City Council - Regular Meeting

Well, good evening, everyone.

And welcome to the Thursday, June 18th, 2026 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. I'm going to go ahead and call us to order and ask for a roll call, please, Elisha.

Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start tonight's roll call, as usual, with Councilmember Adams.

Present.

Benjamin.

Present.

Mayor Brockett.

Present.

Councilmember Kaplan. Present.

Present.

Marquis. Here. Shewhart.

Here.

Speer. Present. Wallach. And Mayor Pro Tem White.

Here. Mayor, we have our quorum.

Thanks so much. I'd like to start by asking for a motion to amend the agenda to add item 3B, the Colorado Music Festival's 50th anniversary declaration to be presented by Council Member Marquis.

So moved. Did somebody second? Second.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes 8-0. So the agenda has been amended. So we'll now go to open comment. Alicia, could you go over the public participation guidelines, please?

Yes, sir. I'll be happy to. We're having some technical difficulties. Give us just a moment. Emily's going to have to bring them up on Zoom because we're having some technical difficulties. But I can go ahead and read them for the record. Thank you, everyone, for your participation in tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code. This includes participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendees shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the council room or refrain from addressing the council. Our remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business, No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscenity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you for listening, and again, thank you for joining us.

Thanks so much, Alicia. All right, so we have 20 people signed up to speak. Every person will get two minutes, and I will be strict about those time limits in the interest of fairness. And our first three speakers are Lynn Siegel and Laura Gonzalez virtually, and then Ana Fabatz in person.

Mayor, I do not see Lynn online at this time.

Oh, she's in person.

There. I like to have the last word. But having the first word will guide all of the following commentary. So Rachel Friend lied and said that I followed her and shoved her. Not. Huge fabrication. And then, oh, it was not anything to do with my poster. which was about Excel and Sam Weaver. She and Sam Weaver went to Open Space Board of Trustees to solicit support for CU South. So of course, she wasn't happy about that. Then she had the audacity at the Jewish festival to tell me that she didn't know that I got misdemeanors for that. She made an elaborate, along with Jessica Benjamin, Matt's wife, elaborate construction, all completely made up to the police. And then the police, well, Alistair McNiven says the police have to determine just cause. Well, how did they determine just cause from nothing? It was a big nothing. But it explains things for me because I don't trust Steve Redfern as far as I can throw him. And I settled out. because I knew I would not get justice in this town.

And now I know also that I have to be afraid for my life, basically, in this town.

This is unbelievable, unacceptable. Now, as far as my retrofit, Nuria, yeah, that's not okay. You can't punt me back to the county, and then the county punts me back here, and then I'm still out 55,000 plus, probably 100,000. to get anyone to come to my place to get that stuff out.

Your time is up. I will encourage people when they speak to not cast personal aspersions on individual community members. All right, we're going to go to Laura Gonzalez as our next speaker virtually, then Anna Fabatz and Peter Salas in person.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

For three years, we have watched a live-stream genocide, the most atrocious Holocaust of our lifetime. And what does this council do? You suppress anti-genocide voices, you punish those who refuse to be violent, and you refuse to divest from Israel. You hide your complicity behind the banner of fighting anti-Semitism. Let me be clear, we don't hate Jews. We hate colonial settlers who rape, steal land, and create the largest child amputee population in the world. Should we be surprised?

Nah.

The U.S. was founded on white supremacy, and from the most overt racist corners to the most progressive cities like Boulder, that rule continues. To the marginalized members from this council and staff who oversee the suppression of our voices, your role is no different than the black overseers who reach out to slavery, the capitalists in concentration camps, or the Zionist Jews who collaborated with Hitler to build the settler-colonial ethno-Jewish supremacist state of Israel. And let's not forget about Puerto Rico, where 100,000 people sit without electricity, just like in Gaza, while you, Nuria, play puppeteer for the Yankee empire. Here in Boulder, we privatize electricity. You see the connections now? Yet you are proud to pass the formative Juneteenth resolution? What does that do for Black people, given their overdue reparations? To the whites in this council, here's your history lesson. The Northern Whites thought they were morally superior to the Southern Confederates while they built the infrastructure and laws that became the foundation for Jim Crow. Today, you believe a liberal scientist is better than a Netanyahu supporter, but both of you believe you're superior to Palestinians and non-Jews. We sit in the Israeli part that lost the different roads, different ideas, surveillance and control movement for decades. That is what led the chickens to come home to roots on October 7th. What would you do if you live in the largest open-air and motor-veiled prison in the world? And your refusal to acknowledge that Israel is committing a genocide with our tax dollars and $38 million in annual investments is what brought that violence home to Boulder. And no, Brockett, I am not defending Mohammed Salman. I understand his actions. Your changes in the rules of the quorum, your suspension of her policy invoices, and your intimidation through the use and abuse of law is what led to them. I demand that you pass a resolution recognizing the genocide. I demand a true ceasefire because Israel has murdered over 1,000 people.

Okay now we have Anna Fabatz and Peter Salas in person and then Matthew Bennett online. Is Anna here? Not seeing Anna. We'll go to Peter Salas.

Good evening council members. My name is Peter Salas.

Can you bring the mic up a little bit.

My name is Pete Salas. I am here representing the Boulder Area Labor Council. I want to, first of all, thank you for your time. Back in the late 70s, I served on a city council in my hometown, so I know the commitment and time and effort that you all put forward. I'm here because I'm concerned, and in the communities that I work in, primarily the Chicano Latino communities, there's a grave concern around minimum wage and any effort that would be made to reduce minimum wage for tip workers. The people that I work with in my community are the ones that suffer the most across the board for all economic decisions that are being made, not only here but elsewhere. And I just would like to urge you to seriously consider not considering increasing the TIP credit. It just is not equitable. And, you know, I listened to, again, City of Boulder talk about equity and inclusion and all that. but it doesn't seem to apply when it comes to financial equity. Many years ago I ran a project around equity as it relates to finance and what's going on economically in our communities, and the story is the same. Communities of color, particularly Chicano and Latino communities, are the ones that suffer the most when decisions are made economically. So I just wanted to urge you that equity takes many forms, and we cannot have true equity unless we treat our workers with equity, dignity that they deserve as workers that I don't see them getting very much of these days, and I don't think it's going to get any better. The CPA last April was 3.8%, and every time something happens, it's difficult enough, and people are afraid. They're afraid to be in public, and they're afraid to express themselves because within the Chicano Latino community, you all know what's happening. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Matthew Bennett and Paula Palmer online and then Teresa Poteet in person.

Good evening, council members. My name is Matthew Bennett. I'm an organizer with Bulk as well. We represent about 5,000 families in Boulder and the surrounding counties. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. This is my first time addressing the body. I just want to thank the chair for their facilitation this evening as well. I'm speaking today in opposition to HB 25, 1208. For those unfamiliar, if this bill were to pass, it would directly reduce the take-home amount that food and beverage workers make by increasing the amount that businesses deduct from the wages. For pretty much every penny, the tip offset would increase. Customers and service workers are just going to have to make up the difference. It's just wrong. especially at a time when working people are repeatedly asked to pay more and more in every aspect of our lives for the same quality of services. So seeing as this is the first time I'm addressing the body and I've noticed it's also the last, I don't believe there's any other open public comment sessions for this. I just kind of wanted to share very briefly that I'm constantly impressed by the working class families that we've been organizing with for the last three years when it comes to minimum wage. And if we can't find a microphone here, we've got megaphones in the storage units. So, yeah, again, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Paula Palmer and then Teresa Poteet and Tina Bogun in person.

good evening my name is paula palmer i'm a proud graduate of columbine elementary school centennial junior high boulder high school in cu i'm also a co-founder of right relationship boulder last week i sent you all a letter that right relationship boulder sent to the open space and mountain parks department expressing our concerns about the interpretive design that a consulting firm created for the site of fort chambers we want to bring this to your attention now because how fort chambers is developed will tell us a lot, not only about who the people of Boulder were in the past, but also who we are today. A few of the main problems with the interpretive design are, one, the historic timeline begins with the arrival of settlers, ignoring the previous 13,000 years of native presence on this land. The Arapaho tribal representatives would be happy to develop exhibits about life here before the settlers arrived. Two, the design eliminates a proposal from Arapaho tribal representative Fred Mesquita, who wants visitors to walk through a reconstruction of the gates of the fort, entering into a space where the settler story is told. He told me this week that he doesn't understand why OSMP doesn't want visitors to experience the reality of the fort. Three, probably the worst thing is that as visitors return to the parking lot, the design leads them to believe that today, Non-native population and influence in Boulder are waning and native population and influence are on the rise. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this. Not a single inch of Boulder land has been returned to the tribes. Not a single native person sits on city council's boards and commissions. We hope you will study the interpretive framework and our letter and make your concerns known to OSMP.

Thank you. Now go to the rest of our test fires are in person so next three are Teresa Poteet, Tina Bogun and Rosanna Rushton.

And I live in the ponderosa mobile home Park where habitat for humanity is working with the city to create low income housing. Folks if you are involved in building or approving building get to know P 0, 9, Boulder's Dark Sky Ordinance. Folks, did you know that a child born under a sky of 250 visible stars, by the time they turn 18, they will only see 100? Folks, did you know that exposure to artificial light causes serious human health issues, including sleep disruption? It suppresses melatonin production, a hormone responsible for regulating sleep and immunity. Exposure to artificial light leads to depression, cancer, and even heart disease. In nature, it causes ecological damage by disrupting wildlife migration, reproduction, and foraging. It alters ecosystems by affecting plant flora. It disrupts pollinations as insects are attracted to light. Each new unit that has been built in the site where I live at has five lights each, and they are not within the city's ordinance. We were promised staggered streets, dips, and speed bumps in our project. Now we have a busy street where everybody speeds. It's very dangerous. We were also promised low lighting in our neighborhood. A lot of mistakes were made in this build as I witnessed it.

Your time is up, but thank you. All right. Now we'll go to Tina Boogan and then Rosanna Rushton and Roy Dennis.

Good evening, council. My name is Tina Bogan and I live at... Can you get into the mic, please? I live at the Ponderosa Mobile Home Park and this project is underway to stabilize Ponderosa. For those of us wishing to remain in a mobile home, it feels like a destabilization project. We have a few scenarios. Those wanting to stay in the home they built, put time, money, and love into. Those who want to upgrade to a better mobile home and those that want to go into a habitat home. There's discrepancies from what was stated in the 2019 annexation hearing and voted on by city council. I think one of you were there. Most recently, a slated road to go in was suddenly changed to critical infrastructure so they can put the unnecessary at this time road in that will destroy two more homes in the park and displace two more people. This is direct conflict with the agreement, and I quote, You will not be forced to leave your home, even if it delays parts of the project for years. With the heads of this project able to change the rules so easily to further their agenda, how can we trust a future here? Our main problem is, it's stated, you can stay in your home unless you're in the way of infrastructure. Everybody's in the way of infrastructure at some point. Those of us wanting to stay in the homes that we've built and put years into, This does nothing for how we sleep at night. We just wait for the next notice saying, it might be you, it might be you. Sorry, we need a sidewalk. Now, granted, they have tried to treat us with kid gloves, which is great, but at some point, that's going to stop. We want to know why there is such a huge push to finish this project right now. The residents were supposed to dictate how fast this project went. That is not really what is happening. We also were supposed to get a liaison from city council We need more than two minutes to try and educate you guys on everything that has been happening for the last nine years, hundreds of hours of meetings. And still, I don't sleep well at night. My choices are to sell to the city of Boulder and go into a Habitat home or leave.

Your time is up, but thank you. Now we'll go to Rosina Rushton, then Roy Dennis and Matt Kelly.

Is Rosina here?

All right, then let's go to Roy Dennis. Roy Dennis in the room. All right, then Matt Kelly is our next speaker. And after that, Evan Ravitz.

Good evening, and thank you for your time. My name is Matt Kelly, and I am a resident of the city of Boulder, an adjunct lecturer at CU, and a community organizer with the Boulder County Democratic Socialists of America. I'm here to speak against modifying the TIP offset, which should be more clearly explained as a wage cut for TIP workers. If the city were to leave the offset as it is, if the city took no action, if the base wage for TIP workers, if the city took no action, the base wage would rise for next year. If the city modifies the offset, TIP workers will take home less than they would have. Workers taking home smaller page checks is a wage cut, plain and simple. I've spent some time speaking with TIP workers in Boulder recently in order to spread the word that the city is considering making these changes. And I have a few observations I'd like to share. First, when I was on Pearl Street this weekend, only two or three of the 40 or 50 workers who I spoke with had even heard that this was happening. We will learn from the staff next week about how many workers they were able to engage with as a part of their community engagement effort, but I want to voice an early concern that the city may not be hearing adequately from workers on this count. Second, I had the opportunity to speak with a few restaurant owners. My sample size was admittedly small, but I was surprised to learn how many of our restaurants already operate without using the tipped-off set at all. Using a service fee system several of our restaurants are able already to ensure workers are paid consistently and reliably This is the direction we should be going in trying to eliminate the tipped wage the offset In the first place rather than deepening the rift between tipped workers and untapped wage workers by increasing the offset Finally, I also spoke with tipped workers who are making the base wage. They had not heard that the city was considering cutting these pay increases and While some restaurants are paying above minimum wage or even foregoing the offset, others are paying their workers the minimum, and these workers will be hardest hit if the city increases the offset. Please keep to the currently scheduled wage increases. Your time's up. Thank you.

