Suzy Ageton George Karakehian KC Becker Tim ... - City of Boulder

COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Suzy Ageton George Karakehian
KC Becker Tim Plass
Macon Cowles
Suzanne Jones
Ken Wilson
City Manager: Jane S. Brautigam
City Attorney: Tom Carr
Municipal Judge: Linda P. Cooke
Deputy City Manager: Paul J. Fetherston
DIRECTORS:
City Clerk/ Support Services: Alisa D. Lewis
Executive Director of Community Planning & Sustainability David Driskell
Downtown, University Hill Management & Parking Services: Molly Winter
Chief Financial Officer: Bob Eichem
Fire Chief: Larry Donner
Housing and Human Services: Karen Rahn
Human Resources: Eileen Gomez
Information Technology: Don Ingle
Library Director: Valerie Maginnis
Municipal Court Administrator: Lynne C. Reynolds
Open Space and Mountain Parks: Michael Patton
Parks and Recreation: Kirk Kincannon
Police Chief: Mark R. Beckner
Public Works, Executive Director: Maureen Rait
Public Works, Transportation: Tracy Winfree
Public Works, Utilities: Jeff Arthur
Economic Vitality Team:
Molly Winter - Downtown and University Hill
David Driskell - Community Planning & Sustainability
Liz Hanson - Business Liaison
Patrick von Keyserling -Communication Manager
Jennifer Miles - Arts and Culture
BOULDER CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR: Matthew Appelbaum
DEPUTY MAYOR: Lisa Morzel
Updated: 11/30/2011

BOULDER CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 1777 BROADWAY
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
6:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
A. BoulderReads! Outstanding Adult Learner Award recognition before City
Council, honoring Suinya Mindiola.
2. OPEN COMMENT and COUNCIL/STAFF RESPONSE (limited to 45 min.) Public may
address any city business for which a public hearing is not scheduled later in the meeting
(this includes the consent agenda and first readings). After all public hearings have taken
place, any remaining speakers will be allowed to address Council. All speakers are limited to
three minutes.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: (to include first reading of ordinances) Vote to be taken on the
motion at this time. (Roll call vote required.)
A. Consideration of a motion to approve the November 8, 2011 council meeting
minutes.
B. Consideration of a motion to approve the November 15, 2011 A.M. council
meeting minutes.
C. Consideration of a motion to approve the November 15, 2011 P.M. council
meeting minutes.
D. Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the October 11, 2011 C ity
Council study session regarding the update to the Zero Waste Master Plan.
E. Consideration of a motion to approve an option and land lease agreement with
New Cingular Wireless PCS to build an addition to and lease a portion of the
addition at City of Boulder Fire Station Number 5 for placement of a
telecommunications facility on the property.
F. Consideration of a motion to approve an amendment to the intergovernmental
agreement between Jefferson County, Boulder County and the City of
Boulder regarding the acquisition of Section 16.
G. Consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution declaring the City of Boulder’s
official intent to reimburse itself with the proceeds of a future bond issue that will
occur in the first quarter of 2012.
H. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 7823
approving supplemental appropriations to the 2011 Budget.
1

Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder City Council and convene as the
Downtown Commercial District (DCD) Board of Directors.
I. Consideration of a resolution amending the 2011 Downtown Commercial
District (DCD) Fund (formerly CAGID Fund) Budget.
Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Downtown Commercial District (DCD)
Board of Directors and convene as the Boulder Junction Access Commission General
Improvement District Parking Board of Directors.
J. Consideration of a resolution amending the 2011 Boulder Junction Access
Commission General Improvement District – Parking Fund Budget.
Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder Junction Access Commission
General Improvement District Parking Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder
City Council.
K. Second reading and consideration of Emergency Ordinance No. 7822 adopting
Supplement No. 110, which codifies previously adopted Ordinance Nos. 7795,
7809, 7813, and 7814 and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as an
amendment to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
L. Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by
title only an ordinance amending Section 2-3-11, “Planning Board,” B.R.C. 1981,
to allow for appointment of temporary alternates to the Planning Board due
to an appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest under Chapter 2-7, “Code
of Conduct,” B.R.C. 1981, or an anticipated absence, and setting forth related
details.
M. Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by
title only an ordinance amending Title 3, “Revenue and Taxation,” B.R.C.
1981, to clarify the definition of “Taxable Services” with respect to
downloaded software and on-line data bases.
N. Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by
title only an ordinance authorizing and directing the acquisition of property
interests located at 5864 Rustic Knolls Dr., by purchase or eminent domain
proceedings.
4. POTENTIAL CALL- UP CHECK IN: Opportunity for Council to indicate possible
interest in the call- up of an item listed under agenda Item 8-A1.
2

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Emergency
Ordinance No. 7825 concerning the Utility Occupation Tax, extending and
increasing the tax rate up to an additional $1.9 million, and making the
additional funds available to support local government services and to fund the
costs of further exploration of and planning for both the creation of a
municipal electric utility and acquiring an existing electric distribution system,
as approved by the voters in the Nov. 1, 2011 general municipal election, by the
revision of Chapter 3-13 “Utility Occupation Tax,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth
related details.
B. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 7826
amending Title 9, Land Use Code B.R.C. 1981, regarding definitions and use
standards for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries and wineries. (Due to the
anticipated number of speakers for this item, the public hearing will be
limited to two minutes per person.)
6. MATTERS FROM THE CITY MANAGER:
7. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY:
None.
None.
8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
A. Potential call-up: Vacation of a 2,876 square foot portion of an existing utility
easement at 6350 Gunpark Dr. for a relocated water line (ADR2011-00197).
Last opportunity for call-up is December 6, 2011.
B. Temporary appointment to the Sister City Committee.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS:
(15 min.) Public comment on any motions
made under Matters.
10. FINAL DECISIONS ON MATTERS:
Action on motions made under Matters.
11. ADJOURNMENT
This agenda and the meetings can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov / City Council. Meetings are aired live on
Municipal Channel 8 and the city’s Web site and are re-cablecast at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 11:00 a.m. on Fridays,
two weeks following a regular council meeting. DVDs may be checked out from the Main Boulder Public Library.
Anyone requiring special packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions may contact the City
Clerk’s office at (303) 441- 3002, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 48 hours notification prior to the
meeting or preparation of special materials IS REQUIRED. If you need Spanish interpretation or other languagerelated
assistance for this meeting, please call (303) 441-1905 at least three days prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita
interpretación o cualquier otra ayuda con relación al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuníquese al (303) 441-1905
por lo menos 3 días antes de la junta. Electronic presentations to the city council must be pre-loaded by staff at the time
of sign up and will NOT be accepted after 5:30 p.m. at regularly scheduled meetings. Electronic media must come on a
prepared USB jump (flash/thumb) drive and no technical support is provided by staff.
3

CONSENT ITEM – 3A

COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Osborne called the regular November 8, 2011 City Council meeting to order at
6:08 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Those present were: Mayor Osborne, Deputy Mayor Wilson and Council Members
Ageton, Appelbaum, Becker, Cowles, Gray, Karakehian and Morzel.
Commissioner Will Toor spoke on behalf of the County and acknowledged Mayor
Osborne and Council Member Gray for their years of service to the community.
A. Colorado Oceans Coalition Declaration.
Mayor Osborne read a declaration honoring the Colorado Oceans Coalition and declared
November 8 as Ocean Awareness Day.
B. Presentation of ICLEI Declaration: City of Boulder selected as founding
member of the EcoMobility Alliance.
Transportation Director Tracy Winfree, who just returned from the ICLEI conference in
Korea, spoke to Boulder being invited to be a founding member of the EcoMobility
Alliance and read a declaration congratulating Boulder as one of the founding members.
C. Declaration honoring Mayor Susan M. Osborne.
Deputy Mayor Wilson read a declaration honoring Mayor Susan Osborne for her service
to the community and declared Thursday, November 10 as Susan Osborne Day in the
City of Boulder.
D. Declaration honoring Council Member Crystal Gray.
Mayor Osborne read a declaration honoring Council Member Crystal Gray for her
service to the community and declared Friday, November 11 as Crystal Gray Day in the
City of Boulder.
2. OPEN COMMENT and COUNCIL/STAFF RESPONSE – 6:20 p.m.
1. Brenda Lee spoke to bears and trash in Boulder around enforcement needs and
requested a stricter ordinance for bear proof containers.
2. Tiffany O’Meara echoed the previous speakers’ comments about the problem with
trash in Boulder and urged stricter enforcement for bear proof containers.
3. Sophie Ottinger also spoke in support of stricter enforcement for bear proof
containers.
4. Richard Demuth spoke regarding vehicular violations and unlit license plates.
5. Stephen Keenan spoke to the passage of 2B and 2C and to the visit of the Israeli
ambassador.
6. Hugh Walton spoke to the 1175 Lee Hill Drive proposal from BHP for Boulder
homeless housing.
November 8, 2011 1

7. Members of the Earth Guardians thanked Mayor Osborne and Council for its
support.
City Manager Response:
None.
City Attorney Response:
None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: - 6:45 p.m.
A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 20,
2011 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 4, 2011
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.
C. CONSIDERATION OF MOTION(S) TO (A) RENEW THE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT OF BOULDER MUNICIPAL COURT ASSOCIATE JUDGE
JEFFREY CAHN; AND (B) AWARD 1.0% MERIT INCREASE TO
ASSOCIATE JUDGE CAHN.
D. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO REMOVE SCOT WOOLLEY FROM
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD FOR NONATTENDANCE
AND DECLARE THE SEAT VACANT.
E. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION CONCERNING THE FOUR MILE
CONNECTOR TRAIL IN THE WEST TRAIL STUDY AREA.
F. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 7821 PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF
COLORADO AND THE CITY OF BOULDER RELATING TO WETLAND
MITIGATION GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE AREA OF THE
CONFLUENCE OF BOULDER CREEK AND SOUTH BOULDER CREEK
FOR THE U.S. 36 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
G. INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION
TO ORDER PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
ADOPTING SUPPLEMENT NO. 110, WHICH CODIFIES PREVIOUSLY
ADOPTED ORDINANCE NOS. 7795, 7809, 7813, AND 7814 AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS CORRECTIONS AND AMENDMENTS, AS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981.
Council Member Morzel moved, seconded by Becker to approve consent agenda
items 3A through 3G with item 3D removed from the agenda and item 3E pulled to
be considered later as a public hearing. The motion carried unanimously 9:0. - 6:55
p.m.
November 8, 2011 2

