Transcript

0:00:21All right, Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you. And we are recording. Okay, good morning. Today is November 5th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have all three commissioners present in the hearing room this morning. And we are conducting our what is usually our Tuesday business meeting today on Thursday because we were closed for election day. We will start with the Commissioner's consent agenda. We have two items on our consent agenda may have a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. And we will now move into our discussion topics. We have one, and that is to discuss and make a decision on bringing forward a finalist for the position of Boulder County's County Administrator. And I will invite our deputy Natalie Springett to make some introductory comments. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I just wanted to provide kind of a high level overview of the process that we've undertaken so far to fill the County Administrator vacancy here at Boulder County. And so the County Administrator position was opened up for applications on September 1st and closed on September 30th. We received 31 applications from candidates that met the minimum qualifications is listed by your human resources department.

1 Call to Order

2 9:00 a.m. Morning Session

3 Business Meeting

4 Commissioners' Consent Items

5 Commissioners' Discussion Items

5.a County Administrator Finalist(s) Named

0:01:55From there, 12 candidates move forward to first round interviews. At that time, one candidate withdrew and 11 interviews were completed. Following the first round interviews, we brought forward two semifinalists who completed in - person interviews here at Boulder County on October 29th. During that time, there were four separate interview panels, one included a staff panel, which also allowed for staff to watch the interviews occur in a hybrid format or watch the recording later. And the commissioners opened this up to receive staff feedback, which you all have now reviewed. There were three additional panels. Each panel included one commissioner and then additional department heads here from Boulder County. And then today our request under Colorado Law is that the commissioners name either their finalist or finalists that you would like to see move forward in this recruitment process. This will start a 14th day clock under Colorado Law, where we cannot make a job offer, but you can solicit community feedback on your finalist or finalists.

0:03:07So today's staff is requesting your direction on both who you would like to name as a finalist. Also, which process you would like to take in order to solicit community feedback. And I will defer to the board for you all to name either finalist or finalist. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Natalie, for that explanation. Just one thing that may have been a little ambiguous where you said one commissioner sat on each panel. That was each of us were on a panel. So we all three were able to participate in the interview process for both candidates. So yeah, so commissioners, we now have the opportunity to identify publicly who we would like to bring forward as a finalist. Would anybody care to lead that discussion. I'm happy to thank you and thanks, Natalie, for the recap of the process. First, I really want to appreciate HR and their work in this process. We had a long time Boulder County employee resign and move on to a really exciting new opportunity in another area of the country.

0:04:16And so that created this unexpected event and it's a lot of work for staff. And so just want to appreciate HR, the designated team who went through those initial applications. And so I, and I also want to talk about the community feedback just to recap, we've talked about a little bit at the dais. Um, but just to understand what that process is, um, there were, um, as you said, there were two fearing applicants and just appreciate the panels that we were able to sit in and have some debrief in discussion. Uh, I'm interested in bringing forward, um, Paul Janipor as a finalist for the next process. Okay. Thank you for that. Commissioner Stoldzman. Thank you. And just want to say Commissioner Lucian, we'll sat on the thanks and appreciation. Just the staff that took time to listen. Um, and work on this. And all of the effort that goes into trying to find a leader in the organization is tremendous. And I'm really grateful also for all the work that's been put in. I also would like to name Paul Janipore as a finalist. Um, I think it would be great to post Paul's bio online and create a form stack so people could provide feedback during the 14 day period so that the one place where people can provide their input and feedback on

0:05:36our final list. Great. And I'll just add my comments as well. Um, this was a very thorough process in my view. And, uh, very capably led by, uh, Natalie Springett and our HR director Christine Scarlett, as I'm sure my fellow commissioners did, um, I read all of the comments that we got from staff and really, uh, value the input that we received from them as well as, uh, everyone who sat on the interview panels, um, and I am fully in support of bringing Paul and Janipor forward as our soul finalist, uh, Paul has a wealth of experience here in Boulder County, uh, having, um, been, uh, initially in the Department of What Was Then Housing and Human Services now, just human services. But I, uh, I was just very impressed with the way he went about learning every facet of the work of that department.

0:06:44And then as he has moved into the position of director of, uh, information technology, uh, developed relationships with all of our department heads and our elected officials in that capacity, I think at positions him very, very well, uh, step into this important and highly visible leadership role. So it's, I think, uh, it's great that the three of us are in agreement on that. And, um, do we, do we make a formal motion here? And then I think we also do want to talk about how, how we get that public comment, whether it's just a form stack or whether there are other things that we'd like to do. Yes. Thank you, commissioners. We would request that you make a motion on this item, a motion to name Paul Janipor's finalist. Okay. I wonder if, um, maybe we can talk a little bit more about the community feedback piece before we do it motion on five a.

0:07:45I was just curious. Formstack is a survey tool. So I'm looking at, I just don't know if there's another tool that might be easily accessible and folks in the community know about and are used. I know we have a list serve of like 10, 000 people. But so if you could speak to that, I heard a very specific ask and that might be the right one. I just don't know what other tools are being used right now at the county. Thank you commissioners. Our recommendation would be to use form stack. That's currently what our community members are used to. Um, when they're providing feedback via Boulder County, our plan is to announce the finalist publicly today via a press release and also include information on how feedback will be solicited from community members. Um, that could look in the form of an additional interview. Or we do have a previously recorded interview that we could easily share publicly, uh, and solicit feedback very similarly to how you did internally with county employees. That sounds great.

0:08:49I think then the only other question I would have is to use the form stack then that's going to come, all those responses will come back to the board and the board will have time to read them and respond to them at that after the 14 days. Is there going to be separate meeting or that will just be a business meeting as well? Thank you Commissioner Louchmen for the question. We would bring this back to a future business meeting after you all have had time to review the feedback from the community. Um, and it would be after the 14 day deadline. Okay. That sounds great to me. Okay. I just had one question on viewing the interview online that will be clipped such that the other person who interviewed their identity would not be revealed.

0:09:35I mean, I think because they may not want their current employer to know that they interviewed, um, yes, thank you for that question, Commissioner Levy. Our staff has already clipped the interviews. Um, so that no matter which decision you made today, we would be ready to move forward with only the identifying information of who was named as a finalist or finalist. Right. Okay. Just wanted to confirm that. All right. Um, so, um, Commissioner Stomen, would you like to make a motion? Sure. I would move that we approve Paul Janipor as the finalist for County Administrator. Second. All in favor. Aye. Okay. That's, that's wonderful. And I hope Paul's listening. And I hope he knows what he's in for. So we, we now move on to confirmation of executive session. Thank you commissioners. I'm here to confirm that the executive session topics noticed at the October 27, 2026 regular business meeting of the Board were discussed as scheduled. And this is simply a note for the record. Okay. Thank you. And we will now move on to what we normally do on Thursday mornings, which is, uh, our general public comment period. We typically have about 50 minutes to take public comment, both from people who are with us in the hearing room and who have joined us online. Three minutes each. We ask everyone to

6 Confirmation of Executive Session Topics

7 General Public Comment Session

0:11:07start by stating their name for the record. And, um, and then the Commissioners often take the opportunity to respond. But, uh, but we, we don't necessarily respond to every question. I do want to say at the outset, uh, sometimes people want to engage in dialogue during this time with commissioners. We don't do that. We are happy to accept your comments. And but we, we, we don't want to have back and forth on the record at this time. So we will start with Aaron Meschke. And as you know, start by stating your name for the record. Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Aaron Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. After four years of ongoing effort, two of which happened before the 2024 weed management plan was finalized. A district court recently ignored pertinent evidence misconstrued statutes and ruled against the citizen lawsuit against your office and BCPOS. In his final ruling, multiple mistakes were made when he cited with the county's argument, but to write that injustice, it will take inexpensive and time consuming appeal that could run into the weed management plan review next year. This leaves us with an unnecessary conundrum that only exists because you haven't listened to the overwhelming and ongoing input from Boulder County Residence. I could rehash all of the issues, obvious conflicts

0:12:46of interest, harm studies from local and national experts, the ignored survey and more. But instead will remind you that the aerial spray issue will not go away until you listen to your constituents. National coverage from Carrie Gillum's recent article in the Guardian and alerts from the children's health defense are bringing our local concern more attention. And if aerial spray continues additional lawsuits, our forthcoming, please stop the back and forth. You can review the Weed Management Plan now instead of waiting until next year, remove drones as an application method. And finally do what County residents have been asking you to do for the last four years. You were not elected to represent open space staff and their unapproved, harmful research efforts on a plant you don't have to control. You are elected to represent county residents.

0:13:33And that responsibility doesn't end because of staff direction chemical company pressure. Or when you don't have to have voter support to get reelected. Finish well and leave a legacy of protecting health and honoring community values and ending by bending pesticide applications by drones now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, and I also will ask people not to have audible responses. Uh, it interferes with people's comfort level and speaking freely. John Bolton. Good morning. Commissioners. Uh, my name is John Bolton. I am a resident at the mountain view mobile home park in Longmont. I spoke before you a month ago. Uh, just to let you know at that time we had received a notice of, uh, intent to sell our park. We are an 81 unit park. Most, we're 55 plus. And most of us, uh, most of the residents are in their 70s, I would say would be the average. I'm just here today to remind you of our effort. And we will be coming back when we have something sorted out, um, to ask you for funding to help us become a resident owned park. We have, um, been talking with thistle, uh, we've been talking with the city of Longmont. And at this point, we really just have a very preliminary numbers, but it appears that we will need some 9

0:15:30million dollars worth of funding effort of a combined non repayable loans to be able to get our rent to purchase our park and to have our rent be affordable for, uh, our senior residence on a fixed income. So they're just calling here to say hello again, uh, remind you of our presence. Let you know that we, we are working on things. And it's coming along. And I don't know the process of how we will come before you when we do actually get some numbers for funding. Um, how we will come before you to ask for an ask on that. So if you could direct me on that, I'm presuming we would be on an agenda. So. Thanks for your time. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for joining us again. Edward Yagi. Uh, good morning. Are my audio and video all right?

0:17:11Yes. They are. My name is Edward Yagi and I'm co - owner of sixth generation family property on Big Al Road. On October 31st fittingly enough, I received public health response to months of questions about its authority to impose new vacation rental requirements reclassify residential systems as commercial required change of use permits and collect, not by its substance, but by its brevity and intent to deflect any vade. All of the above actions violate at least one Colorado law each. For example, you cannot invent a number, put it on your website, collect the money and call it a regulatory fee. Without legal authority or due process, this isn't a fee or tax. It's illegal extortion. After months of requesting what statutory authority you used, I received three things and a relevant reference. I mentioned that septic system procedures are being revised and a link to your website. The contents of which your land use department refuted.

0:18:10Apparently crap now passes for accountability in Boulder County. Nobody disputes the county's authority to regulate septic systems. The question is whether you have the legal authority to impose these requirements on properties have already complied with ordinance 202302. Siding an entire statute is not an answer. It is avoiding the question. And declaring your actions lawful is not evidence. Government officials do not get to grade their own homework. Now public health says it's revising its procedures. Oh, really. Were the previous procedures made over 165 years defective. How so? And what happened to those who already paid fees? A regulatory revision just adopted. Does that retroactively legalize illegal actions you took until last March when I caught you. That every vacation rental needs a new permit. How in the world would you obtain property specific engineering evidence. What makes all this nonsense, especially farcical, is how inherently and obviously pointless it all is. It rests on your official proposition that he part year rental necessarily produces greater wastewater loading than continually occupied residents, an idea that is an idea that is illogical, irrational, and objectively false. You are adding garbage regulations to garbage regulations based on a garbage assumption. So to speak. I spent 38 years in federal and military service. I don't want your thanks. I want accountability in the taxpayers you've stolen money from need refunds

0:19:49and apologies, not more bureaucratic BS explaining why you think you are always right when you're objectively wrong. I also demand substantive written answers to the 10 questions invited by November 3rd response to public health. We're in 14 days. This is no longer about septic systems or vacation rentals. It is about whether Bullro County understands the rule of law. You have engaged in abusive power and shuffling the paperwork does not erase your misconduct. This concludes my remarks. Okay, thank you very much. Are we next to Genovee Stenflow. And please correct my pronunciation. Good morning. It's John of E. Stan Flow, and I'm here this morning. First off, I'm a third generation Colorado native and a 30 - year Boulder County resident. I've come here in person today. To ask you to please pause your plan in Dazaplan herbicides spraying on Boulder County Open Space Lands, especially on Red Hell. I'm among hundreds of Boulder County residents who have respectfully and repeatedly asked you to pause this spray. We're very concerned. There was a study released earlier this year by the city of Boulder that shows that in Dazaplan lingers in the soil for four or more years and sharply reduces native seedling growth. There are also many, many unanswered questions about its effects on aquatic life and other wildlife and preliminary studies are not favorable. Please

0:21:31consider a six to 12 month pause with the public review of the Research Transparency about Who conducted and funded the County's Studies and a role for local farmers and land stewards on the work of containing invasive species. Land lovers and environmental stewards in Boulder County, which include community members like myself. We will all continue to track this issue. We're concerned about pesticide impacts and actively want to minimize at the least and avoid at the best, the impacts negative impacts on Boulder County lands. Please, I ask the commissioners to choose care over haste. And please listen to the community. Please pause the spray and leave a positive legacy that supports life on Boulder County Lands and OpenSpace for years to come. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Ilean Walt. Is Eileen here. Oh, there you are. Hello, Commissioners. My name's Aileen Walls, and I am a mother, Community Organizer. With a background in Environmental Engineering. I hold a deep understanding of living systems and the impact that the way we treat our watersheds are land and our soil has. On our... The food we eat and the health. Of our collective well - being. It is for this reason that I joined grounds for action, and I'm helping to raise the voices of hundreds of community members who have clearly articulated that they are not in

0:23:10support of using a DASAFLAM on Red Hill. And we are not okay with Ariel Jones brain of this chemical. This is now the third time that hundreds of us have shown up and communicated our stance on this issue. These are the constituents that you represent making our requests very clear. This is at a minimum we are asking that you, Commissioner Levy and Commissioner Lohme, go on record and re - justify your choice to the proceeding with this path after the New York City of Boulders Report that came out just months ago. There's all additional new evidence that is showing the negative impacts of this chemical on our land for years. What are you caring for in using this? It's clearly not the immediate risk of a wildfires as this chemical doesn't kill existing plants. It kills seeds of the future plants. You are also not caring for the biodiversity of native plants. As the city's report clearly shows that this pesticide has significant negative impacts on the native seed bank. So please take the time to more openly and publicly review a full body of research. Reassess the presence of the invasive weed you say you are controlling, given that we've had an unprecedented drought year. Please consider the alternatives being brought forward by the community. We are not going to walk away from this

0:24:41issue. We are building more and more media attention and plan to make this story national news if necessary. Is this truly what you want to be remembered for. This chemical has four years minimum of active impact on the soil. This issue is literally about the seeds of the future and the aliveness of this land. Please make the courageous choice and stop the spray. Okay, thank you. The next person has just signed up with, oh, and actually maybe they're not with us, Lua. Looks like they're not with us this morning. Uh, Michael Bauer. Good morning, commissioners. Thanks for this time. Michael Bauer. I've been a Boulder resident for 30 years. Worked for Boulder County Parks in OpenSpace for 10 years. Backgrounds in ecology and engineering. And I currently work in regenerative land management and small water cycle restoration. You know, there's a pattern that emerges in conversations like this. Where it becomes a power struggle. You see it everywhere. And when that happens, everything gets intensified. No one feels heard or feels good.