Quiet, please. All right, now we've got Evan Ravitz and then Victor Lemus and Alejandro Bedi.

Boulder used to stand for peace. like when council boycotted Burma and South Africa and opposed the Iraq war. This council has refused to divest from or even talk about Israel's far worse crimes. Why? Because Boulder is now deep in the war business. The camera reports that parts of the Tomahawk missile that killed 168 at the Minab School in Iran were made by BAE here in Boulder. About 3,500 Boulder jobs are directly for war. We also have about 20,000 software jobs, which are about a quarter to a fifth for war. This also explains why the so-called Boulder progressives, many working in software, endorse war profiteers Joe Neguse and Junie Joseph. Neguse doesn't just vote reliably for war and genocide. As assistant Democratic leader of the House, he whips other Democrats into voting for war. Junie Joseph, who got her political start on Boulder City Council, is now chair of the Aerospace and Defense Caucus at the Statehouse, which promotes our war industries. They are promoting Martin Luther King's triple evils, militarism, the poverty it produces, and racism against Palestinians, et cetera. The city of Boulder has some 38 million invested in companies profiting from the genocide. CU Boulder has hundreds of millions invested and also does hundreds of millions of research for the war industries. The city built a peace park just 100 yards upstream from here. You should rename it Warbucks Park.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Victor Lemus, Alejandra Bedi, and Bernarda Ramirez. Is Victor here? Then let's go to Alejandra.

Hello. Hello, council members, mayor. This is Alejandra Beatty. I am president for Boulder Area Labor Council, representing about now growing to maybe 5,000 working families in Boulder and the surrounding counties. I again want to urge you to reconsider this path of modifying tipped worker wages. As you heard earlier from some of the testimony from some of our local organizers, this is a concerning thing that workers are very much worried about. making a living in this town. And there's a few things I wanna highlight. For one, tipping is a racist system and all we're doing is just aggravating a situation that should be ended. I also want us to think about what's gonna happen in January. So January 1st is when the wage can be changed, only day that you can do. Few weeks later, this town gets flooded with visitors. Where are they gonna go? Are you so sure that workers are not going to give up on this town finally and just move out and move to Denver and start working there? Are you sure they're going to stick around when you've decided to cut their wages? And then they're going to ask who's going to serve them when all of these customers are coming into Boulder. It's also just not really going to be that great a look. I know there's a lot of unions that support the Sundance Festival. I'm going to have to start calling them up and tell them, hey, I'm sorry, but there is a worker issue happening in this town that you should know about and you should think about who you're supporting. So again, I'm also going to suggest to the restaurants that we are talking to, I love if you're choosing good wage standards like tipped pooling, service fees, that's a great idea. You're going to be on my goal list. That's probably the best place to go. Hopefully there's more restaurants that switch to those models and don't take advantage of tipped credit if you all decide to vote and vote against workers. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Quiet, please. Now we go to Bernarda Ramirez, Paul Mrozek, and Doug Hamilton. Is Bernarda here? Doesn't look like it, so we'll go to Paul Mrozek.

Hello, everyone. I'm here on behalf of the Ponderosa community as well. As Tina Borglund mentioned earlier, the picture painted by Kurt Fernharber during the 2019 annexation meeting is very different from the management philosophy that has driven the Ponderosa project with respect to the age in place clause. While some residents are happy to move from their homes into new town homes, those that wish to stay in their current homes and age in place are presented with constant challenges. For example, at the last Ponderosa community meeting, Molly Tayer wrote the word displacement in large capital letters on the board for everyone to see. She then went on to explain that the federal definition of the word displacement allows her to relocate mobile homeowners from one mobile home to another as long as they're not removed from the property. So according to her, anytime Kurt and Molly decide I can be removed from the mobile home that is titled in my name that I have lived in and improved for 33 years, and put in a different, formerly vacated mobile home, likely in far worse condition than mine. This is the exact opposite of what was agreed on during the 2019 City Council annexation meeting. And for people who want to age in place, it's housing instability rather than stability. At no time during the annexation meeting did I ever hear the word displacement mentioned in any context. So why now is Molly writing it in capital letters at a park meeting? What made this word relevant to anyone? Since the annexation, we've been warned to not spend any money improving our mobile homes. Why not? I thought we would be allowed to age in place, even if, as promised by Kurt in the annexation meeting, it delayed the project by years or even decades. These were unequivocal answers from Kurt in response to specific questions from the mayor and city council. The residents of the park voted for annexation based on this information. Now we get what seems like double talk and federal definitions of irrelevant words. At the 2019 annexation meeting, my comments were to thank city council for their consideration for the current residents and express hope that the project would proceed as the council intended and as Kurt had promised the council. The council recommendation to bring any future problems back to the city council.

Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Now we'll go to Doug Hamilton, Rob Smoke, and Donna George.

Hello. My name is Doug Hamilton. You should have an exhibit in front of you. maybe Exhibit 17. The first thing I'm going to talk about is the DDA that Boulder's talking about. I'm here talking on my personal capacity and not in my capacity as part of the Board of Trustees, but I just mapped it out from the city materials how much revenue the DDA will take from the library district and from the county. I haven't got the numbers from the school district yet, but you can see there, Over the life of the DDA, it will take close to, either on the low end, $27 million, and on the high end, $27 million from the county end, and up to $70 million from the county and the library district. Probably going to be more when you add in the school district. But we have a big list of other things that we think could be an issue with it. Another thing is, 2,500 people, some of them might be LLCs, out of state, could be voting on this DDA and passing it and just siphoning off funds that large districts of our school, library, and county taxes to go to this DDA. So you can read it there. The other thing I wanna talk to you about is the tipped-off set. I ran some numbers here, and I think if you just go to the last page, It's probably easier to say when we talk about the wage theft that's going to occur, it could be up to $54. These are under your four different options. It could be up to $54 a week or $2,800 a year on your option two. And it could be. So this is the transfer that you are showing from your workers to your restaurants. So I just hope you guys take a look at that. It's hard enough living out there. So, you know, please. Yeah.

Thank you. Quiet, please. So Rob Smoke, then Donna George, and then I understand Andy Hashman has withdrawn. So Donna George will be our last speaker.

My name is Rob Smoke. I live in Boulder. I grew up in New York City, so big shout out to New York today. Just an amazing day. And it doesn't really detract from the fact that I have some serious stuff to go over here. I feel like reading a post from Matt Benjamin today on Facebook and hearing the discussion, reading reading opinion pieces in the Daily Camera, I get the feeling that people who have a differing view from me about the genocide in Gaza and the problems with Israeli war crimes, I get the feeling that they're living inside a hermetically sealed narrative. It's like I'm knocking on a glass door. I know somebody's tapping there, but that's it. Nothing gets in in terms of material that might be worthy of discussion. To try to be positive about it I want to recommend someone that council members and certainly members of our audience and everyone in our city should have a look at and that's the work of an Israeli writer scholar his name is Avi Shlaim A-V-I-S-C-H no I'm sorry S-H-L-A-I-M and his recent book is about essays on the genocide in Gaza and he talks if you look him up on YouTube you'll find him talking about the weaponization of the term anti-Semitism and the difference between anti-Semitism and somebody being opposed to the Zionist political ideology as it's embodied today. And it's serious stuff. I mean, you have to be educated. You can't just say, no, no, no, we know anti-Semitism. And it's not an endorsement of violence to say that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are two completely different things. Thank you.

Thanks. Our last speaker is Donna George.

Donna George, Gun Barrel. In the Boulder Valley Comp Plan amendment procedures, the notification and the screening is pretty obvious what you're supposed to do. And in the January 20th planning board meeting about the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, the city planning staff and the attorney admitted that the amendment procedures were not being followed in this update. And on the August 28, 2025 meeting, Christopher Johnson said, yes, so there is a requirement in the code today that we provide mail notification to property owners if there is a land use change proposed for their property. Also, on 147 of the packet on June 4th meeting, the public notice required under Colorado straight law about a public hearing, and this says, and a mail notice to affected property owners through utility billing. Utility billing is not the same as getting a letter in the mail like the one I have given you that I received in November of 2015. Instead, an insert was provided. And when I questioned Christopher afterwards, there were only 5,000 people who actually get this in the mail. and those inserts were in their mail. The rest of them get their bill online, and they would have had to have clicked on an icon way down in the corner, Bill Inserts, to learn about this, about any change to their property. So the notification was not properly served. One of the things they said, there wasn't enough funds or it would be too much of a hassle, and it would only cost you $41,000 to send out all those notifications to everybody. comprehensive plan and future land use map informed decisions about zoning and you're supposed to do this so i'm just basically having this on the record that you do not properly notify people about change in land use on their properties and these are major change one of the things said because there's totally this is big change well don't you think you should provide the change to notify your citizens of these major changes and appropriately notify the citizens thank you for your time thank you

All right, that brings us to the end of our open comment speakers. Thanks, everybody, for coming out and speaking to us. I'll turn to city staff to see if you have any comments.

Thanks so much, Mayor. And as always, we appreciate everyone who takes their time to come speak to us at City Council. I will say, firstly, I wanted to appreciate Ms. Palmer's comments. I know that Right Relationship has met with staff on several occasions, has submitted some comments. I know that this is the Fort Chambers project. is something that we were doing in consultation with our tribal nation partners, but also opening up some conversations with Right Relationship and some other folks. Staff is in the midst of setting a meeting to continue this conversation, and we will keep council informed as that moves forward. To Mr. Hamilton, I'll say I appreciate the concerns. We want to continue to hear about the concerns with the DDA. I'll note that this is coming back to council on August 6th, we have sent letters to library, the school district and the county. I know staff met with the library district a couple of weeks ago, but we want to continue to hear and make sure that we can answer those questions and we'll be prepared to do so in that August meeting. And then finally to those members of Ponderosa, thank you for joining us today. I will say that I was unaware of the current issues going there and my commitment to both council and to you is to get appraised of what's going on and to certainly follow up with council to let you know, but also more importantly, perhaps to follow up with the residents as we move forward. So just want to thank you for raising those concerns. That's all for me, Mayor.

Thanks, Mary. Teresa, do you have anything?

No, sir. Nothing from me.

Any questions to city staff from council?

Tysha?

One of the speakers mentioned the tip worker, and I was just wanting to clarify how were tip workers notified about the conversations that we're having? I know we're doing space for a public comment, but I was specifically curious how they were notified.

Council member, unless there's somebody, uh, if I can phone a friend here in the room who knows that more specifically, I'll follow up. Cause I'm not sure of the exact method of note of, um, and that we have done engagement. I see, uh, Our assistant city manager Mark Wolf coming down. Come on down Mark.

Good evening. Assistant city manager a variety of formats is how we notified folks of the potential increase that tip credit. We had our normal kind of press releases newsletters etc. We visited staff visited about a hundred or so restaurants directly. Handed out flyers passed that out to staff and restaurant managers owners who were available. So did our best to canvass in addition to the Be Heard Boulder Forum which is like an informal survey and collected those results for about two and a half months.

Okay, I'll reserve comments on our public engagement process when this comes back to council, but I continue to be concerned, thank you.

July 30th, it will come back to you all.

When the students are still in recess, thank you. My next question is around the Right Relationship Boulder, and I was curious if the racial equity tool was used, because there were several issues that the group brought up that, in my opinion, should have been identified using that tool, one in particular being imagery,

My understanding, I believe it has been used and there has been a close relationship with, again, the folks that we've been working with. I do know that we are working to involve Ernest House in a conversation again to revisit some of the things that are going on, including signage and other items.

Is there any efforts to evaluate the use of the tool? Because I'm noticing a pattern that when the tool is used, it's not always yielding the results that we would require and desire.

I appreciate that question, Councilmember Adams. I would say that we certainly want to make sure that the tool is being used appropriately, that there's appropriate training for the tool. and that the results are there. I'd be curious to hear more about the specific items in which there is concern because I wonder if it's perhaps whether there's everyone who is using it is deploying it in the appropriate way versus an issue with the tool itself. So happy to follow up with them.

Okay, thank you very much. And then last question on the Boulder Valley comp plan letters. Can somebody speak to that a little bit? Because that sounded not great. about the, did they actually get a physical letter? Is that the law that they have to get a physical letter or they have to be notified and having a little click thing at the bottom of the electric thing is sufficient? I can wait on that too, but.

Councilmember Adams, what I can tell you is that affected, or everyone was notified via their utility bill. It is accurate that those who get a paper utility bill in the mail, got a paper copy, and those who get an electronic version would have had to look at their entire bill.

So point of clarification, the law requires that we notice them, but it doesn't necessarily require that it has to be a physical letter?

I am happy to take this conversation offline.

Thank you. I just want to be in fidelity with the situation. Others asked about the investment portfolio, and I did want to lift up some community complaints that came through regarding the investment portfolio. This is not a relitigation because the complaints are aligned with things that are currently on the books. One is with Caterpillar because they are invested in... Tasha, we're in the question portion of the... Can I just...

Do you mind if we just finish the questions, then we can do responses?

