►
From YouTube: City of Boulder City Council Meeting 08-01-17
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
A
Excellent
and
we're
starting
a
couple
hours
later
tonight,
because
we
did
something
different,
which
was
actually
really
fun
and
it
was
called
national
night
out,
which
is
my
understanding
of
National
Night
Out
is
it
was
an
invitation
for
neighborhoods
throughout
our
city
to
convene
and
host
basically
have
potlucks
and
parties,
and
members
of
council,
and
also
our
police
department
and
Fire
Department,
went
around
to
the
different
gatherings
to
meet
folks
and
have
conversation
and
let
kids
play
all
over
the
fire
trucks.
I'd
like
to
say
we
were
the
highlight,
but
we
were
not.
A
C
C
The
Pearl
Street
Mall
is
recognized
as
one
of
the
premier
outdoor
pedestrian
gathering
and
retail
spaces
in
the
United
States
American
Planning
Association
named
the
Pearl
Street
Mall,
one
of
the
six
great
public
spaces
on
the
organization's
annual
great
places
in
America
list
for
2015
on
August
9th.
The
community
will
come
together
once
again
to
celebrate
the
Pearl
Street
malls
40th
anniversary,
thereby
continuing
dedication
of
the
Pearl
Street
Mall.
As
the
heart
of
our
city
gathering
place
for
all
to
express
commitment
and
affection
to
our
hometown.
C
The
community
is
invited
to
attend
the
events
scheduled
throughout
the
week,
including
band
on
the
bricks
40
years
on
Pearl
Street,
social
media
odor,
sharing,
Pearl
Street
mile
Community
footrace
and
downtown
Boulder
sidewalk
races.
The
City
Council
of
the
city
of
Boulder
Colorado
declares
August
9th
2017
as
the
40th
anniversary
of
the
Pearl
Street
Mall,
and
call
upon
the
people
of
the
city
of
Boulder
to
join
their
fellow
residents.
In
celebrating
our
community
landmark.
D
Hi
everybody,
my
name,
is
Bing
Chu
I've
been
lucky
enough
to
I've
joined
the
board
of
the
downtown
Boulder
partnership
a
few
years
ago
and
now
find
myself
standing
on
of
all
you
folks
to
represent
several
decades
a
very
hard
work
from
quite
a
few
different
community
members.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
the
proclamation
and
the
recognition
it's
an
honor
to
be
here.
E
F
A
G
G
The
first
resolution
also
is
kind
of
presented
on
behalf
the
city
manager
and
the
finance
department,
as
they
are
the
ones
that
prepare
the
comprehensive
annual
financial
report
me
being
an
outsider.
I
also
need
to
give
shoutouts
to
Cheryl,
Vitelli,
chief
financial
officer
and
penny
controller
and
Ron
Gilbert
assistant
controller,
without
them
always
being
available
to
answer
my
questions.
To
inform.
To
give
me
a
heads
up,
I
would
be
not
in
the
position.
I
am
now
with
regard
to
knowledge.
G
City
border
prepares
these
comprehensive
annual
financial
reports.
The
finance
department
prepares
them.
The
external
auditors.
Only
responsibility
is
to
express
an
opinion
on
these
financial
reports
as
to
whether
they
present
fairly
or
the
current
year's
financial
reports
in
the
opinion
of
the
external
auditors
do
present
fairly.
They
gave
what
is
cloak
lien
owned
a
clean
opinion,
that's
the
highest
that
any
entity
can
be
given
that
your
financial
statements
present
fairly
in
all
material
respects.
G
In
addition,
the
external
auditors
communicate
with
the
audit
committee
regarding
any
findings
that
they
have
throughout
the
year.
They
don't
express
an
opinion
on
the
internal
controls,
the
policies
procedures
that
produce
the
financial
reports,
but
if
they
see
something
they
communicate
it
to
the
Audit
Committee
in
three
buckets
in
one
bucket
is
if
they
identify
a
material
weakness.
G
Those
are
deficiencies
so
severe
that
the
annual
report,
the
financials,
are
probably
not
presenting
fairly
the
city
of
Boulder,
has
zero
material
weaknesses,
the
other
and
they
present
best
practice
recommendations
or
suggestions
as
they
go
throughout
their
work,
and
this
year
they
best
practice.
Suggestions
or
recommendations
were
centered
around
technology
and
I
know.
The
IT
department
I
know
been
greatly
appreciates,
considers
these
and
with
a
cost-benefit
analysis,
sees
if
they
fit
the
city
of
Boulder.
Lastly,
the
middle
bucket.
G
This
year
of
the
yacht,
there
were
two
adjustments
that
needed
to
be
made
from
the
unaudited
to
the
audited
financial
statements,
and
these
were
centered
around
issues
where
legal
counsel,
legal
counsels
guidance
was
needed.
External
auditors
always
communicate
both
in-house
City
Attorney's
office
and
with
any
external
outside
legal
counsel
that
might
be
helping
the
city
of
Boulder
through
those
communications.
G
They
found
that
an
interesting,
usually
the
auditors
finance
department
are
worried
about
lost
contingencies.
Is
there
something
out
there
that
might
require
an
obligation
on
the
city
of
Boulder
spot?
Looking
for
council's
guidance,
the
interesting
one
this
year
was
an
inflow
of
funds
from
a
project
where
the
city
of
Boulder
had
safely
conservatively
excess
growth
funds
and
through
the
guidance
of
in-house
City,
Attorney's,
Office
and
external
auditors,
it
was
determined
that
a
settlement
had
been
made.
Wherein
these
funds
didn't
need
to
be
s
throat,
they
were
actually
revenue
to
the
city
of
Boulder.
G
The
auditors
recommendations
were
more
enhanced
communication
between
the
finance
department
and
those
involved
in
these
situations.
In
addition,
the
finance
department
believes
performing
more
robust
analytics.
Might
you
know,
give
them
a
heads
up
a
little
quicker,
so
the
communication
process
can
start.
G
The
second
resolution
is
to
adopt
is
to
appoint
Clifton
Larsen
Allen
to
perform
the
audit
of
the
217
financials
from
what
the
audit
committee
sees.
There
appears
to
be
evolving
a
solid
professional
work
relationship
between
both
the
external
auditors
and
the
city
staff,
and
this
should
only
enhance
both
sides
ability
to
achieve
their
objectives
in
closing
I'm
one
who
honors
the
streak
so
I've
got
superstitions
around
this
city.
Boulder
is
going
forward
there,
eight
consecutive
Award
for
achievement
excellence
in
financial
reporting
35th
overall.
G
H
A
Okay,
congratulations
to
Cheryl
and
her
team.
Thank
you
to
the
professor
and
thanks
to
the
Audit
Committee
for
serving
it
is
a
committee
that
I
have
so
far
managed
to
stay
off
of
I
intend
to
continue
that
streak
and
with
that
we'll
turn
to
our
consent
agenda,
which
includes
adoption.
Adopting
these
resolutions
we
just
spoke
to
me:
did
you
want
an
ounce
did
I
just
it.
C
And
you
know,
physics
and
chemistry
are
some
of
the
most
powerful
forces
that
are
going
to
determine
how
our
kids
and
grandkids
and
nieces
and
nephews
live
out
their
lives.
So
I,
don't
read
all
of
this
because
there's
a
lot
of
detail
behind
it,
but
in
short,
it
basically
encourages
the
federal
government
to
adopt
a
price
on
carbon
and
to
refund
most
of
that
carbon
to
to
the
citizens
of
the
country.
So
the
idea
behind
it
is
this
is
not
a
net
outflow.
C
This
just
helps
people
who
consume
more
realize
the
consumption
through
their
pocketbook
and
people
who
realize
who
consume
less,
be
rewarded
for
for
that,
and
so,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
mean
this
is
something
that
we
should
make
sure
gets
forwarded
to
our
federal
representatives,
and
thanks
to
this
is
in
climate
Lobby
people
for
keeping
on
me,
because
I
was
not
the
fastest
at
getting
this
across
the
finish
line.
I.
A
A
H
Know
that's
the
community
and
culture
tax,
yeah
I,
understand
I'm,
not
gonna,
speak
about
it
tonight.
I
think
it's
better
to
talk
about
one
everyone's
here
I
will
be
sending
in
a
note
to
hotline,
because
I
do
think
there
is
a
little
bit
more
vetting
that
needs
to
happen,
particularly
of
the
community
projects.
We
discussed
this
at
the
last
meeting,
but
I've
gotten
some
feedback
since
then
that
you
know
they
did
did
not
have
time
to
really
bet
a
lot
of
the
projects.
H
A
I
I
Item
on
the
ordinance,
a
195
which
is
amending
various
sections
of
the
Charter
and
and
these
are
not
substantive,
their
wording-
okay,
so
David,
you
know
just
doing
quickly
and
you
can
do
with
them.
What
you
want.
This
is
on
the
first
one
is
on
page
343
having
to
do
with
vacancies
and
and
I
have
to
say,
I
read
the
clarifying
language
and
I
couldn't
figure
out
what
it
was
saying,
so
it
didn't
clarify
it.
For
me,
this
is
a
question
for
you
David,
and
maybe
you
look
at
it
later.
I
I
I
I
It
kind
of
lists
the
changes
which
is
all
perfectly
fine,
but
one
of
the
changes
that
list
says
have
signatures
no
older
than
180
days
prior
to
filing,
but
that's
not
a
change,
that's
already
in
there
and
so
I,
don't
unless
I
was
missing,
something
which
I
might
be
I
didn't
see
why
that
was
in
the
title,
because
it's
already
in
the
code.
Okay,
I'll,
look
at
that.
You
should
look
at
that
too,
and
we
can
fix
all
of
this
up
on
the
next
reading,
but
I
they
probably
should
be
fixed
up.
J
Agenda
just
one
item:
you
do
have
a
blue
sheet
under
Dyess,
and
that
is
the
ordinance.
The
first
reading
of
the
ordinance
for
the
capital
improvement
projects
and
our
finance
department
requested
a
minor
change
to
delete
the
word
bond
and
replace
it
with
debt,
just
as
in
an
effort
to
be
clear
that
we
will
probably
use
perhaps
other
approaches
to
borrowing
money
other
than
bonds
for
this
short
period
of
time.
So
it's
just
a
clarification.
J
A
B
F
F
A
And
I
am
interested
in
calling
it
up
for
the
reason
that
it
is
the
first
project
that
comes
before
us,
with
the
form
based
code
ordinance
in
place
or
the
form
based
code
guidelines
in
place.
It's
not
really
an
ordinance
and
and
given
that
that's
the
first
project
that
goes
through
I'd
like
to
it'll
set
the
stage
for
projects
to
come
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
council
has
an
opportunity
to
review
it.
J
I
Well,
it's
not
so
much
a
question,
but
since
you're
here
and
I
don't
know,
I
mean
I
barely
got
a
chance.
I
did
look
at
the
Planning
Board
minutes
and
the
staff
material
just
because
I
was
curious
and
it
might
be
helpful
if
somebody
could
very
briefly
unless
everybody's
read
the
stuff
indicate
why
Planning
Board
called
it
up
and
what
the
key
issues
were,
because
they
were
only
really
a
couple
of
critical
issues.
I
I
guess
I
would
say,
implanting
Boyd
didn't
seem
to
look
at
them
with
a
fair
amount
of
depth
and
concern
and
in
the
end
oted
to
approve
it
because
of
a
variety
of
variety
of
things.
So
I
skim
that
myself
and
it
might
be
helpful
to
understand
slightly
more
what
planning
but
was
concerned
about
and
why,
in
the
end,
they
were
okay
with
it
sure.
K
Carl
Guiler
with
planning,
so
the
project
met
the
vast
majority
of
the
form-based
code,
which
is
really
the
intent.
But
the
council
will
recall
that
there
were
some
concerns
about
if
the
four
maze
code
were
to
be
too
rigid
that
perhaps
there
should
be
an
exception
process,
so
we
did
work
in
the
ability
to
request
exceptions
to
the
requirements.
K
So
in
this
case
the
particular
project
was
actually
started
off
as
a
site
review
project
because
it
predated
adoption
of
the
form
based
code
and
required
the
applicant
to
then
amend
their
plan
after
the
forum
based
code
was
adopted
to
meet
all
the
phone
based
code
standards.
So
when
the
application
came
in,
it
had
quite
a
few
exceptions
and
we
had
to
kind
of
work
through
those
exceptions.
So
there
were
basically
six
exceptions
that
were
ultimately
requested
and
approved.
K
K
There
was
also
a
requirement
that
the
project
cannot
take
access
from
a
type
a
street,
so
in
this
place
the
north/south
Junction
place
is
type
A
and
because
they
didn't
have
an
alley,
they
had
to
request
an
access
point
off
at
Junction
place
and
also
because
they're
subdividing
the
property.
So
those
are
the
main
reasons
that
it
was
called
up.
One
board
member,
wasn't
really
convinced
and
obviously
voted
against
the
project,
largely
based
on
the
building
length
and
the
others
understood.
K
The
reasoning
for
the
the
requests
I
think
they
found
that
the
massing
of
the
building
was
appropriate
and
was
pedestrian
friendly
and
did
have
pedestrian
penetrations
into
the
site,
which
is
some
of
the
main
reasons
why
the
maximum
building
length
provision
was
required
to
the
phone-based
code.
So,
through
their
discussion
it
ended
up
being
a
5-1
vote
and.
I
K
The
impression
from
the
board
that
they
were
pleased
with
the
results
based
on
the
quality
of
materials
and
the
detailing
that
went
up
on
the
facades
and
that
they
felt
that
the
massing
and
use
of
the
building
was
appropriate
for
its
location.
I,
don't
know
that
they
all
felt
as
strongly,
but
two
board
members
obviously
had
you
know
some
concerns,
but
overall
I
felt
relatively
positive,
designed
advisory
board
also
felt
that
it
was
a
well.
You
know
that
there
were
well
designed
buildings.
K
A
L
All
right
good
evening,
mayor
and
councilmembers
I'm
Bethany
Collins,
a
property
agent
with
open
space
in
mountain
parks
and
tonight.
