Matters Memo

City of Boulder City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: September 25, 2025 Agenda Title City Council Process Working Group Follow-up

Staff Contact • • •

Megan Valliere, City Council Program Manager, City Manager's Office Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager, City Manager's Office Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office

Executive Summary The purpose of this item is to provide an update on the Council Process Working Group priority project for the 2024-2025 term and to gain council feedback on three items prioritized for process improvement. These items include council declarations, CAC scheduling requests, and Hotline submission guidelines. Staff provide several recommendations for each item based on feedback received from council members at the 2024 council retreat, council handbook review sessions, and a questionnaire sent to all council members at the outset of this council priority project. Staff are prepared to draft desired procedure changes and bring them back to council for a vote before the end of this council term.

Questions for Council Staff’s questions for council are divided into three categories for each substantive discussion item: Declarations

1. Does Council have questions about staff’s declaration procedure recommendations? 2. Does Council support staff’s declaration procedure recommendations? CAC Scheduling Requests 1. Does Council have questions about staff’s CAC scheduling request recommendations? 2. Does Council support staff’s CAC scheduling request recommendations? Hotline Submission Guidelines 1. Does Council have questions about staff’s Hotline submission recommendations? 2. Does Council support staff’s Hotline submission recommendations?

Alignment with City Plans and City Council History Sustainability, Equity and Resilience (SER) Framework and Citywide Strategic Plan Alignment SER Framework Goal Area Responsibly governed Citywide Strategic Plan N/A Staff Notes Improving city council processes enhances efficiency and enables staff and council to manage workload while building and enhancing trust with community in the process. While this item is not part of the citywide strategic plan, the creation of a process improvement working group was one of 11 priorities identified by council for the 20242025 term and supports the city as a responsibly governed organization.

Alignment with Additional City Plans N/A

City Council History As one of its 11 priorities for the 2024-2025 council term, City Council formed a Process Improvement Working Group to identify and recommend process changes that will make council operations more efficient and predictable. On August 15th, 2024, City Council approved the appointments of Council Members Adams, Marquis, Speer, and Winer to the Process Improvement Working Group. Over

the past year, they have provided guidance to staff regarding the collection and prioritization of process improvement priorities. This is the second follow-up conversation with council about items related to the Council Process Improvement Working Group priority. The first conversation took place at council’s March 13th, 2025, study session, and the memo for that item can be found here: March 13th Study Session Memo – Council Direction on Process Improvement Items At that time, council members advised staff on six items identified as priorities by the Process Improvement Working Group, including: 1. Mayor Pro Tem Elections 2. Landmark Reviews 3. Council Employee Performance Reviews 4. Use of Community Member Email Addresses 5. Opportunities for Council Members to share ceremonial responsibilities and cover CAC absences 6. Declarations The study session summary for the March 13th conversation, which details the direction that council provided related to each item, can be found here: March 13th Study Session Summary – Council Direction on Process Improvement Items

Analysis At this juncture, staff are requesting council direction on staff recommendations for three process improvement priorities, described in detail below. In Attachment A, staff provide a brief progress report on all 15 process improvement items that the Council Process Improvement Working Group prioritized as part of the larger process improvement effort associated with this council priority. Item #1 – Declarations In March 2025, a majority of council indicated support for a comprehensive staff review and redesign of the council declaration process due to the unpredictability that has resulted from noncompliance with existing council procedure regarding declarations. Current city practices only partially align with the council rules of procedure related to declarations. The following parts of current practice align with existing rules of procedure: • •

The Mayor screens all declaration requests. Read aloud declarations are included on the CAC agenda for review and questions by the members of CAC.

• •

As of April of this year, all declarations are issue-only unless CAC agrees to a request by a member of council to schedule a declaration for a reading. All declarations, whether read aloud or simply issued, are posted in the city’s online records repository, Laserfiche, and provided to recipients when applicable.

The following part of the current practice deviates from existing rules of procedure: •

The rules of procedure assume that all declarations are mayoral unless CAC asks for them to be issued by the full council. The current practice, however, is that declarations are issued on behalf of the full council, rather than solely the mayor, by default. o Note: The practice of issuing declarations on behalf of the full council grew out of a desire from council members to alternate reading declarations in a regular rotation. Presumably, declarations issued on behalf of the mayor would be read only by the person occupying that office, and staff heard feedback that council members were interested in distributing reading opportunities equally among council members.

