to non-functional turf grass, these landscapes are more resilient, more beautiful and more ecologically beneficial. Finally, I encourage shifting to a do not plant list rather than restricting

[112:01] residents to an approved list. Fire risk depends on plant age, maintenance, and spacing. This flexibility will build trust in our community and buyin. Boulder has the opportunity to model what a beautiful, ecologically rich, and fire resilient city could look like. These landscapes do not have to look barren. they could thrive with color, life, and purpose. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now, >> what I will have to say is um the one things that I do disagree with is the zero to five zone. I think that uh certain vegetation should be uh be able to use such as ice plants, auntias, and sedums. These are uh succulents that are essentially just balls of water. If we do limit no vegetation to the 0 to5 zone, that's going to include a lot of town homes, um, apartment buildings, and

[113:01] condos. And, um, I think it would not only look pretty aesthetically unappealing to not have that, but um, sorry, I'm going to interrupt you there. We'd lost exactly how much time you have left, but I think you've hit your limit at this point. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thanks. >> Okay. Okay, now we have uh Megan Keros and then Lin SQL. Well, I do think I signed up in the wrong section, but I do have some comments about um the fire resistant plans, and I think that most of them were covered by the gentleman that just spoke. Um, I appreciate more diversity and I think to restrict it to a list is going to um inhibit that diversity. So, I like the idea of keeping an open and um having a do not plant list. Um, I also like the idea of the succulents being able to be planted in those areas

[114:01] and I think that that's a great idea. Um, I'm hoping next time I can sign up in the right area and be able to speak on what I came to speak about. Thank you. And I also just um yeah, thank you. I have a nice day. >> Thanks, Lynn. See, >> do not tell me I am on the wrong subject, Eric, I mean Aaron, because I'm bringing up the airport with regards to water wise landscaping. Because these things are all interrelated. The more density we have in Boulder, the more fuel we have for a largecale fire like those in California. And that's a concern of mine. And so it's related to the airport. Um, you know, without stating the obvious,

[115:02] at the risk of stating the obvious, this place was a desert lace wasteland. when it started to be, you know, the late 1800s when it was, you know, populated and you don't see any, you know, very small trees all the way up in the Flat Irons. All this whole area, if you look at historic pictures, it's a very artificial environment that we live in. A lot of trees from back east were brought here. um you know and yes they're beautiful and it's very nice to have you know um a non-airid appearance of our landscape but that's not a luxury of this climate in Boulder and I think we should personally go back I mean as much as we can the all the trees going up to the flat irons are

[116:00] going to grow I don't know historically before the 1800s what it looked like. But I do know that we've done some very un wise things like the 311 Mapleton development which I fought heavily and Sam Weaver was the swing vote on it. It wasn't enough for him to dis our municipalization and the south Boulder uh you know south campus. No, he had to do 3112 and he was a split vote and you know now they say that well they they can you know irrigate around there. No, you can't irrigate ahead of something like what we had in our commercial fire because you can't anticipate the conditions

[117:00] preceding that. And that development created a huge amount of fuel, didn't it? That's a problem. And all of these skyscrapers, the people that live in them, they want to get out. They're going to cause a carbon footprint getting out, you know, or they can have their tomato plant there or something. But when you live in New York, you want to get away from New York. >> Your time is up. Thank you. >> Free Palestine. >> Time is up. >> Okay, that ends the public hearing. So, I'm going to bring it back to city council for discussion. And if folks will permit me, I just have a thought about how we might proceed forward if that's all right. Um, so Lauren, I thought you raised a lot of really important um, issues around this topic in your hotline and Carl, you had great answers for those. I appreciate that. Um, but it struck me that there were potentially a fair number of changes that council might like to see. And then

[118:00] Mark, you raised a couple of additional issues and um, so what and it seems like maybe the scope of the changes we might request might be a little larger than we would want to try to do from the dis tonight. So, my suggestion is that we um put forward some requests to staff for um changes that we'd be interested in seeing and then continue the hearing and allow them to uh work on those and bring us back a revised ordinance. Is that an approach that would be um that city council would be interested in? >> And yep. Uh yes, I would support that very very strongly and maybe we can identify some of the things we want to have addressed and um uh staff can then come back to us when they're ready and I think we'd have a stronger document and a smoother process. >> Okay, great. Does anybody object to taking this approach? Seeing no hands raised, um then what I might do is maybe we could start with

[119:00] Lauren since Lauren, you summarized a lot of issues in your hotline. So maybe you could put out um a list of things that you think we should change and then we could see um if other council members have any objections to those requested changes. And let me just turn to staff at this point. Does this approach uh would this work for you all? Uh >> I think it would work. We just would want to know um the date that we would bring it back and make sure that we have enough time to make the changes. Of course, Tracy, did you have a thought? >> Uh yes, mayor. Specifically, I think that you're looking for a motion. Excuse me. A motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain. Um you would want to do that after some discussion. >> Yep. That that makes sense. Brad, did you want to throw anything additional in there? Uh uh just that we will spend a few moments here giving you a suggested date here. >> I was just about to ask. So thank you so much. Um yeah, Ryan

[120:00] >> a question on >> if you had a follow-up question now would be a good time. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I just had a question for for staff uh on the hearing. Um and it was with regards to Mr. Wley's two suggestions. Um, one of them was about allowing succulents and some very limited um, species within the 0 to5 uh, range and then the other one it um, was to to to produce a do not plant list rather than a plant list. My question is simply has has staff looked at those and made an evaluation or would this be new new territory for us to be addressing? >> We we've considered it briefly. It wasn't something that we've looked at in depth. Um I did discuss this with with fire briefly, but um obviously like as we've been saying like the science is that no vegetation in that area, but I think we'd have to look into it in more depth if if there was interest in

[121:01] allowing succulents for instance, and we'd have to bring that forward. I don't know if that would be possible in in the time that we have to to bring these modifications back, but >> and the do not plant list versus the plant list that that concept. >> I mean, can you clarify that that question? >> What I heard in the Yeah, the hearing was just the idea of of instead of having a a what is permissible, have a what is not permissible list. And I'm not proposing to do it or not. I'm just wondering if staff has considered that as a construct in the you know pro. I I think we'd have to consider that in more depth as well. >> Yeah. And just to add that to that, I don't know if um maybe uh Lauren or somebody else in climate uh who had been working specifically on that had any further thoughts on that. We can certainly look into it. I think best practice that we've seen out there is an affirmative list rather than what you can't do. But but we can certainly consider that and we would be able to change it, you know, as part of the city

[122:01] manager adoption as well. >> And Lauren just jumped on if she wanted to say. >> Yeah. Um I can address a couple questions on that. Uh or at least the thinking. So, um, the thinking is that most people aren't plant experts, and so they actually would like to rely on better information about which plants are suited as opposed to being given a list of which plants aren't suited. Um, so there's that piece. Um, and there's a a bunch of native plants that we'd like to encourage our community to plant in order to get the kind of ecosystem services we want from our landscapes. And then on the other side of that, as part of the plant list, and I don't know if you guys uh had a chance to review kind of the the preface to the plant list that was created in order for people to read through um and understand

[123:00] what the categories were. But as part of that preface, we included a a method by which you could suggest a plant that you wanted to use that's not on the improved plant list. Um, we expect that there will be plants that are available from nurseries or new cultivars of things or perhaps hopefully people will do more fire resilient um, studies to identify more plants that are fire resistant and that we would be able to add to that plant list. Um, our method for becoming aware of those things is to ask the public to when they have a landscape plan and they have a plant that's not on the plant list to submit references about the qualities of that plant. Um, and that it wouldn't be automatically approved. It would be considered, but it's absolutely something that we expect the public to do. um to say their references and ask for things that are included that are not on our plant list.

