Item 2E-Agenda Appoint Special Counsel full packet

City of Boulder City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: July 23, 2026 Agenda Title Consideration of a motion to authorize the city attorney to appoint Jerome A. DeHerrera as Special Counsel to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute complaints #2026005CCC and #2026-006CCC related to alleged code of conduct violations filed pursuant to Section 2-7-8, “Expectations,” B.R.C. 1981; and setting forth related details.

Staff Contact • •

Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney

Draft Motion Language Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city attorney to appoint Jerome A. DeHerrera as Special Counsel to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute complaints #2026-005CCC and #2026-006CCC related to alleged code of conduct violations filed pursuant to Section 27-8, “Expectations,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth related details.

Executive Summary Code of Conduct Complaints #2026-005CCC and #2026-006CCC were emailed to council, the city attorney, and various city staff on June 22, 2026. These complaints were filed pursuant to Section 2-7-10, “Enforcement,” B.R.C. 1981, by Jan Burton and Richard Hall. The city clerk acknowledged official receipt of these complaints on June 24, 2026.

Teresa Taylor Tate, the City Attorney, is unable to investigate these code of conduct complaints that arise from the same set of facts and involve Lauren Kaplan in her official capacity as a Planning Board Member because of an existing conflict of interest. The purpose of this agenda item is a request by the city attorney for council to authorize authority allowing her to appoint Jerome A. DeHerrera as special counsel to investigate and potentially prosecute these ethics complaints. Under the city’s code, council does not have any discretion with respect to whether or not there should be an investigation of a verified ethics complaint. The Code provides in Section 2-7-10, “Enforcement,” B.R.C. 1981, that city council shall request the city attorney to conduct an investigation regarding a violation of this chapter. The code provides further that the “city attorney may request that the council appoint special counsel to investigate and potentially prosecute any case that may cause the city attorney to have a conflict of interest or may cause an appearance of impropriety under the provisions of this chapter or may violate any rule regarding professional responsibility.” B.R.C. 1981 § 2-7-10(c). Pursuant to this authority, the city attorney requests that council appoint Jerome A. DeHerrera with the Achieve Law Group as special counsel to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute these verified ethics complaints filed by Jan Burton and Richard Hall.

Council Action Options Option

Outcome

Approve motion language as drafted

If the motion is approved, Jerome A. DeHerrera will be appointed as special counsel.

Define and adopt a modified motion

Council would need to define any modifications or amendments to the draft motion language. This will likely require staff to bring back an amended version. If this motion is denied, Jerome A. DeHerrera will not be appointed as special counsel. The requirement to investigate complaints #2026-005 & #2026-006 will still be present, so other options for special counsel would need to be explored. If council refers this item back to staff, staff would need further direction before placing this item back on the agenda.

Deny the motion or take no action

Refer back to staff

Alignment with City Plans and City Council History Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience (SER) Framework and Citywide Strategic Plan Alignment SER Framework Goal Area This item connects to Responsibly governed. By the city attorney requesting that special counsel be assigned to investigate these code of conduct complaints, it acts to enhance transparency while continuing to provide quality customer service to the city organization and community members. Citywide Strategic Plan This item connects to Strategy 12, Implement organizational and financial best practices to continuously improve asset management, customer experience, and project and program performance. Requests from the city attorney to appoint special counsel to investigate and have the authority to take necessary steps within that scope of authority after completing the investigation of these complaints is a best practice when a conflict of interest exists. Careful and independent investigation of ethics complaints supports community trust in government.

Alignment with Additional City Plans This item is work that can be absorbed within the city attorney’s current and ongoing work plan; especially since this request also allows the city attorney and her office to not utilize staff time or city resources for the investigation or potential prosecution.

City Council History This item has not previously come before this or any other council.

Analysis The city attorney is requesting that council authorize her to appoint special counsel to investigate ethics complaints #2026-005 and #2026-006 filed with the Clerk’s Office by Jan Burton and Richard Hall on June 22, 2026. Although the city attorney has authority to investigate this complaint, there is an existing conflict of interest. Community members must trust that all complaints of this nature will be investigated thoroughly, independently, and without bias. That is why the city attorney is recommending that special counsel be appointed in this matter. On June 22, 2026 the city clerk received sworn Code of Conduct Complaint #2026-005 pursuant to § 2-7-10 B.R.C. 1981 (Attachment A) from Jan Burton alleging violations of the Code of Conduct. The complaint asks for a review of Planning Board Chair Lauren Kaplan's continued participation in matters concerning the Boulder Municipal Airport.

