Transcript

0:00:27Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, thank you. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Okay, good morning. Today is June 9th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have all three commissioners present in the hearing room this morning, and we are here for our business meeting. We'll start with the consent agenda, and that is items 4A through M. I have a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. We have pardon? No. I'm voting no. Oh, I'm sorry. No, that's okay. Okay, all in favor aye, all opposed? No. No, thank you. Okay, was there something you wanted to pull off the consent agenda? Nope. No, okay. All right, well, that will be noted in the record. We have one item on our discussion agenda, and that is our emergency services grant program, and we have Barb help in here with us. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Barb Helten, Special Project Coordinator in the Commissioner's Office, and I'm here today, and my role is the Staffle Azone to the Emergency Services Grant Program Visory Committee. There are a group of County residents with experience, expertise, and interested emergency response and activities that make recreating in Boulder County safer for everyone. Twice a year, the Emergency Services grant committee reviews scores and makes recommendations on grant proposals received as

0:01:56part of the emergency services sales and use tax ballot measure, which was passed by Boulder County Voters in 2022 as issue 1B. Joining me virtually this morning is Ben Hogan. He's our advisory committee chair, and I've invited Ben, both the thank him and the other committee members for the work they do each season to make recommendations for your consideration on how to award 2. 5 million dollars in emergency services grants annually. So Ben is here. If any of you have questions later, otherwise I will serve as the Representative of the Recommendations. We're here today to present the committee's award recommendations for the 2026 Spring Emergency Services Grant Round. The spring ground is offered to search and rescue groups and organizations throughout the County working to make public trails and recreational areas in Boulder County, safer and more accessible for all community members. A separate grant round in the fall. Serves the needs of Boulder County's Mountain and rural fire districts. As a quick overview, the advisory committee meets several times each grant round to discuss all applications received as part of the sales tax supported grant program, eventually agreeing on a recommendation for your consideration on how the semi - annual portion of the Grant Pool might be spent. For this round of grants, the County received nine proposals, totaling almost 700, 000 dollars. And

0:03:40after careful consideration of each proposal and an extended discussion on two of the proposals which have been recommended for partial funding, the committee recommends funding all nine proposals in full or in part for a total of 341 190, 000 dollars for the spring 2026 search and rescue and trail safety grant round. A summary of the recommendations and an explanation of the committee's review process is provided in the staff that Mobi for you, including a brief explanation of the two partial ground recommendations. The request before you represent a range of requests, including essential life - saving and safety equipment, radios, it improved communications. First aid training, small capital purchases, and trail safety outreach and education projects. I'm going to turn this discussion over to you in a moment, but first I want to provide you with a cumulative summary of the grant approvals that have been made since the program was created three years ago. Um, I'm proud to say this is my sixth time up in front of you with a set of proposals for the emergency services grant program with the help of the advisory committee and your careful consideration of the sales tax dollars generously approved by Boulder County Voters. Boulder County has funded over 6 million dollars and dispersed that locally for five prior grant rounds. And a detailed list of the

0:05:11recipients, the types of available on the county website. Finally, I just want to thank the members of the ESG pack for their efforts in thoroughly and thoughtfully reviewing all grant proposals and making the recommendations that are in front of you. We really have a tremendous committee with so much experience and depth in their knowledge of firefighting EMT response, search and rescue and others. And they put a lot of volunteer time and work into this recommendations. So with that, I'll stop and see if you have any questions. Great. Thank you so much and thank you for the memo in the packet. Commissioner, is any questions? I don't have any questions. Barb, thank you for being here. Thanks for the information. I read through the packet and the description and understanding even of how you, what you just described in a presentation of being able to address all of the nine applicants with some funding, even though some of it was partial, I saw that found some of the initial questions I had in the packet. So just really appreciate that. I also want to acknowledge you've done a great job of bringing the committee members forward and helping them be part of this group to be able to use vote or prove tax funds and your leadership has been really important to that group. So I

0:06:30didn't get an opportunity in this round to be as involved as I have in the past and you've done a fabulous job. So I just want to acknowledge that, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Shalina. Sure. Commissioner Stolzman, any second that, great job. Great. Well, I concur as well. I did have a question though. If you could just remind me why we do two grant cycles a year. That's great. I'm happy to put that on the record as well. We decided early on when we did focus groups when the tax was first passed, there were, there was a consensus that sort of the fire departments and the fire protection districts up in the mountains and the rural areas kind of had their own needs and their own just collaborative way of responding and asking for, um, capital and other needs. And so it was decided that we group them in one round of grants. And then the other group is a much, it's a little bit broader. Um, it's search and rescue agencies. It's nonprofit groups that might provide first aid or help with, uh, accessibility or education. Um, you know, if people are out hiking on the trail, they should get injured. So it was just determined that those deeds are very different and that they should be splitted to two groups. So we decided

0:07:52to take care of one in the fall. That was actually launched in the fall. Our cycle is kind of off of the calendar year, but we consider the first grants are usually the fire district ones in the fall. They're more heavily funded. Um, and then the spring is open to just more eight groups and organizations. Then the fire departments are a set group. We know who they are. They have to have an association with the state, et cetera. So, um, because those needs are different. We didn't was determined by the groups and the committee. And sorry, the county that mixing them would just be too hard. On the committee and everybody else. To mush them together. Wish them together. Yeah. No, that makes total sense. And I guess I maybe could have gleaned that from the groups that are being awarded. Um, this cycle. But that's just helpful for me. And I think it does make sense not to have them. Not that they compete against one another, but not to try to weigh proposals against one another when you have such different kinds of organizations. So that was the only question I have. Um, I would not want to second guess the advisory committee at all in their judgments and in reading the explanation of the grants that where they weren't recommended for full

0:09:14funding, it looks like they took a very thoughtful approach to that. So I don't have any other questions. And I also want to thank you in the committee for your work. So we are ready for motion on 5A. Move approval. Second. Okay. All in favor. Aye. All right. We have approved that. Thank you. We are now ready to for confirmation of executive session topics. Good morning commissioners Natalie Swingg. Commissioners Deputy for the record. I'm here to confirm that the executive session topics that were noticed at the June 2nd, 2026, regular business meeting of the board were discussed as scheduled. And this is simply a note for the record. So I'm happy to move us to item seven. Commissioners, I'm here to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into executive session on Wednesday, June 10th at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS 24 - 6 - 402 subsection for Blegal advice regarding a potential and make us brief in American Association of Nurse Practitioners v Mick Mahone, DC District Court case 26 CV01780. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. So we have now authorized that executive session. And, uh, next we will have a public hearing, two public hearings on some Boulder County Parks and Open Space Real Estate acquisitions. And I see Gina Burghart. And I'm going to need a

0:10:50reminder of your name, sir, but you can say it for the record before you speak. And Michael Sylvester, I see in the agenda. Thank you. Anyway, first up is the Woodley Conservation Easement C dot taking Highway 7 Widening. So, and please do it and state your name for the record. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Michael Sylvester. I work for the real estate division of Parks and Open Space. Today I'm presenting on the Woodley Conservation Easeman CDOT Taking. This disposition affects the Woodley conservation easement property, which is located just east of Arapaho and 75th Street. CDOT is requesting the disposition of a strip of land on the Woodley Conservation Easement Property due to its highway seven multimodal corridor project. Highway 7 is locally known here as Arapaho Road. Our stretch of this project consists of a highway widening for congestion and safety purposes. The property has an address of 7957 Arapaho Road and has been owned by Chris and Jennifer Anderson since 2015. The County purchased a conservation easement over the property from the City of Boulder in 2006. The subject of the taking is a 0. 09 acre strip along the southern edge of the property. One CDOT and the, pardon me, C dot through discussion with the county CDOT has determined that the final valuation owed to the County for its share of

0:12:32the condemnation proceeds, uh, representing the value of its conservation easement is 2, 800. Pardon me. I need such consult my notes this, uh, take your time. These notes are a little out of date. The value has been determined to be 2, 883 dollars and 75 cents. The terms of the resolution to create the sales tax that was used to purchase this conservation easement interest requires specific procedures to be followed to dispose of the property interest. Notice was mailed to the 14 property owners within 500 feet of the property. Notice of this meeting, um, as well as the May 28th POSAC meeting. We're published in local newspapers the final week of May of May. At this time, one public comment has been received from the Andersons, which has been included as an attachment in the memo provided. A 60 day waiting period following the BOCC hearing is required before the conveyance could be finalized to allow, uh, the public to petition to request the disposition be submitted to a public vote. The disposition was presented to POSAC at their May 28th meeting. Who Zach unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approved the partial release of the Woodley Conservation Easement and a nine to zero vote. CDOT has condemnation authority over Boulder County. So the county is legally unable to prevent the project and acquisition.

0:14:10The County prefers to cooperate informally with entities with condemnation authority in these instances to negotiate fair compensation rather than go through the full formal condemnation process. Staff recommends the approval of CDOTS acquisition of fee title to the point 09 acres of property described. The action requested by staff today is to recommend the approval of the partial release of the 0. 09 acres of the Woodley Conservation Easemen as I have described. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you so much. Questions, commissioners. Thank you. Thanks Michael for the presentation. Just a question in regards to, and you talked about it in your presentation, the public comment that was received. I just, I heard you say, yes, we got a public comment. It's in the pocket and I wanted to hear from you from a staff perspective about how you all are taking this piece into account and or if it goes to another division or group within the county. Um, the public comment that was submitted, um, it does have a lot of issues, um, with the City of Boulder, um, primarily. Some of it as well with the conservation easement generally. I would say that the comment is sort of doesn't really apply to this condemnation process very, um, evenly. I'd say that the main complaint of is that the Boulder Count, the

0:15:41owners feel that the conservation is a mentally limits them. And has not prevent and they are disappointed that it is not prevented this taking. However, um, you know, given that CDOT has condemnation authority over this property, the conservation, um, can't really stand in the way of CDOT's ability to condemn the property that they need. Thank you. And I read it too. And the same way there was a few different topics in there, but their concerns. And so that was part of my question of just, is this something that I eat the conservation team can take at least receive or the City of Boulder at least receive. And if, if that's already happened and if not, I'm happy to facilitate that just from my own personal as one commissioner reading the information in this packet. Um, as I would normally distribute to folks that have interest in the topic. Sure. I can't really speak to the City of Boulder. I know that, um, the conservation is my team as well as, uh, community planning and permitting have been in talks with, uh, owners of the property extensively. Leading up to this, um, leading up to this condemnation. Thank you. Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Um, you put up a cross section of a road and I wondered if that cross section is representative of this stretch

0:17:04of road. If that is planned on this stretch of road and like it, some of the renderings I had seen in a different setting really only show that cross section at major intersections and not in this area. So I wonder like what improvements are actually planned by CDOT and whether because you've said several times during this hearing that they have condemnation authority, but that's not a limitless authority that applies to any sort of purpose. So I'm just trying to understand what the planned roadway improvements are in this area. So I can understand if I think that they have reasonable authority over condemnation in this particular situation. Sure. My understanding is that this particular stretch between, I can show the. That for this particular stretch, um, between 75th and 95th is to essentially widen the shoulder so that a bus could potentially use the shoulder during periods where it would be, um, congested. Um, do not have, uh, whole lot of information other than that on the multimodal corridor project. But I believe this area between 75th and 95th Street. That is the primarily primary goal.

0:18:18I don't know how to wrestle with that in this hearing. I just, the cross sections I had most recently seen on the project show, um, widening at the intersections primarily. So we have a transportation planner coming to save the day. Yes. We have landed Hillier. This is purely by coincidence. I was here to listen to another part. But to add to what excuse me. We know you. My name is Land and Hilliard Principal Transportation Planner with Community Planning and Permitting Program. I was part of a design team that CDOT led for 15 percent design of Color of Seven segment B between 63rd Street and US 2d7. And to add to what my colleague said, for the reason for this slight expansion here is to add left turn base. Uh, there's been a history of some rear end collisions and left - turn base or proven countermeasure to reduce that risk of collisions when car drivers are making a left turn movement both into the two sections under question. I think I'll leave it at that.

0:19:26I hope that somewhat helpful. I think I'm not seeing any more questions come your way. Don't go far. Um. Commissioner Stoltzman, do you have more or you think? I'm just thinking. Thank you. Well, I have, um, I have a question along those lines. If you could put that cross section back up again, um, and I mean, we're not, we're here to decide on whether to approve this disposition and not really to, I mean, it's all bound up with this project. And we haven't had a full presentation on this. But I do wonder if you could indicate, you know, I gather. So the north side, what's shown here on the north side that has this multi - use path. Do you know roughly the boundary of the taking? I mean, where the current property line is on this cross section. Um, I know that the taking consists of approximately 13 feet of the 13 foot wide strip along the entire southern, um, section of the property.

