►
From YouTube: City of Boulder City Council Study Session 5-8-18
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
C
D
Evening,
my
name
is
Julia
Richmond
I'm,
the
innovation
and
technology
officer
for
the
city
of
Boulder,
I
am
joined
by
Christmas
Chuck
assistant
city
manager,
Joanne
Hovis
of
CTC
technology
and
energy,
and
her
colleague,
Michael
O'halloran
who's
sitting
in
the
crowd.
We're
gonna
talk
with
you
today
about
community
broadband.
The
purpose
of
this
meeting
is
a
follow-up
to
our
January
session,
where
we
were
asked
to
provide
additional
technical
and
policy
information,
including
evaluation
of
business
model
options
for
providing
broadband
in
Boulder
and
then
gather
feedback
from
you
on
those
options
and
next
steps.
E
D
A
quick
overview
of
our
agenda,
we're
gonna
review
with
you,
the
vision
and
guiding
principles
along
with
kind
of
the
project,
timelines,
some
key
definitions
and
then
we'll
go
through
a
discussion
of
the
five
options
for
broadband
that
we
have
evaluated
over
the
past
couple
of
months.
We'll
also
talk
about
the
intersection
between
broadband
and
possible
electric
utility,
both
in
terms
of
operations,
financial
constraints
and
construction.
D
D
Why
are
we
doing
this
project?
The
city's
vision
is
to
provide
Boulder
with
the
world-class
telecommunications
infrastructure
for
the
21st
century
and
beyond.
As
part
of
this
vision,
we
recognize
that
connectivity
is
essential
that
everyone
in
our
community
should
have
access,
but
this
is
increasingly
becoming
a
core
urban
service
and
that
we
need
this
in
order
to
future-proof
our
city.
D
If
you
remember
from
our
January
meeting,
we
reviewed
and
updated
six
guiding
principles
which
are
on
the
screen
in
front
of
you.
These
principles
were
originally
developed
in
2016
and
we
revised
them
in
January
this
year.
The
first
one
is
about
citywide
access,
which
is
the
concept
of
infrastructure
for
everyone
everywhere
in
the
city.
Next
is
about
equitable
and
inclusive,
so
no
cherry-picking,
no
serving
communities
that
will
pay
or
high
demand
areas,
but
serving
everyone
future-oriented
so
thinking
about
our
long-term
needs
projects
and
the
transformation
of
municipality
over
time
competitive
marketplace.
D
Recognizing
that
increased
competition
reduces
prices
for
consumers,
unfettered
access,
so
the
concept
of
net
neutrality
and
open
access.
So
a
network,
that's
open
to
multiple
users.
And/Or
providers
will
review
the
various
options.
The
five
model
options
that
we
have
evaluated
over
the
past
couple
of
months
and
will
provide
you
with
a
response
to
each
of
these
guiding
principles
in
terms
of
the
favorability
towards
towards
the
guiding
principle
for
each
option.
So
can
it
meet
that
option?
Can
it
meet
the
guiding
principle
and
how
then
the
degree
to
which
it
can
meet
the
principle?
D
So
just
a
quick
overview
of
the
project
timeline
just
to
refresh
we
began
this
work
really
in
earnest
in
2016
last
year
was
spent
and
technical
analysis
and
feasibility.
The
past
few
months
we
have
worked
on
four
different
kind
of
key
deliverables
with
our
consultant
CTC
and
also
internal
conversations
with
the
city.
So
we've
looked
at
partnership
options,
cost
estimates,
technical
construction,
analysis
and
policy
analysis
over
that
time
and
the
memo
that
you
received
contains
basically
all
of
those
deliverables.
So
apologies
about
the
length
of
that
I'm
sure
it
was
lovely
bedtime
reading.
D
D
So
what,
in
the
meantime,
we've
also
been
doing
some
amount
of
community
engagement
around
this
topic
and
I'm
just
gonna
give
you
a
quick
overview
of
sort
of
what
we've
done.
If
you
recall
the
city
launched
our
engagement
platform
called
be
heard
Boulder
earlier
this
year,
and
community
broadband
was
the
first
project
that
we
put
on
be
heard.
The
project
that
we
posted
allowed
people
to
log
their
internet
speed
and
do
a
speed
check
at
their
home.
We
had
a
number
of
visitors
post.
Most
of
them
were
receiving
less
than
30
megabits
per
second.
D
The
u.s.
average
is
about
eighteen
point:
seven
five.
We
had
about
three
hundred
and
seven
visitors
to
the
engagement
site,
recognizing
it's
both
a
new
site
and
a
short
time
frame
for
engaging.
We
also
had
a
session
that
we
called
broadband
brainstorming
in
April
and
we
had
about
45
people
there.
We
reviewed
kind
of
core
tenants
of
broadband.
So
should
the
government
be
in
the
business
of
broadband?
If
so,
why
would
you
switch?
Would
you
switch
from
your
current
provider?
Those
kinds
of
things
super
helpful
conversation
with
the
community
and
some
strong
feelings
about
broadband.
D
The
second
is
that
there's
a
pretty
clear
desire
in
our
community
for
local
control
and
accountability
sort
of
over
and
over.
We
heard
that
from
people
that
that
was
the
model
that
they
were
interested
in,
based
on
the
cost
estimates
that
we
have
done,
particularly
in
what's
up
Boulder,
we
shared
with
constituents
the
constraints
that
were
under
in
the
difference
in
price
between
us,
longmont
and
people
were
surprised
at
our
our
inability
to
issue
a
similar
price
too
long
that
so
something
for
us
to
talk
about
in
this
meeting
as
well.
D
Most
people
were
interested
in
faster,
cheaper
net,
neutral
internet
and
most
people
were
interested
in
switching
because
of
their
current
customer
experience
with
their
provider
all
right.
So
just
a
couple
of
terms
to
kind
of
help.
The
discussion
and
we've
created
sort
of
a
metaphor:
if
you
recognizing
that
different
council
members
have
different
experience
with
broadband,
so
we
wanted
to
do
a
little
bit
of
level
setting
here.
So
a
couple
of
terms
you'll
hear
throughout
the
night
internet
backhaul.
D
If
you
think
about
broadband
in
terms
of
streets,
the
internet
backhaul
can
be
thought
of
in
terms
of
a
highway.
So
it's
a
huge
piece
of
infrastructure,
backbone
fibre,
more
like
an
arterial,
so
Broadway
or
Canyon,
would
be
an
example
and
a
parallel
of
the
street
distribution.
Fiber
would
be
collectors
and
streets,
so
smaller
streets,
side,
streets,
those
kinds
of
things
and
the
service
drop
could
be
thought
of,
like
your
driveway
can.
D
G
D
D
The
thing
to
know
is
that
communities
around
the
country
use
each
of
these
models.
So
there's
not,
you
know
a
a
preferred
model
around
the
country,
but
really
it's
about
best
fit
for
your
community
and
your.
You
know
financial
constraints
and
things
like
that.
So
in
terms
of
the
public-private
collaboration,
that
was
our
previous
focus
last
year,
and
that
was
the
model
that
counts.
Us.
Council
asked
us
to
think
a
little
bit
harder
about
and
and
provide
other
options
in
response
to.
D
The
third
is
around
a
city
build
so
fiber
only
so
we
would
build
both
a
backbone
in
the
fiber
and
lease
it
to
a
third
party
to
provide
the
Internet
service,
and
this
is
kind
of
considered
the
wholesale
or
dark
fiber
model
city
build.
So
this
is
the
city
building
both
the
fiber
and
providing
the
Internet
service
and
the
last
option,
which
is
always
an
option,
is
refraining
from
acting
so
I'm
gonna
orient
you
to
some
of
the
information
that
we'll
walk
through
this
evening
in
front
of
you.
D
You
have
an
11
by
17
sheet
of
paper,
which
has
an
evaluation
of
all
of
the
options.
A
summary
I
think
this
will
be
helpful
to
have
kind
of
easy
at
hand
as
we
go
through
the
discussion.
It's
just
a
quick
look
at
everything,
so
you
at
the
top,
you
have
kind
of
the
picture
of
the
model,
a
quick
description
and
then
a
breakdown
of
the
various
elements
of
infrastructure
and
who
would
own
them.
Who
would
be
the
service
provider
in
that
model,
the
implications
to
the
city
in
terms
of
organization
and
staffing
financial
implications?
D
So
this
is
based
on
our
cost
model
and
the
work
that
we
did
both
internal
to
the
city
and
with
CTC
the
elements
of
control
and
alignment
with
the
guiding
principles.
If
you
look
on
the
left
side
model,
one
is
the
lowest
risk
lowest
cost
option
and
going
to
the
right
increases
the
risk
and
cost
to
the
city,
so
they're
organized
purposefully
as
we
go
through
slides
this
evening,
you'll
see
a
couple
of
pictures.
E
H
Some
of
the
key
points
to
look
at
is
obviously
our
our
cost
would
be
fairly
low
in
this
model,
because
a
private
partner
would
be
taking
the
vast
majority
of
expense
and
risk,
but
in
this
model,
because
it's
a
privately
owned
network,
open
access
is
probably
not
likely.
There
are
examples
of
this
all
over
the
country.
Two
of
the
case
studies
described
in
your
memo
and
in
the
attachments
from
CTC
include
Lexington,
Lexington,
Kentucky
and
Lincoln
Nebraska.
H
There
are
two
partners
that
are
potentially
still
interested
in
Boulder
as
a
location
and
that's
a
low
communications
and
ting
Internet,
and
we
have
talked
to
both
of
those
folks
going
back
even
into
2016
there's
an
attachment
of
partnership
considerations
attached
to
the
memo
that
describes
each
of
those
businesses
and
a
little
bit
more
further
detail.
So
that's
model
one.
Any
questions
on
that.
Why.
H
Could
you
could
look
at
it
that
way
where,
essentially,
you
issue
a
franchise
agreement
to
one
of
these,
and
then
it
would
be
more
of
a
private
risk.
What
other
communities
do
is
actually
work
with
one
of
these
partners.
They
may
actually
sign
some
sort
of
agreement
that
maybe
sets
up
certain
expectations
for
their
service
delivery
or
in
some
models,
there's
actually
an
investment
by
the
local
community.
So
that's
why
we
categorize
it
under
under
a
public-private
sort
of
partnership
or
collaboration.
If.
F
I
could
follow
up,
but
now
I
know,
and
previously,
when
we
talked
about
this
model,
we
talked
about
contributing
City,
Fiber,
sharing
city
fiber,
which
I
know
only
gets
us
a
few
percent
of
the
way
towards
the
network
necessary.
But
that
would
be
another
slight
public
element.
That
would
add
a
fair
statement.
Correct.
H
Yeah,
there
is
a
chance
that
we
could
utilize
some
of
the
existing
city.
Fiber
assets,
our
fiber
strands,
the
actual
kind
of
cable
or
wire,
that's
in
the
conduit
in
the
ground,
and
so
conduit
is
the
plastic
pipe
that
the
fiber
runs
through
our
our
bundle
or
fiber
strands
are
not
of
enough
capacity
to
actually
run
a
broadband
internet
service
off
of
them,
so
you'd
have
to
replace
the
fiber
inside
the
conduit,
but
potentially
that
would
be
an
option.
If
we
went
this
route
is
we
could
release
or
sell
our
conduit
to
a
private
provider?
C
D
Not
sufficient
to
provide
broadband
internet
speed
access,
so
we
have
sufficient
internet
for
our
use.
In
fact,
the
city
has
a
very
high
calibre
network
that
we
use
that
has
been
basically
developed
through
dozens
of
partnerships
over
the
past
15
years
at
almost
no
cost,
but
it's
not
sufficient
based
on
the
agreements
that
we
have.
It's
not
sufficient
to
provide
a
broadband
service
based
on
so,
for
example,
the
brand
Network
our
partnership
and
brand.
We
only
have
12
strands
of
the
entire
set
of
fiber
in
the
ground,
so
we
couldn't
do
broadband
off
of
that.
D
H
J
You
we
actually,
we
evaluated
exactly
that
in
the
initial
feasibility
study
and
your
existing
network
is
actually
very
impressive
and
something
to
be
very
proud
of.
It
was
built
very
efficiently
and
cost-effectively
and
smartly,
over
a
period
of
time
through
public
public
collaborations
than
public
nonprofit
collaborations
like
with
a
higher
ed
community,
and
its
purpose
was
to
serve
internal
city
functions
and
it
was
designed
beautifully
for
that.
But
what
it
wasn't
designed
for
was
to
support
a
network
that
would
go
to
every
home
and
business
in
the
city.
H
You'll
hear
maybe
some
of
us
reference
or
you'll
see
in
the
materials
strand
counts.
So
that's
the
number
of
fibers
within
the
the
fiber
cable.
When
you
start
to
talk
about
things
like
backbones,
you
start
to
be
in
the
144
strand
count
as
we
talk
about
the
next
model.
Centennial
is
putting
in
a
bundle,
that's
432
strands,
really
giant,
and
so
those
are
the
sorts
of
things
that
our
current
network
doesn't
have.
That
number
of
strands.
K
I
H
And
why
don't
I
jump
forward
to
the
second
model,
because
that'll
include
Centennial,
and
so
this
is
the
city
backbone
model.
So
this
is
where
the
city
would
build
a
backbone
for
the
network,
and
then
we
would
work
with
a
private
company
to
extend
that
network
to
homes
and
businesses
to
actually
provide
this
service.
H
G
Of
that
map,
Chris
I,
assume
that,
in
that
evaluation,
I
think
I
saw
on
the
memo
it's
93
miles.
Did
I
read
that
correctly,
you
took
into
account
existing
fiber
accounts
that
are
held
by
other
parties.
In
other
words,
are
there
are
there
some
of
the
make
accounts
that
you're
talking
about?
You
know
one
forty
four
to
eighty
eight's
available
from
people
who
already
have
fiber
in
the
ground
or
is
that
capacity
pretty
exhausted,
privately
knew
we
would
pretty
much
have
to
build
it
from
scratch.
What.
H
We
asked
CTC
to
do
was
to
design
the
backbone
and
we
gave
them
our
existing
conduit
assets
and
fiber
assets,
and
they
use
that
as
part
of
it.
So
it
didn't
include
any
private
assets.
