Transcript

0:00:27Jeremy Smith, Commissioner Staff, a presentation on today's session may be shared by a participant in Zoom. Anyone watching in Zoom who needs her desires captions at that time should turn on captions in the Zoom app and leave them on until the end of the presentation. Commissioners, are you ready. Yes. Yes. We are recording. Okay, good morning. Today is October 20th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, and we have all three commissioners present. We will start with our consent agenda, and that is 4A through F. We have a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. We now have one discussion item, and this is the award recommendations grant award recommendations from the behavioral health tax. Good morning, Robin. Good morning, Commissioners. Robin Bohannon, Boulder County Community Services.

1 Call to Order

2 9:30 a.m. Morning Session

3 Business Meeting

4 Commissioners' Consent Items

5 Commissioners' Discussion Items

5.a Community Services - Mental and Behavioral Health Tax Recommended Grant Awards

0:01:25As you know, the voters approved the behavioral health tax in November of 2025. And today we're asking you to approve our first competitive awards, about 4. 209 million a year through 2026 through 2028 across the Prevention Pier Recovery and Treatment Buckets. We received 47 applications requesting about 5. 7 million, a multidisciplinary team scored each application on 100 - point framework, and racial equity weighed highest at 25 points. Across all three funding categories, the portfolio reflects a balanced commitment to sustain trusted successful local programs while investing in innovative, creative, and emerging approaches to address gaps. These build a more responsive and resilient behavioral health system for Boulder County, which is what the Community asked for in passing the tax. Our broad outreach and engagement ensured that we had a robust response, although it did not fall neatly into the original allocations. Treatment drew over 500, 000 less than the 2 million dollars set aside while prevention and peer recovery drew more than their pools could fund.

0:02:48We recommend 1. 41 million for treatment, 1. 49 million for prevention, and one point, what an 8 million for peer recovery. That's 14 treatment awards, 12 prevention awards, and 7 peer recovery awards. Over the three years, treatment and peer recovery stay within budget. Prevention exceeds its allocation by about 54, 500 dollars The plan is fully funded overall, and about 3. 1 million dollars remains unspent. We recommend holding it until the advisory Council brings recommendations to you in early 2027. Because there was interest from Commissioner Loch - Schumer about youth serving agencies, six funded agencies offer youth - specific programming, and your direct awards to the school district's clinica and Cat and Mohaw Mind also focus on youth. We recommend not opening more youth funding now, and are asking the advisory Council to check for remaining gaps. One of the recommended funding was to imagine for 65, 150 dollars, And we request that you approve that funding, but that you use the IDD Millevy funds to fund that. Each award will be a one - year agreement, renewal in 2027 - 28 depends on performance reviews and unappropriations. Grantees will report quarterly on shared measures and measures specific to their focus area. And we pay in quarterly advances, so smaller organizations can sustain services. The question before you today, as we ask for your approval, on

0:04:41the recommended awards. We ask that you approve signing authority for the County Administrator, including renewals. We ask for your approval of the use of IDD funds for a mansion. And lastly, to hold off on youth funding, more youth funding until the advisory council reviews the need. That's my broad overview. Our staff who managed the process are in person, and Jim Adamsberg is online to answer any specific questions about the process or the applications. Okay, thank you, Robin. Commissioners questions. Thank you, good morning. Thanks everybody. I just want to acknowledge the spend a lot of work, a lot of interest, but a lot of work in regards to getting to the point to be able to talk about recommendations. So I just want to appreciate all of you. I did have just a question as I'm going through. The, I'm scrolling through this. These documents, and it looked like on one of the sections of recommendation not to fund theirs, and it's on page 89 of the 97 page packet. Of Rise Against Suicide. And I just wanted to understand if there's other funding, because some of the conversations throughout all of the work and the pallet measure and community conversations that some of the goals of funding was really to work on that prevention of suicide was specifically discussed. So I just wanted to hear

0:06:15a little bit in regards to if it was what they were asking for, and the more details that we don't see that didn't fit what the criteria was, just wanting to understand that. Yeah, I think the recommendations were based on a pretty robust scoring process with the team. Um, that reviewed, um, and so I can ask one of my staff if they have more details about that particular question, Martell? Thank you. Good. Morning, good morning Commissioners. Mining Huffman Green for the record. Um, so as you all know, Rise was one of the ARPA recipients. Their grand application, um, was a separate ask that looked at software and some other services that did not score in the range that the others did. So of the different ask than what they were funded for ARPA. Okay, that helps. And again, like we're just seeing like very little piece of all of the information that you all have reviewed. So it sounds like what they apply for wasn't.

