Transcript

0:00:27Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Good day. We will call to order the meeting of the Boulder County Commissioners today on April 7th. We are here this morning, first of all, to hear the public hearing on the Markel Family Care Unit Accessory Dwelling. Commissioners Lochumen Installsmen are President, Commissioner Levy, is excused. What we'll do this morning is we'll hear a short presentation from the staff, then the Applicant will have a chance to tell us what you'd like to tell us. We'll take public comment on the matter, and then we'll have any closing remarks from the staff and applicant. County Commissioners can ask questions throughout. And after all of that process, the Commissioners will close the public hearing, and we'll deliberate on the Application this morning. And so with that, I'll ask if there are any disclosures from County Commissioners. No disclosures, thank you. I also have no disclosures. Thank you so much. And so I will turn it over to Sam to give us a presentation on the matter. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. Sam Walker with the Community Planning and Permitting Department. I was the planar assigned to review LU - 261, the Markel family CARE ADU at 5621 NIWAP Road. The Property Owner is an LLC called Haystack Holdings, Michael Markel is the signatory on

0:01:42behalf of that LLC. Dennett is here with us today as well. Virtually, she is the agent for the Application. The parcel is within the agricultural zoning district and is 35 acres in size. It is a legal building lot. There's an existing 7, 500 square foot resonance and attached garage, agricultural structures on the parcel currently. And the proposal that we reviewed was limited impact special review to permit the establishment of a family care unit, accessory dwelling on this parcel. So the parcel is located on the north side of Niwat Road, just south of Haystack Mountain. It's highlighted in red in the center of the map here. Generally north of the Gun Barrel area of the City of Boulder. This is a location map of the parcel. So you can see left - hand creek runs through it from west to east. And then an aerial photo, this aerial photo predates the development on the parcel, the residence has now been constructed based on an approval that was granted several years ago, as well as a driveway.

0:02:48Quite a few layers identified on the comprehensive map, although our concerns related to these identified resources were pretty limited. The property is relatively flat. There's kind of some rolling slope to it across the whole thing, but it's a former golf course. And so it's pretty flat. There is quite a bit of floodplain identified on the parcel. I'll note the, I'll get my cursor over there. This small area in kind of the north of the property. That's where the, all of the structures are roughly located in this area that is outside of all of the floodplain overlay. The proposed location for the accessory dwelling unit is in this orange - ish yellow area, which is the 500 - year floodplain. There are some moderate swelling soil potential areas identified in the northeast of the parcel, but none that are impacted by the proposed ADU location, the parcel is located within the telecom protection and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Plann Planning Areas, as well as the Creek Planning area. There are some nearby public lands, including County Hilton Conservation easements adjacent to the west, and P - land to the south. And I apologize, this is not correctly labeled. This is the Zoning map, so the parcel is located within the agricultural zoning district. And then the setbacks associated with ditches and Niwat Road in the area,

0:04:09but none that impact this proposal. This is the fact sheet that was submitted for the accessory dwelling unit, so I'll note that family care units have a code limitation that they cannot exceed 700 square feet in size, although the board is allowed to approve covered porch areas that exceed that 700 square foot limitation. Um, and this was discussed in the staff recommendation, but the proposed enclosed area for the accessory dwelling is 690 square feet, which meets that limitation. And then the applicant's also proposed about 144 square feet of what they've called roof overhang here, but it seems like it would function like a porch. Staff had no concerns about that, but we just want to make sure that's on record that we're approving it as that additional covered porch area if the board chooses to approve it. Um, so just wanted to talk about that while we're looking at the fact sheet. This is a brief, or it's a clip from the submitted narrative in case we wanted to look at it. And then now we'll take a look at a few site plans. So this is an overall site plan. I will note that one of the staff recommended conditions addresses the driveway access, which is not shown correctly on the site plan. Um, this shows a driveway configuration that was approved back in

0:05:232021, if I remember correctly. And then a subsequent limited impact review changed the driveway orientation. So it actually runs, uh, north from Niwat Road, roughly along the line that I'm tracing with my mouse, uh, connects to the existing driveway here, and then comes into the property. So we had a recommended condition asking that they update that driveway configuration because that's what's actually been constructed on the site. Um, but the main purpose of this site plan is to show the ADU location. Um, so in this next slide, we're now looking at a detailed view of that previous site plan, the ADU location is proposed northwest of the existing residents right here. I mentioned the two agricultural structures that exist as well, and those are these two Western rectangles. Here we have the proposed elevations for the accessory dwelling unit. So this is the north elevation in the top left, which will face toward Haystack Mountain. Then we have the East - facing elevation, which will face kind of back into the parcel toward the emergency turnaround.

0:06:26The south - facing elevation, this is the entry to the accessory - dwelling unit, and that faces toward the main residence. And then we have the West - facing elevation and a view of that roof overhang what we're calling a covered porch. The applicants also provided some 3D rendering, so that's what's included here. Just give you a little bit more context. They do include view of the existing residents in the approach. Rendering, as well as the kind of, it says ADU by house rendering. The applicants also included a floor plan, so that's what's shown here. This is oriented correctly, so north is up. Um, so there is one bedroom, a small bathroom, and then a living area and kitchen, as well as the covered porch. And now we'll take a look at a few site photos. So as usual, I've included the site plan on the left with an arrow showing the approximate location direction, that photo was taken from. So this is standing on the driveway facing toward the existing residence, and then panning to the northwest, we're looking toward the ADU location, which is kind of behind the two trees you see here.

0:07:31I'll note in the kind of middle of this photo, this is the emergency turnaround that was mentioned in the staff recommendation, as well as some of the conditions of approval. We'll talk more about that in a few minutes. So this is facing the ADU location was not staked, but it was pretty clear where it was supposed to go. Um, so this is facing essentially at the east wall of the accessory dwelling unit. So we're facing west across that location, which has proposed be kind of where this open space is. And then in this photo, in the next few, we're standing in the center of the ADU location facing, in this case, to the west. So this is the view to the west from the ADU. This is the view to the north, so that's Haystack Mountain. And then facing to the east from the ADU location. So I'll note the two trees we saw in that previous photo from the opposite side. This is the corner of the existing residence. And then just kind of a southeast facing view showing the kind of location relative to the proposed residents, or excuse me, the existing residence.

0:08:38So in terms of referral responses, we got mostly standard comments from everyone except for the access and engineering team. They noted that the proposed location for the accessory dwelling did not meet the multimodal transportation standard requirements for distance from the emergency turnaround. So they requested that the plans be revised at building permit to make that location compliant. Generally speaking, the ADU needs to be shifted to the east a little bit. We don't know exactly how much because the plans that we receive didn't have a working scale, or they weren't measurable. Um, but we didn't give us specific distance because it wouldn't really change the review as long as the ADU is located in the rough area that it was shown. Um... The public health department also... Oh, excuse me, I put floodplain in there twice, but the floodplainer noted that no floodplain development permit would be required, but did have some general recommendations for construction in or near the floodplain overlay district. And then the public health department noted that these septic system would need to be, they would need to increase the capacity to accommodate for the existing or the additional bedroom that the ADU would add to the property. We received no concerns from our historic and conservation easement management teams, no responses from everyone that you see listed in the paragraph in

0:09:59the center there. I did receive one public comment during the review. They expressed some concern about a kind of like standard ADU proposal. And then when I explained the limitations for family care units and the idea behind them, they express support for the application. And that comment, the full email chain was included in the staff packet. So I have included, I think, two of the LU Criteria, although the several additional provisions for the accessory dwelling unit specifically. So that's what we'll talk about here. Um, so the first criteria for limited impact special review requires that the use that's proposed will comply with the minimum zoning requirements of the zoning district and all other applicable requirements. Accessory dwelling units, and more specifically family care units are allowed through the limited impact review process. They will meet all of their regular code requirements like setbacks and height limitations and things like that. Um, per discussion on - site with Mr. Markel, the unit will not be occupied by a family member. Um, the definition of a family care unit in the land use code states that, uh, I'm paraphrasing, but it requires that a family care unit is occupied by a family member providing care to another family member in the principal residence or vice versa. Um, in this case, they are not meeting the letter of

0:11:17the code because they've explicitly told us that this will not be occupied by a family member. It's going to be occupied by a hired assistant to help Mr. Markel's wife. However, staff found that the intent of this code provision was met, even if they are not meeting the letter. And so we're still recommending approval in this case. The additional provisions for family care units are on this in the next few slides. So the first one requires that the accessory dwelling, uh, can be detached from the principal structure as long as it does closely clustered. We found that the proposal had good clustering in this case and that the change is required by the access and engineering team shifting the location a little bit to the east will actually make the clustering even more kind of prominent. The next provision is the size limitation. So again, they've proposed an accessory dwelling unit that is under the 700 square foot limitation on enclosed floor area. They've also proposed 144 square feet of covered porch area and staff had no concerns about the size of that covered porch.

0:12:19So the Board of County Commissioners can't approve the size as proposed by the Applicants. The staff recommended conditions just put rounder numbers because the numbers given on the fact sheet were approximate. So we recommended a limitation at 700 and then the covered porch limited at 150. The third provision states that a separate entrance to the accessory dwelling is allowed but only one entrance to either dwelling unit can be visible for the front property line. In this case, because this, uh, parcel doesn't touch a road. It actually doesn't have any front property lines. So the letter of the code is met, however, we also just noted that it's unlikely that either front entrance is going to be visible from any surrounding properties except for maybe the adjacent one to the east, uh, but it just wasn't a concern for staff. The fourth provision requires that the property owner lives on the property. So that's the case here. Mr. Markel and his wife live on the subject parcel. The fifth provision requires the submittal of annual reports to the community planning and permitting department indicating that the use is still ongoing as approved. And so we have recommended that as a condition of approval. And then the only other criteria, this is not an additional provision. Um, but the only other criteria that I included here is

0:13:36number seven, which talks about the, uh, use meeting or multimodal transportation standards essentially. And so, um, this is where we tied that recommended condition to shift the location of the accessory dwelling unit to the east in order to bring it into compliance with the distance to the emergency turnaround. Um, and then we also want those revised plans at permitting to show the correct driveway alignment. So community planning and permitting staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approve LU - 26001 Markel Family Care ADU subject to the conditions and the staff recommendation. I do have the full text of those conditions on the next few slides if you would like to take a look at them. Otherwise, I'm available for questions. Thank you questions from Commissioners. Thank you. Thanks Sam for the presentation information on this docket. I have a couple questions and I think I'm a little curious. I'm going to be looking to the attorneys here for a second just in regards to the legalities of what I'm looking at in this, um, The Land's Code, Article 5. I think it's, or I'm sorry, Article 4, 516. And just want to understand in your analysis, I'm just reading and I heard you say it's not to the letter of the code in regards to family carry. The way I'm reading it, and

0:14:54of course I just scrolled away from it. But the way I was reading it, it talks about a family member living in either unit, either the principal residents or the accessory dwelling unit. And so I just, I want to have a little bit understanding of how we, if I just look at what it states there, have a concern in regards to the analysis. So that's one question. And then the other question was just on the covered porch. And I wondered if you have two things. Do you want to maybe respond to the first one than the other one? Is there a regarding the covered porch? Sure. So, um, generally speaking, staff found that you're correct. It doesn't meet the letter of the code because the code does require that a family member lives in the accessory dwelling and the principal dwelling. Um, but we have found in the past that that wasn't necessarily the intent of this criteria, um, which seems to be generally speaking someone needs some level of medical care. They have an assistant living in a accessory dwelling unit on their property to provide that care. Um, so the commissioners have previously approved applications where a family member was not living in one of the dwelling units. Um, that was back in 2021, if I remember correctly, uh, in The Spanish Hills

0:16:11subdivision, but it was a similar situation where, uh, the family needed round the clock care. They didn't necessarily have someone that they were able to, uh, a family member that was able to help them out, but they had hired help in the commissioners approved that application. Um, the definition of a family was also recently changed in the land use code and that kind of, we're trying to get at that essentially that this clearly meets the intent of that provision, providing care with an accessory dwelling unit, even if that care isn't necessarily coming from a direct member of the blood - related family, I guess. Okay. And I hear what you're saying. And I understand the intent. I'm just looking at the Land Juice Code as it's written currently. And so, okay. Um, that was one question. The other question I just had was in regards to the cover port. I don't know if you have in your photos or your diagrams that it may be that the applicant does and looking for an overlay. The first, um, one of the first diagrams that you showed was the floodplain map. And so then when you were talking about or showed a different one that had like a portion of the parcel where the ADU is proposed to be, it just wasn't clear to me where that

0:17:22is based on how you presented the floodplain map, um, structures. Okay. I'm going to, I believe the floodplain line. Was shown. Um, if I could get my slides back up, I think it will be. Thank you. I can't quite read it. Hold on. I may have to come back to this one. I believe the blue, well, no, I'd rather look and just say for sure later. Is that okay? That's okay. Well, and then I heard you talking about there were some changes and some discussions. So I just want to be really clear about what the final one is. And again, the applicant might be talking to that about where the final, um, proposal of the siding of this ADU would be. So that's, that was kind of what I was looking at. And then the other one I just wanted is just kind of a curiosity in regards to, um, this site. And you noted that the site wasn't staked when you were out there.

0:18:20And kind of a general area. But then the direction seemed like it was the recommendation was generally needs to move to the E. So I just want to talk about that at some point in regards to how do we ensure that the Appliquet knows what we mean and not have a lack of clarity from this side, from the 10s. I understand the other permits and other processes, but just want to make sure we give a really clear direction. Sure. So I think the, the location is probably the easiest thing to talk about. So the, the requirement in the multimodal transportation standards is that the structure has to be further than 50 feet, but closer than 150 feet from the center line of the, or from the center of the radius of the emergency turnaround. So generally using the slide that's on the screen currently, that means that the accessory, excuse me, the emergency turnaround is right here. So the ADU location, when the building permit plans come in has to be with further than 50 feet from that, but less than 150 feet. And I think we kind of lacked. We just wrote that into the condition rather than approving a specific location because anywhere in the vicinity of where this accessory dwelling unit was proposed is going to be acceptable from an impact perspective.

0:19:43There's not really any change to, uh, the resources that would be impacted or the visual impacts of the building. It's just bringing it closer to meet that MMTS requirement. And so we don't really have any concern as long as it's in this general location. Okay. Thank you. There's a question to have right now. Thank you so much. And so with that, we'll turn over to the Applicant for our presentation. You'll have 20 minutes to tell us what you'd like to tell us. And then we'll have some questions perhaps. Good morning. Um, my name is Michael Markel and I reside at 5621 on IWR Road. Um, I'm here to answer questions. I think Sam did a great job, you know, of explaining, you know, the situation that we're in. And, um, I think I was on the impression that we did have a scale drawing, but apparently, you know, it's not perfect. But I think we were talking about, you know, that there was probably, um, 10 or 15 feet, you know, that the ADU had to be moved to the east to make it, you know, to the 150 foot, uh, distance from the emergency access. And I have no problem, you know, with that whatsoever. And I don't think it impacts the site or utilities or anything else for that matter. So, um, on

0:21:05that one, you know, we will redo site plan and put the appropriate distance on that, you know, at the time of building permit, if that's appropriate. And I think that, uh, we would really appreciate your consideration, this situation that we're in was, um, very, uh, devastating to my family. And we would like to, you know, be able to, you know, have 24 - 7 care, which is probably going to be in the media relatively immediate future. And that we do need an experienced, you know, caregiver because of the severity of the illness, you know, that we're facing, you know, with my wife. So, um, if there are any other questions, you know, I'd be happy, you know, to answer those and try to any other clarifications, but we really appreciate, uh, the consideration, you know, for being able to have this caregiver, you know, um, yt it. And that, um, so I think staff did a great job. And I think it's all relatively self - explanatory. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners? Thank you.

0:22:27And thanks, Mr. Markel. I just had a question if you have with you, I don't know if you've got any diagrams and if not, I might go back to staff in regards to the question that I knew you were working on, but it was coming back to on the covered porch and just understanding the diagram that was in the packet. Made it look like there was an extended roof, which for me is structure of the house versus the covered porch. And so I was just trying to, I just want to make sure that I'm looking at what is the final, um, just Mr. Markel, sorry about that, but I just, if we could have one person speak at a time so that the record is just really clear. So we'll let Commissioner Luchaman finish. I'm sorry. No, that's fine. I just wanted to understand what the, what the final proposal is and what it is you're requesting. So we're looking at the right diagram. Thank you. A couple of things on that. Um, the house that we built, you know, at that location, you know, has some, um, architectural features in one of the features, you know, as a large overhang. At various locations. And we're trying to match and, uh, have the architecture of the ADU be congruent with the architecture of the house.

0:23:40And that, yes, there is a extended overhang on it one side and it could be considered, you know, something to, you know, shield the house from some sun or, but it could also, I don't have any problem with someone saying it's a possible. Front porch because we do have, um, a patio area in the front. And we're just, you know, putting on, you know, the, uh, extended overhang for a couple of different reasons. You know, one's aesthetic and the other, you know, it might be for some practical purposes of shielding, you know, the residents from sun. Great. Thank you. And I don't see any other questions from commissioners. And so with that, we'll turn to a general public comment. There's no one in the room signed up to speak today. And I don't believe we have anyone signed up online, but we'll just give folks online a chance to raise their hand should they want to. And my chances are quite short. So that's all you get. And the public hearing portion is closed and we'll come back over to staff for any final comments.

0:24:41Thank you commissioners Sam Walker CPMP. I'm going to ask our tech people to bring my slide back up again just so I can write it very specifically. Answer, uh, Commissioner Loachman's question. So, uh, this is the detail site plan that was provided by the Applicants. Um, so the red circle is the proposed location for the accessory dwelling in it. And then I just wasn't reading close enough in the moment. But the blue dashed line that you see kind of circling the main residence and part of the driveway, that's the limit of the 500 year floodplain. Um, meaning that anything within that blue line is not in the floodplain overlay at all. Then the pink dashed line, it's a little bit harder to see up here is the limit of the 100 year floodplain. So anything between the pink line here and the blue line here is within the 500 year floodplain and then anything further, uh, is I think in the floodway, if I remember correctly. So the requirement is that the ADU location be shifted to the east roughly where I'm circling with my cursor until it meets that, uh, distance requirement from the emergency turnaround. Um, so they should be able to keep it within the same 500 year floodplain, uh, the covered porch or the patio area is on the west side

0:26:03or to the left in this image. So does that answer your question or could I give you more information? That's helpful. And the reason I was just having a little bit of visual confusion was the flood plane. Map that you showed. I didn't, I just couldn't see the construction. The construction just by glancing at it look like it was further in a different area of the parcel. And so that's where my kit vision was about, was this a major change in the proposal. So this, this helps. Thank you. The way I just looking at those lines and the helpful to bring the attention to the pink and the blue lines as well. What I heard you say is that then the ADU construction will be within the 500 year plane versus the 100 year floodplain.

0:26:45Is that correct? It is currently proposed in the 500 year floodplain. And then they should be able to with the shift to get it closer to the emergency turnaround. They should be able to keep it within the 500 year floodplain. Okay. Thank you. And then the other question that I had was around that covered porch. And I just wanted to hear from you in regards to an analysis of, maybe you could bring up that diagram again that you had, or maybe I was looking in the packet. Is this what you were looking for or the renderings? I think it was the rendering actually in the packet. Yeah. Thank you. It looked like the one, the photo at the bottom right. And so that, thank you. That's the question I had. The way that visually, and I'm, this is just one, one viewing of it. I'm not looking at all other renderings. But on this, it looks to me like the roof is extended as part of the structure. And I'm just trying to understand typically when we see covered porches, it's really just the porch that's covered versus the porch being part of the entire structure, construction area of the house. Uh, I'm not sure that I'm following the question, but that is the area that we are considering to be the covered porch. And

0:27:59so in this case, they've just extended the same roof line. We don't always see that with covered porches, but covered porches are, I'd have to pull up the definition, but it's just a covered area that's attached to, by definition in the code, a principal structure, which would mean that normally this covered area wouldn't be considered a porch. It would just be floor area. Um, but the land use code specifically when it talks about accessory dwelling unit says the commissioners can't approve covered porches covered porch areas attached to the accessory dwelling unit that exceed the enclosed floor area limitation. And so the, the area that you're showing or that you're seeing in the bottom right image that's on screen currently, that is the area that we're considering to be a covered porch. It is an extension of the roof line. Um, it's too long to be considered an eve. By definition, the code. So we often have eves on all sides of a building so that water drips off and doesn't just run down the walls.

