►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 6-14-22
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
A
B
A
Go
to
www.boco.org
covet
testing
and
the
boulder
site,
for
that
is
2445,
stasio
drive
and
that's
open.
Seven
days
a
week
from
8
am
to
6
pm
and
for
vaccine
information
in
providing
locations.
Please
go
to
www.boco.org
covet
vaccine
and
on
to
the
next
announcement.
Please
all
right,
council
meeting
day
change,
beginning
on
july,
14,
2022,
city,
council
meetings
and
study
sessions
will
change
from
tuesdays
to
thursdays.
With
the
start
time
remaining
at
6
pm.
A
The
new
meeting
day
will
impact
some
board
and
commission
meeting
times
and
the
public
comment
sign
up
timeline.
So
let's
go
through
a
few
of
those
planning
board.
The
new
meeting
times
will
be
first,
third
and
fourth
tuesdays
the
month
at
6,
00
pm
board
of
zoning
and
adjustments.
The
new
meeting
times
are
on
the
second
tuesday
of
the
month
at
4pm.
A
The
design
advisory
board
will
now
be
at
the
second
wednesday
of
the
month
at
4pm,
and
the
public
comment
sign
up.
Timeline
will
open
friday
before
the
meeting
at
8
am
and
close
wednesday
before
the
meeting
at
2
pm
for
a
total
of
5
days
and
more
information
about
all
of
this
can
be
found
at
boulder
colorado.gov
announcement
council
dash
meeting
dash
day
dash
change
all
right
with
that.
Let's
go
ahead
and
gavel.
This
meeting
started
at
6,
00
pm
and
elisha.
Could
we
do
the
roll
call?
Please.
F
G
A
C
C
First,
I
will
present
the
slides
for
each
boarding
commission
identify
which
seats
are
vacant,
along
with
their
required
qualifications,
the
eligible
candidates
and
whether
they
have
applied
for
other
boards.
Second,
we
will
ask.
I
will
ask
the
mayor
to
open
our
public
hearing
close
it
when
it
is
completed
and
turn
the
discussion
back
to
me.
C
C
C
C
C
We
have
catherine
crane
to
consider
and
michael
hirsch,
mr
hearst
did
serve
on
seat
two
from
march
2017
to
march
2022.
Next
slide
emily.
Next
we
have
the
boulder
junction
access
district
parking
commission
board.
We
have
seat
two
that
is
currently
open
and
that
is
to
appoint
a
member
to
a
five-year
term
through
march
31st
2027.
C
This
seat
must
be.
This
person
must
be
a
property
owner
or
representative
of
a
property
owner
seat.
Three
is
also
to
appoint
a
member
to
a
five-year
term
through
march
31st
2027,
and
that
also
must
be
a
appointment
for
a
property
owner
or
property
owner
representative.
C
C
C
Next,
we
have
our
bjet
travel
demand
management.
Commission.
We
have
seat
one
available
to
appoint
a
member
to
an
unexpired
one-year
term
through
three
thirty
one.
Twenty
three:
this
person
must
be
a
property
owner
seat.
Number
two
is
to
appoint
a
member
to
a
five-year
term
through
three
31-27
also
must
be
a
property
owner
and
seat.
Three
is
to
appoint
a
member
to
a
five-year
term
through
331-27
and
also
must
be
a
property
owner.
We
currently
have
miss
rebecca
demo,
shell,
who
also
applied
for
the
bjet
parking
commission
to
consider
next
slide
emily.
C
C
Next
we
have
the
library
commission,
which
is
our
last
board,
to
consider
for
tonight.
That's
library,
commission
seat
number
two
is
available
and
we
are
asking
to
appoint
a
resident
to
a
five-year
term
through
331-27
and
we
currently
have
one
candidate
miss
sylvia
werba.
To
consider
mayor.
I
will
now
turn
the
meeting
back
over
to
you
to
open
the
public
hearing.
A
I
A
J
K
Yeah,
I
have
one
thing
to
say
about
this,
and
that
is,
you
might
have
more
applicants
if
you
had
a
a
more
inviting
10
feeling
about
people
coming
to
council
meetings
and
speaking
at
public
hearings
and
that
open
comment
so
that
I'm
not
the
only
one
that
you
get
advice
from,
because
it
is
so
intimidating
and
so
uncomfortable
to
be
read
the
riot
act
before
I
speak
each
time
that
it
makes
me
not
even
want
to
speak,
and
I
imagine
it
makes
a
lot
of
people
resist,
having
anything
to
do
with
the
city
council
or
with
their
public
government.
K
So
I
suggest
that
you
rethink
your
public
engagement
process
and
how
you're
dealing
with
people
and
there's
no
excuses
of
it's
the
virus
and
that's
why
we're
doing
all
this?
No,
it's
not!
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
pandemic.
It
has
to
do
with
your
public
policy
of
intimidating
people
because
it
never
happened
live,
and
it
doesn't
need
to
happen
any
differently
now
and
I'm
sure
there
are
I.t
ways
of
you
getting
someone
to
sign
on
and
say
you
know
I
agree
like
before
they
sign
up
before
they
can
actually
get
on.
K
So
that's
all
I
have
to
say
I
wish
I
had
more
to
say
about.
You
know
advising
you
about
who
you
should
choose
for
these
board
positions,
but
I
just
don't
so.
Thank
you
very
much.
Bye.
A
C
No
worries,
thank
you.
All
right,
council
just
wanted
to
make
sure
you
remember
the
process
that
we
follow
for
the
nominations,
and
I
will
now
outline
that
formal
candidate
nomination
process
for
those
of
you
who
have
been
involved
in
the
past
you'll.
Remember
that
this
process
is
detailed
in
our
code.
We
will
proceed
through
nominations,
one
board
or
commission
at
a
time,
in
alphabetical
order
by
board
title
council,
members
will
make
nominations
to
field
vacancies
one
seat
at
a
time,
once
nominations
for
the
seat
have
been
made
by
council.
C
Members
council
is
welcome
to
discuss
with
each
other
before
taking
final
action.
If
only
one
person
is
nominated
for
a
seat,
that
appointment
will
stand.
If
there
are
no
objections,
if
more
than
one
person
is
nominated
for
the
same
seat,
we
have
a
specific
process
for
narrowing
the
candidates
down
to
one
finalist.
C
C
C
C
C
M
M
M
Today
we
have
the
same
one
applicant
for
the
liquor
authority,
one
applicant
for
the
library
district,
one
for
the
boulder
junction
traffic
demand
management,
appointment,
one
for
clab
and
one
for
boulder
junction
parking
seats.
Two
and
three
are
we
going
to
be
applying
the
same
principle
today
or
have
we
determined
that
it
is
no
longer
convenient
to
have
that
principle
and
we're
going
to
act
under
a
different
principle?.
A
Do
you
mind
if
I
respond
to
that
mark?
Yes,
please,
great
and
I'll
point
out
there
was.
There
were
more
than
one
board
that
only
had
one
applicant
like
the
library
district.
The
library
board
also
only
had
one
applicant
and
we
deferred
on
on
that
one
as
well.
My
understanding
of
the
the
thought
that
council
was
applying
at
the
time
was
that
it
that
the
regular
cycle
of
board
recruitment
had
only
gotten
one
candidate.
A
We
were
deferring
those
to
do
additional
recruitment
in
the
hopes
of
getting
additional
candidate
candidates,
but
not
that
we
would
necessarily
never
ever
appoint
to
a
board
that
only
had
one
candidate.
So
maybe
I'll
put
it
to
my
colleagues
that
are
folks
comfortable
tonight
appointing
people
to
boards
that
only
have
one
candidate
this
evening.
A
D
L
I
am,
I
hope,
that
we
revisit
this
at
our
kind
of
mid-cycle
retreat.
It
felt
clunky
and
particularly
seemed
like
we
were
shifting
in
the
middle
of
the
process
on
some
of
this,
and
it
seems
like
it's
taken
up
time
and
and
caused
boards
to
to
function
at
you
know,
lower
lower
board
membership
levels
than
I
would
have
liked
for
longer.
So,
yes
to
tonight,
hopefully
somebody
can
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
next
month.
L
N
Yeah,
I
I
agree
with
sort
of
coming
circling
back
and
having
a
little
better
discussion
of
this.
I
I
don't.
I
mean
I
like
the
idea
that
you
know
we
gave
it
a
second
round.
We
really
tried
to
drown.
You
know
dredge
out
some
more
candidates,
and
so
I
think
we
can't
really
hold
these
seats
open
indefinitely,
and
so
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
now
fill
them
and
move
on
and
try
to
get
the
work
that
we
can
done.
N
We're
still
going
to
have
some
holes
in
it,
and
so
I
think,
for
an
early
round
trying
to
get
as
much
competition
as
we
can
is
a
good
thing
to
try
to
start
with,
but
that
can't
be
something
we
hold
on
forever
in
a
process
when
we
have
vacancies
and
we
need
to
move
some
some
process
forward
with
these
committees.
So
I'm
okay
moving
forward
with
who
we
got
so
we
can
put
this
to
bed
and
move
on
to
other
stuff.
G
G
I
think,
there's
a
there's
a
potential
for
a
little
signal
to
us
all
candidate
when
we
reopen
it
that
you're
not
good
enough
for
us
and
I
think
that's
a
little
awkward.
I
think
if
someone
is
putting
themselves
out
there
and
they
happen
to
be
the
only
qualified
candidate,
I
think
we
should
appoint
that
person.
So
I
I
agree.
I
joined
rachel
in
in
calling
for
council
to
revisit
this
as
a
matter
of
policy
going
forward,
I'm
a
little
a
little
embarrassed
where
we
ended
up.
G
We
are
where
we
are
I'm
gonna
vote
for
seoul
candidates
tonight,
but
I
think
we
should
also
maybe
develop
a
policy
for
for
going
forward.
E
Yeah
thanks
for
bringing
this
up
mark,
it
was
something
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
chatted
about
before
we
got
underway
here.
I
think
yeah.
I
appreciate
all
the
comments
both
around
sort
of
how
this
has
happened
historically
and
what
we
might
do
going
forward.
I
also
would
like
to
just
bring
up
that.
You
know.
E
I
think
something
me
and
tara
have
both
talked
about
wanting
to
do
is
looking
at
some
of
these
boards
that
aren't
having
as
many
applicants
as
we
would
like,
and
just
try
and
look
also
at
what
the
requirements
are
for
those
boards
see.
E
O
Yeah,
I
agree
with
everybody
first
lisa,
if
you're
listening,
lisa
spalding,
I
do
want
to
apologize,
it
was
an
uncomfortable
experience
for
you
and
we
did
not
mean
it.
I
personally
didn't
mean
it
to
come
out
like
that.
We
tried
some
new
things
this
year
and
some
of
them
worked
well
and
some
of
them
didn't
work
as
well.
O
So
I
agree
that
we
need
to
re-look
at
things,
but
I
also
want
to
tell
council
my
dear
friends
that
I'm
hoping
that
you're
ready
for
a
few
other
changes
that
we
are
going
to
try
and
again
some
of
them
will
be
great.
Some
of
them
might
not
be
as
great
and
we're
just
going
to
keep
working
at
it,
and
hopefully
you
are
looking
forward
to
that
right.
Lord
apologies
for
what
didn't
work,
counsel.
A
M
Mark
again
yeah,
I
I
want
to
support
the
comments
that
were
made
by
lauren
and
tara,
and
I
would
suggest
that
we
adopt
policies
that
are
good
for
all
weathers,
as
opposed
to
those
which
are
situationally
convenient,
which
is
what
we
had
at
the
last
go
around
for
this.
We
ought
to
do
something
that
is
satisfactory,
not
at
the
moment,
but
for
all
moments,
and
I
don't
think
we
had
that
previously.
M
G
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
actually
thank
and
acknowledge
lauren
and
tara
for
all
the
hard
work
that
they
have
done
both
back
in
february
and
march,
and
also
in
this
go
around.
I
know
this
has
been
a
ton
of
work
for
the
two
of
you.
I
know
you've
got
some
recommendations
to
make
to
us,
which
I'm
looking
forward
to
hearing
with
all
due
respect
to
anybody
who
served
on
the
prior
board
and
commissions
committee.
D
A
L
Go
ahead,
I
second,
what
bob
just
said:
thanks
tara
and
lauren,
for
all
your
hard
work
and
and
to
follow
up
on
lauren's
point
about
some
boards
that
we're
having
trouble
filling
seats
on
such
as
we've
got
the
2b
jab.
That's
I
say
bjid
boards
for
parking
and
travel
demand,
management
and
clab
have
resident
requirements.
I
just
want
to
know
the
process
for
when
we
should
pick
that
up
and
hopefully
direct
staff
to
make
some
changes.
If,
if
needed,
is
that
something
we'll
talk
about
the
process
retreat?
Is
that
a
noddify?
A
Is
that
can
somebody
speak
to
that
like?
Could
we
consider
that,
at
the
process
meeting.
H
We
can
add
that
to
to
the
list
of
items
that
are
considered,
I've
flagged
it
for
our
team
thanks
chris.
A
E
A
So
I'll
just
chime
in
on
the
previous
comments
and
say
I
agree
that
it
was
a
very
awkward
process
this
year.
I
think
we
did
our
best.
It
didn't
come
out
perfectly
and
I
agree
that
we
should
look
at
how
to
do
that
differently
and
better
in
the
future
and
uncomfortable
pointing
the
single
applicants
to
those
boards.
Where
there's
only
one
applicant
tonight.
A
C
C
A
E
I
would
like
to
recognized
michael
hirsch
and
his
excellent
work
on
this
board
and
while
well,
I
think,
he's
been
a
great
member
of
the
board
of
zoning
adjustments.
I
would
like
to
nominate
katherine
crane.
You
know
I
just
talking
to
aaron.
It
sounds
like
typically
when
someone
has
served
a
full
term
and
we
have
multiple
applicants.
E
We,
you
know
it's
common,
to
look
at
sort
of
giving
a
number
of
people
experience
in
these
positions
and
so,
while
they're
both
highly
qualified.
I
would
like
to
nominate
katherine
crane
for
this
position.
A
Well,
seeing
none,
then,
I
think
I'll
join
lauren
in
thanking
michael
hirsch
for
his
service.
We've
really
appreciated
his
work
on
the
board
in
the
last
five
years,
but
sometimes
it's
time
for
for
new
faces
and
to
give
new
people
chances
for
the
experience
to
lend
their
service
so
looks
like
by
acclimation
that'll
be
catherine
crane
for
the
seat.
A
Great
so
I
believe,
we'll
have
rebecca
dumochelle
will
slide
into
seat
number
two
here
as
the
only
eligible
person
by
the
way,
she's
very
well
qualified.
I
happen
to
know,
and
then
we
have
four
possibilities
for
the
resident.
I'm
sorry
the
general
resident,
that's
not
a
property
under
representative.
So
can
we
take
a
nomination
tara.
A
Ronan
right,
I
will
go
ahead
and
raise
my
hand
here
and
nominate
thomas
wells.
A
A
All
right
seeing
none
do
people
want
to
speak
to
their
people.
They've
nominated
terry.
You
were
first.
If
you
want
to
go.
O
A
E
Thank
you
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
to
raise.
I
mean
brian
gave
a
great
interview
and
had
a
great
answers
on
the
questionnaire
and
has
served
on
transportation
and
provided
great
service
to
the
city,
ultimately
partially
from
what
I've
said
before.
I
do
think
it's
important
to
give
people
who
haven't
had
a
chance
to
serve
on
boards
and
commissions
a
new
seat,
so
I
may
not
ultimately
vote
for
him,
but
I
really
wanted
to
make
sure
he
got
nominated.
A
Okay,
very
good,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
people
to
raise
their
virtual
hands
because
I
can't
necessarily
see
everybody's
physical
hand
so
and
I'll
so
we'll
go
and
start
with
ryan
bonek.
A
L
A
I
think
we
talked
before
about
appointing
everyone
where
there
was
only
one
applicant
for
one
seat.
I
do
believe
it's
perfectly
fine
to
appoint
the
same
person
to
both
be
jad
boards.
I
don't
think
there
are
any
issues
with
that,
but
bob
do
you
want
to
speak
to
it.
G
Yeah
now,
not
only
is
it
perfectly
good,
I
think
it's
actually
a
good
idea.
We've
done
this
before
historically,
where
we've
had
one
or
two
people
who
have
been
on
on
each
of
the
two
boards.
I
don't
know
if
the
city
attorneys
have
an
opinion
about
that,
but
with
regard
to
pgad,
which
has
always
been
a
mystery
to
me,
why
we
have
two
boards,
which
maybe
the
boards
and
commissions
will
enlighten
us
on
later.
We've
had
overlap,
and
there
is
a
president
for
this,
and
I
hope
that
rebecca
will
serve
on
both
words.
M
A
E
I
think
I
would
support
offering
her
both
positions
and
letting
her
let
us
know
if
she
wants
to
reject
one
of
them.
I
would
also
just
like
to
clarify
that
for
the
trans
the
demand
management
position,
there
were
three
different
seats,
one
of
the
of
three
different
lengths,
and
I
would
like
to
appoint
her
to
a
term
that
matches
this
five-year
term
that
she
would
be
have
on
the
parking
commission.
F
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment-
and
I
appreciate
this
conversation
that
we're
having
about
appointing
one
counts,
one
community
member
to
two
boards,
but
I'm
thinking
there
are
people
who's
who
we
could
appoint
to
to
the
other
board.
So
I'm
just
not
sure
why
is
it
necessary
or
even
ultimately
important
to
appoint
one
person
to
two
wards
if
there
is
other
people
who
are
available
to
take
on
that
position,.
A
I
can
speak
to
that
journey.
If
you
don't
mind
in
this
case
in
for
both
of
these
boards,
there
are
rebecca's
the
only
eligible
person
and
there
are
multiple
seats
open.
So
there's
no
one
else
available
at
this
time
to,
and
in
fact,
if
she
is
appointed
to
vote,
there
will
still
be
empty
seats
for
lack
of
applicants.
Q
A
Any
other
questions
or
comments,
or
we
we
could
move.
I
think
that
the
next
step,
if
people
are
comfortable
with
where
we've
gotten
would
be
for
somebody
to
make
a
motion
to
appoint
everyone
as
designated
through
this
process,.
L
D
A
Great,
we
have
a
motion,
and
a
second,
and
at
least,
is
this
a
show
of
hands.
E
A
M
Have
we
discussed
design
advisory?
We
had
I
we
had
two
candidates
there
above
withdrew.
They
both
withdrew.
C
A
Great
matt
you're,
the
seconder.
A
C
Yes,
sir,
thank
you
we'll
start
this
roll
call
with
mayor
pro
tem
friend.
D
G
D
A
A
C
A
C
All
right,
thank
you.
Sir
item
4b
on
tonight's
agenda
is
the
second
reading
and
consideration
of
a
motion
to
adopt
ordinance,
85
21,
to
amend
the
designated
boundary
to
include
all
of
block
13
of
the
property
at
1236
canyon,
boulevard,
city
of
boulder
colorado,
an
individual
landmark
under
chapter
9-11,
historic
preservation,
brc
1981
and
setting
forth
the
related
details.
B
Thanks
alicia
and
I
am
going
to
introduce
james
hewitt,
who
is
going
to
present
this
item
from
the
planning
and
development
services
department.
R
Good
good
james
hewitt,
principal
historic
preservation,
planner
with
planning
and
development
services,
historic
preservation-
I'm
gonna,
share
my
screen,
hopefully
it'll
work.
Actually,
it
says
that
my
ability
to
share
is
disabled
right
now,.
R
Oh,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
advance
slides
for
me,
emily
yep,
emily.
Okay,
thanks
sorry,
I
thought
I
was
going
to
do
this
good
evening
and
thank
you
I'll
try
and
be
fairly
brief,
because
I
know
there
are
quite
a
few
people
who
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item
through
the
public
hearing,
and
I
should
just
point
out
too
that
we
have
the
chair
of
the
landmarks
board
in
attendance
this
evening
and
the
vice
chair
too.
R
R
I
can
walk
you
all
through
the
procedure
for
tonight's
hearing.
Would
you
like
me
to
do
that
mayor.
R
Okay,
all
right,
because
this
is
quasi-judicial
the
city
council
members
tonight-
will
each
need
to
reveal
ex
parte
contacts
I'll
make.
As
I
said,
a
fairly
brief
presentation
and
the
council
may
ask
me
questions
the
applicant
at
this
point.
Has
an
opportunity
to
present-
and
this
is
the
applicant-
is
actually
the
city
for
a
owned
property.
So,
but
there,
as
I
mentioned
before,
abby
daniels
is
here
and
she
will
be
available
to
us
answer.
R
Questions
the
public
hearing
at
that
point
is
opened
for
public
comment
and
the
council
may
ask
questions
of
any
of
the
comments
made
during
the
public
hearing
and
then
the
applicant
owner
has
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
any
any
thing
that
has
been
said.
The
public
hearing
is
closed
and
the
city
council
will
deliberate
and
of
course,
a
motion
will
require
an
affirmative
vote
of
at
least
five
city
council
members
to
pass
the
motion
next
slide.
Please.
R
So,
as
do
you
all
know,
the
criteria
for
landmark
designation
is
set
out
in
section
911
1
and
911
2,
the
boulder
revised
code
commonly
known
as
the
historic
preservation
ordinance,
and
I
don't-
I
won't
read
through
this-
I'm
assuming
you're
all
fairly
familiar
with
this
and
have
read
the
memo
next
slide.
Please.
R
Actually,
can
you
go
to
the
next
slide?
I
don't
think
that
should
be
there.
Let's
see
options
in
terms
of
your
decisions,
your
decision
this
evening,
you
have
an
option
to
approve
the
designation,
in
this
case
an
expansion
of
an
existing
landmark
boundary.
R
R
Back
one
more,
please
thank
you.
I
I
I
put
this
on
the
screen,
because
you
know
one
of
your
considerations
too.
As
the
city
council
is
looking
at
policies
as
far
as
as
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
goes
and
policy,
2.28
leadership
and
preservation
does
state
that
eligible
resources
that
have
been
identified
through
survey,
including
secondary
buildings,
or
elements
that
are
part
of
and
convey
the
cultural
significance
of
a
site
should
be
designated,
and
this
is
referring
to
city-owned
properties.
Next
slide,
please
next
slide.
R
So
I'll
just
go
very
quickly.
Go
through
the
history
of
how
this
comes
to
you
tonight
in
august
of
2021,
the
friends
of
the
band
show,
which
is
a
recognized
401c3
historic
preservation.
R
The
boundary
had
been
cut
to
include
only
the
north
half
of
block
13.
in
november
of
2021.
The
landmarks
board
held
an
initiation
hearing
and
voted
to
move
forward,
with
looking
at
the
possibility
of
expanding
the
boundary
and
in
january
of
2022,
the
parks
and
recreation
advisory
board
reviewed
the
initiation
and
requested
this
postponement
of
the
designation
to
allow
time
for
additional
review
of
the
application.
R
The
landmarks
board
did
postpone
the
hearing
to
allow
that
time
and-
and
I
will
say
that
I
went
to
the
parks
and
recreation
advisory
board
to
speak
to
them,
to
explain
about
the
landmarking
and
what
it
meant,
and
there
were
some.
There
were
some
concerns
on
the
part
of
the
the
board
members
themselves.
Although
they
did
not
take
a
formal
position,
they
did
a
subsequent
meeting
write
some
comments
that
are
in
the
actually
an
attachment
to
the
memo.
D
R
In
your
packet,
meanwhile
april
6,
the
landmarks
board
did
have
a
designation
hearing
and
they
voted
4-1
to
recommend
expansion
of
the
boundary.
Now
I
should
point
out
here
too,
and
this
is
outlined
in
the
memo
that
staff's
recommendation
was
in
lieu
of
expanding,
to
include
all
of
block.
13
staff
recommended
that
this
not
happen
at
this
time.
That
is
the
designation
and
that
the
board
not
forward
this
to
the
city
council,
but
instead
it
directs
staff
to
look
at
a
larger
civic
area.
R
District
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
in
a
minute,
and
so
that
recommendation
we
are
staying
with
and
I'll
speak
a
bit
more
about
that,
and
that
was
outlined
in
the
first
reading
memo
that
you
passed
on
your
consent
agenda,
and
that
is
our
recommendation
this
evening
and
I'll
read
that
more
completely
as
I
go
on
next
slide.