This
agenda
item
is
a
request
for
approval
of
the
purchase
of
the
Boulder
Valley
farm,
open
space,
property
and
I'd
like
to
take
a
few
minutes
tonight
to
present
some
of
the
details
and
unique
values
that
this
that
make
this
proposed
acquisition,
so
special.
L
This
project
also
offers
the
opportunity
to
acquire
the
remaining
mineral
and
oil
and
gas
royalty
holdings
of
the
Boulder
Valley
Farm
corporation,
both
on
this
property
and
the
adjacent
culver
property
previously
acquired
by
the
city.
This
guarantees
the
best
possible
control
of
any
future
oil
and
gas
development
on
a
property
that
has
active
wells
under
existing
leases.
L
This
property
is
the
remaining
portion
of
the
historic
950
acre
cattle
ranch
owned
by
the
Don
and
Rosalie
call
her
family
since
1961,
the
city
acquired
250
acres,
west
of
95th
Street
from
the
Culver
in
the
1990s,
as
well
as
conservation
easements
over
portions
of
the
farm
in
1992
and
2006.
The
farms
adjacency
to
other
city
and
county
property
interests
make
makes
it
attractive
from
a
habitat
connectivity
and
landscape
scale.
Perspective.
L
In
the
context
of
our
open
space
in
mountain
parks
charter
purposes,
the
farm
is
considered
a
high
priority
for
acquisition
by
program
staff
and
represents
an
important
addition
to
the
open
space
system
because
of
its
important
excuse
me
features
and
valuable
resources.
The
proposed
acquisition
includes
valuable
water
rights
used
to
irrigate
the
farms
expansive
agricultural
fields
and
also
hosts
open,
ditch
corridors
along
the
lega
and
lower
boulder,
ditch
and
nearly
one-and-a-half
miles
of
Boulder
Creek
and
its
associated
floodplain.
L
This
is
the
longest
remaining
segment
of
the
creek
and
private
ownership
in
Boulder,
County
and
ownership
would
allow
for
extension
of
the
Boulder
Creek
master
plan,
restoration,
work
that
is
occurring
both
up
and
downstream
of
this
parcel.
This
riparian
corridor
also
boasts
Cottonwood
gallery
forests
that
are
important
to
canopy
nesting,
riparian
songbirds
and
is
a
movement
corridor
for
deer
and
other
mammals.
The
properties,
gravel
pankot,
gravel
pond
complex
excuse
me
both
healthy
wetlands,
while
also
offering
extensive
wetland,
restoration
opportunities.
L
Adding
to
the
farms,
valuable
ecological
resources,
the
Boulder
Valley
comp
plan
shows
the
property
as
being
contiguous.
Two
parcels
with
known
populations,
approvals,
meadow
jumping
mouse
and
its
riparian
areas
near
open
water
and
adjacent
uplands
could
provide
appropriate
habitat
for
this
for
the
federally
threatened
species.
L
L
Despite
being
an
active
agricultural
operation,
the
far
most
important
Natural
Area
attributes
as
well.
It
has
historically
supported
one
of
the
largest
Heron
rays
in
Colorado,
with
numbers
reaching
over
200
nests
in
the
1990s
Heron
numbers
have
since
decline
in
part
because
of
the
recent
presence
of
the
bald
eagle
pair
that
began
nesting
on
the
farm
on
the
property
in
20
2014.
However,
herons
do
still
frequent
the
properties
ponds
and
riparian
corridor,
and
at
least
one
active
nest
was
seen
in
was
found
in
2017.
L
Nevertheless,
a
pair
of
nesting
bald
eagles
on
the
property
is
a
sign
of
high-quality
riparian
and
aquatic
habitat.
The
pair
has
fledged
young
successfully
since
2015.
The
farm
also
includes
an
active
osprey
nest
and
outcroppings
of
Foxhill
sandstone,
seen
in
the
rare
white
rocks
geologic
formations
on
other
osmq
properties.
L
Moving
on
to
its
agricultural
significance,
as
the
map
shows,
a
majority
of
the
property's
agricultural
fields
are
designated
as
farmland
of
national
state
or
local
importance.
Boulder
Valley
Farm
is
a
working
cattle
ranch
that
has
historically
supported
up
to
a
150
head
and
produced
500
tons
of
room
and
orchard
grass
hay.
The
farm
includes
a
headquarters
compound
where
a
majority
of
the
property's
improvements
are
located,
including
equipment,
barns,
horse
stalls
and
cattle
handling
infrastructure.
L
Aesthetically,
appealing
for
its
pastoral
character,
Boulder
Valley
farms,
historical
agricultural
operation
and
buildings
also
contributes
to
the
agricultural
history
and
quality
of
life.
In
this
area,
the
property
was
homesteaded
in
1885
by
jeremiah,
augusta
lega
and
the
culverts
later
purchased
the
property
from
axel
nielsen,
a
locally
renowned
businessman
and
philanthropist,
who
was
reported
to
have
hosted
dwight
teas
president
dwight
d,
eisenhower
in
the
property's
iconic
red
brick
home
during
the
1990s.
L
The
Culver's
had
a
historical
and
cultural
surveys
performed
by
Boulder
County,
which
found
the
property
eligible
for
a
local
landmark
and
his
National
Register
of
Historic
Places
designation.
However,
the
property,
never
the
excuse
me,
the
family
never
pursued
listing.
Those
surveys
indicate
several
structures
on
the
farm,
including
the
brick.
Farmhouse
and
barn
are
historically
an
architecturally
significant
for
their
association
with
the
development
of
agriculture
in
the
Boulder
Valley.
L
The
property's
size,
location
and
water
features
make
it
appealing
for
public
access
and
potential
passive
record
opportunities,
including
hiking
biking
and
bird-watching.
Also,
the
ponds
have
historically
been
privately
fished
for
black
bass,
bluegill
and
crappie,
and
a
segment
of
the
potential
UPR
TD
Valmont
ee
reed
regional
trail
bisects,
the
farm
which
could
provide
future
public
access
opportunities.
L
The
growing
town
of
Erie's,
comprehensive
planning
area
boundary
and
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
planning
area
connect
at
the
eastern
boundary
of
the
property.
Both
plans
indicate
Natural,
Area,
open
space
and
agricultural
type
land
uses
in
this
area,
potentially
potentially
reflecting
an
intended
spatial
definition
of
the
urban
core
of
Erie
buffer
to
the
more
intensive
residential
developments,
just
east
of
287
and
priorities
to
preserve
the
area's
agricultural
heritage.
L
Despite
its
concert,
current
conserved
status,
the
terms
of
several
conservation,
easement
agreements
encumbering
the
property,
vary
with
most
of
the
protections
being
focused
on
the
agricultural
values
and
silent
or
vague
on
the
other
resource
values,
and
none
of
them
require
a
management
plan
for
any
portion
of
the
property.
It's
quite
conceivable
that
a
future
private
owner
of
the
farm
would
struggle
with
management
of
this
unique
agricultural
block
or
convert
some
or
all
of
the
property
from
agricultural
productivity.
L
Fee
acquisition,
the
farm
and
water
rights
represents
the
opportunity
for
the
city
to
control
the
management
of
the
agricultural
operations
and
other
uses
and
ensure
the
availability
of
the
water
to
irrigate
the
property.
It
would
also
allow
the
city
to
manage
public
access
and
possibly
integrate
a
wider
application
of
other
OS
MP
purposes.
L
In
addition
to
traditional
agriculture,
including
expanded
restoration
of
the
riparian
corridor,
managing
for
wildlife
and
habitat,
and
preserving
and
interpreting
the
historical
significance
of
the
property
pond
acquisition,
the
property
will
remain
closed
to
the
public
until
research,
resource
assessment
and
management
recommendations
are
developed
during
OS
mp's
property
integration
process.
During
this
time,
I
was
MP.
Staff
will
more
closely
evaluate
the
resource,
management
and
infrastructure
needs
of
the
farm,
and
careful
considerations
will
be
made
to
balance
public
use
with
the
ongoing
agricultural
operations
and
protection
of
the
sensitive
environmental
resources.
A
L
This
sighs,
we,
we
needed
kind
of
an
immediate
a-1
plan,
and
that
is
in
the
short-term
to
keep
it
status
quo
to
keep
the
current
ranch
manager
lease
it
back
to
him
for
the
agricultural
operation.
There
are
tenants
in
in
the
residences
and
and
to
keep
those
them
in
where
possible.
And
again
a
lot
of
that
just
depends
on
our
pen
is
pending
due
diligence
and
being
able
to
negotiate
those
leases
with
the
city
rather
than
with
landowners.
But
those
are
looking
good,
so
yeah.
A
L
A
What
I
wanted
to
understand
and
I
assume
at
the
terms
of
new
copies
mints,
are
much
better
than
in
terms
of
old
easements,
but
I
just
wanna
make
sure
we're
learning
and
evolving
and
how
we
Jesse's,
but
it's
good
that
we're
not
paying
twice
corrupt
yeah.
This
is
clearly
a
gem,
it's
so
exciting,
but
this
is
finally
happening,
just
the
sheer
size
and
also
the
mile
and
a
half
above
the
creek.
That's
just
so
important.
So
congratulations
on
that.
Does
anybody
have
questions
or
comments?
A
I
think
that
and
I
agree
with
Suzanne
it's
pretty
exciting
hearing
I
did
have
just
some
kind
of
minor
questions,
mostly
out
of
curiosity,
the
memo
mentioned
that
the
farmland
was
of
national
importance.
So
what
constitutes
national
importance
is
one
of
my
questions
and
the
other
question
is
it
also
talked
about
a
headquarters
compound
and
what
constitutes
a
hitter's
compound.
So
if
you
could
I.
L
L
The
dark
brown
building
right
off
of
90s
and
then,
as
far
as
what
constitutes
national
state
or
local
importance,
that's
it's
USDA
and
NRCS,
basically
ranking
of
what
is
in
this
list.
So
it's
a
soil
ranking
and
the
types
of
soils
in
and
and
their
productivity,
for
you
know
things
like
vegetables
like
hey,
you
know,
hey
and
and
how?
Well
you
know
it's
a
it's
a
new
tree
and
and
and
basically
again
soil
calculation
done
by
the
NRCS
and
mapped
nationwide
by
the
National
Resource
Conservation
Service.
Thank.
L
Will
absolutely
see
how
this
property,
as
as
a
whole,
as
well
as
you
know,
as
segmented
parts,
both
from
facility
standpoint,
as
well
as
the
cattle
operation,
as
well
as
the
soils
and
and
things
like
that,
how
those
fit
into
the
different
purposes
and
the
different
characteristics
of
the
new
AG
plan.
Yes,
great,
absolutely.
A
C
L
Has
not
just
the
other
side
of
287
is
also
still
at
least
in
their
comprehensive
planning
area,
considered
agricultural
for
very,
as
we
point
out
a
very
short
distance,
as
as
those
residential
subdivisions
are
in
are
coming
up
on
287.
There
I
I
have
not
entered
into
discussions
other
than
getting
information
from
them
on
the
comprehensive
planning
area
and
just
the
county
and
city
participation
and
discussions
related
to
the
U
P
and
our
T
V
trial.
C
A
L
L
You
know,
obviously
the
both
the
state
historic
preservation,
as
well
as
national
historic
places,
kind
of
criteria
and
everything,
so
they
that
will
be
part
of
that
initial
kind
of
property
integration
is
doing
those
assessments
and
seeing
what
the
benefits
you
know,
the
the
pros
and
cons
would
be
of
listing
all
or
a
portion
of
the
property.
Okay,
all.
M
A
O
O
I
had
the
opportunity
to
go
out
and
tour
the
property
yesterday,
Thank
You
Bethany
for
you
and
your
staff
taking
down
that
tour,
and
this
is
such
a
gorgeous
piece
of
land
and
it
checks.
So
many
the
boxes
in
the
agricultural
plan
that
we
just
adopted,
as
well
as
the
other
open
space
charter
purposes.
It's
an
amazing
opportunity,
so
I'm
really
excited
too
that
we're
taking
a
of
it
right
now
so
I
know
I.
Think
we
generally
all
agree
on
that.
O
I
did
have
one
particular
little
point
that
I
wanted
to
make,
while
we're
out
under
that
will
be
doing
management
planning
on
a
number
of
different
areas,
including
potential
passive
recreational
use.
Just
that
Union
Pacific
RTD
trail
seems
to
me
like
a
huge
opportunity,
because
the
white
rocks
property
also
is
along
that
right-of-way,
so
just
put
in
a
plug
for
maybe
prioritizing
the
evaluation
of
making
a
connection
between
those
two
properties
on
an
already
existing
right-of-way.
So
I'll
just
throw
that
out.
There
I.
C
Mean
second,
what
Aaron
said
as
far
as
being
wonderful
opportunity
and
I
think
you
know
it
is
a
little
ways
out,
but
with
the
right
connector
trails
could
be
something
that
you
could
make
into
a
long
day
to
get
there
and
back
and
I.
Think
that
you
know
part
of
the
mission
of
open
space
is
preservation
of
you
know
the
area
around
the
city,
and
this
is
affecting
that
and
and
so
I'm
glad.
We've
got
the
opportunity
and
thank
you
for
pursuing
it.
E
I
Well,
I.
Somebody
agree
with
that:
I,
Jan
and
I
were
at
the
end
of
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
and
it's
it's
pretty
spectacular,
particularly
the
the
Boulder
Creek,
the
riparian
corridor,
which
clearly
needs
to
be
preserved
and
the
water
rights,
which
is
no
small
thing,
I
mean
then
I,
you
don't
think
about
them,
visible,
but
era.
You
know
a
quarter
of
the
price
of
of
the
property
and
the
water
rates
are
pretty
significant.
I
will
say
it's
a
little
disappointing.
The
county
did
not
contribute
significantly
when
we
say
it's
a
long
way
away.
