September 16, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Okay, good evening, all. Welcome to the, September 16th, 2025, City of Boulder Planning Board Meeting. We have a… Quorum tonight is… ML Robles is not present tonight, and I believe everyone else is. Is George online? Oh, yes, I see George online. Okay, so, 6 members present. ML Robles is not here. The, we'll have our, public participation, and Vivian will walk us through the, Rules of engagement, or… Methods of. Yeah, that terminology is just fine.

[1:00] Okay. And I will say that, tonight we do have, before Vivian, goes into this, we have, Two items that are public hearing items. And, so now, under public participation, is the time for any members of the public here or online, to speak on any topic. I will request that our, public hearing items, that the, that when you address, the planning board, that you speak to those public hearing items. But now's the time to speak on any topic that you like. Vivian, take it away. Thank you. Great! Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everybody. So, I'll just run through these, and then we'll move on to open comment. We do have some community members joining us online. Welcome.

[2:00] So first off, I'll just share that the City has engaged with community members to co-create this vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive conversations that we'll be following tonight for public participation, 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 a lot more information about this vision, and general community engagement on our website. Next slide, please. And thank you, Thomas, for sharing slides. And I'll share some examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this Productive Atmospheres vision, and we will be upholding all of these during the meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to the city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that, community members wanting to speak in person or online identify themselves using first and last name.

[3:15] And if you are joining us online, you can let us know that you wish to speak when we're, in the public participation moment by raising your virtual hand. You can find it at the bottom of the screen in the Zoom platform. If you're joining by phone, you can dial star 9, and you can also go to, the next slide. You can find this reactions button, and there will also be a… a hand that pops up there. That's just another way to find that virtual hand and raise your hand. So we can move now to the open comment. If you do wish to speak, to… Anything that is not a public hearing item for tonight's agenda, this would be the moment, and each person shall have 3 minutes.

[4:01] Thomas, do we have anyone in person? We don't have anybody signed up in person for open comment. Okay, thanks for letting me know. So we can move to online, and I'll just give folks a moment to raise their virtual hand so that we would know you will wish to speak. Before we move on… Looks like we don't have anyone interested in speaking. Oh, couple hands. Okay, we'll start with, Rob Whitley, followed by Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Rob, you have 3 minutes. And please introduce yourself. My name is Rob Whitley, I live at 91 Illini Court, and, I'm interested in the development that's under consideration along South Boulder Road. Is that one of the topics for tonight? That, Rob, that is, one of the public hearing items, and it would be more appropriate if you, speak when we have public comment scheduled for that particular item.

[5:07] Do we know around what time? That presentation will start, approximately. I'm going to say, around… 8? Okay, just in case you wanted to leave and come back, Rob. Super, super, thank you very much. I'll wait for that. Okay, thanks so much for being here. Okay, we'll move to Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you have 3 minutes. Yeah, this… this cannot go on. This endless growth. without paying the way. I just was at the library district dinner, 5 until 6, Library District Council dinner. You know, the… all of… all the library support that we need, we can't even fix the South Boulder Rec Center, and you guys are running out subsidies as fast as

[6:01] as an auctioneer, and it's just not okay. This community, you know, my dad came here after World War II, You know, he was a good military guy, he became Quaker after that. This is… So, so inappropriate, what you're doing. I… by the way, I haven't even got the agenda up. on my… you have the agenda for the meeting that you post at the calendar, like a light one. You can go to a heavy one, I can go to another place. For some reason, it's not on today. The two hearings, I don't know what they are, South Boulder Road, and I don't know what the other one is. I don't… you know, I'm going a million miles an hour, I'm 72 years old, there's only so much I can do, I'm doing my best, I'm trying, I'm at least trying, but please make my life easier. This is really difficult. This… this issue of Gaza, and this issue of

[7:02] Israel-Palestine is consuming vast, vast quantities. It's just unconscionable this is happening, that kids and babies don't have water, that there's 6… this week, it's 650,000 people that potentially were killed. 650,000 people! At the planning board. And they need… you need to know this. You need to know this. This is unconscionable, that Israel can do this. And that's affecting our local economy, and your ability to be able to fund all of these things, and the developer's increased costs. You know, I found out my brother had a headlight out with, with his Prius, he now has a Prius, because his girlfriend got a Tesla, and he got her car. So, it's like… $19 for my Prius, but with his Prius, potentially, anyway. We don't know if he has an HID on it, but if he does, there might be an extra thing that would cost him

[8:01] $1,300 to just replace his headlamp. This is an example of what you have got going. You know, all of these projects that you're approving, they start out, you know, at one thing, and they're twice as expensive, and then the developers get in a frenzy because they have to justify these things. This is just not workable anymore. Stop already. Stop the endless Massive amounts of growth. Sundance, CU South, Area 3 Planning Reserve. No, no, no, this is a small community, remember it. Thank you, Lynn. Your 3 minutes are up. Thank you for sharing your comments with the Planning Board tonight. Okay, we have no other hands, raised for this open comment, so back over to you, Chair. Great, thank you, Vivian. The next item on our agenda is item 3A, approval of the August 19, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes.

[9:07] these minutes have been modified today, and I think we all received the email. So, anyway, any discussion, debate, or a motion to approve with The, changes that were submitted today. Any… no discussion? Okay. I move to approve the August 19, 2025 Planning Board minutes. Second. Okay. Kurt. Yes? Claudia? Yes. Laura? Yes. Mason? Yes. George? Yes. Okay, and I'm a yes. So, the minutes are approved. On our original agenda, we had agenda item 4A, which was a call-up item, that item has been called up.

[10:02] outside of the planning board, we will hear that on October 28th, so there is, no… Discussion or anything regarding that item. And we move on to Agenda item… 5a. Agenda item 5A is a public hearing. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the City Manager and City Council on the recommended 2026 through 2031 Capital Improvement Program, the CIP. So, we'll start with a, presentation from staff, Clarifying questions, our public hearing, and we'll close the public hearing, and the board will deliberate and discuss a recommendation to Council, so… I see Brad at the podium, with his light on, ready to go. Take it away, Brad.

[11:05] Well, good evening, Planning Board members. Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services. We are excited to come to you with this item tonight. Last week, or two weeks ago, or… I don't know, maybe many weeks ago. It all blurs together, but I was able to talk to you about the comprehensive plan as being a rare moment to be able to step back and look at the big picture. And, have those kind of, very philosophical and broad, themed ideas, which of course will be continuing on in the next several months. This is, not that. This is one of those implementation items that we discussed, as being part of that. But we also recognize and, the… process in place recognizes that there's an important relationship between the comprehensive plan and how that gets implemented, in this case, through the capital improvement plan or program that's, developed. So, in this

[12:02] forum, and Chris will be going into some detail about this, but your role to evaluate the CIP against the comprehensive plan and sub-community plans and related plans, regarding the scope and the priorities that are part of the CIP as it's being outlined by staff. I'll also imp… Just share with you that this is a highly vetted process, much like the budget that we've talked about, too, having gone through, reviewed by all the various subject matter experts in the departments, the department heads. the, budget, team at the office, and of course, the city manager's office. So, we are excited to present that tonight, and we know all the details are in your packet, but an overview, and a special thank you to, colleagues from throughout the organization who are here to be able to answer questions and Just to give support to the overall effort, leading up to this evening. So with that,

[13:01] Chris Ringlos is our guy on this, and has been doing this very capably and professionally for many years, so we're glad to have him presenting this evening. Thanks so much, Brad. My name's Chris Ranglos, I'm a Senior Planner on the Comprehensive Planning Team, and I'm excited to bring forward, this evening to the Planning Board the recommended 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program. As Brad mentioned, we have a lot of other staff in the audience tonight. For those of you, which I think is all of our members of the Planning Board who have been on, long enough to see at least one capital improvement program come forward. You probably know that a lot of questions, come up related to specific projects and department allocations, and so this is one of those unique opportunities where we get to bring in a lot of our, senior manager capital, project managers and have a little bit of time with them here at Planning Board. Quick rundown of the agenda. We've got about 90 minutes allocated for this agenda item. We'll spend about 10, 15 minutes or so on this presentation, but we'll start with providing the board a little bit of background and context to the CIP. Charlotte Husky, who leads our budget team, will provide us a bit of a financial overview.

[14:13] We'll go through a key issues analysis, and then finally staff recommendation and next steps. So I'll start with what the Planning Board's role is on this item. It is the Planning Board's role to assess the recommended 2026-2031 CIP for consistency with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan and related city plans. Provide recommendations on the CIP to the City Manager and City Council on the scope, priorities, and scheduling of projects, and provide recommendations on the list of projects that will undergo a Community and Environmental Assessment Process, or SEEP. So, what is a CIP project? I think we can start here. CIP projects are really defined in Boulder as any major project that requires the expenditure of public funds for the purchase, construction, or replacement of the physical assets in our community.

[15:09] And the 6-year CIP is really the city's long-range plan for how we invest in major infrastructure and facilities. Every year, we update this plan to look out 6 years into the future. And the first year of this plan becomes part of the city's adopted budget. So for this year, it'll be 2026, is what, City Council will ultimately take action on. But the remaining 5 years really do serve as a forecast for us, or a roadmap that helps us prepare for upcoming needs, coordinate across departments, and manage funding responsibly. And because we revisit the plan annually, it stays flexible. Projects can be added, adjusted, or delayed, depending on community priorities, funding availability, and changing conditions in our community. So, in short, the 6-year CIP gives us a structured, but also an adaptable framework to plan ahead, make strategic investments, and ensure our infrastructure keeps pace with our community's evolving needs.

[16:09] I'll also note, the way we kind of break down all of our projects, we have 5 different categories, capital enhancement and capital maintenance, new capital projects, capital planning studies, and even land acquisitions. And you'll see a slide during that financial overview that kind of breaks down the allocation of funding, by these project types. But I want to point out here that the CIP doesn't exist in isolation. Brad alluded to it a little bit, but it's closely aligned with the City's broader plans and frameworks that we've established. So, at the highest level, we use the sustainability, Equity, and resilience framework, which guides development of the annual budget. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan serves as our overarching policy guide and vision for the community. And together, these frameworks ensure that the projects we propose, fund, and implement are not just stand-alone investments, but part of a coordinated effort to advance Boulder's long-term vision and community priorities.

[17:12] With that, I'll invite Charlotte Husky, to the podium for a very brief, but important financial overview for the board. Alright, good evening, Planning Board members. I'm Charlotte Husky, Budget Officer for the City. Good to be here this evening to present, the financial overview of the, CIP that's in front of you this evening. The 2026-2031 CIP represents a comprehensive 6-year capital plan for capital infrastructure and maintenance across the city. The 2026 recommended budget and the associated capital budget and 6-year CIP that's, the planning board will discuss this evening was developed in a challenging budget year of economic uncertainty and our major revenue sources of sales and use tax and property tax flattening and declining against our original forecasts.

[18:02] Given the financial landscape and our updated forecasts, staff identified an ongoing budget gap of $7.5 million, that was an ongoing budget gap during this year's budget development cycle, if left unaddressed. The 2026 recommended budget that was presented to City Council last Thursday closed this budget gap. With careful consideration to maintain investments in core city services, key infrastructure plans, and balancing of community priorities and citywide goals. The 2026 capital budget totals $113.3 million in 2026, and $789.5 million over the 6-year horizon. Some key projects that are supported in the CIP include investments such as park renovations in the Civic Area for Civic Area Phase 2, replacements of Fire Stations 2 and 4, and the Primos Park and Violet Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, to name a few.

[19:06] And as Brad mentioned, the Capital Improvement Program is the culmination of the ongoing capital planning work across seven departments across the organization. Including capital planning studies performed by capital project managers, an annual review from the city's capital review team, which is an internal review team comprising representatives from the city manager's office, as well as capital project managers across the organization. As well as the City's Executive Budget Team. Which comprises the City Manager's Office and Department Directors to review the entire city budget, and to ensure the CIP reflects citywide goals within the Citywide Strategic Plan, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the City's sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework. Okay, go to the next slide. So, as mentioned, I think it's 1… Back, sorry.

[20:03] As mentioned, the 2026 capital budget stretches across 7 departments and totals $113.3 million in 2026 for planned spending for the upcoming fiscal year. This graph provides a breakdown of CIP projects by departments. Including utilities and transportation that comprise the majority of the CIP, which is consistent with prior years, at about 75% for those two departments alone. And they support core infrastructure needs, in particular, such as stormwater improvements, water transmission repair projects, and sidewalk and pavement maintenance. Next slide. So, as Chris, pointed out, we have 5 capital project types, including capital enhancement, capital maintenance, capital planning, studies, land acquisition, and new facility and infrastructure, as we identify projects across the CIP. 93% of the planned spending within the CIP is represented here for capital maintenance and capital enhancement projects, and this is consistent with prior year CIPs.

[21:12] Focusing on taking care of what we have. Which has been a main pillar of decision-making, both within the City's budget development process. Particularly given our financial landscape this year, as well as the city's long-term financial strategy, which was indicated as a key council priority in early 2024, which focuses on the continued development of a comprehensive citywide strategy for long-term financial health of the city. Turn it back to you. Thanks so much, Charlotte. So we'll bump into the key issues. The first key issue that the board should be considering tonight is if the recommended CIP is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and Related City Plans. And I'll mention that overall staff does find that the recommended CIP is aligned with both the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as well as the City's Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework.

[22:09] So to help demonstrate this alignment, we've chosen to highlight 3 unique projects, and I will point out there were several other projects mentioned in the staff memorandum, and you can find the full list of 2026-2031 CIP projects online. So the first one that I wanted to highlight here was Primos Park. Primos Park is a new neighborhood-scale park that's planned on a 9-acre site along Violet Avenue. next to the North Boulder Library and the city's largest manufactured home community. The name Primos, meaning cousins in Spanish, was chosen by the community To reflect connection, family, and belonging. And through extensive engagement, neighbors shaped the design to reflect local identities and cultural preferences, resulting in a park concept that is truly unique to North Boulder. It will feature inclusive recreation spaces, green infrastructure, to address flooding and ecosystem enhancements that increase biodiversity.

[23:06] And Primos Park is a great example of how we can combine community identity with nature-based solutions to support health, resilience, and an overall sense of place. And if we take a look at the alignment with the Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework, as well as the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, this project really provides an inclusive neighborhood-scale park, accessible to all ages, abilities, and cultural backgrounds, supporting equitable access to recreational opportunities. It also encourages physical activity, outdoor recreation, and overall mental well-being, aligning with our comprehensive plan goals for a healthy and livable community. And it also reflects community input and its design and name, fostering a sense of place and local identity. The next project to highlight is our Wildfire Resilient Landscapes Fuel Mitigation Project from our Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. This project really accelerates fuel mitigation efforts across the entire open space system, with a focus on wildfire resilience and ecological health.