There's a question in it. If you would just bear with me, that would be wonderful. Thank you. So specific things that came up in that letter were around investments in oil and gas, tobacco, firearms, private prisons. And so the question is, what is the status of that investigation? And what is the process to make sure that we are holding our contractor who is supposed to be aligning with the parameters that the previous council set around our investment portfolio? It's been a month.

Thank you, Council Member Adams. A couple things I would say to that. One is we are in receipt of a communication by a community member who provided some information. I actually just recently wrote back to them to let them know I'm committed to taking a look at it in the depth that he is asking in terms of taking a look at the materials given. He has previously met with our CFO on several occasions, and so my commitment remains that I we'll be able to look at it. I was honest that I have not yet been able to meet with staff and take a look at it in that depth. I'll also note that, um, my commitment to take a look at what, um, community sends our way is still balanced with work plan, uh, priorities as we had talked about previously, um, in council. So, um, What comes from that review, I will certainly happy to share with council.

Awesome. Thank you. And just want to let the community member and the larger community know that there is an internal investigation happening around the complaints that have been raised. So thank you very much for that. Lastly, I would like to take a moment of personal privilege. Is that correct, Teresa? Yeah.

I believe that the chair has recognized a moment of personal privilege in the past.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So it is unfortunate that I have to share that last week a passerby yelled, shut up, nigger, hard R, while I was sitting in a cafe just trying to be with our community members. I shared this at a barbecue with other black residents. And it was very sad to hear that multiple, actually every single one of them had an example where they were hurled a racial appetite, as well as many of them shared points of discrimination. This reminded me of the Boulder Valley Stool District parents who continue to struggle to ensure that their students are meeting the teachers and Other community members are ensuring their safety. I then read this morning about a Jewish student who has also been harassed. And I'm just wondering again, when can our council move beyond thoughts, prayers, and standbys and really towards action? In January, 2026, I asked our council to consider public safety for all as a priority. That did not gain consensus, but I was assured two updates on public safety. It is the end of June. We have not had one of those. And I think it is absolutely critical based on our lunch and learn in our public human relations and the fact that there's not a lot of teeth in what we are able to do. and the staff person is working really hard to capture what we do have but i do think that it is important that our community deserves for us to use the power and authority that we have to make sure that every member of our community is seen valued and heard thank you um well taisha i'm so incredibly sorry to hear that that happened to you that's totally unacceptable and appalling that that that occurred so i'm very sorry to hear that's

Yeah. I also just wanted to say, Taisha, that this is despicable. And I'm so sorry it happened to you. And I'm so sorry that you've had to relive it here. And I'm so very sorry that this is happening to other members of our community. And it's sad but true that overt, belligerent racism is alive and well. Some of us are safer than others. So I just want to recognize that and invite all of our community to sit with it.

Thank you for sharing.

I just want to take a moment to, one, hear what Taisha is saying, and that's absolutely horrible. It speaks to the hate that is brewing in our community and has been for a long time. whether you're black or brown or Jewish or Muslim, there is just a lot of hate. And that's a big problem.

And I want to share a little bit more on what Taisha brought up about the school district because this is new information that's been coming out and it's quite horrible. Last week, the Anti-Defamation League filed a federal civil rights lawsuit complaint against the Boulder Valley School District on behalf of a Jewish eighth grader at Southern Hills Middle School. The details are not abstract. This child endured two years of escalating anti-Semitic harassment, which is sickening to learn when you take what's coming next. Classmates tried to organize a game called Jew Touch Tag. A classmate fashioned a charging cord into a lasso, threw it around their neck, and dragged them backward from their chair while calling them a stupid kike. Severe enough that the Boulder police were called and charges were filed. Another classmate told them that Hitler should have killed all the Jews when he had the chance. Their parents begged the school and the district to intervene. The district, according to the ADL, provided no meaningful response. This child no longer wears their Star of David. They hide who they are in our community, in our schools, in 2026. I stand without reservation with our Boulder Jewish community and every community that is experiencing the rampant growth of hate in our community. But I want to be clear, this is not an isolated incident. This is part of a pattern. And that pattern is having a body count. On June 1st of last year, a man walked up to a group of Jewish community members gathered on Pearl Street for their weekly vigil in support of hostages held in Gaza and firebombed them, killing Karen Diamond, 82 years old and a Holocaust survivor, and injured dozens more. And last winter, while this was happening, our community was arguing whether certain words, phrases, and actions were anti-Semitic or not. Still, a Jewish child in our middle school at that time was being choked and told Hitler had the right idea. This antisemitism has walked right into this chamber as well. Jewish council members and Jewish residents who come here to speak have faced unending harassment, slurs, and intimidation during public comment. Boulder City Council passed a declaration condemning antisemitism in January 2025. That was necessary, but a declaration is not a solution. What we are watching here is not a series of unrelated bad actors. It's a toxic wound, and like all untreated wounds, it's spreading. You cannot policy your way out of this. This only ends when our entire community, every one of us, decides we have had enough and that we are willing to stand up, speak out, and refuse all the hatred that has taken root in our community, our homes, our schools, and our city. To the Boulder Valley School District, you have one chance to get this right. Zero tolerance, real accountability, mandatory training. We shouldn't have to ask you to have the courage to act decisively when a child has been physically assaulted because of their Jewish faith. Anything less is a betrayal of every student in your care. And I want to say the hardest thing. Children do not arrive at slurs and Holocaust references on their own. The students who choked that child and invoked Hitler learned that from somewhere. They learned it at home. That's a painful truth. And every parent in this community must sit with that and question what are they teaching their kids about tolerance and hatred. Boulder is better than this. And tonight, I'm asking us, like Taisha said, to prove it.

And I just want to go back and say it does matter what policies we do have. It does matter what transparency we do have. It matters what we are tracking. And again, this council did not do a declaration on Muslim hate and anti-Islamic phobic hate. This council has not done anything around anti-black hate. This council has not done anything. We continue to talk the talk. And I continue to notice a disbalance on communities that we're talking about. There is a disproportionate number of representation on this council it is very difficult to continue to be the only non-white member. And to have all of these things being, instead of it being oppression Olympics, like I said yesterday, we all have a responsibility at the individual and collective level. So again, my question is, is when will we have those updates on public safety for all? And I'm hopeful that before that happens, there is an opportunity for council to provide the kind of questions that we would like to make sure that are covered or at the very least the data that we would like to be addressed during that time. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. And thank you, Matt, for calling that out, that despicable anti-Semitism that deserves to be called out. Okay. Unless there's a burning need for anyone else to speak, I'd like to go ahead and wrap us up from our open comment portion of the meeting tonight. So I'm going to go ahead and call us into recess here at 6.22 p.m. And we will resume with the business portion of the meeting at 6.30. I can find my materials. There we go. All right. I'm going to call us back into session and we are going to go to our declarations. Our first declaration is the Juneteenth item 3 a Juneteenth declaration to be presented by council member Kaplan. So Rob if you could please come out front and invite Dr. Humphrey.

Thank you. Dr. Humphrey, you want to come up? I'm not there yet. Is this on? Do you hear me? Is it working? There's no red light.

I can project.

Oh, maybe there. There it is. Okay. I just want to say, Dr. Humphrey, Humphrey is a hard act to follow. He spoke on Juneteenth.

Are you?

This is better.

OK. I'll try it again.

I had the honor to attend Juneteenth just a couple days ago and Dr. David Lewis Humphrey spoke there and it was one of the most powerful and beautiful orations I've heard. If he speaks after me, I am setting him up. Juneteenth, June 19th, 2026. Juneteenth is the oldest celebration of the emancipation of enslaved African Americans. It is named after the events that took place on June 19th, 1865 in Galveston, Texas, when Union soldiers arrived with the news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved were free. News of the end of slavery did not reach the frontier areas of the US for more than two years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1st, 1863, and months after the end of the Civil War. Even after word had spread, some slave members chose to withhold this information from enslaved people through one more harvest season. June 19th commemorates the end of chattel slavery in the US. For more than 160 years, Juneteenth has celebrated the substantial contributions of African Americans and the unity and mutuality of American liberty realized, which makes Juneteenth a celebration of freedom and justice for all Americans, not only those who are enslaved and their descendants. The faith and strength of character demonstrated by former enslaved African Americans remains an example for all people, regardless of background, religion, or race. President Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act on June 17th, 2021, making June 19th a federal holiday. In 2021, the City of Boulder hosted its first Juneteenth flag-raising ceremony, which has since become an annual event. In 2022, the City of Boulder joined the federal and state government in officially recognizing Juneteenth as a holiday. We, the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, declare June 19, 2026 as Juneteenth and recognize the historical significance of Juneteenth. We encourage community members to observe Juneteenth by attending the local regional Juneteenth events across Boulder County. The history and plight of African Americans and all that was endured during chattel slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the civil rights movement is an example of peer resistance. As a government body, we oppose and reject any form of oppression and pledge to support our community members and local entities in solidarity, working to achieve equality and protect human rights. And this is for you. You said it, I wanted to hear it. Thank you.

Thanks for that, Rob. And Dr. Humphrey, thanks so much for joining us today. And that certainly was an incredibly powerful and moving speech yesterday. Really appreciated your contribution there. All right, we're going to go to item 3B, which is the Colorado Music Festival's 50th anniversary declaration to be presented by Councilmember Marquis.

Hi. And are you Elizabeth? Yes. And thank you for joining us, Elizabeth, to receive this. So the Colorado Music Festival's mission is to inspire and connect community members of all ages by providing access to the best of the world's music through education and performance. This summer, Colorado Music Festival will present its 50th season from July 9th through August 9th at the historic Chautauqua Auditorium. Each year, the festival presents world-class orchestral concerts, chamber music, and educational programs with a total attendance of more than 20,000 people. The festival understands that music is innate and vital to all human beings and recognizes that music itself is a great equalizer, making it possible for anyone of any age or background to be inspired through exceptional performance. The City of Boulder recognizes that the arts and creativity and organizations like Colorado Music Festival are central to Boulder's identity, shaping the quality of life, economic vitality, and ability to evolve. We, the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, declare July 9th, 2026 as the Colorado Music Festival Day in the City of Boulder and encourage all residents to recognize the vital importance of this observance. And thank you so much for being here. Thank you.

Just a few words. Thank you so much. This is very meaningful. And I wanted to say that the Colorado Music Festival is so special because it was born in a living room in Boulder, Colorado, between friends. And I think that kind of speaks to what the organization still is today, except for now it's 20,000 friends at Chautauqua and 40,000 more around the community, including our music school in Lafayette. So I want to thank you for supporting it. I know the City Council has done quite a lot to support the arts in recent years. Thank you very much. I'm not asking for money, but if I have a few minutes left at the end, I might. Don't count me out. But Chris Broccoli and Margo Broccoli, Margo was in fact the one who said, hey, we should do this thing at Chautauqua. which is incredible because that triggered a whole series of improvements at Chautauqua that led it to be the venue that it is today. They were showing quarter movies at the time and it was pretty rundown and people were thinking of destroying it at the time, believe it or not. So the Colorado Music Festival and so many other organizations like it in Boulder have implications far beyond the performances that we have. We build communities, we bring people together, and we bring joy into the world. And I'd like to thank you all very much for recognizing that tonight. I appreciate it. I'd like to invite you all to the festival this summer. I'll send an email out to all of you opening night. We have a champagne toast. I hope you can make it. Thank you so much.

All right, Liz, thanks so much for joining us and for all of your work with over the years for the festival. Looking forward to experiencing it again this summer. All right, Alicia, can we go to our consent agenda, please?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our consent agenda is item number three on tonight's agenda. I'm sorry, item number four on tonight's agenda. And it consists of items 4A through 4D.

Any questions or comments on the consent agenda? Or a motion?

I make a motion to accept it. Approve. Approve the consent agenda. Second. Is my mic working?

It's just a little quiet. We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call, please, Alicia?

Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda with Councilmember Speer.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Wiley. Yes. Councilmember Adams? Yes. Benjamin?

Yes.

Mayor Brockett?

Yes.

Councilmember Caplan?

Yes.

Marquis?

Yes.

And Shewhart?

Yes.

The consent agenda items 4A through 4D are hereby approved unanimously.

Thanks very much. Can we go to our first call check-in, please?

Yes, sir. Our call check-ins are item number five on the agenda. Item 5A is the concept plan review and comment on a proposed to redevelop the existing Unity Church property at 2855 Folsom with 21 detached dwelling units. This is reviewed under case number LUR-2026-00015.

Any questions or comments or desire to call this one up? I'm seeing a lot of shaking heads. I'll just say, I don't desire to call this up, but I thought planning board had excellent feedback. Both staff and the board had some significant feedback on the proposal. I thought they were right on target. All right. Seeing no interest here. Let's go to our next one, please.

Our next call up check in is item 5B, and it is the consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to demolish an existing accessory building at 1039 Mapleton Avenue, referenced under HIS 2026-00043, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District.

Any desire to call this one up? Seeing no interest, we can close that one. And move to our public hearings. Before we get to our first public hearing item, I will ask for a motion to suspend Council Rules of Procedure item 4.6 to allow for three public hearings before the clerk reads the first item.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes 8-0. So that rule of procedure has been suspended. And so please go to our first public hearing, item 6A.