0:07:20Didn't quite fit into the parameters at the same scale that others did. Okay. Exactly. Thanks Commissioner. What'd you mean? Thank you. Did you have any other questions at this time? I don't have any other questions at this time, thank you. Okay, thanks. Crusher Stolzman. Thank you, yeah. So just looking at the treatment pool and the lack of applicants, um, to meet the target amount that we had hoped to spend in trying to address treatment. And I wonder if there was discussion among the staff about, you know, the fact that there weren't enough applicants, if that might prompt us to think about if there are just gaps in the county where there are not treatments available. And perhaps maybe as a scientist step back and consider whether the service is infrastructure, um, and models of care that we need are just not built. And whether that would give us pause to just award to the ones that did apply, and maybe we need to consider what we would need to build to fill those gaps instead of moving forward today. Yeah, I think that's an important question. And it's a recognition. I think also that startup starting up new programs with a limited tax two, two to three years is probably daunting, uh, for agencies. And I think you're right. I think there are treatment gaps.

0:08:40We know that throughout the process, when starting with the roadmap through the campaign, through the adoption of the tax to your discussion about implementation, we know there's critical treatment needs for those who are very hard to serve and causing a lot of community impacts. Um, but many of the programs, we can't force people into treatment. We don't have a model for that to meet that gap. So I think clinica and the hospital really try to serve that population. Um, but that's just a guess. Commissioner Stoltzman, and I think you bring up a really good point. I just, so it didn't look like clinical applied. They received direct funding. Right. But like, for example, um, Rocky Mountain Equality got direct funding and also applied. And I think others both. So I guess I am surprised that clinica didn't apply for treatment funding. We met with clinical last week to talk about their direct funding contract. I think they're, um, Program planning is somewhat in evolution and phasing in in terms of intensive outpatient treatment as well as the inpatient work and the transition from those beds.

0:10:03Um, we've actually asked them to design a program framework to help the county understand that evolution and how, how it's going to move. And specifically for the reason that you describe that that will help inform us, the county about what are those remaining gaps. All right. Well, some of that just kind of prompts me to think about whether we should, the catch - 22. You're saying it's only a three year tax. So we're not going to fund maybe the most impactful programs because they would need more development and longer term funding. But I think we're trying to demonstrate to the community that we're using these funds for the most meaningful things and that it's, so it's this catch - 22 cyclical thing there for me a bit. And so, uh, it just makes me wonder if we need to assess what the largest sun met needs are and direct our resources toward addressing them. And just what might be the path forward. It just, this looks like we're rewarding three years of funding based on this model and not necessarily getting after some of these questions I have about treatment in particular. Okay. Um, I, uh, I wanted to make sure that I understand the chart you have with the three year budget and that.

0:11:20So, so that six million dollars for treatment, that is the combination of these competitive grants and the directed funding. Is that what that believes chart is just competitive. Is that correct? Oh, okay. So that's, that's the cumulative three year. Okay. Uh, it would have been helpful. You know, we're not going to delay this or go back and redo it. But I think for me, it would have been helpful, you know, kind of going a little bit to Commissioner Stolzman's question to have seen, you know, how does the directed grant money also work in conjunction with what we're doing for competitive grants? I mean, I think that may just tell a fuller picture. But, um, not a, not a big deal here for me. Um, I guess I also, uh, you know, was curious about the three million dollars that were simply not going to put out into the community. And I know we talked when we were providing direction about the competitive grants about wanting to hold some back for potential warner house programming or programming at some other facility. And so I guess I just wondered whether staff discussed that three million and what we might do. Or you feeling like there just isn't capacity right now in the community to absorb it. I think it's definitely a math problem with the grants. The

0:12:52voters approving it in January, but we're not funding until your recommendation, right? And so that does leave those extra funds. It's our hope that with the seating of the advisory council in November, that this is something we could jump on really quickly. And if there was, um, recommendations to the commissioners about how to push that money out in the community, whether to respond to other gaps or to respond to the question that Commissioner Stoltzman asked. I think we feel confident that that would give us really good, um, a good path. Okay. All right. Yeah. I mean, it is sort of the difference between the prorated, you know, if we had a full year's funding, we could have definitely used it. So, and I, I want to completely respect the very rigorous, uh, an objective process that you went through to select these grantees. Um, I was a bit surprised that, uh, salute family health and wellness in Longmont was, was not in the equitable access.

