September 3, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:02] Great sounds like we're recording from far away. I see Ml. Is in remote I believe Mason will also be coming in. and so we have a full planning board tonight. just one public hearing. Item, the 1st thing we're going to do is call the meeting to order, which is. This is the September 3, rd 2,024, city of Boulder planning board meeting. we'll now have a moment of public participation. If Vivian, you can get on and read the rules of the participation. Take us through that. Sounds great. Good evening, everybody. My name is Vivian Castro Woldridge, and I'll be helping with the public participation element for tonight, and I'm still seeing the capital improvement program slides. I don't know if somebody can take those down.

[1:02] Think maybe Chris Rangelo's that's your screen that we're seeing. We're working on it, Vivian. Thanks. There we go. So thank you. Members of the public who are with us tonight in person or online. I'll just go through these rules quickly. If you can go full screen, that'd be great. Cities, engage with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have much more information about this process on our website. Next slide, please. And the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision, and these will all be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[2:05] obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, participants are required to identify themselves by the 1st and last name, so we can call on you by those next slide, please. And for those of you who are joining us online for this hybrid meeting, when prompted, when we ask for public participation during this initial open comment. After I'm done, or later for the public hearing item. you can raise your raise your hand by hovering your mouse or finger over the hand icon on the screen. And you can get to that by also going to the reactions button on your screen. And if anybody's joining us by phone. You can raise your your virtual hand by phone, by Dialing Star 9. So those are the rules. And now, we can take any any comments for this next period which should be related to items

[3:06] not read, not on the public hearing item, which is the capital improvement program later later on. So each member of the public would have 3 min to share in this portion of the meeting. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. If you'd like to speak during open comment to the planning board. Okay, going once. going twice. Okay, we have one hand, one single. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. Please watch the timer. Thank you. I couldn't hear a word you said about the hearing. It's the capital improvement program. Thanks. Yeah. you were muffling. I seldomly ride my car about 5 times here I ride. My car.

[4:02] Getting around town in this place is impossible. Now. the way you're building it's just not okay. 22, 0, 6 is a bad idea. You're going to hear about it. Thursday. A whole lot. You guys approved that that is revolting 300 square feet that's supposed to affect the missing middle. If you ever gone to the grocery store and gotten your laundry detergent, and it's less and less for the same price. Well, that's 22, 0, 6 pearl! They're getting a 300 square foot place, and they're going to be out using Ubers or any kind of independent uber that since that's going to be taken over and where, and just log jamming our streets. Let's see, I was over at the Mediterranean market. There's Bluebird on one side. There's another apartment buildings.

[5:05] Every square inch of this place. Stop already. Stop! You know you're destroying this place there. You don't have to approve all of these height regulations, and you know, I think 2,206 was something like 16 units up to 44 And 1,700 to $2,600. Ami. Well, the ami is now. That was 2 years ago. So now it's even higher. And you know the millennium I mean Marpa House. It's $1,700 for a bedroom for one bedroom in Marpa House, in a little apartment, not even in a house. This is what y'all have passed in this town. This is what's driving up the cost of living and the cost

[6:00] of taking care of all the homeless all over town. I read all the time about, you know, today I was just going down to the Mall, and there's the police, and I asked them, Hey, what's going on? They never want to say anything, and and because they're police, and they don't talk to people, you know, and they say, Oh, just checking out some person sleeping at a business. Just that's how the police feared. Oh, it's just another, this or another that that's that's criminal, that we have all of these homeless people here, and we have them because of you. YOU, because you're approving all these height limitations. You're approving all kinds of stuff that you shouldn't be approving because you're taking eating the soul of this town done. Thank you, Lynn Siegel, for joining us and sharing your thoughts. We have one other member from the public who's joined us, so please go ahead and raise your hand if you'd like to speak now. And you don't have to, of course. But I'll just give you

[7:05] couple seconds. Okay, I think that concludes open comment back over to you. Chair. Thanks, Vivian, and thanks Lynn, for your comments this evening. Oh, apologies! I just want to make sure there's no one in the room as well. since I can't see. No, I don't. It doesn't appear so. Okay. Thanks, Marianne. All right. thanks again for your comments. We have no minutes to approve. We're going to go straight into our public hearing item for the evening the public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the city manager and city council on the recommended 2,025 to 2,000 22,030 capital improvement program. Cip. We'll now hear Staff's presentation.

[8:01] Good evening. Planning board. My name is Chris Range. I'm a senior planner in comprehensive planning. and I'm excited to bring forward the recommended 2025 through 2030 capital improvement program. Sitting with me tonight is it sounds like you're echoing a bit. And maybe if you could speak maybe a little closer to the mic, I'm not sure we're having a bit of technical difficulties with the computer. It's actually the computer that's echoing. Give us 1 min and then we'll get going. And before we get started with the Capital Improvements project. I wanted to ask anyone if they had any specific conflicts on this item that they would like to address. Thank you, Christy, so I don't have a conflict, but I do have a disclosure, which is that the capital improvement program does involve some projects related to the Boulder municipal airport, and, as I think most people know, I am an advocate in my personal capacity for the Airport Neighborhood campaign.

[9:03] based on the Boulder Revised Code and the code of ethics and the definition of conflict, of interest. I do not have a conflict of interest. I have no financial interest in anything that happens at the airport. None of my family or close relatives, no property interest near the airport. But I do want to make that disclosure and assure folks that I can be fair and impartial. In discussing this item with relation to the criteria. Okay, we'll jump back in. Is that better? Okay. I'll start over. My name is Chris Rangels. I'm a senior planner in comprehensive planning, and I'm excited to bring forward the recommended 2025 to 2030 capital improvement program, or cip, as you may often hear it referred to, as I do want to acknowledge that there are several people out in the audience tonight. All of these folks are city staff members who are here representing their individual departments, and they're here and available to answer any questions. Project specific department specific that the Board may have

[10:07] again. This agenda items for the planning board to consider and provide a recommendation to the city manager and city council on the recommended 2025 to 2030 capital improvement program. Quick rundown on the agenda. We'll start at the basics really here by providing some background information on the cip, including an overview of the Board's role in key issues to be considered. And we'll briefly go over a financial overview from there. We'll provide the board with key issues analysis before moving into the staff recommendation and next steps. So the key issues that the board should be considering this evening are on the slide. Here is the 2025 to 2,030 cip consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan. subcommunity plans, area plans, and department plans. Does the Planning Board have any recommendations to the city manager and city council on the scope priorities and scheduling of cip projects? Does the Planning Board have any recommendations to the city Manager and city Council on resolving policy issues raised by the proposed location and design of cip projects. And finally, does the Board have any recommendations on the list of cip projects that will be required to undergo a community environmental assessment process.

[11:23] And I'll stop here just to simply acknowledge that there's a lot of words on this slide and a lot of key issues that the planning board should be considering. And I I just want to acknowledge that this can be a bit of a tricky item for the planning board. You only see this once a year. It's not something that you typically see on your your regular cadence of meetings. There's a lot of info, a lot of projects. It's a lot of money. And so really, what we're focused on here is to think about the cip as a package right? And that's what we're assessing all of these key issues against, not necessarily individual projects or the funding amounts that are associated with those. But really it's the 1st one which is is the cip consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan. All of our subcommittee plans, area plans and department plans.

[12:09] And the reason for this is because these are the plans that the planning board has purview over that at some point you all have made a recommendation or made some sort of approval over, and then, certainly, if there are any comments or recommendations that the Planning Board wants to make on the scope priorities and scheduling of cip projects. I know that our department staff are here to hear that, and we'll certainly consider those as we move forward as city council can as well. and then we'll dive into seep a little bit more. I know that that can be a little bit of a confusing thing towards the tail end of the presentation. To start with some basics, though what is a cip project. Cip projects are major projects that require the expenditure of public funds for the purchase, construction, or replacement of the physical assets in our community. And then we have something called the 6 Year Cip. Right? And this is a comprehensive 6 Year plan for maintaining, enhancing and at times expanding public and service delivery infrastructure. It serves as a guide and framework in achieving current and future goals related to the physical assets of the community, and it provides a forecast of funds available for capital projects, and identifies all planned improvement projects and their estimated costs for the 6 year period.

[13:20] And I'll also just point out here, too, that we do a 6 year Cip. Really, for strategic purposes, it's really only the next year. So in this case, 2025, that City Council will ultimately be approving and obligating those remaining out years. 5 years we really use as as more of a strategic thinking priorities, change funding mechanisms. Can, you know, shift. And so. you know, there's always opportunity. And and sometimes when projects will be expedited or will fall back just a little bit, and that's kind of why we ultimately do the 6 year cip. So again, it's just the 2025 budget that our city council will be considering here, moving forward.

[14:02] Okay. couple, different project types within the cip, including capital maintenance and enhancement. This is for the repair, replacement or renovation of existing assets. Capital enhancement, which is similar, but a little bit different, and this really results in the expansion or significant improvement of an existing facility or an asset. We have new capital projects simply a new asset that the city is building. We have capital planning studies, and we also have land acquisitions thinking, big picture here. How does the cip kind of fit within the overall framework of our of our city, and ultimately the cip is aligned with and informed by many of our citywide plans and frameworks. the sustainability, equity, and resilience framework really form the basis for which the annual budget is developed. The Bbcp is the overarching policy guide and is heavily used to inform policy project and programming decisions

[15:01] and capital projects are identified Within Department plans as well as sub-community plans and area plans. These are planning processes that include robust community conversations are developed to be consistent with the Bbcp. As well as the city's sustainability, equity, and resilience framework. and as the Board knows. I mentioned this a little bit, but the Planning Board does adopt the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan. Our Subcommittee and area plans and provides a recommendation to City Council on the acceptance of department plans. And again, this is why we bring the cip to planning board. We're looking to ensure that the the whole package of projects is aligned with and implementing all of these plans of which the planning board has had influence and approval over already. With that I'm going to have Charlotte Husky, who is our Central Budget officer, come up and provide a bit of a financial overview for the board. Thanks, Chris. Good evening. Planning board members. I'm Charlotte Husky Budget officer with the city. Good to be with you here tonight, providing an overview of the six-year cip. You can see that we have a total of 807.4 million in planned spending across the six-year horizon, supporting over 200 capital projects

[16:14] included in the 2,025 recommended budget or recommended capital budget is a total of 190,000,190.2 million, that is, in new appropriation in 2,025. One of the items that falls within this is the recently approved voter. Renewal for the community culture, resilience and safety tax that was voter approved in November of 2,021, a total of 17.1 million in new appropriation is included in the 2,025 capital budget, and across the six-year cip a total of 123.5 million. This supports several community priority projects. Some of those are listed here, including the East Boulder Community Center fire stations, replacements 2 and 4 and civic area phase 2, for example.

