Transcript

0:00:15All right, Commissioners, are you ready? Yes. And we are recording. Good morning. Today is August 18th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have all three commissioners present. And we will start with our business meeting. We have a consent agenda consisting of 4A through A through L. Oh, yes, we have a motion. We have approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Say aye. Pass that. I vote against. Thank you. Yes. And then we have our discussion agenda. And we have Robin Valdez on Emergency Services Grant Program. Good morning, Madam Chair. Commissioners Robin Valdez with the Commissioner's office. Item number 5A are the request for appointments to the emergency services grant program advisory committee. We have five vacancies and seven applicants. And the new applicants are Joe Zimmerman applying for the accessibility community representative, Emmy Laxo applying for the search rescue organization representative. And then we have max Nathinson and Sachberger. Applying for the, under the current in previous employee or volunteer with a fire district serving Boulder County.

0:01:50We have three reappointments requests for your consideration. Those are from Ben Hogan as a member of large Doug Hertz. As planes and east Boulder County Resident. And Rick Schine Gold as a current and previous employee or volunteer with a fire district serving Boulder County. The Board Liaison's recommendations are to apply Joe Zimmerman, Emmy Laxo, Ben Hogan, Doug Hearst. And Rick Scheingled for your consideration. And if you have any additional questions about this board, The Boardley Sun is also here for any questions that you may have. Great, thank you, Robin. Any questions. I don't have any questions, but I do want to acknowledge our Palpin is here in the room. As you mentioned, and you and I, and Bob had an opportunity. Meaning I was looking for the day at my calendar quickly. I couldn't find it. It was in the last couple of weeks just to talk about this. I just want to share that with The Board that I did have an opportunity here a little bit more about the applicants. And of course, Barb has put together and continues to do great work with Robin in regards to one. All of the volunteer residents who want to be part of advisory boards and committees. But in specific, this group that really has very specific slots that need to be filled. And so just

0:03:17want to appreciate that work. And I'm happy to support the recommendation as presented. I guess the curiosity I had, but I assume you and Barb worked this out that with those recommendations on the reappointments and then the two new applicants that we've got folks in all the right committee slots that they're designated that we've filled everything out. That is correct. Yeah, great. Thanks. Okay. No, no other questions. So we're ready for a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you very much, Robin. Again, for all the work you do coordinating this next is 5B, and this is a YMCA worthy cause funding agreement amendment. And is April Gatesman. She's joining us remotely. Hi. This is April Gatesman, Assistant County Attorney. County Attorney's Office, representing the Community Services Department this morning. Thanks. I asked this good, be moved off consent. So I don't know if you just want to go to questions or if you were planning to present anything else. But when I read the packet, there was no memo included regarding the topic. So I was having to try to sort of guess what was happening. So I think what it seems like's happening from the two deeds is that, uh, we are extinguishing our interest in the YMCA and Longmont and moving interest to Mapleton. But

0:04:49I don't understand why we would do that and not just transfer it to the City of Longmont. And I don't understand if the value or improvement at Mapleton to warrant the move of the deed there. So it seems confusing. And I don't understand what options we're explored. So if you could kind of go into some of that and explain why it makes sense. And that the value on Mapleton to move the deed there if, in fact, that is what's happening. I can speak to many of those questions, but I will, I don't have the financial information that you're looking for, but I can give you the background. I can see why you'd be asking the questions. Um, I understand. That due to financial constraints, the YMCA could no longer own the Longmont property. And entered into negotiations with the City of Longmon, the city to purchase the property from the YMCA. The original hope of the YMCA was that the Longmont would enter into long - term lease. With the YMCA. And the County could continue to secure its interests in the worldly cause improvements with the long - term lease. We do that occasionally, the County will agree instead of recording a security interest against outright ownership. Oftentimes a long - term lease is sufficient. And that was the plan for several months. The

0:06:28YMCA reached out to community services and had a concern that they've entered into. A purchase and sale agreement with the City of Longmont. They're also in the process of. Negotiating the lease. And what the YMC is concerned that the timing was not going to line up so that they would end up selling the property to long lamp, but they would not have a lease. Against which we could secure our security interest. And so they asked if we could, if we would be willing to move the security interest to the Mapleton Property. And Carlene, Okayama, who administers the worthy cause program did ask for all the information that a standard appraisal of the property. And really that's the thing. I guess that's what she would have needed for this transaction. And I helped by supporting all the documentation. So I'm sorry that I can't tell you whether there's enough equity in the Mapleton property.

0:07:43I know Mika Delgado may have joined us as well. She may have that information. Carlene is on vacation. And she's probably the one who has the information. Well, and thank you for that. And it is maybe if Mika's on, that would be helpful because I appreciate that you've drawn up the documents as they've been requested, but my next question is really around. Philosophically when we have an interest in a property and it's sold, why we wouldn't just recover our investment at that time. So like was there a conversation about, um, The proceeds of the sale coming back to the worthy cause program. So we could reinvest them in worthy causes or was there a conversation about whether Longmont would commit to provide the same service. It looks like they're planning on providing some children's services preschool type programming. So would they be willing to just have the deed move to their name? Like I just have a number of programmatic questions that I'm not sure are your responsibility to answer April. I can tell you this. That the YMCA under all of these new documents, even with the shift and the security interest, they are going to be required to continue providing childcare at the Longmont location. But that's only a part of what you're asking. I'm not sure what discussions other discussions, other options

0:09:06we're discussed. So. And that just sort of raises my question of then why wouldn't that deed stay on that property? And then at my other question would be like, we already have a number of deeds on the Mapleton property. So like, would we really make this worthy cause investment in that site? Like that seems like a strange implementation of those taxpayer funds. So I don't know if Mika has joined or if Carlene has joined or if this could be delayed until they can get back to us. If I can just interject in the conversation, thinks April for being here. I am interested in tabling this conversation and a memo to explain is helpful, but for me, I have now, actually more questions than I had previously, um, and I'm happy to line out like what those questions are so staff come back. But my question right now for staff is, um, if we tabled this request, what might that create. I think I can answer that one as well. Unless things have changed. The latest information we have is that the YMCA, I think that the time pressure here is the YMCA is trying to clear this security interest off of the title prior to their sale to Longmont. And the sale is scheduled for September. So I believe there is time. I think we

0:10:36need to determine what that closing date is. The information I have about this, it is in the, in the agreement or the release and termination of the restricted covenant. That was attached, which is that the YMCA was required to deliver clear title to the property. And with these liens, they were not going to be able to do that. And so they were going to be transferred to Mapleton. But they could have done that by transferring it to Longmont also, right? Well, if Longmont was willing to take that on, but what, but why would Longmont take on these liens. May I say something to that point? Just Mika has joined us. Um. Was that you who said that April? I wasn't looking at my screen. To explain that I believe the reason that the city of Longmont is not taking on the lease. I'm sorry, The Security interest. Was an issue of timing. The YMC is going to be selling the property to Longmont, but they won't have a leave in place at the same time.

0:11:48It sounds based on the information I have that you would think at the time of sale. YMCA would sell the property. Long line and YMCA would enter into a long - term lease. County could secure its interest against the long - term lease. My understanding is the lease is not going to be ready in time. And that is why the request was made to move all of the liens to the Mapleton Property. We were going to, did I hear you correctly? We were going to allow the liens to be secured with the long - term lease to the Y. Yes. That's not what we've done in the past. Well, the county does allow worthy cause loans to be secured against long - term leases. Not. A given, but if the lease has the appropriate terms, we have a grade to that for other recipients. So it wouldn't be an exception. Okay. So, well, maybe I could ask my fellow commissioners, my colleagues here, um, what is the information that we would be seeking if we table this? I am concerned about whatever the closing date is. And do we know what closing date is? And I think, I believe this is our last business meeting until maybe September 15th? Natalie Spring Commissioners Deputy for the record. We do have a business meeting scheduled for next

0:13:31Tuesday, August 25th. Um, so if you were interested in tabling, we could take this up in a week. And the information that I think would be helpful would be a memo explaining the alternatives that were considered and what's being asked, like and why would be helpful. Um, and some information about what would happen if we choose not to do this. So if we wanted to have YMCA reimburse worthy cause, um, for terminating the services that they're delivering in Longmont, what that would look like and then how we could allocate those to other worthy causes in the community. And then an understanding of how much, um, we have invested already at Mapleton and how much equity there is at Mapleton. And if it would be justified to move this worthy cause funding over to Mapleton, like if, if the value to support that, or if they went bankrupt there, if we wouldn't be able to recover our interest. So those were the types of questions that would be helpful. And just having a memo explaining it actually would be helpful. When I wondered too, I saw that Mika came on the screen. And if there's any comments that might be helpful for us to hear, or if you're just suggesting that we table and have stuff, be ready to present as well as provide information. And

0:14:52I guess I was looking at LASL. Because are you able to answer any of these questions. You're still muted. And I'm navigating my phone. Um, I did pull over. So I'm safe. Thank you. Um, Mika Delgado Community Services Department. Um, I can't answer the questions with any specificity that has been required. So the opportunity to write out a memo and address all of the questions with specificity would be, um, something we could do over the next week. Um, I will say that Mapleton location would have enough equity in it to secure our loans across, uh, The Longmont YMCA loan as well, or not loan, but were the cause award. But I can't tell you, you know, exactly how much, uh, how much they're over leveraged at Mapleton at the current moment or anything like that. Um, we have allowed other worthy cause recipients to transfer their awards to different locations to secure them. Um, with a different location than what they were originally awarded for, um, so that it's not unprecedented. And, um, and it's also not unprecedented for us to secure our investment with a long - term lease. It's just the timing of the matter. Uh, what the sale of the property and long as April suggested. Well, and I think what's really different about this is that they're not moving from

0:16:41one location to another. They're terminating an activity. So like we have no assurance that what we invested in is going to be continued to be provided in Longmont. And we're not getting any new service at Mapleton. So we're actually extinguishing the benefit that the community had from that. I wanted to jump in on that point though. My understanding is that they are going to be providing the same childcare service economic criteria for the families. So that's be lovely to see in the memo and then documented in some way so that that's true. Like there's just no evidence that we have any sort of security on that. So like we're just simply transferring. It just doesn't, it actually doesn't make any sense. Yeah. Okay. So what you need a memo, um, that they are, you know, it's been reported in the paper, et cetera. But I understand we actually need a memo that supports that. And for what it's worth it is, it is a requirement in the new documentation. That they continue to provide childcare at the Longmont location. It's not as tidy as it would be if we were securing the interest at the actual property, but I just want you to know that that was not lost in this, in this transaction. That was an important point for the community services department as

0:18:08well. But I understand you're not, you know, that you'd have to dig through the documentation. It would be helpful to see a memo, but I just want you to know that point. Thank you. That's the intention as well. Of community services. I would move that we table item 5B until next week's business meeting. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any favor tabling it, uh, because I am concerned about timing and I'm not going to be present at the business meeting next week. So, um, so two to one, I do not favor tabling. We'll move on to five C. And we have carried oil. This is Resolution 2026 - 053. Good morning, Commissioners. Carrie Doyle for the County Attorney's Office. I'm here because you're to present resolution 2026 - 053. This resolution amends and certifies the Boulder County Early Childhood Care and Education Millivian Crease. To the November 3rd General Election. So as you see, it does two things. It amends the language that was adopted in Resolution 2026048 after the public hearing on this ballot measure. And then it certifies it, meaning it amends the language. And then we would be certifying it, which is to say you'd be giving it your seal of approval to send on to the elections department to be on the ballot.

0:19:50And the language that revised language amended languages that exhibit A, which is the last page of the resolution. I'm happy to put a motion on the table for discussions'sake, if that's helpful. Um, I, I just want to make sure I have a question for Carrie before we put a motion on the table. Um, so, so everything in the original resolution. Uh, stands. This is not replacing that original resolution. We've had many, many, many recitals. And lots of nice language. Yes. This resolution is only about the question that's being asked on the ballot. That's the only amendment. And, uh, it's not substantively amending. Anything in that question. It was really just a matter of word choice and clarification in other matters. Yeah. I guess I wonder whether it wouldn't have been tidier. And I'm sorry that I didn't, I thought I knew what this said. And so I didn't look at it in the packet this morning. Tidi or two. Just bring a new amendment that would have all the language. The original language and the title language because what I envision, maybe this isn't going to happen, but for some ballot measures, the community is, is directed to the resolution that referred it to the ballot with for the, all the details of the program and the rationale, the whys and wherefores and everything. But

0:21:35then when they're directed to that, it's not going to be the actual ballot title language. And that resolution isn't going to indicate that that ballot title language is not the accurate language. That's correct. But, um, generally speaking, the resolutions are posted on the website. And so we would have these two resolutions posted right next to each other. And there could be language explaining that the ballot was amended. The title was amended. So they can be provided at the same time. They usually provide a link to the public hearing and they can provide a link to this. Meeting as well. Um. And timing wise, I suppose we could bring this back next week if you'd like to consolidate everything into one resolution. Um, I would say that we historically have a second resolution that certifies the ballot title. So regardless of, we often have this second resolution that certifies it. We don't often amend it in the certifying resolution, but it's not unusual to have two resolutions. Okay. Thank you for explaining that. Um, Commissioner Stolzman, were you ready to put a motion on the table?

0:23:03Are you all right with moving forward with it? I think, all right. I would move approval of, uh, resolution 2026, 053. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. So we have approved that. Thank you. Thank you. Um, in fact, maybe people never look at these resolutions. Um, I feel like I am the consumer of reading resolutions. And I often do have to look at too, just as like a little like, don't worry. Like I often do have to read multiples. No, I know. Usually I'm for the ones that I've been familiar with that we've done. We've had a second one that is the ballot title. It's just that because the battle title actually, we did it all in one resolution. That's why I'm worried about confusion. Um, okay.

0:23:48Now we are ready to consider. I don't have a resolution number, but this is 5D for the formation of the sombrero ranch public improvement district. Good morning commissioners. I'm Olivia Lucas with the County Attorney's Office. And, um, this resolution number that we're considering in this item is 2026 051. And it sets the sets and certifies the ballot language, um, for the Sunbrer Ranch Public Improvement District. This action comes, um, as an immediate result of the, um, let's see this one was July 9th, 2025 public hearing, um, that was came from a citizen petition to form the Sombrer Ranch Public Improvement District in July at that public hearing. You all approved resolution 2026 040, which layout the reasoning and desires for that public improvement district. And so this action is simply, um, approving and certifying the ballot language that comes out of that, that resolution. Um, so this ballot language, um, it asks the voters to vote on, um, the taxing authority, the formation, the purpose, um, the debt authorization and the revenue change for the proposed Sombrer Ranch Public Improvement District. The resolution itself is primarily concerned with getting the language on the ballot, um, says that you approve and certify this language to be put on the November 30. Nope, November 3 2026 ballot.

0:25:36And the ballot language is there an exhibit A. Okay, thanks for that explanation. Any questions. I have nothing. I don't have questions. Thanks Olivia. Okay. Okay, then we're ready for a motion 5D. Move approval of resolution 2026 - 051. Second. Okay. We have a motion in a second. I'll in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you, Olivia. Excuse me. Um, we now are on 5E and this is certifying a ballot title for. Summerlin Public Improvement District. Hello again. Who love you, Lucas, with the County Attorney's Office. Um, and this also similar to some of the Sombrero Ranch. So this is the ballot language for the Summerlin Public Improvement District. In this case, the Citizen petition, um, came to us and we had the public hearing on June 9th. And you approved resolution 2026 34 reciting the desired formation and purpose of the Summerlin Public Improvement District.

