City Council - Regular Meeting

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

Council. I'm Council Member Ryan Shewhart. and thank you for joining us. We have one item on tonight's agenda. It's the legislative update. Before we go into our work item, I'd like to outline how the meeting will be conducted. We will review the staff's presentation, and then we'll 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 their presentation. We will now turn to our city manager, Nuria Rivera-Vandermeid, to introduce our first item.

Thanks so much, council member. Today, we are delighted to provide a legislative update. There's been a lot going on in session and some questions that I know you and our community have had. So I'm going to pass it on over to Heather Stauffer, who's going to kick us off and own the presentation. Heather.

Awesome. Thank you so much, Nuria. And I think, Emily, you have my slides. So I will. Great. And if Will Coyne is on. I am going, if you could promote him, that would be fantastic. Thanks so much, Nuria. Thank you, members of council. Good evening, Heather Stauffer, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer for the city. The purpose of our item today is to review the outcomes of the 2026 state legislative session. We're going to talk about the city's advocacy efforts, priority bills for the session, and bills of interest to the city. Then we're going to provide a high-level overview of what to expect for the rest of 2026 and heading into 2027. We do have two questions for Council this evening following the presentation. I'm also going to be joined this evening by Will Coyne from Headwater Strategies, who represents us every day down at the Capitol. Next slide, please. All right, so the legislature is constitutionally limited to a 120 day session. This year it ran from January 14th to May 13th. Anything left on the calendar and not resolved by midnight on May 13th dies. The legislature introduced around 626 bills this year. Of that, 450 were passed and sent to the governor. The governor has 30 days from when the legislature adjourns sine die. to sign bills, veto bills, or if he takes no action, they automatically go into effect after the 30 day period. He has already vetoed a number of bills, 12 to be exact. Tomorrow is the last day for him to take any action on bills. So we should know with pretty clear certainty what's going to happen after that. The city took positions on 58 bills this session. I'm going to talk about our priority bills and a few other bills of interest that we took positions on throughout the presentation. In your memo, however, you have a link to our new bill tracker which will show you all the bills that we took positions on the outcome of those bills. And I will note that all bills that the city took positions on are also on our website. on our intergovernmental affairs page under legislation of interest to the city. So that is available to the public as well. The defining force this year, same as last year, was the state budget. Megs Vallier from our office tracked the budget outcomes for me this year and worked with our budget team to put together a great overview on direct and indirect impacts to the city, which we'll go over later in the presentation. Next slide, please. So a bit more about the budget. The Joint Budget Committee was tasked with cutting about a billion dollars from the state budget this year. A bill's fate, therefore, rested basically on whether it carried any cost to the state. They left very little room, some would say no room, for new money and new programs. Some are, however, saying that they should have cut more. And the budget may be out of balance already. So these next few budget forecasts, I think will give us a better idea of what to expect there. We expect one in mid to late June. One bill that came out of the session to address the state's budget crisis was Senate Bill 135. That refers a question to the ballot to ask voters to raise the TABOR cap for K through 12 and use the budget surplus to pay for teacher pay. smaller class sizes, et cetera. We've talked about this a bit in the past, but the state's obligation for Medicaid is a huge component of what's driving the budget deficit. Medicaid expenses are consistently outpacing the state's ability to retain revenue. The JBC spent a very good portion of this year talking about Medicaid and they passed Senate Bill 187 to create the Commission on Medicaid to recommend changes to the legislature on policy around Medicaid by December. So that will be something that we'll be looking at as well. Next slide, please. Similar to last year as well, a major focus of the majority party was response to actions taken at the federal level. They spent a lot of time debating and running legislation around responding to federal policies on immigration, And Democrats really struggled, I think, to unite their caucus around a single path forward. Of the five bills that dealt most directly with immigration policies, two were killed in committee by Democrats who voted with Republicans against the measure, and one was vetoed by the governor. So they got two through. But it just kind of shows that there's not a consensus around a path forward on this issue amongst the majority party. They were able to pass House Bill 1276, which builds upon some actions taken last year around civil liability for sharing information about people's immigration status with the federal government. It also authorizes inspections of detention centers as well. They addressed potential changes to Colorado's universal, excuse me, potential challenges to Colorado's universal mail-in voting system through House Bill 1113, And they also addressed federal orders regarding coal plants, keeping open coal plants that were set for retirement and House Bill 1226. Several, of course, we know are in Colorado. Next slide, please. So, of course, 2026 is an election year. The entire House is up for reelection at the state level, and almost half of the Senate is also up for reelection. So we saw a ton of election politics. We're seeing a lot of primary races among the majority party, and it really reflects this tension between the moderate and the far left Democrats, which we've been seeing all session and has played out in a number of ways. One bill that passed that I wanted to note because it speaks directly to an initiative that we may see on the ballot is House Bill 1430. This responds to Initiative 175, which is called Restore Our Roads Initiative. That initiative would enshrine transportation funding for roads and only for roads and bridges into the state constitution. I'm not going to get into the merits of the initiative right now. However, I wanted to point, to talk about that because house bill 1430 was passed as kind of a counter to this initiative. Um, it reduces taxes and exempts fees, uh, impacted by, uh, uh, initiative one 75. And the point of this bill was to make it so unappealing to the initiative proponents that they would just pull the measure from consideration on the ballot and instead take up a task force that's proposed in the bill. The outcomes of House Bill 1430 