[17:08] go to the next slide so we can see the cip financial overview here across the 6 year period. One of the things that you'll note in the 6 years in the capital improvement program is that capital appropriation fluctuates year to year. And this really depends on timing and scope and funding in the 2025 budget. You'll see that over 84% of the capital budget focuses on utilities, facilities and fleet and transportation projects. And finally, Chris mentioned the project types. The 5 capital project types included in the the Cip, you can see the majority of the investments that are made within the capital improvement program support capital enhancements and capital maintenance projects. This is over 86% of the cip. And this really is in alignment with our budget direction for 2,025 that focuses on continued sustainable maintenance funding for our capital system. Capital maintenance needs across the city system.

[18:16] So with that, I'll toss it back to Chris. Thanks, Charlotte. Okay, we'll jump into the key issues here. The 1st key issue for the Planning Board to consider, as I mentioned earlier, is the recommended 2025 to 2030 cip consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive Plan department plans, sub-community plans and area plans. And so our staff does find that the list of projects in the recommended cip are aligned with the sustainability, equity, and resilience framework, and are consistent with the goals and policies identified in the Bbcp. Our department plans, sub-community plans and area plans. and to provide some examples. Although this is certainly not an exhaustive list in the staff packet. We had a bunch of different projects highlighted, and went into a little bit more depth on those projects, but for the presentation's sake we'll just kind of run it through the different goals of our sustainability, equity, and resilience, framework, and highlight. A few projects that we think are well aligned so for safe projects that achieve safe outcomes include South Boulder Creek, flood mitigation phase one. Our new fire station number 2, as well as Upper Goose Creek

[19:21] projects that achieve our healthy and socially thriving outcomes include primos, Park or Violet Park, as as some may be more familiarized with the East Boulder community center retrofit and renovations. and then a couple different projects that really achieve our livable outcomes include the Boulder Reservoir, South shore, the South Mesa trailhead redesign as well as the civic area phase 2. Move on to the accessible and connected outcomes. A couple of projects here include the Iris Avenue transportation, improvements, baseline road phase 2 as well as new and enhanced trail heads to support accessibility, visitor experience and responsible recreation.

[20:02] Some environmentally sustainable projects include Osmp climate strategies and solutions, implementation. And again, the East Boulder Community Center retrofit and renovations project some responsibly governed projects that we've seen. The cip include our pavement management program, our facilities, maintenance and enhancements, as well as the Western city campus or Alpine balsam, as you may know it a little bit better by. And finally, our last outcome is the economically vital outcome, and a couple projects that meet this objective include the affordable commercial pilot program, the Pearl Street Mall refresh as well as the University Hill plan and streetscape improvements. move on to some department plans, and how we're implementing those just a couple of projects that I want to highlight the open space and mountain parks plan our prairie dog conservation and management is a project that's directly achieving outcomes identified within that plan for parks and recreation, our parks, amenities and asset management.

[21:04] The Tmp. Or transportation plan enhancing our several missing links and for facilities. The Western city campus, hub, or Alpine balsam is a direct result of that plan as well. A couple sub community and area plan projects to highlight. I'll once again highlight the Alpine balsam area plan that was adopted in 2,019, and the project that we talk about here is the Western City campus, hub redevelopment once again, and for 2,007. The Transit village area plan specific for phase one, the Boulder Junction Pocket Park, which actually is the last major capital investment in Boulder Junction phase one, there was a lot of capital investment in Boulder Junction over the years, and this kind of marks an end to that and really kind of completion or substantial completion of that area. And then civic area phase 2, directly implementing the vision that was outlined in the 2,015 civic area plan

[22:00] kind of the key issue here that we have is, does the Board have any recommendations on the list of cip projects that will be required to undergo a community and environmental assessment process or seep. And you might be asking yourself what the heck is. A seep, a seep is essentially an alternatives, analysis to help assess potential impacts. And I just want to note that a seep is one of 3 processes that may be identified for a major capital project. So we'll talk a little bit about those 3 different processes. concept, plan and site Review. This is for projects that are triggered by the criteria that's established in the Boulder Revised Code. These projects do go to planning board for your review. A couple of examples that I can think of of projects like this would be Fire Station 3 as well as Alpine Balsom or the Western City campus hubri development. Another planning board will be taking a peek at here in a couple of weeks. The other type of process that we identify for our capital projects is more of a project, specific community driven process. And these projects have had or are planned to have, a very specific and in depth, community process, impact studies and alternatives, analysis performed. So a couple of examples that I can think of would be South Boulder Creek, flood mitigation.

[23:18] a lot of different community conversations and impact studies and alternatives. Analysis have gone into that project. And so at that point, doing a seep would really be kind of duplicative of the efforts that have already been done. And then we have seep. And you can see here on the slide, the criteria that we look at for identifying seep projects. And these are really for projects where alternatives do exist that we think will require community input as well as for projects that could have a significant impact on environmental. social or cultural resources. And if the project is anticipated to generate enough community controversy to require a public hearing or board review outside of a formal review process. And again, I want to point out the red text on the slide here. This is sort of the qualifier, in my opinion. If the project meets the above criteria and is not triggered

[24:10] by the concept. Planner Site Review criteria, or the project meets the above criteria and does not have a project specific community process already identified. Then that's the type of project that we would want to have go through a Cp. so a couple of examples, of C projects that we're recommending to move forward this year include the Barker Dam stability project as well as the water storage tank repair and rehabilitation project for East Boulder. Specifically, this project also captures the Chautauqua tank, but given that east boulder will be a new tank. We think that this project would be appropriate for a seat. And again, for both of these projects. Just kind of break it down. For you. Alternatives do exist that could have impacts on environmental, social or cultural resources. Neither project is triggered by concept, plan or Site review criteria, and neither have had a specific project. Specific community process identified to this point

[25:07] so hopefully that helps provide some clarity around our seat process, realize there may be some questions around that, and we're we're certainly happy to take those. And with that we'll move into the staff recommendation and next steps I'll start with next steps. Just a couple of things to highlight here on September 12.th So just here. in about a week and a half or so, City Council will hold a study session on the 2025 recommended budget on October 3, rd and City Council will have their 1st reading on the 2025 recommended budget, and then, on October 17, th City Council will have second reading on the 2025 recommended budget. and so, with that the staff recommendation and suggested motion language for this item is that the Planning Board recommends to the City Manager and city Council the recommended 2025 to 2030 capital improvement program. including the list of projects to undergo a community environmental assessment process. And with that I'll turn it back over and we're happy to take any questions.

[26:06] any questions, so far from anybody. this is this is such an interesting thing. And like we talked about on the phone today, you know it's a giant package that is hard to affect change to. But yet we're being asked to approve it. It's also very large. And but yet it's super important. It's it's a. It represents a lot of taxpayer money, and it's important to get it right. So in going through this, I have. I have other stuff we'll deal with later. But I think about

[27:02] issues that are important to the community. That I may not have a great interest in. But right now the the community thinks some certain things are very important. One of those things is tennis. and if we have a representative from Parks and rec, or whatever. I can't find the word tennis tennis court anything in our six-year cip. And and I'm curious that would be a capital improvement. I know. I know that Prab adopted the cip and their portion of it unanimously. But anyway, I'm curious about tennis as an item of community interest that whether or not. There's a plan for incorporating new tennis courts in a future cip.

[28:02] That's a good question. Thank you for the question. I don't see Mark Davison, who's our rep from Parks, and Rec. Here to answer that question, and he would certainly be the best person to do so, Charlotte. Maybe she has some commentary that she'd be able to like provide. If not, then that's something. Mark that we can certainly follow up with our Parks and Rec department to get you. Yeah, thanks, thanks, Chris. I'll just add that we do have included in our 2025 capital budget that's available publicly, and we're happy to send you a link, the update for the court system plan that was recently completed, and we have a total of 400,000 that's invested in advancing capital investments across the court system, and we're happy to follow up with additional details and with parks. And Rec, if needed. Okay, that I'm sorry. That is, that is in the plan that I have. I just didn't find it. That's correct. Yeah. I searched for it and didn't find it. So okay, but that's that's good to know. All right. Thank you.

[29:01] That's it for me, for now great other clarifying questions. I don't have any. Go ahead, Kurt. Yeah, I have a number of specific questions about particular items. The 1st one is. I'm an old guy I print out about the. There's an item that says Chautauqua undergrounding. That is listed as fund-wide slash citywide for 5.7 5 million dollars. But there's no description, so I'd like to hear more about it in particular how that was evaluated from the equity standpoint.