It
only
included
those
public
assets
of
conduit
that
we
already
owned
so
where
we
already
owned
conduit,
it
was
more
efficient
that
we
would
reuse
that
conduit,
so
they
designed
the
backbone
in
that
geographic
location.
G
H
So
that's
a
good
question,
so
it
depends
on
how
we
decide
to
if
we
were
to
take
this
model
in
this
approach,
how
we
were
to
decide
to
do
it.
So
if
we
were
to
build
a
backbone,
you're
gonna,
build
that
backbone
and
then
find
a
private
provider
to
build
out
to
homes
and
businesses
and
as
Sam
described
in
the
case
of
Centennial
Colorado.
G
On
Mary's
question
you
said
that
this
could
be.
This
could
be
a
backbone
that
then
could
be
tapped
off
of
by
a
private
provider,
but
are
there
two
other
options
which
is
it
could
be
tapped
off
by
multiple
other
providers?
Right
have
to
be
what,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
that
might
be
a
pretty
good
idea,
because
then
you
can
create
a
competitive
dynamic
in
the
second
is.
This
is
not
necessarily
doesn't
have
to
be
phase
one
of
option
one.
It
can
also
be
phase
one
towards
option
four.
H
So
if
we
were
to
say,
let's
build
a
backbone,
you're
gonna
need
a
backbone
in
models,
two
three
or
four,
and
so
what
we
tried
to
do
in
each
of
these
models
is:
what's
the
different:
what
are
different
business
models
that
result
in
fibre
to
homes
and
businesses?
So
then,
if
we
decide
to
move
forward
as
a
community,
we
don't
have
to
pick
exactly
one
of
these
models.
We
could
start
with
a
backbone
and
then
that
leaves
the
door
open
to
several
different
models
going
forward
in
the
future.
H
The
cost
for
something
like
this
CTC
model
did
if
we
were
to
borrow
money,
roughly
eleven
million
dollars
is
what
the
backbone
would
cost
to
construct,
but
as
they
described
in
in
the
analysis,
we'd
probably
really
want
to
treat
this
as
core
city
infrastructure
versus
trying
to
actually
base
this
on
a
business
model.
You
could
lease
this
backbone
to
one
or
multiple
providers
as
Bob
described,
but
you
may
or
may
not
get
enough
lease
rates
and
lease
revenue
to
actually
pay
for
the
whole
backbone.
H
So
many
communities-
that's
very
common
for
a
backbone
type
construction
so
like
in
the
case
of
Centennial.
It
was
funded
through
their
regular
CIP,
rather
than
expecting
that
revenues
were
gonna
pay.
This
thing
back
over
time
versus
the
other
models
that
will
describe
later,
where
it's
modeled
as
a
standalone,
self-sustaining
business.
If
we
did
look
at
this.
G
As
is
there's
the
first
step
towards
model
for
which
you're
going
to
get
to
an
event,
and
let's
say
there
was
a
gap
of
time
between
the
build-out
of
the
of
the
backbone
and
then
also
ultimately,
building
out
the
entire
network
and
and
providing
service.
Are
there
ways
for
us
to
monetize
this
as
an
ISP
other
than
through
just
selling
fiber?
In
other
words,
we
could
sell
off
fiber
strands
here
and
there
to
need
it,
but
actually
the
laterals
want
for
that.
G
I
mean
obviously
distance
matters,
I
get
that,
but
I
mean
this
is
gonna,
go
past
a
lot
of
at
least
businesses
right,
and
could
we,
in
the
first
phase,
monetize
this
by
providing
Internet
service
to
those
homes
and
businesses
that
happen
to
be
along
those
93
miles?
I,
don't
know,
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
fairness
issue,
because
a
lot
of
people
that
deep
in
the
neighborhoods
are
not
gonna
have
that
access
until
we
go
to
model.
For
that.
That's
where
we
get,
but
is
that
a
possibility?
It.
H
Is
it's
a
possibility
and
it
there's
some
variability
and
essentially
what
the
electronics
that
help
light
this
fiber
up,
whether
those
are
included
who
owns
and
pays
for
those
network
electronics?
But
it's
actually
an
example
in
urbana-champaign
that
we
found
slightly
intriguing,
which
is
when
they
built
their
backbone.
They
also
chose
to
expand
or
build
laterals
and
distribution
fiber
into
some
of
their
underserved
neighborhoods,
which
was
actually
a
really
interesting
concept.
F
J
That
was
our
number
for
what
the
bonding
would
be,
with
an
assumption
that
there
were
some
lease
revenues
coming
in
each
year.
If
there
were
no
revenues
at
all,
they
would
go
up
a
bit,
but
this
seemed
like
a
based
on
the
construction
numbers
that
the
engineers
came
up
with
the
financial
analysts
estimated
that,
with
modest
lease
revenues,
you'd
be
looking
at
bonding
about
11
million.
Okay.
J
Yes,
so
much
of
it
depends
on
conditions
time
of
year
you
get
started,
but
this
could
be
done
optimally
in
a
year.
It
could
take
longer
very
much
in
the
hands
of
the
city
in
in
many
ways
and
then
access
to
utility
poles
for
the
aerial
parts
of
the
I'm.
Sorry,
it's
all
underground,
I.
Take
that
back
spit.
My
brain
immediately
goes
to
poles,
it's
all
underground,
its
infrastructure,
you
own,
it's
in
your
rights
away,
so.
C
J
J
You,
incidentally,
have
in
your
existing
network,
okay,
which
was
designed
for
internal
city
purposes,
only,
and
also
in
an
earlier
era,
before
the
numbers
got
so
high.
But
the
if
you
were
to
build
this
backbone,
you
would
build
it
in
a
future-proof
fashion
to
make
sure
that
this
is
a
20
to
40
year
asset,
which.
C
G
It
true
that
a
vast
majority
of
the
cost
is
is
actually
the
underground
in
the
condo.
In
other
words,
the
cost
of
a
144
fiber
account
network
is
only
slightly
less
than
over
432.
In
other
words,
soames
are
digging
up
the
ground.
You
might
as
well
put
in
a
bunch
because
fibers
not
really
expensive
in
and
of
itself
yeah.
H
The
most
cost
is
related
to
getting
the
conduit
into
the
ground.
We
asked
that
exact
same
question
at
Centennial
when
we
talked
to
them
on
the
phone
is
well
why'd.
You
do
such
a
huge
fiber
bundle
and
they
just
said
in
the
end.
Fiber
was
cheap
and
we
decided
go,
go
really
big
and
that
way
it
always
preserves
our
options
into
the
future.
I.
I
I
Think
it's
fairly
simple
to
do
it
and
you're
gonna
probably
end
up
doing
it,
maybe
at
the
parts
that
you
need
it.
So
you
could
imagine
that
parts
would
end
up
with
higher
point-to-point
desire
and
people
would
pay
for
fibers.
So
it's
really
about
getting
the
conduits
in
the
right
place
for
the
backbone,
I
think
yeah.
H
That's
something
if
we
were
to
proceed
with
exploring
a
backbone
approach.
We
could
do
that
analysis
of
what
we
think
the
right,
fiber
strand
count
would
be
for
us,
one
of
the
one
of
the
key
points
related
to
a
backbone,
as
Julia
described
and
in
the
project
vision.
Is
it's
really
about
connectivity
as
essential?
H
Look
as
we
look
forward
forward
to
the
future
and
how
do
we
think
of
future
proofing,
our
community
and
when
we
look
at
what
are
the
data
demands
even
from
a
city
services
standpoint,
as
you
start
to
look
at
kind
of
essentially
smart
city
technology,
so
on
sensors
on
water
systems,
where
you
can
detect
main
breaks
without
waiting
for
somebody
to
call
it
in
advanced
kind
of
the
next
phase
of
advanced
metering
from
an
electric
utility
standpoint,
autonomous
vehicles
need
these
communication
nodes
along
roads.
That's
going
to
require
connectivity
and
communications
infrastructure.
H
D
Wanted
to
say
one
more
thing
about
Centennial,
so
I
think.
Another
interesting
thing
about
Centennial
is
that
they
have
a
number
of
institutional
partners
with
whom
no
formal
agreements
have
been
developed.
So
as
they
went
to
build
this
network,
they
have
three
different
school
districts
that
are
nearby,
and
so
they
said
you
know
yes,
we're
interested
and
you
know
no
we're
not
sure
what
yet,
but
they
are
also
building
with
that
in
mind
that
they've
got
a
bunch
of
different
partners
who
will
come
online.
D
The
other
thing
is:
is
it
I
think
their
plan
is
a
three
year
plan
and
they're
completing
the
first
ring
of
their
I?
Think
it's
a
three
ring
model
and
that's
happened
in
the
first
year,
so
I
just
didn't
want
to
have
that
out
there
that
it's
only
gonna
take
one
year,
I
think
it's
a
three
year
plan,
I'm.
C
C
H
F
H
So
before
I
go
into
the
next
two
models,
there's
a
important
term
that
we're
gonna
start
using
that
that
is
pretty
critical
and
that
is
what's
called
take
rate.
So
a
take
rate
is
the
percentage
of
the
potential
subscribers
that
are
offered
the
service
that
actually
subscribe
or
take
the
service,
and
the
reason
that
take
rate
is
really
important
is
that
it
influences
price
pretty
significantly
the
other
term.
That
is
on
the
definitions
sheet
that
we
gave.
H
And
so
the
first
of
these
models
model
number
three
is
what
we
call
city
fiber
only
so
that's
where
the
city
would
build
an
entire
fiber
network,
all
the
way
to
where
were
passing
homes
and
businesses,
and
then
we
would
lease
that
to
a
private
company
to
provide
the
service.
So
we
wouldn't
be
the
internet
service
provider.
We
would
lease
that
to
a
third
party
who
would
provide
the
Internet
service,
but
it
would
be
over
the
city's
fiber
network,
and
so
just
to
give
you
an
idea.
H
H
I
H
So
if
there
was
above-ground
utilities
electric
service,
we
would
we
would
potentially
look
at
fiber
on
those
existing
poles.
We
did
have
CTC
as
a
part
of
their
infrastructure
analysis
model.
What
a
100%
underground
system
would
look
like
and
it
does
add
in
the
tens
of
millions
more
to
the
network,
but
that's
all
always,
of
course,
an
option
to
us
and.
H
On
where
that
distribution
fiber
is
coming
from,
so
if,
if
the
distribution
fiber
is
hung
on
a
pole
and
that's
above-ground
electric
service,
then
it
would
be
an
above
ground,
probably
dropped
to
the
house.
It
could
be
underground,
but
then,
if,
if
the
distribution
fiber
were
underground,
then
the
drop
would
be
undergrad
as
well.
Okay,
thank
you.
H
The
risk
on
this
is
very
high
and
I'll
get
into
in
a
second.
The
cost
becomes
pretty
challenging
in
this
model.
There's
several
communities
that
have
taken
this
approach
to
that.
We
that
CTC
used
in
the
analysis
is
Huntsville,
Alabama
and
Westminster
Maryland,
and
if
I
mean
you
see
in
the
cost
analysis
they
modeled
actually
both
of
these
communities
and
so
you'll
see
references
to
the
Huntsville
model
and
the
Westminster
model.
The
difference
between
those
two
is
who
owns
the
drops
that
final
fiber
connection
to
the
home,
and
so
it
changes
the
pricing
for
Boulder.
H
H
F
L
J
Yeah
Huntsville
has
a
number
of
built-in
structural
advantages:
they're
a
municipal
electric,
they
own
all
the
poles.
They
were
very
established,
they've
been
there
for
a
while,
so
they
were
in
a
position
also
not
to
have
to
bond
for
the
total
amount.
They
also
were
in
a
position
to
be
able
to
meet
city
needs
with
the
new
fiber,
so
they
have
revenues
attributable
to
what
they're
providing
for
the
city
as
well
as
providing
for
their
internal
needs.
J
So
there
were,
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
really
put
them
in
a
remarkably
good
position,
they're
also
in
a
very
relatively
low
cost
construction
area.
It's
just
cheaper
to
build
in
Alabama
than
it
is
here.
So
the
numbers
in
terms
of
the
revenues
that
they
got
from
their
private
partner
or
their
customer
who
is
Google
Fiber,
are
pretty
modest
relative
to
what
you
would
need
here,
but
they've
made
it
work.
They're.
H
H
The
last
model
model
number
four,
is
the
city
fiber
plus
isp
model,
so
this
is
where
the
city
would
build
the
fiber
network
and
be
the
internet
service
provider
to
the
subscribers
that
signed
up.
So
this
would
be
essentially
the
full
municipal
retail
model
is
what
many
times
it's
referred
to.
This
is
what
what
Longmont
is
providing
in
their
community.
H
A
couple
of
key
important
notes
here
that
are
on
the
chart
as
well,
is
from
an
open-access
standpoint.
We
probably
would
not
make
this
an
open
access
network
and
that
the
reason
is-
and
this
is
the
feedback
we've
heard
from
long
lawn
and
Fort
Collins
and
other
communities-
is
you're
essentially
entering
into
a
competitive
business
market.
At
this
point,
we'd
be
competing
against
Comcast,
CenturyLink,
other
Internet
service
providers
and
so
part
of
where
we
need
to
look
at
take
raid.
I
Another
question
about
the
assumption
that
you
used
for
saying
that
we
wouldn't
allow
another
ISP
on.
It
seems
like
if
you
were
going
to
have
another
ISP,
that's
available
for
open
access,
that
you
would
charge
them
the
significant
amount
money
to
be
able
to
access
your
network
because
you're
still
having
to
pay
it
off.
Why
is
it
that
that
model
of
blended
access
or
we
offer
the
ISP
services
but
other
another
company
could
also
offer
I
as
p
services,
but
they
have
to
pay
a
fair
bit
of
money
to
get
access
to
our
network.
I
J
J
So
we
didn't
model
it
here
in
part
because
it
really
doesn't
exist
anywhere
in
the
United
States
and
we
just
don't
have
any
precedent
for
it,
which
is
not
to
say
that
it
couldn't
and
that
it
won't
be
attempted,
and
there
are
projects
emerging
around
the
country
that
are
looking
at
ways
of
providing
open
access
at
Al.
It
service,
--is
layer,
usually
without
municipal
services,
but
just
multiple,
ideally
private
companies,
but
it's
very
very
early.
There's
almost
no
data
to
show
will
the
economics
work.
