October 23, 2025 — City Council Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[5:03] 23rd special meeting of the Boulder October 20. Welcome everyone to the Thursday October 23rd, 2025 special meeting the Boulder City Council and call us to order. So Alicia, if you can do the roll call, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We will start tonight's roll call with council member Adams. Benjamin >> present. Mayor Brockett >> present. >> Mayor Pro Tim Faulks >> present. >> Council member Marquis >> present. >> Shoeart here. Spear >> here. >> Wallik >> here. >> And Winer. Mayor, we have our quum. >> Thanks so much, Elicia. So, can we go to

[6:00] our consent agenda, please? >> Yes, sir. Our consent agenda is item number two on tonight's agenda, and it consists of items 2 A through 2 I. >> We have any questions or comments on the consent agenda? Matt, >> I have a process question. Um on um item I if if if the will of council were to pull that from consent and consider tableabling it or rescheduling it to some point not a date certain because we don't have a date but like say to Q1 or Q2 to allow for engagement. What process would we embark on to do that in this at this point? So, I'm just sort of looking for a clarity on process. I know that we can pull for a conversation, but if the desire were to pull and sort of table and reschedu, but not date certain,

[7:01] what's that what's that process or mechanism? >> Teresa, do you want to respond to that? >> Sure, I'm happy to. Um, so I would recommend a motion to pull item I off the consent agenda, that you all consider the rest of the consent agenda, then you visit item I and make the relevant motion. Um, if you were to want to table this to a future date, I am not sure whether the public hearing would go stale. um because when we continue a public hearing, we continue to a date certain in the future. Um so unfortunately I I'm just not completely sure of the procedure on that, but um but you could make a motion to table um with direction to bring back at a future date. >> That's right, Teresa. Although um do we need a motion to con talk about it

[8:00] separately? I thought one council member could ask that it be discussed separately. >> Uh, you know, I think that with something that's already had a public hearing in this way, the procedurally clean way would be to do a motion. >> Okay. Thanks for clarifying. So, Matt, if you wanted to pursue that, it sounds like you would make a motion to pull it off the consent agenda. Yeah, I'm just running through my head that process. Um Okay. Um well then I'll then I'll I'll go ahead and make make a I'll make a mo Well, yeah, I guess yeah, I'd like to make a motion to pull item I off the consent uh off the consent agenda. >> Just thanks Tina. Um but just to clarify for folks, this is the second reading about the transportation maintenance fee. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Two eyes in clear to everybody. >> Okay. Um and welcome council member Adams. Um made the the record show that

[9:02] Taiisha is now here. >> Thank you. >> Sure. Okay. So we we have a motion a second about um taking it off the consent agenda. I believe this would be a show of hands. So um and I'll just speak very briefly. I'm fine having the separate conversation. So all in favor um raise your hand. I got six. Uh all opposed and two opposed. So that motion carries six to two. Um so let's then go ahead um and consider items A through H on the consent agenda. Does anyone have any questions or comments on those items? I'm not seeing any hands. Perhaps a motion. I move the consent agenda a A through H.

[10:04] >> Second. >> Right. We've got a motion and a second on that. And that will be a Let's do a roll call, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 2A through 2H. Item two, two, I was removed with Mayor Pro Tim Faulks. >> Yes. >> Council member Marcus, >> yes. >> Shuhart, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> Wallik, >> yes. Adams >> Tish speak up in a moment. >> Yes. Okay.

[11:01] >> Sorry, I just had to double check on one of the items and and making sure it was not on the consent agenda again. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. Benjamin. Yes. >> And Mayor Brockett. >> Yes. >> The consent agenda items 2A through 2H are hereby approved unanimously. >> Very good. So, let's go to item 2. Alicia, do you want to read that into the record since it's separate from the rest of the consent agenda? >> All right. I will have to pull that up. Give me just a moment. >> And if it's not necessary, that's fine, too. >> No, no, it is necessary. I will read it into the record. Give me just a second. Item 2 I is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8719 adding a new section 8-2-26 titled transportation maintenance fee BRC1981 implementing a fee to offset the cost of

[12:00] maintaining transportation infrastructure and facilities within the city and setting forth related details. >> Thanks very much. Okay. Um, I guess Matt, I'll turn to you. Um, if you wanted to since you asked to pull it off the consent agenda, if you want to talk about what you're thinking here. >> Yeah. Um, so we we continue to hear from a number of individuals, businesses, and uh groups that represent uh folks in our community in various different industries. Um that that the the transportation maintenance fee is either a surprise to them um or they recall it, but maybe some outreach 5 years ago or in some cases some newer folks are like, "I've never heard of this at all." Um, and so there's there's sort of an order of operations that I just think is really important before we impose a fee on businesses and um and and and those

[13:01] folks. And that's just hearing from them. This is not an from my perspective, you know, I speak for myself, I still support the transportation maintenance fee. Um, and I think it's the right thing for us to do. Um, but I do think it's important that before we pass it and impose a fee on individuals and businesses that we hear from them about what their concerns are about the fee, its structure, and perhaps any suggested changes that may come. It's very likely that we will uh maybe pass the thing that we have right in front of us now, but it's important that we log log those concerns and have that outreach in place before we impose a fee on folks. Um, and given the fact that the fee itself is probably not looking to be implemented until Q2, Q3, maybe even later, I think we have breath and space to do that outreach, come back in maybe Q1 after we've heard from folks and then and then move on move forward with this and still be in a decent uh schedule to um get the fee approved and implemented um with either zero or

[14:01] minimal delay to the schedule. So, um I think it's just an appropriate thing for us to do and uh it's it's good for us to hear community when they when when maybe we've moved a little quickly on things and and that's uh what my ask will be here is to uh table the discussion with a process um and then uh reconvene uh sometime in Q1 Q2 once the outreach is done. >> I'd like to maybe hear from Nuria next and then I'll go to the council members who've raised their hands. Mary, do you want to just address if if we took this course of action, you know, what that might look like for the next steps and stuff? >> Um, well, sure. And I I invite staff if they want to uh come on as well. I mean, a couple things. um if this were to be postponed, um staff would at the direction of council, right, if if the direction was to continue to do engagement, which I know staff is planning on doing for implementation anyway, but if this were

[15:02] to be postponed, then we would not be creating the program. So, we would everything would slide back, if you will, which is if that's the will of council, that's what will happen. We will not be implementing this program in Q3 um and which is when this is uh fees are um expected to be collected. So not in January as I understand some of our emails have been shared with us um and we would likely have to bring it back to you. I defer to Theresa on some research on whether that public hearing would need to happen again. I would say too, and perhaps uh I know uh Charlotte can speak to this a little bit more because we have spoken about this I think the last three times we've talked about budget. We may have to push budget um because there is uh part of this um fee and projections in our budget currently and so we would have to modify that and come back with that as well. Charlotte,

[16:00] what what uh did I get wrong in that or how better would you pose that >> that is all accurate. In terms of the impact to the budget itself, we programmed the fees associated with the transportation maintenance fee into the 2026 budget at 2.25 million. That same expense is also in appropriation on the expense side for the transportation fund. So pending council decision, it would also adjust and amend the budget for this evening as well. >> So and to be clear that is not because this is a balancing budget situation. Um rather we would just it would be work that would not happen with the fees that would not be existing, right? But we had planned this fee uh as part of the budget presentation all along and so we would have to adjust accordingly. I don't know Ble if there are any additional impacts other than the fact

[17:00] that we would also not get started in Q3 with the work of the backlog of maintenance which would likely mean that we would have the continued levels of service that we also have and that we would um that perhaps we would face more expenses because everything gets more expensive as time moves forward. >> Thanks Nuria. I I um I did want to acknowledge Council Member Benjamin's comments and say on two levels. I think there has been there has been significant engagement going back more than a decade. I know that a lot of that engagement has has gone stale, but I also recognize that we've had signific significant engagement just this past year. Nevertheless, I fundamentally believe that we should engage and I so I just wanted to acknowledge that I do think we have done engagement, but if there's a perception from the community that they didn't know about it, then I'm fully supportive of

[18:01] doing the best we can to do that. And I wanted to just say that was a part of our plan that we were going to in conduct another round of engagement on how we implement. So that's for for transportation and mobility. That was that was our hope that we would know that um the TMF would pass and then we would begin to work on it and within that process would start to engage on a more specific level. And then just to address the question you asked Nura, I I did want to offer from my experience and past roles just the concern about delay very likely can result in basic maintenance costing significantly more. I've experienced that personally where I came from and it was very handcuffing for the work that we wanted to do. We we and so I to the extent that there's a delay, it concerns me as it relates to how we can manage our maintenance going forward, >> Mary and Charlotte and that's very helpful. Thanks for elucidating that. So

[19:01] we got a bunch of hands. What I'd ask is folks were I think we're focused now on whether or not we're delaying this. So, if you can keep your remarks kind of focused to that particular question. I've got um Nicole, Tina, Mark, Ryan, Taiisha, and myself. >> Well, and um comments or questions because I have questions. I can think about comments, too. But >> um yeah, go ahead. I guess I'll take a round of questions first. So, maybe lower your hands if you don't have questions and we'll start with questions. >> Okay. No, thank you. Um so, you know what, uh as I was understanding how this was going to unfold, staff and you just talked to this a little bit. I think Ble, you did too. um this this sort of this passing of the transportation maintenance fee is what then initiates the next round of engagement. Um because I'm kind of sitting here thinking like why would you go and figure out the it the nitty-gritty details of how to do all this if you don't even know that we're going to pass it in the end? Um so I I guess I'm just wondering like it

[20:01] does it become a work plan priority? like what is sort of the process for going back to this out of phase, right? Because it was going to be we say yes, this is the kind of thing we're looking for. You all go out and figure out how to how to implement it. Um, and this is taking it a little bit out of order. So, does that is that like a work plan priority for the next council? How do we sequence this now if we do it this way? >> I uh let me start and certainly I'll ask our transportation team ble if you want to add to this. I I think some of it may depend. I think we had planned to do engagement um on uh what the program will look like, but um if we hear engagement and come back or if we hear you all want uh regardless because there was a question that staff answered in hotline for example about um affordable housing, that would be an item that we haven't looked at yet and that we would have to take a look at if

[21:01] there were other changes or modifications that were asked for then depending on the scope of that then we would have to lean in and see what that is. I mean it all depends on if there are changes that you would want to consider in the future and it would be hard to estimate um if there are carveouts that you would like to make what that would look like and what that would impact. So, I don't know if it's just engagement, which staff was planning to do, or if it is wholesale modifications um that frankly we're going to be tracking and and looking at and uh will bring to you like we do with any ordinance as we look at um any ordinance that we um that we move forward. If there were any adjustments to be made in the future, we would certainly come to you in general. So, it kind of depends on what the intent and um what would