0:26:08And I just want to step out of that pattern here with you for a few minutes. And, um. And, and talk about that this is, uh, this aerial spring of in Dazaff Lamb. This is about, uh, what we're talking about is, you know, responsible land stewardship. Um, responsible use of county resources. Um, and, you know, most people aren't ready to do the job that you do. Right. Um, it's obvious, but you see what's going on. You know what the alternatives are. I'm not going to give you more facts. You understand the research. I emailed you last month and spoke about this. And thank you for your reply. Commissioner Stillsman. So I think what this is about is, um, that essence is really, um, it becomes a question of, um, does a person want to continue to, as a leader, want to continue having a process continue to pass through their office through their hands, reliving the same year over and over again, uh, the difference between that and someone who makes a difference. And I got a minute left here. And, uh, you know, I think while we're doing this, I think what I'll end with is in this process, what I'll say is I think you know what you need to do. And I think you've known for a little while. Thank you. Okay.

0:27:47Thank you for joining us this morning. Lyndosiegel. I'm here to speak about my retrofit. Start by studying your name. Lynn Siegel. Thank you. I'm here to speak about my retrofit. However, I happen to be missing the front range open space research symposium. Or yesterday and today it's two days. Um, yesterday they talked about the, um. Reduction, uh, fire. Stuff they spray on the, um, on forest and how that embeds into the soil and then goes. You know, blows around. My mom died of rocky flats from plutoning at rocky flats. So I can understand particulates. And. You know, I don't need to die of, as a plan or whatever it's called, you know, you know that. It's like the last guy said. It's like you've heard for years and decades and you do nothing. You know, and James Berkey calls me an activist.

0:29:06I'm not. I'm an ultrasound technologist. I love my profession. I love it. I pay heavily for it. I keep up my continuing education. Requirements. Because I'm a dedicated person, not just an activist. That isn't why I ran for city council. I didn't want to run. But someone I knew and lots of people that I knew wouldn't run. And you know, we had this blue tsunami, you know, and Boulder put a big dent in that blue tsunami. Boulder's the most corrupt place I've ever lived. And I have lived in a lot of places. The corruption is rampant in this town. Evidenced by this blue tsunami that worked for the rest of the country, but not for Boulder. Not for Boulder. With my retrofit, I want geothermal. And now I can't afford to get it. At 268, 000 dollars. I mean, I'll buy it if I have to. I'm freezing cold. I'm 73 years old. And energy smart screwed me over. Gaslighting me 10 years later. Why.

0:30:27Why? How can my county do that to me? I'm an energy activist. Right. I am an activist for that. As well as an ultrasound technologist. I can try. But I can't do. Jack shit without my county behind me without my city behind me. And I want to scale up geothermal. Nationally, internationally. But I can't do anything because I don't know where I stand financially now. Lynn, your time is up. Thank you. My, where cofit is two years now being fixed. Thank you. We're going to move on. Gay, uh, Gaia Micah. Good morning. My name is Gaia Micah. I came to Boulder in 1967 to go to graduate school. And I've been here most of the time since. I've lived in the mountains and in town. And, um, I'm here along with a lot of other people to try to encourage you to. Stop the spraying. Right now we're simply asking you to pause the spring of a Ndaza flam, but in reality, we don't want you to be using in Dazaflam on our lands. These are lands that I think you all love, that we all love. And if we look at the history of the manufacturer of pesticides, has there ever been a time when we've been told the truth about what pesticides do never, never. And now we

0:32:30have a lot more research and then that's suggesting that along with all the other ones in Daciclam is dangerous. It's not safe to use on our lands. It could get into the water. It's in the soil for at least four years. It's destroying native plant seeds. I am currently a person who, uh, is pollinator advocate for the city of Boulder and one of the things we're doing is trying to encourage people to grow native plants and to grow plants that support native insects, all of which are needed for food. Pesticides harm insects. They harm the water. You all have a responsibility to the citizens of Boulder as someone mentioned not necessarily to County staff who maybe want an easy way out. You've received hundreds and hundreds of letters from us. So as someone else mentioned, I think you really know what the research is saying and suggesting there needs to at least be a very public transparent process with the people who have been doing this research at CU, at CSU. We really need to know that you understand fully the consequences of what you are choosing to do to our land. So please, please halt this spraying. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much.

0:34:16We'll now go online. To a AINA Santalla. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And please do start by studying your name. Yeah. My name's Anya Santala. Thank you so much for letting me speak today. I am a public policy graduate student at CU Boulder. I'm also a mom of two. Um, I am also calling in to just voice some of my concerns about the sprain, um, best spraying around Boulder. I think this issue is particularly, um, feel somewhat personal to me because I grew up in Iowa, um, where we are sort of surrounded by industrial agriculture and pretty heavy pesticide use. And that has, um, reportedly been linked at this point to rising cancer rates in Iowa to the point where Iowa is like the second highest cancer rate in the country. Um, and, you know, I, I'm aware obviously that the, you know, more, more spot sprain that we're seeing in Boulder, um, probably has a much lower, um, environmental cost and has slower in public health consequences. But I think it is never the less, um, worth taking a serious look at. So I would like to add that we, we put a pause in place until we're able to get, um, more transparent research and data on the impacts of this. You know, I think that we have a lot of data now suggesting

0:35:52that there are more responsible and safer ways to manage invasive species. Um, the groups who are doing a lot of work on this too, figuring out, um, you know, gentler ways to manage a lot of these, these species. I think a lot of people would also be willing to volunteer their physical labor to help with this. If it could mean that we, um, reduce the use of chemical pesticides on our public lands. Um, I have a lot of concerns about how long it stays in the soil. I have a lot of concerns about how it affects wildlife. Um, you know, in the long term and in the short term, um, and I just think that we would benefit from putting a pause on this and maybe looking at what some of our other options are prior to using these chemicals on our public lands. So thank you so much for your time. Um, I hope that you can kind of consider this issue. And I appreciate, you know, thinking how we can steward these lands more holistically. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Eric Houghton. Morning. My name's Eric Houghton. I'm an owner of Vera Cultivation. Licensed cannabis cultivator here in Boulder. We've been operating for a little over eight years and we employ 35 people in this community. I'm grateful that you're considering

0:37:15changes to the EIOF fund. And grateful for how quickly you've taken it up. For businesses like ours, it makes a real difference. Let me just stop you here. We're going to actually hear that as, uh, as a formal action, a little bit later this morning. And you may want to, I'm going to have to check and make sure that was scheduled for a public hearing. But you may want to mean to be testifying to that. Okay. And, and not here. This is just public comment on things that we're not going to be taking action on. And yeah, we will be taking testimony on this energy impact offset fund. Okay. Is that what you wanted to speak to? I don't want to cut you off here. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. That's going to be next on the agenda. Great. Thanks. Okay. Megan, Francine Doherty.

0:38:15Hi there. My name is Megan. I've been in Boulder County for about 18 years. Came here from massage therapy school a long time ago and have considered this place home. And I am so surprised that we are still talking about using herbicides on our land. I think it's outrageous knowing that there was a tidal wave of public comment in the spring and there was a moratorium and that it's silently been pushed now to actually spraying very soon. And that I don't really know if Boulder County has our best interest in mind. And if we're paying out to get. Certification from Big Ag by experimenting on our lands, that's just not okay. Boulder has a real potential to be a leader and to do radical work in regenerative agriculture. We have DAR. We have yellow barn farm. We have people like Andre Husney who have studied under Alan Sabry themselves. And they, I know, have put in for grants for land management. And they've been denied.

0:39:24And the grants have gone to Boulder County, elite families who have money and lots and lots of land here. So it's up to us to take a stand on what we want for our future, for our kids, for this whole country. And we really have a capacity and a potential to be leaders in that. So I'd like for you guys to consider what you're doing, where your faith and your values are. Is it with the people? Is it with the children? I don't even know if I'm going to stay here if stuff like this continues. Because as myself, what I consider, it's our time to step up and really put our values on change that we need to see. Cause the system is not taking care of us. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to make a last call for anyone that wants to speak to us during our public comment session this morning. Uh, do you do just please come forward and we'll add you to the list. Hi. Um, my name is Lynn Israel and I've been a long time Boulder resident also. Um, am a person who is speaking out against in Dazaflam as well. Um, my main point is that we have, um, offered the county an alternative. We as some philanthropists have come together to put together a

0:40:53plan for alternative grazing. And I left that with Marta yesterday. And I would love to have that plan considered as you guys look at alternatives to sprang in Dazablam. I also have been reading the very recent study that the city did, very concerned about doing this in our County Lance. So I just ask that you consider the alternative of grazing. And the other alternatives that have been proposed. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, anybody else. All right. Hi Commissioners. My name is Amy Polaty and I've been a Boulder resident for 23 years. I live in the near the open space. In just south of where Red Hill is. And I also volunteer on the farms of both yellow Barn and elk run. And I can tell you that if spraying were to occur, that would hinder my ability to volunteer and feed our community because AD or 90 percent of the food that we grow there is given to the community to Native American elders as well as the food pantry. We would not feel confident with the food that we'd be growing for them if this spray occurs. Secondly, my mother is just got rediagnosed with non Hodgkin's lymphoma. And she's been living with that for almost 30 years. We lived in a house and you're a golf course where herbicide was

0:42:33sprayed. And everyone in that community got non - Hodgkin's lymphoma, including the dogs. This is serious. And it needs to be paid attention. I'm also an advocate and ambassador for the Roaddale Institute. I don't know if you're familiar with that, but it's a research farm in Pennsylvania that has done comparative studies with organic and conventional agriculture and the effects of these chemicals on human health. Their slogan is. Healthy soil equals healthy food equals healthy people. If you spray above these farms, there will not be healthy food. Others have also brought up the problem of how this will affect wildlife. I think Boulder is definitely should be a leader in promoting wildlife habitat. Healthy food for healthy people. I've written countless letters. Only Ashley has gotten back to me. Marta, you got back to me briefly and then didn't write back. I would like an answer.

0:43:49We would all like an answer and just get this taken care of. I've also been a volunteer with the Boulder Open space. And the weed warriors. And we have manually pulled weeds. And there's ways around this. I think you know that. And let's just get this done. Let's just stop the spray. Let's just stop it. It's unnecessary. That's all. Okay. Thanks for listening. So I believe we've now heard from everybody who had indicated they wanted to speak this morning. We will now move to the public hearing on the energy impact offset fund and marijuana regulations amendments. And this is a public hearing. We are taking testimony on both of these matters. Looks like we have run flax. Just before we get started, I have another meeting. Thank you. Oh, I'm so, oh, okay. That wasn't noted I wasn't aware of that before. Thank you. Uh, so Commissioner Stolesman will be excused from the following topics.

0:44:55It looks like Ron Flax, Kathy Geisel. Thank you. All right. Good morning commissioners. Kathy Giselle permit and licensed operations manager for community planning and infirmiting. I'm here today with, uh, group of my colleagues from Committee Planning and Permitting as well as Office of Sustainability Climate and Resilience. We're here to talk to you about, uh, energy impact offset fund and the marijuana licensing Regulation Amendments that we'd like to make, uh, to our program. How do I, sorry I just wanted to make sure it was presenting up there. Um, so through this, uh, presentation, we do have two actions that we would like to ask for you all to take. So the first one is going to be the sun setting the energy impact offset fund. You'll hear us refer to that as EIOF in this presentation. Just to shorten that in, we'd like to ask that the effect of January 1st, Ronflex will talk to that. Um, and then the second action that we'd like to ask for you to take is to adopt some proposed amendments to the regulations, one of which would be removing the language of the AIOF program from the marijuana licensing Regulations, as well as we'd like to talk about to your license terms as opposed to the one year license term that we currently have. And then also removal

8 Public Hearing on Energy Impact Offset Fund and Marijuana Regulations Amendments

0:46:21of the assessor and treasure referrals in our licensing program. So with that, I'll turn this over to Ron Flax to talk about the AIOF. Good morning Commissioners. Um, so when cannabis first was legalized in Colorado Boulder County was one of the first places that, uh, that created regulations to allow it. And when that was going on, we were aware through some research out of California that the industry had the potential to be very impactful from an environmental perspective. Um, but that research was, um, very incomplete and didn't really represent what legalized cannabis production looked like. It was largely based on, um, illegal grow operations, um, some sort of gray market grow operations. So it was really unclear what it was going to look like when it was legalized other than it seemed likely that it was going to be impactful. So, um, the Board at the time was very concerned about that. So when we created, when we created those initial regulations, we also wanted to make sure we were doing what we could to understand the industry and to make sure that whatever impacts were there, we're mitigated to the best of our ability.

