Transcript

0:00:37Commissioners. Are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you. Thank you so much. And we are recording. Monazia. We're here for a meeting of the board of county commissioners in Boulder county. Today's Tuesday, December 9, 2025. All three commissioners are present, and we are at the third floor hearing room of the county courthouse at 1325 Pearl street in the city of Boulder. And I'm going to go ahead and call our business manager order, thanks to your patients. We are having some technical issues this morning. Move us to number two, which is our 938. Business meeting and public hearing on parks and open space real estate matters. Take us to item three. Which is our business meeting, and then move us to item four, which is housing authority consent, item so that means we'll now. Be sitting as the Boulder County Housing Authority board of directors. Okay.

0:01:24And if we're ready for a motion on the consent agenda, I move approval. Of item four A and B. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposition? No, thank you, and we'll move. To number five, which is commissioner's consent item. So that means we're sitting back. As the board of county commissioners. And I move approval of five a through you. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. And then we will move to. Item six, which is commissioner's discussion. Item so still is a board of county commissioners item six. A integrated weed management plan in drone spring, and it looks like we've got a. Prisoner here, and I'll just note for the conversation. We had public comment last week, last Thursday, December 4. And we're really trying to get to. Publicly noticed for ten people to join us for public comment on that morning session. We also have an evening session once a month out in the community in different city or town. Locations to hear from people, but we had more than ten people signed up, both here in the room and also virtually. And so we had a quick statement from staff based on several hundred emails that we had received. And I was still having questions and just didn't have an opportunity, even interact with staff. And so my ask on Thursday was just

0:02:56for us to be able to. Be able to ask some questions to staff, but also have some discussion in regards to that particular item. And so I don't know. Stefan, you're here. I don't know if. You had a presentation. Or I was really just wanted to respond to some questions and I would guess my commissioner colleagues might as well. We have a couple of slides. Okay. Thank you. Seven. Okay. Looks like the slides are up here. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Stefan Reynold. I am one of the deputy directors at Boulder county parks and open space, and I oversee the land stewardship branch. And I'm here to talk a little bit more about the Red Hill project at Highle. Valley Ranch. And as a reminder, The integrate weed management plan was approved November 8, 2024, and we are required to bring a review in front of you November 8, 2027. And so one of the questions that came up. During the last week. Was you were asking about how we make our decisions and how our process works. And we have this treatment prioritization process, which is in the integrated weed management plan and we follow it to a t for all the projects that we complete. And essentially what we're looking at from this perspective. Is this project specifically is for biodiversity preservation.

0:04:28There are a few. Other objectives that are met during this process. One of those is fuels reduction of flammable cheat grass as well. And so I'm going to go just quickly into that biodiversity preservation on another slide, but this process we go through, we follow, we decide why we're doing the treatment, and then we have to think about the feasibility of the treatment. And what can and cannot be done. And so one of the main pieces we looked at was topography, operability. The slopes, everything in there, and then also what's practical and what's feasible on the landscape. And so we did look at other methods for this location, but to be able to treat 800 acres in that large of a path is not feasible by other methods. And so drone application was deemed the most feasible. So I really wanted to talk about the biodiversity preservation. In our integrated meat Weed management plan, we identified over 3000 acres. That we knew had high populations of ggrass. And so we identified those previously. So if you look at the map, That I provided on the slide. The yellow area. The big yellow area there is one of those. Locations that we identified that had high tree grass and then the treatment polygons are those darker hashed areas that are on the map. The boulder county.

0:06:01Comp plan identifies this area where we're doing this treatment as b one outstanding biodiversity. Significance, meaning that this is irreplaceable on the global scale. This is why we want to do the treatment that we're doing. There are eight critically imperiled species in the area. Our treatments at Highlevel Valley ranch that we've done previously utilizing in Dazaflam. Have shown a two to one response of native species versus untreated. And this is the type of monitoring that we're doing. We're looking at in areas. We're seeing 177 native species in our treated areas versus 85 in our untreated areas. This is working. We have also documented significant increases in wildlife use. Muldere elk, ground nesting bird, even pollinators so we know that this is working. We also know that. Removing cheek grass from the system does decrease fire hazard. In terms of topography, operability access. The map on the right shows the slopes in the area. And close to 750 acres are above strongly sloping slopes. And so the red areas. Are really extreme, and the yellow areas are a little bit less. The remaining acreage. Has access and operability issues. If we could get a tractor into those areas, we might be able to do it, but we can't get a tractor into those areas. There's no access points. There's also rocky surface. And so that makes

0:07:39it very difficult to operate a tractor. And in terms of acreage, again, getting individuals in there to. Treat cheat grass at that level is not feasible, so using drones is the most feasible way. And I just wanted to show just a couple of quick pictures here of the steep gully. On the right you can see, and then on the left you can see all the rocky. Crown surface. And then just another picture here that shows some of that topography. And the last thing I just want to talk about real quick is. I know there were some misinformation about the process that we use. So the World Health Organization has a list of highly hazardous pesticides. And in our integrated weed management plan. We discussed that if there was ever a chemical that we want to utilize, that is. Not on the who's list, that we would make sure that we had those reviewed by herbicide.

0:08:37Toxicity experts. And so we did engage three individuals to do this review for us. And all three of those reviewed in Daziflam, plus two other herbicides that are not on the who's list. And put all those ended up on table four. Slightly hazardous. Some of the misinformation that was shared. The WHO utilizes EPA research, the European Food Safety Authority data, and also independent peer reviewed research. So I just want to make sure that was understood there. And then. So thank you for letting me clarify some of those things, and I'll try. To answer questions as they come. Thank you, Stefan. Commissioner, I don't know if anybody else had questions or if I was the only one that had questions. Give you all an opportunity. Maybe I could ask a couple of questions. Was drone use of drones in this area. Part of what we approved with the integrated weight management plan. That's correct. That is. The boundaries of. So we identified probable areas. So we have done. Some satellite imagery to identify where the high cheek grass populations are. So we actually have paid a service to do that. And then those areas that we put into the integrate. Management plan are the probable locations of that. Obviously, cheek grass populations can move, so there's a little bit of on the edges and the

0:10:13boundaries. But yes, that was approved in the. So this was part of what we considered in 2024. And what you're carrying out here. Is consistent with the approved plan? That's correct. Okay. That's fine. If you didn't have any other questions. I just wanted to give you an option? Yeah. No, thanks. Commissioner Loachman, my apologies. Natalie Springt commissioner's deputy for the record, we're just getting some questions from attendees here, so I wanted to reiterate what you had. Shared at the beginning of this discussion topic. There is no public hearing on this item today. There is no opportunity for public comment. This discussion item on the business meeting today, as you had previously stated, is a follow up from our public comment session that was held last Thursday. And do they noticed? So I do just want to clarify. There's no additional opportunity for public comment on this topic. This morning. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that, because I'm not saying what you're saying, so thank you. Stefan. For me. I had a couple of questions. On for me. This is what I'm feeling. It's not just the hundreds of emails, but it's some of the questions that people are having in regards to. And the concerns around. Food production and the farms that are being stayed in. I don't know. This parcel of land.

0:11:37I haven't been up to these rocky areas, so that photos were informational for me. But some of the concerns that I've heard and read. In here in additional emails that are still arriving right now. Are talking about concerns. Of farm food. Runoff waterways. And I didn't hear you speak to that. What I would be looking for. Is like a map overlay to really understand what is it that's really right around. There. I saw a new map. But I will tell you that that map that you shared, this. Morning is very different than what is what I found on the website. Connected to the just communications about the advisement. I do appreciate it. Seemed like some of those pieces that we talked about last November have been. Adhered to just as far as what additional communications.

0:12:32Could the county provide for folks to be aware? Which also spurred a lot of concern and just questions for people. I'm not expecting right now. We're in a business meetings. This is not a public hearing as stated. And that's not time only dedicated for this topic. But I would be looking for some overlay of map to really understand what that train is, and I'll just say for me. The other piece that's really missing, and we haven't had an opportunity, and I know commissioner Solzman is kind of our lead commissioner on ag pieces, but some of the concerns are really around Ag, and I just don't know what that relationship is, and we haven't had a PMI together as a border. In administrative meeting together versus PMI administrative meeting together to really be able to dig into those questions I will say for me. The conversation last November. I was very interested in doing an updated.

0:13:26Review together as the board to look at the integrated weed management plan. With the changes that we had collectively agreed. To before the three year state mandate. I heard you say that. We'll have a review on November 8 of 2027, and I just want to reiterate for me, this is an example of the reason why we should not have agreed to wait for a full three year period. Yes, we're allowed to do that because the. State mandate. But this is another topic for me that. The board hasn't had an opportunity in 2025 to discuss again. The piece that in there is missing. And I see the chart in the management plan, it looks like on page 33 of 57 that you showed some of the snippets from their slide. But what is not clear to me, and I didn't hear and I didn't. See on the website. Was also, what are the alternatives? I didn't hear those in public comment last week, and somebody said all these solutions have been shared, and I really only heard one about the goats. Could go free in the mountain, which we need a staffing resource. There are some requirements how to do that, but. Again, I just have not heard that. And so for me, What I would like us to do is to put a pause on

0:14:40this particular drone action, so. That we can have a conversation. And understand. What are the alternatives that have been used so far? I'm guessing since or in 2025. Just because of the timing of the November 8, 2024, unless there were some new programs or new alternatives tried in December of 2024. So that's what I am looking for. To understand. Feasibility wasn't necessarily a factor for me of what I was looking at, what I was looking at was if there was a safety issue. And somebody couldn't either, like you were saying, use their tractor or what was discussed previously. Last year was if somebody was carrying a pack, and I can't remember the weight that was shared. Up in terrain that is more complicated. If that person felt unsafe, then that was how I felt like.

0:15:34There was movement towards a drone as the last resort. And what's been described and what I have information about right now. It doesn't. Just doesn't help me understand that. This is really the last resort. And I'm not aware of what other alternative programs or options have been used this year. To understand. If we have. To use a drone to spray 800 acres right now in Boulder county. So that's what I'm looking for. But that's really. What my. I can answer a few of those questions. Just right now, obviously. There's more information that I could share, and I could spend a really long time sitting here. The feasibility of treatment and talking about the topography is directly related to the safety we cannot get. Tractors in there. We cannot. Get many individuals in there with backpacks.

0:16:29It is too dangerous to do that on those slopes. So that's the reason behind that piece. In terms of the map that I provided, the map that we provide on the website. Is the clear project boundary map. The map that I provided today is just to show the topography. So that you could see that. We can't put that in all of our press releases, all these different maps. You're talking pages and pages and pages of documentation. When we've gone through the process. We have this treatment priority process, and we walk through that in our plan, we have it documented. And we move forward. As for other methods, There's a lot of data out there on other methods. And how well they work and how well they don't work. Prescribe fire being one. Of them. It's very difficult to control g grass with a prescribed fire because of the timing. Chicres actually has two growing seasons, so you actually have to try to be able to do two prescribed fires in the location in the same year. And as you know, getting prescribed fire on the ground just one time a year is very difficult. There are issues with goats west of 36 in terms of our big horn sheet population, which is struggling right now.

0:17:47And goats carry vectors that can decimate our big horn sheep population. So goats are not a feasibility. Cattle. If we wanted to get cattle in there, we don't have fencing. The viability. Of cheek grass as a food source is about a two week time frame when it greens up before, the other grass is green up. Once it greens up, the other grass is green up. Cattle do not want to have anything to do with cheek grass. And you'd have to have them over. Cross the 800 acres all at the same time. And scale is the other piece, so there's a lot more that I could go into. But I just wanted to share those things just off the cuff here. Thank you, and I appreciate that. Commissioner. Sulfur. Thank you so much. So I think it's clear that the community doesn't support the aerial application of experimental chemicals over our open space lands, let alone other lands. So just a couple of points. The annual update that the commissioners are supposed to receive about our progress has and not occurred. So I think we should work to get our annual update scheduled before the end of the year. And just thinking back to adopting the plan. Commissioner Lucheman, I remember you thinking about the pilot alternatives and how we could try different alternatives. Like you

0:19:07mentioned this morning. And to my knowledge that this has not occurred. So I'm interested to hear about alternatives. And pilots that we have planned for 2026. When we get that update, just to know what we'll be doing going forward. But I support what you're proposing about pausing this. Particular action. Thank you. Levy. Thank you. Thanks. My feeling is quite different about this. That flowchart that you put up, Stefan. In your presentation of how we were going to be making, how. You. We the county. But the Parson opens space department. Was going to be making decisions about what tools to use. Was something that I feel we discussed quite extensively in terms of. Is it really trying to just. Kind of push the decision in one direction, or is it truly. An objective consideration of all the different factors and what might be effective in that location. And after that, quite extensive conversation and discussion about.

0:20:21How that process, that decision making process would work. I felt quite satisfied. That. That use of herbicides was going to. Be done very judiciously. We discussed that goal. Of taking the 3000 acres where we would allow. Herbicides and over a five year period. Reducing that. So that I don't remember the number now, but. There was quite extensive discussion about that as well, about how that would be done. And what the process would be, how that would be determined, et cetera. As far as the pilot programs. Those in my recollection. Were other areas. Not the areas that were identified for the drone aerial application. Because of the extensive nature of the tea, grass. We discussed using heat treatment in the parking lot at Ron Stewart Preserve at Robert Mountain. We discussed. The weed warrior program we discussed. Some other kinds of treatment. And in the report that we got from parks and open space, there was an assessment of those programs in how well they worked and which ones show promise and which ones didn't show promise. I got a report. I read it. I feel like that was the update that we got. We're not scheduled to reconsider the weed management plan until 2027. And I think the value. Of setting a schedule. I mean, first of all, state law requires that I can see

0:22:06you, Lynn. Thank you. I'm aware of how you feel. But state law requires us to do this every three years. And I think the value of that is that we've provided some direction. Staff needs some stability to the ability to plan. We need to be able to show results. And to adopt a plan. And then twelve months later change course on something that was very thoroughly considered. I just think. Is not a good way to make decisions. I did pull out a number of studies. That I had read about Endazaflam. And how it affects. The biochrost. And get my glasses out. In lichen and things like that in soil health and the biodiversity. Of rangelands after cheat grass control. I had read these studies. Along with many others. To reach the decision that I reached.

0:23:17Last year on the integrated weed management plan. And I have not heard anything that suggested that this was not the correct approach. I've walked a lot of mountainous terrain. That has become a monoculture of gcres. And I don't know how many of the thousand email writers have actually. Been on these lands and seen what they look like. Once cheat grass has taken hold. It's dead. There is nothing there. Cheat craft is green. For maybe three weeks in the spring, and then it dies and it just sits there. And it lays down. A very thick thatch once it dies, which completely suppresses the ability of. Other native plants to penetrate through that. And. You just get a complete monoculture? Of brown, dead grass with thick thatch. And that's the challenge to control. And I've also. Seen on the ground areas that have been treated with Endazaflam.

0:24:37And the results are remarkable. Where? You get? Penstamin. You get the perennials coming back. You even get the annuals that come. Back. So I think. This plan was very well considered. I think staff has been working very hard. On careful, judicious use. Of herbicides. We put in the plan. A very considered, methodical approach to deciding which herbicides to use and where. And I'm satisfied with that, and I would be very opposed to reopening that plan. Can I address one point there? So the annual update. The year is not over yet, and so you will have an annual update. In January that will have all the data again. We've been using it. We discussed that. We've been using a new asset management system, so I just wanted to make sure you're. Aware that you will have a full report in January. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. We did receive. Was it a draft? We did a presentation.

0:25:49To poseack that outlined our drone usage, so I'm not sure. And then we also send you a memo, the board, a memo that had some of the work that we had completed. Okay, thanks. The annual updates has requirements as in state law that we have not seen and we have not gotten ever. And the previous integrated weed management plan also had a requirement for an annual update. And since I've been on the board, we've never had an annual update. And we adopted it in November. So we've had an annual November to November, and we've not seen an update, so I think it's a bit argumentative to say it's coming in January. We've never had an annual update. Thank you. Yes, we've had extensive conversations and we've talked about different research and we've, shared where we're at. I'm going to just go ahead and move on.

0:26:42Item six a, that we do a. Pause on our drone spring for this particular. Parcel. And I want to say it's Red Hill, but if I got the name incorrect. Please let me know. In the red Hill area is what I'm reading. So that we can have that. And it sounds like you've got an annual update coming. In January. So if that is when you would propose that we do that conversation and be able to hear. And I do want to just reiterate what I'm looking for, just. So that staff has an idea for folks who might be taking notes to try and help prepare. I am looking for. I heard. You speak to it? Stefan and I just agree we could be here for hours and that's? Not what we're here to do necessarily.

0:27:24But. I am not clear about what has been done this year in 2025 in regards to the integrated read management plan on the alternative methods. And I know there's things that have been happening around the county, but it seemed as though the conversation was around this part of the conversation because it integrated weed management plan is extensive and our land is extensive. But one of the pieces that was very interesting and concerning for me. Was the terrains that were really challenging. I'm not questioning the. Boulder county has or does not. Have challenging terrain for folks to hike on or walk on or get to do management. But what I don't know right now, and I don't want to go back and forth. On it right now is what are those alternative methods that have been considered in those types of terrains, the terrains that are easily accessible and that we can get to and we've.

0:28:18Got volunteers who. Are interested in participating. That didn't seem like the concern, but. When I get 1000 emails from folks specific on a topic and they're telling me they want to volunteer and they want to participate. I just don't know yet if what has been done in that realm, so I just. Want to share where I'm coming from and what I'll be looking for. In that annual update. And then the other piece was just to have a better idea of what other. I think it would be helpful to look at the topography. And I apologize if I came off. In criticism of the map that were shown on the communications. I thought that was fine, but I do understand. It didn't provide to me, and it didn't sound like it provided to some. Of the readers of that communication and understanding. Of how much of that land and where in that land. And today you provided that, so I appreciate that, but it also still leaves me with some questions about. The questions around water drainage. Runoff. And some of the other topics that I talked about already and that were also in the emails.

0:29:23So that's what I would be looking for. That is the motion on the table there with a few comments. Can I ask a question, commissioner? Levy. Yeah, thank you. Just a question for Stefan on. The window of opportunity to use Indazaflam. Effectively. And whether waiting until January would mean a whole year of continued. Rampant cheek. Grass spread. There's a couple of things there. The main reason for the time frame is the dormant season and to take advantage of the spring. Right. That's when we're going to get. All the other natives and perennials to come back. And so that's kind of the best time to do is kind of in the winter. Time frame. In terms of. If we keep avoiding the conversation around chicrass, we are going to. Lose that high biodiversity in that area.