Current procedure also does not contemplate the wide range of dynamics that come along with declaration requests. These include: • •

•

• •

Who writes and approves declaration language (i.e. by community members, council members, staff, or some combination) Who reads declarations (i.e. the reader rotation is not outlined formally in procedure and is instead a practice that grew out of council desire to participate equally in readings) How community recipients are invited when council initiates a declaration (i.e. whether council members are solely responsible for inviting recipients or if staff should support in this capacity as they currently do) Declaration length restrictions (which have been suggested at various points by several council members) Limitations of the number of declarations per meeting or per year (informal practice is that we try not to exceed two declarations per regular meeting)

After analyzing known issues of noncompliance and council procedure ambiguity, staff recommend the following procedural changes: 1. Better determine when to produce a declaration vs. resolution: When a council member wishes to make a statement about a matter that could invoke debate over the language used or ideas expressed, these statements should be articulated in resolution form. Resolutions are the most appropriate avenue for expressing group positions that would best be conveyed through a formal council vote, at which point, members of the council who disagree with the position or

ideas contained within the resolution may formally dissent. Declarations, by contrast, would continue to be used for noncontroversial, purely ceremonial statements and recognitions. 2. Standardize issuing all declarations on behalf of city council as a body: Remove the distinction between a mayoral and council declaration, by making all declarations issued by the full council body. 3. Mayoral screening: City staff recommend that all declaration requests continue to be screened by the mayor, who would determine whether to issue the declaration on behalf of council based on their assessment of the noncontroversial nature of the content. 4. Scheduling declarations to be read at a council meeting: All declarations would be “issue only” by default following Mayoral screening. Staff recommend council members who wish for a declaration to be read aloud during a council meeting would send a scheduling request to CAC. CAC would then determine whether and when to schedule the declaration for a reading. 5. Annual declaration calendar: To support the mayor and council with maintaining awareness of items that the body may want to consider for declaration issuances and readings, staff will continue to put together an annual calendar of significant heritage celebrations, anniversaries, holidays, and commemorations. The mayor will screen this list at the beginning of the year to approve a list of “issue only” declarations for the year recognizing annual commemorations, and the list will be shared with council members so that members may request readings of declarations from that list if desired. 6. Declaration intake form: To support an organized and efficient declaration request process for community members, staff intend to create a declaration intake form to ensure they receive all necessary information in a timely way. Staff recommend that council procedure requires this information to be submitted via the declaration intake form no later than three weeks in advance of the desired issuance date. 7. Declaration recipients: In cases where a declaration is approved for reading at a council meeting, staff recommends requiring the requestor to identify a recipient if desired. If no recipient is identified by the requestor, or if the recommended recipient cannot attend, staff would not search for replacements. 8. Declaration reader rotation: Staff recommends codifying the existing alphabetical reader rotation within council procedure and adding a provision whereby council members can request via Hotline, CAC, or individual correspondence with the mayor to read a declaration about which they are particularly passionate, and the mayor can coordinate with that council member and the member who would have been the reader based on alphabetical rotation

to change the council reader if desired. The mayor should notify staff of any reader changes no later than one week prior to the scheduled reading. 9. Length: Staff recommend limiting declaration length to no more than 250 words, which is roughly equal to one page. 10. Readings per meeting: Staff recommend formally limiting the number of declarations read aloud at a given meeting to no more than two. While this is currently an informal practice, staff recommend adding it to council procedure for clarity. 11. Exceptions: Allow for exceptions to timeline restrictions, word limitations, and the number of readings per meeting in cases of time-sensitive issues. Item #2 – CAC Request Submission Guidelines In both the Process Improvement Working Group and during review sessions of the Council Handbook, council members identified ambiguities related to council member requests sent to the Council Agenda Committee (CAC). In particular, the timing and content of CAC requests have emerged as prevailing issues in these process improvement conversations. The relevant portions of council procedure (all contained within B.R.C. Title 2 – Government Organization, Appendix: Council Procedure, III. Agenda indicate the following: -