[22:01] come out of that engagement. >> All right. Thanks. Um I just had a couple of other qu questions. So, you know, we've gotten some emails this afternoon. Um I know a bunch of us have gotten some phone calls from um the chamber and I'm I'm just curious about um I I expect we're not hearing from the people who were supportive. So, I was just wondering um if anybody could speak to some of the businesses and others in community who were actually really supportive of this because this is crucial infrastructure improvements that um they desperately need as much as we do. >> I will ask our transportation team to pop on so that they can share they are closest to what they have been hearing from some community members. I know we received a lot of emails and some letters of support and so forth when we did the public hearing first um and throughout the way, but perhaps um BL or Chris, you can respond to what you've been hearing um on the flip side of um of that equation to respond to council member Spear's question

[23:00] >> after Chris Hagglin. Oh, go ahead Bl. Well, Chris, let me just say generally, obviously, I'm new, so I I wasn't involved in the engagement efforts, but I did want to say in general, um, I've heard generally speaking across the board a recognition that transportation transportation maintenance needs to be funded adequately. And I've also heard that generally speaking and also going back to some of the funding working groups that were established um that the transportation maintenance fee feels like the right fit for that for that purpose. But I know that Chris has done a ton of work engaging with individuals. So I'll um I'll go on mute and let Chris answer the question more specifically. Thank you Chris. >> Sure. Uh Chris Hagglin, principal project manager. Um, what I would say is that to echo what Blight said, a lot of people who are supportive of this fee, it's because they understand that the maintenance of our capital transportation infrastructure is

[24:00] critical to both livability and economic vitality in our city. Um, I think what we hear from the folks that uh are not in favor of the fee is that they they believe that the infrastructure is critical, but there would should be another way uh of paying for it outside of establishing a new fee or a new tax. I think that's what we've clearly heard. uh but those in support it's it's really about the need to adequately uh maintain our infrastructure. >> Thank you. And um the maybe this is more of a question for um the the finance team, but like does isn't this sort of exemplifying our long-term financial strategy and what we're trying to do in adequately funding all the things that need to be maintained? um like are there other mechanisms that we can use here because I don't know we haven't yeah

[25:02] there there don't seem to be a whole lot. >> Yeah, thank you for the question council member Spear. Um this is absolutely one of the top priorities of the long-term financial strategy. It is an item that came forward as a key recommendation from the blue ribbon commission reports from 2008 and 2010 as a top alternative funding mechanism recommendation from those two reports. And so building upon prior policy recommendations from um 2008 and 2010, the long-term financial strate strategy work has intended to bring forward these efforts and looking at alternative funding mechanisms. And this is a key top priority of one of those items that um staff has brought forward. >> Thank you. Um and then can you remind me what projects wouldn't happen next year? I remember seeing at a Dr. COG meeting, I don't know, probably five or six months ago, they were showing us some of the um highest risk bridges uh highest risk for failure bridges in the um

[26:00] Denver metro region. And I feel like some of ours were on there. Um but anyway, I was just wondering what wouldn't happen if we don't move this forward. I would need to to toss it to uh transportation for specific response on that, but we've got pavement pavement and street safety asset management, brid bridge asset management, sidewalk repair, multi-use path. Chris, feel free to take it over. >> Yes. So, Chris Hagglin again from Transportation Mobility. Yeah. Essentially, you know, the the fee was to cover both underfunded and unfunded maintenance needs. Uh out of the $6.4 4 million of a full year's revenue. Uh about twothirds of that would go to pavement maintenance. Um with the fee we would able we would be able to do significantly more pavement maintenance which which saves the money significant um funds in the long run by adequately maintaining our our pavement condition index at an adequate level. Um, in

[27:02] addition to pavement management, uh, a significant portion of the money also goes to bridge repair and replacement along with sidewalk, multi-use paths and and bus stop and and also safety assets uh, which are often uh, placed at the time of of pavement m management uh, projects as well. Um, so we'd be looking at basically being able to maintain what we currently do but not expanding um that type of work. >> Nicole, does that wrap you up? Because I'm hoping we can get to a decision on this one. >> Yes, I know. And I I really I wish that we had known about this in advance because that that that would have been helpful, too. So, um I just have two more final questions and a really I I thought we were done with this as of last week in or the the public hearing. Um but basically how much can can you tell me how much of um the transportation maintenance costs gone up in the last year or so with all that

[28:00] we're seeing with tariffs with inflation like 30% 40% what are what are we seeing at this rate? >> Um I'm not sure if Garrett Slater is on. He could probably speak to that um better than I >> um >> not sure if he's on. I see Valerie trying to jump on. I don't Okay, >> there we go. Um Valerie Watson, deputy director, transportation and mobility. Um apologies. I think Bllythe is trying to rejoin the Zoom here. Um I'm going to jump in. Um Garrett Slater, our capital projects um principal engineer is not with us this evening. Um, to your question, Council Member Spear, um, we don't have those exact numbers at our fingertips tonight, but I think a really good illustration of of an answer to your question is that, you know, we're currently at a pavement quality index of about 74. Um, which is pretty good for the region, but still, you know, not where, um, I think the level of service expectations

[29:00] are of our community. If we continue to only spend about five million a year on our pavement management program, um our pavement quality index um after this year is going to start to decrease over time. We we can no longer kind of shift things around and do some magic and and keep it um at that level anymore. We're we're that past that point of no return. If we're able to fully fund our pavement management program at about 8 million a year, we're going to be able to maintain our current pavement condition. So, with this maintenance fee, we're just looking because the cost of of materials are increasing and because um of all those kind of economic pressures, um you know, our our purchasing power is just being diminished. So, um I hope that offers some insight. >> Yeah. No, thank you. So it sounds like basically um we uh we need this to stay where we are and not get worse. Um okay and then very very last one and um if in

[30:00] the process of figuring out the implementation for this um you hear from a number of folks businesses landlords um uh residential people who are just saying this is going to destroy us. um we are not going to you know our business won't won't hold this or something like that. I expect you bring this back right and we would reassess this fee. Um I I think it am I right in that understanding like RA you wouldn't just kind of plow through um hearing things like that right? >> Um if it's okay I'll jump back in on that question. Um and I see Charlotte's coming on as well. Um absolutely. We have a process as a city for annual fee updates um through the annual budgeting process. So that's a mechanized reliable um annual opportunity to relook at at fees and changes. Um and so that's that's one thing to point out. The other is that uh I want to confirm um and and give everyone that comfort that of

[31:00] course if we are starting to hear that there's an undue burden um you know things like that then that is certainly something where we would want to bring forward adjustments in the future and amendments. Um it does require you know maybe depending on the nature of it relooking at the nexus study um you know uh creating um ordinance amendments things like that which is a work plan item for staff but that is part of what we do all the time is um and I think you know what what our director BL Bailey was just mentioning is part of our engagement strategy for after council um approval of the fee um once we have that approval and that green light to move forward we would be reaching out and um consulting ing with the business community um especially on the actual implementation of this fee, the fee collection itself. Um how is this going to work for businesses? Do they prefer things like u monthly, quarterly or annual collection? You know, there's a lot of places where we can um get a lot

[32:00] of great feedback um from our community um as as we move into the implementation phase. >> Thanks for that, Valerie. And I'll just note, Valerie, when I asked the question at the the last public hearing that Garrett did say in fact that our numbers for the pavement index would improve with the implementation of the fee and he was pretty clear about that, I believe. Um, okay. So, we we have a bunch more hands to raise. We're already half an hour into this. I would really like to get to decision pretty quickly here. Anybody else who has questions, please, I hope you can be brief with them. Also want to note that we have council member Winer who has joined us. So, well, welcome Tara. I got Mark, Tara, Ryan, Tina for hopefully very quick questions. >> These are not questions. So, if you want me to wait until afterwards, I will do that. Otherwise, I'd like to just make a couple of comments. >> Okay. Please. Well, please wait. Let's just do any remaining questions real quick if you could please. Jared, do you have a question? As you know, I came late and so my

[33:00] question is, did we already discuss about just pushing it off to first quarter 2027 so that the people the businesses that were not prepared for this can get prepared? >> Well, Matt is suggesting uh waiting to approve the fee until um first quarter, second quarter of next year. Well, what's a better what's a better idea? That's the question then. >> Do you have any thoughts? >> Well, I think right now we're trying to work through whether we should delay the approval of the fee until Q1 or Q2 of next year. So, that's our current scope. Tina, did you have a question about that? >> Yeah, I have a couple questions. Um the first is the ordinance itself doesn't have a date where it goes into effect nor does it describe the fees. Um

[34:01] however the fees need to reflect the nexus study or else I don't think they're defensible. If we if we do engagement and we find that there's one community business or residential or rental properties that we want an adjustment regardless of what that is, we would need a new nexus study to support that modification. Is that correct? >> I'm going to ask perhaps legal and I think you're on it. >> I am. Good evening. Um it it really would depend on what what the change is that you want. The proposal uh accounts for the nexus study as is. If if you all were looking to increase fees, um the nexus study doesn't necessarily support that. If you were looking to decrease fees, uh the Nexus study provides sort of a floor of, you know,

[35:00] what can what can be assessed. Um, so the the answer is it depends. And and you know, I'll just I'll reiterate that. Um, while uh the ordinance itself doesn't say it, staff has been clear that collection wouldn't start until July after more engagement um has happened. And so there is timing. And then the fee itself is contained in the fee ordinance, not in the originating ordinance. that way. Um, it legally it's just sort of a two-step process. >> Okay. Do we vote? Are we voting on >> if if I may, Council Member Marquis, I I think I recalled correctly um from last time, Teresa, and please kick me under the virtual table if I am mistaken. um or correct me as you will that if there were fee reductions, we could not have other

[36:00] folks that are paying the fee make up for those reductions. They would just have to be reductions that we would not um receive as as part of revenue. Is that correct? >> Yeah, thank you for that clarification. That's right. We can't burden shift here. Um so so there's you know there's a a number that is supported and justified. Should we stray from that number and go under that number? Uh we can't make it up somewhere else. >> So I my question would be though if we lowered it for just businesses could we maintain it at the same rate for residentials? So it wouldn't be burden chip it would just be lowering one group. Would the Nexus study support that kind of change? >> We would have to look at that. I I think that kind of change is somewhat unprecedented legally. >> I I Yeah. And so I I think Yeah. So then I can make a comment that we're while we go through engagement I would imagine

[37:01] the engagement is about implementation not about the fa the fe the fee itself because we don't really have that kind of flexibility to change the fee structure um without the budget impact which we would then have to address. So the it would be more about billing and I know that we hadn't yet landed on whether it would be a water utility or some other kind of billing mechanism that we have. Is am I getting that more or less right? it. I honestly it would depend on the direction from this council, but if the direction um it would be cleaner if the direction was to engage with respect to implementation, >> right? Like to the >> as you suggest. Yes. >> Yeah. I just and it's just important for me. I don't through the engagement process, I don't want to set any kind of expectation that we can vary from the nexus study. So that's a I just think