0:30:28Mike I was asking about. When spraying is optimum, it has to happen before germination. That's correct. Germinates quite early, and I just was wondering about the timing and. If we waited until. A discussion about the. I don't have that answer off the top of my head. I'd have to ask Joe in our weed staff. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you. I had just put a motion on the table and I heard a second. On item six. A. All in favor? Aye. Just make an additional comment about this item on our agenda. That I don't think there was adequate public notice that we were actually going to be reconsidering something that was quite well settled in our integrated weed management plan. So. People were interested. We took a lot of public comment at our public meeting.

0:31:28There was no indication that. We were going to be making a brand new decision about something that was actually settled. The plan. Did not include. Consideration of alternatives in these areas in which what has been well established that alternatives are simply not feasible. That is why. These areas were called out in our plan for the use of herbicides because. Through. A very considerate process. It was already determined that there are no feasible alternatives, so to say. Well, we want to pause. To see whether something might be feasible is to just throw out all the work that has been done. To narrow from the 108,000 acres of open space that we own and manage. Down to 3000 acres. Where we're going to allow herbicides and then to say, well, we're not. Going to do it. Because maybe. There's something we haven't thought of. I just think.

0:32:36Is wrong, and so I just wanted to register that along with my no vote on that motion. Thank you. And I'll just check in with. We've got an attorney here at the Dais. The comment Kushner made commissioner Levy made about wondering if this has been duly noticed and for me. This is a discussion item. We could have an administrative meeting, but this conversation was part of the public comment last week where we had folks in the room. Hi, this is Leona Laramar, assistant county attorney. I think if this just is a temporary pause directing staff for more information. I think that it was properly noticed for that, I think if the commission. Commissioners. Once acquiring more information. Would like to amend the plan to not allow for aerial spraying. That decision would need to be properly noticed for that decision. But what I heard today is. A temporary direction to staff to gather more information.

0:33:31Thank you. And that was my intent as well. So I appreciate the clarification and also. Your comments. Thank you. Thank you, Stefan. Thank you. We've made a decision here, so we're moving on to item seven, which is authorization for executive session. Good morning, commissioners. Natalie Springer. Commissioner's. Deputy, for the record again, I'm here to request authorization for the Board of county. Commissioners to go into executive session on Wednesday, December. 10th, 2025, at 01:00 p.m. with County Attorney Ben Pearlman. Pursuant to CRS 24, 6402, subsection four b, legal advice to discuss Colorado child fatality review team reporting requirements under crs 26 one. One, three nine, subsection five e. Still moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, commissioners. And I do have an additional request for authorization for. Executive session. So I will request authorization for the board of county commissioners to go into executive session on Wednesday. December 10, 2025, at 01:00 p.m. pursuant to CRS 24 6402 subsection four e instructions to negotiators. To discuss the collective bargaining agreement with the Boulder County Employees Union. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

0:35:03And so that'll move us to item eight, which is our public hearing on parks and open space, real estate acquisitions, and it looks like we've got a few different. Proposals on acquisitions. There's three of them, so we'll hear presentations from staff. On eight. A first. And then commissioners may have some questions. We'll go to public comment both here in the room and also virtually, we're being asked to make a decision, so we'll do that process for eight a and then eight b and then eight c, and we'll give stuff. Just a couple of minutes to get the presentation connected. We'll be asking for public comment specific to the different acquisition projects that are being talked about at that time. This is interesting. Do we have your computer in case. I've been ignoring that. Get to it. Going through our security system.

0:36:55Erin's just getting his computer as a backup in case I can't log in. That's fine. Thank you. Take your time. It's thinking. Okay, so just. Maybe. There you go. Boom. Cool. Okay. Excellent. Thanks for your patience, everybody. Melissa Arnold with the real. I'm a land officer with the real estate division at parks. And open space. Get this out of there. What are you doing? Oh, my gosh. I am getting. You're getting duo pinged again. I'm getting prompted one more. Time for our security system. Excuse me. Get this out of there, all right? We can see your little happy face, frowny face. That's okay. For some reason. My. Oh, that's because that's not working. Try using the arrow keys. This is very interesting. I wonder if it's caused this thing. Yeah, but if we have. To find a way to close that window. Close. I don't want this. Give it a. Smile face and see what happens. I always choose frowny. Shoot everybody. I'm sorry. This is very. Switch over to his computer. That's totally fine. All right.

0:40:03Teams. Why it opened up. That one. There we go. Okay, looks like we are ready. All right. Thanks for your patience, everybody. Once again, Melissa Arnold, land officer in the real estate division at parks. And open space. I'm here to present the Stillwater Bend conservation easement acquisition for your consideration for approval. Excellent. The Stillwater Bend property has been owned by the Hep family for decades, and it has been on the county's priority list for protection for years. It's located in the northeast part of the county, west of Longmont, south of Highway 66. There you go. Little circle where it's located. It's west of the unincorporated ton of hygiene, not too far from the annex boundary of the city of Longmont, Pella. Crossing open space is to the southeast gauge open space to the south, and we have the Braley Raimi Western mobile open space complex to the west. As well as some other conservation easement properties nearby. So I'm just going to get a little closer here for some perspective. Here we are with those open space properties nearby that I was just mentioning. In a Google Earth imagery that shows the location of the town of Hygiene and Pellet crossing. Trailhead in particular. And a closer up, property of the Google Earth imagery. This is a 140 acre property along Hygiene Road. It is bisected

0:41:52by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway has three parcels currently with a little flagpole section. That is a part of the property that runs in the middle. About 1700ft of the St. Rain Creek goes through. This property has as you can see, many reclaimed gravel ponds and one in the southwest corner that was filled by the 2013 flood that was not dug back out and has extraordinary ecological value that. I'll cover more in a moment. It also includes some irrigated hay fields, few agricultural structures. And there's just the location of those. A couple of barns and a couple of little sheds. The landowner irrigates the land with anywhere from ten to 40 cfs of water. From the Chapman McCaslan ditch each year. And that ditch is indicated in a dash blue line on the map.

0:42:52The hay fields of the land and it irrigates our circle in dark blue. And dry Hay field is located to the south of the property along Hygiene Road. The St. Frane Creek runs through the southwest portion of the property, and as I was alluding to earlier, it was impacted by the 2013 flood, and a lot of the land in this area. Was. Reclaimed later on and restored. But this pond was left untouched. And what it's done is. Created a very unique ecological habitat. It's an off channel, backwater area. That basically connects to the creek and allows different species to move from the creek into. This really shallow pond area and then back in, and that creates a unique breeding area and a place for beaver and all kinds of different species that may not just thrive in ponds and creeks. Alone. And so the Hep family has been working with Boulder County CPW as well as a local school system. The St. Vane Valley School District Innovation center to do some research and work in this area to reintroduce some species. In particular, the Northern Red Belly Dais recovery project. And releasing some of those minnows into this area, giving them a chance to grow and then get back into the creek because some of their numbers are declining, and this is a tier one

0:44:16species of greatest conservation need. And just a note that the Hep family was a recipient in 2023 of the land conservation award that the county gives out. So I just want to recognize that. And the great ecological value that this area of the property provides. Here are just some pictures. This is a sort of iconic view of the property, standing on hygiene road, looking across that backwater. Area where there's this little. Moored boat in the middle there that a lot of people, I think, enjoy seeing is they go by. Some other photos just showing the creek. And of course, there's the big pond or the. Big lake. Excuse me. And some of the large tree species. Just going to get to a couple of the barns. You can see those are the ones that are right next to the road. When you're driving by. And now I'm just going to cover quickly. Some of the Boulder county comprehensive plan designations. These maps are intended to be illustrative rather than specific and the following designations are indicators of importance, but not necessarily confirmation that these features exist. On the property. There are many, including a view protection corridor. Along the hygiene road. The riparian habitat connector along St. Vane Creek. Critical wildlife habitat along St. Brain Creek. Pebbles Meadow Jumping Mouse Conservation Area. This is a

0:45:46zone one mouse management area. Riparian area, of course, archaeologically sensitive travel route. Significant agricultural lands of statewide importance. And I just wanted to put this slide in the proximity of wetlands. Often these mapping layers don't always indicate what's on private property because they are private. It's not. Always easy to go on and collect. But we know for sure there are wetlands on this property. Especially on that southwest area. So for this deal that I am bringing before you today, The current configuration is that there are three parcels and four unexcied development rights that could have four residences. And here are the parcels, so you can see how they currently look. And that orange, that flag. Pull goes with the property to the north. There's a large green property to the left and then outlined in that salmon color to the right. This transaction would propose to reconfigure these three parcels into four different parcels. One of them would be an 88 acre preserve, seven acre west lake house lot in Blue, a 13 acre east lake house lot, the one in Salmon, and 32 acre, approximately 32 acre North Lake house lot up north of the tracks. And that flagpole piece would be. Combined with the respective two. West Lake House Latin preserve parcel as indicated. For this deal. The acquisition would cost $1,700,000. 140

0:47:26acres would be divided into four parcels and there would be two conservation easements placed on the property. And two restrictive covenants and one development right would be removed from this property. The preserve parcel will have a conservation easement that will protect the abundant conservation values, including the ecological back order area and the St. Vain Creek quarter that I discussed earlier. No residences would be allowed. The landowner can continue agricultural use of the hay fields and the Chapman McCaslan ditch water. Rights will be tied to the property through the conservation easement. The West Lake house lot will be a seven acre house that will have a conservation easement. And permit one residence, the East Lake house lot will have a restrictive covenant that will be 13. Acres in size. And the North Lake house lot, approximately 32 acres in size, will also have a restrictive covenant allowing for one residence. So a very exciting result of this negotiation is that the landowner and county will enter into an agreement allowing the department's staff and its partners continued access to the ecological backwater area. Of the preserve for continued ecological and educational research monitoring. And staff recommends approval. Stillwater Bend has been on the county's priority list for years and the opportunity to preserve this land will ensure limited development, protect unique aquatic and wildlife habitat along

0:48:52the St. Vrain Creek and add hundreds of acres to contiguous open space in the area and the fact that the landowner is allowing park staff to have. Continued access for its ongoing ecological research. Is absolutely appreciated and will advance the wildlife habitat goals within the. County's open space program. The Parks and open Space Advisory Committee Pozak board. They approved unanimously this acquisition for recommendation, for approval. And staff is requesting that the board of county commissioners approved this deal as described. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, Melissa. Any questions, Mr. Salzman? Thank you. I had one question. Could you show us a picture and just describe the access to the West Lake house lot? And if there are existing easements. That facilitate that access to that piece of property for the home. So let's see.

0:49:52Yes. Perfect. This is a good one. To show the proposed configuration. So the road that is currently on the property and that there will be no new roads on that 88 acre preserve and the current road is not on the flagpole. As was likely intended when that was originally surveyed out. Instead, it follows the curve of the boundary between the east lake and the preserved parcel, so it hugs. The very west side of that east lake, and that is currently. How you get in from Hygiene Road and go north. And you can get around to that west lake house lot. And that is how the people who eventually build a house on that parcel, whether that be the current owner or a future landowner. If they should sell it. That is how they will access that property. Is the existing dirt road. What I'm not able to tell from this is if that existing dirt road is on. The east lake house lot or on the preserve lot, and if there's an easement. Or if they don't need one or I'm just not understanding question like when? They go to build, will they need to purchase an easement? I just don't understand. That part. Right now. So it is on the preserve. And that is how well the bottom part is on the preserve, and

0:51:06then it's on the blue West Lake house lot. And that's the dirt road will be. And the landowner currently owns all the parcels, so. No easements currently needed, however. When they do go to sell, because they will be able to sell these separately if they like. When they do that, they will need to ensure that they grant access easements and that will be permitted by the conservation easement and just recognizing that they'll need that done. Thank you, commissioner. Yeah. Thank you. Detective arnold. One unserious question, but it's sort of serious question about whether you followed Janice's. Like, what, 150 point checklist? On this deal. Absolutely. We never strayed. Okay, I wanted that assurance. And then. My other question is about whether. You considered having building envelopes for the allowable development on these parcels? Yeah. Excellent question. So. Again, just the 80 preserve will not have any houses, but there will be is currently the way it's being drafted. A couple acre building envelope around the existing barn on the green preserve. And the southeast cor.

0:52:21Corner. So that will have a building envelope with a very small amount of square footage that could float. That's in your board memo. And that is just 500 sqft that they could put maybe somewhere else if they needed some run in shed for some cattle, or if they needed a place to store hay somewhere outside of that little area, and staff would need to review that. To ensure it wasn't detrimental to the conservation. Values the house law. The West Lake House law in Blue that will also be with a conservation easement and that will also. Have an envelope for that one. The restrictive covenants will not. However, I do want to point out that the buildability area. Of the southeast. Lake House lot property is pretty minimal, and that is a restrictive covenant. It's a little bit of a lighter touch. It allows the county to put more of its acquisition money toward the other parcels with more conservation values, even though it will not have a building envelope. It's kind of a clearly southeast area cluster there. That would be buildable there's. Not as much buildability in the north area and then for the North Lake house lot. That is already subject to. A building location sort of up in the very northern section of that, because it went through a subdivision exemption years

0:53:40ago, and it will still be subject to that, requiring that any structures go. I don't have it highlighted on this map, but north of sort of where that comment bubble. Is. Okay, great. That's what I wanted to know. Thanks for. Your response? In the negotiation. A building envelope. That's correct. And I'm just curious about what? You were saying is the way I interpreted it was it would be obvious to somebody who went, to the parcel where you might be able to actually do construction or not, but I'm just wondering about for future. And you mentioned If the board was interested in getting a building envelope put in there at the same time and I say that because. Ten years from now or some point in the future with a new landowner, the disappointment that occurs when somebody gets here to the dais again because they thought or somebody told them or they weren't well informed or whatever the position the situation is. It doesn't seem.

0:54:48And again, from this side of the dais, when people come to us with this kind of a situation. When they do want to do development, it may not be as clear, or there might be some misinformation out there, so I'm just. Curious about. Just from a proactive we know. There's going to be areas that really would be feasible, or most likely, if that couldn't be arranged in negotiation now with the building envelope. And do you mean assurance for the. Landowner to know that they will have a place to put the house. Is that what your concern? Was. I think what I'm looking for is assurance and clarity that if there is going to be a building. Right. Which I heard there's going to be a development, right, still attached with this property. Then to provide that clarity of where that. Is, the county would actually consider it. Well, what I can say is a couple of things. One is I know I don't. Work for the community planning and permitting department, but I work closely with them. And where somebody has a development right legally assigned to a parcel they do have the right to build, and they will. Go through the SPR process to ensure that they will be able to place that on this property. The landowner. Was definitely. It is not a

0:56:02part of. The it was clear in negotiating with them that they were not interested in putting restrictions on the north lake or the East Lake house lot, and this was the result of staff working very hard. To try to get something. And those restrictive covenants. Will limit the parcels to agricultural and residential use, prohibit annexation, which is actually long term, one of our greatest concerns of these parcels in hygiene. And that's it. And so we were able to end putting a restriction on the size of the residence. For the north Lake house lot. We didn't get further than that with our ability to get the landowner to agree to restrictions, and I think a building envelope might actually appear as more restrictive and take out what they would perceive this is from the conversations I've had. Then take out some of the value of that property. If the board would like us to renegotiate the terms of the restrictive covenants. To be clear in putting a building envelope for those residents, for the residents on the east lake. House lot. We can certainly do that.

0:57:07And. I can also do that with the north lake one. It would just alter. Our timeline and projection of closing. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's the questions we've got right now. We're in a public hearing. So why don't we go to public comment? And we'll get a list here. Folks, have three minutes. We're asking anybody who's interested in speaking specifically to the Stillwater band conservation easement acquisition. There's a clock up on the screen for three minutes for each person. A reminder just to state your name before you speak and in person. Do we have Kara Wilheight here? I actually intended to sign up for the herbicide spring public comment. There wasn't a box. But I do have a feasible alternative that no one has ever discussed before, so I don't know if you would entertain me for a couple of minutes. Kara, we are right now working on public comment for this. As you just noted, there's still water conservation. The previous topic wasn't a public hearing, so we didn't take public comment today. We've been taking it in other forms, but that wasn't a public comment. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you. And just want to make sure if you had something you wanted to say about this particular easement? Acqu? Acquisition so that you knew that that was an option. Was there anybody

0:58:32else here in the room that wanted to speak? Distilled water bin conservation? It doesn't look like it. So is there. Anybody. Let's see. We'll go to virtual. And we've got Amanda, Dominigo. Who signed up, and then if there's anybody else, I'll just do. The invitation. Now the phone number. Is 833-3568. Six, four. And then I'll just offer. If there's a staff person here, I don't. See our deputy, but if there is a staff person that could update Kara, who was in the back that had some questions around the topic that we already discussed that might be helpful to the public. Amanda, I can see you on the screen. It looks like you're off mute, but I can't hear you. Okay. I did not know we were starting. Thank you. Go ahead. I'm here speaking on behalf of myself and sosv.

0:59:45I oppose any further acquisition. Of public land to be managed by parks and open space based on. The established presidents. Of mismanagement. We heard Mr. Reynolds affirm that they follow the integrated weed management plan. To a t, and we heard commissioner Levy state that. The Triannual Review. Is required, and she does not want to revisit that discussion. I wanted to point out the obvious that it was SOSV, detox, Boulder and many environmental non groups that brought the 16 year non compliance, two year attention. I understand that you have some executive sessions. With Mr. Ben pearlman. And part of the issue, and I understand that it is his job to advise you on this. Topic, given the fact that Mr. Pearlman became commissioner in 2004 when the IWMP. Was in fact approved. And subsequently, in 2007 and the following three years, no review was done. If you can just state your name, just so we don't lose you. I didn't hear you state your name when you started. Thank you. Amanda Dumanigo. Furthermore, based on so I think Mr. Reynolds statement that you follow the IWMP is verifiably. False. And who brought it to your attention was the community, not the county attorney. Whose job it was to review the plan and who was commissioner when the plan 2000. And four plan was signed into the

1:01:342004 plan. Brings up aerial. Spraying indasaflam esponada rejuvena exactly zero times. So we need. To demystify. That delusions that the plan is being followed. Conditions. Furthermore. I believe that. It's inherently obvious that. They're only following approval. But the label also states frequency, and the frequency decreased in 2024. After the community brought this to your attention, however. It went up by 800% in 2025. So the promises even made in 2023 are clearly, verifiably, statistically not being adhered to. You. Also recently we opposed a federal spraying on federal land, and that was because of barren land. You have barren land and you guys are not looking at the EPA label considering it just a guideline when it is, in fact, federal law. Thank you. Thank you. And I just want to check. I don't see anybody else signed up for. Virtual, but we'll give it just a moment in case there's somebody switching devices. Or someone on the phone. If you are on the phone, you do need to hit star nine. Please to raise your hand and then star six to unmute.