0:26:45And so this resolution before you, 2026 052, um, concerns itself with putting the ballot language on the November 3rd ballot. So approving and certifying that, uh, this ballot language, um, recites the question of whether the electors in the proposed district would form the district, seek taxing authority, um, seek authorization to go into debt, look for a voter approved revenue change and the exception similar to the other, the exception to the limits in 29, one, 301. And that, um, ballot language is in exhibit A. All right. Thank you so much. Any questions. No questions. Thank you, Olivia. Don't see any questions. We're ready for a motion. Move approval of Resolution 2026 - 052. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you, Olivia. Thank you. Uh, and we're ready to move on to confirmation of executive session. Topics. Good morning, commissioners Natalie Spring. Commissioner's deputy for the record on item six. I'm here to confirm that the executive session topics that were noticed at the August 11, 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 this to item 7A. Commissioners, I'm here to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS

0:28:1524 - 6 - 402 subsection 4B, Legal Advice regarding the topic of legal issues related to the process for hiring a new County administrator. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you so much. And next. Thank you, Commissioners. And for item 7B, I'm here to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session. On Wednesday, August 1926 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4E. Instructions to negotiators to discuss the topic of collective bargaining agreement with the Boulder County employees union. Okay, we have a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. And that brings up to our monthly meeting on Head Start with Akani Ogren. An ICC has joined us remotely. So. This is Jeremy Smith, Commissioner Staff. For the upcoming presentations shared through Zoom. Anyone participating in Zoom, who needs or desires captions should turn on captions in the Zoom app at this time and leave them on until the presentation is over. Thank you, Ankane. Um, in the future, I just needed to wait to share until I finish reading that so people can see it. Thank you. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Thank you. And Akane, thanks for being here. I believe all three of us are able to pull this up on our screens

0:29:55as well. So if you'd like to take that down, it's up to you. Oh, you mean I don't need to share my screen? Well, let me confirm with my colleagues that they, that they have the presentation on their screens. I don't have it up on my screen right at this moment, but I can certainly bring it up. Whatever. You know, we can do it however we want to do it. I just, it does. Chair has to make his announcement because we switch over and the transcription is different. I now have it on my own screen. Thank you. Okay. Just, just to confirm, I don't need to share my screen. Not from my perspective, Commissioner Stoltzman. Whatever is pleasing the group. Okay. Okay. Um, okay. Um, I will move forward with the report. Um, Akanea Ogren, Division Manager for Boulder County Head Start. Um, I'll go ahead and get started. Um, the school year, the 2026, 27 school year has, um, started. All staff members returned last week for pre - service training. Um, and, um, we have all been very excited to have, um, children and families return this past Monday. Yesterday, August 17th and there are happy noises around me. I'm currently out of sight. So if, um, you hear those, those are children running around the building. Um, all leadership positions have been

0:31:34filled, including the center director role at this, The Woodlands Location. And the family advocate role at our Mapleton location. To lead teacher positions have also been filled. Um, one of which is represented by an internal promotion of a teacher assistant through the Office of Head Start Teacher Waiver option. This waiver allows a current teacher assistant holding a child development associate credential to transition into a lead teacher role under an agreement to complete an associate of arts, uh, degree in early childhood education with three years, which that staff person is currently enrolled. So, um, she was very excited to take the lead position. Opportunity. Number two, Program Enrollment. We have funded enrollment slots available at 110. And currently, uh, in the month of August, we are enrolled with 91 students. Um, and so you'll see just a little dot there to start the school year on 91, um, in the August column. Of the, uh, table.

0:32:39And then moving to monthly budget, um, the grant year for the previous school year ended on June 30th for the next school year we'll end on June 30th, 2027. Um, the graph below, uh, reflects the most current revenue and expense projections through May, 2026, uh, indicating a projected surplus of approximately 20, 000 at the end of last program's fiscal year. Um, and the June 2026 is currently in the reconciliation process. And so there's the graph below for 2025, 26. We will start a new graph for 26, 27 beginning on July 1 after the June numbers have been reconciled. And then I believe this next section is the section that, um, everyone wants to hear about, um, this is ongoing monitoring and communication we receive from regional, federal, um, Office of Head Start, uh, that we regularly communicate with the commissioners and then our policy council.

0:33:43The 2026 head start competition grant has not opened yet. Um, I do believe it is, um, going to open after, um, finalization of the, um, changes to the proposed changes to the head start performance standards. Um, which, um, we receive notice of at the beginning of August. So I will move to that unless there are any questions about the competition grant or any of the, um, other reported information above. Okay. Commissioner's questions. I don't have any questions. It's great work. I kind of thank you. They don't. Yep. No questions. So keep your free to keep moving. Okay. So they proposed head start performance standards reforms. Um, the Department of Health and Human Services recently announced a notice of proposed rulemaking aimed at restructuring head start Program Performance Standards. Um, while the administration frames these changes as a mechanism to offer local flexibility, um, our leadership team has identified several core areas of concern that could impact early childhood equity. Um, and, um, I also attached to the end of this report, The Summary document from the National Head Start Association. Um, this morning, I received an updated document. And so I will forward the updated document summary document, um, to the board. They are saying that they will continually update that document. So I will continue to update as I receive those. Um, but at

0:35:18the time of this, the creation of this report, these were the identified areas of concern, um, first being lower quality standards shifting oversight to state and local authorities. Um, estate childcare licensing standards are often, um, less rigorous than federal mandates. Um, and I can speak a little bit more to that at the end of, of this list and how, um, how our program specifically relates to those. Um, larger class sizes dropping federal rules on strict teacher to student ratios means more children in classrooms. Um, loss of essential wraparound services eliminating medical dental vision and hearing screening requirements, um, potentially leaving children without health interventions. Um, less qualified staff shifting credential requirements to state baselines could result in less qualified educators. Um, harder enrollment for vulnerable families. So more intensive documentation requirements for homeless or unemployed parents creating barriers to services and then administration cuts or administrative cuts, which underfund the legal compliance data tracking and management needed to run safe centers. Um, and, uh, this is where I wanted to just speak outside of this report and say, um, what's written on the report and say the changes, um, raise concerns, um, just based off of our experience over the last three years as they closely mirror, uh, operational vulnerabilities that our programs spent the last three years correcting. So prioritizing enrollment volume led to

0:36:56severe challenges within this program, specifically, um, operating with unredentialed staff in classrooms and in our leadership positions. Um, increased class sizes, um, created, um, environments of high stress, um, for teachers and for children in those classrooms, um, and, um, and then inadequate health monitoring, uh, directly resulted in safety incidents, staff burnout improper disciplinary practices, um, improper, I'm sorry, delayed interventions for children with disabilities, um, medical vision and dental needs. And it actually took this program three years to remediate those issues as you have been aware of, um, through our monthly reports. And that's just a single program. So the prospect of implementing these changes nationwide, um, poses risk to the safety and wellbeing of staff and children, uh, additionally on top of that, the developmental outcomes, um, of children across the country. So as a program, as this Boulder County had start program, um, our staff wanted to ensure our community that regardless of how the Federal Regulations evolve, um, this program is fully committed to upholding our current high standards as the standards are currently written to guarantee the best possible outcomes for our children and our community. There is one other, um, point of concern. And that is the English language mandates that are, that are being proposed. And as those evolve, um, we would like to reaffirm our commitment to language access

0:38:37and cultural inclusivity, which there seems to be a direct tension coming, uh, in those rules. Um, and we would like to see, um, our program be able to intentionally build an environment where every single family feels welcome supported and valued in Boulder County, but we recognize that those rules may create, um, real challenges there for that. And I'll stop there for your questions. Commissioners. Thanks, the Connor. I think for me, I appreciate the update and detailing some of the items that are of concern and understand that it's an ongoing document. So there may be some, uh, unfortunately there may be some more additional pieces that we need to be aware of, um, I think for me, I want to elevate what you just shared in regards to mandates by the federal government of English - only practices and procedures just coming from, again, teaching space and working in St. Rain Rally School District on curriculum that Spanish or Spanish speakers understanding the core pieces of literacy in our native language for kids who are coming to the United States and building their lives just from an educator standpoint. It's critical, but also from a health perspective as well. So I just want to outlight what you're sharing. And I think the question I would have is not necessarily to be answered right now, but just

0:40:04to understand how we might be supportive, uh, in whether it's commentary on the rulemaking process and our other opportunities for us to continue advocating for our youth specific to the headsturt program and that piece of a community wellbeing that we're committed to. Thanks. I think in the comments that we provide, um, for the official period, making sure that we, um, elevate some, um, data that we have, if we can tell stories and data from our area that really illustrate how, um, having culturally responsive practitioning and whole family practitioning leads to better outcomes, um, if you think about intervening when someone's young so that they can have a more successful trajectory and overall healthier wellbeing in the long run, it's good not only for that individual, but society as a whole. So if we have particular data from our program that we can elevate or if we have stories about families that we can elevate in our comments, I think that will be really useful because the premise that, um, reducing service to the young people is going to save America money as foolish in my opinion and not supported by any sort of evidence. So I think we should really try to highlight that in our comments. Um, and it does seem like this is the beginning of it. Like they have not said they're

0:41:27making cuts to funding, but it does seem like reducing the requirements will the next step, it seems, will be to not fund things that aren't required. So I think, um, really tying some, some of the comments and information that we provide to why investing funds in the community in this way is such a huge benefit. We'll be really, really important. I will, I will work on that data. Yeah. And I'll just add, um, I don't, I don't have a questions here, but, uh, but I appreciate what you said about our program Boulder County's head start program, you know, continuing to meet the standards that we know are valuable for children. And I trust that you'll be able to, um, comply with the English only instruction requirement in a way that does not, you know, that does allow children for whom English is not their first language to, you know, to continue to thrive. You know, we've got, uh, we've got to serve these kids in the same high quality way that we are serving them.

0:42:41My concern with this direction that the administration is going is, is that the things that they want to remove and change are the very things that makes head start such as successful program. And, uh, and so if you remove those things and it is just another preschool program, then it's harder to justify the funding for it. Um, and, uh, and we won't see the, you know, the games that the research shows from high quality programs, the games that these kids make relative to kids that don't have access to these programs. So I was heartened to hear that, you know, your commitment to, uh, trying to maintain the standards. Hopefully we'll have the funding to be able to do that. Uh, the, you know, the teacher student ratio, the, you know, the teacher qualification standards, uh, you know, I don't know how, what kind of funding strains may come along from, um, from trying to continue to provide the health dental screenings, et cetera, that these kids need. So, you know, keep us informed. And as we head into the budget cycle, we'll be looking at what we can do to maintain the standards that our kids need. Thank you, Commissioners. Um, that is, that is the end of my report. And again, I will continue to forward on information and updates as I receive them

0:44:27and we'll work on that data commissioner Solswin, you're requesting. Thanks. And I don't need to see it back. I just think we should include it in our formal comments that we submit before the window closes. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you for joining us as always. And thank you for your dedication to, uh, the head start population here in Boulder County. Um, and so with that, we will move on to, um, get back to my agenda. We now have a public meeting on the Griffith PUD sketch plan that was continued. It's not noticed to take additional testimony. We did close the public hearing and we, we did have just a few, uh, items that we needed to get some clarification on. So if staff is ready to go, then I think we can proceed. Good morning commissioners Pete Larange Community Planning and Permitting. Just bringing up the presentation here.

0:45:48We're waiting. We should have some nice waiting music. There we go. Again, good morning commissioners. Pete Larange Community Planning and Permitting. This is a continuation of the, uh, hearing on SD - 24 - 001. The Griffith PUD sketch plan at 63 Baldwin. Just a brief kind of recap. This is a sketch plan review for a total of four residential lots on approximately 1. 5 acres. It is currently zoned manufactured home. And there are five manufactured homes on this site. On the, at the July 2nd, 2026 hearing, uh, staff recommended denial based on the finding that the proposal does not meet all the criteria objectives and guidelines. Most specifically that the proposal was not in conformance with the comprehensive plan or the Boulder Valley Conference of Plan and that the proposal did not support the objectives of the PUD Program. At that time, the commissioners requested, uh, additional information and clarification on, uh, related to application materials, what information would be required as part of a preliminary plan application submission and requested potential conditions of approval for the sketch plan. Based on the fact that sketch plan reviews are very conceptual in nature. They typically do not include conditions of approval. Rather, it's any issues that are raised during the sketch plan, uh, review process are intended to then be addressed through the preliminary plan,

0:47:46uh, application. In this case, the specific issues raised issues of concerns raised included documentation of adequate water service, documentation of adequate sewer service and demonstration of agreement from the Baldwin Circle Agreement Holders for the necessary improvements of the access road. To that end, staff put together a supplemental memo, which was provided to the commissioners, uh, and the applicant as well. That memo kind of outlines the specific requirements for any preliminary plan application. Uh, and they're just, this presentation just summarizes those. The memo goes into far more detail. But typically speaking, uh, preliminary plan application includes, uh, maps for existing and proposed topographic contours, existing structures, utilities and infrastructure, the proposed lots. Propose utilities, uh, infrastructure roads and easements. Landscaping as well as drainage and stormwater information. Uh, that application would also require a development report that includes descriptions of site features, uh, including apolimentary drainage report. Description of soil characteristics and geologic issues, uh, impacts on environmental resources, historic and archaeological resources and information related to demands on agencies to provide water sanitation and other, uh, services as part of that. That's where the letter of intent from a water provider would be required as well as a letter of intent from the Eldorado Springs public improvement district with an engineer's report on the impacts, uh, to that, uh, proposed the impacts to that system.

0:49:31Staff also recommended that the applicant worked with the fire protection district to address specific concerns there. The preliminary plan application will also require a transportation system impact review, a TSIR that looks at the existing transportation conditions, including roadways, dimensional requirements. Average daily trips, uh, and level of service. That's that LOS analysis. Uh, and the, uh, impact review should address both existing and future conditions. Uh, and this is where that, uh, support from all maintenance agreement holders would have to be included as part of that. And then the TSIR would also include conclusions and mitigation measures, uh, necessary as part of the plans. A wildlife report will be required, including inventory of species of special county concern and any impacts and mitigation measures to those species. Finally, the requirement for unified development plan that addresses easements, covenants and restrictions related to use location and design of buildings, uh, that's where we get into things like, uh, design guidelines, uh, that sort of thing. We'll also include discussion of utilities, uh, private and public streets, roads, pedestrian areas and parking facilities and open spaces. If a preliminary plan, uh, application is then approved addressing all of these items. That's where it would move to final plat, which has another long list of, uh, specific requirements. Steph did not address those specifically in the memo simply because we

0:51:12are not to that stage yet. But I'm happy to answer any questions that the commissioners may have. Okay. Thank you, Pete. Any questions about this update? Thank you. Thanks, appreciate it. I think one of the questions that I had, um, in the previous hearing was understanding the actual, I'm trying to think of, I don't remember exactly how I worded it, but it was in regards to there was a couple of different diagrams that showed the potential, like the proposed units that would be put on the parcel. And after having gone, um, to the site, my comments were, could we get a more realistic, um, proposal of what those sites would be understanding that on the terrain itself is pretty steep. And it didn't look like, um, like I didn't go back into that lot. It was just from that front kind of walking or along that, that road area to understand how the diagram that we saw in the packet originally. Really would occur if the board was to move forward and let this process continue as far as the state plan. So I didn't see that in the, it looked like there was a nine page supplement. Are there, was there any updated map in any updated diagrams, any updated, um, visuals for us to look at? No updated visuals or maps as part

0:52:53of this simply because this is a very conceptual review. Um, those are things that based on the conversations and the, uh, deliberations of the board, those are things that would be developed as part of that preliminary plan, uh, when it comes back. That was, that was my next question. The way I, the way you kind of broke out in the memo, the steps, that was my assumption, but I wanted to just ask to make sure there wasn't anything else that was provided that I haven't seen. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Um, I think for, for me, my concern at the time, I mean, I did support approving the sketch plan. And I still do. And my concern at the time was simply, would the applicant get to a point where he reaches a kind of dead end as far as water and sewer given that these are, well, water primarily, uh, in control of a private party. And your memo lays out very, very well that, that, that all, all of these things, um, the questions that we may have are properly addressed at the preliminary plot stage. And so the applicant will have lots and lots of work to do, uh, with lots of reports and studies, uh, going forward. And at this stage, we're simply looking at, um, at allowing

0:54:23a subdivision of this lot into what four, well, four, four lot in an out lot, correct? That's what the applicant proposed. Yes. So, and I, so that's fine. I don't have any other questions. Commissioner Stoltzman. I made my comments at the last hearing and they're complete. Thank you. Yes. Um, appreciate that. So, um, did you have any other questions or I don't have any additional questions? Okay. All right. Then, um, we are ready for a motion on SD 24 - 000. Well, I guess I do need to allow the applicant. I don't know if I do or not, but maybe I should allow the applicant if you have any additional comments you want to make to us. Thank you so much, Commissioner Levi. I'll be very brief and just say that, um, I appreciate your time. Um, I do believe this proposal is, in essence, a kind of a poster child of what the PUDs process stands for. And in fact, that process was recommended to me by staff originally. Um, obviously the, the road ahead is a long one. There's a lot of, uh, steps and a lot of things that I'm going to need to undertake. It's obviously a big risk. A lot of commitment, but I really do feel like this is the best possible use of this property in light of

0:55:47the unique character. Abeldorado Springs, not only it's risks as far as fire. But also just what makes it special as a community. It's an area that you guys have obviously decided. And I think correctly. So to reduce the size of permissible houses so that this will be rather than one big house or a resort property, it would be four houses, hopefully that are consistent with what is around it. And we'll continue to sort of promote the, not only the image of Eldorado Springs and the charm that it has, but also provide, I think, important middle class housing in the county, which I think is important. Um, and I just, I just hope again that, that this can be done in such a way that, you know, I can move quickly through this process. You know, obviously I have this all laid out in front of me, but it is a long process. And so I, you know, I don't want to be foolish and just put out there that I have infinite resources that I can chase down every single rabbit hole. Um, I think Commissioner Levi stated correctly. Water is going to be. A primary thing that I'm going to undertake to resolve immediately.