0:47:38Um, with that, we, um, we did create the energy impact offset fund as a way to both understand, uh, those impacts. To mitigate it. Um, in the packet that you receive, a fair bit of detail about some of the, um, some of the details of the successes of the program. What I realized in that, in that summary was that it actually didn't include some of the really early on activities. One of the things that was interesting was how much interest there was from, uh, all over the place. Um, I did a quick survey through my, some of my notes from back in the day, um, what I realized was that I was, I was interviewed by, um, CBS Al Dzera, USA Today Bloomberg News, Think Progress, as well as the Boulder Weekly, the Denver Post and KUNC, all within that first year of the program standing up. So there was a lot of people sort of looking at this. Um, we also did some pretty, um, important presentations with early versions of the data that we started to collecting. Using the, uh, the fund, um, we, um, we provided presentations to the Rocky Mountain Association of Energy Engineers. Um, there was a large conference called the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium that was well attended by a lot of Western states that informed their early adoptions

0:48:55of similar regulations, um, throughout some of the other states that were creating regulations at that time. Um, and then the one conference that I think was really kind of, um, impactful and an interesting way was that, um, I presented at, uh, Canadian cannabis energy conference that was attended by all government officials from all 10 providences as well as all the utilities that work in those providences as they were working on a national program. So the early data that we were already pulling out of our program just to show them, even though it wasn't that many grow operations, um, compared to what many of these other places were looking at, you know, the scale of our program is actually relatively small even compared to, you know, what, what the city of Boulder has or what Denver has. Um, but the data that we had was very high resolution and very high quality data that allowed, um, all of those folks to really understand what this industry was up against. Um, and at the time, especially right at the beginning, it was a mess. Well, we saw was, um, people who had taken essentially, um, basement, uh, grow operations, illegal car operations and just scaled them up, um, and, um, it was wasting energy and really obscene and absurd ways. Um, and so the, the very early

0:50:13days of this program were extremely effective at, uh, identifying those problems and incentivizing rapid change of those. And that, that's what's happened. So over the course of this program, it really has, uh, gone a long way towards, um, modernizing it, um, much of the stigma of all, um, having, um, energy professionals work in this industry has faded away. So there actually is professional HVAC engineers working on these systems. The lighting systems are improved. So we are in a situation today where, um, we really, I'm fairly proud of this program in the way that we identified the problem. We quickly stood something up that, that addressed it. We shared those successes, um, that had impacts across North America, which I feel really quite good about. Um, and today we've reached a point where, um, the, the, we're suggesting that you downsize the program to and reduce the governmental, um, uh, work that's needed to maintain this program that's now commensured with the way that this program exists today. So we have a sort of a full life cycle of a program over a period of years that I think has run its course succeeded on its mission, uh, and I think it's time to, uh, to stand it down. Okay. Thanks. Anything else from either of you or any of the County staff that are joined

0:51:41us before we take it to public testimony. Um, so we just wanted to add a couple of things in here. Um, so the marijuana industry conditions have changed quite substantially recently economic conditions have really gone down. Um, right now in our licensing program, our cultivator count has declined by 56 percent. So we've lost a lot of cultivators in the county. And then three of the remaining eight cultivators that we have in the county are on payment plans because they just can't afford to pay their into their EIOF, pay their EIOF bill. Um, so they're on payment plans. And so in the financial challenges reflect a broader industry, it's not just here in Boulder County. It's, it's broader, um, out there in the industry. So just wanted to indicate that continuing the program would create some challenges. It does create additional financial burden on an already struggling industry. And we feel like this would help them with that. Um, there is also an impact on the county resources. We have three departments that work in the EIOF Fund. We have Oscar that is a part of that. We also have the Office of Financial Management and then Community Planning and Permitting. So, uh, sending out the bills, collecting the fees, uh, and then approving payment plans and then following up on the payment plans and making

0:53:07sure that those payments, um, are being made. So, um, we could devote our resources elsewhere if we are able to reduce that. We also wanted to talk about, you know, what happens if we do sunset the EIOF program, um, so what we would like to do is, um, have it end December 31st. So January 1st, we'd have no long, no longer have the IOF program. The existing payment plans we would have the cultivators that are on those payment plans continue to pay those payments, um, until they complete that, um, but there will be no additional funds that they would have to pay. Um, we would keep the EIOF fund open through 2030. And the remaining funds would continue to support approves sustainability and carbon reduction purposes. Um, and then our existing solar rebate commitments will still remain available. Um, so our action one recommendation would be, um, the staff recommends that we, you approve sun setting the program. So that's action one. Um, you think we're going to do public testimony all at the end.

0:54:15So we just have one, one public comment. Or did you want to do two separate. We have in our packet a single resolution 2026 - 0070 that addresses both. Yes. Okay. So go ahead and move into the second action item and then we'll take it all at the end. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Okay. So the second part of what we would like to bring to you is some additional proposed updates to the licensing regulation. First of all, as I said earlier, removal of the EIOF references, uh, extending marijuana licenses from one year to two year. And then remove the assessor and treasure referrals from our program. So currently, as I've said, we are on a one year license cycle. And we have reviews that are completed on those cycles by multiple different teams amongst different departments.

0:55:10Um, so we've licensing zoning public health building inspections, access and engineering assessor and the treasurer, uh, repote, we are proposing to do a two year license for a couple of reasons, uh, the first thing would be that we would align with the state license, uh, so marijuana licenses are dual licenses. So you have to have a license from the state as well as from the local jurisdiction and the state allows local jurisdictions to do either a one year or a two year license. And they've moved to a two year license. So we feel that it would be beneficial to go to a two year license for a couple of different reasons. Um, along with aligning with the state does also reduce administrative burdens. So all of those teams, um, that I indicated that currently review our renewals, um, it would free up some time for them so that they wouldn't be doing these on a yearly basis. They would be every other year than it would be, it would reduce the repetitive referral reviews. Um, and, and most of all of the staff that do these reviews have provided support in that, um, all of them thought that the change would be good. They encourage it. Um, they were just a couple of concerns from public health just with air quality, making sure that the,

0:56:24the odor, um, is rectified. We have violation section in our, in our regulations that we could use to address that on the off years that they're getting off years from renewals. Um, and the, uh, other item was just making sure that we notify public health when the, um, they do a change of ownership just because of the septic system and the process for that. The next item that we wanted to bring to you is, um, to update our referral process. So currently as I indicated before in the slide before all of the different people that review these, um, the assessor and treasurer are only included in this particular licensing program that we have, uh, with community planning and permitting. Um, and we would like to get it in line with all of our other licenses that we have. So our short - term rental vacation rental licensing contractor licensing secure transport licensing and liquor licensing.

0:57:26None of those licensing programs utilize the assessor and treasurer during the referral program. So we wanted to kind of get, get in, get that in alignment, um, and both the treasure and assessor have indicated that they have their own mechanisms of collecting what they need and they don't need to do that through our licensing program. I really kind of doubles up on, on their workload. So they do it on their own as a, as well as doing it through our licensing program. So it would be, um, there'll be beneficial on both ends to do that. Um, and like I said, the both, both departments, the assessor and treasurer have provided support in removing themselves from the licensing program. So with that, um, staff recommends, um, removal of the IOF references from Regulations to your marijuana license terms removal of assessor and treasurer referral requirements. Um, I did want to note there was, we initially had wanted to do some, uh, changes to our licensing fees, um, but staff has some more work to do with that. So we'll bring that to a business meeting here.

0:58:30Um, pretty soon. Okay. Thank you, Kathy. Then I think we're ready to take public comment on both of these, uh, requests. So we've got Eric Houghton. You're welcome to come forward and you'll have three minutes. Eric Houghton, um, owner of Vera Cultivation, been operating in Boulder County for eight years. Thanks, Kathy and Ron. Uh, we're grateful about that you guys are considering these changes. Um. It makes a real difference for us. We appreciate the time you guys have spent coming by the facility, seeing what we're up to. The industry and Colorado has been in a very hard period for a little bit. Wholesale prices are down thin margins have nearly disappeared at this point. A lot of cultivators have gone out of business. And then last year, uh, wave of bankruptcies have hit the retail sign. For vendors like us. That means hundreds of thousands of dollars invoices that will never collect. Meanwhile, our tax burden has not eased. State law requires us to pay the 15 percent excise tax on every wholesale transfer, whether or not we ever get paid. We also carry sales taxes, licensing fees, and compliance costs. And we are shut out of federal deductions. The EIOF is one more fixed cost tied to energy use. And it doesn't shrink when revenue falls. We share the goal behind the EIOF. Our

1:00:16facility was built with an energy efficient cooling system and variable speed drives. We recapture water, compost our plant waste. And we're pursuing a large solar installation that would offset much of our daytime grid command. Financial pressure has forced us to delay this project and others along with maintenance that keeps our equipment running efficiently. The money we pay into the fund could go directly into these upgrades. Whether the county ends the fund or allows licensees to reinvest those dollars in approved efficiency projects at their own sites. Either step would help cultivate or survive this period while still supporting the funds environmental goals. We're simply trying to keep our doors open, pay our employees. And make it through to a healthier market. Thanks again for listening, for moving quickly and supporting the businesses in Boulder. Okay. Thank you for joining us. Um, we again have someone that goes by Lua, possibly with us online. Um, you just want to make sure we don't have this individual or anybody else who wanted to speak virtually. Hi Chair Lee, Brienne Barber Commissioner's Office staff. At this time, Lua is not in the Virtual Room and there's no one else joined to give public comment virtually. Okay. Thank you, Brianna and the record can reflect that the hearing room to speak with us this morning. Um, any, any last closing

1:01:56comments before Commissioner Lochiman and I take action. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, I was trying to follow the instruction. Yeah. No, I didn't mean to overlook you. You hadn't signed up. Lynn Siegel, go ahead and come forward. I'd like a little bit of warmth. You know, this is your name for the record. This is a different. I, I was, I was, no, it's not different. There's no difference here. It's a different case. We just need your name on the record. Was it proved here to start with? And that's why this guy is having trouble now. It should never have been. Because we need heat, a 73 year old needs to be warm in the winter before people are smoking pot. You know, what really matters in our community. I want to be warm. Is it more important that these people can smoke pot. And I have to be freezing cold because this person and energy smart cannot do their job right. You know, I worked for 10 years on energy getting municipalized from the local, uh, our local community buying off Excel energy. Four ballot measures.

1:03:16We were tricked. By folks like Sam Weaver and Rachel friend who's now our community, our county treasure, okay? We were tricked. What's more important marijuana or, you know, like real energy use. For people. And I can't be warm enough. And this is an extreme environment or cool enough. In the summer. Because of policies of energy smart with. The county. Why. Why do you gaslight me. When I'm trying to do an energy retrofit that I'm eligible for and waited a year for. 10 years after I applied for an energy retrofit here. And yet you're supporting marijuana. And how their energy is used. Why. Why can't I be warm or cool. In this very extreme environment? I'm not from here. I don't want to stay here. I want to be back in the Pacific Northwest where it's more temperate. But I'm, I'm anchored to my house and my freezing or too hot in the summer situation. And I have no idea of how it will be resolved. I was offered this by care and EOC. Energy out Reload or Energy Outreach Colorado. These are nonprofits. That we're trying to support me and they have no idea. That I won't even use one sent of my energy retrofit to pay off XL energies. You know, so they can laugh all the way to the bank. This is a problem. Okay. Lynn,

1:05:25thank you for joining us this morning. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this matter? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. And if you have any additional comments, um, to make now's the time. If I make visual, I had some questions for the person. I'm sorry. Presenters. It doesn't take time for that. Thank you. Before you do your closing comments, if you don't mind, um, a couple of questions and I'll try and go back to the first section first. Thanks for the presentation. Thanks for the information. And Baron, I'm just going to come like some commentary having staff at Boulder County who've been here so long to have, be able to pick up your notes and be like, you know what, in 2014, it's really, it's very helpful and it's really fascinating the way that programs continue. Um, but also the way that Boulder County responds to issues of the day. Right. So thanks for that. Um, I, a couple of the questions that I had were, and I'm looking at the packet on the way that the description, some of the highlights, what you talked about on the programs that were funded or supported in the packet is talking about the fun provides education, technical assistance, financial incentives to learn those best practices as time kind of evolved. The

1:06:43fund also supports broader carbon pollution reduction initiatives, including renewable energy products, benefiting low income communities. Um, and some other examples. So my question is, what are the impacts of stopping the fund? Who's jumping in now and going to be supporting and funding those initiatives that were chosen way back when, um, so it's just a curiosity of, of who might be burdened by what I'm guessing some of the focus area was. That's one. And then also just if you could talk a little bit about what you have learned, um, in regards to the initial concerns of the way it was described was wasting energy, um, and that's my interpretation too, is that some of these facilities would like really detrimental to the earth and the planet, not just water resource, but like landscapes and disturbance of land, et cetera. So if you could just like, what is the learning? What are the lessons learned? Who are we talking about as you ask to sunset the fund?

1:07:44Yeah. So, um, speaking to the second part of your question first, I mean, one of the things that I remember really vividly when I walked into one of the first operations, um, was they, um, they had a countertop that was lined up with, um, two dozen blackened decker toaster ovens. And they were, I was like, what, what is going on here? You know, first of all, we had concerns about the way they had used their power strips because it was a code violation. But even aside from that, what are they doing with this pile of toaster ovens and what they were doing was they would drawing the flower that they had just grown. And they were just using the same equipment that they had used in their house, uh, when they were growing legally in the basement and just bought more toast drovins. And so not only was it leading to low quality product, but it was incredibly wasteful compared to the way that a modern horror cultural system would use, uh, airflow and dehydrators, uh, and, and dehumidifiers to dry this product. So it was using way more energy, lower products. We saw, um, saw mechanical systems that were being severely overloaded, uh, they weren't really being designed for the kinds of conditions that you had in any kind of modern horror cultural approach,

1:09:02right? They were humidifying spaces and dehumidifying spaces that was heating and cooling systems that were in direct competition with each other that was recirculation systems that were just programmed, um, really an absurd way. So it was, it was just the industry knew nothing about what they were really doing. And none of the professionals were tuned into this that everybody was afraid to play in that market space because of the stigma attached. And it wasn't until we actually got the data. So we started collecting this really high resolution data that showed what these systems were doing. And that was what allowed the energy engineers to say, okay, we, we, we actually can help not just, um, save a lot of, um, of energy. But we can help these businesses save a huge amount of money. So, so there was the money side of it that we were really trying to, um, show and, you know, manage the demand cost, um, so it was really just a lot of one - on - one working with, um, the energy. We hired kube resources to help us manage this data and collect this data. And synthesize it and really just spoon feed it to these business owners to show them what to do. And it didn't, it didn't take a lot after we started that ball rolling. But

1:10:18that initial push was, uh, was slow going right at the beginning until we actually had some hard data to work at. So they really right now, they're really being run like professional, um, professional operations, much like the indoor horror cultural work that happened elsewhere. But there was no crossover. And this particular product, um, did have, um, a lot more lighting loads than many others. Um, and so that all played into it. So they were using inefficient bulbs with, um, a lot of mercury. We got, we sort of got all the mercury, for instance, that were, they weren't really recycling the bulbs. It was a lot of illegal dumping of the mercury in their standard waste stream. So we stopped that process by required them to track it. Um, now everyone's using LEDs with modern systems.

1:11:07So it's really just evolved. And we, the program really, what it did more than anything else was it really accelerated that evolution. So in some places, um, I would say it put the industry, you know, 10 years ahead of where it would have been, uh, if, if we hadn't stepped in in that way. Thank you. Um, I wonder, Zach, if someone from your team could, yeah. Morning, commissioners, Zack with the Office's sustainability, climate action resilience, uh, to the question about, you know, what were the funds being used for? A majority of the funds and the focus was to focus on energy efficiency and supporting our local industry in improving the air energy efficiency. So a lot of projects were, you know, what Ron talked about, some of the scheduling, um, how could they reduce conflicting systems running at the same time? Uh, we did deep energy assessments, hired a vendor to do deep energy assessments, um, had a certification program, studied, um, daylight, um, management, I believe with ARA as well as part of that.