Section 2-7-10(b)(2), “Enforcement,” B.R.C. 1981 provides as follows: A resident of the city or any city employee may initiate an investigation of any city council member, employee or appointee to a city board, commission, task force or similar body by filing a sworn statement with the city clerk setting forth facts which, if true, would constitute a violation of a provision of this chapter. Additionally On June 22, 2026 the city clerk received sworn Code of Conduct Complaint #2026-006 pursuant to § 2-7-10 B.R.C. 1981 (Attachment B) from Richard Hall alleging violations of the Code of Conduct. The complaint raises concern about how the airport language in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan was changed at the June 16, 2026 Planning Board Meeting. He also questions Lauren Kaplan’s role. The filing of a sworn complaint triggers an obligation of either the city manager or the city council, depending on the subject of the complaint, to refer the complaint to the city attorney for investigation and prosecution. This referral is mandatory. The code does not provide for any discretion. Here, the complaints have been filed by community members; therefore council “shall request the city attorney to conduct an investigation regarding a violation of this chapter.” § 2-7-10(c), “Enforcement,” B.R.C. 1981. This request does not reflect any decision regarding the merits of the complaint, because the referral is required by the city code. The code further provides: The city attorney may request that the city council appoint special counsel to investigate and prosecute any case that may cause the city attorney to have a conflict of interest or may cause an appearance of impropriety under the provisions of this chapter or may violate any rule regarding professional responsibility § 2-7-10(c), “Enforcement,” B.R.C. 1981.

Equity Analysis An equity analysis was not necessary on this item.

Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability Considerations This item has no considerations related to climate, resilience, or sustainability.

Community Engagement This item does not require community engagement

Workplan Considerations

This work is absorbed as a routine part of the City Attorney’s Office workplan. Next Steps for City Council There are no next steps for this item and no related agenda items. Accessibility Statement 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 – Complaint #2026-005 filed by Jan Burton Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall Attachment C – Jerome A. DeHerrera Bio Attachment D – Jerome A. DeHerrera Resume

Attachment A – Complaint #2026-005 filed by Jan Burton

6/23/26 Ms. Elesha Johnson City Clerk City of Boulder Re: Formal Code of Conduct Complaint, Open Meetings Review, and Request for Recusal Review Regarding Planning Board Chair Laura Kaplan’s Participation in Airport-Related Matters Dear Ms. Tate, I am writing to submit a formal complaint and request for review under the City of Boulder Code of Conduct, Chapter 7, regarding Planning Board Chair Laura Kaplan’s continued participation in matters concerning the Boulder Municipal Airport. I am also requesting that the City review whether the process surrounding recent Planning Board airport-related language was consistent with applicable open-meetings, notice, transparency, and public-process requirements. I understand that Planning Board members are volunteers and that they often come to public service with strong views on community issues. That is not, by itself, the concern here. The concern is that Ms. Kaplan has been a highly visible and active advocate for closing the Boulder Municipal Airport, including serving as an organizer and leading proponent of ballot measures intended to achieve that result, while continuing to chair and participate in Planning Board matters involving the same subject. The City’s Code of Conduct sets high expectations for public officials, appointed board and commission members, and city employees. As referenced in Section 2-7-8(e), public officials are expected to act with honesty, care, diligence, professionalism, impartiality, and integrity, and to maintain the public’s trust and confidence. The Code also makes clear that a board member should remove themselves from participating in a matter when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. I believe that standard applies here. Ms. Kaplan’s public advocacy has gone well beyond a general policy interest or ordinary civic engagement. She has publicly campaigned for a specific outcome on the airport — closure — and has helped lead efforts to bring that outcome about. Given that history, I do not believe it is reasonable for her to continue presiding over, shaping, or voting on Planning Board discussions, recommendations, letters, or Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan language involving the airport. The issue is not whether Ms. Kaplan is allowed to have personal views. Of course she is. The issue is whether someone who has publicly advocated for a specific result on a matter still before the Planning Board can continue to act in an official Planning Board role on that same matter without creating an appearance of partiality. The relevant standard is not whether actual bias can be proven, or whether Ms. Kaplan personally believes she can be fair. The standard is whether her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Attachment A – Complaint #2026-005 filed by Jan Burton

