City Council - Special Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

special meeting the Boulder City Council since 2026 and you'll have to bear with me I'm afraid I've come down with a cold so I may be a little hoarse but I will get through my portion of the meeting and before I hand it over to Tina for the second half for the study session I'd like to start by asking for a motion to amend the agenda to add item 2a to the consent agenda consideration of a motion confirming City Council's endorsement of Council Member Matt Benjamin's nomination to the Colorado Municipal League Executive Board.

Do we need to do our roll call?

Oh, thanks so much. I call this meeting to order. Right, let me do the little gaveling thing. And let's have a roll call, please.

Thank you, sir. We'll start tonight's roll call as usual with Council Member Adams. Present. Benjamin.

Present.

Mayor Brockett. Present. Council Member Kaplan.

Present.

Marquis. Present. Shuhard.

Here.

Beer. Present. Wallach.

Here.

And Mayor Pro Tem Weyer. Present.

Mayor, we have our quorum. Great. Thanks so much. Let's try this again. I'd like to ask for a motion to amend the agenda to add item 2A to the consent agenda, which is consideration of a motion confirming city council's endorsement of council member Matt Benjamin's nomination to the Colorado Municipal League Executive Board. So moved.

I said it first. I've never said so moved before. Let me be in the record of it.

Tara gets the motion. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor, please raise your physical hand. All right, that passes. No, Matt voted against it. Okay. Go ahead.

It's odd to vote for myself on that one.

So you don't have to refuse yourself. It's right there. So that's unanimous. So the agenda has been amended. So Alicia, can we go to our newly added consent agenda, please?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our consent agenda is item two on tonight's agenda.

I'm sorry to interrupt before we move on.

Yes, Teresa.

Can we clarify for the record, Council Member Benjamin, did you recuse yourself from that vote?

I didn't know if I needed to. So if I do, then I did. If I didn't, then I didn't. But I see, yes, I did recuse myself. I thought it would be improper. That's why I kept my hand down.

Great. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Teresa, for that clarification. Our consent agenda is item number two on tonight's agenda, and it is our, again, newly added item 2A, consideration of a motion confirming City Council's endorsement of Councilmember Matt Benjamin's nomination to the Colorado Municipal League Executive Board.

Great. And before we vote on this, Matt, would you mind just telling us a little bit about what this is about?

Uh, yeah. So, um, just a little backdrop of the call room municipal league has appointed members from 117 cities across the state, uh, because of the size of Boulder, we get two appointed members. Um, since I've been on council, I've been one of the two appointed members. And in 2024, I served as the policy chair of this group. CML is one of the larger lobbying groups in the state that lobbies state legislation and currently serving alongside Tina on this board and previously served alongside Mark. Boulder has had a growing influence in CML in the past years, largely thanks to the work of Carl Castillo and now Heather Stauffer. Because of that, and because of our size of our city, I've been approached by the leadership at CML to put my name in the hat to be nominated as part of the executive board. The executive board oversees and makes final decisions on the policy recommendations and posture that CML and its staff officially take towards state legislation. It's a board comprising up to 19 individuals. There are currently 17 on that board. And I would be one of those individuals if I was successfully voted in by the group of CMO.

Thanks for that explanation, Matt. And thanks for stepping up and volunteering to serve in this way. Any questions or comments on this consent agenda item? Seeing none, perhaps motion. I'll just go for it. I move the consent agenda.

Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Alicia, can I do a show of hands for this one? Yes, sir. That'll be fine. Okay. All in favor, please raise your physical hand. And that is eight to zero with Matt recused again. So that is passed successfully. And Matt, congratulations on that and look forward to your hopefully successful selection to the executive board.

Appreciate it. And thank you all for your vote of confidence. I really appreciate that. Thank you.

All right. Alicia, can we go to our public hearing now, please?

Yes, sir. Our public hearing is item number three on tonight's agenda. 3A is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8749, authorizing and approving acquisition of property interest for the Arapahoe Avenue Safety Improvement Project by negotiation and purchase or through the power of eminent domain and setting forth those related details.

Thank you so much, E. I do not know if our Director of Transportation and Mobility is going to give some opening comments, but if not, we will send it over to Garrett.

I will just introduce briefly Nuria and Good evening, Council. I'm Blythe Bailey, Director of Transportation and Mobility. I'm supported tonight by Deputy Director Valerie Watson, Capital Projects Division Senior Manager Garrett Slater, who will give the presentation, and Project Manager Brian Wiltshire, who are all available as needed for detailed questions about the project. And I just wanna emphasize before I hand it over to Garrett, that this request is fundamentally about our ability to maintain our project schedule and deliver a long planned transportation safety project using already awarded federal funding. In the past, we've been able to negotiate many of our property agreements without the need for this extra authority, but we've found that if one or the other property negotiations requires it, it is critically important that we have the authority ready Because if we don't, there could be a compromise to our schedule, which could impact the requirements of our grant. And so with that, I'll pass it over to Garrett, who can go into more detail.

Good evening. As Bly said, my name is Garrett Slater. I'm the Civil Senior Engineering Manager for Capital Projects for the Transportation and Mobility Department. And as Bly indicated, we're here this evening to ask you to make a motion to adopt Ordinance 8749, authorizing the use of eminent domain on the Arapahoe Avenue safety project. So that is our ask of you this evening. But we are first going to provide a review of the project, including its background, project context and goals, and the right-of-way needs and process. And just want to reiterate what Bly said with respect to the eminent domain authority on this project. We don't expect to need to use it. We'll get into the why then in a moment here. So first a bit of background about the East Arapahoe Corridor. So the work that we are doing on Arapahoe began in 2014 as a recommendation of the 2014 Transportation Master Plan that identified Arapahoe as an important corridor. And so the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan was an outcome of that work, which was adopted by city council in the fall of 2018. The 2019 master plan continue to reinforce those goals and objectives for the corridor. Because it is an important regional corridor, we want to make sure that we're implementing the Vision Zero safety goals as well that we've got as a community. All of this is happening not alone, but as a city organization, we are partnering with other agencies such as the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, RTD, and DRCOG, the Denver Regional Council of Governments. It's important to note that a top priority of our department as well as the City Council priority is the core arterial network, which means that we are focused on building a connected system of bicycle lanes, intersection enhancements, pedestrian facilities and bus upgrades. And Arapaho is a very important part of the CAN network intersecting a number of other north-south corridors and also being important both locally as well as regionally. So as I indicated, East Arapaho is also known as CO7 or State Highway 7. And it connects us to Brighton on the East end and over the recent years there's been a collaborative multi jurisdictional regional effort. To try to make highway seven a more of a multimodal collaborative corridor. And all the agencies between Boulder and Brighton are working actively to implement solutions that make it safer and more inviting for all modes of travel. And we have council members that have been participating on the CO7 coalition. Council Member Weiner has been participating in those meetings over the last year. And so the city has been working closely with our regional partners and the Next slide here depicts a lot of the activities that have been happening both as a city-only organization, but also in conjunction with our regional partners. So we talked about the East Arapaho Transportation Plan that began in 15 and was approved in 2018. We implemented, in conjunction with the repaving of Arapahoe, which was led by and paid for by CDOT last summer, we were able to partner with them on implementing bus and business access turn lanes along the corridor and Then, additionally, we were able to use Excel underground funding to underground all the overhead power lines over the last few years, which has been an improvement, and we've implemented bus stops and multi-use path enhancements as well in a project that was completed just last year. CDOT also brought funding to to conduct a concept of preliminary design from 28th to 63rd, which laid the groundwork for the final design that we are working on now from 28th to 38th Street. And that's the reason why we are here with you tonight. All of this work is an important precursor to the Brighton to Boulder Flyer. So this fall or late summer timeframe, The region has come together to put together funding to get a bus service in place between Brighton and Boulder, and we're excited to see that come to fruition. And our recently installed bus lanes is going to be an excellent enhancement to accommodate and facilitate the safe and successful operation of that service. So the corridor vision and then the subsequent design that we've been engaged with will tell us that this is what the corridor will look like, providing additional space for all modes of travel and providing enhanced bus stops. Here's more of a bird's eye view of what that will look like. A lot of the focus of the current project between 28th and 38th is on the intersections. It is at the intersections that we typically see conflicts occurring between different modes. And so we are implementing treatments that will make it safer for people to not just move along, but across the Arapaho corridor. So the project budget that we have is made possible by a substantial federal grant of $9.66 million. I always like to say that the city is very good at turning our nickels and dimes into dollars. And this is a good example of that, where we have $2.4 million in city funds that are allowing us to deliver a total $12 million project. And all of this funding was approved as part of the 25 to 2030 CIP, and so we are moving forward with that previously appropriated funding. So here is a slide that depicts the right-of-way need. The existing right-of-way does not fully accommodate all the elements and the treatments that we want to see implemented in terms of delivering on our goals and objectives. And so there are, we've gone through and outlined where the additional property needs are. And there are temporary easements depicted in orange, which are essentially construction easements and allow us to get onto and access people's property during the course of construction. And then there are temporary, permanent easements as well as right of way. And the permanent easements are what we are primarily looking for in addition to a single property where we need some additional right of way. And so there are 14 properties in total. And the average request on each of these properties is about 700 square feet. By and large, what that means is we're asking for small slivers, small strips that impact people's landscaping strip and frontage along the property so that we can squeeze in all the modes and improvements and enhancements that we're looking for on the corridor. So what does the process look like? On all of our grant projects, we are required to follow the Federal Uniform Act process, which entails us initially meeting with property owners to review our design proposal and what that looks like to their adjacent property. And then we will hire an appraiser to determine a fair market value for the easement that we would like. And then by law, they are allowed to go and get a second appraisal and they don't pay for that themselves. The project will pay for that second appraisal so that they can be sure that they're getting fair and equitable treatment throughout the process. And as Blythe indicated at the start, we've gone through this process many, many times before. And the great majority of the time, we are able to arrive at a negotiated settlement with the property owner and the process of acquiring the easement and a right of way. And if we are unable to do that, the next step moves us into mediation. And very, very rarely, we find that it's a step where we need to go to court. So that's what the process in general looks like. The federal process goes to great lengths to make sure that the property owners are fairly represented and aren't being bulldozed by government and local agency authorities. So the schedule ahead through the remainder of this year, we're looking to finalize the design and then we will immediately move to work on the notifications and working with property owners so that we can complete the easement and right away purchases necessary for us to be able to advertise the project for construction with contracting in late 2027, with construction starting potentially late 27, most likely in 28. And so it's important that we meet these milestones because the federal grant funding for this corridor does have spending deadlines. And it's important to note on this project, the spend deadline is not that we have all the funds encumbered, but we have all the funds fully spent by 2030. So that's the crucial piece of information here on why we would like to have the eminent domain authority in hand now, rather than discovering we need it later, because, uh, if we discover we need it later, we would need to come back to council, uh, and getting on council's agenda can be challenging. And then, um, Going through the process, that could delay the project three to six months and with a spending deadline of 2030. And knowing there are always surprises on these projects, most often with underground utility conflicts that we do our best to avoid, we're trying to make sure to streamline the schedule as much as possible. And so with that, again, we would request your approval of the motion for Ordinance 8749. So thank you.

Thanks so much for that Garrett. Do we have any questions for Garrett and city staff? Rob and then Mark and Natina.

Don D' Thank you, thanks for that Garrett i'm given that December 2030 deadline his staff had any preliminary contact with the affected 14 property owners and do you anticipate that it will require any exercise of authority, rather than reaching negotiated settlement.

