# Boulder City Council: Regular Meeting, October 15, 2026

Auto-generated captions. There are no speaker names, and names are often misspelled.
Each line starts with the video clock [h:mm:ss]. To watch from a line, open the video at that offset.

Meeting: https://politics.boulderhopkins.com/meetings/boulder/184
Data: https://politics.boulderhopkins.com/api/meetings/boulder/184.json
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpdA6yZCFZ4

[0:04:06] right, everybody. It's 5:30, so we're going to get started in a second. >> All right, that was quick. Everybody quieted down. Thank you. Okay. Well, welcome everyone to the Thursday, October 15, 2026 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. We're going to start with a call to order. So, I hereby call us to order. And then a roll call, please. Emily. >> Yes, absolutely, Mayor. And good evening, everyone. We'll start tonight's roll call with Council Member Adams, >> present. >> Council member Benjamin, >> present. >> Mayor Brockett, >> present. Council member Kaplan >> present. >> Marquis >> here. >> Shuhart >> here. >> Spear >> here. >> And Winer >> present. >> Mayor, we have our quorum. >> Thanks so much. All right. So now I'm going to ask for a motion to amend the agenda. So have some patience. It's long. In order to add item 4N, which is consideration of a motion to approve a geothermal lease with the Colorado Shiitakqua Association to facilitate the construction and operation of a new geothermal heating and cooling system and also to add item 4 O, which is consideration of a motion, another motion to approve the geothermal lease with the Colorado Association.
[0:05:27] And then finally, item 4P, which is consideration of a motion to approve a council member to the audit committee. >> So moved. Second. >> We have a motion and second. All in favor, please raise your hand. >> Very good. And on that note, we do have Council Member Shuhard on virtually. And Ryan, I know you're fighting a cold, but thanks for being here with us online. And I note your yes vote as well. So that's an 8 to zero in favor of amending the agenda. All right. Now, we'll go to open comments. So Emily, if you can go over the public participation guidelines, please. >> Yes, I'd be happy to. And thank you all for your participation at tonight's city council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code, including participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online.
[0:06:23] Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or a refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person in obscinity. Other appetites based on race, gender, or religion and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you. >> Thanks so much, Emily. All right, so everyone will have two minutes to speak. I'll call three names at a time so people can start coming down towards the podium. and I will be strict about the time limit in the interest of fairness.
[0:07:23] Our first three speakers are Haley O'Donnell and Melica Cartley online and then Leslie Glstester in person. >> Hi, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Hi, good evening uh mayor and council members. My name is Haley and I am a member of the Boulder community and I'm a law student at the University of Colorado. I have come tonight to discuss Boulder's drone as first responder program and the importance of making sure that this new technology is effective, accountable, and used responsibly. Uh I can clearly tell that drones can arrive at emergency scenes before police officers provide a view of what is happening and help first responders make more informed decisions. They may improve officer safety, speed up responses, and help determine when a reported emergency is unfounded. Boulder has already taken important steps to regulate this technology. The police department has policies addressing drone use, policy, incident reporting, and safety. The city also publishes a dashboard showing drone service calls.
[0:08:34] However, I've not been able to find a public report that specifically measures how effective the program is overall. The city has described the benefits of using drones, but residents should be able to see data showing whether those benefits are actually being achieved. For example, how often do drones arrive before officers? How often does information from a drone change a police response? And how often does the program cost taxpayers each year? I respectfully ask council to direct city staff to publish an annual performance report measuring response times, outcomes, operating costs, and other indicators of effectiveness. Comparing these results over time would help residents understand whether the program is delivering the meaningful public safety benefits that have been proposed. I'm not asking the city to abandon this technology or duplicate existing policies. I'm merely asking for greater transparency and accountability as its use expands. Public safety technology should be evaluated not only by what it by what it can do by what evidence and what it actually >> your time is up but thank you for your testimony.
[0:09:43] All right. Now we'll go to Malikica Hartley online and then Leslie Glstrom and Kaden Benerian in person. and Malica, if you can hear us online, please unmute yourself. >> Oh, there we go. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you for having me. Um, I just wanted to express my heartbreak and my disgust for what is happening right now to the open space at CU South for the last week and a half. Um, I've had to watch from my doorstep bulldozers just steamroll over the last bit of wetlands we have here in southern Boulder. And my partner and I, we've lived next door to it since 2008, and we found out about the sudden closure just a few weeks before it happened. Um, the citizens of Boulder never voted on this damn project. They voted for the annexation of CU South into the city.
[0:10:49] Um, I'm I'm at a loss for words at this point. I feel like our town is just a complete corporate shell of itself and we are losing all our third spaces. Families are losing their second spaces, their schools, and now we're getting rid of the last bit of wetlands we have. So, CU can develop a fourth campus on it. So, the citizens of Boulder can pay for their treated water and utilities. Now, because of this annexation agreement, I don't know if we're on a downward race to become the most corrupt city, one of the most corrupt cities in the nation, because we keep selling ourselves out to the highest bidder or just to whatever wishes CU wants. Now, my partner and I, who's a second generation bowler native, we've known for a long time we have we have to leave the city because it's on a downward spiral and we can't afford to raise our baby girl here. We can't afford to have a single family home here. And everything has changed obviously for a long time. The one thing we were looking forward to for our daughter who was born last year was so that she could experience the open space that we've lived next door to for years, our favorite place in the world. And somehow management past and present has has done
[0:12:02] a great job of getting rid of the last remaining wetlands and open space for her too. Now >> your time. Thank you for your testimony. All right. Now, we're going to go to Leslie Glustrm and Kaden Benering in person and then Evan Rous online. >> Thank you, Mayor and council members. Uh, for the record, my name is Lesie Gluststrom, and as you know, I do a lot of work on Excel and climate issues and energy issues. And as always, I want to thank you all for your service, particularly those that are running again because it's just a wicked amount of work. So, thank you very much. Um, and I do share a lot of the concerns that are going to be expressed tonight, including those around CU South. But I would like to talk about Excel. You had a great community forum last week around power resilience, and I was really thrilled to see that and thank Councilwoman Marquis for that and everybody else. and staff came up with a very nice set of options, but the question is how do you pay for it? So that brings us to the graph that I think you're getting passed around. I'm holding an up an earlier version for the community. Um but it uh tells the same point. The line at the bottom is XL
[0:13:25] sales. They've been flat. The line in the middle is what their profits would have done at the rate of inflation. the red line is what their profits have done in reality. And as you know, I've spent years down at the public utilities commission watching this happen. So the bottom line is I'm hoping that the council will be looking at all their options as we move towards the 2030 franchise. And of course, I don't support robbing a bank, but I can't help but thinking about why do you rob a bank? Because that's where the money is. So why would we want to take over the revenue stream? Not talking municipalization, rather community choice because that's where the money is. And your second handout is communities around Colorado that were wholesale customers and have moved away. So there are many communities that we can learn from and after the holidays, I'm hoping we'll set up a good plan for doing that. So >> thank you.
[0:14:23] >> Thank you. >> All right. Now we'll go to Kaden Benerian in person and Evan Russack and Elliot Fleetton online. >> Hello, my name is Kayen Benerian and I'm here on behalf of the Boulder band and music scene, a community that has been exponentially growing and give students and see you the opportunity to be a part of a creative community and express themsel. This community is a big reason why people choose Boulder and CU. City Council and the Boulder Police have given no grace to this community and denial of their needs. And I'm here to ask for a change. Almost 50% of the people living on University Hill are between the ages of 18 and 24, but the current laws are not set up to support this majority. The current noise ordinance applies to all times a day, all days of week, in which police do not have to receive a complaint or take a decible reading for amplified noise. The school has tens of thousands of students under the age of 21 with a lack of small venues and third spaces to socialize and enjoy entertainment on the weekends. So, where are they expected to go? The ambiguity of the audience empowers empowers people to use police resources to shut down what has become an important part of CU Boulder culture.
[0:15:26] This community is not just going to disappear. I'm here to propose a solution that works for both homeowners and families as well as the music and arts community. This proposal comes from the let live music live petition which currently has over 4,000 signatures. Our suggestion is the establishment of a student house show permit that would entail an online form that outlines clear parameters such as a noise cut off times and days that are allowed to host like Friday and Saturday. Importantly, such a permit would prevent police disruption until after a certain time allowing these events to breathe and thrive without undue interference. I implore city council to consider this initiative as it is not only realistic and reasonable but essential for community vitality. You have the opportunities to support young artists and to allow music to continue to build bridges and transform lives. Thank you for your time.
[0:16:20] >> Thank you. Now we're folks, please no applause. You can indicate uh your agreement with something by showing jazz hands if you'd like. All right. All right. Now, we're going to go to Evan Rousac online, Elliot Flayton, and then Montana Palmer in person. >> Uh, good evening, council. I'm not seeing Evan online. Uh, but Elliott is here. >> Let's go to Elliot. >> Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Okay. I will be citing the Palestinian law that governs our sister city of Nabas in historical Samaria. Palestinian law distinguishes between common criminals and those who commit crimes up to include and including murdering civilians in the name of the struggle against the so-called occupation. See as one example law number 14 of 2004. Palestinian law was expanded in decree law number one of 2013 to include crimes by PLO faction members done abroad in the name of the struggle for the independence so-called independence and freedom of Palestine. Uh so Muhammad Sabre Solomon burning boulder rightites alive or siran siran killing US presidential candidate Robert Kennedy would have been covered had they first joined a PLO faction that had vouched for them. The Palestinian Authority is statutoily forbidden from signing or participating in the signing of any permanent peace deal without the release of each of these so-called political prisoners. That's under law of prisoners
[0:17:48] and release prisoners number 19 of 2004. While said political prisoners are in jail, they draw a salary with an allowance for each wife and they get money and a cushy job upon release. That's under council of ministers decision number 23 of 2010 and council of ministers decision number 15 of 2013. How much money and how cushy of a job? Well, that depends on how much time they had to serve. More time, meaning generally more gruesome crime, means more money and a cushier job up to the rank of minister on the civilian side or major general with seniority if they go the military route. And that's under council of minister decision number 15 of 2013. Given these severe facts and the and the outcry against organizations that seek to kill civilians, I ask the Boulder City Council to have their city attorney verify my assertions and upon verification consider how this should affect Boulder's sister city arrangement with the city of Nablas in historical Samaria. Thank you.
[0:18:46] >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Montana Palmer and Ben Gibson in person, then Eve Partridge online. >> Hi, my name is Montana Palmer. I'm a senior at CU Boulder and a singer in a local band called Ripple Effect. I'm also here to speak for the broader Boulder music community. Um, since forming in August, our band has attempted four house shows um around Boulder. Three of these were shut down before 10 p.m. Um, and one was cancelled due to fear of fines residents and musicians could face. Um, we're not alone. Other local musicians are facing increasingly limited opportunities to perform. Um, small house shows have historically been an important part of Boulder's culture, and without these house shows, our options to perform are very limited. Um, we have been repeatedly told by cops to just go play at another venue. Um, but openings to play at these venues can be expensive and difficult to access and frankly impractical for smaller groups to book and play before they have built a following for themselves. However, the points of view of the rest of the Boulder community and permanent residents surrounding University Hill and CU's campus are not unheard. We recognize that these parties and nightlife from CU students can be loud, destructive, and unpleasant for those who live around us. So, we're faced with
[0:20:03] the question, how can we maintain an outlet for informal live music while protecting the peace of the general Boulder community? We propose a residential live music amplified sound permit, a limited exception of the amplified sound up to 85 dB rather than the usual 55 on Fridays and Saturdays with a strict 10 p.m. cutoff. The number of permits would be limited per week, per property, and per neighborhood and would require advanced applications and neighbor notification. They would establish clear responsibilities for occupancy, safety, and cleanup. Violations of these conditions could carry consequences for host and lack of permits in the future. We propose testing the program through a 6 to 12month pilot period. We ask council to explore this proposal or a similar solution. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Ben Gibson in person, then Eve Partridge and Bart Winrum online.
[0:21:01] Is Ben here? Doesn't look like it. So, let's go to Eve Partridge online. >> Hi, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Caterpillar Inc. is being used as a weapon of genocide in Gaza and the city is actively invested in it. Caterpillar also owns Weir gas company and SPM which are actively involved in fracking and fossil fuel mining cons and construction. This is a major discrepancy that Victoria Vandermide and the city are ignoring in regards to policies of not investing in fossil fuels and wararmongering and genocide. It's even more of an issue as the city is trying to sue fossil fuel companies for damages of climate change while actively staying invested in it. At the same time, caterpillar bulldozers are being used to ethnically cleanse, destroy homes, and uproot sacred olive trees daily in Lebanon, where my family heritage is from, where the first and the oldest olive trees live.
[0:22:14] I am seeing the same caterpillar bulldozers uprooting uprooting ancient sacred cottonwood trees in Arizona in order to build a border wall. The state of Washington has already removed investments in Caterpillar since a bulldozer was used to murder activist Rachel Curry in Palestine. This goes against Boulder's fossil fuel investment policy and contradicts your own lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry that is being heard in the Supreme Court now. Please remove this investment in Caterpillar. Numerous community members, myself included, have sent letters to encourage investing in better options like the community, like the pool, like schools and housing. There have been numerous meetings with Guy and Rob and other community members and no change has been made. Your constituents are needing accountability in this matter. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Bart Windrum online and then George Pinkis and Julia Pinkis in person.
[0:23:21] >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh my name is Bart Wendrum. I return to you tonight to express my support for a robust formal comprehensive wildfire confilration mitigation program. One based on forestry and insurance industry science, not hopscotch cross town home hardening with goals expressed as metrics achieved over a stated and near time frame, executed by named city employees through an open process with complete transparency to the citizenry with means-based funding provided as necessary. That funding should include a majority yet temporary diversion of all our climate initiatives dollars. It's both okay and smart to proceed in phases, but the legislation must be passed up front in total, not peace meal. Forestry and insurance industry science clearly identifies hardening all WOOI 1 and WOOI 2 properties along Boulders's complete western boundary. This is the primary, if not the only way to protect as best as possible the entire city.
[0:24:24] Averting our own pending climate catastrophe serves as a model of good climate stewardship. It doesn't undermine our reputation as a progressive climate community. We can't save the world if we don't save ourselves. And a burned-out boulder, after all the post-markshall urban confflrations, would make us look ridiculous. Resist any temptation to enact half measures to plate or to be performative. In this budget cycle, set up the next council to succeed. I will leave you with this story. Recently during a dental cleaning, the hygienist mentioned her efforts to persuade a colleague to move to Boulder. I found myself saying with no forethought, don't do it. Unless and until this city government acts without hedging to mitigate our worsening wildfire confilration threat, Boulder is neither a safe place to move to or to live. This is our stark truth. Youine must take the comprehensive overdue steps to change it.
[0:25:22] >> Thank you. Now, let's go to George Pinkis and Julia Pinkis in person and then Eric Bud online. >> Good evening. Good evening. My name is George Pinkis. I live on 15th Street, a 5-minute walk from the Boulder Medical Center. I'm speaking this evening to urge you to call up item five on your agenda. >> Can you get a little closer to the mic, please? >> Certainly. I'm speaking this evening to urge you to call up item five on your agenda, the reasoning of Boulder Medical Center. I've been a commercial real estate lawyer for 38 years. My comments this evening are based on my research and my extensive experience representing developers throughout the country and not some AI generated statement. The planning and zoning commission's recommendation to approve this resoning is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons. Number one, the resoning is not in compliance with the existing comp plan and specifically policy 2.15 which is barely discussed at the PNZ meeting. The comp plan mandates that there should be a gentle sloping inter neighborhoods. A four-story building with that size mass is not a gentle slope into the two and singlestory buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. Number two, the traffic study was completely ignored. There was no discussion nor meaningful analysis offered by either the applicant or staff
[0:26:32] as to the traffic impacts of a 13th Street, which is a major thoroughare for school traffic to Casey Middle School. a major exit and entrance place for the 13th Street Fire Station and what will be a significant evacuation route in the event of a major fire. No safety concerns with respect to traffic were addressed by PNZ at all. Third, the property is currently zoned BT2 that permits residential development, just not at this excessive F. There is significant opposition to the reasonzoning and upzoning of the affected property. The neighborhood needs to be heard. While I spoke at the PNZ meeting along with a few other people, during the workshop section of the P&Z meeting, none of the concerns raised by the public were even addressed. The very people who vote for you were not heard in any of or any of the concerns raised at PNZ were addressed. This is going to affect an entire neighborhood of Old North Boulder. Many of the affected residents are here this evening.