1:03:20I don't see anybody else jumping in, so we'll go ahead and close a public comment for this particular. Acquisition project unless I'm going to turn it back to you in case there's anything else you wanted to add, and then commissions will be asked to do some discussion. We're. Being asked to make a decision. Thank you, Melissa Arnold again. I just want to make sure everybody is aware that this is a proposal to purchase a conservation easement, interest and restrictive covenants over the property. They were for parks and open space will not be managing the land, and it's not subject to our integrated weed management plan. Thank you. Great. Any discussion. Commissioners, I'm ready to make a motion. If. There's no further discussion. I move that. We. Acquire the Stillwater bend conservation easement in accordance with the terms that are set forth in the memo. Second.

1:04:14All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. And we'll move to. Appreciate you all being here. We'll move to item eight b, which is the forsyth rock. Conservation, easement, acquisition. All right. Musical land officers. I thought it was musical computers. Where's the arrow? Did you break it? Where is there? Something's going on. I do not mean to open chrome. Yeah, the era did disappear. It didn't like, where's the arrow? I'm going to unplug this while I make myself. All right, we can close that. Yeah, I know. It's a really loud mouse. All right. Long last. Here we go. All right. We are ready. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry about that. Just as a note. My father's home today. I saw. I told him if he was bored, you. Should watch this. So.

1:05:39Hi, dad. Clark. I'm a land officer with parks and open space, and I'm here to. Present two projects, first of which is proposed acquisition of a conservation easement on what we're calling the Forsyth rock property. The property is east of Netherland on County Road 68 near Magnolia, just west of Gross Reservoir there when the red circle pops up. So Forsythrock along Kellywood 68 adjacent. There you can see to the existing short ridge conservation easement in close proximity to. Our Platt Rogers park on the northwest and a large chunk of lands managed by the us forest. Service. Kenneth Road 68 is also part of a view protection corridor. The site's most prominent feature, it won't surprise you, is Forsythrock, which rises very steeply to 8324ft and is visible from many points in the county. I had a really nice day to get up there. When I visited the landowner and got a lot of great pictures of it. The property is 36 acres. The owner is the John short Ridge Junior Trust. Property, as you can see, is mostly forested, with a few open meadow areas and several large, prominent rockout croppings, as you can see there in the aerial. This proposed conservation easement restricts development completely, no structures will be permitted. Agreed price for the easement is $400,000. POsAC recommended this acquisition to the board

1:07:12of county commissioners by an eight nothing vote at their meeting held on November 20. Come on. Here we go. We'll go over comprehensive plan designations now. I think I may have skipped one. Here we go. All right, so the green on the north. There is archaeologically sensitive areas recommended for preservation. The south and the purple hash is the winning a ridge landscape natural landmark. Here we show environmental conservation areas. This is an interesting one. It is surrounded by four separate environmental conservation areas. And a large chunk of. Significant. Natural communities, as you can see there in that kind of lime green that I've chosen. Finally, wetlands and riparian areas. The green and the purple hash, as noted in the comprehensive plan. Here's just a few photos I took of the site. I do love to bring some nice pictures. It was a glorious day. I think that is an upright blue beard tongue. That's what I naturalist tells me, so. I'm going to go with it. Lastly, a note on the funding source we're proposing to use and its purpose. Forsythrock is approximately 1.5 miles from gross reservoir. We propose to acquire the easement. With funds from the 2021 gross reservoir settlement between Gunmer Water and Boulder county. That settlement allotted $5.1 million to Boulder county for acquisitions of open space and conservation easements. A

1:08:43public process was conducted to determine how best to spend this money and the board's direction has been to seek potential acquisitions that met cumulative priorities of habitat protection, undeveloped passive recreation, or both. Public also strongly desired acquisitions close to the Gristo Reservoir community. Since most of the land directly around gross reservoir has already been subioded and developed, we've had to look a little farther afield for properties we could use, although I will say this is the closest. That I've been able to do so far at only a mile and a half away. So forsythrough meets the criteria you've been looking for in addition to its national resource value according to the comprehensive plan and is an exit in canvan for protection. Park supports the acquisition, and I hope you do, too. And I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners? No questions.

1:09:35Just hi to your dad if he's watching. Thank you. I did have a question. I wondered if you could bring up one of the pictures. This is a super unique property. I appreciate what you brought here. The question for me was when? You were talking about the. And there was another one that showed maybe. From kind of a triangle or even. Yeah, something like that. Not the rock necessarily was actually looking at the parcel. Yeah. Thank you. And what I'm curious about is. Not being able to have any structures on it at all, and I don't know this. Property. I haven't walked over here. I don't know if it's a. High global place. You mentioned the proximity to grow stem reservoir. I don't know if there's, like, social trails around there. And so the ask is really just around. If this parcel. At any point was to be open to the public. If it would make sense to be able to have some type of a structure there for whether it's wildfire mitigation work for people that are working on that area or if it really is along in the picture, it looks like it's right next to that. County road. But again, I don't know if there's social trials or something like that, that.

1:10:47Would make it potentially, from a recreation standpoint, to completely block it out and say there's. Absolutely no way to. Have a warming hut or something? I have no idea, but I just wondered. If. Eliminating that completely. Would be. Taking away an opportunity to use that property in a different way from what that recreation is, but. Again. I don't know the neighboring parcels. I don't hike this area. It's. Not. On my winter path walk. You should join us when we go for a monitoring. It's really something. From the pictures. So the conservation easement there on the west, and then I don't have the parcels. On this layer, but the property again. One more to the west. These are all owned by the same landowner. So they have a residence there on the western side. And these are pieces that he's kind of added on to his.

1:11:41So his desire was to limit development completely on his property. So that's why we went that way. That's what he asked for. It certainly kept things very simple for us in negotiating it. As for public recreation, there are some social trails here, and he does permit. Neighbors to walk on the property. And kind of get around. There it is. It's a little bit separate from a lot of other public open space. So, although I'm not expert in this, I wonder if opening it to the public would. Be something that was popular in the neighborhood. There's a lot of residences right around this. Again. I'm not expert in this. That will be. A future planning process. But bottom line is we did no structures because that's what the lend owner requested. Thank you. Great. Doesn't look like we have additional questions. This is a public hearing, so we'll. Go to public comment again and check and see if we have anybody signed up to be here in the room. And this one is Forsyth Rock. Conservation easement acquisition. Karaoke is signed up, and I don't see Karen in the room. And I don't see anybody else rising to come to the podium, so we'll go ahead and close the in person public comment and then go to the. Virtual. Set of public comment. We're looking for

1:13:05comments on the Forsyth Rock Conservation easement acquisition and if there's anybody that wanted to join on the phone, that's 8335-6864. And just a reminder to state your name before you speak in regards to this acquisition. Number one is Ovidio Bidmund. Obiw. I can see you on the screen, but it looks like you're still. Muted. And I'll check in with staff and see if they're working. With. Folks who try and get the audio working, then we may move to Amanda while we try and get our first person. Amanda, do Menio. As well. Hi, chair Lo. Jamie, this is Bryanna Barber, commissioner's office staff. At this time. Obedio says that they cannot give public comment, and I have promoted Amanda to give comment, okay? Thanks for that update. Amanda, I can see you on the screen, but it looks like you're still muted. Just a reminder to state your name when you come onto the screen and you have three minutes. Thank you so much. I was actually signed up to speak once. I don't know why. I appear under each of the comments, but just to wrap up my previous comment, which applies to all purchases. Give me 1 second here. To pull up. So I just wanted. To. Say that the county did say, and it can be referenced in the recordings that the pathways and

1:15:48access roads that would allow BCPOs access to these acquisition lands. Furthermore. When in 2023, we brought up. The 16 years out of compliance. Meaning? No BOCC had reviewed the IWMP. Commissioner Levy looked at us and said, whose job? Is it? So now that we know whose job it is, and now that we know that there are. Three year mandatory review by the CDA. I think it's important still to hold those accountable that have admitted to research and testing of endasflam on b one conservation areas and to conclude there is a cumulative effect, at the POSAc meeting, Mr. Swanson. Said that he thought it lasted in the soil two years. This is counter to manufacturer stating that. It lasts up to four years. And only one treatment is necessary. So the elephant in the room is.

1:16:53Why is parks an open spaces weed management team continuing to make these decisions for all of our open space, including conservation areas, I understand. That weed management is part of conservation, but BCPOs treats it as if it's the only part of conservation. Again. List C species do not require any intervention. Per. State classification. So this is elective and you're continuing to ignore, if you allow this. To continue. All other provisions of the EPA, federal restrictions and protective guardrails. So I think that's, something that we have not discussed, but there is a cumulative effect. Frequency matters, and these areas have been hit with and dasiflam for research, including the research. That Commissioner Levy is relying on. It is cited in the EPA approval and. There was no environmental impact study conducted on these b one conservation areas prior to bCpos. Escalation of testing from plot sites on industrial land, Cmax land to broadcast helicopter and drone spraying. It was not approved in the IWMP 2004 plan.

1:18:22Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to check in with stuff it looks like. Okay, I can. See over there? Crossed off. Which means that they weren't able to join for the virtual public comment. So we'll go ahead and close the public comment. For this acquisition hearing and go back to staff if there's any additional comments that you'd like to make. Excuse me. As Melissa did. I'll just add this, since this is a conservation easement, this will remain private land and will not be managed by parks and open space or subject to the management. Plan. The weed management plan. Thank you. I thought. It's hand raising over there. Okay. Thanks for that, Aaron. Commissioners, any additional comments? And who'd like to get us started? In a discussion. We're being asked to make a decision on this acquisition eight b. I don't feel the need for any discussion. Understand the deal? So I'm happy. To move to a motion, but I don't want to foreclose discussion.

1:19:19Yeah, go. Ahead. Okay, I move that we proceed with the four sites. Rock conservation easement acquisition in accordance. With the terms in the memo. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank. You. Thank you. Staff and we'll move to item eight c. I was wondering if somebody else was going. To come in. For item HC parish three and parish four acquisitions. And this is also a public hearing, and so we will have public comment here in a moment. Both in the room and then virtual. And commissioners were being asked to make a decision on this. Acquisition. Thank you. Thank you. I wouldn't let anybody bring this one. I'm pretty excited about this. Good. All right. Again. Aaron Clark, land officer with parks and open space. I'm here to. Discuss proposed acquisition of fee, interest and conservation easement on the parish three and parish four properties. Property is on both sides of the Laramar Boulder county line, northeast of Lions and the southwest of Bertha. You can see the Red Circle waves there, north of Rabbit Mountain. Address is 15 720 Parish Road. There really aren't any major road intersections anywhere nearby. Closest one would be parish Road and larm or county road two. So here. Is a general map of the region. The lands in question are owned by the parish family conservation partnership been working on

1:20:42this project since March of 24 when they first reached out regarding a deal. The proposed acquisition will take place in two parts parish. Three is the orange down there on the south that is entirely within Boulder county. Three parcels, approximately 60 acres adjacent to Rabbit Mountain. There on the south side. Boulder county proposes to acquire fee title to this property. Parish four, which is the darker. Pink there in the middle is within Laramar County. That 80 acre property in one parcel is adjacent to, again, rabbit mountain there on the south. To the east and west are Larama County's Redtail Ridge open space on the west and Larama County's Arrowhead redtail open space on the east. Acquisition to pair of four proposed to be a cooperative effort between Boulder and Laramar county. The first chance we've had a chance to do that. Larama county would acquire fee title and Boulder county would acquire a conservation easement.

1:21:43Posak recommended this acquisition to the commissioners by an eight nothing vote at their meeting held on November 20. Okay. Why aren't my slides working? Yet. All right, so here's a close up of parish three. Again entirely within Boulder county. We proposed to purchase and hold fee title on this. There's about a half a mile of the little Thompson river that flows through the property. So this is partly open, partly in agriculture, mostly Hayne Field, and it's recently been used by the family as a campground and event space, which you can also see kind of. That oval road there to the south. And the several structures on the property. Acquisition of this property also comes with water. Six units of Colorado, Big Thompson, and a 50% undivided interest in one share of the supply irrigation ditch.

1:22:37The county already owns the other 50%, so this would make the share. Whole again. So here's a close up of parish four. You'll note that I've. Turned it on its ear. So the north is facing to the right. It just works better with PowerPoint that way. Again. 80 acres, one parcel. This really fills in that gap between the two large alarm county pieces. And rabbit mountain to the south. The water course. There in the middle is the St. Frane supply canal. And so Boulder county is proposing to acquire conservation easement interest here. There is an existing easement on the property held by Colorado Open lands that even is from 2000 and permits two residences on the property. The plan is for open lands to transfer that easement interest to Boulder county. At that. Point, we will work with Larmer county to amend and restate that easement to remove the two building rights. And to otherwise modernize that conservation easement to our current language. So let's get down to the numbers. Parish three. Acquisition, $2,062,000. Price of the land. $20,000 for a 50% undivided interest and one share of the supply. Irrigating ditch. $52,000 per unit for six units of Colorado. Big Thompson. Grand total is $2,420,000 proposed from Openstase sales tax funds. Since this is entirely within Boulder County. Parish four. This is in Larama

1:24:13county. So he proposed a chip into $400,000. Larama accounting will contribute 250,000 for a grand total of $650,000. Laramar will hold the fee. Boulder will hold the conservation easement. Total costs to Boulder county for parish three and four, 2,000,100 and. $20,000. And since I don't see it on the slide, I'll. Just make a note that we're proposing to spend. Conservation trust fund dollars on the Laramar county piece of this acquisition. Why didn't I? Put that there. It's fair complying. Oh, it is there. One more piece of this deal. The yellow hash there that surrounds the area we've been discussing. That area is subject to an AG lease that has been held by the parish partnership basically ever since the county acquired those lands back in 2002. So the county really hasn't been able to get in there, take inventory, see what resources. Exist in a systematic way. So as part of this acquisition, that lease, which is scheduled to terminate, in 2028. We'll terminate at closing. We'll terminate now. Comprehensive plan designations. I'll try to get through as fast as I can. There are a lot. Environmental Conservation Area, Rabbit Mountain is that. Darker purple.

1:25:37The red hash is natural area again, I know that it is something unique and important to the natural heritage of the county. Here we have the Orange hash is archaeologically sensitive areas. You can see it covers the entire. Boulder county property. Along little Thompson. There is prebblesmodo jumping mouse habitat. We have both zone one and five so mouse management area and suitable non contiguous habitat. This is a little bit away from the St. Vains. So I imagine that's why they called it non contiguous. But that is. Marked out as a mouse management zone. Here we have high biodiversity areas. That dark green is b one outstanding biodiversity significance irreplaceable on a global scale. And this one I'll note, since these are state data. That does cross over into Laramar county, that's not just limited to Boulder. And finally, the red hash is. Critical wildlife habitat.

1:26:35Wetlands and riparian areas from the comprehensive plan. Focused again on Little Thompson river, significant natural communities, which are kind of that. What did I put that, okay? That's that purple there. And rare plant areas also in the rabbit Mountain zone. Now, of course, we haven't got a comprehensive plan layer for Larimer county since. It's outside the county, so our friends up there just sent along some thoughts as to. What we're preserving up there. Natural communities, native foothills and grass shrublands. Repairing areas, kind of among springs and drainages up there. You have two CNHP conservation sites, one on b one, and one to b four. This one really is important for that connectivity. This fills in that gap between. The two Larama county pieces and Rabbit Mountain to the south. This is right in the heart.

1:27:26Of it, and geologically. It's quite complex, both in a scenic and a scientific way. So that really contributes to the mountain backdrop for Boulder and Larrymer counties. Here's just a picture of the parish four property. If you look way over on the right. You can see kind of the campground area that's on parish three. Just a few more photos. This is looking south from parish three, kind of. You can see how. Rabbit mountain just jumps up on that cliff that way. A small photo up the campground and the valley of the little Thompson. Staff I shouldn't have to say recommends approval. This is a significant opportunity for connection to consolidate protection of high priority natural and scenic resources. This has been a focus area for Boulder and Laramar counties for a long time. This is our first chance to work together on a joint acquisition.

1:28:18Staff. Parks recommends approval, and I hope that you do, too. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And for the presentation. Any questions? Questions. Commissioner Levy? Yeah. Thank you. A question about the Colorado Open Lands conservation easement. Are we buying that out or. Are they just willing to extinguish it? They're willing to transfer it to us. What are we paying for that? Is that? 250,000. What are we paying for that? There's Reynold cost involved. They're willing to transfer. Okay? They're just transferring it. Okay, great. Thanks. Thank you. The only question I had. There's two questions I have, actually, and I didn't want to ask it in. Each one, but just curiosity around. For these owners and these parcels, and I can hear. You all have been involved, and it takes a lot of work to get them actually to the dyas. So I appreciate all that, but I was curious around. The work I heard another team is doing. It's all a community event. That happened? Maybe. Last weekend. For Latinx and Chicano history and unincorporated Boulder county parcels. So just curious if you all are doing some of that work. With Elizabeth Rios, I believe, is the lead for the county on that work.

1:29:42So I was just curious. In these parcels that we've seen this morning. So that's my first question. So I work with Elizabeth all the time. Her office is literally one door down from me, and. We work together all the time. We haven't worked together on these parcels yet. We are planning a site visit for our phase one environmental inspection, and at that time, there are many staff who were interested, and I believe she's among them. So we'll get the chance to go up and inventory the site, and at that point, she can let me know. If there's anything of particular interest to her. That would be highlanded or need special attention from us. Okay? Yeah. And I think the interest was more what? My understanding is she's out looking. For landowners and folks who have history of unincorporated Boulder county. So just made me think like these. Three different parcels. And those owners obviously have relationship with Boulder county. Have they been invited into those conversations? Or could they be connected with Elizabeth to just be even? In the conversation. So it was just a curiosity. The other question I had on this one specific, just in relation to the rabbit mountain and wanted to ask what? And I just don't know because I haven't also not gone. Out to this parcel to go. Yeah,

1:30:55I know you're suppressed. I haven't gone out to this parcel to walk around to. What? These parish parcels versus Rabbit Mountain and older county open space, et cetera. But there's some conversation. From our American Indian Native American focus work also on parks and open space and just was curious similar around in the conservation easement, there's no structures allowed. How that might interlay. So it's a curiosity if you all have been meeting with that team to talk about. And make sure that there's not an inadvertent removal of any opportunity to do structure that might be needed. For that work, not houses. But just thinking about what you talked about in some of the other parcels around either barns. Or type. So that's what my question is. Sure. So the conservation easement will be on the larmer county piece. That's parish four. Parish three will be something that the county owns and will be able to manage.

