Transcript

0:00:29All right. Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. And we are recording. Good afternoon. Today is June 16, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have Commissioners Lothumen and Levy, present Commissioner Stolzman is excused. And we will start with a note for the record, and that is a resignation from the resource conservation advisory board of Lisa Evans, who was a representative from the City of Lafayette. We will now sit as the Boulder County Housing Authority Board of Directors, and we have two items on our consent agenda. I have a motion for purple. Second, all in favor. Aye. We will now resume sitting as the Board of County Commissioners at Boulder County and turn to our consent agenda, and that is 6A through J. We have a motion.

0:01:29Move approval. Second, all in favor. Aye. Okay, now we have two discussion items. The first is consideration of positions on 2026 ballot measures, and we have Nick Robles and Mark Rosen to present. Welcome, and as usual, start by stating your name for the record. Commissioners. My name is Nick Robles Policy Analyst in the Commissioner's Office, and I'm joined by Mark Resin, Senior Policy Advisor. We are here today for board consideration of taking positions on certain statewide ballot measures. The voters will consider at the 2026 General Election. The list for today includes ballot measures that have either qualified for the fall ballot or have been approved for signature collection by the state title board. As of me, May 11th, 2026. In addition to today's discussion, the policy team plans to return in the fall for the board to consider taking positions on any additional ballot measures that qualified for the statewide ballot, as well as local measures after the certified in September. And I'd like to now pass it to Mark Rosen. Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mark Rosen, Commissioner's Office Policy Team. Staff is recommending positions on 14 measures, 13 to support and 11 to oppose. And staff has no recommendation on one measure, as listed on the cover sheet of the memo. As Nick noted, staff is expecting to return to the board in the fall

0:03:10after the ballot has been certified. So there will be a second opportunity to look at any of these measures or new state measures that have qualified for the ballot, as well as we expect some local measures that will be facing, what will be considered by County voters in November. And with that, that's our Presentation. Nick and I are happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay, thank you. And we do have a memo with a description of each measure and staff analysis. Commissioner, too many questions? Yeah, thank you, thank you, Nick and Mark, for being here and being ready for any questions and conversation. I have a question, and just in the presentation, Mark, I thought I heard you say 13 in support and 11 in opposition. So I just want to, if you could first clarify that. Well, if I said 13, I didn't mean to say 13. I meant to say three.

0:04:04Okay, that's, well, I was like, what am I missing? I'm looking through all the attachments at the same time. Okay, that's fine. So we're looking at the same document. The second question, I wondered if you could speak a little bit to what is staff recommendation of opposed, they're all bullet points. So it's the number 234 initiative, 234, plain language ballot questions. What I found online was, and I just don't know if I've got the most updated information of 2025, 2026 accessible ballot titles V1. But I just found the Colorado legislative website that says ballot questions. It says read this, section 15. 6 ballot questions must be in plain language at no more than an eighth grade reading level. No statute may interfere with this provision by mandating language proceeding following or in a ballot title of an initiative. I saw in the addendum more the amendment that was part of this document, just referenced to the work at Boulder County as an organization in plain language. So what I found here online, I don't oppose.

0:05:13And so I'm just trying to understand what I'm missing would be really helpful. In my opinion, plain language just makes it simpler. And the reality of the significant percentage of American population in the United States, that is. At that eighth grade level. So I'm just trying to figure out what the opposition is about. Great, I'll take a first step at it. Um, so for Battle Manager 234, plain language ballot questions. According to the bill policy center, they described it as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Um, so yes, and you mentioned Boulder County's support for plain language and public communications and supportive legislation related to that, uh, but what this measure will do is, um, it actually. Makes voters less informed by stripping out important provisions that alert voters to the impacts of tax changes on their pocketbooks and state and local budgets. Um, so yeah, with this measure, even though it would adapt the eighth grade reading level, it would also prohibit some of those additional explanations related to any budget impacts. And that was, uh, one of the reasons that we would recommend in a post position. Okay. Thank you for that. I wondered.

0:06:42If there is, if somebody has, the one, I saw, I can see the link here on the final text in the eScribe packet maybe. But I'm just wondering if there is either a proponent or opponent, one pager or something like that to take a look at. And also, um, what I was looking on the website and I apologize, I can do this lifetime or I can just ask my questions to who are the proponents on this. And also was Boulder County involved in testifying. And or work on this bill. Meaning did it start as something different and got changed throughout the process or Hezboulder County, even in opposition throughout the legislative session. Thank you for the question. I can jump in a little bit. Um, the county has supported legislation that addresses plain language, including as recently as this past session with House Bill 26 1084. And as Nick noted, what this measure does is unwind some of the, uh, requirements that have been put on playing language ballot measures that were put on by the general assembly. Nick mentioned specifically the requirement that's currently in place that ballot measures, uh, share, uh, the provisions, um, the tax revenues that we'll be reduced for state programs by ballot measures. That language would be stripped out and would not be included in ballot measures. So it's