0:20:41So I thought it was the northern section from the. So it would be here. Northern section of road southern. Yes. The southern section of the property of the north. Oh, it's northern side of Raphael, yes. So 13 feet. Okay. And it looks like the right of way. Would probably, it looks like the bit of, um, slope, you know, a toe on the slope there to for drainage and snow and stuff. So, um, I mean, we don't know, we don't have dimensions on the right of way. So we don't, we don't really know how far this thing goes. Um, okay. All right. I don't, that was the only question I had. Thanks. And we will take public testimony on this. Uh, I know that, okay, it looks like nobody has signed up to speak either, uh, in person or virtually there was the comment in the memo, the owners of that. Woodley property indicating that they are out of town and don't have Zoom access. And so they submitted their comment in lieu. So we'll close the public, uh, hearing, um, Michael, anything else that you'd like us to know before we make a decision on this. No, I don't believe so. If that answers all your questions or I'm happy to answer more. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well then we will close a public

0:22:08hearing and we will deliberate and make a decision on this request for a disposition. Sure. I'm happy to get us started. Thank you. Um, and thanks for the presentation and appreciate the, um, share of information regards to POSAC as our advisory committee and regrets to an open space. And their approval and recommendation as well in the packet, what I'm reading here is that the staff is recommending this particular item because there's condemnation authority over Boulder County and I heard you talk about in that Presentation versus a long and drawn out process. Um, and it was helpful. Landon that you were here just as a reminder about how long this process and the project has been in the works and the different planning pieces of it. I'm supportive of taking the recommendation from stuff. Okay. Great Commissioner Stolzman. Any comments? Yeah. I mean, it's, it's actually pretty tricky. And I, um, you know, CDA doesn't have infinite authority to, um, take private property. And I think in our state, we have a long history of protecting private property rights. Um, it's just so unclear to me what the purpose is of the project. So I just find myself actually with insufficient information to make a decision.

0:23:31Um, because I don't like, we're, we're having a highway project where there is no expansion of the highway. There's no plan for long - term bus service. Like there is a short - term plan, but in the long term, there's no sustainable funding for it. Um, I don't think there's any funding for the bike path. So I just, I feel like I have not enough information to understand whether CDOT needs to take this for their purposes of, uh, transportation, um, I just simply don't have enough information. To say that we should take private property, um, for this purpose. Um. Just for a point of clarification, this, we're only deciding on condemning the conservation easement over this property from the email, it looks like the underlying property owner, the fee title owner has already settled with CDOT. So we're not really deliberating on whether that condemnation should go forward. I understand the point that you're making, but the conservation, these men is overprivate property and the private property owner felt that the conservation he's met was there to protect their property. Um, and conserve it. And I tend to agree that that's why we put conservation easements over private property. Okay. Um, well, thank you for those thoughts and comments. Um, I think for me, they, I mean, this Colorado Servina Project has been under review

0:25:02and planning for a very long time. And I know there's a lot of concern about the lack of a, you know, a sufficiently wide shoulder to support bicycle use on this road. I myself have actually biked on this route and it's quite terrifying. And, uh, and I, I don't know. I mean, I don't think CDOT or, um, you know, any of the parties to this whole Colorado 7 Project have secured the funding, but this is, uh, really an important part of it. I think, and I'm, you know, yes, they have condemnation authority. It would be kind of pointless to put them through the process of an actual condemnation hearing, which is very expensive, all for the sake of 2, 800 dollars, which they will ultimately get in the end. I mean, and I suppose, yes, there are criteria and they would have to demonstrate that they need it. And that's the fair value of the taking. I think the only, I guess, comment I want to make is that, you know, we don't, yes, it's true. They have condemnation authority. They can force this. Um, I do recall instances in which we actually did work with the condemning authority to find an alternative where we really felt that that condemnation was ill - advised. There was one, I don't recall the intersection, but it was

0:26:34in East County somewhere where they were going to take a significant portion of some open space that was very valuable. And it was, it was productive ag land. And we worked with them and we're able to find a way to, I don't remember if we completely avoided the condemnation or were able to just minimize it. But, um, but I do think it's important to really rigorously scrutinize these requests to make sure that, uh, that we minimize the extent of the taking and that we only agree to it when it's absolutely necessary. So I just wanted to put those comments on the record. Um, so I think if the commissioners don't have any further discussion or deliberation, then Commissioner Lothrowman perhaps you would like to put a motion on the table. I can do that. I'm not at that section. It's page 326. Oh, thanks. I'm on page 323. So hang on.

0:27:42Please turn my package. Sure. Um. I mean, I can do something just from separate, but let's see how I'll get to your page. Um, yeah, it's a little different. Let's see here. So this is in reference to the Woodley C 2026 C dot taken for Colorado Highway 7 widening. And on item 8a and a move approval as a recommended by staff. And I second that motion all in favor. Say aye. Aye. Aye. And those opposed nay. May. So that is approved two to one. Thank you very much, Michael. Thank you, commissioners. We have another open space. Matter. And this is the Montgomery Open Space Property. And this is a taking by the City of Longmont for their Montgomery water tank. Tina, thank you for being here. Yes. Yes. Hang on one second. Let me get this. Okay. Good morning commissioners Tina Burghart Real Estate Division Manager. Parks and Open Space. I'm here to talk to you today about the Montgomery 2026 City of Long Montaking.

0:28:59The Montgomery Property is in the northeast part of the County, or excuse me, the North, really. And it's approximately two miles east of Lions. Uh, south of 66 near the intersections of Highway 66 and North 53rd in that little circle there on the map. Here is a vicinity map of the Montgomery Property outlined in Light Blue. So the City of Longmont proposes to acquire permanent non - exclusive easement over approximately 400 square feet or about 0. 009 acres of the Montgomery property to construct a boar entry point for emergency overflow of the cities Montgomery Water Tank Replacement Project. Here's a closer view of the Montgomery Property. It's the triangle on the bottom of the map. And the city's existing water tank is to the north of the Montgomery Property. It's that white circle there. Um, the new facility will be constructed on the parcel to the east, which is, um, also owned by the City of Longmap. This slide shows a preliminary design. The white circle is existing tank, as you saw. And that dark gray one is, um, roughly where the replacement tank will go. Um, on the bottom middle, you can see the underground pipeline that will extend under Highway 66. Um, as part of this new facility, the City of Longmont plans to construct a buried emergency tank overflow pipeline and associated

0:30:34outfall infrastructure. Um, they will install this via trenchless bore methods. And on the, um, Montgomery Property itself, it will be all walk on work. The approximate area where this buried pipeline will be is shown in the map, um, in the white box, um, so it's kind of overlaid on the property. That's approximate. This outfall has been designed by per state regulations to convey a potentially potential emergency overflow of the new drinking water storage tank. While this emergency overflow is a required project design element per state requirements, the city does not anticipate conveying any significant flows through the overflow pipeline and outfall outside of an emergency event. Sorry. So municipalities also have condemnation authority over Boulder County. And so the County is legally unable to prevent this project. Um, Boulder County does prefer to cooperate informally with entities that have condemnation authorities. And in these instances to negotiate a fair market, um, compensation rather than a full condemnation process that is more costly and time consuming for both parties. Uh, in this instance, the City of the Longmine is cooperative in meeting staff requests to design and preserve the open space interests, um, impacted to minimize a disturbances and provide reclamation standards to the extent practical.

0:31:57As I said, it's an underground line and they are going to be, um, constructing it all by walking on the property and no equipment will go on the property. The city is also required to provide just compensation for this easement. Accordingly, the City and the County have negotiated five thousand dollars for the Eashmen area in the County agrees. This is a fair market value of the easement. The terms of the resolution to create the sales tax that was used to purchase this property requires specific procedures to be followed to dispose of this easement, which include notification of nearby property owners. Notice that this hearing and the post - accuring were published in official newspapers of the area to meet legal publishing requirements for dispositions. The notices also included in Intitation to attend this hearing. Um, if the permanent easement is approved by you today, there is also a mandatory 60 day waiting period prior to the conveyance of the easement. Uh, the May 28th hearing, POSAC recommended by a 90 vote approval to recommend this to you today. Um, therefore staff is granting in support of granting the requested easement to the City of Long Lant for the use. I've just described. And I'm happy to answer any questions at this time. I also want to note that we have three representatives from the City

0:33:18of Longmont online that if you have any questions about this facility or any technical, um, questions that I am out of my realm to answer their online right now. Good. Thank you very much Tina. And, um, I'll just maybe before I opened up for questions offer the opportunity to the Representatives from the city to, um, say anything that they'd like to say at this time. That way if we have questions and they can answer them better than Tina can. We can hear from everybody efficiently. And it looks like no real comment. Joe Mohalski City Longmont, no further comments other than, uh, the need for the project to convey the emergency overflow if it were to ever occur. Okay. Hi, Lane Kelly Olson. Just echo what Joe said. And we also have someone from Cdium Smith who was the design engineer on the project. So if anyone has more technical questions, we're happy to answer those too. Okay. Appreciate you being available. Uh, let's see if the commissioners have any questions for Tina or any of you. Thank you. Thanks Hannah for the Presentation Information. And for the folks online for being available for questions, I don't have any additional questions. Thank you. I also don't have any questions. And I don't either, but thank you all for being available. And thank you, Tina, for explaining

0:34:49this project to us. Uh, we will also open it up for public hearing, uh, public testimony on this matter. Um, do we have anyone signed up? We do not. I will ask whether the one in the hearing room that would like to speak that didn't sign up. I don't see anybody indicating that. So, uh, we will close the public hearing. And Gina, is there anything else you'd like to share with us before we deliberate. Yeah. Um, I guess I just occurred to me during the POSAC meeting, there were questions about what, what would precipitate or what be deemed an emergency event that would cause this outflow to be used. And, um, I guess maybe I could get one of the folks online to describe how unlikely that emergency event is and what would trigger that to happen so that pose that can hear their questions answered. Go ahead, John. Sure.

0:35:58Can you guys hear me all right? Yes, we can. Thanks. And you'll just state your name, please, before you speak. Sure. Uh, John Reed CDM Smith. I'm with the city's engineering consulting team. So, you know, an overflow is not meant to happen. Um, but the state, uh, requires that any drinking water storage tank, uh, includes an emergency overflow that is size to convey. The largest inflow capacity of that tank. And in this case, uh, 54 CFS, I know these numbers are, are kind of different, um, it's essentially the maximum inflow that this tank will ever see. And so we're required to include the emergency overflow. In this case, um, we needed to construct this under the C dot roadway. Uh, we try to do this with limited means. So a trenchless crossing. And access to that overflow is permitted through the C dot NBNSF property way there. Um, so the only case that, uh, an overflow would happen here is if we received a stacked failure in the system, which is extremely rare, um, there are instruments within the City of Longmonts, uh, operations system that are designed to, uh, witness and trigger that the tank has reached an overflow level. So those instruments would have to fail. Uh, which would be the result of a power failure. For instance. And in that case, the

0:37:42site is actually designed to hold an overflow for anywhere from 1. 5 to five minutes depending on how much flow is entering the tank at that time. And so that duration would also have to, uh, be exceeded. Essentially the plant would have to not recognize for that period of time. Um, in the event that that happens, um, then water would leave the site through this sized overflow conveyance line, which has been designed by licensed stormwater engineers to convey that maximum overflow amount. And in that case, um, that overflow would only happen if there was a manual closure of a valve on the outlet end of the Montgomery Tank. Those valves, um, are operated by license to operators. And in order to close that valve, um, you would need to, uh, have licensed authority, uh, to do so, uh, from a supervisor, um, and there's really not a lot of instances when an outlet valve would need to be closed unless there's, um, some kind of maintenance activity happening. Um, another potential, um, cause of an overflow on the downstream side of the tank would be a collapse or blockage, uh, in the downstream end of the distribution system, which is also a very unlikely scenario, um, caused by a rare failure of a large diameter steel piping. And so we would really need to see

0:39:31a stacked failure scenario, our outage, a failure of the city's communication system and a manual closure of a downstream valve or a, uh, or a failure of the steel pipe itself, which, which is very unlikely. And in the event that does happen, um, the overflow infrastructure is sized, um, and has been engineered by licensed stormwater engineers to safely convey that overflow to the receiving saint vein basin. All right. John, thank you very much for that explanation. It's helpful. Sure. Um, all right. So, uh, commissioners, any additional and questions. Based on that. No, some looks like we're all very well informed and ready to make a decision. Any deliberation or should we go directly to a motion? Do we, there was no other public comment this? Nobody signed up and nobody indicated they wanted to speak when I asked for comment in the room. So I think we satisfied that requirement. I'm happy to move approval just to frame the conversation of item eight B. And maybe we'll get a second and then we can see if there's discussion needed. I'm sorry. I thought I heard you say I'm happy to, I move approval of item A. B. Okay. Thank you. Um, and I concur with what's it here in regards to the stuff's recommendation. I appreciate hearing about post sex. Um, they're approval to move

0:41:04forward. The recommendation as well. And thank you for the folks online for being here, John, for that information as well in regards to the requirement of neverflow tank. I don't, I'm happy to second. Okay. So we have a motion in a second and I have no need to add to any comments. I think we'll proceed to a vote. All in favor. Aye. Aye. So we have approved item eight B. Thank you, Tina, for that work. Thank you, City of Longmont staff members for joining us this morning to help us. Uh, we will now move to the last item on our morning agenda, which is another public hearing on petition for the organization of the Summerlin Public Improvement District of Boulder County and Olivia Lucas is here on that matter. Good. Morning commissioners. Just one moment I get my presentation up. Yes. Take your time.