I
That's
a
bit
of
an
understatement:
it
is
due
south
of
Longmont,
it
is
almost
adjacent
to
Lafayette
and
it's
almost
adjacent
to
Erie,
and
so
it's
by
far
our
easternmost
property,
which
will
also
raise
some
mineral
and
oil
and
gas
concerns
as
well.
Over
time
there
are
some
operations
on
the
property,
which
is
fine.
We
have
oil
operations
on
other
open
space.
I
There's
nothing
particularly
unusual
about
that,
but
it
may
put
us
more
in
the
discussions
over
oil
and
gas
in
the
future,
because
there
are
some
mineral
rights
that,
where
we're
not
getting
so
that
that
part
is
disappointing.
I
think
Sam's
comment
is
well
taken,
though,
that
given
how
far
out
this
is,
even
though
it's
surrounded
by
some
open
space,
as
well
as
by
you
know,
on
the
perimeters,
there
are
houses
there,
but
I
think
it
is
gonna,
be
really
important
too
now
for
us
more
than
we
might
otherwise
have
kind
of
engaged
in.
I
What's
going
on
in
that
part
of
the
far
eastern
part
of
Boulder
County,
because
it
will
affect
our
open
space
holdings
and
potentially
some
trail
Carter's
as
well.
Now
that
we're
that
far
east
so
I
do
think
we
probably
need
to
keep
an
eye
on
some
things
that
we
maybe
otherwise
would
not
have,
because
we're
now
in
a
in
a
location,
that's
a
little
bit
different
than
then
we
have
been
in
the
past,
but
yeah.
It's
it's
a
spectacular
property
and
it
it
certainly
needs
to
be
preserved,
especially
the
critical
portions
of
it.
L
Are
we
do
not
there?
Prior
to
the
Culver's
ownership,
there
were
some
severance
as
we
have,
we
will
acquire
by
the
end
of
this
acquisition
of
majority,
a
huge
majority
of
the
the
oil
and
gas
rights,
the
mineral
rights,
and
we
also
get
the
royalties
from
the
the
wells
that
are
already
operating
on
the
property.
So
this
puts
us
by
by
owning
the
fee
title
of
the
property,
the
surface
of
the
property,
as
well
as
a
majority
interest
in
the
the
oil
and
the
mineral
rights
under
the
property.
L
It
puts
us
in
the
best
possible
place
to
control
what
happens
on
the
property.
That's
not
to
say
you
know
again:
Boulder
County
regulations,
state
regulations
will
always
you
know
those
will
be
what
what
regulates
oil
and
gas
development
on
the
property
right
now
there
are.
The
restrictions
are
that
they
can
drill
from
the
current
site,
so
the
current
pads,
if
they
were
to
open
it
up
for
drilling
in
the
future-
and
it
also
you
know
just
with
just
as
with
any
property
in
that
location.
We
also,
you
know,
there's
also
the
risk
of
pooling.
L
L
L
H
So
far
it
is
a
substantial
purchase
and
now,
but
we
do
have
that
open
space
budget
and
and
I
think
the
citizens
have
supported
this
kind
of
thing,
so
I'm,
very
supportive
evidence,
ending
piece
of
property
and
I
really
do
hope
that
we
can
quickly
do
that
plan
so
that
our
residents
can
get
out
there
and
enjoy
it
and
not
just
for
recreational.
Although
I
think
it's
an
amazing
piece
for
recreational
but
I
think
a
few
weeks
ago
that.
H
And
I
think
preserving
that
agricultural
use
is
important,
but
I
might
also
say
you
know,
raising
of
cattle
is
not
the
most
planet
friendly
and
so
I'd
really
like
to
see
us
transition
some
of
it,
but
we
at
least
look
strategically
at
how
we
can
make
an
example
of
a
property
like
that
that
can
transition
from
kind
of
pure
cattle
and
feed
grain
to
food
for
people
and
again
not
happening
immediately.
But
that's
something
that
could
be
done
in
the
planning
process.
Long
term,
but
I
fully
support
the
acquisition.
A
J
If
you
find
any
of
the
ordinances
acceptable
this
evening,
we
would
ask
that
you
would
just
continue
them
to
the
August
15th
meeting
as
well.
The
reason
for
this
is
it's
really
we're
trying
to
set
a
deadline
for
when
we
would
expect
all
of
our
city
employees
to
begin
to
honor
the
requirements
of
the
fair
campaign
practices,
Act.
J
C
J
No,
that
is
not
amended,
so
if
you,
if
you're,
if
you're
good
with
the
staff
recommendation
and
the
ordinance
that
has
presented
this
evening
and
as
you
passed
on
first
reading,
we
would
just
ask
you
to
do
the
second
reading
on
it.
Just
finish
the
second
reading
on
August
and
thank
you
okay.
So
why
we're
here?
As
you
all
know,
our
utility
occupation
tax,
at
least
a
portion
of
it,
is
expiring.
J
At
the
end
of
this
year,
we
also
have
a
third
limited
authority
related
to
matters
associated
with
formation
of
the
Municipal
Utility
for
executive
sessions.
That
authority
is
expiring
at
the
end
of
this
year
and
then
of
course,
charter,
section
178,
which
is
a
section
of
our
Charter
that
talks
about
the
conditions
preceding
to
forming
the
electric
utility.
We've
been
in
a
great
deal
of
litigation
about
that,
and
we
would
like
to
you
to
consider
putting
on
the
ballots
and
changes
to
that
to
perhaps
help
us
resolve
some
of
that
litigation.
J
J
The
utility
occupation
tax
just
a
little
bit
of
background.
It
was
originally
passed
in
2010.
It
was
passed
to
replace
the
franchise
fee
that
we
received
from
Xcel
Energy
as
a
result
of
being
in
Franek
franchise
in
in
franchise
with
Xcel.
At
some
point,
we
did
decided
to
extend
it
in
2015
and
that
revenue
source
is
in
place
until
2022.
J
J
We
will
have
completed
the
final
design
and
cost
estimates
for
what
it's
going
to
cost
to
separate
from
the
separate
from
Xcel
and
then,
of
course.
Finally,
we
hopefully
will
have
a
decision
in
the
boulder
District
Court
on
the
amount
of
what
it
will
cost
to
purchase
the
assets
that
will
form
the
backbone
of
the
municipal
utility.
J
This
is
going
to
form
what
we
call
the
go/no-go
decision
type
time
and
at
this
point
in
the
process,
I
think
that
the
council
will
look
at
all
of
the
data
and
they
will
decide
whether
or
not
assuming
one
of
the
charter
amendments
for
that
is
being
proposed
tonight,
whether
to
put
a
matter
on
the
ballot
to
determine
if
the
city
should
in
fact
form
the
utility.
So
that
go/no-go
decision
is
something
that
ultimately
would
be
placed
before
the
voters.
J
The
volar
energy
future
staff
did
a
very
pretty
good,
strong
regulatory
analysis
as
well
as
the
budgetary
needs,
but
we'll
need
to
get
us
to
that
no-go
decision
as
you'll
see
in
the
third
line
up
from
the
bottom,
the
amount
that
they
are
estimating
that
it
will
take
us
to
get
to
the
no-go
decision
in
terms
of
getting
through
all
of
the
regulatory
and
judicial
approvals
necessary
is
approximately
sixteen
point.
Five
million
just
extending
the
existing
utility
tax
forward,
you'll
see
in
the
second
line
from
the
bottom.
J
J
J
So
then
it
goes
to
you
know
once
you
kind
of
get
there,
how
do
you
go
about
collecting
it?
The
information
that's
before
you
above
is
our
estimates
of
what
the
annual
amount
that
we'll
have
to
collect
each
year,
based
on
a
variety
of
options.
We
have
a
three
year
four
year
five
year
and
six
year,
option
above
the
ordinance
is
drafted
and
with
a
staff
recommendation
based
on
the
six
the
six
year.
Tax
collection
and
I
believe.
J
The
finance
department
has
a
plan
in
terms
of
how
we
would
be
able
to
use
existing
reserves
to
cover
any
additional
revenue
expenses
that
we
would
need
to
cover
in
the
early
years.
I
believe
also,
the
energy
future
office
has
thought
about.
Perhaps
some
creative
ways
of
contracting
with
that
thought
in
mind
of
being
cognizant
of
trying
to
mitigate
any
impacts
that
the
general
fund
might
have
to
have
to
take
in
the
early
years.
J
So
this
slide
here
is
pretty
simple:
it's
it's
really
just
a
summary
of
the
rate
impact
that
we
anticipate
a
customer
will
see
if
the
utility
occupation
tax
is
increased,
as
you
see
that
her
estimate
is
70
cents
a
month
for
the
six
year
option
versus
three
dollars
and
22
cents
a
month.
If
we
were
to
go
forward
with
the
three
year
option.
J
J
The
second
item:
that's
before
you
tonight,
it
is
related
to
executive
sessions.
I
think
that
it's
pretty
everything
is
in
the
ordinance
is
pretty
straightforward:
I,
don't
think
I'll
go
through
all
of
the
list
of
things
in
terms
of
what
is
going
to
be
part
of
the
executive
session.
The
main
debate
that
we
that
staff
has
heard
from
the
council
is
really
about
the
scope
of
what
can
be
discussed
in
executive
sessions
and
I.
J
So
there's
two
ordinances
that
are
in
your
packet
for
consideration:
I
think
that
the
first
bullet
describes
the
the
main
distinction,
that's
in
ordinance,
number
81
84
and
that's
basically
to
prohibit
the
discussion
of
any
franchise
in
an
executive
session.
The
rest
of
the
items
that
are
proposed
for
amending
charter
section
9
are
the
same:
involve
ordinances.
J
So,
of
course,
staff
is
recommending
that
you
pass
ordinance
81
90,
which
does
not
have
the
limitation
on
executive
sessions.
I.
Think
the
primary
policy
rationale
is
that
it
I
think
it
aids
in
terms
of
keeping
the
council
informed
of
what's
going
on
and
the
breadth
of
options
that
are
available
to
them.
J
Now.
Finally,
Carter
section
178
I
just
talked
a
little
bit
about
charter
section
178,
because
I
think,
as
we
were
drafting
the
original
charter
provisions,
that
was
one
section
which
I
think
as
we
were
drafting
everybody
had
another
good
idea
to
kind
of
layer
on
protections
and
I
think
that
many
of
those
great
ideas
that
were
layered
on
for
protection
provided
little
gaps
that
have
been
really
great
fodder
for
litigation.
J
We
have
been
in
the
process
of
litigating
that
matter
for
about
four
years
now,
I
won't
go
into
the
gory
details,
but,
as
you
can
see,
we
have
been
in
litigation
regarding
whether
we
have
been
able
to
demonstrate
to
a
third-party
expert
that
we
can
meet
several
criteria
that
are
in
the
Charter
right
now,
as
we
have
worked
our
way
from
the
district
court
through
the
Court
of
Appeals.
Right
now.
At
the
present
point
in
time,
we
filed
a
petition
for
review
of
with
the
Colorado
Supreme
Court,
and
that
petition
is
presently
pending.
J
So
with
that
said,
of
course,
we
would
recommend
that
you
pass
ordinance,
81,
93
and,
and
that
ordinance
contains
two
things
and
it
that
I
think
are
very
important,
important
to
form
out.
It
would
ask
the
voters
to
specifically
create
the
utility
in
the
Charter
and
and
take
out
all
of
the
performance
metrics
and
then
in
terms
of
the
check
and
balance
that
is
added
in
replacement
of
what
we
have
been
litigating
about
for
a
lo.
J
These
many
years
is
that
we
would
simply
require
that
we
put
information
forward
to
the
voters
thereafter
and
that
they
would
vote
on
the
creation
or
the
they
would
vote
on,
whether
or
not
they
were
willing
to
issue
debt
to
actually
acquire
the
distribution
system.
So
it's
tied
into
the
go/no-go
decision,
and
it
really
would
require
voter
approval
before
we
actually
spent
the
big
money
for
both
the
cost
of
actual
physical
separation,
as
well
as
any
judgment
that
we
would
incur
in
condemnation.
J
A
C
J
J
C
J
A
Page
419,
which
would
be
the
item
or
b1
page
7,
looking
at
the
the
tables
of
the
six
year,
five
year
or
your
three
year,
so
it
at
the
very
top
it
talks
about.
We
start
out
with
a
reserve
of
twenty
four
point:
eight
million-
and
it
would
go
down
to
sixteen
point-
eight
five
million
resulting
in
a
reserve
of
twelve
percent.
So
the
twenty
four
point,
eight
million.
What
level
of
reserve
does
that
represent?
That.
P
We
looked
at
reserves
last
year
and
they
typically
went
anywhere
from
about
where
we
are
at
to
about
twenty
five
percent.
The
government
finance
officers
best
practice
is
that
you
start
at
sixteen
percent
as
a
minimum,
and
then
you
take
into
account
different
factors
like
the
risk
of
certain
events
and
in
those
types
of
things.
Standard
&
Poor's,
also
for
a
strong
rating
suggests,
is
sixteen
percent
as
well.
P
A
P
O
P
Can't
give
you
a
final
answer
on
that,
but
what
we
do
know
from
experience
as
long
as
a
this
is
a
short
period
of
time
and
B.
We
actually
have
a
payback
plan
in
place
to
build
reserves
up
so,
for
instance,
when
a
government
has
a
situation
whether
it
be
a
revenue
shortfall,
an
emergency,
it
is
common
occasionally
for
reserves
to
dip
below
the
recommended
level,
but
as
long
as
there's
a
plan
in
place
on
how
you're
going
to
replenish
the
reserve,
generally,
that's
looked
upon
pretty
positively.
H
H
P
Start
with
your
question
about
how
low
can
reserves
get?
Certainly,
it
depends
on
the
disaster.
I
would
say
if
we
had
something
that
was
pretty
significant,
we
would
look
to
FEMA
or
other
type
of
funding,
but
we
all
know
it
takes
a
while
to
get
that
back.
So
that's
something
that
we
would
have
to
look
at
at
the
time.