0:08:10seen as a bit of a step backwards. The proponents of this measure are advanced Colorado. And this initiative did not start as legislation. It started as a, as a citizen initiative and has been working its way through the process. Advanced Colorado has been involved in a wide variety of ballot measures over the years. Most recently the property tax measures and other measures that, um, in general, uh, the county as opposed in the past. Thank you. Um, this to me is just an example of the way Bill titles and our ballot initiatives can, um. Create a perception. And the plain language piece, I think, is really important if the entire, all the information was put in plain language, that would be, I think a real benefit to Coloradoans, um, and I appreciate the additional explanation and the clarification for people who are really wondering what this means. If I may quickly have, staff, we're not involved in any of the steps taken at the state title board and reviewing ballot language and initiatives that are presented by members of the public, uh, if you go to the secretary of state's website, you'll see a list of about 50 or 60 measures that have been submitted over say the last 12 months. So actively engaging that in that space would be quite a lift. But, um, but

0:09:34now that those initiatives have been either put on the ballot or out collecting signatures, it seems like an appropriate time to engage. Thank you for them. I don't have additional questions about the list that was presented. Yeah. Thanks. And thanks for all your work putting this together. I also, uh, initially had a question about, um, about 234, um, because just from the description of it, it seems like, um, something that we would want to support. And I, um, I think you have to, what I'm gathering is really know a lot about the history of the, of other legislation in this space that what this is trying to do. And I'm just wondering, like the first sentence just this says ballot questions shall be in plain language at no more than an eighth grade reading level.

0:10:20That seems fine to me. But I guess that second sentence, um, mandating language preceding following or in a ballot title of an initiative, uh, is that, is that the area of concern that that would prevent additional information about the fiscal impact of a measure. Is that what's raising this issue. Yes. That is my understanding. Yes. Um. Cause you know, on its face, it's hard to see that that is problematic. But, um, I think I hate to say this on the record, but I don't have another way to express this. Just knowing where it's coming from, I fear that that, that is, um, that is seemingly, well, Wolfen sheep's clothing is exactly the right description seemingly and not queuis language that, that will be twisted and litigated to the point where when we have things on the ballot, such as what we'll be talking about it in a minute, maybe, um, amendment 35 or initiative 35 or the law enforcement training one that require certain monies to be spent that there would not be an explanation of what the impact of that might be. Um, so, uh, I'm happy to accept your recommendation on that. I mean, I don't have, I guess I don't have any other questions about, about the recommendations, they all align with my reading. Of these provisions and the position I've taken

0:12:14as an individual. So I don't have any other questions. Um, I guess, well, actually, I guess I did have questions about 308 and 309 just a little bit here. In that, um. They're trying to create a reliable funding source for conservation measures. And that seems like a great idea. But. Let me just pull the language up. You know, it does that by debruing certain sales tax. Funds and saying that those are not subject to the revenue and spending limitations and that that is going to be used for, um, all the things that are in the provision. That only what I get concerned about is when certain revenues that otherwise would be general fund revenues, our earmarked for a certain purpose. That in a taber surplus environment, we don't want to have to give back. And if we can take it out from under the table cap and use it for a good purpose, that's a great thing to do. But so many of these ballot measures come forward with an assumption that we're always going to have tabor surpluses. And we have not, and we will not. And I worry, I don't know, I didn't read the fiscal impact statement from what council on this, but I do worry a little bit that, um, that if we don't have a table surplus, these funds are

0:13:58earmarked and the legislature would not be able to just use their appropriation power, which is what we've been saying that, you know, this is why we don't like Tabor, the legislature is supposed to make all these decisions. And then we've taken this money. And this is only one of many examples of things that the voters have approved over many, many years. You know, in earmarked it for a purpose. And I wonder, am I, am I reading this wrong? Can you tell me what's wrong with the way I'm looking at this. I don't believe you're reading it wrong. I've, I've looked at this measure as another example of the creative, um, gymnastics that residents. And others in Colorado have to do to work around tabor in the restrictions. That taber places on the general assembly and budgeting at Colorado in general. Um. It, my hope is my, the analysis that we've seen in reviewed suggests that by debruings these particular funds, you might take pressure off the, ultimately off the general fund and be able to use dollars that might go to this kind of programming for other uses. Um, but, um, it, it is a difficult one to parse out. And, and I guess I would just say it's, it's not, um. It's certainly not preferable to a more comprehensive taber more generally. Well, let

