March 12, 2026 — City Council Study Session

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] reinvestment strategy closely connected to the people that live, work, and invest there. And because the model is intended to be communitydriven, we've approached the exploration process in a similar way. Um, which will lead me to the next slide outlining the planning and leadership process. Um, so over the past several months, this work has been guided by a planning group made up of community members, business leaders, and partner organizations. I would like to call out that several planning group members are joining us online tonight and are available for questions. Molly Winter is here who has decades of experience with downtown management and formerly led what was the community vitality department overseeing kid and eug funds. She's also a representative on the Boulder connectors group which focuses on strengthening the connection between downtown and the hill. We also have Dakota Syer on the call, owner of Cafe AON on the Hill and chair of the

[1:01] Hill Boulder Merchants Association, and Terry Takata Smith, vice president of marketing and communications at the downtown Boulder Partnership. All members have been really instrumental in guiding this process. But back to the role of the planning group, they meet monthly. They help shape the concepts that we're evaluating. The group also serves as a bridge between city staff and the broader community. If this effort were to move forward to the ballot, the planning group is also anticipated to play a leadership role in outreach and community engagement. And in parallel, we do have a technical working group of city staff um helping ensure that that work aligns with city priorities and existing efforts. Next slide. This slide shows the members of both the planning group and the um departments in the technical working group. The list of planning group members was also included in your memo packet. I won't read

[2:00] through these names, but again it includes representatives from business organizations, property owners, community groups, our commissions, um and several city departments on that technical working group. Next slide. Several key themes have consistently come up in planning group discussions. First, that a DDA should reflect community priorities and fiscal realities. They emphasized building on the city's past decade of planning and engagement to inform priorities for this effort rather than launching a new planning process. Secondly, and importantly, this is really a pivotal moment for Boulder's central business area, especially with the opportunity to better connect and align the Hill and downtown. We've seen a lot of change on the hill in the past several years, and there's broad community interest in aligning it more seamlessly into our downtown core. The decisions made now could really shape the area's trajectory for the next several decades in its role

[3:01] as an economic engine. There's also been emphasis on continued refinement of the DDA study area and conducting outreach to those who could be impacted. Another theme is that there is limited appetite for an additional mill levy, particularly in cages uh where property owners are already paying additional property taxes. And then finally, there's a preference for a simple governance structure that avoids unnecessary complexity. Again, these are highlevel themes that have surfaced in our planning group discussions. As I said, the members are on tonight and can speak to these more if council members have questions. Next slide. So, if Boulder were to create a DDA, what could it actually do? Uh, the next slide goes into the plan of development. The plan of development functions as the implementation roadmap for the district. It outlines district priorities, eligible projects, funding tools,

[4:01] governance structure, operational guard guard rails. A DDA operates over a long time frame, an initial term of 30 years, and can be extended in 20-year increments. So, the plan of development establishes both long-term direction and near-term priorities. It can also be amended throughout the term of the DDA. It matters because it guides how the funding can be studies. We held some info sessions to gather some additional community input in late January. Um, and as we move forward, it will be refined with council guidance and it's not final until the DDA board once seated approves it. Next slide. These themes reflect the types of investments a DDA could support. They

[5:01] are intentionally very broad at this point in the process. Again, pulled from past plans and studies and reviewed by the planning group. We still have a lot of engagement and analysis to conduct before refining and specifying what these themes ultimately translate to. Um, but in many ways, I just want to highlight here that these themes represent the full range of activities a DDA could potentially support. Um, I won't read through them, but happy to answer questions about the themes or the process. Again, um, these are guiding themes and they will continue to be refined over the coming months. Um, and we plan to return to council in June with a draft, more detailed plan of development. Next slide. Looking at examples from other Colorado communities really helps illustrate the scale of projects a DDA can support. In Denver, their DDA has supported major public space improvements in the civic

[6:00] center, redevelopment projects, and public private partnerships. in Fort Collins. Their DDA helped transform underutilized alleys into activated pedestrian corridors. They've made significant upgrades to their o old town square. Um, and they've supported redevelopment of stalled properties into mixeduse vibrant projects. So, these are just examples of how DDAS can really support largecale transformational projects. Next slide. This brings us to the funding question. So to deliver the types of investments that I've discussed, a DDA needs a financial structure that can support that long-term reinvestment. Let's go to the next slide. And before diving into the financial modeling, I think it's really helpful here to first outline the key policy choices that shape how a DDA would work. The reason for that is because the financial model depends on some of these

[7:01] policy decisions. There are really three ma main areas that we're looking at. First is the overall funding strategy. Second is how our GIDs and existing district assets including parking might be structured. And third is governance and oversight. So the next several slides I'll walk through the financial modeling under a few possible approaches. Then we'll come back to these policy questions and the initial directions that staff is recommending. Um, so this is to really just kind of set the stage before we get into the numbers. Next slide. Understanding the funding model. This is an important slide. DDAS typically rely on three main revenue sources. First is TIFF which captures growth in property and sales taxes generated within the district. It in it can include all dedicated sales and property tax funds. Second is a voter approved mill levy

[8:00] which really provides that stable annual funding. It can also support early DDA operations since tiff takes time to build. We know from planning group discussions there's limited appetite for additional mill levies particularly in areas already paying higher property taxes such as kid. So one idea we're exploring is whether the existing cages mill levy could potentially be replaced by a da wide mill levy at the current kagid rate rather than lay layering something new on top. That said, we still have additional outreach to do, especially with property owners outside of CGI to understand whether there's broader community appetite for that approach. And then the third potential revenue source is other revenues, which could include the parking assets that are currently owned and operated by the GADs. Downtown in particular has several valuable parking assets. So, one of the

[9:00] questions we're evaluating is what it might look like if those assets were ultimately owned and operated by a DDA. So, I'll talk about that more in a moment, but the key point that I really want to nail down here is that the scale of investment that a DDA can support is directly tied to the structure of its revenue. If pieces of that structure are removed, the district's ability to borrow and invest becomes more limited. It's also important to note that property tax tiff affects more than just the city. It also affects overlapping taxing entities including Boulder County and Boulder Valley School District, which is why intergovernmental coordination will be an important part of the work ahead for sales tax tiff. There could be implications for the city's general fund. If council supports continued refinement of the direction that we'll be sharing this evening, staff would come back with a proposed framework that includes safeguards and potential revenue sharing parameters

[10:00] designed to protect the city and provide greater certainty for affected taxing entities. Next slide. This graph illustrates how TIFF works. So the DDA sets a base year. Hypothetically, if this moves forward and passes by qualified electors, that base year could be 2026 six. And any growth from new investment beyond that base is captured and reinvested back into the district. It's important to note that with the base, the base property tax revenue continues to grow from natural appreciation and continues to go to the taxing entities. Only growth from new investment goes to the DDA. The base sales tax continues to go to the city but does not appreciate. And so that's represented in that in the dark blue poly polygon on the graph. um

[11:02] the base that continues to go to the taxing entities. But the overall idea is that those reinvestments from the increment then help drive additional economic activity and tax revenue over time, creating a thriving downtown area. So for the next few slides, I'm going to walk through several financial scenarios to illustrate how this could perform in Boulder. These are not final forecasts. their initial projections to help us understand how the funding structure could work over time. Next slide. And I just want to start with a few um key assumptions here. So the base year is 2026 and the model includes both property tax and sales tax increment including dedicated taxes. The primary scenario shown assumes 1% annual growth, which we consider a conservative but realistic

[12:00] assumption for Boulder. We've also included a mill levy scenario here using the current caged rate applied across the entire DDA study area. Next slide. So this slide shows the baseline revenue projections under that 1% growth scenario which includes the mill levy consideration and property and sales tax tiff. At the 1% growth level revenue starts modestly and grows steadily as the district develops over time. Um, and just for more specific context, so year one shows roughly $300,000 in TIFF revenue. That's property and sales annual tax revenues combined. But with that mill levy, the total would be about 2.1 million in year 1. By year 10, the model shows roughly 3 million annually

[13:01] in tiff or about 5 million with that added mill levy. And then the cumulative totals for the full 30-year period are shown on the right side of the slide. And to clarify, all columns represent annual revenue except for that last column on the right which shows the cumulative total. Next slide. This chart shows the average annual revenue under that 1% growth scenario with TIFF in a mill levy, not with parking assets. Um, broken into three 10-year periods. So, under this scenario, the district would generate roughly 3.6 million average annually in the early years, growing to around 10 million annually by years 21 through 30. So, even though this scenario shows pretty meaningful long-term revenue, it

[14:01] also illustrates why structure matters. And if the goal is to support larger, more catalytic projects, um, with this level of growth, the district's ability to support truly transformational investments could still be be somewhat limited. So, for example, projects like supporting major civic area reinvest redevelopment of the 14th street law on the hill or significantly improving the connections between downtown and the hill may not be as feasible under this revenue scenario. The next slide looks at what happens when parking revenue is included in that model. So, we can go to the next slide. So again, this slide illustrates what happens if parking revenue is part of this broader district funding strategy. Importantly, I want to state upfront that under any scenario, parking revenues would continue to support

[15:01] parking operations, maintenance, and capital needs first. Um, parking should continue to function as an independent system. However, the presence of that revenue stream can significantly strengthen the district's borrowing capacity because it provides that stable source of funding. So, in other words, parking revenue could allow the DDA to finance larger investments earlier while still ensuring that the parking revenues fund parking operations and maintenance and long-term capital improvements of the parking structures. Um, as you can see on the chart, the average totals nearly double compared to the previous slide. Next slide. Okay, now we're going to return to the policy considerations that I shared earlier and we can go right into the next slide. So, one of the key policy questions for

[16:02] council is this overall funding strategy. Staff's initial direction is to explore a coordinated model that combines that mill levy to provide stable annual funding property tax increment which would capture long-term growth in property values tied to redevelopment and investment in the district sales tax increment which captures growth in economic activity generated by a stronger central business area and then the inclusion of the parking assets. Together, these tools create both stable annual funding and long-term capital capacity. And to be clear, staff's recommendation is to continue refining this approach with really clear fiscal safeguards and revenue sharing coordination built in. So that includes protecting the city's general fund, providing greater certainty for overlapping taxing entities, and establishing clear parameters through

[17:00] the plan of development and any intergovernmental agreements if a DDA were ultimately approved. So the question for council this evening is really whether this is the right funding direction to continue refining with those safeguards in place. Next slide. This leads to the next policy consideration which is how a DDA would interact with existing district assets particularly the parking structures. The primary model that we're evaluating would place those assets under the DDA structure over time in which the GIDs KID and UGID would dissolve. The benefit of this approach is that it would provide clearer accountability, stronger borrowing capacity, and better alignment between asset management and broader economic development strategy. We're also continuing to evaluate alternatives, including models where the GIDs dissolve, but the city retains

[18:00] ownership and the DDA operates structures through an intergovernmental agreement or where the GIS remain in place with it maybe a narrower scope and the DDA focuses on broader reinvestment. So to summarize, what we're really asking tonight is whether council supports continued refinement of this model as the leading direction while that additional legal, financial, and operational analysis continues as well as what a structured and seamless transition would look like. Next slide. This slide outlines the governance structure established under Colorado statute as well as council's role. A DDA board must include 5 to11 members of district stakeholders along with a city council representative. Members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by council. And regardless of the governance model, council really still retains significant oversight, including

[19:00] appointing the board, approving the annual budget and operating plan, and authorizing any borrowing or ballot measures, including a mill levy. So, while a DDA can provide more focused district capacity, it would still remain connected to city oversight and accountability. Next slide. DDAS can operate under two models. one being more tied to the municipality with city staff overseeing financials, administration, and operations. The alternative is an independent standalone entity with its own staff managing those components. Staff's initial direction is to explore a standalone DDA model with a transition period built in. This approach would ultimately provide dedicated capacity and strong community leadership while still maintaining city oversight. And if a DDA were formed, we would anticipate a roughly a one to twoyear transition period during which city staff would provide administrative

[20:02] and financial support. That phased transition would allow the city likely with consultant support who has experience in the administration of DDAS to help us get set up for success and ensure the DDA is set up to function as a stable and accountable entity over the long term. Next slide. we can go right into the next. So, in terms of next steps and depending on council direction tonight, we'll continue refining the plan of development through the spring as well as financial modeling, including fiscal guard rails, legal analysis, community engagement, and boundary refinement. The goal would be to return to council in June of this year to determine whether to refer formation and funding measures to the ballot. And if referred, the election would occur um in November of this year among qualified electors within the district. Next slide.