[0:27:30] >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. All right, let's go to Julia Pinkis, then Eric online, and then Foster Goodwill in person. >> Okay, >> my name is Julia Pinkis and I'm speaking to ask you to call up item five, the resoning of the Boulder Medical Center. My primary concerns are safety and character. These concerns have not been addressed by planning and zoning. First, safety. The intersection at this site is the main artery for our neighborhood. We access 13th Street specifically to avoid Broadway. This is already a busy intersection in Thoroughare. Adding more vehicles generated during the AM and PM hours will not be a solution. It will be a problem. Furthermore, two of three parking garages will exit and enter on the east and west sides of 13th Street. This is exactly where Casey Middle School students cross, where families ride their bicycles, and where residents walk. Most critically, in the event of a fire, our evacuation routes will be completely compromised by the bottleneck this development will create. We lost our home in Hurricane Andrew. We know firsthand that minutes count more than miles. Flooding this essential neighborhood artery and our evacuation routes with unmitigated highdensity traffic is completely unsafe. Second character, this resoning is not about community need. It is a privately held
[0:28:50] property and the resoning and sale will benefit the owners and come with an unacceptable cost to the neighborhood. Please note, we are in favor of market rate, affordable medical and retail. We are opposed to a four to five story building with no setbacks. The highdensity units they are proposing will drastically destroy the character. The scale of these buildings will permanently block the mountain views that our entire neighborhood currently shares and I love them. Hoarding those views exclusively for the residents of the new buildings. Please call up the resoning for a full oversight and transparency. Many neighbors are only just hearing about this and many still don't know it is taking place. This is not just a land vote. It is a legacy vote. You will be remembered as the leaders who either protected old North Boulder's integrity or erased it. Thank you.
[0:29:39] >> Thank you. Now, let's go to uh All right. Quiet in the audience, please. I see a lot of hands. Um All right. We uh we're going to go to Eric Bud online and then Foster Goodwill and Martha McFerson in person. >> Uh hi again, council. I'm not seeing Eric online. All right, Foster Goodwill, it's all yours. >> Good evening. Yeah, my name is Foster Goodwill. I'm a longtime resident of Boulder and um uh I'm speaking in regard to uh SRRI, socially responsible investing. I believe somebody else already said something about that this evening. Um, regarding the uh the city portfolio of investments, um, I hope you'll show concern that it's not measuring up to Boulder Si, SRRI requirements. As perhaps you know, there's a big difference in between classification and compliance. City staff recommended the city not invest in utilities or entities involved in the fossil fuel industries.
[0:30:54] Um Guy Beni did some serious research and found that Caterpillar tractor is one of these and it had gained $7.5 billion dollar in revenues from the uh fossil fuel industry from gas and oil which is something that we're not supposed to be invested in. Correct. Um and also SIS Cisco and Microsoft are heavily invested in the incarceration and private prisons and that also is against the SRRI recommendations. The State Street investment also fails gravely to meet the older SRRI requirements. I hope you will show that you care and take these points into serious consideration because basically I believe that Boulder wants to portray itself and hopefully is to a humanitarian community. >> Your time is up but thank you for your testimony. Okay, now we'll go to Martha McFersonson, Michelle Jung, and David Salsbury. And then we're going to come back at the end to Ben Kips and how I understand his present now.
[0:32:19] >> Uh yes, my name is Marth McFersonen and I live in Gun Barrel Boulder. I'm here again talking about the fact that of our city council, Tesa, Tesa is the only one who's really made a point to say we are spending a lot of money that we're sending over to Israel and none of you are standing up and saying this is not an appropriate way to support a genocidal state. So, I want to read you something that uh Theodore Hesh I'm not actually I'm sorry I I forget his last name, but Theo and I feel like it's such a powerful thing that he's saying. And for Elliot to talk about people leaving the horror of Palestinian prisons and getting cushy jobs is kind of not what we're seeing in the basic media. and Boulder Knobs has established a medical clinic in Knobless and we've sent an ambulance. We are doing good things. So, I just wanted to mention that. In any case, I wanted to read you this briefly.
[0:33:41] Now, Israel appears to see their survival as dependent on keeping the whole of the world in terror. The fact that there is literally no place on earth where you can be assured that your serious criticisms of Israel will not sooner or later result in your harm, either through political persecution or the suffering of your career as governments come and go and Israel extends its attacks on free speech across the internet while extending its strangleold over the tech industry only strengthens the case against Israel. We have to face the demon. We have to acknowledge that we are contributing to this horror. So I would like the city council to acknowledge >> your time is up but thank you for testimony. Now we'll go to Michelle Young and David Salisbury and Jan Burton in person. >> Good evening. As a 30-year resident of 14th and Alpine, I urge you to call up item five on the agenda for a full and meaningful hearing on the resoning of the BMC property. I do not believe there was an adequate hearing. Many neighbors did not receive any notice of the new development.
[0:34:51] I'm not opposed to new development, but creating a canyon effect by allowing a four-story building with no step back, no view corridors, no building breaks, and no sidewalk setback is going to alter this neighborhood negatively. For decades, the city has been working to make Boulder more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. in my neighborhood for as long as I can remember. My neighbors, I see them on foot or on bike, going to school, and there's numerous schools. Casey, Sacred Heart, Cottage, Preschool, Zion, going to North Boulder Park, grocery store, community gardens, so much more. My daily walks will no longer have be beautiful views of the Flat Irons of the Foothills. The proposed design will be make walk will make walking on 13th or Balsam akin to walking through a man-made canyon. The city is concerned with wildfire defense. The nearby streets are already full. Imagine when, not if, we need to emergency evacuate. It would be gridlock. Remember, there was recent fires in Sunshine Canyon in 2017 and 2022 nearby.
[0:36:15] This unique area was designed beautifully for residential living. We have schools, parks, churches, services, and a majority of single family homes. I will restate that I do not believe the planning and zoning commission has taken these things into consideration. >> Thank you. All right. Now we'll go to David Salisbury, then Chan Burton, then Brian Fluc. >> Uh, thank you. Is this working? I guess not. Kind of. Um, yeah, I'm not much of a public speaker, but item five is brought to my attention about the uh Boulder Medical Center re um zoning possibility, and I have to um express my desire, my anti-desire to have that happen. Going from business transitional two to business community two means that you can almost double the amount of people that are there and you'll have 35 foot buildings which means uh more traffic and that's going to interfere with the bicycling and plenty of people dog walk and things like that. Um, we already have kids running around with their ebikes and you have all this traffic that's going on and this is going to do a big disservice to the community. Um, there's not really any infrastructure to support this and we already have balsam alpine situation going on. So, as the people before me expressed, um, yeah, I have big concerns
[0:37:49] about the possibilities of wildfires and floods and we have to evacuate and it's going to just be gridlock there if you allow doubling of what's already proposed there. Um, and also it doesn't really fit in with the um residential um character of the place at which Boulder Municipal Code Chapter 9-9 is supposed to help us. And that's my big spiel for the day. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, and we will there are a couple of speakers who um have arrived that weren't here previously, so we'll get to them at the end. And now we have Jan Burton, Brian Flugal, and Julia Lackner in person. >> Good evening, council, and thank you for your service. I'm Jan Burton, and I come to tonight to talk to you about wildfire and the budget. I called a few friends to try to have them come and talk tonight. And one woman called me this morning and said, "I just couldn't do it."
[0:38:50] She had been coming for 5 years to both OSBT and council and she's doing this because her daughter is extremely worried after the Marshia fire and she feels like there has been no impact whatsoever. So, she's not returning. Uh this year's survey done by the city showed that 75% of the residents voted to increase wildfire response and 73% of us voted to increase wildfire preparedness. Now Matt Benjamin has brought up uh brought this up and he was told that it's not stat statistically relevant. So the results are so far no real listening to your own survey. a citizen group that I've been a part of, fire adapted boulder, has worked for six months and met with all of you but one, but we feel like there are real no results about that. It's not that the city hasn't done anything at all. The cows and the goats, those are doing good things, but it's mainly process and not enough measurable results and real things that are going to prevent us from having a catastrophe.
[0:40:00] So, Council Member Benjamin recommended real money for wildfire, both in open space and in the built environment. The answer was no. We don't want layoffs. We don't want change. Council member Kaplan then ratcheted down to 600,000. That didn't even pass. And you wonder why people don't come back. You wonder why there's a lack of trust. Please address it like the risk that it is next week when you have the discussion. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Now, we'll have Brian Flugal, Julia Lechner, and Ben Gibson in person. >> Good evening. My name is Brian Flegal, and I live at 1368 Cedar Avenue um just north of the Boulder Medical Center property. I'm asking council to call up this project for its own review and to keep the zoning as BT2. Most of the neighborhood hardly knows about these plans. Please slow down and take the time to review them. Boulder adopted its zoning and its comprehensive plan for exactly this kind of site. BT business transactional, sorry, transitional exists to step down from a major street like Broadway to the homes around it. This parcel is a textbook transition site and the zoning works as is. The applicant is asking for three exceptions at once. First, a resoning to BC2, a district meant for neighborhood
[0:41:28] retail without providing retail. Second, a height increase to 55 feet, the maximum that the city charter allows, next to single family homes. Third, more than double the floor area allowed today on a site in a flood plane. I encourage council to stand at this site and picture a four-story, 300 foot long building with minimal setbacks. It's massive and out of place. The reasonzoning criteria ask whether a change serves the public in the comprehensive plan. They don't ask whether it maximizes a land owner's return. Helping private owners get the most value from their property is not the job of the city or its residents. Across Broadway, Alpine Ball will add more than 200 homes and a city office campus. We don't yet know its effect on traffic, parking, flooding, and fire evacuation. Approving another few hundred units next to it is backwards.
[0:42:21] I support housing in Boulder, but the city wrote these rules for good reasons. Please follow them. Again, I'm asking the council to call up this project for its own review and to keep the zoning as BT2. Thanks. >> Thank you. Now, do Julia Lackner and Ben Gibson in person and then Eric Bud virtually will be our last speaker. >> Hello, city council members. To quickly introduce myself, I've lived in Boulder for over five years now. I'm 27 years old, a renter, and have very few familial ties keeping me in Boulder. I absolutely love living here, and one of the main things keeping me here outside of my community is the amenities that Boulder has to offer. While I know that the 2027 budget has already been decided, I want to urge you to continue to consider keeping Spruce Pool open beyond 2027. This summer, we had over 55 90 plus degree days, 12 of which were consecutive. As a renter, I have no air conditioning provided to me, which is another item you should consider, um, heat maximums, and the Spruce Pool is one of my most effective ways of cooling down. I can walk just two blocks and completely cool my body down and refresh my mind before continuing on with my day. Removing the spruce pool will
[0:43:36] affect people like me who use it as an oasis to regulate body heat in the summer and to stay sane in the hottest days of the summer. The loss of Spruce Pool will not only take away from families and those who seek quiet from the chaos of Scott Carpenter, but will also affect the charm, well-being, and resources of the neighborhood. Please continue to consider Spruce and keep it in mind for many years to come. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, we'll have Ben Gibson and then Eric Bud online. >> Hi, my name is Ben Gibson and I'm here to talk about Tree of Heaven. Tree of heaven is an urban invasive weed known for harming native species, spreading other invasive species, and causing negative economic impacts. And there's more info in these packets that are being handed out to you. Tree of heaven is becoming a more widespread problem in Boulder, and you can look at the map provided which shows the current tree of heaven growth in the Boulder area. In 2024, Colorado added tree of heaven as a list C noxious weed. Importantly, under the noxious weed act, local governments have the authority to determine the management plan for list sea species. In Boulder, there is little to no management of the tree problem. Boulder County Open Space under the integrated
[0:44:49] weed management plan has a goal of eliminating tree. However, the city of Boulder has no formal approach. Title six, chapter 2 of the Boulder Municipal Code regulates weed control on most public and private land. It requires removal of any growth of state listed noxious weeds exceeding 12 in. In theory, this should cover most tree heaven growth. However, in practice, it seems this is not enforced. Therefore, I suggest a change to title 6, chapter 2 that explicitly lists Tree of Heaven under 6-2-5. This approach is based on other Colorado towns that have specific provisions allowing for this type of escalation. For example, Gunnison has a provision in their MUN code allowing for the elevation of any list B or C weed to that of a list A weed. This change will be carried out pursuant to 6-2-9 and 6-2-5, which in conjunction give the city manager the authority to regulate additional weed species. Ideally, this change would be paired with a soft enforcement approach and supported removal, which have both been historically used by the city to address noxious weeds. Thank you.
[0:45:57] >> Thank you. Our last speaker is Eric Bud online. >> Uh, thanks so much for coming back to me, council. Um, yeah, I wanted to speak in favor of the resoning at the Boulder Medical Center. Um, you know, I've someone that's lived in Boulder for about 15 years and about the first seven years I lived just up the street um in the Newlands neighborhood and I think it's a really amazing amenity to have the shopping center there and to be close to people being being a hub and and a center and the the Boulder Medical Center is on its way out of this site. So, anyone who is really trying to get council to do less at the site in order to keep the medical center around, you know, that ship has sailed. I just wanted to start there. But honestly, the reasoning is consistent with the comp plan update that you all just spent two years working on and have passed. And it's really important for our shops, for our small businesses, our little urban hubs to be close and accessible for people. and the fact that this site is on a transit corridor. It's it's very bikable. It's very walkable. There there is just going to be a missed opportunity if we don't reszone this site to the
[0:47:20] highest use possible uh allowed by the comp plan. Um the other thing is that I didn't watch the planning board meeting, but I understand that the planning board had significant criticisms of the of the building as well. And I want you all to take the resoning to think about what is this building in this this development going to do for the next 75 years because that's what we're that's what you're likely looking for. You know, it's going to be there for a very long time. So, we need to be thinking long into the future. And if there are concerns about the building itself, that let that be handled by the site review process. They have to go to site review. I encourage you all and the planning board to rigorously vet the building, but I'm asking you to go ahead with the reasoning. Consider >> this testimony.
[0:48:08] >> All right. Uh that brings us to the end of our commenters. Thanks to everybody who came out to speak to us tonight. I'll look to our city manager near Rivera Vandermine for any responses. >> Thank you, mayor, so much. And thanks for everybody who came out as always, whether online or in person. a couple of things and and I will note too that there are some things I won't speak to because you're gonna be speaking about them later on this evening. Um I want to note to those that spoke about wildfire mitigation, uh just want to point out we will be talking more about this in an upcoming October 22nd meeting. I will say um so genuinely that our staff truly believes in the urgency of this matter and the importance of this matter and I think you will see that um as we come forward in October 22nd and look forward to that conversation.
[0:48:58] Uh I thank Mr. Gibson. and I had not heard of um the concerns around uh tree of heaven and so we will take a look at that and I'll send that to staff so that we continue to uh think about what we do in this arena. So I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. I want to thank our two CU students. I know that there has been a lot of conversation about noise uh and noise complaints, but I also really appreciate this thoughtfulness and some creativity and how do we coexist together uh both university and the residents that are there. And so I'll be taking your um I know the team is already looking at it. if they had not looked at something like this, I'll be sharing with them um some of those that residential limited sound permit possibility. But we um what I really appreciate is you're coming to speak to us in a partnership and collaborative um approach. So, thank you so much for coming to uh Ms.
[0:49:53] uh O'Donnell who spoke to us um virtually about our public um safety information center and the use of drone as first responder. I wanted to say listen we appreciate that as well. We as staff also really heartily believe in accountability for this technology. Um we are looking for and transparency. If you look at our web page you will see uh an extensive FAQ around the topic. people. The public is welcome to view and come visit the public service information center. Uh we will be creating a dashboard on any drones that are used. There are strict regulations about the pro the um nature of use the uh need to um create um or the policies that we already have about permissions, who can authorize, who can view, we will be um be able to view those flight logs.
[0:50:48] So there's a series of guard rails that we have put on this technology because we truly understand um the power of technology and the very much our collective interest in privacy concern. So know that we are thinking about that and we have put some of those measures in place and with that mayor I believe I am finished. >> Thanks so much Teresa. >> Nothing from me mayor. Thank you. >> Very good. Any questions for city staff regarding open comment? Not. Did you have something? >> Comment. >> Okay. And so now there's a space for very brief comments from city council members if desired. So >> yeah, you have a question. Okay. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, we did receive an information I don't know what it's called. Information brief. What's IP? What's the P stand for?
[0:51:36] >> Packet. >> Thank you. Information packet. um in response to the investment portfolio question um community concern that uh was raised around the fossil fuel investment. And um I still was curious just to get some clarification on um it sounded like we can invest in a company um but if they're invest or if they have a subsidiary that's invested in fossil fuels, we could still invest in that company. That basically was my takeaway from that IP and it just doesn't seem like that would be aligned with the intention of the policy around not investing in fossil fuels. >> Thank you, council member. What I'll say and I I know that um our CFO uh Kristen Morrison had sent uh council sort of a response um certainly in responding to what we have heard uh tonight and what we have heard through emails. I will say that her conclusion after looking at that was that our investments currently meet the screening criteria, but certainly if council wants us to look and and change and think about it differently, we can certainly look into that at the will of council.