So we have not had any direct coordination with the property owners as of yet. We typically, until we are at the final design phases where we typically begin that coordination, The actual end design can be a bit of a moving target. And so we don't like to approach the property owners until we are 99% confident that there's not going to be any changes. So we will wait on that until our design is more advanced. To answer your second question, we do anticipate that most of these should be fairly straightforward negotiations and that we do not think that there will be any need for eminent domain.

It's good news. Thank you. Team or Mark and then Tina.

Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions. You say it's an average of 700 square feet per property, right? Well, I can't obviously envision the properties here. What is what is the functional impact of that on the property owners? What are they losing?

So I would say for most of the property owners, there will be very little impact to property. It's a little bit of a reduced landscape strip between the curb and the sidewalk or the curb and the multi-use path is what most of them are going to see. There might be some others where there might be some impact to the parking configuration. And we are prepared to work with some of those property owners on making sure that we make reduce that impact as much as possible and work with them on developing a plan to reconfigure the parking in a way that works for their site as well as the project.

Okay. And is the property owner represented by anybody in this process? I assume most of these property owners are fairly unfamiliar with eminent domain or even negotiations with the city. How are their interests being protected?

So the Uniform Act, as I said, it goes to great lengths to protect property owners' interests and their rights. And if we as a city organization go even one degree out of alignment with the Uniform Act, we can find ourselves in trouble. So we work with an outside certified right-of-way agent who has decades of experience in doing this work. We don't conduct this work as city staff We're required to hire a right-of-way agent that has been trained and certified in these negotiations. And so they assure that those rights are being protected. Having said that, some folks, I would say the great majority are satisfied that they're being treated fairly, but some folks decide they would like to hire representation. And so sometimes they do, but that happens very rarely.

And may I request that if you have any eminent domain proceedings, could you report back to us and tell us how many they might be?

Yes.

I'd appreciate that. Thank you very much. Those are my questions. Tina?

Yeah, I just had a quick question about how much you budget to cover these negotiations, and how does that get reflected in our budget?

So on most of our projects where we know there's going to be easement and right-of-way need, we generally put in a sort of a placeholder figure for the process of conducting appraisals, going through negotiations, and then the actual acquisition. And so it's a standard function on the projects like this, like I said. And off the top of my head, I don't want to give you a figure. We can follow up with that information as to how much has been budgeted within this particular project. But it can range anywhere from one to five percent of a project's value in general, because most of the time we are looking to acquire just small little slivers. We're not looking to do big swaths of taking.

Thank you.

Very good. All right, not seeing any other hands raised. Let's go to the public hearing. We have one person signed up to speak. So they will get three minutes to speak. And I'll just remind the speaker to speak to the ordinance in front of us about the eminent domain on Arapahoe Avenue. And our one speaker is Lynn Siegel.

Lynn, your mic has been unmuted. You're welcome to start speaking at any time.

I can see that at my end. Um, well, I hope you realize this is a bribe from the federal government of $2 million for $12 million for growth, right? Like-like debt funds, you know, they want us to grow bigger and bigger. I mean, it works well for the city because we make a lot of money, right? You know, $12 million for two. But what do we really pay? The real costs of growth. Like out on Strapahoe is Weathervane, a whole little city into itself with no grocery store. No, you know, it was, you know what, Weathervane, if you recall this, it was anchored on a brew pub. Seriously, folks, seriously. And on a floodplain. Okay, Weathervane's at 58th and Arapaho. I didn't, I wasn't looking closely where this specific improvement is, but in any case, it's improving that corridor. And Sorry, but when my dad came here in 1949 after the war, World War II, fighting for our freedom, you know, and almost I didn't end up alive as a result. He didn't like Boulder at 30,000 or whatever it was, 20,000 back then. So, you know, too much of a good thing, like with CU, too much of a good thing. This kind of growth, this kind of good deal you get, 10 million bucks for free, you know? Yeah, how much of a good deal is that? Really? Really? Because we need to stop our growth and stop these wars. You know, the big G word, Erin. Okay? That is is very important because if we have a nice corridor out of Arapaho, it's kind of pointless if we have a nuclear event that, you know, kind of ruins it.

Can you speak to the topic at hand?

I am talking to the topic at hand. How dare you interrupt me, Erin? How dare you? This is about money. It's about bribes. It's about 10 million bucks, right? That's what it's about. So I'm not approving this. Not because Garrett didn't do a great job. Not because the staff and everybody is doing what they think is the best thing. But because it's not really the best thing. Free Palestine.

Your time is up. All right, that ends the public hearing. So we'll come to council for discussion or possibly motion. Tara. Tara, put her hand down. Brian.

Oh, I didn't put my hand down. I'm just, for some reason, having trouble coordinating my hand tonight.

Go ahead, Tara.

Okay. First of all, you know, I was on CO7 subcommittee when I started on council for a few years and It is really exciting, Garrett, to see this come to fruition. I think pretty quickly considering where we were and how great is it that we'll be able to have faster bus service so that we can cut down on commuter time and ways for pedestrians and bikers to feel much safer. So I'm really, really excited about this. That is my comment.

Great.

Brian? Just a little bit of an extension of what Tara said. I'm very supportive of this initiative and I have the pleasure and honor of being our representative now for the Colorado 7 Initiative. So that's the whole corridor from Boulder to Brighton. And it's a big intergovernmental coalition. And so it's a very important regional corridor. And what Garrett and the team are bringing forward is the nuts and bolts of how we improve congestion, access, affordability, reducing fossil fuels, and driving climate action in the nitty gritty. And so I'm just very happy to see this. And I would just remind folks that These are network effects in our transportation system we're building, and it's an exponential function. So each big system on a corridor we build, the better the whole system works for all. And we're lucky to have staff who have the expertise and also the mandate to be doing this kind of work. So very happy to see this coming forward. Thanks.

Thanks for that. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Perhaps someone would like to make a motion. The language is in the chat. Tara.

Motion. Sure. I'd like to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8749 authorizing and approving acquisition of property interest for the Arapahoe Avenue Safety Improvements Project by negotiation and purchase or through the power of eminent domain and setting forth related details.

Second. A motion and a second. Seeing no other hands raised, Alicia, let's do a roll call, please.

All right, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of ordinance 8749 with council member Marcus. Yes.

Yes.

Spear. Yes. Wallach.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Weiner. Yes. Council member Adams. Yes. Benjamin.

Yes.

Mayor Bracken.

Yes.

And Council member Council member Kaplan.

Yes.

Ordinance 8749 is hereby approved unanimously.

Very good. Thanks so much. And Garrett, really appreciate all of your hard work on this project. And we're just seeing it get built. Thank you, Council. All right. That brings us to our matters item. Please, Alicia.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our matters item is our matters from the mayor and members of council. And it is item 4A on tonight's agenda. And it is the discussion of council action desired for continued use of airport land.

Very good. And Mary, did you want to speak to this at all or shall I kick this off?

I'm happy to real quick if you want me to, Mayor. At our last meeting with our staff at a study session, staff brought forward some scenarios and really wanting to know where council supported the question of whether or not to continue to operate the airport indefinitely or whether to target the possibility of future reuse. That certainly had some funding Um, consequences to, um, how we continue to support the airport, but, um, we brought that forward, uh, after much discussion, uh, there was direction to staff to move forward on scenario a, which is to keep the airport. opened for its purpose, for its use indefinitely. And there was a question on to bring it back to council for an affirmative action or for an action of some kind. And whether that be a motion or resolution was a discussion then. We are at a council member request. We are currently bringing this as a conversation for you all to have.

Thanks for that. So, and I believe we said a motion or a resolution based on SAP's recommendation. And Teresa, did you have a recommendation on that?

Yes, Mayor. After having a look at the right vehicle, I believe it would be a motion to affirm the continued use of the airport in accordance with our code. which is section 11-4.

Thanks for that. All right. So, counsel, the question before us, because we didn't weigh in on this at the study session where we discussed this topic, the question before us is whether to consider this motion on the consent agenda at a future meeting or at a public hearing. And that kind of decision is generally done by CAC, but CAC decided that given that this question is of such interest to council members and the community, it was better for the council as a whole to decide which was the most appropriate process to follow. So to frame the discussion, we're not talking tonight about the pros and cons of the airport or any substantive question about the airport or its operations or its future at all. But strictly about the question in front of us is whether we will consider this motion on the consent agenda or at a public hearing. So I'd like to get the will of council on that. So I'll go ahead and open the floor. If people want to make some quick comments, I would encourage quick comments. And then we can look to see about a nod of five to give council direction about how to proceed. I've got Mark and Rob.

Yeah. We've had a lot of community interest on both sides. for this issue. And I think it is highly appropriate to do this in a manner that permits some form of community input. And that would be a public hearing. To do otherwise, I just think is in effect above our pay grade. There's a lot of community interest on this subject. And again, it is on both sides. We've had many, many, many emails asking us to do one thing or another. And I just think it's a little presumptuous of us to do this on a consent agenda and not have the community be able to participate in that conversation. And so I would strongly urge us to go that route. And at that point, we can discuss pros and cons and what was missing and not missing from prior presentations, not necessary tonight. I'm simply advocating for us to do something that I think the community expects us to do, which is to allow them to participate and provide input to this decision.

Very good.

Rob? Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I echo Mark's sentiment for a public hearing. I think there are a lot of facts floating out there. Well, and I use facts in air quotes. There's a lot of data floating out there, and it would be nice to have some explanations in a public hearing where that comes from, because feel like one side is grabbing one set and another side is grabbing another set. And it would be really nice to have that explanation for a public hearing and for council as well.

Thank you.

I mean, I don't know if I'll end up where I'll end up on the vote, but I'll just say that I'm not sure that there's a need for, and I'm a little pushed back on this is going to be like the chance for community way in. We did almost a year's worth of outreach and engagement at quite a high level to get a lot of feedback on this. So a community has been heard and we've got a pretty clear understanding of where community wants us to go. And since the direction of council is redundant to everything that is already in place for the operation of an airport, I just want to make sure that we're clear that any public hearing you know, is in many, you know, it's not going to materially change the facts that are present here. And I just think it's important for community to be aware that it may not dramatically change how people think of this because of how well and long studied and how clear the facts are for the facts that are present, not the ones that want to be made up. We went through this with CU South We had clear facts and there were folks that just kept making stuff up facts prevailed. And so I think it's important for us to remember the lessons learned that we're not here chasing Sasquatch. We're here to focus on the facts in front of us that have been well curated and have been well vetted so You know, we'll see where that goes. But if the will of counsel is to do a public hearing, I'll be okay with it. I just don't see a need and want to set community expectations for what those outcomes may be Thanks, Nicole.

I think a public hearing, I think, would be appropriate. Matt, I think we're looking at different facts because there was not a whole lot of consensus from that process, from what I remember. And I feel like the least we can do for community is offer a public hearing so that people do feel like they have been heard. Whatever the outcome of that decision is, at least people will have had a chance to speak to us publicly.

Thanks. Tara?

Yep, I agree. I think it will be most appropriate to do a public hearing. We've gotten a lot of emails asking for this, and I just think it's not a difficult thing for us to do, and we should do it.

Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised. I'll just call on myself, and I'll say that when I was initially considering this question, I had been thinking that the community conversation that we had had and then the many, many emails and then the additional many conversations that we had had would be sufficient to consider this question. But I've heard from enough people in recent days who feel very strongly that a public hearing is their preferred next step in the process that I will go ahead and support us having a public hearing so that we can hear people's voices in a meeting. All right, I don't see any other hands raised. So I'll go ahead and say, as for the not a five about how we wanna proceed. And so for that, I'll say how many people who would like to have a public hearing on this question, please raise your physical hand. Yeah, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And who would prefer bringing back on the consent agenda? We got one. So looks like our next step here will be a public hearing. And I believe, Teresa, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe what we're doing here is giving direction to CAC that we would like this scheduled as a public hearing. And then CAC can do the scheduling. Is that correct?

