Attachment A - City Council Retreat Meeting Notes

Attachment A: Full Meeting Notes of the City Council Retreat on January 12 and 13, 2026 City of Boulder City Council City Council Retreat January 12-13, 2026 Municipal Services Center, 5050 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO Meeting Summary – Assembled by Peak Facilitation Group

ATTENDANCE City Council members: Taishya Adams, Matt Benjamin, Aaron Brockett, Rob Kaplan, Tina Marquis, Ryan Schuchard, Nicole Speer, Mark Wallach, Tara Winer City staff: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, Teresa Taylor Tate, Chris Meschuk, Mark Woulf, Pam Davis, and additional City staff representing relevant departments across the organization Facilitation team: Heather Bergman and Nadia Janis from Peak Facilitation ACTION ITEMS (NOT INCLUDING COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECTS) City staff 1. Schedule a future Council discussion on the residential vacancy tax, with February identified as the next touchpoint. 2. Bring forward future Council discussions related to public safety through regular Council meetings or special sessions, consistent with treating public safety as a cross-cutting lens rather than a standalone initiative. 3. Notify Council if capacity constraints, external events, or sequencing considerations require adjustments to existing workplans or priorities discussed during the retreat. RETREAT PURPOSE The City of Boulder City Council held a retreat to discuss near-term priorities, policy considerations, and Council processes within a one-year planning horizon. Council members discussed a range of substantive topics and procedural questions, with staff providing context on existing workplans, capacity constraints, and sequencing considerations. The retreat focused on identifying topics for further discussion and clarifying the scope for potential next steps. LISTENING EXERCISE The retreat began with a paired-listening exercise to surface individual Council perspectives before group discussion. Council members participated in timed, one-on-one conversations responding to the prompt: “What is on your mind as you think about the future of Boulder, particularly over the next year?” Each participant had equal time to speak while their partner listened without interruption, after which roles were reversed. After completing the exercise, participants shared and summarized the issues that surfaced across conversations. Themes identified through the paired listening exercise are listed below. • Competing demands on Council time and staff capacity • Risk, resilience, and preparedness • Public trust, communication, and accountability • The need to balance near-term action with longer-term issues

RETREAT CONTEXT AND FRAMING City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde provided context on existing work, staff capacity, externally driven timelines, and governance constraints to frame subsequent discussion and prioritization. Her remarks are summarized below. 1. The City is currently undertaking a broad scope of work across the organization, and many major initiatives are already in progress and will continue regardless of retreat outcomes. 2. Ongoing work includes implementation of recently adopted policies, long-term planning efforts, annual budget development, and activities required by statute, prior Council direction, voter-approved measures, or external deadlines. 3. Staff capacity is finite across departments. Any additional work must be considered in the context of existing commitments, competing demands, and required deliverables. 4. Externally driven timelines and events place additional constraints on staff availability and sequencing of existing and new work items. Upcoming major events and obligations, including preparations associated with large regional events such as Sundance, require cross-departmental coordination and draw on staff capacity. 5. Sequencing remains a key limitation. Many initiatives depend on the completion of earlier phases, coordination across departments, or alignment with external partners and timelines, and therefore cannot be advanced independently or simultaneously. 6. Governance constraints apply to Council action, including the fact that the current Council cannot bind future councils and that some actions require voter approval or multi-year implementation. 7. Clear expectation management is necessary to distinguish between retreat discussion and priority setting versus formal Council direction, approved workplans, or binding policy decisions, which can only occur via a formal Council vote at a business meeting.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES Priority Selection Process The priority selection process combined advance preparation and council polling, staff subject matter expertise, and multiple rounds of discussion across two days of the retreat. The priority selection process is described below. • Council members submitted a total of 30 proposed priority topics in advance and completed a forced ranking polling exercise before the retreat. • Council used dot voting to identify topics for further discussion. • Council discussed the highest-ranked topics with staff to understand scope, timing, and feasibility. • In addition to the highest-ranked topics, council members had an opportunity to advocate for consideration of lower-ranked items and new proposals. • Staff shared a prioritization perspective, and Council refined and narrowed the list of topics. • Council conducted a final round of prioritization to identify a focused set of official Council priority areas for 2026. Identification as a Council priority area reflects the Council’s agreement to elevate these topics for focused Council attention and discussion within a one-year planning horizon. Identification of priority areas does not, by itself, constitute approval of specific initiatives or policy direction.

