May 12, 2025 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:09] You could take it away. Trini. Hi! I'm trying to get back to my screen. I was just reading a bunch of notes here. So Hello, everybody! Welcome to our May edition of the Transportation Advisory Board Meeting. We have Michael and Ernan here with us. Let's see. Hold on. I'm trying to get back to the agenda. The technical rules. I think those are yours right, Valerie. Yeah, I'll I'll share those. Let me share my screen quick. Okay, so thank you for attending the Transportation Advisory Board meeting to strike a balance between meaningful, transparent engagement and online security. The following rules will be applied for this meeting. This meeting has been called to conduct the business of the city of Boulder. Activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited.

[1:13] The time for speaking or asking questions will be limited to 3 min no person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding, and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted. And if you're joining by phone. You can press Star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. Each person shall register to speak at the meeting, using that person's real name. Any person believed to be using a name other than the one they are commonly known by, will not be permitted to speak at the meeting. No video will be permitted except for city officials, employees, and invited speakers. All others will participate by voice. Only. The person presiding at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rule. The Q. And a function is enabled, and it will be used for individuals to communicate with the host. It should only be used for technical platform related questions. Only. The host and individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screen. During this meeting.

[2:13] Sorry. Thank you so much, Valerie. I guess the next item in the agenda is the approval of the minutes for April. Guys, I think, did everybody get a chance to look over them? Michael Ornan. Yes. Move to approve those minutes. And I second that everybody's favorite. I think Hi and I can't see Ernan. I don't know why. Type. Oh, there you are! Meredith, are you raising your hand. You're muted there, you.

[3:00] There we go. So sorry. Trinity, could I ask for an amendment within the March minute? I'm April minutes to amend the March minutes to identify a second for the nomination for chair and vice chair. We didn't obtain that last month. Now we're just getting used to this. We're newbies here. So. No worries. So, Michael Ernan, would you guys like to second. I second that motion. For both for Darcy and for me. It sounds like it was just for the co-chair, right. No, for both of us, I think. That's a joint motion. Okay? Yeah. Motion a motion for each position. Yeah, I would. Second. Oh, thank you!

[4:01] And we're. So what? Student. I'm sorry. Oh, no! Sorry what's going on like? I thought we like the chair and vice chair. Yeah, the problem was that we didn't do the like the protocol as written per written because it was like our my 1st meeting. And so I kind of messed up, and so I don't think we had a second when we did, the nominations or the appointments for the chair and the vice chair. and so. Oh, okay. Okay. We're going back amending problems. From that day. Okay. But it sounds like Michael's gonna be the second. So. And I did go back and watch the video, Meredith. So I'll just write something to you in regards to the approval of the minutes for march. Okay, perfect. So now, moving forward. And that's it right, Meredith, as far as that. Correct, that satisfies the parliamentary procedure.

[5:03] Perfect. Alright, so moving on. We have public comments. I can't really see people, I don't know why. so if anybody can help me out and see if anybody has a raised hand. Yeah, Hi, Trini, it's Sydney. We have. David Martis has his hand has their hand up. David, I'm going to give you permission to talk, and if you can introduce yourself, and then I'll start your 3 min. Hi, David, you're still on mute. Okay. Better. Yes. All right. My name is David Martis. I've been living in Boulder about 40 years. I've run for Tab. I haven't run in a couple years, but I was a perennial runner up. So thank you all for your

[6:00] service, and I just had a couple of things that I'd love to see, and maybe it is a priority, or or stepped up on a transportation omnivore. Would love to see enhanced sweeping of the bike lanes, and whether it can just be a higher priority and or something on like 19th northbound, where there's cars to the right if we could. There's driveways for all those folks. Maybe it's like a you know. No parking on the 3rd Thursday of the month. and it can get cleared better. That would be awesome. Do you guys have sort of domain over Multi-use Pass? Or is that a different board. So, David? During public comment, you have 3 min to speak. And then the tab chair will decide if they will address your your questions after your time.

[7:03] Sure. Okay? And then I guess the other one was in the priority of streets that get repaved, I think, would be awesome to put a much lower focus on. you know, tertiary secondary streets. And until we have sort of main arterials, especially where there's bike lanes like, think of like 9th between downtown and Baseline going, you know, especially where you're going downhill like doing baseline from Chautauqua down to Broadway was great, because where it's higher speed and much greater risk. 9.th Going towards downtown is is pretty rough shape, so I'll not take up any more time. I just those are things I think about a lot on my bike to improve safety. Thank you. Thank you so much, David, and I think, Valerie, I don't know if you'd like to address those 2 things. I mean, as far as the multi use paths. I think we are

[8:01] the people to talk with. And and yeah, I don't know, Valerie, would you address that? Because that's more, you're joking. Yeah, sure, this is Valerie Watson. Interim director, transportation and mobility. Thank you so much. David, for for coming tonight and sharing your feedback. The the street sweeping you know, request or things that we can pass along to our team to take a look at those specific locations that you identified. I think you mentioned 9th Street on the hill, and then also 19th but we have a recording of the meeting. We can go back. And and really, pick up the the comments that you made tonight. And multi-use paths are also mostly maintained by our department, but some are maintained by other departments at the city or the county depending on the location. So we're happy to go back and take a look at the locations you identified.

[9:00] And Valerie. I think he was referring to repaving not sweeping for 9th specific. Okay, yeah. Repaving the pavement quality there on nights. That is again, something that we can talk with our maintenance division staff and those that work on our pavement management program. Awesome? Is anybody else. I don't see any other raised hands. Wow, okay, well, let's move forward. So I I think we have a presentation that we're all very anxious to see and very excited about. Oh. So the the 1st item tonight is our public hearing and tag recommendation on our access management and parking strategy or amps item. And so I'd love to invite Staff to to join and begin their presentation. And I'll just say a couple words. You know, this is a series of presentations that you've

[10:01] heard it tab. And really another touch point that Staff are bringing before they take ordinance changes before council later this spring, so I'd love to hand it over to the team. Thanks, Valerie. Good evening, Tab. It's nice to see you all again. My name is Lisa Hood. I am a principal planner with our Planning and Development Services Department. I'm joined tonight by Chris Haglund from transportation and mobility, and Sam Bromberg from community vitality. And we're excited to bring this work forward for the access management and parking strategy or amps project. The purpose of this presentation is, and your discussion tonight is for you all to make a recommendation to city council on 2 ordinances, ordinances, 8,786, 96. You I know there's a few new tab members. So some of you may not have seen this background. So I'm still gonna go through the background, even though those who have been on tab have seen this a few times, but I'll try to truncate it a bit. But essentially the the amps project is

[11:14] barking dog the amps project is a 1 sec. The good thing is is, I don't know about you all, but I can't hear the barking dog. So so, Lisa, the pressures off. Your your audio system is is not. I'm thinking. up the barking dog, so we'll kill some time here for you to return. We can't hear your dog, Lisa, so it's all good. Oh, my gosh! My house is being renovated, so there's no furniture in here. I thought it was like the loudest ever. Okay, I'm sorry he's been thrown downstairs nicely. Alright. So the amps project is a three-legged stool. We have the off street parking the on street parking, and the transportation demand management or Tdm, and so they have separate ordinances for each of the topics and also separate effective dates.

[12:18] So what you're seeing tonight is the focus on the parking changes, and I'll talk a bit more about that. But there's an another ordinance forthcoming in the fall that will be focused specifically on Tdm, and we've talked about all 3 of these topics together. Analyze them all together. Just kind of the logistics of how the ordinances will come forward is how you correct. So I won't go into too much detail on this, but just some background that the Amps project has actually been going on for 11 years. And so we've been working on parking and Tdm updates. Throughout that time. We've had multiple phases of the project. There was kind of a long pause during Covid before we brought it back.

[13:03] In the last couple years to work on, and we are working towards a completion for the parking side, the off street parking and on street parking by the end of June. And then, like I said, the Tdm. Ordinance will follow shortly afterwards the scope of the project is, I intended to implement the final outstanding recommendations from the Amps report that was adopted by City Council in 2017. Those 2 implementation items were updating our off street parking standards and creating this new Tdm plan ordinance for new developments. As we started working rework or restarting the work on phase 3 of the project. We also had a new item come into play, which was the State Bill that you may have heard of House Bill 2413, 0, 4. That was passed by the Colorado State Legislature related to minimum parking requirements, and once that came into the picture, we wanted to make sure we were also incorporating on street parking management strategies to make sure that we're really looking at it holistically, looking at all aspects of parking and potentially and mitigating potential impacts of the State Bill.

[14:13] As far as applicability. Like any new ordinance, the ordinance applies only to new developments and redevelopment, and it would not require compliance with new, or it would not retroactively require compliance with new standards. So it's just when there's new building permits or things for new development or redevelopment that that would come into play. The project has been through a very much a team effort between 3 different departments with the 3 different topics. So I'm going to present the information about off street parking standards, and then Chris and Sam will present the other parts of the project. The trifecta. I just a bit of background. So off street parking requirements have been in boulder zoning code since 1954. It's a very common feature of zoning codes after World War 2. It's also had a very significant influence on urban form and development in cities across our country. If you're not familiar, they're usually based on number of spaces per square foot. It's a usually a ratio, and almost every city does it. Similarly.

[15:24] in boulder we allow parking reduction. So you can reduce that requirement. And in the last 10 years or so we've seen almost half of our major development projects have requested a reduction parking reform has also become a very hot topic in zoning. In the last decade or so. The 1st major city to eliminate minimum parking requirements was Buffalo, New York, back in 2017. Since then 78 other cities in the United States have eliminated minimum parking requirements and States have even been taking note with 22 States introducing legislation and 10 that have passed legislation.

[16:02] One of those States, as I alluded to earlier, was Colorado last year. So this House Bill prohibits jurisdictions like Boulder from having minimum parking requirements for properties that are at least partially within a transit service area. It doesn't apply to all land uses, but it does apply to multifamily residential development and adaptive reuse. We mapped out where the transit service area is in boulder for the bill, and we estimate that 77% of city parcels are in the Transit service area. You'll remember that we talked about this at previous tab meetings and asked for feedback from tab and planning board and city council about whether we should move forward with considering eliminating minimum parking requirements citywide for all land uses rather than limiting it to multifamily. And this transit service area, we did hear support for those. And so that's what's reflected in the the ordinance before you tonight. as far as timing. Part of the reason that you're seeing the 2 ordinances 1st related to parking 1st is that compliance with this aspect of the State Bill is required by the end of June. And so there is a timeline related to this, and after June 30th jurisdictions across Colorado that have this bill apply to them, cannot enact or enforce minimum parking requirements for those types of uses in the Transit service area.

[17:25] We've talked about this before, but there's a lot of alignment with the transportation master plan and the studies that the bill ties or uses as rationale for these changes, which is that local minimum parking requirements increase vehicle. Miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions as well as increasing development and housing costs. We've talked about this at detail in detail as well, so I won't go too far into this. But we've also over the last 10 years been doing parking supply and utilization data collection. So we've looked at how much parking there is, and how much parking is being used throughout the city for a variety of land uses.

[18:06] and the the kind of main conclusion is that across all land uses there is more parking provided than is actually being utilized. It differentiates based on land uses, but overall, on average, all of them have more parking than it's being used. Another interesting factor that we, our conclusion that we found is, remember, I talked about that there's a parking reduction option that many large development projects will use where they reduce their minimum parking requirement. But we found when we counted the utilization is even those properties that had very significant parking reductions still were not utilizing all of the parking that they had available. So that's kind of the background. There's a very long ordinance attached to your memo, but I will just summarize the main features of that ordinance in 8,696. So the 1st I already mentioned the ordinance eliminates minimum off street parking requirements citywide for all land uses

[19:07] so expanding beyond just what the State Bill requires, and applying that to all uses citywide. Then there's a number of accompanying code updates. That's what makes it so long is removing all of the references to required parking, parking, reductions, all of the different processes and required parking has been intricately entwined in our zoning code for 70 years. So there's lots of just deletions that are in that ordinance related to shared parking. We've talked about that at previous meetings as well, wanting to support shared parking so that parking can be used efficiently. We've differentiated in the ordinance shared accessory parking from principal parking facilities. So those are, for instance, like a church that uses the parking only on Sunday mornings. But then they have parking lot and parking spaces available for other uses. So allowing that kind of sharing to efficiently use space and differentiate that from like a just pure parking garage.

[20:05] we've also talked a lot about ev charging in past meetings. One of the updates in the ordinance is an update actually, not to the land use code, which all the other changes are. But instead, to our energy conservation code, there were some references to required parking there, so the changes just ensure that the number of ev spaces is based on whatever is provided on the site rather than what's required and then related to bike parking standards. Generally it updates standards to improve security and usability. I think this topic is going to be an important one to you. Also, I wanted to dive a little more into detail on the different parking bike parking standards that we've incorporated into the ordinance. So one of those is where over 20 spaces bike parking spaces are required. 5% per the ordinance would be required to be 10 feet by 3 feet, and that would allow for larger bikes like cargo bikes to have adequate space to park.

[21:01] We've also included in the ordinance a limit to vertical or tiered racks, to a maximum of 50% of the required spaces for the bike parking, and then also the ordinance states that those have to have a mechanically assisted lifting mechanism. So the bottom left picture is actually from a an apartment building in Denver. This is not what we want to see. This is vertical, entirely vertical racks that have no lifting mechanisms. But just to give you an idea of what we're talking about. And then on the right are the tiered racks that we've seen as well. Those do have the lifting mechanism, but those would be also limited to just 50% of the required parking spaces as far as E-bike charging. We talked about previously about the importance of ensuring that there is adequate charging availability. And so there's a requirement that where we have kind of large, long term bike parking facilities, we would have at least 5% of the spaces would be within proximity to charge essentially.

[22:09] And then there's a big, a big, increased emphasis on security throughout the the ordinance. So, including language about tamper resistant anchors, heavy duty locks, just general transparency, surveillance and illumination standards, and really trying to incorporate crime prevention through environmental design or subted principles as well as improved wayfinding for bike parking. So whether that's adding signs. So to make sure that people can actually find the bike parking, or how you actually access the bike parking area. So the ordinance does not allow designs that would require stairs to access a bike parking area. And that's just there's some more detail on the bike parking standards. But that's a pretty good summary of the ones that we've included, based on feedback from tab and planning board, as well as several stakeholders and the public.

[23:04] I'm going to pass it off to Sam to go into our next topic, which is on street parking management strategies. Thanks, Lisa, and good evening, Board members. Nice to meet you. My name is Samantha Bromberg. I'm a senior project manager with community vitality, and I focus on access and parking related projects. I'm going to be talking about the on-street parking management strategies tonight to help manage on-street parking as the city grows, and as transportation habits change. Boulder is looking to update our neighborhood permit parking or Npp program. The idea is to make the Npp available in all neighborhoods, not just the low density ones. And to introduce new tools into the program as well, the updates will hopefully help us better handle any potential parking impacts from new and redevelopment projects. Next slide, please. Alright. So a couple of the changes that we're proposing tonight are to

[24:05] permits. So the 1st change is reducing permits from 2 to one per license drivers. We did survey our permit holders, and we found that most households have as many vehicles as licensed drivers, and that this change could potentially reduce permit issuance by about 15%, but keeps it fairly equitable as well to make sure that everyone has access to it. We're hoping this change will encourage courage, use of off street parking, and reduce excess vehicles on public streets for households with more vehicles than off street parking, and with more than one per license drivers. We we do. We are planning to introduce a flex permit which I'll get to a little bit later. we're also recommending that the city manager have the ability to cap permits per zone subject to the public process of zone creation. So in a very high density area we would be able to cap the amount of permits to ensure. We're not issuing more permits than there are available parking spaces, and we're reserving some for other uses

[25:13] we have also heard. Oh, sorry. Can you go back? Thanks. We've also heard from the community that current guest and visitor system permit system is confusing and not widely utilized. A lot of folks aren't sure how the 2 types of permits are different, or when to use them. We found in our survey that 89% of people use guest permits only a few times a month or less half never use them at all. So a lot of them just weren't being utilized very well, and we wanted to simplify things. Guests and visitors very confusing. Just the names themselves are confusing. And so we're hoping that the introduction of day passes and flex permits will be a little bit more intuitive, but will also, you know, start to rein in the the amount of permits that we issue. And so the day passes. We're proposing 25 per household per year, good for 24 h each.

