City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And ask Alicia to do a roll call, please.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening everyone We'll start tonight's roll call as usual with Councilmember Adams present Benjamin present Mayor Brockett present Councilmember Kaplan present Marquis here shoe are here spear present Wallach here And Mayor Pro Tem Weiner.

Present.

Mayor, we have our quorum.

Thanks so much. Well, we will start with open comments. So, Alicia, if you could go over our public participation guidelines, please. That would be much appreciated.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, and good evening, everyone, and thank you for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code. This includes participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscenity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Again, thank you for joining us, and thank you for listening.

Thanks so much for that, Elisha. So we have a number of people, several people here who need interpretation for their remarks. And so we're going to group those folks together at the beginning for ease of interpretation. So appreciate your acceptance of that. And Elisha, do we have them grouped on the OK, excellent. So we already should be in order. So I'm going to read three names at a time. Everyone will have two minutes to speak, and I will be strict about that two-minute time period in the interest of fairness. So our first three speakers are Neil Friedman, Amela Alconovic, and Marcus Christopher. So Neil Friedman, if you can get started, please. You can come on up here to the podium.

I choose to withdraw. OK.

Very good. We'll look forward to your testimony and writing. OK, so we'll go to Amela Alkhanovic. And I apologize for mispronouncing that as our first speaker. Is Amela here? Doesn't look like it. So we will go to Marcus Christopher then. OK, come on up to the podium.

My name is Marcus Christopher. Good evening, everybody. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight on behalf of San Lazaro community. I've been speaking with some of the residents there for a couple of weeks, and I came away with probably one moment where I realized that this housing issue that we were discussing tonight is a little bit more than what I anticipated. It was more than stable housing, but it was more about dignity. It was more about long-term benefits of the community. So I started to read some things, and I thought I would share some of my readings with people tonight and findings. A stable home creates the foundation for which children learn, families grow, workers contribute, and neighbors connect. When families are able to remain rooted in their communities, children perform better in school, parents experience greater financial and emotional stability, health outcomes improve, and employers benefit from a more reliable and productive workforce. Housing stability is not a single issue. It touches every system we care about as a city. Long-term studies by the Institute of Labor Economics show people with stable housing are more likely to gain and maintain employment because housing provides a reliable address, safer sleep, and improved health, transportation stability, and an improved ability to attend work consistently. Research summarized by the National Housing Conference found affordable and stable housing reduces stress, improves access to health care and nutrition. We are not asking the city to solve this challenge alone. We are asking for partnership, visibility, and support for a model that empowers the community.

So I'm afraid your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. All right. Our next three speakers are Elizabeth Hieronymus, John Belos, and David Ulrich. We'll come back to her. So is Elizabeth here?

Greetings. My name is Elizabeth Hieronymus, and I am a member of the San Lázaro community. Tonight, we have many wonderful members of the community with us. If you are here to support San Lázaro, please raise your hand. Muchas gracias a todos. Thank you for everyone. For the rest of my time, I will be sharing a story that was submitted as part of our demographic collections. people chose to anonymously submit stories representing their time in San Lázaro. I'm terrified I will have to move out of San Lázaro. People take care of each other here. There are families and immigrants and people with disabilities just like me. Older folks and many people living off of low incomes. There are people who have to become creative to survive. There are a number of small business owners like me too. some of whom can't find a job that works for them and they've been able to create their own. We are resourceful people and we understand interdependence and we contribute to the Boulder community in so many ways. I cannot find anywhere else to go. Boulder's affordable programs are not accessible to me. They are structured for a narrow demographic of people. I am afraid I will be out on the streets along with my neighbors if the rent grows with no limits. People are going to be displaced. It's already a really scary time in the US. The safety net is crumbling. I'm truly afraid of what will happen if someone else buys the park. When you don't have a home, everything else is really tough to keep up. The last thing that people stop paying when they aren't making ends meet is rent and housing. They'll forego food and medication, and that really says something. Lots of people have experienced tragedies here. This is about survival.

Thank you for your testimony. We're going to go to John Bellows now, and then David Ulrich, and then we'll come back to Amela. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is John Bellos, and I've lived in San Lazaro for eight years. As you've already heard tonight, San Lazaro is fighting for its future, and I want to make a finer point on what's at stake for Boulder. But first, let me quickly summarize our situation. We've received a letter of intent to sell from the park owner. We've connected with Thistle, with the Boulder County Commissioners, and just this week, we met with your relevant housing staff. We formed a steering committee and we're fighting for our community. But the clock is short and the stakes are enormous. If an outside investor buys San Lazaro instead, history is brutally clear about what happens next. Lot rents spike and families get pushed out. Families that have lived here for decades. I understand we are not your jurisdiction, but we are your community. 70% of our households include someone who works in Boulder. 16 of us are employed by the Boulder Valley School District and more than 140 of our children fill BVSD classrooms in a district already struggling with declining enrollment. We are one of the last truly affordable neighborhoods left in the valley and we are your workers, your students, and your neighbors. So here's the ask. We know the city cannot solve this alone, but you can raise the alarm. Tell Boulder County this is a priority. and that it matters to the city. Make it clear to your staff that helping San Lazaro is a top priority. Lend us your expertise, help us find the financial partners, and use every bit of political and financial weight you have to aid us. San Lazaro is 213 families that are asking for your help. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to David Ulrich and then Emil Alkanovic.

I am here in support of our San Lazaro Steering Committee. As you are probably aware, we have recently been offered the opportunity to purchase our neighborhood. San Lazaro is a safe, stable home community where 800 residents live on the edge of Boulder. We are trying to put together the financing to cover the 42.5 million the current owners want for the property. If we are not successful, the park most likely will be purchased by a private equity company like Haven Park Communities, a Utah-based private equity company which has made several acquisitions in Colorado in recent years, including Hickory Village Mobile Home Park in Fort Collins, where they raised the rent 45% after purchase, the Greenmakers Mobile Home Park in Aurora, where they which they purchased for $42 million in August of 2023. The Des Moines Register reports that Haven Park raised the lot rent by 69% immediately after their purchase of a park there. Esther Sullivan in her book Manufactured Insecurity refers to mobile home park residents as captive class tenants. Sullivan and housing advocates use that term to describe the inherent trap of the land lease business model. Because owners cannot leave, private equity firms often continually raise lot rents, leaving residents vulnerable to displacement, forced sales, or even confiscation. We are asking the City of Boulder for any help you can offer to help us purchase our park and keep it the safe, stable, family-oriented community it has been since its founding in 1970. Thank you. Thank you.

And I believe the last person speaking who needs the interpretation is Amela Alconovitch. So if you don't, would you like?

Good evening. My name is Amela Alconovitch and I am a resident of San Lazaro Mobile Home Park. I'm a member of the resident committee and a mother of four children. I'm here today because I'm deeply concerned about the notice of sale and the importance it could have on our children's families and entire community. I experienced displacements for the first time at the age of five, the same age my youngest son is now. Since then, I have experienced displacement multiple times, and I know firsthand the fear, instability, and trauma it causes children. Rebuilding my life took many years and has been a long healing process. For the past 21 years, San Lazaro has been the place where I built my family, found stability, and created a sense of home. The other day, I was driving home from the store with my daughter, rushing to make it to the resident committee meeting. She knew about the situation and asked me, mom, what will happen to us? Will we be displaced? Is someone helping our situation? Hearing those questions from my child was heartbreaking. No child should have to carry that kind of fear and uncertainty. San Jose families are hardworking people who have overcome many hardships. We support one another, respect one another, and have built a strong and caring community together. Many families here have spent years rebuilding their lives. and the possibility of losing our homes is devastating. San Lazar is more than a mobile home park, it's our home. In this time of uncertainty, we respectfully ask for your support in helping residents purchase the park.

Thank you. so normally we wait until the end of open comment to respond to speakers but given the translation that's going on right now i'd like to pause here and turn to city staff and ask for any responses that you have to the speakers so far thanks so much mayor uh and with your um indulgence i might switch the order and speak in spanish first so

Quiero que sepan que estamos en apoyo de sus esfuerzos. Sé que ya han estado en comunicación con nuestro personal y que continúan trabajando con ustedes durante este periodo de transición y posible futura anexión. Hemos estado en comunicación también con el condado, quien también expresa su interés y su apoyo. Y sé que aún queda trabajo por hacer para afinar los detalles, pero que espero con gran interés poder seguir apoyando de mejor manera I will switch around a minute. It's not often that I get the pleasure of speaking in my native tongue. But what I really wanted to say was thank you for joining us tonight. I wanted folks to know that we in the city are very supportive of these efforts. I know our staff has been in communication and will continue to work with you during this period of transition and possible future annexation. We've also been in communication with the county who have also expressed their interest and support for this effort. I know there is still work to be done to fine-tune the details, but I am very much looking forward to however we can best support you and this cooperative in achieving its ownership goals. We are with you.

Thanks so much for that, Nuria. Do any counselors have questions for staff on the speakers so far? Mark?

The purchase price is 42 million. Is there any appraisal of the property?

It's interesting that you have asked. The county and the city have agreed to do a new appraisal. We are splitting that cost and we will share as we can.

Okay. And are there any, and I know times are difficult, but are there any funding mechanisms that could be brought to bear to assist in this effort?

I believe that we have some ability to support financially. I know that our staff has been thinking about that. And as we know more details and we get closer, we will share with you. We will first share with community, but certainly we will come back.

Okay. Thank you.

I assume if there's anything you need from us, you'll bring that to us.

I will never wait.

Thank you.

May I offer a word of thanks as well? I just wanted to thank everyone for coming out tonight and talking with us. I really appreciate that you trust us and saw us as somebody, a group that can offer some support. And I know our staff are so capable and will be there to help and will be there as needed. But thank you so much. And I so admire your advocacy and all the work that you're doing together. True community. Thank you.

Great. And I'll just add thanks, Nury, for the words that you said. I support those 100%. And I'll just mention I was talking to a county commissioner about San Lazaro just recently, and we expressed to each other how we had a shared interest in making this purchase happen. So hopefully we'll be able to make that successful.

And thank you so much for coming to speak to us tonight.

And with that, I'll move on to the rest of open comment. So our next three speakers are Eve Patric and Jeff Gahoon virtually, and then Daniel Howard in person. Is Eve online?

I see them online. Let me check with Lisa. She's monitoring the online speakers.

I do not see them on my side. I'm not sure if I'm having a glitch of some sort.

OK, well, let's go to Jeff Cahoon, and then we'll come back later to see if Eve's present.

I believe I'm unmuted. Oh, you can hear us? Good. I'll proceed then. I would certainly briefly like to support, just as a community member, our brothers and sisters at San Lazaro. It actually is adjacent to the property that I wanted to talk about tonight, and that is the airport. I've been following this for a long time, and it's an interesting one. I grew up in a pro-private aircraft business. Household, both my parents had pilot's licenses and flew. I'm a big believer in it. I'm also a big believer in people paying for their way in the world, particularly those who own million dollar aircraft, which are basically antiques in this day and age. The area of the municipal airport is with having the idea of turning it over basically to an antiquated organization like FAA, when that is a private, excuse me, a public resource that we need to maintain and potentially, potentially over the years, convert. I think it would make a lot of sense for us to look at that as part of our comprehensive plan and to emphasize local control. That is a city resource, that is a city resource that should be maintained. You could imagine in the next few years, virtual takeoff and landing needs in that area, given the new way that things are happening with drones, et cetera. There are too many changes to be considered to maintain a miles long airport for antique aircraft. And simply, we shouldn't support the airport with public money from the government We should support it with landing fees. If you can afford an aircraft, you can afford landing fees.

Thank you so much for your testimony. I understand we have Eve Partridge online now, so let's go to Eve.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great. I want a just city council that supports diverse community, not as a performative gesture, but as a genuine desire for healing and not just millionaire choices that serve a select few. A council that will educate itself of its blind spots among communities experiencing genocide. Truly no room for bigotry. While whole towns in Lebanon and Gaza are destroyed, I spoke with a friend who was frightened for his parents in Lebanon. They didn't evacuate since they were tired of continuously having to leave. They chose to potentially die in their homes after being terrorized by Israel and U.S. bombs. He was shaking from fear for their lives. Another friend I spoke with had shrapnel removed from his body from the summers he spent in the West Bank from Israeli terror. He was grateful there was awareness of the hell they were experiencing. These are your constituents. White phosphorus sprayed over Lebanon and Gaza, which glyphosate Roundup is a milder derivative, sponsored by U.S. government and chemical companies now Bayer and Monsanto that were originally contributed to the Nazis to be used against Jews, Roma, and LGBTQIA people. Mass surveillance and racism towards Islamic and Arabic communities has been an insult since before and after 9-11 and has only benefited an imperialist, colonialist, warmongering narrative. There's nothing supremacist about white terror. It's simply terror, not even the precursors of terrorism, as this council accused the community of last year. Trump removed the page of the government website with statistics of white terror at 70% of all terror attacks in the US, as seen in the recent mosque shooting in California two days ago. Many are hurting from bigotry, violence from government, media, social services, justice, and medical systems. I want a just community council that is inclusive and doesn't perpetuate division.

Time's up, but thank you. The rest of our speakers are in person. The next three are Daniel Howard, Kathy Arp, and Matthew Beibel.