0:28:56Um, I think Eves are limited to two or three feet. I can't remember off the top of my head from the wall. This one extends about six feet out from the wall. So it doesn't meet that definition of an eve, but we're okay with as long as the commissioners are okay with it. Staff are recommending approval of this area as that additional covered porch area so that it's legitimized in the approval, but also because we, it didn't change our concerns about the development or anything like that. I think what my, my, and thanks for that. What my question is, and I think what my concern is, is when I'm thinking about visual impacts when I'm looking at all of the different criteria, typically a roof line then is like, it's, it's, it extends the height of the property. And so we've got a 700 square foot, um, requirement in this particular ADU option. For a reason. And so I get the covered porch. And again, I'm just looking at a rendering here. But it looks to me, it just appears to me that the porch is covered. But then it's got an extended roof line that then is part of the house. In my interpretation versus what the covered porches. And if I'm, if I'm missing something that is actually not two levels that extends

0:30:10the height of the property and the full mass with that roof line, please let me know. Or if the other diagram that you would suggest I look at, I'm happy to. Um. I'm sorry. I'm just not sure I'm following what you're asking. Um, so yes, the roofline, I guess, extends the massing because it's over the covered porch, uh, but we didn't have any visual impact concerns related to the covered porch specifically because this, like the, uh, I think most of the visual impact analysis was from a northern perspective because that's where hastek mountain is located, which is now, it's, I don't think it's accessible to the public, but it's County OpenSpace. And so, um, the land use code requires that we look at the Visual Impacts to those areas specifically. If we were viewing this structure from the north, from Haystack Mountain, it would be backdropped by the residents, which is built with the same, is intended to be the same materials on the exterior and the same kind of aesthetic design. And so this would be backdropped against something that's already there. So if I'm, I'm not, if I'm following your question, the, the roofline does extend, um, and that does, I think the slight drop in the grade. So the highest point of the structure above grade is the peak of the roof

0:31:34over the covered porch, but there wasn't any visual impact concern from staff regarding that design. Okay. Yeah. I'm just, I'm trying to understand. I'm looking at, what is it. On page seven of the packet. It's the additional provisions in regards to the limitation of the square feet. So that's what I'm trying to, it seems. And so then ask for the Board to consider overcoming that square fee within the additional roof area. So that's all that was all I was trying to understand in there now. I think the discussion and deliberation on that. Are there other questions for Sam. I've said everything that I was asking Commissioner Luchman. I appreciate you. I don't have additional questions for some at this time. Thank you. And so we'll go over to the applicant for any final comments. Um, you know, the only thing I might mention is that, you know, maybe the commissioners are used to seeing porches, you know, that are, you know, maybe a flat porch, you know, right over a patio. And this is a little more contemporary design. So I think that the overhang, you know, is considered, and I can see why people are considering it a porch. And I'm, I'm happy with that. It does give, you know, little protection at the same time, you know, it's, um, it's not a front

0:32:53board, like you'd see in a traditional, you know, home. And so I don't know if that makes a difference to you all. But, um, since I'm a designer designed the house, you know, to have a certain, you know, feel and look to it. We have, um, overhangs on our house that are considerably larger than what we're talking about here that are also, you know, considered, you know, at the time to be, um, porch type areas. And I think that that's, we're just trying to, um, you know, find a use, you know, for the overhang, you know, for different reasons, but also there's an aesthetic, you know, piece to it also. And there's no intent to ever, you know, try to enclose the ports or make part of the house. It's, it's a, you know, just for some shading and to be attractive. So and Mr.

0:33:48Markel Rosie, Dennett, from your team has also got, um, their hand raised and just making sure that's part of the closing comments altogether. Go ahead, Rosie. Sure. Thanks. Um, you know, I feel like I have to say something, right? Um, Rosie Dennett, the, the agent for, for the applicant, I just wanted to add, if you go back to if Sam can pull up that picture, the diagram that he just had, um, up that shows the, yes, if you look at the middle one, um, if you look at the, yeah, if you look at the middle, uh, photo there, I think you can see how the overhang, um, what, what Michael's talking about ascetically is it just continues, you know, the roof line is consistent with, if you look at the house where the car is just above the car, that area, see how it's just extending the roof and that, that level. And even though the ADU is, is lower in height than the house.

0:34:46Um, you can see how that aesthetically that's consistent with how he built the house with these, um, his porch areas all have the large roof overhangs. So I just wanted to point that out that in this diagram, you can kind of see that and get a feel for how he was fitting the ADU in with the existing home, even though it's much smaller. And lower. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Raquel, anything else. Uh, no, I'm just available for any questions. Thank you. Any other questions before we close the hearing? No additional questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. And with that closed the public hearing portion and we're move over to Commissioners for deliberation on the docket this morning. Yeah. Thank you. I think I don't have the CRS language in front of me, but I would, if you're interested, Commissioner Solisman, I still have the same question that I had at the beginning in regards to, um, what the code language is versus what I heard described as intent. And so that is my question about going into, um, an executive session just to speak to the legal matters of this particular docket.

0:35:57I think, I think that that's completely fine. I'm happy to go into executive session to get some legal advice I do think we could have some discussion. First, perhaps and see where we get with that. But if we want to just get some legal advice verse, I'm also fine with that. So whichever is your pleasure. Are we ready to go, John? In just one moment we will, hold on. And we're recording. Thank you. We will come back to order from our executive session. I'll just make a note for the record that we wanted to executive session for the purpose of legal advice on this docket, and we received some legal advice on the stocket. And we're now back for deliberation between commissioners on the matter. And so Commissioner Lochumen, thank you. Thank you for accepting an executive session, and I learned that there was an email that was sent to me that I had not reviewed. So I appreciate that. And I'm actually reviewing it. At this time. It sounds like we have pharmacy perspective has some changes just in regards to the definition of a family. And we've been working on that in other ways and stuff has been doing some diligent work on that too. You heard some of my questions just in regards to understanding the square footage of the

0:37:47property. And as I think that's one thing that I do want to just discuss, because I, just as far as in deliberation, because the way I'm reading this is that it's an 844 square foot property with the roof line and the overhang, and I get the aesthetics, and I get the design and all the, and then it's a lovely diagram and a rendering. But if I look at the code, that's what my piece that I was struggling with. But as far as the analysis from what staff shared on the criteria of the accessory dwelling unit and what we have, understanding the intent of the use, that is, I'm generally in a grama, that part of it. I just had a question on the square footage still. Thank you. I'm reasonably aligned. The comments I would want to make is just first and foremost for the community at large and the applicants here today, just reminding everyone that like family is what you make of it.

0:38:48And so I personally disagree that the application doesn't meet the letter of the code, the Board of County Commissioners determine the code interpretation. And our code is consistently been interpreted with a broad understanding of family structures and with the change in state law around families. I find it even more consistent than ever. So I do find that this is an appropriate use of a family caregiver unit. And just wanted to make a couple of comments on the portion related to the porch and just have some discussion around that. So the way that I read the language in the code, I believe it says, The accessory dwelling is limited to 700 square feet in size. This is for family caregiver unit. And the board may approve covered porches to proposed accessory dwellings, uh, which exceed the square footage limitations provided that no other portion of the floor area of the proposed dwelling exceed the limitation and the Board approves the additional covered portion accordance with the special use criteria. Um, and then last in no event shall the approved covered porch area ever be enclosed. And so when I was looking at it with regard to that Section of the code, I find that the design does meet the special use criteria. And it is different because we often see roofs with a steep pitch. And

0:40:00so then like that pitch element that we're looking at for the bulk and massing. But I actually find that the very gentle roof, the way it's been designed, mitigates even further. Like it is definitely different than what we usually see. But I think that very, it's not flat, but almost flat roof. Um, actually even minimizes the impact that you would have from other areas. And then further, because it is sort of this modern architecture, it doesn't have much material. So on other porches, we'll see railings or, you know, if you think of like a craftsman, um, it would have a bulky or header and then a bunch of railings on the side. And I actually find the modern architecture is contributing to not disrupting the visual impact because it doesn't have as much material in general. So I think between the design, um, that, that is taking away from any bulk or mass. And then the, um, the fact that the criteria makes it clear that the porch can't be enclosed. I find that that does meet the criteria for the family caregiver unit. But I'm interested in what you think about my architectural interpretation.

0:41:05That's just how I saw it when I looked at the drawings. Sure. Yeah. Thanks for the discussion. Just to clarify what I heard you say on the railing and kind of the not in closing of the sides, but putting other something else in there as part of the covered porch structure. Are you suggesting that that not be allowed. Or because right now we're just talking about, or we're looking at a design, but whatever decision we make stays with the property forever for a new user or a different family member or whatever. Yeah. So the design that we're looking at today is what we would be approving and it is clear, um, in the code that it won't be enclosed. So I think that's sufficient. But if we wanted to add something that just said, you know, if you enclose the, you know, if bulk or mass is put up that it would need to come back for additional review, I think that would be reasonable.

0:41:55I just, I'm looking at the design that's here. And I think that it does the one that's being proposed does meet the requirement. Thank you. Yeah. I heard you're talking about regular links. I just was trying to understand if you were wanting to put something in there that doesn't allow for that or you were just tucking about addition as it could have been put in that particular design. The latter. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. No, that's helpful. And I heard in the testimony that the plan is not to enclose that cover porch at all. I just wanted to have a conversation about the refine. And I actually wasn't thinking of a steep roof, but that was an interesting. I got what you were saying just in regards to other potential height on a structure. And so that was really just the conversation. And I am satisfied with the one testimony about non closing. And I do, I did read it in the land use code that it wouldn't be able to be enclosed. Any other discussion points we should cover this afternoon. I didn't have any other items on this docket. All right. Would this would be an appropriate time to entertain a motion. I'm happy to move that we approve item 2A. The community planning and permitting department dot get LU - 26 - 001.

0:43:13And with the conditions that are, um, included in the packet. Second. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Thank you. The motion carries. And with that, we will be in recess until 1 PM. Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are, thanks. Thank you. And we're recording. Okay, good afternoon. We are back from, I assume we were in recess from this morning, and it is still April 7th, 2026, and we do have all three commissioners present this afternoon. And our Agenda begins with our business meeting. We have a consent agenda consisting of 1 through. We have a different numbering system. 15. Move approval of the consent agenda. Second. All in favor? Aye. We will now move on to our discussion items. And the first is appointment to the Community Action Program Administering Board. Robin, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioner.

0:44:57It's Robin Valdez with the Commissioner's Office. This agenda item is to point the following applicants to the Community Action Programs Administry and Board. This particular Board currently has six vacancies, and we have five applicants that have been recommended to you. The applicants are messes for public sector, Representative Sandra Reisman for the low - income sector representative. Sunanda Dango for the private sector representative, Maria Asu Dija for private sector representative and one reappointment. For Katie McKillop's for the public sector representative. For your consideration. Okay, thank you, Robin. Any questions or comments, Commissioners? I don't have any questions or comments. Thanks, Robin, for the work. I move approval as recommended. Second. All in favor? Aye. Took me a second. Sorry, I wasn't trying to jump the gun. I just heard no questions. Sorry about that. That's control.

0:46:13We are now on to appointments to the family resource network regional Council. Thank you, Commissioners. This board has two vacancies. We have one applicant, the new applicant is a net true - feld Frank, a representative for the peak - to - peak health alliance for your consideration. Okay, thank you. Any questions or discussion? I don't have any questions. Thank you. I have a motion. I move approval as recommended. Second. All in favor. Aye. Okay. Back on track. We will now consider appointments to the resource conservation advisory board. Thank you, Commissioners. This board has three vacancies, and we have one applicant, and that is Councilman John Mortalaro. He'll be representing the town of Erie on this board for your consideration. Okay, thank you, Robin. Any questions or discussion? Just a quick question on that. I'm looking at that document in the packet since the three vacancies, is that, is that opportunity staying open, or will it just close until that next period of recruitment for them to potentially fill those at the vacancies. Yes. So we'll start the summer recruitment in late May. Through the summer.

0:47:39Okay. Thank you. Okay. You know what to do? I move approval as recommended. Second? All in favor. Aye. Thank you, Commissioners. And thank you, Robin. We are now on item number four, and it looks like, do we have David Hughes somewhere? Or Trino, are you. Doing this? This is requesting approval to participate in an amicus brief. It looks like David's not on. So Trina Rulin's Deputy County Attorney from the County Attorney's Office. This is item four and item five. I'll speak to them together because they are very related. Los Angeles County reached out to us to ask if the county would like to join in filing an amicus brief in two related cases, National TPS Alliance versus GNOME and GNOME versus national TPS supply. And before the U. S. Supreme Court, and that concerns temporary protected status that the secretary GNOME has attempted to vacate, that's going before the Supreme Court soon. So the question before the Commissioners is, would you like to join that Amicus brief. Okay, questions or discussion? Thank you. No, I don't have any questions. I just would like to say I appreciate the staff bringing this for our attention.

0:49:07It's very important to the Board Accounty Commissioners to participate in this. People do process rates are being violated left and right. And Community members are rightfully infuriated. And so we would like, I would, I believe we are going to say that we would like to participate. Yeah, I feel exactly the same. And I have nothing to add, so we're ready for a motion on item four. Move approval of participation in the National TPS Alliance V No Amicus Brief. Second. All in favor. Aye. And then we'll do another motion on item five GNOME versus National TPS alliance. All Mid Approval. I just wanted to ask a quick question if I might, oh, sorry about that. That's okay. The way you described it in the beginning was that it's the same case. So the same, is it true that Los Angeles folks also reached out to Boulder County just to clarification? Correct. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion. Second. Second, all in favor. Aye. Okay, and we have now come to item six, The Schlegal Family Farms, parcel C conservation easement. And I see Liz Northrop on this screen. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Commissioners. Liz Northrup, I am the program conservation easement program supervisor for the Parks and Open Space Department. And I'm here today to talk about the 2026 Shle - Giggle Family Farms Parcel

0:50:35Cirwood Conservation easement request. Rin Valley Farms LLC owns this 78 acre agricultural property, um, which is generally located in Western Weld County, just on the southeast edge of the City of Longmont. And Rin Valley Farms is requesting to relocate their five acre building envelope that's defined in the conservation easement from the northeastern corner of the southwestern corner of the property. And this is to avoid, um, lateral sprinkler, um, irrigation infrastructure that's currently in place. So in 2014, they installed a lateral sprinkler to increase their irrigation efficiency. And it also increases, um, the efficiency of the water rights use that are tied to the property by the Conservation Easement. Um, due to existing pipelines and other infrastructure that we're already in place on the property, they had to install this lateral sprinkler on the Eastern side of the property. Um, so adjusting the building envelope to the southwestern corner of the property continues to maximize the acreage that can be irrigated by the sprinkler. So staff support this request and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about the project. Okay, thank you, Liz.

0:51:50Commissioner Stolzman. Thank you very much, Liz, for being here. So I have a number of questions just looking at this. And so it looks right now like the building envelope is on the front of the parcel. So the driveway and grading needed access future building would be relatively minimal. And so did staff consider the impact that would occur from having to access the property by coming all the way through the property and how that would affect the usable agricultural space. Yes. So the access is like you said, it's going to go all the way along the eastern boundary of the property. There is already an access road that's been graded and that is in place and being used for agricultural operations and some oil and gash operations. So typically we do not want to see a longer access road go in place, but this property already has these agricultural roads in place. So it's not going to create any additional, um, roads beyond what is currently existing right now. And so we did consider that.

0:52:54So that isn't included in the amendment to the conservation he's met. So with the family be open to including that additional language that no, no new access roads are allowed to be added. Because we have no land use authority over this site and that access road appears to be on an adjacent parcel, which I recognize is also owned by the family, but I do not believe that that necessarily will result in the legal access for the building site. So the conservationisement already does prohibit the construction of new roads except that it does allow for a road to reach the residence. So essentially by them using this road, they are using that right that's reserved in the conservation easement. And we would not permit, um, any new roads to come towards that residence from another place on the property. But we can certainly ask if they'd be willing to, to draft that in. Yeah. I mean, it's not written in such a way that would prevent them from putting a driveway to their property when you read it now. Um, so that's helpful. And then another piece I wondered about is just this argument that's being made about, um, the irrigation. It looks in the areal photo, like moving the building, um, envelope still results in irrigated area. Um, being removed. And so I just wonder

0:54:16about the premise that that's why we're making this move. Sure. So the lateral sprinkler, it moves north to south along the property boundary. And the building envelope where it currently sits. As it would move up to the southern edge of that building envelope, the sprinkler would need to stop. Whereas moving south, if it's coming along the north end of the proposed building envelope, the sprinkler, they can turn off a section of the sprinkler, the far western edge of the arm. So that remaining, um, agricultural land to the east of the proposed building envelope will still be able to be irrigated. Whereas going from, um, moving north, it would have to stop at that five acre building envelope where it currently sits. And that's the chunk of space to the west of the existing currently defined building envelope that would lose access to that center pivot, um, sprinkler. Does that make sense? Well, and you said center pivot just now, but I don't think it is a center pivot. No lateral. Lateral, so I'm clear. So you're telling me the comparable area in the scenario, they're proposing is five acres. And in the original orientation, it's essentially 30 acres, something like that. Um, yes, let me pull out my notes here. I have, I believe it's 12 acres that would, um, be impacted. So that building

0:55:51envelope to the west in the field. All right. And then the, the final question I have is around clustering. So in the, it looks like the historic farm house that likely originally went with this parcel has been carved out and been separated from the parcel legally. So it looks like the original orientation had development on this farm in the Northwest quadrant. And so I wonder if there was consideration for simply moving the building envelope, um, to. The northwest part of the parcel instead of the southwest part of the parcel. If there was a discussion about that. Sure. So we looked at, um, coming in from the Western side and on the far western side on the west side of that house that you're referencing, um, they do not have an access easement through their neighbors.

0:56:52Property or through the adjacent agricultural field. So really it resulted in, um, them using their current access, the current road that is in place, um, so we did not talk about moving the envelope to like next door to the existing. House that their neighbors own. Um, the five acre envelope would then push further south likely into the field. And then again, we're bumping into the lateral sprinkler. I guess I'm confused by that response because they don't have an access road on this parcel. They would be accessing it from Wealth County Road 20. 5. Um, I do recognize that they have ownership of multiple parcels in this area so they can likely get access from themselves. Although they still have to do that. Um, but I don't see why they would need access through their neighbor's property if they kept it on the frontage to 20.

0:57:495. They could access 20. 5. Yes. They wouldn't need to go through their, their neighbor's parcel unless they were coming to the south. Of their parcel. Okay. Thank you. And I really appreciate the board entertaining my question. Just there were several things there that I just couldn't quite understand. Um, so those are, that's the extent of my questions. That's what we're here for to get questions answered or actually what Liz is here for. Not me. Um, Commissioners, let me know any questions. I don't have questions. Thank you. And I didn't have any questions. Did you have any further questions or discussion? I do have some discussion. I mean, from my perspective, I think it is really important if we are going to move this building, um. Essentially to the back of the property in the middle of all of the farms in that area, uh, that we come up with some way to memorialize that the road that is being used on an adjacent parcel is the way that they're going to access that site.

0:58:53It seems counter to our conservation programs interests actually to move this building envelope to the back of the property. I do understand that they chose to put irrigation in that makes it complicated to build where they have approval already. And I think that these things last for a lot longer than irrigation lasts and having the home site in the back of the property likely in a future generation will lead to, um, not farming the entire property, in my opinion. And so I think it's important if we are going to entertain not clustering the buildings adjacent to the road as we do when it's in our own county, that we've come up with some way to document that we're not encouraging long driveway graded in all the way to the back of the property through the middle of what was a farm. At least now it's a farm. And so I think we need to do a bit more work if we are entertaining this. I also think it's completely reasonable not to entertain this. Um, and stick with the tradition of having the farmhouses, um, close enough to the road that you can still farm the rest of the property in the back. I think this looks like it's setting it up to be, um, not a farm in the future. So I think I

1:00:07actually do have a question then, um, for Liz. I believe you said that there is a provision in the conservation easement that is being amended that addresses creation of any sort of additional roads in this area. Could you happen to have that language handy and what would that language satisfy you Commissioner Stolzman? Let's look at the language together because what it looks like to me is that it allows for a driveway. So that is what I'm talking about as a road. Like if we had a language in the amended. Yeah. I think let's look at the language was referring to together. Just because I could be looking at the wrong thing. No, that's fine. But I, this is amending an underlying conservation easement. And I understood what Liz to say to me that there is existing language that is not being changed. So it may be that we have to read these two things together.