[124:00] Um the approved plant list is just the the easy plants um that don't take as much research that we would like to have um available as a resource to our community. Um >> can I call on that? >> Hold on a sec. Lauren, thanks so much for that answer. And can you just identify yourself for the record, please? >> Oh, I'm so sorry. Um I'm Lauren Fels. with climate initiatives um at the naturebased solutions work group. >> Thanks so much, Tara. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, I'm one of my worries is that somebody writes to you and you're overwhelmed and it's June or let's say May, Mother's Day, when everybody wants to plant and two or three months later you get back to somebody if they can plant their plant. So, how about I'm just going to suggest this and you know I'm no expert in this but can we have a do not plant list regulation and then suggested plants what we because if I was doing it I would look at your suggested plants and look them up and

[125:00] say oh great but there are a lot of actual expert gardeners in this town and so I'm trying not to get a backlog I don't want a backlog for uh city staff to have to answer all these emails and then aggravated people trying to plant. >> Yeah. Um I think this is a great question for Chris Rick Gardelloo who is our landscape architect who reviews plans because I don't think that this situation occurs um given the the kind of the the levels at which you actually have to produce landscape plans. Um, so I'm gonna pass it off to Chris or the planning and development team who review um, plans because I'm I'm not actually in that group. So, >> take it away, Chris. >> Hi. Yeah, Chris Ricardello again, principal landscape architect in planning and development services. Um, we obviously review hundreds of plans uh, every year. Um, and one of the

[126:00] things I've realized in the six years I've been here is that if people can get the plant list wrong, they will. In other words, the plants that go in the ground aren't often the ones that are on the plant list. Uh it's helpful, extremely helpful to have a plant list that's designating multiple criteria. If you look at that list, you'll see uh all kinds of research has gone into it regarding whether or not the plant is uh water- wise and to what degree uh as well as um in terms of fire hardening uh how ignitable those plants are. So that that information's already been done. For us to flip that over and say we're only going to just uh do the negative of that, which would be to designate plants not to plant, uh I think would be difficult on staff. Um me in terms of being able to review the number of plans that I I do currently. So um am I hitting on the question well enough? I I if I'm not elaborate >> well not I appreciate your comments

[127:01] don't get me wrong but if an average person a homeowner is trying to figure out if they plant they want to do some special plant is there going to be there's going to be a way for them to email somebody and then they have to wait for an email back as to whether they can plant it. Is that what this is? >> Yeah, there could be an inquir boulder uh inquiry that that comes right to >> that sounds like a bad idea in my opinion. because we can barely keep up as a city with answer. I just think it's adding a whole another layer of how do I put this? Somebody give me the word >> complexity. Chris came up with complexity to Tara. Do you mind if I respond real quick that just um to your point? I I am trying to avoid complexity in city government as well. I am hearing from from Chris that that a great deal of research and thinking has gone into the plant list and it sounds like they have the knowledge to be able to respond you know um knowledgeably uh to future requests.

[128:02] One thing I would be concerned about with a do not plant list is there are many many thousands of plants in the world. Um and so the the do not plant list could get incredibly long to meet all contingencies. So, I I feel like for me personally, I feel like maybe staff is on the right direction on that one. But we we can certainly test council's interest in doing something different if you would like to in a minute. >> And I think we're mo mostly talking about what appears on a landscape plan. It's not like consenting to every single plant that somebody plants on their property, you know, we're talking more about what's going to trigger the requirements that triggers a landscape plan that Chris reviews, >> right? To to >> That was my question. That's correct, Carl. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Right. So, if you're if you just are a homeowner that wants to plant something in May, you can just go plant something basically. Yeah. Okay. Terry, are you okay? >> Okay. Um, so then Lauren, I'll turn to you with a for a set of suggested

[129:01] changes. And so, what I'd say is as Lauren says these, maybe council members can be thinking and then um after she says them, we can see if anybody disagrees. So, I'm going to start with the the assumption that we love every idea that you have, but if anybody doesn't, we can speak up after she puts out her ideas. >> Thank you for that trust. Um, so I will try to read slowly so that people can think and absorb. Um the first one I have is provide an option for maintaining tree cover for remodels and additions and in special circumstances for new construction. Second one is modifying requirements to more closely align with current requirements so that only so that only larger projects trigger full landscape

[130:00] plans. Reassessing the triggers to better take into account cost and equity concerns for landscape requirements to properties with three or fewer dwelling units. >> Lauren, for that one, are you talking about the ordinance proposes lowering the threshold for when these requirements kick in and so you're talking about revisiting that? >> Yes. >> Got it. Thanks. Um, keeping the three-foot planting bed requirement for open space, which was in this version revised to 5T, exempting low density residential from the land disturbance threshold. shifting from visual purpose statements to functional ones like water-wise, firewise, biodiverse

[131:00] as opposed to year round seasonal color. Um, removing the requirement for a landscape architect on parcels over an acre, removing the three foot high maximum for urban agriculture. Um, for code compliance for dwelling for properties with three or fewer dwelling units, having that be based on code standards rather than adherence to a specific landscape plan on file. removing the deadheading requirement from um the maintenance requirements and providing more flexibility in terms of rock, mulch and weed barriers. >> Okay, that was quite the list. Um which and I thought a very good one. So, does

[132:01] anyone have any objections to those or clarifying questions for Lauren on what she's talking about? No, I have a question. I think uh I think your first one with regarding sort of some flexibility. My only question is how do we get how do we do that in a way that doesn't create un uninforcable discretion or inequitable discretion by staff because that can be quite the challenge if we give it if we give an exemption here but not there. or if we don't have a clear criteria, how do we do that appropriately? >> I don't have an exact answer for that. Um, I was hoping that maybe staff would make a recommendation around what they think is reasonable in that area. I'm hoping that I think there are ways that we could do a little bit more than what we're doing and I would like to

[133:00] pursue whatever amount we can reasonably do. >> Did you want to address that, Brad? >> Yes, if I may. Brad Mueller, uh, director of planning and development services. Um, if if council does proceed with, uh, your suggestion, Mr. mayor of um this the list and and maybe other ones that uh are presented either tonight or subsequently. Um I think it would be productive for us to uh respond to some of those with those nuances and be able to either identify hey we could use some clarification on this or hey we're getting stumbled up on how we would actually implement this would variation X you know meet the intent. Um so very much hear what you're saying uh Mayor Prom and uh I I think you are collectively responsing responding as we are right now which is I'm not sure but we'd want to think about it and give you a good answer.

[134:01] >> Okay, good. Any other clarifying questions? >> Go ahead Mark. >> Okay. Did you have a question? >> Yes. I um Lauren the the Thank you. Uh, I think I heard a proposal to move the non-combustible zone from five back to three. Did I not hear that? I must have. Sorry, I was trying to pay attention. I mean, I'm open to that, but that was not what I suggested. So there's in this is a list of what um counts towards our open space requirement and for many parcels o open space kind of determines what the buildable area for for a lot of zoning types open space determines the buildable area for a lot and planning board had suggested um requiring in order for planting beds to qualify as open space they need to be

[135:00] at least 5T wide which was what the version we saw and I was suggesting that we should stick with what's currently in our code on that with 3. >> Okay, I missed. Thank you. >> Oh, so Terrace's got a question. Um, Lauren, did you discuss, are you satisfied with the answer about the older trees that we talked about, you and I? >> Uh, yes. I mean, I I think that we don't really have an answer yet, but I'm optimistic that staff will come forward with something great. So, I have just two questions for staff. Sorry, I wish I would remember them sooner. The first one is you did say the deciduous deciduous trees are not included in all this because they have more moisture. Is that right? Or >> I mean typically deciduous trees are are considered low flammability.