Hello, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Daniel Howard. I'm speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the EAB or NCAR. I ask you to place a ballot measure in the next election so Boulder residents can decide whether the city should maintain local control of the municipal airport. This measure should use the tightly scoped structure of the prior repurposed runways question. while supporting airport questions and operations until 2040. Supporters frame the airport as a critical science hub, but facts show otherwise. NCAR's two major NSF research aircraft, Hyper and the C-130, are based and managed at the NCAR Research Aviation Facility in Bloomfield, not here. When these aircraft fly weather and air quality missions, they operate from Bloomfield. Supporters also cite Scientific Aviation LLC. However, Scientific Aviation was acquired by Champion X in 2021 and is now part of Champion X Missions Technologies, now under SLB, a large global oil and gas services conglomerate. Their operations here are no longer a public-serving research program, but one small part of a global fossil fuel services portfolio. Also, past wildfire and disaster operations utilize helipads rather than the airport's short runways, which are impractical for such operations. In short, the cited scientific and disaster use cases, except in the research org NEON, whose planes are based at BDU, either rely on Bloomfield or are embedded in a multinational fossil fuel company. This is not a sufficient reason to block Boulder residents from deciding on FAA grants that constrain our choices for decades. You have a strong model in the prior airport ballot initiative, which sought local control with allowances for emergency early helicopter use and guidance for a managed transition. Please use that approach to draft a simple ballot measure on local control of the airport so voters, not the FAA, determine Boulder's long-term path for this land. Allowing the FAA to exert perpetual control echoes recent context of similar government agencies usurping control of land occupied by native indigenous Americans or the government of Israel taking land from Palestinians. Instead, I urge you to let the community decide. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now we have Kathy Arp, Matthew Bible, and Emerson Sturgis.

Hello. My name is Kathy Arp, and since July Why don't you bring that? 2025.

Bring the mic down a little bit.

I have lived at Golden West. I come from the East Coast and decided to move to this lovely state, but it was difficult to find affordable housing. And when I came across Golden West offering free television, cable and TV, it kind of sealed the deal for me to move here. But unfortunately, as of September 1st, that is going away. with no reason why, that puts a lot of people in jeopardy, especially our residents who are disabled, have mobility problems, and really feel comfortable just in their home. By taking away their only communication of really the outside world, to me, will have a profound effect on their health. And I thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Matthew Bible, Emerson Sturgis, and HEP Ingham.

Hello. First, thank you.

Raise the microphone up, please.

Thank you, Mayor and Council people, for allowing me to speak. So the airport of today is not the airport of yesteryear. Flight operations of the worst kind, school, touch and goes, and glider pull operations have increased many fold over years, over the recent years and decades. They are of the worst kind because they contribute the most to the lead and noise problems and the ones that routinely ignore the airport's own flight rule guidance, flight path guidance. Additionally, there is no enforcement by the airport or the FAA for pilots to mind this guidance. Experience has shown that if a person asks for some governance from the airport or FAA, they are not only ignored, but they suffer even worse behavior from the pilots. Have any pilots received warnings or fines for ignoring airport flight path rules? As someone who is impacted by many daily operations, I think not. So history has shown that the FAA has no interest in enforcing the transition to unleaded fuel. There's no mandates. And just as they have no interest in having the piston planes transition to technology widely in use in Europe to reduce engine noise and prop noise. Given the track record of the FAA, Why does the council want to give them permanent power to prevent Boulder from enforcing sensible local regulations? I believe the decisions as to the future of the airport property and operations belong to the citizens of Boulder, not the FAA. Our goal should be local control.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Emerson Sturgis, Hepp Ingham, and Laura Kaplan.

Trump is trying to become a dictator. He meets several key aspects of fascism, including authoritarianism, ultranationalism, appeal to the glorious past, and appeal to a common enemy, in this case, immigrants. He tried to overthrow the government in the January 6th Capitol riot. He sent troops into our cities. He cracked down on protests. He intimidated lawmakers. He demanded that lawmakers redraw maps to rig elections in his favor. ICE has been disappearing people. Because of corporate lobbying and campaign contributions, United States politicians serve the interests of big corporations instead of the people. Because no one except Democrats and Republicans win elections, the United States is not a democracy, but rather an authoritarian two-party state. Colorado pays more taxes to the federal government than it gets from the federal government. So I am proposing that Colorado become an independent nation. If you are interested in supporting Colorado independence come talk to me after open comment.

Thank you. Our next three speakers are HEP Ingham Laura Kaplan and Patty Hayward.

Good evening, council. All right. The FAA is an agency captured by the industry it regulates. Aviation groups use the FAA to ensure unlimited daily operations immune from local control for the benefit and profit of special interests. This is the real issue. Taking FAA money means no local control of noise, leaded fuel, or flight operations. If the sovereign entity that owns the airport is subject to grant assurances and does try to implement controls, they are threatened by aviation groups with lawsuits using the FAA grant language and by FAA levied fines. The airports that have taken back control from the FAA and the unbridled expansion of flight schools include Santa Monica and Torrance who are not bound by FAA money. and Reed-Hillview, which is bound by FAA money, which banned leaded fuel despite FAA threats, using local control to put the health of citizens above the narrow interests of general aviation. It's disheartening to hear staff and council members using incorrect information to build the case to take FAA grants. Council should stand up for the majority of citizens. Please do not bend to FAA bullying. the decision on public land in the public's hands, Boulder has a responsibility to do better. Whatever good that comes from general aviation can be accomplished with pilots and planes that respect the community. The FAA control selects for and empowers the elements that care less about the people on the ground. I hope you will see to it that the true owners of the airport are the ones responsible for its operations. And if you want to hear the story about how a town and its airport took back control, I'll be interviewing the lead activist at Santa Monica Tuesday at 6 o'clock.

Time is up, but thank you for your testimony. All right, now we go to Laura Kaplan, Patty Hayward, and Chris Coyne.

Good evening, Council. Laura Kaplan representing myself only. Finishing HEP's thought, 6 p.m. KGNU this Tuesday. John Fairweather. So good decisions are based on good information. However, your recent study session about the airport was riddled with incomplete and erroneous information. I respectfully submit that Council needs a do-over. in a public hearing with better information. I'll give you just a couple of examples of the errors I'm talking about. First, you were not given the option of working toward a locally controlled airport. That is an airport that is not obligated by federal grant assurances and where local government can therefore enact sensible restrictions to protect residents. You were falsely told that this isn't possible. Let me tell you about two airports that prove that it is possible. Torrance Airport last accepted FAA money in 1986. They banned touch and go flights and set decibel noise limits for day and night. Violations can result in a ban from the airport. Santa Monica Airport last accepted an FAA grant in 2003. Santa Monica also sets noise limits and bans touch and goes on weekends, holidays, and overnight. Violations can result in a loss of access and fines up to $10,000. Example number two of incorrect information, you were told that CDOT won't fund Boulder's airport infrastructure unless Boulder signals an intent to operate in perpetuity. This is flat out wrong according to the director of CDOT's division of aeronautics. I have an email from that person that I will forward to you. They are eager to maintain Boulder's infrastructure and the only type of grant that requires an indefinite commitment is for the purchase of land. Bottom line, you're barreling toward a drastic, irreversible policy decision based on bad information, and you need a do-over. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Chris Coyne, and then Peter Fuchs, and then E.J. Giroux.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Patty Hayward. and I too am a resident of the Golden West Manor. As a resident of affordable living, I was very surprised by the letter we received that as of September 1st, 2026, some of our utilities will be no longer included into our lease. Included in this change would be cable, television, and telephone. Seniors will have to look for an outside source to provide them with those amenities. Seniors live on a fixed income. There is no overtime paid, no monthly payments, excuse me, no bonuses paid, or incentives included in our monthly payments. Somewhere along the line, somebody's going to be missing a dozen eggs, a carton of milk, a loaf of bread, so that they can stay in the convenience of their apartment and have those things that they've been so used to. As of September 1st, I will be looking at $1,300 a month for a studio apartment. That increase will be a $250 increase if they do not stop the change that they're trying to do. So how can you stop this, and how can you help? Thank you.

Our last three speakers are Chris Coyne, Peter Fuchs, and E.J. Giroux.

Good evening, all, and thank you for having me. My name's Chris Coyne, myself and my wife, Sophia, on a property over at 1304 8th Street up in the University Hill area. We're currently right now trying to build the most energy efficient home we can within the borders and the code of what Boulder will allow us. I'm not here tonight to ask you guys to change any type of code. What I'm in here to talk about is time, the city's time and the taxpayers' time. On our side, where we stand from our property right now, you guys passed a law in 2024, I believe it's called the energy code dealing with net zero, net zero homes. You guys also have a BRC chapter 6.6 that deals with trees and protection. And then you have your 2018 forestry strategic plan, all good policies, protecting trees and trying to go net zero. We're not talking about bad policies. We're talking good policies. And not all your lots in Boulder fall under them, but a lot of them do. And when they intersect, there could be an issue. And that's where we are right now with our property. So sorting out this intersection of policies has taken us 22 months, four or five city departments, five Boulder inquiry tickets, and one open records, I believe, file we have. So what I'm asking is whenever you have, I gotta speed it up, whenever you have a request for properties, can you send the city out with a small team once, point of contact to walk the lot, make sure the lot's good according to the diagram. If it's good, if it's good, now you have one team, one point of contact, one memo.

Thank you. All right, our last two speakers are Peter Fuchs and EJ Giroux.

Hi. I am speaking on the topic of the refusal to raise the tip minimum wage. I've lived in Boulder year-round since I graduated from college in 2020. I'm friends with minimum wage and tip workers, and my first job paid $18 an hour. So I'm familiar with the challenges of living in Boulder. I think there's plenty of common ground on the issue we're discussing. And when I walk down Pearl Street and see empty storefronts, I think everybody from all classes are disappointed by the news that another restaurant has closed in town. We agree on this. I believe, however, that a refusal to raise the minimum wage in line with the approved study from 2024 is regressive and punitive. And it's also a decision that would miss the underlying causes of the problem, while unnecessarily harming the workforce our community depends on for the amenities we all enjoy. First of all, the assumptions that were made to support a wage freeze are inflated and misrepresent the realities of hourly tipped labor. The $72,000 a year claim that's being circulated is unsubstantiated. And even if staff make $36 an hour on the busiest nights, the reality is that they'll make much less on others. At a time when inflation is rampant, a wage freeze represents a reduction in buying power and the increase in likelihood that these workers will leave for greener pastures outside of Boulder. If businesses are unable to find labor, the economic spiral worsens and I expect to see more Tebow signs and storefronts on Pearl Street. To address the genuine concern of rising business costs without punishing the workforce I propose, we instead focus on the underlying issue, rising rents. I'll put my full support behind the Boulder vacancy tax This policy will not harm the workers our community relies on, but will instead create a positive feedback loop. Downward pressure on rents will increase overhead or reduce overhead for businesses, stabilize the local workforce by encouraging workers to remain in Boulder and foster economic activity.

Your time is up. Thank you. Our last speaker is E.J. Giroux.

Hi, I'm EJ. I'm also with Golden West Senior Center. We are very upset there because we're getting, we have leases that we signed that told us that all of our utilities would be paid by the corporation, and now we've been notified that they won't be. We've also been told after free parking, we now have to pay $50 a month to get a parking spot or decide if we're going to walk half a block or a mile and a half to get to the rooms that we live in. We also have problems with our elevators, which sometimes people are stuck with for hours downstairs because the elevators aren't always working like they're supposed to. It's a 14-story building. So I'm not going to take a lot of your time, but I just think somebody should look into this because we don't seem to get any response from any of the management where we're doing this. All we hear is we're working on it. And that's been four years that I've lived there. They've been working on it. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Well, thanks to everyone who came out and spoke to us this evening. I'll turn to city staff to see if you have any additional follow-ups.

Thanks so much, Mayor. I will have to phone a friend on this issue with Golden West as I'm not as familiar with it. So I'll ask our Director of Housing and Human Services to come down for a moment.

Good evening, Council. Kurt Fernhaber and I support Housing and Human Services. So I was in a conversation with BHP today and we were speaking about Golden West. What they informed me is that there is a contract with Comcast that's coming to an end. in September, and so they need to restructure some things. They will be continuing free Wi-Fi service for all residents, which is the same service that they provided their other properties as well. For those residents that are just continuing with Wi-Fi, I think their rents are reducing by $40 or $45 per month. However, I think the concern the residents have those who want to get their own cable or phone service that could cost more than the $45 reduction that they expect to receive. So BHP is working on this. I believe they have a community meeting coming up and they have put out a communication on this which answers many of these questions that residents have had. So that's the update I have from BHP. Any other further questions we would want to have directed to BHP directly? Thanks.

And Kurt, to clarify, BHP is Boulder Housing Partners? That's correct. The housing authority for the city of Boulder who own the property, correct?

Yes. So Boulder Housing Partners purchased Golden West just over a year ago. and they've been making a number of upgrades to the property.

Thanks. And I would say, I think we would appreciate hearing more information when you have a chance. Thank you for that. Did you have anything else that you wanted to follow up on? I do. Okay. So let's go back to Nury and then we'll come back to council questions.