[38:00] it's something to remember. Thanks. That's all I have. >> Okay. Thanks for that. So comments now and I would just ask that they be very brief so that we can move towards a potential motion and a vote. Um I've got Ryan and Mark. >> Mark was first. Mark, did you I'm sorry. I know you're in your facilitator. >> You you have a faster trigger finger than I do. Um a couple of points. First, I do not think that the engagement that's being sought by the business community and um residential owners is merely on the implementation. They have not heard of this. They have had no background in this. And I think they have a wider range of concerns. And to say to them, you know, come to a public hearing, we're we're going to discuss how you get your bill is is not really what they had in mind. Okay. So, that that's the first thing. Um and and I I want to point out obviously that we're we're only at risk for the couple

[39:00] of million dollars that we're going to collect in 2026. You know, full impact occurs in 2027. And I find it difficult to believe that either we could not find the money to uh continue our maintenance program for that amount of money in 2026 or and although I'm not a fan of using reserves for one time only, use reserves and replenish it from the proceeds of the fee when it is finally enacted. Um and lastly, um there's almost a sense of of hysteria that that's being communicated tonight that everything is going to fall apart if we actually move this into the first or second quarter of next year and seriously entertain the concerns of both the business and the residential community. I just don't think that's the case and I don't think it it should be an impetus to us to restrict uh comment on this or to otherwise box people into where all they can talk about is how are

[40:00] you going to get your bill? I don't I don't think that's that's reasonable. And um you know I I think Matt's uh proposal is a good one and it gives us some breathing room to kind of look at this again and talk to the people who need to be talked to because 5-year-old community engagement is stale. All right, that's my comments. Thank you. >> Thanks Mark Ryan and then Tara. Okay, I'm I'm on the I'll speak to the side of things that is um feeling a little bit flumxed that we're talking about this 59 uh mark. So um I I definitely understand and appreciate that not everybody is welcoming of the decision, but I'm scratching my head with the idea that there is widespread um sense that people don't didn't know this was coming. Um, we talked about this at the 2024 retreat. Um, on May 12th, it was a tab. On July 25th, I

[41:03] believe staff met with the chamber. Then again on I think September 6th. Um, on August 29th, the city issued a press release covering it. A couple weeks ago, the Boulder Reporter Reporting Lab reported on it and others have since. And I I get that not everybody can follow the you know the details of city processes but I would expect that the professional associations in our city that are you know representing businesses have had access to this. Um so I I I don't feel like that what is at issue is that this hasn't been transparent. So I am concerned that if we delay this not only will the pavement condition likely deteriorate to an extent that it will cost us more in the longer to fix it. We're continuing to spend tax taxpayer money on addressing this. And not only that, but if I heard the answers tonight correctly from staff, staff is going to have not be able to move forward on this. This thing

[42:00] is just on it's just frozen until we enable it. And the point of the enabling ordinance is to give staff the direction to do this this next level of engagement. So, I I just think that um it's not going to serve us well to change directions on the weight of comments coming in literally the last 72ish hours. And um I think we should move forward tonight. >> Thanks. Um Tara, Taiisha, Nicole, Lauren. >> Well, I've been talking about this for way longer than 72 hours, but I'm glad everybody's paying attention. I think that if the city said, "We're going to do this fee, but we're going to take away another fee." I would be into it. Do we ever take away fees? Do we cancel fees or do we just keep adding fees? I am wish that instead of this that we would just make the transportation um budget larger because we don't spend enough on transportation and every time I bike down Fourth Street, it's like a

[43:01] milkshake. I feel like a milkshake. It's so bad. So, I 100% agree that we need it, but the question is is how we did it. Did we do enough engagement and is this the only way? I don't want community members saying, "You guys have a 500 something million dollar budget and you can't figure out how to add this to it." I mean, we need to bring people along with us. And, you know, there's plenty of I don't know that movie other people's money, but other people's money is actual people's money that we're spending. So I think with a fee we have to really think that not only does the city have to worry about um all the things that happened like COVID and then the supply chain and then you know the cost of infrastructure and inflation and people losing their jobs but so do the people who are going to be paying the fee including the businesses the people and the businesses now have to pay a fee. So, you know, I'm as nothing to me is more important than

[44:00] having more transportation maintenance. Believe me, I just think we need to make sure we're doing it the right way. And I don't think pushing it three months is going to make a difference. If we do it the right way, then that's the most important thing to me. >> Thanks, Taur. Now, I'll go. Yeah, I would say um one I concur with my colleagues as it relates to the validity and reliability of data from five years ago based on the level of changes that have happened even in the last two months. So that's number one. I always want valid and reliable data and I just think and you know one of my main concerns is that we are not consistent on the quality of our data and I know if we were talking about other topics and regardless of how long this would have come up as an issue if we were talking about other topics I've

[45:00] seen it happen I've been here so I would just say from that perspective I had concerns from you know very early on but this additional um you know push back made me had to take take a book and and see how old that data was. I really thought it was much sooner. So, my apologies. The second piece though is also, you know, we know that SNAP benefits are not coming in November. We also know that this fee goes to multif family units. We also know for those of us who rent that we bear the brunt, the renter bears the brunt of those fees. And I am telling you, every dollar counts right now. And if anything, I have already asked for a CAC request to ask us to really think about what thresholds we're going to use to tap into our reserves because we are getting closer and closer to needing to do that. But I don't think putting on fees that are going to have disin uh disproportionate impacts uh on 20 uh 2026

[46:02] uh you know when again we don't know where the health care things are also going to be landing. So, I just want to be mindful that the human impact of the economic issues that are happening um would actually prevent people's ability to be able to drive on it, to live here, to drive on it. Quite frankly, I don't know if you all noticed, I've noticed an uptick in for sale signs and lease signs. And so, um I would be I approve or I agree with the idea at the table. Um I honestly think we're going to have to revisit this budget anyway. I am so sorry. I know y'all worked real hard to balance it and everything, but there are just too many moving pieces that we're going to need to address and uh deciding what we're going to do with our and when we're going to tap it into our reserves is one of them. I'm all for pavement quality, but I'm also um for feeding families and making sure that they have jobs so that they can the ones who can't afford here can continue to stay here.

[47:00] Thank you. >> Thanks, Nicole. Good morning. >> Thanks. Um yeah and I apologize. I think I could have been more concise if I um didn't know this was coming. So u what I will remind us is that not everybody feels like they haven't been heard. Right? We are hearing from some of the people who do feel like that but that is not everybody. Um I would love for anyone to point out who is going to be more willing to do this next year. Um because I I really struggle to to think that anybody is going to be more willing um to do this next year. The engagement that was already planned was also meant to help bring people along to try to understand um some of the uh the thinking behind this, what it's going toward um all of that and and have them feel heard. Um the fee already would not start until the third or probably the fourth quarter of next year. Um so we are already looking at a bit of a delay. Um,

[48:00] bigger picture, we say infrastructure is important. We talk about wanting to fix potholes. We talk about the importance of a long-term financial strategy that gives us stable funding to take care of these basic needs in our community. This is the way that we do it. This is the way that we've been talking about doing it for years. And so it I just it's it's hard for me to arrive now tonight at this place where we're kind of backtracking on a lot of this because this is this is the basic structure underlying our long-term financial strategy. Um and you know I know that any increase in fees is is going to be felt by a lot of people in our community right now. And this is why um I you know that why it was comforting to me that to start with that we weren't going to be looking at this um at implementing this until later next year and that we were going to be talking with people more in the meantime. Um I think this but this this basically is is why we get paid the

[49:00] big bucks, right? To make these really uncomfortable decisions um about how we fund some critical infrastructure in our community. Um and uh anyway, I I think we're all we're we're going to be hearing a lot more about the um potholes and how much um expense they are causing people and businesses in our community when they are blowing a tire or um when somebody's flipping over their handlebars uh because they're, you know, on an ebike going through a pothole, that kind of thing. So, um I I really wish we could just move this forward tonight as we had planned to do um and let staff work a little bit more on the um engagement implementation u and and knowing that they will bring us back um a fix if what they're overwhelmingly hearing is that this is not the right time and we need to think about um uh delaying just a little bit longer the implementation. Thank you. >> Thanks, Lauren. And then I'll go. Thanks. Sorry, I'm a little sick. My voice is in and out. I wanted to start

[50:01] with um just referring back to something I heard earlier where um concerns were addressed as hysteria. And um I just wanted to point out that hysteria is a term that has been used historically to dismiss and invalidate women's experiences um and that and to perpetuate really harmful stereotypes about women. So as we you know have a female leadership and staff and uh who were explaining very reasonable reasons why we might be concerned about delaying funding. I would just like to have us be thoughtful about what language we're using. Um, so in terms of bringing people along, I do think that it's really important for us to be bringing people along. Um, and I'm open to making adjustments to what our future

[51:00] engagement looks like and possibly when exactly the fee starts. But I think it's really clear from, you know, what was presented to us when we had our public hearing that this is the best path forward for really necessary work in our community that we've done a lot of thinking about how the the pathways for funding this and this is the best option that we have. Um, so I would like to see us move forward. Um, I guess I'm open to minor adjustments potentially. >> Thanks, Lauren. All right, I'll go ahead and go. Um, so Matt, I appreciate you thinking about this and making sure that we're doing enough outreach on this topic and other ones. Um, I was um I found it uh important to hear from city staff that you the next step if we approve it tonight is for you to do outreach and engagement with the community. Um, because I hadn't fully realized that was the next step. So, I'm

[52:00] hearing that there will be outreach and engagement. So, that sounds really good to me. And hearing that there would this would if we put it off, it would result in a significant delay in the design of the fee and the implementation of it when our transportation needs are so great also um concerned me. But I have a quick question for city staff. If we said tonight, let's say tonight we go ahead and approve it and ask you to move forward. If we if could we ask that this engagement include talking to people about things like exemptions or discounts or the schedule of the fee or exactly when it gets implemented and things like that and that potentially when you do bring us back an enabling ordinance that it could incorporate some of the feedback from that engagement um that you've done. Is that a feasible possible thing to to have as part of this? I appreciate that, mayor, and I'll ask Ble to come on board because I think that's precisely the kind of engagement that staff is contemplating, but Ble, let me know if that is incorrect. >> I I I think in spirit, um, Mayor

[53:02] Brockett, that is that is what we want to do. Just with the caveat being the nexus study, I think if we did engagement and we needed to make changes that required Nexus study change, we would certainly bring that forward as well. But that's a possibility that some of those things would require Nexus changes. But we definitely want to ask all of those questions when we go into engagement. >> Okay, that's great to hear because if if we can tweak it as we move forward based on what we hear as we move to the next stage, then I'm comfortable with passing it tonight. So, thanks for that reassurance. >> Can I on that for a second, Aaron? >> Sure. Go ahead. >> I am not reassured by what Ble just said. I I don't want it to be that we engage and then we say, "Well, too bad because it this is what we have to do for the Nexus study." I'm visualizing that that really could happen. That we listen to the engagement and say, "Sorry, we can't do it. We have to do it this way." So, can we spend one more minute explaining to me why I should think that that really will happen? That

