April 16, 2026 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[4:46] Channel 8 looking >> they're ready. All right. >> Well, good afternoon everyone and

[5:00] welcome to the Thursday, April 16th, 2026 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. I'll go ahead and call us to order and ask for a roll call, please. Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We'll start tonight's roll call as usual with Council Member Adams, >> present. >> Benjamin, >> present. >> Mayor Brockett, >> present. >> Council member Kaplan, >> present. >> Marquis, >> here. >> Shuhart >> here. >> Spear >> present. >> Wallik >> present. and mayor pro Tim Wer >> present. >> Mayor, we have our quorum. >> Thanks so much. All right. Well, let's go to open comment. And so, Elicia, if you can go over the public participation guidelines, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you again, everyone, for your participation at tonight's city council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised

[6:01] Code. This includes participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being to able to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimigation against any person. And lastly, obscinity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the

[7:02] meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you again for joining us and thank you for listening. >> Thanks so much, Elicia. All right, so I'm going to call uh three names at a time. Everyone will have two minutes to speak and I will be strict about that time limit in the interest of fairness and we'll vary the inperson and virtual speakers. So, our first three speakers are Mary Kate Rouge in person, Ella Price virtually, and Alex Belman in person. >> Good evening. I am Mary Kate Rei. I live and work in Boulder and I serve the people of God as the director of St. Aiden's Episcopal Church, common prayer for a common good. Last year, the city adopted the transportation maintenance fee using a fair share methodology. We will be build at the same rate as industrial buildings based on the square

[8:01] footage of our buildings. Many religious communities have large buildings and small budgets. Faith communities provide benefit to vulnerable people far more than our fair share per square foot. from emergency funds to feeding programs to space for other nonprofits and more. Please consider exempting worshipping communities from this fee. BVSD and CU are both exempt by state law. Second, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan has envisioned community values for human flourishing. As you move forward for multi-party agreement, please audit where current zoning is no longer in agreement with the underlying land use in the new comp plan and change it. We need a path to implementation, including staff resources and a work plan. Finally, redevelopment and replacing existing structures is a necessary movement

[9:01] toward the comp plan goals. The purpose of the built environment is to serve people. And this is especially true for religious buildings. The landmarks board and staff are smart, hardworking people who are constrained by a code that requires review of every building over 50 years old. The landmarks process will soon face an untenable backlog of automatic review. It is often subjective where decisions are made in a vacuum that cannot take into account other community priorities such as energy efficiency and affordable housing. Thank you for the work you do. >> Thank you. All right. Now, let's go to Ella Price online and then Alex Feltman and Patrick Lynn in person. >> Mayor, I do not see Ella online tonight. All right, let's go to Alex Velman then.

[10:04] >> Good evening. My name is Alex Velman and I'm a South Boulder resident. Last Thursday, you authorized a $20 million blank check for maintenance with zero accountability. You signed off on millions while staff admitted that if the SBRC boiler fails once more, our pool closes permanently. This is a clear abdication of oversight. How can you claim to be fiscally conservative while handing over eight figures with no guarantee of results? It's a lack of stewardship today and a lack of value tomorrow. You are quoting $65 million for a 45,000 square foot SBC, nearly 1,500 a square foot. Meanwhile, Lewisville delivered a facility double that size for less than 38 million in today's dollars. Fort Collins is delivering a 70,000 square foot multi-generational hub with indoor lap lanes, large outdoor leisure pool

[11:02] with slides and a lazy river, two gymnasiums, an elevated track, a library branch and child care for much less per square foot than proposed for an SPRC with less amenities. Why is Boulder paying a premium for a scaledback vision? Those lower costs in other cities include the very services that were consolidated away from us years ago. Now we are asked to pay a premium just to get a fraction of them back. We demand a line item spending plan for that 20 million and an independent cost benchmarking analysis before the May 14th study session. To the majority of this dis up for re-election in 2026, we aren't change weary. We are weary of fiduciary neglect. We are actually very open to change and we are paying attention. Thank you. Now we'll go to Patrick Lynn

[12:01] in person and then Lynn Seagull and Brian Marin also in person. Do >> I have to press the button? >> Yeah. Sorry. All right. I want to first thank city council for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Patrick Lynn. Um, full TR disclosure, I am not a resident of the city of Boulder, but I became co-owner of an airplane here about seven years ago that was already based here. And as a result, Boulder came as part of the deal. And what I've experienced here since becoming part of that community has given me a perspective I think that is worth sharing. From the airport ramp, I've seen what this airport does for the community. During wildfire season, it became a forward operating base for aerial firefighting. I remember the buzz of activity during the 2020 cowwood fire from over 10 helicopters being staged here and launching from that ramp. That proximity meant extra sorties per day critical to bringing the fire under control. And with the recent two wildland fires inside of city limits, it's a stark reminder of the resources

[13:00] we need to have on hand. There's also the medevac helicopter based here that takes off nearly daily. In fact, last night we had to pause our EAA meeting to let it back in from another life-saving mission. What that means is more than 300 people annually across the valley and mountain communities get life-saving transport because that airport is here. Close it and those missions don't happen here anymore. Boulder has built its reputation as a place where innovation and science are valued and our institutions reflect that. Incar, NIST, Noah, and CU. That reputation extends to the airport. The National Science Foundation's National Ecological Observatory Network flies research missions tracking ecosystem and climate change across the continent from that airfield. The runway is a part of Boulder's scientific infrastructure, and closing it sends a signal about how the community values those findings. I came here by circumstance, but every time I come to the Boulder Airport, I'm reminded that this place is something special. a window into everything this

[14:00] community actually values safety science and the environment and the airport has been moving forward with the times I know and thanks to you all a recent seed dot grand is helping bring unled fuel for the first time to the airport >> your time is up but thank you for your testimony >> all right everybody else is in person so next we have Lynn Seagull and then Brian Marin and then Christine >> Briscoll um I'm tired of retaliations I'm kind of getting retaliation um disaster feelings. Um for one, my retrofit through the city of Boulder was administrated by the city of Boulder and 10 years ago the county I did a retrofit with them and they gaslighted me. This isn't encouraging, you know, people to do energy retrofits. this is discouraging them and it's very disheartening because I've been an advocate of energy efficiency municipalization for 10 years for ballot measures you know and then when I had a

[15:00] sign up at a candidate forum Rachel friend who was running for county treasurer lied and said I followed her and shoved her because she didn't like my sign. Well, then they briefed the police that it wasn't about my sign. No, it wasn't about my sign. Well, it's probably about my stand on, you know, Israel Palestine. Um, so why can't people in this community like the World Affairs Conference that I'm just at today talk things out? If you got a difference with someone, connect about it, not lie about them. That was a misdemeanor I got from her and from Jessica, Matt Benjamin's wife, that I followed her four days after Lara Gonzalez got a felony for speaking out regards to uh the Palestinian Justice Cause. So, this is a problem. We don't need this in our

[16:01] community. We need, you know, Jessica and I could be great friends in the culinary arts. I'm a fabulous cook and you know but we never will be because there's retaliations. So I suggest that things change and you create the climate in this community all of you. So do it. Life's short. Free Palestine. >> Time is up. Um and I'll encourage folks to not call out community members specifically by name. Right. Our next speakers are Brian Marin, Christine Briscoll, and Brooke Anderson. Is Brian here? >> Doesn't look like it. So, we'll go to Christine Briscoll. >> Hi, I'm here to speak about the fund our future questionnaire that is stacked against the South Boulder Rec Center. The city's questionnaire asks residents

[17:01] to prioritize Boulder's funding needs, but it fails to include the very thing that thousands of people have signed a petition asking for and are showing up to city council meetings asking for. That's keeping core amenities, including a pool and gym, not a fieldhouse, at the South Boulder Rec Center. In fact, the questionnaire fail fails to even mention the words South Boulder Rec Center or even just mention keeping core amenities at all the rec centers. Instead, the questionnaire does something sneaky. It includes an item called indoor aquatic programming. On its face, this would seem to include keeping a pool at South. But if you scroll down and read through the 4,022word fine print describing the choices and compare it to Parks and Rec specific proposals for the three rec centers, you discover that giving a high score to indoor aquatic programming means funding the exact items that park and parks and wreck has proposed moving forward with it east. the rebuilt leisure and expanded lane lap pool as well as another facility parks and recck

[18:01] wants. As such, we've been instructing our supporters to give zero dots to uh indoor aquatic programming. Uh sadly, this questionnaire turned into just another way for staff to push their priorities while ignoring what the people, us, your constituents are unequivocally stating as our priority. This is just one of the many reasons why thousands of us are now singleissue voters. And that issue is keeping South Boulder Rex pool, gym, and outdoor natural grass soccer field. No one in the community wants a fieldhouse at South. Seriously, no one. >> Thank you. I will go to Brooke Anderson, Carly Brooks, and Mary Sinois. Good evening, mayor and city council

[19:02] members. My name is Charlie Anderson and I am in first grade at Bear Creek Elementary, and I love to swim. I'm even doing a swim team this summer. I want the pool and activities to stay at the South Border Rec Center so that those of us who live so close will not have to have our parents drive us to a different rec center. When I'm older, when I can walk by myself to this one. One day all may I may be on the Fair View swim team and it would be silly if I had to leave this neighborhood for practice. I love this neighborhood. Also, my dad really loves Sana, so please don't take that away either. Thank you.

[20:00] >> My name is Brooke and I'm Charlie's mom. My husband and I chose specifically to move to Table Mesa in Boulder instead of Lewisville or Lafayette 10 years ago before we had kids because of the amazing schools, Rec Center, and Park literally across the street. Today, I have a three-year-old son and six-year-old daughter and I work full-time. In order for my daughter to do gymnastics, I have to drive 20 minutes across town to the North Boulder Rec Center in late afternoon traffic, which often requires me to stop work early to do so. For now, I've chosen for her not to do gymnastics because it's just not convenient. My son's preschool classmates who live in South Boulder choose to have birthday parties at rec centers like the Apex Center 30 minutes away in Arvvada because they have an amazing indoor birthday area play. On behalf of families with young children who are making decisions about where to live, I can say that we look to move and stay in communities that have familyfriendly amenities that are both convenient and prioritized. You, city council, are blatantly choosing to make South Boulder a less desirable community

[21:01] for families. >> Thank you. >> Your time is up. Thanks. And Charlie, great job. >> All right, we've got Carly Brooks, then Mary Schneevice, and then Kent Catnik. >> Hi there. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. So, I'm Carly Brooks. I'm a member of the Boulder Bear Coalition and I've been leading uh efforts on a paper on the Boulder Bear Protection Trash Ordinance that was passed uh March 2014. And this ordinance mandated uh bear resistant trash carts for most everything west of Broadway uh and just led to an incredible roll out really of about 14,700 uh trash and compost carts by 2016. So two years ago, Colorado Parks and Wildlife formed a human bear conflict working group uh to address the rising conflict in the state. This group represents about 60 different stakeholders. And just late last year, they made it a top priority to get more

[22:00] bear ordinances passed throughout Colorado. So that's really the impetus for this paper. We really want Boulder to serve as a model uh for other communities to emulate and uh highlight Boulder's success with the bear ordinance. It's definitely clear the approach and the scale at which this was done was first of its kind for Colorado. Um but at the same time we also want to highlight what lessons were learned after 12 years. So specifically asking the city uh what could have been done differently. So we've been uh meeting with code enforcement city staff to learn more and ensure our data are accurate. And then lastly, there's been no comprehensive review of this ordinance that we're at least aware of since about 2018. So this provides a really good opportunity for us to measure ongoing success and bear trends and uh just re-evaluate uh what's worked well and what hasn't. So that's what's ongoing. Uh I look forward to coming back uh with more updates in the future. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Mary Schneevice, then Ken Katnik and Abe

[23:00] Schneavvice. >> Hi there. Um dear counselors, when discussing the South Boulder Rec Center, there are many points that can be discussed. usage, amenities, equity, accessibility, energy efficiency, and it goes on and on. But the core of the issue is that our rec centers, the places where we recreate, we work out, we socialize, those places exist for the well-being of all of residents of Boulder, which is all of us here tonight. When Boulder Parks and Wreck conducted their needs assessment survey about 18 months ago, the wording in the survey clearly outlined a choice. Do you want higher quality consolidated services or do you want more basic distributed services? The response from residents was resoundingly clear across the board. Residents want distributed core services uh which include fitness equipment, classes, uh aquatics and gymnasium. I'm I've attached a couple of slides actually you guys should have as a handout from the presentation um to PRA in October of 25 a few months ago. The city's job is to prioritize the needs and wants of residents while

[24:01] working within a constrained budget. And obviously that's where the hard part comes in. How can we retain core amenities at our three rock centers, as residents have consistently stated, is their priority um without spending too much money? It doesn't make sense to even consider spending $80 million at East and another $80 million at North if it comes at the expense of keeping a pool and a gym at the other rec center south. Residents didn't say they wanted two brand new net zero rec centers with amazing consolidated services. They said they wanted basic core amenities retained at all three recck centers including south. I implore you to think about how you can best serve your fellow residents with regard to the existing service uh rec centers. Surely there are more options than those that have been presented by parks and recck so far. If staff is calling the recent 1 and a.5 million investment at South a significant investment and it bought us 5 to seven years, then surely 70 to 80 million is not required to replace outdated HVAC systems and inefficient

[25:00] pool envelopes at North and East. Please ask more questions, demand detailed answers. >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Now we'll go to Kent Katnik, Abe Schneavvice, and Nate Vaselik. >> Dear council members, my name is Kent Katnik. I'm a resident of Boulder and airline captain. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. As a professional pilot, I have not forgotten where I've come from and I know the Boulder Municipal Airport as a vital asset to our community and to the aviation industry. Last Saturday, I was fortunate to fly several youth at Boulder on their very first aviation experience and tomorrow I'll fly more than 200 people to London. Several young people had signed up to speak tonight but were not selected and I wanted to carry their enthusiasm forward. I am deeply involved with our EAA chapter at BDU. We offer free youth flights each month and have flown over 875 kids since our chapter formed in 2019. Our chapter provides community connection. Last night, 35 people attended a talk about