[24:11] It expands work into the wildland-urban interface and along ditch corridors, partnering with local irrigation companies to remove invasive trees, clear ditch spoils, and enhance vegetation and habitat. This project also pilots some innovative approaches, including virtual fencing for targeted grazing to control non-native species and support native grassland and overall wetland health. Overall, these efforts protect both the community and our natural ecosystems, while also using cutting-edge tools to improve land management in Boulder. This project supports, community resiliency by reducing wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface and across our entire open space network. And at the same time, it also enhances our ecosystem health by removing invasive species, improving native vegetation, and maintaining wildlife habitat.

[25:07] The third and final project that I'll highlight here is the North 30th Street Design and Construction project, which addresses safety and efficiency on the north-south arterial, which supports walking, biking, transit, and vehicle travel. Today, conflicts between these modes create delays and… For buses and safety hazards for all users. This project will redesign the corridor, between Arapahoe and the Diagonal highway to better balance the needs of everyone that's traveling, creating a safer, more efficient street. And this project is funded in part by the Safe Streets for All grant, and will help ensure a smoother, safer commute for all modes of transportation. And this project advances a lot of Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan goals, of a safe, multimodal street by reducing conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers.

[26:02] It supports the BBCP, vision for active transportation and transit, encouraging walking, biking, and bus use. And it improves mobility options for all community members, ensuring equitable access to transportation along one of our key corridors. I just want to highlight, a few more additional projects without going into the specifics too much, for time's sake, but again, you know, organizing these projects by our sustainability, equity, and resilience Framework. We see Fire Station 2 and 4 replacement, achieving some of our safe goals. The Upper Goose Creek reached 6, flood mitigation, as well as the Violet Avenue and Folsom Street Bridge replacements. The East Boulder Community Center Retrofit and Renovations, as well as the Chautauqua Ranger Cottage and Trailhead Redesign, are helping us to achieve a healthy and socially thriving community. And underneath our livable goal, we see the Pearl Street Mall refresh, projects such as our water transmission system improvements, as well as Civic Area Phase 2.

[27:06] For Accessible and connected, continued investment in our multi-use path maintenance and enhancements, Safe Streets for all, several projects related to that, as well as a future high-quality trail network project. OSMP climate plan implementation, our local food farm site improvements, and the urban forest management are examples of environmentally sustainable projects found in the CIP. And under responsibly governed, we see projects such as our annual pavement Management Program, as well as some significant investments at Barker Dam, including the outlet, stability, and gravity pipeline repairs. And then finally, for Economically Vital, the Pearl Street Mall Refresh and two garage renovations at Spruce and Walnut. So, as you can see, the recommended CIP before the board this evening casts a really wide net, right, and is well aligned with all of our community priorities.

[28:01] It's important to note that the projects we've discussed this evening are really just a snapshot of the fully recommended 2026-2031 CIP. That CIP includes many more investments across the city that advance our long-term vision and community priorities. So we'll jump into the second key issue, which is if the board has any recommendations on the list of projects that will be required to undergo a community and environmental assessment process, or a SEEP. So as a reminder, a SEEP is essentially an alternatives analysis, applied to major capital projects in order to help us assess potential impacts in the selection of a preferred alternative. And I'll point out, this is one of, really, three processes that a major capital project can go through. Being probably the least common of the three. And so, I'll spend just a little bit of time kind of explaining what those other processes are, one of which this board is very familiar with, being concept plan and site review. So if any project is triggered by that criteria, then it would come forward to the planning board for consideration.

[29:08] The other process that major capital projects go through are project-specific community processes. So, these projects either have had, or are planned to have, a very specific and in-depth community process. Impact studies and alternatives analysis will also be performed. And for these types of projects, the requirements of a SEEP Have really been satisfied and would be considered a duplicate effort at this time. Just to provide an example, the Civic Area Phase 2 project is an example of a major capital project that has really identified and is carrying out its own project-specific community process. And for SEEP, These are really for projects, as I mentioned, where alternatives exist that will require community input. And they could have significant impacts on environmental, social, or cultural resources, and if the project is anticipated to generate enough community controversy, to require a board or council hearing.

[30:04] And then I'll draw your attention to the text that's in red here, because this is really the… crux of it all, and us determining which projects go through a SEEP, you know, we'll ask ourselves if the project meets the above criteria and is not triggered by concept plan or site review, and if the project does not have a specific community-driven process, then those are really the projects that we want to be considering for a SEEP. So, with that context, the following two projects have been identified to undergo a SEEP. The first one being the Barker Dam Stability Project, and the second being the Violet Avenue Bridge replacement. And for both of these projects, alternatives do exist that could have environmental impacts. Neither project is triggered by concept plan and site review, and neither has a project-specific community process already identified. So, the SEEP will provide a framework for these department staff to go out and provide that alternatives analysis, consider environmental impacts, and engage with the community.

[31:06] With that, we'll move into the staff recommendation and next steps, but I want to close, really just by taking a step back and emphasizing that while, again, we've only highlighted a handful of projects tonight. The full list of projects in the recommended CIP does reflect the same alignment. And together, these projects advance the vision of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, supporting sustainability and resilience, promoting safety and equitable access for all, and reinvesting in the infrastructure and community assets that keep Boulder safe, vibrant, and livable now and into the future. We look forward to your feedback this evening, and we're, happy to be here, and thank you for your role in helping us to ensure that the CIP continues to reflect our community's shared vision. I said I was gonna close, but I'll give you two next steps. Charlotte mentioned that the recommended budget was at City Council last week as part of a study session.

[32:03] We will be bringing forward for a first reading on October 9th the recommended budget, which includes both the annual operating and the CIP, and then on October 23rd, City Council is scheduled for the second reading on the budget. I won't read the staff recommendation, we can come back to this, or the suggested motion language, when the time comes. I think we have clarifying questions, but maybe we'll do the public hearing first, and then jump in, clarifying questions first, and then I will, as soon as we get into the deliberation, can pull the key issues back up on the slide to help the board out. Thank you, I'll toss it back to the chair. Great. Thank you, Chris. Great and comprehensive. presentation, so now is the time for clarifying questions, and I see George has leapt to the fore with his hand up online, so… Yeah, I have a ton of questions, so I'll just start off with one and make sure that this is the right place for this type of question. So, I've looked over the seep a fair amount.

[33:07] and have some very specific questions, I figured I'd pick one to start with that I'm confused on. So is this appropriate, Mark, as far as, like. Yes. Yeah, again, clarifying interest, just not positional stuff. Yep, yep, yep, absolutely. So, I'll start with a minor one, which is Boulder Junction electronic signage for the parking lot. So that looks like a $300,000 budget item. And my question, as it relates to the CIP, is… my understanding is a lot of that is paid parking, right? And so, why wouldn't the paid parking fund an improvement like this, rather than the city's budget? We've got, since you're online, I don't know if you can see, Chris is up at the podium. Chris Jones.

[34:04] Good evening, Planning Board. Chris Jones, Director of Community Vitality. George, thank you for the question. That CIP project would actually be funded by the parking district, so While it's… it's supported by both parking revenues and property taxes within the parking district, that's… that project would be funded through that General Improvement District. Got it. So it's not included in this CIP budget, or how does that… I guess that… it's a really good… so I'm just trying to understand how this all comes together. So this is not funded… because a lot of the CIP is funded out of the general fund, correct? Many projects are funded out of other funds, but this project specifically is funded out of the Boulder Junction Access District Parking Fund. Got it. And is there a breakdown in the CIP material where we can see where these funds are coming from? Because that's… I mean, that's… that certainly clarifies it to me, and answers that question on that one. Are there other projects that sit within here that are funded through mechanisms like that?

[35:10] Yes, I believe in the budget book online, there is a breakdown of where, each of the projects are all coming from in the COP. I will, I will look at that. I appreciate that. That was… that's my first question. Go ahead. Okay, you know, I'm just going to colloquy on that, since I have almost exactly the same question for open space and mountain parks. And, my, my question is, OSMP is a, I believe the largest beneficiary of dedicated funds, and with specific, chartered missions associated with that. And I look at the OSMP, 2026 budget.

[36:01] And, I see… For instance, lower bluestem Trail Design and Construction. And while recreation, trail design, etc. is part of the chartered missions of open space, so is that, $406,000 for lower Bluestem Trail Design and Construction. Is that… CIP money coming from the general fund, or is that… a capital improvement, but funded by OSMP-dedicated funds. Good evening, thank you for that question as well. Jeff Haley, I'm a Deputy Director with our Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. And your second… response, you answered your own question. So, yes, just like the Boulder Junction situation, the projects you see, and specifically the lower, Bluestem Trail, is funded through the Open Space Fund. The capital improvement program, what you see here is a collection of

[37:03] all departments… many departments that have capital projects all bundled into one, book. And so… Open Space, just like you said, has some dedicated funding, and we use that specifically for our capital projects. So most of the projects, in fact, all the projects you see listed in the CIP materials for OSMP, Open Space Mountain Parks, are funded through the Open Space Fund. Mostly. Occasionally, there's some unique funding, grants, et cetera, but that one specifically, Lower Bluestem Trail, is funded through open space. Great, thank you for answering that question. Mason, I think, wants to add on to it in a similar vein. Colloquy on a colloquy. So I had a very similar question, but a slightly different I was looking at some of these items, like Safe Streets for All, and I saw that this was a grant that we received, and it was very unclear to me of how we see

[38:01] And I'm not asking specifically about Safe Streets for All, I'm asking how can we see what is earmarked through something like a grant, or through open space funding, or things like that, so we know where these come from. I assume these are answers we can… find ourselves. Good evening, Charlotte Husky Budget Officer for the City. So all of our budget material is available on the transparency portal and in the online budget book, and so our transparency portal that's available publicly has the ability to filter down by CIP project, by fund, by department, by program, and all of this information is available publicly on our transparency portal. And I believe that was included in the packet as well. Go ahead. Kurt? Can I colloquy on the colloquy on the colloquy?

[39:00] A related question is… my understanding is some departments, like the OSMP funding, can only be used for OSMP purposes, but other kinds of funding, like the parking revenue through community vitality. Can flow if it's not all spent on community vitality projects, it can flow into the general fund. is… first of all, are those two correct? And are there… is there any way of breaking that down so that we know, for example, where saving money can actually benefit the general fund, and where saving money can't benefit the general fund? Thank you for the question. So, to answer the first question, and let me know if I'm answering directly, but the open space fund and open space sales and use tax dedicated revenues are, intended and restricted to support, activities associated with

[40:10] programs and services, and capital infrastructure and maintenance on open space lands. And so that is what it's restricted for. We have a specific fund associated with that. For the parking revenues, it really depends, and I might, lean on, Director… CV to clarify if this is incorrect, but it really depends on where the, parking revenues are being collected. If we're collecting the parking revenues associated with garages, those go directly into, the General Improvement District, funds, and those are set up as specific funds as well. All of the funds that we have across the city, we have 39 budgeted funds.

[41:01] 19 of those funds are supporting the capital improvement program across the 6-year horizon. Those can be found on our, transparency portal and broken down, by, capital project and fund to be able to see the restrictions associated with them versus what is supported by the general fund within the capital improvement program. I will also share, just to… just to round out, the general fund itself does not fund capital infrastructure, we do have a separate, distinct fund that is called the Governmental Capital Fund, that is the arm of the general fund that supports capital infrastructure. Supported by the General Fund. Okay, so just to follow up on the dedicated funds that you were talking about, it sounds like those aren't even consistent among themselves. Some of them… Can only be used for the departmental purposes under whose auspices they live, and some of them potentially could be fungible into the general fund?

[42:11] We have specific… so approximately 68% of the city's revenues are restricted. That is, inclusive of our sales and use tax revenues, where we have about 56% of the sales and use tax revenues that are restricted, and they're set aside into their own distinct funds, such as the Open Space Fund, the Transportation Fund, the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Fund, And so we, we, account for the restrictions of funding based on our accounting, structure versus, The general fund versus special revenue funds, capital project funds, and enterprise funds. Okay, really what it comes down to for me is if there's, money that is being allocated in the CIP,

[43:08] from a dedicated funding source, so it can only be used within that dedicated funding source, then trying to save money in that particular area, it may help that department in some way, but it's not going to help the general fund. And so I'm trying to identify what are those which, to me. seem like a lower priority, at least for my examination? And what are the ones where… We can say, okay, let's not spend that. $350,000 on that particular project so that it can be used in the general fund. So I'm trying to identify how I can distinguish those. So we, again, we've… we have our breakdown of the capital projects across the CIP within our transparency portal, which I believe we shared, that… that is available, for the breakdown of capital projects by fund.

[44:13] The, capital projects, within the, within the CIP, I believe is the question for the general fund, the governmental capital funds specifically, or for more of the restricted funds within the CIP? My question is, how do I… how do I focus my attention on projects for this time, but also for future review… future times that the CIP comes to the Planning Board. How can I focus my attention on projects, types of projects, where Limiting them, changing them to reduce the cost, whatever, would actually benefit the general fund, which is limited.

[45:07] I'm just gonna… I've been navigating back and forth, and, like, something that I was asking about kind of hit me in the face. the Open Space, fund that I was asking about. They have $6 million this year. that shows up in the CIP. Of that 6 million, 6 million. To the penny. is from the Open Space Fund. So, it's not drawing… and so, to answer your question, and that… and you correct me if I'm wrong, that… in that case, quote, saving money would just go back to open space for other things. It would still be a savings to the citizens of Boulder, but it would go back to the Open Space Fund. Correct. However, I opened up the, Parks and Rec table. And down at the bottom, they have, so, of the $4,960,000 capital improvement total.

[46:08] $1 million is Community Culture Resilience and Safety Tax Fund. And so, by the subtraction, that leaves $3,960,000. That comes from someplace other than that dedicated community. Safety Resilient Fund. But anyway, it's there. It's just… it's just down at the bottom of each one of those department tables showing their CIP for the 5-year period. And I'm happy to hand my laptop over to you. Yeah, no, that… Anyway, I'm not trying to… Take away from that, just adding that that became apparent to me just now, sitting on the dais. You still kind of have to know… what of those funding sources, like, oh, the CCRS is dedicated, and the OSMP fund is dedicated, but some other ones are not. So, that…

[47:06] Maybe, maybe that'll be a comment coming up. Okay. Oh, so, hey, on that note, Mark, because I think you brought up an excellent point, which is, like, and again, it's just a lot of information to absorb. Using that as an example, the Parks and Rec and that budget, I was able to pull that up, right, and I see your $1 million. And then it says capital improvement program total 4.9 for, for, right, for that. for 2026, which is the… I think that's the budget you're looking at, right? Yes. And so… The point that you were making was where did that other… that other 3.9 is coming from a general fund and not from identified funds? I think Charlotte needs to answer that one. And, and just, just to clarify in terms of the question, the, the budget that is

[48:00] brought forward to Planning Board and to City Council last week is a balanced budget, and so we have closed a $7.5 million gap within the general fund that was identified, and shared forward in the 2026 recommended budget. Okay, but I guess my question is, using that as an example, the Parks and Rec, and using that 2026, The Community Culture Resilience Safety Tax Fund totals a million dollars. Capital Improvement Program total is almost five. Where is the other… where is the other… $4 million coming from there. It's… or it's coming from different components of that, but, like, I'm seeing the Permanent Parks Recreation Fund total of almost $2 million, $1.925. So is that… is that part of that? 5 million? I'm sorry to be a neophyte on this, it's just a lot to… dig into.

