Transcript

0:00:26Commissioner, is he ready? Yes. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Okay, good morning. Today is August 11th, 2026. We are here for a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, and we have all three commissioners present this morning. We will start with our business meeting. And the first item on the Agenda is just a note for the Record about a resignation from the Historic Preservation Advisory Board. And we will now move into our consent agenda, and we have items 5A through K. Commissioners, I would like to request that we remove item 5G and 5H from the consentonda and with those two removals, I would move approval as amended. Just point a clarification, please, on items 5G and 5H. Are you asking to move those to discussion or to remove them? To remove them to discussion, thank you. Okay. Remove them from consent agenda. Second. Okay, so with that amendment, all in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. So we now have, we'll move on to our discussion. Agenda, and we'll start with those that were already on the agenda in the first is 6A, and this is from the County Attorney's Office regarding legal representation of Henry Trujillo. Saul Trina a minute ago.

0:01:53Oh, okay. Good morning. My name is Kevin McCann. Can you bring that right close to your mouth, please? Good morning. My name is Kevin McCaffrey. I'm a new attorney at the County Attorney's Office. And I've been assigned to defend and represent these particular individual employees that Boulder County Sheriff's Office. And I'm seeking approval for representation of these Boulder County employees. David Moscow Editainey, former detainee at Boulta County Sheriff's Office is alleging various claims against these individuals, primarily against Melanie Judson from a medical malpractice. And again, Office of Trajill for alleged denial of a kosher meal. We've investigated these allegations. They do not appear to have any merit. Um, and so requesting representation of these individuals. Okay, well, I think we will take, thank you for the explanation on both of them. We'll take them as separate items. Commissioners, any questions? I have no questions, thank you. Just to point a clarification, thanks for being here.

0:03:04I heard what you said about, you don't think there's merit, and that's why you think, but my understanding is that we have a legal obligation as long as somebody is doing their duty and their specific language. I just wonder if you could be clear about that. Yeah, by our investigation field, that both of these employees nurse judson and officer Trajeo. I was acting within the course of scope with their employment, and in good faith. There's no indication they acted, anything other than in good faith. Thank you. Before we're in their duties. Thank you. Yeah, and I believe that's set forth in the Agenda. So we are ready for a motion on 6A. Move approval of 6A, a second. Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye, and now we will move on to 6B, and this is regarding representation for Melanie Judson. We have approval of 6B. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, now we will circle back to consent agenda item 5G, and this is a request for a bid waiver on Traffic Signal Control. Thank you. I'll just start by describing why I took it off. Consent, and we'll see if we have questions or discussion from the board that need additional explanation from staff. But just reading through this, I had a couple of questions. One, this is a bid waiver

0:04:15for Traffic Signal Detection Equipment and software services. So I wondered and asked last night, and I didn't get to reading this until later yesterday, so I asked last evening and had some correspondence back and forth with our IT director and our public works director. Um, so I just asked if it went through the track process because it's an ongoing software as a service. Um, item. And so we have a process that's pretty straightforward where you can submit an off - cycle request to track and have them review. And if a department is paying for it entirely, it goes relatively quickly. So I had a question about whether it went through the appropriate track process or not. And then I just started really questioning whether this was appropriate for a bid waiver when we do a bid waiver, then we're not using our equitable or procurement.

0:04:56Um, trying to look for language about what was urgent or unique about this situation that would require it to not use our standard processes. So after some back and forth, it seems that it didn't go through the track process. And there was some question of whether it needed to or not, and that's still unresolved for me. But after review of this item and the other one, I simply thought it would actually make sense to bid these out and go through our standard processes so we would consider equitable hiring. We would consider track. We would use our standard processes. There's nothing in the memo that indicates that the immediate failure or an urgent situation that requires that we do this. And it doesn't actually seem unique. The last thing I'll say is that, um, through the Denver Regional Council of Governments, um, there actually is traffic signal control service that's provided. And I'm interested in the staff reaching out to them to understand what vendor everyone else is using and see if their standardization there. The traffic signal timing and Controls are trying to be standardized across the region so they can be coordinated. So that's another piece that's missing for me. And I did say that was the last thing, but I have one more thing. And that is that, um, I know that we

0:06:00have designed some safety improvements and mobility improvements to some of our areas. So for example, in the South Boulder Road Corridor, there's a proposed roundabout going in to replace a signal. And I'm really interested in that sort of thing of like removing signals because they create a hazard when we have the public safety power shutoffs. And they also have these ongoing incredibly expensive software as a service budgets and needs, um, so I think if we can actually eliminate signals and try to get this cost down, it would be in our, uh, it would be very advantageous versus replacing a bunch of signals and locking in these very, very expensive contracts. So I guess for today, I would just want to table these indefinitely until a little bit more work is done. Um, to either explain why there is some meritorious reason for a bid waiver.

0:06:47And that this extra due diligence has been done or to go through the standard processes of track and bidding it out as we require through OFM. So that those are my comments. Yeah, thank you. I think my question would be and thanks for sharing the perspective on 5G and 5H that are now on discussion. Is staff here prepared to give a presentation to address some of the questions and or share the correspondence that you all had that I'm not privy to. Or what I heard you also say, Commissioner was just tabling. So do you want to have a motion at a table? I think we should give some direction back to staff if it comes back in a work session or another way potentially. I'm sort of both. I just wanted to find out. Let's see if we can get Mark Schussler perhaps. Uh, Steve Durian from public works. Um, I think I see these as sort of two different. The second one indicates that it was the contractor is part of that by Board National Purchasing Cooperative. So there has been some vetting on that one, but, you know, and I understand and appreciate the points you made. Commissioners Natalie Spring, commissioners, deputy for the Recort. Our staff has not been able to get a hold of, uh, public work staff to be present

0:08:10on this item. Okay. Well then, uh, let's go ahead and apologies. The room was so full. Just in the neck of time. Oh goodness. Good morning, commissioners. Rachel Gadecki. Ryan, sorry out of her at your breath. Okay. I apologize. Can I help answer questions that you had. Uh, do you know what we're talking about at all? Yes. Okay. These are the two bid waivers and Commissioner Stoltzman had the questions about whether they actually conformed to the bid wave policy, meaning that we don't, the time to go through a purchasing process and or, um, there's only one suitable contractor. There's probably a third criteria, but the, you know, the more explanation of the rationale for, uh, doing a bit waiver. Thank you. I think I said, Rachel Gedecki Public Works Capital Improvements Program Manager. You are correct, Commissioner Levy, that they are part of the purchasing cooperative that Boulder County is a part of. Both of them. Yes. Well, one is the other one is a.

0:09:23Retrofit to an existing system. So it's for lack of better phrase plug and play. So it matches the system that we are currently operating in. Actually, Commissioner Stoltzman was the one that wanted. For discussion. So yeah, sorry. The summary was not an accurate summary of the questions I was asking. So I'll just start again. No, it's okay. So, um, originally on 5G, why I asked that we would discuss it a little bit more is it looks as if it's a software as a service item. And I had originally asked if it went through the track process and it appears that it has not. And so, um, I'm interested in understanding, you know, why and why we wouldn't follow our processes for how we evaluate things. We did reach out to, um, IT and they said because it is a component that fits within. They do not need IT services to help support it. It is more of, like I was saying, the plug and play system. Okay. I'm going to ask our IT director to come up and talk to us about our process a little bit. Sure.