Please.
R
Okay,
in
terms
of
the
the
property
location,
I
think
everybody's
very
familiar
with
this.
This
is
the
civic
area.
This
is
the
you
know
the
essentially
the
heart
of
boulder
along
boulder
creek
and
across
broadway
from
the
municipal
building,
which
is
landmarked
across
also
from
the
atrium
building
from
the
duchamp
bay
tea
house
to
the
south
of
that
and
the
boulder
museum
of
contemporary
art
building,
all
landmarked.
R
So
just
to
key
you
into
what
these
lines
are
showing
you,
the
green
line,
indicates
what
was
designated
in
1996
and
the
hatched
line
indicates
the
requested
expansion
of
the
boundary
next
slide.
Please.
R
And
just
some
photographs
showing
aspects
of
the
area
in
question
now
the
boundary
currently
runs
along
the
berm
so
where
the
sawed-off
tree
is
and
the
sign
and
the
other
tree
that
that's
where
the
the
southern
boundary
now
runs,
and
there
is
a
berm
and
the
seating
that
is,
there
was
actually
constructed
in
1950
and
originally
we'll
see
some
earlier
photographs.
It
was
just
an
open
lawn
without
seating
and
without
the
berm.
R
And
some
more
photographs
top
left,
looking
southwest
essentially
from
the
band
shell
down
onto
the
area
where
the
proposed
boundary
would
extend
to
the
white
rock,
ditch
being
on
the
other
side
of
the
path
which
is
running
sort
of
midway
through
that
photograph.
R
The
top
right
photograph,
showing
the
view
looking
southwest
again
from
a
slightly
different
angle,
and
you
can
see
the
berm
in
the
seating
to
the
right
and
then
bottom
left.
The
view
looking
essentially
from
the
southern
boundary-
and
you
can
see
to
the
left-
is
the
duchamp
tea
house
on
the
other
side
of
13th
street,
as
well
as
the
bimoka
building
and
then
to
the
right
of
the
trees,
the
area
that
would
be
included
in
the
proposed
boundary
if
it
were
to
be
expanded.
R
Lastly,
the
bottom
left
shows
a
photograph.
This
is
taken
from
google
street
view
and
we'll
sh
we'll
look
at
a
couple
of
views
over
time
and
it's
really
kind
of
remarkable
how
much
how
similar
this
really
is
for
in
the
last
hundred
years.
But
anyway,
this
is
looking
northwest
from
the
bridge.
You
can
see
the
man
shell
on
the
left
and
the
paths
and
the
ditch,
as
well
as
the
weir,
which
is
sort
of
hidden
below
the
barrier
of
the
bridge.
Next
slide.
Please.
R
So
this
is
actually
a
map
that
was
included
in
the
1996
application
to
designate
the
band
shell,
and
you
can
see
there's
a
sort
of
a
I
don't
know
quite
how
to
describe
the
shape,
but
it's
kind
of
like
a
triangle,
and
that
was
the
application
that
was
submitted
by
the
modern
architectural
leagues
application
for
the
designation.
R
The
first
of
them
is
architectural
significance
in
looking
at
this
larger
area.
It
was
actually
very
revealing
to
find
out
how
much
conscious
planning
there
was
and
how
much
planning
really
goes
back
to
the
turn
of
the
20th
century
in
terms
of
visioning.
For
what
we
now
know
as
the
civic
area,
the
photograph
on
the
top
left
shows.
R
The
state
of
this
is
looking
from
the
bridge
pretty
much
the
same
view
just
a
little
bit
over
the
rail
than
we
saw
in
the
last
photograph
from
the
google
street
view
shot,
but
you
can
see
the
buildings
to
the
left.
There
was
a
green
house,
a
row
of
trees
and
a
house
in
the
back
now.
R
The
band
shell
presently
sits
where
those
trees
are
in
the
middle
ground
that
was
cleared
away
and
I'll
talk
more
about
that
right
after
this
photograph
was
taken
subsequently
in
the
1930s,
the
city
hired
sucko,
rink
deboer,
who
had
done
a
lot
of
work
and
was
responsible
for
the
parkway
system
in
the
city
of
denver
to
do
planning
for
the
civic
area
and
he'd
actually
just
worked
on
the
first
zoning
code
for
boulder
and
introduce
that
he
is
recognized
as
a
as
an
important
and
influential
nationally
renowned,
architectural
or
landscape
architect.
R
I
should
say-
and
you
can
see
here-
there
were
some
fairly
wild
looking
schemes
that
never
came
to
fruition,
but
they
were
automobile
sort
of
dominated
plans
that
were
designed
specifically
for
this
area
by
him
during
the
1930s
and
early
1940s.
R
R
R
Junior
was
part
of
the
firm
and
the
firm
actually
still
exists
today.
I
believe,
but
they
were
in
after
his
father
died.
The
firm
was
very
active
and
frederick
law
was
brought
to
city
the
city
of
boulder
by
the
city
of
boulder,
specifically
to
draw
up
a
plan,
and
one
of
the
key
components
was
the
revitalization
of
the
area
along
boulder
creek,
because
at
that
time
it
was
a
fairly
industrial
and
not
a
very,
very
pleasant
place,
so
peter
pollock
who's.
R
The
former
planning
director,
gave
a
talk
several
weeks
ago
to
historic,
boulder
and
has
revealed
some
very
interesting
information
about
frederick
lomb's.
That's
planned
for
this
grassy
area
in
front
of
where
the
band
shell
now
sits
and
it
was
implemented
in
the
early
1920s,
we'll
see
a
photograph
of
that.
So
you
can
see
the
photograph
of
saco
dubour
and
then
lastly,
glenn
h,
huntington,
who
was
the
designer
of
the
band
shell
and
a
very
prolific
architect,
designed
all
sorts
of
very
diverse
buildings,
all
over
boulder
next
slide.
R
Please
and
then
finally,
environmental
significance.
You
know
it
is
clearly
an
urban
a
park.
It
has
been
used
as
such
for
over
a
hundred
years.
In
again
in
looking
at
the
the
history
of
the
area
we
revealed,
it
was
revealed
to
us
just
how
much
has
gone
on
here
over
the
years
and.
D
R
R
It
is
really
quite
intact
today,
and
certainly
you
know
an
urban
civic
area,
civic
gathering
place
and
has
been
for
100
years
next
slide.
Please.
R
So
I
said
I
was
going
to
show
you
this
this
image.
The
photograph
on
the
left
is
taken.
We
looked
at
this
one
before
1921
before
that,
all
that
all
the
buildings
were
were
cleared
away
in
some
of
the
trees
taken
away
as
well
1925.
R
This
was
actually
the
realization
of
of
a
plan,
specifically
that
frederick
longstead
had
done
for
this.
Grassy
area
was
subsequently
in
1938,
the
lions
club
and
the
parks
and
recreation
board
at
the
time
had
the
band
shell
built
after
designs
by
glenn
huntington
and
then
the
seating
was
added
in
1950
and
then
the
view
today
I
mean
it
really
is
very
recognizable,
and
this
was
surprising,
I
think
to
us,
and
it
is
part
of
a
whole
so
to
the
next
slide.
Please
and
sorry,
I'm
going
on
so
long.
R
Oh,
I
just
wanted
to
mention
too,
that
you
know
boulder
does
have
several
city-owned
and
designated
cultural
landscapes,
not
the
least
of
which
is
the
colorado
chautauqua,
which
is
in
itself
a
vernacular
cultural
landscape
that
has
evolved
over
the
years,
and
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
I
think
sometimes
folks
have
the
impression
that,
when
something
is
landmarked
or
in
a
historic
district,
the
change
can't
occur
and
actually
the
the
truth
is
that
change
occurs.
R
All
the
time
and
historic
preservation
is
just
one
filter
to
manage
that
change
in
a
way
that
recognizes
the
historic
character.
Another
property
that
is
also
designated
and
owned
by
the
city
of
boulder
and
clearly
an
important
cultural
landscape
is
the
columbia
cemetery
of
10
acres
next
slide.
Please.
R
R
To
look
at
the
possibility
of
doing
a
larger
and
more
encompassing
holistic,
historic
district
that
recognizes
the
very
historic
resources
and
the
evolution
of
this
place
over
time
from
its
establishment
in
the
early
19th
century
through
to
the
duchamp
tea
house,
which
is
which
was
constructed
nearly
in
the
21st
century.
It
is
a
vibrant,
organic
changing
place,
and
I
think,
with
the
with
plans
for
revitalizing
the
civic
area,
it
would
make
sense
to
to
have
a
historic
district
which
would
roughly
we
would
look
at
the
area
in
the
red
line.
R
Hatchling
there
as
being
a
possibility.
So
staff's
recommendation
in
lieu
of
doing
this
is
of
expanding
to
include
all
of
block.
13
would
be
to
look
at
a
larger,
more
historic
or
more,
encompassing
historic
district.
Next
slide.
Please-
and
I
put
on
the
slide
a
couple
of
pros
and
cons,
or
advantages
and
potential
disadvantages
to
doing
this
and
I'll
just
read
through
them
very
quickly
and
then
wrap
up,
but
the
advantage
is
that
doing
a
district
represents
best
practices
in
terms
of
historic
preservation.
R
Unfortunately,
for
one
reason
and
another,
not
least
of
which
is
that
the
process
for
individual
landmarks,
destiny
landmark
designation,
happens
very
quickly
from
the
time
an
application
comes
in
to
the
time
that
you
see
it
as
city
council
with
covid
and
staff
changes
that
have
been
occurring
in
the
last
year.
That
was
that
made
that
time
much
shorter.
R
So
a
district
would
allow
for
an
additional
public
process,
because,
through
the
application
process
for
designation
of
a
district,
there
is
more
public
hearing
and
actually
the
development
of
specific
design
guidelines
for
a
district
requirement
and
that's
a
collaborative
pro
process.
So
staff
thinks
for
all
those
reasons.
R
That
would
be
the
pr
preferred
approach,
and
that
is
our
recommendation.
The
disadvantages
to
a
district
is,
it
is
inconsistent
with
the
landmarks
board
recommendation
to
expand
just
that
block
and
staff
certainly
takes
very
seriously.
You
know
the
landmarks
boards
thoughts,
concerns
and
recommendations,
and
then
another
potential
disadvantage
is
not
expanding.
R
The
boundary
today
would
mean
that
technically,
the
area
would
not
be
subject
to
landmark
alteration:
certificate
review
until
district
designation
is
commenced,
and
I
will
say
that
once
an
application
is
submitted,
then
it
is
dealt
with
as
a
landmark,
and
so
it
would
need
to
go
through
the
landmark
alteration
certificate
process.
That
is
any
changes
that
would
occur
in
that
potential
boundary
next
slide.
Please.
R
R
My
recommendation
me
or
our
recommended
motion
is
on
the
screen
and
we
have
made
as
part
of
this
recommendation
or
part
of
this
motion.
R
I
should
say
the
requirement
that
staff
would
be
directed
to
make
the
to
process
and
an
app
an
application
or
a
designation
for
a
civic
area,
historic
district
as
a
work
program
priority
in
2023,
and
I
should
say
that
I
wanted
to
be
very
clear
with
claire
brandt
that
I
work
with
because
she'll
be
here,
and
this
is
actually
going
to
be
my
last
visit
to
you
as
a
city
employee,
because
I'm
leaving
at
the
end
of
this
month.
R
But
we
do
have
the
capacity
to
do
that
in
2023,
work,
program-wise
and
as
part
of
the
motion.
Two
and
chris
messchuck
suggested
that
we
do
add
this
language
as
well,
because
this
is
not
in
a
memo
that
the
the
motion
would
include
council
directing
staff
to
ensure
that
the
landmarks
board
and
parks
and
recreation
advisory
board
are
appropriately
engaged
in
the
park
design
process
and
that
the
band
shell
is
included
in
the
design
and
continues
to
be
a
centerpiece
in
central
park.
R
That
concludes
my
presentation
and
I
will
stand
for
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
Thanks
so
much
for
that
james-
and
I
just
said-
I've
heard
so
many
presentations
by
you
and
will
be
very
sad
to
not
get
any
more.
We'll
say
a
few
more
words
about
that
at
the
end
of
this
item.
But
for
now
any
questions
for
james
bob
and
then
tara.
G
Yeah,
I
will
have
a
question
but
james.
I
do
want
to
add
a
personal
note
now
and
I
think
we
will
have
some
more
to
say
in
a
few
minutes.
I
I
it's
been
my
honor
and
pleasure
to
serve
with
you,
alongside
of
you,
not
only
for
the
seven
years.
I've
been
on
council
for
many
years
before
that,
and
you
and
I
worked
on
a
lot
of
projects
together,
and
I
really
respect
you
and
your
team
and
all
the
work
you've
done
for
historic
preservation
through
the
years
and
so
we're
gonna.
G
We're
gonna,
miss
you
so
early,
and
I
personally
wish
you
the
best
after
you
after
you
depart.
I
did
have
a
question
or
two
for
you
james.
I
believe
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong
that
we
do
have,
I
think,
10
historic
districts
already
in
the
city,
and
you
know
things
like
chautauqua
and
mapleton,
hill
and
and
and
university
place
and
some
other
places
and
each
one
of
those
also
has
historically
designated
structures
in
them.
G
In
other
words,
I
think
I
think
I
think
it's
true,
but
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
that
we
in
some
instances
we
designated
historic
structures
or
houses
or
buildings,
and
then
we
also
designated
a
district
later
on.
In
other
instances,
we
designated
district,
but
then
we
also
designated
properties
within
those
districts
is
is
that
is
that
true,
I
mean
is:
there
is
a
kind
of
like
there's
there's
a
district
umbrella,
but
there's
also
specific
properties
within
districts
that
have
been
designated.
R
Yes,
that's
true
and
actually
the
first
historic
district
and
I
think
people
are
surprised
to
learn.
This
is
floral
park.
You
know
a
neighborhood
that
was
built
in
the
1940s
and
at
the
time
it
was
not
even
50
years
old
that
it
was
designated
so,
but
yet
to
your
to
your
question,
the
individual
landmarks.
G
So
we
could
we
could.
We
could
do
both
of
the
things
you're
recommending
that
is
or
one
of
the
things
one
of
the
things
recommending.
One
thing
that
has
been
submitted
to
us:
that
is,
we
could
we
could
designate
the
rest
of
the
the
bandshell
property
as
a
as
a
landmark,
but
then
we
could.
G
We
could
do
exactly
what
you're
recommending
ask
the
landmarks
board
and
park
sport
to
get
together
next
year
and
to
potentially
designate
the
whole
district,
which
most
of
most
of
the
buildings
on
the
map
in
the
east
have
already
been
designated
like
the
adrian
building
and
the
tea
house
and
and
the
cold
storage
building,
but
then
also
potentially
in
I
think,
the
municipal
building,
but
then
also
potentially
create
a
district.
In
other
words,
we
could
we
could
designate
this
tonight,
but
we
could
also
designate
a
district.
R
A
Thanks
tara,
matt
lauren
rachel
mark.
O
O
O
R
Okay,
well,
the
I
I
think,
there's
not
necessarily
a
con
to
that.
I
think
what
the
pro
and
I
would
just
emphasize
this-
is
that
it
would
provide
time
for
the
landmarks
board
and
the
parks
and
recreation
advisory
board
to
meet,
to
discuss
the
designation
and
and
the
overall
planning
process
for
the
civic
area
as
part
of
the
consideration
of
designation.
R
Well,
I
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
one
board
didn't
want
to
include
the
other.
You.
R
R
Well
and
I'll
I'll
defer
to
abby,
but
you
know,
as
I
pointed
out,
that
the
application
or
the
letter
came
in
in
august
and
the
landmarks
board
discussed
it,
and
you
know
after
that
and
and
as
far
as
I
know,
prat
the
pram
did
as
well.
But
there
wasn't,
there
wasn't
direct
dialogue
between
the
boards
and
there's
probably
should
have
been
and
that
you
know
I
take
responsibility
for
that.
R
O
I
just
want
you
to
know
them,
I'm
a
big
fan
of
all
of
our
historic,
our
historic
areas
and
I'm
excited
about
the
historic
civic
area
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
And
I'll
just
note,
thanks
to
tara,
that
we
do
have
allie
rhodes
from
the
police
department
here
and
I
think
after
ms
daniels
from
the
land
mark
sport
speaks
we're
going
to
give
ali
a
chance
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
the
park
sports
concerns
were
so
stay
tuned
for
that
okay,
matt,
lauren,
rachel
mark.
N
Thanks
aaron,
actually
I
really
like
the
questions
that
have
sort
of
come
already
from
my
colleagues
helping
me
refine
my
thoughts
a
little
bit.
I
have
a
question
kind
of
next
parte
questions.
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
question
for
now
or
maybe
later,
but
I'm
really
curious
as
to
what
that
means
in
this
instance,
because
normally
I'm
used
to
ex
parte
being
like
a
developer
or
a
property
owner,
but
it
seems
like
in
this.
These
are
questions
of
ourselves,
and
so
are
these
dialogues
with
staff?
N
Are
they
dialogues
with
landmarks
board
or
parks
board
or
or
council
colleagues,
or
worse
off
internal
monologues?
So
I
I'm
I'm
curious
where
what
does
ex
parte
mean
here
as
once,
that
question
gets
asked,
I
kind
of
just
want
to
know
where
that
resides
and
what
the
boundaries
are.
R
Well,
you
know
you
think
after
all
this
time
I
would
have
known
to
ask
you
to
reveal
ex
parte
before
I
started,
but
I
didn't
I
went
into
it,
but
I'd
defer
to
sorry
about
that.
I'd,
I'd
defer
to
the
city
attorney's
office
in
terms
of
you
know
what
you're
revealing,
but
I
think
it's
communication
that
you
know
my
bias
decision.
S
I'll
jump
in
this
is
theresa
taylor,
tate
city
attorney
yeah.
This
is
your
you're
right,
it's
unusual
because
we're
the
applicants,
and
so,
if
you've,
had
conversations
that
are
substantive
in
nature.
A
And
I'll
I'll
share
the
apologies
for
not
getting
that
done
here,
but
why
don't
we
finish
our
staff
questions
and
then
we'll
go
to
ex
parte
reveals
thanks
for
that,
matt.
N
Yeah
and
thanks
for
clarifying
james
entries,
I
appreciate
that.
E
Thank
you.
So
we've
talked
about
the
similarities
between
the
landscape
as
planned,
and
the
landscape
as
it
currently
is.
But
when
I
look
at
those
photos,
I
see
some
mature
like
what
looks
like
more
lines
of
mature
trees
in
the
historic
photos
versus
what
I
see
now
is
sort
of
more
random
trees
all
over,
and
then
I
was
also
noticing
in
the
drawings.
It
looks
like
they're
all
shown
as
the
same
type
of
tree
versus
you
know.
E
R
Yeah,
that's
a
really
good
question
and
I
will
say
that
and
ally
can
speak
more
about
this,
but
the
historic
preservation
plan
that
parts
and
rec
is
currently
working
on
being
prepared
by
mundus
bishop,
who
is
a
very
well-known,
architectural
or
sort
of
landscape,
architectural
firm,
but
also
landscape,
architectural
historian
firm,
and
they
have
done
a
lot
of
work
at
chautauqua
as
well.
R
R
You
know,
you're
talking
about
trees
that
come
and
go
and
die
and
grow,
and-
and
there
is
also
you
know
what
what's
practical
and
what
works
in
the
climate-
and
I
think
we've
found
that
and
I'm
not
a
landscape
architect
or
a
an
arborist,
but
mapleton
hill
was
named
precisely
because
it
was
planted
with
silver
maples
and
we've
since
found
that
silver
maples
really
just
have
a
tough
time
in
our
climate,
so
yeah.
So
I
think
that's
just
part
of
the
evolution
of
the
landscape.
E
And
this
might
be
a
question
for
ali
later
as
well,
but
I
was
wondering
about
the
embankment
condition
and
how
that
was
historically
done
versus
how
it
is
now.
If
that's
evolved,
I'm
just
I'm.
You
know
the
paths
are
somewhat
different.
I'm
trying
to
sort
of
latch
on
to
what
exactly
other
than
it
being
sort
of
generically
trees
with
grass
under
it
is
are
the
qualities
of
the
historic
landscape
that
we
are
preserving.
R
Well,
I
do
think
it's
the
trees,
as
you
pointed
out,
it's
the
lawn
area,
which
was
intended
to
be
a
a
great
area
for
people
to
gather,
to
watch
performances
and
to
recreate,
and
then
I
think,
the
ditch
at
the
southern
boundary
as
well,
and
that
weir
it
may
have
been
rebuilt
at
times
over
time,
but
I
think
it
is
pretty
close
to
what
was
there.
Historically,
I
think
the
steps
may
have
gone.
The
paths
certainly
have
changed
over
time,
but
there
have
been
paths
there
for
gosh
close
to
100
years.
E
And
then,
in
your
presentation,
you
mentioned
as
one
of
the
possible
disadvantages
that
this,
wouldn't
I
forget
what
what
exactly
the
wording
was.
One
of
the
cons
I
think
was
about.
E
Things
not
needing
to
go
through
a
landmark
alteration
review.
Do
we
have
any?
I
mean
this
is
a
city
property,
that's
in
a
significant
flood
plain.
Are
there
development
projects
that
we're
expecting
in
the
next
two
years
in
this
location,.
R
T
So
the
development
in
that
area
is
guided
by
the
city.
Council
approved
civic
area
master
plan
and
it
includes
development
that
extends
for
the
park.
T
You
so
much
I'm
sorry.
I
forgot
folks,
I'm
allie
rhodes,
I'm
the
director
of
parks
and
recreation
for
the
city
of
boulder,
so
central
park
is
the
park
that
we're
talking
about
block
13
and
it
is
included
in
the
civic
area
master
plan
developing
phase
two
of
that
project
is
included
in
the
2021
voter,
approved
community
culture
resilience
and
safety
tax,
as
outlined
in
that
master
plan.
That
next
phase
would
include
the
park
that
is
east
of
broadway.
T
That's
a
really
great
question
lauren,
so
the
civic
area
master
plan
is
really
well
done
and
highlights
how
I
think
james
used
these
words
earlier
that
that
the
pacific
area
is
the
the
civic
heart
of
boulder.
It's
the
green
heart
of
boulder
right,
I
think
our
our
friends
downtown
and
on
pearl
street.
T
That
certainly
could
be
our
in
so
many
other
ways,
also
the
heart
of
boulder,
but
the
civic
area
is
close
to
it
and
it's
our
biggest
green
space
in
what
is
a
very
dense,
neighborhoods
and
so
at
its
heart
and
is
outlined
in
the
civic
area
master
plan,
it's
a
park
at
its
core,
and
so
what
we
could
expect
in
that
area
is
just
revitalization
of
the
park.
There's
parts
of
it
that
our
drearion
could
use
with
some
activation.
And
what
does
it
look
like
to
activate
that
so?
T
T
So
details
of
path,
alignment,
mobility
and
connectivity
is
a
key
guiding
principle
of
the
civic
area
master
plan.
So
there
would
be
conversations
about,
especially
with
the
development,
the
13th
street
underpass
that
was
not
developed.
When
the
civic
area
master
plan
was
approved
in
2015.,
the
atrium
was
not
a
landmark
building
in
2015.
T
we
had
not
had
a
pandemic
in
2015,
and
so
since
then,
I
think
our
arts
and
the
parks
program
that
was
so
successful
last
year
and
has
continued
this
year,
has
shown
that
the
bandshell
really
can
be
a
vibrant
part
of
the
civic
area.
So
all
of
those
would
be
factored
in
what
is
developed,
but
at
the
end
they
would
be
guided
by
the
civic
area
master
plan.
L
Okay,
thanks
and
james-
I
just
want
to
echo-
I
will
miss
you,
so
I'm
sorry
to
read
that
in
the
email
that
you
were
leaving.
So
I
wanted
to
clarify
council
looked
at
this
in
like
1996
and
then
sort
of
nothing
until
we
got
a
letter
from
friends
of
the
band
shell
in
2021.