[21:04] So outlined here are the questions um for council that are also included in your memo. I know that was a lot of information, but in summary, the goal of tonight's discussion is really to make sure that we're heading in the right direction before we continue drafting the plan of development and refining the financial structure over the coming months. So, with that, I'm happy to hand it back to Council Member Winer and open it up for questions. >> Thank you so much, Regan. That was an excellent presentation. You made DDA's almost easy, but not quite. Okay, let's start with clarifying questions and I bet there are plenty. Let Okay, Tina. >> Okay, thank you. Um, so I have a couple uh starting questions and the first I have is in the civic area there has been

[22:02] some talk about a farmers market and it appears that that area is also in the proposed new DDA but I'm not sure. My question is who would invest to make that farmers market idea happen? And then would the increment go to the person who invested or just the DDA regardless of whether it's the city or private entity or the DDA itself? >> That's a great question. Thank you. I may pass that one to Mark if that's okay. >> Yeah, happy to take that question. Um it it is currently within the study area for the boundaries of the DDA. Um we have issued a request for interest for that entire uh block, what we call the east book end. Um as a part of that uh request for interest or RFI, um we did include a vision of um a a permanent year-round farmers market presence. Um

[23:01] that's also in addition to our planned investment, the city's planned investment in in the civic area, in particular 13th Street, um to help support just general infrastructure for the farmers market. Um we are currently reviewing um the um uh interest proposals, if you will, that we received. Um a lot of great ideas so far in imagining um what that looks like. um the exact financing structure that will be a part of the next step which would be a request for proposals or we actually start figuring out what we want in a partnership. That's where we would potentially outline the role of a downtown development authority depending on any action that happens in November. Um I think in general we would contemplate the use of tax increment financing there depending on the scale and scope. Um we also have a tremendous amount um of uh leverage as a city given that we own a lot of the land and buildings and so remains to be seen exactly if we need to use uh such a tool

[24:00] in that area. Uh but so far we're on a really good path to realize the the vision of um a more permanent or more robust presence of the farmers market on that block. >> And the increment though would go to the DDA. >> That's right. Right. So, if it was in the boundaries of of a DDA, as those parcels were to to revert or to to move to private ownership, um the the increment of property tax um would go to the DDA if it wasn't included in the district. >> Okay. And then the other piece is there's some work being contemplated for um the district, the mall itself, and the civic area by the parks department. Would those financing streams change at all? and would any of the maintenance of those places change in the DDA structure? >> That's a great question. I there is I think those those details are still to be worked out in terms of what the DDA's role would be, but there is certainly an

[25:01] opportunity for the DDA to support those projects financially, including the maintenance and operations of both those projects. I don't know if there's anything you want to add to that, Mark. Yeah. And it would just be helpful to know if the DDA might take over some of the maintenance and operations that are and you know expected by business owners in downtown um you know to the benefit perhaps of parks but also to uh lessening the ability to do more transformational work under the DDA. Um the other question I have is are we already revenue sharing in this area through CGID with any other entities? I can't remember where we ended up with Sundance and some of the hotel. Uh is that is there any revenue sharing going there? >> Um we do have a um as a part of our overall um contract with uh the Sundance Institute. We we do have um some uh sharing of parking revenue associated

[26:02] just with the period of time of the of the festival. And so um we would need to account for that if the the structure of cage were to change. >> So that would just be incorporated into the guardrails. >> That's right. >> Okay. And then the other piece is when um when we take the vote, we're you know we're extending the area to people who haven't had this mil levy tax before. So they're new and they tend to be on the perimeter of the new zone of the DDA. Um, would we consider having it where at least 50% of those people have to agree when we do the vote or is there a way to do that or a precedent so that it's not if they're not the majority that they can't be if they all oppose it, they can't be taxed by the main people who are already being taxed who would just benefit from their no levy revenue. >> That's a great question, council member. My understanding is that

[27:02] all the the way the voting works is the qualified electors within the district boundaries vote. Um, and it's the majority of those who vote. Um, and I may have Brad speak to the specifics of that unless I nailed it. >> Yeah, that that's correct. It would be a majority vote from the entire district. um and various sub areas would not uh be able to stand alone on their own, which I think was part of your question as well, >> right? I was just wondering if we could at least have 30% from each section, you know, the new section and the existing section. Um just so it feels like something's not being done to someone who may not benefit as richly from a connector. Um in that case, um and >> one thing, if I might add to that, Tina, um Uh and Brad, when you're um we're done, if you want to introduce yourself

[28:00] just for the record, that'd be helpful. Um the other thing to note is that um in terms of scale, um you know, it we think that if you're not in KID right now and paying that additional mill levy, the additional mill levy for those not in Ug um on the average value of commercial property within the area is about $2 to $400 annually. uh for those within Eugid that would see a property tax increase that's probably about a hundred to $200 um annually. So the scale on the mill levy isn't isn't huge. But that being said, we still have additional outreach to do. And certainly if um you know an area was was not so warm to this proposal, um that was something we would consider from a policy perspective of how broad to make the district. We could also um use the public rightway uh and so that if there were future properties that wanted to uh opt in essentially petition into the district, they could

[29:01] do that without being in the initial boundaries and paying the initial mill levbby. So there are some policy options um that you all can consider. >> Okay. And then my final question, sorry for taking so much time. Um, picking 2026 is an interesting year because it's the baseline before Sundance and clearly in 2026 there hasn't been transformational work done to merit the increment. Is there a benefit to the city to use 2027 as the baseline and then that might be more reflective of incremental or transformational work done by the DDA or is is this is there intentionality? >> That's a great question. And it's something it's an option that's on the table and it's something that we're working with our our u colleagues in finance to to determine what would the best base year be for for this effort. >> And can we can we vote to have the base

[30:01] this year but have the base year be 2027? It doesn't have to go into effect immediately. >> It does not. um it is whenever the DDA is established and the board um essentially forms itself. I believe that is the trigger when the the base it's essentially the point in time for sales tax. So if a a DDA were to be created by voters in November and not establish itself more formally until March or April, then your base your base starts at that point. And so um that's that's one potential is that just the sheer timeline of this. The other is to Regan's point in and uh the city has an opportunity with the DDA to establish a revenue sharing agreement which you could outline when a base year would start or how much of uh revenue uh on the sales tax tiff would be shared for for instance. So those are all possibilities. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Um before I pick uh go to the next

[31:01] person, Mark, I just want to say that we have only an hour and a half for this and these are only the questions. So everybody, you don't have to ask everything that's on your mind. Just throwing it out there. The most important questions to help us know whether or not we want to go to the next steps. How's that? Good. Okay, Mark, you're next. >> I'll only ask the best questions. Um, if we follow staff's recommendation to do a standalone DDA, does council have any control over um the amount of their expenditures, the projects they select, um the amount of overhead they want to incur. >> Yeah, council's oversight still remains quite significant whether the DDA is a standalone entity or operates under the municipality. under the standalone entity, council still approves the annual budget, approves the plan of development, the operating plan, and so there's still pretty significant um

[32:00] oversight built in. >> Okay. Um the second um I did not maybe I I just made this wrong read this wrong, but does the TIF require a vote of those uh in the district? I I didn't see language that that required that to be part of the vote. >> It does. There will be several questions if this moves to the ballot. Um and Brad Seagull with Puma is here with us who may be able to speak better more eloquently to this. But one question will be just in regard to establishing a DDA. The other question would be um do you authorize the DDA to utilize TIFF? Is that correct, Brad? >> Just for the record, I'm Brad Seagull. I'm the uh president of Puma Progressive Urban Management Associates. We've been advisers to the city on uh both the DDA

[33:00] and the prior improvement district analysis. Um in terms of the ballot that would go to just electors within the boundaries of the DDA, uh the ballot would have uh several questions. Um and there would likely be three or four questions. One question would be on the creation of the DDA itself. Should we create a DDA? A second question um um would relate um to the item you just brought up. So the second question would authorize the collection of tax increment. A third question um could address a mill levy. and a fourth question which is not currently contemplated could address um any borrowing or bonding. So at this point we're anticipating those first three questions and any potential bonding or borrowing could go back through council to the electors at a later date. >> Okay, just a couple quick questions. The bonding on TIF revenues, what is that?

[34:02] Are those bonds secured simply by the revenues themselves? by the future revenues. >> Okay. So, >> yes. >> Okay. Um and last, are these questions going to be on the general ballot? Um because it's going to be highly confusing to people when they see this tome, this this all of these questions and all of this data and people are going to think, well, I have to fill that out, too. um how are we going to relieve people of their confusion and anxiety when when they see all of these decisions that have to be made and they're not part of the district. >> So my understanding is that an additional pro ballot will be provided to only the qualified electors within the boundaries. >> Thank you. And uh those are my questions. Uh I hope that was quick enough for uh >> was >> for Tara. >> It was all right. Next for his quick

[35:01] questions is we're going to Rob. >> It's gonna be so fast. Tara, um I just have a question on the legal structured. Um would the DDA share the city's um legal and would they be liable for their own debt? Would the city be liable on the hook for that debt as well should something go sideways? I may punt that one to our city attorney's office. Teresa, do you want to take that question? >> I'm happy to. So, as a separate legal entity, the DDA would have their own legal representation. And I'm sorry, um, council member, what was the second part of your question? >> Just the liability piece of it. Um, is the city liable for slip and falls or um, debt not being repaid or is that all within the DDA

[36:00] itself as well? >> That's all within the DDA. It is as its own legal entity. It assumes its own liabilities. >> Gotcha. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Thanks, Rob. By the way, all these questions are great. I don't want people to think I don't think they're great. They are. Next great and quick question. Matt Benjamin. >> Nope, that's not true. >> I think the mayor goes first. >> Mayor and Brackett. Mayor Brackett, you're next. >> Chop Clover over here. Uh, thanks Sarah. One question. Um, okay. So, uh, with the tiff revenue, it's not going to come from existing properties, right? Their natural appreciation is not going to contribute to the tiff revenue. But you said that as investments are made then the um increase in revenue from those investments would then become part of the tiff revenue. How does that work for something like an alley activation where it's hard to assess how that investment in the alley is then playing into increased sales and property taxes. So

[37:00] how do we determine what gets included in the tiff revenue? >> That's a great question. Um Brad, can you speak to maybe examples from other communities or do you have any more insight on that? >> Um sure. It's a great question and this is all um determined by the assessor. So, your county assessor um has a method for determining what part of a a property's improvement is from appreciation and then also some distinction in terms of what new investment might be. Um I will say this is also hotly debated throughout the state among different assessors because um it can get a little cloudy. Um but the quick answer is this would be determined by the county assessor uh year to year as properties are evaluated. >> Good to know. So not our problem in other words but and the >> Cynthia good at her job so I I trust her

[38:00] to do a good job with that too. That's all I got. Thank you. >> Thanks mayor. Next we have Matt. >> Uh yes. So sticking with the governance question. what was presented was a one to year one to two-year ramp up supported by staff and consultants and I guess that's kind of the first I'm hearing to some extent of the understanding the longer runway to which staff is going to maybe have a pretty heavy involvement. So I just wanted to get a sense of how how much of that involvement is because we have quite a backlog of economic development work that we want to do. So, I'm just kind of wondering where that staff capacity is to do those things and and if maybe we need to have different expectations about tackling office vacancy and incentives and other business support, things that we all want to get going on. So, I'm just kind of wondering how that maybe impacts uh the next couple years of work from the cultural and economic development department. >> Yeah, absolutely. No, that's a great question. It would require um some staff capacity but we would bring on

[39:00] additional consultant support. Um we have brought on a consultant that has experience in administering DDAS daytoday and so the goal would really be to establish the framework before um then deciding kind of the permanent operational model on day one. It really just buys us that runway. Um, but we'd we'd lean fairly heavily on that consultant support during that ramp up phase. >> Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Is that it, Matt? >> Great. Okay, now we have Taiisha. Let's see. Where is Taiisha? Um Taiisha, are you there? >> Yes, I am. Sorry. Hello.