Yes, sir, thank you. Our public hearings are item six on the night's agenda. 6A is the consideration of the following motions regarding the proposed annexation of an area generally located within the Spring Valley Estates subdivision, including properties along Linden Drive, Cholla Court, Spring Valley Road, and Cactus Court, and right-of-ways with an initial zoning of residential estate, RE. Our first item to consider is the motion to adopt resolution 1381 setting forth findings of fact and conclusions regarding the proposed annexation of approximately 43.194 acres of land generally located within the Spring Valley Estate subdivision, including properties along Linden Drive, Cholla Court, Spring Valley Road, and Cactus Court, and right-of-ways, finding that the proposed annexation meets state law requirements, that additional terms and conditions should be imposed, and directing that an election be called. This is referenced under LUR 2023-00001. Our second item for consideration is the motion to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the Spring Valley Mutual Water Association regarding annexation and transition of municipal services.

Thanks. Speaking of the city manager, Maria.

Thank you so much, Mayor. And thank you, Alicia. I want to first acknowledge the hard work on this. This has been a long time coming and a lot of great conversations with all the participants. So just want to appreciate that. But for more detail, I will send it over to someone who is usually here for our call-up check-ins. We're expanding. Coming to Chandler Van Schack with Principal Planner.

All right. Thanks, Nuria. Good evening, council members. Yes, my name is Chandler Van Schack with the Planning and Development Services Department, and I'll be presenting the Spring Valley Estates Annexation and Initial Zoning. Um, so as Alicia just read, this item is related to a petition to annex approximately 43.1, nine, four acres of land generally located within the spring Valley estate subdivision, including properties along Linden drive, Cholla court, spring Valley road and cactus court and rights of way into the city of Boulder with an initial zoning designation of residential estate or re. The area proposed for annexation is comprised of 36 lots, generally developed between 1966 and 1977 with detached dwelling units, and is located in North Boulder along the Western City boundary adjacent to the Wonderland Hills neighborhood within Planning Area 2 of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan and below the blue line. Um, city council is asked to take action on resolution 1381, which would find that the proposed annexation meets state law requirements, that additional terms and conditions should be imposed and directing that an election be called and to consider a motion to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the spring Valley mutual water association regarding annexation and transition of municipal services. we received this application in 2023 and have been working with the applicants the water association and across city departments to negotiate the terms of a potential annexation the petition submitted is for an annexation by election i understand that an annexation by election process has only been conducted once in the city since the 1970s for the knollwood neighborhood so there are a couple of extra steps involved that we want to review with you there are two major phases of this process The first phase confirms that the applicant has submitted all of the required materials and sets the terms and conditions of the annexation. First, city council reviews the petition for substantial compliance with state law. At its meeting on April 16th, city council adopted a resolution which determined that the petition to annex the property complies with the state constitution and Colorado revised statutes. However, in order to meet publication requirements for a public hearing on the proposed annexation that were initially inadvertently missed, city council was asked to adopt a new resolution which superseded that first one on May 7th, 2026, and to set June 18th, 2026 as the date for a public hearing and action related to the annexation petition. Planning board reviewed the proposed annexation and initial zoning on April 21st. The board voted unanimously to recommend a city council approval of the proposed annexation with an initial zoning designation of residential estate subject to the recommended additional terms and conditions and to adopt the staff memorandum as findings of fact. The board also unanimously passed a second motion recommending that staff work with the applicants to include reasonable high value, low cost wildfire mitigation measures in the terms and conditions. Tonight's hearing represents the final hearing in phase one of the annexation in which city council is asked to consider the proposed resolution 1381, which would find that the proposed annexation meets state law requirements that additional terms and conditions should be imposed and directing that an election be called. Council is also asked to consider a motion to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the Spring Valley Mutual Water Association regarding annexation and transition of municipal services. So that first phase allows the city and applicants to move forward with an election. In the second phase, council will order that an election be called and will nominate an election commissioner. Then there will be an election where both registered electors and landowners in the area will vote on the annexation. A majority is needed for the election to pass If the outcome is positive, the area is considered eligible for annexation. And finally council may annex the area by ordinance. So a couple more steps than usual. And if you have questions about this process, we can discuss at the end of the presentation, but I will now move on to talk about some of the existing conditions in the area. So the area proposed for annexation, as I mentioned before, is comprised of 36 lots generally developed between 1966 and 77 with detached dwelling units, uh, totals approximately 43 acres of land. and is generally located within the Spring Valley Estates subdivision, including the properties along Linden Drive, Cholla Court, Spring Valley Road, and Cactus Court, as well as adjacent rights-of-way. The lots range from approximately 0.43 to 2.5 acres in size. The subdivision is located in North Boulder, along the Western City boundary, adjacent to the Wonderland Hills neighborhood within Planning Area 2 of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. Area two refers to land now under county jurisdiction where annexation to the city can be considered consistent with Boulder Valley comp plan policies. Annexation is required before adequate facilities and services are furnished to properties in area two. The developed portions of the lots within Spring Valley are located below the blue line as you can see here. The portions lying west of and therefore above the blue line are not eligible for water or sewer services and are therefore considered undevelopable. The area is currently served by City Sewer. The city currently manages the water system and serves as the water provider for the neighborhoods that border Spring Valley to the east within the city limits. And it is the primary purpose behind this petition for annexation is the petitioner's request to have the Spring Valley neighborhood connected to the city's municipal water system. And in the case of an emergency, to have access to fire hydrants and reliable water sources. The property is designated as very low density residential or VLR on the Boulder Valley Comp Plan land use map with an anticipated density of two dwelling units per acre or less and anticipated uses are single family detached units. So for the proposed annexation, a majority of the Spring Valley landowners have petitioned to annex into the city. Approximately 25 out of 36 property owners have signed the petition. Properties currently receive water from String Valley Mutual Water Association, but already receive city sewer service, as I just mentioned. Annexation is being pursued to connect all properties to city water service and constructing required public infrastructure. The requested zoning designation is residential estate. The existing number of dwelling units would remain. There is no ability to subdivide or add additional principal dwelling units included in the terms and conditions. And as I mentioned, no development would be allowed on portions of the property west of the blue line. So in most annexations, the city requires an annexation agreement to be signed by the property owners to establish the terms and conditions of annexation. In this case, not all property owners of the area signed the annexation petition and not all property owners of the area were willing to enter into an annexation agreement. State law does not require that all owners of property sign a petition for annexation. Rather, state law requirements for annexation by petition are met when persons comprising more than 50% of the landowners in the area and owning more than 50% of the area petition for annexation. So approximately 69% of property owners owning more than 50% of the annexation area have signed the petition. Under these circumstances, a municipality may impose additional terms and conditions upon the area proposed for annexation as part of the annexation ordinance. These terms and conditions can be similar to the conditions imposed in an annexation agreement. The terms and conditions must be approved by the voters in the annexation election along with the annexation. So now I'll just jump into a summary of the terms and conditions. So it includes required public improvements. These include connection to city water and meeting of city infrastructure requirements, requires construction of the Spring Valley public improvements, which include water mains, service lines, meters, hydrants, and valves, an offsite booster pump station, roadway upgrades, the Cholla Court and Spring Valley Road to provide improved access for fire department vehicles and equipment, and easement dedications and acquisition of any necessary rights-of-way. These will be designed and built to city standards subject to limited variances. There are also obligations for the Water Association. The agreement with the Water Association has been executed by the Water Association prior to City Council's hearing. SVMWA, that's Spring Valley Mutual Water Association, must continue to provide water service until all properties connect to city water. provide and or assign design work for the Spring Valley public improvements, provide necessary utility and flood control easements, convey the parcel owned by the water association to an adjacent owner after removing the structures, and work toward dissolving the association within two years of project completion. The terms and conditions also stipulate that the city will form a local improvement district or LID. So after annexation, the city manager will propose forming an LID to finance and construct the public improvements. Property owners would pay 100% of preliminary cost estimates plus up to a 15% cost overrun. Certain costs may be excluded. For example, costs already paid by the Water Association and grant contributions. There is an assessment methodology to determine which property owners pay how much. This differs per improvement type and aims to equitably assess the costs among properties. Owners may pay the assessments in full or in 30-year installments. And then a note that there is a $1 million DOLA grant, which is Department of Local Affairs, which is anticipated if annexation occurs by November 14th, 2026. It's worth noting that we have been in contact with the representative at DOLA and that they've acknowledged receipt of a formal extension request and it's being reviewed. Staff has the impression that it is looking favorable and we will report back when we know more. Um, so there are also utility connection and fee requirements. Um, upon completion of the water system properties must connect exclusively to city water, certain work on private property, uh, for example, service lines to the home and pressure reducing valves is the land owner's responsibility. Property owners are required to pay plant investment fees or PIFs. The water PIF is payable at 2023 rates, which includes a 10 year payment plan option with a 30% monthly surcharge. Stormwater PIF is similar payment options and wastewater PIFs are not applicable. A city sewer service already exists and any vacant lots would pay PIFs at the time of future building permit issuance. In terms of water rights, the city does not intend to acquire the Spring Valley Mutual Water Association's water rights, but may monitor related water court activity. We can get into why we're not pursuing the water rights later if you have questions about that. There are environmental and regulatory requirements as well. Wetland and stream mapping will be completed and adopted with annexation. Properties must be included in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Subdistrict before water connection. Um, existing wells may continue for irrigation only no domestic use and must follow state regulations. And then there are also a handful of land use and zoning conditions, which I kind of went over before, which is the no subdivision, no, uh, principal dwelling units, et cetera. Um, in terms of public comment, uh, we mailed notice of the application. Um, the applicants have also posted signs around the annexation area. We also published notice of this hearing in a newspaper for four weeks prior to tonight's hearing. Um, and we have not received any written comments on the application. So there were three key issues identified by staff, um, in the memo. The first is does the annexation request comply with applicable state annexation statutes? The second is whether the proposal is consistent with the city's annexation and other comprehensive plan policies. And the third is whether the initial zoning of residential estate is appropriate for the subject area. Uh, in terms of state law for case number one, staff has reviewed the annexation request for compliance with sections 31, 12, 1 0 4 31, 13, 1 0 5 and 31, 12, 1 0 7 of the Colorado revised statutes. And with section 30 of article two of the state constitution and finds that the petition and annexation application are consistent with statutory and constitutional requirements. You can refer to attachment F included in the packet for staff's analysis of the state annexation statutes. In terms of the policies on annexation for key issue number two, the subject area may be considered for annexation due to its designation as area two. Area two, as I mentioned before, refers to the planning area now under county jurisdiction where annexation to the city can be considered consistent with Boulder Valley Comp Plan policies. Pursuant to Boulder Valley Comp Plan policy 117C, because the developed portions of the property are located in area two and were moved east of the blue line in 2016, The properties are considered substantially developed and no additional dwelling units may be added. Overall staff finds that the proposal is consistent with Boulder Valley comp plan policies. Finally, for key issue number three, in terms of zoning, initial zoning is established pursuant to section 9218 of the Boulder Revised Code. If a property is annexed, zoning is established consistent with the goals and land use map of the BVCP. As described above, the area is designated as very low density residential, which anticipates the density of two dwelling units per acre or less. The VLR land use anticipates predominantly single family detached units. The proposed zoning is residential estate or RE, which does have a density range consistent with the VLR land use designation and would be compatible with the adjacent area to the south. which has a density range similar and similar lot sizes to the Spring Valley neighborhood. Staff finds, therefore, that the proposed zoning is consistent with the underlying land use designation and is consistent with the city's desired future character for the area. So, in conclusion, staff finds the proposed annexation to be consistent with state statutes. To be consistent with the Boulder Valley comp plan and staff finds the initial zoning is consistent with the Boulder Valley comp plan goals and land use designation and that it is compatible with the surrounding properties. Therefore, staff recommends that city council adopt the following motions. And I'm happy to go back to this language when needed. And now I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Chandler. Any questions for Chandler, city staff?

I've got one, which I asked this question at CAC. I'll ask it again, which was it says that we're not interested in the water rights from the Mutual Water Association. Just curious why it is that we're not interested in those water rights. Sure. Maybe to describe them and then say why we're not interested.

Yeah, so they're – oh, Chris, you want to – Chris DeVille, everybody.

Chris. Good evening Council, Mayor and Council members. Chris DeVille, I'm the Deputy Director of Operations for our Utilities Department and happy to try to answer this question. So yeah, a little bit on the water rights. We did evaluate this and consider it. The quick answer is the quantity of rights are low and based on what they're decreed for and where they're located, we really don't have a use for them in our system. So there's very little value for us financially or practically. So our stance is that we wouldn't refuse or contest sale to someone else. And yeah, our city's consideration of additional water rights or water supply, our plan is to pursue other options.

Thanks for that, Chris. Appreciate it. Any other questions? Taisha?

Two, one on the waterfront. I didn't see anything as it relates to the impact on the, so we know that our water rights, or our water has to always be in a beneficial use. We know that we don't use all of it for municipal use. We know that we have allocations for our leased ag land, but some of that additional water that we're not currently using, it's my understanding per the agricultural lunch and learn that we did earlier this year, that a lot of that water goes to our local farmers. So I was just curious to know Does this annexation have any impact to the current beneficiaries of that leased water to our local agriculture?

