November 6, 2025 — City Council Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[1:50] 30. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Thursday, November 6th, 2025 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. I'm

[2:00] going to go ahead and call us to order and Elisha if we can have a roll call, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you and good evening everyone and thank you for joining us. We'll start tonight's roll call as usual with council member Adams >> present. >> Benjamin >> present. >> Mayor Bronett >> present. >> Mayor Pro Tim Faulkers >> present. >> Council member Marcus >> here. >> Shuhart >> here. >> Spear >> present. >> And Wallik >> present. >> And Winer. Mayor, we have our quorum. >> Thank you, Alicia. I'd now like to request a motion to amend the agenda to add item 9A, which is an executive session of council to discuss a potential real estate real property purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale as authorized by 246424AS concerning the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real personal or other property interest. and 246424 ECRS determining positions relative to matters that may be subject

[3:00] to negotiations developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We've got a motion to second. All in favor raise your hands please. That passes 80. So the agenda has been amended. So if we can go to open comment now please Elicia including the public participation guidelines. Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll now review the public participation at city council meeting guidelines. Thank you again for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the voter revised code which includes participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open com comment. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or

[4:01] 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, ainity, 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. >> Thank you, Elicia. Um, so each person will get two minutes to speak. Um, I will be strict about those in the interest of fairness. We're going in between inerson and virtual speakers. So, our first three of our 15 people signed up are Elliot Flayton in person, Shelby Bates virtual, and Ulana Buhoon

[5:01] in person. Every council meeting, we hear the same racism and bigotry from the same cast of characters. They repeat the same bloodline. >> Sir, I think your mic your mic is not on. >> Oh, >> there. That was it. >> Start over. Okay. >> Yeah, go ahead and start over. >> Every council meeting, we hear the same racism and bigotry from the same cast of characters. They repeat the same blood liel, the demonstrably false claim that Israel is or has committed genocide while also sometimes demanding divestment based on that lie. They do this despite being corrected, despite being shown the ICJ case law. the facts on the ground, all the other evidence and authority demonstrating authoritatively otherwise. And despite it being pointed out that their so-called humanitarian sources use

[6:00] double standards, lack credibility, and even feature dogs and cookie monsters as supposed genocide experts. Yet, despite efforts to educate these bigots, they persist, spreading hate-based lies designed to inflame racial hostility towards Jews week after week. So what should this council do knowing the almost inevitable reality that this will again occur today? The answer is not to silence them. They do have a First Amendment right to be racists and bigots if that's what they choose to be, even if their allies just got clobbered at the Boulder ballot box this week. But their right to speak does not create an obligation for me, this room, or this council to listen to them. When those who have repeatedly traffked in racist blood liels and slurs take the podium, don't sit there and validate them. Stand up and walk out, or at least turn your

[7:00] back or your screen off. And if someone unexpected surprises you with a racist claim of genocide, do the same in response to their bigotry. So walk out, turn your back, leave because it's the right thing to do and because while they may be entitled to speak, they are not entitled to your or our attention for their racism and bigotry. Thank you. >> Right. Thanks. Our next three speakers are Shelby Bates virtual, Ulana Behun in person, Douglas Gardner in person. >> Hi. Um okay. Hello council. Thank you for this meeting. I am here to talk um about the public participation process for when meetings are fully virtual. Last month I spoke for the public hearing on the city budget. And the way that it worked was that when it was my turn to speak my screen only shows my name and I couldn't

[8:01] see the timer or any of you. Um and so my request and I'd sent this via email but then didn't hear back from the city um clerk's office or from council is just when meetings have to be fully virtual that the speaker can see council and also the timer which in this meeting I can but for whatever reason when it was everybody was virtual on Zoom last month and there wasn't any opportunity for in person um it was just a little isolating to just be talking to my own name on the computer screen and didn't vote a lot of confidence when my friends are like, I don't think I'd like to come speak at council when you're just talking to um like a black box. So anyways, that's my whole comment. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. Now we have uh quiet in the audience please. Now we have Ulana Buhoon in person, Douglas Gardner in person, and Leslie Clustroom virtually. >> No, you need to press the button. >> Hello.

[9:00] >> Yep. >> All right. All right. Good evening. Uh, thank you for supporting the Boulder Vinitia Sister City Initiative. My name is Ulana Behun. I'm Ukrainian American, was raised steeped in Ukrainian culture in the US at a time when many people hadn't even heard of Ukraine. As an active member of Colorado's Ukrainian diaspora, I've watched it grow over the past few decades, including in Boulder. I'm a member of Ukrainians of Colorado and a volunteer for Sunflower Seeds Ukraine, a Boulderbased nonprofit. Though our focus is on providing aid to Ukraine, we have also fostered other connections be between Coloradoatans and Ukrainians, it's been gratifying to see the Boulder community embrace and engage with Ukrainian culture and come together for Ukraine in other ways like attending a Ukrainian folk music concerts and documentary film screenings at the Boulder Theater, Dair Art Center in Etown, participating in Dine Out for Ukraine where hundreds of Boulderites ate at local Boulder restaurants to

[10:00] support Ukraine and converting and decorating solar panels at Fair View High School with the students there to be shipped to students in Ukraine. Such connections inspire and spark imagination. The Boulder Vine Sister City will undoubtedly fuel connection, goodwill, creativity, and understanding. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Now, Douglas Gardner in person, Leslie Glstrom virtually, and Richard Cleland virtually. We need to turn it back on. There you go. >> Good evening, council members. My name is Douglas Gardner. I serve as director of the Highland Institute for the Advancement of Humanity, a small think tank here in Boulder. For nearly two years, we've been working to build a sister city relationship between Boulder and Venitzia. I previously lived and worked in Ukraine from 2000 to 2004 as

[11:00] the United Nations resident coordinator. So this country and its people are very close to my heart. Our hope with this sister city relationship is to strengthen humanitarian, educational, and cultural connections between the two cities. It is a non-political effort and does not require funding or staff time from the city. One of the most meaningful activities already underway is trauma healing. It's an initiative that's now in its third year. Led by Boulder resident Gay Logan, a team of US-based psychotherapists train Ukrainian clinicians and graduate students via Zoom in state-of-the-art approaches to trauma care and mental health. It becomes Ukrainians taking care of Ukrainians. This work is already making a concrete difference in the lives of people affected by the war. Formalizing the sister city relationship

[12:01] will help shine a light on this effort as well as other activities we envisage in education and the arts. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to each of you council members for your public service. We know you take pride in Boulder and we hope to demonstrate over time that a vibrant and meaningful relationship between Boulder and Venitzia embodies our shared humanity. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we have Leslie Gluststrom and Richard Cleland virtually and Andrew Lac in person. >> Uh good evening council. Lesley Glustrm. I'm uh speaking from Northern California. So if I go away, it's because we lost service. Um I want to thank you for this opportunity. My name is Lesie Gluststrom. I do a lot of work on climate change. And so I would like

[13:00] to speak to the uh Excel letter that you'll be considering later tonight. But before I do that, I just want to say congratulations to everyone who was elected or reelected and just my deepest gratitude to all of the council candidates. I I always feel like we have a large number of really qualified people step up and I am deeply grateful for that in my community. It makes me so happy and so proud. So, so thank you very much. Um, and thank you so much to Councilman Shuchard and the staff that have worked on a the draft outline of a letter to Excel. I think it's excellent and given more priority and first and one the first of those is affordability. The second is resilience.

[14:05] to get electricity. But the next step both heating and transportation off of G natural gas rates have gone up and up and up shown. You've seen how exally while their sales have been flat. So when we're paying those monopoly prices, it's really bad from an equity point of view because there are many people who struggle to pay their utility bill and if we keep allowing >> and I'm afraid we couldn't hear every word, but thank you for your testimony. Quiet in the audience, please. Quiet. Quiet in the audience. All right, our next we have Richard Cleland virtually, then Andrew Lanck and Cindy Warren in person.

[15:04] >> Hello, my name is Richard Cleland. I am here to request that city council schedule a study session on proportional representation for city council elections. Many cities around the country have been adopting proportional representation for their city council elections. Portland, Oregon held their first proportional rank choice election one year ago, resulting in the most diverse city council in its history. Just this week, voters in Green Belt, Maryland, voted overwhelmingly to advise their city council to adopt proportional rank choice voting for city council elections. Our current system of atlarge plurality voting dilutes the voting power of voters with minority opinions. Proportional representation is a proven reform that helps nearly all voters elect a candidate they support. This results in a city council that

[16:00] represents a much larger cross-section of the city. In the case of Portland, Oregon, about threearters of voters saw at least one of their top three candidates elected. The trend towards proportional voting methods which result in better representation is an encouraging sign for the health of our democracy. I would like to see Boulder explore this possibility. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we have Andrew Lanck and Cindy Warren in person and then Lara Gonzalez virtually. You still on here? Yep. Um I am here to congratulate you all on what you're doing with the Sister Cities Project because in my mind what you're doing is you're actively waging peace. U my name is Andy Lennick. Uh like Ulana, I'm the child of immigrants. Was raised in the Ukrainian culture. I lived in Boulder between 2010 and 2016 when I joined the Peace Corps and was requested and and

[17:01] was assigned to Ukraine. So I've got tons of contacts there and I I you know, unfortunately the war has given me a purpose. not the way I want to spend my retirement years, but uh what I'm doing and what all of us that are working for Ukraine, inclu including you as uh the sister city initiative, um we're creating peace. And one of the things that that I do now, there's a number of programs I'm involved in, but ironically, or maybe not, maybe providentially, I teach two classes of Ukrainian students in Venitzia Pedagogical University, which is where Gay Logan is doing so much of her phenomenal, phenomenal work. And uh if you saw these kids, you know, they're 16, 17, they've been living in a war for almost four years now. And all they want is peace. They just want to lead their lives. And so the sister city initiative is is giving them that opportunity that that little hope and uh within the 36

[18:01] seconds that I have left. I would love to invite the council either individually or as a group to meet with my students in Venetsia. Uh we meet 00 and Thursdays at 10 o'clock and I usually have guest speakers and and you just listen to these kids and what they want. There are many many connections to Boulder. Congratulations for what you're doing. Congratulations on those of you who were reelected and thank you so much for waging peace. Thank you. Okay. Uh now we have Cindy Warren in person and then Lara Gonzalez and Par Fuster Aguilera virtually. I'm Cindy Warren and I'm concerned about Excel's coal ash remediation. Excel plans to process 2 million tons of coal ash at Belmont Power Station over a 10 to 12 year period. Coal ash contains particulate matter as well as heavy metals and radioactive elements. These

[19:00] are all associated with a wide variety of cancers and chronic health issues. There are also environmental justice concerns. A major risk associated with the remediation is that coach will become airborne and spread throughout Boulder and the surrounding area. It's important that air quality monitoring is performed during the remediation to ensure that doesn't happen. To date, Excel has not agreed to voluntarily provide air quality monitoring. Excel's engineering design and operations plan, their EDOP, was recently denied by the solid waste division of CDPHE. They noted the EDOP lacked adequate operational procedures and failed to address community concerns regarding air quality and fugitive dust. The denial included 13 pages of comments regarding specific deficiencies and omissions, many of which concern protection of Boulder citizens and environment. The EDUP was developed and authored by XL and their approach to the remediation is reflected in its proposals. In my opinion, the measures proposed are not sufficient to safeguard the health of Boulders's residents and wildlife. Although XL has previously removed coales from empoundments, it currently appears that Valmont Station will be

[20:01] their first large-scale comprehensive coales remediation project. It certainly won't be their last as they have multiple power plants across Colorado as well as in other states. What happens in Boulder now represents a consequential moment potentially establishing a precedent with significant impacts on other communities. We're acting not only on our own behalf, but on behalf of those less equipped to advocate for themselves. Securing Excel's funding for adequate independent air quality monitoring is an essential step toward safeguarding public health and environmental justice both locally and elsewhere. If air quality monitoring is ultimately not required on the permit and Excel refuses to voluntarily fund it, statewide legislation should be pursued. The legislation should ensure that all comprehensive coal remediation projects include adequate air quality monitoring with costs borne by the responsible party. Note that if no monitoring occurs, the public will be unaware of potential exposure issues and correct your >> time is up will not take place. >> But thank you for your testimony and quiet in the audience, please. >> All right. Our next two virtual speakers are Lo Gonzalez and Patty Frag Aguilera.

[21:02] And then we have Evan Rabbitz in person. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. I was unjustly arrested and kidnapped from my home in the middle of the night on September 4th. This was due to practicing my first amendment right to assemble, right to petition, and a right to critique or elected officials as I and many Boulder community members have done over two years now. We the people have a right to petition our government as many times as we wish to represent us. We have a right to bring up accountability to our elected officials who continue to invest our local city taxes and investments that violate domestic and international law. Each city council public meeting since October 7th of 2023 has demonstrated that the majority of we the people demand at a minimum a ceasefire resolution which not only you refuse to recognize this as what it is a genocide which was recognized on September 2nd by the International Association of Genocide Scholars including Israeli

[22:01] scholars but you abuse your power to sustain our complicity and keep the money flowing. Instead of representing the majority, you have spent hours creating fascist rules policies and abusing laws to silence those who speak the truth about the murder of settler colonies of Israel and the United States. Just like the sanist did when they signed the Hava agreement in 1933 with the Nazi regime. We want actions and we the people demand to divest from corporations that aid and abet a foreign government who's committing the worst human international crimes in his history. Not just genocide, but apparite and ethnic cleansing. How dare you say that you don't get get involved in global matters yet you choose to continue paying for it? How dare you say that you want to focus on local matters such as climate if the missions of this evil genocide and echosite will impact us sooner than later. Beyond divesting, we the people demand that you sanction any governmental, educational and nonprofit institutions that are violating domestic laws such as the Lehi law and international laws uh as the Geneva and Genocide Conventions. We demand that the nonprofit status of the Jewish community center be revoked as they are funing tax exemp dollars to fra

[23:01] military which is committing gross human violations. We demand that the nonprofit status of the boulder rabah is revoked. They proudly state on their website showing Bengurian's visions for settling in the negv. We should be ashamed to supporting colonial settlement 21st. >> Time is up. >> All right. Our next virtual speaker is Patty Fra Aguilera. Then we have Evan Rabbitz and Lynn Seagull in person. Hi, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> First, I want to thank Rob Smoke for running because he is right. People shouldn't have to ask twice to stop a genocide. After two years, Israel keeps bombing. Israel keeps blocking aid and starving and killing children. Israel keeps committing genocide and you city council members choose to keep making money out of it. Winner asked the other day, "Why are people not celebrating the ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners?"

[24:01] Palestinians are also hostages. As you know very well that the IOF brutally abducts Palestinian men, women, and children without charge or trial. That is being a hostage. Exactly what ICE is doing here with our immigrant siblings. And we are all appalled by it, right? You know that the technology used on checkpoints in Palestine is the same being used here by ICE too. They test it on Palestinians and use it here with us. So even for your own sake, you should be doing something about this. Oh yeah, but wait. Boulder kids spending over 100K yearly on FL cameras helping eyes on their abductions. Congratulations on that. 160 years after the San Greek massacre, Benjamin celebrates his electoral win, right after incarcerating an indigenous

[25:00] pe person of Abbyala. We see you and Boulder perpetuating harm to indigenous peoples. You should be doing actual reparations, not perpetuating harm. And Marcus, you said that you were going to work on the anti-Islamophobia declaration. How is that going? Please address this. Congratulations, folks, because you're getting out of this fascist government. And I hope that you realize that the censoring that you voted for now directly affects you and your voice. Free Palestine. >> All right. Thanks. Now we go to Evan Rabbitz, Lynn Seagull, and James Duncan in person. >> The city's biggest investment is 200 million in US treasuries used for all federal operations. And Trump's priority is his Gestapo and prisons. We should invest locally and morally. Fifth in my series, the truth about council lies. Tonight, council's

[26:03] chameleon, Matt Benjamin. The progressives endorsement email claims Matt was the head of Fisk Planetarium, not his colleagues said he managed educational programs. A few years ago, Matt told the old Boulderbeat that he was chairman of the city's campaign finance and elections working group that I was also on. We didn't have a chair. I confirmed that with fellow group members Steve Pomerance and Alan Fineberg. Matt told Lesie Glustrm here in front of me that problems with the online petitioning the working group and voters approved overwhelmingly in 2018 were because of me. The actual problems are shown with video and audio at tinyarirl.com/petition

[27:02] story. This system has now wasted a million dollars. The hushedup scandal precipitated the departures and expensive replacements of the city manager, city attorney, and city IT director, all of whom lied to council and public. At the League of Women Voters uh debate, Matt hilariously claimed that Table Mesa Shopping Center is a 15-minute neighborhood. It's not a neighborhood at all. Nobody lives there. It's 3/4 parking lot. It's all sprawl. Your time is up, but thank you. All right. Our the rest of our testifiers are in person. So, we got Lynn Seagull, James Duncan, and then Michael Jones. Lynn Seagull, where to start? So long. I just want to scream. But of course, I can't scream because no one ever