[0:52:53] >> Would it be possible to get the screening criteria because the policy reads no fossil fuels. So, I'm not clear what additional steps either we are invested or we are not. >> I'm happy to follow up with them. Thank you. >> All right. So, very brief comments if desired. Terry, >> I want to thank the constituent who brought up the tree of heaven. I have one in my yard had and I it is a serious problem. So, thank you so much for bringing it to our attention. >> Very good. And not seeing Oh, yeah. Ta. Go ahead. >> Um, thank you again to those who are asking about the investment portfolio and making sure that we are aligning our investments with our policies. I also want to thank Leslie for coming and reminding us of the incredible profits and the fact that Excel Energy has already expressed that they're going to fail on the carbon emissions in the 2027 and 2028. So just another reason why we need to um accelerate away from there and again um just really making sure that we are being as faithful as we can.
[0:53:56] Um, also don't want to forget that private prison piece as well. Um, as you're looking um, you know, at the very least I feel like we should be doing abiding by the policies that we have. Thank you. >> Very good. Um, I'll just offer a couple of remarks to the folks who came about the Boulder Medical Center. We will be discussing that in just a few minutes under our call-up section of our meeting. So stick around for that. I do see residents of the San Lazero mobile home park community. thanks for being here and just we will be in touch about the next steps about how to u protect the park. So stay tuned. We'll be talking and with that um that brings us to the end of our open comment segment. Um we are going to take a brief recess and then we will go to the business portion of our meeting at 6:30 p.m.
[1:03:47] If I can ask the council members to come back to the dis please. We're getting started here in a second. Okay, everybody. Um, we're going to come back into sess session. So, I'm going to call us back to order. >> All right. And before we go to our next item, actually, I need um we realized there was an error in the motion to amend the geothermal lease was mentioned twice, but one of those items actually needs to be something different. So, I'm going to make a motion to reconsider our earlier agenda motion, and I need a second on that. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion to reconsider and second. All in favor, raise your hand. Okay, that's 80 unanimous. So, I'm now going to remake the motion. So, make a motion to amend the agenda to add item 4N, which is consideration of a motion to adopt resolution 1394 in support of Front Range Passenger Rail District ballot measure 7A and setting forth related details. 4 O, which is um consideration of a motion to approve a geothermal lease with the Colorado Association. And item 4P, consideration of a motion to approve a council member to the audit committee.
[1:05:20] >> If I could get a second, please. >> Second. >> All in favor of the motion to amend. Please raise your hand. That passes 800. So the agenda has now been amended correctly. All right. We're now going to go to our item 3A, which is a declaration, the White Cane Awareness Day Declaration to be read by me. So if I could invite our guests to come join me on the dis please. All right, Jordan Marian, I think that's a great spot for you. Okay. White Cane Awareness Day, October 15, 2026. Many persons who are blind or have low vision move independently on our public streets, roads, and at places of public accommodation using their white canes or guide dogs. The white cane, which every blind citizen has the right to carry, serves as an instrument for independent travel and safety, while also demonstrating and symbolizing the ability of blind people to achieve a full and independent life, contribute to the community, travel independently, and work productively and competitively in the labor market. The state of Colorado and the city of Boulder through their public agencies and with the cooperative assistance of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado and its local chapters can and should facilitate the expansion of employment opportunities, transportation options, and greater acceptance of blind persons in the
[1:06:54] competitive labor market. So we, the city council of Boulder, do hereby proclaim October 15, 2026 as White Cane Awareness Day and encourage all Boulder residents to recognize that persons with disabilities have much to offer and that their energy, creativity, and hard work can greatly strengthen our city and our economy. All right. And um I now would love to hear a few words if uh Marian or Jordan, do you want to start? Okay. Hi everyone. Happy White Cane Day. I am so thankful to the city for recognizing what the white cane symbolizes for blind people. Confidence, independence, and freedom. With my cane, I have the skills to travel wherever I'd like to, whenever I'd like to. and traveling independently is such a huge part of my life. And in the spirit of travel, I'd like to sincerely thank the city for all the work that they've done this year in installing audible pedestrian signals.
[1:08:10] We've installed eight new corners, eight new intersections, 64 new push buttons. That is amazing. In June, I walked out of my house and it was just a normal day and I walked up to my corner of the intersection and I heard beep beep beep and I said, "What is that?" Oh my goodness. And I was able to cross Arapjo Avenue for the first time confidently with true confidence. And I got to the other side and I was dancing around. I was jumping. I I cried tears of joy and and my family cried with me. I facetimed them right there. Look what I did. And I I had waited six years in Boulder for this to happen. And this wouldn't have happened without the NFB of Boulder, the Boulder Valley chapter, and our Intersection Advocacy Project. I'm thankful to Wendy, to Melanie, to Mayor Brockett, everyone in the transportation department sincerely for everything that you've done to help make Boulder a more accessible place to be. Over these past six years, I was ready to leave Boulder. I was ready to move on. But now I'm ecstatic to stay here and continue to help us move forward in the spirit of accessibility.
[1:09:49] Thank you all so much for the work that you are doing now and for the work that you will continue to do. The National Federation of the Blind Boulder Valley chapter is ready and willing and excited to lend a helping hand. And when you hear that crosswalk, when you're walking around that next intersection and you hear that beep beep beep, think of that blind person dancing all around being able to cross Arapjo for the very first time. Thank you so much. Know that the city is making a difference in the lives of blind travelers and happy white gay day. Good evening everyone. I am Maryann Millurelli. I use she, her, hers pronouns and I am the president of our National Federation of the Blind Boulder Valley chapter. We have so much to be thankful for and the biggest piece of it is the collaboration that we have had with the city of Boulder. For many many years we have been having conversations with Melanie whether she was here whe even when she wasn't working for the city we stayed in touch when we came to the city council two years ago and we said we have this intersection project it is not going to be easy.
[1:11:15] We gave the mayor and the city council a list of probably 30 or 40. There is still plenty of work to be done in this city to make it fully accessible for all pedestrians, but we really have so much to thank, Mayor Brockett, the city council, uh also the state because some roads are state and when they do work, they also are now starting to put in accessible pedestrian signals, which means it's not just us that knows we can cross safely. It's everyone. And when Boulder becomes more accessible for us, it's more successful for everyone. And with Sundance coming in, we might as well be tapping in on all the goodness of all the people showing up here looking for all of that stuff. And if we can say, "Look, our city cares. We have so much proof already started.
[1:12:19] There's so much more to do. And we as the National Federation of the Blind Boulder Valley chapter are so thankful for our collaborations with this city, with transportation, with all of the other departments that link with us when when they want to know what blind people think, want, and need in this city. Before two years ago, we were not having those conversations, and we are now. So, thank you very much to Mayor Brockett, to the council, and to everyone who reaches out and recognizes that we are the voice of blind people in Boulder, ready to work hard with all of you to make this city better for everyone. Thank you so much. And you don't have to do jazz hands right now because we won't see them. No, you know what? I'm gonna go on the other side of the mayor.
[1:13:46] >> She's got plans for Okay, Jordan, here's the declaration. And thanks so much, Jordan, Marian, for all of your advocacy through the National Federation of the Blind Boulder Valley and everything else you do to make the community a better place. Deeply appreciate it. >> All right, that was amazing. Um, Emily, can we go to the uh consent agenda, please? >> Of course. Um, next we have our consent agenda and that consists of items A through P. >> Any questions or comments on the consent agenda? >> Or perhaps a motion. >> I move the consent agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. Um, can we have a roll call, please, Emily? >> Of course. We'll start tonight's roll call on the consent agenda with council member Shuhard. Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes.
[1:14:48] >> Winer. >> Yes. >> Adams. >> Yes. >> Council member Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brockett. >> Yes. >> Kaplan. >> Yes. >> And Marquis. >> Yes. The consent agenda is hereby approved unanimously with a vote of 8 to zero. >> Fantastic. and wanted to thank uh Council Member Marquest for stepping up to uh volunteer for the audit committee. Appreciate it. >> All right, let's go to our callup check-in, please. All right. Next on our agenda tonight, we have our callup check-in. That is item number 5A for a concept plan review for the proposed redevelopment of the Boulder Medical Center properties at 2750 Broadway, 1233 Balsam Avenue, and 1310 Balsam Avenue. The proposed development includes a fourstory multifamily building on the 2750 Broadway site containing 160 units, three-story multifamily building on the 1233 Balsam site with 30 units and a three-story multifamily building on the 1310 Balsam site with 33 units. The proposal would require reszoning of the 2750 Broadway site from business transitional 2 to BR business community 2. And the proposal would also require a height modification to allow for the buildings to exceed the 35 foot height limit. This is reviewed under case number LUR 2026-00007.
[1:16:28] >> Thanks so much for that, Emily. Any questions or comments or desire to call this item up? Ter. >> Yeah, I definitely want to call this up. We have very One of the um reasons you would call someone up on council um if you're on council is because there's extensive community interest and I can't see and I've never seen so much extensive community interest. I'd say we'd have that and so yes, I want to call it up. >> Very good. Any other comments on this? And before somebody might want to make a motion. >> Do you want to comment first? >> Either way. I had Rob and then Matt. >> Um, yeah, I'll make a a comment on it. Um, I agree in calling this up. I I have concerns about Broadway is a evacuation route and the Boulder Valley comp plan.
[1:17:15] I specifically wanted language um in section 89 regarding this. Um, it is a a corridor, but it doesn't have that much uh capacity on it. And as we build out, I'm just afraid that that's going to get overt taxed. I'm concerned about the mass and scaling. Um the approach and the pedestrian experience. Um I think the neighborhood center should be at neighborhood scale. Um and also I just the composition of the units um to help out the goals of attracting families, the number of single um onebedrooms versus three bedrooms. >> Matt, >> yeah, I'm interested in calling this up. uh mostly because you know normally we'll get to those details in site review which is totally appropriate but given that this is one of the first big projects that are coming through our new comprehensive plan that has made really substantive changes to our land use. I think it's good governance and appropriate for us to give a little extra uh scrutiny and and a deeper look at some of these first projects that are coming through our new comp plan just to make sure that there aren't any conflicts or any challenges that then become repeatable with other big projects. So, it's not that I think housing is totally appropriate here in the general sense, but I think first big
[1:18:26] projects of the new comp plan warrant a little extra look and I think that's appropriate here. >> Does Yes, Tasa. >> I just wanted to express support for calling this up as well. In addition to this being one of the first and the concerns expressed by uh council member Kaplan regarding evacuation. Um, I'm also just recognizing that we have more flexibility and authority during the concept review phase than we do at site review where there are more conditions and specific criteria um that would make it difficult to um have the level and depth of conversation that we can have at this stage. Thank you. >> Okay. Does anyone would anyone like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to call this up. >> Second. Okay, Tina, did you want to speak to your second or you good? Okay, I'll just call on myself and I agree with my colleagues that this deserves a call up, but certainly a large project um in um an established neighborhood and deserves um some careful scrutiny. So, I'll be voting in favor as well. All right, not seeing any hands uh other hands raised for comments. I'll uh ask for a vote on the motion with the show of hands. All in favor, raise your hand.
[1:19:38] That's seven. And all not in favor, raise your hand. That's one. So the that is called up with a vote of 7 to one. All right. Thanks folks for coming. We'll um once that item is scheduled, information will be put about uh put out about when that public hearing will be. All right. So, um, before we go to our first public hearing, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to suspend council rules or procedures for A6 to allow for five public hearings tonight. >> Second. >> We have a motion, second. All in favor, please raise your physical hand. >> That's unanimous. 80. So, we will have our five public hearings tonight. So, if we can go to our first one, please. assembly. >> Absolutely. Our public hearing items are number six on tonight's agenda. Item 6A consists of the following items related to the 2027 budget.
[1:20:42] We have consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8777 adopting a budget for the city of Boulder, Colorado for fiscal year 2027. A motion to adopt ordinance 8778 establishing the city of Boulder property tax mill levies for 2026 providing that said levy be certified to the Boulder County Assessor. Motion to adopt ordinance 8779 appropriating money to defay expenses and liabilities of the city of Boulder for the 2027 fiscal year of the city of Boulder. And ordinance 8780 amending title two government organization. Title three revenue and taxation. Title four licenses and permits. Title five general offenses. Title six health safety and sanitation. Title seven vehicles, pedestrians, and parking. And title eight parks, open spaces, streets, and public ways. >> All right, Gary. I'll turn it over to you. Thank you so much, Mayor and Emily for that recitation.
[1:21:49] Um, council, I want to take the opportunity to thank our staff for the tremendous amount of work that went into this year's budget and appreciate many of your comments at the first public hearing that similarly recognized these efforts. I recognize that budgets are complex documents that bring up a lot of conversation about prioritization and transparency. I believe we've been continuing to improve on our process and we remain committed to continuing to improve as we hear what you and community are interested in and seeing more of in the future. And while we know we work hard to build in your priorities into our budget, we recognize that the limitations of the current annual budget cycle don't allow for a huge window of time for you or boards and commissions or others to take as deep dive as you might like on a topic. I continue to hope you'll consider a two-year budget cycle in the future as I think that would allow everyone to have more visibility in both budget development as well as budget prioritization and measurement in the years to come.
[1:22:45] I'd be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to acknowledge Christa Morrison, Charlotte Husky, and the entire finance team as I share out this incredible work has won the city the most recent government officers finance association or GFOA triple crown award, which recognizes governments that have received GFOA's certificate for achievement of excellence in financial reporting, popular annual financial reporting award, and the distinguished budget presentation award. Components of this triple crown are distinguished budget presentation award recognizes comprehensive budget documents that meet rigorous criteria for policy, financial planning and organizational communication. The certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting honors transparent comprehensive annual financial reports that adhere to GFOA standards. And lastly of those uh triple crown that popular annual financial reporting award acknowledges citizen-friendly financial reports that make complex financial data accessible to the public. It is a significant accomplishment with Boulder as one of only 441 governments recognized as a triple crown winner. That's only 1% of all government entities. So as we go into budget, I just really want to thank our team for continuing to lift up tremendous work. With that, I will pass it on to our budget officer, Charlotte Husky.
[1:24:14] >> All right. Good evening, uh, city council. Charlotte Husky, budget officer, here to present the second reading of the 2027 recommended budget. Tonight, we are coming forward with a second reading and final adoption of the 2027 budget. You'll see here on this slide our annual budget process where we began our budget development in March of this year with decision-making occurring midyear prior to the budget release in late August. We performed our council study session providing detailed information on the 2027 recommended budget at the September 10th city council uh study session and are now holding the second reading public hearing and budget adoption. Additionally, uh, six special districts were on the consent agenda that council just passed, including KJI, Eugid, Boulder Junction, uh, general improvement districts and the Forest Glenn Transit Pass, uh, uh, improvement district. An important note is that for two of these districts, Boulder Junction Parking General Improvement District as well as the Forest Glenn Transit Pass District, the proposed mill levy credits will lower property taxes for property owners within these district boundaries for 2027.
[1:25:26] As shared forward at our study session as well as our first uh budget reading on October 1st, key considerations of the 2027 recommended budget focused on balancing our flattening of the city's major revenue sources, inflationary impacts on operating costs, impacts on recent state legislation and re and heightened economic uncertainty which led to an estimated 6.3 million projected gap in the general fund if left unressed. The 2027 recommended budget brought forward to council is 552.6 million across all funds, which includes an operating budget of 417.2 million, representing the second slowest operating budget growth at 2.35% since the pandemic period, and a capital budget of 135.4 million, which prioritizes in 2027 ongoing maintenance of city facilities and taking care of our city's existing assets. The 2027 budget is balanced and uplifts recent input received from fund our future community conversations earlier this spring. It advances the citywide strategic plan city council top priorities and continues to invest and prioritize criticality of city services for community members.
[1:26:40] As previously shared forward, our forecasted revenues for 2027 reflect the continued trend of slow growth that the city has seen since the end of 2023, particularly for sales and use tax and property tax, which account for 60% of our revenues when excluding utility revenues. Our total projected revenues for 2027 are 527.1 million for sales and use tax, which comprises uh 35% of the city's revenues. Year-over-year change is an increase of 3.3%. And as mentioned in our May financial forecast, the city revised its original 2026 forecast to lower anticipated revenues for 2026 based on economic uncertainty. And this lower base for 2026 impacted our budget for 2027 development. The forecast for property tax is 11% of city revenues is a a 6% uh increase year-over-year. Property taxes have been uh impacted in recent years by flattening actual value growth as well as recent state legislation which has lowered assessed property values and therefore less less revenue collection for the city. There are two other notable changes listed here including the transportation maintenance fee.