0:42:22Am I missing anything. There we go. Excellent. Um, good morning commissioners. I'm Olivia Lucas, senior assistant County Attorney. And I'm here today to talk to you about a proposal to put the formation and taxing authority of the Summerlin Public Improvement District of Boulder County on the ballot for November. So we received petitions from residents of the Summerlin neighborhood in unincorporated Boulder County seeking to create this public improvement district, PID, to fund road improvements in their area. Our receipt of that petition sets off a set of statutory requirements. The first one, um, was scheduling this meeting and the associated notice, which went out in the newspaper and by mailing, um, and now we're here at this hearing. So this hearing is persuaded to CRS 20, sorry, 30, 2508 and asking to consider the proposed resolution 2026 34, which would put the question of formation and taxing authority of the Summerlin PID on the ballot November. That's the limited purpose of this hearing. So what we're not doing today is we're not, um, going to be considering particular ballot language. That'll be done via later resolution. And we're also, we'll be coming back to you later to discuss the terms of a potential intergovernmental agreement to describe the County and PID relationship with respective financing for the proposed work. So today is just the question of putting

0:43:54it on the ballot. Um, so the questions for today's hearing are, does the project provide a benefit to the district in proportion to the assessed value of the properties in the district. Was the petition properly presented? That is, did it have enough signatures and information in it? And show the question of formation be referred to the voters. So we believe the answer to each of these questions is yes, which we'll talk through during this hearing and we're going to be requesting you to sign resolution 2026 34, which is in your materials. Before we walk through the answers to the three questions I just mentioned, wanted to talk, take some time to talk about the district's purposes. So this is a proposed subdivision paving PID. It's purposes are to fund, um, resurfacing of public roads within the district, including the repaving and or reconstruction of asphalt roads, sidewalk improvements, concrete curb guttering cross pans directly associated with road resurfacing, maintenance of roadside ditches and other cost associated with those improvements. The petition that was filed by the petitioners seeks a maximum mill levy of 17. 34 mils to fund this work on the 0. 57 roads, excuse me, miles of road that serve, um, the residents.

0:45:17And the long - term project includes the resurfacing two chip seals and a two inch asphalt overlay as needed. Um, the maximum mill request would be in perpetuity to also pay for future resurfacing needs. This slide shows the approximate location of the Somerlin District. It is off of airport road and it is the 33 properties that our services, sorry, an unincorporated county that take access from summerland drive or Somerlin place. So this slide lists those parcels provides a general area map. This list was also in the petition, um, that we received. So now getting to the questions presented at the beginning of the Presentation, um, the project provides a benefit to the district in paying for road resurfacing over time. And this benefit is in proportion to the assessed value of the properties in the district. The petition recites, um, estimated cost of 1. 25 million for the proposed improvements. And the assessor's office calculates that the total assessed value of all the property within the proposed district as of 2025 was 59, 658, 900 dollars So the cost of the improvements are not excessive as compared to the value of the property in the district. Finally, the maximum proposed Mille levy of 17. 34 mils equates to 111. Dollars and 47 cents per 100, 000 dollars of current actual home value in the district.

0:46:55The proponents again have requested this 17. 34 mils as a maximum amount and may certify below that amount in the future. If the proposal passes and the budget for the work supports it. So we think that the road paving improvements are will confer general benefit on the district. Finally the petition was properly presented using tax roles and voter registration information that petitioners sought signatures. From residents of the district. Um, the statutory requirement is at least 30 percent of the electors signed the petition. In this case there were 49 of 71 electors or approximately 69 percent who signed the petition requesting that you take this action. The statements and the petition are deemed to be true. Basically they're also recited in the resolution and we've said them here in this presentation in case you're wondering what they were. And, um, as discussed before the cost and benefits, the improvements are proportional to the value of the property in the district. So based on this information, you have the authority and jurisdiction to approve the petition and refer the question to the voters. Um, so based on this request, um, analysis that we just walked through, um, we're asking you to please sign Resolution 2026 34 that will accomplish the task requested. It recites the district purposes, approves the petition and refers the question of formation to

0:48:24the voters. It also refers the question of taxing authority to the voters, identifying the 17. 3 fill 34 mils maximum and authorizes the district to seek authority to enter into a multifiscal year obligation for the cost of improvements that will relate to whether the district seeks financing for that, um, and those are the taber requirements. As I noted before, a future resolution will set specific ballot language for this. And a future IgA will confirm obligations between the district and the county. So our request is that you approve resolution 2026 34. And if you have any questions, we have staff. And I believe, um, Representatives of the petitioners are present as well. Good. Thank you. Thanks, Olivia. Let's start with questions of Olivia. Great. Thanks. Thanks, Olivia, for the Presentation. One of mine is maybe a logistical question. There wasn't a memo in the packet. There was a resolution, which is important to review. But there wasn't anything either the memo information about petition, et cetera.

0:49:32So I was just thinking from the records portion of this, if there is additional documents, or maybe it's your slide presentation, and I didn't know, maybe thought there was a memory depict. No, no, there was no member this time. I can certainly present one in the future and I apologize for that. Um, the memo would look a lot like this presentation. Um, which is now in the record. So, but I'm happy to do one in the future. Okay. Um, and sometimes we add documents to the online record for folks later. So that was, yeah, yeah, we can, we can do that done. Thank you. Um, and then the other question I had, could you just speak about the part of this right now, what we're talking about is just improving the resolution, but it, I guess I'm thinking the authority that we're saying on the, whether the benefit in those three items that you talked about. So maybe this is also logistical question if we need to address those pieces. Or if by approving the resolution innately that's saying that we found those three pieces of information that we're required in authority and jurisdiction to approve, I was thinking maybe there's two different motions. So that's logistic. I don't believe so. I believe that the resolution sufficiently covers that finding by signing the resolution. It

0:50:43recites those items. And if you sign it, obviously, if you have questions or want to discuss, but the actual action of doing it would take place by signing the resolution or approving the resolution. Okay. And then the last question then, cause that one turned it into a logistical question as well. Timing of the IgA. The IgA, um, it's my understanding. And Robert Jacobs from public works is, um, sort of lead PID person. And he had an emergency this morning. So he's not here to answer that. But he's been the lead outreach with the petitioners, um, it's my understanding we'll move forward with those negotiations, even assuming you pass this resolution even prior to the, um, start working on it. I guess I should say before the election. But then finalize it because we have to make sure that the PID passes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, Commissioner Stolzman, any questions? I have comments for later, but no questions. I did not see, um, in, you did send the PowerPoint that you presented to us this morning. And I don't know where this is, Summerlin.

0:51:56Sure. Am I just supposed to know? This map, um, which is admittedly not maybe the very best map you've ever seen in your life and shows where it is. So it's off of airport road, um, in unincorporate County. Airport road being near Longmont. Diagonal. Left on airport. And it's, it looks like it's, um, Oh, now I can't give you a cardinal direction. North 119. Thank you. Okay. We'll go, we'll get if you want to have test money. We'll get you on the record later. Okay. Yeah. Thanks, thanks for that. Um, I just couldn't place that. Sure. At all. But that's helpful. Um, all right. Then, uh, we will take public testimony on this, um, matter. And so we have nobody signed up to speak. I will open it up, uh, new two gentlemen. Are you part of the petitioners here? If you'd like to come forward and say anything or anyone else in the hearing room who would like to tell us, uh, about this process and your neighbors and what you're hoping to do and whether you've heard any concerns about it, et cetera.

0:53:13And now's the time. Looks like nobody wants to say anything. Okay. Good. No, no need for more words than is absolutely necessary. Appreciate that. And nobody has signed up to speak online. So we will consider the public hearing to have occurred and be closed. Olivia, anything else from you before we take action on this resolution 2026 - 034. I'm nothing, brother. Thanks. All right. So we're ready for a motion. Um, just a quick comment from, um, over here. Just I find that the, um, folks in the neighborhood have correctly valued the cost of the project and that the mill levy that is proposed would cover the costs of the improvement. It seems that everything's in order with, um, getting more than enough signatures for interest, um, that this is a project that the community is interested in putting forward to decide on the ballot whether or not they want to pursue it. So I find that all of the criteria that we're required to find are met in order to approve putting this forward for the community to vote on this fall. And so with that, I will move approval of resolution number 2026 - 034. Okay. We have a second. I'm happy to second that motion and also have comments. Okay. So we do have a motion in a second. And now is the

0:54:34time for any additional comments. Thank you. Thanks, Olivia, for the information. And I'm just trying to focus on those three pieces. And I do agree with what you've presented here on Regards too. Um, the paying, the benefit being paying for a road surfacing in unincorpretableder County. And it's great to see the significant percentage that application and petition process. Um, and so I'm happy to support the formation based on what you've provided here. Thank you. All right. So I have nothing to add. All the findings are in the resolution. And so we have a motion and a second all in favor say aye. Aye. So thank you very much, Olivia. We have approved that resolution and on to the next steps. Um, that is the end of our morning agenda, uh, we will be in recess until one o'clock.

0:55:58Commissioner, are you ready? Yes, thank you. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Okay, good afternoon. We are reconvening for our afternoon work session here on June 9th, 2026. And we have two topics that we will be discussing this afternoon. The first is an update on the Human Services Budget. And after that, we will have a discussion of the transportation master plan update and progress on the sales and use tax projects. So we'll start with human services and I'll let our county administrator Jana Peterson introduce the topic. Thank you, Commissioners, and good afternoon. I'm delighted to be here today with your Human Services Leadership team to talk about the status of the Human Services budget. So in addition to the presenters that we have here in the room, we also have some experts online. If your questions warrant that, I just wanted to note that we may be calling in the financial folks who are both virtual today. So with that introduction, I'm going to turn it over to Director Susan Kaski. Hello, commissioner Susan Kaski with Human Services. I'm joined here today with, or by Cari Hunt, the Deputy Director of Human Services and online is Jenny Page, our finance director and Susan Bond, the budget manager. Corine and I will be providing a high level overview of the memo that we submitted. And

0:57:40then we look forward to your questions after that. Before we begin the Presentation, I want to acknowledge the Human Services budget reporting unit. And all of their work to provide transparency, clarity, and accuracy to an incredibly complex budget. I think, as you know, we get a lot of changes every month. So just really a lot of appreciation for them. So in a time when we are faced with many federal and state budget pressures, we're happy to report that we added fund balance. In 2025. These additional reserves will help Boulder County navigate the current and future state and federal funding volatility. There are a couple of reasons we were able to add fund balance in 2025. At the beginning of the state fiscal year 2025, we were told by state agencies to not expect any coverage through surplus redistribution. We ended up having a very favorable closeout with close to 8 million dollars that was covered.

0:58:45We anticipate a less favorable closeout for the state fiscal year 26 projecting a surplus redistribution of roughly 2 million dollars. Additionally Azure Aware Human Services reduced overall expenditures by 11 percent, which has supported our overall fiscal health. Given our current reserves, human services will not request any new general fund from the county for 2027. We will begin to draw down fund balance in 2027. I'll now turn it over to Kari. Thank you, Susan. So that's kind of the state of affairs currently. I also want to acknowledge the budget reporting unit that's looking ahead to future fiscal uncertainty. And, um, while these final approval of these revenue allocations are pending final votes, these are some of the expected impacts that we see coming down from the state. Um, an adult perspective services. We expect that funding will be flat for the next year. And due to changes in the allocation methodology, um, we expect that there might be some, um, increase. In that allocation. Child Care Assistance Program, there are changes to the allocation formula that will impact Boulder County and the CDEC's proposing statewide 20 million dollar reduction. If that passes, again, we're waiting to see if these state allocations, how they'll come through. But we expect Boulder's allocation with decreased by about 15 percent based on our original allocation. And the child welfare programs

1:00:26overall funding again is flat. There's, um, legislation that's impacting children. And their caretakers within reduction of 50 percent to 65 percent of payments that support subsidized adoptive families. And then all support to non - certified kinship families will be eliminated effective July 1st of this year. So big changes in, um, the families that are subsidies for families that are taking care of children. And TANIF, the 10th administrative spending is subject to a state 15 percent cap. That's a result of, um, some of the changes in HR one. And, um, that cap could lead to substantial penalties for the County, depending on how the state decides how they want to allocate the share of penalties if the state exceeds their 15 percent cap. There's also a two year pause on Cola increases, which will have the effect of reducing support for tan of clients over the next two years. Um, and County administration, we expect up to two percent reduction. Um, there is some short - term HICP funding in the amount of 17 million dollars over 27 and 28 fiscal years, 27. Through 29. Um, and working right now with HICBUF to decide how those funds should be best allocated to support what's happening in HR one. Overall funding to the counties will decrease by about 3. 6 percent this year, the federal SNAP administrations

1:02:00reimbursement. So the money that we get to reimburse us for administrating SNAP will decrease from 50 percent to 25 percent, which will have an impact on the state and county budgets. Um, another big thing to note in terms of future uncertainty is the per rate. So, um, in federal fiscal year 2728 state match requirements for, uh, for snap funds. HR1 establishes that state agencies will require pay a portion of their SNAP benefit based on their error rate. And based on Colorado payment Colorado's payment era rate of just under 8. 6 percent the bill would require a 10 percent match. Or approximately 60 to 140 million dollars at the state level. The state is optimistic that we can get that, uh, per, the error rate down below 8 percent which would put us at the approximately 60 million dollar amount. Um, but that remains to be seen as we work through these issues with the state on the SNAP caseloads and working closely with the state and other counties to determine what are the best ways for us to impact that error rate. So that gives you a sense of some of the financial uncertainties that we're moving forward into in 26, 27, I'm sorry, 27, 28. Thanks, Kareem. Before we open up for questions, we'll let you know that in September we'll be coming back