1:12:15Um, and so those things, um, and we've had a, you know, we've had cube resources and resource innovations and other contractor available to cultivators at no cost for consulting. Um, those things will sunset. But I think they've also kind of run the course kind of like Ron talked about, you know, the, the cultivators have transitioned from originally halogen light bulbs. Now mostly to LEDs, which are much, much more efficient. And the cascading effect of, um, not only the energy is for the light, but halogen light bulbs. Um, So then the growers were running their AC and cooling their spaces in the winter. Um, and so the getting those out was a big step. Um, and moving to, um, LED is a much more efficient. And importantly, produce much less heat. Uh, so those things have evolved and are not quite as necessary. And also as Ron mentioned, the connections of the industry, um, to those support professionals, um, is much greater now. And there are more working in that industry. So we find it's not as necessary to try and like draw that support to the industry because they have connections already. Um, so that is sort of the main thrust of the spending, um, along with the credits going back to the cultivators if they made upgrades. So those things blend and we feel

1:13:41comfortable with that. Um, the other significant uses of the funding we're supporting the four corners carbon coalition. This is an initiative that Boulder County, uh, was the founding member of and working on early stage carbon drawdown projects. That organization is now growing and maturing as well. Um, and has additional other sources of funding. We may be able to still use sustainability tax funding support that if that's, you know, an ongoing priority, that, you know, come to you and our budget regular annual budgeting process around that. Um, we did also purchase, um, carbon offsets in a few years. Um, we, that was a little bit of an experiment. Um, on, you know, how good of quality a carbon offsets could we get. We probably won't repeat that experiment again. Um, so we're not too worried about not repeating that program as well. So in short, the things we got sort of initiative started, um, and had successes in terms of bringing professionals and knowledge to the industry, um, and then also, um, testing, uh, carbon offsets, um, as well as getting the four corners carbon coalition started. Thank you. It sounds a little bit different than what's written in this packet. That's what I was listening for. And it's helpful just to understand the lessons learned and maybe wear some time in investment won't go, um,

1:15:17in the future. And I think that's, that's also important just as we work through processes. Right. So thank you. Um, the other question I had maybe it's for this team, but we'll see. On one of the slides had kind of, I think it was like four, here's what's going to happen next and one of the items, maybe the third one down was saying stay open till 2030. I was just trying to understand what the impacts are. And I'm looking at Kathy because I think it was you that was presenting on that section. And my curiosity is I interpreted some of the presentation of, um, not just aligning with state, I think was that section? No, that was the second section. Um, kind of recommending this stopping of the fund. For some of the staff issues capacity, um, reducing some of the processes. But then it said the program would stay open until 2030. So I'm just trying to understand if the reducing of staff work on this program, actually, we won't realize that until 2030.

1:16:24And it might have just been the way I was looking at the slide. So just to have a little bit better understanding of what stopping now would mean and what else, what work would continue through that 2030 period. Yeah. So the EIOF fund would stay open until 2030. So we'd have the funds in there. So we, um, I don't have the exact number of what the fund balance is. And there, I'm not sure if you know that often 200, 000, I think at the moment. Yeah. Yeah. So we'll still have that in there until 2030, um, and we would utilize that. Oscar would utilize that for energy efficiency items. Um, so the, the other part of the presentation was more on the staff side of processing of the licenses, which is processing of the license don't have a whole lot of interaction with the AIOF fund. The EIOF is part of the licensing program. And the cultivators have to be a part of it if they, unless they have another off - site energy that they're on site energy, that they're utilizing to do that.

1:17:26Um, so. That's, yeah, it's kind of, it's, it's part of the program, but the staff that does the reviews of renewals, it's separate from that. That the piece of the program that will discontinue is the assessment of new EIOF fees. So we would stop the collection process with no new invoices would be sent out. The existing collections for invoices that have already been sent out would be continued until that revenue is received. And then we would continue to dispersing those funds over the period of time. So the staff overall staff time will start to decrease as soon as we stop the collection process and it'll gradually taper off until the fun goes away. Okay. And can I add real quick? Yeah. So the purpose of keeping it open is there are two cultivators that have made investments and solar either onsite solar on the facility.

1:18:14Um, community solar garden or through Excel's renewable connect program. Um, and as recently as last year, one of those cultivators needed to make a decision about whether or not to renew their subscriptions and they asked us to support them in an economic analysis of what financially made more sense. Their fees were going to go up for the subscriptions they had. And they asked us, you know, should we do this? Um, you know, obviously we didn't tell them what to do. It's their business. Um, but we gave them an analysis in relation to the fees that yes, you know, it still made sense, you know, financially on paper to continue, um, those renew those subscriptions for another few years. Um, now we're talking about sunseting the fee. And that would change the economic analysis for them.

1:18:58Uh, so, uh, as well as for the cultivator that, you know, has on site solar and is paying off that investment over time. Uh, so the purposes of keeping the fund open is to give those cultivators a couple more years of opportunity to access the rebate credits that they were eligible for as sort of a, um, a recognition, you know, that they made financial decisions, you know, expecting that the fee would continue. Uh, one of those cultivators has very little engagement with the county. Um, the other is highly engaged, but I don't is a little bit smaller. And I don't know that either of them will use that. We're just keeping that window open after the two years. Then we'll spend the fund down, um, in the, you know, in the priorities and the matrix that are previously approved by the board on the recommendation of the EIOS steering committee. So keeping it open is really just the funds are going to sit there most likely, uh, for a couple of years. Um, if they're not used, then we'll close them out in the following year. Okay. That's helpful. I appreciate it. Um. The only other, um, that's not a question. Okay. Nope. I think that's it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I apologize for just sailing right past the question opportunity. I don't have

1:20:16any questions. So, um, just appreciate you bringing this forward. I read the packet. Quite familiar with the issues that you've outlined. Not the first time we heard about this. So, uh, so I've been expecting this. And so Commissioner, what you mean, we do have a resolution 2026 - 0070. Any just really quickly since I asked my questions. I didn't know if we needed to go back to stuff or any questions. You said you were those were your questions. I was asking if we need to go back for closing comments because that's where you were. And then I interrupted you to ask my questions. I just wanted to check in before we go to deliberation. I think we heard that they had no. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Just making sure we're okay in our hearing protocol.

1:21:03Oh yeah. Um, so guests on deliberation is that we're. Okay. Um, I, I mean, I had some questions and I'm always wondering like, what are the impacts? Maybe what are the unintended consequences? Is there something around payment? Something that's going to be, um, and effect that we're not thinking about, and I think that might just be a conversation with, with folks later, um, to understand some of the other items that I brought up that's in the packet regards to what I read as goals of the program. But as far as what's on here in the conversation, I, um, I'm supporting what staff hasn't recommendation. I think it was important to say on the second part, um, and we've changed some of our other processes to go from one year to two years. So that just like resonated. It made sense for a lot of the reasons that you all articulated. And obviously we want to align with the state. I think it just makes it so much easier for not just our processes, but for others. And then the other key piece that you talked about a couple of times was just reducing burdens, whether it's on staff or it's on cultivators or folks who are trying to access different programs. So, um, I'm in support of what's been presented here on item eight. Great.

1:22:17And I am as well. This is actually a great example of a program that worked. And it works so well. We don't need it anymore. Uh, for all the reasons that you pointed out. And, uh, so I don't think I need to say anything more about it. Um, would you like to make a motion? I'm happy to make a motion here. To accept the energy impact offset Fund in marijuana regulations amendments that's presented by stuff. Yeah. And I think, um, maybe the cleanest way to do this is just move approval of the, of Resolution 2026 - 0070, which will draw my motion. Okay. Let's do that. Oh, you want me to make, okay, I move approval of Resolution 2026 - 0070 that sunsets the energy impact offset fund and amends our Boulder County Marijuana licensing Regulations. Thank you. I didn't have the resolution in front of me. So I did want to waste any more time. I second that motion. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. So we have approved that two to zero. Thank you so much for your work on this.

1:23:34And we will be in recess now until one o'clock when we will return to the dais for a public meeting on our 2027 budget. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you, Jer. And we are recording. Okay, good afternoon. Welcome back. All three commissioners are present again, and we are here this afternoon. For our 2027 budget work session. Armando, are you gonna lead this off? Yes, I am. Thank you. Ready. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for being here today. Jill and I will be walking you through the 27 budget, focusing on the changes we've made since presenting the Recommended Budget on October 1st. As you know, this has been a challenging budget year. We spent several months working with departments, elected offices in the board to address our structural budget challenges while continuing to support the essential County Services. Today is really about bringing all the work together and getting your direction on the Remaining Budget Decisions. As we go through each fund, I'll highlight the proposed revenues expenditures and projected Fund Balances. More importantly, I'll pause after each fund to ask whether we have consensus to move forward with the Recommendation. Our goal today is to leave this meeting with clear direction so we can finalize the

9 1:00 p.m. Afternoon Session

9.a Public Meeting - 2027 Budget Work Session

1:25:41adopted budget in December. With that, let's get started. Commissioners, before we get into the numbers, I want to briefly remind everyone of the process we've gone through to get here. We started with our budget reduction work sessions in August and September, where we reviewed proposals from departments and elected offices. On October 1st, we presented the Recommended 27 budget, including the additional general fund reductions needed to address our structural deficit. Through October, we had several work sessions with departments to review capital requests, housing, public health, and other major budget priorities. We also held our community, our public hearing October 22nd, giving residents an opportunity to provide input on the Recommended Budget. So today it's about starting. It isn't about starting the budget discussions over. It's about building on the direction already provided and identified when we are now we're looking for consensus. We'll focus on the adjusted adjustments made since October 1st and walk through each fund to confirm the budget's direction before we prepare the final budget. Before we get to individual funds, I want to emphasize that the numbers were presenting today are not final. The figures are based on information available as of October 30. And there are still several adjustments that need to be incorporated before adoption. These include updating employee compensation and benefit costs. Negotiated wage increases. Carry forward requests from

1:27:29departments. For projects that won't be completed in 2026. And finally, property evaluations that will affect property tax revenues. I want to remind the board that are beginning fun balance our estimates. They're based on our final 2025 financial results and projected revenues and expenditures for the Remainder of 2026. As these figures are updated, some of the ending fund balances may change. What we're asking for today is your direction on the proposed budget decisions, recognizing the final numbers may be adjusted before adoption. We will make sure that these changes are reflected in the final budget materials. With that, let's move into compensation, followed by the General Fund and the Remaining Funds. Commissioners, I want to start with the compensation because it's one of the largest adjustments to the budget. We've reached an agreement with the Boulder County employees union that includes increasing the living wage from 52, 000 to 55, 000 and a 215 dollar monthly cost of living adjustment. And a 1. 5 standard pay increase for eligible employees. The estimate cost is 8. 3 million.

1:28:48We also have the fraternal order of police agreement, which includes certain step adjustments with an estimated cost of 1 million, or 1. 04 million. These agreements will incorporate into the final adopted budget and wandered to highlight them because compensation continues to represent one of our largest expenditures. Commissioners, let's move on to the General Fund. Since we presented the Recommended Budget on October 1st, we made three adjustments that I wanted to walk you through. First, our communication centralization effort. We're recommending reducing the General Fund transfer to public health by approximately 289, 000. This represents the funding associated with one communication position and one web position. I wanted to clarify that we're not directing public health to eliminate these specific positions. We're reducing the general fund support by the equivalent amount and public health will determine how best to manage that reduction. Second, the assessor's office identified an additional personnel savings of approximately 28, 000 associated with vacant appraiser one position, combined with the previous Recommended Classifications. This brings the total annual saving to approximately 66, 000. And finally, we're recommending Removing the proposed 84, 000 reduction to the hazard material management facility operating hours. After receiving feedback regarding the potential impact on regional services and partnerships, we felt it was appropriate to take another look before moving forward with the reduction. These are the three

1:30:33adjustments since October 1st. Commissioners, before we move to the overall reduction summary, I wanted to make sure we have a consensus on these three adjustments. Are you comfortable with moving forward with the public health transfer reduction, the additional assessor savings and the removal of the HMMF reduction. I support a thank you. I am at this time and I just say that, which is going to be kind of the caveat, because I think there's going to be some discussion from the board as well. So at this moment, I am. Okay, I did have a question about the public health reduction in the General Fund transfer. So, I mean, you've linked that with the communications position and a web position within public health. It's part of the communication centralization effort is that contemplated, that communications on behalf of public health would be provided through the centralized communications system. Where just does this leave them with still a remaining communications position? So I'm going to actually ask Natalie to please answer that question. Since she's been involved, I'm just looking at the numbers for the positions. Thank you, Armando, and thank you for the question, Commissioner Levy.

1:32:14The intention of this budget reduction to Boulder County Public Health would leave Boulder County Public Health with one communications person still embedded within the public health department and remaining reporting both to the public health executive director and the Board of Health. And then public health would utilize our centralized web team that will be part of the Countywide Communications Division. And then, um, an additional position, uh, because they have two communications people currently would be able to fill existing vacancies within that division. Say that last part again? Um, they currently have two communications individuals. So one communications person could find another, um, position within the newly centralized communications team because there are still some positions that currently aren't filled. And we have departments without any communications individuals. Okay. Yeah. That was more beyond the scope of my question, but that's fine. Okay. So they still do have an internal communications person. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Um, yeah, I'm supportive. Supportive. So with these adjustments, it looks like we're standing against our 13. 2, we stand pretty close to our 13. 2 million reduction target. So I'm going to move on to the reduction summary. And then we can have discussion after that. Commissioner, this slide summarizes where we stand in our 2027 general fund reductions. As you recall, the Board Establisher Reduction Target of 13. 2 million

1:34:07with a goal of achieving 70 percent through personal reductions based on the recommendations we've discussed. We're now approximately 13. 1 million in ongoing reductions. Of the amount approximately 8. 2 million is from personnel and 4. 8 million is from operating reductions. This puts us at 59 or about 59, 000 short of our 11 or 13. 2 million target. You'll also notice that we haven't achieved the 7030 distribution. We're closer to 60 feet perating. I want to point out that while we didn't achieve the exact distribution, we have identified significant ongoing reductions across county departments and elected offices, giving the magnitude of the reduction's already proposed. My recommendation is that we accept the approximately 13. 1 million in ongoing savings rather than pursue additional reduction solely to close the remainder gap of 59 million or 15, 9, 000. I believe it makes more substantial progress addressing our structural budget challenges and the remaindering differences relatively small compared to the overall target. Commissioners, we have, do we have some consensus to accept the revised General Fund Reduction of 13. 1 and recognize that there's about 59, 000 below our original target and the personnel operating reduction differ from the original 70 - 30. I will transition for some discussion for the board. In regards to, uh, the 13. 1 million. Chair. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation

1:35:54for being here for questions as well. I think for me, before I can answer that question about the 13. 1 million, I have a couple of different questions. And one is just, and I'm kind of looking at Jillian from the number standpoint. I'm curious about where we are. And I heard you say at the beginning, we are still working with estimates. Um, based on expenditures and texts and all the, all the factors that we have to contemplate on this budget for 2027. And what I'm trying to understand is do we, what is our current. Estimate in regards to where our general fund balance will be. And I'm trying to think about from a reserve standpoint. What we may want to, so I would just like to look at that. And I understand the maybe 20, 25 percent reserve estimate of where the county might feel most comfortable for credit reasons and a natural disaster reasons and all the things that we've had to contemplate having a slide and it'll go over the sourcing use, which will give you the revenues that we're anticipating for 27, the expenditures. And then what we believe are fund balance will be at the beginning of 2027. And that will give you an idea of, you know, the magnitude of where we're going to be ending or starting 2027. And

1:37:15then we can go back to the reductions if you like. That would be helpful for me. That's just kind of like where I'm going to base my conversation because I am, I am going to be reiterating some of my asks in regards to a change of numbers on operations and FTE that would change that 13. 1 million. And so that's, that's why I'm looking at. Figures. But I want to just also in the spirit of discussion if others have questions on this slide or have other questions before we go back that way. I was going to suggest that I think that question on, on slide number six is maybe a little bit premature in that this assumes that all of the other decisions that we made that you have rolled up into these numbers don't change. So absolutely. Yeah. I was thinking I would have had the same response that Commissioner Lochimaine had is like, I'm not really sure that I can accept that number until we get to the end of the process. I think I look at it a little differently. Like for my perspective, we've been working together over the course of many months, you know, and no one has gotten everything that they've wanted. There've been a lot of compromises. Like we've been working hard to try to address our structural

1:38:25deficit and literally no one has gotten the things that they've wanted in an entirety, but we've worked together to try to come up with the best compromised package of things. We've had it on the record. We've added in the meeting room. We've spent a lot of time going line by line approving things and having split votes in a variety of different ways on them. So from my perspective at this point, like our role today is to adopt a budget, set some mill levies and move forward. And then we can start working on managing the organization and studying the ship and this uncertain time. So that's how I would proceed. Would you like me to at least go over the sourcing use and then I can for me, I'd like you to keep moving through the process here. You know, your slides and reviewing the decisions that we made. We did have a number of work sessions on this and public presentations. And there were some requests for additional information that were made at the time.