[1:27:56] We've included in the 2027 budget uh an estimated 3 million with implementation of this fee beginning in 2027 and the additional recreational marijuana retail sales tax which will increase this rate from 3.5% to 5.5% to help offset the state's recent legislation that reduced the city's entire share of our state collected marijuana revenues. This also brings Boulder more in line with other uh neighboring municipalities. The 2027 recommended operating budget totals 417.2 million, a 2.35 uh% increase over the 2026 approved budget. The 2027 operating budget annual growth sits below the US as well as the Denver Aurora Lakewood forecasted inflation rates for 2027 at 2.5 and 2.6% respectively. As shared forward uh previously with city council, our primary cost drivers for the operating budget include our wages and benefits for personnel, internal service costs such as fleet replacement, fleet service charges, technology costs, and existing contractual increases uh related to our city operations, our programs, and our services. The budget performed ongoing reductions, realignments across city funds, and limited enhancements toward priority investments using a lens of criticality and our key pillars for decision making, including uh datadriven decision- making, uplifting the citywide strategic plan, city council named top priorities, as well as our community budget engagement feedback. Over the next two slides, I'll share share forward a couple of highlights included
[1:29:39] in the 2027 operating budget. As shared from the results of our fund, our future community conversation earlier this spring, we heard wildfire response and prevention listed as a top priority across in-person and online community feedback. The city has uplifted these investments with over $10.9 million in funding within the 2027 recommended budget with highlights of year-over-year changes including a one-time increase of 300,000 to support the city's wildfire ready top priorities in addition to a conversion of an existing fixedterm position to a fuels management uh program manager which will help to lead a formal WOOI uh fuels mitig mitigation crew in open space and mountain parks. Additionally, the 2027 budget realigns 180,000 in funding from the general fund to the open space fund for the fire rescue fire rescue wildland unit who spend approximately 90% of their time on open space land. You'll hear more in detail on the cross departmental from the cross departmental team next Thursday during council study session on wildfire strategies. Another priority we heard from community members was investing more in public safety. In the 2027 recommended budget, there's a total of 552,000 in ongoing funding for three new police lieutenants to act in a supervisory role over each watch, providing additional oversight and management, helping to further implement the reimagine uh police policing plan.
[1:31:18] And we recognize there's been a lot of conversation around spruce pool and this year's budget for 2027 highlights this as one of the difficult tradeoffs we've had to make. In 2027, onetime dollars from the general fund will fund Spruce Pool operations through the end of the year. And as we looked to tradeoffs in the 2027 budget, we recognized that the cost of operating pools has increased significantly. The city has felt particularly particular inflationary pressures post pandemic with cost increases to wages, chemicals and utilities for ongoing costs of chemicals of gas and electric. Recent years have seen an increase above 12% and 40% respectively. This proposed reduction minimizes community impact based upon usage data across the entire pool city pool system. Recognizing that for those that use a facility, the impact is harder felt. As we look holistically across the simp the system, uh the reality is that Spruce Pool serves fewer swimmers in the community than other city pools. We'll also note that parks and recreation are having ongoing conversations with Spruce Pool users, and we will come back to city council on this in the 2028 budget.
[1:32:39] And finally, uh, the 2027 budget continues to support the long-term financial strategy principles of flexibility of funding. An example listed here of, uh, realignment of 250,000 from the sugar, sweet, and beverage distribution tax fund to support health equity outcomes through parks and recreation's existing recreation programs. The 2027 capital budget totals 135.4 4 million and 827.7 million across the six-year capital planning horizon supporting capital improvement programs across seven departments and 19 funds primarily uh the revenues of which are utility user charges, sales and use tax and property tax. In 2027, major capital investments include maintenance and infrastructure of city utilities, transportation as well as city facilities. On an annual basis, over 75% of the capital budget supports utilities and transportation, infrastructure, and maintenance on core projects such as water pipeline repair as well as flood plane mitigation. Additionally, over 50% of the city's capital budget invests in ongoing capital maintenance of city infrastructure and assets. And total spending, as you can see here, fluctuates annually. Uh this is based on our phasing of planned capital projects, our project scope, timing, and funding availability and financing plans. And lastly, and importantly, voter approval last year of the CCRS tax permanent extension enabled the city to consider funding and financing plans across the capital planning horizon and invest an additional 27.9 million across
[1:34:22] the six-year horizon for facilities maintenance. This uplifts our re the recommendations uh within the 2021 facilities plan as well as the input we heard from fund our future community conversations where community members prioritized investments and ongoing maintenance of city facilities. And finally, rounding out with the long-term financial strategy, since 2024, city staff have focused on city city council's top priority of the long-term financial strategy. Coming forward to city council in December will be updates to the city's financial policies as well as future strategic action steps incorporated into the long-term comprehensive financial plan that's coming forward uh on December 10th. Included on the November ballot is our focus on on facilities infrastructure with the recreation and safety bond. And we continue to look at increasing divers revenue diversity, sufficiency, and stability, recognizing our over reliance on sales and use tax, as well as incorporating broader community input into capital planning with a plan to establish an external uh capital planning committee to enhance community review of this process. And finally, a consideration for bianial budget uh that Naria mentioned earlier, which aims to enhance uh strategic planning alignment as well as more opportunity for community budget engagement.
[1:35:48] And with that, happy to take any uh questions from council. Uh we have the public hearing and motion language uh for adoption when ready. >> Thanks so much. Appreciate all of staff's work on this. Any questions for city staff? All right, seeing none, we did of course have this presentation two weeks ago and a full consideration of it at that time. So seeing um no questions, then we will go to the public hearing. So we have 18 people signed up to speak which means that each speaker will get two minutes unless they are pooling with other speakers in which case they'll get four. For the people who are pooling, I'll just make sure that um the people they're pooling with are also in attendance. Um so our um first two speakers are Margaret Lumpton and Lynn Stein. Both of them pooling. So Margaret, I'll just ask you're pulling with um Lyra Mayfield and Glenise Humphrey or was Yes, I see. There you go. So uh Margaret, you have four minutes.
[1:36:57] >> You can just turn on the mic, please. There's a button. >> There you go. >> Okay. Tonight that I'm I'm speaking about the budget item having to do with the uh South Boulder Creek flood mitigation plan plan. And I'm speaking for many thousands of Boulder citizens who've opposed construction of a high hazard dam at South Boulder Creek for decades. I'm also speaking for the tens of thousands of people who regularly visit and love the wildlife and beauty of the South Boulder Creek flood plane and also in honor of the members of the northern Cheyenne nation that who camped here in past centuries. For decades, the city council and utilities department have arrogantly ignored constructive and expert citizen feedback on the South Boulder Creek project, as well as the many alternative flood mitigations proposals that citizens and expert members of the community have brought forth. We are tired of it. We deplore the city's efforts to create facts on the ground by rushing the project forward, hoping they can get it done before the citizens can act. Sneaking approval of the project through tonight by hiding it in the 500 plus page budget document is just another example of the lack of transparency used to force the dam upon us.
[1:38:10] We've never opposed flood mitigation. Many of us live at ground zero at risk of being flooded out. But we want a cheaper, more up-to-date, safe, effective, and environmentally sensitive project. And we want for the very first time ever a real vote of the people, not just of city council on the desiraability of this damn project and its outrageous and escalating price tag. Tonight, we demand that the city council first remove the $76.5 million budget item for the dam and the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project from the 2027 budget document. The actual cost of the dam will exceed hund00 million. The utilities department's plan to pay for the dam from general revenues is fiscally irresponsible given the city's current budget deficit and fiscal crisis. Second, instruct the utilities department to pause construction on the dam and flood control project at CU South until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear Safe South Boulders lawsuit.
[1:39:14] Number three, restore access to the CU South areas that are not affected by instruct construction, especially the south ends of the pro project property. Stopping construction will acknowledge that the SA South Boulder Creek flood plane contains a very rare ice age remnant of wetland tall grass prairie whose existence is essential to the survival of many rare plants and animals. It is irreplaceable. Extinction for its species is forever. Saving the flood plane also will help Boulder meet climate goals because flood planes like those at South Boulder Creek are unparalleled natural mechanisms for carbon sequestration and Boulder needs to meet those goals. We have repeatedly pointed out that the dam will benefit only a few people in residents. We've identified flaws in the dam's design. We've demonstrated the project increases risks for downstream flooding and wetland destruction. We've shown that the project design includes no plans for ongoing dam maintenance and paying for this project will reduce funding for flood mitigation projects elsewhere in Boulder. There are better alternatives to this costly, risky project. We demand that the council put a stop to this one.
[1:40:32] Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Now we're going to go to Lynn Stein who's pulling with Mary Gorman and Deborah Fry. Are the two of you here? There we go. Thanks, Lynn. You've got two minutes or four minutes and then we'll go to Lin Seagull and Emily tell us online. >> Hi everyone. I'm Lynn Stein. I've lived in Boulder since 1994. I know most of you, you know, I love Spruce Pool. I'm not going to go over all that material again except for very briefly. But think about it. We're lap swimmers among other things. What do we do? We go to the same place and we go back and forth and back and forth. We are going to keep coming to you and to Pr every month, not just to tell you how important it is to you, but to let you know that we're really here to work with you. We now have a spruce pool working group. We're meeting with Ally Rhodess and with her staff. We've met once. We have a plan to meet monthly to dig into the numbers to find ways to increase revenues, to decrease costs, but also to look more broadly. what can we do to find revenues from outside or where might there be other places um that we could take revenues from? That's
[1:41:35] obviously going to take us a lot longer. We can all tell you in our sleep how much we love Spruce Pool and why it's so important to us. Um I do want to thank you all so much for what you do. You know, I've been coming to city council for a while trying to meet these read these voluminous packages and keep up and it's huge on just my one issue. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for what you do. I have a new respect for how hard it is and I've learned so many other interesting things about what goes on in this city as a result of being here. Um, so you know, we love our recreation facilities. You know, we love Spruce Pool. I just want to note that I represent all kinds of people. You've heard that it's people who want a quieter atmosphere than Scott, who have disabilities, who have young children, neighbors, people looking for community, people who love swimming outside. I do want to address the point saying people can swim other places like Scott. For many of us, Scott is not an alternative.
[1:42:28] Swimming inside is not an alternative. Just like going to spin class is not the same as going for a bike ride outside, swimming at an indoor pool is a fundamentally different opportunity from swimming in an outdoor pool. So, I hope you'll consider that and stop saying that, you know, we can trade this off. You know, you can go swim at the indoor pools instead. It's really not the same. Um, so I appreciate that Spruce is open in 2027. I'm very glad that there have been fund f funds found to fix the leaks. We should see reduced water and chemical um, and heating costs as a result of that. I beg you to keep Scott open for the whole shoulder season. I know the numbers not aren't in yet, but we have hot falls and that pool is full with people swimming laps. I know I've told you Scott doesn't work for most of us, but when the kids when it's run 25 25 yard away and when all the kids aren't there and it's quieter then lots more people do go swim laps there. So, thank you for all of that. And I want to talk a little bit about the bigger problems that I've encountered now bigger than Spruce and that's a lot of transparency and timing. We tried to
[1:43:37] work with the city early on this. It was only recently at last month's PRAB meeting that I heard for the first time that the city actually directed departments to make costs of 4% back in April. We would have worked with the city then with parks and wreck. Then um I did go to Ally and say, "Hey, I've heard a rumor that Spruce is going to be sold or not open next year." She said there's no there's no plans to sell Spruce Pool. you know, why don't you just wait until the budget comes out and then if you have questions about it, bring your questions at that point. And I said, respectfully, that's going to be too late. And indeed, that was the case. It was not only too late for me, just one person, it was too late for all of you.
[1:44:24] to get a budget at the very end of August to have one study session and then to approve it five weeks later seems to me there was not enough time for you let alone for us to have impact. So I beg you to find a way to include us. We are really here and willing to help. We don't want to just complain. We're complaining because there's things we love that we want to help save. We're not complaining just for the sake of >> Thank you. >> All right. Now, let's go to Lynn Seagull and Emily Tillis online. Um, and then John Carol in person. >> Uh, good evening, council. Neither Lynn nor Emily are online. >> All right, John Carroll, you're up. And after that will be Evan Rabbitz and Renee St. Alban. >> Good evening, council. My name is John Carroll. I'm the chair of the open space board of trustees and I'm here officially representing the board by unanimous vote and reading in a bridge version of our September motion. Uh the SPT wishes to make clear that its 3 to2 vote to recommend approval of the 2027 open space mountain parks budgets reflects our confidence in the difficult choices OSP has made in response to significant financial constraints. Our concerns are directed at the broader city budgeting process, not at the
[1:45:43] budget direct developed by the department. The board has serious concerns about the new city budget process. This year, we were given less than a month to review the budget, and the new process prevented staff from sharing draft budget information with the board as has been done in prior years. We do not believe this provided adequate time or transparency to perform our charter mandate. Um, we ask council and the city manager to improve the process for the next budget cycle so SPT can participate earlier and more meaningfully. The board also remains deeply concerned about transparency around cost allocation. OSMP has faced uh repeated significant significant increases in allocation while reducing staffing programs and other expenses. We're not concluding that these charges are inappropriate. Our concern is that we have not been given information that allows us to understand what is driving these increases, what services OSMP is paying for, or whether the charges are reasonable. We ask council to direct the city manager to provide OSPT with a clear explanation of the cost allocation methodology, the major drivers of OSMP's allocation, the services being funded, and the reasons for the material year-over-year changes. Um, I've also emailed you all a full the full text of our motion tonight. Uh, so you can take a look at it. Um, also, uh, speaking
[1:46:59] personally, since I've read what I had prepared, I love the idea of a a two-year budget. I know the board has discussed that before. I think that would help solve a lot of the challenges we're seeing. Um, as well as we're really excited to see the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation moving forward. It's a really exciting opportunity to restore wetlands and permanently protect 119 acres of open space. Thank you. >> Thanks, John. Thanks for coming here and representing the open space board. All right, we're going to go to Evan Rabbitz and then Renee St. Alban and then um Mike Basile online. Hi, I've been here 48 years. Not another dime for the damn dam at CU South. Just on the other side of of Broadway from here, right next to Boulder Creek is a marker of showing the level of the 2013 flood and a plaque dedicated to one of only six Boulder professors ever to win the National Medal of Science, Dr.
[1:48:00] Gilbert White, founder of the Natural Hazard Center at CU, advisor to FDR, and probably Boulder's greatest so-called renaissance man. As the plaque says, Gilbert is considered the father of floodplane planning. His main idea was to work with nature rather than force water into contortions with concrete channels, dams, etc. We followed his advice with Boulder Creek and that's why Boulder suffered little damage in the 2013 flood compared to Longmont which didn't follow his policies. Yet, this city council has given the okay to contort hydrarology to maximize CU's building area and profits and making us pay for it big time in our water bills. But that's not enough for this machine on the deis. The city consistently lies to say that voters twice approved this dam. We didn't. We only voted for Boulder to annex the land. Anyone who wants to learn the gory details can find engineer Ben Binder's posts on nextdoor.com that explain everything.
[1:49:22] The city is throwing our money away all over town and it can't stop. So we will have to stop it at the polls and in the courts. Thank you. Now we'll go to Renee St. Alban. Mike Basile online and Sid Whiting online pooling. >> Is Renee here? Doesn't look like it. Um so Mike Bile online. >> Uh good evening council. I am not seeing Mike Bile. Uh Sid is here though. >> Okay. So we have um Sid Whiting who's pulling with Katherine Sunval and Mary Durham who are present right here. Great. Thanks. So Sid you have four minutes. >> Good evening relatives. My name is Sid Whiting. I am a St. Changu Lakota from the Rosebudsu Reservation in South Central South Dakota. I reside in Wheatidge, Colorado, and have been a longtime resident of Denver, Colorado. I currently work at Creative Nations Gallery at the Dair Arts Center in Boulder as the cultural engagement coordinator and facilitator, bringing a cultural perspective of Native American and indigenous arts to the Boulder area.
[1:50:43] We will be collaborating with the Sundance Film Festival, bringing a native and indigenous cultural identity to the festival. I am also working at the Benson Earth Sciences Building at the on the CU campus in Boulder. We are reimagining what Native American lands in the Boulder area would look like through art and tribal symbolism in the geography map library. The display will run through the school year. I spent two years designing the Anything Nature Library in Thornton, Colorado. The library construction was influenced by Native Americans. The libraries designs uh is a huge community draw with the cultural influences that are contained in the building. We worked with Davis partners who will be working on the Hogan Panost property. I also work at Denver City Park on the living land project that is Native American influenced. It was a 3 acre short grass prairie, a meeting space with an amphitheater, a medicinal medicine garden, and lastly, a Native American inner tribal arbor. We used a Boulderbased company to compost the Kentucky blueg grass with steam machines from them for the short grass prairie.
[1:52:25] All the things I have mentioned are outstanding projects in the communities. They allow for Native American innovation and expertise to be put forth in the forefront where it is consumed by the community and the cities in a way that has engaging with a lot of popularity and support. All the projects are native naturebased as the Hogan Panost property would be a great space for a botanic garden. The garden would help protect the northern spotted leopard frog and the PBL's meadow jumping mouse. We are asking the city to not spend money on tennis courts and pickle ball courts, but instead help create a botanic gardens that would appeal to the entire community. We also believe that a tennis court or a pickle ball court would be very harmful to the environment as far as all the living beings that are in the area. And it also would be something that not all the community would be assured as a long-term um project that the community would love. Thank you very much for your time.