[40:01] >> That's right. >> Take the dog out. >> Um so I appreciate um all my colleagues questions. They've really answered a ton that I had. The only that I only that has not been asked that yet has been how um climate projections uh were included and employment contract employment projections were included um for the different modeling that you that were used for this. >> That's a great question, council member. That would be um the next stage of analysis. we really haven't gotten to that level of detail quite yet in the financial modeling. These are initial financial projections. Um, and so that would be the next phase of this work. >> Any other questions, Taiisha? >> All right, >> I'll save the rest for comments. Thank you. >> All right, moving on to Nicole. >> Thank you. Thanks so much for this

[41:00] presentation. Um, just a couple of questions. Really just looking for quick answers. Nothing nothing too detailed. one is um that once the plan of development is there, can that be revised um over time? Okay. >> Yeah, it can be amended at any time throughout the term of the DDA. >> Okay, cool. Thank you. And then um I really appreciate uh that the equity tools being used. We're talking to community connectors and really trying to include more people. Um when we think about how we could hold um the DDA accountable to u making progress on some of these equity goals and including equity programs, are we really talking about um the plan of development? Are we talking about approval of the annual budget? I mean, what what are sort of the accountability mechanisms that we would have as council um in in making sure that these goals are are or um plans are really brought forward. >> Yeah. Really great question. I would say all of the above. I mean, as the plan of development is refined, equity considerations will be incorporated um

[42:01] into the project priorities and the strategies that are outlined in that plan. Um for example, supporting inclusive and welcoming spaces, ensuring the district serves all community members. So, that's certainly one tool to hold the DDA accountable. Um I don't know if anyone else Mark do you want? >> Yeah that that is true and also council makes the board appointments. So that's another key area um where that certainly can be brought to the table. And then I think in general regardless of structure the DDA and the city would be very very close partners and have joint goals in how we want to see the downtown develop over time. And so that could be established formally through the IGA. That could be more, you know, informal work. Um and and again, we'd have a little bit of a ramp up period to make sure that it was set up in the way that um matched our vision. >> Okay. So the same way that we've been moving toward outcome based budgeting in a bunch of different areas, um the DDA

[43:01] could be held to those same similar standards in that regard. Okay. Um and then my other question was just around what's considered parking assets. Does that include like our parking garages and surface lots and things like that? >> Correct. Yep. The parking garages and the surface lots. >> Okay. And then just one one quick follow-up question. Um when we were considering the library district and how that was formed um we did not want to give over the assets um the buildings to the library district. And I'm just curious what what makes the DDA different that we would think about handing over assets like parking garages and you know plots of land and things that we use for parking. >> I may punt that to you Mark. >> Yeah, happy to take that one. It is a fair question. The the difference is um a couple fold. one is that um these assets were originally invested in by downtown property owners through the mill levby through kett and so I think

[44:00] there's some you know direct nexus to making sure that those assets continue to directly benefit downtown property owners um and then related to that is the flexibility especially in the short term um with uh knowing that tiff um is generated slowly um because we're mostly built out in the downtown. Um, and the property tax mill levy will only generate so much. And so I I think if the goal is to kind of um, you know, have that shot in the arm, if you will, from an economic perspective in the downtown, um, you need something kind of backing it to provide that flexibility. And so um, that is kind of what has led to looking at the the parking assets as as perhaps that way to provide that short shorter term flexibility. >> Thank you. Excellent. Whoa. Sorry. Um, now we have Ryan. >> Just one question u about costs. So if

[45:00] if you know we're being considering whether to move forward or not, h how can we think about the just kind of baseline cost? If we say to move forward, what does it cost us like in terms Matt got it some of this with staff bandwidth, but I'm also thinking more direct cost um you know consultant fees, other fees. Um so what's yeah just what's like the kind of operating cost as we go forward that we will have to you know we will be responsible for no matter what happens. >> That's a good question. Um, and there are certainly trade-offs when evaluating or considering a DDA. Um, in I think this is what you're speaking to, but correct me if I'm wrong. In the earlier years, the fiscal impact is fairly small because the the increment starts small. Um, so in the financial model that I presented, the first year increment is

[46:01] around 300,000. Um, are you are you referring to the operating cost or the the revenue sharing with the city? Guess I'm a little confused by the question. >> Yeah, sorry. I I um I'm just thinking about this in terms of uh this is an this is an opportunity to to um use financing to pursue investments. So, I'm just trying to think about the cost side of it like just just to move forward. um what are the what are the direct costs that are associated like if we do the bare minimum um going ahead what is what is this cost us like you know per year starting starting now I suppose it's would include consultant fees probably staff salaries to some extent um but I'm just trying to get it sense of the overhead the financial overhead of of going forward >> yeah I appreciate the question Ryan I so there have been costs to date certainly

[47:00] staff time consulting um costs associated with that. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but I think in general there's a a broader city interest certainly supported by council's policy direction and exploring this. And so if we continue there will be associated costs. Those are shared across several funds including the general improvement districts since there is a an interest um of of those districts in the future. Um similarly, if we were to move forward and actually create it and then operate it essentially on behalf of the DDA for a period of time, all of those costs would be reimbursed by the DDA um uh if we were um in that arrangement and we would we would outline that in an IGA moving forward. So I certainly there'd be some kind of um you know costs that we wouldn't get reimbursed for that we're doing right now but I I think um you know as a part of the city's work plan uh and thinking the connections and importance to the in relevance to the whole city um that is why we've u

[48:00] continued to spend time and resources in order to explore this project. >> Okay. So what I'm hearing is going ahead it's kind of deminimous to say yes as far as costs go as far as cost overhead. This isn't something that's a s Yeah. Okay. Fine. Thanks. >> Okay. Now, before we pick Mark, I'm assuming you have an emergency double dip. >> Yes. >> Okay. Before we pick you, I'm going to ask one or two questions if that's okay. >> Oh my god. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, my first question is for staff. Can you just explain in a very short manner why remember that slide when you had two options? Um, one where we were more involved than the other. Remember that slide, Rean? >> Um, yes. the governance structure. >> Yeah. Why why did why did uh the city feel this was a better option to be not involved or less involved? >> I think ultimately I mean we still have more analysis to do. This is our initial direction but ultimately it would it would provide the DDA with dedicated

[49:00] staff capacity and it wouldn't divert city staff from from a lot of the priorities that that we um have on our hands. And um it would also kind of create that strong community leadership model whilst maintaining city oversight. >> Excellent. Good answer. >> Oh, thanks. >> Okay. And lastly, I don't need this now, but I'm wondering in the world of DDAS if there are city um similar city sizes how their DDAs have gone. if there's any information on that. You know how you do that sometimes staff when you bring us back this city, that city? I'd be interested in that just as an email or >> just so I can read about that. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> But that's not really a question. Okay. Mark is your >> very Nicole raised a very interesting issue. Um, as the the DDA is not eternal in its

[50:00] uh in its lifespan, I assume there'll be some form of reversion of all property in the DDA back to the city when it dissolves. >> That is my understanding. Yes. So, the initial term of the DDA is 30 years and it can be extended up to two 20-year increments. So 70 years um is a total lifespan of the DDA and at that point all all property and assets would be diverted back to the city. >> Okay. So we're in effect we're loaning them uh not giving them to the DDA. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Great. Okay. We're moving on to the next um section. Regan, can you put that slide up that has the next two questions back? I know it's in our chat, but it's easier for me to like just look at it on the screen for a sec. >> And when we do this, we're basically giving the city. Okay, so the first one is, does council support continue refinement? Um, I'm not going to read the whole

[51:01] thing. Does council support continued evaluation of the structural model? And if you hear someone saying the same thing exactly as you, you want to raise your hand and just say, I agree. we we don't have to hear the whole thing over again. Um, moving along because I know we're going to have a pretty big lift in the ballot measures. All right, so who wants to get us started with their opinion of two and three? Mark seems to be Nope. Nicole is first. Very quick. Yes and yes. >> All right, let's see. Tina. >> Uh, yes and yes. But I would also like an option where the city retains ownership of the parking lots. So taking that down a little bit. >> All right. Nice. I love this. I love what we're doing here. Matt, you're next. >> Uh yes and yes. And would just like to make sure we really clearly define the guardrails in terms of how much split comes to the city versus stays um with

[52:02] the uh DDA or the TIFF in that matter. So >> fantastic Aaron. >> Yes. Yes. And yes, and then look forward to that conversation that Matt just mentioned about the division. And um I'm generally in favor of probably handing everything over the to the DDA, but look forward to finalizing those decisions later. Thanks, >> Rob. >> Yes. And yes. And um I'd also be interested in the other funding opportunities for them or revenue generating opportunities. >> Ryan, >> yes. And yes, uh, with all of the writers that my, uh, my colleagues have mentioned. >> Mark's hand is up now. Oh, >> yes. And yes, but I'd like to have some continued analysis of whether we do this as a standalone or with greater council involvement. I think there's still some questions out there. >> Okay. Well, I'll just join everybody in yes and yes. Are there any more people

[53:03] that want to say anything before we move on? >> I would like to go ahead. >> Thank you. Briefly, of course. Um, so I want to say that I'm supportive of moving forward. My biggest concern is I don't understand why we're continuing to make decisions without considering climate first, nature first. We know um the just even the climate that we I mean the the current winter or lack thereof for this year and the projections on the Colorado River. I went back to the water supply uh plan um report that was provided in July 2025 and I just immediately was curious. you know, I went back to those models and um the fact that that those considerations are not step one. I also had the same issue when we were talking

[54:01] about area three um and not having step one be inclusive of uh climate or nature considerations. It's all human-based. um those projections and those models are completely off if we're not considering um water, air, and energy um and the impacts we know that they're going to have on any business, any resident, any commercial, anything that we're doing. So, I continue to be disappointed that we say we're cl that we are, you know, a climate smart city, but we're not including climate in the first level of the analysis. This also reminds me of the airport when a report was generated and it didn't include and it said that that land was worth $400 million but it didn't include the cost of mitigation which anybody who knows anything about mitigation $400 million doesn't seem like a lot of money for a place that's been spit on by lead for the last 50 years. So anyh who again I am supportive of the next step. Um, however, it must be inclusive of a climate

[55:01] consideration. And again, I don't know what the process is for these kind of considerations, but I just don't think that it is worth our time um if we're making even this decision without having um some of that environmental uh data that is available. Thank you. >> Okay, thanks so much. Okay, so it looks like we are done and I have to ask staff, is there anything that you need from us that we didn't give you yet? >> I believe we have everything we need. We appreciate your feedback. >> Fantastic. Let's see. I'm going to we're going to move on to the next subject. >> Who wants to take it from here? >> Thanks so much, uh, Mayor Prom. Our next topic is, uh, closely related in that it talks about potential ballot text ballot strategies. so app propo of a good conversation uh today. Uh and so I'm going to pass it on. Christa, I believe you are going to kick us off. >> I will kick us off. >> Wonderful. >> Thank you, Nuria. Good evening, Mayor

[56:01] Brockett and members of city council. Christa Morrison, chief financial officer, and I'm joined this evening by Scott Carpenter, principal budget analyst. And Scott, would you mind us share our slides here? Thank you. or I get too far ahead here. Thank you. Next slide, please. Our agenda this evening will cover the long-term financial strategy. We'll start with an overview of the long-term financial strategy, review our progress to date, talk about what's ahead for the long-term financial strategy for 2026, and our focus this evening will be the potential 2026 tax ballot measures. This early review and discussion was requested at the council retreat uh to bring this uh before this city council

[57:00] for discussion. Next slide, please. The long-term financial strategy focuses on the development of a comprehensive citywide strategy to help guide financial decisionmaking and long-term financial health of the city. Sustainability, equity, and resilience, also known as SIR, serve as the guiding principles that influence uh changes to financial decisionmaking, financial planning processes, and policy decisions. Alignment with the SUR framework supports the strategic planning foundation for the organization. You'll see ahead in the slides on ballot measures. This framework included as one example of the application of the SUR framework in the long-term financial strategy. Next slide, please. Named a top council priority in 2024, the long-term financial strategy builds

[58:01] upon recommendations of the blue ribbon commission reports of 2008 and 2010, focusing on taking care of what we have and addressing a backlog of needs. Prioritizing flexibility of funding to meet community needs and recognizing the challenges of restricted funding. coordination of tax ballot measures with broader city financial planning, including alternative funding mechanisms and outcomesbased budgeting and distributing the tax burden more equitably. Next slide, please. While this council's very familiar with the long-term financial strategy, as it has been a council priority since 2024, I think it's important to take a step back and highlight why the long-term financial strategy work is so important for a sustainable Boulder. 68% of Boulder's revenues are dedicated,

[59:01] limiting the city's flexibility and ability to respond to emerging needs. This is Boulder's revenue by major type from the 2026 adopted budget. You'll see three major types of revenue. Um the top three types of revenue um are sales and use tax representing 35% of Boulder's revenue followed by 19% which is utility revenue and that can only be used to support utility operations followed by property tax representing 12% of Boulder's revenue. Next slide please. Boulder's largest revenue is sales and use tax, representing 35% of city revenues or 45% if we exclude utilities. Breaking down every retail sales dollar collected for Boulder, 43 cent goes to the city of Boulder with 53 cents of

[60:01] that going to state, regional transit, and Boulder County. Of the 43 cents of sales and use tax uh to Boulder, it's distributed across six funds. Five of those funds are dedicated. Next slide, please. Boulder has among the highest rate of dedication of its sales tax in the front range. You'll see on this slide a regional comparison of Boulder to its uh regional peers and rerank the second highest in dedicated use of sales tax. Again, limiting the city's flexibility in responding to community needs. Next slide, please. So, property tax is the third largest major source of revenue for Boulder, comprising 12 to 15% of the annual city revenues. For every dollar of property tax collected, the city receives 13%. I'm highlighting this revenue source due