My concern became more serious during the late-night portion of the Planning Board meeting on June 16, 2026. During that meeting, Ms. Kaplan proposed changes to airport-related language that had been developed through a lengthy public process involving city staff and community input, and that had remained unchanged for many months. The proposed change was introduced very late in the process, with no prior public notice or meaningful opportunity for the public to review or comment before the language moved toward transmission to City Council. Given Ms. Kaplan’s prior advocacy for airport closure, her role in proposing or advancing new airport-related language at that stage — particularly as Chair — raises a serious appearance-ofimpartiality concern. A reasonable member of the public could question whether her prior advocacy was influencing, or appearing to influence, her official actions on the Planning Board. This also raises broader transparency concerns. Planning Board is an appointed public body conducting public business. Its deliberations, recommendations, and communications to City Council should occur through an open and transparent public process. Colorado’s Open Meetings Law, C.R.S. § 24-6-401 et seq., and applicable City of Boulder rules are intended to ensure that public policy is developed in public view, not shaped outside the public process and then introduced at the last minute. I am not asserting that every communication or discussion necessarily violated Open Meetings requirements. However, given the timing and significance of the airport-related language, I believe the City should review how that language was developed, who was involved, and whether any communications or coordination occurred outside a properly noticed public meeting. Specifically, I ask that the City Attorney’s Office review whether there were any emails, text messages, group messages, phone calls, meetings, shared documents, draft language, or other communications among Planning Board members, city officials, city staff, outside advocacy groups, campaign participants, consultants, or other third parties relating to airport closure, airport decommissioning, airport land-use alternatives, or Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan language before the June 16, 2026 meeting. I also respectfully request that all potentially relevant records be preserved while this matter is reviewed. This includes emails, correspondence, meeting materials, draft language, shared documents, text messages, instant messages, calendar entries, notes, and communications on personal devices or personal accounts to the extent they were used for city-related business. To be clear, this complaint is not based on disagreement with Ms. Kaplan’s personal views. It is based on the fact that she has continued to participate in official Planning Board matters on a subject where she has already taken a sustained, public, and leadership-level advocacy position. In my view, that creates exactly the kind of situation the Code of Conduct is intended to address. I respectfully request the following: 1. That the City Attorney’s Office review whether Ms. Kaplan’s participation in airportrelated Planning Board matters complies with the City of Boulder Code of Conduct,

Attachment A – Complaint #2026-005 filed by Jan Burton

2.

3.

4. 5.

including the requirement that a board member remove themselves from participation when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. That the City Attorney’s Office review whether the development, discussion, revision, or advancement of airport-related Planning Board language complied with Colorado Open Meetings Law requirements and applicable City of Boulder public-meeting, notice, agenda, and transparency rules. That Ms. Kaplan be advised to recuse herself from all future Planning Board discussions, deliberations, recommendations, letters, and votes concerning the Boulder Municipal Airport, airport closure, airport decommissioning, airport land-use alternatives, or related Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan language. That the City preserve all potentially relevant records while the Code of Conduct and Open Meetings concerns are reviewed. That the airport-related Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan language discussed at the June 16, 2026 Planning Board meeting be returned to the prior staff and communitysupported language, or, at minimum, not be transmitted to City Council until the recusal, Code of Conduct, and Open Meetings concerns have been reviewed and the public has had a meaningful opportunity to understand and comment on the proposed changes.

Public confidence in Planning Board depends not only on the final outcome of airport-related decisions, but also on whether those decisions are made through a process that is fair, transparent, properly noticed, and open to public scrutiny. In this case, I believe there are serious concerns that should be addressed before any further airport-related recommendations are advanced. I respectfully request a written response explaining how the City will address this complaint, whether Ms. Kaplan will be required or advised to recuse herself from future airport-related matters, and whether the City will review the process under applicable Open Meetings requirements. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Sincerely, Jan Burton Resident, City of Boulder