[26:13] and so those should really replace most of the usage of both guest and visitor permits. They could be used back to back. They could be used, spread out throughout the year. It should cover most residents needs so that they don't need. You know, the flex permit. But those who have, you know, more intense needs. We'll have that flex permit available, and that's going to be a year long permit. That's good for long-term guests, extra household vehicles, frequent visitors like caregivers. But also. if if people have a second vehicle that they need to get a permit for. So we're hoping that these new introductions will keep the system fair and better matched to how people actually use their permits.

[27:04] Please. Next slide, please. Thanks. All right. The next piece is proposing a city led parking study for significant newer redevelopment projects when traffic assessments are needed, based on folder design and construction standards. This study will evaluate occupancy, trip generation and multimodal access, and the results will help us decide whether to create, modify, or remove an Npp zone. We didn't want to reinvent the wheel on this one. And so we're we're tying it to those bolder design and construction standards to keep things really simple and in alignment. Next slide, the next recommendation is to formalize the Boulder Valley School District's Park and walk program. This one is to support school access and reduce congestion. And so we are recommending that the city manager have authorization to designate certain blocks near schools as park and walk blocks essentially, and that would allow 2, 1 h parking sessions daily to accommodate for drop off and pickup events rather than the standard one longer session. So it's just a little bit of added flexibility for those parents.

[28:21] and the change will give the city permission to implement the program. And once that has been granted, we can work with the Bsd staff to determine our approach to implementation next slide all right. The 4th thing on my list is a pilot. This was specifically requested by City Council, and we have. We are proposing a pilot in the Goss Grove neighborhood permit parking zone, and we will be testing mobile pay only parking for non permit holders with free eco passes for residents. We selected Goss Grove, based on its high parking demand, transit, access and housing density.

[29:05] There was an analysis that was included in the packet. Hopefully you were able to take a look at it. Our goals for this pilot are to determine, if paid parking revenues will cover the cost of ecopasses for Npp residents, and also to assess how paid parking is going to affect curbside demand and behavior. In these, you know, primarily residential zones paid parking will use Park Mobile to implement it, and we'll be able to monitor it alongside transit usage. During the pilot. We're hoping to reduce vehicle reliance, improve curbside management and evaluate the sustainability of paid parking for Tdm benefits next slide. All right. Financial analysis. I know that several tab members have been asking for this, and so hopefully, this will meet the need. And we did conduct this analysis to ensure that the program will continue cost recovery with the changes that we are considering in the ordinance and city manager rules that were in the packet. And so some of the factors that we considered in this analysis were removing underperforming Npp zones that was recommended in the 2024 ramp report.

[30:25] restricting permit issuance. replacing guests and visitor permits with day passes and flex permits, introducing, paid, parking, and offering eco passes to Mpp residents. So all of those things were considered. What you're seeing in this table is just the changes without the paid parking and eco passes that was in the the longer memo, if you'd like to see them. But you can see that even with the changes that we're recommending, the program should maintain cost recovery. We also looked at what would happen if we were to roll out ecopasses across all of the Npp zones with paid parking. So if we have paid parking. Theoretically, the cost recovery will be maintained with the free eco passes, and could potentially even generate extra revenue for future Tdm benefits which we can look into without paid parking permit. Fees would need to double to maintain cost recovery with the ecopass program

[31:24] something that we don't believe there's a large appetite from for permit holders to do. And that's it for me, Lisa. All right. Next up we have Chris. All right. Thank you. Lisa and Sam Chris Haglund, principal project manager and transportation and mobility here to talk to you about our transportation demand management plan requirements for new developments. So this is a new ordinance that we're developing right now. Next slide, please. So just to kind of give you an idea of the overall approach.

[32:03] you know we have a current set of Tdm requirements. The purpose of this ordinance is really to provide clarity of those requirements and expectations and provide an enforcement mechanism. This ordinance would apply to all new developments. Initially, we looked at just having it applied to site review. But we felt that it should apply to all developments, and then the tier thresholds will will trigger. Whether or not they need to comply to this ordinance. The tiers also help focus the efforts of staff on our most impactful project and also manage additional staff resources. This type of program will require some additional staff resources over time. But we do want to manage how many of those are impacted overall the the approach to this ordinance makes use of financial guarantees to ensure that the

[33:02] ongoing annual funding is available for these Tdm programs. We know from many of our surveys over time that the most effective Tdm programs and services have annual costs that are ongoing. And so we want to provide a mechanism so that those programs are funded at these new developments. We're currently in the process of developing that ordinance and the city manager rules, and we're going to have those ready for Boards and Council consideration in August of September of this year. Next slide, please. So, as I mentioned, there is a tiered approach so essentially the size of the development will trigger whether or not they have to comply to the ordinance. So there's a effectively a tier 0 which does not have to comply to the ordinance, and then a tier one and a tier 2, the tier 2 being our largest ones. Again, this helps us focus on the most impactful projects and manage additional staff time and resources. We're all also looking at possible exemptions.

[34:14] You know the 1st one we're we're already changing the second one. the smallest projects tier 0 would be exempt. We also have current Tdm ordinances for several different land uses. Those that occur in Boulder Junction, and now are being used in other parts of the city, so that would be Mu. 4 Rh. 6 and Rh. 7. Zoning. Those would be exempt because they already have the Tdm ordinance. And then we're also looking at. How do we best place permanently affordable housing, and you know we do want to encourage more permanently affordable housing. But we also know that Tdm requirements would put extra costs onto those developments as well. So we are looking at kind of the nuances of how we treat affordable housing. But you can see that each of the tiers will have different types of requirements under this Tdm ordinance, and what they have to provide with the tier. 2, our largest ones

[35:10] having 2 different financial guarantees and required trip generation studies. So we can actually see the types of trips that are being generated by the site, the number of them, so that we can mitigate them. But they'll all require, approved Tdm. Plans that will be approved at the staff level and annual reports, so that we can have a continual process of evaluation to improve the program. Next slide, please. We have been looking at a number of different scenarios for the tiers, but we have landed on these tiers, basically looking at land uses and the size of which would be exempt, which would qualify as a tier one, and which would qualify as a tier 2. Where we have 3 different commercial land uses office, general, commercial, and industrial, and then residential, which is multifamily and the number of units that would place each development in the tier.

[36:10] One thing to note is, we certainly are looking at the need to split some of these commercial and add a couple more different land uses based on the characteristics of those, the employees, the square footage per employee. And so we may be adding some different land uses to this, so splitting it up. But the good news is that the thresholds that we're looking at they do. They would cover the majority of developments that come through planning and development services and the vast vast majority of the square footage that would be new to the city. But this also gives you the idea of the number of types of developments that would go through in any given average year next slide, please. So, as I mentioned, kind of one of the cornerstones of this new Tdm ordinance is the use of financial guarantees. As I mentioned, the most successful and effective Tdm programs have ongoing annual costs. So we're looking at the use of annual financial guarantees

[37:16] put in place by the property owner or the developer. And then those funds are used by the tenants of those developments, whether it's the employer tenants or a property manager managing a residential development. These would be required for both tier one and tier 2 and would be funding those annual programs based on a Tdm plan that is approved at the staff level. Once we have once we have tenants in those developments. The tier 2, the largest ones, also required to have a remedial financial guarantee. This is another pot of money that is used. If those developments are not meeting their vehicle trip generation targets. So you can use a portion of those remedial funds to augment the annual fund so that you can provide more programs and services to those tenants and hopefully get them on track

[38:08] meet those trip generation goals. The rates of these financial guarantees would be based on square footage as a proxy for the number of employees, or the number of residential units, and those financial guarantees would be set at a level to ensure that the types of Tdm programs with those ongoing costs would be paid for by that property owner and implemented by the tenants. Next slide, please for the Tdm program elements. We certainly are looking at a number of different package approaches for what would make up these Tdm plans. But we certainly would have required elements in certain contexts, some of those required elements I have shaded here. There are a wide range of different Tdm programs, but in certain contexts would require these

[39:04] things, like the eco passes, or if the ecopass or transit is not an appropriate benefit, a transportation wallet which adds more flexibility. Kind of like a parking cash out program. We could also look at property parking management strategies as being required. For example, in a residential development we may require neighborhood eco passes, but also the unbundling of parking. so that people who are car free are not essentially paying for a parking space. They are not being. They are not using next slide, please. We do understand that requiring an ongoing annual financial guarantee is a an extra cost burden to our developers and our property owners. But the reason why the Tdm ordinance is paired with these other 2 components of the Amps program, with the elimination of parking minimums, there is potentially significant cost savings. And we see this cost savings being able to be transitioned to these Tdm programs. And you can see here that the cost of building and maintaining parking has soared.

[40:18] Literally, we have development projects where a single underground parking space is costing about $100,000 to develop. So you can imagine a development that reduces 1020, 30, parking spaces. There is a tremendous amount of savings to the developer and the property owner which then can be used to fund these annual Tdm requirements. Next slide, please. Just to kind of give you an understanding of the flow. So let's say, a project comes into planning and development services. We would look at 1st the size determining what tier they are. So let's say they, they meet a tier, one development

[41:05] that would also determine what their annual financial guarantee would be, and we would design an initial Tdm plan based on that level of the annual financial guarantee and the type of land use it is that Tdm plan would be approved by staff. But you know, oftentimes there's many years between when a development plan is approved, and when it's actually built and then occupied by tenants. So once those tenants are in place, that's a time period where we would adjust that Tdm plan, knowing who the tenants are and make a plan that fits within the annual financial guarantee that is provided by the property owner. that development would be occupied that Tdm. Plan would be implemented, and they would have to do an annual report to confirm that the annual guarantee annual financial guarantee funds were used.

[42:01] and what they were used on. And then we can look at. Are there any remedial actions that we should do to adjust that plan to make it more effective. And again, the the purpose of these annual reports is also so that we can improve the process and the program over time, adjusting rates, adjusting thresholds, adjusting the requirements to make sure that it is actually mitigating the impacts of development, providing multimodal options and contributing to our goals. Next slide, please the for the larger developments, the tier 2, again, the size would determine the tier as well as the annual financial guarantee and the remedial financial guarantee. They would have the initial Tdm plan, design and approval. Once tenants occupy that development, that plan would be adjusted to make sure that it it's appropriate to the context, and then it would be implemented.

[43:00] The key difference in a tier 2 development is that they would be required to conduct by a 3rd party a vehicle trip generation study. Looking at the daily vehicle trips that are generated by that site, they would be given a target to hit based on the land, use the size and our desired reduction. and then we would have an annual report that would show that indeed the funds were spent. What the result of their vehicle trip. Generation study is if they're meeting the vehicle trip generation target, all is good. Continue on. But if they're not doing it, there's remedial actions, including the use of the remedial Financial Guarantee fund to boost that annual cost, their annual financial guarantee, so that additional programs and services can be provided to those tenants so that they could help meet that goal. And of course there will be ongoing, monitoring. If a tier 2 development is in compliance of their trip generation target for 3 years in a row. Then monitoring would switch to a 5 year cadence next slide, please.

[44:10] So just a little bit more on that monitoring process for those tier 2. Again, these are our largest developments. They have a trip generation target. They'll have that annual trip generation study and report again done by a 3rd party, but using a standard methodology developed by city staff. If in compliance, 3 years in a row, the annual monitoring ends and they switch to that 5 year cadence. But if they're out of compliance, then that portion of the remedial fund is used to augment the annual fund, and so that the Tdm plan can be improved. And then a New Year, New 3 Year cycle would start next slide, please. So in terms of next steps, what we're going to do is based on our public engagement that happened in March. We're going to do some further refinement of this Tdm ordinance. Looking at those land use designations, possible exemptions.

[45:03] Looking at what the best annual financial guarantee and remedial financial guarantees rates would be. The goal is really to provide clarity for developers and property owners of both the requirements and the expectations of the plan process. and also to have that compliance. And now the city would have a method to enforce those Tdm requirements which we really don't have right now. then, we're going to return in the fall. we have dates looking at in August and September for city council for them to consider our draft ordinance. Once that ordinance is passed and the focus will shift to developing all the internal procedures, those standard operating procedures for pnds, frontline staff for transportation, mobility, and for our financial team which holds and manages those financial guarantees.

[46:03] We'll also develop a property owner and developer toolkit. This will help them understand what the ordinance is, provide that clarity and then how to develop Tdm plans with the assistance of city staff and organizations like Boulder Chamber transportation connections. We'll also, of course, have to work on all the external facing Tdm ordinance programs so that people are well aware of what the what the program is, and the requirements are on those new developments. And then we'll be looking at implementing that ordinance in 2026 next slide, please. Oh, and that's it. Back to Lisa. Thank you, Chris. This is our summary slide. So, as you can see, it's 3 very complex topics that we've been studying altogether. Again tonight. We're just focused on the off street parking and on street parking ordinances. But, as you can see, there's a lot that's already been done on the Tdm. Ordinance. So you'll get more detail on that in a couple months when we see the full ordinance.

[47:03] But here's some just kind of summaries of the main points that Sam and I and Chris made, and then I have a suggested motion. or I have the key issues from the the memo. So 1st does Transportation Advisory Board recommend any modifications to either draft ordinance? 8,700. That's the on street parking, or Npp related one or 8,696, which is off street parking. And then, secondly, does the Transportation Advisory Board want to provide any additional guidance regarding that Tdm ordinance. As we've explained, it's currently under development, but it will complement the ordinances that were in your packet tonight. So those are the key issues. I also have the suggested motion. That's also in your memo, but I will stop sharing, and we are happy to take any questions. Well, thank you so much, Sam, Lisa and Chris, for this like extraordinary presentation. It's very, very thorough and very well put together, and I think it answers a lot of questions. I'll have some feedback at the end, but I would like to ask my tab members if they have any clarifying questions for you guys.

[48:17] and I see Michael has rest raised his hand so. Yeah, I do. Thank you. So with respect to the off street parking, and my understanding of these programs is that one of the principal challenges is enforcement. And I was. It wasn't clear to me how enforcement would happen or or how it would get triggered in a in a program like this, because, like one benefit of having like stickers and things are visible in a vehicle, is that you know, somebody walking down the street could pretty easily see whether or not that vehicle is permitted to be there. But, as I understand it, you'll be going to like digital digital permitting. And so I'm wondering if there's an opportunity for residents, for example, to type in a license plate number and see if this person is actually authorized to be parked in their area.

[49:15] Hi, Michael, I think that one's for me. I think that's an on street parking question. So yeah, thanks for the question. We actually have gone fully digital with our permits. As of last November. So you heard that correctly, there are no more physical parking permit tabs. It actually makes our enforcement a lot more efficient than it has been. because, instead of having to like, look around the vehicle and see where the hang tag might be, or like clear snow off the windshield. They can see the license plate easily and check whether or not that person has a valid permit in our enforcement back end software. So it actually is a much more efficient way of enforcing than the physical permits were. And so we're hoping to leverage some cost savings for the program there, which is, which is kind of a plus

[50:08] in terms of You know, residents being able to determine who is. who has a valid permit or not we don't have. I don't know if there's any technology right now that would lend itself to that. I mean, it's a it's a great suggestion. I can certainly take it to our company, but I don't. I don't know that it's advanced enough for something like that. I also know that license plate data is like personal identifying information. Pii. And so it's it. It would be like that would be something that we would need to clear with our attorneys. It would be. That would be a tricky thing. for us to implement so I don't know. I don't know what the logistics of something like that would be, or whether it would be feasible. But I can certainly take that. Take that point back with me.

