City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, everybody, it's 5.30, so we're gonna get started in a second. All right, that was quick. Everybody quieted down, thank you. Okay, well, welcome everyone to the Thursday, October 15th, 2026 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. We're gonna start with a call to order, so I hereby call this to order. And then a roll call, please, Emily.

Thanks so much. All right. So now I'm going to ask for a motion to amend the agenda. So Have some patience, it's long. In order to add item 4N, which is consideration of a motion to approve a geothermal lease with the Colorado Chautauqua Association to facilitate the construction and operation of a new geothermal heating and cooling system. And also to add item 4O, which is consideration of a motion, another motion to approve the geothermal lease with the Colorado Chautauqua Association. And then finally item 4P, which is consideration of a motion to approve a council member to the audit commi

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Very good. And we do have Councilmember Schuhardt on virtually. And, Ryan, I know you're fighting a cold, but thanks for being here with us online. And I note your yes vote as well. So that's an 8-0 in favor of amending the agenda. All right. Now we'll go to open comments. So, Emily, if you can go over the public participation guidelines, please.

Thanks so much, Emily. All right. So everyone will have two minutes to speak. I'll call three names at a time so people can start coming down towards the podium. And I will be strict about the time limit in the interest of fairness. Our first three speakers are Haley O'Donnell and Melika Cartley-Online, and then Leslie Glestrom in person.

SO YOUR TIME IS UP, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'LL GO TO MALLIKA HARTLEY ONLINE AND THEN LESLIE GLESTRUM AND CADEN VENERIAN IN PERSON.

Thank you for your testimony. All right. Now we're going to go to Leslie Glustrom and Caden Benearing in person and then Evan Rusak online.

All right, now we'll go to Caden Benerian in person and Evan Russack and Elliot Fladen online.

Thank you. Folks, please, please no applause. You can indicate your agreement with something by showing jazz hands if you'd like.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Montana Palmer and Ben Gibson in person, then Eve Partridge online.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Ben Gibson in person, then Eve Partridge and Bart Windrum online. Is Ben here? doesn't look like it, so let's go to Eve Partridge online.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Bart Windrum online and then George Pincus and Julia Pincus in person.

Thank you. Now let's go to George Pincus and Julia Pincus in person and then Eric Budd online.

Can you get a little closer to the mic, please?

All right let's go to Julia Pincus then Eric Butt online and then Foster Goodwill in person.

Thank you. Now let's go to, all right, quiet in the audience, please. I see a lot of hands. DIRECTOR DEWOLF. All right. We we're going to go to Eric Budd online and then Foster Goodwill and Martha McPherson in person.

All right. Foster Goodwill it's all yours.

Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Okay, now we'll go to Martha McPherson, Michelle Young, and David Salisbury, and then we're going to come back at the end to Ben Kipson, who I understand is present now.

Your time is up, but thank you for testimony. Now we'll go to Michelle Young and David Salisbury and Jan Burton in person.

All right, now we'll go to David Salisbury, then Jan Burton, then Brian Flugel.

All right. And we will, there are a couple of speakers who have arrived that weren't here previously, so we'll get to them at the end. And now we have Jan Burton, Brian Flugel, and Julia Lackner in person.

Thank you. Right now I'll have Brian Flugel, Julia Lechner and Ben Gibson in person.

Now do Julia Lackner and Ben Gibson in person and then Eric Budd virtually will be our last speaker.

Thank you. All right, we'll have Ben Gibson and then Eric Butt online.

Thank you. Our last speaker is Eric Budd, online.

All right. Uh, that brings us to the end of our commenters. Thanks to everybody who came out to speak to us tonight. I'll look to our city manager near Rivera van or mine for any responses.

Very good any questions for city staff regarding open comment Not did you have something? Okay, and so now there's a space for very brief comments from city council members, if desired, so. Yeah, you have a question? Okay, go ahead.

