February 12, 2026 — City Council Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[5:07] Welcome everyone. Welcome everyone to the Thursday, February 12th, 2026 special meeting of the Boulder City Council. Please, you're breaking up. Aaron, can you hear me now? >> I think you're back. >> Okay. Um, did you hear me? We're called to order. And Elisha, can we have a roll call, please? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We'll start the tonight's roll call as usual with Council Member Adams,

[6:01] >> present. >> Benjamin, >> present. >> Mayor Brackett, >> present. >> Council member Kaplan, >> present. >> Marquis, >> present. Shouar >> here. >> Spear >> present. >> Wallik >> here. >> And Mayor Pro Tim Wer >> present. >> Mayor, we have our quorum. >> Great. I'm just going to switch my internet. I'll be back in one second. All right. Can you hear me? Yes. >> Okay. All right. I would now like to ask for a motion to amend the agenda to remove item 6A, the assault weapons certification period discussion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Got to be fast.

[7:00] >> Yeah, >> we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hands. I believe that's unanimous. So the agenda has been amended. If we can go to our consent agenda item, please Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Our consent agenda is item number two on tonight's agenda and it consists of items 2 A and 2B. >> Any questions or comments on this or possibly a motion? >> I move the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Got a motion in a second. Alicia, can we have a roll call, please? Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 2 A and 2B with council member speaker. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> I. >> Mayor Po Tim Winer.

[8:00] >> Yes. >> Council member Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brock. >> Yes. Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> And Shuhart, >> yes. >> The consent agenda is hereby approved unanimously. >> Very good. Can we go to our public hearing now, please, Elisha? >> Yes, sir. Our public hearings are our public hearing is item number 3A on tonight's agenda and it is the consideration of a motion to determine if there is sufficient community need as defined in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan to warrant further consideration of a service service area expansion plan for the area 3 planning reserve. >> Thanks so much. >> I appreciate that, mayor. And I um am seeing you pop up, Brad, so maybe I'm giving it to you. I thought I was giving it to Christopher, but take it away. >> Thank you. Yeah, little shift in plans,

[9:01] but uh good evening council. Uh I am Brad Mueller, the director of planning and development services. Uh we are happy to be here this evening. Uh I just want to share as an introduction that at the last at the end of the last century, city leaders did an analysis of what areas in the county might be geographically appropriate for urban development sometime in the future. And then over a decade or so ago, there was a precise process prescribed to determine if and when that should start. And we've been talking with you in shorthand as those being steps one, two, and three. So last year, as a reminder, you authorized uh moving from step one into step two and conducting step two as part of the overall comprehensive plan update. And that is now what we're bringing to you tonight so that you can decide whether to authorize uh step three or not. So we look forward to hearing your thoughts and your determination this evening. and I will

[10:02] turn it over to Sarah Horn, our senior city planner to go through the details with you. >> Hello everybody. Um, thank you Brad and I'm really um, excited to be here with um, council tonight. Um, as Brad mentioned, I'm Sarah Horn, senior planner on the comprehensive planning team. Um, and we're here to provide you with an update on the service area expansion process as Brad mentioned. Um, and we've done our evaluation and we're here to share the results with you tonight. So, I'll just jump right in. So, the purpose of our meeting tonight is to provide you with the opportunity to close out step two of the service area expansion process and to decide whether there are community needs that, as Brad mentioned, are of sufficient priority to keep the door open to step three. Keep the door open, >> which is the service area expansion plan. This discussion is not about the design or specific uses for the reserve. You won't be making a decision to expand, nor will you be approving an initiation of an expansion plan at this

[11:00] time. You're simply being asked if you want to continue to explore um the expansion option. And here's the agenda for tonight. I'll share the staff presentation, then we'll have time for clarifying questions, public comment, and your deliberation and vote. So, I'll start with a quick update on the comprehensive plan and service area expansion processes. So here you see a diagram which you've probably seen before of the comprehensive >> I know it's kind of fun >> plan update schedule. Um throughout the last year and a half we've been identifying and assessing community needs through the first three phases of the project which you see in white on the screen. We're now in the last phase which is highlighted in green um drafting the plan for community and policymaker review and hopefully approval and adoption by the four decision-making bodies later this summer. During the update, um, as Brad mentioned, we've continued working through the service area expansion process, and you can see the steps on the screen. Step one, which is the urban services study, helped us answer the

[12:00] question, could we expand into the reserve? We're now finishing up step two, which is the community needs assessment, where we're asking, should we expand into the reserve? After this step is completed, you and planning board can choose to pause the process or move to step three, which is the service area expansion plan. And that would answer the question of how do we expand. Before we walk through the assessment, I just want to quickly um orient everyone again to the area 3 planning reserve. It's shown in orange on the map on the screen on the left side of your screen. It's located just to the north of the existing service area, which is shown in pale gray um and light yellow, light yellow and pale gray. This is the city's only designated area 3 urban expansion area and the city owns just under half of the land within it. Okay, now to the meat, now to the community needs assessment. As I mentioned, um this is step two of the service area expansion process where we're deciding if we should expand into the reserve. And tonight, staff is not

[13:02] recommending expansion or non-expansion. We're sharing an assessment to help you determine if further exploration is warranted. So, our assessment includes two parts. identifying needs and evaluating them. So, how did we identify needs? Well, from the start, the comprehensive plan update process has been grounded in engagement and research. We've combined community input, a statistically valid survey, staff analysis, and state, regional, and department plans and reports to identify needs and explore options for addressing them. While we've identified many community needs during the um comprehensive plan update process, I just want to note that this particular evaluation focuses on um those needs most likely to require land to potentially address. And how do we evaluate the needs? Well, we use three factors outlined in the comprehensive plan to measure expansion against community value, capacity, and benefit. So, as we were going through the analysis, staff asked three core

[14:01] questions. Will expansion address a long-term community value? Can the need not be met within the existing service area? And will expansion benefit existing community members and future generations? And so, these are the three questions we ask you to keep in mind um this evening. We also use the city's sustainability, equity, and resilience framework goals, which align with community priorities to guide the evaluation. Okay, here we go. So, now that you know how we identified and evaluated the needs, whoa, sorry. Whoops. I'll walk through the assessment. So, we identified six needs to share with you tonight. For this, in the next few slides, I'll highlight each community area of focus and identified need. I'll then summarize staff's analysis using the three factors I just just mentioned. Community values, which come from the city's sustainability, equity, and resilience framework, capacity, and benefits. And with the benefits, we'll also discuss considerations. So, starting with housing choice and opportunity, consistent with the DR COG

[15:01] or the Denver Regional Council of Government's um regional housing needs assessment, staff identified the need for about 9,500 new housing units by 2032. So, this need aligns with our livable community value. From a capacity standpoint, the existing service area could accommodate over 10,000 units and the planning reserve could potentially support between 4,300 and 8,700 units. Currently, as I mentioned earlier, in the planning reserve, the city owns some of the land. We um own 30 acres that were purchased with affordable housing funds and 109 acres that are reserved for park use. The rest of the land in the reserve is privately owned apart from 5 acres owned by the Forest Service. So meeting the identified housing need in the reserve would likely rely on private development and full buildout including infrastructure could take 15 to 30 years to fully realize. That being said, the city could use tools like annexation agreements or subsidies to encourage additional

[16:00] affordable housing development. So we know there's been a lot of interest in housing in the community, specifically around the topics of middle inome and middle housing types, quote unquote. So we wanted to dig a little deeper into housing need particularly by income level to help provide a clearer picture for you. So the breakdown you see on the screen um which is from the Dr. Cog report shows that overall about 60% of the total housing need in the city is for those households at 50% of area median income or below. While middle-income households, which you see bracketed in the black box on the screen, um those that are between 80 and 120% AMI, represent about 12% of the total need. So, we can further break down um housing needs by um income and tenure um which is rentals and ownership. So, for rentals, which you see on the left side of the screen, the biggest need remains with households earning 50% AMI or below. There's a 77% gap at that income

[17:01] level. For households that make between 80 and 120% AMI, the rental gap is about 8%. Now, on the right side of the screen, you see home home ownership, a chart reflecting home ownership, and that looks different. Um, the largest gaps here are in ownership options for again households below 50% AMI and households above 120% AMI. For the households that are making between 80 and 120% AMI or that quote unquote middle income range, the ownership gap is about 19%. And that is significantly higher than the gap for rentals for that income bracket um which I mentioned is at 8%. Okay, so now that you have all those numbers swimming around in your head, I'll just quickly share a few more um some additional highlights um related to progress the city's made over the last decade or so related to affordable housing options. There are a little more than 4,300 permanently affordable units in the city, which means that about one in every 11 households lives in

[18:01] affordable housing currently. And since 2014, we've added over 1,500 permanently affordable units out of about 4,100 overall. So with those numbers, housing makes up about 37% of all the unit all the new units we've built in roughly the last 10 years. I know this is quite a bit of housing information that I've shared at a pretty quick clip and I know there's a lot here to unpack, but I just want to remind you that you will have a chance to dig in deeper to this data um at your March 5th meeting with Housing and Human Services. So, with that, I'm going to move on to the second need that we evaluated, which falls under safety. So, the city's 2020 fire rescue plan highlights the need for a new storage facility for reserve engines and equipment. This need ties directly to our safe and responsibly governed community values. When looking at capacity, there's currently space available in both the existing service area and the planning reserve for this type of use. When considering potential

[19:01] benefits, our community of course benefits from well-resourced fire rescue programs and facilities wherever they might be located. Um, it's also worth noting that there are locations outside the existing service area that can accommodate this type of use or these types of facilities without having to use the planning reserve. Okay. Now, we'll look at a couple of needs tied to multi-generational and multi-ultural community area of focus. So, reports that we looked at from the Bloomberg Harvard city leadership initiative that the city just recently completed and aging well in Boulder County. Um, these reports highlight the need for more affordable continuum of care communities and facilities. So, this aligns with our livable and healthy and socially thriving community values. And again, there's space in both the existing service area and the planning reserve to potentially um support this need. Um, and while more continuum of care options would benefit our aging population, developing these facilities can take a long time due to infrastructure and

[20:00] construction timelines. So, the benefits may not be immediate. And as our population is aging and that's a more immediate need, that's just something to consider as you're thinking about this. Another need under multigenerational and multicultural community comes from the 2022 parks and recreation plan. More regional parkland to meet level of service standards for the projected 2040 population. This need falls under our livable and healthy and socially thriving community values. The existing service area does not have enough space to meet this need, but city-owned properties in the planning reserve are available. As I mentioned earlier, 189 acres are already earmarked for parks purposes because the city already owns the land and infrastructure needs for this type of use are relatively light. Um, park development could happen faster than other types of projects. Um, and more park space helps our community meet national level of service standards. At the same time, funding for this effort would have to be prioritized if this course of action were taken. And while a

[21:01] lighter lift, infrastructure and services would still need to be extended if this was an option that you chose. Okay, so we have two more needs to go. We're in the home stretch. Related to food systems, um community input um that we've gotten throughout the process highlighted the need for smaller scale farming options for local producers. Again, this aligns with our healthy and socially thriving and our economically vital values. In terms of capacity, there are suitable sites in the existing service area to accommodate small footprint agriculture. Um, but there aren't sites for traditional agriculture operations, bigger sized operations. There is space in the planning reserve to theoretically accommodate this need. Um, and we know that expanding farming options and land for local food producers could be beneficial, but leasing, managing, and working the land is a complex process. And it's also unclear if this need could be successfully met in the reserve um due to the low agricultural value of the

[22:00] land. And in fact, that's part of the reason that this area was chosen for potential urban development rather than um agricultural development. And just a final note, this use is already accommodated outside the service area um on sitting owned and managed land um in area 3 rural preservation sites. So we do have locations for these types of uses already. And then finally, our last need under climate action. Um the city's climate action plan identifies the need for renewable energy generation to support our move to zero emission electricity. Um this falls under our environmentally sustainable community value. there isn't space for large renewable energy projects in the current service area. Um, and the planning reserve does have space that could potentially work, but we know that expanding renewable um it does have space that could potentially work. Um, and while we know that expanding renewable energy benefits the community's health, the economy, and the environment, lots of different things. Um, while there are large enough parcels

[23:01] of land in the reserve for this type of use, typically they're located in more rural areas and they also might be better coordinated through public service utility providers or other partners who have expertise in these areas. So, that wraps up our review of the community needs assessment. Pretty fast and furious, but um we do have a couple more considerations for you to think about before your discussion. Um uh as part of the update process, you you all know we conducted a statistically valid survey and a couple of results are relevant here. The survey um shows strong concern um just generally in the community about cost of living, housing, resilience in the environment along um so that's just important to keep in mind generally and then along with mixed views about where growth should occur. So specifically 39% of respondents felt that the city should focus housing and business development within city limits. 16% supported expanding expanding to accommodate uses and 32% feel that both

[24:02] options should be explored. Um and I also want to note that whether or not expansion is pursued, there are opportunities within the comprehensive plan itself to address community needs. For example, staff, we've been working on exploring how the existing service area could accommodate more growth and flexibility through updates to the land use map, the framework. We're trying to open it up a little for more flexibility. And we're also looking at policy changes that could provide clearer direction to address some of the needs I've discussed tonight. And finally, we did also bring this same item to planning board on January 20th. And a summary of that discussion um is in your meeting packet and the minutes were included in the hotline email KJ sent you Monday. So you have those. And I think many of you probably already now know the board voted 4 to3 that the needs are not a sufficient priority to continue exploring service area expansion at this time. And I'm just noting that members were very intentional about that phrasing at this

[25:00] time. and they were clear that this was not meant to be a permanent rejection of expansion or a disagreement about long-term community needs. Instead, their discussion really focused on concerns about the planning effort required to prepare an expansion plan um related to staff capacity and just how large of an effort it might be. Interest in seeing how recent code changes and policy updates perform within the existing service area, and questions about how specific outcomes could be ensured if expansion were to move forward. Okay, now to next steps. So, what does happen next? Well, you'll vote to determine if there are needs of sufficient priority to continue considering expansion. There are three possible paths forward. I'll summarize them briefly and you can see them on the screen. The first one, if council votes no, the process pauses and could be restarted during a future midterm or major comprehensive plan update. You see that on the left side. two, at the top of the second box, if council votes yes,

[26:00] you can ask staff to go back to planning board to request their reconsideration. If planning board changes their vote to yes, then the process remains open and staff would return to discuss initiation of a service area expansion plan after adoption of the comprehensive plan. And the third path, if planning board maintains their original position of no, um then the process pauses with the option again to restart at the next midterm or major comprehensive plan update. Okay, so just one last reminder. You've heard about a range of community needs. Some that can be met within the existing service area, some that may benefit from additional land, and some where the path forward might not be so clear. Your decision this evening is simply to determine whether these needs rise to a level that warrant continued consideration of expansion. We've highlighted six needs um to ground and guide the discussion which are up on the screen, but you're not limited to these needs. If you feel there are other needs that should be considered, please share them this evening during your

[27:01] discussion. Okay. And finally, now to the motion options. There are three and they're detailed in your memo. I'm not going to read them now, but I'm happy to bring them back up later if needed. Um, and as you know, staff have prepared a draft framework council can consider and use as a basis for discussion this evening. All right, I'm done. Finally. Oh, and just one last thing. Staff is happy, of course, to answer any cl any clarifying questions you might have before public comment and deliberation. And with that, I'll turn it over to you, Mayor Brackett. Thanks so much Sarah for that clear and concise presentation. Data packed but well explained. Okay, so do we have questions for city staff and please raise your virtual hands. We got a lot. Um got Mark, Ryan, Tina, Nicole, Rob, Matt. >> Okay, I have a a few. will try not to be

[28:01] uh too lengthy. Um you mentioned the gap is 19% for middle inome households. Uh as we have built virtually no uh middle income for purchase housing in the last few years, how can that gap be only 19%. We have absolutely no supply of middle income for sale product. Sarah, you're council. You're muted, >> sir. >> Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna jump in. Christopher Johnson, comprehensive planning manager. Um, >> it's a great question. We uh we do have representatives from Housing and Human Services. I saw Curt's uh Curt's face pop up. Um that, you know, that analysis is is based on the uh Dr. Cog regional housing needs assessment. And so we we did not dig into the details of how they determined that need, but certainly I

[29:00] would imagine Kurt or others may have some insight into that. >> Yeah, thanks KJ. Uh Kurt Fernhover Housing Human Services. Um so our our understanding of uh the Dr. Cog uh data is it represents what the actual need is. Um, so there there's existing um housing within the city of Boulder that's affordable to middle income. Uh, and what you'll see on March 5th, there's there's actually um a a good amount of rental um housing that's affordable to uh middle inome households. Um and for ownership um there's also availability within um attached units. So condos and and town homes. So it's basically a it's a relationship between what's available and um what the what the need is um of

[30:03] the income level of those households that that segment of the population. >> Okay. Yeah. Well, I I'm a skeptic on that because we we know we're not building that product and uh how it can be that low is is a little strange to me. But Mike, let me move to my next question. Um the national level of service standard for parks, when we do that calculation, do we include open space in that >> or do we just look at parkland? >> Yes, I will. I think Ally Rhodess is on the line and I'll let her um weigh in, but um that I do not believe we do consider open space as part of that. It's the rec it's the parks and recreation in the city, the urban parks. >> Ally, is that correct? >> Sarah nailed it. Folks, I'm Ally Rhodess. I'm the director of parks and recreation for the city. The nuance I'll add is the reason the standards are different is because of the allowable activities. You cannot have a pickle

[31:00] ball match, teach a soccer class, or do other activities under our charter on open space land. And so, cities do have standards for urban parkland because of the activities and amenities that you can have. >> Okay. Um well my follow-up question is given that parks and wreck has difficulty given budget constraints in maintaining its current assets, how does adding 189 acres contribute to to your ability to do so. >> Uh I'll offer that that's part of the challenge, right? I mean the note is that by 20 240 if we grow at projected rates we will need additional parkland to meet community needs. As communities densify that parkland becomes even more important. We see that in the existing system. So I would say regardless of area three and because of our luckily you all are talking about a long-term financial strategy. We need to have conversations about how to care for our park system for the community members today and those of the future.