[49:00] Can you… could you explain, like, where the 2026… I see the $5 million requested, where is the 2026 money coming from in that case? And, can you clarify which project or page you're looking at? Yeah, so it's the Parks and Rec page, and George, I just quickly… so as you scroll up, the lines that are in bold Actually, if you add those lines up. they equal the total CIP total. The lines in bold, yeah, equal the very bottom number. Okay, so in that case, you're… nothing's coming from… all of those funds are identified, then, through specific funds? The lottery fund, the .25% sales tax fund, etc. Okay, alright, that's helpful in sort of navigating how this was built. Thank you. And if I may… interrupt? Yeah. The Board's expertise that is being relied on here is really the Board's expertise in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

[50:05] the sub-community plans and the master plans that the board provides input on. So what your purview focuses on is the consistency of the proposed CIP with those plans. So I would recommend that you focus in that regard. The underlying budget is very complicated and a long-term process. I don't think you were asked to try to balance that, but to focus on the BBCP. With all due respect, Hela, if we don't understand how this is all put together, we can't even get to there. So, I think these questions are pertinent. I understand what you're saying as far as our purview, but if we don't understand where this money is coming from and how this is built. It's impossible for us to opine on the overall general direction of things. Laura. Yeah, so colloquy on a… however many exponential colloquies. So, it's probably in the menu… in the memo, and I just can't find it, but I did not see a link to the transparency portal. Could you please resend that?

[51:10] where that information is. And I… maybe I can call Charlotte back up. The transparency Portal, I think, is just the OpenGov link to where you can go through and filter to what Mark's pointing out right now. That… that is the transparency filter. So, I'll just clarify that it's on… packet. page, PDF page 75 of, well, of the original packet, Memo, page 2 of 15. And it begins, the paragraph is, the recommend… then in blue underline, recommended 2026-2031 Capital Improvements Program. That is the link I believe, to the… what you're calling the transparency Portal, then you click on a department. So click on Parks and Rec.

[52:02] I'm… I'm just trying to clarify if this is the thing that they're talking about as being the transparency portal, or if it is something else. We'll have Charlotte come back up, thanks. Thank you for the question. The transparency Portal is available on the main budget site. It is a separate and distinct portal where it's… we're able to filter, down by CIP project and fund and department. You're able to view it if you go to the main budget page. And then the Overview drop-down at the bottom, it has transparency Portal, and I would recommend clicking on CIP. The other way to review the CIP that I would recommend reviewing, and utilizing is the CIP drop-down on our 2026 budget book.

[53:00] We have an overview of our entire, 2026 through 2031 CIP, as well as specific department pages that provide an overview of all of the projects that are included within a CIP. Thank you. So, it sounds like it is something different than the link that Mark was talking about. Could you please send us that link separately? Thank you. Okay, with, that interesting and… maybe slightly off-key discussion. More clarifying questions by anyone. Laura. Thank you. So I have some questions about the SEEP projects. You know, one of the questions we're going to have to address is. do we recommend any different projects for a seep? And I just wanted to check on… there are some things that, to me, seem to rise to the level of a lot of community attention and potentially alternatives that I don't see recommended for a seep, and I just wanted to check and see if they're going through one of those other processes. So, some of these, parks and Rec things, like the Dry Creek Trailhead redesign.

[54:08] Lower Bluestem Trail Redesign, Mount Sinitas Trail Improvements, and the Chautauqua Ranger Cottage and Trailhead Redesign. Do these all have some kind of community process associated with them? Why are those not recommended for SEAPs? Or maybe they're not a big enough dollar amount, but… It could likely be a combination of all of the factors. I would invite Mark Davison up to the podium to describe some of the processes that we have identified for all of those projects, and why they weren't necessarily recommended for a SEEP at this point. Yeah, and I don't need a super extensive explanation for all of these, I'm just curious, like, are they already going through some kind of community process? Because I think there will be community interest in these. We love our trails, as you know. I love what you do. Absolutely. Again, Jeff Haley with OSMP. In fact, all those projects you mentioned are within the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, and some of the other ones are related to Parks and Recreation.

[55:04] I'll speak to the open space and mountain parks. Yeah, each one, have some level of process that they will go through. So, for example, the Chautauqua Ranger Cottage and Trailhead. That'll go through some more of the standard, city land use review and permitting process. We're still early in the design on that. There will be some community involvement, some outreach. But mostly, all the projects you mentioned are within that kind of capital maintenance, capital enhancement, so… There's not a variety of different alternatives. A lot of it is maybe a simple reroute, or even just replacing in kind. So… the Dry Creek Trailhead, for example, it's basically a renovation of an existing trailhead. That was the first one you mentioned, I believe. And so, that's actually within Boulder County, and we go through some of the county, review processes. But again, it's a… pretty much a almost like-for-like type of project, where we…

[56:06] renovate, regrade, put down new materials, but it's not a new or major renovation where we're, you know, starting from scratch, so… Part of the SEEP is considering, are there lots of different alternatives to consider? And I guess in simple terms, a lot of those projects that are in the CIP you mentioned don't really have that breadth. I mean, it's more capital maintenance, capital enhancement, and we would go through whatever, Planning processes required through either the city or county. So, if that helps define… It does help, thank you. And I'm sorry, I think I said Parks and Rec, and I meant OSMP, I apologize. Oh, no, that's great. That is a rookie mistake, and I should not have made it. Yeah. I do have another question that might be in your wheelhouse. So, restore irrigated ag fields with prairie dog conflict? That probably is going to get some attention, and that's not listed as a CEP project?

[57:00] Yeah, again, with the SEEP process, and I… Chris and others can speak very specifically to it, but it's looking at a distinct capital project with multiple alternatives that could have different impacts within the community, typically a roadway project, or a bridge project, or some major park design. And so you want to engage the community, come up with an alternative, vet that through your advisory board, and ultimately city council. Again, the restoring irrigated, agricultural fields, with prairie dogs. once again, as more of an operational kind of capital maintenance. We're using CIP capital dollars to purchase supplies and fencing and equipment. There's not a lot… there's really not a lot of alternatives. Now, in the sense of, we're working with prairie dogs, and we're talking about relocating or controlling. Most of that work is guided by plans and policy that has already been kind of vetted and…

[58:01] Interacted with the community, and there's a very distinct list of projects and parcels and fields that we're working on, so again. When you think about the title of the project, you think, boy, that's probably a lot of community involvement. In this case, the community involvement kind of has already been completed. This is just the implementation. So it's not a, hey, should we do this, or that, or… so yeah, it's more just implementing an adopted plan. That is helpful, and I can see why you would not want to do that on a project-by-project basis. Thank you. Okay. And then the last one, which might be a different department, the Gregory Creek Flood Mitigation Project for $9.7 million. I didn't see that one listed, as a SEEP, just curious. If it has another process. Good evening, board members. My name is Chris Douglas, I'm the Utilities Engineering Manager, and that particular project actually has followed the public process that we did on the Gregory Canyon Creek Mitigation Plan.

[59:02] And in the storm and flood utility, that's the primary vehicle for doing public outreach. So we're, as Jeff was just talking about, more in the implementation portion of that project, and coordinating with the local, The local residents are actually impacted by that project. Okay, so it's already had public involvement on a different leg of the same project? Yes. Okay. So, and typically, when we do a mitigation plan, we're looking at the entire stream reach, whereas this is a small portion of this capital improvement program. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you so much. Claudia. Thanks, I wanted to directly follow on with another SEEP question, even though I have some other ones. And my question is actually about the projects that have been flagged for potential seep. Review, and that's the Barker Dam and the Violet Bridge.

[60:00] And I was curious if somebody from staff could say a bit more about the rationale for each of those projects. By my reading of the memo, even though one of them, at least Barkerdam, is quite large, it sounds like the desired or needed outcomes are relatively straightforward, engineering-based. Could somebody provide some explanation of, like, what kinds of alternatives might emerge and be evaluated in a SEEP? Again, thank you, Chris Douglas, Utilities Engineering Manager. That particular project is… the dam itself is over 100 years old, and so we are looking through the process of what do we need to do to continue that structure and that dam, and there are various versions of really adding more mass to the dam, so basically more concrete to the dam, and we're looking at what those options are. And so, really, the seat process is realizing this is going to be a major impact

[61:00] to, frankly, the surrounding community up in the Netherland area. So it's that process that we're really trying to work through when we get to that point of being able to coordinate with those folks, because it's going to be a major construction project. Okay, so community impacts. Okay, and then the Violet Bridge project? Because that's… that's a small bridge, so I'd like to hear more about that. Good evening, Planning Board. I'm Garrett Slater. I'm the Senior Engineering Manager for Capital Projects for Transportation and Mobility. And so, you are correct that the Violet Avenue Bridge today is a very small bridge, but if you've been in that part of the city recently, you've noticed that there is a bridge that's been under construction over the last several months on 19th Street, The bridge that is under construction now was of a similar size as to what the Violet Bridge is. It's one of those that you go over and you go, did I just go over a bridge or not? And you can see that the structure that's replacing it is significantly larger today than what was there, and that's because we have new floodplain requirements for when we touch a bridge, we have to build to the new standard as opposed to 100 years ago.

[62:12] when there was no standard to build to, and so that bridge today that has roughly an 8 foot by 6 foot opening will grow to an opening with, like. 60 feet by 12 feet, and so it'll be substantially larger. And because there are a variety of ways that the proposed Four Mile Canyon Creek multi-use path will interface with the bridge above. It's, an opportunity for us to engage with the community on preferences for getting, along and up to Violet from the Formel Canyon Creek multi-use path. And moreover, I would add, it's traditional bridge engineering practice to do a bridge selection report. Where, in the state of Colorado at least, a bridge engineer is expected to create an alternatives evaluation of a minimum of 3 different structures to be evaluated, which provides a nice segue for us to use the SEEP as a platform for conducting that evaluation, whereby we do the technical analysis parallel with the community engagement.

[63:19] Okay, thanks. You got your mic on, go. Okay, couple more. So, in all of the various water utility and fire mitigation projects that are in this CIP, Is there any work planned to address power supply vulnerabilities, such as those that were exposed during the 2024 XL shutdown? I'm not aware of any, but it looks like Chris Douglas may. And actually, we're in an ongoing process with Excel with the settlement agreement that we recently came up with to Excel on advancing some of those power stability projects. For instance.

[64:12] There is, power supply to the Water Resources Recovery Facility. We're in that process of working with Excel as a partner with them to where they're doing that kind of stabilization work, and there's actually several projects going on on the west side of town, too, with Excel. Okay, I mean, is the CIP a place where we should be looking for these things, or like. At what level of the planning process would we look for that? And that level of the planning process, I do believe, since it's a Excel-funded project, it's more that coordination with, the larger level, and now I'm just trying to think. I don't know specifically with the projects that we're dealing with with them on their undergrounding aspects, is there a truly planning component to it? I'm not 100% sure, and probably will have to get back to you on that. Okay.

[65:04] Thanks. And then, last question for now is, having to do with Parks and Rec. And we know there's been a lot of interest and concern in the community about the future of the South Boulder Rec Center. This CIP contains significant investment in the East Boulder Rec center. And I'm wondering if Parks and Rec could talk a bit about some of the trade-offs that that represents. And if some of these investments planned for the East Boulder Rec Center are intended to meet some potential future need. That it will have to absorb. Good evening, Michelle Crane, with City Facilities. I'm our Deputy Director of Facilities and Fleet. Work closely with our Parks and Rec Department, but help actually manage, their capital infrastructure. So, the East Boulder Community Center was identified, as a primary project with the CCRS funding, and so we've been advancing with that.

[66:01] As part of that project, we did a more comprehensive assessment of all three rec centers. They're all in a state, in condition where they need investment. Through this process, South came up, with some immediate, urgent needs. And this year, we actually funded about $2 million in just capital maintenance infrastructure to help really sustain that building for some period of time. Actually, those, investments are proving to help really push, immediate needs out further. But all three rec centers are actually being considered in context of this project. East being the first investment, and so… but we're looking at all three of the centers to really understand how do they work as a system? How do they work across the community, what kinds of investments should we make in each, location specifically, versus, you know, what might be spread out and, in part of future investments, so… it's a holistic approach, with East being our first major investment funded through CCRS, but we have been making capital infrastructure improvements in South and North to help kind of shore them. Okay, yeah, I mean, part of my curiosity was, like, if the…

[67:13] if the funding for East would be characterized as, you know, maintenance, retrofit, keep that facility going, are there improvements and additions planned that might add capacity if other facilities are phased out? Yeah, so that's a great question. So, I would say south and north, we're making capital maintenance, capital infrastructure investments right now to help keep those, centers operating as they are today. East really has been, assessed for what future needs we're trying to fund, and so that's a really, We've characterized it as a deep energy retrofit, so looking at the energy consumption in that building, the rec centers as a whole are some of our largest consumers. So, really future-proofing that building. It's a major renovation. And so, really, kind of, redoing pools, redoing, layouts of the building to look much more into the future of the needs of the rec center.

[68:08] Good job. Can I… can I follow on to… Yeah, please, George, go ahead. Yeah, so on that issue of the other two rec centers and how this was put together. So I'm on that budget page. I only see East Boulder on there at all. Are you saying that in the CIP, under capital maintenance, the other rec centers are showing up, over the course of the next 5 years? In the current CIP, they're not showing up in the next 5 years. Actually, what happened this year is we had to redirect some funding this year to take care of immediate emergency maintenance needs itself. So, we invested roughly $2 million this year. You have a… We actually have a CIP item that is emergency capital funding for facilities. We leverage that a lot in our buildings, we use some of that there, and we redirected some funding from other places.

[69:05] to make immediate investments in South. We're making investments in the pool structure, because we were having some leaking issues in the pool, as well as just investments across the building. So… so I guess a ques… a follow-on question to that is, if… If there's no money allocated for South and North in this budget, Is that a reasonable assumption? In your mind, do you think that these facilities are not going to need capital maintenance? For the next 5 years? No, that's not what we're suggesting in this budget. Right now, we're actually in a pretty intense strategic planning phase to understand how we can make investments in these centers that are currently unfunded needs. So we don't really have the identified funding plan The work we did this year, in the phase one of our project, kind of re-envisioning or looking at the future of our rec centers. started to really look at how we can allocate services, what services are needed where, so we can develop a really concrete funding plan, for the next 5 years and for the next 50 years in those centers. It's not reflected right now in the budget, because we have not fully developed those specific projects at South and North.

[70:19] So those will be things that we actually plan to bring forward in the next couple of years. They are high priorities for us. To be able to really define concretely. In your… just one more follow-on question, then I'll let it go and move on. In your opinion, by not identifying funds In this process, for those centers now. Does that potentially put us in an emergency situation where the city is going to be funding things that… You know, we may not be anticipating in the short term, sort of, 2 to 3 years in order to keep those up and running and to have the expectation of the community met.