Yes, Mayor, that's accurate.

Very good. So I think we've given clear direction to CAC and Nuria will work with you and your team to figure out how to organize that. I knew we do have some times available in June, but I'll defer to CAC to figure out those specifics.

Happy to do that, Mayor.

Okay. Thanks very much for that. I do want to just mention, Ryan, you had put something in a hotline that said you wanted something additional to be considered. So maybe you could speak to that briefly, and then we'll ask city staff about how we might respond.

Thanks, Aaron. Yeah, so I think that we, with the hearing, should seek for two options. One is the option that is permissive of the significant perpetuity covenants of the kind that are involved with FAA grants post-2022 at least. And then one option that preserves local and future control and that gives staff, excuse me, that gives council a chance to look at those options side by side. And this is partly in response to just that my sense, and I've heard from others, that where we've gotten to so far has kind of consolidated different issues. So one of those issues being, do we want to create a commitment for a long-term future of the airport? Seems like there's a clear majority that's in favor of that. But there's another question, which is, Do we want to encumber a large parcel of land for perpetuity and, in addition, obligate the city to operate an airport service in perpetuity, which seems, as far as I understand it, a little bit out of step with how we normally do long-term planning. So that was the idea, was just to, when we have the hearing, to at least have those two options side by side so that we can see what they look like together.

So, Teresa, I guess I might look to you come from a legal perspective about how we might consider such a request.

Yeah. So this is not direction that staff has received from council at this point. I do believe that there is some legal research that would need to occur as to whether those decisions are policy questions in the purview of council. or whether they are administrative decisions in the purview of the city manager. Certainly the decision to accept a grant or not is within the purview of the city manager as it's an operational decision. But the narrow question of whether long-term obligations on a property, which it's not a conveyance of a property interest per se. Anyway, There are legal questions around this that would need to be answered. And so I think the narrow question of whether to continue to use the airport as an airport in the future or not is something we could be ready for a public hearing on in pretty short order. The bigger question would take a nod of at least three for research and frankly, a nod of five, I think, to give direction, to bring back two options, and that would take additional time.

So Matt, do you have a question?

I do. I'm not sure I understand the order of operations here, because it seems like the fundamental questions that Ryan is raising, would supersede or could revert or modify whatever we do with the direction we just gave staff. So I'm a little confused of the order operations here. It seems like we're going to be making a decision after a public hearing for the long term, or depending on how the outcome of that is. And then that's the word, right? Then that's the decision. And so then I'm not sure... how doing this research then affects that decision or does it? So I'm just, the order of operations to me has me a little confused. I'm wondering if Theresa can help me understand that and how does that play into the decision we may be, or affirming, I could say, in the coming weeks when we have a public hearing and then a decision. Theresa, can you speak to that?

I can. So the narrow question before council at the study session was whether to continue the current land use of the airport or whether to pursue a different land use for the airport. That is the question for which we received direction. As I understand this request, and please correct me if I misunderstood Council Member Shewhart, but as I understood this request, it would be in the event that council takes the action to affirm the continued use of the airport long term, how to fund that use?

Right, but prompted specifically by this question of, do we want to encumber the land in perpetuity for a different government agency plus obligate ourselves to operate the service forever? If we did this for Pearl Street District, I'd have the same question. Let's talk about, do we really need to do that? If so, let's talk about it. But we haven't examined this question about the issues of significant perpetuity covenants from a legal and financial perspective yet. We just haven't talked about it.

Point of order. Yeah, and I'd like to keep the discussion focused on whether we're giving direction to the city to do some research and bring back a couple of alternatives rather than talk about the merits. So I just want to keep that focused. I've got Nicole, Mark, and Taisha queued up.

Mayor, I heard a point of order. Oh, yes. It takes precedence.

Thank you, Teresa. Mayor, you already addressed this. This is not supposed to be a substantive because I would push back on the comment of it's only going to be an airport because there is a possibility of it generating energy as well. Thank you. Excitation.

Okay, then Nicole and then Mark.

Yeah, thank you. And this is just to Ryan's question around time. Teresa, I heard you say, you know, take a little bit of time to think about not just researching, but then potentially preparing another thing to bring. And my question is, Nuria, I believe you said that there's nothing like pressing that we're trying to apply for with regard to federal funding or anything like that. And so, I guess that is what I'm wondering about in terms of the time. Is there a reason to try, as I think about considering this, the time makes a difference. Is there any super urgency where it wouldn't be okay to spend a little bit of time?

And may I qualify on that as well and ask if it would impact the budgetary process that we're about to go into? Thank you.

Thank you so much. In fact, and I appreciate the clarification, Councilmember Adams, that is primarily the main reason we brought this forward because we are about to prepare a budget and wanted to know what funding sources are available to us as we move forward. So while there is not an immediate, something immediately That is an immediate emergency to do tomorrow. There is a set of work plan items and improvements on the airport that we would like to budget in as we move forward. I will say that we have not, there are some entitlement monies that the FAA grants us, I think, in the vein of $150,000 or so that we, I believe in Blythe or Eric can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that we will lose our ability to have as we have in the past years by the end of the month. And so those are $150,000 that we will not have. But at the end of the day, the primary objective is to really think about how we're budgeting for the next fiscal year as it is hard for us to make plans for those work plan items if we are not thoughtful about what those funding sources are. Black, did I get that date right?

I don't know the date, Nuria, but in general, that is correct. There are funding opportunities that are going to expire in our current state of not wanting to pursue FAA grants.

Can I just ask a follow-up question? And I may just be misremembering how we budget, but I know in previous years when there's maybe been a ballot question or something that would bring in some funding or renew a tax or something like that, we haven't typically included that in our budgeting process. And so I guess I'm just like, or as we head into budgeting season, are we including things that like grants we're going to apply for and things like that this year? Yeah.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Council Member Speer, you are correct that if we don't, we may have consideration of those throughout the budgeting plan if the staff part of planning for that budget is we're thinking about it. We do not, if we do not have those monies in play. We do not put those in the budget proposal that goes to you, but we are often thinking our capital projects are, many of them are longer term as we're thinking about what the fund balance will be. And as we have, as we're thinking about what improvements we may want to make at the airport, if we do not have certainty about how we will move forward, then we will continue to plan with a fund balance that will go into the negative on the Caroline Miller, On the on the airport fund, we will look to what is minimally critical to do, and then we will have to find a source of fun for that, so it will depend on the timing. Caroline Miller, And as staff looks to what is the criticality of some of the issues to come into play, but we do not to your point usually put. Caroline Miller, plan on funding sources that we have not been awarded.

Thank you. And then just one more question for Teresa.

If I'm wrong in any of this, please let me know.

Yeah, but just the question I asked standard. So, you know, Teresa, your plate is full already, more than full. What does this knock off? What is the sort of prioritization here?

Yeah, thanks for the question. What I can say is we cannot get this research done in short order. So I frankly have not evaluated. I don't know how broad this question is really. Until I get into it, I don't have an idea. But it would take some time.

Good to know. All right. Quick, hopefully, comments from Mark and Rob and Matt, and then we can move forward to checking the will of counsel on this question.

I will be quick. Theresa, I must say I disagree entirely with the concept that taking grants is a purely administrative function given the implications of taking an FAA grant. I believe that is a policy decision, and if we authorize the city manager to do so, that's fine. But to suggest that it is somehow administrative only in nature, given those consequences, to me is exalting form over substance. I'm done.

Respectfully, that's not quite accurate to what I said. What I said is, in general, the decision to take a grant or not is administrative. and whether the land component changes that somehow to a policy question is an area that I have not researched.

Then we are in total agreement. Thank you.

Great. Rob and then Matt.

Thanks, Erin. I hope this is an appropriate question, but are there grants that during this uh process of public hearing that we're we're speaking to are there grants that we can take that won't encumber us up to the 2040 deadline that would help us with our our budget specifically the one that's going to expire on june 1st we have been uh

Council member Kaplan, we have been taking such grants given the previous direction to ascertain what perpetuity means from the FAA. That was the lawsuit, the quiet title suit. So we have been doing so. Those grants are limited in duration and limited in dollars as we move forward because we would not take a grant that would move us past, at least with previous direction, the 2040 grant. timeline. So there could be some on the horizon. We have not obviously explored the entire array of what grants are. We have heard from CDOT that perhaps some of those grants may be limited, but we don't know as we've taken two of those grants recently as that moves forward. And I also was remiss in saying as we prepare for budget, I think I have said this pretty publicly and I know departments are working on it, but we have asked for 4% reductions across departments. So that impacts that funding scenario that I was mentioning, but I had forgotten to say that and wanted to add that in.

Yeah, I was specifically speaking to the $149,000 grant that needs to be applied for by June 1st that wouldn't encumber us past 2040. And it is from FAA. Would you have direction to... make that happen?

I think that's more substantive issue.

Okay, that's fine. I think so. All right, Matt, and then we'll see if we can finish this up.

Yeah, just real quick, and I don't want to get into the substance of it, but I just was hoping, obviously the staff memo laid out all the money that was left on the table while we've been in a pause. I'm just wondering, Blythe, is there a way, because not knowing how long this research will take, it could be a month, could be six months for Teresa, is there any way you could give us a heads up of, hey, here are the ones coming forward, and for every month we don't act, here's one that we... Here's a grant we can't take. So we have a way of forecasting the money we're leaving on the table with inaction or delay of a formal decision versus waiting till after the fact to say, here's what we've left behind. Do you understand what I'm saying? Can we sort of forward look at what we might be leaving on the table by delaying a decision two months, six months or what have you?

I can certainly try. I would also appreciate being able to do that because I think it clarifies that I'm not sure some of the grants as we look towards the future, especially with the letter that we got from CDOT, I don't think we're 100% confident, but we could, we could, we could, let me look and see what we can come up with and see if it would be useful to share. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks everybody. So I think, so what I'm hearing Teresa is that, um, would need a knot of five i believe because this this would be a significant um amount of effort uh you see we need council direction on that so the question is whether there is a knot of five to investigate the the legal question about whether maybe well teresa maybe you can put it in your own words um so i don't paraphrase incorrectly sorry point of order tina do you still have your hand raised or is that from before

I now have my hand raised, but I'm happy to wait for it.

Yeah, I did see that hand, Taisha, and I was going to finish the question to Teresa before going on to that.

I believe what council would be providing direction on is whether to bring forward two proposals. And the two proposals, as I understand them, is one taking information taking grant money that encumbers the property and the other being to not do that and the legal research that would need to accompany that to be able to bring those proposals forward.

Very good. Ryan, does that meet with your understanding of what you're asking as well?

I think it does. Yeah, there's details within that, but I think that's fair. I'm just taking this through how this comes back. You know, like I have sub questions under that my colleagues might as well, but I think that overall encapsulates the idea.

Okay, and Tina, I want to get to you before we weigh in on this question.

Yeah, I just have a clarifying question. If we don't get five, not a five right now, would we then be able to ask other questions prior to a public hearing that don't specifically or exactly mimic the two proposals with the information in that? Or would we be sort of saying we're not going to add new information to this discussion?

I mean, I might just add in, I mean, we always have the ability to ask questions of staff, like as long as they're of a scope that doesn't involve more than five hours of time, if I have that right, Marianne.

Yeah, at any time, you all ask us questions. And if we have the information handy, we are happy to supply it. If not, I think you have seen that we are equally happy to say that will require more research or more work, just to be honest about where we are in capacity, but you're always welcome to ask.