[26:00] Amelia Heheart and many of our members are local residents in their 60s, 70s, and 80s who value the social interaction and purpose that our activities provide. We have been a uh we have awarded seven scholarships for flight training and run an annual Young Eagles rally that focuses outreach on the two neighboring manufacturer home communities. Those neighbors also attend our meetings and movie nights. Our activities are open to all and we welcome the community to join us. Beyond community benefits, Boulder Airport is an important training ground for pilots. The airport's existence helps reduce the amount of overhead flight training directly above the city of Boulder because of our involuntary noise abatement guidelines. I'm proud that we are finally offering unled fuel at our airport and continue to work with regional partners to minimize noise and other complaints. My airline employs 19,000 pilots with a target near 28,000. Those pilots who fly people to business meetings, family events, and vacations need safe places to train. Boulder is

[27:00] one of many US airports that supports that training. Please maintain and improve this community asset. The airport supports youth education, community engagement, and pilot training. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Abe Schneavvice, Nate Wasilik, and Rex Reinhardt. >> Uh hello everyone. My name is Abe Snice. I'm 17 years old. I'm a junior at Fairview High School and a swimmer. And I'm also a lifeguard. I've been born and raised in Boulder. And I'd like to introduce my swim coach, Skyler Finley. >> Um, I'm Skyler Finley. Thank you to Abe. I serve as the head coach for Fairview High School boys swim team. Um, I first want to thank all the students, uh, parents, and community members who are here today to advocate for our home pool. Our team practices five days a week at South Boulder Rec Center. We have 52 boys on our roster. The girls team had close to 70 this year. If we lose pool access at South, I would

[28:00] expect to lose 50% of those in the first year and another 20% of those swimmers the following year. One of the swimmers who would not have stayed with the team through a pool closure is a senior who joined the team last year. He learned how to swim, got hired as a lifeguard, made a lifesaving uh rescue as a lifeguard in December this year, and was awarded three different awards by the Red Cross and other organizations uh here in Boulder. Um, the young swimmers who practice out of our city facilities are not taking away space from the community. They are the community. We don't need a gold line facility. It would be nice to be able to host meets in a new pool like we do now, but the most important thing for our team is access to a pool that's walking distance from school. I encourage you to vote in a way that continues providing lap pl lane access to our team and all the young swimmers in Boulder who will go on to be swim instructors, lifeguards, and involved members of the community. Thank

[29:02] you. >> Thanks. And then um I'll note actually that we do generally need the people who signed up to speak to be the ones who do speak. I do give some latitude for folks under the age of uh 18 or 18 or under. Uh, but if folks can generally keep to that, we would appreciate it. All right, now we'll go to Nate Wesik, Rex Reinhardt, and Evan Rabbitz. >> Do you feel watched? Do you feel eyes on your back everywhere you go? Well, good, because you act different under surveillance. Every day when you leave for work, it's logged. Every errands you run, it's recorded. Flock is a name you've heard of lot a lot of, I'm sure. And I'm not going to retry that old ground. Needless to say, they are horrible for this community. What I instead want to talk about is live view technologies. They offer essentially the same service. AI surveillance, AI enabled surveillance in our communities. No privacy policy you can make or law you can enact can protect your community

[30:01] members from this scourge. Every time they take a video, they upload it to servers for them to process the information. And only then can you pull that information back. We saw Denver try and get rid of flock. And their solution was to go to a company that does the exact same thing one notch less bad. I'll take the harm reduction, but that's not the point. And I'm going to guarantee that some of the city council members who voted for that are going to lose their jobs for it. Don't make that mistake. Instead, ban AI enabled surveillance and protect your community. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Rex Reinhardt, Evan Ravitz, and Neil Cece. Good evening. My name is Rex Reinhardt and I'm here to comment on the structure of Boulder's 2026 Fund Our Future community questionnaire. Currently, the survey is structured in a way that effectively rigs the outcome against the South Boulder Recreation Center. In the survey, residents are asked to divide a

[31:00] 100 dots across a long list of funding topics, but there is no clear option to support keeping the South Boulder Rec Center's core amenities, including a lap pool and full gym, which are the basic recreation services that South Boulder families depend on. There is also no clear option to support equivalent core amenities at rec centers generally. The one item that appears related is indoor aquatic programming, but that does not actually give residents a way to vote for preserving South Boulders's pool or core recreation offerings. But when you read the fine print, even a high ranking there would support Park and Rex's exact plan for more lap lanes at East Boulder rather than preserving or restoring what South Boulder needs. That is not neutral. That is a design choice. If the survey does not allow residents to express support for maintaining core amenities at the South Boulder Rec Center, then the results cannot honestly

[32:00] be described as community support for reducing them because not all communities are included. So all I ask is this. Revise the questionnaire so residents can directly prioritize funding to preserve core amenities at South Boulder Rec Center and do not use broad goals to assert community wants and needs. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to uh and quiet folks, but that was great. Um Evan Ravitz, Neil CE, and Michael Holtz. It's amazing that this council, famous for new growth, for eventually 50,000 new residents, would be reducing rec centers from 3 to two and Iris Avenue from four lanes to three, etc. Any 10-year-old knows that more people require more rec centers and more

[33:01] transportation. How did things get so whack? A big reason was that the city manager, city attorney, city clerk, and city IT director were all replaced some five years ago. After all, but the clerk lied to council and us to obstruct the online petitioning for ballot initiatives we have only in Boulder at petitions.bouldercol.go. gov. If it worked right, an initiative to preserve the rec center would be easy to get on the ballot. I was on the city's campaign finance and elections working group that got online petitioning on the 2018 ballot and passed by 71%. The system is almost unusable. Top politicians in the state had the details

[34:00] butchered. I documented top staff lying and cheating with video and audio, so they had to be replaced. See and hear it at tinyurl.com/petition store. The incompetence due to the replacements is why public relations staff grew from 12 in 2018 to 30 something now. confirm this with other members of the city working group like longtime council members Steve Pomerance and Alan Feinder. >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Now we'll go to Neil Cease, Michael Holtz, and Ivon Bennett. >> Uh, hello council. My name is Nile Cease and I am a Boulder resident against an increase of any amount to the tipped wage credit. At a time when the working class is under attack by the federal government, the city should be doing

[35:00] everything they can to protect workers and build a strong economy from the bottom up. It's no secret businesses are struggling right now, but it's because of an issue much more deeper than their labor costs. And I am disappointed council has rushed to this solution without thinking or trying anything else first. Because of federal bills like HR1, many people are struggling with in increased health care costs and are worried about their job security resulting in lower spending. I know I have personally been trying to save more uh because I don't know what the future holds. Reducing wages for almost 10% of Boulder's workforce will only reduce consumer confidence further and create a downward spiral on the economy. We've known since Ronald Reagan that no benefits of a wage cut will trickle down to the workers. It will only make our economy more K-shaped. In a recent study published by the University of California, Berkeley showed a $20 minimum wage for fast food workers only increased the cost of a $4 item by 6 cents and had minimal effects

[36:02] on jobs. And I also think a freeze of the tipped wage would be the worst option because the living costs a median income restaurant industry worker spends almost all their money on will not freeze along with it. Additionally, people are experiencing tip fatigue and tipping less by the date, which will result in lower wages. I would finally like to ask each council member who is engaged with restaurant owners to also engage with workers and find out what they are struggling with and how even 50 cents an hour can make a difference in their lives. Some alternate ideas I had to promote more activity uh on Pearl Street is an alcohol common consumption zone which the city of Arvvada is doing in Oldtown and also zoning more dense housing closer to Pearl Street and reducing rents through a vacancy tax. Thank you. Now we'll go to Michael Holtz, Ivon Bennett, and Rhita Abujam. >> My name is Michael Holtz and I've lived

[37:00] in South Boulder for 48 years. I'm an architect. I've been engaged in any energy and environmental research and design consulting for over 52 years. The South Boulder Rec Center together with the surrounding park area is the heart and soul of South Boulder. It is where the surrounding neighbors, neighborhoods, and schools come to recreate and train. I have reviewed the January 2025 Perkins Will building condition assessment report. The South Boulder Rec Center is old but structurally sound and is an excellent example of modern architecture, one that is worth preserving. And from a sustainability point of view, the rec center is better saved than torn down and replaced. Many of the report findings can be addressed through comp comprehensive phase renovation process and skillfully designed additions. While it is a worthy goal, achieving all current building code requirements is not required and selective variances

[38:00] should be allowed. Energy-wise, the South Pole rec center uses half the energy than the East and North Pole rec centers. Natural gas used for space heating and water heating dominates building energy consump consumption. And if the solar thermal system, which was vandalized and removed from the site, had been properly designed and maintained, the heating, energy use, and cost would be dramatically reduced. So, in conclusion, it is far better to save, repair, and expand as necessary the South Boulder Rec Center than to tear it down. And don't rip out the heart and soul of South Boulder. We deserve better. Thank you. Now we'll go to Michael Bennett, Rojita Abujam, and Andrew McKenna. >> Good evening. My name is Ivonne Bennett and I'm here representing the thousands of Boulder residents who rely on and love the South Boulder Recreation Center. The level of community engagement around this issue should not

[39:01] be ignored. People are showing up to meetings, sending emails, signing petitions, and speaking out because we are afraid of losing something essential to our daily lives. What we are asking for is simple and very reasonable. Please fund and maintain the core amenities at South Boulder Rec Center, including a pool and gym. When we look at the options being presented, the disparity is hard to ignore. The East Boulder Rec Center is being considered for a 70 to80 million expansion, including two pools, and six additional lap lanes. The North Boulder Recreation Center would gain $15,000 square feet, warm water wellness, and expanded age well services for 65 to 85 million. And south is the only center being asked to make a tradeoff. South is the only center at risk of losing a pool.

[40:02] Why are we prioritizing north and east with amenities, expansion, and renovation ex outrageous renovation cost while deprioritizing south with fewer amenities? We also know from the city's own facilities director that projects take at least five years from planning to completion. That makes this timing very critical. If we delay action on South, we risk real gaps in service for the families, seniors, and youth who depend on the center every single day. So, I urge you to please listen to the community. We are showing up. We are engaged and we are asking for you to prioritize South Boulder in a way that is consistent and equitable with the rest of the city. Thank you for listening. >> Thank you Avon. Right now we'll go to Rojita Abujam and Andrew McKenna will be our last speaker. >> Hi, I'm Rajata and I live in South

[41:02] Boulder. I know you all have heard many speeches from folks who use the rec center and the pool there. My story is a little different. I do not use the rec center and I'm here to explain why. I moved to Boulder from New York City less than four years ago. Trying to fit in, I went for a hike. I was outpaced wildly by someone probably twice my age. Welcome to Boulder, right? Anyway, that afternoon all charged up, I went online and noted down all the classes I wanted to take at the nearby rec center going forward. Turns out only one of the 10 classes I was interested in was held at South Bull the rec center. The rest were in the east or the north. So hardly had any classes. Not surprisingly, a month later, I canceled my membership. As a mother of a six-year-old back then, I needed something nearby, a quick workout without the commute. and our South Rec

[42:01] Center just didn't offer me enough. It had a I'm going to say a neglected vibe. I signed up elsewhere. As for my child, I started taking her to East and North for her swim and gymnastic lessons. Oh, and by the way, all the cool swim birthday parties for us so kids happen at East and North as well. Why is that though? Sober property prices are wild. We pay a good chunk of the taxes, I would assume. So why is it that this particular rec center is being treated like an afterthought? Perhaps I am partly responsible. I mean I canceled my membership right now. You see the connection. Less facilities, low membership, low membership, low funding. And the cycle continues. So here I am requesting you all to please give the neighborhood what it deserves and let's break the cycle. Help us want to go to our rec centers. Let's have a pool our kids can walk to. I truly am really thankful for what you guys do. So when you make a decision, please keep us

[43:01] sober folks in mind. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our final speaker is Andrew McKenna. >> Yeah. Hi. Um my name is Andrew McKenna. I live in Boulder and my uh I and my partners own and operate Journeys Aviation and Mile High Gliding Businesses at the Boulder Airport. Boulder Airport is an economic engine that by C DOT's estimate provides upwards of 78 million in revenue, 23 million in payroll, and I will point out tens of thousands of dollars in sales taxes that go into the Boulder general fund, not into the airport fund. Throughout the year, Journeys employs as many as 70 different people, mostly part-time staff, mostly young persons in college and high school, even middle schoolers, uh, and mostly um, their first job in the workforce. These are entry- level jobs, but they lead to aviation careers. Many of our staff progress on to become professional pilots, and we have many former students and employees who are now flying for the

[44:01] airlines. Boulder Airport has overwhelming support from the community. The Boulder Community Conversation Project conducted a great expense to the airport fund demonstrated that more than 84% of respondents expressed support for the airport. The misg misguided and failed ballot measures of last year were financially supported by only four persons, two of which didn't even live in the city. We don't need to postpone decisions about the airport any longer. We don't need another referendum. We don't need more discussion. The community has already provided an answer. 84% in favor of the airport. I'm urging council to commit to support the future of the airport at your study session next week and beyond. Logical and financial financially responsible action would be to have the council vote to return to taking FAA grants and decide to make Boulder Airport the best airport it can be. The time has come to stop the indecision and the mischief and commit to a path into the future that

[45:01] provides clarity for the airport community. clarity for airport businesses and clarity for the city without wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. A bright future awaits us. Finally, okay, your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. All right, that brings us to the end of our speakers. I want to thank everyone who came out to speak to us tonight and particularly thank the the young people who spoke to us at the DAS and who are here tonight experiencing local democracy. I'll turn to city staff to see if there are any responses. Uh good evening council and I'll echo the mayor's uh comments of just appreciate everyone who came out to speak tonight. Uh just one item that I wanted to uh address as several speakers talked about the fund our future engagement that's happening right now. Um we have both an online survey as well as some in-person engagement opportunities. Uh we have one more in-person or not in person but virtual uh engagement this Sunday. So, if you haven't uh joined that, we uh you can sign up on the city website if you

[46:00] search for fund our future uh and the on the the survey that's out there and the exercise is really a prioritization exercise at at the services level. And just to try and kind of do that exercise of tradeoffs, four dots is the current level of service that we provide. Three or less means you should you think the city should provide less of that. And then if it's five or more, you think that the city should provide more of that service. So, that's how we set it up just to try and have community members experience a little bit of that trade-off exercise. So, wanted to make sure that I mentioned that. Uh, and with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that council may have. >> Thanks, Teresa. Do you have anything? >> I do, Mayor. Um, you know, there was a speaker who spoke about the competency of staff, particularly city staff, and um, I just want to say my experience is that city staff are wildly competent and, uh, my colleagues do an excellent job.

