Transcript

0:00:15All right, Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you. And we are recording. Good morning. Today is May 19th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have all three commissioners present this morning in the hearing room. And we will start by sitting as the Eldorado Springs Public Improvement District. Board of Directors. Not the Housing Authority Board of Directors, and we will, to hear about the Eldorado Springs PID management, ITA. I think it's just a consent agenda item. So if we don't have any questions, I would move approval. Thank you, thank you. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second, all in favor. Aye. So we have approved that. I'm so sorry, I missed that. We will now sit as the Board of County Commissioners, and we have a consent agenda, items 5A through E may have a motion. Move approval. I was gonna ask if I may, to move item 5A to discussion. All right, we will remove 5A from the Agenda. So this would be then what is shown as B through E.

0:01:32I have a motion. I'll move approval as amended. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you. And just to give, looks like NOT Nguyen and Cinnamon Kitchen may time to jump on. We'll go ahead and put that at the end of our discussion agenda. So Endless Commissioner, which means you give them a heads up at all that you. About half an hour ago. So everybody was unmitting, so I just pinged Matt assistant. So hopefully we'll get someone on. I think at the end of discussion is probably Riot Commissioner. Thank you. Okay. Okay, so then our first discussion item is appointment to the resource conservation advisory board, Robin. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair Exmissioners, Robin Valdez with the Commissioner's Office. And before you is an appointment to the resource conservation and vice report, we have an applicant from the town Alliance for the town of Lyons Representative. There are two vacancies on this board. The other is a member at large. And the applicant is Ken Singer. He is active with the Sustainable Futures Commission, which is the town Alliance Advisory Board to the Count's Board of Trustees, and they focus on environmental storeship, renewable energy transition, waste reduction, and clean heat programs. And he's retired, so he has plenty of time for your consideration. Thank you, Robin. Questions. I do, thank you. Thanks, Robin. Just

0:03:11a curiosity on if there was a staff ladies on involved in the recommendation or that piece of the process that you wouldn't mind. Okay, yes. Megan Weebie. Okay, thank you. All right, good. Then I think we can have a motion. Move approval as recommended. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you very much. We now have. 6B is an amendment to the ARPA community basemental health trainings contract for LEAF. Good morning, Marnie. Good morning, commissioners. Marnie Huffman Green, our BA Mental Health and Social Resilience Project Manager and Interim Co Division Manager of Strategic Initiatives. Nice to see everyone this morning jumping on the Lyons theme. I'm here to discuss the amendment that's being requested to ensure that LEAF can continue to strategically and effectively utilize our bufu funding to meet the growing needs of the mental health community and lions, similar to previous amendments that we've presented to the board. This change reflects a thoughtful and necessary adjustment to respond to clinical staff turnover and increase community demand. The amendment has been approved by the County Attorney's Office, the ARPA admin team, Leaf Leadership. And it really strengthens Leaf's ability to deliver their high quality, culturally responsive services. The main shift for the amendment is just expanding therapeutic partnerships, adding wraparound case management and continuing their French porch wellness programming. Um,

0:04:46it's a reflex their ability to mack, again, maximize impact the impact of the ARPA dollars. And I'm sorry if that was too weedy. No, that's great. Um, Commissioner, has any questions. I don't have any questions. Thanks, Marnie. No questions. Thank you, Marnie, for the explanation of. Then we're ready for a motion. Move approval of 6B. Second. All in favor. Aye. Okay, thank you. We will now turn to the community services behavioral health assistance program grant application. And wow, amazing. We have someone on short notice. Appreciate it. Um, that if you could just introduce yourself and then give a brief explanation of what this is. And we'll see what kinds of questions we have for you. Yes, thank you for having me. Uh, my name is Nye Nguye Nguyen. I supervise the behavioral health assistance program.

0:05:46Um, so we work with people who have co - according disorders and at risk of the competency process. Um, we are requesting an extension that defines, um, fund that we have been using for operation. This one is used for us to be able to provide medication supplies, um, treatment and transportation and communication with our clients. Um, I do feel that this would be helping us, um, to further this. We have identify, um, a bridge. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Um, I didn't find a gap within the system where our clients were exiting from jail may not be getting the prescriptions they need and would have to go to, um, urgent psych in Louisville just to get the medications they need and say, many of them do not have the, um, the mean to get there.

0:06:44So we would like to get this extension and the additional fun of 100, 000 dollars so that we can provide valuation medications and continue to provide supplies to a client. Okay. Thank you questions. Yeah. Thank you. I did have just a question to understand what I'm reading, which is on the screen looked like 120, 000 one time grant request. And then when I was looking at the documents, the memo reads as, uh, additional allocation of 100, 000 and a carryover. So the documents as this request includes authorization to roll over 20, 000 dollars of fun So the document that was presented as a memo didn't line up with what I was reading initially here, just when I quit glance at the agenda. So it seems inconsistent. And I'm just trying to understand which one is true. If it's just one, one time grant funding period or if there is a reauthorization of carryover funding. I'm so sorry for the confusion. So yes, we're asking for an additional hundred of a hundred thousand. And we do have about 20, 000 dollars that could be carry over from the existing fund that we have on firence currently.

0:08:03Thank you. So I'm just, I don't know if theone else I'm Community Service. I'm just for me. I'm trying to figure out why these are in the same ask because it seems like a rollover of budget would be a separate item versus a hundred thousand. And I'm looking at, we have budget people here in the room and I'm getting a head nod. So just is this something that's an immediate item that needs to be addressed. This morning. And you've got a budget person coming up to the front of the room. What you can't, uh, or you can't see, but Emily Beam is coming. Oh, maybe you can't see. She's Emily Beam's coming forward to help us maybe. Yeah. Hi, good morning, Commissioner Beam with the Office of Financial Management. Um, the dedicated resources fund 117, which I imagine this is where this is being held.

0:08:55Um, we do operate under a zero base budget, um, but the funds always roll forward because they have some sort of statutory requirement behind the funding. So it's a little different than the general fund, but we always base that new fiscal year budget based on available revenues and upcoming contracts. So this is not, this is not an official ask to move budget in any type of way. Okay. So we don't need to take two different actions, approve a roll over and approve an additional applying for additional funds. No, not for this dollar amount in the dedicated resources fund. Um, we have sufficient budget to cover these types of adjustments throughout the year. And it's not necessary to ask for a budget request for this dollar amount. Yeah. Thank you. I just read it differently than you. And so it doesn't cause any concern for me.

0:09:47I read it as a total of 120, 000 of one time project. And that's made up of the 20, 000 that they would like to roll forward and then 100, 000 grant. And oftentimes we get requests to give direction. And then staff goes through the processes that need to be gone through. So I have no concerns. Well, that's a clarification for me because the document, again, it's not what's on the screen and what's in our agenda packet. But the document says very specifically two different amounts of money. It doesn't is what I was trying to clarify with my comments. I read it differently. You're interpreting it in a different way than I did is all I'm saying. Okay. I won't finish my statement. Um, I appreciate the clarification. I appreciate your staff being here and have the clarification that the words in here can be interpreted differently. And so that's why the three of us up here. And that's super helpful. Okay. So, um, your questions, you're satisfied with the responses you got commissioner. You mean. Like I understand what the intent is, but this, the way that it's been clarified this morning doesn't actually isn't a grant of 120, 000. So I guess we can interpret the words on here differently, but what, what is being done here is not, in my mind, the

0:11:12same, the same thing. Cause the 20, 000 is already allocated. It's just a carryover. So it actually would be a hundred thousand dollar grant. So that's, so it's the end number, it looks like the same and that's fine. And it sounds like we don't have to have the process that I was curious about. So I think we can, you want to make sure that the motion that we make reflects what's actually happening, which is that it's an additional 100, 000 dollars It's not an additional 120, 000 dollars Right, and it doesn't sound like we need board approval for that other 20, 000. So I just want to make sure community services knows that they don't need that from us, but the 120, 000 grant, um, is what looks like it's being requested. I think we just approve the, um, the, the line, you know, the behavioral health, the BHAP, uh, grant application to the FINE's committee. I mean, that is what the application will say and the explanation doesn't really have binding effect. Well, I actually appreciate the way they brought it forward indicating what they would do at the 20, 000 roll forward. I think that that's a good practice. And just to be transparent and clear how we're spending funds. And the first part of the sentence ahead of the comma is applying

0:12:31for a grant and the total project is a 120, 000 one - time project. So I just read it differently. And I think it is clear. So I just don't like that we're changing the direction because I think it's a good idea to do the 120, 000 dollar project of some existing funding to roll forward and a grant. Okay. Um, I, I, I hear what you're saying. We just need to have a very clear record what we're approving. And I think, I think that is clear. And so, um, Commissioner Stolzman, would you like to make a motion? I'll move a privilege of 5A. Second. Okay. All in favor. Aye. Thank you. Um, and thank you for jumping on and helping us with that. And that brings us to the end of our, uh, business meeting agenda. So we're ready to authorize Executive session. Thank you.

0:13:25Commissioner Levy. Natalie Swingt. Commissioners deputy for the record. Um, I have item 7A and 7B here. So for item 7A, I'd request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session, pursuant to CRS 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4E. Instructions to negotiators on Wednesday, May 20th, 2026 at 1 p. m. to discuss potential tax increment sharing agreements with Longman Urban Renewal Authority. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. I just have a question. Um, I don't, I have no objection to going in for instructions to negotiators. I wonder if we would want legal advice. I don't know. I actually don't know the content of what we're talking about, but I suppose if we did, we could notice another session at another time and have that discussion. Thank you for that question, commissioner Stoltzman. I had a similar curiosity. So I'd be happy to include that in item 7B when I'm noticing under legal advice next. Thank you. Of course. And so for, uh, item 7B Commissioners, I request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into executive session, Pursuant to CRS 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4B legal advice. On Wednesday, May 20th, 2026 at 1 p. m.

0:14:50to discuss two topics. One being potential tax increment sharing agreements with Longmont Urban Renewal Authority, as well as the parks and open space trails pilot program process. Move approval. Second. Okay. All in favor. Aye. So that brings us to item 8, which is our monthly meeting with the head start division manager. And we need to have a Kane Oak. Join us. Is she with us? I am on the screen. Okay. Virtually. Yep. You're not. Oh, there you are. Okay. We had a different view in front of us. Okay. Akane, thank you for joining us. Yes. I'm just going to share my screen. Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. Akane Ogren Division Manager for Boulder County head start. To scroll up, hopefully, uh, the size of the screen works for you all. I will start with the end of the school year, the end of the 2025, 26 school year. Um, we've had some changes to the, um, last day of school, uh, for each of our sites for different reasons. Um, due to snow closure and a number of floods that we've had. So per section 1302. 21 of the head start program performance standards, uh, programs must make every effort to schedule makeup days using existing resources. If ours of plan class operations fall below the number required per year, which is 162 days.