are not great for local governments if this passes, so some have referred to this as the nuclear option. You probably have seen in the news, but it seems that negotiations with the proponents of 175 have failed and the proponents will move forward with initiative 175. That's the latest that we're hearing. So more on that when we talk about our initiatives, but I did want to just highlight that. Next slide, please. So as I mentioned, the city took positions on 58 bills. I wanted to follow up on three pieces of our priority legislation that we talked about a little bit in April. First is house bill 1202 we supported this bill and advocated for its passage, along with housing advocates and groups like Colorado coalition for the homeless and i'm happy to say that it passed. It creates new tools for local governments to address homelessness in a regional context by allowing the creation of multi-jurisdictional homelessness authorities. It also requires the state to present a strategy to reduce homelessness during their 2027 Smart Act hearings, which is something I think has been missing from these conversations. Second, Senate Bill 189, this is automated decision-making or the AI bill. This did pass. We were waiting a long time for it. It passed right at the end of the session. It clarifies the city's responsibilities regarding the use of AI when developers or deployers of the technology need to provide disclosures, and it ensures that we're able to move ahead with implementing our AI policies in the city. So we did support Senate Bill 189, and it was passed and signed by the governor. Finally, the absolute heartbreak of the session, Senate Bill 148, City of Boulder's utility on-bill repayment program did not make it over the finish line this year. There were so many people that worked really, really hard, both within the city and outside the city on this policy for many years. And we were really, really hopeful that this year would make it over the finish line. You know, we had help from the governor's office, the Colorado Clean Energy Fund, the Energy Office, Boulder County, a ton of environmental organizations. And we reached an agreement with the treasurer's office around a loan from the unclaimed property trust fund that was going to fund the bill. Um, so that was the first hurdle overcome. We addressed concerns from legislators who voted against the bill last year. We negotiated with Excel and the realtors and the renters advocacy groups, and we seemed like we were on a good path. And unfortunately, even though the bill would not have cost the state money, uh, an error in the fiscal note, routed the bill to the appropriations committee. And once it was in appropriations. We had a few legislators that had really strong opinions on unclaimed property trust fund and what it should be used for, and they just would not move. So I'm hoping it's not the end of the conversation, but definitely with the state's budget issues, every funding source was just extra controversial, and we unfortunately got caught up in that. So we're going to regroup reevaluate that policy over the interim to figure out next steps, but I was disappointed that that one didn't move forward, because we did have really high hopes for that. Next slide please. So protecting programs and funding sources that the city relies on and Community relies on was also one of our priorities this session. I think just universally, no one is happy with the budget, including the people who wrote it. When you have to cut a billion dollars for the second year in the row, nobody wins. I mentioned a little bit earlier, K through 12 was prioritized, so they saw the least impact there. But state departments, programs, grant programs, and Medicaid took big hits this year. Meg's put together an analysis with our budget team on the direct and the indirect impacts to the city coming out of the state budget this year, thank you to her to her for that work. So you'll see the most direct impact that we saw this year comes from the elimination of the local share of the retail marijuana sales tax. Last year, this fund was reduced from 10%, I believe, to 3.5%. And then this year, they came back for the rest of it and eliminated that fund altogether. So we're anticipating about $150,000 that will be taken out of our general fund. We were able to get an amendment. You may recall from our last update, we were able to get an amendment added to the Senate to preserve that local share for future years. It would have taken the 3.5% this year, but preserved kind of the infrastructure around it to allow those transfers for next year. However, the JVC opposed it and the house did not concur with that amendment. So that did fail. It should be noted, however, that the city does have the ability to increase our local taxes on marijuana to cover this gap if Council should be interested in that in the future, it did not impact our local. shares of that. So a couple of indirect impacts, but just as important the multimodal transportation funds took a big hit this year. The $10.5 million that's usually transferred from the general fund was eliminated through House Bill 1399. And 1.7 of local funding was transferred to the state in House Bill 1398. We advocated against both of those transfers. One bright spot, I suppose, is that we were able to preserve the transfer of MMOF funding from the general fund for future years. So House Bill 1399, as introduced, would have eliminated that transfer completely. We worked really hard with lots of partners to get an amendment to bring that transfer back in three years. So that went on the bill and was passed with that amendment. So in three years, we can expect MMOF transfers to come back, and hopefully the budget is a little bit brighter at that point. So, and then we receive MMOF funds through Dr. Cog tip funding as well, I'll note. We did see reduced funding about 130 million to the state's affordable housing finance fund. This is an indirect impact that will decrease the availability of grants. Similarly, there was a cash fund sweeps, lots of cash fund sweeps. And we noted that 400,000 is coming from the peace officer's mental health grant program and will be put into the general fund. That's a program that we have received funds from in the past. And so the availability of those grant opportunities will be reduced. Next slide, please. A few other bills of interest. Throughout the session, we saw some dueling data center bills. They were both introduced early on in the session and they were debated all session. House Bill 1030 would have provided incentives for data centers without any real requirements around the energy use and the environmental impacts. We opposed that bill, and obviously opposed that bill due to the potential environmental implications there. Senate Bill 102 would have set strict requirements for large load data centers, specifically around energy use, environmental impacts, etc., and we were supportive of that bill. In the end, neither group overcame the opposition and both bills failed, so I know that the sponsors of Senate bill 102 are starting to work on another version of this bill