[61:01] to a reduction in revenue growth of property tax in part due to recent state legislation. Boulder has seen an average of 14% assessed growth rate during the reassessment cycles between 2013 and 2023. This growth is slowed to a 2.5% actual assessed growth rate in our most recent yearto-year assessment. So we're seeing a dramatic decrease in the growth of uh property tax. Next slide please. This slide has been previously shared, but important to highlight the unfunded and underfunded needs a city is working through to make progress with the long-term financial strategy. The long-term financial strategy prioritizes taking care of what we have and looking holistically as we work towards solutions to continue delivering services most impactful to this

[62:01] community. make progress on underfunded and unmet needs, both operational such as advanced life support and affordable housing, and capital needs for citywide facilities. Staff will be back in April to discuss in detail the citywide facility needs and funding. In summary, flattening revenue growth, highly restricted revenue sources, reduce the city's flexibility to maintain existing service levels, underfunded and unmet needs, and increasing costs highlight the very reason this council has prioritized the long-term financial strategy. Next slide, please. Much progress has happened so far on the long-term financial strategy and I think we should highlight those in 2025. Um we developed a multi-year ballot strategy and thank you to this council and the Boulder community for appro approving a permanent extension of the community

[63:01] culture resilience and safety tax and increasing debt capacity for this fund. Again, we'll talk more in April on the extension of that tax and use of debt capacity as we look at current capital plans and citywide needs. In 2025, we also analyzed and incorporated alternative revenue sourcing sources within the 2026 budget. A few of those include the transportation maintenance fee as well as speed on green cameras supporting the city's vision zero traffic safety goals. In 2025, we conducted and published the city's first comprehensive fee inventory and developed engagement framework for fund our future community conversations on tradeoffs and service levels. Next slide please. Thank you. So our focus for 2026 ahead, next slide is um a

[64:01] long-term comprehensive financial plan. Our work does not stop in 2026. So we will be bringing forward a long-term comprehensive financial plan that is a combination of all the work streams to date on the long-term financial strategy as well as bringing financial policy updates. We will continue to look at alternative revenue opportunities and then we will be kicking off um at the end of March and in April Fund our future community conversations. The long-term financial strategy isn't just focused on revenue alone. Fund our future engagement sessions will be hosted to hear directly from the community which services have the most impact and what the community considers an acceptable level of service. We'll re be reviewing current service levels and discuss discuss tradeoffs when a higher

[65:00] level of service is desired. Stay tuned next week for those session dates and times. there will be both virtual and in-person options available for those community conversations. And then we're also um progressing in our multi-year tax ballot measures with this evening's discussion on potential 2026 tax ballot measures. We aren't looking this evening for final or specific ballot measure decisions tonight. There is more information that's forthcoming that will include a city city facilities funding conversation in April. Fund our future community engagement feedback, latest financial forecast information forthcoming in May, and polling information that will help inform decisions on potential 2026 ballot measures. With that, I'll turn this over to Scott Carpenter to talk more specifically about our timeline and proposed uh potential 2026 ballot

[66:01] measures. >> Thank you very much, Christa. Good evening, council. Scott Carpenter, principal budget analyst. Um before we begin to preview the range of options, uh this slide shows the timeline for the ongoing 2026 ballot measures discussion. Tonight serves as an early preview and a preliminary discussion on a range of options for potential 2026 ballot measures. Tonight's discussion and the April 9th meeting on the financial landscape of city facilities will help staff come back on May 14th with a more finalized listing where council can narrow down the options that will be used for the 2026 polling survey. On the next two slides, I will discuss how staff arrived at this range of options and provide a preview of that range. The potential 2026 tax ballot measures were developed as part of the multi-year ballot measure strategy, building on our efforts from last year's passage of the CCRS tax extension to have a more

[67:01] expanded approach, focusing on taking care of what we have and continuing to invest in our unmet needs. The options also incorporate prior council feedback to prioritize revenue flexibility and stability, understand the interaction between ballot measures in the broader long-term financial strategy, and focus on reducing tax burdens for historically excluded groups. This slide shows the range of options along a spectrum of revenue impact grouped by categorization of transformational changes which are significant changes that adjust the city's tax base to support revenue sufficiency or changes that reduce the city's over reliance on sales tax. Mid-range changes which increase taxes for general or specific purposes or expand on the usage of existing taxes within dedicated funds. and structural changes, which are changes that do not increase taxes, but provide the city with more flexibility and increase

[68:00] ongoing potential revenue diversity. Our focus tonight is not necessarily on these specific options, but understanding where council falls within this range and what potential options or taxing mechanisms you are looking for staff to further explore. When staff comes back for the April 9th discussion on the financial picture of city facilities, we will be thinking about how these options can help us to bridge the gap on our unmet needs by understanding where council falls in this range. This will allow staff to focus their time and effort in advance of the May 14th meeting where the discussion will focus on a more narrowed approach and finalize options to include in this year's public survey. All right, for the rest of the presentation, we will preview some of the options that fall along this range. Beginning with transformational changes, which again are significant changes that adjust the city's tax base to support revenue sufficiency or changes that reduce the city's over reliance on sales tax. The first ballot measure option is a

[69:02] sales tax on services, which proposes to remove the sales and use tax service exemption from selected services or potentially all services. This diversifies the city's sales tax base and better aligns it to match the current economy where approximately 2/3 of consumer spending is on services. By diversifying the tax base, revenue is significantly increased, which provides the city with sufficient revenues to fund city services and capital infrastructure and maintenance needs. Sales tax is the most regressive city tax as people with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their income on goods and therefore sales tax. By excluding services, the regressivity of sales tax is worsened. With the increased levels of funding, the city can increase contingency funding and better adapt to change. There are some legal considerations with this option as the city would be the first mover within Colorado to implement

[70:01] a broad service exemption for sales tax. The revenue estimates for this option way range widely and are entirely dependent on the services taxed. The next transformational option would be to reduce the city's sales tax rate and replace it with a property tax mill levy. Doing so helps diversify city revenues as sales tax currently accounts for 35% of city revenues compared to 12% for property taxes. Property tax is less regressive than sales tax as the percentage of income spent on property tax is less disproportionate on people with lower incomes and higher taxes are the result of higher property values. Property tax is a more stable source of revenue that is not subject to the same economic volatility as sales tax. And while segments of our property tax are dedicated, the current structure is more flexible than sales tax. For reference, around 0.1%

[71:01] in sales tax rate is the equivalent of 1 mil, which would lead to a $5 million revenue redistribution. The next few slides, we'll discuss our mid-range changes. These are changes which increase taxes for general or specific purposes or expand on the usage of existing taxes within dedicated funds. The first option is a general purposes mill levy. This increases the city's property tax mill levy by 1.352 mills up to the max 13 mills allowable by charter. This option diversifies flexible city revenues by increasing property tax revenues for general purposes. While it is a tax increase, it increases taxes for a less regressive tax than sales tax. This option would increase the city's stable and flexible ongoing revenues, allowing for better adaptability, leading to a $7 million per year revenue increase beginning in 2028 in the

[72:01] general fund for general purposes such as advanced life support for ambulance services, human services programs, and city facility capital needs such as recreation centers and age well centers. It is important to note that any mill levy increase would not increase revenue until 2028 as the increase would take place beginning with the 2027 tax year. This would result in a 1.4% property tax increase for property owners on average. For $1 million in residential property, it would be an increase of $85 a year. And for $1 million in commercial property, it would be an increase of $338 a year. The next option is a public realm mill levy. The public realm mill levy is an option that was brought forward last year and would increase the city's property tax mill levy by 1.352 mills up to the max 13 mills allowable. This

[73:01] would specifically be in the permanent parks and recreation fund and would expand the usage of the fund to cover improvements throughout the public realm. Or the option could be to just expand the usage without a tax increase. This would support funding for capital infrastructure, renovation, replacement, and maintenance projects such as, but not limited to parks, open space, civic buildings, and areas, and the public right ofway, including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use paths. This option diversifies flexible city revenues by increasing property tax revenue, and expanding the usage of a currently restricted revenue source. This increases revenues for a less regressive tax or would not increase taxes and would have the the same fiscal impact as the previous option. The final mid-range change is for a residential vacancy excise tax. This

[74:00] creates an excise tax on residential properties that are deemed vacant at least 183 days in a calendar year. This diversifies city revenues with a new undedicated tax is more likely to impact a higher income population that owns multiple residential properties or units. Using water utility data, we estimated that approximately 500 to 1,000 properties would be subject to the tax. The estimates use those 500 to 1,000 properties and a 1,000 or $2,000 uh dollar flat tax rate per year to determine the 1 to2 million. There are also there are also legal considerations for this tax as we would be the first mover in Colorado. State legislature the state legislature attempted to produce enabling legislation for a vacant property or excise tax. However, that tax did not pass, but it could have the potential to succeed in future sessions. And lastly, moving on to structural changes. Once again, these are changes

[75:01] that do not increase taxes, but provide the city with more flexibility and increase ongoing potential revenue diversity. The first structural change is a general fund death debt authorization. This option would ask voters to authorize the general fund to issue debt, which it currently does not have the ability to do so. Staff is grateful for voter approval of the CCRS extension and debt authorization from last fall. And with that we do have additional flexibility. However, that is currently our only source of flexible funds for capital infrastructure and staff considers having this option within the general fund as a best practice. This option increases flexible funding that can be used for unmet needs with capital infrastructure and it does not raise taxes. Staff are currently evaluating a range of options between 75 and $100 million. If council is interested in exploring, we would come back to council with them with with more detailed options in May.

[76:03] Next is an increase in the property tax mill levy cap. The city currently caps the total mill levy by charter at 13 ms. Based on previous feedback that had concerns on raising the mill levy without also raising the mill levy cap, this option proposes increasing the mill levy cap to 15 ms or greater. It is important to note that council does have the option uh to increase the mill levy uh and borrow against it uh for debt above the cap. Um this option diversifies potential flexible revenues and significantly increases the amount of revenue that could be generated from a property tax increase as we are currently restricted at 1.352 mills for a total increase. This would increase revenues to sufficient levels and provide stable ongoing funding for the city. If the mill levy was increased in the future, it does not raise taxes and concerns a less regressive tax. Increasing the cap by 1 mil increases

[77:02] ongoing potential revenue by approximately $5 million a year. And our final structural change combines the dedicated sales tax increments that currently fund the open space, transportation, and parks and wreck 0.25 sales tax fund into one fund. and expands its usage to provide more flexibility. This option does not raise taxes and increases flexibility, allowing for better capital project planning across the entire system and increases the city's ability to leverage financing options. And with that, we are on to our questions. Uh I would like to reiterate that staff will be coming back in April to discuss the financial picture of city facilities and discuss unmet needs. and we will be thinking about how these options can help to support those unmet needs. Uh and then once again we'll be coming back in May with a more narrowed listing based on your feedback. Uh of particular importance in this feedback

[78:01] is if council has opinions on any preferred mechanisms of taxation to explore. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Can I take it from here? My number one question is Scott, were you is the pool named after you or are you named after the pool? It's it's a very uh co it's very coincidental for me to be working in the city. >> Yeah, just kidding. Okay. Um I'm going to have a few guidelines because I'm a little bit worried about this conversation, gang. Um so this is what I would like to do. Our goal tonight is to narrow down the options one through eight that staff gave us. Tell us what the categories or types in this presentation you want to explore further and tell us what is absolutely off the table for you. You do not have to com you do not have to comment on all eight items. In fact, please don't. That's number one. Number two, if it's unclear where council is leaning as a whole,

[79:00] we're going to do straw polls. I'm going to do my best. I'm determined to do well. Uh, next, if you have a rant, like I sometimes do, only allow yourself 60 seconds for that rant. For instance, I will give you an example. I can't believe we're considering property tax increases. That took like 10 seconds. So, consider a very short rant. Next, if you feel like you must lecture us or staff, then I only give you 30 seconds for that. So, the goal is to let staff know where we're at. take a few straw polls if we need to. And I'm going to leave with we're going to ask if anybody has any clarifying questions, but remember for the questions. Don't combine them with your comments. Just questions only. And when I say that, I mean that for myself, too. I'm also chastising myself. So, nobody take offense. All right, here we go. Who has questions? Oh, look. Hands are up already. We start with Rob.

[80:02] >> Thank you for the uh guidance, Tara. I appreciate that. And um Kristen Scott, thank you. This was a great report. Um just questions right now for option six, the general fund debt um authorization. Would if that were passed, would that free up funds from the CCRS? >> Um that would not uh free up. It gives us options. I would say it gives us capacity to um finance. I don't know that that would free up dollars, but it does give us options. If we add debt to the general fund and we do debt finance, um that is an additional cost that is not planned in our existing general fund. So there will need to be a tradeoff or additional revenue offsetting that.