[47:02] >> I agree with you 100%. Thank you for saying that, Teresa. We have excellent staff at the city. All right. Do we have um, any questions for city staff? I got Tara. >> I do. Um, I I want to talk for a second about Reverend Mary Kate's comment in regards to the transportation fee and exemptions. Um, this was the exact thing that I was worried about. I was so far away then and I'm wondering when we are going to be talking about exemptions or if we are where are we with the exemptions? Uh, >> I don't remember the exact timeline on the transportation maintenance fee coming back, but I'll get back to you on that. Thanks, Charles. I was gonna ask that same question. Matt, uh, >> my question centers around some things we've heard from some of the speakers regarding uh, a fieldhouse being at the site of the South Border Rec Center. And if I recall from our conversation last

[48:00] week, scenarios A and B didn't really reflect a fieldhouse. It really reflected a new rec center, one with a pool and one without. Um, and so I just want to sort of just clarify, is this semantics or is there indeed still a consideration for a fieldhouse or are we confusing the one without the pool for what might be considered a fieldhouse? I just want to sort of level set and and just for everybody, even for me myself, if I might perhaps misunderstand what those scenar those two scenarios reflect. >> Yeah, thanks for that question. And uh if we if you go back and look at the materials from April 9th, we laid out for rec centers kind of a uh two scenarios for each one, an A and a B. Uh and if you look at the description of those two, they do describe rec center services in each of those. So I'd encourage folks to go back and look at that uh narrative to to kind of describe how we were showing what the the the various trade-offs would be uh for for the various rec centers across the city. >> Okay. Okay. Well, then I'll just recap

[49:00] real quick for the audience. Uh, scenario A is just an is a new building, no pool, additional amenities to what's there, including indoor track, ninja studio not included elsewhere. And then we saw the price tag for that. And then scenario B was pool, gymnasium, recreational areas that match current service levels. So, I just want to be clear, not like a fieldhouse, but but one with and one without, just so that we're all talking about the same thing here because it's helpful as we really try to work on those priorities and really try to advocate for what's the best thing for for our communities. Certainly, as a South Boulder resident, we want to make sure that that's done right. So, I just want to level set. Thank you. >> Thanks for that. Um, not seeing any other questions. We do Do you have a question? >> I do. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Um, I had a question about the bear ordinance. uh as a former commissioner for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, I was around when that uh committee was being considered and I know that that has been a challenge. So, just curious if there was any kind of um evaluation l um

[50:00] that's being conducted um from the 2018 plan. >> Uh yes, council member. Um the uh the group of of um community members working on that have been in contact with city staff. City staff is um in receipt of that proposed ordinance. Um we are looking it over. Um h however there's a component here that would be council direction to move forward or not um with this kind of of ordinance. And so would encourage the community members to um think about speaking to council members. >> All right. Now, seeing no other hands, uh does anybody want to give a very brief response to open comment? Ter, >> I want to give a shout out to Charlie Charlie Brriscoll, six years old. Great job. Maybe you know my granddaughter

[51:01] here. She's in the same grade at the same school. >> Ryan. >> Yeah. I just wanted to also address that this is not the place to criticize individuals. My door is open. If folks want to talk about background on issues and ideas, but it uh adds no weight to the argument uh that one might have about things we ought to do or consider. And I'd urge our um folks joining that there this is not a place to be criticizing individuals former or current. Thanks >> Tisha. >> I just wanted to thank those workers who came to speak on behalf of maintaining the status quo for the uh tipped offset. Um and I look forward to continuing to hear from um those who will be directly impacted. Um I believe we've had dis disproportionate data um on certain uh

[52:01] stakeholder groups and impacts over others and um so continue to show up, continue to meet with us individually um so that we can have as much data uh from as many stakeholders that'll be impacted as possible. Thank you. >> Thanks. And I've got Nicole online. >> Thanks so much, Mayor. Um and thanks to everybody who spoke tonight. Um I just wanted to ask if people who are speaking could please stop blaming staff or attributing nefarious uh intentions to staff. They are public service of the servants of the highest order. Um really doing impossible work every day to make our city run and it makes it really challenging to listen to the points you're bringing up um when when you are um denigrating staff. Uh for the people who spoke to the fund our future survey, I just wanted to remind people that there is a place where you can add notes. Um I really encourage people to um to fill it out even if it's not exactly what you would have wished. I am in Washington DC this week. It is a very

[53:01] stark reminder of how things go um when we fail to participate in official channels of a democratic process. So um please please use that notes section um if you need to, but really encourage people to fill out that survey. Thank you so much. Thanks, Nicole. All right. Uh, yes, Mark. >> Very quickly, I want to um support my colleagues who have made uh comments about the inappropriateness of uh going after staff. Uh that's not their job and they are not in a position to respond. It's our job and if you want to criticize us, that's fine. That that's part of what we do. But um criticizing people are not in a position to respond to you does not advance your arguments. Thank you. >> Thanks, Mark. Okay, that's all the hands. Uh I will thank folks again for coming out and speaking to us and participating in local democracy. Um we

[54:01] are going to take uh if we can have quiet in the audience, please. Um all right, we're going to take a 10-minute recess and reconvene for the business 30. Thanks so much. It's

[64:54] Mr. Benjamin,

[65:04] >> do you have enough space? Am I crowding you? >> I'm like man spreading over here. Okay, welcome back everyone. I'm going to gavvel us back to order and let's go to our consent agenda, please, Elicia. >> Yes sir. Thank you. Our consent agenda is item three on tonight's agenda and it consists of items 3A through 3 I. >> Great. Any questions or comments on the consent agenda? I've got one myself, but Rob >> Yeah, it's on Jeep. I'm just curious, um, have the water lines been installed? And if they have, do the residents pay for a share of that when they petition?

[66:00] >> And Chris, maybe just tell what this item is regard to. >> Yeah, I can uh answer that question. And it's this is related to item G which is uh related to the Spring Valley Estates annexation. Uh and the the short answer and we can add more detail in the second reading memo is yes the or no the pipes have not been installed yet. Um and yes the residents will pay for that infrastructure. >> Yeah. Okay. I'm going to call on myself. I'm going to um ask a quick question on item H which is ordinance 8745 which is about certain changes and clarifications to the land use code. Um so Chris uh there was a recommendation that planning board made uh that would alter the so the substance of this ordinance in relation to whether folks could ask for uh threetory buildings for educational cultural and other facilities. Is that recommendation of theirs included in what we would be passing tonight? I can answer that. >> Look to Brad or uh it looks like Lisa

[67:02] may be online here as well. So uh Brad maybe if you want to start. >> Yeah, I'll uh Brad Mueller, planning and development services director and uh either Carl or Lisa can speak to that specifically, but I'll let them answer. >> Yeah, thank you Brad and thank you mayor for the question. Um so planning board made a recommendation to um change the ordinance. staff did not update the ordinance in accordance with that recommendation. We felt that um the change that they had recommended was something that was going to require a lot more study and would need to be pulled out of the ordinance in order to move forward with that recommendation. So the ordinance that's in your packet tonight is how it was presented originally to planning board. It has not been changed as a result of the recommendation. >> Great. Thanks for that. And Lisa, can you introduce yourself for the record, please? >> Yes. Thank you. Uh Lisa Hood. I'm principal planner of planning and development services. >> Great. So, thanks for confirming that and I'll just say um I think that was a

[68:00] good approach to take. I appreciate that staff is carrying forward the original recommendation and I do support staff's approach to this rather than trying to make the alteration that planning board uh made a recommendation about to so that we can just cleanly allow three uh three stories to be requested by these uh facilities as the ordinance originally intended. So, I'll be voting yes on that tonight. Um, yes, Chair >> Aaron, I agree with you and I just wanted to bring up that of the options that were given to us, I believe it was option two, um, that I supported. I do not support adding additional ownerous requirements onto a property owner when they merely just want to build a really nice looking three-story building with architectural uh, design. Um if I'm remember if I'm I have one more thing to say is that um is Mark Wolf here? >> Great. Okay. Um I am going to bring up that I shared a suggestion with staff

[69:00] related to another code cleanup for this ordinance. Specifically, I asked them to look into a quick fix for restrictions related to total retail square footage for breweries that are c and that uh ordinance is causing some unintended consequences for a brewery that is just trying to be innovative and creative. So, um Mark, do you want to provide any additional information or speak to this at this time or a different day or Brad? >> Yeah. Uh Brad Mueller again, director of planning and services. Uh and I know Mark has spoken with some of the ownership of that. So if he wants to augment this, we're we're aware of the interest and and the request. Uh we're researching both the history of how that uh square footage was um set up and whether there's any tiein to other regulating circumstances at say the state level or such. So we don't have a clear answer on those things at this time, but we understand the interest just say that I'm hoping that we could

[70:00] add it into this omnibus bill if you know how I like to rush things. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, >> Matt. I just want to speak to H in just a comment of this is awesome. Um this is exceptional work to make these changes. We love seeing these improvements coming in. Um and I certainly the one with the garage door similarly that came about because a resident came to me and said I don't understand how this is possible and I really appreciate staff when I raised that issue to staff they said we'll look at it and here it is in the change. Sadly that won't impact this owner cuz they had a time frame and so they had to march forward and they unfortunately will have to still rip out their driveway. But hopefully for anybody going forward, this will be a helpful fix that will allow them to take their garage, do what they want to do with it, and not have those unintended consequences ripple, cost money, and change their sort of life state. I will just add one other thing that coming at these one-offs to solve these issues is helpful, but I do think that once again, this is why it's so important for us on

[71:00] the back side of the comp plan, and I see Brad smiling because he knows where I'm going, is that we think about revamping Title N because we will clean up so many of these in one fail catch rather than playing whack-a-ole as they come up, which I know is a lot for staff to work on um in these interpersonal times. So, I just want to congratulate staff. This is a great job. >> Well, we appreciate that feedback and we uh strive for awesomeness on a regular basis. Thank you. >> And achieve it, too. >> Thank you. >> Um, any other comments or questions on the consent agenda or perhaps a motion? >> I make a motion to pass the consent agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion to second. Licia, can we have a roll call, please? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call on consent agenda items 3A through 3 I with Council Member Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brackett? >> Yes. >> Council member Kaplan? Yes. >> Marquis. >> Yes. >> Shuhard. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Winer.

[72:00] >> Yes. >> And council member Adams. >> Yes. >> The consent agenda is hereby approved unanimously. >> Thanks so much. Let's go to our public hearing, please. >> Yes, sir. Our public hearings are item five on tonight's agenda. 5A is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8748 enacting chapter 8-12 Metropolitin Districts BRC1981 and setting forth related details. Our second item under that same public hearing is the consideration of a motion to adopt resolution 1378 approving a model metropolitan district service plan for use by applicants in the formation of a metropolitan district within the boundaries of the city of Boulder, Colorado, and setting forth related details. All right, as uh staff gets settled here to uh present, we're uh excited to bring to you uh the regulatory framework for metropolitan districts that council

[73:01] asked us to proceed with uh at the end of last year. And uh with that, I will turn it over to our assistant city manager, Mark Wolf, to kick things off. >> Thank you, Chris. Good evening, mayor, members of council. Mark Wolf, assistant city manager. Uh joining me up here this evening is Sarah Guyger, senior counsel for the city. Uh we also are joined by Kim Crawford from Butler Snow, um who is available for questions as um is Brad. Tonight uh we are here for the second reading and public hearing uh of a legislative package designed to establish a comprehensive local regulatory framework for metropolitan districts in Boulder. Uh this includes the adoption of ordinance 8748 and resolution uh 1378 which is referred to as the model service plan. Next slide. Our presentation uh will go through the background uh previous direction from

[74:00] council. Uh we'll provide the motion language uh and then dive into some of the key provisions of both the ordinance, the model service plan, and then provide some of the feedback um that we've received uh during this most recent process and some of the staff um uh opinion on the feedback. Next slide. uh always um helpful. Um we are throwing many different economic development financing uh tools uh forward. Uh and uh always think it's it's helpful to see where um whatever tool we're talking about fits um in with the others. Um so for for metro districts um unlike GIDs which are are councilgoed um or bids and downtown development authorities which have appointed boards by council, metropolitan districts are governed by an elected board and are primarily used to finance largecale infrastructure. Uh while other tools like TIFF um can be

[75:01] used for uh redevelopment, um metro districts provide a way for developers to fund public infrastructure upfront and be reimbursed through a property tax mill levy. Next slide. Uh this initiative began as we were exploring um the various different uh economic development tools available to us. Um we had a previous conversation um in November of last year where council provided an out of five directing staff to develop a local framework. In January we came back uh where you all provided a little bit more specific policy direction to ensure these districts align with our goals uh while establishing uh some guard rails most notably a focus on commercial metro districts. Uh the first reading was on April 2nd and we are back this evening. Next slide. We will have the two separate motions tonight as noted on the ordinance and

[76:00] the resolution. We can bring those back up uh after the public hearing. Next slide. Uh ordinance 8748 serves as the legal foundation for our regulatory oversight. It essentially moves metro district formation from the state default process to our our local process. Next slide. The ordinance outlines legislative intent of allowing and regulating metro districts to strengthen economic vitality and quality of life through a framework for investment uh in necessary infrastructure. Importantly, the ordinance also establishes that metro districts in Boulder will be of commercial focus. No less than 90% of the assessed value of the entire project and no less than 90% of the square footage of the entire area within the district's boundaries are used for commercial purposes. Next slide. More specifically, Ordinance 8748 and