[32:01] >> Okay. Um and a question with respect to uh energy projects, could those be um could that land be leased from current owners uh without necessarily uh annexing that land into the city? >> That is a very good question. I am not sure. You mean like the private homeowners leasing their land to put there's nothing out there. And if we offered them an opportunity to make money on their land, if if we were not going forward with annexation, um my guess is they would be happy to lease us the land. >> I think that's a good question. I see Brad, >> you're muted, Brad. >> Raising your hand every time, right? Mueller, director of planning. Um, it's

[33:01] a good question, uh, council member, and I think, uh, you've you've partially partially helped understand your question by asking private, uh, there are things folks could do today with that property in terms of leasing to whatever entity for whatever, uh, kind of energy opportunity. Uh, if it required more acreage or was part of a system that, uh, the city controlled, that that be a different discussion, of course, that would involve the city. um and a lot of different considerations at that point. >> Okay. Well, as there are eight other hands up, uh I'm going to leave it there and I'll have some comments unsurprisingly a bit later. >> Yeah, thanks for that, Mark. And yes, seeing the volume of hands, I'd encourage everyone to keep your list relatively brief and focused on things that you need the answer to in order to make a decision tonight. Uh we've got Ryan, then Tina, Nicole, Rob, Matt, Taiisha, and Tara. >> Thanks, Sarah. great presentation. I think I just have one question and it's

[34:00] about the the the park land again. Um one on one of the early slides uh there was a um bullet that showed about the amount of park land that is I think the word was designated. Um, can can you or somebody just talk through um what what if what if this council and planning board were were interested to talk about um undesating that um or undesating part of that for for other uses? What what would be um you know some of the just key sort of procedural considerations about that? >> Sure. Folks, this is Alli RH. Sarah, do you want me to take that on first? Please. So, that would be considered a disposal of parkland and the charter outlines the process for that. It requires authority by both the parks and recreation advisory board and city council. >> Okay. So, it's it's a decision that council with the the the parks board do

[35:01] under some proceeding and if they agree to it, that's it. There's not there's not a lot more I don't know to it than that. We'd have to analyze the funds that were used for the purchase of area3 dollars. If funds restricted to permanent part, like I think permanent park funds might have been used or 0.25 cent sales tax, there might need to be a reimbursement under the current charter language for those funds restrictions. >> Got it. Okay. Thanks very much. >> Thanks, Tina. >> Yeah, I have just a couple clarifying questions. Um, so one is if um if we were to start annexing this land and some of it was near a transit corridor because some of it is running along 36 and presumably the train line, would that portion of the land need to allow the density prescribed in 123, the transportation bill, the housing density bill? >> There I can I can jump in on this one. Um I I will I will admit that I have um

[36:02] tangential uh you know sort of experience with the calculation of the housing opportunity goal that's required by um House Bill I think 1313 from two years ago. Um I think the answer is unfortunately the answer is it depends. um that housing opportunity goal and that calculation is based on a city-wide calculation of um all of those areas and an average density along those transit corridors. So, if we're already meeting that goal um and we potentially are exceeding that goal in other areas of the city, then that would not be required to come into compliance. It would um it would still, you know, it would be included within the mathematical calculation, but it's possible we could be addressing that level of density in other locations. Tina, can I ask a follow-up question? >> Yeah, >> sure. >> I'm not sure which train line you'd be referring to, though, because I don't think there's one that would go near this area. >> Okay. It wouldn't go I didn't know where

[37:01] it was going past up to Longmont if it's going there. >> Yeah, I think it goes through Gun Barrel, but there won't be a stop there. >> Okay. Oh, so Okay. All right. Um, and then my other question is, so on for the housing that is the affordable continuum of care for aging populations, do we have plans that um include the operating costs for that type of housing? Because that's not just to build it. I would think it was also to create some supportive services. Um, is there sort of a citywide strategy so that we're understanding where we might develop it presumably in conjunction with the county, but I I'm not sure. >> I I would ask Kurt if he has any thoughts on that. And >> Kurt, >> yes, thank you. Um we don't currently have um uh project or we don't currently have

[38:00] plans to develop that um within the city or in collaboration with the county. We have been uh over the last year investigating um approaches for um uh Medicare um uh services um for older adults. um we don't currently have a Medicare um facility in in Boulder County and um so we're we're looking at we know that that's a shortfall um in the uh in the continuum of housing. Um and so we're really just getting started on thinking about what um types of projects um we could support with that. >> Okay. Um, and then another question I had is in the survey, the community did seem to be really interested in the town home, cottage court, ADU housing type. And I'm curious

[39:02] if we if we think there's enough of the middle type, middle income type that we just referenced, that there is enough of that, then there seems to be a disconnect between what the survey said about looking for that housing type and what we just heard that that housing type exists and is available. I would just offer and but the survey I don't we didn't um for those that percentages that I shared it wasn't pinpointing a particular type of housing it was just housing in general the the the slide I mentioned is that what you're talking about with the survey results >> I think we were just talking about affordable housing that we that there's enough condos is that what Kurt was saying >> oh oh I'm sorry >> did I miss hear that maybe I Yeah. So, um the the Dr. Cog uh data looks at um the number of um households

[40:00] um in the community, what income levels they're they're at, and then it looks at the housing types that exist um within the community to come up with those um shortfalls. So there um again for um households that make um 100 to 120% of the area median income, there are many opportunities or there there's lots of availability for rental housing for that um uh income group. Um for home ownership, it's less, but it it it's primarily in the attached units. So it it's looking at the number um of households in that category and the percentage um compared to the other categories. So the the the biggest shortfall um in housing from uh uh um uh an AMI

[41:00] perspective is that below 50% of the area income. >> Okay. And so I mean just at a really high level and I'm sure you've given this a lot of thought. We hear a lot about our incomuters and I'm just curious do we know from our our 60,000 to 65,000 incomuters what they might be looking for that would compel them to live in the city or closer to their job? I mean because I think that's why I would probably expand this is with that hope. Um >> Sure. Sure. Um let me um bring that question back to our team and we'll think if we can answer that um when we come back on March 5th. >> Okay. And then I'm sorry I have another question. Um, so just one of the comments that planning board um said is they're concerned about staff capacity and I guess I just want to ask staff how is the capacity or NURA uh is there staff

[42:02] capacity in the planning department if we just move forward or what are what will be um will this become a priority that we didn't anticipate during the retreat? Brad, I'll defer to you to speak about your um your department's capacity to move forward. >> Yeah. Uh thank you, Nuria, and thank you, council member. Um the retreat discussion, as you know, really focused on this coming year. So, uh if it were to be elevated and talked about as a priority of council, uh that would be one avenue to have that um considered at next year's retreat. Um I would say too is if there's a definitive uh direction to move in that uh to do a a plan what is essentially a sub community plan for area 3 um we would take that as you know the direction as well. Uh we would want to talk a little bit about timing and uh tradeoffs, but the short answer uh

[43:00] council member is yes, we'd have capacity. Um that would mean not doing other things of course, but we don't have a prescribed work plan in 2027 that um you know that had already been defined or you had all expressed as priorities already. >> And and I think that's the clarity, Brad, that this would be a 2027 item. >> Yes, exactly. >> Okay, thanks. That's all I have. >> We got Nicole, then Rob, Matt, Taish, Terra. >> Thanks so much for um the presentation and and the memo and all this information. I just had a couple of questions. Um first one has a few different parts. It's a little long-winded. Um let me know if you need a refresher partway through, but I'm thinking a lot about the intersection of um units and income and accessibility and age. And I'm wondering how are age friendly design and universal accessibility being considered in existing service area sites for both

[44:00] parks and housing. Um people can certainly redevelop existing homes to be accessible, but that doesn't mean the neighborhood is going to be accessible or that there's an accessible park nearby via an accessible sidewalk or multi-use path. Um you know, as it is now, a lot of our parks, transportation system, existing homes, they are not accessible. So if we consider that additional dimension of accessibility, what happens to the need for regional park housing um so on and can ex can assisted living facilities um be integrated into existing neighborhoods when many of our neighborhoods are not currently accessible? So basically just wondering if you can reflect a little bit on where accessibility factors in um because I don't in in my view the the need needs that intersection for us to get an accurate sense of need. >> Um yes that's a great thank you um council member Spear. Um, I'm going to just start and say that part of our land our new land use framework and thinking

[45:00] about how we create more areas where there are more intersections of those things you're talking about is something that our team particularly has been working through with the help of transportation parks and I will start there and let others weigh in but I would say that part of our new land use framework is starting to think about those things. >> Yeah, thanks Sarah. I'll I'll jump in quickly. Um and yeah, appreciate the question and I think you know Sarah's absolutely on the right track that um in a couple of weeks you and the rest of the community are going to have an opportunity to review the draft plan and uh the new land use framework and and map and how that is applied. I will also say that there are um there is more clarity in some of the policies that we have and actually some new policies that speak more directly to um particularly accessibility in terms of um you know designing a city that is um that that works for people that from 8 to 80, right? If you design a city that works

[46:00] for children, it tends to work for the rest of us and particularly seniors or others with um you know disabilities, things like that. um also policies that are more directly referencing our our vision zero expectations. And so I I think that there are a number of ways that we're going to be coming at that sort of broad question of accessibility and providing amenities and services to people where they live and nearby where they live. You know, it also factors into um the 15-minute neighborhood conversation and and direction we received from the community assembly. So within the comprehensive plan itself, we'll be establishing that highle guidance. Um and then ultimately through individual department plans and and future work plan items, future implementation is how we'll actually make some progress on that. So, I mean, I guess, you know, for the purposes of the discussion tonight, um, is designing an accessible uh, neighborhood area a need that could be

[47:00] more easily met in a new area, especially one that doesn't have many hills or is it is it, you know, a need that, you know, you feel really can be met pretty easily um through redeveloping of, you know, existing neighborhoods which are owned more peace meal. And you know, you can't always uh like you you can redesign, you know, your area of the sidewalk or something like that, but the person next door has a different vision of of how that works. And so um they don't always connect together, right? >> Yeah. Sure. Sure. There certainly are opportunities within what is essentially green field development, you know, to envision a future and establish design guidelines and other parameters around how that would ultimately um function and and be developed over time. Uh you know, one of the considerations related to the planning reserve is that the city does not control the entire area. So much of that development is going to be private redevelopment or private

[48:00] development of those lands. Of course, there can be a framework and and like I mentioned, design principles or other um other ways for the you know the outcomes to meet certain performance standards and things like that that you may not be able to achieve as easily within the city because because you are working within existing context but I don't think it's um absolutely impossible to achieve those things within the city. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and then one other question, you know, it seems like one of the concerns that, um, some folks have, um, I think this may have come out of the planning board discussion, um, was that, you know, we don't we don't have more, um, details just yet in terms of what what things are going to look like. And, you know, obviously that will come out in in the sub community plan of the next step if this moves forward. But I guess my question is, are we ever going to have a time where we can really uh be thoughtful about what those design details and requirements may be while this is tied to uh a comprehensive plan update because I see how much work you

[49:01] all are putting into the comprehensive plan update. Um and and I don't I don't understand how you could also then be doing some some detailed sub community planning along the way. >> Sure. I I might touch on that and then I say I saw Brad's hand come up quickly as well and uh you know what I would say is that really digging into the details and understanding um you know how we implement those policies within the comprehensive plan that is the work to be done as part of an expansion plan for this area. Um, you know, the the item before you tonight is just whether or not to keep the door open to to move towards creating that expansion plan, but that's really when we would engage in the deeper community conversations around expectations of housing type and uh mobility options and all of the more detailed design aspects would would come through that process. Um, Brad, if you want to add to that. I'll just add to that that uh that type of design uh

[50:01] value and and standards is implementation as Christopher indicated and um really would apply citywide and be implemented over time through capital investments that type of thing. Uh there is current a current work plan schedule for the uh DCS the design construction stands standards um to be updated in 2027. Um and that certainly, you know, could be part of that. I think you will see policies in the draft um comp plan, which again applies citywide that uh probably address that, but of course, you know, council would be able to speak to that if it doesn't, but that would be citywide and and probably of universal interest. >> Great. Thank you, >> Rob. And thanks, Nicole. >> Um thank you, Mayor. And thank you Sarah. I watched your presentation with planning board and I know you've done

[51:00] this more than once and it's just as good the second time. >> Um so my first question is I know that um one of the staff members I think it was KJ um when asked about cost I heard 300 to $500,000. Do we have a firmer number on that at this point? uh as far as cost of um oh for an expansion plan was >> to study for I'm sorry to study >> if we move forward. >> Yeah, there was a question at the planning board hearing about and it it kind of came back to this you know staff capacity question a bit of um you know what would the creation of an expansion plan look like in terms of budget and staff needs etc. Off the top of my head, I, you know, threw out a number of maybe three to $500,000 in terms of consultant fees. That would be in addition to staff time. Again, I think that's I'm very much up in the air in terms of how we would scope the project, how much um of

[52:01] our own internal staff and expertise we would be using versus hired uh consultants to weigh in. Um I think it's a I think it's a reasonable assumption but um certainly that would be uh refined um greatly as we got into more detailed discussions around scope and extent of the plan itself. >> Okay. Uh you kind of parlayed into my next question which was staff hours dedicated to it. Um doesn't sound like we know that yet or how that's going to be split up. >> Yeah, I think that's safe. Yeah, go ahead Brad. Yeah, I'm happy to speak that that's true. We we don't know but uh this is not new territory for us either. Uh we have a history as a city of doing sub community planning and uh a staff capacity for that. The sta the permanent staff is sized to do that at regular interfills and in fact there was uh a vision before co to do a regular uh cadence of doing sub community plans.