[51:04] Yeah, I think, even if the system were not to identify, like, you know, the typical scenario, I imagine, is because I've seen this in my neighborhood. You've got a car, you know, consistently parked out in front of your house doesn't seem to be attached to any of the residents in the neighborhood. And so you're wondering. Is this the person who is just, you know, taking advantage of the proximity of my house to the nearest park, and ride, or whatever and and doing that in lieu of using the park and ride location and or you know that it's. you know, a situation where maybe somebody's got, you know, a few too many tenants in their home. And and you're wondering if you know if all of these folks you know, rather than as a resident running around, having to count, like, how many vehicles are attached to that property, whether there would be some mechanism, maybe not to tell me

[52:04] that this vehicle belongs to such and such person, right? Because then it would be pii but maybe to alert you of all, hey? There's a resident who has a question about whether or not this vehicle belongs and is, you know, is permitted to be persistently in their area. So I'm just wondering about enforcement mechanisms, because, you know, the residents are your kind of eyes on the ground. Yeah, you could run around with license plates, license plate readers and that kind of stuff. But it's a big city, and and you know, unless you had gobs and gobs of money and lots of folks driving around with license plate. Readers, my guess is that you'll still be fairly reliant upon residents to alert you to when somebody is playing fast and loose with the rules. Yeah, I appreciate that comment. And you know we do have mechanisms by which the public can you know. lodge a request with enforcement, either through inquire boulder or by phone, or by email, with our parking services staff so definitely encourage anybody on the call or listening. If you are noticing something, feel free to get in touch with us. We have the mechanism to easily tell whether or not someone is permitted or not. So that's definitely something we can do in terms of like what residents they belong to. That's that's quite challenging. I mean.

[53:29] we sent. We do have the ability to look individual vehicles up in the Dmv. But you know they're not always like registered to folks current address, especially with, you know. See you so I I wouldn't. We don't normally rely on that type of information just because it's not. It's it doesn't always paint the most accurate picture. But certainly we have the ability to tell if someone is permitted or not. And our Enforcement staff have amazing customer service skills. and I can't tell you how many times I've heard them just on the phone with folks, you know, talking it through. And so they're happy to do that. And yeah, appreciate your comments, Michael.

[54:11] Thank you so much, Sam. Anybody else, or Nan, do you have any questions. Yeah, I do. One, second, let me. So the 1st one was about bike parking. I guess this is. It was a more of a technical question. But like, how does parking get included in like maps apps like apple maps or Google maps like, I imagine. is it just they scan things? Or is there like an Api, or can somebody submit something? I'd be curious to see how that works. but I feel like that'll be the easiest way to find this parking. Just where do I? Park, you know, open the app and

[55:00] it would be cool if you will be able to tell you. I don't know if there's a question for you guys, really, and I'll just kinda It just came to me when when I was listening to you. And the second was, I never heard of these permits. You guys keep talking about like, could you elaborate on those like are they? For like, like, just for parking on the street long term like before this information like before this meeting, and the information that you send like I never heard of them like, what are they. Sam, I think both of those questions would be related to you. I think the 1st one is probably related to like how Park, mobile, alert, lets you know where their spaces want to try that one. Yeah, yeah, let me let me make sure I understand. Let me answer the second question, and then I want to make sure I understand the 1st question before I go back and answer that one in terms of the second question. Yeah, I'm I apologize. And non, you're you're new to Tab, and you have not heard all of these terms before, and I probably didn't do a very good job in my presentation of explaining.

[56:12] I don't have like. So I have, yeah. No, I feel like I feel like it's something I should have known. But I was like, Wait, what? Like. Yeah, if you don't, I feel like if you don't live in an Npp in Boulder, you're like, what is that thing? I don't. I don't understand what that is, so I don't know if you've ever. Maybe you've parked in one of these neighborhoods before. There's quite a few of them surrounding our downtown and see you campus, but they're neighborhoods that are primarily residential in nature that are experiencing some kind of. we would say, parking Spillover from an adjacent commercial area. So in the case of the neighborhoods near downtown, it's folks who are coming downtown, whether they're coming to shop or to dine to or to work all day. You know they're instead of paying to park downtown. They're they're parking in these surrounding neighborhoods, and that prevents residents from having access to their homes. It can create dangerous situations. If there's too many cars on the street it, you know, it can impact the sight lines for traffic. There's a lot of benefits to managing parking in those areas, and also to support the paid parking

[57:24] that we have in those commercial districts. And so a program that we have that we often utilize is called the Neighborhood permit parking program. Npp, so Npp is kind of the word that you'll hear all of the time. It's part of an umbrella program that we call residential access management, right ramp, residential access management program. And so the Mpp. It is trying to provide for all different users, and so for residents, they can purchase a permit, and that allows them to park for longer than the time limits. If you don't have a permit, then you're subject to time limits. And so that's encouraging turnover, so that we are providing parking for the people who are coming in for a short amount of time we want to be accommodating. We also sell permits for in commuters.

[58:14] in very limited numbers, and then, of course, we have residential, like guests and visitor permits which are now going to be hopefully flex permits, and day passes to accommodate the you know, the guests of the residents. And so this program exists so that we can encourage turnover of those on street parking spaces and accommodate for all different types of users in those areas. It's kind of a tricky needle to thread It's not like a is this like a zoning thing like like like like single family zoning. Or it's more like just certain neighborhoods near campus and commercial areas. Great question.

[59:00] Like a a special designation kind of deal. Yeah, no, that's a great question. So the way that zones are implemented are that the neighbors petition to be part of this program, they are requesting some kind of parking management, and we do go through a public process with Tab. So you might see that in future meetings we might be back here later this year with a public process for adding or removing a zone that happens all the time. We get these types of requests so and historically related to zoning. Historically, we only implemented these zones in like low density, residential neighborhoods. So that was one of the qualifiers. One of the things we're trying to do with this ordinance and with the city manager rule. Change is to make sure that this tool can apply to all neighborhoods regardless of density. So we want to make sure that the tool is effective. Everywhere in Boulder we know that things are changing in boulder landscape is changing, and if we are eliminating parking minimums. We want to make sure we have really effective tools in place.

[60:00] And. Make sure that, for example, you know, parking minimums doesn't. Not only does it not create impacts, potential impacts on the surrounding neighbor, but also that the Tdm. Tools that Chris Hagelin was talking about will be more effective because folks will be more encouraged to maybe take advantage of. You know their ecopass as opposed to you know, bringing purchasing like a single occupancy vehicle that they keep there because they know it's you know, they're gonna need to get a permit for it, and it's not just kind of free free parking. No, I'm sorry you did mention that you did mention like neighbor neighbors can apply, but I guess I didn't. I didn't get that far with all the context. I was like, I was a little confused. Okay, that makes sense. I think I'm good. Thank you. Did did you want to circle back to your 1st question, or is that is, was that sufficient. That was more of a general thought. I mean, if you have some feedback, sure. But I was like, you know, you can see when when you open Google Maps, you can see parking.

[61:06] I guess. Yeah, I use a park mobile app a lot as well. When I ride my bike. I just park it, whatever there's like, you know those little loop things but can you find specific parking through either park mobile or Google Maps, just for bikes, like, what what you guys were showing in photos. For bikes, specifically, Not that I know of. I actually didn't know that you could find it through Google or find vehicle parking through Google Maps, either. So. There's like a P and stuff. So I was like, Oh, I wonder if there's like a I don't know. Bp, or some I don't know. Anyway, that was just a random thought. It was like, I was curious. But anyway. Idea. I know Denver uses an app called spot hero. And that would. That helps you like find and reserve parking ahead of time. We don't have that in Boulder. But I love the idea of the spot, hero for bikes. I think that would be really cool, so we'll have to keep our ears out. Our ears.

[62:08] Welcome! And Sam. I I wonder if, like supporting what Ernan is saying, if there was a way to reach out to Park Mobile, and once. These, like designated park, like bike parking areas. are available. Then we can find them, you know, just as the zones you find for car parking. I'll certainly I'll certainly ask about that feature. I think it's great. Yeah, I think it's super cool. Well, thank you guys so much. And I just have one bit of feedback. I think that as you guys move forward with all of these different new innovative suggestions and plans and things. As I think education for the public is going to be very, very important. So even people that may be supportive if they're not understanding where this is going, they may not be supportive. So just having that transparency and

[63:10] and the education factor as a priority. And I see that Ernan raised his hand again so. Sorry. So I have one more thing. this feedback to council that you're requesting is that tonight, or will it be later? It's tonight. So tonight is for off street parking and on street parking. Tdm, Chris will come back in a couple of months, and you'll have another chance to talk through and see the actual ordinance. But since we have, the the ordinances were in your memo packets, and then Sam and I gave the summaries we're hoping to take. We're scheduled to take the ordinances to council at the beginning of June. So, and we're going to planning board next week. So we want to take both tab and planning boards feedback to city council when we bring them the ordinances. So you'll be asking for feedback like right now, like in the next 2 min. Kind of deal. Or, okay, how does that process? How does that process work in this board?

[64:05] So, I guess. And then, after we give our feedback and our clarifying questions, we open it up for public feedback. And then, after that. That's when we discuss things among ourselves. And then we make the recommendation tour for City Council. Okay. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. So now, unless michael has any anything further I'd like to open it up to. Oh, he does. I do. I'm sorry. And it's just for, you know, for the benefit of next time, when we're gonna probably dive deeper into Tdm, stuff I am super curious about where you got the square footage measurements in that table like what you know. How were those generated? And and I guess I had an associated question to which you may already have an answer about how that system sounds like. It's a fairly iterative system. But how that system accommodates changed uses, because I would imagine that, you know, you're going to go and get one of these financial assurances from a developer upfront with a particular use in mind for that property, and over time, as we've seen.

[65:22] the uses of these properties may change, and you may wish that you'd had a different financial assurance from that developer at the outset. Given the change changed use. And so I'm just wondering how the system I'm I'm sure you thought of this, I just didn't jump out at me. isn't it? That system will manage that kind of flex in the use of of these properties? Sure you don't have to answer it now. It could be next. Oh, yeah, I can. You know the 1st one is really just best practices looking at. We looked at ordinances across the country and the thresholds. Almost everybody uses tier approach. Denver. Our near neighbor has a tiered approach. We did kind of start with their tier, their thresholds, but then adjusted them for Boulder.

[66:10] and we came up with 3 different scenarios that we'll be taking for consideration for the second one, you know, when a use significantly changes, I think that would trigger the need for the new development of a Tdm plan and adjustment. So that, you know, it's to me it's really important that the Tdm plans that are developed and use these annual financial guaranteed funds are right for the context. They're right for the tenant. They're right for the employees, you know. We know that oftentimes you have national corporations that are occupying these buildings. They have their own special rules and what they can provide to their employees. So we always have to adjust to the context. But I think, having it moved down to the staff approval level, for changes in them will be much more effective to creating a Tdm plan that is clear in terms of what the requirements are, but also provides some flexibility and customization. As tenants change over time.

[67:18] Thank you, Chris, so, moving forward, I would like to open up for public feedback. and it looks like coloral precedent raised his hand. Hmm. Yeah. So if they could share their 1st and last name when I give them permission to talk. Alright! Story, time. Got me all right. I'm not call rail president. That was the wrong zoom account. Sorry I'm Gary sprung. I'm with community cycles. Okay. You guys hear me. Yep. Okay. Gary sprung. I live in North Boulder, and I'm a member of the Community Cycles Advocacy Committee. I will start with talking about why, bicycle parking is important and then go into 2 or 3 particulars. The city has a climate goal, a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. By 2030. We're not on track to achieve that goal, and probably the primary reason is our over dependence on automobiles for mobility.

[68:23] Official goals of the current transportation master plan include, reduce vehicle miles, traveled in the Boulder Valley by 20% by 2035, and reduce daily resident Vmt. To 7.3 miles per capita and non-resident one-way commute to 11.4. To achieve these reductions in vehicle miles traveled. We need excellent transit walking and bicycling infrastructure. We already have great infrastructure for cars, and an essential element of that is our abundant supply of car parking bicycles need parking space as much as do cars. If we are to achieve our transportation goals, we need an abundant supply of safe, secure, and effective bicycle parking.

[69:10] We currently do not have such a supply, because most buildings have been built with little or no consideration of bicycle parking. So community cycles supports the city's effort to require more bike parking the recent city of Boulder News release shows Boulder's commitment to secure bike infrastructure. Boulder's building code is foundational to achieving secure bike parking. That said our push our job is to push you to do better, and the city can do better with the current than the current proposal. Today we see new building proposals with grossly inadequate bicycle parking. And maybe we said that some developers are simply unaware of the need or the methods to achieve good bike parking. But it's 2 2 particular topics. The 1st is floor area ratio. If bicycle parking is counted toward floor area ratio, then it seems that more bike parking means less housing.

[70:05] We suggest 2 mechanisms to address the impacts of far. One is that the bike parking relates to the car parking spaces. So if we have let, if we eliminate car parking. Perhaps that will free up bike parking area, but also probably the better approach is to simply exempt bike parking areas from the floor area ratio rule. The second topic is vertical and stacked tier or tiered bicycle storage in general community cycles does not support them in residential buildings. Vertical and stacked racks can be difficult or impossible, for people with mobility or strength challenges. These racks often are not suitable for e-bikes or cargo bikes due to their length and or weight of the some of these racks may not accommodate the wide tires of mini bikes. There are lift assistant. There are lifted.

[71:06] Thanks. Gary. I don't see any other hands for public comment. Oh, Alexi. I saw your hand next, so I will give you permission to talk. Oh. and you should be able to unmute. This is Lexi Davies, community cycles. You hear me. Yes. Great. Hello, members of Tab and Staff. First.st Thanks to Staff, we're working to improve Boulder's bike parking code. Got a couple of details that we feel need to be updated. Rack clearances. tiered racks typically have a ramp that extend out from the rack and with only a 6 foot clearance per code. This is not enough room for the bike to be easily removed. This needs to be changed. Bike cargo bike parking. It's great that we still have. We have some spaces reserved for cargo bikes in some developments, but they need to be clearly marked with signage. So smaller bikes don't take up these spaces.

[72:15] bike locker dimensions. bike locker width is too narrow in the code. It's only 24 inches. Many city bikes and mountain bikes have much wider handlebars. Elevators. We are disappointed that the use of elevators are once again allowed for access to long-term bike parking. Have you ever used an elevator for your bike if they are allowed, they must be a minimum specification of size for the elevator. Last, 2 things are future work items that tab and staff support is needed to make happen. Off-street bicycle parking requirements. We're glad pnds is considering a utilization study to determine the quantity of racks needed at new developments.

[73:03] Some off street bike parking requirements appear quite insufficient. We need to work together and make this an upcoming staff work item. And lastly, retroactive application of code. Most bike parking spaces at commercial and multi-unit residential properties in boulder do not even meet the existing code. Assuming the site even has rags. There needs to be a phased in retroactive application of bike parking code. If we want to make any progress on this issue at the October Tab meeting. it was in scope. Now we understand. The city attorney says it's problematic and can't be done. We disagree retroactive code. Changes are not without precedent. Precedent boulder implemented smart regs for existing residential properties. In addition, outdoor lighting and wood shingle roofs were required to be replaced. The city needs to work on this problem potentially in phases. Short term parking could be first, st

[74:06] and the solutions need to be carefully evaluated. With respect to cost impact. For tenants there could be incentives like waived fees. Grants, use of car parking spaces. Now that there's no parking minimums, triggers when permits are pulled, etc. It's a complex topic. Yes, it needs further discussion and analysis parking in and around existing buildings is an urgent need, and I think you all know that we request the tab and staff work to address this problem in a timely manner. Thank you. Thanks, Alexi Trish, you should be able to unmute yourself. Yes, thank you. Hi, everyone. Trish Emser here on behalf of Bike Boulder. And I think what we all have probably at this table is a unified goal to make biking friendlier and more affordable. I did provide a few slides a little earlier today, and one thing I wanted to stress is, I could tell you that there were 3 recent

[75:10] bike thefts from apartments, but I really wanted to show you in the pictures the stories of the people in apartment complexes who had their bikes stolen. And when you read the notes on each one, you really get the feeling for this. and I think it's important to realize that these are real people, and for a lot of them they don't know what they're going to do or how they're going to get somewhere. I'd also like to let you know that it's only been recently that law enforcement, including the Da's office, has admitted that it organized bike. Trafficking is occurring in Boulder. We're getting very few recovered, even with bike registration. Another point it was in our journeys to Rei, because they don't know what to do when their customers say I've had 2 or 3 bikes stolen. Help me!