[77:01] Acts chapter 812 of the BRC. This gives the city authority to regulate every stage of a district's life from formation to dissolution. It mandates that no district can be formed within the city boundaries without council's explicit approval of a service plan. And it ensures that any material modification to a district's powers must come back to council for approval. Next slide. The ordinance also establishes the process for reviewing a service plan or the detailed plan for a proposed metro district mandatory standards and criteria and financial oversight which I will expand on in a moment. Next slide. The service plan review process provides the uh roadmap essentially for how a service plan is reviewed uh by uh the

[78:00] city. Next slide. The the process starts through preliminary review uh what we're calling a concept plan uh where staff would conduct a preliminary review of the project scope to ensure alignment with city goals during an early stage. Uh the deadline for concept plan review is 45 days before the final submitt. Then we would move into the formal uh submittal of the model service plan of the service plan itself. Um which the petitioner would formally submit a draft uh using our model service plan as the template for official consideration. Uh those deadlines for submission to the city are April 30th for a November election and October 31st for a May election. It's important to note in this ordinance um based on council's policy direction to allow for the consideration of metro districts for November of 2026

[79:00] that those deadlines do not apply in the first year that this ordinance is enacted. Next slide. There is a uh comprehensive uh review uh once a service plan is submitted to the city that is conducted across departments. Uh once staff determines that the service plan is ready for council consideration, a public hearing is scheduled for action. Uh we also negotiate a binding intergovernmental agreement or IGA that establishes operational and financial responsibilities. uh a model IGA is attached in your packet. Next slide. Council does have specific criteria that if all four of these criteria are not met, they must disapprove of the service plan. And so to summarize these four, one, the metro district is actually necessary. Two, the city or another entity cannot

[80:02] provide the service or the or the investment. Three, the metro district is financially viable. And four, the metro district can pay off the debt. Even if those f four criteria are met, council still retains the broad discretion to approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions so long as the decision is not arbitrary or capriccious. Next slide. A key provision is the five-year dissolution trigger. If a district has an issue debt within five years of its creation, it must provide a status update and council has the authority to initiate the solution. Council can also extend that five-year uh deadline uh at that time. This ensures that districts don't sit dormant without actually building the infrastructure promised through the service plan. The ordinance also provides enforcement mechanisms

[81:02] includ including the ability to withhold building permits, seek injunctions or impose penalties for non-compliance. Next slide. While the ordinance provides the overall authority, the model service plan is the mandatory rule book for how a district m must operate uh day-to-day. It is important to note that submitted service plans to the city may deviate from the model service plan and that uh deviation is subject to negotiation and ultimately at council's discretion. Next slide. The purpose of the model service plan is to provide standardization for uniform form and content that alli petitioners must substantially follow. So it's a starting place for uh a metro district. There's guard rails from a regulatory standpoint where it provides a baseline of the city's expectations

[82:01] and uh it also provides um where our authority is in terms of um council's discretion in reviewing any deviations from that plan um or uh under what circumstances um uh any sort of deviation could be considered. Next slide. Uh within our model service plan, um there are many provisions. So we're highlighting a few um of importance uh this evening. Again, that 90% um non-residential um threshold is outlined within the model service plan. Um also, uh it is important to remember that the infrastructure funded by these districts, streets, utilities, parks, etc. must be dedicated to the city uh for long-term ownership. Um exceptions to that can be ne negotiated through a service plan that is uh submitted, but that is the the the general fallback is that all infrastructure is dedicated to

[83:02] the city. Next slide. Uh one of the more important um areas of of regulation within the model service plan is the mill levy caps. Uh to ensure uh tax certainty we have implemented hard mil levy caps u within this package. The maximum debt mill levy is 50 mills. Uh when you add in the allowance for operations and maintenance the total maximum aggregated mill levy is capped at 65 mills. This cap ensures that future tenants and business owners have some type of predictable ceiling on the property taxes. Next slide. We've also included a 40-year debt discharge rule. Any debt or developer reimbursement agreement that hasn't been paid off after 40 years is automatically forgiven. This prevents a district from taxing property owners in perpetuity for the same initial infrastructure costs.

[84:02] to prevent quote self-deing where a developer controlled board sets excessive interest rates on on debt. Uh we're also requiring a third-party external financial advisor. Uh this third party must certify that interest rates are consistent with market standards uh to protect the district's long-term solveny. And and last, we also require mandatory disclosures for future property owners so they know exactly that they're buying into a metro district with additional taxes. Next slide. The Boulder regional uh improvements mill levy is an additional mandatory three uh mill levy that provides regional scale infrastructure uh improvements that benefit the broader community. Uh this reflects the reality that larger commercial developments create a need for systems that extend beyond the property lines such as regional transit or arterial arterial road expansions. Um, other cities like

[85:00] Aurora and Brighton use similar regional mill levies to ensure that new developments contribute their fair share across the region. Next slide. Okay, turning to uh stakeholder feedback with which is the last section here. Uh since the the first reading, uh we've engaged with uh the development community to ensure the framework is functional while maintaining the guard rails um that we're proposing. Proposed ordinance 8748 and the draft model service plan were made available publicly on March 3rd and comments were solicited through the drafting of the first reading memo. Uh we received feedback from a handful of firms and individuals mostly with experience in in development andor metro districts. Next slide. There's a lot of words on this slide, but I'll just uh summarize the the feedback that uh we've heard and and some of the the staff reaction to to

[86:01] that uh feedback. Uh theme one focuses on privately placed debt. uh feedback expressed concerns regarding our interest rate controls and the prohibition on compounding interest for developer held debt. Uh from staff perspective, it's important to remember that early stage district boards are often composed of the developers themselves, meaning they are essentially negotiating with themselves to to prevent self-deing. We've maintained that requirement for an external uh financial adviser to certify that all interest rates are consistent with current market standards. Regarding compounding interest, if a thirdparty adviser provides a specific certification, that it is a necessity for a project's specific risk profile, that is something that can be negotiated through individual service plans. for themes two and three um related to the definition of debt and the concern over double counting stakeholders requested that annually appropriated reimbursement agreements be excluded

[87:01] from debt caps. Um this is a is another essentially another tax or debt obligation uh at the outset. So from staff perspective, excluding them would create a transparency gap where the district's true overall debt may not be fully visible to the public. So we're maintaining that um that that type of agreement, the reimbursement agreement is included in the 50 mil cap to ensure there's no hidden debt um within within the district. uh to to ease uh some of the concerns that were raised um especially in the refunding uh category. We have clarified that when a district issues a formal bond to take out uh or or refund one of these agreements um only the new principal counts against the issuance uh limit which um prevents that double counting issue. Uh there also was a concern raised about um if you take out the maximum amount of debt uh allowable initially and you go to

[88:02] refinance or refund uh and that amount is above the the maximum that currently wouldn't be allowed in the model service plan. So if that is something anticipated again um that would need to be pro provided at the outset in the service plan submitted and would have to be negotiated. Uh theme four relates to um rolling off some of the mill levy if um the total uh it once a district's debt falls below 50% of its total assessed valuation. Um so this was a request from some of the stakeholders. Um, you know, while this is a while that type of low debt to value ratio indicates a healthy district overall, um, lifting the cap removes the primary protection for future owners, um, within the district, uh, future tenants and other businesses. So, staff recommends, uh, providing a predictable long-term ceiling, um, overall regardless of the

[89:00] of that debt to value ratio. And last, uh, clarifying the regional improvements or the the Boulder regional improvements, BARRI mill levy. Um, we have clarified some of the difference between impact fees which address onetime project specific impacts. Um, this really reflects an ongoing contribution to regional infrastructure that supports uh the large-scale commercial activity over over a longer period of time. Again, similar to other cities that um have uh metro districts in place. Next slide. And one more please. Okay, we are done with the presentation. Several staff available for your questions. >> Thanks so much for that, Mark. Uh questions for city staff. >> Mark, Tina, >> just a few questions. Um just refresh my recollection. Uh, what was the the mill levy we did for the library district?

[90:00] How large was that? >> I didn't remember either. >> We'll have it shortly. >> Okay, let me just move on. Um, for commercial property, let's say valued at $2 million, um, what's the actual dollar amount of a 65 mil uh tax? I'm making everybody do math. >> We can come back to your other question if you'd like. >> The mill levy was 3.5 for the library district. >> So this is 3.5. So this is not this is about 17 times what we did for the library. Okay, that's why I asked the second question of what does it look like in dollar numbers for a $2 million property

[91:02] and we can extrapolate for other values. Annual tax on 2 million is about 37 $38,000 65 mills. That was uh quickly so I'd have to double check that. >> Wow. >> And and I'll point out those numbers are true. That is the the maximum uh cap. um we would be evaluating um based on the service plan submitted to the city whether or not that MIL levy is appropriate based on the improvements needed to to be made. And so um that would be a part of the evaluation of a service plan that's submitted. Many times metro districts don't go to the the mill levy cap. Um but that that allowance um helps with the initial borrowing to to make the the initial investment financially viable. So it is a it is a balance of finding what is the the mill levy that ultimately is needed to support the ongoing debt versus the

[92:00] total allowance which helps with some of the initial financing. >> A couple of other small questions. Um one of the standards is to show inadequate inadequacy of services. um what's the standard for making that demonstration? >> I might yield to one of our legal experts on especially in other cities. I don't know Kim if maybe you could repeat that question. >> Repeat it. >> Yeah. >> How does one demonstrate inadequate inadequacy of services um for purposes of moving forward with uh you know a bond measure for instance? Sarah Guyer from the city attorney's office. I can try that one. So the services generally for metro districts refers to capital improvements and infrastructure essentially. So it is a streamlined way or potentially more efficient or um a

[93:00] way to develop infrastructure without um relying on the city's dime essentially. So, there are other services that metro districts can um provide, but generally they um come into play with infrastructure, but I can have Kim correct me if I'm wrong there. >> I was just keying off the slide that said there has to be a demonstration of inadequacy, and I'm just wondering how is that done and what is the standard? Yeah, I think um certainly there's some discretion there, but the types of things that staff would look at in in terms of evaluation is are the the public improvements necessary to facilitate the project, are they funded within the city? Are they scheduled within a reasonable amount of time? I think if we if we were looking at a scenario where the city was ultimately had a clear path for investment within a reasonable period of time, maybe we would say it's it's not needed. Um

[94:00] generally the the scale of infrastructure to Sarah Sarah's point um is what necessitates a larger initial investment >> and I would then from that ask a following question which is the plan for repayment and and determining the adequacy of the plan for repayment what standards are applied to that to make that determination again sim similar in that there's um some discretion question there. But we would look at the overall tax burden on the properties. So, how many how many properties, how many parcels, how many potential owners are within the district? Um what how long um are we proposing is the district proposing to take out the debt? Um you know, the scale, the total mill levy, all of that type of stuff. And so really, it would be an analysis of the the entire picture. What is the total cost of infrastructure? How much do we need to how much does the metro district need to borrow? um so on and so forth. So it we

[95:00] would be really looking at the the whole picture for for reasonleness >> and there is a financial plan that's required to be submitted with the service plan and that is um a major part of the reason why and just to go back council member to your question with respect to the library district. Um Kim um reminded me that there is a mill levy cap for the library district of five mills and that is also because the library district uses um that revenue for operations only and we're talking about metro district um for again largecale infrastructure and capital improvements which is a whole other >> animal right >> also large scale expense. My final question, um, was I am I correct in in in reading that the uh, calculation for approval of the district is is it 90% of the assessed valuation of the properties or 90% of the properties themselves?

[96:02] >> It's both. It's 90% of the assessed value and the square footage of the property. Does not that u is that not prejuditial to small businesses who who may have a different view of the world but you know they're going to be in effect overwhelmed by large properties in terms of determining whether this this uh construct is going to be approved. So the the 90% threshold is for the the entire boundaries of the proposed U metro district. So that just determines whether or not the type of district is is allowable under this ordinance. How big the individual units or or parcels are within the whole district. Um that's not governed by these these regulations. So the 90% is looking at is this a primarily a commercial area? Um that is

[97:03] the standard in the ordinance >> and is that the vote that that it's 90% of the assessed valuation um uh to determine whether the there's an approval by the the district businesses or residents as to whether this is approved. >> Yeah. And the initial the initial election is whomever the property owners are within the proposed uh district. So it it could be multiple owners. It typically it it is a limited number of owners at the initial creation of a of a district. Sarah, if you want to expand on that. >> Yeah, I mean frankly the election generally is just the developer. It's usually one or two um land owners um in the beginning and metro districts generally are used for new development. Um so there isn't really much

[98:02] there. Um and the point of the definition for the commercial or industrial district was for the purpose of um council indicating um the city's policy direction that metro districts were more appropriate for commercial uses at this time. So >> that's great. Good. Okay, Tina, then Rob, then Matt. >> Yeah. Um, following up a little bit with Mark's question, um, if it's 90% commercial in this case, could there be some residential then the other 10%. And then my question is, if the developer continues to own those residential units but rents them, can those tenants also become voters or is it only people who own the property? ress. >> Yeah, I was going to punt to Kim, but um

[99:01] Kim is saying that residents vote as well. Um but yeah. >> Okay. And then we would as a council, we would understand the makeup of the voters that >> so you once you create um once you once the district is created uh there is a a board that governs uh the metro district. So that board makeup will change over time, but as Sarah mentioned, typically initially who is voting on creating that metro district is only going to be one or two property owners, likely the developers, and then slowly that board makeup will change as more owners and tenants move in over time. >> Okay. No, I mean I really I think it is really a point of clarification on this one. Um around um because I thought in the reading in the slide said that for metro districts it was five to seven elected.