[54:01] we'll listen to engagement and then possibly change things. Well, I can I can respond to part of it, Tara, which is that um I've been through a lot of Nexus studies and fees over my uh career here in elected office, and the Nexus studies generally provide a ceiling, right? You can't charge more than what is in the Nexus study, but we have over the years um sometimes implemented amounts that are less than the ceiling in the Nexus study. And I think you also potentially can do um uh applying in some instances and not others, although we'd need legal counsel on that. So if you wanted to do something that was entirely different from anything we talked about in the Nexus study, you'd have to update it. But I think there is flexibility from within the parameters of the Nexus study. You just can't go higher. >> And mayor, if I may, I just I wanted to clarify too, and I know that there's been some confusion across community. The NEXA study began in 2024 and came to

[55:00] us just this summer. So the data is not um it finalized in late summer 2025. So it is while engagement may have started beforehand, the data per se was part of a study that was um further along. Just wanted to share that. >> Appreciate that. Right. I got a couple additional questions. Taisha Mark, if we can have very brief follow-ups, please. Aisha, did you want to go? >> Oh, sorry. Am I next? My bad. Um, one again, I just wanted to say that it feel I feel slightly better knowing that we can make these adjustments. However, again, as somebody who's a renter and understands how leasing works, there is a possibility that they would up the lease price in antip anticipation for something that would come. And I just want to again remind our community, I mean, we're getting emails also about the SNAP D benefits and the impacts and the requests for food drives. This is going to be devastating. We also know that community uh many of our community

[56:01] members have been furled or have lost their jobs. I need us to think about the people. It's not I all for maintenance. I'm all for it. U but I have some just general concerns around the timing of it. And I actually do think we'll be better positioned when we have a better idea of what's going to happen Q1 of 2026. That is what I'm most concerned about. Um and if there are a nexus study um then I would have preferred that they have gone back and gotten more recent um engagement data if it was going to be released in 2025. There's no reason that I would lean on qualitative data that was collected before COVID. Thank you. and Mark then we'll get to a decision. >> Yeah. Uh just a couple of quick comments. Um frankly uh uh uh Mayor Prom Focus made basically an attack upon me and I just want to refute it. It has no validity whatsoever. There was no component of my comments that had

[57:00] anything to do with uh women, the status of women in our society. It was to do with what I regard as a certain amount of fear-mongering as to the impacts of a delay. Okay? And I'm I'm simply not going to accept that other than as uh you know performative theatrics. Um second um the engagement on implementation is not the engagement that people are expecting. It's not engagement to discuss the um uh the benefits and detriments of the ordinance itself. And that's what I'm complaining about. I don't think there's any member of this council who is more supportive of infrastructure maintenance than I am. If anything, I am the infrastructure nerd on this council. But there is a right way and a wrong way to uh impose fees upon the public. And I'm suggesting that this was not the right way of going about it. Period. >> And I would I would like to ask us to

[58:01] not launch attacks on each other. Um, so I we're just trying to make a decision here about whether we're delaying the consideration of this ordinance. Um, >> point of order. >> Yes, Taisha. >> We are self-governing body. So I am compelled to lift up that regardless of whether you accept it or not, Mark, the your intentions, although I appreciate the clarification, does not absolve the impact. So what I would have appreciated was I'm sorry that you felt that way. That was not my intention. similar ways that I have had to do it in the past because I know that I've said things that were not my intention but had different impacts. So I just want to call in and remind us as a self-governing body that I am expecting us when we have made an impact on somebody that is not uh that was not our intention that we have at the very least acknowledged the reality of how our our intention may not have landed and gotten the impact that we need. So I just wanted to lift that up. My apologies to Lauren. Mark, I understand what your

[59:01] intention was, but when I hear you say, "I can't accept," it's not about you whether you accept it or not. One of our colleagues was impacted negatively and wanted to share with you and educate you on how that word has been triggered in the past. And that is all. I don't need a back and forth. I'm just as a self-governing body lifting up and saying not just as our mayor just said, we need to not throw, you know, things at each other, but I'm talking about impact versus intention and being very specific to what I'm hopeful that we can do to move forward. Thank you, >> Disha. That's a reasonable point and I will say that it was not my intention to impact anybody or to trigger anybody or to cause anybody harm. I was commenting merely upon this ordinance and and the the fee that's going to be imposed that >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thanks. I I do believe that all of us um Lauren included and Mark and all the rest of us are um trying to work for the best of the city and uh accomplish the

[60:00] policy objectives that'll make things better for everybody. So um we can just sort of pause for a second. Think we've gotten through people's comments. And so I'm going to um come back. Matt, you started this conversation off. Did you want to offer a motion? >> Sure. I appreciate that It was a a spirited conversation. Um I think it's probably the most attention a fee has ever gotten in this city. Um so hurrah for TMF. Um yeah, I'd like them I'd like to make a motion to uh table slashpostpone um the um continued action on the transportation maintenance fee until Q1 or Q2 of 2026 to enable staff to do that front-end outreach um that we'd like to hear from and come back to us um with an ordinance and uh that is either got some

[61:00] modifications from what we hear or the same thing that we got here. It doesn't matter. Don't want to frontr run that and then um we'll take uh take a decision from there. >> Do you want to just put the ordinance number in there of 8719? >> Yes. So, yes. So, um make a motion to table or postpone ordinance 8719 until Q1 Q2 of 2026. >> Second. >> All right. We've got a motion and a second. Um Elisha, can I do a show of hands on this one? I would prefer a roll call, sir. >> Yes, ma'am. Let's do a roll call. >> All right. Thank you. Um, we'll start the roll call for the motion to table ordinance 8719 with council member Marquis. >> No. >> Shuhard. >> No. >> Spear. >> No. >> Wallet. >> Yes. >> Adams, >> yes. I'm sorry. Thank you. Winer, >> yes.

[62:01] >> Benjamin, >> yes. And Mayor Pro Tim Folks, >> no. >> And Mayor Brockett, >> no. >> All right. The motion to table ordinance 8719 is hereby defeated with a vote of four to five. >> Right. So that's that. Do we need a motion to pass it though? >> That would be that would be the next step is it would need a separate motion to approve it. >> Nicole, while you have the floor, Tina. >> Yeah. Either way, >> I just had a question. Um, in terms of coming back to council with engagement, is that something that we would want to amend the motion to make that part of this process or will that be something that staff will do? >> We do plan to do engagement. And would

[63:00] you like to know is the question would staff come back to council to let them know what the what engagement yielded >> correct >> and an update? We are happy to to do that >> just to see how we're being responsive to the concerns because I'm I'm still uncomfortable but I just do we need a motion to put that in or is that something that >> we are happy to commit to that. We are happy to do that. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for that Mary. >> I'm happy to make the motion. I just um have lost track of where the number is. >> It's um >> two I >> two I Okay. Uh, I would like to make a motion to um uh approve 2 I. >> And Alicia, do you need like the text of the ordinance read out instead of that or is 2i good enough? >> Like the >> We actually I've already read the item into the record. >> So 2 I has been removed and referenced. So we can go with that motion language unless Theresa has an issue with it.

[64:00] >> Okay. >> Second. >> All right. We've got a motion and a second. Let's do a roll call on that, please. Alicia. >> All right. The motion to adopt ordinance 8719, which is item 2 I will begin with council member Shuhar. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> No. >> Wer. >> No. >> Adams. No >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brocket. >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Folkertz. >> Yes. >> And council member Marquis. >> Yes. >> Ordinance 8719 is hereby adopted with a vote of

[65:01] 5 to three. Five to four. >> Five to four. My apologies. >> Six to three. Yeah. Six to three. >> Does Matt voted? >> One, two, three, four. >> Adams, Wallak, and Winer said no. Did I miss someone that said no? >> Oh, okay. >> All right. Again, ordinance 8719 is hereby adopted with a vote of 6 to3. >> All right. Well, that was a full discussion. That brings us to the end of the consent agenda and now we get to go to our call-up check-ins. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Our call-up check-ins are item number three on tonight's agenda. 3A is the concept plan review and comment for 5469 and 5515 South Boulder Road to develop 35

[66:00] residential homes on a combined 2.8 acre site. Dwelling units will contain a mix of duplex, triplex, and town houses. A height modification will be requested due to site grading associated with drainage and flood plane. This is reviewed under case number LUR2025-000057. >> Very good. Any questions or comments or desire to call this item up? Mark, >> I don't want to call it out, but can we refer this to the design advisory board? Um, the the renderings of the units uh were pretty uninspired, I thought. and perhaps they can uh get some good knowledge from uh our committees. >> Chris, do you I saw you popped up. Is that to address this? >> Oh, we can't hear you. Still can't hear you, but but maybe Brad

[67:01] would >> I can jump in. >> Teresa, go ahead. It it is within the purview of the city council to um to refer this to the uh design advisory board if if if you so wish. >> Thanks. Um and I'll just call on myself. Um I think Mark, I think that's a good idea. I mean, it's concept plan, so it's not fully fleshed, but I I definitely would support that. Um and I just wanted to note that I thought planning board had some excellent comments. There was some disagreement about whether the the buildings on the south side should face um to the south and I thought it was probably better for them to face inward given how busy of a road that is to the south. Um so that just had that opinion and also um there were comments that maybe the allowed size of 3,300 square feet was a bit large and I thought that might be a bit large as well. Tina,

[68:00] >> yeah, I actually had a question about the comments around the size of the units. Um, do we provide any incentives to developers to produce smaller units? Um, I I feel uncomfortable making comments about the size of the units with we when we don't have a policy or an ordinance specifically around that, but I wonder if we have an incentive that we can use as a tool. Christina, I mean, since I've made the comment, I'll just mention that it's because they're asking for an amendment to the annexation agreement, um, which is a voluntary contract between the city and the the property owner. And so, that limit is is in that um agreement. We would not normally be able to weigh in in quite the same way, but we have that annexation agreement. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Thanks. And city staff, tell me if I got anything wrong here. Okay, I got thumbs up. Mark, did you want to make make a motion about DAB? >> Yes, certainly. Uh I I move that we

[69:01] refer uh this project to DAB for some review and comment. >> I'll second that. Um all in favor, raise your fiscal hand. I think I got unanimous on that one. All right. Any uh further comments on this? Seeing none, let's go to item 3B, please. >> Yes, sir. Item 3B is the site review and use review to redevelop approximately 7.96 acres of an existing 9.8 8 acre site at 2952 Baseline Road with five new buildings containing a total of 427 new dwelling units, including 122 units for students, ranging from studios to sixbedroom units and 58,365 square ft of commercial space. The

[70:01] redevelopment remains retains the broker in and a portion of the adjacent parking. proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for buildings to reach up to 55 feet in height. This is reviewed under cases number LUR2024-000071 and LUR2024000072. >> Great. I believe we're getting a short presentation on this. So, >> yes. Hello, council. I will share my screen. Chandler, if you can just introduce yourself, please. >> Oh, sorry. Yes, this is Chandler Vansk. I'm with Planning and Development Services. Can everyone see my screen? >> So, >> okay, >> we Okay, there you go. >> All right. Um, good evening, council. I will give a very brief presentation here

[71:00] on the um callup item. It is 2952 baseline site and use review. Um Alicia just read the agenda title, so I will not reread this. Um so the approximately 9.6 acre project site encompasses the triangular area located east of Highway 36 and south of Baseline Road and west of 30th Street, excluding the Baseline Crossing site in the northwest corner of the site uh where the McDonald's is. The site currently contains five existing one to threetory buildings containing a variety of retail and restaurant businesses including a Sprouts Market, the Darkhor Saloon, Cosmos Pizza, liquor store, a bank, and other restaurants. Not including the hotel, there's about uh 60,000 square feet of commercial space currently on the site. Um there is a Kico gas station on the northeast corner of the site off Baseline Road. And on the south corner of the site is the Boulder Broker Inn, which is a legal non-conforming hotel use. Both the Darkhorse and the Broker in have been in this location since 1974. Um the Darkhorse is not considered a historic structure.