R
L
R
T
G
H
I
don't
remember
either,
but
it's
somewhere
in
that
range,
because
I
remember
the
conversations
and
I
remember
when
we
when
we
pulled
the
trains
out
of
the
park,
so
we'll
find
it.
L
That's
fine.
I
was
just
trying
to
understand
the
history
of
like
how
we
got
from
96
to
20
25
years
later
and
then
following
up,
I
think
on
maybe
lauren's
thread
james,
you
said
earlier,
you
know
pointed
at
your
tackle,
like
change
can
still
occur
and
that's
sort
of
a
mis,
misperception
or
misconception
of
landmarking,
which
was
interesting
and
that
that's
helpful
to
conceptualize
for
me
and
that
change
does
occur
where
these
spaces
are
landmark
landmarks.
So
if
we
were
to
landmark
this,
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
both
james
and
ali.
L
R
R
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
bit
of
an
open-ended
question,
but
I
think
something
like
building
moving
the
the
band
shell,
for
instance,
but
I
mean
it's
already
landmarked
right,
but
that's
you
know,
keeping
the
essential
character
of
the
place,
doing
changes
that
allow
for
evolution-
and
you
know
enhanced
use,
but
does
that
in
a
way
that
honors
and
respects
and
is
consistent
with
you
know
the
historic
design
and
the
historic
intent
of
the
design
so,
but
that
I
know
that's
kind
of
vague,
but
it
it
really
depends.
T
I
think
I
agree
with
james
that
it's
hard
to
say
specifically
what
it
what
it
could
stop
right.
I
mean,
I
think
what
it
ensures
is.
Is
that
any
design
considerations,
any
future
programming
would
be
reviewed
by,
in
addition
to
the
parks
and
record
advisory
board
by
charter.
Their
purview
includes
capital
expenditures
on
parkland
that
the
landmarks
board
would
also
be
involved,
which
I
think
you
know
the
the
verbiage
and
the
memo
it
would
ensure
that
that
any
changes
are
in
character
with
the
historic
nature
of
the
area.
T
You
know
the
most
recent
example
we
have
in
our
system.
James
shared
the
colorado
should
talk
about
the
entire
site
is
historic.
So
recently
we
refurbished
the
playground.
It's
incredible.
It
didn't
stop
that
right.
It
just
adds
to
your
point.
I
I'll
leave
it.
It
adds
another
layer
of
view
to
development
in
the
park.
R
L
It's
like
wow,
that's,
I
don't
understand
how
that
happens.
Okay,
I
guess
maybe
another,
and
maybe
nobody
knows
this
off
the
top
of
their
head.
But
have
there
been
situations
where
parks,
property
is
landmarked
and
the
landmark
board
has
said
no
to
something
that
parks
wanted
to
do.
L
T
I
think
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
a
good
assumption
and
it's
a
documented
guiding
principle
of
the
civic
area
master
plan,
which
you
know,
as
I
noted
earlier,
is
going
to
guide
the
development
in
that
site
and
I'm
distracted.
I'm
trying
this
training
question
is
bothering
me
that
I
don't
know
the
answer
so.
T
D
T
I
I've
been
more
closely
involved
with
the
land
side
of
our
operations.
For
about
that
same
decade,
I
can't
think
of
an
example,
but
you
know
the
two
properties
that
are
currently.
T
L
That's
helpful.
Thank
you.
I
think
that
my
last
question
tethers
back
to
bob's
first
question,
which
is
you
know
if,
if
we
don't
go
with
staff's
recommendation
and
landmark
this
tonight,
what
does
that?
Does
that
somehow
hamper
the
next
phase
that
that
staff
is
is
excited
about?
And
I
guess
part
of
my
why
I
would
be
wondering
about
that
is
because
you
know
we
did
we
kind
of
lapsed
from
96
to
2022
and
we
do
have
a
lot
of
staff
turnover
right
now
in
landmarking.
L
R
Okay,
no,
I
I
don't
think
it
would.
I
I
again,
I
think
it's
it's
it's
primarily
because
we
like
to
look
at
things
holistically
and
look
at
how
how
this
can
fit
into
the
larger
hole,
but
expanding
the
boundary
wouldn't
preclude
that
from
happening,
and
then
the
other
point
is
just
to
allow
for
more
time
and
more
collaboration.
I
guess
is
the
best
way
to
put
it
between
the
boards.
T
Ali
yeah-
I
was
just
going
to
add
to
that
and
and
earlier
there
were
comments
about
the
process,
and
I
I
just
I
want
to
acknowledge.
The
prab
was
not
engaged
in
this
until
january,
and
that
is
absolutely
on
us.
I
think
that
part
of,
if
there's
a
perception
of
discord
again
they
didn't
take.
You
know
an
action
on
this,
was
that
there
wasn't
time
for
thoughtful
conversations,
they're
used
to
parks
and
recreation
projects
where
there
is
out
loud
in
place,
public
engagement,
whereas
with
landmarking.
T
It's
through
you
know
the
board
conversation,
and
so
some
of
their
concerns
were
just
really
around
the
process
and
to
james
point
I
think
we've
learned
a
lot
through
this
conversation.
We
certainly
would
love
for
things
to
go
a
little
bit
differently,
so
so
I'll,
just
I'll
just
stop
there
and
say
that
I
I
think
we
can
keep
doing
better
thanks.
M
Okay,
thank
you
james.
I
also
wish
you
the
best.
I
would
hope
you
would
miss
us
a
little
bit,
but
not
nearly
as
much
as
we're
going
to
miss
you
only
two
or
three
questions.
First,
is
there
any
distinction
between
being
in
a
historic
district
and
being
a
landmark
in
a
historic
district?
Is
that
distinction,
if
there
is
such
a
distinction?
R
Yeah
that
you
know
they're
they're
they're,
there
isn't
there
isn't,
and
that
sounds
like
a
bit
of
a
wishy-washy
answer
mark.
But
I
I
would
say
that
you
know
buildings
and
features
that,
because
it's
much
more
than
buildings
in
all
our
districts
that
are
contributing
are
landmarked
things.
R
So
when
an
individual
landmark
is
considered,
we
look
at
what
the
features
are
and
sort
of
consider.
You
know
how
they
might
be
managed
in
the
context
of
a
historic
district.
You
actually
can
do
that
in
a
more
detailed
way,
because
you
can
say
well
that
building
or
that
sign
or
that
walkway
might
not
be
historically
important
and
then
design
design
guidelines
to
acknowledge
that
and
to
be
more
specific
about
the
change
that
can
occur.
M
Since
this
piece
of
property
is
as
part
of
sort
of,
as
he
said,
the
civic
heart
of
boulder,
is
there
any
possibility
whatsoever
that
if
we
did
not
land
market
tonight,
it
would
somehow
be
subject
to
any
other
use
or
development
other
than
as
a
park
or
to
put
it
another
way,
is
there
any
possibility
that
the
end
game
here
is
something
other
than
a
landmarking
of
this
property?
R
Well,
maybe
I'd
defer
to
ali
in
terms
of
what
could
happen
there,
but
I
think
she
said
it's.
I
think
the
pacific
area
master
plan
talks
about
the
green
and
expanding
the
green.
If
anything
and
not
so
I
don't
think
I
think
it
at
one
point:
you
asked
whether
there
might
be
a
costco
or
something
happening
there
and
I
think
that's
not
going
to
happen
probably
and
so
yeah
I
ali.
I
don't
know.
T
I
have,
I
think,
I
think,
the
possibility
of
something
that
is
parkland
in
the
heart
of
boulder
becoming
something
other
than
that
is
is
very,
very
low.
If
I
were
a
betting
person,
I
would
bet
zero
dollars
on
that
possibility.
I'll
note
that
by
charter
the
disposition
of
any
parkland
has
to
go
to
go
through
an
incredibly
robust
process
that
I
don't
see
happening
here
in
this
town
and.
M
And
one
of
the
goals
that
was
stated
at
for
kicking
this
off
to
a
2023
historic
district
conversation
is
the
opportunity
for
crab
and
landmarks
to
have
a
conversation
about
this.
T
I'll
offer
that
I
think
it
might
provide
more
assurance
that
parks
and
recreation
you
know
as
guided
by
the
advisory
board.
Certainly
they
they
have
an
advisory
role
is
going
to
fulfill
the
intent
of
the
parks
and
recreation
master
plan.
That's
that's
the
work,
and
so
I
think
that's
you
know
that
was
staff's
recommendation
to
the
landmarks
bird
in
november
that
you
allow
time
for
the
historic
places
plan
that
I
mentioned
earlier.
T
It's
going
to
provide
specific
treatment,
recommendations
for
each
of
these
parks
and
and
our
work
is
focused
on
that,
and
so
the
request
for
more
time
in
november
was
to
let
these
play
out
so
that
their
findings
can
inform
the
conversation.
It
wasn't
ever
a
conversation
about
whether
or
not
to
landmark
it
was
about
timing
and
capacity.
R
Yeah,
I
agree
with
that
and
and
just
to
add
to
that
too
not
to
to
you
know
pound
the
design
guideline
thing
too
much,
but
they
really
can
through
that
conversation
design
guidelines
can
be
developed
to
allow
for
the
owner,
and
this
is
this
is
when
we,
whenever
we
do
a
historic
district
and
there's
usually
multiple
owners,
they
have
input
into
what
they
want
to
see
and
how
that
district
is
going
to
be
managed
over
time,
so
that
that
can
be
expressed
through
design
guidelines,
and
that
can
be
very
useful,
especially
in
the
context
I
think,
of
the
civic
area,
master
plan,
which
is
quite
broad,
still
very
good.
R
M
Yeah,
okay,
I'll
save
the
rest
of
my
comments
for
comments.
Thank
you.
V
Thank
you,
james
I'll,
just
echo
everyone's
best
wishes
and
your
your
next
endeavors,
and
thank
you
for
your
time
here.
I
I
think,
I'm
still
just
a
little
bit
confused
about
why
why
this
sort
of
sense
of
urgency
to
do
it
this
year
versus
waiting
until
next
year,
when
it
seems
like
there
may
be
more
capacity
and
time
for
some
longer
conversations,
because
if,
if
I'm
understanding
this
correctly,
we
have
master
plans
that
are
kind
of
guiding
the
thinking
about
how
all
of
this
should
unfold.
V
So
I
just
don't
quite
understand
why
there's
a
push
to
do
it
right
now,
when
there's
some
compass
staff
capacity
concerns
and
some
engagement.
That
folks
would
like
to
do.
A
R
Yeah,
well
I
mean,
I
think
you
know
abby
daniels
is
here
and
she
might
be
able
to
respond
to
that
question,
because
our
recommendation
is
is
a
bit
different
in
terms
of
that.
So
I
don't
know
if
now
would
be
the
time
or
not,
but.
O
Real
quick,
I,
what
happened
was
I
was
waited
for
with.
I
was
waiting
with
baited
breath
about
the
discussion
about
the
chautauqua
park,
which
ally,
as
you
know,
as
I
used
to
be
on
parks,
and
I
miss
you
it's
my
favorite
part,
even
though
I'm
probably
not
allowed
to
give
you
my
favorite
part.
So
can
you
do
you
mind
just
taking
one
second
and
I'm
so
sorry
to
make
you
repeat
this?
O
T
Yeah,
I
was
just
sharing
that
as
an
example,
as
james
did
in
his
presentation
that
that
is,
it
is
a
historic
district.
There's
lan,
I'm
probably
bungling
the
words
here
it
is.
It
is
basically
landmark
right,
but
but
yet
it
is
evolving.
We
just
refreshed
the
playground
as
you're
aware
as
your
grandchildren
are
aware,
and
that
went
through
a
landmark
review
to
make
sure
it
was
in
character
with
the
historic
nature
of
the
site,
and
so
it
was.
It
was
sharing
that
as
an
example,
that
landmarking
doesn't
mean
a
site
can't
evolve.
A
Okay
well
looks
like
that
wraps
up
our
questions
for
staff,
really
appreciate
all
those
answers
and
abby
daniels
chair
of
the
landmarks
board,
thanks
so
much
for
joining
us
tonight.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
saying
a
few
words
about
the
landmarks
board
decision
and
thinking.
J
W
Hi
abby,
thank
you.
I've
been
dropped
out
of
this
meeting
a
couple
of
times
since
I'm
out
of
town,
and
in
fact
I
may
follow
the
mayor's
lead
and
turn
off
my
video.
While
I
speak
to
you
all,
thank
you
as
the
elected
steward
stewards
of
boulder's,
irreplaceable
historic
and
cultural
resources
on
behalf
of
the
landmarks
board.
Thank
you
for
your
dedication.
W
Your
countless
hours
and
your
service
as
staff's
memorandum
states,
the
design
landscape
identified
in
the
1995
boulder
band
shell,
historical
study
and
confirmed
by
consultants
mundus
bishop
this
year
are
existing.
An
expansion
of
the
boundary
to
include
all
of
block
13
would
be
consistent
with
the
national
park
services
guidelines
for
evaluating
historic,
designed
landscapes.
W
Past
memo
goes
on
to
say,
the
landmarks
board's
recommendation
on
april
6
is
based
upon
the
findings
that
including
all
of
block
13,
will
protect
and
enhance
a
property
important
to
boulder
civic
history.
As
you
all
know,
all
of
block
13
is
a
historic,
cherished
community
amenity
in
the
heart
of
boulder.
This
area
continues
to
play
a
vital
role
as
both
a
place
of
respite
and
a
gathering
place,
hosting
everything,
from
ballet
performances
to
movies,
to
memorial,
services
to
vendor
spaces
for
the
farmers
market
and
wildly
popular
festivals.
W
The
proposed
boundary,
including
block
13,
was
deferred
because
of
the
trains
that
once
stood
in
the
park.
The
landmarks
board
received
a
request
in
august
of
2021
from
friends
of
the
band
show
to
finally
amend
the
designated
boundary
as
proposed
27
years
ago.
Since
the
trains
have
long
been
removed,
it
was
a
very
simple,
straightforward
request.
W
There
was
an
overwhelming
groundswell
of
public
support
to
expand
the
boundary
from
the
community,
including
historic,
boulder,
our
premier
non-profit,
dedicated
to
historic
preservation,
celebrating
its
50th
anniversary
this
year
as
well.
We
heard
from
former
planning
preservation
staff,
former
landmarks
board
members
and
chairs
former
council
members
and
a
former
mayor.
Quite
a
few
of
the
letters
and
public
comments
were
from
people
who
played
a
vital
role
in
the
1995
designation
for
the
boulder
revised
code.
W
Once
the
initiation
was
voted
on
unanimously
by
the
landmarks
board
in
november
2021,
the
designation
hearing
must
be
held
within
a
very
specific
time
period.
It
was
not
a
matter
of
rushing
things.
We
are
bound
by
the
code,
one
difference
with
preservation
staff
with
all
due
respect
is
incidental
and
that
we
initiated
the
action
before
we
were
told
of
any
overriding
planning
initiative
and
that
we
should
have
been
at
least
advised
of
these
things
earlier
in
the
process.
W
The
landmarks
board
does
welcome
and
look
forward
to
greater
collaboration
between
city
departments
and
boards
in
the
future.
However,
the
landmarks
board
up
held
the
ordinance
requirement
to
make
a
decision
within
the
time
frame.
The
expansion
clearly
meets
the
criteria
and
james
excellent
presentation
spoke
to
that
and
it
is
eligible
for
the
staff's
own
conclusions.
W
So
the
question
really
does
appear
to
be
one
of
timing.
The
landmarks
board
has
not
discussed
the
historic
district
in
any
meaningful
way,
other
than
a
few
questions
directed
to
staff
about
whether
the
expanded
boundary
and
the
historic
district
could
be
determined
separately.
They
can
and
they
should
be.
We
focused
on
the
request
to
add
all
of
block
13
to
the
designated
site
of
the
glenn
huntington
bandshell.
I
personally
am
concerned
about
delaying
this
designation
and
tying
it
to
a
potential
historic
district,
especially
before
the
boundary
is
resolved.
W
W
This
is
typically
accomplished
during
our
weekly
landmarks
design
review
committee
meetings
that
approve
landmark
alterations,
certificates
in
an
efficient,
timely
and
collaborative
manner.
As
the
200th
anniversary
of
frederick
law
olmsted's
birth
was
celebrated
this
year
across
the
nation.
I
share.
This
quote
the
most
essential
element
of
park.
Scenery
is
turf,
broad,
unbroken
fields
because
in
this
the
antithesis
of
the
confined
space
of
the
town
is
most
marked,
and
so
I
appreciate
ally's
remarks
about
parkland
and
preserving
as
much
of
it
as
we
can.
W
Although
it
was
his
son
who
brought
his
father's
legacy
to
boulder,
both
olmsteads
embraced
the
promise
of
parks
as
a
social
force
that
would
become
amenities
and
city
lives
for
decades,
such
as
central
park
in
olmsted,
seniors
views
parks
offered
an
exquisite
kind
of
healing
power.
He
idealized
him
as
literal
common
grounds
forging
communities
where
all
were
welcome,
regardless
of
social,
economic
status,
age,
race,
creed
or
gender.
W
I
direct
your
attention
to
the
alternative
motion
to
amend
the
designation
boundary
on
page
16
of
staffs
memorandum,
and
with
that
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
and
thoughtful
consideration,
and
I
know
that
the
chair
of
the
landmarks
board,
when
we
went
through
this
process
before
tonight
is
also
on
this
call.
If
you
have
any
questions
of
either
of
us.
A
Thanks
so
much
for
that
abby
appreciate
that
information
and
for
your
presence
here
tonight
and
also
to
your
colleague
john
decker
for
being
president
here
as
well.
Thanks
to
both
of
you
do
we
have
questions
for
our
landmarks
board
representative.
I
think
nicole
had
one
and
nicole
do
you
want
to
come
back
to
that.
V
Yeah,
I
just
really
trying
to,
and
thank
you
abby
for
for
that
presentation
and
joining
us
tonight,
just
really
around
why
the
kind
of
urgency
when,
when
there
are
master
plans
and
things
that
are
guiding,
you
know
how
this
area
will
unfold
in
the
the
coming
years.
W
I
don't
think
that
it
was
the
urgency
we
felt.
I
think
it
was
the
process
codified
in
the
boulder
revised
code
that
gets
triggered
once
an
initiation
hearing
happens
and
in
fact
we
did
extend
when
it
was
voted
unanimously
to
hold
a
designation
hearing
on
november
3rd.
We
actually
should
have
held
the
hearing
by
march
march
3rd
and
we
went
ahead
and
extended
a
month.
So
it's
more
that
we're
bound
by
the
timeline
that
is
triggered
when
the
initiation
process
occurred.
V
Okay
and
so
so,
sort
of
in
response
to
the
initial
application
that
they
came
forward.
That
is
what
is
kind
of
guiding
this.
Now
I
mean,
I
guess
I
guess
I'm
just
curious.
Why
why
the
landmarks
board
wanted
to
kind
of
put
this?
Was
it
just
to
move
this
application
forward
versus
just
saying
you
know?
No,
let's,
let's
wait
on
this
until
next
year,
when,
when
we
have
a
little
more
time
to
work
on
it,.
V
Can
I
just
ask
one
one
follow-up
question:
aaron
is
that
okay
on
that
topic-
and
it's
just
I'm
just
curious
about
the
engagement
process?
I
know
you
know
the
as
the
city
many
years
ago,
we
kind
of
developed
this
engagement
process
for
making
sure
we're
hearing
from
lots
of
different
folks
in
the
community,
and
so
the
did
the
engagement
process
that
you're
talking
about.
V
Did
it
follow
the
city's
kind
of
standard
engagement
process,
or
was
it
just
people
kind
of
hearing
about
this
moving
forward,
and
so
they
were
writing
in
to
landmarks
about
it?.
W
Well,
I
value
parks
and
rec's
very
robust
public
process,
but
the
landmarks
board
also
has
a
very
public
process.
Things
are
noticed,
signs
are
placed
at
properties
before
public
hearings
and
everything.
So
I
think
that
that
people
were
well
aware,
especially
in
whether
they
were
neighbors
members
of
the
preservation
community
or
people
who
had
actually
been
involved
with
the
designation
in
1995
of
the
glenn
huntington
bandshell.
So
I
think
it
was
that
people
just
you
know
it
just
sort
of
spread.
W
It
was
a
groundswell
and
I
think
people
just
knew
that
because
we
do
have
public
process
and
as
well
and
we
we
do
get
a
lot
of
responses
from
the
public
and
I
think
that
when
friends
in
the
band
show
submitted
this
request,
we
took
it
up,
as
I
think
we
had
a
responsibility
to
do,
and
I
think
james
touched
on.
It
is
unfortunate
and
you
know
I
applaud
all
of
your
work
too.
W
It's
very
challenging
during
a
global
pandemic,
and
you
know,
we've
made
fits
and
starts
and
kind
of
moved
forward,
move,
backward
and
so
forth,
and
even
though
the
letter
was
submitted
august
27th
to
city
staff,
landmarks
board
actually
didn't
receive
the
letter
to
sip
until
september
28th.
So
I
think
with
everybody,
doing
their
best
efforts
and
you
know
good
faith
with
everything
it
just
sort
of
didn't
travel
the
smoothest
path
it
could
have.
A
All
right,
thanks
for
that
abby,
do
any
other
questions
for
abby
or
john
all
right,
seeing
none
thanks
again
so
much
for
being
here.
I
appreciate
you
lending
your
perspective
and
for
your
service
to
the
city
on
the
landmarks
board,
so
next
ally
I'd
like
to
check
in
with
you,
we've
already
heard
some
things
from
it.
But
do
you
want
to
give
a
brief
additional
overview
of
the
what
the
park
sports
concerns
for.
T
Sure
they're
summarized
in
the
memo,
I
believe-
and
I
don't
know
the
page
number
of
the
time
I
had.
The
one
point
I
want
to
be
super
clear
is
that
we
tried
to
be
very
clear
with
the
parks
and
recreation
advisory
board
their
role
on
this
matter.
There
was
no
action
similar
to
the
1995
conversation
for
the
original
landmark.
The
parks
and
recreation
advisory
board
was
consulted
and
provided
input
for
the
landmark
board's
consideration.
So
really
there
were
three
categories.
One
was
just
around
the
timing,
I
think.
T
Generally,
they
were
aware
that
staff
had
requested
that,
and
I
want
to
be
clear
to
your
question,
nicole.
The
question
is
more
about
the
workload
to
explore
thoughtfully
and
prepare
for
landmarks
board
and
council.
The
landmark
at
this
point
the
work
is,
is
done
whether
to
landmark
or
none,
we've
done
that
work.
So
the
capacity
question
at
this
point
is
more
to
james's
conversation.
T
Could
you
thoughtfully
explore
more
holistically,
the
historic
district,
but
so
prab
thought
that
that
made
sense
and
and
would
have
appreciated,
given
they're
they're,
very
clear
about
our
workload
and
capacity,
and
so
I
think
that
they
they
they
expressed
support
for
that
recommendation.
T
Second,
they
had
concerns
just
about
what
it
means
for
as
a
precedent
for
when
parks
can
be
eligible
for
landmarking
and
what
it
means,
given
that
the
park
is
already
landmarked
through
what
I
would
suggest-
and
I
agree
with-
certainly
I
appreciate
abby
daniel's
passion
for
parks
and
park
land
and
what
it
does
for
community,
especially
in
light
of
frederick
law
olmsted's
200th
birthday,
which
has
just
been
celebrated.
T
We
you
know,
research
has
proven
what
he
just
instinctively
knew,
and
you
all
know
that
I
could
talk
about
parks
all
day,
long
I'll
get
I'll
get
back
on
subject
here
that
the
parks
board
just
had
questions
and
again
this
goes
back
to.
I
think
the
engagement
when
there
was
the
initial
initiation
in
august,
they
they
were
not.
I
think
the
landmarks
board
talked
about
it
in
september.
There
wasn't
a
conversation
with
prabh,
then
nor
was
they
in
november
when,
when
the
landmark
sports,
so
we
brought
it
to
them
in
january.
Saying:
hey!
T
Wait
before
this
goes
for
vote
for
landmarks
council.
We
want
the
proud
to
have
the
opportunity
to
private
input
and
at
that
point
things
were
moving
quickly.
I
know
some
of
the
friends
of
the
band
shell
offered
a
tour
with
co-co
limitations,
staffing
limitations.