[28:01] listens. No one ever responds back to emails, to calls, to long-term everything. It's faking ridiculous. Um, and the progressives, there aren't progressive everyone. It's better, bolder, old, open, bolder, engage. It's all plan is all mixed up now. We don't have any opposing groups anymore. It's all just mush. Um, seems like there like needs to be a lot more direct communication. Like Matt and and Evan can be talking together. You know, that's not happening in our community. You know, I I was walking down Sixth Street, my street, the other day, and I saw this guy. I thought it was Lou Diamond. I said, "Is that you, Lou?" and he said, "Get the away from me." I mean, that's quote unquote. I didn't say f u ck, right? Okay, that's what he said to me. Um, and I I don't blame him. His wife was killed. But you

[29:01] know what I said back to him? I said he wouldn't be alive if it weren't for me because I was 15 feet from the attacker and the people and he was spraying at them and I sit separate from them because I always stay behind them a little bit. Um, if he had deployed the other 16 Molotovs that he have, 14 of them and from the newspapers, another 10 would have all been killed and me included. I'm sure he looked at me. He didn't want to kill me. You know, I was scared to hang around there afterwards. Um, this is the kind of thing that happens in this community and it's just not reasonable. And I mean, it's it's horrific. it and it came to that extreme and there was no declaration yet there was a anti-semitism declaration you know what WTF you know um and today I'm at the county commissioners watching someone trying to keep their stuff at >> your time is up but thank you

[30:00] >> thanks >> okay last three speakers are James Duncan, Michael Jones, and Daniel Howard. Thank you, council. My name is James Duncan and uh appreciate all the work that you guys do. Congratulations uh on your the campaigning. I echo Leslie Glustester's sentiments. Um and um uh first off, I want to uh address the Ukraine. U there Ukraine I'm crane. Um and uh um there's a much of a narrative war going on as as a genocide. By the way, a genocide is the crime of crimes, right? While that's happening, we should uh do everything we can to put a stop to it. As a matter of fact, I don't know if you heard uh part of the narrative war that

[31:00] Microsoft has terminated part of their their program to fund Israel and supply Israel with surveillance tech uh te techniques and uh programs so that they know they know full well and they're pulling back. So that that's says something to you. Um here was uh something from the uh independent community um democracy now it's where a guy says when the ceasefire or the so-called ceasefire was negotiated the idea was that the US would act as a guarantor and that it would compel Israel to abide by its commitments. The reality is that killing hasn't stopped. This is not a ceasefire. The killing hasn't stopped. The starvation continues. The aid that's going on is nowhere near what's needed. There's no ability to allow Palestinians to go back to any semblance of a dignified life. And so the reality is

[32:02] that the narrative is of a ceasefire. The reality is of a continuation of the genocide. So it's very important to get your news. My shirt says don't trust corporate media and the KGNU. >> Your time's up. But thanks. Last two speakers are Michael Jones and Daniel Howard. Uh, good evening. Appreciate the opportunity to address you and uh, I'm sure glad I'm not in municipal government anymore. I don't know how you guys do it. Uh, I live at 3003 Valmont in the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park. That's really has nothing to do with the concern that I have which is really about ebikes, scooters, uh electric skateboards and other conveyances of that nature. And uh I

[33:00] have had a number of very close calls with uh the writers of those types of of uh of those types of uh machines through the last 12 years. I've been in Boulder 12 years now and the second week I was here I called the police department to ask just what my rights were as far as bicycles are concerned given that I'm driving a vehicle and I was told and this was a quote I don't know the officer's name but the the advice given to me was make sure you've got a witness if you happen to cram you know hit somebody I was in involved in a hit-and-run accident at Pearl and uh Pearl Parkway and 30th in uh 2018 where a vehicle hit me as I was going through on my motorcycle. That's another matter. I at least was wearing a helmet. I see very few people that are uh on any of those conveniences that I described that are wearing any sort of protection

[34:01] whatsoever. That's that's certainly up to them. I understand the state statutes on that. But I'm concerned about the fact that uh not the fact but my belief that there is no enforcement whatsoever regarding who is using bicycle lanes or not who are riding their vehicles be they pedled or electric on sidewalks not dismounting from their uh conveyances when they use pedestrian only crosswalks etc. There's there seems to be a real uh sense of entitlement amongst uh anybody that's not >> your time is up but but thank you. >> You get my drift. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Our last speaker is Daniel Howard. >> Is Daniel present. Doesn't look like it. Um unless they're online. Nope. Don't see them there either. So that brings us What's that Ta? Um, mayor, I believe that Daniel

[35:01] sent an email in lie of coming because 30. Actually, they didn't indicate, but they had to work. So, I believe they sent a letter with their comments to >> We'll look for that email. Thank you. >> All right. Um, so, uh, that brings us to the end of the open comments speaking. Um, I'll turn to city staff to see if you have any responses. >> Uh, good evening, mayor, members of council. Uh, no followup for me tonight. Thank you. >> None from me. Any questions from council members to city staff? I I did have one. Um Shelby Bates spoke about not being able to see the timer on a in a ro remote meeting. Do we know if there's something we can do about that? >> Yep. And that is uh something that our city clerk team has addressed. The settings for that last meeting were set for speaker view versus gallery view. So we have corrected that uh for attendees. So they should be able to see uh all online participants and the timer. Thanks so much to our amazing city clerk team for dealing with that. Okay, so no other questions. Did any council members

[36:00] want to make a up to 30 second response to open comment? Seeing none, that will bring us to the full end of the open comment period, I'm going to go ahead and recess us and 30 for the business portion of the meeting.

[61:41] us back into order. And Elicia, can we do the consent agenda, please? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. The consent agenda is item number three on tonight's agenda, and it consists of items 3A through 3 I. I'll just say can we have a quiet in the audience please? We need

[62:02] quiet in the audience before we can continue. Thank you. Um okay. I actually want to start with a request to um pull item 3 I um off for a separate discussion. That's ordinance 8720 regarding Greywater. >> Second. >> Okay. I think so. Uh, Teresa, it's a requires a vote. Yes. So, I guess I I move that we um pull item three off the consent agenda for a separate discussion. >> I still second. >> You still second. So, all in favor raise your hand. All right. I got eight on that. Um, so I'll just address that. Um, folks hopefully saw the hotline that I put out um a few days ago. Uh we are um passing this ordinance tonight to come into compliance with state law. Uh that we must have gaywater regulations. Uh there was not time to put in comprehensive regulations uh in time for that. So my

[63:01] request is just that we have a 2-year expiration date for this. Um so that that'll give us a chance for council in two years to come back and check in and see if we would like to create regulations regarding interior fixture graywater reuse. So, I'll just go ahead and make a motion if folks don't mind that I'll move that we um uh adopt ordinance 8720 um amending chapter 1010 BRC1981 by adding a new section 10103 prohibition on the installation and use of graywater treatment works BRC1 1981 prohibiting gray water use by persons served through the city's water utility and setting forth related detail with the addition of an expiration date um for that ordinance of 12312027. Seven, >> thanks for bringing that forward, Erin. I um I won't be with you, but I would just say as you go into the next work planning session, it seems like a really good one-year work plan item that might

[64:00] be something could could be tackled by this council. >> Thanks. Any other comments before vote? Uh seeing none, this would be a roll call, I believe, Elicia, so if we can have that uh roll call on that motion, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the amendment and passing of ordinance 80 720 with Mayor Pro Tim Folks. >> Yes. >> Council member Marquis. >> Yes. Shuhart, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> Wallik, >> yes. >> Adams, >> yes. >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> And Mayor Brown, >> yes. >> Ordinance, Ordinance 8720 is hereby amended and passed unanimously. >> Great. Thanks everyone for entertaining that proposal. I appreciate it. Um, so

[65:01] let's now consider the rest of the uh consent agenda items 3A through 3H. Any questions or comments on the rest of the consent agenda? >> Yes, Taiisha. >> Um, I noticed the and I'm obviously very supportive of the sister city um recommendation and uh but I did remember um a conversation that we had months ago. There were some um concerns around um our sister city program and um specifically was around um the need to do to ensure that the current sister city programs are meeting the goals and are in um alignment with the goals. And so not sure what the status of that was. I mean, feel free. Some of my colleagues are are nodding, indicating that they also recall this conversation. And so, um, I'm not seeking to delay the approval of

[66:02] the Ukraine, um, sister city, but rather wanted to, uh, lift up that conversation. I don't know where we are on that, but I also noticed um the uh universal declaration of human rights is also a component of that. And so um just really want to make sure that we are in compliance with all of the sister city programs. Um and then I think that we had even talked about like getting a report on just act I think we already get annual reports, but um just wanted to lift that up and see what the status of that was. Thank you, >> Chris. Yeah. Uh, thank you, Me, Council Member Adams. And, uh, I do recall that conversation as well. And so, let me follow up and find out what the status of that is, and we'll get back to you, >> Tina. >> Yeah. And just following up with that as well because I share um some of the same concerns. We have some an ordinance around the sister city that's

[67:00] incomplete. it doesn't list all of the current sister cities and I believe it um will be up to council to give direction to um just to do a clean up around the program and um looking at the process and also starting to have more accountability on what the deliverables are that come from each sister city. So we have I think we have some uh not everything is tight quite yet. >> Good. Yep. I look forward to doing that as well. Seeing other no other hands raised, um perhaps a motion. >> Move the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Okay, Alicia, we've got a motion to second. Can we have a roll call on that, please? >> Yes, sir. We'll now have the roll call for the consent agenda items 3A through 3H. And we'll start that roll call with council member Marquis. >> Yes.

[68:00] >> Shuhard. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Yes. >> Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Bronett. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Pro Tim Folks? >> Yes. >> The consent agenda items 3A through 3II are hereby approved unanimously. >> Great. And I'd like to offer my thanks and congratulations to the Venitzia sister city organization. Really appreciate you all of your hard work on this and bring this forward and exciting to see the establishment of that new relationship and even a signing ceremony coming up before too long hopefully. So, thank you. Okay, let's move to our call-up check-in, please. Yes, sir. Our call-up check-in is item 4A on tonight's agenda. It is the consideration of a site and use review for the redevelopment of 1840 and 1844 Folsam Street with residential uses. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing office

[69:00] buildings and proposes 144 unit including studio one, two, and threebedroom units totaling 124,749 square ft. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for a 55- f foot in height modification to a setback number of stories and bike parking standards. The applicant has requested vested rights. This is reviewed under cases number LUR2024-000077 and LUR 2024 000078. >> Thanks Alicia. Any questions, comments, or desire to call this one up, Mark? >> Yeah, I I would like to call it up. Again, it's a function of size. When you get to 125,000 square feet, it's something that is of interest to me to see what they're doing and uh see if there's anything we can add uh to make it a more successful project.

[70:02] >> Anyone else? >> Not seeing any other hands. Mark, did you want to give a motion a try on that one? I move that we call up the development project of 1840 and 1844 Falsam Street. >> Is there a second on that? >> A second. >> Uh we got a motion and a second. Um and I'll just ask for a show of hands for all in favor of the motion. Got three. All opposed? Got five. So that that motion fails on a three to five. Um, so we won't be calling it up. Um, but I do, um, I did appreciate the planning board comments on this one as well. I thought they did a good job in looking at them. All right, then I think we'll move to our public hearing. Our first one, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Our public hearings are item number five on tonight's agenda. 5A consists of the following

[71:02] items pertaining to the 2026 budget of the Nwood Metropolitan District. Our first item is the consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Nwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors. And our next item is the consideration of a motion to adopt resolution one concerning the budget and its adoption for the year beginning January 1st. Our second item to be voted on is the motion to adopt resolution two which is establishing the nowood Metropolitin District property tax mill levy for payment of expenditures. Item number three is the consideration of a motion to adopt resolution three which is appropriating money to defay the expenses and liabilities of the district for the 2026 fiscal year beginning January 1st. And after lastly, our last motion will be the

[72:00] consideration of a motion to adjurnn as the Nowood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. >> All right, let the record show that council member Terara Winer has entered the chat or joined the meeting. Um, okay. So, I think for this one we need to start with the motion on the screen if someone would be willing to make that. >> I'll give it a crack. All right. I make a motion to adjurnn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Nwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion to second. All in favor raise your hands. That's unanimous. Nine. All right. So, we are now convened as the Nwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors when I think I will now turn to the city manager for a presentation. >> Thank you so much. And uh >> Deputy City Manager. >> That's right. Uh and good evening board members. Now as we're operating as the Nwood Metropolitan District, uh Joel

[73:01] Wagner, our deputy finance director, is here uh uh to present this item and has really been carrying uh a lot of this transition of the Nwood Metropolitan District to the city. So Joel, take it away. >> With incredible support from our city attorney's office and uh many others uh in our accounting division as well. So good evening, directors. Uh Joel Wagner, uh deputy finance director. So uh tonight we're presenting the Nol Metropolitan District. Because we are a metropolitan district, we uh have to follow the Col Colorado revised statutes. So we're having a separate public hearing for this separate from the city's bud budget. Uh so next slide, please. Uh so we'll do a little bit of background tonight. You'll have to bear with me. uh this is the first time the many folks in the public and and yourselves are acting as null would so we're going to do a little background we'll get to the budget and the motions uh and then the regular questions uh comment period and then and then the

[74:01] motion so uh next slide background we can move to the next one uh so for a little orienteering uh Nwood is a small neighborhood right at the mouth of sunshine canyon on the way to Mount Cenus and uh red rocks and and trail heads Uh, so if you've ever driven up towards Sunshine and made a accidental left and ended up in a neighborhood with a bunch of no parking signs, you probably entered Nwood. Um, next slide. So, uh, a little brief history. In 1965, the water Nwood water district was formed to provide water to these 47 houses, uh, which was at the time was located in Boulder County. In 2015, uh it was expanded to a metropolitan district to add street improvements, snow removal, and traffic protection to services uh by the newly formed Metrop Nolan Metropolitan District. And in 2019, the city and the district signed an annexation agreement to provide public services and improvements, specifically water infrastructure to the

[75:00] neighborhood. Next slide. Thank you. Uh, so under the terms of the annexation, the metropolitan district would finance and build water improvements and connections to the water city system, the city, I'm sorry, city water system. Sorry, Joe. Uh, the city would assume road maintenance duties, fire protection, other normal duties of the city. Uh, the district was allowed to continue providing snow plowing services because there's some steep roads there. and uh the district would be dissolved for all purposes except repayment of the debt within 5 years of the annexation. So that takes us to our next slide and uh the district is uh we currently have uh two loans outstanding um for a total of $2.7 million. Uh the largest of the loans uh matures in 2039. So we've got a little while in front of us as as this board. Uh, next slide. So, uh, you may all recall, uh, last

[76:01] October approving a dissolution IGA with the district as city council. Um, in March, the Boulder County District Court approved the dissol uh, ordered the limited dissolution of the district and in April, council adopted the court order and adopted bylaws as the board of directors. So, next slide. um under the the limited duties of the district. Now, basically, it's repaying the debt and then duties related to being a a metropolitan district. So, annual reporting requirements, um carrying insurance, doing annual budgets, things like that. And next slide. So, taking us to the 2026 budget, I'm going to go a little bit backwards before we go forwards. Uh so, we're going to look at the 2025 budget for just a moment. And this is a bit of a preview. who were going to be back in front of you in in December. Uh the original budget was adopted uh in 2024 uh by the then board of directors. Uh

[77:00] total revenues of $196,000 and total operating expenses of $260,000 uh leading to a a net deficit which was covered through fund reserves. uh there was a bit of an accounting uh error in the the budget and then the forecast went uh a little bit higher than expected. Uh so we do uh we will be coming back in December with a budget amendment for you all. Uh uh the difference uh is about $11,000 in beginning fund balance. So we're getting a little low on fund balance. We'll talk about that in 2026. Uh but just that's a little preview for where we're where we are today. And so next slide please. Um the district is funded by mill levies. We have two mill levies. Uh general general operating which began uh close to 3 mills uh has been reduced to 1 mil and that's where we are today. Uh that district uh or that one is still uh

[78:01] bound by Taber restrictions. So we can't increase that without uh a vote. Uh but the debt service mills uh are are not bound by by Taber. They were they were held to uh Teresa will correct me with the language if if I need to, but basically we can we can adopt a mill levy to cover our debt service. Uh so you can see those those mills were as high as uh 24 mills in 2021 uh fell to a low of 15 mills in 2025 and then uh we're uh proposing a budget with a total of 20.57 mills for 2026. So, next slide, please. The 2026 budget uh consists of an operating fund and a debt fund. Uh again, the operating fund is bound by that 1 mil. So, that's about $11,600. Uh the the debt fund, the 19.57 mills, is just enough to cover our debt obligations. So, we expect at the end of

[79:00] 2026 to have a a small net uh surplus of $1,600 and keep building our reserves back up a little bit. Right. Next slide, please, is the mills. So, uh, the mill resolution will be to continue the 1.0 operating mills and increase our debt mills to 19.57. And again, that's just enough to cover the, uh, the debt service for the year. And next slide. So, uh, again, the proposed motions, we'll just fly through these pretty quickly. Uh, the first one is adopting the budget for the fiscal year. Motion two uh is setting the property tax mill levy at that total of 20.57 mills. And then the third is uh appropriating money to to pay for the expenses. Any questions? >> Thanks Joel. Any questions for city staff on this? Tina,

[80:00] >> does the do does the district um provide snow plowing into perpetuity or when the district terminates or dissolves entirely? >> Uh that's a great question. Thank you. So, uh the uh Nwood um neighborhood formed a homeowners association and the homeowners association will be continuing snowplowing services. Not seeing any any other hands raised, we will go to the public hearing. We have one person signed up to speak. They will get three minutes. So, uh, Lynn Seagull is our one and only speaker in person. >> Lynn Seagull sounds reasonable to me. Free Gaza. Then we can actually have some budgets that are good for us. Some money >> public hearing. Yep. That's the subject. That is on subject. Exactly. >> This is our money. You're asking me what I think. I'm saying I think it's reasonable, but we need to divest. We need money that we're >> need to speak to the Nolan Metropolitan

[81:01] District >> for our own budget. >> This is your last warning >> now. Thank you. Bye. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh that ends the public hearing. So, we'll come back to uh the board of directors here if anyone has any comments or Joel, if you could put that first motion up on the screen, please. >> Emily, we can go to the first. need to go back a few slides >> if anybody wants to make any comments or just start making motions. >> Uh I move uh that we adopt resolution one concerning the Nwood Metropolitan District adopting a budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2026 and setting forth related details. >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor, raise your hands, please. That's nine. So that's unanimous. Next slide, please.