Very good. Okay, so we will now ask counsel the question of whether there is a not a five to direct staff, as Teresa stated, to bring back two options and to do the legal research and background that that would require. All right, so all in favor of giving that nod of five to staff, please raise your physical hand. I got five. And I guess those not in favor, you can raise your hand. Okay, I got three. But anyway, that was five votes. So we have the direction on that. So Teresa, I think, and Nuri, we're going to have to circle back in terms of the scheduling implications of that because it means we're going to need more time before we can bring this back, right?

Correct. At this point, I believe it would make sense for CAC to put it on the future look ahead until I can have an idea of how long that would take.

Okay. Rob, did you have your hand raised? I did.

Can I have more clarification on what the ask is? I'm sorry. Sure. Teresa.

Sure. Here's how I understood the council direction. For staff to look into Two options. One of them being to accept FAA funding that encumbers the land. And the other is to not do that, to look at other funding sources and things that... I don't want to use the words local control because that's very complicated in a FAA... airport situation, but to look at other funding sources that would not encumber the land in the same ways. And so there's legal research that needs to accompany that about whether that is a policy question or an administrative question, whether those grants need to come to city council or whether council could decide that they need to come to city council.

Do we not already have that information on the grants available?

Not on the legal question. We don't have the legal research done.

What I can say is to date, these grants have not come to city council. But to date, we have not been accepting grants that bind us into perpetuity. So it's just an unanswered question.

Okay, point of clarification, if I could.

I already had Taisha ahead of you, but and just to I can, I can see the point because this is a question related to something that not this. Thank you.

Thanks.

Matt, go ahead. Um, Teresa, what you just said, I just want to clarify, um, we have not taken any grants that have this type of encumbrance is kind of if I'm paraphrasing what you just said. But aren't we technically under perpetuity based on the grants we've previously taken?

Our position is that we are not.

Okay. All right. So just want to be clear that even though we might be saying- That's what the lawsuit was about.

And the lawsuit did not settle that question.

Just want to be sure that it's not clear cut on that front.

That's right.

Thank you. And Rob, just to make sure your question is answered. And so hopefully that clarified it. And then the- Necessary research then means that there will be a delay and when we can have this public hearing.

back to me um can I speak now. I should thank you um although now, I have another question which is if. The FAA court lawsuit did not settle that. What additional research would you do that could invalidate that? Yeah. Or I'm just confused on that, please.

Sure. Excuse me. I need to look at our charter and our code to determine whether a long-term encumbrance on land that is of this sort would require council approval under our current charter or current code? Because if that's already true, then council need not give direction to do so. If it's not true, then the question is, is it within council's purview to require that? Or does the charter or code indeed say that it is under the city manager's purview? And I don't know the answer to that.

Okay, thank you. Also, and that was my original question that was just to add on, and then I will be brief after this, which is, I'm curious if in the scope of the research, if it would be possible for us to send a memo or something, because you know, if we're doing additional research, I would be interested in knowing, again, we keep talking about this airport as if it's the only function and that's just not the case. There is credible options around generating energy and many municipal airports do that and actually generate a significant amount and increasing amounts, which has impacts both to the budget and to our energy issues. So It was my understanding that climate initiatives have already been starting to look into that per previous conversations around the energy sovereignty and energy independence. And it was curious if that research could potentially be included in that conversation. Otherwise, my concern is we're having a conversation around a single use for that airport when that is not all of the options that are available to us. Thank you.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong and without going into too much substance, I believe Council Member Adams, it might depend as we're talking about scope. Staff at the study session, you posed a similar question that was great about could there be solar, for example, on the airport. And I believe that staff said we are looking into things like that. Whatever use we may have, if the airport remains in use, It has to be compatible with what that would look like. So, for example, we couldn't put housing if the airport is being used as an airport. But other infrastructures, as you were mentioning, are certainly things that we can look at, similar to how we are looking at unleaded. Solar was a conversation. Climate is looking at that. I cannot speak for them in terms of could they bring forward in this timely manner the panoply of potential options that we might have at the airport in its continued use. But I can say that staff is very much looking and working with our climate initiatives team to think about what some of those uses that align with our climate goals could be compatible with the land that is currently being used as an airport.

Right. And here I'm extending not just the climate goals, but also the affordability issue around energy and the inconsistency of the PSPC or whatever that acronym is for the shutoffs, et cetera. So I'm not asking for the potpourri, I'm asking for one, this specific issue, which does benefit all of community, which was one of the concerns that continues to be raised, which I agree with. Thank you.

We likely, and I'll talk to Climate about it, we likely won't be able to come to you with the detail of all the things that might be possible, but we can share some of the items that we have been thinking about along those veins that deal with um uh particularly um energy and um and i hate to interrupt you but i think we probably thank you i appreciate that naria

come through this. It's a little bit off topic, but thanks for that, Maria.

It's not. It's on topic. I'm sorry. I disagree with you, Mayor. This is important in the conversation. I didn't take up a lot of space at the beginning of this session. This is the only time I've spoken the entire time. So I'm asking for the same amount of time. I'm not taking more time than any other member in this meeting. Thank you.

I was not saying that you were, Taisha. I was just, by the time we got to the end of Maria's answer, I felt like we had spent enough time on it. All right. So I think that wraps us up. So I think we've given direction to city staff and then CEC will work with Teresa and Nuria to figure out what the schedule will be to bring this back for a public hearing. And that wraps that matters item up. And that also wraps up the special meeting. So I will go ahead and close out this meeting at 7.08 p.m. and hand the reins over to Council Member Marquis for the upcoming study session.

All right. Is everyone ready to move to the next topic? Great. Good evening. Welcome to tonight's study session of the Boulder City Council. I'm Council Member Tina Marquis and thank you for joining us. We have one item on tonight's agenda. It is the Downtown Development Authority referred to as the DDA Formation Analysis and Recommendations. Before we go into our next work item i'd like to outline how the meeting will be conducted, we will review the staff's presentations and then we will have time for questions. At the end of the presentation, we will conduct our Council discussion with staff, if you have questions, please wait for staff to complete the presentation, so we will now turn to our city manager Nuria Riviere-Vandermeijer to introduce our first item.

Thank you so much, Council Member Marquis. I'm really excited about this. This comes to you again. We had talked about it, but it is in the vein of so many economic development efforts that we are moving forward. Previously this year, we talked about metro districts. Right now, we're going to be talking about DDA. And while I am sure Regan and Mark will thank our partners, I want to give a personal shout out to our downtown business partners in particular who've been really supportive. in thinking about what this looks like. I also will just say that this one year priority term has been unprecedented in terms of speed and really appreciate the team that certainly includes our staff in this newly formed division, the Office of Cultural and Economic Development, but city attorney's office has also just been heavily involved in this. And Nuria Rivera- I want to appreciate them, because I know they had one working super hard to bring this very quickly to you, but that send it to mark.

Mark Wolff, City Manager, Thank you Maria good evening Council mark wolf assistant city manager as the slides come up here regan will take over in a moment. Mark Wolff, City Manager, just wanted to say that we're excited to return this evening to share additional analysis and seek direction from Council related to the potential creation of a downtown development authority. In March, staff along with our consultants from PUMA who are on the call tonight and the DDA planning group provided an update that included an initial look at some of the structural components of a DDA, including the use of tax increment financing or TIF, a potential mill levy, and the relationship with the existing general improvement districts and their respective off-street parking assets. At that time council provided general direction to continue down this path and we are returning this evening with a more detailed analysis of the potential policy direction and implications. Tonight we are providing two key pieces of information. One is the plan of development for the DDA. This draft provides a comprehensive overview of essentially what a DDA could do for our community. This document outlines a strategy for what a DDA would do to meet the overall goal of this tool, which is reinvestment and reinvigoration of the core downtown, including University Hill for the next 30 plus years. Your feedback on the goals and strategies in this document will help set the vision for a DDA if it's created. Second, we are providing details on how a DDA would accomplish these goals. There are implications and trade-offs with the use of any tool that uses TIF that must be considered carefully. There are also important considerations related to the current GID assets and mill levies. We are seeking your input on the recommended financial structure tonight. And last, it's important to know that there are many details that would still need to be worked out after tonight. A future intergovernmental agreement that better defines the relationship and oversight between the DDA and the city is something for future discussion and negotiation. However, any input and guardrails related to the transition and governance is helpful tonight as well. To be clear, council's formal go-no-go decision on whether to advance the DDA to the ballot would happen in concert with other potential ballot items currently anticipated on August 6th. However, tonight we are asking for direction on whether to continue the detailed planning process and begin drafting the ballot measures for consideration for August. So with that, I am happy to hand it over to Regan Brown to take us through the presentation.