0:14:06Did they apply? I didn't even see them in the, not recommended. Huh. Okay. Um, it's just surprising to me. And yeah, I had flagged rise. Thanks for that explanation. Um, the other one that I flagged just to get a little more information about is the autism society of Boulder County and the autism informed emergency response project. I'll refer to our program staff. Thank you. Okay. Well, and I'll tell you why I flagged it is that autism isn't a mental illness. So I, so that's why I just, maybe there's something in that application that I don't see. Marnie Huffman Green for the record. Thank you Commissioner Levy. So this might be too weedy, but, uh, in preparation, just a little more program summary. So this program would equip first responders and emergency department personnel. We specialized autism training and sensory kids to improve communication prevent crisis escalation and support safer interactions with neurodivergent and autistic clients.

0:15:21The goal is to train 500 emergency personnel through 25 sessions, distribute up to 200 sensory backpacks, noise canceling headphones, et cetera. Um, builds on more than 20 years of local service and initial implementation with Boulder Police and Lewisville Fire, which generated additional requests for these sensory supports that would not just address autism and neurodivergent Community members, but a range of Community members and families. Um, from our thorough review, it really prioritized underserved. We're all low income and especially nonglinglish speaking families. Um, I think this is a practical upstream investment and safer emergency response for all neurodivergent residents, not just clients with autism. Before finalizing the award, I think we can continue to clarify what those kits will look like and make sure that training and equipment and sustainability is prioritized. Yeah. And it's not really that, you know, what the kids look like. And I, you know, I'll first say, you know, I understand what the issue is that they're trying to address. It just surprised me to see, you know, that's, that's an issue of neurodivergence. And it's not a mental illness. It's not a behavioral health problem. And so I just wasn't expecting that to be funded out of, out of this part.

0:16:40I would have thought that would really be more of a, uh, IDD millevy. Issue or, you know, something more appropriate to the IDD mill levy. And I would have, uh, I guess I didn't really see why we wouldn't have funded the, um, the imagine request out of this because that's, they're talking about, uh, substance use disorder treatment. So to me, it's flipped. Like that seems squarely within the one B mission. Whereas just how to respond to neurodivergent people doesn't seem within it. I would have, I would have flipped it. So I don't know if the discussion from notes the only piece I would add if it's helpful is I think we see a lot of comorbidity in these populations. And so my understanding of the review process really identified that folks with behavioral health concerns and the comorbidity with autism and neurodiversion communities is so high. There's usually a gap in those services and training.

0:17:49But excellent point Commissioner Levy. Okay. I think. Those were. Yep, those were my only questions. Thanks. Yeah. I wondered if I might just ask a question on, on that same line item. And it was a curiosity about Fund 151. And if there's, because we've got a different tax that addresses some of the one wildfire piece, but search and rescue specifically was what I was wondering about. And I don't know. I'm looking at our deputy just to see if maybe we have somebody, I'm curious if autism society Boulder County has applied for that grant fund. And or if that's something that as the board we could talk about, it sounds like that might fall in line with what the brief description was that we heard. Again, we haven't seen all of the paperwork, et cetera. But the emergency response piece is something that we fund through a different tax fund. I'm not knowledgeable about that fun.