for next year, so I assume that we are going to see another round of these kind of dueling data center bills next session. Next slide please. So housing and land use is a perennial issue in the legislature we supported a number of pieces of legislation that support our efforts in the city to provide affordable housing. But also a note that a few of the bills we supported were budget victims and did not make it out of appropriations, unfortunately, and those are noted at the bottom of the slide and then also in your memo. i'll know a couple that did make it out and were signed. and then a couple that failed. Senate Bill 40 broadens the qualifications for the affordable home ownership program created through Prop 123 and allows for increased flexibility in that funding. House Bill 1065 allows the creation of transit housing investment zones. The zones use state sales tax increment financing to fund eligible transit infrastructure projects within two miles of a transportation facility. Um, so this could be safety improvements, centering transit stops to increase ridership, et cetera. Um, this act also establishes a new state income tax credit to support development of affordable housing for low and middle income households. This directly addresses goals that the city have has about transit oriented housing in the city. So we did support that and we were happy to see that pass. House Bill 1224 builds on some work done in the past around the Mobile Home Park Act. It requires increased notification from landlords related to selling a mobile home park. It also sets some parameters for the park registration fee and caps the amount that a landlord can charge a resident to cover that fee to $17. So we did support that bill, and that was passed and signed. Um, we discussed several land use bills related to lot size and lot splitting throughout this session. Um, you will be familiar. The city opposed house bill 1114, which made requirements around minimum lot sizes for municipalities that died in the Senate local government committee. Um, we were also, we were in an oppose unless amended position on house bill 1308, which was the lot splitting bill. That also failed in the Senate Local Government Committee this year. I will just note that we were promised two out of the three amendments that we asked for. That's just for my own score keeping. All right, next slide, please. So one of the bright spots in the session, we were able to support a number of clean energy bills I won't go through all of these, but I'll note that plug-in solar crossed the finish line, House Bill 1226 also, which speaks to federal actions around coal-fired units, was something that we supported. We also defeated Senate Bill 208, which would have removed wind energy as an energy standard under the Colorado clean energy targets. Next slide, please. Similarly, I won't go into detail around all of these bills, but this being an election year, we of course saw a number of bills looking to erode the local and state laws around firearm safety. We saw three major bills defeated in this area. We opposed all three, and we supported enhanced gun control measures around House Bill 1144, which places guardrails around 3D printing of firearms. So we were quite successful in that arena. Next slide, please. So the legislature also took up modernization of RTD this session. It's been a topic of conversation for the last few sessions. They passed House Bill 150. It's a very dense bill, but whiling it down, it really focuses on the composition of the RTD board and the districts. It reduces the size of the RTD board from 15 to nine members. of those nine members, five are elected and four are appointed by the governor. Reflecting that new board structure, it redraws the RTD districts. It also adds new requirements around paratransit planning for RTD. The city was largely supportive of the changes being proposed, but our IGA committee did identify three changes that we wanted to pursue in the bill. The first was increasing the number of elected members from five to seven. We felt by making this increase, we would ensure better representation for Boulder on the board. We also saw amendments to add language to ensure equity in the governor's nomination process. The city additionally sought amendments to decrease the signature threshold required for potential candidates from 1,000 eligible electors to 500. In the end, we were able to secure an amendment that moved the signature thresholds back down to 250, which is what is currently in statute. We, along with many other entities, sought to increase the number of electeds that were on the board, and no one was able to convince the sponsors or the governor's office, so we did not receive that amendment, unfortunately. Similarly, we weren't able to get any additional language around equity in the nomination process. The governor's team did point to equity policies that they already have in place around their nomination process and they really felt like that was adequate, so we didn't see an additional language added on that front. Next slide please. So, of course, we have the November 2026 general election that will determine control and composition of the General Assembly. The balance of power is not anticipated to shift too dramatically. Democrats will still likely have control of the legislature, but election results could meaningfully shift kind of the balance between the moderate Democrats and the far left sides of the party. Um, changes in legislative leadership. We'll have a new speaker of the house, a new majority leader in the house, um, which may change some priorities as well. We will have a new governor, uh, depending on their priorities. Some directions may shift there. Um, also I'll note that governor Polis was particularly involved in the legislature. Um, and we'll have to see how involved the new governor is in the legislature. So that remains to be seen. Um, The budget will still be a problem. If the budget is out of balance currently, similar to last year, they may need a special session to fix it. It's unknown at this point. And then looking for, we do have at least five initiatives plus a referred measure that will appear on the ballot. August 3rd is the last day to submit signatures on initiatives, and we will know definitively what is on the ballot by September 2nd. Um, the council does have the ability to take positions on ballot measures via resolution at a future meeting. And so that's what one of our questions, uh, uh, is addressing. I wanted to, uh, next slide please. So I am putting up here the, uh, the measures that are currently on the ballot. In your memo, you have a link to the Secretary of State's website, which lists all the items that are on the ballot and all potential ballot measures and where they are in the process. So, so far, there are six ballot measures officially on the ballot for November. They're listed on the next few slides. And I'm happy to go over these or we can You can take a look and read them and ponder them yourselves. I don't know, Ryan, if you have an opinion, would you like me to go over these now or? I'm sorry, you're muted.