0:10:36Good morning commissioners. Paul Janpoer information technology director. So yeah, and I, you know, we, we did have some emails back and forth. And I apologize to my colleagues from public works because of communication from us regarding whether or not this rose to the level of a track request. Um, was not really made in the appropriate way. That assessment. So, um, you know, what I had asked for, and I think might be best for us is just a very quick evaluation of not necessarily the procurement part of this, but the, you know, technology, the, the investment, the resources required from IT. You know, I know the cybersecurity assessment was done. But for us, just to quickly look at that again, to honor our process and to ensure that we have, uh, visibility into a large technology solution here at the county. So I think what I'm asking for is not, it should not delay this very much. I'm asking just basically to table it for today so that we can go through the track process and consider some of these other things, whether the Dr. Cog solution is an appropriate solution, whether bidding this out, um, is an appropriate solution. It does look like from the write - up that this is actually expanding our services at this time so that it would help with autonomous

0:11:53vehicle, um, capability and connectivity. So it seems to me that it is an expansion of services, not simply a replacement has been described. So I think understanding if we really want to do that, um, and lock us into this additional 500, 000 dollar a year expense for these controllers or what other alternatives there are, some of the things I mentioned is I know staff has been looking at eliminating some of the signals through installation of roundabouts and some other things. So what other options there are for actually eliminating some of these ongoing, very expensive software contracts. So my request would just be the table this item at this time. I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to hear what you just said on item 5G, which I don't know what the new numbering is, but that's as a table emotion to table. And again, I'm happy to support that, but I do think we need to give some direction. So if the board wants to give some, um, direction on the pieces that you were just talking about that are in the agreement that you're reading from, I just think that that will be helpful for staff if we are clear about what we're running, what I heard, our IT director say is an offering to go through track process. And so I think

0:13:08everything's been met, but I just want to make sure there's nothing more for direction. Again, my question was, how will this come back to the board if we want to give direction? Yeah. So I would like to, here, I will make a motion to table. I did have a question. That's why I didn't do it before, but now I will Commissioner Ochman went directly to something. I actually hadn't asked a question that I wanted to ask here just from what you said. And this is just, two different requests. One's for polls, one's for the signal timing system. Um, and what I, what I heard you say, but I want to make sure I understood what you were saying is, is that this software is compatible and fits within a system we already have. Is that correct? Or is this correct? Something. Are we already using this system on other signals. Yes. This is, um, upgrading, uh, the controller itself. So your commissioner stolsman is correct.

0:14:10You can expand it and it can have many capabilities. My understanding was that we were kind of limiting it, but we are more than happy to have continued discussions with IT. Okay. And there's no harm in tabling this to get these questions answered. I just wanted to make sure I interested what you had said before we move on and go ahead and make the motion. So we, why don't we take these one at a time since their agenda separately. And so we'll have a motion on what, uh, well, consent item 5G moved to table consent item 5G and give staff direction to, uh, ensure that the County processes have been followed. Second. Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. And now 5H. And then just a couple of comments on 5H. So I was really going back and forth on 5H because it doesn't have the same software as a service concerns for me. Um, I just am concerned about following our processes and procedures.

0:15:17I do think the equivalent procurement, it replacing polls is not particularly unique. There was some narrative around our wind loads and things like that. Um, I just, I'm not sure why a bid waiver is appropriate on this particular. Um, uh, item. And so I would want to table 5 H so that staff can either better articulate in their memo why a bid waiver is appropriate in this situation or go back and follow our procedures. And bid out this project. Yeah. I mean, that sounds appropriate to me. I, I do think it's important when we have a bid waiver request that memo do make that explanation, you know, if, you know, what are the, what are the criteria for mid waiver and why is this appropriate? It sort of described the thing that we're trying to buy. And it'd be helpful for us when we're reading these to know, well, do we want to pull them or do we not want to pull them to have a little more explanation in there? Um, so Commissioner Lojamin, did you have any input on 5H. I don't have additional input. Thank you. Okay. So we're ready for motion to table 5H. Second. Okay. All in favor. Aye. So thank you for dashing in and trying to answer our questions. Appreciate it. We're now on to confirmation of executive

0:16:34session. Good morning, commissioners. Natalie Spring at Commissioners Deputy for the Record. I'm here to confirm that the executive session topics that were noticed at the August 4th, 2026 regular business meeting of the board were discussed as scheduled. And this is simply a note for the Record. So I'm happy to move us to item 8A. Commissioners, I'm here to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into executive session on Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 at, uh, I'm going to change this to 950 a. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4A. Purchase or sale of any real personal or other property interest, as well as pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4B. Legal advice, as well as pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4E instructions to negotiators regarding the property located at 5505 Valmont Road, also known as Sen Lazaro. Move approval.

0:17:43Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you, commissioners. And for item 8B, I'm here to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into executive session on Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4E. Instructions to negotiators regarding the topic of negotiations on collective bargaining agreement with the fraternal order of police and the Boulder County employees union. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. We will now sit as the Board of Directors of the Elder Auto Springs Public Improvement District, and I believe we need a motion on executive session. Thank you. Thank you Board of Directors. Um, I'm here to request authorization for the Board of Directors of the Eldorado Springs Public Improvement District to go into Executive Session on Wednesday, August 12th.

0:18:392026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4B, legal advice regarding the topic of legal issues related to loan repayment and options for the November ballot for Eldorado Springs Public Improvement District. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. We will now sit as the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County once again. The next item is our work session. And I believe the four or five - minute recess. Yes. Um, just for clarification, you did ask for, well, we just authorized execution at 950 on these topics, but we will not be going into execution immediately after that. We will start the work session, correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay, so we will be in recessed until 956. Thank you. And John, if you could leave my mic on for a moment, I did want to note, we do have more people in the hearing room than we can accommodate. Um, so after staff moves into their seats, if anyone who is not able to locate a seat in the hearing room, could locate a seat either in our lobby or in our conference room over here called the Dickie Lee, just behind this room here.

0:19:59We are live streaming the work sessions into both the lobby and the DLH room, but just to make sure we're not overcapacity. If you don't have a seat before we get started, if you could please find a seat in either of those two locations. Perdón, Allie, so hay gente aquí que no tiene dónde sentarse, por favor. Están dando, o sea, pueden ver el programa, pueden ver la plática en el salón que está aquí atrás. Your UCEC, por favor, si no hay asiento, hay manera de escuchar en vivo la plática. Gracias. So we will be in recess until 957. Thank you all so much for your patience. Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you so much. And we're recording. All right, we are back to consider two items on our work session Agenda for the morning. And we're going to take them out of order and start with a review of the Resident Request for assistance on the San Lazaro resident owned community proposals. So Jana Peterson, your last work session with us here of the Rest of Your Live. Would you, you'll go ahead and get this started. And then turn it over to Susanna. Thank you, Commissioners. Jana Peterson Boulder County Administrator. And yes, we are switching up the Agenda for this work session to start with the request from San Lacero Residence. And I'm

