Transcript

0:00:18All right. Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, thank you. And we are recording. Good morning. Today is September 15th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, and we have all three commissioners present in the hearing room. We will start by sitting as the Board of Directors of the Boulder County Housing Authority, and we have three items on our consent agenda. We have a motion, move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. We will now sit as the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, and we have consent agenda 5A through. P. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Now we will sit as the Boulder County Board of Equalization. On consent item 6A. With approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Back again as the County Commissioners for some discussion items, and we are welcoming Robin Valdez about our resource conservation appment. Good morning. Excuse me. Good morning, Madam Chair Commissioner S. Robin Valdez with the Commissioner's Office. And Agenda Item 7a is an appointment request to the Resource Conspiration Advisory Board. This board has currently two vacancies during the summer.

0:01:44Recruitment process, we receive one application for the City of Lafayette Representative Seat from Holly Bowers. Holly also serves on the City of Lafayette's Sustainability and Resilience Advisory Board and was recommended by county staff to join our resource conservation advisory board for your consideration. Great, thank you, Robin. Any questions or discussion? And for me, thanks, Arbin. Okay, then I think we're ready for a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Robin. 7B Community Services Resolution 2026 - 061. And do we have Heidi with us on that? It looks like. Good morning, Commissioners. Heidi Grove Division Manager The Division of Homeless Systems and coordinated response in the Boulder County Housing Department. Okay, thank you for joining us. Commissioners, were there some questions on this resolution? Yeah, I just, thank you. I appreciate it coming forward and recognizing all the work that the Board had done and needed to have a resolution to disband the HSBC, the RHS, sorry board, and that it's been replaced by the HSBC group. I just had some proposed edits to The Resolution that I think clarify some things and then recognize some of the work that's been done. So in front of folks is a redline version. I'm open to changing it. I didn't exactly understand what was meant with the language under four, so I

0:03:17just revised it to capture the intent of what we're trying to do today. And so everyone should have a copy of that. Yeah, thank you. Actually, I don't have that language right in front of me right now, but I did see it this morning, and it looked, trying to me. Commissioner, what you mean, did you have any questions or concerns on it? Sure, thank you. And Heidi, thanks for being here this morning. I wondered if Heidi had also seen those changes if she could maybe give some input. And I was also wondering about in general on recitals and or Resolution or the section that board resolves that attorney sometimes take a look at that and make sure that there's no concerns or questions. I just wanted to ask if those pieces had happened. I did have a couple of thoughts just in regards to what it was presented. This seems like, and Heidi certainly you have an opportunity to share if I'm missing a portion of this, but I was thinking this originally had come from and ask a previous ask of the board. And so it also prompted the question of what else has changed, and maybe that's part of what you were trying to capture. Commissioner Salzman for an item for. I was wondering about, because in the item III, it looked like

0:04:33the red line, including by donating County staff, I agreed with the suggestion of supporting instead of the word donating there. And then it also said successful collaboration. So then with the changes in 0. 3, it kind of got to the collaborative piece that was in suggested change of language on four. And so I just wanted to chat about that for a minute and see if, um, if that already accomplished the collaboration piece versus what had been in there previously with the changes to three and four, five as well. Yeah, I have no problem with deleting the new four. I was trying to emphasize that it's not our operation, like it's not our operation, it's a collaboration. And so I do think it's accomplished in three and four, probably just adds additional language. So I, we can strike the new four. That seems like a good proposal. I mean, I'm never in favor of her dungeon sea. Um, but I don't think it hurts to have paragraph three and paragraph four. I think they say slightly different things. And I think, you know, the, I think this is a lot of time over something that actually has very little impact. And I don't see any problem with, I'm happy to go either way, but I do, I do think what four says is that the HSBC

0:05:55is a regional collaborative approach. And that, you know, we encourage and support it. And I don't think you can say that too many times. I'll just say, you know, going back to the original impetus for this, I didn't see that necessarily a resolution or anything this formal was needed. I was most interested in the fact that I think our website at the time made it appear that the county was much more in control of this than we were. And I did look at our website this morning, the HSBC website this morning. And I, and I think it really, it reflects the work and the way the work is done. So for me, that, that was really all I was looking for when, when we, um, first brought this up. But, um, I, whatever the board's pleasure is, I'm happy to go along on the language of the resolution. The other option on item four was kind of just a change language and actually both captured it a little bit in the discussion so far would be right now the suggestion is on number four, The Board Encourage's Regional Collaboration to continue to address the good old issues of people experiencing homelessness. So the suggestion was the board continues to encourage regional collaboration and just because I think that's something that this board has done, I

0:07:21think, previously The Board was doing, um, so it was just a change if we're going to leave in that number four. It was just a curiosity around words talking about the board. And this is an addition, um, so it might not be in front of folks, The Board acknowledges that rapid progress has been made addressing homeless systems since 2023, which can be seen in point of point in time counts and other reporting metrics and yet significant hurdles remain. The other option for that one, um, if the board wanted to keep that language in there for me was adding that in the recitals versus in the resolve section, just given how it talks about on recitals, um, for example, E and F is talking about kind of the history of and that's typically how we see what else has been done. I was also curious about, excuse me, the, the two year work grouping working group on regional homelessness thinking about the ask of continual regional collaboration. So I think this could be bigger. It could be more broad. And if we just want to address the, what my understanding was the dissolve of that other group and acknowledging that this other group was going to take it. It probably could be more. It doesn't have to be as specific. I'm happy to move, um, five

0:08:37to I in the recitals. Okay. So we made some, um, modifications to Resolution 2026 - 061 here. At the dais. And so, uh, are we, did we land on keeping paragraph four. As written? I'm happy to go either way. It sounded like removing it. Maybe the most straightforward thing this morning, but I'm happy. I heard and asked to keep it and then I was like, I think it could be what I heard was, might be redundant, but let's be redundant. And I'm fine with that too. It was just a suggestion. So I'll make a motion to approve and amended version of resolution 2026 061 that would amend and add an eye to the recitals, which would read, uh, The Board acknowledges that rapid progress has been made addressing homelessness since 2023, which can be seen in point in time counts and other reporting metrics. And yet, significant hurdles remain. And then striking number four under therefores and replacing it with a new number four, which would be The Board Encourage is Regional Collaboration to continue to address the critical issues for people experiencing homelessness and amending number three under the recitals to strike the language by donating and replacing it with the word supporting and striking the word operation and replacing it with the word collaboration. Okay. Excellent motion. All in. Do we have a

0:10:14second. The only friendly amendment on that item four is you'd left it would be to change the language to the board continues to encourage regional collaboration. I accept that friendly amendment. Thank you. Okay. So, um, with that, we do have a second, I believe. So all in favor say hi. So, uh, thank you, Heidi, for bringing this to us. And we can now move on to seven C. And Colin Mayberry has joined us about legal representation for Taylor Suta. Good morning. Colin Mayberry, assistant Boulder County attorney. I'm here this morning to request the commissioner's decision and approval and signature on a legal representation agreement for senior deputy district attorney Taylor Suda. Um, this is in regard to representation in the case Schneller Vicker at all, which is in federal district court. Um, our office has reviewed the case, The filings, um, and we've determined that Mr. Suda was acting within the Course and scope of his employment and that he did not act into wanting or willful manner. So we're recommending that the board approve this legal representation agreement. Do you have any questions for me. Thank you, Colin. Questions. Then for me, thank you.

0:11:47I have no questions. No, I don't have any questions either. So, uh, so could we have a motion on 7C? Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you so much. 7D of follow up on the benefits workshop. Jillian, your name is here. Are you making a presentation of this? Good morning, Commissioners Julian Dietrick. Office of Financial Management. I'm going to let Stephanie kick us off and we're going to hear from MJ before I chime in with some context around the finances. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Jill. Stephanie Hyatt with human resources. As Jill said, we're here this morning as a follow - up to the August 27th benefits workshop where some additional and alternative plan designs were requested by the commissioners before making final decisions on the 2027 plan design and premiums. So we've got Jamie Westbury and Paige Bilby from MJ here this morning with us to present those alternative plans. I'll turn it over to Jamie. And this is Jeremy Smith, Commissioner Stafford, The Upcoming Presentation shared through Zoom. Anyone participating in Zoom who needs her desires caption should turn on captions in the Zoom app at this time and leave them on until the presentation is over. Thank you. Thank you. Jeremy. Good morning commissioners. I'm Jamie Westbury with the MJ Companies. Can everyone confirm that you can see my screen. Yes. Perfect.

0:13:22Thanks Stephanie. I'll jump right into the options. Um, this is a follow - up based on our own class from Commissioner Luchamin for, um, some additional alternatives. To consider. So we've presented again, both the BAB recommendation along with two additional recommendations. The second option you see on the screen here is what we're considering kind of a mid - range alternative that offers, uh, no plan design change, but maintaining the current employee employer cost share. And then the third option being the commissioner requested alternative with no plan design changes and no change to premium dollars paid by the employee. We wanted to just present a slightly more conservative option for consideration as well. So just to quickly orient you at the top, we have our 2026 current budget here broken down by total. The BABA recommendation here was to make some minor plan design changes, which I have on a secondary slide and to increase the employee cost share by one percent. Um, so you can see the cost impact here overall 3.

