March 5, 2026 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[4:20] All right, good evening everybody and well if I can have quiet in the room please. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Thursday March 5th regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. So we see lots of people in the room which is super exciting. Thanks for joining us. Um, we do have fire rules which say that everyone who's in the room, unless they're actively speaking to us, needs to be in a seat. So, if you don't have a seat, we do have overflow rooms downstairs where you can sit and watch the proceedings. Um, but we can't

[5:00] have people leaning against the walls or standing in the aisles. So, everyone, if there's not a seat available, um, take a seat if there is one. And if there's not, if you would kindly move downstairs to the And I'll just give everybody a minute to uh to file out downstairs.

[6:12] All right. Okay, everyone. I see only a couple stragglers. If you can just make sure that you have found a seat or head to the overflow room downstairs. Okay, great. Thanks so much. So, I'm going to go ahead and call us to order. And Elicia, can we have a roll call, please? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. And good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us. We'll start tonight's roll call as usual with Council Member Adams, >> present. >> Benjamin, >> present. >> Mayor Brockett, >> present. >> Council member Kaplan, >> present. >> Marquis, >> here. Shuhart >> here, >> Spear >> present, >> Wallik >> here, >> and Mayor Pro Tim Wer >> present.

[7:00] >> Mayor, we have our quarum. Thanks so much. And now I'd like to request a motion to amend the agenda to add item 3J, which is consideration of a motion to adopt resolution 1377 appointing the external audit firm to examine the financial accounts of the city of Boulder for the year ending December 31st, 2025. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. And all in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. So the agenda has been amended. So we're now going to go to open comments. So Elisha, if we can have the participation guidelines read, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. I'd like to share with you tonight our public participation at city council me meeting guidelines. Thank you for your participation at the meeting tonight. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code. This is including that participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their

[8:02] whole name before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscinity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that will disrupt or otherwise impede the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you again for joining us and thank you for listening. >> Thanks so much, Alicia. All right, everyone's going to have two minutes to speak and I will be strict about those

[9:00] time limits in the interest of fairness. I'll call three names at a time and tell whether people are in person or virtual. So our first three speakers are Sonia Lunder in person, Paul Vokes virtually, and Aaron Nyer in person. So Sonia, hello. Thank you for having me today. My name is Sonia Lunderer. I've lived in Boulder since 2007 and intend to make this my long-term home. I'm speaking today about the renewal of the flock surveillance camera contract. I'm concerned because we're living in very dark times with the Trump administration's effort to target our immigrant friends and neighbors and attack our fundamental civil rights. Their willingness to break the law is made even worse by a new and unprepented surveillance tools and a complicit tech industry that's largely willing to damble them. Our courts have not yet been able to uphold the law and offer speedy and decisive protection. While

[10:01] some people in Boulder feel safer when they see a surveillance camera like Flock, I believe that those people don't fully understand their capability to harm us in our community. My preference is for no surveillance cameras in the city that I call home. However, I'll use my remaining minute to restate the available and less harmful alternatives for the city to consider. their city-owned systems that would let Boulder keep its data on its own servers and shield it from subpoena power. There um Denver has chosen to contract with Axon which offers no national sharing of network data. The city retains full ownership with a 21-day retention period and their penalties for contract violations. I support local state senate mabolet's bill that would require warrants a 4-day retention period for data and annual rep public reporting of data that's gathered. And I would note that the flock contract is not in compliance with this goal. With all of

[11:00] the scary things that are out of our control right now, it's inexcusable for the city to be paying for a technology that puts me and my neighbors at greater risk of harm. I'm asking the council to pause the flock contract auto renewal to bring this decision to a public vote and to establish clear and lasting safety policies when they enter any new partnership with a surveillance company. Thank you. >> Thank you. Oh, and folks, um I'm afraid no no applause is allowed. Uh we need to quieten the chambers just so that everybody has an equal chance to speak and be heard. Great. Um, now we have Paul Ves virtually, Erin Nyer in person, and Becky Hardy in person. >> All right. Good evening. Can you hear me? >> Yes. My name is Paul Voges, a resident of Boulder for 23 years. My concern tonight is over the city's process for approving property redevelopment. Redevelopment is key to Boulder's continuing vitality. The more we

[12:00] envision new uses for our land and the more we implement important city goals, especially affordable housing, the more we must consider replacing existing structures. But if the existing structure is to be rep to that is being replaced was built more than 50 years ago, the approval process grinds to a halt because the landmarks board is required to study whether to designate these middle-aged buildings as historic landmarks. If it's a landmark, the building cannot be replaced. I'm a member of a church that wants to repurpose its 1960s building and surrounding property in hopes of meeting housing and other community needs. So, I've seen the process fairly close up. The members and staff of the landmarks board are smart and conscientious. But given the high number of unremarkable buildings that went up all over Boulder in the 60s and 70s and the likely rise in redevelopment

[13:02] proposals in our future, the landmarks board may well face an untenable backlog. This will needlessly hinder redevelopment proposals, some of which would fit beautifully with the city's broader goals, but that's a consideration the landmarks board is not even allowed to entertain. My request is simply this. Please consider a more efficient, more holistic approach to assessing redevelopment proposals. An approach that is allowed to consider the future alongside the past. And finally, I'd like to commend the council for the tolerance and civility you have shown over the past several months during these open comment sessions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we go to Aaron Nyer in person, then Becky Hardy in person, and Natasha Rig virtually. Is Aaron Nyer here?

[14:04] We'll come back to him. Is Becky Hardy here? >> Turn on the mic, please. There we go. >> Okay. Thanks. My name is Becky Hardy. I've lived in South Boulder for 35 years. And I'm speaking as an aging person and a physical therapist. And I hate to break it to everybody, but we're all aging. And Boulder doesn't always like to recognize that. I feel like we're all young and everything's made for the young. but it's better than the alternative. So, I'm want to speak in favor of South Boulder Rec Center. Um, it's not only a place to play and exercise, but it's

[15:00] such a community and since I've retired, I've found a whole these are all my friends. I mean, I've met so many people there and I want to say knowing personally and professionally that exercise, mobility, keep moving is the path to having a quality of life, not just a life. And I just can't say enough about how great it feels to be a swimmer. And our swimming pools are crowded and they talk you someone talks about consolidating our pools in Boulder. Well, there's a lot of people here who love to swim and it's hard to find the lap lanes. And as an older person trying to fight my way, I'd probably just be closed off. So, I thank you for your consideration of helping our South Boulder Rec Center stay open, stay viable, and even have some improvements.

[16:00] make sure we have a swimming pool, a gym, and a basketball court for our young people. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Now we go to Natasha Rig online and Elise Edson online and then Cormack Godfrey in person. >> Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Thanks. Good evening. My name is Natasha Rig and I am a South Boulder resident of 19 years. I want to begin by expressing my strong support for funding the South Boulder Recreation Center, including the pool and gymnasium, which is relied upon by our community in a variety of ways, including the Fairview swim team. But that's not actually why I'm here tonight. I'm here to urge this council to cancel our contract with Flock Safety. Boulder has roughly 12,000 Latino residents, 11% of our city. Three of our 30 flock cameras are clustered at the Home Depot on 29th Street, which is a known day labor or gathering point.

[17:01] That's 10% of our entire flock network at a single location. In a political climate where the Supreme Court has now permitted a parent ethnicity as grounds for an immigration stop, our cameras are not neutral. When surveillance data can reach a federal government that has openly embraced racial profiling, that data becomes a tool of that profiling, regardless of BPD's intentions. We also know Flock cannot be trusted. Their CEO lied to Denver City Council about federal contracts. A secret border patrol pilot program was later revealed. In Loveland, an ATF agent used the local police flock account to run ICE searches, circumventing local agreements entirely. Our neighbors are acting. Denver dropped flock three days ago. Longmont paused all data sharing. Boulder's own Senator Judy Amab is leading bipartisan legislation to regulate this exact technology. Boulder

[18:01] should not wait to be regulated into doing the right thing. A genuine sanctuary city commitment means our infrastructure must match our values. And this contract costs 75 to 100k per year. That would be far better invested, if I may say so, in the South Boulder Rec Center. I ask that you please vote to cancel this contract. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thanks very much. And just a reminder folks of quiet in the audience. And now we got Ely Edson online and then Cormarmac Godfrey and Suzanne Bot in person. >> Hello, my name is Ely Edson. I'm a South Boulder mom joining virtually with my 2-year-old daughter Naomi. Thank you council and staff for your service to our community. And I'd like to voice our family support for keeping the essential amenities of the South Boulder Rec Center. Our rec center is where our seniors do water therapy, where our kids learn to swim, and where working

[19:00] families find affordable, joyful community. We're asking to keep what we have, the pool, the basketball court, the gymnasium, the gathering space our neighbors have relied on for generations. And speaking of age, 50 years old isn't old for a building. And in fact, many of us and our neighbors are older than that. Uh, so please don't let a boiler fail failure and overdue maintenance be the reason we lose these amenities and our pool. Every YMCA in the country has had to go through this. And here in this room tonight, we have some of the most brilliant minds in the country and in our city. So, I know we can figure this out together. We're a young family. We want to stay in Boulder. And it just becomes harder when essential community amenities disappear. This community is worth the fix and Naomi and all our children, they are worth investing in. Thank you so much. Thank you. The rest of our speakers are in person. The next three are Cormarmac

[20:00] Godfrey, Suzanne Bot, and Susan Einberger. >> You want to fellow Boulderites council members. My name is Cormack Godfrey. I'm an undergraduate student at the aerospace uh college of engineering at CU and I own and operate a small repair shop in North Boulder. During my childhood, I had the opportunity to live in a small London burough called Reigns Park near Wimbledon. As you may know, the United Kingdom is one of the most surveiled countries on the planet. London, in particular, has the highest number of cameras per square kilometer, nearly 400 in all of Europe. That's one camera for every 10 people living in the city. As a child walking to school through busy London streets, you were constantly aware of the cameras on the polls. The anxious feeling of being watched, stared at, followed by strangers you'd never know in the hopes of whatever you decided to do today was something they didn't disapprove of. An older me living in the countryside would hear of classmates who'd deface, damage, or destroy surveillance cameras in an act of rebellion, a small gesture of

[21:01] personal freedom. It is ironic then that I find myself in the land of the free debating the merits of mass surveillance. My classmates at the time were not so lucky to have the right to free speech. They were not so lucky as to be able to move countries to a land that better aligned with their personal views. And likewise, many of the most vulnerable members of our community also fit that description. The driving factor behind crime is inequality. A lack of opportunity drives people to make the choices their best selves would never have made. In an effort to crack down on crime, we turn to prosecution, not support. We would prefer to push the crime away to not to solve it. Council members, I urge you to reconsider the automatic renewal contract with flock safety and any other mass surveillance systems. They are a fundamental invasion of privacy. Support the persecution of minority populations, aim to restrict the free speech of peoples, and do not solve crime. Simply move it around. Flock, in particular, has proven that it is unreliable, deceptive, and profit driven. selling personal freedoms for

[22:02] cash. They are fundamentally unamerican and ineffective. As long as extreme inequality exists, crime will exist. I ask you directly, would you be comfortable with a stranger? >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony basis. >> Sir, your time is up. If you can please stop speaking. Thank you. >> All right. Our next three speakers are Suzanne Bot, Susan Einberger, and Matthew Duffy. Hello, my name is Suzanne Bod. Um, I live in South Boulder, about a 20 minute walk from the South Boulder Rec Center. I'm 71 years old. I have arthritis in way too many joints. And I swim several times a week at the South um swimming pool to keep those joints healthy, to keep me active and doing the things I love for the long term. Um, I do not swim at the East Center because I'm a

[23:01] backstroker and that ceiling does not work for me. I, uh, North is our most heavily used, um, facility. And so, the idea to me of consolidating pools doesn't seem real viable because we're just going to keep funneling more people into the same resource is going to get very crowded. So when I when the south is closed, I get in my car and I drive to Lewisville to swim. That's not sustainable and it's not in keeping with our goals of carbon reduction and walkable communities. the SouthRec Center with its gym, with its pool, with its um pickle ball courts and its classes, it's really important to our community, to the kids, to um seniors, to the swim teams, to everybody. And I just ask you, please um we would like to have continued access to that into the long term. I also just

[24:03] want to take a minute, a few seconds to um put my support to everyone who's here tonight to talk about the flock cameras. I am also very concerned about that and I wrote recently u wrote to you about that really really important matter. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Susan Einberger, Matthew Duffy and Jeff Hanky. Hello, my name is Susan Einberger. I live in North Boulder and I'm here to tell you how important South Boulder Rec Center is to the entire Boulder community. I was born and raised here. I've seen many changes in the community, in particular, the loss of swimming pools. In 1993, the city of Boulder Housing Authority bought the site of Hyimar Swim tennis to build the Himar

[25:01] senior apartments. The pool was paved over. In October 1999, Boulder Parks and Recre Advisory Board and City Council approved the purchase of Angel Pines Country Club, which included a 25 meter pool. The pool was paved over. The redevelopment focused on golf, even though in the planning documents it was noted, quote, "If the pool is being eliminated and no replacement is built, the pool void is made greater." And quote, "Swimming me needs are not being met. See the Velmont master plan." This was 26 years ago. There is no pool at Velmont today. In 2018, the city of Boulder approved the development of the Academy at Mapleton Hill, and another pool was lost. This was the site of a public warm water pool for therapy and swim lessons.

[26:00] In 2023, Boulder Housing Partners bought the site of Rally Sport Health and Fitness Club to build Rally Flats Apartments. The 25-yard lap pool was paved over. The city has lost four pools. The city has blessed the losing of four pools. It feels like an attack on pools. South Boulder is not just another pool. It is one of the few remaining. It is the only pool that the city will let my kids have a swim meet at. And when we can't practice there, we go to Broomfield. Thank you, city of Broomfield, for letting us have home meets there. >> Thank you. All right. Now we'll go to Matthew Duffy and then Jeff Hanky and Pam Moore. >> Hello everyone. Thank you all for your service. Um I'm here to speak about the problem of flock cameras in Boulder as

[27:01] many other people here are today. Um, yeah. I I was looking at this D flock site the other night that shows where all the flock cameras are in a city. And I found it really interesting to note that the highest concentration of flot cameras in the city are at Home Depot. One tenth three out of the 30ish cameras in Boulder are at Home Depot. And many maybe most of us here know that Home Depot's come under scrutiny for working closely with ICE uh to terrorize and kidnap people. Uh I don't know about you all, but I don't feel safe in this city if the most marginalized are being threatened by kidnappers and ICE. The Supreme Court has ruled that

[28:01] ICE can use racial profiling and Palunteer and I'm sorry and Flock. I get my fascist technofascist companies confused sometimes, but Flock has a track record of lying and working closely with this crazy insane fascist administration. So, we should give them no faith. We shouldn't trust them at all. It just makes sense. It's a bottom line that we should not work with with flock and Boulder should take a stand in solidarity with the rest of the country to divest from fascism and from a surveillance state that is targeting the most vulnerable and marginalized. Thank you for your time. Thank you for having me. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Jeff Hanky, Pam Moore, and Ken Bell. Hello. Hi. I'm I'm Jeff Hanky. I've been

[29:01] a uh resident of Boulder for nine years now, and I'm also here tonight in solidarity with my neighbors to speak against uh the flock cameras and any other form of mass surveillance in our city. As our country moves into a more authorit authoritarian direction, it is more important than ever to eliminate mass surveillance in our communities. We have we have seen in Minneapolis and around the country how easily the federal government can overstep, track and monitor people who protest or oppose those in power. So how ca can we in any good conscience have flock automated license plate readers track our movements and habits, store that data and share it with private companies and laws for law enforcement all while knowing the danger it possesses and the direction this is headed. The writing is on the wall. Immigrants, activists, abortion providers, journalists, and marginalized groups face the highest risk when location data is stored and shared. Systems like this also violate our Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless surveillance. I implore

[30:01] Boulder to be on the right side of history and the contracts with Flock and remove these cameras from the city. Thank you for your time and uh also keep the Boulder South Boulder Rec Center open. And I have a letter from Senator Ron Widen to the FTC in regards to Flock that would like to submit to the city council if that is okay. >> Thanks. You can go over to the city clerk and hand that over. Thank you for your testimony. Now we'll go to uh Pam Moore, Ken Bell, and John Boland. >> Hi, I'm Pam Moore. I've got my goggles on to let you know how serious I am about wanting to advocate for the South Boulder Rec Center. Um, thank you so much for investing to keep it open this summer. Um, I moved to Boulder in 2008 as an avid triathlete and have relied on our rec centers ever since. My husband and I bought our first home in South

[31:01] Boulder in 2010, moved down the street in 2020. Our kids learned to swim at Boulder Rec Centers. Um, and since 2019, they have swam with Mesa, which has historically been based in South Boulder. My husband serves on the board, and we see firsthand how the South Boulder pool is so integral to the team. Last summer when the pool's future was very precarious, um practices moved to north and east boulder recck centers and instead of our kids and all the kids biking or walking to practice, families were driving across town. We were juggling very complicated car pools with different kids at different rec centers at different times on different nights. Um there were longer commutes, added stress, and that is just not sustainable for many working families. The South Boulder Rec Center is a lot more than just a gym. It is a third space where kids, including athletes from Mesa and from Fair View High

[32:00] School, can be social and off their screens in a safe environment. And I think everybody knows that kids really need that, especially now. Um, a lot of families choose to live in South Boulder for the walkability, the bike ability, and amenities like the South Boulder Rec Center. Um, our property values have risen quite a bit. As far as I understand, they have outpaced the property values in other neighborhoods in South Boulder and keeping the South Boulder Rec Center local would only add to that and um it would help align with the city's 15minute neighborhood vision. Um, I think I'm out of time. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. Um, now we go to Ken Bel, John Boland, and Andrew Wington. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. >> If you can pull the mic up to you, please. >> Pull the mic up to you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. As our