[76:00] For the 1st time this year they went out of their way at the boulder store to stock angle grinder resistant locks. So you know, we need to really deal with this reality and try to help folks out. Our group continues to offer bike registration education, how to secure bikes and also how to secure them to quality racks. Without all 3 of those components, people can easily get their bikes stolen. So we really appreciate your paying attention to this. We also feel like you guys are doing a great job in our new bikeway and path investments. So in order to really achieve the sustainable transportation and meet the goals, secure, bike parking has to be a part of that equation and keep pace. Lastly, I'd like to really just underscore the messaging from community cycles. I think the team put it very well

[77:00] when they said, this city needs much better, much more bicycle parking, and then we can maintain our status as a great place to bike. So thanks for your time. Thank you, Trish. I do not see any other hands. I thought it was someone else. Nope. No. Okay, then. So tab members. do you guys want to engage in this discussion? So we can move forward? I mean, I think community cycles does bring up some really interesting and great points to consider moving forward. Michael, do you have anything that you'd like to add to that. Yeah, I mean, I had a lot of comments. Enough that I thought it would. It was a good idea to submit them to in advance in writing.

[78:01] like, is it? It's like, you know, some 3 odd pages of single line comments. But the the highlights, I think, are, you know, largely in line with what we heard already from the public commenters, which is, I think, one good strategy is to take, you know, the take the competition out of you know, living space, right versus bike parking, right, which is, if you count, if you count bike parking towards far that creates a competition between those 2, right? The developers like, well, you know, I've got a limited amount of space. I'm going to use as much as I can for rental things that I can charge a fee for, and as little as I possibly can for things for which I cannot charge a fee, and that seems to me not to be the right incentive structure, so seems to me a good idea to take this outside. Take this because this isn't bike. Parking is not. You know, it's not living space. It is storage space. So it feels to me like that shouldn't necessarily count towards far. I also agree that I'd like to see. You know some more information about the the legal analysis of

[79:12] regarding the retroactivity of these of this ordinance, because it seems to me there might be an argument that at least some of the provisions could be made retroactive, particularly to the extent that they relate to public safety. But yeah, I kind of hope somebody could show us their work along those lines so that we could understand just what the boundaries are around the the prohibition against retroactivity. And then, yeah, I think there are also things that we could do to motivate developers to go above and beyond. Last time. I lived in an apartment building. You know. The bike storage was, you know, a lonely rack off in the corner of a dark garage that was just buried in bikes that were all collecting dust, and to try to purchase space someplace on there for your bike was nearly impossible, and and I think that is probably the fundamental underlying problem, or one of the significant barriers towards

[80:18] to towards mode shift is, if you know, if, if if parking in these buildings going forward is of that style, you know. We're just not going to see enough mode shift. So we have to make that bike parking a lot better. I differ, I guess, a little bit from some of the folks that we've heard from with respect to prohibiting a particular style of rack because I fear that there may be innovations in that field right? Somebody may come up with a vertical rack that actually does work, or a tiered rack that actually does work. So, as I mentioned in my comments, I favor a strategy that defines what an acceptable rack is by what it requires of the user, and perhaps of their bike, so that we can. You know we can say, you know your rack has to accommodate bikes of a certain size. Your rack cannot require, as I propose. You know.

[81:17] a lifting strength of more than 20 pounds. and then, if you've got some whiz, bang idea for a rack that can meet those conditions. Then. Okay, that's fine. If it's going to work for folks I don't want to be, you know. Want to have an ordinance sort of serve as a barrier towards technological innovation and bike rack design. But the bottom line is, they need to be usable by the people who are going to be using them. And that needs to include people of all ages and abilities. And it needs to include bikes of all styles. Right? One of the problems I've encountered is bikes that are racks that are too short. For kids, bikes and then racks that have. You know, they they want your tire to slot into some little slot, and you've got a tire that's too wide to fit in there.

[82:09] So those kinds of design features, I think, seem to be useful things to consider. and I'll and I'll shut up because I know I've I don't want to go through everything here, because I know it's a lot. Nope. but you know I took some time to read all your recommendations, and I really appreciate them, and I think another really important one that nobody has spoken about is lighting, and how that can really make it or break it for a lot of people. I know that I will not go into a darker space and not feel safe. And you mentioned that as well for some people and and for kids, right? So I suggest that we move to support the ordinance as proposed by staff with modification, that staff consider incorporation of comments from community cycles, and Michael

[83:02] specifically because he did write all this in an email. I don't know how you guys feel about that moving forward. I I guess. Do I have a do I hear a motion to move. What are our choices? Because, you know, personally, I'd love to see another draft. But I know I'm also coming to this kind of late in the game. You know. I I you know I'm newly appointed member, and these this pro project has been going on for 11 years, and you've got deadlines that seem like they're in the very near term. So maybe Valerie wants to speak to that. Looks like. Yeah, if that's okay. Trini, I think, hold that thought for a moment. I do think that there are a few technical considerations that staff could address right now and then. That would allow you to parse out which you would want to fold into the motion that you just proposed. Would that be okay?

[84:02] Absolutely, please. Okay. Then Lisa. Yeah. Yeah, thanks, Michael, thanks for your detailed comments. I did go through every single one of them, and even talk to our engineers about several of them so based on the ones that you brought up tonight. So the relation to floor area ratio. It's a great idea. It's not within the scope of this project. We actually have another work program. Item, that is to analyze all of our floor area ratio regulations. And so that would be probably the more appropriate place for us to consider that as we're thinking through all the other items that relate to floor area ratio, but it's certainly something we can consider down the road in that other project related to fees. That also has been brought up by our engineers, and I think is something that we could tackle with Chris's section on Tdm. Because we also talk about unbundled parking. And so it's essentially the idea of unbundling bike parking. So while it's not in the ordinance today, because the scope is really focused on bike parking design standards that we're trying to achieve with this ordinance tonight.

[85:09] I think it's a great topic for us and for Chris to incorporate, as we think, through the Tdm. Which we'll come to again in a couple months. related to retroactivity. I think it was noted that we talked about it in October. We've talked about it in January, in January. I think it was January or February. We went to Council tab and planning board and confirmed that we just didn't have the ability within the scope of the project and the deadlines to really study the retroactive retroactivity component of it. It's something that's been coming up in several several projects at the city recently. So the city attorney's office is researching retroactive application of requirements. And so we would have more on that in the coming months, but not with these specific ordinances. And we have heard that that's an important thing that's come up every time we've talked to Tab and related to this project. So we're committed to looking into that further.

[86:10] I think the other you talked about not prohibiting a certain style style of rack and having other standards. One thing that's a little confusing about our bike parking standards is, we have bike parking standards in our land use code, and then we also have a lot of the more detailed design requirements, or in our design and construction standards. and so I can point you to the various sections of the design and construction standards. But I would say the vast majority of the comments in writing are already addressed in our design and construction standards like clearances, and we have an option for other style of racks as long as they meet certain requirements so essentially exactly what you were saying. where our engineers can review any style of rack. And as long as it's meeting these certain criteria, it would be allowed, regardless of what style it is.

[87:03] And then related to lighting. There is within the ordinance we have tried. There is a requirement for adequate lighting of bike parking areas. And then what we've added is a an adequate ensuring that there's adequate lighting for the path to get to the bike parking area. So you're not walking through like a dark and scary place to get to the well lit bike parking. So I think a lot of those comments have been addressed either in the ordinance or addressed somewhere already in our code, and I apologize that when you get it in the memo, all, you see are the sections that are being changed. And so it doesn't highlight other sections that we already have. But I'm happy to follow up with kind of like a point by point, and point you to the sections of the design and construction standards that are addressed, and if I missed anything, let me know. Well, there, I mean, unfortunately, there is a lot more in in the, you know, in the comments that I've provided, and so and it sounds like, maybe some of this stuff.

[88:04] You know it. It sounds like, maybe I need to look at other other standards that are articulated elsewhere that I haven't had a chance to review and so yeah, that kind of at least as a decision maker kind of puts me in a pickle, because I haven't seen those things. I I am curious, for example, about the fees. So it sounds like you're imagining a different process to to evaluate using the Tdm process to tackle the fees that might be assessed. And I'm wondering if you know if what would that look like? Because or what might that look like? Because what I'm proposing as a you know, as a change here would be, would would create an incentive, I think, for so again, you know, it's not in this particular case it wouldn't be mandating an upgrade to existing parking, but it would create an incentive for a developer to upgrade their parking so that they could then charge a fee if they wanted to like for reserve parking. And I I how would that work in Tdm. Land.

[89:14] Yeah, I might have. I'll bring Chris up, but in. I might have misunderstood when I read it, but I was tying it very similarly to unbundled vehicle parking when I read it. Chris, do you have other ideas. you know I it's kind of hard for me to come at it right now. I haven't really thought about that proposal of you know, cost for bicycle parking. So I would need to do a little research and better understand some of the possibilities and options. yeah. So it's hard for me to address right now. I think you know what we've said in some of the Tdm program programming for these new developments would be, you know, how do we incent them to go above and beyond what is required by code, and have that as part of their Tdm plan so. And and that's something that we look at right now.

[90:13] anyway. So I think there is a way to do it. But I'm just not exactly sure, and I would need to do a little research on that. Right. So. Just going over my own notes, because it's enough. I can't keep it all in my head simultaneously. Oh, I did. Actually, there was one thing that I did not put in in writing is because that that was really focused on the long term bike parking. But I noticed something as well in the short term bike bike parking. Part. That about cargo bike, storage like requiring? What is it? 5%

[91:01] of the parking be for cargo bikes if there are more than or 20 or more spaces. and I'm wondering if that's gonna be quite enough. And I'm wondering if there's a different way to, or at least a modified way to tackle that. I know, you know you gotta have some kind of threshold, probably. But But I'm wondering if it could be context specific. So you could have maybe 2 different standards, one sort of a general standard, for I don't know, you know, for some general retail location, and then, you know, a different standard for things like grocery stores. Daycare centers. You know. like a rec center libraries parks places where you know you're gonna have folks either hauling groceries or hauling kids, and they're probably going to be trying to do that in a in a cargo bike, and they'll be present then, in those locations, probably in a higher rate than they would be at, you know, just some random other location. So it seems to me like maybe there would be an a benefit in having 2 tiers for something like that, where you know places where you're going to expect more cargo bikes. You require more cargo, bike, parking, or more cargo bike, capable parking.

[92:18] So would it make sense to like word it in in respect to the location like. So in supermarkets and rec centers like, be very specific with the language of where we're talking about, because it does seem like it is gonna create we, we will see a need, a different type of need in these places, like Michael's calling out. Yeah, we do have the. We have different requirements for different land use types. So there's a higher requirement for retail than certain other uses and things like that. So as that math worked out, it would have a higher. If there's a higher bike parking requirement overall that would be a higher requirement for cargo bikes. But certainly, if you have recommendations for certain uses, I think we could figure out a way to accommodate that in the ordinance where specific uses would have a higher

[93:12] higher percentage of their requirement that needs to be accommodated through cargo bikes or through the larger space requirement. Well. See, I'm just going again. I'm going back through my stuff here to figure out what what might be, what? What might warrant discussion. Oh, yeah, I mean, I I did have. I did propose a kind of a new approach to the Security section that I think you know kind of harkens back to what Trish was saying about the fact that you know bike theft is a real deterrent to mode. Shift and and so it it. The you know, as it's currently written. The the ordinance seems to have these kind of typologies in mind. At least it's what was conjured in my mind right? It was like a locked room, a cage, and a garage, right? These kind of models of of

[94:15] storage. And I thought, Well, yeah, but you know. Inevitably, some developers are going to have some weird thing that doesn't fit one of those typologies. And so maybe maybe it makes sense to to sort of frame the requirements based on a matrix where you know the the 2 primary components. That you're measuring are, you know, the the quality of the surveillance and the quality of the securement for the for the bikes. And so if you've got really high levels of surveillance right then, you don't need very much securement. But if you don't have a whole lot of surveillance, then you're going to need really strong securement methods. And so, you know, I kind of frame up some possibilities. Don't mean that to be the, you know, complete universe of possible

[95:11] typologies or possible sort of increments in this matrix. But if one were to build a matrix of that kind, then you could kind of, you know, look kind of like we like was done for the for the oh, come on, brain the crossings treatment right? There was a matrix there, and I thought, Well, that's a useful strategy, right? When you have these 2 things that work in opposition to each other, or that are sort of inversely related. A matrix seems to kind of recommend itself. So I thought that might be a perhaps useful tool in framing what minimum security and safety would be for the bikes. Because I'm I worry that if we get like locked into typologies, then the developers are only going to give us those typologies. And maybe that's not what we want.

[96:07] I'll just add some clarification here. Process wise, I think that's really helpful feedback and frame of mind for Staff to consider moving forward, but might not be in the scope of of this ordinance exercise at the moment. So just want to acknowledge the thought there, and how that can be a really useful way of thinking, as Staff considers things in the future. And I wonder, Michael, I know you're kind of going down your list at the moment and accounting for the comments we can also kind of when we get to the end of this part of the discussion. Staff is also help happy to just clarify what is not already addressed in existing ordinance, so that it helps with you all in crafting your motion, language.

[97:02] Thank you, Valerie. I think that would be super helpful. So so what? How do we move forward at this point? I mean, what do? I'm sorry. This is the 1st time I've ever done this, so I just want to respect everybody's time because we're already behind a little bit so I guess now we could. Oh, Meredith, yes, please. You're all muted. So sorry I'm left handed. I always get it back. Oh! I believe you have a motion on the floor that's subject to a second, and could or does not require further discussion by tab. and then it would require a vote in a favorable vote from all 3, or could be

[98:05] tailored, amended. If you're amenable to that. So maybe moving forward with what? What I currently said, which was to support the ordinance as proposed by Staff with modification, that staff consider incorporation of comments from community cycles. And Michael. But is that still too broad. Hmm. Or would that suffice. Meredith, are you referring to the proposed motion language in the memo, or to the verbal motion that Trini made. But I just made. The verbal motion that training made. Yeah. Okay. And so it could be seconded, or it could be amended by whomever from town.

[99:00] I guess. Or a second, I guess. What? What I I guess what I'm struggling with is that there are a lot of things where you know I I haven't seen the ordinance, the ordinances that are addressing some of the issues I've raised. There are some issues like elevators that we haven't even touched on. I'm not sure what the process is to. you know, to sort of go through these things and try to figure out if there is an answer to some of these challenges. So I you know I don't want to be obstreperous, but at the same time I feel like I'm being asked to make a decision with a little bit too little information. Right? Right? So maybe this would be a good time for Staff to go through kind of comment by comment. Just so. You all kind of have a you know. Go or no, go on on what can be included in your motion.

[100:04] for as a as an amendment, as Meredith described earlier. Yes, I'm happy to do that. Let me pull up so, Michael, I'll start with your the beginning of your comments. So we have a definition. You talk about defining long term and short term bike parking. We do have definitions of long term and short term bike parking that are already in the ordinance. Those are in 996. They don't talk about specific hours, but we've had them for 10 years, and they work relatively well based on conversations with engineers. Then you talk about organizing the ordinance. Kind of to the point that Valerie made. We? It's not really within the scope of the the project today to reorganize everything. If I had my druthers, believe me. I would reorganize all of 996 because it was drafted in like 2,005. But we've done other code cleanup and reorganization projects that hopefully, we'd be able to tackle. But because, as you can see it's a really complex project with off street on street parking. Tdm, so we did have to kind of draw a line somewhere. So it's not ideal organization. But I'm happy to talk organization anytime, because that's what I nerd out on.

[101:23] Then you have quantity and composition. You talk about the quantity of bike parking and the ability to require more kind of fundamentally, that's just challenging with zoning. You know, we set minimums and set maximums. And so property owners have to be able to expect what their requirement is going to be while we have some reductions and ability to reduce requirements. The idea of kind of just requiring more is challenging to do within the framework of zoning.

[102:00] But can I ask a question about that? Yeah. Because, you know, very often I've seen enough city ordinances in guidance documents at this point to see that there's very often provisions in there for the exercise of engineering judgment. And and this seems to me akin to that right. If if you were looking at a property, and notwithstanding Table 9, you can see right that because of maybe where it's located. That you know what table 9 would require by way of bike. Parking is going to be manifestly inadequate. It seems to me that that's an environment or a situation where, in any other context, you would all sort of rely on engineering judgment to say, actually, yeah, you know. the default is for. But in this particular case we're going to need more. I don't see that as zoning per se. It seems to me like it's an engineering question as to how much parking would be needed in a particular location. Am I missing something? There.