[82:01] Anyone? I thought you were on a roll, Mark. I'll take it. All right. Uh, I'll make a motion to adopt resolution two establishing the 2025 Nwood Metropolitan District property tax mill levy for payment of expenditures in part of the district during the fiscal year 2026 beginning January 1st, 2026 and setting forth related details. >> Second motion to second. All in favor, raise your hands, please. That's unanimous. 90. Next motion. Don't be shy. There we go. >> I move we adopt resolution three appropriating money to defay the expenses and liabilities of the Nwood Metropolitan District for the 2026 fiscal year beginning in January 1, 2026 and setting forth related details. >> Second motion and second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. 90.

[83:01] Next slide, please. We will now need a motion, the consideration of a motion to adjurnn as the Nowood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> U motion to second. All in favor, raise your hand, please. And that's unanimous 90. Okay, Joel, thanks so much for getting us through that. Thank you. Appreciate your work. Okay. Can we go to item 5B, please, Elicia? >> Yes, sir. Thank you and welcome back. Our next public hearing is item 5B and it is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8712 amending chapter 4-20 fees and chapter 8-9 capital facility impact fee and adding a new affordable housing impact fee rate for certain single unit

[84:00] residential developments and setting forth related details. >> Chris, you want to kick us off? I'll kick us off here and I'm going to actually uh turn it right over to Kurt Fernhabber, our director of housing, human services to introduce this item. >> Uh good evening, council. Uh again, Kurt Fernhabber. I support the Department of Housing and Human Services. I'll just give a a brief uh introduction. Um tonight, we're going to be led by by Sloan Walbert who oversees the inclusionary housing program within the city of Boulder. and I'm joined by Jay Sugnet who's a senior policy uh manager for housing human services as well. Um so three years ago um this council um updated the inclusionary housing ordinance and one of the things that came out of that was an identification that there's a a housing type um that uh doesn't fall under inclusionary housing and doesn't contribute in any way um to

[85:01] IH um and that's um uh scrapes and large houses and and large additions um that occur in our our community. So earlier this year, we came to you in a study session. We looked at an impact fee that had been done around this and um a couple of you gave feedback to us um concerned with um how that would impact um modest homes and modest additions. So I think you'll see that we've um looked at addressing that and brought back to you um some a different approach uh that wouldn't impact uh such um smaller um or modest type additions. And um uh this um we we've also had quite a bit of uh community engagement um around this in the last year. And um of course we've had lots of different opinions about that. There's been a lot

[86:01] of community support for it and then there's also been questions that are similar to the ones that you brought. So with that I'm going to hand it over to Salone who will walk you through um the information tonight. Thank you. >> Thanks Kurt. Um I am Sloan Walbert. I am the inclusionary housing program manager and the purpose of the item tonight is to consider an ordinance to implement this impact fee on replacement homes and substantial additions to single unit dwellings. Uh the ordinance was passed on first reading on October 16th. So just as a quick agenda, I'll go through some of the background and cover the findings of the Nexus study. I'll cover the engagement that's been done and some of the comments we've received um go into the details of the draft ordinance and then end with some of the staff analysis that was in the memo. So, as Kurt said, the need to examine

[87:00] this type of development was identified by a pri by as a priority by city council back when the city was updating the IH regulations in 2022. Um and then in the spring this year, city council reviewed the findings of the nexus study. We had the consultant here um and provided some feedback on the scope and process. So as Kurt mentioned, the land use code allows the IH requirement to be waved for homes that are demolished and replaced within three years. As a result, almost all newly constructed detached homes within the city are exempt from IIH and um do not contribute to affordable housing in the community. So in practice, this means someone who purchases a property with an existing home and rebuilds regardless of home sizes does not have to meet inclusionary housing. Um, another part of this is that single

[88:00] family redevelopment in the city often removes a smaller relatively more affordable home and replaces it often with a larger very expensive home. Also, um, similarly, substantial additions effectively replace affordable smaller homes with larger, more expensive homes. Um, so one of the purposes of this impact fee is to just ensure equity and how residential development is contributing to affordable housing in the community. So here's just an example um to show the in what I would call an inequity in the current regulations. So the parcels shown in blue and orange were previously developed as one property with a single home. Um it was later split into two lots and redeveloped with two detached single unit homes over the last few years. The lot in orange received a

[89:01] waiver to inclusionary housing paid no cash and loo contribution. The parcel in blue was required to pay towards affordable housing. At that time they paid $47,000 towards affordable housing which by today's rates they would owe $90,000. So one is paying zero, one would today be paying $90,000. Um so just to give some background on impact fees. Impact fees are one-time charges imposed on developers by local governments to offset the cost of new development. The state law lays out the requirements to impose impact fees. Um, most notably, an impact fee must be based on a study which establishes an essential nexus between the impact of the development, the amount of the fee, and how the funds will be spent. The fee must have rough proportionality to the development's impact. Um, I just want to note that there was a Supreme Court ruling last year and there is some

[90:00] heightened scrutiny of impact fees and increased potential for litigation. um which is part of why we had such an extensive nexus study done. Um so on that note the required nexus study was done by Gru and Gruin and Associates um late last year they finished um they provided research and analysis service to explore the extent that these types of projects contribute to the need for affordable housing. So the analysis shows that new or expanded single unit homes are valued at significantly higher prices than the older homes that were replaced, not only due to larger living spaces, but also the premium on new construction. And families and individuals purchasing these homes represent households at a higher income level than households that previously occupied the homes. And based on research, higher income households

[91:01] tend to result in an increase in personal consumption and spending which then generates additional employment. And a portion of these increase in workers are projected to live in low or moderate income households. So the report summarizes the estimates of those new workforce houses formed and the number of um affordable units required to house them. and then um they give sort of the maximum nexus fee calculations that would um be supportable by the study. So in terms of community engagement uh the the engagement plan was included in the memo, but just to kind of summarize um engagement's been going for about a year at council suggestion in the spring. An email containing information and soliciting feedback was sent directly to contacts, which would be owners, contractors, design professionals that were listed on a

[92:00] permit for a home replacement or addition within the last three years. So, I think it was about 400 permits. So, we solicited direct feedback from those people. Um, there's been a project website since October of last year. We've also done several newsletter updates. Um and we had a be heard Boulder engagement site that was active since June. So based on that feedback um some of the formal comments received really um reflected a divide. There was some that really strongly supported it. Um and then there were others that were very firmly opposed. So those in support really cited the need to preserve attainable housing in the city to ensure equity and fairness between residential development and then um just that need to contribute towards affordable housing. And those imposed stated that the impact fee would drive up the cost of already

[93:00] expensive market rate housing. Um it would unduly impact middle-income households that were just trying to improve their home. Um, and also just a viewpoint that the city should be making housing development easier and cheaper. But overall, there was support for exemptions for um more modest additions, modestsiz homes, and accessory dwelling units. Um, so on the board review, the housing advisory board considered this in late August. They voted 5 to one to recommend the ordinance and then planning board reviewed in September and they unanimously recommended approval. So essentially the impact fee would apply to two scenarios as I've described. The first is that demolition and replacement those are the projects that are receiving a full waiver to inclusionary housing. The second is what we're calling substantial

[94:00] additions to um single unit homes that would be over 500 square feet. And in terms of just sort of some of the fee goals, our recommendation is to try and keep the fee structure simple and where possible implement it in the same matter as um existing impact fees. Um this would just help streamline implementation and really minimize the need for additional staff resources to implement. And um based on the proforma analysis analyses in the um nexus study, the maximum supported impact fee ranges from $11 to $23 per square feet. That really depends on the development scenario. So that depends on the lot size, um the specific construction type. So staff just recommends implementing the lowest supportable fee of $11 um instead of trying to do some sort of graduated fee scale um which we feel is

[95:02] just unnecessary. Um, just lastly, we're proposing an effective date of January 31st of next year, which gives a window of time for developers and homeowners to plan for this additional fee and also, um, time for staff to plan for implementation. So, as Kurt said, um, you know, we really heard those concerns about impacts on middle inome existing homeowners and families. And so we've given a lot of consideration to exemptions or credits that can be made for modestiz homes and more modest additions so that you're not disproportionately impacting um this component of the community. So as I said, our proposal is a flat rate of $11 per square foot of newly added floor area. Um, as with other impact fees, the project would get a credit for existing

[96:02] home size, the impact fee would not apply to homes under 2,000 square feet in total area. Um, the area of an accessory dwelling unit would be exempt and it would not apply to any sort of renovation of existing um, space. So, in this second scenario, it's also $11 per square foot. um an addition to a home of 500 square f feet of less or less would be exempt from paying the fee. This would be offered as a one-time exemption rather than trying to track communative totals of additions over time. Um similarly, the area of an accessory dwelling unit would be exempt and it would not apply to homes under 2,000 square feet. Um, so just to give some sort of spatial context, uh, 500 square feet is a pretty substantially sized addition. Um, this graphic is just intended to show

[97:02] that a 500 foot edition can accommodate two bedrooms or offices, okay? A bathroom and additional living area. So an average bedroom is about 100 to 150 square feet in size. So that's just to kind of give you an idea of what someone >> Sure. So um a 500 foot edition. I just was trying to make a point that it it's actually a pretty substantial addition that you could do at least two bedrooms, even three. You could have living area, a bathroom. Um and I was just saying that an average bedroom is about 100 to 150 square feet to give some context to what that looks like. Um, so just to kind of cover some of the analysis in the memo, as I said, the nexus study demonstrates that this type of development generates additional employment in the city and the demand for affordable housing. This is kind of

[98:01] paired with that shed rate which I described which is that rate at which homes are being lost from the attainable more affordable range which is being outpaced by the replacement rate of those attainable homes. Um, also as I talked about the program rules really create incentives for the demolition of smaller homes currently, um, which are, as I said, are more attainable and being replaced by more expensive homes. So, the recommended $11 rate was found by the consultant to support both our policy goals without rendering single family home replacement or expansion projects financially unviable. So just as an example on this chart on the screen, if you are doing a 750 square foot addition, the recommended fee would constitute constitute only 0.5% of the total project cost.

[99:00] Um so the fee is projected to result in approximately $1.2 million annually. the funds would be earmarked for affordable housing restricted solely to the construction, purchase, and maintenance of affordable housing. Um, and as we've sort of talked about here before, local housing funds are important because they can be leveraged two to three times with state and federal resources to create and maintain affordable housing in the community. Um, in terms of racial equity, uh, we all know housing affordability has long been a significant challenge in the city. Um, we did prepare a racial equity assessment, um, that was included in the memo. So, a tool like this impact view is important in addressing some of these inequalities and meeting our overall affordable housing goals. Uh it's important to note that residents of affordable housing in Boulder are more racial racially, ethnically, and economically diverse compared to the

[100:02] general population. They're also more um diverse in their ability status. And we know that housing is key in reducing intergenerational poverty and increasing economic mobility. So, one way to look at it is a one-time impact fee now can create affordable housing in perpetuity for residents in need of affordable housing. Um, so just to go through some examples for context, this is um an example of a demolition and replace. It was an approximately 3,000 square foot home built in 1956 that was demolished. The prior home was sold for $1.6 million in two 2016. An 8,500 foot home was built. The property is now valued at approximately 8.7 million. So with an impact fee including the credit for the prior

[101:00] square footage, they the the remaining 5,500 square feet at $11 per square feet would be $60,000500. Um, and if this was a vacant lot, they would the cash and ll contribution would be 130,000. So, it's about half of what the cash and loot would be. Um, in terms of an example for an addition, this um this home was approximately 2,000 square feet uh built in 1962. It sold for $910,000 in um 2021. They did approximately 1,400 foot edition. The home sold for 2.15 million in 2023. So, um it more than doubled in price over two years. Um, and if you were accounting for the credit for 500 square feet, the remaining 965 square

[102:02] feet times $11 would be $10,615. Um, so here's the motion. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thanks so much for that, Sloan. Appreciate all of staff's work on this. Uh, questions, clarifying questions for city staff chair. Uh, a quick question on community engagement. I did read the community engagement. It was super interesting. Did you actually contact firms that specialize in additions? >> Not directly, only if they were listed on a permit as a contact. So by default many of the people we contacted but we didn't um you know seek out specific firms to >> because I would think that they would be the ones that I would that's annoying that you're on they would be the ones that I would depend on to for the analysis of where to start.

[103:01] So I'm just saying okay that's my one question. Thanks, >> Mark. And then Nicole, >> um the $1.2 million we expect to collect on this, is that net of enforcement or um before >> I don't think that they included enforcement in their um estimate. It was just based on the average number of permits per year. >> Okay. So, so the actual >> square footage, >> the actual sum of money we're going to generate is going to be less. >> Okay. >> Can I call on that? >> Yes, please. >> So, presumably this is happening through the permit review process. Anyone who receives a permit would have paid the appropriate fees. So, when we're talking about enforcement, that would mean enforcement on people building without a

[104:01] permit. Is that correct? And is that something we sort of enforce differently and would have to go after anyway? I mean enforce differently in terms of regardless of whether or not we pass this tonight, >> we are t taking enforcement actions against people who build without a permit. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um my next question is that and I need somebody to check my math because I am notoriously poor at it. Um the memo states that the new fee is going to achieve equity between replacement homes and homes built on a vacant lot. Um and the calculation is of a fee of $53,690 for a new 3500 square foot home built on a vacant lot. Mhm. >> If you do a replacement home of 3500 square ft that used to be 2,000 square ft,

[105:01] um, is my math correct that the fee would be $11 per square foot times 1,500 new square feet or 16,500. Am I wrong on that or which is likely, but um I'm just asking. So you would get a credit for the former amount and you'd also get the 500 square foot credit. >> What do you mean by a credit? I try to understand but I can't. >> So whatever the size of the structure or home prior to demolishing is recorded and then you get that square footage as a credit >> in your new home. And that is the same for all impact fees, not just >> but in this case, you would also get the additional 500 square feet. >> So the the the replacement home of 3500 square ft that used to be 2,000 square ft. Am I correct that it comes out to about 16,500?