We did receive an information I don't know what it's called. Information brief. What's IP? What's the P stand for? Packet. Thank you. Information packet in response to the investment portfolio question community concern that was raised around the fossil fuel investment. And I still was curious, just to get some clarification on, it sounded like we can invest in a company But if they have a subsidiary that's invested in fossil fuels, we could still invest in that company. That basically was my takeaway from that IP. And it just doesn't seem like that would be aligned with the intention of the p

Would it be possible to get the screening criteria? Because the policy reads no fossil fuels, so I'm not clear. what additional steps, either we are invested or we are not.

All right, so very brief comments if desired. Terri?

I want to thank the constituent who brought up the tree of heaven. I have one in my yard, had. And it is a serious problem, so thank you so much for bringing it to our attention.

Very good. And not seeing, oh yeah, Taisha, go ahead.

Thank you again to those who are asking about the investment portfolio and making sure that we are aligning our investments with our policies. I also want to thank Leslie for coming and reminding us of the incredible profits and the fact that Xcel Energy has already expressed that they are going to fail on the carbon emissions in the 2027 and 2028. So just another reason why we need to accelerate away from there. And again, just really making sure that we are being as faithful as we can Also, don't want to forget that private prison piece as well as you're looking. At the very least, I feel li

Very good. I'll just offer a couple of remarks. The folks who came about the Boulder Medical Center, we will be discussing that in just a few minutes under our call-up section of our meeting, so stick around for that. I do see residents of the San Lazaro Mobile Home Park community. Thanks for being here. And just we will be in touch about the next steps about how to protect the park. So stay tuned. We'll be talking. And with that, that brings us to the end of our open comment segment. We are going to take a brief recess, and then we will go to the business portion of our meeting at 6.30 p.m. I

All in favor of the motion to amend, please raise your hand. That passes 8-0, so the agenda has now been amended correctly. All right, we're now going to go to our item 3A, which is a declaration, the White Cane Awareness Day Declaration, to be read by me. So if I could invite our guests to come join me on the dais, please. All right. Jordan, Marianna, I think that's a great spot for you. Okay, White Cane Awareness Day, October 15th, 2026. Many persons who are blind or have low vision move independently on our public streets, roads, and at places of public accommodation using their white canes

Well, okay, Jordan, here's the declaration. And thanks so much, Jordan Marion, for all of your advocacy through the National Federation of the Blind Boulder Valley and everything else you do to make the community a better place. Deeply appreciate it. All right, that was amazing. Emily, can we go to the consent agenda, please?

We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call please, Emily?

Fantastic. And I wanted to thank Council Member Marquez for stepping up to volunteer for the Audit Committee. Appreciate it. All right. Let's go to our call-up check-in, please. All right.

Any questions or comments or desire to call this item up? Tara?

Yeah, I definitely want to call this up. We have a very, one of the reasons you would call someone up on council, if you're on council, is because there's extensive community interest and I can't see, and I've never seen so much extensive community interest. I'd say we have that. So yes, I want to call it up.

Very good. Any other comments on this? And before, somebody might want to make a motion. Do you want to comment first? Either way. I had Rob and then

Yeah, I'll make a comment on it. I agree in calling this up. I have concerns about Broadway is an evacuation route, and the Boulder Valley comp plan, I specifically wanted language in Section 89 regarding this. It is a corridor, but it doesn't have that much capacity on it. And as we build out, I'm just afraid that that's gonna get overtaxed. I'm concerned about the mass and scaling, the approach and the pedestrian experience. I think the neighborhood center should be at neighborhood scale. And also, I just, the composition of the units to help out the goals of attracting families, the number

Yeah, I'm interested in calling this up. Mostly because normally we'll get to those details in site review, which is totally appropriate. But given that this is one of the first big projects that are coming through our new comprehensive plan that has made really substantive changes to our land use, I think it's good governance and appropriate for us to give a little extra scrutiny and a deeper look at some of these first projects that are coming through our new comp plan just to make sure that there aren't any conflicts or any challenges that then become repeatable with other big projects. So

I just wanted to express support for calling this up as well. In addition to this being one of the first and the concerns expressed by Councilmember Kaplan regarding evacuation, I'm also just recognizing that we have more flexibility and authority during the concept review phase than we do at site review where there are more conditions and specific criteria that would make it difficult to have the level and depth of conversation that we can have at this stage. Thank you.

Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to call this up.

Okay. Tina, did you want to speak to your second, or are you good? Okay. I'll just call on myself, and I agree with my colleagues that this deserves a call-up, but Certainly a large project in an established neighborhood and deserves some careful scrutiny. So I'll be voting in favor as well. All right. Not seeing any hands. Other hands raised for comments. I'll ask for a vote on the motion with a show of hands. All in favor, raise your hand. That's seven. And all not in favor, raise your hand. That's one. So that is called up with a vote of seven to one. All right. Thanks, folks, for coming. O

We have a motion. Second. All in favor, please raise your physical hand. That's unanimous, 8-0. So we will have our five public hearings tonight. So if we can go to our first one, please, Emily.

Thanks so much. Appreciate all of staff's work on this. Any questions for city staff? All right, seeing none, we did, of course, have this presentation two weeks ago and a full consideration of it at that time. So seeing no questions, then we will go to the public hearing. So we have 18 people sign up to speak, which means that each speaker will get two minutes unless they are pooling with other speakers, in which case they'll get four. For the people who are pooling, I'll just make sure that the people they're pooling with are also in attendance. So our... First two speakers are Margaret LeCo

Thank you. Now we're going to go to Lynn Stein, who's pulling with Mary Gorman and Deborah Fryer, the two of you here. There we go. Thanks. Lynn, you've got four minutes, and then we'll go to Lynn Siegel and Emily. Tell us online.

All right, now let's go to Lynn Siegel and Emily Tillis online, and then John Carroll in person.

All right, John Carroll, you're up. And after that will be Evan Ravitz and Renee St. Albin.

Thanks, John. Thanks for coming here and representing the Open Space Board. All right. We're going to go to Evan Ravitz and then Renee St. Alban and then Mike Basile online.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Renee St. Alban, Mike Basile online and Sid Whiting online pooling.

Doesn't look like it. So Mike Basile online.

Okay, so we have Sid Whiting, who's pooling with Catherine Sundvall and Mary Durham, who are present right here. Great, thanks. So, Sid, you have four minutes.

Thank you. All right our final three speakers are Bridget Gordon online and then Malika Hartley and Marian Rose Pillar in person.

All right so we'll go to Malika Hartley and then Marian Rose Pillar.

All right. Our last speaker is Marion Rose Pillar.

Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony.

All right. Well, thanks, folks, for coming out and speaking to us this evening. So I don't know if we have any follow-up questions. I do have one. I was wondering if maybe Joe Tadeucci from the utilities department could speak a little bit to the history of the CU South and the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation process. And of course that's a complicated history and you could talk about it for hours, I'm sure. But Joe, if you could maybe give a brief overview of the process and how alternatives were considered during that process.

If you can get right into the mic, please.

That was very helpful, Joe. Thank you. Nicole?

Thank you. While you're here, Joe, I am just... going to take a little bit of a selfish question. I hope that's OK, colleagues. But as you know, I live right over there. I've been hearing the noise, seeing everything being cut down and all that too. And I think for me, what I'm thinking about is what we're heading toward when the work is done. And I just wanted to ask, the flood mitigation that we've just finished, which was also a partnership with Mile High Flood District up at Alpine Balsam, I had a chance to walk around there the other day and it is amazing and beautiful and has such a just

Thanks for that. Any other follow-up questions for city staff? Seeing none, does anyone want to speak to the budget?