0:14:526 million dollar increase to the county. The second option with no plan design changes. But maintaining the cost share would result in a financial impact to the county of 4. 5 million dollars. This is relative to current. The commissioner requested option with no changes to premium or plan design results in a 5. 2 million dollar increase. To total costs for the county. Um, and I'll let Jill just make her comments here quickly before we go to employee premiums. Jill, if you like to make your comments, may I ask a quick question. Before you search out to your mind. On the, what looks like a second, the second option on the screen right now is in my correct and understanding that that's just a newer idea that you brought this morning. That's not one that we talked about previously. Is that correct? Correct. We did not talk about this option. It's kind of an in - between option from your request. Commissioner Luchamin to, and what the BAB is recommending. Thank you. And then the third request on there, what I just want to clarify was the way I see it on the screen. It says no plan design changes. But I thought we already started making plan design changes, um, in our August 27th conversation.

0:16:20So the plan design changes that were approved during the Commission or workshop with the addition of marathon that is still included. The plan design changes referenced here. In the bad recommendation are increases to the out - of - pocket amounts. Okay. Thank you. Any. Other questions for MJ? I just thought, um, it'd be helpful to chime in at the BAB Workshop. There were some questions around like, what is the impact to the general fund? How is this relate to our initial modeling of inflation of health and dental, um, costs? And so I'll kind of frame it in the context of our initial modeling, uh, was assuming seven percent inflation and all of our personnel costs in the general fund. And depending on the plan design that you land on, it's favorable or slightly more than that. So with the BAB recommended version relative to those initial modeling, we're looking at approximately a quarter million dollars less than we had initially projected with the more expensive option number three, um, were looking at approximately 600, 000 dollars more in general fund costs relative to that initial modeling. So happy to fill in any gaps there, but I think that's kind of what I took away from the last workshop, um, about what would be helpful context for the financial impact. A question and obviously I wasn't

0:18:01at the August 27th meeting and I don't, I don't expect staff to take a whole lot of time with me because I was out. I know when we've looked at these things previously where we've, um, tried to cushion County staff from, um, from premium increases. And we've drawn out of the fund balance that has been in the plan. What is the state of that fund balance with this time. Let me pull the number back up. I believe was 11. 5 million dollars where we landed with 2025. So in a healthy position, still a surplus compared to our minimum fund balance requirement. But we've seen a trend of two to three million dollar use of fund balance annually. And so we're kind of monitoring that trend. Although in the current ending position for 2025, it's in a healthy place. So what was the proposal that any, any, uh, impact to the budget, um, from the change would come out of general fund, not out of fun balance in the plan. Correct. So the way that it was presented, each plan is kind of designed around balancing the revenues and expenditures for the health and dental plan.

0:19:29So looking at estimated costs, balanced with a premium structure that results in no use of fund balance for the health and dental insurance fun. Okay. Two more questions if I can. Sorry. Um. So when, when you were saying impacts to the county, the, the bad recommendation was about a quarter million dollar positive. From projections. And that specific to estimated impact to the general fund. To the general. So when we look at what MJ's presenting and that annual county portion for each plan, uh, we're looking at estimating about 55 percent of those costs are incurred by the general fund because of the way that staff is distributed and based on current plan selections. And that cost to the general fund relative to what we were projecting in creating our budget instructions this year, created those variances that I shared. Okay. I think what you've just explained what my question was going to be, which is that there's a 1. 6 million dollar difference between 3. 6 million and 5. 2. But I think as you ran through the numbers, it was about a 750, 000 dollar difference. I'm following your train up, thought I think we're on the same page. Okay. Yeah. Um, no, I think I understand that the other last question I had is on the BAB recommendations throughout this. The slides that you

0:21:10have here, what was the vote on the BAB. I mean, there may have been more than one vote. They've combined two different votes into that first row. And so that's complicated because they had slightly different votes on the two things that make up that first row. And I'll have to defer to MJ or Stephanie who might have that. Vote handy. Pedro, you're able to pull that. With sharing my screen, not equal to. Them. You do not have it up at the moment, but I'm happy to work on trying to pull that up. Um, yeah, if I, if I had, usually we get what, I mean, I've missed the workshop, but usually in that document, they give us the breakdown of the vote on, on different things. So I mean, this is, I'm just curious. For me anyway, you know, the BAB, we ask them to look at these things. And they put a lot of time into that. And they take our job really seriously.

0:22:26And I'm always really impressed by how careful they are. So it matters a lot to me, you know, what the babs recommendations are. And, you know, the more they get towards unanimous or at least lopsided votes, then the more I am inclined to follow their lead. If I may just put a conversation in the votes were in the previous packet. My interpretation of what Bab brought was kind of under an assumption that the county is going to have to, the County Anna players are going to have to take a part of the increase in costs for this particular item. And I appreciate that. And they do do great work. And I think we've been, you know, we're really lucky that we've got stuff who want to be so involved in being able to consider different ideas and concepts and bring them forward to the board.

0:23:27And what I had shared in that previous conversation, I am just very concerned about staff and all of the impacts that are happening in the reductions period. There's just so much uncertainty. I was listening to CPR on my way in to, uh, Boulder this morning about the increase in gas costs again. And the question about interest rates. So for me, I was like, is there something? And they didn't bring it forward, but it was just an ass to come to the conversation and say, what if Boulder County was able to eliminate that particular uncertainty and create some stability for the next year, um, for staff? And is it true that health costs are going up and continuing to exorbitantly for everyone everywhere that's true. So it was more of what might we be able to do as the board if we could even consider it.

0:24:15It just wasn't brought to that previous meeting. So I really appreciate y'all coming back and allowing us to extend the conversation a little bit to consider what we might be able to do to support stuff. Are you? Oh, go ahead. Well, I think I have the votes up if that's helpful. So the, um. There are two pieces. There's the cross. Sorry. It's not on this page. Sorry. I'm on a different phot page. Are you looking for action here this morning. Yes. On this. Okay. If I might ask a question, shall I. And I heard you talking about what I heard was two different options. And maybe there's another one. And that was one of the, my hopes for how OFM folks here is. I see the 5. 2 million dollars. I also heard the million and fund balance. And then we also have a general fund of one time. And so I just want to understand, um, I understand that Bab is not bringing forward this third option to not have any increase to anything in this realm of the health and dental, right? And what would that look like? What would our options be? Do you have any suggestions or would it be if we decided, yes, we're going to, um, pay this cost as the county for the next upcoming year

0:25:43that we then would have to wrestle with that in the other budget pieces. I don't have any other suggestions or recommendations at this time, but we certainly could go back and I can consult with some folks on what would that look like. To utilize fund balance, um, in an intentional way. Okay. Thank you. Now I am. Oh, they have a comment. Yes, I had to add a little context as well. We did have a conversation with, um, Jillian, Ryan, Emily. Around the utilization of fun balance to reduce premiums for employees. And one of the reasons that wasn't brought to the bab for consideration is that it artificially reduces premiums for employees for a single year. And then in the next year, you're looking at a more considerable. Increase. So it solves for a single year, but over time there will be a big impact on employees. Unless the budget situation changes significantly, which we didn't anticipate. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for that context. So just then I was able to pull up the bad votes for the plan designs and the premium cost share if you'd like me to address that at this time. Okay.

0:27:08Thank you. Sorry. It took me a minute to get it up. I think Commissioner Stolzman was able to do it at the same time, but go, go ahead. Yeah. Again, this page will be with MJ companies in terms of plan design offering, um, we really, we illustrated two options to the BAB and they voted 12 members voted for the plan design options that are included in option one. 10 of them actually voted for the plan design option that was presented in the workshop, uh, that is no longer included on this page. So again, 12 bad members did vote for the plan design shown in option one. And then from a premium cost share perspective. We move to that slide. There was a 12 to 10 bab vote for the cost shift, the additional one percent cost shift to employee. So 12 voted for that and 10 voted against it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And, uh, I have one additional comment on the fund balance when we think about your current fund balance of, um, I think the number was a little over 11 million dollars.

0:28:32When we think about your total annual spend of, you know, 36 million dollars, um, that's roughly three million dollars a month. So your fund balance is essentially equivalent to, you know, three to four months of monthly claims expense. So that's just another way to think about your current fund balance. Um, relative to your current costs. Yeah. Thank you for that context. Um, again, I guess I'm reflecting back to how I've looked at this data in the past. And we've seen data about, you know, the claims history. And the large claims that we have the stop loss for, or maybe, maybe it's not available. Necessarily. But whether we're seeing a trend of large claims that may hit, that would make that spend rate a little more lumpy or whether they've been pretty consistent. You know, we never know when we're looking at this in August and the claims data. I don't know if it's current through June or what. But like what people are saving to see, okay, where am I on my out of pocket and my deductible and maybe I'll go ahead and get that hip replaced or, you know, whatever the thing is, uh, at the end of the year. I just would like to clarify to make sure I'm tracking what everyone is looking at. So option one, um, as presented today,

0:30:13does that include the OON cross accumulation that BAB had been recommending along with the other plan design changes and the premiums. So it's all of the BAB recommendations rolled into one in option one there. Yes. Great. My I support option one. I'll flip back again. Um. And Commissioner Lucherman, you had suggested putting something else on the table, uh, option three. And I, and I think you explained that. Did you want to say anything more about that. No, thank you. It hadn't brought just the idea of what would it might look like if we didn't, um, have to. Have increases for our staff. So it was just like, could we talk about it and look at what that might be and how that would, um, connect with or not with the recommendations that either of the other alternatives where we didn't get that alternative initially in the previous meeting. So, um, but no, I don't need to, uh, repeat the reasoning why. Okay. Um, I mean, I think I find, I'm always looking for ways to cushion our staff from cost increases. It's a challenging time. Much of it, uh, completely, um, unnecessary. And.