Thank you, Mark. Good evening, Council. My name is Regan Brown. I am the Economic Development Strategy Manager in the City Manager's Office. Before we dive in, I do just want to take a moment to thank the planning group, the group of community members who have really helped shape many of the recommendations that you'll hear tonight. Also want to, again, thank city staff and our consultants from PUMA who contributed to this work. This has been a significant undertaking over a long period of time, and I'm really proud of the analysis and the collaboration that brought us to this point. I also want to note that the planning group sent Council a letter of support earlier this week, which reflects the level of stakeholder engagement and support behind this effort, we can dive right into the next slide. here's the agenda i'm going to try to get through this in about 20 minutes i'll start with why we're here walk through the plan of development. the financial tools that fund it, and then I'll close with governance and next steps and the questions that we're asking council to weigh in on this evening. Next slide. Our downtown area is an important inflection point. The conditions that allowed our general improvement districts, our GIDs, particularly CAGED and UGED, to work for 50 years have changed. And our current tools aren't built to respond at the pace or scale the Community desires we're seeing flattening revenues sales tax growth in the downtown core has lagged, especially since 2020. Commercial vacancies are a challenge, but they also reflect deeper structural shifts changing retail dynamics rising costs and evolving consumer behavior and we currently lack the tools to respond effectively. Aging infrastructure. Cajun and UJID were designed in the early 1970s to manage shared parking. They've done that job well, but they were never built to be economic development or redevelopment entities. That's the gap we're trying to fill. And then lastly, greater expectations. What residents, businesses, and visitors expect from our commercial corridors and public spaces has evolved over time. Next slide. So this has been over a year of analysis, engagement, and council direction. We really started in April 2025 with an improvement district analysis and findings from that report, as well as some briefings on economic development financing tools. By September, we were doing outreach with businesses, property owners, community partners, which led to standing up a community planning group. In March, Council directed us to keep refining the governance model, funding strategy, and GID transition approach. So tonight is really the culmination of all that work, a more complete set of recommendations. And as Mark mentioned, we're asking for your direction heading towards a potential November ballot referral. Next slide. So the plan of development, this is the DDA's reinvestment framework for the next 30 years. And we can go right into the next slide. So the plan of development is the DDA's legal and policy framework. It defines what the authority is authorized to invest in and creates the ability to act. It is not a binding commitment to specific projects. Three things to keep in mind. It's required by state statute. Colorado law requires every DDA to adopt a plan before it can collect tax increment financing, also known as TIF, or make investments. Without it, the authority has no legal basis to act. It's a 30-year framework. It sets the boundary and the menu of eligible investments. The DDA board decides each year through a work plan and annual budget what to actually pursue in what order and at what scale. And it's amenable over time, so this is a living document if priorities shift or new priorities emerge, it can be amended amendments do require Council approval. So you stay in the loop on any major changes in direction and one more thing that's worth emphasizing here. Every priority in the draft that that you all have on hand was drawn from plans, the Community has already adopted. the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Boulder Vision Plan, and many others. This is truly a funding and governance mechanism to implement what the community has already said it wants and what it envisions for a thriving downtown. Next slide. So how does the plan actually get adopted? Step one, council refers the DDA questions to the ballot. So if you support moving forward, staff will prepare ballot measures for November 2026. You'll see an approve all ballot language before it goes to voters. Step two, qualified electors vote. So this is not a general election. State statute defines qualified electors as property owners, residents, and business owners within the DDA boundary. Simple majority required. Step three. The DDA board formally adopts the plan. So after a successful vote, the board is appointed, formally adopts the plan of development that starts the TIF clock and executes an intergovernmental agreement with the city. And then council also approves the plan at this stage. And then lastly is annual council approval. So the DDA's budget comes back to you every year. Plan amendments also require your approval. This is really part of that ongoing accountability mechanism built into the structure. And I just want to be clear here that the plan is a draft. It's in draft form until the board formally adopts it and council approves it. The draft plan is important at this stage because it really gives the community and district voters a picture of the district priorities. So let's go to the next slide and look at what those priorities actually are. So the plan organizes long-standing community priorities into five categories, spanning downtown, University Hill, the civic area, the corridors connecting them. The boundaries are included in the memo packet. I'm going to move through these fairly quickly. Happy to answer questions afterward. Again, these are broader visionary priorities that will help guide investment decisions, not binding commitments to specific projects. So let's dive right into the next slide. Catalyze redevelopment at strategic sites. So one of the things the DDA can do that our current structure really can't is act as a financial partner on sites that are ready to go but kind of need that extra push. So this could include TIF participation agreements, cost sharing on infrastructure, helping structure public-private deals. Key example sites include the 14th Street Lot on the Hill, the East Book End in the Civic Area, other parking-related opportunity sites, especially if the GID assets transfer to the DDA, which I'll speak more to shortly. But in summary, the DDA tools are really well-suited to help unlock underutilized sites for redevelopment. Next slide. So this one is pretty straightforward it's about making sure commercial corridors are healthy that our businesses feel supported. Things like storefront grants help with tenant improvements vacancy activation navigating navigation support for small businesses, including multilingual outreach. In addition to Pearl Street Mall, this could include focus areas on East and West Pearl, the Hills Commercial Core, Broadway. Each of these corridors have different needs, and this priority is really about meeting businesses where they are to create thriving commercial corridors. Next slide. Row mixed use development and amenities. So this is where the DDA connects directly to some of the city's goals. The updated Boulder Valley comp plan has a clear direction. We want our commercial areas to become more complete neighborhoods with housing, childcare, grocery, things that meet our community members' everyday needs. And the DDA can be a real implementation partner here. It doesn't set the policy, the city does, but it can provide the financial tools to make the economics actually pencil out on sites where they otherwise wouldn't. Next slide. So this one is about the investments that make people actually want to be here. Pearl Street Mall, civic area phase two, our alleys, public art, lighting. These spaces are what give downtown its character and they need sustained investment to stay that way. Right now, we don't have a great dedicated mechanism for that. And the DDA really changes that and its ability to provide a consistent funding stream to make those kinds of investments. Next slide. So this is the last focus area, but invest in a connected, accessible district, really making the whole district feel like one interconnected place, making sure that people of all abilities can actually get to and move through our spaces. This could include pedestrian and bike improvements, wayfinding, safety upgrades. The connection between downtown and the Hill has come up consistently in community engagement and from members from the planning group. People really want those two areas to feel linked, not like separate destinations. And the DDA could co-invest with the city on exactly that kind of corridor improvement work. Okay. Now let's talk about how we would actually fund these. We can get into the next slide. I'm going to dive right into the financial framework. We can go to the next slide. So the financial model has three parts and all three are critical. TIF, tax increment financing. This is the long-term engine. Its ability to generate revenue is modest in the early years, but more transformational over 30 years. It enables bonding for larger scale capital projects. Mill levy. So this provides stable revenue from day one. The idea is that it would replace the existing caged mill levy, meaning no net new burden for caged property owners. I'll get into that more in a moment. And it generates roughly $1.8 million per year. And then lastly is parking asset integration. So this is really about governance and leveraging of assets. The parking system pays for itself regardless, but the DDA control really enables coordinated redevelopment and mobility decisions at key sites. So let's now walk through each of these. Next slide. Let me just start with a reminder on how TIF works. So a base year is established. Our analysis assumes that final formation of a DDA and adoption of the plan could occur in spring 2027. Under that assumption, the TIF base year would generally reflect tax collections and assessed values from the prior 12-month period, so it would span portions of both 2026 and early 2027. Existing tax entities keep receiving taxes on that base, and any growth in property and sales tax above that base flows to the DDA for reinvestment into the DDA area. One key constraint here to be transparent about, Boulder's downtown core is largely built out. That inherently restricts TIF generation, so it grows gradually and it really doesn't generate meaningful revenue on day one or even in the first few years. So that's precisely why the mill levy and parking assets are essential for near-term capacity and investments. Property tax TIF, our models assume that about 50% of future growth above the base year flows to the DDA, the remaining 50%. stays with existing taxing entities, so that's taking in account natural appreciation and the fact that our downtown core is largely built out. Sales tax TIF captures growth above the base year on the city's portion, and I'll get into revenue sharing terms, which are to still be finalized.

Next slide.

Okay, so let's look at what TIF could mean in actual dollars. This slide reflects preliminary projections developed by our consultant Puma. It's intended to demonstrate the long-term financial capacity of a potential DDA. The model here uses a conservative revenue scenario that assumes the DDA captures the equivalent of roughly 1% annual growth over time. This lower-range scenario could reflect slower downtown economic growth, future revenue sharing agreements through an intergovernmental agreement or a combination of both. We are intentionally using a cautious framework at this stage. Downtown sales tax performance has generally lagged since 2020. And again, future intergovernmental agreement and revenue sharing discussions may also influence how revenues are ultimately allocated. But even under the conservative conservative scenario shown here, TIF revenue grows from roughly $296,000 in year one to about $1.5 million annually by year five, reaching approximately $143 million cumulatively over the 30-year life of the district, the initial 30-year life. So the key takeaway is that TIF is fundamentally a long-term economic development tool. In the near term, stable operational funding through the mill levy remains quite critical. So let's talk about the mill levy on the next slide. So staff is recommending a voter-approved mill levy of 3.67 mills as part of the November ballot package, which reflects the current caged rate. At that level, the levy would generate approximately $1.8 million annually in stable, predictable operational revenue beginning day one. Throughout this process there has been thoughtful discussion including conversations with the planning group about whether a lower rate should be considered. Staff evaluated those perspectives carefully and based on the operational needs identified for the district, the recommendation is to proceed with the existing caged rate across the DDA-wide area. Overall, we've received general planning group support for that approach, but I did just want to note those discussions. Importantly, this structure is intended to replace not add to the existing CAGED and UGID levies. So for current CAGED property owners, there would be no net new tax burden. UGID property owners would see a modest increase, and anyone outside of the existing GIDs would see that mill levy applied within the DDA boundary. It's also important to note that under Colorado law, mill levy revenues cannot be pledged towards bonds. So this is really a pay-as-you-go funding source. Next slide. This slide looks at projected revenue during the first six years of the DDA under three funding sources, the mill levy and two different TIF scenarios. The lower TIF scenario depicted as the orange bars here reflect PUMA's more conservative revenue assumptions and is intended to represent a cautious planning case, as I mentioned, including the possibility of slower growth or future revenue sharing arrangements. The higher scenario depicted as the gray bars on the graph uses the broader city sales tax projections provided by CU, which council reviewed a few weeks ago, I believe on May 14th. So we're intentionally presenting these as a range of potential outcomes rather than a single forecast with actual performance likely falling somewhere in between. Just given the mature nature of the downtown area, and the potential for those revenue sharing agreements. But in summary, over the first six years, the mill levy is projected to generate approximately $11.7 million in stable revenue. TIF revenues could add another roughly $6.7 to $14.7 million, depending on growth assumptions. Altogether, that places projected six-year cumulative revenue between $18 to $26 million before accounting for any parking-related assets. So the key takeaway is that these revenues are enough to support operations, smaller-scale early investments, while larger capital projects in the near term would likely need to be tied to parking assets and redevelopment opportunities. So let's get into that more. Next slide. Moving on to parking. I want to emphasize that we are specifically talking about the GIDs off street parking assets and the role they play in supporting access and downtown activity. Parking is projected to generate approximately $44 million between 2027 and 2032, but those revenues are intended to support a largely self-sustaining parking system, funding operations, maintenance, reinvestment, and future capital needs. Consistent with the purpose of the system, revenues are reinvested back into parking-related services and improvements. The broader value of these assets is really in how they support redevelopment and economic activity. Shared parking can improve redevelopment feasibility without overextending more limited TIF or mill levy resources. That's especially relevant at locations like the 14th Street lot, the Civic Area, East Bookend sites, where coordinated parking management could really play an important role in successful redevelopment efforts. At the same time, several parking structures are aging assets that present both challenges and opportunities. So under DDA oversight, those facilities could be evaluated for continued operation, redevelopment, conversion, with any resulting proceeds reinvested back into the district. And I do just want to note here that the transition of those parking assets, it's complex. It's still evolving. It will likely be defined in a future intergovernmental agreement. And I'll dive into that more shortly. Next slide. This slide shows the Cajun and UJID parking assets located within the proposed district area. The general concept is that the DDA would ultimately oversee and manage these assets as part of a coordinated district wide strategy. although we are still working through some of the legal and financial nuances of that transition, including issues related to condo ownership structures, existing agreements, what a structured transition process would look like. Importantly, many of the details in any guardrails can be established through the IGA, so including parameters around any future sale, redevelopment, disposition, reinvestment of parking assets if they are transferred to the DDA. Next slide. All right, in an effort to move us along, let's go right into the next slide. So this slide summarizes council's role in relation to the DDA. While the DDA operates as an independent authority, city council retains meaningful oversight throughout the entire process. Council appoints the board, they approve the annual budget, adopts the plan and any future amendments, and ultimately sets the terms of the intergovernmental agreement. The DDA board is then responsible for day-to-day implementation within that council approved framework. State statute also requires that a majority of board members be property owners, residents, business owners, or operators within the district, meaning the people making decisions have a direct stake in downtown success. And additionally, one city council member serves on the board, creating that direct connection between the DDA and council. Next slide. So the intergovernmental agreement or the IGA, it will really be the central document defining the relationship between the city and the DDA. We anticipate the IGA covering several areas, including revenue sharing and coordination around sales tax TIF, the phased transfer of CAGED and UGED assets, along with parking policy and operations or guardrails around the disposition of the assets, governance and oversight provisions, including budget approval, audit rights, as well as operational responsibilities between the city and the DDA. So staff plans to return to council on August 6th with that draft IGA framework alongside the potential ballot referral actions, really giving council the opportunity to review the proposed governance structure, revenue sharing terms, parking transition approach, and oversight provisions before making decisions on that ballot package. And while the framework would still be subject to negotiation with the DDA board and would not represent a final agreement, it would establish the parameters of the city's expectations and identify the terms council may ultimately be willing to approve. Next slide. So there will be three potential ballot questions that would go before qualified electors within the DDA boundary in November. The first question is the DDA formation question. This would formally establish the authority. It would authorize the creation of the district, allow the board to adopt the plan of development. If approved, that would trigger board formation, plan adoption, and execution of the IGA. The second question is the mill levy question. So this would establish the proposed 3.67 for mill levy structured to largely replace the existing GID levies. And then the third question is the TIF authorization question. So this would authorize the DDA to collect tax increment financing revenues. Next slide. This slide outlines the proposed implementation timeline across three phases. Phase one is the formation and governance phase, which runs between now and November. So during this period, staff would finalize that draft IGA framework I referenced, prepare ballot measures, and continue the financial and legal analysis related to potential asset transfers. Phase two would occur following a successful election through roughly spring of next year. That phase includes board appointments, adoption of the plan of development, initiation of the TIF clock, execution of the IGA, and refinement and finalization of the phased asset transfer from the existing GIDs. And then phase three is the longer term implementation phase, really beginning around month 18. That includes hiring a permanent executive director, ongoing capital planning, annual intergovernmental agreement review, and continued coordination between the city and the DDA. Next and last slide. So we're looking for council direction on three items tonight. First, does council have feedback on the draft plan of development, any of the investment priorities? Second, does council support the proposed financial structure for the DDA, including the recommended next steps related to the governance and transition planning? And lastly, does council support staff bringing forward ballot measures for consideration in November 2026? Thank you all so much. Happy to take any questions.