0:56:56There's no point in wasting any more time and energy if that can't be resolved. Um, but I believe it can be. So anyway, thank you so much for your time. And, uh, I appreciate your, your, uh, your opinions on this. Yeah. Thank you. Um, thank you for being here. Thank you for presenting. And this is Brianna Barber Commissioner's office staff. Can we please have you state your first and last name on the record. Thank you so much. Uh, no problem. Christian Griffith, do all my address as well. We don't need that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you for being here. Thanks for that wrap up of the proposal. So, um, I believe we are now ready for a motion on SD 24 - 001. I'm happy to conditionally approve DACA SD 24 - 001 Griffith Pud PUD sketch plan with the conditions that we're recommended by stuff. I don't believe there were conditions.

0:57:55So what the memo... Okay, I'm just reading. Just reading the message. So let me say that motion again in regards to item number nine on our agenda. I would move to conditionally approve DACA SD - 24 - 001PUD sketch plan. So it's not a conditional approval. So there's no conditions. So we're not conditioned. Oh, I'm so sorry. I am, let me, um, let me not read what is in front of me. How about I would, and part of the reason why I was asking for some support was because I staff support was originally thought the recommendation was to not approve. And what I want to be very clear about is I am moving to approve the docket, um, in item number nine on the Griffith Puddy Sketch Clan. Alright, Commissioners, are you ready? Yes. And we are recording.

0:59:43Okay, so the commissioners are back from recess for our afternoon agenda of Work Session Topics, and we have two topics. One is zero waste update, I guess, in progress. And the other is going to be on Tucker Ranch Interam Management Plan. So it looks like we're already to start with the Zero Waste Plan. Good afternoon, Commissioners Yvette Bowden, Deputy County Administrator. Appreciate the opportunity to be with you this afternoon. Yvette, I don't know if that microphone's picking you up. It is. Is it. Okay. Can you hear me? I mean, I can hear you, but it just didn't sound amplified, so, but go. Okay. Okay. I can be louder. Thanks for the opportunity this afternoon. We're starting with the Public Works Item. A couple of months ago, The Board asked for a little bit of an update on, and helping to bring forward some information on the Zero Waste Plan, implementation to date and curiosities about how we've progressed in considering composting in Boulder County. So we don't have any slides for you today, but we're happy to follow up on the memo with any questions as we go around. And I believe that we are starting on this topic with Commissioner Stoltzman. I'm here today with two members of the Public Works staff, Cody and Megan. I'll let them introduce themselves as you have questions.

1:01:19Thank you. So on the first discussion point, I don't have any questions, but I support the staff recommendation. And I don't know if you want me to go into the second discussion point already, or if you want to go through the - Whatever the board prefers, whatever you prefer. Could we get some clarification here on how you're doing this? Because in the memo, so you have data on zero waste and how much is being recycled and diverted and how much is being landfilled. And then you have, you also have a topic on transportation fees that you want direction on, and then the compost facility. So when you said, well, when you turn to Commissioner Stolzman to start this conversation, what were you wanting to focus on here. Thank you, Commissioner. We can - That was such a brief introduction on your part. I think we need a little bit of a roadmap. That's fine. Thank you so much. Let's start again. So what we appreciate is the opportunity to get responses from you and all three of these areas. As you'd like Commissioner Stoltzman, we can start with the first topic of whether or not you have any questions about the Zero Waste Plan Update.

1:02:40And then, um, it would be helpful if we go around again on the fees. And finally on any question regarding composting. Would that be a manual. Certainly, I don't have any questions on the first section. Thank you. Commissioner Luchman, do you have any questions on the first section, which is the Zero Waste Plan Update. Thank you. If I'm looking at the packet card, I mean. I don't have any question about questions about the data that was. Brought forward. I mean, 21 years ago, there was a resolution. That said that in last year, we'd be darnier, like a zero. I think it's, or darnier was the wording you. So we're clearly not there. Um, food waste to me has been a topic I've been bringing up for a while about, like, what's our role in the County? What can we do? Um, so I appreciate the update. Like, I think that's, that's the first piece. Um, and to me, I'm looking at some of this, like 0. 2 and 0. 3 as, like, what might we do? Um, in this space, I don't have any questions about what you brought forward, but I do think it's important for us to get the update and to know.

1:04:05And because it's 2026 and closer to 27, then not, just to understand what we might, you know, what that, where that might fit in strategic, excuse me, where that topic might fit in strategic priorities or not, or if there's a different plan and or, um, goal that yell are wanting us to focus on, and that might be, again, part of point two and point three. So, but I appreciate you all being here. Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Thanks. Well, I. Appreciated the analysis in the Zero Waste Plan Progress, but I couldn't, I think it'd be really helpful to know what are our next steps. Like what are our goals? We did say that that zero waste or darn near wasn't very helpful, given what we know about recycling opportunities and composting opportunities currently. So we said, okay, that's not helpful guidance. And I can't tell from what you've got here, whether where it says under these different, these five different elements. And it has what has been completed. Like, I don't know if that, if these are all checked, like we're done, or whether there are more plans. So that's what I'd love to know. I don't know what else we're doing or whether we're saying, great or good. It was an aspirational goal indeed, but I think I'd like to turn it over to Cody

1:05:41for additional. Sure. Hi, afternoon commissioners, Cody Lilstrom, Deputy Director of the Resource Conservation Division under Public Works. Um, to answer your question, Commissioner Levy, the five points that we have in the memo are redesigned and updated Zero Waste Action Plan from the original 2010 Zero Waste Action Plan. We realized that 2010 plan was somewhat outdated and didn't have really the metrics or guidance that we needed, having the experience of the, you know, the last 14 years working under it to really make. Progress or track our progress with the Zero Waste goals that we have in the county. Uh, so we, we, we reorganize the plan, just made five buckets where we feel we can make the greatest impact as a county. And that's kind of where that stems from. So what we're currently, where we're at with the plan right now is that we renewed the plan in 20, I think it was 2024. With no end date necessarily. It's just kind of ongoing goals and we will track the progress every year as we have the data for it. And as we continue to chip away at this zero waste goal and to improve hopefully our sustainability footprint in the county also. So what's written under each of these categories, what is identified as completed? Those are just some actions that were done under

1:07:16each of those different elements. Correct, yeah. Our categories of recommendations. And then the percentages assigned to each of those. What are those are what the diversion we anticipate, we can expect if we focus on those goals. So like construction and demolition solutions, construction and deconstruction, my apologies. Um, we expect that we can get an additional 21 percent diversion from the landfill if we focus on those areas within C and D. So that's what we think we can achieve. Correct. I think, so that's helpful. And going back to my first question was how have we made progress? At what kind of progress have we made towards those goals? That maybe I missed it, but I didn't see that in here. We don't have the calculated additional diversion percentages at this point, but we put, we included those completed projects as work we've done towards those goals, uh, in the last couple of years. Okay. Okay. I do think in the future when we revisit this, just knowing whether we're making in progress or, you know, are these percentages, the right amount that we can do, you know, what. Now that we've been working with this for a while, like are there other tools or strategies that we might want to pursue, you know, soap those were the questions that came up for me. Thanks. Thank you,

1:08:48Commissioner. So we're back for, uh, the second question, which is the section on fees. There's a proposal. Um, for an adjustment and we'll be picking up again with Commissioner Stoltzman on your thoughts. I'm happy to kick herself, but I do think we normally would then like rotate to the next one to start. But Oh, I can do that. I'm just saying that's how we have been doing it. We can do whatever your pleasure is. And I already sort of let the cat out of the bag since I started on this one at the beginning that I support the staff recommendation on the fee adjustment. I think most costs have increased by more than this percentage over the 10 year period. And so I think some of the percentages are double digits and they are big.

1:09:29They haven't increased for 10 years. So if you were to do like a three percent increase per year, they would actually be much bigger of increases when you consider compounding. So I think this is reasonable and appropriate. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Ochoman. Yeah, thank you. I think I have just a couple of curiosities about the changes. And I understand that like the costs go up and our liber Costco up and all the different things, I'm sure. And I also understand that people, uh, all over Boulder County are experiencing higher costs everywhere else as well. And so when I look at, um, some of these trash items, trash loads, um, that might 10 dollars might not seem like a lot to somebody. But for somebody else, it might be a deciding factor of how they get rid of their trash. Um, while they're dealing with all of the other bills and cost of living. So I think the curiosity for me is understanding from city, um, cities and towns around the area that do like free pickup days and those types of things. Like do we know how we compare, um, on these feet. I mean, for the service is not the fees like for trash loads and trash items and backtrash and things like that.

1:10:50Cause I'm just, I'm just not familiar with what we offer. Don't offer relative to I live in the city of Longmont. Yeah, of course. Um. Do I have to reindict something? That'd be okay. Cody Lestrum again, deputy director of the Resource Conservation Division in Public Works. That's a good question. And staff did analyze the comparables in neighboring counties, uh, particularly like Gilpin and Larimer, uh, when looking at these price differences, uh, and the increased, the proposed increases. So that analysis has been done. And we're still, we didn't include it here. And I apologize that we didn't have that analysis here. But, um, we're still lower. We're, and, you know, part of the reason that we operate these transfer stations is to offer residents a low cost alternative to the very expensive hauling rates that can be charged in the mountain communities, particularly net or Lyndon Allen's Park. So we are sensitive to rising prices rising just cost of living for everyone in the County, of course. And we didn't want to raise it so much that we are now, you know, unaffordable for the average resident in the mountains. Um, so we're very sensitive to that. Um, and we did consider that in the analysis.

1:12:15Thank you. And so the other part of my question was, so in a city or town, for an example, I live in City along my, as I already said, um, there's different days during the year where I can put my branches out and they get collected. I could, there's like free dump days and there's other things like that. So I'm just, just trying to understand if that's something that we offer as well for these different services or not. Yes. Uh, the answer to that is yes. We do, uh, the county has for many years done, uh, annual spring cleanup days or diversion days for our mountain communities. Um, where it's free of charge to divert anything they want from the landfill. So the county has funded for the last, I think it's about 10 years now, maybe even a little longer than that. Uh, diversion for residents annually, uh, so that they can drop off at a designated location. We operate those in Netherland. Allens Park, we have one in Ward. We help coordinate one for the town of Niwat. And I'm probably forgetting one.

1:13:24But, uh, we do that for our unincorporated areas and the mountain communities specifically, uh, because we do know that it takes time and cost money to transport things down the hill. So we do those annual spring cleanup events. Every year. Thank you. And I mean, I think what you're looking at me, I think that look was, what do I think about the, I'm just reading through here. So the options were, um, staff recommends increasing the fees according to the table presented at the meeting. Um, the only question I had written down now that I'm looking at my notes, uh, what impacts are you anticipating with a raise of fees in this area at this time? Uh, I mean, immediately I assume people will be concerned about the rise in their disposal fees. Um, we're hoping that it has a very minimal impact understanding that, uh, we haven't raised rates in over 10 years. Um, at the sites, I think. And we, we have been kind of soft polling people who come through specifically Netaland just because it's a more, it's a busier site, uh, when we've kind of rolled out the idea of increasing these generally people have said, it seems to make sense. You haven't done that in quite a long time. And, uh, so, you know, unofficially, it's not an official poll or

1:14:49anything, but just staff asking regular customers and things like that. We don't anticipate a huge, uh, impact from this fee increase. Thank you. I think I understand the need to raise the fees. For me, and I'm just quickly looking at the percentage change, like some of these are over 30 percent of change in fee, which does seem significant. I agree with what you're recommending here as far as needing to change the fees. I would do something less than that. Um, so that's, yeah, good observation and thank you for pointing that out. I will say that the only one that's over, uh, that 30 percent that you pointed out is just a one dollar change for that small trash bag. And we did that because you can't with the way that, uh, the site operates, it doesn't really make sense to deal with change. And we try to do whole dollar amount changes when we're increasing fees. And that one is a change of two dollars to three dollars So yes, it is the highest percentage, but, uh, it really, we didn't feel it. It made sense to raise by 50 cents because then we're dealing, we deal with a lot of cash transactions up there, uh, and it is much easier on the staff and the residents to do whole dollar amounts. Yeah, that makes

1:16:11sense. There's, the others that are 29 percent and, but yes, that, that is the one that's over 30 percentile. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Levy. Yeah. Thanks. Um, I also had questions about just how you arrived at these numbers here, you know, and, you know, whether they're a benchmarked in some way, uh, and I don't know, I just don't know. Like is this the, like on the bagged trash for people that would take a 13 gallon trash bag to a waste transfer station? Is this their soul means of, of trash disposal or is there a regular pickup of some sort of up in Netherland? Yeah, that's a good question. It typically is their soul source of trash disposal because those hauling fees are usually much higher than people want to pay in the mountains. So they take it to the transfer station to drop off at a much lower, lower rate than they would receive if they had, you know, neighborhood collection or something like that.

1:17:29What came to mind for me when I, when I read this is, um, you know, we don't, we don't want them to defeat so high that folks just decide to dump illegally. And just what's that tipping point? No, no pun intended. You know, where people will just say, Oh, I can't afford this and they're charging unreasonable rates and I'll just, you know, throw it. Let it fall off the back of my chalk accidentally. So, you know, and I just don't know how to benchmark this. I have no idea how this relates. I know what I pay. Here. But, uh, so I guess I'm just curious, like if you did any comparisons on charges at other transfer stations, you know, not run by the county outside the county. We did. And it's a competitive rate. Okay.

1:18:33Okay. And then the other question is you sort of answered this a little bit with in response to Commissioner Louis. You mean just any sort of outreach that you might have done. So it sounds like you just sort of informally surveyed people at the transfer station. Yeah. Okay. Correct. Yeah. And I will point out the single stream recycling is always free up there. So within this, we encourage as much diversion as we can always, um, and that single streamer cycling is free of charge for all residents at all times. Okay. Okay. That's, that's great. First time I read that 96 gallon bear can thing. I thought it said beer. But all right. No, I think, I mean, based on what you said, I mean, none of these, none of these alone seem especially onerous. I think we just have to see, you know, whether if we see a fall off in the amount of waste coming to the transfer station. And I think we know that that waste is being disposed of some other way.

1:19:42And we may have to address that. So, okay. All right. So I guess we have option one and option two. And I support option one. Thank you commissioners. With that, I think we're moving to the third portion of that conversation. And I thank you, Commissioners Joseman. We'll be moved to Commissioner Lojamin to start off the conversation with any questions, particularly for Megan, who was so helpful in pulling together the information and how we've been exploring composting and a composite in our community. So we want to open up first to your questions. Um, before we go a little bit deeper into what direction you'd like us to take next with next steps. Thank you. Uh, let's see here. I appreciate the update. There's a lot of interest around what Boulder County is doing when Boulder County do something in regards to compost facility. And of course the bigger question is where, um, which you've captured here in your notes as well. So appreciate the update.