1:01:09I don't know. Do you have that language, Liz? And then we can turn to the language in the amendment. Yes. I do. So, um, paragraph three C of the Conservation Easement does allow for the maintenance repair and use of all roads that are existing on the property as of the date of this easement. And that was a farm road. It does, um, it does go on a portion of the property. It's kind of split right down the middle of, um, those two properties that the Rin Valley Farms owns together. And it says current roads may be relocated if necessary to accommodate agricultural operations, including accommodating irrigation equipment, um, and they have the right to create and pave a road for ingress and egress to any building envelope on the property. So we would consider the road that is there existing now that they are going to use. We would consider that their ingress and egress.

1:02:06And we wouldn't entertain, um, the creation or the pavement of a new road to this building envelope. Could you put the language up because what you're saying is just not what the linguistic, like the language doesn't say that we have the right to deny them a driveway. At least how I'm reading it. Sure. My screen here. So I'm looking down here at this last paragraph. We don't have that on the screen yet. There it looks like it's, okay. Now we, um, John, are you able to make that larger on the screen so we have in front of us. Uh, yes, I am. Just a one moment. I'll have that appear on screen. Thank you. That's great. Thanks. So it's the last sentence that's giving me trouble. Shall I have the right to create and pave a road for Ingress and Ingress to any building envelope on the property. What would you like that to say? Well, so right now the building envelope is at the front of the property. So you could build a driveway. From the front of the property to the front of the property the way I read that. You could anywhere in the property, put a road from the front of the property to that new building envelope in the back. So essentially if we were to move it to the back, I

1:04:02think we need to strike that sentence and say that the existing agricultural road that's on the eastern boundary is what's going to be used to access the building lot at the back of the property. So your concerned that. They could put a new access road right down the middle of the property. Correct. I believe that that says that they can. And put trees on both sides. They'll be cherry trees on both sides. We want farm it anymore. There's going to be a mansion in the back. It just won't be a fun. I understand. Like it will understand your concern. It's going to become. Yeah. And it does say current roads. Maybe relocated if necessary. Well, to accommodate agricultural operations. I mean, it's not prescriptive. It's not, it's not as prescriptive as I think Commissioner Stolzman would like it to be. I'm sorry, Liz. I didn't mean to talk over you. Oh, that's okay. Um, I would just add that. So these conservations also give us the ability to, um, deny anything that we would think would be like detrimental to the Conservation Values of this property. And I think just as you're describing Commissioner Stolzman, if they were to propose a paved driveway straight down the center of this agricultural field, we would say that's detrimental to the agricultural values of the property that this

1:05:20conservation easement has been written to protect. And we would not allow that. It would not be permitted. Can you put that language up on the screen. Sure. Let's see. Bear with me here. Okay. So. One point here. And there's language throughout these conservations that, um, that highlight that same concept. But right here is, is one of them where we intend to confine the uses of the property looking at E here. And we would prevent any uses on the property that would substantially diminish materially and pair or materially adversely impact any of the properties conservation values. And we would consider, you know, the agricultural, um, importance of this property to be a conservation value. I may weigh in here for a moment if that's okay. Thank you. Thanks, Liz, for the additional information. And it is helpful to, to see the conservationist meant that we're amending or being requested. And just from a also discussion standpoint in the packet in regards to the recommendation, uh, I saw in there about keeping existing, building envelope, the way it's described. And it's current location, which result in the loss of approximately 12 acres of irrigable, I think I said the right irrigable farmland.

1:07:00And then it talks about the conservation ensures that water remains tied to the property installation of the lateral sprinkle system has not only improved efficiency of the water rights by replacing blood irrigation across the maximize the amount of irrigated tooth existing configuration. And then what you just shared in the previous document, to me does have a focus on the agricultural operations. So I appreciate Consultor Stolzman kind of the concerns that you're bringing up. And my interpretation of what's in the conservation easement with the amendment, the focus on agriculture. I don't have any concerns about what's being, um, recommended here. Okay. That's great. Um. Does this LA your concerns, that paragraph? No, but there are three of us. And so it is completely fine with me to move on also. I just, we would never allow this to happen in our county. And I think this is contrary to the point of conservation program. Yeah. Like we don't have houses in the back of property. Yeah, no, I recognize. And I did want to make sure that you're, you know, we fully explored because I had, did not have the benefit of reading the underlying agreement.

1:08:11And so I needed to satisfy myself as well. And I think with that language, I am satisfied that, uh, that this amendment is prudent. And so I would go ahead and move forward with approving it. And if you prefer not to make the motion? I would rather not, but I can make a motion and vote against it also. Whatever is everyone's planning? I think for records, it helps if you do that. I'll move approval of, uh, Agenda item six. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second all in favor. Say aye. Aye. I am a post. Same sign. No. Okay. And so that is approved on a vote of two to one with Commissioner Stolzman voting no. We're now ready. And thank you, Liz, for joining us now ready for confirmation of executive session.

1:08:59Good afternoon. Commissioners Natalie Spring Commissioners Deputy for the record. I'm here to confirm that the executive session topics that were noticed at the March 31st, 2026 regular business meeting of the board were discussed as scheduled. And this is simply a note for the record. So I'm happy to move us to item four, which is a request for authorization for executive session. Commissioners, I'm requesting authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into executive session on Wednesday, April 8th, 2026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4b. Legal advice for the following topics. One, The Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport Case, Tatum Superior v Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County, Colorado Court of Appeals case number, 25 CA0836 and Eldorado Artesian Springs Inc., the Board of County Commissioners at Al Boulder District Court case number 24CV30530 and I'd request a vote on this today. Move approval. Second. Okay, all in favor. Aye. So that is authorized. We now come to our work session. And we have three topics that we're going to be addressing this afternoon. Um, and the way we're going to do this is, um, is the Janna Peterson, our County Administrator is going to lead the discussion and serve as our moderator or facilitator, I'll say.

1:10:40And, um, and these are all departments that report to the County Administrator and her span of control. Uh, and, and as the agenda item says, this is I'm taking a few minutes to set the table for this conversation because this is sort of a new thing for us is that we're going to be exploring and discussing. And perhaps providing some direction, but not taking formal action at this time. Is that a good way to describe this. Commissioners Jana Peterson County Administrator. Yes. Commissioner Levy. That is a great way to describe it. So Commissioners, we're here today with three important topics for you in relationship to your future decision making for Boulder County. And the purpose of the work session is really to share staff's information and perspective on these three topics with you and then take your feedback, um, to bring back for future decision making processes in times, um, places where that's appropriate. Our three topics today we're going to start with H. R.

1:11:471. From the Human Services Department, because this is a relatively new process for us, we got a lot of human services staff here because we aren't sure where you want the conversation to go. So, um, we're going to be starting with Deputy Director Carrie Hunt as your primary presenter. And then depending on your discussion and conversation, we have other staff available to answer questions. Um, once that topic is completed, we'll ask for a short recess. So we can set up for our next topic, which will be the mental and behavioral health tax that was approved by voters in November of last year. So with that introduction, um, I'd like to turn things over to Carrie Hunt. Thank you, Janne. Is this on? Corey Hunt, Deputy Director for Boulder County Human Services. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thanks for having us. Um, we're here to present on the H. R. One Impacts. As we know them to Boulder County Human Services and to the County at Large, um, you've seen the memos, so I'll go through the presentation a little bit. The bottom line or top line is that, uh, the changes that we see through H. R.

1:12:53One increased barriers for eligible residents, uh, residents were eligible for these services. The law is not so much reducing the need for these services as much as it's making it harder for people to keep benefits that they qualify for already. Um, it's affecting both healthcare and food assistance as we currently know. And, um, while there are some changes to who qualifies some of the biggest impacts are on what people need to do to stay on, uh, these benefits. There's more paperwork, more reporting, more deadlines. That will be the theme that you'll see throughout this presentation. And what we expect to see is that more people will lose their benefits because of process, not because of their eligibility. So a little bit about what's changing. At a high level, both programs are moving in the same direction. People have to keep proving that they qualify for the services not once, but over and over. Um, the, um, recertification process for both snap and Medicaid. We'll be moving from annual to six month recertifications. Um, and in those recertifications and qualifications, Medicaid, uh, individuals as well as SNAP individuals. Sorry. Let me go back and set adults who are in the medicated exemption population population must now qualify by demonstrating at least 80 hours of work. Or as you see volunteering, uh, working are going to school,

1:14:25uh, that's in a change for medicate expansion adults. Similarly for, um, under SNAP, ADOD, Abel bodied adults without dependence. We'll also now have to, I'm sorry you guys, I got apologize. Um. Under snap. Adults 55 to 64 will now have to, uh, qualify for their, uh, work requirements as well. Uh, I'm sorry you guys. I just have a lot on my mind right now. I'm sorry. Um, families, uh, with children up to 14 years of age under Snap will also need to, um, have work requirements and qualify under work requirements. So those are changes under Medicaid and SNAP in terms of the work requirement, uh, components. They're also individuals who will no longer be eligible for SNAP. Those are veterans, um, unhoused and former foster youth or apologies again. Veterans unhoused and former foster youth are no longer exempt from these work requirements under Medicaid, refugees and asylutes are no longer eligible for those benefits.

1:15:34So those are some of the changes that are happening in these two services. Let me get my head on straight. What this looks like for one client. This is not a real client, but an example of the kind of clients that we see at human services. Um, so we've got Maria, 42 - year - old parent. Um, she's working part - time and caring for her teenager, qualifying for both medicated and SNAP. This is not uncommon. Um, but now must report under H. R. 1 80 hours of work activity or going to school or volunteering a month. Um, and also result of that, uh, into in order to keep these benefits, she must respond to more frequent paperwork and more deadlines. And here's where we see the rub. What we expect is that, um, individuals may miss a notice or may not be able to balance their work and caregiving in time to respond to request for information. And so a snap case gets closed due to missing due to missing documentation or a medicated renewal is delayed. And those, uh, as a result of that, we introduce more churn into the system as she comes to reapply for those benefits or comes to requalify for Medicaid. So the results that we see are that this individual would lose their food support potentially lose their

1:16:44health care and then spend more time trying to reply working to, um, get their benefits reinstated. So for residents, this becomes a monthly task that they have to stay on top of versus, uh, in the previous iterations when folks who quatize for these benefits had to recertify annually. This becomes a more ongoing effort for folks who are benefiting from these, uh, services. You have to track their hours. They had to submit a paperwork. They have to respond to more notices. And if they miss something, um, their benefits can stop, which introduces churn into our system as they try to reapply for these benefits. And that will mean gaps in food assistance, delays in health care coverage and time spent reapplying instead of, um, working or caregiving. Impacts to our community. Just a little bite about the scale of this. 45, 000 Boulder County residents receive Medicaid. 19, 000 as of March 26 are receiving SNAP.

1:17:47These changes don't apply to everyone in these populations, but this churn is introduced into a system that has this many people in engaged in it. As an example, some of the research preliminary estimates around SNAP is that up to 30, 3000 residents in Boulder County could lose their benefits from SNAD. Um, so that's not only the gap in the food that those families will experience. But they're also estimate that the impact of the local economy and that there are, um, impacts to healthcare costs downstream as a result of those folks potentially losing their SNAP benefits. We don't have information right now on the impact, particularly for Medicaid. Specifically how that might impact clients. That's something that, um, the state and the counties are continuing to work on in order to establish the metrics and understand what the guidance is from the feds to be able to interpret what part of the population may be being impacted by the Medicaid changes. So this is what we expect. And I've kind of spoken to a little bit about this. Um, we expect increased churn, um, reapplications, folks appealing decisions when they've missed some paperwork or paperwork has been reviewed and they have, uh, contrary opinion. We expect that they'll be higher call center and navigation demands as people try to understand how these, uh, new changes apply

1:19:10to them and how they can reapply to get their benefits. And then all of that exists, all of that results in more pressure on staff and community partners who are trying to help these people to navigate this new benefit structure and also navigate when they've lost their benefits how to, um, how to address that. What we're doing on the, uh, Human Services End is working to improve our accuracy to reduce potential penalties from, um, error rates associated with SNAP and Medicaid. We're also working to increase our efficiency so that we, um, can reduce the impact of the churn by having technological solutions in place. And we're doing that in conjunction with the state that's looking to update state systems to support these changes as well as looking at our own systems and our own technology systems and also the way that we work. Um, introducing lean improvements, uh, lean process improvements to our work in order to make sure that we're as efficient as possible for folks. And we're not introducing more, um, obstacles to reapplication. Then need to be introduced. Um, we've already expanded some of our employment first partnerships anticipating the additional need for clients to access work. We're trying to work through our employment first program to make sure that we've expanded partnerships with organizations so that folks can find opportunities to

1:20:31work. And we're also working in terms of the technology improvements and the process improvements to make sure that the people that we're referring to those programs are situated, our best situated to go into work. So we don't want folks getting referred to work programs that aren't necessarily in a position to move quickly into any positions. And then finally working again with the state to strengthen our data and forecasting around this. I mentioned that we don't have the Medicaid data that we'd like to in order to, um, extrapolate some of the impacts right now. But across the board working with the state folks and working with the counties to try to understand what the requirements of the bill are as it relates to identifying folks who are receiving benefits and what those changes might mean for them. Um, and so there's a lot of, uh, interpretation and trying to understand what the bill asked for. Um, and making sure that we can translate that into technical definitions for when we look at who might be impacted on this. We're able to look at the data and identifying who those people are. So some of the takeaways from this, um, these changes do not reduce the need, but they do increase some of the barriers for folks who are eligible to get these services in order to

1:21:47access those services. We think that impacts will be felt by the residents first as they attempt to comply with these new requirements, um, we'll find themselves responding to more requests for paperwork and potentially finding themselves missing paperwork and having to come in and appeal for benefits. And then we expect that impact to spread to our community systems as partners seek to help folks who have, are trying to navigate this new world. Um, Boulder County expects to see increased churn. Um, increased demand and increased operational pressure on our staff as we work to try to, uh, manage the changes and manage the churn that we expect to see from clients trying to, um, navigate these changes. So I'll end with some questions for the commissioners. What an additional information related to H. R. 1 would be helpful for you as commissioners as we move forward. And also are there adjustments or additions to the operational focus that you would like for us to investigate as human service as staff. And I apologize. This is not the best presentation I've ever done. We are all new to that. And it was still great. Being first uploading. Thanks.

1:23:02Yeah. No, thank you. All right. Commissioners now we're turning to you for your discussion. And questions direction wherever you want to take the conversation. Thank you. Thanks Carrie. It was a great presentation appreciated. And Jennifer being here. And the team I'm hoping books will jump in if there's something specific that we ask that you all are here to share with us. Uh, just a couple of questions to kind of for me said the context for the conversation. You talked about if somebody loses their benefits in this scenario that you shared. But it didn't hear how long would it take for someone to reapply? Like what is the, what I would consider kind of a punishment if you don't read your mail and you don't get your notice or whatever the format is. Is there a certain amount of time that people are then penalized? Like they can't reply to a certain time or they just have to go through a re - application process. It was a curiosity. We're going to have Susan Grutzmacher with some of the technical answers. Thank you. Hi, Susan Grutzmucker Communities, our support division director in Human Services. Um, they would not be a change to that commissioner. Um, they would just reapply normally through the normal process. And, um, for Medicaid, uh, the state requires us up to 45

1:24:21days. So there could be an up to 45 day delay for snap. It's 30 days. Um, unless they're in the expedited route, which is seven days. We do strive to try to, um. Complete all of our work within seven days. That is our goal. It is not a requirement. And it's the 3045 days. Thank you. And then the other question I had was, and I think maybe it's a little bit of the discussion. What you're sharing. Well, I think for me going into your questions at the end or on my screen, I was looking up there. That might screen here. Um, on additional information. For me, it's this kind of bigger question about what is the county's role. And I think that's maybe what we're here to talk about a little bit. What does the county's role in helping that 3, 000 number and maybe more deal with what H. R. 1, one of the pieces of H. R. 1 impacts. So I think that for me is one of the conversations. I wondered, Carrie, in your presentation too, and I just didn't get the notes all written down. So it's just for me. You talked about somebody would have to either be working volunteering.

1:25:29And then there was something else that you stated. Right. The 80 hour requirement in Susan can jump in here too, but it's work going to school or volunteering. And the reason why I'm thinking I'm asking that is because I've got some folks, um, one of our school districts she's looking at internship, opportunities, Boulder County and other. And I just wasn't sure if like is an internship does that fall in somewhere in either work or volunteering and or is that something if we decided this was a role that we wanted to take on in a larger way that we would need to look at those specifics. So that was the curiosity. I think those are their questions that I have right now. I don't want to speak to whether or not with the internship qualifies. Could you come forward in just a microphone? Thank you. Yes.

1:26:20Um, Susan Gretzmacher again. And yes, that would count. And thank you. And the question just because there's different people asking like, what do we do and how do we hop? And what's the partnerships and all these things. And I think that's going to continue. But if there is a different, I think it'd be helpful for us to understand at some point. It doesn't have to be today. If a paid internship versus an internship or those types of thing, I think we're going to become a conversation, especially when we talk about funding for anybody, not just Boulder County and a structural deficit. That's great. Yeah. So more, um, I guess like some or clarification from us on what all qualifies to meet these work requirements. Sounds like a takeaway for us. Thank you. Thank you. And then the only other thing I was going to just add maybe I'm trying to figure out which one of the questions on my screen. It fits to, but, um, workforce development and our Boulder County workforce. I understand we had a previous presentation of employment first, but haven't as a group, um, recently heard from our workforce Boulder County just to understand how those two connect in the presentation that we did here together, um, what I heard from staff was that the different programs and that they intertwined

1:27:30and kind of support each other. And so that is one thing I think that we'll need to talk about in regards to how we help residents address this piece of the H. R. 1 impact. And I'm sorry, I have one other question. Right. When I said that, I forgot to ask, um, is there something as far as a timeline with H. R. 1. Is there something that talks about because my understanding of H. R. 1 and the pieces to it? But some of the items that were put forth by the federal administration had like later timelines of when this would happen. So that's my interpretation of 2027 for this. But is there any action happening that would repeal, that would change, um, some of these, like, is that something that's still being, I'm assuming, being fought, um, a federal congressional action. Otherwise, just because what I'm concerned about, my takeaway from this federal administration is it's been creating chaos. In so many places and for so many people. And then it might get repealed. And you all are doing a ton of work. And then what happens if it changes? And we're to go to a program that was reasonable. And that was the part of, et cetera. Yes. Susan Gretzmacher again. Yes. Something that keeps me up at night for sure. Um, because there

1:28:50is a ton of work. The state is, um, also not sleeping because they are working on, uh, changing our systems to meet this new law. The Medicaid work requirements do go into effect. I think the state, the couple of things that are happening, um, so they're, they're changing the timelines a little bit. So things are 60 days out. So about November timeframe this year is when this will start impacting residents. So it's really a pretty short time frame. And I do believe that there are potentially some lawsuits that are asking for like extensions because we are not expecting federal guidance from, um, The federal government until June of this year, which really crunches the time frame into like three to four months to get these systems updated and communications out and everything. So thank you.