0:18:50So deferred in Natalie, if you'd like to chime in. No, I agree. I'm sorry, Robin. I wasn't looking over in this way and looking in the back to people who would know more. Thank you commissioners. Natalie Springett Commissioners, deputy for the record. Um, I don't have that information in front of us. And I believe, um, those applications are closing on this Friday. Um, so that's information I could circle back to the board with, but wouldn't have readily available today. Okay. Well, and I'm wondering that in my mind might be a place for us to move that funding to upon review by the different staff teams to understand if, um, if it's a perprint and I don't have the, you know, fund 151 balance in front of me either, but it seems like that might be an opportunity. So just wanted to share that and see if that might be something we could consider. And by that funding, you're referring to the autism society of Boulder Boulder County. The emergency response project that's listed here on the, yeah. That, well, I think it better fit here than they are, in my opinion, but I'm not the expert on that. Um, okay. I did not have any other questions, any other, any other discussion? I just, I didn't hear if there was any interest in pursuing what

0:20:08I had raised as a possible, like looking, um, at what we're trying to accomplish, I heard that. And I think that's important. And I thought, you know, I guess I was thinking the advisory. Council would, would be the group that could, could be looking at that and bring recommendations. So maybe we would only award one year of grants so that they could pivot in the second year or the third year. I mean, it just seems that we're moving forward and designating this as the plan for three years. And that the county administrator is going to sign off on these contracts every year going forward. So I think if the plan is to have somebody look at that and the impact maybe we would pare down the approval to just shorter term so we can make that change. I wouldn't, well, I'll just, I wouldn't do that. I mean, we've got, we're almost done with the first year of three years.

0:21:28And we had made, we did make a decision that we work going to do three years of consistent grant awards, you know, with a one year review so that when organizations applied, they would have some confidence in the stability of that funding. And I would really hate to go back on that and create that, that doubt and instability in these. And I guess I would know we do still have three million dollars. And I assume that's net. We've already set aside the reserve that we have to have. Yeah. So we do still have three million dollars. And I, like as I heard Robin say that it's really just in this kind of short term period of, um, what, who's really going to apply for something that could be major not knowing whether they're going to have money. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't want to only award one year grants. I think we ought to stick with our original decision and not change that. Uh, I'm wondering two different things just from a and I'm sorry, bro, but I'm looking at you, but there might be other people that could help respond to on this question about what the balance, what else is on the table for discussion outside of this line item of the grants.

0:22:59I heard three million, but is that already targeted from staff's perspective of targeted what that direction is going to be or it's really just kind of the unallocated after a reserve amount. Is that three million. So a lot of that money is because of the prorated nature of the current budgets. The commissioners did not allocate, um, I believe it was almost a million dollars initially wanting that to come back to a work session. And that conversation was more around the sort of step down what to do post - hospitalization, that whole conversation that we still need to circle back to the commissioners. So that and youth are the only things we've heard from the commissioners of interest. And Claire's correct, it's our belief that this is why we have an advisory council to really scope the gaps and understanding of what could be possible with those remaining dollars. So just, just to be clear, there's a three million plus a one million. No, it's really included in the three million. Okay. Oh, it's not. Oh, so we do have it for. Okay. Sorry. My misunderstanding.

0:24:14That's what we're all talking together. It's totally fine. So and the reason why I'm asking that is in we've done in general, the County typically grants are like one year cycle, whether it's, you know, calendar to calendar fiscally or whatever it has been. And then after ARPA, we really, we had some conversations about everybody was asking about certainty and like, what does that mean? And certainly what this federal administration and like, would that be helpful? And I think we all agreed that the last thing we need to do is create additional application processes for any of our partners. Um, and that was something we could do. For me, the question on here is one, I think that Boulder County voters have shown that they have support for the needs of mental and behavioral health for Boulder County residency just regionally. That's why I believe that people have voted for this. I also think the voters will, um, want to support the same issues or other additional issues, um, and funding in the future. And I think the question is, how do, how does, if it's a staff team, if as partners, whoever it's going to be, that's going to be involved. In a campaign in two years. Um, to really look at what has the County done with these taxpayer funds or not and however

0:25:36people's perceptions of that are. So I do think that we have to, um, they prep up. And if it's the advisory council, that's going to be working on that. I'm sure staff is going to be involved. There's going to be I'm sure partnership, um, there's going to be organizations that want to be part of that and be involved. And so that time is going to go really quickly. The reason I'm saying that is because I, I think it makes sense for us to do it to your allocation. Based on what we've been doing with some of the other grant cycles. That gives people a real opportunity to be involved in different public meetings, et cetera, to be able to, because my belief is in two years, we're going to have to go back to the voters in regards to an extension and ballot measure. And so. That question of the gaps is still a pinning question for everybody. Um, and so that's what I would do. And I just, I don't, I'm just looking at what's in front of me. So I don't know what's been sent out to people. I don't know what those application processes look like. I don't know. Although all of that. But I think if we were to use these and allow for people, I did see the questions later

