►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Study Session 05-09-17
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
You
mayor,
so
one
thing
I'll
note
is
that
everyone
has
their
own
microphone.
All
of
the
batteries
are
new
and
we
have
two
new
routers
in
the
ceiling
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
learned
as
we
were
fixing
things
is
that
we
only
had
one
router
before
and
it
was
misplaced.
So
that's
one
of
the
things
that
was
making
it
harder
so
yeah.
We
think
we've
started
to
fix
a
few
issues
but
anyway,
so
hopefully
everyone
can
hear
us
tonight,
yeah
yeah.
B
So
tonight
is
the
first
opportunity
for
you
to
take
things
off
the
table
or
add
things
onto
the
table
and
we've
got
four
items
tonight.
The
first
will
be
municipal,
ization
and
Tom.
Carr
will
present.
That
item
then
we'll
be
talking
about
the
renewal
of
the
point
point
three
percent
capital
sales
and
use
tax
I'll
be
presenting
that
and
also
giving
an
update
on
the
work
of
the
community
advisory
committee.
B
Then
we
have
a
broadband
presentation
and
Karl
Castile
will
be
making
that
presentation
and
then
finally,
your
charter
subcommittee
has
been
working
on
looking
at
the
Charter
to
see
if
there
are
items
that
we
might
change
or
add
to
the
Charter
and
Tom
will
be
banking.
That
presentation
so
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
right
now
to
talk
about
municipal
ization
ballot
measures,
good.
C
Evening,
as
you
all
know,
there
are
several
things
that
are
coming
to
a
head
right
now
and
as
we're
sort
of
dealing
with
a
moving
target
to
some
extent,
because
we're
in
the
middle
of
litigation
and
there's
things
going
forward.
But
there
are
some
things
that
you
might
want
to
consider
for
the
ballot
this
year
and
I'll
talk
about
them,
I've,
grouped
them
generally
into
four
categories.
C
One
renewal
and
extension
of
the
current
utility
occupation
tax
to
additional
funding
for
short-term
and
long-term
needs,
renewal
and
extension
of
executive
sessions,
amendment
of
charter
section
178
a
and
consideration
about
a
ballot
measure
deleting
charter
section
189,
which
allowed
for
choice
Radice
of
electric
customers
I'm
going
to
go
through
each
one
of
these
individually.
You
don't
have
to
remember
what
I
just
said.
C
C
In
2011,
the
utility
occupation
tax
was
amended
to
add
a
privat
to
add
additional
taxation
to
pay
for
the
cost
of
exploring
municipal
ization,
and
that
generates
about
2.1
million
dollars
a
year
in
2015,
the
voters
extended
the
portion
of
the
tax
that
pays
for
the
that
is
actually
replaces
the
franchise
fee
that
has
been
extended
to
2022
and
that's
not
before
you
tonight.
The
portion
of
the
tax
that
pays
for
the
funding
of
the
municipal
ization
effort
that
2
point
1
million
dollars,
expires
on
December
31st
of
this
year.
C
So
one
of
the
questions
that
we
have
for
council
is
whether
or
not
to
extend
that.
We
supplement
that,
with
a
budget
item
of
about
$375,000
from
the
general
fund
that
goes
to
pay
ongoing
costs,
although
not
all
of
that
is
spent
or
has
been
spent
this
year.
So
one
of
the
things
we'd
ask:
is
the
council
consider
increasing
the
tax
slightly
to
pay
so
that
the
general
fund
isn't
paying?
For
this?
We
don't
recommend,
there's
of
course,
other
support
for
the
municipal
ization
project.
Above
and
beyond
that,
for
example,
my
salary
Jane's
salary.
C
We
we
spend
a
portion
of
our
time
doing
this,
that's
not
allocated
in
this
at
all.
So,
in
addition,
we
have
some
additional,
immediate
and
future
needs
that
I
wanted
to
discuss
with
Council
and
at
least
put
it
on
your
money
in
your
minds
as
we
go
forward.
We
have
a
study
session
scheduled
for
July
11th
of
this
year,
where
we
intend
to
flush
these
out
some
more
but
I
wanted
to
give
you
a
first
look
at
these,
and
some
of
them
may
require
council
consideration
of
a
ballot
measure
this
year.
C
So
one
thing
that
we've
got
the
2.1
million
dollars
and
that's
pretty
much
meeting
our
ongoing
expenses
we
will
have.
We
have
some
extraordinary
expenses
that
will
be
beyond
that
which
will
not
be
covered
by
that
one
of
those
is
trial
costs
we
have
a
trial
coming
up
in
the
PUC.
The
trial
costs
will
push
our
expenses
above
and
beyond
what
we
can
pay
out
of
the
utility
occupation
tax.
C
In
addition,
if
things
go
well
at
the
PUC,
we
expect
to
be
in
condemnation
court
next
year
and
again
that
will
push
our
expenses
above
and
beyond.
One
of
the
issues
currently
before
the
PUC
is
the
question
whether
the
city
should
have
to
do
detailed
engineering
design
before
the
PUC
approves
the
separation
plan
and
right
now,
we've
done
what
I
believe
is
a
very
detailed
design
for
the
engineering
separation.
C
However,
the
other
parties
have
pushed
and
want
us
to
do
the
kind
of
plans
that
you
can
hand
to
someone
to
actually
start
construction
the
next
day,
although
a
lot
of
our
stuff
is
that
is
at
the
level
where
people
would
normally
have
to
bid
out
a
project.
Nevertheless,
there
is
a
push
to
have
us
do
that.
Our
estimate
is
that
the
detailed
design
engineering
cost
would
be
about
6%
of
the
total
cost
of
separation.
Now
I
say
6%,
that's
our
estimate,
based
on
what
we've
done.
C
Our
public
works,
Fox
folks,
who
do
this
all
the
time
say
that
it
could
be
higher,
could
be
10
to
15%
we're
talking
about
separation
costs
of
about
73
million
dollars,
6%
of
that's
about
4
million
10
percents,
of
course,
about
7
million.
So
again,
that
wouldn't
be
the
the
current
utility
occupation
tax
wouldn't
be
sufficient
to
cover
that,
and
if
the
PUC
orders
us
to
do
that,
the
detailed
design
before
approving
the
separation,
it's
something
we're
gonna,
have
to
figure
out
how
to
fund
Bob.
Did
you
have
a
question
you.
C
Into
play,
would
it's
not
clear?
It
depends
on
what
the
order
would
be
the
question
we
would
prefer
to
push
the
detail
design
after
the
go
no-go
decision,
which
we're
tentatively
saying
would
be
in
mid
2019.
The
the
the
hit
would
be
if
the
Commission
says.
No,
you
have
to
do
that
before
we
make
a
decision
and
we'd
have
to
spend
those
dollars
in
2018
the
other
wildcard
out.
There
is
a
FERC
proceeding
right
now.
We're
not
estimating
a
lot
of
costs
for
presenting
our
current
proposal
has
very
little
transmission
level
work.
C
It's
just
basically
connecting
the
transformers
at
the
substations
to
the
excels
transmission
system.
So
we
we
have
an
estimated
large
core
that
if
we
got
hit
with
a
stranded
cost
case,
however,
a
full
blown
stranded
cost
case
would
be
very
expensive
and
we'd
have
to
think
about
ways
to
fund
that
and
then
so
on.
The
bottom
I
have
future
needs.
C
These
are
not
things
that
we
would
expect
to
to
occur
after
the
council
was
came
back
and
had
to
make
the
go
no-go
decision
in
mid-2000,
19
and
those
are
transition,
costs
and
separation
cost
and
when
I
say
transition
costs.
What
I
mean
is
the
cost
of
standing
up
a
utility,
and
we
have
had
some
conversations
with
some
private
companies
who
are
willing
to
front
the
costs
of
that
and
return
for
a
longer
term
contract
after
separation
costs,
of
course,
are
the
costs
of
building
the
the
actual
separation.
C
What
we're
estimating
at
73
million
dollars
there's
some
question
about
when
the
city
would
have
to
pay
for
that,
or
our
current
view
is
that
we've
been
pushed
to
a
point
where
we're
pushing
the
construction
after
the
condemnation,
but
before
the
turnover,
so
the
Excel
would
do
all
the
current
proposal.
The
proposal
that's
going
in
tomorrow,
Excel
would
do
all
the
construction
on
its
own
system.
C
C
C
So
the
current
proposal
is
for
us
to
go
through
condemnation,
figure
out
what
the
cost
of
acquisition
is
going
to
be
and
then
have
counsel
make
a
go/no-go
decision
once
you
know
what
it's
going
to
cost
and
then
we'd
have
to
fund,
we
might
have
to
fund
the
transition
costs
and
the
separation
cost
so
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
executive
sessions
the
provision
allowing
for
executive
sessions.
As
you
know,
the
Charter
requires
at
all,
council
meetings
be
public
and
the
interpretation
has
been
that
that
prohibits
executive
sessions.
C
The
voters
have
voted
down
the
executive
session
several
times,
so
it's
a
pretty
strong
interpretation.
Our
current
the
vote
is
the
voters
allowed
for
executive
sessions
for
a
limited
to
municipal
ization
legal
strategy
and
negotiation
strategy.
That
authority
expires
on
December
31st
of
this
year,
so
one
of
the
things
I
would
like
council
to
consider
is
whether
or
not
the
those
the
ability
to
have
those
those
sessions
should
continue.
We've
had
some
feedback
from
at
least
one
member
of
the
community
that
the
the
negotiation
strategy
thing
needs
to
be
tweaked.
C
Some
we've
gotten
some
complaints
about
the
the
fact
that
we
negotiated
without
involving
the
public.
That's
a
question
for
council
about
whether
or
not
you
want
to
change
that.
I've
put
the
language
up
in
really
small
tight
to
make
it
impossible
for
you
to
read,
but
that's
the
full
language
of
the
session
of
this
section
and
it,
as
you
can
see
it
has
you
said
you've
all
done
it
you're
familiar
with
the
constraints,
but
it
proved
it
prohibits.
It
requires
two-thirds
vote
to
go
into
executive
session.
C
E
F
C
We
do
both
so,
as
you
know,
I
do
a
lot
of
confidential
memos,
so
it's
in
writing
and
then
we
do
the
the
two
by
two
meetings
and
we
did.
We
did
those
before
we
had
executive
session.
Of
course,
the
challenge
with
that
is
that
I
can't
tell
one
group
what
another
group
said.
So
you
can't
really
have
any
discussion
and
it
could
be
that
you
were
in
one
group
and
Aaron
was
in
a
different
one
and
Aaron
said
something
that
really
responded
to
something
your
concerns.
C
But
if
I
told
you
what
he
said,
then
it
would
be
a
serial
meaning
and
that
would
violate
state
law.
I
mean
I
would
take
the
position
that
would
violate.
So
we
don't
do
that,
so
we
listen
and
talk,
but
there's
no
ability
to
interchange,
which
you
have
at
the
executive
sessions
I.
My
own
personal
belief
is
I,
believe
they're,
a
very
valuable
tool
for
counsel
and.
C
Then
so
there
are
a
couple
of
other
charter
changes.
Section
178
of
the
Charter,
as
you
all
know,
provides
for
certain
metrics
to
be
met
in
2013.
The
council
went
through
the
process
of
meeting
those
metrics.
Now
all
that
does
is
allow
for
the
creation
of
a
municipal
electric
utility,
so
just
creating
the
entity,
it
doesn't
authorize.
Operation
operations
authorizations
are
covered
by
a
separate
section
of
the
Charter.
We
have
been
tied
up
in
litigation
over
this.
The
over
this
decision
for
three
years
now
and
I.
C
Maybe
it's
four.
Almost
four
I
see
no
end
in
sight,
although
right
now
we're
at
the
stage
where
we've
petitioned
for
certiorari,
if
the
review
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
state
of
Colorado,
if
they
deny
the
petition,
that
litigation
is
done,
at
least
that
litigation,
but
what
the
the
where
we
were
from
a
procedural
posture
is
that
the
court
said
that
the
decision
wasn't
final
and
that
another
decision
would
have
to
be
made
which
would
again
be
subject
to
challenge.
C
This
is
important
because
bonding
bonding
agencies
want
to
know
that
the
entity
that
you're
bonding
exists-
and
this
is
a
challenge
to
the
existence
of
the
utility
itself,
the
body
that
we
created
so
it
created-
puts
a
cloud
on
that.
I
would
like
council
to
consider
amending
section
178,
either
to
take
the
provisions
out
or
to
modify
them
in
a
way
that
they
would
be
more
immune
to
challenge
and
then
the
last
thing
is.
We
took
a
look
I'm,
sorry,
Aaron.
G
C
One
option
that
I
would
like
is
that
the
Charter
metrics
required
that
the
council
make
a
finding
that
those
could
be
met
and
have
that
verified
by
a
third
party.
An
independent
third
party
counsel
did
all
of
that.
It
was
verified
and
they
approved
it
by
by
ordinance,
we
could
amend
to
say
that
the
council
that
the
council
has
found
that
these
had
been
met.
A
Can
you
talk
about
the
the
timing
on
this?
One
I
understand
it's
currently
in
litigation,
but
the
pros
and
cons
of
doing
it
now
or
doing
it
later.
C
Well,
the
sooner
we
can
take
the
cloud
over
off
the
head
of
the
utility,
the
better
it
is
for
bonding
purposes,
although
we're
probably
not
going
to
be
bonding
for
several
years,
probably
until
right.
Now,
it's
looking
like
119
to
2019
and
2020
to
so
you
could
do
this
at
a
later
time.
We
still
will
have
the
litigations,
depending
on
what
the
Supreme
Court
does,
with
the
petition
that
we
filed
even.
E
E
We
couldn't
no
longer
meet
the
metrics
because
of
the
cost
or
whatnot,
and
so
are
we
better
off
addressing
this
issue
once
we
know
what
the
cost
is,
and
perhaps
at
that
point
in
time
the
voters
have
approved
a
different
amount
of
money,
and
in
that
way
you
sort
of
remove
that.
In
other
words,
if
we
don't
need
to
do
this
until
bonding,
what's
the
rush,
especially
if
it's
Hort
of
exposes
the
city
to
an
argument
that
is
trying
to
sort
of
slip,
something
by
well
the.
C
The
reason
to
do
it
earlier
rather
than
later,
is
to
get
the
metrics
met
and
have
any
challenge
proceed
before
we
have
to
get
to
bonding.
So
if
you
change
them
and
you
met
them
and
we
got
sued,
probably
three
years
of
litigation
are
going
to
ensue
and
I
would
like
to
get
the
litigation
over
before
we
have
to
face
bonding
for
the
issue:
debt
for
the
utility,
but.
E
I
mean
just
to
follow
up
if
we
were
to,
in
essence,
re
redo
our
Charter
requirements
because
of
funding
issues,
then
there's
a
hole
and
in
doing
that,
then
you
know
with
the
approval
of
that
we
sort
of
say,
and
by
Fiat,
where
we've
we've
met
the
requirements.
Then
then
we
sort
of
eliminate
that
political
issue
of
of
the
argument
that
we're
trying
to
do
something
based
on
the
decision
made
years
ago,
that
some
people
say
we
couldn't
do
now
and
so
I
guess.
E
But
could
again
just
to
be
clear,
but
couldn't
we
at
the
time
that
we
knew
the
cost
do
what
you're
saying
right
there,
which
is
next,
perhaps
next
year
and
say
hey
at
this
point
in
time,
we're
done
and
we
eliminate
that
requirement
and
the
voters
can't
say
we're
trying
to
hide
something
because
everybody
knows
the
cost.