Just quickly, I will say to Mr. Coyne, thank you. We always take recommendations and improvements that we can do in how we do our services. I will say, and I know that teammates in both planning and development services have been in contact with you. They've been working on protecting trees, including how to support them through demolition and construction. We will continue to do that and make sure we balance those needs and preserving our tree canopy, but always appreciate feedback as we do our work. I will say on, we've heard many comments about the airport and I know council will be, talking again about the airport soon. I just wanted to sort of clarify from staff's perspectives, our current concern about the airport has really focused on funding and funding decisions can vary depending on what the future land use is and what we do in short term. And so we have been thoughtful about thinking about that. I do not believe that we said CDOT will not give us any funds. I think if there was lack of clarity, and I'll go back and look at the tape, I think it was that there are limitations and we had received some signals that perhaps the amount of funds would be harder. They have funds in the vein of three and five years, which we have taken with unleaded fuel, for example. They also have funding that goes into 20 years and that would surpass our current grant assurance. So we'll be thinking about that as that moves forward. I wanna say too that in the meantime, I understand folks who bring concerns about noise and our possibilities we continue to explore unleaded fuel. We will continue to do that as we have an airport, but as it functions as an airport, FAA will always have some presence and some control, because they control the airspace, right? We have certainly other controls that we will have at our disposal, but the conversation one is a little more nuanced, and I will just say that staff very much tries to bring the information that they know for the conversation that we're about to have to the fore.

Thanks. Questions for city staff about open comment? Nicole and... Okay, Nicole, and then Tara.

Yeah, my question, probably, Kurt, you're going to be the one to answer it. This is just around the Golden West. I know this is just such a, the cost of cable and all of that is just skyrocketing. I was just visiting my mom. It was $250 as well for terrible cable service and phone service. And one of the things I'm just wondering about is, is there any support for people in, you getting to more streaming technology or things like that that are far cheaper and that are compatible with the free Wi-Fi that's provided so that people don't have to lose access to the stations that they're used to, watching the programs, things like that. It strikes me we've got lots of helpful high school students and college students and others around, I think, who certainly can teach me a thing or two. But I'm wondering if that's anything that we're working or BHP might be working towards.

Yeah, thank you for that question. What I did notice in the information today from Boulder Housing Partners is that they, as they get closer to that timeframe of the change, they will have staff on site to help individuals with advising or signing up for other service providers and sort of pointing them in those directions.

I think one of the things I'm wondering about is just the support, right, for making that transition and then ongoing just to help people out. I think this has been at least my struggle in trying to save my mom a couple hundred dollars a month is just that without, you know, being there, it is really hard, right? This is all new to many of us as well. And so just making that transition, I'm just wondering if there's any support options available there for people to rely on.

Yeah, as I was struggling with T-Mobile last night and my young daughter had to help me, I understand. But I believe that that's BHP's intention to provide as much support as they can. Yes.

So, Kurt, so what you're saying is that Golden West used to pay for cable, and now the new Golden West is not going to pay for cable.

Yes, the previous contract had it all bundled together for all of the residents.

But you reduced the rent, but not enough to offset the increase in cable.

Yeah. So the rent is reduced. However with that reduced rent you get Wi-Fi but not the phone or cable service.

All right. That's all the questions that I see. We do have the opportunity for up to 30 seconds of council response to open comment if any council members would like to do so.

Mark. Just very quickly. BHP is providing resources for all of the tenants to help work them through the alternatives that are available to them. Obviously, the reduction in rent to $46 is probably not going to be satisfactory to get full services, but they will work with every tenant to get them the best deal possible. And this was not a cost-cutting measure. This was simply a contract expiration.

And you're the council representative to the BHP board, which is why you're sharing that information with us, I believe. Yes, that is why I'm sharing it. Okay, thanks for that. Not seeing any other hands. No? You're too far away Tina, I can't see where it comments.

Yeah, go ahead. Well said. Any other brief responses?

Taisha, did you have something?

Is that going to be translated before I ask? Gina, would you like to?

To be fair, I can make an attempt if you don't want to do it because I wasn't particularly thinking about in that direction, but it was appreciating for the residents of San Lazaro for coming and sharing. You are very important to our community, and we will look forward to supporting you. I'm sure I've missed something in there, but...

Okay, Taisha, did you want to make a brief response?

Yes, I would like to. Thank you. Thank you for the residents of San Lorenzo for coming. Again, I appreciate my fellow council members' efforts to gather additional information and our city staff to figure out what we can do. I was especially compelled by the 100 students that are BVSD, as well as the many residents who work in the city of Boulder, so thank you for that. I also wanted to acknowledge that on May 18th, 2026, there was a shooting at an Islamic center in San Diego, the largest mosque in San Diego. that resulted in three deaths. And as we are approaching June 1st and the horrific terrorist attack that happened here for Jewish community members, just remembering and honoring that we are one species on one planet. And I'm hopeful that we can all act like it. Thank you so much.

All right. Thanks. And not seeing any other hands. That's the end of open comment. Thanks again to everyone who came out to speak and to listen. We look forward to following up on several of these matters. And I will call us into a brief recess, and we will come back for the business portion of our meeting at 6.30.

Thanks. All right.

Hello again, everybody. It's 6.30 p.m. We're back from our brief recess, so I'll call us back to order. And Elisha, can we move to our consent agenda, please?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our consent agenda is our third item on the agenda tonight, and it consists of items 3A and 3B.

Any questions or comments on the consent agenda?

Mark? Just quickly, I'm going to vote no um for the same reason i voted no last time i'm unhappy with the way we changed the height limitations i thought it was sloppy drafting and precise drafting and so i'm going to vote no on that can you clarify which item you're speaking about i'm i'm very good i'm talking about the item b and the ordinance amending title 7 and that portion of that ordinance that changes some of the height limitations.

Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments? Or perhaps a motion?

I move the consent agenda.

Second. We've got a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call, please?

Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 3A and 3B with Councilmember Kaplan.

Yes.

Marquis. Yes. Yes. Schuhart?

Yes.

Speer? Yes. Wallach?

Yes, but no on B.

Thank you, sir. Mayor Pro Tem Weiner?

Yes.

Councilmember Adams? Yes. Benjamin?

Yes.

And Mayor Brockett?

Yes.

The consent agenda items are hereby approved unanimously with the noted nay from Councilmember Wallach on item 3B.

Thanks very much. Can we go to our call-up check-ins, please?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our call-up check-ins are our fourth item on the agenda tonight. 4A is the consideration of a site review for the redevelopment of 777 Broadway with new residential uses. The project includes the demolition of an existing residential building for 63 units, including one, two, three, and four-bedroom units totaling 81,647 square feet. This is reviewed under case number LUR 2025-00014.

Thank you. Any questions or comments or desire to call this one up? Seeing no hands raised, that'll be a no on calling that one up. Can we go to the next one, please?

Yes, sir. Item 4B is the consideration of a motion by the Landmarks Board to not approve an application to designate the property at 990 Arapahoe Avenue as an individual landmark under Chapter 9-11, Historic Preservations, BRC, 1981.

Questions, comments, or desire to call this one up? Matt?

I was hoping I could comment after we decide so that we, I can, my comment doesn't have an impact on quasi-judicial.

That's fine, but you don't desire to call it up? I do not. Okay. Anybody else? All right seeing no hands raised then we will not call that one up and so Matt if you'd like to comment go ahead.

Yeah I'd like to close up or comment. Sorry we already did that.

Good job.

I'd like to comment on this. This probably needed to be said earlier but because we were in a position of quasi judicial it would be inappropriate. But this project has brought forth many challenge and problems with our landmarks and landmarking process. And so I think it's important that we sort of flag this and maybe at next year's retreat look at reforming our landmarking process this isn't to say that landmarking is not important it really is in our community but when we have a process that doesn't take into account our community context like senior affordable housing and that is not a value we can apply to whether or not a little bungalow gets preserved and prevents a community need I think we're missing something in our community. not to mention the displacement of residents when they have to demo and leave people out of residence for one or multiple years before even a shovel of dirt is dug. We have some problems here that I think we need to reconcile. I think we can actually make landmarking stronger and more trustworthy in our community without these problems that maybe make it seem like it's being weaponized or used to harm or restrict positive change in our community. So that's something I look forward to us perhaps doing, but I want to flag it and maybe at next year's retreat we can tackle it.

Got it. Thanks. All right. That finishes our call-up check-in. So can we go to our public hearing, please?

Yes, Sir, our public hearings are our 5th item on tonight's agenda 5 a is the 2nd reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8750 adjustment to base one base budget one appropriating money to defray expenses and liabilities of the city of Boulder for the 2026 fiscal year and setting forth related details.

Thank you, Alicia. And Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and council members, tonight we're talking about our adjustment to base, something we do on a regular basis here in the city. This first one does a lot of reconciling efforts, but I'll keep my mouth shut and send it over to our CFO, Krista Morrison, to kick it off.

Well, good evening, Mayor Brockett, members of city council, Krista Morrison, chief financial officer. Tonight, staff will provide a brief presentation on the first adjustment to base to the current fiscal year. There are two adjustments to base considered by council each fiscal year, with the first in May or June, so that's the one you'll consider tonight, and the second in November or December. After the budget is adjusted, normal business activity requires adjustment to the past budget. Examples of adjustment to the base budget include additional revenue, received such as grants that were not anticipated in the original budget when it was passed, as well as adjustments needed for funds for projects that carry over between multiple years. So we need to reappropriate those. And also unanticipated costs that may come up in a year, such as a contract bidding above what we plan for. As you heard in last week's financial forecast presentation, recommendations for adjustments to base will be limited to only those necessary given our financial constraints. I'll turn this over to Stacey Polikova to walk through in more detail the recommended adjustments to base. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. Stacey Polikova, Senior Budget Analyst with Finance. So this chart shows the city's annual budget cycle, which aligns with the fiscal year. And as indicated by the two red pins, each year at least two supplemental budget appropriation ordinances, known as adjustments to base budget, or ATB, are presented to city council for review and approval. Supplemental appropriations brought forward to council consider criticality of items such as mid-year emergencies, or funds received mid-year, such as grants and donations. Staff carefully reviews supplemental appropriations prior to bringing forward for council approval, which comes forward, as Krista said, at least twice a year with the first budget adjustment in May and the second final budget adjustment in December, as shown on this chart. Adjustments to base are necessary in standard practice, generally presented as one-time budget amendments that support unplanned investments voter-approved changes, emerging community needs, and mid-year grants or donations received. They are classified into three funding source categories, including fund balance, additional and budgeted revenue, and grant revenue. Fund balance represents unbudgeted anticipated expenditures supported through fund balance. Additional unbudgeted revenue are anticipated expenditures supported by additional revenue coming in above budgeted amounts for the current fiscal year. such as reimbursements or donations, and grant revenue supports unbudgeted anticipated expenditures using revenue received from grants. In this ATB1, staff is recommending a total of 18.6 million in budget adjustments, including 13.1 million from fund balance, 5.3 from mid-year grants received, and 129,000 from additional unbudgeted revenue, including revenue from donations, interlocal agreements, and additional revenue above forecasted amounts that were not captured in the original budget. It is important to note that of the 13.1 million fund balance draw amount, a vast majority are funds that are dedicated to a restricted purpose. One example is appropriation of fund balance donations from previous years to the Family Resource Schools program or the Junior Rangers programs. Other fund balance usage includes previously appropriated affordable housing project dollars with remaining expenses spanning into this fiscal year, advancing radio replacement funds that were specifically set aside for that purpose, and money from the water utilities funds for specific projects. $803,000 is being requested from general fund fund balance, all of which are dedicated funds restricted to a specific purpose. A full list can be seen in attachment B of the item 5A packet. As standard practice, staff continue to monitor our major revenue sources to understand any changes forecasted against the original budget and will continue to bring forward updates to council through budget discussions. At this time, staff is careful to not recommend substantial draws from fund balances from funds supported by sales and use taxes apart from the planned expenditures of funds I just mentioned. We are limiting ATB1 requests due to flattening revenue to project specific purposes with dedicated funds new grants, or new revenue. Staff is not recommending expanded programs at this time. With this, I'll pass along to Bridget Klack, who will review a summary of the ATB1 highlights.

Good evening, everyone. Bridget Klack. On these next slides, we've highlighted items included on this adjustment to base from fund balance. These items reflect appropriation of unspent funds set aside for specific from the last fiscal year that we're bringing forward into the fiscal year currently. Business incentive support for $754,000 is one of the items coming forward from fund balance. And we also have another item which is our energy impact offset fees. This is utilizing funds from fund balance from energy offsets on behalf of participating marijuana cultivators and rental license holders. And these 2026 funds will be used to support the energy efficiency retrofits. Continue with a couple other items using fund balance. We have the public safety and wildfire item, appropriation from wildfire resilient savings and the climate tax fund. that is going to be funding wildfire backcountry wheeled litter for patient extraction. Also, we have a wildfire assistance program. This is an appropriation for community grants for wildfire mitigation. Funds are awarded at the time of the application approval and paid out completion when the work is completed and requiring budget to be reappropriated in the current year. All right, we have the Affordable Housing Fund. It's a project carryover for $4 million. These project expenditures in the Affordable Housing Fund for rally flats on 34th Street and spine road development based on delays in the original project development timeline. The second item on the list is $7.3 million for radio funding. So these are requests for funding set aside in the Equipment Replacement Fund. in its fund balance for radio replacements once they have reached their end of life, which typically runs about a 10-year life cycle. This funding is specifically to replace the public safety departments with their radios. All right, we're going to be moving to the select mid-year grants. items that are being brought forward on this ATB. So staff have continued to seek out and receive grants to support city services, and we've highlighted a few of those grants here. We have the Mobile Home Repair and Replacement Grant. The city was awarded grant funding from DOLA primarily for the purpose of beginning a pilot to provide mobile home replacement loans to households at or below percent AMI. A portion of the funding will go towards rehabilitation loans for single family owner occupied dwellings. That second item on the list is the history of Colorado grant for the cultural resource management plan. The OSMP system comprises of 46,000 acres within the surrounding area of the city of Boulder encompassing approximately 1,300 known cultural resources of Indigenous and Euro-American origin associated with the historical development of the Boulder area. And so these cultural funds will go towards developing out that process further. The third item is the Bison-Costler Forest Thinning Project Grant. So the City of Boulder was awarded these grant funds as part of the State Forest Restoration and Wildfire Risk Mitigation Grant. The grant was awarded to complete forest health and fire mitigation on OSMP lands, mainly in that Flagstaff corridor. All right. Last slide for the section of the mid-year grants that are on this ATB. So the Clean Transit Enterprise Fund grant and the FASTER funding. So the clean transit enterprise funds together with funding advancements for service transportation and economic recovery act of 2009 funds support the purchase of a 35 foot electric bus. That will be added to the hot plate. It has it back to Stacy for the council action portion of this presentation.