We
weren't
able
to
do
that
so
that
all
those
words
to
long
story
short
there
were
questions
about
process
and
then
there
are
certainly
questions
about
motive.
T
Just
given
that
there
is
a
civic
area,
master
plan
that
had
very
robust
community
engagement,
intentional
outreach,
multi-board
engagement,
the
civic
area
master
plan,
outlines
the
roles
of
the
various
boards.
The
landmarking
board
will
absolutely
already
have
a
role
in
any
conversations
about
central
park,
because
the
bandshell
is
a
part
of
central
park
and
is
landmarked.
A
All
right
seeing
none
well,
let's
just
take
this
moment
to
ask
for
people
to
disclose
any
ex
parte
communications,
which
is
a
little
fuzzy
out.
I've
visited
the
this
area
of
the
park
many
times.
I've
talked
to
city
staff
many
times.
I
think
we
can
all
say
the
same,
but
I
guess
if
you
felt
like
you've,
had
a
substantive
conversation
with
a
community
member
that
you
feel
prejudices
you
in
this
matter.
Mark
I
don't.
M
A
Okay,
very
good
brent.
Did
you
want
to
read
our
public
participation
guidelines?
Would
you
mind,
since
we
got
a
few
speakers
here.
J
All
right
so,
as
many
of
you
know,
but
some
of
you
may
be
new
to
our
process,
we
have
engaged
with
community
members
to
co-create
this
vision
for
productive,
meaningful
and
inclusive
civic
conversations.
J
J
No
participant
shall
make
threats
or
other
forms
of
intimidation
against
any
person,
obscenity,
racial
epithets
and
other
speech
and
behavior
that
disrupts
or
otherwise
impedes
the
ability
to
conduct
the
meeting
are
prohibited
and
participants
are
required
to
sign
up
to
speak
in
advance,
as
each
of
you
have
and
use
the
name
you're
commonly
known
by
and
individuals
must
display
their
whole
name
before
being
allowed
to
speak
online.
I've
checked
and
hr.
Thank
you
so
much
for
that.
Currently
only
audio
testimony
is
permitted
at
this
time.
A
Great,
so
we
have
nine
people
sign
up
to
speak,
so
each
person
will
have
three
minutes
and
our
first
three
speakers
are
katherine:
barth,
payson
sheets
and
leonard
segal.
I
I
I'm
representing
friends
of
the
band
shell
and
we
put
in
this
the
application
in
august
and
the
reason
we
put
the
application
in
was
quite
practical
in
and
we
wanted
the
site
to
be
joined
so
that,
with
the
new
funds
that
had
been
approved
by
the
voters,
we
did
not
want
the
ban
shell
in
its
site
to
be
divided
or
half
of
you
know.
How
would
you
do
that?
I
Also
thinking
about
grants
if
there
is
a
split
in
the
site,
you
really
can't
write
a
grant
to,
for
example,
look
at
the
trees,
which
is
something
I
would
love
to
do
and
that's
down
the
road
a
bit.
But
we
had
one
tree.
Walk
was
summoned
from
the
forestry
department
and
it
was
absolutely
fascinating.
I
mean
such
interesting
work,
the
olmstead
drawing
they're
two
olmstead
drawings,
and
I
saw
these
in
carnegie
library
just
this
last
week.
I
I
So
almost
100
years
later,
I'm
doubtful
that
we'll
ever
find
that,
but
it
certainly
would
be
very,
very
interesting
as
far
as
saco
de
boer
is
concerned,
in
1937
and
1938
when
he
was
preparing
for
the
planting
of
the
band
shell,
he
had
a
number
of
meetings
with
the
parks
board
and
it
was
very
very
interesting
because
he
came
with
his
list
of
desired
trees
and
plants
and
then
the
plant,
the
parks
department,
would
release
money
for
him
to
buy
these
these
trees
and
these
plants.
I
So
there's
a
lot
of
very,
very
interesting
information
and
ours
was
pretty
much
a
a
practical
thing.
We
wanted
the
site
to
be
joined
and
we
wanted
it
to
go
together
through
whatever
process
might
be
for
funding
or
design
or
anything
else.
We
didn't
want
to
split
now,
I'm
coming
to
the
end
of
my
time.
A
X
Okay,
can
you
hear
me
yes,
okay,
payson
sheets?
I
was
born
in
boulder
in
1944
and
I'm
still
here,
78
years
later.
I
have
a
lot
of
time
depth
in
that
area
that
I
want
to
share.
But
I
want
to
start
early.
I
have
very
fond
memories
dating
back
to
the
late
1940s,
the
50s,
and
into
the
60s,
where
from
our
neighborhood
centered
at
grant
and
euclid
had
multiple
neighbors
on
families
on
having
picnics,
especially
saturdays,
but
often
on
sundays,
and
almost
always
on
on
holidays.
X
The
we
would
play.
I
hear
I'm
talking
when
I
was
really
young
we'd
play
with
other
kids
that
we
hadn't
known
before,
and
one
thing
that
happened
regularly
is
the
after
kids
from
different
families
were
playing
together,
the
parents
would
get
together,
get
to
know
them
and
we
ended
up
with
long
lasting
friendships
from
that.
X
What
I
want
to
do
is
get
to
an
issue
in
the
present
day,
but
the
band
show
was
involved
and
and-
and
it
was
wonderful
out
there
in
the
grass-
I'm
an
anthropologist
now,
professor
of
cu-
and
one
thing-
we
know
this
general
knowledge
that
that
all
countries-
all
cultures
where
there
is
diversity-
the
people
in
the
dominant
groups,
the
outsiders
as
inferior-
they
discriminate
against
them,
they
feel
threatened.
X
But
the
experience
that
we
had
is
now
happening
in
the
farmers
market.
There's
a
huge
change
now
multi-ethnic,
multi-racial
groups
are
using
it.
I
hear
spanish,
I
hear
other
languages
from
europe.
People
are
sharing
experiences
and
pleasures
and
understand
from
that
comes
understanding
and
inclusion,
and
so
I
feel
very
strongly
if
you
stand
for
inclusion,
you're
opposed
to
discrimination
and
let's
landmark
this
property
now
to
give
it
a
solidity
and
the
lawn
can
continue
with
families
meeting.
X
I
see
families
from
different
races,
different
languages
getting
together
because
their
kids
play
together,
the
kids,
the
children
are
the
catalysts
in
this,
and
the
adults
then
follow
behind
as
a
silverback
male.
The
loss
they're
the
slowest
to
accommodate
to
this,
but
they
do
do
it
so
we've
got
something
going
on.
That
does
not
need
any
outside
authority.
X
No,
but
no,
no
control
from
above
it's
a
natural
process
and
let's
dominate.
Let's
landmark
it
right
now,.
A
X
Y
Hello,
can
you
hear
me
yes,
great
hi?
This
is
len
siegel,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
historic
boulder,
I'm
the
executive
director
and,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
we
are
celebrating
our
50th
anniversary
in
preserving
important
sites
in
boulder,
and
I
thank
you
city
council
members
for
deliberating
on
this
and
staff,
both
landmarks
and
parks
on
your
serious
approach
to
this
just
to
kind
of
circle.
Back
on
some
of
the
things
that
have
already
been
said,
mr
hewitt
said
that
he
did
not
oppose
the
designation.
Y
He
just
thought
it
should
be
delayed
and
until
a
civic
area,
historic
district
was
achieved
and
historic
boulder
would
be
in
favor
of
such
a
district,
but
we
don't
think
the
inclusion
of
the
picnic
listening
lawn
with
the
landmark
bandshell
area
should
be
held
up
pending
some
future
landmark
district.
Y
The
other
thing
is
the
staff
said
that
the
city
staff
would
like
to
have
more
time
with
parks
and
landmarks
board,
and
yet
you've
heard
that
the
process
followed
the
correct
timeline
so
and
if
you
think
about
it,
this
process
started
in
the
1980s.
Y
When
judge
holmes
and
his
wife
june
started
talking
about
this
park,
I
was
involved
in
1995
as
the
applicant
to
get
the
bandshell
landmarked,
and
so
that
was
27
years
ago.
So
it's
not
like
we
didn't.
We
don't
really
know,
and
we
we
haven't
known
that
this
is
an
important
parcel
of
land
and
that
it
really
should
be
reconnected
with
its
full
property
boundaries.
Y
Parks
also
said
that
they
wanted
to
delay
this
until
after
the
historic
places
plan
was
completed,
but
ali
rhodes
said
that
really
over
the
past
eight
months,
most
of
that
work
has
already
been
completed,
with
recommendations
for
an
improved
lighting,
better
sound
shading
and
accessibility
to
the
stage.
All
of
those
things
could
be
modified
within
the
guidance
of
the
landmark
and
another
thing
that
the
land
the
parks
department
said
was.
Y
It
would
be
a
bad
precedent
to
landmark
a
park,
and
we
already
know
that
there
are
precedents
that
around
the
country
and
also
most
recently
with
the
legion
park
that
was
designed
by
saco
dabur
out
on
arapahoe
road.
So,
just
to
conclude,
this
property
is
like
a
three-legged
stool,
the
legs
being
the
banjo,
the
tiered
bench
seating
and
the
picnic
listening
log.
It
isn't
complete
until
all
the
parts
are
connected
in
the
mind
of
the
city
government
and
in
the
perception
of
the
citizens.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
U
Okay,
deborah
yin
former
landmarks
board
member
first,
I
should
correct
my
written
comments
which
confused
block
13
and
the
applications
proposed
boundary.
It
is
the
latter.
I
urge
council
members
to
support
here
I'll,
read
part
of
the
city's
consultant
mundus
bishop's
conclusion
on
the
expanded
boundaries.
Eligibility
then
give
an
example
about
how
the
parks,
advisory
and
landmarks
boards
might
work
together.
U
This
additional
area
extends
south
of
the
designated
boundary
to
left
hand
and
boulder
ditch
this
space
has
the
same
historical
associations
and
architectural
significance
as
the
current
designation
and
retains
integrity
to
the
recommended
period
of
significance
skipping
to
the
end.
The
historical
and
architectural
significance
of
this
space,
which
also
retains
integrity,
suggests
this
area
of
the
deborah
design
park
and
bandshell
setting
could
be
eligible
for
inclusion
with
the
current
designation,
let's
say,
parks
or
others
decide
to
replace
lamp
posts
and
re
relocate
the
band
shell
to
make
room
for
a
wide
paved
multimodal
path.
U
The
latter
change
was
in
fact,
a
proposal
from
the
city
in
early
book.
End
planning
landmarks
board
would
suggest
modern
land
posts
rather
than
the
art
deco
style.
A
recommendation
consistent
with
the
preservation
design
guidelines,
landmarks
likely
would
have
great
concern
about
a
ban
shall
move
because
moving
a
landmark
is
a
goes
against
best
preservation
practices.
U
Z
Good
evening,
how
are
you
today?
My
name
is
patrick
o'rourke.
I'm
the
preservation
chair
for
historic
boulder,
one
of
our
roles
at
historic
boulder,
is
to
be
an
advocate
for
the
preservation
of
historic
sites
throughout
a
community.
The
bandshell
expansion
is
one
of
those
sites
and
the
question
keeps
coming
up
is
why
now
well?
I
listened
to
all
the
questions
that
city
council
had
for
staff
and
I
didn't
hear
any
negatives.
I
mean
the
question
was
asked
the
staff.
Z
Z
Four
or
five
hours,
long
january
and
february,
the
parks
and
rec
plotted
up
at
their
meetings.
All
the
meetings
are
recorded.
I
listened
to
them.
I
sat
on
both
of
those
meetings
and
I
didn't
hear
any
real
objections
to
landmarking
and
I
heard
objections
to
process.
Well,
the
process
was
straightforward
and
if
a
land,
if
a
parks
and
rec
board
member
wanted
to
hear
they
hear
the
application,
it
was
recorded
and
they
could
have
gone
back
and
done
it.
So
I
was
just
kind
of
disappointed
that
the
answer
for
why
should
this
not
happen
now?
Z
Z
Z
It's
just
not
going
to
happen,
so
I
always
thought
the
process
was
there
and
it's
been
followed,
and
you
know,
preservation
in
boulder
is
not
an
accident.
It's
a
thoughtful
process,
we're
part
of
it
you're
part
of
it.
The
landmark
sport
is
part
of
it.
The
friends
of
the
band
shell
is
part
of
it,
and
you
know
the
thought
process
is
there.
Z
So
waiting
to
me
makes
no
sense
at
all,
and
I
don't
think
you're
going
to
hear
anybody
objecting
to
this
and
the
capacity
issues
I
think
has
has
been
brought
forward
and
it's
been
addressed
so
past
that
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
times
and
james.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
an
incredible
presentation.
I
thought
it
was
well
done
and
thoughtfully
and
well
balanced.
Thank
you.
K
This
seems
like
a
big
bureaucratical
thing
and
from
my
recall
of
hearing
the
discussions
about
the
atrium
and
about
the
ban
show
and
such
it
sounds
like
oh
well,
I
was
gonna
go
ahead
with
waiting,
because
I
wanted
to
see
this
landmarking
track
down
the
city
spaces
along
the
creek
and
all
the
way
up
to
eben
fine
park
and
have
it
one
contiguous
thing,
but
we
can
do
that
later.
K
The
thing
that
changed
my
mind
was
len
siegel's
discussion
of
the
fact
that
individual
landmarking,
rather
than
district
landmarking,
enables
more
funds
to
come
to
the
space,
and
I
really
liked
his
discussion
of
the
atrium
project,
which
I
mean
the
atrium
exists
there
now
and
it's
just
a
super
cool
building.
If
you
look
on
the
back
of
your
dollar
bill,
you
see
an
eye
at
the
top
of
a
pyramid
and
it
means
favor
on
endeavors
and
then
underneath
it.
It
says
another
latin
thing.
K
That
means
it's
the
beginning
of
a
new
era
or
this
a
series
of
ages
that
begin
anew
and
it's
on
a
dollar
bill,
and
this
used
to
be
a
bank,
the
atrium-
and
it's
like
pointed
just
like
a
pyramid,
and
it
has
a
open
skylight
at
the
top,
where
the
eye
is
it's
like
just
so
cool,
and
I
loved
hearing
about
that
from
when-
and
I
thought
this-
the
discussions
around
some
of
this
seemed
to
be
the
area
around
the
atrium
being
expanded
out,
and
I
am
concerned
about
that
area
being
expanded
so
that
we
don't
get
skyscrapers
right
next
to
the
atrium.
K
As
far
as
why
this
is
coming
up.
Now
and
and
and
then
consideration
of
being
delayed,
I
don't.
I
still
don't
really
understand
that,
but.
D
P
P
These
include
the
nomberg
band
shell
in
the
middle
of
new
york
city's
central
park,
olmsted's
crown
jewel
all
were
created
as
public
outdoor
music
venues,
surrounded
by
extensive
lawns
to
accommodate
seated
concert,
goers,
picnickers
and
casual
passers-by
as
well.
Our
band
shell,
while
on
the
smaller
side,
was
designed
as
part
of
this
movement.
Q
Oh
great,
so
this
is
susan
osborne
and
I'm
speaking
tonight
on
behalf
of
the
extending
the
landmarking
boundary
to
the
full
extent
of
the
city
block
that
the
land
ban
show
was
designed
to
include.
I
guess
I
wanted
to
start
first
by
just
commending
ally
and
the
work
of
the
parks
department
in
really
enlivening
the
bandshell
in
the
past
couple
of
years.
Q
Great
credit
goes
to
the
parks
department
for
the
programming
and
really
showing
how
important
the
bandshell
can
be
not
only
as
the
meeting
place
when
of
important
events
and
things
to
protest
come
up,
but
also
as
a
place
where
there
is.
Q
Happenings
going
on
that,
everyone
can
participate
in,
so
I
my
name
is
susan
osborne.
I
was
on
city
council
for
a
while.
I
also
served
on
the
parks
board
and
was
chair
of
the
board
for
three
years,
but
I
also
was
the
city
planner,
who
back
in
1985,
led
the
staff
team
that
developed
the
plan
for
the
boulder
creek
greenway
and
one
piece
of
that
was
central
park,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
the
decision
before
you
is
a
simple
and
positive
step
to
expand
the
boundary.
Q
Much
of
the
historic
sakura
devore
landscape
is
still
in
place
on
the
lot
and
it
creates
a
frame
for
the
band
shell
and
it
just
seems
to
me.
I
guess
I
would
just
simply
end
by
saying
to
me.
It
just
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
get
this
one
piece
of
what
I
hope
will
ultimately
be
an
historic
district.
That
includes
the
whole
civic
area,
but
get
this
one
piece
down
and
and
then
hopefully
we
can
begin
applying
for
grants
and
being
a
part
of
the
whole
east
end
east
bookend
development.
Q
AA
AA
A
resident
folder
for
since
1969.,
but
tonight
I'm
pinching
for
mr
kim
grant
the
director
of
the
colorado
most
endangered
places
office
of
colorado
preservation
inc.
He
is
on
the
road
carrying
out
his
responsibility
somewhere
in
the
eastern
plains,
and
he
asked
if
someone
could
read
his
testimony
to
the
council
and
that
someone
is
me,
so
mr
grant
writes
as
the
endangered
places
program
coordinator
for
colorado
preservation
inc.
I
have
followed
the
developments
around
threats
to
the
glenn
huntington
bandshell
and
the
related
effort
to
expand
the
boundaries
of
the
landmark
district
with
great
interest.
AA
The
boundaries
of
the
proposed
expansion
make
sense
both
in
meeting
the
purposes
of
the
historic
preservation
ordinance,
but
also
to
protect
the
overall
integrity
of
the
site
and
its
complementary
soccer
to
board
designed
landscape.
That
completes
what
should
be
viewed
as
one
contiguous,
historically
significant
setting.
AA
Echo
mr
grant's
sentiments
it
is
hard
to
imagine
our
city
without
its
central
park,
which
many
people
tonight
have
called
the
heart
of
boulder,
and
I
agree
with
that.
I
urge
the
council
to
do
everything
possible
to
protect
and
enhance
our
parks,
historic
integrity.
The
prospect
for
boundary
extension
is
before
you
now.
It
seems
very
simple
and
very
straightforward,
and
I've
heard
no
one
speak
against
it.
AA
AA
A
Bob
I
see
councilmember
yates,
has
his
hand
up
bob.
Did
you
have
a
question
for
for
bob.
A
I'll
get
to
you
in
a
moment,
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
thanks
to
everyone
for
their
testimony.
I
know
in
at
this
point
in
the
hearing
we
would
turn
to
the
applicant
for
a
response.
What
does
that
look
like
in
tonight's
context?
Does
anybody
from
the
city
have
any
comments
to
offer.
R
Well,
this
is
the
opportunity,
for
you
know
any
of
the
city
council
members
to
respond
to
anything
that
was
any
of
the
public
testimony.
That
was
what
was
that
was
made,
or
if
there
are
any
questions.
A
No
worries,
okay,
so
we'll
say:
that's
not
relevant,
because
the
city
is
technically
the
applicant
and
we
will
move
into
council
discussion.
So
I've
got
bob
and
rachel
mark
teed
up
and
maybe
we
can
have
the
timer
removed.
So
we
can
see
each
other.
G
Thanks
aaron,
I
I
just
want
to
maybe
correct
a
potential
misunderstanding
about
the
chronology.
Here.
There
was
kind
of
an
implication
that
this
was
landmark
in
1995
or
1996,
and
then
nothing
happened
until
last
august
and
and
25
for
years
past
and
people
weren't
doing
anything
and
that's
just
not
true.
The
locomotive
number
30
was
removed
in
the
summer
of
2012
and
we
cut
the
ribbon
at
the
colorado
train
museum
on
august
4th
2012..
G
and
that
really
kind
of
triggered
the
point
where
consideration
could
be
made
for
extending
the
landmarking
beyond
where
the
train
and
the
caboose
had
had
been
into
the
rest
of
the
the
park
to
the
south
to
the
creek.
G
Like
mayor
osborne,
who
spoke
a
few
few
minutes
ago,
I
was
also
a
chair
of
the
parks
and
recreation
advisory
board.
We
talked
about
this
in
2012
and
2013.
G
No
action
was
taken
at
that
point
in
time
and
then
aaron
you
and
I
both
were
elected
to
council
in
in
november
of
2015,
and
almost
immediately
after
I
was
elected
to
council,
I'm
sure
you
too,
I
started
receiving
emails
from
friends
of
the
band
shell
seeking
this
extension
of
the
of
the
landmarking,
and
so
this
has
been
a
discussion,
at
least
in
my
experience,
it's
gone
on
for
for
10
years.
This
is
not
something
that
came
up
last
august
or
last
year
or
a
couple
years
ago.
G
This
is
something
that's
going
on
and
on
it's
come
before
the
park.
Sport
upset,
it's
been
before
the
landmark
sport.
It's
been
a
discussion
that
we've
had
for
a
decade
now,
and
I
am
fully
supportive
of
work
next
year
or
whenever
we
can
get
to
it
of
of
a
historic
district.
G
I
don't
think
that
landmarking
this
parcel
of
land
forecloses
that
as
a
matter
of
fact,
if
anything
enhances
that-
and
I
don't
think
I
heard
anything
tonight
in
the
public
hearing
or
in
the
presentation
of
staff-
to
lead
me
to
believe-
there's
a
reason
not
to
landmark
the
rest
of
block
13..
So
I
will
be
supporting
the
landmarking
with
enthusiasm,
and
I
will
also
be
encouraging
our
landmarks
board
and
our
whoever's
on
our
staff
going
forward
and
in
the
parks
board
if
they'd
like
to
participate
in
in
creating
a
historic
district.
G
L
Thanks,
I
you
know,
I
one
point
I
want
to
make.
Is
it's
been
said
a
couple
times
that,
like
there's,
been
no
explanation
for
delay
and
I
think
we
we
do
have
that
in
the
record,
like
I
think,
we've
heard
from
prabha
and
ally
and
the
parks
team
that
there's
a
benefit
to
waiting
and
giving
more
time
for
this
area
to
be
looked
at
sort
of
holistically
from
the
the
parks
and
new
funding
stream
perspectives.
L
So
I
I
don't
think
that
there's
no
reason
to
to
not
landmark
tonight
and-
and
I
guess
my
what
it
feels
like
a
little
bit-
is
that
it's
just
it's
an
odd
presentation
that
we
have
staff
saying
it's
not
the
right
time,
and
usually
things
come
to
us
like
through
staff
and
and
so
there's.
I
have
a
little
bit
of
sense
of
like
a
tail
wagging
the
dog
here,
where
we're
looking
at
something
and
not
the
right
time.
It
would
be
better
to
look
at
this
a
year
from
now.
L
So
I
would
like
us
to
consider.
Are
there
process
changes
that
would
maybe
allow
us
to
stay
ahead
of
a
public
hearing
and
two
hours
in?
Can
we
delay
this
for
a
number
of
months
until
other
things
happen,
because
this
process
just
feels
very
clunky
and
not
best
for
the
city
of
boulder,
nor
for
council
nor
for
everyone's
time?
So
I
just
put
that
out
there.
I
think
that
I
have
heard
evidence
that
this
is
a
spot
that
should
be
landmarked,
and
I
don't
like
the
timing
of
it.
L
L
L
More
than
anything,
though,
I
am
I'm
not
a
fan
of
of
wasting
the
community's
time
or
our
time
we
have
so
much
on
our
plates.
I
don't
I
don't
want
to
see
this
again
if
we're
going
to
landmark
it
I'd
like
to
vote
and
landmark
it
tonight
and
not
come
back
up.
So
if
we
can
delay
the
vote
for
45
days,
if
that's
at
all
helpful,
then
that's
what
I
would
advocate
for,
but
I
and
that's
why
the
the
tail
wagging
the
dog
situation
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
L
T
It's
really
not,
and
so
I
mean
my
input
there
would
be
if
that,
if,
if
there
is
interest
in
landmarking
than
than
I
would,
the
investment
has
happened
tonight,
there's
been
a
public
hearing
tonight.
The
request
for
time
was
in
november
and
so
that
this
could
align
with
other
processes
in
the
work
plan
that
ship's
kind
of
sailed.
At
this
point,
we've
done
this
work
to
support
the
landmark
board's
conversation,
the
council
conversation.