0:15:36me ask a couple of other questions that might help me. Is there currently to your knowledge a required appropriation amount for the purposes that are in this measure. Um. For the uses, the wildfire and conservation revenue. And then it's got some allowed uses. Is there currently required funding for those uses. I don't know, a fan. So, okay. I, I, I actually do have concerns about these, um, for the reasons I've said, you know, that even when we have a table surplus and it's great if we can debruce and keep revenues that we otherwise would have to give back in meaningless minuscule amounts. The legislature has been quite good recently in creating some very helpful tax credits for families. Um, that helped them afford college, you know, the expanded child tax credit, the expanded earned income tax credit, which comes from tabor surpluses. And those are acceptable ways of refunding. And so this is taking, I don't know how much it is. I, like I said, I did not read the physical note, but it's taking a portion of what might go for some other purposes and putting it into land and water conservation, which is a very, very, very worthy cause, but, but it's a special interest that's carving out a special thing for themselves through the ballot and not through the legislator

0:17:29process. Cause this could be, I mean, the debruising wouldn't be able to be done through the legislative process. But you, um, and. Um, and like I said, if we don't have a table surplus, then it still takes those same funds, I believe it's not just in surplus years and says these folks get to go to the front of the line for a certain amount of money and they don't have to compete with all the other budget items. So, you know, if you want to do some more research on this and you don't want us to take a position right today without having time to look into it, maybe we ought to pull those two, um, because as they stand in my understanding right at this moment without more, um, I think I would not support the recommendation to support them. Um, commissioner Lasheman, would you be able to pull them? Yeah. I'm happy to pull 308 and 309 off of the list of support or opposition. Okay. That would be most helpful. And by, by the fall, just one of them will be on the ballot, we would assume they won't both be on the ballot if they even make it, but we'll continue to research the two and then come plan to include 308 or 309 if they make the ballot on a fall

0:18:51consideration. I think that would be my preference, thanks. And otherwise, um, happy to support the staff recommendation with those two exceptions. Let me try and motion and on item 7A consideration of 2026 ballot measures. I would move that we, um, pull 308 and 309 from that list and otherwise take the staff's recommendations. Second, we have a good motion and a second, all in favor. I was just going to have some discussion if that's okay. Oh, sure. There's some very alarming items on this list of potential ballot initiatives in the state of Colorado. And so I appreciate you bringing this forward. It would be helpful, I think, for the board to have a conversation in regards to how do we help educate, how do we help inform. The people of Colorado, uh, and all the different sectors. Women's bodies are on the line. Our LGBTQ communities are being attacked here in Colorado. There's so much on here that it's very concerning. So I just would love to have that conversation in a different, at a different time, but not right now at the dais. Um, so that's all I wanted to say. Yeah. I agree. Um, there are quite a number that would be devastating for the targeted populations. Some of them have other, you know, horrible implications as far as, uh, the state budget as

0:20:26far as how we address, uh, drug addiction, how we address, um, child trafficking. They're trying to appeal to people's emotions and coming in with rather draconian solutions to some very serious problems. And, um, and so, and I think, you know, for some of these, it's going to take a lot of effort to educate voters. Against something that superficially is very appealing, you know, and then let's not overlook the graduated income tax and the benefit that that would be for the state. It has not yet qualified for the ballot. And I know everybody's out working as hard as they can to meet that signature requirement. But yeah, I think we'll want to be very actively engaged for a number of reasons in a number of these measures. So we have a motion, we have a second.

0:21:23We've had discussion. If we're ready to vote all in favor. Aye. Aye. Thank you very much again for your work on this. And getting back to my cover page. We're going to talk about participation in the American Association of Nurse Practitions Neuros versus McMahon. Good afternoon, commissioners. David Hughes, Deputy County Attorney. Uh, we're requesting the board's approval to participate in an Amicus brief, uh, supporting the plaintiffs in the American Association of Nurse Practitioners case. This is in the district court of DC challenging the professional degree final rule adopted by the Department of Education. The final rule modifies which degrees the Department of Education considers professional degrees. And because of changes made by the one big beautiful bill act, the final rule limits the amount of federal loans that student borrowers may obtain to fund their education in various fields, including degrees in nursing public health, marriage and family therapy education and social work. Happy to answer any further questions. Thank you, David. Questions. Thank you, David, for being here for information and also any questions that arise. I feel like that's a generous statement in the memo about a big, beautiful bill, but I would refer to it as HR1 with all due respect. I'm still looking for some pieces of that bill that will help the American people. We are thinking maybe somewhere. Uh,

0:22:57there might be something. But for me, uh, I appreciate bringing this opportunity to be part of my cause brief. And I do believe it aligns with our strategic priorities, certainly in the realm of the work that we do on economic stability and opportunities for community. Some of our values here at the County include, um, not just inclusion, but also the health and well - being of all community residents throughout Boulder County. And so I think it's an important opportunity for us to participate in. Great. And, um, Commissioner Luichumine, you and I were thinking exactly the same. I think we need to have something in our county style manual that says that HR1 is HR1, because that's what it is. And it was not. And I'm, this is not a reprimand of you, David at all.