Now we'll see if council has any questions.

Thanks so much for that presentation and welcome to the council meeting this evening. Any questions for city staff? Mark.

Thank you for the presentation. Welcome aboard. Just a couple of questions. Are the radios for various departments not compatible with one another unless they're all purchased at one time? I'm sorry, can you repeat that last part? I mean, do you have the option of purchasing new radios for the fire department and open space, but not the police? Do they not talk to one another? Does it have to happen all at once?

I think Charlotte's going to get that one.

Good evening, council members. Charlotte Husky, budget officer for the city. We are bringing forward the item for discussion The facilities and fleet is bringing forward the item for the radio replacement. That is a combination, as you've noted, across all of the departments. We typically, when we look to purchase replacements such as this, look to see if we have ability to consolidate and perform discounts. We did have the ability to advance this purchase a year early with a discount by performing the replacement purchase for all of the departments. So that is what is included in this ATB.

And when we make, I mean this is a substantial purchase, when we do that, I mean do we pay cash or do we pay over time? I mean do we get terms?

So this item specifically was an item that was planned for. We have an internal service fund that we have been setting aside annually to replace these radios. We anticipated the replacement of the radios in 2027. We're advancing this replacement with funds that we've set aside specifically on an annual basis. So it is current revenue, but we've been setting aside funds for this for several years to be able to make this purchase early and at a discount.

Okay. One other question. The largest portion of the ATB is from fund balance. And if you look back over the last four years, there have been some pretty significant numbers coming from fund balance. Do I understand that that's money that has been budgeted but not spent from other departments?

So thank you for the question, Councilmember. The majority of the fund balance, if we look at the example for radio replacements, that makes up 56% of the fund balance that we're bringing to you tonight. That is fund balance that we set aside for a specific purpose and has built up over time. We are bringing forward this because we recognize and have planned for this purchase and are just bringing forward this one year early. So that is drawing from fund balance, but we intentionally planned for that for multiple years to bring forward to city council for the replacement purchase of that item.

But it's not just unspent funds? Correct. Okay. Because going back and looking at the $36 million and $31 million and 23 and 24, I'm wondering, you know, how did we accumulate such large numbers in the fund balance? I would assume most departments are spending what has been allocated to them.

Correct. Yeah. That's correct.

Okay.

That's all I got.

Okay. Matt?

I was going to colloquy but I got next anyway so I can just ask my question I want to follow up on what Mark was talking about with regards to the radios as it was very clear we understand the need but we also understand the financial constraints that we're in some TNF Nuria's point there we are in a tough space you guys know that better than we are and we're looking at perhaps new revenue streams this year's budget and perhaps next year's budget that could soften the landings And so I'm wondering why we're looking to spend that now when that money could be redirected to minimize harm on certain other cuts versus be redirected towards programs and things that we know have high impact. And so it just seems odd that we're choosing that now versus waiting for new revenue streams that perhaps could offset that cost if we deferred it for a period of time.

I'll take a first stab at answering that and staff can totally disavow me if I am wrong. But I will say a couple things. One is Following up on Councilmember Wallach's point, we did actually, there was a period where our communications, our radios did not speak to each other very well. We have invested in making sure that across our public safety departments, they are now harmonious. We went to a single provider a while ago, or recently, I guess, a year or so ago. With this purchase as this most forward, public safety remains for us a critical component expenditure, while there are life cycles to a variety of products, it is different to say a lifestyle of a computer, for example, is something that we could push off or other items that we have the ability to push off into other timetables versus the keeping up with the immediate and technological changes that we are requiring, particularly for public safety. It is an area where we do not usually take more risks than we need to.

That's satisfactory, because I was going to suggest we go back to Morse code or Telegraph, but you convinced me, so I appreciate that.

Look forward to hearing your next question in Morse code, Matt. Yes, Tina.

Just out of curiosity, we had a fairly dry year and didn't have a lot of snow removal complaints. Did we realize any savings in that area, and does it just roll over? I'm sorry.

Thank you for the question council member it's something that we will need to look at the specifics to get back regarding potential savings for the snow removal program. But it is something that we work with as you all know with departments across the board on an annual basis and reviewing the savings and planning for requests that are coming for mid-year, looking at our financial position, and then planning for the upcoming fiscal year as well during budget development.

And Charlotte, too, as we get back to council members, I presume that we can look at while they may not have been removing snow, were they doing street sweeping, right? The seasonal nature and the variable nature of our teams means they're not sitting there, right, waiting for snow to come. Is perhaps we've heard a little bit in community, but rather that they do, they turn to other work and looking to see what is offset by that.

Okay. Seeing no other hands raised, let's go to the public hearing. We have three people signed up to speak. Each person will get three minutes and people will be required to speak to the adjustment to base in front of us. And our three speakers are Lynn Siegel virtually, Rob Smoke in person, and Lara Gonzalez virtually. So let's start with Lynn.

Oh, Lynn's in person.

Lynn, go ahead.

It's on base. Should be met by defunding from Israel.

Done. OK, thank you. Now we'll go to Rob Smoke.

My name is Rob Smoke and I live in Boulder and I've lived here since 86 and in talking about the budget and you mentioned public safety a very important topic and things that are funded under ATB and so forth. My my observation is that based on you know critical observations that I know have been made to counsel by members of the community other than myself. There are imprudent expenditures being made if there are cuts in those areas. A lot of areas like public safety, which you were just all talking about, would be a lot easier. Anybody can follow along by going to Google AI's program, Google Gemini. And if you look up Santa Monica, Santa Monica has a population very similar to Boulder. The median household income is slightly higher. It's about 12 percent higher than it is for Boulder. And they spend half as much money on public relations and communications with the public that Boulder spends. If you ask Google AI Gemini what's the average number of people working on staff in the public relations department of a city 100000 to 500000 in size. Google will come back with between five and seven. Boulder has 18 who are paid $100,000 or more who work in public relations slash communications, public engagement. And the budget right now was reduced slightly for public relations in the coming year. I think it's gone down from being slightly over 4 million to being just slightly under 4 million. But those numbers represent an increase of more than 100% over the past several years, I think going back five years. So I also asked Google AI to tell me what's the necessary budget amount to communicate with the public about all the key issues which would be safety issues things like fire things like you know if we had drought conditions and so forth all the things that we do communicate with how much money would it take to do that effectively and Google Gemini. Now they may be biased for one reason or another but they said six hundred thousand and Boulder spending around four million and we may not be including you know certain areas certain people working in certain departments so you know with the average number of workers being uh over 100 grand being uh triple what it is and all the other factors i think some better your time is up but thanks for your testimony and are quite in the audience please and our last speaker is laura gonzalez online

Mayor, I do not see Laura online tonight.

In that case, we'll close the public hearing, bring it back to council for discussion. I'm going to kick it off with just a clarifying question, Neria. Would you mind just speaking a little bit to the communications and public relations budget?

Sure. And it's an unfortunate conversation that I think we've been having in community because it's also pitting departments against each other. It came up last year as we were talking about, our negotiations with police. It has come up this year and then now other departments are coming in. I will say the city does have 32 communications and engagement professionals. 18 of those are embedded in departments. And the reason you see that number and it's hard to compare to other cities is because we've actually decided to go into more centralized model. Our most departments, as we've looked at other jurisdictions actually have very similar numbers, but their numbers are spread out. And so you don't see them. PD, for example, has two PIOs. Those are not PD staff. Those are actually communications and engagement staff. There's a position recently that was a vacant position, not a new ad that we moved forward for utilities. They had been supported by three partially funded individuals, decided that was not the right approach for them. They needed something more and asked to change that model. We used one of those vacant positions and dedicated it, embedded that person into utilities. And that now actually liberates general fund because that is now fully paid for by utilities and their dedicated funding. We have a variety of staff who are doing the amazing work that people are benefiting from right now. There are people that are in charge of the video, the taping, paying attention to Zoom. They do that not just for these council meetings, but they also do that for each and every one of the board and commission meetings. Those are particular skills and expertise and folks that are doing that work. We have folks that are supporting our engagement strategies. And those are in many, I will say many jurisdictions, that's a department unto itself. We decided not to do that. Those are folks that are helping to engage. They usually lead some of the more complex projects, but they also help train the trainer and help support departments when the project aren't as big. We have folks that do, as you saw today, help with our language access program and making sure that all in our community are able to understand what we're doing. There is a big contingent of folks, but it's because they are spread out and do so much. And I dare say that if we did not have community engagement in our midst, we would also hear from community that we do not do enough community engagement either. So it's an unfortunate narrative that is out there. I really stand by and support the folks that we're doing. That does not mean that we do not look particularly in constrained times where we can do better. Last year we actually had a hiring freeze as we were looking to positions we ended up reducing. I want to say off the top of my head and don't hold me to that truth but around 15 positions that we did not move forward in this year for this year's budget. We will, again, be doing those reductions as we look to how do we move forward. So we were always mindful of what programs we have, where we can reduce. We will continue to do so. But I don't think targeting one department as not being useful to community is the approach to go.

Appreciate that answer, Miriam. Yes, Matt?

Can I just? follow up with you on that area. So in my role on the Colorado Municipal League's policy committee, we spend a lot of time with other communities throughout Colorado. I've had the privilege of serving on that for a number of years, really my entire time on council. And other communities, absolutely gasp and roll their eyes when they hear the amount of engagement we do because they don't do but a fraction of that. And so really this is a question about community desires. If community wants less engagement staff, they should demand less engagement. It's really that simple. Now, if we want high engagement, then you get high engagement staff. I mean, it's really a simple feedback mechanism. So I think really community has to look inward on this one. And we feed and we respond to that. We settle up. We send things back for engagement all the time because we're responding to community's desire for more engagement on many issues. that demands more staff. So this is a feedback that I think community needs to question their own values on whether or not they truly value engagement and outreach. If they do, then we're doing the right thing. If not, then let's have a conversation.

Thanks. Quiet in the audience, please. Quiet in the audience. Quiet in the audience. Quiet. All right. So we're back to the adjustment to base. Any comments on that? Yeah, Nicole.

Just wanted to thank staff, as always, for all the work you do. It is always very inspiring to see all the grants and the other sources of support. I feel like you all are amazing in seeking out funding to help supplement a lot of the services we need now. So just wanted to say thank you again for all this work. I know it's routine. You're in the middle of all the other budget work, fund our future, all these other things, and you're still doing this and doing a great job. So just thank you for this.

Agree with that statement. Ryan?

I just wanted to thank the finance team for a stand-up job with this adjustment. Thank you. And also to endorse city manager in areas, comments about communication and engagement. And I think it's fundamental to the job of a local government to have good processes to engage with two-way, multi-way communication with residents. I don't think it needs much more to be said than that. So I appreciate the work of all those working in that space and appreciate it.

Very good. Yes Taisha. I concur with my colleagues comments. I also just want to honor especially the comment around community engagement and I would be remiss if I didn't lift up that I'm seeing a disproportionate use of community engagement. I think a perfect example is our upcoming conversations around tipped credit offset and the fact that we're only allowing three to four weeks versus a Boulder Valley comp plan or some of the other core considerations that we have that are significantly more robust. So again, I am definitely an advocate of strong community engagement, but it makes it easier for our community to be able to launch criticisms against this critical component and necessary component of our community and the city council and city manager's office but I am noticing an uneven use of community engagement and therefore really making sure that we are transparent and managing expectations around the level of community engagement. I also appreciate the more centralized version or rather not version, but model that is being used. And again, when we get to budgeting for outcomes, which will happen in a couple of months, it will be, we will be looking to see what are the outcomes that have been gained from the community engagement as well as any other program on the budget. Thank you.

I SEE ROB.

THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR THE PRESENTATION. Just kind of following up on Mark's question and Taisha as well, budgeting for outcomes, if we can save some money by purchasing these radios, I think that's great. I would also hope that we get these radios so they're implemented by Sundance. That would be fantastic and support our fire and safety. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. I don't see any other hands raised, but perhaps a motion. I believe you have suggested motion language.

I'll do it. Go ahead. I want to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8750, adjustment to base budget one, appropriating money to defray expenses and liabilities of the city of Boulder for the 2026 fiscal year and setting forth related details. Second.

Got a motion and a second. Did you want to speak to your motion at all? Sure, I'll speak.

I know often community members are saying, why is our budget so high? Honestly, it's very similar to other cities. For instance, Longmont is $520.24 million. And what do I hear for Santa Monica is $796.6 million, according to AI. Did you want to speak to your second? OK. We've got a motion and a second.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of Ordinance 8750 with Councilmember Marquis.

Yes.

Shuhart.