All right, thank you. And we don't have questions as the first one, but I think we will start with questions, clarifying questions. That was a great presentation. We really appreciate it. And if I look at my, where is the hand raise? I realized I don't have that.

Under your participants.

Okay, great.

And it tells you which ones were raised in what order.

Perfect. So we'll go Mark, Rob, and then Ryan. So Mark, let's start us off.

The vote is conducted by property owners, correct?

Property owners, lessees that hold a commercial lease, and residents within the DDA boundary.

You've answered my question. Tenants are also part of the process.

Correct.

Okay. And... That was my question. Let's do it the easy way. I'm done.

All right, Rob.

Thanks. I have two questions. One's about the parking structure. The GID, from my understanding, has that in perpetuity, but the DDA ends in 30 years. How does that work if the DDA isn't reformed in 30 years?

Yeah, so the initial, that's a great question. The initial life of the DDA is 30 years. It can be extended for up to two 20-year increments. Just to clarify that, it can be in existence for up to 70 years. After that, we're still working through some of the nuances with legal and finance, but it would ideally divert back to the city at that point.

Okay, got it. And my second question is the impacts to the general fund. It looks like it's starting at, and this is for the sales tax TIF, $73,000 to $239,000 in year one, growing to $451,000 to $1.4 million annually by year six. Okay. And the DDA runs for 30 years. Is there a clear cumulative picture of what the general fund foregoes in sales tax growth over the life of the DDA?

So we can certainly provide that analysis. I think I will just say a core premise of the DDA is that that targeted public investment in the downtown generates economic activity and additional revenue that wouldn't occur without the DDA as a tool. So I just want to emphasize that point. And the intergovernmental agreement is where this will become part of the conversation with council, looking at how that sales tax TIF is shared between the DDA and the city, balancing both the ability of the DDA to operate as a reinvestment tool with the city's long-term fiscal health.

So am I correct in making the assumption that even though it's a drag on the general fund, the reinvestment into the DDA should more than offset that?

Ideally, yeah. I mean, this is really about capturing a small share of future growth to help protect and strengthen the city's major economic engine, which is downtown. So I would say ideally, yes. Mark, I see you unmuted. I don't know if you want to add.

Yeah, I think that's right. And I would just add that part of the consideration is looking at potential items that would be kind of city liabilities, if you will, over time, over the 30-year period that we would have to find other sources of funding for either general fund or others that the DDA could help take on. Certainly the economic generations, a component of that that is helpful. There's also the access to the property tax TIF from the other taxing entities that a DDA unlocks that currently we do not have access to. But it is a trade off and certainly as we look ahead and project it would be another input across all funds that are supported by sales tax that percentage increment that wouldn't be coming to those funding sources is something we would have to plan for and budget for. We would do so this year in 2027 knowing that this is a potential if placed on the ballot and we would do so in the following years.

That's all I have. Thank you.

All right, Ryan.

Thank you. I have a follow-up on both Mark and Rob's questions. On Mark, regarding the electors, can you just talk about how do we identify who the electors are? What's the method?

Yeah, it's a great question. We're working in coordination with Boulder County to identify all qualified electors. We also have Puma on the call here. Brad, I don't know if you... are listening in. There you are. If you want to chime in on how they're identified.

Sure. Thanks, Regan. And good evening, Council. We were here listening intently throughout.

I'm sorry? Do you mind introducing yourself?

Oh, yeah. My name is Brad Siegel. I'm the president of PUMA. We are consulting to the city on the project. There are three sets of electors. So there are within the boundaries of the DDA. There are residents who are registered voters, and those voters are identified by Boulder County through the voter rolls. The second set of voters are property owners. And there's data on property ownership through the assessors. And in terms of who votes among property owners is essentially each entity gets a vote. So if one owner has 10 properties and all those properties are in one name, that owner gets one vote. If one owner has 10 properties and they're all in different entity names, LLCs, that kind of thing, they would have 10 votes. The property owners who are entities need to designate an elector on their behalf. So it takes work. They don't automatically get ballots from the county unless the property is in their name. And then the third set of electors are lessees, are any business within the DDA boundary that has a lease. And all of those folks need to also compile forms designating an elector to vote on their behalf. So there was a lot of information there, but just in summary, any residents who are registered to vote Boulder County identifies property owners that have property in their own name. Those are also identified. Everyone else, entities or businesses with leases, need to file forms in order to get ballots.

Thanks. Just a couple of follow-ups then. So if I got this right, you could have a home within the jurisdiction in which both the owner of the home who doesn't live there has a vote, but then also the resident who's a renter of that home has a vote. So that would work?

Uh, potentially yes.

Okay. And then what if you have somebody who lives in the district, in the, in the jurisdiction, and they're also a leasee of a property within the jurisdiction, do they have two votes or one vote or something else?

Just, just one vote per registered voter.

Okay. So you could, even if you meet all three of those, you still as a, okay, you just get one. And then finally, on just the clarification, um, So if you have an LLC, which I would expect to be actually the norm for a commercial property or whatever, residential property, is there not an option that may be a model that other cities have used in which you can sort of get through that and say, actually, we're just looking to get to one person and if it's an anonymous LLC, you need to give us a person?

Yes, although there is a legal form, a designation of elector form. So the LLC and whoever owns the LLC, they need to designate, it's pretty broad, they need to designate an eligible Colorado voter to vote on their behalf.

Got it, thanks. Okay, my final follow-up question is, What, just like order of magnitude, what is the population size we're talking about here? Is it 100 people of electors? Is it 1,000? Is it 10,000?

We have estimated, our initial estimate is likely around 2,500 electors. And half of those are lessees. And we've identified business names through CoStar and other data sources like that. And then we do have better data on actual residents who are registered to vote. So there are about 500 or 600 of those. And then the remainder are commercial property owners.

Got it. Thanks. Thanks for all that. Tina, that's all I had for this. I had a parking question too, but I know I just got in deep here. Do you want to pause it now or should I go to my parking question?

Let's go around a little more and I'll come back to you, Ryan.

Fine.

Okay, Matt, let's go.

Thank you. I appreciate the presentation and the speed in which we're at this stage of the process. I know how big and arduous this has been. And Puma, thank you for your support, help, and staff. My question has to do a little bit about kind of a little bit of equity regarding these different quadrants now of our business sector. As the DDA sort of expands, it really centers on the interaction between the Hill and downtown. We've taken great strides to boost the hill through deliberate investment, not just us, but the university as well with the Moxie Hotel and the Limelight to try to really boost the hill. And so my question is, how do we or are there mechanisms and should we consider them with regards to making sure that the hill isn't just the funding mechanism for investments downtown? I think there's already been a lot of trust issues with the Hill. And so I'm wondering, how do we create, are there guardrails or are there revenue sharing mechanisms? What are the ways in which the Hill can feel like they've got maintained skin in the game and that there's some guaranteed investment and the fund money just doesn't funnel downtown. I'm just sort of wondering, is it just in our appointment of board members? That's our control or are there revenue sharing things where say of, The first 50% of revenue to the DDA, 40% goes to the Hill, 60% goes to downtown. And then the way there's always a guaranteed pot to support those areas with infrastructure and their certain needs. So that's an open question. I'm sort of curious if there's ways to protect the Hill in that capacity.

Yeah, it's a great question. Council member. Thanks for that question. I'll just start by saying the planning board or the planning group that has been really critical and helping drive work forward and providing creative input along the way has consistently emphasized that Hill investments matter. equally to downtown. Um, and I, I think that's really important when it comes to the geographic representation built into the board, because the idea is outlined in the memo is that the planning board would potentially, um, recommend that initial board makeup that council would then approve. Um, and so there's a lot of emphasis that they have carried throughout this process about the hill and making, um, fair and equitable investments in that area. I'll also just add that council retains approval authority over the budget, the operating plan, major priorities. There is a council member that sits on the board as well. But the investments in the Hill has been emphasized and it's also outlined in the plan of development, which is the legal and policy document for the DDA.

I appreciate the answer. So, and maybe what I'm hearing is, so council retains all authority on the budget. So that would mean that if there's a capital plan, we could say, no, we don't like that. We would prefer this order of operations instead of the one recommended. And that would be that.

That is my understanding. Yes.

I appreciate that clarity. That helps me understand our role in maintaining equity in, in how that is invested. So thank you for that. Appreciate it.

All right. Tara.

I'm excited about this because the stakeholders that are in the downtown have so much more say. So my question about parking is, how much decision making about parking do they have? For instance, if they decide that our parking rates are too high, street parking rates, can they lower them? The off street, correct? Correct. You know, like, for instance, if you go downtown and you want to park on Walnut in a parking spot where you use a meter.

So the DDA, what we are contemplating is strictly off street parking assets. And so they would essentially have no authority over the on street parking rates.

That's right. And I think what I would add just in general on that is how the DDA and the city would interact on transportation parking policy is something that you would want to build into an IGA or the forming ordinances just so we're not tripping over each other as it relates to setting rates and things like that. So that's something we're thinking about in the transition phase. But Regan is correct that HAB-Jacques Juilland, Those those cages or general improvement district assets are are just the off street assets, the surface parking lots and the garages.

HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Is that it. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Nicole.

Thank you. I just have a few questions. One is I'm just wondering about sort of measuring economic growth. So I'm going like this taking me back in time a couple of years to the two way discussions. And, you know, there it was talked about. This is a measure that's going to foster economic growth and, you know, it'll pay dividends. But there's really no way of measuring that. And so I guess that's my question is, how do we measure the sort of economic growth that's supposed to come from these investments? How would we notice that and what happens if that's not actually happening?

It's a great question, Council Member. I mean, initial thoughts on that, and I may defer to or punt to Brad to chime in, but key indicators in my mind would include business activity, property and investment activity, jobs and income, other indicators that speak to the vitality of downtown. But Brad, I don't know if there's anything you want to add with just based on your experience with other DDAs?

Sure, and also I would, it's a great question. How are we going to know this thing's working or not? So the last page of the, actually the plan of development provides a set of metrics that are recommended. so that we can measure progress moving forward. First and foremost, in calculating the annual tax increment, we're tracking sales tax, we're tracking property values, which are two key measures. But beyond that, and particularly in downtown Boulder, where it is right now, I think occupancies are going to be a huge metric to measure. So are we putting a dent in sluggish office vacancies? Are we seeing some of the retail vacancies? Are they getting filled at a quicker rate? Are they not on the market as long? And then ultimately also new development. And remember the DDA is not just private sector investment, it's also public. So our ability as a city to carry out some of these ambitious public space plans. So Pearl Street due for an update and can the DDA actually help us fund that and really lengthen the life of that and other public assets So Regan got us on a good start. There's a whole set of them. There's about a dozen metrics in the plan that we recommend that the DDA and the city jointly measure moving forward.