0:31:44Self - imposed, or federal government. And, you know, it's, it's a shame when our staff have to bear the financial impact of just improvident decisions that are made by others, uh, but, um, I guess my concern would be that, um, in trying to trying to cushion that financial impact, you know, we end up with needing offsetting reductions that could mean somebody completely loses their job as opposed to has a, have a, um, a small increase in their monthly premium. So I think, um, I appreciate the babs work. Uh, I realize it was not, you know, it was, it sounds like, um, not, not a lopsided recommendation on the part of the BAB, which we often get. Maybe it was a little more closely contested. But I would, uh, I would go along with option one, uh, as presented. And Commissioner Luchiman, I mean, Commissioner Stolzman, would you like to make a motion? I don't mean that foreclos further discussion. Oh, no, that's fine. Um, I would move that we approve the BAB recommendation. Option 1.

0:33:01Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And those opposed. Annie. Okay. So that we approve that two to one. Thank you. Thank you. And I will go back to, thank you very much for all the work on that. Um, it's a lot of work. To bring this to us. Appreciate it. Um, we are going to have confirmation of executive session. Topics. Good morning commissioners. Natalie Springett Commissioner's Deputy for the Record. On item eight, I'm here to confirm that the executive session topics that were noticed at the August 25th, 2026, regular business meeting of the board, we're discussed as scheduled. And this is simply a note for the record. So I'm happy to move us to item 9A for a vote. Commissioners, I'm here to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session on Wednesday. September 16th, 2026 at 1 p. m.

0:34:02pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4A. Real property issues regarding the topic of the Emory property, which is located at 1410 Emory Court in Longmont, Colorado. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you, Commissioners. And for item 9B, I'd request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session on Wednesday, September 16th, 2026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4B. Legal Advice regarding The Topic of Legal Issues related to Colorado 119 Bikeway Maintenance. This is approval. I am just thinking, because I was thinking, I did see a document in regards to this session. And I was thinking this was more than just maintenance. So I just want to clarify. I don't know who wrote the notes here on 9B.

0:35:02Oh, thank you, Commissioners. The agreement that we're discussing pertains specifically to maintenance when we're planning to discuss legal issues with you tomorrow. So you don't believe the house outside of maintenance is what that was included in the, I think we could add the word maintenance agreement, legal issues related to the Colorado 119 Bikeway Maintenance Agreement. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. So we have approved those items. We are now ready for our monthly head start report in a coniglin has joined us. Welcome to Connie. Thank you for being here. And this is Jeremy Smith, Commissioner Staff for the upcoming presentation shared through Zoom. Anyone participating in Zoom who needs her desires captions to turn on their captions in the Zoom app at this time and leave them on until the presentation is over. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. I am going to share my screen.

0:36:10And for some reason I'm having just a bit of difficulty with that. Sorry. That's okay. Take your time. There we go. Okay. Um, Akane Ogren, um, division manager for Boulder County head start. And I will get started with my report. Um, general updates for the school year of 26, 27 school year is officially underway. And it is wonderful to have children and staff back in our buildings. Uh, the classrooms are filled with energy as everyone focuses on establishing daily routines and building strong, meaningful relationships with our new and returning familys. Um, our program is in a very strong staffing position. Um, as we have kicked off the school year, um, we have one remaining teacher, assistant position to fill, which is currently in the active hiring process and just also being filled by a long - term substitute teacher. We also have, um, openings, four substitute teachers. Uh, those applications are open. And, um, we are looking to build a strong sub pool to ensure our classroom staff can easily take time off when needed.

0:37:34Um, moving into meal service. We've only had one month so far the month of August. So 3, 165 meals delivered. Uh, 200, 200 92 you'll served with the BBSD invoice for meals at 9, 410 60. And the CACFP reimbursement at 6, 634, 34 with a cost to the program of 2, 776, 26. And we will move down to related attendance. There were 11 school days in the month of August with Dagny at 93 percent attendance Woodlands in Boulder at 89 percent and Mapleton, um, also in Boulder at 89 percent with an average program attendance across three sites, um, There's a little dot there for August at 90 percent. Moving to program enrollment. We have a total funded slots at 110. The Augustine number was at 94. We've had, um, drop an ads as we typically do in the beginning of the school year. Um, and our current enrollment number is at 96, um, with actual, we'll be reported next month for September. So we have a nice little increased line there from August to September.

0:39:00Uh, I will pause there before I move into, uh, budget and then other, um, information. Okay. Uh, questions, comments. Commissioners. No questions for me. Thank you. Okay. Sounds like you're good to go. Yeah. Yes. Um, so monthly budget, um, the, the grant year for this program year and in June 30th, 2027, the program has been working toward a balanced budget for the past several years. And on the graph, um, below the text, there is a green revenue line, which now mirrors the monthly bar graph of program expenses indicating fiscal health, regulatory compliance and staffing levels that are properly calibrated to our funding. Um, the graph below, again, uh, reflects the start of the current fiscal year on July 1st, 2026 with an initial balance to the program year of 10, 791. Um, resulting in a projected surplus by the end of the fiscal year June 2027 of 13, 000 dollars. So federal oversight, especially given that we're submitting a competition grant this year, uh, we'll find predictable balanced financial trends that demonstrate precise monthly budgeting and discipline spending controls, uh, drastically reducing the risk of audit findings. And so we're very pleased with the changes that we've made in the program to, to have those, um, two graphs of line. Moving into monitoring and then also the grant information, um, The 2026 had start extension

0:40:45grant, which is the funding that we're currently sitting with. There is a second bucket of funding with a second application that we'll be due October 1st, 2026. And so the commissioners, you can, um, anticipate a request to apply for those funds. So the second bucket of funding for this school year, um, will be submitted for your approval in the next week. And then the 2026 head start competition grant, which is for the next five year grant cycle, um, that has been forecasted to open on October 14th of 2026 with an application due date of December 15th. And then in anticipated award date at the end of this fiscal year, um, of July 30th, 2027 for the next five years. I'll pause there on the grant funding if there are any questions. Thank you. Just a quick question on the, uh, extension grant. Is that something we could just approve now for you to move forward?

0:41:48I'm just looking at the calendar and it's do the first. Um, that would be great. I don't actually know the rule on that. If you can do that or not. Just wondering because this is a monthly meeting specifically for this topic that we're here to work on. I wouldn't have any issue. In approving an extension grant, but I'm looking at Adelie. Yeah. I think we're all looking at. Um, Akani, my apologies. I have a quick question for you. Was this a packet submitted into the record, uh, by yesterday. Yes. Oh, wonderful commissioners. You're welcome to take action on this item at your pleasure. Oh, yeah. Go ahead. I'm happy to move approval of the extension grant. Second. Okay. Let's act on that motion. All in favor. Aye. Aye. So great. You don't have to come back. Wonderful. Okay. Thank you so much. Yeah. Yes. Um, so then I will move into my final bullet, which is the proposed head start performed standards reforms. Um, our staff have been compiling program data and will submit to the commissioners by the end of today. Uh, a document with that data. Um, the federal public comment deadline to submit is by midnight on October 6, 2026. And they email address is there. Um, but I also just wanted to share a particular story since the National Head Start

0:43:23Association is requesting family impact stories, um, and I thought, um, I might just go ahead and share one here today, if that's all right. Um, and this was a statement that was written by a current parent, um, who's actually been with the program for a few years. Um, and she also, besides being a parent, um, had actually been employed by the program as a classroom aide, which is one of our entry - level positions, um, that we offer two families and parents. And so, um, she writes that head start has its purpose in its name. It gave me a chance to change my life and supported me in many ways. I have been with the program for many years. It first welcomed me by providing employment and supported my professional development. Then it welcomed my son for his first year preschool. It really did give him a head start and got him ready for kindergarten.

0:44:19The program was able to accommodate his meals due to food allergies. The staff worked professionally and as a mom gave me peace of mind. Today my daughter is getting her head start with this program. Although she is bilingual, she is still developing her English skills. Knowing that there are multiple people in her classroom who she can reach out to in her home language gives me as a parent tranquility. As for my daughter, being able to be comforted with language, she's most familiar with helps her stay at school with more serenity. Ultimately, I feel extremely privileged to have Head Start. It has connected me to resources. I wouldn't have found on my own. Head Start has an amazing staff just the right people. The family advocate has worked with me to get housing. I reached out to her with questions about getting back to school and what college was like. The FA gathered college information for me. And when I was ready, she helped me with the application. Now my son is thriving in kindergarten. My daughter is only three. Other programs require children to before years old, although head start gives children of young age an opportunity to an early start. As for me, I'm now attending college. I couldn't be more thankful for this program. So I, uh, I just received that statement today.