We
also
would
take
into
place
our
budgeting
for
for
the
next
several
years.
If
it
got
to
a
level
that
was
significantly
low.
H
P
P
C
P
Majority
in
the
general
fund
was
for
public
safety
services,
which
I
believe
again.
I
haven't
looked
at
these
numbers
in
quite
some
time,
but
it
was
maybe
a
half
a
million
dollars
from
the
general
fund,
so
it
was
pretty
small.
We
also
had
transportation
immediately
affected
debris.
Removal
was
another
big
one
that
came
out
of
various
funds.
We
did
some
residential
pickup
that
came
out
of
the
general
fund
and
then
other
utilities
did
a
lot
of
that
as
well.
So
how.
C
P
P
C
One
last
question:
my
recollection
of
our
target
for
the
general
fund
posed
the
blue-ribbon
committees
that
we
had
was
15
percent
was
our
target,
and
then
we
felt
pretty
good
about
going
a
little
above
that.
But
what
you're
saying
is:
either
that's
not
best
practices
or
other
cities
in
the
Front
Range
do
higher
reserves
and
their
general
funds
I
get
that
right.
Yeah.
P
P
H
P
There's
several
reasons:
first
of
all,
we
can't,
depending
on
what
the
fund
is
its
restricted.
We
can't
just
use
it
for
anything,
but
it's
not
just
for
emergencies.
It's
also
for
a
revenue
shortfall
which,
as
we're
seeing
right
now
with
the
sales
tax,
is
an
issue,
but
we
were
actually
making
some
adjustments
on
the
expense
side
to
hopefully
counteract
that
and
and
then
also
sometimes
opportunities
come
up
for
cities.
For
instance,
we
just
used
some
of
our
reserves
on
the
bretton
building,
the
construction.
P
A
P
You
think
about
that
so
certainly,
depending
on
the
level
of
evacuations,
anything
that
that
deals
with
Public
Safety
would
be
general
fund
related.
However,
with
fires,
if
it
hits
a
certain
threshold,
the
state
would
kick
in
eventually,
so
our
exposure
wouldn't
be
quite
as
high
and
then
with
the
cleanup.
It's
that
that
seemed
to
be
our
biggest
general
fund
expense
outside
of
public
safety
is
just
we
decided
to
clean
up
and
help
clean
up
and
pick
up
garbage
in
the
neighborhoods
that
were
affected
by
the
flood.
So.
A
A
P
That
would
be
more
on
actually
fighting
the
fires,
depending
on
the
the
damage
to
the
land,
and
we
ran
into
the
same
issue
with
FEMA
and
our
trails
and
and
how
they
view
that,
in
terms
of
reimbursement
and
in
a
lot
of
cases,
how
they
wanted
us
to
put
the
trails
back
weren't,
the
way
that
we
felt
was
the
best
way
to
do
it.
So
we
actually,
in
some
cases,
weren't
able
to
get
reimbursed
for
certain
projects.
Okay,
thank.
H
P
P
When
you
do
a
bond,
you
do
it
over
the
life
of
what
what
the
expense
or
expected
life
of
that
is.
So
it
probably
for
me,
given
the
short
timeframe,
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
huge
difference
between
the
four
year
and
the
five
year,
certainly
to
get
that
expense
from
the
fund
balance
perspective
quicker
was
probably
better
from
a
financial
perspective.
H
P
A
A
Q
Hi,
my
name
is
Kerri
Chris
Jana
I'm,
the
Boulder
landlord
and
a
Berthoud
voter.
We've
come
all
the
way
for
a
full
circle.
It
feels
very
much
like
deja
vu
in
many
ways
and
it's
very
hard
to
talk,
because
I
am
so
supportive
of
the
city's
goals,
but
I've
also
taken
another
path.
As
everybody
knows,
and
most
people
here,
I'm
gonna
focus
on
the
creation
of
the
utility
measures.
I'm,
not
really
gonna
comment
on
the
other
ones.
Q
I
have
very
strong
feelings
about
this
particular
one,
especially
due
to
you
know
my
history
of
understanding,
where
we've
been,
and
actually
very
strongly
agree
with
staff
that
the
option
that
was
presented
here
by
mr.
Guerra
that
would
include
a
vote
on
debt
is
the
proper
way
to
go.
I've
been
attending.
The
QC
trial
have
taken
over
110
pages
of
notes
and
nowhere
have
I
heard
of
a
debt
approval
measure
in
2017
mentioned
and
I
also
was
there
today
and
mr.
Q
icon,
who
gave
some
very
intelligent,
and
you
know
good
testimony
testified
under
oath
that
a
2017
measure
would,
in
his
words,
be
half-baked
and
I'm
very
concerned
that
the
alternate
be
which
wasn't
read
aloud,
but
that
I
read
in
the
packet
last
night
at
like
late
at
night,
because
I've
been
so
busy
going
into
this.
That
I
agree
that,
mr.
with
mr.
item
that
the
public
is
not
educated.
Q
Yet
on
these
issues,
which
was
roughly
his
words
and
that
that
I'll
alternate
be
strips
the
Charter
of
the
rate
parity
provision,
which
I
have
found
really
like
really
like
wow
we're
really
going
to
do
that.
I
think
that's
totally
wrong
and
the
words
that
were
added
instead
is
that
the
city
would
not
incur
any
debt
for
the
separation
cost,
etc.
Unless
quote
counsel
finds
that
the
utility
likely
can
operate
for
the
ten
years
after
startup,
with
average
annual
cost
lower
than
those
of
Excel
during
the
same
period.
Q
I
would
point
out
that
either
it's
poorly
written
or
it
is
it
just
doesn't
make
any
sense.
You
know,
Muni
is
going
to
be
one
twentieth,
the
size
there
is
no
knocking
to
be
any
apples-to-apples
about
operating
costs.
It's
like
saying
we
could
incur
debt
if
we
go
outside
and
find
out
that
the
sky
is
still
blue,
I
mean
I.
Just
think
that
it's
really
I
was
shocked.
Q
You
know
to
be
honest
with
you
in
any
case,
I
also
think
the
idea
of
creating
the
utility
could
be
a
problematic
still,
even
though
I
mean
I
understand
why
you're
doing
it,
but
I
think
that
Excel
will
still
have
some
arguments.
I
don't
know,
and
they
haven't
told
me
that
I'm
last
thing
is
I.
Think
that
you
know
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
think
that
the
joint
ownership
issue
is
a
joint
use.
Issue
is
going
to
be
a
huge
one
and
just
having
lived
in
Newlands
raised
children
there
and
had
people.
Q
R
Thank
you,
Chris
Hoffman,
1280,
Fairfield
Drive
in
Boulder.
First
I
want
to
thank
you
all
for
your
careful
deliberation
on
this.
I
really
appreciate
it.
I
want
to
say,
I
support.
Councilman
Weaver's
proposed
amendments
for
the
increase,
the
utility
occupation
tax
with
the
six-year
plan
and
also
on
ordinance,
194
and
81.
93
I
think
those
make
them
stronger,
I
think
on
the
executive
sessions
and
formation
of
utility
I'm
still
considering
that
what
would
be
best
but
I
think
councilman
Weaver's
amendments
make
them
stronger.
R
The
extension,
in
addition,
adds
only
about
two
and
a
half
cents
per
day
and
I'm
more
than
happy
to
pay
this,
particularly
with
the
inaction
of
the
federal
level
on
climate.
This
is
the
very
least
we
can
do
it's
up
to
communities
to
take
the
lead.
We
have
a
long
way
to
go
to
need
our
climate
commitment
and
forming
the
municipal
utility
is
in
the
most
efficient
way
to
get
there.
So
I
strongly
support
the
extension
increase
of
the
utility
occupation
tax.
S
Hello,
council
Immersion.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
My
name
is
Molly
Fitzpatrick
and
I'm.
The
organizing
director
with
New
Era
Colorado
first
off,
want
to
thank
you
so
much
for
your
dedication
these
last
few
weeks
and
tonight,
as
you
determine
the
appropriate
method
as
to
continue
our
path
towards
a
cleaner
and
locally
controlled
power
utility
at
every
opportunity.
S
Our
community
has
chosen
to
advance
and
affirm
the
decision
we
made
on
the
municipal
zation
effort,
because
we
know
the
importance
of
tackling
climate
change,
and
we
have
no
doubt
that
this
fall
will
be
another
illustration
of
this
sentiment.
There's
a
lot
of
low-hanging
fruit
out
there
when
it
comes
to
addressing
climate
change,
but
we
all
know
that
that's
not
enough
and
that's
why
our
community
committed
to
such
a
serious
path.
S
Despite
its
complications,
meaningful
action
addressing
climate
change
is
hard
and
challenging
and
there
are
no
shortcuts,
especially
for
our
community,
which
has
never
shied
away
from
complex
problems
and
consistent
and
consistently
has
been
willing
to
go
where
no
or
few
other
communities
have
gone
before
and
that's
why
we're
here
tonight.
So
that's
why
we
do
support
the
extension
of
the
utility
occupation
tax
to
continue
this
commitment
to
pursuing
our
climate
goals.
Boulder
has
the
most
educated
electorate
in
the
entire
country
and
we
know
that
our
voters
do
not
make
decisions
lightly.
S
This
is
definitely
a
complex
issue,
but
we
trust
that
the
voters
understand
the
commitment
to
our
climate
goals
and
the
hard
work,
because
if
a
just
transition
requires
the
impact
on
Boulder
boulders,
consumers
will
be
small
as
we
continue
to
pursue
the
only
option
we
have
to
reach
our
communities.
Chemicals.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
your
time.
Thank.
T
If
Xcel
wants
to
have
a
relationship
with
this
community,
they
need
to
have
a
relationship
with
this
community,
and
that
means
going
through
the
process
that
you
all
go
through
every
week,
which
is
massive
public
input
and
all
these
different
opinions
and
you
have
to
sort
of
bring
them
all
together
and
figure
it
out.
So
Excel
will
need
to
learn
how
to
function
in
that
environment.
I
know
it's
difficult
for
them,
but
that's
what
it
means
to
have
a
relationship
with
Boulder
so
and
on
YouTube.
T
The
occupation,
tax
I
think
there's
a
slide
that
will
come
up
and
not
too
long.
Diane
I
think
got
it
and
she
was
gonna.
Do
it,
but
I
will
describe
it
to
you.
If
we
look
at
the
utility
occupation
tax
under
the
six-year
plan,
we
can
talk
about
the
three-year
plan
and
a
few
minutes
too,
but
under
the
six-year
plan
about
2.75
million
used
for
muni
in
comparison,
a
very
conservative
estimate
of
boulders
profits
that
they
take
out
of
our
community
every
year
is
in
the
neighborhood
of
18
million
I've
used
after
tax
numbers.
T
I've
used
a
four
percent,
we're
four
percent:
a
bowl
of
excels
sales,
we're
probably
about
five
percent
of
their
revenue
and
I've
kept
there.
So
the
graph
is
very
stunning
because
you
see
the
little
utility
occupation
tax
numbers
down
at
the
bottom
and
you
see
the
big
red
bars
which
are
excels,
profits
and
I'm.
T
T
Anyways
because
we'll
be
sending
down
to
Utilities
Commission
with
the
last
twenty
trying
to
do
to
meet
our
climate
commitment,
cuz,
there's
no
real
clear
way
to
do
it
and
we'll
just
be
spending
a
lot
of
money
on
attorneys
down
at
the
Commission,
and
you
know,
we've
all
been
seen
how
slow
that
goes.
So
I
want
to
congratulate
staff
they've
done
a
great
job
down
at
Commission
and
I.
We
don't
know
how
the
decision
will
come
out,
but
they
deserve
a
tremendous
amount
of
credit.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
M
A
A
A
A
H
D
O
Well,
I
had
asked
for
the
analysis
of
the
impact
on
the
reserves,
because
that
was
a
very
material
part
of
my
thinking
on
this
question
and
and
if
the
analysis
had
showed
that
the
reserves
would
go
down
by
you
know
a
few
percent.
You
know
we
in
the
six
year
plan,
then
I
would
have
supported
that,
but
they
show
a
really
substantial
reduction
in
the
reserves.
O
My
calculations
from
the
numbers
this
snap
provided
showed
that,
from
our
current
reserves
to
the
to
the
bottom
point
in
each
of
the
years
number
of
years,
then
in
the
six-year
plan
it
would
take
the
reserves
down
thirty
seven
and
a
half
percent.
The
five-year
plan
would
drop
them,
33
percent,
the
four-year
plane
24%
and
the
three-year
plan
21%.
O
But
to
me
there's
the
the
sweet
spot
in
that
is
that
the
four-year
level,
where
you're
reducing
the
reserves
by
24%,
which
is
still
a
substantial
chunk
but
you're
getting
them
back
in
three
years
after
they
first
take
their
drop,
wears
it,
and
if
you
cut
it
back
to
a
three-year
tax,
you
only
get
a
small
benefit
to
the
reduction
in
the
dessert.
There's
only
a
small
amount
less
hit
the
reserves.
If
that
made
any
sense.
So.
U
O
On
the
the
numbers
and
the
analysis
on
the
reserves,
I
think
the
four
year
would
give
us
a
chance
to
spread
out
the
impact
on
the
monthly
rates
for
community
members,
but
have
an
impact
on
the
reserves
that
I
think
would
be
more
acceptable
and
less
risky.
So
that's
that's
the
number
of
years
that
I
would
prefer.
A
C
I
want
to
bring
up
a
structural
issue
just
about
timing
before
I
get
into
where
my
thinking
is
I,
don't
believe
we
need
to
finalize
these
decisions
tonight
if
we
are
in
what
I
will
characterize
is
split
here,
because
there's
a
few
people
missing
and
I.
Don't
believe
and
David
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I,
don't
believe
that
there
is
a
major
train
wreck.
If
we
don't
complete
anything
tonight,
and
we
have
to
see
it
a
couple
more
times-
is
that
right,
David,
that's.