1:03:22to a work session and we'll provide information on the state fiscal year 26 closeout. And while also provide information on the state fiscal year 27 revenue, we haven't received our final allocations for 27. So we don't have that level of detail. So happy to take your questions. I'm. Looking to you, Jana. So now we'll turn to you for questions. Um, based on our rotation, um, Commissioner Stoltzman, you're up first for this one. Thank you. My first question, um, is on the SNAP error rate. Just later in the year, the conversation among elected officials and forecasters and things just wondering if the shutdown, um, at the end of the year when the extension that they granted for SNAP, um, expires if they're not able to come together and extend SNAP, I think it's November that it is currently projected to need to have something happen. Um, so if there is another shutdown of SNAP, um, I'm wondering if we know if they would waive the errors associated with that, like they did with the last shutdown or if those errors that would be generate, like caused from the shutdown would count against our error rate. And if that, if we have any performance contracting around that, that would affect us or if the state would have to absorb that. Thank you for the question. I want

1:04:44to open it up to Jenny Page also to see if she's heard anything at the state, uh, about what we have shared concerns from last November that we did not get that month wave necessarily. I know the conversation that the states had with the feds around making sure that those, those months don't count. But I wanted to open it up for, for our finance director, Jenny Page to see if she has any additional information, uh, or carry if you have any additional information as well. Thanks, Susan. I don't have anything additional to report other than, um, finance directors are starting this over the summer to talk to the state about those types of expectations for payments, um, and what might be obligated to the counties. So more to come most likely when we update, um, update the OCC in September. Okay. And it sounded like embedded in that the errors from last year were properly waived. Because we had absolutely no control over those errors and our clients had no control over those errors. And so if there's something that we need to do a letter that we need to send or something like that, just if you'll let us know that we could help advocate to try to make sure that that gets handled correctly. Thank you, Commissioner. Jana just trying to understand the

1:06:03flow. Like should I ask all my questions or ask a question and then pass the baton? Um, our practice has been for you to get all your questions on the table. Okay. Um, so just the next question is in terms of, um, right now the subcommittee of County Commissioners and Human Services Directors that are working on the changes in human services that they'll be a bill next January likely around codifying some of that. Will that affect any of this funding in this space that you're updating us on today. Can you clarify Commissioner which bill? Well, I just, so all the work that you've done around, um, and I'm going to use the word centralization, but that's not really what I mean. Um, of different services, um, will that work that's going to go on through the second half of the year. Impact any of this funding that you're presenting on now. It shouldn't. So for, uh, for the state fiscal year 27, we'll receive our allocations in the next couple of weeks, our final allocations.

1:07:08We anticipate that County admin will probably continue to drop. And as, uh, Jenny Page said just a moment ago, I think understanding what the impact will be on counties as far as the distribution of some of these penalties, we still don't know that, uh, but likely that would not be until 28 until state fiscal year 28. So, so, so we're not anti. So I think we're all anticipating that there will be this penalty that we have for errors. And so you're saying that won't hit the state budget until 2028. All right. I was misunderstanding that. The admin will hit, um, next fall. And what we have been told by the state is they anticipate that proposition mm, the state proposition for healthy school meals will cover, uh, that cost. They have not provided us the specific projections for that. Um, some of the other finance directors from other counties, their projections are showing it will not cover. We have a meeting with a state partners next week to get final projections. And exactly what their plan is to be able to cover the admin costs from SNAP that's coming down October of 26. I think I have a question that doesn't need to be answered today, but is maybe a, maybe you can't answer it today, but maybe it's a future question for one of

1:08:36our attorneys to look into and think about, but I'm just trying to understand how we could be charged for the error's without some sort of an agreement to say that we would accept that. So like, I just don't, I'm not fully understanding how the state can pass on a penalty to us, to something that we've not agreed to take on that responsibility with the state. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate the comment. And it's something that we've been talking to the state a lot about is that there are different reasons why there are errors. There is, uh, there are some errors that are caused by staff. There are some errors that are caused by technology. And the errors that are cause, um, because of information or inputs, we're getting from the public. And we have argued that any errors caused by technology or that are caused because of, uh, information that was given to us from the public, we should not be responsible for those and that we, that we really should be focusing on kind of that process improvement piece for staff, um, to help improve that process. And that the state can work on, uh, the technology piece. So what we've heard is it's about a third for each of those. Um, so appreciate your comment. It is something we've been communicating with the

1:09:58state quite a bit. Well, and I take your point very well. And I think that's all very good. But I think my point is maybe a little bit different and something I think that warrants looking into. And that's that we have, we, we are arm of the state. We are a creature of the state. And we do the things that we've agreed to do. We don't currently have any sort of a agreement that if we have errors to a certain extent that we will absorb that cost. We have an administrative, like we have agreements around how we'll be paid back for administration. We have agreements about the money they provide and how we provide that to the clients and community members. But we don't have any type of agreement that says if they get a penalty from the federal government that we will pay it.

1:10:38And so I'm just not fully understanding how we could be responsible to pay for something that is pretty out of our control. Yeah. I appreciate again, appreciate the comment, Commissioner. It is something we've continued to talk with the state about. We are concerned on the delay around these conversations and any decision, um, that they have around what the distribution of those penalties may be. Um, so we will know more next week. I think on how they're going to be approaching this. And we can bring some of that information back to you. There is a county attorneys group that meets on a regular basis that has been reviewing statute to understand, um, what kind of pushback the counties can give on any potential decision. And so those County attorneys are involved with the conversation as well, including our county attorney. Okay. I will ask them. Okay.

1:11:27Great. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you, Jenna. Thank you. Commissioner Loachmaine. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for being here, Carly. The team online and Susan. Appreciate your leadership on this update. And I think for me, I was really, um, reading the memo and listening to the Presentation as that as an update. It's helpful to understand kind of a timeline in regards to September when you'll be coming back to another work session. So I'm trying to hold some of those questions because, um, understanding where we started also just acknowledging that staff have lost jobs, um, in the human services department, the work continues. And from this looking ahead slide, um, feels very overwhelming. And so I just want to acknowledge the team that is doing the frontline work that we need you. We need you in this work. It's so critical. And for me, I don't think it's a conversation for today, but I think it is going to be a 2026 conversation is how might we as Boulder County address the needs and how are we, what's that process going to be? How are we as a board of County commissioners going to use the input of community members folks who are on the front line right now and have been over the last several years, um, given all of the different complications

1:12:46and insecurities around funding and jobs, et cetera. How are we going to decide what we will fund. Because everything on this slide is critical for someone. And the risk that's noted in here is we are going to have a problem. And so I don't think we can go into that piece of the decision. But for me as one person on the board in listening, um, to the conversation and the updates that you've been, um, sharing with us, Susan, over the last year and some with a change of federal administration who is not taking care of the American people, period. This is an outcome of that. Um, as just my belief, um, and what I see, I want to hear and what I'm experiencing. And so this is the beauty of local government where we come in and we support. And it's going to be a huge challenge. And so I'm not asking for us to start talking about which one of these boxes on the screen are we going to, um, try and focus on because we're going to have to do, I think some additional unifying of all of the different work that the county does. I'm looking at the board. Like this is, we were in a strategic priorities retreat yesterday. Like this to me is very connected to that. Who are we,

1:14:10what are our beliefs? What are values for the residents in the county? And we're all doing different types of state work. Um, and all Coloradoans need assistance. So I don't have a proposal. I don't have a, like here's what I think we should do right now because, and hearing the September, it was really helpful. And also knowing that we're just starting on budget process. We're just looking at priority based budgeting here for the county. But I do think that people need to know. These numbers that are on the screen Coloradoans need to know what's really happening. Um. Because it's, it shouldn't be a surprise. But I think unfortunately for a lot of folks, all of these things as they unravel, um, do catch people by surprise. And I say that as somebody who's sitting here at a dais who previously had three jobs as a single mother with two kids, the majority of Coloradoans are not sitting in this dais. Or not sitting in this room and they never have an opportunity to come in and attack to the local government. So I share all that because we should be shocked. And you all are so steeped in it. Um, and so just a reminder that your work is so important. So thank you for that. And I'll be looking forward to the September work

1:15:23session. Um, and I just want to encourage us to think about how do we collaborate in meaningful ways in 2026 here in Boulder County because these needs are significant. So I really appreciate all your work. Thank you commissioner. I will add, um, maybe just echo what you're saying to put a fine point on this. That there is a real impact and there will be a real impact to our community members, uh, from this HR one changes. And some of the changes that are, the state is implementing as well. I think the interconnectedness between everything that CARI presented is really important to not lose sight of. As an example, uh, when we don't have CCAP or enough CCAP for families who are on TANIF, um, parent cannot go get work when they don't have childcare. And if so that kind of domino effects, uh, and interconnection between all of these things is really important, uh, for us to not lose sight of. And I want to just to make a comment about the communication piece too.

1:16:32So, um, there are, you know, three really three different state agencies that are leading some communication around changes for public benefits CCAP, Medicaid. And we are tracking very closely. The type of communication that's going out trying to ensure that we're filling any gaps around communication for our community members and for people that we are aware of that are losing their Medicaid benefits and have been told that, uh, in the last couple of weeks, we are reaching out to them individually to provide community support or services, um, and again, it won't fill the full gap that Medicaid would, but we're trying to engage community partners to support that. Um, so again, thank you for your, your comments around that. And I'll just follow up on your point there. I really appreciate that. It reminds me of some of the conversations we had in 2021 during COVID and some of our local government partners who, when they had someone on their phone were asking like, what information do you need? And it might've been about vaccines or, you know, if we believe in science or it could have been about any other service in need. And so I think for Boulder County to continue asking those questions, um, in all of the systems that we have that are disconnected based on HIPAA and all the things that

1:17:50create barriers for folks, but just making sure that people know that we are still here and that we locally are still providing resource and working for people, I think is so important however we can do it. So I really appreciate you sharing that. Okay. Commissioner Levy, let's turn to you. Sure. Um, a couple of questions and we can just start with what's on the screen here. And then I, I think I'm going to turn to, you're going to want to turn to Jenny page for answers to some of my other questions. Um, and I want to appreciate also the work that you're doing, trying to juggle all these different payment sources. And I get that, you know, it's constantly shifting in formulas or changing. And, you know, it's great that the state was able to do some redistribution and send another too many dollars our way. It's happy when an unexpected thing happens like that.

1:18:43Um, just a couple of questions starting with child welfare and the, the drop in support for, uh, adoptive parents here. You're showing 50 to 65 percent reduction. I mean, what are we know about how that's going to affect our ability to get parents get prospective foster parents into this program. Yeah. Thanks for the questions. I think, um, one of our, and I'll turn it over to Jenny and Kari can jump in as well. I think, um, one of our biggest concerns actually is around the KIN familys and the kind of non payments that will begin for families and assessment for us of how much we are providing and how much we may want to come to you all with a proposal on using local funds to continue to support that. I think we're still working through that. But I would want to open it up to Jenny to talk about any potential analysis that's been done for adoptive and kin families. If you're able to speak to that. At this time, we've only looked at the dollar amount. That would go down, um, I can get that to you the dollar mouth that would go down to these families. But in regards to an analysis for, um, future state or options, we haven't done that yet, but we can certainly add that to the list

1:20:15of our analysis for the summer to come back in September. Thank you. I mean, I'm not looking for dollar amounts. I think what I was, what I was asking about is do we think the reduction in payments is going to affect our ability to recruit foster families or maybe I'm asking, I'm not asking the right question for what you're showing here on the screen. Yeah. No, I think it's a, it's a great question, commissioner. Thank you. I think that's a, that's a real possibility for us. Um, both with foster families and kin, um, to step up. And if they're not getting reimbursed at the same rate as previously, you're not getting the reimbursement. So I think that's absolutely a possibility. And again, we're, we're working through some of this to try to understand, um, how or if we can leverage local dollars to fill a gap to ensure that we don't see fewer families, um, stepping up, uh, in the future. So that, that can be something we can bring back to you in the future. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think that is something we'll have to keep an eye on. And then on the ending support for kinship families, um, okay. I thought there was a bill piece of legislation that created that support that recognized that even though kinship families are not,

1:21:50they're considered different than, um, non - kinchip adoptive parents or foster parents that they do need that support. And so I thought there was legislation that required that support. And I'm wondering, is that if the state isn't going to provide that, is that going to fall to us? Or am I just mistaken about the law? Thank you, commissioners. So the, uh, so currently there will be an elimination of any support for non - certified kin. And so that's, that's the piece that we would need to bring to you, um, uh, any kind of proposal on whether we want to use local dollars to support that. So every county is looking at that right now to see how we may be able to fill that gap and what kind of impact that may have on us.

1:22:39And Jenny, I don't know if the, she would want to add to the, just an additional piece on kinship. There is a previously the non - certified payment and certified payment. So part of this change, um, I think purpose and intent by the state is to move these families towards certified payment, which is actually a much higher rate of reimbursement. And so I think we'll have to see and track, does that actually happen. And it will there be a gap produced. I think the, the state anticipates that these families will move towards a certified, um, kinship. Um, status. Okay. Well, you know, again, I guess just something to keep an eye on to see how all this affects us. They're just sort of a general information around some of the things where we're not really sure how much this exact drop will be in reimbursement or in, um, yeah, the formula for how much we get for scap, where, you know, where do we fall?

1:23:49Is that, that is all done by the state human services board or there's another board of allocation board that I forget the exact name of. Is that done through an agency process, right? Not the JVC process. Is that correct? The allocations. Yeah. Correct. So there's a few different allocation committees that meet to establish allocations. Those allocations have been agreed upon. And so what we're waiting for is emails, um, for our specific allocation for them to work out, uh, exactly what our amount will be. And that should be within the next couple of weeks. So again, this is delayed, uh, this year. And, um, and, you know, Jenny again, feel free to jump in if the allocation process, but the few different allocation committees that meet and determine the different allocations. Okay. So that's just sort of, you know, as the allocation committee gets to that and issues that ruling. I mean, and then just, uh, I think I know the answer to this, but on your adult protective services, uh, box here that state funding is flat, but we will, we could see an increase.