0:23:52Um, but it, it, there's nothing beautiful about it. Um, and I think it ought to be called by its official name. And I just want to say that I've had an opportunity to do a little bit more reading about this. I was initially skeptical that the issue was close enough to Boulder County's interests that we ought to put our name on a brief. Uh, I feel when we put our name on a brief, it ought to mean something. And, um, and, uh, and so I was, I was skeptical of whether the connection was close enough. I did do some more reading. I do think it's, um, it's important for us to weigh in on this given the, you know, the fact that so many, um, people who provide mental health and addiction counseling, um, would be affected by this, um, nurse practitioners are really valuable parts of the public health system. And the healthcare system in general in terms of increasing access to healthcare, uh, all kinds of health care, but in particular maternal health.

0:25:01So I, um, I am happy to support your request that we provide direction on, uh, joining AMICA brief. And if we don't have any other comments, I think we're ready for a motion. I moved that we approve item 7B. I second that motion all in favor. Aye. Thank you, David. Thank you. Um, we now have some other things on our agenda. Are you going to handle confirmation of executive sessions? Yes. Commissioner, Ben Proman County Attorney, this is just a note for the record that the executive session topic noticed at the June 9th regular meeting was discussed as scheduled. And item nine sestation. We do not have topics for tomorrow. So we do need not need to authorize any executive session. Okay. So that is the end of our business meeting. We do have a work session scheduled for this afternoon. And I see everybody here ready to go. Do you need a minute to get set up. Um, no. Okay. Then commissioner, can I just ask a question while the other group is coming forward?

0:26:17Executive session is still on the commissioner's calendar, at least on my view. So I just, it sounded like there wouldn't be any. And for me, that means the opportunity to watch a World Cup game. So I just want to make sure that that gets removed from calendars. Thank you. And are you inviting all of us to a watch party somewhere? I'm looking at our attorney to find out where we're going to be watching the game tomorrow. England Croatia tomorrow. Uh - huh. Ought to be a good game. Um, all right. Well, thank you for that public service announcement. Oh, you're. Using that. Okay. All right. And then just for the record. So we're now, um, in our afternoon work session agenda and the topic, uh, comes to us from, um, human services and community services. And this is, Oh, wait a minute. I have the wrong thing open. Nope wrong thing. Anyway, why don't you tell us what it is? Good afternoon, commissioners. County Administrator Jana Peterson here with the Community Services Department staff.

0:27:29We are here to talk to you at your request about the worthy cause request for applications process for 2026 and to seek your direction on priorities for that funding source and answer any questions you might have before that RFA is released. So I'm delighted to be joined by, uh, Community Services Director Robin Bohannon and by Carly Nokiama who manages worthy cause grant program on behalf of the county. And with that, I'll turn it over to Carlene. Let's just start. Commissioners Carlin Okama, Community Services as Janna mentioned. We are here today to discuss where the cause 2027 open application and process review. Uh, we have three objectives this afternoon. The first is your approval to proceed with the 2027 worthy cause tax application and process review. The second is the approval to reduce the term of the worthy cause contracts and related documents from the current 99 years to 30 years. And the last is to obtain your direction.

0:28:52Um, on the various priority areas. A little bit about worthy cause just cut more for the record cause I'm sure you, um, uh, both know about where you cause. So right now we are in the fourth extension of worthy cause, uh, in 2017 during the General Election, the voters approved a 15 year extension of 0. 5 percent of sales tax with a 79 percent approval rate It is again a 15 year ballad measure that provides sales tax revenue to nonprofit and nonprofit human services agencies and housing authorities for capital projects. There's only really four kind of capital projects that qualify. And that is purchase of lander buildings, construction, renovation and debt reduction. Um, the current ballot will expire on December 31st, 2033. Again, just a little bit more about the background of, um, the current worthy cause, you know, we continue to see that the community needs outweigh the funding available. Um, from 2019 to 2026, which was seven years of funding, we have basically awarded about 60 percent of the applications that we've been receiving on an average, we have art about 4 million dollars every year. The three different categories that you'll see up there is again, this is an average of what we've been investing for the past seven years. So housing is at 58 percent. Child cares at about 17 percent

0:30:31and human services is 25 percent. And kind of on the objective three, this is where we're really kind of asking for your direction. This funding distribution reflects commissioner feedback. And we're asking, um, we're interested to hear from you if this, if your priorities align with this average funding distribution. And I guess for process, do you want to take each item or do you want me to finish and then I can take questions. I think, you know, if you want to finish your presentation, then we can come back to each of the questions. Okay. Um, and so the next couple, maybe I think like three slides is really about the, um, objective one, which is the application process itself. We are seeking approval to open the 2027 fund round on June 24th with a closed date of August 5th. We will be awarding about 4 million dollars. We have a request for application. I believe you have a copy of that in its entirety. We worked very closely. The Community Services staff. We worked very closely with the County Attorney's Office. That includes the two attorneys that are actually available virtually to answer any questions. That's David Hughes and April Gatesman. And we also worked along with Trina Roland who is out of town right now.