Attachment A – Complaint #2026-005 filed by Jan Burton

2024 Ballot Measures: Laura Kaplan was the leader of two ballot measures to de-commission the airport and build housing, a sponsor, and one of 4 donors. Laura Kaplan donated $5000, the second highest funder of the campaign. She was the spokesperson for the ballot measures. Feb 14, 2024 https://www.dailycamera.com/2024/02/14/petition-aims-to-build-momentum-towarddecommissioning-boulder-airport/ June 13, 2024 https://boulderreportinglab.org/2024/06/13/measure-to-close-boulders-airport-qualifies-for2024-ballot/ Ms. Kaplan’s Opinion pieces, referring to her as a member of Planning Board (Boulder Reporting Lab): Sept 27, 2024 https://www.dailycamera.com/2024/09/27/guest-opinion-laura-kaplan-refuse-faa-funding-togain-the-right-to-determine-the-airports-future/ November 19, 2024 https://www.dailycamera.com/2024/11/19/guest-opinion-laura-kaplan-faas-motion-to-dismissboulder-airport-lawsuit-moves-case-forward/ October 23, 2025 https://boulderreportinglab.org/2025/10/23/jill-grano-laura-kaplan-lisa-morzel-and-philipogren-boulder-should-put-its-174-acres-of-airport-land-to-better-use/ April 21, 2026 https://boulderreportinglab.org/2026/04/21/laura-kaplan-boulder-must-not-give-permanentcontrol-of-city-land-to-the-faa/ The campaign is still active: https://www.airportneighborhoodcampaign.org

Richard L. Hall 2455 Vine Place Boulder, CO 80304

Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall

To Teresa Tate City Attorney City of Boulder 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302

Re: Airport – Request for Code-of-Conduct Review Boulder, June 23, 2026 Dear Ms. Tate: I am writing to raise a serious concern about how the airport language in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan was changed at the Planning Board's June 16 meeting. In particular, I ask that the City Attorney review whether Planning Board Chair Laura Kaplan's role in this matter is consistent with the City's Code of Conduct Policy (Section 2-7-8(e)), given her longstanding public advocacy for airport closure, and that she recuse herself from further deliberations on the airport unless that review concludes otherwise. I parallel, my colleagues at the Soaring Society of Boulder and I have requested that Council adopt the airport language originally developed by City Staff, rather than the substitute language Chair Kaplan introduced at the Planning Board meeting without prior public review. Background On April 23, City Council voted 5-4 to preserve the future of Boulder Municipal Airport, consistent with language City Staff had developed for the Comprehensive Plan: "79. Municipal Airport. The city maintains the Boulder Municipal Airport as a safe environment for aviation business and business-related travel, scientific and research flights, recreation and tourism, flight training and vocational education, aerial fire-fighting, emergency medical flights, and disaster-related support for the city and county. The city will help manage and mitigate noise and other impacts of airport operations via land use controls and partnership with the State and fuel providers to offer unleaded fuel. The city is also forward-looking as aircraft electrification becomes reality. The city will continue to build relationships that allow the airport to be a valuable resource for a wider range of people in

Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall

the Boulder community. The city will coordinate with the county to provide consistent regulations addressing noise and other airport influences, where possible." Like the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, this language went through extensive review intended to reflect broad public input. The Planning Board's June 16 Change in Language At its June 16 meeting, without prior public notice or review, the Planning Board adopted a substitute version of this section proposed individually by Chair Kaplan. The new language removes specific references to several of the airport's primary functions — business travel, scientific and research flights, recreation and tourism, flight training and vocational education, aerial firefighting, and emergency medical flights — replacing them with a general reference to medical and disaster support. It also adds new language framing the airport as a source of inequitable burden on nearby residents. Correcting the Record In presenting this change, Chair Kaplan made several statements to the Planning Board that my colleagues and I believe were inaccurate or unsupported: 1. Wildfire and disaster response. Chair Kaplan stated that the airport had not been used substantially for fire response since the 2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire, and that she was not aware of the airport serving significant disaster response. In fact, the airport served as a staging base for more than ten large firefighting helicopters, tankers and other supporting vehicles, as well as firefighting staff during the 2020 Calwood fire. The 2013 Boulder flood response involved the largest aerial disaster responses in U.S. history since Hurricane Kathrina. 2. Noise complaints. Chair Kaplan asserted that the airport is “like, their number one source of noise complaints in the city” – a claim that she offered without supporting data. A review of all data entered through the City’s “Inquire” system shows that during the most recent 12-month period ending in May 2026, the city received 280 airport related noise complaints. By comparison, during the same 12-month period, the city’s police department received almost 3,000 non-airport related noise complaints. In addition, a report for 2024 shows that noise was one of the top five call types among more than 73,000 Boulder Police Department calls for service in 2024 (https://bouldercolorado.gov/annual-reportboulder-police-department-2024). The airport community, including the Soaring Society, takes noise concerns seriously and continues to pursue voluntary noise abatement measures and quieter aircraft, but the available data do not support characterizing the airport as a leading citywide noise concern. 3. Impact on nearby mobile home communities. Chair Kaplan argued that the airport inequitably burdens residents living near it, citing the city’s racial equity map, which classifies that area as Category 5 — the highest tier of concern for racial and ethnic equity. Neither I nor my colleagues at the Soaring Society dispute that residents near the airport are a vulnerable population deserving of the city’s attention. Our concern is that the racial equity map identifies general socioeconomic vulnerability in the area; it does not establish that the airport is a cause

Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall

of that vulnerability, nor that its operations are a primary concern of residents there. Our direct engagement with those communities suggests that residents’ most pressing concerns — access to drinking water and cost of living — are unrelated to the airport, and that many residents have expressed strong support for the airport as a source of local education and employment. We believe the correct response to equity concerns in this area is targeted investment in the community, not deletion of the airport’s beneficial functions from the city’s planning framework. 4. Lead emissions. Chair Kaplan implied that the airport is a significant source of lead pollution with associated health risks for nearby residents. I am not aware of measurement data showing elevated lead levels near Boulder Municipal Airport; studies at larger airports have found measurable lead confined to small “engine-run up areas” next to runways. In addition, the aviation industry is in the process of transitioning away from leaded fuel, and unleaded fuel is expected to be widely available well before any potential airport closure could take effect — meaning closure would have negligible impact on lead emissions. Process and Code of Conduct Concerns Beyond the substance of these claims, my colleagues and I are concerned about the process by which this language was introduced. Chair Kaplan has been a long-standing public advocate for airport closure, including as an organizer of past ballot measures to that effect. Her leadership of this specific agenda item — proposing and advancing language that removes the airport’s beneficial uses while adding new equity-framing language — raises a reasonable question about impartiality under the City’s Code of Conduct Policy (Section 2-7-8(e)), which calls on public officials to recuse themselves from matters where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. I want to be precise about what we are alleging and what we are not. Chair Kaplan has every right to hold and advocate for her views as a private citizen. What I am asking the City Attorney to assess is whether, in her role as Planning Board Chair, Chair Kaplan’s conduct on this specific item — introducing substantive new language at the final deliberative meeting, without prior cross-board review, while serving as the body’s presiding officer — is consistent with the impartiality standard her position requires. I would also note that at the same meeting, Chair Kaplan volunteered her personal view that the airport is not “part of the backbone of the City’s transportation system,” in the context of a board discussion about whether to remove the airport from a sentence describing the city’s transportation infrastructure. That statement was made while she was chairing a discussion on a matter where her impartiality is already in question, and it illustrates the difficulty of separating her advocacy role from her chair’s role in this context. Our Perspective The Soaring Society relies on the airport to provide education to the public on weather and the science of motorless flight. One of the first electric self-launching gliders in the country is based in Boulder and we continue to invest in further reducing our environmental footprint through emerging technologies such as electric gliders and modern light sport aircraft for towing. We believe all these efforts align with

Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall

values widely shared in Boulder, and we were encouraged by Council’s April vote to preserve the airport’s future. Continued investment in these technologies depends on confidence that this commitment will hold — which is why we are asking Council to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan language reflects the process and public input that vote was based on, rather than a late, unreviewed individual revision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Respectfully,

Richard L. Hall 2455 Vine Place Boulder, CO 80304

SSB Soaring Society of Boulder, Inc. Armand Charbonneau, President Po Box 17577 Boulder, CO 80308 abcsoaring@gmail.com

Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall

Re: Airport – Request for Code-of-Conduct Review; Remove Biased Last-Minute Changes to Comprehensive Plan Boulder, June 22, 2026 Dear Mayor Brockett, Mayor Pro Tem Winer, and Members of the Boulder City Council: On behalf of the Soaring Society of Boulder, we are writing to raise a serious concern about how the airport language in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan was changed at the Planning Board's June 16 meeting, and to make two specific requests. First, we ask that the City Attorney review whether Planning Board Chair Laura Kaplan's role in this matter is consistent with the City's Code of Conduct Policy (Section 2-7-8(e)), given her long-standing public advocacy for airport closure, and that she recuse herself from further deliberations on the airport unless that review concludes otherwise. Second, we ask that Council adopt the airport language originally developed by City Staff, rather than the substitute language Chair Kaplan introduced at the Planning Board meeting without prior public review.