[72:01] Uh the proposed project, the applicant is proposing to redevelop approximately 7.96 acres of the existing 9.8 9.86 acre site as a mixeduse development made up of five new buildings ranging from about 42,000 square feet to 210,000 ft in size. The proposal includes a total of 427 new dwelling units, including 122 units intended for students. These range from studios to six bedrooms. The redevelopment will also provide 58,365 square ft of commercial space as well as 534 new parking spaces. Uh the redevelopment retains the broker in as well as a portion of the adjacent parking. In terms of site access, um the current proposal reduces the number of vehicular access points from 9 to four. Uh three of which would be full turn accesses and one of which which is the north entrance to New Carter Way just east of McDonald's would be right in right out only. In terms of pedestrian and bicycle

[73:00] access and circulation, the site plan includes a new multi-use path shown here in pink, uh, which runs north through the site between the existing multi-use path along US 36 and to baseline road, and also provides three new pedestrian only accessible routes, uh, which are shown here in the red arrows. Two accessed via US 36, the multi-use path, and one accessed via 30th Street. Um, new detached sidewalks are also shown along 30th Street and along the private drives within the development. Uh this rendering just shows a view of the main wound style drive looking north as well as the central plaza along with several of the proposed rooftop decks in the pedestrian area south of building D. As shown in the rendering, the central plaza is a focal point of the site and contains a variety of hard and soft soft gate surfaces. Ample landscaping and flexible seating and event space. uh buildings surrounding the plaza have been stepped down to allow light into the space and rooftop decks have created additional activity around the perimeter.

[74:01] Um under the current proposal, all of the buildings except for building E are mixed use with ground level commercial spaces and residential units on the upper floors. Building E is proposed to be entirely student housing. Uh, buildings A and D will include a mix of ground flooror commercial uses facing the interior of the site along the private drives and pathways and ground floor residential units facing the right subway surrounding the site. Buildings B and C will be entirely commercial on the ground floor except for lobby areas providing access to the residential units above. Building E has been designed as a new space for the existing Sprouts grocery store. The overall design outcome is that with the exception of the western half of Williams way, which fronts building E, the private drives within the development will be entirely surrounded by active ground flooror commercial uses. So in terms of process, um the project requires concept plan and site review because the site is over two acres, the proposal is greater than 25,000 ft in

[75:00] size and a height modification is being requested. The use review is required because the project site is located in a business community area subject to special use restrictions per the land use code and the proposal includes ground flooror residential units. Uh as part of the use review criteria, it must demonstrate that the use will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where the retail type stores predominate on the ground floor. It requires planning board action subject to city council callup. Um, just to take a step back in time, a concept review of application was submitted for the proposed project in July of 2023. Um, the proposed project at that time was significantly larger than it is now. Um, on January 16th, 2024, the planning board held a hybrid meeting and reviewed and commented on the proposal. Then in February of 2024, city council voted to call up the concept plan to review and comment on the proposal as had been requested by the applicant. The public hearing for that was held on March 7th, 2024. Um at that hearing,

[76:01] council did refer the application to design advisory board, transportation advisory board, and environmental advisory board. Uh we brought the project to all three boards. Um overall, the boards expressed support for the proposal um and focused comments on the following areas. The environmental advisory board expressed the desire to see solar incorporated into the project and support for small local businesses. Um the transportation advisory board expressed the desire for strong creative transportation demand manage management strategies and parking management and the design advisory board expressed the desire to see more entries and wayfinding strategies incorporated into building B specifically um as well as a desire for additional roof detailing. Um, I will just point out we did provide uh the minutes from those meetings as well as the applicant responses to those as part of the packet and the applicant did make a number of significant changes in response to the advisory board comments. Um, at its public hearing on September 30th, 2025, the planning board approved the request with a six to1 vote with the

[77:02] following added conditions. Uh the board voted 52 that to meet the open space needs of residents and visitors, applicant shall add an active outdoor ground level programmatic element to the site such as a playground, play area, dog park, or community garden. They also uh voted 70 that an additional 15% of required bike parking spaces over and above the 5% electric bicycle charging spaces required by the land use code shall be electrified and that the additional spaces will not be subject to the 3x 10 foot size requirement. Uh that is all for my presentation. I'm happy to answer questions um and we can enter into callup deliberations. Thank you. Thanks, Chandler. I appreciate that. Um, any questions for city staff or desire to call this one up? Terra and then Matt.

[78:02] >> Yeah, I want to call it up. Um, I appreciate the planning board's changes. I think they were great. Um, I want to call it up because I feel like the design element is a little institutional and not warm enough. And also, I don't particularly like the way the windows are flush. I just think it could look better. We have a lot of community members that really care about how this looks. Um, you can make dens, you can make things dense without having them seem so dense, should I say. So, I feel like more can be done that can make this a better project. So, that's why I want to call it up. >> Ma'am, >> uh yeah, I too uh would like to call this up. Um I I think that given that this is such an entry point for our community, I think uh and the size of this, it's prudent for us to call this up. We do so with projects of this scale normally. Um and it needs a little bit

[79:00] more of of our finer touch on it. But I definitely appreciate uh planning board's comments. I thought they were uh really good. >> Mark, >> just by virtue of the size, I'd like to call it up. I mean, this is gargantuan and um you know, I'd like us to have at least a last look at it and see if there's anything that concerns us. >> Taisha and then Lauren. >> Uh Taisha, you're muted. Uh I'm a yes on the call uh call up in agreement with my colleagues about the size of the project and in addition I also echo the concerns of the lack of energy generation uh by that was raised by the environmental uh advisory board. Thank you >> Lauren. >> Thanks. I will also be supporting a callup. I think um my interest is mainly around kind of the facade and the

[80:00] articulation. I think the massing and a lot of um the other aspects of the site. I really appreciate the work that has been done on that and I think it's just a very large project and being able to review it all the way down to a more detailed level um I think is good for a project of this scale. >> Right. I'm not seeing any other hands raised, but does somebody want to make a motion to call this up? I make a motion to uh call up um the uh site review. >> Item 3B. >> Oh, item 3B. Sorry, I was looking at the actual agenda packet. Yes. I make a motion to call up item 3B. >> I will second that. >> Okay. Uh let's I think we can do a show of hands on this one. Motion second. All in favor raise your physical hands. Six. I think we got seven. Uh, all

[81:02] opposed. Two. So, that's called up on a vote of seven to two. And then I think we can move on to our public hearing. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Our public hearings are item number four on tonight's agenda. Item 4 A is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt the following items related to the 2026 budget. First, we have ordinance 8722 is for adopting a budget for the city of Boulder. Second item is ordinance 8723 establishing the city of Boulder's property mill levies for 2025. Ordinance 3 is number 8724 which is appropriating money to defay expenses and liabilities of the city of Boulder for the fiscal year 2026.

[82:02] And lastly, item number four is ordinance 8727 which is amending various uh sections of the BRC related to changing certain fees and taxes. >> Thank you, mayor. And I'll say uh as I pass it on to our budget officer, Charlotte Husky, the budget um seems like we've been talking about budget for a long time this year. Um and I know that uh we have had a public hearing on it. We've had a study session on it. And as we come to today, I know that Charlotte has abbreviated that presentation. You all have heard it. But for the benefit of those in community that may be joining us for the first time, um know that uh we're going to give a quick little overview about where we are um as we move forward. Uh, as you all I know, have heard this um many much of this beforehand. So, Charlotte, I uh pass the reigns over to you.

[83:00] >> All right. Thank you, Nuria. Good evening, council. Charlotte Husky, budget officer for the city of Boulder. Good to be here with you this evening to share forward an overview of the 2026 recommended budget as Nuria mentioned presented on September 11th as well as at the first uh budget reading on uh October 9th. So, we'll share an abbreviated version, a 10-minute presentation providing an overview of our major budget assumptions and forecasted revenues. Uh, an overview of the 2026 recommended budget, including a brief overview of our operating budget, as well as our capital budget and round out with the long-term financial strategy, providing a funding outlook, community conversations to come, and future financial planning. and then ending this uh item this evening with council questions, public hearing, council discussion and motion language. So sharing forward an overview of our major uh cons key considerations and budget assumptions in the 2026

[84:01] recommended budget as shared at the September 11th and October 9th budget council meetings. The 2026 recommended budget was developed under elevated uncertainty and seeing flattening of our major revenue sources, including impacts of our major revenue sources of sales and use tax and property tax. Uh, and in addition to our other city revenues declining or plateauing. This not only impacted our major revenue sources in the city, but we also have been experiencing federal uncertainty since January of this year in 2025. uh where this where city staff has continued to closely monitor potential impacts of federal funds received by the city on an annual or one-time basis. And as shared forward at the September 11th and October 9th budget study sessions and meetings, to date, no city federal award has been cancelled or terminated out of the 51 million remaining to be expended or received.