L
Okay,
I
I
figured
not,
but
just
that
was
the
only
sort
of
time
I
was
aware
of
so
to
me
again
it
just.
It
doesn't
feel
helpful
to
have
a
public
hearing
on
something
that
we.
You
know
that
I
I
lean
towards
landmarking
and
to
spend
more
time
on
it.
So
I
I
I
don't
like
this
process,
but
that's
that's
where
I'm
leaning,
that's
all.
I
got
thanks.
A
Thanks
rachel
mark
lauren,
tara,.
M
Then
I
looked
for
good
reasons
to
delay
this,
and
I
I
looked
at
the
staff
memorandum
where
they
kind
of
torturously
advanced
three
arguments.
The
first
was
a
concern
about
the
quote:
significance
of
the
parcel
in
question,
unquote,
which
is
frankly
absurd,
since
the
staff
also
acknowledges
that
the
parcel
meets
every
single
test
for
designation,
then
there
was
a
concern
over
the
reduced
authority
of
parks
to
manage
the
parcel.
M
If
it's
landmarks-
and
I
have-
I
must
say-
I
have
every
confidence
that
ali
and
her
department
can
meet
that
challenge
and
properly
maintain
this
piece
of
property
and-
and
lastly,
was
that
a
concern
that
that
landmarking
would
provide
a
precedent
for
a
future
call-up
of
parkland
when
actually,
it
only
sets
a
precedent
for
parkland
that
meets
the
very
specific
criteria
for
designation,
which
staff
acknowledges
this
does
in
terms
of
delay,
and
you
know
we
can
process
this
this
matter
to
death,
but
I
believe
the
designation
will
be
universally
supported,
universally
popular
and
is
an
action
that
will
cost
the
city
zero.
M
So,
in
the
absence
of
an
actual
substantive
reason
to
put
off
this
decision,
I'm
going
to
support
the
designation
tonight
because
it
does
not
impact
anything
else,
we're
going
to
do
with
the
historic
district.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
E
Thank
you
aaron,
so
I
love
central
park.
We
all
do
you
know
I
can
often
be
found
eating
my
lunch
there,
which
maybe
I
should
have
disclosed,
but
I
just
will
not
slay
my
decision
in
terms
of
the
criteria.
E
I
I
understand
that
this
the
argument
staff
is
making
and
how
landscape
preservation
might
look
different
and
fit
the
criteria
differently
than
architectural
preservation,
but
you
know
one
of
the
first
things
to
preserve,
protect
and
enhance
because
of
this
site
status
as
a
park
in
our
community.
E
I
also
question
whether
it
truly
the
landscape
is
truly
still
in
the
style
that
it
was
originally
designed
in.
We
talk
a
lot
about
the
park
area
and
I
agree
that
that
is
an
important
part,
but
where
the
trees
are
behind
the
band
shell,
some
of
them
somewhat
centrally
located
in
the
lawn,
is
not
in
alignment
with
what
I
see
in
terms
of
both
the
drawings
and
the
historic
photos.
E
A
historic
district
versus
a
landmark
are
two
separate
things,
and
it
is
unquestionably
true
in
my
mind
that
this
qualify
that
this
would
be
qualified
to
be
part
of
a
historic
district
and
through
the
historic
district
process,
we
would
discuss
what
elements
of
the
area
really
need
protection
what's
truly
important
and
special
about
this
region,
and
I
would
fully
support
us
going
through
that
process.
E
I
think
that
we
should
look
at
not
only
this
block,
but
the
block
south
of
it
as
well,
because
in
my
mind
this
not
only
is
this
part
of
a
bigger
park
space
in
how
I
experience
the
heart
of
boulder,
but
this
was
part
of
a
bigger
vision
by
olmsted.
You
know
he
did
not
design
the
you
know.
This
was
not
intended
to
be
a
piece
alone.
It
was
intended
to
be
part
of
a
larger
design
element
that
wraps
through
our
city.
E
So
I
would
really
like
to
see
us
go
through
that
full
process
and
have
the
kind
of
public
outreach
and
engagement
that
parks
does
so
well
and
that
that
type
of
historic
process
that
type
of
historic
preservation
involves
there's
been
a
long
history
on
this
site
of
city
departments.
Working
together
we
heard
someone
talk
about
how
the
combined
inputs
provide
a
better
outcome
enhancing
while
protecting,
and
I
fully
agree
in
that
vision.
E
I
think
that
by
looking
at
this
as
a
historic
district,
we
can
do
that
and
our
city
is
excellent
at
getting
funding
if
we
needed
to
landmark
this
now
in
in
order
to
secure
funding
for
the
preservation,
I'm
sure
that
that's
something
staff
would
have
brought
forward
to
us.
So
I
support
staff's
vision
and
would
really
like
to
see
us
honor
the
recommendations
of
the
landmark
staff.
O
As
usual,
I
see
both
sides
and
I'm
torn
it's
kind
of
my
motto.
I
have
so
much
respect
for
historic,
boulder
and
their
knowledge
and
professionalism.
How
much
they
know
the
many
decades
they've
been
here
and
they're,
just
their
overall
understanding
of
things.
Also,
I
was
on
parks
and
you
know
if
I
could
change
it
like
like
I'd
say
like
rachel
did.
I
would
agree
with.
O
I
would
agree
with
that,
because
who
knows
more
about
parks
than
parks
right,
so
I
would
ask,
even
though
I'm
gonna
vote
for
the
I'm
gonna
go
vote
for
this,
I
would
ask
that
you
would
involve
parks.
I
don't
even
know
if
it's
possible,
I
don't
know
enough
about
process.
That
parks
would
be
the
parks
department
and
the
parks
board
would
be
an
integral
part
of
this
going
forward,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
possible.
I
hope
it
is
that's.
That's
all.
I
really
wanted
to
say.
N
Thanks
aaron,
I
appreciate
the
really
thoughtful
comments
from
certainly
those
that
gave
testimony,
but
also
my
colleagues,
one
thing
that
that
I
think
I'm
I
well.
Let
me
sort
of
start
start
a
little
differently.
I
I
fully
support
in
general
the
landmarking
and
expansion
of
the
bandshell.
I
mean
it
is
a
treasure
of
our
community
and
it
certainly
meets
those
criteria.
N
But
with
that
said,
if
we
were
not
sort
of
imminently
discussing
a
historical
district
that
would
encompass
these
areas
more
holistically,
I
would
say
yeah
100,
let's
go
with
it.
It
just
seems
like
if
it
doing
this
right
before
we
embark
on
that
larger
process.
N
I
I
just
I
struggle
with
that
from
a
governance
perspective
from
a
process
perspective,
so
I'm
very
much
wanting
to
see
this
end
up
where
it
needs
to
be.
I
just
think
that
waiting
one
year
doesn't
hurt
it
and
lauren
said
it
right.
This
area
isn't
in
threat.
This
area
isn't
going
anywhere.
This
area
isn't
going
to
be
changed,
and
so
I
I
don't
see
a
need
to
have
to
sort
of
rush
to
do
this
now
right
right
before
we
embark
on
that
larger
process.
N
Again,
if
that
larger
historical
district
wasn't
on
the
table,
this
would
be
a
completely
different
discussion
and
and
but
but
it's
not,
and
here
we
are
so
so
I
I'm
going
to
support
staff's
recommendation
to
just
wait
till
we
have
that
more
comprehensive
conversation
and
parks
and
more
of
the
community
gets
to
weigh
in
on
that
holistic
vision
for
this
historical
district
and
what
it
looks
like
now,
and
certainly
where
it
needs
to
look
in
the
future.
V
Yeah
thanks
to
everybody
who
who
spoke
to
us
tonight,
I
I
do
appreciate
hearing
everybody's
connections
to
the
area
and
what
a
community
center
it
is.
I
am
going
to
be.
I
I
feel
very
similarly
to
lauren
in
this
regard
that
to
me
that
area
really
is
a
part
of
a
bigger
hole
right.
I
don't.
I
also
don't
see
it.
It's
not
going
to
go
anywhere
this.
V
You
know
it's
an
important
part
of
our
community,
so
you
know
I'll
support
the
staff
looking
into
creating
a
bigger
historic
district
and
including
the
park
in
there.
What
I
would
appreciate
in
the
process
of
doing
that
exploration
is
just
giving
some
thought
to
the
fact
that
this
area
has
a
really
long
history
that
extends
well
beyond
the
early
1900s.
V
When
this
park
was
was
sort
of
first
conceptualized
and
developed,
and
people
have
been
on
this
land
for
many
thousands
of
years
and
when
we're
landmarking
or
making
something
historical,
we
tend
to
think
about
one
really
narrow
range
of
the
history
of
a
place
when
really
it's
it's
much
broader
and
often
that
narrow
range
that
we're
focused
on
is
really
centered.
V
In
a
time
of
oppression,
so
I
would
love
for
us
to
think
about
as
we're
memorializing
as
we're
landmarking
this
area,
how
we
can
sort
of
move
forward,
recognizing
the
broader
and
sometimes
much
more
complicated
history
that
goes
along
with
these
spaces
beyond
what
what
they
were
conceptualized
as
100
or
50
years
ago,.
A
Pop
in
now,
if
I
may
and
then
a
couple
of
people
have
raised
to
the
hand
again,
so
I
I'll
say
that
I
think
I
really
appreciate
everyone's
words
and
passion
and
advocacy
on
this
topic.
I'm
going
to
turn
my
camera
off
to
make
sure
I've
come
through.
I
will
say
I
think
we
are
in
absolutely
good
hands
with
all
paths
forward,
so
I
think
we've
got.
You
know
this.
A
This
area
is
owned
by
our
parks
department,
who
behave
impeccably
and
always
keep
in
mind
the
larger
health
of
our
community
and
historical
issues
as
well
in
their
maintenance
of
it.
I
think
the
landmarking
of
it
wouldn't
prevent
you
know
most
things
that
we
might
want
to
do
from
it.
So
we've
got
a
landmarks
team
and
a
parks,
team
and
a
community
that
all
cares
very
much
about
the
future
of
this
space.
A
I
think
the
chance
of
it
being
anything
other
than
a
beautifully
maintained
park
is
zero,
so
I
I
think
we're
we're
in
good
good
hands
all
the
way
around.
I
think
I.
A
Lauren
put
it
well
in
terms
of
the
holistic
look,
so
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
the
landmarking
of
this
area
happy
to
do
it
at
one
point
I
do
feel
like
the
process
got
a
little
bit
tangled
up.
We
everybody's
trying
to
work
together.
A
Well
here
I
think
I
I
would
defer
to
staff's
recommendation
fully
recognizing
that
we'll
get
through
that
get
a
historical
district
and
then
can
come
back
to
this
question
as
necessary
in
a
year
or
two
where,
hopefully,
we
can
kind
of
have
a
really
smooth
process,
but
I
think,
like
I
say
there,
there's
no
downside
or
bad
outcome.
I
think
tonight.
A
L
Yep
I'll
be
quick.
I
just
wanted
to
explain
my
vote
with
one
additional
piece
of
information,
which
is
that
I
think
we
assume
that
this
district
plan
is
going
to
come
together
in
the
next
year
or
two,
and
I
I
find
that
often
the
city
moves
at
a
pace
of
molasses,
and
I
don't
know
that.
That's
on
our
no
chris,
I
saw
you
lift
your
head,
I'm
not
judging
it's
just
like
my
experience
that
we're
slow
sometimes.
L
So
I
don't
want
to
presume
that,
like
we're
going
to
kick
this
over
to
especially
with
the
landmarks
department
and
undergoing
some
change
and
there's
just
no
guarantee
of
of
staff
robustness,
I
guess
in
any
given
department-
and
we
often
hear
about
like
you
know,
adding
to
the
work
plan
and
taking
things
off
and
I
think
we're
maybe
almost
adding
something
and
an
expectation.
And
so
I
don't
really
think
it's
going
to
happen
in
the
next
year
or
two.
L
And
so
then
I
think
it's
going
to
come
back
to
another
city
council
to
vote
on
landmarking
this
plot
again,
which
has
been
looked
at
since
1996,
and
I
just
find
that
inefficient.
I
think
that
it's
it's
okay
by
me
to
land
market,
so
that's
all.
I
wanted
to
add
thanks.
M
I
support
what
rachel
said,
but
I
want
to
offer
a
thought
as
a
potential
compromise
if
we're
going
to
move
this
off
for
a
year
or
so,
will
staff
commit
that
at
the
end
of
that
process,
this
parcel
will
be
included
as
a
landmark
parcel,
as
opposed
to
not
landmarking
that
would
that
would
make.
I
think,
the
landmarks
community
and
myself
as
a
member
of
council
much
more
comfortable,
that
the
ultimate
disposition
of
this
parcel
will
be
what
we
think
it
ought
to
be.
R
Well,
I
I
can.
I
can
respond
that
yeah.
Definitely
it
would
be.
I
mean
I
can't
say
in
the
end,
what
the
what
the
recommendation
would
be
or
what
you
would
do,
but
or
what
the
landmarks
board
would
do,
but
I
can
say
that
block
13
at
a
minimum
would
be
part
of
that
design.
Landscape,
that's
associated
with
the
band
shell.
I
I
think
some
references
been
made
to
the
fact
that
it
could
even
go
further
south
to
arapaho,
and
I
I
do
think
that
there
there's
an
argument
to
be
made
there.
R
We
just
don't
know
enough
about
that
now,
but
that
would
be
part
of
the
that
would
be
part
of
the
investigation
that
we
do.
M
Of
it
now
under
investigation,
I
leave
to
you
I'm
simply
asking
about
this
parcel
it's
up
for
landmarking
tonight
it
can
you
make
a
commitment
that
well,
despite
the
fact
that
you're
leaving,
can
you
make
a
commitment
that,
at
the
ultimate
upon
the
ultimate
disposition
of
this
historic
district,
this
parcel
will
be
recommended
as
a
landmark.
R
A
And
I'll
just
note
that
that,
thanks
for
that
mark
the
that
the
proposed
motion
from
city
staff,
that
includes
some
more
it's
not
exactly
to
that
effect
but
about
you,
know
a
deep
collaboration
between
parks
and
landmarks
to
to
get
this
to
the
best
outcome
possible.
M
Aaron,
I
I
guess
I'm
asking:
can
we
go
a
little
bit
further
than
that
language
to
get
to
a
place
where
the
landmark
community
has
some
assurance
that,
at
the
end
of
all
of
this
investigation
and
holistic
analysis
that
this
will
end
up
as
a
landmark
piece
of
property.
A
I'd
suggest
marcus,
I
don't
think,
since
the
landmarking
itself
is
a
quasi-judicial
hearing,
you
know
I
don't
think
we
can
necessarily
guarantee
the
landmarking
of
it.
But
someone
could
add
into
the
motion
to
say
that
to
request
that
the
landmarking
of
block
13
be
brought
back
for
landmarks
voting
council
consideration
at
the
end
of
the
historic
district
process.
M
How
do
we
add
that
language
in
I
don't
have
the
emotion
in
front
of.
A
Well,
so
I
wonder,
could
we
get
that
and
not
that
we
necessarily
have
to
do?
This?
Is
we're
just
one
of
our
options,
but
it
might
be
helpful
for
the
staff
to
bring
up
that
that
language
from
the
proposed
potential
motion.
M
A
Just
I
don't
know
if
it's
possible
to
come
to
that
point
in
the
presentation
where
that
was.
A
Posted
there,
it
is
so
if
council
were
interested,
this
motion
could
be
made
with
an
addition
of
a
sentence.
At
the
end,
you
know
requiring
the
the
landmarking
of
block
13
be
brought
back
at
the
end
of
the
process.
A
G
Yeah,
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
to
landmark
and
I'll
just
we'll
just
see
where
the
chips
fall,
because
I
it
sounds
like
council
is
pretty
split
in
this.
I've
lost
plot
and
counting
votes.
So
it's
I
think
it's
five
four
one
or
the
other.
So
let
me
just
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion.
G
From
page
16
of
the
memo,
I
moved
to
approve
ordinance,
8521
amending
the
destiny
boundary
to
include
all
of
block
13
for
the
property
at
1236
canyon,
boulevard,
city
of
boulder
colorado,
a
landmark
under
chapter
911,
historic
preservation,
brc
1981
and
setting
forth
related
details.
G
F
G
It's
the
it's
the
motion
that
well,
it
depends
on
who
you
talk
about
recommended.
It's
not
the
motion
recommended
by
staff.
It's
the
motion
recommended
by
the
landmarks
board,
the
landmarks
board
and
the
landmark
staff
are
separate
here.
So
I'm
taking
the
I'm
taking
the
side
of
the
landmarks
board
on
this
one.
A
F
D
C
C
G
N
A
E
D
D
A
E
I
motioned
to
not
approve
ordinance
8521
amending
the
designated
boundary
to
include
all
of
block
13
for
the
property
at
1236
canyon,
boulevard,
city
of
boulder
colorado,
a
landmark
under
chapter
9,
11,
historic
preservation,
boulder
revised
code
1981,
but
to
direct
planning
and
development
services
staff
to
prioritize
beginning
an
effort
to
explore,
designating
a
larger
civic
area.
Historic
district
in
2023.
A
Second,
okay,
very
good.
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second,
I
got
a
couple
more
hands
up
mark
and
rachel
before
we
move
to
vote.
M
Julie,
how
do
I
propose
an
amendment
to
that
to
incorporate
the
language
I
suggested
earlier.
M
And
I
will
move
to
amend
that
to
incorporate
language
to
the
effect
that,
upon
formation
of
a
historic
district,
this
parcel
will
be
brought
back
for
landmarking
at
that
time.
A
I'll
go
ahead
and
second
that
motion
okay,
let's
see
before
before
we
may,
we
got
a
couple
comments
before
we
vote
on
that
motion.
If
that's
all
right
with
you
mark
rachel
nungini.
L
Mine's
a
question
for
I
think
chris
messcheck,
the
motion
is
as
prepared
by
staff
direct's
planning
department
to
put
time
into
this.
Is
that
something
that
is
going
to
require
us
to
take
something
off
the
work
plan?
Is
that
something
that's
already
being
planned
by
staff
before
I
vote
to
say?
Yes,
I
want
staff
to
do
that.
I
want
to
understand
the
staff
ramifications
that
we
often
hear
about.
H
Sure,
thanks
for
the
question
rachel
and
I
think
what's
what
what
staff
has
proposed
is
that
we
could
start
that
work
in
2023,
so
we
would
be
able
to
build
it
into
the
work
plan,
so
it
would
not
require
a
trade-off.
I
think
what
it
would
be,
then,
is
an
assumption.
As
we
go
into
2023.
There
would
be
some
staff
time
dedicated
to
that,
so
we
may
not
be
able
to
add
other
things
in
2023,
but
no,
no
taking
off
the
work
plan
is,
is
anticipated.
L
Okay,
so
I
guess
just
as
part
of
discussion
I
I
may
vote
against
this
because
I
don't
know
if
that's
like
for
my
final
year
on
council,
what
if
we
get
to
add
one
thing
at
the
midterm,
retreat
that
this
is
the
one
thing
I
want
added
and
I
think
we're
looking
at
this
out
of
context
at
a
you
know,
it
was
not
considered.
I
don't
know
what
stack's
up
against.
So
this
feels
a
little
bit
knee-jerk
to
me,
so
I
will
probably
vote
now.
H
I
think
the
primary
work
effort
would
be
from
pnds
as
well
as
parks
and
recreation,
and
then
because
it
includes
our
city
facilities.
Obviously
our
facility
staff
would
be
engaged
in
terms
of
the
work
effort.
The
bulk
of
the
work
would
be
pnds
staff.
A
H
Obviously
depends
on
the
work
plan
item,
but
typically
in
a
lot
of
the
other
policy
projects
or
or
code
amendment
projects,
there's
a
less
of
a
role
or
no
role
for
our
historic
preservation
staff.
F
So
if
I
understand
that
correctly-
and
you
said
earlier,
instead
of
we
would
be
bringing
back
as
part
of
the
process,
we
would
just
bring
back
the
discussion
for
landmarking
or
we
would
just
make
the
proposal
for
landmarking,
because
these
are
two
different
things.
What
are
we
doing?
Are
we
making
a
proposal
for
the
discussion?
Are
we
making
a
proposal
when
we
come
back
to
take
a
vote
online
marketing.
A
A
S
Yeah,
so
just
a
just
a
point
of
clarification,
this
would
have
to
go
back
to
the
landmarks
board
and
they
would
have
to
make
a
recommendation
about
whether
to
advance
this
to
council
or
not.
That
process
would
still
be
required,
and
I
I
don't
believe
that
council
bind
the
landmarks
board
in
advance
with
a
with
a
with
a
directive.
M
But
can
we
not
advance
it
to
landmarks.
A
So
you
want
to
modify
your
amend
motion
to
amend,
to.
G
Bob
yeah,
I
want
to
go
back
to
something
rachel
said,
because
I
think
it's
right,
I
mean
the
the
motion
that
was
just
made.
I'm
not
disappointed
that
I
mean
you
know
it
was
a
5
4
vote
and
that's
perfectly
fine.
The
motion
was
just
made
is
to
not
land
market,
which
I
don't
think
we
need
that
part
of
the
motion,
because
we
just
voted
not
to
line
market
and
to
direct
staff
to
do
some
stuff,
which
is
a
work
plan
item.
G
G
Next
january,
we'll
probably
have
a
midterm
check
in
a
few
weeks,
but
I'm
not
sure
picking
this
out
of
isolation
compared
to
all
the
other
things
that
we
want
staff
to
be
working
on
and
directing
staff
to
work
on
this
particular
thing,
which
sounds
like
they
already
kind
of
are.
It
really
makes
a
whole
lot
of
sense
for
emotion
at
this
time,
I'm
kind
of
with
rachel.
I'm
not
I'm
not
going
to
vote
against
the
motion,
because
I'm
upset
about
the
failure
landmark.
A
So
I
might,
I
might
ask
teresa
here
that
so
we
had
a
motion
to
approve
my
marketing,
which
was
not
successful
so
that
wasn't
necessarily
contemplated
in
staff's
recommendation.
Given
that
motion's
lack
of
success
I
mean,
do
we
do
a
motion
to
to
not
approve
or
or
has
that
become
superfluous?.
S
I
believe
that
bob
is
right
that
at
this
point
it
does
become
superfluous
right.
The
the
the
motion
to
approve
was
defeated,
so
I
would
say
the
only
required
motion
at
this
point
would
be
if,
if
you
want
to
make
clear
that
you're
not
approving
but
providing
these
specific
instructions
to
staff
about
how
to
proceed.
A
E
A
I'm
comfortable
with
that.
I
just
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
come
out
of
this
with
with
some
clear
direction:
there's
a
lot
of
interest
in
securing
the
future
of
this
area
from
a
historic
perspective
and
working
between
the
landmarks
board
and
the
parks
board
to
secure
that
right.
So
I
understand
it
sounds
like
the
landmarks
department
is
planning
on
working
on
that.
So
that's
great
that
we
have
going
forward,
I'm
fine
with
not
making
a
formal
motion.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
community
understands
that
we're.
A
You
know,
hearing
their
interest
in
continuing
to
move
forward
on
this
and
that
with
intention
into
2023..
So
you
know
james
and
maybe
I'll,
look
to
chris
messchuck
as
well.
Do
you
feel
like
that
that
that
direction
is
still
near?
If
we
don't
have
a
formal
motion
on
the
table.
R
Well,
this
you
know
I
just
just
speaking
for
myself.
We
had
a
lengthy
discussion
internally
to
talk
about
how
we
could
fit
this
into
our
work
program
next
year
and
make
it
a
priority,
because,
frankly,
we
do
think
it
is
a
priority.
It's
an
important
thing
to
do.
It's
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
it
is
you
know
consistent
with
the
you
know,
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan.
R
You
know
that,
so
I
would
say
that
you
know
our
our
intention
was
not
to
just
sort
of
let
it
go,
but
to
actually
act
upon
looking
at
this
area
as
a
historic
district
yeah,
and
that
that
get
your
get
your
confirmation
that
this
would
be
something
that
you
see
as
a
priority
understanding.
There
are
many.
There
are
many
other
priorities
too.