[53:01] Um, okay. >> I I I would just offer to though it we do have the paths, we know how to do it, but it is green field development, which is a a bit of a new animal for us generally as the city. So, we would want to consider that as well. >> Okay. So, and continuing on with the scope, would that include things like demographics, looking into best practices, um, modeling some of our neighbor municipalities that may be doing some great things, infrastructure service demands? >> Yeah, I think broadly speaking, it would include all of those things. You know, certainly we would want to design a um you know, a plan and set expectations that are realistic given the market conditions. We would want to make sure that we did, you know, quite a bit of economic study to determine that um the the um products that we're interested in uh seeing out there can actually be delivered and and financed and things

[54:01] like that. And of course we would dig into much greater detail as to the infrastructure requirements where where all of those um uh you know tapin points are going to be and and also we would do some pure research in terms of um taking a regional perspective of things that are happening in the area that um might be cautionary tales but also might be things that we want to emulate here. I do want to piggy back and uh just use this as an opportunity to correct what um we've heard a little bit was a misconception about how infrastructure and the cost of infrastructure. Uh the city has laws in place that require development pay its own way. And what that looks like in practical terms is a specific development needs to pay for the infrastructure, the streets, water and sewer on the property plus any uh offsite impact at areas like a turn lane or or a bike path that connects. Um and then as part of development impact fees, they also pay to be into the system. So they're paying for the capacity of the

[55:01] larger wastewater system, the larger sewer system on what amounts to a a per capita basis and that's done through the uh development impact fee study that's conducted every 5 years or so. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify what there had been some misconceptions around. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I just have two more questions and one's real short. Um, if we say no to this, does that mean we can't revisit it for five years? >> Yes, that's that that is correct. Um, it can it can be it can be restarted or reconsidered at the next um update to the comprehensive plan and and this the midterm update would be in the neighborhood of five years away, >> right? Or 10 if you decide to wait even longer. >> Or if you wanted to wait, yeah, it would go to the next major update which would be 10 years. Okay, my last question, sorry. Um,

[56:00] could the possible, speaking of the parks land, I'm just wondering if land was allocated or reallocated and um saying maybe some funds that were already dedicated to uh procuring that land. Um, could those funds go back into parks and wreck to help uh for some of the future current liabilities expenditures to offset those? >> Yeah, it's a good question. I might defer that one to Ally, but um uh you know, as far as I understand that if there was uh you know, if there if there was a disposal of certain parklands and that may may include the need to reimburse funds, then um then yes, we would have to determine where those funds go. Ally, I don't think we I don't know if we have a clear answer. >> Basically, if reimbursement is called for, it would have to go to the fund to

[57:01] be reimbursed, right? So permanent the permanent parks and recreation fund if those were used then funds would have to go back to that fund and I'm not sure I don't think the same restriction is clear if it was 02 5 cent sales tax money that would be a future conversation. >> Okay, that's all I have. Thank you guys. >> Thanks. Now Matt then Tisha and Tara >> u thank you. Uh really good questions so far and thanks for the responses uh staff. Um, I'm gonna maybe piggyback a little bit on a query that Nicole had and and maybe you've sort of answered it through her way she asked, but I may I ask it a little differently. Um, some of the things we've heard from planning board was this need at this moment to lay a bunch of specific conditions with regards to area 3. And I'm sort of curious um some of those are actually, you know, reasonable things. And so I'm wondering is where is the appropriate time in this process for us to place

[58:00] guard rails, guiding principles or details, specifics like we don't want stacked flats or we want more family housing like holiday, we want a holiday 2.0 like where in the process do we start to define those things both values and maybe specifics of what we want? >> Sure. Yeah, it's a great it's a great question. Um, uh, well, I can I can say that part of that decision- making is is potentially before you this evening in terms of the hotline that was sent on Monday. Um, staff, you know, heard from planning board and have heard from uh, a few others on council for, you know, an interest in providing some guardrails or providing some parameters around what a future process would look like. At this moment, I think it would be um I think it would be beneficial to the longer process to be relatively vague or at least, you know, broad in those guard rails at this point um that are that are

[59:01] based on uh feedback we've received through this comprehensive plan update. So, um staff attempted to do that in that hotline uh that we sent to the beginning of the week to provide here are the things that we're hearing from community or policy makers. these seem to be the um areas of interest to explore further. So that could be a way to sort of put some put some parameters around it at this moment when you start to get into more specifics around um really setting expectations or requirements out of future projects and future development in the area. I think that's probably most appropriate within that expansion plan process because at that point you're going to have a lot more information um regarding some of the infrastructure extensions, what the phasing looks like, you know, which areas go down first, which areas are saved for later. Um you'd have better clarity around the use of city land. um you'd also have a tremendous amount of community engagement and and much more

[60:00] details um just broadly speaking about what the future may look like out there. And I think at that point that would be the that would be the right time to set some more specific um expectations for for future development in that location. >> Appreciate that. I've got one more question, but just a quick follow-up on timing. How long would if we were to uh start the service area expansion plan in earnest following the passing of the comp plan? How long would that service area plan expansion process take? >> This is Brad. >> Yeah, >> Christopher and I might have different answers. So, let's see. >> Let KJ answer. >> Four years, I think. >> I would say 18 to 24 months. What What would you say? >> That's what I thought. Yep. That I was going to agree with you. Oh, I was actually hoping for for some tension there. You guys, you built this up and left us with nothing. All right. Well, I appreciate that answer. >> U my my my final question has to do with another thing that's been floating out there with regards to piloting or other

[61:02] things in this area. And there there was some early conversation, I think even we discussed on council early on in the comp plan process about an interest in maybe phasing area 3 in in in different chunks. Um certainly because we've sort of already begun the process in the southeastern quarter of it and and sort of thinking maybe we phase this to the northwest. Um not that we're determining that today, but if there was interest in sort of chunking this in some form or forms, where again in the process would be the best time for us to have that discussion on on how we would think about phasing it, whether it's anything adjacent to our public property or whatever whatever we do with that. where would be appropriate time to to do that? Because I'm wondering does that then set up the service area expansion plan process if we're like hey we've already we're going to do phase one here then phase two does that maybe change some staff resource concerns um a time frame

[62:00] and so I'm just wondering where do we define that and then how does that trickle into those other steps if at all? >> Yeah, thanks for the question. Um it there is probably a bit of chicken and egg happening here where there you know there certainly could be value in understanding some of the phasing dynamics earlier uh so that the service area expansion plan may be focused on you know those those you know first areas to to um to be incorporated. I think the way that we've always envisioned it and actually there's there is some language within the amendment procedures of the comprehensive plan that sort of outline the characteristics of what needs to be included in an expansion plan. One of them is phasing and and so there's a there's a description around uh the the areas of contiguity that are adjacent to the city, the general size of each of those phases. Um, so I think realistically I think a real phasing plan would would

[63:00] probably be part of that expansion plan process. Um, but certainly there could be some initial sort of concepts or ideas. I also think that there's value in looking at the planning reserve as a whole and planning planning it holistically and then talking about phasing as opposed to doing it incrementally. Um, that that would just be my, you know, uh, preference if we were to to start it tomorrow. I'll second that. I'll second that as some staff a staff member who might have to work on it. >> Even if it's phase, just thinking about it like in a bigger picture might be might be a good thing to do. >> Appreciate it. Thank you so much. >> Thanks, Ty and Tara. >> Awesome. Thank you so much. Um and thank you to my colleagues for great questions. Um mine are centered around a couple of areas. I will be brief. The first is on the plan. So I noticed that um there's a requirement on ensuring for example the strategic growth report, the

[64:00] um Colorado vital landscapes and resources report and the water um plan report. But I was curious um if there if the um landscapes and resources component included the latest uh CPW um wildlife action plan needs. I didn't see them mentioned in the report specifically those related to habitat protection and connectivity. >> Uh yeah and I think the um the some of those elements the water element and the um habitat elements are um part of the comprehensive plan. Um so there there has been some initial study on that. We have not looked specifically at um at what those outcomes are related to the planning reserve. Again, I think that would be part of that expansion plan process as we got into additional um you know details on on evaluating which areas may or may not be appropriate.

[65:00] What I can say is that you know back in um the 1990s when this area was identified there um you know there was not a lot of uh agricultural or environmental or wildlife value identified in this particular area. that's why um it was identified but certainly you know science >> conditions have changed significant years right >> yeah habitat loss is has been significant since the 90s but I'll save that for comments um just wanted to clarify on the plans and then similarly I didn't see any mention of that the state agriculture plan and we know that plan also has a priority around um reserving water resources and resilience around that so again curious if the state agricultural plan was also considered I noticed some references to the impact of agriculture and was curious if that plan was actually reviewed and considered as a part of this initial review. >> Yeah, we did not look specifically at the state agricultural plan. Um we did consult with um with our county colleagues and looked at you know their

[66:02] mapping for areas of um high soil value and and things related to agriculture. this area was was outside of those boundaries but certainly we we can and would state important. Okay. Thank you. And then for the water on the a piece when the first component h when the first part of the process occurred it was my understanding based on the responses from staff that agriculture uh water wasn't um or or that agriculture really wasn't really considered in that initial phase. Um, and so I was just curious, um, again, we know that, uh, currently the city of Boulder owns more agricultural rights than we use. And because of beneficial use, the majority of the unused water that we're not using for municipal needs are being sold for actually local agriculture primarily is my understanding with some going um to

[67:02] other municipalities, but the majority actually goes to our local agricultural leases. So, I was curious if there was I didn't see an analysis of the impact of increased population and what impacts that would then have for those that um are using agricultural water um both from our city leases, the 20 or so leases, the what 60 or so county leases. Um just was curious if that was considered at this stage. >> Yeah, I I would say not in a lot of detail at this stage. We um and I do know that Joe Tatuchi is is on the line and others from our utilities department that could speak to it. Uh you know during I will say during the urban services study um that first step of the process we you know we did calculate and do some preliminary estimates on water supply and water use. >> Yes. But that was not inclusive. Just wanted to point of clarification there because I asked this question then and I'm asking it again now and I was told

[68:01] that this was the step that that was going to happen on because this is the step that we need to decide not on the how but on the if and so I was I okay so I can get on that in comments and I just I want to go uh get this last question in and it was about wildfires. Um, previously again I asked about whether um the resources need to fight a wildfire were considered and calculated in the estimates for this service area. And I was told and again you're welcome to go back to the minutes um and the recording but I was told that although water had been considered as it relates to consumption and you know use and some of the uses that we had um it was there was there was not a calculation um for actually fighting wildfires and the impact that that would have. Um has that been resolved? I I do recall that we studied um as part of that urban services study the the sort of number of um additional uh fire

[69:00] department staff and equipment that we would be required. >> I asked about water. >> I'm asking about water. So although I appreciate that response I'm asking specifically as I did before I'm asking again >> have we calculated how much water that we think are estimated that would be necessary and again I did ask this before I was informed that that calculation had not been done but that the calculation um that the the data necessary for those calculations do do exist which was wonderful I just assume it hadn't um and so I was curious again if those calculations had been considered um as it relates to the water use for any kind of expansion um into area 3. >> Uh I would say not at this time we have not but I know Kim Hutton is on the line if you would like to get any more details on that. >> It's a yes or no. So if it if we have not done that calculation and I would assume if it had been done it would have been in the paperwork. So um I appreciate that. And then my very last

[70:00] question is the East Boulder um sub community area. Um, when do we estimate based on, you know, the current buildout versus the potential buildout how long that would take? >> Uh, uh, gosh, that's a great question. Um, >> thank you. >> It's it's going to be, you know, it certainly is going to be dependent on, uh, market dynamics and how those properties redevelop over time. Um, you know, the sub community plan, similar to the comprehensive plan, has a has about a 20-year time horizon. >> Um, >> so it sounds like a similar horizon potentially >> is what I just heard then >> 20 years. Yeah. >> So that would take 20 years and it would take potentially 20 to 30 on the sub area 3 or area 3. >> I would yeah I would imagine area 3 would would be in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 years just as as part of infrastructure expansion and things like that. Or Brad did you have anything to add to that or >> Well, I wanted to clarify the planning horizon for the sub community plan is 20 years. It's it's impossible to know what

[71:02] a buildout scenario would be, >> but I I I guess where I'm going is planning horizon >> similar to what you just said for area 3. My question then was for for the east east uh sub community and similarly um that's a relatively flat area. So will the accessibility considerations that we have been discussing earlier be applied to any buildout on the east area? I I would certainly hope so and again I would envision that happening with citywide discussion in the next year. >> Awesome. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Erin, can I uh ask a clarification on one of those? >> Yep. Um so one question just on the water in the in the plan that we looked at and there was that one point that threshold at 9,000 units where we were uncertain whether we could continue with our service level agreements on water um in that scenario was that kind of to Taiisha's question did that include um

[72:02] maintaining all the agricultural uses or was the the quantity of water that we were con that we were thinking would it all have been dedicated at that point to sustaining the new units. Does that make sense? >> Yes, it it does make sense. And from my recollection, the um Oh, and I see Joe popped up. So, I'll I'll start and and let Joe jump in. But from my recollection, the um uh you know, some of those potential water uh changes to water policy or changes to the way um we implement our water restrictions were really under those most significant and severe climate uh modeling and at those um at the sort of highest level of additional housing units and density. But I do think that all of that was accommodating for or at least um anticipating trying to also preserve, you know, in instream flows and our

[73:01] agricultural portfolio and other things. So Joe, please jump in and correct me if I have that wrong. >> Yeah. And I'll just phrase it like it it kind of assumed everything would stay the same and how we're using water and we had access to accommodate the additional units. That's the basic idea of that. Yeah, good evening, council. Uh Joe Teduchi, I'm the director of the utilities department. It's a great question and if you remember we did a a study session this summer on our water supply and we looked at a number of different scenarios uh including um climate change and some some of those scenarios that were more extreme and we talked about the various ways that we use water for our municipal uses for instream flows our agricultural leasing programs and things like that. And of course growth is is another element of use. And um just just a

[74:00] reminder the big picture framing on that is it really comes down to tradeoffs. And if there's if there's less water because of climate change then some of the uses will have to be less. And so if we do more growth we may have less for agricultural leasing and things like that. So, don't have an exact answer for you, but I I don't know that I would necessarily agree that everything would just stay the same there. There would be some tradeoffs. >> Okay, thanks. That helps. >> Erin, can I call a on the water thing? Just >> I'll get to Terry. Just it's just a point of clarification. Um, I believe in a past meeting, it's just sort of addressing Taiisha's points about firefighting. Um it was discussed and I believe the chief and maybe even Joe mentioned that the the aggregate of water was negligible in terms of the overall quantity um in terms of firefighting efforts and and I believe the chief mentioned that uh once or twice. So I just wanted to clarify that

[75:00] just since that was that was stated at a previous meeting I think last year. >> Yeah. Thank thanks for reminding me of that and and that is accurate. We do track how much water we use and account for it during fighting, but it's it's a really insignificant amount. But I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure that was exactly your question. >> Yeah. Although I wonder what's insi insignificant now um versus what it will be insignificant in five years, 10 years from now. So I just and my question was actually not is it significant or not? My question was, was it calculated and was that information provided to all of us so that we understood what that minor inconvenience would be in 2025? Um, so that I I appreciate the clarification. We still don't have the data, so I would love to get that data. Thank you. >> Okay, just to be clear, we're finishing up our questions here and we can get to comments here in a little bit. I've got Tara and then I've got a couple quick ones myself.

[76:00] >> I was kidding, Matt. You could always call aqu. It just seems so long since the discussion started and when I'm finally asking my questions, but that's okay. Anyway, um my first question goes way back to the beginning when Mark discussed that 19% home ownership housing gap. Um can you tell me if the Dr. COG study that gave us that 19% was the county our city or uh like the greater Denver area where did what counts for that 19%. >> Those numbers that Sarah showed were for the city of Boulder >> city. >> Yeah, Dr. Cog also shows uh information for the for the county as well. I Okay, I guess why when it comes to condos, which we haven't built any in forever, are they referring to those very old condos that for middle income? Is that

[77:00] the ones they're referring to? >> Well, they're they're referring to the housing stock that we currently have. >> And so that that's used to figure out what the gap is. >> So it it could have been all this middle income could be just all those stacked ones that we put in. It has nothing to do with the ones that we might want. but more just any type of middle inome housing. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. Okay. Next. Um, this refers to Tina and her comment about timing. Is it possible that we can push back? Like I know we're a lot of us are a little bit nervous about overwhelming the planning department. So, couldn't we just say something like once you're done with uh the uh uh comp plan and then title 9 and like 3 years in or whatever, can there be no rush on this so that we don't stress you out and so that timing is not a consideration should people feel that that is why they would want to hold back.

[78:00] >> Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. Um Brad Mueller again, you know, we we work regularly with the city manager's office on on work load and and timing and such and and I would encourage council not to make that a primary consideration. Uh we do have uh the group that works just as an aside on things like code updates is different than the comprehensive planning uh division. Um, so there is that distinction, but um, >> so we shouldn't worry about you. You got you got this. >> Well, you should always worry about us. >> Maybe in a different way, but not about this particular thing. >> I call on that really quick, Tara. >> So, I did and I'm just going to ask a followup. I'm sorry, but we're really talking about budget considerations. So, um, is this something where we would almost certainly need to spend more and this would become a spending priority as well or, um, would it just be work flow that changes? So, I mean, we're looking

[79:01] at 300 to 500,000 in consulting fees. Is there anything beyond that? >> Um, it it's hard to anticipate, but that that is a reasonable number. And of course it all comes to down also to how quickly uh if it's slower for example we would be able to use more staff resources. And the other thing uh to un to clarify is that you as council could wait a year or two to start the service plan. Uh you would be just authorizing the ability to do it if you choose to go to step three tonight. Uh not not the immediacy of it for example. >> Right. So no rush. No rush um at all um is what you're saying. It doesn't have to be a rush. Check. Okay. Listen everybody. I'm of course you can call anybody. >> I'm just joking. I don't care. I just I just wanted to be crystal clear on this point uh Brad that you were just making.