1:25:06And that is because something about our population may have changed that out of that finite flat bucket we make at more. That's right. Yeah. Okay. Now I just have some questions as I was reading them at Mo and going through and then trying to make it all work in my brain for what all the different charts and the, in the reimbursements and totals and whatnot mean. So the, the first, um, well, the second chart that is labeled, um, well, it's just labeled state fiscal year 2025, 26 projected, uh, that was in the memo that shows like County Admin and each of each of these programs that are up on the screen. And how much is due the state? So the way I was reading that and it shows the approximately two million dollars in, in redistribution from the state that we're getting. And the way I was reading that was that we, for us to provide these services, adult protective services, childcare, Colorado works child welfare, um, is costing us eight million eighty five thousand eight hundred and forty two dollars more than what the state is paying us. Am I reading that correctly? That's correct. Okay. So then I was looking for that, that eight million dollars. Um, later in the memo. And I was not seeing it. So what I was seeing later

1:26:43on is that we're going to be drawing approximately two and a half million dollars out of fund balance for all the programs that all the things that we have to pay for. So what am I missing? I'm obviously not understanding something correctly. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. I will let Jenny page answer this. Yeah. Um, as you know, I thank you, um, Commissioner Levi. It's a very good question. Our new BRU unit is what we're striving to do and really working more closely with OFM is to take state and federal year information and put it within a calendar year. Fiscal year so that we can work with OFM and make better predictions, um, for fun balance drawer, um, increase on a calendar year basis. So when we look at underfunded allocations, which we know historically, they are, um, what they call under allocated. We have a lot of changes on a state level that, um, we're not funded like unfunded mandates. For instance, we then take what's due to the state. We put that within our overall budget on a calendar year. And because we've achieved such a big reduction in other areas, such as, um, not our mandated areas, which is the projected state fiscal year 25, 26 chart that you're referencing when you put that in a calendar year and we're looking

1:28:34at all of our county financing and our specialized county programming to the community, um, were really, because we've decreased quite substantially our expenditures in sunset, our County programs were able to put more County funds against our mandates to offset that increase. So my hope is that makes a little bit more sense, but certainly happy to provide, um, more details after this, uh, session as well. That is very helpful. I think you're telling me you've been able to achieve savings in other areas. I mean, in addition to the mismatch between state fistful year and the county fiscal year, savings in other areas is allowing us not to have to take that eight million dollars as a draw on fund balance. We really worked in big credit to Susan Kaski starting in 2024 to reduce a lot of our, our special prevention programs to the community that hit last year. And that those reductions, I think we really had to make an advance knowing that we would be in such a, um. Uh, a big structural deficit in terms of our state financing. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

1:30:08I think the last, hopefully question I have in your, um, chart that compares 26 and 27 revenues expenditures and fund balance. So the, the general fund transfer in of a little less than six million dollars. Is what is that for. Is that what we provide to offset like the colas and the merit increase and all of all of that kind of stuff that the state doesn't think we need to spend. And Commissioner maybe I can jump in. Jenny just before I hand it over to you. So, uh, historically that funding has been for community partners and a little over half of that funding currently is funding clinica. A part of the contracts with clinica, um, we are working with a County attorneys right now. They, um, have come forward in wanting to give some guidance about the use of general fund. So we're waiting for information from them on the use of those funds, uh, going into the next fiscal year, uh, for us.

1:31:29And so we'll have more information on exactly how those funds are allocated. That's a conversation we're hoping to get more information from them in the next few weeks or months. And Jenny, I don't know if the. Complexity of our settlement process with the, not only the state, but the pass - throughs that go to the federal government, um, we're going to be working with OFM next month on educating them on our settlement process and how that, um, works with our general fund. There are, um, definitely sources of revenue that have no offsetting expenditures that are not booked. So we really want to start working with OFM to explain that situation so that we can have greater transparency with how the, um, general fund is used for offsetting, um, costs related to like, um. Children, not children services, um, child support and whatnot. So, um, we can bring, certainly bring that information back as we start working with OFM as well. Okay. I think I'm gathering.

1:32:45There may be some sensitivity around that expenditure that we'll have to talk about or I'd like to talk about on the same chart. So then that apportion or maybe all of that general fund six million dollars is in the community grant expenditure line along with HSSN and other community partner grants. Okay. A nod of the head. And then the county funding only in the expenditure line of 1. 7 million dollars. What is that signifying. Jenny, do you want to take that question? Yeah. Those would be programs that are not eligible for any state reimbursement. Um, so we do have programs and staff that support our prevention programs and whatnot that are funded there. Okay. So those are the things that aren't the, uh, the federally funded. Yeah. Okay. Human services things, the things that we do over and above for the people of Boulder County.

1:34:04Um, so then what this is telling us is. Is basically at the bottom line is our fund balance and that, that will, through all of this and what comes out in the wash is about a two and a half million dollar decrease in our fund balance projected for calendar year 27. And Commissioner, that will change because we have a flat revenue, uh, right, right now in that chart 26 and 27. And so once we get our allocations, we'll be able to update that piece. So it could be higher than that. What we're drawing on fun balance for 2027. But that's information will bring back to you in a work session in September. Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, thanks for just taking some time to walk through some of the line items on there with me.

1:34:52I want to make sure I really understood where we were. And I think you've shared with us earlier this year or maybe late last year that the additional funding that the county was providing on CCAP was not needed. And that was turned back or maybe a portion of that was turned back. We, we have continued to use the HSSN funding for, uh, other programs. We still did need some of the funding for, um, uh, for CAP, uh, but we are right now, um, working within our current allocation for CCAP. What we don't know is the XACT amount that CACAP will be cut for this next state fiscal year, um, and how much we'll need to kind of, um, fill that gap, uh, between our expenditures and what the allocation is. Um, we did give back general fund. So not, not the HSS on funding, but we did give back general fund that we understood after we had the redistribution. Coverage of some of our expenses from last year. We gave back general fund. Yeah. That was my recollection. Um. I did something else right in front of me that I was going to ask about that. Oh, just, you know, I mean, the freeze continues to cause just so much consternation and difficulty financial difficulty child care providers and parents. Are there any prospects of

1:36:34being able to unfreeze the phrase? Thank you for the question. So we started the process of looking at how working with the state on how we lift the freeze. And then we were told by them that they were looking at reducing CAP allocation by 20 million dollars. So several of the large counties that are on weightless are freeze. We're looking at the same thing. So again, most of the counties have been pretty successful at reducing expenditures, getting closer to their allocation. Uh, the process, it takes about six to eight months to go through the process that the state has shared with us on how to lift a freeze with the funding decrease that we are anticipating. We don't believe we can lift the freeze for CCAP anytime soon. Uh, but again, this will be information.

1:37:26We'll know more about once we get the allocation, we can bring that information back to you in September and provide more detailed information about where we're at with CCAP. Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, that's, those are all the questions I had. Thanks for the information for answering our questions, Jenny and your team for, um, dealing with a really complex budget. And as Commissioner Lochimain was saying, you know, these are some of the most essential services that the County provides. And I mean, it's not negotiable. So it's so important that we, you know, keep a pulse on our finger on the pulse of what we're doing and what it's costing and what the state is doing and just, you know, thank you again, Susan, for the hours and hours and hours you put in along with other members of the Human Services Directors Association to try to make sure that we are able to deliver services to our residents. Um, effectively. And, uh, and help them meet their basic needs. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioners.

1:38:36Commissioners, any additional questions. Or comments. Okay. Hearing none. Um, let's have a couple minute break while we, uh, get the CPNP in public work staff set up for the next work session. How much time do you need? Two minutes. Oh, two minutes. Okay. Missioners, we will move into our next topic, which is a report on progress of the transportation master plan, as well as the regional funding that you allocate for regional projects. And with that, I will kick things over to Danny. Thank you, Commissioners Danny Herman, Deputy Director of Transportation Planning and CPNP. So yeah, we just wanted to share with you an update on the transportation master plan and the sales and use tax sales and use taxes will be presented to the Consortium of Cities tomorrow night. So objective just to share those updates with you. Discuss next steps on it's getting close to time to update the transportation master plan to do a new update of that and then get your authorization to officially publicize the TMP report on progress and have staff begin scoping process for the next TMP. Good afternoon, Commissioners Christine Obendorf, Deputy Director of Public Works and Engineering. That word salad, yes.

1:40:23As Danny said, just an update here, and I don't know. Anything else. Okay, I will just give you a brief update on the Consortium of Cities and the Transportation Master Plan, how they tie together. The transportation master plan itself. Kind of is a guideline and our guidebook, both within CPMP Transportation Planning and Public Works Engineering and how we not only maintain our roads, but how do we improve our multimodal transportation system? And then of course, as you are aware, we have the transportation sales tax. And they overlap, but the consortium of cities overlaps a little bit as well in that many of the transtation sales tax not only funds County Projects, but it also funds projects that are within the incorporated areas of Boulder County. So for like instance, Longmont or Lafayette and so forth.

1:41:25And so every year, now it's been June, we give an update of where we've been since last June and where we hope to go within the next year with that transportation sales tax, like Danny indicated that's what he and I are going to be giving and presentation tomorrow evening. And part of the packet today had that memo and an update on where we're at with those sales tax projects. With that, I think Danny has, he can speak more to the transportation master plan report on progress unless I miss anything. No, I think that's great. Thank you. So yeah, the transportation master plan, you have the report on progress in your packet. There's, you know, a few project highlights. Things like that. But in general, you know, those documents usually eight to 10 years. I think we're about six years into this document. So it's about time to start thinking about updating the document. So yeah, happy to answer any questions. So commissioners, we had some specific questions. We were hoping to, um, prompt your discussion on today. And of course, any other questions or topics that you would like to discuss. And this time around, we're going to start with Commissioner Loachmine.

1:42:47Great, thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for being here. I'm looking at the slide and the questions. I think for me, I have a couple of questions first about, um, maybe a little commentary. And then just with the consortium cities specific, because that's, it seems like maybe the timing just lined up that you're going to be doing that presentation tomorrow. Um, I'm curious just having been the facilitator of that group for several years. What's been sent out to those members already in preparation. And just from my experience, the question of like, what feedback do you really want and do you want it from the people sitting at that table because it's only typically one person from each jurisdiction within the county? So I would just ask that and maybe, um, just suggest giving whatever that window of time is. And if you want people to take it back to their full counsels or their trustees, et cetera, that's just been a little bit, um, there's been some questions about what feedback and how, um, do y'all really want from consortium cities members. So just experience to share back in suggestions. Um, and then I think for me, got the documents, it's helpful to get a reminder.

1:44:05I'm interested in, um, I think maybe more of this next piece of the TMP. For this board, also knowing that that's a long, um, plan as well. For me, that's one of the questions of the Board of County Commissioners at any given time. Is going to come into the County with some kind of plan that's already in motion, right? And so for transportation, that feels like a question of what are we prioritizing when I look at, happening all around the county, but I do think understanding, like geographically, where is we're being done. The question of are we. What are we trying to do with our transportation, meaning are we trying to open more access for vehicles and or bus? Are we doing more of our bike way? Might bike wave meaning like 119 commuter bike way or are we doing more recreational bike weight? However, it's fit to transportation. So those are just some of the curiosities that I continued to have. I am really interested in this transportation if I start going towards TMP about some of those bullet points that were in the list of here's the different things that we're going to be doing. Maybe that one was, I think it was Bolle points versus numbered, but there was several, like here's what we're going to be doing. We want to talk

1:45:37about like, what do you think for engagement? What do you think about for this. What is this group considering in regards to technology and or AI that could do some of the data analysis? And since this is not direction from one commissioner, it's just like for the discussion here together. Um, an 18 to 36, I think is what the number said of months to do a TMP. It was just like this curiosity in 2026. Is there something in that list that we could do in a different way that might help either if it's going to be that 50, 000 dollar consultant person that was talked about in the memo or if it's going to be, you know, however that's going to happen. So it's just a curiosity of how might we do some of this planning different and, and you all don't get the beauty of sitting in all of our conversations every day with all the different teams, but we're talking about this question with other teams as well. Um, from management plans in different areas of the county. So it's just kind of a curiosity on that piece. And then if I focused on the questions, um, commissioner, I wonder if we could answer a couple of the questions that you post so far. So, um, I wonder if either of you want

1:46:49to talk about the process with the consortium of cities this year when they receive the materials and the expectation of the participants tomorrow night to give feedback. I can't recall the exact date that they received all the packet and information. And Stacey might or Kelly about a week ago that they received that. And both Danny and I are fairly new. I mean, I've done the conservation of cities update, I think for three years now, maybe four. And this will be Danny's second year where he'll be giving it. So it's for me, it's been a little bit of enigma. I think you pick up on that Marta of it. That in some ways we're presenting what we have done and what we're going to do. There's not a whole lot of opportunity to really get into the really good meat and depths of things. That being said, on a staff level, um, you know, both Danny staff and himself or myself or some of my staff do hear things from other, um, our counterparts within like longwater Lafayette. Like, Hey, you know, this was, is on the sales tax list. We're moving it up where we think we finally are going to move forward with it or it's been shelled for now. We're going to move forward with this one. Can we swap these? So there

1:48:11is, there are those discussions that do occur. And I don't know at what level they're talking to their support systems. So I think it is a little bit of a more of an update rather than a, um, what do you want us to do type of format? I don't know if that helps answer or helps make it more confusing. No, I think that's, that's actually my experience. And so I think if that is what we're doing is just doing an update. I think it's okay to say we're giving an update versus we're looking for your feedback on attachment A, B, or C. So just again, it's just, it's not criticism at all. It's not, it's just like, how do we be very clear about what we're doing and if it's just an annual requirement, um, then it's just an annual requirement. And if there is really a feedback loop, then I just again, a encouragement about being what that really could be. I think that feedback loop is, um, them going back and making sure that their staff is talking to us and letting us know, especially when we need to request money, we need to know probably a year and a half in advance of when they would need it to make sure that we can make it work within our, our projects as

1:49:25well. So thank forecast. Commissioner, another question that I heard you ask was, um, in a TMP update process, um, what are the considerations around using AI or other strategies to shorten the length of time or reduce the cost to producing that plan. So thank you, Commissioner, for the question. I think that's one of the things we don't know and part of why we're looking for, um, to do a scoping and hire a consultant because they can help us set up what, you know, state of the practice is, what's currently going on out there that we could use AI for. They may be able to help shape some of that. It'll also help us, you know, these master plans can be done. It kind of different depth levels. And so you can do one that's really heavy on outreach. You can do one that's a little lighter on, you know, citizen outreach, but higher on, you know, other agencies, things like that. And so that's part of what the scoping will really help us do is kind of right size work with the commissioners and help figure out exactly, you know, what will be needed as part of that update. So I think when we're talking about that scoping, that's what we're hoping to find out.