1:39:28Uh, you know, we may have all had additional conversations with department heads with community members. We took public testimony, uh, for me, none of this is final until, you know, we had public testimony and all the other inputs. So, um, so I do have some other things I'd like to raise. And, you know, whenever that's appropriate in your presentation. Let me go over the sourcing use and then we can repeat that before we go on to any additional funds. Let's address the general fund. And then I can open that up. So, um, just, just to kind of go, for 27, for 27, we're projecting approximately 273. 3 million in revenue with property taxes representing the largest revenue source of approximately 229. 5 million. On the expenditure side, we're projecting approximately 269. 4 million with personal cost accounting for the majority of our spending at approximately 193. 6 million. Based on these projections, we're expected revenue 60 expenditures by approximately 3. 84 million. That would increase the general fund balance for approximately, or two approximately 101.

1:40:466 million at the beginning of the year. To 105. 4 million at the end of 2027. Now I want to emphasize something important. While the projected fund balance is positive, it doesn't mean our structural balance challenges have gone away. We still have ongoing pressures related to compensation benefits, service demands and future revenue growth. The reductions where we've made or we've recommended in the past two budget cycles are helping stabilize our financial position. But we need to continue looking beyond 2027. That's why we're including multi - year fiscal projections on the online budget discussion packages. We want the board to understand that not only the impact for today's discussions, but also how the decisions affect our financial stability over the next several years. I want to remind everyone that these are preliminary figures and we'll still incorporate final compensation cost property evaluations in year and adjustments.

1:41:48Before adoption. So I'd like to go back now and we can discuss about, um, the reductions, uh, but now knowing that we will have this fund balance, just keep in mind that, um, the fun balance is a one time. And we're still looking, um, to make sure that we're sustainable for the next three to five years. And based on, on the information that we provided you at the beginning of the year based on the reductions that really leaves us to about 2030, we were very, um, very at minimal with what you asked about being at the reserves and making sure we're hitting a reserve on, on, on, on our policy or percentage of the reserve. It does lower that reserve to about that 50, 50 million, I believe it is. So just to keep that in mind and perspective as we look through these additional reductions. Do you want me to pull up the reductions?

1:42:40No, I do like me to, well, we'll get to, I think that's your next slide. But, um, I think I'd like to understand a little bit more what you're saying about, you know, we're going to, we're going to, you're projecting that we will actually be increasing our General Fund Balance by 3. 84 million based on everything that's built into the budget right now. I've been looking for a good figure to use for what our projected underspend is going to be at the end of 2026. We have a history of, you know, the last couple of years, it's been about 14 million dollars that has been underspented at the end of the year. So I'm, I'm really wanting to understand how that factors into all of the projections as well. So do you want to talk about. Sure. As of today, this beginning fun balance that's presented here on this slide of 101 million dollars assumes two percent savings and operating We continue to evaluate at a lower level, both at the appropriation department level, whether there might be some additional one time savings, um, beyond that. But we are incorporating now some assumed savings into that beginning fun balance point. We're also incorporating into that, um, one - time revenues, the largest being some proceeds for the North Broadway sale into that beginning point. So,

1:44:25um, the basis of what we're projecting here for ending fund balance as it relates to current year is the approved budget. And we've adjusted to assume a marginal savings on both the personnel and operating as well as some additional revenue. Is that. You might have answered my question. I'm not sure. I'm, you know, OFM has created a wonderful dashboard that we have available. It's, it's still just based on, um, it looks like nine months of, um, of data. Pardon? Yeah. Nine months for until September. For Fund 101, but it shows, you know, it shows our expenditures. Well, there is a, there is sort of a straight line projection. Of expenses budget versus actual. And it's projecting out at the end of the year. Well, actually I'm not quite sure how to read this. Um, as it's a rebudgeted 280, 280, 1, 290, 000 out of Fund 101 in that the actuals are projected to be 266, 330, 000. I'm just, I'm just wondering, you know, what we, what we said we wanted to do when we had the budget retreat and all of the discussions we've had is we want to build a budget that is as close as that reflects as close as possible what we think we're going to spend. So we're not over budgeting and therefore, um, feeling like we're

1:46:15experiencing more budgetary pressure than we actually are. Absolutely. Um, the dashboard does show that we have a small surplus or under budget right now, but it's only September. And so I'd be careful until we do additional analysis to be able to capture the bigger number. We still have three months. We have November, December. Then we close out by the end of January. So the three months. So it'd be real careful about, um, making any of those assumptions. This is a straight line. We use straight budget to actuals. And there is some, some under budget right now, but, um, I'd be careful about, you know, saying that that's what it's going to be at the end of the year. Um, but right now we do have, like I said, some, some leeway or at least some were under budget right now. And it's slightly, I think, is like six percent as a September. Yeah. Okay.

1:47:09Um. If we don't have any other questions, I think we can move on. Commissioner Lochimine, any questions. So I'm going to have to pivot a little bit. We were, um, we can go over the reductions. We weren't. We were doing, we, uh, we were presenting the full budget with the reductions that we already spoke about earlier. And just with the three additional, um, uh, reductions that I needed at least some guidance from, from the board and direction. So we can definitely pivot and pull up the reductions if you want to go through the reductions so that way we can have a discussion. Or do you have specific reductions that you want to address? But right now we're standing around 13. 1 million. Um, as full reductions based on all the information that we've had through these last couple months. So, um, we can pivot, but I'd like to ask the board, how would you like me to proceed? Otherwise the next slide, we start into individual funds. And I start asking for consensus. Um, but it seems like you want to have a discussion in regards to the reductions. Uh, I think we do. I guess I just want to understand your flow here. The slides that I'm looking at, we do start going through these other funds. And let me just, I thought there

1:48:29were, then some slides. No, I guess there aren't to go back to the, um, to fund 101. So yeah, I think it probably would be a good time if we want to discuss any of the, any of the decisions, the preliminary decisions that we made on Fund 101. If you could time to go, I also did provide all the reductions about just in case. And we can definitely pull them up. But if, if you want to discuss those, definitely open to discussing us. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Yeah. I am. There's a couple of things. I don't, I'm taking this meeting still as direction just from presentation. But we'll have an opportunity. I think it's December 8th. I'm sure you'll tell us before we finish to do an adoption. But, um, just appreciate y'all being here to respond to questions, et cetera. As we've continued the process and we've heard more things. I've learned more things. And the numbers have changed. And, um, evolved since we started the budget process earlier this year. For me, the couple of things that I'm really just looking at the board first, some discussion in regards to, we agreed on that 13. 2, I think 13. 19 is, a lot involved. And so I'm, I'm not quibbling with the number. I think the concern that I have is looking

1:49:45at a couple of the programs and the boards, and you all have heard me talk about, um, semi concerns about elimination of the programs for me. I'm calculating about 218, 000 in operations and 465 in personnel in a few of the different programs in agricultural and procurement. And then operations in outgoing grant awards. From both OCA and the Commissioner's office, also the Circle of Honor Programs. That's just what I'm calculating to come up with those numbers. For me, I will offer again, we can hit a 13 close to their 10. 2 numbers, what we were all working towards based on the structural deficit. And I do believe when I look at the sheriff's department specifically and continue every year to bring light into that particular large portion of our budget, um, that that department's budget has really increased over the last five years. Um, not just in operations, but also in personnel. And, um, we've talked about, all of our elected offices, but really, if we think about the offices that have the larger budgets, um, and opportunity to participate in this budgeting from a general fund 101, that's really my ask. And so I just want to put that out there in the conversation one more time. And so for me, we can keep the number, but we're going to have to take a

1:51:19portion out of, um, DA's office and sheriff's office, um, for operations and personnel. I'm not looking at specific programs and in my conversation with ADA. A few weeks ago, the conversation was simply, if there's a number and the board has to do something, we just need to know the number. We would like to decide where that would come from. And that's kind of where I was previously. I don't want to go into another's office. I don't know each program that is or isn't mandated by the state. To make that judgment call. But I do think elected officials and or department heads do have a much better handle on that. So, um, to keep the number the same, we could, we could do that and just reduce the pudges from, from the sheriff's office. I did request some information just updated on, on sheriff's office, if that would be helpful for the conversation. If you have any questions about the increases and specifically that particular budget.

1:52:15From my perspective, when you look at the data, the fastest growing office in the last several years is the Office of County Administrator, not the sheriff's office. We've added a lot of complex things to the sheriff's office and both last year in the budget process and this year's budget process, the sheriff is taking reduction. P07 and the priority - based budgeting process is a half a million dollars out of the sheriff's budget. And so I'm not looking for additional, um, cuts at this time. If we take a quick look at the sheriff's budget, and this is one of the pieces that I've been sharing over the last, um, almost six years here at the County, I was not here. In the summer of 2020, which I wasn't here in this particular seat, but I was a community member when George Floyd was murdered. And there was a lot of response into what do we do differently in regards to how do we take care of community members addressing also the concerns of law enforcement? And in my opinion, in my experience, that has also increased for other reasons and other concerns that include everything from the concerns we hear daily from residents around Flock and cameras and what does that mean, the way that people are detained, the people that people are visited or not

1:53:30visited, all the different things that happen. But when I look it up budget that in 2021 was 56 million dollars. And so 500, 000 dollars in position control is really different to me than, um, a shift of budget. And I have to share it over the last several years, the commitment on the alternative sentencing facility, which is really just an extension of those services, not new programs. But what was happening previously was based way years ago, um, in operations funding on a handshake, um, with the sheriff's office versus what the funding that doesn't actually exist. But that has created a big increase on, I think it was like 33 positions a few years ago, um, from operation standpoint that makes it really complicated. And I've been really clearly, if we can as a county open that entire facility, if we have to look at other ways to bring in revenue, if we have to look at other services and needs for community, we had opportunity to do that at that facility as well. Yeah. And just sharing in order to address the community desires to police in a different way. It does cost money. Like it takes training. It takes different resources. We have corresponders now. We've added tons of positions to address those exact needs in each of those things costs, mental health care

1:54:52costs, all of those things cost and like providing the care that the community expects is very expensive. Yeah, I'll just add my voice to this. You know, we've worked very hard, I think, over the last several years that I've been a commissioner to get the jail appropriately staffed. Um, they were experiencing a lot of trouble hiring sheriff's deputy days for a period of time. There was a lot of overtime. It was mandatory over time. And that was producing unsafe conditions in the jail. These are people at the jail houses, community members at houses people who we have an obligation to take care of, to keep them safe, to see to their mental health needs, their physical health needs, uh, make sure that the jail deputies have time off that aren't working mandatory over time week after week after week. And creating an unsafe condition for themselves as well as for the offenders who are in the jail. And, uh, we're not there yet. The sheriff has positions. She hasn't been able to fill, but the hiring environment has recovered quite a bit, thanks to a lot of hard work. And I, I don't, you know, we've, I guess we've had opportunities to make different decisions about the sheriff's budget during this process. And last year and in previous years, I don't see any, any cuts

1:56:34that I would want to make to that budget, I would not want to just take an arbitrary amount out of the budget and tell the sheriff to adjust. And it's just such a highly sensitive role. Um, you know, the, the policing aspect of what the County Sheriff does is actually pretty small relative to the managing the jail. And, um, and that is a statutory obligation. I mean, some of those costs have been driven by state legislation that has required significant new staffing. And so anyway, I don't see room to cut. They're, you know, same with the DA's office and, you know, that is like, you know, it's probably more than 70 percent. And caseloads continue to increase. There's absolutely nothing. They can do to control that. I mean, they have diversion programs. They, they, I think do everything that the community is asking them to do to try to keep people from having to go through prosecution. But you need a certain amount of, uh, deputy or assistant district attorneys to, to do that work investigators paralegals, et cetera. So, uh, so I satisfied that both of those budgets that are appropriate levels, um, Commissioner, what do you mean you had, you had mentioned some, um, other expenditures that you were proposing be offset by these reductions. Um, I didn't know if you had specific

1:58:18things that you want to identify in that regard. I can, I can, I'm happy to repeat the different items that, that came up to those different numbers. Can I just, and read really quickly just for the purposes for us to track correctly. So what I did here was no support for reduction on DA. And no additional support on the sheriff. Is that correct? That's what I heard. And I also do believe that the departments that are under the commissioner structure and community services and human services, the case management happened that happens just from talking with staff around the county, those are really significant jobs. It's very important work. The wait times the need to be able to respond, et cetera is just as great, in my opinion, from working with staff around the county and working with community members who receive that support as the case management and the service that happens in the elected offices. And so, um, I just, I think it makes it challenging when it's proposed that way that which work is more vital. And I just think we're also mandated by the state on our side of the County Budget in the Journal Fund for the offices that are underneath the Commissioners or the Office of County Administrator to do state mandated work. So, um, and I understand it's just

1:59:51a challenge. So it was, I was bringing that up again as an option to make sure that folks understand that there are different ways to, to address the same issues of just numbers. But Commissioner Leapi, were you asking for me to repeat those. I only heard one specific. Yeah, I am asking for you to do that so that we can discuss one by one by one. And I have several that I wanted to discuss that I shared earlier this week when, when we had a brief conversation about it. Sydney, I suggest that we do one at a time individually, kind of like what we did, the original August and September. That would be easier for us to track if you want to bring any of those. Yeah, I think that would lead to greater clarity here. Okay. Um, I'm happy. I'll take a look at, um, maybe operations first and then personnel. Does that work?