Yep.
C
H
So
hath
you
so
wait.
A
minute
no
I
was
I
was
following
to
learn.
Last
piece:
I
mean
your
problem.
Time.
I
assume
is
when
you
want
to
go,
do
the
bonding,
but
but
you
don't
want
to
go,
do
the
bonding
until
after
condemnation,
yeah
now,
there's
still
this
whole
separation
stuff.
But
but
presumably
you
have
to
do
something
after
condemnation.
H
H
E
I
think
I
think
when
I'm,
what
I'm
saying
here's
Tom's
have
proposed
a
method
that
would
eliminate
litigation
as
an
option
for
excel,
and
so
the
question
is
granted.
We
will
know
to
the
dollars
and
cents,
but
will
will
have
a
sense
of
order
of
magnitude
in
a
you
know,
presumably
as
we're
getting
close
to
come
in
among
by
the
time
we
get
a
condemnation
ruling
the
time
of
the
no
go.
No
decision,
for
example,
we'll
certainly
know
cuz.
E
We
have
to
go
no
go
right
and
so
around
that
time,
whether
it's
the
year
before
or
will
know
how
we've
done
at
the
PUC
will
know
some
other
facts.
We
you
know,
then
we
can
essentially
eliminate
the
litigation
option
for
excel
without
the
public.
Saying
oh
you're
just
doing
that,
because
you
can't
meet
your
metrics
yeah.
H
I
kind
of
get
that
if
you
can
really
eliminate
the
litigation
option,
that
certainly
gives
you
a
little
more
flexibility.
I
mean
I,
gotta,
say
that
and
I.
Don't
have
super
strong
feelings
about
this,
but,
as
I
thought
about
this,
you
know
the
requirement
that
we
have
yeah.
It
talks
about
reliability
and
stuff.
H
Obviously,
first
of
all,
the
PUC
is
going
to
demand
that
in
the
end,
but
but
the
one,
the
working
piece
that
most
people
look
at
is
that
you
have
to
have
competitive
rates
or
comparable
rates
on
day,
one
which
is
frankly
a
weird
metric.
It's
always
been
kind
of
a
weird
metric
and
I
since
I
was
on
counsel,
when
we
put
it
in
I'll.
Take
part
of
the
blame
for
that.
H
It
doesn't
really
say
a
lot
because
that's
that's
day,
one
I
think
what
frankly,
what
any
counsel
would
be
interested
in
with
not
the
only
day
one,
it
would
be.
I
think
the
better
metric
we've
seen,
which
maybe
is
a
little
harder
to
explain
to
people
which
is
the
net
present
value
calculation.
In
other
words,
in
the
longer
run,
is
this
a
good
thing
to
do
or
not
and
the
hard
part
with
that
calculation,
of
course,
is
by
definition,
you
are
looking
you're
making
estimations
of
future
energy
cost.
H
How
else
can
you
make
that
type
of
judgment
right
I
mean
you're,
looking
at
your
energy
costs
and
you're
looking
at
excels
energies
cause?
Nobody
knows
that
definitively,
but
that's
still
a
to
me
a
much
better
way
to
look
at
it
is
to
say
well,
counsel
is
going
to
look
at
whether
this
actually
makes
sense
for
the
city
over
time,
which
is
kind
of
the
net
present
value
metric,
and
it's
not
that
it
has
to
be
exact
but
you'd
kind
of
prefer.
It
not
be
negative,
two
hundred
million,
that's
for
sure.
H
You
know
which
the
buyout
option
that
Excel
gave
us.
That
was
hundreds
of
million
negative.
So
you
look
at
that
and
say:
well,
okay,
that's
not
a
great
deal.
I
mean
all
of
us.
Looked
at
that
and
said:
that's
not
a
great
deal.
Okay,
that's
pretty
good
metric!
Then
we
weren't
worried
about
day
one
cost.
We
were
worried
about
the
long-term
costs.
H
I,
don't
know
how
you
word
that,
but
it
just
this
struck
me
that
that
seems
like
a
better
approach
and
no,
we
don't
want
litigation,
not
because
some
council
is
going
to
cheat,
but
because
it
just
opens
up
this
avenue
for
Excel
to
as
they
will
always
do,
delay
it
for
three.
They
don't
really
care
if
they're
going
to
win
or
not,
it
doesn't
matter
to
them
whether
they
win.
They
just
delay
it
for
three
years
and
that's
a
victory.
So
you
don't
really
want
to
open
that
door.
So
you.
H
I
would
like
something
that
I
guess
is
legislative
in
nature
that
can't
theoretically
be
litigated,
but
where
we
would
in
fact
replace
the
current
requirement,
which
I
don't
think
works
very
well
and
also,
I
think,
the
litigation
that
it's
currently
subject
to
is
you
know
at
the
time
potentially
could
be
pretty
time-consuming
for
no
great
outcome.
We.
H
And
and
amend
section
178,
but
put
some
wording
in
that
I
think
is
a
little
bit
more
apropos
about
what
the
council
would
actually
the
then
council
would
consider
in
terms
of
do
you
proceed
or
do
you
not
proceed
and,
and
for
me
it's
really
that
net
present
value
calculation
but
I
charted
would
have
to
be
darn
clear
that
this
isn't
an
exact
calculation,
it's
kind
of
the
best
based
on
best
estimates,
because
what
else
can
you
do?
Look
that's
why
originally
we
said
day
one
because
I
remember
all
these
conversations.
H
We
said
they
won,
even
though
I
think
several
of
us
weren't
thrilled
with
it,
because
how
could
you
guarantee
that
on
day
647
the
rates
would
be
comparable?
We
you
can't
I
mean
you
could
have
blips
up
and
down
one
year
it
could
be
a
liar
when
you're
it
could
be
a
little
lower.
You
don't
know
because
you
don't
know
energy
costs,
but
a
net
present
value
calculation
kind
of
smoothes
that
out
averages
it
out
over
time.
That's
a
little
bit
more
rational
to
me
at.
G
C
So
this
is
one
of
the
two
slides,
so
the
last
thing
I
wanted
to
raise
is
the
question
of
this
section,
189
back
when
we,
the
city's
original
plan,
was
to
have
nine
interconnection
points
and
serve
the
area
outside
the
city.
That
plan
has
been
disregarded
by
the
PUC
says.
We
can't
do
it
so
we're
no
longer
planning
to
serve
out
of
City
customers.
C
Section
189
was
put
in
a
charter
to
allow
for
out
of
city
customers
to
have
a
choice
of
the
city
or
Excel
would
be
the
first
community
choice,
aggregation
provision
in
the
state
of
Colorado-
it's
not
necessary
anymore,
so
you
could
consider
deleted.
It
doesn't
hurt
to
have
it
in
the
Charter
because
it
doesn't
affect
anybody
since
we
won't
be
serving
them,
but
we
could
also
take
it
out.
There
was
a
question
about
the
governing
board
there.
C
There
is
a
provision
that
allows
out
of
city
individuals
to
serve
on
the
governing
board,
but
it
doesn't
require
them,
and
it
is.
I
recommend
that
it
stay,
because
it
allows
for
businesses
who
may
who
might
want
to
representative
who
doesn't
live
in
the
city,
but
who
business
serves.
The
city
to
serve
on
the
advisory
board
of
the
governing
board,
so
these
are
my
questions.
C
C
That's
a
whole
lot
easier
than
telling
me
I
have
to
win,
and
so
I
would
ask,
as
you
think
about
this,
to
think
about
what
the
appropriate
time,
if
you
decide
to
extend
the
tax,
would
be
at
you
know,
as
your
lawyer.
I
would
prefer
to
be
forever
so
that
they
have
no
issue
that
I
know
that
that
might
not
be
as
a
policy
matter
somewhere.
You
want
to
go,
but
I
would
ask
you
to
think
about
it
in
that
context.
So
these
are
the
five
questions
that
we
have.
A
So,
let's
clarify
the
question
before
us
is:
is
whether
we
want
to
direct
staff
to
prepare
them
as
options,
not
we're
not
saying
that
we'd
want
to
adopt
them,
but
whether
we
want
to
have
them
on
the
menu
and
go
ahead
and
get
them
as
time
allows
for
them
to
prepare
them,
even
though
we
wouldn't
be
choosing
till
after
much
later
in
the
summer,
so
we
don't
have
to
agonize
or
whether
we
support
them.
It's
whether
we
want
to
be
able
to
have
them
around.
G
J
Right
well,
I
just
have
a
question
on
number
two.
If
we
did
not
go
forward
with
number
two,
what
do
we
think
that
the
amounts
that
we
might
need
in
say,
17
and
18
would
be
I,
know
they're
dependent
on
certain
outcomes,
but
let's
say
the
PUC
gives
us
a
path
forward.
What
do
we
need
to
incur
in
the
near
term,
so
at
18
and
19
in
order
to
meet
that
Sam.
C
A
K
A
Don't
we
go
one
at
a
time
if
people
have
questions
we'll
ask
them
at
the
time?
Does
anybody
disagree
with
having
an
option
for
extending
the
utility
occupation
tax?
Have
staff
prepare
that?
In
other
words,
do
we
support
having
staffing
for
that?
Okay
and
I
think
we
can
decide
dates
later
yeah,
okay,
good
enough,
okay,
number,
two
additional
funding,
I.
C
I
think
what
my
preference
would
be
is
just:
let's
leave
that
on
the
table
for
July
11th,
unless
council
members
feel
strongly
that
we
shouldn't
consider
it
at
all,
then
we
would
cancel
the
July
11
study
session,
but
if
you're-
okay
with
us
at
least
preceding
that,
we
won't
actually
prepare
a
ballot
measure,
but
we
will
bring
forward
all
the
information
July
11th
and
on
that
date
you
could
give
us
direction
on
whether
or
not
to
bring
forward
a
ballot
measure.
There's
still
time,
then
to
get
it
on
the
ballot.
G
D
C
D
A
H
I
guess
the
other
thing
I'd
like
to
know
it's
just
a
little
bit
of
financial
analysis.
I
suppose
is
the
way
you
put
it.
There
could
inside
things
turn
out,
but
there
could
be
some
fairly
near-term
expenses
for
the
UC
hearing
and
then
condemnation,
but
then
later
on
down
the
line.
Maybe
some
of
those
expenses
go
away?
So
if
you,
for
instance,
if
you
ask
people
can
you
will
need
to
re-up
the
utility
occupation
tax
for
six
years?
H
H
Bonding
or
borrowing
from
the
city
and
repaying
the
city
or
something
all
right,
I
hate
that
it's
not
so
much
I'm
worried
about
losing
the
issue.
It's
really
just
a
practical
matter
of
hate.
The
bump
up
the
tax
when
really
the
total
amount
you're
going
to
collect
would
be
enough.
It's
just
that
the
ebb
and
flow
of
when
you
need
it
doesn't
exactly
match
the
ebb
and
flow
of
when
you
get
it
and
the
question
is:
can
our
finance
people
kind
of
smooth
that
out
and
make
a
work
op.
G
Well,
just
that
there
I
wouldn't
want
to
try
to
fund
this
year.
Long
term
needs
but
I'm
certainly
open
to
learning
more
about
where
we
are
in
July
and
thinking
about
short-term
needs.
So
I'm
happy
with
leaving
this
open,
but
just
I'll,
say
I,
don't
think
this
is
the
year
to
pass
things
to
fund
us
through
2022
or
something
so
I'm.
A
L
J
I
also
support
going
forward
with
them.
They've
been
extremely
helpful
to
me
as
well,
and
I
would
be
open
to
discussing
whether
there
are
any
further
restrictions
that
we
want
to
have.
I
don't
have
a
strongly
formed
opinion
about
that,
but
I
think
it
is
something
that
some
members
of
the
community
will
bring
forward.
So
we
should
be
willing
to
to
learn
and
talk
with
them.
H
Yeah
yeah
well
I'm,
not
gonna,
be
here
and
I.
Don't
really
trust
the
rest
of
you
so
I,
don't
know
what
I
feel
about
this
I.
There's
no
question
it
was.
It
was
helpful.
I
mean
tom
is
absolutely
right.
I've
been
through
enough
other
issues
where
you
do
the
two
on
two
and
it's
kind
of
crazy
making,
because
you
can't
hear
from
each
other,
and
that
makes
it
really
difficult.
I
mean
you
always
feel
like
boy
I'm
missing.
H
Some
really
good
questions
and
I
can't
find
out
what
they
are
and
I'm
can't
tell
me,
because
that
would
be
cheating
so
I
never
will
know
what
those
good
questions
were.
Unfortunately,
which
is
a
little
bizarre.
You
try
to
make
a
decision.
You
don't
even
know
what
the
good
questions
were
that
your
colleagues
asked
so
I
I
would
certainly
like
us
to
look
at
it.
H
I
think
the
thing
that
annoyed
me
be
annoyed
people
the
most
was
the
negotiations
with
Excel
as
opposed
to
the
legal
strategy
and
I'll
just
say
two
things
about
that
real
quickly.
First
of
all,
I
think
it
was
essential.
We
had
had
it
at
the
time,
because
I
don't
think
we
would
have
had
any
negotiations
with
Excel
if
we
hadn't
had
the
executive
sessions,
because
we
just
but.
H
No
needs
to
be
said,
we
didn't,
but
we
we
talked
about
strategy,
which
is
what
we're
allowed
to
do,
and
that
would
have
been
really
hard
to
do
to
unto
cuz.
That
really
would
have
been
a
place
where
I
would
have
been
thinking.
Well,
what
is
Sam
think
what
is
Aaron
think
I'm,
never
going
to
know
what
they
think
and
I
think
that
was
really
important
frankly,
because
we
got
Excel
to
give
us
offers
that
were
really
bad
and
I
think
that
was
actually
extremely
helpful
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things.
H
However,
I
don't
know
that
that
approach
makes
any
sense
moving
forward.
I
think
that's
just
very
unlikely
that
to
be
more
of
that
moving,
it's
not
impossible.
It
just
seems
highly
unlikely.
So
if
you're
going
to
look
at
anything,
I
guess
I
would
look
at
that
legal
strategy.
Of
course
I
mean,
though
the
strategy
is
legal
strategy
that
means
working
with
the
PC.
It
means
they're
in
condemnation
hearings,
it's
all
the
stuff
that
is
kind
of
really.
H
If
there
are
choices,
what
type
of
choices
do
you
make?
How
do
you
pursue
it
and
I
think
the
council
should
have
a
role
in
that
and
even
though
I
would
dearly
love
that
to
be
out
in
the
public,
it's
a
little
tricky
when
you're
creating
strategy
and
you
go
it
into
some
court
or
the
PUC,
and
you
just
had
this
public
conversation
about
it.
That's
very
difficult!
So
I
look
at
it,
but
there
could
be
some
changes
that
might
help
it.
E
Well,
I
want
to
re-emphasize.
There
were
no
negotiations
in
the
executive
sessions.
It
is
absolutely
impossible
to
separate
legal
strategy
from
negotiation
strategy.
They
are
one
in
the
same
and
and
so
that
line-drawing
would
be
a
nightmare
and
I.
Don't
think
anyone
would
want
I
mean
rule
number
one
it
for
a
young
trial
lawyer.