[100:03] So I'm just confused on the on what was just shared. Can somebody help me out on that? Um >> so the electorate is pretty restricted and limited for a metro district. It's only within the boundaries of the metro district and generally the district is created with empty land essentially and so the electorate would consist of the one or two property owners within that um metro district area and that would be and those um electors would be the one um doing the vote. So generally typically it's a developer or two And they would also elect the board and of the five to seven members in the beginning. And so then if they do rent out

[101:02] properties over time, then those resident renters would be eligible to participate in the vote board and will all automatically be able to vote. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Okay. And and in your experience, have you ever seen conflicts when that makeup changes over time or would there be anything we should be looking out for or anticipating? >> Yes, frequently. Um that's great. Okay. Um we attempted to the follow the direction and make the model service plan and ordinance as protective as possible to try and reduce that potential conflict. >> Okay. Um, another question I had is, uh, it talks about the fee that goes with the application. And I'm just curious, what kind of numbers does that look like in general for projects, um, that are at the scale of one that we know that might come forth in our community?

[102:00] >> We did estimate um, typically we try and estimate what cost recovery looks like um, depending on um, the type of um, analysis u on the spot. and Brad can correct me. Uh is we're anticipating a $15,000 application fee uh for a metro district. >> Okay. And does that fee is that also subject to the approval by the external fee advisor or is that done simply by the city? >> That's simply the city's fee for um reviewing the service plan. >> Okay. And then upon the selection of the external financial or the external fee advisors um will the financial advisor I think there's more clarification but does it have to be mutually agreed on by the city and the developer? It's just the city >> the external fee advisor or the financial adviser when it comes to privately placed debt would be in the hands of the metro district itself. So

[103:00] they would hire an external advisor and submit that certification. >> Okay. But so the city is not involved in selecting that advisor. >> Okay. >> No. And is that an issue ever upon like is there any discussion that you've seen in experience where they've disagreed on those outcomes from the adviserss? >> I'm thinking of punting to Kim on this, but it's my understanding that the external financial advisors are accredited. Okay. um and professionals and and the idea is to have a quote unquote neutral advisor app on the propriety of the interest rate or the fees. But I'll allow Kim to go ahead and augment that. >> Hi Kim Crawford with Butler Snow and

[104:00] we're um acting as special counsel to the city with respect to service plans. There are really only a couple Well, first of all, your service plan is going to require that it's an independent financial adviser. So, they can't be affiliated with the developer. Um, at that point, there are really probably only four or five firms in the state that we see do this and one of them is your city's financial adviser, Hilltop Securities. They also provide that service to Metro Districts when asked. So, you know, I I really feel very comfortable with most of the financial um advisor certifications that we see. Um I I haven't felt that there was really anything um that has ever come up that's been um unoured or or something that would be um a conflict of interest. >> Okay. Um great. Thank you so much. >> Right. We got Rob, then Matt, then Nicole, and then Tyu. >> Thanks. Um it said in the uh in the

[105:01] slide presentation that model service plan lifetimes are 40 years. Is this based on is this a set number that the city has agreed to? Is it based on scope size? >> Yeah. So the the 40 the 40-year uh provision uh related to uh the the timeline for debt. Uh so that would that is essentially the clock uh for the initial uh debt that is taken on uh to build the infrastructure. Um metro districts can um live in perpetuity after that. Um mostly for at that point operating and maintenance. Um but the idea being that most of that debt um so and again the most the reason for the mill levy would be retired within 40 years. That's the That's the provision within the service plan, the model service plan. >> And in most practices, do they tend to end at that 40-year debt or do they tend to continue on?

[106:00] >> I'd have to yield to others on that question. >> Not that old of a concept. So, >> statutory I'm sorry. um statutory debt limits and the length of debt by state law cannot exceed 40 years. So typically also that kind of relates to federal tax purposes because the IRS doesn't want Metro anybody even cities um issuing bonds that have a useful or that the bonds go out longer than the useful life. So IRS is very interested in a district not issuing bonds for 40 years when the average life is only 20 years. So that would be a problem and that's something when the districts would issue actually issue bonds that would come up but I think really most of it is that um you don't want them paying for debt for 40 year for 80 years even like when when the average life was 20 to 30 years and and again I don't see that as as an

[107:00] issue that's pretty standard in the in the industry and I don't see anybody really complaining about that and typically it's a little bit shorter even they might go to 30 years or even 25 years. >> Okay. Thank you. And following on with that point, once the the debt is retired, if this is um return to the city or if it's dissolved, what is the metric that we use um for the value added of the horizontal infrastructure, the roads, the water, the sewer, and the age of them and the maintenance that we're going to be inheriting? Yeah, I think that's something that you'd have to usually accountants figure that out is what the useful life is and how much is left. But if you're if you're inheriting 20 year old um infrastructure, it might not have a value um that is commensurate with what the what's outstanding um but you would get it back after the debt was paid off or after the bonds were um were paid or the

[108:00] district was dissolved. But within that IGA, is there any type of language that speaks to that the aging infrastructure? >> I don't think so. But I I don't think there was language in the IGA, but I but I also think that it's not has not been an issue um because they are really limited to that 40 years and under state law, even if the city said they could go to 50, under state law, you can't go more than 40. >> Okay. >> So um so I think that they are limited and Um that's usually the that's usually the useful life of um streets, water, sewers, and other public infrastructure. >> Yeah. And to to clarify, mo most of the infrastructure would be remitted to the city after it's built. And so then it would be our responsibility to maintain immediately uh after that. That makes sense. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Just want to cl pardon me. Just want to

[109:00] clarify with regards to some of the staff recommendations and the community engagement. There were a few um uh what was the phrase that they we used? I want to use the right term. Oh yeah, policy alternatives. Um there was a couple of those. Are those al alternatives baked into this ordinance? >> Uh they are not. Most of the um alternatives relate to the model service plan. Um there was one change based off of feedback in the ordinance that um we mentioned uh to clarify the purpose of metro districts that that change was made. Uh for the model service plan um our approach generally was to note where um there could be a reasonable deviation from what is currently drafted. We did not make changes to the model service plan. Um but certainly at uh council discretion uh in concert with staff analysis if a service plan was submitted um that um you know essentially looked at some of those alternatives mentioned in the memo that's something we would uh

[110:00] consider in the context of whatever that individual service plan is. >> All right. So just just to be clear because I I read like as such staff is recommending only limited changes to the model service plan based on community feedback and so I took that as those alternatives were those recommendations. So what you're saying is they're not a part of the ordinance or the resolution 1378 for the model service plan. Is that correct? >> Those those policy alternatives are are not in the model service plan. >> Okay. Um and and remind me how would then how would those be put in so that they could be levered? I mean, I think when we're doing community engagement and we come up with an alternative that's sort of agreed upon and shared between staff and community, those are always really good to put in because it validates the engagement that is intrinsic to the process. So, I'm just sort of curious, is that where do those then fit in if they're sitting here right now, not in resolution 1378?

[111:02] Council member, the council has the discretion actually today to potentially change the model service plan. And so if you all agreed that you preferred the alternative approach and that's why those were provided to give you the option to change the model service plan from a legal perspective. Um, we'd recommend that if you prefer those alternatives that those changes actually be made in the model service plan and not necessarily in a service plan that's submitted later on because the model service plan serves at the guard rail as the guardrail. Um, I would also say that those alternatives were not alternative positions agreed upon with the particular stakeholders. Those were alternatives that we came um to recommend um sort of as either a middle ground or

[112:00] potential option, not you know something that we went back to do community engagement with that particular option and say hey do you all agree to this? So >> just so you're aware. >> Well that's fair. I mean any alternative that's a middle ground sounds like that's a good thing that we're hearing them. So maybe understand the timing. If because April 30th is a real deadline for anybody who would want to submit. If we were to add these policy alternatives, would that change the cadence of uh the resolution in which case do we get into a time pinch for that April 30th then not being a viable date if we were to make these alternatives added now? So, so the the deadlines do not apply this year. Um, so we wouldn't be running into that. I think a longer delay um would uh inhibit our ability as staff to properly analyze the service plan that is submitted and provide you all runway

[113:00] before November. So, there's that timing issue. But in terms of the ordinance deadlines, that those wouldn't apply for 2026. for the resolution. If you made changes, we would have to bring it back at depending on how substantive um the next regular meeting um is what we would target. >> Well, that would be a question for you because these are the alternatives that staff came up with. So, it would be up to you to decide how substantive and how difficult it would be to implement. >> The the without additional additional options, the ones outlined, I I would think we could turn those around quickly as as changes to the to the uh resolution. I will just add though that there are policy alternatives for council, but they weren't staff's recommendations. So based on council's direction, the current version of the model service plan incorporates staff staff's recommendations. So >> just to clarify that. >> Appreciate the appreciate clarifying that and the timing and cadence.

[114:00] Appreciate it. Thank you, >> Nicole Nenta. Thank you. Um I just had a few questions. Um in terms of the work to create this model service plan and the ordinance as it's presented, um can you talk a little bit about how you approached balancing flexibility for developers with the city's responsibility to protect future taxpayers and tenants from long-term financial risk? >> Sure. Um, I can take a crack at that and others feel free to chime in. I I think some of the provisions that we outlined attempt to do that. Um, the the hard mil levy cap um is certainly kind of the the biggest or most notable um within there. U you know, the the council feedback at the last time we discussed this on limiting this to a commercial only commercial primarily uh metro district is is certainly unique. a larger guard rail. Um, you know, and I think it's

[115:01] important also to acknowledge that, um, you know, metro districts are more independent as outlined at the beginning of the presentation. And so there is some, um, inherent trade-off, um, there just based off of the the tool. Uh so those are things to to consider, but um in terms of the council direction provided, um staff has tried to bring forward a a package that balances that protection with still allowing for a tool that can can do what it's intended to do in terms of of uh infrastructure development. And I wholeheartedly agree with everything that Mark said, but I would also add that the time for regulation of a particular metro district is now and at the submission of the service plan from the metro district. There's very little the city can do after the metro district is approved. On the other hand, if there's something that is not workable in a particular service plan for a metro district, they

[116:01] always have the option to come back to you all with a modification. And so while the city has significantly less flexibility after the fact of the existence of this independent body, the metro district has flexibility after that. Thank you. Um and that leads just a little bit into my next question which was uh around um the kinds of financial risks that future property owners or tenants might face um if some of the financial guard rails and these general guidelines uh like the debt limit caps or interest limitations or the transparency requirements um were loosened or removed. I was just wondering if you could highlight what some of those risks might be. Again, happy to start, but others feel free to join the party. Um, I I think the it really is about um to what is a a total amount of property tax that uh is

[117:02] palatable for both prop future property owners uh but also tenants that would be paying that in in some format. And so, you know, the guard rails are important. Also, the the developers are also going to be considering that as they um move forward on projects. um if they build a project and they're not able to have tenants um that are viable because of the the property tax, that obviously um isn't a good solution for anybody. And so that that is a part of the kind of rigorous financial analysis at the outset to tr to see if um we have something that ultimately uh uh pencils um the guard rails um ensure that there is transparency and so that if you know 10 20 years from now you were buying into the district you have clarity as to what you're buying into and how much it'll cost you. Um and and that's um that is what we can do at the outset uh of of the service plan reviews.

[118:00] Thank you. Um, and just just one last question. I was just wondering um, and 30 here. My brain's getting a little tired and need some concrete examples. Could you give just a few examples of the kinds of regional projects that the 3M levy would support and why it's important for these developments to contribute to those costs? Um, I know you mentioned regional road projects and trail systems, but um, again, my brain would appreciate a little bit more concreteness at this point. >> Sure. I I might look uh, Kim, if you have a few examples from other cities. Um, I I know it's typically been kind of transportation connectivity type of stuff, but I don't >> Yeah, that's typically I'm sorry, that's typically what I see. Um, bringing in a metropolitan district, whether it's residential or commercial, brings in extra traffic. There's going to be um there might be improvements that you need to streets to to water and sewer for sure. Things that might you might need to service uh provide more water to that area and it might be from your water systems and not theirs. So you

[119:01] might have to you know um add tap fees or add um water lines or other types of infrastructure. Um mostly what I see is traffic regulation. Um building extra lanes, widening roads, um doing things like that. some some of the metro districts provide um park and wreck facilities and infrastructure that once they're um once those assets are transferred to the city there those are things that you're going to have to operate and maintain or just maintain in the future um trail systems um things like that that are beneficial they have to be beneficial to the district so the district isn't going to be paying for the city doing improvements in you know another area of the city it has to kind of touch and relate Um so they have to be uh seeing some benefit for that three mills as well but mostly it's just um maintaining the extra infrastructure and some cities actually hire extra police protection um in some areas because they feel like the increased in the number of

[120:01] people or increase in fire um because there's just more vis more more visibility and more things that you need to um to provide for in that area. >> Great. Thank you so much. That was really helpful. Thanks, Nicole. Taiisha, >> thank you. Um, I just have a few questions. The first is around um I noticed in the report that the racial equity analysis indicated or equity analysis indicated that there was potential displacement of long-term residents, rentals, and local businesses. So I was curious um where in the current ordinance and model service plan were where do where do you feel the that we've we've responded? I'm especially um persuaded by your comment around putting the guard rails in now. So just curious if you know tenant protections or community benefit or um tenant option to purchase were things

[121:00] that were considered and andor what other um policy guard whales were um implemented in light of the results of the equity analysis. That's my first question. >> Yeah, appreciate the question. I'm happy to speak a bit to that. So um we outlined within the equity analysis here that um displacement is is possible. Um our um regulatory um tools are limited at the outset to try to prevent that. Um there we would certainly look at um the impact on community um of an individual service plan um coming in. And so um the model service plan is kind of agnostic of of place. When we receive an individual service plan, then we would have a location. We would be able to then see to what scale there's displacement. You know, is there anything that addresses that? Um to the

[122:00] point on community benefit, that that certainly is something that would be through our the regular development review process. Um so it would be covered a bit there. um but are are kind of tools at at the outset unless I'm >> and specifically to my question about the tenant um option to purchase and other tenant protections. I'm not sure I'm understanding the question 100% but with respect to the a potential resident displacement today we're talking about regulating commercial or industrial metro districts and to the extent there is a residential component there's also a guardrail permitting council to exclude or have the metro district exclude the residential portion out of the metro district. So, I'm not sure if that's