Matt? For the sake of public record, I'll sort of repeat a little bit of what I said last time. So it's there because this is the second meeting. I thank you guys for coming to testify. Appreciate that. Appreciate those concerns. But there's certain things we're going to move forward on because we have mandate from the voters twice to do so. So we will follow that mandate. But specifically with budget, I just want to be very clear. There's been concerns brought by communities and our boards and commissions that our process is simply just not right. And I would just have to fully agree. Our pro

Hey, yes, thank you for coming, and I appreciate all the feedback. And I just wanted to add one comment also about Spruce Pool is just the having excellent outside pools might also help people not build private pools, which has its own energy drain on the city and is not a great use of space. That's just another thing I've been thinking about as we think about our system of pools, but that's not exactly a budget thing. So I really appreciate the idea of moving to a two year budget. I think that would help with what we're feeling is, you know, this is a lot of great work. It's definitely though

Thanks. Thank you to staff for presenting this. And I'm just going to echo a lot of things that were said, but I just think it's important to be on the record that I'm very supportive of the two-year budget. John and Carol from OSMP, thank you for that. I think it's really important for us to also have some input from boards and commissions to help us make these decisions. And I think that combined with the two-year budget, getting things in front of us, watching how things play out will really help us make some good decisions.

We've got Nicole and then Tysha and then Ryan.

Thanks. I just want to make sure that as we are talking about the budget process, when we say things like it's broken or it is getting worse, I think it can sound like we're criticizing the hard work that staff has done to get us here. And what I've observed in my five years on council, that the process has become a lot more transparent. The process has become far more equitable than it was to begin with. actually outcomes aligned at this point and we are far more connected to our citywide and departmental policies and we're far more inclusive of people from across the community. That does not

Thank you So in the second year in a row, I will be voting no on this budget. I don't believe it reflects the realities that we have regarding the escalating climate crisis, nor do I think it reflects our priorities. An example of that is that our police budget is at $54 million, but our climate and OSMP combined is less than that. And that's just one example. We had a policing update and we're seeing fewer car thefts, we're seeing fewer violent crimes, we are seeing less calls for service, and yet we are in the presentation that was just provided, wildfire supplements and that other piece was

Thanks. We'll go to Ryan, then Tara, then I'll say something.

I'm happy to support the budget. I'm also with Matt and I think Rob in finding it excruciating that we have a wildfire discussion about strategic aspects that will have potentially financial implications, and we're not in the sequence to meet that with this budget. I think that the two-year budget idea is a really important one, and we're on the right track in having a budgeting process that has policy first, budget next. The thing we're missing the most, if anything, is the time, the time to make sure that we have alignment between policy and budget, and that's the opportunity for a two-year

Thanks. Right there. First. I want to thank you, John Carroll for coming. Did you see how cute my granddaughter was the other night? Okay. We'll talk about that later. She was cute. Um, but how to say word about that. Okay. But, um, I really appreciate you coming. And it seems to me, I'm going to just agree with what Ryan said and not repeat it, that I can't see any other way. You're right that there's not enough time, and I can't see any other way forward other than to your budget cycle. So I'm glad we're all in agreement on that. I also want to thank Lynn Stein, the defender of the polls, be

Thanks, Sarah. Yes, let's hear it for Spruce Pool. I'm glad that we found the funds this year to, oh, no clapping. You can do the jazz hands. Um, so we can, um, I'm glad we found the funding this year to keep it, um, or for 2027 to keep it open and also to fix the leaks. That'll be great. And I look forward to next year to finding ongoing funding for the future of spruce pool as well. I want to thank city staff for all the excellent work in putting this all together. Um, and I, I also want to just recognize the, um, the two boards that express concerns to us. So, uh, John, thanks for being her

I can do them. I make a motion to adopt ordinance 8777, adopting a budget for the city of Boulder, Colorado for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth related details.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Oh, I see like maybe a scout troop that's been here tonight. Hi, everybody. Thanks for joining us. Emily, if we could have a roll call, please.

Sure. I make a motion to adopt ordinance 8778 establishing the city of Boulder property tax mill levies for 2026 providing that said levy be certified to the Boulder County Assessor and setting forth related details.

Second. Motion and a second. Roll call please, Emily.

I make a motion to adopt ordinance 8779, appropriating money to defray expenses and liabilities of the City of Boulder, Colorado for the 2027 fiscal year of the City of Boulder and setting forth related details.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call please, Emily.