Is
you
never
ever
foreclose
the
possibility
that
you
might
engage
in
a
negotiation
or
that
you
might
or
that
your
litigation
strategy
might
be
to
drive
the
other
side
to
negotiate
with
you?
And
so?
If,
if
what
you're
saying?
E
H
Okay,
I
didn't
say
it
was
that
possible
was
questioned
about
whether
you
discuss
it
at
an
executive
session
and
I.
Don't
ever
preclude
anything,
but
you
did
say
one
thing
as
a
young
lawyer
here.
Oh
that
is
relevant
and
it
may
make
it
hard
to
word
it,
and
that
is
yeah.
Defining
terms
here
is
tough.
Just
one
example
popped
into
my
mind
as
you
speaking,
which
is
even
if,
for
instance,
the
city
is
not
going
to
be
quote.
H
Negotiating
and
no
negotiation
doesn't
happen
at
the
meetings,
but
strategy
talking
about
it
was
happening
at
the
meetings.
Even
if
you're
not
going
to
negotiate
with
Excel
about
some
alternative,
the
municipal
ization
doesn't
mean
you
wouldn't,
and
this
is
where
you're
absolutely
right,
potentially
negotiate
with
Excel
about
some
points
that
are
at
issue
before
the
PUC
or
before
the
kind
of
nation
court,
where
the
two
sides
might
amazingly
agree
on
something.
After
all,
it's
happened
before
you
could
call
that
legal
strategy.
E
That's
his
point,
one
other
one.
Other
comment,
just
as
we
talked
to
sue
is
if
we
create
it
so
that
discussion,
even
any
discussions
of
potential
resolution
have
to
be,
can
only
be
talked
about
amongst
council
members
with
their
counsel
in
open
sessions,
which
we
don't
want,
because
also
judges
then
see
what
your
discussions
are
about.
Settlement
and
and
all
of
a
sudden.
You
create
a
situation
where
Excel
would
have
a
legal
advantage
against
us
by
making
an
offer
and
trying
to
make
us
look
unreasonable
as
we
have
these
open
discussions.
E
G
I
certainly
understand
how
useful
the
executive
sessions
have
been
in
this
process.
I
have
to
say
that
I
found
it
very
challenging
to
exercise
my
role
as
an
elected
official,
without
being
able
to
talk
to
members
of
the
community
about
something
that
so
many
people
care
so
much
about.
We
had
a
long
time
where
we
had
to
maintain
radio
silence
and
you
want
to
you
want
to
get
feedback
from
people.
J
J
A
Okay,
so
maybe
just
sum
up
where
I
think
we
are
well
I'll
just
give
my
opinion,
which
is
I
I
found
them
very
helpful.
I
also
agree
with
what
Erin
said,
which
was.
It
was
hard
to
not
be
engaging
with
the
public
during
the
time
as
we
do
go
forward.
It
may
be
useful
to
think
about
ways
to
engage
folks
on
certain
aspects
of
the
issue
that
we
have
to
chew.
A
On
that,
maybe
aren't
don't
need
to
be
confidential,
so
I
would
also
support
that
okay,
but
for
now
go
ahead
and
include
that
and
of
course
the
public
is
more
than
it
will
be
happy
to
entertain
amendments
to
that.
If
that
needs
to
happen,
BAM
meanwhile
well
go
ahead
and
have
staff
prepare
it's
already
prepared,
but
I
am
okay,
number,
four,
third-party
verification.
H
Well,
that's
okay,
I
mean
I'm
getting
worried
about
putting
too
many
things
on
the
ballot
along
these
lines.
But
I
do
wonder
about
the
court
case
a
little
bit.
I
mean
if,
if
well
time,
I
mean
speak
to
speak
to
where
that
might
go
and
what
it
might
cost
us
to
defend.
The
court
case
that
might
turn
out
to
be
totally
irrelevant.
C
Well,
right
now,
as
I
said,
we've
got
a
petition
for
certiorari.
We've
been
doing
most
of
the
work
on
this
case
in
a
house,
although
we
did
use
some
outside
expertise
to
help
their
draft.
This
Supreme
Court
petition,
and
we
might
so
all
that's
left
right
now-
would
be
briefing
an
argument
in
the
Supreme
Court,
so
not
a
huge
expense
if
the
Supreme
Court
were
to
reverse
and
send
it
back
to
the
district
court
for
some
reason
that
could
add
additional
expenses.
If
the
Supreme
Court
denies
cert,
then
we
have
to
redo
the
certification.
A
E
E
C
The
end
remember:
the
district
court
ruled
in
our
favor
and
dismissed
the
litigation
and
the
it
was
the
Court
of
Appeals
that
decided
that
they
could
change
that
and
say
that
it
wasn't.
It
wasn't
ripe
without
giving
us
a
chance
to
discuss
it.
So
that's:
what's
before
the
Supreme
Court
there's
a
chance,
the
Supreme
Court
will
take
cert,
which,
as
you
know,
is
a
it's
a
it's
a
long
shot
anytime,
you'd
petitioning
for
shorts.
They
just
don't
take
very
many
cases
and
they
could
reinstate
the
district
court's
decision,
which
I
believe
was
correctly
decided.
A
A
D
Ultimately
find
a
mate
wait,
and
this
is
well
but
I
mean
remember
tonight,
we're
only
deciding
whether
we
have
staff
present
us
options.
Matt
made
some.
What
I
thought
were
some
pretty
persuasive
points
I'd
like
to
at
least
keep
the
option
open
until
July
and
hear
what
staff
comes
up
with,
because
it
sounds
like
it's
not
fully
baked
yeah.
That
may
sounds
like
there's
three
or
four
different
ways.
We
could
do
this.
D
We
may
decide
that
none
of
them
makes
sense
you
because
the
ballots
are
overloaded
or
because
we
don't
like
any
of
the
choices
or
we
want
to
wait
to.
The
court
does
but
I
think
Matt
made
some
good
points
about
at
least
keeping
our
options
open
and
I
guess
I'd
kind
of
like
to
see
in
July
with
the
staff
what
our
options
might
be.
We
may
kick
those
down
the
road
until
2018
or
2019
I
get
that,
but
if
it's
not
a
whole
lot
of
work,
I
guess
I
kind
of
like
to
see
those.
J
Yeah
colloquy
is
that
something
that
you're
intending
to
bring
back
in
July
as
well,
because
I
understood
that
we
were
going
to
be
talking
about
the
number
to
write
additional
funding
needs
that
may
come?
Is
it
also
going
to
involve
well.
C
C
So
when
we
talk
about
July
we're
really
talking
about
bringing
back
first
reading
ordinances
sometime
after
the
break
in
July,
we
could
probably
we
might
want
to
talk
about
it
depending
on
where
we
are
at
the
July
11
study
session
to
get
further
guidance,
because
the
first
council
meeting
is
until
after
that,
so
we
could.
We
could
do
that
or
we
could
do
what
Norma
Doyle
was
just
bringing
back
things
and
you
can
decide
which
way
you
might
want
to
go.
C
E
I
ask
about
so
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
or
several
other
things
that
were
talked
about
with
respect
to
this
item,
for
one
was
sort
of
effectively
a
you
know,
a
ballot
item.
This
is
where
we're
done.
We
don't
have
to
meet
it
or
we've
met
it.
One
of
the
things
something
like
that.
The
other
thing
that
Matt
talked
about
was
the
idea
of
actually
altering
the
metrics
like,
for
example,
taking
rate
parity
out
is
that
is
that
what's
talked
what
you're
talking
about
somebody
drafting
up
as.
D
Well,
yeah,
it
could
be
any
number
of
things.
I
think
Tom
had
a
couple
of
other
options
as
well.
I
guess
I
just
sounds
like
we've
have
a
handful
of
options
and
they're
not
fully
baked
and
I.
Guess
I'd
kind
of
be
curious
as
to
what
those
are
it's
work.
That's
gonna
vention
have
to
be
done
anyway,
so
it's
we
either
do
the
work
now
or
we
do
the
work
next
year
and
we
do
the
work
now
and
we
decide
we
don't
like
him
any
of
them.
D
C
It's
not
it's
not
something
we
do
in
a
few
hours,
but
it's
it's
something
we're
used
to
doing,
and
it's
it's
something:
we've
kind
of
got
budgeted.
We
expect
June,
June
and
July
to
be
drafting
ballot
measures,
so
it's
something
where
we're
ready
and
prepared
to
do
so.
If
Council
wants
to
consider
something,
we're
happy
to
do
it
and
it's
not
going
to
delay
any
other
work
items
on
our
agenda.
Okay,.
A
L
A
H
A
H
I
think
so,
because,
frankly,
you're
gonna
know
I
mean
a
lot
of
a
third
party
certification.
The
last
time
around
was
because
we
didn't
really
know
there
were
lots
of
moving
parts,
let's
face
it,
which
is
why
they
did
all
of
these.
You
know
statistical
and
out
probabilistic
analysis
when
you
get
after
condemnation,
I
mean
the
only
thing
you
don't
know
for
certain
is
really
energy
costs,
but
you're
the
net
present
value
as
the
ones
we
saw
whatever.
H
That
was
a
couple
of
months
ago,
you're
making
some
assumptions
about
your
energy
cost
you're,
making
some
assumptions
about
excels
energy
cause
as
long
as
you're,
using
the
same
basis
for
the
assumptions
you
know
if
they
both
are
a
little
higher
or
both
are
a
little
low.
All
you
care
about
is
the
relative
nature
of
them
so
and
I
think
you
can
get
a
pretty
good
shot
at
it,
and,
and
so
you
don't
necessarily
your
world,
your
probabilistic
world
is
really
just.
G
Matt,
let
me
just
say
that
I
agree
with
your
abstract
point
about
those
being
better
metrics.
I
just
feel
like
this
is
not
the
year
for
it.
So
I
wouldn't
want
to
tackle
that
on
a
ballot
issue
this
year,
so
not
to
disagree
with
the
points
you
were
just
making.
But
for
me
it's
a
timing.
Question
about
this
year
and
I.
H
Get
that
and
I
don't
actually
disagree
with
it
I'm
just
kind
of
thinking
aloud,
I
suppose
about
whether
in
fact,
people
in
the
community
who
are
thinking
about
municipal
ization
or
not
might
actually
not
be
assured
a
little
bit
by
having
that
metric
in
there
and
saying
okay.
Now
we
get
what
the
decisions
going
to
be
based
on,
because
it
was
never
very
clear
before
what
the
decision
was
going
to
be
based
on
and
we
were
asking
people
whether
to
go
ahead
with
municipal
ization.
H
It's
kind
of
a
yes/no
question
in
November
at
least
question
one
is
kind
of
a
yes/no
question.
Okay,
reasonable
people
might
say,
I'm
still
nervous
about
this.
What
can
you?
How
can
you
help
me
be
a
little
less
nervous
and
that's
where
I
think
amending
number
four
could
help
so
I
think
it's
a
positive
okay,
Sam.
A
J
J
I
think
the
reason
the
community
years
of
that
net
present
value
is
it
translates
into
rates
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
so
I'm
where
Aaron
is
I,
don't
think
I'm
ready
to
go
forward
right
now,
but
I
think
is
we
have
this
discussion
with
the
community
about.
Do
we
want
to
proceed
with
this?
We
should
be
communicating
everything
net
present
value
carbon
reductions,
rate
impacts.
Those
are
all
important
and
so
I
think
there's
a
role
for
it.
I
just
think:
that's
not
as
accessible
to
most
people
as
races.
J
F
A
Well,
it's
serious
to
forge
all
right.
Well,
do.
J
You
wanna
I'm,
just
gonna
point
out
that
Lisa
also
had
commented
on
this
on.
A
March,
she
didn't
really
did
she.
She
just
said:
don't
do
189,
but
she
didn't
I
didn't
see
her
I'm.
G
A
So
she
did
five.
She
just
didn't
do
before
I'm,
not
sure
how
she
thinks
right
now,
I
think
we're
four
four
four,
four
four
on
number
four.
A
It
down
the
road,
sorry,
okay,
all
right,
we're
we're
being
muddy
and
we're
not
making
decisions.
Tonight,
anyhow
I'd
say
we're
pretty
mixed
about
how
much
time
we
want
you
to
spend
on
this.
But
okay.
C
So
why
don't
we
we
just
sort
of
work?
We
try
to
flesh
it
out
a
little
bit
more
and
bring
it
back,
July
11th
and
see
where
council
wants
to
go.
We
won't
do
a
lot
of
work
on
it.
We
won't
actually
draft
ordinances,
but
we
we
can
come
up
with
a
with
a
better
description
of
what
we're
talking
about,
and
council
can
tell
us
whether
or
not
to
draft
an
ordinance,
then,
is
that
okay,
okay.
A
B
The
next
one,
so
thanks
for
driving
Tom,
my
part
we'll
be
talking
a
little
bit
about
the
potential
renewal
of
the
point:
three
percent
sales
and
use
tax
for
capital
investments
so
on
to
the
next
one,
the
yeah,
the
staff
has
already
started
meeting
with
our
citizen
committee
and
we
have
presented
to
them
34
projects
that
represent
10
departments,
having
different
ideas
and
180
million
dollars
in
unfunded
needs.
You
may
recall
that
we've
come
in
front
of
the
council
before
showing
unfunded
needs
on
the
city
in
terms
of
capital
as
far
in
excess
of
this.
B
What
we
did,
though,
before
going
to
our
residence
committee,
is
that
we
tried
to
narrow
it
down
to
projects
that
were
a
little
bit
more
near-term
ones
that
we
think
the
community's
talked
about
a
little
bit.
So
we
really
wanted
it
to
narrow
it
down
for
the
committee,
so
they
wouldn't
be
confronted
with
five
hundred
million
dollars
worth
of
projects.
In
addition,
we
have
solicited
the
community
to
see
what
projects
they
might
be
interested
in
particularly
nonprofits
in
the
community,
and
they
have
so
far
submitted
13
projects
and
it
has
closed.
B
So
this
is
the
number
that
we've
gotten
12
organizations
have
made
submissions
and
it's
around
33
million
in
unfunded
requests.
So
going
on
just
as
a
reminder
about
what
the
point
3
percent
sales
tax
has
produced.
So
far,
it
was
passed
by
the
voters
in
November
of
2014
and
it
ends
at
the
end
of
this
year.
We've
called
it
community
culture
and
safety,
because
we've
had
projects
in
this
from
all
different
areas
on
the
screen
is
a
lovely
rendering
of
the
Civic
area.
B
Improvements
I
think
that
you're
starting
to
see
those
come
to
life
right
now.
We
also
made
substantial
real
improvements
to
the
dairy
arts
center
and
we've
had
a
number
of
meetings
there,
including
the
council,
retreat
and
hopefully,
you've
seen
the
the
great
improvements
that
have
occurred
in
that
facility
and
how
much
it's
being
used
now
that
some
of
those
improvements
have
been
made.
We
also
one
of
our
first
projects
was
improving
eben,
fine,
Edmund,
G,
fine
Park.
B
This
had
a
lot
of
damage
in
the
flood
and
we
were
able
to
use
these
dollars
to
really
restore
it
and
make
it
even
better
than
it
was
before,
and
then
the
University
Hill
pedestrian
lighting
was
something
that
the
students
up
on
the
hill
as
well
as
neighbors
and
ncu.
All
we're
very
appreciative
that
we
included
all
so
if
you've
been
to
Chautauqua
lately,
you've
seen
the
new
sidewalk
improvements
along
baseline
that
are
looking
really
good.