0:24:07going to turn things over to our housing director Susanne Lopez Baker. Good morning, commissioner. Susanna Lopez Baker Boulder. Boulder County Housing Department Director. Thanks for being here today. As you could see, this is a hot topic in our community and we are very excited and proud really to have so much support in the room today. But this Agenda topic is regarding a letter of intent that the San Lazaro Residence have requested from Boulder County on July 23rd. They sent a request to Boulder County Commissioners and Housing Leadership. Regarding support for the purchase of their mobile home park, their mobile home park is 213 households. And they have submitted some financial projections for your review. And that is the basis of today's meeting. So I'll hand it back over to Jama. So Commissioners, staff is here to receive your direction on whether you would like to enter into a letter of intent with, as proposed by this and lost to a residence. And I will turn it over for your discussion and Commissioner Stoltzman. You are up first with this one. Thanks so much. And just also I've been working as the team lead on this project. So I want to just take a moment to thank everybody for being here today. It means a lot to see the neighborhood come out to the meeting and

0:25:29see you all here. So thank you so much for being here and taking your time during the day to come join us. I would like to request that we go into executive session. You may have heard it was noticed a little earlier. And I asked that that cut put on there just because there are some negotiating strategy topics that we wouldn't want to put us in a worse negotiating position to have some of the conversation out in the open and then end up not being able to negotiate in the community's best interest. And so I will, while it could be frustrating that all of you came out and then we're having some of the discussion and executive session, it is so that we can preserve everyone's best interests. But just really thankful that you're all here. Commissioner Stolzman, I wonder, I had just some basic foundational questions that I need regardless of what we end up doing here, just so I can have some background and perspective on whatever we may discuss in executive session.

0:26:28Are you wanting that immediately? Or could we spend a little bit of time understanding where we are, what the request is? You know, I just have some questions that I would. I think it could go either way, but it makes sense to ask them now. And that way we don't have to come in and out of executive session to get non - executive session topics covers. So I think covering them now would make sense. So I wonder, our Commissioner Schultzman, if you had any of those types of questions or anything that you would want to handle prior to a journey for executive sessions? I think I may have more information than the rest of the group. So I don't have any questions. I didn't want to speculate on that. I know you've been involved. So thank you. All right. Commissioner Lochamin, are there questions that you would like to get on the table. Good morning.

0:27:13I don't have any questions at this time. And I can go either way, but I'm happy to listen Commissioner Leaving to the questions that you have, because it might spur something additional for me. I was being serious about that. Um, and also to go into executive session. Look at St. Kittle, there's, no, say, si alguien que está interpretando aquí, pero el tema que estamos conversando ahorita para que sepan, porque sí vamos a salir en un par de minutos y es ampliamente para avisarles que vamos a conversar con nuestros abogados para entender algunos asuntos específicos que no podemos negociar en público, porque puede dañar el otro lado. Entonces eso es el tema. I'm just simply stating to help people understand because I don't see an interpreter here in the room that when we do walk out of here, it's about negotiation that will be meeting with our attorneys and just stated what was said on the Record already. Thank you. And thank you for that interpretation.

0:28:02Commissioner Levy. Yes, I have some questions. So, you know, we, this is very important obviously to the community. I do want to just acknowledge that. And I also want to acknowledge that Resident Ownership is a priority and a goal of ours and it's a policy that we really want to support when we can. Just to put this request in the financials in some context. I think what I don't know, and I'd love your help on this, Susanna is, you know, how we gauge like how much of a financial commitment to make. Like do we have a policy or some criteria that we would put in no more than X percent of the total purchase price? Because what I get concerned about is that we don't really have a way to gauge how much is enough or too much or is it appropriate in this instance and not in that instance. And I think we've kind of been treating these requests each as sui generis. And, you know, then we get into trouble about, are we really making consistent decisions on these things? So that's, I just wanted to hear a little bit about your thinking.

0:29:32And I don't know what the funding source would be for what the request is from the community. So the funding source and just how you, as director of the housing department, think about the amount and whether it's appropriate. I think you, Commissioner, as you may now so far, as these Resident Community requests come in regarding mobile home parks, we've handled them on a case - by - case basis, mostly because they are all complicated in their own way and require the individual attention. So to your first question, no, we do not have a policy that can guide how much funding one group can get. Again, that is probably largely dependent on the purchase price in and of itself. A percentage base could be a good way to look at that moving forward, but currently we don't have a policy in place. And as far as funding sources, I think that's up for the board's discussion.

0:30:33There are several funds that can probably be used for some purchase funding. Um, I think that will require some information from the board on how much the board is willing to contribute if at all. Okay. So, okay, well, so we don't have a policy and we don't know where the money would come from. Correct. Okay. Um, let me see if I had any other questions based on the memo. Well, do we, so we have. Some financial projections. Did the community generate those numbers? Have you reviewed the numbers as far as, um, park operating expenses, uh, the revenue, lot revenue and whether those are real, you know, solid numbers. Are they reliable numbers? Yes. That's a great question. Yes. The community did generate those financial projections. And the community had also received the financials directly from the ownership group. And that's how they, uh, my understanding is that is how they drafted those projections. Um, and then Boulder County staff has had, um, an appraisal conducted.

0:31:58And we have done an internal review. It is currently in draft form, but we have met with the appraisal. So yes, we have reviewed financial backup documentation. And we do believe that those, the financial projection numbers that you have in front of you are legitimate. Okay. Thank you. And then the capital stack, uh, the scenarios, um, have some, um, figures for contribution from other entities. Colorado state, I guess that's the state of Colorado or something. Um, city of Boulder, some amount from fundraising. Do you know whether the city and the state are prepared to contribute in the amounts sort of ballparkish that are proposed? That's a great question. So the residents have been meeting with community partners like Boulder County City of Boulder and Dola on a weekly basis. Uh, they would have to apply for funds both through the city of Boulder and Dola, so city of Boulder, they would have to apply for inclusionary funds. And the application process for that. Um, so it's not a guaranteed commitment, but there is a path forward for residents to apply to the city of Boulder's funding, as well as to Dola. So Dola has worked really close with the group. And same scenario. It is a hot funding, the Affordable Housing opportunity program. And, um, they would have to go through an application process as

0:33:24well. Um, but they have, uh, the different time periods in which that application opens. And there are still, uh, two remaining funding cycles this year. Okay. And the, so the amount, I mean, they've plugged in five million dollars from the state. And I, I know there is that part of money that was created, but I don't know whether five million dollars is within the ballpark, the range of possibility or whether I just don't know what the size of the contributions that were proposed. Do you know whether that's a possible? Yeah. That's a great question. Those are prop one, two, three dollars on the plot becomes less. And so the sooner, um, one applies is probably a better chance. Um, typical average awards, our staff has looked into that as about two million dollars, but they have awarded up to five million dollars. Okay. So that's not outside the realm of possibility and the same for the city of Boulder to what sort of understanding do you have that they would potentially participate to the tune of 11 million possibly? I don't have any insight into what the city of Boulderwood contribute at this time. Okay.