Yes.

Speer. Yes. Wallach.

Aye.

Adams. Yes. Benjamin.

Yes.

Mayor Brockett?

Yes.

And Council Member Kaplan?

Yes. I think I forgot to say yes. I believe there's a Mayor Pro Tem over here.

My apologies. Of course. Mayor Pro Tem Weiner? Yes. Thank you. And Council Member Kaplan?

Yes.

Thank you all. Ordinance 8750 is hereby adopted unanimously.

Great. Well, thanks so much to city staff for all of your hard work on this. Appreciate all of your financial acumen that you apply today and every day on behalf of the city. So thanks again and have a good night. But it's not yet time for the rest of us to have a good night because we have another agenda item. Maybe it'll still be good. So Alicia, if we can go to our last item, please.

Thank you, sir. And again, my apologies, Mayor Pro Tem. Our next item on tonight's agenda is item number eight, our matters from the mayor and members of council. Items 8a is the discussion to establish clear criteria for straw polls during a study session and relitigation.

Thanks. And this is under matters from Mayor and members of council as originally requested by Mayor Pro Tem Weiner. But I'm actually going to turn to City Attorney Teresa Taylor-Tate to start by framing the discussion with some overall information, if you wouldn't mind, please.

Thanks, Mayor, members of council. I prepared a short presentation for you this evening to kind of ground the conversation in what rules you currently have, what the current state of the law is, and looking at study sessions, straw polls, and reconsideration. Next slide please. So to start, Official council action is only taken during regular or special meetings. And that comes from our charter, from the legislative procedure. My apologies, I'm having an issue with view. Just one moment. Can you itemize the 90 minutes?

Can I have quiet in the audience, please? Quiet, please, in the audience. We're not having a conversation with folks in attendance.

So Charter Section 16 provides that the council shall act only by ordinance, resolution, or motion. An ordinance resolution or motion can only occur during a regular meeting or a special meeting. Section nine tells us that the council shall meet at such times as may be prescribed by ordinance or resolution and shall meet in regular session at least once in every calendar month. You'll see these are excerpts. These are the relevant portions. It does go on to say that council is authorized to hold special meetings as well. And then the code tells us that council shall hold two regular meetings in each calendar month for each year. It of course then goes on to provide an exception for the summer months. But the point being official action is only taken by motion resolution or ordinance during a regular or a special meeting. Next slide please. In contrast study sessions are to provide direction for future action items at a regular council meeting or a special council meeting if that's the will of council. And they're intended to present topics that require further direction from council. Study sessions are governed exclusively by council procedure. They are not enshrined in the charter or the code otherwise. And study sessions provide direction to staff And that direction to staff is an intent to explore further and bring something back for official action if an action is to be taken. There's no voting in study sessions. So the only place that actually really governs study sessions is council procedure X subsection C, which speaks to study sessions. And the relevant portion of that for this conversation is that council will give direction to staff at study sessions for the presentation of action items at future regular council meetings. Full summaries of study sessions shall be placed in a later council agenda for approval, including the direction given and any remaining issues and any staff reaction or proposed work plan in response to the study session. So study sessions are for direction for future action items. Next slide, please. One of the topics we're going to discuss or you all are going to discuss tonight is straw polls. And I wanted to start by saying straw polls are not outlined anywhere in your procedure. It does not allow or disallow them. but it has been utilized as a tool. And the use of straw pools is an acceptable way to indicate whether council has arrived at consensus for the purpose of providing direction to staff. And that's really what staff is looking for is a consensus among council members, enough interest that we should pursue a particular path and bring that forward for future action. But I want to be very clear that a position expressed in a study session is not binding. You do not have to vote that way. The only binding action you take is in a vote, in a regular or a special meeting. And council members can express an interest in exploring a path that they do not ultimately select. And once again, just to be really clear, what we're looking for is consensus. And so the straw polls have been utilized as a tool to indicate whether there is consensus. in an efficient manner. Finally, I'll go to reconsideration, which is commonly referred to as relitigation, but that's not how it's spelled out in your procedure. It's actually called reconsideration. And there are rules for reconsideration of a motion under Robert's rules, but you all have augmented those rules here. So I want to be clear about reconsideration. And what we should be thinking about primarily is the purpose of this rule. And the purpose of the rule is to provide consistency and certainty in decisions. So direction helps create a path, a clear path forward. Your rules provide if a council member wishes to reconsider a prior council decision, the council member shall request that the CAC schedule a discussion under item eight, which is this item, matters for mayor and city council. Prior council decisions shall be reconsidered only after a material change in law or fact. And then the rule goes on to explain what that means. And so here, the pertinent question is, is council direction a decision, a decision such that Prior decisions shall be reconsidered only if. So we turn to the definition of decision, which is in our rules of statutory construction contained in our code. We look first to the plain meaning of a word. And a decision is a determination arrived at after consideration. So keeping in mind that purpose to create consistency and certainty in decisions, staff relies on that direction. to go forward and prepare an item for action for future council meetings. Revisiting direction that has already been provided creates confusion for the community and staff. But remember, the decision to vote for or against a motion, resolution, or ordinance is independent from the decision to provide direction to explore. That concludes what I have for you as sort of the framework or grounding of this. But I'm available to answer questions and to aid in the discussion in any way I'm able.

Thanks so much for that Teresa is very helpful. So here's what I'll suggest for our consideration of this item is that to start with any clarifying questions for Teresa city staff and then we can have a discussion about this topic and what I would say is the question is whether we want to establish different criteria for straw polls. So basically I would look to counsel if you want to give direction to the presiding officer, which these days is usually me, to conduct straw polls differently than they have been in the past. So let's hear from, get clarifying questions. We can have a discussion and then see if we want to give direction to ourselves and the presiding officer to do things any differently. I've got Rob and Tara. and Tina, Tara, Tina, and Ryan and Mark, but we'll start with Rob. Thank you. And thank you for that, Teresa.

My question is why did we need to provide consensus or non consensus to staff in the study session of the topic of this magnitude? Um, and should we have waited for a regular or a special session? Um, I know you want clarity for staff, but this didn't seem to provide clarity for the public. And in fact, it was a lot of confusion and discontent.

Yeah. Thank you for the question, Rob. I go ahead, Aaron.

Can I ask Rob, can you clarify what decision that you're speaking about?

Oh, whether we supported taking the FAA grants or not.

Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah. So thanks for the, thanks for the question. Um, A couple of thoughts here. The question presented during a study session to council was what the future land use of the airport would be. Inherent in that conversation is funding and how funding occurs. What I would say is that this conversation is separate and distinct from you all discussing that airport discussion. And I believe that that is coming in a future council agenda. And so that would be the appropriate time to address that.

Yeah, because I think tonight we're just talking about how we conduct study sessions and straw polls. And I think just next week we're going to talk about the next steps from a process perspective of airport questions. But Rob, is that satisfactory for now?

Yeah, I was just trying to get context around that particular study session for myself.

Sure, and I guess what I would add is that staff together with CAC brings forward items for regular meetings, special meetings, and study sessions. And so staff together with the CAC brought that forward as a study session. I think that there are is some hindsight and perhaps lessons learned about whether that was the best placement for that topic or not. But that's how we arrived at the decision to bring it as a study session.

Thanks. I got Tina and Tysha have follow up questions on this particular matter.

Yeah. And in this case, just from a learning place of learning, it, it felt like this did not have an associated future action item at the time that it was developed. And I think that would be a place where we would be all on CAC when we have our turn, be looking at that for that specific connection.

I thank you for that observation council member. Um, I think one of the things that I have wrestled with over the last few weeks is how to frame how to frame when the action could be status quo and how to indicate that in a way that is still a future action item. And perhaps that is some way for council to then come forward and have a formal vote around whether they want to continue with the code as written as it currently stands. That certainly is the presumption of the law, that the laws you have passed are good laws and that they are in effect. And I understand the confusion that was created. And I think that's helpful. Thank you.

Mary, you have a follow-up?

Yeah, I want to acknowledge, too, I think in my five years here, study sessions have been used perhaps not in the exact manner in which they needed to. There have been times where it is an informative item to get more conversation but the magnitude of the conversation is much larger than a matters item would have allowed because that is the other place it would have come which also doesn't have votes in a regular meeting. So for example, we have had conversations around homelessness that have taken an entire three hour study session where sometimes it is informing and sometimes it is direction seeking. And so I just want to acknowledge that, that that has been practice, does not mean that is the way it needs to move forward. But I just want to acknowledge that there are topics that are large and we need to be thoughtful and ask you all to be thoughtful about how do we program that in the context of a regular meeting? So, or we transition another possibility is to transition a study session to a special meeting. And then we have a conversation there. Although I just remind folks that in matters items, we would not be voting either. So it's an interesting conundrum, but I want to acknowledge that past.

And before I go any further, I want to correct something that I said a little earlier, which is that generally I'm the presiding officer these days, but we're actually talking about study sessions where I'm generally not the presiding officer. So if it's coming under matters, it would go more towards me, but actually we're looking more to provide direction to the facilitators of the study sessions, which are usually not me. So correcting that point. Tysha, you had another follow-up? You're good. Okay. So I'm going to go back to our previous set of question lists, and I had Tara up next.

I have a few questions, but I do want to acknowledge that it is complicated to figure out the direction forward. I appreciate that we're having this discussion. So my first question is, I don't have to tell you, because you're the boss of Robert's Rules, obviously, because you're our city attorney, that straw polls, according to Robert's Rules, are not for study sessions. So it says it. I can read it to you. Do you want me to? Sure. Okay. It was AI. I checked with AI. It's always true. Hold on. Just give me a second. What if I can't find it right here?

Happy to look at that with you, though.

Okay. Here it is. According to Robert's Rules of Order, newly revised 12th edition, a straw poll is considered an informal non-binding vote used to gauge the temperature or opinion of the assembly on a matter. Generally, motions to take straw polls are not in order because they are considered meaningless.

Yes, ma'am.

So... That is completely...

Right, that's what you said.

...comforts with what I said. That's right. Yeah. So, but... The concept of a straw poll, it seems like we are voting. It seems like we're voting, which is why I often will say, in my vote. So I'm wondering if we could, maybe it's not a big deal, but for instance, call it a sentiment indicator.

I think that that is something you could suggest to your colleagues, which is a fine idea. You know, I know in some meetings, we take a sentiment indicator with a thumbs up, a thumbs down, or a middle thumb. Not a middle finger, but a middle thumb.

So recently, and I'm bringing this to everybody's attention because you and I had this discussion. I don't think it was secret. When I took a straw poll and I indicated that I wanted to do one thing, but I was the five to four swing vote. And then community went crazy, right? Maybe I wasn't the swing. Swing indicator.

See, to me it was a phone.

So then I said, can I change this vote? And you replied that it would be relitigation. But how can you relitigate at a straw poll of which there's no litigation? And I know you explained this to me, but I'm actually going to ask you to explain it again. Sure.

So here's what I would say about this. Reconsideration of a decision is prohibited under your rules. And providing direction to staff is a decision. If we're talking strictly about reconsideration of a vote, that falls under Robert's rules, which speaks only to regular or special meetings. And so there's a bit of a distinction there. But what the rules that you all have promulgated as a council say, that when you have provided a decision, you will not revisit that decision absent a material change of law or fact.

Isn't the decision, though, just an opinion? It's not even a decision.

It's a non-binding opinion to go forward and explore something. I would agree with that.

Do you mind if I chime in here, Tara? Please. Because as I understood the guidance that you gave at the time, it was not that you couldn't change your direction at a future meeting when the item came back to us, but that scheduling a new item or scheduling an item before it would naturally come back to us on the same topic, that scheduling of that item would essentially constitute the reconsideration or relitigation.

That's right. And I'll get back to the stated purpose of study sessions, though not always used this way, but the stated purpose is to bring back a future action item. And that would be the time then for you to make a decisive move about whether you support or not by voting yes or no.

Okay.

So then my last question, my final question, sorry I had so many, is let's say we're having a study session And I'm not blaming anybody, but let's say we feel or some of us feel or I feel, I'll just speak for myself, that I didn't get enough information on a subject or what information I got was not in a bad way biased, but we're humans. What do I do then? Can I then say, hold on, I don't want to do a straw poll at this study session, we're not ready?

Yes, absolutely. So I would say it is incumbent upon you to say if you do not feel like you have enough information, and if one of the ways that you feel like you don't have enough information is that you feel like the information is missing a particular perspective on an item, let's say your impression of the information presented is that it all is in the column that would encourage you to move forward and you want to know what are the things that would encourage you to keep the status quo, you should call a point of order and say that.

Can I also just add, and Teresa correct me if I'm wrong, that direction could also be there is not enough information here and I need more information. That itself is direction. It means that we will need to come back, right? So it is for you. to let us know what you need.

Matt just said, is that only if there's consensus, what do you mean, majority?

I'm just saying one person can't derail the study session, sorry to call it, but you would still need a consensus of council to say there's not enough information to say come back at another time, correct? You would need to give that direction versus one person halting the whole conversation or decision to be made.

That's right, and I can think of times council member where your colleagues have said during a vote, I don't feel like I have adequate information to support this, so I'm going to vote against it.

And to clarify.

In a vote.

And to clarify, consensus in this case is defined by a majority of counsel.

Correct.

Because I often think of consensus as being close to unanimity, but in this case it's a majority.

That's right. And that's one of the things certainly you all could talk about tonight and set some parameters around. But to date, what staff has looked for is an indication, like a nod of five, that at least five people are interested in moving forward in a particular direction. Otherwise, it doesn't seem as if the juice would be worth the squeeze.