0:16:58So accordingly, the last day of school for each site, um, DAGNI and Lafayette has no change. And, um, their last day of school is Thursday for children this Friday for staff. And that is because the lease agreement was not able to be amended to add time, uh, to the school year at that site due to YMCA summer camp occupying the preschool wing of the building starting on May 23rd. So there won't be a change for Lafayette. In Boulder in the Woodland site, they have extended their last day, um, for children will be May 22nd. And then staff will return after Memorial Day holiday, uh, on May 26th for a last day. Um, there are no conflicts that prevent the Woodlands site from adding time. So they've done that in order to meet the head start performance standards. Um, and then at the Mapleton Boulder site, we've actually extended to May 28th for the last day of for children and May 29th, the last day for staff. Uh, the lease agreement with the YMCA has been signed by both parties to increase, um, our occupancy by four days. This does not cover all of the day's students actually missed at the Mapleton site, um, due to, um, power outage days and multiple, um, flooding incidents that happened at the building, uh, but the, there was a

0:18:29conflict with again, summer YMCA summer camp. So we will actually need to vacate on the 29th, which we are doing. And BBSD food service team will continue to provide breakfast, lunch, and snacks at Mapleton and Woodlands, uh, for the Extension days, which is great. I'll pause there in case the questions about the last day of school. Yep. Commissioner's questions about that. I don't have any questions. Thank you. Um, Conne, I just, um, I don't know whether this year was unusual in any respect with, you know, in terms of missed days because of closures for all the various reasons, snow floods, power outages, et cetera. Um, but I'm just wondering whether it might be prudent to try to negotiate some additional days for next year. So that if we need them, we don't face these conflicts with their summer camp programs. It won't require negotiating with our, um, the way I am CA, what we've done is changed, um, our calendar, um, to include another five days, uh, in the school year to account for any additional snow power outage wind, you know, fire days, those kinds of things. Um, and what we've done is just looked at our conference schedule days. Um, and changed how we're managing our conferences and home conferences, um, home visits, uh, in order to add back those days. We're not

0:20:03taking out. We're just changing the way that we're doing them. Um, running them, um, more in the beginning of the school year during, we have two weeks of pre - service and prep planning where we can actually build in the home visits at the beginning of the school year rather than taking them out of, um, having staff take additional days off to conduct those. And we're just playing around with the dates that we have available in order to increase back, um, emergency closure days. Okay. Well, that, that's great. I just wanted to, you know, make sure that we were somehow going to be able to accommodate that in the future. It seems like some of these uncertainties are an increasing fact of life. And in addition to wanting to be in compliance with the head start program performance standards, you know, we want the kids to have the advantage of 162 days of, um, classroom instructions. So I appreciate that. Yep. I appreciate that work.

0:21:05Okay. Then I think we'll move on to meal service. Yes. So moving from the extension of this year, um, into our data for meal service, um, in April, total meals delivered was 6, 327 total meals served 4, 907. The BBSD invoice for meals 18, 190 13 CAFP reimbursement 14, 282, 31 with a cost to Boulder County Head Start of 3, 907 82 for the month of April, averaging, um, so far through the school year at 3, 651 73. And those numbers are tied to attendance. And so our attendance data here, 19 days of school in April with 88 percent attendance in Lafayette 86 percent in Boulder at the woodlands location 83 percent at the Mapleton Y overall program attendance for the school year at 82 percent. And just one more month of data to provide for next one. Program enrollment. Oh, this has been so up until yesterday we were going to be at 110, um, and I've just learned that we've had another drop right at the end of the school year. So we will not be able to break 109 for the school year to end out. And so this is actually data that is now, um, outdated as of yesterday. So we will hold it 109 and I'll change the graph accordingly.

0:22:49We just had one last drop at the end of the school year. Okay. Um, I will move down to budget. The graph will be coming, um, the graph below reflects the most current revenue, which, um, an expense projections, but still through March, 2026. So the graph isn't different than what I presented last month. Um, still indicating a projected surplus of approximately 20, 000 at the end of the program's fiscal year. Um, the April fiscal data is currently in reconciliation process. And so as soon as I have those finalized numbers, um, I can update the board with that data. But so this is actually still the graph from last month. Um, and I will send a new one forward as soon as I have it. And then my last section of the report is just ongoing monitoring and communication. Um, the education services team continues to receive regional, uh, support with work plans in development for next year's next school year's professional development coaching and onboarding that work will be, um, completed over this summer months to prepare for the next school year. Uh, the 2026 head start competition grant still has not opened. We are waiting for that. Um, I'm anticipating that it will open over the summer, uh, but still no word official word that it, uh, will. The Extension Funding that we received

0:24:18is in order to get us through the program and families, um, through this competition grant process. Uh, and so, um, the only other, uh, funding notice is that, uh, we did not receive, um, uh, grant funding through the Built application process. Um, the outcome is disappointing. We were given, um, a little heads up that that might be the case prior, uh, to the official notice coming out, um, but we will continue to monitor future funding opportunities as we, as they become available. And that is, um, that is the end of my report. Thank you, Akane, Commissioners. Any additional questions or comments discussion? I just had a quick question. Thanks, Connie, for the update in that 110, just to see it there for a moment is still positive. I think, um, just given all the work that y'all have done to try and get full enrollment on the bullet foundation grant, could you remind us how much that funding application was for. It was for 35, 000, um, we had been receiving 71. It was cut in half last year. And then, um, it went down to zero for next year. Thank you. Yeah. I don't have additional questions. Okay. Okay. It looks like we, um, don't have any additional questions for you, Akane. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for a great year.

0:25:46Almost done. Um, so then we will move into, uh, item nine, which is a, uh, a public hearing on the Elder Auto Springs Public Improvement District Board of Directors. And we have Office of Financial Management, Emily Beam joining us at the table to present this item for us. Hi, good morning commissioners. Emily Beam with the Office of Financial Management. Uh, this is a quarter one budget amendment request for the El Dorado Springs PID. It was previously approved at the quarter one general Boulder County Amendment hearing, uh, but we did get clarification that it needed to be formally approved by the LDOP ID instead of the Board of County Commissioners. So today the Office of Financial Management is seeking guidance from the Elder Oda Springs PID board regarding the quarter one budget amendment requests. The Public Works Department is requesting a one - time budget amendment in the amount of 200, 000 dollars in the El Dorado Springs PID Fund 121 under the El Dorado Springs PID Appropriation ESL - 2. The L Dorado Springs Wastewater Treatment Facility has received a notice of violation from the Colorado water quality control division. An upgrades are estimated to cost approximately a million dollars. The PID is seeking a state - revolving fund loan for the full amount, but funding is not expected to be received until 2027. On

0:27:16March 3rd, 2026, the Board of County Commissioners authorized a cost sharing agreement between Boulder County and the PID to advance the project. So today we are just requesting that formal budget increase to the Fun 121 to allow the spending. And we will be booking appropriate accounting entries, um, on the balance sheet to account for the cost sharing situation. Okay, thank you, Emily. Commissioner's questions. I don't have any questions. Thank you. Okay. And this is noticed as a public hearing. And so I will ask whether we have anybody who is interested in testifying on this matter. And then hearing Room and it looks like no one has signed up to speak virtually. So I will close the public hearing. And it looks like we have a resolution number 2026 - 002. Is that correct? That goes to this item. Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. Thank you. We could get a motion to approve that resolution. Move approval.

0:28:21Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Uh, Nye Nist. We have a work session. On Subdivision Paving, commissioners, would you like a short break at this time. I'm also like, we're fine. So, uh, we have our County administrator, Jana Peterson. We have our director of Public Works, Steve Durian joining us. Um, Robert Jacobs coming forward. And for members of the public who may be watching, this is, um, this is a work session, which the commissioners will be discussing some funding options and direct providing direction to our public works department and our county administrator, Jana Peterson will be facilitating this. All right. Hi, good morning, Commissioners. I will kick it off. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. I was just waiting for the presentation. If we can get that up. There we go. So we'll get the presentation up for you, Commissioners, the correct one. For this session. Good morning. I'm Jana Peterson County administrator and I'm here with Public Works team. Um, with a topic for your work session this morning related to Subdivision Paving. And what you would like to do with, um, any additional neighborhoods or communities that come forward requesting subdivision paving, public improvement districts in the future. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Steve Durian, our Public Works Director. To take it away from

0:30:10here. All right. Good morning, commissioners. Um, I just wanted to kind of go over. You've got a memo in front of you that you've reviewed, but I also wanted to just go over a little bit of history and a couple of scenarios that we've developed to illustrate some of the challenges that we have with Subdivision paving funding. Um. Let's see. Yeah, don't get answer. This. There we go. Um, so, uh, the history of Subdivision paving at least within the last 10 years or so is that we've been funding subdivision paving through Public Improvement Districts or PIDs. Uh, the two that we've done since about 2018 have been Burgundy Park and now moving forward, uh, this year with Homestead, uh, these subdivisions have been approved or they're paving has been approved with very similar models. And that is 30 percent of the initial paving costs come from the rodent bridge fund as a contribution to the PID. The PIDs then raise a property tax levy to fund the additional 70 percent of those initial costs. And then the front end of the project, the first initial paving is paid for by the road maintenance fund then paid back through those levies over the course of about seven years typically. And the long - term life cycle costs of ongoing paving is paid in pertuity by the,

0:31:37um, by the tax levees that are raised by, uh, by the PIDs. Uh, so now, uh, we've got two that have been done that way. We have two more that are talking to us, uh, currently and are seem likely to be going to the ballot November to create their PIDs. And those would be semuline and sombrero ranch subdivisions. Um, if they do move forward, we would likely schedule their construction as early as 28. It takes about a year to prepare for that. And that's really the earliest is practical to do the paving. So it'd be summer of 2028. I don't know if. I'm going to get that slide and just go right to staff recommendations for future PID. So one thing we've realized in this, especially with two larger PIDs, um, that this, uh, the commitment to the 30 percent funding and the commitment to up front paving can take up quite a bit of our, uh, annual budget for paving. And we have recently gotten, uh, seven, about 7. 5 million dollars in our 2026 budget, uh, which kind of gives us a model for how much, uh, paving we can achieve outside of the subdivision. So we really are trying to focus, uh, and prioritize our arterial and collector roadways outside a subdivisions to keep that good quality of pavement

0:33:07in, uh, at a high level. And so, uh, we're kind of looking at ways to balance both the demands from the, uh, from future subdivisions against the demands from maintaining all the rest of our, uh, network. So our proposal is a little bit different than our historical proposal. And that would be that we no longer fund the cost of initial paving that we limit the amount of available contribution for all PIDs to about. Going forward. That would be about a 750, 000 dollar annual commitment to that local, or I should say that, uh, that road maintenance match or the 30 percent matcher, uh, and also, uh, then we're also considering staff time. It's a relatively small amount of staff time that goes into managing this. But a question that we would have for the commissioners is should we try to recover that staff time, uh, for all the management we do of these, uh, of these projects. So I wanted to just put out, I don't know what's, this is not the right. It's not the right presentation. Okay. So let me just kind of describe why without having a visual. So I can remember how to do this now. We did some math.

0:34:34And basically, we determined that if we were to go forward with the way we've done it before, for one, our 30 percent match would be, yes, that makes sense. Uh, And so if we get a lot of projects coming in at any one year, that, that match goes up and up, uh, in order to keep that 30 percent commitment, which is why we've kind of decided we'd like to recommend capping the 30 percent at 750, And if we have requests that come in that exceed that amount that we would split that cost, uh, based on, uh, the value of the paving project. So you have two million dollar project and a one million dollar project two thirds of that would go to or the two million dollar project one. We'll go to the one million dollar project. By waiting for the PIDs to have the funding. Uh, available to them. Uh, this would allow us to pave over the course of that time where otherwise we would have to put forward the money, wait for it to be paid back. And that, because that could be a seven year period, that's seven years of loss paving to the rest of the community. Um, so and, and so that's one of the reasons why we have, uh, recommended that we limit, um, our contribution or limit

0:35:57our work in the way that I describe and that we would wait for the PIDs to come up with their own funding before doing that work. So those are the two, probably the two big changes that we have in mind. Um, and so, uh, if, if we were to continue as we have been about half of our paving budget in 2028 would go toward these two subdivisions, um, because we would have a commitment of something over about 3. 6 million dollars out of our 7. 5 million dollars where we have available for paving. So really in that standpoint, it's really kind of an equity consideration and that the entire community has the priority of paving while these two subdivisions kind of have to wait in line. For them their own PIDs to raise the funding themselves. Um, now of course the downside of that is that these PIDs have to wait for seven years before they can have the money available to pave. And that may be a bit of a turn off for those folks who were, we're asking to consider voting for this PID. So there are downsides and upsides to both scenarios, but, uh, this is, um, a way to consider equity, but also continue the paving that we have within the community other than just the PIDs. Okay. Thank you, Steve.