[136:01] >> Okay, great. And then my second question is is are we in a rush? Because you mentioned a date a few times and I don't think we're in a rush, but I'm wondering are you against some sort of a deadline? because I don't want to stress you out with all this, but it's such an important thing, but I don't want to make up, you know, in my field, my regular field, we have a lot of deadlines. Do we do you have one or are you good to just keep working at it? >> Well, Tara, actually, I can answer that is that we're going to have to um specify a date because that's what the rules require when you continue meeting and we're going to wait and hear back from staff what a date is that they feel is reasonable in order to have enough time to get it done. Well, like no rush, right? >> But yeah, we we do not have any intent to stress y'all out, right? Like we should you should give us a date that is manageable and not um unmanageable. >> Can I can I call upon that? So the January 1, 2026 that is bound by some of those state requirements, there's nothing that we're there's nothing that

[137:00] those are forcing us to do by January 1st, 2026. Is that correct? Obviously, the the January 1 date is in the state law, and ideally, it would be great to have, you know, at least the rules related to non-functional turf on the books by then. If we wanted to meet that state law, but I think we're moving in that direction. It, you know, could be later. I mean, I I don't know the level of urgency of that January 1st date. It just be a good to meet it. So I'm just asking I mean just so that we're not running a foul. The question is is there a way to sort of bifurcate because I don't think we saw any issues with the functional turf stuff that was in there and if if there's a reason to just do that so we meet a requirement and then take this other stuff that we want to noodle for a bit but if that's not a hard requirement then package it all together. I just want to make sure we're not causing >> I mean it sounds to me so far you know based on the level of changes that we could potentially make those changes before January 1st and meet that date and not have to bifurcate. >> Okay. If he feels confident keeping the package, then I'm good with that. I just

[138:00] don't want to run a foul because we're adding extra stuff when the only real thing is the functional turf that we got to take care of. >> Yeah, thanks for that, Matt. And what I've been seeing from the state is that if you are making a good faith effort and you're close um and you have a date, you're like, "Oh, well, we didn't make January 1st, but it'll be done by January 14th." That people are generally tolerant of that. Mayor, if I if I might suggest, we're as we're listening to the content and perhaps the scope of changes, we are keeping track of those. We have a date in mind to offer. Um, if the continued conversation goes further than what we're thinking the scope is, we may move that date. But the suggestion for us might be that we propose a date and if as we continue to get clarity because likely we will come back and um ask for clarification um beyond this meeting if there is more to that we will come to you at CAC and request for additional time. I presume that would be a fine um with the council body but

[139:00] >> I think we can move forward. >> Okay, sounds good. All right well that uh took care of the question. So Mark, you had a comment? You want to make a comment? Um, first of all, I'm very supportive of what uh Lauren has proposed. Um, I think they were excellent. Um, if I had a general suggestion for staff, it's try to be a little less prescriptive. Um, what what is making people crazy about um this proposal is that it takes away almost all of their discretion on so many matters. And I would suggest that not every best practice um gives us um the kinds of results that that should um that we should be worrying about. You know, there's a difference between uh prescribing uh junipers and uh trying to determine what everybody has to use for mulch. It's it's just not the same thing. And even

[140:03] if um stone mulch is not considered a best practice, it is used in in perhaps a thousand maybe more homes um around Boulder. And it's just something people want to choose on occasion. Um and I I don't think that everything we can do is something that we ought to do. Uh again, the junipers are an example to the contrary. the three-foot height on urban um agriculture made people nuts and there was no particular reason for that. Um it may be a best practice but the benefits of doing it are just not that significant. So I would ask you to look at the various things that that you want to do and determine which ones are are really necessary. I am very much in favor of of wildfire hardening, but not everything

[141:02] that we do is going to be that much of a material difference in our ability to uh fight wildfires. And I I don't think five foot um tomato plants are going to be uh in the category of significance. So I I would ask you to to to understand that people like to um control the state of their gardens and open spaces and you know be a little more uh considerate of the requirements that you're placing upon them. Uh you know my as I said my particular thing was was the mulch. I I find that to be bizarre. Um, and especially after being advised by Open Space for years, um, put down stone mulch next to your trees, limb them up. Um, and I'm very confused as to what our policies are and to the and to what extent they are conflicting among departments, but ease up a little

[142:01] bit. That's that's really the the the basic um, comment I want to make. >> Okay. Thanks, Smart. Um, and I'm going to ask if anybody has any additional changes that they'd like to request o over and above what Lauren suggested. And Tara, did you have your hand up, Tara? >> Yeah. So, I'll turn to you. >> I did. >> Um, I'm going to collocally off of Ryan back a few half hour ago or so, and wonder if we can do you need anything other than I personally think sedums and it would be great if you can look at succulents and sedums is it's so sad. And if we can find something that's a ball of water, I think that's what the phrase was used, that would be awesome. So, I would love you to you uh look into that personally. Um unless you think it's there's some reason not to. But I agree with what Mark said that um easing up and best practices are good, but there's there's

[143:00] things we need and things we want. And I guess they're two different things. Brad, did you want to respond to that? >> Uh, not that specifically, but just to kind of summarize what I'm hearing from council of uh the list of items that you've provided and >> let me just wrap this up. Just give me one one one more second. >> Um, chair, was that it? >> Okay. And then just last call. Any other suggestions anybody had? >> Okay. And then um so no no other suggestions and then I'll say we'll come back to the issue of email responses after we get through the discussion of a motion. So Brad, I'll turn back to you. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Uh very much along the line what you're saying. Uh thank you for these helpful individual specific items this evening. We've noted them. Um I think the suggestion as I've heard it is we would put those in a list, send it out if I'm understanding your email reference. uh ask if there's other specific types of things that folks want to add. We'd probably ask you to do that within, you know, a specified

[144:01] time frame, work on those, get clarification from you, and then prepare be prepared for the um hearing that I'm anticipating you to continue to. >> Um I actually meant something else with the emails about responding to community emails. I I would I would suggest that we would only look at suggestions that came from council tonight rather than solicit additional ones. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yeah, if that works. Great. Um, okay. So, then I'll just Were Lauren's requests uh clear enough to you all or did you have any clarifying questions on those? >> Uh, I think they're clear. I might have to go back in the record and listen one more time and then discuss it with our team, but I think it's mostly pretty clear. >> Great. Um, did you all have a date in mind that we could use for a motion? >> Uh, we do. Um we had been thinking about November but we think that that might be a little too close for both um PNDS and legal to be doing the work that they

[145:00] were doing. So we are thinking December 18th uh as a time in which to bring this back if that is okay with you. >> Great. Um well then I might uh in invite Lauren to make a motion and then if people have any Do you want me to do it? >> Okay, I'll do it. Um and then people if people have additional comments they can make them um during the motion discussion. But um I move that uh we continue this meeting to the um this matter this public hearing to the December 18th um regular meeting of the Boulder City Council and ask uh staff to bring back at that uh date a revised ordinance that includes the requested changes. Do I have a second? second. >> And do we need a roll call for a continuous just show of hands? Okay, great. And um for I'll just speak to the motion. Um that I just want to thank uh staff for all the work that you did to get us to this point. Um it was really fantastic

[146:01] work. It is in very complicated in reading through all of it. It took a long time to absorb. Um so it was a huge amount of work. I also want to recognize that we gave you all direction um to make a lot of these changes and know so I appreciate you all being flexible with us on some of the specifics because I know we expressed some intentions that you were following up on and I appreciate that responsiveness to our uh requests before but also appreciate your flexibility in adjusting some of the specifics as we're going to the final stage. >> Brad and I'll just reiterate what I said at the beginning. We've appreciated council's uh leadership from the beginning of identifying this this as an issue. It felt very timely to us as staff and uh you know got us off of our two decade cycle. So here we are. >> Yeah, very much appreciate that. Who made the second? You did Lauren. Did you want to speak to that? >> Yeah, I I appreciate the time you've spent crafting this answering our questions. Um there are some really

[147:00] amazing um parts to this in terms of separating out the landscape manual. I think sets us up for such easier an easier future and being able to be adaptive and I really appreciate that. Um really functional and foundational change. um and just that this is a place where a lot of different goals and aspirations can sometimes come into conflict. And so um I appreciate you all continuing to adapt with our um as our understanding improves on terms in terms of how the specific code is dealing with those. Thank you. >> Matt, did you want to speak to it? Yeah, I actually I mean the fact that we brought this to you with some general concepts and at some point, you know, you got to just lay detail on paper and and so that's the stage we're at and so I appreciate the flexibility from Stafon and I think that's said there's some