0:26:41on in the document, some of the like qualified, I don't remember the language. I apologize. Um. Like qualitative criteria or qualitative questions that was in there to have an understanding that in my interpretation from the document was what would be asked for us to then go back to voters and residents and say, here's, here's what has been done. And so I think if we set it up for two years, that would also give the advisory council some information. It would give us some data to be able to ask voters again to fund. But it would also create that ability to, in the interim address, what are, get a commitment with specific goals of what is that commitment to what's missing. I will just say for me to see prevention at such like three million compared to six million of treatment. For me, it feels problematic.

0:27:34I'm just going to say it again. And y'all have heard me talk about to transform a community. We have to address earlier because it just gets higher cost. It gets more expensive and it creates these issues for certain parts of the county that feel like these issues are very visible versus invisible. And so I, um, I think we need to understand where we are in your one and year two so that we can have some of that funding. So I would take that year three funding and put that in a place where we can add it to three plus the one and be able to. Create something larger than, um. With a longer term amount of money. So that's just what I'm thinking, which is a little bit of a, maybe a compromise in the middle of all of what's in here to build some security. So it would be outside of just a one year, but also give the staff team and partners, the ability to have some funding to do something more and also work on, um, a campaign to get longer term funding for the mental behavioral health tax. A couple of thoughts on, on all of that. Um. We did give direction to do three years of funding. And that's what we've talked with the community about. That was the basis

0:28:57of these of the RFPs and this evaluation. I think it would be very problematic. And among the providers, uh, if we change that now, um, and I think I don't think that would serve a campaign for an extension of the tax for us to change course. Um, and I think that, you know, we do, thanks for clarifying that that I think it was somewhere between 750, 000 and a million, like 800 and something. We do have that. And we will have some subsequent conversations about, you know, what we might do that would meet this, you know, this remaining area that the community is really, really strongly asking us to look at, i. e. what you said, you know, that stepped down of, you know, the transition between, between, you know, whether it's a hospital, whether it's, you know, some other intensive treatment environment. And, you know, the IOP POP that we're already funding. I mean, I think we've, I think you guys have done an amazing job here. And, you know, you, you brought us basically your best advice or best recommendation based on the applications received. I mean, on the prevention, as you know, that actually exceeds what the board directed to put into prevention. So I don't see a failure on that front at all. Uh, I think the more work to do.

0:30:42And, um, you've acknowledged that. And we've asked for that. And we also really, you know, we talked about the advisory Council and what we wanted them to do. So I think we're going to continue to put this money out into the community. I think we've, you've, you have brought us, you know, this is just like what happens when we do the Community Partnership grants out of HSSN out of Worthy Cause of You Had a Process. You scored it. You've brought us recommendations. It becomes very problematic when we kind of come in after the fact with a process that has been constructed very thoughtfully. And then, and then want to make changes to it. So, um, I, you know, I guess I would, I would think we ought to move forward with, with the recommendation. It's October 20th. We're 10 and a half, 10 and three quarters months. Past, uh, when this money, uh, became available.

0:31:51So I just think we ought to move forward with the recommendation. It's consistent with what we directed your staff to do. I wonder if, um, like I do think the question of where the gaps are. And if we need the data and the information from these different partners with staff to understand what that is, it would be helpful to, to know, I mean, this is what's in front of us right now is just an ask about recommendations and how do we work together with that advisory council to understand what those gaps are. And if the board is in agreement of using that other four million ish, um, and to consider one time funds from general fund to be able to, to, if we decide that based on all of that input from the council to go a different direction, then I just, for me, it would be helpful to have the team that's really working closest to this come to us with a proposal that's not, um. That's not blocked by just this fund, if that makes sense. Um, and so I think that would be, that would be my ask. And I, um, I do appreciate just the notation of where the youth funding is, um, just as far as you'll put that together.