Thanks. I think so, because we'll go back to asking for feedback on these. So this probably makes sense. Great.

So Initiative 85, this increases the felony classifications of drug-related crimes for distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale or possession of fentanyl and certain synthetic opioids. It creates mandated treatment for certain drug felony violations based on possession amount, and it eliminates exemptions for crimes related to fentanyl and certain synthetic opioids. Excuse me, it narrows or eliminates exemptions for crimes related to fentanyl. So that is initiative 85. This is currently on the ballot initiative 95, which is currently on the ballot. It requires law enforcement to notify the department of Homeland security within 72 hours after changing a charging a person with a crime. If the person is not lawfully present in the United States or the status of that person's lawful presence is unknown. Um, after a reasonable attempt to determine. And either the person is charged with a crime of violence as defined by Colorado state statute or the person has been convicted of a prior felony. that's initiative 95 initiative 108 expands the definition of child sex trafficking and makes buying or selling of a minor for sex punishable by life imprisonment without parole. We have Initiative 109, which requires school and college sports teams to be designated male, female, or co-ed, and generally limits participation in school athletics to those whose biological sex matches the team's designation. And then Initiative 110, this prohibits surgeries intended to alter a minor's biological sex characteristics and bars public funding Medicaid reimbursements and insurance coverages for those procedures. Next slide, please. We do have one referred measure that I mentioned earlier via Senate Bill 135. This referred measure allows the state to retain money above the TABOR cap up to $4.8 billion, which would otherwise be refunded to taxpayers as TABOR refunds. that money would be used to support K through 12 education funding and programs that support children. The amount that will actually be retained depends on the amount of revenue collected, but it is estimated at this point to be around 800 million more than the TABOR cap next year. Next slide, please. So these bills have not yet been approved for the ballot. Initiative 175 is in the signature verification process and will likely approved for the ballot very soon initiatives 195 and 177 have been approved for circulation there are about 26 ballot measures that have been approved for circulation so i just picked a couple that the council may be interested in but please review that and let me know if there are others initiative 175 is mentioned earlier as championed by the colorado contractors association It creates a constitutional requirement to dedicate existing transportation related taxes and fees to road and bridge infrastructure. restricting their use to only road and transportation purposes beginning in 2027 this would include sales and use taxes excise taxes and fees on motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels, as well as two thirds of sales and use tax revenue on motor vehicle parts and accessories. While this would increase funding for road and bridge infrastructure anticipated around 1.2 billion next year, it would also have major impacts to the general fund. The proposition would divert nearly 2 million this year and 540 million in out years of sales tax revenue from the state's general fund budget, likely deepening the budget crisis. It would also implicate funds like MMOF, electric vehicle grant fund, and redirect those to the traditional road and bridge infrastructure. Initiative 195, this is the graduated income tax. Colorado currently has a flat income tax with a graduated income tax structure. It strikes, excuse me, it has a, Colorado usually has, currently has a flat income tax, this would change it to a graduated income tax structure. It would strike the requirement from TABOR that requires all taxable net income to be taxed at one rate with no added tax. Proponents are saying that this would raise an estimated $2 billion per year, and that revenue would be used for K through 12, healthcare, and early childcare and education specifically. There's also initiative 177 that adds a constitutional right for businesses to provide and consumers to use natural gas for heating, cooking, and other lawful purposes. But I think I've mentioned this is just in the circulation phase right now. So 177 and 195 are in the circulation phase. We will know by September whether those make the ballot. Next slide, please. And that brings me to the questions for counsel. Thank you.

Thank you, Heather. Why don't we start with questions, and then from there, we can dive into these first two items, or these two items, I should say. OK, I see Rob and then Tina.

Thanks, Ryan. And thank you, Heather. That was a fantastic report of a lot that's going on. New governor, new speaker, majority leader, caucus recomposition, a lot going on, a lot of uncertainty. We know the direct and indirect hits to Boulder specifically, and direct being the 150 of the marijuana being cut. Um, do we have an aggregate number of what we could be experiencing specifically if that Tabor cap raise doesn't pass?

At this point, I would say no, because we don't have a budget forecast. Um, and I don't know what analysis our budget teams have done, um, related to kind of future prospects for the state revenue. I would say it's highly dependent on what they're seeing for future revenue forecasts though. So we're gonna continue to monitor those and that may be something that we can work with our budgeting team on. And if there's anyone from budget on, please feel free to jump in if you have additional information on that.

I'll maybe spare Krista for a moment, but I'll say that we usually do do some projections and bring those forward as part of the budget process. So we'll be calculating that and sharing with you as we move forward.

OK. Thank you. Ryan, how many questions are we allowed? I have one more. Go ahead. Keep going. OK. Regarding Initiative 85, the fentanyl, I know you probably don't have this now, but eventually would we be tapping into the knowledge and the ideas of Chief Redfern and Sheriff Johnson and Judge Kahn and how that affects the jails, all of the policies that we have right now?

If council is interested in learning more about that initiative, I certainly would work with Chief and Judge Khan to provide a more robust analysis on how that would impact the city for sure.

Okay, awesome. Thank you. Whoops. Is that it, Rob? That's it. Okay, Tina.

Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Heather, or congratulations on your first legislative session with the City of Boulder. It's been great working with you and also with Megs, and we're going to miss Megs so much. But anyway, so just a good question. So far, we're looking at $150,000 loss in this session, which honestly doesn't seem like much. And I realize there are other grants that we may not get. How did we do compared to other communities? Were there other communities that were hit much harder or did we come out pretty well?