0:45:33And I just wanted to share that with you all. That is. Sharing that, Cone. That's exactly why we fund head start. That's why the program was created back in the Johnson Administration. And it's great to know that in its current shape, uh, iteration that it's doing what it was supposed to do. Um, did you have anything else that you wanted to share. No, that's it. I'm, I'm done with my report. Thank you so much. Uh, Commissioners, any additional questions or discussion? I have no questions. Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, thank you, Akane. We will see you next month. And that brings us to the end of our morning agenda. We'll be in recess until one o'clock when we will return for our work session on priority - based budgeting. So we're in recess. Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are, Jerry. Thank you.

0:47:01All right. And we are recording. Okay, so this is a continuation of the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County from this morning, September 15, 2026. And we are here for our afternoon work session with the Office of Financial Management on additional budget reductions for 2027, and I'll just turn it over to our Mondo. Thank you. Armando, what you let chief financial officer. I'll get started. Thank you very much for having us this after. Today, we're gonna continue our work on the 2027 budget and counties ongoing effort to address the structural general fund deficit. The purpose of today's session is fairly straightforward. We will briefly remind you where we are in this process. Review the direction you provided on August 4th and then walk through the additional reductions proposals submitted by the elected offices. And other funds. At the end of the discussion, we're looking for some direction on these proposals so she can move these to the 2027 recommended budget. I'll start really, can you hear me? Sorry. I'll start with a really quick reminder how we got here. March, in March 2025, we identified an ongoing general fund structural deficit in the range of 30 million to 40 million. At that time, the Board directed staff to address the deficit over multiple budget cycles. By march of this year, the

0:48:39financial outlook had improved. The reduction's already implemented the VSIP program and limits on new request had moved the forecasted in a positive direction. As a result, the Board established a final ongoing reduction target of 13. 2 million. For 2027 and directed us to use priority - based budgeting to help inform these directions. Today represents another step forward completing this work. Once we receive your direction, staff will incorporate these decisions and continue developing the 2027 budget. The chart is just a reminder of why we're doing this work. We've made meaningful progress in changing the trajectory of the general fund, but the underlying structure issue has not disappeared. Our objective is not simply to balance one year, but really looking for long - term sustainability. Solution to our ongoing expenditures and revenues. We don't want to repeat continually addressing the fund balance. And we really want to come up with solutions on how we can address this for long - term. And hopefully move us to a direction where we're more sustainable for the long - term future. So before I go into individuals, I wanted to briefly ground us on the board's marching directions. The total ongoing reduction target is 13. 2 million with a target of approximately 9. 2 million in personnel, 3. 9 million in operating reductions. The board also directed departments and elected

0:50:20offices to first look at vacancies. Position alignment, efficiencies, and historical underspending before reducing or eliminating services. The. Priority Based Budgeting Process was designed to support the work. Importantly, this was not intended to do across the board reduction exercise programs for evaluated ranked with the board retaining discretion over the final decisions. I think it's important for today's context to look at these proposals and how they represent the overall strategy that we're trying to achieve. And so I do want to, I know I kind of gave a background how we got here, but for this slide, I do want to talk a little bit about real high level. This slide represents decisions that we have directions on August 4th. And I also included decisions that we excluded from the recommended budget that is coming forward. And then we also have some decisions that we want to reconsider that were asked for more information. So we'll be bringing that back to the board. But based on that direction, approximately 7. 8 million and personal reductions. And 2. 8 million in operating reductions were identified on the August 4 budget meeting or budget session. And so today, we're going to be looking at the additional elected office proposals. And then also the other funds. One thing that I want to make clear is the elected office proposals obviously have

0:51:59a general fund impact. The other funds is really to address the funds individually and looking at some of those smaller reductions within those funds. Any questions before we get started. What I do want to ask before we get started, because we did August 4th is originally, we started by running each individual proposal. Do you want to continue that same method or do you want to do a proposal at a time and kind of get a feedback from the individual board? I'd just like to make it consistent to what we did August 4th. Thank you. Thanks. I appreciate everyone being here. For me, I'm looking for a couple of different pieces. One is my interpretation of this continuation was to hear from, or maybe not here from directly from elected official offices, but to hear what was proposed and recommended by the different elected officials. So that's what I'm going to be looking for. Uh, in regards to your specific question, which I think helps us all get how are you going to run the meeting?

0:53:02For me, it's going to be helpful to hear about each one. And I can't say right now if I'm already, if that's what you were also asking, I do want to hear some conversation on the different items. Absolutely. To weigh in as one commissioner. And we did invite the elected offices, and I do see them behind me. So if there's particular questions in regards to their proposals, um, I know they're available. We have some online and we also have them behind me. So we can definitely ask those questions and they can probably better answer those, uh, questions to those proposals. Thank you. Yeah. So yeah, I think we probably would all prefer to just go through them one by one. Yeah. Perfect. So I'll get started. So the first proposal, um, is from the assessor's office. And that is reclassifying two vacant appraisal two positions into appraisal one position. And it's producing approximately 30, 000 in general fund savings. Their second is eliminating a vaking data collector position while increasing the hourly budget to mitigate the operational impact. That produces approximately 57, 000 in savings.

0:54:10Together, the assessors proposes provide an approximately 95, 000 in general fund savings. Any questions for the assessor. Questions. You are looking for direction on a line by line basis. Similar to what we did. That's what I thought we were going to do. Yeah. So maybe not just questions, but questions, comments, direction. On this? I'm supportive of the two proposals. I heard we were going one by one. And then you commented on two. So just clarifying that I'm supportive of the two proposed being included in the budget process. I'll slow it down and do one at a time. Yeah. That'd be great. We can go fast. I just. One by one commissioner Lochiman on proposal number one. Right now what you asking for because we're not making decisions. Decisions. Right now you're looking for recommendation, um, that's how they're already there. You're looking for direction from the board in regards to being able to consider these particular. To move that course to the recommended budget. Okay.

0:55:19Yes. I'm fine. I'm proposal one. Yeah. And I am as well. And you already introduced two commissioners. I heard Commissioner Stolzman say supportive of number two. Control, what you mean? Yes, thank you. And same here. Moving forward to the clerk and recorder's office. Yep. So the next one is the clerk recorders proposal on the slide eliminates leadership coaching for managers and generates approximately 24, 300 in savings. I have a question about this. And I see the clerk hundred quarters here. Is there what other leadership training or coaching is available in your office if we eliminate this contract. Hi everyone. Molly Fitzpatrick Boulder County Clerk and Recorder. So this one is actually tied in a larger picture with our Leadership Development Program. We've been really working on capacity building. For the last several years and working to build a lot of mentorship development, coaching and training in - house, which at this point I'm really proud and excited to say that I think we've really reached that point. And so we can reduce reliance on external partners and vendors for that work because I do feel confident that we've really built that capacity and house at this point. And I would say not taking a step back with that work at all. It's really just being enhanced. And it's even better because it's in - house

0:56:58and even more relevant and pertinent to our staff. So we're going to take that work in - house. Okay, great. Thanks. Since we have the Clerk and Recorder, any other questions. I support proposal three. Yeah, I'm fine with the proposal three. All right. We'll move on to the next one. Um, Clerkson Recorder, it's a reduction to the election judge hourly rate. 200 in savings to the general fund. Just by way of comment on Proposal III, I'm very concerned to given the state of this country. And what's happening right now in regards to elections. My fear is the amount of disinformation and this will, I can either say all of this now at four and then five, or I can just say in general about proposal four and five, I don't believe that we are in a spot right now where we can take reduction from the election's office. I'm happy to comment on four and five also. I also do not support proposal four and five. If there isn't redundance off for tool, I'm fine with eliminating that. But the reduction and pay and the reduction in elections outreach, I don't think, I don't think we're able to do this time. All right. And I don't support them either. Different issues. I know, you know, I think we struggle sometimes to recruit election judges. And,

0:58:26um, they're on the front line. And I think oftentimes they take some abuse from the public. It's a hard job. And so I, I would worry about reducing that pay. And I think on the election outreach, uh, with all, you know, Commissioner Loaching, we said this, misinformation. And, and concerted effort to discourage people from voting. And I think we need to do everything we can to counteract that messaging that's out there. So I wouldn't support either one of them either. I was just asked, do I want to provide a comment? And I think we appreciate it. Never, I'll pass the sale. What's that? I said you should never sell past the sale. I was just going to say, you know, it's hard for our office being a compliant driven office to find things to give up. And those were just, we're, we're really scratching the bottom of the barrel. Um, so, you know, thank you.