[81:01] >> And that was my second question. If I read this correctly, that's roughly about $8 million a year. Um what would need to be compromised to cover that debt service? I think that would be a conversation ahead um informed by um fund our future conversations um informed by um maybe potential ballot measures if there's revenue opportunities. Um, I think there is not an easy answer for that, Councilman. And I think that is a conversation that we would have to um really lean in on these community conversations in April as we um formulate the fiscal year 2027 budget. >> Okay, I will let my other council members ask some questions and sign off. Thank you. >> Excellent questions, Rob. You get a A+.

[82:01] Okay. Next we have Nicole. >> Thanks so much for the presentation Christa. Um this was really and and Scott it was really laid out well. Um few questions. So one is just a clarifying one on number uh the the first option around um if we were to flip some sales tax with property tax um under the transformational changes. Is that revenue neutral on our end? Yes, that's correct. >> Okay, cool. So, really, we would just be changing those kind of the chart showing how people um who tend to be lower income are paying more more into sales tax relatively and people who have property are paying less into city revenue. So, we're really just shifting kind of who pays not not so much how much money we get. Is that right? >> Yes. Shifting who pays and then also shifting to a more stable source of revenue. >> Okay, cool. Thank you. Um, and then my second question, second and third are kind of tied together around polling.

[83:01] Um, when when we're polling, can we sometimes get different results from year to year? Uh, like when the context of the world's pretty different than it was last year, for example, just for the things that we pulled last year, just wondering if we would expect they would be the same or potentially differ. I would say to your very point um the economy has changed and the um and the world is very different. So there is the potential we we could see some change between the 2025 polling and 2026. >> Thank you. And then just one related question to remind myself on the public realm tax when we pulled last year. We pulled on the combination of expanding the use plus increasing. We never did. Did Did we ever pull just on expanding the use? I couldn't remember. And sorry for not sending my uh questions out in a long hotline beforehand. >> Uh I would have to we'd have to look

[84:01] back uh at the the survey and get back to you on that. >> Okay, cool. Thank you. I just uh just trying to get some sense of what's different this year. Um and then my other question is about this um debt the option for general fund um debt financing. How does that impact our future financial flexibility? >> Yeah, I think it anytime you add debt, it is basically a fixed cost for a period of time. It does reduce flexibility, but it gives options. It gives options for um making larger progress on a capital project, a large capital project, etc. So, it is a trade-off there. It will it'll allow us to make um significant progress on large projects, but we are going to commit in a fixed cost that debt service for years to come. >> Thank you. And I guess my my other question in that area just relates to

[85:01] you know why why we haven't done any kind of debt financing on the general fund before. And I mean when I think about our general fund, it's the one thing that we actually have some flexibility with. Is it because it's adding some more constraints onto it that we haven't done it before or just we haven't gotten gotten >> um we the last time the general fund issued debt was in 2012. So the general fund currently just does not have any authorization or capacity to issue any more debt. >> Okay. So it's not that we haven't done it before. It's just that we haven't done it in the last decade or so. Okay. Thank you. That's it for now. >> Excellent questions. Nicole, you did not need to send send a hotline. Okay. Next we have Matt. >> I appreciate that. Uh great presentation and I'm looking forward to hearing about more of this and having a conversation. Uh my question centers around have we done any decent comparative analysis with other communities that are rapidly aging like ours or in many ways have already been more or less retirement

[86:01] communities for some time and how they mix sales or property tax because one question really centers around as our population ages. You also then run into a similar issue where you have many people that may be house rich, cash poor, and therefore the rising of property taxes doesn't really win us anything other than putting undue financial strain on our aging population. And so really shifting burden to another group who can't afford it. And so I'm just wondering if we've done that analysis and if that assessment carries some weight with the trajectory we have with our demographics. We have not done that particular kind of analysis, but we can certainly look into that in some of our peer cities uh and and bring that back forward. >> I I appreciate that because that'll give us a look forward perhaps to maybe where we're headed and and not fall down the trap of what other communities have dealt with. Thank you. >> Any other questions? That's it. Just one. Fantastic.

[87:03] Okay. Okay, we have Mark. >> Okay, Nicole, who are you thinking about with respect to long hotlines? Did you have someone >> is thinking about you? Ask your questions. I mean, we love you. Go. >> Um, at the May meeting, um, are we going to have the results of the fund our future conversations uh at that time as we choose between various alternatives? Yes, Councilman Wallik, we do have a consultant on board helping facilitate that uh with our office along with um the communications and engagement team and we um he will be presenting back a report on uh the collective feedback from those sessions. >> Okay. And are we going to do any polling in advance of that meeting? I mean, last last time around, we we thought we were going to do a um

[88:01] one initiative that came back and pulled in the in the 40s, so we we had to drop it. It would be nice to know in advance whether any of these are going to pull well or not. >> Um I don't think that's the plan to poll now. Um, I think the the goal would be to get your preliminary thoughts on these broad categories this evening. Are there any completely off the table um that uh that staff should no longer pursue the research? But beyond that, I think May would be our refined list, starting to narrow that list of what you want to go to polling. And did you say that um taxing services is something that has not been done in Colorado previously? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And did you not raise the issue with respect to the vacant home tax of a similar potential legal challenge?

[89:00] >> I might defer to um Teresa, the city attorney's office. >> Yeah. Good evening. Um, I I suppose I would not like to divulge my confidential legal advice in a public setting, but I would uh recommend that you look back to a confidential memo that was sent to you all previously. If you need access to that again, let me know. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and I think that's going to do it for me for the moment. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you so much. Next, we have Ryan. >> Thank you. I have a few questions um for Kristen and Scott. So, um big picture, I'm trying to imagine the um the problem statement in terms of dollar amount that we'll that we need to solve for. Um, and then the just a sense of the the

[90:03] how how far to completion do some of these mid-range items get us? I know you had a slide before that talked about 380 million in um capital um backlog, but is there a way you can just speak to that generally team about how yeah how how how much progress can we make towards our goal with one or more of these initiatives this year? >> Well, that's um I will say our problem statement is complex. It is flattening and declining revenues. Uh you'll get a um an update in May um from the budget team. Um sales tax is flattening if not declining year-over-year, the high reliance on sales tax um as our highest revenue source and its volatility as well as our high dedication as you saw

[91:00] on that slide, the second highest in the region on dedication of our revenue. um that with our unfunded needs, I think that 380 million is out of date and that number has escalated um on our uh capital um needs as well as operating underfunded needs in the organization. Um so it is hard to put an a number on that. Um today I think you'll hear more from our facilities team with a more refined number on capital in April. Um so I think the mid Scott has the breakdown on the individual slides on dollar amounts. Um but really um each of these items they make progress. um capital items such as uh the PEL public realm tax um if we have debt authority

[92:00] with that give us an opportunity to make greater progress in those areas of capital needs because we can finance that. Um I think that is I'm not sure Chris if you have anything you would add to that. >> Yeah, maybe one other thought because I think Ryan you're asking a really interesting question. Um, and I I think the one thing I would add to what Christa uh already said is the ballot measure spectrum that we offered pulls on different levers too. So depending on where you want to focus, it changes our kind of what does that get us in terms of making progress. So, I think tonight what we're what we're looking for is just that rough directionality of, yeah, we think you should should we agree with the staff recommendation or no, we think you should only zero in on these types of ballot measures. And then in April and May, we can start to refine that for you. And then I think we might be able to give you a better, more accurate

[93:01] answer to your question of kind of how do we frame it in that way? Because I I think the way you're asking it is a really good way. >> Great. Thank you. And I'm sorry to ask an interesting question on the spot like this. >> No, it was good. >> And yeah, the point the point is just um you know, being able to have a conversation with our community about um yeah, what it looks like to to not have to keep coming back each year and you know what what the end is. Okay, I'll keep going. Just have a couple more. Um so speaking of Mark's um eloquent hotline, I he um one of the things he asked about was cost containment and um is there any chance that we have a way now or would expect in the in the near future to have any um I don't know any story about about um uh successes we've had or maybe expect to have with respect to cost containment um or or is it just like stay tuned and you know that's my question. Scott, is that something you might um talk about the recent budget year and some of the strategies around cost um

[94:03] cost containment? >> Sure. Um so it for the 2026 budget, we actually did a significant amount of cost containment by through budget reductions. And we did a lot of those budget reductions through the lens of budgeting for resilience and equity, also known as outcomebased budgeting. um we prioritized funding for for programs that were performing well and reduced funding um or or cut funding entirely for programs that were duplicative or were not performing well. Um I wish I had the numbers off the top of my head for how much we reduced. Um we could certainly get that back to you. Um and uh I think we will continue to kind of use that frame of decision-m uh for for the budget going forward and we should also get some good information from the fund our future conversations uh on tradeoffs that will allow us to to think through that lens um in the future.

[95:01] >> Super. Okay. Yeah, I look forward if that becomes available to to seeing an inventory or what whatever some kind of explanation of what we what we're seeing. Um great. Okay. And then um on the transformational side of things, I think I have two questions and then I'm done. um sales tax uh for services that concept. Is there any um thinking that's been done or maybe you could do now on um ways to focus that on Sundance such that we would be pricing for services that are specific to or I guess like oriented to Sundance either in in terms of like the kinds of services or the time you know like literally the tax for that period of time with Sundance is here. Is there any opportunity around that? >> I can take that one. Um, there is uh somewhat of an opportunity to do that. So, we do have the ability to do broader categories of taxation on services. So,

[96:03] one of those categories could be recreation and amusement. We would have to spend some time on doing some additional analysis and what that would look like. Um, the other thing I would like to add is that the city does have an admissions tax. It's a 5% admissions tax. Um, and that is for events that are not free to the public and so that will um fall on a lot of the the venues for Sundance. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks. And then my last one is um Nicole talked about um the the matter of revenue neutral neutrality if we do this sort of property tax um sales tax swap thing uh with respect to revenue to the city. I is there by chance um a way to think about um a method to do that that would have minimal impact on um those who are paying in in terms of their net the net expense that they're receiving from from t from taxes at

[97:03] least from a like median middleish income kind of on down like is there a way to think about that or is it just simply too complex people's different situations. >> Um we can uh take a stab at doing that kind of analysis and modeling different household incomes and um in and household sizes. Um I think and and then then come back with that information in the future. the while everybody uh across the spectrum of income could potentially be a homeowner or might be a homeowner, I think the assumption is that those within the community that are at or below area median income are more likely to be renters and therefore would be less negatively impacted by a property tax increase. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ryan. Um Scott, I have a quick question that has to do with what Ryan said. really good point about a story that we're trying to tell. Can you give

[98:01] can you get us information on what you did actually reduce or eliminate so we can because I think a lot of community members don't really think the city does that and I would like to prove them otherwise. So I think that would be a really good story. Okay, let's move on. >> Tara, I had a question that was really related to what um Ryan just asked. >> Yeah. >> So you're colloquate, but I know we're thinking about moving away from that. Uh >> I just truth be told I just call >> okay but no it's it's really a a very similar question like if if this is really revenue neutral right sales tax property tax um then presumably the average income household would have kind of a neutral experience and moving more to property tax than than that. Is is that right? I mean, it seems like the wealthier households who are benefiting the most from this disproportionate system we have now, they would be the ones um who who would um kind of be

[99:00] impacted the most. Not not necessarily the the people who are um how did you phrase it, Matt? The the house rich cash poor. It would be the people who are house rich cashri who would who would kind of see the biggest impact. Is that am I thinking about that the right way? Uh yes, that is our uh assumption in that um if if you look at it from the lens of a $1 million in residential property, um that person would pay $85 more per year in property tax, while somebody who doesn't own a home uh would be paying less sales tax uh on for the full year. But even that person who's paying a million dollars would that they would presumably have a reduction in sales tax too or sorry who's paying property tax on a million dollar home they would also have a reduction in sales tax. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Before we go >> Oh, sorry. May

[100:01] >> Yeah. Um I I just want to go back to some questions that were um that were asked and and maybe just for clarification about um sales tax. While we know that uh sales tax on services on all services hasn't have hasn't been done in Colorado, there are some municipalities that have done sales tax on certain categories. So, we haven't thought about um or for example, if we wanted to do sales tax on luxury services or the kind that you were um speaking to, council member Shuhard. Um that is something that could be considered as we're as we're thinking about if if council wanted. We just haven't uh had a deep dive into that. What I think is a little bit um more difficult and I wouldn't know if that was even legal. I um believe Taber may limit us is um perhaps the suggestion of limiting that amount of taxation to a certain time period like for a time of uh festival uh be that what it whatever

[101:02] that would be. Um so I just would be a little more thoughtful if if you all wanted that to think about um what level of taxation and a time period that is broader than that. Teresa, did I get any of that wrong or um >> No, ma'am, you're right on target. Thank you. >> Okay. Um before we go on to Tina, I'm just going to make an announcement that if I was pushing everybody too hard, I'm going to give all of those that still have a question after they ask their first question an opportunity to ask a second one. I'm gonna transform myself into nicer Tara starting now. Okay, Tina, go. >> Yeah. And first I'll just I'd like to follow up with what Nura said. Um during Sundance, if a a business rents their space to a corporation, do we tax that transaction?