I haven't done a comparative analysis on how much other communities get in marijuana sales tax specifically. So I couldn't speak to that. I can certainly look into that if that's something that you're interested in. I think the indirect impacts are what are going to impact municipalities more as we go along. And I would need to look at how many grants we apply for. Generally, we are Pretty successful when it comes to grant applications, so I imagine that this will actually impact or the less having less availability of grants would actually impact us a little bit more. As compared to other communities who may not apply for as many grants or may not be as successful in grants, of course, grants are not something that we budget on right that's just an extra that we hope to get. Um, so, uh, it's hard to do a comparative kind of analysis for other communities, but it's just something, um, uh, our success rate in these kind of grant opportunities, I think is something that we should keep in mind. So it is, I think it would impact us a little bit more.

Definitely. Yeah, it is a big deal. Um, and also just the other cuts that hurt just our community members that we don't necessarily directly fund. And then my other question is on the data center bill that was more of an incentive. How close was that? And also, if you're a home rule municipality and you look at your own policy to limit that, does that override what the state legislation might be?

So thank you. So Senate Bill 102, we worked really hard with the proponents to ensure that local control of policies would remain intact. It sets state level requirements. So they would have to work with utilities to meet certain requirements, but I don't believe anything in it would have overridden the city's ability to create our own ordinances. And then your second question, sorry, how close was it?

Yeah.

Yeah. So both of these bills died in committee. And it was, you know, Senate Bill 102 had issues with labor that they were trying to overcome. And so they were negotiating with labor. And then, of course, 1030 had issues with the environmental community. So they just both faced really big hurdles and neither could overcome them in these versions.

All right. Thanks so much. Heather, I would just add, hello, everyone. It's Will Coyne. Hey, Will. You all. This, just for a little color on data centers, I think a lot of you probably would recognize this just from reading news in Colorado and nationally. It really feels like the politics of this issue have shifted more dramatically than almost any other issue in the last like six months. I really look back to sort of that Virginia special election in the fall where this was all over the national news. And my honest gut is that, of course, this issue is going to be continued to be hotly debated. But I think that the idea of like state tax incentives is probably going to fade. because there is a Republican and Democratic kind of backlash against those ideas. And it doesn't mean there won't be a bill, but I think it's much less likely than it was, say, two years ago or even heading into this session.

Okay, Tina, anything else for you? Okay, questions from others? Going once. Going twice? Okay, I'll ask one question. Heather, this is a topical question. On the subject of wildfire and relatedly power, reliability, and resilience, I'm just curious if you detected, you and Will and team detected any trends with respect to like, common cause among communities that might suggest, you know, collective action in either or both of those related topics going forward. I know there's just a ton of uncertainty with new leadership, but just curious if you pick up on any signals on those topics.

And can you clarify, Council Member Schuhardt, collective action on wildfire?

Yeah, I'm thinking both wildfire protection and And the related topic of, you know, Excel power shutoffs and reliability. I'm just wondering, you know, Boulder is one of many communities that's experiencing a ton of pressure and threat with these issues. So I'm just curious if you've detected any kind of, you know, collective, like common cause with these topics that might, you know, suggest action, potential for new action in the next session.

Yeah, thank you for that. They had a hearing where they heard from Excel early in the legislative session, and it didn't really go anywhere this session. I haven't heard of anything on the horizon. I don't know, Will, and I would also invite Carolyn Elam if you've heard of anything at this point.

Yeah, I'd say two things. I mean, maybe three. One is in general, given like the size of the problem, there's sort of a shockingly, you know, lack of debate happening. And it's mostly because there's no money and that, so people are really aren't sure what quite to do. I think many of you all may have heard probably from us, but I can't quite remember that last summer, a bunch of the utilities, Excel, the rural electrics, were driving a conversation in interim committee where they wanted to give themselves a civil immunity liability for starting wildfires and burning people's houses down. That got shut down before it even started. Given the amount of money at stake in all of this and the lack of state support, it's possible that discussion could come back, but I have a hard time imagining that would be successful. I will also mention, because there's such a long list of potential ballot measures, there is an initiative with signatures being collected. It's 308, really being driven by the Nature Conservancy and Western Resource Advocates. that would do, it's like pretty wonky, but it would debruce sales tax on sporting goods and put $185 million a year split between Goko and Wildfire stuff. So it is very possible that that ends up passing and you end up with a new bucket of whatever half of that $90 million is a year. And that would be at least something to help instigate some discussions at the Capitol.

yeah and then i can jump in and um good evening everybody carolyn elam with the climate initiatives department and i think the only thing i would add to what um heather and will covered is the um reauthorization of the public utilities commission so the puc sunset um bill was signed into to law um so we did re-up the public utilities commission for another seven years and there are Well, not wildfire isn't explicitly a component of that there are elements of it that show up in the bill, including a broad coalition support across you know across all aisles around. our amendment that we push forward on requiring quality of service plans from the utilities and starting to build that into rulemaking, which is really kind of gets at our reliability issue. There's also components in there around enhancing the role of the commission, giving them greater authority so that they can staff up. One of the challenges we have right now is an under-resourced commission providing the oversight over our utilities. And so I do think that there's some broad support separate from the legislative session. Certainly there's a lot of coalition work going on across the highly impacted communities that have been subject to some of the greatest wildfire risk from our electric utilities. So I do think that that's going to continue to be monitoring and if not legislation is certainly progressing through rulemaking at the commission.