0:33:15And I heard you, um, acknowledging that. So I think that's, um, it's important. And I appreciate it. Um, and I agree, you know, we gave staff direction and we all have different beliefs on what should be the priority and how we might be able to get some change, et cetera. But I just want to acknowledge again the work that y'all have done. Um, the only question I would have then is on, it sounded like there was a couple of questions from, Oh, and I'm trying to get back to it on this on the page. The Commissioner Levy you brought up a program on emergency response, but then I heard you say if it's better in this fund, then maybe the emergency services tax fund. Was there any interest in having stuff take a look at that one or did you feel like it fits here fine. I, well, as between the two funds, I think a better belongs here. But for me, I guess what I said was on the autism society. For me, that's an IDD thing. Although I haven't read that ballot language in a very, maybe I've never read it. I had probably I should confess. Um, I just think of that as this is a pretty, um, I don't know. It's a, it's a pretty core. Problem among neurodivergent or

0:34:48neurodivergent population. And I'm really glad that, um, you know, that, that, uh, emergency responders are trying to address it. But I, um, I think given the, I just, I actually just don't see it fitting within that Fund 151 purpose. And staff, I guess trust that staff was really looking at the language of the ballot measure. And also for the IDD fund. So I'm happy with the explanation that we received. I wouldn't move that. I think I'll just say, I mean, the reason I am not seeing it is something to pull out and put into fund 151 is, I guess I, the way we've talked about that all this time has been there's the, you know, there's the search and rescue building. And then there's the, you know, the equipment needs of, um, of the fire departments. And the trailhead safety search and Rescue, I've always, I mean, that's the way I've conceived of it, not as, uh, overall like law enforcement response in crises and funding that kind of thing. I've, I've seen it as a more narrow. Focused emergency response thing that was really more on the search and rescue all the people out in the, you know, recreating in the mountain. So it's, you know, that's just a kind of the way I've compartmentalized it. Yeah. And it might've just been the way

0:36:28I heard the explanation that sounded like it may fit into the sutragen rescue. So it was just, I wasn't expecting to make a decision about it right now without seeing more information, but that was why if we would want to have staff, consider having staff take another look at that just to know if it would, you know, barbhoppon thought it might fit into that, um, I also don't want to make a decision on that item. So it sounds like we just leave it where it is. Okay. Commissioner Stolceman, I know you had an idea that you put on the table. And I do, you know, maybe I do think we'll hear more about that as we look at the outstanding, the Unfinished work that we still have, uh, does that satisfy your concerns? No. So just today, you know, we recognize the importance in investing in mental and behavioral health and awarding grants that support the work. Um, and I never think it's the wrong time to do the right thing. So I think that this effort needs the leadership and strategic focus that the board can provide. So we can address our community needs.

0:37:37And I will be voting against the awards today because I don't think we've provided that leadership. Um, some of the services that are listed here likely do not address the highest needs in our community. I think more weight should have been placed on supporting people with serious mental illness and treatment. Um, and so since we're only looking at this tactically today and responding to the grants that are on the table and not looking strategically, what we might do in the community, my comments and concerns about some of the services listed is that some of the things that are listed here, we've been previously told were covered by Medicaid and that the county wouldn't have to pay for them. Some of the services are misaligned with the Community needs. Some of the services are misaligned with what the school district has said that they need for, um, services for the youth. Um, so I don't find my place by myself in a place to be able to vote for this today. Okay. Well, then, um, in order to move forward, uh, Commissioner Lo Chimbyan, would you, um, be willing to put emotion on the table. Yeah.

0:38:38I'm happy to, and I'll just, I don't have all those details about each one of these items, but I do trust that stuff has gone through the process in the way that they've talked about just as far as having reviewed, created a criteria, having reviewed all of those. So, so I don't have all the details that I just heard you're talking about and just asked a couple of questions to have a little bit understanding. And we've given direction, um, to staff. We have residents that really are waiting to see how this, um, tax fund gets used and utilized and shared among, uh, the county. My hope is that, um, kind of, and that's where I was going earlier, like what's the process? What are the next steps? How do we know how do we address and how do we, it sounds like solidify what the gaps really are. That's been an ongoing question, um, for me for the last few years, just even previously with some of the other stuff that was here before. Um, and that to me is the crux of where we go next. Um, and so. You know, I can't give a direction from one commissioner from the dais. And I think that'll just be an acetyl continue to have out there about where does that show up and how do