1:31:57In a different way. We haven't started yet. The work of amending and restating that conservation easement. Yet. So as we begin that work, I certainly would love to bring Elizabeth in and see if there's anything. That she would like to highlight, or is it anything that could be written into that easement? To allow for those uses. I absolutely open to that thought. Okay. And that's a different team. That is Justin and Whitney. Just FYI for that second question, okay? Thank you. And doesn't look good. We have any other additional questions, but we do have public comment. And so just want to give staff a moment to bring that list up. Just a reminder for speakers to please state your name before you speak. There's a clock there for the three minutes. We don't have looks like. Her is not going to participate in this one.

1:32:44We are listing for public comment on parks and open spaces. Parish three and parish four acquisitions. And I don't see anybody else in the room. So we'll close the public comment for in the room, but go to virtual and it looks like we've got a couple of people signed up, so we'll go. First to William McDonough. And I might have said that incorrectly. Yes, that's okay. Thank you, commissioner. And I can hear you, William, but it's. Pretty light, so I don't know if you could either speak louder or. Do you want to try it again? Is that better? There you go. Yeah, that is much better. Thank you. Sure. So. My name is Will McDonough. I am a landowner just to the north. In between. Parish four and the Laramar county that opened up. One thing. I have two concerns. One is Parish Road is a private road and has a private residential easement. Through my property. That has been used by the parish family and was granted in the early 90s. Original access to this property was through County Road two, which. Has been abandoned after the 2013. But I have great concern about any kind of high traffic parking lot or any kind of plans. To allow access through my farm. So that's number one. So I'd ask that the commissioners put some.

1:34:18Kind of guardrails. Into. Preventing high access for the public through my property. Also to note. The road that we use. Is very minimally maintained. Rustic are the three landowners that are down here do all the maintenance right now. And it is not in any condition to be publicly traversed. The second thing is, we get all of our irrigation water through a unique six inch pipeline that runs through the parish property. We do all the repairs. It's an agreement that we've had since the 1970s. To get access to our irrigation shares directly from the St. Brain Canal, and I would ask that the commissioners also take into consideration that and allow some contractor or agreement. To be to access our water through that pipeline and continue to maintain it and repair it as needed. I'll state that the St. Fran Valley canal is very dangerous to the public. We've lost several dogs, horses, cows, elk, anything that falls in that canal up on the mountainside. Goes through a six inch pipe that drops approximately 900ft. And everything is died, including two human fatalities again back in the 80s. So I'd ask. That everybody. Takes. Consideration. That securely and prevent any more loss of life. Thank you.

1:35:54Thank you. Next. It looks like we've got Ovidio Bermuda signed up. Mute. Yes. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity. First of all, my comments are about the 19 four county Road 68 J. Purchase proposal. I live in 19 one county Road 68 J. So two lots down. This area. It's tied together by. A private road. That the nine properties that have houses there contribute to maintain. And I like Mr. McDonald. Want to express deep concern for any kind of public access. Or any kind of access through that private road, which. Is small, maintained privately by a small number of people and the like. So any kind of guard. Rails in consideration of this would also be appreciated. This would be a very significant disruption for those of us who live there. Secondly.

1:37:06If any of this is out of context, I had to jump out of the meeting and come back in. I thought by 1030, where I had a mandatory meeting. Other meeting, this issue would have been addressed, but here we are. And my other concern is that public access. In any way has brought a lot of concern. And a lot of heartache. For the neighboring community. As you know, the trailhead Parkhead parking lot is just down 68. And the experiences of fire risk prolonged in an appropriate camping shooting. Despite the limitations. That. You all have put in place in that area. Continue and continue to be a problem week after week. So another area that may be open to public access that may increase public traffic in this area, an area that because of is sort of secluded would be very much open to the notion of people camping extensively. Doing fires even when there are fire bands. And the possibility of shooting, which is much closer even than the rest of the national forest area.

1:38:22To those of us living there are to me of great concern. I think this needs to be taken into account. Conservation. I think we're all for that, but I think when conservation comes with public access, and the risks involved, that's a different ballgame. And one that brings to our neighbors a great degree. Of worry. Thank you. If you would just state your name for the record, please. Ovidio bermudes. Thank you so much. All right? And it doesn't look like we have anybody else signed up for virtual comment. But I just want to give a second in case somebody was trying to connect. Okay, we'll go ahead and close our virtual public comment and go back to staff. If there was any comments that you'd like to make, any questions from commissioners before going to the discussion. Sure I can address both of those. I can go back to the foresight rock easement.

1:39:37First and just again, state that this will remain private property and nothing in the easement compels the landowner to provide public access. So that's not entertained at this time. On the Forsyth rock conservation easement in that area. Regarding what Mr. McDonough was saying. And again, I'll say hi to him because we played a little slow and tag yesterday. He called me and I tried to call him back. And we just weren't able to get connected. A couple of things on that. The water pipeline is something we've been aware of for a while. And I'm already working with some of the neighbors, and I'm glad he reached out to me. And the existing lender to come up with a new agreement for maintenance of that pipe to make sure that everyone can keep getting their water in that area. So we're absolutely already on top of that. Regarding road access, of course. At the moment, we are proposing to keep the parish three property closed. Pending and management review. So whatever happens in the future with that plan will certainly take. Access and private landowners in the area into account. Thank you. Any questions? Questions? Commissioner Levy. Yeah. Thank you. I do have just a question.

1:40:49On that. And when we own land that is served by private road. That has private maintenance agreement or whatever. The provisions that are relevant to that road. Do we typically contribute, then, as a landowner? To any maintenance agreements. I believe we do. If we're using that road, we do tend to chip in it's. My understanding. Okay. That was my question. Thank you. The question I had is. On the water agreement and the maintenance of the pipe that was brought up. And I heard you saying that you're in conversations with folks, but I'm just. Curious about if that is something that. We need to, if the board is wanting to make sure that there is a water agreement that meets all parties needs. If that's something that we need to have done before we were to move forward on. This, the acquisition versus having. It. Do the acquisition. and then with the hopes of having something that everyone's in agreement with so i just want to ask that and also ask if there's a time frame that would create an issue if we were to give you an opportunity to continue those conversations On the pipe maintenance to make sure there's an agreement. Well, we're hoping to. Close on this property in the spring, ideally before irrigation begins. Would be. Would be great. As for the

1:42:13existing agreement, the county has already mentioned in the agreement. As maintaining the pipe, so we will continue to do that. It's between the county and the parishes and the parish partnership. So since. We are stepping into that role and buying all the parishes water. I've already been working with our water staff to make sure that. We will continue to contribute for maintenance. There's another neighbor over there. He and his son. Are the one who actually do the work to maintain the pipe, and then they just send us. The bills, basically, so we will continue that arrangement. And so we can work out an agreement that reflects the fact that the county has purchased the parachute shares in the pipe. Okay. So the way I heard the concern. So maybe I'm misinterpreting the concern. Of Mr.

1:43:04Dono. That there still needs to be an agreement reached, and I guess I'm thinking it's. More than just a verbal agreement. It's like a document that would go along with. The property to ensure that there's the ability for folks to access for the pipe maintenance. Whoever's going to do the work covers them responsible if this county that's paying a person and their son or whatever that arrangement is. So, is that complete? It's not complete yet. My plan is to have that ready pretty much at closing, so. That there won't be a gap. Okay, so if the board wanted to make sure that that did get addressed and it was completed, then that could just be a condition of the approval of an acquisition as well, correct? Okay, any other questions. I just have a comment and. I just think the answer to Commissioner Levy's question may have been better served by saying it depends. Or we'll find out. Just because I a lot of times end up having to be the person to talk to private property owners about casual statements that are made from the dais that I don't know that we know the details of this particular. Private road. Maybe you do. I didn't hear that in your answer, and so I just.

1:44:17Want to make it clear that I think the things depend. Depends on the private roadies meant. It depends on the we may or may not. Be responsible for it. I just think it depends on the specifics of the instance I like. Your answer better. Thanks. Great. I think my curiosity then, for the board would be. Maybe I should ask, are there any. Other additional questions for staff. Otherwise, we can go into discussion. Okay. So maybe I'll start us, just because my curiosity is around. The water agreement, and if commissioners feel like we've got enough from what's been said here on record in regards to that agreement. Or I just have a little bit of concern when there's negotiation happening to make sure. That there is the ability for the pipe to be maintained and everybody's in the conversation. So just want to ask if there's interest in either putting it as a condition and. Maybe staff would have some other alternatives to how that would be handled other than tabling so. That the agreement can be reached before we would make a decision on an acquisition. It sounds like it is scheduled for the spring.

1:45:23Yeah. I don't want to delay this. And I hear that you don't want to. Either. I also hear, I guess, that. Negotiating these kinds of things. Are pretty routine. When we're completing an acquisition. It's something we know that we have to address. I'm comfortable with just having this noted on the record. I don't know what a specific condition would do in terms of. Dotting the I's and crossing the t's on the final work on this. So I might have to hear a little bit more from staff about that. Thank you, Commissioner. Sulfur. I think giving clear staff direction today of the intent of the board. Could satisfy what I think I hear you asking for and seems like the board would have consensus. Around, but I'm not 100% sure that satisfies what you're asking. For if you would want to see it with all the eyes dotted and t's crossed. Before we finalized it. I think it can work either way. Yeah. Thank you. And I think for me. And I'm kind of looking at the attorney. If you feel like. It's clear what we're asking, but also for staff to make sure that you're clear on the direction. What I don't want to do, and I'm sure it's all standard procedure, and things just happen the way that they happen. And what? I'm hearing

1:46:41is some concern to make sure that. The agreement gets done correctly. And the answer? I think. For me. Created the need to have some clarity around. Right now we've got some guy and his son is the way I heard it, on this side of the dice doing that maintenance and so. That might not be the agreement forever. I would guess if there's any landowner change or something else, there might be some other agreement or that person could move away and not be wanting to work on the pipe, et cetera so if you feel like you have clear direction to make sure that that happens as a part of the acquisition. That's totally fine. I just want to make sure that we're. Responding to the public comment and the items that. I didn't see in the packet, and so it was helpful to me. Sure, I understand. Great. Okay, then it sounds like we've got something on the record that provides clarity in regards to that concern that was brought up. So thank you all for that conversation. And we're on. Item eight c. Is there a motion? Yes. I move that we proceed with the parish. Three and parish, four acquisitions. In accordance with the memo and the discussion that we've had. Here today. Second all in favor?

1:48:23Commissioner. So, you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Thank you. We're returning this afternoon for item nine, which is our 01:00 public. Meeting to adopt 2026 budget and public hearing on proposed 2025 off cycle budget amendment request and we've got three items. Nine, A, B and C. And what we'll do is we've got two things. All commissioners are present and. Then we've got some staff presentations, so I think we'll go through nine a. And then we'll go through nine b. And then we'll go through nine c. We're being asked to make some decisions. These are. Let's see here. It looks like the first one. Nine a, is public hearing. So we'll have an opportunity to hear from the public here in the room, and also virtually. And then the other two items are public meetings, which means we won't have a public comment, but we'll have discussion here at the dice. And we're being asked to make a decision, commissioners on all three items. So with that, I'm going to go. Ahead and turn over the presentation to. Emily Beam, our budget officer. Yeah. Hi. Thank you.

1:49:29Commissioners, Emily beam with the Office of Financial Management. I'm here today. Requesting an off cycle budget amendment request. This is a one time budget amendment in the amount of $7,200,000 in the health and dental fund fund 176 under the health and dental insurance appropriation ins one this. Budget amendment is to allow spending authority to process payment for the cost of claims for October, November December. It also includes costs associated with incurred but not reported, reserves and yearend accruals. The overspend in this fund is related to a variety of reasons, including a 14% increase in employee and dependent health and dental plan participation. Significant pharmacy costs. Sorry. Significant pharmacy costs associated with our GLP one weight loss drugs, as well as a variety of high cost claims that have occurred throughout the year. The Office of Financial Management did analyze fund 176 to estimate the 2025 claims, costs, revenues, rebates, settlements and yearend expenditures. We do expect to use $4.3 million from fund balance by year end, which will leave $10.1 million remaining in the fund.

1:50:49Final figures will be available after our formal audit in mid year 2026. Any questions? Thank you, Emily. Any questions, commissioners? Commissioner libby. The revenue increase that's in the memo of $1.9 million. Is that the additional premiums because our enrollment has gone up. What is that front? I believe that you're. Talking to rebates that. Are coming through. We do receive pharmacy rebates, which would increase our revenue amount. Yes, our revenues will also go up. They were not budgeted at the level that we're anticipating that they're coming. In, but I believe what you're referencing specifically is. Associated with rebates. Okay. It just doesn't say in the memo. Okay, thanks. Thank you. I don't have any additional questions. Let's go to public comments. If there's a list here in a moment, if there's anybody in the room. That wanted to speak to. The off cycle budget amendment request.

1:51:53We don't have anybody signed up. But I do want to ask if there's anybody in the room that wanted to speak to the item. It doesn't look like it. So we'll go ahead and close the in person. Section of the public comment for our 2025 off cycle budget amendment requests and go to virtual folks. Nobody signed up, but it will just give a moment in case people are wondering how long the questions and conversation might go before they joined us on their device to virtually participate. The phone number is eight. Three. Three. 568864 and we'll just wait a moment because it does have a lag time for the virtual piece in the back. And I don't see anybody joining us virtually, so we'll go ahead and close. That section, which is a public comment for these off cycle budget requests. If we have public comment, then we go back to staff. If there was any clarification. Items. If there's any additional statements that you wanted to make before commissioners speak. Thank you. Okay.

1:52:57Thanks, Emily. Commissioners. Looking at item nine a if anyone wants to get us started on discussion. So I would approval of nine a. What I'm hesitating about is there a resolution number associated with this, or do we just move approval? This is the formal approval, and then a resolution will come as. A recommended item on a future business meeting. Okay. Thank you. Move approval of nine a second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll move to item nine B, which is this is a public meeting, so there. Won't be any public. Comment during this time. Just as a reminder, this is a decision being asked regarding reduction of expenditures. To address general funds structural deficit and we are sitting as the board of county commissioners. Hi, commissioners. Emily beam with the office of Financial Management. So today we'll be discussing some general fund budget reductions. Some general fund budget reduction recommendations.

1:54:05And we're going to start with a summary of reductions that have already taken place. Janet Peterson is also here with me. We have prepared a staff recommendation to ensure we hit the $13.2 million annual ongoing reduction target in the general fund that as you, the board of county commissioners that back in May, as part of our budget instructions during the 2026 budget preparation process. Departments and offices began the difficult work of cutting programs in order to downsize the workforce. This downsizing is necessary because of the structural deficit in the general fund and in other funds. On September 29, you, as commissioners, announced the first set of general fund reductions to Boulder county employees and the wider community. You directed that as part of the 2026 budget adoption and in response to the structural deficit. About 60 vacant positions, jobs that had not been hired after one year of showing vacant would not be filled in 2026. In addition, you announced the difficult decision that 31 county employees jobs were being eliminated, resulting in layoff notices.

1:55:13Since then, the Boulder County Housing Authority and Boulder County Public Health have also announced staffing reductions. Then in October, you announced that the county would offer employees with 15 years or more. Of service, the opportunity. To take part in a voluntary severance incentive plan. About 70 long term employees have taken this voluntary option, including 31 whose salaries were budgeted in the general fund. All departments and offices will be required to reduce their personnel budgets by 35%. Of the salaries of the employees who took the severance in order to achieve our ongoing savings. This reduces the general fund expenditure by one. Point 78 million. And as you see from this summary above, this is kind of the breakdown of our first quarter amendment for vacancies in the general fund. Our departmental budget reduction proposals that were included in our recommended budget, as well as our voluntary severance package, leaving us with a variance of $5.5 million.

1:56:09Commissioners. Good afternoon. This is Jana Peterson, county administrator. As we're all aware, and as Emily indicated, the decisions made thus far to reduce your general fund budget have all been really difficult, and yet we came short of your stated target of $13.2 million. So we're here today with a staff recommendation on additional reductions that could be made to close that gap and hit the target that you had set for us in the general fund. It's really important for you as county commissioners. Parked the 2026 budget preparation process. The recommendations coming to you today are based on staff's best understanding of your budget guidance. As well as that prior direction on how to prepare and prioritize reduction proposals. I also considered the impacts of reductions you already have made across some of the offices and departments. In the first round of reductions.

1:59:24The recommendations do not in any way. Imply. That any program. Or any individual. Team contribution. That those programs do not provide value to the community. Boulder county has benefited from the ability. To fund some niche programs that really meet community needs. In the past. And unfortunately, in our current revenue scenario, we're not going to be able to continue to provide those types of services going forward. I'll be presenting recommendations today in rank order. So what that means is. In my assessment. The recommendations you'll hear first. Are relatively lower impact. To community and staff, and then as we go through the list, A relatively higher impact based on my assessment of that. Then we will be asking for your direction and discussion of what's proposed. I will have items that are recommended and a short list of items that I'm not recommending, but we're also ideas that were proposed. Once you give your direction. Then we will share that guidance with elected officials and department heads. And. They will proceed through finalizing. Any reduction plans.

2:01:03As soon as those reduction plans are finalized. We will inform impacted staff and community members. And if negative budget amendments are required, those would then come to you after the first of the year. So let's get started. I have 30 recommendations to go through today. First up in human services, I'm recommending. Shifting $453,350 in community partnership grant funding from the general fund to the Human services safety net fund. This is not expected to change the total amount of funding going to community partners, but would move funding from the general fund to a dedicated fund for safety net purposes. And limit your ability to increase those awards moving forward. In the office of Financial Management. I'm recommending. A little under $90,000 in a reduction by not filling a vacant position. And similarly in information technology, a 139 956 reduction by not filling a vacant position. In community planning and permitting. I'm recommending a reduction of $15,000 in out of state travel and training, and this aligns with other reductions that you have made in round one.

2:02:32In the community services department. I'm recommending a $145,068 reduction. In a vacancy. In the area agency on aging. I'm also recommending. You direct staff to enact a hiring freeze in the AAA. For the purpose of further discussion about the future funding for this program. So if any additional vacancies occur, they would not be refilled at this time. I'm recommending moving a position in the Community action program that is partially funded in the general fund to be funded fully by a federal grant. That results in a $45,000 shift from the general fund. And a $237,000. Personnel reduction in the strategic initiatives division. In the public works department. I'm recommending a $175,000 reduction in your adopted budget. Based on an updated analysis of anticipated expenses in the utilities fund, we believe. The general fund transfer to the utilities fund can be reduced by this amount. I'm also recommending reducing personnel by $246,000 in the business operations division.

2:04:02Through consolidation of administrative functions. In human services. I recommend reducing the requested general fund transfer to the social services fund by $400,000. This is the final recommendation I have for human services, so. With that reduction. The total recommended reduction in general fund for human services is 853. 50. In the office of county Administrator. I'm recommending a reduction in the economic vitality program to eliminate the small business grant program. And decrease other partner grants. The total general fund savings, there would be $80,000. In parks and open space. I recommend reducing staffing in the extension program by $90,000 and in this program as well, I'm recommending that you direct staff to enact a hiring freeze for extension. Pending further discussion of funding. Options for this program. Lines 13 and 14. Are recommendations for reduced staffing in the parks and open space sales tax. And the resource planning division by $113,000 and in the agriculture division by $97,000.