Am I back on? Yeah. Thanks for the question. I personally don't have that information, Councilmember Adams, so we'll have to take that away and get back to you. I don't believe there's any impacts to the question you raised, though.

Okay, thank you. And then my second question is around just our climate goals. And I'm happy to have this annexation, but I do have concerns about our water being used to water Kentucky bluegrass. So I did notice there was comments on the fire mitigation and efforts to accelerate that. I was curious if there was equal conversations around making sure that the water that is being used for landscaping not only follows our current policies, as I would imagine, but if there's any incentive to actually exceed some of those policies.

I personally can't share the irrigation demand information. There are some resident members here tonight that may be able to provide some of that information. The city's premise on the need for water is day-to-day water use for consumption inside as well as fire protection.

So point of clarification, there's no specific considerations on, like, Kentucky bluegrass and just, you know, water that isn't being used towards our goals, whether it be biodiversity or, you know, health and human services?

I don't believe we have anything in the terms of conditions that states a specific use restriction for the community.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks. Would it be safe to say they would be subject to the same rules as the other residents of the city?

That's correct.

Thanks, Rob. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I just want a little bit of make sure I'm understanding the legal piece of this. This is an annexation by election. And therefore, I just want to be clear that that makes it legislative. and not whereas by agreement would be by contract.

Thanks for the question. So annexations are legislative in nature. An annexation agreement is a contract. And in an annexation agreement, the parties get the bargain of the benefit of the bargain of their contract. And so more and broader terms can be imposed, where with an election, which is indeed legislative in nature, legislative rules apply in terms of things like retroactivity.

Okay, and that segues right into my next question. I know the planning board had some suggestions for some retroactive wildland hardening, but my understanding, as much as I love that idea, is that you can't go retroactive on that hardening unless you're pulling a permit and it triggers that. Is that correct?

Councilmember, I would say that that calls for a legal conclusion, and I'm happy to speak about that in private with the council. What I would say is that retroactive application is legally risky and problematic.

Okay. I just want to make a quick comment and maybe speak to some of the people here that was.

Well we're just in question. We'll get to comments in a minute. Tina.

Hi. I had a question about the part of the terms that talk about payment of the cost to bring the annexation into the water supply. And I'm just making sure that that's a one-time cost. But then after that has happened, the maintenance and operation of those new changes are done by the city's general operating fund.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, and then those changes have to be done in about two years? Is that when we would be looking to dissolve that portion of it?

Two years until the Water Association has to dissolve, yes.

Okay, so there's no expectation of a cost in 20 years or anything affecting the residents under this annexation agreement? That's correct. Okay, great, thanks.

All right, not seeing any other hands, I'll call that it for questions. Do we have any applicant presentation? We do. Okay, let's go to that then, please.

Sorry, I need to get rid of this one.

Okay, thank you. I'm Carolyn Steffel. I'm an attorney for the Spring Valley Mutual Water Association, and I'm an attorney at Ditson Davis here in town, and happy to be here presenting this to you. I had the pleasure of presenting you with the Nowood annexation back right around COVID, around 2020, and Glad to be here now with another neighborhood annexation. This is a long time coming, and we are very excited to be here. We have a big team. Our board of our water district has five members, and four out of the five are here. One is virtually, but we have Alex Paul, Jerry Golnick, John Gordon, and Keith Conahan is virtually with us. And then we also have our engineer as a representative, Kevin Tone, who's the president of JVA. So should you have questions that are technical about the design that we have for the water system, they're here as well. So we do have a big team here. We also have at least three more residents, probably more that are here to express their opinion about this annexation. So, great. Okay, so this annexation, I'm not going to go over any of the details that have already been presented by the city in the interest of time. but we basically have 36 homes. And you talked to, you heard about how the petition had to be signed by 50% of the property owners and the owners of at least 50% of the property. Well, that is the statutory requirement under the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act. We did exceed that and, you know, A few of our residents were in Europe who probably also would have signed it. But what we've understood from our discussions is that a vast majority of residents support this annexation. We have had annual meetings where we have been updating our residents about the annexation and had one where a little over a year ago, I think where we took a straw poll of how many residents wants to continue with the annexation and over 80% did knowing the costs, knowing that this was a complicated process. So we do have the resident support here, maybe not a hundred percent. It is hard to get a hundred percent of any amount of residents to agree to this. And it does involve a very large capital investment by the residents. as we'll talk about. So that's how we're here, 36 homes. This property is within comprehensive planning area two, which means that the city will actively pursue annexation. So this annexation is consistent with the policy goals that have been set by the city council and is really a win-win for everybody. We've been working with the city staff on this since 2022. Okay, so how did we get here? This really has been a process that both the city and the neighborhood have come together to get to this point. It started out back in 1967 when the city agreed to provide sewer service to the properties. And as part of that agreement said, if you're ever eligible for annexation, you will petition for annexation. That is an agreement that still is in existence today. Well, then you forward to the, Some of the homes within Spring Valley petitioned for annexation individually and were annexed, leaving these 36 homes that were in a small water district by themselves. They operate wells and they, at this point, do not have the pressure or the volume and flow that they want to provide the level of fire protection that's needed with the climate change and with the changing conditions. But they have been providing that service since 1967. A lot of it by volunteers that were going out, turning valves and doing all the work themselves to keep it running. In 2016, the Boulder voters approved to move the blue line. So all of your residents have already voted that they wanted to move the blue line to include this neighborhood. So that shows that your constituents are also supportive of moving this neighborhood into the city of Boulder. It is consistent with an area of community Common area of interest to and this as you'll see this area is right outside of Boulder. So that's how we got here and now Okay, so our goals are really to improve fire protection as our biggest goal or as I mentioned our pressure and our flow rates are not sufficient given the threat of catastrophic wildfires the neighborhood is very concerned about this. They're concerned about being able to continue to have, get insurance, to be able to sell their homes and to have their homes adequately protected. Ever since we really took this initiative to the next step after the Marshall fire. Okay. We can go to the next one. Okay, this is the Boulder County wildfire map, and it's just a snapshot. This doesn't even include the most recent fire, which is the Goat Trail fire. But if you can see, it's probably hard to see, our neighborhood is surrounded by a lot of these additional fires. So it's been threatened by the Left Hand Canyon fire, Cowwood fire, Sunshine Canyon fire, Black Tiger fire, and most recent Goat Trail fire all are in kind of the area surrounding where this neighborhood is situated. If you can go to the next one. Okay, so if you can see the red circle, that's where our neighborhood is. So we're surrounded on three sides by open space. We're really on the border of the town. This area constitutes a necessary area for the city to protect, if I were in your position, because a lot of the fires that are going to be approaching from the west are going to approach through this neighborhood first. and then the city can hopefully have sufficient wildfire protection in the hydrants to be able to fight the fire when it approaches right from that open space. The residents you have here have been evacuated multiple times. They were evacuated for that Go Trail fire just in April of this year. And thank goodness, the combination of the winds and the weather did not result in those homes burning down, but one of our board members woke to a red wall of flames in his window. Okay. Now, we have designed the water system we've been working. The residents have assessed themselves through the Spring Valley Water Association for all of the costs to date to design this entire system, to pay for the legal fees to get here, to survey the property, create legal descriptions of the easements that are needed to be dedicated to the city. We've had many, many steps to get here. And what we are looking at in terms of a system is replacing all of the water mains. You're going to have brand new water mains in this system up to city standards. We're going to build a booster pump station that has both small jockey pumps for every day and longer term pumps for the fire protection should they need it. all designed to meet city standards. We're making improvements to two of the roads, Cholla Court and Spring Valley Road to provide better access for your fire department. Met out there with the fire chief, said, what do you need us to do to make sure your engines can get to these roads? And those are the improvements that are being made that will be paid for by the residents. There's broad support for this. We've had support from Boulder County Commissioners, from state and federal representatives, and including DOLA. DOLA has given a $1 million grant with the support for the city to apply for that for this project, and we're gonna do everything we can to get to the finish line to make sure that that grant can be taken and we can go forward. We really want to thank the city staff for their support. They have been unbelievably supportive in terms of the finance applying for these grants and the mayor and various people supporting us throughout this process. We have had support from the staff the planning staff and the utilities department and general management many many departments and the finance department all had to work on this project to get here because these are we're looking at seven. If we look at contingencies you know millions of dollars of improvements that have to be financed by these 36 homes. So to get a package that would work and let those homeowners stay in their homes, that's how we got to the position of the city putting together a local improvement district, allowing the residents to finance this over 30 years, because otherwise it would be an unbearable cost for these residents, but this is how we got there. Um, we are hoping you heard that, you know, we are required to complete the annexation by November 14th in order to, um, continue to have that grant. We've asked OLA for the city's asked OLA for an extension. We're very hopeful that that will be received. Given the delay, we were going to be before you on May 21st, given the delay that it's now June, we can not have an election on this until December. unless the city were to make an exception. But under the existing local election code, you can't have a special election within 90 days of your November election. So the next steps are, we encourage you to support this agreement and this resolution that we've worked so hard on. The next step will be to have an election be ordered. Hopefully DOLA's gonna approve that extension.

so that we can then hold an election in December.

If for some reason they don't approve it, we might be coming back and asking if you'd make a change to allow the election to be held within 90 days of that November election. The election is only gonna be these 36 homes. So we're not talking about citywide election, we're talking about an annexation election of these 36 homes. So we don't find that it'd be confusing with that November election. Given that we do have a delay and our election will likely be in December, the next thing we'd ask you to do is just keep fast tracking this process once we get there, that when you approve, hopefully, our annexation, you then look at forming that improvement district right away. Look at the funding, put this into your 27 budget and your 27 roads agreement, because every day that passes is a day that these residents get nervous about continuing fire risk. How many minutes do I have left?

Three.

Okay. Would any of the residents like to speak real quickly? One of the board members? Actually, we'll have a public hearing, but just if any of the board members want to speak. Come on up, Alex. So I'm going to let the board member speak real quickly about his thoughts on the project.

Thank you, Alex Paul, board member for Spring Valley. On the election... We would ask that the city look at waiving the 90 day waiting period so that we can have the election sooner and not risk losing the DOLA grant because it was due to a publication mistake. We understand mistakes are made but it will puts at risk the DOLA grant and also puts at risk not having the system in place for another fire season. and not having the system in place for a fire season puts at risk the whole Western edge of the city. So I hope you would consider that.

That's all of our presentation. I can answer any questions if you'd like.

Thanks so much for the presentation. Any questions for the applicant? Not seeing any questions for you. So appreciate your sharing all that information with us. We're going to go to the public hearing now. So we have five people signed up to speak. Each speaker will get three minutes. And I'll just ask folks to keep your comments specifically directed to the resolution that we're considering in front of us. Our first three speakers are Carlos Valdez in person, Lynn Siegel in person, and then Laura Gonzalez virtually. This is Carlos. Sounds like Carlos isn't here. All right, then we'll go to Lynn Segal.

Well, I opposed 311 Mapleton because it's more fuel. This is already there, so we have to deal with it. I mean, this is a no-brainer, and I totally approve the 90-day thing to facilitate it, to expedite it. So yeah, definitely this, I mean, why did this even come up before the city? It should have been just through staff. It's so obvious that it needs to be done and it's not hurting anything. The district that has the water now will just be remain in the wells and build up into the aquifer. It's not like we're losing water or switching water from one to the other. Um, And let's see. On that one map where you see this, where this 36 houses comes up, it's almost like it's a fire bridge into town. So that's another reason for getting rid of the 90 days so they can get the DOLA grant. And I mean, what's not to like about this situation? I don't see anything. And I haven't heard anything. Well, one thing, if any of the, okay, you know the Sumac situation, problematic, right? So if any of the people in this 36 houses are going to oppose this and are going to sue the city, I don't want my money spent fighting over this kind of stuff, like potentially up at Sumac. So really like finally detailing all of the agreements so that it's real crystal clear, although theoretically it was crystal clear at Sumac too. And then look at what we got. So yeah. And Palestinian justice is tied right into this. Because this is about money.

Please speak to this annexation only.

Hello. Do not derail me, Aaron. Do not. Do not do that at all ever. Got it? Don't do that. This ties in to the city of Boulders. Economics, which are tied in to Palestinian justice.

I'm gonna end your time because you're not speaking to the agenda item in front of us. Okay, we're gonna move on to the next speaker, which is your time is up or is over. So please be quiet. Your time is up. Your time is over. Okay, we're going to... You're disrupting the meeting, and this is your last warning. OK, we're going to Laura Gonzalez online, if she's there.

Mayor, I do not see Laura online at this time.

OK, our last two speakers are Dimitri Resnik and Brian Goodheim.