Mark, do you have a follow-up on this question? Actually, I wanted to discuss the concept of relitigation. Okay, well, I'm coming down the line here, so I'll get to you shortly. So I got Tina, Ryan.

Yeah, I have a couple clarifying questions. One is that after a study session, we provide a summary of the session as well as the direction that was given. Do we feel that there's a way to include the direction by council member in the written record?

I believe that we inquired about that. And forgive me for putting our city clerk on the spot, but I understand that minutes are in a summary fashion for this, and not by council member. But the question, Alicia, is, whether the summaries of study sessions could indicate direction by council members. So for example, perhaps could the minutes say council members Speer, Benjamin, Weiner, Brockett, and Marquis indicated support for further exploring outlawing pickles in the city of Boulder?

Well, that's really relatively kind of a tricky question because we still go back to the fact that the study sessions are not action meetings. So there's no minutes that are required for those, right? And so with that being said, the departments prepare their own study session summary as they saw the information that they were seeking from council. So wrapping that up, there's no official way to record a study session that would have to be at the city attorney's direction and of course the city manager's direction because that is considered an internal document where no action was taken so therefore not required.

I would add to the nature of direction can often be extremely varied and sometimes in the vein of like to explore some things, not others. How do we move forward? Recently, we talked about talking to the pollster and seeing what that looks like. It is a little bit more art than science. And what we are looking for and trying to hear is, as Teresa mentioned, something akin to a nod, because it does set staff moving in a particular direction. But there are many times in study sessions that it's more directionality, but not the precise thing. So it is hard to attribute with precision. I would also be concerned, if we start to get down the road of individual attribution, that that might be confused with voting.

I get that, and it's just, and I think, well, we'll talk about comments later. But it is, but we are providing video of the meeting, correct?

Correct. There are videos of each meeting on our YouTube channel, and there's a link to those on our website. Okay. And do we provide a transcript of the meeting?

I believe YouTube provides a transcript, but I don't believe staff does, no.

Okay. Yeah, that's good. Okay. And then do we have, and this is just such basic knowledge, do we have informational items that are different than study sessions where specifically staff wouldn't ask a question? Yes. That they would give an overview, and do we call that an informational item or do we call it a study session?

We often have those in study sessions, though occasionally we will have those in an agenda meeting under matters from the city manager. And so some examples that I can provide to you are a municipal court update, an update on police department. We had an update on flock cameras. Those were all information items. They don't happen to be slotted under something called information item, though you all could change the council rules of procedure to have that. The council rule of procedure lays out what the agenda item topics are. Thanks.

Before I go to the next question, just to clarify, no one on council has ever called for banning pickles, just in case the pickle lobby is getting upset.

I personally love pickles. Yes, I do too. There we go.

All right, going down the line, Ryan.

Okay, this is very thorough, so thank you for all this. I just want to make sure I've got a few things, a few clarifying questions and examples. First, Okay, so if a majority of counsel in a study session supports moving forward on something, would it be considered relitigation to have a hearing on that item?

No, no. The decision on whether to have a public hearing or not is a decision around how to bring forward the formal action. And so it would not be considered relitigation unless, unless in a study session, there was consensus to bring something back in a particular way. So for example, if for some reason council decided that it wanted to say, bring this back as a resolution and five people indicated support for that, then it seems that it would be relitigating it to change the form of that. But most typically, council would not provide that kind of direction and would leave that to the province of CAC.

Thank you. And actually follow up on this one. So council acts through resolution, motion, or ordinance. So that's the type of action, I guess. But then separately, there's the matter of the type of the meeting or the type of the decision form, because there's consent, there's hearing. Do those have a... What do we call those?

So items on the consent agenda are in the form of a resolution, a motion, or an ordinance. There is nothing on the consent agenda that is not in the form of one of those. So you are still acting by resolution, motion, or ordinance. Public hearings most often involve an ordinance, though certainly the council has the discretion and CAC has the discretion to set a public hearing on something that is not an ordinance. For example, I don't know if this is the case or not, but it is, I imagine, well, I know that the city has climate action resolutions. I think it's entirely possible that those had a public hearing.

Okay. So I think I'm hearing it's actually not inconsistent to have a hearing even if counsel says it's a, whether it's an ordinance, resolution, or a motion, unless I suppose if they specified, it's not gonna be in a hearing.

If they specify the way it is to be brought back.

Right. Mm-hmm. So to summarize, whether it's a resolution, motion, or ordinance, that does not require that it happen, any of this would happen either on a consent or a hearing.

I would refine that just a bit. So your council rules of procedure say that ordinances on second reading go to public hearing with a few exceptions. And so ordinances often will have a public hearing.

OK. Okay, I'll leave it at that, okay, for now. Second question. If, so if council in a business meeting votes against something that the council majority previously had voted for in a straw poll, but it's not voting because it's just a straw poll, is that relitigation?

That's not relitigation, and it in fact has happened, where council has provided direction to staff to go forth and further explore, bring back information, And then when presented with the item in the future for action, council has said thank you for your work, staff. We decline to take, we vote no, and we decline to take this up at this time.

Great. Okay, thanks. And then another question. So my mental model of council in a study session of moving forward towards a council action and saying staff, yes, we'd like to go ahead with this, is essentially, council directing staff to prepare a proposal, like in the affirmative, that would come back to council.

So anyway, that's a- That's a really useful way to think of it. Okay.

Can you repeat that? Well, just a way that I had thought about, and I guess Teresa agrees, is if council in a study session with a majority straw poll says, we'd like to move this policy forward, what council is effectively saying is staff should prepare a proposal to come back to council. And that proposal will agree with the straw poll, but it hasn't had action yet. So it has to come back to council for a full consideration. That's right.

And I suppose I would add the caveat here that council also may say, we don't need you to prepare a proposal. We're good where we are. Which would be no action.

Oh, okay. So, but in order for it to come back for council action, it would need to be prepared as a proposal by staff.

Correct.

So saying we're good just means there's no council action. We're not requesting you to help us with council action.

Correct. So, you know, imagine that staff presented you an idea in a study session, sua sponte, on our own, made out of whole cloth, and council said, Yeah, we're not interested in doing that. That would just be the status quo. We wouldn't then have to take action to not do that.

Yeah, great. Okay, just a couple more. In a study session, council cannot lock out scenarios for future council action that would normally be required. I mean, it's the minimum wage example. I think you kind of got to it. But just like, for example, if... if a majority of council said in a study session, we're going to look at an ordinance, we're going to consider an ordinance in six months. We don't want you to research the status quo. But we can't lock out the scenario of it not existing just because it was in a study session. Like it would still need to come to the hearing.

That's accurate. Because council could, when faced with all of the choices, Council could vote no on anything new. And what that would do functionally is maintain the status quo. But sometimes staff will present the status quo as an option in the event that a majority of council says, yes, that's what we want. Don't move forward with the rest of this.

Got it. OK, thank you. And just one more question. In the example that a council member in a study session feels like they don't have enough information to move forward or it's just, it's moving too fast. They call a point of order to say, I'm not comfortable. I haven't had my questions answered, but they're in the, they're not in the majority. I'm hearing tough. It moves forward. How would that be? I guess we don't, we have a process for recording straw polls in a, in a study session, but I'm just trying to think normally in a, in a business meeting, if you abstain, it's considered a vote. Yes. I think it's an affirmative vote.

You could vote against something. If you abstain, that's a yes vote. But another choice in an actual vote is to say, I don't feel I have enough information to support that, so I'm not going to support it. I'm going to vote no.

OK. So a no. Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, we're not there yet. I'm sorry, Ryan, go ahead. There was something you said that sparked a thought.

The final thought was just if you've got two council members in a study session who say, I don't have enough to go on. I don't feel like I'm for or against this. I'm not ready yet. There's not something other than a yes or no.

Correct. In a study session, that's true. There's nothing to do about that in the moment other than to decide how you want to weigh in or not. However, If we're hearing that from a council member, even if it's just a minority, one, two, maybe even three, we will take remedial measures. Rest assured, staff, when we hear you say, I don't feel like I have enough information, we're doing our best in the evening to provide that information to you. And we'll do our best to follow up and provide the information to you so that when it comes time for an action item, an actual decision via vote, you are appropriately prepared and informed.

Great. Okay. And then just to follow up to my last question is, based on what you said, if you're facilitating, if one is facilitating a study session, they're hearing a few people say they're not ready, they're not comfortable, does the facilitator have space to change course and say, actually, I think we should not end this meeting now. We should, you know, recess, continue, or something, even if that's not in the majority, or I guess even if it is in the majority, but I'm just thinking, Does the facilitator have space to say, look, I'm trying to do the facilitation here and we don't have the time today?

The facilitator is chairing the meeting. So the facilitator has really quite a lot of influence. It's interesting because your rules of adjournment actually only apply to a regular meeting or a special meeting, not to a study session. And so...

Do you mind if I offer a suggestion, Teresa? Yeah. I think like in an instance like that, Ryan, what I might think is that a council member could say, you know what, I don't have enough information. I feel like we shouldn't proceed further with giving direction and we should ask for more information and then come back to this at a later time. And the facilitator could say, well, does anybody else feel, and if they see some heads nodding, they can say, all right, well, I'd like to straw poll this question. How many people would like us to put a hold on this and ask for more information before we come back? And then if there's a majority of hands are raised for that straw poll, then we could say, okay, all right, we're not going to give specific direction. We'll wait for more information. So does that make sense?

And that's the direction to bring back more information.

Yeah. Did that all sound good, Teresa?

Yes, absolutely. And thank you for the assist.

That's it. Thank you. And thanks all for letting me go through all that. Great.

And yeah, Mark. Yeah. Just a couple of questions. Am I, am I therefore correct in saying that there's no issue of relitigation between a study session and a formal counsel action because you can, as an individual, change your mind. As a counsel, you can change your mind. Correct. Okay. Now, I want to talk about the actual issue with respect to relitigation. And we're talking about formal counsel action. And as I understand it, that can only happen if there's a significant change in law or fact. Material change. Material change. According to whom?

Who judges the materiality of? Five of you.

Okay.

So that rule goes on. If you'd like to know, I can... Hold, please. I'll be right with you.

Do we have hold music?

I have a colloquy to you, Mark. Yes, you may. Asking that while Teresa's researching.

Okay. I've got what I need, but go ahead.

Is material fact of, or change in material factor law? And I think in the last year or so, we also recognize that another one is a time expiration attached to it. That is when there's a new council seated. So there's also an expiration time to reconsideration. I just want to make sure that that's also mentioned as well. So it's not an indefinite that there's a, neither of those two criteria have to be met. If there's a new council that's seated, it resets the clock effectively.

That's right. So I will come to, to your question momentarily. But Matt's point being that relitigation is the composition of council revisiting a decision this council made. So when a new council is seated, there are not considerations of relitigation until you start taking action as that sitting council. Yeah. But for a material change of law or fact, your rules provide a material change in law or fact means a change that if having occurred before the prior council decision would have made it unlikely that a majority of council would have supported the prior decision. If five or more council members support reconsidering a prior decision, the CHC shall be directed to schedule a substantive conversation at a later meeting. And so five of you would have to say, yes, this change is so material that had I had this information, I may have voted differently.

Now, does that extend to the example where I am on the long end of a five to four vote, and afterwards, Taisha comes up to me and says, you didn't think about the following things. And I listen to her and I go, whoa, she's got a great point. I've changed my mind.

That's not a material change in law or fact. The law didn't change and the facts didn't change. Your hearing changed. And Mark, that doesn't count.

Okay. I mean, it seems to me that what constitutes a change in fact is a little bit attached to the person.

No, sir. No. Well, I respectfully disagree. So let's say that staff presented you facts that sodium is bad for you and that green is a horrid color and that cucumbers should not be adulterated into pickles.

I've been wondering about that, by the way. It's left me sleepless on many nights.

Well... Let's say that tomorrow the ADA comes out with an opinion that the sodium in pickles is just the right amount to maintain health. That would be a change of fact.

Okay. What if it's new information to me that Taisha presents to me after I've made a vote and a decision?

The record is the record. You all are presented with the same information. If a colleague has something to add, they should have done that during the course of their comments.

If I may add, so I 100% agree with you, Teresa. I will note that our rules can be waived by a majority vote. So if after your illuminating discussion with Taisha, you change your mind. and then went to and chatted with council members and said, I really feel strongly we should do this over because I wasn't even thinking about the sodium content of the pickles, then council could take a vote to suspend the relitigation rules and say, you know what, it's not really relitigation, but you know, let's have another vote on this.

That's right. It does require a super majority.

Super majority. Thank you for clarifying that. We'll call it the pickle rule. Yeah.

We're going to be hearing from the Pickle Lobby. Can I quickly colloquy, Aaron?

Quick.

Okay. So, but what if a council member says instead of Taisha gave me illuminating information, let's say that, and I talked about this earlier, that somebody feels that staff didn't give them all the information.

That's certainly a point you could raise to your colleagues and then your colleagues could decide whether that constitutes a material change of law or fact.

And you're saying you need a super majority for that decision?

So to reconsider something, you need a bare majority, so five. to suspend the rules and say, we don't care if there was a material change of law or fact, we want to reconsider this anyway, that would require a supermajority.

Okay, let's get to Nicole. She's been waiting patiently.