2:05:36This would require a corresponding transfer. Of salaries from the general fund to the parks and open space sales and use tax. Without increasing expense to the sales and use tax. By taking these two reductions, the total recommended reduction here in the general fund for parks and open space is $300,000. I recommend reducing the personnel budget by $500,000. In the district attorney's office. With the district attorney having discretion on where to make these cuts, so long as. They are sustainable and ongoing. Similarly, in the sheriff's office, I recommend reducing the personnel budget by $500,000. With the sheriff having discretion on where to make these cuts, so long as they are sustainable and ongoing. In public works. I recommend reducing the personnel budget in the engineering division by $158,000. And reducing the personnel budget in the resource conservation division by $120,000. Recommendations. 19 and 20 are related, so you'll see them. Similarly labeled up here. This is a reduction in the building services division budget. Considering the move to the Boulder Community hub on 28th street in 2026, I recommend reducing the custodial personnel budget by $193,000 and the maintenance personnel budget by $100,000. I also recommend you direct staff to have a hiring freeze. In these two areas. I believe.

2:07:34These particular roles. With historic turnover. We can imagine that those would happen through attrition. If you enact a hiring freeze. Until that savings is achieved. With the recommended reductions previously identified above, the total recommended reduction in the general fund for public works. Is $992,000. In community planning and permitting. I'm recommending reducing contracted services by $141,553. And this is consistent with the department's stated ability to meet current goals for planned projects. Within this reduced amount. I do want to note that it would limit the department's ability to take on new initiatives or new projects moving forward. I also recommend reducing personnel in the transportation division by $120,000. And personnel in the planning division by $90,000. And with the small recommended reduction I mentioned above, the total recommended general fund reduction to community planning and permitting. Is $366,553.

2:09:01I have one last reduction recommendation for community services 377,000 personnel reduction in the administrative division through administrative efficiencies with reductions previously mentioned. This brings the total recommended reduction in the general fund to community services to 804,086. Dollars. I'm recommending a reduction in the clerk and recorder's office of 49,000 in the elections division for hourly personnel. And 11,353. Dollars in the recording division for a total reduction in the general fund and the clerk and recorder's. Office. Of a little over $60,000. In the coroner's office. I'm recommending reducing the hourly budget by $21,025. And the overtime budget by $12,500 for a total reduction in general. Fund to the coroner's office. Of $33,525. In the office of Financial Management for the last several years. You have had a general fund transfer to the disaster recovery fund and the amount of $500,000. I am recommending that you no longer. Make that transfer. The targeted amount that we were hoping to build in the disaster recovery fund was $5 million. We're predicting by the end of this year you'll be at about 4.7 million in that fund. And so I think this is a prudent reduction to make.

2:10:47Knowing that with interest in other revenues that we may receive in the coming years, you are likely to hit that $5 million target. And then this last one is a little complicated. So, in summing up all of the reductions to date, To hit the target that you identified back in May requires another $355,000 in the general fund. So I'm recommending. Some capacity building and some priority areas. And some exploration of administrative efficiencies across the whole organization. I think this will require some time. And so I would ask for. You to direct staff to complete this work prior to July 1, 2026, so that it is ahead of your budget preparation timeline for 2027. I recommend you direct staff to centralize racial equity managers into the office of racial equity before July 1 with a growing focus on that program. 's evolution, some consolidation might be able to help with capacity building to provide the training.

2:12:08Internal communications and other work that the office of racial Equity is focused on. Similarly, the county has several managers in different departments who are responsible for disaster recovery and resilience so I recommend that you direct staff to consolidate. Those roles in the office of county Administrator before July 1. To enhance departmental coordination, we've learned a lot from past disaster. Better coverage so that when people take time off, There's more ability to transfer work to other teammates. And also. Additional opportunities for career growth for staff who are in these administrative types of roles. So to pursue this goal, I recommend directing staff to bring forward a plan before July 1 that evaluates and recommends. Whether to centralize the budgets and staff in the following functions. Communications, contracting and procurement. Data and business analysts. Policy analysis and lobbying.

2:13:51Training and workforce development. And other technology services, including things like web development and tech support. Each of these important functions helps Boulder county anticipate, prepare for and respond to the needs of our organization and community consolidation. Could offer the opportunity to enhance these services. As well as avoid duplication of efforts. And result in some savings to the general fund. If you are interested in directing staff to do this work. I would recommend. A temporary hiring freeze. In. Any vacant positions in these classifications as well. While the evaluations are taking place, and until you make final decisions around centralization or other reductions. Some good ideas that came forward. Didn't really fit. Into. Your consideration today of specific general fund reductions, but I do think it's important to highlight these efforts. And request for your direction on them in 2026 as part of ongoing budget. Development processes. So I'm recommending. A continuation of work that your health and human services departments have been working on for a while. To explore programmatic. And administrative efficiencies within the departments of human services, community services, housing, and public health. With changes in state and federal funding continuing and not expected to shift, This work is more important than ever. I recommend. You direct the continuation of this work. Specifically to pursue efficiencies in programs with similar

2:15:53mission and scope. Including those administrative support functions that I mentioned. Well, there's no specific reduction target. In mind here. I do think that. You specifying a focus on efficiencies to be gained in the general fund would be helpful in the conversation. And then, finally, I recommend you direct the Public Works Department to evaluate the impact of new funding. We expect to receive in 2026 through producer stewardship legislation that was passed here in Colorado. To understand what additional services in the resource conservation division could be shifted from the general fund. To this new source of revenue in time for your 2027 budget development. Now I want to move on to reductions that were not recommended. You may have noticed that some. Departments and elected offices. Were not mentioned by me today. I want to acknowledge that all departments and offices have participated in this effort. Many already had previous reductions through the first phase of cuts approved by you as the board of county commissioners. This includes. The positions that were eliminated because they hadn't been filled for twelve months or more. The voluntary severance program and other reductions that you made in September. I am not recommending further cuts beyond those already taken in round one in the assessor's. Office and the treasurer's office. This is based on my belief that further reductions to these

2:17:36offices would cause serious disruptions. To revenue producing mandated work in these elected offices. Additional reductions beyond those already taken do not make sense to me at a time when. Revenue shortfalls really are the problem. I also am not recommending reductions in general fund subsidies to additional reductions in general fund subsidies. To Boulder County Public Health or the Boulder County Housing Authority. And I want to mention that the Office of Sustainability, Climate Action and Resilience has just one program in the general fund. And I'm not recommending a reduction to that program. Everything else. In that office is funded through the dedicated sales and use tax. Within departments reporting to the commissioners. There were additional ideas in specific areas that I've listed. Here on this slide. I'm not recommending any of these reductions and wanted to provide a list for you. And some background on why they are not recommended. Community planning and permitting personnel reductions. In inspections is not recommended by me because the idea was to shift that work to contractors. And by. Taking a recommended reduction in the contractor budget. I don't think that's a sustainable plan if we're reducing contractors to shift that work and inspections. I already talked a little bit about the area agency on aging. My belief is we could benefit from a hiring freeze there rather than taking these

2:19:13additional $250,000 in reductions while we analyze. The future opportunities for revenues and service delivery in that program. The county attorney's office had a personnel reduction of 100,000 in human resources at a personal reduction of 185,000. These internal service functions are already over programmed. And that's not just. My analysis. I get that feedback from your other elected officials, department heads and leaders in the organization. And so I think the timing. Is also not good for additional reductions in those areas as we're trying to develop new relationships with collective bargaining partners. In parks and open space. Further reductions to the extension program are also not recommended. Pending ongoing analysis of future. Funding for that program. This is in alignment with the hiring freeze that I've recommended. And the final reduction here in public works in the building services division and resource conservation divisions. Again. I think there are other reductions in these divisions that I have recommended.

2:20:33And I believe these reductions should not be taken at this time because of the need for more. Consideration of the impacts that they could cause. The total of all of these proposals that I'm not recommending is a little over. A million dollars. And so with that, This ends the presentation. Of the recommended reductions in commissioners. Emily and I are here to answer your questions and take your direction. On next steps. Thank you both for the presentation and want to acknowledge everybody who's been part of the work and the conversation to get you here to be able. To give us that list. So, commissioners, any questions? I have some, but just as a check in, like for how we might proceed with this, do we want to go. Through. I don't want to jump to mine, which may be later in the presentation, than the one that's earlier number wise, so I don't know if there's some way to take questions on the first, like, five?

2:21:34I don't know. I just threw that out as a random idea. That may be a terrible idea. But random idea noted. Any other random ideas. I had sort of a procedural question as well. Before we get into this. Because I don't believe we received these materials. They're not in the packet. And I was not able to write it all down quickly enough. So it would be nice to maybe just go through them line by line, but. My bigger question is. That. I don't know how I can make. An informed decision or provide. Informed direction. On these without knowing more. These are just numbers. In divisions. And. What's really key to me is. Not the individual. But. I need more. About exactly what the impact would be on the services. And I understand that. There's a timing issue associated with that. But. There are going to be areas where. I think if I can't. Get the information that I need. I'm just going to have to say that I don't. Support. I just don't know how to make these decisions based on what we have here today. So, commissioners, if I may make a process suggestion, I think we start with the recommendations in rank. Order, if that works for you. And happy to answer questions along the way as you go through them, if that

2:23:18makes some sense. For process. Yeah. Thank you. I was just trying to think if I had any general questions that aren't specific to one item, maybe. But I think actually it's to one of the sections, if you don't mind. I'm just going to take a look here. Okay, I'll hold that one until we get to that kind of section. So maybe what? I heard. Is maybe. The first few slides, I heard a request to go line by line, and then I heard a request. To maybe group a little bit. And. I'm happy to support going through line by line. It sounds like that's going to be needed to make a decision. And so we need to accommodate here. Thank you for bringing the presentation to us so that we can look at that. And I'm just going to ask really quick, Commissioner Levy, we do want a couple of minutes with that. Now that you've got the materials that you're. Requesting. No, it's the same information that we have in front of us, and it doesn't tell me the things that I need to know.

2:24:30I'll ask the questions that I need to ask as we go along. I don't. Need a minute with this, okay? I can offer to see if I could help. Go ahead. Okay. Yeah. I did want to just express one other concern with proceeding with this topic right now. So as both Emily, our budget officer, and Jana laid out. As we were doing our 2026 budget. We asked our department heads and our elected officials to look. Programmatically. At the things that we were doing that maybe had low utilization. That maybe. Were high cost that could be done differently and could be done. More efficiently. Could we move programs? Could we consolidate? And we asked that they do. That within their department and look very careful at things. And as you laid out, the result of that process. Was not the original target number. And so now we have some more proposals. That. I have to assume.

2:25:51They didn't come forward as part of that more programmatic. Deliberate, analytical approach. And so I have to assume that. These. Are not. Really within what our original direction was. They're coming to us so that we can hit a number, a target number. And. I think, in what I have carried with me throughout this whole very painful process. Has been that there are other things we could be thinking about. Such as? Asking the voters for a mill levy increase. Asking the voters to not have to do the mill levy credit that we do. When our property tax revenues exceed the allowed five and a half percent increase. In recognition of the fact that the cost of providing services in Boulder county and any county in this state. We're not the only ones in this situation have gone up. And we're opening. A wonderful new alternative sentencing facility for which we do not have additional operating money.

2:27:10Where we have a lot of additional expenses mandated by the state, some not mandated, but just the cost of providing services have gone up, and the complexity of those services. And we're trying to do it with the same mildew. I don't know. When we last asked the voters for a general mill levy increase, I'm not asking for an answer unless somebody happens to know, but we're trying. To do it all with the same mill levy we have had. For years and years and years and years. With a state mandated four and a half percent increase. Or five and a half percent. Sorry, year over year. And anybody that works in government knows that. The personnel costs. Of materials and equipment for our roads and all that stuff. Does not go by a set percentage. So I have felt very strongly that. We should be looking at. Other options. I. E. Pass in the voters for revenue increase. And that what we're really considering now are things that. If we could take some more time and think more about the organizational efficiency in the county. That.

2:28:27We might do very differently, and we may not even. Come up with totally different solutions, I guess. So. I'm not really supportive of the approach that we've been taking here to this. Additional exercise on the structural deficit. Thank you. Just a couple of comments. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. To the staff for the presentation and the information. We did set a clear target in May that we needed to make reductions of $13.2 million. So we're in the unfortunate position of having to be in a time of cutting, and we'll have to cut again. The same amount next year and again the following year because we decided we were going to try to smooth it out over time. And I thought we should do that a little bit differently, because I do think that's quite disruptive to have to do things over three years rather than doing them at once and right size, the county to the resources that we have. But here we are, and we've agreed to it collectively, and so I really appreciate seeing different options and having a chance to talk. About where we might strategically make reductions today. I've been spending a lot. Of time since May looking through each department's budget and funding and revenue and expenditure and then prepared today with the information I need to have the good

2:29:37discussion to figure out how we can get closer to balancing our budget and be on a pathway to a sustainable fiscal state for the county. In the long run, it's not a position anyone wants to be in it's. Not a fun thing. Like none of the people who have worked. On this. And Jenna put very well that the jobs that we're talking about, the services. That we're talking about. They're important. They do a lot of really neat things. And a lot of really vital things for community members, and we have to discuss them and figure out a way to balance the budget and prioritize what the highest priority things are at. This time. So that's what I'm prepared to do today. And I don't. Have any comments on the first ten items? Thank you. I'll just maybe add some comments again, back to the thank you for everybody. Who's been participating. When I say participating, of being engaged in a process where we have identified a structural deficit. This is not. A new reality. And we've been having these conversations, I would assume board of county commissioners. Prior to this board also had conversations. And when we continue to add personnel, which is the largest part of our budget. And this piece seemed a little out of order to me, and I expressed that yesterday

2:30:46with our group. Just because. I have these concerns about. We have another budget item we're going to see here shortly. That we kind of looked at. And kind of finished in November 6 as far as that recommendation of the budget. And then we had to address another number. And so I do have some concerns about. We've said yes. On this other work and we're reducing some staff. And so what are those impacts? But I also trust our leadership. To be paying attention out of those pieces. The assignment. Is, in my opinion. The board of County Commissioners responsibility as fiscal stewards of the county, and it allows us, as was talked about in the presentation. To keep in line with the good governance. Strategic priority that we have, and so. It is very complicated, and it's also very difficult. And so I just want to acknowledge that for everybody here in the room. Everyone will be impacted by this structural deficit. And I also feel responsibility to not move it down the road on the path to a newborn and give them a surprise of hey, actually, there's not operating funds here for. This project. Or, hey, there's not this funding for this team, or, hey, we had one. Time, money, and now you got to figure out the long term sustainability of it. That is

2:32:08just personally, not how I want to lead and appreciate. That as the board, we don't all agree on every item in here, and we've had months of conversation and hours of work that everyone's put into this. And I do feel a strong responsibility. To continue in. What we said to our leadership team and our staff over the last many months. About. Us all collectively being partners, elected officials and department heads and leadership teams in how we address a problem and get to a solution, and that doesn't always. Feel good, but here we are, and so. The one question I do have before we get into. The first ten that you just mentioned. I just had a question around. There were several different items. That were presented. On vacancies. And so, just for clarity, because we talked about vacancies as one of the initial conversations, and then there were some that were presented just now, and so I just want to make sure that it's clear.

2:33:12How those pieces fall into the numbers. And I'm just going to ask if there was a reason why those weren't. Presented previously in the initial numbers. Or if I might be misinterpreting that. Yeah. Thank you. So the vacancies that you removed. As part of the second quarter budget amendment in 2025, had been vacant for twelve months or more. And what you're seeing today. Are new vacancies that have happened since that time. Okay, does that make sense? Yes, that makes sense. And that's what I was guessing, but I just wanted to make sure it's clear for everybody. How did that happen? And then the other question that you had brought up, and so just kind of to share with both of my colleagues here. Something that's on my mind here was around the hiring freeze. And I heard it described as in that second section that we'll get to later. About. Just efficiencies in general for administration, centralization. So I just want to make sure that we get back to it. If stuff can help me.

2:34:17So otherwise we'll end and we won't get back to. The vacancies and hiring freeze and what that might look like for those groups, the way it was described, it just seemed like maybe. It was one or the other, and I just want to have some conversation about that when we get there. And it sounds like we're ready to take a look at. Items one through ten on human services, and a couple of those were the vacant ones. And then I just asked my question. That grouped into a couple of different line items. So I think if we keep moving here, On the screen. And commissioners. If there's one item that's coming along here. It doesn't look like we have any questions on one, two or three, so we could. Keep moving. Commission levy. I'm sorry.

2:35:05Yes, sir. I didn't know we were starting on the. Line by line. Yeah. I'm not clear. Well, I guess a general question, and I don't know how. Much you're going to be able to answer this on the it reduction. So I don't know if it's possible to identify an area where that might. Be in. I do. Worry given. How critical. It is. To the operations of this complex organization. And the fact that. We have developed some quite sophisticated. Unique, customized software applications that serve our purposes. I worry about cuts in that area, and so. I just don't know what the impact of this vacant position is. I don't. Know what it is. Yeah. You've named. The team. Where the vacancy exists is the internal applications development team. That team will work together to make sure that we can continue to maintain. Systems developed by that individual. There would not be the opportunity to enhance those types of systems, likely moving forward without capacity on that team. And at the same time. Our IT department is working on moving. Away from. Having as many. Customized, in house developed systems and moving more towards. The ability to.

2:36:44Use off the shelf kind of software. Because. Of. The relative expense of staffing required to maintain those customized systems. So it is consistent with the direction where it is moving, and that team is already working on that transition support plan. Okay. And I'm seeing Paul nod and do things with his eyebrows. That's our it director. Behind. Your back. Okay? Thank you. That was my question on that first slide. Okay, keep us moving. Let's go to line item number four. And the only question I had about this one is. For me, it's a little bit of clarity because. I was under the impression that the board of county commissioners had agreed that 2026. We would have a freezer. Tell me the right word for that piece of the policy or. Procedure in regards to limiting our outstate travel or training unless there were some parameters. We would have to reduce that as a cost, and so.