B
So
we've
done
a
lot
of
good
with
these
tax
dollars,
but
as
they
begin
to
expire
and
our
projects
are
completed,
we're
hopefully
ready
to
move
forward
with
possibly
renewing
the
tax
again.
So
I
think
that
the
council
talked
about
earlier
in
January
or
February
I'm,
forgetting
when
we
brought
this,
for
you
is
the
idea
of
instead
of
having
a
three
year
tax
having
a
five
or
seven
year
tax.
One
of
the
reasons
for
doing
this
is
that
we
encountered
difficulties
of
trying.
B
So
the
point
three
percent
sales
tax
if
four
five
years
would
produce
around
fifty
five
million
dollars
in
sales
and
use
tax
revenues
seven
years,
seventy
eight
million
dollars.
One
thing
that
we
want
to
remind
you
about,
as
we
are
reminding
the
committee
as
well,
is
that
we
could
change
the
way
we
are
doing
it
a
little
bit.
So,
with
the
0.3%
we've
had
for
three
years,
we've
been
doing
what
we
call
pay-as-you-go,
so
we
don't
do
the
project
until
we
have
the
dollars
with
this
length
of
tax.
B
We
could
do
some
tax
anticipation,
notes
and
float
a
debt
that
would
give
us
some
flexibility.
What
that
would
allow
is
if
it
was
five
years,
we
could
get
fifty
five
million
upfront
or
we
could
get
say
40
million
up
front
and
do
the
rest
as
pay-as-you-go.
So
we're
talking
a
little
bit
about
flexibility.
We
don't
know
where
the
committee
will
end
up
and
if
you
have
any
guidance
for
us
this
evening
or
for
the
committee
we'd
love
to
hear
about
it.
B
So
then
let
me
tell
you
just
a
little
bit
about
the
committee
and
what
they're
up
to
we
have
a
lot
of
applications,
and
we
have
a
really
great
group
of
folks.
They
are
gender-balanced.
They're
from
all
over.
The
community.
Different
ages
represent
lots
of
different
walks
of
life.
If
you
will,
in
our
community
and
they're,
really
doing
a
great
job
so
far,
they've
had
three
meetings.
B
The
first
meeting
was
drinking
from
the
fire
hose
and
learning
everything
that
they
possibly
could
about:
city,
capital
funding
and
tax
revenues,
and
it
was
a
tough
meeting
for
them,
but
they
did
a
great
job.
The
second
two
meetings
have
been
the
city
staff,
presenting
the
city
focused
projects
and,
at
the
end
of
each
of
the
meetings,
they've
had
some
clicker
voting
to
see
which
projects
they're
most
interested
in
the
next
meeting
is
coming
up.
This
Thursday
and
the
the
community
projects
will
be
presented,
so
the
community
groups
are
coming
to
the
meeting.
B
They
will
be
talking
about
their
project.
Answering
questions
that
the
committee
might
have
so
they're
doing
a
really
great
job
among
the
things
that
they
are
looking
at
is
the
duration
of
the
tax,
five
or
seven
years,
and
what
the
different
funding
packages
would
be.
They've
made
no
decisions
because
they
haven't
seen
all
the
projects
yet,
but
that's
going
to
be
one
of
their
main
tasks
as
they
move
forward
so
on
to
the
next
slide
yeah.
B
So
another
task
that
they've
been
engaged
in
recently
is
trying
to
decide.
How
are
they
going
to
make
their
decisions,
and
so
they
have
come
up
with
some
draft
guiding
principles.
These
have
not
been
adopted
by
the
group
yet
because
they're
still
talking
about
it,
but
they
want
to
guide
themselves
on
how
will
they
select
the
projects?
So
the
things
that
they're
looking
at
is
that
project
should
have
a
wide
community
benefit.
B
They
should
promote
or
enhance
public
safety,
show
a
direct
benefit
to
the
taxpayers,
possibly
achieve
multiple
goals,
be
easy
for
the
community
to
visualize
and
enhance
livability
of
the
community.
I
think
they'll
be
making
some
decisions
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks
about
finalizing
these
guiding
principles
and
again,
if
council
has
any
recommendations
in
this
regard,
they'd
be
very
interested
in
in
your
input.
So
another
thing
that
the
committee
cares
about
is
the
community
and
community
input.
B
They
think
that
that
will
be
helpful
to
the
community
and
helpful
to
the
council
in
making
decisions
about
what
to
place
on
the
ballot
staff
has
done
an
informal
bid
process
and
has
possibly
selected
a
vendor
that
would
conduct
the
poll.
If
the
council
wants
to
move
forward
with
it,
we
believe
the
cost
of
it
would
be
approximately
twenty
thousand
dollars
to
do
that
kind
of
a
phone
survey
and
in
talking
with
the
vendor
and
it's
Bob
Drake.
B
B
So
that's
a
big
question
that
I'll
be
asking
tonight
about
whether
or
not
you
want
us
to
move
forward
with
that,
because
we
will
need
to
do
in
the
June
timeframe
and
then
the
committee
is
also
talking
about
what
their
role
will
be
once
the
measures
go
on
the
ballot.
So,
in
the
event
that
you
do
put
this
on
the
ballot,
some
of
them
are
thinking
we'd
like
to
be
advocates
for
it
and
have
they've
been
asking
questions
about
the
city,
staffs
role
in
them.
B
B
Hopefully,
I'm
hoping
by
maybe
June
10th
ish
they're,
suggesting
that
we
conduct
the
phone
poll
in
late
June
and
early
July,
and
then
staff
will
analyze
that
and
bring
the
committee
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
and
the
council
will
have
the
opportunity
to
pass
ballot
measure
if
you
choose
to
do
so,
put
something
on
the
ballot
in
August.
So
that's
kind
of
the
timing
that
we've
got
going
here.
So
the
questions
that
we
have
for
council
is:
do
you
have
any
specific
feedback
for
the
committee?
B
So
some
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about
is
perhaps
council
thinks.
Oh
five
years
is
what
we
really
should
go
for.
Let's
forget
seven
years
or
we'd,
really
like
a
particular
project
to
be
highly
considered
or
guiding
principles,
so
any
feedback
that
you
might
have
for
them.
They
would
very
much
welcome
and
then
finally,
we
are
interested
in
knowing,
if
you
will
support
us,
performing
a
telephone
survey
to
gauge
the
likelihood
of
voting
for
this
or
not
and
that's
my
presentation.
Okay,.
D
I
E
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
So
so,
debt
financing
does
cost
something.
However,
if
we
have
a
project
that
we
need
to
save
up
for
through
pay-as-you-go,
if
we
have
to
gave
up
for
six
years,
what
we're
finding
is
that
construction
costs
go
up
around
ten
percent
a
year,
and
so
it's
actually
cheaper
to
do
pay
for
the
debt
financing
upfront
than
to
just
have
to
save
the
money
over
that
period
of
time,
because
the
cost
of
the
project
will
have
gone
up
a
lot.
Okay,.
A
J
Phone
poll,
what
was
the
thinking
behind
that?
Because
there's
some
question
about
how
many
people
you
get
on
phone
poles,
people
with
cell
phones
that
are
harder
to
reach
out
to
versus
written
one
like
we
just
did
for
the
you
know,
we
were
advised
to
do
a
written
one
by
the
folks
who
did
the
survey
for
the
comp
plan
a.
F
B
Yes,
the
the
committee
will
take
a
look
at
all
of
them
and
then
they'll
make
a
decision
to
include
some
all
or
none
of
them
in
in
the
packet
in
the
package
as
I
say,
okay
forward,
so
it's
not
a
foregone
conclusion
that
there
will
be
community
projects
or
that
there
won't
be.
We
don't
know
what
there
will
be
and.
F
B
B
So,
let's
add
in
something
related
to
one
of
the
parks
or
the
reservoir,
and
then
we
we
really
want
to
garner
community
support,
and
we
think
that
a
lot
of
people
care
about
this
nonprofit
organization
so
we'll
add
that
in
so
it's
really
just
sort
of
in
a
way
ballot,
calculus
voter
calculus
about
what
projects
the
community
will
find.
Impactful
it'll
increase
livability
here
and
ones
that
they
think
that
the
community
will
want
to
vote
for
and
so
they'll
create
the
packages
for
you,
but
you.
B
What
I
will
want
to
make
sure
of
is
that
you
see
how
they've
ranked
them.
So
if
they
have
a
project
that
didn't
quite
make
the
cut
you'll
see
that
it
didn't
quite
make
the
cut
and
council
will
be
the
one
ultimately
to
put
them
on
the
ballot
or
not.
And
so
you
can
say
you
know
that
didn't
make
the
cut,
but
one
of
them
they
put
on.
We
don't
like
that
much
or
it's
not
as
good
as
this
one.
B
F
And
if
I
can
just
summarize
what
you
said,
the
committee
will
be
looking
at
both
the
city
proposed
projects,
as
well
as
the
nonprofit
they'll,
be
creating
some
recommendations
for
council
to
consider
at
perhaps
both
price
levels
or
cost
levels,
and
so
then
we'll
review
what
they've
already
narrowed
down
on
both
sides
right:
okay,
right!
Thank
you!
So
much
yeah.
H
H
We
need
a
project
here
because
maybe
it'll
attract
some
voters,
but
you're
also
going
to
provide
us-
and
this
is
the
question
with
kind
of
in
a
way
they're
there,
their
raw
judgment,
which
is
what
I'd
like
to
see
I,
mean
I,
got
to
tell
you
I,
don't
think
it's
the
committee's
role
necessarily
to
decide
which
projects
are
sexy
and
which
ones
are
going
to
garner
votes.
That
kind
of
sounds
like
councils
role,
I'd,
like
the
committee
to
say,
you're,
really,
the
best
projects,
yeah
Council
I
mean
we're
a
political
body.
H
We
might
say:
okay,
we
got
to
put
one
of
these
in
because
of
my
garnish,
some
votes,
I
get
it
but
I
first
like
to
see
you
know
really
what
is
most
important
in
a
way
at
least
the
committee's
judgment
about
what's
most
important
to
the
community.
So
that's
the
question:
are
we
really
going
to
see
that,
or
is
that
going
to
kind
of
get
jumbled
up
with
these
other
considerations,
so
you.
B
H
A
G
I'd
sent
in
terms
of
your
feedback
on
that
I
mean
I,
agree
that
we
need
to
look
at
what's
a
most
impactful
for
the
community,
but
I
think
part
of
the
benefit
from
this
would
be
having
a
balanced
set
of
measures,
and
so
that's
not
so
much
about
well.
What
what
are
people
going
to
vote
for?
But
it's
more
of
we
probably
don't
want
all
of
one
kind
of
project
we
want
to.
You
know,
create
a
balance
of
different
kinds
of
things
that
we're
funding
so
I
would
say
in
addition
to
thinking
about.
A
H
B
The
answer
to
that
is:
yes,
as
we
have
had
staff
present
a
project.
We
also
provide
the
committee
with
information
about
how
much
it's
going
to
cost
to
operate
a
particular
capital
facility,
and
some
of
them
have
been
very
interested
in
that
and
so
that
they
will
weigh
that
before
they
put
a
project
forward.
Well,.
B
H
Mean
as
I've
said
many
times,
you
know
we
can
usually
find
money
to
do
capital
I
mean
not
800
million
dollars
worth,
but
the
hard
part's
spending
X
million
a
year
running
them
where
that's
just
difficult.
So
you
know
that's
really
important
and
it's
not
the
committee's
role.
Of
course,
I've
been
looking
at
the
numbers
to
figure
out
where
the
money
comes
from
and
what
doesn't
get
spent
I.
H
Suppose
that's
your
role
about
giving
us
some
advice
about
whether
well
you
know
this
department
would
just
they
wouldn't
be
spending
money
here,
anymore,
they'd,
move
it
to
here
or
no
they'd
really
need
an
extra
budgetary
allotment
because
that's
what
it
would
take.
Cuz
I,
don't
know.
I'll
just
make
this
up
it's
a
new
park,
so
it's
just
going
to
cost
more
money
to
operate
a
new
park
which
is
fine,
but
the
money
has
to
come
from
somewhere
yeah.
B
K
Evening,
thanks
Jane
yeah
I
think
the
short
answer
is
yes,
they're,
starting
to
look
at
it.
We've
just
started
to
get
reviewing
questions
from
the
community
group
and
I
have
to
say
I'm
really
impressed
at
the
level
of
detail
that
a
lot
of
these
are
going
into,
and
they've
already
really
have
cut
to
the
quick
on
a
lot
of
these,
including
some
of
these
projects
would
require
relocation
of
staff
and
they're.
H
I'm
not
suggesting
it
precludes
anything,
it
doesn't
it's
just.
You
need
to
get
a
full,
it's
all
well
and
good
to
say
this
is
going
to
cost
two
million
dollars
to
build
it.
But
if
it's
thinking
across
the
city,
three
million
dollars
to
relocate
what's
there
well,
then
it's
five
million
dollars.
It's
not
two
million
any
more
and
somebody
has
to
come
up
with
that
money.
H
Believe
an
extra
point,
one
point
one
one,
because
one
of
the
other
taxes-
this
was
the
deal
we
made
a
long
time
ago-
very
complicated
ballot
issue
in
2013,
not
suggesting
that
the
general
fund
couldn't
use
that
money,
but
I'm
just
wondering
whether
there
wouldn't
be
a
way
that
maybe
roll
some
of
that
into
a
capital
tax
as
well
and
then
get
a
little
more
money
for
capital
and
be
able
to
do
some
more
projects,
because
this
is
going
to
be
I
mean
this
is
once
in
five
or
seven
years.
Seven
years.
B
So
you're
right
to
remember
that
a
possibility
for
that,
if
it
were
not
capital,
would
be
to
help
operate
some
of
the
new
facilities
that
might
be
created.
We
we
have
a
lot
to
talk
about
this
year.
With
regard
to
the
budget
and
I
know,
you've
been
getting
some
emails
about
people
concerned
about
property
taxes,
they
are
going
up
and
that
might
be
another
source
of
capital
funding
for
the
future.
Yeah.
H
That
was
that
was
kind
of
the
next
question,
although
just
for
the
record
folks,
the
actual,
even
though
people's
assessments
went
up
by
25%
mine
did
too
taxes
are
only
going
to
go
up
by
half
of
that,
because
the
insanity
of
the
gallery
or
amendment.
So
we
need
to
it's
not
like
it's
a
small
increase,
but
it's
not
a
25%
increase
and
it's
almost
impossible
to
explain
to
anybody.
Why
that's
the
case,
but
it
is
nonetheless
the
case
and.
H
Yeah
that
would
be
helpful,
but
no
that
was
another
question
about
those
right,
so
I
all
right.
All
in
all
rolls
together,
you
need
to
know
what
the
operating
costs
are
and
then
you
can
maybe
have
a
sense
of.
Is
there
some
other
money
that
could
help
roll
into
this
because
again,
I
think
it's
once
every
seven
years
or
so,
and
you
know
you
want
to
do
as
many
projects
as
you
can,
the
odds
are
there
won't
be
anything
else
during
that
seven
year
period
right
all
right,
thanks
up
I'm.
D
D
Good
I
have
three
things
to
say:
Jane,
one
with
respect
to
the
five
years
versus
seven
years.
You
kind
of
maybe
signal
that
you
would
be
interested
hearing
on
that.