0:31:48Um, and the request for applications. Kind of the content of it is Project Information. Our eligibility requirements. The application questions themselves. Our evaluation criteria and any post award requirements. Um, our evaluation process. So right now we have, we generally look at three different areas when we're evaluating applications and where they cause. We're looking at the agency level. That's about 40 percent of the total 100 percent score. And when our evaluators are looking at, we're looking at the community need for the human service or housing program. The organizational capacity, the client served and the financial stability. The next three bullet points are really our scoring rubric. Again, this is what we use to guide the evaluation process. We're looking at the community need for the service, client impact, and then the financial stability. The second area that we're looking at is the capital project itself. So we're looking at the value of the project to the community with emphasis on equitable expansion or improvement. And then we're looking at the financial viability and the project readiness.

0:32:59And again, the next three bullets are the actual scoring rubric. Um, and then thirdly, we're looking at racial equity, which makes up 24 percent of the overall hundred points. And there we're really looking at the, um, the understand commitment to racial equity. So that's really what our evaluators are looking at. Um, and then this just kind of talks a little bit about the process. So every application that passes eligibility and we do work with, um, our county attorney's office to really define eligibility for worthy cause is so every application is reviewed by at least two reviewers on the evaluation team. Our reviewers are made up of Boulder County employees with subject matter expertise. We score every application. We meet to discuss that. And then we bring our recommendations to you. Um, last year, I believe we brought it in November. I'm hoping to bring it a little bit earlier this year and hopefully, um, end of October, um, as you know, we present recommendations and you make all the final decisions. Um, and just to touch on a little bit on process consistency, our process has really been unchanged where the cause has been around for 15, about 30 years, 26 years, I believe it was 2001. And we've had many years to refine our process. We work with a lot of expertise in the

0:34:24community. I mean, in the county, um, however, we do review it every year. So this year we, we paid special attention to work with the County Attorney's Office. And they really helped us to make sure that, um, everything in the RFA and especially the application questions in their criteria are aligning with the program requirements. And then number two, which is really the last area is we are asking for your approval again to reduce the term. Right now, um, all of our worthy cause documents, which are about four different legal documents. It's a funding agreement, a promissory note, Adidas Trust and a restrictive covenant. Um, those are all executed for 99 years. Um, we would like to reduce it to 30. We believe that in addition to kind of, uh, addressing some of the concerns that you've expressed in the past, um, it is a more equitable process. Well, still making sure that we are ensuring the public investment. The one thing I want to notice that this is a retroactive change. So we are going to reach out to every current worthy cause recipient and invite them, give them the opportunity to amend any legal document that has been executed. And that is the last slide. So really, this is just a summary again of the objectives, right? We're asking for approval on the 2027

0:35:54process. Um, approval to go from 99 years to 30 years. And then to hear from you on the priorities. And with that commissioners, we'll turn it over to you for your discussion. And Commissioner Levy, you're up first on this particular topic. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, Carlene, uh, for the memo and for the work that you always do on, um, on this grant. Uh, opportunity. So I know you want me to just talk about the three questions here, but I, but I do have just some initial background questions. I think that would, that I would need here on the, um, the division among the three categories, I'm wondering whether, you know, over the, you know, several year period, it doesn't matter how many years, you know, whether you tend to see more, um, unfunded applications in one of those three areas or another, I'm just, I'm just wondering, I mean, I don't think there's any magic. Maybe there was magic to this formula, uh, but yeah, so I'm just wondering if, you know, if we're not meeting a need that we might, that might call for adjusting those percentages. Yeah. I would say generally if we were looking at the three categories, it would be in the human service categories. And I think because that category varies, um, that would be probably

0:37:26again, looking at the numbers where, we're not, um, funding more applications than in the other two categories. So the, we're generally meeting the need with the housing category, um, childcare. I would have expected. That there would be a lot of pressure, but you didn't include that as, as an area that's underfunded. No, again, if I had to kind of look, think back on the numbers from the three categories, it would be human services. We try to definitely fund all of the childcare. And in housing, um, we've also funded a majority of the projects. If we don't fund a project, it's usually because it was ineligible in housing, ineligible or there really wasn't project readiness that was demonstrated. Okay. All right. Um, I think I, um, well, I guess another question before I make a comment on it, how long have we been using these percentages?