[106:01] >> People would have to do the math. >> I think it's 11,000. >> No, you get >> because you get the 500 credit. >> So it would be on a th000 square feet. So it' be less. Well, if if it's less, how are we creating equity between the homes built on a vacant lot and the homes that are replacement homes uh that start at about 2,000 square ft. One has a fee of um 53690 and the other one appears to have a fee in the range of 16,500. If that's not correct, can somebody please >> well >> illuminate that for? Yeah, I I mean I I think you're right. I think you have to consider that there was a home there before. >> So on the vacant lot that is inclusionary housing, you're taking an entirely new dwelling unit. This is taking into account the fact that there was a dwelling unit there. It just had different impacts. >> The only thing I'm reacting to is that the memo states that the new fee is

[107:00] going to achieve equity between replacement homes and homes built on a vacant lot. I'm suggesting that there's a large fee and there's a small fee and they're not going to be >> Can I call a >> equity? Please help me. >> So, I think maybe it's important to put out point out that that fee for the um new lot development is a current fee, right? Like, so it might not be that we're creating equal fees, but we are reducing the difference between no fee, >> okay, >> and a very large fee currently. >> Okay. I I I can accept that. >> I think Nicole's got a little something on that, too. >> As well, >> um I just I um I thought that part of the reason that it went down to $11 per square foot, which is the lowest that the Nexus study said we could do, was because we when we talked about it last time asked you to take it down from $15 an hour. Am I misremembering that? So it actually was reduced because when we started looking into how we

[108:01] implement impact fees across the city, there was a difference in how the consultant was looking at below grade floor area and how the city typically looks at below grade area. So we asked them to just bring those into alignment. So because we're we're actually including below grade areas in the calculation, it brought down the entire rate. So, it's the we're basically coming out with the same amount of money at the end because it's a lower rate applied to a greater amount of square footage. >> Just one or two more and I'm I'm done. Um, we're granting a lot of exemptions uh in terms of size, in terms of ADUs. Um, A, does the Nexus study actually permit us to do that? and B, um, are we not creating, uh, more pressure on affordable housing by getting a renovated 2,000 foot house? And can they also do the ADU on that? And >> yes, >> that that's a pretty substantial

[109:01] increase in value of that property. So, I'm wondering how is that consistent with our goals of um, keeping housing affordable? So it is consistent with the Nexus study. That is some of their recommendations. Um smaller sized homes and ADUs, they don't have the same um effects on employment and affordable housing that a larger home does. So that's some of the rationale for that. >> I'm I'm only trying to suggest that such a home would have a pretty good value to it. um if it was renovated 2,000 square ft and accompanied by an ADU um yet we're not taking that into account uh as we move forward. So um it seems to me that the the cost of housing is also being raised even by some of these smaller units. >> Sorry if I could just clarify Jay Sagnet with Housing and Human Services. So what

[110:01] what Sloan is saying the the Nexus study um ADUs accessory dwelling units are absolutely um part of the analysis. Those do not create that demand for additional affordable housing. Same thing with the 500 square ft. If you're adding an addition of 500 square feet or less, then the idea is it's not generating that same need. the 2,000 square foot minimum. That is a policy decision that staff is recommending >> to try to address some of the current concerns. >> And my absolutely last question is if you're generating a million dollars, um how many middle income units could that provide? >> I'm going to look at Kurt for that. >> Uh thanks for that question, uh Mark. So the um Uh currently our our rental housing um that is being built in the city um the

[111:01] city's contributing to the gap financing of typically between 100 and $130,000 per unit. Um so in that scenario um it be nine or 10 units that would be added each year to the city. Um, for middle inome housing, it's probably $250,000 gap. Um, and so, you know, five or six units. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. Um, Nicole, you had something? >> Yes. I have just a few questions and Kurt, these are probably in in your ballpark, too. Um, I'm just trying to get a sense of um who's going to kind of be impacted by this. I think the um the the photos of the house helped a little bit, but you I'm thinking about uh the me just a median income family of four, right? Um the median value of a single family home is about a million dollars, but the median income for a family of four is $150,000 a year. Um is it

[112:00] realistic that a family of four making the median income could buy a market rate home in Boulder without financial support at this moment? Um, so yeah, uh, Jay's probably more familiar with the data, but a middle-income family can typically, um, afford a a condo or a town home in in Boulder that that was built 25 or 30 years ago. >> Y >> um, new construction, um, uh, they would be more challenged by that. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. And and so um you know, thinking about a middle- inome family, if they're not even able to buy a single family home, then they're probably not going to to be impacted by this fee here. >> That's correct. >> Significantly. Okay. Um and then um I was just trying to look up some numbers that you probably know better than I do. um the percentage of um of households in our community um who are making um over

[113:00] say $200,000 a year, which might be more in the ballpark of being able to at least afford a market rate single family home. Um it looked like there were only about 20% of our city's households that were kind of in that category who could even buy a market rate home in our community for a fourperson household. So is it um and then it must be an even smaller group than that who could actually then remodel as well. So is it fair to say that this is not going to impact most families in our community? >> I I think it could impact um what you're calling middle inome families who have been in their house for 10 or 15 years and would be making an addition, you know, larger than 500 square feet. Um, but I think you'll you also note that um uh an addition of a thousand square feet is actually pretty significant. I'm not sure that they would that type of family would be able to afford that. Um

[114:02] uh so in in the city of Boulder, you currently need me need significant means to make an addition probably larger than 500 square feet. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Matt and then Tina >> appreciate this. Um mind sort of come back my my question is circle back to maybe sort of the initial conditions or the goals. It it seems based on the examples provided and everything that we keep discussing that we're this is really meant to avert the flip of the home. Um the big home that gets flipped in two years. I mean the examples here were flips. And so I'm wondering like if that's really who we're targeting here is the is the flipper that buys either scrapes or does a significant remodel that has the means to do it as Kurt mentions and then puts it immediately back on the market. That's the sale pressure. That's the pressure on affordability is when the house sells. And so what I'm wondering is if that's really the goal, then why do we feel

[115:00] compelled to also allow for the collateral impact for those that are just staying in their home and just looking to make an addition because they've got a 265 foot home and they're like, "Geez, I've got a two-bedroom home. I've got two kids and we both work from home and need an office and an extra bedroom." Like, and they're looking to stay here. Why are we catching them up in the fee? And so that's my first question is if we're really targeting the flip and the real ex egregious examples that have been spent, then why aren't we targeting that and why are we catching everybody else up more or less in the in the net, if you will. So I'm just wondering why. >> So I just want to be really clear is the intent of the impact fee is not to change behavior. It's really just to address impacts. So, it just happened to be when I pulled those additions that they had sold and so I was able to pull those. But I didn't go out looking for flips that that just happened to be the ones that we I grabbed and I was able to look at that value. So, they are a component,

[116:01] but I wouldn't say that we're trying to change behavior in any way. >> No, but they're the most egregious on the housing market, right? the flips once they sell, they're the ones that have the highest pressure on the surrounding homes in their inflated evaluation, not the home that that doesn't sell with an addition because of the nature of that only scales up much slower and advertises over time than if you have a mediate home that flips and doubles the price and everybody else takes a massive high pressure. So, I'm not saying it's it's a it's a I'm just my question isn't about whether it's a change of condition where where the real market force is going and that's that's really the question. That's a market force question. Yeah, I'm not sure it's a question. I I mean I agree with you. I just don't think that that's something that we can address through this impact fee. >> Can I call aqu So correct me if I'm wrong, but our impact statement, it's been a minute since I read it, but are the that's based on sort of the goods and services that the expansion creates and the need

[117:00] for affordable housing. It's actually not based on the increased market pressures that might be created in the community. Is that >> No. Yeah. It's directly related to the amount of employment that's created by a home and then the amount of affordable housing. >> So that would have an impact even if the home was not sold if the family who does the expansion lives in it. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate technicality, but let's just be serious. This is about affordability, right? But that's what this is about. It's for the affordable housing fund. So in any event, like we can just call it what it is. My other question, >> can I call you first? >> Please go for it. >> So are you saying that you're not trying to change behavior, but >> Terra is your mic on? >> I don't know. Is it? No. >> Uh it's this thing that I hear myself. You're not trying to change behavior, but we're asking people who are making additions to pay for the impact that

[118:00] they're having, which by the way, I find a huge stretch. So, I guess my question is is it says according to the consultant's research, an influx of higher inome households increase increases local spending and economic activity, which I think is good, which in turn creates jobs, which I also think is good. So, and now he's saying it's bad because now we're going to charge people for it. And then my that's my first question. I don't like I guess either I don't agree with the entire Nexus study like concepts of this one or I'm not understanding why somebody who's building an addition has to is creating something bad in our community um when it sounds good to me. That's the first thing. And the second thing is do people what >> do you think we could pause and answer that question? >> I need help with that. >> Okay. So, we'll just I'd like to turn to our city attorney because I don't think we're making value judgments here about what's good or bad, but rather about offsetting the impact on housing. So, maybe you could address the what what

[119:01] the impact fee is is doing here. >> That's right. I I think it's really important that we continue to understand this is an evaluation of an impact fee. And as Sloan so succinctly and clearly put it, it is the impact that is created in the community by the development. And so the fees are to help offset that impact. It's not a value judgment. It's not encouraging or discouraging something. It is simply saying these are the impacts that are created and we are asking that the people who are creating the impacts pay for some of those impacts. Not not even all but some. Thanks for that clarification. >> Terry, did you have another question or is that >> um I just want to finish. So that the

[120:00] impact is affordability as we're claiming. Correct. >> And >> no, the the Nexus study tells us the impact is more people doing more business, requiring more employees, which eventually results in the need for housing. >> Okay. The presentation was a little different on that front because it was talking about how there was a displacement of the home and now the new home is more expensive and the previously less expensive one has been displaced or not there anymore. So that that's painting an affordability picture less an infrastructure or or service impact. So I'm just trying to be clear. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to tell I'm trying to tell the story that you that that often occurs and they're pay my the reason for me telling that story is that those people are paying zero towards affordable housing. So I was trying to paint the picture that there

[121:01] are people in the community that are paying towards inclusionary housing and there are people who are taking what would be market rate attainable and paying nothing towards attainable housing. when you're looking at the actual rationale and fee that's based on the actual impacts of the development looking at the development and what its impacts are. So I'm sorry if that caused confusion. >> Fair. I I appreciate that clarity. So just just to finish up, my last question would be would it be then maybe perhaps most of most or would it be appropriate to ask if this were money based on the displacement of what was perhaps more attainable middle inome housing and the impacts with that and it's to go to the affordable housing fund. Would it be appropriate that that be specifically targeted towards Mark's point towards missing middle or middle inome housing actually targeting the displacement rather than just sort of going into a general pot? because then that's more specific as to the type of housing

[122:00] that's being displaced and encouraged and who we're who we're focused on there. >> Right. Well, so so the actual fee and the rationale is in the study, but how you how that money is spent in the fund is a policy is a housing policy discussion if that makes sense. So >> So we could we could make that a condition if we wanted to. It would be a pol a policy discussion. It wouldn't be a part of the the ordinance. Okay. If that makes sense. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Tina. >> Yeah. Um my question was a little bit like that. In the analysis of the Nexus study, they make an assumption that about 60% of the people who are have new jobs as a result of the impacts of the of the new homes >> are ownership middle inome people. And I'm curious as to whether there is an

[123:02] effort when you have a nexus study that makes an assumption like that to mirror the collection of revenue to house that type of housing ownership and middle income. >> You want to I'm going to lean on the policy experts. >> And I also thought it was interesting that the assumption was that 60% of middle income live in ownership homes in Boulder. because I'm not quite sure about that. >> Yeah. So, I'll just give one clarification. Um I'm not sure we're going to be able to fully answer your your questions around that. Um we we do what the impact study shows is that there's jobs that are created. Many of them are service jobs. So, there's a variety of job types that are created. Um what we do know from like Dr. COG studies though that the residents who are in the 30 to 50%

[124:00] AMR range are where the biggest need is in the community. So I I think there could be um challenges in trying to identify a direct relationship between the funds that come through this that would come through this ordinance with tying it to the impact study. Um, typically our affordable housing funds come from different sources and we use them in the ways where we have the highest needs in the community. Okay. And then a a different question is so you mentioned at the beginning that some of these nexus studies are sometimes challenged and in this case because the one of the assumptions is that about 60% of the jobs created by the impact of these new valuations and the or the new type of housing created with the demolition or the remodel. 60% of those people will actually live

[125:01] in Boulder. of those people with new employment and then that 60% would be in ownership homes. Are those assumptions that we feel does accurately reflect what happens when we see those new jobs or do do most people are we able to get 60% of those new jobs living in Boulder? So I'm not an economist, but I think that it it's hard because the analysis is sort of done in an economic model based on economic data. So it's not a direct reflection of what we're actually experiencing in Boulder. So my understanding is there's not a large risk of um challenging the findings of a nexus study. there is risk of people challenging an impact fee because you haven't done a nexus study and you don't have a strong legal backing for the impact fee. I don't know if I've

[126:00] captured that correctly. Um and I do think Colorado is different because we've had a requirement for a nexus fee for or a nexus study for a long time. Other states haven't. And so I think that was part of the um Supreme Court ruling was that that's an important part of impact fees. >> Okay. Okay. And then my other question was for this nexus study is and for our fee is there any limit to the size of an ADU? >> We did consider that um but determined that it wasn't um really advantageous to do that. That if you're building an ADU and you're building it to the requirements in the land use code, then we're going to assume that you're not um that you're not creating the need for affordable housing. >> Okay. That is a possibility. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right. So, that's our questions. Thanks for answering all of those. So, we are going to go to the public hearing now. We've got eight people signed up to

[127:00] speak with a mix of inerson and virtual. Each person will have three minutes to speak. We read our public participation guidelines earlier. Our first three speakers are Lynn Seagull in person and then virtually Graham Steers and Chelsea Castellano. Well, um start with um at $750 a square foot um and with Trump now we're going up towards a th000 a square foot. 11 bucks is nothing. This is like crumbs. Like, why can't we do something more quicker before the atomic bomb comes with all of our audacity in Gaza and all the military we're spending? We need time is

[128:02] not on our side. What we need in Boulder is the cost of an average person to live here in in terms of all the services they use. What the how what the demand for the jobs is going to be for all those services. Um like how specific it has to quantify everything. you know, some are going to be a little bit higher income jobs, some are going to be, you know, really high income jobs, but a lot of them, especially the the houses that are excessively expensive, have a high demand for services that are very low paying, right? that this is like I feel like, you know, I'm insulting your intelligence because like this is so obvious. Everybody knows this stuff, you

[129:02] know, so please excuse me. um at the risk of stating the obvious, but how you put that into some kind of a reasonable impact fee that's actually going to um create something that you want is is sort of complicated, but it has to start at a higher much higher figure because the impacts we're having with the Sundance coming here and with all of the massive growth growth that's going on is this is a huge like burden for us to change things to ever get towards the missing middle even approach it. Um, and I agree with Kurt in a way that it needs to be going towards the lower end, like the the funding that comes in from this. But the point is, we need a lot bigger funding

[130:01] to start with. Like, if we weren't doing our military with killing people in Gaza, we'd have plenty of funds to do all of this you know, big time. >> Please, no profanity. And also address the ordinance in front of us. >> Um, all of this, you know, you know the colloquial. Um, we would have more than enough. There's more than enough for everyone. We have to spread it more fairly. We need a really decent high level impact fee. >> Your time's up. Thank you. All right. Now, we have Graham Steers and Chelsea Castellona virtually and then David sign in person. Hi. >> Hi. Excuse me. Can you hear me? Yes. >> Yes. This is uh Graham Steers. I'm the owner of Milton Design Build, a local construction and architecture firm here in Boulder. Um I certainly appreciate this this group's efforts around this complex issue of affordable housing and

[131:01] it certainly needs everybody's attention. I I want to address two concerns I have with the ordinance uh being proposed. One is that it is a fee to middle income. Um, anecdotally, I'm thinking of homes particularly in the Martin Acres area where we often do aging in place additions or or pop top additions for multigenerational housings. I might note that the floor plan proposed by the city that the bathroom was not ADA accessible. Uh, one could not get a a wheelchair or walker through it. And we find that this is a common um, you know, impetus for an addition is to create an accessible space. Um and and I think those typically will exceed 500 square f feet. I think the average additions we're seeing in the area are closer to 700 square ft. Again, anecdotally, uh my second of the two concerns would be that behavior, consumer behavior would be negatively impacted and uh we would see an overall reduction in construction activity um and thereby negatively

[132:02] impacting the income of the trades folks um who rely on this on this construction activity for their their income and well-being who by the way don't live in the city of Boulder. They live in the surrounding areas. Um, and so any any policy to address the allocation of these fees, um, I I can't imagine would actually go to benefit the trades folks, um, whose jobs are generated by this construction activity. Um, if you know these these concerns aren't moving enough to vote no on the ordinance, I guess my positive suggestion or recommendation would be to twofold. one increased the square foot exemption from 500 to 900 to capture what I think is more of an average addition for middle income um 6700 square f feet for example and then the second would be to increase the small home exemption from 1,00 to more like 2500 square ft uh because the median in the medium square foot uh size

[133:02] of a home in Boulder is closer to 2400 square feet um and new homes are typically around 4,000 as a point of reference So, um, you know, in general, I'm running out of time, but I would say the city makes it really hard to do construction work, um, here and and this just sort of ladles on more expense and obstacle and cost. And I'd much prefer, um, a collaborative approach with the construction industry to help address affordable housing and not just adding fees. Um, so that's all. Thank you. >> Thanks. Now we have Chelsea Castalona virtually and then David Enzign in person and Aiden Reed virtually. >> Uh good evening Mayor Brackett, Mayor Prom Poker and council. I'm here in strong support of ordinance 8712 or a version that goes even further. This ordinance restores basic fairness. Today, a new house built on a vacant lot

[134:00] contributes to affordable housing, while a scrape or big expansion can sidestep that responsibility. That is a loophole, and this proposal is the right approach to close it. It's also carefully targeted with exemptions or credits that ensure those with the most modest homes are able to expand without additional fees, like a 500 square foot exemption, which by the way is half the size of my whole home. So, I think it's large enough. But look, we see this problem with our own eyes every day when we go and exist and walk around our neighborhoods. Small, modest homes aren't being replaced with slightly larger modest homes. They're being replaced with luxury mansions. The cost of a renovation is between $400 and $750 um dollars per square foot. So, this $11 square foot fee would only increase the cost of any project by 1 and a half to 3%. But we know that once that project is complete, the value of that home will have gone up significantly more than that, keeping it out of reach for the

[135:01] most uh for most families forever more. I mean, show me the family that lives in a house that's larger than 2,000 square feet who can afford a renovation larger than 500 square ft, but can't afford a 1 to 2% increase in cost of that renovation. That family simply does not exist. So, if you don't pass this tonight, what you are saying is that you're more concerned about the wealthiest in our community having to pay their fair share than those of us struggling to get by. It's also ironic that we're questioning the percent of workers who can live in Boulder, but the reason they can't is because it's too expensive and this fee would help address that. Boulder prides itself on perform on permanently affordable housing, but what we have a lot more of is permanently unaffordable housing. We can celebrate families growing in place here and still be honest that there's a real and permanent community cost when homes get much larger and more expensive. Ordinance 8712 asks for a small predictable contribution to meet