Will
they
not.
F
Just
just
a
clarifying
point
just
for
folks
who
are
following
along
net
neutrality,
something
people
care
a
lot
about
right
and
that's
defined
here
by
the
unfettered
access
right.
So
just
to
clarify.
Open
access
is
about
whether
multiple
internet
service
providers
could
provide
retail
service
over
this
backbone.
But
this
would
provide
the
net
neutrality
features
that
you're
calling
unfettered
access
right.
C
H
Actually
had
that
same
debate
amongst
the
project
team
as
well
of
what's
the
right
terminology
to
use,
so
unfettered
access
was
the
the
common
term
that
was
used
before
the
this
most
recent
round
of
kind
of
net
neutrality
revisions.
And
so,
if
you
think,
if
it
would
be
more
clear
for
us
to
revise
that
to
something
like
a
net
new
follow
net
neutrality
principles,
we
could
revise
that
principle
for
sure
I'd.
H
Providing
broadband
service
in
a
community
is
a
take
rate
of
thirty
five
percent,
and
so,
if
we
were
to
provide
service
at
50
dollars
per
month,
we
would
need
a
take
rate
in
order
to
cash
flow
of
eighty
eight
percent,
which
is
highly
unlikely
as
we
get
into
at
$70
per
month,
and
this
is
for
the
base
residential
service.
There
would
be
commercial
service
that
would
be
higher
price
than
this
and
then
up
to
a
full
service
level,
agreement
kind
of
guaranteed
service,
that's
even
more
expensive.
H
You
get
closer
to
about
a
51
percent,
take
rate.
We
ask
CTC
to
model.
What
would
our
pricing
need
to
be
if
we
had
a
35
percent
take
rate?
Essentially
that
safe
assumption
approach?
We
would
need
a
price
per
month
of
93
dollars
for
residential
service,
and
so
you
can
just
see
the
variability
of
you
got
to
get
your
pricing
and
your
taker
it
dials
really
tuned
and
which
is
part
of
why
we're
recommending
that
we
do
a
statistically
valid
survey
of
the
community.
H
H
We
would
have
a
cumulative
deficit
of
about
75
million
dollars
and
if
we
were
to
provide
a
$70
service,
but
it
was
locked
in
for
life
and
that
would
was
not
able
to
vary
based
on
inflation,
with
a
take
rate
of
fifty
one
percent,
we'd
be
in
a
financial
deficit
by
the
end
of
year.
20
that's
cumulative
up
to
about
thirty
five
million
dollars.
C
You,
and
maybe
this
falls
under
the
dumb
question,
but
we
obviously
have
Internet
service
now
and
they've,
provided
it
in
some
fashion.
It
may
be
expensive
and
not
fast,
but
can
you
contrast
what
they're
doing
in
terms
of
making
it
pencil
out
compared
to
what
we
would
need
to
do
to
pencil
down?
You
know
what
I
mean
yeah.
C
J
So
they
built
in
a
very
different
era
and
for
a
very
different
set
of
businesses.
You
have
to
citywide
networks
here
in
Boulder,
as
most
cities
do
in
the
United
States
the
phone
network
and
the
cable
network
and
the
phone
network,
depending
on
the
age
of
the
city,
was
built
in
the
early
20th
century
for
phone
service.
It
was
the
only
fund
provider,
100%
of
the
community
or
close
to
100%
took
service.
J
There
was
no
competition
and
there
were
substantial
federal
subsidies
to
build
out
those
networks
and
then,
when
the
internet
happened
as
a
commercial
matter
in
the
1990s,
the
phone
companies
were
in
a
position
to
upgrade
those
networks
incrementally
and
put
in
new
equipment
and
offer
Internet
over
it.
But
they
didn't
have
to
go,
build
a
whole
new
network,
and
so
they
were
in
a
place
actually
a
really
good
place
for
early
internet
era.
It's
very
similar
story
for
the
cable
industry.
J
Those
networks
were
built
for
the
provision
of
one-way
video
service
in
the
late
70s
or
early
80s,
and
there
was
no
competition.
They
were
the
only
cable
provider
close
to
a
hundred
percent
of
the
residential
market.
Probably
took
service,
some
level
of
service
may
be
basic,
maybe
enhanced,
but
they
they
weren't
in
a
position
where
they
had
to
compete.
J
C
Hope,
I
hope
this
is
interesting
to
others,
but
so
now
comcast
exists
and
they
would
be
the
competition
and
you
talked
about
hey
if
we
built
our
own,
we
wouldn't
have
competition,
but
they
exist.
So
explain
that
and
also
the
fact
that
they're
existing
now
based
on
the
system
and
they're
trying
to
upgrade
to
faster
speeds.
Presumably
how
will
they
get
to
where
they're
trying
to
go
and
how
does
that
compare
to
where
we're
trying
to
get?
J
Absolutely
so
the
Comcast's
upgrade
plan
on
its
path
is
to
it
has
an
infrastructure,
that's
not
nearly
as
capable
of
what
we're
talking
about
here.
If
you
build
this
infrastructure,
you
will
have
competition,
you'll
be
competing
with
Comcast
and
CenturyLink
and
in
the
business
market
with
a
handful
of
other
companies
as
well,
but
their
network
is
that
network
that
was
built
in
the
late
70s
or
early
80s,
and
it
simply
is
not
fiber-to-the-home.
J
In
order
to
get
to
those
kinds
of
speeds,
fiber
will
be
necessary,
so
at
some
point
in
the
future,
Comcast
may
have
to
add
a
whole
lot
more
fiber
to
its
network,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
now.
So
it
does
not
it.
It
has
a
completely
different
financial
picture.
A
completely
different
business,
massive
amounts
of
scale
that
you
wouldn't
that
you
don't
have
here-
I
mean
it's
really.
These
are
different
businesses
and
they're,
not
they're
they're,
doing
different
things
than
you
would
in
order
to
compete.
But
but
pricing
is
based
on
market
I,
hope.
A
J
Element
of
it
that
I
think
is
important
is
when
you
think
about
the
fact
that
they,
those
two
companies,
do
have
these
structural
advantages.
Their
networks
are
totally
inferior
to
what
we're
talking
about
here,
but
they
built
them
a
long
time
ago
and
they're
in
a
position
to
really
harvest
off
of
them.
J
At
this
point,
when
you
think
about
that
that
helps
you
to
understand
why
it's
been
so
challenging
for
other
private
sector
companies
to
come
in
and
just
solve
this
problem,
which
is
why
cities
are
so
engaged
because
it's
not
such
an
easy
thing
for
a
third
company
to
come
into
a
market
and
just
build
everywhere
on
a
ubiquitous
basis.
There's
that's!
Why
there's
an
important
role
for
cities
to
help
that
happen
through
one
of
these
models.
I
I
Gigabit
speed
service,
so
on
average,
maybe
50
times,
roughly
speaking
what
people
are
getting
now.
So
that's
another
element
of
this
that
you
can
see
with
the
modern
network
that
you
know
this
is
a
pretty
big
step
forward.
It's
not
even
just
a
doubling
or
times
Tim,
it's
50
and
as
we
heard
it
will
be
even
more
than
that,
because
fiber
doesn't
have
that
limit.
I
It
lights
fast
and
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
spectrum
that
you
can
put
onto
a
fiber,
and
so
each
fiber
has
multiple
communication
channels
on
it,
different
colors
that
are
going
and
communicating
communication
channels.
So,
at
any
rate,
that's
one
thing:
I
wanted
to
just
make
sure
that
we
all
understand
and
then
I
have
a
question
about.
What's
the
difference
between
the
$70
and
the
$70
internet-only
lines
there
so
I'll.
H
Answer
the
very
basic
part,
and
then
if
we
want
to
dive
into
details,
I'll
defer
to
Joanne
and
Michael
for
each
of
the
scenarios,
what
we
modeled
actually
was
that
we
would
provide
essentially
the
triple
service
that
many
people
subscribe
to
today,
so
that
would
be
internet
video
or
TV
and
phone
and
for
TV
and
phone.
We
would
essentially
work
with
a
private
provider
that
would
actually
provide
that
service
and
we
would.
We
would
get
a
small
portion
of
the
the
revenues
from
that.
H
I
J
B
L
Is
a
little
off
but
kind
of
riffing
on
zan's
comparative
questions,
I
was
chatting
with
somebody
who
so
the
world
looking
at
this
by
2020.
If
we
start
now,
essentially,
there
was
chatting
study
who's,
saying
that
with
5g
coming,
which
is
estimated
for
2020
and
satellite
that
they're
gonna
be
in
that
one
to
ten
gigabit
kind
of
range.
How
does
this
become
obsolete
right
around
the
time
gets
completed
so.
H
I'll
start
to
answer
that
and
then
I'm
gonna
pass
the
microphone
to
Joanne,
who
can
describe
the
5g
universe
way
better
than
I
can,
but
we're
we're
seeing
deployment
of
or
hearing
a
lot
about,
5g
out
there
on
the
news
all
the
time,
5g
is
still
really
essentially
a
paid,
a
technology
that
hasn't
been
deployed
out
in
the
market.
Yet
what
we're
seeing
right
now
is,
especially
in
the
cellular
world,
is
what's
called
small
cell
deployment.
H
So
that's
where
they're,
adding
essentially
cell
sites
in
a
much
more
dense
distribution
throughout
communities,
with
the
idea
that
then
those
could
be
upgraded
to
5g
or
5th
generation
wireless
when
we
get
to
that,
but
we
kind
of
joke
amongst
the
project
team
that
you
still
need
wires
to
do
wireless.
So
even
if
5g
happens
or
when
it
happens,
if
people
were
to
decide
to
use
5g
is
that
last
connection
from
the
street
to
a
home?
So
you
don't
need
the
fiber
drop.
H
You
still
need
that
fiber
network
to
backhaul
of
that
signal
from
that
5g
node,
that's
connected
to
a
house
back
to
the
internet
and
actually
we
met
with
Comcast
yesterday
and
they
were
describing
their
network
upgrade
plans
here
in
Boulder
and
they
were
describing
some
of
their
experience
with
5g
and
they
they
said.
You
know
part
of
the
challenge
with
5g.
Is
it's
still
dependent
on
environmental
conditions,
and
so,
when
you
have
an
area
or
a
neighborhood
with
dense
tree
cover,
you
start
to
lose
speeds
based
on
all
of
that
interference
along
the
way.
H
L
J
K
H
So
you
are
the
backbone
you
still
need
to.
You
still
need
to
essentially
halt
that
internet
traffic
so
that
5g
node,
that's
in,
say
your
neighborhood.
It's
going
to
need
to
be
connected
to
fiber,
to
then
connect
back
to
the
Internet,
and
so
whether
that's
the
city's
fiber
or
that's,
whoever
the
provider
of
that
that
5g
node
is
they're
still
going
to
need
fiber
infrastructure
so
part
of
what,
if
we
were
to
say,
build
a
backbone
now
and
then
the
5g
deployment
happens
and
it's
revolutionized
the
way
that
people
connect
to
the
internet.
H
K
H
J
J
So
that's
I
think
the
point
about
future-proofing
is
that
this
fiber
will
never
be
wasted.
The
the
one
other
thing
I
would
say
that
I
think
is
important
about
5g,
a
four
cities
that
are
thinking
about
making
sure
that
everybody
gets
serviced,
five
g's,
incredibly
promising
and
exciting
and
there's
unbelievable
amounts
of
hype
around
it.
Maybe
too
much
frankly,
but
when
it
is
deployed,
as
Chris
was
describing
because
of
the
spectrum
that
is
used,
there
will
be
challenges
with
it.
Going
through
trees
through
leaves
through
certain
kinds
of
glass
through
other
kinds
of
obstructions.
J
It
requires
something
called
line-of-sight
and
what
that
might
mean
is
that
the
companies
that
deploy
it
if
the
economics
emerge
if
the
technology
emerges
all
of,
after
all
those
ifs,
the
companies
that
deploy
it
are
going
to
deploy
it
where
they
can,
but
they're,
not
necessarily
going
to
try
to
figure
out
a
way
to
get
it
to
absolutely
everybody
in
the
city.
They'll
they'll
build
it
where
its
most
cost
effective.
J
So
you
might
have
a
five
piece
of
5g
equipment
at
the
front
of
an
apartment,
building
that
serves
all
the
people
in
those
units,
but
in
the
back
of
the
apartment
building,
what
happens
then
they'll
have
to
be
another
piece
of
equipment.
What
about
people
who
are
in
areas
that
are
very
heavily
treed
and
we
don't
have
regulatory
mechanisms
to
force
companies
to
serve
absolutely
everybody,
so
I
think
for
many
of
the
cities
that
are
saying,
5g
looks
very
exciting.
D
J
They're
there,
spectrum
issues
and
5g
will
use
lots
of
different
spectrum
bands.
It's
one
of
the
things
that's
kind
of
exciting
about
it
is
that
it's
efficient
in
using
lots
of
different
spectrum,
but
their
technology
issues
the
5g
trials
that
are
out
there,
there's
almost
no
data.
So
we
would.
You
know
the
companies
announced
we've
had
a
very
successful
trial,
but
we
don't
know
if
it
was
an
antenna
and
a
user
or
a
thousand
antennas,
and
ten
thousand
users
like
we
just
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
information.
J
Yet
there's
also
still
real
questions
on
Wall
Street,
like
what
I'm
told
by
Wall
Street
analysts
is
Wall.
Street
is
not
investing
in
this.
Yet
it's
waiting
to
see
what
happens.
They
haven't,
bought
that
the
economics
will
work,
so
I
I
think
we're
quite
a
you
know
we're
a
number
of
years
away
from
knowing
where
this
is
going.
We
know
there's
a
lot
potentially
coming,
but
a
lot
of
the
excitement
right
now,
as
Chris
said,
is
around
densification
of
existing
cell
networks.
4G,
not
faster
speeds,
but
just
better
service.
I
The
one
thing
that
I
would
note
and
ask
about
is
35%
ninety-three
dollars
that
includes
paying
off
the
bonds
right
that
rate
of
93.
So
it's
always
gonna
be
more
upfront
when
you're
having
to
pay
off
the
bonds.
My
understanding
of
what
happened
in
Longmont-
and
maybe
you
can
expand
on
this-
is
they
recently
dropped
their
rate
because
they
had
a
high
take
rate
and
how
far
in
their
next
light
project,
how
far
along
are
they
in
paying
the
bonds
off?