[102:05] >> Could you say that one more time? >> Sure. So if so let's say the city owned a a building and we rented it to a company to have a space for Sundance for the duration and they paid us money through a contract. What is the taxing on that transaction if any? >> I can help Scott if you don't mind. So leases are not um uh property leases are not taxable. It would be redundant of a property tax. >> No, >> even though it was it's well, it's it's I don't know if it's a lease or just a >> it's a it's a fiveday venue rental. Is it a lease or a venue rental? >> Either way. >> So, even if you rent a venue, you wouldn't have a tax? >> I don't believe so. >> For you look into that and find out.

[103:01] >> Okay. That just prompted that question. Um, so my question is, um, when we do the polling, will we include any of the state level ballot initiatives, specifically the graduated income tax to see how it plays with other taxes in our polling? >> Chris, I'm not sure if if that I'm not sure how that's been handled in the past. >> Sure. I'm happy to provide a little uh in the past when we've had a clear understanding of what might be on a ballot from uh the county or the state, we have sometimes included those questions uh as a part of the polling. So, I think it'll just depend a little bit on how firm or or not firm other potential ballot measures from from other levels that the state uh are at and then we can figure out if we want to include that. Um, a lot of times our pollsters will give us really good advice on whether that'll influence or

[104:00] not influence uh the poll results and and give us some guidance on whether to include it. >> Okay, that's helpful just because I'd love to understand, for instance, if an RTD sales tax were to be presented and we were trying to reduce sales tax, it might be a challenging narrative to our community to explain why their sales tax went up even though we just tried to bring it down. um because it's pretty difficult to see beyond the numbers there. So um so that's great. Thank you. >> That's it, Tina. >> Yeah, that's it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you so much, Aaron. You're next. >> Thanks. Um, so in the question about whether we would authorize bonding uh for the general fund, if we move forward with that, would we specify a specific number? >> Mayor, we would want to specify a a specific number and and limit on the capacity of that debt issuance.

[105:00] >> Great. So that would be our taper measure. In other words, to say we would then be authorized to bond to up to a certain figure from that election. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Great. And what if we uh greenlight that um to evaluate, what process would you use to determine what number we might ask for? I think um we would attempt to to model um some different scenarios for you all and bring those back forward uh in May and then get your feedback um to help inform that. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Is that it, Erin? Okay. Um it looks like we have Mark a asking another question which is great. But Mark and Rob, which is also great, and Nicole, great. Um, I am going to ask a few questions first. And if they were already asked, forgive

[106:00] me because it's not the easiest to um do two things at once. So, just tell me it was asked and answered and I won't feel hurt. Promise. Okay, here we go. Um, I have a few questions. On slide eight, could you It said for every dollar of property tax collected, the city receives only 12 cents. So, can you explain like why would one would want to do a property tax if we only get 12 cents on the dollar or I'm misunderstanding it? >> Yeah, I'll I'll start here and Scott, please jump in as well. Um, so property tax is a very stable source of revenue. um compared to a sales tax which is has a lot of volatility around economic conditions. >> Um so I think that is um one of the driving reasons um so we don't have that level of volatility so we can maintain consistent service levels with reliable funding. So, if we only get 12 cents on the

[107:01] dollar, who gets we're are we then increasing the amount that the people who get the rest of the dollar get? >> Um, no. We would be um so right now um if you think about it, the total the total mill levy that somebody on average uh receives in Boulder >> is around 95 96 mills. M >> our portion of that is a little bit less than 12 ms. So that's the 12 13%. >> If we increased it up to the max, >> uh our share would go up to 13 14 15% but we would raise an additional $7 million per year. So that's a pretty significant increase um to our total property tax which is coming in around $60 million a year. So it's over 10% increase. >> Tara, can I Terry, can I add in here? Yeah. >> If we raise the property tax, we'll get 100% of the increase in the property

[108:00] tax. >> That's the answer. Thank you. >> There you go. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Next question. On one of the slides, it said or somebody said, why do that businesses would pay would be paying something like three times the amount on property tax. So, I know that this happened also on the library um the library tax. Can you explain why we have to increase it for small businesses three times the amount of everybody else >> that uh the assessment rate is is controlled at the state level. So right now residential properties uh pay between 6 and 7% assessment rate where commercial properties are paying 26 27%. >> Okay. >> Um so that that's really the the the why. >> I see. So it affects businesses more. Okay. Um, next question. Um, if we slide 22, so I I wrote all these ahead of time so I would be able to focus better. If we expand the usage only, would that be

[109:00] enough to pay for an operating cost of a new pool at the rec center? So just the operate. So just expanding the usage on slide 22 would could that pay for the yearly operating costs of a new pool at the South Berix or do you just need time to work out the numbers which is fine? I think that is something we can um we can have ready for discussion in April when we're talking about the overall facilities plan. Um I don't have the detail this evening of the full operating costs unless our parks and rec director I see popped up um wants to cover anything different there. >> Well, I was just going to point out and I just want to clarify you're council member or mayor prom you're talking about on slide 22 the if you were just to ddedicate the tax a little bit. Is that accurate? Is that your question? So, do you know how we talked about um having the permanent parks and wreck

[110:01] fund be for >> operations? Operations. >> Yeah. >> So, so if it were expanded in use right now, folks, I'm Ally Rhodess, I serve as director of parks and recreation for the city of Boulder. Um right now, Perm Parks is limited to acquisition or improvement of parkland. It cannot be used to operate the pool. So, if you expand the pool or expand its use, yes, it could be used to fund operations. However, I would just note that would come at a trade-off of something else because there is a funding deficit. As folks have heard, we're fiscally constrained and so it's not like there's extra money laying around there that could support operations. It would come at a trade-off of capital refurbishment. Okay. Okay. Um, so the same slide, if we did a public realm tax levy increase, and by the way, my hotline was landed like cold potatoes. Nobody was excited about that, which is good to know. But if we did it, would it be possible to to

[111:00] ask that instead of like uh like half of what we asked for? So instead of a 1.4% increase, like a 7% increase. Um so it wouldn't be such a burden to people and businesses. Is it can I ask council if they want to pull that as well or is that like off the table and too many options? uh we have the ability uh for a property tax increase um anywhere between zero and 1.352 mills. So you could you could pull on half of that. You could prefer to do to less than that number. It would just come at a cost of of of increasing le revenue less revenue. And if you attachment B on the memo will tell you how much uh a mill increment will will get you. >> Thanks for working with me on that. Okay. And two two more questions on slide 23. The residential vacancy tax. Can we use that money that we would get

[112:01] for cross departmental reasons or do we have to use it for a specific reason >> specific department? uh are if if that uh staff's recommendation would be for that not to be a dedicated tax and and to use that for general purposes. >> Okay, great. And lastly, slide 27. I guess what I'm worried about is how do I know let's say that we unbundled um I guess that might be or might not be the right word if we let's say we decided to do the public realm um tax instead of all the separate sales tax um dedicated sales taxes. How do how do how would I know like the money would be used at least for parks at least 25 cents for parks and wreck let's say as an example um do you know what I mean like how could we tell the community don't worry we know we care about what you want we know what you want because that's something that I would be worried

[113:01] about so I think Steph I heard an answer earlier in one of my discussions I wondering if somebody could say that again this was a good one do you member >> I'll I'll start um I will say there is an annual budget process so this is transparent information if they get um if um we end up with not the individual dedications um we are going to be sharing every year how much is being presented in the city manager submitted budget for parks and recreation for capital for open space Um, there is full transparency in that process. I'm not sure, Chris, if there's anything you wish to add there. Is that No, he doesn't wish to add anything. >> No, I think Christa covered it. It was good. >> Okay, great. All right, I'm done with my questions. Thanks everybody for being so

[114:00] patient. Next, we have the next bout of uh the next bunch of questions. First Mark, >> just one quick supplemental question. Um when we come back and discuss this further, um will we be presented with uh a set of assumptions uh with respect to um debt issuance and what it would look like uh as a charge against the general fund given this number or that number and assuming this interest rate or that interest rate. Um I think it's important for us to understand what burden we're going to be placing on the general fund if we go in that direction. >> Yes, Councilman Wallik. Um we can come forward with um the model and the basis for the recommendation of how much debt capacity um from a financial perspective um we would be recommending um city council consider for um also considering the health financial health of the organization too.

[115:00] and I I look forward to getting that information. Thank you so much. >> Great. Okay, Rob. >> Um, do you still have a question, Rob? You are muted. >> Sorry, I knew I was going to do it sooner or later. Um, also question on the bonding. Once you determine the max debt capacity that the city would um bond against the general fund. One question is you can use that as needed. You don't need to obviously use that whole capacity at once. That's I'm see you're shaking your head. Yes. >> Sorry. Yeah. I couldn't find my >> No, that's all you have to do is shake your head. Yes. Um and then I would like to see um if you could provide for like fire station two and four, south boulder rec center, east boulder, all the rec centers, everything else that you know we're going to identify um as big

[116:02] capital expenditures. what the tradeoff is for, let's say, I'm just shooting from the hip here, a 7% interest rate versus the cost of labor and materials rising faster than that year-over-year. And does it make sense, you know, time is money to use that right now and then spread that over the course of I'm guessing this is like a I can't remember where it was a 30-year bond. >> Yeah. Um thank you for the question. Um in April um you will see coming forth the current um CCRS adopted capital plan and including it in that is um assumptions of in the past plan some debt financing um with the capacity approved um and

[117:02] we'll be bringing forward uh we we can speak on specific models of if we were to finance a particular project a what capacity we currently have if we add more um and show various scenarios there. >> Okay, that would be great. Thank you. >> Well, we are doing great. There looks like there's no more questions. And so we're going to go to the next part, the hard part, and that is somehow coalescing around what we think staff should focus on and what we think they shouldn't focus on. So I thought and tell me what you think of this Nuria Mark Chris if I did a straw poll first to ask if anyone's interested in do doing any further work this year on the transformational taxes. Do you think that's a good idea or should I not do that? What do you suggest we go? >> I think that'd be great. >> Okay. So we're gonna have our first

[118:00] straw poll. >> But Tara, can we talk about it first? When when do I get to comment? Oh yes. Well, this is what we I thought we would do is we're going to have a straw poll on transformational. I have something to say on it as well. So, what I want to do is let's just start with transformational and do your comments and then we'll have a straw only comment if you have an opinion though, okay? And then because I do I'll have a short comment and then we'll take a straw poll after we've discussed the transformational because I think that'll be the shortest part and the longest part will be the next two where we'll probably have the most opinions and do the most talking. So who raise your hand if you want to talk about transformational and we'll start with Nicole. >> Great. Thank you. Um, so for me, I just I wanted to make a comment about this um revenue neutral, moving some sales tax to um the property tax. It actually doesn't seem transformational to me. Um

[119:01] it actually seems like the logical outcome of the long-term financial strategy um and the guiding principles that we agreed to years ago and that we have affirmed um over the last year or two as well. It's basically a modest revenue neutral rebalancing um and exactly the kind of incremental um principal-driven adjustment that the long-term financial strategy is guiding us toward. I'd really like to um consider it not necessarily for like drafting a ballot measure for right now, but I would love for us to get some data um along the lines of what we were talking about. So um if we for example um looking at impacts on different uh demographic groups and socioeconomic um uh households um for example looking at homeowning retirees at low, middle and high incomes. What would the net impact be from this change of moving from sales tax moving and not all right? We're not talking about getting rid of sales tax but to move some sales tax

[120:00] over to property tax. What would that impact be? what would the impact be for um for workers or renters at low uh middle um and high uh earnings? I think that that is a good way for us to get some data to inform that decision. Um because when I read about this one in particular, it really just follows the long-term financial strategy guiding principles. It's revenue neutral. Um, in theory, the people who are going to be the most impacted are wealthy homeowners um who can afford uh to pay a little bit more and are benefiting disproportionately from the way that our current revenue structure is sourced where um they are paying the least percentage of their income to sales tax. Uh and really not not too much of a difference in terms of property tax. like those graphs in our packet were striking in terms of the inequity um that that we have with our current model. So, I would love to like not saying tonight that we, you know, are