1:20:59Um, and just understanding, um, some of the last site kind of investigation and what explained here and as to why, um, the distal property is not, um, not being worked on at this time. Um, so the question in here, do you want the with the board like to have a public meeting and presentation on the findings from phase two of the study and the residential survey? And I, yes, I think my question would, and it kind of goes back in there later, um, reading my notes. I was reading through the packet. My question was just at work session versus public meeting. Uh, in the past. We've done public meetings that we just happen to do them in the sticky leave. And so they were broadcasts. And so people could listen in. You could do it here and, you know, at the dais as well. Um, for me, I don't know that it would have to be a recession unless there was pieces that you wanted us as the board decisions on or give some specific direction on. Otherwise, I think there's a lot of interest in a public meeting would be timely just to update people on what's been done in 2026. That looked like the first. Question. So option one, I do think a public meeting gives people an understanding of kind of what

1:22:24the conversation is, what questions we have as board members and what the responses are versus the other option that says forgo the meeting and keep reports publicly available. I would assume the information on the website, but I think there is enough interest about this topic that people would appreciate a public meeting. Thank you. Commissioner, baby. Hi. Thought I had read in this memo. That this Burns and McDonald, so they completed a study on the federal account facility. I thought there was some discussion of that they had looked at a number of potential sites. And then, uh, and then focused, but only really did a detailed evaluation of the distal site. I can't find that language in here now. But, um, I don't, I don't know, unless we have some other site that we're considering or that the consultants identified, uh, and the only thing we know is, is that the site we focused on isn't available. I guess I don't know what the public meeting would be about. And maybe it's this phase two part of it that I'm missing here. Megan, would you like to add on? We did look at the distal site. And after that, the question really becomes, do you want a more regional approach or should we keep continuing evaluations of other sites in Boulder County that's sort of

1:24:03where we are? I don't know if Megan, you wanted to add more to. Well, just so what is phase two? It's, okay, thanks. Sorry. I just want to make sure that I phrase the question well so that I get an answer. Thanks. Yeah. Megan, uh, Sarah was strategic advisor. Jeremy Smith Commissioner staff. Could you please pull that microphone closer, Macon? Yeah. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Yep. Megan, we, uh, zero waste strategic advisor. The phase two just refers to how we approach the feasibility study. So we portioned it up into, um, a phase one and a phase two sort of, uh, progressively getting more detailed into the analysis of what a facility might look like. So as a part of the contract with the consultant, we already had a phase one study where the consultant came out to the recycling center, I think, um, uh, February of last year. I might be wrong on the date to share their initial findings from the first couple sections of the report. Um, so the phase two public meeting, uh, that we had in that contract hasn't been, that's part of the discussion today is whether you want to hold that, um, meeting with the consultant to discuss the second half of the report. What would be the content, the substance of that meeting. Yeah. So the, the content

1:25:34of the phase two, um, piece goes through the operational model, the options that the consultants looked at in terms of County ownership versus public private partnership. The phase two part of the study also looked at the finances. So they explored the different models in terms of what capital costs would look like operating costs and how the facility would be financially sustainable. So there's a lot more, um, detail in terms of what a facility might look like. And do we, are there any sites that are currently under consideration. Through our process, we have evaluated Boulder County as a whole. And we have looked at our, I think we have a list of 19 site criteria. And we have, um, mapped kind of County Wide, whether there's any potential sites that meet all of our 19 criteria.

1:26:43And we do have sites within the county fit into criteria for, uh, a compost. Facility. And we haven't gone any further than mapping and identifying those. So we haven't done the level of analysis, let's say Burns and Mac did on the distal site. Are they in those, those sites that have been identified as meeting the criteria? Are they in private ownership. Uh, yes majority. Okay. I mean, I guess my, my original question was, what would we be talking about? Like just presenting a report on, you know, how we would compost and, you know, all the different kinds, the technology, the financial feasibility, et cetera. I think without. Having, you know, being able to talk about sites that we might consider. I know that's very sensitive. But I think the community wants to go beyond just, you know, they feel like they understand. We need composting.

1:27:53They want composting the current situation is not really, you know, helping or not really composting what we could be composting. But I think without being able to bring something more concrete that suggests we're ready to move forward in some way or maybe, maybe this is a future work session or, or a PMI or an executive session, if we're going to be identifying specific parcels. But I wouldn't want to do a public meeting without, without being able to present something, you know, a little bit more concrete about what might happen to get public feedback on that. Otherwise, I think it's just a general informational thing. And people are going to walk out of it feeling like they don't really, they have no better idea than they did when they walked in as to whether the county is going to be able to do a composting facility.

1:28:47Thank you, Commissioner. I have a follow - up to that, but I certainly want to let Commissioner Stoltzman also chime in. Thank you. Um, I think I'll combine my comments somewhat for the last two questions because their interwoven and I heard comments from my colleagues about them interwoven together. So I'll just proceed in that way as well. Um, so when we started down this path, um, a lot of the community outcry was really related to the types of things that we could compost. So, you know, the primary, um, provider of composting for taking it away from our properties and things right now is A1 organics and they stopped accepting things like paper products and quote unquote compostable plastics. What we found out in the first phase of the study was that the county, if we were going to run a successful compost facility also wouldn't take those products. So I think some of the, um, goals that the community set out for us in the initial hope of having a government run facility are no longer on the table because we've learned that those compostable plastics aren't really breaking down. You can't really create a viable composting product with them. And there are a lot of contaminants in the composting streams, including some concerns of different herbicides that aren't composting to completion PFAS and compost,

1:30:03all kinds of different things that we really have uncovered through this study and really great work from Megan and Cody and the team that like we've learned a lot more. And so when I look at the potential of a government run facility versus what we're getting from the private sector, it really has narrowed down the improved benefit that community members are hoping to see the remaining benefit really comes in travel. Like we're hauling material distance and we could potentially shorten the distance, um, if we had a closer in facility. So I think that's the remaining piece. And now many of our municipalities are contracting for zero emission fleet, um, in Lewisville. It's like there was no gas or methane used in any of the, um, hauling fleet and others are following suits. So some of the carbon emission offsets that we would gain from that windshield travel time are also decreasing. So I think there is not much to present in a public meeting on phase two. Um, I, I, I think the information should be posted certainly. So people have access to it and can consume it and, you know, have dialogue and continue to discuss things. And I think we should continue to encourage backyard composting, like increasing diversion into the sorts of facilities that are available using our sort yards, the big

1:31:20biomass in the mountain areas, things like that trying to ensure that we get it to the right places. But it does seem that through our analysis, the initial benefit we were hoping to see from a government run facility and the marginal difference between that and the private facility we already have access to has really significantly narrowed, um, we wouldn't be taking cardboard. We wouldn't be taking coffee filters. We wouldn't be taking compostable plastics. We wouldn't be taking paper. We wouldn't be taking tissue. So I don't see the benefit. At this time, I'm certainly happy to have people come to town hall, talk just about combat like we have a town hall tonight come talk to us about composting at the town hall. That sounds great. But I don't, um, I don't see the point of stirring people up. To a public meeting in on the digital conversation, which I participated in quite a lot. Even though that was a really great solution to put a compost facility in a mining quarry and get a 80 additional acres of open space. Many people came out still opposed to it. So I don't think much has changed in that, um, sense either. So I would not host a Public Meeting. I would get the reports to be publicly available and put them out there for folks. Um,

1:32:28and then I think the bigger bang for the buck rather than expanding, um, partnership and regional exploration would be to really shift our focus to construction debris. I think that's our, our bigger opportunity if we want to actually make strides on zero waste. People already have quite a lot of access to composting in our county. And it'll be a very small increase, even if we spent a ton of effort on it. And so I think focusing on the construction debris for our next venture, uh, would be more fruitful. Thanks. Thank you for that. Um, that leads me nicely to kind of following up with the question from Commissioner Levy. So Commissioner Stoltzman is perhaps suggesting that we might have a different focus, not necessarily looking at a sighting, but, um, focusing more on the construction debris. I was wondering if you all would want to talk amongst yourselves about whether there's common interest there so that the team knows how to move forward. Commissioner, um, Levy, would you like to start that. Whether to focus on construction debris? I mean, I do, for me, when we were looking at the treehouse site or not, was it Treehouse Nurseries? That was at the name of Rainbow Tree. Yeah. Rainbow Tree. One of the biggest deficiencies of that site was that it looked like it was not

1:33:56going to be designed to take construction debris. And I thought that was a kind of a big failing of that, that side in that project. So, and I do appreciate them, you know, that, that is a tremendous contributor. So I think it's worth focusing on that. I think what I would like to understand though is earlier, what are the opportunities to make more progress and that goes right back up to, uh, the first part of the memo. Um, but so we, we helped Erie Lafayette and Longmont develop, uh, construction. And then deconstruction policies. Like what have we seen come as a result of that. You know, how are we doing on the reclaimed lumber market? Like, I guess I just, I would like to know what potential there is and what this, you know, what the prospects are for improving is, I mean, I do, I do support trying to focus on that area. I don't know as much about, as Commissioner Stolzman does about what additional composting opportunities there would be in a County owned facility that are not currently available. I mean, I know what's currently available is minimal. It's yard waste and food waste. And I don't know whether we would have the technical capability of recycling paper towel. And, you know, certain kinds of, I don't know how you, how you

1:35:45described that grade of paper. But whether we would have the ability to do that or, or, you know, expand anything beyond what Awar one organics has already taken. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say let's stop even considering expanded composting. I just want to know what additional benefit there would be, you know, aside from saving the hauling. Thank you. Commissioner Luciamin. Thank you. I. If I look at the beginning of the memo that you shared in the 2024, those five different, what was it? What they were called? They're the five different numbers in regards to categories that were recommendations. That, I mean, if I, if I had a prioritize, I guess I would use those higher numbers based on what we thought they impact was going to be, uh, in regards to diversion rights. And construction and deconstruction in that in 2024 was 21 percent. So for me, I feel like we still have, I mean, both of them are issues in regards to missing amount of diversion. Um.

1:37:11It feels like, so the couple ways to address in my mind the bigger issue of gap in diversion. For everyday people, sometimes it is helpful to feel like we can be part of the solution. In small ways. And then the other people who are doing major construction projects or et cetera that could be potentially a bigger portion of that solution. And that's not everybody when I think about Boulder County residents and the like the opportunity participate in a way that might be, um, addressing the larger goal that I think we all have about increasing the diversion rates collectively. So that's one thing that kind of catches my attention is, is there an opportunity to work on the construction deconstruction? Yes. Is that an opportunity to work on the food waste? And Commissioner Solzman has, you know, was previously the lead in this work. So has a lot better handle of the conversations of compost and facility and regional opportunities and things like that. So I'm, you know, I'm really leaning on that expertise based on the work that she's been doing at the Cody and Megan and others. I don't think that Boulder County should stop looking at that opportunity. And what I'm hearing is kind of a we're at a point where we need to make a choose a priority. So I think.

1:38:44If, if you're asking, if I had to make a choice of limited resources and the ability to, um, address or do some work in 2027 is an example on diversion. Then I certainly wouldn't yard to have two yeses in regards to what sounded like to me construction and deconstruction as a focus. Um. And I think they're in the bigger conversation about compost. One was a big facility too was What could be some smaller sites to try and address the issue of, um, long driving to hall. And I don't know where that piece of it has landed and or if it just wouldn't be part of the conversations, at least for the next year or so, if we didn't make that the priority. And it feels a little bit concerning, but I also understand that, that we have limited resources. I do want to just share one of the questions that I had on in your memo. That was under the options of expanding partnership, discussions for regional composes, facility, or not expanding regional partnership discussions, just how the memoir set up, what would be helpful for me. And I hear no public meeting, which is okay. Um, but I think for me to understand what the costs of an operation of compost facility would be, whether it's the large one, I think it was like

1:40:09a 26 acre site was a recommendation. Or if they were due smaller sites around, um, the county, what concerned me about the question in there was just understanding that. Operations can be a really big number too. So even if there is somewhere in the memo, we talked about maybe a 2. 2. 8 million dollar revenue stream, but the question for me is what would the cost being B to have a facility if we were able to do that? The other question, how does a funding? And it won't get answered right now. Um, from OFM, but my understanding was that there is funding at the county that's been set aside for years to address the compost facility. So that to me would be, so it's interested in just having that as a separate conversation, understand what is, what do, what do we do with that funding?

1:41:02What are the options if this board was to say we're not going to go forward on a regional compost facility? Just understanding in our bigger conversations or on budget. So those were a couple of the questions that I had come up for me in regards to the last section of the packet. Could I just ask? So I asked a question about, you know, whether it's, you know, technically feasible to expand the things that we can compost beyond food waste and yard waste. Is that what's the answer to that question. Uh, yeah, the answer to that question is that the recommendation from the feasibility study was to start. On a food and yardway spaces. Um, and then as technology and also the ability to pilot, um, materials that wants an operation was running that the potential to expand to say paper products, like paper towels. So that those items could be composted. The trade - off there is making sure that the finished product, the finished compost is a high quality. So we wouldn't want to say like, turn the tap on for the community immediately upon building a facility. Um, so, um, well, it wouldn't take compostable products like the plastic cups and things like that. There were, um, there was discussion about sort of a graduated acceptance of a limited, um, additional materials. So

1:42:41some of the like wax paper, I think some of the things that aren't recyclable, but can be composted allegedly. Coffee filters is a big one. So I mean, just to piggyback on Commissioner Lishmin, I mean, I think, um, and as I said before, I think if, if there's a potential that we could offer more composting opportunities, more waste diversion, um, by pursuing a county facility, then it seems like that could be worthwhile. Um, I think, you know, it's the, it's the cost benefit analysis of that. I mean, it was a long time ago that we had the presentation and the proposal for the rainbow tree house nursery. That didn't actually look like it was all that cost effective. To do it based on what we would be able to accept. Did you want to comment.

1:43:46Commissioner Stoldman or no? I should not comment. Thank you. Thank you commissioners. What I'm surmising from what you've provided is that staff can go back and do some additional analysis. At this time, there's no interest, particularly in a public meeting, but we can do some analysis, particularly highlighting, I'm hearing construction and deconstruction is an interest looking at whether or not there are sites or regional partnerships that would reduce hall as an interest that you all seem to, um, resonate with. We have extra homework to do. Um, and what I'd like to do is bring that back as well as, um, possibilities for you in the future. But at this point we will not plan for a public meeting. And we'll go back and summarize all your questions and get another time scheduled with you to provide that information. In the meantime, you are committed to this goal area and to, um, providing more information to the community that encourages continued use and consideration of composting, um, privately. And in our own backyards. So we will take that as work that we can continue analysis that we can move forward and get that scheduled with you.

1:45:08Yes. Commissioner Witchmil. If I might just ask a question the way I heard, I think it was meganeer speaking about, um, the phase two presentation that was, I interpreted it as that part of the contract for that vendor. So what happens with that contract and that expectation. It was part of the scope with Megan. Did you want to speak to whether we don't have to complete that portion? Yeah. We just built it into the budget knowing that the previous compost facility had, had a lot of public interest. We just built a couple commissioner and public meetings into the scope with the consultant to make sure that we were responsive if there was that desire. So, um, that is fine. The consultant will just, we'll just let them know that we're - To that'll just be removed from the contract. Yes. Correct. Thank you. Thank you.

1:45:59Thank you, Commissioners, for that conversation. I think we can thank you, Megan. Thanks, Cody. Appreciate you. And we'll move to the next topic with the commissioners be interested in a break in between. Yeah. I think we're, I mean, people will shift. So we might as well take a five minute break while we shift seats. We're recording. All right, we are back from our recess. And we're ready for topic number two. Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity. You've had Bowden, Deputy County Administrator, joined today with members of the Parks and Open Space Team. And this is a follow - up to a conversation that we were having in July. On July 21st during a district planning work session, you all expressed interest in having staff return specifically as it relates to the Tucker Property, which is in the peak - to - peak planning area that we look forward to getting started with. We're here today to answer your questions and to allow the Board to Talk Amongst Yourselves about a potential interim plan for the Tucker area. As the District Planning Process continues. We are really looking forward to working with you all and community in reviewing peak - to - peak, but we recognize that this is happening now. So we're appreciative of your time and attention. And with that, I will turn

1:47:29it over to Jason. Souk. Parks and Open Space Director. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you, Yvette, for that great introduction. And thanks to our team who's also here that can tackle as we go on different directions. It's all multidisciplinary issue ahead of us, and we're really pleased to be here this afternoon and please to connect with you again on this important topic. So today's session, again, summarizes our interim management discussions and recommendations for the Tucker Complex. While we begin the peak - to - peak district planning process. The Tucker Complex is a bit west of the town of Netherland. It's within our new peak - to - peak planning area. It comprises a 667 acres across nine different parcels that are required at different times since 2000. The primary piece is referred to as Tucker Ranch that specific parcel is GoCo funded conservation easement, and that Eastman's held by Colorado Openlands. For the most part, the Properties are surrounded by U. S. Forest Service lands, and then the high visitor use from federal properties. The key point about the Conservation Easement is that Boulder County, through that easement, must legally protect the conservation values. It's open to passive use, but conservation is documented in that agreement.