0:59:26That's all I can say is thank you. Yeah. Appreciate you trying to come to the table with something. And that's what we're here for is to express that judgment. Thank you. All right. We'll move on to the next one. Um, just for the record, I didn't propose a five was the clerk and recorders, The Election outreach. And we did get direction from the board. So, um, the next one is the district attorney. And they are proposing a freeze on a vacant position, uh, for six months, which does give us a one time, uh, 63, 000 dollar one time general fund savings. So that's, uh, I said, it's a one time, but it is 63, 000 on a bacon position. From the district attorney. And the district attorney has joined us. So I guess I would invite you if you want to elaborate on this in any way. Um, Michael. Go ahead. Thank you very much Commissioner Levy. Good afternoon, everyone. Uh, I appreciate the opportunity to work on. And his team. And as you may recall last year, we returned 500, 000 dollars to the county from our salary and benefits line to help with the budget cuts this year. We have this vacant part deputy district attorney who's assigned district court, which handles Belani high level prosecutions, including domestic violence, temp to murder homicide

1:00:45and vehicular fatalities. But I do believe we could sustain the work of the district court. As a whole while putting a hiring freeze here to help the county manage the, uh, challenges we have on the budget side. So after working with Armando and his team, we came up with this as a proposal. And I hope this helps with the budget crisis we face currently. Okay. Thank you Commissioner's questions. Thank you. Thanks, DA for being here and to give a little bit more information. Just could you share a little bit more in regards to, um, what this would look like if the way I'm reading it is it's a vacant part - time position. Is that correct? And so some of our other departments and elect officials are presenting items that would be, um, the removal of bacon positions. That's something we've been doing for the last couple of years. What would that look like for a number if we asked you instead to remove that vacancy versus doing a hiring freeze. We would be unable to continue handling the caseload at the level it currently stands. This is district court. So as I mentioned, these are felony prosecutions. This is where law enforcement is making an arrest. And bringing charges to our office for consideration and filing. Anything ranging from, uh, a high level theft

1:02:03over 2000 dollars all the way up to and including sex crimes and murder cases. So this district court deputy DA position is part of our district court team. The person in this position handles felony prosecutions and also helps us keep up with the flow of cases coming into the jail for bond arguments, The filing of charges. And then ultimately the prosecution of cases. If we had to give it up permanently, it would cause a very significant negative impact on the office and our ability to meet the needs of the community. And this is an area where we're required by state law to prosecute these offenses. This is not, uh, as you know, this is not optional for us. But we can definitely sustain current operations with the one time freeze. We would not be able to do it long term if this position were eliminated.

1:02:51Do you have a number of what that would look like if we were to not, if we were just to take the vacancy and close out the position. I hear the importance of the work. What I heard also is it would change the workload, which I'm interpreting as like a different wait time or different response time. And we are addressing those types of realities around the county right now. And so I just, I just, just so we can compare what we've been having conversations about with other departments. It would be really helpful to understand. I acknowledge that it's important work. And so is the important, the work of community services and humans and folks distributing food and all the other things. So I understand it's challenging. No, I appreciate that. And I'll just take a step back and start with when we spoke with the county administrator and the budget director and the, uh, Office of Financial Management, we were told that we would not need to make any additional cuts or freezes for this coming year. And then I recognize that, uh, upon closer upon further review. That we need to, if we can sustain some cuts and this hiring freeze is one way for us to do it. In terms of number of cases, I can give you the number of cases we

1:04:00handle at the jail per day. I'm not sure what that would capture necessarily, but I will say we have a proximal 2, 500 felonies that we prosecute per year. Every year. Uh, we've had increases over time. So for example, during the pandemic, our numbers spiked. They've come back down to where they were before the pandemic. This person, this position plays a key role in us being able to keep up with the flow on vehicul homicides and other violent offenses. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I was looking for not a number of cases or number of people as much as I can attempt to do the math here, but it's a six month free. So if we were to keep this vacant position as an eliminate the vacancy, the way that we've been eliminating vacant positions elsewhere around the entire county, is it safe to 63 times two? Or is that an incorrect assumption? Thank you. No, I'm very, uh, sorry, Commissioner Luke. I mean, I thought you meant a number of cases impacted. The number is times two. So it's 126, 000 dollars Thank you. And I would respectfully urge the commissioners if that's a consideration to let us go through the hiring freeze and then revisit this next year. Uh, cause I do think this would have a found impact on our operations

1:05:18of the felony level. If I may, then do you have any other vacant positions currently in the DA's office. The other vacant position we have, we're currently filling. Thank you. I'm happy to weigh in on proposal six. Um, so from my perspective, um, we have a lot of really tough choices, but I don't have any families of victims or victims reaching out to me saying that they want to wait longer for some sort of closure or justice on, uh, domestic violence case or sex trafficking case, uh, any of the murder case, um, very serious consequences to the community of delaying, uh, The Justice that they may receive through the process. Um, there's also probably costs associated with delay that are not captured here. So if we have slower turnaround times, we get to hold people that may have come to our community from outside the community and our jail for longer. And so, um, if we're delaying an unnecessarily holding people that will ultimately be sent to Department of Corrections, um, and they're staying in our jail, costs associated with that delay that aren't included in this savings proposal that's listed. So I don't think it's fully fleshed out to the total savings. I think it's over, overly optimistic because it's simply capturing the DA side of things and not considering what it does in

1:06:43the jail or what it doesn't Joe Peley Center or what it does in the community. If someone's at large, um, additional crimes are committed while we're waiting for justice. So I'm not supportive of moving forward with proposal six. Okay. Um, and I'll go ahead and weigh in on this too. Um, I, I think for me, you know, looking at just laying the hiring of something and having one time savings of 63, 000 dollars really doesn't move us ahead towards where we need to be. We're looking for structural change, which this doesn't address. And, um, you know, with the caseloads that your deputies are carrying and, you know, I guess what's coming to mind for me is speedy trial issues. Like we don't, we actually don't get to decide when we take things to trial. And when we resolve them, uh, a defendant's speedy trial rights makes decides that. So, you know, these cases are going to get processed. And they're going to get processed within the constitutional requirements. And I just don't see one time savings of 63, 000 dollars as actually moving us ahead.

1:07:55So I wouldn't support this proposal. Uh, either. Um, and Commissioner Ludwig, I think you were going a different direction. So I don't know if you want to go ahead and, you know, you were asking questions, but I didn't know if you actually had a position that you wanted to state on this on the record. Well, I heard two, two, I had heard two people give a direction. So I'm happy to make additional comments. I just, and I can also save them. We have, um, I'm going to go ahead and Adam. And right now part of this particular, um, work session for me was the ask I heard for elected offices to go through either the PPB or the other processes or review of the full budget for the entire county and help us as collaborative partners address the structural deficit. It feels like there's a disportionate impact to the countyside and the county commissioners, all of our departments. And so I'm struggling with that a little bit. So I was hoping today that we were going to hear from, um, our elected partners. And we've seen some from the assessor. We send from the clerk.

1:09:05We have a corner. We have a DA. We have a sheriff. We have a surveyor and we have a treasure. And some of those budgets are disproportionately different than other budgets. And we are, you're right. I believe the concept was we did not want to, as the Board of County Commissioners come to the budget process and say each department or each elected offices would give X percent. And so we've gone through all these other processes. We have a staff all over the county involved over months and months. And what's missing for me here is what is the contribution. And it's not a recommendation. It's not a situation that any of us want to be in, nor does the Board of County Commissioners want to be having to eliminate positions for the important work that we do. And that's where we started in the state mandate, but we also acknowledged and have been discussing the reality that Boulder County residents had this amazing level of service that folks have been able to, one, expect need and are looking for. And the reality is we're in a structural deficit. And so that's part of what I was looking forward today. And this work session is, and this is just one, I'm looking at UDA on the screen.

1:10:15This is just one proposal that was brought to us. I agree that, you know, six months doesn't hire and it doesn't feel similar to what other department heads and elect officials have brought to us to try and address the structural deficit together. And so for me board, we've gone through this conversation previously. And if we have to do a set number for elected official's offices, we can do that. I said last year in this budget conversation, I did not want to be the one going to elected official omelic into the sheriff. I did not want to be the one to go over Sheriff's office and say, let me review all your programs. And as a commissioner, make a decision as much as say, we have a budget, a situation. We have a structural deficit. County staff are going to be impacted. And so how collaboratively and together do we address the issue? And so I'll just say that from my perspective is one county commissioner.

1:11:09It feels is portionate. And that's what I was looking for in regards to collaboration. So you're right. Commissioner Levi was going in a different direction, just trying to understand, um, how do we 63, 000 isn't going to fix it necessarily, but we have on proposal for 66 number that was offered in the what I heard as the spirit and the light of, we've got to fix this problem together. So just sharing a little bit about what I was, what I'm looking for. And I, I can keep looking through the document. But I think this was the one that we got from the district attorney's office versus additional. Well, and I'll just add in. I really do feel that it's been a collaborative process. I appreciate that all of the elected offices have brought things for consideration. And we're looking at a priority - based budget process. And so we have to compare really, really difficult things. We're comparing The Master Gardener Program to Sex Trafficking Victims. We're comparing things that are very, very challenging to compare. And so I appreciate that everyone brought something forward to consider. And we did make the commitment to one another that we weren't going to do across the board cuts. And we were going to do the hard work of comparing things. The county commissioners section of the County

1:12:21and were all the county. Everyone's participating in this. Everyone's trying. But if you look at the growth in number of employees under the County Commissioners compared to the DA or the sheriff or the clerk in recorder or the assessor, the county commissioners have added positions over the last six years without consideration for how they would be funded at a rate that far outpaces any other area of the county. So I do see the collaboration and I appreciate that everyone's brought things forward. Okay. So I think we've provided direction on number six. So we're ready to move on to proposal number seven. Yes. The Sheriff's Office's proposal will reallocate a portion of the jail medical service costs from the general fund to the offender's management fund that will reduce the general fund expenditures by approximately 500, 000. I just have a question. Maybe for Jillian, I'm not sure who it's for, but it may be for the sheriff. Just on this, um, in the last couple of years, have we still been having to do budget amendments at the end of the year to cover the expenditures at the jail? Are we short budgeting it currently.