I
H
I'll
start
the
description
and
then,
in
terms
of
how
that
rate
levels
down
I
may
look
to
some
help
here
in
Longmont.
It
there's
several
things
that
are
different
than
what
we
would
experience
here
in
Boulder.
The
first
is:
they
only
had
to
borrow
fifty
seven
million
dollars
to
do
the
whole
fiber
network
to
the
whole
community,
and
part
of
that
is
because
they
already
had
a
backbone
in
place,
and
it's
actually
a
side
note
something
that
was
interesting
and
reading
all
the
case.
Studies
is
a
lot
of
the
examples
of
successful
communities.
H
H
So
Longmont
already
had
a
fiber
backbone
in
place
that
they
had
build
as
a
part
of
their
electric
utility
back
in
the
late
90s,
and
then
they
explored
a
whole
bunch
of
different
models.
But
part
of
what
I
understand
too
is
that,
as
they
were
under
grounding
their
electric
utility,
they
were
putting
in
some
extra
empty
conduit
in
the
ground,
so
they
had,
they
didn't
have
to
do
as
much
digging
they
just
had
to
pull
fiber
through.
H
That
conduit
is
part
of
my
understanding,
so
that's
part
of
why
they
were
able
to
offer
a
lower
rate
is
just
they
didn't
have
to
upfront
that
massive
capital
expense,
and
so
that
was
a
way
they
were
able
to
do.
Some
of
the
pricing
part
of
their
pricing
is
that
they
did
what
they
call
the
Charter
membership,
which
was,
if
you
signed
up
in
the
first,
essentially
a
few
weeks
that
it
came
to
the
neighborhood.
H
C
They
even
told
us
at
dinner:
what
did
they
tell
us
at
dinner?
Yeah
they're
close,
they
did.
The
one
lesson
they
did
tell
us
is
because
our
take
rates
so
high.
We
had
higher
capital
costs
than
we
borrowed
for
because
everybody
wanted
it,
which
was
an
interesting
problem
to
have,
but
that
was
their
advice
to
us
as
hey.
This
is
pretty
cool
but
count
on
people
wanting
it,
but
now
they
seem
pretty
close.
But
somebody
who
was
there
that
has
a
memory,
should
answer
I.
J
Don't
know
what
they're
bonding
conditions
were,
although
I
will
also
agree,
it's
just
cheaper
to
build
in
Longmont
and
in
a
variety
of
ways.
The
the
other
thing
that
I
would
say
is
our
model
for
you
on
this,
the
financial
model
that
we
built
assume
20-year
bonds.
You
could
bring
those
rates
down
by
financing
over
a
longer
period
of
time,
but
41
percent
of
your
operating
costs
each
year
will
be
debt
service.
So
that
gives
you
a
sense
new
year.
21
is
gonna,
look
a
lot
better.
J
F
But
we'd
probably
be
reassuring
bonds
over
time.
If
we
took
this
route
anyway,
because
we
would
need
general
obligation
bonds
to
start
out
right,
we
wouldn't
have
an
enterprise
and
revenue
to
bond
against,
but
as
we
got
it
as
it
kicked
into
gear,
we
would
so
I.
Imagine
we'd
be
turning
these
over.
You
know
and
replacing
them
with.
You
know:
revenue
bonds,
potentially
different
terms,
they'd
be
a
lot
of
details
here
right,
it's
not
just
a
20-year
bond
and
then
you
retired
right
is
that
fair
to
say
yeah.
H
And
what
I
also
remember
in
the
cost
model
is
that
it's
actually
a
it
would
be
a
series
of
bonds,
you'd
get
that
authorization
for
the
full
debt,
but
there'd
actually
be
a
series
of
bonds
that
you'd
issue
and
then
I
think
you're
right.
We
we
may
need
to
refinance
those
or
convert
those
depending
on
whether
they
started
as
geo
bonds
to
revenue
bonds.
That
sort
of
thing
those
are
all
the
financial
details
that
we
would
still
need
to
spend
time
flushing
out,
it
would
be
complicated.
L
G
If
we
went
down
the
path
of
option
two,
for
example,
and
if
we
wanted
to
raise
ten
or
eleven
million
dollars
to
the
backbone
initially
do
we
have
to
have
voter
approval
to
issue
I,
don't
have
to
have
voter
approval
to
raise
a
tax,
but
let's
assume
that
Jane
can
do
magical
things
and
cause
this
not
to
have
to
be
taxed
to
support
the
Geo
bonds
because
I'm,
you
know
I
know,
maybe
we
can
monetize
some
of
it.
Maybe
the
interest
carrying
cost
could
be
covered
or
the
general
fund
do.
G
N
E
N
The
issue
with
CEO
Pease
is:
we
would
need
to
have
the
collateral
in
place
which
I'm
guessing
part
of
the
system
could
be
used
as
collateral,
and
then
we
would
need
to
look
at
other
city
property
which,
right
now,
if
you
recall
the
hospital,
was
issued
with
CEO
piece.
So
we
do
have
limited
property
that
we
would
want
to
use
as
collateral
on.
I
N
H
Okay,
okay
and
those
are
sorts
items.
If,
if
council
is
interested,
those
are
the
sorts
of
the
information
items,
we
could
bring
back
on
June
12th
as
well,
so
the
last
model
just
to
touch
on
real
quick
model
5,
which
is
refrained
from
acting.
So
this
is
where
we
would
stop
exploring
broadband
as
a
fiber
to
the
home
network.
We
might
continue
to
make
some
investments
in
public
Wi-Fi
as
funding,
allows
or
consider
regulatory
changes
to
essentially
encourage
the
incumbent
providers
to
increase
their
capacity
and
investment
in
their
system.
H
G
For
Joanne,
because
she
did
a
good
job
of
describing
or
maybe
joined
it
about
why
cities
are
getting
involved
and
that's
why
it's
difficult
for
a
private
enterprises
to
jump
in
and
battled
the
incumbents,
but
in
your
experience,
Joanne
in
those
cities
that
have
facilitated
a
third
competitor,
what
happens
to
the
quality
and
the
pricing
of
the
incumbents?
How
do
they
tend
to
react?
G
J
Exactly
predictably,
as
as
we
learned
in
economics,
101
right,
they
they
react
to
competition.
So
in
just
a
few
data
points,
Google
Fiber
is
building
and
operating
fiber-to-the-home
in
about
nine
metro
areas,
a
lot
of
towns
and
cities
within
those
metro
areas
in
100%
of
those
locations.
The
phone
company
has
started
making
substantial
upgrades
to
its
network
right
after
the
Google
Fiber
announcement
was
made.
In
one
case,
the
phone
company
announcement
about
upgrades
came
about
90
minutes
after
the
Google
Fiber
announcement.
J
It's
not
surprising.
The
cable
industry
tends
to
do
its
upgrades,
not
not
on
a
cherry-picking
basis
but
throughout
its
footprint,
but
without
question.
The
areas
where
there's
more
competition
Comcast
in
particular,
did
its
DOCSIS
3.1,
upgrade
there
earlier
and
then
even
in
smaller
markets,
with
smaller
companies
like
ting,
internet
and
so
on,
there's
been
a
clear
competitive
response
and
it
it's
not
only
around
upgrades,
but
it's
also
around
pricing
and
we
don't
always
see
reductions
in
pricing,
but
we
have
seen
even
in
cities
where
there's
talk
of
a
new
network,
even
if
it
doesn't
happen.
J
This
happened
in
Santa,
Cruz
California,
for
example.
The
project
never
came
to
fulfillment,
but
while
it
was
being
discussed,
the
cable
company
announced
that
it
was
doubling
internet
speeds
and
not
increasing
prices
just
for
all
of
its
customers
and
suddenly
started
marketing
and
selling
much
more
heavily
customer
service
is
something
a
little
bit
harder
for
them
to
impact,
because
that's
national,
it's
not
localized
so
I,
don't
know
that
we've
seen
a
huge
impact
of
that
sort.
J
But
what
some
cities
tell
me
is
that
in
terms
of
local
construction
and
network
staff-
and
you
have
it
folks
who
go
out
the
truck
rolls
when
you,
when
there's
a
repair,
they've
seen
an
improvement
once
competition
happens,
it
doesn't
happen
so
much
with
the
call
centers,
because
the
call
centers
are
are
not,
but
it's
it
is
exactly
as
we
would
expect.
Competition
brings
good
things
and
I
wish
that
were
better
recognized
in
Washington,
DC
policymaking
circles.
So.
H
I
think
if
we
were
to
go
that
route,
one
of
the
things
that
I've
heard
other
communities
do
is
they
might
change
their
regulatory
rules
around
permitting
in
the
right-of-way
and
fast-track
permits
in
the
right-of-way
to
try
and
reduce
the
time
and
expense
for
a
provider
to
upgrade
a
system
that
is
located
in
in
a
communities
right
away.
So
you
could
be
things
like
that
that
a
community
could
do
to
try
and
encourage
an
existing
provider
to
to
make
upgrades.
I
H
I
H
Price
per
month
are
only
for
the
internet
portion.
If
you
were
to
do
the
full
kind
of
servus,
then
it's
above
that
so
at
the
$70
a
month.
If
I
remember,
right
and
Michael
can
correct
me
if
I
get
this
wrong,
you'd
be
$70
a
month
for
Internet
and
then,
if
you
were
to
do
phone
and
TV
it'd
be
your
total
cost
would
be
closer
to
about
a
hundred,
and
seventy
dollars
per
month
is
what
your
bill
would
be.
H
I
But
the
thing
that
confuses
me
about
that
it's
hard
to
beat
a
dead
horse
is
the
difference
between
the
70
and
the
70
internet-only.
So
the
the
person's
bill
in
the
70
case,
not
the
internet
only
is
still
gonna
be
a
hundred
and
seventy
dollars
a
month,
but
we
can
have
a
slightly
lower
take
rate
because
we're
getting
royalties
off
of
that
extra
money
per
month.
Okay,
correct!
That's
exactly.
H
Right
so
think
of
these,
this
was
just
we
were
modeling
different
scenarios
to
find
out
what
would
the
price
point
versus
the
take
rate
versus
the
overall
bond
necessary
to
fund
the
construction
B?
So
it
was
about
tuning
those
dials,
and
so
these
are
examples
showing
that
so
you're
exactly
right
and
then
the.
I
H
Okay,
so
the
last
section
that
we
wanted
to
talk
about
is
broadband
and
municipal
ization.
So
how
does
broadband
relate
to
an
electric
utility
and
and
part
of
the
council's
discussion
in
January
was
understanding
what
are
the
what's
the
relationship?
What
are
the
synergies?
What
are
the
cost
savings,
and
so
we
did
a
fair
amount
of
analysis.
H
The
first
area
is
related
to
construction
and
so
I'm
going
to
describe
this
in
a
little
more
detail,
but
the
takeaway
is
if
we
were
to
construct
the
backbone
of
a
fiber
network
in
the
same
place
that
we're
doing
in
the
separation
construction
for
an
electric
utility,
we
could
save
about
two
million
dollars,
which
is
about
30
percent
of
the
backbone.
So
if
we
were
to
look
at
that
a
little
more
geographically
well,
this
map
on
the
screen
shows
in
purple.
H
Is
that
fiber
backbone
that
you
saw
before
and
then
the
black
lines
on
the
screen
are
where
separation
construction
will
need
to
occur.
So
you
can
see
it's
really
kind
of
around
the
outer
edges
of
the
city,
but
you'll
see
there's
areas
where
the
Purple
Line,
the
fiber
network
is
close
to
the
separation
construction,
but
they
don't
overlap.
So
what
we
did
is
we
did
an
exercise,
just
kind
of
synergize
the
backbone
design
and
move
it
towards
the
areas
where
that
electric
construction
would
be
occurring.
So
we
could
maximize
joint
construction.
H
So
that's
what
this
map
shows
is.
If
we
were
to
do
that
everywhere,
that's
highlighted
in
green
or
areas
where
we
could
do
joint
construction
of
the
fiber
backbone
and
the
work
that's
necessary
to
separate
the
electric
system.
Like
I
said
it's
only
about
13%
of
the
total
network.
So
all
that
great
of
the
backbone
you
see
would
still
just
be
regular
backbone
construction,
not
with
any
synergy
with
the
electric
utility.
So
that'll
give
you
an
idea
at
least
of
kind
of
the
cost
savings.
O
Good
evening,
I'm
Steve
Quebec
the
electric
utility
development
director.
So
in
response
to
your
question,
the
separation
plan,
where
we'll
be
doing
construction,
really
is
primarily
around
the
perimeter
of
the
city.
There
are
some
interior
small
projects
we'll
be
doing,
but
this
really
did
represent.
Where
we
could.
This.
G
Steve
I
have
a
question
for
you
I'm.
So
if
you
know
an
answer
to
Aaron's
earlier
question,
if
we
decided
to
go
forward
option
two,
for
example
this
year
and
the
voters
approved
at
November,
theoretically,
we
could
build
the
network
and
about
two
old
Massa.
Let's
just
call
that
2019
the
back
just
the
backbone,
you
exactly
right.
We
waited
and
we
wanted
to
capture
this
two
million
dollars,
energy
of
overlap.
We
would
have
to
wait
until
we
did
the
separation
work,
which
would
be
in
a
few
years
right.
O
We
did
look
at
was
the
opportunity
to
install
the
empty
conduit
as
the
fiber
system
was
installed.
What
we
don't
have
an
exact
price
on,
though,
is
the
Delta
that
that
would
increase
the
cost
of
constructing
the
fiber
network
right.
So
fundamentally,
when
you
install
electric,
it
has
to
be
deeper
than
the
fiber
lines
too.
So
if
we
were
to
install
conduit
for
the
electric
system
in
conjunction,
the
fiber
ultimately
would
also
end
up
being
deeper,
which
will
affect
the
cost
and
create
a
more
expensive
construction.
That's.
G
Helpful
different-
that's
great
Steve,
had
even
thought
about
that,
but
my
questions
a
little
bit
different,
is
more
of
a
timing
question
because
I
know,
construction
cost
goes
up
every
year,
and
and
so
we
have
a
two
million
dollar
savings.
If
we
wait,
we
may
have
an
incremental
cost
if
we
wait
as
well.