[121:00] committing because we can't vote anyway, but I would really love to gather some more data on this because I actually don't think it's transformational. I think it's just following our long-term financial strategy. So, are you saying that you want this um for 2026 ballot measure and you want to pull it or are you saying you want staff to look into it for the future? >> Are we are we are we giving feedback on polling tonight? Sorry, I thought that >> I I think tell me if I'm wrong, Nuria, that they do want some feedback because we can't pull everything. That's what I hear. So, we have to narrow down our polling. >> So, we have two questions, right? one is do you have feedback on the general spectrum and I think that's goes to the questions that you were just um posing council member Spear but your second question is precisely what you say mayor prom which is we really want to narrow in on what do you want us to focus on on 2026 because we cannot poll on all so if you want us to from all if you have feedback on all the spectrum of what we

[122:02] have and want us to continue to look at it even though it may not be for 2026, please let us know that. But then we have to narrow down to what's going to happen uh or what you want us to really focus on for this year because it can't come all all on the ballot. Does that make sense? >> Yep. Yeah. Yeah, it does. Yeah. Yeah. And so I mean in in this case, I actually would like for us to look at this for um 2026. I think that sales tax is going to continue to be a bit volatile. Um and I think it would be really um a good thing for us to look at sooner than later. Um and people like it. If if the voters don't like it when we pull it, fine, right? At least we get some information. >> Okay. Uh Brian, >> thank you. Um yeah, I have a similar view. So, you know, we have extreme levels of dedicated funding, extreme reliance on sales tax, a backlog of deferred maintenance, and we have a long-term financial strategies group who's been tasked to try to improve our

[123:02] balance sheet and put us in a position of being able to be proactive about making good investments. I'm a little surprised that we're that we're not I guess in some ways further along by this point in saying what what are some structural changes we can make to improve this situation. So I I agree we should um be continuing to do the work on the property tax/sales tax swap. Um I think you know in addition to some of the things Nicole said there's some there's some more advantages. Um, you know, I do think the case of the senior who has a $1 million plus home and they've got fixed income is important. They also have benefits, you know, because they're going to have reduced um sales tax. There's benefits to the local economy to um, you know, reducing that cost. And there are in principal ways, programmatic ways to help um, seniors and others with um, expensive homes to find renters um, to live with them, co-house, do co-housing, do ADUs, you

[124:01] know, and and so on and so forth. So I think we should be exploring this um again towards this this big goal of improving our balance sheet that is becoming quite pressing. I also think we should be looking at the sales tax for services especially with Sundance and exploring can we do something that really focuses on the visitors and the the business coming to Sundance that that would um you know provide a real real focus with respect to revenue from from that group. >> Okay. So you want to pull both. Is that what you're saying? poll or at least move both continue to explore both I think. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Tina. >> Yeah. Just kind of following up on my prior comment. If we do want to look at this change in the the balance between property and sales tax, um I think we might want to consider in a different format making a statement about whether or not in general we support sales tax from other entities as well. So, we have

[125:02] have supported sales taxes historically. It's one of the easiest things to pass and we might see that with early child care. We might see it with RTD, which are things we deeply care about. Um, but I I don't I think we need to have a discussion about do we have a strategy that just moves away from sales tax. So, that's it. >> So, what are you saying about um transformational? Would you like to see them pulled this year? Either one or no? >> Uh, sure. But I do think we need to have consistency. I don't I don't think we should embark on it and then increase sales tax different ways and it may not be in our control, but we need to be realistic with our community. >> Okay. Um, great. Thanks. U Mark, >> sorry. Um, here's where I I would come down on these things. I would like to poll on

[126:01] the bonding measure. I think that is a significant amount of money and if the we get a sense that the community will support it, I'd like to go in that direction. >> Wait, hold on, Mark. We're only doing transformational and then we'll do the rest after this. >> Okay. Which ones are transformational? The uh sales tax >> the very at the very does do you want to put it up to show the transformational in case >> be very helpful. move that up that slide >> that would be very useful >> and then everybody will do their big thing their big >> as you're looking for that I just want to make sure that we're being thoughtful about staff capacity to analyze all of the items we're not going to be able to do all eight and so thinking about that. >> Okay. Well, maybe what we'll do is after we pull transformational and then we pull the others, we can repole everything and you tell us how many you want to pull so we know how to

[127:03] bring it back down. >> Mayor Prom, which ones were transformational. It's >> Well, Scott's going to put it up. Are you not? I can look on my slides. >> Sorry, I'm just having too many technical difficulties. One second. >> Hold on. I can see he's looking for it. services on sales tax and the revenue neutral switching from some sales tax to um property tax but revenue neutral. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question a process question? >> Is there is there a preferred number of things to pull on? Are we heading in direction? >> Yeah, maybe I'll I'll jump in. I think we're we're not at the polling conversation yet. That's really for you in May. What we're really looking for tonight is the three category buckets, transformational, mid-range, and inc and structural. Um, where of those three

[128:01] buckets do you want us to focus on? All of them, on two of them, or only on one of them? >> Uh, and then in May, we can April and May, we can bring more specific types of ballot measures within those. Then you'll decide on what to pull. We'll do the polling and then you'll get the results of that in June. So, so I would encourage you to kind of think about it in terms of these big category buckets for tonight. >> But I I want to say Chris, and I think that's right, and Christa, you'll have to you'll have to be thinking about this and be honest about capacity because if we put all of these on the table, I think you have limited capacity to take a deep dive into all of them. >> Yeah. Okay. We'll try to narrow it down tonight. All right. Mark transformational >> mayor mayor prom since they're all up here can I not just go through them and and and tell you >> then everybody else who I did let's just quickly do trans I thought transformation >> okay on transformational uh I think u

[129:00] the sales tax on services is an interesting concept but I doubt it's a 2026 concept >> perfect too much >> that's where I want perfect >> and on the increase of property tax I have the same concern that my colleague Matt Benjamin has we need to understand the impact on people who are house rich and cash poor. Um, and until we understand that, I don't mind if we pull it, but uh, I'm not sure we're going to get the kind of response that we would hope for. >> Okay. So, let's do the rest really quickly. I think this is not exactly working like I visualized. Um, but let's just I'll just quickly say for instance for transformational I'm interested in sales tax on services just because of Sundance, but I'm not interested in doing the increased property tax, decrease sales tax for 2026. Okay, that's what I meant like something fast like that. Okay, next we have Matt. >> Appreciate it. Um, to Chris's point, I think everyone's going to find at least

[130:00] one thing that they like in each of these three categories. So, I'm worried we're going to still end up with eight things to pull and not get anywhere. So, >> I'm a little worried we're going to have we're going to be here a little while down selecting. I may would have started with what do we get rid of first and then have what's left, but that that's a different story. Um, >> regarding the transformational, I I'm going to say that just given that we are going to be limited to only a few things, this might be nice to have at some point here soon, but I think there's others that are more critical for us to assess given we're likely only going to pull a couple things. Um, and so, so I would leave these items off of that going forward, but I think we need to continue to assess them further at a later date, but maybe not quite right for 26 because I think there's some more imminent things that we need to be thinking about. Um, and I'll get to explaining those in a minute when we move to the other segments, but but I'd like to leave other transformational aside for now. >> Perfect. Okay. Um, now we're gonna have uh Rob, >> I agree with uh what Matt said. Um, I

[131:00] think there's some potential in the sales tax for service that can be studied. Um, I just don't want to be pushing services out. I don't think anybody is economically, but um, for Sundance, there's potential. And I think there's just a lot more research to do with the increased property tax and decreased sales tax for this ballot measure. >> Okay. Um, Noria, do you think I should just move on or should I pull transformational your call? >> I think that'd be great. So that we can think about whether or not that's um >> what would be great >> how people would think about continue to go down that line. >> So keep going and don't poll yet. >> No, I I think it would be great to hear from everyone on what um they think of the transformational. >> Okay, super. All right, I'm gonna keep going then. Erin, wait. Tina, did you speak already? I can't remember. I did, but I just want to clarify. We can vote as many times as we want, right? We're not doing tradeoffs. >> We're not. I just want to say we're not

[132:01] voting because we don't vote here, right? But we're just getting your perspective. >> Yeah, I'm channeling Teresa. All right. Now, we have Aaron. >> But we can opine early and often if we desire. >> Um, I'll just agree with the staff recommendation in terms of not tackling the transformative uh things, although agree with Nicole and Ryan. might be interested in some polling at some point about the property tax sales tax swap. Thanks. >> Okay, so now we heard from everybody that wants to speak because I don't see any any other hands. Um, do you need more than this, Norya, or should I move on? Do you want me to pull transformational now? >> If we have heard from everyone. >> Well, I don't I don't think we have. Uh, who hasn't spoken? I think Taiisha hasn't spoken yet. Can we just pull it because I think we just need to do it and then give give staff some certainty and then we can continue on. >> Okie do. Let's just pull it then. >> Hold on one second. Although I appreciate the sense of urgency, I just

[133:02] want to take a moment for our facilitator and thank her for making sure that everybody has spoken. That is the responsibility of a great facilitator. So thank you for that. I don't have anything and you know if I did I would have said something but I do appreciate that you just double checked because everything that I have to say has already been said. Thank you. >> All right. I love that. See everything she had to say has already been said. Thank you for not saying it again. I appreciate you. All right. We are going to move on to this poll which we're going to do quickly. >> Are you pulling on the um like transformation all together or each one individually? >> That's a great question. And you know, polling is my weakness. So, I'm going to look to staff to tell me how. Of course, I had to get the study session with the most polling ever. Whatever. Staff, how would you like me to pull this? We had originally thought that we would look for categories um to see if there are categories um that you would like us to look at

[134:01] further. um certainly defer to you if there are individual items that you would like a look at, but it would be uh what we were originally hoping is that we would get categories. >> I don't even know what that means. >> We were looking do you want us to take a deep dive to transformational or keep that in the long-term financial strategy as future options uh and not for 2026? If if somebody felt like there was a particular item that you wanted us to look at, maybe not one but two, then certainly somebody could say that, but we were looking right now for entire categories on whether or not you wanted us to look at that for 2026 or whether you wanted us to keep that on the table as part of our long-term financial strategy. Okay, everybody that wants >> Yes. Go. because I didn't speak on the sales tax on services, which I actually I love that idea, but I don't know that that's a 2026 one. Like for me to be the first in the state doing something that

[135:00] feels like something that we can't necessarily pull together in a couple months. Um and I would still make a plug for the um revenue neutral switching of some property tax or sales tax property tax um is I consider that structural, not >> okay. So we're gonna go like this. You can. We're still going to keep it in the transformational category even though you'd like to move it. Okay. Um and we're going to take a strong poll right now. Who wants to do a deeper dive in the transformational category? Now, how for 2026? for 2026. >> Can you imagine if there's only one that I >> mayorm? I think council member Spear was um suggesting that she has a thought that the number two the increase of property tax she would like to st individually. >> Is that correct? >> Thank you. Yes. >> Okay. Everybody that wants to do transformational this year, raise your

[136:01] hand. And I can't see the hands for some reason. I don't know why. >> Specifically the Which one? >> Tax split. >> Number two. >> Yeah, >> in this chart that I'm looking at. >> Increase property tax, decrease sales tax, revenue neutral. >> That is number two right there. Transformational number two. And for some reason, I can't see anybody. Wait, let me see why. Can somebody take that poll for me? Because for some reason, >> I'm counting four hands. >> Thank you. Four. Okay, four. Everybody that >> wants me a birthday present. >> Okay. No, no, none of that. Everybody that wants to do number one, transportational number one, >> here. >> Can we have the yeses and the nos just to make sure we see the right number of hands? >> You bet. We're starting again. Gosh, I don't like to do throwles. We're starting again. Transformational number two. Yeses, raise your hand. Number two is increase property tax,

[137:01] decrease sales tax. How many, Aaron? Is that >> I count I count four. >> Okay. Nose on that. Raise your hand >> and I count five. >> Okay. Next. Transformational number one. Sales tax on services. Raise your hand. >> Two. >> Okay. Then that's also a no. So staff wins the day. We're not going to do transformational this year, but we are going to look into it for the future. Next, we now have the Let's do the mid-range, shall we? And let's do it the same way. If you want residential vacancy excise tax number five, I'm not going in order. I'm going backwards for this year. Raise your hand. >> I think Ryan has a clarifying question. >> Go Ryan. >> Thank you, Erin. Are we going to do comments on the category here like we did on the previous one? Was that the

[138:01] process? >> Well, I'm a little worried about how long it's all going to take. But how about this? Is that what you would like to do, Ryan? >> Um, I'm actually trying to see if I had something for this category, but I just wanted to ask Yeah. if I we should people I I got the impression I just wanted to. So, I just wanted to ask on behalf of the group. Um, side by side speaker gallery. I gotta get the gallery up there. There. I finally did it. I got gallery up there. Yay me. Um, Taiisha, did you say something? >> I was asking point of clarification if we were just going to if we were going to go number by number and not by the whole group like we did in the previous. >> Well, we could do a straw poll on that. I person Go ahead, Erin. >> Do you mind if I make a suggestion? Terra, >> please. Maybe you could solicit quick comments on the category of mid-range and people could address the things they most care about after people made quick comments. You could

[139:00] straw poll each individually so that there's clarity. >> I love that idea. Let's do it. Okay. Comments on the on the red color. Who has comments on mid-range? All right. Mark. >> Okay. Um, I think residential vacancy is too little money for too much work and is is not going to be productive for us. Um, you're only getting one to $2 million before the costs of enforcement. I don't think that makes sense. The U number four, the public realm mill levy. Um, if we expand the definitions of what money can be used for, I think that's going to be very beneficial and I would support that. and the general purpose is mill levy. If we want to poll it, I'm okay, but I don't think we're going to get a very good response to that. So, basically, I would say no to that. Um, but we can always poll. >> Okay. Um, next is Nicole.