[148:01] really there's some really good stuff in here. I think the functional turf stuff is great. I think certainly the the way we're thinking about watering is fantastic. Um I've been doing that at home. In fact, I had a impromptu experiment where my raikio system went down and so it just started watering during the day and until I replaced it. I was consuming so much more water just to keep my grass going. And then when I got my Rikio back and I was able to start watering at night, I saw my water usage fall way down just to keep it going. So, it was an accidental experiment, but sort of proof of cause that that's the right direction to go for for our community. So, uh thank you for that and thanks for being adaptable to some of the things. I'm an urban gardener myself. Um, so my tomatoes are seven feet tall this year. So um that would really suck um to cut them off or limb them, but nonetheless uh we persevere with our corn and our pole beans. So appreciate the flexibility there. >> Tomato boasting. I like it. Um okay, any other comments before we go to a vote? Uh yeah, Mark, >> just a quick one. Um, you know, this is

[149:01] a relatively new topic, um, in terms of wildfire resilience, and I think it's important for us to generate trust and support in the community. Um, and we need to build a consensus in favor of what we're trying to do because some of what we're trying to do is going to be fairly alien to most people. So, I would urge you to keep that in mind. um as we put together a set of rules governing behavior, we need to bring people with us and it's not an automatic process. Thank you. >> All right. So, all in favor of the motion to continue the public hearing with the direction given, please raise your hand. >> Okay, I got that unanimous. Taiisha, if you want to just say yes or no or come on camera and raise your hand or >> yes. >> Okay, that's a yes. Thank you. So, that motion passes uh 800. And again, just huge thanks to staff for

[150:00] all your amazing work on this and also for your flexibility and we're looking forward to finishing this out and getting it done. >> Thank you. >> All right, that brings us to our matter from the city manager. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Our matters from the city manager are item number six on the agenda. 6A is the council committee charters review and discussion. >> Thank you so much. E, as uh the team gets situated, I'll say uh this item came as uh part of your council priorities of your council process working groups. We've been thinking about um subcommittee charters. I know that staff has passed those on and hopefully you've had a chance to review those uh as we um think about moving those forward and codifying a little bit of scope and purpose. Uh and so with that, hopefully I have got Meg's a little bit of time

[151:01] to get herself situated and I'll just continue to extend. >> Perfect. That's perfect. >> We'll just give her a moment until we're we're there. But we are almost there. >> Okay. Fabulous. This is great. I think we're all ready to go. Um, hi everybody. My name is Megan Valer. I go by Mags. She her city council program manager uh in the city manager's office here tonight to chat with you as promised on September 25th about city council committee charters. Um, so I will get us rolling uh on tonight's discussion. We will start with a brief history of the committee chartering process um and how it was wrapped into our process working group priority. Uh we'll chat briefly about the drafting process for how we came to the drafts that are in your memo this evening. Um and areas that we identified across all eight uh internal council committees for standardization. Um we'll share a brief overview of each committee's purpose statement as drafted uh in the memo just to ground the

[152:01] discussion um since the rest of the committee charter documents do flow from those purpose statements. And finally, we'll wrap up with questions for council and next steps. All right. In terms of item history, um, prior to the start of the council process improvement working group, city staff had already identified that creating council committee charters would assist with improved documentation and standardization of council committee operations. Um the council process working group which was comprised of council members Adams, Marquis, Spear, and Winer also prioritized this item uh for completion as part of the um process working group council priority for the 2024 2025 council term. As a reminder, uh this is for council's eight internal committees. Um and that does not include any intergovernmental committees or intergovernmental groups. Um these are the financial strategy committee, audit committee, I'm sorry, I'm not going in order. the audit committee, boards and commissions committee, charter committee, council employee evaluation

[153:00] committee, uh council engagement committee, council retreat committee, financial strategy committee, and intergovernment intergovernmental affairs committee, excuse me. For our uh committee charter drafting process, um we started with the city manager's office and the city attorney's office working together to compile a charter template with standard sections that belong in each charter across all eight internal council committees. Uh these sections include the committee's purpose, the committee's membership, each committee's responsibilities, authority, um moments when items are escalated from the committee to the full council, any out of scope items that we had identified across the committees, um committee meetings and how they operate, and then finally, city of Boulder charter, not committee charter, but city of Boulder charter references to council committees. Using this template, city staff who support each council committee um produced draft charters and through that process, staff identified some areas for greater standardization and uniformity among all of the council

[154:01] committees which we will discuss on the next slide. Finally, the city attorney's office reviewed each charter and following attorney review, um each charter was sent to its corresponding committee members on council. Uh since staff did want to provide a feedback window for members of each committee prior to this full council discussion this evening. In terms of standardization, city staff identified the following areas for greater uniformity and predictability among council's eight committees. First, we referred to all the committees as committees rather than subcommittees um because some were using the title subcommittee. So instead uh for consistency sake, we standardize the naming convention just to committee for all eight. Second, each charter contains an out of scope statement describing that administrative functions are reserved to the city manager unless authorized in the Boulder Revice Code or city charter. Um, this statement essentially affirms these committees as advisory groups and reflects article 2 section 13 of the city charter regarding powers expressly withheld from council.

[155:00] Third, for all uh committees except for the council employee evaluation committee, we included a statement in the committee meetings section that specifies that committee meetings are open to the public. CEC is expressly authorized in the Boulder Revised Code to conduct its business in private, which is unique. Um, but all of the other committee meetings as specified in the BRC are open to the public and we made as much clear in all of the charter documents. Next, each charter contains a statement that committee meetings are not video or audio recorded and uh this is a question that we occasionally receive. So, we wanted to use this as an opportunity to clarify. Finally, each um each committee charter describes quorum requirements uh in the section on committee meetings. In no case is a quorum ever met if only one council member is present for a committee meeting. But quorum requirements do vary by each committee's number of members. Uh next we'll quickly run through the purpose statements for each committee just to ground everybody in the discussion. Um the rest of the charter

[156:00] document as I said flows from the purpose statement. So it's a decent place to start. Uh and then we'll move into the council questions. So the first is our audit committee. the responsibility of which is to provide independent review and oversight of the city of Boulder's financial reporting processes, internal controls, and the council appointed independent financial auditors. Uh next is the boards and commissions committee which uh the primary purpose of which is to assist with the annual boards and commissions recruitment and selection process. In addition, the committee may review and recommend procedural changes and improvements to the boards and commissions program to be presented to the full council for consideration. Next is our charter committee, which by the way, charter committee charter was like such a tongue twister for the last like year. Um, charter committee's purpose is to recommend changes to the city charter and review changes submitted by council members, staff, and residents. Uh, staff will research any changes that the committee is asked to consider, present those to the committee, and determine if the proposed changes uh will be presented to the entire council for consideration on the upcoming ballot.