G
In
other
words,
what's
your
best
guess
that
wouldn't
when
the
elected,
let's
say
the
things
go
swimmingly
on
the
Muni
one's
your
best
guess
about
the
time
frame
when
the
separation,
electric
separation,
construction
work
would
happen
and
what
is
the
incremental
increase
because
construction,
inflation?
In
other
words,
we
could
build
it
now.
You
know
Aaron's
question
or
we
could
wait.
I
know
you'd
like
two
years
three
years,
four
years
or
whatever
it
is
for
the
separation,
but
the
cost
of
that
is
is
also
going
to
be
higher
in
2023,
presumably
than
it
is
in
2019.
O
Is
fair,
presumably
and
speaking,
hypothetical?
If
everything
goes
smoothly
with
the
muni,
we
hope
to
be
starting
construction
at
the
beginning
of
2021,
and
then
we
anticipate
approximately
three
years
of
construction.
In
order
to
do
all
the
work
that
we
have
to
do,
there
would
be
some
escalation
in
cost,
but
it
would
be
just
two
or
three
percent
per
year,
so.
I
Asking
about
doing
because
I
was
thinking
along
the
lines.
You
were
that
if
we
go
ahead
and
build
the
backbone
now,
there
would
be
the
opportunity
to
go
ahead
and
make
it
so
that
you
could
pull
electrical
lines
now.
Presumably
that's
in
a
separate
conduit,
correct
you'd
have
your
fiber
on
one
or
need
to
have
your
electrical
and
another.
Would
there
be
any
use
for
the
electrical
conduit
if
the
Muni
didn't
go
forward?
If,
for
some
I
mean,
could
we
say
we
ended
up
staying
with
Accell
and
we
had
electrical
conduit
in
the
ground?
O
Typically,
what
we
would
be
installing
would
be
a
couple
of
six
inch
conduits,
two
or
three
two
inch
conduits
to
support
the
electric
utility,
and
you
raise
a
very
good
question
that
we'll
have
to
examine
a
little
more
closely.
But
yes,
if
that
conduit
were
installed,
and
there
would
be
potential
for
the
city
to
pay
Xcel
than
to
underground
their
electric
lines
that
are
in
parallel
and
overhead
with
that
conduit
that
was
installed,
I'm
sure
it
would
be
at
the
city's
cost,
though.
I
Right
but
the
thought
being
that
you
know
I'd
love
to
understand
what
the
incremental
cost
would
be
of
adding
the
electrical
conduit
underground
and
along
with
building
the
backbone,
because,
depending
on
how
much
that
is,
if
we
know
that
we
will
eventually
be
able
to
get
undergrounding
from
it,
and
it
won't
mean
more
trenching
again
right,
because
Excel
would
then
not
have
to
come
dig
again.
So
I
think
it's
worth
thinking
about.
I
G
It
kind
of
a
similar
question
to
the
extent
you're
taking
notes
for
homework.
Those
conduits
I
know
I
know
that
electric
goes
deeper,
but
are
those
conduits
multi
purpose?
In
other
words?
Well
the
questions
we
didn't
ask
earlier.
Fiber
counters
is
multiple
conduits,
because
sometimes
when
you
build
a
metro
network,
you
build
you
know
two
or
three
or
six,
and
if
we
did
put
an
extra
conduits
thinking
that
we
would
use
it
for
electric
lines,
duhkham
deeper
and
we
ended
up
not
doing
the
the
Muni
deal.
G
O
F
I
C
We
ask,
let
me
make
sure
I
understand
if
I
don't
know
what
kind
of
spacing
we're
talking
a
foot
three
feet,
but
at
some
point
it's
not
really
useful
to
do
it
at
the
same
time
as
useful
to
do
it
at
the
same
time.
Right
so
I
guess
that's
kind
of
a
partial
question
and
then,
if
we're
doing
it
because
we're
Anissa
the
same
spacing
issues
or
is
it
just
an
Excel
thing
or
is
it
a
safety
thing
relative
to
fiber
and
electricity?
It's
a.
O
H
So
just
a
couple
other
items
related
to
broadband
and
an
electric
utility.
There
are
then
some
operational
customer
service
and
financial
aspects.
From
an
operational
standpoint,
you
could
potentially
have
a
joint
operation
center
or
kind
of
control
center
of
the
two
networks.
You
could
put
that
in
the
co-locate
that
in
the
same
facility,
you
could
potentially
share
maintenance
equipment
or
some
shared
staffing,
so
there
are
some
operational
efficiencies
that
you
could
gain.
H
If
you
were
doing
both
services
from
a
customer
service
standpoint,
you
could
have
a
joint
billing
system
when
we
had
the
joint
meeting
with
Longmont.
They
talked
about
at
this
time,
they're.
Actually,
it's
they're
providing
two
separate
bills,
but
talking
about
maybe
in
the
future
that
they
might
merge
their
two
bills
together.
So
you'd
only
get
one
bill
for
broadband
and
electric
service,
but
you
could
use
the
same
software
system,
regardless
customer
service
agents
or
a
call
center.
You
could
jointly
operate
those
facilities
if
you
had
both
services
from
a
financial
standpoint.
H
Both
of
these
are
gonna
need
revenue
of
some
of
some
sort,
so
at
least
especially
it
at
startup.
We
could
not
join
the
finances
together
and
there's
probably
likely
not
enough
debt
capacity
to
carry
broadband
inside
the
electric
utility
until
the
electric
utility,
we're
mature
and
so
from
a
financial
standpoint,
especially
a
start-up
we'd
need
to
operate
these
as
separate
businesses.
This.
G
With
respect
the
operational
and
customer
service,
energy
is
a
second
and
third
on
your
list.
If,
for
some
reason,
the
broadband
network
got
ahead
of
the
electric
network,
we
could
presumably
could
operate
that
in
such
a
way
that
we'd
eventually
be
able
to
capture
the
network.
We
would
have
a
no
regrets
design
so
so,
to
the
extent
we
had
operational
and
customer
service
costs,
we
would
do
it
in
such
a
way
that
if
we
knew
the
Muni
was
coming
along,
we
could
eventually
bring
those
together
right
if
we
were
smart
about
it.
Yeah.
H
So
let's
say
if
we,
if
we
were
gonna,
start
a
broadband
service
and
you
knew
that
in
the
future
you
were
gonna
also
do
municipal
electric
utility,
but
you
needed
some
initial
control
center
functions.
You
could
potentially
contract
that
to
a
third
party
or
build
a
very
simple
control
or
operation
center
at
the
start,
knowing
that
you
might
co-locate
those
facilities
in
the
future,
so
those
are
the
sorts
of
things
that
we
would
have
to
think
through.
If
we
were
to
go
forward
in.
G
Kind
of
a
similar
question:
well,
it's
pretty
obvious
that
there
could
be
some
synergies
on
operations
and
in
customer
service
and
so
on
so
forth
between
our
own
electric
utility
and
our
own
broadband
utility.
It's
possible
that
there
could
be
greater
synergies
for
those
things
if
we
partnered
with
other
cities
that
are
operating
their
own
broadband
network.
I
know
Fort,
Collins
and
long
might
have
said
that
to
us
and
so
we'd
have
to
compare
the
two
sets
of
synergies
to
see
which
one
saves
us.
The
most
money,
yeah.
H
No
I
think
that's
really
an
important
thing
for
us
to
look
at
and,
as
we've
talked
to
the
communities
here
in
the
northern
front
range
you
know,
Longmont
has
their
service
for
Collins
is
now
launching
building
their
broadband
network.
Estes
Park
is
doing
theirs.
Loveland's
exploring
at
Larimer
County
is
exploring
it
Greeley's,
exploring
it,
and
so
we've
started
to
talk
about
well.
Are
there
some
efficiencies
related
to
you
may
have
your
secondary
network
control
center?
H
Is
that
a
shared
function
that
we
share
amongst
each
other
or,
as
we
talked
about
at
the
beginning,
that
kind
of
internet
backhaul
within
the
definitions
where
you're
buying
that
kind
of
wholesale
internet,
maybe
everyone
can
come,
comes
together
and
you
could
actually
get
better
rates
if
you're
all
buying
that
kind
of
wholesale
Internet
together?
So
there
are
definitely
some
some
synergies
that
are
worth
exploring
if
there
are
lots
of
communities
that
are
exploring
municipal
broadband.
If
we
were
to
go
that
route,
it's
worth.
Having
those
conversations
you
know.
I
So
I
have
another
question
on
the
synergies
between
broadband
and
an
electric
system
municipal
electric
system,
and
that's
like
what
kind
of
additional
services
can
you
have
by
having,
like
you
mentioned,
I,
think
advanced
metering.
So
next
generation
advanced
metering,
dispatch,
load
reduction,
I
mean
it
seems
like
in
the
coming
era
of
distributed
generation
and
distributed
storage.
It
would
be
possible
that
the
the
intersection
here
would
bring
a
whole
bunch
of
additional
service
opportunities.
Yeah.
H
I'm
gonna,
let
Steve
answer
it,
but
as
I've
started
to
learn
about
it,
and
obviously
there
are
other
experts
here,
the
the
amount
of
connectivity
that's
necessary
for
that
communication
that
will
occur
in
the
future.
For
that
distributed
sort
of
technologies
you
were
just
describing
a
fiber
network-
could
benefit
from
that,
but
I'll.
Let
Steve
flush
that
out
he's.
O
Doing
a
great
job,
but
Chris
is
absolutely
right,
as
we
talk
about
grid
automation,
monitoring
our
system
having
better
intelligence
on
how
the
system
is
running.
All
of
that
is
facilitated
by
a
strong
communication
network
that
allows
us
to
really
see
into
how
our
system
operates.
Today.
It
is
a
network
where
we
know
there's
an
outage,
because
somebody
calls-
and
we
know
what's
happening
because
somebody
complains
so
that
broad
communication
really
enhances
the
level
of
service.
We
can
provide.
G
Okay,
not
to
take
us
backwards.
I
have
a
question
back
to
unmodeled
to
when
you
designed
that
backbone
network
those
93
miles.
I
know
you
went
up
to
Gunbarrel
and
I
know
only
about
a
third
of
the
gun.
Bell
residents
are
technically
in
the
city
limits.
The
other
two-thirds
are
in
the
county.
The
county
has
now
done
the
SB
150
to
waver.
Did
you
design
that
network
such
though
that
we
could?
Theoretically,
we
are?
G
H
The
backbone
is
designed
that
we
could
serve
all
of
our
service
area
so
including
area
two
that
includes
the
unincorporated
areas
of
Gunbarrel.
It's
designed
to
be
able
to
accommodate
that
service
in
the
future,
as
those
areas
would
annex
into
the
city
the
cost
estimates
for
a
full
fiber
or
even
if
they
were
next,
so
the
the
cost
estimates
for
the
full
fiber
network
only
include
serving
properties
inside
the
city
limits.
G
F
H
Those
are
the
sorts
of
things
that
we
would
have
to
flush
out
if
we
were
to
provide
retail
broadband
service
as
a
municipality,
making
a
decision
about
where
we
would
serve
understanding
the
rules
around
SB
152.
We
I,
didn't
I,
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
and
we
have
to
make
the
policy
decision
about
whether
we
would
want
to
treat
this
like
our
other
urban
services,
that
we
don't
provide
outside
the
city
limits
and
decide
whether
for
this
one
we
would
watch
it's.
F
I
G
D
Thank
you.
This
has
been
really
helpful
discussion.
So
thank
you
for
all
the
questions
so
far.
I'm
so
wanted
to
present
to
you
our
recommendations
in
terms
of
where
we
go
from
here.
The
first
is
that
we
recommend
we
see,
study
on
models,
one
and
three,
at
least
for
the
time
being,
such
that
we
can
focus
further
study
on
models.
Two
and
four.
D
So
those
are
the
recommendations
they
kind
of
feed
right
into
the
next
steps.
If
you
choose
to
take
those
recommendations
which
is
to
prepare
for
June
12
study
session,
where
we
further
study
model
two
and
four
explore
the
potential
for
initial
service
from
a
backbone
and
then
share
the
results
of
survey,
the.
J
K
Thank
you
for
that.
Julia.
If
you
go
back
to
the
previous
slide,
was
that
one?
No,
the
one
with
the
recommendations
that
one
right
there
we're
under
explore
where
you,
you
would
be
looking
at
the
viability
of
initial
service
from
the
backbone?
Would
that
create
the
opportunity
to
also
explore
an
enterprise
status
earlier,
so
that
the
funding
could
be
looked
at
differently
in
terms
of
Tabor
issues?.
H
So
we
actually
that
exact
question
came
up
in
our
staff
team
meeting
this
last
week
as
well.
I
don't
have
an
answer
on
it
yet,
but
we're
we're
wondering
that
same
thing,
whether
whether
you
could
convert
a
broadband
service
to
an
enterprise
status
earlier
to
benefit,
you
still
have
to
figure
out.
Do
you
revenues
where
those
are
coming
from,
so
there's
lots
more
homework
to
do
on
that
great
question.
I
I'm
happy
to
start
I
mean
I,
certainly
think
so.
I
think
you
put
together
a
really
strong
package,
I'm
personally,
going
to
want
to
move
forward
on
the
backbone
as
soon
as
we
can
I,
don't
see
a
lot
of
regrets
that
we'd
have
from
that.
But
if
we
can
get
that
statistically
valid
survey
done
that
quickly,
that's
fantastic,
because
that
gives
us
even
more
assurance
that
the
backbone
itself
really
will
be
no
regrets,
but
I
can't
imagine
it
would
be
even
if
it
ended
up.
I
You
know:
leasing,
fiber
access
to
a
private
service
so
that
we
had
more
broadband
in
the
community
and
I
agree
with
holding
perhaps
another
public
hearing,
but
I
personally,
don't
think
we
need
to
go
to
the
ballot
for
the
backbone
based
on
what
we've
heard
earlier.
So
from
my
perspective,
I
would
change
the
point
of
the
public
hearing
to
be
additional
information
and
answers
to
some
of
the
questions
we've
raised
and
potentially
maybe
making
a
decision
or
starting
a
process
by
which
we
could
do
that.
But
it
may
not
be
a
ballot
process.
I
C
I
12Th,
yes
about
also
having
an
option
where
we
still
proceed
with
broad
bank
as
we've
up
till
now.