2:37:53I was surprised to see it on a line item here when I thought that that was a clear message, and it just begs for me. The opportunity for the board to be really clear about that for elected officials. To ask them to participate, as well as for a departure permit to make sure everyone is on the same page for 2026. Thank you, commissioner. What I would say is some out of state travel. Will still be required for necessary functions of county government. So you're all familiar with those. Kinds of things, like the sheriff's office has travel for investigative purposes or for. Transfer of inmates. Your human services department has child welfare cases that might take them out of state, so I think. My advisement on that. Is specific to out of state travel and training may make some sense. There are some certifications that you can only get outside the state of Colorado. So I would ask that you enable as part. Of our look at training countywide that you enable. An exception process for those circumstances when the only way to get. A required certification is out of state. Thank you so. I would love to have some clarity here because, again, I was thinking this was something that we had already discussed. And maybe it's out of state travel for training, so that

2:39:22it's. Not the. And, and, of course, I'm a very literal person in the way I interpret is a little different than everybody else. I get it. So maybe that is important, but I just want to make sure if. There are other departments that still. Have an out of state travel for training budget line item. I think we just need to be all on the same page, and so. How would you suggest that we do that? And at what point? Because it makes me very curious. Is there another group of departments that has some funding in this area that. We've already given our approach to that. There might be more savings that I'm just not aware of right now. Yeah, I think giving that direction from the diocese, the appropriate action for the board to take.

2:40:06These show up in your budgeting system in specific line items like airfare and rental cars. So it's not really. A line item for out of state training. That's why it's phrased that way. But I understand the concept that you're saying, and I think you just articulate that from the dus as your direction. Okay, commissioner. Sulfur. Thank you. From my perspective, the message seems to have been received. I have an out of state meeting I have to attend. Regarding immigration. And in setting it up for next year, I had to fill out additional controls with OFM. To justify that it met the new criteria, so I do. See actions from the staff that they've received the message. And to me, this reduction as proposed by the county administrators consistent with that in that community planning and permitting went down to their line item detail and was able to say, okay, we're going to make these changes for next year. So I think your offering of suggesting other people may want to go to that level. Also.

2:41:07If they don't do that, what I would expect to see would be at the end. Of the year turn back in that category. If they haven't made the reduction, as we're seeing proposed by community planning and permitting. And in the turnback scenario, it would turn back to the unappropriated general. Fund also, so it would accomplish the same thing. But I really see this as the CPMP. Has heard loud and clear the direction. I have already seen actions from the office of Financial Management. To indicate that. They are putting additional controls in place to ensure that it meets the board's objective. So I do believe people have received the message. That's great, and I appreciate that it's on here. Yes, it's great. And I just want to make sure that everybody's clear about that. So that folks who aren't listening in right now also have that message. So thank you. Let's move to item number five.

2:42:02Yeah, on this one. I have concerns about this. My understanding is that. Through the first round. Of reductions. That the commissioners. Requested that the aaa. Had already. Reduced. Their personnel budget by. Over $613,000. 32% of their general fund budget for the AAA. And this is at a time when we have an aging population. We are seeing a reduction in other kinds of services. That may assist. Older adults in Boulder County. And while it's a vacant position, that doesn't mean it's not a needed position. So while it may be initially attractive, Given that it would not mean a loss of a job for somebody. I think these are services. When we talk about trying to do things that. Do not hit the core necessary services that people in Boulder county need. I think of the services provided by R AAA, which I continue to get very complementary comments from. Community members on and so. This is one where I feel that. This agency the AAA has taken. Sufficient cuts, and so I wouldn't support this one. Thank you, Commissioner Sulzan. I don't have any questions.

2:43:47I would just say I think. That the number that's being discussed as a previous cut is inflated. There have been long standing vacancies in community services that should have been corrected for years. Having vacant positions for years and years and years and years is not a good way to budget when we're trying to be responsive to contemporary issues. Of the county. I do agree that aging services are going to see increased need, especially with people over the ages of 85 in the areas, and we're going to have to do things. Differently. If you look at federal changes in this area, we're seeing significant reductions in funding. And in our state in particular, we see exploding growth in this sector, and we will not be able to do business as usual in this space. We cannot possibly provide services for every resident that's over 55. We cannot possibly provide services for every resident who's over 65 and we're going to have to be more strategic. In how we do this, and I do think looking at it and focusing on it is critical. I'm very impressed with the Denver region on how they're approaching aging, and I think opportunities for collaboration abound in this space. So I'm ready for us to get creative and innovative and think about how we do senior services differently in the

2:44:58future because we're going to have to. I did just want to say on those reductions that I mentioned of $613,000.02. Of those were. Actual layoffs. And two of them were vacant positions that were reduced. And I don't need to argue back and forth with you on every single one. I disagree with the statistics you're citing. I disagree with how you're stating it, but. I don't need the bicker. I didn't have concerns about any of the other ones. I do have concerns about. Request number five. Thank you. And I'm looking at the list. What? I heard our county administrator. Describe the rank order and the priority order from the standpoint. Of everything that you've put into that. So I'm also looking at that from what is currently a vacant position. I do think when we get further into the other section or back to that piece of the collaboration. The work. I think the state where we had, we know that. There's some state conversation about how services. May be provided, and I think that there's a potential in 27. We'll see. Some changes. Should we have a new governor in the state of Colorado? There's all these different pieces that are also factors. And so I think it gives us an opportunity to really look at how we do. Services for the aaa. But I

2:46:30see that as a recommendation for a current vacant position. Yeah. Just to add one thing, I will say, I've been in conversations with people at the state in talking about if they would look at doing a statewide referred measure on something that could support funding senior services because across the board, we've seen declines in this space. I do think it's a statewide issue and more regionally solving it with statewide types of tool. Tools I think can be more strategic than what we can do with just property and sales tax. Here at the local level. I heard some offerings of looking at increasing revenue. I think this is a space to do that. But I don't believe we can run programs without revenue. Great. We'll keep moving here. On items. To item eight. And there's four items there on the page. Are there any questions on those? Sorry. We were discussing number five, I actually wanted. To have some discussion on number seven.

2:47:34Okay, let's go back to that slide. As a reduction in strategic initiatives. Now, I know. There was a recent retirement. In strategic initiatives. And I don't know whether that. I don't believe that position is being filled. So I do have concerns about taking additional reductions. In this area. Really? Because. My understanding. Is that this is the area within community services that would be implementing. The behavioral health sales tax. With the voters just approved, I think that's going to be quite a bit of work. And so. With a funding source that's available for that. I don't understand why. We would then reduce. The personnel that's available. To manage those funds. So this is another one where I cannot support this reduction. Thank you. I'll just respond there on item seven to your comment on that. The board. Of county commissioners hasn't determined yet. The way that the funding for I can't remember the measure number now, but for the most recent mental and behavioral health tax initiative that just got passed a month ago. And we did have some conversation at the dice in regards to.

2:49:05The potential FTE and those positions. And so I guess that was one of the questions that I had had was around. Consultation or consultant versus staff, and so. What I recollected of you saying, Commissioner Levy, is that we didn't have staff on board to do that work and that you were thinking it would be a consultant. So what you just brought up was just new for me? I hadn't even considered that. Because I had heard something different from you previously in regards to that tax. Yeah. No. I was talking about something different when I was talking about a consultant. That was on the evaluation piece where I said that. The kind of evaluation that I felt the community was looking for that I thought we wanted to do. Was not the kind of thing that we could absorb in house. So I was talking about the evaluation piece. This is on the administration. Of the fund itself. And there was language in the referral resolution 2025. That indicated that. Administrative expenses.

2:50:19For distributing the funds and doing the granting and that aspect of it. Wasn't an allowable use of the money. So that was a different kind of position than the consulting position that you were referring to. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner sulfur. I would ask our county administrator, will you be able to implement the tax? Without this personnel budget. Significant work would have to shift to others in community services. And this ranks highly as compared to. Other reductions that we have to make out of a list of 30. This is number seven. Because I believe that work can be. Done by other individuals. I think my question, I'm wondering if it's a legal question, because it's, tied about. Which was potentially on the seven. On other taxes. We have staff members that. Their funding comes from the tax, and I'm not looking at the ballot language right now. But it seemed as though. There was the ability to do county programs was like one of the pieces of language in there. And so. From. And some of these other suggestions today were. Transfer of funding from one fund to another fund. And so would that be an opportunity? If and when the board of county commissioners gets to the conversation about what is going to be funded with that tax. Yes. Mrs. You have not yet adopted

2:51:58a budget in that sales and use tax fund, and it would be at your discretion. Whether to fund existing county staff positions out of that new revenue source. Okay. Thank you. And I heard what you said again, and I was looking at that as just line item seven. Out of a long list. Of suggestions on general fund reduction. And let me just be clear. We did not propose that shift because we have not approved a budget for that sales and use tax yet. Thank you. Okay, are we ready to go to item eight? Looks like we are. Are there any questions on 8910 or eleven? And I will. Just comment here online. Eleven, which is the reduction in economic vitality just for the board. And we're trying to set up, and I say we, meaning a group working on economic vitality is setting up an administrative meeting just to come back to you all. Because there is some great interest in regards to what we can do. An unincorporate. Boulder county to support the small businesses that make our communities really unique. And have a lot of character. And employ folks around unincorporative older county.

2:53:33And we talked about this again this morning, early, and we are hopeful that. We can do some of that work in 2026 without a budget line item. But I also want to be clear that we are doing that work. And it had me really concerned. And I'm hoping to come back to the board. With some suggestions and some ideas. Part of me was not supportive of this line item, but I think we've got to a point where we're going to try and do some creative things. Think about our resource. X and really look at who could be some of the partners to make sure that our small business are sustainable in the coming years where there are full. Dealing with all the changes. Let's go to the next slide. Item 1213 or 14. I think the only question I had on the 14 item 14 was in regards to. The agriculture division and. It's connected to the hearing we had earlier this morning when we had three additional acquisitions. At Mayford and some other conversations in regards to. What I believe is one of the priorities of Boulder county is just organizationally on how.

2:54:55We have healthy soils and are able to continue the agricultural history of Boulder County. With the land that we're stewarding as landowners, and so I just wanted to have an understanding of what that impact is. And I don't know what the position is and don't need to know those. Details as much as just from the bigger vision, and also want to acknowledge. That I'd ask this morning. At a different meeting. About. When could we get that update on the innovative weed management plan? To just have more update on the agricultural work that's happening. And if this is completely separate, then that's fine too. This particular reduction is proposed from an observation. Of the seasonality of the agricultural division work. Where in months like December, offseason months, those workloads are inefficient. And would result in shifting to more seasonal work and reductions in wintertime work. That's what it's aimed at. Thank you. Any questions online? 15 or 16. I'll share online. Item 16.

2:56:12In regards to this sheriff's office, and I had asked again this year, 2025, similar to 22, 20 to 24, just to have an understanding of. That large portion of our budget. And share some of those numbers last year. And believe I had some agreement. And the sheriff still here? I wasn't sure you're. Here. So I'd say walk in about how we might work together collaboratively in regards to those questions, I will share from my perspective one of the biggest conversations. And questions. And asks and emails, et cetera. When I first started in 21, in this position, if we remember back to 2020 and the murder of George Floyd and the conversation nationally and here in Colorado. And here in Boulder county about the safety of black and brown bodies. And we are here again in a similar situation. My question has been consistently around how do we get to the root cause? How are we addressing the issues that could really transform lives versus. Building more space or building more bets, and assuming that we're going to have to have people incarcerated and in different levels of supports. And I also know there's a public safety issue. There's state mandate and there's requirements, and I support that piece of it. But it does get me very concerned when I look at the budget. And so

2:57:35I just want to share the same information that I've been sharing and appreciate. And I had asked for the full board to receive that information as well, just because it was one question that I had had in regards to our increase of budget. What I see here in the ops for 2025 year to date is 5.7 million. And I'm just talking about the sheriff's office. The 2026 budget will be 5.58. Million and then personnel. The 2025 year to date is 54 million. And some change in the 2026 budget. For personnel is a little over 70 million. And so. For me because there's such a huge portion of our budget. And we didn't want to give direction of like, okay, we're going to do x percent for each department or each elected official's office. Because we really wanted to hear from folks about what programs maybe we're already being considered. Being reduced or what positions where are you vacant and all the different ways for folks to give input, but I do believe that $500,000 and looking at the target number that. We've agreed to meet for this upcoming budget season that. I would actually support doing a higher reduction of the sheriff's office. Just given what we know and what we have already budgeted and what we see from not just this year, but the

2:59:03previous years in regards to the portion of budget. So I just wanted to put that out there on the conversation. I think it's probably more for the board. Than staff. Thanks for the comments. I appreciate it. I think the thing I just want to acknowledge and add to the conversation is that. We all inherited a project, including the sheriff. To expand the jail and have a bigger intake. Our community has grown a lot, and unfortunately, the jail has grown. I think we would all love for everyone to not do crime, and then we would have a small jail. That sounds amazing. And I think we all work on that with our alternative programs and diversion programs and restorative justice programs, so we're making good effort in that space. But I do appreciate that with the expansion of the jail, there wasn't an ask for. Increasing funding in that space and that we've been really careful to try to use existing positions to cover those increases, unlike what we did with community services, where we increased the funding for the expansion of the Joe Pelley center.

3:00:05So I just want to acknowledge that I do think a lot of work has been done to keep the budget flat. And then take this additional cut. While we're expanding at the same time, so I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate where you're coming from with your comments, commissioner Loan. Our sheriff. Has, in my opinion. Very serious responsibility. For the safety of the offenders. In whose custody? They're in his custody. And I know the sheriff takes that seriously and has worked very hard, as did our previous sheriff. To make sure that we have a jail that's safe for the offenders and safe for our jail commanders. He's also been working. Over the years to reduce the vacancies. So that there is not such a significant amount of overtime. That is mandatory. And people who have to show up at their best every day in a challenging working environment, who are not able to take weekends, who are not able to. Take vacation days.

3:01:21And so I have been very strongly supportive of the personnel increases in the sheriff's department. Not? Because I want to lock as many people up as we possibly can. But because. I believe we have to keep those who are in our custody safe, and we have to respect the needs. Of the men and women who. Are doing these incredibly important and challenging jobs for us. So the $500,000. Personnel reduction. Is a reflection. Of. Some of the underspending, and it's not an exact number, but it allows we know that. Well, we hope that the sheriff is able to absorb this without any personnel reductions. And I think it's important. That that is the basis for the DA reduction as well, that these are underspend amounts. That have been pretty consistent over the last three to five years, and so. We're expecting these amounts to be absorbed without any personnel loss. Thank you. Yeah, I hear that.

3:02:33I think that's actually a really important point for us. To just address. And we are asking our own office. And their department heads and our other elected officials have offered really specific. Plans. Of workforce reduction. And. I believe that nobody. Wanted to be put in that situation, and I don't think. The three of us at the dais, and our deputy also wanted to be part of that. But that is where we are. And that is what we've got to do to get back. To a budget that's not in structural deficit. And so. I just want to. Acknowledge that based on the $70 million budget or personal, I do think there's some more room. And when we go into the next section in regards to asking for administrative efficiencies, et cetera. That would be another way to address that number and maybe create a different plan for staff. And I think that number is like 355, but we'll get back to it in a second to do an increase of the sheriff's office personnel budget reduction, which most likely would require, and I'm not looking at all the numbers. Some workforce. Reduction. Similar to what is having to happen in other departments, so. I just wanted to again for the conversation, because we'll get to that section here in a little bit. I guess I would

3:04:03just make one other comment on. These are. Two reductions that are just sort of across the board. And because we know historically there have been turnbacks. In both of these elected officials offices. Going back to my opening comments. About doing this additional exercise. At this time. And in this manner, we also know that we have had historically quite large turnbacks across the board. And. The budget that we will be getting to when we get to item nine c. I think it is. Is based on the prior year budget. It's not based on the actual spending. And. I would love for us to delay this conversation until we know what the actual spending is, so. That we can budget to that, and we may. Find. That. We've met the reduction target, so that's just. Another. Idea, concept, concern that I have had. With the way we're going about. This conversation. And just as a reminder, we have carefully changed a number of things with the way we budget for medical. We've changed the way we budget for a number of things to address the other areas.

3:05:30Overspend and. We have been working on that each year that I've been on the board and making. Improvements, and so I'm committed to continuing to do that. And I have looked through each area. And every area is overspended. Made proposals in areas that have a reason why there's. An outlier or something different. I have been working really hard on that. Great. Thank you. Let's go to item 1718 and 19. On item 17. I just have a question for county administrator Peterson. Just wondering. The effect that item 17 would have on our ability. To complete all of the projects that have been approved in the capital improvement program. Yeah, this reflects. An idea around. How to get work done efficiently, efficiently and hard to hire positions in engineering. There is no anticipated impact and reduction of projects, but having consultants do more of that work instead of doing it in house is what I believe you will see. And just more specifically, is there a projected impact to the timeline of projects? Potentially? Because if we transition more to contractors or external services. That does take more time. Significant delays. I don't. Anticipate. And so, just like now, narrowing my funnel into. Very specific. So we have booked. A number of savings based on moving. From Broadway and Iris to 25 25 28th street because of

3:07:15utility changes, because of all sorts of things and just wondering if this change will affect the timing of that project. No, this is in road engineering. Thank you. If I might just ask a question on that. I think one of my curiosities. Around. I've heard us go back from or move from staff or maybe consultants to staff. And maybe now staff to consultants. And so just, like, for the conversation, is that going to. Be an unintended consequence. That in some of the conversations, they came more around, like housing authority. Consultants and contractors. At the cost what we heard. Previously as BCHA board was that it was more costly to have some of those agencies versus to do some of the work in house, and I feel like we've heard from public works this year in some of the projects that they really can do the work. Not just at a better rate, but in efficiencies and the communication and being. In. Including in conversation with community members about some of the work and the projects to try and do more than one thing at one time and some other things that I've understood from that.

3:08:31Team. And again, this might not be that team, but I just want to ask that question. Yeah. I want to make a very general answer without spending too much time on specifics, but. There are different types of services. Where? Contracting. Is less expensive and perhaps less efficient, but less expensive for sure, because you don't see the personnel growth from year after year after year. In this particular case, There have been some hard to hire roles. At a time when we're getting hundreds of applicants for most positions, hard to hire roles. Are especially ones that we should be looking at. Whether contracted services make more sense. Thank you. Any other questions on 18 or 19? Let's move down to the next section, which, and that was 20 as well, in that section, so we'll move down to 21. 22 and 23. I have a question. On.

3:09:3622. And I think similar to the question that Commissioner Stolzman was asking earlier about impact on ability to complete projects. That the community. Has been. Patiently waiting for, but not always recently. And. There are a number of really important big projects in the works at various stages. We've got the north foot Hills bikeway. We've got the bert, we've got prairie. Run. Those are the three that come to mind. I'm sure there are more. So I do wonder. About whether, what the effect of. 22 would be timely. Just continuing to make progress on these projects. Yeah, as described by community planning and permitting. It would be minor delays, but not on major projects, if that makes sense. So in addition to the projects that you named. There are several other projects for that team in terms of what they're carrying right now. There would be delays to other projects, but not the ones that you named.