[136:01] that cost. Please vote yes on 8712 and even consider a higher fee. Thank you. >> Thank you. We have David Insign in person, then Aiden Reed and Lucy Carlson Crackoff virtually. Hello wonderful city council members. Um I'm David Ensign, 4020 Evans Drive, speaking tonight as a Boulder resident. As a 66 year old who grew up in a slightly above middle inome family, I feel deep discomfort seeing how much harder it is become for today's young adults to achieve the stability my generation enjoyed. It's staggering to see how the costs of education, health care, and especially housing have grown astronomically while wages have not kept place pace. Given how attainable all these things were for me, I could never support the outdated Reagan era economic

[137:00] narratives that created today's extreme inequities in wealth and opportunity. I'd ask each of us to reflect. If we had kids reaching independence today, could we help them buy a home with a loan or a gift the way our parents' generation could? I know I probably could. But would a recent CU grad from Alamosa, Chicago, or rural Iowa have that same advantage? Doesn't the growing reliance on family wealth start to look like a lot like generational nepotism? Please hold that question as you consider ordinance 8712. This capital facility impact fee is a modest, fair step forward, aligning our housing system with Boulder's equity values. This year, we've seen significant public interest in addressing the middle missing middle challenge, creating attainable home ownership for working families and young professionals. In our position papers, conference panels, and TEDex talks, we've acknowledged how complex the solutions are. Many of us

[138:01] agree that we shouldn't subsidize detached homes with yards in ways that weaken our inclusionary housing program or our goal of 15% af permanent affordability by 2035. This ordinance helps rebalance things, asking those with the means to expand their homes to contribute a small share towards keeping Boulder livable for the next generation. It's not a silver bullet, but it moves us in the right direction. And yes, we'll need to follow it with further work on land use reform and progressive revenue generation approaches. Finally, this week's election reminded us not to confuse the loud, grievance focused voices in the next door bubble with Boulder's true electorate. Boulder's voters are largely thoughtful, equity-minded, and prone to reward leadership that stands up for our shared values. Please join together to pass this important ordinance and take another step toward a more inclusive future focused Boulder. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. The rest of our speakers are virtual. The next three are

[139:01] Aiden Reed, Lucy Carlson Crackoff, and Nick Aguilera. >> Good evening, council. Uh my name is Aiden Reid. I'm here to speak in favor of ordinance 8712. I hope you pass this ordinance and support the expansion of more affordable, attainable housing for all. And finally, I'm deeply grateful to Council Member Fulkurtz for her contributions and work in making this possible. Thank you. >> Thanks. Now, we have Lucy Carlson Kov, Nick Aguilera, and Jill Grano. Hello, my name is Lucy and I live in a shared duplex near downtown Boulder that I rent with roommates. I'm here tonight to urge you to adopt the new affordable housing impact fee for single dwelling unit rebuilds and significant additions. It is a basic principle of fairness and equity that fees and taxes should not be regressive. In other words, they should

[140:00] not hit hardest on people who can least afford to pay. Our inclusionary housing program in Boulder provides desperately needed affordable housing, but right now that program is funded with fees that are unfortunately regressive. New multifamily development pays into this program and those costs are passed along to people who will buy or rent multifamily housing. This population is largely friends of mine who do not have high incomes. We are young people, seniors, and workers in Boulder. In contrast, currently single unit scrapes and expansions do not help fund our affordable housing. This is creating higher square footage housing, which is typically upscale luxury housing that many people in Boulder will never be able to afford. Yet these projects do not help pay into the affordable housing fund. We have to fix this and you can fix this tonight. Staff and consultants did a study showing a nexus between the

[141:01] scrapes and expansions and the need for more affordable housing. Therefore, this housing should pay into the program, too. Of course, nobody is happy about paying more fees, but affordable housing should not be funded solely on the backs of multifamily housing. Thank you all for your commitment to helping Boulder become more fair, more inclusive, and more equitable. And especially Council Member Folkertz. Thank you. Thanks. And our last two speakers are Nick Aguilera and Jill Grano. >> Nick, your mic is open if you would like to speak. >> Yes. Um, thank you. Am I unmuted now? >> Yes. >> Cool. Thank you all for confirming. Um my name is Nick Aguilera. I'm Boulder resident um for 5 years and hopefully many more. Um thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all. I'm speaking in support of ordinance 8712 because it restores fairness and closes

[142:00] a key gap in housing policies advancing Boulder's commitment to equity and affordable housing. I hope you all adopt this ordinance today. As you all know, right now um as presented by staff and extensive study, um extensive input from housing board, planning board, many others, when someone builds a new luxury home on a vacant lot, they are contributing to the affordable housing fund. But when someone demolishes a modest home and replaces it with something much larger, there is no comparable contribution. That's a regulatory gap. And ordinance 8712 simply closes it. This ordinance, as I said, is based on extensive work, conversation, study, and has responded to community feedback. It's carefully structured to avoid burdening, modest homes. Um, that's what the consultant and staff came back to present to you all. Um, homes under 2,000 ft, accessory dwelling units, and small additions under 500 ft² are exempt. Um, my partner and I are rent and wish we could afford

[143:00] a home in Boulder. We live in a 600 foot unit. Um, to me it feels great. I wish there were more options like this. Um, so let's be clear, this fee does not make housing or modest homes or for modest home moderate home owners more expensive. Um, housing is already too expensive for many working families. The ordinance responds to that reality by ensuring that when high injury development happens, a very small percentage of that project cost is returned to the community. We also have a moral responsibility. Right now, families who work in Boulder are living in uncomfortable conditions, competing for limited and expensive housing stock, or forced to move so far from their jobs and community networks here in Boulder. If we say we value families and people of all incomes, we need to support all families, including the most afford those um who are most affected by rising housing costs. Of course, this is not the silver bullet, and so much more needs to be done. Um but ordinance 8712 is an important part of that process. Um, it helps to once again advance so

[144:01] many of Boulder's goals. Um, it's a practical, fair, and necessary step to keep Boulder a place where people of all different incomes can live. Um, I urge the council to adopt this ordinance. I hope to see you all vote. Yes. Um, thank you for your time today. >> Thanks. Our last speaker is Jill Grano. Your mic is open if you'd like to unmute. >> Can you guys hear me? >> Yes. >> All right, there we go. Um, hey you guys. Uh, my name is Jill Adrano. I'm a longtime Boulder resident. uh also a local real estate agent and uh have worked with families every day who try to buy homes and stay here in Boulder for almost 15 years now. Um and I want

[145:01] to speak in strong support of ordinance 8712 because it addresses very real pressure on our community which is the rapid rise of high-end single family housing redevelopment, second homes and ultra luxury homes. We're already seeing luxury homes in Boulder assembled for rentals for Sundance. I'm happy to send you guys the website. Um, and in Park City, we know that these same luxury homes rent for 20 to 50,000 a week. Um, then that's not hypothetical. These are not homes that are being remodeled by 80 to 120% AMI households. These are multi-million dollar properties being leveraged as luxury assets, not as primary homes. And they absolutely contribute to housing demand, land inflation, and displacement pressures on the local workforce. As recently as 2020, we saw very few homes in Boulder sell for over $4 million. And

[146:01] now we have multiple 4 million plus dollar closings every single month. These are almost all homes that have been scraped at some point. It only takes a walk around most of Boulder's nicest neighborhoods to see this. This fee is long overdue and it's needed now more than ever. Opponents to this ordinance keep referencing that it's going to harm middle-income families. But as someone who works in this market every day, I I truly just don't see that middle-income families are not undertaking 500,000 plus tearowns or large additions. They're juggling. They're struggling just to find a 1500 to,800 square foot home that's under 1.3 million and most can't in Boulder. The people behind these major redevelopment projects are not teachers, nurses, city employees, or restaurant workers. They're high- netw worth buyers, investors, and second homeowners. $11 per square foot on a 500 square foot

[147:01] addition is the cost of one or two light fixtures. as many have said, it's about 1%. Um, and 500 square feet may sound like a small addition, but it's really not. The average living room in Boulder is about 300 square ft. A luxury master suite with a walk-in closet and a fivepiece l bathroom is about 500 square feet. Or you could get two bedrooms or a bedroom and an office easily within this. So it's not an ordinance. This is not impacting, you know, your everyday Martin family just trying to find space for their kids. This is really aimed at largecale high-end development. Um, >> your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Okay, so that's all of our speakers. Thanks to folks for coming and talking to us. I'll bring the uh discussion back to city council. I will note that we are at time for this item already. So, I

[148:00] would encourage folks to keep your remarks sufficient and brisk. And who would like to kick off our discussion? You have a follow-up question, Nicole? >> Um, sorry, just a question for um staff. The um builder, I believe, said that the um average square footage of a home in a single family home in Boulder was 2,400 square feet. Um, I was just wondering if that is has that gone up in the last 10 or 15 years. Um, because I'm like thinking about my 1500 square foot home. >> Um, we do know in terms of new construction over the last couple years, I think the average was 3,500 square feet. Um but in terms of the state average for new construction, um there was just a Denver Post article that it's about 2,000 square feet. >> But that and that was specific to the whole state, not >> that's for Colorado new construction. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Who wants to start a discussion?

[149:04] >> I know people have opinions. Did you want to >> uh Yeah. I mean, I'll just start with like stepping back for a little bit. Um, home a lot of the economic data coming from the US is showing that home building, home prices, we're sort of reaching the end of sort of the building cycle. And so, we're going to see things come down pretty hard. Um, and so we're already seeing that. We're already seeing homes down, new home construction down 6% year-over-year. Um, so, so we're still feeling that. And so that means people trying to build homes or do those remodels are feeling those economic pressures as well. So just stepping back and realizing we're adding a fee might be modest when times are at the hardest of this housing market at this stage. So I think it's just worth to have that that context. Um my big concern going forward is really simply about

[150:01] the impact here on affordability is more on the flip and the sale of the home than someone wants to just stay and live in it and make an addition. And so I know we can debate what number of those are and who who's doing that. But at the end of the day, if you're wanting to stay in your home and make an addition, we shouldn't make it more ownorous for you to do that. I I would much if we did it, I'd love to see us make permitting 20% faster so that they can get their stuff done sooner and not pay as much percentage on the loan they're getting and then have ample money to cover the fee and everyone's made whole. So when we think of these things, I'd like to see us think more holistically. Um, in that sense, we still have $2 to3 million sitting on the table because we're not charging parking at Shiitakqua and yet we're going through this process to find a million dollars for affordable housing perspective. So, so that's I may not judge on this, but there's a holistic picture that needs to come into play here. And I think sometimes we get stuck looking through a straw and that is to our own detriment um on some of these

[151:01] issues. So, I just wanted to clear the air on that one because it seems a little frustrating sometimes when we get stuck looking through a tiny lens. >> Okay, who else? Tara, first of all, there was a lot of really interesting discussion from the uh community. So, I appreciated the different views. I will say um I agree that we should have an impact fee on scrapes. I do. And if I wasn't convinced, I'm certainly convinced by a lot of the community tonight. I am just can't be convinced that an addition that you want to make for your family in Martin Acres, the the first person that spoke um from Melton, who has a lot of experience, by the way, said he would rather see at like 700 square feet, well actually he said 900, but I'm being I'm going to bring that down to 700 or 2400. he said

[152:00] for the um threshold. So rather than dissuade Martin acres people who spent a long time saving up, finally bought their house and now want to fit their family in it and the grandparents and then have two offices. I don't want to dissuade them from staying here. I'm only talking about a very small amount of people because a lot of people do flip and they should pay and they do scrape and they make these really large homes and they can afford it. But I just want to do something for this group of people who want to make additions for their extended families, families um who want to live with them. Besides, I'm not even going to talk about how I feel about the I already talked about how I felt about the Nexus study, so I won't even go there because it's really irrelevant at this point. So, I'm just asking council to consider just moving it up a little bit so that we are not

[153:00] saying to these families, we're going to aggravate you some more and give you more cause to move to Lewisville because frankly, we would rather have them here. That's it. So that's what I'm suggesting though. 700 square feet and 2400 for the uh threshold. >> Noted. Okay. I got Nicole and then Mark. >> So I I do hear the desire to make sure that households can afford to make modest increases. I get that. Um and and the fee that we're talking about here is structured to exempt modest homes, edus, and small additions. It's asking households and developers that substantially increase their wealth through these scrapes and rebuilds to offset the impact of their demand for workers and the housing that those workers need. Households do grow, needs do change, and sometimes a home needs to expand to stay functional. But let's be clear, if a household can afford a 2,000 ft addition, often costing $800,000 or more, they can afford a $16,500 fee. And let me

[154:03] The mic went off. I think it's back. Okay. Um, my f fourperson home is 1500 square feet. It's the home that we've raised our kids in. If we wanted to double its size, which would be weird because the kids are gone now, but if we did, the low-end renovation cost would be $600,000. By doubling the size, we would increase the value of our home by $825,000 using a modest estimate of 550 square ft um as the increase in value of our home. That means we'd get a $225,000 profit from our $600,000 investment, which would drive us presumably to spend more on services. Um, that profit is one and a half times the area median income for a fourperson household. Our impact fee would be 1,000 square ft times $11 or $11,000. That would be less than 5% of our profit margin, though, less than 2% of the cost of the project, which we couldn't

[155:00] afford, by the way, even with a household income above the area median and a home that's doubled in value since we bought it 16 years ago. Meanwhile, the low-income families that provide services for households like my hypothetical household that has doubled the size of its um home after spending a 600 $600,000 on a remodel and getting a $250,000 profit. They're doubling up right now in single wide trailers, couch surfing, living their cars, or leaving the city altogether because the impact on the workers whose services because of the impact on the workers whose services the home expansions and rebuilds are requiring. We already conceded. We already added to profit margins because of feedback from developers who were concerned we were eating into it. and we lowered the fee from $15 per square foot to the lowest possible fee the Nexus study identified, $11 per square foot. On my own hypothetical home expansion, that's a $4,000 difference. On a project that costs $600,000 minimum, that's less than 1% of our expansion project, less than

[156:00] 2% of the profit margin to offset the impact that a remodel has on our use of lowpaying service jobs and the subsequent need for more workforce housing. There are many working families with children in our community who can't make ends meet for month to month because we haven't appropriately addressed the impact that decades of luxury expansions and rebuilds have had on a demand for affordable housing. This is a modest fee on high-end development that increases demand for services. We already lowered this fee from the last time we talked about it. It won't impact modest remodels or ADUs. And we've been working on this for three years. I would actually love to go back to the $15 an hour that we had um initially talked about. Um I am okay with moving forward with $11 or uh per square feet. Um tonight, >> thanks Mark. I find it interesting that we are continually discussing uh afford the affordability of housing and we take

[157:00] step after step to make housing less affordable which is what this fee is going to do. But I I want to make a distinction. You know, if you're doing a 4,000 foot home and you're spending $5 million, this fee is not material to you. And I have no problem with assessing a fee of that kind. Uh if if you can afford to spend four or five million dollars on a house, you can afford this fee. And and there's no I have no issue with that. Where I do have an issue is with assessing a fee on people who have a 1,400 square foot house and want to increase its size and do not want to flip the house. They want to live in the house. And for those people um this fee is material and I do not understand why we cannot make certain accommodations um as um Tara suggested to make the fee a

[158:00] little bit less ownorous to the people who can least afford it. And whether that means um you know increasing the exemption um for a few hundred square feet um uh increasing the the other exemption from 500 square ft to 750 or 800. These are things we ought to be considering because we are trying to make housing more affordable, not less affordable. And that's what we're doing when we when we take smaller homes and impact them with this kind of fee without giving any consideration to the actual ability of those homeowners to pay for it or to provide them an incentive to do this kind of renovation and flip the house or even skip the renovation and just flip the house because there are high decked developers who would be more than happy to buy that 1,400 square foot home, pay

[159:02] the fee, and increase it very very substantially. So, I I wish we would at least bifrocate the conversation a little bit between the people who can most afford the fee and the people who can least afford the fee. And I don't think we're doing that adequately so far. And I would hope we would have some consideration for people who are trying to do something of a more modest nature. They're not building a three million, four million, or $5 million house. They're building a a modification of the house that's simply not worthy of our putting our hands in their pocket and taking out 10 or $11,000. Thank you. >> Thanks. Um, I got Lauren and then Tina and then Ryan. >> Thank you. Um, I just want to start with a couple like

[160:00] in general the people who live in our single family homes have higher incomes than those in our community who live in multifamily housing and our multifamily housing projects um are those where the vast majority of our income middle inome families live and they already help pay into our affordable housing program. They already middle-income families already pay this fee. Not only does making this change help bring more balance to our system, it also increases funding and provides more consistent, predictable funding. And that will allow us to take opportunities that we might not otherwise be able to have when we're looking at our affordable housing development, which right now um relies on larger multifamily projects coming down the pipeline, which does not happen at a consistent rate. It ensures that

[161:02] when we rebuild larger single family homes, we're not doing so at the expense of affordability and diversity that makes this community strong. This ordinance is not about punishing homeowners for improving their homes, and it already includes thoughtful exemptions. The first 500 square feet of the addition are exempt, and homes under 2,000 square feet are fully exempt. To put that in perspective, the average house in the United Kingdom is 818 square feet total. Not the average size of the addition, the average size of the house. I live in 800 square feet and uh families in my neighborhood raise children in 800 square f feet. Every time we allow part of our community to grow wealthier without ensuring that others can still find a place here, we widen the divide that threatens the fabric of our community.