1:13:30Yes, we have required budget amendments at the end of the year to cover jail cost overages and we anticipate that again this year. And so what's so I explained to me the point of this, if we're like, we'll reduce it by 500, 000 in our budget adjustment, I'll just have to be even bigger. I don't understand. This would actually be on the operating side of the equation at the jail and would shift those, some of those medical services costs over to the offender management, which now has, we believe, sufficient ongoing revenues to support that. Um, so it shouldn't necessarily have an impact on the personnel side of things, which I think does still need to be considered in a. This is fund 124, which is the voter approved offender management fund. Correct. Yes. This proposal reduces the general fund jail budget by 500, 000 and increases the offender management fund operating budget by 500, 000 to alleviate some pressure on the general fund, but it does not necessarily impact or address the issue of personnel costs in the jail. Requiring annual amendments. So would we also make a proportional adjustment to just actually budget what we're going to spend. I think that there's probably some layers to that. And yes, I think we need to look at how we're actually budgeting and funding personnel costs.

1:15:01Okay. I think my question's been answered. You're welcome to add anything if you think we should hear it. Good afternoon, Commissioners Curtis Johnson, Sheriff. Um, I just want to clarify this year we do not anticipate having to come back and ask for a budget amendment regarding medical or food costs. And two reasons for that. One, we've done better managing medical costs. And second, we've made changes to our kosher meal program, which we anticipate will save us over a half a million dollars a year. Moving forward. So any, so for food and medical, we do not anticipate needing to come back and ask for more money as we traditionally in the past have, both because we have righted some of that budget and we have found ways to make savings. There are personnel costs that we may have to come back and seek amendment to, but that's separate from the food and medical. Okay. Thank you.

1:15:50That is super helpful. Thanks. I just had a question really about Fund 2124. And how we're doing in that fund because it wasn't last year, but maybe the year before and the year before that, uh, you know, I was looking for what kinds of things we could move into Fund 124 and out of the general fund. And it seemed like there was no room. So I'm, I'm kind of surprised that we have this 500, 000 dollar cushion in there at this point. Uh, is that the most recent one. So we do have a current fund balance. They're starting fund balance at the beginning of, uh, 2026 of 9 million, 9. 6 million in 124. And how much, that's the fun balance that hasn't been allocated to anything? Correct. As of right now. We're seeing on 9. 4. I mean, thank you. With some of these special sales tax approved funds and the kinds of things we fund out of them, I have asked with regard to others, like what is the purpose of the fund balance? I know we want fund balance when we have volatility maybe in the revenue or when we don't know for certain, you know, what the costs are going to be to come out of it. Um, and I don't know what all we have in there right now. I

1:17:17don't remember. But I think we really need to look carefully at whether we need to carry that size of a fun balance in a dedicated sales tax fund like this that only has limited purposes. We can definitely come back and revisit that and maybe give you a little bit more of analysis. So you know exactly what's in that fund and what is eligible. And maybe talk about, you know, one times I would really stare away of doing the ongoing, you know, expenditures on, on fund balance for those type of funds. But at least like one time, is there other options, but definitely come back to you and give an analysis. Yeah. And I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do ongoing. It's just the nature of it is, you know, if it's a, if it's, if it's an amount that we, and maybe this isn't a good example because, um, because medical services is quite volatile.

1:18:10But, but I think we really need to look very carefully at the kinds of things we're funding. And for those where we are, you know, where they are maybe operations and we know if we're going to do a contract for X amount, that's what it's going to be. Do we need to have a nine million dollar fund balance in this fund? It's like a, what is it? A half of 0. 05 percent sales tax that goes in there. I think. And I don't know what they're required fund balance is. But I would say let's, let's maintain minimal fund balance. And put everything we can into that. We can definitely revisit, bring that back. Thanks. Commissioner Lochman, I don't think you had a chance to speak to this one. Not yet. Thank you on Proposal 7.

1:19:03Just to have an understanding, the funding that you'd be, the way I'm looking at it is kind of just a move of cost from 1 fun to another fund. What is given up from the offender management fund. If you were to move this cost to that area. Or is there nothing? Because somebody just hasn't been spent. I believe it's being moved because the money has not been spent. Correct. Okay. So there's nothing that's going to be then need to be funded somewhere else at a different time. It's just money that's still sitting up. Just using a different fund. Moving that half a million dollars from the general fund. Okay. That's the way I'm interpreting it too. And then I think the question that I mean, I think that's a good practice. I think some theme that we've been talking about here at the County over the last six years as well of like, what can we use some of these special fund tax funds for?

1:19:58Um, in regards to FDE and otherwise. So I think it aligns with other practices. I think my question for you is similar to the one I asked from the DA. Is what, um, either vacancies do you have right now that we can look at in additional, um, reductions from the Sheriff's Office budget doesn't understanding that that's one significant portion of the entire county budget. And I acknowledge that the work is important and that it could address, you know, could create longer terms, et cetera, the same way that other departments have been impacted. So I just want to ask that question as well. Well, and as you know, I think from looking at our personnel, we always have vacancies, but they're revolving. We are always hiring as well. So for example, we have, I believe six or seven jail deputy vacancies today. But they're all required positions and we're hearing process for all of them right now. Um, so I don't have additional vacancies I can give up because we still haven't met the minimum requirement staffing that we need to run the jail. Uh, and to daff our operations, um, we're running lean, uh, working with the budget team. We've gone through all of the PBB exercises and looked at where there are opportunities. And there really are not any significant opportunities to not meet

1:21:11the statutory requirements of the work that we have to do. I appreciate that. And, and PBB was, um, talked about in that initial presentation was one way for, um, leadership in this organization to consider that would be one way to come up with some recommendations to the entire budget. Again, as a collective work project for us in regards to the structural deficit. Thank you. Okay. I'm supportive of Advancing Proposal 7 into the recommended budget. I do think that there were some follow - up information commissioner Levy asked for the, is pertinent that we'll need to see at that time to understand these balances. So looking forward to that being included. Okay. So I think if you're ready, did you have something else? Yeah. I just want to make sure, um, do I have a yes on that. For? Oh, yes. Yeah. No, I'm a yes on that. I'm wondering what else we can fund out of Fund 124 that may help us with our general fund. Okay. Perfect. Let's go to the next.

1:22:21Slide. So that concludes, uh, The reductions for the Office of Elected. That concludes our, uh, proposals for today. Um, I did, we did take notes in obviously we'll come back with some of those back into the recommended budget at the same time, um, additional information, uh, do you have any other questions for the elected offices at this time before we move on to the funds. I don't. The treasure are sitting here. No, he's got nothing to say. I bet he has something to say. No, but we are going to go through the dedicated resources fund as well. Okay. So, okay. So I do want to thank the elected offices. They did participate in the PBB. They've worked with the team throughout this whole process, providing a lot of feedback. So I do appreciate that. Um, so just want to let you know that they've worked fantastically with the team. So. We will move on from the general fund and start looking at individual funds if that's okay with you. So, um, our first fund that we're going to look at is, uh, our dedicated resource fund, um, which is 117. And the proposal is two.

1:23:47See, The Community or the Community Action Program proposal would eliminate one vacant manager position in the Community Services producing approximately 154, 000 in savings to the dedicated resource fund with the potential for additional general fund savings through reduced program subsidies. Thank you. Just a curiosity. I don't know if there could address. How long is this position been vacant. Robin. Yep. There's Robin coming off. Good afternoon. Kushner is Robin Bohan and Community Services Department. I think it's been two years, maybe three. Okay. Thank you. And that and the curiosity was I was thinking it had been a while. And I was just the curiosity. Was why this position didn't get brought up previously in the vacancy conversations. Or was it discussed at some point and just wasn't brought forward and or did the board not accept it as a recommendation at that time. I believe in our first round of layoffs last year. We were focused on the general fund. And with the PBB, we included the grant funds analysis, which is why it became, um, apparent. We had no intention of filling it. It would be one of those vacancies that we would let go of. But it seemed like an opportune time to, um, address it through the PBB process. So would you just clarify? So this, this proposal 1, now on this section

1:25:24is does affect the general fund or doesn't affect the general fund. It's funded through the community services black grant through della. We do receive, uh, subsidy from the board for CAP in general. And by not having this position, they'll be, uh, reduced amount on that subsidy request, which is the general fund request. General fund budget. And Jill, I don't know. I don't know. The percentage or what that actually amounts to, I don't know if, if Jill has that. Yeah. I can chime in. There's currently a 93, 000 dollar ongoing general fund subsidy for the community action program division. And so we can look at reducing that amount if this session is eliminated. So the general fund savings would be different than this number that we're looking. I'm just trying to get an idea. I'm trying to compare the numbers that we're discussing from one department, another department and understand what's being discussed cumulatively. So the 154 is for this specific fund, but it does rely on some subsidies. So there would be a small impact to general fund of 93, 000 is what I'm hearing Jill say. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Stolzman. I support including proposal 1 for the reduction in the dedicated resource fund.