[103:09] Yeah. Well, no, I don't think you're missing anything, but I think that our engineers are the ones that review our bike parking, and in kind of giving comments to developers and working through development applications. They will try to push on. Hey? We think this actually needs more parking. But really the letter of the law is the minimum that people have to meet. So staff is always working to try to improve projects. but there is really just the legal limitation of what those minimums are. And I think we've talked a little bit about that. What this project has also brought up is a need for a bike parking utilization study for us to understand if our requirements are meeting the mark, or if they're too low or too high kind of like what we did with vehicle parking. And so we're really hoping that that can be on future work plan where we actually go in and see how much bike parking is being utilized, so that we can tailor those requirements so that they're more accurate if something's too way too low or way too high.

[104:07] Well, let let me ask another question. Would you have a mechanism? So again, what I'm talking about is, you know, let's just hypothesize. I don't know. Coffee shop right? a coffee. If you had articulated standards for coffee shops, not saying that those are in there, but if you had standards, a table, 9 element for coffee shops. Right? There's gonna be there's going to be a coffee shop at the table, mesa shopping center right? And then there's going to be a coffee shop in downtown boulder. And they're both gonna have. I mean, this is the problem with with parking minima in general right is that the the effort to predict how much parking any individual establishment will need was, you know, a mission doomed to failure right when it came to when it came to cars, and I'm worried that the same thing will happen with respect to bikes. It's a great idea to sort of study it. But it seems to me that you need to have a mechanism and ordinance that is flexible enough to recognize.

[105:09] There are different contexts right? There are some places that are just not going to have the kind of demand that other places will have for bike parking. And the ordinance needs to have some ability to sort of recognize that difference. And I'm not hearing one. That's part of this. And so I'm wondering like. is is that a problem we're just going to ignore? Or is there something we can do to address that. Well, I think the intent is that we have set them high, so that we're in, you know, in capturing the high highest utilization uses. But then we have a bike parking reduction process where folks can say, you know, the by the ratio we require a hundred. But if you really look at the situation of this particular property. It doesn't make sense. We have standards in the

[106:02] the code that talk about you know the engineers have the discretion to See what the appropriate circumstances are. I forget the exact terminology, but something like that. And then folks can submit a bike parking study where they analyze how much bike parking is around the area and can reduce the standard. So we have that that flexibility for a reduction. It's just that we don't have like the ability to require more than what the zoning code says. Could it be maybe tackled the same way that we were talking about cargo bikes earlier? Where there's this ratio? looks like you're done talking. Oh, I'm sorry. So something like that that could be specified in the future, if need be. Do you mean like adding a an additional requirement like it could be increased by a certain percentage?

[107:01] Yes, I'm. Depending on usage or, however, it is that we're figuring out the percentage in regards to cargo bikes to do some sort of ratio like that, with how many people are actually using bikes to get to certain locations, and that there's flexibility. So we can kind of adapt to the use forward. Well, I think what we want to do with that bike parking utilization study is to be able to use that data to inform what those actual pipe parking Are, and then we could tweak tweak the numbers that are required, or the percentage or ratios that are required for each use. We did need to limit the scope of this project to just design, like the design standards related to usability and security. And so we didn't change any of the actual, you know, like one space per 200 square foot ratio things. But we'd want to use the data from the utilization study to inform what those

[108:04] accurate changes are for the actual bike parking requirements. I think we should navigate under the umbrella, that our goal is to increase micro mobility. And so we should always think like ahead, like, oh, we're achieving our goal. So we should think big and and not small. Yeah, it kind of feels to me like, then the you know, if if we cannot envision or develop a mechanism to increase parking where it's needed. Then the the strategy that sort of best pursues the city's goals when it comes to increasing micro mobility is to you know, kind of like was once done with parking radically overestimate how much bike parking is needed, so that you can always, then, you know, scale it back. And if that's the only mechanism we have at our disposal. Then we ought to use it because I am. You know, I am pretty concerned, especially since we haven't done, the parking utilization studies that are needed.

[109:12] that the numbers we see in Table 9 are a guess. and they may not be accurate even for that category of development. and we'll almost certainly not be accurate for that category of development as it exists in various places throughout the city, just as I was mentioned, because different places just have different usage rates. So just yeah, it feels to me like there needs to be some mechanism to grapple with this. Whether that's just overestimating, you know, like bumping the numbers in table 9 way up so that they can be ratcheted down or something else. I'm just worried that you know you the way regulations are. You know the way ordinances are when they're written. They're kind of in stone, for like a decade or more, and if we don't get this right, we could be dealing for a decade or more with a worsening bike parking shortage as we succeed with

[110:15] people moving away from you know, automo automobile dependency. and that that's a bad position to be in. Yeah, I appreciate those comments. And it's a great segue because we did actually update, or we include the bike parking standards, requirements like the actual numbers that are requirement were adopted in phase, one of amps in 2014. So 11 years ago. So it's been 11 years that we've had this as part of this project, and it should be attached to your memo. We did look at, I think, 35 plus other cities, and what their bike parking requirements are and for I think every single land use. Boulder has higher bike parking requirements than all of those cities. So we kind of did that in 2014 with overestimating. But what we want to do now is, do the utilization study to understand? Did we actually overestimate? Or are there some uses that are underestimated, because.

[111:14] like you said, the kind of the best thing that we have is to compare with other cities and compare with the actual situation on the ground. So that's what we need to do. I know there's a lot more on that on in your list. If you want. Yeah, let me just ask a real quick question is is, see if there's a path forward here that that works because I you know I don't not clear to me when this utilization study is gonna happen. But I'm wondering whether you know if that's a couple of years in the offing. Whether it'd be possible to revisit Table 9 with the results of that study in hand and make adjustments to it, whether that could be part of what Council plans to do. Because, yeah, you know, these things are notorious for getting etched in stone, and then you're you're dealing with it forever. And it sounds like, you know, my my follow on question to like, you know, we studied other cities, and we're we're sort of besting them in terms of the requirements would be. Well, then, how are those cities doing in terms of actual, you know.

[112:12] meeting the demand for parking, and have they? They seem to be a lot of variables there. And so I'm wondering like, are they? Are they actually meeting their parking needs. But, I'm just wondering if that's maybe a strategy for for going forward. Yeah, absolutely. And I think that is the plan. So I know we've we've had many questions throughout this project of why we would not be changing the bike parking requirements, the ratios, and we really again needed to limit the scope to design standards and tackle that with this project, because there are, you know, 70 pages of ordinance changes plus on street parking. Plus. Tdm, and, like you said, it's a complicated issue where we really need to spend a lot of time analyzing our utilization, our actual numbers. what, how? It's working in other cities. And so it really begs itself to be a separate project, and we absolutely could not have finished that in time to meet these State deadlines.

[113:11] Maybe there could be an amendment where we point out that this has to be reviewed every number of years to make sure that we're meeting the criteria that you know, each year brings to the table and not stuck to something that was just compared to other cities and not really based on the usage, the real usage of our city. Yeah, I think that'd be a great recommendation. Planning board often will just put in their recommendation like things they want city council to Yeah. That gets put on a future work plan. So are we feeling comfortable with the list? I don't know if, Lisa, you finish entirely, but that will help you kind of parse these out.

[114:03] Yes. Do you want me to continue with the list, Michael, for your comments? Yeah, I I guess. Yeah, I think that would be useful. Unfortunately. Okay, no problem. Or if that's okay with the chair and with Valerie. I think, for the interest of everybody's time, because I do want to be respectful for that. I think maybe pinpoint to the ones that are more significant, or that you know, Lisa, that are not addressed in the ordinance that are important to Michael. I mean, if we know that they're there. I think that that's Michael's concern for for us not to jump to something without knowing that that's been, you know, looked at and taken care of, and that is addressed. But if it is, I mean, I don't think we have to go through each thing as long as you know. We all trust that we're acting in good faith. And

[115:03] if you know of something that Michael's trying to address that is not covered, then I think that's what we should be focusing on. Do you agree, Michael? Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, and maybe I can help, you know, in terms of identifying what seemed to me to be the the biggies. Yeah. You know, like like, for example, e-bikes and e-bike charging. So that's in the ordinance. There's a requirement for e-bike charging. Yeah, I I saw that. But I my recollection was that how? But how much was it? I thought it was a my recollection is, it was a fairly small amount. Yeah, but. Like 5% or something like that. Yeah, it's a 5% requirement. If the bike parking is, or if a hundred spaces are required. So there'd be 5 spaces that would need e-bike, or the availability of charging.

[116:01] Honestly, that strikes me as A serious underestimate of what the likely need for bike, electronic or e-bike parking is likely to be, and for charging right e-bikes are far and away, the dominant type of bike being sold right now, and and they are rapidly gaining on on the stock of non e bikes like acoustic bikes. Are we talking about permanent parking? Or just, it's a long term partner. Okay, could we have. You know, I would imagine that within a matter of years you're gonna have. At least, I mean, it's already. I think e-bikes are about 19% of the total number of you know, or the total quantity of bikes out there and growing at a rate of something like 5% or more per year, and probably in boulder much faster than that. Given our relative affluence. So I would imagine that Boulder is going to see a lot of e-bikes, and you know, and people trying to charge them

[117:12] and finding that, you know there's 1 or 2 sockets down in the parking area and then going at it with, you know, a bunch of daisy chains to try to get enough cords to run enough chargers to all the bike. The e-bikes that are there. And then maybe some people finding that there just isn't room there aren't. There aren't racks that will accommodate their e-bikes. And so 5% feels to me pretty low, honestly. And I mean, if if there's some. you know basis for for that estimate, you know, I'd love to know what it is. Yeah, we looked at other cities and what their requirements were. Not. A lot of cities actually require e-bike charging, but these were in line with the cities that we saw, but that is absolutely in the purview of Tab to decide on a different number, to recommend to city council. The ordinance is a staff recommendation based on staff analysis and discussions, and that is the role of the Advisory Board to determine which of those should be changed, or that you would recommend City Council, adopt something different. Okay.

[118:17] Michael, what number would you suggest as a suitable starting point. Know I that's hard. I would say that at present. Given that you bikes are around. I think it's like 19% of bikes out there now that that would be the floor. And and what by? You know what I mean by e-bike parking is, you know, just racks that are capable of handling e-bikes, but also the facilities to charge those bikes within code, right? Because otherwise, I think what you'll get is be people creating a fire risk by stringing power strips and stuff together to try to to, you know, to charge their e-bike down there. So

[119:04] you know, I 2530%, something like that to accommodate for for growth. But maybe this is also a thing that we'd need to revisit along with that bike utilization study because I would imagine the number is going to go up with time. I mean, we're living in an age where we're still dealing with, you know. lithium ion batteries. But the day is coming not too far when we're going to be dealing with batteries that are much lighter and much more powerful, and at that point I can imagine. you know, an absolute sea change in the kind of bikes that are out there right? And so the need to charge would be substantial. Anyway, hand is up, too, and I feel like. I just wanted to add something to that, because I can tell you that one of my bikes I can take off the the battery and just charge it upstairs, or just take it with me and charge it at home like it does not have to be with my bike at the garage. I'm sorry, yes, or none.

[120:12] Okay. So more than feedback, I have questions because there's still a few things I don't understand. And I know we've been discussing a lot. So kinda wanna just circle back to a few things. So this ordinance. based on the documents, it seems like it will be for as bike bicycle, but parking standards for commercial buildings, residential, like multifamily buildings right? The part of the so And and it's a it's an update to the land use code. Is that correct? That might at least write on that. Yes, you're correct. It updates both code and our design and construction standards, which are the engineering standards that have some bike design aspects in them.

[121:03] So what's the overlap with like the I mean talking about e-bikes? What's the overlap with the energy conservation code? Because I remember. And it goes back to this, you know, like this percentage that Michael was discussing. I remember we touched on that, and like parking requirements for E for electric vehicles as part of that code. and I don't remember what percentage we used or what recommendations we said in the end. But I remember it was part of the conversations. I would like to. I will have to go back to those meeting notes. But I wonder if part of that answer was, part of that question was already answered there, like what percentages or ratios to use in terms of like parking and charging stations. But it does seem to be related somewhat. So that will be my only suggestion. There, I guess. Like, I wonder if that's something to to talk to the climate Initiatives department

[122:02] and take a peek at the energy energy conservation code and see if, like cause, we focus mostly on on electric vehicles. I don't remember much about E-bias discussion. But I I wondered if that was already part of that. The research. They did so, anyway, that would that would just be something that it occurred to me, as you guys were discussing minimum. Well, I I suggest the following, I mean, could we move the motion and go back and revisit all of these numbers, and make the recommendation as the motion that I suggested a while ago. With these, you know, suggestions from us to the staff to incorporate comments that we've discussed right now. would that work, you guys? Would that be something that you would be willing to vote on? Because if we go on, I think I mean, we're already 30 min behind schedule. And I am not by any means minimizing this. I think this is really important, but I think we could just like Nitpick on every single detail, and I think that there's documentation that we can move forward

[123:17] and maybe the maybe Lisa can facilitate. And it would clarify a lot of things, and we're still navigating under the same understanding that we do want this to move forward. And we want the best, and that there's certain things that will be able to appease all your concerns. Michael, like, I think that if we added something like that we could revisit on a yearly basis, or I don't know if that's outrageous. I mean, this is also my 1st venture into this. But every 2 years, whatever amount of time the city seems agrees with. I mean, I think, that the important thing here is to be able to gauge the need versus what the supply will be

[124:05] and be prepared moving forward and not be surprised and not be like tied down because we didn't anticipate the growth that we so much want to happen. So I think, just in the interest of time for everybody. I think if we can just move forward under that umbrella, I mean, would you guys be okay with that. Well, I would I I saw a couple of these areas that I'd like to kind of suss out where where the city's on where the city's at Hmm. And then I guess I'd also have questions about what's driving the June deadline. Right? I know this has been, you know, a super long process, but it also feels to me like. you know, the the issues we're tackling here are important enough. That it might be worth an additional month of time to consider what solutions there are to actually look at the the Reg language, and to, you know, to see if there's some way that we can address some of these concerns as I feel like, you know, this is as I said. My experience is that you know you don't get too many bites at the apple

[125:20] and I'm a little worried that you know that that if we wave this one on through we may come to regret it before too long. Because, you know these developments as we're seeing right when we talk about retroactivity, we're being told things can't be made retroactive. So that tells me we need to get this right, because we will have difficulty in making any of the things any any of the targets we miss here. You know that we will have difficulty correcting the mistakes that we may make in a rush to to meet a deadline, so I don't know what's behind the June deadline? But and I'd love to learn more about that. But I'd also like to learn like more about where the city is at on. Say, this issue about the outbuildings that are 300 feet away from the main building, which struck me as awfully far and and also the elevator issue that I think Alexi raised as well.

[126:21] Sure I can address that so alright, we've got elevators. Sorry I didn't write it down. Say that the you said 3 at the end. I think I said, I think I meant 2 if I said 3. That's a mistake. That's me like talking about off street parking what I mean on street parking. Okay, Alright, let's see. So I lost. I lost the thread. Elevators, no elevator. And and 300 feet outdoors. 100 feet. Thank you. That's write it down. Okay. So the elevators we discussed that with our engineers who review all of the bike parking. Originally we had said that we thought no stairs or elevators required to access bike parking. However, our engineers felt like having the flexibility. If there's an elevator that is accessible for bikes. That allows for bike parking to be on multiple levels. There's lots of things that people want to see on the ground level whether that's

[127:27] a a shop on the on the 1st floor, or something like that, you know. Like, if it's an elevator to get down to the basement where there's bike parking or up. There's enough standards for engineers related to Ada, and sizing of elevators that they felt comfortable, that there would at least be an accessible elevator where a bike could fit, and that it opens up flexibility of where you could put that bike parking area. So that's why. Ultimately the standard was changed to just just prohibit stairs and make sure that there has to be some kind of ramp.

[128:02] So that's where we landed on elevators related to the 300 feet. I think that that's a standard that we've already had in place for 11 years. It's not something that has been raised as an issue. I think most of the time people are accommodating that by parking within the building, anyway. And so it just has not. through the developments over the last 11 years. That was not something that was raised as an issue throughout the scope of this project. Again. we could rewrite the entire land, use code if we wanted to. We are trying to keep a limited scope. Oh, and your other point was the June deadline. So the June deadline is related to the State legislation, which says that we cannot, as a jurisdiction, enforce or enact minimum parking requirements for multifamily housing in that transit service area which is almost our entire city. And so the reason we want.