4. POTENTIAL CALL- UP CHECK IN: - 6:56 p.m.
No interest was expressed.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO EXPAND THE FOREST GLEN (ECO PASS)
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. – 6:57 P.M.
Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner provided the presentation on the item.
Council Member Cowles suggested staff should look into the citywide Ecopass program
in preparation for the retreat in January. Mr. Hagelin indicated that the rollout of the
RTD Smartpass program may provide other opportunities for a citywide program.
Deputy Mayor Wilson asked what the current total city subsidy was for the Forest Glen
Ecopass program. This number wasn’t immediately available. The total city subsidy for
all residential Ecopasses was approximately $215,000 annually.
Council Member Appelbaum suggested a more complete analysis to determine how to
get to a citywide program as some neighborhoods received subsidies and others did not.
Where would the subsidies come from and how is equity reached?
Mayor Osborne commented that the Energy Smart programs were an example of how a
subsidized program could work.
Council Member Karakehian reminded his colleagues that the Downtown Ecopass
program had found a way to support its program via parking meters. The program
worked but the city would have to find a way to pay for it.
Council Member Gray indicated she had gone to the neighborhood meeting and there was
a lot of interest in the Ecopass program.
Deputy Mayor Wilson commented that along with the equity issue, the University Hill
had an issue with students and they subsidized Ecopasses for neighborhoods where it
does work. This needed to be viewed globally.
The public hearing was opened at 7:11 p.m.
1. Dick Harris commented he was thrilled with the idea of a citywide Ecopass program.
There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed.
By acclamation Council adjourned from City Council and convened as the Forest Glen
General Improvement District Board of Directors.
Council Member Gray moved, seconded by Ageton to approve the addition of thirteen
properties to the Forest Gen (Eco Pass) General Improvement District. The motion
carried unanimously 9:0 at 7:13 p.m.
November 8, 2011 3

By acclamation Council adjourned from the Forest Glen General Improvement District
Board of Directors and reconvened as City Council.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION GRANTING THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE (A) A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND LEASE FOR THE CITY-OWNED
HISTORIC DEPOT, AND (B) THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY INTO THE PROPOSED
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AT DEPOT SQUARE, INCLUDING TERMS
IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES IDENTIFIED BY
COUNCIL, RELATED TO THE 8.1-ACRE CITY-OWNED SITE IN BOULDER JUNCTION
KNOWN AS THE “BOULDER TRANSIT VILLAGE.” – 7:14 P.M.
City Manager Brautigam provided an introduction to the item.
Senior Transportation Planner Randall Rutsch provided some background on the Boulder
Transit Village project. An agenda item to amend the connections plan for the Transit
Village Area Plan would come forward to Council separately in January.
The Depot Square project included an underground bus based transit facility, 390 space
parking garage, 71 units of affordable housing, a hotel and meeting space, renovation of
the depot and a plaza and public art. The depot rehabilitation company (PDC) would put
approximately $1 million into the rehabilitation and would rehab it to its original form.
The depot lease principles included a rehabilitation agreement and a 20-year lease to
recover the investment and sub lease at market rates. The PDC would be responsible for
all utilities and maintenance. The city would not try to recover capital costs as it was a
long term asset to the city. The development agreement would require the work to be
completed per approved plans and allowed PDC to improve the interior of the Depot for
commercial purposes. Mr. Rutsch then detailed the lease provisions including active uses,
parking, maintenance and the basement would be utilized by the City if not used by the
tenant.
Regarding condominium ownership, Mr. Rutsch showed a map of how the facility would
look with the variety of uses. He detailed the condominium ownership guiding principles
which allowed the city to maintain control and preserve future use of the Depot. The
Plaza would be available for public use and guiding principles were also outlined for that
area.
Next steps included negotiations of the agreements followed by City Manager approval.
A January agenda item would come forward to discuss the GID and a study session on
April 10 to discuss the Pollard motors site.
Council Member Appelbaum spoke to the affordable housing component and wondered
if anyone had thought about whether the affordability was being appropriately spread out
(i.e. the building across the street had no affordable housing). Susan Richstone
responded that the 71 units were satisfying the inclusionary housing aspect for this
location/project. In light of the limitations with rental projects, this was seen as a good
compromise.
Council Member Ageton asked about the lease provisions on page 13, number 6 and
asked what other costs associated with the common area may be city costs.
November 8, 2011 4

Kathy Haddock noted the costs for the common area were included on page 10 as part of
the condominium agreement and the city would maintain any responsibility the city had
as an owner. Understanding the additional costs not included in the lease would be useful
in the future.
Council Member Karakehian clarified that this would be similar to what was done at the
St. Julian.
Mayor Osborne was initially concerned about preservation of the Depot and spoke to
Dan Corson, with the State Historic Society, who indicated grant funding from the state
was near impossible. She came out of the conversation feeling good about the project.
Council Member Gray moved, seconded by Osborne to authorize the city manager to
enter into (a) a development agreement and lease for the city-owned Historic Depot
substantially consistent with the provisions set forth in Attachment A, and (b) the
conveyance of property into the proposed condominium association at Depot Square
including terms implementing the provisions and guiding principles set forth in
Attachment B, related to the 8.1 acre city-owned site in Boulder Junction known as the
“Boulder Transit Village.” The motion carried unanimously 9:0. 7:46 p.m.
Council Member Karakehian gave a brief overview of history associated with the historic
depot and provided a set of the original plans and photos to city staff.
Item 5C – Fourmile Connector Trail (formerly item 3E on Consent) – 7:46 p.m.
Mike Patton and Heather Swanson provided the presentation on the item. Mr. Patton
gave an overview of the switchbacks, construction costs, and visitor conflicts. Heather
Swanson then reviewed the habitat impacts. Mr. Patton summarized the Open Space
motion made at its special meeting on Wednesday, November 2, 2011.
Council Member Gray asked about the Commissioners response to a connector trail to
Betasso. Mr. Patton commented that the County seemed open to the conversation.
Council Member Ageton asked what the length was of the second loop trail on the
northern side with the switchbacks. Staff responded that the overall trail was a little
under five miles and Mr. Patton wasn’t sure whether this included all of the trail or not.
Council Member Morzel asked if the Open Space board discussed anything other than
the south bowl loop included in its recommendation. Mr. Patton indicated that this was
discussed and considered more as a potential second phase. The Board thought the loop
should be built now if it were going to be built.
The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m.:
1. Pat Billig, Open Space Board Chair, clarified that the Boards feeling on the
switchbacks was that it had been approved and the question was whether to build
it all at once or not. It was not discussed in detail. She emphasized that the board
members that wanted to keep the settler’s park on the table were voting to have
more time versus voting to construct it.
November 8, 2011 5

2. Rosalyn Gill expressed her support for the Open Space Board on not constructing
the Fourmile Connector loop. She also referenced safety concerns raised in a
letter from the Fourmile Fire Chief, Brett Gibson.
3. Bruce Vaughn echoed the previous speakers’ comments and urged Council to put
the Fourmile Connector issue to rest.
4. Sophia Stoller urged Council not to add any additional trails to the Anemone area.
5. Susan Collins, the retired State Archeologist and preservation advocate, urged
Council to think about preservation when moving forward.
6. Kevin Shuck urged Council to follow the Open Space Board’s recommendation.
7. Brad Davidson who lives on Anemone, spoke to the environmental and habitat
values on Anemone and commented on the overflow of users onto his property.
8. Dick Harris urged Council to support the Open Space Board’s recommendations.
9. Linda Jourgenson, with Friends of Boulder’s Open Space, would like to see
further consideration of activity in this area end this evening. Access to Chapman
Drive and Betasso would be preferred opportunities.
10. Sue Douglass didn’t think Settlers park could handle so many more uses and
spoke in opposition to the south bowl trail.
11. Ruth Blackmore on behalf of PLAN Boulder County urged Council not to pursue
the proposal from Open Space regarding the south bowl but did support the rest of
the recommendations.
12. Shaun McGrath urged Council to continue to work on finding the true connectors
that mountain bikers seek.
13. Doug Schnitzpahn agreed with Mr. McGrath’s comments and urged council to
find ways to make Boulder a real central place for mountain bikers to access
larger trails.
14. Sue DeRose representing FIDOS raised concern about increased volume at the
trailheads and spoke to voice and sight control on corridor.
15. Jason Vogel commented that he did not think the work was done and urged
Council to say yes to finding connectors throughout the community and commit
to making this a priority over the next two years.
16. Mike Barrow, Lafayette resident, spoke in support of dogs off leash on open
space and supported the previous speakers’ comments.
17. Mike Browning supported closing out the issue and moving on to other TSA
issues. He supported connector trails to the west.
18. Stephen Keenan agreed with Council’s original motion.
There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed at 9:14 p.m.
Council Member Cowles moved, seconded by Morzel to approve the Open Space Board
recommendations 1 (a) and (b), 2 and 3 with option 4 no longer considered - to read as
follows:
1. Emphasize the importance of the overarching issue of “connecting” local OSMP
lands with more distant OSMP and County Open Space lands for the benefit of all
users in order to increase access and safety including:
a. Further consideration of extending the Boulder Creek Path to the current
Betasso trail-head in Boulder Canyon.
b. Further consideration of an alternative connection to Betasso from the
intersection of Boulder and Fourmile Canyons
November 8, 2011 6

2. Oppose a connector to Fourmile Canyon due to environmental, neighborhood and
safety impacts.
3. Oppose a connection from the Dome area due to the environmental impacts and
limited practical use.
4. Look broadly at connection opportunities and focus on cooperation with United
States Forest Service, the State of Colorado, Boulder County and private
landowners.
5. Not construct switchbacks on the north side of Anemone Hill connecting the
Sunshine Canyon trail to the ridge loop.
Council Member Morzel would like to see the North and East TSA completed, and see
further consideration of the Betasso/Boulder Creek Path connection which would include
seeking grant opportunities.
Council Member Appelbaum offered an amendment to the motion, seconded by Gray to
take the switchbacks that connect Sunshine Canyon trail to the Ridge Loop be taken off
the plan. The motion carried 7:2; Becker and Wilson opposed. 9:46 p.m.
Vote was taken on the main motion. The motion carried unanimously 9:0. at 9:55 p.m.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CITY MANAGER: - None.
7. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY: - None.
8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: - 9:55 p.m.
A. POTENTIAL CALL-UPS:
1. COMBINED SITE AND USE REVIEW FOR DEPOT SQUARE. INFORMATION
PACKET DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2011. LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR CALL-UP IS
NOVEMBER 15, 2011. APPROVED 6-0 (W. WILLIFORD RECUSED).
No action was taken on this item.
2. VACATION OF A 690 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN EXISTING UTILITY
EASEMENT AT THE CROSSROADS COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER (2905
PEARL STREET) FOR RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT. INFORMATION
PACKET DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2011. LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR CALL-UP IS
NOVEMBER 8, 2011. STAFF APPROVAL.
No action was taken on this item.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REGARDING 2011 PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS,
AND PERFORMANCE BASED SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE CITY MANAGER,
CITY ATTORNEY, AND MUNICIPAL JUDGE. – 9:56 P.M.
November 8, 2011 7

Council Member Appelbaum and Deputy Mayor provided a brief overview on the item as
members of the Council Employee Evaluation Committee.
Council Member Gray moved, seconded by Karakehian to award a 3.5% merit increase
to the City Attorney.
Council Member Appelbaum moved, seconded by Wilson to award a 3.5% merit increase
to the City Manager.
Council Member Appelbaum moved, seconded by Ageton to award a 3% merit increase
to the Municipal Judge.
C. NOD OF FIVE TO DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO DRUG TESTING ORDINANCE. – 10:40
P.M.
There was a nod of five from Council to direct the City Attorney to draft amendments to
the drug testing ordinance.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS: (15 min.) Public comment on any motions
made under Matters.
10. FINAL DECISIONS ON MATTERS: Action on motions made under Matters.
Vote was taken on the motion to award a 3.5% merit increase to the City Attorney. The motion
carried 8:0; Wilson recused.
Vote was taken on the motion to award a 3.5% merit increase to the City Manager. The motion
carried unanimously 9:0.
Vote was taken on the motion to award a 3% merit increase to the Municipal Judge. The motion
carried unanimously 9:0.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before Council at this time, BY MOTION
REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:53 P.M.
APPROVED BY:
_______________________
ATTEST: Susan Osborne,
Mayor
______________________
Alisa D. Lewis,
City Clerk
November 8, 2011 8