[162:01] And this is not going to change that. But it is a modest but meaningful step and I hope you will join me in voting yes. >> Thanks Tina. >> Yeah, I was just trying to look um I think in the Nexus study it shows a graph where about a third of the um replacements and demolitions or um additions are actually new homes. So, it's we're only talking if we're only just speaking about what are we thinking about with the additions. It's only a third of the sort of the group and it would be helpful to know how many of those were over 500 square feet um or over a thousand. I don't know if that data exists. I didn't see it in the Nexus study. So, >> I don't have that available. So, >> yeah, I I mean that's something I probably should have asked in a hotline prior. So, I apologize for that. But um you know it's it's really hard on the day like this to from my perspective to

[163:00] speak without a lot of data and figure out the why would I do 500 versus 700 and um you know what I would feel comfortable with is passing the fee knowing that what we're doing tonight is allowing the option to create this ordinance and then staff is going to take care of the implementation and administer it and there will be flexibility over time if we see that this is an obstacle to a certain segment of our middle income homes which I believe all of us are very concerned about making sure middle- inome families can live here. So um I I I don't want to guess numbers and um so I'm I'm fine with the way it's written right now knowing that we're going to be able to get feedback as it's implemented. >> Thanks Ryan >> and then Tisha. Thanks um Council Member Folkertz for your leadership on this and vision. Um I I do have a lot of questions about how we will possibly

[164:02] create affordable middle housing at scale uh through the current tools that we have um around our inclusionary housing program and more broadly. Um it is an incredible challenge that we have so much work to do on. Um but the inclusionary housing program is our framework and right now as Lauren said it's funded by people who live in multif family dwellings and generally not those in single family homes. And so I think the opportunity tonight is to increase consistency of how this fee applies within the framework that we have. And I say increase consistency, it doesn't close the gap. In fact, it um it does some um but not even the bulk of it. Um so I I think it's a good idea. And um I also

[165:00] know it's we've already taken at least one round of adjustments to reduce costs. uh the 500 foot credit um the fee amount is on the the low side of what's supportable by the study. So I'm I'm supportive. >> Thanks Tyan. Then I'll go. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I really appreciate this conversation. Um, Tina, actually, you got me thinking about the previous week conversation we had around the short-term rentals. And, um, I was still a no on the direction that we went in. Uh, but I appreciated your comments around, well, let's get something on the books and then we can make the adjustments as we need to make them. And I'm hearing that tonight as well, and I'm also agreeing with those comments. Um, I'm also noticing a trend that I don't care for, and that is feelings over facts. Um, or anecdotals over facts. Um, there are several instances in our conversation where, um, we made reference to somebody

[166:02] who was, uh, giving a public comment. Um, and again, I I love an anecdotal, but, if you've got anidals, you can put together something more substantive. So, um, and the facts that have been presented have been absolutely crystal clear. Thank you. um, Councilwoman, Council Member Spears for, uh, um, not an anecdotal, but but actual dollars and cents and, um, really grounding these conversations in reality. I also want to just again lift up um, Council Member Wallick, you mentioned, you know, I I don't want to impact anybody who's trying to do something with an 8 square foot house. Well, that doesn't it doesn't apply here. You know, they're already exempt by two 2,000 square feet. So anywh who um my larger point is I am supportive of this. I do recognize and I really want to also lift up that the work that we're doing is not charity. Um many of the and this is a criticism that I have of how we even talk about our affordable housing programs and the rationale. I mentioned this during my

[167:01] orientation when we started with housing policies six 1960s and forward and not mentioning the exclusionary policies that resulted in the disproportionate home ownership that we see right now um we owe a debt that is the bottom line. Um so although I appreciate all of this what what about isms um going back to the facts of history um and the realities of the of the consequences that we unfortunately as a council have to deal with the exclusionary policies that other previous councils have made um and um and I do think that and I appreciate and although I appreciate the nexus study um one of the areas or criticisms that I have is I don't feel like there was enough um engagement by those um who are impacted by um the inclusionary housing um work that has been done and just a crosswalk. I feel like to and I do uh actually agree with uh council member Benjamin on the

[168:00] request of seeing things more hit holistically in general. I'm so exhausted of doing just a little policy over here and then we go over here and then we do another policy over here. It's very difficult um especially now and you mentioned the hardest hit and the hardest hit are not and and I also have to just lift up and I will lend this um yes there are a lot of losers in our economy right now um unfortunately there's also winners and those winners can afford these fees um you know I love the lime uh the limelight but I would be remiss if I didn't mention that that originated in Aspen um and I and I I love Aspen but I don't want to live there and I don't want Boulder to become the next Aspen or Scots Seal. So, I'm very much in favor um of the direction we're moving in, recognizing um that we're not going to hit perfection, but we're going to meet the moment. Thank you. >> Thanks, Taiisha. I'll just finish us up here. I'll be quick. Um I do appreciate all of staff's work on this. I appreciate that the last time we talked about it, we asked you to avoid affecting um modest additions, and I

[169:01] think you've struck the right balance there. So, um I think the the changes that you've made have have responded to our request there. And I'll just note that, you know, 500 foot edition is zero fee. Uh 750 foot edition is a half a percent of the project cost fee. And it's only as you get into the like 1,250 ft that the percent of the project cost gets over 1%. So, it's really only the larger additions that are paying um even still quite a small percent, but but as you get into larger percentages. So, I do think we we've struck the right balance. I do think this will help capture some additional dollars for affordable housing from some of these really large scrapes and additions that we often see in our community. And I wanted to thank Mayor Prom Fulkurts for all of your hard work on this and pushing this forward. And with that, >> um, I might in invite a motion on the matter >> real quick. So normally I would suggest an amendment

[170:01] which won't even pass by a very small amount. My problem is is by agreeing with everybody I'm saying that I don't still agree with myself which I do agree with because I can't have I'm just worried about these people in Martin acres that want to build a better house. So that pushes me into saying no to this. But I just want to make sure that everybody knows all you people out there, including the newspapers, that I'm 100% for the concept of this. But if I say no, and if anybody in the newspapers writes otherwise, I'm going to be mad. No, I'm just kidding. Um, in in voting, no, you're not. >> Yeah, I have to vote no because I am against the threshold of it, but that doesn't mean I'm against the concept of it. And believe me, Taiisha, it's true that I tried to find a better number from staff, but I couldn't get anywhere. So then I had to just start calling random people. It's true. What could I do? I was stuck. So I'm just I threw out the 700 and then the 2400, which I'm

[171:02] sticking to. So that's why I'm going to have to say no. Otherwise, I would have said yes. >> Noted. >> Did you want to? I'd like to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8712 amending section 42062 capital facility impact fee and chapter 9 uh 8-9 capital facility impact fee BRC1981 adding a new affordable housing impact fee rate for certain single family dwelling develop single unit dwelling developments and setting forth related det details. >> Second. >> We've got a motion to second. I think we've all addressed the topic at hand. >> Yeah. Given the point in the meeting and that we've already spoken to it, I'm comfortable with just moving forward with the vote. >> Okay. Very good. Elicia, can we have a roll call on this, please? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of ordinance

[172:01] 8712 with council member Shuhar. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. No. Whatever the newspapers say. >> Winer. >> No. >> Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Bronett. >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Folks. >> Yes. >> And Council Member Marquis. >> Yes. >> Ordinance 8712 is hereby adopted with a vote of 7 to2. >> Okay. Thanks again, staff. Really appreciate all of your work on this. I know it's been kind of a long road, so glad we got here to a successful finish. All right, that finishes our public hearing, so we can now go to item 6A. Yes, sir. Item number 6A on tonight's agenda is our matters from the city manager and it is the climate action plan update.

[173:08] All right, as uh folks are getting settled here, we're excited to bring this update to you. And uh we actually have kind of a fun way to start this item. So, as Jonathan gets settled here, I think he's going to tee up uh we have a little video for you. So, uh I think he is close to being ready >> and I'll turn it over to our director of climate initiatives. >> Great. Thank you, Chris. Uh well, now we lost our mayor. I'll say it anyway. Mayor, members of council, uh it's really nice to be with you tonight. Uh Jonathan Cohen, I'm honored to disturb as the director of the climate initiatives department. Um so, as Chris mentioned, he already kind of uh broke the seal on this a little bit. Uh before we dive into the presentation tonight, um often we hear that climate work can be a little complex, a little bit technical, and frankly, a little bit distant. And I know you've had a long

[174:00] week and you've had a long night. So, we wanted to start tonight a little bit differently. And we're going to do that by sharing a short story. So, uh, Emily, can you do the honors? All right. Thanks. [Music] >> Now, it's story time. Today's story is the little city that could borders big adventure. Enjoy. The little city that could. Boulder's big adventure. Once upon a time, tucked between tall, rugged mountains and wide open skies, there lived a little city named Boulder. Boulder wasn't just any city. She lived the sunshine on her rooftops, the cool shade of her trees, the songs of the meadowarks, and the laughter of children riding their bikes through her neighborhoods. But Boulder had a secret worry. The air

[175:00] was getting hotter. Summer's drier, wildfires fiercer, and floods stronger. "Oh dear," she whispered. "The world is changing, and I must be brave to protect my people and all the creatures who call me home." The problem seemed bigger than she could handle. But Boulder knew she wasn't alone. She reached out to her trusty band of friends and asked them to join her grand adventure, her climate action quest. They came at once. Nature Knight, Pollinator Protector, Neighborhood Navigator, Cleaner Captain, Renewal Ranger, and Power Pal. With no time to waste, they made three solemn promises. To clean the air by using less of the dirty stuff that makes the world hotter. To prepare and protect for challenges like smoky skies, heat waves, and rushing rivers. to take care of everyone by listening and learning from our neighbors so we can grow stronger

[176:00] together. To keep her promises, she worked with her friends. Powerpal whispered to the houses and the schools, "Let's warm and cool ourselves with sunshine and wind, not smoky old fuels." The buildings sparkled happily, running on bright, clean energy. and let's make sure our homes have clean air and are safe and strong, even when the wind blows or the days grow hot. Neighborhood navigator stretched out bike lanes like ribbons and built cozy bus stops like shelters for weary travelers. Ride, walk, roll, he cheered. Let's move together without filling the air with fumes, building community along the way. In the meantime, Renewal Ranger turned trash cans into treasure chests. "Don't toss it, reuse it," she sang. Old jeans became quilts, glass jars became lanterns, and nothing useful went to waste. She taught everyone the joy of

[177:01] repair, reuse, and recycle. Nature Knight invited the cottonwoods, creeks, and prairie grasses to join her quest. You are my secret superheroes," she told them. The trees cleaned the air and shaded the streets. The wetlands soaked up floods, and the meadows buzzed with pollinators. Even the cows did their part, eating up grass while happily roaming the fields by the mountains. But Boulder also knew she must lean in close and listen. Really listen to the voices of her people. She treasured the ideas dreamed up in kitchens and classrooms, on park benches and playgrounds. Each idea was like a tiny lantern glowing with possibility. Together, they lit a path toward healthier homes, greener streets, and neighborhoods where opportunities bloomed. Finally, Boulder gathered her community and friends and said, "Storms may come,

[178:03] fires may rage, but together we will be strong." Neighbors shared food, helped each other stay cool, and built safe spaces where everyone could rest when times were hard. Every corner of the city had a role to play. Every voice was a precious thread. And so Boulder skipped forward, her heart full of hope, her people full of love, ready to show the world what a little city with a big dream could do. Pull it up. So, thanks for being good sports. I'm realizing that may have been the first time a children's book has been read at a council meeting. I'm not quite sure. Um but again uh that I have to say that story was both written and narrated uh by our amazing communication specialist Lyra Nicholley in our department. And we wanted to start with that video because it's such a good reminder of why we do

[179:01] this work and who we're doing it for. Um our plan in fact is to continue inviting kids to step into that story and make it their own. What we have learned of course is when young people see themselves as part of a story uh they start to see themselves as part of the solution. Um, so let's go ahead and uh pull up the slides. Um, we're going to go ahead and dive in and I want to introduce some of the team who you'll be hearing from tonight. Sitting next to me is Kate Galbau, our senior data analyst. You'll also hear from Darren Wagner, our climate engagement strategist. I also want to point out some of our uh senior leadership and some familiar faces to you all in the audience. Yel Gashan, Carolyn EM, and Bre and Karen are all here. So to jump in uh always good to start with some context. Uh so just as a reminder uh council identified updating the cap as one of your top priorities and like we have shared with council multiple times over the past year or so the cap represents this roadmap to align the work across the city in support of our collective climate objectives. So

[180:02] the purpose of tonight is just to give a quick tour of what's new, what's working, and really where we're headed next within the plan. Um, I really want to make sure to acknowledge how far we've come, not just in terms of the work itself and emissions, but in how we approach this work. In your memo, there was a description of um how when Boulder first launched our climate work in 2006. A lot of that effort was centered in one program area which really served as the hub to develop strategies to really connect with community and manage programs. And I would say since then, we've evolved into what I describe often as a whole of government approach. And the point of that is that every department now plays a really critical role in shaping the city's climate future. And so this update really reflects that evolution. I also want to say that we've approached this update as an opportunity to build on what's working uh identify and uh close gaps, set the stage for deeper, faster, and more equitable climate action. And a

[181:00] point of clarification just so you all are tracking, what you have before you tonight in your packet is the textbased draft. So that's the contents of the plan. The final version will include the full design treatment where you'll see the visuals, the charts, the graphics, and that storytelling that'll make it much more accessible and user friendly for the public. Kate's going to share some of those visuals uh when she shares some slides. So I realize also that some watching um may uh just go Yeah, go that one. Thanks. Uh some in our community may not be familiar uh with the history of the climate action plan. And I just wanted to point out kind of moving left to right, I won't hit all of these um circles, but our climate journey really started when the city adopted the Kyoto resolution in 2002 and it evolved into our climate very first climate action plan in 2005 and that really continues to be one of the most comprehensive local climate frameworks in the country. The last major overhaul we did on the CAP was in 2021. So you can see that over in the blue and green near the

[182:01] right hand side of this chart. Um, and the the the important thing that we did in 2021 is really integrate resilience and equity to make sure that they weren't side chapters uh in the climate action plan anymore. They're really woven throughout every one of the action areas. One thing that we have learned is that climate action can really amplify existing inequities if but the benefits and the burdens aren't intentionally balanced. And so it also presents a really huge opportunity to restructure systems in more adjust and inclusive ways. The second thing we did in 2021 is to really shift to a systems approach. We talk about that a lot uh because it reflects the major levers that we can actually pull as a local government and as a city and where we need to influence those systems for example at the state legislature or perhaps uh the regulatory agencies or sometimes the national government. And then the third thing that we really focused on in that update was accountability and clarity. Identifying how each of the action areas

[183:00] within the plan are tied directly to measurable outcomes. And that really helps us uh better track and communicate the progress that we're making. So I'm going to hand this off to Kate and she's going to go through some of the specific updates in the plan and then I'll jump back in near the end. >> Good evening, city council. Kate Galo, senior sustainability data analyst with climate initiatives. I'm going to shift our focus into what went into shaping the cap that will guide our next phase of work. We kicked off this process in fall of last year with a review of our goals or KPIs and targets and then in winter staff refined the approach for updating the plan which we presented to city council in December. During that time, uh, staff also initiated a cross-dep departmental mapping of climate efforts across the city. And in spring and summer, staff began to design the plan strategies and completed an equity analysis. The results of that are in your packet in attachment B. And that also helped us uh go back and refine our

[184:00] goals and strategies, and it informed community engagement that we kicked off in the fall. That brings us to today, uh, sharing the draft plan and what we heard from the community. And over the next couple months, we'll finalize and design the plan and launch it in early 2026 alongside a communications campaign. There's a couple of key updates that differentiate this plan from previous CAPS. First is introduction of new communitywide climate resilience and equity goals on equal footing with our climate mitigation goal. Second is integration of new local climate risk data. Third is an adoption of what we're calling a whole of government framework acknowledging the shared responsibility of climate action across the city. This plan also emphasizes compact connected land use as a climate solution. It's included as a guiding principle in the plan. Um and similar to our previous cap, there is continued emphasis on systems change, but it's done done so through a clearer structure with clear big moves, KPIs, and targets making it

[185:00] easy to track and update. And then lastly, uh, streamlined design and communications. So, I'll walk through a couple of these updates in more detail. As you know, Boulder has been working towards communitywide emissions reduction targets for nearly two decades. Um, and now we're elevating climate resilience and climate equity at that same level. There is one small but meaningful change to the climate mitigation goal, which is acknowledgement of consumption based emissions, which comes from the goods and materials that we consume in Boulder, but might occur elsewhere. Um, since we last updated our targets in 2021, we've uh completed a consumptionbased emissions inventory where we found that when we account for those emissions, our footprint roughly doubles, but our targets will still remain for our local emissions. The climate resilience goal is focused on preparing for and responding to local climate impacts and will be measured through a variety of different riskbased metrics like tree canopy in heat vulnerable neighborhoods or referring to the city's water plans and their respective metrics. The climate equity

[186:02] goal uh aims to ensure that benefits and burdens are shared fairly um empowering those most affected and will be measured through a variety of outcomebased measures like our target to reduce energy burden to uh 0% by 2035. Another uh major advancement is integration of local climate risk data. I won't walk through these graphics with you because we shared this data back in December, but just want to emphasize the importance of this work in creating a shared understanding of what we need to adapt to as a community. The data on this slide comes from an uh efforts from staff to downscale global climate models to Boulder's local conditions and staff across the city have been uh mapping local climate risks as well from heat vulnerability to advanced fire modeling. Um this plan also marks an important shift to a whole of government framework. Um recognizing that climate action doesn't actually fit squarely within one department. It touches on

[187:00] upon uh much of what we do as a city. It is designed to provide a shared climate direction and a set of common climate goals that all of our work can connect back up to. Um it does not aim to replace or duplicate any existing plans or strategies, but rather complement them. And here's a few examples of plans referred to throughout the CAP. Uh the transportation master plan is a key part of the sixth big move around low impact transportation. We refer to the city's various water plans um for their ability to address water security and drought. And we also refer to OSMP who has their own uh climate plan that they're tracking towards. To support this framework, we completed a cross-d departmental mapping of existing climate resilience efforts across the city organization and linked them to relevant climate risks. On the left is a screenshot of that mapping from the draft plan. Uh this is not a comprehensive list and it will be designed in the final plan. Uh and the inspiration for that is on the right.