1:29:45Commissioner Stolzman. Thank you very much. Um, so I thought that was a fantastic presentation. Cari. So if you thought it was a bad one, I would love to see a good one. That is, we'll put that on primetime TV. Um, you did a great job. I really think it's important that we continue to underscore for the community that H. R. One has intentionally shifted costs from the federal government to counties in our case in some states. It states in our state, it's to counties and several other states. That's true too. And it's created additional bureaucracy. And so I think it would be helpful if we try to at a high level. I'm not talking about to this penny or to the, you know, even to the dollar, but if at a high level, we try to track the cost of reinstating benefits for people. Um, the narrative that's being tried to portray at a national levelist that there's waste and that that's why we're taking people's benefits away. And that's why we're starving people. And in fact, we're kicking people off that qualify for benefits that need help and support from the community because the unjust system in our country. And we've agreed that these are the criteria in which people can get benefits. So now we're kicking people off that do qualify and creating

1:30:56extra work at the local level to get the Maria enrolled. And so that is a complete waste of community resources. It is exactly the thing that they are pretending that they're trying to eliminate is waste fraud and abuse. And we're creating a system that makes people afraid and wastes our resources. And so if we could get at the local level and then at the state level, what we think the shift that we've seen from this is we could use that information in a couple of different ways. One, just to help community members understand this big shift in funding that's pushing money and costs down to the counties. National Association of County says estimated that their estimation over a 10 year period with just one portion of H. R. 1 is a trillion dollars in cost shifted to the counties in a 10 year period of time. Um, and that, that means a lot for a few reasons. One, it's money that the county is currently are spending on other things, whether it's infrastructure or community services or, or things that they need to support their communities are responsibilities as counties. But two, it's a big deal because most counties like our county rely heavily on property taxes, um, and so, um, the most progressive tax that we have in the country usually as income tax.

1:32:13I mean, these are all qualified statements. But by shifting so much of the cost of these benefits from a somewhat progressive tax to a somewhat regressive tax has other implications as well. To the community. So we're not only shifting from a federal funding source to a local funding source, but we're also shifting from a progressive source to a regressive source. So it doubles down on the magnitude of the problem. So if we get that information about the cost of the bureaucracy that's been created by this and about the waste that's created by this, we can talk to our partners in Congress. And when we each lobby in DC and when we each talk with different people, we end up talking to Republicans and Democrats and Bernie are independent guy. Um, so it is important to be able to speak the language of someone else. And if we can show some of the Colorado Republicans in Congress, how much waste this is created, that will get their attention. So that would be really helpful to be able to show and see. And that will help us communicate too with, you know, counties around us that may feel a little bit different, but they still know they need to help their community members that need food benefits.

1:33:22They still know that they want to do it in an efficient, effective way and all of those things. So if we could get some of that data and help tell that story and highlight to people what's really happening here, I think that would go a long way. Thanks. Great. And I'll just add a couple thoughts. Information, presentation, and I appreciate it. Um, we got a lot of information pretty early on around, you know, what was NHR - 1. And you, so, you know, the time is approaching when this is actually going to start impacting people in a very, very significant way. What you didn't mention is whether you've done any estimates on additional staffing that we may need in order to keep up with, uh, with this churn. So, you know, 3, 000 people that are going to be maybe reapplying. We're going to be chasing them down to try to make sure their applications are complete, et cetera, et cetera's quite labor intensive. So, you know, along the lines of what Commissioner Stolzman was saying of, you know, really trying to document what exactly Congress and the Trump administration have done to us and our communities and the people we care about. I think, you know, understanding that impact would be important. Commissioner Levy, do you want to stop right there? Because we may

1:34:49have some information about that. I know we had some last year. I just don't know. If it's been updated. Do you want to take that for later? Yeah, I think I get through. Okay, we'll bring that back. Okay, yeah, I think, you know, again, because we're, we're entering budget season here. It seems like we're always in budget season, but, um, but, you know, we, we do need to understand what we need to do to continue to take care of people in Boulder County. So I guess also along those lines. You know, the question about internships and does this qualify or not qualify. And I was actually surprised, Susan, that you were able to answer that question because my understanding is that we actually don't really know. They haven't done the whole guidance process that they have to go through, which is an administrative process. I believe governed by the administrative procedures act, which requires notice and comment in a period of consideration, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know how they're going to possibly provide the guidance that's going to be needed to implement us.

1:35:59And then I think Carra, you mentioned the state working on some technological solutions because another issue that was raised early on is how we don't have systems right now for people to actually enter their work information. You know, that's, that's user - friendly. So what discussion has there been on that? Like just the mechanics of people on a daily basis, a weekly basis, whatever, reporting all of this. Do we have a CBMS. I think. A question, okay. The state's working very diligently on this. I know there's nonprofit agencies and different technological agencies also working with open source code to try to help states just adopt simple ways to allow people to kind of provide their work requirement information. That's, that's one thing. But I do, as far as we know, the state has not told us exactly what that will look like. Um, they've received guidance from CMS that they need to have a minimum viable products within the next couple of months. Um, but we don't know exactly what that looks like. And then again, they are pushing as much technology as possible to try to simplify things. Um, we'll be implementing intelligent character recognition to try to redocuments and put those directly into the system. So things like that are happening currently. Okay.

1:37:37Oh, another one of those, you know, bombs that was dropped. And then we're just told to deal with it. Yes. Somehow. That's commissioner leave you. If I might just add from the Colorado County's incorporated subcommittee group, the state has committed that there will be technological solutions and have identified money substantial money. We all still don't know if it's enough or what the solutions are just as Susan is saying. But they have continued to recognize that the current infrastructure that we are using will not work. And so that is important that they've acknowledged the state has acknowledged that and that the group is working through. And it's a, it's a very, um, good group of mixed large County, small counties, uh, urban counties, rural counties, conservative counties, progressive counties working, um, to represent all of our interests together on that. So I do think that that has been heard a lot and clear that there's still no answer. But that part of it is there. Yeah.

1:38:30Well, what that's going to be an important one. Um, and then I, I also just wondered about, um, so you said that refugees and asylees are not eligible at all, period. Uh, any longer as of some date. So wouldn't that take a change in the law? Did Congress actually amend the Medicaid and Medicare? I forget the formal name of those, those laws. Did they actually amend those statutes to take that eligibility away. You're above my pay level right now. Okay. I can get an answer to that question. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I don't know. It's and then I wonder, you know, because we do have the ability to apply for some waivers and we have the ability to do some optional expansion, but only, I guess, within certain, um, parameters. I wonder whether there's any way Colorado could serve that population in another way. Of course, not that we have the budget to do it and medicate as 50 - 50 match. So yeah. Okay.

1:39:42Um, I think those were just the questions that came to mind for me during this presentation. Anything else. Before we move on? I don't have additional questions. I just want to acknowledge somewhere in the presentation it was talking about the high level of stress for folks in your position that I'm looking at the staff and human services, um, what you are dealing with right now is really significant. And the fact that you're all here still working on behalf of Boulder County residents. I just want to acknowledge that there's a lot to it. And it's not just the work. It's the emotional toll. And the stories, the composite that you shared, uh, is based on real lives that you all have experience. I just want to acknowledge all that work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

1:40:24It's always important to keep in mind that this is about real people. Okay. Commissioners. What I'd like to do is summarize, you know, sort of the questions, concerns, um, takeaways to use Susan's word that we heard just to make sure we've captured everything to bring back to as this, um, continues to evolve. So, um, I heard you ask for clarification on what types of activities would qualify for work requirements. And that is pending some federal guidance. So we can bring that back at a later date. Um, you also ask for more information on how H. R. 1 may intersect with the work of workforce Boulder County in the Community Services Department. You asked us to track local and work with the state track state costs to implement HR1 in service of supporting partner discussions with other governments around cost shifting and waste. And specifically what additional staffing the county may need that would come through, um, a budget process for your consideration. And then finally some curiosity around of Colorado can support populations that are losing benefits through waivers or other means. Is there anything else, um, that I may have missed in your discussion.

1:41:45The only thing I want to just put out there, and I don't know which discussion or which meeting would be, I think Boulder County in Human Services does a really good job of addressing culturally competent work and also language, not just plain language, but also language access. So I just want to offer that to the conversations about how that, you know, we can control, we can control as Boulder County and goes back to the question about what is our role in my opinion. And for those of you that are in this meeting is just to continue to ask that when I look at the data and what you were sharing, that is a concern for folks in my, in my opinion. I know y'all share this too. So that would be my only ask. Thank you, Commissioner, and I've captured that as our, what are we doing to create accessibility for clients who are impacted?

1:42:37And that is, um, something that H. S. Department is focused on as well. Thank you. Good. Okay. Commissioners, that wraps up HR1. I'd like to request a break for a couple of minutes so we can get set up for our next discussion. May I ask it really quick, just one more question just to understand, heard you at the beginning, Janet presenting this information would come back at, I think you said the appropriate plays or the appropriate time. So just for us to understand, um, where would, where are we going to hear back about this? This item first seems like it's just kind of an ongoing as things develop. But I just was curious if it would be coming back to work session. Or where we would hear more information. Great question. Um, I think this is a little bit in the design and subject to your feedback. But what I'm thinking is most of this does come back to you in the work session. And then part of it will have to come back to you in the budget process. Um, just, you know, pending the guidance as that comes forward. Thank you. Okay. All right. So it's two o'clock, 205. Does that work? That sounds great. Okay. Just so we can keep moving. All right. We'll be in recess for till 205. Thanks Commissioners.

1:43:55I think we're ready to resume our work session. Just waiting for the cue. Okay. So we are back on the record. And the next topic. Is The Muticipated Discussion about how to allocate the funding from the voter - approved mental and behavioral health tax. And so again, you've got a presentation, we've got some staff that can answer questions. And you've got some questions that you've teed up for the board. So Janet, take it away. Good afternoon again, commissioners. Jani Peterson Boulder County Administrator. I'm joined here with our Community Service Director, Robin Bohannon, to talk to you about implementation of the mental and behavioral health tax that was approved by voters last fall, are purpose today is to seek your direction on next steps to get the dollars out the door related to this new funding source. And with that, I'm going to turn things over to Robin. Thank you, Jana. Commissioners, thanks for this time.

1:45:15Robin Bohannon with a Boulder County Department of Community Services. And I'm joined today with our behavioral health program managers, Kelly Vite and Marnie Huffman Green. For any questions that might come up during your discussion. Do I use them out, or just there? I was zeroing. So far agenda today, we're going to provide a brief background through the slides about where we've been and where we want to go. And then we're going to be asking for you to comment and ask questions about our staff recommendations. Including those related to our hybrid funding model, and also the potential use of an advisory council. So we hope to get your direction on moving forward with a budget amendment. So we can get our work begun. Again, your direction on the funding approach, of advisory board. So some background information. We've had discussions with Community Services staff and leadership starting in November when the ballot was passed. We reviewed the Core Ballat components, the funding categories, and the priority populations. We've reviewed funding allocation potential models and strategies, as well as what an advisory committee might offer this process.

1:46:52And then you've received a draft budget that incorporates all of this in terms of defining potential service areas and agencies that could use this funding. So you have agreed on the global goal of 1B and the interpretation of priority populations that were written in the ballot. We are waiting again for your approval of our funding model. We're waiting for your approval of an advisory committee and your approval of the budget. And those are the next steps. So just to provide background and context again, the taxes intended to fund critical mental and behavioral health services and Boulder County. And the priority populations that were identified in the ballot and aligned in initial discussions with you all, our youth, homeless, and formally homeless adults. People diagnosed with serious mental illness or addiction and historically underserved populations. So the first information that we'd like from you and your direction is around the budget, which includes funding amounts by category, as well as the required reserve. So we've provided an estimated budget based on what we anticipate. What we would get from the tax. And just to let you know, we're still in conversations with OFM around their projections and how the budget amendment might solidify. The original estimates are shown based on a total annual budget of 12.

1:48:4165 million. And then there will be an additional 10 percent required reserve. And you can see by this pie chart, how those funds would be categorized for each priority population. And I wonder, Commissioners, if we want to pause right here, you know, we're here just to seek your direction and whether you want to do this in chunks and start with a discussion around the budget and then come back to the other two topics or whether you want us to go through the full presentation is really at your pleasure. Good. I have a clarifying question on this. This first question about, so. From my understanding, we need to authorize the expenditure of these funds through a budget amendment. But, and that, would that necessarily include the actual spending allocations, or is this just budget authority for decisions that we will hopefully make or provide direction on today? So is this, or do we have to make all the decisions in order to authorize the expenditure of the funds is my question. Uh, so it's a two - step process. What we're hoping to get from you today is really your direction on what you want the tax to accomplish in what types of areas than Community Services will work with the OFM team to build that into the budget. As you know, our budget system doesn't

1:50:16line up neatly programmatically. It's in specific Oracle categories and things like that that we would have to bring back to at a future date for budget adoption based on the direction that we take from you today. Is that answering your question? No. Okay, let me try. So what I understood from a conversation quite a while ago, uh, that, and I think it was actually prior to our adoption of the 2026 budget that we could authorize the expenditure of up to 13. 6, whatever that number is. Um, that we, you are asking us to do that in our budget in advance of the specific, more specific direction about how to spend the money. So my question is, are you still asking for that overall spending authority? As one point of decision, in addition to the exact allocation of the money as a different point of decision.

1:51:28Thank you for reminding me at that point in time. Uh, we were having that conversation in the context of loading a budget for 2026. So that was in the context of your, at the time, it was appending budget adoption in December. Um, where I've made a suggestion that you could load a preliminary budget and then we could come back and seek clarification and direction. I'll just say that window has passed. And now I think you're at the point in time where we would be more helpful for the staff if you can be more specific. Okay. That answers my question things. Yeah. Okay. Other questions or discussion on budget or should we continue? I have some questions that fit into all the categories. So you can answer them later or now. So the category that we're now calling foundational services and infrastructure, um, previously, I think that this was called navigation, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. It seems like it cross walks almost exactly to what, when we were talking about the ballot measure we were calling navigation. And during the ballot measured discussion in the fall, what seemed, it seemed like a nice round number, like just a point in number that it got moved to 10 percent of the tax. And I, what I still don't have and what is missing for

1:52:49me is the effectiveness of the programs that we've been running with the ARPA dollars. So the information that staff provided for me in the fall looked like we had served fewer than 1, 400 people since 2023 for about 4, 000 dollars per client for those services. So I'm just trying to understand what we are getting for that funding and why we would want to continue it and how that is an effective use of funding. So I'm going to turn to the team and look back and just see who wants to answer the question about, because those are the accurate numbers that we're provided in the fall. I don't know if we have updated information since that time. I want to talk about that, Kelly. Thank you. Hi Commissioner Skelly, by Boulder County Community Services. So our updated numbers right now for Kat and Well Mine, which with a programs, I believe you're referring to. And our latest Data Pulver 2025 that came out to about 1740 or actually 1720 interactions. Um, so that's inclusive of both in - person interactions. Um, mostly by the cat crisis Assistance team, uh, our community assistance and treatment team as well as our well - mind navigation team. Um, if you do the numbers on price per intervention, I believe that came out to something closer to 600 dollars

1:54:11per intervention. I think it was like 582. And I believe those revised numbers were sent over to about a month ago, but I can't confirm that exact timing. So does that help at all? And I know Marnie has some more that she can speak to in terms of the other ARPA equitable access outcomes. So I think my question may be higher level. And I appreciate what you said. Thank you very much. I think it's really just we have, um, a scare set of resources. Like we're all acknowledging there are big challenges. And then we have a lot of different populations we're trying to serve. So we've identified priority populations together. And we could, like if we only picked unhoused individuals, we could easily spend the entire tax, um, trying to support folks that are unhoused that have mental and behavioral health issues. So what I'm trying to understand is like the trade - off between the categories to some extent and like how we can determine that. I think that's what we're trying to determine today is the budget in these various categories. And then like how we can be sure that we're making, um, valid decisions or, you know, the best decisions we can about how to spend the money every single program we could possibly fund that is on our, on the table,

1:55:23um, is a good program. So that's not what I'm asking about. It's just about trade - offs. And so everything I've seen on what we're now calling foundational services leaves me scratching my head, um, when it's compared to some of the other things I'm being asked about funding. Like it just, I don't quite get it. So I'm just asking for maybe some higher level information about why we should spend 10 percent of the tax on these foundational services, like what we will, what we will show the community we've done with that. Can I suggest, Janet, maybe it might be helpful to have Marnie come and explain a little bit more about, about, you know, I mean, cause that is expensive per intervention. That's a pretty high number. And why, why is it worth spending that money? And there are other navigation. I think this has come up as well. There are other navigation services through signal, you know, through some of the nonprofits that offered navigation. So maybe you could just flesh out a little bit, give us, give us a little more about our program. Sure. Thanks, Commissioner Levi. Marnie Huffman Green apologized for the title. I'm the American Rescue Plan ARPA Mental Health and Social Resilience Program Manager Commissioners. Can you say that back? Before I speak to Kat and Wallmind, so as

1:56:40you know, I was tasked with really supporting implementation of all the ARPA dollars that have been designated for behavioral health. So that's about 11 million dollars. Um, There have been five buckets that were designated to really impact our community, especially looking at gaps of services. Uh, the buckets, as you know, were to develop a navigation team to develop a mobile crisis team to look at equitable access through trusted community partners to also work with school districts to increase their behavioral health counseling departments. And then lastly, something called Mini Mental Health Awareness grants. Commissioner Salzman, just one piece. And please tell me this is too weirdy and not high level enough. But, uh, straight off the press, and I want to give a shout out to Dr. Kim Strong, who is the ARPA senior business analyst.

1:57:28One of her tasks is to do a valuation on many mental health awareness grants. So that was 500, 000. These are preliminary results, but this morning she let me know that at least in that bucket, uh, trainings were people of color. Uh, health and mental health support, uh, were nonglish speaking residents. And then 43 percent were folks that access beaver. The reason I wanted to speak to that, and I can speak to Kat and Wildmine more specifically is that I, uh, and Robin, please crack me if I'm wrong. There was a, uh, actually you all know this. There was about an eight month Community engagement process to look at how we could use our best spending. That also was an alignment with the behavioral health roadmap, which really looked at nine specific criteria to increase our access. Equitable access to behavioral health services. We have incredible behavioral health services across the county. And one of the themes of the community set is we need more cultural responsive programs, behavioral health that really decolonized, not just language access, but decolonites how behavioral health is administered. So all of these are a projects. We're really a pilot Robin and Isotak a beautiful experiment to see, can we increase access, especially for folks that have been underserved historically, either overserved or underserved, overserved with policing response. Um, so

1:59:00Commissioner Lemi, I don't know if that's way too much. You want me to more specifically talk about cat and wildmined and why that had been prioritized by the community and what Kelly and I and our amazing cat and well, my team have looked to do to increase access. Well, it's really Commissioner Stolzman's question, but I thought as the person who has been administering it that you would be the one that could answer those questions. And I think it was really focused on Kat and well - minded. Or maybe mostly well - minded, I'm not sure, but it's Commissioner Stoltzman's question. Yeah. So my question is I'm just, we're being asked to set a budget for these priority populations and the proposed, what staff has put in as 10 percent of the funding would go toward foundational services and infrastructure, which I'm assuming is cat and well mind. But maybe it's not. So what I'm trying to understand is what would the outcomes that we would expect to be able to show the community out of this foundational services and infrastructure. We'll see reduced suicide rate with communities of color. I mean, I'm just trying to understand with what you just said if it's better access, then we'll see better healthcare, better, like what, what will happen. Yeah. Excellent question, Commissioner Stoltzman. And please jump in.

2:00:08I think, um, as you all know, there's no unicorn KPI or unicorn outcome measure. What we have seen with these ARPA dollars, um, and especially with Cat and Wildmind. And I just want further record, I worked at mental health partners for about 15 years, um, from 2000 on as a supervisor and practitioner. They're again, are just incredible behavioral health supports in our community. But one of the themes that community asked, uh, is to increase access. So absolutely, we want to see a reduction in behavioral health symptomology. We want to see an increase in overall wellbeing. But that can't occur unless we increase who is being served by behavioral who is being served in our community. So Cat and Wildmine were an attempt to meet that gap. Um, we've had conversations with signal. We work closely with all of our partners. And I think, and I would love to hear if all of you have heard any other information on Count and Well Mind, but up to this point, it sounds like folks have been really impressed by, uh, our team and being able to have bilingual and bicultural access where there is no wrong door.