[157:02] Next, we have the council employee evaluation committee, which is responsible for developing and defining the process for annual evaluation of council's three employees, conducting the required information collection for evaluation and drafting and delivering feedback to council employees. The CEC is also responsible for acting as the point of contact with staff for recruitment activities as necessary um for direct council employees. Next is our council engagement committee which focuses on improving council engagement with the public by making engagement opportunities with the council more meaningful and inclusive. The retreat committee uh convenes to provide guidance to staff on the agenda format and facilitation of the bianual city council retreat and bianual city council midterm check-in. And our last two, the financial strategy committee which has the primary responsibility as an advisory committee regarding short and long-term financial policy and planning to achieve financial sustainability across future years. And lastly, our intergovernmental affairs committee, which advises city staff, primarily the city's intergovernmental affairs officer

[158:00] on governmental and policy advocacy matters that impact the state and its regional, state, and federal partners. The committee's primary focus is providing guidance on legislative matters that may be considered by the Colorado General Assembly each year, though it is not exclusively limited to consideration of these matters. All right, we'll jump into our questions for council. Um, I'll share both of them and and we can take them one by one, but we are asking uh if council supports the council committee charters as drafted and presented by city staff in your memo this evening. Um, and then second, if council supports what we would see as the recommended next steps for this item. Um, which would be to include these committee charters in the council resource library as well as the council member handbook. Uh, and then referencing them formally in council procedure and the places where they are maintained. So, um, yeah, I will start us off with that first question. If council supports the committee charters as draft drafted and presented, uh, in the staff memo, >> thanks so much for that, Megs. Yeah. And

[159:00] how many times have you presented from the dis before? >> Uh, this is my first time. >> I thought it was Well, we work with you so much I wasn't sure, but welcome to the DAS. It's great to have you up here. >> Um, okay. Any uh so does council support the council committee charters say as drafted and presented? >> Uh oh yeah we can start with clarifying questions. Go ahead. >> Could we go back to the um charter committee? There was some language there I wasn't suggesting. >> Um yeah uh the decision to um as to whether or not something comes up to uh council is that made by uh staff uh or the committee itself? I might ask Pam um assistant city manager to jump in on this one. >> Yeah, council member Wallock, thanks for the question. If the question is who makes the determination to bring something forward to the full council, am I correct? It would be the charter committee themselves, not staff. So staff is stewarding that process, but it

[160:01] would be the members of the charter committee making that decision. >> Fine. I just the language was a little confusing to me. Thanks. >> Any other questions for Seth Nicole? I had one question. Um, so in the retreat committee there's a line which I very much appreciate saying that the boards and commissions committee will do the outreach first. Is there a corresponding line in the boards and commission? I apologize for if I've missed it. Um, but just wanted to make sure it was there as well. >> No, I appreciate the question. There is a line in their um, scope that talks about uh, management of board and commission communication with council. >> Any questions? Lauren? I think it would be if that's like a really specific thing that we want the boards and commissions committee to do, I think it would be good to have it specifically called out just because it hasn't always been clear in the past. Um, and oh, there was something else on the boards. Can we pull up the boards and Oh, this is that's it. Um,

[161:08] There was something, sorry it's in a slightly different format than what I read in the packet, um, about the boards and commissions members being kind of like a go-between between council and the boards, but I think, you know, we've discussed prior um, not wanting like for instance a single council member to go to a any particular board or commission meeting. And so I would say we might either strike that or modify that to be more specific about what that looks like. Appreciate the feedback, Council Member Fogle. We'll have to we'll have to look at the specific language again, but the intent that you just described is the intent, not to create a pass through. So we'll make sure it's reflected.

[162:00] >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Right. Not seeing any other questions. Anybody have any suggestions for changes? >> Uh, I do have one for intergovernmental affairs. Um, it has to do with uh where where that is on here. I'm just reading it in the memo. Um, but basically the section is council members may also represent themselves rather than the city if desired, but when doing so should always make it clear within their testimony that they are not speaking on behalf of the city. Members of council must also alert the intergovernmental affairs officer that they plan to do this. I I would recommend a small change because we've had a few instances in the last few years where um when that's happened that has sewed a lot of confusion and has really put our inter intergovernmental affairs officer in a very difficult spot with regards to trust with the people that they're working with in the legislature. And so question I have is to maybe modify that or the recommendation is to modify a little bit so that when we as a council are one we have a legislative priority

[163:00] and the intergovernmental uh affairs officer is acting on that. It is the will of this body that we are acting on collectively and we might have some disagreements but when we're making that testimony there's there's some there's some consistency there and trust and clarity that's key. So one thing I would say is council this is how I would maybe suggest a change. Council members may also represent themselves rather than the city only if the city is not taking an active role advocating for or against a particular piece of legislation if desired. Doing so should always make clear that their testimony that they are uh speaking uh not speaking on behalf of the city and members of city council should alert the intergovernmental affairs officer when they do so. So, just a small tweak uh but a way to sort of make sure that we're not sewing immense amount of confusion and delaying that trust that we're uh depending on to get some of our advocacy across the finish line. >> That >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um I was just going to ask if that's

[164:01] legal. Can we because that that it seems like it's a free speech issue as well um for us to be able to say whatever that is and uh uh take on the eyeire of our colleagues if we are being especially orous. >> Yeah, thanks thanks for the question. Um, what I would say is that council members retain their first amendment rights to petition their government as individuals and I would not recommend passing something that says they cannot do so. What >> what what if we had language some something to the effect of if it is on a matter that uh the city body has taken a position on individual testif uh testifying is discouraged but if a council member does desire to do so they should notify the uh intergovernmental affairs officer in advance. >> Yeah. Anything I mean we've just run into some real hard issues. So any any guardrails that we can help with that

[165:00] would be helpful in how we advocate our positions at the state. May I suggest a a different thought >> please? >> Um perhaps perhaps it could say that if the body has taken a position um that the individual shall identify that position and then shall speak on their own behalf. So, for example, um let's pretend for a minute that I'm a council member and um and I am differing from the position taken by the full council. >> Do we do we all do this thing? Is that is that how you >> only some of you? >> Okay, sorry. Please continue. >> Uh if I were testifying then I could identify myself as Teresa Taylor Tate. I am a council member on the Boulder City Council. I am testifying on my own on my

[166:00] own behalf. Um however, I would inform you that the city council of the city of Boulder has taken a position of support on this bill. I however in my own personal capacity do not support this bill for the following reasons. >> Lots of head nods. We like it. But I I mean I'm open to that certainly if that's that sounds legal compared to my previous suggestion. Uh but I I leave that open to my colleagues whether or not that's something that would just help clarify uh the confusion and and maintain the trust that we want to maintain with our legislators and certainly our lobbyists um and certainly Heather as she has to represent the city. >> Very good. Um any other recommended changes? Seeing none, then I would say the answer to your first question is we do. Um, and then the second question was, do we support including the committee charters

[167:01] in the council resource library and handbook and referencing referencing them formally in council procedure? Got a thumbs up on that one. Mayor, just for clarification, we should get a nod on whether the body wants to move forward in that um amendment to the um intergovernmental affairs charter. >> I have a question. My hand is up. >> Go ahead. >> Um regarding the um requested amendment, that's still a recommendation, correct? Per the free speech to >> a recommendation to um clarify the council position before um stating your own if it's alternative in your testimony. That would still be a recommendation. Correct. >> It certainly could be if that's the will

[168:01] of council. >> Okay. Thank you. Um >> but um I guess my question then is is if it's not a recommendation then wouldn't that be an infringement on free speech? >> Well, it would can potentially be compelled government speech. So that's an excellent point. >> Could you maybe come up with language that that is not illegal and preserves free speech but indicates that this is what one should do? >> Yes. Um so That would be that it is suggested that council members dot dot dot what Pam wrote down. >> Yeah. Or requested or suggested or something. >> Requested or suggested would either would be fine. Um I would ask for a nod from council about the pre council's preference. >> Okay. Well, so first I'll I'll straw

[169:01] poll. Did you want to say something more? >> Yeah. No, my only question is so if that's a recommendation but we still maintain that they must notify our intergovernmental affairs officer that's not optional. Correct. Right. So I'm I'm just trying to wonder where this is like there's certain things that like >> we either are doing or we're not and hope we do. >> Sure. So the the recommendation words are tricky. Um so as a professional courtesy you council members would be expected to notify the intergovernmental affairs liaison. That's not compelled government speech. It is instead um a an action that you all will take in the same way that other actions are prescribed. >> So it's procedural in its nature. Okay.