[33:02] nation prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday this summer, we are pleased to launch an engineering challenge to reimagine the future of the South Boulder Rec Center. Today, we announced the South Boulder Rec Center Enhanced Engineering Challenge. We've invited Colorado's world-class engineering firms and universities and community members to explore what might be possible for the future of this muchloved facility. The announcement was shared with more than 12,000 Boulder area uh folks today along with the press and the challenge will explore two paths. First, extending the life of the center. We'll look at net zero heat pumps for the building and pool. And then the second option is what would it look like if we were to find an

[34:01] engineering scenario that would allow a new 100-year facility to be built. The co-chair of the steering committee, Yervon, is a big fan of what they modernized at the Lewisville Rex Center uh just a few years back. And this is her words on what they did there in 2018. Lewisville, the pool has a kids area, water slides, a lazy river, warm water wellness, lap pool, cold plunge, hot tub, huge cardio and weight area, indoor track, preschool, child care. Yavon's list goes on and on. It really does. Tonight, I'd like to respectfully invite city staff and council members to join the engage engineering challenge steering committee. Together, we'll build the framework for the challenge with submissions starting May 4th and the results announced at the annual South Boulder Fourth of July party

[35:01] coming up this summer. Thank you for your leadership and supporting South. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for your testimony. >> Thank you. >> All right. All right. Now we go to John Boland, Andrew Wessington, and I believe uh Erin Nyer is now present. We'll go to him after Andrew. >> Hello, council. Thanks very much for letting me talk to you. Hey. Uh I'm here also to talk about SPRC, South Boulder Rec Center. Um as you've heard many of the others talk about, uh it's it's more than just a rec center. It's a hub. You that's where we go to meet new people. We meet old friends. We hang out. We It's more than an exercise facility. It's an anchor. It's a shelter for the area's schools. Um and it's just a great place to be. Um we've been told repeatedly through written as well as verbal comments that it's at the end of its life. We've tried to get data to support that to prove it. We have not been able to. I'd like to ask you to prove it. Um says who based

[36:02] on what? Where are the data? We haven't seen any of that. So, uh, the focal point, the reason for the paddles is the pool for me anyway. Um, as well as other things. I I go there almost daily and, uh, and work out. Um, but swimming is an exceptional way to get fit, to stay fit for most any age. I think you know that. This is nothing new. Almost any ability. Um, swimming is is one of the least um impactful in terms of damage to your body. uh forms of exercise that you can have. It's maybe one of the most beneficial uh that is even possible. Um South Boulder Rec Center needs a pool. Doesn't need a fieldhouse. Um it uh doesn't need to be a goldplated pool. Some might uh think that that's what we're asking for, but it's not. Um so, thank you very much for uh for listening and go South Bold Rec Center. Thanks.

[37:02] >> Thanks. All right. Quiet in the audience, please. Uh, quiet, please. All right. Now, we're gonna go to Andrew Wington, then Aaron Nyer, and then Jeff Price. >> Good evening, council. Uh, my name is Andrew. I'm a graduate of CU and a longtime contributor to the Boulder community as well as its municipal tax fund. Um, I am here tonight to talk flock, uh, as one of my favorite Boulderites likes to say. So, flock reps will claim that their cameras are secure. Yet, a quick trip down the YouTube rabbit hole was enough for me to find several videos detailing the exact process necessary to digitally commandeer just about any flock device. Shout out to Ben Jordan. If you haven't and are concerned about this issue, check him out. Um, I'm not a tech junkie. I'm a carpenter. And yet, I am fully confident that if I were a bad actor, I could gain access to just about

[38:00] any of these devices. Now, there's also plenty of evidence that these cameras have already been used for um really nefarious purposes. In Eckles County, Georgia, a sheriff's secretary used these cameras to stalk residents. In Brazilton, Georgia, a police chief used Flock to stalk and harass residents. The cameras have also been implicated in ICE searches in Colorado, Denver, Loveland, and Windsor specifically. And I have real concerns about them being used to track women who travel from out of state to access uh abortion care when it's not legal in their state. There's a reason the Denver City Council universally agreed to cancel their flock contract. A decision that was later reinforced by the city auditor. Denver Mayor Mike Johnson went behind the council's back in attempt to continue the contract despite public

[39:00] outrage. And I can guarantee you that he will not be serving another term. I urge you not to follow in his misguided footsteps. Please stop wasting money on surveillance. Let's save the South Boulder wreck. >> Thank you. All right. Quiet folks, please. All right. Now, we got Aaron Nyer, Jeff Price, and David Becker. >> Thank you all. Apologies for my delay. I thought it started at 6. Um, so I'm also here to talk about Flock, as I know a lot of other people are. Um, I appreciate you all for reading the letter that the Human Relations Commission sent. Um, it's something that a lot of people in community are caring about and I think it's really important. It's not just the public safety issue. Um, absolutely, as Andrew pointed out, that information is being shared with ICE, and I know our contract says otherwise, but Flock has consistently demonstrated that they are not true to their word. Um, and I think it's really important to look at that. So, it's a clear public safety issue around how this affects our marginalized communities. It's also an issue of solidarity. Right now, there are a lot of cities who are taking a stand and

[40:00] saying they're not going to participate in things like this that are moving us towards a surveillance state and participating in the creation of the kind of surveillance state that we really don't want. And I think that we have a lot of good values here in Boulder. And I think it's really important that our public private partnerships reflect that, especially when it comes to how we're building relationships with surveillance companies. When we store our data up on the cloud, even if they say it won't be shared, that allows an easy vector of attack for hostile agencies or other hostile entities. Um, and so I would suggest that if we're going to use surveillance technology, we find a company, there's Leonardo, there's a few other good ones that I've heard of that allow for us to have the surveillance, have the ALPRs, but have the data stored on premises, which means that we actually get to have control over that. And at a time where our country is in the state it is, I think it's really important. So I would say we should take an honest look at this comp this contract with Block and urge Nura to either not renew it or to quickly phase

[41:01] out of it as needed. Um and take an honest look at whether we can put into place principles about how we build relationships with surveillance companies. Um and I think just in general how we build relationships with public private partnerships. But I think putting these principles into policy is going to be really key to ensure that these partnerships especially around surveillance technologies reflects the values that we actually hold hold dear in Boulder. So thank you all so much for your time and attention. Thank you. Now we'll go to Jeff Price, David Becker, and Yoella Lacritz. >> Uh good evening council members. My name is Jeff Price. I've lived in South Boulder since 1998. I'm here to speak on a perspective that most council members are fortunate not to have. Being a senior citizen, there are only a couple of what I call friendly physical activities for seniors, biking, and the quintessential

[42:02] exercise, swimming. Water is very forgiving. It not only doesn't aggravate arthritis, joint, and muscle pain, it assists from the onset of these maladies in addition to providing cognitive benefits as well. The senior swimmers in South Boulder are very grateful to have a pool in their neighborhood that is so close to home, a walk or a few minutes drive. A swim in the morning sets one up for the rest of the day unlike any other activity. The city of Boulder has been making such a positive statement to its citizens by having a recreation center with a pool in each of its neighborhoods, east, north, and south. Please don't break the chain. Thank you. Now we have David Becker, Yoella Lacritz, and Bennett Beersick.

[43:07] I'm David Becker. My wife Ruth and I live lived in South Boulder since 1984. We came for its natural beauty, climate, and community. Our children went to schools in South Boulder and now our grandchildren do. I've been in the South Boulder Rec Center thousands of times where I work out and see lots of friends, many of whom are here tonight. I'd like to challenge three points which I've heard recently often that the reimagine SBRC petition demands a new rec center that the current building has reached its the end of its useful life and that a new one will cost $30 million. Reimagine SPRC surveyed over a thousand residents and determined that three features a lap pool double wide gym and exercise equipment in classrooms are overwhel overwhelmingly the the most desired. The survey was shared with city staff. Re-imaginees petition signed so far by over 3,500 citizens asked council

[44:02] to, and I quote, commit to appropriating funding for whatever maintenance, renovations, or construction is needed to keep a South Boulder rec center with all three of its existing core features. A new SBRC would be nice, and of course, some people would want one, but the petition isn't calling for one. I've carefully read many city documents discussing conditions of buildings and conclude that there are no big structural problems with SBRC. Granted, some of its mechanical systems may be at end of life, but the building isn't. I believe that it could be nicely improved and mildly expanded to overcome its deficiencies for far less than a replacement. It hasn't been refreshed since 1999. Finally, I suspect that the $30 million replacement cost is greatly understated when including three key features and demolition expense. Here's my request. I ask council to appoint a commission of both citizens and staff to carefully explore the possibilities for retrofitting and updating SBRC and compare that with an accurate estimate

[45:01] of replacement. I volunteer. Let's spend our money wisely. Let's not ignore so many citizens wishes. A community pool is not a luxury. Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it. >> Our last two speakers are Yoel Lacritz and Bennett Beersick. >> Hi. Uh, thank you councel for allowing us to speak. Um, I am not Yo Lacritz. I am her father, uh, Mike. Uh, she chose not to come and speak because, um, she had so much homework and studying for her ACT before her swim team practice. So, you can imagine I'm here to speak uh to advocate for the South Border Rec Center. Um, and speaking for Yoella, my daughter, she's a 16-year-old uh junior at Fairview High School. And what the swim team has meant for her um for her mental health, uh for her academic health, um kind of goes really beyond words for me as her father. Um, but she

[46:00] would tell you guys how important it is that they're able to walk down to the pool uh from their practice together as a team. The camaraderie that they have um just even be able to bum a ride home or walk home to our house with some other swimmers. Um I can't even begin to tell you how important that is. So just even for that little teeny population of Fairview swimmers, it is like uh it is just a beacon for them and to to lose it would be horrible. Um, speaking for myself, um, I've been on that side of that, uh, up in Summit County as a planning commissioner up there for 12 years and, uh, that was before we moved down here 14 years ago. What I would ask the council to do is think a little bigger here. There, every community around here, it seems, has a world-class aquatic center. We've got acres and acres of land right there. um the opportunity to build an aquatic center that embodies the values of Boulder. Um it like it's sitting right there. Not to mention putting another outdoor summer

[47:02] pool on that land to take the pressure off Scott Carpenter Pool. South Boulder is so dense that place would be teeming with children and families all year long. So I ask you guys to think big. Look to the huge corporations that exist here, Google, Apple, ask them for sell them naming rights to the pool. Do whatever you can. Think big. Support that rec center and do something. >> Thank you. All right. Our final speaker is Bennett Beersick. >> Good evening, city council members. My name is Bennett and I'll be 10 years old next month. I live in South Boulder and I'm a fourth grader at Bear Creek Elementary. I was the only kid picked to speak out tonight to speak tonight. But I represent all the kids in the audience who also wanted to speak out for South Boulder Rec Center. We are all here tonight because we care about our neighborhood in the South Boulder Rec Center. I've learned that Boulder had the goal of creating 15minute

[48:00] neighborhoods, places where people can walk or bike to the thing they need in about 15 minutes. I think that's a really cool idea. But I have a question. How does taking away the pool and gym at the South Boulder Rec Center support that goal? I'm 10 years old. I can't drive. My friends can't drive either. The rec center is somewhere we can actually get to by ourselves or with our families without needing a car. We can walk or bike there. It's part of our neighborhood. If the pool and gym are taken away, the closest places with those things wouldn't be in East or North Boulder. That's more than a 10-minute drive. For kids like me, they might as well be really far away because we can't walk or bike there. That means we would need an adult with a car every time we wanted to swim, play basketball, or just be active indoors. So, my question is, how does removing these things help kids in South Boulder live in a 15-minute neighborhood? And are kids in North and East Boulder more important than kids in South Boulder since their recent have pools, gyms, and even more things than ours? Shouldn't

[49:01] all kids in every neighborhood have equal access to the places that help us stay healthy, active, and connected to our community? Thank you for listening. Please stand up for South Boulder. >> All right, settle down, please. Um, but for for such phenomenal testimony by a 10-year-old, I get the enthu enthusiasm. Bennett, thank you for joining us and participating in your local government. Um so thanks everybody who has come to speak uh to us today and I know not everyone got selected. We only have the 20 slots. If you did not get selected tonight um you will be prioritized for next um business meeting's open comment. So we encourage you to come back and um speak to us next time. So I will turn now to city staff for responses to what we've heard tonight. >> Uh good evening council. Uh, thank you to everyone who came to speak and for everyone that is downstairs uh that didn't have space up here. Uh, thank you

[50:01] all for coming as well. Uh, Bennett, the city is always hiring. Uh, I think the city attorney will tell me he's probably too young for us to work uh, yet, but keep your eye on a city job. Uh uh on the subject of the South Boulder Rec Center, as council is aware, we have a study session coming up on facilities funding on April 9th that we will be talking about rec centers specifically as well. So, we're looking forward to that conversation. Uh and then on the topic of flock, uh we've had conversations previously. Uh those conversations are still uh very much ongoing. Uh and uh so I appreciate everyone coming to speak. I know some of the folks that spoke tonight have been engaging with city staff including uh Nuria as the city manager. Uh and so we're we're continuing to have those conversations. And that's it for me tonight. Thanks, Chris. Teresa, anything? >> Uh no legal issues, but I'd like to offer to write Bennett's recommendation to law school one day.

[51:02] Thanks everyone. Appreciate you coming out tonight. >> Imagine we'd all co-sign on to that letter. Um any questions from council for city staff regarding open comment? >> Uh yeah Chris um regarding the facil well since related to the south boulder stuff and the facility discussion is there um also going to be a discussion with regards to our larger financial long-term strategies because they're sort of intrinsically entwined. So will that be folded in or is there a separate conversation about financial strategies um in the schedule that may address some of those core issues? >> Yeah, it's a great question and it's going to be kind of a series of conversations. So, uh, we have a study session next week that is on, uh, tax ballot items where we'll talk a little bit about the broader financial strategy. On April 9th, we'll go into a little bit deeper of the the financial strategy work that and the the long-term financial strategy that, uh, we all are working on as a council priority. Uh, and then do a bit of a deep dive into facilities and rec centers specifically.

[52:00] And then on on, uh, I think it's May 14th specifically is the study session. That'll be the annual financial forecast as well as another check-in on ballot items. So, there will be essentially a financial strategy conversation that uh you all will be having uh each month for uh the next three months. >> Great. Any other questions? Yeah, Tisha. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um so I know that um right now the flock contract is under the police department which is currently under the city manager's authority which is something that the council gave the city manager that authority. So can you clarify um who has the authority to um approve that contract and um is there a pathway? Does the council have any kind of role or authority um to weigh in on that decision? I know that um the city manager is one of three employees that are direct uh under the direct

[53:01] supervision of the council. So there's just been some confusion and so I would love to clarify um who has what authority and what pathways are available regarding this decision. Thank you. Yeah, thanks Tisha for the question and uh uh under our charter the city manager has the authority to sign contracts for the city uh and enter into contracts for the city. So the uh contracts like the contract with flock is a decision of the city manager ultimately uh and uh the those are kind of that that separation of the council as policy makers and then the city manager as executing the the operations of the the city. And so, um, I understand that. And since the council has authority over the city manager, um, I'm just not clear on if the city manager makes a decision that is outside of the vision and scope that had been

[54:01] approved. For example, um, one of the speakers brought up that we're a sanctuary city. And so having this technology with this specific company that has on record broken their own policy and lied about it. Um I just feel like there's an ethical question as well as just some of the evidence pieces here. So um I do know that we have an annual uh performance process for our three employees. However, in incidences like this, I have some concerns. I don't think that process even begins until this summer. Um, and so again, just curious, um, what that process looks like and and again, there's a lot of contracts our city manager signs. Um, and so, um, again, just, um, yeah, curious to hear your response. >> Sure, I might look to Teresa to start. >> Uh, yes. So, um, operations are under the charter, which is the constitution

[55:00] of our city. Um, entrusted to the sound discretion of the city manager, not the city council. Uh, however, city council can set policy and set policy with respect to things like um privacy considerations um and and and generally surveillance considerations. So, that would be in the policy lane which is under city council's purview. >> Thank you. So, just to clarify what I heard, um the city council does have the authority to set a policy that would um could potentially prohibit if there was criteria that that policy um identified, for example, needs to be in alignment with our sanctuary city policies. Uh could be one, for example, um that that would would be something that we could um consider. >> Yeah. And sorry, go ahead, Teresa. >> Sorry. Yes, council member. That's correct. Thank you.