1:49:00As long as we don't harm any resource values, trails are allowed. The US Forest Service, which surrounds much of the properties, they have limited capacity to manage adjacent trail pressures, and that increases the challenge for us on this set of properties. And just wanted to give you, where are we in the world? It's a bit zoomed out, I guess, but you can see here, let's try this. See if this works here. Laser pointer. Oh, look at that. So we've got the Tucker Complex here. Netherland is here. We've got Caribou up there. And just to show a bit on the JSON property owners, the light green is US Forest Service, so that's quite a bit here. We've got, again, the town incorporated Netherland, we have private properties. So the small piece of private property that is here. And then I think the rest is more or less US Forest Service. Now, you all have been up there, and I've seen the property. It's a wonderful place, beautiful, and really a gem that we have. We're so lucky to have it. And it comprises a really significant ecological value. The Tucker Complex sits within multiple high priority ecological designations. And the major elk migration route. And these designations confirmed the area's regional importance for wildlife movement, biodiversity, and ecosystem integrity. There are many sensitive natural communities there,

1:50:36rare vegetation, wetlands, and then also elk calving and rutting moose rearing areas, and then also in June of 2026, we confirmed a northern Goshawk nest at the Southwest piece of the Complex. And that triggered a half mile temporary closure wildlife closure there through September 15th. Now, let's go into what's happening now. When we did a 2022 baseline study, there was approximately a mile of unauthorized trails. Today, we've got about nine miles out there now unauthorized trail building has included vegetation removal, soil excavation, cutting of trees, and a lot of downhill bike features. Um, when we acquired the property, there was, it was around COVID time. So we had early kind of COVID era access that was allowed at that time. And the property when we acquired it was, uh, considered to be open, which meant no designated trails, but, uh, the ability to move around the property freely on foot or, um, with a horse. Um, and so there were at the time of acquisition some limited and longstanding informal routes, uh, but the current use is fundamentally different. We've got a lot of trail out there. We've got a lot of cutting, um, and that results in habitat fragmentation, erosion, uh, increased range of workload and overall a challenge to manage a high use area. And some of that proliferation proliferation

1:52:17of trails is directly overlapping with some, um, special wildlife areas, mousse rearing areas and others. We've had some outreach efforts that have not yet slowed illegal trail construction and enforcement remains a bit challenging with our current staffing to be able to tackle such a large piece of property, um, that is porous and has many, um, informal trail routes that access the property. And I would note that, um, regional partners around, we've got, um, Jefferson County, as well as Larimer County, and, uh, no co places have recently really strived to, uh, work on authorized trail mapping and restoration. Um, but the overall scale remains substantial. So it takes a lot of work and effort to try to restore those trails. And despite, I think, um, I guess about a last month of work on, on some of their parts. You know, the few miles that have been able to be, uh, restored, but it's, um, it's a significant load. And, uh, here's just another map on, this is the extent of unauthorized trails as of June, 2026. So our team has come together and we tried to think of while we await the peak to peak management process. Um, what do we do now? How do we tackle this now in the interim? So we analyzed a number of different options. Once we had the ecological

1:53:42surveys completed and a better understanding of what we have there. And, um, we came up with the following. So the option that we're recommending today, but are excited to talk to you about and hear your perspective and direction is a temporary trail that's consolidated on basically one trail, um, with a seasonal closure. And this would help us avoid the area of the current Goshawk Nest. It would channel use into one area so we can better enforce it. And we believe that through that approach, we would be able to manage overall impacts on, um, the natural resources while also continuing to provide, um, continued access and use of the property, um, from the current uses that exist out there now based on what we've heard from the community and others. Um, the second option would be a full closure. And then another option that we had considered is, um, the trail that connects into a US Forest Service Road, but that road is not open for the public. It is an administrative road. And then I believe we understand that Roe turns into a private drive on private property. So we can't really funnel people on to a road that is not accessible to the public.

1:54:57Um, and so, uh, we're trying to find a way to reverse the property, bring folks to Caribe Road, continue those uses. And again, um, try to mitigate any impact to wildlife and ecological value there. And just a touch on the, you know, authorities and rules. Basically a trail, uh, for bicycle use must be designated. And the Board of County Commissioners can designate a temporary trail that would include use for, um, bicycles. Currently, there are no bicycle designated trails. Um, out at the Tucker Complex. And the Board Recommendation that we have today would, um, potentially allow interim designation of this temporary trail and would help us reduce unmanaged activity. So again, here's our, our overall recommendation. But again, happy to, um, continue to discussion and definitely hear your thoughts and direction. Issue a seasonal closure of the entire property from March 1st to November 1st. That would cover, um, kind of multiple ecological concerns and help us manage the property. Um, but year round, we would designate a multi - use temporary trail that would go through the property. And while we do that, we can rehabilitate unauthorized trails that have been put in other places where we don't want them that do cause impact that result in breeding and other things.

1:56:27And, um, we can try to begin to restore those. And then really importantly, um, you know, after we, we, we talk here and we move forward with, um, you know, an approach and direction to continue the community outreach to engage there. Um, update our signs that it reflects very clear guidance on, you know, what we'd like to do and what we're doing now. Um, and also increase our range of presence there in a way that strategic and, um, can help inform visitors as to, um, the allowed uses there. So communication signs, um, continued community engagement. And here's just the graphic. So if I can use my favorite pointer here again, what we're talking about is a trail that would be, this is a temporary trail that is on currently existing trails out there. They are, you know, not what we would build, but we're, you know, ahead of the management plan, um, wouldn't recommend constructing anything new before then, putting time and effort and resources and something that wouldn't be a permanent fix. So using things that are out there that folks are already using.

1:57:32And this would, um, kind of skirt here and then go up and come down here and then connect to caribou road here. And, uh, and then I also want to note that this is the Switzerland Trail. We talked about it a bit in the memo, but this is kind of a, you know, an old railroad bed. And, you know, has a lot of use. We would also recommend temporarily designating this trail as well to continue to allow for continued authorized passage. And so that kind of brings us to our, our questions. What questions do you all have? Um, about this strategy, um, would you support our recommendation for seasonal closure and a temporary trail designation? We really appreciate your time and, um, you know, the ability to chat through this with you all today. Thank you, Jason. Commissioners, there are two very different questions here.

1:58:26But before we jump into those questions, we wanted to appreciate the fact that in different ways you all have become familiar and more familiar with this property, we wanted to open up to any questions you have for staff before we go into these two, um, two additional questions. And I believe we're starting with Commissioner Levy. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for your work on this. And all the mapping and, and bringing this forward, I did want to, I have some clarifying questions, I guess. Is that what you're asking for. I think that's the first question, but you wanted to save that for later. So tell me if I'm not answering the question. No, you're fine. If I'm not asking the right kind of questions. So you, I have several if it's okay. Um, you're recommending a seasonal closure March 1st to November 1st in your slide.

1:59:27It said then there would be a designated trail year round. Did you mean year round access. That would be exempt from that closure. That's correct. Yes. So that trail would allow for passage through year round, but the rest of the property would be closed during that seasonal closure. And does that, you know, when we went up there and walked, like we didn't have, the map, well, it was kind of raining and stuff. So I don't know whether we were on trails that would ultimately survive. But, but does that, does the proposed trail aside from the Switzerland Trail? Does it impinge on sensitive wildlife habitat elk calving grounds. Yes. So I think part of the trail, we were on, this is, this bit here, if you can see on the screen, this is the bit through the meadow. Um, and so that part is a bit sensitive. Um, but unfortunately, we're trying to come up with the right compromise here. To basically manage activity and direct it and channel it. Um, this would not be our favorite place to put something, but we also wouldn't, we can't, um, send folks off of the property onto, um, routes that are not accessible to the public. And so what we're trying to do is provide that access to this caribou road and in channeling the use, um, be

2:01:00able to better, you know, mitigate and enforce activities across the entire property. So that's the, that's the thought here. So. When you say, you know, you don't want to force people onto private property, you're concerned about the folks that enter the property from the forest service land. Is that what it is? I mean, if we were to close it, what would happen to folks that are on Forest Service Trails where they're allowed, if they're allowed to be there, I don't know. I mean, I guess what we, what we see is that there are, you know, multiple access points right now from unauthorized trails on all sorts of properties, including Forest Service and others. And then, you know, they come onto our property what we are trying to do is, um, try to allow, okay, this is where, this is where we can permit use and direct folks so that you do have, you do have access. But the other bits that, you know, we need to restore and protect. And so that's kind of the, the approach here. And trying to find a way that you can be able to, because what we heard is, you know, folks are interested. This is this like Hicks Gulch Burr. I think so this is one area that's used a lot. And, um, and, you know, we can

2:02:24reflexible a little bit on, you know, where we can place this, but this is our best recommendation at the time. So allow people to continue on bits that they're using, um, that kind of stay away from some of the more sensitive areas, but also then traverse a property and connect to, um, in this case, Kirber Road so that you can go onward to Netherland. Um, and our, our understanding is that if, if we're not providing those options, those uses might continue as they currently do and managing that is a challenge. Okay. Thanks. Um, so the, how much of that. Uh, green traverses sensitive areas. Your memo talks about Ultra Traverse a sensitive meadow habitat. And that's that lower part where your cursor is right now. It's, yeah, it's right there. Um, what about the upper parts. I believe these are less sensitive. Okay.

2:03:28Um, and then another question. That I had, you're talking about, this would just be a temporary trail alignment, short - term solution. The grades don't meet our building standards for permanent designated trails. So then we do the west Netherland, whatever we're calling that. Management plan, the regional plan. We try to close this after we've had people riding on it as an allowed trail. I'm thinking about human behavior and whether it's actually realistic to expect that when we've signed it and said here, right here. And then we later say, don't write here. Is if that's, if it's realistic to think that people will comply. Well, I think we don't know yet where we're going to end up there. And so we do want to, you know, I think go through the process and understand, okay, where, you know, where are the different values? Where are different user and, um, residents priorities and understand sort of what those are. And then again, I think the, and Heidi can speak much better to this than I can, but the overall perspective for this district level is to, you know, zoom out a little bit so that we don't have to necessarily balance all uses on all individual parcels, but you know, can we think a little bit broader?

2:05:05So, you know, we're bringing, say, caribou into the mix. Some of the other properties and the wider district and try to balance those, um, priorities and uses across that larger area. So based on that, you know, perhaps this continues perhaps it doesn't, you know, I wouldn't be able to say yet. But I understand your point here. And, you know, I think the intent would be to work with different community groups to find out. You know, where's best? Where can we build something that works? And, you know, also balance that with, say, you know, Raptors and moose and elk and, you know, how do we do these things? But across a larger landscape so that we can, you know, best address the need for recreation, the need for conservation and many other values that, uh, the community sees in our open space. Just two more questions.

2:05:59Um, what kind of enforcement personnel would it take to get people not to reopen these trails once you start rehabilitating them? I mean, we, the, the community has shown that they have no regard. For closure signs for the habitat for the condition of the land. I mean, the extent of illegal trail development is egregious. And what will it, you know, what kind of resources will Beva need to be able to actually close these and have that be observed. You know, Bevin Krithers, Resource Protection, Division Manager. We've talked about this a lot and we've, we've never had an issue to this extent with unauthorized trails. Um, so I'm not quite sure what it'll take. Um, I do know that it'll take full time staff and at least the addition of one more full - time staff member that I could assign to the Netherland area. And we've talked about that a lot with Hesse, with Caribou, with Boulder Canyon, with the Reynolds Property. And I always had it in my head that that would take one additional full - time staff member. With this, it will certainly take at least one full - time additional staff member. And then I'll probably have to pull staff from our other districts down here up in the north lions area. Um, to ensure that we don't get that again,

2:07:34it's my hope that by putting people on one trail, it will know where they're going. Um, we'll have some parameters and some boundaries of this is where you can be. But in the long term, I don't think that with our current staffing levels, that'll keep us from more trail not being built. So, um, definitely a few consideration. And potentially as we look at the county as a whole and we explore the rest of the peak to peak, that could be additional full - time staff beyond just one. Okay, well, I think we need to be realistic if we go forward with this idea of what it's going to take. Because that community has demonstrated by their conduct what they think there are access should be. And they're pretty intransigeant about it. Um, not all of them, I know. They're not one single monolith, but I think it's going to take some serious enforcement and dedicated resources. The last question I have is the commissioners got an email from Dave Halleck, former Boulder County Parks in OpenSpace employee. And he, well, he recommends that we not do this, that we just close the property completely. But he says, if we don't, then he thinks it should be closed from April 1st to June 30th for elk calving. And I wondered whether you gave, and that's consistent

2:08:59with caribou ranch closures as well. And whether you gave any consideration to that. Pasta, Stefan, for this one. Stephen Reynold, Deputy Director of Land Stewardship. Give me a second here. So, um, can you repeat your question, because I had to get this. Oh, well, whether, so this is an email from Dave Halleck. And he's recommending, if we do go with the Zenirum option, that the trail, the interim trail that you recommend that you're saying and your plan would be open year - round, that it should be closed from April 1st to June 30th for Elk Calving, consistent with the caribou ranch closures. Yeah. So this is a little bit different. So the temporary closure that exists right now is for the Gossawk. So the one that Jason has already authorized. And so the proposed closure is actually, um, longer, um, outside of the corridor. So, um, it is reaching that. I think Dave is asking for the whole property to be closed during that time frame. I read this, the NRM Trail should be closed April 1st to June 30th. That's correct. And we're recommending that the trail is open from for the other perspectives, not from the wildlife standpoint. I'm sorry, say that again.

2:10:28So the, I had asked my first question was, are you recommending that the trail be open year round? And I think the answer was yes. That's correct. So the closure you're talking about. So, so Dave's asking that the whole area be closed. Is that what you're? No, I'm asking whether you considered this trail you're proposing having it be closed seasonally April 1st to June 30th for Elk Calving. Yeah. So we, we talked about all those issues. Um, and it was one of the options that was sitting up there. Full closure of the entire area. And then partial closure possibly of that trail. But we as staff all discussed the different options. And we've got the use that we feel like is going to continue. Um, regardless of, of what we tried to do because we don't have the enforcement. So we are trying to look for a space in the middle of to kind of minimize the spider webs of trails that were occurring. If I could just piggy pack on that. I think we're not communicating. Sorry that I want to hear what you have to say. But, but I didn't see, so I'm not talking about complete closure. Which was Dave Halex first request. I'm talking about if we were to do your recommendation, which is to have, um, this interim trail that

2:12:04would go through sensitive areas. And you're, and the recommendation was that that would be open year round. What are your thoughts about having a temporary closure. Jason, did you want to? Yeah. I'll address this. I'm hearing you. Jason Sook, Director Parks and Open Space. It was, it was, this is an option that we thought about as well. Um, again, what we're trying to do. And we're open to this discussion. That's why we're here as well. Your discussion and direction is the overall thinking of trying to manage that use proliferation and trying to understand, Hey, what can we do throughout the year that can balance these, these different, these different uses, uh, the conservation. And, you know, the recreation access. So one option could be, you know, a complete closure, um, with no trial access, but we thought that the clear message for the intern is to have one place for access. You're allowed here. And then the rest we, you know, seasonally are going to close. You can't be another places. And we'll be able to, you know, again, restore some of the areas. So that was our thinking there. On, you know, on, on caribou versus, uh, Tucker, you know, I think we'll get into some of these pieces in the management plan process.

2:13:27So I know with caribou, for example, I believe that there is a provision in the management plan process that is in there for that kind of a late fall November, October, I think, um, closure. It hasn't been enacted yet, but there are pieces there that are, you know, are considered and tools to continue to manage. So I think our thought now is, Hey, we, we are really excited about peak to peak. Really excited about that overall engagement, getting a better picture from, you know, as you all had stated previously from all the residents in Boulder County and, you know, and the users there on what are your priorities. How can we think through and where do we go and determine, you know, through that process, maybe specific windows of closure, um, specific trial axis and locations and things like that. And, um, you know, we're kind of trying in the interim. How do we have a well communicated specific plan moving forward that can easily communicate what is allowed? What is not allowed? And you know, what we are, um, also able to manage well.

2:14:29Thank you, Jason. The only thing I would piggyback on that commissioner Levy is short into your question is yes. Um, we always have to consider, um, these interplays and balance. And the consensus of this team at this time, which the Board could certainly disagree with is to go with the window that we've proposed. You could always suggest and consider whether or not you'd like to mirror, um, the closure practices, uh, during that time period as it is in the note that you received earlier today. But we are recommending the year - round opening. And we appreciate the sensitivity in the area, especially across the meadow. Okay. Okay. Well, I guess I still then have one more question. So if the trail that's on here in chartreuse on my screen, if that's open, you're around and it traverses elk calving grounds. In the elk no longer use that for calving. And then we do the management plan and we determine. I mean, the value of it has been destroyed in my opinion. So, but maybe we determine that a week we want to not have a trail through this sensitive area. That doesn't meet our standards.