[80:00] >> If we were to say yes, there's a need. Um please move forward. It doesn't mean that we start sub community planning tomorrow or even next year or even the year after or the year after that. It would have to be a future council saying please proceed with this make it a priority. Is that is that right? And like funding everything would follow at that point but it does not mean that we are asking you to do this work. >> That that's correct. And Christopher is there a finer point to make to that? Um, >> no. Yeah, that's exa Yeah, that's exactly right. Um, okay. Just that that the you know the decision tonight is to um further consider an expansion plan and then you your discretion in the future, your in planning board's discretion is when you would actually initiate that expansion plan and that can happen literally at any time. It could be 10 years from now if you decide. And to sorry Tara to double colloqui here but and to clarify it would require an affer an affirmative vote of both

[81:01] city council and planning board to take that additional next step in the future. >> That is correct. >> Correct. >> That is correct. >> Thanks. >> And the U of the the use of you is very very very loose here because like it's you a council in general not not this year's council not even next year's council or the one after that. >> That's right. Just to be clear, I'm touched and honored that people are colloquing off of my points. Just kidding about rolling my eyes. That was a joke. Okay, next comment question about Rob's PPR. Uh the permanent parks fund. This is for Ally. Um we were talking about if we could change the way the permanent parks fund is spent, you know, making it uh applicable for operations as well. Do you remember via a ballot measure? So in that case, would we be able to do what Rob asked? If I if I recall council member Kaplan's

[82:01] question, his question was if there if there was a dis disposal, would there have to be a reimbursement to the perm parks fund? Is that accurate? Is that the question we're talking about? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So um it would depend on how expansive any change to the perm parks wreck fund is. So currently the fund is restricted to acquisition or development of parkland. >> If it were to be expanded per last year's proposal where it's more broadly to the public realm and all types of civic infrastructure and improvements for the community, then possibly not. >> Okay, great. And anybody want to call me on that one? No, just kidding. Um, let me think if there's anything else. I do want to say one other thing. Sarah Horn, your presentation was so good and it was so expressive. I really enjoyed it. Thanks. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. Um I just have one question left. Uh which is that um KJ,

[83:01] thanks for sending out that hotline with the possible framework that could go along with our decision tonight. What would be the the mechanism by which we would adopt that if we were interested taking that approach tonight? >> I might defer to our city attorney. either Teresa or Ella about that. >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? >> So, um KJ put out on hotline a a mechanism for us to kind of adopt a resolution to with intentions to go along with potential future steps uh and the um related to planning reserve. What would be the mechanism for us to adopt that tonight if we were interested? If there's a resolution before the council, then you could adopt that by by a vote.

[84:02] >> Yes. >> If there's not currently a resolution before council, we can bring that back to you. Um, and that would go on a consent agenda. >> Okay. So, we could either move to adopt it or we could give direction to maybe make some changes and then come back to us to adopt on a future consent agenda. >> That's right. >> Great. And Helen, I see you're off mic, too. Did you want to add anything to that? >> Um, no. >> Great. Okay. Thanks for clarifying. And Tina has another question. >> Yeah. I'm so sorry, Erin. um is there the the way we looked at the units and the 10,000 units and the fact that the 10,000 units from the Dr. Cog could be accommodated within the existed um service plan is there um and and we have talked about and I had and and you've provided a memo about incentives for middle housing type. I'm not talking so much about the price range, but just the

[85:00] town home, cottage ADU that not the ADU, but the cottage court and the town home attached that tend to yield um students and children and we know that from the data from the Boulder Valley School District about approximate yields by housing type in um the Boulder Valley School District. Um, is there something that we can do in the meantime that if we shifted things within the service plan that we could um start getting more of that housing type, which we just haven't seen? we're seeing still predominantly student housing and luxury single homes. Um to see if there's some other considerations we could take to aggressively go after that market in the city of Boulder or do we feel that based on what we've seen in the last honestly 15 years that it's just it's very unlikely that we could come up with any kind of incentive plan to yield that type of housing within the existing service plan.

[86:04] Uh I will attempt an answer and I might um uh also just ask uh Kurt to chime in potentially too. I I think um broadly speaking I guess in terms of incentives and programs and funding. Um I think that you will receive a lot more detailed information on on March 5th at the at the update from housing and human services. I what I can say is that from the comprehensive plan standpoint and the direction that um that we are headed that uh you all and the community will have a chance to see in a couple of weeks is to uh really more broadly allow for those types of housing to occur in many more areas of the city where today they are not allowed um for the most part and I would say potentially due to some of the land use um regulations uh and then the corresponding zone ing. A lot of the units that we do see developed are higher intensity stacked

[87:01] multi-unit, you know, apartment buildings, and they tend to be focused in in a few locations within the city, East Boulder, uh, you know, near the university, um, etc. And so what the comp plan is intending to do is to broaden those choices across more areas of the city so that um there are more opportunities for those types of housing to be developed. Now that is just one component of many of course that will have to go into um the success of providing those units. So obviously the the financials and the economics and and the market demand etc are all going to have to play along as well and that still may not be enough. So, to your point, there may need to be additional programs and incentives to to move those things forward, but at least from a uh vision standpoint, a policy standpoint, and ultimately what will be a regulatory standpoint, um we're opening the door for those things to happen in more locations. >> Yeah, I'll just uh add that um

[88:04] a lot of the development in North Boulder was done through a sub community plan with the intentions of the type of development that we ended up seeing. So that's a a process that can encourage that. Um one of the things we'll be talking about on March 5th is the state demographers and their um projections are um and we're seeing this not just in Boulder County, but we are seeing less children um throughout the state. And um the biggest need that they see over the next uh you know 15 to 20 years is actually smaller units um to meet the needs of a of a a changing demographic. Okay. All right. So I think that brings us to

[89:00] an end of our question session. Um we are now uh quite over time with the length of those questions. Uh but we are now going to move to the public hearing. So Elisha, can you uh do our public participation guidelines please? >> Of course. Uh thank you. >> That is the other version. Emily, we need the um updated version of the slides, please. All right. Thank you for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the bod revised code that is including participants are required to sign up to

[90:01] speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes a failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer or to refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscinity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Again, thank you for joining us, and thank you for listening. >> Thank you for that. All right, we have four people signed up for the public

[91:00] hearing. Each of them will get three minutes to speak. And the first three speakers are Jonathan Singer, Lynn Seagull, and Adrien Sofur. All right. Good evening. Uh, my name is Jonathan Singer. I'm the senior director of policy programs with the Boulder Chamber. And, uh, in deference to Council Member Tara Winer, who asked about this, I I really do think that maybe uh, public should also be allowed to colloqui. And so, this will be my uh, this will be my two-minute colloquy here. Um, I want to clarify what you have already said here on council that tonight's decision is not about annexation. Uh, it's not about infrastructure construction or approving a development plan. It is about whether Boulder has sufficient community need to justify doing the work to understand a potential future option. From the business community's perspective and

[92:00] increasingly from workers and families, the answer is yes. Boulder continues to struggle to house middle-income households, whether they're teachers, early career engineers, healthcare workers, public employees, and every single person who keeps our local economy functioning. And over time, most housing production has been rentals, while the majority of residential land remains single family. Even with recent reforms, we have not produced the missing middle ownership opportunities at a meaningful scale. So, the practical question becomes this. Can we realistically solve that inside area one alone? And based on decades of outcomes, lengthy discretionary review, uncertainty, and project reductions, it's unlikely we can meet that need as at a scale within existing conditions. And that's not a criticism. It's just a pattern we've seen over and over again. The planning reserve gives council the chance to study a different approach. And we appreciated planning boards pointing out certain guard rails. I'll

[93:01] just name a couple of them. Focusing on attaining middle missing missing middle um missing middle housing using uh this area as a pilot for walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, right sizing parks and services. Um and applying high sustainability standards from the outset. Um things that can be where we can treat this as a carefully structured planning exercise. This is not a commitment to build right now. We often talk about the risks of change, but there's also a risk in standing still. The cost of doing nothing is not neutral. It shows up as workers commuting further, businesses struggling to hire, and families aging out of Boulder, and fewer paths for home ownership for the next generation. Studying this option doesn't commit the city to build, but refusing to study it commits the city to those outcomes. Adopting the motion preserves optionality. Rejecting it removes a long-term tool even before it's been studied. Last

[94:02] month, planning board said now is not the time. Today, that time has arrived. We urge you to adopt the motion and identify the community need so the work can begin. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Now we have Lynn Seagull, Adrien Sofur, and Mick Kohl's. Lynn Seagull, Jonathan just made the perfect argument for saying no. Perfect. Because you see, we have a problem already. Didn't Julia Roberts say it in some movie? You know, you want a bigger problem, then go for this. We've got Sundance. We've got We've got so many problems we have no idea of. And going into this is utterly ridiculous. Water for one thing, there isn't TA. Like Disha said, that's water for fire also because all the time we're building, it's not that we care

[95:01] about a fire coming through. What we care about is fire destroying human inhabitations. Um, this is just um a bad bad example of planning. You know, Eerie, look, look at Erie. There was a place where we had nothing, became a town overnight. This is another place where we have nothing there now. And have we had a transportation study of what impact this is going to have on Broadway and the other major arterials into the middle of town? You know, this is not an a big sprawish area up north. We don't have that. We do on the south. But there's nothing there. There's one direction those people are going to come back into Boulder, back into town. What does that mean? Congestion. Oh, brother.

[96:02] Um, you know, I thought of this about my retrofit lately. You know, Nuria, you raise your voice, I erase your voice, you know. Well, I have my voice still. I can't come to the city council because I am um I am suspended from there until March 22nd. Um you know but we have something for this part of it. Nothing about us without us. You know that expression these are all ice expressions that are now weeding themselves like like in impregnating themselves into our local cultures. Um, luckily I have something to say about it. I'm one schmuck. I've watched this for 35 years. This was a bad idea from the start of doing anything up there in area 3. It's now's the best time to say no on this because of all of the factors that we don't know. We don't

[97:02] know about the water demand. We don't know what the Colorado River Compact decision is yet, do we? Like what business do we have throwing out thoughts here now so prematurely on this demand for this stuff and it's an inelastic market the middle is not going to happen here and free Gaza free Palestine that's the best time up >> thanks all right now we have uh Adrien Sofur and then making goals >> good evening council members uh Thank you for your time. I believe you received an email from me yesterday and I won't repeat what I wrote there, but I would like to address any questions you might have. Plus, I would like to address the issue of time. Time involved in the process you are on if you choose to continue going forward and also the time added. If you and the

[98:00] planning board decide that this is not the right time to do so, I think you probably would agree that even getting this far in the process whereby service area expansion is being moved forward has been a glacial activity. Let's look at how far we have progressed. Broadly speaking, two years have passed since council directed staff to begin this process or possibly more. And rather than recount the details, let's just consider where we are. How many missing middle housing units have been built in those two years? We're talking about 9,500 housing units by 2032. Have we gotten any any of the housing units that we say we want in the existing service area? Has the need for that kind of housing decreased or increased? Has the market for housing gotten more or less attainable for service sector? Our teachers, nurses, first responders, or young families, and

[99:01] our elders, do they go somewhere else, or do they stay in their homes, which could benefit younger families? Have land costs gone down anywhere in Boulder? Consider that housing and a supported neighborhood that will likely not become available in the planning reserve for 15 to 20 years and will at best serve the children that are going to elementary school today. One would hope that such a thing were possible. I can tell you it's not possible for my kids. Or are we really saying that it's not a concern of this council that we have such housing? I don't think we are. My fear is that we think that we can accomplish these housing intentions through changes in land use code, increased density in our single family neighborhoods, subcommunity planning efforts, sensitive infill, and by all means, yes, let's pursue those. But in the end, it all comes down to whether or not it's going to happen in my neighborhood, in your neighborhood, and what someone says when we propose that. And all too often, we say, "Do it in somebody else's neighborhood."

[100:00] We cannot legislate our way out of that in area one. It hasn't worked so far, and it won't. So, from the other perspective of time, what if we don't do this now? What if we choose not to move move forward in this in this time frame on this proposal to move the the the the study further? Are is this council in five years, who by the way is going to be uh potentially up for reelection next year, going to pursue it in five years after having gone through all of the challenges now today and said no, I don't think so. We're looking at 10 years later. Is that a benefit to the city in the long run? I think that's the question you have before you. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Our final speaker is making Kohl's. >> Good evening, council, and thank you for making space to hear our comments. I was on the city council of Boulder in

[101:02] 2015 when we decided to buy the Alpine Balsam site. And as I understand it, we are still two years away from having the first units be occupied by anyone on that site. This is so much not what we expected on council when we bought that property because we had oppressing housing needs right then and we wanted it to happen a lot faster. You know, liberal political liberals love process. We love the process and but I I just groan when I hear staff saying, "Well, even if we do a pilot project and the in an area that's got conduity on a lot fewer acres, we have to do an area plan." You know, two of the most precious neighborhoods, the greatest

[102:00] neighborhoods, breakout neighborhoods in our county are Holiday and Prospect in Long Mind. Each of these was the product of one person's vision who brought it to fruition within a relatively few years. Kiki Wallace in Prospect and Cindy Brown at Boulder Housing Partners with the holiday drive-in site. We need to we need this missing middle inome housing now, right away. So, let's not get bogged down in the thing we usually do and are frankly not very good at these area plans. harness the ingenuity and the inspiration of private land owners up there. You know, staff, planning staff got involved and I I want to give them a boost in the innovation team of the that Bloomberg Philanthropies

[103:00] um underwrote and it I attended one of those meetings last year and it was breakout thinking. It's the kind of thinking that can bring us to next generation neighborhoods much sooner than the two and five and 10 and 12 years that we're talking about now. Don't get discouraged the way I felt as I as I listen to some of the discussion unfolding. But people, we need missing middle income and housing. And this is the only area where realistically we can get it. Finally, I want to say we've got great urbanists on the city council and on the planning board. You people will have the inspiration to be able to pull this off. Let's do it more quickly. >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. And that brings us to the end of the

[104:02] public hearing to the testimony and so I'll come back to council for a discussion on whether we want to make a finding of need for the planning reserve. So I'll ask for folks to opine on this. I'm going to encourage you though to be succinct and brief in your comments and to not make long speeches. I know we all all have opinions on this but to please state them clearly and cleanly. Um it is past our time a loted time already. So, who would like to get us started? Rob, >> I'll break the ice. Um, I'll just say that I know there's some community concern that if we do uh move forward with exploring this that it's going to take away from some of the current projects that staff has. Um, hearing that that shouldn't be a consideration from staff, um, it makes sense to me to move forward, I do

[105:02] understand that there is a, uh, a fiscal component to this, um, a budgetary component to this, but the longer, in my opinion, that we wait, these prices aren't going to go down. They're going to continue to escalate. Um, I feel like we we should be visionary and I'm just afraid that if we say no and we wait another five years and we have another council that may not want to do it, we could really behind be behind the eightball. I think knowledge is power and if this is just gathering knowledge, I understand there's a cost to it, but more importantly, it's not taking away from what staff is doing now and it's not going to compromise any projects that are currently or in the queue, then I support moving forward with exploring it. That's it. Thank you. >> I got Matt, Mark, and Ryan. >> Thanks for leading that off, Rob. Um, I

[106:00] I I share your sentiment. The We're not just behind the eightball. We've been behind the eightball for over a decade plus. So, so I mean time is something we don't have on our side. So, every bit of time we can to catch up and try to catch up is needed. The housing need is obvious. We've all seen it. We don't need a study to tell to We don't need to study whether the sun's going to rise tomorrow, just like we don't need a study to tell us that we need more housing and we need more middle and missing middle housing that specifically addresses families needs. School enrollment is leaving. We need to shore that up. So, so these are obvious things. Um, we don't need to study at Nauseium and not let perfection be the enemy of the good. It's obvious that we need to go do this. Um, and and I'm hopeful that you that we all can do this. And I'm really hopeful planning board will will step back a little bit and not get caught in the weeds. That time will come. There is process to get specific. There's time and place to do the restrictive things that we want to do there and be and do different than we've done before. We have that opportunity in front of us, but we need to take the next step in order to to

[107:01] seize that opportunity. So, I support moving forward with the need assessment. >> Thanks. I got Mark, Ryan, Tina, Teresa. >> Um, further to what Matt said, I'm going to answer the uh uh the need study right now. Yeah, we need more housing, but what we don't need is the kind of housing that we're building. And so my interest in moving forward is only if we put some guardrails on this study to have it focus on the kinds of housing that um making Kohl's uh specified in his letter and that we know is what we need uh for middle income um and even a little bit above middle income purchases. The housing that we're not constructing today, we don't need another Boulder junction out there. We don't need uh stacked flats out there. We're getting plenty of that. Okay. And and uh it's it's simply not a necessity for us. So I would like to see some guard

[108:01] rails put on this so that we are focusing entirely on creating uh the kind of housing that we can't create elsewhere in the city. If we don't do that, to me, this is a useless exercise and and creates the possibility of getting exactly what we don't need. Um, so I would like to see some guardrails put on it if we're going to move forward. And I'd like the focus to be exclusively on um getting the uh the modest the sized homes and the um uh and the other small types of housing that we're not getting today. and and you know, we're not accommodating uh city staff. We're not accommodating uh first responders or teachers. We're not accommodating anybody in our housing other than students and the wealthy. And so I would I I have great respect for what the planning board did. And if we don't put some guardrails around this, I

[109:00] would want to defer to their judgment on this, which is not a permanent judgment, but it's simply saying that that we have no need other than for that kind of housing. And so, um, and by the way, the the county also weighed in with a memo, uh, that said they they didn't see the need either. So, you know, there are some serious players here who have disputed the fact that that we think we have a great need for additional housing. We do, but it's not housing generally. It's housing specific. And I am urging us to put those guardrails on this study so that that's what we get. >> Very good. >> Okay. Thank you, Mark. I got Ryan, Tina, Ter, Ty, Nicole. >> Okay. We're being asked to consider community value, unique capacity, and generational benefit. Uh on community value, I it's I do think it's clear that this can contribute um that 80 up to 8,700 or more units of middle- inome