[188:01] I'd like to talk about a little bit about the um structure for the plan and how it's designed to enhance accountability. The intention is to create a clear connected picture of how all of Boulder's climate efforts add up. Um, and this is something that we heard emphasized through community engagement as well, just a a stronger need for accountability. So, we have our communitywide goals and a set of guiding principles. At the top, this is the foundation that guides all of the work. Underneath, we have seven different action areas. These are the core areas of focus of the plan. And within the action areas, we have set of uh big moves. These are the key transformations needed in each area to achieve our goals. Um, so these three tiers make up what's included in the cap. And then there's another level of detail beneath the big moves that comes from the specific actions, projects, and partnerships that will come to life as we implement the plan and continue to engage with community. As an example, as uh climate initiatives creates its work plan for uh next year, all of that day-to-day work lives within that red

[189:02] triangle. Um, but we're using this structure to connect it back to goals and big moves. These are the big moves included in the draft plan. There's a lot here, so I won't uh walk through it with you, but just refer you to the draft plan um included in your packet and just emphasize that this is an updated framework for how we organize the city's climate work. Uh some of these action areas correspond to focus areas from previous plans while others have expanded based on our updated understanding and as we've engaged with the community. Uh the draft plan uh aims to be responsive to that input and the climate and climate equity and justice actionary in particular saw a lot of changes from that input including a new big move. And then lastly, we aim to use the CAP as a tool for ongoing participation. Um, shifting away from dense reports to concise, accessible, engaging materials. Uh, so rest assured, the uh the plan

[190:00] included in your packet uh is just the content and it will be designed over the next couple of months. There's a couple of examples of what that could look like here. And we'll include um community voices throughout the plan as well. We completed a photo campaign to capture quotes and stories to make the plan feel more tangible. We'll also create additional materials like fact sheets and a website uh linking to dashboards for tracking progress. Um so next I'm going to hand it over to my colleague Darren Wagner who's going to talk about the community engagement process. Thank you. >> Good evening council. Um Darren Wagner, she her climate engagement strategist. Uh I appreciate the chance to be here tonight and just highlight briefly for you what our community engagement strategy has looked like for this plan. We designed it to do two primary things. One was to uh leverage the deep and innovative conversations that staff have been engaging in uh through the comprehensive planning process. Um and for example through that we uh attended

[191:01] and and participated in a a workshop at CU where discussions with CU students were had around climate action at the neighborhood scale. And another primary uh strategy was also to uh really honor and uplift the leadership from within our frontline communities um in uh having more intimate conversations with our with these frontline communities. knowing that larger gatherings at this time are not working and not feeling safe for many members of those communities. And so we really leveraged our relationships and conversations um with partners such as the uh climate justice collaborative once in future green and a number of others in that space um to really have deeper conversations with a number of them. Next slide. And just to give you a a highlight of some of the themes, this is also reiterated in your packet, but much of what we heard really informed uh a

[192:01] deeper uh description of our action area around climate equity and justice. Um and we were, for example, able to integrate a new big move around a clear theme we heard to empower youth in intergenerational learning. Um, we also heard a lot about needing to shift power to community um, in leveraging the lived experience and wisdom that are within our frontline communities in co-designing and implementing a number of the programs and projects that are alluded to uh, by the policies and and strategies in the climate action plan. Some of the feedback we want to acknowledge uh does not have a clean home in the climate action plan and that's where those relationships with the other uh plans that Kate mentioned come to play. So for example, we heard a lot about needing to strengthen local food systems and that's also been a theme within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and because it exists

[193:00] sort of beyond our individual department, we have referred those comments to that space. Um, but recognize that we need additional direction um on how to do that citywide. Um, so with that, I I um will turn it back over to Jonathan to talk about next steps. >> Thanks so much, Darren. Um, as I'm sitting here, council watching this uh presentation, I'm realizing that I wanted to say this for those watching at home. I realize that a lot of the text on this presentation may be very small. Um, and so I would really encourage folks to um go to the city website. A lot of these materials and background are in the packet that council was presented with tonight and then also these slides are available too. So I will just um round out with the last slide and say as we look ahead um I think our focus really shifts from planning to implementation. So you can see these two phases on the slide really bringing this plan to life in partnership with the community. So phase two is really all about working to identify what's needed to deliver on the

[194:00] strategies in the cap and what type of support community needs uh from the city. I'll admit this is is an area that we need to do better. Uh that's why you see this 2026 onward. This has to be a priority for the long term. We'll obviously launch the CAP in early 2026 really focusing on helping connect the strategies um and making them accessible and actionable for everyone. Uh before I wrap up and turn it back over to council for questions, I wanted to share a few personal comments. Um I think as it comes to working in this space of climate, I've been hearing a real concern from community recently that people feel that maybe the momentum around climate has evaporated in some sense like the work has somehow gone into hiding. Uh yes, we know the federal government is rolling back critical environmental protections and policies and in some cases uh federal funding is being clawed back. Words like climate inequity are being scrubbed from federal

[195:00] websites. Um and I think what we've seen nationally is this um mood towards the work has shifted from optimism to caution and then now looking something more like despair. And I wanted to bring this up um publicly because here's the thing. We have always seen our climate work here in Boulder as inseparable from efforts related to housing and water and workforce and public health. So our pitch hasn't changed uh because our work has always been rooted in the everyday needs of our community. So to anybody watching and anybody wondering, our climate work is not paused, not even close. this update continues to really focus on the work that matters uh here locally. So, I just wanted to make that um very clear and I think the the point of this update is to really amplify that we are accelerating our work and we're seeing great value from that work. So, um let me turn this back to you, Mr. Mayor. We have two questions for council tonight. Uh first, does council have any questions regarding the content of the

[196:01] update? And then second, does council support the pro proposed next steps? So, thanks so much. Thanks so much, Jonathan and Kate and Darren. Really appreciate and uh Brett and Yel and Carolyn. Uh really appreciate all the work that you've been doing. It's great to have you all here tonight and hear about the next stages for our CAT plan. So uh council, any questions for city staff uh on what we've just seen. I've got Ryan and I saw Tina and then Mark. Matt. >> Thank you. Uh I have two questions. Um first on the book uh this is or book video. This is the first time I've seen it and it's the first time I've seen a book or a video that I feel like I can show my seven and nineyear-old kids who I've been really looking for a story to tell them about what's going on in our climate system and their future. And um so where and when can I and others find the video in the book? >> Uh I think to be determined. Tonight was the debut uh of that film. So don't

[197:02] assume that you should have seen it somewhere else. No one has seen it up to this point. And so I I suspect that it's going to be available on all kinds of video platforms, definitely on our website. And I want to reiterate this point that um Lyra has done a wonderful job of thinking about how to take that video and then continue on encouraging uh community youth to really build more story from that. So this is really the first of the videos that I would see coming out. Um so certainly council will have uh availability. We'll send it to you. Make sure that you have a link to it for sure. >> Thanks member. >> Thank excuse me. Thank you. Thank you Lyra. Um my second question is um so my understanding is that there is there is a consensus among scientists and experts that to achieve deep greenhouse gas reductions and resilience we we really do need to transition away from fossil fuel derived natural gas. um can you

[198:00] just talk to that and feel free to you know uh address the premise if you want but if you'd agree then can you talk about that and um what does that mean for what we'll take forward in that in that space? >> Yeah, council member. Thanks. That's a great question and and yes um as you probably saw uh throughout the document, the plan absolutely envisions a proactive transition away from methane gas. I want to stress obviously that it has to be done thoughtfully and equitably. So over the next decade, I would see three major shifts as we think about um driving gas out of our portfolio. First, how we continue our building electrification uh both through policies and incentives that make it easier and more affordable for homes and businesses to actually move off of gas. Uh you might remember that our staff team was before you recently presenting the healthy building stronger community roadmap and that really prioritizes strategies and the policies that enables us to do so. Um second I would say um there is a strong um work stream to work

[199:01] with Excel and other partners on strategic decommissioning of gas infrastructure. How do we identify where parts of the gas network may no longer make sense as electrification accelerates? On this, I wanted to point out that Boulder was recently named one of five pilot communities uh for Excel Energy's gas planning initiative. This is actually a statemandated program uh for gas intensive communities to develop a strategic plan to reduce gas consumption. And third, and I would say admittedly a little less fleshed out, um there is a strong desire of course uh to really think about how we u look at new technologies. Um, so for example, new replacement technologies like district scale thermal network systems, uh, really good opportunities there that let whole blocks or neighborhoods share clean energy systems. So maybe coming full circle to your question, I would say in 10 years, um, I would expect far fewer or no new gas connections, more

[200:00] buildings running on efficient electric systems, a redesigned energy network that isn't relying on methane gas. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Yeah, I had a couple of questions. Um, the first is just around funding for the work that we're doing and that your team is doing. Is it 100% funded by the climate tax or are there other sources of funding going into the department? >> Yeah, fantastic question. Um, thanks council member. Um, so the majority of the funding when we talk about funding for the strategies within the cap, it's it's a combination of sources. Obviously, the climate action plan tax is the foundational funding source for all of the strategies that we have, including our wildfire resilience work. There's a big chunk of money dedicated to that work. However, since we began this work in 2005, we have known that that is not a sufficient amount of money to execute on all of those strategies. So, we leverage those dollars really effectively to get other grant dollars, for example. So, we partner with Boulder County, we partner with the state to get grant dollars to supplement the dollars

[201:01] that we have. Uh we also have the trash tax uh that funds most of our circular economy zero waste programs that are deeply embedded in our climate work. Uh but generally speaking I would say the climate tax is the fundamental funding that's that we use to execute on the strategies. >> And is that tax into perpetuity? >> No, that tax runs until 2040. >> Oh okay. Um and then my second question which is more climate related. Sorry, that's sort of um is with 84% of the cars coming in from outside of the city, are we seeing any increased pressure to provide more charging stations in the city or do we feel we're at a good balance? >> Yeah, it's been an interesting evolution and I'm I'm happy to um ask any of my team to to bail me out, but I'm going to give a give it a shot here. So one of the things that we've been transitioning away from is early on there was a strong need to develop infra infrastructure because we had range issues right first generation second generation people commuting in they had real anxiety about

[202:02] coming into town and being able to make it home. Uh technology obviously has advanced quite a bit and so the idea that the city or or government should provide that service to uh to community has really evolved. Most cities are moving away from free public charging as an example. Most people are charging at home or at their workplace and so we are keeping up with the demand for that charging infrastructure. We're not seeing a real need or desire to increase that amount but that increase would come from the private sector. So companies adding their own charging for example and so I think we have stimulated the market is really transformed enough that that's not the role that we need to play any longer. Um, one of the things I hope that council saw is we released our greenhouse gas inventory this week which had really extraordinary results. And for those watching, uh, we saw pretty uh, substantial decreases in emissions uh, from last year um, from 2018 we're at about 28% and since we started

[203:00] measuring almost 50% reduction in emissions and so that that desires some celebration or deserves some celebration. But I bring that up because one of the things that we're noticing is that we are starting to see some deep reduction emissions in in local transportation emissions and one of the reasons is that we have about 12% penetration in EVs registered in the city. So that's extraordinary. So I I'm answering your question by saying I do believe we're keeping up uh with the desired need and I think our infrastructure matches the the pace. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Just wanted to follow up on uh Ryan's I know Ryan's question. I know there's a video, but uh having a printed book would be especially good as like a bedtime story. So, follow some of the Boulder classics like, you know, Good Night Boulder or Max Goes to the Moon. I mean, some of these written by local authors that have done really popular nationally and and beyond. Um so, did I hear that there was an intent to create a a climate action dashboard?

[204:00] Is that Did I hear that? >> Yeah, thank you for that question. Um we we currently have uh a few different dashboards that we use to track progress towards um larger outcome measures like emissions, local solar generation, waste diversion. So we plan to still uh track in those places, but uh we'll have a central website for the climate action plan where we'll link to those and we also have a uh story map that serves as a uh annual impact report where we include uh metric annual metrics as well. Um, okay. Um, well, it would be nice to sort of hopefully see that enhanced with a scorecard that people can really sink their teeth in because this is a climate focused community and they want >> details just like for some reason um just like with our budget, we we we want to have a clear transparent budget, but it's really opaque online, right? So, community doesn't feel empowered to dive deep. So, I just want to make sure we don't avoid we avoid those pitfalls and allow people to sink their teeth in. Um

[205:03] given that this work you do is extremely interdep departmental, h how how how do you look to sus out that different sus those pieces out in this update and in the overall cap plan? I mean I think for example all these you know mobility and emission targets like that's all transportation. So, how do we really show those linkages? And I'm so I'm just sort of just asking how do we do that effectively and communicate those things clearly? Um, and you know, I think of you said incentives. I'm like, well, that's our new cultural and economic vitality department that'll rise uh soon uh from the city manager's office. So, I'm just wondering how do you plan to really show those integrations because it's kind of tough um to do that on your own. >> Yeah, thanks council member. And before I answer the question, I want to come back to your first comment. Um we we know people so if you want an autographed version of the book we can probably make that happen for you. Um yeah so I this is it's an interesting

[206:02] question. So we introduced this concept of a whole government approach and what we're really talking about is culture change within the organization and I can't stress enough how far we have come in that space. Um, and so again, the idea that climate used to live with one work area, now there are champions all across the organization. And I could spend the next 10 minutes giving you examples of that. But the reality is is that climate and resilience really have become part of how we lead, how we plan, how we invest across all departments. It's not something that's just managed by one team now. And we have seen that shift take hold. Um, as an example, as Kate was showing some of those slides, if you if you did a scan of the majority of plans that have been adopted or updated in in recent time, all of them reference in some fashion um connection to climate and resilience. And we're going to continue to deepen those connections as we go. Part of that is really requiring and understanding the impacts, the vulnerabilities and threats

[207:01] and risks and opportunities related to climate and how those can show up in other plans. But I can't speak highly enough of my colleagues in other departments who really have um really become champions. I'll use open space as a great example. Uh open spaces created their own climate plan within the department and so they don't need our department to oversee that. They understand what their objectives are and those objectives align with the overall climate action plan. And so it's that kind of stitching together of all of those values that I'm really starting to see take hold. And I we don't take credit for that. It really is the incredible work across the organization. >> All right. I don't see any other hands raised for questions. So I'll come to their second question for us. Does council support staff's proposed next steps for finalizing the cap? I'm going to start with the presumption that we think you're doing

[208:00] an awesome and amazing job and totally support it. And if anyone would like to add any additional comments to that, um, please do. >> Thank you. Um, yes, I fully supportive and would just like to offer well to lift up a few things as you continue the development. Um, a few things to think about. So, first, I love the book um because videobook it presents a vision about where we're going and it's for anybody of any age. this is actually cutting edge and um so I would love to get that published soon to build on that to and to do more of do more of that I think so that's the first thing um and you know Matt brought up an interesting thought about um I guess like data and reporting you know I I think that the job is is we need to to help drive transitions and transformations and those require presenting a compelling destination for people to understand I think your book is doing that this is this is the best

[209:01] like picture of what we're doing that that I've seen is this this kind of storytelling. So to me that that's the data that I'm actually the most interested is what is what you what you showed there. Um second thing to just Jonathan to your point um introductory point um about the need for this work. I'm really proud of Boulder for being science and evidence um for valuing science and evidence and for being really direct about problems and solutions. So I would just lift up that that um we should be proud and and unabashed that this is climate action and equitable climate action and that's what we're doing here. Um, and then I just had two topics that I wanted to to pull out and just kind of um, speak to that I thought were really excellent. So, the first one is the the compact connected um, sort of area. Um this is it's it's really good to see um us I think catching up with what the science has been saying for some time that this

[210:01] is this is a crucial part of structurally reducing energy use and it has transportation aspects but of course it goes to avoiding energy that we don't need in buildings to conserving habitat to improving the economics of sharing things um of better integrating transportation and housing for better affordability for everyone so I would be I'll be very excited to watch to see some of that integrate throughout the um the different parts of the of the report as we go. Um and I also know this is an area that is you know I there's both misinformation but also it's kind of counterintuitive how all this works and so um I know the city's done great work with um the what the podcast and we do a lot of public educational type things. This seems like one of those topics that really warrants um some conversations with the community that this is how we're reading the science. Um you know this is you know how we sort of see it and um you know propose discussion about it. Um and then the final thing on this