CONSENT ITEM – 3B

COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
10:00 a.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Osborne called the November 15, 2011 meeting of the Boulder City Council to
order at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers.
Those present were: Mayor Osborne, Deputy Mayor Wilson and Council Members
Ageton, Appelbaum, Becker, Cowles, Gray, Karakehian and Morzel.
A. ITEMS RELATING TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE GENERAL COORDINATED
MAIL BALLOT ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 1, 2011:
1. MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM THE BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AND
CONVENE AS THE GENERAL CANVASSING AND ELECTION BOARD FOR
THE CITY OF BOULDER GENERAL COORDINATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
The Boulder City Council adjourned and convened as the General Canvassing and
Election Board for the city of Boulder General coordinated municipal election.
2. ROLL CALL OF THE GENERAL CANVASSING AND ELECTION BOARD.
Secretary Lewis took the roll call of the canvassing election board noting that all
members were present.
3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH AND SIGNING OF SAME BY BOARD MEMBERS.
Secretary Lewis then administered the oath of office for the Board members.
4. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION NOMINATING A MEMBER TO CHAIR THE
BOARD.
Ken Wilson was appointed by acclamation.
5. SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD BY THE SECRETARY OF THE FOLLOWING:
I. CERTIFICATE OF THE OFFICIAL BALLOT.
II. CERTIFICATES OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC NOTICES OF THE
NOVEMBER 1, 2011 ELECTION.
III. CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RETURNS.
Board Secretary Lewis then certified the official ballot, public notices and the
official election returns for review and approval by the General canvassing and
election board.
November 15, 2011 1

6. PUBLIC HEARING - None.
Council Member Cowles suggested the City Clerk work with the County Clerk to
make the election results easier to read online and sort by the highest vote getter.
7. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION THAT THE ABSTRACT AND RESULT SHEETS
BE APPROVED, AND SIGNING OF SAME IF APPROVED.
Board member Gray moved, seconded by Becker that the abstract and result
sheets be approved and to direct the board members to sign off on the results. The
motion carried unanimously 6:0.
8. MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM THE GENERAL CANVASSING AND ELECTION
BOARD FOR THE GENERAL COORDINATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND
RECONVENE AS THE BOULDER CITY COUNCIL.
Board Member Ageton moved, seconded by Becker to adjourn from the General
Canvassing and Election Board and reconvene as the Boulder City Council.
9. SWEARING IN OF THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS.
City Clerk Lewis then issued the oath of office to all new members of the
Council. They were then asked to take their place at the council dais.
B. ELECTION OF MAYOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR
1. BACKGROUND MATERIALS REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE MAYOR AND
DEPUTY MAYOR IN BOULDER CITY GOVERNMENT
2. NOMINATIONS AND VOTING
Election of Mayor
Nominations were opened:
Council Member Karakehian nominated Suzy Ageton.
Council Member Cowles nominated Matt Appelbaum.
Nominations were closed and the flip of a coin determined the vote would be
taken in alphabetical order.
The following Council Members voted for Suzy Ageton:
Council Member Ageton
Council Member Becker
Council Member Karakehian
Council Member Wilson Total votes received: 4
The following Council Members voted for Matthew Appelbaum:
Council Member Appelbaum
November 15, 2011 2

2. ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Cowles
Council Member Morzel
Council Member Jones
Council Member Plass Total votes received: 5
Matthew Appelbuam was elected to a two year term as Mayor.
Election of Deputy Mayor
Nominations were opened:
Council Member Ageton nominated George Karakehian.
Council Member Cowles nominated Lisa Morzel.
Nominations were closed, and vote was taken in reverse-alphabetical order:
The following Council Members voted for Lisa Morzel:
Council Member Appelbaum
Council Member Cowles
Council Member Morzel
Council Member Jones
Council Member Plass Total votes received: 5
The following Council Members voted for George Karakehian:
Council Member Ageton
Council Member Becker
Council Member Karakehian
Council Member Wilson Total votes received: 4
Lisa Morzel was elected to a two year term as Deputy Mayor.
There being no further business to come before Council at this time, BY MOTION
REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:34 A.M.
APPROVED BY:
_______________________
ATTEST: Matthew Appelbaum,
Mayor
______________________
Alisa D. Lewis,
City Clerk
November 15, 2011 3

CONSENT ITEM – 3C

COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Appelbaum called the regular November 15, 2011 City Council meeting to order
at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Those present were: Mayor Appelbaum and Council Members Ageton, Becker, Cowles,
Jones, Karakehian, Morzel, Plass and Wilson.
A. BOULDER COUNTY TRENDS REPORT. – 6:55 P.M.
Morgan Rogers with the Community Foundation presented the Boulder County Trends
Report. Major highlights included 1) as a community Boulder had the same poverty rate
as the Nation; 2) Boulder has the widest achievement gap, the second widest in the state.
Local, low income children are not doing as well as their peers across the state; 3) a
National Gallup poll on community attachment showed Boulder did well in the area of
aesthetics and social offerings but scored poorly in the area of acceptance (openness) of
immigrants and minorities.
2. OPEN COMMENT and COUNCIL/STAFF RESPONSE – 6:01 p.m.
1. Joe Brooker, pooling time with Brad Bickham and Susan Brooker, Chair of
Boulder Country Day School, spoke to agenda item 3F and the 500 foot buffer,
noting the buffer did not exist for breweries or their taprooms and tasting rooms.
Taprooms and tasting rooms had evolved into bars with bar related issues. Please
approve the 500 foot buffer language.
2. Pete Weber spoke to the brewery item 3F and urged Council to uphold state law.
Breweries have very few industrial sites to locate businesses. He urged Council
not to impose a 500 foot restriction as it further limits locations for breweries and
distilleries.
3. Richard Johnson also spoke in support of placing a 500 foot buffer on breweries
and distilleries. He noted brewery sales rooms had become much more like bars
and restaurants.
4. Patrick Perrin, Counsel for Avery Brewing Company, suggested the 500 foot rule
was discretionary and Boulder would be exceeding its jurisdictional authority by
imposing a 500 foot buffer. Please do not approve the 500 foot buffer language.
5. Mike Shields, pooling time with Ilena SicaAnn and Marie Tewey, Head of
Boulder Country Day School, also urged Council’s support of a 500 foot buffer
for breweries and distilleries. Schools and Booze don’t mix.
6. Steve Breezley, Director of Operations at Avery Brewing, noted Avery was
strongly in favor of the proposal as currently drafted. He urged Council to
consider all of the businesses that may be impacted by the decision.
7. Adam Avery, Founder and President of Avery Brewing Company, raised concern
about the impact on other local businesses due to limited industrial space. He
suggested the decision on this matter was important for Avery to stay in business
in Boulder.
November 15, 2011 1

8. Bill Hussey, pooling time with Karie Koplar and Paul Stapleton, (handout – not
enough copies for clerk) with the North Boulder Alliance, spoke to the 1175 Lee
Hill project and raised concern about fairness, proximity and concentration.
9. Martin Hammer spoke to the 1175 Lee Hill project also raised concern about the
homeless concentration in North Boulder and was concerned about neighborhood
children. Urged Council to request a BHP map to see all of their properties in the
community.
10. Stephen Keenan spoke to issues 2B and 2C and urged Council to support
municipalization.
City Manager Response: - None
City Attorney Response: - None
City Council Response: - None
3. CONSENT AGENDA: - 6:43 p.m.
A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 18, 2011
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 25, 2011
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.
C. INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION
TO ORDER PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY AN ORDINANCE APPROVING
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2011 BUDGET.
D. INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION
TO ORDER PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
TITLE 7, B.R.C. 1981, CONCERNING REGULATION OF VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC AND PARKING INFRACTIONS.
E. INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION
TO ORDER PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
CONCERNING THE UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX, EXTENDING AND
INCREASING THE TAX RATE UP TO AN ADDITIONAL $1.9 MILLION,
AND MAKING THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND TO FUND THE COSTS OF
FURTHER EXPLORATION OF AND PLANNING FOR BOTH THE
CREATION OF A MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY AND ACQUIRING AN
EXISTING ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, AS APPROVED BY THE
VOTERS IN THE NOVEMBER 1, 2011 GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION, BY THE REVISION OF CHAPTER 3-13 “UTILITY
OCCUPATION TAX,” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED
DETAILS.
November 15, 2011 2

F. INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION
TO ORDER PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
TITLE 9, LAND USE CODE, B.R.C. 1981, REGARDING DEFINITIONS
AND USE STANDARDS FOR BREWERIES, BREWPUBS, DISTILLERIES
AND WINERIES.
City Attorney Carr provided an amended buff colored copy of the ordinance
for Item 3F.
Council Member Becker asked staff to address taprooms vs. restaurants in
the second reading memo. She also asked what others schools this could
potentially impact. What other uses are allowed by right in this zone (even
if not a brewery). Regarding beer festivals, she asked what additional
permitting ability would be available for restrictions if this item moved
forward.
Council Member Ageton asked whether the city was required to follow the
state’s method for calculating the 500 foot setback. The City Attorney
responded no, the city was not required to follow the same methodology.
Council Member Wilson asked how the 500 feet was currently measured
and for breweries was the distance sufficient for protecting schools given
how it is measured. Please also clarify the issue of grandfathering existing
locations.
Mayor Appelbaum asked about which uses would be allowed in industrial
zones that would typically be considered as not good neighbors of schools.
Council Member Cowles moved, seconded by Becker to approve consent
items 3A and 3B. The motion carried 7:0; Council Members Jones and
Plass were recused. 6:51 p.m.
Council Member Becker moved, seconded by Cowles to approve consent
items 3C through 3F with the substitute buff colored ordinance provided by
the City Attorney’s office on item 3F. The motion carried unanimously 9:0.
6:54 p.m.
4. POTENTIAL CALL- UP CHECK IN: - 7:20 p.m.
No interest was expressed.
November 15, 2011 3

ORDER OF BUSINESS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: - 7:20 p.m. - None.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CITY MANAGER: - 7:21 p.m.
A. UPDATE ON THE ROUND 2 CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY COMMITTEE
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE.
City Manager Brautigam provided the presentation on the item and shared some
background information on Round 1 of the Capital Investment Committee. Round 1
focused on using existing revenues. Round 2 would consider new revenue sources. The
Committee would work to develop a bond package for consideration in 2012 that would
raise new revenues to invest in capital projects that make Boulder “Boulder” and would
include ongoing operation and maintenance costs to support those projects. Ms.
Brautigam shared the Committee’s guiding principles, which included projects that focus
on:
� Further Boulder’s unique role and sense of place
� Further economic, environmental, and social sustainability goals
� Reflect community values
� Benefit a broad cross-section of the community
� Are shown in or will carry out goals in adopted plan
� Provide greater efficiency in conducting the city’s business
� Avoid higher cost investments later
� Have a clear project scope and have been vetted
� Address significant deficiencies
� Add significant value or provide return on investment
The timeline included a January 10 council check-in; mid-January public opinion poll
results; a January 20-21 council retreat discussion; and, in February, the committee
would seek council direction on whether to move forward in 2012 or pause for later
consideration.
Council Member Becker spoke to Denver’s bonding and the exciting projects that came
out of their process including the Colorado History Museum. She commented that being
visionary and thinking big would be important in this process.
Council Member Karakehian asked whether money would stay in the specific categories
of other projects that may drop off. City Manager Brautigam indicated that money could
be moved around but generally funds would not be used beyond what was set in the
spreadsheet. Mr. Karakehian clarified that Round 2 would include projects that weren’t
yet completed as well as new ideas/projects. He also clarified with the City Manager that
two public opinion polls would occur throughout the process. He would also love to see
what the questions will be prior to them going out to the public.
November 15, 2011 4