[71:07] so I may have to call on Charlotte to correct me a little bit if I'm wrong, but… In the budget, we have to present projects that actually have an identified funding source. There has also been, to Council and publicly presented, an unfunded needs, and those centers, as well as many other city facilities. are on that unfunded needs list. So, actually, what you described about the risk of failures exists in our rec centers, as well as many other city facilities. And so it is something that we, have in the forefront of our minds all the time, how we mitigate risks in buildings. Those are two very high priority buildings, as well as our public safety building is one of our highest priority buildings. Our fire stations. This building, we are struggling to keep up with the infrastructure renewal needs across all of our buildings. We mitigate risk basically daily, on how we keep these structures running.

[72:06] that case in point is South Boulder Rec. There was some emergency maintenance needs that happened this year. We found funding to make those investments, roughly $2 million. After making those investments, we've looked at kind of what we're accomplishing there, and Really feel like we've done some really good work to help sustain that building for 5 to 10 years. Knowing it has to be part of a longer-term plan. But we have essentially bought ourselves time in that building, but we're mitigating those risks in every one of our buildings. Great, thank you, Michelle. More questions, Kurt? I have other parks questions, so is that you, Michelle? Parks? No. Okay. No, okay. Okay. They're parks questions, but I guess I'm raising them in the context of the kinds of questions that George was just asking about how do we prioritize within these departmental, pools, sort of.

[73:12] So the first question is, the CIP shows almost $10 million to be spent on Barker Park, which is a very small park. Can you just roughly outline what is planned there? Turn on your… Sorry, Mark Davison, Parks Planning Manager. You referenced, Barker Park, and you said $10 million, over the 5-year period. Yeah, let me explain that. We… we have to name a project, and that's our general park refresh renovation budget, which runs at approximately… $1 to $2 million a year. Barker Park is a very small park that will only actually involve about $600,000 for that renovation, and then the next year we'll move to another park that is prioritized on the list based upon condition and community need.

[74:06] So the $10 million isn't being just spent at Barga, that just happens to be the project that's in this year's budget. I see. Okay. That's confusing. It's a fiscal requirement to name the project, we just haven't listed out the other projects, because we'll get to prioritize those next year. Right. I think it might be useful to say, sort of, general… as the line item, not say Barker Park Refresh, or whatever is listed, but general park updates or something. That makes sense. So, okay, great. Thank you, that's very helpful. Next question is… Hey, Kirk, can I just ask a question on that? Because I'm looking at that Barker Park refresh item, right? So… And that's what you're looking at, a million in 2027, then $1,950, then 2.2, then 1.5, then 1.5. And so, sorry, what you were saying is that, are these funds, in the context of what we just talked about, are these funds…

[75:13] that are put in this CIP, are they for identified projects, or you just know that the system is going to need certain things, so that's why the funds are under Barker Park? Yeah, the title simply says Barker because that's the project in 26. As you pointed out, in the future funds, we've got 96 parks across the system. About 30 of those currently are in poor condition, and obviously we can't get to all 30, so we'll have to prioritize over the next each year which of those rises to the top. Okay, perfect, that's what I need to know. So, back to my previous question. If, if you have If you have needs that you're funding, but you haven't identified those funds. And we know that the rec centers need money over the next 5 years. Why aren't we doing the same thing in the budget?

[76:02] For that, as you're doing For this park refresh line item. The bottom line is what Michelle pointed out, is the two rec centers, for instance, North and South, have incredibly large, budgetary needs to do that renovation, and so that's why they're currently unfunded. We do have the 1 to 2 million to keep to spend on one of… each year on one of our 96 parks to get those renovated, and we can actually, next year, be able to name that 6-year outlook. And that's so you think about that 1-2 million compared to, for instance, East at the moment has a budget of around about $50 million to renovate it. No, I understand that, but what we were just told was that we can't put unfunded… that everything has to be specific in here, but this is… these are funds that are non-specific that are put against a specific project to meet that criteria, so that's what I'm trying to suss out and understand, to Kurt's point. Yeah, I think the simplest way I can just explain it is, each of those years will have a park identified the year before we get to it in the budget allocation.

[77:04] Okay, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I get it. Okay. I'll move on. Thank you, George. That actually was super helpful. Could… when you say they'll have a park identified with them, will it be a park, or will it be a park facility? In other words, could some of that money end up being used for emergency capital repairs, or whatever, at North Boulder Park… North Boulder Rec Center, or South Boulder Rec Center. Typically, that's because of the size of that, it's a different revenue stream. As Michelle pointed out, we have, like, facilities as emergency funds, because they manage the large built facilities. In terms of buildings, in essence, as opposed to us in parks who are managing the parks themselves and the associated amenities. So there is different budget sources for how we manage that. But the money… and this gets back to my dedication question. The money, theoretically, could…

[78:03] go to any park facility, is that correct? Yeah, absolutely correct. Okay. You know, but think of it this way, 1 million would be a drop in the water, wouldn't it, for South, if that needs a major renovation? But it could be the support… Well, I don't know, but it… to that point, right, the $2 million that solved the pool issue for the next 5 to 10 years is what we were just told. You know, those are not… those are not $50 million alt-wide wide-ranging renovations. So, you know, $10 million in this line item, you know, it adds up over 5 years when we don't have any money in there for those facilities, as an example. 10 million bucks could go a long way across East and Easton North. Yeah, no, I totally agree with what you're saying. If you think about it, we had the 22 plan, department plan for Parks and Recreation, large-scale community engagement. That gave us our priorities. We are definitely underfunded as a department in terms of meeting all those priorities. So, similar to what Michelle said, we're doing our best to keep things in fair-to-good condition across the system, and we have to make those decisions as to what to prioritize, and it is some tough decisions.

[79:12] But we're guided by that 22 plan. It gives us the policy guidance and the prioritization. Like I said, we look across that, and within it, with the funds we've got available, we pick what is the biggest need at that moment coming up in the following years. Okay, one other, thank you, one other quick, hopefully quick, specific park question is about North Boulder Park, I see $1.35 million allocated there. I know that there was some planning process for North Boulder Park, although, as far as I know, that is still… No final alternative has been identified, is that Correct? No, I'm happy to update you on that. We, We recently, moved to Advanced the project forward to schematic design and had a community engagement in March with 400 people attending.

[80:01] We got really good community feedback on that. And one of the reasons that project actually slowed down was we were initially doing just a typical park renovation, the play area, the picnic shelter. But we've been working with Chris, the director, Chris Jones, and his team over at Utilities, because that park floods regularly, and frankly, it's difficult for the park to function sometimes due to the underlying utilities. So we're partnering with utilities to fix the drainage and the grading in the park, and then put the amenities on top. So that's a really good collaborative project that took a little bit longer to get those ducks in a row, but we're hoping to do groundbreaking, end of 26, early 27. Okay, thank you, but the question was, has the final design been completed there? Oh, good point, yeah. We'll be moving to, at this point, design development in roundabout, Q4 of this year. Which will be the final plan for the park. Okay. And the… that process, then, including the open house that you had and so on.

[81:07] Is that considered an alternative to a seep? In other words, something that would disqualify it, I guess, for the… Yeah, it's exactly what we just talked about earlier. We went through the free alternatives, we've got down to a final alternative for the preferred community. We'll take that final design back to the community to confirm that's what we heard through a third engagement window on the project. Well, also, actually, this is a good example where we go a bit deeper. In some of the engagement levels, because we noticed in the park there was a large teen population using the park that sometimes could lead to unsocial behaviours, but were also a lot of great social behaviors. So working with Growing Up Boulder, we've partnered to understand teen needs in the park, and we're actually developing better teen amenities as part of this design to support that age group. So that's along with the additional community engagement we do. Okay, thank you. Pleasure.

[82:06] Okay, I'm gonna call on myself and have, I have a question, and it may just float out there, and… Fall to the ground, and… because it's not a question for a particular department head, but… In my time on Planning Board, and prior to that on TAB, I've been through this CIP process a number of times. And it is, a common… And maybe it's a, a tick that we, that, we, as department heads, we say, oh, I have all this deferred maintenance. I don't have maintenance, I have deferred maintenance. And so, my question… In looking at the CIP, is… is, are we actually deferring maintenance? Are we just not…

[83:01] Are we not budgeting properly so that we can maintain our capital assets? If we have deferred maintenance, why is it deferred? And, and so, are we overspending on capital and underspending on maintenance? Maybe Chris, yeah? I'm actually gonna call Charlotte Husky up, I think she's probably the most appropriate staff member to answer that question. It's a good question, thank you. Thank you for the question, that's a great question. So, it's one that… We have been, looking at holistically as a city, particularly over the past year. Michelle mentioned that we have an unfunded needs list across the board, that gathering of the unfunded needs across our capital improvement, program for maintenance and infrastructure, is part of the work that we've been working on with the long-term financial strategy that I mentioned in the presentation.

[84:05] It's always a balance that we look at for maintenance as well as infrastructure. One of the key pillars over the past three budget cycles, and I would say this one in particular is really focusing on taking care of what we have, focusing on, investing in maintenance, focusing on investing in, the, facilities, maintenance, as we have over the past several budget cycles. It is an item that we, also focused on, particularly within looking at our, funds from the Community Culture Resilience and safety tax, looking at the blend between infrastructure projects across the six year horizon and balancing that with smaller, maintenance needs, ongoing maintenance needs. So it's always a blend, as we're working on the development of the annual capital budget, as well as the six-year planning horizon, and I'm sure we have plenty of

[85:10] Examples that can come forward from departments as well. Okay, thank you. I'm going to ask a Capital Facilities question, and I think it's a follow-on to my prior question. Are we… Designing and building our capital facilities. for… a particular expected lifespan. And after being, the planning board liaison to the Historic Preservation Board, etc, there are times where I look at structures That are 100 years old, 120 years old, and through maintenance, through preservation, we have, made those, structures

[86:03] really usable, and in fact, a real asset to the community. And I hope that the fire station on 30th Street That looks like something… Gia, that looks like something that should last for a really long time. But when I see the other fire stations that were, I don't know, built in the 60s or so-ish era. that they… when I keep seeing buildings and facilities that were built in that era, that we are saying. their useful life is over. That seems… that seems awfully short. either we were short-sighted in the design, or we haven't maintained it properly, or it was just… or we're actually designing buildings for this kind of short lifespan, so… Do you have a comment on that? Yeah, thank you for the question. It's a great question. It's one we are struggling with, and we grapple with all the time.

[87:06] we help with a lot of facilities across the city, so you brought up some examples, and I think, you know, the fire stations are a great example. it's not just… so, infrastructure within buildings, as you know, has a replacement schedule. So 20 years, you're gonna replace a rooftop unit or an air handling unit. So when, to your first question, we talked about deferred maintenance. One thing that did happen, historically, years and years ago, before all of us, is We did spend a lot on capital improvements and did not plan for those renewal cycles, and it is something that we are absolutely trying to plan for better today. In our facilities plan that we brought forward, it is one of the reasons why a policy direction is When we build a new building, every year we want to put away 2% of that current replacement value towards future renewal. So we do stay ahead of those renewal cycles. So we're trying to build capital, maintenance in much better into our planning, so we don't have deferred maintenance, we have preventative maintenance.

[88:09] The challenge we have with things like fire stations, it's not just that the building has worn out, if you will, it really hasn't. The structure is good. In some cases, sometimes it's not. We have that too. we have adaptation challenges. So, the fire station, Fire Station 2, that was built in the 50s, was built when fire trucks were much smaller, when there were only men in fire companies, and the needs were much different. And it was on a very small, constrained site. So today, it's not just about the building kind of being worn out, as much as it does not accommodate the new use. and the new needs. So we need two companies in that, fire station that really only accommodates one. We need to accommodate, men and women and people, and have all-inclusive kind of features

[89:03] In that facility, and so those are the challenges that we're faced with when we look at new buildings, and the need for new buildings. Our rec centers are similar, our public safety building is similar. how we do our business changes, and then that starts to drive the need for new buildings. We do spend a lot of time looking at the current facility and saying, can we adaptively reuse this building? Can we move the parts and pieces around? We're doing that with the pavilion Building up at the Western City Campus. We're reusing that structure. It's still a big challenge. It's hard to reuse structures. But where we can, we're trying to, but a lot of times, these very purpose-driven buildings are hard over that course of 50 and 100 years to adapt to the new way of doing business. We can't put an ambulance in any of those stations. There's no room. And so, now we need bigger bays in order to do that, and so that's… that's really what kind of drives the challenge.

[90:02] Does that help? Yeah, it does. Thank you very much. Okay, we've been going for a while now. Any final, clarifying questions? Kirk. Oh, Mason, I'm so… Mason, you go, and then we'll come back to Kurt. Yeah, I have two probably simplistic questions that could be quick. First, I noticed that about 44% of the CIP is water-related. I don't remember it being that way last time. Is that just coincidence, or is there a new focus and priority towards… Water. It looks like Chris Douglas is coming to the podium. It's a… there's a couple of things on the projects that we've identified, particularly it comes back into… some of the studies that we have done, or even parallel to what Michelle was just talking about on

[91:03] how we're doing business is a little different. So, we're… we're addressing some of it as how we're moving water around the city, and how we want to move water around the city is changing, and we're also in that same… a similar cycle that we went through building in the 20s, and up until about the 60s, we would build something, and it was already undersized. So, in that 60s and 70s timeframe. We built for longer term. Well, that longer term is really coming into play right about now. So now we're looking at… it's just the magnitude of what we've got, and we're having things ending… coming to the end of the useful life. Either it is older, or it's… as we look at risk-based analysis, we have higher risks and things, and then as we're… moving forward and doing things, it's also, we need more capacity in a particular pipe. So the pipe may be old, but guess what? It's too small now, too, so let's go ahead and do that. And as we look at, even growth and looking at things, or as we're looking at upgrades to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, is there a

[92:09] growth component that we need to be able to, be accounting for as well. So, it's that longer term, we're in this cycle of, we've done a big identification, and we've got a lot of needs, and a lot of under… a lot of lower funding needs, and in the… in the… Utilities realm is we're balancing user fees and rates, user rates to be able to advance projects, too. Does that help, at least conceptually? It does. It feels like there's a common theme of we're behind the eight ball on a lot of these things, and we're trying to get ahead of it. Or we've also done a further look, and it's going to take us a long time. We have a large… capital projects in front of us over the next series of decades, so we need to be going after these projects now to where it's then we can

[93:01] handle the risk and mitigating things as we're coming forward. So really, the theme in the water and really all of the utilities is there's going to be this continued, large capital projects process. Great. St. Julian Garage, and I feel like we've covered this, so apologies to my board here, but… what is… the… St. Julian uses that garage, right? What is the shared responsibility for use and maintenance of that garage? Thanks for the question. So, the underground space is owned by the Central Area General Improvement District, with the exception of the valet area. There is a condominium association that we have with the St. Julian Hotel, where we share, expenses on the common elements of that facility. We are taking advantage of them constructing… they own the air rights above the garage, so they're constructing their, addition, hopefully starting within the next 6 months. We want to capitalize on them being really loud.