[85:00] With our revised revenue forecast, staff identified a budget shortfall of 7.5 million in the general fund if left unbalanced or unadressed. We pivoted to focus mid year as an organization to focus on shoring up our shortfall identified with emphasis on ongoing reductions, realignments of dollars toward highest and best use, taking care of, excuse me, taking care of our existing assets and core city services and flexibility across all city funds. We also focus as shared forward previously heightened importance on the work that the organization has performed over the past three to four years with budgeting for resilience and equity and the work the city has performed with the long-term financial strategy this year which has strengthened the foundation for the organization for budgeting, financial planning and organizational resiliency and position the city well particularly with the uh elevated

[86:01] uncertainty in budget development this year compared to other jurisdictions. And in utilizing these foundational frameworks for budget decision-making, the 2026 recommended budget continues to uplift community priorities and maintains investments in critical city services. As mentioned previously, our forecasted revenues for 2026 reflect slowing revenue growth and continued uncertainty of economic conditions with our total projected revenues at 47.2 2 million for the 2026 fiscal year with the city's two major revenue sources of sales and use tax and property tax uh reflecting flattening and slowing growth compared to our original forecasts for sales and use tax which comprises 35% of our revenue budget. Our year-over-year decline forecasted for 2026 is.3% and property tax, which comprises 12% of our revenue uh budget, represents a 3.1

[87:03] year-over-year increase. And as shared previously at the financial forecast as well as our September budget study session and on our October 9th meeting, while this represents a year-over-year increase, it's important to note that this increase in reassessment cycles for property tax revenues is the lowest that the city has seen since 2011, where we saw between that time a 14% average growth uh during reassess reassessment cycles. And this impacted our original revenue forecast with revisions downward contributing to our budget gap that the si city balanced as part of the 2026 recommended budget brought forward to council. And as shared forward previously, the city has uh been working on the top council priority of the long-term financial strategy this year in 2025. And as part of the city's work for the long-term financial strategy, a key part of the strategy focuses on reducing on

[88:02] over reliance on sales and use tax, which is the city's major revenue source and increasing diversity and stability of the city revenues by looking at enhanced revenue measures as well as alternative funding mechanisms. This includes the transportation maintenance fee, a total of 2.25 25 million uh as uh discussed with city council. Longstied sustainable funding mechanism for transportation maintenance, a 50 cent hourly increase in on street and garage parking fees in line with the performance-based pricing model. Speed on green photo enforcement for a total of 2.26 million. uh that is consistent with the city's vision zero goals and a single family housing expansion fee that's recommended at $11 per square foot for significant expansions of single unit dwellings. And this policy conversation with council is planned to come forward in a few weeks on November 6th for discussion.

[89:04] As shared forward previously, our 2026 uh recommended budget, this graph presents an overview of the city's adopted budgets from 2019 through 2026. And we can see that post pandemic in 2021 through 2023, there was strong revenue growth. And in turn, the city invested in new ongoing programs and services such as homelessness programs and initiatives, public safety and behavioral health programming to name a few. The city began to see flattening of our sales and use tax, our major revenue source, beginning in 2023 and focused on one-time use of fund balance in 2024 and in 2025 to support core city investments uh during those two fiscal years. The city's revenues were further impacted by economic uncertainty uh and state legislation in 2025

[90:02] resulting in an identified shortfall and need to reduce and balance the budget in 2026 particularly within the general fund. And the 2026 recommended budget declines and slows as you can see in this graph compared to prior fiscal years with the top line represented as the citywide budget an 11.6% 6% decrease primarily driven by slowing operating growth and reduced year-over-year capital investments due both to project timing as well as funding availability. The citywide operating is a 2.1% increase. This middle yellow line here, which represents the slowest operating increase in the budget since 2021. And finally, the general fund budget is a decrease of 7.8% year-over-year. And this decline is driven both by flattening revenues and reduced use of one-time funds to bring forward a balanced budget and in within the general fund and to ensure fund

[91:01] sustainability in the general fund. The 2026 recommended operating budget totals 407.7 million and supports investments across all seven goal areas within the city sustainability, equity, and resilience framework. This alignment is a reflection of the work uh of the work that the organization has done with budgeting for resilience and equity where we have aligned our budget across this greater framework and have continued to utilize program performance data and outcomes to drive decisionmaking. This work and the 2026 budget also uplifts and advance the citywide strategic plan as well as the priorities of city council that were identified in 2024. The 2026 budget also utilizes continued continues to utilize existing community engagement input from both 2024 and 2025 uh budget uh community engagement

[92:00] sessions where we heard from community connectors and residents as well as inputs input from over a thousand community members in a citywide budget questionnaire last year. And as mentioned previously, the given the financial landscape in developing the 2026 recommended budget, this budget comprises reductions, realignments, and enhancements to support community priorities and core city services. Our 2026 to 2031 six-year capital improvement program uh represents a comprehensive six-year capital plan for capital infrastructure as well as capital maintenance across the city and identifies all planned capital improvement projects and their estimated costs over a six-year period for 2026. This includes a total of 113.3 million in new appropriation to support 115 capital projects and 789.5 million in planned spending between 2026

[93:02] and 2031 to support a total of 173 capital projects. This graph provides an overview of the six-year CIP broken down by department. That's the funding for which is supported across 19 funds supporting capital projects and capital investments across the six-year horizon with 75% of the funding supporting uh utilities and transportation infrastructure needs. Finally, also included in the CIP is 97.6 6 million in funding from the community culture resilience and safety tax supporting nine capital projects including the replacement of fire station 2 renovations at East Boulder Community Center and investments in the civic area park. This next phase of planning for CCRS will be determined after the November uh election with the 2025 uh CCRS tax measure on the ballot.

[94:01] And finally rounding out with a long-term financial strategy uh named a top council priority in 2024. The long-term financial strategy builds upon our prior policy recommendations from the blue ribbon commission reports of 2010 and uh 2008 as well as uh uh budgeting for uh community resilience report in 2019 and focuses on long-term fiscal health of the city. And with policy guidance both from the financial strategy committee as well as city council, staff was able to advance the long-term financial strategy in 2025, including developing a multi-year ballot measure strategy for both 2025 and 2026, which includes the 2025 ballot measure, the 3% permanent extension of the community culture resilience and safety tax, as well as its associated increase in debt capacity included as well as as staff analyzed and incorporated alternative revenue

[95:01] sources within the 2026 budget as part of this broader work within the long-term financial strategy as listed previously. And staff also developed engagement framework for fund our future community conversations on trade-offs and service levels to come forward in 2026. And so next steps with the 2026 recommended budget uh for this evening is second reading public hearing and budget adoption and bringing forward our budget ordinances as well as a special district resolutions that were on the consent agenda this evening for the general improvement districts as well as for Boulder the Boulder Municipal Property Authority. And we staff plans to bring forward uh the Nullwood improvement district uh budget uh on November 6th. And with that, I will turn it back to Mayor Brockett uh and when ready have the motion language available.

[96:04] >> Thanks. Uh thanks very much, Charlotte. I appreciate it. Um it's great to get all that additional or to get all that information which we have seen before, but not everyone out in the public as I imagine. So great to hear get it out again. Do we have uh questions for city staff on the budget? And it's it's okay if we don't. We have seen this multiple times before. Mark, >> I want to pick up on something Taiisha said earlier. um without being too eager to dig into other resources or reserves. Do we have some plan for dealing with um the things that might happen here? I mean, we've got a very specific budget, but I don't think we yet understand the impact of, you know, what's going to happen when we when SNAP benefits go away. um our um

[97:02] those entities that are um dealing with food insecurity are running out of food. I mean, do we have any backup capabilities to step into the fray if it becomes really bad? >> Thank you for the question, Council Member Wallik. It is something that um we have been continuing to monitor. I know that staff across the organization has been um working in partnership with uh organizations in the community um to understand uh levels of impact uh that we are seeing um to organizations uh in the community. Also working um closely um with understanding the uh potential funding levels associated with other jurisdictions um and what might be feasible uh there. And so it is something that we continue to monitor as part of uh our our um annual budget uh

[98:00] process. Um, and we uh look forward to continuing to uh plan uh for this uh and monitoring this um to impacts in the community, looking for opportunities, funding opportunities um to help support this uh into the future, recognizing that um uh that there are impacts um that are being seen uh in community. And so it is something that that we continue to to discuss uh and bring forward as part of not only within uh the 2026 budget and the support for um uh social services and human services uh and health equity funding for example. Um but it is an item that we continue to monitor and think about uh moving forward as well. >> Charlotte, if I may, all of all of that is correct. If I can um amplify a point that Charlotte was making in terms of our tremendous um housing and human

[99:02] services team, they certainly continue to have um relationships across uh the city, across the county with our partners. Many of our grants are multi-year, which means that some of our organizations have steadier funding from us than they may have from uh other sources as we know that. Um, and I just wanted to uh comment um particularly for council member Adams since she um could not be with us at first reading. She had asked a great question about um reserves and when we will look at that and I know that staff at that meeting said um and commented that actually we will be coming back to council to talk about criteria and the use of reserves. But um I would say that these types of emergencies, crisis emergencies are what we would look for, which is why we perhaps don't spend them in other ways. And so we will be coming to you with other conversations in the future. Um and we will continue to monitor this.

[100:00] Should we see something, we will immediately come to council as we continue to work with our partners. We are very cognizant that it is a very difficult time for many, many people in our community. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. That's my only question. >> Matt, >> thanks, Aaron. Um, so I I have a question about um and I know in these harder economic times, we're looking for wherever there's opportunities to either make cuts or there's areas for for revenues. And there's one that I I sort of was kind of discovered more or less last week. A number of us were at a candidate forum and went to Shitakqua and I saw the parking sign and immediately was like, "Oh, take my money. I got to park and the app's like you you don't no no no no money take no there's free parking and I really only thought that existed in the game Monopoly. I didn't realize that here at Shitakqua Park for most of the year it's free and given the visitation uh this is perhaps one to maybe $3

[101:02] million of revenue sitting just there that that would be part of a regular integrated parking management system. So, I'm just sort of curious, was that ever looked at as an opportunity to throttle in some more paid parking in those areas during high demand and leverage that to help us cover transportation stuff. Funny, we're we're we're circling back to that or or any other uh critical needs. So, I just that seemed like that was money that was right there that could be leveraged and I'm wondering why we haven't embarked on that. >> Yeah, thank you for the the question. Uh, Council Member Nuri, I saw you come off mute. Are you >> I did and I I didn't know. I I always hate jumping in front of you, Charlotte, because you usually have a much better answer than I do. Um, but I'll say as I do jump in, um, I appreciate the question, Council Member Benjamin, I think it's a conversation that actually came up um when we were um, uh, discussing uh, a previous item uh, with

[102:00] council uh, year or so ago uh, to take a look at that. Um council at that time um directed staff to uh really look at um managing parking only if we could provide uh alternative access as we were thinking about that. That is certainly something uh to look at and we want to do uh in a more holistic way. Um, but as we have talked about what fees look like uh in community and what potential impacts that would be, we also want to be thoughtful about not doing everything we can at once um as we continue to think about revenue sources in the future. It is not um something that staff has had the opportunity yet on their work plan to dive into, but it is certainly a possibility as um we come back in terms of um continuing to look where revenue source opportunities are as part of the longer term financial strategy.

[103:01] And if anything I've said there wrong, Charlotte, please feel free to slap me back. >> No, nothing to add. Okay. Um, I don't see any more questions, so we can go to the public hearing for this item. And let me just get that list up. Um, Elisha, uh, would you like to read the public participation guidelines, please? >> Yes, sir. Be happy to. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We will now review the public participation at city council meetings. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the border revised code that includes participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online.

[104:00] No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscinity, 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 listening, and thank you for joining us. >> Thanks for that, Elicia. We have two people signed up to speak. Uh both speakers will have three minutes to speak and I will just um people are required to speak to the topic at hand which is the 2026 city boulder budget.