C
C
Think
Erin's
analysis
is
right
for
what's
here,
I
would
want
to
pick
either
the
four
or
the
five
year,
not
the
six
based
on
this
and
so
I
appreciate
you
asking
the
question
and
staff
for
providing
the
answer,
but
in
there
you
go
I'm
straddling
the
fence
on
4
&
5
I
would
probably
go
more
towards
5.
If
there
was
a
way
that
we
could
adjust
a
spin
plan
that
kept
our
reserve
level,
a
little
higher
did.
J
But
of
course
you
know
you
have
to
have
somebody
who's
willing
to
do
that
and,
of
course,
also
that's
running
a
business
that
can
cash
flow
with
those
kind
of
expected
future
payments.
So
I
really
kind
of
think
that
you'd
be
my
advice
that
you
look
at
it
more
from
the
worst-case
scenario,
at
with
the
knowledge
that
we
could,
probably
as
we
get
into
the
actual
contracting
back,
that
offs
at
some
point
as
I'm
moving
to
the
future.
So.
A
J
I
know
we
could
give
you
some
more
information.
My
fear
is,
is
that
it
would
be
highly
speculative
in
terms
of
you
know,
we're
gonna
be
moving
into
using
other
consultants.
Other
consultants
have
payrolls
to
meet.
Are
they
going
to
be
willing
to
say
I'll
take
my
payment
years,
3
&
4
for
the
work
I
do
in
one.
So
some
of
those
kind
of
things
we
can
certainly
try
to
negotiate
them
and
I.
Think
that
as
we
move
forward,
we
will
try
to
reduce
the
impact
to
the
general
fund
but
I.
J
A
J
I
Thirteen
again
that
very
much
difference
and
then
15,
and
so
really
the
difference
is
just
how
long
the
reserve
is
short
and
a
percentage
doesn't
saying
it's
20
percent
difference
doesn't
tell
you
anything
honestly,
it's
more
well.
How
low
does
it
get?
Well?
All
of
these
are
about
the
same,
the
first
two
or
three
years.
Frankly,
not
much
difference
there,
and,
and
even
if
you
could
do
some
contractual
stuff
I,
don't
think
it
would
change
those
numbers
by
what
1/2
a
percent
so
I
mean
I,
think
those
are
gonna
stay
the
same.
I
So
really
it's
the
comfort
level
of
having
an
extra
year
or
an
extra
two
years
with
a
reserve
balance,
at
least
in
theory,
is
lower
than
you'd
like
it
to
be
at
least
that's
the
way.
I
look
at
it
and
you
know,
is
that
a
big
deal
yeah,
it's
kind
of
a
big
deal.
I
mean
we
don't
you
know
the
conversation
earlier
about
disaster,
and
so
on
was
interesting,
but,
and
some
of
that
may
come
into
play
someday
but
I
think.
I
The
main
reason
we
like
to
have
the
reserves
as
high
as
we
do
for
operating
in
the
general
fund
is
really
economic
downturns,
and
it's
not
that
you
can
prevent
an
economic
downturn
or
you
can't
in
the
end.
Eventually,
in
the
end,
you
have
to
eventually
cut
things,
but
you
can
do
so
at
least
at
your
pace.
You
can
do
it
a
little
more
slowly
and
intelligently,
and
instead
of
oh,
my
god
tomorrow
we
have
to
you
know:
people
have
had
six
million
dollars
out
of
the
budget
and
lay
people
off.
I
You
know:
we've
been
through
some
economic
downturns,
I've
been
around
long
enough
to
be
on
councils
that
had
to
deal
with
them
they're
unavoidable,
but
you
can
certainly
smooth
them
out
and
reduce
the
community
impacts
by
having
some
reserve
dollars.
That's
the
big
deal,
so
I
guess
somewhere.
Other
people
are
four
or
five
years.
I,
don't
know,
I'd
have
to
think
about
it.
Some
more
yes,
four
years
means
that
the
tax
goes
up.
I
Some
I
mean
it.
It
doubles.
Essentially
it's
not
a
huge
number,
but
it's
you
know
everything
matters
you
know
in
terms
of
which
one
is
fair
or
that's.
I
just
have
trouble
figuring
that
out,
honestly,
you
could
say
well,
it'd
be
fairer
to
you
know,
make
everybody
pay
for
it
immediately,
but
in
some
sense
this
is
like
bonding,
because
people
are
paying
into
something
that
has
a
much
longer-term
impact.
I
So
the
benefit
accrues
over
many
many
many
many
many
years,
and
so
in
that
sense,
I
don't
have
any
trouble,
have
much
trouble
with
the
tax
also
continuing
over
a
longer
period
of
time,
just
like
we
do
with
bonding
the
catch
in
this
thing
is
that,
unlike
a
bond,
because
this
is
general
fund
money
and
because
a
lot
of
the
money
needs
to
be
up
frontage,
you
have
that
window.
Will
you
have
a
reserve
issue
and
that's
the
party
I
think
we're
struggling
with
understand
the
play.
I
I
might
add
right,
so
you
know
I
I
probably
move
the
four
and
five
year
together
for
two
reasons.
First
of
all,
we're
missing
three
people,
but
secondly,
even
in
the
hopes
that
we
could
be
unanimous
on
something
which
maybe
we
can
be
I,
think
if
we
did
both
of
them
I
think
it
would
help
the
community
focus
in
on
here
are
the
choices.
I
If
you
have
some
opinion
about
these
two
choices,
let
us
know
it's
not
a
million
choices
anymore
right,
there's
a
couple
of
choices:
they
have
pros
and
cons
fine,
so
people
can
weigh
in
on
that,
and
we
can
all
ponder
it
along
with
our
three
colleagues
who
aren't
here
for
the
next
couple
of
weeks.
So
that's
that's.
Where
I
go
I,
you
know
they're
both
they're,
both
reasonable
approaches.
A
Well,
I'm
gonna
make
this
short
I
agree
with
you,
Matt
and
I.
Don't
get
to
say
that
very
often
so,
I'm
just
gonna
say
that
I
think
four
or
five
is
the
sweet
spot.
I
mean
the
fact
that
the
tax
on
the
average
person
for
four
years
is
about
twenty
about
25
bucks
a
year
again,
not
nothing
but
is
a
I'm.
Not
you
can
get
your
head
around.
A
A
I
Just
gonna
ask
one
other
quick
question
which
doesn't
really
have
to
be
answered
tonight,
but
it
could
be
a
couple
of
weeks.
I
mean
obviously
we're
gonna
see
the
budget,
the
2018
budget
somewhere
along
the
line
here
and
I,
don't
know
yet
what
that
calls
for
in
terms
of
perhaps
putting
some
additional
money
into
the
reserves,
that's
something
we
could
choose
to
do
not
only
because
of
this
frankly,
but
just
generally
good
practice.
I
Farrell
said
we
were
at
17%
would
try
to
shoot
for
20%,
and
maybe
we
do
want
to
try
to
put
a
little
bit
more
into
the
reserves
which
would
help
out
with
this
as
well,
especially
in
those
immediate
years,
the
first
years-
and
you
know
if
it
doesn't
pass
the
next
council-
can
always
do
an
adjustment
to
the
budget
and
change
all
of
that.
If
that's
what
they
choose
to
do
and
if
it
does
pass
that
might
give
us
a
little
more
relief
from
some
of
the
concerns
we
have.
A
And
so
I
too,
don't
often
get
to
say,
I,
agree
with
that
and
and
I
think
that
I
also
am
leaning
in
the
five
years,
because,
as
I
look
at
the
bottom
line
there
in
the
reserve
balance
in
the
fourth
year
at
the
five-year
year,
practically
at
the
minimum
recommended
reserve.
I
did
just
a
quick
little
research
as
to
what
is
recommended
and
that's
16%,
so
we're
practically
there
in
year.
Four
so
I
I
would
be
leaning
towards
the
the
five
year
myself.
O
A
Year
four
percent
so
and
then
I
think
also
in
light
of
one
of
our
consent
agenda
items,
which
was
the
audit
report
and
how
well
the
city
is
managed
and
Cheryl's
clarification
about
how
our
bond
rating
would
likely
not
be
hurt,
because
we
have
a
plan
about
how
to
get
back
up
so
I.
But
I
do
think
that
six
years
starts
to
make
me
a
little
more
uncomfortable
four
years.
It
seems
like
it's
just
like
Sam
said
it
doubles.
The
impact
on
on
folks
doubles
so
I'd
be
leaning
in
the
five
years.
H
So
I
really
said
five
years,
I
think
four
years
is
more
comfortable
companies,
gonna
say
we're
taking
this
decision
as
a
community,
not
because
we
had
to
because
we're
voting
on
it.
It's
a
strategy
to
take
these
levels
down
and
you
know
I,
don't
know
how
they'll
react
when,
as
Cheryl
said
also
the
SP
guidance
is
sixteen
percent
and
we
were
making
a
conscious
decision
to
go
four
points
below
that
in
the
five-year
plan.
So
I
don't
know,
I
think
it's
good
that
we
don't
vote
tonight.
A
C
And
I
don't
know
if
we
have
it
up
or
not,
but
the
essential
two
points
that
I
was
bringing
forward
here
was
the
purpose
of
why
we're
doing
this
right.
So
it's
to
you
know,
live
up
to
our
climate
commitment.
The
Paris
agreement,
other
reasons
that
we're
doing
this
include
improvements
to
system
reliability
and
creating
more
energy
related
business
opportunities.
C
So
that's
just
a
set
of
benefits
that
I
thought
we
should
have
in
front
of
the
voters
as
to
why
we
want
this
to
go
forward
and
then
I
also
thought
we
might
provide
some
reassurance
that
if
we
take
a
no-go
decision
that,
for
some
reason,
has
to
come
earlier
than
we
plan-
and
there
could
be
reasons
for
that-
that
we
would
finish
paying
off
our
obligations
but
stop
the
tax.
At
that
point
and
I,
don't
think,
we've
explicitly
said
that
so
I
just
thought.
O
I
I
I
And
and
that's
what
I'm
assuming
too,
but
it
makes
for
one
heck
of
a
long
ballot.
Idol
remember
these
things
are
supposed
to
be
one
sentence
with
a
question
mark
at
the
end
of
them,
and
this
probably
doubles
the
length
of
the
unreadable
title.
So
that
gives
me
a
little
concern
but
because,
if
you
don't
put
it
in
the
title,
people
tend
not
to
find
it
because
you
know:
where
is
it
well?
I,
don't
know
it's
nowhere.
Essentially
it's
in
some
backup
material,
so
I
don't
know,
and.
C
So
I
did
want
to
strike
two
words
from
here
David
and
is
my
fault
for
not
getting
it
to
you.
I
would
pull
and
resilience
out
at
this
point.
Just
focus
on
one
there's:
an
attempt
to
bring
some
words
out
and
if
we
want
to
remove
the
energy
related
business,
not
the
unities,
that's,
okay!
As
well.
You
know
this
was
just
a
stab
at
putting
the
motivating
language
into
someplace,
where
people
could
find
it
when
they
were
reading
that
I.
I
C
I
C
A
I
A
A
Approval
vote
or
something
like
that,
instead
of
go
no-go,
it
just
seems
so
divisive
and
it
would
be
nice
to
just
say
voter
approval
or
voter
chicken,
something
that
is
really
more.
What
we're
really
talking
about?
Are
you
talking
about?
The
third
thing?
Forget
no,
no
I'm,
jus
I,
guess
we're
talking
about
they.
You
put
okay,
nevermind,
okay,
so
since
we're
not
I
think
we're
not
voting,
but
we
oh
well
yeah.
J
A
A
A
O
Good
question:
yes,
yes,
so
David!
If
we
have
the
version
that
said
that
we
couldn't
discuss
a
franchise
with
Excel
would
would
that
be
something
that
couldn't
be
brought
up
at
all
I
like
if
someone
in
in
you
know
in
an
executive
session,
wanted
to
say
well,
maybe
at
some
point
in
a
meeting
we
could
talk
about
a
franchise.
Would
they
be
allowed
to
do
that
kind
of
put
the
idea
out
or
with
the
language
prevent
even
that
level
of
I.
J
O
But
I
would
like
to
retain
the
flexibility
for
at
least
EPIK
of
an
agreement
to
be
able
to
be
broached
in
in
a
session
and
and
I'm
I'm.
Happy
too
I
liked
staffs
suggestion
of
needing
to
notice
it
if
you're
going
to
have
an
active
discussion
of
that
topic
so
that
we
could
be
open
with
the
community
that
if
we
were
going
to
actually
discuss
that,
have
a
functional
discussion
on
that
that
people
would
know
about
it.
So
that's
that's
my
preference
I.
A
J
So,
just
to
be
clear,
so
ordinates
8,
1
9
for
its
attachment,
B,
that's
the
more
restrictive
language
and
it
provides
that
provided.
However,
such
sessions
may
not
include
legal
advice
or
negotiation
strategy
related
to
an
elected
to
electric
franchises.
So
that's
pretty
specific
in
terms
of
what
you
can't
talk
about
the
other
one
ordinance
number
81
90.
The
language
is
a
little
bit
broader
or
I.
Guess
it
perhaps
allows
a
little
bit
more
flexibility.
It
allows
it
to
be
discussed,
but
it
requires
it
to
be
noticed.
A
C
I
mean
I
think
the
concern
in
the
community
at
least
some
parts
of
the
community
is
that
there
are
other
ways
to
discuss
settlements
that
could
end
the
progress
towards
municipal
utility.
That
wouldn't
mention
the
word
franchise
or
franchises,
but
you'd
be
talking
about
issues
that
you
intend
to
address
with
Xcel.
That
would
be
on
the
path
to
terminating
the
utility.
Well,
I
think
that,
specifically,
is
what
some
members
of
the
public
are
asking
that
we
have
the
be
public,
and
you
heard
something
that
testimony
tonight.
C
You
know
I
think
I'm
there
with
them
in
that
are
we
to
have
a
long-term
relationship
with
Excel?
We
all
need
to
be
practiced
to
talking
about
what
the
main
issues
are
in
public.