0:37:14I think with that commissioner, as we are getting used to this work session format, I just want to acknowledge, um, we got some little bumps and glitches along the way in your memo that we sent to you to prepare for this. We have four questions identified where you might want to use those for your discussion. And of course, we will take the conversation wherever you would like to take it. I think, you know, just in terms of soliciting your comments and facilitating the conversation, I'm recalling from our last work session that Commissioner Stoltzman is up first, um, for discussion this morning. And, um, if I misremembering that, please tell me, but I think it is Commissioner Stolzman, uh, your turn to start the work session conversation. Thank you. So the first question I'll just start with that one in isolation rather than try to take them all on. Does that work for the group? I could, I could make my comments on all of them, but that seems bulky. So the first question is shall the County plan to continue the current practice of funding paving PIDs upfront or does the board prefer until waiting for the funding to be available from the PIDs. And if for the people online, the staff recommendation was to wait if I read it correctly in the packet. Um,

0:38:34so I actually think that that makes it almost zero percent chance that anyone will form a PID. So whenever I'm thinking about, um, tax equity, one thing I think about is intergenerational equity. And I think if we have the PIDs do a pay as you go model, it will basically break the whole concept of the program. And I understand why you recommended to do it. Um, but I think I would like to sort of suss out some of these different things. So I understand some of the trade - offs and dilemmas that have caused you to make the recommendation you have. I think if what we did was calculate the mill rate, we would need for the arterials and collectors to get the 70 pavement condition index. And make a table that shows what that dollar amount would be, what that mill rate would be and what the amounts to the municipalities would be that would be associated with that. That would be sort of a starting point. And then show, um, what options we have as a Board of County Commissioners to make a loan to another governmental entity. Because essentially what we would be doing is making a loan to the Public Improvement Districts that formed and then have them pay the loan back. So it wouldn't be money for road maintenance. It

0:39:53would be money for a loan to another governmental entity. And so I have the same concerns you have with funding it up front, but I would just take a different approach to address the concerns. And I think I have some more points that'll help show the plan, but they answer some of the other questions. So I'll just stop there. Thank you Commissioner Stoltzman on your point about borrowing just a question that I think would help staff if the three of you could add this into the mix is whether as an alternative, um, having the PID borrow, you know, issue bonds or something like that. Is that something that you would like on the table for the conversation? So I think that's a matter, sorry, I don't know if I'm allowed to answer that. I don't know. I'm asking you. I don't know. So I think that so on that question, I think that's a matter for the PID group when they gather signatures. So if the Public Improvement District is sufficiently large, that could be a really good option because they could get a favorable interest rate. But if the PID is very small, the Bondo show is costs, just like the juice would not be worth the squeeze. If it's, if it's, let's say a subdivision and the total cost of the project is

0:41:01like 1. 5 million dollars. But if all of the town of Nyewat went together and did it, it could be a really good option. So I just think when the vote that want to organize a PID organize, they would need to determine if they want to give the Public Improvement District bonding authority in their ballot question. And then the District could authorize bonds. So that's how I would approach that. Thank you. Um, let's move on to Commissioner Lochamine next. Sure. Good morning. First of all, Steve and your team happy public works appreciation week. Um, and thanks for all the work that yell are doing. Um, I just, it sounds like what we're going to do here. And thanks for the introduction kind of background is address question by question. Uh, and I think for me, and I appreciated some of the data in here that you shared just around other counties and the funding. So for me, there's this piece of funding several years ago.

0:42:02We had talked about our transportation tax and potentially raising that at some point, um, we were working on an extension of that particular tax at the time, but we talked about in the future in Boulder County may need to go back to voters and talk about the real expenses of, um, not just Subdivision paving, but all of the pieces that come in of maintenance. And I got an opportunity to sit with some, some folks yesterday in the Public Works team and really hear about concerns around the ability to do the work that Boulder County residents are expecting us to do, um, as an organization in regards to, um, maintenance, et cetera. So when I looked at this, it would appear that there is more funding in other counties and our neighboring jurisdictions. Um, so I do think that's something that we need to talk about.

0:42:54Um, and you're asking me specific question, um, in the bullet point here. For me, one of my concerns about having the PIDs wait until the funding is kind of what you described at the beginning. Steve is eat a long process for a PID, a neighborhood to get together and decide they want to do PID and they got to be pretty savvy and they're going to meet with staff. And to go through the development measure and all the different pieces. I feel like Boulder County is an organization needs to figure out how to keep the process going versus creating, to me, it would feel like we were intentionally creating a weight period. Um, so in regards to that first piece, I do think that we need to figure out a way for us to be able to financially support on that 30 percent for PIDS to be part of the subdivision process to respond to Commissioner Stolzman's question. I don't know if it fits into the ballot measure. And I had kind of the same thinking of, if you have a really small group versus a larger group. I would like us to see what is an option and our OFM, some of our OFM folks are here in the room. I would like to see that come back as some recommendations about what are those

0:44:15opportunities and not necessarily put it on the PIDs. That's just my interpretation. There's a whole lot of pieces already involved. And then to have people try and figure out, oh, is it a bond measures? For residents, I wonder what Boulder County is an organization be able to take on in that piece of it in regards to the financing. So that's question one. Surely. Be. Yeah. Thanks. Um, I, I always appreciate, uh, efforts to break these things down into bite - sized pieces and ask the questions in a logical order. And I think you have three commissioners who refuse to be corralled that way. And so I, you know, you had a way you wanted the discussion to go and, um, and we're noncompliant. That's okay. But I think it's because you want to go, we will follow it. Well, no, I think as I say that injust, really. It's to me, all these questions are all wrapped up together. And, um, because, and I share, I think the sentiment, uh, that Commissioner Stolzman and Commissioner Lochiman expressed that, uh, I don't think we, it's reasonable to ask them to wait seven years after they approve something to then actually see the improvements. Um, you know, people think, Oh, I'm going to, you know, I'm going to be paying this tax. I'm

0:45:49not going to see the benefit of it. Maybe I'm going to move before that. So I think we need to find a way to fund it. And, um, just from all the direction and the conversations I've had in my now almost five and a half years as a commissioner. You know, that I want to protect that 7. 5 million dollars that we were able to find to go to the general, you know, our arterials. And, you know, have the general driving public see the benefit of that money. And I guess what I wonder, and I don't know whether my comments that I put in the memo came through. And you could see that. You know, we, as we've talked about our overall budget in Boulder County and the fund balance that we have in fun one - on - one, what I've been wanting to see is an orderly. Intentional plan for how we might use these funds over a period of time while we maintaining a healthy fund balance. For me, it needs to be above the minimum that's required. Because we never know what's going to come along. But to me, it would be appropriate to use those funds for this purpose. Um, knowing that they're going to be paid. Back. Um, I would. And the 30 percent, I guess I don't know.

0:47:25Whether I would want to take that. That's not going to be paid back. Of course. Um, so I guess I haven't really thought through whether I would want that 30 percent county contribution to come out of fund balance or not. But, uh, but that's what I would look to. When you asked Commissioner Stolzman the question about bonds, I just thought that, you know, the expense and the complexity, legal fees, et cetera, of putting a bomb deal together just seems like that's just really layering on more cost that if we have the funds and don't need to go to a bond, I'd rather do it that way. Um, so I mean, that's, I think I'd like to test out with my fellow board members. Whether we feel and we've more fortunately, we have, um, our CFO and our, um, our budget officer here as well that might be able to help us out on, you know, whether I think we had provided direction to think about strategically how we might want to invest some of that fund balance, you know, whether this might be inappropriate use of it. Thanks Commissioner Levy. I want to acknowledge that that will probably require some follow - up work from the team with OFM. I was here today. And also maybe with the County Attorneys on what are the, uh,

0:48:47potential legal restrictions on your different funds and how they can be used. So I don't think we'd be prepared to address that on the fly today, but we can take that. It sounds like all three of you have a lot of interest in that. And so we can definitely take that as a follow - up assignment. What would be helpful? Is it that? I just, when you say we all three have a lot of interest in that. Oh, sorry. It sounds like you all three have an interest in understanding how the county can be the financer of subdivision paving. There were a lot of things I didn't agree with. I heard you talk about a loan to the PID. And I mean, that's the way maybe the structure of it might be out of that fund balance alone to the PID. I mean, part of, I mean, part of what I can get, I can make a pathway to accomplish what you're talking about. It's just that I don't believe that we can use general fund reserve for our 30 percent match. Because I think our 30 percent match is rodent bridge work. And so I think that has to be a mill levy. I just. Yeah. And I, that was the one where I said I don't know whether I would want to do

0:49:56that. So that's, I would have that on the table for discussion and further exploration. And I'm not sure I mean, I think I heard you, Commissioner Loan talking about maybe wanting to go to the ballot, to the voters to get more money for this purpose. So yeah, I agree with your, uh, I think your synopsis there at Janet. I am interested in looking at how the county confunded. And it might be a tax. It might be some fun that I'm, it might be a transfer of funding. I don't know. Um, so I would be, I'm still supportive of looking at what we, what's available to us. What have we not considered? What have we done in the past that might feel revived? I don't know. Thank you. And, um, I heard both commissioner Levy and Commissioner Stolzman sort of get into the next topic, which is 30 percent the right amount. I heard you both say 30 percent, but I think it would be helpful if you all could clarify, does that feel like the right, um, I'm going to call it County Match for Subdivision Paving moving forward.