0:34:36All right. Okay. So they're just a limited number of things that are within our knowledge and control. Okay. Um, I think those were the questions that I have. Well, and then just circling back, um, briefest of introductions of this topic. And, um, they're, you know, just to review what the statutory timeframes are for all of this to happen, if you could just review that for, for everybody's benefit. Yeah. I think I'm going to ask April Gatesman, our County attorney to jump in on some of those, um, deadlines that are required. April Gatesman, Assistant County Attorney for Boulevard County, um. We just received notice that the PARC owner has a purchase offer on the table. And that will start the clock over for the residents to assemble an offer themselves for another 120 days. That is about all I can say about the timeline at this point. For what it's worth, they don't have to close within 120 days. That can happen after. There's another 120 days for closing. But the clock has started over.

0:36:04Oh, okay. And that one hundred and twenty days starts when. What has to be done before the expiry of that 120 days. The 120 days starts as of the notice. The most recent notice. We received a copy of the notice. So I don't, I can't save her for sure what day the tolling would have begun when the residents received the notice. And I do have, you know, what needs to be done in order for the residents to submit. Well, just my question is that gives them 120 days to make an offer or what is it that they have to do before the expiry boring language, but that is the only way to answer your question. The residents may. Want to change. A proposed purchase and sale agreement. And obtain an offer for any necessary financing or guarantees. Or submit to the owner an assignment agreement, meaning that the residents have assigned their right to purchase the park. To a local government entity. That's not something we've discussed before, but that is also an option. Okay.

0:37:35Okay. Thank you. That was just the kind of basic foundational information that I needed. Any questions that anybody else has before we go into executive session? Just a question for our deputy since we already made a motion to go into it executive session. Do we just take a recess at this time. Uh, yes, commissioners. Natalie Springer for the Record, but you would be welcome to take a recess and go into executive session. Okay. So, um, do you want to explain again that we're going to go into execute session? We're going to consult with our lawyers about matters of negotiation. That's all that we are allowed to do. We are not allowed to make decisions. Uh, so, but we can't, we don't know now how long this conversation may take. And so we'll ask you just please to sit patiently. And then when we come back, uh, we'll proceed with the discussion. Gracias por su paciencia.

0:38:33Vamos a salir aquí del DAS. Y vamos a conversar con nuestros abogados para recibir un consejo sobre negociación. No podemos tomar decisiones atrás sin ustedes aquí en el público. Así que vamos a regresar. No sabemos cuánto vamos a estar ahí atrás. Pero no se vayan. Commissioner, are you ready? Yes, thank you. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Okay, we are back from executive session. Susanna. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. I do just want to provide a brief summary for the room. We did receive great negotiation strategy, recommendations from the Board of County Commissioners, and we will be working on a letter of intent. This is in response to requests that was made by the Residence, and we will share as soon as possible. Okay. Commissioners, any additional comments, information? No, thank you. Thank you so much. I just want to reiterate our thanks for everybody coming out today and seeing the neighbors is so very wonderful. Great to see everybody.

0:39:57Yeah. Thank you. And I want to acknowledge Commissioner Schlesman your work just being the lead in particular on this item that's been brought to her attention. For me, housing is the very beginning of absolute everything. Housing is mental health housing and stability housing is opportunity for business, for education, for so many things in the United States of America. And so, like, I just want to appreciate Susanna and you and your team and folks who've reached out. I do want to just make a statement that I think it's really critical. And I don't know, but I want to, I'm personally having some concerns about our presentation today as Boulder County, not having interpretation available and just want to encourage the folks that are working in this conversation as it continues to make sure that all language needs are met. It's not just about the words, it's about understanding, poder communicarse en el idioma de su corazón.

0:40:54Es importantísimo. So I just want to share that concern and just encourage as the work continues things. Pardon me, this is Johnny's house for the Record. Brianna Barber is currently casting the presenter left laptop to the television. And we were able to get live captions translated into Spanish. So that'll be on display for people who are watching in the room. Thanks for the update. Thank you, John. Yeah, and I'll just add a couple of comments. You know, actually, we do need to know the timeline for when we'll be coming back to discuss this again. But this is helping residents of mobile home communities is. Ok. Is it OK to talk? Yeah, it's just a very, very important priority for Boulder County. And we've been able to assist a number of communities in becoming resident owned. And we have a very strong desire to help.

0:42:09You know, the complications. We need to explore. But mobile home communities, as I've known them in Boulder County throughout Boulder County, are wonderful places that with a true sense of community and longtime residents and homeowners who have had to live with the uncertainty of what's going to happen with their park, what's going to happen with their rent. Are they going to be new onerous rules and regulations that are going to come in and make it very difficult for us to live here? And that's just not a way to live. And thankfully, the legislature over the last several years has made it possible for residents to become owners of their own park. It doesn't give you the financing to do it. And you all have been doing a phenomenal job of organizing to get ready so that you could be in this position. We're not yet ready to say we can, but we want to explore that. So I just wanted to share my feelings about how important it is to try to do this. And we just have a number of things we need to look up before we can definitely move forward. So I think maybe we can go ahead and close this. I believe you had requested staff to talk a little bit about timeline. Yeah. So I'm going to turn it back

0:43:37over to Suzanne after that. Thank you Commissioner. It is our intent to respond as quickly as we can based on some of the negotiation recommendations. We will be working with legal and our Office of Financial Management to draft that letter. We will work as quickly as possible. But just quick conversation, it may be up to two weeks. OK. Ok. So we will try to be back here as quickly as we can. So we are very cognizant that the clock is checking. Commissioners, any final remarks on this topic. I don't think so. OK. We'll move on in our agenda to the Affordable and Attainable Housing Tax, which we had two topics related to that tax for you today. And the first one of them. Is the Boulder County Home Ownership Program. And I believe I'm turning it over to Gwent. Is Gwen the Presenter on this one. Let's see. Good morning, commissioners. Gwen Mossman, supportive housing Division Manager with Boulder County Housing Department. So through the process of determining how to allocate the 500, 000 dollars, 500, 000 dollar innovation fund.

0:45:11We have kind of sat through multiple iterations. And today we are back. With our proposed. It's kind of the next step in what we discussed in our previous meeting that kind of expands on the ideas that we received approval to explore. So. I think I'll just start with a quick, what, what can I just take a moment and ask what our timing is now given like how quick should I go till noon? OK, this, I think the first item took a bit longer than we had it. And anticipated. I don't know whether Commissioners have obligations that would. So Commissioners, let me just suggest from a process perspective that we really condense the presentation. You have had a presentation in June on this topic. And you have a memo in your packet that summarizes the work that has been done since that June meeting. And we have a few questions where we would appreciate your direction and guidance today. Um, and, um, and they're here on the screen and we can take your feedback in whatever format works. For you. So, um, in our rotation, Commissioner Lo Chamine, you're up first on this proposal. Um, okay.