[129:03] whether we adopt an ordinance or not. By June 30th we cannot enforce those minimum vehicle parking requirements. And we want to ensure that we have these upgraded bike parking design standards, the on street parking things that Sam had mentioned that we have those adopted and ready to implement as the State deadline hits. And so the Tdm. Will come shortly afterwards. But we already have Tdm. Plan requirements, so they'll be better. But we will have Tdm plan coming shortly after, and that's what is driving the June deadline, because that's we will. We will not have any way to enforce anything related to minimum parking after that deadline, and we want to make sure we have all kind of other ducks are in the row. Our ducks are in the in the row as well. So with respect to the elevators. Stuff! I I did see that or I thought I saw that you had some.

[130:04] You'd specified some dimensions that the elevator would need to accommodate my! Am I misremembering that. We didn't specify that. I talked about it with the engineers, and there's requirements related to Ada and building permits, and they felt comfortable that there's kind of enough levels of regulation of elevators that we would have elevators that would accommodate bikes. Well, yeah, I know that there'll be elevators that accommodate, like, you know, the typical acoustic bike. But I'm I'm a little more worried about like cargo bikes, for example, that tend to run a little long and maybe even a little wide in some cases, and whether or not there'd be an elevator that can accommodate them. Not so much thinking about. I mean, you know, thinking about the designs that are out there right now. I'm not imagining that somebody is going to take. God! What's that? Brand? The one with the big box in the front? Good Lord! I know that.

[131:00] Anyway, you know these these front forward box things that are huge, right? And not necessarily, I mean, though I suppose the developer would be within rights right to put put cargo bike storage on the 3rd floor and ex, and then. if if you haven't specified the dimensions of the elevator such that that bike can actually make it up the elevator or onto the elevator. That user would be kind of out of luck. So they'd need to sell their bike and get a smaller bike or something in order to use the available parking. So I was just wondering if there's a you know. If so, if if the theory is that there are other standards out there that already specify that elevators. There must be an elevator of sufficient size to accommodate like a cargo bike. Could we not just piggyback and specify? As well? You know that elevators need to be of a specific size in order to accommodate, like the typical cargo bike.

[132:05] Certainly, and and oh, sorry. Could I just jump in, I think, because of the late hour here? We're about 45 min behind. I just want to to jump in. If that's okay. So I'll, I'll make a suggestion. Just because I I hear your concern, Michael, that this is an opportunity to improve certain details. I think. What what Trini had started to craft in terms of the the motion on the table. You know, could be modified a bit to to say that. You know. Really your tab is recommending that city council approve the ordinance as proposed by staff with you know, an additional recommendation or an addendum, or a modification that that instructs staff to look into these as a future work plan item. And I think I really want to just underscore that the you know what Lisa was describing in terms of the importance of bringing through the changes to be ready for the State law to to be able to have that implement

[133:22] implementability. On that that state deadline is really important tonight. And so I just wanted to to make that suggestion that you know. I think you do have a motion on the floor here that could simply be modified as such. I'm wondering if it if there's a variant on that where? Because, you know, definitely, we don't want to stand in a way, or at least I wouldn't want to stand in the way of the, you know, elimination of parking minimums in most of the other elements of these ordinances I feel like the bike parking thing kind of stands out as thing that maybe needs a little more work. I'm wondering if that can be kind of glommed on instead of, you know, kind of move that off of this agenda, the bike parking thing stick it on the Tdm.

[134:07] And then we could wrestle with it in the context of Tdm. Which, as I understand, is going to follow short on the heels of this and that would give us kind of more time to work through stuff. Right. I think we're running into a scope issue as well. I'll just be quick and direct here. That I think. as a future work plan. Item, there could be. This could be tied to the occupancy analysis that Lisa was talking about earlier, and because that would come with with future changes as a future work plan, item. And so I just want to keep the bounds here in terms of what staff with scope to do, and the kind of you know stage that we're really at here at the finish line with the proposed ordinance after you know, years of work on this effort. So you know I would just. That's my strong suggestion. I'm not sure, Trini, if if you want to revisit the motion language to ensure that that Michael's thoughts are considered as a future work plan. Item.

[135:09] Yes, I think that's great. I think I would love to move forward with a motion just and and including exactly that, just making sure that these are that your thoughts, Michael, are in, in, included and thought of from by the members of our staff. But that we do move forward because it is so important not to miss that deadline. Hmm. Do I have a second. That's okay. All in favor. Say aye, or raise your hand. Bye. Hi

[136:00] And I will just remind Tab that with 3 members present tonight we need an affirmative vote of all 3 members to move this recommendation forward to council. So what would you need us to do, Michael, in order for this motion to move? Because it is very important. And I don't think anybody's gonna be in the way, or is trying to be like. You know. Other than helpful, so. I understand the posture kind of everyone here. And I it's part of the difficulty is me coming to this thing. You know this this party pretty late in the game. I guess I'm struggling to understand how how moving the park, the parking, the long-term bike parking requirements into the Tdm context would would affect the scope of the work right? It seems to me, just to affect the timing of the work.

[137:02] It's not the same, you know, ordinance language or section it's it's a standalone ordinance, and so it wouldn't be procedurally. it wouldn't make sense to include it with the 3rd leg of the stool that we were talking about tonight. I think you know what staff strong recommendation we heard tonight from Lisa and others was that they do want to do that analysis, and that, you know, utilization analysis. Sorry, I said. Occupancy before. But utilization, analysis and and that would be a fantastic time to look at all of these things together, because they are subject matter related. Okay. Okay. Well, I I guess may not know. So can I. Can I say something. Yeah. Please. So what? What would your you know? We had the exact same issues at the Environmental Board where

[138:01] we will be given this information dump. Then given the presentations and and I think I was trying to get to that earlier when I was asking, you know what the feedback is gonna look like or what what the process is like. And then, you know, there were all these tight deadlines, and we had to like, basically get feedback on the spot. Which wasn't always ideal. So I guess to that is like. would you send us? I understand the Environmental Board will do what you're going to include in the Memo to Council to provide like some feedback on and see if you actually capture what we were trying to say because we didn't count. We didn't encounter issues with that where we will have these discussions, and then they will be included in the memo. But they were not exactly what we were discussing. It wasn't on purpose. It was just a matter of, you know. There's all all these voices and all these ideas, and and

[139:03] I I wanna I wanna 1st know if that will be possible. Is that something you have done in the past? So if you could do to make sure, like. you know, in order to also to convince Michael. If what you're gonna say to council is this accurate like what we want? Would you be okay with that. Yeah. Thanks. There is precedent, I guess, with I'm sorry there is precedent with the Environmental Board doing that. Right. And Lisa correct me if I'm wrong. But I think what we accomplished in the last half hour was that the remaining edits that have been suggested by community cycles or our team member, Michael Odesma, that those changes really could be part of that future work plan item. And so our recommendation as staff as you are considering the motion on the floor is to include that work in a future work plan item. And so your suggestion is if there were items that related specifically to draft ordinance language in the packet that you have tonight.

[140:07] My suggestion. Yes, if there were items that related directly to the red lines in the attachments to your memo right? That that would be the subject of what you're describing, which is you know, a request to have staff transmit a revised ordinance before it's approved by council. But. No, no, no! Oh, well, I think I'm getting confused myself, too. I guess I guess the way I understand where we're at. Is that the way the draft is is written? There's really isn't any. There isn't any time to change it right? Like Mo, more or less like I mean we can propose minor changes, but due to the deadlines in June it has to pass more or less, as is is that correct? Or did I get that wrong?

[141:01] So the intent. Oh, sorry, Valerie, do you want. Please go ahead. I know Tab doesn't review ordinances a ton, but we do, maybe 9 or 10 with planning board a year, so I can explain how we do it with planning board and planning board has to make a recommendation on each change to the land use code. So what we do is staff has developed a draft ordinance, which is what part of your packet issue question was, do you have any changes, or do you want to recommend any changes to those ordinances, and what planning board usually does is make a motion. There's a suggested motion in your packet. Often they will amend that motion and say we also, you know, for example, it could be. We also want to make sure that we're addressing elevators, or this percentage is wrong or something. You know, we want this percentage to be different. We will make that exact recommendation language. So what you vote or what planning board votes on as their motion, we will put that in the City council. Memo. Often we have time to address.

[142:02] like. you know, Tab talked about elevators. Here's what the elevator requirements are, or something like that in the memo to give council context. But that's how we transmit the recommendations from planning board. And so, if you have specific, I would recommend. If you have specific changes like, Valerie said to the actual ordinance, we would include those also. Staff will do the analysis. We still have a few weeks we'll go to planning board next week. They'll have recommendations as well. and Staff will take your recommendation planning board of recommendation and then have a response that says, Hey, we updated this percentage based on tabs recommendation. We didn't do this based on this analysis. And that's what we take to council. And then council ultimately decides. Okay. And that's like a I mean, I see, like on page 5, for example, you have the planning board. and you know, says that staff met with planning board. And here are the recommendations so. And then, you know, there's Pre before that. There's also like transportation board.

[143:02] So you will include a new one that says, you know, on May 12th we met. and these are the recommendations or. Yep, exactly. It'll be a little more official because you'd have a suggested motion. All those other ones are the all the other times we've come to Tab to talk about this topic and trying to pass on that feedback. But there will be a more official like. Here's the motion that Tab made. Here's the motion that planning board made. and that will be. What's the difference? What's the difference between emotion and just including the feedback? I guess. I guess I'm sorry I'm getting confused just because at Eab we will have a discussion like this one like the one we've had. and then Staff will write, you know, kind of like what you have here on page 5 and 6 at the May 12th meeting. Eab had this feedback. but I don't think we did motion. So what's what's the difference with that like. So emotion is something that someone has to

[144:00] move, and then second, and then you vote on it. The other items we brought us. I think they're called matters items that tab, same as planning board. But we'll bring them as matters items, and it's just informal. And that's probably where your experience is that maybe the summary isn't exact, but for an actual motion it is exactly like Tab recommends this with these changes, and you in planning board we often wordsmith, exactly what we want that motion to be, and then you vote on it and you know you can. And it it also usually says, like who voted yay, or nay, or whatever. So it's just the more formal version that feedback. I have another question procedural in nature, and just because I'm a newbie, would it be within the purview of council to order the bifurcation of the bike parking standards separate from the rest of it. Right? And if they're if they're not satisfied, like, you know, they're not satisfied that the the you know, whatever concerns that we've raised tonight are, you know, have been adequately addressed. Can they decide to just say, All right, look.

[145:08] we're going forward with the parking part, or you know, the vehicle parking part. We're leaving the the bike parking stuff for additional work. Certainly Council can make any decision that they want. It would delay the ordinance adoption, so it would not have us adopt the ordinance in time, because if they change the ordinance it wouldn't be adopted in time for the State legislation based on the the deadlines. What what I'm proposing, though, is that they adopt the the parts that are needed to comply with the State law. because, as my my understanding. The bike parking the long term bike parking stuff is not required to to meet the requirements of State law. It's not required. But we like. I've said we want that to be included in the ordinance, so that if we have a multifamily residential development that comes in for approval on July first.st They are acting under the bike parking requirements. They updated bike parking design standards like limits on vertical racks things like that, the new standards, and not just operating under the old standards. So that's why we want wanted them to be tied.

[146:12] Right? Right? Okay, I understand. Because because the parking requirements will be gone or the minimum parking requirements will be gone. So you wanna have that in place to kinda avoid chaos. Is that the the resending a little bit. Yes, Okay. Well, because the State law applies. So a lot of these issues that we're talking about are for multifamily development, anyway. So because the State law applies, no matter what. Whether an ordinance is a pass or not, we cannot enforce the minimum parking requirements for vehicles for multifamily. And so we want to make sure that as that goes into effect, we have these better bike parking standards. And sorry, following after what I asked before, what you include in the memo will be, and what we decide to include in the memo like the the Board's feedback.

[147:03] It's it's it's actually a motion like we'll we'll we'll write a draft, and then we'll have a motion to vote on it whether we that's how we want it to be included in the Memo. Exactly. And there's a suggestion. Okay. Because you can start from the suggested motion and then add to it just to make it easier for you. Okay, okay, that's new to me. We didn't used to do, we don't. We didn't used to do that at the eap. So okay, sorry for the confusion. No, I'm glad you clarified. Thanks. Can I suggest that we bring the motion forward again and see who wants to vote? We have a. I second. Right, and I, although in favor of it, I think I understand. Okay. The the context here. A little better. And I'm hoping that that some of these issues can be resolved so that we're not doing it over. Yeah, all right. So all in favor. So let's do it by the book again. So

[148:02] can have a second on the motion that's on the floor. I see. Perfect. All in favor. Say aye, or raise your hand. Aye. Hi! It looks like the motion moves forward. 3 to 3, and thank you. Am I missing anything else, Meredith? No, yay, thank you so much. And I think now we're gonna. And was was that the only suggested motion that you were looking for this evening? And then I don't know. I think so. Oh, no, there is. To the project team. Oh, sorry! That question was for us. Yeah. Lisa Sorry. Is that the only vote that that you were recommending tonight for this item. Just ensuring that that motion did include both 8,786 96. So both on street and off street, parking.

[149:05] So typically training, you would read that suggested motion into the record. And if you need help from staff to to bring. Yes. Could you please help me. Can bring up the. Thank you. Yeah. The the motion to what would what? The tab feedback? That's a separate motion. like right now, we're just saying like, assist. This is good. We're gonna approve this motion. But then we'll have a separate motion to actually writer feedback, like the dab also suggests to include this for a future work plan. Blah blah! Is that how it works? Am I getting confused. No, I think this is including, so I have to read this and add. Okay. Fluid at the end with the what was the language? With a modification that staff consider incorporation of comments from Michael and community cycle.

[150:02] And and develop a work plan, right? As as part of a future work plan. Item, that's a. Yeah, yeah. Clause there? Yep. Right. So I. Should. Sorry. Shouldn't we itemize itemize those like? Otherwise, I don't know what I'm voting on right. We we talked about a lot of stuff. Well, this, these are the things I'm gonna read them right now. No, no, but I mean, like the Michael suggestions and community cycle suggestions, I mean, like. then we need a summary to be like, you know, bullet point. You wanna itemize all of this. I think if you do that, you're gonna limit whatever suggestions they can bring forward. And if you just leave it open ended. They can work on those. As this process continues. I think it's smarter to leave it open, ended Ernan, than to be very meticulous about each and every one of them, because then, later on, you cannot go back. It's not retroactive, so. Okay, I guess that's what I was saying with Eab like. since we didn't itemize then. Later, there were some communication issues down the line.

[151:02] But I'm okay, just for the purpose of moving forward. But But do you see what I'm saying? Because if we do itemize them, and then, later on, something else comes up. I think this way we can have more flexibility with what you know. The suggestions moving forward will be. No, I understand that I understand that. But at the same time the downside is that at some point somebody has to itemize them right? Like, somebody has to be like, Okay, this is the work plan that Dab wanted. So when. Meredith has something to say. Meredith. Yes, it would be whoops. Sorry, yes, and on it would be per the discussion in the transcript of this meeting. as as well as the

[152:02] public comment in contained in that transcript. And. That answer your question. And that will be included in the memo or not. That will be summarized by staff. As what happened tonight. Okay, so that's what I'm saying. Like that introduces human error like, I've seen it happening a couple of times. Either there's not detail enough or certain points or not. Like like a context. I think I don't get at least 3 times happening. Right. With the Ap. We're we're just kind of giving you all as tab members. The convention that we followed in, you know, previous boards. And so. You know, I think tonight is also a little complicated by the fact that 2 of your members that have been on the board are not present tonight. You both are very new to the procedures that we have. And so we're trying to just walk you through. That is how we usually handle these things. I hope that, as Trini had mentioned earlier, that it is understood that we have a transcript of the meeting, and, as Meredith mentioned.

[153:17] that's how you can have that assurance in the language that is voted on. Yeah. And I guess what I'm asking is like when you write that in the memo, just that one paragraph. Could you share that with us before you send the final copy. Not the entire memo, just the one paragraph. because that's what we did at Eab. and you know, sometimes not rarely. We'll be like, oh, you know what this part is not quite like. It's like it, like this context, like just minor detail, like details that were not included? Does that make sense. Right. So Lisa can correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe, she said earlier, that that is how they handle their the writing of the subsequent memos that come forth to council.