A
Thanks
that
I
find
that
reassuring,
okay
mark
and
lauren,
and
then
maybe
we
can
wrap
up.
M
Not
only
are
we
not
landmarking
we're
telling
the
community
we're
not
even
providing
direction
to
staff
to
get
to
the
point
where
this
holistic
analysis
is
done
and
if,
if
things
don't
work
out,
it
could
be
2024
2025
or
never.
So
I
thought
that
the
the
proposed
resolution,
obviously
I
would
hope
it
would
be
modified
but
in
any
event
provide
some
guidance
and
some
comfort
to
the
community
that
this
this
issue
is
being
looked
at
and
this
long
overdue
action
is
somehow
going
to
be
dealt
with
in
this.
R
A
Well-
and
I
I've
heard
you
know
direction-
that
there
is
council
interest
in
pursuing
that
you
know,
subject
to
work
plan
discussions.
I
think
you
know
we.
I
don't
think
council
is
ready
tonight
to
say,
take
over
the
entire
planning
department's
workload
next
year
to
do
this,
but
I've
heard
strong.
You
know
strong
interest
in
this
from,
I
think
pretty
much
everybody
lauren.
E
A
H
Yeah,
if
I
can
just
jump
in,
I
I
think
actually,
the
conversation
that
council
has
had
here
has
been
pretty
clear
and
we
also
have
brad
muller,
director
of
planning
and
development
services
and
christopher
johnson
who's.
H
The
manager
of
our
comprehensive
planning
division,
where
the
historic
preservation
program
sits,
are
in
the
meeting
here
as
well,
and
so
I
I
think,
if,
if
council
would
like
to
make
sure
it's
kind
of
definitively
clear,
I
think
a
nada
5
is
helpful,
but
I
think
the
conversation
that
we've
had
tonight
is
also
really
clear
and
in
how
to
balance
for
2023
and-
and
we
can
make
sure
that
there's
a
check-in
in
the
2023
work
program
just
to
make
sure
that
this
wouldn't
be
resulting
in
some
trade-off.
A
That's
great
chris
I'll
just
go
ahead
and,
and
put
this
out
there
just
to
try
to
finish
this
up
to
request
another
five
to
have
a
landmark
staff.
You
know
investigate
and
explore
the
creation
of
a
you
know,
down
downtown
area,
historic
district.
That
would
include
this
area
in
in
with
saying
that
they
would
work
with
the
landmarks
in
the
parks
board
moving
forward.
So
so.
A
A
Matt,
you
got
a
hands
up
still,
no
all
right!
Okay!
Well
thanks
everyone!
I
just
wanted.
This
ended
up
being
a
kind
of
complicated
challenging
work
through
just
want
to
thank
everyone
in
the
community
for
their
attention
to
this
and
know
that
we
share
your
interest
in
making
sure
that
this
stays
a
beloved
and
protected
place
is
just
the
path
that
we're
taking
to
get
there,
as
you
know,
we're
just
picking
that,
but
I
think
we're
all
safe
and
in
good
hands
on
this
matter.
A
So
before
I
fully
wrap
up
this
item,
though,
I
think
we
need
to
give
a
huge
thank
you
and
goodbye
to
james
hewitt
james.
I
know
you
wouldn't
have
wanted
a
dull
hearing
for
your
last
landmarking
here,
and
so
I
I
have
an
interesting
one
with
topics
to
chew
on,
but
just
here
your
contribution
to
this
department
has
been
unparalleled.
You
know
I
just
appreciate
all
your
presentations
over
the
years
and
your
deep
knowledge
and
we
sure
will
miss
you.
But
congratulations
and
and
good
luck
with
your
next
chapter.
H
And,
and
if
I
mayor
brockett,
can,
if
you'll
indulge
just
a
few
comments
that
this
on
behalf
of
the
staff,
we
also
wanted
to
thank
james
for
his
service
to
the
city.
And,
yes,
james
is
retiring
at
the
end
of
this
month.
After
quite
an
illustrious
career
in
historic
preservation
and
the
last
18
years
of
which
has
been
with
the
city
of
boulder
and
to
our
belief.
Actually,
james
is
by
far
the
longest
serving
historic
preservation.
Planner
that
the
city
has
ever
had
in
the
history
of
the
program,
and
we.
H
But
look
at
a
few
numbers
james
during
your
tenure
you,
you
processed
over
5
000
applications,
including
over
3,
300,
landmark
alteration
certificates.
H
You
also
championed
the
creation
of
the
city's
first
historic
preservation
plan,
as
well
as
a
nationally
recognized
historic
window
and
energy
efficiency
plan.
Numerous
state
grants
to
historic
to
support
historic
preservation
activities
in
the
city
as
well.
H
James
also
served
as
a
board
member
of
the
national
alliance
of
preservation
commissions
representing
the
city
of
boulder,
and
I
think,
as
as
we
even
saw
tonight,
historic
preservation
is,
is
a
hard
job,
you're
literally
working
side
by
side
with
property
owners
and
applicants
on
details
down
to
inches
and
colors,
and
sometimes
that
doesn't
come
with
controversy
or
doesn't
come
without
it.
H
I
should
say,
but
james
has
always
approached
the
work
with
a
clear
understanding
of
the
bigger
picture
of
some
good
canadian
humor
in
there
as
well,
which
I've
always
appreciated
and
really
a
deep
love
for
the
city's
character
and
sense
of
place
and
james
was
actually
hired
when
I
was
the
historic
preservation
intern.
So
he
and
I
have
had
a
long
history
of
working
together
directly
and
also
partnering
with
him
for
for
both
of
our
careers
here
at
the
city.
H
So,
as
was
said
james,
the
world's
not
going
to
be
the
same
without
you
here
at
the
city
of
boulder,
but
super
excited
for
your
retirement
in
your
next
chapter.
So
thank
you.
A
And
thanks
thanks
again
james
and
don't
be
a
stranger
stay
in
touch.
A
Take
care
all
right,
so
all
right,
so
I'm
afraid
we
have
blown
way
over
our
time
estimation.
Apologies
about
that.
I
could
really
use
a
five
minute
break.
I
don't
know
about
others!
So
and
let's
call
it
like
a
say:
it's
906!
Let's
how
about
we
come
back
at
9
13
and
I'm
going
to
switch
locations,
so
I
would
probably
need
a
couple
extra
minutes
for
rachel.
If
you
don't
mind,
I'm
getting.
The
next
item
kicked
over
to
staff
to
get
started
all
right,
see
in
a
few.
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
L
Yeah
back
baby,
okay,
and
we
are
now
on
number
six
matters
from
the
city
attorney
on
even
year
election
ballot
options,
and
I
want
to
welcome
molly
fitzpatrick,
the
boulder
county
clerk
who's
going
to
be
president
throughout
this
discussion
to
answer
questions
from
council
thanks.
So
much
for
being
here,
molly
looks
like
you're
let
in
okay.
So
with
that,
I
think
I'm
turning
it
over
to
kathy
haddick
at
in
the
city
attorney's
office.
AC
Thank
you
thanks
and
I
am
kathy
haddock
in
the
city
attorney's
office.
Hopefully
this
will
be
a
little
bit
easier
on
you
than
last
one,
but
it
also
is
confusing
in
some
ways.
So
I'm
trying
to
lay
it
out
very
clear.
I
think
emily
is
going
to
run
slides,
so
we're
ready
for
slide
two
emily,
please
and
to
go
back
to
where
we
are.
The
the
purpose
of
this
discussion
is
for
you
to
give
us
the
way
in
which
you
want
to
have
the
ballot
question
read
to
transition
to
even
your
elections.
AC
When
we
last
talked
about
this
on
may
10th,
there
were
two
options
presented
to
you:
the
first
option,
one
change
of
terms
of
council
members
that
were
elected
in
2023
and
2025
to
three-year
terms,
and
then
that
had
elections
going
to
even
years,
starting
in
2026.
AC
and
council
elected
not
to
move
forward
with
that
option,
option
two
was
to
the
extend
the
terms
of
council
members
that
expired
in
2025
for
one
year.
So
that's
four
council
members
ex
and
the
people
that
were
elected
in
2023
would
get
five-year
terms,
so
their
terms
would
expire
in
2028.
AC
The
people
elected
in
2023,
their
terms
would
expire
in
2026
and
those
would
be
the
even
year
for
that.
You
did
want
that
option
carried
forward.
During
the
meeting.
There
was
a
suggestion
for
a
third
option,
which
was
to
extend
the
term
of
all
nine
council
members
for
an
additional
year
and
change
the
year
for
direct
election
of
mayor
to
2024.,
keeping
it
at
2023
would
have
meant.
There
was
a
year
that
you
had
10
members
on
council,
rather
than
just
nine.
AC
That
option
is
impossible,
since
we
can't
do
ranked
choice
voting
for
the
first
time
during
a
presidential
election
year
after
the
election.
I'm
sorry
after
the
may
10th
study
session
option
four
was
suggested,
which
extended
the
terms
of
all
nine
existing
council
members
for
one
year
changed
the
direct
election
of
mayor
to
2026,
and
then
that
means
that
the
people
elected
in
2024
and
2026
would
have
four-year
terms.
AC
So
next
slide.
Please
we
have
slides
that
explain
each
one
of
these
visually
and
then
have
a
comparison
slide
for
you,
so
that
you
can
make
your
decision.
This
slide
is
option.
Two.
The
dark
shading
is
the
election
year
for
each
of
the
columns.
The
light
shading
is
the
continuation
of
that
person's
term
and
the
slashes
are
the
skipped
election
year.
So
this
was
option
two
kept
direct
election
of
mayor
in
2023.
AC
For
four-year
terms,
the
people
elected
to
fill
the
green
positions
in
2023
would
get
five-year
rather
than
four
year
terms,
so
that
they
started
even
year
rotations
in
2028.
AC
next
slide,
please
this
is
option
four
and
the
direct
collection.
I'm
sorry,
I
should
back
up
same
thing.
Shaded
darker
shading
is
the.
When
that
color
is
elected
and
then
the
lighter
shading
is
their
carryover
terms.
AC
The
green
council
members
would
start
the
even
year
rotation
in
2024
for
four-year
terms.
Next
slide,
please
so
this
slide.
It
compares
the
two.
The
top
part
is
the
council
candidates.
So
for
the
council
candidates
it
option
two
extends
the
terms
of
existing
council
members
for
one
year
for
the
four
that
terms
expire
in
2025
and
option.
AC
Four
extends
the
terms
of
existing
council
member
for
all
nine
years
and
then
option
and-
and
I
apologize
these
two
blanks
should
be
reversed-
that
this
is
extending
the
term
of
the
newly
elected
council
people
that
the
newly
elected
council
people
under
option
two
would
get
five-year
terms
rather
than
four-year
terms
in
2023
an
option
for
none
of
the
newly
elected
people.
After
this
current
board
would
get
new
terms.
AC
There
would
be
the
2025
candidate
election
would
be
skipped
for
option
two
in
option
for
both
2023
and
2025
would
not
happen.
There
would
be
a
candidate
election
in
2024
and
under
these
two
scenarios,
the
first
even
year,
council
election
for
council
candidates
would
be
2026
under
option.
2
2024
under
option
4..
AC
AC
So
that's
how
the
two
options
that
are
currently
on
the
table
fold
out
as
rachel
said
molly
fitzpatrick,
is
here
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have
from
her
for
her.
She
is
the
elected
county
clerk
and
recorder
and
is
the
one
that
runs
elections
for
the
county
and
does
the
coordinated
elections
for
us
and
has
been
a
wonderful
partner
and
trying
to
work
through
all
these
options.
AC
A
All
right
thanks
so
much
for
that
presentation
really
appreciate
thanks
for
everybody,
for
bearing
with
me
and
my
technical
difficulties
and
challenges
and
molly
allowed
my
welcome
to
thanks
so
much
for
being
here
tonight
and
just
and
so
much
appreciate
the
partnership
between
you
and
our
our
city
clerk
alicia
and
did
you
want
to
say
a
couple
words
before
we
get
started?
Are
you
just
available
for
questions.
AD
Well,
I
was
going
to
be
available
for
questions,
but
with
the
platform,
I
guess
I
will
thank
you
all
for
having
me
I'm
here
really
to
help
support
in
whatever
way,
I
can
fill
any
gaps
that
you
might
have.
That
would
help
clarify
your
decision-making
process
and
I
also
just
want
to
recognize
the
incredible
staff
partnership
that
we
have
with
the
city
of
boulder
staff.
We've
been
having
these
conversations,
since
I
think
it
was
brought
to
their
attention
that
this
is
an
option
that
the
city
is.
AD
A
That
very
much
molly
thanks
again
all
right.
So
questions
for
city
staff
or
clerk
fitzpatrick.
We
got
matt
and
nicole.
N
All
right
thanks
aaron
and
first
molly.
Thank
you
for
being
here.
I
know
how
busy
you
are,
and
I
mean
it
is
primary
season.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
for
taking
the
time
when,
when
things
are
due
here
on
the
28th,
I
really
appreciate
that,
and
thanks
stafford
for
putting
this
presentation
together.
N
I
wanted
to
just
maybe
offer
a
little
clarifying
and
that
doesn't
get
to
my
question
that
and
I'd
appreciate
kathy
getting
the
point
where
we
really
only
have
two
options
to
consider,
but
I
do
want
to
make
a
point
just
because
of
how
it
was
sort
of
written
in
the
packet.
N
You
know
option
three
was
the
suggestion
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
credit
is
where
credit's
due
that
nicole
came
up
with,
and
all
I
did
was
offer
just
a
slight
little
revision
to
make
it
more
to
make
it
just
a
little
bit
more
viable
and
not
have
that
eight
to
ten
term
thing.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
credit's
due
to
nicole
for
for
coming
up
with
with
that
solution
to
to
the
array
that
we
had
so
my
question
centered
towards
you,
molly
has
to
do
it.
N
Sort
of-
and
I
appreciate
the
letter
you
sent
but
just
sort
of
for
either
my
colleagues
staff
or
in
those
listening
has
to
kind
of
do
with
some
of
the
concerns
around
2024
as
as
a
year
to
kind
of
jump,
start
things
and
and
kind
of
giving
you
and
and
everybody
else,
a
runway
to
sort
of
make
some
of
those
changes
and
from
what
I
gathered
from
the
memo.
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
N
N
A
presidential
term,
which
I
think
we
all
can
assume
is
gonna,
be
fraught
with
a
bunch
of
insanity
and
chaos
is,
is
that
is
that
the
main
thing
that
even
here
is
fine,
adding
that
extra
page
or
whatever?
But
it's
that
rcv
direct
election.
That
is
that
that's
sort
of
a
linchpin
and
big
concern
for
you
in
your
office.
AD
Thank
you
for
that
question,
and
yes,
I
mean
the
two.
The
two
questions
are
intertwined
for
us.
We
do
not
make
changes
or
implement
changes
in
a
presidential
election
year
because
of
the
risk
that
in
it
that
it
invites
into
the
environment,
starting
in
an
odd
year
before
presidential
year,
we
implement
four
back-to-back
elections
in
12
months.
AD
Once
we
saw
that
in
2020,
we
immediately
started
leading
the
efforts
on
that
ranked
choice,
voting
bill
with
an
eye
towards
2023.
So
once
we
had
that
bill
in
2021
that
we
worked
very
hard
on,
we
also
started
planning
our
time
and
resources
for
2023.
So
we've
already
done
a
lot
of
planning
and
securing
resources
for
2023.
AD
But
that
being
said,
yes,
the
the
idea
of
running
a
ranked
choice,
voting
election
for
the
city
of
boulder
in
2023,
which
would
also
be
the
first
rate
choice.
Voting
in
colorado
in
a
presidential
election
year
does
not
set
our
office
up
for
success
and
it
invites
an
incredible
amount
of
risk
into
the
environment
that
I
do
not
think
is
appropriate.
Given
the
kind
of
year
it
will
be.
N
Thank
you
molly.
Can
I
ask
maybe
a
follow-up
that
it's
just
the
inaugural
rcv,
because
obviously
with
the
way
we
have
our
mayor
term
said
it's
every
two
years,
so
the
subsequent
2028
president
presidential
election,
assuming
we
now
have
run
one
prior
to
that,
then
you
would
perhaps
then
would
you
be
then
comfortable
with
that
or
is
it
I
just
sort
of
want
to
clarify?
Is
it
presidential
as
a
whole,
or
is
it
just
not
doing
the
first
one.
AD
It's
the
first
one
yeah
we
we
need
that
ramp
and
that
runway
to
you
know,
work
with
our
voting
system
equipment.
Look
at
ballot,
design
layouts
for
the
voting
system,
equipment
and
for
voters
do
public
education.
That
runway
does
not
exist
in
a
presidential
election
year
for
the
first
time.
So
it's
that's
correct.
It's
it's
about
the
first
ranked
choice,
voting
election
not
happening
in
2024.
N
N
AD
Thank
you
for
asking
about
that
preference.
Our
preference
is
to
stay
the
course.
You
know
when
voters
directed
the
city
to
conduct
rank
choice,
voting
in
2023,
that's
immediately
when
we
got
the
ball
rolling
we've
reached
out
to
other
jurisdictions.
We've
collected
feedback
that
went
into
the
ring
choice
voting
bill
immediately
after
the
rank
choice
voting
bill,
we
started,
you
know,
collaborating
with
other
experts
in
other
states
to
learn.
AD
You
know
what
kind
of
support
could
be
offered
to
boulder
county
in
the
year
like
2023,
given
that
we
will
be
the
first
and
also
there's
a
lot
of
benefit
to
boulder
county
being
the
first
county
to
conduct
a
rain
choice
voting
election.
AD
We
are
committed
to
implementing
elections
that
are
secure
and
transparent
and
accessible,
and
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
benefit
to
boulder
county
being
the
first
county
to
lead
the
way
for
this,
because
we
can
really
help
shape
what
it
will
look
like
for
other
jurisdictions
moving
forward
as
other
cities
might
adopt
this
for
themselves.
AD
So
we
like
the
idea
of
leading,
but
most
of
all,
we
like
the
idea
of
continuing
with
the
plans
that
we've
already
laid
out
for
ourselves
and
the
resources
that
we've
already
secured
for
ourselves
and
just
having
that
runway
in
an
odd
year
is,
is
really
wonderful.
AD
Even
if
you
know
you
know
in
an
even
year
that
is
not
a
presidential
year.
It
is
possible,
but
you're
still
running
into
a
similar
situation
in
the
presidential
year
in
which
resources
are
limited.
The
the
one
thing
that's
different
about
you
know
an
even
year
that
is
not
a
presidential
year.
Is
that
you
don't
have
that
presidential
primary,
which
completely
knocks
us
out.
We
still
think
that
an
odd
year
maximizes
our
opportunity
to
implement
elections
the
way
boulder
county
voters
have
been
accustomed
to
receiving
those
elections.
V
Thanks
again,
molly
for
being
here
and
thanks
for
sticking
with
us
so
late
at
night,
so
my
my
questions
are
around
the
trying
to
understand
sort
of
the
cost
to
the
city
of
doing
the
ranked
choice
voting
before.
I
think
the
state
is
moving
toward
providing
some
support
in
2025.
V
If
I
understand
it
so
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
difference
in
the
cost
to
to
us
going
for
the
state
has
provided
the
support.
AD
Sure
so,
in
the
rank
choice
voting
bill.
There
are
some
timeline
considerations
that
have
already
been
laid
out,
including
proposed
rules,
and
we've
already
seen
a
draft
of
that
and
then
also
when
the
software
for
the
risk
limiting
audit
will
become
available
from
the
state.
So
right
now,
we
do
not
have
a
way
to
audit
a
ranked
choice,
voting
contest
in
the
way
that
is,
we
audit
our
other
contest.
AD
So
what
the
bill
laid
out
and
what
we
supported
is
that
you
know
the
state
needs
time
to
develop
that
that
software
for
ranked
choice,
voting
contest
and
that
timeline
is
not
in
2023..
What
the
bill
says
is
that
in
2023,
the
county
can
audit
the
ranked
choice,
voting
contest
using
procedures
that
they
develop.
AD
I
think
in
coordination
with
statistical
experts
and
other
folks
that
have
worked
on
ranked
choice
voting
before
so
that's
some
of
the
resources
that
we've
already
reached
out
to
we've
reached
out
to
national
experts,
who
have
conducted
audits
on
ranked
choice,
voting
contest
in
other
states,
and
they
have
already
offered
and
and
committed
to
being
available
to
boulder
county.
So
we
will
have
a
way
to
audit
this
election
next
year.
It
will
not
be
the
way
that
we
audit
other
elections
so
we're
fig.
AD
We
would
figure
that
out
and
we
would,
you
know,
ensure
that
it
reaches
the
same
level
of
auditing
standards,
that
you
know
other
or
similar
auditing
standards
that
we
have
for
other
contests,
but
we
would
need
to
be
figure
that
out
and
the
state
would
not
have
that
available
yet
so
we're
not
sure
what
the
cost
of
that
will
look
like
in
2023.
Yet
because
we
haven't
developed
the
procedures,
but
the
state
has
committed
to,
I
think,
2025
having
that
software
available.
V
Okay,
so
basically
we
we
would
take
on
the
costs
of
that
audit
in
2023
the
city
would,
but
after
2025
the
state
will
be
providing
that
support.
Am
I
understanding
that
correctly?
I.
AD
Yeah,
so
all
direct
costs
for
a
ranked
choice,
voting
election
would
be
the
city
would
be
accountable
for
paying
for
the
rank
choice.
I
you
know
without
knowing
what
the
development
looks
like
for
the
state
on
ranked
choice,
voting
contest,
I
can't
say
what
that
cost
is
going
to
be
and
how
that
cost
would
be
attributed
to
the
city.
V
Okay
got
it,
but
am
I
correct
and
thinking
that
after
2025,
that
cost
would
not
be
present
for
the
city,
or
is
that
not
right.
AD
I
I
would
want
to
go
back
and
validate,
because
my
concern
is
that
there's
still
going
to
be
licensing
costs
for
that
tool
that
the
state
develops
and
that
those
would
be
billable
to
the
city.
So
it's
really
just
next
year.
You
know
the
city
we're
going
to
build
the
city
for
the
way
that
we
conduct
that
audit
and
it's
not
going
to
be
the
same
way
that
the
state
does
it
in
two
years
or
2025.
AD
in
2025.
I
anticipate
that
there
could
be
some
cost,
because
the
state's
developing
the
tool
for
rcv
and
that
would
be
billable
to
the
city.
N
Okay
on
that,
just
for
a
second
nicole
and
molly
that
point
about
where
that
cost,
from
what
I've
gathered
from
secretary
of
state's
office
and
and
some
other
folks
is
that
it
would
be
amortized
out
over
the
number
of
jurisdictions
utilizing
that
software,
so
it
would
be
a
base
cost
and
from
that
that's
what
I've
gathered.
Just
as
a
I
don't
know
if
that's
gonna
end
up,
but
that
seems
to
be
that's
where
I've
sort
of
heard
it's
leaning.
N
AD
Yeah,
so
the
tabulation
there's
a
license
for
the
tabulation.
AD
We
do
not
have
the
license
in
colorado
right
now,
but
what
the
bill
stipulated
is
that
the
secretary's
office
would
do
the
purchase
of
the
state
or
I'm
sorry
of
the
of
the
license
to
tabulate
a
rank
choice,
voting
ballot
that
cost
would
be
allocated
to
cities
based
on
the
number
of
voters
in
those
jurisdictions.
V
Get
matt:
are
you
good
on
that?
Colloquy?
Okay,
great?
So
my
other
question
is
just
around
you
know.
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
education
that
is
needed
for
ranked
choice,
voting
right
and
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
are
interested
in
seeing
a
voters
would
like
to
move
to
even
years
is
because
there's
15
to
20
000,
more
voters
who
turn
up
in
even
years
and
would
potentially
be
voting
in
our
local
council
member
elections.
V
And
so
you
know
for
having
to
do
a
lot
of
education
work
around
ranked
choice,
voting
for
2023.
V
Do
we
then
have
to
do
it
again
for
the
even
year
mayoral
election,
because
it
seems
like
there's
a
different
group
of
voters
right
the
even-year
voters
who
are
not
necessarily
voting
in
odd
years?
Who
would
have
to
be
educated?