[56:01] >> Okay. Um, yes, Tina. >> And just um, following up a little bit with that, when we were at the retreat in January, my understanding is that one of the topics we're looking at as a city is just thinking about data we collect, how we use that data, and which data might be shared, and what are the opportunities for improvement. And that was my recollection that we're we are in the midst of that work to make sure that um we're doing the best we can with data and making changes that we see. Is that also happening? >> Yeah, Tina, thanks. That uh we are we're in the midst of that work uh right now. Uh and uh data security is obviously something that we take really seriously as as uh uh a city. And so that work is underway in in evaluating and ensuring that that privacy, security and and ensuring that that the systems that we use uh are meeting the standard that we

[57:01] expect. >> Great. Um so before I turn to council for any potential responses, I did want to correct something. People who weren't selected to sign up to speak tonight will be prioritized over people who did speak tonight for the next council meeting. But it does not necessarily guarantee you slot, just to be clear. But try again. We'd love to hear from you. Um any 30 second um max responses from council to open comment tonight. I got Ryan, Nicole, Matt. >> I want to recognize the people who have come to say that they're not comfortable with Flock and Boulder. I hear you and I hear many others who've come before including the human relations committee. I'm also not comfortable uh primarily because of the backend vulnerabilities outside the city's control that many people have talked about. We definitely have some work to do to improve our community sense of safety and security in the way we use technology. And as Chris said, um staff is looking at this both in terms of deciding what we do in the near term with contracts and for developing a wider comprehensive policy. Um and I know they're taking this seriously and they're applying a bolder

[58:01] high boulder standard to this and I have a lot of confidence in where they're headed. >> Nicole, >> um yeah, just wanted to echo the thanks to everybody who came out tonight. Um, it's nice to see some of you at 6 PM 00 a.m. I appreciated that. Uh, I have a couple of thoughts as a fellow user of the South Boulder Rec Center. Um, I just wanted to plus one to Deputy Director Mast's comment about tuning in for our April 9th study session. It's entirely virtual. You can listen in or watch the recording. Um, you'll get a deep dive on our facilities funding strategy which will hopefully address some of the concerns. Um, also just wanted to uh highlight that sales tax is the primary driver of our city's revenue. sales tax determines most of what we're able to do in terms of services for residents and the fact that it's flattening out is part of the struggle. So, please support our local businesses buy in Boulder, especially now. Um, also, please get your friends to sign up for and use the rec center. Um, this is a great way to get more use and um increase the amount of user fees

[59:00] that are coming in. Local decisions depend a lot on use and user fees. U regarding flock, I just want to echo why the city manager um is uh is is doing this working group this year and we should have some more good information there. >> Okay, thanks. >> Um Matt, go ahead. >> So, everybody that came to speak on South Ber rec center, it's amazing to see the force that community creates when they organize peacefully and they organize in a way that's productive. It is so refreshing. And I will say how amazing it is that when we focus on real local issues, look at how ci civil it is. Look at the great demeanor we have in chambers. It's absolutely amazing. So, please keep it up. Keep showing up and keep voicing your opinion. As I keep saying, endless pressure, endlessly applied is how we get change done in our community. So, keep it up. Thank you all and I hope to see you at the next business meeting. >> Thanks, Tyan and Tina. >> Thank you. Uh thank you for everyone who showed up. Um, I am an advocate of South

[60:01] Boulder Rec Center and am hopeful that we can find pathways. There are trade-offs, so everybody needs to be ready for that trade-off conversation. Um, but I certainly approve of that more than expanding into area three. Having said that, I'm also a supporter of not renewing Flock camera uh because of the evidence. It's not enough to say to believe what they say because we see what they do. They break the law. They break their own word. and we are a sanctuary city or we are not. Thank you. >> Thanks Tina. >> Yeah, just another sincere um thank you to everyone who came and also reminding me that I am also aging and very aware of that. Um and just around Flock, I I think it's really important to not just look at Flock, but look at all the data that we're using and being really really aware and conscientious of who's who it's being shared with. Um so I think we can always do better. Uh so thanks again for showing up. really appreciate it. >> Tara, >> following what Matt said, I it's a

[61:01] breath of fresh air to have you all here to have the kids come and speak and I'm hoping our next session we hear more of the kids. I hope that they win the lottery. >> That's great. Um, I'll go ahead and say thanks so much to everybody who came out and spoke to us and so much appreciate the uh the youthful and the senior and everywhere in between energy u for the South Boulder Rec Center and just rest assured that all of us up here understand what a vital uh community resource that is and looking forward to the discussions in the upcoming months about what to do next to preserve recreation Boulder. Seeing no other hands raised that'll bring us to the close of open comment. Thanks again to everybody who came. I'm going to call for a threeminute recess and we'll come 30 for the business

[64:52] Come back up. Sit down, please.

[65:03] All right. So, all right. Welcome back, everybody. I'll gavvel us in um out of recess. We'll resume the meeting with the consent agenda, please, Elicia. >> All right, sir. Thank you. Our consent agenda is item number three on tonight's agenda, and it consists of items 3A through 3J. >> Right. Any um questions or comments on the consent agenda? >> Mark, do you want to get the mic on there? >> I don't really want to be heard. Um I want to comment on on 3E and the

[66:02] resolution that's been uh suggested for that. Um I had >> which is about this um area three planning reserve. >> Yes. And I had suggested that we make a an inclusion or change to that um to reflect the fact that uh a good number of members of council are suggesting that the fundamental purpose of doing area 3, if we decide to to go in that direction, would be to create um affordable middle income and attainable housing. and that did not seem to be uh incorporated into that resolution. And I I think Matt may have may have a suggestion as to altering my language and I'm open to that if uh he wants to discuss that a little bit. >> Did you want to go? >> Sure. I'm happy to. I my suggestion was

[67:01] going to be first to pull item uh 3E off uh the agenda and make a modification to it and let staff because word smithing from the dis is not our expertise. >> I am good with >> um so just sort of give a guard rail of some things for staff to cook and then hopefully bring back to us at our next business meeting would likely be April. Um so that would be thought wanting to get this sort of right since these are some aspirational guardrails. So the thought would be really >> Do you want to make a motion to pull it off the cons? >> Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to pull it off the consent agenda and then whenever appropriate provide that feedback to staff. >> I will second that. >> Uh all in favor of pulling this off for a separate discussion, raise your hand. That's unanimous. Um so I'll go ahead and say let's go ahead and tackle 3E now and then we'll get to the rest of the consent agenda afterwards. So Matt, if you want to speak to >> uh Yes. Um, so sort of succinctly, the first two bullet points in the resolution uh really are are hyper prescriptive with regards to middle inome ownership. And I think that yes

[68:01] indeed there's an aspiration that area 3 probably have some of that. But that statement sort of is at the exclusion of other housing types. And so I think it might be beneficial to lift that up a little bit to a higher level and say something along the lines of um you know area 3 um we'd like area 3 to be used to meet the housing needs that we assess cannot be met in the speed or scale in area 1. And for example, those housing types may include middle inome ownership or um you know senior housing, affordable senior housing or housing with services and sort of lay a few examples but not make it exclusive or limited to only those. So it'll lift it higher up but still provide some guard rails about what we hope area 3 will provide. So that's my recommendation on those two bullets to kind of bring them higher level and be more inclusive other housing types. >> Mark, I I'm supportive of that language. Um, I did not mean to be that narrow,

[69:00] but I I think we have expressed a view that there are housing types we want to see in area three and housing types we do not want to see in area three. Uh, basically the kinds of rental stacked flats that we're seeing everywhere uh and that are proliferating everywhere. And so, uh, the language that you have suggested is very satisfactory to me. Uh, and I would hope staff would key off of that and bring back a a new resolution that reflects the desire of a majority of council. I believe um although we not have not taken a vote on it, but I believe it reflects a the sentiment of a majority of council as to the purpose of developing area three. >> Very good. Well, I might um straw poll this, but Nicole, would you like to offer a comment? >> Um just just that I would support this. Um I was actually coming in uh prepared to vote no on that tonight um because I was a little bit concerned with how prescriptive that first one specifically

[70:00] around middle income ownership, especially given what we're going to be talking about today matters. >> Very good. So, I'll ask for a straw poll of show of hands from council members who agree with giving this direction to staff. Please raise your hand. And I got that's unanimous. Um Chris and other folks, is that pro provide sufficient clarity? >> Yeah, this conversation was helpful. We'll uh take another round at it and bring it back. >> Thank you. >> Sounds good. Anything else on item 3E before we move on? Okay, Mark and Matt, appreciate you doing that. Um okay, then I will Anything else on the rest of the consent agenda? Well, I just >> Yeah, go ahead, Ta. >> Um, I just had a comment about what is it? I the shortterm rentals. I know that's just the first reading. So, hopefully on the second we can address some of the tracking issues around the second home ownership. I've already started to see postings on, you know, different internet platforms about

[71:00] rentals and if that's how it's starting. I'm the concerns that I expressed earlier are already being validated. And then also curious about the HOA um negotiations as well in the next reading. Thank you. >> Very good. Anything else or a motion? >> I can ask just a follow-up question that >> I have Tina in front of you, Mark. Sorry. >> That we're going to have a presentation with the the um amendment to the short-term rental with the addition of the long-term rentals. >> Yes. The second reading for ordinance 8743 regarding the festival lodging rental license will be a public hearing with a presentation. >> Perfect. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Very good, Mark. >> And now I move the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Have a motion and sec um minus 3E. >> Minus three. Yes. >> Do you want to clarify that? >> I move the consent agenda minus um paragraph 3E.

[72:01] >> Okay. And you have a second on that. We have a roll call, please, Elicia. Yes, sir. Thank you. The consent agenda vote for items 3 A through D and F through J will begin with Mayor Pro Tim Wer. >> Yes. >> Council member Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> Mayor Brockett, >> yes. >> Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhard, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. and Wallik. >> Yes. >> The consent agenda as noted is hereby approved unanimously. >> Thanks so much. Can we go to our call-up check-in, please? >> Yes, sir. Callup check-in is item 4A on tonight's agenda. It is the concept plan review and comment request for a proposed redevelopment of 35 of 3550 and 3850 Frontier Avenue as an urban

[73:01] neighborhood anchored by a 2,500 person capacity events venue and rehearsal space, a hotel, approximately 500 apartments, 30,000 square feet of commercial uses such as restaurants, coffee shops, and retail and structured parking. The proposal would involve a reasonzoning and height modification. This is reviewed under case number LUR2025-000086. >> Thanks so much. Um I have a thought on this, but I'll see if anybody else wants to get started before I go. Not seeing an initial hand raised. I'll uh plunge in. I'll just say that um I don't feel the need to call this up necessarily. I thought staff and planning board have done a good job of reviewing the proposal and giving some focused feedback. Um I would say that I know that one um of the issues that's raised is there's not necessarily a zone district that perfectly suits the land use designation and I would just say express um from my perspective a

[74:01] willingness if there needed to be some form of legislative intervention by city council to allow the proposal to move forward in some similar shape that it is in currently. I would be open to considering that at a later stage. Um so just wanted to throw that out there and then just check in with council to see if that approach is something that would work for other folks. Nicole, >> um yeah, I think you know um well specifically I I really don't have a desire to um call this up and uh to your point, Mayor, I think if we um were kind of interested in that, it probably would be a good idea to call it up. But I think that staff can move. I mean, if if we don't call this up, that's sort of a keep going with this, right? Which I think indicates to staff um exactly what it is that they need to do to move forward. So, it suggests our support if we don't call this up. >> It's a good point. Thank you, chair. >> I love that idea, Erin. Great idea. >> Oh, thank you, Mark. Um yeah, I I just

[75:01] want to get a better understanding of how um we will have any uh input into a number of decisions if we don't call it up including um uh the manner in which uh inclusionary housing obligations will be met. Um I know planning board there were several members who had issues with respect to height modifications um uh staging of residential versus uh commercial uh and and so I am interested in not having those particular issues um completely get away from us because I think we may have comments to make on them. And how is that going to be possible if we don't call it up, which I'm prepared not to do? Uh if if we have an outlet, >> do you want to address that, Teresa? >> Uh yes. Uh council member, the the items

[76:01] that you outlined would be part of a site review. Um and and certainly would come to council for um review at that point. Okay. >> With a concept plan. Um this is this is certainly a bigger overview picture. >> So we will be able to have some input on those various issues or others that may be of particular uh interest to any member of of council >> at the time of site review. >> Yes Rob. >> Good. >> I just have a clarifying question. Right now we don't have zoning that accommodates all of these pieces that this project would like to incorporate. Is it is that correct? And that we what we want to do is we want to create a tailored MU4. >> Brad, do you want to address that? >> Uh good evening, council. Brad Mueller, director of planning and development services. Um that's a matter of

[77:00] perspective, of course. um folks uh do have opportunities work to work within a particular zone district, but the combination of uses that are being proposed um is outside of any specific zone district that we would have that we've accommodated. But as we've talked about in different contexts, we're committed to exploring changes um that would accommodate that or a tailor zone district of some sort, whatever the best mechanism would be. Obviously, it would be council's determination at the end of the day whether to accept all those elements. Um, so I don't want to predetermine uh your deliberation on that regard, but that's correct. As proposed right now, it wouldn't accommodate. No zone district would accommodate all that. >> Okay. And that's the total scope of this. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, Nicole, go ahead. >> While you're there, Brad, just a quick question. Um, I mean, it's not totally unusual for a project to come with us and need some zoning changes down the

[78:02] road or something like that, right? I mean, this it doesn't feel like this is something that we've ever talked about at the call-up stage before. And I I guess um it seems like if anyway, it it doesn't seem like this is unusual and you all seem to figure out the solutions to it without us needing to intervene. So, just curious. >> We certainly try. Thank you. Um I yes I would say you know the reasonzoning deliberations um the site plan deliberations is where that uh typically would happen and uh while the development code tries to imagine all possibilities for all scenarios in in in perpetuity we obviously can't and part of council's value is that we do be creative and uh flexible and bring forward alternatives when uh when the opportunities present themselves and we're certainly prepared to do that at council's direction in the future. >> That's great to hear. Thanks, Brad. All right. Um, any other follow-up questions or um any interest in calling this up?

[79:03] All right. Not seeing any. All right. So, I think we will decline to call that project up and with the comments as noted from before. All right. Well, we have >> not to do the next step. >> No. >> Um. All right. Well, we have one public hearing before us. So, Elisha, if we can go to that, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Our public hearings are our public hearing is item 5A on tonight's agenda and it is the consideration of a motion to approve the 2026 board and commission appointments as noted effective April 1st, 2026. >> Great. Um, do you want to kick us off, Chris? >> Sure. I'm going to kick us off and uh we're going to go right full circle back to Alicia here to introduce this item and uh John is joining us up here uh on the dis as well. So Alicia, take it away. Thank you Chris. Good evening council.

[80:02] Elicia Johnson serving the city as your city clerk and records manager. Before we begin the process of nominating and appointing board and commission candidates to fill our current vacancies, I'm going to provide an outline of our process for this item. There are two steps. First, I will present a slide of the number of seats that are vacant, the number of applications received along with the number of eligible candidates. Second, I will ask the mayor to open our public hearing, close it when complete, and turn the discussion back to me to provide council with guidance on how the nomination and appointment process will proceed. I am joined here tonight by elections administrator, John Morris, and he will assist me and you in this process. You got you got you pulled the slides up.

[81:01] All right, thank you. For next slide, please. We had a robust recruitment period this year. As noted in your packet, we currently have 38 vacancies that we're seeking appointment for and we received a total of 171 applications. We ended up after the assessment of those applications with 156 eligible applicants. Next slide, please. We do want to note for council, the following four boards as listed on the screen did not receive any applications except for the Boulder Junction Access District Travel Demand Management Commission. They did receive one applicant, but that particular applicant was only eligible for one seat. I will now ask the mayor to open up the

[82:01] public hearing and once it is closed to turn the meeting back over to me to explain the process. >> Thanks Alicia. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. We have two people signed up to speak. We have Lynn Seagull virtually and Patrick Chum in person. Each of you will get three minutes and I'll just ask you to speak to the item before us which is the 2026 board and commission appointments. Lynn Seagull, I don't any of the appointments or this whole process. I don't trust the entire city council or any anyone to having anything to do with city government or county government in this place. Uh my personal experiences you can I can explain to you anytime, but this is the most corrupt city I've ever

[83:00] lived in. I wish I didn't live here. I'm really upset about it. I certainly wouldn't support anything anyone puts on any board. The worst example is Chelsea cost Castellano who just um did more to destroy historic renovation and historic preservation in Boulder than anyone on any board ever. And it's appalling there. She has no reason to be on the board. She has no interest in landmarking. her one interest in life is Eric Bud, Alisa Sweeney Moran, um and pushing density on Boulder to the extent that we will have no space left for anyone here. We will have no money for any South Boulder Rec Center or North or East or the five other rec centers that

[84:00] we're going to need in addition to the 108,000 people that we have here to accommodate the other 60,000 people that Sundance and other growth initiatives and LITC programs from the federal government bribing us to develop more and overpop populate this space with in our town. And so I can't support the boards and commissions either because I don't trust the whole process. And our police chief who is a cor completely corrupt individual that basically killed Elijah Mlan. This is all very relevant to the boards and commissions because it's corruption that runs so deep in Boulder that I can't trust anything at all that happens here. Nothing. That's really sad. I don't think it's necessary. You know, my dad came here in

[85:02] 1949 and he really liked it then, but he still thought it was too overpopulated. But the corruption in this town is so contrary to the like the wild west that where new thought and liberals live. That is not the case at all. I think that there are more closet Trump voters in this town than probably any place I've ever lived. But then I've lived in a lot more progressive places than Boulder. >> Your time is up. Mayor, point of order. Yes. >> I don't know if I can do this, but I I would take exception with the commenters personal tax on our board members. I think it's inappropriate, especially tonight when we hear to welcome new board members. The commenters welcome to their opinions, but the personal tax are not appropriate. >> Thank you for that, Ryan. I agree with you. Absolutely, Nicole. >> Um, and similarly with staff, I I just >> I would really love for people to avoid

[86:01] uh calling out staff by name. >> I agree with that as well. Thanks to you both for your words. All right, our last speaker is Patrick Chumil. Is Patrick Chumil present? Not seeing him here. I will now I will close the public hearing and turn back to Alicia for continuing through the process. >> Thank you, Mayor Council. I will now review the formal candidate nomination process. Put the slides back up, please. Please be reminded that this procedure is also outlined in our Boulder Revised Code and in your agenda materials. We will proceed through nominations one board or commission at a time in alphabetical order by board title. We do want to note for council that nominations and official appointments for commissioners on the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority will be made by the mayor following recommendations from

[87:02] council members. The procedure process will otherwise remain the same as the other boards or commissions. Council members will make nominations to fill vacancies one seat at a time. Once nominations for this seat have been made by council members, council is welcome to discuss with each other before taking final action. If only one person is nominated for a seat, that appointment will stand if there are no objections. If more than one person is nominated for the same seat, we have a specific process for narrowing the candidates down to one finalist. A vote of support will be held for each individual that is nominated. If that happens, candidates must receive a minimum of five votes to be declared the finalists for a vacant seat. If the first round of voting does not produce a clear winner, the candidate with the fewest votes will drop from the nominee list and the vote will be conducted

[88:01] again. This continues until a single nominee remains. The order of nominees will be called either alphabetically or reverse alphabetically by last name of the nominees dependent upon a flip of my coin. From that point on, I will alternate the order for all further nominee votes during the meeting where more than one candidate has been nominated. If a person is not selected for the first seat they are nominated for, they can be nominated for one of the other available seats on the board or commission or for the other board or for another board or commission seat that they applied to. This process is followed for each board and commission. Now, we do also want to note in reference to Bureau, because of the um requirements as outlined in the state statue, once the seats are selected for Bureau, the mayor will make a motion to approve the 2026 appointments to Bureau as indicated, and this can be done through a show of hands.