Background On April 23, City Council voted 5-4 to preserve the future of Boulder Municipal Airport, consistent with language City Staff had developed for the Comprehensive Plan: "79. Municipal Airport. The city maintains the Boulder Municipal Airport as a safe environment for aviation business and business-related travel, scientific and research flights, recreation and tourism, flight training and vocational education, aerial fire-fighting, emergency medical flights, and disaster-related support for the city and county. The city will help manage and mitigate noise and other impacts of airport operations via land use controls and partnership with the State and fuel providers to offer unleaded fuel. The city is also forward-looking as aircraft electrification becomes reality. The city will continue to build relationships that allow the airport to be a valuable resource for a wider range of people in the Boulder community. The city will coordinate with the county to provide consistent regulations addressing noise and other airport influences, where possible." Like the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, this language went through extensive review intended to reflect broad public input.

Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall

The Planning Board's June 16 Change in Language At its June 16 meeting, without prior public notice or review, the Planning Board adopted a substitute version of this section proposed individually by Chair Kaplan. The new language removes specific references to several of the airport's primary functions — business travel, scientific and research flights, recreation and tourism, flight training and vocational education, aerial firefighting, and emergency medical flights — replacing them with a general reference to medical and disaster support. It also adds new language framing the airport as a source of inequitable burden on nearby residents.

Correcting the Record In presenting this change, Chair Kaplan made several statements to the Planning Board that we believe were inaccurate or unsupported: 1. Wildfire and disaster response. Chair Kaplan stated that the airport had not been used substantially for fire response since the 2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire, and that she was not aware of the airport serving significant disaster response. In fact, the airport served as a staging base for more than ten large firefighting helicopters, tankers and other supporting vehicles, as well as firefighting staff during the 2020 Calwood fire. The 2013 Boulder flood response involved the largest aerial disaster responses in U.S. history since Hurricane Kathrina. 2. Noise complaints. Chair Kaplan asserted that the airport is “like, their number one source of noise complaints in the city” – a claim that she offered without supporting data. A review of all data entered through the City’s “Inquire” system shows that during the most recent 12-month period ending in May 2026, the city received 280 airport related noise complaints. By comparison, during the same 12-month period, the city’s police department received almost 3,000 non-airport related noise complaints. In addition, a report for 2024 shows that noise was one of the top five call types among more than 73,000 Boulder Police Department calls for service in 2024 (https://bouldercolorado.gov/annual-reportboulder-police-department-2024). The airport community, including the Soaring Society, takes noise concerns seriously and continues to pursue voluntary noise abatement measures and quieter aircraft, but the available data do not support characterizing the airport as a leading citywide noise concern. 3. Impact on nearby mobile home communities. Chair Kaplan argued that the airport inequitably burdens residents living near it, citing the city’s racial equity map, which classifies that area as Category 5 — the highest tier of concern for racial and ethnic equity. We do not dispute that residents near the airport are a vulnerable population deserving of the city’s attention. Our concern is that the racial equity map identifies general socioeconomic vulnerability in the area; it does not establish that the airport is a cause of that vulnerability, nor that its operations are a primary concern of residents there. Our direct engagement with those communities suggests that residents’ most pressing concerns — access to drinking water and cost of living — are unrelated to the airport, and that many residents have expressed strong support for the airport as a source of local

Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall

education and employment. We believe the correct response to equity concerns in this area is targeted investment in the community, not deletion of the airport’s beneficial functions from the city’s planning framework. 4. Lead emissions. Chair Kaplan implied that the airport is a significant source of lead pollution with associated health risks for nearby residents. We are not aware of measurement data showing elevated lead levels near Boulder Municipal Airport; studies at larger airports have found measurable lead confined to small “engine-run up areas” next to runways. In addition, the aviation industry is in the process of transitioning away from leaded fuel, and unleaded fuel is expected to be widely available well before any potential airport closure could take effect — meaning closure would have negligible impact on lead emissions. Process and Code of Conduct Concerns Beyond the substance of these claims, we are concerned about the process by which this language was introduced. Chair Kaplan has been a long-standing public advocate for airport closure, including as an organizer of past ballot measures to that effect. Her leadership of this specific agenda item — proposing and advancing language that removes the airport’s beneficial uses while adding new equity-framing language — raises a reasonable question about impartiality under the City’s Code of Conduct Policy (Section 2-7-8(e)), which calls on public officials to recuse themselves from matters where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. We want to be precise about what we are alleging and what we are not. Chair Kaplan has every right to hold and advocate for her views as a private citizen. What we are asking the City Attorney to assess is whether, in her role as Planning Board Chair, her conduct on this specific item — introducing substantive new language at the final deliberative meeting, without prior cross-board review, while serving as the body’s presiding officer — is consistent with the impartiality standard her position requires. We would also note that at the same meeting, Chair Kaplan volunteered her personal view that the airport is not “part of the backbone of the City’s transportation system,” in the context of a board discussion about whether to remove the airport from a sentence describing the city’s transportation infrastructure. That statement was made while she was chairing a discussion on a matter where her impartiality is already in question, and it illustrates the difficulty of separating her advocacy role from her chair’s role in this context. Our Perspective The Soaring Society relies on the airport to provide education to the public on weather and the science of motorless flight. One of the first electric self-launching gliders in the country is based in Boulder and we continue to invest in further reducing our environmental footprint through emerging technologies such as electric gliders and modern light sport aircraft for towing. We believe all these efforts align with values widely shared in Boulder, and we were encouraged by Council’s April vote to preserve the airport’s future.

Attachment B – Complaint #2026-006 filed by Richard Hall

Continued investment in these technologies depends on confidence that this commitment will hold — which is why we are asking Council to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan language reflects the process and public input that vote was based on, rather than a late, unreviewed individual revision. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

Armand Charbonneau President – Soaring Society of Boulder

Clemens Ceipek President Emeritus – Soaring Society of Boulder

Attachment C – Jerome A. DeHerrera Bio Achieve Law Group, LLC 146 West 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80204 P: (303) 465-1000 F: (303) 484-7678 Achievelawgroup.com

Jerome A. DeHerrera (303) 725-2769 JDH@achievelawgroup.com

Jerome is an attorney and community leader who serves as a general counsel to school districts, charter schools, non-profit companies, and private for-profit companies. He helps his clients meet their day-to-day legal needs as well as navigate their complex, long-term challenges. He advises and helps solve whatever legal issues his clients are facing, including corporate governance, contracts, government relations, human resources, real estate, audits, investigations, civil litigation, and transactions. Jerome strives to provide his clients with excellent service that is efficient and timely. Jerome is also a litigator with extensive trial court and appellate experience. His litigation experience covers a wide range of subject matters including real estate, contracts, nonprofit corporations, construction defects, fraud, civil theft, products liability, employment, environmental law, political law and probate disputes. Jerome has also served as both an internal and outside investigator and hearing officer making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and potential sanction recommendations. Jerome earned a B.A. in Economics with distinction and honors from Colorado College (1997), a master’s degree in public policy from Georgetown University (2001) and a law degree from Stanford University (2004). He began his legal career at Arnold & Porter where he practiced litigation, political law, and telecommunications law. Jerome then practiced litigation at Davis Graham & Stubbs where he developed an education law practice, representing both higher education and K-12 education clients. Jerome then joined Denver Public schools as Deputy General Counsel and was later promoted to General Counsel. At DPS, he advised the school board, superintendent and senior leaders on all legal matters. He led a team of six deputies, supervised outside counsel, and was responsible for all of DPS’s legal strategy, litigation, contracts, and transactions. He was responsible for overseeing litigation on civil rights, employment disputes, real estate, construction, government investigations, internal investigations, and appeals to the supreme court. During the 2020 redistricting process, Jerome served as General Counsel for the Colorado Congressional Redistricting Commission. Jerome advised the Commission and its eleven members as they navigated the complex legal issues that governed their task of dividing Colorado’s population into eight equal congressional districts that would meet the requirements of Colorado’s Constitution and survive legal challenges. Jerome also advised and assisted the Commission in its litigation before the Colorado Supreme Court. For nineteen years, Jerome has served as pro-bono legal counsel in the Taylor Ranch class action litigation in which he represents the families in San Luis, Colorado who are fighting to restore the land-grant rights given to their ancestors when they settled the San Luis Valley. In 2022, the Colorado Lawyer’s Committee awarded Jerome its Outstanding Sustained Contribution Award for his commitment to his pro-bono clients.