Thank you. I just have one question. So the straw poll, right, we are fairly clear at this point, it's not a decision, right? also it's interpreted as one by the public, by the press often, and honestly, even sometimes by us, like you were saying about how you sometimes accidentally call it a vote. So I, my question is what, what purpose is it serving, right? What's the problem that we're solving with straw polls that we couldn't solve, um, with procedures like we did last week, which I actually really love that where we each had a chance to, um, to chime in and very specifically answer questions and staff, you know, you were taking notes and, and collecting, um, information there. We did it without a straw poll. I guess. Yes. What is it doing. Sure.

So that's an absolutely not another valid way to approach it. I will tell you it is more time consuming. And it is cumbersome for staff. If that is the will of counsel we are happy to do it. But your meetings will take longer. And we will be seeking quite a lot of clarification. I will tell you there was a complicated chart that resulted. Quite a complicated chart.

Okay. Oh, super quick, hopefully. Super quick. I'd love to move on to comments.

It's really quick. Is there, when we're in study sessions and staff is looking for consensus and it's not a straw poll, is the direction always five mentions or considerations, or do you sometimes do direction with fewer than five individual points of indication?

It's a good question. Five ensures. that we pursue more information on a particular path. Occasionally, there will be four and that four seems strong enough and then perhaps there are several other council members who are simply undecided. And in that instance, we may very well take that under consideration as well as a path forward and bring forward a proposal that includes that.

Okay. And then my second question, and we might have just talked about this, but I'm not sure it's the same. We do a directional straw poll, and someone realizes they didn't want to vote that way. Can they just call you and say, I now don't like that direction. I don't like option C anymore.

No, I would consider that reconsideration of a decision.

Even if it's in the straw poll?

Correct.

OK, thanks for all those excellent and penetrating questions. So let's move to comments. And then I would encourage folks to be pithy in their comments and directed at ways you think we might do things a little differently or to affirm how we have done things to sort of suss out whether we want to conduct study sessions any differently. So who would like to get us started? Ryan.

I have just two suggestions. And the first is that if, well, this is mostly thought out through this conversation, but if we're going to have a study session that will be leading, is expected to lead directly or pretty close to directly to a council decision, we should ideally have the proposal for that in the memo packet or at least some indication of this is going to, this is intended to lead to a council action and here's how we envision that going forward. And that would allow in the study session for some consideration of that and not getting to the end and people kind of thinking, huh, like, okay, now what? And that hasn't happened often. But I do think that I would like to see that. And then I'll just go on with the, or I would like to see, I'd like feedback on that actually, because I just, anyway, I'll leave it at that. The second one is, I think that the CAC, I think it's the right approach that the CAC does the scheduling and, you know, does generally the final kind of, ratification of what's the how does it appear on the agenda and I know that if a council member could always once it comes to a business meeting they could say I move that we take this off the agenda and do something else with it but I feel like that's a kind of a dramatic and maybe like a surprise thing to do and so for an item that is a big stakes item I feel like we should maybe just consider it normal and appropriate that a council member could essentially suggest a call up if it's maybe on a consent item. We could just say, look, I would like us to see this as a hearing or in a different form and then do a five vote or whatever the action is. Just to suggest that CICG doesn't probably the right thing 99% of the time, but that some issues, sometimes the substance gets wound up, I think, into the, the procedure and council should have a clear way to say, I'd like to call a vote to ask if we can treat this differently in our next council meeting. Those are my two suggestions.

Thanks for that, Ryan. And I'll just look to Teresa because I believe we do have a mechanism for calling up a CAC decision.

Yeah, a couple of things here. With respect to your first point, I believe that currently what staff does is phrases it as the questions for counsel. And so if it would be helpful, we can say we are seeking direction on the following items. We can certainly be explicit in that language. As for how something appears on the agenda, there is an opportunity under your current rules for someone to challenge, if you will, the way CAC has scheduled something. And I'm happy to look at that and get back to you about it. But there is a mechanism for that currently. Also, as you note, there is a mechanism by which any council member, a council member, can identify something on the consent agenda and ask for a public hearing on that item. And then it would be rescheduled in the future for a public hearing. There's also a no surprises rule. So if a council member anticipated doing that, a hotline could be sent out indicating that the council member intends to do that with a consent item.

But Teresa, I don't believe an individual can unilaterally pull an item off of consent for a public hearing. They can ask for it to be pulled off for separate discussion and a vote, but I think either of those require a majority vote.

Hold, please. First reading, second reading.

It is under public hearing.

Second reading.

Yes, here we go.

Is anyone taking notes?

I am.

And it's recorded.

Second readings. Second readings shall generally be scheduled for public hearing. The council agenda committee may schedule a second reading of an ordinance on consent only for the following. Dot, dot, dot. Other ordinances that are routine in nature which do not elicit public interest and to which no council member objects.

Very good. So ordinances. Second reading of ordinances may be pulled off unilaterally for a public hearing.

Yes, sir.

But other consent agenda items may not be done unilaterally.

There is nothing in the rules indicating that they can be.

Right. That's right. So that is something that I would expect would require a majority vote.

For a motion or resolution, yes.

Or a first reading.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Sure. So only in the instance of a second reading of an ordinance that is placed on consent may a council member say, I object. I believe this needs a public hearing.

Unilaterally. Correct. But for first reading of ordinances or for motions or resolutions, it cannot be pulled off of consent for a public hearing unilaterally. It would require a majority of council to ascend to that.

That's accurate.

Thanks. Does that clarify?

Thank you, Teresa. Just a quick follow up. You mentioned there is an additional some kind of mechanism available to council members that you would come back on. So if you're willing to do that and share with all of us, I'd appreciate it. Or I can share it, but we'd like us all to know what that is.

I am happy to do that. Would it be acceptable to you if I had some time to look at that and revisit those parts of the rules?

Absolutely. Just want to make sure we all know the same thing that I know. Very good. Thank you.

Matt, did you have a follow-up?

Well, I'm just curious about are we, is it appropriate to, I have some comments, but I also want to make sure it's respectful to Ryan to comment on his suggestions. And so I don't know where's the right, how would you suggest? I would just wait for your regular comments. And then do it all? And then do it all. Okay, I just didn't want to stay on the topic. Well, then I'll wait.

Okay, and I. I have it. Teresa's got it. Does it relate to pickles?

It could, no. Appeals of CAC scheduling decisions. This is in your rules under item three, agenda, subsection, E6, appeals of CAC scheduling decisions. A council member may appeal a CAC scheduling determination by requesting a full council review during matters from the mayor and members of council at an upcoming meeting. CAC will determine the date for the full council discussion of the appeal. Discussions regarding CAC scheduling decision appeals shall be scheduled for no more than 15 minutes and shall be limited to whether the council will consider the scheduling item during a future agenda? Implied in there as and in what form?

Well, I haven't seen any other hands raised yet, so I'll go to you next, Matt. You can just do all of your comments, and then I'll go to Tina.

All right, let me first, since it was fresh on the mind, I'll just maybe respond to a couple things Ryan mentioned as he thought it up. And I appreciate where he's going with this. With regards to giving direction and wanting there to be a sort of understood outcome from that, like a proposed action, I think that that's relevant if the action is new and not maintaining the status quo. Because I think it is weird and redundant for us to reaffirm the status quo of things that are already laws on our books. So I think that that's a weird mechanism if that's the option. If it's new, then I think that that makes total sense. So that's an interesting one. I mean, we've kind of been saying it without saying it. We're dancing around the airport discussion a little bit. We'll get to that in detail next week. But in terms of the process, I do find that we may have acted or CAC may have acted a little bit outside the proper lines on this one. And so it's just worth naming it because study session, there was a consensus that staff would either look at a resolution or a motion and come back to us with that action. It was sort of understood that it would come back under consent, just which vehicle we would use was to remain determined. Then CAC said, well, no, let's have another conversation about the vehicle. where it seems like the more proper way would have been staff to suggest that vehicle as either a motion or a resolution, put it on consent. And it's at that moment under consent that if we wanted to have a further conversation or pull it, that then that's the action to do so. But it does seem a little weird that we were given direction to staff and that direction is now held up and in stasis. While another conversation, which does seem like a reconsideration to some extent because we already gave direction about the vehicle, which is a motion or resolution, has already been given. So I think we may have gotten out of step a little bit based on the guidance that we heard from Teresa that at consent would have been the moment that a majority of council could have pulled it if it wanted to either one. have a bigger conversation or turn it into a public hearing. That would have been the proper moment to do that, not in a single email or in CAC. So I want to clarify that because I think that we've kind of missed, it just seems a little off given how we've heard so clearly about the linkage of the chain. I have other comments, but you certainly want to respond to that.

So respectfully, council member, I think that's a point for next week. I, yeah.

I knew we were dancing around it, but talking about it as well.

Um, another comment about this in general, um, I would just lay with context.

We got to straw polls because I remember when I first got on council, we were giving direction and it seemed like there were nine word salads being delivered to staff. And sometimes that feedback will come back and you'd be like, yeah, that's not really the direction we heard. And then staff would go back and they have to come back to us again. And so that ambiguity was drawing out conversations. resources, time, and impacting other work. So the straw polls are actually a great way to refine that. knowing how we got here is important so we don't swing the pendulum back the other way and lose that valuable tool going forward. So I think we're good with where we are. Sure, maybe there could have been a different framing of a question, but I don't think that invalidates the vehicle we're using in terms of straw polls and that mechanism. So I think, sure, we can tighten up lessons learned about how we framed a question or whether it's a status quo or not, but I don't think that that really impacts how we want to be doing straw polls going forward. I think it's worthwhile, it's working, and we're clear about them as not votes they are direction or they are personal impressions or shaping or your word sentiment indicators. So anyway I think we're good with where we're at. These are just good lessons of maybe shaping questions but I don't think there's much to change here.

Thanks. I get Tina and then Rob and then Nicole.

Yeah I'm somewhat similar to Matt but I would go just a little bit further than a lesson. I do think we need to be tied to an action item in our And I don't think we should change our council procedure. So just as it said, it should be in preparation for something else. I think we should stick with that. I think it's important to frame our questions very carefully. And I think that CAC can, this is really a council issue and a community issue. So it's not just about are we right or wrong, but did we conduct a meeting in a way that took into account the community's presence Um, and did it, did it even look like we made a decision without a public hearing? And that's what we're really grappling with is, is that, you know, that community element is critical because that's why I'm here is because of the community. So, you know, when the CAC is looking at a study session question, and I think they should have those questions, think about, gosh, is this going to look like a vote that has a material impact without having had a public hearing or looking like it was decided before the public hearing? And sometimes, so for instance, with the minimum wage, it's just subtle. The easiest way to have accomplished that would have just not to have been to have pulled on the status quo because it started giving the impression that that was not under consideration, even though technically it is, of course. Anything is under consideration. But we could have just straw pulled which new options do we want to consider and then go on and take an action from both the status quo and any new action. So I think that's the piece that I think we all need to be really cognizant of is what does it look like to the community? We have latitude which questions we ask. We can frame them in a way that it doesn't look like a vote. And we can also try in our own personal outlets to let people know how we're giving consensus. The other thing is it would be helpful if consensus or direction is going to be decided through something other than five mentions. Just to be clear at the beginning of the meeting, this is how we're gathering direction today. I'm looking to hear this word five times or three times or, you know, just so we know what we want to do because I want the meetings to be shorter too. So I don't really want to repeat what Ryan and Taisha and Mark said, but if you need a fourth repetition, then I want to jump in because I think they all had a great idea. So that's the part where that kind of clarity will help as well. So. And again, I think this is a good conversation and I don't think, I just think we're gonna continue to evolve and learn and we can just be more careful with what we ask in the future.

Thanks, Tina. Robin, then Nicole, and then Tara.

Yeah, thanks. Just kind of tagging on what Ryan said when, the verbiage is we're seeking direction. Maybe we even include we're seeking non-binding direction or we're giving staff non-binding direction. Just some kind of clarity for the public, you know, to Tina's point, they're watching this. And then the second thing, I guess this is kind of a question, um, to Tina's point, like we have our own groups of people that are speaking to us and when we have the CAC, I guess then it puts the responsibility on the city council on us to ask for a public hearing through a hotline if we determined that the subject matter is appropriate for that. That's kind of an interrogative, sorry.

I mean, you could just send a request to CAC. That would be the quickest and easiest thing.

Right. But wasn't, Theresa, didn't you say you would like it on a hotline? So, yeah, sorry.

I think I confused the issue a little bit. If you know prior to CAC scheduling something that you, any council member would like this to appear at a particular place on the agenda, you could send that request to CAC. But let's say something gets scheduled in a way that you disagree with, then you could appeal CAC's decision by the manner that we discussed, which would also be a request to CAC for an appeal. Or if something appears as an ordinance on second reading on the consent agenda, and you believe that you want to pull that for a public hearing, then you could indicate that through a hotline. So it's kind of three prong. Okay.

If I just pop in here, at least I think with the current folks who are on the CAC a fair amount, if a council member wants a full consideration, we'll just make it a full consideration. So a quick note to CAC should accomplish that. I think we'll be responsive to those requests. Sorry, Rob, I didn't want to cut you off. Did you have anything else? No, that was it. Thank you. Okay, Nicole, and then Tara.