[30:02] I don't think your mic's on. Is that better oops? Good evening, planning board. I'm Chris Deville. I'm 1 of our deputy directors in utilities. and I can share just a few items about the Chautauqua project that you saw flagged, and I know your main question was about equity. So just fundamentally what this project is representing is, it's really a multi-agency effort to perform some infrastructure upgrades in Chautauqua. So it's dry utilities. So it's electrical. Undergrounding excels utilities up there as well as communications, utilities so fiber, optic, network private. And then the city side of that. And then some limited wet utilities work to be performed in conjunction, and then ultimately some paving work to to complete that effort. So it's a phased over multi years. And again, multi agency effort. So what you're seeing there in the city budget is the

[31:06] the planned investment for city dollars to support this work. We. I'm just learning about the very important and but also kind of complicated history of Chautauqua, and how the responsibilities are spread across jurisdictions. So we do have an obligation there to take care of the infrastructure in Chautauqua, the roads, and the wet utilities in particular. The dry utilities. That's a that that would be a new infrastructure. Asset again, the the communications. Item, And so we're trying to bring forward a good faith estimate of what this work is, and it is planned to advance in 2025 and be phased over the years to be quite honest and transparent. We're going to learn a lot more about this as the months go by, and likely need to be making some adjustments in the following year's budgets to, as we, as we really define this work more completely. So that's background.

[32:10] And again, in terms of equity. I don't have a great answer for you tonight. This is kind of advanced concept level work. Again, the city is obligated to perform some improvements to that area like we serve other parts of the community, and that's largely what's represented in that body of work. Thank you. At some point it would be great to get a follow up. I'm just wondering. And then, you know, I I believe that there are probably very good reasons that Chautauqua would be prioritized. But there certainly are other areas of the city that could also use undergrounding right, and that have that are lower income, a greater proportion of people of color, renters, and so on. So I'm just wondering about the geographic prioritization of Chicago.

[33:04] We can come back later with some more information on on how and why that portion of the electric system was prioritized for undergrounding. Great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. No, I don't know. So the next question is about Parks and Rec, there's a 1.4 million dollars over 4 years over 6 years. Item for parking lots, slash access and mobility. And so it sounds like this is fairly straightforward and updates or or maintenance of the parking lots. I'm just wondering if any thought has been given to offsetting any of this cost by by pricing the parking at any of the parks and rec facilities.

[34:06] Food. Do we have a partner? Oh, we don't have a parks and Rec. Right? We unfortunately do. Not a parks and Rec. Staff member here. But if there's anybody in the audience. Who does have any information on this. Please feel free. Hi! Again, Charlotte Husky, budget officer! We're happy to follow up with additional detail on this. But Parks is funded by multiple funding sources. Part of their recreation activities are funded by fees, and part of it is funded by lottery funds as well as property tax for capital funds. So we can we circle back specifically on the funding source for this. And whether or not it includes fees. Okay, thank you.

[35:00] Ml. Sorry, ml. I pressed the wrong one. I like the big echo. So George, is this the time when we kind of go through. This is. Did. I. Done. Or this is just. Clarifying so that the process will be. This is clarifying questions, and then we'll have, I believe, public input and then we'll deliberate as the planning board. Okay, so any questions I ask now. Yeah, just just clarifying questions to the presentation and to the packet that we received. Okay? So under facilities and fleet the age. Well, West, co-location with rec centers. did did that project get public input. Michelle Crane's coming to the podium. Thanks.

[36:02] Is that on now? Yep. Michelle Crane, deputy director with facilities and fleet that project. We're really only in a very conceptual phase. So should we find that there's some feasibility for us to move forward with looking at that co-location, then it would undergo a full process. So this is really just some early feasibility work that we're trying to look at that site to see if that's possible. So we would have an extensive process around that. And did I understand that that facility that the age well, West Center is currently in is no longer feasible. It's not a viable building. Is that correct? Yeah. The current age. Well, center that we have is one of our kind of what we call failing pieces of building infrastructure. We have a lot of challenges right now are investing a lot in a building that has diminishing returns on both the way it serves our community. It's touching the high hazard flood zone which also makes it hard and limits our ability for investment.

[37:05] There's a number of issues with the community that's served by there, including the parking. There's sloped parking that makes it really challenging for some of our older adults to actually get in the facility as well as just mechanical systems in general. So the building really has outlived its life. And so we are looking for other possibilities that again, co-locate services in a way that there's some good synergies with items like Parks and Rec and other recreational activities. So that's why we're looking at the possibility of co-locating up with North Boulder as we consider the future of rec centers, there is there an opportunity. So this is really early feasibility, just looking at land assessment and just seeing do we have the space, the ability, the kind of room to accommodate those services up there. And so should we, you know, say that? Yes, that that's feasible. Then there would be a much more extensive process.

[38:02] Thank you. Thank you for that. I think that there'll be a lot of interest around that. Just given it central location to have it move, I think, would be a major challenge. So the next question I have is again for facilities and fleet at the Alpine balsam, West City campus. It says that, and it looks like the way that the financing is structured is based on the fact that there will. 4 parcels of the property will be sold. Have those buyers been identified. So there are currently, it's all under city ownership. And so planning board will actually be seeing this project and specifically looking at the parcelization in just a couple of weeks, but in general the city will retain ownership of a small portion of the site. So it's right now, just under 9 acres, we will look to retain ownership

[39:05] of about 2 acres of the site. And that's what we're calling the Western City campus, and that's the renovation and the consolidation of services there. There are, then, 4 other parcels like you mentioned. 2 of them will be developed as affordable housing by boulder housing partners, and so that is, who will retain ownership of those 2 parcels. And then there are 2 parcels, one in the northeastern section and one on the west, that borders the park. Those will be sold for market rate development, and that will help support the actual development of the affordable housing. The buyers have not been identified. Yet right now we're just doing the entitlements on those parcels. Thank you for that information. I I have a couple of other questions for facilities in Fleet. maybe I don't.

[40:02] Okay. No. My next question is for open space in Mount Parks. And I'm looking at the Mountainidas Trail Improvements project. So my question. so it seems like that trail has has recently had significant repairs. And I'm curious as to what kind of a process there has been. That the public, input how the public input has played out like proposing 2 new trails. It's a very overused area. To begin with, there's there's not really any parking and there's a lot of erosion just because it's so overused. So I'm curious as to what the process has been to get to the point where we're proposing to new trails.

[41:04] In addition to whatever kind of repairs. Yeah. Good evening. My name's Jeff Haley. I'm a deputy director with open space and mountain parks, and the Mount Sanitas complex is definitely in need of repair, as you mentioned, probably the best direct answer I can give to what I what I think your question is getting at in terms of public process and how we identified the needs really came from the West trail study area. That's been a plan that's been in place for a number of years. That specifically identified existing trails, proposed improvements and projects to improve the area. So I think the 2 new trails that you might be referring to that plan, in fact, identified a few undesignated trails to be designated and to basically become new, you know, designed, constructed, and managed trails. So again, that that went through a robust planning process several years ago.

[42:09] And then we also go through. An annual cyclical process where we do a variety of trail monitoring and condition assessments. We go through visitor surveys. We have a process we call it Povs, but it's public opinion, visitor experience surveys. And so that further gathers outreach and information from our visitors and community about trail priorities, how their experience was, what could be better and that sort of thing. So I think that's potentially the nature of your question is just how the community's kind of helped, inspired or inspire these these projects. Yeah, I I don't remember there being a big public input opportunity or this project.

[43:01] And am I understanding you correctly? You're just looking to formalize existing trails that aren't formally designated. That's correct. Yeah. Creating totally new trails. That's correct. And and yeah, this process was a number of years ago. Just like many of our comprehensive kind of strategic plans with any department. We'll go through a planning process, and it may take multiple years, maybe even up to a decade before we actually implement work. So it's been a number of years. But yeah, these are trails that are basically being used. If you were to go out there today, you would think for all intent and purpose. It's a trail. We're basically improving that and designating those as well as key improvements to some of the existing designated trails. And yeah. That information available somewhere. Yes, you know again. Yep. The the West trail study area. If you actually go to the city's website under open space and mountain parks under plans and reports. And I can certainly send the link as well.

[44:12] But yeah, that that's an in-depth plan. And probably the great success story. This project was actually funded by a Federal Land Water Conservation Fund grant. which is actually quite remarkable. It's about a 1.2 million dollars. Grant that we've received to do this work. And and so it was went through a rigorous application and vetting. So we're really fortunate to have that to really invest in the Mount Sanitas area. Now the of public outreach and study that were done. You said it's been a number of years ago. Was that post Covid. Pre. Covid. BC. Before Covid. Right? Well, just because that area that Samitas is so highly it got discovered, I think, during Covid. And it it is so overused.

[45:13] And there's so much erosion. And I I'm looking at the language about make it available, you know. for more visitors to experience. It's like we don't even have parking for there's there's not really. There's the one across that little highway there. Hey, ml, sorry, I'm just gonna if you could focus mostly on on clarifying questions and not commentary, we can, we can get to that. Okay, so that's so, no studies done. no study has been done. Post Covid. And the funding source comes from a national source. Is that correct? Federal funding is is that we're matching and leveraging with our local Osmp or open space tax dollars. So it's a combined program.

[46:09] yeah. And just just to touch the the trail, the plans that exist. You know, they. We still feel that they are relevant. The the priorities and the actions. In fact, it takes a number of years again to implement these plans, and I think they were just as you said, these trails are well loved, and and we receive the sanitas area in particular, receives over 300,000 visits annually, like, I said, we do a robust visitation study each year. Practically so, I I would say we we feel pretty confident that the community would support just by given the nature of the use. And and again, what we're up to is really fixing what you're identifying soil loss, erosion, you know, unsafe conditions due to high visitation. This project will improve, you know. You see some of those stairs and the rock retaining walls and just trying to keep the trails intact on those kind of steep slopes. So

[47:09] at the end of the day. It's kind of maintaining what we have to to be, you know, kind of direct with what the work's going to achieve. I appreciate your answer. Thanks so much. Those are all my questions. Okay, thanks. Ml. why do you have some? Thank you. I think I'm going to start with community vitality. I have a question about the parking garage improvements or repairs planned for a number of the downtown parking garages. And I'm curious. What are the what is the life cycle on those repairs. And are there any components of those projects that will be supporting multimodal and or climate goals? I think it just turned. Okay. Good. Hi, good evening. Chris Jones, director of the Community Vitality Department. Thank you for the question.