2:01:14Um, so I hear that you'd like to see more information specifically about outcomes. And I'd love to give that to you, um, as we potentially end our program. I think we've heard from the community that this was a gap in service that folks really, um, wanted us to fill. And so that's what Kelly and I have been tasked with. So I guess a different way of asking the question because I just, I'm not trying to be stubborn, but like I genuinely can't. I don't feel like it was answered. So would you say the pilot program was successful. And if you would say that, why is what my question is asking it in another way. I would say it's successful, but I feel like, uh, Kelly and I are part of implementing that program. No, and I believe you just, and then if you'll just tell me why it's successful. And then that might all due respect. I think, um, I'm trying my best to answer your questions. And we've had these questions before. And it seems like at every attempt, I'm not doing a good job. So are you specifically asking for a specific KPI.

2:02:10I just, I'm just like, I believe you. I'm hearing you say this is a great program. It's successful. And I'm just asking you to explain why so I can understand it. Like I just have not heard that. And so like if you just ask me right now and I'm sure they'll vote for it because that's fine. Like I would just not be able to vote for this. I have no idea what we're funding or what we're getting for it. Sure. I hear that. Commissioners Nearly Spring at Commissioners Deputy for the Record apologies. Just kind of jumping into the conversation here. As a bit of a facilitation. I think what I was hearing Marnie describe was really kind of more the crux of how these programs were formed. In in conjunction with community and community identifying the gaps. And then by seeing the participation and utilization of these programs with our community members, um, that's just kind of a bit of what I was hearing as to, okay, we heard this need. We created programs to fill that need. And then we saw Community Members participate.

2:03:17And so I was kind of taken away that that was a success marker that they were, um, that Marnie was trying to share. Well, there might, maybe another way to come at this. I don't know. If we do not fund, let's just stick with navigation, well mind. What navigation services, how would people find the services? Because it is the case through the whole behavioral health roadmap and through all of the committee outreach that occurred when Commissioner Commissioner Locomain and I were, were, um, were first elected. And we got the ARPA money. That need, you know, the I don't know what I need. I don't know who to turn to. I can't find someone that speaks my language. I can't find someone that serves me because I'm trans. You know, we heard, I don't know how to find services. So if we don't fund this is there's some alternative way for people to actually find those services. If I may, um, piggyback. Uh, Robin Bohannon Community Services. I think what we heard what we've heard for decades is exactly that. There are services out there, but we don't know how to access them. And if, if well mind, um, went away, what's left is so signal and some of the work from clinical family services is really navigating people who are in crisis to determine whether

2:04:54or not they need to go to the hospital, to the ER, or go to jail. As opposed to navigate to services. Some agencies, for instance, mental health partners historically has had their internal navigation services. But, um, it's not meant for the general public. Um, we had, as Marnie mentioned, we have had conversations with Signal, who their numbers are very, very low in terms of, um, impacting Boulder County residents. And again, their services less about navigating to services and preventing hospitalization or jail to, again, both those things. So we feel like this has, um, filled a gap. And you can have all the services in the world. But if you don't know how to get them. They're not going to be effective. And we're going to be left with what we've experienced for the last many decades of people confused, not landing in services, ending up, um, increased destabilization. So this feels like, um, the front door to everything that happens next. Thank you, Commissioners. I want to add one more thing, which is, um, Robin was articulating the prevention piece of navigation services. It's in, it's very hard to prove a negative. Like how do you know how many folks didn't end up in the ER and the criminal justice system is sort of an impossible question. But what, what I'm taking away from some

2:06:29of the numbers that, um, Dr. Strong is putting together related to our programs is the folks who are accessing those services is a different demographic than we have seen in other navigation systems. And so when you're talking about your, uh, population of historically underserved community members, we do have some data to demonstrate that these specific programs, um, do address that specific population that you're interested in through access through front door, through getting people into a system. What we don't have is what I think you're asking for, Commissioner Stolzman is, what is the outcome of that. Well, and I also don't have any of what you've described. Like the number of people by race per month. Like just the numbers I have is a very small number of people that have been served. And sometimes it is really important to serve a very small number of people if they're very tricky to serve and other programs and gaps and all these things that I hear Robin saying, like verbally, but I'm not seeing that, well, we know X percent of the population needs to be served by this way. Like the math of it isn't making any sense to me. Like the numbers. The numbers make it hard for me to understand why spending this proportion of the tax on that. Is justified and it very

2:07:58well might be. I just don't have what you're describing. Like this, this percent of the population that it's serving, this, that, and the other, I just have not seen any of that. Yeah. It was late breaking this morning. So we will get that. Data. I made a note to you. Yes. Um, yeah, thank you. I was just on that one topic on the foundational service and infrastructure. That I was just going to say similar to what I heard you just say, Jonah, but what I heard was a 43 percent of the folks in that with the updated information for first time. Getting mental health services. To me, that's a win. If I think about my belief that Boulder County as a government has so many programs and services and resources. And this is just one that we're able to put together with all the different input from residents around Boulder County and experts in the field. And to say, here's what we need. And to be able to, we wouldn't have been able to fund it if we hadn't been in a situation like COVID.

2:08:55Right. So that to me is the, how we got to, what we're doing. And so for me to hear those numbers and it's new information, but what I heard was the 67 percent of folks who accessed our folks of color, the way it was described in the 60 percent language speakers and then 43 percent of this folks the first time. So for me that, um, that is some of the information that is really helpful. So I'm glad that you were able to bring it to us today to help understand, I think in that foundational services, I'm looking at one page in the packet. And I don't know what pack it everybody has, but my mind's the full one for today for 181 pages that I'm looking at page 172. It's the, uh, financial breakdown of the different options that were brought. And while my navigation was the very end at the very bottom on my screen, it shows this lane 15. That one shows a 650 number. So just to understand the foundational service and infrastructure, would you share what else, um, in that one million dollar. Or I'm sorry, not one million dollar portion.

2:10:07So you, you have it organized by, um, money for CAT and CAT separately, 650 and then while mine 650, um, it's cut, it's also includes the cost of getting the funds out into the community. So that's that infrastructure piece in terms of managing direct funding as well as, uh, potential, uh, competitive funding should you choose to go that way. So you see row 13 is the other number. So that, but that's 650 for CAT and then 654, well - minded as it's shared in this document that it does include the administration that you're referring. Okay. Um, and I think just a curiosity because I was thinking for some of our tax funds, we pull like a number off of the top for a reserve. Is that how this one is set up as well? And I'm just not in the right part. If you look at the line underneath the table, it shows the reserve amount at 1. 4 million. Okay. So it's just not shown in the graph, but it is allocated for in the other document. Okay. Correct. Janet, I guess I'm going to look to you for guidance on how to keep this conversation moving. Um, I, I think Commissioner Stolzman is asking very fair questions. Um, and I don't think we're going to be able to provide an answer that's going

2:11:29to be satisfying. And I do want to make sure that we keep moving. And because we have another topic and we really need to get this done. So are you wanting, um, I don't know, sort of line by line with this budget. Yeah. Help me, help me here. If I may commissioner, I kind of like the way Commissioner Stolzman was framing it, which is these are trade - off conversations for the three of you. So we've identified these categories, um, we've identified a proposed budget, which as you all know is a plan, right? A proposed plan for how that could work. Do the amounts in these categories look. Right to you. If not, how would you want to adjust them. And then what I'm looking for is direction from the board to go take this back to a conversation with The Office of Financial Management to prepare a specific budget amendment that would then come back to you at a public hearing. So this won't be your last time to look at it. But what we're seeking is kind of, are we on the right track with what staff is proposing for this estimates, um, for your initial appropriation. Yeah, go ahead. So actually, I don't feel like I should be the one calling. The way I describe what I think these discussions should be

2:13:02to both Janet and Natalie is we're going to, let's take the conversations in the way we did them around the table and we're going to put them in the hearing room. And Jana's the traffic cop and she's going to make sure we all get a chance to express ourselves. And we're just doing this thing on the record. Yeah. I feel the awkwardness of what is the meaning like when we, when you're usually at the dais and what is this new cell like so. Don't look at me. I saw, I saw Commissioner Lochiman raising her hand. Yeah. Okay. I will follow the direction. And this again for conversation, look and I'm pointing to the graph on the estimated budget. And there's two pieces for me that I really want to have some conversation about because when I think about the mental behavioral health tax and what we have set up right now that's for three years.

2:13:56The couple pieces that I want us to be able to hopefully get to talk about one about, you know, what would it look like if we made to your commitment on whatever it is that we decide on just to create some, you know, certainty in these sort of times. And also for staff just to be able to really focus in on that work. Um, so that's just, you know, just something to throw out there. I am also, um, as you've heard me talk about in the past and we'll continue to talk about, um, like how do we use this funding? Like how might, how might we address the root causes? And so for me, the way that this is broken down for youth to only receive 2. 6 million dollars out of this funding is a significant miss. And the reason why I say that is because mental behavioral health issues can become more costly.

2:14:48Um, as people move through their life. And so three years hasn't a lot of time in the grand scheme of even the questions we had today about, you know, quantitative data or qualitative data. And what might that look like if we dedicated even 50 percent of this funding to youth in Boulder County to try and get us to a different trajectory. And it doesn't mean that the other issues aren't important. But if we really want to do something different than we have to look at the connections that people have in the services and the programs and the resources, um, so that is, I just, I really feel like we're missing it if we are just kind of, and we've said this. I don't know how many times in this tax conversation at the dais, there's not enough money. To meet all the need. And so to have some initial parody populations, even in the ballot measure, we talked about that up here. Last year, I don't believe we can do, we can meet all of the priority populations. And that requires us to focus. And we've been talking about that and trying to get to that piece. But I, I just really believe that we're going to miss it. Um, when I think about goals for me, um. If all youth who reside in Boulder

2:16:14County have connections to Monte Behavioral Health Resources, including early screening slash diagnosis, but also have. The different interventions that have different resources that have different services. I think is actually going to get us to a different outcome than just the way that the language is focused and the recommendation. And I know you're all just trying to grab things from previous conversations. But the way I read the recommendation in the packet was focusing on screening. And I still feel, and this is just because I'm a parent in Boulder County and also because I was a teacher in St. Brain Valley School District. And so I saw mental behavioral health in different ways over a period of five years. And that five years from 2010 to 2015 indicated very different, very different conversations about mental behavior and health. And I say that meaning 2009, 2010 students were not high school students. We're not talking about mental behavior health 2015 students were clearly saying, Hey, this is my rubber band that I use so that I don't go into suicidal ideation. That's a significant difference. And we're talking about Boulder County. And my belief is that from 2015, Tun now, which is a decade. Understanding, I guess I can't even say understanding because I don't think we understand how significant I'm going to impact COVID has had on

2:17:44our youth, of all ages in regards to isolation and regards to. The disconnection. And it has impacting. And so I just, I really fail board. We're going to make a, we're going to miss a real opportunity if we, um, put the funding all in other areas and don't get our youth. And Boulder County a chance to get connected in rules. So Commissioner Lochiman, I hear you passionately advocating for more funding for youth. I saw your hand up Commissioner Levy. What I want to ask before we move on is where would you shift the dollars from. So if you want to see an increase in what's on the screen now is kind of the red bucket. Where would you imagine reducing to make that happen. Uh, and I just, the way that the number, maybe it's the 6. 5. The choice. The people diagnosed with a serious mental illness or addiction from that larger category? Is your suggestion? Yeah. I mean, because it's the largest bucket.

2:18:52So I don't have a bunch of other places to say here's another 10 million over here. Thank you. For clarifying. Thank you. And Commissioner Lee. Yeah. I, I, you know, I appreciate the passion around you. And I, and I share that. You know, this is, we have to address Community Expectations of what this money will be used for and who will be served when they voted for this money. And I don't pretend to know it was in the minds of the 64 and a half percent of the voting public voted in favor of this. But I do know from the many, many, many, many presentations that I did. And that my colleagues on this, um, campaign did. And the questions that I feel did in the emails and all of that in the testimony that we heard in this hearing room, um, regarding this tax is that the community, yes, they want. Primarily what we're hearing is the funding for the school districts to be continued. But they want services for, for the unhoused population and people with serious mental illness. And I think we have to live up to that expectation. So, um, you know, what I have wanted to put the money, a lot of money there, not necessarily, you know, for me, my priority was really the equitable access. The folks that

2:20:45are not causing a problem for anybody. They are, they are staying at home. They're not leaving their house. They're unhappy. They're not living up to their full potential. They're not living full lives. Happy lives. But that's not what we heard from the community. And so I think we really have to honor that. And I had a couple of questions about the particular numbers that maybe I'll go ahead and share right now. Um, you know, and then maybe we can talk about whether we want to change some of this. So on the, um, on the PSH numbers, um, the 750, 000 in total. So that's the total for what you've got in here as bluebird and zinnia. And just the question of whether that's enough, I think there's a note at the end that that came from Heidi Grove in conversations with, we have all roads here in the room with us. Um, but there's also, there are also services that are not provided at Zinnia and Blooper. There are, there are scattered site supportive housing units. That all arounds manage and I believe possibly clinical manuals. There may be. Anyway, so I'm wondering if that really is the right number. If that's enough to sustain those services because existing funding for those services going to go away. Commissioner Levy just to directly answer your question.

2:22:33That's a 2026 number and the cost of those services is going up. So, um, sustaining is a, is a word that you used. It does not expand. And I think that's a number that you would need to adjust going forward if you want to sustain. It also does not encompass the other services that you identified. Okay. So you've got year one year two year one is 2026 year two is 2027. Correct. And your two was 750, 000. Okay. So we'll. Have to revisit. Um, the other question was. On the prevention services. And you've got, um, I can't make my pop up stay open. Um, you've got the BVSD in the same brain valley. And then you've got Community - based training. And a million five for each year. And I. Guess I'm wondering really what's envisioned by that. That seems like a lot. And I would rather put more money into the school districts where the kids are where we know that they are being served. I just don't, I don't have a good feeling right now about what that community - based training, million and a half is. And so maybe if somebody can explain that to me, that'd be helpful. Sure. I think it's based on our experience with ARPA dollars. And I think as Marnie mentioned, the impact on community members who

2:24:15participate in the training, one of the challenges with the budget and with the environment is that we definitely know there are certain services that exist and providers that exist. And in conversations with them, we can get a sense of what sustaining or expanding those services could be. Um, and I think to Commissioner Lochument's, um, comment, a lot of people out there that we don't know how they connect. So they connect through navigation services. But as you heard, many connected through the Community - based trainings. And historically training such as mental health first aid has really, the research has shown has reduced stigma, which has allowed people to access services or a neighbor to suggest an opportunity for someone to access services. I think for today, if I may, we try to give you that line - by - line budget that's just sort of based on our best guesstimate and conversation in the community with experts as well as Community Members, recognizing that the buckets, we once the budget amendment moves through, then we would have a process of determining specifically what services could be funded and how much. And you would definitely have input into that because it's through our procurement and purchasing process.

2:25:56And you would have to approve those specific amounts that you're talking about today. That's hopeful, I guess maybe let me ask a different question on that Community - based training. How did you arrive at the number? And I read it wrong because I don't have my reading glasses. But how did you arrive at that number. I don't have the budget table in front of me. It's a million women if you want to. It's a million one in 2016 and a million and twenty - seven. Let's all get our classes out. Marnie's taking hers off. Okay. I can't speak to actually those numbers, but one thing I do want to share is that the other programs and respectfully spending this much time on ARPA, I feel a little protective of all the other school districts and community - based both grassroots and not - for - profits that obviously want to benefit from this. So I can circle back. I can't speak to how the percentages were created, but I feel like a process that's equitable that really, um, centers policy 1. 06 that's transparent in Community - led will serve us. And I realize that we've had these conversations and have been a bit stuck.

2:27:20What I can speak to is the lessons learned from ARPA and Kelly could probably speak to the opiate process in Cat and Wildmine is that when the community centers voices and when 1. 06 is operationalized, I think we see really powerful outcomes. So, um, I can definitely circle back just for the Community's sake. I know we're speaking a lot about ARPA and I would love to also have more conversations around these general buckets to see if that's where the Commissioners are looking. Towards moving forward. Thank you. Thanks. So I think just to summarize a million dollars is the best estimate right now. And we would go through a procurement process and we might get proposals at a different number. Our experience has been once you as a Board of County Commissioners put a number out in the community for what you believe, um, we ought to be spending that on. We will probably exceed. We will oversubscribe in the RFP process for the number of providers who might be interested in that bucket of money.

2:28:21So having said that, all of this is of course subject to your discretion a million dollars a year is based on our pre - experience and our best estimate of what we think, um, the Community need might be for that. And this is your prerogative. Okay. Just one more question on that Community - based training thing. You mentioned mental health first aid. What other sorts of services would you expect to be funded by this. We saw a variety of agencies come forth through the community - based trainings that were really specific on underserved populations in a variety of ways. And Marnie, I hate to keep picking on you. But I think you know those agencies by heart in terms of what they were doing with their, um, specific targeted populations. And just to be, maybe you can address this also, Marnie. It's the way I'm reading this and from what you said, this is not actual mental health care. It is something else. So yeah, go ahead. Just, uh, I would just, um, I just want to give a shout out to Mark Madness. And I feel like I'm like, Cory Close from UCLA. So I'll keep coming back. Shout out to Michigan last night as well. Put me in. So, um, I think it was about a month and a half ago when I

2:29:38presented specifically around the mini mental health awareness grants. There were 11 different agencies that provided a plethora of services. Some were mental health first aid. Some are QPR. For example, a Luna Caldura provides it in a totally culturally competent, diverse way to act to give behavioral health services to the Community. Nami, for example, is another agency, natural highs. So with that bucket at least, um, very diverse way that, um, mental health trainings and stigma, um, have been served in the community, um, not necessarily an office settings, but all throughout the community. So Commissioner Lochiman, to your question, this is not behavioral health care. Uh, these are behavioral health trainings or different versions of that to support the community. Getting my steps in, if you need me back, I'll come back. You might not want to go too far. Commissioner Lee, did you have other questions?

2:30:34Um, yes, but I'll wait and hold them for a little while. Commissioner Stolzman, I'm going to circle back around to you. Just weighing in on the couple of, it's been a few different topics raised since I spoke last time on, I think I tend to agree with Commissioner Lyovy's comments, um, in response to Commissioner Lutherman's comments. Pretty much everyone. And then she segued into her own comments. Um, so I just would to save time, say, I agree with what she said. Um, I do just want to highlight also that I think it is important to have a category for the youth separately. And I also acknowledge that youth are in the other categories also. So it's not the full investment into the youth and the community in that one slice, but it's, um, concentrated effort focusing on that population. So I think both of those things are appropriate for determining the size of the buckets how my brain thinks about it. I actually start with the category people with serious mental illness or addiction. And I'm trying to understand if the budget is sufficient to cover the things that we need to cover in that category before moving to the next category. So that's just the thought process that I would go through. And so I've heard commissioner LV talk about having a third party

2:31:48perhaps operate Warner House having a like doing RFP and do something like that. I think that is something the community sees a Hynid and it fits in with what you all have described in the goals. So reducing the incidence of people that are discharged without the continuum of care to support them. So like something like that, something like, um, perhaps having a third party operate something out of, uh, airport road or other services that are gaps that we would contract with third parties to provide where the Continuum Care is not operating. And so all I don't have enough information to know if that's enough. Like it seems like a big proportion when you look at the pie chart, but I would first fund the things we need to fund to address the most severe gaps in the continuum of care. And understand if we have funds left for the other category. So that's how I would approach it rather than saying that this is the budget and it's fixed at that. And then after I went through that category, I would go through the People Experiencing Homelessness and understand, I think that the goal we should set is to get to zero homelessness for Community members that have ties to the community. And so I would want to better understand the cost of that before

2:32:59moving to the next category, which for me would be the historically underserved populations and then the youth. So that's the way that I would go about the budget is to understand how we could fund the priorities. And the reason I would put it in that order is from the Community members. I've heard from there, these categories that are very complicated that were deficient in the community that other programs can't address. And so ranking them in that order would help us try to take a shot at getting some of those, um, really severe needs. Starting to work through those and understand them. So that's how I would approach setting the budget in the various categories. Thank you Commissioner Soldzman. And again, a similar question, which would be so, um, if you're interested in potentially, I'm going to call it rank ordering in the rank that you described. That is not the rank order of the allocations.