[110:02] housing for different incomes and ages with the blank slate. So I I would agree that that's clear. Um c can it can we meet this need with existing capacity? There's two arguments I I that I can see. one is that the the quantity and the speed of this housing is something that can only be done in the uh area three. I'm actually optimistic that the existing service area could be competitive in terms of quantity and speed to deliver this housing considering um giving a little bit of time following reforms with land use we've made to date, the reforms we're about to make with BBCP, future reforms, the levels of investment that are up to a billion dollars that are associated with the land use um and the creativity for finance and other things that are going to go into this big process. Um, so I'm open-minded that that that the potential is there on on this argument, but I'm I I suppose I'm more optimistic

[111:01] that we we could meet it within the existing area. Um, the second case is that the area 3 capacity um can uniquely buy the the middle levels of affordability. uh I'm with Mark that the existing pattern of development is not delivering the middle levels of affordability say 50 to 120ish% of AMI and I'm not aware of a reason to think that without some novel kind of an intervention here that that's going to happen here. So but what I think we could see is the ability to to to donate the land value towards materially reducing the cost of housing. um to make that happen. And so I do think there's a case here. Um a hitch is we've seen the services study that says is up to close to maybe a billion dollars. I mean it depending on on the assumptions that that's pretty expensive per unit. I mean it looks like it's up to 100 or 150k per unit. Um so the answer to the question

[112:01] of is there a unique benefit in this one? I really think it's it's a it's a calculation and I we don't have the calculation yet. I'm optimistic it could work. Um so my conclusion on this on this um unique benefit is that I think there's a good hypothesis that it works but um it needs to be values to be validated. Um and then finally on in terms of generational benefit um I think if you can if you can validate the the two items that I just said there's a few other conditions that we would need. I would like to see no new natural gas or fossil fuels and a few other things we could talk about but um I I I think it could be there. So um I'm ready to go forward on the basis that we are we are doing a study to keep the conversation going but there still would be a way to put constraints on moving forward if we see that the the net effect is not what we need. >> Thanks Ryan Tina. >> All right. Yeah. Thank you for that Mark and Ryan. Um and I share a lot of both of your thoughts. Um, I'll just add also

[113:03] that um and I'm I have been one of the reasons I ran for council was in fact to support housing that would be helpful for people looking to raise children. And while there is a general decline in children in Colorado, there's actually been growth in districts which are highly correlated to where they've built housing types um that attract families with children. So um and so it doesn't mean that we're going to solve the I don't think we're going to keep every school open. I you know but and overall trends are lower but I think we can help out a little bit by having options even in a smaller scale um knowing that there'll be fewer children but we still want to have them here in our community. Um the other piece though is that I think this is an opportunity to answer some of the questions about what would something like this do more specifically and particularly bringing up Taisha's points about water. Where will we see tradeoffs with agriculture? um we know that's just so important for our

[114:00] community and um we're having this dry year where I think water's certainly top of mind and and we can take this experience of this year and say okay well how's that going to pan out in this potential new development area. Um and then also just um I I don't I would rather take this slow so that we can see how things develop in the next couple years. I feel that we're we are at a point um of change in Boulder again and um I just want to look at what our occupancies like. We have a lot of new development coming online uh this year again with things like the Millennium that might have some other impacts in the community. But for now, I am interested in answering some more questions about this and then hopefully with more information and a better idea of what a um uh what it might look like. I'm open to taking this further for more discussion. I fully support guard rails around the housing type and uh so that

[115:00] because that's the one thing we don't seem to be developing here but I'd also like to learn more about you know what will there be demand for that housing type where we can lean on some of our private partners um and experts and sort of real estate is this a need I suspect it is but we didn't really directly answer that question uh through the Dr. COG analysis. Thanks. >> Thanks. Now, we got Tara, Taiisha, Nicole, and then I'll go. >> Well, gosh, let's see. I started I ran for council five years ago, I would say. People have been talking about area three when we ran for election. That was our thing. Like, let's do area three so we can get some housing people can afford and the types of housing we want. So, I promised the community that I would do that and we haven't gotten it done. And so I feel like this is our opportunity. You know, I could be negative, but in this case, I I can be a negative person, but in this case, I'm pretty positive. I think we can do it if we just start with the guardrails we all want. And we

[116:02] want um the and the h type of housing that we want. And we don't have to do like the entire section. We can just start small with the small um parcels. then we can do what we all want to do. I just don't want to give up. Um to me, home ownership is super important for the next generation so that they can build wealth. And I feel like this is our opportunity of a lifetime. Can I say that? It's our opportunity of a lifetime. I'm really excited to move to the next part of this discussion. That's it. >> Thanks, Ta. Yes, I do think this is the opportunity of a lifetime, but for me that opportunity aligns to some of those who were courageous enough to create the blue line uh for Boulder. Um and in that in that act they affirmed that nature is not a resource. Um it is infrastructure

[117:00] without testing or doing anything. Um, and although you know in 1990 there was an assessment done, I would argue that if uh habitat assessment had been done recently, which unfortunately in the two studies that have been done to get us to this point and has not, um, we would find um, that when we degrade these systems, we're not just losing beauty, we're dismantling systems that underpin our economy, housing, transportation, safety, and well-being. We need to invest in natural systems in the same way that we invest in our roads, in our utilities, and in our housing. And currently, if you look at our our budget, that is not the case. Even though we are stellar in in our contributions to our climate work, um it is still eclipsed significantly by human infrastructure, not nature's infrastructure. And we know that climate chaos is caused by human infrastructure. And as a former commissioner for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, I again remind everyone that every habitat

[118:02] assessment included habitat loss or rather yes, herd management, excuse me, uh included habitat loss. And in the 15 years that I've lived here, I've seen it all around us. Um and so it actually is in our best interest to preserve. And on that note, you know, we have to shift from seeing land as something to consume, something that is a resource only for humans or prioritizing human needs over all of our other living systems, all of which are struggling right now. Um, and I hope that we're able to shift away from consumption and inter relation like the great law of peace. Um, unfortunately, our US Constitution did not take the part where nature has it had rights as humans did. uh we only took the parts uh that we can make a profit on. And so uh I'm also concerned the one thing I didn't speak on was the one-third of Boulders's water comes from the Colorado River. And right now that is under dispute. And so although I appreciate the idea of moving

[119:00] slow to go far, there are some core components that we do not have information on that I think would be irresponsible for us to move forward with um that could compromise even the work that we have on our existing footprint. Um and so to community value again I would like to remind our council that we are unfortunately not democrat uh demographically representative of the city of Boulder. um from a socioeconomic perspective, from an employment perspective. Um and so I really do appreciate both the planning board and the Boulder County being to weigh being able to weigh in. Um as far as capacity um I from the pro information provided it does appear that area one is sufficient for our population needs and that is um the priority from my biggest priority is making sure that in our existing footprint we can both have the type housing type but more importantly that we have the sustainability which leads me to the last um for current and

[120:01] future generations. um those generations are going to need um strong uh habitat, clean water, and clean air. We need more undisturbed property. Uh if we do move forward, um I'm hopeful that we can revisit how much space is allocated for parkland um and consider more open space for just preserving habitat as much as possible. Thank you. >> Thank you, Nicole. And then I'll finish up. >> Thank you. So, um, thanks everybody for a really great conversation. Uh, I do support moving this forward. Um, the service area expansion process is intended to give the community options for the future, not to force immediate development. Um, the main need that I see in all of this is additional uh in this additional conver consideration meeting is the capacity to adapt to changing conditions. um whether that's demographic shifts, climate impacts, evolving state housing mandates, um whatever it's coming that we can't fully predict today, if we end the process

[121:01] now, I worry that we're going to lock ourselves into today's assumptions and remove a tool that future future councils may need. Our world is changing so quickly. Um moving forward keeps the door open for proactive planning so we can respond to needs as they emerge rather than reacting under pressure years from now. I don't think this single area can meet our incredibly high low-income housing needs, but in decades, if future councils were to continue to move this forward when new development arrives, it would give us more funding for affordable housing. Our impact fees are a great model that has one out of 11 people in our city living in affordable housing and has us on track to meet our affordable housing goals. We're so far ahead of a lot of cities in that way. I hear us all wanting and planning board too to get to the conversation about design and guard rails, what elements we're including here, how we integrate accessibility, how we create something that meets our income climate needs. But we can't have that conversation unless this moves forward.

[122:00] I really feel like the biggest need we have and the more thing most important thing we can give to future councils is flexibility um to address needs that we can't even anticipate right now um and but we can't even talk about until we take this step. Advancing tonight isn't going to approve any kind of development um not even in the next few years unless a future council would choose to. It just opens the door and gives us options. There are so many off-ramps ahead, but the on-ramps are few and far between. Um, tonight is one of them. I'd love to see us take a proactive approach rather than shutting the door on this conversation for another five or 10 or 20 years. Moving forward is how we give future generations the ability to proactively address whatever's coming. And whether that's parks or housing or something we can't foresee, it is an important conversation for us to enable future councils to have. otherwise they'll be stuck reacting when it's too late. Thanks.

[123:00] >> Thanks for that, Nicole. That that was very well said. I I agree with all of that. Um I'm also in favor of moving forward and taking this next step to explore our options and move on from there. I do think that we can meet housing and other needs in the planning reserve in ways that we are unable to and current currently in areas currently within the city limits particularly in terms of types of housing and prices um of housing. So, I do think we have a unique opportunity here to tee this up for future uh folks and future generations. There's a lot of talk about um how much people like the Holiday Neighborhood and we could do Holiday 2.0 here. And given that I was one of the earliest residents of Holiday 1.0 because of visionary folks 25 plus years ago, I was um my wife and I were able to raise two kids in an amazing walkable mixeduse neighborhood. And so hopefully we can take a step here so that future generations of people um can live in the planning reserve in a sustainable walkable mixeduse neighborhood that will

[124:00] serve our future residents for generations to come. So that's what I got. Um so the one other thing I want to put on the table before we go to a motion and a vote is um KJ and the team did put together that potential resolution that provided for some intentions and guard rails for the future consideration of the um moving forward with the planning reserve. So I would like to get a straw poll to see if a majority of folks are interested in also potentially pursuing that. Uh because from people's descriptions, it sounds like there's probably going to be a vote to determine need. But before we move to that, I would like to see if a majority of folks would like to consider that resolution as part of this discussion. So, if you would be interested in that, if you can raise your physical hand, please. >> Aaron, could could we put that resolution up on the screen? >> Yeah. What? >> Yeah, that Thanks for that. It did. It did come out in an email like a few days ago, right? So, it be good to have it.

[125:01] Um I can It's kind of long, but I will copy and paste it in the chat right now. >> I can >> community should see that if we're deliberating on a resolution. >> I can share it. I I can pull it up. >> Yeah. Thank you, Sarah. >> Yeah. get that up on the screen. >> Here you go. Let's see. Oh, hold on a second. Can you see it? >> Not yet. >> Here we go. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, I'll give I'll give folks a minute to read this through again. And the reason why I'm talking about this right now is because it may make a difference in terms of how people vote about whether we, you know, are interested in doing something like this. Can I ask a process question, Erin? >> Sure. >> We wouldn't be adopting this language directly tonight. We would be giving staff direction to more formally craft language and come back with this on consent. Is that what I understand? >> That's right. Yeah. I'm not actually asking for a vote to approve this tonight, but for um whether we might be

[126:00] interested in giving staff direction to um finalize the language along with any uh bits of feedback and bring it back for adoption on consent. And Erin, what would be the way to give to give feedback? Would it be via hotline or what? You know, if like just changes. >> Yeah. And if you don't mind just raising your hand um but Ryan, I'll go ahead and recognize you and um say you could give um some feedback verbally tonight if you had it or you could do it with a follow-up with a with a hotline. But no, it would not have to be finalized tonight. You could do a hot >> just for clarity on process. We would, this is just with the resolution, but there would still be a potential motion on the needs assessment and then this would come later or are we now tying a vote on the needs assessment to this draft language to come back at a later date? >> Um, let me get back to you on that, Matt, to see if there's interest. But

[127:00] >> all right, and we got your your team's chat is appearing on the screen. chat. >> Sarah, >> can we >> Yeah, there you go. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mark, >> um is it possible to add to this a um a request for detailed assessment of infrastructure costs and manner of payment >> as one of the guiding principles? I think it would I think that that would be as I understand it would be 100% part of the process. So it's certainly possible to I think add in language to that effect. Um Sarah KJ do you disagree? >> Uh no I don't think we No, I don't think we disagree. I um there certainly could be some language that would refer to how you know how the infrastructure is is funded. >> We just answered that question. Sorry.

[128:00] Like I I don't want to just add we just we Brad answered that question. The infrastructure is paid for by the developers. So I'm I'm worried like this is I'm worried about us adding these little pieces in without voting on the individual ones. I'm just a little worried about the word smithing in real time. >> Yeah. No, I I totally get that. When Tina does have her hand raised, so I'd like to go to Tina here. >> Tina, did you have something? >> Yeah. Sorry. I am just wondering it it talks about um showcase climate change and I am just wondering because we that I I know that part of it will be the water use but trying just to understand what the water trade-offs are at which level of development so that we can understand what the impacts to other communities agricultural use users etc might be. Do we need to clarify that? Again, I don't need it to be written down. I think I mean, we're saying it right now. So, um, is that something we need to highlight or is that something that would happen naturally?

[129:06] I I I would just say that if you felt like that last bullet of balancing urban expansion with resource and infrastructure constraints was not clear enough, you could add some language to specify water resources in particular. >> Yeah, I think it would just be if um any existing water users would be impacted by this development. I think that's the better way of me explaining it. >> Brad, did you want to speak to that? Yeah, just to piggyback on that and and I don't certainly want to put words in anybody's mouth, including yours, mayor, but I think what you were proposing is if there is interest on this, there would be an opportunity then for folks to word smith and add concepts um about these guard rails. >> Yes. Or wordsmith but yeah to offer comments. >> Comments. Yeah. >> Yes. I think so if people are are interested in in this then yes we could

[130:01] offer some follow-up talks um via hotline. >> I I I kind of missed my opportunity but um is it too late for me to colloqui with uh with Matt on one point? >> Uh sure go ahead and then I I got Ryan and Rob queued up. The reason I made this request and I regard it as important is we're looking at a number of 600 million to a billion dollars in infrastructure at a full buildout. We can't afford it. And if we do impose it all on the owners and developers of the property, we will get precious little middle inome housing because the the expense is going to be um so great to them. Um, so I mean that's something we just need to we need to work through and find a pathway because it it it's too simplistic to just say the developers will will pay for their will pay their way for growth. Not when it's not when you're talking

[131:01] about $600 million. It it it has impacts on what kind of housing we will get and how we turn this opportunity towards middle inome housing. And that's that's why >> point point taken. >> Um and yes and nothing I think KJ's earlier point was that nothing in this should be prescriptive like it should be general guiding principles of the level that he's talking about here. Um so let I'll take a couple more hands and then I want to see if we can do that straw poll to see if we can give some staff direction. Uh recognizing that we can offer additional thoughts going forward. Ryan then Rob. >> Thanks Aaron. I just wanted to signal my intent to um I'm not going to be able to do the the language for this verbally, but just just to signal my intent. I I think there's two things I'd like to try to um improve on this. One is on on on affordable housing. We have a pressing need for the middle levelsish of affordable housing from I don't know

[132:00] somewhere around 50% to 120%. I I don't know the exact book ends but I would be looking for a a contribution a unique contribution at at a meaningful scale. Um so I I would be planning to provide some language to to kind of say that for for um my colleagues consideration. And then the other one is something about this this the matter of just the overall integrated financial picture of spending 500 to a billion dollars. however that works and with consideration of of the the the the type of of infrastructure needed that it would be in a kind of a a less dense perspective than than with infill. So some kind of a more integrated financial p perspective that would that would make sure this is really stress tested looking at the future and maintenance and liabilities and that sort of thing. So just letting folks know those are two issues I'm going to plan to to write a language for. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks Rob. Thanks, mayor. Um, some of my questions were covered, but my only concern about

[133:02] this is um where it says, excuse me, envision um an innovative and unique mixed juice, mixed income, mixed density, 50-minute neighborhoods along with the uh middle income. I I just I don't know if there's some kind of language that um we would put in today, but that really is focusing on the middle income and not more high-end luxury and student housing as we've seen. And then um I'm just curious again about the uh showcase climate change and disaster resilience site. Um is that including burying all the utilities? Is there um grid resiliency in that? Um, I guess there are more questions than comments. That's it. >> Great. Thank you. Um, so I'm not going to be able to see people's hands unless we take the the language down. If people uh absorb the language for for now and

[134:01] remember you'll have time to come back to it if people are interested in this. >> Erin, I just have a clarifying question for staff if I may. >> Yep. Um it sounded Sarah from what you were you and folks were saying earlier that um this idea around accessibility is starting to be integrated into everything that that we're doing and parks and planning and all that. So I just want to make sure it doesn't feel like anything that would need to be added here for that to um come up in terms of thinking about um the accessibility issue. If if not I will avoid another hotline. Um I KJ you might I I would say um council member Spear if you um feel like you need to but yes we will include that and we'll be thinking about that moving forward in the future especially related to sustainability equity and resilience our framework like that's top of mind for all departments. So >> great thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um so again um how many people

[135:03] would be interested in taking up this idea of a resolution as part of this process for considering the planning reserve? Raise your physical hands. All right, I got one, two, three, four, five, six. So looks like we have interest. So here's what I'm thinking about in terms of process is I think from the people's spoken comments, it does seem like there's an interest in a finding of need. although of course we'll have if we would have a formal motion and a vote on that. So I'm thinking we could consider um a motion to that effect shortly and then following um that we can give direction um do a straw poll again. I'll just reaffirm it um to come back with the resolution on consent based on people's additional follow-ups uh via hotlines. So if there are no objections, I would then invite Yes, Mark. I'm a little unclear as exactly the mechanics

[136:00] here and how it's going to work. What are we going to approve tonight and what are we going to approve on consent? >> Um, so we would approve tonight potentially a finding of need for the planning reserve and then we would give direction to staff to come back with a resolution with those guardrails, the specifics of the guardrails on consent at a meeting in the near future. >> Okay. Got it. So then I would um invite potentially a motion to about a finding of need. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Motion hasn't been made yet. Ter called them. >> I thought you'd like that. >> Um all right. So, I make a motion to find that the identified community needs are of sufficient priority per the factors described in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to warrant further consideration of a service area expansion plan. >> And Io wholeheartedly second that.