1:50:37Um, I don't think we have a good answer right now how AI might help, you know, in general, one of the first things you do is you gather information on the existing plans, existing data that's out there. And that may be a place they can help. But I think, um, it's, I couldn't answer the question yet. I think hopefully that's where a scoping could help us find some of those answers. Thank you. All right. Turning back to you, Commissioner Lomin. If you would like to address these three questions or any other questions you might have. Sure. I mean, I feel like maybe I give a little bit of guidance without looking at the full question there in regards to the concertium cities. The way I read the packet was and it's just the way I interpreted it was like, if you don't say yes on this, we're not going to have enough time based on the 2020 timeline. That's just the way I recetted as a reader. And. So I think for me. The TMP is required to have an update. Is my interpretation? Is that true. And it's just a matter of what kind of update to what degree. And your timing is somewhat flexible is what I would say. Okay. Um, but it is a requirement. There's not a firm requirement. I would

1:51:54say in general, these types of documents have a shelf life. And you, you, you kind of want to update them and make sure you're looking at things every handful of years typically. That's every eight to 10 years is when you look at doing an update, but that's not a firm deadline. I think 2028 was more, um, to address. The change of the board. Okay. Okay. That makes sense. I was thinking that there was another regional transportation plan that was starting. Is that somehow connected to this? Transit plan perhaps. Is that what you're thinking of? Maybe regional transit plan. Okay. That's happening right now. Okay. So that's, but that's not something that would be used as a guiding tool and or just a major information. So thank you, Commissioner. The transit plan is underway. The Boulder County, uh, linking Boulder County strategic transit plan that would be something that would feed into the next transportation master plan. Um, but that's, uh, anticipated to be done around the end of this year. So that'll, that'll be incorporated in any case when we do the transportation master plan update. Okay. And that's, that's, I was curious about the timeline. That was my next question. And she said, you said in your, in your response. So that would be my suggestion is to wait until that plan is completed

1:53:11before we, um, do initial or an additional resources in regards to scoping. And then the other question I just have, which is just a general question on capacity. Is if we currently have capacity to do an 18 to 36 month planning period in addition to everything else that's on the attachments that you sent to us. So I'll let Christine speak for her, Steph. On our side, you know, we would have to plan for that. I don't think we have it in our work plan for 26, but it's something we could put in our work plan for 27. Um, and depending on the timing of other things, um, it would be working with a consultant over that period of time. Um, it is a pretty heavy lift, but we do have projects like 119 that might be wrapping up where we may be able to move some staff time over. So I think sometime in that window, we probably have the staff time to start working on that. We haven't, um, completely done our work plans to say that yet. Okay. That's helpful for me. It sounds like a 2027 just from me. And I know you're going to go around and ask everybody, um, to really come back and look at what the scoping. That's just from one perspective. What's interesting to me in transportation

1:54:23is how do we get vehicles off the road. Instead of building out like what is it that we're really able to do? And there was a whole list in your, in the report about, um, the first and final mile. There was some other pieces in there. That is what, uh, and I got the really important experience of working with mobility for all. And some of just the different groups of different projects, the different, all the things that are happening. My assumption is that some of that has been reduced with budget changes, but I don't know that for sure. I don't know if that's going to look like for 2026, twenty seven. But just in general, if you're asking, I'm looking at question three here for transtation plan. That is what interests me the most outside of the, like we're mandated and we have to take care of roadways and things like that. But, um, that for me would become an overarching goal just from one perspective. So. Thanks, Commissioner Lochemaina. I did want to just ask Christine if you want to chime in on workload and capacity. Certainly similar to Danny. There wouldn't be any capacity in 2026. And I'd say it'd be limited in 2027 as well. Um, but with that being said, um, generally CPMP transtation planning would take the brunt of that.

1:55:43And we've been assisting with, um, reviews of documentations and so forth. Um, so we wouldn't be as heavily involved as his staff would be as, just the nature of how we work together on, on items. And also, um, you know, other things that would go into that, the new update or anything that all the new plans that we have had since the first one, including the vision zero and those things. So that would go into that too. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Commissioner Lee, what's her new next. Well, um, don't know exactly where to begin. Um, so I, well, I, I now, um, chair of the consortium of cities. And so I will, I will learn tomorrow night how the municipalities and their representatives, you know, what kind of discussion we have about this list.

1:56:43I think there's some continuity in membership among, you know, which, which elected officials actually attend, uh, the meetings on behalf of their jurisdiction. And I mean, I think these presentations are always, I mean, they're timely and they're needed because, uh, because with, with the Council Manager form of government that we have in Boulder County, uh, a lot of elected officials don't really know a lot of the stuff that is going on. And that is being done in their jurisdictions with the County White Sales tax. So I mean, I think is a great opportunity to share just, here's the project list. And here's where we are. Here's what we're working on. And, you know, your whole chart in that, uh, attachment of, you know, what year all the funds are programmed for. I think will be a big interest to the folks sitting around the table.

1:57:42Um, and my recollection, um. Of sort of the role of the consortium of cities. I wouldn't have phrased the first question the way it is. Um, because it's, it's not a, the consortium of cities and the structure of the sales tax is that we had a 15 year project list. That we presented, it wasn't in the ballot, but it was accompanied, the ballot resolution and that, um, and that there would be a presentation to the consortium of cities and the consortium, if there were going to be changes in that list, uh, would play a role as an advisory role in, you know, in changing anything that was on that list. But the list is the result of all the outreach work with all the jurisdictions in Boulder County and the public on what did they want to see funded by this new sales tax. So I just, I just would call it, wouldn't call it the consortium of cities list. It's, it's the exhibit A to the ballot. So I mean, that's a sort of a quibble, but, but I think it's important to just understand what the role of the consortium is in this process. Before I get to number two, I mean, this is, I guess the thing I want to say now is kind of part and parcel of doing transportation master

1:59:09plan. And if so, what, you know, what should we focus on? Should there be a change in direction or anything like that? Um, I am, you've Danny said a couple of times that they generally have an eight to 10 year life, um, I guess that's for transportation master plans that may be different for other kinds of master plans. Um, you know, our master plan, I don't know how different it is from other jurisdictions. But, you know, it's a very comprehensive vision of transportation in, you know, writ large, all aspects of transportation and Boulder County. And it, it contains a philosophy. And in my mind, these things should generally not really be changed all that much. I mean, you know, there could be some, you know, some huge thing. I suppose when Way goes are all over the place and nobody actually owns a car anymore maybe. But I think we need to, I mean, we do understand that transportation is very expensive and a lot of it is infrastructure heavy and takes a long time to aggregate the funds and do the construction. And there just isn't a lot of room to change course on some of these things. I mean, there are, you know, for things that we're looking at in the out years, yes. But I think I look for stability. I think,

2:00:51you know, whether it may need to be some, I mean, I haven't looked at it in enough detail to know whether I would want to have any sort of slight change in focus. They are not, but, but I think it's more sort of just checking and with the community, is this still the vision of transportation in Boulder County. And I'd be surprised if we heard that there was people really wanted to go a very different direction. I, because I don't think people in Boulder County have changed that much. Um, I think, you know, the, the, the percentages in the transportation sales tax for safety and resilience at 55 percent. Local transit support, I mean, I think that tells, uh, what our priorities are. And, you know, we, we may want to make some minor shifts there just depending on kind of the opportunity to move a major project forward. But, but I think that basic allocation really gets it right in terms of what the people of Boulder County want us to be doing. Um. I don't think I'm asking questions that I need responses too. So I'm going to keep going.

2:02:15And what else do I want to say? Uh, I mean, I guess, I don't think there's, I'm not in a rush to begin a scoping process. I think you and I talked Danny about, about, you know, the fact that there will be a turnover of two, I don't know, three seats on the board in January of 2029. And should this be? Or four out of five. You never know. Just a joke. Um, ideal in the world of possibilities and reality. Commissioner Stolzman is referring to the fact that she's on a ballot and nobody seems to want to serve in that seat other than her. But, uh, anyway, I mean, I think, I think for me, that's sort of part of the issue at the timing of, you know, should this particular board. You know, set this thing in place that's going to have an eight, 10 year life and a completely different board is then implementing it. That, you know, the answer isn't necessarily no if what we look at is that this is really just a very broad sort of, you know, vision, vision and philosophy document. So I don't know. Um, I don't think we need to rush. And I think, uh, I think it's worth taking a look at it and seeing sort of what aspects of it really are kind of,

2:03:47you know, lending themselves to being getting outdated and what, what aspects don't. Um, I think the only thing I would say that I haven't said in terms of that long list of projects that were in exhibit, and this, this comes out of a conversation we've just had at Dr. Cogg last Wednesday night is, um, it's, all of these things I'm scrolling through the last, they landed on here because somebody wanted them on here. And they all have value to somebody. And I do think it's, it's useful to say, do we have an overall, what is our overall goal here? And do we want to prioritize projects? You know, maybe our overall goal goal is vision zero. And we really want to prioritize projects on the list that our safety improvements. Maybe our overall goal is to build out our regional trail system. And bike system.

2:05:00It may be our overall goal law is, um, something else. But. You can't tell from this list of 38. No, I'm not at the bottom of the list yet. 41 projects. You know, which, what do we do first? And we don't do them in order. That's not a rank order of priority. We do them sort of when the funding seems to be slotted in or when, you know, if it's a community partner and the community partners ready to go for a word. But I do think it's worth taking some time to talk about whether we actually want to try to prioritize in some way or another in terms of like a guiding value here. And I don't want to presuppose what it might be. Um, so I think those are my thoughts. Commissioner Livy, if I could just ask a clarification on your last point.

2:05:53So it sounds like you're interested in having a prioritization discussion amongst the board. I think it's a question of whether we should prioritize. And then if so, how, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't, I guess I know we ask this and get a response all the time about, you know, how, how do you pick the projects that go forward? So I don't want to like totally upset an apple cart if the whole lot of things already in motion based on something that I'm not familiar with. So I think it's just a conversation that I think we ought to tee up. And it may be, look, we've already, you know, we're planning so many years out that we can't change directions. Who knows. Yeah, I think that's a fair comment. Um, about this time of year, we would be planning not for the following year, but the year after is generally the planning cycle, um, and I'm just looking at my colleagues over here to see if there's anything else you would want to say about timing. You hit the nail on the head, Jana, that many of these things are kind of already in the works of, and at least from the roadway safety and resiliency of which my group kind of oversees and implements and takes care of, so to speak. You know, it's

2:07:13a multi - year process, especially because the revenue's coming in for the transition sales tax just can't cover everything. And sometimes you even need to buy time to save time or to build up that fund balance in order to pay for those large construction projects, even if they are, um, with partners and with grants and so forth. Yeah. You just sparked a thought and then I would have one other thing I always say, you know, having a buildup fund balance. You know, we've not talked about ever bonding against these monies, at least not in this, in the life of this particular iteration of the sales tax, which is now perpetual. But is that a conversation to have. We have a steady stream. Of money. Um, you know, you can't, it does take a lot of money. And so I wonder whether, whether a bonding conversation might be a good one. No, off the top of my head. And I am not your CFO, but I would tell you you'd need to be, um, in the range of, you know, teens to 20s to make that type of financing mechanism, um. A reasonable option. I also don't believe we asked for bonding authority on this particular sales and you's tax. So you would need to go to the voters. Oh, yeah, no, I realized that. Yeah.

2:08:45So I think so, I think your thought process around planning, um, is informative because, uh, in a given year, if you don't have that large of a project or a project need, the bonding may not make financial sense to do. When you say it needs to be in the range of the tens to twenties. You mean the size of the bond? Yes. Yeah. Correct. No, I mean, I'm thinking it would be a big bond that would, you know, we have 10 million dollars a year in revenue. And, you know, so we do, uh, I don't know how many, you know, we look at, you know, what are some big projects we want to do that, you know, where we're just sort of putting away a half million dollars a year to try to build it up. And that's just seems very inefficient. Meanwhile, costs are going up. So I'd be interested in some kind of analysis of what might we do. And I do know that we have to ask the voters for that. Um.