[1:54:11] >> Thank you. All right. Our final three speakers are Bridget Gordon online and then Malikica Hartley and Marian Rose Pillar in person. Uh, Bridget is not online. >> All right. So, we'll go to Malica Hartley and then Marian Rose Pillar. >> Okay. Thank you for having me. Um, I'm speaking as a resident who has lived next door to the open space at CU South since 2008. My family has walked the land on a daily basis since 2020. I do not represent special interests of CU city management or the developers. I represent tens of thousands of true Boulderites who care about the land, the wildlife, the nature, the wetlands, and the invaluable relationship it provides us as a community. We all want flood mitigation, but this $76 million dam project when act which in actuality will top 100 has been a scheme all along with zero transparency for the public who now have to foot the bill through our utility bills next year. The dam project was never voted on, only the annexation of CU South into the city. According to Ben Binder, a prominent local engineer and land surveyor, the three-story high-hazard concrete dam, the spillway along US 36, the $8 million worth of tunneling under the highway, it could have all been made obsolete if the city picked the far more
[1:55:49] sustainable 500-year flood plan, which uses the obvious southeast portion of the site, the gravel pit area, for natural flood mitigation with detention ponds. Apparently, surprise, surprise, the city nicks this idea because CU owns a portion of that land which they intend to develop their fourth campus on, made possible by the annexation agreement where we will pay for their treated water and utilities to develop on a flood plane. The residents of Boulder demand a pause on the dam's construction and land degradation, which I have to see and hear every day from my house. It's completely destroyed. It's disgusting. Give us an updated costbenefit analysis which hasn't been shown in over a decade. Give us an independent peer review of the damn project. If you continue to stonewall us or hit your gavvel, tell your grandchildren. Your time is up to the southern gateway.
[1:56:40] Thank you for your testimony that you help your eco side of this once beautiful. Thank you. >> All right. Our last speaker is Marian Rose Pillar. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm here to speak about South Boulder Creek as well and the 76.5 million that Boulder residents would soon be paying to build the dam. As you probably know, Safe South Boulder is reaching out to the Colorado Supreme Court to insist that this public expenditure be put to the voters first. I'd like to make just a few points. First, it's been said that voters have already approved this dam and flood project. Well, let me throw you back to 2021 when city council approved as an emergency ordinance number 8384 regarding the annexation of CU South. At the time, it was expected to cost 22.3 million. Miraabai Nagel was the only person to vote against the ordinance, saying it was something voters should agree to. Then on the heels of that annexation which happened, voters were asked to reverse it. Our local papers having been primed by good speakers by CU from CU suggested going along with the ordinance and that's what most of the friends that I spoke with did. Second, despite the current costs of $76.5 million, the plan offers insufficient protection, focusing on specific creek events while ignoring the drainage
[1:58:16] basing that cost basins that caused the 2013 devastation. The city continues to block independent peer reviews and lacks a current costbenefit analysis. I encourage I encourage you to read the documents on the Safe South Boulder site to re to understand the risks. Lastly, many of us here in the audience especially uh may not realize that CU would not allow the city to build a dam unless they agreed to annex the gravel pit and provide utilities for their fairly extensive development. We're talking about,00 dwelling units, 7500 750,000 square feet of nonresidential development and a 3,000 seat stadium. Whether you live in South Boulder or not, your initiation is up. Thank you for your testimony. >> That's how it would you would roll into town. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thanks uh folks for coming out and speaking to us this evening. Um so I I don't know if we have any um follow-up questions. I I do have one. I was wondering if maybe Joe Tatuchi from the utilities department could speak a little bit to the history of the SU South and um the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation process. And of course that's a complicated history and you could talk about it for hours I'm sure. But Joe, if you could maybe give a a brief overview
[1:59:34] of the process and how alternatives were considered during that process. I think I just turned it off and I don't think anyone wants me to talk for hours about this, so I'll try to keep it a little shorter. >> If you can get right into the mic, please. >> Yep. Good evening, council members. I'm Joe Teduchi. I'm the director of the utilities department. Um, and first I want to say we are starting construction on the project and and understand and respect the community members um ability to challenge uh what we're doing and and to speak against it and also realize it's a it's a really big change right now what's happening in the community has involve enjoyed that space as uh informal open space and recreation for decades and and it's a pretty significant ificant change to have construction fence go up and and see the um construction equipment out there. So I I I understand the weight of that and we're committed to doing the project right and um restoring it at the end of it. I would like to offer a few clarifications from just some of the narratives that are out there and um the costs really the the decision to move forward by council was made in 2021 and the alternative that were implementing was selected and the costs haven't
[2:01:15] really changed since then. It's been about a 66 million project. It's now 76 million because there's additional litigation costs that um have required us to cash fund it and it adds cost to the project. I would also say that um it it was mentioned by one speaker that this is uh going to be funded out of the general fund and that there there's all those pressures on the general fund. That's not the case in utilities. Everything is we have a different funding source. It's rateayer funds. And even though we're cash funding the project um because we can't bond because of the litigation, we have not changed our rate proposal for this year. Have not increased it. Um one of the most concerning narratives to me that's out there in the community and I want to speak to this. I I could go on and on about the hydraulics and the details and the technical stuff, but it's being said over and over again that the project will make things worse for people downstream. That is 100% not true. It could not be true. And the the agency who reviewed our detailed uh two-dimensional modeling of the project FEMA could not have approved it and we would not have received approval if that was true. That is absolutely false. Um I
[2:02:42] I also think you heard a statement about and it's it's said repeatedly that we're building a 30 foot or a threestory concrete wall. That's not correct. There's a spillway component of the dam that's 18 to 16 feet high. It'll be um 50 to 75 ft off of the um eastbound lane of US 36. And when we're done with it, it will have earthn material placed against it and it will be reveated. It'll be colored concrete and it will be stamped so that it's the aesthetics are as as good as they can be. Um, in terms of alternatives, we've looked at 58 of them over the years and have gone through a process of elimination. And um the ponds idea that you heard about tonight and that is being promoted by one of our community members has been studied. We've uh we've had other experts look at the project. We've hired independent consultants to review our work. We've had contractors review the constructibility and give us feedback on it. And then we've had the multiple agencies who all have their own experts look at the project and have and we've received all of the approvals without any issue. I also say some of the community experts that were referenced and it is awesome living in Boulder and the magnitude of of technical knowledge
[2:04:13] that we have in our community. some of those experts participated in an alternatives review with us and at the end of that they agreed that the path we're on is or or the alternatives that were being promoted are not better than the path that we're on. And then um speaking to the benefit cost ratio that's come up quite a bit here lately and we did one back in 2015. the whole framework of of what we're doing has changed since then and at this stage of projects. We don't do benefit cost ratio analysis. Those of you who remember when we did our comprehensive flood plan um we changed our approach to that because it has built-in inequity and it points projects to the most affluent neighborhoods. So, I know that there have been um accounts presented by the community of what that an updated costbenefit ratio might look like, but um I I think the costs have been overstated in that and the benefits have updated benefits have been understated.
[2:05:20] So, if we were to do that, I don't agree with the numbers that have been presented. So, I just I I know this is an important moment for the community and I know people are concerned that what the university's intentions are in the future. There is an annexation agreement that requires them to develop recreation facilities. We're getting 119 acres of open space and uh we're reconnecting the flood plane and we're actually putting environmental mitigation measures in effect that go above and beyond what is required by the regulations by quite a bit. So, a long history of this process. I can't I've been at the city for 21 years. I cannot think of another project that has had more process than this. and the costs have have accumulated because of all the process. So happy to answer any other questions and I I did probably go on longer than I should have.
[2:06:21] >> That was very helpful, Joe. Thank you, Nicole. >> Thank you. Um well, while you're here, Joe, I am just uh going to take a little bit of a selfish question. I hope that's okay, colleagues. But as you know, I live right over there. Um been hearing the noise, seeing everything, you know, being cut down and all that, too. And I think the the for me um what I'm thinking about is what we're heading toward when the work is done. And I just wanted to ask the flood mitigation that we've just finished which was also a partnership with Mile High Flood District up at Alpine Balsam. Um, I had a chance to walk around there the other day and it is amazing and beautiful and um has such a just sort of a a wonderful ecosystem already in development. Is is that the kind of thing that you know we're we're sort of moving toward as we get through this work as we work towards some of the restoration. I mean some of this will come back right and and potentially in much healthier ways than it was. Is that >> Yeah, for sure. and and our staff in the utilities department working in partnership with our colleagues in open space take great pride in in doing these projects in a way um that embraces our
[2:07:35] environmental values and and makes things come back better than before. You mentioned the flood project at Alpine Balsam. That's a good example. It's fairly early in its restoration process and and um looks really good already. We did a major maintenance project on the Goose Creek project on the Goose Creek drainage uh within the last couple of years where it intersects with the Elmer's two-mile path. And when you saw it during that maintenance, I mean, it's it doesn't look great when you have bulldozers moving dirt and all the vegetation is stripped away. But I would challenge anyone to go there now and tell tell us where we did the work just a couple years ago. We also did a major flood mitigation um effort on the Wonderland Creek drainage and and put in a 100red-year protection there. And similarly, that has all restored and blends in very nicely with the natural environment. So, that's what we're striving for.
[2:08:38] >> Thanks for that. Any other follow-up questions for city staff? U seeing none, does anyone want to speak to the budget? Matt, >> for the sake of public record, I'll sort of repeat a little bit of what I said last time. Um, so it's there because this is the second meeting. Um, I thank you guys for coming to testify. Appreciate that. Appreciate those concerns. Um, but there's certain things we're going to move forward on because we have mandate from the voters twice to do so. So, we will follow that mandate. Um, but specifically with budget, I just want to be very clear. Um, there's been a uh concerns brought by communities, some of our boards and commissions that our process is simply just not right. And and I would just have to fully agree our process stinks. It's a it's a busted process for how we're doing our budget.
[2:09:24] But by no means when you hear me say that should that be any sort of indictment or um negative comment towards the quality of the work that staff has done. It's just working through a really bad process that gives us no time to review it. Our boards and commissions no time to review it. It's a rough draft that gets drafted and then turns into a final draft budget. I don't know anything in life that goes from first draft to final without reasonable revisions. Um, so I would highly hope that this is if not the last, the second to last budget we do in this process. And I appreciate Nura wanting to go for a two-year budget. I fully support that. I hope council will want to do the same and make that a retreat priority starting next year where we can move that process, bring community boards, and really have a robust conversation about our priorities, our needs versus wants, and how that's reflected and invested in the values we have in our community as we express through the budget. So that's my hope that we get from this and I hope that the hardship this has given us is the launch we need to get a much better cohesive process for everybody to see and know and understand what our budget is and for
[2:10:23] and who it serves. >> Thanks Tina then Rob then Nicole. Hey, yes, thank you for coming and I appreciate um all the feedback and I just wanted to add one comment also about um Spruce Pool is just the um having excellent outside pools might also help people not build private pools um which has its own energy drain on the city and is not a great use of space. That's just another thing I've been thinking about as we um think about our system of pools, but that's not exactly a budget thing. Um, so I really appreciate um the idea of moving to a two-year budget. I think that would help with um what we're feeling is, you know, this is a lot of great work. It's um definitely uh thoughtful. It reflects a lot of our community values, but the timing on how we get those priorities out seems to be um not quite right yet.
[2:11:16] Um but this is always an iterative process. Um, and I think part of the what might help moving forward is making it clear to find out what the priorities are. So, we're using outcomes to make some of our priorities and it's difficult to see where those outcomes are earlier in the budget process. So that would be the part that I think could um work a little bit better and that might help with some of the um comments or how the OSBT and the um OSPT board was feeling. So I am looking forward to continuing to iterate this and um on what is a really it it's a it's a well-developed budget. It's and and I really want to be clear too actually I've been hearing some things like it's corrupt or it's mismanaged that I don't find that to be true at all. Uh it's simply a timing issue in terms of better communicating what the priorities are and how we got to those priorities are the places where I see uh we need improvement. Thanks.
[2:12:20] >> Thanks Rob the Nicole. Thanks. Um, thank you to staff for presenting this. And I'm just going to echo a lot of things that were said, but I just think it's important to be on the record that I'm very supportive of the two-year budget. Um, uh, Jonathan Carol from OSMP, thank you for that. Um, I think it's really important for us to also have some input from boards and commissions to help us make these decisions. And I think that combined with a two-year budget, getting things in front of us, watching how things play out will really help us make some some good decisions. >> Nicole, and then Tyson, then Ryan. >> Thanks. Um I I just want to make sure that as we are talking about uh the budget process when when we say things like it it's um broken or um it is getting worse um I think it can sound like we're criticizing the hard work that staff has done to get us here. Um and what I've observed in my five years on council um that the process has become a lot more transparent. Um the process has become far more equitable than it was to begin with. We are actually outcomes aligned uh at this point and we are far more connected to our citywide and departmental policies
[2:13:35] and we're far more inclusive of of people from across the community. That does not mean we are where we will eventually be. This is all work in progress and it started back in 2006 uh and 2008 with the blue ribbon commission reports and uh it will likely take us a few more decades to get to the place that I think we all want it to be. But I really just want to honor um that it's because of our exceptional finance team, our city attorney, um our city manager, and all of our amazing department heads that we are in the position that we are in. So, I know that there is some um criticism from some groups in the community right now. Um and I just I want to thank you for getting us to this point. Um I am sorry for how toxic some of the conversation has gotten around it. Um but I really do see you moving us to a much better place and the kind of budgeting process that um everyone across the city including up here on this dis is really hoping to get. So thank you very much for all the work. I know it's it's really hard especially in years like this that are so tight.
[2:14:37] >> Thanks for that Nicole Tisha then Ryden. >> Thank you. >> Um so in the second year in a row I will be voting no on this budget. Um, I don't believe it reflects the realities that we have regarding the escalating climate crisis, nor do I think it reflects our priorities. Uh, an example of that is that our police budget is at $54 million, but our climate and OSMP combined um is less than that. And that's just one example. We had a policing update and we're seeing fewer car thefts. We're seeing fewer violent cl crimes. Um we are seeing uh less calls for service and yet um we are in the presentation that was just provided um wildfire uh supplements and that other piece was what 300k and another was 123k. Um but just having three police lieutenants is half a million dollars.
[2:15:36] So um again that's just one example um of of of of a concern for me. Um, and as far as the budget process is concerned, I feel like I'm in a time warp because we said these very same things the last year. And although I would agree with my colleague on the improvement of the actual packet and materials and the readability and usability, the timeline and the um engagement process for boards and commissions for council feedback remained exactly the same. uh which is actually was the primary reason that I did not um select exceeds expectations for the program evaluation or performance evaluation although I do think you exceed expectations in a variety of different ways but this is one area um that is critical and important and I think it's one of the most important things that we as a as a council do um is setting and approving the budget and when the process is not correct and again I take responsibility as a council member for not having the um wherewithal and agreement across our council to um make those significant changes and now we have to wait another year for those changes to be made. Um and when people talk to me about 10 15 years down the line knowing what I know about climate if we don't get things
[2:16:57] right and turn the titanic around in the next two to three years there is no 15 years from now. Um, the last thing I just want to say is, um, thank you to Joe and the water team on the dam. I'm a former commissioner for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. While there, I had the opportunity of visiting, um, dams in different utilities across the state that were affiliated with our fisheries. A small dam repair project is $7 million. Small. Most dam projects can go anywhere from 20 to500 million to $800 million. So the fact that we are at 60s something and now 70s something because of um the challenges that we're facing is actually quite modest compared to some of the other costs that can be associated with that. So I just want to commend um the team around that particular aspect and understand the challenges. I did actually have a question, but it's not one that needs to come up in this moment. Um, somebody else raised the question about dam maintenance. Um, and so again, just wanting to I'm assuming just knowing um Joe and his team and having worked with them that that is something they've considered, but I didn't see that necessarily reflected.
[2:18:12] And as we are going to be and lastly, thank you for this extended time to speak. Um, we're going to be talking about um a different a possibility of a police station alternative later tonight. And I noticed that there's a multi-year process for that with different costs associated over different years. Um, and I have some minor trimmer concerns around us getting into a similar situation as Alpine Bossom where, you know, we are maybe encumbing, what's that word? encumbenting future councils encumbering thank you future councils for some of that cost. So again, I'm hopeful that uh council member Marquis's request for uh an infrastructure committee or something. But I I do have some concerns around just if we do approve that and move that forward, how are we in the budgeting process going to make sure that we can mitigate any cost overruns from that section. So again, thank you very much for the time. This is not a criticism of staff. I think they did exceptional work in in the uh crunch that we have. Um but I continue to be concerned that as a council we are not using the authorities that we have um to ensure that the process is valid and reliable um and that the budget is meeting our most pressing realities and our most pressing priorities. Thank you.