The
discussion
has
pretty
much
linked
the
two
things:
broadband
and
a
ballot
issue,
and
it
appears
to
me
that
those
things
can
be
unlinked
and
we
could
still
go
forward
with
broadband,
but
not
have
to
go
to
the
ballot
and.
H
F
F
So
if
we
can
dig
into
the
analysis
of
what
our
options
are
for
constructing
the
backbone,
whether
that
requires
bonds
or
whether
we
can
do
with
certificates
of
participation
or
whether
there's
some
other
creative
way
of
moving
forward,
and
when
you
do
that,
I
mean
I,
know
you've
already
thought
about
how
we
might
generate
some
revenue
from
that
backbone.
So
that's
important
to
drill
down
into
that
a
little
bit,
but
also
on
the
maybe
on
the
cost
side.
F
I
to
me
it's
it's
an
important
priority
to
think
about
connecting
those
underserved
communities,
so
I
think
we
have
some
opportunities
to,
for
example,
provide
some
really
great
service
to
some
of
our
affordable
housing
developments
in
town
that
the
backbone
would
pass
right
next
to
so.
If
we
can
factor
that
into
the
analysis
of
that's
an
opportunity,
maybe
we
get
a
little
I'm
sure
we
get
a
little
revenue
from
it,
but
it
might
be
a
cost
as
well.
So
maybe
think
about
that.
But
I
feel
like
this.
F
C
G
There
too,
I
think
I'm
finally
at
an
option
for
what
I'm,
particularly
enamored
of
option
two
or
model
two,
because
I
think
just
no
regrets
is
something
that's
got
to
be
built
at
some
point
in
time
anyway,
I
know
and
having
spoken
with
with
the
potential
public-private
partners
that
model
one
just
didn't
didn't
pencil
out.
So
if
we're
gonna
have
a
partnership,
we
have
to
make
some
sort
of
contribution.
G
It's
got
to
be
some
participation
by
the
city,
so
why
not
get
that
started
now
and
whether
whether
building
the
backbone
is
the
first
step
towards
building
our
own
network
or
building
the
backbone
is
the
first
step
towards
us
partnering
with
somebody?
That's
not.
We
keep
those
both
those
options,
open,
Mary's
point
if
we
can
monetize
some
of
it
and
reduce
our
carrying
costs,
that's
great
also
in
favor
of
looking
seriously
the
certificates
of
participation,
because
one
of
the
advantages
of
not
having
to
put
this
on
the
ballot
is.
G
We
can
move
forward
that
much
quicker,
because
if
we
have
to
put
this
on
the
ballot,
we
have
to
wait
till
November,
and
then
we
start
and
assuming
the
voters
approval
which
I
think
they
would.
But
if
we
can
move
forward
in
June,
you
know
and
Sheryl
feels
comfortable.
It's
a
participation
and
you
guys
do
some
math
and
I
also
want
to
echo
what
Erin
said
you
know.
I've
seen.
Estimates
have
anywhere
between
four
and
seven
percent
of
the
people
in
our
community.
G
G
You
know
the
12-month
bill
doesn't
have
to
start
in
December
that
12-month
build
can
just
start.
The
summer
clears
the
engineers
can
design
the
network,
so
I'm
really
excited
about
model
2,
and
it's
I
would
hope
that
this
would
be
the
first
step
and
ultimately
having
a
ubiquitous
citywide
serving
everybody
that
lives
here,
network,
whether
we
run
it
or
somebody
else
runs
that
we
don't
to
make
that
decision
tonight,
but
I
think
we
need
to
start
building
it
now.
Thank.
D
You
first
one
note
maybe
to
add
on
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
find
particularly
challenging
with
the
statistic
of
underserved.
Is
we
actually
don't
know
where
those
underserved
individuals
are?
We
know
we
can
suspect
particular
neighborhoods
particularly
manufactured
home
communities,
and
so
this
may
connect
really
nicely
with
some
of
the
other
conversations
that
council
is
having
around
those
communities.
G
I'm,
the
council
liaison
to
Buller
housing,
partners
and
I
know
those
aren't
the
only
Unser
of
community.
As
you
said,
the
mobile
home
parks
also
is
in
other
places
in
town,
but
they
would
be
delighted
to
talk
to
the
city
about
our
green
and
providing
you
know
they.
They,
they
I
think
they
have
over
3,000
residents
in
our
community
just
in
bhp
housing,
and
they
would
love
to
talk
to
us
about
how
to
provide
good,
fast
internet
to
their
residents.
For
starters,
sorry.
C
C
Okay,
well
on
to
boy,
we
have
certainly
had
a
change
of
heart
here,
since
our
last
less
than
enthusiastic,
so
I
do
think.
That's
a
tribute
to
the
good
work.
That's
been
done
and
also
seeing
the
synergies
for
multiple
things
that
we
want
to
accomplish.
I
do
think
the
the
survey
having
a
statistically
valid
survey
is
really
important.
So
if
we
don't
go
to
a
ballot,
we
still
have
a
real
sense
of
if
we're
heading
in
the
right
direction,
where
the
voters
want
us
to
go,
I
mean
our
resident
yeah.
C
The
residents
want
us
to
go
and
I
totally
agree
with
what
we
said
about
trying
to
hit
some
multiple
goals
around
underserved
communities
as
well.
This
makes
a
whole
lot
of
sense
to
me
and
I
think
it's
one
of
those
things.
It's
a
good
investment
economically
in
terms
of
our
economy,
I
meant
an
investment
in
economic
vitality.
Is
what
I'm
trying
to
say
it,
so
it
just
works
on
multiple
levels.
C
I
We
had
this
exchange
about
doing
potential
underground
and
conduit
alongside
and
I'd
love
to
see
that
as
an
option.
If
it
could
be
that
quick,
because
I
have
no
sense
of
how
much
that
is,
but
you
know
if
it
were
a
way
to
make
it
faster
to
underground
our
electric
network,
whether
we
had
a
Muni
or
not
I,
think
that
could
also
be
something
that'd
be
great
to
bundle
together,
yep.
E
C
P
C
E
Q
H
E
C
B
N
Sugar-Sweetened
beverage
tax
items
brought
forth
by
the
campaign,
finance
and
elections
working
group,
but
and
also
two
items
from
the
Charter
Committee
will
also
discuss
potential
ballot
items
and
funding
needs
and
then
two
items
that
we
are
not
going
to
discuss
in
this
presentation.
Broadband.
Of
course,
since
we
just
had
that
discussion
and
then
the
oil
and
gas
extraction
tax
that
will
be
discussed
next
week.
N
N
If
council
decides
not
to
put
this
item
on
the
ballot
or
if
it's
put
on
the
ballot,
yet
the
voters
turn
it
down.
We
really
have
two
options.
First
is
just
to
simply
refund
the
excess
tax,
and
this
is
what
the
Tabor
language
says
that
we
would
need
to
do.
The
second,
however,
we're
bringing
to
you,
because
it's
a
recent
development,
and
that
is
to
keep
the
excess
tax
understanding
that
there
is
a
risk
of
possible
litigation.
N
There
is
language
and
Tabor
that
talks
about
making
a
good-faith,
estimate
or
effort
on
the
estimate
and
that's
what
they
felt
they
did,
and
they
also
felt
that
there
it
would
be
difficult
for
them
to
be
able
to
project
this
tax
accurately,
so
they
did
nothing
and
Douglas
Bruce
decided
to
sue
them,
and,
just
two
months
ago
the
district
court
down
in
El
Paso.
Actually
the
lawsuit
was
dismissed,
so
they
favored
with
El
Paso
County.
C
G
N
M
G
C
C
C
F
N
F
My
new
question
is:
could
we
not
just
phrase
it
narrowly?
Your
your
language
may
be
to
me
as
a
voter
hadn't
you've
been
following
his
home
council
I
was
like
wow.
That
sounds
a
little.
It's
a
lot
of
taxing
authority,
which
is
very
different
from
made
the
city
of
Boulder
keep
the
2018
overage
of
approximately
such-and-such
Aaron.
M
One
of
the
challenges
with
Tabor
is
not
a
model
of
clarity,
and
so
when
we
draft
things
for
the
ballot,
we
try
to
draft
it
protectively,
and
so
my
recommendation,
that's
why
the
language
is
drafted.
It
is
is
because
the
court
could
come
along
later
and
say:
oh,
no,
no
it's
multiple
years!
My
reading
of
Tabor
is
it's
one
year
because
it
says
you
only
have
to
estimate
one
year.
So
if
we're
gonna
go
to
the
ballot,
you
want
to
make
sure
you
have
everything
covered.
M
Q
That's
that's
what
taper
would
decayed
and
in
the
El
Paso
County
case
that
recently
came
down
the
court
more
or
less
said
that
the
voter
approval
within
the
ballot
language
itself
was
enough
for
that
for
El
Paso
County
to
keep
the
revenue
the
revenue
excess
from
that
first
year
and
when
we
compared
our
ballot
title
language
to
their
ballot
language.
It's
actually
quite
similarly
drafted
and.
Q
B
The
ballot
and
I
remember
I,
remember
that,
but
I
didn't
realize
that
they
were
that.
That
was
the
specific
language
that
it
would
be
used
for
that
and
whether
or
not
if
it
continues
at
these
kinds
of
overages,
whether
or
not
it
could
be
directed
anywhere
else
other
than
towards
these
very
specific
things.
Well,.
Q
B
P
I
So
there's
another
one
on
there
that
I'm
interested
in
as
well,
which
is
access
to
safe
and
clean
drinking
water.
We've
had
some
ongoing
challenges
with
some
of
our
manufactured
home
sites
with
the
infrastructure
for
water
delivery,
which
includes
both
the
purported
inability
to
meter
it,
as
well
as
issues
with
leaks
in
the
system
and
so
on.
So
I
would
also
be
interested
in
considering-
and
this
is
maybe
a
separate
discussion
for
the
group-
that's
that's
allocating
the
funds
but
I'd
like
to
consider,
since
we
have
an
overage.
I
C
C
There
I
also
think,
while
we
might
be
able
to
interpret
these
broadly
I
think
we
should
be
careful
about
why
this
tax
was
passed
in
the
first
place
so,
but
within
what
was
passed,
I
think
we
can
interpret
broadly
but
I.
Don't
the
idea
that
we
would
put
it
on
the
ballot
to
change.
The
purposes
is
I
think
a
whole
nother
can
of
worms
and
I'm.
Sorry,
who
else
had
there
that
that.
K
L
C
B
C
Came
together
really
concerned
about
obesity,
diabetes
and
those
sorts
of
things,
and
did
a
lot
of
work
to
pass
this
tax,
so
I
think
health,
broadly,
especially
folks
that
are
targeted
for
by
corporations
to
have
unhealthy
diets
like
I,
think
we
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
touch
on
that
and
I
think
we
are
free
within
that
to
interpret
it
broadly,
but
I
do
think
we
should
stay
true
to
the
the
motivation
of
the
people
that
got
this
passed
in
the
first
place.
So
that's!
That's
all!
It's
just
a
caution.
It's
a
caution!
B
I
I
guess
I
would
agree
with
you
and
that
it
should
be.
The
general
intent
should
be
what
we're
looking
to
to
interpret
what
we
use
this
for,
but
it
was
largely
for
underserved
populations
and
it
was
healthy.
Bolder
kids
was
another
tagline
and
you
know
my
point
about
water
and
mobile
home
parks.
Is,
you
know,
that's
a
place
where
you
might
have
an
intersection
between
health
and
underserved
populations,
yeah.
C
I
C
G
M
R
Q
Think
the
most
conservative
approach
is
to
put
it
on
the
ballot.
You
have
some
flexibility
if
you
want
to
take
a
little
bit
of
a
legal
risk
to
not
put
it
on
the
ballot
this
year
and
with
the
hope
that
when
the
El
Paso
case
works
its
way
through
the
appellate
process
that
the
district
court
order
is
upheld.
Q
M
M
M
Provision,
if
so,
if
we
decided
to
litigate
and
in
its
be
three
years
before
the
El
Paso
case,
gets
to
the
Supreme
Court
most
likely
get
a
decision
out
of
it.
If
we
wait
and
then
we
have,
the
decision
goes
the
wrong
way.
We
would
have
penalties
to
pay
it
back
for
three
years.
Yeah,
that's
correct!
Okay,.
F
Ooh
Thomas
point
I
mean
I,
think
this
is
worth
moving
forward
to
public
hearing
to
decide
the
exact
direction
I'm.
You
know
that
maybe
we'll
know
more
by
then
about
this
legal
case,
but
it
seems
like
we
need
to
move
it
forward,
just
a
couple
thoughts
that
we
were
being
conservative
by
putting
on
the
ballot,
and
we
have
very
conservative
language
and
and
I
doubt
it
maybe
there's
a
we-
can
take
a
slightly
less
conservative
course
that
makes
it
more
clear
what
we're
asking
for
in
the
scope
of
it.
F
The
and
Sam
to
your
point,
I.
Think
the
mobile
home
water
is
a
very
valid
way
to
use
this
money.
It's
something
we
should
very
seriously
consider
with
the
additional
money
and
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
do
anything
extra
about
it.
If
we
want
to
consider
something
extra
I
would
extra
purposes.
We'd
want
to
talk
with
the
folks
who
put
this
on
the
ballot.
F
I
think
their
input
would
be
important,
but
it
might
be
that
there
might
be
a
purpose,
that's
very
closely
linked
with
those
original
ones
that
were
put
on
the
ballot
that
are
about
underserved
populations
and
health
equity.
But
that
aren't
exactly
in
that
list
like
mental
health,
for
example.
So
if
we
chatted
with
those
folks
who
brought
it
forward
and
engaged
them,
there
might
be
a
couple
of
additional
areas
that
there
might
be
some
agreement
on.
So
it's
something
worth
considering
the.
C
Folks,
generally
agree
with
what
was
just
said:
underserved
communities
and
health
equity
feels
pretty
close
to
the
summing
up
the
emphasis
for
this
tax
and
that,
if,
if
we
were
going
to
to
do
that
exercise,
it
would
be
stuff
that
was
very
close
to
that.
Nexus
right
is
that
so
I'm
sorry,
you
said
libraries
and
I'm
like
well.