2:15:55Do we think that elk would return for calving. So I think. Right now, and Stefan, please jump in if you've got additional. What I understand is, um. You know, we are able, we have tools at our disposal too for adaptive management. Um, and so if we, you know, we're going to continue to monitor. And if we see any impacts, we're able to take action and go a different direction. Right now, this has been open and heavily used. And, um, you know, we haven't, I think yet seen, you know, tremendous impact there. And so I, you know, it's a proposal that gets us through the property and off of it. If we don't have that piece, then there's nowhere for them to go necessarily unless we direct them onto and unauthorized road or other pieces of property. And so then, um, you know, the question becomes, how do you, how do you manage some of that unauthorized use? Because this might continue anyways. This is currently a, like a heavily traffic, I would say, um, bevin could correct me, but I heavily trafficked path, um, right now. So we're trying to again, balance the axis, the current use and channel that use so that we can do our best to, um, mitigate any impacts that are out there. We'll just, so I understand what the map

2:17:19is telling me though. That chartreuse color that goes from the west to the east from, um, forestervice land. And I'll be quiet and yield to other people here in a minute. But none of that is a currently illegal trail, right? It's all illegal. Is that correct? All of this is there are no authorized trails on the property. No designated trails on the entire complex. How we get people who have entered the property on and unauthorized trial. How do we get them off the property once they're on it. That's the, that's what you're, that's what you're trying to achieve. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Stoltzman. Do you have questions for staff. Thank you. Some of them I'm going to provide some commentary to frame my questions. Cause otherwise it will make no sense. The questions that I ask. So I appreciate that we're having a conversation together. That's great. I'll just sort of start with language.

2:18:20Um, when this came to my attention, the staff said that there was a legal trail building on Tucker. So I went with community members and looked at Tucker. Now we're talking about what we renamed arbitrarily, a Tucker Complex, which includes a number of properties that the Community refers to in completely different ways than Tucker. So if we communicate with the community that there's a problem on Tucker and we're actually talking about Cardinal Mill or we're actually talking about Hick's Gulch or something else entirely, there's an inability to talk to each other because we're talking about different areas. So I had, I have not gone personally and evaluated the properties that are not Tucker because we framed this conversation as about Tucker. So I have extensive on the ground understanding and talked with different community members with different perspectives about Tucker. Um, but I'll have to go back out and look at the other properties that we're talking about today that are just, they are just frankly different properties. And we could have a naming contest and come up with a new name, but we, we can't communicate with each other if we're referring to things differently. And if we're posting on the website that we're closing Tucker and we actually mean we have a problem next to the cardinal mill, but not on Cardinal Mill,

2:19:31the property. Like the people need language that's shared to be able to communicate. So, um, that's just something else I. M looking at the property that is called Tucker, which is, um, not what's shown on the map here, but is included on the map that's shown here. My understanding shows really different than what's been presented. So I went through aerial photography from 1950 to now. And you can even just look on the County website from the 2011erial images to now. And the section of trail right around where your cursor is between the Switzerland Trail and the street, the Caribou Road is a longstanding trail that has been used for a long, long time by bicyclists. And it has not had an effect on the animals that are using that area. Beyond what has already happened because it has been being used for decades. So the section between the orange line and caribou road from my perspective is a trail. And there is a trail sign on it. Like we have clearly designated that as a trail. So to call it an authorized, like if you park on the road, there's one of our trail signs right there on the trail. There are improvements. Like it is a trail. Is it an ADA trail? No. But there's no way for a hiker to not think that

2:20:51that's a trail. There is a very confusing sign posted on the trail that just says bicyclist must use authorized bicycle paths or something like that. And it has a line through a bicycle, but it doesn't say that this isn't one of those authorized trails. So I do think our signage is incredibly confusing and misleading. It only makes sense to keep that trail. And when we started telling people that trail was closed a number of additional social trails got added on private property in other areas and it caused chaos. So I completely agree that that trail between caribou road and the Switzerland Trail, that segment of it needs to be open and has been open for decades and needs to be clearly bicycle allowed because it has created havoc since we miscommunicated with the community that that section was closed. I also think that the Switzerland Trail needs to have needs to stay open to bikes because it's so long and it would be so confusing coming from the Forest Service Property on our Property. I just don't see any way of closing that. So I also agree with that. The bicycle community when I hiked with them did not feel that they needed to, they acknowledged the impropriety of the social trail that goes to the west that you have in green, they were not

2:22:04asking for that to be improved. It is in a much different state than the trail to the east section. Like it is barely cut in. It would be very easy to revegetate it. Um, they said they could go out and help us make sure that people know that they shouldn't be riding there. So that segment is confusing to me. And it also, so I feel like we would actually have to build a trail there if we were going to say that that is the route. That doesn't exist. Like it's barely cut in, especially as you get to the northwest side of that trail. That is not there. Um, if you follow the dotted green line that you don't have it going toward, you could maybe imagine that it goes there out to the Forest Service Property and the Forest Service Road. But it's just not, it's when I use a Venza maps and I'm there with our map and it and all of the different coordinates, like that trail is not cut in there. So I'm, and the bicycle community was not advocating for that section of trail with me. Um, so that section is confusing to me. What I think will create a problem is the closure of the Hicks Gulch spur. Because you're able to access that from other properties. And so if

2:23:12you're on that, let's say you're on the far and just I'll reiterate, I didn't go off of Tucker. So I haven't seen this section of the Hicks Gold spur up by Countract Creek by where the Cardinal Mill is actually. But like we're saying we're going to sanction a path to there that dead ends into something. And so people will keep writing on it. And I think what they'll write is the Hicks Gulch spur on Forest Service Property. And then they'll dead end to what we're saying is not sanctioned. So then what? So I think that creates a problem with how the loop is drawn. So. I just think a little bit more work needs to be done to create a route that actually makes sense. The area that's a forest service road is not our business of whether it's open or closed. The part on forest service is not our business of whether we can or can't use it. But people are clearly going to continue to use the Forrest Service Road. And I heard how you presented it and I don't agree. But it's not really for us to decide. And I think they can go dispute that with the Forest Service and Will.

2:24:12And so I think, you know, saying we're going to somehow limit people access on a Forrest Service Road that the Forest Service is going to do nothing about doesn't make sense to me. People will continue to use the Forrest Service Road. So I completely support the green line from Caribou to Switzerland Rail. I need to go back out and look at the rest of the stretch that you've drawn on the properties that aren't part of Tucker, but connecting from that Switzerland Trail to that doesn't seem quite right, but I'm like, I think there, but I think the loop needs to be created or will create a problem. So that hit Skulch Spur, I think something has to be addressed the. I will also just say no one who I've talked to is concerned about a Raptor closure. I do think we could improve on our communication. I think it's really reasonable to say to the community we have a closure for a sensitive piece of wildlife. And then say this, we're not disclosing exactly where.

2:25:11Because if we say what kind of bird it is and where all the burders in the Metro area will come out and disturb the bird. So we're not telling exactly where it is. Thank you for respecting the closure. And people could understand that. That is not how people learned about it. So I'll leave it at that. So I just, I think we could communicate more clearly which trails are allowed. Um, you know, when we have closures for sensitive wildlife, we just need to communicate it a little bit differently. I think that's completely reasonable. Um, posting unclear signs and communications, I think is what has led us to this meeting today. Um, and this map, so I, this will bring me to my questions. That was my, that was my intro. Um, so I think my questions are primarily like on the west end. Of that HIC scolch spur near contract creek. Where do you see people go from there. Like what is that dead ending into? Spit here. Are there farther west farther west? I'm assuming North is up. Keep going West. All the way.

2:26:16They're right there. Now what. The Bevin Crither's Resource Protection Division Manager. So further west of that point, Commissioner Stoltzman, those are, that's kind of the network of trails that were constructed on Forest Service Property. So there's probably 20 different routes in there depending on your level of expertise with mountain biking that somebody could choose to take. Those all converge then onto those properties that we are calling the Tucker Complex because they all have, you know, 27 different names in there. So they all converge in that area. The route that we chose, and I hiked that a few weeks ago, that's an old mining road. So it's been in place for, who knows? That's probably one of those that you found on the aerial photos that's been in place. If we could get as many people to direct from the Forest Service onto that area, then we can get them out of the Tucker property onto Caribou Road. So there's so many trails in there that we'll have to go in there and do a lot of work to close those down. Um, but that would leave one way. So if you started at the Caribou town site rode through the Forest Service on this series of trails, you would eventually end up at that place.

2:27:33We'll have to put signage and barriers to direct people into there. But then they could get down through our property and onto Caribou Road and head back up to the town side if that's what they choose to do. Okay. So the green line is you're calling it a mining run. I called it a Forest Service Road. On that section of the property. And you're saying people would go. If I was going from east to west on the trail, generally speaking, then I could continue on and take for go through forest service on a variety of to get to caribou. Yeah. Most people are coming down. So they're writing down. So they'll come down and ride east. So that would put you on a designated route through our open space and then out to caribou road using, um, those trails through that Tucker meadow. Okay. And so what, as far as the HIC's Gulch spur, like if I were to park on Caribou Road and just be walking or biking a loop, like why would it not be reasonable to use. That all the way through?

2:28:49So what we learned from the Forest Service when we met out there with them is that they somehow in a process, they exchanged that parcel of the Hicks Trail or Hicks Gulch Road with a private property owner as their driveway. So the area I'm talking about, sorry to interrupt you. So if you. Go further south, whoever has the cursor, thank you so much for their south. Further south, almost there, right there. Slightly north. There's like, it's, it's labeled Hicks Gulch spurt and it's a loop. Like, you know, people like everybody wants to do an out and back. Like a loop is a normal thing. Yep. So we, we definitely looked at that loop. It is an old two track probably forestry road at some point. Um, there's a parallel trail that's been built next to it. Um, that we've hiked many times. And it was determined by our trail staff that at this point it would be too costly and too much trail work to improve that. So, you know, through the planning process, that could be an area where we would create a loop, um, we just didn't decide it at this point that it would take too much effort to do that. So it's just that it's such a long stand, like it's very well worn and not, so there's multiple things that

2:30:09we're talking about. There are new trails that have recently gone in. This is not one of them. Like there are routes that have been there for, I mean, as far back in area images as I can look. And so to say we're not going to allow use here. On something people have been using for decades is complicated. That kind of goes to the point of Commissioner Levy saying, well, what if we open this? How will we get people to stop? It's been open for decades. Like this has been used. This is not the same as the other issue that I'm putting in the parking lot for just a second, which is the new trails that have been built. And like, and there was no pushback whatsoever from mountain bike alliance, from the Netherland Roar or Raur or whatever their acronym is, um, there's consensus that we can't just go out. And build things on other people's property that we can't, but there are some of these that we're looking at that are not that they have been used for decades. So how, what is the basis for saying like this two track that everyone's been using is now all of a sudden not going to work. Jason Suk, Director Parks Office. So I think big picture, what we're trying to do is have limited, acceptable

2:31:22use that we can manage the property. You know, the exact whereabouts, I think we're open to that discussion. This is our proposal. You know, based on what we can kind of come up with that's on, that's on paper. And we can have a, you know, a discussion. But I think we're open to figuring out the, um, you know, the alignment and understanding if, you know, in terms of concepts, foreclosure, seasonal closure, you know, year long access with a temporary trail. And the thinking through that, we're open to ideas. We're open to, you know, connecting with the community and understanding, Hey, what's the best route here? Um, without, and I agree with, I agree with your perspective on, you know, communications. And like from what I'm seeing, what would be good is if we can, you know, simplify our message, have a, you know, have a clear, clear signs, clear communications and clear kind of, Hey, this is where you can go. This is where you can't without, um, doing too many improvements without, um, creating too much of a network that, um, to Commissioner Levi's point, you know, that maybe that changes in a future management plan. So this is kind of what we're trying to balance. And I, you know, I'm, I think we're open to exploring, Hey, what works in terms of grades,

2:32:35in terms of use, in terms of, you know, that historical thing. And I, I, um, you know, I agree with the perspective versus some of the longstanding areas versus, you know, new built and trying to balance it all to have, you know, a clear approach that we can move forward with and communicate well. Okay. I guess where I'm just sort of leaning is the green line that you have on here represents multiple different things. And so part of it, I hope it's been clear like this section that goes from the road to Switzerland Rail seems very clear that that's a trail. The section that goes from Switzerland Trail to the Property Boundary of what the Property that's actually called Tucker is. That doesn't align with an actual trail in my opinion. So I don't understand why we're building a trail that is different than an existing trail. That is confusing to me. And then that southern one that I've raised here that is a trail that is a long - standing trail seems like it should be included as a trail because that is a trail. My understanding is this piece is there's a path there now. It's just not cut in. It's just not cut in. Like it's not nearly like if you somebody obviously took a motorized vehicle, like a bike and tried

2:33:47to start cutting it in. But to the extent of say the other two areas that I'm talking about. Yeah. It's a patchwork of basically existing some better than others. This is how I understand it. Um, trying to provide a one through route that traverses the property and gets to cariboad that couldn't, you know, hopefully incorporate pieces that are well used right now or have been well used for some time and trying to find that through away without, again, without causing. Neighbor, uh, challenges here. And, you know, without having an extensive network of, um, of trails. Yeah. I think that's a nice idea. But I'm just not a hundred percent sold on this exact alignment that you have there on that section of it. Like the, the road obviously, the path that's there, obviously the other road that's already there seems obvious to me and it's not in green yet on your thing, but that section just right in that area, the concept that you've described of connecting the two so that the flowy, nice trail makes sense to me, but I believe that will require trail building because that doesn't exist. If I could, commissioners, um. Thank you. First of all, couldn't agree more. And we know that this will require extensive sign refreshing and communications and online communications and all of that. I think

2:35:16the team has attempted to be thoughtful and balanced in the consideration of the conservation needs, the connectivity, the property rights of the forest service and private property owners. And considering where we're seeing used today, you're raising great issues about alignment. Generally depending, you know, once we get through all of you, if there's agreement that you're supportive of us trying to do some degree of connectivity here and you want it to be more or less, we can go back and do a little bit more work on specific alignment that you'd have favor of, but I'd love to just make sure that you're all in agreement generally around that. And I do really appreciate that all of you took the time to visit. We are of course always available to you to make another visit. Hopefully not raining for you. Cause no leaving, but as you might like, I think what we're trying to display is in balancing the conservation issues. The property issues, the connectivity and the current uses, this is our best recommendation. We can be flexible to try and align that. This is our best recommendation today. And we're certainly willing to open that.

2:36:24I'm sorry for interrupting you. Commissioner Stoltzman, did you have other questions at this time? I think that was a great summary I think we should move to the next commissioner. Good point. Thank you so much. Commissioner Lord Jamie. Thank you. Thanks, stop for being here. I mean, for me more in the spirit, I think of conversation is just. There are like a few different pieces. I think that we're trying to address in this. One of them to me feels like it's timing of we've made this decision. We're going to do district planning. And we also have the situation happening in Aust. It feels like a time angling. Like that would be great if it was all, um, something we could encompass at the same time. So I appreciate what I'm interpreting as, um, staff's work to try and address. The interesting using this property and the parcels around it and USF land, et cetera. Um, so for me, the question is, does the board want to provide biking access. While we are working on a district plan? Like that, because to me, that is an option. Like we could just say we are closing this in a temporary closure while we do the district planning.

2:37:41So that we can address the erosion issues and the damage. And like, we're not going to get those trees back. Like whoever was party to holding saws and removing trees. Like we don't get those back. We don't get some of that wildlife back and things like that. So we're not going to fix some of the damage it's been done on a portion of this complex property that we're looking at on the map. And do we have an opportunity to try and do some, um, revegetation and things like that. So that to me is really the first question. Um, and so. I think for me, that wouldn't be the first question. The second, um, for me just in questions that came up in the conversation is looking at this map. The bright green piece. Can you speak. I don't want to make an assumption. Is there an overlay map that shows what Commissioner Stolzman was talking about of specific Tucker versus what is on this map of Tucker Complex. Or describe distant tech or complex.

2:39:00On that too? Yeah, I think you went past it. There. So this is zoomed in a little bit. There's still a piece here that is Elk Draw. So we've got Tucker. We've got. I can't read it. There's this parcel, this parcel. A couple of these mining claims. Okay. Thank you. And I think part of what got brought up for me and just listening to the other questions and conversations was. The work that I feel like is being presented. Could be part of the district planning. Because we're not, my interpretation was we all agreed that the dias like, yes, we should do this management in a different way. And instead of going parcel by parcel. And so I feel like I'm kind of leaning towards closure. While we do our district planning. So that we can.