-

-

-

Agenda Review. The agenda committee holds an agenda review to review the successes and the difficulties of the council in dealing with agenda items during the preceding calendar quarter and to schedule agenda items for the next calendar quarter, when such items are known in advance. Council members who wish to have the entire council address an agenda issue should identify the issue and ask the agenda committee to schedule a discussion under Matters. (Appendix: Council Procedure, III. Agenda, c. Agenda Review.) No Decisions. The agenda committee should not make a "decision" on anything except for specific decisions relating to the council agenda and assignment of correspondence for a response. If a scheduling item is controversial, the CAC shall bring the matter to the entire council. (Appendix: Council Procedure, III. Agenda, e. CAC Ground Rules.) Questions to CAC. Council members are urged to send questions, comments, and suggestions to the staff or to members of the agenda committee prior to its meeting. The agenda committee will endeavor to discuss all such questions, comments, and suggestions at its meeting. (Appendix: Council Procedure, III. Agenda, e. CAC Ground Rules.) Matters from the Mayor and Members of Council. At this point, any council member may place before the council matters which are not included in the formal agenda. This item is generally limited to responses to open comment,

appointments to boards and commissions, sharing of information, and requests for advice concerning matters pending before other bodies, requests for staff work, and requests for scheduling future agenda items. Responses to open comment shall be limited to 2 minutes per council members. Matters requiring a formal council vote, such as motions to sponsor an event or to allocate funds, are normally placed on the agenda through the regular agenda review process, rather than dealt with under this item. If a council member wishes to reconsider a prior council decision, the council member shall request that the Council Agenda Committee schedule a discussion under item 8. Prior council decisions shall be reconsidered only after a material change in law or fact. A material change in law or fact means a change that if having occurred before the prior council decision would have made it unlikely that a majority of council would have supported the prior decision. If five or more council members support reconsidering a prior decision, the Council Agenda Committee shall be directed to schedule substantive consideration at a later meeting. No discussion of revisiting a prior decision shall exceed fifteen minutes. (Appendix: Council Procedure, IV. Council Meeting Agenda, a. Council meetings shall be conducted as follows, 3. Consent Agenda, C. Second Readings, 8. Matters from the Mayor and Members of Council.) Staff recommend making the following procedural changes to support CAC scheduling: 1. Deadline to request CAC action: Limit discussion of CAC requests each Monday to only those submissions received by the prior Thursday. Any CAC request received on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday will be scheduled for the meeting following the upcoming Monday. This will allow for sufficient staff and council review of submissions before CAC discussions each Monday morning, and it will reduce the need for staff work on Saturdays and Sundays to accommodate requests received on or after Friday afternoon. Staff recommend allowing CAC to suspend this limitation when it determines that the request is sufficiently time sensitive and related to an unanticipated emergency, disaster, or otherwise urgent development. 2. Criteria for review of CAC requests: Codify in council procedure that CAC shall prioritize requests on the basis of their relevance to the council’s priority project workplan and time sensitivity. To assist CAC in this exercise, require the following information to be included in the request for it to be eligible for CAC consideration: a. The perceived time sensitivity of the request. b. Whether and how the request is related to the council’s existing priority projects and workplan items.

3. Nods of five for alternatives to Matters discussions: To maximize efficient use of limited meeting time, council procedure should provide CAC the discretion to recommend alternative ways to address items that are not determined by the committee to warrant use of council meeting time. When CAC wishes to divert a request from the formal agenda, they shall schedule a 5 minute item under Matters from the Mayor and Council to determine whether there is a nod of five from council to proceed with an alternative option that may require substantial staff time to accomplish (e.g., lunch and learn sessions, site visits or field trips, other educational/training opportunities, and information packets from staff). The council nod of five should signify council members’ willingness and desire to commit to participating in the session, not just signal support for keeping the meeting off the council’s regular agenda. If an item does not receive a nod of five to be alternatively addressed, staff would not perform additional work. Item #3 – Hotline Submission Guidelines In both the Process Improvement Working Group and during review sessions of the Council Handbook, council members identified ambiguities related to council member use of the Hotline platform. Hotline is only sparsely mentioned throughout the council procedures, with the relevant portions for this item included below: -

-

-

Electronic means of communication with and from council members as a group is provided through Hotline and Council Correspondence on the city's website. The Hotline is an electronic means for council members to ask questions of staff and convey information to the public that is posted in a manner that is available to the public on the city's website. Staff responses to Hotline questions of council members are posted on Hotline in order to be available to the public. (B.R.C. Title 2 – Government Organization, Appendix: Council Procedure, II. Communication with Council, b.) First Reading. On first reading, the clerk reads the title or the general description of the item set forth on the agenda, and the council has an opportunity to ask questions of the staff. Whenever practicable, council members ask first reading questions in writing or by email to "Hotline" in advance of the meeting no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Sunday preceding the meeting. Any remaining questions are asked at the meeting. (B.R.C. Title 2 – Government Organization, Appendix: Council Procedure, VII. Procedure in Handling Ordinances, Resolutions and Important Motions, c. First Reading.) Information/Research Requests/Rule of Three. Requests for information should be directed to "Hotline," or, if a public request is not appropriate, directly to the city manager or the city attorney. (B.R.C. Title 2 – Government Organization,