[123:03] possibly responding to your question. Um, I think so. Well, again, it goes back to what we just shared with uh council member Marquis, which was 10% could be residential. And so, I don't understand why it's an if. 10% can be. So in an anticipation for that, what guard rails have been put into place to try to do what we can from a policy that you know we it seems that we would have policy leverage right now to pro you know to do everything we can to u mitigate displacement of long-term residents, renters and local businesses. So my question is specific to the renters um and um and to the residents um were tenant option to purchase that's a specific policy that we one can consider based on the national league of cities development without displacement um report but um another is um the um u

[124:04] let's just go with that one community >> do you mind if I ask a follow- on question to that And Mark, uh, to the point that Taiisha raises, I think you started to go somewhere about the approval of an eventual service plan, would we, as council and staff have the ability, if a service plan were approved for an area that had a risk of displacement, would we be able to put in guard rails um to mitigate that or um >> yeah, and I >> if that were me wrong on that. So, so council does have broad discretion in your review of a service plan submitted. uh you can approve with conditions. Um certainly how much you're able to look at displacement is something we would consider if there was displacement associated with uh a metro district. um the um kind of future tenants uh that I less I I know less about in terms of what we could put up front, but um again, some of the

[125:00] provisions we're putting in the model service plan today help with some of that in capping the overall tax rate and um making sure that whatever taxes are there are transparent to anyone buying into the to the district. >> Okay. And I think it may be helpful to have a broad perspective about you. My understanding again in metro districts is they come into play for new development and so it's rare that there are existing residents or businesses. Um and council does have the discretion to when a a models when a service plan comes before you to um actually exclude areas um from the boundaries as a condition of approving the service plan. And I can have Kim kick me um okay >> virtually um over there if I'm incorrect. And there is also the option

[126:00] that if there are residents um or businesses that object to a potential metro district or being included in a metro district, they actually can submit protests and objections to you all which needs to be considered. and they would, the law requires them to be notified of the potential metro district organization um prior to the hearing on the service plan. And so they'd have an opportunity to protest, object um make themselves known and you all would have an opportunity to exclude that area as part of the conditions of approval. >> Thank you. My next question is around transparency and I noticed that there was a requirement around the public reports being put on a website and although I understand that that's the regulatory obligation. I'm curious if the council has the power or authority to strengthen that transparency. I I mean it seems to me that the very least the city council should get a report

[127:00] about what's happening and not just have something placed on a website. So the the annual report is submitted to the city. That is something that staff could certainly uh make public, send to city council and available. Uh the intent being that the city would be able to review the annual activities of of a metro district. >> Okay. And then my last question is I noticed that the golf courses were um golf course construction was prohibited. I was curious if data center construction was considered as well. Uh, it it was not in the in the ordinance or model service plan, >> but golf courses were. Is that just a standard? I'm just curious. Okay. Thank you. >> It is. >> Thank you. >> All right. Looks like we've reached the end of our questions. So, we will go to the public hearing. We have two people signed up to speak. Uh, each of you will have three minutes to speak. I understand the second individual has an interpreter. So, they will have three minutes to speak themselves and then

[128:00] three minutes for the interpreter to speak. And I will just remind folks to please speak to the um topic in front of us of metro districts. >> So it um so I can go to the other testifier first and then come to to you. >> Okay. So you we'll go to Lara Gonzalez as our first speaker and then go to Lin Seagull. So, we'll go to Laura Gonzalez. >> Can you hear me? >> Your mic is open. >> I can hear you. We can hear you. >> Okay. Um,

[129:22] um, Tisha Adams. Shower.

[130:17] What's that? Contractor. organiz foreign

[131:21] speech. Move now to the uh interpretation.

[132:00] >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. Um, I want to direct myself to the members of this council. I want to say that you should stop supporting genocide. We uh I want you to please uh stop supporting this bill that is going to bring about more police. Police are a waste of money. Wherever there's more police, there's uh a waste of resources. They're uh producing confrontation, violent confrontations. And in this particular moment, I want to ask the members of this council to also speak on the issues of the data centers. The data centers and as part of this project, this should be centers that should not come through. This should be prohibited the data centers because the data centers are using so much water and there is so much water in a place where there isn't enough water but you are uh producing um these data centers and

[133:01] instead of developing the city there is not enough development for the city but there is money for these data centers and I also want to demand that you um prohibit the construction of more golf courses Um, I would also like to say that um, free Palestine, stop the genocide. I want >> topic of tonight's hearing, so we'll we'll stop you there. >> Okay. Um, we're going to go to Lin Seagull. >> Ma'am, you've had plenty of opportunities to use the restroom. Now is your time to talk. >> So, I can't have a pee break. >> Is that correct? I can't pee. >> You're This is your time to speak. >> Okie do. At first, I thought I was going to want to approve this potentially, but Mark convinced me against it because I'm opposed to more and more development on

[134:02] the grounds of water resources devoted to things like this um mill levy taxes. I did not approve the library district. I love libraries, but I'm not gonna and don't tell me it's not related because it's t it's a mill levy. Um I I'm opposed to that. I love libraries, but I don't approve of them being paid for this way. In the same way, the developers can pay their own way. I don't need to be supporting these developers. We have way too much commercial in Boulder already. What are we doing about all that? Why Why do we need a metro district to expand further? Um, maybe it could pay for the South Boulder Rec Center like we were talking about tonight or other rec centers that was brought up. But why can't we pay for our own rec centers by projecting what

[135:02] our maintenance and operations are going to be over the lifetime of any service project we have within our city? Um, the metro districts, can they pay their debt? Do we need it? Do we need a metro drristic? I don't think so. This whole economy is going to crash shortly because of our supporting Israel. Um, and that that amount of money, that quantity of money, Erin, do not even think of it. >> We are spending way too much money on war. >> Okay, that's off topic. Your time is now over. don't have. >> We can cut the mic, please. Okay, your time is up. >> Right. Your your your time has been ended. Your time has been ended. Please sit down.

[136:05] >> Your time is over. Please sit down. >> Do you want to take me out? Oh, please take me out. I get my Your time is up. You need to stay quiet. >> How dare you? I HAVE NOTES I TOOK and you're saying I can't. >> Ma'am, you need to be quiet. >> All right. Am I going to have to call a >> forget it? This city is useless. >> Quiet. Quiet now. This is your last warning. >> You just want to do what you want to do. >> I'm gonna call a recess.

[143:39] All right. Uh, so the public hearing is now over. So we'll come back to council for deliberations. So uh, councilors, any, um, comments on the item in front of us? >> Matt, you get a cookie break. So, pardon me. Um, >> one thing I want to I want to bring up

[144:00] is um, one such recommendation that was in uh, the staff's uh, in the memo is really minor and I think it's one we should consider. It really effectively just gives the word if and I think it's a really nice and elegant way to protect. This was regarding to privately placed debt and financing and normally and at this point um we don't allow it but we would in an alternative only if the external financial adviser provides specific analysis and certification that the structure is consistent with the current market standards and as we've learned from our outside legal council um there's only a few external financial advisors that are certified and oh lo and behold we work with one here at the city and who we've trusted for a long time. So again, only if it still provides a a helpful guard rail. And so if they meet the conditions that are essential, then we have yet another tool to make these projects pencil out and not be in a position where we're pushing undue costs on the very renters, which

[145:00] exacerbates the very thing we're here to battle, which is affordability in our community. So I think that's a reasonable one to put in there. It's an only if. It's probably still substantive as our city attorney would say. Um but nonetheless, it's really small in impact even though it's substantive to the code in that regard. Just maximum flexibility in that regard where there's still an appropriate guardrail of having this external independent financial advisor certify that that is a viable path. If they don't, then it's not viable and we move on. So that's something I would recommend for all of us to consider for the model service plan um in the resolution of 1378. So I would put that out there. So, council member, if I could just interject, the model service plan right now does allow privately placed debt um with that external advisor certification. So, >> so that Okay. Well, then then that Okay. Well, that didn't Okay, because I asked the question if any of these were in place, and the answer I heard was no, they weren't in place. So, you're telling me that they are. >> So, this is about I believe specifically compounding interest.

[146:01] >> Yes. Oh, compound interest is not >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. And that's where this policy alternative allows that compounding interest should and only if an external financial adviser provides that specific analysis. So that's what was written in here as a policy alternative to that question. >> Okay. Now I understand. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So that's what I was offering in that earlier question was do these policy alternatives are they baked into the service plan? I heard they weren't and so I was offering that maybe this one would be a viable. So the alternative is to allow compound interest for developer debt and or privately placed debt if there's an external financial independent external financial advisor that appines that that is reasonable. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Can you just for the record uh state the definition of comp compounding interest please that's currently prohibited in the model service plan >> just so everybody's on the same page. >> I don't think we have a definition but >> or a quick explanation what it is. It's just interest on interest. And typically

[147:02] what you see is um in initial phases of development is is cash flow bonds. So they borrow $10 million, they don't expect to get paid at all. They're getting whatever the maximum interest rate that they can get. Um again, subject to whatever an external financial advisor says is an appropriate interest rate. But they don't make any payments of principal. So every six months the principal essentially becomes interest. I'm sorry the interest essentially becomes principal. So instead of paying paying paying down you keep compounding and so the interest keeps building. So what might start out as a $10 million principal amount might end up as a $15 million principal amount. And so that is in effect what compounding does. It's just interest on interest. and unless until you pay principal that interest doesn't go down. >> Thanks for that explanation so everybody understands now. And can you maybe speak to whether it's common for metro

[148:01] districts to allow that kind of compounding interest? >> I honestly in so I guess in full disclosure we represent cities in towns mostly. We do some metro district representation. Um but in providing new service plans almost every new service plan prohibits compounding interest um for privately placed or developer debt. >> Thanks for that. >> Maybe not you older ones. There are older ones that are in place that don't prohibit that but mostly what I see now is that. >> Okay. Um does anybody want to weigh in on this question that we can straw poll it? Ryan, >> I have a question if I could. So, it's interesting, but I'm curious. Staff didn't recommend it. Staff seems to have considered it because it was written in as an alternative. Can staff speak to either the case against or why, you know, what your thoughts on why why you didn't recommend it? >> Yeah, we certainly considered it. I I think as Kim mentioned, we're certainly relying on our council, outside council

[149:01] to to guide us based on what they see in other cities, knowing that this is in the model service plan. If there's a specific project, a specific service plan that is proposed that for for some reason um with a third-party advisor is um uh requiring that type of compounding interest and it and it um is reasonable, we could still consider it during that that submitt. So, we felt like that flexibility um is still retained uh without making an adjustment to the model service plan. >> Can I couldn't clarify on that? So what you did say is even if it's not in there, it's still something that you could discretionarily consider in regards to determining the viability of a project, right? And if for some reason this this opportunity were what would help make it viable, that's still something you consider even though it's not written specifically in the service plan. >> That's correct. Okay. I I appreciate that. May I add that I think if you do make that change for individual projects, you're going to get every developer coming in and saying that you

[150:01] did it for this person and we're this I mean it's just you might as well just make it now, I think, and just put it in your in your model if that's what you if that's what council decides they want to do. Um I I just think that that's kind of a I think interest is more of a um in my opinion materiality. Um certainly you can it's it's up to you. >> Thanks and thank you. I got Nicole. >> Thank you. Um, so I just I wanted to touch on this last point just a little bit more. Um, so if a future project were to come in, we can make changes, right? So we could address this compounding interest issue at that point. Um, but what I just heard you say is that um if that is something that we think we might do on a routine basis or even once or twice, we might want to consider a change here because I I was just thinking about this more as the place where we can set some really general guard rails. Um that would apply kind of um unless a future council were

[151:03] to decide that someone should have an exception. >> Yeah. I I I don't really hear a question. So I I I think what are you what are you asking specifically? >> Oh, I guess I I'm just I'm trying to figure out Initially I was thinking that this would be um um having the uh Sorry, there's a an ambulance or fire truck going by. Um if a future uh project were to come in with a strong justification for why they should have uh this have a change in the compounding interest issue or any other one, right? we could change it at that point, I'm understanding. But what I also just heard you say is that um that doing it once might open the door to everybody. And so if there's something that we think we might say yes to um one time, we might want to consider that putting in the general ordinance or putting that in this general ordinance.