Council Priority Selection: Outcomes Council identified the following items as workplan priorities for the next year. 1. Power Resiliency 2. Exploring Our New Authority to Modify the Tip Credit 3. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Wildfire Measures/Implementation of a Home Hardening Hub 4. Bicycle Security and Theft Reduction 5. Sister City Language Update Council Priority Selection: Background and Discussion The following section summarizes background, discussion, questions, and outcomes for each Council priority proposal. City staff provided additional context, and City Council members asked staff specific questions about each proposal. Where applicable, questions are summarized in italics, followed by the corresponding response in plain text.

Power Resiliency Proposal: Improve understanding of system risks, outage impacts, and barriers to action, including the City’s role relative to the utility provider. Background and discussion: 1. Recent power outages have affected community members, businesses, and City operations. Concern about power reliability has increased, regardless of whether long-term outage data shows a clear trend. 2. Xcel Energy owns and operates the electrical grid serving Boulder. The City does not control utility infrastructure, investment decisions, or outage restoration timelines. 3. Residents and community members often look to the City for answers and solutions during power outages; however, responsibility for system performance and restoration rests with the utility provider. 4. Power resiliency encompasses multiple objectives, including preventing outages, reducing outage duration, and mitigating impacts. These objectives each require different strategies, timelines, and levels of investment. 5. Understanding system vulnerabilities and outage patterns is necessary before advancing future actions. Information about where outages occur, which facilities are affected, and which populations face the greatest risk remains limited. 6. Equity considerations shape how power outages affect the community. Residents who rely on electrically powered medical equipment, older adults, and households with limited adaptive capacity face greater impacts during outages. 7. Infrastructure-based approaches illustrate the range of possible responses, including undergrounding power lines, backup generation, and microgrids. 8. Many infrastructure solutions require significant investment and unfold over long time horizons. Cost, complexity, and coordination requirements limit the feasibility of near-term implementation. 9. The one-year planning horizon constrains what the City can realistically advance. Near-term focus centers on understanding risks, roles, and limitations rather than implementation.

Questions for staff:

•

•

•

What authority does the City of Boulder have during power outages when the infrastructure is owned by Xcel Energy? The City cannot direct utility operations or investments. It can coordinate response, advocate for improvements, and plan for resilience. Are infrastructure solutions like undergrounding power lines realistic within a oneyear timeframe? These types of solutions are typically implemented over many years and are not realistic near-term options. What actions could the City take now without committing to major infrastructure investments? Near-term efforts could focus on clarifying roles, improving coordination with Xcel Energy, understanding risks, and identifying vulnerable populations and facilities.

Council decisions: 1. Council agreed to make power resiliency a Council priority. 2. Council agreed not to pursue specific power resiliency solutions in the near term. It will focus instead on better understanding outage risks, system vulnerabilities, the City’s role relative to Xcel Energy, and the limitations on near-term action due to cost, authority, and sequencing constraints.

Exploring Our New Authority to Modify the Tip Credit Proposal: Explore the City’s legal authority to modify the tip credit and the feasibility and potential implications of doing so. Background and discussion: 1. The tip credit is governed by state and local wage laws that constrain the City’s authority, which recently changed due to the passage and signing of Colorado House Bill 25-1208. Understanding these constraints is necessary before considering any potential changes. 2. Exploration of authority differs from policy development. Legal analysis and feasibility assessment can occur without committing to a specific outcome. 3. Prior minimum wage-related efforts demonstrate the time, staff capacity, and coordination required to advance similar issues, and this term’s one-year priority timeline will not allow for analysis or community engagement efforts as robust as in 2024. 4. It is important to avoid public confusion between exploratory work and policy decisions. Clear framing is necessary to manage expectations.

Questions for staff: • What would the timeline be for exploring the authority to modify the tip credit? Is this similar to prior multi-year wage efforts? Exploration could be scoped more narrowly than prior wage policy efforts and could occur on a shorter timeline. The goal would be to complete exploratory work before upcoming wage changes, with a potential timeframe in the summer months, depending on scope and Council direction.

•

•

Does exploring the authority to modify the tip credit commit the City to making a policy change? No. Exploring authority and feasibility does not commit the City to pursuing a policy change or advancing a proposal. What would exploration of authority involve? Exploration would include legal analysis of state and local wage laws, review of precedent, and assessment of the City’s options and constraints.