Attachment C – Jerome A. DeHerrera Bio Achieve Law Group, LLC 146 West 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80204 P: (303) 465-1000 F: (303) 484-7678 Achievelawgroup.com

Jerome A. DeHerrera (303) 725-2769 JDH@achievelawgroup.com

Jerome serves on the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission by way of appointment from Governor Polis. By appointment from State Treasurer Dave Young Jerome serves on the Public School Fund Investment Board. Jerome also serves as a Trustee on the Board of Trustees for Colorado College and he is a Director on the Board of Directors of Colorado Legal Services. In 2022, the Colorado Lawyers Committee honored Jerome with its Outstanding Sustained Contribution Award for his 19 years of pro bono service for the Plaintiffs in the Lobato v. Taylor Mexican Land Grant Case. He was twice nominated by the Colorado Lawyer’s Committee for Individual of the Year, and he has been honored as a “Compleat Lawyer” (Law Week 2012), Up and Coming Lawyer (Law Week 2008) and Outstanding New Hispanic Attorney (CHBA 2007).

Attachment D – Jerome A. DeHerrera Resume

Jerome A. DeHerrera

JDH@achievelawgroup.com 146 W. 11 t h Avenue Denver, CO 80204 (303)725-2769

Professional Experience Founder/Managing Partner: Achieve Law Group, 2018 to present Attorney representing local governments, schools, non-profit companies, private for-profit companies, and individuals; specializing in civil litigation, corporate governance, education, real estate, land use, business development, contracts, investigations, and political law. General Counsel, Colorado Independent Congressional Re-Districting Commission, 2021 Provided general counsel to the Commission regarding all legal issues applicable to their task of establishing Colorado’s congressional districts after the 2020 U.S. Census. General Counsel: Denver Public Schools, 2015 to Jan. 2018 Deputy General Counsel, Denver Public Schools, 2013 to 2015 Chief Legal Officer responsible for protecting the legal rights and interests of DPS, responsible for advising the Board of Education and Superintendent on legal matters, and responsible for supervising all transactions and legal representations of DPS. Associate Attorney: Davis, Graham & Stubbs LLP, 2010 to 2013 Associate specializing in litigation, political law, and education law. Litigation matters included environmental, construction, real estate, military, and contractual disputes. Education law practice included serving as outside counsel to charter schools and Colorado College. Associate Attorney: Arnold & Porter LLP, 2004 to 2010 Associate specializing in litigation, telecommunications, and political law. Litigated mass torts and natural resources/energy law. Represented telecom providers before the FCC and state regulators. Advised clients on state and federal political laws and compliance requirements. Pro-Bono Counsel: Lobato v. Taylor, Sangre de Cristo Land Grant Lawsuit, 2005 to Present Pro-Bono counsel for the community members who are restoring their rights to use the Sangre de Cristo Land Grant. These land-grant rights were created prior to the Mexican-American War when the San Luis Valley was part of Mexico. Community Leadership

Colorado College, Board of Trustees, Trustee since 2015 Colorado Legal Services, Board Member since 2010 Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission, appointed by Governor Polis in 2022 Colorado Public School Fund Investment Board, appointed by the State Treasurer in 2020 Judicial Performance Commission for the 17th Judicial District, Commissioner 2018 to 2021 Colorado Supreme Court Judicial Hearings Advisory Panel, Member since 2012 Colorado Hispanic Bar Association Foundation, Board Member since 2021 Adams County Planning Commission, Commissioner from 2015 to 2017 Colorado Center on Law and Policy, Board Member from 2008-2015 Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, Board Member from 2006-2010

Honors

Outstanding Sustained Contribution (Colorado Lawyer’s Committee, 2022) Two-time Nominee for Individual of the Year (Colorado Lawyer’s Committee, 2008 & 2013) “Compleat Lawyer” (Law Week Colorado, 2012) “Up and Coming Lawyer” (Law Week Colorado, 2008) Outstanding New Hispanic Attorney (Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, 2007)

Education

Stanford Law School, J.D., 2004, Editor, Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance Georgetown University, Master’s Degree in Public Policy, 2001, Woodrow Wilson/P.P.I.A. Fellow Colorado College, B.A. Cum Laude, 1997, with Distinction in Economics and Pizzi Award Recipient