0:39:54we, um, how do we determine that with this board so that we can work forward. I just think the education that's going to have to happen. So when I was saying campaign, I didn't mean literally like a political candidate. It was just like we part of that is an educational campaign and understanding what it is that we're doing where our gaps are and how do we understand those services. So just to clarify that piece. The, and let's see here, I'm happy to move forward on 5A, the mental behavioral health tax recommended grant awards as presented by staff with just the other ask that I've made in regards to how do we, how do we move forward so that we can be really transparent, but also hear from the advisory council. And I would really suggest that we do work session or something similar or even some public meetings so that we can make sure that we are determining what those gaps are in the next year to inform the next couple of years of this particular text. Okay. So I did hear a motion to approve 5A. I'll second that motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And those opposed. No. So we have approved that. Thank you so much for all your work.

0:41:06Um, I, I will say in terms of what comes next, uh, it has been my intention and it's maybe it's just been in my head and I, and I haven't, um, expressed it out loud that after the election, because everybody's not focused on the future, what they're focused on November 3rd, uh, you know, to reach out to say, you know, we're, you know, with the advisory council, once that is seeded, that that could also then be the nucleus of looking towards the future, towards something much more long - term. And, you know, what do we need and how do we need to adjust? I mean, we've recognized all along when what was originally requested as a 15 year tax, uh, was put on the ballot as a three year tax that we weren't really going to be able to do that kind of long - term planning and spending and addressing needs where we may not have providers in the community right now. I mean, I think that was kind of the reality of, of what we were confronted with. And so, uh, you know, we'll have, uh, 2027 and, in 2028, to, you know, to pull together, um, you know, those folks, whether it's exclusively the advisory council or whether it's the advisory Council Plus, uh, to say, you know, to look at exactly

0:42:39the things that we've been talking about this morning. So thank you for your work. I'm finally going to get some money out. Well, we've already gotten some. And I, I received some heartfelt appreciation last night at the meeting I was at when I wasn't in Larimer County. So everybody's appreciating this and thanks for your work. Um, okay. Thank you Commissioners. Then we now have item six, which is confirmation of executive sessions. Good morning, Commissioners. Natalie Springett, Commissioners Deputy for the record. An item six. I'm here to confirm that the executive session topics notice that the October 13th, 2026 regular business meeting of the board. We're discussed as scheduled. And this is simply a note for the record. So I'm happy to move us to item seven. Commissioners for item seven. I'm requesting authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into executive session on Wednesday, October 21st, 2026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4E. Instructions to negotiators to discuss negotiations on collective bargaining agreement with the Boulder County employees union. Okay. We have Motion. Move for approval. Item 7. Second. Okay, all in favor. Aye. And then Commissioners Friedem 8, I'd request that you sit as the Boulder County Housing Authority Board of Directors. Okay. We will now sit as the housing authority Board of Directors.

6 Confirmation of Executive Session Topics

7 Authorization for Executive Session

8 Authorization for Executive Session (Sitting as the Boulder County Housing Authority Board of Directors)

0:44:07Thank you Board of Directors. I'm here to request authorization for the Boulder County Housing Authority Board of Directors to go into Executive Session on Wednesday, October 27, 2026 at 10. 30 a. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4B Legal Advice to discuss BCHA Statutory Requirements and Governance Structure. Move approval. Second. Okay. Just a question before we vote on it. Do we have material on this topic yet? Or will we get this in advance to read about this? Thank you for that question, director. You will receive material on this in advance of this discussion. But we don't have it yet. No. Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion and a second, all in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay, we will now sit as the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County.

9 Public Meeting on Head Start Division Monthly Report to the Commissioners

0:44:59We have Akane Ogren with us on the screen. And, uh, we did not receive your report in advance, but you'll just put it on the screen and walk us through it as we go. Correct. Correct. Good. Okay. Welcome. I don't know if I need to wait for Jeremy to announce. No, he did. Well, Jeremy, do you want to say it again? I think we're good. I did announce at the beginning, but during this presentation, anyone in Zoom watching who needs or desires captions in that time should turn on captions in the Zoom app and leave them on until the presentation is over. I think that's it. Thanks. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for reminding us. Okay. I think you're ready. Yes. Okay. Um, Akane Ogren Division Manager for Boulder County Head Start with the monthly report from the month of October. Um, some general updates to get us started. The Boulder County Head Start Policy Council, which is the parent board, held its annual orientation and training session on October 2nd. This meeting introduced both new and returning parent members to the Council's purpose, responsibilities, and key executive leadership roles, including the chair, co - chair treasure and secretary, official election of parent officers. We'll take place during the regular November monthly meeting. Um, so that's very exciting. Uh, we had, I think about 13 parents, um,