[89:02] Once council has determined a single appointed candidate for each seat, staff will request the consideration of a motion to approve the 2026 boards and commission appointments as noted effective April 1st, 2026. And this item will be concluded for the evening. To assist council, John will be keeping visual track of the nomination and appointments via the screens. Nominated candidates will be highlighted in yellow as they are nominated and once appointed those candidates will be indicated in green font. Mayor, I now turn the meeting back to you and John and I are here to support the process as it continues. >> Thanks so much, Elicia. All right, so John's got the slide up here. We've got the Arts Commission is what we're going to start with. So, what I'll do is I'll ask folks for nominations and once all the nominations are on the floor, I'll invite people to

[90:02] speak to the nominations that they have made. I would encourage everybody to be brief because we have many, many, many candidates to get through tonight. Um, and then if other folks who didn't make a nomination also feel like it's critically important to speak to the that board appointment, you may. But again, let's try to be expeditious about this. >> Mayor, if I may, I just want to we did change the slides somewhat this year. So, I do want to explain the changes. You'll see on each slide the name of the board, the number of eligible applicants, the seat listing, and their terms. And you'll see in red next to an applicant's name, the other boards that they applied to or if they are already serving on that board and when their term began. So, if you have any questions during the process, please let us know. >> That is very helpful. Thank you, John. Thank you, Alicia, Emily, for putting that together. So, Arts Commission, we got two seats. Who'd like to open up the nominations? I see Nicole, I see Mark

[91:00] and Rob. >> Um, I wanted to nominate uh Sheila Davis. I really appreciated the depth and insight in our interview responses. Um, this applicant has helped with many prominent arts and culture events in our community. Um, particularly events um that brought in uh the black community and helped them be represented um in in our arts and culture. Um her work has really enriched our entire community though. Um and that's why I would welcome her participation in the arts commission. >> Thanks Mark. >> Uh I'm going to nominate uh Monzerat Palasios. Um I thought her application was strong. She has a background in the arts. Um I will also point out that I thought she uh conducted herself well during the uh the last uh uh council campaign, although that's not entirely relevant. for putting all those things together. I thought she made a strong candidate. >> Thanks, Rob. >> They covered it. >> I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. >> They covered it. They got my candidate.

[92:00] >> Oh, you got it. Okay. I had a real trouble hearing you, uh, Tina. >> Okay. Uh, so we've got Sheila Davis and Monserat Palasios. Who's going first, Elicia? We'll start with alphabetical, sir. >> Okay. And this is by last name, correct? Okay. So, all all in favor of Sheila Davis, raise your hand. I got three. All in favor of Monserat. Places. We got six. So, Monserat gets seat number one. So, now let's go to seat number six. Who would like to make a nomination for seat number six? Nicole. >> I would like to nominate Sheila David. Matt, >> I'd like to nominate Kate Samino. Okay. >> Did you want to speak to that? >> Yeah, I'll speak to Kate. Um, I mean, being a professor at CU and College of Music, I think understanding where students are coming from and our emerging artists, I think, um, Kate would provide a really valuable insight certainly from that academic perspective

[93:00] since we don't really have that in that capacity. And her interview was rock solid. So, I think she'd make a great addition. >> Great. Tina. >> Yeah. I'd like to nominate James Maynard. And um if you're not familiar, he's been doing some really innovative work in um bringing music into neighborhoods, which I think is really reflective of this idea that um art exists in different places in the community, and he's really leading in that effort. >> Great. Any others? Then we will go in reverse alphabetical order. So the first up will be James David Mayard. All in favor, raise your hand. We got one. Uh Sheila Davis, two >> Sheila Davis. Yep. So that's four. Uh Kate Samino, we got four. So James Davis Maynard will drop off and we'll go back through starting in alphabetical. Kate Samino, all in favor, raise your hand. We got five. Um so Kate gets uh seat number

[94:02] six. All right. Serve beverage licensing authority. We have one seat available and one person who's applied to that seat. Leia Roberts. Anyone want to care to nominate? >> I nominate Leia Rob Roberts to speak to that. She's done she's she's already on the liquor board and she's done a great job and I know her personally. I can vouch for her as well and she's excited to do a second term. >> Okay, I think we can do this one by acclamation with one person. So, um, congrats to Leah Roberts. Thanks for reapplying. >> Board of Zoning Adjustment. We have seat number one for a 5-year term and we have one applicant. Does anyone like want to make a nomination? >> Yes, Rob. >> I'd like to nominate Sage Dalton.

[95:01] >> Um, Am I in the wrong one? >> Well, the the presentation governs I think not everyone's eligible. >> Look at the slide. It's right there. >> Great. I'd like to nominate Craig Hammond. >> Good job. >> The wrong one. >> Did you Did you want to speak to that, Rob? >> Um, >> great guy. >> Great guy. And um, thank you for your service. I'm glad somebody applied. Thank you. All right. Since there are no other um potential nominees, Craig Hammond will take it by acclamation. >> Okay. Now, we're going to the Boulder Junction Access District Travel Demand Management Commission. Rob, did you have a >> Can I try again? >> Um and by the way, this will be to the fiveyear term. Yes. So, seat number three, the for the five-year term. >> Okay. I'd like to nominate seat number

[96:01] five for the three-year term. >> Oh, thanks. Okay. Seat number five for the three-year term. Yes. Thanks for clarifying. >> That is what Sage is eligible for. >> Okay. Rob, >> I'd like to nominate Sage Dalton. >> I don't know him personally, but uh my son went to uh Ocean First, and it's a fantastic program, and I know he's been a member of the community for a long, long time. >> Very good. Um so, as Sage is the only candidate available, will Sage will get it by acclamation? All right, the easy ones are over. >> We're on to the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority. Uh, for which we >> If I may just add another bit of information that may help assist council. When you do seats one through six, you can actually do them one seat at a time. You can start with seat one or you can do them as a group, right? because they're all for the same term, five years. And then seats 7 through

[97:01] nine will be appointed members for like two, three, and four years, which is the staggered term as required. So seven would be for two years, eight would be for three years, and then nine would be for four years. and then the council seat. I do also want to note staff did send out a um requirement and asked for solicitation for any council members that were interested in serving in that seat and received one email of interest and that came from Mayor Pro Tim Winer. So, I hope that all helped. >> Thank you. >> Was I chosen? >> Not not yet. We're gonna have to see if anybody nominates you tonight. Um so um I would like to take this one seat at a time just so there's clarity in terms of who's getting appointed. So um and thanks we had 27 applicants so appreciate the amount of interest in the community for this uh reconstituted bureau. And actually Chris, might I turn

[98:00] to you to just talk about why we're appointing so many people this year to this board? >> Yeah. Uh real quick, the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority has existed for a long time. uh in uh about I think it was about 10 years ago, state law changed in what the composition of a board of an urban renewal authority needs to look like. Um so we recently um went through the process of updating how our urban renewal authority works. So the reason you're appointing so many seats is to match the new requirements. Um and this is the first time that we're going to do it. >> Thanks for that clarification. what they're looking at as far as the >> So that tells what other boards people have applied to if they have other board names next to their names. >> Okay. So, we're going to take this one seat at a time. So, the first six seats are for five-year terms. So, we're going to start with seat number one for a five-year term. I will accept nominations. Tina, >> I'd like to nominate Katherine Bean.

[99:00] >> Okay. And I'll just ask people to speak to their people right away. So, >> sure. Uh, Katherine's been involved in the community, uh, both doing affordable and market rate housing and seems to have a really good perspective, um, on how the city works and different funding streams and I think she'd bring a lot of, uh, knowledge to the role. >> That's a fair. >> Any others for this first round? Yes, >> I would like to nominate Bobe Chico Loa. Um, and we called them Chico. And I had the honor of serving with them on the initial Boulder Police Oversight panel. Um, just evenheaded, very thoughtful, um, has a family, has lived in Boulder, has a CU Boulder connection as well. Um, and I just think would be a wonderful addition to this authority. Thank you. >> Thanks. Uh, seeing no other nominations, I think we're in reverse alphabetical at this point. So, we will start with Chicola. All in favor, raise your hand. Uh, Katherine Bean.

[100:01] Okay, so that's eight. So, Katherine takes round seat number one. Um, now we'll go to seat number two, nominations. Terra, >> I'd like to nominate Michael Lessie. Uh, he has been on the HAB. He understands boards. He understands the material. Uh, he's well known in the community. I think he'll do a great job. He had a great interview. Very good. Taisha, >> I would like to nominate Chico again. Again, understands public safety during a time when we need it most. Thank you. >> Very good. So, we're going to go alphabetical this time. So, we'll go start with Chicola. We got four votes here. Uh Michael got five. So, Michael takes seat number two. Uh seat number three. Nominations. Nicole. I would like to nominate Buia Chicola

[101:00] as well. Um I was really impressed just with um the application and I think for this uh as it's kind of reconstructed having um some uh folks who've been on city boards before or worked with the city in some way can be really valuable. >> Great. Any other nominations? Seeing none will get it by acclamation for seat number three. Seat number four, nominations. Matt, >> like to nominate Bill Shrum. Um, I'll just speak real quick. I mean, uh, talk about having someone who's perfectly designed for our transition to getting this board up and running. Bill does this professionally and advising other communities how to do this. So, I think in our time of transition and getting Bureau up and running as fast as it can to do all the great stuff we're asking it to do, uh, Bill would be great, um, in helping this board get up to speed, um, and get us up running, high functioning. >> Very good. Others, Rob, >> I'd like to nominate Andrew Gtlman. Um,

[102:00] he's a scientist. He's worked at ENCAR. His family has lived here for many years. He's built his home home. He's been a renter. He's been a landlord. He understands the landscape. He's non ideological. very data driven and I think he would be an asset to the board. >> Nicole, >> um I wanted to uh nominate um Stephanie Chen uh for this board. I think having a smaller artist um perspective could be really valuable here um and was really impressed with her application uh as well as just interest in getting involved in the city. Um, but I think that her skills would be valuable for some of the folks that have um some of the more practical experience um like Bill Shrum. I would love to see him on one of the u two to four year terms instead. So that's that's my only reason for um looking here. I'm I'm hoping that we can um bring some more people into this board as well. They can get some experience um and uh also bring some really good um perspectives and be there for longer term leadership.

[103:02] >> Thanks for that. Which order are we in now? >> Reverse. So, we'll start with Bill Shro. All in favor, raise your hand. I got four, five. Okay. So, Bill will take seat number four. So, we'll move to seat number five. Nominations. Chair. >> I would like to nominate, let me just get her name. Hold on. Anya Richmond. I loved her very fantastic interview and I think she'd be a great asset. Um, and she has the qualifications. >> I would like to nominate Stephanie Chen. Already spoke on that. >> Very good, Rob. >> And I'd like to nominate Andrew Ghettoman again. >> Okay. Any others? Not seeing any. Uh, alphabetical order. We'll start with Stephanie Chen. All in favor, raise your hand. We got four. Andrew Gtlman one Ana Richmond four. So Andrew Gtlman will drop off and

[104:02] we'll start over again with Ana Richmond. We got five this time. So Anya gets seat number five. It's a lot to keep track of here. All right. Seat number six. This is our last five-year term. Uh nominations, please. Tina. Yeah, I'd like to nominate Andrew Gtlman. >> Andrew Gtlman, >> Nicole, >> I would like to nominate uh Stephanie Jen uh once again and um just want to speak to I think the value of bringing in um not young but younger than many of us up here um people into our boards and commissions. Uh again, thinking about succession planning and the long-term leadership of our city. >> Stephanie Chen, Mark I'd like to nominate Chris Mann uh as a banker. I think he's got financial skills that would be very useful uh for

[105:01] this commission and uh I I think he'd make a good addition. >> Right. Seeing no others, what's our order? >> Alphab. Okay. Stephanie Chen. All in favor, raise your hand. I got four. Uh Andrew Gtlman, I got three. and uh Chris Mung two. So Chris will drop off. We'll go reverse alphabetical. Andrew Gtlman, we got four. Stephanie Chen, that's five. So Stephanie gets seat number six. All right. So um seat number seven will be a four-year term. Is that correct? >> Seat seven will be a two-year term. >> A two-year term. Okay. will move lower to higher. So, nominations for seat number seven, Tara >> Andrew Berwick. He is superb. Sorry I waited so long. Andrew, I just want to

[106:00] say that he also um applied for the housing the um which was that board housing authority and he had a marvelous interview on that as well. And I think Andrew would add a lot. He is into uh the um how do I put it? He really cares about the community. He cares about youth. He's been involved in a lot of social causes and he also has great business experience. I I absolutely adore him. >> Nicole and then Ryan. >> Um I wanted to nominate Chester Harvey. Um he's got a PhD in planning. uh has a lot of relevant um practical experience and I really appreciated that he works on uh development with a special lens on avoiding displacement. >> Right. >> Okay. So, we've got Andrew Berwick and Chester Harvey. We're going alphabetical this time. We'll go for Andrew Burwick. Uh all in favor, raise your hand.

[107:00] I got three. Chester Harvey six. So, Chester Harvey gets seat number seven. Seat number eight, we're down to our last two here. Seat number eight is a three-year term nominations. Uh Matt, >> like to nominate Chris M. >> Tina, >> I'm going to withdraw mine. >> I'd like to nominate uh Erin Weiss. He has a young family here in Boulder and uh as you know, if you read his application, he operated a tree company and has been around the town watching it develop. He's a a terrific asset, I think, to our community. >> Very good. Did you have one, Rob? >> I'll nominate Andrew Gtlman again. >> All right, we're going reverse alphabetical this time. We'll start with Aaron Weiss. All in favor, raise your hand. We got three. Um, Chrismon, we got four. Andrew Getman got two. So, Andrew drops out. Go for

[108:03] Chrismon. We got five. So Chris has seat number eight. >> All right. Seat number nine. This is our last community appointee for a 4-year term. >> Nominations. Nicole. >> Um yeah, I wanted to nominate uh David Schaefer. Um this is somebody who was on our board of zoning um and adjustment a while ago. um architect uh seems like would be a valuable perspective especially as we are getting started here. >> Mark, >> uh I'd like to nominate Carla Growbard. She has a an extremely strong business background uh that would serve this committee well. Um we tend to give short shrift to uh senior citizens in amount in in our boards and commissions and I think uh she deserves she's also applied

[109:01] to three boards two years in a row and I would like to reward that persistence because she is also qualified uh and so I'd like to uh put her forth. >> Very good. Any others? Last call. Seeing none. All right. So, reverse alphabetical. We got David Schaefer. All in favor? Raise your hand. We got four. Uh, Carla Grabbard. Got five. So, Carla gets seat number nine. All right. So, seat number 10, we need a council member. Do we have any nominations? I will go ahead and nominate council uh mayor prom Tara Winer for this position. >> Be nice to me. >> Is she qualified? I I believe so. I believe so. Any other nominations? All right. Tara gets that one by acclamation. So, we now need a motion. I believe >> if you want me I was going to ask, do you want me to review the nomination the

[110:00] final nominations for the record? >> Please do. >> All right. Thank you. For seat one, we have we have nominated and appointed Katherine Bean. Seat two we have nominated Michael Leis. Seat three is Bimwash Kola. Seat four Bill Shrum. Seat five Anya Richmond. Seat six, Stephanie Chin. Seat seven, Chester Harvey. Seat eight, Chris man. Seat nine, David Schaefer. No, wait. No, I'm sorry. See, that's what I wanted to ask. Seat nine is Carla Grobert

[111:01] and seat 10 is Mayor Pro Tim Winer. >> Thank you for that, Elicia. So, I um am going to go ahead and move that we approve the 2026 appointments to Bureau as indicated. >> Second. >> All in favor, please raise your hand. That >> Ryan. >> Yep. >> Uh that's unanimous. So, these will be the appointments to bureau. >> All right. Great job everybody getting through that very complicated long process. Now, we go back to some easy ones. uh design advisory board. We have uh one seat number one for a five-year term. >> Tina, >> I'd like to nominate Lee Johnson. >> Would you like to speak to that? >> Okay. Um there's only one candidate. Uh so Lee Johnson gets it by acclamation. All right. Now, we're going to go to the

[112:00] Downtown Management Commission. Uh we have a mix. We have two seats. Seats number one, which is a five-year term, and seat number five, which is also a five-year term, but seat five, has to be a property owner or representative. So, we have different people who are eligible for the two seats as outlined on the slide above. We will start with seat number one, and I will take nominations. Tara, >> I would like to nominate Don Poe. He's the >> No, no, we're doing seat number one. Don's not eligible for that, >> but he is eligible for seat one as well. >> That was my question. >> Both. Oh, >> both the people that are eligible for seat five are also eligible for seat one. >> Thank you for clarifying that. >> I see. >> So you you can nominate him if you would like. >> I like a lot of people. That's my problem. >> Um well fine. I'll nominate Don Poe for seat number one. >> Did you want to speak to that? >> What a great guy. Also he was on the downtown management commission and he