0:51:08And Commissioner Lochiman, if you don't mind starting on this one. Sure. Yeah. I mean, for me, I feel like that's the number that we've been talking about the last couple of years. And I feel like we just need to stay there. And, um, it'd be fine and, you know, if a team in four years or so wants to talk about that again. But I think for the residents and the people that are considering pits to change that number significantly, it just doesn't feel good because I know the, it just takes a lot of work and the process involved. Thank you. Other commissioners anything more that you want to say about 30 percent No, what Commissioner Lachiman said. Just for the benefit of the record. I do want to say a little bit more. And sorry if it's too redundant, but so part of my thinking around Y 30 percent is a good number has to do with the split of residential streets, arterial streets and collector streets around the County by jurisdiction. So in our community, we've done a fairly good job of encouraging neighborhoods to be in incorporated areas with some exceptions, the 111 that we're really talking about today. But for people that live in a city, their neighborhood street is often paid for by either their HOA, a private street or through

0:52:19the city, funds, um, the way our state has set up funding for counties to fund streets is that we set a mill levy every year. And that is to fund Roden Bridge Expenditures goes back to those incorporated areas. So people that are living in a city are getting some funding from the County taxes that they pay in property taxes that goes into their arterial and collectors in their city. And it's not sufficient to cover all other neighborhood costs. So if we cover the neighborhood costs for unincorporated areas, it's really a benefit that we're providing to some county residents and not to others. So when you start to look at the breakdown of the number of lane miles of neighborhood streets by jurisdiction, um, you, you can sort of start to make an argument for yourself that the county could possibly be contributing to some neighborhood streets in some jurisdictions on the order of 30 percent when you start to look at all the math. Now that's declined over time substantially with costs going up. But that sort of like when I was looking at different, uh, ratios of neighborhood to arterial and collector streets and then state highways and different jurisdictions. I was able to convince myself. And I would address that because that's also in that second question is it says should the County

0:53:41continue to provide a contribution of 30 percent from red and bridge. And should we have a cap on each year? I think we need to have a cap because of how the shareback works. And I think it would end up putting, um, it would basically create holes in human services if we were to not put a cap on it. We would have to defund important safety net services to change the millevy enough to address the 30 percent if too many came in. I think 750 works for me, um, for the cap. And I would do it based on first signatures in first serve. So if a PID gets all of their signatures collected in January, they would be the first in line for it. Should their ballot measure pass? Um, if another one came in in April and they both passed, then it would be 750 in the order that the signatures came in. That's how I would approach that. But I do think we have to have a cap. I think we'll never hit the, I mean at the rate we're going we won't hit the cap. But I think we should have a plan just in case everybody decides to do this. And if two come in in the same year, then what I'm understanding you're saying is the second, uh, timely in

0:54:46a timely manner. The second set of signatures would potentially have to go to the next year if it's, if it exceeds the cap. I mean, I think I was thinking that they would just not get 30 percent. It would be whatever's remaining from the 30 percent, I suppose that might make them want to delay to the next year. And that would be a decision they'd have to make. Thank you. Other commissioners, Commissioner Lochimain. Yeah. Thank you. I'm just curious from what staff did in regards to analysis on that 750 number. I heard what I heard this morning was, it was kind of based on the 2026 7. 5 million allocation. But was there any, when any of the consideration of a different number, maybe? Well, it was, it's a little bit arbitrary, but, uh, we were serving some of the other communities and we were finding that a lot of the communities are doing about 10 percent of their work in the subdivisions versus the rest of the roads. And so that seemed to be a number that has some logic to it. Uh, but it is a bit arbitrary, I'd say. Okay. Well, and I was just trying to think of, you know, as the budget changes and there might be more funding when you're, might be less funding one year or so. I

0:56:05was just trying to think about that. And I wonder if there's even like something that could be brought back. I don't expect it to be right available right now, but even for the last five years or maybe 10 years, like, what would that number have been? Um, you know, what it could be is I think based on the, we'll see some of the other ways, funding mechanisms or other opportunities or decisions by a board. But I would be interested just to know what that number would have been if we were talking about this with regular funding quote unquote versus that additional 7. 5 allocation. So just, just a curiosity on that number. I'm not, I'm not, um, necessarily opposed to a cap, but I just would like to have a little bit more to consider if we're going to choose a number. Unless of course two board members are good with that number than we could always move forward with the two folks. Thank you, Mr. Levy. Yeah. So your thoughts on a cap. Thoughts on a cap. Well, could I go back? I mean, I think we should have a cap because we do want to make sure we're taking care of the rest of the county. I would not do it the way public works is proposing. If we get to

0:57:23subdivisions, because then we're not, you know, we're not adhering to the commitment that, as I understood the way you presented it, we wouldn't, we just wouldn't adhere to that commitment of 30 percent or were you suggesting that in the first year, I think your math showed, uh, one of them would get, Oh, where did I see that math? Yeah. That one of them would get 26. 67 percent. The other would get 20 percent where you proposing that that's a question, uh, and based on the assumption that you were proposing that it'd just be a reduced amount. I, I, I don't know whether what Commissioner Stolzman proposed is the best and only, but I would do something different so that we are meeting that, you know, we're going to make a commitment that here. You get signatures, you get your neighborhood together. We'll throw in 30 percent. And I feel like we have to follow through on that. And if it means maybe again, we have to. You know, rejigger like what year or, uh, you know, the second subdivision that comes in has to wait a year or we, we pay the 30 percent in over a couple of years, I don't know what it would be. But I, I would just, I would do it in a way that honors that. But the question

0:59:04I have this seven and a half million dollars that the commissioners put in, that was interest on, and now I forget what that was interest on. But we're assuming that that's a static number. You're over a year. And it may not be. And so I, that's, okay. We only put the, we put it in for two years based on very good numbers. It's not, it doesn't go out forever. Yeah. And then we lowered it. So we're a, I mean, this whole analysis assumes that there are going to be seven and a half million dollars in this, in your paving program. And I don't know whether there will be. There might be more. There might be less. So I guess I'm just wondering about that whole assumption. Um, commissioners, that was a two year commitment that you made for that, for those interest earnings. And on that, um, timeline, there was a higher level of confidence of what those interests, what the interest income would be.

1:00:16Um, continuing to rely on that as a funding source is less predictable as you're pointing out. And I think, um, could be part of what we bring back. Um, in discussion with OFM in the County Attorney's Office about what are your funding options that you might want to consider. So if that's, um, if that is information, the board would like to consider. It's not really a decision point for you for your next budget cycle, but it would be for the following budget cycle. So then just for my, so the direction your requesting is only for the upcoming budget cycle. Cause I'm hearing this as how do you want to structure this program? That's what I'm hearing. And so, and I was thinking that this is a, you know, this is a program. We're going to ink it. We'll put it in some kind of official document saying, here's our program. And Subdivisions can start working on this. And so that's my assumption was that this was going forward, that it wasn't just a one year thing where direction we're providing. I would just, uh, respond to that by saying this is why we described it as a 10 percent cap instead of a 750, So if we come back three years from now, we'll have 500, 000 dollars in a paving budget. It would be

1:01:3650, 000 dollars or no 5 million dollars. So if we're trying to set this up as a way to create predictability where we don't have predictability in our budgets, um, which is why we chose that 10 percent. So I was coming at this in my first comments from a different angle. But force I think similar reason. So I was suggesting that it would be helpful, you know, we saw the information last year with the pavement condition and what it would cost to maintain the roads and the different ways. But I was suggesting that if we, um, could have the information presented again that shows the number of mills that it would take to achieve a 70 PCI for arterials and collectors and show in a table how much of that goes to share back and what that does, um, just for a base that we could layer the program on top of. So because I think that is an important thing to understand. It's just the base mill rate that we would set our road and bridge mill at to achieve that for the collectors and arterials and then start talking about the neighborhood's layering on on top of that. And I don't agree with doing it as a percentage. I think it should be a dollar amount cap and we could change that over

1:02:48time if things change the board could revisit that. But I think doing it as a percentage creates a couple of issues with the math. Like if you just sometimes I make spreadsheets of this for fun and run different scenarios because I like to have a good time. And I think you end up with a problem a few years of percentage. Could I explore this with Commissioner Stolssman? So you're proposing that we perhaps change the Roden Bridge Mill Levy for what's going in the fund. But each year we set that middle levy. No, I understand. So but I mean, there's concern and you expressed it also about, well, what does that do to all the other things that we fund out of that, that mill, whatever it is, 28. something, um, yeah. Yeah. And so I just think we have to have that. Information to be able to make a full sum decision on the other question because they're tied together. And that's why I don't support doing a percentage. Yeah. So I think so the question you're putting on the table is do we want to, well, I don't know how we said our Rome Bridge Mill every year. Like do we look at your budget and then we back it out? Is that what we do or have we been static? Because you've got

1:04:13a number in here of one point or 0. 167. Yes. Commissioners, you do set those mill levees annually. They are at your discretion and without, um, guidance or direction from the board during a budget hearing, um, they would basically stay about the same as they were the last year. That's basically what happens. And I'm happy to have our budget officer. Come forward if you have details. No, I mean, that's not necessarily. I know that we said it every year. And I know we have discretion. The question was do we tend to shift it up or down based on the budgetary needs of public works? And I think I'm hearing that we pretty much just go with the established amount. Yeah. Yeah. So we, yeah, okay. But it seems like all three commissioners have a lot of interest in looking at mill leves this year and what that might mean as, as one way to solve your problems. And you all can appreciate the trade - offs of that, I'm sure, depending on, on what you decide to do with the milling lease. The reason I guess I was looking at the fund balance and fun 101 is that that would not require us to lower mill levies into the human services fund. We, it's, so.

1:05:47Maybe this will be a follow up is what you were saying. And I don't, I don't want to create exposure for us, but I don't believe that we can use the fund balance to do rodent bridge just in the wave described because we can't transcept for in a declared a state declared emergency. We can't use general fund balance for rodent bridge. But we can change the mill, levy. Each year, which then could have a consequence to our fund balance in general funds. So like, I think that like, I'm not actually disagreeing with, um, the ends, but I would take a different approach to the means just of the steps. And that could be a temporary millivy adjustment that you would reverse at a future date as a for example. I mean, what I'm hearing from all three commissioners is it feels like we need to bring you quite a bit more detail around what that could look like. And, um, again, in partnership with OFM and for sure getting the legal advisement from the county attorney's office on what both is possible and perhaps give you a few choices. One of the possibilities that Commissioner Loachman brought up is the sales and use tax as well, which also can be used for, for, uh, rodent bridge projects. So all of those, um, options on the

1:07:05table is, is what I think I'm hearing you wanting to explore. Um, but further refinement of that so we can be sure to address what you might need for that conversation would be helpful. Commissioner Lichmain. Yeah. Thanks. Yes. The answer to that first question there is yes. And then I just wanted to jump in and maybe have a, just add another piece to this conversation and thinking about, you know, if we looked at something different besides the percentage, right. I am like, might we put a cap in the sense of two PIDs per year based on staffing and that piece? Cause what I'm hearing is like some kind of predictability, some kind of, so it's just a curiosity because I haven't heard that. And the other question I had connected to that is like, what is the staffing situation right now? Do you have vacancies?

1:07:57What would that create some other issue in that? I think it's a 20 percent number or excuse me, 20, 000 or maybe it was 30, 000 in, which is a further down question about staffing. So I just wanted to know if you might notice speak to that staffing question. Sure. Um, we do have adequate staffing to do what we are doing now. And so for instance in 2028 or for the ones we're talking to right now, we do have two subdivisions and we're able to manage that. Um, it's Robert staff. So if he would agree with that, Robert, so I think we've got a pretty good confidence that we have the right staffing. The first question you asked about, you know, what if we were to limit just simply based on the number of PIDs.