2:33:49Are you suggesting that you would change the numbers accordingly? Or are you suggesting holding on to something for what is not yet designed? Well, so it sort of changes the numbers accordingly, except that if the first bucket, let's say you could do that for money left. I mean, that's not likely. We all know that. Um, but so I would go in that order addressing the goals for each of those categories that we set. And then moving to the next. So like the most, the one that would not meet all of the needs, like we have some funding in here for general youth service, which I think is valiant and a good thing to do. And we may not be able to afford to just have a general feel good program when we have other people that are losing their lives over programs. So that's how I would like, that's how I would rank it. Okay.

2:34:43Thank you. So I'll just, um, summarize. That what I'm hearing today is very similar to, um, comments that I've heard you make in other settings on this topic. And I think what we've tried to do from a staff perspective is balance very different perspectives from the three of you and how this budget is pulled together. What I would, um, just put out there sort of one final question. I don't want to spend staff time working with OFM. To put together a budget amendment, bring that forward and then not have at least, uh, couple commissioners who are willing to consider that as proposed. Would it, uh, be helpful for us to not fully program at this time so that you can continue to have this conversation. I think I'll just speak on behalf of the staff.

2:35:40We're feeling some pressure to get dollars out the door. Um, given that we are in the second quarter. And so, um, our inclination was to program the full revenue that was available. You could make a different decision if you would like to hold back on some of that for now. Um, and maybe move forward in some of the categories. And I'm just offering that as a potential path forward, um, given the different feedback today. So I think that's an interesting idea. And, um, and that would help us make some progress. I, I have a question though. Um, yes, I have spoken several times about, you know, might we be able to get some more residential beds because, you know, that's, that's what I was hearing from, um, BCH mostly, um, and elsewhere, you know, that we, they're not impatient beds. They're just, you know, recovery, bad source, step - down services bed. So - To clarify, Boulder Community Hospital. Boulder. A Boulder Community Health.

2:36:54I see that more as longer term goal. You know, we have several properties that might be used. We don't have, you know, really a scope on what it would take to make any of them operational. And with a three - year tax and, you know, two years realistically speaking to try to get money into the community. It seems to me like that that's not going to be feasible in this initial three - year period that the tax was authorized for, that that might be maybe a longer term idea. But I'd love to hear from Robin or McKelly or Marnie about, you know, what it would take here. And the other, the other thing to keep in mind is the century drive facility, the clinica has. And the additional space at that facility, which I just recently talked, I think it was Friday with Jen Leos about, you know, what they're doing there and what, what additional, um, services they could provide at that community. So we have a lot of things in the mix on that, uh, but I feel like to stand up a brand new program and a brand new facility that hasn't been used recently that we, we would just need to do a lot more work to be able to do that at this time. Then the amount of time we

2:38:31have to spend this money would really allow. We do have, um, a couple of providers that we've reached out to who do this work and other communities. It's similar to the model we had for our recovery homes, uh, with one provider that is no longer able to do those services. So there is another provider ready to come in and use that facility in Boulder and potentially one in Longmond without cost to the county. Um, because the Medicaid question, which is up in the air now because of what's happening at the state, um, and we won't know how that will land and how that will impact, um, private providers from, from doing the services that you're talking about, Claire. So it might be a both hand. There might be some immediacy that could happen with our empty properties. And then you're right to, to do something long term will take planning and more time. I mean, I'm just thinking of the condition of Warner House when I toured it. That it's not ready for occupancy. Well, I think that's actually sort of, if that is, if that is a goal of the boards to have some service provided in Warner House, the beauty of the taxes that we could use some funding for the rehabilitation of the property and doing our FP. Get a provider and

2:39:56that is able to cover some portion of their costs. Who knows, I mean, that was very optimistic. And I love your optimism, Robin, that it would be covered. I don't think it will cover the cost of it. So just understanding then what the long - term subsidy is. And I think anything we start with this tax, like we're hoping to demonstrate that we do it well and successfully that the community would continue to fund it on an ongoing basis. I think we need to demonstrate those bold things. So for my perspective, if we want more beds, that's what we're supposed to be working on. So we would rehabilitate the property. We'd put the RFP out. We would say what our goals are. We would find out the costs. Like that's what we would be doing.

2:40:35I agree with you. And I wish we had more than the three years of money to do that. I think what I don't know, and I mean, yes. Is, you know, it's taking us how long just to get, um, a modern building retrofitted to use the way we want to use it, 25, 28th Street. You know, that it, that it's going to take some time before we can use that. I mean, we do have the beauty of the century drive facility is that, you know, it's, it just needs some tenant finish. Some build out. So I'm not saying no. I mean, this has been something I've been asking for. I'm just wondering how realistic it is to try to put it in an initial budget when, you know, there are trade - offs. So that's other services. We wouldn't be funding. Just a couple of things, a couple items that I hadn't brought up yet, just in the conversation. One of them was a question I had raised. A few months ago in one of our conversations about the question of how do we partner with public health in this mental behavioral health tax and just understanding we had received at some point document with just some of the programming. So that's still a curiosity of mine in regards to programs, um, that are focused

2:42:03on youth that are being led. And I don't know to what degree because of the budget impacts in 2016. I don't know if that, you know, if all of them are still, I believe they're so existing, but could be, could you use some support from us? So I think that's another question. So for me, um, I didn't hear interest in, um, transforming Boulder County by focusing this tax on youth. But I wonder if there's an interest in raising that amount that was, let's see here on here. Right now it's listed at 2. 6 million dollars. I want to reiterate a comment that I had shared it previously as well that Schooldricks have been great partners in mental health and mental wellness work through the wellness intern, also interventionists as they've proposed. And we were able to address with our buff funding specific programming that had to do with, um, school loss and time loss because of COVID like direct impacts from COVID. And my belief is that not all students in schools are connected the same way that I believe us as community members. If we just look at the room, there are people in this room, I believe that are not connected to mental illness. And you've heard me talk about it in my own personal experiences, not having in Boulder County as a

2:43:23Boulder County employee cultural competent folks, people of color, et cetera, because as I've also shared in data shows that races a public health crisis and an issue, so I can just test on my, you know, my personal local immediate, that there are folks, not just adults, but also youth who aren't connected, even though there is a wellness center on campus, or there is an interventionist at a campus. It doesn't mean that students, um, are connected to that. And so that's the other piece of what I'm looking for in this, um, in the budget. And so I do believe that 2. 6 million isn't going to be enough to address our kids on BVSD, same brain valley school district work that even some of our own partners here on the County Side are doing, um, with youth, The Wellmine piece that to me, just having some conversations with Well Mine staff and some of our partners, family resource and our partners that are also helping with you if front range Community College is a partner of ours. And I have an opportunity with front range. And, um, in the City of Long Latin, who's the partner in the room. Besides me, I'm trying to think. But we have some conversations. So I know they're doing some work also because if we think about from a math

2:44:36standpoint, our kiddos who are, let's just say 21 now, who are still youth, if we think about our other measures and the other work that we do around the county, youth is considered up until 24. And certainly if you need health benefits, you're, you know, until 26, um, as a dependent. But those kiddos were, if we talk about a 21 year old right now, they were 15 during COVID. And so the amount, like the period of time where they started losing contact connection, social skills, all those opportunities, I believe again, um, have impacted. And now we have this group of kiddos that really, in my mind, in young people who, if we talk about beds, um, in my mind, like shouldn't we try and build a system. That doesn't need more beds. But instead connects folks to resources so they don't need the beds. And I know that's not high acuti. And I know that's not really significant mental illness. But I do think what we are missing in Boulder County, we have a great partner in the room, all roads is here. And I got an opportunity to go tour their facility and talk with their board last week. And to me, they do fit in that, um, which one is that homeless formerly homeless adult section. And just yesterday, um, Board, we saw

2:45:50an agreement with all roads for 900, 000 dollars. So that to me is like a place we could potentially do a direct allocation. That was one of the questions at the beginning allocations versus grants. But for me again, the BBSDs, they're at St. Brain Valley School District. Is there a front range is there. CU also has programs. They have students who are in recovery and they have sober programs. So we're living and things like that that also needs support and need help. Um, so I just, I think that's my, my, uh, second plea in regards to, um, what's the opportunity that we have to take a difference for youth in Boulder County. Commissioner Lochman, like you, I did not hear another commissioner who was interested in increasing the 2. 6 million, but I wonder, Robin, if you could talk about within that allocation, I believe there was more than the school district funding in the 2. 6. Can you just be specific about that if there was anything specific to public health or other providers.

2:46:49Yeah. In your memo, we brought forth public health a couple of their programs that were youth focused such as OASIS. In addition to the WORX program. Um, we could certainly consider, uh, the, the young, uh, women who are served in Genesis and Genesis 2. So I think we, we did have an odd to public health. And we have been in direct conversations with them about what might be going away that this tax could support. So that was that additional funding in the prevention, that 2. 6 is that Community - based training that I was asking about. And you're saying, like Genesis and OASIs might be separate. Okay. So not within that. Correct. Correct. Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't increase that 21 percent. I would perhaps look at reducing the 1. 1 million maybe to, um, 800, 000 and putting an additional 150, 000 each in BVSD and same train Valley. I just don't have a good enough handle on what we really, you know, what we accomplished with the training, the Community - based training.

2:48:19I, you know, we know and we've had numbers of kids served by these wellness centers and St. Rain has a slightly different model that they use. But, um, I feel like that is such a great opportunity to address the needs of youth. So, you know, I think your suggestion that we try to make some progress here on the things that we can agree on, I think is a good one. And I, you know, the, um, the, um, the directed grant. I mean, personally, you know, I would just make a few little tweaks here. And then I would say get it done. Go do it. I, I don't need a lot of new work on this. You know, there were just the two areas I wanted to know if we were putting enough into the PSH.

2:49:12Category. And it seems like right now we are, but we may have to adjust that in this future as we see how funding. Either goes away or stabilizes or whatever. Um, but I would, I'm ready to tell you to just go forth and get it done here. Other commissioners, um, any further input on the budget has drafted, um, before we move on to other questions for you today. I think for me, I mean, I can keep repeating what I'm saying, because that's a method. And, um, I, if I look and I'm, I don't know that we're all looking at the same document, but, um, in the hopes that we are, uh, in the packet, the section that y'all were just discussing on prevention services is the way the blue line defines it that has BSD as CVSD and Community - based training. For me, and just in my own kind of what would I do if I had six million dollars to serve youth in this mental behavioral health text? I'm wondering on how you've got a community - based training, what I was thinking about, and it might be the same. So I'm hopeful.

2:50:33Um, I was thinking about grants, again, addressing which parts direct allocation, what could be grants and go through an RFP process. If the grants are addressing prevention, connection or addressing isolation for youth. And I don't, is that similar to the Community - based training. Or could we want to talk about in addition? Excuse me, Roman. No, it's definitely connected for sure. And based on the individual provider, how they approach the question of isolation and connection and service. And sometimes training can be seen as a treatment. Um, so I think about natural highs. And, you know, learning how to use other ways of dealing with instead of substances, right? Um, so I think a lot of these questions, my belief and our experiences that would come out in the procurement process. And we could tailor if you choose to go with grants. We could tailor that request for proposals very specifically to address all of these concerns that we've heard from you and desires to meet the needs. I think the other context is again, and it's been mentioned is our limited time. And what can providers accomplish into a half years? And we just want to be realistic about that. Um, my own hope is that this is, this is phase one. And should the tax be continued. Then these conversations that you're bringing up

2:52:14today, we can really go to town with, um, and, and, and look at other, other ways to, to address the needs in our community. So a little bit of the color coding on that table you're looking at Commissioner Lochamine. Is anything in kind of that peach color? Uh, subject to your direction and a couple of slides would be a competitive, uh, Community Process where we could bring the specifics for an RFP or an RA back to you. For, uh, additional discussion and direction. Thank you. So I think for me board, the question would be on that prevention section if we wanted to do the million dollars as a grant in my mind, we know some of the partners already. And I'm thinking of like oasis or generations of some of the other programs. So would we want to. Put some lists on their direct allocation?

2:53:08And I remember you, Commissioner Solsman, a few dioceses ago. Saying if we know where they are, should we just put them on there? So, um, I just want to ask that question because, and I do think if we did that, then we actually do have, um, a two million dollar need. Um, St. Marine. I'm lost. So you've got the way you've described these buckets in the slide that's been up during this whole discussion is not the way it's laid out in the chart. So the million dollar that is historically underserved populations crosswalk that for me to the chart. So if you look at, um, one, two, three, four, the sixth column where it says population, Commissioner Levy, that's the crosswalk. Okay. So historically underserved is. Eh quotable access is the historically. I was looking at one of those words and not seeing it. So that's the peer services and community - based providers. Correct. Non.

2:54:27- clinical - based. Pures. So I was, so some of the equitable access funds was, that was not all pure - based type stuff, right? Where is that showing up here? It encompassed - outpatient clinical services, moderate severe behavioral health slash equitable access, Community Providers. That's the 2 million dollars. Is that, I'm not sure what your question is, Commissioner Levy. So we have talked about as one of our priority populations, what you've got in the peach historically underserved populations. Yes. And that was to provide services, mental health care. Not trainings for people to, da, da, da, isn't that outpatient row. You are correct. That's 2 million dollars. So it's, I guess, a component of it. I think I just, I think this pie chart maybe is not exactly helpful, but I'm also completely confused about how you're responding to Commissioner Lochimin's question. And now, now suddenly we're talking about things we've never talked about before, that, you know, that we're going to do a procure, I mean, we've talked about procurement. We've talked about the process of getting money out. But now we're opening a whole new, like we're going to have to have these conversations. They're never going to end. Cause now we're going to, we're going to sit up here and we're going to talk about what should go in an RFP and

2:56:10what should the focus of an RFPB. Not RFPB, but Commissioners, if you are comfortable giving discretion to staff in the how today, then we don't have to bring that back. I think what I've heard you say particularly about some of our grant processes in the past is you do want to weigh in ahead of time on what we're asking members to or Community Agencies and providers to submit. So that is at your discretion. Um, you can delegate that to me and Robin and the team, if you are comfortable with that approach as an alternative. In the interests of time, that would be a quicker process. So, um, I just wanted to weigh in on something's commission, relief had said a little while ago. Um, so just in the interest of like moving things forward, some things in this do have more clearly defined goals. And they seem further along. And so some of the things I think are relatively straightforward to move forward with while others I don't feel like are defined. And so of saying like, we'll just leave it to staff to do an RFP. And I would ask an RFP for what, like for what goal and what are we trying to serve? And I would ask all the questions that I've been asking each time. But so some of the things

2:57:32I would be able to move forward with today. And it would still leave some money and some questions to be answered of like, what are we trying to accomplish with this scarce resource before we could answer if we could do an RFP for it? Because we wouldn't know if we could meet all of the other obligations we've set. So the things I could move forward with today would be the direct funding for clinica, which is in a couple of categories, which is the acute, um, crisis care and the IOP and the OP services. Um, and then the direct funding that they also, that have been identified for, for the PSH case management. And the direct funding for the allroads case management also is something I think is far enough along to move forward with. I don't know if any of these things that I'm saying are sufficient to meet all of our goals, but in the amounts that we've laid out, I know that it at least gets us started toward our goals and I can move forward and be able to explain to Community members. This is what it's for. This is what we're getting. This is what the goal is. This is roughly how many people will serve. Um, so those I could move forward with the direct funding for BVSD and SVVD

2:58:38as proposed I could move forward with. I think I would want to understand what more funding would get in terms of youth served and things like that. Um, so I could move forward with those things. I think I could confidently move forward with saying to staff, we should issue an RFP to determine interest for operating something out of, um, Warner House. Um, that's something that I could move forward with. And I just think we need to spend some more time setting what our goals are for some of these other programs where we have RFP listed. So, um, for outpatient clinical services, we have RFP listed. I think we just need to spend a little bit more time defining what we're trying to get out of it. So that we put together an RFP that we get responsive vendors responding and that there's, you know, alignment or at least understanding as to what we think we can get when we issue that RFP. So there's some more conversation and goal setting. I think we need to do in some of the other areas. And I tried to say things I sort of thought I heard at least one of you say to try to help get to where you were going clara of like, or Commissioner Levy, sorry about what we could move, what we could

2:59:48move along. Thank you for that clarity. I think the one that I didn't hear a second on from the list that you, uh, talked about was that Warner House RFP. I mean, I heard Commissioner Levy say, yes, that's of interest, maybe not right now and not from this tax. Well, I think my only hesitation is whether that's actually feasible at this time. Right. Um, and I don't know whether it's helpful to specifically say Warner House. Or not. That's all. I mean, I. You mentioned a different location. Yeah. I think it would, I think. I would love to move forward. I'll say on, um, having additional residential beds in my conversation with Jen Leos. They are looking in the future to be able to do, uh, residential treatment for, um, people with mental illness and substance use disorders at century drive as well. So it's the, you know, I don't know where, but I know I think we could use more beds. I think the community thinks we need more beds. And I think that's something we need to be able to address. So for me, it was just that, you know, is it feasible? And is it Warner House? Um, you know, we have that.

3:01:12I wonder, so I've already said I would, I would spend all the money. So anything that anybody wants to second just adds to my vote. But maybe call specific attention to line five in the sober living step down. Um, with the, the operator Hazl Brook being identified, that is, that is to fund the Emory Street and Arbor House, correct? And do we, are those currently being operated right now or not? The residential, um, location is not. That patient services at the other building are. R. Yeah. So I wonder if, I guess here are the things that I hope, you know, we might be able to approve. That are in the, without too much additional, um, discussion, Commissioner Stolzman, I heard you say the acute behavioral health crisis withdrawal management psychiatric IOP that so lines, I'll just say it line one, N line. Three. I think.

3:02:31Not yet line four. I think for me, you know, given the length of the RFP process, I would, I think I'd like to get started on lane four. Um, I think we already know that line two on the residential treatment, again, with hazelbrook. We know that we can use that money. And we know who the provider is and we know what the facility is. On that, I believe. I think the ones where I've heard the most just kind of wondering about what are we really trying to accomplish. That we may need some more discussion about is lines nine. Well, we haven't talked at all about line 14. So just on line four, I just, I feel like that is the distance. So if. I understand what you're saying about Warner House. And we have to make some sort of strategic decision as a Board of County Commissioners, we either are going to try to do an RFP and operate something at Warner House or we're not. And so if we're not, we should sell it. And that is fine. And if we are, we should do the RFP and find out what the costs are and then determine if that makes sense to do that or not. So that to me, the direction to give the staff is to issue the RFP

3:04:02to find out if we get responsive vendors. And if that makes a business case that satisfies the needs for whatever goal. So to me, that is the thing to do to make that decision is get that information and how we get that information is by doing the RFP. So that's why that's the direction I'm going because then you would have that info of lacoste and how many beds it would be and what it would be in the trade - off and all of that. I don't think that in any way precludes us from having a conversation with clinica about the Lewis fill site. I just don't. I think that that's how we can make a decision on Warner House and move forward one way or another. Because at the moment it's just an annual operating expense with no benefit. And so I would like to either have Community benefit from it or remove the annual operating expense. Um, for line two, I just, the information that's most recent that I have about that project, um, led me to believe that the vendor wouldn't, um, necessarily be a vendor for very long. So I just don't have any updated information to give me any reason to sign that contract. So maybe you have, it sounds like you have more information than I do because the most

3:05:07recent information I have, I don't understand why we would fund that at all. Um, so that's, I just need whatever catch up that you already have specifically Hayslbrook. Right. That vendor. I don't. You know, I know about their programs and I know that people speak very highly of them. But I don't have any information that leads, it's not that I, that it's not the case. I, I have no information. But again, I do know who they are. And I know what they do. And I know that they've been successful and their thought they're highly. Thought highly. Commissioners, is it helpful for us to jump in with the answer to that question or provide it at the budget. Adoption? Would that be helpful. Sure. I mean, for all the others that I recommended on, like I've looked at their 990s, like I've gone to the sites, like I know what their key performance indicators are. I've talked with their Board of Directors. Like I just, I have, and with where we were on the programs with the previous vendor. And I just, I am all the information I have leads me to believe that we should not do that. Like the previous funds that we've put toward the same thing have been squandered. So I, why would I do that? Okay. Thank you for that perspective.