0:46:45I was thinking I was actually the other piece first. So, um, I'm looking at the screen. And one I appreciate staff continue to work on the funding and looking at reviewing, having conversations with the partners, et cetera. This is not the right slide. My apologies. Okay. Thank you. It's. Just cute. These are the correct questions. Apologies, Commissioners. No, that's okay. These are the correct questions for the homeownership program. And I'm trying to get to the right place in here. So I had one, I'm very interested in this conversation of this program, the opportunities. I think I had just a couple, um, maybe a reflections in the packet in regards to some of the details. And so I can just put them out there versus going through, uh, one of the questions was in, in the document, the memo, it talked about debt buy down as an opportunity to be used for that 75, 000 or that 50, 000 dollars for public servant. And some of it might just be language and also 25 years in the industry. I think you're talking about loan reduction. So if I'm the first time home buyer, I would get that 75, 000. And instead of my loan being half a million dollars, it would be 425, 000 as an example. So I was just curious about how that would

0:48:19work in the tiers versus if somebody used that money. The other one that you was in the packet was talking about inspection items. Um, what I'm concerned about, and I'll just say it again and try and be just very clear is first home buyers in the state of Colorado. And certainly in our region. Given what the tiers are, the goals are the racial equity goals, et cetera. In a lot of situations, first time home buyers. Are. Being challenged by other buyers in the market, i. e. on FHA mortgage holder or DCA purchaser. Is going to be coming in competition with, let's say, a conventional buyer or a cash buyer. So for me, I'm trying to figure out, how does this assist the folks who want to live and work. In our Boulder County community? And so what I don't want to have happen is a market price get adjusted. So let's just use that half million dollar example. What I don't want to have somebody do is then get in a bidding war with another buyer and use their 75, 000 dollars. To overprice the property because they've got a greedy seller on the other side. Commissioner for a clarification, the debt buydown is the percentage point. Buy down on the loan is what we were proposing. So a literal loan buydown. Correct. Okay. Yeah.

0:49:55So not a reduction of the. So they couldn't use it for a lowering of the, ultimately the mortgage payment that would help them be a sustainable buyer. Corre. And the financial modeling, the percentage buy down was the biggest, um, impact on their monthly payment being lower. And so that was the strategy of doing the percentage by down. So then, okay. And that's super helpful. Yeah. I, I think it would be interesting to look at both of those. Because if you reduce the loan amount, you're also going to reduce the payment. But over a longer time. And then the question would just be, I think just to make sure that the language in there, if someone is going to use points to buy down their loan just to make sure that it is in a majority say in there that it has to be a fixed long term. Just thinking about some of the impacts from 2006, seven and eight. Um, so that, thank you. That was one of the questions. And then the other piece of what I'm talking about is just how do we not, how do we not create a situation more inflating a purchaser's price. At what point does. So that is a real concern. Um, and it might fall into a couple different categories. The other one on the 100 to

0:51:13130 percent AMI, how those figures align with other down payment assistance programs and other assistance programs that exist, whether it's with the different cities with brothers to development, which have et cetera, just to know, are we meeting the need? Um, are we, are we addressing the gap that for us Boulder County staff might be experiencing? Correct. Um, yeah. So typically the housing programs go up to 120 percent AMI We are recommending 130 percent because of the more resort type AMI communities at Boulder tends to trend with, even though we are identified as urban, um, do need the 130 percent AMIs. So we're seeing communities like Summit County or even in Golden push their affordability rates up to 130 percent when it comes to home ownership because they just, they, I mean, because our AMIs are some of the highest in the state that pushing that 130 percent does allow for some additional flexibilities, especially with a large purchase of buying a house. Okay. Thank you.

0:52:19Can you, I won't go down my questioning on the inspection piece cause I might be misinterpreting it the same way I was misinterpreting the loan by down language. So in what case would a buyer use up to 75, 000 dollars for inspection item inspection. I'm in regards to, um, post purchase on a repairs for the home. I believe is that what that's referring to you? Yeah. Correct. So if they identify something on the inspection, that would need to be addressed post closing. They would have funds, um, available to make those improvements on the home. So I'm just curious. And again, it's just because I work with first time home buyers and half for a while. About how that would benefit the buyer versus the other option for a buyer is to have the seller put those fixes and repairs in escrow. And take care of those. So I just, I'm like, I think I maybe get the concept, but I don't know if that's advantageous to the home buyer. So that I was just trying to understand kind of the reasoning and the goals. Yeah.

0:53:31Again, in our research, we just found that there were oftentimes that some homes that were affordable to, uh, the purchaser, they were not able to then have funds available to make the necessary improvements on the home, particularly around health and safety is the lunset we were looking through and designing the program. So this would allow some additional flex funding for them to make those improvements. Um, as you know, the FHA loan usually requires those to be done before closing. So this would be those, you also know that the minimum improvements that the FHA loan requires maybe don't always go the full amount, like the full required repairs. And so this again would allow them to do the full repairs versus the basic repair, if you will. So I guess maybe I'm looking at the board.

0:54:22I would, I would like to have some more conversation about that maybe and or, and it could be additional. And maybe I'm looking at April. I'm not sure. Additional wording on how to make sure that's not going to be a negative impact to the buyer. Let me just give you a real life example. I was working with a buyer three months ago. In Boulder County first time home buyer Spanish speaker trying to purchase the home. This seller did not want to assist in structural damage to the property. So could this program help somebody do that. There's money at the table. Would we as Boulder County use taxpayer funds to encourage a buyer to purchase a home that has structural damage? I personally wouldn't be part of that. So that's the concern that I have. Like could it address some funding? Yes, but I don't want it to incentivize a home buyer to make a decision about a property that they wouldn't otherwise. Make. So that's what I'm trying to get at. Thanks for the conversation.

0:55:21The other question I had was there was a line in there in regards to personal savings, Gwyn. What did you come up with that requirement and recommendation? So that requirement came from some of the national programs that put together a special funding for public service workers or maybe the teacher next door. And that is really just to show that the household is going into this process able to put together some type of savings over and above what the mortgage or their, you know, mortgage or monthly rent is currently. And just that they have a lack of better words, some skin in the game. But really are not only pulling funds from down payment assistance programs and other kind of grant or loan programs. So really it's just to show that they are able to put together some form of savings on top of their monthly, their current monthly payments. I was reading the personal savings as a 1, 000 dollar requirement. Is that correct? Yes.

0:56:48So and what I heard you just say is that that would be on top of what their lender would require them to have. Because typically you have to have at least three months in reserves. And some of these are six months in reserves. So the personal saving, it just, it doesn't feel like it even lines up. So if it's in there and it says it's got to be a thousand dollars plus whatever your lender requires for you to be able to get a loan, that would make sense. Otherwise it feels like it's in contradiction with the reality of a mortgage loan. Yeah. It is a thousand dollars plus you have to contribute a thousand dollars at least to what the lender is going to require you have in reserves. You cannot borrow or have a family grant you all of the money that you are required to hold and reserves. Okay. So it might just be the, it might be the language. Okay. That's in there. Okay. Um. And this, these are my notes for the next topic. So I think that's, that's what I've got for right now. And unless I mean, I mean.

0:57:57I can address the questions on here. Those are just my questions before coming into the conversation. But I'll let others, um, speak for now. Thank you. Commissioner Lochman, Commissioner Levy. Yeah. I think I'm, I'm also not going to, um, do the four questions in order as opposed. I'll just run through the notes that I put in the questions that were raised for me. Uh, that I'll have you come back with some additional refinement. I went on the eligible uses. Well, actually, it's not on that criteria in and of itself. But I know when the city of Boulder put their, uh, home ownership program together and they issued that bond, um, and they've had no takers, I'll note. But, but they did put a maximum home price in there. And I don't know if it was a good idea or not a good idea. I don't really know. The maximum home price that they put in.