C
B
F
I
Q
L
L
Think
I
gosh
I,
feel
like
putting
in
us
on
the
ballot,
is
gonna,
be
so
confusing
for
the
community
yeah.
But
to
me
that
is
the
dent.
It
really
is,
you
know,
I
have
to
say,
I
did
not
vote
for
this
tax
to
begin
with,
I
was
not
a
fan
of
it,
but
now
that
I'm,
seeing
the
great
work
that
we're
doing
with
it
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
do
things
we
still
have.
B
M
B
B
M
Would
prefer
to
provide
you
with
confidential
legal
advice
on
my
evaluation
of
the
likelihood
of
success
in
the
El
Paso
lawsuit,
because
I
have
some
significant
questions
based
on
my
reading
of
that
lawsuit
and
arguments
that
will
be
made
so
I'd
like
to
do
that
to
have
that
opportunity,
and
you
can
do
that.
You
can
evaluate
that
in
your
own
and
as
you
make
move
forward
in
the
process.
If.
R
M
So
interview
asked
the
question
on
in
terms
of
the
lawsuit
I:
wouldn't
expect
it
to
cost
us
a
lot
of
money.
We'd
probably
handle
something
like
that
in-house,
so
we
wouldn't
hire
outside
counsel
if
we
got
sued
the
the
and,
which
is
why,
in
my
answer,
I
focused
on
the
cost
to
the
city
of
refunding
the
money
with
penalties,
but
the
the
worry
about
being
sued
general
on
issues
of
municipal
or
state
government
law,
the
our
our
staff
can
handle
that
pretty
well.
Okay,.
I
Just
real
quick
I
mean
the
subject
before
us
tonight
is:
do
we
advance
this
to
a
hearing
and
I?
Think
I
would
like
to
hear
from
more
people
in
the
community
one
way
or
the
other
rather
than
trying
to
decide
it
tonight,
so
I'd
like
to
advance
it
to
hearing
and
so
from
that
subject.
I
would
like
to
I'm
not
sure
how
I'm
gonna
vote
on
it
and
what
the
options
might
be,
but
I
think
we
should
at
least
take
the
time
to
do
that.
C
B
E
B
L
M
The
next
time
you'll
see
this
will
be
at
a
first
reading
and
we
tried
it
we'll
try
to
get
that
to
you
before
the
break
and
then
have
the
second
hearing
will
be
after
the
break,
and
then
you
have
to
do
it
by
the
end
of
August,
usually
to
get
this
on
the
ballot.
So
you
have
some
time
we'd
like
to
get
these
things
started.
Okay,.
Q
All
right
campaign
finance
an
elections,
working
group
I
think
you
already
know
that
I'm
david
gear
from
the
city
attorney's
office
and
I'll
be
presenting
the
work
of
the
campaign,
finance
and
elections
working
group.
The
working
group
is
eleven
residents
of
our
city
that
have
a
great
deal
of
experience
in
participating
in
boulder
elections
as
both
volunteers
and
candidates.
It
has
been
meeting
since
february
of
this
year.
The
first
part
of
its
charge
was
a
review
of
the
Charter
requirements
related
to
elections.
Q
The
group
has
provided
its
first
set
of
recommendations
to
the
council
on
a
report
that
has
already
been
presented
to
you
and
is
attached
to
your
memorandum.
For
tonight's
meeting,
staff
intends
to
draft
the
ballot
measures
that
may
be
used
to
implement
the
group's
recommendations.
Those
ballot
measures
will
be
presented
together
with
staff
recommendations
to
the
council
during
the
summer.
With
the
other
ballot
measures,
it
is
anticipated
that
the
council
will
have
a
substantive
discussion
on
the
recommendations
and
then
either
adopt,
amend
or
reject
them.
C
Q
Say
that
I,
don't
think
you
need
to,
but
if
you
would
like
to,
that
would
be
great.
If
there
are
some
on
there
that
may
or
may
not
be
a
starter.
That
would
be
great
input,
but
I
think
that
the
the
completeness
of
the
work
of
the
working
group
was
such
that
the
preparation
of
these
ballot
measures
will
be
for
staff.
A
rather
easy
lift,
I
think.
Q
The
first,
the
first
change,
is
simply
a
clarification
related
to
the
rules
for
a
candidate
to
withdraw
from
an
election
before
the
election
occurs.
The
second
one
is
setting
timelines
in
the
Charter,
the
municipal
initiative
processes,
including
the
review
of
the
initial
petition,
signature,
verification,
title
setting
and
title
challenges,
and
these
are
often
referred
to
as
the
two
Q
changes
that
were
removed
from
the
Charter,
and
it
would
be
putting
them
back
in
the
Charter.
Q
The
next
change
was
just
to
clarify
some
existing
charter
rules
about
municipal
initiatives
and
that
they're
often
referred
to
as
people's
ordinances.
One
of
the
things
that
our
Charter
says
is
that
you
cannot
repeal
a
people's
ordinance
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
ambiguity
about
what
it
means
when
the
council
would
like
to
amend
them.
Q
It
sets
standards
in
the
charters
for
amending
people's
ordinance
and
for
the
most
part,
there
are
simple
changes
that
require
first,
that
it
basically
be
within
the
intent
of
the
original,
or
that
any
amendments
be
consistent
with
the
original
intent
of
the
ordinance
or
that
they
would
be
necessary
to
bring
a
people's
ordinance
into
compliance
with
state
or
federal
law.
And
then
the
other
notion
would
be
that
it
would
be
required.
2/3
of
the
council
members
present
to
vote
on
such
an
amendment.
A
C
C
Q
Your
first
floor,
okay,
so
that
next
one
requires
what
well
it
will
have
staff
implications,
but
they
propose
adding
a
requirement
to
the
city
charter
that
that
that
the
city
clerk
verify
signatures
on
petitions
and,
in
addition
to
the
existing
requirements
for
verification
of
voter
registration
information.
So
as
it
is
now
our
city
clerk,
when
a
petition
comes
in,
they
check
all
of
the
data
on
a
petition
to
make
sure
that
it's
valid
and
consistent
with
voter
registration
records.
They
do
not
do
other
than
in
terms
of
signature.
Q
Verification,
I
think
that
there
is
just
basically
a
cursory
review
of
signatures
and
the
clerk
will
use
her
judgment.
When
she
looks
at
at
the
signatures
and
oftentimes,
she
can
find
basically
very
obvious
Payton
defects,
where
everything
is
done
with
the
same
pen
in
the
same
handwriting
or
you
know
the
there
are
other
irregularities
that
are
often
obvious
from
the
face
of
the
petition.
So
in
the
recent
past
the
city
has
got.
We
understand
that
we
can
now
have
access
to
the
voter
signature
database
of
the
Secretary
of
State's.
Q
So
we
will
have
the
ability
to
look
at
signatures
which
we
have
not
had
in
the
past.
But
of
course
that's
another
piece
of
work
that
the
city
will
be
the
city
clerk
will
be
doing
during
the
election
season
and
and
I
guess,
as
you
try
to
figure
out
how
to
review
signatures,
there's
probably
some
level
of
training
or
education
that
the
clerk
staff
will
have
to
undergo
to
be
able
to
carry
out
that
responsibility.
I
think
we
have
some
questions.
F
C
B
B
C
Q
So
the
city
clerk
is
continuing
to
study
this,
but
it's
but
it's
my
understanding
that,
basically
that
in
years
past
the
Secretary
of
State
has
just
not
let
us
have
access
to
their
signature
database
and
in
the
recent
past
they
have
said
that
they
will
and
apparently
it's
kind
of
a
read.
You
know
that
you
have
read-only
access
to
their
database
and
it'll,
be
you
know,
putting
two
things
up
on
a
screen
and
looking
at
them.
F
F
It
seems
like
a
large
amount
of
work,
but
specifically,
it
seems
like
it
requires
advanced
training,
I
pity
the
person
that
tries
to
figure
out
whether
my
signature
matches
from
one
time
that
I
signed
to
another
I,
just
so
variable
in
random,
so
the
amount
of
training
involved
to
do
that
properly
and
I
do
also
worry
a
little
bit
about
disenfranchising
people,
because
their
signature
was
too
sorry
that
it
can't
be
matched
to
existing
one.
So
I
would
not
like
to
see
this
written
into
our
charter.
I
F
C
Well,
and
that
might
be
direction
to
staff
is,
is
to
get
a
sense
of
how
owners
it
will
be
in
terms
of
right.
You
know
if
multiple
petitions
are
coming
and
this
is
for
signatures
on
ballot
measures
right,
so
you
could
have
many
ballot
measures
come
in
at
the
same
time,
and
just
to
kind
of
get
us
is
this
like?
Is
this
going
to
take
a
couple
hours
per
petition,
or
is
this
like
many
hours?
Anyhow,
we
haven't
need
to
have
a
sense
him,
and
what
would
an
audit?
You
know?
Yes,.
Q
The
committee
had
quite
a
robust
discussion
about
auditing
and
when
we
started
to
talk
about
the
state
procedures
and
the
results
of
auditing
and
that
you
know
when
you
start
knocking
signatures
out
because
of
an
audit
based
on
a
percentage
and
knocking
out
a
percentage
based
upon
that
with
the
sample
size
as
small
as
a
municipal
election
I.
Think
the
thought
of
the
group
was
that
it
would
be
an
unfair
result
in
that,
if
you
were
going
to
do,
it
was
with
such
a
small
sample
size
that
you
should
really
at
everything.
But
we
can.
L
We
get
not
only
what
it's
gonna
be
to
staff,
but
also
to
the
Aaron's
point
about
how
detailed
are
they
getting
with
these
signatures?
I
mean,
is
it
obvious
glaring
duplication
or
is
it
like
one
day?
I
have
my
kid
in
my
right
hand
and
I'm
signing
with
my
left,
and
you
know
something
like
that:
I
don't
want
machines
signing
for
people
or
fake
people
signing
for
people,
but
there's
a
good
point
that
you
have
I
will.
R
Just
bring
up
I
I,
don't
know
how
strict
this
is.
Gonna
be,
but
I
had
to
sign
something
for
my
bank
so
that
they
knew
every
time
they
got
a
check
in
for
me
that
it
was
my
signature
and
I
will
say
that,
yes,
signature
changes
a
lot
and,
depending
on
how
busy
I
am
and
if
I'm
rushing
out
of
the
house,
but
I've
never
had
a
problem
either
with
the
bank.
They've
never
come
back
and
said:
yeah.
We
weren't
sure
about
this
one,
so
they're,
pretty
lenient.
R
C
Other
thing
that
maybe,
if
we're
gonna
have
a
public
hearing
on
this
is,
is
there
another
entity
that
does
this
has
got
it
dialed
that
could
come
and
say
here's
here's
what
you're
getting
into
and
here's
our
advice.
If
you're
gonna
do
this
or
we
would
cost
you
to
get
I,
don't
know,
I
think
it
would
be
useful
to
to
know
if
there's
somebody
in
you
know
nearby
that
does
this
and
has
opinions
one
way
or
another,
whether
it's
you've
been
useful
and
doable.
Q
Good
enough
for
that
one,
if
it's
good
enough
for
you
alright,
so
the
last
one
is
to
authorize
the
council
to
allow
for
the
use
of
electronic
voter
identification
for
petition
signing.
You
know
it
electronically.
In
addition
to
the
traditional
approach
of
having
a
circulator
gather
signatures
on
a
paper
petition.
So
the
idea
would
be
that
there
would
be
some
form
of
chronic
petition.
Signing
I.
Think
that
there's
a
I
guess
I
know
a
hint
of
incredible
optimism
that
this
can
be
really
done.
Really
quick.
Q
Q
But
I
do
think
that
now
the
Charter
is
very
specific
about
how
you
put
together
a
petition
and
it
requires
a
person,
a
piece
of
paper
data
and
a
signature,
and
this
what
the
working
group
is
recommended
is
that
we
expand
that
to
also
allow
electronic
forms
of
petition
gathering
as
well
and
I.
Believe
that,
before
we're
able
to
actually
put
that
into
motion
that
we
will
need
another
working
group,
we
will
need
the
support
of
our
IT
department
and
other
folks.
Q
C
C
Q
Q
Think
yeah
I
think
that
I
think
that
the
working
group
thought
of
that
they
they
discussed
the
fact
that
people
who
perhaps
don't
get
out
as
much
would
be
have
more
access
to
be
able
to
participate
in
the
petitioning
process.
You
know
just
a
variety
of
reasons
that
you
know
we
often
gravitate
towards
electronic
means
of
conducting
the
day-to-day.
I
Q
Don't
think
I
could
really
commit
to
that
because
I
don't
understand
the
IT
side
of
it.
But
what
I
would
say
is
is
that
it's
my
aunt,
so
first
of
all,
the
working
group
would
like
to
kind
of
gets.
Have
you
guys
started
working
group
tomorrow
and
you
know
get
to
work
on
this
issue,
because
I
think
that
they
feel
very
strongly
about
it.
C
Q
I
don't
know,
I
think
that
we
will
have
to
start
to
try
to
draft
them
out
and
see
what
they
look
like,
but
I
could
very
easily
see
you
know
drafting
one
through
four
in
one
or
maybe
combine
those
with
the
Charter.
You
know
some
of
the
charter
committee
changes
and
then
the
fifth
and
the
sixth
be
done
as
separate
measures,
but
I
think
it
would.
It's
gonna
be,
will
make
a
recommendation
and
I
think
it'll
be
up
to
the
council
to
decide
how
they
want
to
proceed
and
if
they
want
to
present
it
to.
F
The
vote
that'll
be
a
point
of
discussion
there.
The
public
hearing,
okay,
that's
good
to
know,
and
the
other
question
is
for
the
electronic
voter
ID
identification
like
that
that
to
me
it
could
be
as
something
as
simple
as
somebody
still
is,
carrying
a
petition,
but
it's
an
electronic
form
and
you
simply
sign
a
tablet:
that's
correct,
which
is
an
incremental
change
to
our
existing
process.
Another
one
is
you're
sitting
in
your
basement
and
you
go
online
and
you
say:
oh
that's,.
Q
Q
K
Q
Q
C
Q
L
Jump
in
with
an
opinion
I
think
we
should
move
this
forward
and
debate
it
and
I
think
that
this
is
the
direction
we're
headed
in
lots
of
different
arenas
of
our
democracy
with
voting
and
registration,
and
you
know
everything
really
and
I
think
this
open
up
petitions
to
be
more
equitable.