3:06:28Well, do you have a response to concern that? I also see Commissioner Lojamin continuing to try to jump in. And so I'm just going to ask you, is it specific to this conversation about Roe 4 or do you want to go in a different direction. Well, I'll tell you what I was going to ask and then you can tell me where it fits. And it posts, it's fine. I was looking at the section with lines one, two, three and four. Yes. And what I was curious about is which of those services serve youth in Boulder County. Okay. Thank you. So I'm wondering if you or staff can, um, respond to the specific questions about row two. And then the question about in this top section, which services are aimed at youth. I think it identifies it in that column that I had referenced a minute ago. And I think we provided you with information on youth serving agencies in the past. I don't have that at the top of mind. In terms of hazelbrook, they are this close to signing the lease with the City of Boulder Boulder for the Boulder property. And they're ready to go. They've got clients. They've got services identified. And we're looking at using that as a potential model for the long mind location. Yeah. I mean, I know again,

3:07:44from a conversation with Jen Leos that, uh, at the century drive facility, which is doing the things that are in L - 1, um, Commissioner Lushman that they, what they're seeing is a real increase in youth that are showing up at that, uh, walk - in facility. So, you know, I don't, I don't know that there's a, they're not a specifically youth serving organization. They sort of families. They serve everybody. So I, you know, I don't know that you can tease that out for, for each of these. Yeah. And, and just referencing back to something that Commissioner Soltzman said earlier in the meeting, uh, within the population of, um, people diagnosed with serious mental illnesser addiction. Youth are a component of that. Um, but we don't have the sort of the breakout of the youth versus adult. Clients in that category. And I just want to clarify for the record just if anyone's watching and worrying or all of the things that happen, just like my comments are not about hazel book. It's about the previous vender that. We've been working on the same project with and the experience that we've had as a county in the investments that we've made in that area. Thank you for that clarification. Oh, I misunderstood as well. Um, so my question, just to get some clarification, and I

3:09:13apologize that I'm not saying what you're referring to and the treatment services. Youth are able to get. The services that are listed in each of those items. With what's listed on there. Or are you able to get to the door and then they're referred to somewhere else. That's what I'm trying to just understand. Both. So in the rows one through four, which I believe was what your question was about, youth are served by those programs. Um, the categorization in the population column includes youth experiencing serious mental illness or addiction. Is that helpful? Yeah. Thank you. Could. I need a little bit of information and then we want to make a proposal. Okay. Um, we haven't talked at all about line 14. This intervention innovation 1. 5 million. And that's in the prevention category. What is, what is that? So those are similar to, uh, projects Community Based Organizations that are doing mental health services and have been innovative about serving, underserved population. So we think about Amistad. Or Rocky Mountain Equality. Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Well then there goes that. I was going to take that money and use it for something else. Um.

3:10:50Okay. Well, I think what I'm looking for is I appreciate Commissioner Stolzman suggestion that if we allocate all the money right here, then we don't have the money to do the new beds and what might we hold back to see who comes forward and what it would cost. Um, and that line 14 is, I think, very central to what we're trying to do. Um, and. I mean, I don't know how much to say let's not spend in order to make sure we have it available for that. But, uh, I'm, I don't have enough real, um, clarity. On still. I know you've answered this a couple of times, but, um, you know, the, I think line 12, maybe, you know, it's going to be a little harder for us to actually say what is it we're trying to achieve with that. And. I'm just, I'm not seeing a whole lot of room in here where I wouldn't want to spend the money the way it's already been recommended is the problem. Thank you, Commissioner. Turning to final comments on budget. What, what I am thinking and I want to connect with staff to make sure this is something we can do as we get with OFM so that we can bring you a recommended budget amendment with options where you could choose to hold some money

3:12:35back for future purposes where you could choose to give us direction that would sound like, yes, we want it in this, um, bucket, but we'd like you to bring that, um, specific language back to us before you issue an RFP or an RFA that will give you some options in, in that budget amendment, which is not what we traditionally do in those amendments. But I think even what I'm hearing today, I've got two commissioner alignment on many of these topics. And my goal would be to have you, um, feel good. All three of you feel good about adopting amendment that you can live with maybe love, you don't love it. You didn't get everything that you wanted. But, um, something that, that you all three could get behind is what we would try to present to you with a recommendation and some options. So, um, yes, Commissioner Lojamine. Just thank you. On that piece, then are you anticipating bringing back direct allocation. Proposals and that as well as potential grant. That's our next topic that I'm, that I want to get to in the slides.

3:13:43What I need to hear from the three of you, um, last year you adopted a very specific timeline for when those amendments would come back. So before we get into that direct allocation conversation, what I would appreciate is if the three of you could indicate if you are comfortable with us working with OFM outside of your typical amendment cycle, um, that would enable us to bring that draft amendment to you before the next cycle, which would be July. I'm fine with that. Yes. Okay. I'm hearing from two commissioners that we can proceed in working with OFM. So we will take that next. I have a question. Like I was working through in my mind before I was answering. So my understanding was we had to adopt the budget amendment cycle because of a state law requirement that we weren't meeting. And so I don't understand if I don't understand how I can respond to your question without knowing if that creates any sort of issue with that state law, we're trying to comply with now.

3:14:44Yeah. Thank you for asking that question. The state law requires public hearing. But it was our practice to do that quarterly. And this would mean that a public hearing would be coming to you outside of that quarterly cycle. So we can still comply with the requirements and have a mid cycle adoption. Yes. Thank you. And I can say yes also. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners. So we're going to move on in the slides to the next, um, section, which is, whoa, I went one too far, which is specific to directed awards and competitive funding. Commissioners, we previously have, have talked to you about, you know, sort of the pros and cons of these two approaches. So I think we just turn it back to your conversation. We're recommending a combination of the two. And I are indicated that is shown to you in the table that the, um, peachy colored categories are the ones where we would recommend competitive funding and everything else would be direct awarded. That's our recommendation. I.

3:15:53Like it. Okay. Commissionered. Thank you. Other comments from commissioners. I'm taking that to me and you like the Hybrid approach. Yes. I think that's the right approach. Thank you Commissioner Levy just to clarify. I'm fine at the Hybrid Approach. Are you wanting us to go into more detail? So you'll just bring that back. Then with potential direct allocation potential. RFPs or is it going to look exactly like what we're looking at with the peach colored. So, uh, subject to your discussion and direction, it would look like the peach color that would come back to you as a staff recommendation within the budget. Um, if you want to give more guidance around that today or more parameters around that today, that is the purpose of the conversation. I've already indicated that there were a number of programs I thought should be directly awarded and a number that I thought should be RF piece. So I still feel that way. Thank you. Commissioner Lochamine. Additional guidance that you would like to give us on this topic. Um, sure. I'm looking for more funding for youth. And it's not just the BVSD that's on here and it's not just the St. Brain Valley School District that's on here.

3:17:00I do support. It looks like two different grant programs that would fit into the prevention and navigation if I'm reading the peach colored correctly. I do think we need to directly allocate to Boulder County Public Health. This is partners in the mental health work. I think that we should look at a fragrance community college allocation and also a CU Boulder allocation justice. Other college's in our area. And I do to be able to address the students who aren't connected with services. I do think we need to raise that to two million dollar. And if again, if it fits kind of broken up in that prevention navigation, then I could live with that, I think is the way you asked. But so yeah. Thank you. Additional guidance on the topic of direct awarded agencies in particular.

3:17:46Other ones that you have on your mind from the other commissioners. Well, I would, so I do agree with the ones that Commissioner Stolzman indicated. She was prepared to move forward on. And I did want to see if, uh, there was buy in from another commissioner on, um, The residential, uh, the lines two and. Five. But both of the, yeah, the hazelbrook. Allocations, direct allocations. So I, for me on LINES two and five, the last presentation that we had on the sober living programs, we had some, um, partners that we had partnered with through RFP. And we had done all the processes right. And legitimately that we're not able to meet the obligations of our contract. And we're failing. And so the most up - to - date information I have is all very tumultuous and negative. So I need more information to understand why these are direct funded, like how this will work, what the contract is, like how we've gotten this partner. I just don't have any of that background information to be able to get to that point today, which is what I was trying to say. I just need to do that work. So for example, um, before we directly fund it all roads for the base homeless services that we went to a few years ago, like it was like

3:19:22a review of all of, I got to meet with their finance director. I looked at their books. I looked at their 990s. I met with their board. We made a contract about what we were going to get in terms of services like number of beds we would have per dollar. And so I just, like there was a lot of work that went into my yes vote on that. And I don't have any foundational information to like a contract. I just don't have any information to be able to be there today where I am on those other ones, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to, after I put in that work. So it's not like a no forever. I just, I just can't say yes today. So Hazl Brook is an unknown. It's just an unknown for idonee. Yeah. You need more. Yeah. I guess I'm, I'm going on the fact that there was an RFP process. And Hazl Brook was selected through that process. Um, so and they are going to be the ones operating those facilities. And I take it this is additional funding that would support those programs. Right. Yes. I'm seeing head non. Yes. So, so yeah, I just, you know, unless that, that was the operator, um, do we want to provide additional support or not? So, okay. But

3:20:41I need, was it Boulders RFP? Uh, did I think it was shared? They own it. They were the fiscal agent for that contract in the lease, but it was, uh, our staff were involved in the RFP riding the RFP as well, selecting. Okay. I'll just, it helps me know which records or tension system to look in. Okay. Well, I think what that was the work that Jim Adamsburger came back to do. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Lyocha. I mean, are you interested in weighing in onlines two and five specifically about direct allegation or competitive process. I actually had on those ones for me and no, I'm still curious about what is the advisory Council going to do. And so in my mind, I was thinking there would be a group of folks that would start the conversation that I, that I'm hearing about, do we do some type of residential treatment and which property would it be? And regionally where might it be? And it might be a different property. So those are the notes that I have. So I don't have anything more. Okay. Thank you. Our staff recommendation would be to not reopen that for these specific rows just to be really clear about what the staff recommendation will be. Thank you. Okay. Um, so we're going to move on now to advisory committee.

3:22:03And so just you did get to B - O - C. I'm not going to replaw the ground on these direct allocations at this time. Generally speaking, what I heard Commissioner Salzman say is she needs some more information specific to the direct allocation in those two rows. Right. On those two roles. The others that we have at least stolemen and LV in support of. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Okay. Our last topic is advisory committee and Robin. Do you want to introduce this. Sure. And past conversations we've recognized, the connection between the Hybrid model and the need for an advisory committee. We think, um, an advisor committee adds a lot of value, especially if we're doing the RFP process and exploring, uh, some of these ideas like the residential beds and the step down services. Um, I think it also provides input in a way that broadens our perspective in terms of people that lived experience as well as clinical expertise. Um, and we just think an advisory committee also supports the Community engagement providing transparency and helping the community understand what we're doing with these tax dollars. The commissioners, four year discussion, um, are you interested in establishing an advisory committee? And if so, for what purpose we give you a couple of examples here of what those roles could be, um, listen

3:23:42for your guidance. Maybe I'll kick this part of the conversation off. Um, again, just going back to what I heard from so many of the Community members that the campaign engaged with is a very, very strong desire to have an advisory Council for the reasons that you said, Robin. And I think as well, um, given the short duration of this tax to have the confidence Ian being able to go back to the public, go back to the voters and say that there has been community input that people with lived experience, the subject matter experts, community members, et cetera have been contributing to shaping this tax. So, um, I understand that from the conversations we've been having, it may seem like there's a very limited role to be played given that we're making these decisions right now. But I think that standing up an advisory council, advisory group of some sort will service over the long term. And so, uh, it would be my strong recommendation and my hope that we would move forward with that and that it would be comprised of the subject matter experts, people with lived experience, representatives of, uh, local governments in Boulder County, um, and when I say subject matter experts, that would include, um, some of the providers of services. So Commissioner Levy, thinking about the couple of options

3:25:32that we, um, given here, are you considering a more limited role or the broader scope in the purview of the charge that you would give to this advisory committee. Um. I want to go back to the way you laid it out in the memo. To answer that question. Okay. Limited scope you've defined as focus on defining a shared vision. Over the next three years. Discuss questions such as what meaningful change do we see? What should be the funding priorities? Broad scoped. Deeper role in shaping funding priorities in addition to visioning, review key data sources, uh, identified priority areas in the five funding categories. I think this is a I want to hear my fellow commissioners thoughts on this, um, how much of this we want to keep for ourselves. These decisions on funding priorities and how much we want to put in the hands of an advisory council. Um, I don't know. I don't have a good feeling yet about that. Okay. So I'm hearing you express strong interest in an advisory council and some flexibility around their scope. Other commissioners. Sure. Thank you. I do think that I also agree that there's interest from Boulder County residents about having advisory council. We've done it on other taxes. We still have, I think, 35, maybe now advisory committees and boards that support the county's work.

3:27:27I think for me, so I'm interested in it. I think, and I'm looking at what's on the screen here, maybe that second. Line of may include recommending funding priorities or priority approaches to the BOCC. What concerns me about having an advisory council or a committee is if folks feel like they don't actually have any say they don't actually have any power. If there's not like what is really the role. So I think that would be, that to me is even more important. I don't, I don't know that we need another Council if it's, if they're not going to have a real say in what the direction is in my mind, what would be very helpful for an advisory Council is not necessarily 2026. And right now, as much as what needs to happen next. And so because some of these services from rental behead mental behavioral health issues are so costly. Like the recovery center and these treatment pieces in my mind that's going to take more than one year of tax because it's really not that much money in the big scope of need and the cost. That was in my mind what this advisor council could be helping Boulder County with. We were really trying to figure out what would need to happen after year two, um, to plan for an extension of

3:28:45a tax if people felt like that was what it was. And if that was going to be, you know, just a different focus and maybe we'll end up with a different or a board would end up with a different. What is it? Calculation maybe of the use of the funding per development. Thank you Commissioner Lojamin. So I'm hearing strong support for an advisory committee and a leaning toward a broader scope specifically aimed at tax extension. And, uh, evaluation of how funds are used in the current cycle for future extension. Is that a good summary? Yeah, I think in that brought me back to the dais from a previous conversations about really wanting, there were some language that was written, I think through the Boulder Chamber or something in one of the proposals. So maybe that would be a good idea to dust that off and see if that's something that the Board is interested in.

3:29:35When you said the kind of evaluation piece, I just remember there was a list of different items that somebody thought of, um, Boulder County government should be adhering to with a tax. They just happened to maybe to bring back out and think about. Thank you. There's a, um, City manager's guide for local elected officials book that I got. Early on in public office just to serve the community well. And I read it all the time. And the dog eared, um, section. If you go look at my books that is about, um, advisory committees and advisory committees are wonderful and can also be one of, I have a separate thing that I call the seven deadly sins of local government and one of my seven deadly sins of local government is neglected advisory committee. So just making a committee for political purposes. And then not utilizing it incredibly wasteful to all of the members that serve to the staff that have to, um, staff the committee go to the committee meetings prepare for the committee meetings.

3:30:39And so I think a committee could and can't serve a very important purpose on this. But I don't want to just put a committee in place and then ignore the committee or abandon the committee or not have specific measurable things that the committee is to work on. So I also can be supportive of a committee. But I think we do want to get into some of those definitional things around, you know, evaluating. What are roles for staff versus what a role star of the committee, like evaluating program success, I would think the staff would actually, you know, create a presentation for that and look at the successfulness of that. So I just don't have what those successful metrics are for the committee to really set them up for success if people are going to spend their time and their energy and help us. We don't want to waste all that. And make people frustrated. So I just, I don't have the answer for exactly what goes into these example discussion points for committee that you have here. But I do think we need to get pretty specific so that everyone, their time is well used and that we get a meaningful as a community that we get a meaningful, um, output from the committee's work.

3:31:50Thank you, Commissioner Stoldzman. And just for all three of you, I think one test of that, um, sort of utility that you're describing is the willingness of the board to accept recommendations or defer, in some cases to an advisory committee versus, you know, sort of bringing your, your own judgment and lens into that. And that is, you know, something that an advisory committee often go through many boards of county commissioners and could be, um, have some feelings with one board and then maybe different feelings with another board. And I think you've experienced that with some of your advisory committees where the changes in, um, elected official leadership due to term limits are calling into question, you know, what is the role of this advisory committee? What do we really need them for now? And so getting really clear about that charge, the roles and responsibilities is important. What I'm hearing is all three of you have an interest in that. We can take that away as staff and come back with some specifics around that.

3:32:50Thank you. You know, I thought I was actually really well prepared for this conversation. And now, you know, as we're having it, I'm not as well prepared as I thought I was. Um, especially on this question because the original concept was when this was going to be a 15 year tax. And we were going to be making, you know, decisions and maybe seeing shifting needs and priorities in the community. And that's really what the composition of that council could have been really critical in helping us with. And it's, it's actually been hard for me to, to imagine how, you know, how we can meaningfully use a Council in this near term. But I do think in terms of having a real role and function and buy in, I do think that broad scope as it's described would be more helpful to us because, and I, I agree that some of the things that maybe are mentioned here around evaluation is more of a staff function.

3:33:55It's not, it wouldn't be advisory consul function, but I think I know, I am heavily influenced. By the conversations I happen to have with specific community members, specific providers. And as just who I happen to know or who happens to get int onto my calendar, I'm not an expert in this area. I don't think any of the three of us are. We've all had various touch points and experiences that have informed us. But I think that for making future decisions in particularly trying to shape a more longer term tax, I think we desperately need the folks that work in this area. Um, to, to be guiding and making those recommendations, I will say that the work of the, I think working group is what it was called that came out of the roadmap that informed.

3:35:01That did inform the way what I originally wrote is the structure for this. Because I recognize my own limitations. And, um, so I think that that broader role would be very helpful for us. And so, and, you know, given a little time to think about it, that's where I would go. Thank you, Commissioner Lee, be Commissioner Lochimain. I saw your hand up. I should have wrote down what I was going to say. I didn't this time. So I don't remember. Okay. All right, Commissioners, this is the conclusion of the direction that we were asking from you today on these three topics. My request, we are scheduled to go until 430. We have a third topic. If we could take maybe a two minute break. And then that would leave you some time to at least give preliminary direction to staff around the innovation fund for the Affordable and Attainable Housing Tax. If we don't get through that conversation today, we can continue it to future work session. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks again for sitting through yet another very, very, very difficult conversation here. You know, we have three very different approaches. And you, you have a very challenging job. So thank you for that.

3:36:22And we'll be back in, see, three minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, we are. Thank you so much. And we're recording. All right, Commissioners, we are back with our third topic for this work session, which is to seek your direction regarding the 500, 000 dollar allocation, which is, we call the innovation fund as part of the Affordable and Attainable Housing Tax. And I'm joined by Susanna Lopez Baker, your housing director. So I'll turn things over to her. Thank you, Jana, and thank you, Commissioners, for having us here today. We do have a brief presentation, and I know you have all received a memo in detail. Covering a lot of these topics, albeit as brief as possible. But I do want to cover just a few things, sort of what our objective is today, which is presenting two options. One being a mortgage rate buy down. And two, being a down payment direct cost assistance. And so we have provided in detail, including tables with a lot of information. And so we'll get to questions in just a minute. And then, of course, we're always here to hear any additional ideas or requests from the board. I thought I would do just a really quick background of the innovation fund to date. We have, just as a reminder, the Affordable

3:37:53National Housing Tax, which was passed in 2023 and implemented in 2025, provides a proximately 16. 7 million dollars, primarily for capital projects just over 9 million dollars The housing innovation fund is a part of the AHT tax, and it provides 500, 000 dollars annually The Innovation Fund Prioritizes Access, minimizing barriers, stability, collaboration, and racial equity. Originally, it was designed as a competitive application process. So in 2025, we opened with Applications on November 3rd. We closed that process on December 5th. We received 14 Applications during that time period. And no awards made the cycle as proposals did not adequately address housing equity, concerns at a deep level in which we were seeking. And that brings us to date. And so, well, I'm happy to review those options in detail, or I can start with questions. I don't need more detail. I don't know. Anybody else? I'm seeing two commissioners like no more detail is needed for the presentation. Okay. So let's just move down to, um, discussion, I think. Yes, so we have two questions for the board today. Uh, the first is the board feel that these proposals outlined adequately align with the innovation fund priorities. The mortgage rate buy down program or the direct cost assistant program for down payments. And I believe we did discuss in the moment a version of combining the

3:39:37two, depending on folks, AMI, and how, um, how deeply affordable, the home ownership opportunities need to be. Sure. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Thanks for sticking out the afternoon. Susanna and your team. Um, I think for me, the couple of different pieces, and I'm trying to look at the questions on the boards. I don't know if you want to go through the, if you want me to go through this and respond to this first, I think for me, one of my, and I appreciate the information that details, I was really like, ooh, let me look at read by down. Um, and what that means, so for me, I am interested in looking at a focus on workforce housing. With Innovation Funding. Like we haven't done that. Like what would that look like? And could we, um, use this funding to test out an option.