0:59:03It was some, some multiple of median home price or something. I don't remember what it was exactly. But I just wondered about, you know, some consideration of whether they're ought to be a maximum home price in there. Um, you know, I think of somebody's going to qualify for, for this program, that probably is a limiting factor in and of itself. And it may not be needed. Um, in there, but it just, just some thought on whether we would want to have that. I also had the question similar to Commissioner Louisian on using, um, these funds for post purchase health and safety repairs in that, uh, I mean, I would think that, you know, when the inspection shows that there are health and safety, um, concerns, that that is their obligation to remedy. And I wouldn't want to use public funds to satisfy what should be a seller's obligation. And I mean, I think the way Commissioner Lutzman put it is another aspect of it is, are we going to want to help a buyer get into a home. You know, that is, uh, sounds like it could be condemned for. So, you know, that's just, I could see having a fund available for major repairs.

1:00:33That, you know, come up, you know, that come up post negotiation or post inspection, you know, something like that, uh, but it would be a fund that we would have available that they could draw from. You know, I, something unexpected. The furnace goes out, you know, hailstorm in the roof needs repairs or whatever. Um, but I wouldn't want it available to address inspection problems. Um, I. Let's see. Oh, on the geographic requirements for recipients. It's probably goes without saying, but we don't do, I assume we would require that they work in Boulder County. They may currently be living outside the county because they can't afford to live in the county and we want them to be able to afford to live in the County. But we would require that they be employed in Boulder County.

1:01:31I'm seeing head nod. Correct. So, um, that is correct. Yeah. It is under minimum length of service that they have to have five years of continuous service with an organization providing services as outlined above, operating in Boulder County. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, on the Home Occupy section of the terms and conditions or whatever this thing is, it just, it says they have to maintain continuous occupancy for at least five consecutive years before they would be able to rent the house out. I would want that to be 10 years at a minimum. Commissioner that was a type O. So yes, that on my part. So yes, it should be 10 years to match the length of the forgiva. Great. Thank you. That makes me happy. Um, yeah, I also have questions about the personal savings. They have to show at least a thousand dollars in savings. And can be a buffer for post purchase expenses. To me. Well, I guess a couple of questions. One, I didn't read this as being in addition to whatever savings the lender may require. But I would question whether they could even qualify for a mortgage on a home and Boulder Boulder County if they don't have at least, if they don't have substantially more than a thousand dollars, I think it's a clarification issue also based

1:03:08on Commissioner Lojaman's response, that it's a portion they have to contribute a portion, um, of the reserves that the lender will mandate. And it needs to come from their own money, their own savings. Okay. Well, I guess I still wonder whether that's really adequate. To, you know, to have. That a thousand dollars in the bank for home repairs are incredibly expensive. And, um, that just doesn't seem like a lot of buffer in savings too. And he goes also just incidentals that come up with purchasing a home, Israeli, the sort of idea behind that. And of course we're looking at national numbers where nationally there are homes that are priced well below what they can be here in Boulder County. So that was some of the nuance of that, our context. Okay. Well, just does not seem like much of a cushion to have for all the, you know, I don't know, the deposit to get the utilities in your name.

1:04:27And I don't know what all the things are. You are correct. It's not much of a cushion and it is also a reality that, you know, a lot of homeowners do stretch to get into their, their homes. And it does become, you know, a bit of a scramble up front to try to, you know, to accommodate some of these upfront costs. That's just a reality. And we want people to be successful. And we know that they're going to, you know, this is a major source of stability, but it can also be a source of financial strain. And, you know, we don't want people, um, you know, being so stretched that they can't maintain the home ownership. On the Homebuyer Pathway, this is, this is maybe just my ignorance about this. But on obtaining the mortgage pre - approval letter before we have determined whether they're eligible, uh, for this program, I just wonder whether it wouldn't, I mean, how are they this may help them qualify for the mortgage. You know, if it's going to be a debt by down, um, or down payment assistance.

1:05:48So I'm wondering about that timing, that sequencing. So my understanding and my thought process on this is that you are going to qualify for your loan based on your current income, right? That the lender is going to determine the amount of money that you, that participant can afford to pay per month. The subsequent, um, and that's, that's just facts. That's based on, they're not going to base that on your one time, you know, your one - time contribution from a program. They're going to be looking at your ongoing income and what you can afford long - term. And so my understanding is that obtaining that pre - approval, initial pre - approval letter for what they can afford long time is kind of a separate process from applying for and qualifying for down payment assistance programs that will help them come up with their portion of the loan, you know, when it comes to closing.

1:07:01So my understanding is that that's two different processes. And I think the intent of this program is not that we are allowing enabling homeowners to get into properties that were beyond their initial means, right? But only to come in with support to help them get into the properties that they can naturally afford. Thank you. Um, and I agree with that intent. If it's a loan buy down, debt buy down, buying down the interest rate, they're going to be able to afford my, my, my, it's been a while since I bought a house. But you get, you get your pre - approval. And that tells you how much house you can afford. And if you're going to probably, you know, buy down the interest rate, you can afford more. But anyways, just a question about whether that's the right sequence. And I don't know. Cause I don't do this every day. Let me just go back up to the top. I think those were the questions I had about the process. Just a general question, you know, we authorized five and a thousand dollars a year for an innovation fund. We don't really know what the uptake on this is going to be. And I wonder, I mean, I guess would we just continue to roll the money over? Are there opportunities to, you know, and

1:08:42then add 500, 000 dollars a year and build up some fund balance and it's money that's sitting here that could be used for something else. So I hope we would, um, reserve the right to revisit whether we actually want to do this on an annual basis ongoing basis. There are other innovative opportunities that might be available along a different line, maybe not home ownership line, maybe, maybe something else. So I guess I'm just saying that for future conversations. Great. Can you commissioner turning to Commissioner Stolesman? Thank you. Um, at the last meeting I went into the different agencies that I thought we should include in the definition of public service workers. So I would still include those same groups. Um, to limit it. I don't actually think that we should include a minimum length of service. I think it is really challenging for people to establish a presence in Boulder County. And so if they could do that sooner in their career than five years, I think that would be very positive. Um, and help somebody be stable. So I would eliminate that minimum length of service and just rely on the claw back for moving and things like that that would happen naturally that would occur. So I think the benefit would outweigh the detriment from doing it that way. Um, and if we

1:09:58were really concerned about, I think we could change the recapture. If you leave a public service job versus just when you sell a house, but I wouldn't actually do it that way. I just think we could do it that way if that was a concern that was raised. So I also listed a number of partners to consider pursuing at the last meeting. So I still think those partners are a good list. Um, I would be happy to have meetings set up, um, to pitch the idea to the other agencies. It would be helpful if I had, um, more of an infographic type presentation on a half a page to present it those meetings. So like if you want me to pitch this to see you or the school district or to the other cities or other groups, um, the fire districts, things like that, I think having just something that I could leave with the heads of those agencies would be helpful. I'm sure my colleagues would be happy to pitch the idea too. Um, so if you wanted to divvy that up between us, we could try to see if people would, um, contribute.