[140:04] >> Yes, I agree with Mark um on these. I'm not so interested in the residential vacancy. Um, I think the general purposes mill levy would be hard for people without some sort of corresponding decrease in another tax somewhere. Um, I would be very interested in the polling for the public realm mill levy if we were to do that if we just expand the definition. Um, as well as if we expand the definition and increase. So, kind of like last year and then just do a subset of that. So, we're only changing one thing this year. >> Okay. Matt, >> um, of the three in this category, I'm interested in the vacancy tax for a simple reason. Yeah. I mean, we might say$1 to $2 million isn't that much money. Uh, that's the entire budget of our snow plowing operations for a year, $1.5 million. So, we might say it's not a lot of money, but that's an entire service that our C city counts on. So, anyway, I I think it's worth us pursuing certainly on polling and then perhaps hopefully getting it on the ballot.

[141:02] >> Great. Um, so that's that's all you got. Okay, Rob, >> I would be interested in the uh public ground mill levy. Um, just the expanding of how the existing funds are used for sure. um second home vacancy tax. I have the same concerns um administratively how that's going to cost, but at the end of the day, if it's not taxing staff and it's bringing in re revenue, I I'm I'm definitely open to that. >> Okay. Uh next we have Ryan. No, Tina. Sorry, T. Sorry, Tina. >> Yeah. Um, I'm interested in the public realm pulling the number four and um I'm very interested in the residential vacancy excise tax and I'm also interested it at a higher tax level so that it would generate more revenue um and possibly be closer to some other uh

[142:02] well to another state that does that. Um and I think that we can figure out the administration of that tax. Uh I I also have a preference for >> the city staff to shape that particular tax um and do it right. Thanks. >> Okay, >> great. Brian, >> I'm interested in all three and I'd just like to comment on the um vacancy tax. I I have gone from being really interested in this to learning that the numbers of units, you know, the revenue is maybe not as exciting as as we thought it might be. Um, and it kind of to me kind of popped out of being an obvious long-term financial strategy item and instead, you know, just maybe also a good item for for whatever reason. Um, and so I've been a little bit cool on it, but um, now seeing some of the rental prices that are on offer for homes for Sundance, I am now looking at

[143:00] this and thinking th this would be good infrastructure for us to set up so that we can have a handle on that. and and so from like an anti-displacement standpoint, I think it would be this looks interesting to me to make sure we have that in place. Thanks. >> Okay, next we have Aaron. >> Yeah, so I'm interested in the residential vacancy tax and to Tina's point, I think we could look at larger numbers that would make the financial uh consequences more impactful. And then I liked what Nicole had to say about the public realm mill levy about pulling a couple of the different options. Uh that that would be interesting to me as well. Thanks. >> Okay, Taiisha. >> Uh I also agree with the second home vacancy um especially as a um to disincent in incentivize uh and I would be open to a higher tax rate. Um and then I'm also interested in the public realm. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Anybody else? I'm going to go last. I am going to agree that I'm

[144:01] interested in the res residential vacancy tax. Uh especially hearing Matt's uh snowplow argument, which I thought was excellent. Um I also want to pull the public realm tax like Nicole said, both the expansion um all of the all the different options. And I want to add my option. I'm a little bit worried that our mill levy, if it's too high, it's going to turn people off and it's going to affect businesses too much. They already paid too much property tax. Um, and so I would be open to a smaller mill levy that would affect businesses less and people less. Okay, now we're ready to poll. So, I think we're just going to do everybody that wants to do number three. Mid-range general purposes, mil levy, raise your hand. Yes.

[145:03] Um, I see Aaron, you're the hand counter for me. >> One. I see one. >> Okay. One. All right. Everybody that doesn't want to do that, raise your hand. Okay. So, three is off the table. Now, we have um four Everybody who wants to do some iteration of four, raise your hand. That looks like everybody. Um, Nura SL Chris and Mark, do you need more than that for four? Do you need me to go? >> We do not, though. I'll note that it wasn't everyone, but we I think we have um accounted for. >> I can't see that. Well, how many people was it? Do you know? >> I think it was eight. >> Eight. Okay, eight. Sorry about that last person. Um, I'm not seeing the screen that well. Okay, now we have number five. Everybody that would like to go further information with the residential vacancy tax, raise your hand.

[146:02] >> How many is that? >> Six. >> Okay, great. Now we're up to structural and I know that people want to talk about that. So, we'll take comments first. >> Can I ask a clarifying question? >> You bet. >> Sure. So the we have the structural for the public realm sales tax expansion of existing but I think we covered that under the mid-range uh public realm. So I think we're left with six and seven. >> Is that true Nuria? Do you agree? Would you feel that way? >> Um those two options are are are slightly different. One is the uh combination of all the sales tax increments into one fund. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's number eight. That's my m my mistake. So number eight is actually the combining of all the different sales taxes. >> That's right. So it's the public realm sales tax versus the public realm mill levy. >> My mistake. Thanks. >> That's okay. All right. So we're going to start with Does anybody have comments

[147:01] about structural? I think Mark does, right, Mark? Um, yeah, I I would um uh not want to um basically uh ddedicate all of our funds and put them into one lump sum. Um there's a reason why we had dedicated funds. It's it's probably gone too far. We need to increase the scope of uses for those funds, but to simply put them all in a pot, um there are reasons why people wanted those dedicated funds. Again, it's gone too far, but I think we were already with our other um number four, I think we will be taking care of that. Uh the general fund debt authorization, I think, is very important because it's a substantial amount of money and we can hopefully make good judgments as to how to use it. Um and I I think it's an appropriate financing vehicle for us. Um the increase in the property tax cap um

[148:00] uh I would not be in favor of and uh um I think the polling results will be fairly sad on that one. So >> okay, thanks so much Mark Matt. >> Uh yeah, I think the general fund debt is the best bang for the buck for us. It contributes and it it gets us a massive amount of new capital to work with. As we said, we can't repurpose CCRs. We clearly know that we've got something right in front of us that the community is clamoring for, and that is a plan for South Boulder Rec Center, and this money gives us a chance to have a conversation about what that plan can be because we haven't had that conversation because there's been no money to discuss. Um, so this is massively transformational. Um, which is crazy because it's not in the transformational thing, but it's so important for us to discuss and, uh, doesn't raise taxes. So, this is this is a a big one for us, and I'm just glad that we're able to have this conversation now. It's it's really quite quite substantial. >> Great, Nicole. >> Yeah, I would be interested um in polling actually all of these uh options

[149:02] if that doesn't feel like it would be too many um to pull for the structural changes. Um and you know, I hope we can kind of hold off on talking about these things as going toward any particular project uh for now um until we get to that that facilities discussion in April because that's going to be a really important one. Um, but I I I see value in all of these things and whether or not we were interested in putting them on the ballot, I would very much like to see what the community thinks about them. They are all really important structural changes that would be helpful um for us in future councils. >> Okay, next we have Rob. >> Yeah, I would support the uh general fund debt authoriz authorization. I think we are in a a situation now where we have some major major capital improvements that um aren't funded and I think exploring that and putting out to that uh to the public would be useful. The public realm sales tax consolidation

[150:00] um you know Christa did speak to that as far as um the transparency of it. I'd be interested in that going out to the public. Um my gut is the increase in property tax cap um is going to go over like a lead balloon. >> Okay, fantastic. Next we have Ryan. >> Uh first just a clarifying question I think for Nuria and it's how are we doing on our our quota for um for polling? Right. I don't do we have two we've got going and do we have space for >> and again we're what we're trying to see is um we're not talking about polling yet as much as how many um how much >> how many of these items do you want staff to dive in deeper uh and um I'll continue I'll let Christa sort of take a look at where we are right now and see how we're how we're doing. We've taken some off the table. We've got a couple that are still there. Okay, we're doing well. What do you think, Ryan? >> Okay. Well, I'm asking because I have a there's one I prefer, but if it's if we

[151:01] can do both, you know, I So, I mean, I I I like six the most. So, I'd like to move forward with that. >> Okay. >> And then, um, in terms of exploring, I if there's time and space, it's not a hindrance. I I like number seven. Um, and then I Sorry, T. I think this is this probably our last shot to to to talk. So, I just also wanted to mention Mark um on his hotline mentioned the idea of exploring open space uh fees for visitors. I don't know that that was meant to be a 2026 because that's not on the agenda for today, but I I just thought he made a good point that, you know, we basically own a national pretty much a national park here and we have a lot of visitors. We incur a lot of costs on it. That seems like something we ought to be exploring at some point. And um I just wanted to say that while we're having this discussion um and then finally that reminded me of another idea. My understanding is we've got um over a million dollars now coming in in revenue from automated traffic enforcement. Um and there's a lot of ways of thinking about that. But you

[152:00] know ultimately that money ideally goes down because we have people that are not you know violating the law. Um but in any case that does seem like that that the strategy and how we manage that going forward um will become really important with for this this financial strategy conversation because cities have taken have have done a lot of different things with those types of revenues. Some have wished they'd done it different ways. So I'll leave it at that. But before we move off all this I wanted to just point out those two ideas. Thank you. Really good point, Ryan. And I agree with you about Mark's comment about open space. And um I'm not sure when we'll talk about that, but it was a good one. Okay, I'm going to say that I agree with six. I can go either way on seven because I don't think people will be into it. So, it's kind of if we're going to have to narrow down, I would say looking into my crystal ball, seven's probably going to be not one that the community wants. But I will I do want to make a stamp for the public realm sales tax which I wasn't

[153:00] into at first but staff talked me into it today even though Christa it was a comment that one somebody made either you or Chris I don't remember who that the good thing about uncoupling those uh dedicated sales taxes is you never know what's going to happen in the future and right now our hands are tied with them. So, I think untying our hands so that we're prepared for whatever in the world is going to happen in this world will be a good thing. Right now, a lot of our sales tax is already taken up with things. So, I am going to ask I'm going to vote for that one as well. I don't know how the community would feel about it, but you talked me into it today. So, that's that's that. All right. Ready for straw pulling? Here we go. Number six. Raise your hand if you

[154:01] want to do that. And where's my counter, Aaron? >> I got nine. >> All right. Look at that. Is that our first nine? I think so. All right. Exciting. All right. Number seven. Raise your hand if you want that. How many we got? Three. >> Three. >> Two. I think I got two. >> Two. Twoish. Twoish. Threeish. Okay. Either way, that's off the table. And everybody that wants to pull number eight, raise your hand. >> Five. >> Five. Woo. Look at that. Just made it through. All 49. Tell me staff. Nura, Christa, Chris, is there anything else that you need from us to go forward that we didn't give you? >> Christa, how you feeling about feedback you've gotten?

[155:00] >> I think we have what we need to move forward. Um really appreciate the discussion this evening. Um I just want to uh summarize here. Um we have number um four moving forward, number five moving forward and number six moving forward as well as number eight. So we just did so well. Look at us. Okay. Um anything else before we close the meeting? >> No. Wow. Any last words because we do have a few extra minutes. just just a huge thank you to the city staff who've worked so hard on putting the analysis together and and bringing us forward on this discussion. Really appreciate it >> and I want to give myself a huge thanks because you know I was petrified about these draw polls and thank you for everybody for helping me through. It was a team effort and we got it done. >> And thank you Tara for running the the

[156:00] meeting tonight. We really appreciate it. >> I wanted to quit right in the middle but I didn't and I'm so proud of myself. 51, I'm going to call this meeting to close with my gap. Have a great night and happy birthday, Nicole.