I make a motion to adopt Ordinance 8780, amending Title II, Government Organization, Title III, Revenue and Taxation, Title IV, Licenses and Permits, Title V, General Offenses, Title VI, Health, Safety, and Sanitation, Title VII, Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Parking, and Title VIII, Parks, Open Spaces, Streets, and Public Ways. BRC 1981, changing certain fees and taxes and setting forth related details.

Second. Motion to second. Roll call, please, Emily.

Very good, thanks again. City staff for all your work on the budget. All right, let's go to item 6B, please, for our next public hearing.

Thanks. So if I could please get a motion to adjourn as the City Council and convene as the Nolwod Board of Directors.

Motion to second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes 8-0. So we are now the Nolwod Board of Directors. I'll turn it over to City Staff...

Oh, the show of hands adjourns us. Okay, so now we need to take a roll call of the board members. Thank you.

So now I'll turn it over to city staff for a presentation.

Krista, you're speaking to Chair Brockett.

Appreciate it. Any questions? Not seeing any questions. So this would be the time to go to our public hearing, I believe. So we have one person signed up to speak, and that is It's public comment, actually, rather than a hearing. We have Lynn Siegel signed up to speak for three minutes.

Okay, so we'll end public comment. And does that bring our meeting, business meeting, to a close? Okay, great. So I need a couple of motions. Can we start with the first one?

I make a motion to adjourn this annual meeting of the Notewood Metropolitan District.

Second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Ryan? This is the motion to adjourn the annual meeting. Sorry, tech issues. Yes. Okay, so all in favor, raise your hand. Okay, that succeeds 8-0. Do you want to make the next motion?

I make a motion to convene the 2027 budget meeting of the Nolwood Metropolitan District.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, so that passes 8-0 unanimously. So we are now in the budget meeting. Do you need to read this into the record separately as 560? Okay, so please go ahead then.

Thanks so much. Hand it over to staff for a presentation.

We can go to our public hearing and so one person signed up to speak which is Lynn Siegel. Is she present? Okay, so we'll close that and come back to the board for consideration do we I assume we need separate motions for the separate resolutions Very good somebody want to get us started

I move to adopt Resolution 5 concerning the Knollwood Metropolitan District adopting a budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2027 and sending forth related details. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Can we have a show of hands vote on this, Emily? All right. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. That passes unanimously, 8-0. Do you want to keep going?

Sure, I move to adopt Resolution 6, establishing the 2026 Knollwood Metropolitan District property tax bill levy for payment of expenditures in part of the district during the fiscal year 2027, beginning January 1st, 2027, and setting forth related details. Second.

Motion to second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes unanimously, 8-0. You're on a roll, Tina.

Okay, I move to adopt Resolution 7, appropriating money to defray the expenses and liabilities of the Nolwood Metropolitan District for the 2027 fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2027 and setting forth related details. Second.

Motion to second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes unanimously, 8-0. I would now entertain a motion to adjourn as the Nolwood Metropolitan District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council.

Motion and second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes 8-0 unanimously. Thanks so much. And thanks to folks in the audience who've been waiting for the next item. Appreciate your patience. So we are now officially reconvened as the Boulder City Council. So we can go to item 6D, public hearing 6D, please.

Thanks Chandler. Any questions for Chandler? I am not seeing any. So we will go to the public hearing. We have four people signed up to speak. Each of them will get three minutes. We have Wolfgang Hauck in person, Lynn Siegel online, then Dan O'Donovan in person. So Wolfgang. Oh, we have an applicant presentation. I got ahead of myself.

At most 10, but you certainly are not required to. I won't take that.

Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thanks. Appreciate that. Now we'll go to the public hearing. Do we have Wolfgang Haack here? Doesn't look like it. Is Lynn Siegel online?

Our other in-person speakers are Deanne O'Donovan and Jeffrey Hyman. Looks like we're striking out this evening. Normally, I would thank everyone for coming out to speak, but I'll bring the public hearing to a close and come back to City Council for discussion or possibly a motion. Chandler, if we could have motion language up, please.