1:08:41You could get a very large PD, let's say, uh, Nyewatt were to come in. That's something like a 30 million dollar project, I think is what I calculated at one point. Uh, so that's, you know, you could get PIDAs there. Very, very large. And still are just one PID. So this is one of the reasons I tied it to the value of the project more so than the number of projects. And that's helpful just to understand. I mean, I understand that one of them is going to be smaller versus the other larger. Um. But as I think, as we are seeing it historically, we do have the capacity to handle what we're handling now. Um, you know, we can't predict the future. So it's a I wouldn't want to try to do too much, spend too much time trying to predict the future. But the staffing is there. We don't have a resource problem in this. Can I just jump in with a question on, on that in just a minute, if you don't mind, cause I just want to follow up on that piece of it because my, and I'm thinking about the funding piece a while. And I know we're going to have some additional conversations, but if we said, and I got some like no head nodding otherwise. So I'm, but I

1:09:51want to just, um, ask if we were to say two paids. And then one of them ended up being larger. Would we be able to use general fund for staffing. If that, because it's not, it's not an immediate piece. It's like a year later and it would be like one time funding to kind of take care. I don't know, but I'm just, I'm just curious of, I heard you talking about equity, Steve earlier and what that means to communities. And I don't, I just, it just seems like somebody's going to get 30 percent and somebody's not like if we set it up the other way, but there might be some other options. So I just wanted to ask that piece and then go ahead, Commissioner. Okay. Well, I heard a couple of questions there. One thing that stood out is right now our staff that work in this are paid from the general fund. And so historically by not collecting payment for their time from the PIDs. It's coming from the general fund. Um, so, um, so that wouldn't change if we weren't inside to fund it the same way we have historically. Okay. And those staff, um, are the ones who, as described in the memo, they're responsible for contracting out the actual paving projects. So the, the, um, the entity doing the work

1:11:06in the roads and bridges is a contractor. Okay. Thank you. I would also add one to eight. We can't necessarily control how many districts come forward in a year. If we get petitions from neighborhoods for districts by statute, we have to follow through with those. We can't say no, we're going to reject you. So that just depends on the community's interest. And that we're bound to that. And Robert, will you please put your name entitled on the record? For the record, Robert Jacobs, I apologize with that. I'm the capital improvements, principal engineer with Public Works. Thank you. Thank you. Can you just say what you just said right now is if anybody comes with a petition that's complete and everything's approvable. Then by statute, we can't say no. That's correct. And I thought at the beginning of this, we're not the beginning, but somewhere in bullet point two, I think that you were suggesting that we put a cap. And I'm just having, that seems in conflict with what I just heard you say. So just help me understand. Just to cap on the amount that we contribute financially. Not a cap on the number of districts that can come forward. Robert, you may need to just swivel that one. Can I answer differently? I'll round. There we go. Yeah. So, um, anyone can choose

1:12:26to form a public improvement district for the reasons that they're allowed to have it. And then what we would review is, is the mill rate that they're asking the voters in the district for sufficient to cover the costs of the project. And if all of those things were true, we would say yes and approve the district to vote on it. But we don't have to contribute matching funds. We don't have to, those are separate legislative matters that we're setting. But if they wanted to ask the voters in the district should we have a district. We would say, yes, you can ask. Right. That's, I think we're saying the same thing. Like they're what I heard you say is there would be, and you gave details on the process, but what I, the way I described it was if they have an approvable PID, then we obviously, we wouldn't say no. We would have to schedule the hearings and follow the process. Yes, absolutely. So we would, but I hear us talking about we're going to put a cap on the financial decision of how much, whatever that percent would be or however we would do those numbers. Are we even able to do that right now? Because we don't know how many petitions might come forward. Correct. I mean, we're, we're, we know that there

1:13:32are two that are actively communicating with staff and wanting to come forward right now. But as Steve said, the future's a little unpredictable here. Okay. And the purpose of the cap was really for budgetarian financial predictability rather than, um, trying to limit the number of neighborhoods that might be interested. Okay. So what I'm hearing based on the statute question, if I'm understanding what you're telling me, Robert is we can't put a cap on the number of pids that we would work with in some financial capacity as some financial number. And that's why you're recommending some percentage or some type of a number. Is that correct? We could, if we decide to agree to fund them, which we do have the flexibility to do, we could decide to agree to fund only a certain number. But if a number of pits come forward, we would have to process all of them. Correct. Okay. If that answers your question. Okay. Thank you. So the question I had that I wanted to piggyback on was just taking NyeWatt as an example. Um, is that a given the size of the project is that one that is even doable in one year. I'm thinking of the ability to phase projects. Over a period of time. Yeah. Uh, yeah, with the budgets that we have available, uh, that would make

1:15:01many years to do, uh, project the size of Nyewat. So yeah, that's not even a practical reality to do that in one year with the budgets that we have. I mean, when you say the budgets we have, they're going to, they're going to pay for it. Right. It's the, it's the 30 percent. And the upfront cost and the upfront cost. Probably the biggest thing. Now it might take them a few years to get it. The money together and then they could move forward on their own. And we can certainly help them with that. But our funding would not be available in year one to be able to do that. So legally, you know, they submit the petition. It's all correct. They've got them L. We say that's the right male. And they vote to approve it. I mean, is it a binary decision whether we fund or not? Or can we structure it so that they only do a 30 percent of at a year or something like So when we were working on these, when we were doing team leads and I was working on this, like each one we were working with the community to bring it forward. And so I think it is good to have policies and programs that we build in and they'll be these things that come forward. And

1:16:10the people collecting signatures are going to want answers to all these questions because they're going to have to run a campaign. So let's say they brought forward, let's say they wanted to, um, put a question to their people of funded all in one year. We would have to see a mill rate that was sufficient to do that. And let's say they wanted it all covered in the first year. And we didn't have the money available. Then their mill rate would have to be sufficiently high to generate that in one year. And then we would have to contract this huge project. And it's like, it would, you know, the math would have to work to accommodate what they wanted to do when we were talking with them. We said, if we're doing this in this way, we can't do it. We have to stage it. It would be phased over a year. So we were providing the detail of how we could do it and how we could work together. And then that changed their mill calculation. And in the end, they didn't, they withdrew their application. But there was a lot of back and forth.

1:17:03Like it's still, we still need all the answers to these questions so that we have policies in place and we can follow the philosophy of what drives them. But for each one, there will still be a lot of back and forth because we're trying to facilitate things that when they bring it to the board that they are complete and they will work. Because if you just did it on your own, you'd put some mill rate out there that it wouldn't cover the costs. And then the board would say no to the PID because it wouldn't be real. So there's, there's just a lot of actual detail that goes into each one. But the, but the mill rate, it depends on how long we want to wait to get paid back. Right. And so. Well, and they get to ask that in their question. So like if they want to do 30 years perpetuity, I mean, so that's all part of the question. So the, so the questions that you've asked us, do we want to do we want to commit to 30 percent yes. I think we all want to understand different scenarios for, um, the situation in which the making that commitment would exceed some amount of money. And what are we comfortable with?

1:18:23And you proposed 10 percent of your pavement budget. And I think that's reasonable. And I don't know if you got clear direction from the other two commissioners on that question. But I guess where I'm going is if, and we need some more information about other ways to fund this so that we, because I think none of us want them to have to do pay go. Um, so we want other information about how to fund it. But if you, if you get your four questions answered, is that sufficient to write a policy that would address all the different variables that we've talked about here this morning. You know, if we were to get the reserve and NyeWot in one year or just NyeWot in one year, does this cover all that scenario. I don't know that it would cover something the size of NyeWat, but it would get us through the period we are right now, which is trying to plan for 2028 with these two PIDs. And beyond that, we may need to revisit it again after 2028. Um, and that may be next year because we're applying for 2029 at that point. But I think it'll get us through the period we are right now where these two PIDs are asking for, you know, what, what can we expect? Okay. Cause yeah, I mean,

1:19:54I think we do need policies that are not going to change. They're fiscally sound. And I'll just add to what Steve said by, um, the, the memo was designed for that specific time period because of the PIDs that are in front of us with current questions. And because we are all very aware of the financial uncertainty that you're facing as a board. So we're not interested in sort of painting the board into a corner, um, but want to be able to support your decision making. Um, that's why we had limited it for a couple of years. I'm hearing today some interest from this board to look at a program that might be, um, uh, longer in duration than that horizon. If we can provide you with some, um, additional information to understand the financial implications of, of a longer term program. So we can bring that back at a future work session. So the quick answer to your question, Commissioner Levy is no. I don't think we have enough today to set that, um, long - term policy, but with, um, the guidance that you all have given us today, we certainly have enough to come back with a work session in partnership with OFM.

1:21:07That's the next step. Um. Commissioner Lochi, I mean, I saw your hand up, but I did want to, if we could just pin one piece down, um, because I heard a different thing from each commissioner specific to your question, Commissioner Levy about, um, support for that 10 percent threshold. So I heard Commissioner Saltsman, um, say a hard number is better than a percentage. I heard you say 10 percent playing around with maybe some, uh, what would that history of 10 percent look like maybe you were leaning towards 10 percent as well was I understanding you correctly if we can provide that history. I think so. And I was also trying to look at what's the other way to put some type of a cap in there. And I don't, I don't know if there's something else that we haven't talked about. Okay. Thank you. So I, if it's helpful, I mean, I think if we're what I'm now hearing is this really isn't a policy that would be applied past the duration of the commitment that we've already made of that 7. 2 million. Right.

1:22:20So, um, so that number, whether Commissioner Stolzman wants a dollar cap, you know, I, the 10 percent sounds reasonable, but I think it works out to be the same number either way. And since we're, we're not doing this out to where we don't actually know what we would be appropriating or allocating for this. I don't know that it actually, it's kind of an academic question. Either way, I think we get to 750, 000. Okay. Thank you. For that. I just wanted to add something to the conversation. Because what I'm, what I'm hearing is that the concern of anything over that 10 percent or over that 750, 000 creates issue with just work and the work that needs to be done outside of just this particular topic in public works. And so not for necessarily today because we've got something established through 2028, but it just made me curious if there would be an opportunity. And what I wrote down is if, if the pit is more, if the pitic estimated cost is more than X amount. And I don't know what that I heard Nyewatt spoke about a couple times, but if that's really the concern of being able to say yes to 10 percent to any PID that walks in the door, then is there something like a second piece of if it was

1:23:47more than X million dollars estimate cost, then it would go in, you know, then it would come back to the board for a review of a process or something like that. I don't know. It was just something that I kept hearing what I'm interpreting as a concern of a big PID petition coming forward and what that would do to an impact to the department. So I just wonder if the other way to address that in whatever the policy might be. So that was, it was just a curiosity if the way to handle that concern. From what I'm hearing. Thanks. So, um, what I'm hearing you propose and to be really clear, I think what's in the memo is with the two that are currently on the table if they both came in in the same year, the 750, 000 dollars would not be a 30 percent match. So y'all keep sort of going to the biggest example that we have in unincorporated Boulder County, which is the community of Nyewat. But I think what staff wants to make sure that we're very clear about is even with the two that are under discussion today. The 30 percent match exceeds 750, 000 in, if they both come in in the same year. And so taking that just as a clarification, I think what, what you're asking

1:25:08Commissioner Lochemain is then what? What would the process be for the commissioners to consider one time, um, funding that could make those both happen in the same year? Am I understanding your question? Yes. Thank you. And I feel like that's part of the second conversation that we're going to have. We can bring that back. Thank you. All right. The last question that we had posed for you today is really about staff costs. So as Steve indicated right now, uh, the staffing for these subdivision paving projects is supported through the general fund. But the contracting and the work happens out of the Roden Bridge Fund. The question in front of you today is, would you prefer to see the staffing costs be a part of the PID calculations moving forward? And I think we were back to Commissioner Levy to start this one. And the memo estimates that that's going to be 20, 000 a year.

1:26:18Per PID. And the way it's posed here is that that would come out of the 30 percent that we're contributing. And I think. I guess I don't have a principle to refer back to on this because, um, we're supporting, we're facilitating. We're enabling subdivision paving. It does come out of the money that we have available to help the community as a whole and all of the, all the road maintenance and conditions that the motoring public or the, it's not just motorists, but people using our votes. Um, so do I feel like it's appropriate. For us to just front that? Or should that be part of the 30 percent? I think I'm comfortable. I would prefer to put it into the 30 percent. It's a negligible amount. But I just think for, you know, to have the program be kind of self - sustaining in a way that everything is, everything is buttoned up into the plan. Yeah, I guess I had to sort of talk through my mind about that. But that's where I would take it out of the 30 percent. Commissioner Stolzman. I think it should be funded out of the general fund because I think the activity is supporting another local government, not rodent bridge. And I think defining it that way will help us with some of the other funding conversations

1:27:55and how we need to fund this. I think if we don't, then I think we're on very thin paper for some of the other things that we would argue about whether Rodent Bridge has to fund them or not. So I think it needs to come out of general funds so that we can make the other decisions. And be intellectually complete and like be able to tie it up and say that all the arguments we're making are being able to be made together. Um, I, one thing that wasn't in the memo that we've talked about previously and I just want to reiterate is that I do think when a district comes in, it should be looking at the initial paving costs and the payback of the loan. But it should also look at setting itself up so that in 20 years, it can be resurfaced. So I think that like we haven't directly addressed that today, but we had previously talked about making it so that that mill rate would be able to cover the operations of paving that neighborhood forever. Like whether it's Gypsy or, you know, every seven years or whatever the solutions are, like that that money would cover, um, renewal and replacement.