2:00:49Can you, can we use the reduction? They have a number. This list. Yeah. That would be the easiest because that's how we tracked our reductions for the 13. 1 million. And that way we can reconcile back, um, if there's any changes. Okay. Give me just a second cause that's not how I have it listed for my notes. No problem. I do have one question. If I second page of the PVP reduction list. That's listed as page 26 ag horticulture small acreage programs in my notes, I've got, I've just have a different number, which I know that that's just part of the budget process, the numbers have changed on this list that we're looking at today together. It looks like 285, 355. And my other notes, it looks like 330. So were there some changes that were made during the process? Yeah. We've been validating with departments, um, trueing up any numbers, um, this, the one that you're looking at is that the correct one. Yeah. And I think the specific change to this was that this was originally proposed as a reduction of 2. 6 FTE. And was adjusted to just reduced the staff by two full FTE and leave a 0. 6 position in place. Therefore, reducing the overall savings projected as well. Okay. So yeah, apologies for the disconnect and original records, but that list

2:03:44of PBB reductions, um, that's available on the public website. And that I think was provided again today is the latest estimate for two FTE reduction. Okay. No apologies because I got jump in on more clarification on that. I think when we went through this in the preseason, the original presentation, uh, all the 4H, the horticulture and the small acreage programs were together. And on this handout, you've got, you've got two lines here for what looks like the CSU extension. So is there further breakdown within the agricultural horticulture, small acreage program and between what it just says community and 4H youth. Yeah. Give me just one second. I wasn't sure you mentioned just two FTE instead of whatever the original proposal was. I think not knowing how the FTEs line up with the programs is also a little bit difficult. Um, I mean, I'm interested. Did you go to that page 26 because you were interested in restoring some funds. There. Yes.

2:05:33Um, yeah, I mean, there were two programs I'm interested in Restoring, but I don't know if those are two different FTE or one or whether they can consolidate. And turn it into one, you know, I just don't know how they're staffing works. She was looking at the detail. Well, and there was a lot of misinformation sent to the community around what would remain and what CSU funds and how the programs actually operate. So while we did get a large number of comments on this, a lot of the comment was based on information that was not actual. Um, of what would remain and just reminding everybody our process. We decided we were going to do priority based budgeting and everything was went through a process of getting a weighted score and having review and having all sorts of things. And so just a reminder that this program has a weighted priority score of a 19. And so it seems a little peculiar to start at that area of the weight when I heard about other higher needs things like in human services and other areas. Like it just seems a little, um, contradictory to the process we laid out and trying to come up with a priority system and look at cuts in a different sort of way this year rather than across the board or

2:06:39just ad hoc. So I was just, it's a little bit, I am having a little bit of a hard time with what we're doing today when we've already gone through these line by line. Throughout a big process. Thank you. And apologies, I'm having some trouble finding the program alignment for those two remaining FTE. So we might have to come back with additional information there. Well, Commissioner Lochermine, were there, um, specific programs you were interested in making sure we're still staffed. Within the CSU extension office. No, mine was more the same comment that I made in one of the previous, um, funding agricultural work at a higher rate if we're going to continue with the County values of agriculture. So that was specific on that piece. I did have a question just to understand also from a previous budget conversation. And for me, the base budgeting was one of the factors, but it wasn't the only fact that that was, um, we're using in regards to how we were going to address the structural deficit. But this particular one, we had also asked what community partners might do seemed as though there were some folks in the room in one of the hearings that we're going to talk about, you know, what are the other options?

2:08:03I think that's one of my other questions on this whole sheet of reductions was just, if any of these have found a different funding source during these months of budget process, if we are privy to that, if we know that, for H just was one of them that at the time it was, I guess there's somebody else, is the SU able to put more funding into it or another partner. So that's a curiosity that I still have. And I don't know if there's teams here that are. We have not got any additional information as far as if they've, they've, you know, received any additional partnerships or revenues. One thing also is I think the list of priority based budgeting, we didn't, they didn't really sunset any programs. They did reduction. So I think most of these reductions on here, uh, the programs will still continue from my understanding. If you look at the priority based budgeting that was submitted, there wasn't any sunsetting of programs.

2:08:56So what I believe you'll see is more of a service impact or a smaller, you know, program, um, that was one thing that we did initially find with the priority based budgeting in typical other types of priority based budgeting. There is the opportunity to sunset programs. Um, we did not go that route just because of the way we have the County priority set. Everything kind of fell within the priorities. If I can ask a question similarly on page, it's the item listed as page 37 on the procurement. I was just curious if that funding for the other position, because in the process of 2026, we had a, um, we had somebody resigned from some of that work. And so that was my interpretation. This was still, this was a previous FTE. And I'm just wondering if there was a different funding source that was found for this. Or if that worked for, um, our MWB program will be, um, affected kind of what you're saying of slowing down the program. No, actually I can speak to that since that's actually, as an OFM. So that is that position that's been on free. So as a vacant position and we limited the position. I worked with, uh, the procurement team, um, and addressed the original, um, it looked like it was a consultant that provided a

2:10:12report in findings on the program. And so what we did is we took the highest value, which is community engagement. And so we're beefing up the community engagement that we'll have the most impact on what the originally recommended. And so therefore, there is a memo that will be providing that I actually, um, uh, Commissioner Schultzman asked for us to come back. And I wanted to give you a presentation on how we're still addressing that work. Um, slightly different and really using the report that actually pointed towards more community engagement. So we are so continuing that work. We're actually going to beef up the engagement side of it. We're just not going to be able to do the scoring part of it and some of the goals, but we're still continuing that work. Okay. That helps just, then I won't go to that one specifically in regards to a number on an ask. Could I just before we move on to other lines? I am interested in maintaining support for 4H. Two programs specifically 4H in the master gardener program. I'm unclear the way you've presented this where you're now presenting this in terms of a number of FTE. That are funded. I don't know. I don't know how that translates to these programs. I mean, some of it is not knowing what remains of the

2:11:44County's support for the for extension. Cause all we, all we have are the reduction numbers. So let me see if I can get Yvette maybe a little bit more information. If not, we might have to come back to you. But I do know that it's not sunsetting, but I don't know what service level or exactly what changes are going to be done to that program. Good afternoon, Commissioner Zivette Bowden, Deputy County Administrator. Um, I'm not Jason Sook, but I'm going to provide what information I know. At this time, there is not a suggestion to reduce the services of those programs. Um, the head count that will be adjusted will, and those duties will be spread out to make sure that we can continue to support coordination of those programs. We are not planning to eliminate those programs. There is one group in 4H that would be reduced, but the entirety of the rest of 4H would remain. And at this point we are not expecting actual reductions otherwise. It's a lot of administrative coordination, but we think the Remaining staff can handle that. So the proposal is to remove funding for two FTEs. Correct. And they believe that they can continue to support all the programming they're doing now with that FTE reduction. That is correct with the exception of there's one group within a

2:13:12larger number of groups of 4 H teams, one group within that would be reduced. But that's the rest of 4H would remain. And we believe we can cover this work. We'll continue to monitor that support community and hear that feedback in the months to come. That's helpful update for me. Yeah, no, that's, that's great. And that takes that off for me. The other items that are on there just to, um, to say them specific to this list versus the way I read them off the, my notes. If I'm, if I go back to page one on that General Fund Reductions, um, page that you left here for us, it's page 14. And the two items in there, which I've talked about before, which were outgoing grant awards. There's a 50, 000 amount from the commissioner's office. There's a 75, 000 amount from the County Administrator.

2:14:18And then on page 15, it's noted as page 15 Circle of On, our budget reduction. That one's 30, 000, um, for that 18 year celebration for staff. And then on the second page, there's a page, it's listed as page 23 racial equity training contracts. Um, and then the page 24 title of youth Corps is 60, 000. So there's 255, 000, I think without a calculator. And so part of my conversation earlier was there is another, I mean, there is a different way to do it deduction so that we still keep as closest on target as, as we can. So I think it would be hopeful to just go one by one. Here rather than as a package. Okay. Go ahead. If that works. So. Just making sure we're all on the same page. Well, I am actually confused because I don't, when you're saying page, are you just talking about the programs? There's a page notation on the far left. Oh, I'm sorry.

2:15:30I was looking at the title and P for me is page. So I said that out loud, didn't I? Is that, but they're not packet page. Yet? No, I just accidentally said Paige because in my mind when I see P something, it's either paragraph or page. And so you're correct. It's the title and I should have said C14 versus. Now I'm on track. Thank you. Forgiving us all. So the 50, 000 dollar reduction from the commissioner's office that those are the discretionary community grants that we make. Um. And then the OCA 70, uh, 75, 000 dollar. Grant awards is that the economic development contributions, economic vitality grants. Yes. Correct. Okay. Um. Well, why don't we consider them one by one. And is there anything you'd like to say about the County Commissioner grant awards reduction. I'm happy to reiterate what I've said in our previous conversations on this particular line item project 14 on the outgoing ground awards on the County Commissioners of 50. 000 County Commissioner Office staff has spent a whole lot of time over the last almost six years. Creating that program to be able to give out funding for really specific aligned work with strategic priorities from the Commissioner's office. A lot of that programming is because it has, um, community criteria has to reach Boulder

2:17:24County residents. It has, uh, racial equity impact assessment in it. Because of where we have been over the last couple of years and still will be under a federal administration who's removing a lot of that funding for organizations all around our region. And I meet with on - profit folks who've been really impacted by anything that looks like equity, diversity or inclusion, that funding source at a local level has been really valuable to organizations who just haven't been able to even apply to some of the bigger organizations. So that's what that fifty thousand dollars. Is. Okay. And I have a question for our deputy. Does that zero out the grant program? Uh, yes, Commissioner Levy. That would zero out the grant program. Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. And. Yeah, I believe I did previously support that. Um. For me. You know, it's a really nice thing. That the county can do to support nonprofit organizations that are, you know, putting on programming, exhibits. Fairs, events.

2:18:40It's a really nice thing. Um, I, I have a hard time ranking that higher than some of the other needs that we have that we've, um, that we're also reducing. And I think we've come a long, long, long way. In providing some consistency and standardization in the way we review these applications and trying to have deeper penetration in terms of eligibility and just putting the word out that we have these funds. But, um, I see the same organizations kind of applying year after year. And, uh, that tells me that, uh, that we're, you know, as a fraction of the kinds of events and things that we could be funding. And I just think it's too narrowly. Used at this point. And it's just not that central. To the County's work. It's, um, I think in this kind of budget time, the nice to have, uh, has to take lower priority than the kinds of other things. So I would not change my previous position on that one. And Commissioner Stolzman, I'm sort of taking from your earlier comments that you're not going to entertain any additional changes, but I'm happy to make space for you to weigh in on each of these. I mean, I don't necessarily love the characterization. It's not willing to entertain. I just, I think we've put a lot of

2:20:20hard work in. I think the teams have worked really hard in making cuts is not fun for anyone. Um, there are people that are losing their jobs. There are, um, important programs that are reducing, um, the service that they're providing to the community. And that's all like very tough in these trade - offs have been very hard. And I think it's, I think our time would be better spent today if we were just making the decisions that we need to make to correct the budget and then stabilizing and moving forward so people can start planning for the future. So it just, it's hard discussing, you know, one by one at this point when we've been looking at how these things affect each other and looking at the scores against each other. And each one is really great and does something amazing in the community for someone. And we have to make 13. 2 million dollars worth of cuts. And we're, you know, trying our best to get that 70 - 30. We're not going to quite get there, but we think that'll stabilize as good enough. So I think today is a day to move forward together and let everybody start planning for the future.

2:21:23I would like to move though to the 75, 000 dollar economic development grant awards out of the Office of County Administrator. And those, so. That is funding for the chambers of Commerce in Boulder County. And the small business development center and Yvette's Nottinghad. You don't need to come forward unless they're, I mean, you're welcome to. You know, I've, I have really struggled with what is the County's role. In supporting these chambers of Commerce. And again, it's, you know, these are, there are trade - offs with all of these. And I think. You know, some of the work of some of the chambers has been very, very valuable in increasing, um, economic opportunity, like particularly the Latino Chamber of Commerce that I have seen in the six years that I've been in office. I have seen that organization really flourish and provide phenomenal support to, you know, to emerging business people who, who don't have a lot of other support, um, in terms of, you know, entrepreneurship. I've also seen the Boulder chamber really step up. In funding the kind of data analysis and development that can support a more regional approach to, um, to economic development where, or not competing against one another, where we're sharing data, where we're supporting one another. And so like, unlike some counties like Adams County

2:23:32and Jefferson County, and I don't know all the other ones, but some of them play a huge role in economic development. And I don't think that is our job. Um, but I do think it's important to support some of these efforts by the chambers. So I, I don't know how, you know, I don't know how that 75, 000 breaks down. Is that, that doesn't zero it out. I guess you do need to come forward of that. Does it zero it out? Just for example in 2025, the Latino chamber got about 107, 750 dollars from the County. And so this isn't the only way we fund the chambers of commerce. Good afternoon, Commissioners. To answer your question, Commissioner Levy, it does not zero out the grant amount. It does roughly cut it in half. And as we have down in the past, we would open up a process. If this went through for a competitive process, um, for applicants, uh, in 2027, it cuts it roughly in half. And I'll just say from what I'm seeing, like that may be true for your offices program that it cuts it in half, but that's not all of the funding that we give to chambers of commerce from Boulder County. So different departments, contract directly with the Chamber of Commerce for services and events and other things. And

2:24:50so I don't know. Like I didn't do this evaluation for every single one, but there are lots of different ways that we partner with the chambers of Commerce outside of Office of County Administrator. That may be true. I don't have a full picture of all the different things that the different chambers provide to support other organizations. I know that they have been other functions like supportive transportation, specific initiatives or the like. Um, I don't have a good feel for that. This is specific to the work of those organizations in supporting economic vitality throughout the county. Um, including SBDC. And so it's a competitive process. And we do that annually and it cuts it in roughly half. Thank you. This is an item. Let's see here, the one that we're on is project 14. What's listed is ongoing ground awards in the County Administrator. This is one that I had asked for support on, um, for the board. The data I've got here from 2026 specific to your question on how much funding has that one example of Latino chamber received a variety of areas, not just through the economic vitality. I've got a 42, 000 numbers. This is just a different number. But when we have, and you're right for a lot of our partners, we contract with them for very specific work or they're