All right. I make a motion to adopt ordinance eight seven seven four rezoning approximately three point seven two acres of land located at two one zero six and two one three zero Arapahoe Avenue and adjacent 0.03 acre portion of Marine Street and a portion of adjacent Arapahoe Avenue right-of-way from the public to the residential RH5 zoning district, a portion of adjacent Arapahoe Avenue right-of-way from the residential high two RH2 to the residential high five RH5 zoning district and a portion of adjacent Arapahoe Avenue right-of-way from the residential mixed one RMX1 to the residential hi

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Did you want to speak to your motion?

I'll just speak to it real quick. I just appreciate the thoughtfulness in a very complex environment that that is given the surrounding partners and what's been developed and what may be developed and I appreciate you working to fit within what's around you, but recognizing there needs to be some transition and there's tensions between RH five and some of the lower density residential and other areas. So just, I just appreciate the thoughtfulness and thinking through that. Um, that makes our job easy when an applicant is doing that level of due diligence and thoughtfulness. So thank you so muc

Thanks. Did you want to say anything? Um, no, I just, I appreciate the thoughtfulness as well on the saving of the Naropa building and the,

Sycamores and it is very thoughtful and it's the right place for that that kind of housing And I'll just call on myself and as I said at the call-up opportunity just very much appreciate Naropa as an essential part of the cultural and educational life of this community and looking forward to seeing a bright future for the institution in its continued home on East Arapaho, so Thanks for bringing this forward and looking forward to voting in favor Roll call please Emily

Very good. Well, thanks, Chandler and staff, and congratulations to the applicant. And like I say, we look forward to that thriving future. We have one more public hearing to do, item 6E.

Thank you. Staff going to speak to this briefly?

Got it. Well, I will go ahead and move that we continue this public hearing to the regular meeting on November 19th, 2026. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Does anybody want to speak to this? Take your time. Not seeing any hands raised, I'll go ahead and ask for a vote with a show of hands. All in favor of the motion? Raise your hands. That is unanimous, 8-0. Okay. We have continued that item to November 19th. Thanks so much. We got one item left under matters from city manager.

Thanks so much, Michelle. This is an exciting opportunity here. So really glad that you're all bringing this forward for consideration. And just to clarify, your intention is to move forward with the next steps of evaluation This is really just a chance for us to ask questions, is that correct?

Okay, that's great. Glad to hear it. Questions for city staff about this? Tina, then Matt.

Yeah, thank you for doing all this work, and this sounds like a great option. So it is really great, as Mayor Brockett said. Quick question. When we think about selling the existing public safety building, would we want to pre-rezone it in order to help with market pricing? Is that something that we as a city generally do?

Thank you for the presentation. And it's always nice to hear saving $90 million, especially in this environment. You mentioned that $3 to $6 million annually to carry that without the 2K passing, the $400 million. But if the current building was potentially rezoned and sold, would that offset that three to six million annually?

Thank you. I just had a couple of questions about this. One is that I know you said this, and I just want to make sure I understand correctly. If we went with the other option, right, for the existing building, we wouldn't have to, or a future city council wouldn't have to bond the full amount, right? It could, with the bond, if the bond measure passes, then the bond could eventually only be for $250 or $300 million or something like that, and it would be up to the future city council to sort of make that decision, right?

Okay, great. Thank you. And then it may be too early to be asking these questions, but what's the process for thinking about some of the tradeoffs that we would have to, or a future council would have to be considering with this? So what does the decision-making process look like given that, you know, if the bond measure doesn't pass in particular? Because I've checked multiple times and we don't have bags of money under the dais, unfortunately.

And then kind of a follow-up to that, are we talking general fund money? Are we talking other capital budget? Where would that money come from?