Hello. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. So my name is Dmitry Reznik. I'm a property owner within the area that is currently being considered for annexation. And I would like to ensure that equity, transparency, and accurate valuation guide this process. So I'm focusing here on two critical components. So first, I would like to ask the City Council to ensure that any cost allocation formulas, because different properties will pay a different amount for this annexation, are based on net buildable land, not on gross acreage. Because the sole driving sort of benefit for this annexation is municipal water for household use and irrigation fire protection. And because this is a utility specific benefit, Colorado law, stipulates that it should the assessments should be proportional to the actual benefit received by each property and many properties on our association are burdened by existing easements that legally strip owners of the right to build or develop for example above the blue line flood easements and lots of other easements and if at all land formula is adopted the homeowner of a large billable easements would unfairly subsidize the neighbor who does not have these easements. Okay, so a fair legally defensible cost allocation formula must define a lot size and still acreage minus any legally built binding easements, so only buildable land. So that's my first point. And the second issue is that the pump house and the land that it sits on. So This land is actually quite valuable. And as a part of this annexation, this parcel of land is slated to be absorbed into adjacent privately owned parcels. While the county tax assessment provides a baseline for this land, a true market valuation may be significantly higher. And to protect the public record and make sure that this process is done properly, the city must ensure the association receives full fair market compensation based on actual market data. So currently the association owns the land and so all the members share ownership of this land right now. And so they must be compensated for losing this land. And because as adjacent property owner acquiring this land as a sitting member of the association's board, I would like to make sure there's strict municipal oversight to guarantee transparent arms-laying transaction to prevent even the appearance of a conflict of interest. So I guess I'm out of time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our last speaker will be Brian Goodheim.

Good evening. My name is Brian Goodheim. I lived at 3870 Spring Valley Road, and I've served on Spring Valley's water board since the early 2000s in various capacities, including board president and secretary. I'm familiar with the water system in all of the homes, and now officially I'm retired from the board and I'm speaking tonight as a individual homeowner. The purpose of my testimony is not to speak against either this annexation or the pumping plan advocated by my former board colleagues. My purpose is to criticize the fairness of the proposed cost allocation methodology outlined in Section 3E of the draft annexation agreement. And to highlight what I see as a potential conflict of interest in Section 1.D. And finally, to hopefully encourage an improved cost allocation system that equitably ships the proportional homeowner cost burden. so that those who need, want, and benefit from the expensive pumping system pay more, and homeowners who do not require pressure boosting pay less, but everybody pays equal in proportion to benefit and cost. And I'm not sure that the current agreement as written accomplishes that. As to Section 3E, the assessment allocation, it takes the land size of individual ownerships relative to the entire land size of all the properties, calculates a percentage, and then applies it for allocation of 50% of costs. And in terms of improvement size, it does a similar methodology, but it does not reflect the age of the home, and it does not reflect the quality of construction. And together, I think these are worse than simply 136 pro rata division of the construction costs. Bottom line, I think it would be better to use a traditional mill levy bonding, which would equalize the percentage payment for both high and low value properties. Secondly, I want to echo Dimitri's concern about Section 1.D. I find that it requires the Spring Valley Pump House land to be a portion between the negotiator's two lots. And I don't know the background for that. I understand the logic. But this is not reflected in the benefit analysis to the individual homeowners anywhere. I want to make sure that it is. Bottom line, I am looking for a cost per homeowner before voting positively.

Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Okay, that's it for the public hearing. So we can come back to council for discussion. I guess I'm going to start, if people don't mind, with a follow-up question to city staff, which was the question of election timing was brought up. Is it within our power to waive the requirement that a special election cannot be within 90 days of general election?

I believe so, but I'm not exactly sure of the process, which is why Hella will respond.

So the municipal election.

Can you introduce yourself, please?

Yes. Hela Pennewick, city attorney's office. The city follows the municipal election code. And the Supreme Court has stated that the municipal election code applies to annexation elections. And the municipal election code creates a number of blackout dates around general elections. And we have one of those that's coming up very soon. The most significant term is 90 days prior to such election, special elections such as an annexation election cannot be held. There is a possibility to pass an ordinance to amend the local election code to not apply that to annexation elections. However, that takes a lot of time and staff analyzed that and found that we most likely wouldn't meet the timeline with that adjustment as well.

Is it feasible to pass a one-time ordinance that would allow this particular election to be within 90 days?

I think that could be possible. We would still be looking at similar timing issues.

That you think that there wouldn't be time to prepare such a special ordinance in order to schedule election in a timely fashion?

Yeah, to prepare it, to pass it, for it to go into effect and meet all the other requirements that would have to be complied with.

Okay, thanks for that. Yeah, go ahead, Matt.

If we were to consider doing any such thing on emergency would that improve the timeline sufficient enough to make it possible?

I think it would still be difficult at this point in time considering that council is going into a recess. There is another potential way to improve the timeline. There's authority under the election code to pass an ordinance or resolution to, instead of the municipal election code, follow the state's election code instead. And we haven't fully analyzed what the timeline under that would be. But if the grant is not extended, that might be something we would look at. But overall, our analysis has found that it would be really difficult to meet the timeline either way. And not just looking strictly at timing, but one of the requirements, for example, to hold an election requires establishing a polling place and so forth. So there's a lot of staff work required to meet the timelines that might not be possible within the time frame we would be looking at.

And Brad, did you want to add something to that?

DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Brad Mueller director of planning and development services. I want to make sure council understands what the practical effect of that would be too and that would be to maybe have it four weeks earlier than it would otherwise be. So a lot of effort with a lot of risk and a few weeks advantage.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF. To Tara. And then I got what. I'm sorry I can't take I can't take testimony from the audience.

Tara.

So why do you think I mean it was wasn't it our fault as a city that this happened in the first place. I mean should we.

Again Brad Mueller with planning development services. While it is correct that there was a noticing error there were a lot of things that were still being negotiated up until that point as well in terms of the terms and conditions. Lots of different pieces moving so it's really hard to point to just one thing that led to some of the timing. I think it's important to recognize we've been working in good faith for three or four years on this and have you know been doing everything possible to continue to move this forward. What's going to be really critical as as was described through the discussion is is being able to move forward the capital improvements and such and those are being actively reviewed and. That really leads to the construction schedule as much as anything. Maybe Chris or others can elaborate if that's helpful.

Or just to dive into it. So long as the DOLA grant is extended then this wouldn't cause a delay in the construction of the improvements. Is that what you're saying.

Yep fundamentally and I'll ask Chris to verify that for me. We are very optimistic that the DOLA grant is going to be supported. There are always complexities in both the submittal of a grant and the execution of it. And we've asked Dolla if they're ready to to help know whether that extension is going to be provided. While they've given us good feedback that it should be they obviously can't do that until it actually is. But we've gotten strong indications that it should be and expect to hear any moment.

I'll just note that we had DOLA representatives visiting us just a couple weeks ago and said verbally that they expected the extension to be granted. Chris did you have anything you wanted to add to that?

Hello everyone again Chris DeVille Deputy Director of Operations for Utilities. Just to kind of paint the picture we have been working for several years with the Spring Valley team on this. I can fully acknowledge and appreciate that it feels like hey something was missed and Oh now what happens. That is real and that's there's there is some timing impact in front of us. I just do need to remind everyone as Chandler explained there's a lot of process that's going to follow. And you know we do need to set up a local improvement district and this has to be a successful process all the way through. Then we will actually hire a contractor and perform construction and build these improvements so. I don't want anyone to think you know we're going to have a new water system in six months. It's going to take a while. So once we're through all the steps and we actually mobilize a contractor you know this project should be under one year from start to finish. That is our our expectation. So just trying to explain the bigger timing context. DIRECTOR DEWOLF.

Thanks. Tina.

Yeah, just wondering about the comments about how we allocate costs to each of the different lots. Do we have a lot of flexibility over that, or is there specific guidance or best practice?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Councilmember. That's probably best answered by the applicants themselves. Our role was making sure that it was legally defensible, consistent with city interests, that type of thing, but we'd have to defer to them on that.

If the applicant wants to come forward to answer that question please.

I guess I would disagree that it was the applicant that set the allocation process. Our board of directors sat down and did an analysis of how they proposed to distribute the costs. The city then said that they wanted to hire an outside consultant and we worked with that outside consultant. They changed the allocation method from what was originally proposed. So what's in your proposal is what was recommended by the city's hired consultant. So my understanding of the reason for why the consultant recommended this is because with a local improvement district, the costs need to be assessed based on the benefit to the property. And so when looking at this, the consultant said everybody's gonna get a new water system, everyone's gonna get new taps. So there are some water improvements that should be allocated proportionally to every property. And those are things like the taps, the connections to the homes, the water. So a lot of the things that are the engineering costs, the design costs, the construction management, things like that. And then for some of them, the thought was if you have a more valuable home, then if it burns down, you have more to lose. So they wanted to have something that was similar to looking at the value of the home. And for those portions for the pump station and the mains, what we looked at was one, what is the square footage of the home? And two, what is the square footage of the property compared to all of the property within this 36 homes? And the thought was, if you look at it point in time assessed valuation today, it may not reflect assessed valuation all the time because people can rebuild. They can do a scrape and rebuild. So if you're looking at the square footage of the property, then that's tied to how much of the foot area ratio of how big of a house you could build if you were to rebuild. So that's why that's 50% of the allocation of those costs. And then 50% was based on the square footage because that is a number we know for sure that we have at least what's on record with the county assessor. And that was, again, some indication of the value of the home that larger homes may have higher value without looking at a point in time assessed valuation. And we also tried to keep it simple. If you started looking at the age of the home, the condition of the home, you're looking at really more abstract values. So those were the reasons for getting to this allocation.

Okay. Tina, does that answer your question?

Okay.

Thanks for that. All right. So I'm going to come back to City Council and just ask, do people have any concerns with the approach that we're envisioning taking before we consider motion? I'm not seeing any concerns. So perhaps someone might get us started by using the motion language up here.

Sure. Not to go back to these but I'm not clear on the concern around the conflict of interest component. It was it just who decided the formula. Was that the conflict of interest component. I tried to look at the section reference and I didn't see the conflict of interest component.

I don't have a good understanding of that. I don't know if the applicant wants to answer.

It was you.

It was 1D. Right. So there's a small piece of property that's owned by the Spring Valley Water Users Association. It is very small. I think it's maybe and it's completely surrounded by another piece of property. So the thought was that the city doesn't want, we're gonna dissolve the authority, somebody needs to own this parcel and it makes sense to have the property owner who owns the surrounding property. But, so what the agreement provides is that the Spring Valley Association will sell it to someone and we are planning, the board is planning to get third-party assessments of the value of that property and to enter into an agreement with the owner of the surrounding property to purchase it from the Water Association for at least the market value. And then that money would go to the Spring Valley Association and would go towards paying some of these design costs that they're incurring. Thank you.

Thanks, Tysha. Okay, does anybody want to put their hand up? Rob?

So, for the motion? Okay. I'd like to make a motion to adopt Resolution 1381, setting forth findings of fact. and conclusions regarding the proposed annexation of approximately 43.194 acres of land generally located within the Spring Valley estate subdivision, including properties Long Linden Drive, Cholla Court, Spring Valley Road, and Cactus Court, and rights-of-way, finding that the proposed annexation meets state law requirements and that additional terms and conditions should be imposed, and directing that an election be called LUR 2023-00001.

Thank you. Do we have a second?

Second. Second.

Great. Motion to second. Rob, did you want to speak to your motion?

I would. When I was with Boulder Rural Fire, that was my fire district. And I have very intimate knowledge of that water system. And we would show up. There are two hydrants. There's a city hydrant and there's a Spring Valley hydrant. And an engineer has to put an engine in between the two hydrants, get the incoming pressure, regulate it from the city, take it down to support the Spring Valley loop. That takes time. There's not an instant water source. And then also for the tank above, that is a phone call to an operator, getting some valves done. It's not timely, and it's not immediately. And I think the fact that the volume and the pressure of water is in itself a huge protection asset to the entire city. Thanks. Teri, did you want to speak to the second?

No. Okay.

I WILL JUST ADD THAT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS TONIGHT. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED AT LEAST SOMEWHAT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WITH SUPPORTING THIS PROCESS AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE RESIDENTS' COOPERATION WITH THE STAFF AND ALL THE GREAT WORK THE STAFF HAS DONE. SO THIS WILL BE A GOOD STEP FORWARD TO MAKING THE CHANGES IN VISION WHEN THE VOTERS APPROVE THE BLUE LINE AMENDMENT IN 2016. WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

Yes, Sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of resolution 1381 with mayor pro Tim Weiner.

Yes.

Council member Adams, Benjamin.

Yes.

Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

Council member Kaplan.

Yes.

Marquis. Yes. Shuhart. Yes. And spear. Yes. Ordinance eight ordinance 1381 is hereby approved unanimously.

That's Resolution 1381.

I'm sorry, thank you. Resolution 1381 is hereby approved unanimously.

Great. And we just need one more motion.

Matt? Go ahead and start. I make a motion to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the Spring Valley Mutual Water Association regarding annexation and transition of municipal services.

Do we have a second? Second. We've got a motion and a second. I don't think we need additional discussion, so we'll just go straight to the roll call.

Thank you, sir. We'll start the roll call for the execution of the agreement. I'm sorry. The city managers authority to execute an agreement with the spring Valley mutual water association with council member Adams. Yes. Benjamin.

Yes.

Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

Council member Kaplan.

Yes.

Marquis. Yes. Shuhart. Yes. Speer. Yes. And Weiner. Yes. The item was approved unanimously.

Very good. Well, staff, thanks again for all your work. And to Spring Valley folks, congratulations. We look forward to the outcome of the election and to getting this annexation approved in the not-too-distant future. And with that, let's go to our next public hearing, please.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our next public hearing is item 6B on tonight's agenda, and it is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8751, amending Title IV, licenses and permits, Title VIII, parks, open space, streets, and public ways, and Title IX, land use code of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. Thank you.