2:26:17doing really specific work on behalf of Boulder County, which is a little Boder County's an organization. I should say. Whereas, um, economic vitality grants, for example, the Latino chamber was vital. During COVID for the county on behalf of the chamber and county and public health and like all of the partners. So for me, the differentiation in the different types of funding that are different organizations do receive. But I do believe it's true that there's several organizations that receive different types of funding from us from different grants or different tax funds or different line items of the budget. I might suggest rather than restoring the full 75, 000 dollars that we only reduce that amount by 40, 000 dollars. So that would increase by 35, 000 dollars. Those grant numbers. Would you support that approach. I think the funding is important for. The economic vitality grants. So if the only offer on the table is to reduce by that amount and get to a 30 or 40 or 35 or 40, then I'm happy to take. That as far as for this piece of direction as we look at numbers. Okay. Well, that, that would be my proposal. So, um, I think you have two yeses on that. And don't want any ambiguity. Okay. What do you think. Thank you. Just a quick question on

2:28:23the line item of project 15 Circle of Honor. Does that, does the 30, 000 reduction mean there won't be a circle of honor or does it mean the circle of honor for 18 year employees will look different, feel different. Uh, Natalie Spring, commissioners, deputy for the record. Thanks for that question, Commissioner Lochiman. That would just be scaling back the event. Um, and eliminating the black portion, but still retaining the, uh, financial award that employees receive. And then we would do a scaled back version of some sort of gathering. Thank you. That was, that helps me. So I'm, I was, that one was one of the items that I'd put in my initial list at the beginning of this meeting so I can move forward on that unless there was somebody else that was wanting to discuss that item. The next one that I had brought up just in order on the packet is project 23 racial equity training contracts. And that was my understanding from the more recent. Update that we had from carrying Osta, the director of Office of Racial Equity is that there really are using training, consulting as they continue to build out the work from that office to do more training of the training that we need to have the trainers to be able to do that as they're, so again,

2:29:51for me, some of the newer information updated conversations that we've had with in meetings with CREAC as an example and some of the members who shared, um, about really trying to get more training into their different departments so that folks could really utilize Office of Racial Equity. So that was, um, just a question that I had about if we really want to do that reduction now, um, for 2027 as we try and continue supporting that office and the work that we're doing with the changes in policy 9. 61 and the way that different charters and groups would work with this give them if we restored this, um, training budget, the ability to do the work straight from that office and try and avoid some of the questions and confusions that, um, have come up about different departments doing their own, their own trainings. And instead have it really centralized from this office. I'm trying to find my notes from this original presentation, but I believe this was proposed by the Office of Racial Equity that they instead of contracting for outside training that they were going to do the training in house. That is correct.

2:31:02Okay. Yeah. I think base, based on that, it's not a reduction in training. They, they were just going to do it in a more cost effective way. So, um, I think I feel comfortable that if we keep that 50, 000 dollar reduction to do good robust racial equity training here at Boulder County, which remains a high priority of ours. So I wouldn't support changing that. Reduction. Um, I did bring up, uh, in a previous meeting. And I, and I did not support reducing the youth core funding. By 60, 500. Um, I. I said at the time and I'll say again that I think getting young people involved through youth core, um, I sort of has a triple bottom line in many ways. Um, it gives them a job. They learn a skill. It helps Boulder County Parks and OpenSpace with their land management wildfire mitigation, all kinds of things that the youth Corps gets to do. You know, they build a really incredible sense of teamwork. I think is a very valuable program for the young people in our county. And I think it's got a high ROI relative to the cost. And so this, this was one that I had targeted to discuss with the commissioners to restore that funding. On this line item, a project 24 youth core. This is one

2:32:58that for me, I had a lot of concerns about removing the ability for S to partner with youth in the work that we do all around the county, but this one's specific to parks and open space. If we don't allow kids to get out youth to get out and learn these jobs and conservation, um, understanding and being able to create a connection with nature, um, we dismiss that opportunity. And in a place that we're in, um, in Boulder County, it was such unique landscape, um, partners, folks who are looking for all of the different career pathways to me. This is connected to a lot of the different work that we support. So I'm still unsupportive, not reducing the youth core. Okay. So I think you have two yeses on that. And that may clear up, um, a conflict between your notes and Jana Peterson's notes.

2:33:50Cause I, I was surprised that we saw this reduction. So that's, so that's great. Um, okay. Moving. Now we've, we've talked about the, um, I guess let's just say P 26. Did you want to revisit that with the explanation from our Deputy County Administrator on that? I don't need to revisit. Okay. I think I'm fine on that as well. Um, you had a question on the procurement reduction. And I don't need to revisit that one after the explanation from our RFM director. Today, thank you. Okay. I had. I previously mentioned, um, P40, the AAA funding and the amount of 150, 296 reduction. This is another of those areas where, um. We. Through our AAA, serve a number of very vulnerable older adults. And one of them main goals of our AAA is to support or adults in aging in place, which is a tremendous savings to the entire system. Um, if they're low income and they can't age in place, they often have no choice but to go into a nursing home. And there are very few nursing homes that accept Medicaid. It often means most always means moving out of Boulder County and losing the community and support that they had here. And in this volunteer visitor program is one that addresses the growing social isolation that older people experience, uh, as they age

2:35:51and place and lose their mobility, um, I would very much like to see this funding restored. Just a general question for you, Commissioner, because I haven't heard yet of where you're thinking about this funding would come from. Or if that's the second part of what you're bringing today. I'm not proposing corresponding reductions. We see that. This budget will allow our general fund reserve to grow by 3. 84 million. To 105. 43 million dollar balance. We see that. The projections, the general fund, um, projections that were in the OFM decision package that they sent us, uh, the way I'm reading this in 2030, we're still projected to have a fund 101 ending balance of 90 million hundred and ninety nine thousand dollars. With when our mandatory minimum fund balance is 53, 781. So I, and we know that, you know, we do have turnbacks at the end of every year. Uh, so I, I think, you know, I think there'll be room up for 150, 000 dollars. To support the senior population in Boulder County. Is there, um, somebody here that could just talk about line, um, on the project 40. Just to understand if this is one FTE, if this is, are there any updates this information since the last time that we were all together that maybe individuals haven't heard. So Robin

2:37:59would be best to speak to this. But what I do now is this was originally presented as a reduction to the wellness program. And since that time they had a vacancy in their volunteer visitation program. And kind of readjusted what was proposed. And so this currently proposes eliminating one vacant position in the area agency on aging. Um, associated with the volunteer visitation program rather than what was originally proposed as reducing the wellness program offerings. So the visitation program is it's a reduction of that team and there will still be a visitation program in existence. That I would need Robin to confirm and clarify. Well, I did ask Robin about this. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but they would not have a volunteer visitor coordinatir. And instead, all of their people work with all of the population and they would be referring them to other programs and services. Um, I guess I, I would just add, as a general matter, you know, we met with Robin Bohan and our community services director earlier today. And they are finalizing the four year update to the program plan for the area agency on aging.

2:39:22I can't imagine that that plan is going to say that the needs haven't grown. And the money has grown. So, um, you know, this is an area that we devote very low funding too. And state and federal funding is declining while the aging population is growing. And, um, so, you know, whether it's this specific program, which I do think is very valuable and the ability to have a volunteer coordinator, uh, to, to send out volunteer visitors to train them and, and, and coordinate all of that. I think that's very important. If this, if it restores an FTE, I'm sure there are also other very valuable uses for that. I just paint Robin. Bohanna just says, you have by chance, um, they're available to join us, but I'm not sure that she's in the office. She had an all staff. She actually texted me earlier. So she's probably, it's all her staff. Okay. Thank you. And we're not adopting a budget. So I'm okay if we hold on to this one. Just, I would like to get some more information directly from the director. I don't know why I didn't know this was one that was going to be brought up or I would have asked her is it does we have to put it in place. So, um, we are running around with the timeline

2:40:59and, you know, just giving the team enough time to digest that and get that everything ready for December. So, um, definitely we can definitely try to do the one offs. We might want to push it to like an amendment if truly the Board decides to bring that back. And we can always do an amendment for a quarter kind of like what you did this year, but I would definitely, um, advise if we can at least get direction to move forward to get an adopted budget by December. Yeah. I'm happy to read what Robin sent me. But if you'd rather have her address your questions directly, that's fine. Well, I don't know what the question was that you asked her. Like the missing part of the dialogue. So I don't want to assume that it's the same question that I have. Well, yeah, that's why I said if you'd rather have her address, I asked her what the impact would be to the volunteer visiting program from this cut. What, what the impact, uh, what the reduction would be. She's the program, what she wrote back as the volunteer visiting program will conclude at the end of November due to budget cuts, um, reducing social opportunities for some older adults, staff have worked closely with visitation and visor friendly visitor programs throughout Boulder County to identify

2:42:17alternative resources, strength and referral pathways helped minimize the impact on older adults experiencing social isolation. So I think maybe the best thing to do is to leave it on the list and then I can have a conversation with Robin. Prior to the adoption of the final budget. Unless somebody else will bowl from, yeah, we can. Leave it as a reduction. And I just want to share, like I, it's, it's not the ideal situation. I understand that. And I also this part of this budget process are numbers have changed. The positions have changed. Like pieces have moved. And so I understand that. It makes it hard to not have a final, final, but that's how we started the conversation. Um, so I appreciate, um, being able to get the information that I need to be able to make a decision on a line item. Yeah. Um.

2:43:21So we can move on. I mean, I, I, I did bring days up, um, I think it was on Monday so that there would be an opportunity to prepare. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't, I didn't hear the visitation program piece. So in that previous conversation. Thank you, Mini, yesterday. So I had one additional item. That I wanted to have discussion about, uh, and it's recreational shuttles. Was there anything above that. Commissioner Luchin? I didn't have any other additional items. I thought I had more originally and got some information today during today's work session. And I appreciate that as we continue to move the budget process. I don't have any other questions or interest in reducing. Well, I wanted to see if there was support from another Commissioner to restore the funding of to operate the HESI shuttle. It's 170, 000 dollars.

2:44:33And this is a shuttle that we put in place. Uh, I don't recall what year, but we were paying sheriffs deputies over time. To work on the weekend to stand in the middle of the road that goes to Eldora, the town of Eldora and the Hesse Trailhead to stand in the middle of the road and turn cars around when the parking was full. And, uh, and so rather than, and they were having to go up and ticket people, uh, and spend a lot of resources up there managing parking. And so rather than have sheriff's deputies working overtime, uh, doing ticketing and managing the traffic on a two lane road, uh, and at best, it's barely one lane, um, up past the town of Eldora. We decided that we, it was a better investment to fund the shuttle. Um, it's been very, very successful at reducing parking conflicts at reducing the need to have patrols up there when the limited amount of parking at the trailhead is taken. And it has also had a tremendous benefits for county residents in unencorporated Boulder County up in the town of Eldora and along that road in not having people driving down their driveways, parking off the road on their property, getting stuck. Um, just all kinds of problems up there. And, um, and in the presentation on this,

2:46:17this is projected to reduce the number of days and the number of hours of operation. And so I, I think this has really had tremendous payoff in terms of reducing the need to have sharehouse deputies up there. And, um, and benefiting the folks that live in Eldora. You look like you want to say something. Yeah. I thought I'd just chime in with some additional information clarification. What was originally proposed in August was a reduction for, uh, the eldo and the Hesse shuttles. And that overall amount was reduced to just 170, 000 dollar reduction, which is what you see in the list currently. And to clarify that does not, um, eliminate either of the shuttle programs, but would affect the frequency service days and locations. So staff are working on. Fully eliminating either. That was exactly what I think I was just saying is that it would reduce the number of days and the number of hours of operation. Yeah. And just the only other thing I'll add that the staff said is that they have been continuing to look for other sources of funding for the program. So I don't support restoring it at this time. I think we have alternatives. Commissioner, let you man.

2:47:36I'm not interested in restoring this line item. I was interested in restoring some of the line items that would address people and the needs the wait times for services, community services, human services, our climate work, um, those most impacted by the climate disaster, um, that's where I was looking to do investment. Okay. I had nothing else out of fund 101. I didn't have any other items. I really appreciate you all responding to questions and being patient. So I just want to go back quickly. Not try to revisit, but just want to kind of confirm I do see a reduction on P24 for youth of 60, 000, uh, 60, 000 or 60, 500. And then I also see a reduction for P14 for ongoing awards of 35, 000. Uh, no, the reduction. Yeah. Thank you. Um, we will make those adjustments. Um. And otherwise I'll go back to the script. Originally the 13.

2:48:561. And we'll subtract this additional 100, 000. Um, and we'll move forward with a budget in December for the general fund. I do have a question outstanding for, um, I believe it was the AA volunteer, uh, visitation program is where you wanted additional information. I left it on there as a reduction, but you wanted additional information by December. That's great. And I also wanted to just go back to what I heard you say and then what I heard you also say, maybe being conflict just for me as the person hearing. So I just wanted to confirm on the project 24. That one has been taken off of the list. So there will not be at 60, 000 dollar reduction Correct. Okay. Thank you. And then I've already sent a note. Oh, sorry. Oh, I was just saying he was using financial speak. So it messed both of you up because he was reducing the reduction.

2:49:48And so both of you corrected him. But it's like double negative. Thanks for clarifying. My clarification. Commissioner Levy had the same question on the other one. I have pain to Gustavo to just get some help to find a time with, um, myself and Robin Bohanna. So thank you. Okay. Okay. So you wanted to move on to fund 111? 111 if we, if we're all good there. Thank you. We got there. Thank you. Oh, Jinx it. There's a whole nother meeting. We can revisit it again then. No, let's, let's, uh, let's, yeah, I won't jinx it. I'll knock on wood. So for the road and bridge, we'll move on to the rodent bridge. We're projecting 38. 6 million in revenues and 53. 8 million in expenditures. Uh, the difference represents approximately 15. 2 million implying to support the infrastructure improvements and pavement projects that would leave an estimated 9 million and fund balance at the end of 2027. This is the, uh, this is an intentional and accumulated resource for capital investment, but we also need to remain mindful of long - term sustainability on road maintenance funding. Commissioners, do we have your consensus to move forward with the proposed rodent brakes budget, including the planned use of the 15. 2 million in reserves. I'm fine with what you're presented. Thank you. Commissioner Stolzman. I support

2:51:20the entire rest of the plan. Oh, and I support this as well. Thank you. I think maybe what we'll do is we move through this. I'll just ask for, um, Commissioner says peak up if they have an objection so that we can just keep it moving. Sounds good. Next one is social services fund. Social service on the Recoming a Change in how we account for the property tax revenue rather than collecting the general use property tax revenue in general fund and transferring into social services. We proposed to levy approximately 1. 478 mils directly into the fund into Fund 112. This generates approximately 16. 8 million and maintains the current level of property tax support. This is a budget neutral and does not change the projected fund balance. It simply creates a more direct and transparent connection between the revenue and the services being funded. The fund is projected to have 65. 4 million in revenue and 69 million in expenditures using 3. 6 million in reserves and leaving 31. 1 million in Fund Balance. Commissioners, do I have any, do I have consent. I see no objections. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to the IDD Fund for the IDD Fund. We have two primarily adjustments. The first, um, approximately 1. 3 million associated with nonprofit organizations award. The total awards are projected to reach

2:52:5211. 3 million reflecting the board's previous approved increase. The second is a 300, 000 for the community needs assessment. And one focused on housing in the other on broker broader IDD community needs. Overall, we're projecting approximately 12 million in revenue and 12. 1 million in expenditures with an ending fund balance of 17. 9 million. These investments support the board's priority direction and provide additional information to guide future funding decisions. Commissioners, do you have consensus and moving forward with IDD Fund Recommendation. I'm in agreement with your recommendation. I think you, yeah, you have support. I continue to be concerned about the high fund balance in a fund, a voter approved fund that, you know, serves very vulnerable sector of our population. And I, I appreciate, um, some additional funding out of, out of that fund to nonprofits, uh, I would just encourage our staff at Community Services to, um, just take a look, close look at the needs and make sure that we're using these funds to serve people appropriately. Thank you. We'll take note of that and make sure we communicate that to them. Um.