Council Member Wilson supported Council Member Becker’s comments about looking
at visionary projects. Council Member Wilson suggested he would like to see the capital
funding impact chart brought back without the utilities projects because those are an
enterprise vs. general fund projects.
Council Member Morzel also supported visionary projects but specifically wanted to see
the North Boulder Branch Library idea move forward as well as the community plaza.
She also hoped the committee would consider working with under-utilized city
properties. In addition, finding good partners within the community would be an
important factor..
Council Member Ageton suggested she would be looking to see public-private
partnerships.
Council Member Becker suggested looking at a more functional, useable space at the
Boulder Reservoir.
7. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY: - 7:54 p.m. - None.
8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: - 7:54 p.m.
A. POTENTIAL CALL-UPS:
1. SITE REVIEW TO REDEVELOP AN EXISTING 1.44 ACRE SITE WITH TWO,
THREE-STORY BUILDINGS WITH 39 RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED DWELLING
UNITS, AN INDEPENDENT FRATERNITY MEETING SPACE AND A 28%
PARKING REDUCTION AT 955 BROADWAY. INFORMATION PACKET DATE:
NOVEMBER 9, 2011. LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR CALL-UP IS NOVEMBER 15,
2011. APPROVED BY PLANNING BOARD 7-0.
No action was taken on this item.
B. APPOINTMENT TO THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. –
7:55 P.M.
Council Member Wilson noted the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
appointment needed to be made but it was required the appointment be the Mayor or
Deputy Mayor.
Council Member Wilson moved, seconded by Plass to appoint Council Member Morzel
to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District.
OTHER MATTERS: - 8:01 p.m.
Council Member Plass suggested that the Council seating be random at each meeting to
allow for the building of relationships.
Council Members Becker and Morzel indicated interest in the idea.
November 15, 2011 5

Mayor Appelbaum suggested this be added as a topic for discussion at the upcoming
Council Retreat.
Council Member Wilson requested the council employee evaluation process also be
discussed at the upcoming retreat. He raised concern about the cost for the consultant
utilized for the process.
Council Member Appelbaum also suggested there were process pieces related to the
employee evaluation process that he would like to add to that discussion.
Council Member Ageton noted that the process had been discussed many times. A
handbook was developed to guide Council through the process. A debrief each year had
been recommended and perhaps once the process was standardized, the consultant would
not be necessary.
Council Member Morzel suggested Council consider a debrief at the end of each council
meeting as a procedural issue at the council retreat.
Council Member Ageton suggested retreat ideas could be sent to herself or Mayor
Appelbaum as members of the retreat committee.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS: - 8:11 p.m. - None.
10. FINAL DECISIONS ON MATTERS: - 8:11 p.m.
Vote was taken on the motion to appoint Council Member Morzel to the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District. The motion carried unanimously 9:0.
Mayor Appelbaum re-opened Open Comment at 8:12 p.m.
1. Richard Demuth submitted a list of proposals for Council to consider as ordinances
and raised concern about reckless driving in Boulder.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before Council at this time, BY MOTION
REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:15 P.M.
APPROVED BY:
_______________________
ATTEST: Matthew Appelbaum,
Mayor
______________________
Alisa D. Lewis,
City Clerk
November 15, 2011 6

CONSENT ITEM – 3D

CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the October 11,
2011 City Council study session regarding the Update to the Zero Waste Master Plan.
PRESENTERS:
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
David Driskell, Executive Director, Dept. of Community Planning and Sustainability
Kara Mertz, Local Environmental Action Manager
Jamie Harkins, Business Sustainability Specialist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Oct. 11, 2011 study session was to update City Council on the status
of community waste reduction efforts and to provide a summary of the analyses and
public outreach completed to date in preparation for the update of the Zero Waste Master
Plan (ZWMP).
Additionally, the study session was an opportunity for council to provide feedback on its
priorities for new or expanded zero waste services, facilities and potential regulation
options to be considered in the ZWMP.
The study session summary is included as Attachment A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff recommends council consideration of this summary and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to accept the Summary (Attachment A) of the October 11, 2011 Study Session
on the Update to the Zero Waste Master Plan.
Agenda Item 3D Page 1

NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue with implementation of next steps in the ZWMP update process,
including:
� Additional research and detailed cost/benefit analysis of potential city investment
in relation to zero waste facilities and services.
� Research, analysis and stakeholder engagement to define potential parameters for
a disposable bag reduction ordinance and potential take-out container regulation.
In particular, staff will reach out to business owners and other potentially affected
parties to understand their concerns and ideas.
� Working with the county and other partners to ensure regional and cross-sector
strategies where appropriate, in particular with regard to construction and
demolition waste processing and commercial composting.
� Regular updates to Council as new information becomes available, including
results from the county's feasibility study of construction and demolition waste
recycling (expected by the end of 2011).
The next phase of stakeholder engagement will begin in early 2012, including both issuespecific
outreach and broader opportunities for public input. Staff anticipates returning to
council with specific recommendations for the updated ZWMP in mid-2012.
ATTACHMENTS
A. October 11, 2011 Zero Waste Master Plan Study Session Summary
Agenda Item 3D Page 2

ATTACHMENT A
October 11, 2011 Zero Waste Master Plan Study Session Summary
PRESENT: City Council members: Susan Osborne, Mayor; Ken Wilson, Deputy
Mayor; Suzy Ageton; Matt Appelbaum; KC Becker; Macon Cowles; Crystal Gray;
George Karakehian; Lisa Morzel
Staff members and consultants: Jane Brautigam, City Manager; Paul Fetherston,
Deputy City Manager; David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and
Sustainability; Kara Mertz, Local Environmental Action Manager; Jamie Harkins,
Business Sustainability Specialist; Lisa Skumatz, Skumatz Economic Research
Associates, Inc.
Additional Community Planning & Sustainability staff, Boulder County Commissioners’
Sustainability Office staff, as well as representatives of partner organizations Eco-Cycle,
Western Disposal and the Center for Resource Conservation were also present.
PURPOSE: To update City Council on the status of community waste reduction efforts
and to provide a summary of the analyses and public outreach completed to date in
relation to update of the Zero Waste Master Plan (ZWMP). Additionally, the study
session was an opportunity for City Council to discuss its priorities for new or expanded
zero waste services, facilities and potential regulation options to be included in the
ZWMP.
OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION:
Kara Mertz introduced the item and gave the first half of the presentation summarizing
the study session memo, including updated community progress towards the zero waste
goal, questions for council, and an overview of the priority sectors (commercial and
multifamily) and priority materials (organics, plastics, paper). She also presented the
facility needs and potential regulatory options to address these sectors and materials.
The study session memo presented two questions for City Council:
1. Does council have questions or comments on the draft programs and services
proposed for inclusion in the updated ZWMP?
2. Does council have any questions or comments on the facility or regulatory options
presented for consideration? Are there any options that do not warrant further
consideration or analysis?
Jamie Harkins concluded the presentation by discussing the facility needs and potential
regulatory options for addressing problem waste. The potential regulatory options
included a disposable bag reduction ordinance and a food take-out container requirement.
Council comments and questions relative to each topic are included below, as well as
additional comments not related to specific questions asked.
Agenda Item 3D Page 3

Programs and Services:
� How are various priorities and services weighted?
� Staff should ensure there is coordination with commercial waste reduction
assistance between Eco-Cycle, PACE, etc.
� Interest in changing residential collection schedule to weekly compost and biweekly
trash.
� Would like to see comparison of where any new funding can be best used.
� Question regarding multifamily (MFU) access to compost collection – service can
be added if requested by property owner.
� More analysis is needed on potential programs and services vis-à-vis cost benefit.
� There is huge opportunity remaining with commercial and MFU – upcoming
efforts should focus on those sectors.
� Engage business community in design of services and regulatory options.
� [Food waste disposals] Interest in knowing more about how they fit into the
whole picture.
� [Food waste disposals] Concern over diverting food waste away from compost
collection – Western Disposal’s compost site needs more food scraps.
� [Food waste disposals] Concern over increased water use with food waste
disposals (issue has been raised at Water Advisory Board).
� [Food waste disposals] Concern that wastewater treatment costs will rise with
more food waste in wastewater system.
Facility Development Needs:
� [Resource Recovery Park] What is the cost benefit analysis of an expanded
facility? Provide analysis in addition to just numbers – are there other ways to
recover additional materials?
� [Resource Recovery Park] Priorities in updated ZWMP will affect Phase II
development of 6400 Arapahoe.
� [Resource Recovery Park] Interest in pursuing Phase II development.
� [Compost Capacity] Why is there an end-use problem with the finished compost
product? The city should buy the compost in bulk and use it in all parks.
� [C&D] Questions regarding Boulder County commitment to develop a C&D
facility. Council is interested in an update and firm timeline for project.
� [C&D] Not interested in pursuing this type of facility.
� Is there a role for new waste-to-energy technology for extremely hard-to-recycle
items?
� Facility needs should be ranked according to cost and what is achieved to the
investment.
Commercial Recycling Requirement:
� Not at the point yet to require commercial recycling.
� Is there a unique approach to more commercial diversion that doesn’t require
regulation?
� Perhaps the reason for low commercial diversion is that there is no regulatory
requirement.
Agenda Item 3D Page 4

Disposable Bag Reduction Ordinance:
� Unanimous interest in pursuing a bag reduction ordinance.
� Interest in exploring a fee on plastic and paper bags; as well as a ban on plastic
with a fee on paper bags.
� With bag fees, concern about additional time needed for check-out process.
� How are bag fee programs really working out at stores in other cities?
� Interest in Boulder Chamber’s idea of a bag loan program.
� Continue to refine estimates on bag tonnage.
� What is the greenhouse gas impact of bags?
� We don’t know what is happening to the bags in the landfill – they do not break
down.
� Concern with a bag fee being used to raise money for a specific non-profit.
� Cost analyses should be performed and the public should be asked if they want to
spend the revenue in a certain way.
� Do not include too many exemptions that will make the ordinance complicated.
� Ask large bag distributors to participate in the process and assist in the ordinance
development (model after SmartRegs process).
� A bag fee should help fund the programs that will get us closer to our goal.
� Concern about how a bag fee program would affect low income population.
� Be thoughtful about implications – for example, an increase in double-bagging
with paper instead of using plastic.
� Reasonable to discuss use of bag fee for Phase II development at 6400 Arapahoe,
however all options should be explored.
� Produce bags should not be included.
Take-Out Container Ordinance:
� Unanimous interest in pursuing a take-out container requirement.
� Interested in an overarching polystyrene ban.
� What would an ordinance look like in our community?
� Polystyrene packaging is a problem, but that must be addressed at a state or
federal level.
� Also work to address the disposal of compostable containers.
� Conduct a cost comparison of containers and ensure that vendors know where to
purchase non-polystyrene containers.
� Questions regarding pre-packaged food on polystyrene – this is not usually
included in ordinances.
General ZWMP Update:
� How can we balance city priorities? For example, if our goal is to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, should we invest in energy efficiency or waste
reduction?
Agenda Item 3D Page 5