We
can
maybe
avoid
smooth
well,
who
knows
I'm
sure
paid
folks
will
pop
up
in
different
categories,
but
you
know
I,
don't
particularly
think
some
guy
who's
being
paid
to
stand
outside
of
MacGuffins
leads
to
the
best.
You
know
petitions
and
democracy
so.
C
I
With
great
cautions,
I
could
see
that
it
could
have
benefits,
but
there
are
also
many
many
ways
this
could
work
out
really
badly
if
we're
not
careful
with
it.
So
I'm
interested
in
discussing
it
I
agree
with
Jill
about
that
I
think
we
should
move
it
forward
and
discuss
it,
but
even
doing
enabling
language
and
then
some
council
in
the
future,
or
make
some
really
flawed
decision.
I
If
there's
not
enough
guardrails,
you
know
what's
in
the
Charter,
so
that
the
people
can
themselves
say
nope,
that's
not
what
we
meant
or
no
that's,
not
working
out
I.
Just
think
we
have
to
think
really
thoughtfully
about
this.
For
me,
a
possibility
would
be
we
talked
about
it
and
we
decided
it
needed
to
be
worked
over
some
more
by
a
working
group
so
that
we
have
a
really
good
charter
amendment,
not
one
that's
necessarily
too
prescriptive,
but
one
that
somehow
puts
the
guardrails
on.
I
G
Well,
I,
you
know
I'm
with
Sam
I,
as
evidenced
by
all
our
our
questions,
break
questions
tonight
and
we're
just
you
know.
Just
reacting
and
our
community's
gonna
have
tons
of
questions
about
this,
and
it
feels
to
me
if,
like
we
put
it
on
the
ballot
and
say,
don't
worry,
we'll
figure
it
out
later
it's
it
feels
like
ready,
ready,
shoot,
aim
and
I.
Think
I
think
we
need
to
tell
the
community
what
this
is.
G
G
We
talk
in
life
as
signatures,
which
is
one
thing
and
about
anybody
can
in
their
pajamas
in
Russia,
get
on
in
sign
of
attrition,
and
those
are
two
completely
different
things
and
if
we
just
say
let
us
figure
it
out,
I'm
I
think
it's
a
lot
of
voters
can
say:
no,
you
tell
us
what
tell
us
what
we're
authorizing.
First
then,
we'll
let
you
know
what
type.
C
R
Q
It
was
all
of
the
recommendations
that
the
working
group
made
were
unanimous
and
they
they
had
a
very
robust
debate
about
the
pros
and
the
cons
and
I
think
that
there
was
I
guess
to
use
a
term
from
the
last
presentation
a
little
bit
of
the
digital
divide,
which
I
never
figure
I'm
on
one
side
of
it,
and
there
were
people
that
were
more
comfortable
with
this.
On
the
other
side
of
that
divide,
but
yeah
it
was.
It
was
very
robustly
debated
with
the
group.
Okay,.
C
F
No
Russian,
okay,
agree
with
with
with
Sam
and
Bob
that
it's
worth
continuing
the
discussion,
but
if
we're
going
to
move
something
to
the
ballot,
I
would
want
to
see
something
worded
very
precisely
and
I
think
it's
fine.
If,
if
we
did
move
forward
with
this,
if
we
did
something
that
enabled
some
limited
subset
this
year
and
then
some
future
year,
we
could
consider
some
larger
subset.
B
C
C
C
Q
Great,
thank
you
great
feedback.
Okay,
so
now
we're
gonna
move
on
to
the
city's
Charter
Committee.
The
Charter
Committee,
as
you
all
know,
has
three
members
of
the
council
and
it's
supported
by
a
number
of
city
staff
members.
It
has
met
a
few
times
this
year
and
the
Charter
Committee
has
recommended
that
the
council
makes
some
consider
making
some
changes
related
to
boards
and
commissions
and
the
capital
improvements
planning
process.
Can
you
remind
us
who's
on
the
Charter
committee?
It
is
Cindy
Carlile,
Sam,
Weaver
and
Lisa
Marcel,
yeah
or
Mary
young
I'm.
Sorry.
C
Q
Okay,
so
the
first
one,
the
committee
thought
now,
let's
see
we'll
move
forward
here,
so
the
first
change
was
to
was
related
to
changing
the
number
of
residents
appointed
to
certain
advisory
boards
from
five
to
seven
members.
Presently,
the
Planning
Board
and
the
Parks
and
Recreation
Advisory
Board
were
the
only
two
boards
that
have
seven
members.
Q
The
committee
thought
that
the
council
should
increase
the
size
of
the
housing
and
varrick
at
least
considerate,
the
housing,
Advisory
Board
and
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
to
seven
and
then
ask
staff
to
reach
out
to
those
boards
and
asked
them
for
their
preference.
So
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
gave
feedback
that
they
thought
that
they
are
functioning
well
as
a
five-member
board
and
they
didn't
think
that
it
necessarily
made
change
or
make
sense
to
change
it
from
its
current
size.
Q
Q
B
I
I
think
where
this
ended
up
after
some
discussion
is
the
second
bullet,
which
is
to
add
the
option
for
Council
to
decide
between
five
or
seven
members.
In
other
words,
I
wouldn't
be
in
favor
of
having
the
open
space.
Board
of
Trustees
grow
right
now
either,
but
if
the
Charter,
if
people
want
to
let
us
make
that
choice
based
on
changing
conditions
in
the
community,
I
think
that
was
part
of
what
we
were
discussing
was
why
don't
we
bring
something
broad
which,
rather
than
just
focusing
on
housing
or
we
could
focus
on
housing?
I
G
Ask
a
question
on
that,
though:
so
if
the
ballot
measure
simply
said,
council
could
make
anymore
between
five
and
seven
good.
If
council
took
a
board
from
five
to
seven,
and
the
next
council
wanted
to
take
is
from
seven
back
to
five,
how
would
that
work
and
it
would
get
kicked
off
and
good
politics
involved
and
I
guess
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
about
people,
not
this
council,
but
some
future
council?
That's
this.
G
One
playing
some
games
in
either
direction,
either
by
bumping
something
up
to
seven
to
get
some
extra
buddies
on
board
or
by
taking
it
from
seven
down
to
five
and
kicking
some
people
off
and
I.
Just
I,
just
I
want
us
to
be
thoughtful
about
that.
Maybe
this
is
the
right
answer.
I
mean
it
sounds
like
there's
a
unanimity
among
this
group
about
taking
the
housing
board
from
from
five
to
seven.
So
that's
that's
an
easy
one,
and
hopefully
the
community
will
support
that
as
well,
but
I
just
wonder
about
this
flexibility.
I
I
On
the
other
hand,
it
does
give
a
little
flexibility
to
adapt
to
changing
situations
like
you
know
if
the
community
grows
or
whatever
and
you're
trying
to
add
more
representation,
but
we
can
do
it
on
the
I
mean
it's
clear,
hab
wanted
and
I
think
this
council
has
said
that
we
want
have
to
be
seven
and
so
I'm
fine,
either
way.
I
just
thought,
I
would
put
the
argument
out
there
about.
Our
discussion
was
Sandeep.
C
B
I
agree
that
we
we
just
we
all
discussed,
have
going
to
seven
members
before
putting
it
to
the
to
a
ballot,
but
the
others
I
would
say
it's
not
broken.
You
know
what
are
we
trying
to
fix
here
and
Bob?
Your
point
is
well-taken
it
not
that
we
would
ever
do
anything
like
that,
but
other
councils
may
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
broken
as
it
is
working
according
to
the
Charter.
F
I
do
think
we
should
move
it
forward
and
we
can
consider
the
different
options,
but
may
one
alternate
option
would
be
to
say
that
to
change
have
from
five
to
seven
and
give
the
discretion
that
if
any
future
advisory
board
has
created,
Council
can
decide
between
five
and
seven
people
for
that
board.
At
the
time
of
creation,
okay,.
C
So
I
I'm,
almost
I,
totally
agree
with
that.
I
do
think.
Changing
existing
boards
invites
political
in
yeah,
I,
guess
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
go
there
have
we
were
very
clear
and
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
that
would
be
a
nice
way
to
finesse
it
when
you're
creating
new
ones.
So,
oh
yeah,
okay,
is
everybody
cool
with
leaving
open
space
the
way
it
is
yeah.
G
Q
F
Q
So
the
Charter
community
also
recommended
that
the
word
sex
be
changed
to
gender
when
considering
the
composition
of
the
board.
I
believe
that
this,
the
intent
of
this
changes
in
the
spirit
of
inclusivity,
an
allowing
personal,
generate
gender
identification
to
be
considered
when
appointing
board
and
commission
members.
F
Yeah
sorry,
keep
talking
I
mean.
Can
we
make
this
more
inclusive
because
we're
still
kind
of
going
with
them
we're
changing?
The
word
is
good,
but
we're
still
kind
of
going
I
think
the
wording
is
binary
like
you
must
have
at
least
one
person
of
each
gender
on
board.
If
there
is
that
the
language-
something
that's,
that
was
a
language
and
I
wonder
if
we
could
change
it
to
say
something
like
a
board
may
not
be
composed
exclusively
of
one
gender
identity.
Something
like
that.
F
You
know
which
kind
of
looks
at
it
from
the
other
way,
but
that,
but
that
way
like
if
we
could
give
people
the
option
instead
of
having
a
go,
M
or
F
that
there
can.
You
know
they
can
say
non-conforming
or
something
like
that.
And
then
you
just
can't
have
all
one
people
in
one
category
and
that
could
be
more
inclusive
of
different
gender
identities
and.
C
F
C
N
Sorry
about
that
relates
to
the
capital
improvement
program
and
the
timing.
This
item
was
brought
to
the
Charter
Committee,
but
actually
staff
were
are
the
ones
who
brought
this
to
the
Charter
Committee
and
the
reason
we
would
like
council
to
consider
this
recommendation
right
now.
Our
capital
improvement
program
budget
in
our
operating
budget
are
really
on
two
different
timelines
and
we're
looking
for
ways
to
continuously
improve
our
budget
process
and
feel
that
this
would
be
an
important
step
forward.
N
So
having
them
on
the
same
timeline
would
allow
us
to
make
more
strategic
budget
decisions
also
would
give
us
a
little
bit
more
time
for
the
capital
improvement
plan
to
have
better
revenue
projections.
So
currently,
the
Planning
Board
is
responsible
for
reviewing
in
passing
along
recommendations
for
the
CIP
60
days
prior
to
the
first
public
hearing
on
the
budget
and
the
first
public
hearing
on
the
budgets
considered
our
first
meeting
in
October
that
we
present
the
budget.
N
N
Currently
it
goes
to
Planning
Board
in
July,
and
what
we're
proposing
is
that
it
actually
go
to
planning
board
in
August.
So
the
second
thing
that
would
change
then,
is
currently
you.
We
bring
the
CIP
to
you
in
a
study
session
in
August
and
it's
separated.
We
just
talked
about
CIP
through
this
change.
It
would
allow
us
to
bring
the
CIP
draft
to
you
in
September
during
our
normal
budget
study
sessions.
N
So
we
could
look
at
the
budget
as
a
whole
budget,
which
is
really
the
way
it
is
because
they
both
play
on
each
part,
plays
on
each
other.
There
was
question
regarding
the
public
input
period
for
the
CIP
budget.
Currently
it's
about
90
days.
It
starts
when
the
Planning
Board
hears
the
budget,
that's
when
it
becomes
public
with
this
proposed
change.
It
would
reduce
that
to
about
60
days,
but
staff
feels
that's
still
adequate
time,
but
certainly
you
may
or
may
not
agree
with
that.
N
So
we
have
two
questions
for
you
regarding
the
Charter
committee
items
and
I.
Think
the
first
one
has
already
been
answered.
The
second
one
is:
do
you
want
us
to
move
forward
with
the
next
steps
to
place
the
the
change
in
the
planning
board
on
the
budget,
and
one
thing
I
forgot
to
mention:
we
have
not
brought
this
to
the
Planning
Board
for
their
feedback.
Yet,
if
you
want
us
to
move
forward,
we
certainly
would
do
that
and
bring
their
input
back
to
you.
C
N
Would
in
this
scenario,
because
I
mean
technically,
it
becomes
public
when
we
take
it
to
our
specific
boards,
but
as
a
whole
CIP
with
a
comprehensive
all
of
the
departments.
It
does
not
become
public
until
it
is
brought
to
the
Planning
Board.
So
yes,
it
would
be
because
we're
taking
it
to
the
Planning
Board
later
and
we're
the
the
timeline
would
be
expanded
and
just
getting
it
done
and
getting
all
of
the
steps
prior
to
that
done
as
well.
N
N
N
Thank
you
I'm
just
one
last
slide
and
we
try
to
continually
keep
this
in
front
of
you,
but
there
are
potential
ballot
item
for
next
year
the
climate
action
plan
tax,
they're,
looking
at
perhaps
expanding
that
tax,
and
that
will
be
brought
to
you
in
the
coming
months.
Some
ideas
around
that
we
also
have
several
possible
needs
in
the
future,
some
of
which
would
require
some
sort
of
ballot:
Muni,
Alpine,
Broadband,
housing,
library.
N
There
are
others,
but
these
are
the
the
major
ones
that
we
see
and
for
your
reference
tax
revenue
generation
rates
again
property
tax.
One
mill
is
about
3.6
million
in
sales
tax.
A
tenth
of
a
cent
generates
3.3
million,
and
our
final
question
for
you:
do
you
have
any
other
items
or
any
other
information
that
you
would
like
related
to
the
2018
November
ballot.
C
K
Don't
have
a
question,
but
there
was
a
question
that
came
up
at
the
previous
study
session
where
we
talked
about
these
was
whether
or
not
there
was
going
to
be
a
ballot
initiative
that
was
going
to
be
brought
forward
on
expanding
voting
rights
and
I
asked
that
question
of
the
committee
that's
working
on
it
and
they
said
that
they
have
decided
not
to
do
that
this
year.
They
want
to
bring
the
board
next
year.
So
we
don't
expect
to
see
anything
this
year.
E
G
Do
I
remember
correctly
that
the
deadline
for
submitting
citizens
petition
is
180
days
before
the
election?
Is
that
right?
It's.