3:40:35I also want to put on the table something we talked about originally with the housing innovation fund. And I've heard just in our dialogues together as a board, some of the comments about 500, 000 dollars really isn't a lot of money. And I would agree. And I think even listening to the AT presentation that you, um, that your team brought with Representatives from our cities and towns who got the funding. I've heard that similar or two. There's one of the Lafayette program was one of the examples they are using funding to be able to purchase market and make a de - restricted. And what I'm curious about, um, is doing something like that. But for Boulder County employees using that funding to allow them to get what's considered in the mortgage language, a gift of fun from their employer, which my understanding is from talking with local lender that actually it's not local to national lender that they allow that type of a program as long as all employees have access to the program. And so it would be using a deed restricted program using that fund, but then allowing a tier similar to what we've seen and talked about with chaffa, that if, um, let's just use one year, five year, 10 years, an example is if somebody, um, sold their home in that

3:41:51first year, then it would be a different amount of that money. Let's say it's 50, 000 dollars from Boulder County for this project per unit as an example. Then one percentage of that money would then go back into the fund. Um, either one year five or 10 year old, you know, whatever we decided to leave it as a deederstruct property even for 20 years as an example. Um, so that it would, at some point, let somebody realize that equity, but that it would start building that opportunity and then create funding to come back. So I think for me, the down payment assistance, mortgage rate payment to me doesn't, doesn't get at what I'm trying to do for somebody to buy a home in home ownership. And I'm just thinking about it from the actual practicality of how a purchase price gets negotiated between a buyer and a seller. And what those costs are from a long term, like somebody would have to be in their home for a long time to realize a mortgage by downright, in my opinion. So those are just a couple of kind of responses. And I'm happy to talk about, um, the more, but I think you also said you brought some ideas, but you also wanted some additional ideas.

3:43:08Some said that's one of the pieces I wanted to talk about. Okay. Commissioner Lochiman, I just want to make sure that I'm hearing you correctly. So I'm hearing a preference for the direct cost assistance program instead of mortgage buy down with the concept of Adida restriction where there would be some repayment to the fund depending on when the person sells. That's my summary of what you said. And then when we get to question two, you have some ideas. Great. Thank you. Other commissioners. Well, um, so. I, um, I, you know, City of Boulder tried to do a program and they had no takers on home ownership. None. And this is something that Bobby Aites and former mayor Sam Weaver worked on. And I met with both of them, you know, asked, you know, I was, I was completely doubting whether this would work. And I asked them all my questions and they gave me all their answers with huge confidence and assurance that they'd thought of everything. And this program was going to work. And it didn't. And I'm wondering, I'm just wondering whether with 500, 000 dollars, we can actually make either of these proposals work because I don't know whether, um, whether a person in the, you know, the target AMI actually could qualify even, you know, with some down payment assistance. Couldn't

3:44:48they even qualify for a mortgage? Um, for, for our property in Boulder County, um, have we done that research? And what is, what would the PITIB and what percentage of their income would it be? So I'm just not really, I need to know a whole lot more about whether either of these ideas actually will fly if we were to say we, you know, move forward with them. You know, I've said before, I've said it in conversations with Susanna that. You know, this, this is not enough money to move the needle on very much. And I could see spinning this money or a portion of this money. It wouldn't even, I don't know how much it would be. A couple hundred thousand to get a consultant to design something we might do to do social housing in Boulder County or not just in Boulder County. Like to me innovative is, you know, let's partner with Broomfield and Adams County or something, or let's just do Boulder County. And let's, let's design a social housing program and public and sell and get them to approve a debt issuance. So we can build housing that would, you know, would work, you know. So I want to jump in because you're jumping the question too. We're not quite there yet. I appreciate what you're going, but we're, uh, I

3:46:34want to stick with the question one. So I'm hearing you express some skepticism around, question one. I wonder Susanne, if you or anyone and your team has done that research about sort of AD or, you know, the AMI and ability to qualify for mortgage with either of these programs? Yeah. I do want to respond to that because I've done a lot of research on that city of Boulder Program because that was my first thing. Like I need to know why this was not successful. Um, but I think there was a lot of, uh, barriers in place that I think we can get over. That would make that a little bit easier. Also, I think our targeted approach of public sector intentional engagement with that community would result in people interested. However, I do agree with you. There's risk. I don't know if people will qualify.

3:47:22I do know that we have incomes high enough that would qualify, but the various factors that go into that, right? I don't know people's intimate financial history. So that's where it gets a little tricky. So in that sense, I do agree with you. There's, there are a lot of unknowns on, on moving forward with either one of these. So we haven't done really the research to know whether, you know, the, the, okay, the chart you've got on the purchase price at any of these levels of home price, a person making 80, 000 dollars or a hundred thousand dollars or whatever. Credit history. We don't know what debt they have, obviously, but just in terms of pure earning, you know, whether they could even get a mortgage. Well, we did research that data. So we did pull home prices. There are homes available at those prices. The income level, if they have good credit and all of those other things would in fact qualify them to participate in this program. So Sean did that research. Okay. It's the other factors that we don't have any data on. So anything else just before we move on to Commissioner Stolzman, anything else from you, Commissioner Levy on this first question that we pose to you.

3:48:53Do I feel like they adequately align with the innovative innovation fund priorities. And are you interested in pursuing them? I think that's the bottom line. Well, so this is coming from someone who wasn't really supportive of the innovation fund to begin with. Um, so, um, I would, if we're going to try to do something innovative, I'd like to do something different. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying Commissioner Stolzman. Thank you. Um, so I actually think that the, uh, mortgage rate by down program, um, is really exciting for public employees. Um, and could really be something that the Community could get behind if we can outline it and get through the details appropriately. Um, I do hear in whether it's Southeast County and Longmon, Em Boulder and the mountains, that there's an issue with public employees being able to afford to live in the community.

3:49:51So whether it's county, employees or school teachers, school district employees, whether it's fire, fighters, the notion from folks that people that are serving community are having to move further and further away. That notion comes up quite often. And then I've heard from our staff that this idea that they would live in subsidized housing, these may be not for everybody. Like they want to own a house or they don't want a deed restriction because then you can't get the equity out of it and that that's not a good pathway. So I do think that it's an innovative approach to have, um, for people in public service jobs, um, to have a program that addresses, like, could we get a couple of percentage points off of mortgage. And then you could afford to buy a 600, 000 dollar house instead of a, whatever. So like it would give you a bit more purchasing power for your, say, monthly payment in talking to some of the staff members who are like, we have a bunch of, we have 2, 700 staff members and several of them are trying to buy a house, their first house. And so just in casual conversations with different staff members, a few things have come up. Um, to my attention. And so this is not an exhaustive list by any means. But one

3:51:02of the issues that's been brought to my attention is that like, because, um, housing prices have gotten so high, people are starting to buy houses later in life. And so, and then our staff are also making other good life choices. So they're investing in their retirement and they're, you know, doing these other things in their health savings accounts and things like that. And so a lot of the programs that exist now exclude many of our employees because they have too much in their para retirement. And it can't be accessed in the same way other and maybe others don't want to access it. So I do think minimizing the burdens that are placed on some of the other programs that have excluded the public service staff would be important. That's just one example is that they have too much in retirement to be able to qualify for a program. But yet still can't afford to rent a place in Boulder County. So they're like, the CACH - 22 that's created. So I think doing some more surveying of our employees and of other, if there are other public service jobs that we would want to extend it to, like surveying the people and seeing what the barriers are so that we can appropriately do the RFP like that. And if we did all of this, do

3:52:18I think that would be innovative and exciting and something worthwhile that we could celebrate with the community? Absolutely. I think that would be very, um, meaningful and life - changing. And that the community could be excited. I don't know, um, how many people we can serve by partnering with financial institution with 500, 000 dollars. Like, what do we get for that? What do we get for that? Um, and so I do think striking a balance between the maximizing the rate by down that we could do and maximize in the number of public employees we could serve. Like, I don't know right where that sweet spot is, but I think if we write the RFP just right, we might be able to solicit different types of responses. Um, and then I also don't know if there's anything else we would need to do to make it attractive to the financial institutions. Because from my perspective, and I'm not a bank, so I have my perspective, but it's a great deal for them because you have these responsible, reliable employees with great employers that are signing up to pay you interest for 30 years. Like it's a good deal for them too. We're giving them the most responsible customers I can possibly imagine. And so I don't know. I don't know what the banks would need to

3:53:39have more confidence in doing the program and really getting going on it. But I think it is. Meaningful and worthwhile. And the goal of the program is it would be laid out here would be to help, for my perspective, to help public service employees be able to buy a house in Boulder County. So Commissioners, I see your hand up Commissioner Ochavin just to summarize, I feel like I've won Commissioner who's interested in the direct cost assistance. One commissioner who would like to talk about other things and maybe, um, Commissioner Lochuman has some interest in other ideas as well. And one commissioner who's interested in the mortgage rate by down. So this feels like we need to kind of step back and say, where do you want to take the conversation from here, Commissioner Lochman, I saw you had your hand up. Yeah. Thank you. I think, and I'll just give some experience from what's happening in the market right now because the Boulder County Realistic Market has gone down significantly over the last two years.

3:54:40So there are, like as you alluded, Susanne, there's properties under 500, 000 again in Boulder County, which we hadn't seen for a really long time. I would be interested in kind of meshing the ideas of and feel like if we decided as an employer, like we want to create some kind of a workforce, home ownership opportunity. Like what is the connection with the, and I sell it somewhere else in different packet, the kind of financial literacy, financial preparation. That was something that I talked about at the dias years and years ago when I first started because I was previously the Spanish language, uh, chaffa home buyer person here for Boulder County. So I have some intimate knowledge and just experience and have heard a lot of questions that people have and have also worked with clients all around Boulder County and the state of Colorado.

3:55:29So if we could agree that we wanted to give X amount because one point just rate and I believe from your, well, you had provided Susanna as like four points, which is significant. So changing at two points is a lot of, a lot of funding. I'll tell you a little bit about what's happening right now on the market between, um, longmot, federal, and firestone just from the last two weeks is an example. 10 of the last 13 homes that I've shown in the last two weeks for buyers under 500, 000 are vacant homes. So it's the same comment you've heard me say for the last six years. There are a great amount of vacant properties in Boulder County. We just don't think about it because the housing crisis. For first time buyer, a lot of the issues that are coming up aren't just the mortgage rate. Is also the fact that the property needs significant work, whether it's inside or it's outside. And so it makes me curious around, um, if we could agree on the amount, could we create a direct cautious assistance and allow buyer, um, who's a Boulder County employee to choose?

3:56:36Like, is it the mortgage rate? Because their dot to income is too high. Is it the purchasing power that you mentioned, Commissioner Solesman? Or is it because the entire backyard has to be leveled out to be functional and actually be safe, um, for use, which is also a 20, 000 dollar piece So it just makes me curious about, um, tying that I'm not to, I'm not, I don't know that it has to be a deed restricted, just kind of to respond to some of the comments that I heard here at the dais. Um, but if we provided that as some type of a benefit to employees the same way that I've asked questions about like our fleet, like what that look like if we could give some kind of priority to our own stuff, you know, what a different perks and benefits. So I would be interested in maybe thinking about that amount, like could we decide on an amount? And then deciding giving some options for people to choose their own adventure. Other commissioners want to react to the idea of choose your own adventure. I mean, and I just may not understand the issue very well, but it seems from the information we've been presented that we would be able to serve more, um, public service employees. Cause in my vision, like I

3:57:53think yes County staff, but I also think teachers firefighters, all the other like great public servants we have in the community, I think having a program that could serve more would be better. And so I'm just like, if it was direct cash, then wouldn't the maximum amount of direct cash be 500, 000 dollars? Like, is there some way to get other people's direct cash to give to our employees? Like so that just seems like we can't get it to go as far. Whereas if I think if we packaged something where a lender made a special product for our Boulder County Public Service employees, we might be able to get more purchasing power for more people, whether the vendor could still profit off of people over a 30 year period, just less than they would the general population. And so in my head, in my head, we can serve more people with the way I proposed, but I could just be missing it. I mean, I think, you know, simple math, right? 500, 000 dollars. I'm going to use round numbers 50, 000 is 10. Beneficiaries of that type of a program for a direct cost.

3:58:55Award. I think what you're asking is what's the bank for the buck on a mortgage buy down? And is that more people? Is that what I'm understanding you to say? Well, I think you answer my question. So is direct cash is limited to the amount of money we have. There's not someone else that's going to give us money to give out direct cash to our employees. Correct. And so the piece that I guess is missing for the conversation is like, do we know what a bank would require would require from us to do, like, do we know the exact cost per percent for sure, or do we need to do the RFP to get that. Well. I mean, you got to get up to a mic and then introduce yourself, Sean. Sorry. Sean, already the finance director for the housing department. The interest rate buy down is really a capital markets function. Um, unless a bank is portfolioing the loans and they can come up with their own, you know, sharpening of the pencils. But I'm sorry. And I was assuming the latter. So you're saying you don't think that that's what will happen. I don't. I think for these types of, I mean, getting a bank to say, can you develop a program so that you can portfolio loans that aren't at the 60

4:00:03percent AMI? They don't really get CRA credit for that. And so, you know, maybe I'm not going to say they definitely wouldn't. I'm just going to say that I'm just saying that the, um, the interest rate buy down feature is just something that they plug into a computer. And it's kind of like, what's the market given the term of the interest rate? You know, what does that cost? This has been priced at the full 30 years. So going to, um, uh, Commissioner Locomans point that it's more expensive, right? And most people kind of move like one every seven years or something. So you do leave money on the table, but it is by far the much more powerful feature to bring down the monthly payment. Because one percent interest payment on 450, I mean, that's a lot of money per month in terms of qualifying the buyer. How much less their payment would be. Whereas down payment up front, that's going to be stretched over 30 years. And so that just adds up to a few dollars more a month, you know, less a month that they, they can afford. So it's definitely the more impactful feature, but it's not lost on me, the concept that, are you buying it for seven years? Well, if you're buying it for seven years or three years or

4:01:11five years, then the mortgage underwriter is going to assume after three or five years that, you know, you've got to hire interest payment. I don't know what black box they stick that into, but they have to build that into the credit profile. So the cleanest way is the 30 year buy down rate because the lender now is the whole 30 years. They can underwrite it fully without looking at like benchmarks along the way where the rates could be adjustable based on the majority of the interest rate buy down. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Commissioners, we are almost at 430. I'm hearing at least two commissioners who are interested in continued refinement of the options that are in your memo today. Um, so I think we can move forward with continued refinement. If there are any, I know a couple of you had ideas for others.

4:02:03I'm just going to ask in the interest of time if perhaps we could have you send that to Susanna and Sean and me by email. What's your other concepts are? And if we see alignment amongst, um, two or more commissioners on researching additional options, then we can bring that back to at a future work session. Great. Thank you. Anything else that you need from us today. I think for me, the only other item that would be helpful just to get maybe a check in with OFM and regards to where we are with the AHT so that we could even consider if we wanted to change the 500, 000 dollar amount to something that I've heard everybody kind of describe as more meaningful. Thank you. Thank you. We can, um, look and see what, um, I'm going to call it, you know, if this is an annual appropriation, what ongoing revenues might be available to additionally appropriate that you haven't already considered. Our sales tax collections, as you know, are a little bit below projections. So I'm not optimistic that we'll find something there, but we'll ask and find out. And I heard what you said.

4:03:14And I didn't hear Commissioner Lee the object, but I'm just bringing up a point that just like out of fairness, it does sort of seem like there are three different ideas. And so like what you proposed, I think then like makes it, cause I don't, I mean, I'm not going to send Clair's idea. And because I don't know what it is. I just, I just don't know what it is. And so I do think at the next one, having her idea, like I'm not saying like spend 70, 000 hours researching it, but I do think it would be nice for the board to hear what the idea is and how it works and things like that. And do y'all want to do a little bit of speed dating and just say it out loud today for share to awareness. I'm sort of joking about speed dating, but if you can do it in a minute or less, then we could at least get those ideas on the table today. For transparency. Yeah. My idea is the rate by down. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Stolzman. You seed your time Commissioner Levy. Look, so there are two things that I've been really jazzed about. There's a lot of buzz these days about social housing and social housing is where, and this is being done in Montgomery County

4:04:19in Maryland as being done in the Pacific Northwest. It's being, you know, it was done like decades ago in New York City. Where we, not through an affordable housing program, but the public entity builds the housing. They're not doing it for profit. So there's so you, you sell the bonds, you build the housing. It's nice housing. It's middle income housing. You rent it at market rate. No, sorry strike that you don't rented at market rate because you have, um, you don't have to have any overhead on it. So you, you rent it for what it takes to pay back that debt. And that makes it affordable. And you don't have income qualifications. There's, I can send a gazillion articles about this. So that's one idea. The other idea that I think is, and all, this is the stuff where we need someone to do the research, put the program together, tell us exactly how it would be done. The other idea that is really interesting that is being done again, mostly in the Pacific Northwest, but elsewhere is this limited equity cooperative housing where the, um, a co - op owns, you know, it could be a bunch of, um, single family. It could be townhomes. It could be condos. It could be anything. Any configuration of housing. Um, but it's owned by the cooperative

4:05:54and the residents own a share of the cooperative. And that's how they're able to build equity through their share in the cooperative. But what makes it very attractive. And it's often done maybe always done. I'm not sure in conjunction with a community land trust. What makes it very attractive is that you're not in the market trying to get a mortgage with your income. You're taking out, you're getting a share of a co - op that is that the co - op got the funding. And I've got a gazillion articles about that too. Those would be innovative. Those could be scalable. Those could attract like private equity. Um, support. So that's innovative to me. I'm not dissing your ideas at all, but I think they would, they would be a whole new model of housing development in Boulder County. Thank you, Commissioner Levy. Commissioner Lochmin. I don't have anything else right now. Thank you. Okay. So we have a couple of, um, proposals on the table from Commissioner Levy. I think what, um, SAC can do is just take some sort of preliminary work on those.

4:07:13One of them, I just want to note is a rental concept. I had not previously heard the board express interest in a rental concept for the innovation fund. So I want to check in on that if the other two commissioners don't mind just weighing in very briefly on rental. Is that something that you are open to hearing more about for the innovation fund or do you want to stick with home ownership. I'm not interested in rental. I'm certainly not in the City of Boulder where at the majority of their units, if not all of their affordable units are rentals. Thank you. Commissioner Luchamine. Yeah. So for the social housing concept, I think it would be interesting for like one of our larger BCHA projects, like currently, like I'm not actually a huge fan of LITEC projects. I actually don't think that that is what we should be doing in that is our model. And so I'm not, and I know why we have to do it. And I voted for them. So don't get me wrong. I voted for several LITEC projects and I'll keep voting for them, but it doesn't mean I like it.

4:08:12Um, and so if we could shift a project and like demonstrate social housing on that scale in those rentals, like that, you know, I'm really interested in that. I think for the 500, 000 for the house ownership innovation, I'm not, but I think, um, limited equity cooperative fits in really nice with that. So it's not a, it's not that I'm not interested in the social housing concept that was just presented. I just think it would fit in the other. In a different conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Versus the 500, 000 dollar concept Great. Thank you. That was so helpful. So thank you for taking these extra few minutes today. Um, we appreciate your, uh, discussion and direction commissioners. And we have our marching orders. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Share your speed. Daily matches at our text for obsession. Thank you, Jenna, for sitting through a long.