1:26:49Um, I, I had a question about this. So, um, this would not, would it affect the amount that we pulled down in CSBG funding. No, it would not. Our allocation is, um, determined every four years. We just recently got information about our allocation for the next grant. Um, that grant application will actually be coming to the commissioners in about a week. Um, and I think our, our amount was decreased by six percent. This year, but we, we, it's not based on the number of staff that we have. So the. So the programs, the grant programded programs that are listed in the memo, the cultural brokers, uh, pearl and pie. Will we still run those programs? Just use different personality. Yes. I'm currently managing and supervising and supporting the staff. Without the division manager. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah. I, I support moving forward with this proposal as well. Thank you. Okay. Sounds like you've got three yeses on that. Next proposal is with the health and human service fund and relates to the juvenile assessment center, the proposal would eliminate the juvenile assessment center position generating approximately 118, 000 in annual fund savings. This would occur, this would not occur immediately. Um, the proposal is anticipated implementation in 2027.

1:28:41I just have a question. I was thinking that on the jack proposal that there was some additional information that was going to come back for us to make this decision. And I don't know if there's anybody else on the line. I'll. Go ahead and chime in with my thoughts. We did. And our discussion on August 4th with direction to come back with additional information on implementation. And so staff are working on that. Implementation plan. And we will continue to bring back information as it's available. Just wanted to call out that there is this other component that was not previously discussed on August 4th. So this is. In the same lane of, we believe requires additional information before we get a final decision from the board, but wanted to put it out there as a proposal that came out of PBB. Okay. I think for me, what I'm trying to understand on the jack piece was who might be in another partner who might be able to help. There was this gap of potential gap of well. And it was said that we'll still have kids who need this service in the 24 or 7, um, section in the middle of the night that won't be serviced. And so that's what I thought was coming back to understand if there was somebody else who's going to,

1:30:05the kids will still need help. So if they're not committed county, who is it that's going to take on that role and or is it going to end up as I was concerned about before that will just be asked later down the road for a contract for funding to because it is a real need. So, so I see what's on here. I guess I'm just, I still have that question mark. It might be available to chime in if there are updates, but I don't think we have that information. Okay. Uh, thank you, commissioner. You're correct. That's part of the assessment that we need to do with the full impact partnership. And that, uh, that analysis and assessment and engagement will begin in the next month or so and may take two to three months. But those are the exact questions you're correct that we hope to answer and bring back to you. Okay. And we can definitely bring this back with that as a package.

1:30:56We just wanted to separate it because it was part of the additional 120 fund. So we wanted to separate the generals. But we can definitely bring this back when we get the additional information on the assessment. I'm just weighing in. I think including the proposal is important. Obviously the work needs to be done. Um, the evaluation we talked about on call. We talked about all these pieces. So I support the work happening at the pace that's necessary to do the work. So it may be that 2027 has some smaller number for the savings that we realize because maybe the work can't happen until August, September, October. Who knows? And so we'll know that once the work has been done and we have the plan laid out, but then there would potentially be the ongoing savings that would occur. So I'm supportive of the concept moving forward at the appropriate cadence to be able to properly plan and implement a project. Yeah. I mean, for me, this is just, we are, we know, you know, we said go explore this. And so I guess you're just telling us that this may save us 118, 000 dollars out of the HHS Correct. Which is not general fund.

1:32:07Correct. So this is not really going to help us with our structural deficit issue. Yeah. Not this specific, but it is tied to the whole, the overall, the whole assessment that does affect general fund. Yeah. Well, and if we can. You know, if we find savings in the health and human services fund, we were just speaking with our direct republic healthy other day. They may like to get some of this money out of the HHS dedicated fund. So this could help in other areas. But it sounds like we're not really ready to book this savings. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next one. Next, we're moving on to sustainability. The text fund. Unlike the other funds, uh, we're discussing today. This is a structural financial issue that we're trying to address here. Um, we do have Susie here for questions. Um, the sustainability tax fund currently has an ongoing structural deficit of more than 1.

1:33:056 million. The primary issue is the sales tax revenue has remained relatively flat while personal and program costs have continued to increase. The fun is projected to end in 2026 with a healthy fund balance. So this is not an immediate liquidation issue. Um, liquidity issue, but connecting or continuing to spend more than the fun generates would require us to draw down the fund balance over time. Um, through PBB, the staff identified several opportunities to better align expenditures with available reoccurring revenue while trying to preserve the highest priority programs collectively, the six proposals before you add up to 930, 000. And it's all ongoing reductions. These proposals do not, uh, completely eliminate the 1. 6, but does, um, have an impact on the long - term sustainability of this fund. So I'll start with, go to the next one right. Okay. And Susie has joined us.

1:34:06Suzy. So we'll start with the very first one. Um, staff is proposing a 400 reduction in funding that appear that supports sustainability projects for Boulder County, three housing authorities. This would leave 200, 000 available for these projects. Commissioners. Discussion questions. It's sure. Thank you. Thanks, Ceezy for being here too. I think the question is just, what is the impact. To the projects that have been happening and what I don't know if you can speak to that a little bit concerns me when we start looking in our climate work about doing reduction from general fund. I feel like that's one area that this current board is all in agreement with an alignment with in the Office of Sustainable Climate Action Resource. It's also grown over time under your leadership and really built up a team that, that wasn't there several years ago. So if you could just speak to that, that'd be great. Sure. Good afternoon, Commissioner Susie Streife, Director of Office of Sustainability Climate Action Resilience. Thank you so much for your time. The priority - based budgeting gave us an opportunity, The Exercise itself gave us an opportunity to really look at where we could reduce with the most minimal impact as Commissioner Stoltzman already said these are really, really tough decisions. And you will have tougher decisions with the S - tax

1:35:37coming up too as public health will be coming forward with their own proposal to fund a lot of their great programs out of the sustainability tax. This is just our way internally with the sustainability tax portion going to Oscar specifically for us to dress, um, the structural deficit. We also have a lot of vacancies that were not filling. So that also saves us quite a bunch for next year as well. Um, in perpetuity for the tax, this particular proposal under energy smart, we've done a lot of assessment about where our capital will be most effective. And we do feel that, um, leaving 200, 000 dollars to leverage a lot of the utility programs through our energy outreach Colorado program actually will be better. So this reduction given housing authorities do have their own source of revenue. Um, right. This, this is something that we do feel like we can actually accomplish and have minimal impact to the service delivery specifically on the energy smart side.

1:36:42And I'm happy to answer questions on the other proposals too. Thanks for that. I'm supportive of all six proposals. So I think for me on this one, I think you may have answered it. The question, you know, we approve investments into our housing authorities so that they can save money on utilities, which doesn't necessarily accrue to the county's fund, but it's, it's good for the housing authorities. And were you saying that they can pull down money from EOC to achieve those energy efficiencies using the 200, 000 dollars that we would continue to provide? Yes. So we have a contract with energy outreach Colorado. And they energy outreach Colorado is able to leverage the additional utility, um, funds available for retrofits and upgrades for housing authority residents. So in other words, our funding will go farther with energy outreach Colorado than just blanketed out to the housing authorities themselves just because we're able to leverage those utility funds. Okay. So instead of us funding a hundred percent of the cost of some kind of an upgrade.

1:38:02This would just pull down energy outreach Colorado money. To do the same thing. That's correct. Which all works out if there actually is enough money available. This one, this is an area where we internally said that if our sales tax increased, um, because right now it's projected to be flat revenues. But if there are increases in sales tack revenues, we would like to fund these top two proposals, replenish the funds. So you might see as come forward next year with hopefully, uh, or replenishment of these funds. This is just a way for us to get, um, budget alignment with our deficit. So yeah, okay, with our revenue, excuse me. All right. Well, I support proposal number one. Yeah, I do as well. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to the second one. The second proposal is 200, 000 reduction to the climate equity fund following the reduction approximately 1. 5 million in annual County UI funding would remain available for the climate equity fund. Could you just clarify? So this is in addition to the 250, 000 dollars that we already approved on August 4th.

1:39:15That's correct. Um, you know, it's not, I'm not happy to bring forward another cut to the climate equity fund. This is a program that we've been working so hard on getting out into the community, especially this year. We've had an extraordinary results. And, um, it's a very new program. So it did score low on the priority based budgeting, um, because we have yet to see a lot of sustained results, um, and so part of the scoring is about the results you will see. Um, so this is another way for us to tackle that structural deficit because it is a highly, it's very well funded program already. So there will be 800, 000 left in the pot for sustainability tax to continue this program. But it is in addition to your 250, 000 dollar cut that you had decided about. From the general fund. And to 200, 000 dollars, did you just say it's from the S tax or from the general fund? Correct. So we're coming forward today with another 200, 000 dollars from our own sustainability tax. Okay. And. Where does that leave us in terms of the general fund contribution to this fund.

1:40:28So in the general, what you've decided prior was just a 250, 000 dollar cut from the million that you. And so I think the still future discussions that you will have in the budget process to deliberate on that. So we stole our providing 750, 000 dollars. Per year. You know, we make the decision every year. But autogeneral fund. Okay. And 800, 000 dollars out of the S tax. Yep. Yes. Leaving 1. 550 for the fund itself. Yeah. I think that we need to consider additional general reductions to the general fund contribution to this. I don't know where you are in the grant process. I mean, we haven't approved 2027 budgets. So, um, so I don't think you're out. Placing grants for these funds yet. We are not, but our application closed with 70 applications over 12 million. So we worked really hard to get that out in the community. And we will not fund anything until the board adopts the budget, formal budget. Okay. Well, Commissioners, I mean, I think we, this was an ambitious and lofty and inspiring project. And, um, and it is funded. It has generals funding out of the sustainability tax.