[2:19:34] >> Thanks. We'll go to Ryan then Tara then I'll say something. >> I'm happy to support the budget. Um, I'm also with uh Matt, I think Rob, and um finding it excruciating that we have a wildfire discussion about strategic aspects that will have potentially financial implications, and we're not we're not in the sequence to to meet that with this budget. But, um, I I think that the two-year budget idea is a really important one, and, you know, we're on the right track and having a a a budgeting process that has policy first, budget next. The thing we're missing the most, if anything, is the time. The time to make sure that we have alignment between policy and budget. Um, and that's the opportunity for a two-year budget that is on council. that is on council and not staff to to put that into motion. Um and um on that note, I really would like to thank staff for their their work on this um in general, but but specifically in such a compressed year. And um I think Nicole mentioned this, but but let's be explicit. this council is is ending a three-year term in which two years um we had a normal two-year process and then we had this this compressed one year that I don't know if any council's had
[2:20:55] it before but um back in January when we were doing a work plan setting session um there was some discussion about that it would be very hard to to land a full agenda of work this year with such a compressed schedule. I council, we generally pushed to, you know, kind of try to pack in as much as we could anyway. And, you know, I I do think we were warned in a sense that it that it would be hard. And, um, so there's probably a cautionary tale here. Um, in any case, as we look to the future and look to new ways to do budgeting with a a two-year budget, um, I think that'll be an important thing for us to internalize and reflect on. Um, and that might be all I have to say. Um yeah, just thanks again staff and and to council colleagues for all the hard work on this and um look forward to moving forward. Thanks.
[2:21:44] >> Thanks R. >> First I want to thank you John Carol for coming. Did you see how cute my granddaughter was the other night? Okay, we'll talk about that later. She was cute. Um but had to say a word about that. Okay. But um I really appreciate you coming and it seems to me I'm going to just agree with what Ryan said and not repeat it that I can't see any any other way you're right that there's not enough time and the only I can't see any other way forward other than to the two-year budget cycle. So I'm glad we're all in agreement on that. Um I also want to thank Lynn Stein, the defender of the polls, because yeah, she's doing a great job. And what I'm most excited about is back in the day, meaning like five or 10 years ago, we would have these working groups, these community working groups that did great things. And so I'm really excited about what's going to come forth because like you, I really want to make sure that 2028 is another year where Spruce Pool can exist and thrive. So thanks for all the work you do, Lynn.
[2:22:48] And let's hear it for Spruce Pool. >> Thanks. Yes. Let's hear it for Spruce Pool. Um I'm glad that we found the funds this year to Oh, no clapping. You could do the jazz hands. Um so we can um I'm glad we found the funding this year to keep it um or for 2027 to keep it open and also to fix the the leaks. That'll be great. And I look forward next year to finding ongoing funding for the future of Spruce Pool as well. I want to thank city staff for all the excellent work in putting this all together. Um, and I I also want to just recognize the um the two boards that expressed concerns to us. So, uh, John, thanks for being here tonight and then carrying that motion forward from the open space board of trustees. And I know the parks board had some significant concerns and I think they point to um, you know, the need for process improvements in future years. So, um, I think we're all talking about the two-year budget cycle. I think that's very promising. So, look forward next year to giving our boards and commissions more runway to um to look at the uh the budgets that be that they're being asked to consider. But, uh fundamentally, I think we're in good
[2:23:54] shape and it's challenging fiscal times and I appreciate um all the hard work that staff has done to manage that. With that, we have four motions in front of us. I wonder if somebody might like to get us started. Nicole, >> I can do them. Um, I make a motion to adopt ordinance 8777 adopting a budget for the city of Boulder, Colorado for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth related details. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. And um Oh, I see like maybe a scout troop that's been here tonight. Hi everybody. Thanks for joining us. Um Emily, if we could have a roll call, please. Absolutely. Uh we'll start the roll call on ordinance 8777 with council member Spear. >> Yes. >> Winer. >> Yes. >> Council member Adams. >> No.
[2:24:56] >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Brockett. >> Yes. >> Council member Kaplan. >> Yes. >> Marcus. >> Yes. >> And Shuhard. >> Yes. Ordinance 8777 is hereby adopted with a vote of 7 to1. Would you >> like to keep going? >> Sure. >> I make a motion to adopt ordinance 8778 establishing the city of Boulder property tax mill levies for 2026 providing that said levy be certified to the Boulder County Assessor and setting forth related details. >> Second. >> Motion a second. Roll call, please. family. >> We'll start the roll call on ordinance 8778 with Mayor Prom Winer. >> Yes. >> Adams, >> yes. >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> Mayor Brackett, >> yes. >> Kaplan, >> yes. >> Council member Marcus, >> yes. >> Yes. >> And Spear, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8778 is hereby adopted unanimously.
[2:26:00] I make a motion to adopt ordinance 8779 appropriating money to defay expenses and liabilities of the city of Boulder, Colorado for the 2027 fiscal year of the city of Boulder and setting forth related details. >> Second. We have a motion to second. Roll call, please. Emily, >> we'll start the roll call with 8779 with Council Member Adams. >> Yes. >> Council member Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Rocket. >> Yes. Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhart, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> And Mayor Prom Winer, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8779 is hereby approved unanimously. I'm sorry, adopted unanimously. I make a motion to adopt ordinance 8780 amending title two government organization, title three revenue and taxation, title four licenses and permits, title five general offenses, title six health, safety and sanitation, title 7 vehicles, pedestrians and parking and title 8 parks, open spaces, streets and public ways. BRC1 1981 changing certain fees and taxes and setting forth related details.
[2:27:14] >> Second motion a second. to roll call, please. Em, Emily, >> we'll start the roll call on 8780 with Council Member Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brockett, >> yes. >> Kaplan, >> yes. >> Council member Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhard, >> sorry. Yes. >> Council member Spear, >> yes. >> Winer, >> yes. >> And Adams, >> yes. Ordinance 8780 is hereby adopted unanimously. >> Very good. Thanks again, city staff, for all your work on the budget. >> All right, let's go to item 6B, please, for our next public hearing. Next we have public hearing item 6B and that is for consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Nwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and Nwood Metro District Business Meeting which consists of a presentation from the Metropolitan District regarding the status of the public infrastructure projects within the Metropolitan District and outstanding bonds. if any, a review of unawudited financial statements showing the year-to-date revenue and expenditures of the metropolitan district in relation to its adopted budget as amended if applicable applicable for the calendar year and an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions about the metropolitan district.
[2:28:47] >> Thanks. So, if I could please uh get a motion to adjourn as the city council and convene as the Nwood board of directors. So moved. >> Second. >> Motion a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes 80. So we are now the Nwood board of directors. So I'll turn it over to city staffer. >> I believe there's a roll call for the board. >> Oh, the show of hands adjourns us. Okay. So now we need to take a roll call of the board members. Thank you. >> Absolutely. We'll start the roll call with board member Adams. Yes. >> Here. >> Benjamin >> here. >> Chair Brockett >> present. >> Kaplan >> present. >> Marquis >> here. >> Shuhard >> here. >> Spear >> here. >> And Winer >> present. >> Chair Brockett. We have our quorum.
[2:29:46] >> So now I'll turn it over to city staff for a presentation. >> Thank you so much, Chair Brockett. Uh, and with this, I'm actually going to send it over to our CFO, Christa Morrison, to make some introductory remarks and perhaps an introduction. >> Yes. Well, good evening, Mayor Brockett, members of city council. Christa Morrison, chief financial officer. >> Christa, you're speaking to Chair Brockett. >> Chair Brockett, thank you, Chair Brockett. >> Sorry. >> Um, thank you for that. And, uh, you are now convening as the directors of the Norwood Metropolitan District. As you know, a resolution was adopted for the city to provide management and oversight of the district's long-term financial obligations and outstanding debt. To lead that effort, I'm happy to introduce our city controller, Jeremy Creamman, whose focus on compliance and accounting will help ensure the district remains on track for our obligations.
[2:30:42] Jeremy joined the Boulder team this March of 2026 and he oversees the city's accounting, accounts payable, receivables, treasury, and financial reporting functions. Tonight, Jeremy will present first our current financial standing as the annual um as the annual meeting as well as outstanding debt, followed by the 2027 budget recommendation. So with that, I'll hand over to Jeremy to dive into the details of the Nwood District uh financials as well as submitted budget. >> Thank thank you Christa. >> Thank you to the directors. Um as Christa mentioned, I am Jeremy Kian, the city's controller, and I'll be presenting the annual report for Nwood. Uh first, I'll prevent provide some background on the Nwood Metropolitan District. I'll touch on the district's debt and briefly review 2025 financial results and 2026 year-to- date results. We'll then have time for questions from the from the directors and we will have time for public comment. Please note that state law requires us to have an annual meeting and a budget meeting as separate meetings.
[2:31:54] The district has existed since 1965 but was annexed into the city in 2025. The annexation agreement required the district to complete certain improvements in order to connect with city services. These improvements were funded by two loans the district took out prior to their annexation. The only ongoing function of the district is to pay debt service on the loans with original balances totaling excuse me with original balances totaling $2.8 8 million as shown on the slide as well as paying administrative costs related to the district's remaining functions. The debt was to pay or I already said that uh NOW ended fiscal year 2025 with a total fund balance of about $25,000 um than total outstanding loans payable of about 2.2 million. We project that no wood will end fiscal year 2026 with about $33,000 in fund balance after paying operating costs and the remaining debt service payments for the year. Principal and interest payments are due on December 1st of 2026. The next payment will be for under $52,000 in principal and $38,000 in interest. This will reduce the outstanding loans payable to 2.1 million.
[2:33:14] On this slide, we have a comparison of the No One Metropolitan District's 2025 budget actual. Please note, these are the budget numbers that were entered into the city system at the time of annexation. The uh prior board approved a budget which also included the property tax revenue, etc. Um as well as the 2026 budget and projected 2026 balances through year end for the district as a whole. In 2026, the district is expected to collect about $246,000 in property taxes, $4,000 in interest and other income, and incur operating expenses about 14,000 and debt service totaling about 228,000. This slide reflects the operating portion of Nwoods of Nwood's expenses. Most operating expenses will be recorded in the fourth quarter. And this slide represents year-to- date 2026 revenues and expenses for debt service as well as projections through year end reflecting those previously mentioned debt service payments.
[2:34:22] And that is my present that is that part of my presentation. >> Thanks for that succinct presentation. Appreciate it. Uh any questions? >> Not seeing any questions. So this would be the time to go to our public hearing I believe. So, uh, we have one person signed up to speak and that is it's public comment actually rather than the hearing. Um, we have Lynn Seagull signed up to speak for three minutes. >> Uh, good evening board of directors. Uh, Lynn is not here tonight. >> Okay. So, we'll end public comment. Um, and does that bring our meeting, business meeting to a close? Okay, great. So, I need a couple of motions. Can we start with the first one? >> I make a motion to adjurnn as annual meeting of the Nowood Metropolitan District. >> Second.
[2:35:15] >> All in favor, please raise your hand. >> Ryan, uh, this is the motion to adjourn the annual meeting. >> Sorry, tech issues. Uh, yes. >> Okay. So, all in favor, raise your hand. Okay, that's uh succeeds 8. Do you want to make the next motion? >> Make a motion to >> I make a motion to convene the 2027 budget meeting of the Nwood Metropolitan District. >> Second. We have a motion to second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. So, that passes 80 unanimously. So, we are now in the budget meeting. Do you need to read this into the record separately? Is 560? Okay. So, please go ahead then. Thank you so much. And the board will be continuing to operate as we move into the next item 6C. And that is for a consideration of the following pertaining to the 2027 budget of the Nullwood Metropolitan District.
[2:36:20] And that is a consideration of a motion to convene the 2027 annual budget meeting and adopt resolution five concerning the Nwood Metropolitan District adopting a budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2027 and adopt resolution six establishing the 2026 Nwood Metropolitan District property tax mill levy for payment of expenditures in part of the district during the fiscal year 2027 beginning January 1st, 2027 and adopt resolution 7 appropriating money to defay the expenses and liabilities of the Nwood Metropolitan District for the 2027 fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2027 and a consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Nwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. >> Thanks so much. Hand it over to staff for presentation. Thank you, chair. Um, we will just briefly cover the 2027 budget and mill levy, take questions from the board, public comment, and then allow you time for deliberations.
[2:37:32] Launching into the budget, we have budgeted $12,200 for property taxes and $10,000 for administrative expenses, which are primarily reimbursing the city for costs to administer the district. Uh for debt service, we are budgeting $239,200 for property tax revenue and $223,000 for debt service for principal and interest payments. The proposed 2027 mill levy is 1.0 mills for operating costs and 19.57 mills for debt service for a total of 20.57 mills. This is as you can see on this slide the 20.57 mills is unchanged from prior year and is below their previous uh mill levies in 2022 and 2023. Um and that is that any questions? Seeing none, um we can go to our public hearing. And so one person signed up to speak, which is um Lynn Seagull. Is she present? >> Uh good evening again. Uh Lynn is still not here.
[2:38:47] >> Okay. So we'll close that and come back to the board for consideration. Do we um I assume we need separate motions for the separate resolutions? >> Believe so. >> Very good. Somebody want to get us started? >> I move to adopt resolution five concerning the Nwood Metropolitan District adopting a budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2027 and sending forth related details. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Can we have a show of hands vote on this, Emily? All right. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, that passes unanimously. 8 Z. Do you want to keep going? >> Sure. I move to adopt resolution six establishing the 2026 Nwood Metropolitan District property tax bill levy for payment of expenditures in part of the district during the fiscal year 2027 beginning January 1st, 2027 and setting forth related details.
[2:39:47] >> Second. >> Motion a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes unanimously. 8 Z. You're on a roll, Tina. >> Okay. I move to adopt resolution 7 appropriating money to defay the expenses and liabilities of the Nwood Metropolitan District for the 2027 fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2027 and setting forth related details. Second >> motion is second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes unanimously. 8. Um I would now entertain a motion to adjurnn as the Nwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. So moved. >> Second. >> Motion a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes 80 unanimously. Thanks so much. And thanks to folks in the audience who've been waiting for the next item. Appreciate your patience. So we are now officially reconvened as the Boulder City Council. So we can go to item 6D, public hearing 6D, please.
[2:40:51] >> Yes, Mayor. Next on our agenda, we have item 6D. That is for a second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8774 reszoning approximately 3.72 acres of land located at 21106 and 2130 Arapjo Avenue and adjacent. 03 acre portion of Marine Street and a portion of adjacent Arapjo Avenue rightway from the public to the residential high-5 zoning district. a portion of adjacent Arapjo Avenue rightway from the residential high two to the residential high-5 zoning district and a portion of adjacent Arapjo Avenue right ofway from the residential mixed one to the residential high-5 zoning district as described in chapter 9-5 modular zone system BRC 1981 this is reviewed under case number LUR 2025-000034 four. >> Thanks so much. And for this item, I will send it over to Mr. Venshack for a presentation.
[2:42:00] >> All right. Thank you, Nuria. Good evening, council members. I'm Chandler Rensk, principal planner with Planning and Development Services. Um, and tonight we will be having the second reading of the proposed resoning of 21106 and 2130 Arapo Avenue. Um, Emily just read the uh motion language, so I won't read it again now. Um it will come up again at the end as the recommended motion language, but it is essentially reszoning the Nuropa site um from P to RH5 and surrounding rights of way um from various own districts to RH5. In terms of the review process, uh resoning requests are reviewed for consistency with policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the review criteria in section 9219E of the Boulder Revised Code. Um, this resoning request came in concurrently with a site review. On September 15, 2026, planning board voted to recommend approval of the reasonzoning and approved the site review uh both by unanimous vote. On October 1st, 2026, um, city council considered whether to call up the site review. Um, they did not you did not call up the site review. Therefore, the decision to planning board is final and the site review is considered approved.
[2:43:13] At that same meeting, um you also ordered by uh published by title only the first reading of the resoning ordinance before you tonight. Um so tonight, October 15th, uh we are asking you to approve or deny the resoning request. In terms of public notice, required public notice was provided in the form of written notifications to property owners and all addresses within 600 ft of the subject property. In addition, a public notice sign was posted on the property and therefore all public notice requirements of section 943 of the Boulder Revised Code were met. Staff has received several written comments pertaining to the site review application for the property. Uh but no comment specifically related to the reszoning request. The 21106 and 2130 Arapjo Avenue property is currently one of the two campus locations of Nuropa University, which is a private nonprofit liberal arts institution. The approximately 3.7 acre property is located at the intersection of Rapjo Avenue and 21st Street and is adjacent to the northern edge of the University of Colorado campus. The area west of Nuropa and south of Rapo Avenue zoned RH1 is a mix of small businesses and multi-unit housing. Much of the multi-unit housing is student oriented. To the north of Rapo Avenue is the Goss Grove neighborhood, which is an RH2 and RMX1 zoned area of mixed density housing with
[2:44:28] many single-unit residences 1 to three stories in height, as well as multi-unit residential housing scattered throughout the neighborhood. The resoning site sits immediately north of the University of Colorado campus adjacent to the North Boulder Creek campus area. The North Boulder Creek area is in the process of redevelopment with uh approximately 1 million square feet of new student housing and amenities planned in a series of buildings that range from 5 to seven stories tall. Um, in terms of the Boulder Valley Comp plan designation, as you can see here, the site is designated neighborhood 2. Um, neighborhood 2 uh areas are primarily residential neighborhoods that feature a mix of denser housing types and larger buildings. Um, commercial and other non-residential uses are generally concentrated near transit services. Um, these areas provide opportunities for more people to live close to jobs, schools, parks, shops, and mobility options. and additional density is intended to support vibrant businesses and community spaces, development of a robust transit network, and walkable urban neighborhoods.