2:39:58Do all the work. And I also heard you, Robin, like someone unfortunately is going to have to do enforcement. So that we can try and get the land as close back to in the areas that have been so significantly damaged back to an opportunity to do that. So, um, I feel like that's kind of where I'm leaning. But so if you don't mind going back to things for coming back to outside, the one that does have that, that green line. To understand to what degrees the areas of trail are trail. And I feel like the different terminology, whether it's social, if it's walking, if it's horses, if it's biking, if it's, um, and then some of the pictures that y'all showed in this presentation, it was like an additional exhibit. We're very helpful to see the extremes of. And I heard you talk about a little bit, but if you can just clarify that for me, that would be great. I can, I can do my best more to, uh, Jarrett Roberts, Community Amenities, Deputy Director. Jason, have you go back to that map? If we start on the far west side. On that green line, this is a pretty steep section that comes down.

2:41:12And the challenge here is you have that, that Raptor closure area. And the idea was to stay north of the Raptor closure. There are other options, but they take you down through that Raptor closure area. So if you were looking for year - round solution, you couldn't do that. Then as you move farther down in the line starts to go west, um, this portion is actually pointed out as not as well developed as some of the other trails. Um, so some of the pictures you see, this is like a newer and designated trail that's developing. It's there. It's, it's like we've mapped it. Um, it's getting a significant amount of use, but it is not as well established as some of the other ones. The reason we couldn't choose some of this southern alignments there were that they lead you back into that raptor closure again. Which causes significant concern. So it was, it was a balance of choosing what is the most developed versus what actually serves the purpose of getting people through the property. Um, then as you get down to the meadow area, that's, as I mentioned very well established trail that's been there for a significant period of time. That answered the question. Yeah. Thank you. Um. Looking at my questions.

2:42:19And then I just had some other questions kind of about what your presentation was. I don't know, maybe an hour ago. Um, the seasonal closure, the way you were presenting, when would that go into effect? There was a original in the beginning of the presentation like March to November. Just thinking that it's August. Like with that immediately going to effective a closure. Okay. Again, I don't want to make assumptions. I just wanted to understand that. Um, and then you were talking about signage, which that was my interpretation for the previous conversation. Like, yes, the work to be done on signage. We were talking about that even when we, we went on our hike together. And I would guess as well with others. I did have some, again, kind of separate to this questions that we have to address in regards to the community engagement. You were talking about some of those pieces that'll happen during the district planning. And I remember getting some emails, um, prior to the other conversation we had here at, at the dais about an ask for some of the community groups, making groups and others that they could be helpers in that process. And so again, like just thinking about that and hearing that in the conversation, I feel like the ask has been for folks to be part of

2:43:38this process of even the district planning and whatever trial development. I also heard people say, um, that they would be willing to. And I think I heard my fellow commissioners talk a little bit towards the people who'd be willing to go, um, fix this land. There's not a technical term probably from the parks open space. But, but I think there is interest just based on what I've heard from different folks and some of the meanings that I've had of people saying like, we also agree that what has been done is wrong. Um, so I think it feels like there's a lot of opportunities. To instead of trying to build something just so that we can create a path right now to go through the district planning that I feel like we've committed to. I was just looking to see if there was anything else in here. There was, if you don't mind bringing up that map again, cause that'll help me. Oh, thank you. Um.

2:44:43If I heard this correctly, there's a section of this trail that also has, um. Elk calving. And so for me. If I heard it correctly, it sounded like we're trying to make this trail and we're going to keep it open. And we know that it's also a, like in a meadow and the elves county. My interpretation of parks and open space here in Boulder County is that there's other areas around the county that we close for those types of reasons. And so it feels in conflict. And I get the, it feels like there's pressures of people want to use the land and I understand that. And it just feels like it would be in conflict of other areas around Baulder County, Parks Open space where we do do closures for sets amount of time, um, during the year in different areas. And so I feel like we're trying to make something work. And I really appreciate that because the emails and conversations. And I think we all get stopped in different places around, uh, the County, when people know we're with Parks Nova Space and certainly I'm looking at them because surely with the uniform on, it happens more than, than even to us. So I, but I just feel like we need to be responsible stewards and leaders of parks and open space land

2:46:08and also hold ourselves to the commitment that we are making a shift right now to do district planning. And I think that outcome could be really, um, fantastic. I've heard the commitment to do the process in an additional way of communications and work with community members. And I think there's probably even folks that haven't been at the table that would get really excited about the opportunities to be part of restauration and conservation efforts and create some opportunities for recreational use once, you know, where y'all see as experts that should happen. So, um, just listening to the conversation and the questions and the comments. That's really where I that's what I would, um, that's where I would steer the conversation. And the next steps is to just close this area while we do our district planning.

2:47:03May I ask a point, I'm sorry, Commissioner Lee. Well, if you need to follow up with Commissioner Lojaman, by all means, I had some more questions about this, Matt, because this map is different from the map that was in the, that had the link. So, but. I do want to get you that clarification. I just had a follow up for commissioner Luchman. When you say you are interested in whether or not we should pursue closure, is that the full closure not recommended or is that the number one option which would still allow some access on those existing? So I just want to get clarification on what you were generally inquiring around. Thank you. And I'm, um, scrolling here to try and find where the questions might have been, um, so we're recommending option one, which is rather long and begins on your memo and page six. I believe. I'm in a 476 version. So I have on just a second. Um. Options explored. Maybe are you okay if I look at this picture? I'm not responding in correctly and you can vote it. Yeah, absolutely.

2:48:20Commissioner Leave an additional question about the map. Yeah. If you could put that map back up that has the trail that you want to, yeah, so, you know, as Commissioner Stolman was talking about different routes and how you might get people off the property. So what the method was that we had the link to didn't show that Coon track coming onto the property or alongside the property, I guess it is. And then it also doesn't have that. You can't see what I'm pointing at, but the, there's a labeled on the screen here right now that says Hicks Gulch. That is a dashed yellow, I think. I mean, I'm open to various options, including a full closure. And I would explain why. But if Parks and Open Space staff really think that we have to allow people to go ahead and use these illegal trails, while we do a management plan and that we have to allow people to get from one set of illegal trails on forestervice land to another illegal trail and off the property, why would, is that what's shown as Hicks Gulch on here that would be a direct route to the Switzerland Trail slash sculpt spur? Would that be a way to not wear the cursor is. Up? It's Forest Service land. Or yeah, go east. And now South. And where

2:50:17it says Hicks Gulch, right there. Is that that forest service road that, okay. So that's the road you think is not open to the public and it's a Forest Service Road and it dumps people on to somebody's driveway. Yeah. Jarrett Roberts Community Amenities Deputy Director. Yes, it goes across what we understand to be private property and is a Forest Service admin road, which we were told by the Forest Service. So that's why that's not. Okay. So then the other question I have is where the chartreuse trail. I don't know what it is. But, uh, where it intersects the Switzerland Trail. Right there. Why wouldn't we just terminate it there and let people ride the Switzerland Trail back out to Caribou Road. Jarrett Roberts Community Many Director again. Part of the way we looked at this was a lot of these is coming from the far west side, which is uphill vertically. And so we're seeing a lot of use coming down from that very west side. And you're not seeing all the undesignated trails in the Forest Service because we don't have all those mapped.

2:51:24That's not our property to go map. And so people are coming in from that West side and we part of the theory was to create a path to allow them to go through and out the property. Um, otherwise they hit our property boundary and we could fence and put signs up. Yeah. No, I understand that. Um, but where are your cursor is right now where that trail, it gets them through our property. And then they hit the, they hit the Switzerland trail. And get off our property that way onto caribou road. It's just, you know, they just ride on caribou road a little bit longer. Jason Suka, Director Parks Open Space. I'll let Ben correct me if I'm, if I'm wrong here, but so I think here there's, we've got, uh, like a creek and a lot of grading issues here. So it's a, my understanding. It's a decent hiking trail, but the, the, that the biking is a bit difficult there. Um, is that right, Bevin? Yeah. That's correct. Ben Grithers Parks and Open space. The other thing that we think there is that the submissing trellises that we're probably in place at one time that elevated the trail. And I think when we were out there hiking, we stopped and looks at that.

2:52:33So in some places that Switzerland Trail is probably 15 feet above your head where it would have crossed its sculpt road. So we didn't have a, there's no crossing there any longer for that section of the Switzerland Trail. So that explains that. Thank you. Yeah. And then just, you know, vis - a - vis the unauthorized trails on the U. S. Forest Service land. And that presents a problem for us. Couldn't, would you not expect? I guess I would expect a forestervice if we do this and we say, here's this trail. And some people might want to go uphill. You know, mountain bikers like to go uphill. So they say, um, we create a trail and it connects directly to unauthorized U. S. Forest Service Trails and ends there, wouldn't, I would expect a forest service to say, look what you've done. You've just, you've just directed all these people to our land to go where they're not allowed to go. You know, have you had conversations with the Forest Service about this and how they would perceive that? Or do they anticipate authorizing these trails or doing something? Or aren't we just feeding into a problem and perpetuating it? That's a great question. Thank you, Commissioner Levy. We enjoy a great relationship with the U. S. Forest Service. And they are also stretched. They

2:54:01recognize, especially on their side, that these users are already occurring. We hope that they will be active participants and will invite it for not only these solutions that can still be finalized. But also the participation through the peak - to - peak process as they are able. We want to be in consultation with them, with adjoining property owners so that everybody can appreciate existing uses and plan for the future. Um, I think based on your conversation today, our first call could be to reach out to them and say, Hey, this is where we're going. Do you have particular signage requests? Can we better collaborate here in communications? We're already doing that work regionally. Um, and they were a big part of that conversation. And that's what I would intend for the team to continue. Jason, would you add anything there. Jason Sukh, Director Parks Open Space. You know, our team has, I think, enjoyed that good relationship. Have had lots of conversations, you know, and are trying to balance, um, you know, being good neighbors with, you know, providing an understanding the realistic use that's happening and trying to, I think in this proposal, for example, eliminate excess connections to other properties and other unauthorized trails that are on other properties while also understanding that we've got heavy use that's coming through here, you know,

2:55:33newly constructed trails and places that we don't want them, you know, in some cases damage. And, um, you know, and then like the raptor closure also kind of highlights the review all of that. The concerns. I think, um, you can continue to talk to them and get, get their opinion. Overall where, you know, what we're trying to do really is what's the. What's the best intern path for that's probably an imperfect solution that can carry us through to, uh, more comprehensive district planning process where we can have those conversations in more depth. And the Board can advise on the limit of that. Yeah, no, I understand that that's the purpose of the conversation. And that's why you're making the recommendations. So I don't need that rehearsed again. I guess I'm my concern is we're now boxing the Forest Service in. They may say, no, we never want to have a trail here. Um, this is a horrible place for a trail. And what we've done is, is built a trail to exactly where they don't want to trail. I mean, we don't know. So I would worry that we might be boxing them in on something over the longer term that may be a problem.

2:56:51And that by the same token, we're doing this on an interim basis potentially. That's what's described in an area where the memo does indicate, um, it doesn't meet our standards and it crosses a sensitive areas. And so by the same token, we put this trail in, the Forest Service says, okay, you know, the facts are on the ground. We have to live with the facts on the ground. Uh, we'll go ahead and put a trail in here or allow the trail and put the signage up to try to get people on this trail. So then we're, you know, we've kind of taken off the table the ability to say, you know, now that we've studied this in more detail, in fact, this is not a good alignment. And we want to do something completely different.

2:57:36I'm sorry Commissioner Silver. I didn't hear a question. So that's why I was starting to weigh in also, but if you felt, well, I'm just, it was just that was, I guess the question was way back about, you know, what is a forest service? Think about this and what, what are there? What do we know about our plan? The Forest Service allows bicycling off trail on their property in our county in the Boulder Ranger District. So I don't understand the conversation actually. I'm very confused. What the Board could direct. This is, this is status recommendation. What the Board could Direct is to stop the trail at some other portion to not do the Western segment. We're just pointing out the existing reality that we see and trying to do that balancing. I do appreciate everything you're saying about alignment and collaboration. We could make that a first call as well as some of the other issues you've asked us to explore and finalizing. We might actually be well ahead of when we do this additional signage. I think the intention today, I think, um, I want to kind of loop around to the other questions and managing that conversation is, are you amenable to us at least exploring the closure we're talking about and the access for bikes as we've proposed in option one? And

2:58:54at this point I'm wondering, um, acknowledging that the work to do with, you know, a one - time request for some additional enforcement, better signage, better communications. Is the Board Amenable to the recommended option or would you prefer something else be considered? The recommended option does include you designating and allowing for bicycle use, at least on this temporary basis. And I do appreciate that that could be standard making and does predispose some things. It's a large property and quite complex. This has been great feedback. Um, wondering if we could go around and get an answer to that. And I'd like to start with Commissioner Stoltz. Well, yeah, just I think it was nice to hear everybody's different perspective. And I heard three different perspectives. So I do think a little more discussion. We'll get us somewhere. Um, part of what. I'm just like, the information I have is just so very different than what's been presented and then what's being discussed that it's hard for me to stay fully engaged. So like several times I heard things called illegal trails, but they are trails that are signed by us. Like they have our signs and our route. So to say that this is an illegal trail and we put a sign up that named it.

3:00:09And it has a start and an end is like, I don't understand that. That doesn't, that's not an illegal trail. That's one of our trails. So that is very confusing to me. The trail through the meadow is clearly signed by us. And it is not clear whether bikes are allowed or not when you're standing there, but it is clearly our trail. Um, same thing. We clearly have signed the Switzerland Trail. So these are not this concept that we keep saying these are illegal trails. Illegal trails, illegal trails. Like we have told the public that the property was open. They are, there are clearly some new trails that are not allowed. And then acknowledgement of most everyone about that. But everything on this map is not an illegal trail. So that is very confusing to me and like a non sequitur in the conversation that I'm just very confused by. I think it will absolutely destroy our regional planning process if we try to close the property at this time because of what we've communicated so far and how it's been used to historically and the types of trails there. So I don't, I don't think closing it as a viable option unless we want to make all of the regional planning that we're proposing completely unsuccessful. I don't think that that's what we want to

3:01:17do. So I do think we need to clearly communicate where our access is allowed. Reinforce that building your own trails wherever you want. It's not allowed and make a safe route. On this property. I support that idea. Most of the green line I agree with. I do think reaching out to the Netherland Parks Board and say like exactly that alignment where there is not a trail. We should engage with the community. They've been dying to help us kind of like I heard from you, Commissioner Luchaman, of like they've been saying like, we want to help. We want to help with the enforcement. We want to. So like that's the opportunity for the helppiece. And I just, I cannot understand why the bright green on the bottom part of the Hyx Golch Spur because it's just such a, it's, it's a road that is there. And it has been used for a long time. So it seems like that should also be included. Um, in the map. And so Commissioner, what I am hearing you say is in favor, give or take some alignment and considering a lower portion there. You are in favor of option one with that. And you want us to do the addition. Is that correct? So I really avoided saying that because like the language that's in the packet that I

3:02:30just do not agree with. So like saying that I'm agreeing with option one is objectionable to me. But if, if that is the language that I need to use, then I can maybe pull that off. It's just that there needs to be inclusion of an additional route on the South. The exact location of the section between the Switzerland and that Forest Service Road. Should be, you should refine that. That's fine. Um, I understand like you probably did what you did so that you wouldn't have it go on to the Forest Service property at all. But it makes so much more sense to have it go on the Forest Service Property. So, uh, and that's what people will probably do. And then I just, I hate that it says temporary because there's no way where revisiting this in anytime soon. And we're doing their district planning.

3:03:27And so I just like, this is what it is. It's been this way for a hundred years. Like the temporary, I just don't understand that. That's an acknowledgement of where we are in the management planning process. But I do appreciate your. I mean, then clarification. We'll just, I'll call all the trails temporary then. They could all change. They're all temporary trails. I mean, I just like are all the roads are temporary. Everything's temporary. I mean, we could change everything. Like, so I just, the temporary is part of why I can't agree option one, but that's fine. We make decisions. We change our minds later. Like everything's temporary. So within that framework, I can accept temporary. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Lochimi. I heard you ask the point, which I clarified with Commissioner Streltzman earlier on, are you in generally in support of option one, including bicycle use as we have outlined here. We've heard some great feedback on, um, all the other issues. So it's, um, we're kind of at that point of, are you interested in the, in option one or would you prefer.