[48:01] We have a large amount of deferred maintenance going on in each of our district owned garages. So we're currently in a facilities assessment phase. We're taking a look at each garage to understand what it would take to just get back to a state of good repair, and that's what's proposed in the capital improvement plan is a line item just to get there with that, though we were pretty liberal in what we think it will take, because the assessments haven't been completed yet, so certainly welcome the possibility for multimodal, whether it's electric vehicle charging stations, conversion of parking spaces into bike racks that certainly could be part of those investments depending on where that where the facility assessment comes in, we'll we? We are envisioning that there might be some increment of funds left over that would allow us to do more. You know, diversity of improvements rather than just getting it to

[49:00] back to square one. Okay, yeah, just to clarify, though I think it was like 4.5 million per garage. What you were projecting correct that includes study and construction. Or is that just the kind of planning? So we're employing a Cmgc model. So we want to do first, st we're we're doing the standard assessment. Then we're going to hire someone who's going to do both the construction management and the general contracting altogether in one phase to be as efficient as possible with the dollars. Okay, fabulous. And then what's what's the life cycle on those kinds of repairs? How often is the city doing these kinds of things? Or should we be so? If you look further out after we've done the massive investment in each garage, we are also programming a smaller increment on a on a 5 year cadence, so that we don't find we don't find ourselves in this position where we're so far behind. So the intent right now is to make our existing infrastructure last as long as possible, so we don't find ourselves having to reconstruct or build any new garages.

[50:03] Of course, our oldest garage, the Randolph Center Garage, is approaching 50 years old. It's certainly as part of the assessment we'll be able to communicate the useful life of each of the facilities that one is probably closest to the end of its useful life. Whether the parking is still highly utilized or not versus the quality of the structure is certainly value conversation that we'll want to have in the years ahead, because there certainly could be other uses for that parcel. So we are putting the the buckets of money in there. But there's still going to be some conversations over the years ahead of analyzing each of our assets, and understanding is that actually going to be the priority when that garage comes up as an example? Because if there was one that is closer to reaching the end of its useful life, it would be the 11th and spurs garage. Okay, thank you.

[51:00] One more question while you're up on on just garages. Sure kind of to this discussion. How does the shift in the next 10 to 20 years to electric vehicles and the weight of those vehicles? Because almost all of them that I know are on the road are almost doubling in mass. Do do our garage, or will our garages be able to support that? Or is that going to be reflected in the study as well? That's a really good question. And that's something that the industry, you know, parking and storage of vehicles across the the industry is contemplating something that's on our radar, not showing up as an issue for us yet, but a question that we can pass on to our engineering engineers on, on contract to make sure that they are adequately calculating for heavy vehicles over time. Yeah, I think that would be. It'd be interesting, especially in the ones that are coming up in 2,025, right? Because if there is an opportunity for preparation, don't want to spend that money without that. Thank you.

[52:04] Well, Chris is up. Can I keep making? So I didn't actually see you over there earlier? Oh, I snuck in. Yeah. Okay, yeah. There, I was like, okay. So now that Chris is up. Chris, thanks for coming tonight. do parking fees and our Enforcement revenue meet the cost of the operation of our parking. Our parking operations does do fees and enforcement meet the cost of operation. Yes. so parking revenue across the board generates about 10 million dollars a year. that includes all of our on street parking, all of our garage parking. Both permit parking and short term visitor parking. Then we have other funding components of the property taxes that are coming in each of the districts that's not including just the assessments on

[53:05] the businesses that get the benefits from the parking and access districts. Enforcement alone traditionally generated about 2 million dollars a year prior to the pandemic, due to some changes in operations and a focus on on compliance where our parking revenues have gone up since we've increased on street rates with the performance based, pricing instituted a couple of years ago we've been able to prop up compliance. And on street parking revenue we've seen our our enforcement go down to about a million dollars a year is what we're projecting, which is still more than what it costs to pay people to go out and write tickets. So certainly something that we track very closely. So the money from these I parked my car in the garage. and and I get a ticket because I didn't do it right, or whatever that money goes back to the general fund? Or does that go like parks and rec many times their fees go directly back to the department in a much tighter circle.

[54:09] Does the money from parking fees go back to your department, back to the general fund? Where does it go from there? So on. Street parking is a general fund asset. It's owned public right of way is owned by the general fund. So those revenues from on street go to the general fund. The garages in the downtown and at Boulder Junction and the 14th Street lot on the hill are owned by the special taxing districts, so the General Improvement Districts, Central area, General Improvement District Downtown University Hill, General Improvement District on the Hill and the Boulder Junction District. Those are independent assets owned by a separate governmental entity, if you will, and so revenues that are generated in those assets are the revenues. Go back into the district. Of course we then spend those resources beyond maintenance. We spend those resources on other access, related tools like ecopasses for all full time employees in each of the districts. Oh, actually, as of next year. We're planning to provide to temporary seasonal part-time employees as well. In each of the districts. We have car share memberships, bike share memberships in the Boulder Junction area, and residents in Boulder Junction are eligible for all those benefits as well. So

[55:28] take those dollars. The revenues from parking to reinvest in access, related infrastructure, also special events, activations, anything to make downtown, or the districts that we manage more attractive in hopes that more people get to enjoy these spaces. Of course, the more folks we can convince to not drive a car when they do that the less space takes up to store their vehicle while they're enjoying our districts great. So tying it back to the cip. the money in the cip for these

[56:01] big repairs and stuff which I'm all for maintaining assets and repairing assets. The money we're seeing in the cip is money from the budget outside of is that outside of the Cagid revenues or no. So so the money that you're seeing in the cap is all coming from the District Fund balance, not general fund balance for the for all of the garage improvements. Those are all strictly district funds. Great. Thank you very much. Sure. Kurt. thank you. I have another. I have another question for facilities and fleet, and also it relates to the fire stations. so my. 1st question. So we're talking about 2 fire stations, fire station number 2 and Fire station number 4. It sounds like

[57:06] the plan for fire station number 2 is to build a new station on the existing parcel. Is that correct? The plan for the fire station 2. We purchased the parcel directly adjacent to the existing fire station 2. So we're combining the 2 parcels, and we'll build the new station kind of like they do schools where we'll build the new station behind the existing currently operating station, and then look to remove that station or kind of envelop it into the site to improve the circulation, and just grow the size of the station, to fit the apparatus and the and the needs of the new station. So this is the parcel. I guess this will probably be coming to us, but just out of curiosity. This is the parcel to the north, because the parcel to the west is a big. it's to the west. Yeah, it is to the west.

[58:00] Oh, so it'll be removing that. That's right. The the apartment building. Yes. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. So then, in the description it talks about The station is too small to be equipped with the appropriate firefighting apparatus. So my question is, how do we determine what is the appropriate size of apparatus? And I'm I'm particularly wondering because these the stations have a 50 year or so lifespan. Are we going to be looking at in 50 years or less than 50 years apparatus that's too big for what we're building. Good evening. Planning board, Jared Ginsburg, deputy fire chief. So I like your question. This is Station 2 is a great example for us to talk about

[59:04] in that station. Currently, we have, we have to look at risk around that specific fire station, depending on where our fire stations are at that risk might look slightly different. So that's the 1st piece in that station. Currently, we have a fire engine, your typical large fire engine, and we also have a wildland firefighting unit there, and in the current configuration of that station. If that wildland firefighting unit needs to go out on a call. the crew has to pull the truck out or back it, back it up within the bay. They have to then pull out the other truck. and then they have to. Once that truck is out. They have to move the other apparatus back into position, and it's just a single crew that's at that station. So when we're talking about the space availability for fire apparatus with our current apparatus. There's not even room to have 2 2 pieces of equipment there which are needed, dependent upon what type of call they're going on

[60:02] with the apparatus in the future being smaller. That's a great idea. I think we have. We have some limitations right now that the industry is only moving as fast as it can. But I think when we're looking at station capacity, we're we're not just looking at apparatus size. We're also looking at the number of people that would be at that station. Some of our future goals that tie back to our strategic plan around future advanced life support, expansion that would require now another piece of equipment to be at the station. Since these folks are working 24 HA day, it would also require some some other conveniences and sleeping areas, or or kitchen space that meets the needs of an expanding workforce at that specific station. So those are also some of our considerations. Okay, so what I'm hearing is, although it talks about

[61:02] it's too small to be equipped with the well, I guess. Wait. It's too small, because not because the engines are too big. but because it's there are too many vehicles sort of for the for the station, as it's designed currently, is that correct? That station was designed for one fire engine. Yeah. And we have been able to squeeze 2 into that space. But it's not efficient. Okay? And then one more follow up when Fire Station number 3 came before planning board before I was on the board. But the board I recall discussion. asking if if housing for firefighters could be included in the building, since often firefighters are not able to afford to live in boulder, and they have to commute in from a long ways away, and that's terrible. and we shouldn't have that. And in that location it was not possible, because our zoning forbade it.

[62:05] The fire station number 2 in particular. That's zoned Rh. 5. And so housing certainly would be possible. Is that something that is in the mix at all, as you're considering the the design and planning of either of these stations. So I'll say we're right at the front side of planning for fire Station 2. won't speak much opinion, but I think we we have the opportunity to explore some of that, although the parcel, even at Station 2 is relatively limited in in size as we build, and as we, we get it to the point that we. we would like to see it, it's still a relatively small parcel. I also wonder about the likelihood of a firefighter wanting to stay there at work. They've just spent 48 h there. Sure, I think they would like to go elsewhere. That's the opinion piece. Sure understood.

[63:01] Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna pivot back to Claudia because we got we got distracted on parking. That's fantastic timing, George, because I actually also had a question about fire stations. don't go anywhere. Wonderful thanks. So my question about the the fire stations number 2 and number 4 when they come along, is, if there is any intention or planning for these to be more outward facing community oriented facilities. I seem to recall from Fire Station number 3 when that went through review. I haven't followed up on it, but that there are things like community rooms there and the like places where there can be some public programming. Is any of that in the mix for the 2 replacement stations. We're going to tag team. This I think just though, like the chief just said, is, we are at the beginning. So I think that all these things can be considered. But I know, 1st and foremost, we do want to make sure that we're serving the needs of the of the fire company with these stations. And one thing we have learned is, you know, we have 2 stations that are really undersized. In fact, 4 is a residential house.