Okay, thanks. Thanks, team. So that's it for my questions. And I'm seeing no other hands. So why don't we go to the two scheduled items? Does council have any questions or feedback? So this is probably feedback at this point. But if you have questions, go ahead on legislation or the state budget. And just to also add, Heather and I chatted and We agreed to point out that this is intended to keep it at a high level. This is not the detailed discussion for all of our policymaking for next fall. So with that guidance, take hands. Aaron.

Sorry, Ryan, did you want us to address the ballot measures now or wait until after?

We'll do that second. So I'm on the first item now of feedback, and then we'll go to the ballot measures. And I'm thinking for that one, just to prepare, Probably go through each one and do a show of hands for each, unless folks have another suggestion.

Well, do you mind if I ask a process question there? Because I think, well, I'll wait until we get to the ballot measures. I'll re-raise my hand when we get to those. But in terms of comments, I'd just like to commend Heather for the extraordinary work during the legislative sessions, incredibly effective. And thanks, Megs, for the support and Will for yours as well. I thought we did very well because of all of your efforts. I appreciate that very much.

Thanks, Aaron. Any other feedback slash questions?

I do. Just a quick one on the rationale behind the right to natural gas. Can you just speak on that on the microphone briefly? Okay.

Thank you. And you're saying the rationale for why it was put forth as an initiative or why I included it in the presentation, just to clarify.

The former.

Why it's put forward as an initiative. This is a topic that's come up. I mean, right to national gas has been something that has been debated at the legislature. And then I think on prior... uh, in prior elections for many, many years. And, um, yeah, it's just been a topic of conversation. Um, every last couple of years, uh, somebody has put forth a bill that is like a right to natural gas, um, and it's failed. And so I believe that the, the idea now is to put it through the initiative process, um, because it's failed in the legislature. I don't know, Will, if you have additional information on that. That's just what I remember from my water and natural resources days.

Yeah, I mean, it... I think everything you said is right. It is, you know, it's essentially an oil and gas industry release industry slash right wing sort of attack on electrification. And because they have no purchase legislature, they're using the initiative process and they're crafting something that seems to an average, even left of center voter to be fairly reasonable, but they want to use it to be able to attack electrification policy in the future.

Thank you very much.

The one thing I would just add is it would preempt our building codes and our current energy conservation code if it were to pass. So it takes away local control over things that otherwise limit use of natural gas.

So thank you.

Great. Any other feedback slash questions for Heather and team? Okay, I'll go. This is early for next year, so I'll just name a couple of topical items that I hope will keep a close eye on. First is to pick up on Will's suggestion that there's – this is the wildfire – The wildfire problem is a very big one, and it sounds like it could use a boost in terms of leadership and movement, and I would think that we would have natural allies with other cities and communities on this topic. Presumably, there's policy areas that aren't necessarily budget-type things. So I'll be very interested for us to explore wildfire and relatedly power reliability and resilience solutions that would involve coalition and... collective action type support from from peer communities which of which we have so many so that was one i am i had one or two other things but matt i don't know if you want to colloquy on that or should i do my other one and then go to you your call go ahead and quality i mean it kind of builds on that it's also a process and timing question for heather so go ahead Super. Okay. Then I just had one other thought and it's this, um, I've recently become aware of, uh, this idea of a climate super fund type type initiative. And, um, So this sounds like an opportunity to at least to explore, to both resolve some of the budget challenges, as well as create industry and polluter accountability where it's needed. I know I'm just sort of dropping these keywords right here. And I don't know if this is the right time to even try to define it. But I would just say I've heard of this topic area. I understand you and team might be in touch with some people working on it. I think it's very important for us to explore it. So those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you. And just to say, yes, we are exploring it and we have been in touch with those who are interested in putting forth policy next year.

Great. Okay. So those are my comments. Do we have any other comments? Anybody else wants to address the first question? Okay, Matt, please.

TAB, Ryan Schuchard, Esq. : appreciate that and you know something you brought up, I think, is an interesting touch point I just maybe heather can help clarify last year was a bit of a weird year because we had the special session that kind of consumed. TAB, Ryan Schuchard, Esq. : Everything and then that sort of bled into the regular session so it wasn't that normal window to really shop ideas and thoughts with our legislative partners and our representatives at the state so i'm wondering. if there isn't going to be a special session this year, how would you recommend and see the cadence leading up to our fall legislative priority setting of beginning to have those conversations with our legislators about potential legislation that meets Boulder's needs going into that? Because we want to kind of get early before they start to boil down what they want to do and maybe get in early. So I'm kind of wondering, in your experience, when's the best time for us to start advocating and evangelizing some of those things that either we want to roll over from last session that weren't successful or new ideas that we can get some champions for.

So I will say that June and July are usually pretty quiet. People are taking a break from the legislature. Things start to pick up around August, September timeframe. And that's really when we start kind of our outreach in earnest. There are, of course, lots of ambitious people out there who, uh, I've already had some meetings about potential, uh, legislation for next year. So it's not a hard and fast rule, but, uh, usually about August, September is when we start to see, um, uh, conversations picking up about legislation for next year. And then by like October, November, we know, um, about a lot of bills that will run and policies start to get solidified.

And the reason I ask is just to kind of Because I know that those of us in the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee obviously get regular, one, interactions with you, but also have our ears to the tracks maybe a little more than some of our colleagues. And so it's more creating an opportunity to say, if it's that August timeframe, maybe a suggestion of perhaps everybody on council can write you some ideas of things that they think might make good policy that we can start finding some evangelists for. And then that way, you might say, hey, it's already in process. Hey, that's a good idea. Here's who we might want to talk to. And then that sets our conversation up for IGA. So I'm just sort of posing that maybe in the July timeframe, we put that question out to everybody on council to write you some thoughts so that we kind of build that momentum. So hopefully that's generally agreeable, but it's nice to have some of everybody's thoughts going into that sort of August timeframe.