3:04:44No. Yeah. No, thank you. I actually had some response to, please. To Commissioner Saltman and I didn't write it down. So, um, I was waiting. I mean, so just again, in the spirit of conversation, which I think is what we were trying to do, uh, in these work sessions, it's helpful. I agree to hear like what we're, um, interpreting and also what we've seen and things like that. So it was helpful to hear some of the pieces that you're, um, that you were sharing. I mean, I could get to the concept of creating some type of route. I think for me, I would need, I couldn't, I couldn't, um, support the additional piece you're talking about, Commissioner Southlessman on the South just because I am thinking it is an area that we don't have access to, but I might be thinking of a different area in this map. And so I feel like what I would like, I would love us to give us some direction to stop. Um, and so I can, I can get around just creating some type of path so that people have access to use this Tucker Complex property as it's shown in the map. It sounds like staff would be willing to do a little bit more research on the areas to understand what is really already there, what

3:06:15might not be there. And if it needs to be adjusted a little bit, but I think conceptually, um, I can, I could get around to supporting that. The question mark for me that I would like for the board to just have some conversation about is if we would be open to, if that path can't be moved, um, more, I guess it's on the east side. What I'm worried about is the L Calvic area. And I would be fine with that area having a closed period that just feels very aligned with what we would do in any other trail area. Um, but still have something built so that there would be access at some point during the year when, when a wildlife doesn't need that area as much, um, so that's kind of what, what I'm thinking. And I don't know which piece I left out.

3:07:11Maybe it was the on page six. On number one. It talks about includes the north, south section of the Switzerland Trail. That bisects the property. And that's not in the green line. Is that true? That's correct. That's this piece here that we would, we're proposing to. Ask you to designate to keep that or to have that. And I thought I heard Commissioner Salzman, you asking about that earlier too. And it seems like that piece. I don't have, I don't have a, I could get around to that piece as well. I do want to just acknowledge. The conversations with staff that I had when we were out there hiking that where we know that the access has changed. We know I've got notification over the years. We know that the uses over the years. What I heard was a real interest in staff trying to figure out how do we do better signage. So I heard what you said, Commissioner Solzman about, you know, we've, we've got these signs out there. And I think simultaneously, um, we're trying to figure out as the County, what do we do and if we would have put signage out, you know, a month or two months ago, it would maybe need to be changed pending these conversations. So I just want to acknowledge that I heard and acknowledgment on

3:08:36staff's behalf of like, we don't have the right signage out here. What sign is do we need? Um, and that's going to take some resources and time as well. I do think that we need to talk about Fund 151 and go back to the conversation we had over the last couple of years about trail staff for parks and open space. I don't, maybe it'll come in and budget amendment for somewhere else magically. I don't think so, but I do think we need to look, take a look at that fund again in regards to, um, the risks that we're putting folks at and in to do code enforcement because we know and we've had situations here, even in Boulder County Parks Newman space with staff who've been, um, retaliated against or confronted in really potentially harmful ways. And so I think that's just, I just feel like we need to have that conversation as well because Code Enforcement isn't always pleasant and it can be, um, challenging. And this is going to take code enforcement to be able to even, um, get these, the trails that have been, um, created without permission. To get those. Reconstruction or not reconstructed. Restored. Thank you. Um, so that's, those are a couple of the pieces. I don't if the potential recommendation, let me know, but I think for me,

3:10:02Board, that some of those pieces would be helpful just for us to talk about and understand where we're each in agreement or not. So what I'm hearing, and I just want to make sure before I go to you, Commissioner Levy is some degree, give or take alignment of support for this, um, certainly signage needs to be improved. I'm hearing you are not in alignment with additional looping at the bottom area. Can we move the cursor to that southern portion that we're talking not in that, uh, right there. In the, I'm sorry. Yeah. At this time that traditional piece of South, that's not on that green line. I wouldn't be able to do. But if, if the board says, you know what, let's let stuff work on this and come back in an additional work session.

3:10:50Like, and I would be willing to go up there and try and understand it a little bit better too. But yes, and are you in support of the designation or us coming forward with information on designation or a bike usage while we consider this? So if the alignment were to be something you all agree with, you're okay with us bringing forward as Commissioner Stiltzman has said, um, allowing bike usage. With that additional closure time that you're talking about. There's two pieces to that. There's a bike use portion. And then there's a portion about, um, closure across the meadow. Seasonally. Not understanding. Sure. I thought we were talking that whole grain conceptual line is bike. The whole, yes, all the places we are saying designate we are also purporting to have allowable uses by bicycle. And bringing that forward to you. What I'm hearing you say is you'd like you're okay with that as long as there is an additional seasonal closure of the portion across the meadow forever. Thank you. Is that correct? Yes. Okay.

3:12:04And I think I'm hearing some potential overlap there. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that commissioner leave. Okay. Um, I think we need to be working from a common set of facts. And it does not sound like we are working from a common set of facts. So the portion, well, first of all, could somebody who knows, um, take the cursor and show where the elk calving area is. I've been assuming it's the meadow. Is it? And also that is, that is the elk having area. That's the part that we've been speaking about today here. Okay. And. That, so there's a map. So there was a four page PDF of maps that were provided to us. And the PDF map on the second page. It's kind of hard to interpret the colors. Um, that where that now bright green, people didn't like my designation as chartreuse. So, um, but where that is, is, is that a signed, that's the trail that we all walked across the meadow. And the sign on it, is that a loud trail. Is that a designated authorized trail. Ben Grither's Parks in OpenSpace. And I think this is where we get into some semantics issues. It is a historic trail that was there when we purchased the property. It has never been designated as a trail and it's never been

3:13:48designated to allow mountain bikes on it. So I think that's where we come into some issues is that historically, it's been used for foot traffic. Then mountain bikers have started to use it. Then we discovered this plethora of constructed trails throughout the property. And that's where we came to the point and said, wow, none of this has ever been designated by Boulder County Parks and OpenSpace and the commissioners as trails, nor has it ever been designated as biking trails. Both of those are things that we need to do per our rules and regulations. Um, so it's tough because we do have signage out there that says Boulder County Parks and OpenSpace. But because of our rules and regulations, we can't designate it as a trail. It is being used as a trail. There was a sign. I don't think I took a picture of it.

3:14:40But so I think that sign was just recognizing there is a footpath or, you know, a path of some sort here. That's correct. Telling people to just stay on it. Yes. It's by the Tucker Cabin area. And that's the only way out of that property legally. So that is where we chose to put that sign that says, you know, basically it's your responsibility to, um, know the rules and regulations. And then when we were trying to fix some of these issues with those undesignated trails through the area of the historic trails, um, there was ICON put on there, no bikes. We were hopeful that we could use the Forest Service HICSCALT Road, which we later found out that we could not use. So yes, the signage there in our attempts to manage that in the short term, um, they didn't work. So just, I want to understand what that piece is. Between the Switzerland Trail and Caribou Road. And then the other part of HIC sculpt, again, on the PDF on page two, well, it's, it's, it's, it's up there that has both a yellow line and it kind of turquoise line. And then there's also sort of a purple line. What's going on there.

3:16:09Yeah. And I can, I can take that as well. Yeah. Everything is culture stuff and it really took us a little while to figure out what that was. Um, the portion that, um, and I don't know, Jason, if you can follow me with the cursor, if we go from the bright green trail, we'll just travel along Hicks Gulch. Um, if you come a little further down, Jason, yeah, keep coming down. Yeah. Yeah. So that dotted mine. So not that Hicks come to a little bit. Right. Right there. Right there. Like that. So that's a portion of that is Hicks Gulch. And it is a fine trail. Yeah. And we hiked that. It's that old two track. It's in great shape. The portion that is not that most concerned staff is the portion between the roadway and the Switzerland Trail. And that was a piece that's an old designated, um, probably forest road that the family utilized where there's been a trail constructed parallel to that.

3:17:08And not try to put your cursor there. I'm sorry. I just, you know, we're pointing at maps on our screen. And I think we're just not all really following. Jason, if you could come up, um, just go south a little bit on the Switzerland Trail. Yeah. And right where the yellow is just had where there's parallel double track. The Tucker family used. And a more recently constructed single track trail. Okay. And so my memory of the double track. I mean, why would you not just use that and close the single track and just make, why would you not use that. As that old double track road, it's pretty much gone. And it went straight down, um, we didn't even hike on it because it was so straight down and eroded. We actually used the constructed single track next to it when we hiked up there.

3:18:04Um, that was where we went like that. Yeah. Where we, where we kind of went straight up to the road with me when I was absolutely. Okay. Okay. I've got, okay. So now that I, there are a lot of lines on the map. So now that I understand that. I mean, if you ask me, you know, just clean slate, what should we do? My answer would be close it completely. However, I understand the reality we're dealing with. I understand it's a huge uproar from the community that we would have. Uh, I understand it's probably practically impossible to close it. Um, unless we're up there 24 hours a day, people will be up there riding with headlamps on in the night. I mean, they will. So I do think we have to do something that. Reflects in understanding of, you know, the way the community wants to treat this land. I'm not happy with it. But I think we have to, you know, we have to have some acknowledgement of reality here. And so I, I mean, I think I can live with the line that you've drawn. I would be in favor of that seasonal Alt Calving closure. Because we can't get this back. And, you know, I, you know, I, Commissioner Stolzman is probably saying in her mind that that's always been open. And

3:19:43people have been walking on it forever. And so it's, you know, do we know it's elk having? I don't know. But, but that's, that's where, you know, we believe then. And I think we ought to have a seasonal closure. We do this. And people generally respect it. I think, I think it's going to take very aggressive signage. And, um, personnel to enforce this. And I heard you, um, Yvette try to summarize this as a, you know, one time enforcement. Uh, request. I think it's going to have to be ongoing. I think we, you know, as a general matter, we are very understaffed on our enforcement. And it's showing in our trails and in off trail usage. And so I think, I think if we are going to allow people to use this on a temporary basis and a trail alignment that don't meet our, it doesn't meet our trail standards and then try to keep people on that. I think we are going to have to have people out there every day. And, and that's going to be up to the commissioners to approve that budget request. It's just we have to accept the reality of, of the fact that, you know, we keep a buying property. And we don't expand our, uh, our enforcement staff. And so, I mean, it doesn't excuse what people

3:21:13have done up here. Again, I don't know what gets into somebody's head that makes them think that they can go on public land. And with chainsaws and whatever equipment else that they were using and create trails, wherever they want, just tearing, tearing the landscape up. So I don't, I don't know what kind of people do this sort of thing. And I don't know if those people would respect signs or anything else. But I think we have to give it a try. So that's where I would go. Just a couple other comments. I, I appreciate Bavin, you're a use of the word undesignated and how it means something to us. But having a Boulder County sign on a trail that says how people can use it doesn't make any sense to a general member of the Public to say this is undesignated. Like it is a trail with a sign. And we also communicated to the public that part of the property remained open. So I just, I think words mean things to people in general terms. And I think we have to communicate differently about what our expectations are. The CPW Elkmap shows the L Caving area more in the park hill area and on the elk draw section of land, not so much where we keep talking about it. So I just like, I

3:22:36keep not talking about the elk because I just have different information. Again, I completely agree, Commissioner Levy, like we have just fundamentally different understanding of this property and like what's happening. And so I think arbitrarily closing something because. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Like my understanding is closer to where that word Park Hill is on the map on the CPW map is where the LCAR calving. So I haven't been presented any other information. And I haven't gone and watched the elk, but I could do that. So I don't support a closure for elk that are non - existent in an area. Um, that doesn't make any sense either. And I think if we do arbitrary things, it will make people not follow the rules. I totally support having sufficient ranger staff and, you know, making sure that our staff are safe at work and have good working conditions. I think that's great.

3:23:28If we don't clearly communicate our expense fully. So like we have a role to play in that and clearly communicating, you know, what we want on the different properties. Um, and making, you know, reasonable attempts, um, to try to come up with solutions that are community supported. And I just do not think that this next round can take as long as the first round took for us to have this conversation. So if it's heading toward that it needs to come back to us, like we have a business meeting on Tuesday. Like let's get going because we just spent however much time talking about this to consider putting it back like it has always been. Like it just like that doesn't, it's not a great look for government in my opinion. Like we've spent how many months talking about maybe potentially putting it back to how it's always been used. That's just a little bit crazy making. Um, we are approaching the end of time. I'd like to summarize. I believe that we have benefited greatly from your conversation. This is a complicated location as the majority of the portfolio of Parks Open Spaces. The balance issues are significant. And I benefited. I know the team did from your additional context and considerations and for your ability to hear each other in that balance. We will

3:24:49always continue to, um, reach out to our friends at the Forest Service. We heard that loud and clear as well as exploring volunteerism better signaging communication. I believe we have heard that there is support for moving forward as we have depicted on a temporary basis with the additional closure of seasonal closure of that portion. Um, across the meadow there, uh, we will update that map for an informational component for you. At this time, there is no suggestion from staff. I think we have direction from you that allows us to move forward. And we will also bring forward the opportunity for you to designate this temporary use for bicycles. This is the beginning of a planning process. Um, I see a hand. So I want to make sure I'm capturing that correctly. Um, you all have very differing opinions. And I, we have worked to do, but I don't believe that based on what you've said today, we need to come back next week because given some refinement on alignment, um, I think we have, uh, direction from you today. Commissioner Loechamine, I saw your hand.

3:26:00Thank you. And I just wanted to, um, check in, I think with staff, the area on this green line, and I didn't know what chartreuse was. So I didn't realize I thought you were talking about a literal name of a trail. Um, the, if staff could just confirm the way I heard the information and the way I read it was that this area might be an elk calving area. And so for me when I say I'm supportive, like I would be interested in looking at that as a closure period based on that information. What I'm saying is staff if you could go and just determine that if, if it's real, for me, it's not arbitrary at all Commissioner Solzman. It's just the way that I heard it. So I just wanted to clarify that. If, if there's some more work that stuff could do to determine if that really is a current calving area, then I think it would fall in line with what we would do in a practice. Um, but I also, I just wanted to clarify that. And if Commissioner Levi, you were thinking something different. I'm open to hearing it, but I just wanted to make sure that what I was going for was, um, heard correctly. Thank you. And our otherwise, I just wanted to, um, cause I think we're

3:27:15wrapping up is what I heard. Um, I did see your social media post about the different reasons we closed trails. So I just, I want to acknowledge that because I think you all are trying to. I think you've heard some of the concerns and just what are the different ways that we can, um, communicate with public about what we're doing. So thank you for that. Commissione Levi and additional comment. Yes. I know you're trying to get us. I'm not going to change anything that I said. So don't worry about that. Um, I, I think that one of the communication challenges that we're going to have, and this will be part of the district planning process as we then look really district wide at what we're going to do here is really where I started in my conversation with you all a couple hours ago, which is, if we don't, if we decide we don't want to make this a permanent trail, it's going to be very, very hard to undo that. And I think we need to be very clear with the public that this is an interim measure to maintain the access while we do this planning in recognition of the intense uproar that we would experience if we closed it during our planning process. And that our normal planning process is to have

3:28:43areas closed while they're planned. We don't let people go running all over the place on our open space when we don't know what those resources are. And we have to be very clear that this is that this is a compromise. And this is, this is a big deviation from our usual process in recognition of that, of those expectations. But that this may not be a permanent trail. So it's just, it's just that, you know, very, very blunt stern message to the public. Don't get too comfortable here. Thank you. Um, thank you all for your input. I want to express my thanks to the Parks team. I know we have a lot of disciplines here and you do tough work every day. Um, this is a complicated issue to bring forward. And I just want to thank you, Jason, anything we're wrapping up. Jason Sue, Director Parks and Open Space. I just want to say thank you so much for the open conversation. Um, I agree with everything that you're saying. And that's the, that's the, uh, the challenge for us is, okay, how do we, how do we, you know, we see these perspectives and the current situation. Then how do we balance that use?

3:29:51So I thank you for your time for your open conversation. Um, Commissioner Loch Schmier on the, your question. I can answer that. We have a detailed ecological surveys and report happy to provide the details of that report that we summarized in the memo. Um, but yeah, thank you for this conversation for your advice and for lending your perspective on, um, your communication with, with residents and your knowledge of the area. Thank you. Um, and back to you, Commissioner. Okay. Well, back to me just so that I can adjourn the meetings. So thank you all for your patience and your diligent work on this.