[94:06] In their space, we have some loud work to do in the Cajet-owned space, underneath, so that's the planned work in 2026. I guess my question is, do they share the use of that, and are they contributing to… if they do, are they contributing to the cost of this? they do share… I do… I know that Elliot Labonte can maybe share some specifics, but when they're… so we have a condominium agreement that outlines exactly what the portions of maintenance responsibilities, so some elements. The Cajun ownership is responsible for 100%. Some elements are split, some elements, like the elevator from the valley area up into the lobby, that's 100% the hotel. So we have backup documents for all the splits in the condominium. Okay, that makes sense. And then my last question is about pavement Management Program. I assume that's… Struja Street. Like, when people say fill in the potholes, that's what that is.

[95:02] Is that right? Can you turn on your mic? Sorry. Yeah, so the pavement Management Program is the the city's proactive street maintenance program, which differs from filling potholes. So, we have the operations team that, concerns themselves with snow response and filling potholes, and the pavement management program is the proactive program that goes around the city And, strives to either repave or chip seal or crack seal approximately 10 to 15 centerline miles of roadway each year. And so, you would have seen some of that occurring on 6th Street, this year, by the Justice Center, and that's, funded by the PMP. BMB. Okay. And I'm sorry, before you go, could you remind us of your name? Garrett Slater, Capital Projects Manager for Transportation and Mobility. Thank you, just want that on the record. Thanks.

[96:02] Okay, you got one more, Kurt? Yeah, two more, I think, sort of general questions for… probably for Chris. The first one is, I'm not seeing anything for Alpine balsam on here. Is that because… That whole $150 million or whatever got put on last year's… Yeah, so the Alpine Baltimore Western City Campus Hub, has been in our CIP for the better half of 10 years or so now, and just last year was really the last year that we should expect to see any funding allocated within the CIP. So that's why you don't see a line item within the CIP for that project, is Planning Board's already kind of made their recommendation and reviewed those plans, and so the project is moving forward as anticipated. But it's got years and years of expenditure. I mean, presumably, the contractors aren't already paid for through 20… however long it'll go, 2033 or something. No, but that money has been allocated. If there's anything else, Michelle Crane, who's driven that project, may be able to provide some…

[97:04] Additional thought. Yeah, thank you for the question. The construction is underway, and the contract has been signed, and we actually have the funding allocated. It will be, complete in 2027. So, yeah, we do not have any more requests for that project. Yeah. Okay, thank you. The other sort of general question is, I saw on the… chart of the future overall projections. Significantly lower CIP spending projected in 2030 and 2031. And… Particularly for transportation. Although, really, in a lot of areas, including water, is that because we're really projecting lower needs then? Or is it because we just haven't identified everything?

[98:04] In other words, do we expect those bars to go back up as we get closer to 2030 and 2031? I think they could. Ultimately, this is kind of the beauty in planning out for the additional 5 years within the CIP, is Funding priorities change, community desires change, and so there could be a… reallocation of certain projects that bumps one of those utilities projects up and brings a transportation project down, so you will see some fluctuation, really throughout the entire six-year CIP until it gets to that, really, 2027 or 2026 timeframe. That starts to get locked in, for lack of a better term. A little bit more so. And there's just certain projects that come up that take a lot more money than other projects, and so for you know, 2027, 2028, there's some significant investments in the East Boulder Community Center, including up at Barker Dam, and once those projects are complete, then there's not as much, allocation of funding that needs to go towards those.

[99:04] So, again, yeah, you'll see some fluctuation in those further out years, and what's being allocated, but, for early 2026, which is the recommendation that the board's making to City Council, that really is kind of As set in stone as we think it could be right now. Okay, so just comparing, for instance, 2028, which has almost $200 million projected, versus 2031, which has well less than 100, it's an over $100 million difference, that you expect that might actually be real. I do, it looks like Charlotte's gonna come up and provide a little bit of context around it. Yeah, thank you for the question. So, the CIP across the 6-year horizon reflects project timing differences across the 6-year horizon, and so, what we're seeing in 2028 and 2029 compared to 2030 or 2031 is an increase in capital project spending. It's often associated with, larger projects that are anticipated across the horizon. It could be associated as well with

[100:17] anticipated debt issuances, and so it is a blend. It is often in our six-year CIP horizon that each of the years do look differently, and that's consistent across, each year. And as Chris mentioned, it's one that, we update on an annual basis and refine and revise, but, often it's based on project timing and the way that we're either Funding or financing the projects. Thank you. Okay. Any final clarifying questions? Because we still have a public hearing and, and, deliberation and a motion to make, so,

[101:03] And we have a lot of people here in the room, so… Anything else on the clarifying question? I do have one… I do have one more question, and it goes back, it's probably a very simple answer. It was related to Kirk's question… Kirk's question on the… on alpine balsam, and I understand it's funded and allocated. But my question is… That or other pro… like, where do… where do they show up? In… they don't show up in this transparency report? Not if there's been funding that has not been allocated for that project, no, it would not show up. I'm sorry, so… so, like, like, Alpine Balsam is gonna end funding in 2027, and that's all been allocated, so that money stacks on to… to Kurt's question of the $150 million. being proposed in 2027.

[102:03] There is additional money that's part of the CIP that we're just not seeing. Is that… is that right? It's just already been allocated and approved? Thank you for the question, that's a good question. So for the, Western City Campus Alpine Balsam project in particular, that is one where we've appropriated all of the funding associated with it, included in the 2026 approved budget, as well as a special adjustment to base that Council approved earlier this year with the, with a COP, issuance. In terms of the appropriation that's included and reflected in the six-year planning horizon, you're accurate to point out that the capital appropriation, once approved by City Council rolls on a multi-year basis until the project is completed, or the funds are fully expended. And so each year, as part of

[103:02] the annual process. Within the capital budget, the appropriation that is unspent from prior years will continue to roll forward. What's reflected in the CIP, particularly in the 2026 capital budget, is a total amount of new appropriation to support capital projects across, the CIP, and then planned spending, associated with that Out years for the 6-year horizon. Okay, so the capital spend could actually be on the order of double for 2026. We're just seeing what's being asked for in this round. The capital appropriation, once approved by City Council, continues to roll until it is expended or the project has been completed, and so often, that appropriation will roll, forward, for a multi-year basis, and so it is accurate that for the 2026 budget, we have already approved appropriation that will roll

[104:07] Roll forward to support previously approved capital projects. And these, projects included in the 2026 capital budget is new appropriation for existing or new projects. Okay, thanks, I appreciate that explanation. Okay, and with that, Thomas, we're gonna go to our public hearing. And again, this is for public comment regarding the CIP. Oh, hi, Vivian, you're still here. Okay. I'm back! Hi. Okay. So, I don't think there's… is there… I don't think there's anyone in the room. Nope. I mean, we have a lot of people in the room who have been talking to us about this particular subject, but I don't think there's anyone from the public in the room tonight. So,

[105:00] We'll go online. Great. So this is for the Capital Investment Program public hearing. If you'd like to speak, please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. Each person would have 3 minutes to share their comments. Good. Okay, looks like we don't… okay, we have one person. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead, you have 3 minutes. Thank you. Oh my god. I should be able to speak. I can't believe I'm the only person here. My god, what has this… town come to? Okay, there's a terminology, it's called planned obsolescence. That's what's going on here, too, right? Designing buildings that are gonna have to be… you know, in Europe, they last 500 years, or 1,000, or, you know, whatever. But then, of course, we… they… they do deferred maintenance and plant, you know, differently, right, over there?

[106:12] We need impact fees. Because many of the things that have been spoken about tonight are, you know, and this is all very intuitive. You know, for example, Alpine balsam. The… the medical pavilion. That was great, the way it was. They all… adaptive reuse, very easy to do. Instead, they stripped, they completely gutted the thing, and I've heard now that the structure is not up to par, and because it's taken so long. And, like Georges said in the past, like, we had this thing for 10 years, we were paying money for this rent for nothing on this space, on this land. like… What kind of management is this? It's just stunning.

[107:11] Hang on, I've got to get the light on, and… So I can see. water, 45% water of this thing is in water. Longer term, or, or, you know, too small of pipes. this is huge. We, you know, how are we going to plan for the future when we've got Sundance coming here, when we've got CU South, when we've got Planning Reserve, when we're already so overloaded already? You know, in my personal situation in my house, the city did a retrofit for me. Not the city, it's the state, it's the county, whoever, but they gave me $55,000 worth of stuff. haven't… about $30,000. They spent probably $25,000 or $30,000 on an air handler that I won't even use.

[108:06] On a mini-split in my dining room that I won't use. They're all this energy efficiency stuff that, you know, it's misappropriation of funds. I was excluded from my own retrofit because I had a difference with the county 10 years ago, and they gaslighted me. It's… Things can be done efficiently, but you need to bring the community into the discussion, and they aren't there. It's not happening. And out of Gaza, that's where the money is. Out of Gaza. Thank you. Any other members of the public who would like to speak to this item? Looks like… We only have… one community member, so back over to you, Chair. Great, thank you, Vivian. Okay,

[109:02] this may disappoint, the, staff members in the audience, but we are going to take a quick, bio break. We'll be back at, 7.55, and then we'll do our deliberations, and… Finish out. Okay, thank you all for, patience with us.

[114:33] No, I had a friend that was like, yeah, it was enjoyable. Good experience, but yeah, no. Okay, I'm gonna call the meeting back to order, and I want to thank all the staff for sticking with us, answering all of our Questions in all their detail, so much appreciated.

[115:01] And I don't think this portion, our deliberations, will take, as long. So… I certainly hope not. Okay, so we are now to board deliberations, and so, Chris, if you can… Put up, there we go, key issues. So, as we usually do, I'd like us to… Each take a turn Commenting, ask, answering these, key issues, and, again, after. All of we… all of the, discussion we've had prior, If you have something really important to say, great. If you agree with the, key issues or whatever, you can just say that as well. So, who is ready to start? And then we'll go to a motion after we each run through these three items.

[116:03] Anyone ready? Kirk. Yeah, I'll start, because it'll be pretty quick. I think for the most part, yes, the recommended 2026-2031 CIP is consistent with the goals and policies of the BBCP and city plans, with one exception that I will speak to next. In terms of recommendations, based on the questions that I asked and George helped me with significantly. I think that it would be prudent for the city to move to reallocate some of the allocated CIP money from parks. into a… Park, a, Rec Center Emergency Fund, given that it… We have recently…

[117:01] Had to expend $2 million on an emergency, repair at a rec center, and it sounds like it is highly likely that there will be potential, additional emergency expenditures. Over the next 5 years. So, that will be my recommendation. And I do not have any recommended changes at this point to the seeps. Thanks, Kurt. Laura, I saw you were ready. I just want to echo Mark's gratitude for your patience in answering all of our questions. This is an amazing amount of work. I am in awe of you putting all of this budgeting together, because it seems to work much better than it has any right to, given how complex it is. So thank you so much for all of your great work that makes that happen. I do think it is the 2026-202031 CIP is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the BBCP and related city plans, with two exceptions that I will mention.

[118:11] And I do have two recommendations about changing, scope priorities or scheduling of projects. One is an additional project that I think is missing and should be in there. And one is a project I think should be delayed. Happy to talk about that more if folks want. And I don't have any recommended additions to the list of, projects for undergoing ACEP. Thank you for answering my questions about those. Laura, do you want your recommendations to be recorded? as… as answering the key issues, or do you plan on, making a suggested modification to the motion? Yeah, so I do plan on making my recommendations as motions. Because I think they rise to that level that they should have the group's, input on, and that City Council and staff can see whether we have consensus or not. I am agnostic as to whether they would be amendments to the main motion

[119:12] or whether we should pass the main motion cleanly, and then do the recommendations separately, I do not care. Like, I… I'm going to vote for passing the main motion regardless. Okay, great. Thank you. That… that clarifies that for me. So, just hold those recommendations until, Motion making. Are you ready, Mason? Sure. Equity's comments, of gratitude, I'd also like to say that I appreciate the forward-looking piece of this. It seems like, we're really focused on Making good use and investments, here. I do… I do think that the 2026-31 CIP is generally consistent. the goals and policies of the BBCP and related city plans, I don't have any recommendations.

[120:01] on the scope, priorities, and scheduling of CIP projects, and, I do not have any recommendations on SEEP as well. Great, thank you, Mason. Claudia? All right, again, thank you to staff. It's really impressive and informative to see all these projects captured together. So I'm gonna keep my comments at a very high level, out of respect for the interdepartmental work that's gone into doing this. I read this year's CIP with three questions in mind. They're a bit different from staff's questions, but I think answering them is going to get me to a lot of the same places. And just to put those questions out there, I looked at whether there was an equitable geographic distribution of the planned investments, an equitable programmatic distribution. Of the planned investments, and then whether we are seeking and using public input in ways that improve projects and respect people's time and energy and build community capacity. So in terms of the geographical equity, I want to say I really appreciate the balance in this program between downtown and neighborhood projects. I note that most of Boulder's sub-communities are called out for some significant investment in this cycle. I also appreciate the balance of small and large projects in the CIP.

[121:18] George's questions and Kurt's questions actually got me thinking more about this with regard to the South Boulder Rec Center. I think it is important to keep the small, scattered projects going year by year. I think that ensures that some money is evenly spread around. Even when we are planning for and making big investments in specific neighborhoods, like a rec center. So again, I want to say I appreciate having some of those smaller, dispersed projects. in there. As a side note, I think it would be amazing in the future if staff could provide some kind of mapping of these planned investments, either for board consumption when we're doing this consideration, or for public consumption. I think that would be a really helpful tool for understanding, how we're spreading our investments around the city.

[122:06] In terms of programmatic equity, I see in this plan a balance of hard infrastructure and social infrastructure investments that are supporting vital city functions and a healthy community life, so very satisfied with that. And then the question about how we're using public input, first of all, I want to say I'm glad to see projects with significant histories of public engagement moving forward here. For example, North 30th Street and the Primos Park. I think we owe it to communities that have been engaged to follow through in a timely manner on these kinds of things, after we start them as much as possible, even if we have to be scaling them back for cost savings. So, thank you for keeping those things on track. And then in terms of future engagement, one of the questions tonight is about what we should do for seeps in the upcoming cycle. And I'm concerned that both of the ones that are listed here, the Barker Dam and Violet Bridge.

[123:06] are in large part going to be about asking community to evaluate complex engineering alternatives, and I'm not sure that's the best use of community energy. Barker Dam, I think because of its scale and the neighbor impact, it may be the right thing to do, but for… for Violet Bridge, this argument that bridges are often subject to community review, didn't quite resonate with me, and it feels like it's introducing time and complexity. In a way that might not substantially improve the physical product or how the community experiences it. So I may recommend against that violet Bridge seep. And, if I choose to, I will have a secondary motion to address that. Awesome, thanks. Great, thank you, Claudia. George. Yeah, I agree with most of what Claudia just said. I, you know, and I won't repeat what my board member said, is generally appreciative of all the work and effort that's gone into this, the transparency portal. It's clearer than past years that I've seen, so very much appreciate that.