There's
nothing
about
this
that
prevents
individual
council
members
from
speaking
with
David
Eve's
or
any
other
Excel
personnel
right
as
long
as
they're
not
reporting
it
back
this
way
and
as
long
as
they're,
not
breaking
any
other
sunshine
laws
or
open
meeting
those
rules.
C
So
as
far
as
thinking
through
you
know,
with
somebody
from
Excel
or
our
staff
can
talk
with
Excel
I.
Don't
think
this
prevents
that
what
it
prevents
us
from
doing
is
talking
as
a
governing
body
about
stuff
that
I
think
a
lot
of
members
of
the
community
don't
want
to
be
behind
closed
doors,
and
so
that's
why
I'm
going
to
support
it.
I'm
proposed
it
that
way,
because
there
are
other
issues
we
would
settle
with
Excel.
That
could
be
on
the
way
to
a
municipal
electric
utility
right
like
joint
use
of
poles.
C
Well,
that's
something
that
we
could
talk
with
them
about
and
then
come
up
to
the
settlement
with,
and
it
would
be
moving
us
towards
a
municipal,
electric
utility
and
I.
Don't
think
that
would
cause
unhappiness
among
people
who
are
keeping
the
close
watch
on
this.
So
anyhow,
there
you
go!
That's
how
I
got
to
this
proposal
and
David
I
think
you
had
it
up.
There
was
like
1/3
of
the
words
for
Shawna's
crossed
that
one
I
thought
I
added,
but.
U
J
So
I
think
that,
just
in
terms
of
you
know,
we
did
a
quick
analysis
of
Sam's
language
for
the
most
part,
I
think
we're
fine
with
it.
There
were
a
couple
of
components
in
it
that
we
would,
we
think,
adds
a
little
bit
of
confusion
with
some
of
the
confusion
that
we've
been
trying
to
take
out
of
the
Charter
and
so
the
the
use
of
the
term
the
formation
of
and
form
those
questions
are
really
going
to
be
dealt
with
in
our
next
discussion,
because
we're
asking
them.
J
H
Guess
I
have
a
question
on
this
one
because
I
I
mean
all
along
I.
Think
the
voters
expected
us
to
talk
about,
or
they
had
authorized
to
us
to
talk
about
potential
offerings
and
they're
one
of
their
original
boats
and
remember
what
year
that
was,
and
so
in
this
language
does,
because
an
off
ramp
doesn't
necessarily
mean
franchise.
H
It's
kind
of
pre
discussions
before
getting
to
franchise
discussion
and
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
is
you
know,
I
mean
we
have
been
voted
in
to
try
to
do
the
best
we
can
for
the
for
the
bolder
entire
population
and
all
the
voters
in
the
city
and
I
mean
this
is
very
difficult
stuff
and
we
have
had
to
talk
about
in
the
past.
You
know
forming
a
utility,
all
the
nuts
and
bolts
around
it,
but
also
talk
about
potential
offer
amps
and
your
negotiation
capability
completely
goes
away.
H
If
you
have
to
talk
about
off
ramps
with
Excel
sitting
in
the
room,
we're
listening
right
so
in
terms
of
intent
and
I
think
off
ramp
is
different
than
a
franchise
agreement.
Clearly,
a
franchise
agreement
should
and
can
be
done
after
we've
kind
of
agreed
to
take
an
off-ramp
or
consider
an
off-ramp,
and
that
I
mean
that's
basically
what
we
did
when
we
gave
the
people
a
chance
to
vote
in
on.
If
we
should
be
considering
the
off-ramp
right
and
we
got
an
O,
so
I
guess
that's
that's
what
I
struggle
with
here
is.
J
So
I
mean
I,
guess
that
there's
probably
a
couple
of
different
ways
of
looking
at
an
off-ramp.
The
first
way,
probably
the
most
fatalistic
way,
is
to
just
say
something
along
the
lines
of
we're
done.
We
were
just
gonna,
abandon
the
efforts
and
it
seems
like
if
you
were
to
be
taking
that
approach
to
an
off-ramp.
That's
probably
something
under
this
language
that
you
could
do.
J
O
J
And
if
you
were
in
that
realm,
the
realm
is
being
described
here,
I
think
you
and
he
would
probably
or
we
as
staff,
would
go
into
the
same
communication
mode
that
we
typically
do
with
the
council
in
terms
of
sensitive
topics,
either
communicating
in
writing
with
confidential
memos
or
scheduling
one
one
on
one
or
one
on
two
council
member
meetings
so
that
you've
we
can
discuss
our
concerns
in
that
manner
as
well.
But
the.
I
Key
thing
is:
if
even
with
this
language,
which
is
I,
mean
it's
really
the
same
as
the
what's
in
our
packet,
but
it's
a
little
more
explanatory
which
which
I
think
I
like
because
I
think
for
most
people,
just
saying
strategy
laid
into
electric
franchises
is
not
abundantly
clear
and
we
talk
in
code.
We
all
know
that
and
so
I
think
explaining
what
that
means
is
helpful,
but
but
Jana
the
reason
I'm
not
worried
about
what
you
asked
is
based
on
what
David
said
and
also
my
reading
of
this
is
yeah.
I
If
a
council
at
some
point,
for
instance,
got
some
legal
advice
or
some
cost
came
up
or
our
engineers
said.
Oh,
oh,
you
could
have
that
conversation,
an
executive
session
council
could
say
what
do
you
mean,
but
what
is
tell
us
more
about
this
advice.
Tell
us
how
you
got
here.
You
know
what
are
the
options
and
on
and
on
and
on
and
on
and
on.
All
of
that
would
be
fine
in
an
executive
session,
because
it
is
legal
advice.
I
After
all,
if
Council
at
that
point
said
hey,
we
think
this
isn't
gonna
work
you
could
have.
You
could
talk
about.
You
could
at
least
say
that
in
the
executive
session,
of
course,
then
you'd
have
to
go
to
a
public
session,
but
that's
true
now
anyway,
because
you
can't
make
decisions
in
an
executive
session
by
definition,
so
you'd,
of
course
have
to
pop
back
out.
So
the
only
thing
you
can't
do
would
be.
I
If
the
council
got
to
that
point
and
then
somebody
said
gee:
what's
the
best
deal
we
can
make
with
Excel
now
know
that
you'd
have
to
pop
back
out,
but
I
think
you'd
want
to
do
that
anyway,
because
she'd,
you
know
if
you're
really
gonna
try
to
abandon
the
effort.
I
think
that's
where
you
want
to
have
the
public
conversation
about
abandoning
it
and
then
see
where
that
leads.
You
I
again,
I,
don't
I,
think
our
I
said
this
last
time
and
I'll
stick
to
it.
I
I
think,
even
though
it
was
definitely
awkward,
I
think
the
work
the
council
did
negotiating
with
Excel
was
important
at
the
time.
We
did
it
because
I
don't
think
those
negotiations
would
have
happened
otherwise,
so
it
was
critical
and
I
think
the
outcomes
of
those
negotiations
were
critical
for
the
community
and,
frankly,
the
PUC
to
see,
but
that
was
then
and
I.
Don't
think.
That's
gonna
repeat
in
the
same
way,
so
I
think
I.
I
Don't
think
this
really
ties
the
futures
councils
hands
in
terms
of
everything
up
to
end,
including
Jesus,
isn't
working.
We
need
to
come
back
out
publicly
and
talk
about
why
we
think
this
isn't
working
and
have
a
conversation
about
what
the
next
steps
might
be,
and
you
know
if
that
eventually
led
to
some
negotiations
with
Excel
about
what
would
a
good
deal.
Look
like
yeah.
I
H
I
I
But
what
was
different
previously
was
yeah
I
think
there
was
some
understanding
that
the
council
might
have
a
conversation
with
Excel
about
all
native
approaches.
I
think,
since
we're
going
back
to
the
public
to
ask
them,
do
they
want
to
continue
with
the
muni
knowing
what
they
now
know,
which
is
a
lot
more
than
they
knew
before
yeah
I
think
I
think
it
would
be
inappropriate
for
council
to
all
the
sudden
start
with
Excel
or
anybody
about
some
other
settlement
discussions
that
would
not
include
creating
immunity
that
your
voters
just
voted
for
quite
explicitly.
C
So
I
just
want
to
try
and
bring
a
little
clarity
to
the
hall
fraps
concept
in
2011
Charter.
The
tax
was
approved,
chartered
language
was
put
in
and
the
Charter
language
said
and
I
think
these
were
added
later
right.
Therefore,
off-ramps
it
said
rates
will
be
equal
to
or
better
on
day
one
and
those
came
two
years
later,
but
the
rates
will
be
equal
to
or
better
and
day
one.
C
You
have
a
plan
for
emissions
reduction.
Reliability
will
be
the
same
and
whatever
the
fourth.
So
these
were
charter
metrics
that
were
required,
and
debt
coverage
ratio
right.
So
those
four
things
had
to
be
met
and
approved
by
a
third
party
reviewer.
If
that
happened,
then
council
could
approve
the
formation
of
the
utility,
and
so
those
were
kind
of
gates
that
utility
formation
happened
in
2014.
C
So,
even
though
that
language
is
still
in
the
Charter,
we
did
a
test
against
those
for
off-ramps
found
that
we
thought
we
would
be
good
and
then
council
formed
a
utility.
So
in
a
sense
those
off
ramps
are
no
longer
available
for
us
to
need
to
take.
Unless
the
district
court
started.
Supreme
Court
sends
us
back
and
supports
the
appeals
court
ruling
that
had
come
and
said
you
didn't
meet
your
off-ramps,
but
right
now.
What
the
next
thing
we're
going
to
talk
about.
C
I
I
I
C
I
A
One
thing
in
this
thing
that
I
still
question
is,
it
says:
may
not
include
legal
advice
or
negotiation
strategy.
I
totally
get
people
don't
want
us
to
negotiate
a
franchise
or
termination
efforts,
an
executive
session
and
I'm
fine
with
that,
when
it
says
we
may
not
include
legal
advice,
does
that
mean
we
can't
give
it
or
get
it
now,
because
I
think
the
idea
for
us
to
ask
questions
of
our
lawyers
about
things
is.
This
is
a
strange
thing
to,
but.
I
A
A
Write
so
I
to
me.
That's
just
a
strange
thing
to
include,
because
I
presume
asking
questions
of
lawyers
isn't
something
that's
a
problem.
It's
us
negotiating,
that's
the
issue
so
I'll
just
throw
that
into
the
mix
of
it.
I,
always
kind
of
think.
That's
an
interesting
construct.
Now
you
can
go.
Thank.
O
A
Thanks
Aaron
I'd
love
that
you'd
love
to
hear
from
me.
So
what
I'm
thinking
is
that
the
passage
of
this
executive
session
whenever
it
passed
in
what
2014
was
it
2013?
You
don't
recall,
but
the
passage
of
it
in
any
case
was
a
really
really
really
real
departure
from
how
we
do
things.
This
was
an
exception
that
the
community
made
that
I
don't
think
the
community
took
lightly
and
we
did
not
take
lightly
in
putting
it
out
there
for
the
voters
to
vote
on.
O
My
guess
is
that
there's
a
majority
council
support
for
taking
an
approach.
You
know.
Basically
what
would
Sam
outline
and
David
can
I
just
ask
one
more
question
on
on
this
language.
So
you
know
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
obtain
advice
for
a
negotiation
strategy
under
this
language
related
to
those
matters
right.
The
settlement
matters,
but
would
and
not
that
I
have
any
intention
of
doing
this
I'm
just
trying
to
preserve
flexibility
for
future
future
councils.
O
Would
someone
be
able
to
say,
hey,
look
guys,
I'm
interested
in
having
a
public
discussion
of
negotiating
with
Xcel
just
so
that
the
topic
could
be
broached
by
a
council
member,
not
not
advised
about
or
negotiate
the
strategy,
but
at
least
that
someone
could
say
that
so
that
that
could
signal
an
intention
for
some
future
public
meeting.
Yeah.
J
O
H
C
All
right
so
I
move
to
pass
as
amended
on
second
reading
and
with
the
further
months
that
are
on
the
screen:
ordinance
81
94,
submitting
to
the
electors
of
the
city
of
Boulder
at
the
regular
mismo
meeting
to
be
held,
Tuesday
November,
7
2017
the
question
of
whether
to
amend
section
9
of
the
Boulder
Home
Rule
Charter.
To
extend
this.
There
were
two
told
executive
sessions
until
December
31st
2023
setting
forth
the
ballot
title,
specifying
the
form
of
the
ballot
and
related
details.
C
I
Mr.
belman
and
I'm
looking
at
even
94-
and
it
said,
David
didn't
look
at
this
before
so
anyone
94
in
our
packet,
which
is
the
one
that
is
basically
like
this.
That
says,
you
can't
have
advice
on
franchises.
If
you
look
at
the
ballot
question
the
ballot
title,
it
still
says
prohibit
any
discussions
about
negotiating
a
franchise
unless
there
was
public
notice
that
such
discussions
would
be
included.
So
that's
not
right,
that's
not
right!
So
that
needs
to
get.
Maybe
that
was
just
copied
from
the
other
one
yeah.
So
that
needs
to
be
indexing.
I
U
I
I
J
A
C
Just
for
people
who
are
watching
this
measure
would
prefer
a
charter
amendment
to
the
voters
and
it
would
establish
the
utility
it
passed
by
the
voters
and
what
had
happened
before
was
Council
established.
The
utilities.
That's
what's
been
challenged
in
court.
So
if
the
people
voted
to
pass,
this
I
believe
it
would
extinguish
that
court
case
effectively
and
it
also
promises
the
future
vote
right.
That's
how
I
understand
this
measure
is
it
promises
the
future
vote
before
we
can
bond
right.
C
J
Utilities
formed,
but
we
can't
go
out
for
debt
until
it
goes
back
to
the
voters
and
if
I
might
just
say
one
thing
so
the
way
the
Charter
section
178
a
is
now
set
up-
and
this
is
my
interpretation
of
it-
is
that
it's
set
up.