Appendix: Council Procedure, X. Research and Study Sessions, a. Information/Research Requests/Rule of Three.) In addition, the Council Handbook further describes guidelines for the use of Hotline. To assist with efficient administration of Hotline responses, staff recommends the following procedure improvements: 1. Deadline for Hotlines related to an upcoming meeting: Update “Sunday” to “Tuesday” for questions submitted to staff prior to council meetings. The reference to a Sunday deadline is a vestige of Tuesday evening council meetings, from which council transitioned in recent years to Thursdays. 2. Single subject Hotline requests: Limit Hotline submissions to single subjects for ease of staff coordination and responses. When council members submit singular Hotline emails with multiple topics, it is difficult for staff to provide timely responses due to the challenge of coordinating a single email reply across several city departments. Staff are not recommending placing a limitation on the number of Hotline emails that council members may submit, only the number of topics per submission. 3. Codify in council procedure the current Council Handbook guidelines for Hotline: These guidelines include consideration of staff time required to address Hotline questions, process to ensure compliance with open meeting laws, and a description of the fundamental purpose and intent of Hotline, which is to make prompt replies available to council in response to their questions. Hotline is also used for sharing questions that council members intend to raise about upcoming agenda items or to put other council members on notice of motions or suggestions that might be made at an upcoming meeting in order to avoid surprising colleagues.

Anticipated Fiscal and Workplan Impacts None of the procedural recommendations described in this memo would result in material impacts to the city’s budget. All staff recommendations related to declarations, CAC scheduling requests, and Hotline submission guidelines are meant to build efficiency for council and staff. As a result, staff anticipate that implementation of the recommendations above will increase capacity for people who work on these items.

Equity Analysis While internal procedural changes related to CAC requests and Hotline messages are not anticipated to materially impact equity issues in the city, procedure changes related

to declarations could have further-reaching impacts due to the nature of the declarations program and how it serves community members. Staff and community members have periodically identified social and racial equity concerns within the council declarations program. These include: •

•

Issues related to potential performativity and the harm that council or city staff members can cause when they do not consult communities regarding declarations that reference or center their experiences. Absent consultation with community members, these documents can run the risk of causing unintentional harm or misrepresenting the thoughts, experiences, and priorities of different communities. Declarations are often approved by CAC for scheduling without consultation with community members regarding either declaration language or a recommended recipient for the declaration. City staff must then work backwards from the council reading request to identify community members who would be interested in collaboration.

Staff are interested in ensuring that declaration readings are meaningful experiences for community members. The procedure change to create an intake form for declaration requests has been recommended to address these equity concerns.

Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability Considerations The procedural recommendations described in this memo are not anticipated to materially impact climate, resilience, or sustainability. This is because these changes are primarily administrative in nature.

Community Engagement Staff did not formally engage with community members in relation to these procedural recommendations. Staff consulted primarily with the Council Process Improvement Working Group (Council Members Adams, Marquis, Speer, and Winer) who engaged with their council colleagues during the process improvement priority-setting phase. That said, staff members did consider feedback from former declaration recipients when drafting declaration program recommendations.

Next Steps for City Council City staff will draft desired council procedure changes in accordance with council direction, and these items will be scheduled before the end of this council term for a full council vote.

Summary of Upcoming Procedure Changes that will Require a Council Vote: 1. Formalizing Mayor Pro Tem (MPT) selection criteria 2. Codifying City Council committee charters 3. Email address policy prohibiting use of community member email addresses for campaign activity 4. Any desired changes to: a. Declaration procedures b. CAC scheduling requests c. Hotline submission criteria Importantly, any procedure changes approved by a vote of the full council are enforceable only by the council itself as a self-governing body.

Digital Accessibility The City of Boulder is committed to digital accessibility. Some content may not be fully accessible due to technical limitations or issues. For alternate formats or accommodations, please visit Accessibility | City of Boulder or contact accessibility@bouldercolorado.gov.

Attachments Attachment A – Progress Report on all 15 Process Improvement Items