[64:24] and as we have learned through Station 3 and through design. We want to ensure that we can move those trucks well. And so it actually ends up consuming a fair amount of site just circulating well and making sure that it 1st and foremost serves the needs of moving quickly and around that site. But I think, as far as you know, other considerations and the opportunities. I think these are all things. Again, at the very beginning of this planning process that can be considered. Yeah, I think that out of the context. I was going to add, from a specific fire department standpoint. I would just say that

[65:06] we want to explore those things, it becomes challenging to actually implement, because the primary role of the people that will be at that station, likely when community wants to use that space are not taking themselves out of service. So we need to determine where the priority is. If it's to have the community space and have someone there to to support that. or whether it's to respond on calls. So that definitely is going to need to play a role in the conversation. But I I think, as an example Station 3 has space, it will likely be limited in the hours that it's available, and how folks need to sign up for it just because of that same priority. I appreciate that context about the operational needs. And I just ask the question simply to make sure there is a bigger conversation happening about how you know, we have a limited number of community facilities, public spaces. We're talking some in the cip about

[66:07] consolidating things like senior centers to rec centers. So all of these things are in flux over time. But just to have a more holistic view of what community spaces we have in the city. Thank you so much. Thank you. I guess I did have one more question for facilities and fleet and this is this is a little higher level. But I saw for a couple of items there's actually a cip item for deconstruction of buildings, which, 1st of all, I think, is a totally fascinating concept to have in a capital improvements plan that we would be removing things. And I do understand we have some out of date buildings and in problematic locations. But is there anything in those line items planned for how to restore or reprogram those sites as opposed to just removing buildings? Yes, so the 2 that were in the cip is, we're looking at deconstructing the Park Central Building, New Britain Building, which are both in the park here. And so those 2 projects. First, st the buildings are identified for deconstruction versus anything else, because they are in the high hazard floodplain. And so they've been identified for a while

[67:20] for deconstruction. And so the idea would be is that they are rolling into the civic area park planning process. And so really, how does that become part of the park in the future. The other building that we've identified is the existing fire Station 3, which is also in the high hazard. And so we don't want to put new structures in that place. And so we're in conversations with Parks about how that can be enhanced, because again, it's adjacent to Scott Carpenter and some other outdoor facilities. So how we can repurpose that corner. So last question is for transportation.

[68:02] there's an item in the cip near the Primost Park, dealing with Violet Avenue and a bridge there near 19th Street, and I understand there's a connection being made there between the Primos Park and now the underpass that's being built under 19, th I assume, or at least there's some connectivity there. But I was curious something that I did not see in the plan, and that is any work on that northern portion of 19th Street. So south of Sumac right now, there's a large project for adding sidewalks, curbs, gutters, bike lane improvements, etc. I know there's been process on that for many, many years. Is there any timeline for 19th Street, north of Sumac at this point. Good evening. Garrett Slater. Capital projects manager for transportation and mobility. There is not a current funded plan to implement any improvements to 19th Street, north of Upland. So you're correct that there are 2 projects under construction on 19th Street. There's the multimodal Improvement project between Norwood and Sumac.

[69:11] and then there's also the 4 Mile Canyon Creek Underpass, which will also reconstruct 19th Street between Sumac and Upland. We do not have a project in the current cip to make improvements between Upland and Violet. Okay, yeah. So I'm I'm resident in that neighborhood. So this is maybe a fairly specific question. But I've been seeing there for many years a missing link between Crestview School and the Boulder Meadows community. which is a low income community, large Latinx and Nepali population. So there's some equity issues there. But it's also a fairly constrained transportation channel. So people moving from that community south to the neighborhood schools, that is a missing link in the transportation system. I mean, it's it's a road, obviously.

[70:01] but so curious what the timeline is for that in terms of connectivity to the schools. Yes, so I think there are a few different ways that in the future we'll be looking to make enhancements to the connectivity, to boulder meadows and surrounding area. The 1st would be the 4 Mile Canyon Creek, Greenway, which there's been a master plan and approved Cp. In place for for quite some time. and the underpass that will be implemented as part of the Violet Avenue Bridge replacement that's in this new cip will build a portion of that path to connect north up to Broadway, and will build it south of Violet through the sort of that southerly block down going down to Upland. And I hope I'm not getting too far ahead of things. But I know that the city is in negotiation. The Utilities department specifically is in negotiation to acquire a property that is a key piece to the continuity of making the Greenway connection south of there to the underpass that's currently under construction. And so I would expect in the next 5 years that we will have connectivity via the formula Canyon Creek.

[71:10] Greenway. Further, there is a multi-use path that currently exists going south from Violet towards Sumac, along the 17th corridor that we are, have currently halfway constructed that was built by development, obligation by some of the residential construction there, and we are anticipating that some of the properties that have recently sold will likely continue that pattern. If that does not occur, it is likely that that segment of multiuse path will make its way into the cip for prioritization, so that we can get that other connection in place. So that's a second link. And then, thirdly, I could foresee a future scenario where we pursue a safe routes to school. Grant that would allow us to fund the design and implementation of sidewalk along 19th Street, because there is a design memo that's in place for making enhancements to 19th Street, between Violet all the way up to Yarmouth.

[72:07] and it includes recommendations for improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities along that corridor. And so we've got a plan. Just no funding in the cip. But I can see that scenario playing out in the future. Thank you all. Stay tuned. or do you have any? Oh, I'm going to go to Mason Mason. Go ahead. Very specific questions. I have a question about recreations. I didn't see any mention of the South Boulder Recreation Center, which it's I'm remembering, perhaps incorrectly, that it needs to be replaced in the next 5 years at least, that's what I've seen in the the Parks plan. Should I be seeing that in here.

[73:01] Right now, under the East Boulder community Center project, the deep energy retrofit and renovation project. the 1st phase of that work and the community work around that is to do kind of what's called the future of rec centers assessment. So we're really trying to understand across the entire system the types of programs that are needed and looked at at all sites and locations. We know that across all the recreation centers that we have infrastructure improvements, we need to make. There needs to be addressing kind of new programs and spaces to accommodate those. So as we develop that future recommendations will be made on what to happen at South as well as North and and any other locations kind of coming out of that plan. What we do know is we are advancing specifically work at the East Boulder Community center right now. So that's what's on the cip. How would we appropriate funds for that work

[74:01] in this plan? For the other recreation centers. Yeah. So like, say we cut, we determine that that South poulder Rick, does indeed need to be replaced in the next 5 years, like, where does? Where does that fit in. That would be something that we'd have to discuss and figure out internally is where those funds would come from. Right now. They've not been specifically identified. Okay. Thank you. Does that make sense? Okay? I kind of go. I have a quick question regarding facilities and the Alpine balsam. Western City campus implementation. So my question is number one, that's an enormous number. Right? That's that's 20% of the entire budget that we're looking at. This year is 40 million dollars. I guess the question as as you present this to Council and the public.

[75:01] do we? Is, is there a are they going to be informed about what's been spent to date on this site, because it's it's hard to look at that in a vacuum, knowing that this project's already been going on for 5 years. And then the second part of that question is. it's zeroed out between 26 and 30. And now I see in the notes that there's 1-time funding requests, and out years I'm assuming out years include some of those years. like it. It seems odd to me that the 40 million dollars happens in 2,025, knowing the state of the site currently. and then nothing in 2627, 2829, and 30. And so I I I don't know if this is reflective. It doesn't feel reflective of what may actually happen there or what has happened there. So I'm curious what your thoughts are on that. Yeah. So we have been working on this site for nearly 10 years. We bought it back in 2,015. So to your point, there's been a lot of work that's been done, and those have been every year part of our cip and appropriated funding. So I think we haven't gone back and exactly tallied

[76:12] everything on that site. I will say, though, what needs to be balanced with that is a lot of the improvements that we have made to date have been also offset spending that we would have had to make elsewhere. So, for instance. we renovated the Brenton Building back in 2,018 for 8 million dollars. At that time we were looking for lease space for additional city staff, and we were leasing a lot of space across the city already, and one of the buildings was at a million dollars a year lease, and instead of leasing space we renovated the Brenton Building. We've actually already received an Roi on that renovation as opposed to leasing space over that time. And we achieved this city's 1st all electric building, and really some advancement towards our energy goals. So I think one of the challenges, because I know we've been asked this before is, we have to look at the full balance sheet when we look at the spend versus what we've actually accomplished. So a lot of the money and the investments that we've made in that site have resulted in not spending elsewhere.

[77:10] The same is the case for the Western City campus, and it's what we presented in our facilities, master plan and a larger scale. So in many ways the Brenton Building kind of served as a case study towards that, we have 7 or 8 buildings right now that are in failing States. They have well beyond infrastructure improvements that should have been made a long time ago. They are not meeting our climate and energy goals. They're on antiquated old gas, fired equipment. They don't serve our community well, our staff don't work well, being dispersed. So consolidation! There's an offset with those costs. So I think that's that's 1 of the things we want to look at. When we look at the spend, we equally have to look at that balance sheet and what we're not spending elsewhere. That has also been a lot of just the brass tacks math that has gone into. Why, we're investing here versus investing in our current buildings at that same cost.