It's
I
think
it's
designed
to
be
set
up
with
a
bunch
of
checks
and
balances
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
move
into
this
next
step
lightly.
J
C
J
J
The
primary
reason
is,
is
that-
and
this
is
probably
abundant
legal
caution,
so
I'll
admit
that,
but
one
of
the
things
that
we
learned
from
the
initial
doc
adoption
of
178
a
is
is
that
when
we
added
a
lot
of
tasks,
we
added
a
lot
of
opportunities
for
people
to
say
that
we
didn't
do
it
right
and
this.
The
language
that
you
have
in
here
is
another
list
of
things
that
potentially
somebody
will
argue
that
we
didn't
do
it
right
and,
of
course,
one
said,
the
original
178
a
was
drafted
with
great
intentions.
J
C
I
get
that
I'll.
Just
ask
one
follow-up
question:
are
there
not
lawyer
words
that
you
can
put
into
this
that
make
things
like
best
available
data
which
I
tried,
I,
tried
lawyer
words,
but
clearly
I'm,
not
good
at
them,
but
something
that
hedges
us
against
now,
your
top-line
advice
is
probably
right.
Okay,
if
you
were
going
to
try
and
make
this
better,
how
would
you
do
it
and
I'm
not?
This
is
not
a
lay
down
on
the
track
sister.
C
J
Concern
would
be
to
put
it
in
the
would
be
putting
it
in
the
Charter
and
really
kind
of
create
another
vulnerability
that
we're
trying
to
get
rid
of
by
this
change.
In
the
first
place,
there
are
probably
other
places
that
we
could
put
something
like
this.
We
could
put
it
in
the
end
codified
portion
of
you
ordinance
as
legislative
intent.
We
could
consider
what
it
might
look
like
if
we
were
actually
to
put
it
in
the
utility
ordinance.
J
J
J
A
No,
you
can
say
that
and
then
Mary
thank
you.
Wouldn't
we
want
to
present
that
information
prior
to
vote
anyway.
You
know
I
mean
voters,
aren't
gonna,
make
a
decision
in
a
vacuum,
so
you
would
have
to
do
it
whether
or
not
it's
codified
anywhere
nobody's
gonna
vote
for
something
if
they
don't
have
any
information,
so
you
would
have
to
do
it
no
matter
what
I.
C
J
J
A
O
Okay
and
Cass
good
question:
yes
later
that
just
David
just
to
clarify
that
I
mean
specifically
what
will
be
putting
that
on
the
ballot
is
that
we
can't
incurred
dad
yep
right
but
effectively.
What
that
means
is
that
we
couldn't
operate
a
municipal
electric
utility
right
because
it's
unfeasible
to
operate
one
without
incurring
debt
yep,
so
just
that
it's
just
kind
of
worse
worth
getting
out
there,
the
language
we'll
just
to
be
about.
Can
we
take
on
debt,
but
the
effect
will
be.
Can
we
actually
do
it
right.
I
The
original
wording
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
a
difference
without
a
distinction,
but
the
original
wording
says
incurred
debt
for
construction
to
separate
right
and
this
doesn't
and
honestly
I,
don't
know
if
that
matters
or
not,
and
that's
a
question
I
mean,
is
to
separate
from
the
existing
utility
system
absolutely
positively
clear
so
that
again
somebody
couldn't
go
after
us
and
say:
well,
that's
that's
vague!
That's
unclear!
That's
got
multiple
meetings,
that's
who
knows
what
well.
C
I
A
O
Q
I
I
J
Well
and
I
think
that
the
language
is
intentional
in
terms
of
you
know,
because
that's
the
next
big
step
I
think
that
if
it
gets
too
broad
as
we,
there
has
been
some
talk
with
our
financial
advisers
that
there
may
be
other
opportunities
to
you
know
use
debt
to
you
know
just
to
help
us
forward
so
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
think
that
we've
really
we
haven't
really
identified
at
those
yet,
but
I
think
that
there
is.
J
A
J
J
C
I
I
We're
saying
that
before
the
city
can
provide
electricity
to
customers
within
the
city,
it
has
to
go
to
a
vote
of
the
people
to
incur
debt,
but
the
debt
really
could
be
for
any
number
of
things,
and
and
in
some
sense
the
numbers
doesn't
matter
what
the
debts
for,
because
you
can't
create
the
utility
system
to
quote:
provide
electricity
to
customers
within
the
city
without
incurring
debt
at
some
point
along
the
line
and
the
voters
would
have
to
weigh
in
which
is
the
whole
intent
of
this.
Does
the
voters
get
the
final
say
right.
A
C
I
Do
you
broaden
it
by
listing
things
which,
if
I
were
a
lawyer
I'd
worry
about,
because
you
forget
something
yeah?
Where
do
you
broaden
it
by
saying
it's
that
so
that
the
utility
system
can
provide
electricity
to
covers
within
the
city
start
and
operate
the
utilities
and
whatever
that
that
turns
out
to
be
for
including
things?
Maybe
we
haven't
thought
about
right
at
the
moment,
so.
U
G
J
V
First
of
all,
if
we
have
to
issue
debt
for
separation,
that
can't
be
those
won't
be
bonds
of
the
utility
until
we
form
the
utilities
several
years
later,
so
you
and
Bob.
You
can
come
up
and
give
me
all
the
corrections
on
the
Taylor
stuff,
but
because
there
will
be
general
obligation,
bonds,
you'd
have
to
have
a
vote
anyhow,
and
so
what
your
gets
to
me
you're,
putting
belts
and
suspenders
on
something
you
would
have
to
do.
No
matter
what?
V
Because,
if
the
the
council
decided
to
move
forward
at
the
go/no-go
point
and
again,
if
the
governor
point,
we
would
have
the
condemnation
and
the
separation
decision.
The
condemnation
decision
from
the
courts,
we
don't
how
much
the
system
costs
and
remember.
We
have
a
provision
on
that
that
limits
the
acquisition
to
two
hundred
and
fourteen
million
acquisition
plus
training
costs.
We
pay
for
it
all
at
once
to
two
hundred
and
fourteen
million.
So
you've
already
got
the
limit
on
that.
You
also
have
the
issue,
so
we
have
that
information
council
makes
a
go/no-go
decision.
V
The
next
thing
we
would
have
to
do
would
pay
for
the
separation
and
that's
the
construction
and
that's
a
big
decision
and
that's
a
lot
of
money,
and
so
what
I
see
this
saying
is
that
in
order
to
move
forward,
it's
a
go/no-go
point
and
issue
debt
for
construction.
We
need
to
get
the
voters
which,
if
we
should
you
geo
bonds,
we'd
have
to
do
that.
Anyhow.
Now,
where
I
start
to
get
a
little
bit.
V
Anxious
is
that
to
someone's
point
is
we
don't
know
what
all
we
would
need
to
borrow
or
not
get
funds
for,
say
organizational
cost
or
startup
costs
so
say,
18
months
from
the
day
we
do
cut
over
we'll
need
to
bring
in
maybe
buy
equipment.
Buildings
put
in
systems
that
sort
of
thing
we
don't
know
if
we'll
issue
debt,
for
that
we
don't
know,
would
have
a
conventional
loan,
so
there's
a
whole
host
of
ways
that
could
be
done
and
then-
and
so
my
concern
is,
if
we
need
to
go
to
a
vote
for
that.
V
V
Keep
it
to
that
because
then
you
get
to
the
cut
over
day
and
the
cut
everyday
is
when
we
issue
the
debt
of
the
utility,
which
is
the
enterprise,
and
that's
where
you
issue
the
debt
to
pay
the
condemnation
award,
that
we
got
prior
to
the
go/no-go
decision,
and
so
it
gets
really
complicated
and
to
me
the
tightest
control
you
can
have
at
this
point.
Is
the
voters
have
to
decide
whether
we
want
to
spend
the
money
at
the
go/no-go
decision
to
do
the
construction
of
the
separation
plan?
V
A
O
J
Think
so,
Bob
well
I
think
that
there's
it
could
be
interpreted
in
two
ways,
one
if
we
were
to
do
and
and
a
lot
of
this
goes
to
financial
practicality,
but
we
this
you
could
just
say
so.
You
could
just
have
a
ballot
measure
that
says,
shall
the
city
be
able
to
issue
revenue
bonds
right
and
then
we
would
go
through
our
normal
revenue
bonding.
You
know
Authority
and
we
would
issue
revenue
bonds
and
it
would
based
be
based
on
what
we
think
the
revenues
will
be
generated
by
the
utility.
That's
one
approach.
J
The
other
approach
is,
is
that
if
you
get
into
the
area
that
Heather
was
explaining
the
general
obligation
debt,
if
we
were
going
into
general
obligation
debt,
then
you
actually
have
to
have
taper
Authority
to
take
that
kind
of
debt
on
so
it
could.
It
could
done
a
variety
of
ways,
all
of
which,
under
this
language,
requires
at
least
one
voter
approval.
J
O
Do
you
want
to
move
this
forward?
Can
I?
Can
I
address
this
actually
before
you
do
that?
Okay,
because
actually
that
that
causes
an
additional
concern
for
me
that
it
makes
me
fine
with
the
language,
but
it's
sounding
like
that
as
its
structured
that
we
could
have
have
an
election
about
a
bond
issue.
That
just
said,
shall
we
issue
bonds
that
would
satisfy
this
clause
and
I
was
imagining
this
Clause
as
being
more
of
a?
We
would
have
at
some
point.
A
ballot
initiative
said
that
said:
hey
voters.
O
J
There's
there's
kind
of
a
fine
distinction
in
here,
so
the
language
in
178
about
actually
forming
the
utility
we're
asking
the
voters
to
form
the
utility
at
the
next
elections
alone,
provided
that
it
goes
forward
right.
This
question
here
is
really:
do
you
want
us
to
operate
a
utility
and
it
gets
to
that
notion
of
taking
it
that
taking
the
step
from
separate
construction
and
separation
to
actual
operation?
That's
where
the
that's
kind
of
the
next
step
in
the
check
and
balance.
Okay,.
C
I'm
still
I'm
still
concerned,
but
we
have
time
to
think
about
it.
One
of
the
things
about
moving
it
forward
is
we
can
go
to
over
this
language
and
how
it
interacts
with
other
things,
because
what
I'm
hearing
or
what
I
thought
I
heard
Aaron
maybe
say
is
that
if
we
end
up
yeah,
we
could
start
separation.
This
gets
approved
a
community
voter
approval
vote
happens
and
we
go
ahead,
and
so
we
issue
bonds
for
separation.
Okay,
we
get
partway
through
the
separation
process
and
then
we
have
to
go
out
for
general
obligation
bonds.
C
You
know
it's
another
opportunity
for
us
to
have
put
a
lot
of
money
into
something
and
then
not
go
forward
with
it.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
giving
voters
the
possibility
of
two
more
votes
and
I
want
to
support
one
for
sure,
but
I
think
when
we
cross
the
Rubicon
we're
gonna
have
to
be
across
the
Rubicon,
so
I
just
didn't
want
to.
A
I
And
I've
got
a
and
Heather.
You
can
come
back
to
us
with
this,
and
maybe
maybe
this
is
going
too
far.
It's
kind
of
a
little
bit
along
the
lines
of
Sam's,
but
I
mean
this
is
in
a
charter.
So
you
go
to
the
voters.
They
approve
debt
for
construction
to
separate
from
the
existing
utility
system,
blah
blah
blah.
You
discover
that
you
need
a
little
bit
more
money
or
we
expand
the
system
someday
because
we
annex
some
more
property
and
so
we're
separating
some
additional
from
the
utility
system
and
we're
incurring
debt.
I
To
do
that.
This
would
say:
you'd
have
to
go
back
to
the
voters
each
time,
which
is
clearly
not
the
intent
so
think
about
that
I
mean
we're
all
thinking
about.
This
is
a
one-time
and
that's
certainly
the
right
way
to
think
about
it,
but
remember
it
stays
in
the
Charter.
It
doesn't
go
away
and
you
don't
want
it
to
come
back
and
nail
you
again
on
something
that
you
thought
you
dealt
with
so
think
about.
If
that's
a
problem,
because
it
might
be
okay.
A
So,
let's
test
this
thing
with
the
caveat
that
we're
not
sure
we've
got
it
all,
so
my
understanding,
it's
this
plus
taking
the
the
strikeout
language
in
red
and
adding
it
into
the
legislative
section,
correct,
that's
correct
and
then
making
sure
the
title
reflects
is
in
sync:
that's
all
okay!
So
so
that's
can
we
just
move
on
so
moved
all
right.
Second,
okay,
we
done
discussing
we
good.
So
that's
just
one.
C
W
This
property
is
located
on
the
eastern
edge
of
the
city,
just
north
of
Baseline
Road,
where
it
intersects
on
just
west
of
cherryvale
and
land
use
for
this
property
is
very
low-density.
Residential
and
the
property
would
annex
consistent
with
the
zoning
of
the
surrounding
properties
of
a
residential
in
the
staff
memorandum.
There
are
findings
related
to
compliance,
and
we
find
that
it
is
consistent
with
state
statutes.
The
Builder
valley,
comprehensive
plan,
as
well
as
initial
zoning.
That
is
consistent
with
the
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan
land
use
designation.
I
Questions
of
Chris
yeah,
one
simple
one
so
Chris
summer
in
the
memo,
if
I
remember
correctly,
it
said
this
is
the
last
property
that
will
qualify
for
the
special
deal.
Although
I
don't
know
that
everybody
is
annexed
at
this
point,
so
is
it
literally
the
last
property
that
qualifies
for
the
special
deal
it.
W
Is
this
is
the
last
property
that
is
being
processed
under
the
special
incentive
package?
That
Council
authorized
is
the
part
of
the
2013
flood
recovery
efforts
and
part
of
why
it's
the
last
one?
Is
that
and
it's
trailing
behind
is
there
were
some
others
that
were
trying
to
decide
whether
they
were
going
to
annex
or
not,
and
they
chose
not
to
so.