[152:01] >> Yeah, I think again this is just my opinion. I think in if you're limiting interest rates um that really isn't project specific, right? So, so that's something that would apply to any any developer note, any any financing is going to have an interest component. Um, it is very common when metro districts actually sell their bonds to the public and they still don't have a lot of development, but they have some development and maybe again when they're refunding um developer reimbursements or refunding developer notes. A lot of investors that are accredited investors that buy bonds on the market want compounding interest and that is not um prohibited by the service plan. They are asking for that because at that point in the development these bonds are really risky because they don't know if it's going to develop yet. You're you're advancing money on

[153:00] something that has started. you're refunding a developer because you've got some development, but it's still at this fa at this phase. There's not a lot of assessed value. And these investors and the bonds being sold to the public to these specific investors and they're called accredited investors because they they do this to they know the risks that they're taking and they get higher interest rates and they get compounding interest. But these bonds are sold to the public. So, um, it's a little bit different than when you sell a bond to an individual or you privately place a bond to an individual. We service plan does require that you still get a financial advisor to even um even just attest to the interest rate because and I'm not saying anything about developer, but for example, if a developer comes in and wants an 18% interest rate on their reimbursement, that's probably not market driven at this point. Um so having an or or maybe it is so um based on whatever the current market is and

[154:00] what the um the risk involved is this external financial advisor can tell you whether the 12 or 18% interest rate um is reasonable and at that point they can issue bonds to a privately placed individual which would include a bank. So sometimes like um you know Bank of America will come in and do a privately placed deal. >> I Yeah, I think you've answered the question. Yeah, thank you for that. >> I heard Nicole, let me check. Does that answer the question? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I know it does. Thank you. Um and I think just just in reply to um to to Matt's comments, um I'm comfortable leaving the model service plan as it exists right now. Um and not necessarily making any changes to it tonight. Um this does feel like it's our our initial opportunity to set some broad um and protective guard rails um on these metro districts. I think there's still opportunity for developers to ask for um uh flexibility in the individual service plans. Um and us or a future council

[155:00] will retain full discretion to evaluate those requests case by case. Um to me looking at that case byase basis and setting these general guardrails that staff has spent a lot of time on um creating a nice balance between um what will be protective to future taxpayers and and what is helpful for developers right now. Um I I'm really not interested in making a lot of changes at this point. um we'll have that opportunity as these individual service plans come in and if there is a future uh moment where we realize that there need to be some changes made, we can update this ordinance like we do with um so many others, right? Um and create changes at that point. But I also just want to take a moment to say thank you to staff because this is an amazing amount of work in very short period of time that we gave you um and I just wanted to acknowledge everything that went into this. Thank you. >> Thanks, Nicole. So, I'd like to go ahead and straw poll interest in the in the suggestion and so we can move to passage of the ordinance hopefully. So, um so

[156:00] Matt had a suggestion that that we would potentially allow compounding interest uh if uh validated by an external financial adviser. So, if you would be interested in changing the model service plan to reflect that, please raise your hand right now. I got five. So, it looks like there is council interest in doing that. So, um, staff, what I would ask then, what would be the mechanism there? Because we probably are not going to alter the resolution on the fly. We would recommend to bring that back on consent at the next regular meeting uh, with the noted change. >> Very good. So tonight, would we approve the ordinance but um defer on the resolution? >> Okay, very good. >> Process question. Yep. >> Do we defer? Do we defer to a date certain? >> Do you know when you would cuz we would

[157:00] have to continue the item, right? >> Um for the resolution, you do not have to. Okay. >> Um it's the ordinance that requires the public hearing. The resolution does not require a public hearing. And so because of that you would not have to defer to a date certain. >> Thanks for the clarification. So in other words we can take action on the ordinance not take action on the resolution and just leave it at that. Okay. Um in that case any any further discussion or perhaps a motion on the ordinance? >> Tisha. Um, I just wanted to um lift up the data center conversation again and um just share that after some consideration around the current zoning that would make it very challenging for data centers to ever be considered here. Um, as well as the hopeful update to the formbbased code in 2027 where we could be more explicit. I don't feel like it's necessary to add an explicit um

[158:00] section on um prohibiting data centers at this time. Although it is continues to be a concern of mine um but I don't want to add more complexity if it's not necessary at this time. Thank you. >> Anybody want to pipe up? >> I'll read the motion. >> Yeah, go for it. >> Where is it? Can somebody put it up there? I move that we approve on second reading >> where big fail on my part. No, I'm kidding. Okay. I move that we approve on second reading um to adopt ordinance 8748 enacting chapter 8-12 metropolitan districts uh boulder revised code 1981 and setting forth related details and no and not any more than that >> second that was a tie terra do do you want to

[159:02] Tina claims the second >> Tina did it let's be honest Ter, would you like to speak to the motion? >> I'm so excited that we're finally I'm so excited we're finally doing this. That's the real truth. Yay. >> And Alicia, did you catch the second? >> Okay, Tina, did you want to speak to it? >> Yeah, Matt would like to speak. >> I just want to give credit to staff. Um, this is one of the biggest deliverables from our new economic development strategy. And so, I just want to give kudos to Mark and the whole team and legal for navigating this in really quick order. I remember when we first even threw this idea out, it was a foreign concept for most and here we are getting it done. So I just again testament to the work, the speed, but also we're setting the bar. We can do things quickly. Um so it's a dangerous precedent we've set here. Um so keep it up. Appreciate it. But this is a great big checkbox on the economic development strategy that we've all approved and wanting to go forth on. So uh great job and looking forward to DDA's next and vacancy right after that.

[160:02] Yeah, I'll call myself and echo those thanks. Uh we did ask for a really aggressive timetable on this and you have delivered on that aggressive timetable with some absolutely top-notch work. So really appreciative to the city staff for executing on this and also to our uh consultant support for getting us to this uh very positive outcome. So >> big thanks all around with that. Um let's do a roll call, please, Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for ordinance 8748 with Mayor Brockett. >> Yes. >> Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuard, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> Wallik, >> yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Winer, >> definitely yes. >> Council member Adams, >> yes. and Benjamin. >> Yes. Or >> ordinance 8748 is hereby adopted

[161:02] unanimously. >> All right. Thanks again. And we'll go to our final item, which is a matter from the city manager. >> Yes, sir. Our matters from the city manager are item six on tonight's agenda. 6A is our legislative update. >> Chris, do you want to provide some walk-on commentary? Yeah, we're gonna we're gonna vamp here a little bit as we uh shuffle the seats. We should we should have walk-on music. I I won't ask you, Heather, what your walk-on music song would be. Uh yeah, but we are going to transition to uh our legislative update. Uh and Heather Staer, our intergovernmental affairs officer, is here to present that item. Uh and that also included uh some late breaking information that came uh this week as well as from the intergovernmental affairs committee that

[162:00] came out over hotline. Uh and with that, how am I doing Heather? You ready? >> Let's do it. >> Thanks, Chris. Um good evening, council. Heather Staer, intergovernmental affairs officer for the city. Um I believe we also have Will Coin, uh the city's lobbyist virtually. I'm here to provide you with an update on the general assembly's legislative session. Um we'll talk about priority bills that we're following. Um the state budget. I give an update on the outcome of House Bill 1001, the Home Act, um to close a loop on that and then talk briefly about a new tool that we're working on to keep you updated um about the work that we're doing doing during the session. I also sent a hotline yesterday as Chris mentioned regarding two additional items that I've added to talk um following our IG committee um house bill 1308 lot splitting and an update on the city's position on Senate Bill 150 the RTD modernization bill and we will have two

[163:01] questions for council. Next slide please. So currently where we stand, the general assembly began its work on January 14th of this year. They are constitutionally limited to a 120day legislative session which adjourns um CDA on May 13th at midnight. So that leaves them with about 28 days to pass a balanced budget and any remaining legislation. As of today, they have about 400 bills left on the calendar to get through. Um there's a well-known saying amongst people who work at the capital that there's two halves of the legislative session, the first 100 days and the last 20 days. So this timeline, while it seems uh rather broad, is very normal. Um what that means for us is we're getting to crunch time. The speed at which legislation is considered will pick up um substantially from here on out. Um so as expected, the $1.2 2 billion budget deficit has driven

[164:01] substantial cuts across state departments. Um, and we're hearing that the joint budget committee has left no room for new legislation um with appropriations on it this year. So, we may see more bills die in appropriations committee this year than in years past. Next slide, please. Um, this is a recap of council's five priorities for state advocacy this year. Um, council has asked that we focus on funding and protecting homelessness services, establish an on bill repayment program, protect essential state funding, and work to ensure the city can implement our AI policies while ensure ensuring consumer rights and civil liberties are maintained. And then also support equal access protections as outlined and affirmed in the city's human rights ordinance. Next slide, please. So, the first bill that I'm going to touch on as relates to our priority legislation is House Bill 1202. This is a strategy to reduce and prevent

[165:00] homelessness. Um, this bill aims to support local jurisdictions cooperative homelessness responses by allowing the creation of a new type of special district that locals can choose to participate in regionally specifically to coordinate and fund homelessness response. Um, it also allows counties to direct a portion of their documentary filing fees towards affordable housing if they choose. The bill also makes specific requirements of the state, specifically the Department of Local Affairs, um, and requires them to create a statewide homelessness prevention strategy wi which it will then present to the legislature in January of 2027. The city is in a support position on this bill. It's passed both the House uh Local Government Committee and the Senate Local Government Committee and it's waiting to be considered on Senate second reading. So, we're going to continue to lobby in support of that bill as it moves through the process. Next slide, please. The next priority bill that we're working on um is uh Senate Bill 148.

[166:03] This is a financing utility on billill repayment program. The city's been working on this policy for several years now. Um, this year we're working in partnership with Boulder County, the Governor's Office, the Colorado Clean Energy Fund, and a number of uh environmental organizations. And I'm optimistic that the bill is going to make it over the finish line this year. The policy itself establishes a statewide on bill repayment process through expanding the Colorado Clean Energy Fund's existing on bill repayment program. Um, this will allow home owners homeowners who do not have the upfront capital to purchase things like heat pumps or make energy upgrades to their homes or businesses. Um, and it will allow them the ability to pay off those upgrades over time on their existing utility bills. So, we're hopeful that this will help residents who may have otherwise been u not able to participate in the energy upgrades um the ability to do so and help also contribute to Boulder's emission reduction goals. Um,

[167:01] Mayor Brockett testified in support on behalf of the city on Monday in the state senate energy environment committee. The bill passed six to3. So, it's waiting in the appropriations committee currently. Next slide, please. I wanted to provide a brief update on AI policy. We still do not have a bill that's been introduced. Um, the governor's AI policy working group has a draft policy that they've agreed to by that has been agreed to by all participants. However, it's unclear whether that agreement will hold when the bill is introduced. Um, I'm hearing some rumblings that there could be some fights in the legislature when that bill is introduced. So, more to come on that. Um, for our purposes, the draft bill does address many of the concerns around overly broad definitions and compliance challenges that our staff were concerned with, but we will be involved uh in that legislation when it's dropped and moving through the process.

[168:02] Next slide, please. So, um, Colorado is facing a roughly 1.2 2.2 1.5 billion shortfall depending on what projections you look like you look at excuse me um and that's due to several factors. So Medicaid costs are growing about 9% each year. Um the state's Tabor cap only allows state revenue to grow by 3.6% inflation plus plus population but health care costs are obviously outpacing that. If you layer on the federal HR1 tax bill cuts, then that gives us the crisis that we're in now. Um, the legislature made roughly about $270 million cuts in Medicaid reimbursements. Um, they made deep cuts in departmental spending and they lowered state reserves. They're prioritizing K through2 education and universal prek, which is what we knew. I wanted to highlight a couple of the orbital bills that we're working on. orbital bills um are passed in

[169:01] conjunction with the long bill. Um House Bill 1399 is the elimination of the annual transfers for multimmodal funding. Um we're working with a group of stakeholders um to get an amendment put on that bill that allows the sweep to happen this year recognizing that there's no way to save that money for this year. it's about 10.5 million. Um, but it um uh preserves the transfers for future years. So, in hopefully in in a few years, maybe we'll be out of this crisis and we can continue to get those um that funding from the general fund into multimodal. We didn't want to burn down the entire infrastructure. Um we're also working on House Bill 1409, the retail marijuana sales tax distribution. Uh the bill eliminates the current requirement that 3.5% of gross retail marijuana sales tax revenue be distributed to local governments. That would put about 150k hole in our um

[170:01] local budget. And so we're working on an amendment um that actually just got put on yesterday um to preserve that local government distribution of retail marijuana sales tax revenue. Not for this year again, but it preserves the infrastructure for future years. So, we're really happy that that went on and we'll work to uh ensure that it sticks hopefully. The last um piece of this that I wanted to mention was an amendment that went on in the house to the long bill. Um this was put on by Representative Marshall. Um and it reduces the appropriations to the office of the governor by 200,000 for the office of film and television and media and it reduces um that appropriation by 100,000 for tourism promotion. The reason that this is important is because the office of film is the one that would provide the Sundance tax credit. And so this would directly affect their um uh full-time employees and they are letting me they let me know that this would um impact

[171:00] their ability to provide that tax credit. So this went on in the House. This um luckily did not go on in the Senate. There's a little bit of a different procedure for how amendments are added to the long bill. because it did not go on in the Senate. We will work um when the bill comes to a conference committee to strip that off um in coordination with the governor's office. And I'm um optimistic that we can get that amendment stripped off in conference committee. Um next slide, please. I wanted to close the loop with council on House Bill 101, the Home Act, um which was signed into law. Um, in February, council identified five areas of concern with that bill and from the feedback, we were able to negotiate with the sponsors and we received several amendments that addressed um, three of council's concerns, but there are outstanding issues that we were not able to address in the bill. So, um you'll

[172:01] see on these slides we were able to address the development at un unincorporated counties effective effectively eliminating um development in unincorporated Boulder County except for gun barrel. Um we were able to address height limitations. The height limitations were lowered to 38 feet in the bill from 40 45 feet as originally drafted. Um, and we also got an amendment that adds housing needs assessments and housing action plans to the criteria that an applicant must align with um, if the city so chooses. We unfortunately were not able to get any amendments um, addressing nonprofits uh, partnerships with non nonprofits with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing um, and then a comprehensive plan alignment. So those were the two outstanding issues there. Next slide, please. Um, so Senate Bill 150, RTD modernization.