[78:02] We're very proud of the fact that the Western city campus, as it's being designed is on track to be a global leader in low carbon redevelopment, to have really highly efficient systems and to be a 50 to 100 year building so hopefully that investment we won't kind of repeat the past. So, as far as that has been, you know, the spends have been part of our budget year over year. I think that's something that can be seen. We haven't, really. It's sort of what do you tally across that site for all the different investments we've made over the years as far as the the way we're looking at spending for the Western City campus and the whole Alpine balsam redevelopment. So the 2 kind of get interchanged. the project that's advancing, starting actually, this year, and then we'll move into next and over the next subsequent years is both wide scale infrastructure, improvements across Alpine balsam. So it's underground utility, reconstruction, road improvements, pedestrian connections, the floodway that will support all of the housing development on the site as well as the Western City campus, and then there's the the campus itself, so the renovation of the Brenton Building. Well, excuse me. The Pavilion Building, and then the parking structure.

[79:22] There is the 40 million dollars that is programmed for next year to help support that development. But for the past several years we have had a debt service that has been planned that will carry the rest of the costs of the construction for those those subsequent years, so there won't be one time funding requests. We will enter into a debt service for the rest of that. and I may lean on Charlotte for the specifics in the budget side. Yeah, that would. That would be so. So just to just to follow up on that last piece. So

[80:00] we won't see any requests in the cip going forward, starting in 2,026, through 2030, as reflected in this plan. because everything's going to be covered by debt service on the site. that is. And then and then could you explain the debt service to us, and how that functions? Charlotte, Husky, Budget officer, as Michelle mentioned. The debt service is something that we've been programming for multiple years. It is supported by our general fund. We have a total of 6.2 million included in the 2,025 operating budget to support the debt service for the project. Believe that answers the question, but happy to take. So there's debt service. So what's the total amount of debt that's been taken on? The total amount of debt that will come forward is 100 million that'll come forward in the 2025 quarter one. Come forward with approval and review by city council in quarter one of 2025. Okay.

[81:07] One other question around this. So the one-time funding requests and out years may include that's going to be in the debt service, not in the cip, because it's noted in the cip so curious in the notes. we have a total of 40 million included in the Cip for the project. That total is planned to be reimbursed, as Michelle mentioned, by the consolidation of city buildings, as well as some anticipated grants and rebates, and so that total amount of 40 million in new appropriation in 2,025. Is that one time amount that you're seeing in the cip? Okay? So that that just just for my own clarity. So you've got 4 bullets down there below. That's included in the 40 million technology furniture, fixtures, equipment, pavilion building, operational change management, etc. That's all in the 40 million for the cip.

[82:05] Thank you. Yeah, thanks. I have a couple of other questions for transportation. Tried to get you when you were already up. The 1st question is about the Central Avenue bridge. I think I actually think that there was a cip tour or some kind of tour that went out there a couple of years ago to look at it. My question is Central Avenue, there is very wide. And are we rebuilding it at that full width we are. We are rebuilding it at the width that's present today, with the anticipation that there will be a future reallocation of space of the existing street space on central in the future.

[83:12] Can you elaborate a little more about the reallocation? So there are currently 2 Lane travel vehicle travel lanes in each direction. But those lanes are really wide. They're like 15 to 18 feet each, so we expect that there will be an opportunity to make the line, the vehicle space a little bit more defined, and then also put in place bicycle lanes with markings, and also put in place sidewalks which are not present today. So and and there's the existing well, I guess, falling down pedestrian bridge to the north, right? So is that still. is that closed. It's it is closed. It's been closed for 3 or 4 years. Okay, yeah, and so currently.

[84:05] currently, there are the Jersey barriers on there to provide pedestrian space after it's reconstructed, at least for the time being. It'll the pedestrian space will continue to be delineated in by the Jersey barriers until it's reconstructed. Yes, once the bridge is reconstructed, we will have sidewalk connection on the vehicular bridge. Okay? And so the the location of the pedestrian bridge that will be removed entirely, and then the sidewalk will be located on the new bridge. Okay, so some of the space will already be allocated for sidewalks. Correct. Okay. great. And then my other question is about the Ti P. Match, which I know has been a subject of discussion. It came up at Tab, although

[85:05] I tried to to watch the recording of that, and it seemed to be cut off, so I didn't get to see the conversation. but I know that what you're proposing is a reduction from what we have in the last few years had as a tip match and and the the explanation that I've heard is that well, we just have less funding. The the really, the question is less funding available. And so we need to cut something. And so Tip is getting cut is that sort of the short version of the story. That is, it's an accurate statement, but it's not the full context. So I would say that there are 3 primary reasons that you're seeing a reduction in the Tip Tmp line. Item of the transportation cip for 25 through 30.

[86:08] The first.st If if we look in the broader context, going back a few years into how much we were putting into that line item each year for a number of years. It was right around 3 million dollars a year, and as we pursued Grant opportunities for capital projects that we were using that line item for the match. We would reduce that line item by the amount of match required, and put it into a separate line. Item, as a standalone enhancement or capital maintenance project. And so in 2024, when we were doing the 24 to 29 cip, the transportation fund situation looked a bit optimistic. And so we decided to propose 4 million dollars a year in funding, going out to 29 in that line. Item with the recognition that we would be using that to help pursue big Grant opportunities. Well, we did learn over the last year that the sales tax revenue, which is the primary source of funding for transportation

[87:12] has flattened out. And so that changed the outlook of the Transportation Fund, which meant we had to pull some levers to try to match the constraints of our new budget situation. and further, we were awarded the unprecedented 23 million dollars grants for the safe streets for all project, and that requires a nearly 6 million dollars local match. So right off the top, we're taking 6 million dollars from that line item over the next 4 years. And then further, with the Transportation fund situation that's reducing our ability to keep that funding where it needs to be. And then the the 3rd reason is that every 4 years we inspect the condition of our actually every 2 years we inspect our major bridges, or every 4 years we expect, inspect our minor bridges. And so we've been keeping our eye on the Folsom Bridge over Boulder Creek.

[88:07] and we learned at our most recent inspection a year ago that the condition of the concrete on the deck has degraded at a much faster rate than expected. And so we need to program a deck replacement on Folsom for 2028, and that's about a 4 to 5 million dollars project, which also reduced the line item funding in the Tmp. So you combine all those factors together. and it means that we're looking at a lower match in that line item over the next 6 years. So if we somehow were, though able to get more money for the tip funding. would it? Would it allow us to do projects that we can't current? We wouldn't be able to do under the proposed funding? Or are there other constraints in the system that

[89:00] also are are limiting our bandwidth in terms of doing various projects? Well, as you know, and for the benefit that others that may not. One of our key priorities in transportation and mobility right now is the implementation of the core arterial network or the can. And so that is a key priority. And right now, for through 25 and 2026, we're going to be really heavily focused on the planning and design and right of way and environmental and flood permitting prior, which are all key steps prior to actual implementation. So if we were to have increased funding, say, for 25 and 26, it wouldn't necessarily increase the ability of the department to accelerate the pace of can implementation. I would say, once we get to 27, and beyond that, then we're looking at a different set of circumstances where it potentially would be helpful, and we might be looking to the general fund for some help and assistance and pursuing the the Grants. And of course there's no guarantee that as we

[90:09] put that programming in the line. Item for chasing grants. There's no guarantee that we'll see those grants awarded. If that plans out that they're not awarded. Then we're looking at city funds only, and not grant funds for implementation. So there are a lot of variables in play right now. So I would say right now, it's not hampering our ability to get the work done, because we've got things sort of locked and loaded to where they needed to be to to accelerate the the plan within our current ability. But a couple of years from now we'll be in a different place where we we potentially could benefit from that additional funding. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Headlines. Okay. Garrett, I'll see if this will be interesting to see if you

[91:00] can answer this under under transportation, which is interesting. We have the Greenways program transportation. And it says this project is for an ongoing funding program which funds the Greenways Cip. It doesn't really describe the cip. What is this? A little bit of a circular thing there? So what is in the Greenways Cip? And if you can't answer it, that's understandable because the Greenways are like no one's. no one's real pride. It's like it belongs to no one. It belongs to everyone. But anyway, what's in the Greenway cip, if you know. Yes, that's an interesting question. I like the way you phrased it. I felt like I should say I'll take Greenways for $500. So there, many years ago, there was an mou between parks and transportation and open space to put together or excuse me, utilities not open space to put together funding for

[92:03] Greenway capital projects, and so that amount has stayed fixed. It hasn't been indexed to inflation. And so what at what one time was a reasonable number you can't do much with now. And so the way it's been shaping and playing out over the recent years is, we wait until that pool of funds grows to a number to where you can actually do something with it. And the most recent example is, we waited until that pool of funds was able to be deployed on the 4 Mile Canyon Creek Project at 19th Street, and so we've spent down a large measure a portion of those funds, and at the conclusion of that I expect there will be another Greenway project where we'll have an opportunity to figure out where we want to spend those dollars. But the currently it's the decision and sort of the the gatekeeper. The manager of that program resides with the utilities department, and so they

[93:05] convene us on a somewhat regular basis, maybe. And annually. Yeah, because there's the the Gap, the Greenways Advisory Committee that is got representatives from each of those boards. But we, as staff, also meet to talk about what the priorities are, and how those funds could potentially be used. Great, thank you. Does have a panel or or mason. Do you have any other last questions? Alright, Ml. Or Mason? Any last questions before we conclude? Good! Alright! Anybody else. All right. Thank you everyone for answering those questions. We can now go to. The public comments on on this

[94:02] 1st up. If there's anybody, any members of the public in person that would like to speak. Please step up to the podium. Otherwise we can move to online comment. And if you are online, please go ahead and raise your hand if you would like to speak. We have one raised hand online, so I'll go ahead and allow them to talk. Lynn Siegel. please go ahead. But I have some of those parking revenues to fix my washer, you know. I guess my washer may tag of 2,000. I guess the lifespan of it is 25 years, which is like brand new. But you know, why are your projects here? 50 to 100 years? Why are they not a thousand years? Why are we building things to just have to rebuild them in 50, 50 to 100 years? you know

[95:01] all of these costs coming to your residence. and the residents can't pay because their property tax is so high and they their property tax is so high is because the value of land is so high, and because the city of Boulder and the planning department is promoting growth at all expense. And you get these Federal funds matching funds that's like heroin that's like a bribe to grow. and growth never, ever pays for itself. If you want to. If you want to grow. make the developer pay. make the developer pay. make the developer pay. If they can't pay, then they can go away and we'll save on the water infrastructure on the east boulder Rec. Center on the Alpine balsam, which is a disaster because we held it for so long, paying the debt service on it.