2:54:16So dedicated resource fund. This is slightly different, but I did want to give you a little bit of an update. Commissioners, the dedicated resource fund is a special resource fund that accounts for grants and other restricted fund sources. The dollars are designated for specific purposes in our supported for primarily by inner governmental revenues. As part of our final budget, um, OFM identified discrepancies on historical funding balances and is working with the accounting team grants team and the budget team to complete a comprehensive reconciliation, um, given this work is underway. We are, uh, asking the board to bring back this fund for further discussion, um, later on this month. So we just wanted to give you an update on that. And so we'll have that ready for you here in a couple of weeks. Thank you.

2:55:04Yeah, it's fine. Uh, health and human services fund 120 for phone 120. We're projecting approximately 5. 85 million in revenue and 4. 97 million in expenditures. The fund is expected to add approximately 880, 000 to its reserves resulting in ending fund balance of 6. 4 million. There are no additional policy decisions. Identified in this presentation. So we're recommending moving forward with the proposed budget. I have the same question on this one maintaining a fun balance of 6. 4 million dollars. I mean, that's more than 100 percent of the revenues. And I, I'd like to understand, I mean, I don't want to hold this up. I proved the plan. But I would like to know why we are keeping 6. 4 million dollars in a voter approved fund instead of using it. I'll take note of that and we'll get back to you and bring some more information. Offender management fund 124 for fender management fund.

2:56:20We're projecting approximately 4. 6 million in revenue and 6. 5 million in expenditures. We're proposing to use approximately 1. 9 million in the existing reserve leaving approximately 8. 4 million of fund balance at the end of 2027. This includes approximately 1. 2 million in capital expenditures. See, no objection. The worthy cause fund for worthy cost fund. We've made a 3 million adjustments since our October 1st Recommendation. This represents the carry forward of previously awarded or approved awards. They have not yet been fully expended. We're projecting approximately 4. 6 million in revenues and 17. 51 million in expenditures with projected and being fund balance of approximately 800 and 3, 000. I want to highlight that the proposed expenditure budget is significantly higher than the annual revenues. So it is important that we're clear about the timing of existing commitments and the remainder of resources available. Thank you. Keep moving. Keep moving. Um, Parkson Open Space Fund 126. For Parks in OpenSpace, we're projecting approximately 45 million in revenue and 56. 7 million in expenditures. The budget includes approximately 11. 2 million in capital purchases and 10. 4 million in debt service and borrowing cost. We're proposing to use approximately 11. 6 million in reserves leaving an ending fund balance of 17. 6 million.

2:58:08This reflects the continuing investment in open space infrastructure and capital needs that we've discussed in previous work sessions. Quality energy conservation bonds fund 130. This fund is relatively straightforward. We're projecting approximately 185, 000 in revenue. And a final debt service payment of approximately 408, 000. The remaining fund balance is approximately 223, 000 or approximately 223, 000 will be used to make that final payment leaving the fund with a zero balance at the end of 2027. Great. Thank you. 132 Human Service Safety Net Fund. For the human service safety net fund, we're projecting 10. 3 million in revenues and 10. 4, 8 million in expenditures. We're proposing to use approximately 179, 000 in reserves, leaving an ending fund balance of approximately 515, 000. This is approximately the minimum reserve level identified in our budget. I want to highlight that there is a very limited flexibility remaining to this fund. So we will need to continue monitoring expenditures and revenues, projections very closely. Yeah, the only, I would just note that these are, these are grants that we put out. And we have, we can control the amount we put out in grants to the penny. So this is one, I mean, this is where they cause, well, all the ones where we put out in grants, there's no uncertainty. And I always wonder why the fund

2:59:51balance require what applied to a fund like that. We'll move. On. Um, disaster disaster recovery tax fund, um, for the disastery recovery, we're projecting approximately 300, 000 inches revenue and an equivalent amount and potential expenditures. This, this maintains the fund balance of approximately 6. 3 million. The recommended, uh, preserves the resource or the resources for, uh, disaster recovery needs while providing some spending capacity of necessary. God, consensus on that one. Thank you. Oh, no, yeah, I think we were going to just speak up if we did silence. Um, capital expenditure fund 141 for the capital expenditure fund. We're projecting approximately 8. 56 million in rare. You were on sustainability tax. Oh, did I miss that? Oh, I did. See. I'll go right back. Sorry. Sustainability sales tax fund 136. For sustainability, we're projecting approximately 11. 98 million in revenue and 12.

3:01:1134 million in expenditures. The fun would use approximately 355, 000 in reserves leaving an ending fund balance for approximately 5. 78 million. This budget continues to support the county sustainability programs and commitments. Okay. Move on to 141. For the capital expenditure fund, we're projecting approximately 8. 56 million in revenue and 16. 05 million in expenditures. The budget includes approximately 9. 8 million in capital purchases and 4. 13 million in debt service. We're proposing to use approximately 7. 49 million in reserves leaving an estimated 8. 3 million in fund balance. The presentation identifies that remaining balances as unspent certificates of participation proceeds. I want to emphasize that these resources are not necessarily available for general operation purposes. Any further use must be considered inapplicable to the financing requirement and restrictions. Is there a point at which we must repay the COPs? We've been carrying this on our books as long as I've been a commissioner. So I will be bringing that to the board. We are reaching out to Bond Council to get information. I know there was some desire to look at those bond proceeds.

3:02:40So I will be bringing that information. Okay. Great. Thanks. Wildfire mitigation sales tax fund 150 for wildfire mitigation. We're projecting approximately 9. 7 million in revenue. An 11. 6 million expenditures. We're proposing to use approximately 1. 9 million in reserves leaving an estimated 9. 7 million in Fund Balance. This reflects the continuing, um, investment in wildfire mitigation activities and programs. Here anybody move on. Emergency services sales tax fund. For emergency servicees. We're projecting approximately 9. 7 4 million in revenues and 4. 34 million in expenditures. This results in an increase of approximately 5. 4 million to fund balance bringing the projected ending balance to approximately 8. 55 million. This is one of the funds where we're continuing to build available resources as revenues exceed current expenditures. Just a side note on that one thinking about 2027. Um, and the construction of the building that I know is underway just if we could maybe, I don't know, maybe I'm looking at our interim County administrator to just get an update. Maybe at the beginning quarter one of from the public works in the teams that are working on the construction just to make sure there hasn't been any major change that would change in it. It doesn't have to happen now, but I appreciate you being here. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you Commissioners. We

3:04:16can certainly make that update. Happen. Um, the project is on track for fall. And I can get an update from the team on construction progress. Well, and that might be the update. And so I'm looking over to the board. I don't want to give you an lateral direction. Um, I just, so if that's sufficient for the rest of the board is an update, then I don't want to create a meeting. And I can have a tool meeting can provide regular updates during quarterly updates from the public works team on all construction projects, which is already scheduled, I believe, for next week. Perfect. Follow to your questions. Yeah, that's, that's fine with me. You know. Thank you. Thank you. I want to know things are off track. All right. We'll keep moving. Um, affordable and obtainable housing tax fund. Commissioners, before we review the adjustments to the affordable, um, attainable, uh, housing tax fund. I want to declare one item related to the homelessness position. As you recall, we previously discussed the possibility of shifting funding for the certain homelessness positions from the general fund to the AAHD fund. After further review and some consolidation or consulting from the County Attorney's Office legal determined that these positions are not eligible for the funding under the AAHT Fund, um, Susanna, I don't know if Susanna's here, but

3:05:39that was, uh, direction and email that came from, um, the County Attorney. So just if you have additional, we can definitely follow up and we can probably share that from the attorneys. But as of today, we are presenting this sourcing use without those, that position. Well, Susanna was here. So I'm guessing she's going to run to a meeting. Just to answer your question asking if she was here unless she's online. That's an update that I was looking for. So, um, I have questions in my head, but not for this conversation right now. Just moving forward in the budget. I also appreciate the update and think a different forum is probably a better place to get legal advice. Perfect. Sounds good. I'll note that. And it's advice that the board can agree or to disagree. Absolutely.

3:06:31Um, so I want to make clear that obviously that option will not be on the sourcing use. Um, we however incorporated the additional 600, 000, you know, one time funding for the Boulder County Housing Authority Capital Projects and maintenance needs consistent with our previous discussion. We are also carrying forward, uh, approximately one million in previously approved innovation fund allocations. So, uh, just before I move on to the sourcing use, I wanted to make sure that you, the board is okay with the 600, 000 one time. And then the carry forward for the one million for, um, innovation fund. Yes, thank you. So I'm fine with the 600, 000, um, I did object to taking that off the top. I think it should not come off the top, but I understand that my fellow commissioners don't agree with me on that. I do just want to say that on the record. Thank you. And so overall the projected approx projecting 17. 4 million in revenue, 18.

3:07:434, 6 million in expenditures that projected and ending fund balance is approximately 978, 000. I want to highlight that this is, this is living a limited, unallocated resources for this fund. Uh, we did speak to housing, um, who will bring additional reporting at the beginning of next year as we continue to look at this fun. Mental and behavior health tax fund 153 for mental and behavior health. We're projecting approximately 13. 83 million in revenue and 12. 7 million in expenditures. This results in an increase of approximately 1. 6 million to the fund balance, bringing the projected ending balance to approximately 4. 1 million. The recommendation is maintaining the proposed funding for mental and behavioral health services while continuing to build reserve. We did have some discussion about the possibility of a third quarter budget amendment on this, but I guess that was that opportunity came and went. So, okay. Yeah, we did. The discussion was just they couldn't execute any faster. There's a city of Boulder permit that was hung up in the process. So they couldn't spend the money till first quarter in any case, but they did try to expedite the project. Yeah.

3:09:07We, we haven't heard of it. So that's probably the reason why. Thank you. Risk management fund 174. The fur, um, for, for, for risk management, we're projecting approximately 11. 3 million in revenue and equal amount and expenditures. This is an internal service fund with Revenous primarily coming from charges to county departments. The proposed budget maintains an end fund or ending fund balance of approximately 2. 73 million. Fleet service fund 175. For fleet service, we're projecting approximately 3. 88 million in revenue and 4. 63 million in expenditures. We're proposing to use approximately 745, 000 in reserves, leaving an ending fund balance of 3. 7 million. This fund supports the County Fleet Maintenance and Operations. For health and dental insurance, we're projecting approximately 42. 41 million in revenues and 41. 83 million and expenditures. The fund is expected to add approximately 584, 000 to reserves, leaving a projected and balance of 9. 9 million. Given the size of our employee benefit program, this remains an important fund for us to monitor, particularly as claims cost and benefits expenses change. Our final fund is the Recycling Center. We're projecting approximately 7. 2 million in revenue and 8. 51 million in expenditures. We're proposing to use approximately 1. 27 million in existing reserves leaving in estimating 15. 4 million in fund balance at the end of 2027. Commissioner, this

3:11:00concludes our review of the proposed 27 budget by Fund. First, I want to thank y'all for the direction. You provided throughout this process. This has been a challenging budget year. And we had to make some difficult decisions. Or you've had to make some difficult decisions. I want to thank Jill, the budget team accounting in our department partners for tremendous amount of work has gone into developing his recommendations. Today, we reviewed the final position, or our final financial position for each fund. The proposed use of reserves and adjustments made in October 1st. I appreciate the Board's direction for each of these items. We'll incorporate that direction to the final budget along with the remaining compensation benefits, property tax and carry forward adjustments. As discuss, we'll also continue our Reconciliation of Fun 117 and bring the Recommendation back separately once we have a validated our financial information.

3:11:56Our schedule budget adoption is December 8th at 9. 30 a. m. Before we close, I just want to make sure we didn't miss anything. Um, is there anything that may be a bit missed. The question I just had us at the budget hearing. Will we approve the mill levies for the newly formed public improvement districts or an adopt a budget for them at that time and then come back with an amendment or would that be a different process? We do plan on working with staff to establish the full array of budget adoption resolutions for all of the new public improvement districts also incorporate, um, a budget for the new property tax. And so those would all be included in the package of materials that we would bring forward at budget adoption. Thank you very much.

3:12:45Thank you for asking that question. And I want to make sure I understood what you said. So we do have a new voter approved property tax. And I'm remembering back to approximately this time last year when we had a new voter approved sales tax and there was a request to go ahead and, um, put in the budget the full expenditure out of that fund. Is that what you're proposing that when we adopt the budget, we would approve that expenditure or is that going to happen at a later date? We would establish expenditure appropriations for the new fund at a later date. As of right now, we don't have any information to, to proposa an expenditure budget for that new fund, but we'll incorporate the revenues and everything else into our budget. Okay. So when the provides direction on, um, an RFP, you know, some of that is going to be spent by the county to support CCAP enrollment at that time we would do a budget amendment for 2027. Okay. That's correct. Okay. That was it? Well, I had one more just timing. So final adoption, all eyes are dotted and T's are crossed and resolutions. We pass a whole bunch of resolutions and that all gets sent down to the state. And then that's our constitution, so to speak. We did have that outstanding

3:14:10question about the AAA program, uh, do we, um, I guess we need to kind of a timeline for bringing that back that will allow you. So I will be bringing 117 back fund. So I think I will incorporate it during the 117 budget session before December 8th. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we had a plan for that. And I guess before we close out, uh, I'll just thank you in your staff and really all of County staff, uh, who have, you know, been following this, I'm sure with a lot of anxiety, uh, over uncertainty, uh, I want to thank all the folks that came and spoke to us who filled out the form stack, um, who gave us their input, um, we weren't able to meet all the needs and satisfy all the requests that came through. And that may feel very frustrating. Uh, I want to assure people that I read that input and took it very seriously and tried to make adjustments where I, where I felt, you know, tried to make adjustments, period, um, and this, uh, you all had a hard time. We had our time. Hopefully we're in a strong position and we'll move forward. Thank you. So thank you all. That is the end of our agenda today.

3:15:39So we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.