[124:09] As it relates to key issue number one, I agree, it's generally consistent with the policies. You know, the challenge with these things for anybody in this room is the devils in the detail of these projects and what's going on, and it's… It's very difficult in this setting to dig in deep enough to really understand if… to Hela's earlier point, right, our role is not really to scrutinize the individual budget. However. Taking into account, for instance, what's being spent on, East Boulder Rec Center, which is $53 million. You know, the question is, if we understood more about the project. Is $53 million the right number? You know, should we be spending more like $40 million on it, and scaling back that project, and saving $13,000 to allocate to.

[125:04] north and south, right? Those kinds of questions are impossible to ask in this forum, and so… Is renovating East Boulder Rec Center the right thing to do? And I know there's been a large process involved in this. Probably absolutely is the answer, but the question is, are we leaving something behind, or has it been scrutinized enough to account For, what's needed in the other centers, given the emergency needs that have popped up, and the known unfunded needs that we have. I also, think there's a bit of inconsistency. I wouldn't necessarily… I appreciate what Kirk said about pulling money from one place to the rec center's unfunded needs, for instance. I don't know enough about this budget to say, you know, pull money from here to go to here, but I do find it inconsistent that in one part of the budget, we're saying we must identify the project where this goes.

[126:07] And another part of this budget saying, well, we had to identify a project, but that's not really the project. Right? And so, that feels pretty inconsistent to me, and so I'd, I'd ask you guys to reflect on that and make sure that your processes are consistent across the board, around transparency, which I know is what you're striving for. As far as, additional recommendations, I do think that, specifically from an equity standpoint. and from the known unfunded needs on the rec centers, that those should absolutely be, be quickly accelerated and put into the follow-up CIP to this. I think that's, that's critical. And, another sort of nuance, again, and this is only because I know the specific project, and I went to the community engagement, North Boulder Park was brought up.

[127:10] And I went to that community engagement, which was great. Jeff and Paige were there. It was kind of a party. There were 400 people that showed up. And, but the community was presented with a plan already, and they were just asked to stick stickers on, you know, do I want more jungle gyms, or more walk… you know, things like that. my opinion, which I didn't… I didn't see reflected in that community engagement, was… how's the park doing right now? Because that park, in my mind, and in the mind of many people that I know, functions really well. And replacing the… the aged-out, play structures, and addressing… trying to address the drainage without disrupting that large lawn.

[128:01] I think would go a long way, and I don't think we need to be spending the kind of money that's being allocated against this. And again, that goes back to how do you dig into individual projects and say, again, it's not our purview necessarily to go into the dollars and cents in that detail, but There could very well be real savings made there and allocated to other parks that need it more. And so, I appreciated the community engagement, but I also felt very much like there was a, design that was already being pushed forward with or without that community, and again, that's a matter of opinion. Does the board have any recommendations on the list CIP projects? See, no. And that's the end. Thank you so much for all your effort on this. Great, thanks, George. So, I'll, Give my answers now. Yes, to the first item, that the CIP, is generally consistent with the policies of the BBCP and other city-related plans, and I think the…

[129:12] the… dashboard, etc, that, I came too late, was very helpful in, in looking at that. So, and I think maybe getting that out. continuing to make that, accessible and, understandable by, regular folk would be great. Do I have any recommendations? Regarding the scope priorities. Yeah, the, this deals with both, all three, water, maintenance, and, facilities. The downstairs toilet runs on the north bathroom, so it's running water needs maintenance. Other than… other than that, I am, generally in concurrence with what, the schedule and priorities are.

[130:07] Regarding the SEEP, I concur with Claudia that There are times where our public engagement We really are dealing with areas of engineering expertise, of, actual limited alternatives, and so to have a process, have a project undergo a seep, to… Say that we did, or to… say that, gee, in this year, we usually do 2 or 3 or 4 projects a year that involve SEAPs. Anyway, I don't think we should feel obligated I think we should use that process where it's needed and where it would actually present the, community members with real alternatives, and if it's just a dressed-up alternative,

[131:07] Because we want to seem engaged, I wouldn't waste the time. So, that's that. Now, we're going to move on to… motion-making, and I'm going to suggest That, we, Wrangle the main motion. And then, subsequent motions rather than, through the amendment process. And again, board members are free to use whatever process they want to put their thoughts forward. So that's not… That can work either way, with this particular, hearing and topic. But I would entertain. To begin the process, a, a motion to begin.

[132:07] Great. Thank you. I move the Planning Board recommends to the City Manager and City Council the recommended 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program, including the list of CIP projects to undergo a Community and Environmental Assessment Process, or SEEP. Thank you, Laura. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. Laura, would you like to speak to your motion? Again, just congratulations to staff for an amazing work product. I'm very happy to support this, unamended, as long as we have the opportunity to offer additional motions afterwards. You certainly do. Okay, any, Mason, you as a second, you're next. Okay. Any other board member, have any comment on the motion as it stands currently?

[133:00] Okay, we're gonna vote. I'm gonna go left to right. Mason? Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kirk? Yes. George. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, congratulations, but don't leave just yet. Okay. Does anyone have, any additional advisory motions they'd like to make. Kurt has… He hit his light first. Sorry, I didn't… I wasn't even sure what I was doing, but apparently I turned the time. Yeah, so I sent Thomas a motion, I don't know if you're able to get that up. So, I move that Planning Board recommend that a portion of the funds specified in the CIP for park refresh, amounting to approximately $10 million over the 5-year horizon, and for the North Boulder Park project, be reallocated to Recreation center emergency maintenance and repairs.

[134:13] Given the recent need for $2 million in emergency expenditure on the South Boulder Rec Center, and the likelihood of additional expenditures on North and South Boulder Rec Centers. I'll second that for discussion. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Kurt, the floor is yours. Yeah, thanks. Well, I think a lot of this came forward in the questions, but it seems like we are not planning adequately for what sounds like a very high likelihood of a need for emergency Funds there that will have… in… there, meaning at the rec centers, that will have to come from somewhere, and it seems simply prudent

[135:03] to, to allocate that at this time. There's no doubt that the other parks all need additional money, need work. There's no question about that. As always, budgeting is a matter of priorities, and it seems like Providing… being prepared for To some extent, for some emergency expenditures, it would be simply prudent, more prudent than allocating all of our parks money In other ways, and then having to suddenly scramble, as we did recently, in order to find the money for emergency repairs. And I didn't try to specify the amount, you know, I don't know the amount. I don't even know for sure that this is the right place to get the money from. My intent, primarily, is to bring

[136:03] City Council's attention to this issue, and, you know. they… if they don't like our recommendation, obviously they'll do something different, but if we bring a recommendation like this to them, it'll be, I feel, much more likely that they'll pay it some attention and think harder about how do we deal with Possible unanticipated emergency needs at the rec centers. Any other… Comments? Questions? Oh, yeah, George? Yeah, no, I agree with Kurt's thinking, exactly. I mean, the only thing I struggle with with this motion is identifying the fund specifically. But I think it's important for the community, and it's important for Council's discussion. However this enters, whether this enters as a motion that we pass. Or if, as some kind of recommendation, if it's not, I think Council needs to discuss this type of thing, because it's clearly a known unknown that exists that we need to fund in some form or fashion.

[137:16] So… Laura. So, I agree with this in spirit, and I want to recognize that both the motion maker and the second have expressed a little bit of discomfort with talking about where to pull the money from. And so I… I would love to pass a similar motion that says something to the effect of, the board recommends that a line item be added to the CIP with funding amounts and sources to be determined to staff's satisfaction. That would allocate money for recreation center emergency maintenance and repairs. All the rest of the motion, but just not specify the source or the amount, and leave that to staff's determination. But make it very clear, we think there should be a line item for this purpose. That would make me more comfortable than saying… voting for a motion that says, pull it from here and put it over there.

[138:04] I like that. My only question is… is what we were guided to originally, which said this was balanced. It's basically… this is an approvable budget, and so what you said may be… may infer that there's additional money that needs to be you know, like an unfunded amount of money. And the question is. should we be looking inwardly at the CIP to find money to reallocate, wherever that might come from. So that we're staying within the boundaries of the CIP that's been put up, and just some hard work done to say, okay, we need to pull money from whatever projects might… we might have in here to realize that we've got… we've got a greater need here. I completely understand what you're saying, and I still remain uncomfortable with us designing

[139:02] or trying to make decisions based on very limited understanding of these projects, us trying to decide what's the appropriate project to pull from, and I… I think we can word it in a way that the intention is clear, that we're recommending that money be found wherever staff can find it, whether that's pulling it from something else, or from some other funding source, but we think that this line item should be funded, and it should appear in the budget. Alright, so… Mason? I agree with the… the spirit of this, and a lot of the comments that you're saying here, and I think what the struggle that we're having here is, like, how to do this in… the framework of a CIP, which is you have to say what the line item is, you have to say where the funding is coming from, etc. And I… won't be supporting a motion of this nature, because I think there's other ways to signal to City Council that they should discuss this. So I won't be supporting a motion to edit the CIP, but I would rather see a motion that says

[140:05] you know, City Council, you need to take this seriously and think about it. I'm going to follow, that and, agree with Mason while I agree with the spirit of this. I don't think the crisis in our rec centers is, either news to the Parks and Rec staff or facilities staff, nor… Do I think it is going unattended? And I think that a follow-on or different motion that is of a, just find the money, is, I think, equally, unhelpful. So, I, while I recognize, the importance of rec centers and maintenance and repair and, in fact, re, potentially completely redoing these rec centers, I think,

[141:05] Our process here tonight, is… Is adding on in a way that, isn't that productive. So, I will not… I will also not be supporting it. Any other… Comments on the motion on the floor. Okay, we're going to vote, and I'm gonna… just to make it easy on me, I'm gonna do it in the same order. Mason? No. Laura? Not as worded, no. Claudia? No. Kurt? Yes. And George. Yes. And I'm a no. Okay, thank you, Thomas. Okay, I'm wondering if someone wants to offer a differently worded motion that could have a chance of passing?

[142:02] I guess the question is, and this kind of goes to the… the, the key items that we discussed, which is around recommendations, right? Are the recommendations that we brought up enough… from the standpoint of to cover… like, I made a recommendation around this in that recommendation period. I guess that's a question to staff and how this goes. How does this get emphasized to Council? How do our recommendations get relayed and organized, so that we make sure that they're brought up in a way that at least someone's looking at them? Chris, you… yeah. Yeah, all of the recommendations from all of our advisory boards, the planning board included, will be included in the packet that goes to City Council at their first reading. Okay, so, not hearing, any… Rewordered version of that.

[143:09] Does anyone else have any additional motions, and again, you shouldn't feel required to make a motion, and if you want to just say, hey, Chris, make sure that my thought about this topic is recorded. That's also acceptable. It's also acceptable to make a different motion, so… Before we leave this item… Before we leave this item, I just want to close out. something like this similar happened in a different planning board meeting, and legal counsel who was present at the time, which was not Hela, but a different member of the CAO, said, well, it's very difficult for them to pass on a recommendation, given that the motion failed, to say that planning board supported this concept, but still the motion failed. So I just want the record to reflect that… Various Planning Board members were uncomfortable with this specific solution for various reasons, but there was a lot of concern expressed on Planning Board about just making sure that we are planning for emergency maintenance and repairs at those failing rec centers.

[144:12] Thank you. Noted. Okay. Anything else? Any other… Claudia, great. So, I sent some text over to Thomas. A short motion here. And this is addressing my comments about the seep. I move that Planning Board recommend to the City Manager and City Council that the Violet Bridge project be removed from the list of CIP projects to undergo a community and environmental assessment process, or SEEP. I'll second that. So, just to speak to it briefly, if I may, this is a small bridge, on a primarily local and neighborhood travel corridor in North Boulder. It has very few adjacent property owners, and we have already had years of community engagement in that general area around different projects, 19th Street.

[145:09] Primos Park, Sumac Avenue, etc. And on some level, I think that's very respectful of the community in that area, but at some point, it also becomes a burden. to ask people to continue to engage in these kinds of projects. And my sense is that the general public is not likely to have a significant interest in variations on a bridge reconstruction. So I'm making this recommendation, with the intent of potentially saving some community energy, and staff resources on a project of this scale. I concur. anyone else. Laura? Nope, nope. I just wanted to ask whether the staff who work on that project have a reaction to the idea of not doing a seep? Like, have you… do you have any counter indications that there is a lot of community interest in this particular bridge, or…

[146:02] I just want to give staff an opportunity to respond. Respecting, of course, that this is Claudia's area of the city, and that she knows a lot about it. Again, Garrett Slater from Transportation and Mobility. So, I have two thoughts in response to the question. The first would be, as you outlined, there's been a high level of robust engagement in North Boulder. around the, projects there, including the Primos Park, and so the thought was we'd want to continue that level of engagement as the… the Violet Avenue Bridge moves forward, so that we don't sort of go into a vacuum. But, there are probably other ways of, staying in communication with the neighborhoods about the progress of the bridge without going through a full seep. And then the second thought is that, it would be a little bit different than the way we've approached, some bridge reconstruction projects in the past. So, the current 19th Street Bridge under construction went through a seep.

[147:05] When we reconstructed Arapaho on 13th, it went through a seep. So this would be the first bridge we've built, with a multi-departmental sort of function that has not gone through a seep. But, I guess having said that, we don't feel strongly one way or the other. Just a quick follow-up to that. The bridges that you did do a seep on, did you find that those community engagement processes were well received, appreciated, gave you great input, made a difference in the design? I would say yes to all the above. Kirk? And you said that if you… if it weren't a seep. But you would still do some sort of community engagement. Would making it not be a seep, would it actually save staff time? Would it simplify the process? Yes. Or would it? Yes, it would, because it takes time to prepare plans and drawings and exhibits to carry forward to TAB and to Council for approval.

[148:07] So, that's probably 6 to 8 months of effort, and we would still be developing those designs, but we would, be able to do it in a bit more of a streamlined fashion. So, when you say it would still involve community engagement, but it wouldn't necessarily go to TAB, for example? Correct. Or to… okay. Or to Council. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other comment? Okay. We're gonna… we, We do have another major item and another minor item yet tonight, so I'm gonna try to move things quickly here. We're gonna vote on this motion. Mason. Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kirk? No. George?

[149:00] No. And I'm a yes. Okay. Alright, that one passed. Okay, Laura, you ready? I am ready, and I apologize that this might take a little bit of time, but I think they're very important, so I hope you'll indulge me. I do have 3 motions that I would like to make, and I'll do them one by one. And they, surprise, they all involve the airport. I did, for folks who are following along, I did send some questions to staff ahead of time, and many of them were answered, so thank you for that. There were others that remain unanswered, but we'll have to muddle through as best that we can. And I just want to acknowledge that the airport has been in transition recently. We have a new airport manager, and I think there's a lot of history and a lot of detail for people to get caught up on, so I'm not surprised that not all the questions were able to be answered in the one day, I think, that I gave you. One and a half days. So thank you, thank you for your work on that.