[170:00] Just checking. >> Correct. >> Okay. So I'll just ask uh straw poll are people interested in um making >> sorry point of clarification. >> Go ahead. So if it is um again a courtesy, it is not a requirement. And if it is if a council member does not submit a request in advance or notification in advance, is there any kind of penalty or consequence for that breaking the procedure? So I understand this is a two-part question. I understand the first part to be whether this is uh permissive or mandatory as currently proposed in the council in the charter. Uh it would be mandatory. It would be a must. Um that would not run a foul of the first

[171:00] amendment legally. The second part of the question I understand to be what would be the consequence of not notifying the governmental affairs officer which in a way would be the same as what would be the consequence of not following any of these committee charters. Uh this is a self-governing body. The body would determine what the consequence is and potentially violate the code of conduct. I would need to look at that to make sure. But >> and and I'll just note I mean we have a number of things in our rules and procedures that are things that we're all supposed to do, right? Exi existing. >> That's right. This this body um in governing itself has has promulgated a number of rules that uh that prescribe specific conduct and conduct and prohibit other conduct. >> Thank you. Okay. So, uh just ask for a straw poll

[172:02] of people who'd like to proceed forward with this suggested amendment. Raise your hand. Um I got six of us here in present and seven as well as Tara and Taiisha. Do you want to say yes or no? >> No. >> Noted. Okay. So, that was 7 to1 in favor of moving forward with that. and we'll leave the exact language to your discretion. >> Just for procedural clarity, it was a nod. >> A nod >> and and um the nod carried the day. >> We have successfully nodded as a body. Okay. So, uh, coming back about do we support including the charters in the council resource library and handbook and referencing formally. Everybody's

[173:02] people are okay with that. I'm seeing nods. Any objections? No objections. Does that give you what you need? >> It does. Thank you, mayor and council. Uh we appreciate all of the support to um formalize some of this kind of unwritten ambiguous procedure and make it clearer for staff and council going forward. So thank you for your support of the process improvement priority and um all of your support with the committee charters as well. >> Thanks so much for your work on this. This is going to be a big step forward in terms of transparency and expectations for these different committees. So really appreciated that. Wow. We got through that in record time. So, we have one item left, which is a matter from the mayor and members of council. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Our matters from the mayor and members of council is number eight on tonight's agenda. 8A is

[174:01] the 2026 council retreat planning discussion. >> Very good. And who is introducing this item? >> Uh, we'd be happy to get it started, mayor. And uh because we have Meg's here in her most excellent first time presentation, we're going to load her up and pass it on to Megs. >> Do it twice. Me again. Me, she, her, city council program manager. Um I also support our retreat committee uh which is council members Spear and Winer. So thank you to them for um all the work getting us here in our first retreat committee discussion uh ahead of our 2026 council retreat. Um just to share a little bit about sort of where we are in the process. Um the committee met for the first time on September 18th, so just a couple of weeks ago, in preparation for a full council discussion um on a couple of items related to the retreat. These include retreat scheduling um and sharing a little bit more about the scheduling decisions that have been made and and um preferences that you all might have um for, you know, how long the days take and and and that sort of thing. also the

[175:01] tentative agenda uh that the retreat committee is proposing for the full council to consider. Um which includes three main parts that uh council member Spear will uh share a little bit more about. Um and then finally what we would envision retreat preparation looking like um on the the council member side as we um head into the priority setting process for the one-year uh council terms in 2026 due to back-to-back elections. Uh and then we have a short note on input from boards and commissions to share as well. But with that, I would hand it over to Council Member Spear. >> Thank you so much. Um, and thanks to Tara as well. Uh, Tara, please jump in if I'm getting anything wrong here. Um, based on our last meeting. Um, so the the retrieve facilitator again will be Heather Bergman from Peak Facilitation. Um, we are well used to working with her by now. Um and even though our recent preference has been to um schedule the retreat in late of the first quarter of the new term, um we're actually

[176:00] recommending a January retreat just because of this unique one-year um council and the time constraints that this puts on staff to complete one-year priority projects. Uh we thought it would be best to get started as soon as possible. Uh based on the availability poll that went out to all of us, we've scheduled the retreat for Monday, January 12th and Tuesday, January 13th. 30 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day with a halfhour meal break in in the middle of it. Um the format will follow uh what we had at our April 2024 retreat. Um we will have a little bit of time, not a whole lot because I know not everybody loves this, but just a little bit of time for team building and optimizing council dynamics. Um we are recommending this item um just because uh the exercises in the past have helped us to better understand each other um our visions for the city, our communication styles and preferences and the best ways to collaborate with one another. Um we're recommending this because there is a possibility of new council members coming on board. Uh but

[177:01] also even even if council remains um the same people for the next term um it is important to continue fostering uh good uh interpersonal dynamics and relationships um even among among us. Um the main agenda item for the retreat um and and what we're seeking some guidance on this evening is the priority setting exercise. Um because we'll have consecutive elections in 25 and 26, we will only have one year to set and complete our work plan priority. Um to make use of that limited time and staff capacity, um we are proposing a slightly different process for how we get to our u work plan priorities this year or this this next term. Um the first is that when thinking about um proposals, we are recommending just finding those that could be completed in 3 to 6 months um versus the usual one or two years. Um we are asking or recommending that um we

[178:03] agree to consult the city manager's office about uh the ideas that we have. This will help staff understand which departments would be impacted by any given project. um whether the scope of the project is reasonable alongside the other work that we've put in motion that's going to be considering next year as well as um regular staff work um and any possible trade-offs or impacts to other planned work. Um we are recommending also that to the extent possible um we all align our work plan priority proposals with existing items in the citywide strategic plan. Um just because uh augmenting and uplifting existing items will alleviate some of the staffing challenges um that we're going to be facing given um the the ongoing work that will continue into next year. Um and as with April 2024, the number of priority projects would be flexible depending on the anticipated work plan impacts um associated with each item. So we wouldn't necessarily

[179:00] commit to say 10. Um it really would depend on what's involved in each of them. Um so that's that's basically the part um of the the main bulk of the retreat. Um we would also have some time for um a process improvement uh or um discussion. Um the retreat still presents a really good opportunity for us to talk about potential improvements. Um but if we are going to do this, it would we would really be looking at more smaller scale types of uh improvements u for next year. So we we recommend it uh for inclusion. Uh but recognizing limited staff capacity is um going to limit the amount of improvements and the size of the improvements that we can make. Um should I pause there for some questions? Maybe questions, comments at that stage. >> Um I guess I have a question for uh Nurian staff. So

[180:03] it's a different amount of scope than those of us who've been on council for a while are used to. Will you help kind of guide us in terms of sort of what is within scope in ter like I'm guessing even with shorter initiatives 10 may be too many for one year. So I don't know if you're going to give us guidance on that. >> I always think 10 is too many for any one year. Um uh all kidding aside I do think that's true. It'll also depend on which departments you're impacting and the level of scope. But yeah, I think you want to make sure that there are priorities that we can get accomplished within the one year. Um the and one of the reasons um and I appreciate the recommendation to work with um our office and we have divvied out our work. So all of CMO supports all the departments is even though you may think it's one department, there are crossovers. I can tell you that the city attorney's office is involved in most everything that we do. Um and most of our work nowadays is cross-dep departmental. And so we're we'll able to

[181:00] um perhaps provide additional guidance or thoughts and suggestions about that um as that moves forward. So it'll definitely depend on the type of priority, the type the department that's involved. Some of the priorities and I can think of the Boulder Valley comp plan are going to be ongoing and that will already require staff time. So, um I can't say I would recommend three versus five versus one because it really will depend on the type of uh recommendation you're moving forward and likely not one >> whatever the number is. Can we tuck in one? >> No, we have already experienced the tuck in and it has not been good. I will not let that sneaky one pass by me again. >> And then uh thanks for that. And then I I just have a comment which is I guess it's partly a question. Um, do we feel like we need the same length of retreat as we do for a two-year council? It It feels like we're going to have less to talk over and so maybe could this be like twothirds as long, something like that, maybe.