1:41:57I think at a time when we are cutting, you know, people that work with volunteer victim advocates when we're cutting other kinds of programs that have really direct impact on, on Boulder County Residence, we've cut programs in the AAA. We're reducing services. Across all of our departments. I think we need to put this general more of this general fund subsidy on the table. I think as a very hard, um, to see additional staff layoffs and reductions in service levels when we are putting general fund money into something that is quite well funded already. So I would like to see us make additional cuts. And proposal two and I appreciate Suzy and I've already said this, but I'll say it again. I know that everybody is in the leadership team has been looking at what can they cut in regards to the structural deficit. And I know the work that's been done. So I appreciate that.

1:43:10Um, and this, it feels like we're in conflict with, um, all of the really important work that we do because that's the place that we've been put in, not just because of a structural deficit here local, but because of what's happened at the state. And obviously the federal government who believes that public lands should be, um, taken over by the federal government who also believes that climate action is not a real thing. Who thinks that fossil fuel destruction doesn't mean anything that thinks that co - plans, even in Colorado, are still legit. So there's different issues. And so, so I feel like some of the tone of this conversation is we continue in the budget process. I don't believe that, um, reducing our climate equity fund is the right way for Boulder County to respond.

1:43:55It feels like also in conflict with, um, who's this organization says that we are in the work that we do. And certainly the ability for us to really focus on equity. And knowing that the federal government, um, is not even in the disproportionate outcomes of what is happening with the climate disaster. So I, that's not proposal two is not an area that I would, um, support either as presented in the S tax or certainly not in the general fund, but I understand we'll, that's what we're here for is to make some really tough decisions. Well, I'll just say I do support reducing, um, The S tax contribution to the climate equity fund by 200, 000 dollars. And I was not speaking to this proposal. I was speaking to what I think we're going to have to do in the future if we're going to meet that 13. 2 million, um, you know, I am not going to be okay with, um, the reductions that we've already made. Uh, that are going to fall directly on staff and directly on the services we provide to this community when we are using general fund for sustainability work that we can't afford to do right now, you know, in a world where we're all well funded and we can just put a million dollars of general fund. In

1:45:24and beef up. You know, the work that we're doing on climate equity. That's wonderful. But, uh, but that's not the world we're in right now. And we'll have that conversation probably on another day. I don't hear any support at this time for moving forward with additional general fund reductions. Uh, so. And I just wasn't weighing in on that cause it's not on topic. We're just trying to get through the sustainability fund. So I was just trying to stay on the agenda. Okay. Proposal number three. So just going back, uh, Commissioner Levy, was that a yes or no on? I said yes. Yes. Okay. Sorry. It's levy by the way. Levy. Sorry. Next proposal is proposal III. This proposal eliminates 45, 000 in sustainability. Tax support for the ecocycle environmental educational contract. There may be opportunity for the Eccles Cycle to seek support through the climate equity fund or resource conservation division. I'm in support of Propuzzle III. And I think Commissioner Stolzman already said yes.

1:46:37And I'm yes on this one too. Thank you. And. Then we have 35, 000 in climate Communication Savings. Uh, these savings are possible through centralized communication and new grant funding. Just to clarification for me, I'm proposal four. Are these savings already anticipated through the other centralization projects? Or this is really the language looks similar, but it's actually something different just to clarify. Thank you so much for clarifying. Um, we had not projected any savings from the centralization project. This was just through our priority - based budgeting. And we figured with centralization, there could be more savings with that. Um, we have a couple of new grants coming in that will support a lot of the important work that we're doing on building to carbonization. For communication specifically. So we figured this would be a safe reduction without compromising the communications team's efforts. Thanks for that.

1:47:39I'm fine with proposal for. Same here. Uh, so number five. Yep. Prosely five staff proposes reducing sustainability tax support to the resource conservation division by a hundred thousand affecting the program such as the circular economy fund and community spring cleanups. Just a clarification and proposal five, please. The circular economy fund and then the Community Spring Cleanup. So this will happen somewhere else in a different under different funding. It's not a cut of programs as much as just a move of work. I have yet to determine where, um, The funding will come from. So not know, not really. We have to work with resource conservation division with Cody. These are where again, the tough conversations between myself and other departments come in about what they would offer for the sustainability tax deficit conversation. And this is, I would say a reduction that RCD is okay with.

1:48:41Okay. Thank you. I'm fine with a proposal. Okay. And I am as well. And then our last one in the S tax is Mobility for All. Correct. Um, Steph is recogning 150, 000 reductions who right size the program sustainability tax allocation based on historical expenditures. For the mobility for all. And just a question on proposal six. The second bullet point in there talks about having not spent the existing program budget. Is that a recurring. Budget question or is that a year to date. Comment? That is recurring and in talking to Dale case, this was a collaborative effort to come forward with right sizing their budget basically for over now moving forward. Okay. That's helpful. Yeah. I'm fine with proposal six. Thank you. Yes. And I am as well. When you already had Commissioner Stolzmans, yes.

1:49:40Thank you County Commissioners. Thank you. And that does all our sustainability tax. And I will move on to, um, our next proposal, which is Fun 175. The next is the fleet service fund. Fleet service operal number one is, um, it operates seven county fuel sites. Steph has identified that the Justice Center and Alaska Avenue locations for decommissioning. Both are more than 30 years old in our underutilized and are at the end of life, which decommissioning these two sites would generate approximately 25, 000 in ongoing fleet service savings. I'm fine with proposal 1. Council Stolzman. Um, I think, I think proposal 1 is fantastic. I think we should do proposal 1 if it costs money. I think it's fantastic. Okay. And I support that as well. Thank you. And we are moving on to our last, um, proposal. For today. And that is, uh, staff is proposing to eliminate the county's onsite flu shot clinic, which are currently offered at various county facilities. Um, employees would no longer have access to the county sponsored on - cyclinix. And the change would generate approximately 20, 000 in annual health and dental fund savings. This proposal specifically about eliminating the county sponsored on - site service. Good questioners.

1:51:15Isoprope. I support proposal 1 from the health and dental fund. I do think it would be nice if, um, someone from HR could send out information, just letting people know you can get a, through your medical coverage. You can get a flu shot at the grocery store at the Walgreens at the, you know, list out some options for folks if they've been doing this for years, just so they don't feel like they have no options. There's still a lot of convenient choices. Thank you. Uh, Loch Schmid, sir. My notes were just what, what's the impact to staff and what are the opportunities with our current medical plans? So slightly connected to what Commissioner Stolzman said. So just to talk with that team and provide some clarity of what is offered to staff. Thank you. I can't see who that is who's popped on. I did have a question about how well utilized. Oh, Ryan. Hi.

1:52:11Commissioners. Yeah. You were, you were a very small and very far away for a minute there. Um, but yeah, how well utilized are these clinics. Yeah. I don't have the specific numbers just that the attendance at the on - site clinics, excuse me, continues to decline each year. And I think like Commissioners Deltzman mentioned it's because of the availability in the community, um, at the, you know, clinics and grocery stores. Um, and then with the addition of the marathon clinics that were approved, um, during the benefits workshop, that'll provide a new provider in 2027 as well, which will also be free. To employees for vaccinations there. So certainly messaging for us that we can provide in those alternatives. Okay. Well, I was going to not support this, um, because I, I think we need to, you know, we need to increase our rate of flu vaccines here. Anyway, we can. And if, if it's right down the hall from you at work, you're going to get it done. But knowing that we're going to have additional clinics available, I'm more comfortable with it. I mean, it's, you know, it's not going to make the difference in our structural deficit here. So I would say, you know, if we find that employees are really missing it and they're saying what happened to this, uh, I would

1:53:37say for 20, 000 dollars, let's bring it back, but I can support it for this year. I just part of what my wondering when I saw it too was like, we have such a high rate uptake on work from home. It does seem like continuing to offer this at the workplace if no one's at work doesn't really make sense. All right. And yet I've walked past my vaccine cite at my local grocery store so many times. And I haven't done it yet. You get a 50 dollar coupon on some of the stores. It's a big deal. Yeah. I know you get 10 percent off. Totally worth it. I must be to our attendance. Yeah. I'm sorry. Uh, failed to mention Ryan Aker from Human Resources for the record. Thank you. Thank you all. So commissioner, that concludes the reduction proposals before you today is we close. I want to distinguish between two pieces of, um, today's discussion. First, we received the general fund proposals, which contribute to our broader, um, effort to address the 13.

1:54:362 million million ongoing structural reductions. Target. Second, we reviewed reductions within the dedicated resource. Health and human services, sustainability tax, uh, fleet services. Health and dental funds. These reductions do not directly count over the general fund target, but they are important to improve the financial sustainability of the each individual fund. So thank you for your direction. We did take note. We will come back with additional information. And hopefully by October 1st, we should be bringing a balanced budget for y'all as a preliminary recommended 27 budget. Okay. Just to clarify on that, we are having an additional discussion tomorrow, I think about perhaps providing additional direction on other reduction opportunities. The way you've summed that up, it sounded like you're going to go away and come back on October 1st. Not going away. Um, what we're doing is we will have some agenda settings. Um, but direction will come during the October 1st meeting. Uh, we will have some additional information for that meeting for direction.

1:55:47Thank you. All right. Then Commissioners, I think this is our last business item for the day. So we'll be adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.