[150:00] Okay, so I want to say that I'm taking my cues here about what kind of motions to make based on staff's description of what Planning Board's role is in reviewing the CIP, and Hela's reminder, that the CIP is used to ensure that the city's capital investments meet the city's long-term goals, and that they are aligned with the vision set forth in the BVCP. So I'm going to focus on BVCP criteria, and that our role includes, as a planning board, to evaluate CIP projects in the context of the long-term, big-picture policies of the BBCP, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. And then, make any recommendations that we think are necessary to resolve policy issues that are raised by these, proposed projects, including their location and design. So, I'm really trying to stick to our purpose here as a planning board. So, the first motion I want to make regards, aviation fuel. And in particular, the fact that our airport currently only sells leaded aviation fuel.

[151:07] I'm gonna request that you make the motion, and then speak to the motion, if you get a second. Okay. And so this is a motion. I'm gonna go ahead and send the language to Thomas. This is a motion about, providing the infrastructure or equipment for Boulder Municipal Airport to provide unleaded fuel at our airport. And I also sent that to all of the panelists, if you want to read it in your Zoom chat. So the motion… which Thomas is going to put up here, is that Planning Board recommend to City Council to pursue unleaded aviation fuel infrastructure or equipment for the Boulder Municipal Airport as soon as possible. And I would love if somebody would second so we can discuss.

[152:06] I'll second for discussion. Thank you, Mason. We have a motion and a second, Laura? Okay, I'll try to speak to this, fairly briefly. So, currently, the Boulder Airport only offers leaded aviation fuel. This is quite common at small airports in… like ours in Colorado, but the state of Colorado is trying to move everyone to unleaded fuel by 2030. There's a House bill that passed last year that has grants, and requirements around that. That's by 2030, to have unleaded fuel provided at our airport, and I don't see anything in the CIP around providing the equipment or the capacity to do that. And it will take some kind of equipment, whether that's a truck or a tank. Or an underground tank. And I think this relates to our BBCP policies. I'm not going to read them all out, but 3.11, urban environmental quality, seeking to protect the environmental quality of areas under significant human and urban influence.

[153:08] Protection of air quality, 3.32. 6.23, the Boulder Municipal Airport, which talks about the airport, providing a safe environment for aviation activities. and seeking to mitigate noise, safety, and other impacts of airport operation. Policy 8.03, equitable distribution of resources, which goes to considering the impacts of policies and planning efforts on low- and moderate income and special needs populations in the city. Many of which live around the airport and are disproportionately impacted by the leaded fuel that pollutes our air, from, because I'll read you a couple statistics later. Policy 8.07, safety, and Policy 8.08, health and well-being. And the point here is that lead… we know that lead is bad, this is unquestioned, we should not be breathing it, we should not be consuming it, it has

[154:00] human health impacts, this is why leaded gasoline was banned in this country in the 90s. I'm not gonna belabor that point. But the fuel sold annually at Boulder Airport, I think a lot of us don't know this. It contains about 400 pounds of microparticle lead, and 95% of that lead is emitted into the air upon burning, according to the U.S. EPA. That is a true fact, that this lead is not filtered out, it goes into our air. And that they, that the US EPA issued an endangerment finding for leaded fuel, leaded aviation fuel. That's an endangerment finding. This is… these are facts, this is not opinion. So, in my opinion, if we're talking about capital infrastructure that meets the needs of the community for safety, for well-being, for environmental quality, we have to have the provision of unleaded fuel at our airport. Right now, these planes have no choice if they want to fuel up at the Boulder Municipal Airport. They can only buy fuel with lead in it. This has to be a priority, and I wish we were not discussing this in the context of the CIP, but this is the only opportunity that we have as a planning board to weigh in on, do these projects, are we meeting our city needs? Are we meeting our BCZP values and goals? So, I am making this motion, and I want to acknowledge that staff

[155:19] replied by email to say that the City of Boulder has identified unleaded fuel as part of the strategic plan for the airport, and that it is a priority, and they will be discussing it with the state for funding in 2026. So this motion, the purpose is really just to put an exclamation point on that, that we have to do this, and we need to do it as soon as possible. And I also just want to point out that last year, a PhD student at the University of Colorado Boulder, CU down here. did a geographic study, using a GIS tool, looking at the population around the Boulder Municipal Airport, and it is disproportionately Latino, and there are thousands of children within the one mile radius of the airport that is disproportionately impacted by this leaded aviation fuel from the takeoffs and the landings.

[156:05] It is a racial equity issue, it is an issue for our youth, it is an issue for seniors, and we… it's a health… a human health issue, and we need to be doing something about it as soon as possible. Okay, thank you, Laura. Mason, is your opportunity to speak to it as second? If you want. Yeah, thank you. So, nothing to add, Laura, happy to have further discussion. My question here is, the way this is worded, as soon as possible. Is this another one of these? We're just really recommending that City Council take a look at this, similar to Kurt's? So, so yes, I think that this is to make an intention clear that this… I mean, I can change the wording if folks want, but it's the idea that this… they need to figure this project out and get it in the CIP and get it funded as soon as possible. I recognize why it can't be in the CIP now, because they don't have the identified funding source… excuse me, funding source. They're still working with the state.

[157:08] to figure out a few things, but I just want to put an exclamation point on it that this should be a priority from a planning perspective to get this into the CIP. Any other comment? Very persuasive, Laura, so let's… let's get to a vote. Mason? Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kirk? Yes. George. No. And I'm a yes. Okay. Thank you so much. I, have a second motion. Okay, I'm just going to request that,

[158:01] That was highly persuasive and very thorough. So, We should determine if a, As much persuasion as the last round is required for this one. Okay. Thank you, I appreciate that, comment. I only get one shot here, so I'm trying to be as concise as I can while still getting out the information. I could have… I could have gone on for about another hour about lead. But, This one, I think, will take a little bit of time, because we haven't talked about this at all, and I think there's a lot of things that a lot of people don't know about. The glider runway at the Boulder Municipal Airport, probably including staff. So, here's the motion, and again, I would love if we can talk about this, because… This glider runway is non-conforming, and it does not meet FAA safety standards, and it has been recommended several times to shut it down, and it has never moved forward. And this glider runway is recommended in this CIP to be repaved, which is investing in keeping this runway.

[159:07] So, I'm happy to talk about this more if I can get a second here, but I want to make a motion that we recommend to City Council to delay any project to repave runway 8G-26G, which is the glider-only runway, and the gliders can use the main runway, by the way. And consider decommissioning this runway to better align with BBCP goals and policies, including safe operations at the Boulder Municipal Airport, general protection of public safety, and prioritizing investments in travel safety. Okay, there's a motion. I'll second. Okay, motion and a second. Laura. Okay, thank you. And I'm gonna, you know, I'll try to be quick. Sorry, there's a lot to say here. Is it possible, staff, to pull up a Google Map of the Boulder Airport? I just want to make sure people know what the… what runway we're talking about here. Thomas, do you mind? You have the screen open.

[160:03] If I stop sharing, can you pull that up? So while he's pulling that up, I'll just say this is a project that has been recommended by past airport managers, and has been bumping along in the CIP for a few years, and is now recommended to happen this coming year, which is why, if it were a couple years out, I wouldn't be making this motion, but because it's recommended to happen next year, I think we need to talk about it. And I'm not sure that the city has ever had this conversation, in a public forum. Okay, so this is the Boulder Municipal Airport, and you guys can see Independence Road across the top of the screen, so that divides city property from the county. North of that is county, and then south of that is the airport, that's Independence Road. You can see a big lake to the left, that's Hayden Lake. And then there's, like, a skinny black strip right under Independence Road. That is… can we zoom in a little bit, Thomas, make it a little bit bigger?

[161:07] Chris has got it. Oh, Chris, sorry. So, right under Independence Road, there's a black… yeah, there we go. There's a black strip, yeah, right there. That is the glider runway. It is very narrow, very skinny, it is only used by… Gliders, which are basically usually non-powered craft, but they are towed up into the air by a tow plane, which is an oversized plane. South of the glider runway, there is the main runway, which you can see is, like, normal pavement, it has a stripe down the middle, it's much wider, and that's the main runway that everything uses, and gliders can use that as well. And in between the two, the asphalt strip and the main runway, there is a turf strip. That you can see has erosion in a line that is also used to land gliders right next to the main runway, and should also be shut down, but that's not in this budget, so we're not going to talk about that. Okay, so this glider runway, I don't know that most people in the city know this, but it is non-conforming by FAA standards. By FAA standards, when you are operating

[162:07] by visual flight rules, which is what we do at Boulder. This is a non-towered airport. There's no air traffic control tower. The pilots talk to each other by radio, they have their equipment in their planes, and they visually look out their windows to do landings. So they're all just coordinating ad hoc with each other. And when you have airports that operate by those rules, and we're not the only one, those runways are supposed to be 700 feet separated. They are only about 200 feet apart. This has long been known as a non-conforming runway, and my understanding is that the district office of the FAA has advised us not to operate it as a separate runway, to make it… if we're going to have it and let people use it, it needs to be operated as one runway with the main runway. We do not have that rule, and simultaneous operations are occurring way too close together, and we are basically risking some crashes here. So, I think that in conformance with the BVCP, that this runway, we should be considering

[163:08] decommissioning this runway, rather than putting city investment into it. And by the way, because this is a nonconforming runway, my understanding is the FAA will never fund maintenance for this runway, and it does not appear on our airport layout plan. It is not approved by the FAA. So if we continue to put money into this, we are taking liability, responsibility, and it will be our responsibility forever to upkeep and maintenance it. Even if we start taking grants from the FAA again, they will not pay for this. Okay, so, let me just mention the BBCP Policies 6.09, transportation safety. 6.12, investment priorities for the transportation system, which says that we are going to prioritize investments for travel safety and people using all modes, which includes flying. This is the opposite of prioritizing safety for all modes by continuing to invest in a nonconforming runway that doesn't meet safety standards. It doesn't meet 6.23 Municipal Airport, which promises to provide a safe environment and mitigate noise, safety, and other impacts of airport operation, and 8.07 safety, it should go without saying that this is not a safe operation.

[164:13] And this has been pointed out by several consultants in different reports, and I'm really not sure that it's generally known within city staff that that has happened. And those reports may be kind of lost in the archives somewhere. But I have access to them if folks would like to see them. So, this is my motion. I move that we recommend to City Council to delay any project to repave runway 8G26G, which is the glider-only runway. and consider decommissioning this runway to better align with BVCP goals and policies, including safe operations at Boulder Municipal Airport, general protection of public safety, and prioritizing investments in travel safety. And I'll point out, I did ask staff questions to try to confirm some of what I'm saying tonight. And they were not able to do that in the time provided, but I am 100% convinced that everything I'm saying to you is true, and I have seen documentation of it.

[165:01] Okay, thank you, Laura. Kurt, I think you seconded this, yes? I did, primarily because I wanted to hear Laura's expertise, on this, And, I don't know what the merits beyond what you just said about decommissioning. It does seem like it's potentially worthwhile at least delaying repaving, in order, since, given the budget constraints that we have currently. And, it seems like, from an equity standpoint, you know, the users of this Probably tend to be particularly wealthy, would be my guess, and, and particularly white, and, so from an equity standpoint, putting less money into this would, it seems to me, further our SCR goals.

[166:01] Okay, any other, debate. Can I just… I just want to emphasize that this would not shut down the glider operations. They can still use the main runway, it's just this one little skinny strip that they like to use that is theirs alone would be decommissioned. Do you have a comment? Yeah. Claudia? So I want to start by saying that I, I think generally would be philosophically opposed to using deferred maintenance. as a mechanism to decommission infrastructure. I don't think that's good. process. However, if the infrastructure in question is not up to current safety standards and cannot be brought up to current safety standards, I may be persuaded that we should not be making capital investments in it. I'll just say, I'm, I'm, in spite of Laura's,

[167:00] impassioned expertise in this area, I will not be supporting it, based on… the, simple complexity… simple complexity, that's not… anyway, based on the complexity of the subject and, lack of, broader staff input, etc. So, anyway, that's my thought on it. I'm ready to… Just want to respond really quickly. This runway cannot be made compliant because it cannot be moved north. There are people's homes in the way. There's Independence Road in the way. And the main runway is not going to get moved south. And then with response to your point, Mark, which I totally respect, I also have made similar objections, I just want to say the point of this motion is not to say. Decommission it. It's to say, delay this and consider it so that City Council can actually get the facts and have a full hearing and make a considered decision. I completely agree that just listening to me is not enough to make that decision, but I want… I don't want this project to just move forward automatically without having that discussion. So that was the point of this motion.

[168:16] Okay. I'm going to, go to the vote. Mason. Yes. Laura. Yes. Claudia. No. Kurt. Yes. George? Nope. And I'm a no. Okay. Thank you, thank you for considering, I appreciate that. And I'm glad to get the facts into the record, and I do hope that City Council has that discussion, and that perhaps if there are folks in transportation who are not aware of what I was saying, that you take it to heart. And investigate it. See if what I'm saying is true. And then I do… the last motion I want to make is the same motion that we have approved for the last two years, which is… let me send it to Thomas.

[169:15] It's worded a little bit differently to be slightly more clear than in previous iterations, but it's the same basic motion. And this is the idea of, Not investing further in the airport. Other than for public safety, public and airport safety, while the city's litigation process remains unconcluded. So, I move that for all CIP items associated with BDU that can be delayed without compromising airport safety or public safety, Planning Board recommends that staff delay implementation until the City's litigation against the FAA has concluded. and City Council or Boulder voters have provided direction on the future of the airport site. This recommendation includes continuing to pause on pursuing or accepting FAA or CDOT grants for the airport that come with grant obligations that would require the City of Boulder to operate the airport past the year of 2040, which is when our current obligations

[170:13] potentially expire. And we have… we approved this last year, 6-0, and I think the year prior to that, 4-2. Okay, thank you for that. Do we have a second? In the name of moving on, I'm going to second it, and hope that since we have approved it in prior years, it will, be noted, and, we can… We can, debate it quickly or simply vote. Is there additional comment? Mason. Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kurt? Yes. George.

[171:00] No. And I'm a yes. Okay. any other… Feedback, Comment or motion, or we're gonna close this item out and let these folks go home. I have one thing. Laura raised a question about the pavement Management Program, and I just want to raise that up as an example of, I think, how we do a really good job of not just doing maintenance, but also thinking about the future. Historically, the pavement Management Program just Repaved everything the way it was, and… didn't think about really how it could change to better meet our transportation goals, our Vision Zero goals, our Boulder Valley Compland goals, and so on. And in recent years, that has changed, and there's been much more of a process of thinking about what can we do efficiently.

[172:00] to… To, to, to kind of… achieved two goals. I was gonna use a, a metaphor with birds, but that's not politically correct. So, achieve two goals, with one piece of… one dollar, or something. And… So I, I just, I want to make sure that people are aware that we're… we're doing a really great job with that, with the PMP, I feel like, and kudos to… transportation, for their work on that, and I hope that we can do that in other areas where we're spending money on maintenance anyhow, and we can think about How do we not just replace what is there, sort of, without thinking about it, but actually put in the time to think about how do we also move ourselves forward, achieve some of our other goals, since we're putting a significant amount of money into this already?