0:38:33And the reason I'm asking is, you know, now thanks to the AAHT, we do have another source of funding for housing. And I don't know whether we adjusted these percentages after that additional funding source came online. May I make a comment? Yeah. Please. Robin Bohan and Boulder County Community Services. Correct me if I'm incorrect, um, Carlene, the numbers are not a goal. We just did the math on what we funded. And that's how we came to the percentages. I see. I was thinking that's sort of how you roughly divvy up the wealth. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for, thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. And I believe that was a seven year average, just so you know about how far back in time. Oh, okay. Okay. So, so when, you know, you're saying on human services, we, that's the area, the category in which we tend not to be able to fund as many organizations or as many, you know, requests. That's just a reflects the volume of the applications we get. Correct. Yeah.

0:39:46Yeah. Okay. Um, all right. So and the quality. Okay. All right. So it's not because we're emphasizing housing or emphasizing childcares. Okay. Thanks. That's very helpful. Um, I also, um, uh, I wondered on, um, on the scoring rubric, on the project specific, component of community value. How do you determine that. I'm going to refer to my notes that I am speaking from what are evaluators as well as, um, applicants are looking at. And so when we're looking at community value, um, of the project, we're really trying to align the project with the human service or housing program. Um, right. So if it's a construction project, is it, um, is it offering new units? Is it offering new seats for a child care? Is it expanding the service of the human service? So again, we're trying, when we're looking at the project, we're, we're really aligning it with the equitable expansion of service. And that has to do with the project itself. It has to do with their readiness, their financial capacity, how far along they are on the project. And then, um, even to really an extent of like, what is the project? Is it a purchase? Is it a construction, a renovation or a debt reduction. Okay. That's helpful. And I understand conceptually the difference between the agency, you know, you're looking at the

0:41:25agency and is it a, you know, does it serve a need? Are they producing an impact? And are they something we want to invest in? Right. And then, and then the second is the project itself. Right. I mean, I can see where those two might blur a little bit in some places. But I think, I mean, there, I guess it depends, you know, really the detail in the scoring rubric that points the score to, you know, make sure they're discerning the differences there. So Commissioner Levy, I would add that the waiting is also weighted, um, towards the agency over the project. Okay. Yeah. So those, those were the questions I had. Um, I mean, I'm happy to weigh in on all three questions. I see no reason not to proceed with the application, uh, process review. Um, let's get it going. Um, yeah, I think it makes sense. You know, and you've had an attorney input and everything on the contractuals to 30 years, you know, just, as I understand the practical impact of it, it takes a lean off the property. And, um, after 30 years, it, you know, probably whatever our investment is, has been amortized down and depreciated to probably very little.

0:43:00And, you know, and that does seem like an unnecessarily long period of time to encumber the property. So that's fine. And, and I think, you know, these are very broad, well, the human services are very broad category. The other two. Categories are not. But I think those for me, those do continue to be the areas that we see the greatest need. Um, so, um, yeah, yes. To everything. Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Loachimine. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for being here for questions and information. I saw Mika Delgado's back there too. Reedy for questions, I'm guessing on hand. Um, if we need it, I appreciate that. I, um, the update's great. Um, and I heard there's like a long history, but just having maybe making the time not having, but making the time to go through and review with attorneys, I think is great. So I just want to appreciate that because there are a lot of documents and plans and policies and all the things that are here at the county that sometimes don't get, um, get that time allocated. So thanks for that.

0:44:08Um, I just, I think I had a, one similar question to what Commissioner Levy was asking. And it was just about what you might be able to tell us in regards to the applications that don't get approved. That's one question. The other one was just about, um, the way I'm reading the language here, said that it's human, human services agencies and that housing authorities. And so I think just a clarification for me, like, how do we define human services? Is it, and that's why I had asked earlier this morning. Thank you, Robin, for the packet. Or I'm sorry, the actual application just to read that. Maybe I'll start there with those questions and then have a couple others before I get to the bullet points. Yeah. I think I can answer a little bit with one response, maybe both of those questions. So we do look at eligibility first. And before we even move those applications to scoring. And sometimes the eligibility is, do you own the property? So very legal. And sometimes the eligibility is, did they make a case that they're a human service organization? Um, and again, we review that, as you mentioned with AMICA Delgado is here. So Mika and I review that along with, um, April Gates men who's the worthy cause attorney. And so when we're looking at whether