Council decisions: 1. Council agreed to make exploring the authority to modify the tip credit an official Council priority 2. Council agreed to limit near-term work to exploration of legal authority, feasibility, and implications of potential changes to the tip credit, without committing to advancing a policy change. Council members may or may not decide to pursue a specific policy direction after receiving additional information from staff related to legal and economic considerations.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Wildfire Measures/Implementation of a Home Hardening Hub Proposal: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of wildfire mitigation measures and implement a home hardening implementation hub to improve clarity for residents about which actions provide the greatest risk reduction relative to cost. Focus on organizing and communicating existing information and assessments rather than launching new programs or regulatory requirements. Background and discussion: 1. Residents struggle to determine which wildfire mitigation actions matter most, despite the availability of existing guidance, assessments, and programs. 2. The wildfire home hardening hub would function as a digital information and coordination tool, not a physical facility or new program. 3. It is essential to explain how wildfire risk manifests and how specific mitigation actions reduce risk, rather than simply listing recommended actions. 4. Prioritization and cost-effectiveness framing help residents make informed decisions given limited household resources. 5. Existing assessment data, internal inventories, and ongoing work could inform clearer, more user-oriented communication without launching new initiatives. 6. The City should prioritize designing information that residents can easily navigate and act on, particularly during periods of heightened wildfire concern.

Questions for staff: • How would this effort differ from existing wildfire readiness websites and materials? The focus would be on usability, explanation, and prioritization, rather than simply aggregating technical guidance.

•

Could this approach help residents understand which mitigation actions provide the greatest benefit for the cost? Clearer translation of assessment data and cost-benefit framing could support more effective resident decision making.

Council decisions: 1. Council agreed to make cost-benefit analysis of fire measures and implementation of a home hardening hub an official Council priority area, with near-term focus on communication, coordination, and decision-support for community members.

Bicycle Security and Theft Reduction Proposal: Better understand the scale and patterns of bicycle theft, impacts on community members, and realistic near-term responses. Focus on clarifying data, prevention strategies, and capacity constraints rather than selecting specific enforcement strategies or capital investments. Background and discussion: 1. Bicycle theft affects community members’ willingness to bike and their confidence in using bicycles for transportation. Theft creates both financial loss and mobility impacts for community members. 2. Education and prevention are important components of theft reduction. Clear guidance on locking practices, storage, and deterrence can reduce risk. 3. No single strategy addresses all theft scenarios; the City must balance education, prevention, and enforcement approaches. 4. The one-year planning horizon constrains what the City can realistically advance. It is essential to focus on practical actions that fit within existing capacity. Questions for staff: • What do we know about where bicycle theft is occurring? Bicycle theft occurs in multiple contexts, including theft from garages and sheds during burglaries as well as theft from public spaces, and patterns vary by location. • How should Council think about data on bicycle theft? Reported data provides useful trend information, but it does not capture all theft incidents. Understanding these limitations is important when considering responses. • What types of actions could realistically make a difference in the near term? Education, prevention, and targeted actions within existing capacity could support near-term improvements, rather than large new programs. Council decisions: 1. Council agreed to make bicycle security and theft reduction an official Council priority area. 2. Council agreed to elevate the topic for near-term focus to better understand theft patterns, data limitations, and practical near-term actions that could improve prevention and community member confidence without selecting specific enforcement or capital investment strategies.

Sister City Language Update Proposal: Revise the existing sister city policy language to align with how sister city relationships currently operate in practice. Focus on clarification and consistency rather than expanding programming or creating new partnerships. Background and discussion: 1. Sister city relationships vary in activity and engagement over time, and existing policy language does not clearly distinguish between active and inactive relationships. 2. The current sister city resolution does not reflect all existing sister city relationships, and some relationships are governed by separate or piecemeal agreements. 3. Updated language could clarify expectations, roles, and criteria for maintaining sister city relationships and improve consistency across partnerships. 4. A potential update could include clearer reporting expectations, such as whether and how information about sister city activities is shared with Council. 5. Options for improving coordination and accountability include the potential use of designated liaisons or a small coordinating body. 6. A focused policy language update represents a contained scope of work that can realistically be advanced within a one-year planning horizon. Questions for staff: • What problem would a sister city language update solve? Updated language could clarify expectations, improve consistency, and better reflect how sister city relationships are currently managed. •

Could some of this cleanup occur without making it a Council priority? While some administrative cleanup may be possible, updating policy language and setting consistent expectations requires Council involvement and priority designation.

•

Would this involve expanding or creating new sister city relationships? No. The focus would be on policy language updates, not on expanding the program or initiating new partnerships.

Council decisions: 1. Council agreed to make sister city language updates an official Council priority area. 2. Council agreed to limit near-term work to a policy language update to better align expectations, roles, and practices with how sister city relationships currently function, without expanding programming or partnerships.

TOPICS DISCUSSED BUT NOT SELECTED AS OFFICIAL COUNCIL PRIORITIES The following topics were raised by Council members, advanced for discussion, and considered during the retreat. These items were not selected as Council priority areas for the coming year due to timing, scope, capacity constraints, or overlap with existing work.