I guess my question is a little bit more specific in that we're considering taking growth away from what would be our general fund or parks and recreation or something like that, right? And investing it into economic development in this area. The impact as I see it, the thing to measure that would be helpful is that general fund dollar, right? And the things that you're talking about, these are wonderful. And I hope that we can realize them. And also, how do we know if it's had an impact on our general fund, right? And that's where it feels like it's a little bit squishy. How do we draw that connection between more people in offices? I mean, if there are more people in offices and they're just bringing sack lunch to us every day, they're not necessarily going out and eating our restaurants, right? So I guess that is, it's really what I'm wondering about is this is taking money from our sales tax base in other areas, putting it in a specific area of town And it's not taking the entire sales tax, right? It's just the growth, but it's still taking money away that would be in a more general, for general use and directing it to a certain area. And how do we know if that's paid, if that's paying off, right? I recognize it's a hard question.

Oh, it's a squishy question. I also think it's important to remind everyone that downtown was a fantastic economic generator for Boulder until 2020. And it was unquestioned, the health and vitality of downtown and what you're alluding to about the spinoffs for the city and the general fund. But the analysis we did last year showed that downtown had not contributed anything in terms of sales tax growth to the general fund since 2019. Between 2019 and 2024, sales tax was essentially stagnant. And counting for inflation, it eroded. It eroded by more than 20%. So it's perhaps other areas of the city that have led to some of the general fund stability in that period because downtown did not. So at the end of the day, that's what we're really hoping. We're trying to reverse is a trend over the last five or six years with downtown. I will also add, and I think it also addresses the last question to a degree, council's going to see this every single year. You're going to see work plans. You're going to see budgets. You'll be able to measure where are we on TIF? Are we generating... at the conservative level? Are we going at the more aggressive level? And there will be opportunities for the city to share in the upside revenue. So if this DDA can contribute to turning downtown around and we can demonstrate actually strong revenue growth in the next several years, there's an opportunity that could be a direct enhancement into the general fund.

Thank you. I've got some comments that I'll get to later about that, but a related question. Is the DDA intended to shift existing obligations to the DDA, or is it creating new ones?

It's a great question, Councilmember. The idea is that the city, or apologies, the DDA would... Coordinate and enhance existing city services, not replace them. So that's the intent there, Mark. I don't know if you want to chime in.

Yep, that's right. But I think there's examples that we can tangibly point to where having this funding mechanism in place would help offset some of those known future costs that we don't know how we're going to pay for. One in particular is some of how we want to operate, maintain and activate what hopefully is a really successful investment in civic area. And so that's one where we don't have a funding source today that will do more than kind of just our core base maintenance operations in the park. So that kind of extra layer of governance, if you will, of activation is not something we have currently budgeted. We know there's need and interest in projects on the horizon, like enhancements to the Pearl Street Mall. There are others like that that hopefully a DDA can help offset. In general, though, it is not, to Regan's point, intended to supplant existing city services or replace existing city services. So there is a little bit of a balance there of looking at those strategic opportunities to supplement public investment, but not kind of wholesale replace.

Yep. So like pavement maintenance, you know, streets downtown, sidewalk maintenance, stuff like that, this wouldn't necessarily cover those kinds of costs that currently other funds are paying for that come from sales tax.

Yeah. And generally you're right. But I think there's also opportunities in If a transportation related project is maybe scheduled for 10 years down the road and we would get to it, there could be a conversation about the DDA covering a portion of costs that advances that work up to three years down the road instead of 10. And so there's some of those trade-off conversations, prioritization conversations that would occur through the planning and budgeting process.

Okay, and then another question. This one is really intended to be a quick answer. Are there other options for when we set the baseline sales tax by which the increment will be measured? Do we have flexibility there? I know in the memo it was talking about this year to next year. Is there flexibility there?

There is some flexibility built in. So the base is for sales tax is based on the 12 month period prior to the plan of development adoption. We are taking into consideration avoiding a weak baseline. We've received that feedback and we're working closely with our partners in finance on all that. And so I think, you know, the intent is, is to be thoughtful and intentional about that. And so I think there's a little bit of flexibility there, Brad or Mark, I don't know if you want to add anything.

So, and basically from the plan of adoption, right? So 12 months prior, and I guess that that's my question. Is there any flexibility there? in that, or is that, that is the law that within, you know, the 12 months of the plan adoption. So if, you know, this goes to the ballot electors vote, a majority wants to move forward with us, then the plan's adopted. And from whatever point that plan is adopted, it's 12 months prior to that. So it seems like if this is kind of moving forward at this pace and should it pass, then probably we would be looking at that timeline that was specified in the memo. Is that correct?

Yeah, two things. We were projecting that March, April, 2027 would be the soonest when a plan of development would be adopted. First thing is council has to approve that plan of development. So you all ultimately have that discretion on when that clock starts. The second thing is in an IGA with the DDA, you also have the ability to set parameters on sales tax TIF. So if that is related to when the clock starts or how you're sharing any incremental revenue, that is something that could be brought forward for consideration.

Okay, thank you. And then one more just kind of a quick question thinking about electors. What about the library districts they know so libraries and the boundary like does that other governmental entities nonprofits like where do they fall into this because they're not technically businesses or residents.

Yeah, it's a great question. And they are a taxing entity partner. And so we'll be meeting with them in the coming months to discuss this whole effort and eventually enter into negotiations on the tax increment financing piece.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry for the wait, wait, does that mean that this would impact the taxes at the library district gets, I believe.

So Brad, you've done some of the analysis on on the impacts to the taxing entities.

Yeah, the impact on the library district is through property tax. And our projections found that on top of the base that's established, the library district and other taxing partners would continue to see an increase in their revenue through appreciation of the existing district. So about 50% of our projection would continue to grow for the taxing partners. And we're projecting new investment, which is really where the TIF comes from. It's not appreciation of what exists from new investment was another 50% of revenue that would go to the DDA.

So sorry, this completely changes my understanding of how this works. So there's property tax, right? It goes toward not just the library district, but the school district, the county as well. And so am I understanding correctly that this moving forward, this 2,500 or so people would then impact the property taxes that the library district and the school district and the county are collecting as well so that they would not get the increment too, like the increment would all go to the district. Because I just thought it was our city property taxes that would be impacted. But it's also a library district in the county and the school district.

Correct. On property tax, it includes partners. On sales tax, it's exclusively just the city.

Okay. Okay. So on property tax, I mean, it could have tens of millions of dollars of impact on the school district and the library district and others too. Okay. Thank you.

I think the only thing to just double click on that Brad mentioned is that it is only the new growth within the boundaries of the DDA that would be deferred to the DDA. So as the existing property values rise, that revenue will still go to the underlying property taxing entities. It is only the new investment, the new growth within the DDA boundaries, the tax on that that would be deferred to the DDA. So it is just a portion of that growth.

So do you mean that if the library stays exactly as it is now, there's no impact on the tax they receive, but if they were going to, I don't know, put in an extension or something like that, the property tax on that extension would be what then goes to the DDA? So I've gotten confused again.

I thought I had it. The whole DDA area wide, any natural appreciation continues to flow to the existing taxing entities, any new investment taking into consideration the whole geography of the DDA boundary would flow to the DDA. So regardless of a specific property who might redevelop or alter their property, any new investment within the boundaries would would flow to the DDA. And that's that 50-50 split that Brad was mentioning. So we're modeling roughly based on Brad, your experience with other DDAs and just the nature of the built out already downtown that about 50% of new growth would be natural appreciation, the other 50% from new investment.

And that estimate. Oh, go ahead. Sorry, just that estimate for the first six years for all props property taxing entities is about 3.2 million total property tax tip across city county school district and library district.

And just to simplify to make sure we're all there right whatever exists right now will remain and go to the every taxing entity that is there. As investments go back into the DDA and we see growth, hopefully, it is that growth that will then, because it is an investment in what is already being generated from the DDA, that will continue to flow. But none of what is base will impact the existing taxing entities.

Right. And when you're talking about growth here, you're talking not about the physical growth of the building, but you're talking about the growth in property taxes. The economic growth that the DDA is carrying. Growth in property taxes that would be received by the library district or something like that. That's what's part of it's going to go to the DDA. Is that right?

Yeah. Past the baseline. Okay.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So baseline, like starting now and then, or, you know, whenever, in a year, whenever that is, and then any growth in property values. that growth in property tax instead of going to the school district or others for those properties within the boundary, that would go to the DDA instead, half of it potentially. That is correct.

And Regan and Brad, correct me if I'm wrong, that the theory, right, is that that growth can be attributed to the investments that have been made back into the DDA. Yeah, that's right, Arianne.

But it seems like that's a little squishy because that was my first question. Yeah.

And I just want to clarify, cause there's two different things. So sales tax TIF is base baseline, the 12 month baseline period. And anything above that, that baseline goes to the DDA, unless there's a revenue sharing agreement in place and that city only. So for property tax, the existing property value today, um, currently within the DDA boundaries will naturally appreciate it will naturally grow in value. the taxes on that natural appreciation still go to the taxing entities. Any new growth, so new investment like the East Bookend, if it's included in the DDA, that's new development that happens. That's new taxes on the tax rolls. That would be deferred, that tax revenue to the DDA. So that's the difference between the sales tax and the property tax TIF.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, and- Just I apologize. That was a lot of questions. And I know that we sometimes stick with one or two. I will say, however, that this is a really new concept for our community. And there are lots of different entities being impacted by these decisions and frameworks. And I do think it really merits a lot of conversation in our public forum. I'm going to call myself just on a couple of quick questions. The first is, if we... If we transfer the parking assets to the DDA, does that process include an appraisal of each of those assets that would be publicly available?

It's a good question, Mark. I don't know if you know the answer to that or if we should defer to our folks in finance.

Yeah, we have begun that process as a part of the transition planning, including looking at all the details of existing condo agreements and the whole nine yards would include their appraisals of the properties.

Okay, thank you. And then... Would the process also perhaps include a table that might show numerically the conversation or the answers to the questions that Nicole just posed so that we could sort of see what would have happened to people's tax collection for property and sales tax by entity if there were a DDA and if there were not or something like that. Could that be included in the packet in the next discussion? Because this is not our final discussion. Yep, absolutely. Awesome. All right. So I'm going to go back to Matt and Ryan, but I'm hoping you each have one short question, if possible. All right, Matt.

Thank you. Yeah, I forgot to ask this question. One thing we've heard a lot about is office vacancy, dereliction of property. And so I'm wondering if TAB, Mark McIntyre, Because I know it's part of urban renewal and i'm wondering, have we thought about the dda also having the capacity to. TAB, Mark McIntyre, Either manage blight directly or think about you know vacant storefront you're eating commercial buildings underutilized downtown parcels and think about ways to either activate them or regulate them in ways that. TAB, Mark McIntyre, stimulate that economy and stimulate that area under the regulatory. maybe an investment capacity of a DDA. So I'm just wondering if there's been any thought about leveraging the new creation of the DDA to help with some of those issues that we face in some of our downtown areas.

Absolutely. Yeah, it's a great question, Council Member. Reducing vacancy is a priority highlighted in the plan of development. It really falls under that category of enhancing our commercial corridors and small business support. So it's something we're contemplating and DDA can definitely be an investment tool to address that challenge.

Okay. Maybe with more teeth. I would love to know what could be done with more teeth in that sense of just really not just... TINA WISDOM, And we'll get to it later, but i'd like to see where we can go with something that's a little more in the blight capacity where there's clear neglect and what can the dda do to you know really, really get get get going in there just something to be considered about.

TINA WISDOM, All right, all right.