1:29:01Thanks. So what that suggests to me, Commissioner Stolzman, um, and I'm going to put a pin in this one, is that the, uh, ballot issue would be in perpetuity. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying Commissioner Lochiman. Can you first weigh in on the staff costs? Either continuing to be born out of the general fund or shifted into the PID expenses. For me, this is connected to the other financial conversation. So if, so I might be interested in looking at both of them. Meaning I thought we were going to talk about general fund and get attorneys advisement about whether or not we could, you know, what portion of any of this work on subdivision paving. So if staffing is fine, that was my previous question on operations. If the, so that it's a TBD for me until I hear more. Okay. Um, before I move over to Commissioner Levy, um, would you like to weigh in on this concept of ensuring that PID's authorize, um, in perpetuity as opposed to being time bound for the purpose of ensuring that those roads have, um, ability to be maintained and repaved in the future. I heard that question on one of what it brought up for me was understanding that 30 percent would be in there for long - term maintenance. And if not, then how,

1:30:25how that would be written in, cause it wouldn't be in the ballot measure would be in some other agreement on the County. And I'm guessing would have a timeframe. So if that part, that second part is true. Then yeah, we've talked about that previously and to have it set up from perpetuity would make sense. Thank you. Back to you, Commissioner Levy, on the perpetuity question. I think that is a very complicated thing to try to calculate because we don't know actually the life of the pavement. There may be some estimates and rule of thumb. And yeah, it could be chip seal. It could be milled and repaved. And I think that's going to make it difficult for, it could make it difficult for subdivisions to decide they want to agree to this. Like, I don't know how we would set that mill to know. Didn't Burgundy Park had some sort of a reduction in the mill. And then that reduced amount was in perpetuity, I think, right? And I think that's, I guess what I heard Commissioner Stolzman say is that she would want that to be a requirement of forming a PID. I think I would make that up to the residences as to whether they want to address that. Well, so a lot of things have been said about what I said that

1:31:47isn't what I said. And I haven't been clarifying them the whole time, but I'll just say, I'll just rephrase what I'm saying on this topic. Um, so if someone comes in with a public improvement district, we have no control over what they want to do. They can do whatever they want to do. And we will follow the law. So that's not in question. We're running a program to encourage districts. And we're doing a lot of work that we're not required to do by law. We're, we're helping other governmental entities by doing a bunch of calculation and coming up with different scenario planning and doing a bunch of staff work for these other governments that are trying to form. And so what I'm suggesting is when we're doing that work, we should try to provide enough information that we could show how this could be sustained into the future, not just do all this work for a government to do a one - time thing that then the next commissioners are going to have to deal with again. Like if we can provide information to them that shows how this would sustain and could be a program into the future, that would be better than having to get 111 PIDs approved every 20 years. Like that just, that sounds maddening. But if we get 111 PIDs

1:32:54approved. And then we have a sustainable road program. That sounds like a really good use of staff time and money from the general fund to figure out sustainable. So all I'm talking about is like, we're putting this effort into calculations and math and encouraging and supporting and legal advice. And that should be toward sustainable road funding, not just a one - time effort. Anybody can come in with a PID for a one - time effort. I mean, they can do that. So you're, I mean, you're not, I thought, okay, so I misheard you that you weren't saying it should be a requirement. And maybe that was how the question got rephrased. So yes, I agree we ought to do some projections so that they can consider that. Yes. And I think that a requirement. What I maybe wanted to clarify for me, Commissioner Stolzman is for the PID potentially to qualify for the 30 percent Is something that you would be able to influence, for example, and so in a design of a long - term program, that's something that we could have on the table for your. Review and future discussion. Right. And the third Commissioner Lichman brought up is the 30 percent every year for all of these different things for the first cost of the initial repaving, not continued. So the way

1:34:19we had been doing it in conversations with community members is 30 percent of the upfront cost to repave the road. I don't know if maybe this is helpful, but all of all four PIDs, including the two that have been approved and the two are considering our modeled in a way that will perpetually fund them into the future. So we are making that assumption currently with all of our modeling. So I heard Commissioner Stolesman raise up potential legal issue with, um, funding. The 20, 000 staff costs out of, um, the Roden Bridge Fund as opposed to the general fund. So maybe you can add that to the list. Of things. Certainly. Yeah. I just had, I mean, I was just trying to figure out where. Just based on that reframing of the conversation and reiterating of what was said versus what was interpreted. I am in favor of the in perpetuity piece. And it sounds like I interpreted initially as something written somewhere that's requireing. So that was helpful to hear that you were just talking what you just said was about just advising. Steve talked about it as modeling in there. And I'm fine with those two. So that's just to clarify for the third perspective. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to turn to staff to see if you have

1:35:59additional clarifying questions or are we ready to sum up and talk about next steps. I think. I think we're right. It's summarize. Okay. Just afraid to say. So, um, commissioners, what I heard from today is, uh, general agreement that something around 750, 000 dollars is the right number for the two subdivisions that are currently in conversation based on our current funding. But that you are wanting to design a program for the future and what that would look like, um, would require some additional conversation about sustainability of funding beyond the temporary measure that you've, um, identified previously. We would need to bring that back to you at a future work session in concert with OFM and the County Attorney's Office so that you have a full understanding of the options that you could consider to make a program more of a permanent feature and what are the legally permissible ways to fund that understanding that you don't want to make subdivisions wait if they go through the process and get a ballot issue approved. You want to be able to move forward quickly with their initial project. I also heard that we need to bring back this question about staff costs, even though it's a small amount in comparison to the bigger questions that you would like a little bit more information to understand the implications

1:37:28of where those staff costs are paid. Is there anything else that you would like to add for our next conversation. For me not at this time? That was a great recap. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, um, this ends the morning work session and we will be back this afternoon at 3. 30 with your next work session topic. Okay. So we are in recess until 3. 30. All right, commissioners, are you ready? Yes, thank you. And we are recording. Okay, we are back from recess. It is still the 19th of May 2026. We still have three commissioners here in the hearing room, and we're here for our afternoon docket, which consists of a work session on the regional elected officials working groups on homelessness. And we're joined by our County administrator, Jana Peterson, Heidi Grove, and Susana Lopez Baker, the Director of Our Housing Department.

1:39:02ID Being are, what's your title, homeless Division Manager of Homeless System Management. Anyway, so Jana, you'll be facilitating it. Go ahead, take it away. Thank you, Commissioners. We're pleased to be back this afternoon with another work session from the Housing Department, as described by Commissioner Levy. And our purpose today is to solicit your input and feedback for a meeting next week of this group. Commissioner Luchaman is your representative on the Regional Working Group, and you may recall that this group began from 2024 Countywide Meeting that you hosted of elected officials with all the cities and towns. And with that, I'm gonna turn things over to Heidi. Thank you, Jana. So just catching us up to speed from May of 2024. We did bring together a group of representatives of elected officials across the region. One representative per jurisdiction. And the agreement was to focus on accessory dwelling units in 2025, of which we did a lot of work around the ADU toolkit, making sure jurisdictions were in compliance. And the additional thing that we are looking at is a tiny home community built, modeled off of the Austin, Texas model. And for 2026, which brings us here today. And after we have that discussion or decision, the next item for prioritization is reflected on the slide. So as reflected in your memo, we do have

1:40:45a few questions for the board. Question one, does the Board of County Commissioners wish for staff to further review any of the three properties identified in the analysis reflected in your packet. And I think we'll just start there. So the priorities came from the elected officials from the different cities and towns who are participating on this group. And that's why we're back here with you today. This afternoon, we'll start with Commissioner Lochimin, as I think Europe next in our order. Great, thank you. Thanks, everybody. For the information. Good afternoon. And this was really interesting. I was super curious to find out. I had just gotten a message. Hey, we were looking at this option as Boulder County talking about the question here about properties and what that might look like for some type of tiny home village. So I think if I can step back just one, just a little bit as the commissioner that's been working on this with other elected officials around the region. The topic of accessory drawing units that I know we've talked about this briefly board, but just to add a little bit of flavor to the conversation that because of the state legislation that was also happening at that time was one of the impetuses of how might we work, use this group to also look at sustainable home

1:42:14ownership and allowing people who we kept hearing from that we're worried about potentially losing their home. Other folks who were feeling like they're on fixed income and realizing they have a house that's too big for them. So we were really looking at it from the perspective of incremental development and what that looks like, meaning using property for either conversion or rehabilitation or renovation of space that might be in excess, but could provide a door. And we also talked about using some housing voucher for those doors as units. So I just wanted to add those two pieces in there just around the ADU work. And we also have a couple of cities and towns that are prepping their updates because the biggest topic and kind of ask was, how do we educate people? Um, in our region to even know, because most folks, I should say the folks, if we think about 330, 000 people who aren't as familiar and are watching all the state legislation, so might not even know what an ADU opportunity could be and a lot of even our HOAs around the region, the HOA boards as volunteer boards may not be privy to an understanding of the opportunity. So just to share some of the feedback that we got and some of that information. So we'll be hearing a little bit

1:43:27more about that at another time, meaning the working group. And so then to get into this question about Honey Home Village, um, I was super interested. So reading the packet to see what y'all had come back with in regards to all of the, and I'm just saying this toward to the board, all of the different partners that are in this working group will be meeting next week to everybody's doing the same exercise that we're doing right now together, uh, to talk with their Councils or their trustee teams to find out, is there a parcel of land? Where might it be, are there multiples? And then could this group talk about that together? So this is great for us to have an opportunity together in my hope is that if there is something here that then we'll be able to take that to that meeting next, um, next week. So, um, just to kind of give a little bit of, here's, here's what we're doing and here's why. And also just to make sure that you all know that everybody around the regions having an opportunity to do a similar exercise. And so for me, just in regards to the different parcels of the information that you brought, I am interested in looking at, you know, some other pieces of like, what would that mean? What

1:44:46would that look like? So I had put down a couple of notes about what I would be looking for. And I don't know if we want to go through that and or if we just want to find out if there's interest from another commissioner to do more analysis first before we get into what would that be? That analysis might be. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. So yes, I think it would be helpful for staff to hear whether commissioners are interested in further analysis of any of these County and properties for this proposed purpose of a tiny home community. And, um, I think it would be great if we could hear from the other two commissioners. So commissioner Levy, would you like to go next? Sure. I would love to. Commissioner Stolzman and I were asking where Kibit sing about sticking to the questions and the order in which they're presented. And I'm going to violate the rules here myself. Um, in that I'm not ready to say which or any of these properties. What I want to identify in the future. Now, you know, I've not been working on this. And so I'll acknowledge I may have a knowledge gap. But I have questions about whether tiny home villages. Have been successful. Um, with chronically homeless people. And you know, back when everybody was looking