CONSENT ITEM – 3E

CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a Motion to Approve an Option and Land
Lease Agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS to build an addition to and lease
a portion of the addition at City of Boulder Fire Station Number 5 for placement of
a telecommunications facility on the property.
PRESENTERS
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Larry Donner, Fire Chief
Frank Young, Deputy Fire Chief
Dave Hayes, Deputy Police Chief
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The city owns several radio sites in the c ity and the county, which have structures to
house the communications equipm ent and to wers for antennas for public safety
communications. The city coordinates the use of the sites with other em ergency
responders, including the county, the state, the Forest Serv ice, and ham radio operators
that facilitate e mergency communications, such as during the m ost recent “Dome” and
“Four Mile Canyon” fires.
New Cingular Wireless PCS has requested to bu ild an addition to, an d lease a portion of
the new addition, Fire Station Num ber 5 for placem ent of a t elecommunications facility
on the property. New Cingular W ireless PCS has agreed that its use would be
subordinate to all public safety use of th e communications of the city. W hile New
Cingular Wireless PCS’s use of the property is not directly public safety related, New
Cingular Wireless PCS is willing to build and then donate to the city an additio n to
Station Number 5. This addition will include a radio facility for the city’s police and fire
communications center and two storage units for the fire department. The Boulder Police
Agenda Item 3E Page 1

and Fire Department has determined that a radio facility at this s ite is a benef it to the
public safety communications of the city. This additional capacity would allo w for
greater interoperability of public safety agencies in and around Boulder County.
Staff of the City of Boulder and New Cingular W ireless PCS have agreed upon a lease
with a 20-year term by which New Cingul ar Wireless PCS would pay for the new
addition, and pay $1,750 per m onth over a 20 year lease, escalating 3% (compounded)
each year. The charter requires council app roval for the city to en ter into the lease
because of the 20-year term and the lease of an interest in city property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an op tion and land lease agreement
with New Cingular Wireless PCS to build an addition to Fire Station Number 5 and then
lease a por tion of the addition in substan tially the sam e form as atta ched to this
memorandum.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic – The revenue derived from the lease is a new revenue source for the
city.
• Environmental – Co-loca ting telecommunications for both governm ental and
private communications reduces the number of sites that are necessary to provide
public services.
• Social – Cooperation between the city and private communications providers,
along with the other users of the city’s radio comm unications facilities that
provide public safety services, provide s a higher lev el of services to the
constituents served by the pa rticipating entities. Enhanced in teroperability of
radio communications throughout the county are a benefit to the provision of
governmental responses in the event of an emergency.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – Without the city incurring any additional costs, the proposed lease
provides storage areas needed for two separate emergency responders that
coordinate fire responses with the cit y, a new radio facility for the city, and
provides a rental incom e stream to the city for use of the property. No new
dollars or staff resources are required to implement the proposed lease terms. The
city will benefit by the addition of a new radio facility paid for by New Cingular
Wireless PCS.
Agenda Item 3E Page 2

• Staff time – Minimal additional staff time will be required to oversee the terms of
this agreement.
• Other – A dding an additional radio facility broadens the ba se of radio
communications available to all emergenc y responders serving the city and its
surrounding public safety agencies in the event of an emergency. This option and
lease agreement greatly reduces the costs to the city in building a new radio
facility in the north Boulder area.
BACKGROUND
The city owns the fire station located at 4365 19 th Street (Boulder Fire Station Number
5).
The City has communications sites at Gunba rrel, Chautauqua, Betasso Reservoir, and
Golden West Manor. The police dep artment has been working diligen tly to address r isk
factors in the police communica tions systems that were identified in a 2009 report. This
work has included identifying a dditional sites to further enhance the city’s infrastructure
for providing public safety communications and services, replacing outdated equipm ent,
making improvements to protect the communica tions sites from tampering or acts of
terrorism, correcting frequency licensing i ssues between the city and the cou nty,
eliminating incompatible uses, identifying ownership of all equipm ent at the city radio
sites, and installing equipm ent to separ ate other users so that acc ess to the c ity’s
communications equipment is limited to city or emergency personnel. These efforts also
include entering into formal leases to clarif y the city’s priority in the use of frequencies
or equipment at the radio site.
New Cingular Wireless PCS has asked for an option and land use agreem ent to build an
addition to this property in exchange for a 20 -year lease to lo cate its equipment in a
portion of the addition. New Cingular Wireless PCS will pay the full cost of this addition
that will also include a radio facility for the city’s police and fire communications center
and two storage units for the fire departm ent. In addition, New Cingul ar Wireless PCS
has agreed to pay m onthly rent of $1,750 per month, escalating 3% (com pounded) each
year, to the city for the 20-year term of the lease. If this option and land lease agreement
is approved by council, staff anticipate s that New Cingular W ireless PCS will
immediately begin the planning and permitting process for the addition.
The proposed option and land lease agreem ent is Attachment A. In addition to norm al
lease terms, the proposed lease includes seve ral items related to the police and fire
department’s desire to protec t its priority use of the equipment and radio frequencies at
the site. These terms include:
• New Cingular W ireless PCS’s use is subordinate to the use by all other
emergency and public safety communications of the city.
• New Cingular Wireless PCS may not make any changes or m odifications to its
use of frequencies at the site without the approval of the city.
Agenda Item 3E Page 3

• New Cingular W ireless PCS shall not do a nything to interfere with the city’s
equipment, frequencies, or use of the site.
• In the event of interfer ence among the frequencies at the site, New Cingular
Wireless PCS shall pay for the inter-m odulation and other frequency studies to
identify the interference and perform such other stud ies as necessary to mitigate
all interference.
• New Cingular Wireless PCS shall comply with all applicable laws, and any rules
that may be adopted by the city.
• Upon completion of construction, the add ition will becom e the property of the
city.
The proposed lease allows Cingular W ireless PSC to operate its equipm ent from the
addition at Fire Station Num ber 5 for the 20-year term so long as the use of its
frequencies does not interfere with the current or future frequencies used or acquired by
the city. The rent that Cingular W ireless PSC will pay over the term of the lease is
$564,277.86.
ANALYSIS
Approval of the lease by th e council approving the m otion above will provide a new
radio facility for the city, needed storage spa ces for the city’s fire departm ent, a rental
income stream for the city, enhanced in teroperability of public safety radio
communications, and increas ed communications capacity an d speed in the event of an
emergency affecting the city and the surrounding area.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A – Proposed Lease and Lease Exhibits
Agenda Item 3E Page 4

Market: Colorado
Cell Site Number: COU5172
Cell Site Name: 19 th & Sumac
Fixed Asset Number:10549694
OPTION AND LAND LEASE AGREEMENT
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS
4365 19 th Street, Boulder, Colorado
THIS LAND LE ASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated to be effective the _____ day of
__________, 2011 (the “ Effective Date”), is entered into by the City of Boulder, a Colorado hom e rule
municipality, having a m ailing address of 1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302 (" City") and New
Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware lim ited liability company, having a m ailing address of 12555
Cingular Way, Suite 1300, Alpharetta, GA 30004 ("Tenant").
BACKGROUND
City owns the property located at 4365 19 th Street in the City of Boulder, County of Boulder, State
of Colorado m ore particularly described as Lot 1, Fire Station No. 5 Subdivi sion, County of Boulder,
State of Colorado, (collectively, the " Property"). The P roperty includes a fire station operated by the
City of Boulder.
City and Tenant agree as follows:
1. OPTION TO LEASE.
(a) City grants to Tenant an option (the " Option") to build an addition to and lease, a certain
portion of the Property containing appr oximately four hundred (400) square feet as described on attached
Exhibit 1 (the “Premises”) for the placement of Tenant’s Communications Facility defined below.
(b) During the term of this Option, Tenant, at Tenant’s sole c ost, and its a gents, engineers,
surveyors and other representatives may enter upon th e Property to inspect, examine, conduct soil borings,
drainage testing, material sampling, radio freque ncy testing and other geological or engineering tests or
studies of the Property ( collectively, the "Tests"), to apply for and obtai n licenses, permits, approvals, or
other relief required of or deem ed necessary or appropr iate at Tenant’s sole discretion for its use of the
Premises and include, without lim itation, applications for zoning variance s, zoning ordinances,
amendments, special use permits, and construction permits from the City (collectively, the " Government
Approvals"), initiate the ordering and/or scheduling of necessary utilities, and otherwise to do those things
on or off the Property that, in the opi nion of Tenant, are necessary in Tenant’s sole discretion to determine
the physical condition of the Property, the environmental history of the Property, City’s title to the Property
and the feasibility or suitability of the Property for Tenant’s Permitted Use, all at Tenant’s expense. Tenant
will not be l iable to City or any third party on ac count of any pre-existing defect or condition on or with
respect to the Property, whether or not such de fect or condition is disclosed by Tenant’s inspection. Tenant
will restore the Property to its condition as it existed at the commencement of the Option Term (as defined
below), reasonable wear and tear an d casualty not caused by Tenant excepted. In addition, Tenant shall
indemnify, defend and hold City harm less from and against any and all injury, loss, dam age or claims
arising directly or indirectly out of the Tests.
(c) In consideration of City gr anting Tenant the Option, Tenant ag rees to pay City the sum of
Three Thousand and No/100 Dollars ( $3,000.00) within th irty (30) days of the E ffective Date. The
Option will be for an initial term of one (1) year commencing on the Effective Date (the "Initial Option
Term") and may be renewed by Te nant for an additi onal one (1) year upon writte n notification to City
1
Agenda Item 3E Page 5