Topics Not Selected as Council Priorities: Outcomes The list below captures topics that were discussed but not selected as official Council priority areas: • Scoping Future Efforts to Reform/Rewrite Title IX* • Public safety for all • Residential vacancy tax • Commercial vacancies • Quick fixes to the form-based code • Transit strategy • Scenario planning for disaster relief • Limiting the growth of rental licenses in sensitive areas It is important to note that city staff committed to following up with council regarding the whether capacity exists to begin scoping future efforts to reform/rewrite Title IX upon completion of this year’s Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update. Topics Not Selected as Council Priorities: Background and Discussion The following section summarizes background, discussion, additional context shared by City staff, and outcomes for each topic.

Scoping Future Efforts to Reform/Rewrite Title IX Proposal: Scope future efforts to reform or rewrite Title IX to understand the scope, complexity, and feasibility of potential future code changes. Focus on early exploration of constraints and sequencing considerations rather than initiating a rewrite. Background and discussion: 1. Reforming or rewriting Title IX would require substantial coordination across departments and careful consideration of legal and compliance obligations. 2. The scope of a Title IX effort significantly affects staff workload, timelines, and feasibility. A narrowly scoped effort differs materially from a comprehensive rewrite. 3. It is important to understand existing requirements and obligations before defining potential changes. 4. The one-year planning horizon constrains what the City can realistically advance. Council discussed scoping and clarification as appropriate near-term work rather than implementation. Questions for staff: • What does “scoping” a Title IX reform or rewrite effort actually involve? Scoping would involve clarifying the range of work, identifying affected departments, assessing workload and capacity, and outlining potential timelines and decision points. •

How large of an effort would a full reform or rewrite be? A comprehensive effort would be substantial and would require careful sequencing and allocation of staff resources.

•

Does identifying this as a priority mean the City is committing to a rewrite? Identifying the topic as a priority does not commit the City to a rewrite. The nearterm focus is limited to understanding scope and feasibility.

Council Decisions: 1. Council agreed to make scoping future efforts to reform/rewrite Title IX an official Council priority area. 2. Council agreed to limit near-term work to scoping and feasibility assessment rather a full reform or rewrite.

Public Safety for All Proposal: Consider public safety through a broader, cross-cutting lens rather than as a standalone initiative. Determine how and where Council should engage in public safety discussions, including meeting cadence and format. Background and discussion: 1. Public safety is a broad and cross-cutting issue that affects many areas of City work. 2. Public safety concerns differ across neighborhoods and populations and cannot be addressed through a single initiative. 3. Treating public safety as a one-time priority selection rather than an ongoing area of attention creates limitations. 4. Special sessions may be an appropriate forum for sustained, focused public safety conversations outside the annual priority setting process. 5. Meeting structure and cadence could be used to support deeper understanding and accountability over time. Council decisions: 1. Council did not designate public safety for all as an official Council priority area. 2. Council will address public safety through two scheduled discussions in 2026 rather than through the annual priority designation process.

Residential Vacancy Tax Proposal: Explore whether a tax on vacant residential units could support housing goals or influence occupancy. Assess timing constraints, legal considerations, election cycle implications, and risks of misinterpretation. Background and discussion: 1. There are significant legal and procedural considerations associated with a vacancy tax. 2. Election timing and ballot requirements constrain when and how such a policy could be considered.

Council decision: Council did not designate residential vacancy tax as an official Council priority area.

Commercial Vacancies Proposal: Consider concerns related to vacant commercial properties and their impact on economic vitality and community character. Focus on understanding existing conditions, alignment with ongoing planning efforts, and the City’s role and limitations. Background and discussion: 1. Commercial vacancies are significantly impacted by broader economic and market trends. 2. The City is limited in its ability to directly influence private commercial leasing decisions. 3. Existing economic development efforts already address related concerns. Council decision: Council did not designate commercial vacancies as an official Council priority area.

Quick Fixes to the Form-Based Code Proposal: Consider whether changes to existing land use and development regulations could better support desired urban form and development outcomes. Background and discussion: 1. Discussion was informed by experience implementing the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, including lessons from the Arapahoe project. 2. Staff described examples of issues raised during implementation, such as how certain standards are interpreted in practice. 3. Council and staff discussed that some suggested fixes would require broader consideration and could not be treated as narrowly scoped changes. 4. Staff discussed the need for a follow-up conversation with the Planning Board to review lessons learned and potential improvements. Council decision: Council did not designate quick fixes to the form-based code as an official Council priority area.