[137:03] >> Very good. We have a motion and a second. I think we've all spoken to this. So, Alicia, maybe a a roll call vote on this. >> Yes, sir. That would be great. All right. We will start the roll call for the approval of the consideration to um proceed with Council Member Wallik. >> Um I'm going to vote no, although I will probably vote yes when the guardrails are in place. >> Mayor Poten Wer. >> Yes. Council >> member Adams. No >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brockett. >> Yes. >> House member Kaplan. >> Yes. >> Marquis.

[138:01] >> Uh, yes. >> Shoeard. >> Yes. >> And Spear. >> Yes. Item 3A is hereby approved with a vote of 7 to two with the noted nays from Wallik and Adams. >> Very good. Thanks everybody. And then I'm going to finish this out by now asking a little more formally. Um I'm going to um ask that we give direction to staff to put together the resolution that was up on our screen earlier and put out in hotline. um taking into account um council members feedback um that they can put out via hotline in the next few days and then come and bring that back to us for adoption on consent at a future meeting. That's my proposal for direction to staff and um I will ask for a show of physical hands for all um a straw poll or people in favor of giving that direction. Raise your

[139:00] physical hand. One, two, three, four, five, six. So that is a majority and Nicole, we couldn't see your hand, but we we have six anyway. So um so that then gives staff that direction. So staff, is that clear enough? Do you have what you need in terms of the vote and the next steps? >> Uh yes, thank you, mayor. Um I guess I would maybe ask about the hotline deadline when >> we would like to add and ask you all to do that, but staff, I think the question is to you by when you would need it. Yes. Um KJ, do you um >> uh if I were to >> just think think through the calendar, I think ideally we would be able to um uh resolve the resolution as as quickly as possible. Conceivably as early as the March 5th regular meeting. Um that would give us the flexibility then to schedule

[140:00] time to go back to planning board. >> That's right. So sequencing that out maybe is one week enough time for >> that would be yes that would be great for us >> possible. Yeah. >> Okay. So then we'll say a deadline at the 19th for council feedback in the form of hot lines. >> Yep. Next Thursday. >> Great. >> Great. Thank you. >> Terrific. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, with that, thanks everyone for your patience and perseverance and huge thanks to staff uh for all of the presentations and all of the answers and working that through with us. Really appreciate that. You have um phenomenal answers as always to the the questions the council presented. All right, that wraps that up. So, can we go to our next agenda item, please, Alicia? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Our next item on tonight's agenda is item number four, which is which are the matters from the city manager. 4A is the discussion of

[141:01] reconsideration of certain Boulder Valley comprehensive plan community change requests due to recent action taken by the board of county commissioners. >> Thank you so much, E. And this one, we're going straight to KJ because he is not done yet. Uh and hopefully perhaps a a shorter conversation. KJ, >> thank you. Nuria, yes, hopefully this will be uh fairly quick. I know uh there's items of great interest still left on the agenda, so I want to make sure that we um provide you the time to get to those quickly, and I know we went a little over on the last one. Uh are you seeing the screen? Okay. >> Yes. >> Thumbs up. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so again, uh, good evening, council. Uh, Christopher Johnson, as you know, comprehensive planning manager. Um, I am here to present this brief item. We're bringing this to you tonight to determine whether or not you are interested in reconsidering the list of

[142:01] community change requests based on a recent action by the county commissioners. So, as a reminder, uh, community members can request changes to the comprehensive plan policies, land use map, and planning areas map as part of an update. Um staff reviewed the list of requested changes with all four of the approval bodies in late January. We came to you on January 22nd. Uh and all of the bodies only reviewed the list of requests to determine which ones should be considered further. It was not a review to uh approve or deny the requested change itself. At the fourth and final review of those uh the recommended list from staff on January 27th, the board of county commissioners um diverged a bit from the other three bodies and supported moving forward three land use requests number 7, 8, and nine and then two policy requests number 30 and 32 uh to move those forward for further consideration. These five items were not recommended to

[143:01] move forward by staff um but the county commissioners uh felt like they uh did warrant additional evaluation. You can see on this table um that uh the this outlines the decisions by each of the four bodies on these five specific requests. Uh planning board and council did not move forward with the three land use requests number seven, eight, and nine. Uh the county planning commission does not have a role in reviewing those. So that was not applicable for their review. And then the two city bodies and the county planning commission both uh did not move forward with the two policy requests number 30 and 32. So um the those three bodies uh were consistent with the staff recommendation. So a broad overview of these three land use requests. They're all in the same uh vicinity that we b you know essentially reviewed them sort of collectively. Uh there's more details on these requests that are in the memo and the attachment uh in your packet. Um the commissioner

[144:02] supported moving these forward as they felt that the initial screening did not allow for sufficient analysis and that the elimination of the open space acquired land use designation should not uh preclude further consideration going forward. uh as is outlined in your attachment uh staff's recommendation to not move these forward was based on items other than just the removal of that open space acquired designation. This included the request being what we felt the request was generally inconsistent with the most recent draft policy and land use direction. Um, also just the expectations for the use of lands in area 2 and also input from our city and county open space staff regarding that the these areas have a very low priority in terms of properties for future acquisition and broader community benefit. The request was to change all three of these to open space acquired. Uh, additionally I just wanted to note that these uh parcels are not

[145:01] owned by the community member that is making this request. Um, this is allowed uh and was part of our discussion and is not one of our review factors, but if you recall, council expressed some concern about non-owners requesting changes uh at our meeting on the 22nd. Uh, and particularly that discussion was related to the request along Sue Drive, which was request number 10. So therefore, staff does not recommend uh that you reconsider these requests and and maintain the original staff recommendation that these do not move forward. Uh the two policy requests, number 30 and 32, uh on number 30, the commissioners indicated that the request already reflects current state law and comprehensive plan policy. They were they were interested in further clarifying how annexation occurs and in examining broader questions related to the long-term role of area 2 lands. Um staff does not recommend moving this request forward in part due to the

[146:00] proposed recarer reccharacterization of area 2 lands as a rural preservation buffer. These areas are generally developed at a suburban scale already and they are distinct from area 3 lands which are explicitly designated for long-term rural preservation. Uh number 32, the commissioners expressed the view that existing comprehensive plan policy language regarding city and county quote unquote support for the eventual annexation of gun barrel was not necessary and it does not have an operative effect and that the area 2 designation itself already conveys the suitability for future annexation. uh staff does recognize and agree with um some refinements to that policy language to provide some higher level direction and remove specific geographic references like gun barrel. So while the city and county do ultimately continue to support the annexation of all area 2 lands as is defined, but staff does not believe that additional analysis or

[147:00] evaluation of this request is really necessary as clarifying edits are already proposed. So staff are making several revisions and clarifications to the annexation policies and many others. Um these edits are already underway as part of the draft plan and therefore again staff does not recommend that these two policies uh be reconsidered and and move forward. So you have two options before you this evening. Uh if you are interested in reconsidering any of these requests, staff can return with an item on the consent agenda that would uh ultimately take that action formally as this is just a matters item. Uh staff would then return to planning board and planning commission if it was applicable to their review to request their reconsideration. So as a note again to remind you that all of the applicable bodies need to agree on the final list. So, even if council does ultimately wish to reconsider one or more of these, planning board and planning commission uh could still decline to rec uh not to reconsider and these items would fall

[148:01] off of the list. Um the second option that council has is to determine that you're not interested in reconsidering any of these requests. And if that is the case, then no additional steps are necessary uh and the request would not be further evaluated. And if it's helpful, I can bring this slide up again uh just to again remind you of the way the four bodies voted. Uh otherwise, I will pass it back to you, Mayor Brockett, for any questions. >> Thanks very much, KJ. Appreciate that. So, I'll ask for clarifying questions. And given that we're almost an hour over, I would really ask people to restrict them to ones they absolutely have to ask in order to make a decision on this. Um, does anyone have any uh clarifying questions for staff? I am not seeing any hands raised. All right. So, in that case, what I

[149:01] would say is, does anyone want to does anyone want to propose that we um consider reconsidering any of these items? And I'm not seeing any hands raised. That seems like a no. I I'll just make a comment here that I um had thought that one about gun barrel that um it seemed like it might be worth uh talking about that a little bit, but KJ, when you say we are already revising language around annexations and and this particular area, then it sounds like it's already in process. So, it seems like it wouldn't need um to be investigated further. So, um I wouldn't uh propose any of the these as well. So, um that looks like no interest in reconsidering any of those. So, I think that ends that discussion such as it were. That's great. Thank you for the time. >> Thank you.

[150:12] All right. So, let's go to our next agenda item, please, Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Our next item is our item 4B, which is the municipal court update. >> Thanks so much, E. And I believe uh Judge Khan is going to be kicking this off uh as we talk about our municipal court. >> Yes, that's right, Nia. Thank you. And good evening to Mayor and to to the council members. I am Jeff Khan. I'm the presiding judge for the city of Boulder Municipal Court and I am joined tonight by Devon Kiss Kelly who is our court administrator. Uh tonight we will go over the court's 2025 case filings uh and our 2026 work plan. Last week we submitted an agenda memorandum that goes into much greater detail for those of you who wish to dive into more on the

[151:01] any of these topics that we address tonight. We're going to be very quick with a quick PowerPoint, but obviously anybody who has any questions of me, you always can access me through Teams and I can comment about things that we've talked about tonight or anything else that you might want to talk about. And always want to emphasize that that's an option for everybody. And while I have this first slide up, I just want to talk a little bit about why I have this slide in every presentation that I do with you all. And it's because these principles are important principles to our court. And I will point out the ones that are most important to me right now for tonight is this last that button there that says impartiality and independence. The municipal court really has to strive to maintain our independence and our impartiality. It's a consistent theme for me because I want our court to maintain its ability to do what it needs to do. And I'll talk a little bit later about what goes on in the state government uh and AC and across the

[152:00] country frankly with uh just not a great deal of confidence in what goes on in municipalities with with respect to their courts. So just want to make sure that everybody understands that that's really important to me that we maintain our impartiality and our independence. Uh next slide please. Uh this chart shows the various types of cases that we handle at the municipal court. We handled approximately 4,600 traffic cases in 2025. We addressed 2100 criminal cases during the year. 72,000 photo enforcement citations were issued to uh to our court and 72,000 parking citations were issued. Uh during that same period, our staff processed about 8,400 parking appeals. We also handle animal and code violations and civil appeals that are filed in connection with the quasi judicial review process. Next slide, please.

[153:01] Our total traffic filings have steadily increased over the past three years. If you look at this blue chart starting in 2023, you can see actually 2022, you can see that we increased from about 2,900 cases total in 2022 and had 4,000 about 600 cases in 2025. Uh that's a fairly substantial increase and it's been fairly steady in that way for the last three years. Next slide, please. Again, if you look at this chart, uh we've got three different categories that are listed here. We've got the red light violations and our camera radar violations, which are the blue and the red that you see there. And then in 2024, the city activated its speed on green program. And as a result of that, you'll see in 2024 that green chart that's there, um 6,100 speed on green charges were initiated. And that means when someone's going through a red light

[154:01] uh perhaps an intersection where there's a red light camera, uh they're now possibly getting a speed on green violation if they accelerate and they're going 10 miles per hour or greater over the speed limit when they enter that intersection. So there's two different ways that a person could be cited going through an intersection. That 2024 data started from about half the year of having those speed on green cameras active. Uh and of course in 2025 though they had a full year and we anticipated that there would be an increase this year. There could potentially be an increase again next year if they add additional cameras and make them operational. So a great deal of activity in the photo enforcement area. And I will point out that in 2025 72,000 total photo enforcement citations were issued. That's the most that we've ever seen in our court. Uh next slide please. We had approximately 2,100 uh criminal cases filed in our court during 2025.

[155:00] As you can see, only 59 or of those were to people under the age of 18. Most people under 18 who are cited with a criminal offense are sent down the hall to the state court. Uh and it's a juvenile district court proceeding there. But we do get the occasional CU student who might be under 18 and get a ticket in our court. And that's typically what you're seeing there and a few others. But we don't get a lot of younger younger folks that are actually issued citations for criminal offenses in our court. But again, you can see the increase in the the case numbers from 2023 at approximately 1500 all the way up to 2100 in 2025. A fairly significant increase uh during that three-year period. Next slide, please. A few council members had indicated to me that they were interested in knowing more about the quality of life violations that were occurring in the neighborhoods around CU. And so I have this slide for you. Uh and as you can see uh and what's not on here is from

[156:00] basically from 2014 to 2021 we had a sub substantial decrease in the number of quality of life uh violations that were being issued. Uh, and then we kind of hit our mark in 2021, which was a steady number that we'd seen for a few years, but you can see we we dropped down from 2021, 2022 to 2023, we began kind of at the low mark. And now for the last couple of years, we've increased the number of citations that we've seen for for quality of life violations. And uh I wanted to put the this in context because of the fact that we had for about a dozen years seen decreases and a lot of that's attributable to the folks at CU have been very proactive uh not only in having programs and classes in the restorative justice program I've spoken to about a number of times but also the community living class that they have in place and then their work putting together a party registration program which allows people who are having parties to register those parties uh with the police department either at

[157:00] DU or Boulder Police Department. And so that that pro those programs were very successful in decreasing the numbers. But as you can see, the last couple of years we've seen some fairly significant increases in those numbers. And I meet with CU a couple times a year. I met with them in January here to discuss this uh increase. and they shared with me that the large parties that were occurring near campus both in the spring and fall of 2024 and again in the spring and fall of 2025 led to increased enforcement which means that officers were going to these locations and writing more citations. And so that's why you see this uh there has been what I can see consider a concerning increase in the size of these parties uh and how they impact the neighborhoods surrounding them. and and of course the law enforcement can speak directly to what their efforts have been, but uh it's obviously reflected in more citations for us. They when these folks come to our court, uh we're usually seeing firsttime offenders. Most

[158:00] of the people that we see uh are young people who perhaps have just moved from campus uh into the community and it might be their first interaction with law enforcement or with the court. And so the process that our prosecutors and our probation department uh emphasize are both restorative uh and educational processes to get these folks to understand what it might mean to be the community member. And we have a very low recidivism rate. We don't often see the same defendants more than once. Uh and so that's good news. And yet it doesn't satisfy perhaps everybody's concern over the fact that we still have more problems that occur. And if you think about it, what we have is every year we have a cohort of young people who are going to be going from CU as college freshmen uh and then joining our community. And a lot of them, it's the first time that they lived without any type of direct supervision either by being in a dorm or at home. And so you will see these violations occur. And the challenge for everyone involved with

[159:00] this issue is how do you get these folks to not commit the violations in the first place? because it can't be very satisfactory for people who are living in this community to feel like well great it's their first time and we don't have recidivism but we still experience that. So the folks who are living in Goss Grove or on the hill or other neighborhoods surrounding CU um they still experience the impact of this transition from young people living on campus to living in on their own in the community of the city. So that's a problem and it's not an easily uh solved problem. But I I do have great trust in the university and and the programs that they put in place and in our conversation uh in January they assured me that they already have been thinking about this themselves a little bit and they've always been thinking about it but they have adopted a new program that they've just started. It's a nine-month tenant education program. And this program is designed to educate freshmen, most of whom are living on campus and perhaps their first time living away from home, about their responsibilities

[160:01] as they move from campus into our community. And I'm hopeful that over time, this proactive approach will reap benefits for our community and perhaps reduce the impact that quality of life alle violations have on our long-term residents in those communities. Our probation staff for our part has deepened their relationships with CU and others involved with quality of life cases and they've set some more stringent st standards for our young offenders to ensure accountability for those involved with our court. They give them uh text messages literally a couple weeks after being in court saying, "Hey, get on these responsibilities that you have. get them done. Because our view is is if you have these immediate consequences and you're responsible right away that you're not likely to get another ticket and you're likely to prevent your your roommates or others from getting these kind of violations. And that's what these res restorative justice programs are designed to do is to get people educated so that they don't commit the violations going forward. Next slide, please.