3:10:52Well, and those were just the ones off the top of my head. I don't know. That there's a project that the community isn't really interested. And eager in having come forward. I know. Colorado 7287, 119 42. All of those. And it does take time and staff attention. So this is one where. I don't know. In addition to the fact that these are projects that the community has a great deal of interest. In. There are also areas where. If we aren't able to move them forward on a timely basis. We may miss out on opportunities for tip funding and funding from other sources because. Readiness and ability to move forward is a factor in the scoring on those things. I have concerns. I'll just say that. Thank you. Anything on online? Item 23. Let's move to item 24.

3:12:12Just before you. I apologize. I had lost my place. I do have a question line I'm 23. I apologize for going and then backward direction. We're back on that side on. Item 23. County administrator Peterson, could you just describe a little bit the work area as. This permitting? Is this across the board? Is this to be determined at a future date? Just a little bit more information. Yeah. I believe the primary impact here would be. Timeliness of response to complaints coming in from community members. About CP and P issues, land use issues in unincorporated Boulder County. Anticipating that. We would prioritize. Violations of code over what I will describe as civil matters. Or neighbor to neighbor issues. I think that's the impact that we would see there. Thank you. Thank you. And then 24. Commissioner Levy, did you have a question on that? No, I just appreciated that. Commissioner stolesman had a question and needed to go back so that I could catch up. Thank you for that. Item 25 26. And.

3:13:41My curiosity on 25. I know we're getting, like, further down the list, but. I just was curious on the election year of 2026 and if a reduction. Made sense. And I just say that from the standpoint of if my memory is correct on one area. Of budget amendments, it seems like. There has been an ask over the history of just. We need new hourly folks. We need support. For this election, whether it's special election or whatever it is. And it seems like a smaller amount both of. These. Relative to some of the other items. I just wanted to ask that question. And then, of course, If something changes them. We'll see that again later. In an amendment, I would guess. Yeah. I think Emily can address the fluctuation in elections budgets. Is related to. Givenatorial and presidential election years. And I can only describe what I understood from the clerk and recorder here. Of course.

3:14:46Having she's an independent elect official and having her answer those questions. But my understanding is that this would result. In fewer hours at some of the early voting locations. And is on the list as an idea. Because of mail ballots in Colorado. And the number of voters who use mail balloting means that we're just seeing less traffic at those early voting locations. That's my understanding. Thank you. Any other questions? Let's go to item 27. And 28 in Coroner's office. Any questions? Come shares. No questions. Any question on 29, which is the office of Financial Management? I'll just say initially that one concerned me a little bit, so it was helpful to hear the 4.7 million? Dollar amount that you talked about that were really close to where we were trying to get in. That goal.

3:15:57And we all know that. Any disaster that needed disaster recovery fund will be more than $5 million. We have, unfortunately, a lot of experience here in the county, but I do appreciate that additional information on that fund. Looks like we don't have any other questions, so let's move to item 30. And this one was the capacity building. The way these were presented. We're not going to make a decision or provide. The direction you're wanting is continue to explore. Right. And these are efficiencies. Opportunities to reorganize. Do initial efficiencies. With two specific caveats on that, Commissioner Levy. One, a deadline is always a good idea, and so I'm encouraging you to set a deadline on that. And with a high ring. Freeze. So that if the turnover occurs, In some of these job classifications. We could evaluate whether. To repost a position as part of this ongoing evaluative effort. On this list. I guess the one that. I have had concerns about is the centralization of disaster recovery and resilience. As it's phrased here.

3:17:26That sounds great. Like, why would you have it all spread? All over the place. But. I know public health. Has. A specific state mandated thing they're supposed to do in response. I can't say what it is right now without looking it up, but I just know. It exists. So this is where I have a little concern about can we centralize all of this and. Still do the functions that are required to be done in the appropriate setting. So public health does different kinds of things. And human services does different kinds of things. And so it may be efficient to put them all in OCA or put them somewhere else. But would they still be true? To the need and the mission of that position. Yeah. Thank you for naming the other agency. That. My belief about that, commissioners, is that that's really more of a board of health decision. About whether they would want to engage in this effort. And as a separate agency, Boulder county public health does have different statutory responsibilities than the rest of Boulder County. I would love for them to be part of the conversation because we've worked so collaboratively together, and I do think. That's not a commissioner decision.

3:18:51I think that's for the board of health. Well. I think it's the very next slide that is about continuing the collaborative work between public health, human services, community services and housing. Would that be part of that conversation? Perhaps. It could be. It could be part of that conversation, I think. There are other discussions that those departments are having. And I'm just going to say in broader service categories that you all have talked about. Before. Could definitely talk about. Recovery and resiliency as well. Okay, if that's the pleasure of the board. Yeah. So that was one where. I think for me. Always interested in evaluating and considering. And looking for opportunities. At the end of the, when this comes back to us, I may not be on board. But I might be, so I guess I'm not going to say. Don't look. At it. The other one on the list. That I do have concerns about, and I don't even know how we could reduce. Our reliance on our policy team and our lobbying capacity. This year. Is like, case in point. Where we're just seeing tremendous pressures. On the county budget as a result of actions that the state's going to take. We're seeing tremendous pressures on. The people in Boulder county who depend on vital services that the county administers. That may see a

3:20:41demonition in the quality of those services. And we need advocates at the Capitol that can talk about what we do and why we do. It and how we do it and how much it costs us to do it and. We have. Boulder county has always had a very robust. Agenda, for climate action, for multimodal transportation, for all the things that we pride ourselves on. Being leaders in and that the people of Boulder county look to us for leadership in. And that doesn't happen without. Folks that can help us move that agenda forward at the state capitol. I would have a hard time even looking at how we would do that differently. Based on what? We do now? Thanks on this one. Just adding my thoughts. I support what the county administrators describing the 355,000 for the 2026 budget. I think is. A very accomplishable task given the magnitude of the things on the list. Some of the things are straightforward and simple. And some departments have probably been wanting to do for a long time.

3:22:03When I see procurement and contracting. I hear from different staff members about improvements that they've envisioned for long periods of time in that space. So I think there's a lot of opportunity here and would expect to see some of the reductions that we're going to need for the 2027 budget. Come out of the work that we do when. We evaluate these areas. So I think this is a great start. As a down payment on the work for future reductions, and we can really focus in these areas. And I support the idea that we would want to look at the practices and the hiring freezes. In the meantime, while we do that, so we don't make changes in these spaces. While we're undergoing future changes for 2027 and 2028. Thank you. The evaluation of learning more and figuring out what could be done differently. How could we be more as described here, administratively effective. I think my concern is really just around putting a dollar amount to it. To me. I think this is something that.

3:23:07We need to go through that process. And so if this is the way to do it and give direction to staff. I'm okay with that. But similar to one of the other items in the presentation that. Was around applicative services and or a collaboration between, I think it was community services, public health and human services. That's work we've been talking about. Having done for several years. And so I think I'm trying to get us to. Similar to where we are right now, having to make tough decisions. Where else might we do that? Here at the county. And I feel like that's a. Portion of how we got here in a structural deficit. Is everyone's doing really important work. Some of it's mandated, some of it's. Not, but. We're answering to the call of what residents in Boulder county are needing and workers in Boulder county are needing and we haven't been good collectively, and I'm just like, as a general, we and some of it has happened. But collectively, it feels like what we haven't done, and I've heard a lot. Of different teams say, when are we going to say no? And when are we going to pull something off of the plate so that staff can focus on what our core mission work is or whatever, and that's a piece that this board

3:24:25hasn't been able to get to the table in 2025 and really talk about how do we give additional guidance. And so if this is one portion of it that could be helpful, I think? Maybe to staff teams. And the reason it concerns me about having a dollar number is. My belief is just looking at. And hearing from Emily again today on those numbers that we really are looking at for structural deficit. I just don't want folks or teams to focus on 355,000 because I think the unfortunate reality based on the numbers, the data and the information we have until we get into the how else might we get revenue into the county? And the other conversation we've had with electives about when might we talk about some other strategies that people are thinking about other revenue. Sources. Until we get there, my concern. Is a whole lot of. Potential. I'm looking at the list. I'm pointing here on the list of all the different potential evaluations. Really need to be thinking bigger and wider than 355,000. And so that's, I think why I'm having pause around it being tied to a number, and so. For the boards. For the help of the board. Maybe. I think that's part of the reason why I. Was also thinking, is there another place for us to get to

3:25:43the 13.2 number, which I appreciate everyone trying to help us achieve. This. Stated number. That. Is there somewhere else that we could take that number so that. This could be. And again, looking at the countywide capacity building, administrative efficiency evaluation work could still be done by July 1. The collaboration work that I think could be connected to that. I believe that needs to happen. No. Matter what, but I'm just worried about putting such a low number tied to it. And so that was the other reason I was thinking, do we go to. Somewhere in the organization that has a significant budget, that has a significant portion of a newer tax like fund 151 as an example, the sheriff's office has about 34% of that tax. Right now. So. How do we make the numbers work and still get us moving into the direction that we do? Need to in regards to valuation, potential centralization and reduction of costs. Yeah, well, I appreciate that. Comment. I would think that there's a potential for quite a bit more. Reduction here. This is. The kind of evaluation. And analysis. That I would have hoped we would do before we would come forward with. These other. Miscellaneous belt tightening measures that aren't necessarily the product. Of a strategic. Examination of the work that we do and how we do

3:27:14the work. And so, looking at opportunities for centralization, for collaboration, for efficiencies, That's the way I believe we should be going about this. And look at what all that potential is. And I think we could come up with a much more. Strategic result. And maybe not even need some of the other reductions that. We're considering taking. That. May actually make some of these things even harder to accomplish. So, commissioner, I think the offering that you had, is this the way to do that? I really. Do think that it is because we're freezing. Basically changes in these areas and hiring freezes. So that we can accomplish what you've described. And I think it basically gets the 355 for the 2026 budget, which will come forward as amendments in the future and then sets us up on the path that you described. Pretty well. Precisely. I think the alternative, if you wanted to pick the numbers from somewhere else, would. Be to go to slide eleven and come up with 355,000 of things from slide eleven. To move forward. So I think that that would be the alternative if you wanted to say we'll give all of the direction, but without the dollar amount on number 30, we'll give all the other direction, then I think we would still need to have. 355. So I think you

3:28:41could select things from slide eleven. Hold, please. I'm going to. Look for slide eleven. But not recommended. But we still have one more slide between here and there. But what I have in front of me doesn't have site numbers on it, so I'm going to. Discuss but not recommended, is what I was meaning to say. Okay. So I just was offering. I think those two. Either approach would accomplish what I think I heard you lay out was either to take the recommendation and move forward. Or we could take the dollar amount out of the recommendation. Make all of the verbal recommendations and then still come up with additional 355,000 from this. List. And. Thank you. Now I'm with you. The slides up in front here, I heard. A strong statement about not recommending these, but also sharing some of the options. And I think for me. There's other areas. In the other items here. That have an amount of funding that could still get us to, I believe, as close as we can for that 13 point. Two number. So thank you for clarifying that.

3:29:54Commissioner's one option to consider would be. A meet or exceed number. I don't know if that. Feels like the guidance that you would prefer to give, but a target of 355,000 to meet or exceed by July 1 with recommendations for 2027. Might be a way to consider phrasing that. Thank you. I was trying to think of something else like that. I think. That helps things for that suggestion. Let's see, that took us through line item 30. And then. Were there any other questions or comments on that one? Okay, so next slide. Thank you. Any conversation. Additionally, on the collaborative work. Or stewardship revenue. And I think for me, I appreciate this. The question I had was around. Is there similarly, is there some dollar number that we want to put here in regards to the collaborative work. Otherwise, I'll just share from my perspective, I feel like. The teams are listed on here.

3:31:18Have been talking about how to do collaborative work, and I think they're working in that. Space. And I also know. There's been a lot going on in 2025 and continues to. That is putting pressure on all of those work. I feel like if we want to be here, at the dais, and we want to give direction. We need to tie this to something. For me personally, and I don't know if it's a dollar amount, and I don't know if staff has a recommendation about that or if it was really just. A comment. My only recommendation was to give direction to focus on the general fund, because that's the purpose of your conversation today? Yeah. I would support that additional direction. I think. Trying to put a dollar in amount when we don't even know what might be on the table is going to be pretty problematic. And I know because I have been involved in some of these conversations that. They're really digging in hard and looking very carefully. And so I have no doubt that this is being done in good faith and with a lot of seriousness, and so. I don't think a dollar amount is going to be helpful. I appreciate that.

3:32:43I also feel like we've been having some of these conversations. And I know staff team has brought us some of those over administrative. Meetings or pmis over the last couple of years. And my concern. Feels like every year we get into budget conversation. And there's concerns around the timing, and we didn't have enough time or as was expressed earlier. We need a more thoughtful process. And so that's kind of in the vein of what I was thinking. Do we need to add something here. That's more directive. That will eliminate that conversation. In the next. Budget session. Understanding that we have. I haven't seen anything new, but what I did see. On the slides and also. The documents from November 6 in that budget or session still are talking about a $30 to $40 million structural deficit total. And so I just want to try and avoid. Us later, feeling like we're in a new process, so we don't have enough. Time. And so that's what I wanted to try and avoid. Okay. Producer, stewardship revenue.

3:33:58I think this one for me. The only other piece. I appreciate bringing this one forward. But I just wondered, again, similarly, trying to get to some direction. Around. We had conversation with elected officials. I'm not sure if it was e o d h. Elected officials and department heads. But just the conversation about when might we talk about some additional revenues? At Boulder county. And we heard a new idea today, too, at the. Dais so again, just to give some direction to staff about when could we schedule that? My ask, and I feel like I've heard it from some folks in the room. Could we do that early in the year so that then we don't get bogged down by the other processes that are happening. And again, I think if we don't ask for that direction and we don't. Ask to have something calendared. It gets pushed away with all of the other demands. So I think my ask on that one would be if the commissioners are interested in having a revenue. Conversation with EODH scheduled it wouldn't be a date. Certain, but just to give that direction so that we could talk about additional revenue ideas. Kind of just. Emily beam with the office of Financial Management. Just wanted to share that we do. The Office of Financial Management does have quarterly budget

3:35:19check ins with all departments and offices. We do a formal review of all revenues. That come into the county to review the accuracy associated with our budget, and we could definitely incorporate this into our process as part of our planning for 2027. That's great. That addresses the question that I had. Thank you, Emily. I appreciate that. Are there additional slides here? I guess this takes us into the not recommended, which was the last slide. And then I heard. Commissioner Solzman. I heard just a suggestion earlier. I didn't. Know if there was something you wanted to get back to on this one, and if not, if. There's anyone else, ask questions. I do have one question, just on the human resources recommendation. My understanding is that there are vacancies. That could help accomplish that. And so I'm just trying to understand why this isn't recommended. Yes.

3:36:12I'll reiterate what I said earlier, which. Is, I get feedback frequently from elected officials and department heads and other leaders in the organization. About lack of capacity within human resources. Commissioners, you may recall, maybe it was two years ago we brought to you the ratio. Of hr staff. As compared to how many employees there are in the organization. With the reduction you've already taken in one of the vacancies. You're at that ratio for 2026. I. Think we can continue to evaluate. If the number of employees or the workforce goes down in future years, then we would continue to be able to take attrition in human resources, but in this case, I can't recommend it because. Of the impact on workload and the volume of activity that HR is managing. Thanks. Thank you. I'm not considering an if. These items just for the board's awareness, just.

3:37:17As the presentation. This is a list of not recommended, but I appreciate bringing them forward. All right, so let's do our procedure. I think we got back to, we've gone through all of the items. Line by line. And so. This budget request. Let me get to the right thing here. The budget request. Was on item nine b, I believe. Not in the right place here. Commissioner Solzman. Did you raise your hand? I was just going. To make a motion. Oh, perfect. I would move that we accept the county administrator's recommendations. Regarding reduction of expenditures to address general fund structural deficit, including both the dollar amounts and the direction that was articulated. Well, we need a second, and then I was going to offer an amendment. To the motion. I'll second. And so I move that we amend. The. Recommended. Additional budget reductions by eliminating.

3:38:27Proposals number five, seven and 22. Just for review. Five. Was the area agency on aging, seven was the strategic initiatives. Person and 22. Is the personnel reduction in the transportation division of community planning and permitting. And we have a motion and a second friendly amendment, I believe, is how you're in. The motion was over here. Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. Well, I heard it as a motion. I didn't hear it as a friendly amendment. I heard. It just stated as a motion that I haven't heard a second for. I think I framed it as an amendment. And I didn't say friendly. Yeah, so I think we would be waiting for a second friendly. So I'm not seconding the amendment. I'm also not. Okay, so. That amendment fails. I understand. Okay. I was just trying to make sure that I'm facilitating everything. Excuse me. So we've. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. And I will vote by. Because. Three out of whatever. Total is. I'm not going to hold up a process. Three out of 30. And I've expressed my concerns on the record. Thank you. Okay, so we are moving to item nine c. Just pulling up the slides.

3:40:36Sorry. The mouse isn't working. Emily Beam with the Office of Financial Management. I want to start by providing my thanks to the board of county commissioners to Ramona Farrono, the CFO, the budget team as well as all the departments and offices that participated in the exercise of preparing the 2026 Boulder county budget. I will be requesting board approval for three resolutions to formalize the 2026 Boulder county budget. These resolutions were created in compliance with local government budget law of the Colorado statute 29 and based on the guidance that was provided by the board of county commissioners at the budget work session that was held on November 6. December 15 is the state deadline for certification of millevy and to provide milllevey public information under. The Colorado revised statute 39. Local governments loving property taxes must adopt their budgets before certifying the levy to the county. And December 22 is the deadline for county commissioners to levy taxes and to certify the levees to the assessor. So the 2025 total expenditure budget for. The 2026 total expenditure budget is $745,186,611. Just to note, this final proposed budget does include a few things that were not previously mentioned. At the 2026 work session. This does include adopted carryover of $18.5 million for capital projects or purchases and other one time funding that was previously provided. That was previously approved by

3:42:28the board, but these projects were not fully completed within 2025. It also includes a $3 million decrease in personnel budgets across the county as a whole. That's $1.7 million in the general fund to capture reductions associated with the visa. Program, the voluntary severance incentive package, and it also includes the revenue only budget associated with our. New approved fund for the mental and behavioral health sales tax. The revenue established for this fund is $13.3 million. So next, I'm going to start by looking at our projections for 2026 property taxes. So when we look at our property taxes, we do have our 2025 actuals and our property six. Revenue for 2026 is budgeted at $277,000,000. And this is based on the final assessed values that were received from the assessor's office. This breaks down to a net mill levy of 24.46. Mils, which includes the Tabor capped mill levy of 24.64 mils, plus a 00:33 mils for abatements and a temporary mill levy credit. Of negative 0932. The total year over year increased to the budgeted property tax is 17,934,612. Property taxes are broken out by general use millevies, which are allocated to individual funds at the discretion of the board of county commissioners or dedicated millevies, which are allocated to specific funds and are restricted by voter approved ballot initiatives that authorize the tax

3:44:20increase. And this includes the Developmental Disabilities fund, the health and human. Services Fund and the Human Services Safety net fund. The Colorado revised statute 29 limits the county's general used property tax increase to an unamount no greater than 5.5% above the previous year's property tax. And crs 29 117 limits. Are just our dedicated property tax increases to an amount no greater than 5.25 above the previous year's revenue. In computing these limits, the increased valuation for assessment based on new construction, annexation, or inclusion of additional land and other exclusions are accounted for. So if you look above, we have our 2025 actuals, our budget for 2026, which includes our final assessed value and all statutory revenue limitations. And this is a zero point 74%. Growth over prior year. And when you look at 2027 through 2030, These current assumptions reflect our known changes to assessment rates per state statute and assumed actual. Value growth of 9.37% in reassessment years and zero 4% in non reassessment years, and these percentages are based on an eight year average for these categories. Next, we're looking at our next major revenue source, which is our sales and use tax. Revenues.