[2:45:28] Primary uses include attached residential units, multi-units, and group living. The buildings are intended to be medium to high in intensity and scale up to five stories in height. Um, and the design is intended to maintain a comfortable pedestrian scale through thoughtful building design, gathering spaces, natural infrastructure, and streetscape amenities. Uh this land use anticipates larger structures, limited setbacks, shared open spaces, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit supportive infrastructure critical to the streets. Uh it provides safe multimmoal access to local destinations. Curbside management is encouraged and shared unbundled and managed parking or sump parking is preferred. In terms of zoning, the existing zoning for the site is public or P, which is defined as public areas in which public and semi-public facilities and uses are located, including without limitation governmental and educational uses. The existing zoning was put in place during the 2015 comp plan update at the request of Nuropa. The benefit to Nuropa in receiving the public land use and zoning designations at that time was that it removed any limitations on floor area for any improvements that Nuropa might choose to make as a um private institution. Nuropa is now looking to vacate and sell the 2130 Arapjo Avenue campus and is seeking to change the zoning to residential high-5 or RH5 which is defined as highdensity residential areas primarily used for a
[2:46:51] variety of types of attached residential units including without limitation apartment buildings and where complimentary uses may be allowed. So there's uh one key issue for discussion tonight which is whether the resoning request is consistent with the resoning criteria in section 9219E of the Boulder revised code. So, uh, section 9219E reads that the city council shall grant a resoning application only if the proposed resoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and for an application not incidental to a general revision of the zoning map meets one of the fi following criteria. Uh in this case, the criterion um that is being used to justify the proposed resoning is criterion number one, which is that the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed resoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan area map.
[2:47:44] The following policies and goals from the current BBCP update support the proposed resoning to RH5. Policy 24, which is community character and evolution. Policy 26, compact urban form. Policy 27, integrated land use and transportation, and policy 82, housing diversity and supply. Uh the further analyses on all these policies is included in the staff memorandum to council. Uh the proposed resoning would bring the project site into compliance with the underlying land use designation, which as I mentioned is neighborhood 2. The Pzoning district is no longer compatible with the new underlying neighborhood 2 land use designation as the use and intensity standards for the zone do not support residential and mixeduse buildings that are generally medium or high in intensity and scale as envisioned for neighborhood 2. The RH5 zone district would allow for redevelopment of the site in a manner consistent with the neighborhood 2 land use designation as a primarily residential neighborhood that features a mix of denser housing types and larger buildings with the additional density supporting vibrant businesses and community spaces, the development of robust transit network in walkable urban neighborhoods.
[2:48:51] I have the recommended motion language available here. And now I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thanks, Chandler. Any questions for Chandler? I am not seeing any. So we will go to the public hearing. We have four people signed up to speak. Each of them will get three minutes. Um we have uh Wolf Gang Hulk in person, Lin Seagull online, then Dan O'Donovan in person. So Wolf Gang Oh, we have an applicant presentation. I got ahead of myself. >> Oh, yes. Sorry, >> Adrien. I'm not trying to overlook you. >> If you don't need it, Thank you, Mayor Brockett and members of the Boulder Council. Um, as I believe staff has rightly stated, Nuropa has to move. And do we get three minutes or anything more than that? Thank you. you attend >> at at most 10 but you certainly are not required to >> I won't take that >> Nuropa is leaving this campus and has to move for for the reasons which I'll let President and past president Nuropa address if you in public comment if you wish I'm sure they have things they might want to share uh and because of that the property is being sold for the purposes of multi-unit student housing which is on the northern boundary of to the university which is uh as you might
[2:50:30] imagine a very reasonable place to put student housing. It's walkable. It doesn't require auto traffic from the residences to the university. But in order to do that, the public zoning really does not support it since it only allows unlimited floor area but only six dwelling units per acre, which means on the entire 3.72 acre campus, you can only do 22 dwelling units. um which particularly in the context of the changes to the land use isn't in keeping with the current uh Boulder Valley comp plan um requirements. The existing campus here of the university and Nuropa being adjacent to each other but also to the north as mentioned by staff is Goss Grove. to the northeast is the Boulder Valley Regional Center, the university itself, and then highdensity residential zones which are actually all surrounding the campus, not just in this location. I noted that the area to the west of Nuropa as transitional, and I'll come back to that in in another slide or two for reasons which will become obvious.
[2:51:39] If you look around the larger map of of the campus, which is in purple, uh, in the center of this image, there are other universityowned properties to the east and to the southeast, and they all share that public zoning. You can see that Nuropa today on the northern portion of that purple zone, that lavender zone is uh also public zoned. So there are there's no F limits for privatelyowned property in that lavender area. But being the University of Colorado, there's no city of Boulder land use regulations that affect it anyway. There the only area I believe that is privately owned is Nuropa. And with it no longer being uh a campus itself, it no longer makes sense for them to have unlimited floor area allowable with no housing possible on that site. So, in keeping with what staff has mentioned in the change in the comp plan to um neighborhood 2, we are requesting to be zoned RH5. RH5 allows a 1.5 F which is compatible with all of those areas surrounding the campus today. Um and also provides a buffer to the RMX1 to the north in neighborhood one and the RH2 in neighborhood one. I point I point to this map uh to the on the right which shows that green area west of the Nuropa campus as RH1. And
[2:53:07] the reason I call it transitional is you can see that that hatched area on the on the map to the right which is CU. They own property in RH1. They have purchased property. In fact, their last major building project is in the RH1 neighborhood. So in terms of a limitation of a 67 F, it just really makes it very easy for that land to be sold essentially to the university because it it it is not reasonable to consider redevelopment of it. Changing the the the Nuropa property to RH5 allows a 1.5 F limit on that property, but also keeps it in city regulations. Who knows what's going to happen in that RH1 zone, but it's at that low of a density allowable. It is less likely to get redeveloped privately. Um you can see that the the campus plan for for uh the university in this area is for a significant amount of increase in housing and and I'm not sure what other facilities they have planned but Nuropa planning to sell to a housing developer in uh makes a lot of sense and hopefully provide it within the context of the city's ordinances and I believe that's about all I had to show. So in terms of where we are, site review has been unanimously approved by planning board and the um planning board
[2:54:34] also supported unanimously reszoning the land to RH5. We have landmarked um or we have had the support of landmarks board for the relocation of two other structures on the Nuropa campus and created a new um 21st street walk that doesn't exist today linking the existing city 21st street directly into the into CU and there was no callup on any of the previous reviews by this council. So, all that's really left uh in this process is your approval of the resoning and I still have three minutes. Thank you. Any questions? >> Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Thanks. Appreciate that. Um now we'll go to the public hearing. Uh do we have Wolf Gang Hawk here? Doesn't look like it is Lynn Seagull online. >> Uh good evening, council. Lynn is still not online. >> Our other in-person speakers are Deian O'Donovan and Jeffrey Hyman.
[2:55:39] Looks like we're striking out this evening. Normally, I would thank everyone for coming out to speak, but um I'll bring the public hearing to a close and come back to city council for discussion of or possibly a motion. Chandler, if we could have motion language up, please. Matt. All right. Uh, I make a motion to adopt ordinance 8774 reszoning approximately 3.72 acres of land located at 21106 and 2130 Arapjo Avenue and adjacent 0.03 03 acre portion of Marine Street and a portion of adjacent Arapjo Avenue right ofway from the public to the residential RH5 zoning district. a portion of adjacent Arapjo Avenue right of way from the residential high2 RH2 to the residential high-5 RH5 zoning district and a portion of adjacent Arapjo Avenue right of way from the residential mixed one RMX1 to the residential high-5 RH5 zoning district as described in chapter 9-5 modular zone system BRC1981 >> second we have a motion and a second any discussion you want to speak to your motion >> I'll speak to real quick I just appreciate the thoughtfulness in a very complex environment that that is given the surrounding partners um and what's been developed and what may be developed and and I appreciate you working to fit within what's around you but recognizing there needs to be some transition and
[2:57:21] there's tensions between RH5 and some of the lower density residential and other areas. So just just appreciate the thoughtfulness and thinking through that um that makes our job easy when an applicant is doing that uh level of due diligence and thoughtfulness. So thank you so much. >> Thanks. Did you want to say anything? >> Um, no. I just I appreciate the thoughtfulness as well and the saving of the Nuropa building and the sycamores and it is very thoughtful and it's the right place for that that kind of housing. Um, and I'll just call in myself and as I said at the uh call-up opportunity, just uh very much appreciate Nuropa as an essential part of the cultural and educational life of this community and looking forward to seeing a bright future for the institution um in its continued home on East Arapjo. So, uh thanks for bringing this forward and looking forward to voting in favor.
[2:58:11] >> Roll call, please, Emily. >> We'll start the roll call with ordinance 8774 with you, Mayor Brackett. >> Yes. Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhard, >> yes. >> Council member Spear, >> yes. >> Winer, >> yes. >> Adams, >> yes. >> And Benjamin, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8774 is hereby adopted unanimously. >> Very good. Well, thanks Chandler and staff and congratulations to the applicant and like I say, we look forward to that thriving future. We have one more public hearing to do. Item 6E. >> Our last public hearing item is item 6E for a consideration of a landmark alteration certification application for changes within the landmark boundary of the Glenn Huntington Bansho at 1236 Canyon Boulevard. an individual landmark pursuant to section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3 quasi judicial hearings BRC1981.
[2:59:28] >> Thank you. Staff going to speak to this briefly? >> Just briefly uh mayor I would say that uh we are this item is seeking seeking a continuation to a next meeting under code. We are required to bring this forward at a particular time frame which was today. Um but we uh request a little bit more ample time to have a more folome public hearing and conversation about it. >> Got it. Well, I will go ahead and move that we continue this public hearing to the regular meeting on November 19th, 2026. >> Second. >> We've got a motion in a second. Does anybody want want to speak to this? >> Take your time. >> Not seeing any hands raised. I'll go ahead and um ask for a vote with a show of hands. All in favor the motion raise your hands. That is unanimous. 8-0.
[3:00:15] Okay. We have continued that item to November 19th. Thanks so much. We got one item left. Matters under matters from the city manager. Our last item on tonight's agenda is on item number seven, matters from the city manager, and that is for a public safety building relocation options analysis. Thank you so much, Emily. Uh, council members, thanks for allowing us a moment to bring this sensitive item to your this timesensitive item to your attention. As I mentioned in my initial request, an opportunity has come our way that impacts one of the buildings included in our recreation and safety bond measure were it to pass. You'll hear shortly from Deputy Director Michelle Crane, but I'll advance that there is still a lot of unknown here, including what financing options we may have and frankly what trade-offs. I know that's a word that people are getting weary of, but it is uh accurate. What trade-offs would come with set options.
[3:01:15] We remain limited in our ability to fund large projects like this, but we would be more remiss if we didn't even consider the opportunity given the price tag of a newly constructed building to serve the department's needs in the future. So, with that, I will pass this on to Deputy Director Crane. >> Thank you, Nura. Um, good evening, council. Michelle Crane, uh, with Deputy Director with City Facilities. Um, let me go ahead and get a slideshow up. There we go. Um, so as Nuria mentioned, we're here to talk about a public safety building relocation option. Um, I do want to share an update on this recent opportunity that has created a new option for relocating the current the public safety building. Um, which would be significantly less expensive than the current plan to build at our existing municipal service center. Um we are currently underway conducting a pretty extensive analysis on this opportunity to refine um the details of this and the costs associated um with this and we'd anticipate bringing this back uh for more discussion later this year once we have um more refinement on those costs.
[3:02:25] So, uh, our question just following a brief presentation tonight to council is if you have any questions on the at least the relocation analysis that we're currently doing now. Um, we aren't looking for any decisions tonight just to inform you of this this work. So earlier this year, we brought you an update on the current public safety building's condition, which had only worsened since uh we had discussed this in our 2021 facility strategic plan when the building was identified as the worst in the worst condition in our building, our 75 building portfolio. PD has outgrown this space and investments have fallen far behind what's needed to keep the building in good operating condition. Large investments are needed simply to keep equipment functioning and it's unclear how long this reactive approach to fixing our building can last.
[3:03:21] Uh this is more reflected in both our service request data and how we spend our emergency maintenance funding which has been primarily on this building in recent years. Continued large investment in this building does not seem to make fiscal sense. This has led to the building being identified as a top priority for replacement and being named a project on the recreation and safety bond measure which is now out in front of voters. So we have known about these challenges for quite some time with PD that they need more space and that the current site uh is not a good solution to uh make more space for PD. uh before the facility strategic plan was brought forward, we have been studying both uh the needs for public safety and the department as well as the municipal service center site for what potential existed on this current city-owned site uh to address a number of city building needs including PDS. Um these are early studies that were informed what was ultimately brought forward uh as part of the consolidation initiative in the facility strategic plan and we've started to refer to this MSSE site or the municipal service center site is also the eastern campus. So you hear us use those terms kind of interchangeably.
[3:04:33] Following acceptance of the facilities plan, we continued evaluation of this site um and conducted even more extensive needs assessment uh for PD which included again looking at their existing site today to see if we could accommodate um their needs on that site. uh that deeper dive kind of only reaffirmed some prior conclusions that the current site is really not adequate to support their needs and that this eastern site um could be quite a good place for a permanent home. There's a lot of synergies um and and opportunities on this site to relocate PD. So, our most recent study of this east campus, we looked at how projects um various projects could be phased over time as a way to develop the site and we also developed some costs associated with each of these projects and how this could move forward. It's this work actually that informed project costs on the recreation and safety bond measure um and most specifically the costs associated with redeveloping the public safety building in this location as part of a consolidated campus. Um some of the key opportunities of this particular site is it is already a city-owned site.
[3:05:41] It's a 25 acre site that we already um own and that we currently operate with many city buildings um on that site. Many of those city buildings are ones that have been identified as priorities for looking at reinvestment or replacement of it is generally in a central location uh which is in increasing benefit as we look uh as and anticipate future growth in this particular area of town. So it is beneficial from that perspective. There are also a number of synergies um between some of the buildings that we're considering out here specifically for PD being located next to fleet. Um we have a large uh police vehicle uh uh force that is always going to our fleet building. Having these uh buildings colllocated would create a lot of operational efficiency. Um, and as we consider this site, which has really only been looked at a very conceptual level, but if we think about creating a more comprehensive plan for this whole site, we can then look at strategically building out um, in phases, which is what this most recent work had done, is looked at a phased approach um, and then building over time on whatever time horizon that does need to be based on funding availability.
[3:07:00] But concurrently with all of that work, um we have continued to look for other options for PD because we also know that building out that site uh is both a long road and includes a lot of steep costs um to building out that campus. So this past spring um as we were confronted with some of our latest challenges with the public safety building, we started a new search for lease space as at least a temporary solution to consider. We have actually been uh looking at lease space for PD over the past number of years in different ways and um in the past it has not really turned up any opportunities. However, this time an intriguing opportunity has presented itself. Uh we have found a building that is for lease or purchase. It fits nearly all of PD's space needs and their parking needs.
[3:07:45] Their parking needs are large. Um it's in a strategic location uh in town that is very well placed for PD to operate from and it's uh unlike many other uh options that we've encountered in the past. So we are in the process of test fitting essentially what a PD program would look like in this building. um how we could fit uh those requirements, the specialty requirements like an intake and a crime lab and the types of things they need as well as what kind of code um modifications we may have to make to the building necessary to move them over here. Uh this building was originally built as a speculative office building. So, we would need to make a number of improvements to harden the shell and to secure the building um and again u accommodate a lot of specialized needs.
[3:08:35] But our rough initial estimates based on kind of cost per square foot for similar types of test fits like this range that it would be around $30 to $50 million in order to renovate this building to um serve PD. um those estimates take into account on the low end if we were in the lease option. The higher end um considers that if we were going to purchase, we may make some additional capital investments in the building. We're equally looking at um just the condition of the building itself. Given it's 20 years old, we would want to consider if there's infrastructure that should be replaced, it's probably in that replacement cycle. So that's what those topend estimates could be um considering. So, as we kind of do a deeper dive um into the details for what this move could look like for PD, uh we are weighing both timing and then sort of permanency options and considerations to build out the Eastern campus if that was something that we were going to move forward with um you know immediately.
[3:09:38] It's at least a five to sevenyear timeline just given everything that needs to be um uh considered and and constructed on that site. A move into this existing building could take us roughly two years. Um the timing considerations also factor into our lease versus purchase analysis uh and whether it's beneficial to invest in this existing building rather than even investing in the current public safety building even if we did move out um in the short term. So we're we're kind of trying to consider all these options. We have identified some key criteria for PD and we've incorporated those along with uh the key performance indicators from our facilities plan to try to do a better sideby-side comparison of this existing building um against a brand new replacement building and then also in contrast with our current uh our current uh public safety building. So when we look under our environmentally sustainable pillar, the options for relocating uh to this existing buildout building building versus com building a new building stack up pretty comparably.