1:46:09at sanctioned camping, um, and everyone traveled all around to see these places and the data was not showing that it was that they were successful, that they actually weren't helping people transition, um, from the streets into permanent housing. I understand this is different in that it actually is housing and it is intended to be permanent. But I don't know how successful they have been as communities. The Austin one, it looks like, uh, what was it. For 1400 homes? Ultimately 1900 homes. Uh, I don't know what's envisioned here. The number of homes, but I would want to see data that these are successful communities before I even want to consider exploring a location. So, you know, maybe you have that and you can share that with me right now. And that would help me. I mean, I think I'd also like to know, um, where all the other jurisdictions are in this, um, again, not having been sitting at the table and not really having heard much about the conversation and the intervening year and a half. I don't know how all the communities checked with their councils. Their managers, whatever their government lenities and said yes, we all want to pursue a tiny home village and were the last one and it's County Property. I don't know. So I guess I have, I have concerns

1:47:54about this in using resources for something like this without really knowing that it's successful. So let me answer the second question. That'll turn it over to Heidi to answer the first question just in terms of process, um, a little bit more context for all of you. Every member of the regional and working group has this exact same assignment as Commissioner Lochaman to bring this conversation to their board and bring the results of that conversation back to the meeting that is scheduled next week. So we'll know more next week about the appetite of other jurisdictions, um, depending on where their council conversations went. And Heidi, can you talk a little bit more about, um, success or data? So I can speak to veterans community project here in Longmont. They have 35 tiny homes that are specifically for veterans. It is a transitional housing model. The average length of time is 14 months. And that range is anywhere from 30 days to 24 plus months, but they have had pretty significant success rates. And I can pull those percentages with their executive director exactly and circle back around. But they have had success from folks transitioning straight into the veterans affairs, supportive housing, fashion, all the way up to home ownership. And then the Austin model, I will need to go back and reach out to Matt

1:49:18to get some updated data. I have outcomes from them from a year ago, but I'd like to get some updated. That would be helpful. Um, I'm, I may have missed it, but I wasn't sure what size of a community we're looking at here. How many, um, how many homes we're hoping, you know, that we're looking at, you know, I take it to properties have different sizes. It can accommodate different numbers. So I'm interested in that. I'm also wondering about the resources. So where would the funding come from, both for the homes themselves and the services? Because as we know, we're struggling to provide the services for the PSH that we have right now. And I gather this would basically be the equivalent of PSH. So where would the service funding come from? We haven't gotten that far in the conversation yet. Did commissioner, but I do want to add that there is going to be a little bit of nuance on many of these communities, our faith - based communities or have that backing and then also do require some level of treatment as well.

1:50:29So you're going to get just a, it'll be hard for us to give like an apples, apples example. But we'll make sure we include that in our breakdown. Okay. Yeah. So I think just to sum up where I am right now, um, I'm going to need more to, you know, to feel like, I think we've got the cart before the horse before we say, Oh yeah, here's a site and let's explore this site. Like I need to know, how do we fund it? How do we make it sustainable? You know, what has the experience of other community has been the veterans, village, such as transitional. This is permanent? Correct. You know, what's that like to live in a little box for, you know, the rest of your life, maybe, you know, I just need more on that. Thank you, Commissioner. Now, I'll turn to Commissioner Stoltzman. Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Levy's comments. That's sort of what I was thinking to a large extent just around. And it's maybe for different reasonings for the Y. So I'll just sort of share that part for me. I actually, there are actually several properties I think could be a good fit that weren't included in the map by CPMP that we own. So I don't think the problem is identifying a property that we could use

1:51:44for the purpose. Like I can think of a lot of them. And the issue that we run into is like the paying to get it started up, a partner that we trust, the ability to provide services that are culturally responsive to our community. Like, so the details of the next step are actually. The trouble. And so I think the thing I would tell the working group is there are a lot of properties that this could work on. Which city wants it to be in their city. Like I don't think we would do this in a city that doesn't want this in their city. So which city would sign up to put it in their city. And then I can tell you which of the properties would be a good fit that we own or, you know, that we could acquire. Um, I do have some questions about some of the properties in the list. Like I was very interested in zero bugskin place. Um, it just seems to me like it either must actually be open space or like access for open space or a property. I just need more information about that property. I was surprised to see that on the list. And I do like I have run lists before and looked at our capital assets, but somehow have missed that one in

1:52:54the past. So I unrelated to this project now have, um, have new curiosities about other things. But it just seemed like that shouldn't probably be on the list. And I have a lot of questions about it now. Um, and then if we wanted to take things off the list, I don't think putting it in the airport landing zone is a good idea. I think that would cause significant problems for people. Like there's lead at the airport and it's loud. And it's not a nice, like, it's not great to put housing directly adjacent to an airport. So I do think we shouldn't put it somewhere that has some bad vibes that should have a good feel. Um, and when we get to the point of identifying space, I think that there are several other County Yone properties that would fit in the list. And it could be for this project, it could be for a different affordable housing project. I think there are a lot of properties. So I wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea that we wouldn't be able to participate with property in some way by my lack of an answer. It's just that if I knew more about the funding model and the partner, um, which cities were willing to self nominate. Um, to accept this, then I could answer the

1:54:06question of which properties. Thank you. That's super helpful because at a staff level, we were sort of having the same conversation, which is all of these, um, County on sites are within another city's jurisdiction. And so, um, appreciate both of you, you know, sort of bring that to the conversation. And I think what would be helpful, um, is to maybe circle back to Commissioner Lochiman because you sort of started your comments, but you weren't able to get into a lot of details and see if you want to riff on what you've heard from your fellow commissioners or if you have something else to add to the discussion. Yeah. Thank you. I want to just because I want to clarify a couple of different pieces that I think this is your feedback is super helpful. I'll just say that because I don't want to go to a meeting without having this conversation and we're just doing it in a work session because that's the new kind of process and it worked out great. Um, this topic as Heidi went through on those three kind of, here's the three pieces originally it was longer list. And we worked for a while with the whole group about let's now are that down. And so really thoughtfully like, okay, let's take one of these and work on it for

1:55:18the year. And that's, so that was the recap of the ADU piece. This conversation about tiny home village. We had a presentation just to learn about it and have some discussion. But I just want board you all to know that we haven't had any further conversations. You all are the first part of the conversation. Um, and we are trying to understand, I think similar to some of the ways that you all have said it in different words, which of our muni, our town partners will raise their hand and say, yes. And if it is a county parcel for us to know, okay, here's the, so the initial search, which I think is great. And to hear from you, Commissioner Salzman, that the other properties that you would consider if, if we move forward. So I just want to make sure you all know this really is the preliminary. There's, so this is the first conversation that we'll be having next week in regards to what we want to do. And then I think Commissioner Leary just maybe respond a little on the elected folks who've been on the working group. They are going back to their Councils and to their trustees in the different steps.

1:56:31And so I feel like, um, short of being there, cause I haven't been there to make sure, you know, I don't know how those dialogues are happening and things like that, but we've asked several different times during the processes to make sure that other council members are either partners or they're willing to have this conversation. So make sure that staff is aware and also working on, um, for example, the toolkit. So, um, so this ask about the tiny home village, the idea has already been talked about with each Council on board. And that's how it came back to the, okay, this is the next item that we're all going to work on for this year. So just wanted to maybe make sure that you knew that at least there's been some of that initial conversation for it even to get to this next assignment that we've talked about, which is talk with your boards and councils about, like yes, you said you're interested potentially. Now, what does that mean from a land perspective? And so this is super helpful for, for me. Um, can I just ask a clarifying question I was referring to some properties. Buck high buck horn, something. I, I, I just saw the three that were in the memo. Well, did I miss an appendix or something that had more? What

1:57:48I was referring to, there's a, there's a blue, um, CPMP put together. Sorry. And so I just was clicking through each different property on that and studying them. So I was, I didn't know I was supposed to only look at the three. Okay. Yeah. I, I wondered about that because N, I assumed that's just, that's the over inclusive. That's everything. And then. Yeah. Oh, okay. But the three are the ones that staff pulled out that may be appropriate. And I do think the question of, um, I guess two are in Long Mountain One is in Boulder. Yeah. Exactly. Out of Long Mountain Boulder feel about this, you know, and then just again to reiterate, I think we need to know. I wouldn't need to know a whole lot more about funding models for, for this kind of thing. And I didn't see a whole lot in the memo about really how, I mean, I saw that there's some guidance that you can use project - based vouchers. But I just don't even know if this is a viable pathway for us to go. And I don't know, I mean, Heidi, I know you're an expert on addressing the issues around homelessness. Um, and I don't know whether folks that work in your field feel that this is really the way to go. Um, you know,

1:59:21I, I know what allroads does. Um, you know, this could be as much more scalable way of at least getting people out of unsheltered living. But, you know, so I'd really love to know, you know, what those that really work in the field of homelessness think about it. Thank you, commissioner. And I'm happy to circle back around. I think that the, the field as a whole is a little split on which strategy makes the most sense. If you talk to Austin, this is the best thing that they've ever done. And that's coming from a continuum of care perspective. And then there's other communities that are not willing to do this. So it's a little split. I do know Casper, Wyoming is groundbreaking now on a tiny home village as part of their homeless strategy. So be curious to see how that plays out in Wyoming.

2:00:18Are there, do you know of communities that have done this and have decided it didn't work, that it wasn't a good idea. Um, I would have to go back and look at my list from research and circle back around. Sure. All right, commissioners. Um, we've taken some good notes here on your feedback. I think I just want to hone in on that third bullet and see if there are any other items, um, that you would like us to bring back through Commissioner Lodgement to the working group to share your thoughts and perspectives either on the tiny home concept or on the, um, other work of the group. We're happy to hear anything any other feedback. Commissioner, what you mean? Thanks. I just wondered, I don't know if it's exactly what you just asked about, but I was kind of thinking, I'm processing some of your questions, Commissioner Levy. And I'm the, what I heard you say was questions around criteria and how many units and some of the details about. What I would believe would be then to determine economic viability. And we are not there yet, but I think if that's something the board says we want to review criteria first, then that would be for me, that would be really helpful to know.

2:01:37Um, and the part of that reasoning is right now because this is literally going to be the first conversation. Um, next week. And it lets you say in the best potential case that every muni and town came to that meeting and said, we want to do something in this area of, of a village, tiny home, something in that realm to address a portion of homelessness because we know it's not, it's not nothing. But if we address it in one way. If everybody came to that meeting next week and had a larger parcel than we're thinking, I mean, I'm not imagining 173 acres. I think that's one of the examples. But if everybody comes with something and it's of a certain size, let's say it's more than 50 acres, then we'll have a different conversation when we start getting into the, Hey, what could this be?

2:02:28How many units and things like that. But right now we are, I'll just speak for myself. I'm anxiously a waiting to see what people bring. And another best case in our would be if people came and said, you know what, we were thinking about that same parcel. And then maybe that would be a different level partnership. But that is the biggest question right now. Um, as people are talking about, you know, is there a parcel that's available? And also part of that homework assignment was where would this fit on your work plan. So we also have an understanding, is it even viable for a team or, you know, a staff group at any, many or town now. So I just wanted to show those a couple of questions that we also have. And we just haven't gotten into any of, we're not, we haven't put parameters around it because we don't know what's available yet.