[173:00] Great, thank you, Kirk. Okay, I am going to close, agenda Item 5A, which was the CIP, and with great thanks to staff for, staying with us late, and we're going to move on to our next agenda item. Okay, so… We move on. to, Our second public hearing, Agenda Item 5B, Concept Plan Review and Comment for 5469 and 5515 South Boulder Road to develop 35 residential homes on a combined 2.8-acre site. Dwelling units will contain a mix of duplex, triplex, and townhouses. A height modification will be requested due to site grading associated with drainage and floodplain. Reviewed under case number LUR2025-000.

[174:03] 5-7. Okay, this is a public hearing item, so we're going to have a presentation from staff, the applicant. Followed by, clarifying questions. And, then a public hearing… And followed by our deliberation. We will not… this is, this is not… an item that we make motions about, we simply provide feedback. And so, And again, I would encourage questions when it comes to the, clarifying questions. Questions… That might affect our, our discussion about the project versus strictly curiosity. So, I'm going to turn it over to staff to give us a presentation.

[175:02] I'm just getting set up one moment. Okay. While we're waiting, Kurt, I think the phrase you were looking for was, feed two birds with one worm. We use that a lot around here. That is totally the phrase. So, so, as the resident vegan, I will say, we say, cut two carrots with one knife. I like that. Cut 4 carrots. Okay, and Allison is giving us the presentation. I didn't say your name. Thank you, Allison. All right, thank you for the introduction. Good evening, my name is Allison Blaine, and I am the case manager presenting this next item.

[176:00] In this presentation, I'll briefly cover the information that was provided in staff's memo, including the purpose and process of a concept plan, the project proposal and background, and some key issues for discussion. The purpose of concept plan is to review a general development plan for a specific site and help identify key issues in advance of any site review submittal. The applicant will receive comments from the board, staff, and the public, and just as a reminder, no formal action will be taken tonight. The applicant completed the necessary public notice requirements per the code. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet, and signs were placed on the property as well. Staff did receive comments from several neighbors, and those were included in the planning board packet. The subject site is comprised of two parcels, generally known as 5469 and 5515 South Boulder Road. The site totals 2.8 acres and is located along South Boulder Road between Manhattan Drive and 55th Street.

[177:02] The eastern parcel at 5515 contains a detached dwelling unit and is currently under county jurisdiction and is proposed to be annexed for future redevelopment, while the western parcel at 5469 also contains a detached dwelling unit and was annexed into the city in 2019. The associated annexation agreement at that time established redevelopment requirements, including limitations on dwelling unit size, minimum percentage of permanently affordable units, site access requirements, and necessary flood control easements. Established low-density residential neighborhoods are located to the north, to the northeast, and to the northwest. The site is immediately adjacent to the South Boulder Bible Church, to the east, and across the street from OSMB property. West of Manhattan Drive includes medium-density residential, commercial uses, and the Table Mesa Park and Ride further west. The site is located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains, which will require additional floodplain permitting and hydraulic modeling. Any development in the floodplain will need to demonstrate compliance with both FEMA and city code requirements. As a reminder, an in-depth engineering and drainage analysis will be conducted at time of a future site review submittal.

[178:11] The land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential, or LR. The uses consist predominantly of detached dwelling units, with an anticipated density of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. As part of this application, the applicant is proposing a land use designation of medium density residential, or MR. Uses consist of a variety of housing types, including detached dwelling units and multiplexes, with an anticipated density of 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre. The property at 5469 South Border Road is zoned RL2 and surrounded by RL2 to the north. RL1 and RM to the west, BT1 and public zoning to the south. The application will request RMX2 zoning, and intensity standards for the zone are based on a density limitation of up to 10 dwellings per acre, with an additional 10 through site review.

[179:02] The provision of a minimum of 15% of usable open space, with an additional requirement of 60 square feet, of private open space per dwelling unit, and the application of height and setback standards. The maximum height for the RMX2 zone by right is 35 feet. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the two existing parcels to create one buildable lot for 35 new dwelling units, including townhouses, duplexes, and triplexes, with a mix of market rate and permanently affordable homes. The homes will be clustered around shared green spaces and along South Boulder Road, and the applicant has indicated that a height modification will be necessary for the 2- to 3-story buildings due to grading associated with drainage and floodplain requirements. The buildings are a contemporary style, with additional massing provided in the form of gable elements, shed roofs, and flat roof parapet features. Internal site circulation is through private and public streets and walking paths. The plans indicate two access points, one for emergency vehicles and a three-quarter access point on the eastern side of the site.

[180:04] As part of the project proposal, the applicant is also proposing the following amendments to the annexation agreement from 2019. The first one is modification of the flood control and ditch easement from 50 feet to 30 feet wide. The second is to allow two access points on South Boulder Road, where originally one was allowed for right-in and right-out. A minimum 30% of the units to be middle-income affordable, where 50% was originally required. And then an increase to the maximum size of the market rate dwelling units, which was originally up to 2,200 square feet, and they're proposing up to 3,300 square feet. The proposal will require several other additional processes, which are detailed here on the slides. I'll go through these quickly. A change to the BBCP land use map from LR to MR, the final deciding authority is Planning Board and City Council. Annexation and initial zoning for 5515 South Boulder Road. City Council will be the final deciding authority with Planning Board recommendation.

[181:05] Annexation Agreement Amendment 45469 to amend the existing annexation agreement as described. City Council is the final deciding authority with Planning Board recommendation. Rezoning for 5469 to rezone from RL2 to RMX2. City Council is the final deciding authority with Planning Board recommendation, and then a site review for the requested height modification Final deciding authority is Planning Board and subject to City Council call-up. Staff has identified four key issues for discussion tonight, and I'll detail these in the following slides. Key issue one, does Planning Board support a land use map change and rezoning of the site? Staff finds that the proposed land use map change from LR to a higher intensity land use designation would be supportable. The site is along a major arterial street and is in close proximity to high-density residential, hotels, and commercial land uses, and the site is also near transit.

[182:04] While the applicant is proposing MR in their application, staff finds that the MXR, or mixed density residential designation, would be most appropriate for the RMX2 zone. The MXR designation was created in conjunction with the RMX2 zoning district, and has an anticipated density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Further, the goal of MXR is to provide a substantial amount of affordable housing in mixed-density neighborhoods for new development. Key Issue 2, does Planning Board support the proposed annexation agreement amendment? Overall, staff conceptually supports the proposed amendments to site access, number of permanently affordable units, and maximum unit size. However, staff does not support the proposed reduction in the flood control easement due to its importance for capital flood improvements associated with South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Phase 2. I'm sorry, baby. Next slide.

[183:11] Sure. Key Issue 3 is the proposal consistent with policies of the BBCP. Staff finds that overall, the proposed use and design for the site aligns with key BVC policies by providing a mixture of housing types with permanently affordable units in a compact development pattern. Key Issue 4. Does Planning Board have feedback to the applicant on the conceptual site plan and building design? Staff is generally supportive of the layout and programming of the site. The preliminary building design with a variety of pitched roof forms and heights and the orientation around the pocket park is consistent with site review criteria. Staff did note some aspects of the design at this conceptual stage that should be reviewed more closely prior to site review, including open space, looking at programmatic elements, and also in delineating how the private open space will be separate from communal areas.

[184:03] Defined entries, the development does propose buildings that back up to the public realm, with front-loading garages without a clear, defined front doors. Public street, more information should be provided on the design decision for the public street running through the site, making sure it aligns with DCS requirements and relevant site review criteria. More information on building materials and analysis on consistency with the height modification criteria, and then just given the site's adjacency to lower intensity and rural uses to the east, the applicant will need to demonstrate consistency with applicable site review criteria. As far as next step, following the concept review hearing, City Council will have the opportunity to call up the item if they'd like to provide additional feedback. The applicant will then proceed with submitting development review applications, or they may submit a second concept review. As proposed, the site review application will require a decision by planning boards, subject to call-up by City Council due to the proposed height modification.

[185:03] And I will open it up for questions. Thank you. Great, thank you, Allison. Okay, clarifying questions? Kurt, you're ready? Thank you, Allison, for that presentation. The first question is… do you… Staff supports the change to 30%. middle income… affordable, And do you find that that is feasible? Because we've run into this before. Yeah, staff does support that change, and also, Sloan Wahlbert is on the call for… there's more detailed questions on some of the housing requirements. Okay, so, hi, Sloan. The question really is just, have you done the analysis to determine that that is, that is economically feasible, and that the developer is not going to be coming back to us to try to modify that in the future? I mean, you can't promise anything, obviously, but at this point, it seems reasonable.

[186:11] Yeah, so… I can't say that it will be feasible or infeasible. We don't have access to their pro forma analysis. I think that'd be a really great question for the applicant to address. I can say that it's in line with other recent annexations, and the same developer is doing the Peacock Place development in the area, so I think they have, You know, some experience in knowing how to meet those requirements. Yeah, okay, great, and it looks like Brad is coming up. Yeah, can I interject? Sloan, keep me on… this is Brad Mueller, Planning Director. Keep me honest, was this also, related to a study that HHS did recently about, kind of, the… the reasonable market point for these kind of requests, or am I conflating issues?

[187:04] No, you are. It's related. We did have a consultant do a study that looked at the 25% inclusionary housing requirement. And the findings of that study were that it's very difficult to meet the 25% requirement. So you can, you know, sort of extrapolate a little bit from that. So it's related, but we… We haven't looked specifically at annexations and what the actual feasibility or invisibility is, and we're hoping to do that within the next year, so that we have better policies to sort of guide us. For the time being, we just sort of have to look at each annexation on a one-by-one basis. Okay, thanks. Thanks for providing that additional context. Can I colloquy on that? In the original, there was a prior annexation agreement.

[188:02] So… in the… What was the total number of units and the total number of affordable units in the prior annexation agreement? And what is the total number of affordable units being proposed for this Annexation agreement modification. units, are we gaining units, or is it about the same? So, what is different is when the first property annexed, they were not going through a site review. It was a family that had lost their parents and needed to annex the property. So their hope was that a, you know, a real estate investor, a developer, whoever could come in and develop the property. So, we don't know how many units would have been developed, but their affordable housing requirements were 50% affordable, and also to pay cash in lieu, a percentage of the cash in lieu, on each market unit, and…

[189:02] Through conversations with the family and, you know, interested parties in the years since, we've heard that that is completely infeasible. So… Okay. I can't really answer that, but I can tell you that This proposal at 30%, you'd still be getting a fair number of affordable units on-site. Right. Okay. Thank you, Kurt, go back to it if you need to. Okay, yeah, I have a couple more questions. The next question is about the proposed emergency access. Can you explain, or do we have transportation available to explain why they don't want the emergency access? We don't have anyone on the call, but I believe it was due to its location along South Boulder Road, since it's a major arterial, and it was not something that was previously discussed with our, fire chief or transportation.

[190:09] And last question that I have for staff is… You said that you do not support reducing the size of the flood control easement? I think from 50 feet to 30 feet. Can you talk about… Like, would it make some… the city project completely impossible, or… What… what is the rationale there? That was the analysis from our Public Works Department. I think at this stage it wasn't discussed in too much detail, but once they move forward with the site review, we'd be able to look at that more closely. But from a concept, it was not supported. Allison, could we see where that, that, Is on the site plan, the flood control ditch that we're talking about. Yeah, I'll have to pull up the plans, I might.

[191:02] Go back to another question while I pull those up. Okay, while she works on that, does anyone have a different question? Okay, may send a couple. So, if I'm reading this correctly, each of these units has 2 car parking garages, and there's 19 additional… On-street spaces for guest parking, is that correct? I believe that is correct, and I think the applicant can also, provide more information on the parking. Which… Of these units are the proposed 3,300 square feet, or the ones that require the increase from 2,200? I guess I should say. I don't know if those were identified on the plans that were provided, but I think the applicant can provide more information. Okay. The west edge. That's all my questions right now. Okay, And I did get… I have the mapping up one moment, I'll share my screen. Okay.

[192:18] So it's this kind of pink or red dashed… Boundary shown here. And that is at 50 feet. Correct. Okay, thank you. And then the site plan in the packet, figure 5, the concept plan, Is that shown with That, drainage, feature or flood feature being at 50 or 30? It's not shown on the site plan that was provided, I'm imagining it was designed around a 30-foot width. Okay.

[193:05] Additional questions? Claudia? Yeah, I have some more about the… affordable housing, and RMX2 zoning. Is the applicant proposing to max out the number of allowed units under RMX2 zoning? I would have to go back and look, but they would… Be requesting at least an additional 8 dwelling units, based on the lot size and what's allowed. Per the code. So since it's… Okay, yeah, I'd be… I'd be curious… Where they are in terms of the, you know, 10 to 20… Yeah, it wouldn't be maxed out. I think it would be just… I think they can have up to 35, or… Yeah, I'd have to double-check the math, but they are not maxing it out, from my understanding. Okay, so they're not using the full housing capacity if they did the full affordable housing. Correct. …allowed under RMX2, okay.

[194:03] I was wondering if you could talk a bit more, or maybe Sloan could talk a bit more about the… Whoa. Huh. Okay, that's… Interesting. It looks like it's, Impossible. Not sure if you guys can hear us online, but we have a power outage. Yeah, we can hear you just fine. That's so strange that you have a power outage, but we can still hear you. And see you, we can see you on camera. Yeah, you're just… I don't know. Dark and spooky. Yeah. It is raining pretty hard at my house, so I guess I'm not surprised.

[197:44] Sales.

[198:05] The lights will go on?

[201:06] It's so interesting that your video is still working.

[203:16] George, are you there? I am. Okay. So, George, the proposal, in front of us, we're gonna do a quick straw poll, is we would continue This meeting, and this particular public hearing item, 2… The 30th. which we already have a, a meeting scheduled for the 30th of September, and we would start that meeting at 4.30, because the regular meeting agenda is already quite full. So, we would continue this item, and then carry on starting at 4.30. go to the regular meeting at 6. And would it also be the Greywater item? Brad, could we plan on dealing with that, yeah, and I might actually recommend…

[204:13] If at all possible, maybe Answer any questions via email on that one? I, I… Cleo. Well, okay. I don't think it's a matter of… I don't think it's a matter of questions. I think it's a matter of, this Board Advising Council with our thoughts on that particular item.

[205:39] Did we lose you? It looks… Mike… We… Just…

[207:21] Oh, Thomas, are you there? Would this be the first issue addressed? Influencers? Yes, yes, yes. Okay, thank you. Not assigned that mark. Okay. any other discussion? Okay. Mason? Yes. Laura? Yes, Laura? Yes. Kurt? Yes. And, and George? I can hear you, I can't see you, but yes. George can hear us on my laptop, I just recently Oh, yes.

[208:05] Okay. So he's not coming back. This, He just came back, he just, he just, he said he just came back on? I… I've rejoined this on my laptop on, a hotspot, so… Well, yeah, we can chat right now, too. I mean, that's my whole goal. Well, I mean… He says, no. Regardless, we still have a quorum. out towards the Hall of Vietnam. What's the shipping context?

[209:03] Perhaps involved in the world. this meeting for the…