Yeah. And I'll just mention also something that I just thought of, I apologize. It is an election year. So people may be a little bit more distracted by the election, especially if they're running. So that might affect things just significantly. for a major outlook. But yeah, I think that's fine.

We can take that as a council member and see what we need to do as part of the process.

Great.

Thank you. Okay. Last call for anything on item one, feedback slash questions. Let's go to the second item. And I'm thinking for this one, could we show, could either, would it be possible to show the slide again that listed those items? Ballot initiatives? And perhaps while that's coming up, actually, while it's coming up, Heather, two questions. One, to clarify, I think there were five or six on the first slide, but then I think you had some additional ones. So my question to you is how many of those do you want to go through?

So the first five that were listed are the initiatives that are all on the ballot. So if there's interest in potentially taking positions or discussing those at a future meeting, um, we should definitely go through those. The one it's just a placement issue. I had to put one on another slide. That's the referred measure. So that is also on the ballot. Um, I anticipate that Senate bill or excuse me, initiative one 75 will, um, get their signatures verified. So I would, if there's interest in bringing that forward, I would also suggest we talk about that one. Like I mentioned, there's a list of 26 other initiatives that are approved for signature gathering but have not actually made the ballot. So if there's interest in potentially bringing that forward, if they do make the ballot, we can do that as well. But these five and then the referred measure on the next slide is really what we should, I would suggest, and 175.

Super. Okay, I'll go to Erin in just a moment. But one other question is, I was thinking we might do like a straw poll for each after giving people a chance to speak, unless people have other ideas. And in that case, would the straw, here's the question is, do you want interest in working on these at all? Or is this interest in we want to affirm the, I can, I imagine some of these, we might say, well, actually those look like bad ideas. And so therefore do we want, do you want to know that in through the straw poll?

Yeah. So I think interest in potentially taking a position, the resolution is what I would like to know. So I can put together more information on them.

Okay, great. Then Aaron, why don't go ahead.

Floor is yours. Yeah. Thanks Ryan. So I'm, Just want to check in on what we're addressing tonight. Is it then the interest in getting more information to potentially take a position later on? Is that what you're looking for, Heather?

That is what I am looking for, because in order to take a position, and I'll look to Nuria and Teresa for confirmation on this, we can take a position via resolution. So I believe that that would need to be done at a regular meeting in the future. And so what I'm looking for is interest in potentially taking a position in the future on one of these ballot measures.

Would the next step be a resolution on consent, or would the next step bring us back additional analysis for each of these?

I think I would look... If you... I don't know. Nuria, what do you think? Do you think that we should bring back another

So can I make a pitch here? Because I care very much about some of these ballot measures, and I'm very interested in having us take a position on them. And so I would hate to see us kind of take something off the table now, but maybe there's room for another step where we get additional information at a future meeting rather than making a final decision tonight. So, Mariette?

I think that can be done, Mayor. I will note you have a very tight schedule through the summer. So knowing which one of the measures would be good for us to narrow down, but then we'd be happy to bring that for a formal action.

OK. And then I'll just also offer that we probably will need another crack at this once we figure out exactly which initiatives have enough signatures.

Absolutely.

Okay. Aaron, do you want to weigh in substantively on any of these before we, I think, probably go through and, I mean, do you want to comment on any of them before we do a kind of struggle?

I can, while I have the floor, if I can make a pitch to my colleagues that I think all of these are worth learning more about and considering taking positions on. Um, some of them have, um, subtle, but very potentially negative effects. Um, so for example, no, um, number one Oh eight, uh, human trafficking seems like somebody, um, everyone would want to oppose because we do oppose human trafficking, but the way that one is written is actually deeply problematic, um, for, um, people potentially, um, visiting Colorado for, um, abortion care, um, or, uh, gender affirming care. And number 109 and number 110 are both very, very harmful potentially to the trans community, but they're written in such a way as to not necessarily sound as bad. And then the 85 and 95, I think, both have some very significant issues with them as well. So I would encourage us to keep an eye on all of these for a potential position on all of them at a future meeting. And 175 would be devastating to funding for the state as well. So again, people would probably like to fund roads, but would have significant negative side effects. So my pitch is for us to keep an eye on all of these. And I would like for us to take positions on a number of them for sure.

Great. I think I said Nuria and then Nicole.

You did briefly, but I don't want to stop the conversation. I was just going to... inquire as to and maybe wait until I saw what what interest there was just inquire the level of depth and if it's just more staff doing a little bit more research and bringing forward sort of recommendations is that as that from some of those items as we learn more, which suffice. But happy to wait until others opine. Okay, thanks, Nicole.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks so much for the presentation, Heather, and just all the work that's gone into it. I agree with Erin. I think just about everything that's going to be on our state ballot is going to be of interest and worth considering taking a position on. I also don't really want to, you know, overly burden staff with that. I expect that all of us will be hearing more about it as well. I think what I would be most interested in is sort of Where do these come from, right? Who's putting them forward? Which groups have interests in these state measures that they went to the trouble of paying so much money to get signatures to get them on the ballot? That is sort of the level of information that I would like. I feel like, especially for state ballot measures, you know, we... We, we will have our own research that each of us is doing and trying to understand them as well. So I don't know that that's something, you know, unless, unless Heather, you have tons of times while we're over the next few weeks. I don't, I don't know that that is the most important thing for me. I'm just curious as to who spent all this money to get these on the ballot and what, what, who stands to gain and lose from them.