3:45:53And as you can see, we do have a two month lag associated with collections, as they are state collected and then pass through to Boulder county. And we are currently showing. A reduced we're collecting under our budget for. 2025 currently, so we have budgeted a 0% increase for 2026 and we are forecasting a 0.5% increase for 2027 and then 1% for 2028. So we're using all of this data to provide some analysis on our health, of our general fund. And noted above are the general fund expenditure assumptions that we are utilizing when we are preparing this type of analysis for the board and elected offices and departments. So a few things just to point out. We do know that 70% of our general fund expenditure budget is allocated to personnel costs and we will continue the business practice of budgeting salaries at 96% and we have reduced. Our pool to $1 million based on savings that we've seen year over year. We do include an annual 7% inflation of wages and benefit cost projections associated in our modeling for future years. And this is based on the average over the last three years. We've also.

3:47:23Eliminated. From an operating perspective, we've eliminated any one time and expiring transfers, so those are not included in future years. We do include the anticipated savings associated with North Broadway and the Boulder hub. We also include the cost associated with continued investments in IT and fleet associated with $7.5 million annually. As well as the continued investment in facilities and capital maintenance projects of $15 million. A few projected revenues that are included in here. We do include the one time revenue increase of $26 million to account for the anticipated proceeds from the sale of the North Broadway site. We've also. Included a one time revenue increase of $6 million for anticipated flood revenue reimbursements. That we are expecting. As well as a reallocation of $8 million in interest and other general fund revenues. To the Roden bridge fund to support paving these in 2025 and 2026.

3:48:23So this is the data that we're using for the next slide. So as we talk about the structural deficit within the general fund, this is the protected deficit that we are working with. And this reflects the adopted budget that we will approve. Shortly after this presentation. So when you look at this graph, you'll notice that our expenditures are outpacing. Our revenue year over year, including 2026 and. This is really what we are trying to address as an organization to become more fiscally sustainable. This graph clearly provides data on our general fund balance. So if you look at the green line, this is our general fund balance requirement associated with our fund balance policy. This requires that Boulder county maintain a general fund balance of no less than 20% of our total resources. So that's where this line comes from. And as you see the line sloping. Down. We continue to utilize fund balance in an unsustainable level which is dictated. In this particular graph. As we move forward, you will see that if we incorporate the recommendations that were previously discussed and approved by the board. Our picture already improves and our 2020. Seven fund balance target is significantly higher, and it pushes out the problem further into 2028. So resolving, starting to resolve the issue and come to a more sustainable state as an

3:50:07organization. So finally, I want to provide a breakdown of our adopted budget by fund. You can see all of our expenses, our revenues and our changes in fund balance. In this particular graph coming up with that final expenditure budget, as mentioned, of $745,000,000. Any questions associated with the presentation. Thank you, Emily, for the presentation. Any questions, commissioners? Yeah. I have a question. Thank you. I know you've been trying to track a lot of information. And answer the many questions that we have, as well as all the departments and elected officials. So I appreciate that. The mill levy credit that you mentioned, I think it was 0.9 something. Let me go back to the slide. I didn't see it. Maybe I just wasn't looking in the right place. Oh. Yeah, it's a note. Yes, the Millevi credit is zero point 93. Point 93. Two. Okay. And I think from previous queries I've put to the treasurer or maybe the I think it was the assessor. Amil were just shy of one mill. Raises about $11 million.

3:51:38I'll have to validate that number. I don't know. Off the top? Yeah. Well, that was the case two years ago, so it's probably a little bit more than that. And this is what I'm talking about when I say. So we have to reduce our mill levy in order to stay within that statutory required limit. And there is room there. And we have the ability to ask the voters. To allow us to exceed that five and a half percent year over year increase. That's something that I think we ought to be considering in the future. The other question I had. And I think I've seen a slide on this, but not in this presentation. Was. The projected. Fund balance. I think your note was that that is, without the increases or the decreases. Pardon me. In 27. And 28. No, that's not. The deficit in the general fund. It's the slide before that. Yes. This does not include any additional reductions in 2027 or 2028. Yeah.

3:52:52And so. Those. Were. Sort of like $26 million. In additional reductions. Do you happen to have that slide? Because I've been wondering what that does to our fund balance also. Yeah, I can pull it up. It's a significant improvement. Please hold. It up on that computer. Maybe. I can. Access my. We may have to do a laptop switcheroo to get that. Well, if you have a number there. Maybe that would help. I've seen figures for. What? Our general fund balance. Will grow too, over time. Would you like a recess for a few minutes? Yeah. I have it. It's just because I've logged into the separate computer that is. Not letting me access. My drive, but it's a very easy graph to pull up and show you the impact. If we do make those additional reductions in the next two years. So just give me a second. We can plug it into the computer, and I'll just. Reiterate what I said last time. We have the same exact discussion.

3:54:38What's not built in to the graph is all of the expenditures. And so. It's pretty reckless to just state a number and say that that'll be the fund balance. When we don't have the capital projects built in, we don't have the increases for staff built in. Like, we don't have all the expenditures built in, so. This has been weaponized a couple of times in this process, and I feel frustrated by that. Nobody's weaponizing anything. It's just information. Well, but it's not accurate. You're stating it as if there's a fund balance that's available to spend, and it's inaccurate. And it's understood. There's no budget that goes with it, so it's just information. So my plan was to update the general fund balance chart to include additional reductions in future years. But leaving all additional assumptions as is. Great. It may actually overstate our personnel expenditures, because.

3:55:39We've talked about the fact that. Our personnel compensation package is more generous than our pure counties, so there are lots of different assumptions. I think. We're all able to understand that this is not an exact number. Yeah, that's the one. That's the one that. I've been asking to have included in these presentations. So that we can understand. The bigger picture and the longer term. So could you just explain what this chart shows? Yes, absolutely. It keeps all the data the same that we previously saw. On. Slide. Eight that indicated. This is our current budget that we will be adopting for 2026. We'll be adding the additional reductions of $5.5 million, as the board directed today. And it includes $13.2 million additional reductions at that 70 30 split in 2027. Budget process, as well as $13.2 million reduction from the 70 30 split in the future year. Thank you. And it may just be the view that we have. The years are not visible across the bottom of the slide. Nor is the legend. So the bottom number, that's minimum fund balance. There we go. Thank you. So we will see a significant increase in.

3:57:12Our general fund balance starting in 2027. And ultimately topping out at $134,000,000. Spend any money. Yeah. This doesn't include any additional approvals that the board may have as part of. The budget process. It just has those baseline approvals. Sure. Understand. Thank you. Thanks. Any other questions or should we move to approving the resolutions? Any other questions? I don't have additional questions after November 6, and then. There the consistent information that you brought to us just in our administrative meetings. That we've been provided, and so this has been a great time to have the conversation. Together. Thank you. I'm not sure I'll move. Approval of resolution 20 25 00:57. And I'm just looking at it on here on the screen. I'll second the motion. And I would like some discussion on the motion. Go ahead. Yeah.

3:58:32Just wanted to mention. We did a lot of work to come up with this. You all did a lot of work. All of our staff, all of our department heads did a lot of work. There are several. Decisions that are encompassed within what will become our 740 something million dollars. $745,186,611. Budget. That I did not support. Or at least did not support the source from which the funds was made. And I do want to just mention two of those here on the record. It's not going to keep me from voting for the budget because I recognize. This is a process of give and take and compromise. But I just want to call out two of them. One is the decision. The request was for? I believe it was a million dollars. It might have been a million free. To replace the roof at the fairgrounds and a us conservation trust fund money for that. That is money that is available. It still leaves money in the fund for other purposes. The decision was made to take that out of the general fund.

3:59:50And I think when we're dealing with a structural deficit, We should not be shifting money into the general fund, for which there is another available source. The other is the additional $1 million in the Climate equity fund from the general fund. When the proposal for that program. Came forward originally. It was s tax and Denver waterboard settlement money. And the additional 1 million general fund money was not requested. It was not spent. We carried it over. There was a proposal to reduce that by half a million dollars. That proposal was rejected. I think in a year when we were cutting staff, laying people off, and we well see future growth. In our fund balance. I think. Those were two. There were others that aren't worth mentioning because they're smaller amounts. But I did want to just mention those two that I took issue with. Thank you, Commissioner Stolfman, any discussion? Aye. That wasn't a vote.

4:01:04Sorry. Discussion. And I'll just add a couple of comments since we're going to talk. About the process of. Just want to thank staff for getting us to this resolution. And everybody that's been involved in this process. I, too, have issues and items that I was not in favor of, and I'll continue. To share. My concern around some of the budget just seemed so excessively higher than others. In the line items. I do want to say then, in regards to the climate equity fund, given the federal administration and. The pushback. Against. What is climate action? I think it was important for us to continue. That wasn't a new project in 2025, but it was continuing, and we've been able to carry forward some of our other projects, and including public works projects and transportation, others that don't quite get to it in that year, but we move that funding forward. And so I do think that's really important for us to continue doing the same way.

4:02:06That we've been really clear about our work and racial equity. Our work in being an inclusive county and continuing to provide. Services and programs to the best of our abilities to meet the needs. For county residents everywhere in all the different ways. I do still feel like those pieces are really important. That I did want to just bring up. Was a comment in regards to the budget and the different funds, not general fund, but. I did have some concerns in regards to fund 151. And really, I'm going to ask the board. Similarly, I'm not going to hold up the process over one section of the fund, but just in the timing of the different asks, in the way that the funding requests come to us. Both in grants. As well as line items in the process. And of course, it takes a while to get through. That. But I will really want us to look at for the fund 151 which is the emergency services ballot measure to really look. In 2026 and seven about how we use that funding for the emergency services and that commitment. That was made to really focus on the volunteers that do search and rescue on Boulder county property.

4:03:26But also in our region. And so I just don't want to saloo side of that as we continue that work and all of it's important and we're able to fund some really amazing projects, but I just wanted to bring attention to that, and that was. Also one of the reasons why. I was interested in considering the bigger, wider budget of the sheriff's office and where there might be some room to do some reductions, but we'll have opportunities with all of our elected and our department heads to look at those processes when we do the evaluation reviews, et cetera. In the future. I will just want to appreciate the support, continual support of Workforce Boulder county. Is there also an organization that's being reviewed by not only the state but also the federal government. In a time when we have more people that are facing unemployment and trying to figure out how to upskill and reskill and be connected even in the rural areas of unincorporative.

4:04:19Boulder county and just want to make sure that we're paying attention to that. I will just state from the resolution and the budget. Housing. Is changed. That department and the way that that work got done in 24, and we've made some. Real headway in regards to the finances of that department. And the commitment that although it's not one of our state mandates, it's also what we continue to hear at Boulder County, a financial need. And so I just want to appreciate the support of the board to continue. To support our housing department and also be CHA, because I think that's a really critical area for our community. And I also want to appreciate public health. Over the last couple of years as one of our partner agencies. Was also having some, we had some questions around budget, and I feel like we have now gotten to a really great place of understanding and using similar system to be able. To have a better handle on how the funding is working and what's happening with it.

4:05:27And so just want to acknowledge some of the work that's happened and has continued to show up and was helpful in informing this process as well as. Wanting technology that because we are negotiating on our first union. That has created a need for. And we knew while we were supporting legislation to support collective bargaining, in the state of Colorado. We knew that at some point. It would have an impact on our organization. And so there has been some conversation here in the hearing room and public comment and otherwise. But I think it's important to acknowledge that to be able to support it, and then we also have to have staff that can't support that work both in our attorney's office and HR and other areas. And as we continue that, I want to appreciate the elected officials and Department of heads that are part of that work as well because it's taking a significant amount of county resource and. We're all committed to making sure that we get to a union supported contract. So those for me are just a few of the other items that are part of the bigger. Agreement to get to a resolution so that we can move forward in 2026, acknowledging that. We still have potentially a lot of changes that are going to impact. All the business of the

4:06:42county. I do want to take this time just to acknowledge the staff. And can only imagine that there's concerns and there's a lot of feelings around. What's happening from the budget impacts, and I want to just share my appreciation for the work. Our service levels will be impacted. Meaning? People may have to wait in line for a little longer. It might look like. Because of all of the reductions that. We have. The response time isn't as quick on the phone. And someone doesn't get the call back from the hotline as quickly as they would. Have, but my belief is that staff is still going to provide excellent and really critical public service. And so I just want to. Appreciate everybody for being committed to the work of Boulder county, despite. The high pressure of the budget season. So I just want to at least say that before we get into the different resolutions and the different district resolutions as well, so. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. And was that an I there, too? Okay, I just want to make sure. So then we'll move to item number two, which is the Border County Commission's resolution 20 25 00:58. Yeah.

4:08:06This is a resolution summarizing expenditures and revenues for each fund. So, as I noted before in the presentation, this is just approval for that breakout of $745,000,000. For fiscal year 26. And I'll move approval of 2025. Eight second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. That moves us to item number three, which is board. Of County Commissioners Resolution 20 25 00:59 yes, this is a resolution loving that general property. Taxes for year 2025. Associated with our 2026 budget year. Move approval of 2025. Nine second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. That takes us to item four. And this is Burgundy Park Public Improvement district, resolution 2025. That means now we are sitting as the Burgundy Park Public Improvement District board of directors. Yes, hi. This is the resolution appropriating sons of money in the amounts and for the purposes set forth below for the Netherland eco pass public improvement district for the 2026 budget year there's been no changes. I think we're on Bergen d Park.

4:09:23Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize for the purposes set forth of the Burger Kazim Park Public Improvement district for the 2026 budget year. Yeah. Move approval sitting as the board of Burger park for 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. That takes us to item five, where we'll be. Awful sitting as a Burgundy park public improvement district. Board of directors for Burgundy Park Public improvement district. Resolution 2025. And again, this is the resolution summarizing expenditures and revenues to adopt the budget for this Pid. For this is effective January 2026 through December 2026, move approval of 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. That takes us to item number six. And this is. The same public improvement district for Burgundy park. But now at 20250 zero three. Yes. Thank you. This is the resolution to levy our general property taxes for the year 2025. To help defray the cost of government for the Burgundy Park Public Improvement district for Boulder county for the 2026 budget year. Move approval of 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye.

4:10:42Thank you. That takes us to item seven, where we'll be. Sitting at the El Dorado Springs Public Improvement District Board of directors, and this is El Dorado. Springs Public Improvement District, Resolution 2025. Yes. And this is the resolution appropriating sums of money to the amounts and for the purposes set forth below for the El Dorado Springs public Improvement District of Boulder county for the 2026 budget year move approval of resolution 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. And that moves us to item eight, which is the same. El Dorado. Springs Public Improvement District Board of Directors, Resolution 2025. Yes, and this is a resolution summarizing expenditures and revenues and adopting a budget for the El Dorado Springs Public Improvement district of Folder county. This is for the calendar beginning January 2026. And ending the last day of December 2026. Move approval of resolution 2025.

4:11:44Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. That takes us to item number nine, which is also El. Dorado Springs Public Improvement District Board of directors. This is Resolution 2025. Yes. This is a resolution loving general property taxes for the year 2025 to help defray the costs of government for the El Dorado Springs Public improvement district of Boulder county for the 2026 budget year. Move approval of resolution 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. And that takes us to item number ten. Now, we'll be sitting as the homestead Public Improvement District board of directors. And this is homestead public improvement district, resolution 2025. Yes. This is a resolution appropriating sums of money in the amounts and for the purposes set forth below for the homestead public Improvement district, Boulder county, for the 2026 budget year okay, move approval of 2025. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

4:12:44Thank you. That takes us to item eleven, which is the same, Humpstead? Public Improvement District Board of directors in this association, 2025. Yes. This is a resolution summarizing expenditures and revenues and adopting a budget for the homestead. Public improvement district of Boulder county for the calendar year beginning the first day of January 2026. And ending the last day of December, 2026. Move approval of 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. That takes us to item twelve. We're still sitting at the Homestead Public Improvement District board. Of directors, and this is 2025. Three. Yes. This is a resolution levying general property taxes for the year 2025 to help defray. The cost of government for the homestead public improvement district of Boulder county for the 2026 budget year. Of approval of 2025. Now. Second that. All in favor? Thank you. That takes us to item number 13. And so we're now sitting as the Netherland ecopass Public Improvement District Board of directors and the item is 13 Netherland Ecopass public Improvement District resolution 20250 zero one yes, and this is a resolution appropriating sums of money.

4:14:09In the amounts and for the purposes set forth below for the Netherland eco pass public improvement district for the 2026 budget year. Move approval of 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Did we get a third I on that one? Yes. Okay, thank you. Didn't really get out of my throat, but it was there, okay. Item 14. We're sitting still as the Nardalundiko Past Public Improvement District board. Of directors. This is 2025. And this is a resolution summarizing expenditures and revenues and adopting a budget for the Netherland Eco PaaS Public improvement district for the calendar year beginning the first day of January 2026 and ending the last day of December 2026. Move approval of 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. And that takes us to item 15. And we're still sitting in the Netland, equal. Pass public Improvement District Board of directors for Resolution 2025. And this is our final resolution. And this is a resolution living general property taxes for the year. 2025 to help defray the cost of government for the Netherland Ecopass public improvement district for the 2026 budget year. Move approval of 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

4:15:37And then I'll take us back to sitting as the board of county commissioners, and it looks like we don't have any additional items on the agenda. I do want to take the liberty. Of appreciating Ramona Farano, who's here with us in their own congratulations on your retirement from Boulder county and want to just appreciate all the work that you've done for Boulder county in the office of financial Management, and you brought on a stellar team.