[211:02] just this compact connected area. Um I would assume that as this being now a staff act or excuse me um an action plan led by staff um that this would give staff some impetus to be proactive about proposing measures taking forward measures that would move us in this direction. I think this is a space that historically has been more like a council thing, but um I think you're making you you've made a good case that um this belongs now in in um as a as an area where there is more proactivity from from staff. So that's my third of my of my four points. And my fourth one um on on the whole of government um sort of con concept um just just a quick thought uh to to set this up. If if we when we when we kicked this initiative off almost two years ago, we probably could have guessed that the week we were going to come back and talk about this, there would be weather records for what for heat. So, two records this week, 82

[212:01] degrees in uh Denver, highest it's ever been in November and December or in November in Denver. Then it was 83. Um so, and it's not even newsworthy anymore that we're having these that these records. and the the action plan is presenting a a coh a comprehensive framework that's about resilience. And I would suggest this is one of the most core issues that that undergur what our departments and activities around the city need to do going forward to make us safe and healthy as we can be. So the whole of government approach seems so important and um I just be very excited to watch for that to be developed into the plan more with respect to how does how do department and activity leaders how does finance think about climate issues and and um rationalize that as we um as we go forward. So thank you >> got uh Mark and then Tesa. >> Yeah. Um first I also want to compliment you on the book although I found it a

[213:01] little bit above my head. Um, if you can put out a simpler version of it, that might be appropriate for me. Um, just two things. Um, in the agenda memo where you cite compact land use as a key tool, um, you didn't define it and and I'm trying to understand where are you going with that in terms of um, housing policy, land use policy. I assume you're not going to um look to you know eliminate all single family homes um unless you are uh but I'd like to get a little bit of better sense of the definition of what you're trying to achieve. >> Thanks council member. No, that certainly is not the case. And I think it's still it's an evolving issue and I think that there was some correspondence that we had some months ago prompted by a hotline that council member Shuhard had put out about some of the scientific

[214:00] basis of the IPCC and really understanding um how do we think differently about our land use and right now I think that there is a real synergy between the Boulder Valley comp plan that really sets out this long-term vision and how the CAP really designs the strategies to take us there. And so those two things are intersecting really nicely. So what you're describing wouldn't live in the cap. It would be the policy decisions that would live in the comp plan. Um so we're watching very carefully. And in fact Darren Wagner who was up earlier has been leading a lot of the outreach with the community and and uh partnering with a lot of the outreach to understand what our community considers uh when we talk about compact uh land use. And so we're seeing how that's showing up in the comp plan discussion and then we're using that to really inform how we develop the strategies for the cap. So I don't have a full example of of the types of things but obviously it has far-ranging implications in terms of mobility and housing and consumption and biodiversity and it's the strategies uh that we'll be

[215:01] looking at in the cap to to match up with that. Okay. And and the other thing I wanted to ask about um in the climate action program itself on page 17, it was very unclear to me. We we had a big conversation about um whether to compel um homeowners to convert uh from gas to electric when the useful life of their appliances um was over. And um I think there was a lot of opposition to that. Um and what I'm reading on page 17 is unclear to me as to where you're going with that. I mean, is has that been put to rest or I mean, you talk about incentives to promote the conversion? Um but is there a are you anticipating a compulsion to make that conversion? No, no. Again, council member, um I

[216:01] referenced the the road map that we had before council some months ago. Um Carolyn Elam and her team were presenting those options. And part of the the road map is to look at the constellation of policies uh that we have before us. As you know, we have really looked at the energy code. We've looked at the building code. Um, and at this point there's not an intention to com compel people um to get rid of gas appliances, but to incentivize. Absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. Good answer. >> Um, yes. No, I'm really excited about this plan. Um, it's one of the reasons the update of this plan was one of the reasons I ran for council because I think it's really important um to tie this plan to all of the other plans. I understand this plan can't be inclusive of every single thing that we need for our community. Um, but I really applaud the efforts to make sure that they're doing the crosswalk the uh with the

[217:00] other departmental plans. Um, again having a 100 doctors is not helpful. Uh, and so really u moving to that whole of government approach is certainly the direction that we need to be moving in. So I was really happy to see that. Um, a couple of areas that I was especially happy to see was, uh, as a member of ARAB, which is the resource conservation advisory board, um, I'm always remembering that consumption over consumption is one of the pieces of the report that we don't, um, break our arms patting ourselves on the back around. Um, and so it was really wonderful to see a a diverse and dynamic uh, approach to addressing the consumption components um, and reducing the consumption uh, components. I do urge us to um continue to think about the measures and metrics around that. Um I think of because um to the point um Ryan mentioned before although I appreciate the science one it's whose science are we talking about that's a different subject but also um how do we connect these climate issues

[218:03] to other areas like business for example I think of nude foods for example right like those are the kinds of businesses that I want us to incentivize how do we zone for that like what does that even look like how do we make sure like I don't need more grocery stores when we're talking about area three, right? All grocery stores are not the same. So, I think that that's something that I would love to think about. How do we in, you know, um strengthen or or uh better align our um uh how do we co-create ordinances and policy frameworks that incentivize circular businesses? Um, I see I I think of biomemed really biomemed, biotech, biomemed. That's those are my people. Um, biomemed and I love what they're they're thinking around agriculture and local agriculture, right? Like they should be, you know, credited for those kinds of things when they are going above and beyond or the limelight when they're

[219:00] electrifying their whole building, right? Well, that's wonderful, but we also have to ask the question, is it natural gas that's doing electrification or renewables? So again, you know, just getting into some of those distinctions and and the business relationship is what I'm really really thinking about and top of mind. Um solar is another area that I would love us to really think deeply about especially with the um explicit divest divestment from our federal agencies around solar specifically. And I w had the opportunity to um hear uh from Will Tour and others at the renewable energy solar thing that we went to. Um, and I was actually quite surprised to see how little solar um, compared to some of the other ones and and knowing the state that we are in state double antandra intended. I'm coming back a little bit. Um, is there I'll let that go. All right. Um, the next thing, thank you for lifting up agriculture. Um, I just don't

[220:02] believe we can have a climate plan that doesn't center agriculture. Um, and I would love us to lead as a city on re-engaging agriculture and making sure that it is a core component. I would love to see more food forests around because remember this climate action can be in service of more than one thing, right? And we know we have food and security issues. And though I love the idea of doing one food force somewhere, that is not diversity having one thing over somewhere. It's really making sure how do we have smaller ones and bigger ones and um all of those pieces. is and so I I love that I'm happy to see that it came up in the Boulder Valley comp plan and I would love to see a much stronger alignment similar to the alignment that I see for energy. Um and then lastly the or second to lastly is the connection between water and energy. So although I appreciate that the plan crosswalks with the water efficiency plan, the drought plan and the waste wastewater wastewater treatment wastewater treatment. Let's go with that. Also go on a tour if you haven't

[221:01] done that one cuz that was a great tour. But um I still feel like water's not there. It's still somewhere else. And I I need I I I know the cap can't be everything, but I water is such a critical issue. I just I talk a lot about increasing our water literacy and in order to do that, we need to have it in different places where we can speak to it and and and find those those ways to normalize those conversations. And then lastly, the um environmental justice work. And again, I applaud the Boulder County for their climate justice fund. And I just want to remind any listener and my fellow council mates that um you know, previous councils made decisions that are making our lives harder um and our work much much harder. Whether it be planting non-native trees in places that aren't great or, you know, all kinds of things that they were trying out. I mean, these aren't bad people. They were making the best decisions with the information that they had at the time, and I honor that.

[222:00] Although, I don't honor the exclusivity of how those decisions were made. Um, I still feel like we're not doing enough. So, I see equity everywhere, but I'm not seeing the money. I think of Justice 40, which unfortunately our federal government has turned away from, but there was a lot of very strong and rigorous data and evidence around why that was important and was critical. And again, a debt owed, not a nice to have, not charity. And so, I'm still I love seeing the community-led piece. I love seeing the frontline leadership. Um, but I'm not seeing it in contracts, right? I saw I looked at the G Grin and Guten who did that nexus study, Grootin and Guten, anyone got it. All right. Gruin and Gruin. Sure, they're lovely, right? Um, but they're not, you know, and I can only imagine how much that contract was. And I would love to see our frontline community leaders who have expertise in doing a variety of different areas, including um energy in in a lot of the

[223:01] work that's been proposed. Um, you know, again, I was waiting for the disproportionate study and all of the different things. And, you know, I go back to James Baldwin's quote of how long do we have to wait? Um, I don't want to see words of justice. I want to see dollars um and real meaningful multi-year investments um into community members that are constantly I love Isabelle Sanchez and that is a businesswoman and she should be whole you know that business is a multi-million dollar business it's not some nice to have little after school hobby project and so I appreciate the efforts that we made but again it's also in debt to a service um and then lastly double double checking food forest I did all of the things. Oh, I did have a question. Sorry. Um, what ever happened to the CU's? They were going to do a virtual power plant. Does that mess up anything anywhere? >> Yeah, it was canceled. >> Okay. I just >> Yeah, the Excel partnership project. It

[224:01] was canceled. >> Okay. Just >> Okay. Thank you. Just I do I was I I Okay, let me rephrase. I knew it was canceled. Yeah. But how much of that was a part of the vision and thinking for um some of the climate mitigation and particularly energy that we had like did it have an is that something that um was kind of already baked into the plan that you had to kind of make significant changes around or you were kind of waiting because that was a pilot and it wasn't really something that was going to be a part of this plan. >> Yeah, thanks Councilwoman. Um no I mean in terms of it being baked into the plan I would say it was in the category of innovation. So when we talk about uh where we want to go in the innovative space with regard to energy, VPPS, virtual power plants are one of the tools uh that we want to explore and this opportunity came up in through the partnership with Excel and so it was their project that we were partnering with and CU and unfortunately and very

[225:00] disappointingly it was cancelled by the federal government. That doesn't mean that we won't look for other opportunities to explore that same technology. >> All right. Very good. Thanks Taca. All right. Well, I'll just say a couple very quick things. Um, just love the work that you're doing. This is a fantastic evolution of the plan. Boulder has been a national leader and occasionally you a world leader in this area and this continues that. Um, so very much appreciate all that you've done. Do love the compact land use being added. I've been um interested in that for a long time. So, it's great to see that become part of the plan. and echoing Taiisha's uh thoughts about the food and agriculture and the importance of that. We got a great email from Growing Gardens late this afternoon on that topic that hopefully you all will read as well because they had some great comments on that that I'd like to honor. Um and with that, I'll just say a final thank you for the extraordinary work and look forward to the the next stages in this incredibly important work. >> And thank >> Yeah, sure. I just also wanted to thank um council members Adams and Shuhard for

[226:00] raising this up as a work plan priority and thank you staff for great work. >> Great point. Thanks for that. Thanks. All right. Well, that brings us to the end of that. So, we've got uh item 8A now, please. Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Item 8A is our matters from the mayor and city council and it is the discussion whether to commission a communication with Excel about our partnership and the 2025 opt out point. >> So Ryan, this came from you. So I'll turn to you for maybe a brief overview. I don't think you need to read through every bit of your notes, but >> Thank you, mayor. Um, so the intent of this item is to propose that our city council commission a correspondence with Excel to express our thoughts and expectations uh for the partnership as we pass the offramp which council for 2025 which council decided to do back in March. So

[227:01] I circulated a memo with some suggested um drafting points that was on October 29th. Um I on November 3rd added a couple of points to that that are in in line with the draft. So um that's my proposal. I would point out though there was an email that came in today from Scott Miller and James Gilbert who added some additional um suggested revisions. I thought they seemed pretty good. But um in any case that's that's the sort of scope of what we have to look at so far. So my thought tonight um you know after any discussion um would be to make a motion to direct staff to draft a letter based on our our guidance um that letter would come back to us for approval and they would send it on to um Excel. And I just end by saying the why are we doing this? Um a few things I think one it's just so we can establish what success looks like so we're clear with our partner what we want partners what we want. Um, number two, so a year from now

[228:01] or a few years from now, we'll know how we did. We'll have a yard stick. Um, and then also to invite partners in the community to support us and to join um and legislative partners and, you know, local community partners to to know what we're trying to do to um to try to help organize so we can have the best outcome. So, mayor, that's all I have and happy to make a motion if folks are ready. Otherwise, >> thanks Ryan. And although I'll turn to Teresa and I think this would probably be a request for not of five rather than a motion, but correct me if I'm wrong. >> Yes, you're right about that there. Um, you may not, excuse me, you may not take a vote under matters, but um certainly you can give some direction and and seek a not of five. >> Very good. And um yes, go ahead. Ask a question. I just had a quick question um of whether this needs a knot of five or a not of three given the scope of of what it is.

[229:02] >> Uh it's not a research assignment. I believe it would need not of five. >> Good. So what I'd say is maybe Ryan you can propose this not of five to commission a letter similar to the >> drafting points that you put together if you >> happy to. Yeah. If there's no discussion or Okay, great. Um yeah, then I would um uh I would propose that I would request a not five to commission staff to um to draft the letter and I would offer that we use the as a basis the um the most recent draft that came in today. Um and it's further that invite staff to add detail such as performance standards or or other relevant detail in support of the points um as they develop it. just I'm happy to just ask for the not five unless anyone wants to add anything to that. Right. Um yes, Lauren, >> I just wanted to say thank you to Ryan for bringing this forward to us. Um I Yeah, I'm really glad that we're doing

[230:02] this hopefully doing this. >> Agree 100%. Um so all in favor of proceeding with this just raise your hand for as a equivalent of nodding. That's 80 um a not of eight to ask staff to draft a letter and bring it back to us under consent I believe for approval future meeting. Yeah. Thanks so much for that Ryan. All right. Um with that we have um actually gotten back on track timewise. Great job everybody. So it's now time for 9A. >> All right sir. 9A is our executive session scheduled for tonight. Nine. It is the consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council convene as the KID board of directors to hold an executive session of the KG board of directors to discuss a potential real property purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of

[231:01] district-owned parking property or asset as authorized by subsection 24-6-424A of the CR. RS concerning the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real personal or other property interests and subsection 24-6-424E of the CRS determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators. >> Thanks for that, Elicia. All right, we've got some I've got some text to read regarding um the executive session, but I this says that we need to have um convened as caged, but I don't have specific language for that in the script. >> I'm so sorry. I thought I included that.

[232:00] Um I believe what you would be seeking Oh, yes. Um consideration of a motion to adjurnn as the Boulder City Council and and reconvene as the KJO board of directors. >> So moved. Do we have a second for that reconvening? Got a motion and a second. Um all in favor to convene as the board of KA directors raise your hand. That's nine. Oh yes, 9. Great. Um so we have now uh convened as the directors of KID. So, the city manager and city attorney have requested an executive session of the uh central area business improvement district, kid, also known as Boulder Downtown Commercial District, pursuant to CRS section 246424 to discuss a potential real property purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of a district-owned parking property or asset as authorized by 246424A CRS concerning the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real personal or other property

[233:00] interest in 20 246424 EC CRS determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators. The following provisions of the Colorado Open Meetings Act authorize an executive session to discuss this matter. The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real personal or other property interest. CRS 246424A. Conferences with an attorney for the city to receive legal advice on specific legal questions. CRS 246424B. Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations. Developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators CRS 246424E and consideration of documents protected by the mandatory non-disclosure provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act CRS 246424G. This topic announcement provides as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized. I will now entertain a motion to convene an executive session pursuant to CRS

[234:00] section 246424 for a conference with the city manager and attorney for the city for the purpose previously stated. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Uh we have a motion and a second. A motion for executive session must pass by twothirds of the quorum of council present. Elicia, if we may, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the motion to adjourn to the executive session with council member Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Yes. >> Winer. >> Yes. >> Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Rocket. >> Yes. >> Folks, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> And Shuhart, >> yes. The motion >> motion has passed. Yes, sir. >> That yes, motion has passed. 9. The council will now recess and reconvene immediately uh in an executive session to discuss the matter previously stated

[235:00] for the purposes previously stated.

[288:12] 10:16 p.m. and the executive session has been concluded. The Oh goodness, I just lost it. Chris, did you send that in Teams? There we go. Um the participants in the in the executive session were Taiisha Adams, Aaron Brockett, Matt Benjamin, Lauren Fulgurtz, Tina Marquis, um Ryan Shuhard, Nicole Spear, Mark Wallock, Tara Winer, Chris Messchuk, Mark Wolf, Teresa Taylor Tate, and Chris Jones. 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.

[289:01] Seeing none, I continue the November 6, 2025 regular meeting agenda. Is there a motion to adjurnn as cages and reconvene as the Boulder City Council? >> Second. >> Motion and second. All in favor, please raise your hand. >> That's Terara. That passes with a vote of 9 to zero. Um the council now will now reconvene immediately as the city council. So we are reconvened as the Boulder City Council and we are at the end of our agenda. So, unless anyone has a last remark, I will go ahead and gave us closed here 18 p.m. Thanks everybody and have a good night.