[3:10:46] Um we may want to consider additional energy and sustainability investments in this existing building if we were to purchase it. Um and so we're including those in our cost analysis. Likewise, when we look at our social responsibility pillar, these buildings stack up pretty well against each other. Um, but most notably, there is a remarkable improvement for both options over uh what we have in our current public safety building. Uh lastly, when we look at our financial stewardship pillar, both again stack up um pretty well in contrast to our current public safety building. The existing building that we're looking at does fall a little bit short on space needs. Um so in the future some additional space would likely need to be built elsewhere. Uh we do have um some good strategies for how to do this in a strategic manner. But most notable is the capital cost difference which could be quite significant savings between the two buildings. Um building improving this existing building versus brand new.
[3:11:54] It could be upwards of a $90 million savings. um for these two options. And so the reasons um behind that major cost differences. So building a brand new building particularly at the eastern campus um does require a lot of uh site infrastructure investments um some extensive underground utilities work, surface improvements in roads um and in other kind of above ground treatments um and some flood flood mitigation. In contrast with improving this existing building, we're looking at some security fencing around uh around the building. Uh for a brand new building, uh we have projected costs per square foot at 2030 escalated rates because that's probably when we'd be entering into construction. um and as opposed and in contrast to this existing building which was built at rates 20 years ago and so that's been factored into the sale prices that have been um put forward.
[3:12:52] The regulatory paths are also a big consideration. So again as we've discussed uh building out the eastern campus could be a five to sevenyear um regulatory path and construction schedule in contrast to this existing building which would really only require a building permit. And again, we could be in within about two years. And both of those things lead to just the the amount of risk or uncertainty around development in um the larger development site. And that's cost uncertainty. Again, in contrast to the existing building, that lower time frame, less regulatory process is just a higher degree of certainty around our costs. So, we currently have uh the recreation and safety bond um in front of our voters. Uh the bond allows for borrowing up to $400 million. uh if the bond passes, either scenario could still be pursued. But if a decision was made to move forward with this existing building, uh we could either use that additional funding capacity to support other projects or we could just simply borrow less and lessen the property tax burden. Um if the bond does not pass, however, we would take that new building probably off the table entirely. we would not have funding for that, but we could still consider this existing building. Uh although we would need to find somewhere between $3 to $6 million
[3:14:19] annually um to support a debt or lease payment and then that would involve some trade-offs discussions. In either case, we would redirect the currently uh planned spending on the current public safety building towards either of these options. It's about $6.2 million over this next CIP. and we would also be able to sell the current public safety building to help support these options. So again, um I'm really just sharing this tonight to inform you of uh this work and this option um that we are still in the midst of exploring and trying to do that quite quickly. Our next steps are to complete our evaluation of the existing building which includes that test fitting, understanding our code requirements um and needs and other specialty requirements. Um we are also doing that more thorough evaluation of the existing building itself to understand its conditions although it does look good initially. Um and then we want to develop much more refined cost estimates that we will um be bringing back as we do a better uh evaluation of the cost potential. Um and we plan to have this uh completed later this year and and at some point bring this forward for some decisions.
[3:15:39] So that is the presentation and again our questions here just tonight is if you have any questions and we can help um address on this. >> Thanks so much Michelle. Um this is an exciting opportunity here. So uh really glad that you're all bringing this forward for consideration. And just to clarify, your intention is to move forward with the next steps of evaluation. This is really just an a chance for us to ask questions. Is that correct? >> This is just an inform. We are mid evaluation. So yes, that's right. >> Okay, that's great. Glad to hear it. Questions for city staff about this Tina? Then Matt? >> Yeah, thank you for doing all this work and this sounds like a great option. So, it's um it is really great as Mayor Brackett said. Um quick question. When we think about selling the existing U public safety building, would we want to pre-resone it in order to help with market pricing? Is that something that we as a general as a city generally do?
[3:16:33] >> We could consider that. We have engaged um actually in the past with brokers to understand the value of that site and the opportunities there. I think um as we would get an approach that I think we could reassess what the the highest and best value could be on that site and if that that zoning a new zoning would support that. Uh right now I think our understanding is though actually the current zoning would allow for some good uses and some potential. So >> thank you. Yeah. Okay, Rob and then Nicole. >> Um, thank you for the presentation and it's always nice to hear saving $90 million um especially in this environment. You mentioned that um $3 to $6 million annually to carry that without the uh 2K passing the 400 million. But if the uh current building was potentially reszoned um and sold, would that offset that three to six million annually?
[3:17:44] >> Yes, we could look at offsetting. I think um what we want to consider is the timing of how these things come into play. And so, uh sort of not to put the cart before the horse and and to consider the best timing to bring that property to sale. Right now, we've understand it's not a great time to bring properties to market. And so, I think that this would all go into the consideration of of how we might finance this. So, yes, it would be an opportunity to pay down a debt or a lease payment. Um, and that would all go into our kind of financial assumptions. >> Fantastic. Thank you, >> Nicole. Then, thank you. Um, I just had a couple of questions about this. Uh, one is that I know you said this and I just just want to make sure I understood correctly. Um if if if we went with the other option, right, for the existing building, um we wouldn't have to or a future city council wouldn't have to bond the full amount, right? Um it could with with the bond if if the bond measure passes.
[3:18:43] >> Yes. >> Then the bond could eventually only be for $250 or $300 million or something like that. And it would be up to the future city council to sort of make that decision. Right. >> That is correct. is I think we bring the projects forward. Yeah. In the amounts. That's correct. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Um and then it it may be too early to be asking these questions, but what's the process for thinking about some of the trade-offs that we would have to or uh a future council would have to be um considering with this? So, what does the decision-m process look like given that you know if the bond measure doesn't pass in particular um because I've checked multiple times and we don't have bags of money under the dis unfortunately. Um yes I so I think we are looking at um different options um right now and I think you know some of that's dependent on how much we can narrow that $30 to $50 million that's a pretty big swing that we understand um and then we will work with our finance team to evaluate those different options and bring those forward for consideration.
[3:19:47] Um, and then kind of a followup to that, are we talking uh general fund money? Are we talking other capital U budget? Where where would that money come from? >> I think it's a little early for us to suggest exactly where that would be, but it it's it's we're looking kind of everywhere to your point under all the couch cushions that are appropriate um to see how we best put a plan together. >> Okay. No, thank you. I appreciate that. And we have checked the dest thoroughly. So, I think I think you can hold off on looking there. Um and then when uh last question when it does sort of come back within the decision- making process um would we be comparing the life lifespan costs for the different options um in thinking about I know the existing building if we were to use that one right the um energy costs potentially would be longer over time certainly there's um the costs of construction but also construction to our needs versus um retrofitting a building I mean just thinking is that the kind of information that we'll have >> yeah that's exactly what we're looking at and actually we've we've looked um quite a bit already just from that lens especially given you know we want to maintain our buildings well this is a
[3:20:51] 20-year-old building so um the good news is in likelihood it actually was built to some better standards um but it is part of what we're looking at is just you know how we would compare that more discreetly to what we would build today we actually do think from an energy perspective um that they would be quite comparable uh and it is some of the consideration around conversion of equipment. So it is in all likelihood has gas fired equipment in the building. It's probably due for replacement given that it's 20 years. And so this is part of what we're looking at is if it's due for replacement, what would it take to convert systems to meet our climate goals and our codes. Some of that may be code-driven. Um given the extent of renovation, we may have to make some of those improvements anyway. So that is part of what's going into our analysis and it's why we have that big swing right now in price because we realize some of those things may be factored in.
[3:21:46] We will also be bringing back what is code required and what we would be required to do versus what might be optional to meet some of our standards. And I think we could look at all those factors. But we're fairly optimistic that this building um if we were to improve it uh it could last. we would maintain it well to last um like a newly constructed building. >> That was my question, Sue. So, thanks for asking, Nicole. Oh, one quick one. Yeah. >> Um I I was just wondering the the process by which this came to us. Um I've heard just a couple of rumblings from some corners of community like, look, you know, we we we told you the city didn't really need more money um because because this was apparently hiding under the DS, too. Um, so I'm I'm just I wonder if you could just speak to why now, why this this kind of came up.
[3:22:37] >> Yeah, that's a great question. Um, so we have been looking at lease options for a number of years. Um, for better or worse, it came up now that there was this this particular building that was up and it is in a strategic location that others that we have seen have not for either reasons that they're in the flood plane, they're in a poor location, a town. Um it's just it's not the case with this particular building. Um we do look often um at all of our options as we are considering a lot of different uh needs in our buildings, the availability of funding and I think we can bring more of those forward as they come. But a lot of times there are not good options um for buildings for police um using a speculative office building and retrofitting that. Again, it's not insignificant the costs that go into retrofitting that. Um, but that's possible. It's a little harder to retrofit an office building with a pool or with, you know, or a fire station.
[3:23:36] So, I think it depends on exactly what's coming up. Um, and how that meets the operational needs of the city. So, we take all those into consideration, but they're just not kind of out there everywhere. Um, and a lot of times the land alone becomes a hurdle in and of itself with costs. But um this did come along. Um we've put out a search just about every year. This year turned up something fruitful. I >> I'll just add too, if I may, that um in our exploration of additional money behind every C couch cushion, we have not found extra money. So whatever we move forward uh if we move forward with this building, there will be trade-offs to have consideration. There is no additive. We will have to look at um what other options we have and that may impact others and we will certainly bring that to you. Um but this is not um a new opportunity for which we have found a new pocket of monies um to tap into >> TA.
[3:24:36] Two quick things. One just a reminder of the uh repair the current repair costs in the current building just kind of an a annual average is my first question. So right now we have put about $6.2 million in this six-year CIP to replace the most immediately concerning infrastructure. So it's really like putting the building on life support. Um I don't have off the top of my head really the kind of investment that would be needed to take the building up to a much better standard. Um and you know the other challenge aside from just the infrastructure and some of the failures is again our police department has completely outgrown um the building itself. And so that's the the other challenge that we're struggling with on the site. >> Okay. No, you were fine with just part A. that response was >> and and again I just wanted to get in my mind that three and if six million for the renovations of the current would be um comparable to the investments that have already been made in the existing building not to mention the over um staffing. And then lastly, just very quickly, I know we've gone through this before, but I continue to get questions from community about the $400 million bond. Um, and it's my understanding that
[3:25:54] the only thing that is required in that in the current ballot language is the C the uh, Southre Center Lapool and all the other things that are listed as such as are not necessarily required and that there could be additional or other um, buildings um, considered in future councils um, for those funds to be used. So I know we do use and I may lean on our our city attorney but we do use the such as language. They become named projects. Again historically we have always executed on our named projects. I think that the um language does try to create latitude for us to consider additional projects particularly if there's funds available. So again, if we went with this um less expensive option and there was additional funding um then we could consider absolutely other projects or we could consider just bonding for less.
[3:26:55] >> Okay. From a legal perspective though, I'm asking if such as requires us to use the list. you did say that, but I mean I'm just going back into when we talked about this initially. Um the the terminology of such as gives the impression that there was flexibility in the actual packet. >> And if I can kind of do a colloquy or add on to that just that the projects the the name projects that there is some discretion there, right? like there's we could bond for less and not do all the projects from a legal standpoint. >> That is correct. I see our um deputy city manager to the table. But I also say there is a matter of um of when we list named projects, there is a matter of public trust in in how do we lean in?
[3:27:49] If we were to say the such as and then shift and do none of those and do something different, then I think we would be in a in a trustwise in a precarious to say the least position with community >> and just actually if I can follow up on that because I'm I'm not talking about doing different things. I'm just saying if we did additional community outreach and heard from folks like, you know, if the bond were a lower dollar amount and you didn't do, you know, of course we would do the rec centers, but you know, we we would have some discretion. >> Yeah. And I might just add a little bit more because I've I've had to answer the same question before and I think Taiisha to your specific question, all of the projects listed in the recreation and safety bond are underneath a such as clause. Um and that is typically what we have always used for uh capital ballot measures where we name projects and that's kind of our inside lingo is we call them named projects. We've had 30 of those since 2011. We have constructed every single one of those or uh uh the remaining ones are under construction.
[3:28:56] So we do see it as that's a promise to the community that we're going to complete that project. But there is flexibility if something drastically changed. if there was a catastrophic disaster and all of a sudden now we're not going to do that because there's no way to build it there or something. It gives you the flexibility that you all need as council to make a modification if you need it. But we really do truly see it as those are promises to the community that we're going to deliver on those capital projects. >> Yeah, that's helpful. Thanks for clarifying. >> Yeah, >> thank you. um especially given the precarious situation. We had that power res uh power resilience and reliability conversation and those there there was a conversation around some of those bigger ticket items. Um and so and some of those would fall under a capital improvement plan and some of those are more urgent and important than some of these such as. So again, it's good to know that though that is the practice and um perhaps some of the intention legally future councils depending on whether it passes or not could rework or make other decisions about the package >> legal coming in.
[3:30:06] >> I Yeah, you know, I hesitate to um opine on legal advice in public because that would wave the privilege. What I'll say is bond language or ballot language is typically viewed as limiting. >> Yeah, that makes sense. Limiting. Okay. >> No, I'm sorry. I don't know what that means. Can you break down limiting, please? Thank you. >> I'm I'm happy to talk with you outline about that. >> Okay. I'm just saying they're voting on a measure and so right >> and I'm not their legal counsel. >> I know. I understand that. But you just use a term in public that >> So, okay. I I won't go any further, but I just have concerns around one how we were advised before because I didn't get that what what you're talking about right now. Um, but I appreciate the response. Thank you.
[3:30:58] >> Right. Ryan's got a question. >> Thank you. I think I have a couple um just just on some of the the details. So, the um when we summed up the the building the the various building needs um a few months ago that led us to the $400 million bond amount. Um my understanding and I think Nicole asked this and I think you mostly got at it, but the reason that we summed up to the 400 million is that we and is that we didn't know about this like we did we did not have this opportunity in front of us because it wasn't available yet. And um so this this became available this lower cost of the building became available after we um had done that work um because it came on the market after we had done that evaluation. That's my understanding. And is that right?
[3:31:50] >> Yes, that's correct. So when we put the cost together, uh we looked at replacement building for the public safety building. Not knowing that there was an existing building that could be renovated. We knew the current public safety building on that site on the site it sits in today could not be expanded on that site. The size there's just limitations. Um and so yes, the 400 million reflects uh cost to build a brand new public safety building at the square footages that we're looking at um and not knowing that there was an existing building that could suit their needs. >> Okay, great. That's that's what I understood. Um, and then I think some others sort of asked this and forgive me if you're if this was getting too much into the legal aspects, but um, if if we were to go ahead with direction with this building, do should the public understand then that you you know, you you can implicitly subtract the amount of from the the the higher cost of the previous building to the cost of this this building. you can just essentially subtract that from the 400 million and understand that that's implicitly the highest cost of the bond or is that is that not right?
[3:33:11] >> Yes, I think that's that's generally fair to say uh is we're developing costs for these projects. Yes. I mean, the the original cost for uh full replacement of the public safety building was our I think single most highest uh cost on the bond. >> So, this um savings I think could be directly translated into a savings on that bond measure. >> Great. Okay. And then my final question is um what um what are your odds on doing this again with the other buildings? I mean, I realize we, you know, got lucky to some extent, but I'm wondering like how lucky was that? And is there a story here that if we if we're patient over years, maybe we and and u facility owners understand that we're in the market, you know, that we we could expect to be able to do this kind of a thing with other buildings or is or no, is this really seem like more of a singular sort of thing?
[3:34:02] >> Yes, that's a great question. I sort of anticipated that. That's it's fair. Um, again, I think the the challenge is is if we look at the projects out there, we have three recreation centers. We're not going to go find a lease building that we can go buy and replace our recreation centers. Um, similarly, I think as we look at the what we're calling the Eastern Campus, we currently operate, I think it's uh four buildings. Um, there all of them um really uh deliver core services. our our snow plowing, our fleet. They take care of all of our vehicles, our emergency vehicles. These buildings um are in need of either replacement or major renovation. They're on an existing uh owned site. There is an extreme operational efficiency for them to be colllocated together. And so I think the opportunity to redevelop that site is really probably our best opportunity. And I think we're we're more than happy to continue to bring forward iterations of what that looks like. Um but there's a lot of reasons why I think that that site is is the opportunity. What I would say is that we are always looking for options. Um because we have been in some challenges for a while, which is why we did look for this option concurrent with all the
[3:35:21] other conversations that have been going on. And so if there are opportunities, we will explore them. But I I don't think that it's going to turn up on every one of these buildings. All right, Ryan, does that cover it? Okay, great. Um, I think that's all the hands. Uh, I had some questions, but they've all been asked by other counselors. Um, so really appreciate you bringing this exciting alternative to us and look forward to the next stages and the due diligence and figuring how this could work for the future of our public safety building. >> Thank you. Thank you, everyone. >> All right, Emily. I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. It does. >> Okay, great. Well, um, thanks everybody for a good meeting and I will bring us to a close here at 9:02 p.m.
[3:36:10] >> Just in time. >> Good night and take care.