Thanks. And if the folks in the room wouldn't mind moving their conversations downstairs, we'd appreciate it. And Carl, maybe I'll go straight to you for the presentation.

I'm not finished, sir.

Oh, sorry. Missed one.

to continue to create a new permitting process for special festival events, create new standards for special festival events, amend mobile food vehicle standards related to special festival events and amend the city sign code to regulate signs that may be erected for the duration of a special festival event and associated review and approval processes and setting forth related details.

I was just too excited about this item. I jumped the gun.

So glad to hear that mayor. And certainly before I pass it on to Carl, he'll take us through it. I just want to say that one of the things I really love about cities is that they are living entities and are always evolving. And while we have been very used to large events in our city, the arrival of an extended festival, like the one that we're anticipating actually really gives us some opportunity to to take a look at our current processes and see if there are new ways in which you're doing that. You've already supported us in some of that with the passage of some previous ordinances. Tonight, you're gonna hear about two more of those that will help support any qualifying festival to do things that will increase efficiencies across our city. So Carl, I send it to you.

Thank you, Nuria. Good evening, Mayor and members of council. I'm Carl Giler with Planning and Development Services. Before the council tonight is ordinance 8751, which relates to new regulations on special festival events. So you may have heard that the 2027 Sundance Film Festival will be coming to Boulder in January. It's also set to come for an additional nine years after that. There may be other special festival events that come to Boulder, but this has prompted city staff to take a look at the Boulder revised code to see how this impacts the city in the sense of regulations. We haven't had an event of this scale before, so we've had to look through the code to see what kind of updates we would need to make. So I'm going to first start on why are we doing this ordinance. So I'm going to start with uses. So right now we do have a process called special events which typically occurs on Pearl Street, the Pearl Street Mall. or within the public right of way. There's a special section in the code and policy that governs that in Title IV and licenses and permits. There's a permitting process for special events. And in looking at something like the Sundance Film Festival at its scale, it does not meet the current definition of a special event. It's significantly larger in terms of the attendance we're expecting. It would be for a longer duration, obviously like events like the boulder creek festival are only a couple days this would be longer duration and would also occur on public property and right-of-way also on private property within particular venues we've also looked at the code in terms of mobile food vehicles there's specific regulations on those they are allowed with with standards in during special events but it is silent to larger events again special events occur within the public right-of-way or on public property in this case we'd have to update the code to recognize the private property that they may operate on so we do see that there are updates that have to be made throughout the Boulder revised code and particularly in the land use code to recognize this use and to create standards to regulate it and to make the updates to better enable mobile food vehicle operation during such an event. We also had to take a look at our sign regulations. So it's common obviously to see unique signage like banners, awnings, wall signs, projected signs to be erected during special events like the Boulder Boulder or the Boulder Creek Festival. These are already governed in the Boulder Revised Code in Title IV and Title VIII, again, relative to public property. When we look at this particular event or a special festival event, where it can occur also on private property. We looked at our sign code and obviously we have comprehensive requirements for signs, but these are really tailored to private property and for signs that are erected more on a permanent basis. So we realized we did have to make some updates to the sign code for this. So that's another part of the ordinance is to update our sign code to recognize signage that relates to special festival events that are up for a limited duration. So in getting into the details of the ordinance, I'm gonna start with the use related changes. So we've moved forward based on prior discussions and prior ordinances related to this to define special festival event uniquely because of its being different than a typical special event. So it would occur in public and private property. It's held over multiple consecutive days and is anticipated to have attendees that exceed over 15,000 people. It also is something that's large enough that it requires where typically includes a contractual relationship with the city to have event of that scale. So we'd be adding special festival event defined in the Boulder Revised Code in both Title IV licenses and permits and Title IX, the land use code. We would add it to the use table and the ordinance also adds a new permitting process in Title IV permits and licenses that sets up the application requirements the information that we would need to evaluate a special festival event permit. So things like understanding where the boundary of the event would be, the number of sponsors and vendors, a number of other things like closures of public rights of way we would need to know, a safety and security plan. These would all be things that would be submitted with the special festival event permit. i'm going to get into the specific use standards that would associate with the special festival event this would be added to title ix the land use code it's really meant to just try to make ensure public health safety and welfare as well as efficient operation of a festival of this scale so it would be allowed in the same zones as temporary events but would also more be uniquely tailored to a specific geographic area since you'd wanna have the festival event in a mapped area. So there is a requirement for a special festival event boundary map to be submitted so we have a better understanding where it would occur and where the venues are. It would be temporary, couldn't operate for more than 14 days, has to be approved as part of the special festival event permit. So that permit is really meant to be like this umbrella permit that were a number of more detailed permits like tent permits things for safety and building code safety and welfare are would be attached to that permit so tent permits right-of-way permits but it would also enable a comprehensive sign plan instead of requiring a whole bunch of different sign independent or separate sign permits it would all just be part of the special festival event permit and the use these use standards would also be reviewed as part of that permit for compliance. It couldn't be you'd have to return it to a pre-festival state after five days after the festival ceases. You'd have to have owner approval for any kind of festival events that occur on private property. We also added a section that made it clear that if any of these events that are part of a special festival event are governed by a land use review like a use review or a site review or an old planned unit development that it wouldn't require an amendment to those. It's just a temporary event. We don't need to bring through like a site review amendment. So we want to make that clear. In the temporary events section, which is already in the code, we're proposing a city manager rule that just enables the city to react quickly. If there's any kind of temporary events that are applying during the same time as a special festival event, it would enable the city to at least limit the location or number of temporary events, if there's any concern that it could create any undue congestion. So we just felt like that was a way react quickly if we had to for safety reasons. And they would also update the mobile food vehicle standards to allow them during special festival events. All right, now shifting to the sign piece. The Sundance Film Festival is a good analog, obviously, so we were able to see what the signage looks like during that festival. Some of the signs are erected by the festival organizer itself, Sundance Institute, but also their sponsors and vendors. So these are just some ideas of what the signage can look like. So again, what we would do in this case is we're updating the sign regulations to create a new category that special festival event signs. So this is different than how we have signage in the code now. It recognizes that we wanna make sure that we have reasonable and rational limitations in the code to govern these signs. So there's a comprehensive sign plan that's required that they would have to submit with the special festival event. permit. It would have to be at least 90 days before the event, hopefully much more than that. Signs couldn't be up for more than 20 days. We have some design dimensional requirements just to kind of put some guardrails on how many signs we see. May not extend beyond the width or height of the building frontage. Maximum 60% coverage on each building facade. There's also setback in height requirements for projecting and freestanding signs just for like safety reasons. We want to make sure that we have safe pedestrian or vehicle egress or or passage through areas and that there is no hazards that are created from the signs in terms of fire or or any potential damage to buildings or trees. We also looked at the outdoor lighting code. The outdoor lighting code would apply to these signs, but the outdoor lighting code already has a variance section that relates to festivals and organized events. So if there are areas where they would deviate from the outdoor lighting signs, they would be able to ask for a variance and we'd be able to evaluate it, just make sure that the impacts are minimized through that process. So as part of this project, obviously we've had to act fairly quickly to put these regulations together. We've been using an informed level of engagement, trying to understand who would be the most impacted by this. We've been sending out the PNDS newsletter that has notice of the proposed changes. We met with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce in May to discuss the approach. We held a virtual community open house to let people understand the direction we're going. We did, obviously, because we're updating the mobile food truck standards, we've heard that a lot of those businesses are minority owned and that they should be aware of the impacts, but also the benefits of being able to partake in the special festival event. So we've reached out to Sundance Institute, Boulder Chamber, the Latino Chamber, Downtown Boulder Partnership, and the Denver Food Truck Association to share with them what these changes look like. We brought the ordinance to planning board on May 5th. The planning board reviewed the ordinance and unanimously recommended approval to the city council. All the board members supported the ordinance. There were some concerns raised about the approach. I think there was one member that disputed you know making it a new land use. There was one member that was concerned about the duration that the signs would be up and thought it should be shorter. And then there were also suggestions for maybe looking at a mid-tier special festival event definition. They're all good suggestions but we all agreed I think the board agreed that we would just evaluate to see how this first year would go. I think if things you know if there's some holes that need to be filled we can certainly come back with new changes to the code to address those. These are the motions that planning board put out. The first just relates to recommending approval to council of the ordinance and the second relates to that mid tier smaller special festival event option that we might want to look at in the future. So staff is recommending that city council approve the ordinance. We feel that it would protect the public health safety and welfare from potential impacts of such a large festival. It would enable preparations for the Sundance Film Festival coming up in about seven months create standards for other like festivals in the future and it supports this the city economy and the arts. When you look at the BVCP policies there's many that relate to enhancing you know the downtown of Boulder enhancing the arts and then helping local business as part of that. So we feel it does support a lot of BVCP policies. So that's why we're recommending approval. This is our recommended motion which I can come back to. really quick just far as next steps if the ordinance is adopted tonight it would put it in effect in 30 days so it would be in effect on July 18th it would enable the permitting process for the Sundance Film Festival and continued collaboration to move forward and then you know the city staff would obviously be monitoring the efficacy of those new regulations to see if any updates are are required in the future so With that, concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Thanks so much, Carl. Any questions for city staff? I got Ryan.

Thanks, Carl and team. A few questions. One, there was reference to, I forgot what the adjective was, but it regarded congestion and it says something like unreasonable congestion. Is that defined anywhere in DCS or something? How would we know if we reached that level?

It's not really defined. I think it just enables us to look at the special festival event and be able to try to forecast any potential issues. And if there's something that could be problematic, I think it would enable us just to work with the festival organizer to try to mitigate for a potential impact. It's not defined specifically, so there's... some discretion there.

I know this isn't common, so one could argue that the existing condition is unreasonable for congestion, but that's another story. Sorry, I couldn't help it. Second question on signs. Is there anything with respect to quality standards for signs? You know, like, would there be any subjective concepts or guardrails around what you're looking for? Or no, that's not part of this?

I don't know that I totally understand the question. In terms of the

Materiality of the signs and yeah, I suppose so just what the signs would look like, you know, is there is there any any sort of?

new thinking on regulations around you that Hello Pennewick with the city attorney's office There are no Aesthetic requirements in terms of how the signs have to be designed. Those would be content based speech regulate regulations and they're really difficult and to defend under the First Amendment. So we avoided including any of those.

Makes sense. Thanks. And then final question. Have you heard any pushback or any concerns from the business community or others who would seek to make use of such a license that we should be thinking about?

We've been communicating this out, but I don't know that we've heard any objections or concerns. Okay. Thank you.

Tina and then Taisha. No? Okay.

Yeah, with the sign following up, will there be resources for people who might not be from the area just about like wind and things like that so they don't blow it and hit people and stuff like that?

If when you look at the sign code there's there's actually towards the end of it there's there's a lot of requirements related to wind load and safety and those those would apply so there is a requirement that the signs would be erected by sign contractors that are familiar with these types of things so how they attach them to buildings and wind load that all still applies.

Okay, and then my second question is, since we've moved to a city level minimum wage, if when we have food trucks and other people coming into the city and working, how has it been just in general with the Boulder Creek Fest making sure that the people are using the minimum wage in our city versus one from the town where they might be registered as a business? And what kind of communication will happen with Sundance?

So currently the minimum wage code puts enforcement on the state. And so we would have to ask the state those questions. We certainly can do that. I think this is sort of aside from the sign code. And so.

Well, this is the food truck part. Because I think we're going to get food trucks from outside of the city of Boulder. Or are we only doing... food trucks registered in the city of Boulder.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this will be, you will still have to be registered in the city, and we certainly will be, as with all our ordinances, communicating what the festival and any qualifying festival would have to comply with, and that would include any regulations around minimum wage or anything else.

Okay, thank you.

Great, I think that was, oh, Matt, thanks.

So just sort of maybe button up what Tina was saying. Because anybody to do business here obviously has to file for a sales tax permit within the city. Is that thus then obligating them to then pay the city's minimum wage if they are thus also obligated to the sales tax permit that they are getting?

The ordinance is what obligates them to pay the minimum wage in the city, so whether they actually, they should obtain a business license, which goes to sales tax, but even if they were not to do that, they're still obligated to pay the city's minimum wage.

Okay, I was just, okay, that's fair. I thought that was going to, go ahead.

Yeah, I think I was kind of wondering about awareness, because I don't think the minimum wage difference is specifically called out when you look at the application for a food mobile license in the city, so. I was just curious how that education is doing, because we do have a lot of external vendors coming in and working past the four hour minimum when you could theoretically not pay the minimum wage.

I still have my question, but I just want to piggyback on Tina.

So I'm loving the agility here and the nimbleness. Those are words we don't use very often in the city, so it's good to see that. Then they're invisible words, because we don't see them. my question is going through this exercise and creating the, the abundance of flexibility and adaptation for Sundance. Have there been any lessons learned of how you maybe take some of the things we want to be like, Oh, those could be actually like permanent rules that we could adopt. I'm just sort of wondering if going through that exercise, you're kind of flagging things like, Oh yeah. Like when we get to it, Oh, I see Brad running up here real quick. Um, I just, I'm just looking for opportunity that there's growth in this beyond just the special licensing, special permit that we like can take that to the next stage of of greater reform as we go through this mental exercise and work through these kinks.