2:09:49There was a final comment I was going to make. Oh, yeah, I know what it was. So, you know, we, Commissioner Stolz went all the way in as well here. And, you know, we've restructured these things. So we're sitting here and we're talking to you and it all seems very formal because we have microphones and it's all on Zoom and everything. But we're not having a dialogue. And so I'm always curious, like, what are you thinking? Like you're, you think you can only answer the question that is put to you and only say the thing that's on the screen. So if we were sitting around a table and we didn't have microphones, I mean, what do you have thoughts on what you've heard from us? Cause this really should be more of a dialogue. So I would like that, you know, maybe after Commissioner Stolzman gives her thoughts that we try to just maybe dialogue a little bit more. I mean, sometimes I think, Oh, maybe I said something that just scares, you know, I was like, what does Commissioner Levy think? And like, you know, if you're thinking that I want to know. So thank you for that. And, and I do think we'll turn to Commissioner Stolzman with any questions or comments. You might have first. And then if, um, the board wants

2:11:16to entertain some dialogue, we'd be up for that. So. All right. Commissioner Stolzman. That sounds great to me. So just I sort of organized it slightly different than the one, two, three. So I started with attachment A and my first question is just within attachment A, it's not clear to me how many projects remain and all the information was probably there. It's just not organized this way. How many remain from ballot measures that predate the 2022 ballot measure? And like for example, I saw the 2007 East County Line Road Quicksilver to Pike still on there. Um, but just wondered how many of the projects on the list are still there from prior to the 2022 ballot measure. Um. Give me a moment. It could be answered another day too. I mean, if that's not answered today, that's totally fine. And part of you more than a few part of where my question is coming from or going is just around the idea of like, are there any that we should just remove from consideration? Are there projects that we had in 2007 conceived of that are no longer contemporary like the, you know, pandemic has changed travel patterns, this, that, or the other. And it's just not a project anymore. Um, speaking from the roadway in safety resiliency projects, I would say that most of

2:12:35them do still make sense to keep on there. Um, Director, Deary and with Public Works, I had a similar question. Like do some of these still make sense. And I think even with our partners, there even questioning that. So no Longmont has several on the, I don't, I don't recall if they run the 2007 left list, but they are on the 2022 list and they're already changed. So when it says waiting a project partners, some of them might not be moving forward at all. They're not sure quite yet. And some have changed and they're wondering if they can use those dollars for something else. So those conversations are definitely there. Um, there are some that are quite old. And I don't know if they ever will be done. And some of those are more in a partnering. Type of situation. But I would say that, um. Most of ours were, we're trying to tie up those 2007 ones sooner rather than later. Um, and it just kind of goes back to that, um, things take time. That makes sense. I think if things are ready to be taken off the list, like elevating that to the board and to the consortium for discussion, is it a good way to go about it to say this was really great project. Other things are higher priority. Now

2:13:57we're going to take this one away. And if it resurfaces someday, that's fine. But like that way we can have a really good contemporary list. And if there are things that have just drug on and on for lack of funding, I think just elevating those in the capital improvement project, um, process to say there is no funding from the tax for this. This is an important project and we can't fund it so that we can have a discussion during the budget process to just understand where that falls within the list of all the priorities. Um, because if there is something that's like around about on East County Line Road that's like everybody's been dying for and we just can't figure out how to find partners, like I think we should have that conversation to say, is this a project that we want to fund or not? Um, and one thing I'd also like to add with that, something that, so many of the estimates that we had going into the ballot and now have changed quite a bit. Some of it is an understanding of what the scope was, right. Personnel changes. So, um, my staff is starting to work on updating those estimates, making sure that the scope still align with what we thought initially. So that's, we'll be updated as well. Just trying

2:15:16to make sure that we're looking at the correct dollar amounts and then things have drastically changed even from in the last six months. And that's a good segue in the sort of my next comment slash question. It's just when the tax passed, you know, communities put their projects on the list to get buy - in from enough people to get this tax passed. County - wide. And the C. 10 - year plan has changed since when the tax passed. And I think it's quite unfortunate that some of the important infrastructure projects that were in our part of Regenfor were moved out or really pared down on the 10 - year plan when they approved it in May. And so I wonder how that impacts our projections on some of the projects on our tax. So like, for example, 42 was significantly shifted and like even Highway 7 is significantly shifted, although I have other different comments on Highway 7 in a moment. Those are more suited for Danny. Yeah, I think I would say the biggest thing is it makes it a challenge, um, with partnering. So many of the projects on the sales tax list, the sales tax was not meant to fund the entirety of the project. And we were looking for partners.

2:16:22And so as those partners reprioritize and reshift their funding, like CDOT, um, that probably makes those projects a little harder to deliver in the near term. Um, so that, that probably the biggest thing. I think it's hard to say without specific project, most of the ones that are underway or close to. See, that did keep the ones that aren't quite underway tended to slide back some. Um, so they'll just require a little bit more partnership between the local agency, the county and CDOT as we move forward. That makes sense. And I think in light of that, just the a piece that has seemed missing for a few years now is, um, a different way of collaborating with our partner. So we have the Dr. Cogg sub - regional forum that came into place within the last decade. And it seems like we have shifted away from really like a collaborative, like thinking through the problems of the region and putting projects on the list together to more of a winners and losers of everybody's trying to get their project one on the list. And I think if we can pivot it back toward people trying to come up with what are the regional problems that we have collectively and how can we solve those together, it would be better for the region. So the example,

2:17:36I'll point to is like, the, um, pride in getting Colorado 7 done. And I just think if we were to have an open honest conversation in the community around Colorado 7, there would be a lot of very disappointed individuals. Like I think there are really good intentions around transit ridership and safety. And I don't think that the data supports the intentions. There's just not the density of residential units along that corridor to justify a bus rapid transit in any sort of bus rapid transit modeling or projection that would exist in a world. And bus rapid transit isn't planned, even though we keep cuddling at BRT. There's just a bus plant. So I just, I think that the, uh, the intentions are very good, but I don't think that the tactics that are being employed are cost effective or will they deliver results that the community expects to see. And so it's a very expensive proposition to build that much infrastructure that doesn't accomplish anything. So those are my, um, two cents on that. Um, and so I think a way to get around that is to have more detailed conversations with our partners around like, what are we really trying to accomplish? Are we trying to reduce fatalities on the road? What projects would focus on that? Are we trying to get people out of

2:18:54their cars and into transit? What would accomplish that? And so that sort of segues into my next point, which is in attachment B. And it just shows that, um, transit ridership remains way down post pandemic and is very flat. Like we don't have some sort of like rebound curve. It's looking like it's down and staying down and flat. And so what I've seen in other areas is, um, different jurisdictions are looking at alternatives to fixed route transit because people are not committing to work in the same way they were a lot more people are working from home and you show that in your data in attachment B. And so with those work trips getting cut out of the transit righteouship, what are ways to get people out of their car? Some places are using more on demand. Um, service. Like we're seeing an eerie with the eerie B or in Lontray with the loan tree.

2:19:45Link, whatever it may be called Loan Tree something. Um, so that is, that's something that seems to be getting a lot of ridership. It's still not exactly like carpooling because you still have am individual going A place. But I think rethinking how we're looking at the transit component. And you're all working on the big transit plan anyway. So I think that would be a nice thing to like within, with the lens of your transit plan, compare it to our list and see if things still make sense. It just, it seems like there is a permanent shift in travel patterns and a permanent shift in transit ridership. And so to take the plan that we developed pre - pandemic, largely informed with pre - pandemic intentions and information. I think we just need to think about some of the projects in modernize it. So that wasn't really a question. Just a lot of comments there from me. And one thing I think that could inform the board in our decision making that would be helpful would be to look within the routes that we use, the FTA funding that we receive on to look at the cost per trip. Um, on the different routes and just understand like what is the cost per trip to move people, um, in the way that we are. And then

2:20:54are there alternatives that would get people out of their cars that would be more cost effective costs per trip with that scarce resource. Something that I have always thought we have a huge opportunity to try and Colorado, but I've never succeeded that. But I think this group maybe could do it is fun to swapping. So you can read all of these really great federal papers and white papers on fund swapping where agencies collaborate and instead of federalizing every project, you pick the most expensive project that is going to get federal funds and federalize that project. And then try really hard not to federalize anything else. Um, and so I think if we were to use that sub - regional forum and our sales tax model and CD, like more collaboratively, we could try to have all the federalization occur on the CDOP projects so that we're not having to deal with that. And a couple of states have done this supposedly successfully. You can read various results in white papers. I'm happy to forward them.

2:21:53If you've not already read them yourselves, but it can really save at the local level by doing this fund swapping because you don't have to do all of the procurement requirements for a federal project. You don't have to adhere to all of the timelines and the bureaucracy that's associated. So you can try to keep your local projects more cost effective. You do have, there has to be give and take. So you, and you have to trust your partners. But I think we're in a position with these forums and with this regional tax and with our partners at the state that we could try to do something through an IGA or something with fun swapping. And I think that could help us make each dollar at the local level go a little bit further instead of just using them to match federal projects, which by some accounts add 40 percent to a project cost. So if we cannot add that cost and just use our local dollars to pay for local projects, I think that that could be quite beneficial. So I'm still very interested in fun swapping. And I'm happy to provide more background information on that if it's of interest. Within attachment B, I had a couple of thoughts and questions. Um, so attachment B shows that our pavement condition index is trending down.

2:23:06Um, over the last several years. And I think that that is pretty concerning. Um, since that's really just looking at our arterials. So I do think it would be good to see a proposal that would get us back on track to reach our goal in some period of time. So maybe it would be in three years or five years or whatever the appropriate set of time options for the commissioners to look at, um, so we could understand if you were to fund it at this level, we could be back on track with our goal in four years or five years. Um. Once we get much lower, it just becomes much more expensive to get back on track. So it would be nice to get that curve not going in the direction that it's going so that it doesn't saddle a future board with a very expensive proposition of addressing our payment condition. Similar comments on bridge condition. Um, if there could be some sort of proposal on how to get that bridge condition back toward what the goals are, I think the goals on both those categories are quite good in that report that you put together for us. We're just not quite on track to meet our goals. And so if the commissioners could see what that would cost, we could then have a

2:24:13conversation about where that falls in the priorities. And again, I think that would be best through the budget process. But we have to have the proposal to be able to have the conversation. Because otherwise it would just be, um, random numbers through and about between each other. Um. I agree with the comment around the vision zero plan kind of being overlaid with this plan. There were a lot of good tactics in the back of that. And I don't remember which one of my colleagues brought that up, but I agree with that. Uh, I personally would accelerate the construction phases of North Foothills and Burt. So I would love to see the little stars in the table in attachment A, like shift closer to now unless in the future. Those are my personal views on those two projects. And primarily driven from fatalities, um, that are not necessary from cyclists being hit by cars. I think it would be really wonderful and well received by the community if we could get people off the road. Um, and into a safer space when they're a vulnerable user.

2:25:22And so I guess just to now directly answer your questions because some of them are somewhat embedded in what I said. Um, I think getting the feedback from the consortium just on how it's going and new, if people want to reprioritize and give us their feedback, I think that's interesting and would be good for the commissioners to hear. Um, I agree that the urgency with transportation plants, scoping, update. But I think within all the work that I just mentioned, then I think with the transit plan, there's a lot to do. So it's not lack of interest in planning or thinking. I just don't think it needs to be a TMP update per se. I think it is an evaluation of which projects make sense within our plan. Are there any things we need to study more? Are there travel patterns that have changed to eliminate some projects in there? So for me, maybe it's more of a, like rather than starting over and saying, what do we imagine? But like a brushing off of and like, okay, with the information we have today, this is what we would propose. So maybe you all call that an update. I don't know. Um, but if that's an update, then I support it. I just don't want to start all over and ask like, what should we do?

2:26:28We have a pretty good foundation and we could just brush it off. Um, and I think I was specific about a bunch of things that I thought should be included, um, but if you would like more detail, I'm happy to elaborate. Thank you, Commissioner Stoltzman. I actually want to, um, invite the board now that all three of you have had the opportunity to put your perspectives on the table. I'm hearing, um, no rush to get going on a TMP update, but some, um, request to focus on the project list. Maybe get a look ahead at, at, you know, I'm thinking 2028 is probably a more reasonable year for you to reprioritize in 2027 because we probably already have projects and contracts, um, underway that would take us into 2027. Um, and just wondered if the three of you could sort of comment on, we don't have a great way to do that in your budget process. Um, because you'll be talking a lot about 2027.