[182:00] >> Can I respond to that one? Yeah. Um, maybe. Right. I mean, I think it it um maybe this is something that after we start giving so and I'll get into what the the procedure we're recommending for putting forward these priorities uh priority ideas, maybe um staff could let us know um as you are getting a sense of what's coming together um whether we could do that. I I think about it kind of like um you know how when you're when you're writing something and you're given a lot of words, sometimes that's easier than when you're just given a few words. So I think that that it it's hard to say I think yet until staff sees what some of the the things are. So maybe we could hold the time but with the idea that maybe we could just get it done in half the time. >> Okay. Yeah. And >> yeah, sure. Go ahead. >> I mean perhaps one qualifier is, you know, if it's all nine of us again, that's probably a lot more streamlined of a process and we could truncate it. And if there's some new new bodies, then that's a different conversation. So, I'm

[183:01] wondering if that's maybe a qualifier to whether it's two or shorter. It's just whether we got new faces or not. >> Yeah. And I guess I'll just add in the um you think it makes sense to keep all the time reserved for now, but I'll just kind of put out there that let's, you know, strongly consider the possibility of a shorter retreat given the one-year nature of it. >> Yeah, that's just two quick comments. Yeah, I'd rather adjourn early than schedule early and not have the additional time if we need it. Um my other comment is um pending the any change in council um personnel. I'm wondering do we really need a team building exercise? We do this every time and I really don't you know we we know each other. we know how to work with each other and you know I would rather have the time available um for the hard tasks of determining what our our work

[184:00] is going to be for the next year. Um >> oh can I comment on that? Oh >> have I upset you? C >> council member Winer you have to something to add. Well, let me just say first of all, Heather, our beloved Heather, really wants us to do this. So, I think we should do it because she wants it and she knows how to run a really good retreat. But I did tell her I'm not interested in anybody's favorite ice cream flavors. So, she promised me we would not do that. >> That's all. >> And I I love Heather, too. I'm just making a comment about an exercise that I think has diminishing value uh given the amount of time that we have spent with one another and worked with one another and they're fun uh but they're not very useful to me and I'm simply suggesting that um we might be better served by spending more time doing the work. What?

[185:03] Fun is important. Mark, you know that. >> Nicole, do you want to respond? >> No, I don't. >> Um, and I think, you know, this is what we will obviously keep talking, right? And we'll see um what happens with the election in a couple weeks as well. Um, but but what I would say too is after the last one in particular, um, I did hear from a number of community members who really appreciated just getting to know us in a in a slightly deeper way as well. And so, um, and I think for staff, too, right? We we spend a lot of time talking to each other and everything, but, um, staff doesn't always get to see that those those relationships and things play out, too. So, I think it I think it can be helpful for more than us as well. But, um, certainly, you know, I think Tara and I have noted and also Tara is very discerning when it comes to these kinds of exercises. So, I will say that, too. >> Well, I've been through a couple too, actually. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But we can certainly um yeah take that into account. >> Okay. So last.

[186:01] >> Okay. I and I er in the direction of trusting our facilitator personally. But so maybe Yeah, Ryan. Yeah. Go ahead, >> Nicole. I did have a question. Um I think I heard that the proposal will include that individual council members ahead of the retreat would would be um expected to reach out to to Nura with their concepts and get some kind of structured feedback. Is that which is different? Is that right? >> Um yes. And I can get into the timeline that we we were proposing for that. >> I'll leave that. We want to go there. So yeah. And let let me know if this doesn't cover um your question too. Um but um does anybody have any other thoughts on the >> general structure agenda how this is playing out so far? Okay. Um then uh what what we're re recommending in terms of the process for submitting work plan priorities ahead of the retreat is as follows. Um we would ask people to discuss work plan priority ideas with the city manager's office by

[187:01] mid December. Um, these conversations would allow the uh city manager's office in partnership with the city attorney's office and other departments to uh consider the anticipated workload associated with each of the um proposals and then no later than December 31st, submit your formal proposals to city staff. Um, city staff will then compile a list and group the proposals by theme as well as impacted department. Um staff will share the full list with council members ahead of the retreat. Um so we will all have the full list uh shortly um or maybe a week or so before the retreat thinking. Um and then uh with the benefit of the knowledge about what we are all proposing and potential areas of alignment, we would bring no more than each of us bring no more than two final proposals for work plan priority projects to the January retreat. Um Heather would then lead lead us through a prioritization exercise as we've done before um to determine the final 2026

[188:02] work plan. >> Uh sounds pretty good. So uh just to clarify, so we're submitting our sort of early concepts to the city manager's office for a conversation. When you say submit to staff by the December 31st, at what point do we daylight these via hotline? What would be the sort of key to start getting that out there? Is it when we do the final submission to staff that is hotline and therefore inclusive of staff or are you envisioning that we still have more of those intimate conversations at the post December 31st prior to daylighting to community and everybody? Where do you see that fitting in? >> Yeah. Um, so I think you know we we were thinking about that with the two proposals that would be we would each be bringing forward that that would kind of be the point, but I also want to check that with staff and just to make sure that I'm not off base there. Um but that it would really just just so that we're not flooding um all these ideas out

[189:00] there before we've even kind of finalized what it is we're bringing forward. >> Did you have a date in mind for when we would publicly daylight the two that we want to bring to the retreat? >> I think that really depends on the the time that staff have for um pulling those things together after the December 31st deadline. And again, these are kind of tentative suggestions. So we can rethink them a little bit here. >> Less than three weeks. Less than two weeks. >> I don't know that we had a specific date in mind. Um but we can certainly build one in. >> Yeah. Thank you for the question, Council Member Benjamin. Um in conversation with Heather, we're trying to um walk the line between giving staff enough time to um kind of align all of the different proposals and understand where there are synergies um for you all as you consider those final proposals. Um and then also providing enough time for community to see those those formal proposals. So we don't have a a timeline quite yet but plan to you know

[190:00] definitively settle on that and future retreat committee meetings. >> And I wonder too if it just sort of follows the packet schedule too like no no later than a week before um to to sort of have those. Then I don't I don't know if we I mean we could talk about those Tara and the committee too of how to do this but maybe um you know put them in hotline and then staff you could kind of pull them all together for that memo or something. Nicole what would be good for me personally know I'm on this subcommittee I'm getting confused. Step one do this by this date. step two, check with colleagues, but so to have a schedule will be really good of dates uh with every step. >> Yeah, I think we could definitely pull that together, but I think what what we were trying to do here is just find out does this timeline seem in the realm of possibility before we um finalize things. And if uh to your point um council member Spear, if the if the

[191:00] general rubric is um un amendable to council, we can come back and send you all a schedule with better dates that takes into account um some of the things that you're discussing here. So it provides that timeline. >> I just had one clarification um on the proposed process. So I think what I heard is uh individual council members will um work with Nuria um excuse me um get feedback and then there will be some coalation of all of that that will come back at some report so that we can look at all that before we get to the point of individually landing on a couple. >> Yep. That's right. And that's what what we were thinking was that um this would be helpful if there are some that maybe seem a little bit similar um would just give us an opportunity um to to think about alignments and things before putting in full proposals. Alignments, >> it's the fancier word. >> Can I ask one more question? >> I'm just sort of working backwards. When

[192:01] is our when is the new council's swearing in date? When do they officially take >> December 4th? Mhm. >> And >> so I'm just sort of thinking we've got from December 4th to mid December. So it we could slide that up if we need more time for a side. I'm just sort of thinking how much time we get right now. If if if we're just running up against that back stop with the holidays and all that, like can we squeeze another week or two out of it and be on the more front side of December? So it's just an idea. >> Yeah. And maybe I mean Naria, you probably like if there's um uh I expect that if we start talking to you sooner than later, you're not going to be upset about that. Not at all. you can start talking to us now. Uh and we are happy to have that conversation. Um and in fact we uh I'll plan to send you I think you all know which of the CMO reps which departments but happy to send that out just as a refresher so it doesn't all have to flow through me. If there is a department for example you somebody has something in transportation they want to talk to they can go straight to Pam who supports our transportation mobility