1:10:51And I think it would be reasonable to come up with some, um, dollar per employee. So like if we have 2, 100 employees and we're saying 500, 000 calculate a dollar per employee and then see if we could get the other agencies to match, um, to create a bigger pool. I'd be happy to go to those meetings and try to make that pitch. I think the other agencies would likely find, be interested. So like for example, um, CDA has been investing in, um, employee housing, um, projects and different counties around the state. So perhaps like, you know, the state with their different, whether it's CU or CDOT or the different departments within the state, the number of employee housing things they're working on. So I think the state would be interested among the agencies. But I do think we should ask each different sector of the state because they're running separate programs, siloed right now.

1:11:41And they don't know about each other's programs. So I think it would be worth pitching to the different parts of the agency. And then for the last question, um, I would say, I think it'd be helpful to send a survey to the, to our employees just asking what they would change about what they would like, what they don't like about the program. I've heard from a number of employees, um, some of the Homebuyer Programs, part of the issue is the way, um, savings is counted against people's income that makes it so like, for example, if they have PERA and they have money in PARA because of the way we do retirement here at the county, sometimes that puts them out of eligibility for programs in some of the different cities. So then they can't qualify.

1:12:23So I just think having people that are actually trying to buy homes in the county that work for the county give us feedback on this would be really useful to understand if this would even, if this meets their needs or if there are other tweaks that they would want to see before we would put it out. I am working with, um, our comms team on a survey right now. Thank you. Yes. Great. Commissioners, um, want to do a time check with you. There is an upcoming, uh, meeting where Susanna needs your direction on distribution of funding for 2027, which is our third topic for today. They haven't had an opportunity to talk about. And I think we have about 10 minutes left in our meeting time. And so my question is whether you would prefer to continue the discussion of the County Roots Home Ownership Program. Or if you are comfortable with the guidance that you've given so far, knowing that the housing team can come back for, you know, final design with input from the survey and in response to your questions today, if we can move on to that third topic and get some direction on that. I'm fine with that. And I'll just follow up with Steph in regards to the questions that I have. Thanks. Thank you. So our, our, uh,

1:13:44our third and final topic today is the, uh, allocation of the Affordable and Attainable Housing Tax for 2027. And, um, we had some, uh, questions for you based on the recommendations. If you have interest in supporting a 100, 000 dollar allocation out of AD for rent stabilization, if you are interested in 800, 000 dollars in additional funding for will be Corner and how you would like to divvy up the funding for future years. So those are the topics, Commissioner Levy. You are up first on this one. Okay. Thank you. Um, uh, I'm fine with the first two. Yes. On both of those, I did have a question on your expenditure for services on. It looks like the support of housing. Budget was that for some reason it's very blurry on my screen. 693, 1543. We've only, well, basically only spent just a little less than 30 percent of that year to date. And I did wonder why that was so underspent. Those are end of Q2 numbers, if that's correct when, but we are on pace two, expend our rental assist installers. I think sometimes that can come in different waves. I don't know if we're at full vape. We have no vacancies any longer in terms of staff, the supportive housing. Okay.

1:15:38Yeah. It looks like they sorry. I'm just seeing this graphic. Looks like they broke it out between the individual supportive housing programs. So overall. And, um, as I'm looking at that, I can just tell you that after meeting with, um, we are on track to fully spend the 5. 2 million allocation. Okay. So there's, yeah, there's no underspend. Okay. I just was wondering about whether it needs to be re, you know, read allocated within the services budget. But no, I'm fine with the first two questions. Um, I, I think that I think the alocation, the, what is it 6535? I think that's basically right. Um, you know, the development preservation acquisition is so much, was so expensive. And the big need. - based funding distribution, I think that's the most equatable way to do it.

1:16:45Um, and, um, but I wondered about maybe my understanding isn't accurate on this, that the Boulder County portion, we don't, do we then allocate that to the municipalities and Boulder County and say, how do you want to spend this? Or do they seek that funding from us? I can answer that. So there is an advisory committee, commissioners at meets two times a year, um, so for the 2027 allocation, they do, we have a meeting scheduled for September 8th, where those city and town managers will come together and pitch their projects. Um, Sean tracks all of the different dollar amounts that we have. They negotiate numbers and they put forth a slate of projects for you to approve during the budget cycle. Um, so they work that out internally, um, we present that for final approval to the Board of County Commissioners. So, I mean, I guess I'm considering Matt versus where the housing authority for unincorporated Boulder County in the housing authority audit is control it. So I can give you just some quick data points on that of the 17 projects in both years between 25 and 26 that were awarded funding all but one project either went to the public housing Authority or stayed within the government entity. We only did private funding for one project and even that one project had significant,

1:18:13um, partnership with the housing authority. Okay. Well, if it's working, it's working. And if you feel like it's working, I would say let's leave it alone. So I think I'm fine with everything. Okay. Commissioner Solzman. Thank you. Question one. Yes. Question two. Yes. On the last three questions, I feel that we should really lean into our priority - based budgeting conversation to inform how we answer those last three questions. Um, so right now we have, uh, committed that we need to address our 13. 2 million dollar structural deficit. And the general fund currently is supporting housing initiatives. Um, there's a proposal that we talked about to reduce some of the funding. And we heard from you, Susanna, that the initial request, I think was to consider a million dollars in reductions and you've proposed maybe 500, 000, which still is a service cut. I think understanding that total general fund support and understanding what that means for delivery of services to the community, um, it might mean that we have to cut more of the general fund support to the housing services. So I don't understand how we could allocate the funding to other things from this dedicated tax before understanding how much of it is needed to support the highest priority housing programs that we're currently funding with general fund. So I can't answer

1:19:36them at this time, um, just as straightforwardly, I think it would make sense to fund the highest priority projects with the most restricted funding first. So I think you would use, this is more restrictive funding than general fund. I think we would fund the most highly prioritized housing projects with this most restrictive funding. And then we could more clearly see what projects compete for funds that are less restricted with less restricted dollars. So that's how I would approach it. Um, since I'm not sure that we'll get to doing what I would, this is what I would do. But just so that I can weigh in in the event, we don't get to do what I would do. Um, I, I think the population based distribution model is reasonable where it falls short is that Boulder County Housing Authority provides services in some of the jurisdictions that are getting allocated population. That's our population that we serve. So that's not exactly fair. And there should be some sort of adjustment for that, in my opinion. Um, and I think, uh, Boulder's allocation is inflated because they're currently using all their vouchers and long mode. So I think that should also be addressed. Both are contributions that are in the jurisdictions that are receiving direct allocation. And the practice that Boulders using to allocate some of their

1:20:54needs into other jurisdictions should be addressed through that distribution model. Um. I think that it's fine how we've allocated between capital and services. It goes back to my original point. However, about. Needs and whether we're providing the services, we need to with the funding, um, and then I just, so like for the last one, are there other adjustments the board would like to see? I just, I really think understanding the effect that this decision has on layoffs at Boulder County is important and making a very well informed decision. Because I think we can minimize the impact to staff and community if we do this really thoughtfully. Thank you, Commissioner. Thanks Commissioner. Attorney, take a mistake. Thank you. Um, thanks for bringing this back on the questions and thanks for the time check. It's always helpful.