I've
always
had
a
bit
of
a
bias
towards
the
shorter
time
just
because
it
takes
us
out
of
the
market.
I
mean
as
we
look
at
the
other
taxes
that
are
coming
up
for
renewal
with
exception,
the
one
that
Matt
mentioned
I.
Don't
we
have
a
whole
lot
coming
up
in
the
next
decade
or
so,
and
I
worry
a
little
bit
about.
D
You
know,
needs
change.
You
know
five
years
from
now,
seven
years,
none
who
knows
what
our
needs
are
going
to
be
and
so
I
have
a
bias
towards
a
shorter
tax.
I
leave
it
entirely
to
the
finance
department
about
what
part
gets
bonded
in
what
part
of
this
pay-as-you-go
that
I
leave
to
you
guys,
but
but
what
it
would
be
really
helpful.
D
I
think
for
us
is
if
the
committee
came
back
to
us
and
said
if
it
was
five
years,
if
we
had
fifty
five
million
dollars
to
spend
here's
the
projects,
both
community
in
the
city
that
we
would
do
and
if
we
had
78
million
here's
the
extra
other
projects
we
would
do
because
then
we
can
look
at
that
second
list
and
say
gosh.
There's
some
really
important
things
here
and
maybe
we
should
just
bite
the
bullet
and
go
for
seven
years
or
maybe
you
say,
hey,
listen!
This
stuff
is
kind
of
discretionary.
D
A
D
I'd
like
to
hear
their
judgment
on
what
they
think
would
be,
and
they
can
express
that
any
way
they
could
say:
hey,
listen
if
we
didn't,
if
there's
only
the
12
of
us
voting,
here's
what
we
do,
but
you
know
what
we
live
in
a
real
world
and
there's
gonna
be
30,000
people
voting.
Here's
what
we
think
we
should
you
should
do.
I'd
really
would
value.
The
judgment
is
my
friend
I'd
go
a
step
further
and
I
they
add.
D
Another
criteria,
which
is
project
should
is
kind
of
implied
here
through
all
these,
but
I
would
actually
be
explicit
about
and
say
that
will
draw
community
support
or
will
draw
voter
support,
be
even
more
direct
about
it,
because
I
would
really
value
their
judgment
on
that
and
I.
You
know,
having
served
on
one
of
these
committees
in
2011
I
think
we
did
exercise
that
judgment
I.
Think
we
even
used
the
word
sexy
repeatedly.
You
know.
D
D
Support
is
really
going
to
be
important
to
me
and
then,
finally,
with
respect
to
the
phone
poll
I'm
kind
of
ambivalent
about
it,
and
this
kind
of
ties
to
my
last
point-
I'd
rather
hear
from
the
twelve
of
them
then
do
a
phone
poll
and
I
know
it
can
be
statistically
valid
and
so
and
so
forth.
I'm
just
not
sure
what
we
do
with
that
information,
because
either
gonna
be
too
early
or
too
late.
L
So
I
actually
think
that
these
guiding
principles
are
great
as
they
are
and
I
would
like.
The
committee
has
these
to
work
with
and
to
look
at
the
projects
based
on
these
in
light
of
these
guiding
principles,
and
what
I
would
like
to
see
is
their
evaluation
of
the
projects
before
them
based
on
these
guiding
principles,
what
are
the
best,
regardless
of
whether
it's
balanced
on
sexy
or
cultural
or
safety?
What
do
they
think
are
the
best
most
based
on
these
guiding
principles?
L
J
If
you
go
back
to
the
questions
that
would
help
me
out
oops
one
past
the
you
know
I'd
like
the
advisory
committee
to
advise,
which
means
to
me
that
they
make
recommendations,
you
know
so
they
they
order
projects
and
I
like
the
idea
of
a
five-year
cluster
and
a
seven-year
cluster.
So
what
they
would
do,
depending
on
what
the
duration
of
the
tax
was,
but
I
also
would
appreciate
their
advice
on.
We
think
this
package
is
useful.
J
Now
Council
will
do
what
Council
will
do
with
that
advice
and
I'm
sure
that
they'll
understand
that,
but
I
would
appreciate
them
talking
about
a
rationale
for
how
they
grouped
the
packages
in
the
five
year
of
the
seven
year.
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
harm
in
that
and
there's
probably
a
lot
of
benefit
and
then,
as
far
as
the
poll
goes,
I
mean
I
hear
what
Bob
saying
the
same
time,
what
I
would
think
it
would
be
best
done
if
it
were
put
out.
J
There
would
be
something
for
the
working
group
to
use
to
inform
their
decision
making,
so
I
would
prefer
to
err
on
the
side
of
earlier,
and
what
we
would
be
talking
about
is
things
like
five
years
or
seven
years.
Do
you
generally
support
this
extension
here
are
some
of
the
types
of
projects
that
were
done
previously.
J
Do
you
personally
new
open-ended
questions
where
the
public
can
then
contribute
project
ideas,
I
think
sometimes
there's
good
value
in
that,
but
you
could
try
and
cluster
you
know
is
one
of
these
types,
safety
or
culture
or
oops
missing
the
third
one,
or
is
that
the
are
any
of
these
more
important
to
you
or
any
of
these
principles
more
important
to
you?
I
just
think
you
could
get
good
guidance
for
the
working
group
and
that
would
be
probably
hazard.
B
K
B
J
Mean
to
the
extent
I
agree
with
Bob.
Is
that
I'm
not
sure
what
we
do
with
the
results
of
the
poll?
If
they
indicate
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
support,
I
think
we
should
put
the
choice
to
the
voters
in
any
case.
I
would
think
the
value
would
be
if
there's
any
way
it
can
inform
the
group's
discussion.
So
maybe
you
can
ask
the
group
if
they
agree
with
that
or
disagree
with
it.
Were
you
thinking
of
this
with
staff?
J
Okay,
well,
I'm
more
inclined
not
to
do
it
if
it's
going
to
be
an
election
tool
or
something
that
is
going
to
inform
us
about
what
to
put
forward
I.
Think
hearing
from
them
is
going
to
be
the
most
important
thing
for
me
about
that,
because
I
think
they'll
have
a
really
probably
solid
package.
So
if,
if
we're
going
to
help
them
make
their
decision
or
decisions
and
they
have
asked
for
it
or
suggested
it
and
I'm
willing
to
support
it,
to
do
that,
but
not
if
it's
after
they've
essentially
put
the
packages
together.
G
But
there
I
think
it's
a
good
point
about
app,
read
by
estores
a
shorter
term,
so
that
future
community
needs
can
be
addressed
a
few
years
down
the
road
but
I'm
interested
in
what
the
options
are
in
terms
of
the
the
poll
I
mean
it
could
be
interesting
to
hear
what
people
in
the
community
or
most
most
value,
but
at
the
same
time,
if
we,
if
we're,
if
we're
working
on
packages
that
we
think
complement
each
other,
which
is
my
which
was
my
comment
before
I,
don't
know
that
we
want
to
go
out
and
then
say
well.
G
So
no
yeah,
so
we
won't
just
make
that
clear
that
here's
a
bunch
of
goals
and
satisfy
as
many
of
them
as
we
can
I
thought.
Sam's
point
was
an
interesting
one
about
adding
a
principle
about
being
welcoming,
inclusive
or
maybe
another
way
to
think
about
that.
Is
you
know?
How
does
the
project
help
members
of
underrepresented
communities?
You
know
something
like
that.
So
I'm
I'm
not
sure
about
exactly
how
you
word
that
but
I'd
be
interested
in
seeing
a
criteria
that
looked
at
those
issues.
A
H
Yeah
mostly
agree
that
so
one
other
I
just
that
I
guess
step
back
for
a
second
one.
Other
question,
I
God
is
in
so
far
as
some
of
these
potential
projects
relate
to
specific
departments,
Oh
library,
North,
Branch
or
a
transportation
project.
Those
are
things
popped
in
my
mind,
I
mean.
Are
we
going
to
go
back
and
ask
those
boards,
whether
those
are
really
the
top
priorities
for
them?
H
If
this
really
is
a
once
in
every
five
or
seven
year,
deal
I
don't
want
to
just
make
a
transportation
project
randomly
I
kisses
a
bunch
on
the
list.
I
don't
particularly
want
to
pluck
one
out
that
the
committee
thinks
is
cool
and
then
tab
and
the
Transportation
Department
says
you
know.
That
would
not
be
what
we
really
would
want
to
do
in
the
next
seven
years.
We
get
some
other
things
that
are
way
more
important
than
that.
So.
B
K
So
that
all
of
the
board
liaisons
have
been
presenting
information
and
they've
presented.
The
full
project
list
of
the
boards
asked
for
their
input
and
thoughts
on
the
renewal,
not
specific
ranking
of
the
projects.
But
what
I
would
say
is
all
of
the
department
projects
that
are
here
are
essentially
plucked
off
of
their
unfunded
needs
lists
and
have
gone
through
an
extensive
prioritization
through
the
department's
themselves
and
without
them
look
at
alignment
with
master
plans,
and
things
like
that.
So
well.
H
I
know
the
arc.
I
know
the
library
master
plan
is
being
redone,
so
it's
a
little
out
of
sequence
but
okay,
it'd
be
nice
to
kind
of,
and
maybe
none
of
the
projects
will
be
relevant
but
it'd
be
nice
to
kind
of
run
it
past
some
of
these
folks
in
the
end
and
just
make
sure
that
everybody's
good
with
it
again
I'm.
You
know
if
it
really
is
seven
years.
H
B
So
the
timing
might
allow
us
to
accomplish
this.
So
if
the
group
says
we
aren't
going
to
extend
our
term
into
July,
but
they
end
in
June,
then
we
would
have
the
opportunity
before
we
come
to
you
in
August,
to
go
back
to
probably
all
of
the
boards
I
mean
it
would
have
to
be
a
short
item
on
their
agendas,
but
we
probably
could
make
it
back
to
the
boards
to
just
check
in
with
them
right.
H
Well,
it's
just
just
an
abstraction.
If
it
works,
that's
great,
if
not
so
be
it
I
mean
they
have
the
boards
of
other
ways
of
communicating
with
us
if
they
choose
to
so
that's,
okay,
I'm
fine
with
the
guiding
principles
they
seem
reasonable.
Bob
I
really
didn't
disagree
with
you
about
the
committee,
putting
together
a
package
or
two
based
on
a
variety
of
things.
I
just
also
thought
it'd
be
useful
to
see
the
kind
of
prepackaged
conversation
as
it
were,
because
we
might
have
a
slightly
different
take
on
the
packaging.
I
mean
there.
H
However,
many
people
were,
however,
many
people.
Nobody
knows
exactly
what
is
the
best
packaging
strategy?
They
don't
we
don't,
but
you
know
I'd
like
to
see
there
we've
been
calling
it
the
raw
data.
It's
not!
Maybe
it's
a
little
bit
of
an
overstatement,
but
at
least
kind
of
a
before
we
packaged
it
all
together.
What
they
really
thought
were
the
important
things.
I
think
that'd
be
really
helpful
on
the
polling.
H
Yeah
I,
just
don't
know
what
it
will
tell
us.
I,
don't
see
the
polling.
I
mean
there.
Was
it
some
discussion
about
well,
the
polling
could
tell
us
how
to
put
together
the
package,
but
it
sounds
like
the
polling
would
be
already
a
package
and
anyway
you
could
ask
people
what
types
of
things
they
wanted
is.
If
you
gave
him
the
whole
laundry
list
again
and
said
well,
do
you
like
this
one?
H
Do
you
like
this
one
deal
like
this
one
that
we
know
is
really
hard
because,
just
as
the
committee
I'm
sure
found
out,
you
have
to
know
a
lot
to
answer.
Those
questions
have
to
be
told
a
lot
about
the
projects.
You
know
even
the
package.
You
have
to
know
something
and
again
just
to
use
a
trivial
example.
I
most
people
I
think,
will
fund
fire
stations.
But
if
you
don't
know
that
the
real
issue
is
it's
in
the
floodplain,
it's
ancient
and
doesn't
serve
our
purposes
anymore
is
in
the
wrong
place.
H
You
might
not
think
it's
quite
as
high
a
priority.
Oh
it's
just
a
fire
station.
Why
do
they
need
one?
Well,
that's
why
we
need
one,
but
who
knows
that?
Well,
we
do,
but
you
know
who
else
knows
it
so
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
that
I
mean
Sam,
you
kind
of
said
it.
You
know
this
is
just
an
election
poll.
H
H
I,
don't
think
they're
gonna
know
enough,
I
mean
and
that
if
this
is
done
in
June,
we
won't,
we
won't
have
deals
with
people.
We
won't
know
outcomes
of
things
that
we'll
know
by
the
time.
November
comes
along
it'll
be
a
really
hard
question
to
ask
anybody,
so
I
mean
Bob's
right
in
general,
but
I
just
think
the
timing
doesn't
allow
for
it
again.
I
think
he's
thinking
more
of
an
election
poll
than
of
a
yeah
helping
you
fashion,
something
and
and
they're
really
two
different
concepts.
H
F
Thanks
I
thought
you
were
doing
around
Robin
there
I
love
this.
This
committee
and
I
think
it's
fantastic,
that
you've
got
them
together
and
they've
come
from
different
backgrounds.
I
think
I
would
really
like
to
see
at
least
two
options
on
the
55
million
and
then
I
think
Bob
suggested.
Then,
if
they
would
then
add
projects
to
the
next
level,
maybe
maybe
make
that
an
additional
option.
So
there
aren't
too
many,
but
they
may
even
have
a
great
way
to
structure
that
so
I'm
really
excited
about
having
them
involved
and
I.
F
A
Okay,
I'll
just
jump
in
real
quick
I'll,
just
note
that
shockers
Lisa
Moore
Zell
would
like
a
North
Boulder,
Library,
okay,
as
would
Erin.
Okay,
that
was
her
input.
I
guess
two
things
the
criteria
it.
It
helps
that
you
said
not.
Every
project
has
to
do
everything,
but
the
previous
tax
was
community
culture
and
safety
and
the
one
that's
called
out
is
safety
and
I
thought.
That
was
a
little
odd,
because
one
could
argue
that
cultural
arts
only
indirectly
helps
with
safety.
A
Dynam
I
just
think
it's
worth
noting
that,
and
there
are
some
community
projects
that
are
environmental,
but
if
you
think
of
them
as
contributing
community
anyhow
to
me,
it's
not
really
clear.
They
could
be
clear
about
if
they're
also
talking
about
other
things
and
maybe
one
way
to
get
at
community.
The
inclusivity
and
underrepresented
is
in
the
context
of
a
criteria
that
talks
about
building
community
so
now
I
think
they
could
maybe
be
a
little
clearer
about
what
it.
If
it
really
is,
a
community
culture,
safety
tax
or
not
so.
B
The
last
time
we
did
this,
we
named
it
community
culture
and
safety,
as
as
part
of
the
shorthand
to
discuss
the
projects
and
what
we
told
the
committee
at
the
first
meeting
is
that
we
weren't
going
to
name
it
upfront.
We
weren't
going
to
presume
that
it
would
be
the
same
thing,
but
that,
as
they
selected
the
projects,
we
would
and
as
the
council
ultimately
made
the
decision
that
a
name
would
arise
from
that,
and
it
might
end
up
being
community
culture
and
safety
part
two.