[105:02] All right, our two speakers are Lynn Seagull and then Maria Stephan Young. First of all, I need to see the timer. I do not see it. Okay, there. And I also need to know how I can display my name. Um, now I want to see everyone's face, please. Using up my time. I need everyone's face on the screen. I need to see who I'm speaking to, please. Okay. Well, just wait until you can put it up. This is so ridiculous. I'm speaking to my name. No, I'm not. I'm speaking to you. I want to see your faces. This is inappropriate. Not okay.

[106:01] >> So, Lynn, if you can speak to the the budget, please. >> I will be glad to speak to the budget with your faces on the screen, please. >> We don't have any technical adjustments to make. This is my This is your >> I see you now, Erin. But now I see my name again. I need to see the whole group up and I need to see the timer. I don't see the timer. >> All right. So, since you're not speaking to the agenda item, we're >> Since I am speaking to the agenda item, how dare you take >> All right. Our final speaker is Maria. >> This is crocodile tears for this. Okay, our final final speaker is Maria Stephan. >> Hello. Can you hear me?

[107:00] >> Yes. >> Hi. Good evening, Mayor Bracket and council members. This is Maria Stean. I'm the executive director of the Center for People with Disabilities. I'm here to speak to the budget and specifically to ask you to continue supporting Elevate Boulder program. The Elevate Boulder is a guaranteed income program that provides cash assistance for limited time with no strings attached. This program allows people to lift their heads from crisis and think about their future. Unlike most public benefits that unfortunately keep people in poverty, Elevate Boulder serves as a bridge out of poverty. At the Center for People with Disabilities, we see every day how poverty traps people with disabilities

[108:00] in cycle of crisis. And a program like the guaranteed income gives our consumers what they need most, resources, choice, and dignity, which are the foundation of independent living. Importantly, 15% of Elevate Boulder participants identify as having a disability. And for them, this support can mean the difference between isolation and independence, between barely surviving and fully participating in community life. I also want to say that the process of building this pilot was one of the most inclusive and thoughtful efforts I have observed. The city staff brought together self- advocates, community organizations, and people with different lived experiences and backgrounds to design a program grounded in equity, trust, and respect.

[109:01] By continuing Elevate Boulder, the city of Boulder not only uplifts its resident, but it also sets a powerful example for other cities in Boulder County. You are showing what's possible when government trusts people to make the choices that work best for them. Boulder has always been a city of innovation and humanity and Elevate Boulder embodies both. It's making a measurable difference and it deserves to continue and grow. Thank you. >> Thank you. That brings an end to the public hearing. Any uh follow-up questions from that? Um I'll just ask one just based on the last speaker's testimony. Mary, would you mind addressing the the next steps for the Elevate Boulder program? >> Sure, Mayor. Uh and appreciate um the speaker who spoke so highly of the program. We on city staff also think uh

[110:02] it has been a successful pilot. Um we had the benefit of being able to fund that with onetime dollars. Um but as we know in our constrained place we did not feel that we could move that forward with ongoing dollars at this moment. We are hopeful and we remain um uh in position to support the ongoing fundraising efforts that are existing um in community. We believe this is a really great opportunity for our community to rally around and have been working with um some nonprofit uh partners um so that we can raise funds for this in the future. Um and we are hopeful that perhaps uh if there is sufficient funding and interest that the city may be able to lean in and match funds in the future. But for now, uh, we felt, uh, given where we are, um, currently in our funding that we could not move this program single-handedly,

[111:00] uh, as we move forward. >> Thanks for >> They can donate through the Boulder Community Fund. And so, let me put that um, and put that uh, note out there. Um, I don't have that website, but Boulder Community Fund, if they look for it, we can um, find that. So if those private funds are obtained then hopefully um the city can match those funds in the future. So want to put that um word out as we can. >> Thanks Naria. >> Okay. Um council comments on the budget item or even if somebody was wanted to start making motions. Nicole. >> Yeah. Sorry. I was just going to do a follow on to what um Noria was just mentioning about Elevate Boulder and just wanted to triple check. You don't need anything from us, right, in sort of moving forward with this plan to um to to try to find funding for Elevate Boulder. Um you don't need our permission for staff to move it forward

[112:00] um once once the money is there. Is that correct? This can just keep going. We don't need anything right now. Uh except uh if you or anyone else wants to contribute to the Boulder Community Foundation, we welcome that. Um I know I will be making my contribution as well. Um and if that happens, we will be coming to you if we need any action from council in the future and some future ATB, but right now uh if you look for the Elevate Boulder Fund on the Boulder Community Foundation, uh website, you can find that. So I continue to make that plea out there. Aisha, >> you're muted. >> Shoot. Um although I appreciate um staff's efforts as I mentioned in the hotline um to balance to the budget and I really commend you for for being able to do that and aligning with the council priorities. I don't believe that our council priorities that we set before

[113:02] this administration and other things had happened align with this moment. I believe that basically we just talked about Elevate Boulder. We talk about affordability all the time, but we continue to pass policy that disproportionately impacts low-income people and families after we've already even talked about our homeless uh strategy in including homeless uh families facing insecurity. And although I appreciate Clutch's report on the activities that we provide, um, again, we know the evidence is very clear on the impacts of guaranteed income programs. And if the majority of council wanted to have that be a program that we were going to fund, it would be funded right now. Um, and it's not a criticism of my fellow council mates. It's just a lack of being able to revisit those priorities in tandem to the to the budget development and the budget process. When I look at the sustainability, equity and resilience

[114:00] for um framework, I continue to be disappointed that the healthy socially vi and thriving and livable sections make up about 24% of our budget versus governance which is 28% and safety which is 21. Who is safe and what are we governing if people can't afford to live here? Um, and so again, I just have concerns that um programs that we know are going to be effective that are going to keep um our community members uh ability to be here. I think back to the incredible storytelling event that happened at the dairy and one of the recipients shared about them working on in the city of Boulder since the 90s um not going you know on extensive vacations or any of those things and you know is about has already passed retirement fa phase and is not eligible to retire doesn't have pension funds that's a breakdown and failure of our systems that we agree with and approve at the city level not just the state and the federal levels and so to These types

[115:03] of programs are debt that we owe. We're on stolen land that use stolen labor and we have yet as a city to make any meaningful reparations, reconciliations. And so, um, you know, I will continue to be a no on this budget. Um, because again, I don't believe that we are mobilizing, um, and prioritizing our human and our safety net. Um, and we know that we are going to continue um to see an onslaught of need. Um, we can no longer point our finger at the county. They don't got any money either. Um, and so again, I look forward to our reserves conversation. Um, I look forward I'm happy that everybody's so excited about this Elevate program. Um, and again, I I don't want to similar to when I was on Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and I felt a I felt a way about our budget being primarily funded by vices, a lottery, and was very excited about the keep Colorado pass where we're actively

[116:00] investing. Similarly, how I feel here, we should be investing in this and not having to rot on nonprofits. I will also lift up that I've been talking to nonprofits who were not sure if their doors are going to be able to remain open come January 2026. And so again, we are in a climate in an environment um where I am hysterical. I didn't mean to be funny on that, but um with cause um you know, we get those kind of accommodations and and criticisms around that because we're right. Right. Um and they try and belittle and use that. I know you were not, but use that to make it seem like we're wrong or we're hysterical or something, but the evidence is very clear and I'm just disappointed that again um the city is is not in a place where we can collectively agree to um increase uh the human services and I as I said I look forward to the reserves conversation and I have no doubt that we'll be revisiting that budget come January and February or

[117:00] Q1 of 2026. Thank you. Thanks. I got Tina's hand. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make a couple share a couple thoughts I had around the budget and first just thanking again for all the work that went into this and um making sure that there were a lot of time for conversations about the budget. I appreciated the process. Um a couple things is um just reflecting it was more challenging with the budget to have the transportation fee in the budget before the approval of the fee. and we might want to think down the road about how we might want to separate those issues. Um, even if it's visually, it might be a a good idea for looking at that. Um, the second thing is when we think about the longterm financial strategies, um, I hope that we do that as much as possible as a whole council. Um, one of the the things I am concerned about is how we do continue to, you know, add fees and taxes and we know the county is looking

[118:00] at taxes and there's an early child care tax that people are looking at a progressive income tax. Um, just trying to think about how they impact our residents and their ability to live here. And of course, we impose also a grocery tra which not all communities do. So, there are just a lot of different things that that we're doing that are making it um difficult and we might want to just, you know, be really thoughtful about how we think about our long range financial revenue strategies. We may want to look at um strategies around reduction. I know we're doing that as well. Uh but I I do get concerned um with how we're increasing the cost of living particularly when we do fees or sales taxes that impact all citizens or residents in Boulder and visitors to Boulder equally. Um and then the last thing is just one thing I'm thinking about personally as we look at the priorities is how a budget um change might be incorporated into the prioritization process so it has the full time to be baked. it is difficult

[119:02] to create a significant change to the budget by the time we get to it um and to go through the process of identifying where you would transfer money out. So it it could be one thought um for us to consider is bringing up any budget changes into the priority process which actually kicks off a little bit early. Those are related regardless um but I'm I think I'm thinking about being more explicit about that in the coming year. So, but thanks for all the work. >> Thanks, Dino. Um, I see no other hands raised, so I wonder if somebody might be interested in making a motion. And Alicia, I guess I'll invite you to put up motion language for us, please. >> I think Charlotte has that. >> Charlotte, then one one second and I will bring that up.

[120:11] And also, mayor, while we're waiting on Charlotte, as a process reminder, we will need to vote on each ordinance separate. >> Thanks for the reminder, Elicia. Tina, is that a previous hand or would you like to get started on these? >> Sarah. >> Sure. Um, I want to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8722 adopting a budget for the city of uh Boulder, Colorado for f for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth related details. >> Thanks. Motion in a second. Uh can we have a roll call, please? Elicia.

[121:00] >> Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for ordinance 8722 with Council Member Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Hi. >> Winer. >> Yes. >> Adams. >> No. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. Mayor Brockett, >> yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Folks, >> yes. >> Council member Marquis, >> yes. >> And Shuhard, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8722 is hereby adopted with a vote of 8 to1. >> Thank you. Chair, do you want to keep going? >> Sure. I'd like to make make a motion to adopt ordinance 8723 establishing the city of Boulder property tax mill levies for 2025 providing that said levy be certified to the Boulder County Assessor and setting forth related details.

[122:05] >> Second >> motion and a second or roll call please Elicia. >> Yes sir. We'll start the roll call for ordinance 8723 with council member Wallik. >> Hi. >> Wer. >> Yes. >> Adams. >> Aisha. >> Tisha, are you there? >> Yes. Sorry, I was getting my charger. My phone's about to die. >> Uh the we have a motion on it to approve ordinance 8723. How do you vote? >> Yes. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brackett. >> Yes. >> Mayor Proim Folks. >> Yes.