So,
basically
do
we
need
to
double
educate
if
voters
would
decide
to
move
to
even
your
elections
and
we
held
the
first
mayoral
rank
choice.
Voting
election
in
2023.
AD
I
think
any
time
there's
a
change,
especially
a
major
change,
to
the
way
that
people
vote,
because
we've
been
pretty
consistent
with
our
model
and
our
messaging
here
in
colorado.
I
would
recommend
doubling
down
on
education
efforts
if
there's
any
sort
of
change.
V
Answers
your
question
yeah!
No,
I
mean,
I
think
so
I
think
it
just
it
just
that
we
would
want
to
do
some
additional
education
if
we
for
different
groups
of
voters
and
then
so.
My
other
question
is
actually
around
one
of
the
options
that
we
kind
of
dismissed
last
time,
which
was
to
hold
three
elections
in
four
years
and
I'm
wondering
as
the
county
clerk.
V
If
you
have
any
thoughts
on
that,
you
know,
do
you
think
that
was
sort
of
the
right?
You
know
decision
that
three
local
elections
in
four
years
is
a
lot
for
a
city
to
take
on,
or
do
you
think
that
that
is
something
that
we
ought.
V
In
city
council
elections
in
four
years,
yeah,
which,
which
was
one
of
the
the
options
for
trying
to
you,
know,
move
us
to
even
yours,
mm-hmm
to
us
that
it
seemed
like
that
was
a
lot
for
the
community,
and
I
just
I
just
I'm
curious
about
your
thoughts
on
that.
AD
I
haven't
contemplated
that
in
this
discussion
it's
mostly
been
about
the
timing
of
ranked
choice
voting
and
we
can
support
it.
I.
V
O
Molly,
I
really
appreciate
this
memo.
It
was
really
great,
especially
I'm
new
to
election
laws
and
rules.
So
I
have
a
few
questions
about
your
memo.
One
of
the
places
you
say
the
clerk's
office
encourages
any
city
that
is
interested
in
transitioning,
their
coordinated
elections.
So
even
your
elections
to
engage
in
a
robust
stakeholder
process
to
understand
the
impact
on
voters.
Do
you
feel
we've?
Are
you
saying
you
feel
like
we
haven't
done
that
or
were
you
just
stating
a
random
point?
What
are
you
trying
to
say
in
that
section.
AD
Yeah,
I
I
I
actually
don't
know
what
type
of
engagement
has
been
done,
so
I
wasn't
making
a
statement
either
way
on
that.
What
we
wanted
to
do
was
you
know,
for
we
really
wanted
to
create.
This
is
kind
of
something
that
could
be
used
for
any
jurisdiction
that
is
contemplating
even
years
even
your
elections.
AD
O
The
second
area
that
I
was
looking
at
was
other
entities
exploring
even
your
consolidation
to
reach
out
to
other
cities
that
have
made
this
shift.
So
I
guess
we're
just
asking
ourselves:
have
we
done
that
enough?
Is
that
what
you're
saying
you're
not
you're,
not
saying
we
have
or
haven't
same
thing?
Okay,
so
the
last
thing
I
want
to
ask
you
is
the
heavier
ballot
issue.
O
AD
I
genuinely
don't
know
I
have
not
conducted.
I
have
not
done
academic
research
into
you
know
drop
off,
but
I
just
you
know
for
us.
We
try
to
think
of
every
single
thing
possible
so
that
decision
makers
can
have
every
bit
of
information
possible
to
help
make
an
informed
decision.
I
have
personally
not
done
that
research
on
my
own.
AD
A
Okay,
yeah
I'll.
Let
go
that
thanks.
That
was
an
extremely
helpful
memo
molly.
So
I
I
just
I'll
call
on
myself.
I
want
to
raise
one
thing
which
was
rachel's
hotline
post
rachel
just
popped
up
on
the
screen,
so
that
was,
I
think,
a
slightly
different.
Well,
it's
a
kind
of
a
combo
of
the
other
two
options
rachel.
I
wonder
if
you
might
explain
that
to
councilman
what
you're
thinking
with
that
proposal.
L
I
will
give
it
my
best
shot.
I
guess
the
notion
is
just.
Can
we
ask
voters
a
two-part
question
which
is
number
one?
Do
you
want
to
move
to
ranked
or
to
even
your
elections?
And
if
the
answer
is
yes,
then
can
we
ask
voters
to
decide
between
the
two
viable
options?
So
I'm
not
sure
that
I'm
the
best
to
articulate
which
those
two
options
are
probably
just
refer
back
to
mats,
but
basically
do
we
want
to
have
option
a
where
we
are
doing?
L
I
think
it's
a
mayoral
election
in
2023
versus
option
b,
where
it's
the
mayoral
election
in
2026
and
then
the
attendant
council
moves.
So
I
think,
under
option
b
we
would
be
asking
voters.
Do
they
want
to
extend
all
nine
members
terms
by
one
year
versus
option?
A
is
four
members
get
an
extended
term
from
doing
my
math
right
there,
so
it's
just
essentially
is
that
is
that
a
viable
path?
Do
people
want
to
look
at
that?
L
I
think
that
there
are
some
reasons
that
it
doesn't
make
great
sense
for
us
to
be
the
people.
You
know
there
are
nine
of
us
and
obviously
the
the
goal
here
is
to
for
those
who
supported,
I
think,
increased
participation
in
the
democratic
process
by
moving
to
even
years,
but
in
terms
of
who's
going
to
be
impacted
by
it
at
a
job.
It's
the
nine
of
us,
and
so
I
don't
know
that
we
are
the
are
the
most
unbiased
people
to
choose
which
option
to
give
to
voters.
A
Mute
aaron.
Sorry!
So
then
my
I
would
just
turn
to
theresa
and
say:
is
there
any
issue
with
doing
something
like
that.
S
Yeah,
so
we
certainly
can
do
a
multi-tier
question
and
kathy
has
prepared
and
thought
about
this
and
so
I'll
I'll
defer
to
kathy
on
this.
AC
Thank
you,
theresa,
and,
and
thank
you
tara
for
giving
the
I'm
sorry
rachel
for
giving
the
question
ahead
of
time.
So
we
had
a
chance
to
think
about
it.
We
can
ask
the
question
about
whether
or
not
they
want
to
move
to
ranked
choice,
voting
and
then
have
some
kind
of
instructions
in
the
ballot
or
in
the
education,
or
something
that
your
votes
about
the
options
won't
count
unless
the
vote
to
change
passes.
AC
AC
We
can't
say:
option
a
or
option
b
we'd
have
to
put
option
a
on
and
option
b
on
and
have
some
kind
of
instructions
to
say
the
one
that
gets
the
most
votes
will
win.
If
the
first
question
passes
so.
AC
AD
Not
that
mine's
actually
a
different
question
for
council.
A
In
just
a
second
then
so
just
that
does
just
rachel's
proposal
make
sense
to
you,
buddy
everybody.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
to
her
staff
on
that.
N
N
N
You
know,
21
of
them
chose
to
lengthen
terms,
but
many
of
them,
you
know
about
half,
did
it
by
just
straight
ordinance
and
others
did
it
by
ballot
and
that
was
referenced
by
council
and
they
referred
the
whole
thing
to
ballot
to
lengthen
their
own
terms,
and
in
those
you
know
you
had,
you
know
winning
percentages
of
56,
70,
72
81
and
that's
throughout
california,
arizona,
texas
michigan.
N
So
you
know
you
see
us
a
general
spectrum
there
that
I
think
is
rather
interesting
when
it
comes
to
just
sort
of
does
council
you
know
do
that
on
its
own
accord,
and
do
voters
seem
okay
when
they're
recommending
for
sort
of
extending
terms
there
seems
to
be
good
precedent.
Voters
don't
have
too
much
of
an
issue
with
that
and
that
there's
fair
amount
of
commonplace.
We
look
at
sort
of
communities
across
the
country
that
have
done
that,
so
just
for
context.
I
just
want
to
lay
that
out
there.
A
Okay,
thanks
nicole.
V
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
understood,
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
what
rachel
proposed
is
not
possible
that
we
can't.
We
can't
do
that
because
we
have
to
have
yes.
No
responses
is
that
right.
S
No,
not
quite,
and,
and
so
instead,
what
it
is
we
do
have
to
have
yes,
no
responses,
but
what
it
means
is
that
we
would
have
to
think
about
what
the
highest
vote
getter
is.
S
Yeah,
which
do
you
favor,
do
you?
Do
you
favor
a
yes
or
no?
Do
you
favor
b?
Yes
or
no?
I
guess.
Okay,.
V
Okay,
I
okay.
Thank
you.
That's
that
that's
helpful
yeah.
I
think
you
know
I'm
I'm
wondering
too.
If
there's
a,
let
me
just
back
up
so
rachel.
What
I
hear
your
concern
is-
and
I
is
really
just
around
this
idea
of
sort
of
transparency
right-
that
it's
weird
it
seems
like.
It
may
be
weird,
especially
in
this
era,
that
we
are
living
through
right
now
on
the
federal
level,
where
we
are
putting
something
toward
voters.
V
That
would
allow
them
to
extend
our
terms
right,
and
so
is
there
a
way
that
we
can
be
really
transparent
in
a
single
ballot
item,
like
other
cities
have
done
when
they've
made
this
transition
that,
like
I'm
looking
at
some
example
from
ballot
language
from
pasadena,
for
example,
where
they
say
shall
the
pasadena
city
charter
be
amended,
consistent
with
state
law
to
one
change,
the
city's
primary
and
general
election
dates
to
coincide
with
statewide,
primary
and
general
election
dates,
beginning
with
in
their
case
it
was
the
november
2018
general
election
and
two
extend
the
current
terms
for
the
mayor
and
council
members
by
they
did
19
months
on
a
one-time
basis
in
order
to
transition
to
the
statewide
election
cycle.
V
So
they
were
really
crystal
clear
that
it
was
a
one-time
thing.
Wasn't
gonna
happen.
You
know
on
a
regular
basis,
then
it
was
really
just
in
in
the
service
of
getting
to
these
even
year
elections,
because
I
think
the
majority
of
those
these
cities
that
have
made
this
transition
to
increase
the
number
of
people
who
are
voting
in
local
elections,
they've
done
it
within
a
year
or
two.
I
mean
it's
sort
of
like
it's
on
the
ballot
and
then
the
next.
V
The
next
election
is
the
one
that
isn't
in
the
even
year.
It
hasn't
taken
a
really
long
time.
So
I'm
wondering
if
there's
a
way
we
can
include
some
transparency
in
the
language
around
making
this
transition
in
in
the
ballot
measure.
Just
so,
we
don't
have
to
kind
of
confuse
potentially
confuse
voters
with
a
lot
of
different
options.
L
L
I
think
that
part
of
my
concern
is
bias
and
it
doesn't
get
at
that,
and
I
would
just
say
that
in
in
some
conversations
that
I've
had,
it
seems
that
it's
hard
to
separate
out
how
will
extending
this
term
by
a
year
impact
voters
and
how
will
it
impact
me,
and
so
there
are
only
nine
of
us
impacted,
and
so
I
think
it
makes
little
sense
for
us
to
be
the
nine
to
decide
between
the
two
options,
which
is
best.
L
I
think
it's
better
for
voters
who
are
not
impacted
in
their
livelihood
and
their
emotional
health.
Frankly
from
serving
on
council
to
be
the
ones
making
that
choice,
I
I
will
speak
for
myself.
Like
you
know,
I
I've
got
strong
feelings
on
personally
whether
I
would
want
to
serve
another
year
or
not
and
that's
hard
to
separate
out.
So
that's
part
of
it
and
I
don't
think
clarifying
the
ballot
language
gets
at
that.
A
All
right,
thanks
for
that
rachel
all
right.
I
think
we
we've
gotten
through
that.
So
molly
did
you
want
to
pose
your
other
question.
AD
Yes,
one
thing
that
I
have
not
been
clear
on
is
is
council's
intention
to
with
this
discussion,
to
only
move
the
candidate
elections
to
even
years,
or
is
council's
intention
to
ensure
that,
alongside
that,
there's
also
ballot
questions
that
are
moved
to
even
years,
because
what
would
happen
to
ballot
questions.
AD
If
only
what
would
happen
about
questions,
if
only
the
council
elections
were
moved
to
even
years,
is
that
there
would
still
be
potentially
valid
questions
in
an
odd
year
unless
you're
already
addressing
that
somehow.
So,
what's
council's
intention,
there.
A
Well,
maybe
I'll
just
speak
to
answer,
maybe
for
council.
If
people
don't
mind,
so
I
don't
think
that
ballot
questions
would
be
affected
at
all
by
this,
so
ballot
questions
could
still
be
citizen,
initiated
or
council
initiated
in
even
or
odd
years.
There
might
be
a
stronger
preference
for
even
years
since
they'll
be
more
attention
paid,
but
they
would
still
be
legally
allowed
to
be
in
either
even
or
odd
years.
Okay,
did
I
get
that
wrong?
Anybody.
L
I
just
had
a
question
for
molly
on
that.
I
don't
think
you
got
it
wrong
aaron,
but
I
know
that
there
are
like
there
are
local
elections
that
happen
during
even
years.
I
think
that
all
you
know
the
the
county
electeds.
I
think
that
superior
and
and
some
other
nearby
cities
do
it.
Do
they
not
have
any
odd
year
ballots?
L
I
guess
it
just
seems
like
this
would
be.
This
would
happen
in
other
places
as
well.
Does
the
county
never
run
odd
year,
even
though
they're
even
year,
electeds.
AD
AD
I
just
can't
speak
to
that
superior
question
exactly,
but
I
know
that
I
think
for
the
most
part,
if
a
city
is
trying,
you
know
a
lot
of
their
questions
and
their
candidate
races
would
be
on
this
on
the
same
ballot,
at
least
that's
my
understanding
from
what
I've
seen
is
that
most
of
that
is
questions
and
candidates
are
on
the
same
ballot,
whether
it's
even
or
odd,.
AC
Yes,
I
I
represented
superior
for
18
years
before
I
came
to
the
city
of
boulder
and
they
like
boulder,
had
ballot
issues
on
most
elections,
not
just
on
the
years
that
they
did
candidate
elections.
So
it
ended
up
that
there
was
coordination
every
year.
It's
just
that
it's
only
every
other
year
that
they
did
candidates
and
I
think
that's
common
for
most
municipalities
that
actively
submit
things
to
the
voters
that
they
do
it
on
an
annual
basis.
In
november.
AD
Yeah
and
we
take
what
you
all
give
us,
and
so
you
know
if,
if
it
does
happen
that
you
know
you
all
decide
just
to
make
it
the
council
elections
that
are
moved
to
even
years,
but
there
is
you
know
a
citizen
initiated
ballot
measure
or
a
council
referred
ballot
question.
We
would
still
put
that
on.
We
we
will.
We
will
do
what
you
give
us
basically
and
same
with
other
jurisdictions.
N
Matt
yeah
thanks
thanks
that
you
know
so,
and
I
appreciate
bringing
up
the
the
ballot
question
there
molly,
because
it
does
and
I
think
for
clarity.
It
does
flip
how
I
believe
we
would
be
defined
as
a
regular
municipal
election
versus
a
special
election
in
the
eye
of
the
state
charter
and
because
we've
run
into
those
issues.
N
We
just
recently
had
one
where
we
had
an
issue
based
on
guidance
regarding
the
number
of
signatures
required
for
a
petition
to
reach
the
ballot,
and
it
was
calculated
based
on
whether
it
was
a
special
election,
special
general
election
or
regular
municipal.
So
when
we
choose
to
hold
our
council
meetings,
I
believe
we'll
flip
that
in
the
eye
of
the
state
charter,
so
just
for
reference
as
to
what
years
then
get
referenced
as
being
the
one
governed
by
our
charter
rules
versus
the
one
governed
by
the
colorado,
revised
statute.
N
A
A
I
will
note
that
a
few
weeks
ago
people
gave
eloquent
speeches
on
the
benefits
or
the
drawbacks
of
even-year
elections,
so
my
hope
is
not
to
relitigate
that
tonight
people
can
throw
in
a
few
words
if
they
want
to,
but
instead
to
focus
on
the
three
options
at
hand
and
so
folks
who
I'll
start
with
maybe
a
straw
poll
on
whether
to
advance
ebook
elections
just
to
check
in
so
folks
can
register
that
they'd,
rather
not
if
they
would
prefer
to.
A
But
I
want
to
focus
on
these
three
on
the
options
in
front
of
us
tonight
so
and
so
in
my
and
to
frame
that
my
my
thought
is
to
we've
got
and
while
I'll
get
to
you
in
a
second
is
that
we've
got
option
two
which
keeps
the
ranked
choice:
mayoral
election
in
2023
and
starts
even
year,
elections
in
2026..
A
So
with
that
in
mind,
I'll
go
to
people
want
to
make
some
comments
and
then
we'll
move
to
some
some
straw
polls.
Bob.
G
So
I
I
respect
aaron.
I
will
not
reiterate
my
opposition
to
even
your
elections,
I'll
save
that
for
august
when
we
we
vote,
but
I
I
am
going
to
make
an
another
advocacy
for
option.
One
I'd
like
I'd.
Ask
you
as
mayor
to
put
that
in
the
straw
poll
as
well.
G
It's
been
my
practice
for
going
on
seven
years
now,
when
I
know
that
I'm
going
to
be
the
minority
on
a
vote
to
still
try
to
provide
advice
to
the
majority,
so
they
can
make
the
best
decision
possible.
I'm
going
to
do
that
now,
because
I
I
would
suggest
to
those
of
you
who
want
to
move
to
even
your
elections,
that
you
really
take
another
look
at
option
number
one.
G
If
the
the
the
advantage
of
option
number
one
is
it
does
not
it
neither
shortens
nor
lengthens
the
current
term
of
anyone
on
council.
Now
what
it
does
is
it
shortens
the
length
of
the
term
of
those
yet
to
be
elected
or
re-elected.
So
it
directly
addresses
the
concern
that
the
legitimate
concern
that
the
racial
raised
about
us
as
city
council
members
asking
voters
to
give
some
or
all
of
us
another
year.
G
It
doesn't
do
that
it
doesn't
shorten
anybody's
term,
it
doesn't
lengthen
anyone's
term,
it
simply
says
those
who
choose
to
run
for
election
or
re-election.
2023
will
stand
for
a
three-year
term
and
they
know
that
going
into
it
and
the
voters
will
know
that
going
to
it.
I
think
the
problem
you
have
with
options
two
three
or
four:
is
they
each
involve
extending
the
terms
of
council
members
now
sitting
and
I
think,
there's
two
challenges
with
this
first.
G
This
may
cause
some
community
members
who
would
otherwise
be
interested
in
even
your
elections
to
vote
against
your
ballot
package,
because
it
does
extend
people's
terms.
It
does
two
things
and
I
think
that
will
decrease
your
chances
of
getting
this
thing
passed.
If
that's
what
your
objective
is
and
then
I
believe-
and
I'm
not
asking
anyone
to
disclose
now,
but
I
believe
that
there
are
people
on
this
call
right
now
who
are
not
interested
in
having
their
terms
extended.
G
So
we're
kind
of
having
a
hypothetical
discussion
where
there's
a
real
life
impact
and-
and
we
may
have
people
who
resign
and
so
option,
one
doesn't
put
anybody
in
that
difficult
and
awkward
position
of
either
asking
voters
for
more
time
or
asking
people
to
to
agree
to
serve
longer
than
they
originally
planned
to.
G
I
do
realize
and
nicole,
I
thought
you
did
a
very
good
job
of
identifying
that
the
downside,
the
big
downside
of
option
one,
is
that
we
would
have
two
city
council
elections
close
to
each
other,
one
in
2025
and
one
in
2026
and
so
really
three
elections
in
four
years.
As
you
said,
nicole,
and
we
would
combine
with
with
that-
is
the
potential
that
we
have
a
lot
of
new
council
members
coming
in
a
very
short
period
of
time.
G
So
I
know
that
there's
certainly
risk
of
that,
but
I
think
the
downsides
of
that
are
less
than
the
downsides
and
the
bad
optics,
quite
frankly,
of
asking
voters
to
give
some
or
all
of
those
sitting
on
council
today,
an
extra
year
of
term,
especially
when
some
council
members
may
not
even
want
an
extra
year
term
and
I
think
option.
One
is
also
consistent
with
what
molly
has
requested
to
start
ranked
choice.
Voting
in
2023..
G
That's
just
my
political
assessment,
I'm
going
to
be
voting
against
putting
even
your
elections
on
the
ballot
and
we
vote
on
this
in
august
I'll
be
on
the
losing
end
of
that
I
suspect.
So
you
don't
have
to
pay
attention
to
me.
I'm
just
trying
to
provide
you
with
some
practical
tactical
political
advice
to
help
you
get
past
what
it
is
that
you
want
to
get
past.
A
That
bob
I'll
just
know
I
mean
the
council
did
by
majority
vote.
You
know
put
option
one
aside
in
previous
previous
meetings.
I
don't
know
that
we
want
to
have
a
long
argument
about
it,
but
point
taken
and
I'm
perfectly
fine,
including
it
in
the
matrix
of
struggles
and
we'll
see
if
it
gets
more
support
this
time.
If
people
don't
mind,
okay,
nicole.
V
Yeah
thanks
thanks
bob,
I
you
know,
I
I
hear
some
concerns
and
you
know
I
still
three
elections
in
four
years
is
so
much
for
for
everyone,
and
you
know.
Ultimately,
the
voters
are
gonna,
decide
right
if
they
like
the
options
that
we've
come
up
with
they'll
vote
for
it.
If
they
don't,
then
they
won't
right.
V
So
you
know
I
I
see
this
as
some
of
the
things
we're
talking
about
here
are
kind
of
consistent
with
what
other
cities
have
done
where
they've
seen
this
overwhelming
support,
because
there
are
many
people
who
are
in
favor
of
of
the
increased
turnout
that
comes
with
even
your
elections
and
addressing
some
of
the
disparities
and
who
votes
in
off-cycle
elections.
So
I
I
think
I'm
gonna
have
a
hard
time
going
back
to
that,
one
that
we
rejected,
because
I
still
have
the
same
concerns
there.
V
I
I
really
don't
like
the
second
option,
where
only
some
of
us
are
getting
an
extended
year.
I
feel,
like
you
know,
we're
all
in
this
together
a
bit,
but
you
know
mostly
it
just
it
just
doesn't
that
that
doesn't
feel
fair
to
me
as
one
of
those
people
who
would
have
their
term
extended.
So
just
just
want
to
name
that
I
don't.
I
don't
see
that
as
being
an
option.
V
I
would
support,
and
I
I
I
really
I
do
like
rachel's
idea
of
kind
of
giving
the
voters
some
options
and
in
terms
of
how
to
do
it
and
I
feel
like
that
starts
to
get
more
complicated
and
I
I
think,
if
we
could
just
put
it
into
one
ballot
measure,
that's
really
transparent,
that
we're
switching
to
even
your.
This
is
a
vote
to
switch
to
even
your
elections,
and
that
that
that
would
mean
a
one-time
extension
of
the
current
council's
terms.
V
I
feel,
like
that's,
a
really
transparent
and
clear
ballot
measure
that
we
can
offer
to
voters
and
rachel.
I'm
I'm
with
you.
The
idea
of
of
another
year
is
frankly,
quite
exhausting,
so
I
think
that's
that's
another
kind
of
thing
to
think
about,
and
I
feel
like
this
is.
This
is
really
consistent
option.
A
M
M
If
we
are
extending
our
own
terms-
and
I
happen
to
think
that
rachel's
proposal
provides
a
little
bit
of
clarity
and
additional
decision-making
for
the
community
and
and
it
might
be
again
as
bob
points
out
a
better
way
of
proceeding
in
terms
of
electoral
success,
and
as
bob
mentioned,
I
am
one
of
those
who
does
not
want
to
have
a
term
extended,
and
I
can
tell
you
now
that
I
I
will.
G
M
M
and
I
don't
think
I
I
am
obligated
to
do
so.
So
at
the
very
least,
you
should
build
into
your
process
a
a
good
process
for
finding
replacement
members
of
council.
If
somebody
does
not
want
to
participate
in
this,
because
I
do
not
whether
that's
the
next
one
down
in
the
in
the
vote
or,
however,
you
want
to
do
it,
but
it
would
not
be
my
intention
to
serve
beyond
2025.