[113:00] was dedicated and he did a great job. He spoke to us at council a few times and so I think he would be great for either seat. >> Very good. Nicole, >> um I wanted to nominate uh Rain Bowie uh Khloe Rain Bowie um for for this seat. Um who is somebody who uh is a downtown resident um works down there is also an artist. um I think brings a lot of really uh nice perspective um to this area and has experienced a lot of the um issues that are arising downtown and I think has a a sincere desire to participate in the leadership of um making it better >> which direction >> all right alphabetical so we'll start with Chloe Rain Bowie all in favor raise your hand we Got two. Don Poe got seven. So, Don Poe gets seat number one, which

[114:01] makes seat number five very easy. Who would like to make a nomination for that? Tina. >> Yeah, I'd like to nominate Carol Brewer. I appreciated both her video and application. And if you think she'd serve well, thank you. >> Very good. As she's the only eligible person for seat number five and is nominated, she'll get it by acclamation. Environmental Advisory Board. We have seat number one for a five-year term and seat number three for a two-year term. We'll start with seat number one, the five-year term. Nominations, please. Rob, >> I'd like to nominate Harold Esther. His um CV and his video were outstanding. PhD in environmental policy. He's been on boards. Um just very impressive. chair. >> I'd like to nominate Monica Crosby. I loved her interview and she's very qualified. Matt

[115:02] Nicole. >> Um I wanted to nominate uh Daniel Howard. Um I think as a scientist brings a really interesting perspective um to uh to EAB um and has uh done a lot of work uh on environmental issues um in our community. >> All right, seeing no other hands raised. Oh yes, Tisha. >> Thank you. Um I would like to nominate Josephina Hazek Herrera. Um I was especially impressed by the energy work around solar as well as um the community preparedness. Thank you. >> Thanks. I believe we're alphabetical again. So we're going to start with Monica Crosby. All in favor raise your hand. We got four. Harold Esther one. Uh, Josephina Hajek Herrera one, Daniel Howard three. So, I believe the two one vote

[116:01] getters would drop off. Is that correct? Okay. So, we're left with Monica Crosby and Daniel Howard. We'll go in reverse alphabetical. All in favor of Daniel Howard, that is four. Monica Crosby, that's five. So, Monica gets seat number one. Uh, we'll now go to seat number three. nominations, please. Ryan, I'd >> like to nominate Daniel Howard. Daniel Howard is a frequent visitor to uh council here, often providing very technical and prepared commentary, much of which has helped to inform what we're doing now with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other really important land use work. >> Thanks, Tisha. >> I'd like to nominate Aaron Spencer, who is one of the few candidates that has experience around energy and green buildings. Thank you. >> Any others? Terra, >> I'd like to nominate Cidra. I thought she did a great interview. I

[117:00] say the same for everybody, don't I? And uh she was extremely qualified. I believe she was really young, too. And so I really liked her energy. >> Great. All right, we'll go in alphabetical order here. We're going to start with Cidra Agabian. Two, Daniel Howard. That's five. So, Daniel gets seat number three. Now, we have the housing advisory board. We got three seats for this one. Seat number two, which is a four-year term. Seat number three, which is a five-year term. And seat number five, which is a two-year term. I'm going to start with a five-year term, seat number three. So, if I could take nominations, please. Matt, >> I'd like to nominate uh Michael Block um as you know, leader of all roads open. >> That's the different one. This is >> Sorry, I was looking at BHP HA. Sorry.

[118:00] No, no, you're right. Sorry, I went to Michael Block. >> Yeah, no worries. We'll come back to that. Tina, >> it's Cindy. >> Yeah. I'd like to nominate um Shira uh Fineberg. Uh I just really appreciated her experience with thistle and thought it would be useful on housing advisory board. >> Great. Other nominations Taiisha. >> Um I would like to nominate sorry uh Mark uh Farer. Um he has been working on tenants rights and housing issues since the 80s and actually lives in um housing here. So and has just been a very strong advocate. So lived and learned experience. All right, seeing no other hands raised, do we reverse alphabetical now? Okay, so we're going to start with Sheriff Fineberg. All in favor, raise your hand. That is eight votes. So, Sheriff Fineberg gets seat number three, the five-year term. So, let's move to seat number two, the four-year term nominations. Tara, >> I'd like to nom nominate Brendan Selby.

[119:01] What a great interview. I said that before, but this was really a great interview and he's incredibly qualified. >> Tina, >> I'd like to uh nominate uh Thomas Murdoch, Toby. Uh he's just shown a lot of um interest and has a lot and uh started a company here and I think he'd be a real asset um to this board. >> Nicole Tisha, >> I'd like to nominate Mark Ferrer. Nicole, >> I wanted to nominate um Ann Mahon. Um to Mark's earlier point about persistence, Ann Marie is somebody um who has been applying to uh I think TAB at least um for two or three years now. Um uh Anmarie brings a lot of experience as um a worker as uh someone who has really lived in a variety of housing types um within our city and I think she would be a good addition to housing advisory board. Great. All right, we got four

[120:02] nominations. We're going to go alphabetical. All in favor of Mark Furer. We got one. Ann Mayhan, we got two. Thomas Murdoch got three. Brendan Selby, we got three. So, Mark Fear will drop off. We'll go in reverse alphabetical order and start with Brendan Selby. So, we got three. Thomas Murdoch we got four Ann Mayhan two so Ann will drop off we'll go alphabetical Thomas Murdoch that is four Brendan Selby that is four Taiisha I'm going to need a a vote for Thomas or Brendan >> All right Brendan gets seat number two the four-year term

[121:01] Okay. Um, and now we'll do seat number five. The, uh, the two-year term nominations. >> Nicole, >> I will nominate Ann Mah. >> Tina, >> Thomas Murdoch. >> Yes. Tisha, >> Mark Fur. >> Okay. >> Me. >> Yes. Tara, >> David Gabed, who also had a great interview. I feel like I've heard you say that before. >> All right. Reverse alphabetical at this point. Alphabetical. All right. Um for nominations, we'll start with Mark Fear. All in favor? Got one. David Gabbed three. Ann Mahon three. Thomas Murdoch two. So Mark Fur drops off. We'll go reverse alphabetical. Thomas Murdoch got two Ann Mahon

[122:01] four David Gerbed three Thomas Murdoch drops off we'll go uh alphabetical for our final round David Gared that's >> Is it too late >> it's between David Gerbed and Mahon at this point >> so all in favor of David Gered uh that's five so David gets seat number five. All right, moving on. We have the housing authority. We have two seats, both for a five-year term. I'll take nominations for seat number one. Oh, Tara, >> I want to nominate one of my BFFs, Michael Block. Who doesn't love Michael? He's so great. Come on. >> Beach out. Any other nominations? I saw Rob. >> I'd like to nominate Annne Cooper. Um, she's got lived experience. She's an

[123:00] incumbent. She's passionate and she's just a beautiful human being. >> Any others? Okay, we're reverse alphabetical for this one. And all in favor of Anne Cooper, raise your hand. That's six, I think. >> Seven. >> Um, so Ann gets seat number one. I I have a sense of how seat number seven might go. Who would like to make a nomination for seat number seven? Nicole first hand. >> I will nominate uh Michael Black. Only the first time here, not the first time tonight, right? >> Okay. I think we know Michael well. Um any other nominations? Uh seeing none, Michael gets it by acclamation. And I appreciate both of Michael and Ann's willingness to to continue to serve on this board. All right, Human Relations Commission, we've got one seat number one for a five-year term. Nominations, please.

[124:00] >> Everybody race here. >> Tina, >> uh, I would nominate Alejandra Neland Zava. Um, I just, uh, thought that her participation in the community assembly and her interest was great. So, >> very good. Terra, >> I would like to nominate Rachel Rose Isacson. I feel like she's incredibly dedicated person and this is her thing really. Um, and of course her interview was absolutely incredible. >> Any other nominations? Nicole, >> not a nomination. I just want to say this. Um, we have so many good people here, too, and I really wish we had more than one seat. >> Yeah, I'll I'll call in myself. mostly not speaking to the applicants, but I I thought Rachel Rose Isaacson and Alejandra, Neilan Zavala were both excellent excellent applicants. I wish we could get both of them. Um, >> let's do it. >> Uh, but we only we only have one spot. So, thanks to both of you for for applying as well as all the other applicants. Um,

[125:00] which direction are we? >> Alphabetical all. So, Rachel Rose Isacson, raise your hand. We got three. Alejandra Nelan Fellowa. We got six. So Alejandra gets the seat. All right, we're at the Landmarks board. We've got one seat for a five-year term. Nominations. Matt. >> Like to nominate Alex Weinheimr. Alex has been a rockolid individual in our community for a number of years, certainly with his work on TAB. Um, and Landmarks needs some balance. Um, and and some help a little bit. So I think Alex can definitely bring a little balance and some good perspective um as we deal with some of the challenges coming out of landmarks. >> Thanks others. Seeing no other nominations, Alex Winheimer will get it by acclamation. We have the Open Space Board of Trustees. We have seat number one for a

[126:00] five-year term. I saw Mark first. >> I'm going to nominate Nick Phillips. Um should I speak to it now? Um in an era when fire resilience is one of our primary issues, he is extraordinarily uh ready and and uh uh appropriate for that role. Um he was the strongest single candidate uh I interviewed uh during this process and his background is is impeccable and uh I liked him very very much. Thanks, Nicole. Or Matt, were you first? >> Um, I will nominate uh Morgan Lamel. Um, Morgan uh I I I think just has an incredible lens coming in um as somebody who works with um uh people who are working on policy um as a mediator and facilitator, masters in environmental

[127:00] policy. Um I believe her policy experience extends to uh wildfire as well as um climate resilience uh things like that just kind of all across the board. And I will also as a woman here just state that it is helpful to have some gender balance on these boards. I know it is not a requirement um and it is a good thing for our community um when when we have um more perspectives represented. >> Thanks Tisha. I mean, can I just add to the nomination? >> Yeah, sure. >> Um, in addition to what you shared around Morgan, the other thing that I found to be quite impressive was um, previous membership on the environmental advisory board, so has been on boards before from a different perspective and I think could be a very valuable um, contribution to this board as well. Thank you, >> Ryan. >> It's okay. Okay. I Mark beat me to nominating Nick and I couldn't have said it better in terms of his qualifications. I I do u I am compelled though with with what Nicole says about gender balance. So just want to say that

[128:01] thanks. >> Great. Um not seeing any other hands. Which direction are we? >> Okay. So reverse. So we'll start with Nick Phillips and all in favor we got three. Uh all in favor of Morgan Lamelly. That is six. So Morgan gets that spot. All right. Now we're to the parks and wreck advisory board. We have two seats. Seat number one, which is for a five-year term, and seat four, which is for a two-year term. Who'd like to make a nomination? Ryan. >> I'd like to nominate Eliza Blood. Eliza is a um super user of park and wreck type um domains and interviewed super well. others. Uh, seeing no other nominations, then Eliza Blood gets seat number one by acclamation. Now we'll turn to seat number four, the two-year term. Who'd

[129:00] like to nominate? >> Yes, Tisha. >> I would like to nominate Dana Reyes. Um, primarily because of their experience in finance and given the financial challenges of that particular department, having more finance chops would be welcome. Thank you. >> Thanks, Tara. >> I would like to nominate Channing Benson. Um, he would be a great board member. I I know I said this every time, but I'm not kidding this time. I love this person's interview. It was great and uh he got me really I wish I could be on a board with him. That's how great I think he would be on a board. >> Any others? Uh seeing none, we reverse alpha. Okay, so Channing Benson, all in favor. Uh that's six. So Channing will get that

[130:00] one. Seat number four for the two-year term. Okay, we got planning board. We got seat number one, one seat for a five-year term. Uh nominations, please. Matt. >> Um, I'd like to nominate Max Lord. Um, I'll it's hard to be brief for for Max. So, for one, Max is a contractor and the fact that he works on a smaller scale is a perspective that we don't have and haven't had in probably a generation or two on planning board. We're usually focused on everything super large scale. Um, but as we've seen recently, our our code is as busted for large scale development as it is for small scale and homeowners. And I think that perspective will be immensely valuable. Um, and I'm looking at Brad as we embark on a Title 9 reform hopefully here within the next year issues here. >> But as we embark on that, that perspective would be instrumental um, in helping understand the ripples that that creates in our community when we fix

[131:01] that and knowing what truly works and what doesn't. Um, having a youthful voice on planning board is something we have not had um, in some time. So I think Max would be a great addition. >> Thanks for that, Matt. Others we had any other nominations. Tina, >> I just feel badly for all the people who are just called not youthful. >> If nobody else does, >> but don't worry, we go by level, so we're just high level. So, don't even trip. >> Um, okay. Okay. Well, seeing nobody else is uh putting out a nomination, I I will go ahead and uh nominate uh Robert Wilson uh for the spot. And I will say that um I don't know if anybody Well, it doesn't look like anybody else is getting nominated. Between uh Max Lord and Bob Wilson, we are in extremely good hands here on planning board. Um I think we have two absolutely excellent applicants uh who will both take the city in positive directions. Um, I did want to put Bob into the mix. Um, because I has have been impressed with

[132:01] his architectural experience at Katis Architecture. Um, he has a deep knowledge of development and redevelopment issues around town. Um, that could serve us well as we finish out the comp plan and move into the post comp plan items. But, um, as I say, we are in very, very good uh, hands no matter what. >> Yeah. T, >> I also wanted to thank some other great we have great candidates. I want to say shout out to Joe Fo. He keeps trying to get on and he's a senior. So Joe, don't give up. That's what I tell you. >> Yeah, Mark. And then I got Nicole. >> Yeah. I I just want to second Tara's con uh comment about Joe Foley. Uh I think he's well qualified. We just haven't had the opportunity to to put him on a board. I hope we will and I hope he will continue to persist. >> Nickel. >> Yeah. I just wanted to speak a little bit to Max. Thank you Matt for nominating him. Um the the range of

[133:00] people that Max has to work with uh in his business in terms of u bringing together property owners trying to make changes um people within the city who u are trying to get uh approval from with the code um the workers the people who are actually building these things that he's constructing. Um I I think that that uh sort of collaboriveness is just so um uh prominent with Max. Um I think it's a really useful skill and also um communication uh is something that I think Max is um really excelling with and I I see that as something that's really valuable especially on some of these most more technical boards. I understand that there are some decisions that we cannot talk about and the same is true for planning board but but where there is space to have that interaction with community and help people understand more of the the complicated decisions we're making I think that is a really valuable uh tool right now. Thank you. >> Thanks. All right. Um seeing no other

[134:00] hands raised, are we in reverse alphabetical at this point? All right. So um Robert Wilson, all in favor raise your hand. We got three. And so Maxwell Lord that'll get six. So Max gets it. Congrats. >> All right. Uh we're at the Transportation Advisory Board. We've got one seat for a five-year term. Uh seat number one. Who would like to make a nomination? >> Right. >> Like to nominate Michael Mills. He m Michael Michael is serving a partial term. I think it was my seat I that he filled and um he's been doing a great job and I think it'll be great to let him to continue. >> Very good. Other nominations? >> Seeing none, uh Mike Mills gets it by acclamation

[135:02] >> at the at the end. I won't. Okay. Okay, now we got water resources advisory board. We got one seat for a 5-year term. Tara, >> I would like to nominate Melissa Kassen, who I know for a very long time. She's all about water. I mean, I know you have to be for this board, but she really is. And she is that's her field. That's what she does for a living. I think she'd be fantastic. >> How did you feel about her interview? >> I loved her interview. >> That's great. Okay. Any others? Yeah, Matt. And then Taisha. Um, that's funny. I'd like to nominate Marsha uh Greenblat. Um, with a PhD in water quality and being a professional and technical in this space, I mean, we often elicit very technically skilled folks for RAB. Um, and I think Marcia would fit in quite well, especially given the stuff that we'll be work continue to work on with with a lot of our flood mitigation projects. Um, I think Marcia would be just absolutely outstanding. Okay, Taiisha, >> I'm add to Marcia.

[136:01] >> Can you uh turn your mic? >> I can because my mic sounds nice. Mayor, um sorry. And I wanted to just add that in addition to what you referenced, which I couldn't agree more on as far as the technical components. There's also the being the chair of on growing gardens. And so again, having that agricultural experience as well as board experience will be very critical to hit the ground running on this particular board. Thank you. >> Great. Yes, Mark. >> I just want to comment that year after year, uh, the quality of the candidates for RAB is always outstanding. And this year is no different. Um, and had we not put Monica Crosby on another board, you could flip a coin among any of these people and be delighted with your selection. So, my my compliments to the candidates, they are terrific. Yeah, the quality of our water resources candidates is equivalent to the quality

[137:00] of our water itself. All right. Are we um in alphabetical? Okay. So, uh alphabetical. So, Marcia Greenblat, all in favor, that's seven. So, Marcia gets the seat. >> I'll do I'll do it. >> Okay. Fantastic. So, um, Alicia, I've had a couple of questions about Burea. Is it possible to just go back to the slide that shows who got those seats, please? >> Of course, sir. >> Um, so I'm just going to read the names off without identifying their seats just to be clear. Katherine Bean, Stephanie Chen, Buimia Chicola, Chicola, Carla Growbard, Chester Harvey, Michael Achesy, Chris Mann, Ana Richmond, and Bill Shrum. And we had a motion previously to designate that. Okay, we have gone through the entire process. So, I would appreciate a motion.