This
is
the
last
one.
Okay,
so.
W
A
W
O
A
N
Informations
in
your
packet
and
their
request
is
for
council
to
appoint
two
members
to
the
open
space
mountain
parks,
master
plan
process
committee.
It
will
be
to
members
of
council
and
to
members
of
the
OS
MP
board.
Meetings
at
this
point
are
planned
from
August
of
2017
through
19
one
hour
a
month
is
the
approximant
commitment
time
do.
C
A
And
I
think
the
the
the
one
if
I
understand
correctly,
we
said
this
process
is
gonna
go
for
two
years
at
least,
and
there
was
some
discussion
of
maybe
after
the
election
we'd
want
to
throw
this
back
into
the
bundle
of
committee
assignments.
Just
I,
don't
think
it's
a
given
that
we'd
want
to
change
things,
but
that
that
we'd
be
open
to
changing
things
and
I.
Think
for
people
to
go
new
in
the
Hat.
Is
that
correct?
Okay?
A
I
I
But
you
know.
Sometimes
you
need
to
talk
about
that
so
this
committee,
because
it's
set
up
with
frequent
check-ins
back
with
Council.
So
that's
great.
It's
set
up
to
be
with
board
members
from
open
space.
That's
great
you've
set
up
with
two
council
members,
that's
great,
so
I
think
what's
left
is.
Can
we
get
some
council
members
on
this?
I
Who
haven't
served
in
the
last
couple
of
years
on
several
committees
and
be
in
so
far
as
you
can
tell
have
somewhat
different
perspectives
on
where
open
space
might
go
in
the
future,
and
those
would
be
my
concerns.
Obviously,
I
am
NOT
in
the
running,
so
you
know
not
my
problem
in
that
sense,
but
I
think
they
have
a
successful
committee.
That's
what
you
want
whether
the
next
council
wants
to
reopen
it.
I
You
know:
that's
that's
up
to
the
next
council,
given
how
long-running
this
is,
and
that's
really
unusual
for
a
committee
I
can't
think
of
one
that
has
gone
this
long.
It
might
be
wise
at
some
point.
Maybe
after
a
year
they
do
a
swap
out
just
cuz.
She
could
get
some
new
ideas.
Some
new
thoughts
get
somebody
else,
especially
a
new
council
member
involved
in
it.
A
I
A
This
way,
yeah
ring
okay
ring
in
the
Hat,
have
not
served
on
committees
recently.
O
Well,
my
my
my
comp
planned
process
committee
ended,
so
that
was
part
of
why
I
threw
my
hat
in
the
ring,
isn't
because
that
was
something
that
was
doing
for
a
while
with
Sam
I
thought.
It
went
very
well
but
I'm
down
to
just
three
committees
at
this
point,
so
I
thought
you
needed
another
one.
I
don't
need
another
one.
Well,.
I
H
A
A
You
know
what
I
mean:
that's
what
that's
how
they
build.
It
was
no
substance
in
the
ideas
process.
So
the
way
I
was
just
kind
of
saying
is
I
haven't
been
on
when
these
process
committees,
so
I,
was
gonna
react.
I
was
I,
threw
my
name
that
had
I'm
not
wedded
to
it.
I
know
that
Lisa's
was
on
the
public
participation
process.
You
guys
were
on
the
cloud
plan
process.
I,
don't
know
if
I
was
in
them.
I
was
in
the
housing
and
the
middle-income
strategy.
Well,
no.
A
A
A
A
I
Look
I'm
not
sure
I
would
Suzanne
I
put
you
and
Aaron
on
it
and
and
just
based
on
what
I
said
I
think
I
mean
normally
the
mayor
having
been
there
tends
to
stay
out
of
this
stuff.
Guess
you
figure,
the
mayor
is
enough,
other
stuff
to
do,
and
also
but
I,
don't
think
it's
bad
to
do
it
once
in
a
while,
and
you
haven't
done
any
of
this
stuff
and
forever,
and
it's
also
a
process
committee
which
is
rather
different
than
some
of
the
other
committees
were
on
so
I.
I
I
Counterpart,
because
I
think
you
have
a
different,
it's
not
so
much.
You
have
a
different
view
of
our
open
spaces
going.
You
just
have
different
relationships
with
people
and
I
think
for
a
process
committee.
That's
a
good
thing,
but
I
think
other
solutions
are
fine
too,
but
that
would
be
the
one
I
would
shoot
for
for
this.
One
I
also
think
Emma
Darren's
done
one
thing,
but
otherwise
hasn't
that
involved
in
the
ongoing
suite
of
committees
of
these
kind
of
atoms-
and
you
know
again,
ad-hoc
stuff
is
different
than
the
long-standing
things
I
would.
A
I
would
just
like
to
put
a
plug
in
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
it
was
Jean
who
made
the
presentation
was
a
gene
that
made
the
presentation
about
this
committee
and
she
was
taught
no.
It
was
Darren
Darren
Wagner
who
made
the
presentation
she
talked
about
reaching
out
to
folks
that
don't
get
reached
out
to
and
I
try
to
do
that
and
I
have
relationships
with
community
members
that
oftentimes
don't
get
reached
out
to
so
I
think
I
bring
that
to
the
table
and
and
I
guess.
A
C
So
I
mean
I
generally
agree
with
Mary
and
that's
not
a
value
judgment
on
anyone.
I
mean
when
it
came
to,
for
example,
the
north
sky
trail
Suzanne
and
I
voted
for
it.
Lisa
and
Mary
voted
against
it.
So
I
reduce
that
as
an
example
in
which
I
think
Mary
and
Lisa
both
sit
a
little
further
outside
the
median
that
that
is
the
middle
of
Council.
So
I
would
propose
that
we
keep
the
names
in
the
Hat
and
pots
and
make
sure
that
we
have
a
full
council
here.
C
Take
this
decision,
that's
my
thought,
but
I
mean
I,
guess
I
think
everybody
would
do
a
good
job.
It's
just
about
balancing
the
right
points
of
view.
So,
if
it
were
me,
I
would
think
of
Mary
and
Lisa
as
being
kind
of
in
one
spot,
and
the
the
use
of
open
space
and
I
wouldn't
say
that
you
Aaron
and
Suzanne
are
exactly
at
the
same
spot
either,
but
you're
also
by
votes
not
exactly
where
Maryanne
lease
are.
So
that
being
said,
I'm
uncomfortable
with
these
kinds.
A
A
A
I
can
think
of
one
one
project
that
I
was
on
planning
board
when
it
happened,
which
is
the
the
Jewish
Community
Center
out
on
east
arapahoe,
that
has
on
a
main
road
or
on
the
street,
facing
portion
of
the
building
has
an
access
point
and
that
just
really
kills
the
pedestrian
the
walkability
aspect
of
a
building.
So
that's
one
thing
and
then
the
length
too
so.
A
H
And
I
asked
a
question
about
that.
My
understanding
was
that
the
the
requested
changes
were
based
on
the
fact
that
it
was
well
through
the
planning
process
before
we
passed
form
based
code.
So
my
question
would
be
how
many
of
the
special
requests
were
due
to
the
fact
that
it
wasn't
yet
in
place
when
they
started
the
process.
Do
we
know
that
answer.
A
X
X
It's
the
only
place
to
actually
get
access
for
that
as
part
of
it
and
I.
Don't
think
it
was
really
conceived
of
as
part
of
this
district.
When
we
first
thought
about
it,
the
only
other
way
to
do
it
would
have
been
to
create
an
alley
all
the
way
by
in
the
building,
because
we're
on
a
triangular
site
on
an
open
on
a
ditch,
and
we
actually
chose
to
preserve
that
as
open
space
and
create
a
really
cool,
walkway
and
Paseo
down
it.
X
So
it
was
one
that
staff
supported
and
five
out
of
the
six
planning
board
members
supported
the
building
lengths.
The
overall
intent
was
to
create
to
break
up
buildings
and
facades
and
make
them
in
pedestrian
scale,
and
even
though
the
actual
building
length
is
20
or
30
feet
longer
than
that
maximum,
we
actually
broke
the
building
up
into
a
series
of
pieces
in
a
series
of
different
facades
and
again,
both
staff
and
five
out
of
six
Planning
Board
members
felt
that
the
solution
was
really
the
right
solution
and
meant
the
intent
of
the
exceptions.
X
The
other
thing
is
when
we
did
the
floor
based
code
and
we've
been
part
of
its
creation
evolution,
we
created
all
the
diagrams
to
actually
judge
it
by
the
idea
was
that
to
try
and
create
good
design
and
good
outcomes.
You
should
allow
certain
exceptions
but
filter
those
through
staff
and
Planning
Board,
which
we
did
and
began
five
out
of
six
planning
board
members
felt
that
we
met
all
those
in
terms
of
the
exceptions
to
be
required,
so
that's
at
least
how
we
got
there.
X
It
wasn't
that
we
were
in
place
before
from
this
code
and
therefore
we
asked
for
exceptions.
It
was
because
of
good
design
in
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
in
a
triangular
parcel.
That's
actually
kind
of
the
exception.
Instead
of
the
rule,
this
was
the
right
way
to
do
it,
so
both
staff
supported
it
all
the
way
through,
and
so
the
Planning
Board,
with
the
exception
of
one
member.
O
Don't
feel
the
need
to
call
this
up.
I
mean
I.
Think
that,
with
the
form
based
code
idea
is
that
you
get
essentially
what
you've
already
anticipated
in
a
project.
And
then
then
you
look
at
any
exceptions
that
were
asked
for
and
say
or
the
do,
those
rise
to
the
level
where
you
feel
like
you're,
really
not
getting
what
you
expected
and
you
have
to
make
wholesale
changes,
and
it
is
a
constrained
site
with
the
triangular
shape
of
it.
O
So
and
while
I
do
hate
to
see
the
turns
in
right
off
of
the
Main
Street
I.
In
order
to
preserve
open
space
in
the
back,
you
I
hate
even
more
to
see
long
driveways,
leading
into
a
garage
that
impedes
your
ability
to
have
functional
open
space.
So
I'm
comfortable
with
the
exceptions
as
granted
by
planning
board.
C
Exam
so
I'm
more
mario's
on
this
I
think
actually
what's
what's
really
interesting
about
this
triangular
site
and
I,
think
the
buildings
are
kind
of
interesting,
the
way
they
fit
in.
So
there
was
a
lot
of
thought,
but
in
there
I
mean
we
could
do
out
of
this
process
really
has
something
to
do
with
the
site,
but
learn
about
how
form
based
codes
and
exceptions
interact.
C
You
know
using
this
as
an
example
and
the
fact
that
it's
a
constrained
site
is
a
good
example,
because
it
will
have
probably
more
calls
for
exception,
so
I
would
do
it
just
from
the
standpoint
of
well.
We
haven't
done
this
before
one
of
the
functions
of
counsel
is
to
be
able
to
review
call
ups
and
see
if
we
think
they're
necessary,
I
agreed
with
Mary's
principle
that
it
would
be
good
to
review
this
from
a
planning
perspective
based
simply
on
the
exceptions
and
he'll
decide
interacted
with
them.
I
More
Aaron
is
yeah,
I,
think
I.
Think
Council
should
review.
How
well
form
based
code
is
working
and
I
think
this
project
could
be
one
of
the
examples,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be
as
part
of
a
call
up.
I
mean
you
do
a
call
up
and
you
think
there
is
some
fundamental
problem
or
some
policy
issue
or
something
that
really
is
exceptionally
troubling
and
I.
I
Frankly,
I
think
are
the
constraints
we
put
on.
Things
often
gives
us
not
so
great
design,
I'd
be
a
lot
more
troubled.
If
well,
I
did
read
the
the
planning
packet
to
some
extent
and
I
think
you
know
the
form
based
code
in
this
case
kind
of
has
some
nice
ideas,
but
they're
not
meant
to
apply
precisely
to
every
single
site,
and
certainly
the
weird
triangular
site
doesn't
work
very
well
for
some
of
the
form
based
code
ideas.
I
But
more
importantly,
you
know
you
read
what
the
staff
says
about
it
and
you
look
at
the
the
strong
majority
vote
on
Planning
Board
and
they
certainly
considered
it,
and
they
had
some
concerns,
as
they
should
have
so
good
for
them
for
doing
their
job,
but
I
think
they
did
their
job
and
clearly
five
of
them.
Five
out
of
six,
because
one
person
was
recused
felt
that
these
two
exceptions,
which
is
perfectly
reasonable
within
the
broader
design
scheme
and
even
within
the
goals
of
the
form-based
code.
I
X
And-
and
that
is
that
we
did
since
we
are
kind
of
a
guinea
pig
for
this,
we
did
tell
planning
board
that
we'd
be
glad
to
come
back
and
do
a
planning
board
session
just
to
review
form
based
code
and
the
process
and
the
good
and
the
bad
things
as
part
of
it,
and
that
obviously,
would
come
back
to
Council
and
we're
glad
to
do
a
presentation
to
Council.
That's
a
summary.
After
we
do
feedback
with
planning
board.
H
Would
have
to
agree
with
that
and
and
I
trust.
Well,
I
I'm,
not
gonna,
repeat
the
points
they
made.
I
agree
completely
and
I
would
add
the
other
one
which
is
I,
don't
think
we
have
extra
time
on
the
calendar.
We've
got
a
lot
of
things.
We've
not
been
able
to
get
to
like
recommendations
from
the
process
committee
and
we're
looking
at
a
special
meeting
for
that.
So
I
just
think.
J
A
Strongly
on
this
other
than
I
I
do
think
we
put
a
lot
of
thought
into
embracing
form
based
code
in
order
to
solve
what
was
a
real
outcry
against
the
quality
of
buildings
who
are
gonna
get
and
I
am
very
interested
in
seeing
if
it
works,
I
a
session
to
call
this
up
you're
about
like
well,
say,
you're,
very
easy
to
deal
with
and
to
me
that
would
be
a
useful
session.
We
don't
have
the
votes
for
it,
so
it's
not
going
to
happen
so.