[154:05] Yeah. So we would include the motion language, exactly how it's moved. And then we would have analysis below of, we talked about these main points. Here's what Staff recommends, based on tabs discussion. Whether that's changing a percentage or not changing a percentage or however well, but it's probably we've never confirmed that, I guess. With planning board. We don't confirm the summary with planning board before we send that to council. If we got anything wrong, you're certainly welcome to reach out to council and let them know further thoughts. I think I believe, that we've seen planning board do that before. I guess. So I mean, I'm not gonna die on this hill. I'm just saying like, yeah, like, whatever you know, the summary was usually shared with us before it was read by council. I know, like, I know, you cannot share the entire memo. And that's okay. Just that one paragraph

[155:07] that summarizes discussion was usually shared with us. To make sure we capture like what we wanted to say was captured correctly. Just because, you know, it's a lot of information and a lot of conversation. So summarizing that can also be tricky. But if nobody else cares, I'm okay with, yeah. Just if if I see something, I can just write to council myself as well. All right. So I'm going to move forward with a motion. And I'm going to read this language. So everybody, we're all under the same understanding. So the Transportation Advisory Board recommends that City Council adopt the following proposed ordinances, number one, ordinance, 8,700, amending. Section 2, 2, 1, 2, is it? 2, 2, 1, 5, or 2, dash 2, dash 15. Neighborhood permit parking zones, and chapter 4, 2, 3. Neighborhood parking zone permits to update

[156:03] regulations for On-street, parking management and number 2, ordinance, 8,696, amending title Ix. Land use Code, Brc. 1981, to modify off-street parking requirements and amending chapter 2 of the city of Boulder's assign and construction Standards, d. Cs. Originally adopted pursuant to ordinance, 5,986 to update standards for bicycle parking. We support the ordinance as proposed by staff with notifications that staff consider incorporations of comments from community cycles, and Tab member, Michael Adesma. And I'm sorry. What was it about the work plan with a future work plan? Correct. All in favor. Oh, do I have a second to move this motion? So, Ernan, and all in favor? Please raise your hand and say aye, or say, Aye, aye.

[157:04] so we move forward 3 to 3. Thank you so much. You guys. Thank you. Everybody for your time and your patience and my experience in this board, you guys and I know, like Valerie mentioned earlier. Everybody, we're all trying to accomplish the same thing. We're all acting in good faith, and you know it's just you'll see. But but it's really good to look into details. But at the same time, you know, we're all fighting for the same thing. So so moving forward, I believe we have another presentation. Hold on! Let me look at my agenda. So we do. So we have a staff presentation and Tab feedback regarding Draft 2026 to 2031 capital Improvement Project, and that is a presentation by Mr. Currett Slater. So, Garrett.

[158:01] over to you, Garrett, and I think just mindful of time that we're an hour behind. If if we could be mindful of that through presentation. What is it? What. Good evening, Garrett Slater, and I'm the senior engineering manager for capital projects and good to be with you here for part 2 of 3 of the capital improvement program, where we'll be discussing and presenting the 2026 to 2031 draft cip, and the presentation will largely follow the format of our material last time, with the difference being the information that is included in the proposed programs and projects for 26 to 31, and I am joined this evening by Karen Steiner, our financial analyst, James Smith, our pavement program manager, and Brian Wiltshire, a civil engineering manager for capital projects.

[159:02] So as a reminder of what the capital improvement program does is that we are focused on taking care of larger capital. Maintenance needs as well as capital enhancements, and that differs from the operations and the maintenance side of the department where we're taking care of more routine daily and weekly source of activities. There the capital improvement program is more focused on long term multi-year type of efforts and projects. And all of these investments need to be consistent with our transportation master plan that was last approved in 2019, where we've identified the priorities of Most High being system operations and maintenance for vision 0 and travel safety all the way down to the low where we're considering quality of life items such as sound walls. Additionally, the cip is needs to be demonstrated to have been shown to be consistent with the sustainability, equity, and resiliency framework that the city and views into all the work that we do, so that includes the areas of safe, healthy, and socially thriving, livable, accessible and connected, environmentally sustainable and economically vital.

[160:24] And so each of our projects have direct nexus to these areas, primarily and the safe and accessible connected categories. So the cip that we are presenting in draft form for you this evening entails approximately 102 million dollars in total investment, including 27 million dollars in grants. The average per year fluctuates considerably due to the timing of large projects. And then the program side of the Cip represents about 9 million dollars per year on average.

[161:00] So now I'm going to turn it over to Karen on funding one item that Brian will mention in his highlights. I'm going to put a little sort of teaser on that right now and then you can be thinking about is we'd like to make sure that we set a time to schedule a tab bike tour. That's something that we do every year with Tab to where we can go and visit both current as well as future Cip projects. So you can get a better on the ground sense of the work that we're doing within the Cip, and Meredith is great at helping us to find calendar dates that work, and so we'll be looking forward to that as an opportunity, and I'll hand it off now to Karen. All right. So I wanted to start off with talking about how our capital improvement program is funded or the revenue side of our capital improvement program. We have 3 funds within the city of Boulder that are part of the transportation and mobility

[162:05] cip the Transportation Fund, which is by far our largest fund and contains the majority of our cip projects, our ongoing capital maintenance programs, and it also includes our transportation operating budget. The Transportation Development Fund has a few of our capital Improvement project included in that fund, and these are projects that are associated with growth and development that is funded from our Transportation Development Fund, and, last, the Boulder Junction Fund, which, as we move into phase 2 of the Boulder Junction Development, we should have some additional projects in that fund. Well, looking at these 3 funds together on the chart on the left hand side of your slide shows the funding sources that make up our 3

[163:03] funds that are part of transportation. Cip. The largest blue section in the circle is the sales and use tax. And you can see that makes up 70% of our funding sources for our cip other other funding sources that make up the cip are the transportation development and impact fees. Interest in special assessment fees like our Lyman B cycle fees, the highway users tax auto registration and our county road and bridge funds. But sales and use tax being our largest, as we see changes in our sales and use tax projections as the economy grows and contracts that greatly impacts our ability to fund our capital improvement program.

[164:04] So the next slide goes into a little bit more detail on our sales and use tax which, again, is the largest portion of our funding for transportation and our cip. So we recently had an updated sales and use tax projection that came out a couple of weeks ago. And if you're interested in some more of the details related to the sales and use tax projections I would highly recommend listening to the City Council meeting from last Thursday we had economists from Cu boulder with us. And they. We work with them to develop these projections. But basically what this chart is telling us. the the yellow line that you can see in 2025, which listed a projection of 179 1 million, and then

[165:01] all the way through 2031 up to 205 million. That was our original forecast. that we had in July of 2024, when we were coming up with the 2025 budget. We, in working with the economists from Cu have quite a range of updated forecasts, especially given some of the economic uncertainty that we've been facing over the last few months. So you can see the optimum. The revised, optimistic forecast is the blue line. the pessimistic revised forecast is the red line. And then what the city of Boulder ended up doing was taking a weighted average of the optimistic and the pessimistic versions of the sales and use tax projections. We waited. It was 65% optimistic, 35% pessimistic for our revised updated 2025 sales and use tax projections. So that is the green line.

[166:14] and you can see it is a significant decrease than what we were originally projecting overall for the city. It was almost a 6 million dollars decrease for 2025, and a 7 million dollars. Or, excuse me, 5 million dollars decrease for 2026. That is a 3.2% reduction. And it impacts the transportation fund by 1.1 million dollars. We had to revise our projections down to 2025, a couple of things to point out here we did have some operational savings from 2024, and some other shifting of projects that were allowed us to absorb this change in sales and use tax without having to decrease service levels. But we also want to point out that there are still a lot of economic uncertainties, and we will keep an eye on this, especially given that transportation is funded so highly from sales and use taxes.

[167:24] Alright. So on the next slide, we have a list of different programs that fund the majority of our capital improvement programs. Given that we're a little bit short on time. I won't go through each of these, but it's a list of different programs that that fund the majority of our cip programs. Now that we've talked a little bit about how the transportation cip is funded, I want to spend a little bit of time just talking about how we spend our cip dollars and really our purchasing power. I showed you this graph last time, but just wanted to reiterate again if

[168:14] if we were to keep our budget entirely keeping up with inflation something that costs a dollar today in 7 years, if our budget is keeping up with inflation, it would be, we would still be having that same purchasing power. That's the blue line that is straight across the top. If we are keeping our budget at the same amount and not increasing. The budget amounts for inflation. You can see on the orange line with an average 5% inflation year over year. That's something that we're able to purchase for a dollar in today's dollars in 7 years. We're only going to have 75 cents worth to purchase that. And again, if looking at the gray line, if inflation is 10% which we have seen some high inflation recently, again, the power of that dollar goes all the way down to 55 cents.

[169:17] So how this impacts our cip, this largely impacts our capital improvement programs, our ongoing programs. And we do try and increase the budget year over year. And so you should expect to see small increases within our capital improvement programs. But if we're not fully keeping up with inflation. We're only we're able to do less with that same amount of of budget. And this next graph that I'll show you similar concept, really showing how our purchasing power has decreased over the years. This graph is showing the Colorado construction cost index. The green line shows the actual annual

[170:08] Colorado construction cost index. So you can see in 2019, it went up by 5% in 2020. It went up by 3%. And then it jumped in 2021, 17%. Those are the actual increases from the prior year. They're not cumulative. So if you look at the red trend line and trend line and the Associated Bar graph below it that is showing the cumulative effect year over year of the Colorado construction cost index. And what this is showing us is if something cost $100 in 2019. Taking into consideration the increased construction materials costs in 2024, that same amount of goods would cost us $178.

[171:08] So again, I I just wanted to stress this to show that even though we have been increasing our our budgets in the capital maintenance program by a few percentage points, and we should continue to see these increases year over year. The increases are not keeping up with the Colorado construction cost index. And so, despite the budgets increasing, our purchasing power has been decreasing. And so we actually have less spending power than we did in 2019. And then last. I just want to talk a little bit about the split in our capital maintenance funding between our multimodal programs and our multimodal projects.

[172:03] our multimodal programs make up about 54% of our total cip and our multimodal projects make up about 46%. This has changed a little bit due to our safer streets for all but that shows the split between our our excuse me, our programs and our projects. and with that I will hand it off to James to talk a little bit more about our capital maintenance programs. Thank you, Karen, appreciate it. Good evening, Tab. I'm James Smith. I'm the pavement manager, and I'll be talking about the multimodal cip programs that we we have in our cip. 1st up. If you want to go to the next slide there 1st up, we'll talk about the payment management program,

[173:03] also known as the Pmp. The city established the Pmp. For Boulder's 300 Mile Street system, which includes inspecting and rating all streets on a 3 year interval to maintain awareness of existing conditions, and guide where pavement repairs will be made in the future. From spring, through fall priories, prioritized streets receive different types of pavement treatments depending on the current condition of the street. Street treatments, such as crack seal, rejuvenation, and chip seal, are generally used to preserve or extend the life of pavements in good condition, while other treatments, like mill and overlay and full reconstruction, are used to rehabilitate pavements in poor or failed condition. Additionally, the Pmp also works to leverage proposed improvements identified through the efforts of vision 0 and core arterial network planning to do this, the mobility, enhancements, initiative, which is part of the Pnp. Incorporates bicycle and pedestrian facility facility improvements into annual pavement, resurfacing work to help make our streets safer for walking and biking.

[174:09] A recent example of this is Moorhead Avenue, which was resurfaced last year. There we reconfigured the striping for wider and buffered bike lanes, and we also added Splitter Islands for speed mitigation. Next slide. Next up are their pedestrian focus programs. These programs include the pedestrian facilities enhancements program. The pedestrian facilities repair and replacement program and the sidewalk maintenance program. These programs are 100% dedicated to British movement. The sidewalk maintenance budget funds. The miscellaneous sidewalk repair program. Sidewalk repairs under this program are identified through citizen reports throughout the entire citizen. So throughout the entire city, sorry about that. The pedestrian facilities repair replacement and Ada Improvement budget funds, the annual sidewalk repair program. This program focuses on a specific area and of the city where repair needs are identified by city staff.

[175:10] The pedestrian facilities enhancement budget is an ongoing funding program that includes the installation of missing sidewalk links and pedestrian crossing safety treatments crossing treatment improvements are prioritized citywide and include Median refuge islands, crosswalk, lighting, flashing signs, neck downs, signing, lighting, and or pedestrian signals. These programs are identified in the Tmp as A priority. One investment. the various implementation locations are prioritized each year using condition level and program guidance documents. How we go to the next slide next is our multi use path programs. These include the multi-use path enhancement budget and the multi-use path capital maintenance budget. These programs are dedicated to enhancing and maintaining the current 80 plus miles of path within the city to meet the needs of for pedestrians and bicycles.

[176:06] The multi-use path enhancement are focused on the confluence path area and 2025, specifically on the Valleymont and Multi-use path connecting Boulder Creek to the 61st Street. The multi-use maintenance is focused on maintenance of path pavements and pathway bridges. Next slide. Next is the Bridge asset management program that provides funding for major capital repairs to transportation infrastructure primarily bridges due to the several creeks and irrigation ditches that cross the city. There are 300 bridge structures on the transportation network that must be maintained. This funding makes investments in bridge infrastructure to extend service life to avoid the need for total replacement. whether for a total bridge replacement, as shown in the image on on this slide on 15th Street or repairing bridge infrastructure parts, such as the swing wall on 48th Bridge over Goose Creek.

[177:08] This program is identified in the Tmp as a priority, one investment. The bridge Health Index is used to prioritize work. The bridge health Index is a bridge performance measure to rate the overall health of the structure and is rated between one to 10, and then I'll do the last slide here. And then finally we added a line item for the street capital maintenance program, streetlight capital maintenance program. With the recent acquisition of Excel streetlight infrastructure funding is required to maintain these already aging assets. A number of the light poles are eroded and in need of repair, and other ancillary junction boxes and conduits need maintenance also. So with that I'll pass it along to Brian, who will talk about our projects. Thank you, James. Good evening, everyone. My name is Brian Wiltshire, and I'm a civil engineering manager in the transportation and mobility group, primarily responsible for implementing cip projects. And I'll be covering the transportation cip project portion of tonight's presentation.

[178:14] This excuse me, this transportation cip project slide represents projects currently in the planning phase projects in construction such as 19th Street and the Arapahoe Multi-use Path aren't shown since they've already been funded in Prior approved Cip Years. The table you're seeing shows the budgeted amount for each project, and in which year the funding will be received out to the year 2031 Garrett, next slide, please. This tip, local match and Tmp implementation slide discusses the various funding for sources, such as tap. SRTS. SS. 4 a. And hsip. As we receive funding for specific projects. The local match comes out of the Tnm cip budget and goes into each specific project next slide, please.

[179:01] Now I'm going to highlight. A few key projects, not the entire cip list, just the ones of broader interest to the public. The 1st project is a Violet Avenue Bridge Project. This project represents Tmp. Investment priorities one and 2. Design of this project will be 2025, through 26, and construction of this project is anticipated to begin 2026. Total funding for the project is at 8 million dollars, which comes from both the transportation fund and Ccrs tax. The Violet Bridge Replacement project is a collaboration with Parks and Recreation's Primos Park project, Garrett, next slide, please. The second project is the 30th Street final design and construction from Pearl Street to diagonal highway. This project is taking the preliminary design currently being studied into final design later this year into 2026 with construction anticipated to begin in 2027 into 2028. This current project also represents Tmp investment priorities one and 2 total funding for the project coming in at 9.3 million, with 7.1 million of that coming from Grant. Funding this project is part of the can and safe streets for all corridor

[180:13] Garrett. Next slide, please. The 3rd project being presented tonight is the East Arapaho final design and Construction Project. The goal of this project is to improve multimodal connectivity through the corridor from 28th Street to Foothills Parkway. east Arapo is part of the Can. Ss. 4. A corridors and represents Tmp. Investment priorities one and 2. Design of this project began in 2025, expecting it to be complete in 2026. Construction of this project is anticipated to begin in 27 through 2028, with total funding for the project coming in at 12 million dollars, with 9.4 million of that coming from Federal Cmac. Stbg. Grants and State Mmo. Funds in the design phase with separate Ss. 4. A funds for construction. Other efforts which include the current multi-use path improvements, cdot, State Highway, 7. Overlay from 28th to 65th Street and the Bat Lane conversion have all been coordinated to help deliver the East Arapaho final design.