[96:06] And now we have to sell off 2 parcels of it to market rate. because we thought we were in the business of, you know, owning our own land and doing our own thing with it. Well, it didn't quite turn out the way it was supposed to did it. We're getting a lousy little bit of affordable housing, and then we're getting inevitably what always happens in boulder for each affordable housing. You got 10 or 20 unaffordable houses that drive up the cost of land and of contracting, and of materials and supplies. and then all of those costs go on to the next person, and then you say, Oh, Fire Station 2, you know, it's not enough. We need more. We need bigger, we need more. And why do we need that? Because we have more people to supply. And why do we need

[97:03] the erosion control up in sanitas trail? Because we have piles of people using it? Because we're stretching our ability to expand gracefully into the South. We're covering the whole Front Range suburban North Boulder, Suburban South boulder. See you South Millennium, who knows how much per bedroom? Martha house. $1,700. Bedroom. Do I pay for this. Thank you, Lynn. That concludes your time. If there's anybody else online that would like to speak. Please go ahead and raise your hand, otherwise we can go ahead and continue with the hearing. I see no other raised hands. Thanks, Thomas, and thanks Lynn, for your commentary. I think we should take a quick break. It happens to be conveniently 7, 40. Why don't we reconvene at 7 50, and we can comment and put up the criteria to discuss and put motions for it. Thank you.

[108:40] One second one. all right, we're going to get going. I still don't see Mason or Ml. I'm going to give them one more minute to hop in. There's Ml, Hi, Ml. and there's Mason thanks to everyone who's put this together and who's attended tonight. We realize that this is a herculean effort.

[109:05] and we were just discussing as planning board sort of the opportunity that we have to. We appreciate the opportunity to see this to add value where we can, and that would be probably our goal tonight. So with that I we can try to figure out exactly how to chew this off. I guess the question would be, if we want to. Anyone wants to discuss anything. Do we want to? Does everyone want to run through the key issues and then go through the process of the motion that's put up by staff. and then make any suggestions or amendments to that motion. That would be my suggestion. I'm open to other ideas, as this is kind of a unique process for us. The only suggestion I would have

[110:02] is that in some cases I suggest making a motion, and then amendments to that motion, like we did last week with the annexation agreement. I think other times it can be advantageous to have the main motion approve the main motion, and then have subsequent motions that are voted on as a standalone item. And since this is advisory tonight rather than legislative or quasi-judicial, and that some of some of the things that come up may or may not. Anyway, what I'm getting to is I suspect that overall we all support the current direction of the cip, and that the details and motions to be made to adjust any details might should be made separately from the main motion rather than as amendments to the main motion.

[111:05] I like that. That sounds good to me. If anyone doesn't object to that, I do have one comment that I would like to make. That's okay. Chair Boone. In making that type of motion. Obviously because this is an advisory. This is really the only time that you all will be able to make that type of motion in in quasi-judicial things. It will have to be a single standalone motion as long as you all can support without the amendments the main motion of this case, then that's permissible. But I would. I would just make sure that all of you can support it without any amendments. If that's how you wish to go about that that's fair. They want to have any thoughts on that. I kind of prefer that methodology based on. And Ml, I can't really see you guys pop my screen, open a little bit. I'm good with that. Yeah. alright. Well, in that case.

[112:01] we want to go ahead. And does someone want to make the motion first? st And then we can just get into discussion. Sure. I'll make a motion. Great. I'm going to just use the staffs. Oh, there it is! I've got it written down here. So the Planning Board. I move that the Planning Board recommend to the City Manager and City Council the recommended 2025 to 2030 capital improvement program. CIP. Including the list of Cip projects to undergo a community and environmental assessment process. Ceap as identified in the staff memorandum. I'll second Great Kirk seconds. Claudia. Yes, Mark. Yes, Kurt, yes. Yes, please. Laura. Yes, Mason. Yes. Ml. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So that motion passes unanimously.

[113:05] Let's go ahead and put those questions back up on the screen if we could. And now, if we want to enter some discussion, and maybe some additional things that we'd like to put forward in our advisory capacity as motions or things that people would like to discuss. Anyone want to start. Go ahead. So first, st I just want to thank and commend Staff for not only a great presentation and a great representation of all of the projects that you answered, all of our detailed questions about, but all of the work that went into putting the cip together. It's as George said, a herculean undertaking, and we really appreciate you being here tonight to help us understand the big picture of how you are trying to use the capital improvement program to further the goals of the Bbcp. And I think you've done a great job. So thank you so much.

[114:03] I do have one suggested motion that I would like to make, and I'll I'll kind of explain where I'm coming from. and this is aligned with the same motion that we made last year on the cip. and it has to do with the boulder Municipal airport. which is a little bit of a unique situation, because it is currently in the middle of a planning process. a very complicated and circuitous planning process that has taken multiple forms to try to figure out the future of this site. and the Planning Board has in the past expressed an interest in keeping the options open, and this is in alignment with Bvcp. 6.2 3, which says that at the time of the next airport master plan, the city will work with the community to reassess the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood serving uses. and that is one of the options on the table for the future of the airport.

[115:00] And when you think about that, in conjunction with something like the cip which talks about capital improvements, right? Capital improvements are beyond normal maintenance beyond business as usual, but they are improvements. They're major investments and improvement. And so last year we passed a motion basically to say, let's preserve our options by not investing a lot in the airport at this time. While we are still considering what direction to go. Do we want to keep the airport and improve it, or we want to decommission it when that becomes possible, and of course the city is engaged in litigation to determine whether and when decommissioning will be possible. So the motion that we passed last year said that the Planning Board recommends that staff delay implementation, including pursuing or accepting faa grants until there is direction on the future of the airport site, and I intend to make a very similar motion tonight again, just to preserve the option, to keep, keep everything open. and this is also, in, in my opinion, in alignment with Bbcp. 10.0 1 high, performing government, which in part says, in all business, the city and county seek to enhance and facilitate transparency, accuracy, efficiency, effectiveness, and quality, customer service, the city and county support strategic decision, making with timely reliable and accurate

[116:21] data and analysis. So this motion is just to ensure that when we do make that decision about the future of the airport, we're doing it with that timely, reliable, and accurate data and analysis. And let that analysis come in before we start cementing improvements in place in the airport. So that that is where I'm headed, and I'm happy to make a motion and then discuss it. If there is a second. or answer any questions, if folks are wondering where I'm coming from, or how this could be supported. Well, I just want to make a comment relative to what you said around capital improvements. So there is a lot of maintenance in this. So capital improvements are not just improvements. They're necessary maintenance. I don't know what's and I haven't. I haven't studied what's around the airport. But just as clarification, a lot of things that we saw tonight are

[117:13] just maintenance to keep things running fair enough. They're not sort of normal, everyday average maintenance. They're kind of bigger projects. But you're right. They they could qualify as maintenance projects. Yeah, fair enough. So I'm going to go ahead and email a motion over to Thomas. I have a question, Laura. Is there any Is there any issue or or concern with having this motion given that? The city is engaged in a lawsuit around this. In my opinion. No, I mean, you could ask the city attorney representative tonight, but this is not trying to influence the lawsuit one way or the other.

[118:02] Yeah, in the context of the Capital Improvement project before you all. This will not create any conflict with the current litigation with the faa so you all don't need to worry worry about that piece. Thank you. So I have emailed over some suggested motion language to Thomas. If we want to go to that. If there are no other questions. Thomas, were you able to receive it. I can also put it in a chat and give me just one second. I can get it pulled up. Yep, okay. I guess the question and it may be to staff is to the point. I would I made. It would be interesting to understand and bifurcate what's necessary maintenance for ongoing operations.

[119:00] verse. capital improvements that extend the life of a particular thing beyond just maintaining it. because I think those are 2 very different things, and obviously you've got safety and all kinds of things involved with an airport. I. I neglected to mention that the motion does include this is for items that can be delayed without compromising airport safety that's included in the motion, and I think that was a very good addition that was added last year when we discussed this. And so I've carried that over for this year. So this is basically the same motion that we passed last year on a vote of 4 to 2, with one person absent. I've just added in the concept of the litigation here. So I move that for all cip items associated with Bdu, that's the Boulder municipal airport that can be delayed without compromising airport safety planning board recommends that staff delay implementation, including pursuing or accepting faa grants until the city's litigation against the Faa has concluded, and city council or boulder boulder voters have provided direction on the future of the airport site.

[120:14] If you just made that motion, I'll second it. I think I did, and thank you for seconding. Looks like Kurt. You have a question. Yeah, Kurt, you have a question. Go ahead. So the as you have examined the items in the cip, do you have? Or does Staff have information head? Do you have information from Staff? Does anybody have information about which of these particular items would qualify, and which wouldn't you know I didn't ask that question, and I assume that that would be left to staff judgment like I said, we made the same motion last year. Some of the things that were in the cip last year for 2,024 have moved forward, and some have not. Some have been delayed. So I wasn't going to ask Staff to make a declaration tonight. Which of these things qualify and which ones don't. It's more about stating an intention. And there are 4 projects in the cip for 2,024 funding.

[121:16] and those have to do with here. Let me pull this up. adding some wildlife fencing around the airport, and I would note that there is an existing fence around the airport, but perhaps it doesn't qualify as the kind of wildlife fence that they would like. There is reconstruction of the Airport entrance road, which is not a road that is used by planes at all. It is used by vehicles to access the airport, and I've driven on it, and it's incomparable condition to a lot of roads in Boulder. No huge potholes or anything. But but there's reconstruction of that entrance road on the 2024 plan. There's rehabilitating the runway 8 G. Which I believe is the Glider runway, and there's rehabilitating the east hangar, helicopter apron and Taxi Lane.