B
But
we
want
to
see
what
the
what
projects
rise
to
the
surface
and
and
so
I
I
personally
believe
that
the
public
safety
was
put
on
there
because
they
want
to
have
some
public
safety
projects,
but
that
it's
not
exclusive
to
that
and
they're
very
open
to
the
community
projects
to
parks
projects
that
you
know
they
they're
open
to
all
things.
So
they're
guiding
principles
are
not
have
to
meet
all
of
them
and
we
can
ask
them
to
be
more
explicit
on
them.
A
Only
if
you're
going
to
grade
it
against
either
they
mean
something
and
you're
grading
it
against
them,
which
case
you
should
be
clear
and
yeah
I'm
glad
they
know
what
they
mean.
If
somebody
else
is
going
to
look
and
see
if
they
went
by
their
criteria,
it
might
be
misleading
okay,
but
the
other
thing
is,
you
mentioned
a
little
bit
about
whether
groups
are
going
to
help
whether
some
of
the
groups
are
going
to
help
with
the
tax.
To
me,
right
I
wasn't
sure
where
we
ended
up
with
that.
A
B
So,
where
that
comes
from
is
that
at
the
very
first
meeting,
the
some
of
the
committee
members
were
very
passionate
about
wanting
to
care
about
the
ballot
measure
and
they
were
asking
from
the
very
beginning:
what's
our
role
after
it
gets
on
the
ballot
should
be,
should
we
be
out
there
advocating
for
it
and
what
does
staff
going
to
do
so?
We
reminded
them
that
staff
certainly
can't
do
anything,
that's
violating
the
law
and
that
we
can't
advocate
for
or
against,
but
we
said
as
individuals.
B
A
Great
and
then
I'm
agreeing
with
what's
been
said
about
yeah,
give
us
a
couple
packages.
Give
us
your
rationale.
So
if
it's
raw
data,
if
it's
your
judgement
about
what
the
voters
want,
just
explain
to
us
your
reasoning,
so
we
can
follow
the
breadcrumbs
and
disagree
or
not
with
different
rationales,
and
then
the
other
thing,
I
would
say,
is
I
guess
I'm
with
Sam
on
the
poll.
If
it's
going
to
be
useful
to
putting
it
together,
let's
do
it
or
I'm
open
to
doing
it.
I
don't
feel
strongly
that
that's
it's!
It's
utility!
Okay,
thanks!
L
Didn't
weigh
in
on
the
poll,
but
I
do
think
that
it
also
is
Sam
that
it
would
be
most
useful
if
it
gave
some
guidance
to
the
committee.
Okay,
thank
you.
Yeah.
B
You
very
much
okay,
so
our
next
presenter
is
Karl.
Castillo
Karl
is
our
legislative
policy
advisor
in
the
city
manager's
office,
and
he
will
be
talking
to
us
about
the
broadband
project.
N
N
Thank
you.
So
in
April,
April
18th
council
did
authorized
staff
to
narrow
the
focus
of
a
broadband
effort
to
to
to
not
include
a
full
financing
of
the
network,
and
since
then,
we've
been
moving
forward
with
evaluating
options
that
fill
that
direction.
So
next
slide,
we've
been
in
active
negotiations
with
the
finalists
and
I
would
include
Zao
and
that
list
the
finalists.
N
As
you
all
may
recall,
we've
had
ting,
we've
had
a
low
and
they
had
axia
I
just
spoke
to
Don,
and
he
believes
that
in
communications
with
our
own
local
companies
AO
that
they
should
be
elevated
to
that
same
level
of
finalists.
That
they've
expressed
sufficient
interest
at
this
point
and
they
were
sufficiently
serious
that
they
would
be
in
that
same
level
in
terms
of
things
that
would
be
negotiating
just.
This
is
by
way
of
a
reminder.
N
That
really
is
something
that
is
both
affordable
and
meaningful
for
or
for
those
who
can't
otherwise
afford
it
open
access.
That's
probably
the
holy
grail
of
this
project
has
been
able
to
not
only
bring
in
a
new
competitor
and
to
have
this
high-speed
infrastructure,
but
to
make
it
available
to
multiple
internet
service
providers
so
that
we
have
lots
more
competition,
an
ability
to
contribute
to
our
smart
city
objectives.
So
this
is
everything
from
traffic
lights.
Public
Safety
could
be
connected
in
autonomous
vehicles.
N
Rather
than
summarize,
the
negotiations
I
will
just
mention
that
one
of
the
partners
that
we've
been
very
interested
in
has
has
had
some
new
information.
That
is
unfortunate.
Axia,
which
is
based
in
Calgary,
has
told
us
that
they
will
no
longer
be
following
through
with
their
expressed
interest
in
Fort
Collins
or
in
Bloomington
Indiana,
and
that
is
due
to
their
apparent
partner,
who
has
decided
that
their
open
access
model
is
something
that
they're
not
quite
comfortable
continuing
to
fund.
So
this
is
obviously
very
concerning
and
how
this
affects.
N
Our
willingness
continue
to
consider
them
as
a
partner
is
to
be
determined.
They
have
said
they
are
still
interested
in
working
with
us.
Probably,
what
distinguishes
us
from
Bloomington
and
Fort
Collins
is
that
we
have
in
fact
put
on
the
table
the
idea
of
a
partial
investment,
but,
to
be
frank,
this
is
obviously
a
very
serious
blow
to
our
ability
to
consider
him.
You
know
one
of
the
finalists,
but
for
now
they're
still
on
there,
so
so.
N
Yeah
the
deal
that
was
being
was,
it
was
really
close
to
being
finalized.
In
fact,
I
think
they
were
just
I
was
thinking
that
Donnie
was
saying
it's
they
were
about
to
start
building
was
that
the
Axia
would
have
done
the
entire
investment,
so
it
was
on
that
side
of
the
spectrum,
so
Boulder
would
be
different
in
that
we're
willing
to
consider
at
least
a
partial
investment.
N
So
the
proposal
is
that
we
would
come
back
to
you.
I
think
we
mentioned
before
on
July
25th,
with
some
information,
actually
not
just
some
information,
but
with
the
information
that
you
would
need
to
make
a
decision
about
whether
to
go
to
the
voters
this
November.
So
the
next
slide.
The
the
question
for
council
tonight
is
quite
limited,
fairly
straightforward,
which
is
this
council
want
staff
to
continue
to
do
the
research
to
continue
to
meet
and
negotiate
with
these
these
finalists
to
bring
the
information
back
to
you.
N
So
if
you
were
to
say
yes,
staff
continue
nothing
strange
since
April,
you
know,
you've
got
so
many
developments,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do
it's
ambitious
as
Don
says
you
know,
let's
give
the
college
tried
see
if
we
can
get
you
the
information
that
you
need
to
feel
comfortable.
What
is
not
it?
So
if
you
go
forward
with
that,
what
that
doesn't
preclude
the
possibility
that
come
July
25th
and
when
you
get
the
information
that
we
provide,
you
that
you
say
I
got
four
different
options
here.
N
Investment
does
not
require
a
city
broadband
tax,
but
we
still
want
to
put
the
measure
on
the
ballot
or
a
measure
on
a
ballot,
because
we
want
to
get
a
confirmation
that
our
voters
are
comfortable
with
this
with
this
partner,
so
I
know,
at
least
one
person
has
suggested
that
this
is
an
important
enough
decision
that
every
spectrum
of
attacks
it
should
be.
It
should
go
to
the
voters.
You
would
still
retain
that
right.
N
It
could
also
include
a
franchise,
so
one
of
our
at
least
one
of
our
partners
that
we're
looking
at
is
looking
to
bring
a
cable
package
along
with
the
internet.
So
it
could
be
that,
in
addition
to
a
tax
measure,
it
could
be
a
franchise
agreement
measure.
So
all
those
things
would
still
be
available
to
you.
You
could
also
decide
that,
after
hearing
what
we
would
report
back,
that
you
know,
a
private
partnership
isn't
really
what
we
thought
it
was
going
to
be
it's
not
in.
N
So
all
those
options
which
basically
have
been
suggested
to
you
by
people
who
have
emailed
to
you
I
just
want
to
make
clear
that
they
are
still
on
the
table.
They
will
be
available
to
you.
You
will
just
have
more
information
to
make
that
decision.
Clearly,
counsel
our
staff
is
is,
as
hopeful
that
we
will
be
able
to
provide
you
with
information
that
allows
you
to
go
forward
with
a
tax
measure.
This
November,
but
we
recognize
that's
a
heavy
lift,
so
just
want
to
make
that
that
clear.
A
N
M
Excuse
me:
Thank
You,
Carl,
I'm,
Bob,
I,
come
I
work
in
the
finance
area
and
working
on
this
project.
It
could
either
be
a
sales
tax
or
it
could
be
a
property
tax
with
partial
the
first
time
we
did
it.
We
said
if
you
want
to
do
the
whole
thing
with
the
city.
It
can
be
a
good
0.2
or
point
3
sales
tax
or
between
2
to
3
mils.
If
we
do,
the
partial
would
like
we
talked
last
time
on
the
18th
of
April.
Maybe
between
1
to
2%.
M
F
And
can
you
talk
about
the
process
of
and
the
current
assessments
have
gone
up
quite
a
lot,
and
so,
unless
we
adjust
the
mill
levy,
then
everyone's
taxes
will
be
going
up
anyway.
So
would
this
be
incremental
to
that
or
would
they
get
that
value?
Is
that
something
they
would
get
based
on
the
fact
that
their
house
just
went
up
skyrocketed
by
25
percent
and
what
is
the
timing
of
all
that
analysis?
You
know
the
kind
of
assessment
of
mill
levies
versus
this.
M
The
it
could
be
either
it
could.
You
could
look
at
that
as
a
part
of
the
increase
or
it
could
be
standalone
separately,
so
voters
could
work
on
the
city
hasn't
hasn't
in
the
past
before
the
Tabor
restrictions
were
removed
by
the
voters
in
2007
we
use
a
melody
credit.
We
don't
reduce
the
mill
levy
itself
because
you
can
never
raise
it
again
without
a
vote.
M
If
you
do
that,
with
the
credit
you
can
did,
you
can
go
back
up,
but
we've
had
years
where
the
valuations
were
total,
so
we
can
move
it
up,
so
it
could
be
either
and
it
could.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
property
tax.
You
can
be
a
sales
tax,
but
we
would
look
at
all
options
and
when
that
would
be
analyzed
is
through
the
budget
process.
Now,
if
you
want
to
put
it
on
the
ballot,
though
we
will
accelerate
that
process,
so
we
can
bring
those
numbers
back
to
you.
Did.
A
You
hey
Bob
as
long
as
you're
here.
Can
you
just
back
up
and
do
a
little
101
on
tax
assess
this
the
process
with
regard
to
property
tax,
just
in
terms
of
who
does
what
and
what,
if
we're,
going
to
just
no
levy,
just
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
confusions
out
there
but
who's
in
charge,
and
how
does
this
work
and
it
might
be
useful,
there's.
M
M
The
Gallagher
amendment,
which
was
passed
in
1982,
says
that
there
will
be
a
relationship,
a
racial
relationship
between
commercial
and
residential
and
because
commercial
is
set.
What
happens
then
over
time
is,
if
you,
your
house,
let's
make
this
real
easy
on
me-
is
a
million
dollars
the
property,
fair
market
value
of
your
house
is
a
million
dollars
right
now
for
assessment
purposes.
M
It's
roughly
about
eight
percent
that
is
taken,
okay,
so
eighty
thousand
dollars,
and
then
the
mill
levies
applied
to
that,
whereas,
if
you're,
a
commercial,
a
business,
that's
million
dollars
worth
of
your
value,
its
assessed
at
twenty
eight
percent
or
two
hundred
eighty
thousand
dollars
times
the
mill
levy.
That's
that
relationship
between
Gallagher
that
causes
the
money.
M
So
there
are
other
restrictions,
some
statutory
restrictions
of
the
counties
and
the
school
districts
that
the
city
does
not
have,
and
those
are
where
you
get
into
the
Tabor
and
what
was
voted
out,
but
also
how
much
it
can
go
up
for
a
year.
Council
always
has
the
final
say
on
how
much
the
property
tax
can
go
up.
That
would
be
discussed
during
the
budget
process
and.
M
They
keep
changing
the
numbers
if
they
originally
thought
that
the
relationship
that
twenty
eight
percent
was
you
know,
stay
for
commercial,
but
it
stays
at
that.
So
that
means
the
residential
is
got
to
be
pressed
down
and
the
more
they
were
talking
closer
to
I
think
it
was
like
six
and
a
half
percent
I,
don't
know
that
that's
been
finalized,
yet
they.
H
Think
the
final
numbers
about
7.2,
the
last
number
I
saw
and
that's
about
a
ten
percent
drop
from
what
it
currently
is.
So
you
got
to
do
the
math,
but
yes,
assessments
went
up,
but
the
valuation
of
residential
you
gotta,
be
careful.
The
residential
properties
went
down
by
about
10
percent
commercial
properties.
Chris
then
go
down
at
all,
so
then
out
paying
about
four
times
as
much
as
residential.
It's
about
of
its
exactly
a
four
to
one
ratio.
So.
J
M
At
the
local
level
they
are
out
from
under
that,
but
a
lot
of
their
funding
comes
from
the
state
level,
depending
on
how
much
you
get
per
student
and
that
can
come
from
many
different
sources.
The
county,
I
believe
is
also
alpha
under
the
table.
Restrictions
who
would
be
remiss
in
saying
the
portion
of
the
amount
of
property
tax
that
you
pay
on
your
bill
roughly
about
13%
of
that
comes
to
the
city.
The
greatest
portion
of
it
goes
to
the
school
district
into
the
county
right.
J
M
J
If
it's
on
the
county,
then
what
that
means
is
there's
yet
another
layer
of
complexity
here,
because
not
only
is
it
that
you
have
to
keep
the
ratios
between
the
commercial
and
residential
properties
the
same,
but
this
limit
that
is
applied
to
how
fast
the
revenues
can
go
up
relative
to
previous
years
means
that
there's
what
I
used
to
call
when
I
was
thinking
about
fire
department.
Funding
was
a
fudge
factor
and
what
the
fudge
factor
does
is
takes
and
says
that
all
will
come
down
by
a
certain
amount.
J
So
in
other
words,
when
you
look
at
your
property
tax
bill,
and
you
see
the
mill
levy
being
applied
to
a
number-
that's
much
smaller
than
the
value
of
your
house
that
some
combination
of
the
Gallagher
amendment
Plus,
this
countywide
fudge
factor
plus
whatever
the
school
boards
do,
plus
what
we
do.
So
it
is
indeed
very
complicated.
But
what
it
almost
always
means
is
that
sticker
shock
of
your
home
assessment
going
way
up
is
going
to
be
a
lot
greater
than
the
sticker
shock.
You'll
see
when
you
get
your
building
so.
H
Somebody
needs
to
do
the
math
and
somebody
will
obviously
I
don't
think
they
know
all
the
numbers
yet,
but
so
if
in
Boulder,
the
average
residential
property
went
up
25%
of
26
percent,
if
you
factor
all
of
this
stuff
in
this
kind
of
incomprehensible
stuff
in
yep,
probably
and
assuming
in
the
middle,
every
stay.
The
same,
you
probably
wind
up
with
a
tax
increase
and
I'm
just
guessing
now
of
something
like
11
or
12
percent,
but
some
smart
person
is
going
to
have
to
do
the
math
at
some
point.