No, thank you. I appreciate that. And we have checked the dice thoroughly. So I think you can hold off on looking there. And then when, last question. When it does sort of come back within the decision-making process, would we be comparing the lifespan costs for the different options in thinking about, I know the existing building, if we were to use that one, right, the energy costs potentially would be longer over time. Certainly there's the cost of construction, but also construction to our needs versus retrofitting a building. I mean, just thinking, is that the kind of information that we'l

That was my question too so thanks for asking Nicole. Oh one quick one yeah.

I was just wondering the the process by which this came to us I've heard just a couple of rumblings from some corners of community like look, we told you the city didn't really need more money because this was apparently hiding under the dais too. So I wonder if you could just speak to why now, why this kind of came up.

Two quick things. One, just want to get a reminder of the current repair costs in the current building, just kind of an annual average is my first question.

Okay. No, you were fine with just part A. That response was, and again, I just wanted to get in my mind that three to 6 million for the renovations of the current would be comparable to the investments that have already been made in the existing building, not to mention the over staffing. And then lastly, just very quickly, I know we've gone through this before, but I continue to get questions from community about the $400 million bond. And it's my understanding that the only thing that is required in that in the current ballot language is the see the South Rec Center lap pool and all the othe

Okay, but from a legal perspective, though, I'm asking if such as requires us to use the list. You did say that, but I mean, I'm just going back into when we talked about this initially, that the terminology of such as gave the impression that there was flexibility in the actual packet.

And if I can kind of do a colloquy or add on to that, just that the projects, the named projects, there is some discretion there, right? Like there's, we could bond for less and not do all the projects from a legal standpoint.

Chris? Actually, if I can follow up on that, because I'm not talking about doing different things. I'm just saying if we did additional community outreach and heard from folks like, you know, if the bond were a lower dollar amount and you didn't do Of course, we would do the rec centers, but we would have some discretion.

Yeah, that's helpful. Thanks for clarifying.

Thank you. Especially given the precarious situation we have, that power issue. resilience and reliability conversation and there was a conversation around some of those bigger ticket items and some of those would fall under a capital improvement plan and some of those are more urgent and important than some of these such as. So again, it's good to know that though that is the practice and perhaps some of the intention legally future councils depending on whether it passes or not could rework or make other decisions about the package. Legal's coming in.

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. Can you break down limiting, please? Thank you.

Okay, I'm just saying they're voting on a measure.

I know, I understand that, but you just used a term in public that, so, okay, I won't go any further, but I just have concerns around, one, how we were advised before, because I didn't get that, what you're talking about right now. But I appreciate the response. Thank you.

Thank you. I think I have a couple, just on some of the details. So when we summed up the building, the various building needs a few months ago that led us to the $400 million bond amount, my understanding, and Nicole asked this and I think you mostly got at it, but the reason that we summed up to the $400 million bond is that we didn't know about this. We did not have this opportunity in front of us because it wasn't available yet. So this became available, this lower cost of the building became available after we had done that work because it came on the market after we had done that evaluat

Okay, great. That's what I understood. And then I think some others sort of asked this, and forgive me if this was getting too much into the legal aspects, but if we were to go ahead with direction with this building, should the public understand then that, you know, you... You could implicitly subtract the amount of – from the higher cost of the previous building to the cost of this building. You can just essentially subtract that from the 400 million and understand that that's implicitly the highest cost of the bond or is that not right?

Great. OK. And then my final question is, what are your odds on doing this again? with the other buildings? I mean, I realize we got lucky to some extent, but I'm wondering how lucky was that? And is there a story here that if we're patient over years, maybe we and facility owners understand that we're in the market, that we could expect to be able to do this kind of a thing with other buildings? Or no, does this really seem like more of a singular sort of thing?

All right. Ryan, does that cover it? Okay, great. I think that's all the hands. I had some questions, but they've all been asked by other counselors. So I really appreciate you bringing this exciting alternative to us and look forward to the next stages and the due diligence in figuring out how this could work for the future of our public safety building.

All right. Emily, I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda.

Okay, great. Well, thanks, everybody, for a good meeting. And I'll bring us to a close here at 9.02 p.m. Good night and take care.