0:45:35human, a nonprofit organization is a human service agency. There are some organizations that we've worked with long enough to kind of recognize that they are. And where the cause is also a place where, um, we get some new organizations come in. And we ask them to make the case. Right. So if they can demonstrate in those agency questions that they provide a human service, then, um, we kind of take their, what they're able to present. And sometimes in organization may or may not look like a human service, um, if you're looking at it from the outside, but there might be a program that they're offering. That's very specific to mental health. They're very specific to, you know, wild - bear nature center, I think, might be a very good example here, where if you kind of look at more of their public facing plans, they may or may not have been eligible for where they cause. But because they're having an early child care center, then they are, right? So, um, again, we ask, we, we purposely ask questions that allow the applicant to, um, demonstrate that they're providing a human service. Thank you. And I think that just over the last five years, I feel like that is some of the questions we've been talking about. And, and so I think just the piece

0:46:58of, I can see it in the application about kind of how that fits in your human services, i. e. in need of healthcare, mental health services, et cetera. But what you just described is kind of allowing the applicant to make their case, um, and wherever we can add in that clarity just so that people understand what, and I'm saying that because I've gotten some more recent asks that I'm, that I'm just going to let folks know, should we move forward with the timing right now that it's available. And then of course this works, so I'll show and be a reference for folks to look at too. So thank you. Um. The other question I had, let's see here. In the proposal, you're asking, okay, so this gives me to the ballpoint. So maybe I'll go to bullet points starting with the first one, um, and again, I appreciate the, the opportunity to just take a look at the application in the application. Where is it?

0:47:58It's. Page. I think it was a 15 page document, but that might have been a different one. I was looking at earlier. Looks like maybe page five of what you sent me. Between five and six. And if it's somewhere else, I apologize because I didn't read line by line. I just quickly went through it. The beginning is kind of introduction. This is how it works. This is the process. What didn't seem clear to me was what you talked about in the presentation. The staff, experts on staff at Boulder County who get together and look through all these reviews. You said there's a minimum of two people that typically do a review. It's not clear to me in this document. Uh, in the intro about that recommendation to the commissioners. It kind of jumps from the RV and then commissioners will make a decision. And I think it's important from the standpoint of, um, and it'd have to get a colleague to be interested in this, but I think it's important because our residents in Boulder County are so involved and really want to know what's the transparent process. Do we have an opportunity to say to be part of it? And I think staff being experts, not just in the information, on the experience, et cetera. But also being community members as well and being

0:49:16very involved, I think is a piece that could be potentially added. Again, if it's somewhere else in there that you feel like it's clear, that's totally fine, but that was just an offering. Um, on the, uh, application of process review. Maybe that's where you're asking about the kind of breakdown. And I heard that that just is kind of how that seven year average showed on that 58 percent, et cetera. And I didn't have any questions about that. It does seem like areas I agree with what Commissioner Leni said. Just in general, those areas that our needs period for Boulder County. The second bullet point is talking about Contractual Documents. I'm, I'm in agreement with that to move it to 30 years. I appreciate the review and just that recommendation to come back. And then the other one, Oh, I'm sorry. My other note that actually was about the first bullet point. The question I had was just about capacity for retroactive change. Like that's could be a big lift. You talked about four million dollars every year. You talked about 26 years. And I know some of those are like repeat applicants, et cetera. But it's just a curiosity. Is that a recommendation? What is that based on. Um, sorry, I'm not under the capacity.

0:50:40Is it the retroactive change and give people an opportunity and writing to change all their legal documents that is the title process and all things. To staff have the capacity if every one of those applicants said, yes, we would like to change our documents. Yeah. And, um, so staff would be me and April, just for clarity. And we have talked about trying to create a very streamlined process. And our realistic with the amount of work that it would take. I think that we are also, um, we would also communicate that this, you know, this wouldn't be something that happens within the first 30 days. Right. So we would invite everybody to, um, amend their documents and, uh, potentially maybe have a six month runway for that. Um, and so kind of given that flexibility, um, and kind of given some, um, forward planning, you know, kind of making sure we have all the templates ready and we can just kind of drop things in. We are able to record most documents online. So that has really, um, helped with capacity. Um, and so yes, it's a, it is a real concern, especially because it really is just a two of us. But I think that working together, we can address some of that. And I do see that April kind of came on. Okay. And

0:52:03I, and I couldn't, I wasn't sure if you could see her. So that's why I was pointing up that because that's where I'm singer. April, did you have anything to add. No, Carlene's correct. And well, just that there could be, we've talked about one idea I have is to make it just sort of one way. But the county offers just unilaterally telling the recipients. You have these contracts. They last this long, but, but really the county is basically waving. Anything after year 30. And we, we think that's important. It's probably obvious. It didn't seem like a good idea to change these terms. And have the unlucky souls, you know, last year with their 90 year 99 years. And so, uh, I think we'll be okay. In short. And I'm just going to ask you, I think you need to put your name on the record.