G
M
We
run
the
not
those
may
be
possibilities,
but
until
as
matt
said
until
we
run
the
numbers
know
what
it
means.
We're
not
be
able
to
give
you
that
information,
but
we
will
do
our
best
to
lay
that
out.
If
you
want
us
to
come
back
on
the
25th,
we
could
try
to
do
that
for
the
when
I
say
0.1
or
0.2
it
it
can
be
lower
than
the
point
1.
It
just
depends
how
that
partnership
would
be
structured
because
we
looked
at
one,
it
could
be
15
to
20
million
another.
M
It
could
be
40
to
50
million
if
we
owned
it.
It's
one
hundred
one
hundred
and
forty
million
depending
on.
We
do
all
the
drops
and
things
and
how
much
is
underground,
so
there's
a
wide
range
of
what
could
be
done
and
it
could
be
property
tax
or
sales
tax,
and
we
could
try
to
bring
that
back
on
the
property
tax
aspect.
N
One
thing
I'll
add
is
so
he
brought
it
all
the
way
up
to
140
million
you
want.
One
thing
you
will
not
get
from
us
on:
25th
is
a
recommendation
to
spend
hundred
forty
million
a
raise
hundred
forty
million
for
a
full
financing.
If
that
is
a
recommendation,
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
for
another
another
year,
because
that's
not
the
direction
that
we've
received
me
you
at
this
point.
Okay,.
G
And
so
yes,
absolutely
please
to
continue
researching
the
possibility
and
bring
it
back
to
us.
Thank
you
for
coming
here
tonight.
Doing
the
presentation
and
I
do
feel
pretty
strongly
that
the
funding
mechanism
that
we
should
look
at
should
be
a
property
tax
mechanism,
because
it's
less
regressive
and
that's
tied
to
the
value
of
the
property
to
people
owned
I
think
these
infrastructure
improvements.
It
makes
sense
to
do
it.
That
way.
A
M
M
Sure
for
governance
in
in
the
memo
we
make
the
statement
that
this
would
not.
If
it
was
a
utility,
it
would
not
qualify
as
a
Tabor
utility,
Tabor
said
and
because
teh
bird
classifies
it
as
an
enterprise.
It
has
to
be
an
enterprise
and
roughly
not
the
legal
determination.
But
roughly,
if
you
receive
90%
of
your
expense,
your
revenues
from
fees,
then
you
can
be
a
Tabor
enterprise
and
issue
revenue
bonds
without
a
vote.
M
M
If
you
get
35
to
40
and
feeling
very
good
at
the
start,
so
those
are
the
those
are
the
concerns.
Longmont.
Definitely
it's
a
benefit
to
them.
They
could
leverage
that
they
went
to
the
voters
they
said.
Can
we
include
this
broadband
in
our
utility
enterprise?
Voters
said
yes,
but
they
also
didn't
have
a
lot
of
debt
with
their
electric
utility
that
it's
leveraged
another
type
of
leverage,
its
debt
leverage.
M
How
much
do
you
have
so
those
are
the
things
we're
looking
at
and
any
way
that
we've
looked
at
it
if
we
build
the
utility
ourselves
when
you
issue
that
amount
of
debt,
you
will
not
qualify
as
a
tabor
enterprise,
because
you,
the
expenses,
will
be
so
great.
The
revenue
Beach
why
we
need
to
have
that
with
it.
For
a
while,
we'd
have
to
have
revenue
from
property
tax
or
a
sales
tax
of
some
kind.
M
A
J
Just
wanted
to
ask
about
the
Longmont
comparison,
because
I
think
that's
what
people
here
are
very
familiar
with.
Obviously,
they've
had
their
utility
since
1912,
so
for
much
much
longer
time,
but
their
build-out
cost.
They
estimate,
if
you
believe,
what's
on
the
website
for
the
next
light
program
at
forty
million
dollars
for
all
in
build-out
cost.
So
I'm
just
curious.
You
know
they're,
not
quite
as
big
as
Boulder,
but
they're
getting
close
Longmont
is,
and
so
I
was
just
curious.
If
there
are
other
advantages
to
the
electric
utility
like.
J
Can
they
use
the
poles
for
two
things
you
know?
Are
there
other
things?
We
should
be
thinking
about
I'd,
just
like
to
understand
better
when
you
do
the
explanation
that
Suzanne
suggested
it
would
also
if
there
are
other
points
of
leverage
that
allowed
them
to
come
in
at
an
estimate
of
40,
where
we're
looking
at
a
hundred
one
hundred
and
forty
I'd
love
to
hear
about
that.
D
To
spend
some
time
with
folks
in
Longmont
and
actually
their
40s
now
with
256
million
dollars,
so
just
for
whatever
it's
worth
Carl
can
speak
to
some
of
the
geology,
issues
and
I
think
they
kind
of
acknowledges
some
cross
subsidization
between
their
electric
utility
and
their
and
their
their
fiber
Co.
So
I
think
there's
a
combination
of
factors
with
some
geology.
Carl
could
speak
to
that.
There's
some
cross
subsidization.
There
certainly
is
the
is
the
economies
of
scale
using
the
same
building
platform,
customer
care,
poles
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
D
N
If
I
could
I
would
just
also
say
yes
customer
service,
it's
more
advantageous
because
you're
already
providing
that
Patrick
utility
service,
Pole
axis
rights,
away,
access
generally
advantageous,
I,
think
I.
Think
what
you're
hearing
from
a
lot
of
pool
too
is.
There
is
a
philosophical
alignment.
I
think
what
people
are
saying
is
to
the
extent
that
we're
considering
a
municipal,
municipal,
ization
or
electric
utility
and
all
the
control
that
comes
with
it.
It
would
be
inconsistent
to
do
anything
less
than
that
per
minute
or
per
broadband.
That's
that's!
Probably
what
I've
been
hearing.
N
So
that's
more
of
a
philosophical
argument.
Perhaps
the
one
other
connection
point
between
broadband
and
electric
and
having
your
own
electric
utility
is,
of
course
the
ability
to
have
reliable,
high-speed
Internet
could
certainly
support
the
smart
type
of
the
features
that
we'd
want
to
add
to
any
electrical
grid.
But
it
has
more
about
I
mean
that's
a
perspective.
In
other
words,
that's
just
one
of
many
examples
that
broad
Bank
it
helps
a
broadband
could
help
an
electric
utility,
whether
we
own
it
or
someone
else.
N
We
would
probably
take
more
advantage
of
that
for
one
or
whatever
demand
side
management
that
the
applications
we'd
want
to
add,
but
bought
back
to
a
councilmember.
Yates
point
I
think
that
the
the
dollar
difference
that
you
hear
it
from
Walmart
is
less
because
of
their
there
right
away
and
and
more
because
of
the
the
fact
that
it's
very
expensive
to
the
dig
in
West
Broadway,
especially
because
of
all
the
hard
rock
that
we
have
here.
N
J
I
just
have
one
other
that
I
wanted
to
put
out
there
I've
just
a
comment:
yeah
I
think
we
should
go
forward
and
continue
studying
this,
but
my
strong
desire
is
that
we
really
focus
on
how
we're
going
to
get
the
kinds
of
input
that
we
want
into
the
both
the
operation
and
the
architecture
of
the
grid.
So
we've
talked
about
two
basic
different
ideas:
one
is
where
Boulder
may
be
owned.
Some
are
all
of
the
backbone
of
the
network,
and
the
other
is
where
we
own.
J
The
drops
and
I
thought
from
what
I
heard
that
the
drops
was
a
pretty
interesting
way
because
easier
to
get
to
ubiquity.
You
touched
the
customer
and
the
private
partner
is
doing
the
backhaul
and
I.
Think
another
point:
if
you
do
a
summary
for
people
to
really
understand,
is
that
only
30
to
40
percent
would
be
the
adoption
rate
of
what
we
expect
for
people
to
address
service.
J
A
H
The
point
of
our
having
partial
ownership
besides,
it
could
be
that
whoever
we
do
a
deal
would
just
insist
that
we
have
some
partial
ownership
or
partial
investment.
That's
one
possibility
and
the
other
reason
is
to
have
partial
ownership,
as
we've
talked
about
before
pretty
openly
is
to
preclude
somebody
from
going
off
and
something
happened
that
we
don't
have
any
control
over.
So
it
gives
us
some
amount
of
control.
But
Sam's
question
is
exactly
right:
I've
never
been
clear
about.
H
But
it
seems
to
me
that's
a
pretty
important
question,
both
from
a
cost
and
also
from
a
you
know,
explaining
to
people
why
you
might
want
to
go.
Do
this
so
that's
part.
One
part
two
which
we've
been
asked.
Many
times
is:
if
we
go
this,
this
rude,
which
is
some
partnership,
is,
does
it
in
any
way
preclude
us?
Should
we
ever
get
a
Muni
from
deciding?
Well
now
we
got
a
Muni.
H
Now
we
want
to
do
something
on
our
own,
which
could
still
be
some
sort
of
partnership,
but
it
would
clearly
lean
more
towards
the
boulder
controlling
it
and
I
mean
the
only
answer.
I've
gotten
I'm
not
trying
to
knock.
The
answer
is
well
legally.
We
could
but
well
I'd
like
a
practical
answer
legally
we
might
be
able
to,
but
if
we
cost
you
a
fortune
to
do
it,
it
might
not
be
practical
in
the
end,
so
be
nice
to
have
a
little
bit
more
understanding
of
that.
H
H
I
mean
if
the
city
gets
and
if
the
general
fund
gets
twenty
five
million
dollars
a
year
from
property
tax,
I'm
kind
of
making
that
up
and
if
our
property
tax
state
goes
up
by
about
20
percent
now
making
that
up
to
but
half
of
its
commercial
half
of
its
residential
and
the
commercial
side
is
going
to
go
up
more
than
the
residential
side.
The
commercial
people
really
get
to
eat
this
a
lot
more
than
the
residential
people
do
big
time
because
of
Gallagher.
H
H
Once
you
see
all
the
final
results
from
the
reassessments
and
the
final
number
on
Gallagher,
but
I
think
the
state
legislature
decides
that
so
either
they
have
already
or
they're
going
to
buy
tomorrow,
because
they're
done
tomorrow
and
that's
a
state
legislature,
let
its
legislative
decision
so
I
think
that
number
is
actually
known
and
that's
the
number
that
we
care
about
is
the
the
Gallagher
ratio,
so
I
think
yeah.
Those
are
really
good
questions.
H
It's
not
that
we
couldn't
use
it
for
other
things,
but
this
would
certainly
be
something
of
great
community
interest
that
you
could
point
to
and
say,
yep
your
taxes.
What
up?
But
it's
going
to
this
really
cool
thing
and
I
just
make
one
other
quick
comment
which
is
on
waiting
for
a
muni
not
like
I.
Don't
want
us
to
have
a
Muni
electric,
as
you
know,
but
I
think
the
timing
is
such
that
that
just
makes
no
sense.
H
I
mean
if
we
made
a
deal
with
somebody
this
year,
I'm
assuming
it's
a
year
or
two
to
build
out.
If
you
wait
for
the
Muni,
that
means
it's
six
to
eight
plus
years
for
build-out
and
I.
Don't
think
people
want
to
wait
so
I
don't
want
to
wait
six
to
eight
years.
That's
crazy!
In
this
world,
I
mean
we're
living
with
second
world
broadband
and
I.
Don't
think
we
want
second
rural
broadband
for
another
six
to
eight
years.
H
So
it's
something
we
really
need
to
do
something
about
and
then
see
if
it
is
precluding
us
in
some
way,
if
we
ever
want
it
to
switch
and
if
it
is
well.
So
what
do
we
do
about
that?
It
sold
perfectly
good
questions
and
I
think
I
think,
even
though
the
tax
part
of
this
is
easy,
I
think
those
questions
need
to
be
answered
for
voters
to
comfortably
vote
on
it.
Okay,.
A
That
was
going
to
be.
My
point
is
I.
Think
all
the
questions
we've
been
asking
and
that
the
write-ups
we
asked
you
to
do
are
going
to
be
essential
to
the
public
conversation
as
people.
Just
we
just
people
just
started.
Waking
up
to
thinking
about
this
and
that'll
be
part
of
the
discussion,
but
it's
the
short
answer
is
still
yes:
okay,
we
have
Aaron
and
then
Mary
and
then
hopefully
we're
done
yeah.
G
Well,
first
of
all,
just
totally
agree
with
Matt
on
the
timing
question.
So
yes,
just
one
point:
I
wanted
to
raise
the
wheat
I.
Don't
remember
us
talking
about
before
that.
I
want
us
to
bring
into
the
negotiations,
which
is
about
privacy
policies,
because
you
know
in
the
last
couple
of
months,
Congress
overturned
the
law
that
prevented
ISPs
from
selling
your
browser.
History
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
strike
a
deal
that
does
not
allow
a
utility
or
broadband
utility
to
sell
people's
private
information
about
browsing
history.
L
So,
for
me,
it's
okay
to
continue
on
the
path
that
we've
been
on,
but
I
did
want
to
find
out
what
Karl
brought
up
with
the
fact
that
it's
philosophically
inconsistent
that
we're
trying
to
create
a
Municipal
Utility
to
get
out
from
under
the
clause
of
corporate
control.
And
here
we
are
putting
ourselves
under
corporate
control
in
another
arena.
So
just
want
to
point
that
out.
Well,.
A
And
I
think
that
gets
at
the
question.
Presumably,
if
we're
going
to
do
this-
and
this
is
a
question
we
kept
answering
again
and
again
when
you
said
it:
okay
with
not
doing
the
full
build-out
is
yes
if
we
retain
control
and
that's
the
kicker,
and
so
that's
I
think
the
premise
of
this
whole
thing
is:
can
we
control
enough
of
what
we
need
to
control
our
fate
but
not
have
to
pay
for
the
whole
thing,
and
that
is
the
crux.
So
if
we
can't
do
that,
then
we
are
failing
to
complicate.
J
I
think
it's
more
about
the
goals
in
a
way,
then
you
know
the
goal
for
me
is
a
corporation
or
not
corporation.
That's
actually
getting
2bic
wa
t
it's
getting
to
high
speed,
it's
getting
to
low
price.
It's
getting
to
you
know.
All
of
that.
Control
is
just
a
way
of
us
exerting
influence
to
get
there
and
I.
Think
if
we,
you
know,
we've
heard
a
bunch
of
different,
interesting
ideas
from
staff
about
how
we
might
get
to
having
a
first
right
of
refusal.
J
For
example,
right,
that's
not
direct
control,
but
it's
you
being
first
in
line
if
they
want
to
do
something
that
you've
agreed.
Upfront
is
not
part
of
your
package
of
goals,
so
I
think
we
have
to
be
very
careful
about
getting
there.
I
agree
with
that
completely
I
think
we
should
focus
on
the
outcomes
that
were
after
not
who
the
partner
is
per
se.
I
could.
B
N
D
N
Just
a
reminder:
that's
a
minimum
goal
would
be
to
bring
a
third
provider.
So
in
addition
to
CenturyLink
and
Comcast
we'd
have
you
know,
let's
say
it's
a
ting
with
open
access.
Ting
would
also
be
providing
their
network
that
they
financed
or
that
they
jointly
financed
with
the
city
and
make
it
available
to
several
other
internet
service
providers.
So
the
scenario
would
be
we
have
you
have
a
choice
as
a
consumer
or
as
a
business
person
who
owns
a
business
to
go
with
CenturyLink,
comcast,
ting
or
Internet
service
provider,
one
through
ten.