[161:00] Uh our community court operation is is yet another one that the court is is very pleased with our progress that we've had in in the operation. We continue to see a large number of people who participate in this program. As you can see here, uh we've increased the numbers of the program from 2022 to the present and we've stabilized right around that 480 to 500 per year figure. Uh the the community court is a collaborative effort between the municipal court, the city attorney's office, and the police department's homeless outreach team, and then many community partners, and defendants who are facing low-level offenses like camping or trespass, possession of alcohol or marijuana in public, smoking in public, and use of a tent are eligible for this program. By completing tasks authorized by prosecutors that improve stability, defendants can earn dismissal of these lower level charges. I want to emphasize that point because sometimes it gets lost in the discussion. These are lower level charges for offenders who who are in our court for those low-level offenses. Uh more serious charges like assault,

[162:01] disorderly conduct, harassment, resisting arrest, obstructing a police officer, anything involving violence or threats of violence are not eligible for the community court program. And defendants facing one of these charges must address their charges through the traditional court process. They can't earn a dismissal simply by doing a task that might improve their stability. There will be something more as far as part of a process and it's not one where they can simply go to our community court operation and earn a dismissal. They have to come to the court and resolve their cases through through the court system. Uh, and notice also, I think this is important for people to remember as well, that felonies like homicide, sex assault, violent offenses resulting in serious bodily injury, domestic violence, drug possession or distribution, or even theft are not addressed in our court. Those are state charges that get filed in the state court. Next slide, please. Over the past few years, we have seen a significant increase in participation in mental health and addiction counseling

[163:01] by our community court participants. And you can see the the fairly rapid increase over the last three years. Counseling students from Nuropa University provide on-site counseling sessions to community court participants at our Thursday morning program. Individuals interested in establishing a longerterm therapeutic relationship can also schedule appointments with clinic's mental health practitioners in 2025. As you can see, we had approximately 100 mental health counseling sessions completed by community court participants as a direct result of their involvement with our program. Our hope is that those initial sessions lead to longer term relationships that extend beyond the closure of defendants's criminal case. Next slide, please. We saw over 72,000 parking filings issued in 2025. uh parking officers also issued approximately 21,000 warnings during the year of 2025 and a sim similar number in 2024. So if you're looking at this chart thinking that

[164:00] there was a drop off, the total number of interactions between parking officers and issuing something in writing to an individual has not actually decreased since 2023. They just were issuing warnings during those periods. And so th those are not reflected in this data. But if you added those on, you would see that we were probably across the board pretty much the same in those three years. Uh most of the citations that are issued to by a parking officers are resolved without any court involvement. We have an online payment program and most people simply pay their their parking citations. Uh but for those who wish to contest those citations or to address uh an error that they think has occurred or perhaps they had registration for their vehicle and it just wasn't changed on the back of their license plate, something of that nature, they do have the opportunity to contest a citation without a trial through our online appeal program. And in 2025, our staff addressed 8,400 parking appeals. Our parking appeal program uh reduces the need for time consuming consuming resource intensive trials. I think it's

[165:02] worthwhile for me to point out to you that there was a Denver Post article describing what had happened in in Denver's county court this past year. Uh because of budget cuts in Denver, they cut their online parking appeal program in January of 2025. For that month before they cut their their program, they had one case get set for trial. In December of 2025, there were 145 cases that were set for trial because they had discontinued that program. And if you read that article, the impact on the county court is significant, but it's also significant to note that how much that impacts community members who want a simple way to resolve their cases. So, I pointed out because we recognize how important this program is, how important our staff is who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who to who take on these tasks of of basically refereeing these violations. and it does provide us a mechanism for resolving cases, giving people an opportunity to be heard in a resource limiting way. So I I really

[166:00] appreciate that we've had this program. It's a very successful one and I just wanted to point that out for you all. Next slide, please. This chart depicts the civil appeals that we see in our court. The types of cases that come through this would be uh bear trash violations, rental uh license violations, building code violations, marijuana license suspensions or revocations, and then building suspensions issued by the city manager's office or other city departments. Building suspension hearings were a big part of the trials depicted in this slide for 2025. And I will also point out that these are just the matters that were appealed to us. Uh there may be a ton more notices that are issued that people simply came into compliance with through the departments that they were working with or they paid the fee that was associated with this. This is just the appeals that came through our court. We don't get the notice data. So we don't have the a way of tracking that type of information. All right. And I'm before I leave I just

[167:00] want I'm going to turn this over to Devon Kiss Kelly. Real she's going to really briefly talk to you about our accomplishments of of the 2025 goals and our goals for 2026. And if we could put up the next slide for Devon. >> Good evening, council. Devon Cassik Kelly, um court administrator. I'm uh really pleased and excited to tell you about what we had accomplished in 2025. Uh we promised you that we were in the process of recruiting and hiring new staff. I'm happy to report that we um have completed that. Uh two other goals that were really important to us in 2025 were to improve public access to the court data and improve transparency over court programs. We have accomplished this by the roll out of our um data dashboard. I um I don't know of any other municipal courts in the state of Colorado that have a data dashboard. Um

[168:01] uh so I I do believe we may be one of the first to have um allowed this amount of transparency into the municipal court. Uh we also continue to work on mental health addiction and counseling op options for court participants. Um we've begun with the Nuropa partnership and plan to extend our partnerships with other mental health providers in 2026. Next slide please. I would encourage everyone to go on to the Boulder Municipal Court website and look at our data dashboard. Um, this has been about a year in the making and we are very proud. Um, we we are seeking feedback. So, we will have a form that the community can can fill out as we continue to develop the data dashboard and provide the community with the insight that they would like into the operations of the municipal court. Um, I would encourage everyone in the

[169:01] community and all of the council members to come down to the Boulder Municipal Court at some point to see what we do. We are very proud of our court and the way that it operates. Um, if if you you can't come down in person, you can always go on to our YouTube channel because all court hearings are um on YouTube. So, you can go to YouTube, you can come in. We would love to see all of you at some point. Uh, next slide, please. 2026, we plan to continue to enhance our data dashboard and transparency to the public on court operations. Um we are strengthening our community court program and looking at different ways um in order to help the unhoused population by look looking past out of our at our data over the last few years and determining what has been successful in adjusting accordingly. Um we also will need to adapt to some changes in the Colorado criminal laws which I will let

[170:01] Judge Khan go into. >> Thank you for that Devon. Uh couple of things that have occurred uh with respect to changes in Colorado law. In uh this late December, the co the Colorado Supreme Court came down with an opinion in the camp case. Uh and that's going to have some impact on our sentencing authority. The bottom line from camp is that from a judge's perspective, and this is just how I interpret things. I will tell you that there are multiple interpretations across the state from different municipal court judges and prosecutors as to the extent of camp. But in my view in reading just strictly the holding of camp that if there's an ident identical criminal conduct that that occurs in our court that would be have a similar uh potential charge in the state court. We cannot impose a sentence any greater than the state could impose for a similar charge. For example, a trespass charge. If if if in under state law

[171:00] trespass the maximum penalty is a $750 fine and 10 days of jail, then that if there's identical conduct and in municip municipal uh situation, then we can't impose more than 10 days of jail and a $750 fine. So, it will have some impact on our court sentencing, not significant because we don't impose significant jail sentences or significant fines in our court. So, it won't impact us in a significant way as far as compliance with camp. uh but it will require some work from our staff and from the prosecution staff to come into compliance and make sure that our documents and our forms and our processes are all in line with camp. And then I will mention briefly and I mentioned this in detail in our agenda memo. There is some legislation pending in the Colorado General Assembly which will impact municipal courts. Uh and for us it's really about our public defender contract. there was some language in the in the new state statute or in the new um ordinance that is being proposed uh that might limit our ability to pay our public defenders a flat fee when they're

[172:00] actually just doing a a short docket for us. But I think working with um both Rober Roberto Ramirez, Heather Staer, our intergovernmental officer from CMO, who are both working with Colorado Municipal League, uh we've proposed some changes to to that language so that it might make life a little easier for municipal courts and still meet their goals. We're going to monitor that uh statute and see what happens with it and and we will comply with whatever the legislature decides is the law. And I want to make that point. Our court always tries to stay ahead of the law at least where it's going, but when there's a a legal change, we follow it and we don't get put ourselves in a position where we're cutting too close and ending up in the in the news. Our job is to try to accommodate the what the intent of the legislature or the intent of the Supreme Court is. And I think we've done a pretty good job of that. So, I will leave it to questions. I thank you all very much for your time tonight. I may have gone a few minutes over, but I did try to keep it nice and short.

[173:02] All right. Would you like me to uh take over from here, Nuria? >> Yep. That would be great. >> Okay. So, counselors, does anybody have any questions? Um, okay. Rob Kaplan. >> Thank you, Judge Khan. That's really great information. Um, I'm noticing that things like traffic, photo, speed on green, red lights, they really don't create a change in behavior, do they? It seems pretty consistent across the board year to year. Is is there any um research into things that actually could actually slow people down for safety? >> Well, I'm not sure that I could make that conclusion from the charts. you know, there's there may be some correlation. Um, but I I would think that you probably want to have a

[174:01] statistical analysis and and it would also involve not just the number of citations that are issued, but the number of people who are coming in and the number of trips that are being made because there it may or may not reflect that there's no change in the behavior. So, it I I would be reluctant to to draw a conclusion from that as to whether they're effective or not. Uh, and I would imagine that the police department would have more to say about that because I would guess that that they or or the city attorney's office would do a little more of the research because our job at the court is simply to resolve those cases in a way that we can resolve them. Now, we do play a role based on what we can impose for a consequence for a traffic violation. Uh and in the agenda memo, I I think I pointed out that over 300 people uh con uh who came through our court with traffic citations took a a class and another 70 or 80 young people took classes and that's increased since COVID because those classes are online and I think education I always believe that people want to follow the law. They need to be

[175:00] encouraged. They need to have a consequence. But I think also educating them is one of the things we can do at the court. Um, how you slow people down with enforcement is a totally different area and I would want to stay in my lane on making any suggestions on what what works and doesn't work. >> I'll just add to that and we can follow up. Uh, Council Member Kaplan, transportation and mobility have some great stats on behavioral changes through deterrent mechanisms like this. Um and I think to Judge Khan's um comments, there has to be a correlation as we are getting more and more people particularly out of town which a lot of tickets go to. How does that match with the amount of ticketing that is happening? So we can certainly follow up. Um but I would say that uh this type of enforcement is uh a really terrific way to advance our vision zero goals as we're thinking about it and there is some a lot of studies that have been made about it. So we can certainly follow up. >> Yeah, I agree. It's clearly not a stat

[176:02] statistically valid survey. Um it just an observation. Um just one other question for the uh quality of life the tenant education program. Is that for first offenders? Is there any part of that program that CU does proactively? >> No, I think it is proactive. It's not a it's not something they actually do. It's something that they've adopted that they're they're putting their college freshmen through it. I think they just started it in December. So, I don't think they got it running by September, but the expectation would be every fall when you've got freshmen who are a captive audience in the dorms is you present this as part of a curriculum that you're providing, not necessarily a class that they sign up for, but when they go to the dorms, they have the opportunity to learn certain things. And so if you spread it out over nine months, uh, and I, you know, Jeff Morris at CU could probably talk greater about this, but if you spread it over nine months, my expectation would be that you're, you're helping them understand.

[177:00] So by the time they're signing a lease in April or May for the next fall, they're thoughtful about who they live with, what type of of a place that they choose to live, and what kind of responsibilities and what kind of rights they might have as well, because there certain rights that can get trampled for young people as well. And so I think they're learning a lot about that. It's a new program. Uh and I'm hopeful it'll be successful, but it's not part of the sentencing requirement. >> Right. Got it. Uh that's all I have. Thank you all for all the work you do. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you, Council. >> Um Tina, >> yeah, I just had a quick question about the um increased uh incidents on the Hill neighborhood and you mentioned the size of the party. I also had heard some anecdotes about using amplified music um more frequently. Do you feel you have enough within our current policy and ordinance to to deal with those changes or is that something that council might look at at some point?

[178:02] >> It's a a good question. I don't think that we are limited by our sentencing uh abilities to to get after these with the the folks who come to our court. Uh there are a lot of different ways to go at this. Some of them have nothing to do with what we do at the court. But for our purposes, I think we have to be aware that if if we're doing something from a sentencing perspective that's not causing enough impact to deter the behavior, not just for that individual, but for others that they come into contact with. That's important for us. I think we have the tools. Uh, it's a question of are we using those tools appropriately because we're not we're not sending young people to jail, you know. So, so we don't need more sentencing authority that I'm not already using and nor do I really ever want to send a a 19-year-old college sophomore to to jail because they were too loud. Uh, what I would like to do is get them to change their behavior and to share with others the the need to change their behavior. So, that's why we come

[179:01] at it from an educational and a restorative process. Um, but I don't think we're limited in any way from a sentencing perspective. We don't need uh more sentencing authority. It's just more how do we use it? And then there's another aspect of this, right? There's that educational component of CU and then there's an enforcement aspect, too. >> Thanks. >> Okay, thanks Tina. Um, next we have Nicole. >> Is it okay if we make comments, Tara, or do we just want questions right now? >> You can make a comment. for instance, telling Judge Khan how awesome he is. You can definitely >> It's kind of like that but a little more specific. Um Judge, I just wanted to thank you and Devon and everybody there for um particularly the data dashboard. Know that's been something that the community has been asking for. Um some council members have been really wanting it. Um and I know it was not a simple thing to gather that. It always seems simple when it shows up. It was not. Um it you know took I think over a year to

[180:00] kind of get all this together. So, I just wanted to thank you. It is a it is a tool that meets a need that um a number of people have been asking for and just thank you and everybody at the court that helped put that together and city manager's office and um I don't know if city attorney's office was involved in that. I suspect that there there was a component there too, but just thank you all for gathering that resource. >> Thank you. >> To colloquy off of that, I just want to say that you promised that you would do this and you did it and so I'm also very thankful. Well, thank you. I I get credit for it. I can tell you that I I was not the person that did all of the work. I did my little part of this, but uh Devon was so instrumental in this and she had to work with staff so that they could put the data in correctly. That's why it took so long. They got to start putting the data in the right way so they can be retrieved easily through a dashboard system. And Josh Jackson, who works at our court, who has five or six other responsibilities besides doing this, uh worked tirelessly this year to get it done. So those two deserve a ton

[181:00] of of credit and we had some help with partners in at it. So it's been a a great learning experience for everybody and it's it's a first iteration I will share with everybody. We are we have more ambition for this data dashboard but this is what we could kind of work together this year. We'll get some feedback and and come back next year with an even better and more transparent operation for you. >> Great. Thank you so much. And now we have Ryan. I also just wanted to thank you, Judge, for your um your the your work on all the data dashboard and and um also the the the inter departmental team that's done the work with the automated traffic enforcement and the the speeding uh with the green light camera. I do not enjoy us having to give people fines. But that demonstration that you showed on the bar chart is that now that we've started tracking, we have a large number of people driving through it over 10 miles an hour, you know,

[182:01] speeding through one of the most dangerous places in the city, which is intersections where cars are parked, pe stopped, people are trying um to cross on foot. you've got bicyclists and it is a real illustration of the problem of of the speed and the mass of vehicles that are causing real danger um in our streets. So, I'm thankful for you and I'm thankful for the work of the police and the transportation mobility department who all working together. Um I would would hope that in the future we're able to, you know, work this down. But um you know in the meantime this is a a really important demonstration of the danger that we have in our in our streets right now and um you know the work ahead to to try to reduce it. So thank thank you for being being a part of the solution. >> Thank you councelor >> Colloquy. I know it changed my behavior just one of those whopper tickets but anyway just kidding. That was a joke. Um but it's also true. Um anyway okay who else wants has a question for Devon or

[183:01] Judge Khan? anyone? Okay, it looks like nobody does. So, this was always, as always, very informative and educational. Thank you so much for being here tonight and we really appreciate you and your department and Devon and everybody involved. Thanks so much. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay, >> great to see everyone. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Next on our agenda, I believe is um is it the council um discussion on what? Nura, I don't have my notes in front of me. >> Uh well, I think Alicia can take us to it, but it is about community engagement. Um so, E, if you can read it in. >> Thank you, ma'am. It is item 4 C on our last item on the agenda, and it is the city council community engagement update and discussion. >> Thank you so much. And for this, we're going to be appreciative of Pam Davis uh and certainly uh Ryan who's supporting, but I know Pam's doing a little bit of double duty on this since Megs is out of town. Pam.