0:52:55Oh, sorry. April gauge men County Assistant County Attorney. Thank you. So then, uh, I think the question just in any kind of process is I'm thinking about very simplified as opt - in versus opt out. What I heard you say, April is that it would just be, it would just be done. And so that would be a much simpler process. Okay. All right. I don't need to know all the details. It just got my concern of like, Oh, that could be a whole lot of work. I appreciate that. Okay. We both have to do. Yeah. Okay. Um, and I heard you were already talking about some kind of a, you talked about it. I think as a runway, I was, I had my notes as a deadline. So, um, you're working on that. That's, that's great. Um, last bullet point was just in regards to priority areas. And I'm really trying that. This is also simplifying, but I'm really trying to just wear our strategic priorities and how can we use the suited priorities to like focus. And so that for me is where I'm really going to try and stay. And what I will share is that the, the Board of County Commissioners are working right now in our next set of strategic priorities.

0:54:01And we are adding racial equity to the title of Good Governance. So good governance and racial equity will show up again in my view as something like right out there and that I believe will help us with all of the here's why we're doing that. And even in this particular example, there is a section of review and evaluation. Um, the way you describe Deinos, I think, um, commitment to equity in those review process. So that's, that's what I've got for you in regards to that last bullet point. Thank you, Commissioners. Commissioner Levy, I heard Commissioner Lochman pose an idea of, uh, adding some language to the RFA to explain the staff review process and the fact that staff, our community members as well and wondered if you, um, had a similar feeling that you think that would improve the application process. I did not review the application. I know, uh, Robin sent it to us, but I didn't review it. So I don't know that it needs anything, um, if staff is not concerned about adding that, um, in response to Commissioner Lochimin's request, I don't think I would have a concern either. I'm looking to staff just to see if you want to weigh in on, on that. Yeah. I mean, I'm happy to add that. I think it's, um, easy thing to insert

0:55:29and just kind of, um, gives us more opportunity for transparency. Thanks. And just to clarify for me, there's a section between, um, okay. Good. Uh, now my page number on this side is gone. Oh, no. Now it has page numbers at the bottom. Page five. Someone updated the header or the something. Um, so it looks like page five in my mind again, I haven't read line by line this whole piece, but in between paragraphs, the last line of first paragraph, it looks like is the guarantee the recipient, Ochifund's part of that date. And then it just kind of jumps into the next one, the commissioners may wholly fund over. So just, just, I'm thinking like a very small line of that, that committee will recommend then. That was my suggestion. But of course staff take a look at it. And you all can make the decision about if you think that will be helpful anyway.

0:56:22Thanks. Sure. Thank you for that suggestion. Could you just give me just a second, I promise just to. Look at where, I mean, I did get to that page and I saw where Commissioner Lojemaine wants to put it. And I just want to, um. Answer. About worthy cause. They submit this from my Hawlyphone Partially Fund. Phones are not traditional grant eligibility, etc. Is there any other section in here that explains the scoring and the review process. The, um, application criteria and how those criteria will be scored is toward the end of the RFA. Um, but the process itself, the staff review and recommendation is not referenced elsewhere in the application. Okay. Well, I don't see an e - harm in it. And so I'm happy to support that request. Thank you, commissioners. So, um, I'm going to just turn to staff. I think we have clear direction on moving forward with the application process. Any other questions from staff? Any other comments from commissioners? Thanks a question. Just if you could talk, the dates are in there June 24th, August 5th, I believe. Social media, communications. I know you're typically, I think maybe there was a meeting and I apologize if I'm crossing documents today because I've been in a bunch of emails. Like there's going to be a community meeting just kind of going

0:58:02through the process. Could, is there something that the commissioner's office could do in regards to, uh, elevating the social media and or the communications? Um, I know that our communications person, um, Deanna in our community services department works directly with Gloria. Um, your communications, the county's communication. So I think that that would kind of, um, suffice there. Perfect. Thank you. None for me. Thanks. No, I guess I just, I mean, nobody's watching this thing, but I'll just say, I mean, this, well, I don't mean to minimize all, you know, the importance of this, but, but I do just want to say, you know, we, our community is so lucky that we have this. So, so lucky. And, you know, that's, that's just a testament to the people of Boulder County that they created it and extended. And I, in meetings with the human services alliance, um, you know, with the commissioners had some conversations a couple of years ago about whether we want to ask the voters whether we can also include services ineligible funding for this. And, um, I know, and I, I guess I offered to take that, uh, to the human services alliance and get their feedback. And, you know, they said, they said no, even though many of them would be eligible for additional funding and they may not really have

0:59:31a way to use these funds because that there is just so little available money for capital. And what it is, it's going to be market interest rates. And so it's going to be expensive. And so, this just is such a wonderful thing that we have in Boulder County. And I wish other, other places had it as well. So thank you. All right. Thank you commissioners. We have no other work session. Topics for you today. Yes. And I will adjourn the commissioners for the rest of the day. Have a wonderful afternoon. Thank you.