N
That's
very
much
theoretical
at
this
point,
because
we
don't
have
any
examples
to
point
to
other
cities
that
have
been
successful
at
open
access.
That's
what
I
called
it
the
holy
grail
where
you
know
I,
think
everybody
agrees.
That
only
would
competition
do
you
have
a
sure
bet
that
you'll
have
the
best
customer
service,
the
best,
the
lowest
prices
and
so
on.
That
is
what
we're
aiming
for
us.
N
A
C
More
topic:
the
Charter
Committee
referrals.
There
are
three
that
I'd
like
to
describe
very
briefly
and
get
your
feedback
on
the
first
one
is
cleaning
up
obsolete
matters
in
the
Charter.
The
Charter
Committee
has
identified
13
areas
where
they
recommend
cleaning
up
some
of
the
issues
in
the
Charter.
They
arrange
from
some
ones
that
are
that
have
causes
trouble.
In
the
recent
past.
We
have
charter
provisions
that
have
time
deadlines
for
things
like
election
filings
and
petition
filings
that
aren't
the
same
as
state
law,
and
so
the
recommendation
would
be.
C
We
take
the
the
dates
out
of
the
Charter,
so
you
can
either
do
it
by
ordinance
so
that
you
can
change
them
in
state
law
changes.
Will
you
just
let
it
default
the
state
law?
As
you
know,
we've
had
some
protests
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
where
it
wasn't
clear
which
set
of
rules
applied,
and
we
had
some
confusion
about
which
set
of
rules
applied.
C
So
there's
things
like
that
that
that
the
Charter
Committee
would
like
you
to
consider
putting
on
the
ballot
and,
as
I
said,
there's
13
them
there
also
some
that
just
should
be
taken
out,
for
example,
there's
a
provision
in
the
Charter,
that's
that
provides
for
who
serves
as
Director
of
Finance
when
the
Charter
was
adopted
in
1918
no
longer
necessary,
because
the
Charter
has
now
been
in
effect
for
a
much
long
time.
So
there's
also
a
requirement
that
the
city
manager
post
a
bond
which
is
kind
of
archaic.
C
It's
not
really
done
in
the
city,
usually
posted
anyway.
So
they're
there,
a
bunch
of
things
like
that.
So
the
question
is:
do
you
want
to
go
forward
with
those?
The
second
one?
Is
the
Charter
committee
recommended
adding
four
more
commissions
to
the
Charter.
It's
not
really
clear
exactly
why.
As
you
know,
there
we
have
to
I
believe
22
boards
and
commissions.
We
have
four
in
the
Charter.
Now
we
have
the
Planning
Board,
the
open
space
board
of
trustees,
the
Parks
and
Recreation
Advisory
Board
and
the
Arts
Commission.
C
There
are
specific
reasons
for
each
one
of
those
didn't
I
say
what
is
arts
I'm,
sorry,
Library
Commission,
the
both
the
Library
Commission,
the
parks
and
Parks
get
a
little
bit
of
funds,
so
they
get
that
so
the
other
ones
all
have
some
special
duties
that
they're
in
the
Charter,
so
that
the
council
can't
take
them
away.
So
the
Planning
Board
obviously
has
authority
over
the
for
body
review.
They
also
have
authority
over
changes
to
title
9.
C
The
the
Parks
and
Rec
advisory
board
and
the
open
space
board
of
trustees
have
a
veto
power
over
disposals
of
property
than
their
relative
areas
of
authority.
The
Library
Commission
used
to
actually
have
authority
to
run
the
library
that
was
changed
two
years
ago,
but
they
still
get
a
small
mill
levy
so
that
they
get
to
administer.
So
there's
reasons,
it's
not
clear
why
you'd
want
to
add
additional
ones.
Adding
additional
ones
makes
it
harder
for
council
to
change
in
the
future.
C
So
one
of
the
reasons
that
the
Planning
Board
and
parks
are
in
there
is
that
they
have
different
numbers
of
members
that
are
required
by
the
Charter.
The
Charter
says
that
all
charter-
all
Commission,
shall
have
five
members,
Planning,
Board
and
Parks
have
seven
and
those
are
those
were
as
a
result
of
charter
changes.
So
those
are
changes
you
can
make,
but
the
Commission,
the
committee
recommended
adding
more
boards
and
commissions
to
the
Charter
and
then
the
last
one
was
has
to
do
with
the
people's
ordinance.
We
have
a
people's
ordinance
on
campaign
finance.
C
The
feeling
of
the
Charter
Commission
was
that
it
does
not
go
far
enough
in
requiring
discloses,
particularly
the
area
of
corporate
disclosures,
so
they
wanted
staff
to
explore
ways
to
expand
the
authority
to
require
disclosures
of
campaign
contributions
from
corporations,
to
the
extent
that
it
would
be
consistent
with
the
citizens
or
not
a
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court.
So
the
recommendation
would
be
since
it
was
AB.
It's
not
a
charter
provision,
it's
a
people's
ordinance
and
as
a
people's
ordinance,
it
should
be
changed
by
the
people.
D
Yeah
we
met
with
Youth
Opportunity
Advisory
Board.
They
indicated
that
they
were
gonna,
try
to
bring
forward
a
charter
amendment
as
well
as
far
as
youth
voting
at
16
and
17
and
city
wide
elections.
I
guess
I'm
asking
this
of
the
Charter
committee.
Have
you
heard
where
they're
at
on
that
and
where
they
live?
This
is
the
youth
Opportunity
Advisory
Board.
Our
our
board
has
been
working
for
a
couple
of
years
on
a
proposed
charter,
then,
which
would
allow
people
at
the
age
of
16
and
17
to
vote
in
city
elections.
Apparently.
D
And
apparently
that's
allowed
if
the
people
within
the
Charter
but
I'm
not
gonna,
ask
I'm
not
asking
your
opinion
on
that
time.
I'm
just
telling
you
what
they
said
so
I
guess
I'm
asking
the
Charter
committee
whether
you've
heard
about
that
and
whether
that's
something
that
might
come
to
us
a
haven't.
J
Brought
anything
forward
to
us
that
I'm,
aware
of
so
you
may
I,
didn't
make
it
to
the
you
have
dinner,
so
you
may
have
heard
more
from
them
about
where
they
are
on
that
then
we
have,
but
they
haven't
made.
A
request
of
us
are.
A
J
C
A
J
Okay,
well,
I
mean
we've
been
hearing
some
feedback,
I
think
the
boards
and
commissions
committee
has
passed
along,
and
we've
heard
directly
from
just
as
individual
council
people
about
some
frustration
that
certain
of
the
board
members
have
and
some
of
the
boards
that
exist
right
now
and
there's
some
thought
that
you
know
they're
seen
as
strictly
advisory.
They
don't
have
any
of
these
kinds
of
oversight,
duties
that
Tom
named
for
the
ones
that
are
in
the
Charter
committee.
J
So
it's
just
something
that
I
think
we
wanted
to
talk
with
council
about
and
see
would
a
possible
path
to
making
them
feel
more
empowered
and
actually
giving
them
a
little
bit
higher
responsibilities
be
to
have
them
be
in
the
Charter.
There
was
the
question
say
with
the
transportation
advisory
board,
which
we
would
I
guess,
rename
the
mobility
board
of
being
able
to
interface
more
tightly
with
planning.
J
We've
heard
a
lot
about
that
and
so
trying
to
create
that
in
the
Charter
there's
nothing
that
says
we
couldn't
do
just
legislatively,
but
there
was
also
that
point
that
if
they
get
voted
in
by
the
people,
they're
more
likely
to
have
more
durability
over
time.
Just
because
I
think
counsel
would
be
less
inclined
to
mess
around
with
the
definitions
or
the
numbers
or
anything
so
I
think
that
was
pretty
much.
The
full
thinking.
L
So
one
thing
that
I
did
want
to
add
in
terms
of
the
the
transportation
advisory
board.
The
tab
is
that
there's
a
real
nexus
between
planning
and
transportation,
and
our
governance
doesn't
tend
to
reflect
that
as
well
as
it
could,
and
so
with
some
sort
of
authority
given
by
being
in
the
Charter
that
could
be.
It
could
be
expressed
better.
That
way.
J
One
one
final
thing
is:
we've
talked
about
a
housing
board
in
the
past
on
council
and
thought
with
the
housing
board
specifically
is
taking
that
to
the
people
to
see
if
they
want
to
vote
on
that
boards
existence
and
essentially
a
reason
for
existence
of
it.
It
seemed
like
maybe,
when
you're,
creating
a
new
one.
You
should
hear
from
the
people.
L
H
Right,
it
won't
surprise
you
I,
don't
like
this
idea.
I
have
been
trying
to
get
a
ballot
issue
on
for
30
years
to
allow
us
to
have
more
than
five
people
on
the
boards,
but
I've
never
succeeded,
but
but
this
one
yeah
the
only
reason
for
having
boards
in
the
Charter
or
if
they
have
some
either
some
funding
source
and
frankly,
some
of
the
funding
sources
are
pretty
out
of
date.
H
Right
now
you
know:
Parks
gets
a
little
bit
of
mill
levy
and
library
does,
but
they
get
such
a
massive
amount
more
from
the
general
fund
that
the
mill
levy
is
kind
of
ancient
history,
and
we
wouldn't
do
it
that
way.
Now
it
probably
made
sense
in
1950
but
doesn't
make
a
whole
lot
of
sense
now,
or
they
have
a
special
power.
H
Now
there
is
a
not
just
purely
advisory,
but
those
are
really
limited.
I
mean,
except
with
the
exception
of
the
Planning
Board,
which
is
its
own
magical
special
case.
Open
space
and
parks
have
only
one
to
power
and
that's
disposal
of
land
everything
else
their
advisory
on
and
that's
it
and
library
has
really
no
special
power
anymore.
So
I
just
can't
imagine
why
you'd
give
I
don't
even
know
what
it
is
you'd
give
to
these
boards
and
whatever
you
gave
them,
it
would
really
hard
to
change
it
later.
H
If
you
got
it
wrong,
it
could
be
too
much
or
it
could
be.
Two
little
frankly
could
be
either
way,
and
you
wouldn't
really
know
I
mean
I,
think
they
are
advisory.
Boards
and
I
love.
The
boards
I've
served
on
boards,
I
think
they're
fabulous,
but
they
should
be
advisory
and
I.
Just
I
and
II
abies
per
view
is
pretty
hand
wavy
and
that's
okay.
Actually,
but
I
just
don't
know
what
it
is.
H
You
would
say
what
you
have
transportation
board
as
veto
power
over
what
I
thought
about
this
I
just
don't
know
what
it
would
be
that
you'd
give
them
veto
power
over
everything
else
can
be
done
legislatively
easily
if
we
want
somebody
on
transportation
board
to
be
ex-officio.
The
other
way
around,
probably
somebody
on
planning
board
to
be
ex-officio
on
on
transportation
board.
We
can
do
that.
Absolutely
nothing
stops
us
justjust.
H
Well
then,
there's
just
no
point
in
putting
it
in
the
Charter
I
mean
if
you
worried
that
and
I.
Just
frankly,
don't
have
this
worry
I
know
some
council
members
do
about.
Oh,
my
god,
some
rogue
council
is
going
to
do
away
with
EAB
Sunday
boy.
That's
the
least
of
your
worries
that
I
just
wouldn't
fixate
on
that
particular
problem,
but
their.
H
A
So
the
bill
on
this,
so
the
the
idea
that
we
might
want
to
go
through
a
process
of
legislatively
clarifying
for
boards,
their
roles
and
some
of
the
cross
fertilisation
or.
However,
you
want
to
refer
to
it.
That
might
be
useful
and
I
would
certainly
you
would
have
to
go
through
a
process
anyhow,
even
if
you
were
going
to
do
a
charter.
A
So
it
seems
to
me
that
we
could
accomplish
intent,
which
is
to
clarify,
because
I
served
on
the
a
B.
It
was
very
frustrating
because
he
kind
of
wondered
what
is
a
row
here
and
you
really
had
to
scream
loud
and
in
order
to
be
heard
and
feel
relevant,
and
so
any
I
think
we
could
accomplish
that
legislatively,
and
we
would
need
to
do
so
anyhow
to
go
through.
H
That
a
lot
they're
all
in
the
code
and
I'm,
not
saying
they're
definitions,
are
great
believe
me
about
suggesting
that
the
council's
that
invented
these
boards
got
it
right.
The
first
time,
in
fact,
I
agree
with
you
Suzanne
now
that
the
boards
have
been
running
for
a
while,
it's
very
much
worth
a
look
at
have
some
of
the
roles
changed
a
little
bit
have
says
their
purview
may
be
gotten
bigger,
gotten
smaller.
Did
we
just
get
it
wrong
that
some
new
things
come
along
when
a
a
B
was
created?
H
Maybe
some
things
didn't
even
exist
back
then
that
now
they
should
be
looking
at.
Well,
that's
fine!
You
can
change
it
in
the
in
the
code
and
you
know
what
the
other
way
you
change
things
I'm.
Sorry,
this
is
much
simpler.
Is
you
direct
the
city
manager
to
basically,
you
know,
have
boards
work
with
each
other?
Have
departments
work
with
each
other?
H
You
don't
have
to
certainly
go
to
the
extreme
of
a
charter
change,
so
I
do
think
it's
worth
looking
at
again,
absolutely
for
some
of
the
boards
big-time,
because
some
of
them
were
a
little
bit
squishy
when
they
were
created,
but
with
not
the
Charter.
With
years
of
experience,
I
think
we
can
fix
up
some
of
the
squishiness
so.
A
J
A
H
Yeah
I
mean
it's
partly
our
fault,
I
guess
we
we
start
down
this
road
and
then
we
get
sidetracked
and
we
don't
go
pick
it
up
again.
I
I'll,
take
part
of
the
blame
for
that.
Believe
me,
but
I
think
we've
got
time
to
do
one
more
round
of
outreach
to
the
boards.
I
mean
it
takes
us
three
months
to
get
to
them
all,
but
we've
got
time
to
do
that
and
we
should
do
it
one
more
time.
J
I'll
try
and
represent
lease
on
this
I
mean
she
was
particularly
a
you
know
there.
J
The
people
who
give
to
candidates
I
believe
Lisa
also
wanted
to
try
and
extend
that
even
more
to
ordinances.
Right,
because
there's
are
charter
changes
ordinances,
you
know.
To
what
extent
can
we
get
more
transparency
behind
entities
that
contribute
to
that?
So
she
wanted
to
raise
this.
It
was
a
really
big
issue
with
her
I
think.
J
It's
worthy
of
discussion
because
Kathy
gave
us
some
ideas
that
I
thought
were
worth
thinking
about,
and
so
I
would
just
say:
I'd
like
to
pursue
it
more
to
learn
more
about
what
our
options
are,
but
it's
not
to
say
that
we're
at
the
point
where
we,
where
I
know,
if
I,
can
support
something
going
forward.
You.
H
C
A
H
The
legislature
might
have
a
deal,
but
the
independent
private
group
might
still
put
something
they
might
petition
something
on
I.
Don't
think
any
of
us
have
a
good
sensitive
how
many
state
ballot
issues
there
will
be,
although
it
doesn't
feel
like
there's
going
to
be
a
boatload
like
there
was
last
time
which
is
nice.
I,
don't
know
on.