Thank you. So one thing that I'm observing right now in community and our discussions is that words matter a lot, and the way that people perceive actions matters. In that context, For me, straw polls, as they are understood in the community right now, are unhelpful. We are governing in a time when there is so much mistrust and government at all levels. And I understand there is utility in the information that comes from it. And I wonder if there's a way we can be sensitive to the understanding in community and fostering trust in community just by changing our language a little bit. One thing I've noticed in community is that it seems like there's more familiarity with this idea of a knot of five or a knot of three. And we talked about a sentiment pole instead of a straw pole. But I wonder if pulling on this language of knot of five or knot of three might actually be more helpful and more useful in that context and i see you starting to talk so before i continue i just want to make sure i'm not doing anything like not saying anything i shouldn't i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt oh yeah yeah okay no i just figured i thought maybe i was saying something wrong but so what i'm wondering is if if we could um frame the questions not not necessarily as straw polls per se but something like um Is there a knot of five to work on an ordinance to ban pickles? Is there a knot of three to look at the sodium content of five brands of pickles? Things like that, right? I think the community understands that more as direction, not necessarily decision. And for all of us, we are getting in the habit of thinking about straw polls not as decisions. But there are 100 and some thousand people out there who don't necessarily see it that way. And I think it might be helpful. in this particular moment we're operating in, to think about it that way. And the other thought that I had was just on, I appreciated the additional information on the, the CAC agenda, the longer term look ahead. And I'm wondering if that might be something that could be included as just a sentence or two about what the different topics are when we have them, when they appear on the CAC agendas, just so that there's a little more time for people to just ask, what is that? What is this topic about? That sort of thing to prevent surprises. And I don't want to add work. But I think sometimes the the titles of those items are hard to understand or put in context. So anyway, those are the thoughts. But mostly I'm just, I'm wondering if we can just change our language as we're facilitating study sessions to use not a five or not a three instead.

Thanks, Tara. You wanted to add in, please.

So for, I think that's a perfectly acceptable and viable idea. For direction, staff would be seeking a nod of five, because five is for direction, three is simply for research. Query, if you have three people saying, I don't have enough information, is that a nod of three for additional research? Perhaps, perhaps.

And if I could just follow up on that, I mean, to me, that sort of fits in with how much time the additional research would take, right? I mean, I could ask, you know, give me a list of every city in the country that bans pickles, and, you know, two other people could agree with me, and you all could be like, do you want us to do other work or not, right? So I think there is some, at least the way that I've, you know, heard that used before, sometimes you all are the ones that get to say whether it's a not of three or a not of five, right, in that context.

I think that's accurate. We would likely... Talk a little bit about tradeoffs what does it look like a research question can be small and it can be enormous and then we have to think about what does that look like because there are times when the magnitude of a research question really makes it a work plan item which would be a not a 5.

So I agree with Nicole that straw polling just after the community outcry just doesn't seem where I would want to go, that was a pretty big outcry. The outcry was actually about the wording to a lot of people that talked to me. Whether we should do not a five, I don't know if even that is too strong, but I'm going to leave that up to council or you just so it's clear that it is not binding. I think Rob is correct, and if we say non-binding every single time and hear it, then I'll know that it's not a vote and I won't be confused ever again and say, oh, I just voted because you already told me 10 times non-binding.

I think in the future, we're going to say, . We're just going to throw a lot of Latin phrases at you and then say, staff is seeking non-binding direction from counsel in the form of a nod of five.

Okay. My husband's name is Robert, and he's the one that came up with that phrase, so I feel like that could be the same as Robert's Rules of Orders if we use the sentiment phrase. That's right. Nice. Just saying. If you pick sentiment over your idea, I don't care which one. The second thing I want to say is I also agree on the CAC, but I'm going to ask counsel if we would consider doing something. We get that CAC piece of paper. request, whatever, that report. And I think it behooves us all to look at it and say, is this a study session item or should this be a special meeting item? I mean, it's in our hands. And if we forget, we have another opportunity because Alicia sends it twice. She sends it before and then she sends it after we did it. So now we have two opportunities. which is definitely, like, I was caught by surprise that this all happened, but it was, I'm on CAC all the time, so it was my responsibility that will never happen again. Now I know what to look for, but maybe we should all say we're going to study the CAC papers from now on, once or twice. Religiously.

Thanks for that, Tara. I'll go ahead and call on myself. So I appreciate the discussion. I think the The clarity that we've gotten through all the questions that have been posed and then the answers that Teresa has provided has been really helpful. And I think it's going to be really useful going forward as we go into study sessions in the future. I will say that I think it is extremely helpful to get the will of counsel in some kind of indication of who wants to give direction a certain way. And I am absolutely open to the language around that. I think calling it do we want to have a not a 5 is perfectly reasonable. If we want to say I want to get the indication of council sentiment what's our sentiment indicator right now. I'm open to all of those and fine with not calling it a straw poll. But I think having some clear direction is extremely useful as you already said for staff And also for council in the community, I recall many meetings in my early years on council where people would throw out random comments during study sessions, and then you never knew whether those random comments had support from people and whether they would come back then in the eventual action item that we were to receive. So I think it's going to be really good that we sharpen our language here around non-binding and around avoiding the use of the term straw poll. But I think getting to the will of council through some concrete indicators is extremely useful. And so I do want us to continue doing that. Yes, Nuria.

I appreciate that. And just, Mayor, I wanted to call out that you often in CAC and I want to recognize that when there is an item that you are unfamiliar with you call it out you ask us what that is and I just recommend if anybody sees CAC and has questions about that item please reach out I know many of you do already but that is something we can say oh what is this item what's it going to do and then we'd happy to talk about it and then the other thing I will just underscore in all this conversation IS AS WE ARE LISTENING FOR YOUR SENTIMENT, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, IT REALLY HAS TO BE, FRANKLY, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO LIFT UP WHAT THAT IS, RIGHT? IT'S ABOUT EXPECTATION SETTING FOR NOT JUST WHAT WE'RE HEARING, BUT AMONGST YOUR COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE WE ARE LISTENING TO THAT, TO COUNCILMEMBER MARKWIS'S POINT. AND THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT LONG, I MIGHT ALSO ADD, THAT WE CAN OFTEN JUST SAY PLUS ONE AND, or mostly plus one but this is where I differ because knowing where you differ also matters. So really being thoughtful and intentional about what does that look like I think is really important for us because if not, we will be constantly going back and for more clarity. Well, by the time the fifth person goes around, somebody has said something and we don't know what that looks like, right?

So I would just elevate.

expectation setting for all of us about how we come into those sessions and what we say.

Okay. And then, um, I appreciate that in area. And then my, my other point that I would say is that staff, I think is generally very good about that, but thinking in the outcome of this discussion about a very bright line between the questions for council and then the potential future action items that might result from that direction from council. So So that we can we and the community can be very clear on what those eventual action items where we would take an actual decision Would be what yes It's real quick.

I wanted to bring up one other thing when Tina was talking earlier She said that he said that if you don't have enough information just say no the problem is is the community went create got upset and Because they thought she said no, where really all she said was, I don't have enough information, but it was taken as no. So I don't love that idea as our only option. I just want to be clear to state that that did happen, and I hope that we have a better way. Did we decide we did have a better way? I can't even remember. We were almost done, Tara.

We could talk about it next week. I may have created some confusion, though, because I think what I said was, If you feel like you don't have enough information, speak up and let us try to provide that information in the moment, right? And if you speak up, perhaps enough of your colleagues will say, you know, I'm having those same wonderings and give direction for staff to provide further information at a future meeting.

That was a good answer, thanks. That was much better than my answer. So that was helpful. Does that get to your point? Okay. Does anyone have any further last final thoughts on this question? Maria.

I apologize, Mayor, but there's some clarity on one particular item. In your code, the way in which study sessions are outlined are intended to have some action, some direction in one way or the other. And as I mentioned before, past practice has been that there are times when a topic is so large that it is more informative and we bring it there. We could, I think there was perhaps a suggestion that we no longer do that practice and that would be difficult because we would have to find, bump your regular meeting sessions to do that. We have tried in CAC to mark by asterisk those items that are not in the work plan, that are not in council priorities and that do not require council actions That doesn't mean that you all haven't asked us to bring things forward, but there are times in which it does not fit in a regular meeting. Would you want us to push that to a regular meeting and then there's delay? Would you like us to convert to a special meeting? Or do we continue to use the practice of using that in study session, in which case we may have to amend code?

I guess I'll start. I would like to retain the option to do that, and if that requires amending our rules and procedures, then I would say let's add a small change to the rules and procedures. But maybe I'll look for a sentiment indicator from council if they are okay with that. Yes, is there not a five? If it is required to continue to make that our practice, that we make a small change to the rules and procedures. So it would be retaining the ability to have, maybe you can frame it, which types of items at study sessions?

Sure. So currently the council procedure rules provide that study sessions are for council to provide direction for staff for future items to be brought back as action items. The question in front of us or in front of you all right now is would you like to add to that that study sessions may also be used for information items.

Very clearly stated, so.

Are we gonna, that defaults to even if direction from council is maintaining the status quo, that there would be an affirmation action required?

I think that's a different matter, council member, and I think that's a fair question, but I believe the question on the table right now is about things that are purely informational. So for example, an update on how the police department is doing.

So then what I'm going to ask for is a nod of five to allow for information-only items to be brought forward at study sessions, which has been our practice for many years, but would technically require a change to our rules and procedures. And suddenly I've got a bunch of hands. Mark and then Tina.

Yeah, I would support that. I'd like to keep the prospect of a purely informational study session if the subject matter does not require immediate action and it's something that could be relevant to our duties.

Yeah, and I think this kind of got to my question earlier in the meeting. I think it might be nice if we could call it an informational session or study session information only.

Nicole?

So basically, the question on the table is that we have a practice that exists that isn't documented part of our council rules of procedure. And so the question is, do we wish to document this common practice for the benefit of us and future councils? That's right.

So I'm going to go and ask for a nod of five if people would like to continue to allow information on the items to be brought forward at study sessions by making a small change to our rules of procedures. So raise your hand if you would like to participate in that nod of five.

But now it's not a nod.

But it's so hard to tell if people are nodding.

Oh, please nod vigorously for a minute. Set the timer so I can count. That was funny.

You're putting us in a pickle here, Tina. So raise your hand if you'd like to participate in an out of five. Okay. So that's nine.

Thank you.

Does that give you everything you need.

No. The other thing I heard from council was competing ideas about how to move forward with obtaining consensus feedback about consensus. So I heard. a sentiment indicator. I heard a nod of five. I heard a straw poll and it would be helpful if you all concluded in this conversation what the mechanism will be.

So what I might suggest because this was what I heard and people can correct me if I'm wrong is that people would like to stop using the phrase straw poll but perhaps it could be up to the discretion of the facilitator to use different language.

But if people feel differently I'm happy to get a

sentiment indicator or not a five about something else specific?

I like the phrase non-binding straw poll or non-binding not a five. Either one would work very well to get people to understand that it's non-binding and it can change later.

Got it. Any other, Tara?

I actually like both because I feel like it depends on the subject. So sometimes a sentiment indicator actually sounds better than a 9 out of 5 for certain things. So I feel like we can use both, but that's just me.

And it is a bit of a mouthful. Yeah?

I like 9 out of 5 non-binding.

Okay, so I'll ask for a non-binding not of five. How many people would prefer the terminology non-binding not of five when this is asked for in the future? Yeah, so that's eight. So, yes. So then the direction that we will give to our future facilitators at study sessions is to ask for whether there is a non-binding not of five for the proposal on the table to give direction.

That's nice. Good job, Mark.

Yeah, that was Mark's. And Nicole's. And Nicole's, yeah, yeah. It was a combat. Yeah, yeah. You all are good at doing that with each other. Teresa, is that everything you need?

One moment.

Hold, please. I believe I heard consensus on this, but the last outstanding item on my notes are the request for staff to provide a short summary of the look ahead items.

Oh, I have an idea. Oh, can I say my idea?

Just for staff, I'll say that we can do most anything that you want in the agenda. We have done that already. We have made some changes. It will add staff time. to what we do, and if that's what you desire, then we will figure that out if you believe that that is necessary and the will of council.

So, Nicole, here's a suggestion, which would be maybe for them to get back to us in an email with what the scope of the work ask would be, and then we can consider whether we want to take up that at a future meeting. Does that work? Is that all right, to get back to us with what the scope might be?

Thank you.

The anticipated items is right on the CAC sheet, though. Why do we need more than that? Or do you want them to just post that on somewhere?

But go ahead and clarify but then they're going to get back to us.

Yeah I mean so sometimes there may just be one or two words to describe a topic and that is sort of what it is right. So it's just is there a way without like eight of us or sorry the six of us who are on CAC asking staff repeatedly what's this item what's this item what's this item that there's just like a sentence or something that sort of gets at that that shows up with the CAC agenda but again but that's a totally fine like I think if it's not intended to add work it's actually intended to try to save work just now that I think everybody's committed to looking at that CAC agenda in detail there may be more questions I appreciate that and actually I think for many items are already spelled out because if they are ordinances or call-up items they are already there if I'm understanding perhaps the ask more clearly

It is perhaps, and it really lands a little bit more on those study session agendas, sometimes matter agendas, where the topic is more general and doesn't have a, this goes to ordinance X about whatnot. And we can certainly take a look at those and A, try to title them a little bit better. And if we think there's something that could be added, we could likely do that on a as needed basis. Or if there is questions from council, We can certainly clarify. I think we can take that discretion if that is okay with council.

Great. All right. I think we are done here. I think we can expect a CAC request for an ordinance to ban pickles sometimes in the near future, but that's aside. Any other final words before we wrap up here tonight? Seeing none, I'll close this out at 8.36 p.m. Just six minutes over schedule.