[138:03] I make a motion to approve our uh newly selected members of boards and commissions. >> 2026. >> There it is. There it is. >> There it is. >> Do you want me to reread it exactly or was that sufficient? >> Would you please >> I will a motion to approve the 2026 I move. We move it. I move to mo to approve the 2026 boards and commissions appointments as noted effective April 1st, April Fool's, 2026. Second. >> All right. Would you like a show of hands on this, Elicia? Or >> that will be sufficient. >> Okay. All in favor, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. So, a huge thank you uh to everyone who applied. I know it takes a lot of time. Um, and putting yourself out there is not easy. There were fantastic interviews, fantastic applications, a record number of applicants, >> and I'm just very grateful to all of you. And I'm also grateful to our city

[139:01] attorney for what she's about to say. >> Uh thank you, mayor. Uh I want I'm seeking a clarification um in particular on the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority and whether those appointments are effective immediately or whether they are effective April 1st. Uh it's unclear to me whether you all had a motion and a vote with respect to Burough that was separate. >> So we did. Uh would you like me to replace the previous motion with one that provides clarity on that question? >> Uh that would be helpful, mayor. And and I believe staff's preference is that that board would take its seats immediately so that it could be statutoily compliant. >> Okay. Since I made the previous motion, can I just offer a replacement motion for that? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. >> Uh I I thought Burr was appointed by the mayor, but do we still vote on it?

[140:01] >> It it still has it it's appointed by the mayor, but approved by the council. So, I'm going to offer a replacement uh motion. So, I move that we approve the 2026 appointments to Bureau as indicated before, effective immediately. >> Do you have a second? Second. >> Okay. Motion a second. All in favor raise your hands. And that is unanimous. So I'm grateful for that additional guidance. Thank you, Teresa. >> Mark, a matter of clarification and personal interest. There is a BHP uh board meeting scheduled for next week. May I find out if who is attending that on behalf of the city council? >> Thanks for bringing that up, Mark. Um, so I'll look to the uh process for appointing I believe we already did that, but is that not the case for appointing the the city council's representative to Boulder Housing Partners? >> It's my understanding that the city council

[141:00] representatives took effect immediately um when you all took that action. >> Which action? Look, let me look at I think it was included in the committee appointment. So, let me double check that. >> That That's my understanding. I just wanted to get that on the record. So, it was when the city council approved our city council assignments to the uh commissions and >> committees. To the committees. Yes. >> Correct. >> So, so Mark, you are already the dyes representative for city council to Boulder Housing Partners. So, if you could go to the next meeting, that would be awesome. >> I I had it scheduled. >> Okay, great. appreciate your service. >> And with that, that brings us to the end of that item. >> Mayor, if I may, I just want to say a thank you on behalf of me and John and the city clerk staff to our comm partners. Uh, this was a good recruitment this year, and I think it was in favor of the open house, but we know what it took for you guys to work

[142:00] with us to get the interviews done, review the applications, and my staff. Again, thank you both, Emily, John, Lisa, for just all the help that they did. But like I said, we couldn't have done it without you, the council. So, thank you so very much. >> So, thanks. And Elisha and Emily and John and Lisa and all the many staff who participated in the interviews. That was an extraordinary amount of work and just so appreciative of was it 780 odd pages of the board and commission packet. Um the amount 788, not that anybody was counting. Um, so the amount of effort to do that was prodigious and we deeply deeply appreciate your assistance to get us all here. Thank you so much, >> Nicole. >> I just also wanted to thank uh the folks who were involved in engagement and spreading the word about this. Uh, clearly we were very effective this year and by we I mean you. So, thank you very much for giving us so many amazing applicants to choose from. >> All right. Um, so with that, well, that

[143:01] brings us to the end of our public hearing and we have one more item on the agenda tonight. >> Yes, sir. Last but not least, we have our item number six are matters from the city manager. 6A is the affordable housing matter, a review of the current state of affordable housing in Boulder. All right, as we uh get Jay and Holly settled up here, I think Kurt is going to give our tea up and introduction to this agenda item. >> Good evening, council. Uh Kurt Fernhau with Housing and Human Services. Um so it's been a while since we've been here to give you an update on affordable housing, but I think the the timing is is is perfect for this for this update for a couple of reasons. There's been a lot of uh conversations at this dis and in the community um related to the Boulder Valley comp plan in affordable housing um as well as the the outcome of

[144:02] the Dr. Cog study um that came out last year which identifies um our housing needs, our housing gaps. And so tonight we're going to be giving not just an overview of our program, but what are the things we're focusing on, not just from a housing perspective, but from a people perspective as well. And um we'll we'll be addressing some of the some of the questions and conversations that you've been having around the comp plan uh recently as well. And we look forward to uh to your discussion afterwards. Um, we also have uh Glenn Seiguru here from the Boulder Valley School District. Um, and we're often in conversations with the school district um as it relates to housing. Um, Jay Sugnet uh from HHS and um Holly Hendendrickson who will be um giving her presentation tonight. Thank you.

[145:04] >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you so much. All right. So, a review of affordable housing in Boulder. A nice little small topic the evening here. So, for our agenda, I just wanted to go through the slides, but it's not working. Just don't >> try that before.

[146:11] Why are elevator jokes good? >> Because they're funny on many levels. >> You didn't hear it. Oh, let me start again. Why are elevator jokes good? They're funny on many levels. >> Okay, we're back. >> Sorry, I've done this before, so I don't know what happened. Okay. All right. Just to quickly review the agenda of what we'll talk about tonight. We're just going to quickly go over some definitions. uh review the the current state of the housing the ownership and rental markets, a quick discussion about the city's policy interventions, and we then wanted to pull out some highlights

[147:01] and innovations in our program. Um, and then just a quick a quick slide about next steps. So, uh, just to start this conversation, we just wanted to highlight and point out that from its founding, Boulder has been shaped by exclusivity, and the real estate prices in the city have have always reflected that exclusivity. Um, in 2021, the city hosted a housing equity symposium that helped frame out some of these issues and like the larger historical context and continues to be a really good resource for us today. Uh I also wanted to highlight in terms of like the history of things uh just our timeline of affordable housing efforts. This is in the memo uh as an attachment. Uh but just wanted to point out that for decades since the mid60s that the city has been uh working on uh housing affordability. Uh our housing authority was formed almost a half century ago. Um and so it was way back then when the city had recognized that we had an affordability problem. Um, two other

[148:00] things to just highlight in this in this long timeline of activities. Uh, in 2000, Boulder was one of the first cities in the nation to pass an inclus an inclusionary housing ordinance, which is a bedrock of our program today. Um, and then uh the last thing I'll just highlight quickly here is u our Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership. was established I think in 2017 and we are active participants in this uh regional housing partnership with the goal of really trying to address and solve problems at a regional level not just within the city. So a quick quick like back to the basics definitions just so we're all on the same page. uh affordable housing. When we're talking about affordable housing, we are indicating that uh it's housing is affordable when households are paying no more than onethird of their income on housing. Uh permanently affordable housing in the city has a specific definition and that is that house any housing unit whether it be rental or

[149:02] ownership that has a deed restriction on that home that protects its affordability in perpetuity. And then area median income. The AMI um used lots throughout this presentation and the memo just means that half of the households make less than that 100% AMI and half make more. And in 2025 the AMI was uh just over 135,000 for a household of three. So we wanted to kind of start with this with this graph to just frame out like what the problem is that we're trying to solve. So this graph shows it between the years of 2010 and 2025 three data points. The first one at the bottom, the red is that AMI number. Uh the blue is the median price of a sale, the median sales price of an attached home and then the yellow is that median sales price of a detached home. And so we can see that AMI has remained stagnant over time, but

[150:00] the price of homes has really risen. Um, so the problem we're trying to solve is how do we make sure that folks making at or below that 100% AMI level can afford to live in a city where homes are uh at these high prices. Another thing we wanted to do in the memo to lay out and to kind of like help help kind of figure out where we are in all of this is just to give give you a better sense of what the housing market looks like. So this data is a point in time look at the residential real estate in market residential real estate market using MLS data on like in a specific day. So this each dot on this graph represents a a house for sale on this day. So the yellow dots are those detached or single unit homes and the blue dots are those attached uh attached condos, town houses. Uh I we've added the the 400 these red dashes to you know middle income middle- inome ownership is

[151:00] a huge conversation in the city and so we wanted to add these uh these dashes to just kind of give a sense of what affordability looks like and what is available for those middle- inome households in the city. And so using this data this point in time data we can see that two two trends are really emerging. The first is that these detached homes, these like this yellow cloud of dots um it the detached homes are really not affordable for middle inome earners. Uh at this point in time at this on this date in January, there were more homes for sale for $20 million than there were for middle-income households. Um the other trend that emerges uh so conversely in like the attached home there's lots of availability and affordability of condos and town houses with this within the city for those middle- inome earners. Um but while abundant in choices uh in that condo market in that attached home market the choices are certainly constrained by what the type of unit

[152:01] that's available to to these households. So the choices are just different for different groups. like that graph looks a lot different if you have a family families with young children than if you're a young professional looking for a home than if you're a older adult. And so the choice for middle inome buyers is often to compromise on the housing type the the actual housing unit that you want to purchase in exchange for the amenities of the city or to exit the city to find the actual housing type that you want to purchase. We also I in this graph I also added this this 10-year gap. So this we wanted to kind of offer uh some numbers to like help wrap our hands around the scale of the issue. So this 10-year gap number is a Dr. Cog number of the the Dr. Cog's housing needs assessment. Um and in the next 10 years they have identified this shortage of 30 3500 homes for sale homes

[153:00] that we're going to have a shortage of in the next 10 years. Um, and this 682 number is that home gap for that kind of middle income uh o home ownership gap for middle income range that 80 to 120% AMI. Boulder's rental market uh is vastly different from its ownership market. Um, so using that same Dr. COG data, the largest rental gaps, that biggest shortage in the city are is going to be is in the is going to be those units that are affordable to households earning under 50% of the area median income. Um, again, using that same data from Dr. cog that 10-year gap for rental homes. Uh any price rental homes is about 6,000 homes, but 77% of those or about 4,600 of those rental homes need to be affordable to households earning 50% of the area median income. Um one thing we wanted to just point out and we pointed it out in the memo is the finding from Dr. Cog and this for this

[154:00] data point is really consistent with previous needs assessments we've done. Um, we've did one two years ago and then 10 years ago that shows that the middle inome households have abundant rental options where it's these lower than 50% AMI is really where we see the gap. The last thing I'll point out on this slide is this bar chart that we have uh shows the area median income uh distribution of affordable housing renters. So, who is living in affordable rental units today and what is their AMI levels? And from this data, we can see that the majority of renters, affordable renters in our city are earning less than 30% of the area median income. So we just wanted to point out like Dr. Cog emphasizes 0 to 50. Our program has this the 0 to 50 has been a focus of our program uh for many years. Um, and we've consistently tried to uh find uh opportunities that are targeted to populations with very low income,

[155:00] seniors with fixed income, people with disabilities, and individuals um exiting homelessness, for example. All right. So, we can just shift now to talk about the various housing policy interventions that the city has implemented over the past several decades. So we'll just the break it down some supply side interventions, demand side interventions and then pulling out those kind of innovations and highlights. So the supply side interventions, this is all um in in your memo, but basically it's the what are what is the city doing to help build more homes? How are we increasing the supply of homes in our city? Um we've done that in a variety of way. lots of zoning reform in recent years, a robust inclusionary housing program, several waves of ADU deregulation, heightened density bonuses, partners use low-income housing tax credits to get those affordable rentals in the city, and then city's also done a lot of streamlining in their permitting process. Uh, but the one thing to highlight at the top here is uh

[156:02] our local housing trust fund or our affordable housing fund. So, our affordable housing fund, we call it the workhorse of our program. The local funding sources really drive those investments in affordable units throughout the city. And in the past 10 years, uh those local funds, we've we've invested $142 million of local funds into affordable house housing in the city. Um this bar chart just offers a sense of where what those funding sources are. Um so, a few things to highlight here. cash in LA is the you know the majority of our funding source you know that that workhorse uh and then the other thing to highlight is 87% of all of our s of all of our funding for affordable housing comes from local sources um so those local sources are very powerful and the local funding um definitely matters so our funding helps support support developing a wide variety of housing types and helps support this geographic

[157:00] dispersement throughout the city so this map is uh uh offers uh an affordable housing, it's like where the affordable housing, the affordable homes are throughout the city. The darker colors indicating um the higher unit counts. And you can see that affordable housing really is everywhere. It's in every it's in almost every neighborhood in the city. It's like whether you know it or not, it's kind of a part of the infrastructure of your of the city. Uh, one thing we wanted to highlight about these local sources and our in inclusionary h and our our our program is that um using the tools that we have and h how we're using the tools, we're outperforming what our inclusionary housing requirement is. So, our inclusionary housing program requires this 25% of new residential development to be permanently affordable. But in recent years, uh, we've outperformed that. So for every 100 new homes built, we have 37 permanently affordable homes. Our total counts here, we have over four

[158:01] 4,300 units of permanently affordable homes throughout the city, which represents 8.9% of our total housing stock housing over eight uh 9,000 uh 9,000 people. Um this graph from our data dashboard just shows um that unit development over time to just give you a sense about the years and kind of how that's pro progressed. Um the yellow indicates home ownership units and the blue indicates those um rental units. And then we also wanted to I guess kind of brag brag in front of you all. So, uh, this this came out, there's a report that came out a few weeks ago that shows essentially the top producers of affordable apartments throughout the nation. Um, but I wanted to just highlight, so I highlighted this column, this yellow column that shows the share of affordable apartments. So, this data, we have a 37% of our recent development

[159:00] have been affordable. And you can see that we're outperforming all of the top producers of affordable housing throughout the nation. No other None of these other jurisdictions have reached that 37%. Uh so demand side housing interventions. So supply side, how are we building more houses? Uh demand side is how we're helping people, how we're supporting people to either get into housing or maintain the housing that they have. Uh again, the city does this in a variety of ways. Housing choice vouchers, rent subsidies, um property tax relief, income supports. We also have a very robust emergency rental assistance and tenant protection program. But I again I'll just point to two of our home buyer assistance programs to highlight here. So our house to home ownership or H2O program is a down payment assistance program. It's a typical shared appreciation loan structure. It's nothing super creative. It's a very well-known type of product for both uh

[160:00] lenders and borrowers. The city has invested since its inception in the year 2000, the city has invested uh $730,000, but the revolving nature of the fund has allowed the city to support um to serve 94 households with a total loan amount of $3.2 million. Uh the city also has we also have a down middle-income down payment assistance pilot program that was launched a few years ago. um and it's proving not to be as a competitive product to this. We we've had no takers of that um that loan so far. And then our we we also want to highlight our affordable home ownership program. So our affordable home ownership program, we have 836 permanently affordable homes. These homes are sold at below market rate and they each have an affordability covenant that limits their resale value. Um, we've recently expanded the scope of this program. It's now a regional program to again to kind of try to take

[161:01] on this issue on a regional level. Um and we also wanted to highlight uh that we regularly survey the residents of or our home the affordable homeowners in the program to get a sense of you know to get their to get their feedback on the program and also try to identify different pain points um that they are feeling uh as in the program. We did this back in 2025 and we found that uh 85% of homeowners would be rep repeat purchasers. So, it's a broadly popular program for those who participate. Um, and the biggest pain point is HOAs. So, HOAs continue to be a problem. Um, this this isn't a new finding and it's probably not news to anyone here. Um, that they have there's been fewer special assessments in this last um respondents uh reported fewer special assessments but have higher overall higher monthly HOA fees. All right. So now we wanted to like I

[162:01] said kind of pull out some of the highlights and innovations that of our program. So one thing we wanted to highlight from the top is the partnerships that we have in the community really make all of this possible. So uh of all the affordable rental homes developed in the city 74% have been developed by a nonprofit organization and uh Boulder Housing Partners is a huge partner here. So, uh, this to emphasize this point, last year we added 186 new affordable homes to our portfolio and 173 of those were were developed and and are now managed by Boulder Housing Partners. Another thing to highlight here is just the broad community support that affordable housing has received over the years. Um there's a lot of examples of this, too much to go over right now, but just to highlight a few things. Uh city council has been broadly supportive of

[163:00] these local impact fees. Uh and then the city the the community itself has been willing to tax to put a tax on themselves to support affordable housing most recently through uh the Boulder County affordable and attainable housing tax and then also Proposition 123. uh an innovation we wanted to highlight is the is our our middle income uh scattered site acquisition program. So in this program uh homes are purchased we're purchasing homes on the open market uh rehabbing those homes and then selling them at below market rate. Um their affordability is protected by this covenant which limits resale value over time. Um, so far we've acquired 20 homes this way and we found that it's the most cost-effective way to add new affordable home ownership homes to our uh portfolio. Um, the average subsidy goes from anywhere between $90,000 to 185

[164:00] depending on uh the size of the unit. And we've received funding from Proposition 123 to support this program both at the city and to try to figure out how to do it at a regional level. Um, and then of course, uh, Boulder Mod. I we don't need to go to the specifics of Boulder Mod. We all, we all know the specifics, but it's really the next frontier in the city's affordable home ownership portfolio. We're anticipating 25 to 30 affordable homes being added per year with this with the with Boulder Mod. Um, and just to highlight here, the partnership between the city, the school district, and Flat Irons Habitat for Humanity makes it possible. Uh and then finally our last innovation to highlight is uh uh this Bloomberg Harvard city leadership innovation track. So we the city there's a city team that participated in this innovation track last year. We followed this very specific path to public innovation and the topic that we were tackling was affordable and attainable