0:46:40representing all of three sites, um, for the program, which is wonderful. Um, second, the recruitment and hiring process for the family advocate and center director positions at the Mapleton site are currently underway, uh, in the interim, I as the division manager and the RCA assistant are providing coverage to maintain site operations, final selections are expected within the next two weeks with the new leadership team scheduled to start by the second week of November. And so I will continue to be present on site as we onboard to ensure a smooth transition of leadership at that site. I will move into our monthly meal service report in the month of September. Um, 6, 660 meals were delivered 4, 786 were served. Um, the invoice for meals was 19, 802 40 with the CACFP reimbursement at 14, 7720 with a cost to the program of 5, 030 making the average so far of meal cost. Um, 3, 93 dollars in 23 cents. And the meal service is dependent on attendance. So you'll see in the 20 days of school in September, um, the average program attendance was at 92 percent. And so you'll see a nice little uptick between August and September. In our attendance. We haven't quite hit the illness season yet. So I expect that line to shift a little bit as we move into, uh,

0:48:23November, December. Program Enrollment, um, we have 110 slots available. Um, our current enrollment is 99. However, I just signed enrollment approvals. And so I think I believe we're actually more closely up around 103. And so, um, with that, the enrollment, um, versus months, graphs shows again a nice little uptick as we, um, enroll more students. And then, um, just a side note that, um, the Office of Heads Start will only send us an enrollment notice if we are below, um, 106, which is 97 percent of the 110. If we are below 106 for four months consecutive. And so we've only recorded, um, below 106 for September so far. We will record, um, below, um, in October. And so we have November and December to increase our enrollments to at least 106. And our team is working, um, very hard on those, uh, enrollments. Um, I'll pause there in case there are any questions about, um, enrollments or attendance, um, or just general updates. Okay. Thank you, Akane. Any questions so far? Questions for me. Thank you. Okay. I think you're good to continue. Great. Um, and then I will move into the budget again, the green revenue line mirrors the monthly bar graph of Program Expenses, um, and so we'll move up so you can actually see it on your screen. Um, we're carrying in

0:50:0310, 791 at the beginning of the fiscal year, July 2026 and our projecting to, um, end this school year at 13, 000. Um, available funds to carry into the next school year. So, um, it's a, it's a nice, um, line that just follows our revenue and expenses, um, through the school year. Which will take me into the final section, um, of the report, just general ongoing, monitoring and communication. Um, the Regional Head Start Early Childhood Specialist, that is the, the one specialist that remains that is working with our education team and the focus of that work right now is on strengthening coaching practices centered on curriculum fidelity. So in August, 2026 following, um, a comprehensive review of child and staff data. The program invested in the latest edition of the Teaching Strategies Curriculum with the goal of enhancing classroom quality and advancing school writing a bench benchmarks in math, science and literacy. Baseline observations were conducted once the curriculum was implemented in August across all classrooms in late September using the curriculum fidelity checklist and the data from those observations will isolate specific areas of growth and actionable teaching practices, um, providing a framework for upgoing and upcoming and ongoing coaching plans throughout the school year. Um, so that's very exciting. And that our team is receiving, um, coaching on that from the regional team.

0:51:43And with the hope of increasing our school readiness quality, um, metrics at the, by the end of the school year. And then finally we have been waiting for the head start competition grant. The forecasted open date was October 14th and we're at the 20th now. It still has not opened yet. I do not know how the actual open date will impact the, um, application dueli date or the award date. But the, the current date that we have is December 15th for the application deadline with, um, an award sometime July 30th, 2027. So we are, we're on standby as we wait for that grant to open. And that's the end of the report. Okay. Thank you, Akane. Commissioners, any other questions. I don't have any questions. Thank you. Akana to you and your team. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Thank you commissioners. Yep. Thank you for joining us. Um, and so that is the last item on our agenda today. So Commissioners will be adjourned.