[122:04] And and again, I wasn't going to ask Staff. Do you think that these things would need to be could be delayed, or would need to be done for safety. I think that that might require more evaluation, but we could ask that question tonight. If you'd like to. I would I would like to ask if if Staff has any preliminary oh. opinions, I guess, without making any commitments about which which of these might qualify and which might not. Again, Garrett Slater, capital projects manager for transportation and mobility, and the way that our department is organized I work on pretty much everything except the airport, and John Kinney is our airport manager, and was unable to be here this evening, and so I was aware that there might be some questions presented tonight about the airport cip.

[123:01] and as to the question of whether this amendment would affect or how it might affect the cip, I'd be reticent to speak to that without having the opportunity to confer with John Kenny. But I can give you an update on the status of projects. But as to how this amendment affects what is in the cip. I would not be able to speak to that understood? Great. Thank you. I'll say that I did ask by email the question of. Have there been any safety incidents related to any of these items? You know, for example, has there been a deer that has run onto the runway and caused a plane crash would be a safety incident related to wildlife fencing, in my opinion. and the answer I got was safety. Incidents do not necessarily drive our capital priorities rather operational readiness and or known conditions where capital funding would result in mitigating safety issues proactively, which I take to mean it's complicated. But there haven't been safety incidents that are cited

[124:07] for these items. So so around that. okay. can you reread that last sentence that you said operational readiness and or known conditions where capital funding would result in mitigating safety issues proactively. So my concern with this language is that it's talking about airport safety and not the safety of Boulder and that last sentence sounds like some of these capital projects may or may not have to do with operational readiness to fight wildfires. to medically evac people. to do all kinds of things that I'm not even aware of, that the airport does. I have very little context on the airport. so I'm okay with the overall motion. But I think we should add in

[125:00] somehow articulate, that projects that are for the benefit of boulders. overall safety and responsiveness to our citizens, should, you know. should be allowed to go forward too? Can I? Yeah, absolutely propose a small amendment, just adding 2 words that perhaps cover that. To say that can be delayed without compromising airport or public safety. Would that meet your needs? Absolutely okay. Perhaps we can add that in if my seconder is okay with that procedurally. it should be. You propose an amendment. We second the amendment. We vote on the amendment, and then we go back to debating this motion. I know it sounds like a lot. But if you're asking me, that's that's what I'm coming.

[126:00] Okay, but we sometimes, for the sake of efficiency, we'll say we don't. But but that's anyway, I'll go wrong with it as your second to add those 2. Okay, thank you. Airport or public safety. Thank you, George, for that suggestion. Thank you, Mark, for going along with slightly eliding the rules in this case all right. Great the motion has been seconded. Shall we vote? No, any other discussion? Well, sure, I do want to speak to the motion for just a second. And I think, the reason I'm really supporting this is that what we've seen tonight with the responses from staff, the professionalism of the whole cip that that there are a million details and a million numbers and lots of money involved. But the city

[127:00] has put forth something that is, you know, I think we've we just voted, and we agreed upon unanimously that was was worthy of support, and our recommendation to Council to adopt it, and the same goes with this particular motion in that it's a high level direction that that based on the fact that we are involved in litigation with the Faa. Currently that Planning Board's advice is to is to follow this motion to council. So it's advisory. It's a statement, and I think it strikes the right balance between directness and flexibility. So that's that's why I'm supporting it so. Yes, anyone else have comments. I'll just say one other thing, which is that I expect, with all of the cip that priorities can change, funds can get moved around. I don't think we have to be super specific. But again, it's just stating an intention that we shouldn't be investing a lot in the airport unnecessarily at this time, while we are in the process of making a decision of which way to go. So it's it's just it's just an intention to keep public safety. But but don't build out the airport at this time.

[128:14] Okay, great anybody else. All right. Let's go ahead and vote. Claudia. Yes, Mark. Yes, Kurt, yes, Laura. Yes, ml. Yes, May. And. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Motion passes unanimously. Anybody else with any discussion or emotional language. Anybody online, I can't, I mean oh, I see him. No one Mason Ml. Marketing. I think that was the only one unless anyone has any last comments. I do? Go ahead. Ml. Oh, sorry I turned my mic on before I put my hand up. Great I would like to absolutely commend the staff and you know we did see this last year. We might have even seen it this year before, but I don't think I appreciated the holistic interconnections of our functioning city. When I saw it in the past, I'm and this this year I'm gaining a really deep appreciation for the manner and the work you all do.

[129:24] so I'd like to thank you for that. I'm looking forward to seeing the Alpine balsam project in a few weeks time, and I'll be keeping an eye on the Sinitas project, as that's my go to hike in my backyard. So thank you. Thank you so much, all of you who are in attendance, and those who couldn't make it from the city staff. Thanks. Ml, I'd like to second what Ml. Said. I also did have one plug, and I mentioned it to the Fire chief this evening I had the opportunity to go to the Citizens Fire Academy, which no longer is held, I think Post Covid, which was a great opportunity for the citizens of Boulder to do an 8 week program tour. All our fire stations experience the the scope and scale and nature of

[130:12] what our fire department does. All the things that they do, and the current condition of the facilities which are extremely aged except for the new station that we're building. And so I want to thank everyone here. especially the fire department. And and hopefully, that program will come back because it was informative to me. And I think the police did something similar. I don't know if they do that, but but anywhere where we can do that in the city, for the citizens, I think, really helps inform this kind of process, and the citizens in general on the mission and scope that you all do outside of the fire department, too. So, thank you, everybody. You have something. Kurt. Yeah, I just have one process related suggestion for next year we had a number of questions this time where we were putting staff on the spot, and maybe the right person was not here, which is totally understandable. I mean, it's a huge organization, and we can't hopefully, not everybody is going to be showing up right.

[131:20] That would be a sad use of your Tuesday night. So maybe. And this is as much a reminder to myself as to anybody, but maybe in the future we can help to remember, help each other, to remember, to send out questions in advance so that these can get answered, you know, in yeah, when people are actually at work, and so on, rather than putting them on the spot in the meeting. So. But I am looking forward to understanding more about the equity prioritization of the undergrounding at Chautauqua. So thank you. And and possibly the cip given its scope and breadth could be sent out 2 weeks in advance, or something like even a preliminary version and a final version, something where we have more than that one week.

[132:17] So I have a question for staff just in thinking about what kind of value can planning board add to something that is so monumental as the Cip. And frankly, most of the projects that have made it into the cip. There's been a lot of planning. You've thought about funding allocations. You've evaluated them against criteria already, and you know, as a planning board member, we would take seriously the idea of monkeying with that right like we're not going to tell you pull this project out or put this project in that you've never thought about so one place where I wonder if we can have value, and that I frankly would like to understand more is your criteria for how you prioritize these projects like, how do you use the equity criteria? And how do you balance things, for example, geographically, or between different departments. Or you know.

[133:04] I looked at the city budget for this coming year, and there's 590 million dollars worth of stuff in it. But there's also a long list of things that you chose not to fund, and I'd love to understand more about how you make those decisions and can planning board add any value in thinking about not the the application of the criteria, but the criteria themselves. All, I said, that's really good advice and feedback, and something that as we move the cip forward in future years in particular, next year, I think we can include that in the staff memo as well as the presentation. A little bit more of a holistic view. An overview at least of what the entire budget process looks like again, the the budget process for planning board is really related to the cip. We do have an operating budget so that can get even more confusing. You guys have only seen half of it, actually. but that's that's good advice. And I think we can work towards that in future years. Thank you.

[134:04] One little one little comment just on organization of the document. Would, it would be helpful, maybe, as you present this to Council and others just to put to number it on the left hand side, because, as we spoke about it, it's really hard to find and reference things so just just from a feedback standpoint. Simple. Thank you. Anybody else. Thanks everyone. We'll close this portion of the public hearing. Appreciate all your time. Okay. I don't believe we have anything else on the agenda except for matters. I don't know if anybody has matters to discuss with the planning board. Good evening, Christopher Johnson account planning manager. I don't have much to say other than a couple of shameless plugs for some upcoming events. What's up? Boulder is on this Saturday from one to 4 pm. At the east boulder, Rec center.

[135:03] Basically. All all these departments that you saw tonight and every other department within the city will have booths and and activities and things like that. Our pnds team will be there. We'll have some information kind of a pre-launch opportunity for the comprehensive plan update. So we'll be there with some information. And then the actual formal community kickoff event for the comprehensive plan update is on Saturday, October 19, th at the Dairy Arts Center, also from one to 4 Pm. So I think we made mention of that at the at the joint session with City Council, but just to share that with you again and hopefully we will see you there, and and if not, I'm sure we'll catch you at some point during the Comp plan update. So lots of things happening. any comments from city attorney? No, comments. Thomas, anything we need to be aware of on upcoming schedules or anything. I just have one calendar check item. I was asked to pull you all to see, just to go ahead and check on your availability to see if you would be available to hold a special meeting on October 8, th

[136:11] which would be a second Tuesday. This would be to hear one concept plan that is being asked to be advanced. and it would hopefully just be a 90 min meeting. Available. Thomas, what did you say last? At what meeting? It would hopefully be a short 90 min meeting, 90 min meeting? Yes. Can we respond by email. I don't have my calendar with me. Yeah, that's okay. I don't need. I don't need answers tonight. We don't need to go ahead. Would you mind just shooting us an email as a reminder after the meeting? Sure, yeah, I just wanted to go ahead and raise it. Yeah, that's great. Thank you. And I do think we need to make that change on the record. Once you guys come back to the next meeting. So let's just make sure that that happens. Okay, okay, yeah. So by next meeting, you need feedback. So we can do that. Okay, yeah.

[137:01] all right. Great. Anybody else. All right, I'm going to adjourn. Adjourn the meeting. Thanks. Everyone. Thank you. Thanks Ml. Thanks. Mason. Thank you.