A
Thanks
for
that
mark,
we
would
miss
you
if
you
resign
before
the
end
of
return.
There's
no
question
I'll
just
go
through
about
that.
A
I'm
gonna
call
myself
and
then
and
then
matt
and
then
tara
and
bob
we'll
get
back
to
you.
If
you
don't
mind
other
people
getting
our
first
shot.
So,
oh
with
you,
okay
thanks,
so
I
I
think
I
really
like
the
idea
of
moving
to
even
your
elections
because
of
the
turnout,
advantages
and
we'll
go
through
all
that
again.
I
do
feel
like
you
know
whether
we
start
in
2024
or
2026.
We
get
to
the
the
right
goal,
so
I'm
comfortable
with
either
one
of
those.
A
I
think
if
we
start
in
2024,
we
start
earlier,
which
is
great,
but
the
rent
choice
voting
for
mayors
waits
until
longer
until
2026
a
bit
of
a
downside,
starting
2026
that
puts
off
even
years
longer
but
does
get
us
the
the
rcb
for
mayor
in
2023,
which
which
would
be
positive.
We
heard
from
molly
there's
an
interest
in
moving
forward
with
that
on
on
the
existing
timetable.
A
I
will
agree
with
rachel
here
that
I'm
not
comfortable
being
the
final
decision
maker
on
this,
because
it
does
involve
myself
and
my
council's
colleagues
futures.
So
I
I
even
though
it
added
some
complexity,
I
would.
I
would
go
with
rachel's
proposal
to
ask
the
voters
whether
to
get
it
started
in
2024
or
2026.
If
they
are
in
fact
interested
in
leaving
your
elections
there
we
go
so.
N
So
with
regards
to
where
the
preference
lies,
I
I
do
think
it's
important
to
sort
of
when,
when
you
know,
we
need
to
focus
on
not
on
minimizing
the
exhaustion
to
electorate
by
compounding
too
many
elections
in
the
same
cadence.
And
so
I
think,
because
we
set
aside
option
one.
It
was
probably
for
that.
Most
obvious
reason.
N
I
I
do
want
to
pay
a
special
deference
to
molly's
suggestions
as
our
county
clerk
as
a
sort
of
the
leading
election
administrator
for
for
what
we're
doing
working
alongside
alicia
and
her
team,
and
so
I
do
think
that
that
you
know,
given
that
you
know
she
wants
to
stay
the
course
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
ballot
measure
of
2020
to
elect
our
mayor
with
rcv.
N
That
puts
us
at
2023
and
her
team
is
moving
in
that
in
that
direction.
I
I
want
to
make
sure,
given
all
of
the
work
all
of
the
stress
and
all
of
everything
that
comes
with
running
some
of
the
best
elections.
We
got
in
the
state
right
here
in
boulder
county
that
we
pay
sort
of
special
deference
to
molly's
suggestion
on
that,
and
so
for
me.
I
think,
looking
at
option
two
allows
us
to
get
mostly
pretty
much,
mostly
where
we
want
it
gets
us
even
year.
N
It
allows
us
to
facilitate
the
voters,
will
for
electing
our
mayor
with
with
instant
runoff,
ranked
choice
voting
in
2023,
and
so
I
do
think
that
that
path
does
get
us
where
we
need
to
be
in
that
capacity.
I'd
love
to
start
sooner,
but
but
in
doing
so,
I
think,
if
we're,
if
we're
pushing
off
against
molly's
suggestion
to
get
things
done
in
2023
for
ranked
choice
voting.
I
I
have
a
hard
time
going
against
that.
N
So
I
think
that's
where
I'm
gonna
land
on
this,
but
I
also
don't
mind
seeing
this
on
the
ballot
either.
So
if
we're
gonna
pick
one
I'm
okay,
picking
one
and
that's
the
one
I
prefer,
but
if
we
are
picking
two
I'm
okay
with
that.
O
I
have
a
simple
question:
can
you
put
somewhere
on
the
screen,
so
I
can
stare
at
it
the
now
new
four
options
or
the
updated
options,
especially
you
can
call
the
last
one
rachel's
option.
You
don't
have
to
even
explain
it.
We
all
know
what
it
is,
but
I'm
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
know
what
I'm
voting
for
thanks.
A
AC
We
didn't
and-
and
I
don't
think
of
of
rachel's
suggestion
as
a
separate
option,
because
what
we'll
have
to
say
is:
do
you
want
to
go
forward
with
like
option
two
or
option
four
or
option
one
and
option
four
or
option?
However,
you
wanna
do
it,
so
we
need
you
to
to
pick
the
options
that
you
want
the
voters
to
choose
from.
AC
So
I
think
of
hers
as
an
added
layer
rather
than
a
different
option,
and
I'm
sorry,
we
don't
have
a
slide
for
option
one
I
can
find
the,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
what
you
want
to
put
on
so
right
now
the
only
different
options.
I
think
we
have
are
option
two
and
option
four
which
we
can
put
up
either
or
both
of
those
and
then
rachel's
proposal.
AC
As
I
understand
rachel,
what
you're
saying
is
that
that
the
voters
would
decide,
rather
so
that
we
would
be
putting
both
options
on
the
ballot,
not
just
one.
L
Correct
yeah,
with
the
wrinkle
of
I,
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
there
was
a
a
gating
or
threshold
question
that
was
simple
for
voters.
Do
you
want
to
move
to
even
your
elections
right,
that's
one,
and
then
the
next
two
are.
If,
if
the
answer
to
you
know
ballot
number,
whatever
is
yes,
you
want
to
do
it.
This
way
right.
AC
L
G
D
AC
G
L
O
Okay,
so
I
have
a
real
quick
question
before
you
go
into
the
next
person,
so
make
believe
not
make
believe,
but
I'm
going
to
vote
against
changing
it
to
even
years,
but
let's
say
here's
my
ballot.
I
vote
against
changing
it
to
even
years
and
then
the
next
part
of
the
question
is:
if
you,
if
there
were
even
years,
would
you
do
a
or
would
you
do
b
would
I
know,
would
I
who
voted
no
to
change
it
then
no
to
vote?
O
Yes,
I
should
vote
for
the
next
or
would
I
think,
because
I
have
to
tell
you
when
I
do
when
I
read
ballot
measures.
I
don't
know
if
I'm
alone,
but
I
have
to
read
them
10
times
before
I
even
understand
what
is
being
said.
That's
just
the
nature
of
my
brain,
so
explain
to
me
kathy.
Would
I
then
be
allowed
to
or
told
to
either
if
you
voted,
yes
or
no,
it
doesn't
matter.
You
definitely
should
answer
the
next
question,
or
will
I
be
confused
and
then
leave
it
out.
AC
Well,
it's
hard
to
it
because
that
will
depend
on
the
the
education,
whether
you'll
be
confused
or
not,
because
our
charter
requires
you.
Each
question
has
to
be
yes
or
no.
I
do
think
it
is
more
confusing
than
saying
if
you
vote
yes
on
even
your
election,
do
you
want
a
or
b
because
that's
not
a
way
our
charter
lets
us
write
the
question,
so
the
question
would
be:
do
you
want
to
vote
even
your
election?
AC
A
So
kathy
just
kind
of
just
get
totally
explicit
that
if
even
years
passed
and
but
neither
of
the
two
options
that
we
put
on
got
50
like
if
they
got
48,
then
the
even
year
question
would
get
nullified
because
they
hadn't
selected
an
option:
correct:
okay!
Well,
I
yeah
rachel.
I
think
I'm
with
you.
I
think
that
this
now
gets
much
less
interesting,
that
if
the
whole
thing
could
go
down,
because
you
know
one
of
them,
one
option
got
49
and
one
got
30
and
there
was
a
clear
choice,
but
it
wasn't.
AC
And
the
only
way
you
could
avoid
that
is
put
into
the
first
question:
do
you
want
even
your
elections
happening
this
way,
or
do
you
want
a
second
one?
Do
you
want
even
your
elections
happening
this
way
so
rather
than
three
questions,
you
only
have
two,
but
still
that
might
be
confusing
to
the
voters
and
people
could
vote
yes
on
both
or
no
on
both
or
yes
and
one
and
no
on
the
other.
AC
A
Okay
thanks,
I
I'd
like
to
give
everybody
a
chance
to
talk
at
least
once
before.
We
go
back
to
folks,
so
I've
got
lauren
up.
E
Thanks
erin,
so
to
me
it
seems
like
each
one
of
the
like.
None
of
these
options
are
perfect.
We
have
the
issue
of
extending
our
own
terms.
We
have
voter
fatigue.
Some
of
these
are
difficult
or
complicated
to
implement
or
waiting
on
ranked
choice.
Voting
for
mayor-
and
I
just
still
feel
like
you
know-
occam's
razor's-
a
really
good
thing
to
use
in
this
situation-
the
simplest
solution-
often
the
best.
So
I
would
put
a
plug-in
for
option
four,
because
for
me
it's
the
simplest
to
understand
and
to
explain.
A
F
F
F
V
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
was
just
gonna
say
I
mean
it
sounds
like
the
multi-part
option
is
something
that
that
folks
are
kind
of
pulling
back
from
which
I
think
is
good.
That
was,
it
was
getting
really
in
into
the
weeds.
For
me,
I'm
kind
of
with
lauren
that
you
know
this
is
simple.
It's
just
the
simpler.
We
can
make
the
ballot
the
the
better.
We
are
going
to
get
an
understanding
of
what
the
community
wants,
and
somebody
mentioned
earlier
that
you
know
we.
V
We
shouldn't
be
the
final
decision
makers
in
this,
but
we're
not
right.
Ultimately,
the
voters
will
be
the
decision
makers
and
they
will
either
decide
that
you
know
they
want
even
your
elections
and
they're,
okay
with
doing
a
one-time
extension
of
all
the
terms
by
one
year
in
order
to
get
there
or
no
right,
and
then
we
can
think
about
whether
there's
another
thing
that
we
could
do
in
the
future.
If
that
were
something
another
council
wanted
to
do,
a
community
group
could
decide
they
wanted
to
try
it
a
different
way.
V
A
Still
call
I've
still
got
hints
from
tara
and
lauren.
Did
you
want
to
chime
back
in
no
okay?
Well
I'll
I'll
call
on
myself
again
then,
because
I
because
I
had
gone
for
the
multi-choice,
but
now
that
I
don't
think
that's
a
great
option.
A
So
I
guess
I'll
just
say
I
do
think
either
of
them
will
work
perfectly
well,
I
I
guess
I'm
going
to
go
for
option
four
by
by
small
margin,
just
to
just
to
keep
from
the
simplest
simplicity
argument,
and
if
the
the
voters
don't
like
extending
the
terms,
then
they
don't
like
extending
the
terms
and
that's
totally
fine,
but
just
keep
it
simple
and
I
guess
subjects
all
of
us
equally
to
the
pain
of
an
additional
year.
A
If
the
measure
is
successful
so
but
like
I
said,
I
think
it
could
work
out
either
way.
All
right.
Can
we
move
to
some
some
straw
polls
here?
Is
that
all
right
with
folks?
Okay?
So
so
we
have
option
so
bob
put
option,
one
back
on
the
table
and
then
we
have
option
two
and
option
four.
Let's
do
this.
A
How
about
we
can
do
it
like
the
boards
and
commissions
appointments
we'll
take
we'll
go
from
the
top
down
if
a
majority
doesn't
get
if
none
of
them
get
a
majority.
The
first
round,
we'll
drop
the
lowest
vote,
getting
one
and
then
try
again,
if
that's
okay
with
folks
all
right,
so
let
and
I'm
gonna
ask
for.
Can
I
see
everybody?
A
Okay,
I
can
see
everybody,
so
I'm
gonna
ask
for
physical
hands
for
the
different
options
and
I'm
gonna
record
you
as
we
go
so
option,
one
all
in
favor
of
option,
one
I'm
seeing
two
two
hands
for
option:
one:
tara
and
bob
all
in
favor
of
option
two.
A
I
am
seeing
one
hand
from
rachel
friend
all
in
favor
of
option,
four
we're
getting
five:
six
tara.
Okay!
So
that's
everybody
else.
So
that
looks
like
option.
Four
is
what
we've
landed
on.
So
thanks
for
that
discussion.
That's
what
we
will
work
on
putting
on
the
ballot
appreciate
that
now
we
had
the.
I
didn't
see
it
in
the
in
the
presentation,
but
there
was
the
question
in
the
memo
about.
A
AC
Yes,
that's
slide
five
emily.
If
you
can
do
that.
Yes,
I
just
want
to
confirm
the
two
things
that
one
you
can
only
run
for
one
office
during
an
election
and
one
more
one
more
slide,
and
it
causes
all
sorts
of
issues
if
you,
if
somebody
was
running
for
mayor
and
council
member
in
the
same
election,
there's
all
sorts
of
issues
with
matching
funds
and
the
way
that
we
do
campaign
disclosures
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
that
make
it
very
difficult.
AC
So
just
confirming
that
that
cannot
happen,
but
a
council
member
who
is
not
up
for
election
in
a
certain
year
and
just
serving
on
council
and
has
another
two
years
on
their
term
that
they
can
run
for
mayor
without
resigning,
their
seat.
If
they
win
mayor,
then
the
fifth
highest
vote.
Getter
gets
the
unexpired
term
of
the
council
member,
that
was
elected
mayor
and
that
second
part
was
already
in
the
charter
from
when
ranked
choice.
G
Well,
I'll
just
make
a
clarifying
statement.
Oh
this
was
what
was
intended.
G
Matt
will
remember
this
that
that
this
first
point
was
exactly
what
we
wanted.
Those
of
us
who
put
this
on
the
ballot
back
in
2020
and
through
a
scrivener's
error,
quite
frankly,
is
a
mistake
in
drafting
by
somebody:
that's
not
what
ended
up
on
the
ballot,
and
so
I
think
this.
Actually
I
mean
what
council
believed
in
2020
and
what
this
council
believes
might
be
two
different
things,
but
I
fully
support
what
kathy
said,
because
this
is
what
we
were
supposed
to
be:
asking
the
voters
in
2020
and
through
literally
a
drafting
error.
N
A
Again,
mark.
M
And
you
know
I
would
actually
go
a
little
further
with
respect
to
the
second
point,
one
of
the
things
that's
most
unseemly
in
our
national
politics
when
people
run
from
safe
seats
for
higher
office-
and
I
I
am
happy
to
have
anybody
whatsoever
run
for
mayor.
But
frankly,
I
think
we
that
individual
ought
to
elect
up
front
as
to
whether
or
not
they're
running
for
mayor
or
or
remaining
as
a
member
of
council.
M
Again,
it's
an
optics
issue
for
me
when
somebody
runs
with
the
assurance
that
they
remain
on
council
if
they
lose.
I
think
people
who
want
to
run
for
mayor
should
commit
to
running
for
mayor
and
and
not
have
a
council
seat
to
fall
back
on.
I
just
you
know
to
me
it's
bad
optics
and
and
looks
unseemly,
and
so
I
would.
V
Yeah,
I
really
hear
that
mark
and
I'm
just
I'm
glad
you
raised
that
for
us
to
sort
of
discuss
around
it,
and
I
just
want
to
lay
out
my
concern
with
that,
and
it's
really
you
know
that
the
mayor,
as
it
exists
in
our
city
is
not
kind
of
the
all-powerful
person
that
it
is
in
some
other
cities
that
have
elected
mayors,
but
it
you
know,
I
I
can
absolutely
see
how
it
really
benefits
to
have
somebody
who
has
some
council
experience.
V
So
that's
that's
sort
of
the
one
thing
that
I
would.
I
would
hate
for
somebody
to
kind
of
cut
their
term
short
before
deciding
to
run
for
mayor
and
then
sort
of
lose
them
anyway.
Sorry,
it's
late
and
I'm
not
articulating
things
well,
but
basically
I
it
seems
to
me
that
if
we
ask
people
to
step
down
from
their
council
seat
before
running
for
mayor,
we
we
might
lose
some
really
well
qualified
mayor
candidates.
A
Thanks-
and
you
know,
I
just
realized-
because
elisha
mentioned
to
me-
molly-
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
keep
you
here
any
later,
because
I
think
we're
past
the
point
where
we
need
your
expertise,
so
you're
welcome
and
with
our
great
thanks
for
assisting
us
tonight
and
for,
of
course,
all
the
work
that
you
do
for
our
community.
Our
county.
AD
F
Thank
you
aaron.
I
heard
you
clearly
mark.
I
think
your
points
are
valid,
but
I'm
just
wondering
I
just
don't
know.
F
I
just
don't
know
what
difference
it
makes
and
I
wonder
if
maybe
theresa
or
maybe
someone
else
at
the
city
has
looked
into
this
and
know
that
it
really
makes
a
difference
whether
a
council
member
still
get
to
keep
the
seat
or
whether
you
vacate
the
seat.
I
just
don't
know
what
really
difference
it
makes,
and
I
think
again,
nicole,
made
an
important
point
that
if
someone
has
to
step
down
there
is
that
vacuum
and
you're
losing
someone
with
experience.
F
So
I
just
don't
know
yeah
I
just
I
just
don't
know
what
would
be
what
would
be
the
benefit
and
some
of
the
drawback
of
going.
That
way.
Do
you
see
what
I
mean
mark,
so
maybe
someone.
M
M
I
just
think
the
appearance
aspect
of
it
is
you
know
it's
a
free
election.
You
get
to
run,
you
win,
you
lose
it
doesn't
matter.
You
stay
on
council
and
yeah.
I
understand
that
you
lose
some
experience,
but
we
lose
experience
every
election
cycle
and,
amazingly,
we
still
continue
to
move
forward
and
prosper.
We
we
have
many
new
members,
this
council
and
and
everybody
is
performing
as
expected.
So
I
I
you
know
for
me:
it's
just
the
optics
of
of
doing
so.
M
Just
as
I
get
aggravated
when
I
see
people
who
are
governors
or
senators
running
for
president,
because
they
know
it's,
there's
no
cost
to
them.
If
it
works
out
fine,
if
it
doesn't
work
out,
they
get
to
go
back
and
and
pontificate
some
more
and
that's
all
I'm
saying
I
don't
expect
there
to
be
a
majority
for
that
position.
M
But
to
me
it
is
the
optics
of
it
are
quite
poor,
and
I
expect
I
want
people
to
step
up
and
run
for
mayor,
but
I
want
them
to
commit
to
doing
so
and
now
we've
got
a
new
procedure
for
electing
the
mayor
through
ranked
choice,
voting
and
I'd
like
to
see
them
commit
to
that,
as
opposed
to
you
know,
simply
taking
the
safe
way
out
and
again.
I
don't
expect
that
to
be
a
majority
position
here.
I'm
just
raising
it
because
it's
something
that
that
disturbs
me.
A
I
hear
your
concern
marks
I'll
call
on
myself
the
next
I'll
I
mean.
I
think
I
think
the
community
can
benefit
from
having
some
experienced
council
members
stay
in
office
if
they're
unsuccessful
and
they
run
the
mayor
and
I'll.
Just
look
to
our
neighbor
to
the
north
here
for
a
recent
example
in
longmont
the
most
recent
mayor
election
is
two
sitting
council
members
who
are
to
the
contenders
joan
peck
and
tim
waters,
both
exemplary
public
servants.
You
know,
joan
won
tim
lost
by
a
little
bit.
A
Tim
stayed
on
council
he's
continuing
to
serve
his
community
ably
well,
while
jonas
is
the
mayor.
So
I
just
point
to
that
simple:
we
gotta
we
got
four
more
hands
up,
but
we
might
move
to
straw
poll
here
pretty
quick
on
this
on
this
topic.
Rachel
matt,
lauren,
tara,.
L
I
I
feel,
like
I
missed
something,
and
this
conversation
has
brought
my
fever
back.
I
think,
but
why
are
we
like?
Why
are
the
nine
of
us
deciding
this?
Isn't
this
something
that
should
have
been
decided
by
the
voters
and
if
this
was
a
scrivener's
error
and
it
didn't
get
in
there?
Is
this
a
charter
committee
question
that
that
should
go
back
to
the
voters,
because
I
don't
know
why
the
nine
of
us
should
decide
this
for
the
city.
L
We
are
not
the
smartest
and
like
best
people
in
the
city,
to
decide
this,
like
this
impacts,
the
whole
city,
not
just
the
nine
of
us,
so
I
kind
of
hate
it
when
we
as
a
council
think
that
we
should
have
the
answers.
I
think
this
is
for
the
voters,
so
I
don't
know
how
to
vote
in
your
straw
poll
for
that
erin.
But
this
conversation,
I
just
don't
think
it's
ours.
AC
This
is
this
is
the
question
of
how
you
want
us
to
write
the
ballot
question.
The
ultimate
decision
is
the
voters.
Not
yours.
Like
bob
said
you
know,
it
was
thought
that
this
was
going
to
be
included
in
the
question
when
this
was
written
before
it
wasn't,
and
so
now
there's
an
interpretation,
there's
a
hole
and
we're
trying
to
fill
that
hole
in
the
way
we
write
the
ballot
question.
The
voters
will
decide
whether
the
hole
gets
filled
or
not.
L
Great,
I
misunderstood
the
the
whole
question
there
because
we're
weighing
in
with
our
opinions
on
which
way
is
the
better
outcome.
So,
if
it's
just
like,
I
don't
know
how
we
need
to
weigh
in
on
the
phraseology.
Yes,
this
should
go
to
the
voters.
N
Yep
sounds
good
thanks.
I'll,
be
brief.
Yes,
there's
a
hole
in
the
drafting
of
2020.
This
will
clean
it
up.
I
support
the
way
it
is
to
do
so.
N
To
mark's
point,
if,
if
it
seems
like
it's
bad
taste
for
someone
to
want
to
sit
there,
then
then
that'll
be
in
the
eye
of
the
elector
to
not
support
them
from
here
or
the
next
time
they
run
for
council.
Furthermore,
there's
I
don't
see
anybody
going
sort
of
half
cooked
if
they're,
already
an
existing
council
person
into
running
from
where
it's
like
all
or
nothing,
when
you
kind
of
run
for
those
races,
so
so
I
think
that's
going
to
be
a
fair
shot.
N
E
O
Real
quick
as
I'm
going
to
go
with
nicole
and
judy
on
this
one
and
here's.
The
reason
mark
is
because
mark
if
you
ran
for
mayor,
I
would
not
want
to
lose
you
for
city
council.
I
would
not
want
to
so
then
my
this
is
true.
So
then
my
thought
would
be
well.
Should
I
take
a
chance
and
vote
for
him
for
may,
or
should
I
not
take
it,
I
feel
for
me
it
it.
O
G
A
Okay,
very
good,
so
maybe
it
sounds
like
we've
got
a
strong
majority
here
to
take
staff's
recommendations
on
these
two.
These
two
points
and
move
them
forward
and
again
mark
all
respects
two
points
but
looks
like
we
got
a
majority
on
that.
Any
any
last
comments
there
just
to
clarify
just.
N
AC
I
was
planning
on
writing
them
all
in
the
ballot
one.
So
I'm
sorry
in
the
even
year
one.
So
if
you
want
them
separate,
let
me
know.
N
N
That's
sort
of
hanging
there
for
something
that's
already
built
into
the
charter,
which
is
electing
our
mayor
with
ranked
choice
voting
so
so
that
first
point
has
to
get
cleaned
up,
regardless
of
whether
we
pass
even
year
or
not.
So
just
I
I
I
just
and
if
there's
and
and
to
be
frank,
if
there's
other
cleanup
so
to
speak,
then
maybe
it's
a
cleanup
package
that
gets
tossed
in
there,
but
but
either
way.
I
think
it's
important
for
this
to
be
separated
out.
A
A
Yes,
I
mean
none
of
your
hands
are
old,
but
you
know
I
think
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
item.
Kathy
or
truce.
Is
there
anything
else
we
need
to
address
here.
A
Okay,
great
well
thanks
everyone.
I
apologize
that
we
went
way
over
the
time
of
our
meeting,
but
boy
that
landmarking
one
turned
out
to
be
a
complicated
issue,
so
appreciate
another
productive
meeting
and
another
set
of
great
discussions.
Any
last
thoughts
before
we
wrap
up.