[193:00] team. Um but the benefit of talking to our office is that there is a broader view of who's working with whom um as we're able to navigate that and bring in particularly the city attorney's office. So talking to us at any time uh now will help us narrow that scope. I will say too um that we've got plans depending on the outcome of the election um to uh if needed to onboard um if we had a new member or members we would uh onboard whoever that would be to make sure that they were up to speed with enough time to also get their um get their priorities in. And we know that that is one of the reasons that we have moved the council retreat to Q1 to allow people to really lean into city work prior to setting priorities. And we want to make sure that we um provide uh if there were anyone incoming the benefit of the of the of the same process. Um, Nia, can is it your intention to on

[194:04] board if there are any new members prior to their swearing in? I'm a little concerned that they, you know, won't even know how to find their way around this room. Uh, >> thanks for the question, Council Member Wall. I'm happy to take it. Um, so we have we do have a portion of orientation that occurs prior to the swearing in date. Okay. >> Getting technology, knowing how to use the building. We do a brief mock council meeting for new members prior to swearing in kind of that morning. So there's there's a a pre-swearing in. There's also a postswearing in continued orientation program. >> I I my concern is just to get them to a point where they are going to be functional for this process if in fact there are any. But um >> yeah and I'll just say that's a good point Mark but also our scope right now is the retreat um rather than the onboarding process. Well, no, but my my larger point is I would like them to be,

[195:01] if there are any, I would like them to be functional for the retreat, >> not just to be sort of gasping for air. >> Um, >> yeah. and council council member Wallik, we do a we did a brief council candidate orientation so folks even who are currently running have a general idea that they will be hitting the ground running um at upon election results being confirmed. We also provide a letter from the city manager sort of um acknowledging those who have successfully won their elections and giving kind of here's your calendar upfront. So, they'll all have that the first maybe second week in November prior to then um the rest of the onboarding activities. Good. And my just my one other comment might be that uh we might want to have a brief touch on the retreat at the maybe the first council meeting with the new the new council just so just a quick maybe 10-minute check-in on what's coming.

[196:01] >> Any more comments on that section timing? So, we'll basically get some more specific dates and then I got one more section to run by everybody. Um, when we were talking about how to incorporate uh input from boards and commissions, particularly given the small um or quick turnaround and um the the short timeline we've got. Um staff have already requested that boards and commissions begin drafting their letters to us ahead of the January retreat. Um Tara and I uh within the retreat committee um recommended that um these requests ask boards and commissions to try to align suggestions for council priority projects with their corresponding city departments um strategic plans for next year um just to avoid a case where um people are thinking in maybe a bigger way than than is actually going to be possible um given what's there. So um I I believe that they've already started doing this. Um, I was listening to TAB on Monday and and they were already um up and running

[197:01] and thinking about what their letter might look like and which of the the strategic plans they might lift up. So that's correct, Council Member Spear. And the specific instruction that was given to all boards and commissions just for your awareness was we gave a brief description that this is a one-year priority setting exercise. um priorities will be limited numbers expected to be complete in limited numbers expected to be completed in 12 months or less and should align with the existing citywide strategic plan andor department plans. >> Yeah, thank you. Um and then one of the things that you know we had talked about and included uh here too I mentioned at the beginning um was that to the degree that our priorities or things that can align with the um strategic departmental strategic plans and the work that's already um in progress for 2026 that will probably expedite our ability to get them done in a short period of time. Um, I think as as with the uh the last retreat, when there are things that

[198:00] staff are already planning on working on and we want to elevate it and maybe get our fingers in it a little bit more than we would otherwise, um, that's work that we can actually make a lot of progress on. Um, and I think that a couple of our current priorities really show that and and the the way that we've been able to get get more work done because we're all kind of going we're going in a direction that was already started. So, that was something that we had talked about quite a bit as well in our meeting um was that that that is a way for people to potentially get their things on the priority list and done a little bit faster um if we're thinking about it that way. To that end, um will we get a a list of the strategic um uh plans or goals that that departments have too? I think we had talked about that in the committee meeting and I forgot what the timeline is. >> Yeah, absolutely. some of our standard practices will remain the same which is to provide council with sort of a prepacket of what's our current strategic plan. We have you know the um dashboard on kind of progress on those items. We are in the process of kind of finalizing our citywide work plan for

[199:01] 2026. There will be a roll up of items you should expect to see over the next year. So we will package that for kind of your um perusal and and looking for that alignment. And I'll briefly note too, um, we've been working on building out this council resource library with with some of that information. Um, and so current department strategic plans, um, and work plans that exist, we have included in in that space if you're interested in reviewing some of that ahead of time. Um, before we provide some of the pre- retreat packet information, I'll I'll add on work plan. We're we're currently our cycle, right? we finish budget and we're almost hopefully finished on budget and staff is immediately already working on work plan in preparation for next year's budget because that is the way uh it happens. So we're already talking about work plan for 2026 uh cross departmental work because the work impacts other folks especially internal services staff has already been doing some work on that. I

[200:02] never want to let um perfection be the enemy of good in the work that we do and want to make sure that we find a way even if the work plan isn't finalized to give you some insight into what's emerging we emerging we know what the highlevel things are that's going to move forward. So we'll find a way to give you um even if it's not finalized yet some insight into the bigger projects that are happening um so that you can start to have that uh even before its finalization. Fantastic. Anything else, Nicole? Well, huge thanks to you and Tara on the retreat committee and all the staff who've been supporting you. Um, I think it's uh in 100% on track. Great. Well, that brings that item to an end. Um, before we wrap up, I realized that I didn't come back to something that I said I was going to come back to as part of the landscaping ordinance, which was there was a request to respond to community emails um that Tara put out and that Taiisha agreed with. Check in with the city attorney. That item is

[201:01] entirely done now. Is that do we just leave that where it was or would you like additional direction from council on that? Uh, mayor, if if that's um our city manager has a thought. Thank you. Um, we routinely um respond to uh community emails as that moves forward. Um, I believe that we have sent council some responses to that. We can certainly fashion something that we can send out and package for you if you want to send out as well as you get emails. So, we can take that on. >> Thanks so much. appreciate you being willing to do that. All right, that brings us to the end of our agenda, unless anyone has something final that they want to add. >> Oh, I do. >> All right, Tara, >> is this the time for what is that last thing we do at the end? >> Um Matt, um that we get two minutes for

[202:02] >> Yes, this would be the time. >> Awesome. >> For And we actually put a timer on you for this. So, >> yeah. Awesome. I need one. I always need one. Okay. So, I was away getting surgery last Thursday, as you all know. So, I didn't get a chance to speak into the transportation maintenance fee, the TMF, and I probably would have voted no. However, I'm a huge fan of maintaining our roads and multi-use paths and bridges and signals and bus stops, etc., that they are core city responsibilities. So, I was very happy with a letter sent from one of our constituent constituent groups that talked about um this additional business fees during these economic times require careful consideration. So, then that group wrote one of the they wrote three things. Refine the fee structure for businesses, conduct meaningful outreach to the business community, and secure genuine buyin

[203:01] through collaborative input. And I really think that that's a great letter and I hope that we do that because one thing that I do I don't just cut me off when my two minutes is done. All right, I give you permission. One thing that I don't want is is we do things that are not needed but just wanted and then we make the business community bear the brunt of it um in these times. And I will just end with when I couldn't breathe and I was suffocating right after my lung surgery. It just reminded me of the pandemic and how, you know, I have to say I was worried I was going to suffocate to death, but thankfully I had oxygen, but I also use the metaphor, as poor as it is, because I'm not a metaphor person, that one thing we don't want to do after the pandemic is suffocate our businesses, even if we're well-intentioned and we have great reasons. So, I'm hoping that we could tread carefully with the maintenance fee

[204:00] and not make it ownorous for our businesses who are just trying to make a living. That's it. >> Thanks, Tara. And that will be coming back on consent for second reading. So, you will have the option to vote yes or no on that when it does. >> Okay. >> Anything else? All right. Seeing none, I will go ahead 49 p.m., which I'll note is an hour and a quarter early.