and the payment of an additional T hree Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($3,000.00) no later than ten (10)
days prior to the expiration date of the Initial Option Term.
(d) The Option m ay be sold, assigned or tr ansferred at any tim e by Te nant without the
approval or consent of City, to an y entity controlling, controlled by or under common control of Tenant
that acquires Tenant’s FCC license s and continues to operate a fe derally licensed comm unications
business on the Property. Otherwise, the Option m ay not be sold, assigned or transferred without the
written consent of City; such consent shall be within the sole discretion of the City. From and after th e
date the Option has been sold, assigned or transfe rred by Tenant to a third party and the Tenant has
notified the City if the transfer is to its parent company or otherwise obtained the permission of the City,
and the third party has assum ed all of the obligations and terms of this Agreement in writing to the City,
Tenant shall imm ediately be released from any a nd all liability under this Agreem ent, including the
payment of any future rental or other sums due, without any further action.
(e) During the Initial Option Term and any extension thereof, Tenant may exercise the Option
by notifying City in writing. If Tenant exercises the Option then the Tenant may occupy the Prem ises
subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreem ent. If Tenant does not exercise the Option during the
Initial Option Term or any extension thereof, this Agreement will terminate.
(f) If, during the Initial Option Term or any ex tension thereof, or during the term of this
Agreement if the Option is exercised, City decides to subdivide, sell, or change the status of the zoning of
the Premises or Property or in the event of foreclosur e, City shall notify Tenant in writing. Any sale of
the Property shall be subject to Tenant’s rights under th is Agreement. City agrees that during the Initial
Option Term or any extension thereof, or during the Te rm of this Agreement if the Option is exerc ised,
City shall not initiate or consent to any change in the zoning of the Premises, or Property or impose or
consent to any other restriction that would prevent or lim it Tenant from using the Premises for the uses
intended by Tenant as hereinafter set forth in this Agreement.
2. PERMITTED USE.
(a) Tenant’s use of the Pre mises is in conn ection with its f ederally licensed communications
business without interference to the City’s use of the Property and for no other purpose. Tenant m ay use
the Communication Facility (as that term is hereinafter defined) for the transm ission and recep tion of
communications signals and the inst allation, construction, m aintenance, operation, repair, replacem ent
and upgrade of its communications fixtures and related equipment, cables, accessories and improvements,
which may include a suitable support structure, associated antennas, eq uipment shelters or cabinets and
fencing and any other items necessary to the su ccessful and secure use of the Pr emises. Tenant further
has the right but not th e obligation to add, modify and/or replace equipment in order to be in com pliance
with any current or future federa l, state or lo cal mandated application, including, but not lim ited to,
emergency 911 communication services, at no additional rent to the City (collectively, the " Permitted
Use").
(b) The Permitted Use is lim ited to the space on the portion of the Prem ises identified on
Exhibit 1 as the Communication Facility and the antenna mast where Tenant may co-locate its antenna(s).
For purposes of this Agreem ent, the "Communication Facility" shall be the portion of the Prem ises that
will accommodate the climate-controlled storage space for telecommunications systems of the Tenant and
the City in the location identified on Exhibit 1.
(c) The Permitted Use is subordinate to the City’s use of the Property as a fire station serving
the residents and properties of th e City and surrounding areas. Nothi ng herein shall be construed as
granting authority to th e Tenant to interfere, obstruct, delay or hinder the City ’s use of the Property.
Tenant shall provide City seventy-two (72) hours notice prior to any cons truction, installation of
equipment, or other activity permitted in this Agreement which occurs outside of the Premises.
2
Agenda Item 3E Page 6

3. CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION FOR COMMUNICATION FACILITY.
(a) Tenant shall construct an addition to the existing building that will include the
Communication Facility. Prior to the initial installation of the Communication Facility, or any changes
thereto for which the Boulder Revised Code requires a permit, Tenant will supply the Deputy Police Chief
of Support Services (“Deputy Chief”) with plans and specifications (“Plans”) for review and approval on
behalf of the Police Department prior to commencement of construction. The Plans shall include an
addition to the existing building that will accommodate climate-controlled storage space for
telecommunications systems of the Tenant and the City, with such uses separated by chain link type
fencing to allow for air flow, and two separate storage spaces for City. The approval by the Deputy Chief
will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. If the Deputy Chief does not respond within
ten (10) of his working days after receipt of the Plans, the Plans will be deemed approved. After
approval, the Plans will be considered incorporated in this Agreement as Exhibit 1. If the Deputy Chief
disapproves the Plans then the Tenant will provide revised Plans, such revisions to be within Tenant’s
reasonable discretion. In the event the Deputy Chief disapproves the Plans upon a second submission,
Tenant may terminate this Agreement.
(b) In addition to the City serving as landlord of the Premises, the City is the permitting entity
for all construction on the Prem ises. Nothing herein shall be construed as a lim itation on the City’s
authority, or a waiver of the City’s requirem ents regarding construction of the Communication Facility or
approval of the Plans therefore.
(c) After exercise of the Option and for a peri od of ninety (90) days following the start of
construction, City grants Tenant the right to use such portions of the Property as m ay reasonably be
required during construction and installation of the Communications Faci lity. Tenant has the right to
install and operate transm ission cables, antennas, electric lines, and communication lines and m ake
improvements to the Communication Facility as depicted on Exhibit 1. Tenant agrees to comply with all
applicable governmental laws, rule s, statutes an d regulations relating to its use of the Communication
Facility. T enant may modify, supplement, replace, upgrade, or exp and the eq uipment within th e
Communication Facility as defined herein. Tenant may not however, increase the number of antennas or
location of antennas on any antenna m ast or portion thereof designated on Exhibit 1 for use by the City.
Tenant will be allowed to m ake such alterations to the Premises to construct the Communication Facility
or to insure that Tenant’s Communication Facility complies with all applicable federal, state or local laws,
rules or regulations.
(d) Tenant shall be solely responsible for a ll costs, fees and taxes due related to the
construction of the addition.
(e) During construction, Tenant shall have installed a separate meter for such storage area and
arrange with the gas and electric ut ility provider(s) for the responsibilit y for payment of such utilities to
be the Tenant’s.
(f) Upon receipt of a certificate of occupanc y or letter or completi on for the addition, the
addition shall become the property of the City and part of the improvements to the Property owned by the
City.
4. TERM.
(a) The initial lease term will be five (5) years ("Initial Term"), commencing on the Effective
Date. The Initial Term will terminate on the fifth (5 th ) anniversary of the Effective Date.
(b) This Agreement will autom atically renew f or three (3) ad ditional five (5) yea r term(s)
(each five (5) year term shall be defined as an "Extension Term"), upon the same terms and conditions
unless Tenant notifies City in writing of Tenant’s intention not to renew this Agreement at least sixty (60)
days prior to the expiration of the existing Term.
(c) The Initial Term and any Extension Term s are co llectively referred to as the Ter m
("Term").
3
Agenda Item 3E Page 7

5. RENT.
(a) Commencing in th e month following the da te that Tenan t commences construction (the
"Rent Commencement Date"), Tenant will pa y City on or bef ore the f ifth (5 th ) day of each calendar
month in advance, One Thousand Seven Hundr ed Fifty and No/100 Dol lars ($1,750) (the “Rent"), at the
address set forth below. In any par tial month occurring after the Rent Commencement Date, Rent will be
prorated. The initial Rent payment will be forwarded by Tenant to City within forty-five (45) days after
the Rent Commencement Date.
(b) Rent will increase by three percent (3%) per year starting on the first year anniversary of
the “Rent Commencement Date”.
(c) Rent payments shall be made payable to City of Boulder and are to be sent to:
City of Boulder Fire Department
Attn. Frank Young, Deputy Fire Chief
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, Colorado 80306
(d) In addition to the m onthly Rent amount, af ter exercise of the Option, Tenant shall be
responsible for the sep arate metering and cos t of all utilities serv ing the Communication Facility (the
“Tenant Costs”).
6. APPROVALS.
(a) City agrees that Tenant's ability to use the Premises is contingent upon the suitability of the
Premises and Property f or Tenant's Permitted Use and Te nant's ability at its so le cost to o btain and
maintain all Governm ent Approvals. City authorizes Tenant to prepare, execute and file all required
applications to ob tain Government Approvals for Tenant’s Perm itted Use under this Agreem ent and
agrees to reasonably assist Tenant with such applications
(b) Tenant, at its sole cost h as the right to obtain a title report or comm itment for a leasehold
title policy from a title insurance co mpany of its choice and to have the Property sur veyed by a surveyor
of its choice.
7. TERMINATION. This Agreem ent may be term inated, without penalty or further liability, as
follows:
(a) by City upon thirty (30) days prior writte n notice, if Tenant rem ains in default under
Section 16 of this Agreement after the applicable cure periods;
(b) by Tenant upon written notice to City, if Tenant is unable to obtain, or m aintain, any
Governmental Approval necessary for the construction or operation of the Comm unication Facility, or if
Tenant determines, in its sole disc retion that the co st of obtaining or retaining the sam e is commercially
unreasonable;
(c) by Tenant upon written notice to City for a ny reason or no reason, at any tim e prior to
commencement of construction by Tenant;
(d) by Tenant upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to City for any reason or no reason, so
long as Tenant pays City a term ination fee equal to three (3) m onths’ Rent, at the then-current rate,
provided, however, that no such term ination fee will be payable on account of the term ination of this
Agreement by Tenant under any one or m ore of Sections 6 Approvals, 7(a) Term ination, 7(b)
Termination, 9 Interference, 12(b) Environmental, or 19 Casualty;
(e) by City if Tenant fails to cure a def ault of any of the terms of this Agreement within a
reasonable time. For a default related to Interference, a reasonable time shall be no more than twenty-four
(24) hours of notice of default from the City. F or any other default, a reasonable tim e shall be no m ore
than fourteen (14) days of notice of default from the City.
4
Agenda Item 3E Page 8

8. INSURANCE. During the Term, Tenant will carry, at its own cost and exp ense, the following
insurance: (i) “All Risk ” property insuran ce for its p roperty’s replacement cost; (ii) Workers’
Compensation Insurance as required by law; and (iii) Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance with
respect to its activities on the Premises, such in surance to afford minimum protection of Three Million
Dollars ($3,000,000) combined single lim it, per occurrence and in the aggregate, providing coverage for
bodily injury and property damage. Tenant’s CGL insurance shall contain a provision including City as an
additional insured to the extent of the indemnity provided by Tenant under this Agreement.
9. INTERFERENCE.
(a) The City will provide Tenant, upon execution of this Agreement, with a list of all existing
radio frequencies/frequency bands on the Property and those frequencie s/frequency bands City plans to
use on the Property. Tenant war rants that its use of the Premises will not interf ere with the radio
frequencies so disclosed by City, as long as the existing radio frequenc y user(s) operate and continue to
operate within their resp ective frequencies and in acco rdance with all applicab le laws and regulations.
Tenant will provide C ity, upon execution of this Agreem ent, with a list of all radio frequencies that
Tenant proposes to use on the Property.
(b) The City’s use of the Property includes a manned Fire Station. Tenant will no t allow any
of Tenant’s equipment, including any HVAC system, to disturb or create noise that interferes with the
day-to-day operation of the Property by the City. In the event that it is reasonably determined by the City
that emissions from any of Tenant’s equipment could cause harm to humans, Tenant shall take such steps
as reasonably required to mitigate such harm.
(c) City will not grant, after the date of this Agreement, a lease, license or any other right to
any third party for the use of the Property, if such use m ay adversely affect or interfere with th e
frequencies identified by Tenant. City will no tify Tenant in writing prior to granting any third party the
right to install and operate communications equipment on the Property.
(d) Tenant will not use, nor will Ten ant permit its em ployees, tenants, license es, invitees,
agents or independent contractors to use, any portion of the Prem ises in any way which conflicts with the
Permitted Use or interferes with the operations of City or the rights of City under this Agreement. Upon
receipt of notice from the City of Tenant’s violation of this prov ision, the Tena nt shall cause such
interference to cease within twenty-four (24) hours. Failure to cease such interference within twenty-four
hours after receipt of notice of interf erence from City shall be a default o f this Agreement. Tenant shall
cease all operations which are su spected of causing in terference (except for interm ittent testing to
determine the cause of such interference) until the interference has been corrected.
(e) For the purposes of this Agreement, “Interference” may include, but is not limited to, any
use on the Property that causes electronic or physical obstruction with, or degradation of, the
communications signals from the Communication Facility. Further, interference includes radio frequency
interference originating from equipment that measurably impairs the operation of any of the City’s or any
lessee’s radio receivers, equipment or antennas. Interference can be continuous or intermittent. Measurable
Interference is the presence of i nterference that degrades recei veivity by at least 3 dB duri ng on/off testing.
Except when City and Tenant mutually agree to extraordinary methods, reference receiver sensitivity shall be
measured by 12 dB SI NAD per TIA-603-C-2004 (analog) or by the standard bit -error rate (5%) per TIA-
102.CAAA-A2002 (digital). Interference as used herein refers to interference specifically described, as well
as any other recognized effect on equipment at t he Communication Facility which impairs its effectiveness
for public safety and emergency communications.
(f) Prior to adding or changi ng any f requencies at the Comm unication Facility, Tenant shall
conduct a radio frequency intermodulation study, at the expense of Tenant, to be conducte d by a c onsulting
engineer or other qualified expert mutually agreed to by City and Tenant. A c opy of the s tudy shall be
provided to the City, and the City may commu nicate directly with e ngineer or ot her expert regarding t he
results of the study. If the study shows that any of Tenant’s frequencies or equipment at the Communication
5
Agenda Item 3E Page 9