[165:01] housing. Um, HHS has since since the program has ended, HHS has taken the lead and continues to pursue some of the ideas that came up and arose during that process. Um, and more generally, we're really trying to kind of um, take on that innovation methodology, that innovation mindset in our work. And then next steps. Um, so really we're just seeking continued support for policies and work that expand those housing choices to households who are currently h priced outside of our market. Um, a few ways that we've highlighted in the memo we'll just briefly mention here. Continued zoning reforms. Um, prioritizing those deep subsidies for those acute rental gaps that we see. Refined and expanding that the down payment assistance. Like I mentioned, it's a broadly successful program and just figuring out how to expand it. Um, IH inclusionary housing is uh super important for our program

[166:00] and just maintaining support for that IH is is critical. And then um sustained support for innovations. We we try to really take um an innovative lens and how we're approaching this pro this problem and um sustained support from you all is great. And that's all that's all I have. Thanks. >> Well, Holly, thanks for that fantastic presentation, but uh but more importantly, thanks for all the work that you and Jay and Kurt and the rest of the housing and human services folks do. Uh seeing those statistics about how we're a national leader is truly impressive. Uh but validates what we already know about the quality of the program. So, huge thanks for all of that. Um questions for city staff. Mark Tina >> um given the the the size of the population that's zero to 50% AMI relative to say 80 to 120% AMI is the message of this

[167:01] that we are that we need to shift focus from providing middle income purchase opportunities to serving that community which is so much larger because a lot of our focus has been middle- inome housing, attainable housing, uh how to keep people from moving out um when it's time for them to buy a house. But is that population so small relative to the 0 to 50% AMI that that our focus is misplaced? And if it is, um, what's the solution given the size of the subsidies that are going to be necessary to support 0 to 50% AMI rental housing? >> You don't want to take up. >> Good evening. Uh, Jay Sugnet with Housing and Human Services. Uh, that's a great question. Um I I don't think our intent is to say one is more important

[168:00] than the other. Um I I you know housing and human resources or housing and human services our staff time I would say is disproportionately spent on the home ownership challenge. Um we rely on our partners to build affordable rentals that serve that 0 to 50% of area median income. We have uh there's you know federal tax credits. state tax credits. There's lots of programs for that 0 to 50. Um the challenge is the subsidy is so much higher for middle income, right? So from our perspective, we just don't want to lose sight of where that true need is, that 0 to 50 to continue those programs. Um but still look at other opportunities to increase the opportunities for middle- inome households as well. >> Okay. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yeah, pretty much. Um, before I forget, would it be possible to get a copy of that slide showing our performance relative to the other cities? That was, uh, very reassuring. Um,

[169:03] >> yes, of course. And we, this came out after we sent the memo out, so it would have it would have made it in there otherwise. >> And another thing before I forget, um, and I I think I've expressed this to you, but I want to do it publicly. I I thought your memo on where we are on housing was uh simply um first rate and as good a memo as I have ever read. So thank you very much for explaining our housing policies with such clarity. Um my last question is this is this has been sort of plaguing me for a long time. uh every developer chooses cash in loo rather than providing affordable housing. Um what would be the difference in cost if you had a 100 unit um project and had to provide either 25% uh affordable housing uh or a cash and

[170:00] loop payment or how much are we in effect getting short changed by doing the cash and loop versus requiring actual construction of affordable housing? >> I think this one's me too. Um, yes. So, >> you can phone a friend. >> We don't I don't have specific numbers for you unless Kurt has has his calculator out right now. Um, but initially when the program started back in 2000, uh, that cash and loo was commeurate with the cost to build a new unit. Um what's happened is that over time that gap between what it costs to build a unit and what we could charge in cash and loo grew. So basically it cost to build a unit on site cost significantly more than the cash in L. If we charged cash in L that was equivalent to that unit um projects would not be feasible anymore. So, if you recall from our 2022

[171:01] update to the inclusionary housing ordinance, part of that was a feasibility study. What can we charge um to and ensure that the projects remain feasible? >> And what's the magnitude of the gap between the two? >> Well, two times, three times. >> Yeah. I mean, so think of maybe think of it this way. So every dollar that we get in local funds, we can leverage two, three, and sometimes four through state and federal sources. >> Okay. >> Um but I would say it's probably comparable. >> Okay. Thank you. And again, thank you for that memo. It's terrific. >> Yeah. Thank you. This was great. Um and I appreciate it. One question I have when we look at the Dr. COG data and also when we think about the percent of of our population that is below 50%. How are CU students who live in the city that are probably around 33,000 how are

[172:01] they contemplated in that data? Do they make up part of the group of people that are below income? How how does that work? I'm actually not sure how CU students are um calculated in the Dr. Hog too. >> They're they're counted in as if they're using census data, right? Yeah. Yeah. So they're counted as as a as part of the population. >> Okay. And so then so that they don't generally qualify for our affordable housing particularly the undergraduates. So, do we kind of calibrate our need to take into consideration the different sort of we have such a unique situation in Boulder with our student population? >> Yeah. And you know what I when I presented the Dr. Cog report back in August and my caution was try not to fixate on the numbers themselves um and more on the magnitude of the numbers and um just to illustrate what

[173:02] that where that need is and where you should focus your efforts. Um, yeah. So, I can't tell you that we've calibrated specifically to account for the students. Kurt has something else. >> Yeah, if I can just add a second data point to that as well. Um, so in in our current affordable housing stock, that 3700 units or whatever it is of of rental housing that we have, um, the the the price point or the units that are most in demand are actually in the like 15 to 30% AMI. That's where we have a lot of demand uh, for housing that are not students. Um, for Boulder Housing Partners, their average renter uh is at 27% of the area median income. So, um,

[174:01] that's where we're just seeing a really high demand. So, it it really lines up with the Dr. Cog study as well. Um, uh, affordable, uh, apartments in our program that are in the 60% AMI. um they you know that's where we're going to have vacancies. That's typically where it is. >> Okay. Um and then my other question is do we know we've been talking a lot about housing yield by student and I noticed that um Glenn Sigru what is the yield like in our affordable housing program? Do we find that it's higher or have we ever looked at the yield of students in the affordable program versus the non-affordable housing units? I'm not even sure that's possible. Yeah. Uh Glenn Sigruz in your planner for uh BBSD. Uh it's a tough question. Uh maybe a few spot-checking over the years uh on affordable units. Uh I know the holiday network uh did definitely

[175:01] beat the city as an average uh after it was built. Uh those numbers have come down a little bit as they've aged, which is typical. Um in the general consensus, I know with other school districts is cheaper housing. Um does have higher yields and we've had a few um affordable products, apartments in other uh jurisdictions that have had incredibly high yields for the type of units that they had. Um so that's about as much as we have worked with specifically with designated affordable units. Um we could potentially do a study along those lines um with some cooperation on data and things like that, but we don't have it right now. Yeah, thank you so much. That's great. Um, okay. And then my final question was on the slide that had the blue dots and the yellow dots. In this moment in time, are there lots of blue dots compared to usual or lots of yellow dots or is that a pretty much

[176:00] like it is usually? >> I think it's pretty much as usual. Yeah, >> thank you. >> Can you remind us what the blue and the yellow dots? >> The blue dots are the attached housing. So, the condos and town homes. the yellow the yellow cloud was the attached home uh the detached homes those single unit homes. >> Thanks for the reminder. Is that good? Right. I got Matt Ty and Ryan. >> All right. I got I got a couple questions. Um one centered on our ah goals and the other on the middle income down payment assistant program. So I'm trying to reconcile how we're getting to our our goal of 15% by 2035. And I know that with 127 units that we've averaged, but this year we're at 37. that that that math seems steep to reach our goal. And so I just want to maybe check in on the the reality of if we are going to maintain that 127 units per year, we're going to be at 11%. We're going to be 1,900 units short and we'd have to keep that 37 per year pace exactly for 9 years to get to that

[177:01] number. So I mean that that's a that's a really high bar and that is executing perfection at a really high level. And those numbers you're pointing out are exceptionally good at a national level, but that's a really hard consistent line to keep. So, I just want to sort of check in like how are we going to meet those goals because that is a pretty hard bar to hit with these averages that we're at in spite of how successful we are. Might our goals be too high or or did we just not make enough progress at certain phases of this process? >> Yeah. Um I I would say I think we're making fantastic progress. So you have to think about what is the purpose of that 15% goal. So I think uh the mayor was here um as part of that discussion. So and part of that conversation was do we have something that's aspirational or something that's realistic? And we presented options of both. So we could keep it at 10%, we could raise it to 20, be incredibly aspirational and council

[178:01] at the time chose something middle ground, something that's realistic but also more aspirational to push ourselves. So will we make the 15% by 2035? I don't know, but I think we're doing doing quite well. >> Okay. I I mean I appreciate what the previous council some long time ago thought and I'm not trying to date your time on uh staff but but it certainly predates pretty I mean just call me old >> yeah I'm predates a lot of us on council and so I just >> yeah anyway just curious about how to reconcile that. Um so we're having an honest conversation with our community. I think that's the biggest part because I think a lot of folks think this is a real goal versus maybe mostly aspirational. So um so but we should check in on that down the road. Um, next question has to do with the middle- inome down payment assistance program. Um, $10 million of voter approved money continues to go unused. So, I'm wondering how how do you

[179:02] envision us restructuring this program or thinking about this new so we can sort of meet that intended goal that the voters had? Keeping in mind this was a massively important thing that we tried to accomplish and I think that there's still some success to be found. But what's the goal to to repurpose this and find a way to really get this going so we can support those middle-income uh families and those seeking middle- inome housing? >> Yeah. So, um our proposal is to focus more on the H2O program. So, the program that's been successful that a lot of people have been using and the benefit of that one is that it's evergreen. So, it's a revolving loan fund. So, it's as people pay off their loans, we have more money to loan to new other people. I think the challenge is that um we're not getting permanent affordability. We're helping someone for the first rung of ownership potentially. Um but I think the the pilot was really focused on how do we get more deed restricted. >> Um so the $10 million you know we have

[180:02] not drawn on that credit um and because we wanted to test it basically we wanted to see is this program that people would be interested in. So, we were going to borrow money from the H2O program to if someone took us up on this offer. So, it'll be August of this year. It'll be three years since we started offering the the pilot. Um, and if you compare it side by side, uh, pretty much every every applicant has chosen the H2O route. So, I would say we don't see a perfect path forward to um utilizing that $10 million because it's still debt that we would incur um and would have to pay back. So, that that's part of the challenge. And then I would the last thing I I would add is just through the Bloomberg work that was super helpful for us to think about how do you um what is innovation? And one of the things they sort of instilled upon us was if you um want if you want to sort of cultivate this culture of innovation,

[181:02] you have to be willing to fail. You have to go out there and um otherwise no one on city staff is going to be willing to try something new. So part of it is being willing to let it go. >> I appreciate that that and that that's what experiments are for. Uh coming from that science background, failure is the best actual pathway to innovation. Um, so, so I appreciate that. So, I guess maybe it's a question for city attorney. We have this voter approval to use $10 million of debt and so do we let it idle? Do we ask the voters to repurpose it for something that might work? Maybe to repurpose to H2O, maybe to something else. So, I don't know what the answer is, but I'm just sort of curious what what you guys think is the best way to do otherwise it sort of just it's hanging out there as a unfulfilled promise to the voters and I just think we owe it to them to either say, "Hey, we got a new plan for this money or or something." And I'm just sort of curious if that could be something that that staff helps us cultivate. >> Appreciate. I think we'll continue to look at it. Absolutely. And if you have ideas, please let us know. >> Appreciate how you should then, Ryan.

[182:00] >> Thank you. Um, so I I appreciate my colleagues questions around the cash in loo. Um, I've always had concerns around that and to just have it validated that the math it doesn't math at all um is very concerning. So, I don't know what the process is for or next steps for that, but it seems to me anything that has 1 plus 1 equaling five needs to be revisited. Um, as far as the I was curious what happened in 2014. So, in the graph that started at 2000 and it had a lot of it had um a larger percentage of home ownership and then it just went down drastically. I mean it it it was very drastic. So I was just curious if there was a specific incident or I know a lot of these programs are identified years in advance before. So I was just kind of curious if there was anything in particular that caused that. >> Yes. That um so when we started the

[183:00] program in 2000 uh a lot of the development in the city was ownership. Um, and you know, I can recall a memo to city council where um, you know, city council was concerned that we weren't producing enough rentals for people to live in. There was too much ownership. So, the market traditionally has swung back and forth, but the big what you're seeing in that graph is actually the 2008 um, housing crisis. >> So, it took a little while. >> Okay. >> But that's really when the market shifted significantly. So, pretty much everything built now. um just the economics are behind rental as opposed to ownership. >> And then thank you that was very helpful. I had a feeling I was like something happened. Um and then lastly is just the federal role. And I'm still always curious especially in the last year um as we're looking at those programs you mentioned and I know that weaving of different um funding sources and revenue is absolutely critical for this type of work. Just curious what percentage or you know do we have a

[184:00] better sense of the impacts of the different programs that would have traditionally funded some of these components that no longer exist or in flux. I'm just kind of curious what that federal impact is looking like right now. >> Absolutely. So the federal p or share has gotten smaller over the past decade or more. Um but actually I would say that uh with the re recent appropriations by Congress that um all of our federal funding specifically for housing have either stayed level or increased. So housing has been extremely fortunate in that regards. Also the low-inccome housing tax credit program was expanded probably more than ever in its history in 2025 as well. So you know h housing is sort of a bipartisan issue and it's definitely become a national issue. Uh, so I would say compared to most other federal programs, we're doing quite well. >> Um, and then lastly on um the just utilities, I'm kind of curious now that

[185:02] you know water and energy costs are going up if that's impacting any of your home ownership or rental programs. uh in this in the survey we did last year um focus did did uh their overall housing costs have gone up but not in comparison like disproportionate to their income going up. So for the folks in our affordable home ownership program it doesn't seem at least in the survey the respondents that um participated doesn't seem to be um disproportionately impacting them. I don't know if there's other Yeah. >> definition question. So, can one be middle income and still be in affordable something if they are making more? I mean, because it's based on how much your income is spent on housing, but you can still be middle. I'm just I'm noticing some interplay in the in the terminology that's been making it very

[186:00] difficult to assess the data that's provided. So, I'll just say for the the home ownership program, you income qualify once. Um so you you're not continuously income qualifying, but I don't know if you want to speak to the rental >> um interplay. >> Sorry, >> I'm not sure that is that the question or is it more >> can you be both middle income and in affordable house? I mean you can have both designations is possible. the home ownership program um you know really isn't intended to serve the lower incomes. So we're talking about typically most pro most folks in the ownership program are earning 60% of area income all the way up to 120%. Um in our program our latest program if you're lucky enough to get into a single family home the pricing can go up to 150%. So that we try to provide as large of a range as possible. Um, but what we

[187:00] just need to be careful of is, you know, we're not competing with the market for specific uh pricing for those homes. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I was out of the room for part of this, but I was watching from the screen in the other room and I was about 12 inches away from the screen because it really was an outstanding presentation. And um, some things I liked about it. I loved the the the overall primer. You made this issue really easy to understand. The data graphics were really wonderful. The way that you talked about innovation towards the end um and then you dealt with history at the beginning and you went back and discussed um indigenous peoples and some of the reckoning that we are starting to do now more of and some of which council member Adams has um advocated for and I just wanted to recognize that this is great and a nice template maybe for the city manager's office to think think about for other um what good looks like for other departments. So, thanks for that. I think I have three questions. First one is um I on the on the housing ownership

[188:04] um side of things and when we think about permanently affordable um uh assistance at the 60% to 100% kind of like the middleish um area. Can you just summarize what what are we thinking now in terms of our kind of key opportunities to to provide assistance at real scale um or what's needed if if if we don't have that kind of thinking yet? >> So, yeah, that's our biggest challenge, right? Ownership. So, there aren't the same federal supports like you get for low-inccome rentals. Um so what are so Bouldermont it's a great example of how we're trying to um insert ourselves in the market where the market isn't delivering what we want what we need. So it bolder we invested significant funds

[189:01] to build this factory and to increase the production of habitat who are actually in the audience with us. Um so 25 to 30 units a year. Um so that's one big strategy. Uh the next one has to do with uh our scatter site acquisition. So we've acquired 20 homes in the past uh three years. We hope to scale that up and do it regionally as Holly mentioned. So hopefully we'll do another 30 or 40 in the next two years. Uh and then annexations is sort of our other big tool, right? So we can require a higher level of community benefit for annexations and typically that's ownership. Um and we require de deed restricted permanently affordable ownership. So those are the basically the three big tools um but it's al always limited by resources of course and all those programs are very staff intensive as well. What what about the um idea of using publicly owned land? Um I mean it's not specific to area 3, but

[190:00] it could include area 3 using using the the land value that um the city could, you know, in principle be providing at no cost. Like what what how does that fit in as an opportunity to to provide that permanent affordability? >> Um it's a fantastic opportunity for land that housing and human services owns. So you housing and human services, we specifically own 30 acres in the planning reserve. Um so basically low nocost land for future development. Uh something that is you know land that is owned by the city by another department or another purpose. So facilities or open space you know typically that's purchased with specific monies. Um and if we were to repurpose that for housing typically we would have to pay market value for that land. So no real advantage there from my perspective. Um it'd be just like buying it on the market.