2:03:15And where the will might be. Sure. No, that, that's great. Um, you mentioned criteria. I don't think I am. I had a question about criteria. Cause I feel like we're not there at all. Uh, yet. We could get there. But you, you do, um, raise a question for me about, um, like what other communities would bring to the table. Um, you know, other than a possible site. So say everybody goes, yeah, let's put it in Longmont. That's an easy thing to agree to if you're not putting anything else into it. So what, how would everybody work together on this if it's going into one community? Or maybe there would be multiple small ones in a lot of communities. But going back to the genesis of this regional, uh, working group on homelessness was that the concern, I'll just put it that way from Boulder, that Boulder was doing all the work on this. And nobody else was helping. And so you're like, okay, let's all get together and share what all we're doing and how we're all thinking about this. And I thought that was a very, very productive meeting. And I learned a lot from that. But then that would, I mean, I really would leave me with the question of, of, you know, we pick a site and it's in some community Boulder

2:04:48or Longmot, seems like, um, then, you know, what's Lafayette's contribution? What's superior Lewisville, et cetera. Um, you know, did you talk about how they might participate. We haven't. We haven't done that yet. So if that's direction from the board of County Commissioners that says we want to know what, what percent everybody's going to put in or what, like you said, what each Mu N airtown is going to put into a regional project. Then that's something that we could take back if there's two folks that want, you know, any, any questions that you're wanting me to take to that meeting is going to be helpful. Yeah. I mean, I think I'm thinking he sort of just conceptually. Like, are they putting in are they going to put their share of AHT money into it? Or they, you know, just what. So, so that it is something that everybody is contributing to in some way. And if it's AHT money, you know, then I wonder, um, you know, the opportunity costs. And then I'm going to want to know, is this, is this the best use of those monies versus something else that, you know, so it's.

2:06:04I think that would be a good question to say is, you know, is the plan to have a financial model where there's a third party partner that's funding everything. Whereas the plan because everyone's in a deficit situation. We're in a deficit situation, city of boulders and the deficit. They're all, I mean, this is not. No one's in a different position where someone's just flush with money. The federal government has cut funds. It's gone down to the state. That's gone down to all of us. People aren't spending because, you know, all the inflation, all the costs are so high. So any revenue streams that we do have locally are also hampered. So we're all in a similar boat where like new, um, opportunities or scarce at the moment. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't work together and plan. And so just fleshing out a bit, like the funding plan. Is it to use a HD tax?

2:06:49Is it to use other, like do people still have one - time money available that they could contribute to get it going? Is the plan to get some philanthropic spending, just figuring that out. And then I think figuring out if it is AHT money, what everyone contribute their share and things like that, working, would that be what people would want. I support those types of questions and comments just to kind of get some idea of how to move forward. Um. I still want to answer the question. So I didn't, I don't know if you're done with that piece of it. Um, so the question that I think you prompted us with was just, is there other feedback that we would want to share with the group. And I think just trying to understand, um, I'll just jump straight to the point, I suppose. I don't think that we should be using taxpayer funds to promote sectarian purposes. And so I think the state has changed the law. So if churches want to build whatever they want on their property, now they can. So, um, I don't think we need to get involved in that. And I don't think that we should be promoting any particular sect with taxpayer money. Thanks. Any other feedback from you, Commissioner Stolzman. So the home act didn't apply to churches.

2:08:16I thought that they can do a bunch of things now. Senate Bill 1, right? Non. Oh no, it was a hospital 101. No, just a second. It's, um, it's nonprofit organizations that are involved in housing that have a history of being involved in housing. And I believe educational institutions are still on the list. But churches were removed. Um, it doesn't change my comment overall. I mean, yeah, just, just, just for that, four different pieces of legislation this year, which had them in them at various stages. And so if it came out of everything, the point of my comment still stands. Sure. Curious to feather commissioners want to weigh in on partnerships with faith - based organizations. That is the Austin model, but there are other models out there. And it would be helpful to hear if, if you share Commissioner Saltzman's concerns about that. I'm happy just to jump in on that question. For me, we have, my belief is we have a housing problem.

2:09:24And we have an opportunity to work with, um, anybody who is going to be a partner in the state of Colorado. And it might be a private developer and it might be a private landowner. It might be somebody who wants to put us in their will. It might be a faith - based organization or an educational facility. So I'm really open to understanding who those partners might be and having a very wide open door. I do believe we can put some criteria in there. If there is any concerns about terms and all those different things, and that could be one of them. But I would not, um, put a blockade on any partner being possible opportunity to solve on this issue, not solve. Can I just clarify? Cause it. Was in Commissioner Locherman's response was reframed differently than what I'm talking about. And so just to clarify what I'm talking about a little bit. So, um, in the Colorado Constitution, this has been challenged. And this will continue to be eroded because the Supreme Court hates the country. But the Constitution of Colorado prevents the state County Cities and School District from making appropriations or paying public funds in aid of any church or sectarian society for any sectarian purpose. And it's in many home rule charters and many different places. Now there are faith

2:10:49- based organizations that do work with cities, counties, and the state in non - sectarian ways. And so, like, I think maybe that's what I was hearing in Commissioner Locherman's response, which is something different than what I'm talking about. But I don't think that it's appropriate to require community member to receive a public benefit by requiring that they participate in a specific religious ideology. And I think it runs the risk of excluding members of our community, particularly LGBTQ members that are under attack right now by the federal government. And I'm very concerned about excluding people by. I'm just very, like there are states right now that are talking about things that I would never have believed that we were talking about in 2026 with harming community members. And I guess I'm mainly thinking of trans community members, but other community members can be harmed as well. And so I just don't think it is appropriate to go down this course, um, and I think we should just be firm and clear. And I think going in this direction just puts everyone at harm. So that's where I'm coming from. Thanks for that. Clarification and just wanted to give Commissioner Lutzman an opportunity. If you had additional questions around that, um, if that helped to clarify for you. Yeah. No, I think I do need some

2:12:14clarification. I don't, I don't know exactly you're trying to say, um, when you say going down that path would be unacceptable. And I don't know what that path means. I don't know. So if you could be clear, then that would be super helpful to me because my intent and creating opportunities to solve that housing crisis and the crisis for folks in our community who are unhoused is not based in exclusionary. Um, ideology or requiring anybody to participate in a type of, um, faith - based practices, et cetera. So I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to say or not. Um, but I want to make sure we're clear because I think it's going to be important for us to be able to go to the rest of the munies and towns and just say, what is the Board of County Commissioners open too. So I just want to offer Commissioner Schultzman. Is there additional clarification that you want to provide on that. I just feel like anything further I say, well, just further complicate the matter. And that's my fear. And it's not, I just, I've tried to say it two different ways. And share a lot of specific detail. And I don't know how to say it in any other way. Okay. Thank you. Um, I want to turn to Commissioner Levy and

2:13:38see if you have a thought about this topic of working with other. I think it's complicated. Um, you know, we have, we worked with Jewish family services. We worked with Lutheran Family Services. Following the King Supra shooting for mental health services following the Martial Fire, you know, probably in other capacities. I don't think in all instances partnering with a faith - based organization creates the hazards that I know can be there and that I would want to avoid. And so, um, I don't think I would rule it out. However, I do think we want to be careful. About, um, being basically in a funding relationship with a faith - based organization. And how they would bring their faith to the project. And because if there is any aspect of it that requires any sort of participation in anything that would feel like a religious service or any sort of a commitment, I mean, that would be an absolute red line for me. That would be a no. If serving the community in this way, I think about Habitat for Humanity, which is a faith - based organization, um, and it is just furthering their mission to provide housing and to do it in the way that they do it. And they don't ask what your religion you are, if any to be eligible for their

2:15:37housing. I just don't know who might be a potential partner here, but I am. Very careful or cautious about that. And I don't know what other sorts of organizations might have money that they would want to put into it, you know, whether there's just a sectarian philanthropic organization or, you know, Bloomberg money or Zuckerberg Chan money or, you know, I have no idea. There are all kinds of hopes that are really wanting to put money into the housing situation. But for me again, that threshold is just, what's the data show about how successful these are? And I don't know whether the, um, time whether the Austin thing has been going, uh, running long enough to get data. This is 23. I guess they, you know, what are they doing? How long, what's their data? Um, I, I like the comparing contrast. So I don't only want to hear from communities that have been successful unless gosh, you scoured the internet and there just weren't any that were unsuccessful. They were all a resounding success. I just really wanted to know because these are monies that we put it into this and we're, we're not, you know, it's money that we have that we wouldn't be putting into something else. Okay. I want to just pause for another moment to see if there's additional feedback on

2:17:01question number three from any commissioner. If I could just, um, invite just something that would be helpful to me, um, because I am curious about if the group next week is also kind of going to like, okay, maybe we have something and then we're going to start into this conversation about what could it look like, who would we be serving, et cetera. And so it's just a question. And if the answer right now, that's okay. But I would be interested in if there was a priority population that the Board of County Commissioners would be interested in focusing on because there are organizations all around the country who have kind of tried to pick one population and veterans as an example, um, and the focus really is addressing veteran homelessness, right? Um, just the different projects that we've looked at. I don't know if it's too soon to ask that, but I do want to ask in case the conversation comes up. And if, if it's something we want to think about later as another step, that would be totally fine. But I just wanted to ask if that's something that I'm just looking at the data. Or the prep information for today, if anybody's thought about that at all. Commissioner Levy, Commissioner Stoltzman, do you have a priority population in mind. At this point? Or

2:18:22something we should talk about later on? No, I mean, I don't understand it's to serve. People who have been chronically homeless, um, within that population. I don't think I would try to differentiate. Mr. Saltman, well, I just, I don't know enough to answer the question intelligently, I suppose. Like I guess I would ask Heidi if it would make more sense to target like family homelessness with this type of a village or if it would make more sense for it to be responsive to adult male homelessness. Like I just, I don't actually know enough. And there wasn't background on that. So I guess I would ask staff if it makes sense. If we're pursuing this, if we should be looking at a priority population. There's multiple different models. I mean, um, the VCP as an example has four units for families. Mostly it's single moms with one or two kiddos just cause the small space. But a vast majority of the tinyum villages are primarily targeted to households without custodial miners. So that are chronic. Correct.

2:19:32Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I was just, it was just a curiosity, not something that I haven't committed to take anything back to that conversation next week. Thank you. All right. Any other feedback. Commissioners. I think the only other piece that I was interested in, we've just talked about it really briefly. And this is kind of a second step is if we, as a working group, were to find a few parcels to consider, then it would be helpful for me to know how would the board want us to come back with that type of information in a work session just like this so that we could plan accordingly. And then also, um, we've looked at a model of the Asimotto. We've looked at VCP and some people have gone up there and toured it since this group got together. But there's other models. And so I think that would be another question. The working group so far has given input again talking with their membership.

2:20:32And so that seems like a really solid way for us to move forward. But I do want to just ask the board of county commissioners, if and what you would like as to bring back to you all. Commissioners, um, if I may, I would suggest that, um, perhaps we could do, uh, from staff, we could do a little written report out of, you know, here's what we heard from the communities next week. And we could share that not just with this board, but with the other city and town, um, Council members is a little summary of the discussion. Um, and then that might, um, give us the opportunity, depending on what that group says, that would give us the opportunity to understand whether we're returning to a board discussion about specific parcels. If we're returning to a board discussion that would take some more time for us to develop concepts, or if we can get something back fairly quickly. I don't know. I'm looking at Susanna to see if you had any other ideas. No, that sounds great. Thank you. That would work great for me if that answers your question. That works great. Okay.

2:21:43Good. Thank you. So I'm just going to turn one to staff. Is there anything else that you need on this epic. No, but I will follow up with those data for the board. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for your time today. Okay. And this is the last thing on our agenda. So the, uh, we are adjourned. And I've decided that's very important. Now I love it.