[184:02] Yep. Thanks, Nuria. And good evening, council. My name is Pam Davis. I'm assistant city manager. I use she her pronouns and I will be joined tonight by Ryan Hansen, our engagement manager for this presentation. We do want to thank Meg's Finelli who did contribute significantly behind the scenes but just wasn't here for prime time tonight. Um we do have a short slide deck so you can pull that up please clerk's team and well you can go right to slide number two. So tonight's presentation and discussion is going to really center on specific strategies for direct council member engagement with our community. We're going to provide with you with an update on re recent council engagement opportunities. We'll lay out a menu of opportunities and methods for council to engage with community and then ask you all to consider which methods you are most interested in participating in for the remainder of the 2026 calendar year.

[185:00] Given staff capacity limitations due to a short term for council priorities, we do want to ensure staff can deliver the most valuable engagement opportunities for you to support your leadership of community. Today's discussion will inform further refinement that the council engagement committee will then take on and implement. Next slide, please. Just have a couple of context setting slides here. Um, oh, are we having a delay? There it is. Regardless of your feedback tonight, the city does maintain three evergreen avenues for the public to communicate with council. As you well know, they are open comment at regular meetings, public comment during public hearing items at regular and special meetings, as well as use of our con council contact form online. Next slide, please. And finally, you also well know that we value public engagement on a variety of large city efforts. Separate from the

[186:00] discussion tonight and council's preferred community engagement options, city staff will continue to hear from community members through planned engagement on important projects such as the Boulder Valley Comp plan, the long-term financial strategy, and more. Tonight's conversation will not impact those planned efforts, but instead complement staffled engagement with council specific opportunities. That's the whole introduction and I'll now turn it to Ryan Hansen for detail. Thank you, Pam. Good evening, council. Uh Ryan Hansen here, uh serving the people of Boulder as community engagement manager on our communication and engagement team. Uh if we can go to the next slide, I'm eager to turn to many of opportunities for council engagement in 2026. And in the past, council members have indicated a desire for more opportunities for dialogue between community and council. And council members have engaged in chats with council, a community and council forum

[187:00] on the city's economic vitality strategy, uh as well as updates and conversations with the city's community connectors and residents. We'll go into detail on uh these in a moment, but just know that staff have the infrastructure ready to offer council initiated rather than staff planned uh chats with council or individual office hours. And you know, know that council members are are always welcome to engage in community events and individual meetings as desired. And I just have to slide in a reminder here that public notice is required when more than two council members are present and when any public business is discussed or formal actions may be taken. And next slide please. So, first up, chat with council uh has been a format that the city has experimented with since 2019 uh and really offers an informal way uh for committee members to drop in for two-way conversations with their elected officials. And these are usually based

[188:02] on a topic or a location uh or in partnership with a local organization. Uh and you know, we welcome nominations from council and staff work to confirm those logistics. Uh in the past we've been able to offer six of these uh chats each year. Uh sometimes these also look like walks or roles uh around a specific location in the community. And these are a bit more intensive uh because of the staff planning and coordination uh and some follow-up uh which includes communication to participants um especially with individual questions or specific resources. uh and then we take notes uh to send on to full council. On the next slide, we'll give a a brief recap of what this looked like in 2025. There were six different chats with council uh that the city hosted in this last year. Uh that was a chat with council and the arts community. Uh one

[189:00] focused on food security. uh one that was a lunch with older adults, another that was a facility tour rockound equality, one that was a dinner with council and BBSD high school aged youth and an opportunity to table at the CU student engagement fair and we've seen consistent participation in chats with council um you know designing those for some smaller conversations and up to maybe 40 participants and over the past two years it's really met staff expectations. On the next slide, um, want to look at council initiated chats and this is a format really designed to be responsive to specific and time sensitive topics and we we look to at least three council members nominating a specific topic. Uh, the staff would then move forward on logistics. And this is a little less intensive. Uh but we're thinking, you know, let's let's space these out a bit to make sure

[190:01] there's a month before any of these chats. And to be clear, this is not something that we we have offered. Um council has not requested, you know, this opportunity before. Uh but know that the infrastructure is ready uh to support something that is, you know, more time timesensitive than a um chat with council that's planned a bit further out. And the next slide, please. We do have office hours. Uh this has uh happened uh with two council members in a limited nature in in the past. Um and these can be staff supported or done independently with a council member uh and really offer an open in conversation with committee members and staff can really support the logistics of these. This is a pretty low uh intensive effort for staff and you know we are happy to to coordinate these as as helpful for council. On the next slide want to speak to community connectors

[191:01] and residents uh who are a team of community members that partner with the city and empower the city to make better decisions by elevating the perspectives and experiences of historically excluded communities. And since 2021, uh, community connectors and residents have shared one to two updates with council each year. Uh, some of those have been presentations during a council meeting. Some of those have been information items. Uh, and those include themes of community strengths and community issues. And then another option for council is uh we encourage each of you to join community connectors and residents for a dinner gathering uh to really build relationships with community actors and residents. On the next slide then want to look at community and council forum and uh we had a pilot of this format uh that grew from the city's partnership with the national civic league's center for democracy innovation uh in September 2024. And this format really allows diverse

[192:01] community perspectives to be included as early as possible in council decision or policym uh by replacing the study session with an opportunity for dialogue uh with community on a specific topic. And this is a a very intensive uh lift for staff. There's a lot of staff coordination behind the scenes um for for the logistics for small group facilitators uh for topics and subject matter experts. And so this is really looking at at least six months of of lead time uh before we move into a community and council forum. And there's the menu of opportunities um on the next slide and I'll turn uh back to Mayor Prom and really looking at as council is is discussing which of of these opportunities or mix of these opportunities that council is interested in 2026. We're here to address any clarifying questions. Um, and as Pam

[193:00] mentioned, you know, following council consensus, staff will go ahead and meet with the council committee on engagement and a welcoming council environment. Uh, that's coming up on February 25th. And we'll seek their council implementation and support. And then as a plan develops, we'll share that with full council. Uh, and then we'll move forward with those council engagement opportunities. So, I'll turn it back to Pam to bring up the question. >> Thanks very much, Ryan. Um, Emily, if you don't mind flipping just to that last slide. We'll leave this here for a minute. So, we're really the the key question is for you all. Which of these opportunities are you hoping to be able to participate in this year so that we can get an idea to inform the the engagement committee? And we have five options here in front of you that Ryan has detailed. >> Okay, it looks like we have a qu a comment or a question from Ryan.

[194:00] >> Ryan. >> Yes, thank you, Ryan. Um, I I would like to nominate a uh a chat and if it's appropriate, I can I can tell you my concept for the chat. But um anyway, I'd like I like I'd like to do a chat. Should I take the concept? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so we have a we have a work plan item on bicycle security that involves bicycle parking. It was prompted in part by community members saying, "I don't feel great trying to take my ebike or my bike downtown." Was prompted by um one community member who has given kind of a whole landscape assessment, including physical landscape assessment of like what's going on downtown with short-term and long-term back parking. I would like to um explore doing a chat that would invite community members interested in bicycle security, don't feel safe, maybe they have perspective on it, whatnot. Um to walk around downtown and, you know, maybe do

[195:01] some kind of a tour of here's, you know, here's what we think as the city is is is good and is working and hear from some others. You got the RTD um bike shelter shed that's part of the system down there in addition to the short-term racks. got employees who might have a perspective on long-term parking. So, anyway, I' I'd like to nominate that. And again, it's consistent with um one of our workload priorities. >> I'd like to second that and also comment. >> Okay. Does anybody else want to comment or have a question? Um, also I want to bring your attention to the chat where Alicia writes, "From the menu of options provided by city staff, which opportunities are council members most interested in participating in during 2026?" So, any comments on that would be appreciated. Okay, Rob. >> Yeah, I kind of um I'll echo what Ryan said. I think it's a great opportunity.

[196:00] I see and you mentioned students and I think it would be great to get up on um the hill and talk to the students engage with them and do this when I read it in the packet like a walk and talk or a ride and talk you know where they are meet them where they are. I think that's really powerful for them to have the access to us and I can see that with bikes. I can see that with the uh uh wildland urban interface, some of those neighborhoods. Um safety downtown. So many opportunities with that. And I think just getting out into the community rather than having them come into council chambers or a formal meeting, it it just feels a lot more organic to me. So I really support that. >> I love that. So what you're saying I think both of you is a subject related um community events more so and we did have a by the way Rob we did an a wildland um a wooi talk uh walk and talk

[197:01] in my tenure on councils and it was a great success. Um so I love these ideas. Okay, now we have Matt Benjamin. >> Thanks for the full name introduction. I figured you'd drop my middle name while we're at it. What's your middle name? >> David. I got three first names. So, >> okay. Matthew David. >> That's a curse of some sort. I don't know which. Um anyway, uh you know, so it's also we're doing we have a committee um of council engagement committee that um meets to sort of brainstorm some of these but also works to rotate as Tara mentioned that we can't do all of the subjects in one year, right? We do about six of the chats per year and so there might be like oh two years ago we did this well now it's time to bring that one back. So we try to rotate them. So every two to three years, every one of those subject areas has been touched by a chat with council. So there's probably a cadence of a few that are probably due. Um and I think that committee will help sort of delineate those specific ones. But but appreciate the recommendations um that are coming because those will certainly

[198:00] be considered by the committee. But I just want to let you know that that those are one of the things that that that committee is tasked with doing. I say all of them. I mean these are all great. We constantly hear the community wants us to engage more. Um, and sometimes we have to invest more to get more. And so that's why I think the uh the council the the community and council forum albeit once a year labor intensive tends to be the most rewarding and we get the most out of it both from community and for ourselves and it's the one opportunity we engage as a whole count a whole council and that's really empowerful empowering for all parties. So um I don't want to just do them for the sake of doing. So, I think it's deliberate that we pick the right subject and and so I'm hopeful that with staff's guidance um and the committee and all of council, we can pick a good subject and get one done here in 2026. But all the marrier to whatever staff capacity has the max work because our community loves engagement and we need to feed uh feed feed that need in order to stay uh in good in good relations but also building that trust. >> Great. Um all right, now we have Taiisha.

[199:02] Yes, I agree with my colleague Matt um regarding the community and council forum. I found that of all of the options to be one of the most beneficial and and obviously um the most labor intensive. So I I certainly appreciate the one per year. So would love to continue those. Um have we done the council initiated chats? What what what did those look like? I'm sorry. What was Good question. >> We have not implemented those before. Uh we've just structure. Yeah, we have not. >> Did that miss something? >> Okay. Um and then um yeah, is there like a formal process or will the folks ask when we want different or have recommendations because you know we'd like to lift up our agricultural community and doing a farm tour? We talked and I believe staff did that last year and found it to be quite fruitful. So, would love to replicate something similar, >> especially since we have the lunch and

[200:01] learn and not everybody will be able to attend that. >> I'm looking forward to it. Um, okay. So, does anybody else have any input? >> Mayor Prom, if I may, and I just want to clarify for staff's sake. I I think um one of the things that we're taking from it is that chats definitely are something you want to move forward with and certainly we'll go back to the um engagement committee to talk more about what that looks like and trying to figure out how to solicit and program topics so that you don't have to do them on the fly. Um I guess uh one of the questions and I just want staff to correct me if I'm wrong uh is of the menu of options looking to see if there is a desire to move forward with all of them or if there are any that perhaps don't fit the bill and you'd like us to think differently. Um because that might be a an easier response to the question. >> Although we are getting some very good ideas by just having a freeforall here.

[201:02] Um >> I' I'd love to just add thanks for the invitation Nura just um if you like the idea of sort of diversifying and doing a little bit of everything. We would just come back to the engagement committee with an estimated sort of number of each thing we might be able to pull off in a given year. Um the more methods we use, the fewer of any one method we would be able to do. >> Oh, let's let's hear from the rest of the hand raisers. That would be Mark and then Tina. >> You know, some of the most rewarding conversations I've had uh on council were with very young people, kids. Um I had one with a bunch of cub scouts. Um and uh they grilled the hell out of me on the Irish ball fields and they were tough and it was it was just rewarding to be able to interact with them. And then I had a another one with slightly

[202:00] older uh you know high school kids and um they were very informed, very engaged and I thought it was a a mutually rewarding uh evening. So I mean to the extent that we can reach younger people um I I think it's just terrific and and you can sign me up for any of those. I I just you know it was it was a great experience for me. Well, Mark, you can come over to my house anytime and hang out with my five grandchildren as well, but don't be scary, Mark. >> No, no, I I'll be very nice. I won't drink any beer. It'll be It'll be terrific. >> Okay. I c I think um Tina is next. That was a good joke. Tina was next and then Nicole. >> Yeah. uh just appreciate this question and I found um all of these methods valuable as well as even hearing from our boards and commissions when they did the annual letters. Um so I you know I I

[203:02] think and it sort of depends on the topic and how complicated it is and how many people it's going to touch. Uh so you know I'm I'm pretty open to all of it and also would defer a little bit to staff. um you know that you have more of a relationship with the community connectors for instance and if you feel that there's something going on with a particular um connector or a group of people I'd love to hear from them and uh so if you want to suggest something like that I'm certainly open and would be happy to attend uh also community initiated events. >> Great Nicole. Yes. Um, thank you staff for reading all this too. I was just uh taken by how much work this is for all of you to put all these together. So, thanks thanks for what you do. Um, I do like the chats with council. Um, I think those are really good opportunities. Um, would love to kind of keep those going and I

[204:01] like the idea of our um, community engagement committee thinking about um, formats and and what that might look like with you all of course. And then um, the council initiated chats and supported office hours. I sort of feel like this year, it's such a short year anyway, maybe just kind of keep going with what we've already been doing and not necessarily bring in new things that we haven't done as much. Um, the community and council forum, I love that. I think it's a great idea. It also took a ton of time and planning and I think some thought and intention in figuring out what was the the sort of quote unquote right conversation to use for that format. So, I don't know if I think about that for this year um so much as just to start thinking about it maybe for next year. Um I think with the connectors and residents um as they as they like as they want to invite us in um I'm happy to keep doing that. Um and one thing that I would love for and maybe this is a question for the community engagement committee. Um, years ago we put in place a rule that

[205:01] people could not do the chats with council if they were campaigning or like running for election. Um, I don't really love that rule myself. Uh, I think it puts a lot of restrictions, especially in a year like this one where we will have five seats up. Um anyway, so I would I would just be open if others were interested in um having the engagement committee think about whether or not that's something that we need to uh continue because I feel like it also constrains um timing of for staff and and how how people can sign up um for some of those spots in ways that may or may not be necessary. So >> okay, >> anyway, thank you. >> We'll take that up. Um I don't see any other hands. So I am going to just comment. My comment would be if there if we didn't mention something Nura and Pam that is really time consuming that you don't love that much anyway. I say we shouldn't do it. I to me uh like I've

[206:01] been to a few where there were more staff than people. There was this really large event we had at the park at North Boulder Park where we it just wasn't well attended and it was so much of all of your time. So I'm wondering can we consider not doing things that are heavily labor intensive I guess if they don't have that many people showing up in the community. Maybe there's not that much community interest in it. I just I defer to you as to what is just takes a lot of your time and energy and might not have as much gain from it as other things. And I mean that in a not negative way. Yeah, I I maybe I'll take a stab at it team and and certainly correct me if I'm wrong. I I appreciate um the intention behind that and want to be thoughtful to staff. I also know that sometimes some of the most meaningful conversations are those small gatherings with um folks that otherwise don't come to uh other

[207:00] larger events. So I want to be thoughtful about the type of topic that we pick because we want to make sure that it is it is um useful to both you and to community. Um, and I wouldn't necessarily discount the fact that we have small group of people coming as not a valuable conversation, which is not at all what you're saying, but I want to be thoughtful about what that looks like so that we come into conversations that are inviting for all. But I also appreciate the um suggestion to staff to be thoughtful too about the time it takes to put um some of those events on and to be maybe thoughtful working with the engagement committee about the topics to make sure that they have appeal um for particular audiences. So I think we can try to balance that out. >> I mean my most my my best times are one-on-one phone conversations. So, I get it. >> Um, those also take my time, but nobody else has to plan it. So, um, I think you

[208:00] have Do you have everything you need, Pam and Nura? Yes, >> Marion and Pam, you good? >> Ryan, sorry. Ryan, >> I think so. This is the start of a conversation with the engagement committee. So, having the pulse from all of you to inform that conversation is exactly what we were hoping for. >> That's great. Sorry about that, Ryan. I forgot to mention you and you're such an important part. Will you forgive me? >> I will forgive you. And yes, thank you for for this conversation and this is helpful and we'll come to the committee and then back to full counsel. >> Awesome. Okay. Um, it looks like we're at the end of our agenda unless somebody has something important to say and just full disclosure, I'm very tired, so it better be pretty important. Okay, let me see. >> I'm feeling remiss about sharing the something that's coming to mind. So, I was thinking about the council agenda uh priorities and the power outage one and as far as like council um initiated or maybe it could just be a theme for the council forum, but I just felt like

[209:02] >> that's that would be a good one. >> There wasn't something where we were in the face with a variety of different stakeholders around that and I could see that just being really beneficial. It came to my mind so I just wanted to share that. >> That's a great appreciate that. Um okay. Anybody else final words before we close? Nobody. That's great news because we're 24 p.m. Thanks everybody.