TINA WISDOM, Thank you Tina and i'll try to put this into one question, this is on parking, so I understand that this proposal will consolidate several parking facilities currently. operated by the city and transfer that to the DDA essentially. And as I followed the presentation, I see a couple of main kind of goals in there. One of them is to generate revenue. One of them is to reinvest that revenue in parking. And I'm just thinking the city just went through this major parking reform exercise to try to get at some of the root causes of our transportation woes and create a fuller balance of public oriented modes. And so my question is, What, if anything, has been done to align the parking strategies here with the city's latest transportation access-oriented thinking? And also, is this instrumental to the whole DDA? Like, could this come out if we had more questions about it?

It's a good question. I may punt it to MARC or transportation.

Yeah, I'll start by saying our existing transportation plans, the comp plan that Regan mentioned, these are all considered heavily in developing the draft plan of development. So I hope you see those connections throughout the plan of development and hopefully aligning really well with our existing transportation policy. I think if parking assets were included, it would be reasonable to set some parameters on how those are utilized over time, what role the city has in oversight over any change of use of those assets, et cetera. And then also as it relates to any development of new parking. And so while there's an opportunity to essentially leverage the parking assets or parking development, if you will, in a way to incentivize economic development, you would want to establish some parameters over how that's actually done. So the short answer is I think the overall goals of the city match really well with how it's outlined in the plan of development, but the devil is in the details. And certainly if the DDA controlled parking, you would want an idea of how exactly policy will be set and adhered to and overseen over time. Thanks.

Okay, so we have three more questions, and I just want to remind us all what they are. The first is feedback on the draft plan of development. The following one is, does Council support the staff recommendation for the financial structure? including next steps related to transition and governance items? Lastly, do we support the drafting and bringing forward of the ballot measures? I'm suggesting that for the feedback of the plan of development, Or just in general, not everyone has to answer, but I have a question for staff. We've talked a lot about how there are going to be a lot of details and terms in the intergovernmental agreement. Is this when you want feedback for those terms, or is that going to be a separate time that you're looking for feedback on those terms?

That's a good question. What we anticipate is bringing forward essentially a draft of intergovernmental agreement alongside of an August consideration of ballot measures if it is advanced. It would not be final until you're ultimately negotiating that and approving it with a DDA board if created. But I think now would be a good time to offer those kind of burning ideas of the parameters under which you would want in an IGA so that we're aligning as close as possible with council's intent in bringing forward that draft. But August will be another opportunity to provide feedback on those terms as well.

All right. So let's provide that feedback for question number one on the plan of development. This is for a burning piece of feedback that you feel can't wait until August or during the next draft time. And let's try to be very concise with our feedback if possible. So who would like to start? Ryan.

Okay, thanks. So just on parking, I do think there is something really fundamental here that could be happening with parking. Car parking pricing and strategies can impact a lot of things, including traffic. We just went through a literally 10-year process to reform our parking in the city. And we now have a whole set of major parking assets. And I'm suddenly... I just have a lot of heartburn about thinking about alignment of that, of our city's goals and objectives and strategies with what is happening with those parking assets. In the world of parking, there's a lot of science. There's a lot of counterintuitive things happening. And there's a lot of tradeoffs that you make between short term and long term objectives. And I'm just I'm really nervous about thinking of this suddenly becoming owned by not not by the city. And so I would be hoping that there's some kind of. board of governance that is specific to parking that includes the city, like as one model, but something that really gets under the hood of like, what's the future of parking going to be in the city if it's going to be owned by DDA? And what are the goals and the strategies that need to create guardrails?

All right, Tara.

Okay, I'm going to, good thing I'm going right after Ryan. I would think that if I was a business owner, I would want people to come However they get there, whether by car or by bike, it doesn't matter. So I would think that their most important thing is to get people to use the parking facilities, however we have it. I get that we do have climate goals, but we also are trying to help our downtown folks succeed and grow. Besides that, so I'm giving the opposite opinion, but all I wanted to say was I like everything about this. I think it's great and I'm 100% on board.

All right, any further feedback or should we move on to the next piece about the financial structure? Okay, we've got Nicole.

I do have feedback. I'm going to try to talk fast, Tina. So I would really like more info on the dollar amounts, the impacts to the general fund, both for sales and property, as well as the other taxing entities when this comes back for ballot measure consideration. And I really do think it's critical that we think about how we're going to measure this increase in our city revenue, theoretical increase from economic development and investment, which is what we're considering diverting, right? And I would like to have some of the fund our future information, which I think we'll have by the time we get here. Also, as we're considering making that decision that 2,500 people downtown could choose to divert growth. that we can't directly tie to downtown investments. I think it risks sitting, not sitting very well with people in other areas of our community who are really looking for more investment in other areas of town. So I think it's gonna be critical that we're able to justify that this is helping more than just downtown, right? I think this is just, for me, it's a big reason why we really need some type of accountability built in that's more than just, you know, do we have more businesses downtown and things like that, but that it really ties to the money that we're diverting here, the growth that we would be diverting. I also worry a little bit that part of the reason that the downtown revenue is down is because we have this change in demographics and buying habits and the nature of the stores downtown. So I worry too that we are doing, we're considering this around a time when we're going to have a Sorry going likely to have a recession and using that as sort of a low measure of baseline I mean I. I would expect that as this moves forward we're not going to pause it for two years and then kind of come back to it so, so I do worry about that and I worry because we mean in prior recessions, we have seen post. post-recession recovery, that the growth is quite a bit higher there that I worry we might misattribute that, which again comes back to the accountability and how are we able to find some ways to tie it together. And then I do worry, Matt spoke to this a little bit, I worry about the hill being left out just given that they are just a smaller percent. And I think as we're building out this plan of development, trying to figure out how how we can support them feeling like they really do have a significant voice in this. DDA, I think is gonna be really important. I know the huge money they get is not all that much. And also if we're considering pulling it all together, I think it's important that they feel like they are being heard in that way. Thank you. All right, Mark.

I'm going to be really short. I share Nicole's concerns. I'd like to see some of that financial analysis about impacts on the general fund. And, you know, I hope that can be provided to us before we finalize a couple of months from now. Thank you.

All right, Taisha.

I would agree with Ryan's comments regarding just the management and oversight related to parking. I'm thinking of parking enforcement. I mean, there's several things that I think are kind of hairy. And the idea that 2,400 people who are not connected to the city are making those decisions is challenging for me. Perhaps this can be addressed through some kind of accountability mechanism to Nicole's point. And I would definitely agree with that. I too have questions about the hill. However, I am curious what the impacts of limelight and Moxie will be in that area to help stabilize that area a little bit more and generate more income and revenue for that area. So, but in general, yeah, I'm okay with it moving forward. Again, I continue to be concerned that our financial projections are not inclusive of our water supply and just some of the increases in water and energy rates that we can anticipate and the expected recession that all signs are pointing to. So it would just be helpful to have a little bit more scenario planning on that level as well. Thank you.

All right, Matt.

I'm just trying to clarify, which question are we answering? Because I'm hearing a lot of financials.

Yeah, we were sort of going with feedback on the development plan, but I think naturally that went into the financial plan. And Taisha actually also said that she supported moving forward, rolling all three, which was great, getting all of them out.

I just want to be in respect to the order you gave us, so I don't want to ping pong around.

Okay. They're so connected.

All right. Fair point. Then I'll just keep it simple and maybe wrap it all together. Really, I mean, I like where this is headed. We still got another bite at the apple. Yes, I've said that again. You love it when I say that. But the big one is I think there's still a little confusion and maybe don't have all the pieces together to understand the force multiplier and the positive feedback loop that's created in that TIFF. I think we sort of talked about it a little bit. but I think a better explain, just really sinking down to how to explain not just to us, but to the community about how that positive feedback loop works, I think will really help settle us in, right? That it's not just growth, but that reinvestment is key to spurring new investment, which spurs new tax growth, which then helps everybody. So that, I mean, in some ways you might be a flywheel, but that's the whole premise of it. And I think discussing that and really talking about the detail will help in communication for us, but also community. So If we could spend some time really diving into how to explain that well, I think that that'll go a long way.

All right. Okay, so should we move to the second one? If you didn't cover it in your prior comments, we would now move to comments about the financial structure. I'll start with one. One thing that would help me is be really specific about the proceeds of potential sales of the parking assets and where those go, and specifically around the parking lot on Broadway, 2121 Broadway, in the event that that's sold near or before or right after the DDA were to be formed. So that would be one thing I'm concerned about. And then I echo all the other comments I heard prior. Nicole?

Yeah, my only thing was just to kind of add to some of Matt's comments about the feedback loop. I think there is understanding of the feedback loop and how this works in theory. And I think what some of us are asking for is really accountability around that and measurement and something that they can help show the community that this investment is doing that. So I just wanted to clarify that because I think if we go out there and just try to explain to people, you know, well, this is how it works, that they're going to be left with the same question. Well, does that mean that I get more investment in my neighborhood or not? So I just wanted to clarify that piece of it. Thanks.

All right. Shall we move on to the final question, which is, does council support staff drafting and bringing forward for consideration ballot measures for the 2026 November election related to the DDA? Okay. All right, Aaron.

Short answer is yes. I appreciate all the work that's been done so far. I do think it has potential to be a catalytic tool for the downtown, so I'm excited about that. I appreciate the comments that folks have made about the financial questions, and I do look forward to getting more information on the analysis of those, but I am comforted by, say, on the property tax, the fact that it's not the natural increase in property tax that's being taken, but rather the property tax resulting from new investments specifically, many of which we probably would not happen otherwise if the DDI did not exist. So it seems like a good balance to me of making new things happen and also preserving revenue streams for other entities and other funds. So looking forward to the next steps. Thanks.

All right, who else would like to share whether they're supporting this moving forward to the next step? All right, we've got a thumbs up from Tara. Nicole's hand is up.

Nicole? I just, I'm skeptical. I just, I feel like I don't really have a lot of information. I mean, with that, you know, we can certainly bring it forward to the next step, but I am just not quite sure this is going to work out. And I would like some more information showing me that it will.

All right. Sorry, I'm footnoting my thumbs up. So yeah, I agree with Nicole. And I'm interested in seeing this move forward. As you said, Tina, earlier, this is just like, this is a whole new animal for us. And I still have a ton of questions. We don't have the time here to go into more questions that I do have. So I'm optimistic that this will become something. But I'm also skeptical that there's a lot of things to take on. So please, please move forward. But just starting with the parking stuff, I do really... I think we need to get into some of the analysis. Thanks.

And just in terms of moving forward, I don't think I've heard from Mark or Rob yet.

I'm giving a qualified approval. I'd like to see more, but I don't think there's any reason not to move forward at the moment. But please get us the information that we need to come to a final conclusion on it.

Great, Rob?

Yeah, I echo that as well. It would just be nice to have the offsets from the general fund so that we can explain that and the feedback loop that happens, the parking, everything that's been said. So the more information that we have in the next meeting that we have, the better and the better we can explain it to the public and the transparency behind it. But I fully support it moving forward.

All right. Seeing no other hands, and I think we've heard from every council member, particularly on the third question, I want to go back to our amazing DDA team and ask, do you have what you need for us to move forward from this study session today? I believe we do.

We do. Thank you.

All right. Great. Nuria, any final comments for this study session?

Not at all. I just appreciate your thoughtfulness. I know there's a lot of information, particularly about general fund and other funding sources in the memo. If there's a specific question that we did not answer or address, please feel free to email us and we'll try to make sure that to address that as that moves forward. But really appreciate your thoughtfulness and the feedback that you're giving.

All right, and council colleagues, thank you for being patient with a lot of questions in the beginning, but we are finishing just a little bit after 8.30, so it did, I think, all work out. And we'll see each other soon. So thank you so much.

Great job. Thanks. Appreciate it.

Well done, Tina.

Thank you.