[191:00] >> Just to clarify, is it is there an easy way for you know somebody to look at a land use map and understand which departments I guess are have jurisdiction over the various parcels? >> Um I'm not aware not from a land use map but we do have an inventory tracking kind of which is which department is the manager of various parcels in the city. Okay, I'll >> Yeah, go ahead. >> And I'll just add, you know, so land banking is one of our strategies of, you know, purchasing land and the planning reserve. Our housing authority does it quite often that, you know, 30 Pearl was an example of of land banking. Um, Alpine Balsam was an example of land banking for future affordable. Um, Boulder Housing Partners also purchased a property in uh Gun Barrel. So, I mean, it's an example. Um but yeah, in terms of existing city own land, as Chris said, great. It's all owned by different people. >> Thank you. That does raise some new questions, but I'll move on because we we need to keep going. Um what about the

[192:00] um to what extent can you when you look at current permanently affordable housing of all types that we have we have stock of? I is there a way that you can look at it and get a sense of the the the costs of the I guess the whole the whole property and and what's embedded into that the what costs are embedded into that from the development um aspects including like infrastructure um or other aspects that might give us clues as we go forward to making decisions about making sure we're we're we're embedding you know the the lowest cost type of um development that we can like like can you look into to it and do some taxonomy or characterization like that. >> Yeah. >> To understand your question, you're wanting us to look forward at a future development and what those components of development would be.

[193:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. And a hypothetical would be like if if we say, well, the infrastructure is going to cost, you know, um $5 million, but somebody would say, well, but the developer is going to be bear that. But I I would assume that that some of that gets embedded into the housing costs. So, if you if you would agree with that assumption, then what I'm getting at is like are there are there costs that get embedded into our permanently affordable housing that perhaps upstream we could be thinking about? >> Yeah. So the the uh the last study that we had for the inclusionary housing update which was three years ago um that study looked at different development types within the city and so we were able to see what the cost of construction was for different um housing types. Um that would be the last study where we we would be able to pull out that type of information. But as far as a strategy, um the the planning reserve or other

[194:02] parsers where we can um add value through the entitlement process. Um you know, that's something where we can keep the the at least the land costs lower. Um so for example at 30 pearl we bought the pollarded motor site and um we paid market rate for it. Um however once it was entitled um the value of that property went up. we were able to sell some of that land off for market development and that that uh increase in value was able to help us offset the cost of the affordable housing that was built on that same site. So, one of the the things that we've been thinking about in in our department is is is um how do we how do we cut some of that? And so we're we're looking at sort of being developers ourselves. Um we're

[195:02] we're kind of doing that with Boulder Mod. We're doing that with Ponderosa. We're in the process of purchasing a site in in East Boulder where we would, you know, sort of be the developer as well. And so cutting out some of those areas to create those efficiencies. So, um I think those are that's an approach that that um I think most cities, you know, aren't really looking at. >> Thanks. Okay, last question. um to have we has the team noodled all on um like the so-called Vienna model which I suppose you could call social housing or I think the basic idea is this the city uh you know the government owns the land and then we have renters and you sort of you know we own the land of perpetuity and Fred Rental feel free to critique if I didn't get that exactly right but I'm I'm just wondering have you looked at this kind of space at all and what if any opportunity is there for us >> I was just going to say we noodle on

[196:00] that idea a lot. Um I think what I what one thing I'll say is maybe not specifically to the Vienna model, but we are continuously looking at other models and trying to figure out if we can kind of gleam uh lessons, take different models um recognizing that we're a smaller city compared to like a Vienna and don't have like the same historical context. But I think we I mean I certainly noodle on those ideas. I'm sure you >> Yeah, I I think there's actually a lot of similarities between what we're doing and Vienna model. Um if you So Boulder Housing Partners is a separate entity from us. Um but it's a quas governmental agency. Um they own they are our biggest landlord in the city of Boulder um besides CU. And so I um the the only real difference in looking at the Vienna model in my view between what we're doing is that we have um certain rules. Some of them come

[197:01] through um uh the IRS rules under the tax credits or our home roll fund uh home roll uh uh requirements. Um when people reach a certain income level, they eventually need to move out. If they're making, you know, 20% of the AMI and they've got a 40% AMI unit. They eventually have to move out when their lease comes up next. Um, with the Vienna model, that's their apartment for life. Um, so those that's really the the main difference I think between our two models, but I think we have a significant stake in the ownership of affordable housing in our city. >> Thank you and thanks for allowing me all that time. >> Very good. I got Nicole and Tara. >> Thank you. I'm just going to echo the thanks for this presentation. Um it is so nice to see all of this information in one place. So I really appreciate all that you've done to to get here. Um

[198:00] so this this question kind of uh combines some of the interests that I always hear um from many people around single family um middle inome home ownership opportunities with our rapidly aging population. um our aging population um has really limited access to accessible options like singlef flooror homes and assisted living uh opportunities in our city. I think this is why the last I heard Frasier Meadows had a wait list of over 800 people, which is so many. Um, we usually talk about building new housing for younger families as being the solution to get more families to move here. And I'm wondering if an additional solution could be expanding the number of accessible or supportive housing options um so that people could downsize when typical single family features no longer um fit their needs like stairs or large yards or things like that. um over many many decades we've created a situation where many homeowners are just stuck in their homes and don't

[199:00] really have options to leave. So just wondering about um if there are opportunities for programs that create attractive options for people to downsize uh and if that's something that might then help expand the single family housing options uh using our existing stock of single family homes which seems like it's going to be a lot cheaper than building new ones. So during our the the Bloomberg work, we actually uh this was one of the ideas that we prototyped was like how to kind of create that conversation or encourage that that kind of like downsizing moving. Um it wasn't a very popular idea amongst the people that we tested it with were primarily with uh we we uh tested it like the the older adult centers at East and West. it wasn't a very popular idea and one thing that we are um t took from that we said okay maybe not the best way to think about this this problem right now if if it's really a problem um and we've pivoted to

[200:03] looking at the concept of home sharing like establishing a home sharing um like a regional home sharing pro again we're like just testing it out uh to figure out how to make to help folks who want to stay in their home, help them stay in their home through home through different types of home sharing model. I don't know if that's satisfactory because it it during that process it was just not a popular idea. >> But can I just add um so but the concept of universal design I think that's where society is moving towards and and we try to articulate that in the comprehensive plan as well. So a diversity of housing types and price points is a very important concept. um it it's a little bit more challenging to implement that. So, Boulder Housing Partners, I think, does a pretty good job making sure that they have as many units that are accessible as possible. Their challenge is that when that unit

[201:00] becomes available, there isn't always someone readily available to move into them or who would need that. So, they end up retrofitting um sort of in between uh renters. So yeah, it's a challenging thing, but I agree it's something that as a society we should be moving towards. >> Thank you. Um and then my my other question um was just given that the middle income home ownership um really represents a relatively small share of the projected need and and what we have um are our existing tools like down payment assistance uh sufficient to meet that need in the coming years? So especially if we could um you know think about opportunities to expand some of the existing programs basically do we need a lot more given that that need is a relatively small chunk of of what we're looking for. Um, I think with like the menu of options that we're doing, Boulder Mod, the AC, the scattered site acquisition,

[202:00] down payment assistance program, I mean, we're kind of approaching it in a really wide variety of ways that, you know, with enough resources, with enough um, focus could be sufficient. I don't know >> if I could tie that to a a question that council member Benjamin asked earlier as well. Um he was uh he was asking about the the goal um and the go the the regional goal was was 12%. We brought that to city council. All the municipalities in Boulder County approved the 12% goal. Um this council uh or councils in this room have often been more aspirational. Um and so I think that's partly worth the 15% and that was like to push us um to to work towards that. Um since that conversation occurred, we have and since the conversation occurred three years ago

[203:01] with inclusionary housing where the middle income conversation was the main conversation, we've shifted a higher percentage of our of our um local dollars towards homeownership. Um with still maintaining um a good output of the the lower income rental. So we're we're we're probably spending it, you know, two to three times more on these programs around home ownership than we were, you know, four or five years ago. So, we're trying to sort of create that balance and and towards the 15% goal, the um the pipeline of projects that we have right now, um I think we're going to I'm pretty pretty sure that we're going to hit the 12% goal by by 2035. Um uh I think it I think uh you're correct that the 15% is going to be very

[204:00] difficult. Um but I think more importantly having that mix of housing types and not just focusing on one area is sort of a strategy that we've been working on since hearing from various councils about the various needs. >> Okay, great. Um, let's see if we can move pretty briskly through the remaining questions. I've got um Terara's got one, Rob's got one, I've got a quick one, and then we'll come back to Mark for a double. >> I actually have two quick ones. Two quick ones, but other people had more. I'm just pointing that out. Okay. Anyway, um, first question, and I might have been not paying attention. Full disclosure, I was exhausted from the boards and commission. All right. So, how demandwise? Do we have a lot of demand for the um I can't my brain is not working anymore. Do we have a how is our demand for um people buying homes versus renting them

[205:00] in the affordable housing world? Do we have a higher demand and how is our supply compared to our demand? >> I would say in both instances um demand exceeds supply. So, we have more people that actually want to buy in the affordable housing program that we have affordable housing for. And that's why we're all excited about Boulder Mod. And so now you're trying to make more uh options for buying. That's what you just said, right? That's great. Thank you. because I was worried that um because you don't make as much you know the um percentage of the home increasing in value is so much lower in affordable housing that it would have turned people to off people off and they would have rather have moved to like Thornon or something. So you're not finding that?

[206:03] That's great. Good. Oh, that was fast enough. Okay, great. Next one. Um, this has nothing to do with the subject, but it's probably for Kurt. It does in a little bit of ways. So, you know, we combine vouchers with people that are renting in affordable housing. And some of the vouchers are for people that have mental illness or drug addictions, etc. And so, we combine that. and I'm with working families, single moms with kids that are trying to just have a good day, you know, have a good life. So, my question is is some of the people who are calling me are saying that single moms and their kids are actually leaving our affordable housing, particularly maybe the private ones. And I'm wondering if you have any um data. Yes,

[207:00] I'm asking for data. That's right. I don't usually, but I'm asking for data if you have that or you think it's just hearsay. >> Um I I don't think we have any data on that, but as you know, part of our homeless strategy that we started in 2017 was to start um integrating um unhoused individuals into every affordable housing rental development. Um and we've done that. Um you're correct that that sometimes comes with challenges. Um what we have seen is the majority of those unhoused the vast majority of those unhoused individuals are successful in that transition. Um it only takes one individual however to create a lot of challenges within a development and typically we coordinate around that with with PD code compliance

[208:00] and with uh clinical family health and and all roads really trying to bring the services they need for them to be successful. But the the the last thing I'll just mention that's been a challenge um when our state law uh made it more difficult for evictions. We're we're seeing two impacts to that. One is a lot a lot of our private and um affordable housing developers are not wanting to accept individuals who have a high risk because it's so difficult to evict them. And then we end up with that one individual that's challenging, takes four months, you know, to go through an eviction process and it has an impact on on the neighbors. Um, uh, it's something that we've worked very hard on and I think in many properties we're improving. Um, but that will continue be continually be a

[209:01] challenge for us. So the person that just set fire to their apartment slash other apartments um is an example. Do you think she this person I don't know if it was he or she got enough services because I've been hearing for four or five years. Let's do it. Don't worry people are going to get services. But are they getting services? Do you think that they're getting enough services? I'm not being a lawyer or anything. I'm not a lawyer. >> Yeah. Well, I'm not going to speak about an individual case. Um, but what we do know is that we we will have a shortfall in 2017 in the resources needed for services. We have state funding that's that's uh ending in this year. Um, we have ARPA fund that's ending in this year. Some of which is is providing that supportive services. That is a a key

[210:00] concern that we have going into this next year. >> Well, I get we don't have any other options, but if we have less services and we keep putting these individuals in, obviously Bluebird is the best option for us, which we also don't have, but it's really not a great situation for a lot of people, women, women with kids. Yes. >> And if I could, >> I realize it's hard. >> If I could just tie that to uh council members Adam's question about government funding as well. Um we're also seeing a reduction in um the number of vouchers we have. We will have we will have less vouchers available um in in the coming couple years. >> Thanks for that info, Kurt. Uh Rob, >> thanks. I'll try to consolidate this question. It's about the uh scattered site acquisitions. How do you find them? Are there any incentives for homeowners to sell them to you? Once you have them, if zoning

[211:02] permits, do you ever duplex or triplex them? And are they um is it an option to bring in mod the mod uh homes to place on there for energy efficiency and just building efficiency in general? A lot of questions. Sorry. >> Yeah. Um I'll try to keep track. So, uh we have a staff member that finds them. uh identifies the homes on the market to potentially purchase using a variety of different um qualifiers. Uh second question was >> is there any incentive for >> there are no incentives? No, it's just buying them purchasing them on the open a a unit on the open market like any other um buyer. So I think the incentive for the buyer is that they're getting a market they're selling their market their unit at a market rate. Um, so no, there's no incentive. >> Can I just add a little bit? So there is a slight incentive. We're able to pay

[212:00] cash, >> which is a pretty big incentive. Okay. >> The other is they know it's going into the affordable housing program. So we've been able to negotiate slightly lower prices because they know it's going going to a future family. So, >> and then I I'll say that we typically look for units that don't need extensive uh rehab work to help get them into our program quicker. And so I don't think we've really explored the idea of duplexing because that's like a a major project that uh probably um quite intensive resource needs for that. And then for the the mod using the mod these are just existing existing units. So this wouldn't the mod the using modular units wouldn't um be a useful tool for this specific >> Gotcha. I just didn't know if you got something in really rough shape that was going to be a tear down >> like tear down. No, I don't. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. I got a quick one that'll go back to Mark. Um, which is we had a couple questions related to cash and Lou

[213:00] before and just wanted to to drill into the benefit that can be provided by that because our inclusionary housing requirements are 25% but we're getting 37% affordable housing produced. Is it fair to say that we get more affordable housing because people pay cash in Lou than if they didn't? >> Absolutely. Yes. So I would say that um our preference is that developers pay cash because we can produce more units using that cash than if they were to produce those units on site even. >> So people paying cash in L is what enables us to get to that very high level 37% that we would not be able to get to otherwise. >> And it helps support our ownership purchases as well as serving people well below 60% of AMI. >> Great. Thanks for clarifying. Oh, I didn't mean to start a whole line of inquiry, but Matt and then Tisha, >> can I can I ask perhaps the inverse of that question? >> I totally understand how that 37 units gets us good bang for the buck for the

[214:00] affordable housing, but is it also fair to say that what that creates is a cost structure that then also generates a lot of the housing we don't want in our community in terms of high-end luxury apartments and town homes. Uh, I'm not sure I would agree with that. Um, I I I think the prices are still going to be high. I think Boulder has a history of exclusivity that Ollie mentioned. So, I think people are going to pay what what the market is demanding. >> Okay. And Tai, you also had a follow-up question. >> Well, it was Yeah. Um, just a comment around multiple metrics of success, right? And so although I appreciate the metric of that 30 whatever percent the lived experience the reality is it's not enough. And um unfortunately it also creates um monocchronic soioeconomic neighborhoods which evidence is very strong that it's the

[215:01] learning outcomes the health outcomes all of these things actually are negative when you have monochronic communities. And so, um, I just would love us to, I'm thinking of when we had that community conversation or something downstairs with the businesses and, um, Adriana was there from Luna Cultural and she was talking, you remember, and she was talking about although we appreciate these, you know, mon, you know, financial driven metrics of success, it would be wonderful there if there was also kind of quality of life assessments. And I would also argue there is less um not only soioeconomic diversity but there's also intergenerational uh less uh diversity when we have market rate versus when we have mixed income. So I just again as we're thinking about housing I I encourage us to also include other metrics of success like quality of life to ensure that we're not isolating and celebrating ourselves on a metric that

[216:00] unfortunately can give negative consequences. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. All right, Mark. Thanks for your patience as we worked through other people's questions. We'll come back to you and you can have the final question. >> Very good. These will be quick. Um, the 2014 survey was 12 years ago. Uh, any possibility of updating it? People's preferences for housing change over time. Any thought given to that? >> No, it just takes resources and time. >> But I'm sorry. >> That's definitely it just takes resources and time. >> Okay. Um so it's a question of go ahead Kurt. >> So Mark the other survey that we do every five years is the consolidated plan. Um which is a federal requirement and that has a survey in it. It's we do the um our team does the consolidated plan for Boulder and Broomfield County. Um and so we also have data that comes out of that but it's more at the uh the regional level. >> Okay. Asked and answered. Uh I I note

[217:02] that we produce uh mobile home units at about a third the rate of their production nationally. Any possibilities for ultimately developing a municipally owned a new municipally owned um mobile home community, manufactured home community? Any thought to given to that? >> I mean, you need land, >> something that's a little bit scarce in Boulder. Um, but the planning reserves always a potential. >> Okay. Well, that leads to my last question, >> Chris. >> One one last question. Can we get a copy of the inventory of city-owned land that we referred to earlier? >> I will find out if that is in a clean compiled way that is readable or not and I will get back to you. >> Thank you. And that's it. >> All right. So, that's that's it for all the questions. All right, quiet

[218:00] everybody. We're we're finishing up here. Um, so thanks so much. Thanks for the presentations. Thanks for answering all the questions and thanks for the incredible work that you all are doing for the city and our residents every single day. All right. And with that, that brings us to the end of our agenda. So, I will >> Oh, you have a you want to you can you have something you want to bring up, TA? >> Yes. It's not something I want to bring up. I wanted to just acknowledge the Ramadan declaration and also there was an invitation by our um our uh IBC the um I'm sorry I'm it's 00 but there was an invitation to go to the mosque for community for non-Muslims and Muslims on Saturday. So if there are council members or staff and leadership that would be interested in joining, it would be a really wonderful way to uh have cultural exchange and to meet um I believe the

[219:01] mosque has 50 different ethnicities um represented there and the food is always wonderful and the families are lovely. So if you can make it, it would be wonderful. Thank you. >> Thank you. And with that, I'm going to 05 p.m. Half an hour early. Thanks everybody for