Facility will interfere with the City’s operations existing at the Property or disclosed to the Tenant, and such
interference cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City at its sole discretion, Tenant shall not be
permitted to add or make the change in frequencies.
(g) If City, based on reasonable inquiry and evaluation, becomes aware of a potential interference
problem caused directly or indirectly, wholly or partially, by Tenant’s equipment or oper ations, City may
require Tenant t o reimburse City for the cost of an i nterference study, to include radio frequency
measurements. The study shall be conducted by a consulting engineer or other expert mutually agreed upon
by City and Tenant. If the interference study concludes that the problem or a pote ntial problem is caused
directly or indirectly, wholly or partially by Tenant’s equipment or operations, Tenant shall immediately take
all necessary steps to mitigate the interference. If the interference cannot be resolved, or if Tenant does not
take the steps necessary for mitigation, City may terminate this Lease as provided herein.
(h) In the event of interference problems at the Property, Tenant shall c ooperate fully with the
City and ot her lessees to diagnos e and corre ct interference problems, including without li mitation
temporarily reducing or shutting down t ransmit power of Tenant to help diagnos e interference issue s.
Tenant will attempt to resolve potential or actual interference problems with other lessees.
10. INDEMNIFICATION. Tenant agrees to indem nify, defend and hold City harmless from and
against any and all injury, loss, damage or liability (or any claim s in respect of the foregoing), costs or
expenses (including reasonable attorney s' fees and court costs) arising di rectly or indirectly from acts or
omissions to act of Tenant, or the construction, installation, use, maintenance, repair or removal of the
Communication Facility.
11. WARRANTIES.
(a) Tenant and City each acknow ledge and represent that it is duly organized, validly existing
and in good standing and has the right, power and aut hority to enter into this Agreement and bind itself
hereto through the party set forth as signatory for the party below.
(b) City represents, warrants and agrees that: (i) City solely owns the Property in f ee simple;
(ii) the Pro perty is no t and will not be encu mbered by any liens, re strictions, mortgages, covenants,
conditions, easements, leases, or any other agreements of record or not of record, which would adversely
affect Tenant's Permitted Use and enjoyment of the Premises under this Agreement; (iii) as long as Tenant
is not in default then City grants to Tenant actual, quiet and peaceful use, enjoyment and possession of the
Premises; (iv) City's execution and performance of this Agreement will not violate any laws, ordinances,
covenants or the provisions of any mortgage, lease or other agreem ent binding on City; and ( v) if the
Property is or becom es encumbered by a deed to secure a debt, m ortgage or other security interest, City
will provide promptly to Tenant a mutually ag reeable subordination, non-disturbance and attornm ent
agreement.
6
Agenda Item 3E Page 10

12. ENVIRONMENTAL.
(a) City and Tenant agree that each will be responsible for com pliance with any and all
applicable governmental laws, rules, statutes, regulations, codes, ordinances, or principles of common law
regulating or im posing standards of liability or sta ndards of conduct with rega rd to protection of the
environment or worker health and safety, as m ay now or at any tim e hereafter be in effect, to th e extent
such apply to that party’s activity conducted in or on the Property.
(b) In the ev ent Tenant becom es aware of any hazardous m aterials on the Property, o r any
environmental, health o r safety condition or matter relating to the Property, that, in Tenant’s sole
determination, renders the condition of the Premises or Property unsuitable for Tenant’s use, or if Tenant
believes that the leasing or continued leasing of t he Premises would expose Te nant to undue risks o f
liability to a government agency or third party, Tenant will have the right, in addition to any other rights it
may have at law or in equity, to terminate this Agreement upon written notice to City.
13. ACCESS. At all tim es throughout the Term of this Agreement, and at no a dditional charge to
Tenant, Tenant and its employees, agents, and s ubcontractors, will have twenty -four (24) hour per day,
seven (7) day per week pedestrian and vehicular access (“Access”) to the Premises via the access depicted
on Exhibit 1.
14. REMOVAL/RESTORATION. All equipment brought to the Communications Facility by
Tenant that is not affixed to the building will be a nd remain Tenant’s personal prop erty and, at T enant's
option, may be removed by Tenant at any tim e during the Term. Non-removable property shall include
any electrical or gas meters, HVAC sy stems, wire racks, light fixtures, light switches, electrical outlets,
antenna masts and wiring, and grounding systems installed by the tenant. W ithin thirty (30) days of the
termination of this Agreem ent, Tenant will remove all of Tenant’s equ ipment and Tenant will, to the
extent reasonable, restore the Prem ises to its c ondition at the commence ment of this A greement,
reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Te nant’s control excepted. Any
equipment not removed by Tenant with in thirty days of termination of this Agreement shall be deemed
abandoned by the Tenant and become the property of the City. All costs incurred by the City for disposal
of such equipment shall be paid by Tenant to the City.
15. MAINTENANCE/UTILITIES.
(a) Tenant will keep and maintain the Prem ises in good condition, reasonable wear an d tear
and damage from the elements excepted. City will maintain and repair the Property and access thereto in
good and tenantable co ndition, subject to reaso nable wear and tear and damage from the elements. City
will be responsible for maintenance of landscaping on the Property, after expiration of warranty periods,
if any.
(b) Tenant will be responsible for Tenant’s own metered gas and electric supply and telephone
service and any taxes due as a result of this Agreement.
16. DEFAULT AND RIGHT TO CURE.
(a) The following will be deemed a default by Tenant and a breach of this Agreement: (i) nonpayment
of Rent if such Rent remains unpaid for more than thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice
from City of such failure to pay; or (ii) Tenant’s failure to cure an interference problem as provided herein
within twenty-four (24) hour s written notice from the C ity; or (iii) Tenant' s failure to perform any other
term or condition under this Agreement within fourteen (14) days after receipt of written notice from City
specifying the failure. No such failure, however, will be deemed to exist if Tenant has commenced to cure
such default within such period and provided that such efforts are prosecuted to com pletion with
reasonable diligence. Delay in curing a default of subsection (iii) will be excused if due to causes beyond
the reasonable control of Tenant. If Tenant remains in default beyon d any applicable cure period, City
7
Agenda Item 3E Page 11

will have th e right to e xercise any and all rig hts and remedies available to it un der law and equity,
including termination of this Agreement.
(b) The following will be deemed a default by City and a breach of this Agreement: (i) failure
to provide access to th e Premises or to cu re an in terference problem that viol ates the term s of this
Agreement within twenty-four (24) hours after receipt of written notice of such de fault; or (ii) City' s
failure to perform any term, condition or breach of any warranty or covenant under this Agreement within
forty-five (45) days afte r receipt of written notice from Tenant specifying the failure. No such failure,
however, will be deem ed to exist if City has comme nced to cure the default within such pe riod and
provided such efforts are prosecuted to com pletion with reasonable diligence. Delay in curing a default
will be excused if due to causes beyond the reasonable control of City. If City remains in default beyond
any applicable cure period, Tenant will have any and all other rights available to it under law and equity.
17. NOTICES. All notices, requests, dem ands and communications hereunder will be given by first
class certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier,
postage prepaid, to be effective when properly sent and received, refused or returned undelivered.
Notices will be addressed to City and Tenant as follows:
If to CITY:
Ms. Jane Brautigam, City Manager
City of Boulder
PO Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
With copies to:
David D. Hayes
Deputy Chief of Police
Boulder Police Department
1805 33 rd Street
Boulder, CO 80301
Mr. Norm Alexander, Radio Shop Supervisor
City of Boulder
PO Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
8
If to TENANT:
Attn: Network Real Estate Administration
RE: Cell Site # COU5172
Fixed Asset #: 10549694
12555 Cingulair Way, Suite 1300
Alpharetta, GA 30004
With copy to:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Attn: Legal Department
RE: Cell Site # COU5172
Cell Site Name: 19 th & Sumac
Fixed Asset #: 10549694
(If U.S. Mail)
PO Box 97061
Redmond, WA 98073-9761
(If overnight courier)
16331 NE 72 nd Way, RTC1
Redmond, WA 98052
The copy sent to Tenant’s Legal Department is an administrative step which alone does not co nstitute
legal notice. Either party hereto m ay change the place for the giving of notice to it by thirty (3 0) days
prior written notice to the other as provided herein.
Agenda Item 3E Page 12

18. CONDEMNATION. In the event City determ ines to condem n the Property or receives a
summons and complaint that another governm ent is attempting to condem n the Property, the City will
provide a copy of the ordinance approving condem nation by the city within five (5) working days of its
effective date, or the summ ons and com plaint from another government within five working days of
service.
19. CASUALTY. City wi ll provide notice to Tenant of any casualty or other harm affecting the
Property within forty-eight (48) hours of the casualty or other harm. If any part of the Communication
Facility or Property is damaged by casualty or other harm as to render the Premises unsuitable, in Tenant’s
sole determination, then Tenant may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to City, which
termination will be effective as of the date of such casualty or other harm. Upon such termination, Tenant
will be entitled to co llect all insu rance proceeds payable to Tenant on account thereof and to be
reimbursed for any prepaid Rent o n a prorata basis. City agrees to p ermit Tenant to p lace temporary
transmission and reception facilities on the Property upon Tenant’s r eceipt of Governmental Approvals,
but only until such time as Tenant is able to activate a replacem ent transmission facility at another
location; notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement, such temporary facilities will be governed by
all of the terms and conditions of this Agreem ent, including Rent. If City or Tenant undertakes to rebuild
or restore the Premises and/or the Communication Faci lity, as applicable, City agrees to permit Tenant
upon Tenant’s receipt of Governmental Approvals to place temporary transmission and reception facilities
on the Property a t no additional Rent until the recons truction of the Premises and/or the Communication
Facility is completed. If City determines not to rebuild or restore the Premises, City will notify Tenant of
such determination within thirty (30) days after the casualty or other harm.
20. NO OWNERSHIP OR PROPERTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement, including
the use of the Premises or other action of the Tenant or any paym ents made under this Agreem ent, create
or vest in the Tenant any ownership or property rights in the Premises, the addition to the building, or any
property interest of City.
21. NOTICES FROM THIRD PARTIES. In the event that Tenant re ceives any w ritten notice,
including without lim itation, a warning or notice of violation, related to th e Communication Facility,
Tenant’s use of the Communication Facility or the frequencies disclosed by Tenant, f rom an entity with
jurisdiction over the Tenant the Premises, the Communication Facility, or the fr equencies, Tenant shall
provide a copy of such notice to City within three (3) days of receipt thereof. Tenant shall im mediately
take all steps necessary to resolve any notice in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. In the event
that resolution of the notice would re quire violating any provision of th is Agreement, Tenant shall work
with City to resolve the notice or terminate this Agreement if the notice cannot be resolved.
22. MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) Amendment/Waiver. This Agreement cannot be am ended, modified or revised unless
done in writing and signed by City and Tenant. The fa ilure by a party to enforce any provision of this
Agreement or to require perform ance by the other party will not be construed to be a waiver, or in any
way affect the right of either party to enforce such provision thereafter.
(b) Bind and Benefit. The terms and conditions contained in this Agreement will run with the
Property and bind and inure to the benefit of City and Tenant, thei r respective heirs, e xecutors,
administrators, successors and assigns.
9
Agenda Item 3E Page 13