Thanks, Nicole. Okay, Tina.

Yeah, I'll just echo my colleagues, Aaron and Nicole, and I don't need a ton of information, but just sort of the support, the expected outcomes of the initiative, and then just having resolutions at the ready so that we can take positions on these important measures.

Okay, thanks, Tina. Anyone else?

Yeah, this is Taisha. I am in alignment with my colleagues around the 110 and 109, 108. I have mixed. I appreciate the treatment components, but continue to struggle with tightening sentencing when the evidence over the last 50 years is pretty clear, showing that the overall effect of imprisonment is null. According to the ACLU prison, sentences do not improve safety, they do not save lives, they do not help people recover from substance abuse disorder, and they do not keep people safe or reduce the supply of dangerous drugs or save lives in the event of an overdose. So although, again, I appreciate the evidence-based approach around treatment, I do have some concerns around tightening sentencing rules. I'm on the fence. I'm also not feeling confident with this administration around 95 either.

Okay. Thanks, Taisha. Any other hands? Mark?

Sorry. I'm fairly uncomfortable with all of these, although I'd like to learn more about 85. You've had... A lot of issues with the inability to carry out, you know, to impose sentences for drug use and distribution. I'd like to learn more to see if it actually is something that might work. But I wouldn't make a judgment on that until I saw more information. The others are fairly problematic for me.

Okay. Thanks, Mark. I think Matt, you're next.

Thank you. Since we're all chiming in. Yeah. I mean, all of these are, all of these got their issues. So I'll just sort of echo what's been said. You know, I, I do hear Mark's point about 85 and I think there's more to learn there, you know, We've been struggling with the least restrictive means that's been in Colorado statute since the 2019 state law. And that's been handcuffing our judges to be able to do reasonable things about setting bond for those that clearly need that and need their habits broken and need their cycle interrupted. And so I think there's a number of things in there that we could be discussed. So, but yeah, a lot of problems in these.

Okay, Rob.

Yeah, I have the same concerns with 109, 110, 175 and 95. Obviously the taper cap raise would be fantastic, but to my earlier point, I just would love to hear the, this is more of a nuance initiative 85. And I feel like it needs a staff brief And again, you know, from the people that are are implementing our policy on this, I think that would be really helpful to know the intended and unintended consequences. Okay, Nicole.

Just going to double dip because I didn't know we were going into some of the specifics here, but I just, for our knowledge, wanted to point out that 85, the same group that is pushing 95, 108, 109, and 110 is also pushing this one forward. I think it may be another one that sounds like it might be helpful, but actually does quite a bit of harm. Anyway, so just wanted to note that.

Thanks, Nicole. Any other hands? I guess I would, yeah, I tend to agree with mostly what I've heard. I think there's, making my own comment now, these all seem quite concerning, and I'd be interested to have some kind of a summary of, yeah, just some kind of basic research, who's behind them, who stands to gain, that sort of thing. I was about to make a suggestion for how to go forward. Um, but Mark, why don't you go first?

Um, yeah, I just wanted to ask Nicole, do you know who's, who are the groups behind these? I mean, can you identify them?

Uh, I believe in somebody, please correct me if I'm wrong. Um, it is a dark money group called advanced Colorado and it's not, we can't trace their money.

Never a good sign.

That's a, yeah, it's, You know, I know we are a nonpartisan body, and I believe that the reason all of these went to signatures and why a lot of money was spent to gather signatures was because they could not get through our Democratic legislature.

Okay. Thank you. That was very helpful.

Okay. Aaron, please. Just right, you were talking about a process thing. I mean, I wonder if we might Do the non biting not a five about addressing all of them. You'd be comfortable with that versus one by one.

Thanks. And I was, I was going to say something, suggest something similar. I was initially wondering non biting not a five to asking staff to give us a summary of all of them. Anybody objects objecting to me asking for that straw poll. Okay.

Ryan, can I clarify when you say all of them? There's the six that are on the ballot, these five plus the referred measure, and then are you also asking for Initiative 175?

That's a good question. I suppose I'd look to you, Heather, and ask if you, based on what you've heard, if all of them would refer to that or if we need to get more feedback.

I would suggest including 175 if you're asking for additional information.

That's what I'm hearing, Heather, is that there is a desire to learn a little bit more about these before weighing in. Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Heather, what do you think? So option one is do you have what you need, or option two is would you prefer to see hands? Yes.

I think I understand what you need and what you're asking for. So I appreciate it. Thank you.

Just to confirm, I believe we have heard from the majority of council that there is a desire for more information and I think we can move in that direction.

Okay. So I think I'm hearing no need for hands and for a straw poll of any kind and I think that takes us to the end of the, um, of your question. So Heather, do you, anything else you need from us? Are you feeling okay?

I feel great. Thank you guys. Appreciate it.

Okay. And I'm just looking around to make sure everybody else is good. Cause we kind of went a little bit of a circle there. Um, okay, good. Well, I think, I think that takes us to the end, Heather. So, um, thank you. And, um, I suppose with no other items on tonight's agenda, I will close this meeting at 7.10 p.m. Thank you.

Thank you.