Brad Mueller planning and development services director. Nuria has a great answer for that. No kidding no I'm kidding. Which will be better than mine. But we absolutely learn from all all these things that we bring forward. We've learned this is administrative so you would never see it but we're creating have created it's already live a document called Rules of the Road. It's something that. Historically it's existed as a tool to purchase sponsors the institute itself others at Park City. It was requested early on. We knew it. We thought it was a great idea. We've produced it. Those types of exercises help us examine our processes. We extrapolate that into things that are ongoing and so we definitely are doing that. There are aspects of this that don't translate because it's special to this. But yeah I want to assure you and the other council members that we are in a constant learning stage. We call it monitoring and adjusting.

Very good. OK. Seeing no other hands raised for questions then we will go. Did you have something Carl. I'm sorry. Did you have something you want to say. Oh no I thought you were going to ask a question. Your mic is on but that's fine. So we'll go to the public hearing. We have two people signed up to speak. They will each get three minutes. And just speak to the ordinance in front of us, please. They are Lynn Siegel and then Lara Gonzalez.

Well, I don't approve of Sundance at all. And I think we're going to have major repercussions after this. And you're going to have to have signs directing people out of the city for the congestion and everything else. It's a complete disaster. And I don't approve of it. Nevertheless you know I have to say I'd like to see as few signs and stuff as in my town as possible especially promoting something that I don't believe in and I don't believe it's going to help this economy and I don't believe it's going to help Boulder overall at all and it's going to make things a lot worse a lot more homelessness a lot more everything by the signs Erin. You're promoting the industry of Sundance. I was born in Hollywood. I stayed there for two weeks, and I got the hell out. My dad was born in New York. He came almost after getting killed in World War II for the outdoors here. Not to be inside watching movies. Not to be promoting Hollywoods in Boulder. To me, that's like revolting. This is not what I bargained for coming here. This is a small town. That's why I want it to remain a small town. And putting up a bunch of signs, I know many of them and what Tina brings up are good points. But I don't support Sundance, so I don't support the signs. I mean, I do to the extent that it's a necessary evil, apparently, that our city has thought that they had to have here. But I think there are a lot better ways to improve our economy, not the least of which is get the hell out of wars and stop funding Israel.

All right, thanks. Our other testifier is Laura Gonzalez online.

Mayor, I do not see Laura online at this time.

In that case, we'll end the public hearing and come to council for a discussion on the ordinance in front of us. Does anybody have thoughts that they would like to share? Or even a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to adopt Ordinance 8751, amending Title IV, Licenses and Permits, Title VIII, Parks, Open Space, Streets, and Public Ways, and Title IX, Land Use Code, BRC 1981, to create a new permitting process for special festival events, create new use standards for special... Did I say that? Oh, it's twice. For special festival events, amend public... Help me, Tina. No, I'm kidding. I'm good.

I'm joking.

Amend mobile food vehicle standards related to special festival events and amend the city's sign code to regulate signs that may be erected for the duration of a special festival event and associated review and approval processes and setting forth related details. Second.

All right. Motion to second. Would you like to speak to your motion? No. Did you want to speak to the second?

I just appreciate staff, as always, for putting all this together. And I think one of the things that I hope we can do next year is to kind of do a debrief afterwards, right? Think about how did things work? How did they not? So I sort of see all of this as, you know, starting places, right? And so I look forward to hearing what went well, what didn't, and what we can think about changing moving forward. So thank you so much for the work.

Great. Does anybody else want to speak to this before we go to a vote? then let's have a roll call, please, Alicia.

Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of Ordinance 8751 with Councilmember Benjamin.

Yes.

Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Yes.

Marquis. Yes. Shuhard. Yes. Speer.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Weiner.

Yes.

And Councilmember Adams.

Yes.

Ordinance 8751 is hereby adopted unanimously.

All right. Staff, thanks so much for the excellent work. May I even say nimble and agile work on the sign code. We look forward to seeing this going forward and getting implemented. And with that, can we go to our last public hearing, please?

Yes, sir, thank you. Our last public hearing is Item 6C on tonight's agenda, and it is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8752, amending Title IV, Licenses and Permits, Boulder Revised Code 1981, allowing for festival liquor licenses and permits and establishing related application fees and establishing related details.

Daria?

Well, after that exciting and nimble journey, we have another one for you to consider. So I will send it straight to Alyssa to kick us off.

And Alyssa, I believe this is your first time presenting to council in your current role. Is that correct?

Is that accurate? That is accurate. Oh, all right. Nice council. Welcome.

We generally keep the hazing to the newbies to a minimum. So good to have you here.

Give me just a moment. Sorry, I'm so sorry.

If not, maybe we can get the presentation up.

I've got it up. I just don't know how to make it full screen.

You should be able to just open it, and it should appear.

It's open. It's open. It is open. All right.

Did you put it in?

Here comes Emily. It's just not full screen, Emily. It's fine. Oh, it's not showing. Oh, it's not? OK.

There we go.

All right we're ready. Good evening mayor and council. My name is Alisa Darrow. I am your regulatory licensing manager here and we're here to talk about festival liquor licenses and permits. This is the name that the state has given it so it is not specific to festivals like you were discussing in your previous item. Some background on this is. Colorado authorized these permits in 2018 for temporary alcohol sales at approved off premises events. So these are for already licensed liquor businesses. So you think hotel restaurant vendors manufacturers This is a way for them to hold an event off of their premises. And so we've been doing these since 2018 and it allows for participation by multiple liquor licensees with one being the permit holder. A recent example of this is Lakeside at Boulder out of the reservoir. They were the permit holder for Iron Man. So they supplied all the alcohol for that event. Licensees can hold up to nine festival permits per year each lasting up to 72 hours and they can participate in up to 52 festival events per year. We are required by statute to review all of these applications that come to us and the application volume has been increasing year over year and we expect that to continue. So we're just proposing a local fee to help support oversight and recover administrative review. The code changes that we're proposing tonight are mainly just some code cleanup to align our language with state statutes and addition of license types that have already been being granted based on state statute. And we're requesting $150 local fee for these festival, liquor festival permits and just clarification of the term of licenses for events. Hopefully that was short and sweet. I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Lisa you're setting a high bar for short presentations in your debut here. Love it. It's great questions for staff. Matt.

All right. We keep adding fees to do business in our community. And so my question is have we analyzed the sales tax revenues that we would make from allowing a business to host such an event? And would that far exceed the $150 fee that we are charging them? In which case, we are making way more than the fee justifies charging as a barrier of entry.

I don't personally calculate sales tax. That would probably be more of a question for that team. What I can tell you is that this really levels the playing field a little bit because The special event permits that are for liquor are only granted to nonprofits, fraternal organizations, and political candidates. And they're paying $100 each time that they pay for an event. So we are asking to recover for our time. Every other fee that is paid for liquor licensing in Boulder is set by the state. So we do not make cost recovery on any of our liquor licensing fees. This is the one fee where we can actually do that.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF. OK. OK.

I'm not sure I still like that but we should be thinking about our fees in general and adding them maybe isn't the best thing to be doing right now.

So anyway that's my. DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Any other questions. All right. Not seeing any then we will go to our public hearing. We have two people signed up to speak. Both will get three minutes. Please speak to the ordinance in front of us and they are Lynn Siegel and Lara Gonzalez.

also that wasn't abundantly clear. But I'm a prohibitionist so of course that kind of is like the last statement. I'm against Sundance I'm against drinking at all so taxing drinking I think should be done a whole lot more. And I think it's really Sadly a downfall of people's mentality and their intellectual capital is just why we ever had it. I don't know. I like a Midori sour but you know you can't control it. If people are doing beers equating things then all I can say is tax the living hell out of it and I'll just have to withdraw my ability to have a Midori sour once every decade, which is how often I drink one anyway, because I don't buy anything. I live in Boulder, and I have to deal with a retrofit that's a complete disaster and basically wrecked my life and ruined my chances for geothermal heat pump. Yes, it's off topic. Can you speak to the ordinance in front of us, please? Yeah. The topic here is money. Everything's about money. And it's how much you want to tax these people drinking alcohol. And I say tax the living hell out of them.

Thank you. All right, let's go.

The economic advantage of that is very good, just like it is for defunding Israel.

All right. Your time is, well, your speaking time is over, so we will go to our next testifier, which is Laura Gonzalez.

Mayor, I do not see Laura online tonight.

All right. In that case, I'll close the public hearing and look to counsel for discussion, thoughts on this ordinance in front of us, or even a motion.

I just got a comment. I don't want to hold up the Sundance stuff. But I do think that the fact that we look to assess a fee without doing the analysis of the amount of revenue we look to achieve by creating this opportunity to justify the fee. And so I think we're siloing our conversations. And I think that's a challenge for us. And I'd like to know how we're not siloing the conversation. Because if the revenue gains are in the thousands of dollars, Well, then let's take the money and run. Why nickel and dime $150 fee when we don't have to? And that's kind of the case with so many of our fees. So we'll get to another conversation about auditing our fees. But I don't want to hold this up, but this is just another example of how we're sort of siloing our fee conversations and not aggregating them together.

So the fees are reasonably related to the administrative time that it takes to process the liquor license. not related to revenue. That wouldn't be an appropriate way to assess a fee.

I'll just add as well, and I appreciate the comments, Councilmember Benjamin. I think a lot of, as we have been looking at fees in general, I will say it's not certainly related to a particular festival. We have been on this ongoing work for a while as part of our long-term financial strategies. I would say and posit perhaps that... that it has been to the detriment of the city's finances to have taken so long in the past to really look at any potential cost recovery as we have added services to community. We perhaps have not kept up with what those services entail and what the cost is, and that's across a whole slate of a variety of activities. So there are opportunities that we have when those things come to light. There are others perhaps. that we continue to look at in terms. So I would say it is not intended to target our nickel and dime folks as much as when we have something where an opportunity has brought forward weight, there's something that we are not getting cost recovery of. And should we, as opposed to then taxing our general fund in different ways for different activities and services, we want to lean into that. But I appreciate the comment.

Just have to follow up the question. Isn't generating revenue to the general fund intrinsically cost recovery for the work that we're doing? I mean, so I'm wondering why these things are siloed. If we're bringing in thousands of dollars of revenue to the general fund, how is that not then the money used to pay for the very internal services we're providing for that work? So maybe that's a larger budget conversation. These were separating things and I'm not sure there's a distinction. There's a distinction without a difference here.

I mean we're getting a little separate from this topic here but OK. Any other comments or motion.

I was just going to move to adopt ordinance 87 52 amending title for licenses and permits BRC 1981 allowing for festival liquor licenses and permits and establishing related application fees and setting forth related details.

second did you want to speak to it no um just thank you thank you for the work so if i i'm going to take us down a path we don't need to go down and anyway thank you okay any other comments before we go to um i'll just say great work and i appreciate the focus on cost recovery so thanks for that roll call vote please alicia

Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of Ordinance 8752 with you, Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

Councilmember Gatlin.

Yes.

Marquis. Yes. Shuhard.

Yes.

Speer. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Weiner.

Yes.

Councilmember Adams. Yes. And Benjamin.

Yes.

Ordinance 8752 is hereby adopted unanimously. Yes.

All right. Lisa, that was a pretty extraordinary start to your presenting to council. So thanks so much. Yeah, very high bar. All right. That brings us to the end of our agenda, but I believe council member Speer has something, a quick thing she wants to tell us about.

Yes, yeah, I just wanted to add something into our little debrief session, which is an update on our council employee evaluation process. Just super, super fast. I'm not meaning to get into a lot of information tonight, but CEC had our first meeting of the week, or sorry, of the year. this last week and we have a timeline for our employee evaluations for this year. So we just wanted to share the dates and let you know what to look out for. As you know, our evaluation period ends June 30th and it's during our recess. So please be on the lookout for things as you're coming back from trips over recess. Staff is going to send an email with instructions and materials just like last year. on July 6th. The survey will launch July 7th. It will go out to us as well as everybody else who fills it out. It will close on July 28th, and that's a hard close this year. So I think last year there were some folks we were chasing down at the last minute, reopened, actually myself included. So we're just giving people a hard close on July 28th. We will get the information back on August 10th. We are going to strive to have the summaries done August 17th, sharing with you all individually what those summaries are by August 21st, sharing with our employees the week of August 24th, aiming to have something on our consent agenda on September 3rd. Any merit increases would be retroactive to July 1st as usual. And as far as reminders go for filling out the evaluations, you will get reminders automatically from Employers Council. Ryan or I will also send individual reminders early the week that we return, the week of July 19th. That will be your one reminder from us. And it will, again, close by July 28th. So please check your emails. If you're not seeing the Employers Council email, reach out to either Ryan or me or David Bell should be able to help and make sure that you're getting that. And if you have any questions in the meantime, in the next week or so before we go on recess or when we come back, please feel free to reach out to Ryan and me as well. Thank you.

Thanks, Nicole. I appreciate your and Ryan's work on that evaluation committee. All right. Any last final things before we close out?

All right. I will gavel us closed here at 8.27 p.m.

Thanks, everybody.