Transit Strategy Proposal: Consider how transit planning, investment, and service align with broader City goals. Focus on understanding current transit efforts, constraints, and coordination with regional partners. Background and discussion: 1. Transit planning involves long-term funding and coordination with regional partners. 2. There are existing transportation plans and strategies that address this priority. 3. Limited capacity and timing considerations influenced prioritization.

Council decision: Council did not designate transit strategy as an official Council priority area.

Scenario Planning for Disaster Relief Proposal: Expand planning for disaster response and relief, including clarifying existing roles, coordination mechanisms, and limitations. Background and discussion: 1. Emergency management work already includes planning for disaster response and recovery. 2. Planning exercises and operational readiness are intrinsically intertwined. Council decision: Council did not designate scenario planning for disaster relief as an official Council priority area.

Limit Growth of Rental Licenses in Sensitive Areas Proposal: Explore whether limiting license growth in specific areas could support neighborhood stability. Background and discussion: 1. Regulatory and enforcement lift would be limited by timing and capacity constraints. 2. There is overlap with existing housing policies and programs. Council decision: Council did not designate limiting the growth of rental licenses in sensitive areas as an official Council priority area.

CITY COUNCIL PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS Council discussed internal process considerations related to Council operations, transparency, and meeting management. Discussion focused on improving clarity, predictability, and public understanding of Council processes, rather than initiating structural or charter-level changes. Their discussion and decisions are summarized below. Council Process Considerations: Outcomes The list below captures the outcomes of the Council’s discussion: • Improved alignment between the timing of Council memo distribution and public access to the same information. • More intentional use of study sessions and matters items. • Clearer and more consistent tracking of Council Agenda Committee requests. • Shared expectations around Council meeting length. Council Process Considerations: Background and Discussion

Council Memo Timing and Public Transparency

Proposal: Improve alignment between early distribution of substantive Council memos and public access to the same information. Background and discussion: a. “Meaty” or substantive memos often shape early thinking and discussion. b. It is important to align internal information sharing with public transparency. c. Earlier public access to substantive memos can support informed community engagement and trust. d. Council will maintain flexibility rather than adopting rigid timing rules. Council decision: Council agreed that when Council memos contain substantial analysis or are provided to Council early in advance of discussion, those materials should also be shared with the community via Hotline in a timely manner.

Study Session and Matters Item Topic Selection Proposal: Improve how Council selects and sequences topics for discussion during study sessions. Background and discussion: a. Study sessions are valuable for complex or emerging topics that require shared understanding as well as gaining necessary council direction on upcoming agenda items. b. It is important to align topic selection with Council priorities and available staff capacity. Council decision: Council and staff discussed creating a mechanism by which staff would collect council input regarding study session and matters item topic selection for future meetings. City staff will return to council with recommendations in this regard.

Council Agenda Committee (CAC) Requests and Tracking Proposal: Clarify and improve how Council members request items to be placed on the Council agenda and how those requests are tracked and reviewed by the Council Agenda Committee (CAC). Background and discussion: a. Requests to place items on the agenda are currently made in a variety of ways, and Council members do not have access to consistent tracking that describes how requests have been reviewed, prioritized, and scheduled. This lack of consistency can create confusion about the status and timing of agenda items. b. Council can avoid this confusion through a clearer and more consistent approach to submitting and tracking agenda requests. c. It is important to balance Council interests with staff capacity and overall agenda constraints.

Council decision: Staff agreed to pursue a clearer and more consistent approach for tracking Council requests to place items on the agenda, including by considering a standardized request and tracking process.

Council Meeting Length and Scheduling Practices Proposal: Establish shared expectations around Council meeting duration to address late meeting end times and workload sustainability. Background and discussion: a. Extended meeting length has impacts on decision-making and participation. b. It is important to set realistic agendas to support earlier adjournment. c. Scheduling norms should guide meeting planning, rather than rigid limits. Council decision: Council agreed to generally avoid scheduling Council meetings past 10:00 PM, recognizing that flexibility may still be needed in some circumstances.

NEXT STEPS City staff will use Council’s identified priority areas to guide work planning for the year ahead. For each priority, staff will focus on defining realistic near-term actions, sequencing work appropriately, and identifying key decision points within the one-year planning horizon. When additional direction, discussion, or information-sharing is needed, staff will return to Council in study sessions, through matters items, or with written materials. Topics that were discussed but not selected as formal priorities may, in many cases, still move forward through existing work plans or other Council forums. Public safety, in particular, will continue to be addressed through regular meeting discussions rather than through the annual priority setting process. Staff will also follow through on the process improvement agreements identified during the retreat.