[181:12] Next slide Garrett. Next up is the Sumac Avenue Reconstruction Project. This project is considered capital maintenance and enhancement that will reconstruct Sumac Avenue, including drainage, new sidewalk, new pavement, curb gutter improvements from Broadway to 19th Street, which is also currently in construction. This project represents Tmp investment priority. One construction of this project is anticipated to begin in 2026. The budget for the project is at 4 million dollars, with funding coming from both the City Transportation Fund and previous annexation agreements for residents along Sumac the city is advancing the creation of a local improvement district, which would then create assessments as a means of collecting payment for the annexation agreements. The creation of the local Improvement district requires an ordinance from city council, which is scheduled to take place this fall.

[182:04] Next slide. Another maintenance project is the Folsom Bridge Deck replacement Project, also considered capital maintenance. This project represents Tmp investment priority, one with construction of this project anticipated. To begin in 2028 funding for the project comes in at 5 million dollars, which comes from the transportation fund next slide. The last project is the South 30th Street from Colorado to Aurora. Design and construction project. The goal of this project is to improve multimodal connectivity through the corridor from Aurora to Colorado, which was previously improved as part of the 30th and Colorado underpass project, completed in 2023. This project also represents Tmp investment priority one with construction anticipated. To begin in 2027 to 2028 funding for the project comes in at 7.3 million with 5.8 million of that coming from Grant. Funding.

[183:08] Next slide, please. The June Tab meeting will be where Tab will have public hearing and recommendation of the 2026 to 2031 cip, as we do every year. We would like to schedule a tab bike tour to visit current and future Cip project sites. We'd invite Tad to work with Meredith to find a time for the bike tour in May or June. August planning board will be a public hearing and request for recommendation of the citywide cip to city council. Then in September, October, City Council will review and approve the 2026 budget as well as the cip next slide, please. Finally, we'd like to take this opportunity to see if Tab has any questions on anything we've presented tonight.

[184:02] Hmm. Thank you so much. That was an amazing presentation. And yes, to all my tab members. Please join our tour, because it's an incredible opportunity to see all the things that are being worked on and the future projects. And it's really, really a great opportunity. I see Michael has his hand up. Michael. yeah. And I promise this will be short. We'll take. Your word for it. Yeah, yeah, no, it's it's well, if one of them is, it's just a dumb lawyer question like, I was looking at the estimates. Well, the the overarching question is that when we get estimates of what particular projects are gonna cost, I, personally would find it really interesting to to understand, like what the breakout is like, you know. What's material? What's design? Cost those kinds of things? So I could have a better sense of like. you know where the city's money is. I mean, I know it's a project that's important. But what are the aspects of that project that are driving the cost? And and what brought that to mind was was when I looked at the the Violet Bridge example that you gave for 8 million dollars.

[185:13] and then the entire 30th Street redesign for 9.3, and the question came to mind like, How does one, I mean, at least the picture that wasn't a terribly big bridge. How does it? How does a bridge come out to be? Almost, you know, 8 million, when a whole. you know, multi-block street redesign come out to be 9.3. I realize that's you know me just not knowing traffic engineering and and construction stuff well enough. But I'd like to get educated about that. And maybe some of these materials could help with that. Not doesn't need to be now, right. Sure it's a it's a great observation, Michael, and one thing that I have done with tab members in the past, in addition to tab bike tours is, I have met with folks, one on one, or even done separate workshops with tab particular newer members that like to do a deeper dive. So I'm I'm happy to offer that and meet with you and do deeper dive to help you understand?

[186:15] Sort of that. And you know I can see why on the surface seems. Why is that little footprint cost so much. I'll take you up on that. Great. So I'm sorry I have like a bizarre connection here. so are we. Do we have any questions other than what Michael or Nan, are you still around? I can't see or none. Oh, there you are! Yeah, yeah, I I mean, are you looking for any specific feedback? Just general feedback, like.

[187:00] I would say that, yeah, Staff, we're looking for questions about the projects that we're including, and why, if you've got questions about why we are prioritizing these and how these are consistent with the investment priorities of the transportation master Plan. That's the type of feedback we're looking for. No, I think I'm good. I mean they don't. I think I feel we discussed this less a little bit less meaning right? Like some of these projects. And I don't have any specific questions right now. I think I'm good. I hate to be the one to ask, but I just have one question. So there was, and I don't remember if it was in the Cip tour. I think we just kind of like talked about it from the distance, but the project that was brought forward from the safe routes to school and Comp. And in combination with the city. That would be like a a little segue off of the baseline project for Manhattan Middle School.

[188:02] Correct. Do you guys have any updates on how that's coming along. Yes, we're looking to get that one started in the second half of this year. Oh, okay. Awesome. So design will begin this year and construction next year. Oh, that's wonderful! Alright! Well, thank you. And I'm really excited to see all the funding and all the things that are moving forward. It's just really, really exciting, and I know that my new Tab members will be equally excited when they join the tour, and they get to see how everything kind of grows, and how these meetings kind of really take shape and and evolve. So thank you so much, Garrett. That was great. Thank you for your time. Absolutely. And so now, with that, I think we move from to matters. From staff. Yes, thank you. We're going to have a very quick update on a piece of the citywide, long-term financial strategy that we're working on in our department, so I'll hand it over to Steven Riho and Chris Hagelin.

[189:12] I'm gonna share my screen. And I can even start talking while you're sharing your screen, Chris, to keep things moving here. So my name is Steven Rijo. I'm the transportation planning manager, and I'm excited to introduce the transportation maintenance fee study that Chris Haglund is leading mostly want to commend the thoughtful and innovative work from Chris and the team that will set our department up for success in an uncertain financial future. I'll provide a very brief info intro on how this fits within the city's long term financial strategy on the following slide before passing it over, Chris, to talk about the study. And if you're having trouble sharing, I also have it up.

[190:02] Can people see it? Oh! I cannot as yet. Chris, you also look like you might have kind of a slower connection. So I don't know if, Steven, do you feel comfortable just. Are you? Presentation, up. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure what's. It's having Monday problems. Oh. It's always on Mondays. So are folks now, seeing the slides. Okay. Thank you. Steven. Of course, so just transitioning to the second slide here won't provide too many details on this slide in the interest of time, but instead, we'll highlight that the city's budget officer, Charlotte Husky, provided a great presentation to council on this topic last week on May 8, th that I'd encourage you all to watch. If you'd like additional details, she can speak to this much better than I. The one thing that I will note on this slide is that this effort aligns with the long term financial strategy that the city's Budget Office is leading.

[191:11] highlighted by that green arrow, as you've heard about earlier in the cip presentation as more and more of the transportation fund goes to maintenance each year. This limits our ability to work on enhancements which we've heard are very important to the community, this Board and Council. So with that I'll hand it over to Chris to speak to all his great work on the transportation maintenance fee, study. Thank you, Steven, next slide alright. So what I'm here tonight to do. And oh, once again, Chris Haglin, principal project manager. what I'd like to do is just explain a little bit of the background. But really this is just an update to tab, to let you know that we are conducting a study to look at a potential new transportation finance mechanism typically referred to as a transportation maintenance fee.

[192:04] So I want to go over kind of the background of why we're looking at this particular mechanism, a little bit of background and history, and then kind of go into our current fee study. But this is a long and winding road of transportation funding. We've been doing this for a long time, but we're at the point now where we certainly need another mechanism to increase revenue for the city's transportation department next slide, please. So why a transportation maintenance fee so way back when the Blue Ribbon Commission and early 2 thousands recommended that this city transportation department diversify its funding stream. As you heard in our presentation, we are primarily dependent on sales tax revenue. Unfortunately, sales tax does not keep up with inflation, and we have seen declining purchasing power over the last couple decades, which means

[193:04] our dollars go less far. And we're not able to maintain our infrastructure at the levels that we need to before we start running into trouble. Instead of having resurfacing a road. We've got to rebuild the road. And again, this is about balancing that maintenance versus enhancements. Our transportation assets are one of the most valuable assets that the city has, and we need to maintain them properly. But we also need to expand our system and enhance our system to meet our transportation vision next slide, please. So way back in 2,004 Blue Ribbon Commission said, Hey, you need to diversify your funding in 2,009. We had a funding report that, looked at a variety of different funding mechanisms, we went into evaluation mode from 2012 to 2014. We looked at

[194:03] 60 different funding mechanisms at the beginning, and kept on narrowing down to which was the most appropriate ones for our city. In 2018 and 2019 we had a funding working group that made was made up of stakeholders from across the city, who, pointed to the transportation maintenance fee as probably the most viable mechanism to increase our revenue and and provide adequate funding for our maintenance. We were kind of set to move forward with it, but then Covid hit, and we had a pause. But right now we're we're bringing it back to the front burner next next slide, please. So what the funding working group did is they identified a number of different viable mechanisms with the transportation maintenance fee, and in this former slide called a transportation utility fee, as the most viable mechanism. The most important thing about a maintenance fee is that it is predictable. It's reliable, it's scalable. It can be enacted by council and focused on maintenance. That additional revenue can be used on maintenance, thus freeing up other funds for enhancements.

[195:12] Transportation, maintenance, fee is something that is used in many other parts of the country. Many other municipalities. Essentially, it is a fee that's assessed on residential and commercial properties that raises money to go towards maintenance. It's typically based on things like vehicle trip, generation or frontage on public right of way, as a means for assessing individual properties of what they would need to pay into the fee next slide, please. So right now we're conducting. We're in the middle of a transportation maintenance fee study, a fee study is required anytime you're looking at enacting a fee. The purpose is to establish that legal and rational nexus between who pays the fee, how much they pay, how much they pay, and then what is the benefit they receive from paying that fee

[196:13] we estimate. You know, we look at the estimates of cost of implementing a fee program as well. So anytime you're introducing a new finance mechanism into the mix. It's going to take more staff time to manage that program. So we also have to look at. How much would it cost to implement a fee program and maintain it? Our goal is to include the maintenance fee in the 2026 budget process that begins in June. So we have that fee study that's going on right now, ending in at the end of May, so that we can include it into the June study budget process. It is as I mentioned, a fee can be enacted by city council. It's paid by residential and commercial properties. We can also index the fee to construction cost inflation, so the fee would go up as things like concrete or rebar, or asphalt prices go up, and as I mentioned. The rates are based on land use, size and the allocation factor which we're looking at trip generation. So how much?

[197:20] How many trips does a property generate what is their portion of the total trips. And that's what we use to assess a fee next slide, please. So this is a legal mechanism in the State of Colorado. It was tested all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court by the city of Fort Collins. and that fee is focused on maintenance. It is not focused on the case that went to the Colorado Supreme Court is not like based on programs or enhancement. It is based on maintenance. It ended up the city of Loveland implemented a street maintenance fee. Theirs is based on frontage of public right of way, and the revenue is used just to maintain pavement and markings.

[198:07] so that is what we're looking at in terms of the finance mechanism. And it is legal in Colorado. Next slide, please. So what we're doing right now is the fee study. So the tasks of that study. 1st of all, it's collecting all the data on all the different parcels. The land uses the size, and then we look at the transportation demand factors. In this case we're looking at trip generation. We also look at the maintenance costs that would be recovered and evaluate different allocation methodologies. And then the fee study is presented, and we can use that to provide that legal and rational nexus. And then we're also, as I mentioned, looking at, what is it going to cost the city to implement a fee program next slide?

[199:00] And that's it. I guess. So really, just an update that this is a new finance mechanism that the city is considering. We're taking the necessary step to conduct the fee study that will inform inform our decision in June whether or not to include this in the budget process as a way to increase transportation revenue, to to pay for some of these unfunded needs in maintenance. Thank you so much. Take your questions. Yep. Ernan. Daddy, hey, guys, thank you for the presentation. Chris. I have a question. So is this a fee, or is this called a fee to get around table stuff. So it's not a like a tax. It is. It is not a tax, it is a fee. They are very, 2 very different things. the fee there has to be that rational nexus between

[200:01] you're charging a property and the benefit they receive from that directly, whereas taxes can be collected and basically could be spent on anything. Fees are very specific to how the money is collected and what they have to be spent on. So this wouldn't require like a valid measure. There will just be council approving it. Council can enact it. The last time we brought this to them prior to Covid there was some talk among Council members of putting it on a ballot to see if people were in favor of it. But staff recommendation would be that city council. Look at our situation and enact the fee to provide additional revenue for to maintain our infrastructure. Do you guys need flexibility, though, or are you content with the fee like? I guess I remember the Climate Initiatives department kind of debated that as well. and they decided to go with the Climate Action Plan Tax mostly because it was a renewal. So it was a little easier to sell?

[201:04] I guess. Have you guys considered the pros and cons of doing a fee versus a tax. Yes. That'd be enough. Yeah, we have looked at that, you know, as I mentioned. You know, this started in 2,009 with the funding report, and has gone through many different stakeholder groups funding working groups. And the conclusion was that a fee based on maintenance specifically, would be the the right pathway to go down. It's legal. In the State of Colorado. It provides additional funding that funding would be dedicated to maintenance. But of course, anytime you raise the the funding amount. You're essentially kind of freeing up some other funds that you can use on those types of enhancements. And I'll just add on to that that. What you know, I think is also important to consider is this is just one piece of the overall financial picture for our department. It wouldn't cover all of our needs. It would just cover, you know, a percentage of of our total unfunded need and underfunded need. And I'll mention that last week at City Council they advanced, you know, for Staff to

[202:09] continue looking at a couple of ballot measures this year one would be the extension of the Ccrs community culture, resilience, tax sustainability tax that many departments can avail of, including transportation and mobility as well as a new public realm tax which would kind of expand on the tax. That's currently a dedicated tax for parks. And so there are many different strategies that the city is pursuing at a high level. And this is just one piece of that that we can advance at the department level. Hold on. And just one more thing. you mentioned that the usage of the fee is new, right? Are you guys expecting a challenge like a legal challenge at all? Or is that like a long

[203:01] possibility, like far, far away possibility. Well, there could always be legal challenges to a fee, you know. Someone could say, like, you know, they're not being assessed properly, or assessed too much or too little, or there's not a rational nexus between what we're charging and what they're receiving. So that is why we're recommending going with a transportation maintenance fee which has gone all the way up to the Colorado Supreme Court. It was given the okay to do that. And so we're we're trying to limit The chances. Closure. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Alright! Thanks. Yep. Right. Now, also, just take this opportunity to jump in and say that part of the you know ability to have this transportation maintenance fee. It's not tied to sales tax which can be variable year to year, depending on the economy. So this would be a reliable steady source of funding to cover some of our underfunded maintenance needs.

[204:04] Yeah, you had me at Diversify. Yep. Stable, predictable, reliable. That's what we're that's what we're going for. Well, thank you so much. You guys. So moving forward? We have. Do we have any matters from the board? So I was told that earlier we did not approve the April minutes. And so we need to go back and do that. So we approve the other minutes. So we're gonna just go back and do that. So if if okay, if I can get a motion to prove. We need to approve, approve the April minutes. This is minor. But I became a citizen in 2,019, not at 19.

[205:02] I don't know. I mean. I don't. It doesn't. It doesn't matter. But I just I was reading through them. And I was like I noticed, that dump them in. So now. Page one, it says, became citizen H. 19. It was 2,019, not 19, not H. 19. Just something minor. I don't know. I will make a note of that. Bye, we'll amend that. But That amendment. Alright, everybody that is in agreement. Please say aye, and raise your hand. Hi, bye! And I think that we have been able to move them the minutes, and I think we don't. We have to review these 2 members, but they're not here, so I guess that'll be pending for the next meeting? Does anybody have any comment? Open board? Comment.

[206:03] Can you help me? Hey? Any future agenda topics that you guys were to bring forward? No, all right. So I move to adjourn. And we're right on time. Good. Thank you all. And I well, thank you so much, everybody. It was a long meeting, but you know we'll get there, and we'll be more efficient as we move along. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Thank you. Guys. Good night.