2:27:35So I'm thinking, uh, you know, working with the team NOFM on a work session that would really be a 2028, um, look for some of these larger transportation projects. I want to look at my colleagues over here and see if, if anybody's disagreeing with me on, it's probably too late for 2027. Um, but really appreciate where all of you are going with your thoughts and comments about how can we make some adjustments. For projects. And I would encourage you to talk to each other about that and see if that resonates or if you want something. Different. I mean, I think kind of a long commissioner Levy was saying is I think having a, uh, a couple of different ways at looking at it. So like, it could be a five year planoff projects. It could be like, what could we do if we bonded for some proud, like for this group, like a couple scenarios of this is what five years of projects, cash funded would look like. This is what using some general fund reserve would look like. This is what, um, bonding for some projects would look like. And just not in any like incredible amount of specificity, but at high enough level that we could kind of coalesce around, okay, now we would want to flesh out that path together. I think

2:28:52that would be nice. And it makes sense that it wouldn't be just for 27 because we're already in June. And everyone submitted all of their things, but sort of a little look ahead like you described makes sense to me. I wonder along with some of those, um, potential examples of things that we could discuss in different ways to do the work. Previously, um, I was going to say previously on, but previously, um, on this board, or with this board, maybe trying to think if it may be, was before Commissioner Salesman was here at the county, we were talking about the tax when we did the change to Protuity for the transportation tax at that time. There was, um, transportation was meeting with folks all around the community and talking about a different, um, percent and a different number. So in those conversations, and this has been a few years of would we need to go back to voters and talk about a change of that tax number. For me, I think that would be also helpful interested in bonding interested in, um, there's certainly regional work, which I think is the benefit of having the consortium there. But I just think the way to make sure that folks, some of the, sometimes, uh, any regional working group of elected, whether it's on homelessness or it's

2:30:14on transportation or it's on all the items, there's always typically there's somebody new sitting at the table. We're just trying to help folks learn. So the, some of that as well as then understanding each jurisdiction is, um, ability to get together and have conversations to get input to even give us feedback. For example, on this particular plan. But I do think, so, so I don't have an issue with the regional work. I think that is the beauty of being a convener at the county. But I feel like that's a conversation this board needs to have together is that something that we want to look at regards to, um, somebody brought up going back to voters for the bonding, would we go back to voters to talk about in 2027, 2028 dollars, What would it take for us to be able to do some of the work that, um, that is connected with whenever we could get to the goal, um, and come up with real priorities. So those are, I think that's a piece that would also be helpful to me. And then I think for me, like I said, January 2027 would be the earliest, I think that we should talk about what that scoping would be. But I would like to see, um, and I, I would like to see given this conversation

2:31:28maybe a different rendition of what would that take to do not a full start from scratch, which I think I heard my colleagues kind of say too. So just an ad in my voice in that piece. I think an update to what is there. Um, versus starting from, from scratch. That would include how do we do some of that? How do we remove some of the work from it, those tasks that we can use technology to help us formulate some of that information gathering potential data gathering, maybe some analysis on this test to even start looking at the parties. But I do think the, you know, when we can have that conversation as this board about what the prioritization is, I think that helps with all the direction. May I add. I was going to let Commissioner Lee Beach chime in because she hasn't had the chance yet. And then we'll turn to staff. Is that sound all right? Okay. Yeah. I don't, uh, I don't think I heard anything that I feel like I need to respond to. I think when Commissioner Stolzman's questions about, you know, what, what is left over from the 2007, you know, I realize, yeah, I mean, I can look through, the easy way, even with the 2022 exhibit A to see graphically, I saw the narrative list of

2:32:56what's underway, what's been completed. Maybe I just don't know how to read this thing, which is a very real possibility. But, um, but I think it would be good to have more of a ability to track these things. And then you've, you know, you've both referred to the things where we're really dependent on our local partners. And I don't know that that's easily identified in this list either. Sort of to know, like, you know, if it looks like, I hate to have anything that makes it appear or that we're not making progress. And so if we, if we can readily, maybe it's a dashboard, maybe, you know, maybe you have this. And I just, you know, I sit in my office and I do my work and I don't go, um, but, you know, just to know, like, what are we working on? What's done?

2:33:54What is waiting for local partners? What, you know, and we know as well that we don't have the ability to fully fund or which things do we contemplate fully funding with local funds and which ones away just a little better, more nuanced sorting of this whole list. Um, I am completely ignorant about what Commissioner Stolzman was talking about around, um, what the share funding or fun swapping. And what, what that potential is, I know nothing about that. Uh, if there's something we can do there that would be interesting, um, I think the other thing I just want to mention is that there has been some folks have convened. Um, to talk about original transportation authority. And I've been invited to those meetings and I have not been able to attend. And I'm, um, Austin ward from City and Broomfield has been, has convened, I think, two meetings. And he's going to send a summary. Um, I've had conflicts with both. And so just to know, you know, that's out there. And with the regional transit plan, the Boulder County Transit Plan, I guess I should say, you know, the, the, the consultant is as part of that plan is going to bring us some funding ideas. But we may want to also really look at whether an RTA makes any sense or not. And, you

2:35:42know, Eagle County has one. And, um, Picken County has won. And. Pardon. And Raune County. Brock County. Yeah. And then there was maybe it never happened, but there was some talk about a Northfront range, RTA. So, you know, there's tax money. And so it all depends on do voters want to pay more tax to have more service. But, but, um, you know, we tend to do a lot of stuff, just Boulder County. And we may be able to do more if we look at on a regional basis. All right. Christy. Thank you. Um, so regarding the transportation sales tax and, you know, the bonding issue. And then Commissioner Lodgeman asked to whether or not we would go back and look at another, some sort of taxing in the future. Um, one comment on our current sales tax, um, I think is unfortunate. So we do have in there where we address maintenance. And we've had recommendations in the bath from our attorneys in the past that, that maintenance can only be for multimodal maintenance. And things that were constructed as part of the tax. It can't be used for a regular. Maintenance, which can be, um. You know, we have the two, we have our two funds. We have a rodent bridge armor leaven. Arm 12, 13 taxes. And then we have our sales tax.

2:37:18And sometimes there are years where one might be better than the other. And there's some legal nuances there that are, it would be helpful to try to see if we can clear them up or if not, you know, I'm not sure. But the other thing with the multi model and maintenance too, like each time we add, um, another transist stop or trail or bike way, you know, that is coming from that sales tax. And therefore the overall amount that we can continue to use to implement either a transit system or, um, a new multimodal facility, it reduces our ability to do that for not only the county, but our age, our partners as well. So it just keeps on reducing it each year. So. I think why I was proposing, um, a couple of different scenarios is if you bring forward, these are, these are the projects and the costs in a couple of different scenarios. We can have a conversation about which funds to use and like, and with in collaboration with the attorneys and with OFM and with you all, because there are in counties, around which things can be funded how and each thing has implications of the maintenance costs and all of those things. But we need to be able to understand the cost to deliver the services we want to

2:38:41so that we can have that conversation about how to fund it. Yes. And to add on to the things that you found in attachment be, you know, with the paving condition and bridge condition, something I don't think that isn't the as well is our, our traffic signals and our traffic program, which Director Durin is actually in the works of rounding a soluble, trying to pull together. What does it look like to get these roads back up to a PCI of 70 in so many years and so forth as well as bridges and our, and our traffic network. And I actually had a thing on traffic signals that I didn't say because I thought you guys were probably sick of me talking at a point, but I have a whole little section on signals that I just didn't elaborate on. But I think with like, with power outages, we've been getting more feedback on signals and opportunities to move away from signals and to other types of traffic, whether it's four way stops or roundabouts or other types of ways to move traffic without having a signal or if we can have more reliable signals and on and on. But I think we all have been receiving more feedback about the unincorporated signals because of the public safety power shut off. I wanted to invite Danny.

2:39:59How said it jumped in? Yeah. A couple of things. Thank you. You know, just to tie on some of what you've said. And I guess one of the first things is one of the first questions in a scoping is do we want to do a refresh or do we want to do a full overhaul? And I think I'm hearing very clearly that it'll be a refresh. So that'll help us kind of, um, set expectations as we kind of come back, you know, in the future. And that probably takes it from the 36 month closer to the 18 to 24 months, um, depending on some other things. But that's really helpful feedback. So thank you for that. Um, also just wanted to highlight a couple of things that are coming up that tie in with some of what you said. So I know you're talking about the collaboration. Some of the things that the sub - regional forum and about kind of prioritizing maybe one or two tasks, well, I think early next year, Dr. Colga will be opening there next tip call for projects. And so that'll, you know, with what we apply for at the county and then what we support through the sub - region, that'll give us one of those opportunities to say, I think it's roughly 20 million for the sub

2:41:02- region over four years. Um, so obviously not just for County Projects, but for any municipality within the county, but that, that does give us a chance to start that collaborative process you were talking about, Commissioner Lojamin. And as Commissioner Levy was saying to start talking about, I know Dr. Cogg is trying to focus on, if we pick a goal, can we do something to move the needle? And so I think that's something we can talk about within the county as well. Um, and then, you know, also just wanted to highlight that, you know, two things that I think tie into what we've said coming up with the transit plan that should be done roughly at the end of the year. Um, number one, that's probably the next step without, um, stealing their thunder that I think they'll bring to you, uh, is kind of highlighting some different scenarios. So what does it look like if we go with, you know, what generates the most ridership, what, you know, generates the lowest cost per rider versus what gender, you know, if we were to do more of an equity based or more of a geographical district. So they're going to bring you some of those options and get feedback from you. They're going to do that same outreach to the rest of the community. But

2:42:11I think that's one of those places we can start. And hopefully they'll have some of that number as cost per ridership that you were talking about. Um, but I think that's also going to present another opportunity when that plan is done. It's going to say here are some of the things we've heard that we could do with X amount of dollars, but it's the plan itself obviously does a generate the dollars. So that'll, um, present another opportunity for you as the board to say. If we wanted to make a shift transportation wise, if we wanted to look at an RTA or bond or a new sales tax, not just transit plan, but you could holistically look at that time and say, what could this look like for some of these other priorities? So I do think there's going to be some opportunities coming, um, for you guys to have that conversation. And then, uh, just briefly to touch on, you know, what Jana talked about.

2:42:57I think it's always good to look at what's on the list and what's a priority and what isn't. But as you guys, uh, have seen in no transportation projects, I think people use the, you know, analogy that's like steering a boat. It takes a long time in advance. And they're not the most responsive. So projects that we're working on, it would be very difficult to do anything in 27. Um, but we'll, you know, projects in 27 is kind of completing things that are underway now. But there is a chance through, through all of these for you to kind of, uh, set new expectations or priorities for us to start working towards this staff. So I think those opportunities are coming. And I think they're going to be good conversations. So, um. I guess I want to say something about the sub - regional forums. And I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Commissioner Stolzman, but I thought I heard you saying that we were sort of, you know, working in competition to one another and not so much collaboratively about, you know, which projects we all get behind because they make sense in terms of, you know, lots of different components. And one of the things that I have found just really remarkable and wonderful about the sub - regional forum has been the

2:44:16extent of that kind of collaborative thing where we've even said, you know, in terms of scoring by the tack, you know, this project scored high and we'll put that forward. And then the municipality will say, well, actually, we're not ready. Um, or this changed and we can't use the funds. So let's put those back and, you know, we think they really ought to go there. And so I actually think everybody is quite collaborative and supportive. So the, I was on Dr. Cog before there were sub - regional forums. So I've had lots of different experiences of how it can work. But what I would say is with the process that our sub - regional forum uses, um, compared to some others, is that pretty well every jurisdiction submits projects. I'm not saying people aren't kind to each other and don't like say, Hey, that's a keen project. That's cool. Other parts of the region will say, this is the most important project we have. This is the only thing we're submitting to the sub - region. That's what we're funding. There's one project. Like, this is the good idea that we all get behind. And we're supporting this project rather than Netherland has a park in Lot, Lewis, Phil has a sidewalk. Boulder has an underpass. We have turn lane commuting solutions as wayfinding signs.

2:45:30Like our sub - region, everybody submits at least one, if not multiple projects. And then people do collaborate in our very nice to each other. It's just really different than the collaboration I'm talking about, which would be on the front end saying, Hey, sub - region, let's all get together. What's the most important project in our sub - region? Like, do we have one? And we may not be able to get to agreement, but we might. What if everybody said, you know, the Boulder Eerin Regional Trails, the most important project, we should probably fund that. That would be interesting. And then you can submit one project. And instead of having staff in every single organization, spend all this time writing up projects and doing all the scoring and doing all the things. You say we're submitting that project. And that's what we're funding. And we're all getting behind it because we are great. So I understand now. And I'm very different. Well, I misunderstood your comment. And, um, and, you know, that's actually, we can, we can raise that at our next sub - regional forum. Do we want to take a different approach? I didn't understand what you were saying. I also did pull up, um, from 2022 when we were looking at the sales tax and Commissioner Louis Man has brought up a

2:46:33couple of times that we had some different scenarios for different levels of tax. And, you know, based on the polling, we went forward with, let's just renew what we have, uh, we didn't want to take a chance on losing all of that funding. But I mean, we did develop staff and public works developed scenarios ranging from the 0. 1 percent, which is what we went forward with all the way up to a one percent with three variants in between, you know, that had different things that could be added if we had additional money. You know, the polling just didn't support it. And I think we've had a lot of, you know, information and feedback since then that really indicates that, um, that it would be a pretty hard sell. Um, never want to take anything off the table here. But, um, but, um, but I, you know, I think we're fortunate to have what we have, which is why I bring up the bonding question of, um, you know, we can make it go farther.

2:47:43Maybe if we, if we try to front load some of these projects. So. I don't have anything else. Other comments from Dany or Christine. I do want to mention commissioners that, um, you'll see, uh, the regional transportation team on June 23rd for a work session about regional trails. So you'll get to talk more about BERT and North Foothills and other regional trails in just a couple of weeks. Commissioner Lochamine, I believe you are, you have a commitment with the state that day. So we'll be sending the materials in advance. And of course, if you have any questions that you want to send to us in advance, we'd be glad to answer those outside of the work session and just, um, sure that information with the full board during the work session. And, um, we'll be recording it. So you would be, um, welcome to watch the work session as well. Anything else on TMP or attachment A. I don't have additional. Questions on this. I'm done. Okay. Commissioners that concludes our work sessions for today.

2:48:54Okay. And that concludes our agenda for today. So we are adjourned. Thank you.