[173:00] The longer summary of this bill was included in the hotline email from yesterday. It's a long bill with many different components, but just to give a very high level overview, the bill makes changes to the RT to RTD that are mostly based on the recommendations that came out of the RTD accountability committee. Most of the bill is focused on the board restructuring making it smaller. Uh moving from 15 elected board members to five elected and four appointed by the governor. Two of those appointed um uh board members would be from a list provided by Dr. Cog and the other would two would be from uh just straight governor appointments. So the bill makes various changes uh to how districts are drawn, board compens compensate, excuse me, board compensation, um operations, board accountability, and it also requires RTD to do an analysis on paratransit services. Um based on feedback and recommendations from the intergovernmental affairs committee, the city's taken an amend position on this

[174:00] bill. We want to see RTD reform and within that we want to ensure that Boulder is adequately represented on the board. So we're asking um for elected representation to be increased from five to seven board members. We're also asking that the threshold for signatures for candidates be lowered from a thousand currently in the bill to 500 um to not be overly prohibitive. And we want to add language to the bill to ensure that board appointees are picked to intentionally fill gaps um on the board in terms of expertise um to ensure diverse backgrounds including racial, cultural, disability and gender backgrounds as well. Next slide, please. All right. Um so, House Bill 1308, lots splitting approval by subject jurisdictions. This was also included in the hotmail hotmail. Sorry, not hotmail. Hotline. Throwback to hotmail. This was also included in the hotline

[175:01] from yesterday. Um, this bill would allow property owners to split one lot into two new lots on or after December 31st, 2027. Um, subject to an administrative approval process if the lot meets specific criteria as outlined in the bill and is not considered an exempt lot as outlined in the bill. Um the bill also makes various requirements of properties that are subject to a lean and getting approval from the lean holder to allow a split. The IGA committee discussed this bill um and recommended an oppose unless amended position. The amendments that were recommended were exempting lots that are located within the wildland urban interface or the WOOI. This bill has the potential to create lots of density um for housing and the committee agreed that there um are areas of the city where creating density actually could create a fire fire hazard because fire spreads quicker through housing that is close together. So we

[176:00] would seek um exemptions for areas in the WOOI. Similarly, promoting density in flood zones may lead to adverse safety outcomes for residents. And so, the committee recommended exempting lots located in 100-year flood zones. Finally, the committee recommended asking um for communities who are in compliance with House Bill 241313, the housing and transit oriented communities bill, to be exempt if they so choose. Um that legislation requires municipalities to meet specific housing opportunity goals um and increase density around transit centers specifically. The committee felt that if a community is already working to meet the density goals outlined in that bill um but specifically wanted to focus on transit centers then they should have the option of being exempt from the lot splitting requirements in the bill. Next slide please. I'll briefly mention um we are giving this is just a quick

[177:00] preview of a new tool that we're working on to provide the council with more up-to-date information on state legislation. This would be in addition to the public website that um has a link to all of our positions that we've taken and is updated in real time. So, it's not in place of that. Um but this dashboard would provide council with a central point for state uh level advocacy. Um, we're going to summarize our priorities and highlight bills that speak directly to our priorities in here. Next slide. And I'm also hoping that um, this will be an area that we can highlight upcoming opportunities for council member testimony and also give a legislative tracker that includes more relevant information specifically for council. Um, so we'll hopefully be sending a link out to that soon. So, please look for that. Next slide, please. That concludes my presentation and we have two questions for council. So I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Let's start with clarifying questions

[178:00] for Heather. >> Terra, >> read the Marshall amendment. >> So I assume that we're not excited about how that went down as a city, right? So do we not worry about it? Do you suggest that we do something as a council? right to our representatives or where should we go from here or do you not even want to give that advice? Thank you for the question. Um because of where we are in that process, um I think that I think that we have confirmed that Senator Moby is also not excited about that amendment. Will, if you're online, you can correct me if that's wrong. Um, so I don't know that there's an action for the council to take at this moment. Um, but it's always good to reinforce the fact that the city has put in um lots of time, lots of um

[179:02] uh infrastructure into preparing for Sundance. And I think that's always a message that can be reiterated to our our um representatives and senators. >> And Will, I see you popped on camera. Do you want to address that at all? >> I just confirm what Heather said. I think she's right. And while it's frustrating, I think um it's very very likely that that amendment will come off and stay off in conference. So we should be okay for this particular issue. >> That's reassuring. >> So do you think we should write to our representatives in the um house or no? At this point, >> I don't think you need to at this point, honestly. Okay. >> No. Any other question? Ryan, >> thanks. Um, the our three uh uh amendments, do we have feedback from the author on receptivity to the three? >> Sorry if I missed this if you just said it. >> Can you specify what bill you're talking

[180:01] about? >> So, yeah, sorry. 1308. The first question. Yeah, >> I have not yet addressed um that those were we just discussed those. So, I have not yet um let the sponsors know that we're seeking those amendments. Um, but I will. >> Thank you. >> Very soon. >> Great. I appreciate the presentation. Boy, it's been a heck of a session. Um, my question has to do with the AI bill. This seems like, you know, there's been multiple bites at the apple to try to get something through. So, this has obviously been well thought through. Do you see this being kind of an 11th hour drop to avoid the sort of proverbial death by a thousand cuts um for this bill or or do you really see this as just not not getting to getting to the finish line? >> Boy, that's a really good question and um I don't know. Will, do you have a thought on that at all at this point? Because there's several different outcomes. It could be that nothing gets done this session in which case the new

[181:00] timeline would take effect. Um it could be that several bills are introduced um from industry from from others. Um so will what do you think about that? I I appreciate the question and I will say you know after working in that building for 20 years there are many issues where you know you can look down the road and see clearly what is going to happen and I think this is such a both complicated policy and then the politics are so complicated because there are so many interests involved that it is really really hard to say. I I will tell you I think it is probably a slightly more than uh 50% likelihood that something gets through that um changes the landscape but um but we really we are not going to know and honestly there are very few outcomes right now that would be shocking

[182:03] >> right not seeing any other questions then let's go to a >> sir >> yeah you have a question okay go ahead >> thank you I just had a question for the on bill payment one if generators made it on. I know that heat pumps were already there but I was curious if that was something that had been discussed andor given the increase in PSPS ps >> I might call a lifeline for this one. Um I know that Carolyn is is online and she can definitely answer this. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening, Council Carolyn Elm, uh, senior manager with the climate initiatives department. Um, and thank you for your question, uh, Council Member Adams. The the bill itself is intended explicitly to support, um, the types of things that utilities are incentivizing. So, we do envision it, for example, supporting addition of battery backup um, but not gas generator

[183:03] backup. That's not something that's typically um rebated by our utilities um even our um municipal or co-op utilities. >> Okay. So, it's currently not being considered although I thought the whole idea was to try and do something that meets the moment. So based on where our community has been over the last even year around the increase in wind, the lack of moisture and we can anticipate more um you know again but it does sound that it does sound like batteries are covered. >> Correct. Me many of our utilities including Excel Energy um do have incentive programs to support battery backup and so that would be included and then definitely look forward to having this conversation in more depth with you next week. also um as we're talking to you about the power res reliability and resilience topic. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> All right. So, let's go to answering the

[184:00] questions that staff has posed to us. The first one is if the city receives the proposed amendments on HP26308. Uh would council support moving the city position from oppose unless amended to monitor. And this is the lot spplitting related bill. And do you mind just turning back to that slide on the presentation, Heather, so that we've got those in front of us. I'm gonna ask >> um this is the um House Bill 1308. This is >> just go back up two three >> slide 10. >> There you go. >> Thank you. >> So, I'm just going to make a quick pitch for for Yes. If we get what we want, we should support this. Um because that's usually a good faith when you're advocating for changes and you get what you want, you should then support. The reason is then if we have the ability um right if it it just makes sense to do that. I think that that's an appropriate thing when you ask for amendments and you get them you should support. It's just good faith for Heather and our lobbyists when they're advocating in good faith to do that. If you pull the rug out after asking for stuff I think

[185:00] that harms us at the negotiating table for other things. So um you may not love this bill but if we get what we want we should support it. >> Do do you mind if I throw in a counterpoint there Matt? because I I think like I would agree with you if we were in an amend position but since we're in oppose and less amended then um by moving to monitor that's moving us out of being in a general opposed position into monitoring. So I but Heather maybe you can address how does how do these generally work out if you get your your asks from an opposed and less amended kind of position. So typically if you are in an opposed um you would move to a monitor position if you don't if you receive your amendments. However, there's no rule. >> There's no rule. Yeah. >> So we can take whatever position we want um at if in the event that we receive all three amendments. So that would be up up to council. >> Yeah, fair point. I

[186:01] >> go either way. Okay, Ryan. >> So, I' I'd be more inclined to be in a a amend position now and then moving to a support if if we get our amendments. I I know there's a principled view coming from different places to to not do that, but I I just think this is um you know what, I won't make the case, but that that's what I'd support. >> Okay. Can I do a cl I was going to call you or Heather on a clarification. So, at the SOS office, we we actually register as just a mend. There is not an oppose unless amend I believe. Is that correct? >> Correct. So the secretary of state's office only has oppose, amend, monitor, and support, but on our public website, we would we can list oppose unless amended, which we often do. >> And we do so that if the current form stayed true, we would oppose it. And that's what that's meant to indicate for our own advocacy. But just so you know, so we're officially amend, but for our own, it's slightly different. >> Okay. Were you looking for us to do that

[187:00] for our own internal >> if if I'm Yeah. Yeah. If I'm following this correctly, I'm Yeah. I don't I'd prefer. Sorry. So, could isn't is there not a more neutral and amend position that I mean in principle we could take? >> Yeah. Yeah. We could take a position of amend instead of oppose unless amended. >> So, that and then move to a support if we >> and I'll draw polar options in a bit here. Mark Tina. >> Yeah. I'm I'm I'm very much opposed to this bill. It's yet another uh attempt to interfere with our home rule authority in terms of how we make land use decisions uh and how we treat our real estate. And I I think it's another in a series of overreaches by the governor's office and and the legislature. Um and so I I am essentially opposed to this. I just I don't see a good outcome for this. Although um if

[188:02] uh push comes to shove, I think oppose unless amendment is is at least a decent place to start. Um and maybe we then do to move to monitor if we if we get what we want. But um this is not a a bill we we ought to be supporting. uh if we want to preserve any aspect of our home rule authority uh and we we have been I think somewhat delinquent in uh doing so uh in light of some of the the bills the governor has uh has prop and the legislature have proposed. So um I am definitely opposed unless amended. Um, and then if we move to monitor, um, I'll probably still be opposed, but but at least we can, uh, have a different analysis of of where we are and what the politics are in light of, uh, the actual provisions of the bill. >> Yeah, I'm pretty aligned with um,

[189:00] Council Member Wallik on this. And I would just also add that uh in terms of the housing in the WOOI, it's not also just the flammability, but it's also the ability to evacuate higher densities near the WOOI corridors and in flood planes. Um and the other piece is we made a commitment to pursue transitoriented density. um this year has been the year where we switched to sprawl and I feel like we had made that first commitment and brought our community along with it and then to turn around and say well actually it's um we're moving away from the dent the transportation focus and now we're we'll sprawl anywhere throughout the Boulder County and so I think this is a real indication where we have been on a very good path with our own leadership and judgment and I think that um oppose unless amended is appropriate and I Number three is is is critical to be able to move to a monitor position because of the commitment we made. Um we are will not be able to provide

[190:00] transportation out to gun barrel yet in a way that's meaningful and that will reduce VMT over time. >> Thanks. I got Rob and then I'm going to maybe move to straw polls if that's the last comments. >> I just want to have a hand out. >> Oh sorry Nicole I missed you. I'll get to you in a second. Sorry. >> Oh sorry Nicole. Um I just want to concur with my colleagues. Um, and I'm just going to add that House Bill uh 1001 is just another bill that's chipping away at the home rule. And I I just see a pattern of this here coming from the governor's office. >> Thanks, Nicole. >> Um, thanks. Yeah, I think on this one, if we're moving um anywhere, if we get our requested amendments, um I would prefer that we move to U monitor. uh starting out with oppose unless amended instead of just straight up opposing honestly felt like a compromise. When we were discussing it in IGA, it sounds like that's probably a compromise. hearing the conversation now. Um I am

[191:01] I'm a it feels a little bit like a slight of hand um to to say that because we're technically in an amend position even though what we wanted was oppose unless uh unless amended. Um but because we're technically because of the secretary of state system in that amend position that that we should move to support. Um that feels like a bit too many jumps for me. um but monitor if if if we move anywhere, if we're able to get these amendments, I think that would be uh appropriate given um what I'm hearing from the conversation and and the diversity of opinions here. Thanks. >> Thanks, Cole. All right, so I'll go ahead and start poll uh if we've that feels like the right place to go next. So, my first thing I'm going to start poll is Ryan's uh suggestion that we um uh take an amend position instead of an oppose and less amended. No. >> Ryan, >> sorry to be out of order, but I I didn't say anything on this and I'm the only person in this position. I just kind of moved on. I said I won't make the case. Can I just real briefly say

[192:00] >> I think this is an opportunity to give property owners more rights while at the same time increasing housing options that we need and this will statewide create like is likely to create more meaningful stock of housing that we need which benefits Boulder. So, um I think it's a tool we should use. >> Thanks for that. But I'm unclear. Were you withdrawing your proposal? >> I was speaking for it. Speaking in support of it. >> Yes. So, so your proposal is to have us change from opposed unless amended to amend. >> That's right. >> Right. Okay. So, I'll stra all in favor of making that change to our position. >> All right. We got we got one. So, not going to take that one up. But then our next question. Okay. So, our position will be opposed unless amended. Now, if we get our three requested amendments, uh, do we want to take a monitor position or >> Okay. Okay. Matt pulls his request. So, that would mean unless somebody else wants to take it up, we will, uh, plan on taking a monitor position if we get

[193:00] our three proposed amendments. Can people work with that? Okay, I'm seeing nodding heads. So, uh, looks like we will stay on the track here. Oppose unless amended. And if we get our three amendments, we'll move to monitor. Great. And then I think your other question was whether we have any questions which we've already asked or feedback on where we are in the legislative process. Does anybody have any additional feedback on the legislative agenda? >> Ryan, >> I just wanted to say thank you to the IG committee and Heather for such great work. This is an excellent presentation and um you all have done an incredible amount of analysis and time and appreciate your commitment to it. >> Thanks for that. It's a good group. And Heather, thank you so much. I know um you took our call yesterday from down at the Capitol. I know you're spending a huge amount of time down there um working very hard for the city's interests and we appreciate your efforts there very much. >> Thanks. It's a team effort. So, thank you to Will and Megs and everyone involved. >> Yes. And uh Will Coin as well and Meg's

[194:00] value as well for her work as well in the advocacy area. All right, that brings us to the end of that agenda item, which is in fact the end of our entire agenda. >> So, Did you want to say something quick? >> Yeah. Isn't there matters or matters from city council just update? Um I just wanted to take a moment to um congratulate um Manuela Stewart. I'm sorry I'm mispronouncing your last name. >> Cuentes uh for their uh better because uh better because of her award from the YWCA um this afternoon. And so, um, just such a tremendous city of Boulder, um, staff member who's done so much to increase and strengthen our language access programs. Um, and again, just wanted to to lift that up and say congratulations. Thank you. >> Yeah, I'll second that. That was at the YW.C.A. lunchon today that she was given

[195:01] that award and it was really exciting to see. Manuel does amazing work. All right, and that brings us to our close. 40 p.m. 5 minutes early.