[123:00] >> Council member Marquis. >> Yes. >> Shuhart. >> Yes. >> And Spear. >> Yes. Ordinance 8723 is hereby adopted unanimously. >> Terry, you're on a roll. >> Um, I want to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8724 appropriating money to defay expenses and liabilities of the city of Boulder, Colorado for the 2026 fiscal year of the city of Boulder and setting forth related details. >> Second. >> Motion and second. A roll call, please. Elisha. >> Yes, sir. We'll start that roll call for 8724 with Council Member Wer. >> Yes. >> Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brockett. >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Folks. >> Yes.

[124:00] >> Council member Marquis. >> Yes. >> Shoeart. >> Yes. >> Spear. Yes. >> And Wallik. >> Hi. >> Ordinance 8724 is hereby adopted unanimously. >> Want to finish this out, Tara? >> Um, sure. I would like to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8727 amending sections 3-8-3 tax imposed on non-residential and residential development. 3-20-2 imposition and rate of rental license excise tax 7-6-2 parking penalties and chapter 4-20 fees BRC1981 changing certain fees and taxes and setting forth related details >> second >> motion to second roll call please >> yes sir we'll start the roll call for 8727's ordinance with council member Adams

[125:04] You said yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. >> Taisha. >> Yes. >> Yes. That's a yes. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brock, >> yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Folks, >> yes. >> Council member Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhart, >> yes. Spear, >> yes. >> Wallik, >> I >> and Wer, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8727 is hereby adopted unanimously. >> Thanks very much. Um, and city staff, just huge thank you. I know that this budget involves an incredible amount of work and analysis and hundreds of hours of meetings and um just so grateful for all the work that you've done and the extraordinary outcome that it has produced. So um huge huge thank yous and

[126:02] look forward to seeing it go into effect. >> Thank you so much, Mayor. More hours and meetings than you can ever imagine. >> Great job. Okay. Um and with that we have item number 5A. >> Yes sir. Our matters from the mayor and members of council is item number 5A and it is a request for a DOT of three to conduct research regarding ebike and ecooter regulations. >> Thanks very much. And I'll note we're quite behind schedule. So our what we're discussing tonight is not all of our feelings about ebikes and e scooters but whether we want to do a kn of three to conduct research on them. So just with that in mind Taiisha I believe you brought this forward. Do you want to speak to it uh briefly? >> Sure. Um we as you know I'm e not only the ebiking community but there's the larger community are our

[127:01] aging and older community members um people with disabilities um and others who have experienced injuries um because of high-speed ebiking um also so there's one the the speed two um the age of those who are using the bikes and um any um thing that can be done um as far as what our clarifying what our authorities are um at the city level. Um I I recognize that this is something you know that could have stretch on the the actual request and so you know if if I were to tear them I would say what are the city's authority as it relates to regulating ebikes too would be um you know again what would be the state because I would imagine that the state has a lot more relates to some of these as honestly people die and I just see more and more injuries. We

[128:01] know the hospital has reported an escalation in injuries at the hospital because of and e scooter incidences um and I'm I'm continuing to see younger and people um with much is at what point does a you know if I don't have to pedal the bike why is it on a bike path so you know but legally I don't know what our responsibilities are als also recognize the timing is challenging with um you know all of the other pressing uh urgent and important issues that we have. Um it's winter time so maybe some of these issues will will bear as not as many people will be on the paths. Um but I certainly would like to have this addressed by the spring. >> Thanks for that Taiisha. And so I'd like to ask for the nod but Terry do you have a quick comment or question? >> Uh you know what it's not important. I'll just agree later. >> Thanks. Um Brian

[129:00] >> Erin, I I did have a Can I ask a question to staff about this? >> Sure. >> Thank you. Um and thank you Tyisha for raising this. Uh this is a topic of great interest to me and others and it connects to a lot of things. Um safety in our transportation system generally um the effectiveness of our ebike you know sort of ecosystem overall. So, I'm wondering um from staff like are does this question that's being raised now fit into a natural thing that staff would be looking at maybe with greater context and a and a method already planned anyway um or or not. So, if I may, the uh the question that was asked of me involved what what the city can regulate and what is left to the state. Um that doesn't naturally fit into anything else we're already doing. Uh transportation

[130:01] and mobility, it's my understanding, has um looked at this and taken a position previously. if we were to we can conduct the research and then perhaps go back and and relook at that. Um I would look to my colleagues in transportation and mobility to to speak more to where they are on this. >> Well, and maybe if I could speak to sequencing my my understanding of this and Teresa correct me if I'm wrong. If we do the knot of three, you would you're uh would look in you would perform research, come back, send us like an information packet of some kind. If we and then if further action was desired, a council member would have to bring that forward at another time as part of a separate process. >> That's right, mayor. And then um and then we would seek either a work plan item um or a not a five. >> That's fine. I I was just trying to get a sense of like where staff's heads are on this topic, but I I understand Teresa that that the way you're being asked,

[131:00] it's more of a legal question. So, okay. Thanks. >> Great. Nicole, do you have a quick comment or question? >> Yeah, just a really quick um question for staff the same one. I always ask what's the trade-off? What what do what do we what do you pause or delay um if we say yes? Teresa, do you want to address that? Uh so realistically this would this would delay some um normal operational work that we would do things like contracts and real-time advising. Um it it would not prevent it but it would delay it. >> And a second question maybe more for Nuria. Is this anything TAB could help with? Maybe Blaze, >> I think. And Teresa, correct me if I'm wrong as you've had more conversations directly, but I believe the question at the moment is more of a a legal research question and not um something that we

[132:01] would send to TAB at the moment. Uh when if there something to come back to council and council one is to pursue something more operational, then that perhaps would be something that would go to then the transportation and mobility team and then to Deb. Hey, I'd love to get >> um I have a question. >> Okay, Ty, go ahead. Then hopefully we'll get >> actually for our CML representatives, Matt and Tina. Is this something that CML has looked into or talked to it at all? Is that is that potentially a resource that we can look into? I can certainly follow up with the National League of Cities, but I just if people have already done anything in that area, I would love to leverage that in in the interim. But I also just want to lift up this is a safety concern. We always talk about it like I I mean I'm all for tradeoffs, but is our children's lives a trade-off? It's not for me. So I would like us to figure it out before it gets more dangerous. It's dangerous. I'm on the streets >> 100% on the sidewalks. I'm on the paths.

[133:02] >> Uh I mean I can try to answer is I don't know if Heather Staer is on or not. uh if she is, she's probably best to answer that question, but in my few years on CML, I have not seen this come across our uh our table in the policy committee. Doesn't mean it won't, but Heather would be the best answer. >> I've gotten a note from Heather and she says not to her knowledge. No. Oh, there she is. >> All right. >> Maybe I answered for you, Heather. >> You sure did. Thank you, Nuria. >> Thanks for that. So, I would go ahead and I would like to go ahead and see if there is a nod of three. I'm going to ask for nodding in the shape of raising your physical hand. So if you would like to conduct this research, have this research conducted, raise your physical hand. I got eight. Nine. Okay. So we got a knot of nine. Uh thanks for bringing that forward, Tyan. Theresa, appreciate you being willing to look into this. >> Yeah, thanks for the direction and we'll get we'll get on that. >> Thanks.

[134:01] All right. Now, it's time for our last agenda item, which is our executive session. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Our next item, which is item number six, the executive session, is a 6A item, is the consideration of a motion to call an executive session of the city council on Thursday, October 23rd, 2025 as authorized by section 24-6-424B of the CRS. This is related to conferences with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding metropolitan districts. >> Thanks for that, Elicia. I took a drink of water so I can get through all of these words I need to read. All right. So, the city attorney has requested an executive session of the city council pursuant to CRS section 246424B for the purpose of receiving legal advice related to metropolitan districts. The following provisions of the Colorado Open Meetings Act authorize

[135:00] an executive session to discuss this matter. That is conferences with an attorney for the city to receive legal advice on specific legal questions from CRS 246424B. This topic announcement provides as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized. So I will now entertain a motion to convene an executive session pursuant to CRS section 246424B for a conference with the city attorney for the pre purpose previously stated. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right we got a motion and a second. So a vote for the executive session must pass by twothirds of those of us present of the quorum present. So can we do a roll call please? Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for the executive session with Council Member Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brockett,

[136:00] >> yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Faulks, >> yes. >> Council member Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhard, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> Wallik, >> yes. >> Wer, >> yes. and Adams. >> Yes. >> The motion to call an executive session carried with a vote of 9 to zero. >> All right. So, with a vote of 9 to zero, the motion has passed. The council will now recess and reconvene immediately in a virtual executive session to discuss the matter previously stated for the purposes previously stated. And I'll just mention hopefully everyone has the link to join the team's meeting for the executive session. >> Can I ask a point of clarification? Do you want us to fully log out of this to relog in or just go camera and mic off? >> No, please leave the Zoom meeting and then log into the teams meeting afterwards. Thanks for that question, Matt. >> Where's the

[137:01] >> Where's the link? >> Where's the link? >> There's a team meeting link in your calendar. >> Right. Thanks. Right in the calendar. Okay, I'm going to start our recess for the executive session.

[240:52] 56 p.m. and the executive session has been concluded. The participants in the executive session were Taiisha Adams, Matt Benjamin, Dalton Kelly,

[241:02] Lauren Fulkurtz, Sarah Gger, Kim Crawford, Tina Marquis, Chris Meschuk, Brad Mueller, Hela Panowig, Maria Rivera Vandermide, Ryan Shuhard, Nicole Spear, Mark Wallik, Terry Winer, Laurel Wit, Mark Wolf, and Teresa Taylor Tate. For the record, if any person who participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion of any matters not included in the motion to go into executive session occurred during the executive session or that any improper action occurred during the executive session in violation of the open meetings law, I ask that you state your concerns for the record. And I saw the we just started recording. Does that mean that I should redo what I just said? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Probably. Sorry for the record. Sorry about that. I just noticed it. >> No worries. More words. Okay. The time 57 p.m. And the executive

[242:01] session has been concluded. The participants in the executive session were Taiisha Adams, Matt Benjamin, Daltton Kelly, Lauren Folkart, Sarah Geger, Kim Crawford, Tina Marquis, Chris Meschuk, Brad Mueller, Hela Penowig, Nuria Rivera Vandermide, Ryan Shuhard, Nicole Spear, Mark Wallik, Terra Winer, Laurel Wit, Mark Wolf, and Terresa Taylor Tate. For the record, if any person who participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion of any matters not included in the motion to go into executive session occurred during the executive session, or that any improper action occurred during the executive session in violation of the open meetings law, I ask that you state your concerns for the record. Seeing none, I will now continue the October 3rd, 2025th special meeting agenda. of which we are at the end. Correct, Elicia? >> That is correct, sir.

[243:01] >> All right. This brings us to the end of the meeting, unless anyone has any final comments to make. Um, all right. Well, thanks. We are definitely not ahead of schedule tonight, but um, thanks everybody for hanging in there and working through the business of the evening. So, we'll go 58 p.m. Take care everybody and have a good day. >> Thanks everyone.