1:21:47So I am fine on that. The recommendation there for the unspent 100, 000 dollars on the first bullet point also on the second one. I think for me, similarly to a commissioner assault, when I was saying, I do have some questions. I had questions around the allocation before, um, previously when we said, yes, let's move forward on this, on the population - based allocation, understanding that some of our cities bouder as an example has other funding sources that the rest of Boulder County doesn't have. And so that was one of my concerns. I think for me to, what would be helpful for me, but clearly we need to have another commissioner who's interested in asking after some additional work, but to have some of that FTE breakout of services that are provided for the entire county in anything that would fit in the ballot language and have that take at least consider to be taken out of the full amount and actually reduce the allocations to, um, the city of Boulder and allocation. So that I would like at least consider that for this review period on the AHT, understanding the breadth of services that are provided for Boulder County residents. So I think that is maybe the third bullet point. I might, I might be, but I'm worried about the supportive services piece on

1:23:18that. I think I already answered, bullet point four that I. Still have some concerns about that approach. And then the last one I think I just provided clarity on what I would need. Could I just. Thank you Commissioner Levy. I was going to encourage the three of you to talk amongst yourselves because I heard some idea for reallocation from Commissioner Stoltzman and from Commissioner Lutzman and wondered if you wanted to discuss. Yeah. I did want to weigh in on that concept. Um, I wouldn't support that. And, uh, and I do want to explain why, um. I think what we're talking about, I guess for me with the starting point is we've got a pot of money that is for the housing, you know, the housing units and whatever form. You know, there we purchase them, we develop them, um, we preserve them in some way.

1:24:17Anyway, that's, that's that. And how are we going to distribute the capital, for lack of a better word funding. Population makes sense to me in that that's where the people are. And that's, that's a very good reflector of, of, you know, where, where this capacity to spend that money. The services I would not, I think I heard both my fellow commissioners sort of wanting to count that money that we spend within the various jurisdictions against their capital allocation, if I was understand. Well, I'll just make an unnecessary point then if that's not what you were saying in that I think, you know, I think going back to, you know, the initial concerns about this money in Boulder County's use and control of these money particularly for services. It was that there's a need for services funding for services within the other two housing authorities. And so for me, that, that wouldn't be any adjustment that I would make to, to the Capitol, um, side of the equation. Commissioner Stoltzman. I have a 12 o'clock meeting that I'm going to be leaving for any minute now.

1:25:34I don't have any change of opinion. Okay. And, uh, Commissioner Lochamine, anything else that you would like to add on this. I would love to have some discussion, but again, what I'm hearing with the silence is there's not any interest in looking at a reduction of capital. Consider how we might need to address FTE needs in our services thinking about homeless services at Boulder County that are super expansive. And am I hearing that right. Or is there interest in having staff bring something back for us to consider and a little bit different of allocation. So I was, I was not hearing another commissioner indicate interest in changing the capital allocation or the population basis for 2027. It will come back to you as part of your decision making in the budget process. And you'll have the opportunity to revisit that at that time if you choose. So that's not, I don't feel like I've been heard very well. So I'll just try to reiterate what I said again in a different way. So I don't think we should do the process that's described in the last three bullets. And I thought I made that relatively clear. We're currently proposing making substantial, um, impacts to our employees to general fund reductions that we have to do.

1:26:55And that includes with reductions to providing housing services and funding for housing. If you think of just will it be corner, the general fund provided support to Willoughby Corner to bail it out when there wasn't enough housing fun tax. So we've spent substantial funding, um, on housing out of general fund. And that's good. And like, it's very important because it's been such a pressing need. And now we have a pressing need to look at what our highest priorities are across the general fund and fund those first. And so I think we should take a similar approach with all of our priority - based budgeting that we're doing. And we should fund our highest priority housing projects first. And use the most restrictive funding first. And so that would be this affordable and attainable housing funding because it's more restricted than general fund money that we're using currently to subsidize this program. And so I would approach it differently. I just didn't, because you hadn't gone yet. You know, we went Claire Ashley, then Marta. I didn't think anyone else would have any interest in revisiting it because of the political pressure that there is from the other jurisdictions for us to allocate our tax revenue to them. Even though they have their own abilities to generate revenue as you pointed out, as you have pointed

1:28:05out, in fact, they have more ability to generate revenue because they have tools we don't have available as a county that they have available as cities. So I do think we should revisit this. And I would use our priority - based budgeting that we've set forward is the tools that we use to consider what we would fund. Thank you. That's what I heard you say right now is talking about capital. Are you interested in looking at the capital and services or just the capital. Both. Okay. That's what that helps me because I wasn't sure if there was a second. That helps me as well. Thank you. When you said projects, I heard capital in my head. Thank you. I know you're going to get frustrated with me because this is the second time you've tried to explain what you're saying. But, um, and I understand conceptually what you're saying. But practically speaking, what are you, what are you proposing. What money, how much money would you reallocate from where to where in, in our AHT money? So the reason I can't just directly answer that question is we haven't been, I have not been sent the priority based budgeting scores. And so I have not been able to do the work that I will do when I get the scores to understand what the highest

1:29:21priority projects are. And I would allocate the most restricted money to the highest priority projects first. Because right now we're looking at making a cut in the general fund to our funding for affordable housing. And it was, in my opinion, a nice round number whenever I see a nice round number, that makes me think that it is nice and arbitrary. So it's 500, 000 dollars, 0. 00. That is a nice and arbitrary number. So I would like to. And I know it started off at a million. And I think that the contribution is actually 2 million total. And that has other effects on the general fund. So I need to look at the project scores. So that we reduce the general fund support for the housing authority and replace it with. Well, I haven't seen the scores yet. So I don't, I don't know. I just want to understand the basic direction. Yeah. Also current like the current proposal that we had from the County administrator was to make a cut to affordable housing to the, from the general fund to try to reduce the impact to community and to staff for what we have to do in the general fund. And so I completely understand that and appreciate the effort. I am just trying to quantify what number that could be and how we

1:30:33might approach that. And so if we fund the highest priority programs with the most restricted money first, then we can compare less high priority programs. Not to say they're not good programs. They're just less high priority against one another. So we can then figure out how to compare two very strange things. We end up as Commissioners having to make decisions about four H versus sex trafficking. And that's very complicated. Like, but those two things are competing for funding. And so it will help me if we compare things that are similarly ranked instead of right now we're comparing things that are not similarly ranked because we're not using the highest, most restrictive funds for the highest priority things first. And I just haven't been able to do this because I don't have the score sheets yet, but they're coming. It's not that it won't happen. It's just that it hasn't happened in time for this conversation.

1:31:23Got it. And the only reason I said the things that confused everyone is that I didn't think that anyone would entertain this idea of using this to go about it. So I wanted to participate in the conversation if we were going to move forward today. So I also weighed in on what I would do if you both said no to me. No, I got it. And your assumption on my part is accurate. Right. So yeah. All right. Commissioners. Thank you for that guidance. I know we are out of time today. And, um, you will see additional AHT allocation come forward to in the budget process with the scoring that, um, Commissioner Stoltzman is referring to for priority based budgeting. I just want to take a moment of personal privilege as this is my last public meeting with you as County administrator. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Jan. Thanks, Jonah. And, um, I will exercise my chair duties to put us in ajournment because this is our last meeting of the day. So we are adjourned.