(c) Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto, all being a part
hereof, constitute the en tire agreement of City and Tenant hereto and will sup ersede all pr ior offers,
negotiations and agreements with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Exhibits are numbered
to correspond to the Section wherein they are first referenced.
(d) Governing Law. This Agreem ent will be gov erned by the laws of the state of Colorado
with venue in the 20 th Judicial District.
(e) Interpretation. Unless otherwise specified, the following rules of construction and
interpretation apply: (i) captions are for convenience and reference only and in no way define or limit the
construction of the terms and conditions hereof; (ii) use of the term "including" will be interpreted to mean
"including but not limited to"; (iii) exhibits are an integral part of this Agreement and are incorporated by
reference into this Agreement; (iv) use of the terms "termination" or "expiration" are interchangeable; (v)
reference to a default will take into consideration any applicable notice, grace and cure periods; (vi) to the
extent there is any issue with respect to any alleged, perceived or actual ambiguity in this Agreement, the
ambiguity shall not be resolved on the basis of who drafted the Agreement; and (vii) the singular use of
words includes the plural where appropriate.
(f) Survival. Any provisions of this Agreement relating to indemnification shall survive the
termination or expiration hereof. In addition, any terms and conditions contained in this Agreement that by
their sense and contex t are intended to survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement shall so
survive.
(g) W-9. City agrees to pro vide Tenant with a co mpleted IRS Form W-9, or its equivalent,
upon execution of this Agreement and at such other times as may be reasonably requested by Tenant.
(h) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or m ore counterparts, all of
which shall be considered on and the sam e agreement and shall beco me effective when one or m ore
counterparts have been signed by City and Tenant. All parties need not sign the same counterpart.
10
Agenda Item 3E Page 14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Tenant have caused this Agreement to be effective as of the
last date written below.
CITY: TENANT:
The City of Boulder New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: Jane Brautigam By: AT&T Mobility Corporation
Its: City Manager Its: Manager
___________________________________ _____________________________________
By: _____
By:
Print Name:
Print Name:
Its: Its:
Date: Date:
Attest: City Clerk
___________________________________
Approved as to Form
_________________________________________
11
Agenda Item 3E Page 15

EXHIBIT 1
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Page ___ of ___
to the Option and Land Lease Agreement dated ________________, 201__, by and between the City of Boulder, as City,
and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, as Tenant.
The Premises are described and/or depicted as follows:
See attached Diagram
12
Agenda Item 3E Page 16

Agenda Item 3E Page 17

Agenda Item 3E Page 18

Agenda Item 3E Page 19

Agenda Item 3E Page 20

Agenda Item 3E Page 21

CONSENT ITEM – 3F

CONSENT ITEM – 3G

CI T Y O F B O U L D E R
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution declaring the City of Boulder’s official intent
to reimburse itself with the proceeds of a future bond issue that will occur in the first quarter
of 2012.
PRESENTERS:
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Chris Meshuk, Planner II
Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On November 1, the citizens of Boulder approved a ballot issue that authorized the city to issue
up to 49 million dollars in capital improvement bonds to fund various capital improvements. The
projected issuance date for these bonds is in the first quarter of 2012. A reimbursement
resolution (Attachment A), is a formality required by federal tax law to allow the city to
reimburse itself for costs made prior to receipt of the bond proceeds. It does not authorize the
sale of the bonds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council considerati on of this matter and action in
the form of the following motion:
Motion to approve Resolution __ (Attachment A) declaring the City of Boulder’s official intent
to reimburse itself with the proceeds of a future bond issue that will occur in the first quarter of
2012 .
Agenda Item 3G Page 1

COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
Passage of the reimbursement resolution will have no economic, environmental or social impacts
on residents of the city. It is an administrative requirement by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) to allow entities to recoup funds spent prior to issues of bonds. The impacts in each of the
areas will be covered when the notice of sale is brought before the city council for action.
OTHER IMPACTS:
Fiscal: The issuance of the bonds will be used to fund various capital improvements and
expenditures. Expenses incurred prior to the issuance of the bonds can be reimbursed from bond
proceeds. This allows start-up costs to be recaptured by the city and minimizes initial cash flow
problems.
Staff time: This is a routine aspect of bond issuance and requires minimal effort. Therefore, the
work will be absorbed as a part of staff’s normal workload.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
When the City of Boulder issues bonds they are tax exempt from both state and federal taxes.
However, to maintain this tax exempt status there are strict guidelines on how much time is
allowed to spend tax exempt bond proceeds (85% within three years from date of bond
issuance). The passage of a reimbursement resolution is permitted in the tax code of the IRS.
This conformance process allows the city to incur and recoup expenses made up to sixty days
before the passage of the resolution, and the reimbursed costs count toward the 85% expenditure
rule. It is a common practice used by tax exempt entities who will be issuing debt.
Approved By:
______________________
Jane S. Brautigam,
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution
Agenda Item 3G Page 2

RESOLUTION
ATTACHMENT A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO, DECLARING ITS OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
ITSELF FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES WITH THE PROCEEDS OF A
FUTURE TAX-EXEMPT BORROWING; AND PROVIDING CERTAIN
OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the City of Boulder (the “City”), in the State of Colorado (the “State”), is a
political subdivision duly organized and existing pursuant to the constitution and laws of the
State; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “Governing Body”) is the governing body
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body has determined that it is in the best interest of the City
to make or cause to be made certain capital expenditures for funding capital improvement
projects that may include without limitation: repairing and maintaining streets and pathways;
repairing and replacing structurally deficient bridges and structures; completing missing links in
the transportation system; repairing and renovating aging city facilities; replacing and
modernizing core service computer software; modernizing basic police and fire safety facilities
and equipment; renovating and repairing parks and recreation facilities; renovating portions of
the main library; and improving connections and streetscapes downtown (collectively the
“Projects”); and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body currently intends and reasonably expects to participate
in a tax-exempt borrowing to finance the Projects and to reimburse the City for capital
expenditures for the Projects incurred or to be incurred subsequent to a period commencing 60
days prior to the date hereof, and ending prior to the later of 18 months of the date of such
capital expenditures or the placing in service of the Projects (but in no event more than 3 years
after the date of the original expenditure of such moneys); and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body hereby desires to declare its official intent, pursuant to
26 C.F.R. § 1.150-2, to reimburse the City for such capital expenditures with the proceeds of the
City’s future tax-exempt borrowing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BOULDER, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1. Declaration of Official Intent. The City shall, presently intends, and
reasonably expects to finance the Projects in part with proceeds of tax exempt bonds to be issued
by the City at a later date.
Section 2. Dates of Capital Expenditures. All of the capital expenditures covered by
this Resolution will be made on and after the date which is 60 days prior to the effective date of
Agenda Item 3G Page 3

this Resolution.
ATTACHMENT A
Section 3. Issuance of Bonds, Notes or Other Obligations. The City presently intends
and reasonably expects to participate in a tax-exempt borrowing within 18 months of the date of
the expenditure of moneys on the Projects or the date or dates upon which the Projects are placed
in service, whichever is later (but in no event more than 3 years after the date of the original
expenditure of such moneys), and to allocate from said borrowing an amount not to reimburse
the City for its expenditures in connection with the Projects.
Section 4. Confirmation of Prior Acts. All prior acts and doings of the officials, agents
and employees of the City which are in conformity with the purpose and intent of this
Resolution, and in furtherance of the Projects, shall be and the same hereby are in all respects
ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 5. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its passage.
[SEAL]
Attest:
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting this 6th day of December, 2011.
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
________________________________________
Mayor
_________________________________
Clerk
Agenda Item 3G Page 4

CONSENT ITEM – 3H

CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance
No. 7823 approving supplemental appropriations to the 2011 Budget.
PRESENTER/S
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer
Eric Nickell, Budget Director
Peggy Bunzli, Budget Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As described in the Budget Philosophy and Process section of the 2012 Recommended Budget,
each year two budget supplemental ordinances are presented to City Council for review and
approval. Council receives the first ordinance in April/May in what is known as the Carryover
and First Budget Supplemental. Council receives the second and final ordinance in November/
December in what is known as the Second and Final Budget Supplemental.
The supplementals adjust only the current year budget and are considered “one-time”
adjustments. As a result, neither supplemental has a direct impact on the following year’s budget.
In contrast, the city assigns budget requests with “ongoing” or multi-year impacts only to the
annual budget process (budget planning for the coming fiscal year) and not to either budget
supplemental.
This packet includes budget supplemental “one-time” line items that represent new budgeted
amounts for 2011. A proposed ordinance is provided as Attachment A to this packet.
Agenda Item 3H Page 1

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 7823 approving supplemental appropriations to the 2011
Budget.
Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder City Council and convene as the
Central Area General Improvement District Board of Directors.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
This supplemental ordinance appropriates funding for a variety of citywide projects and services
that positively affect economic, environmental or social sustainability in the community.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal - In the General Fund, this ordinance will appropriate $258,559 from fund balance,
$1,027,737 from fund balance reserves and $2,361,544 from additional revenue. It also
includes an increase in revenue only of $237,350.
In the restricted funds, this ordinance will appropriate $7,584,051 from fund balance and
$11,920,160 from additional revenue. It also includes an increase in revenue only of
$1,799,760.
• Staff time - This process is allocated in the Budget Division’s annual work plan.
ANALYSIS
Requests for a new budget appropriation are typically based on a department’s master plan or
have been reviewed by City Council in prior meetings.
Most appropriations fit into one of three categories: fund balance, new revenue, including grant
or bond funding, or negative appropriations. The following requests provide typical examples of
General Fund supplemental appropriations from various types of fund balance:
• City liability for unemployment claims;
• Police youth services reserve;
• State and federal asset forfeiture reserve; and
• Education Excise Tax reserve.
Second, the following requests provide typical examples of supplemental appropriations from
new grant or bond funding:
Agenda Item 3H Page 2

• Valmont Butte Cleanup Program;
• Previously approved transportation related capital projects, including the Baseline
underpass, Broadway to 28 th ; and
• A new Capital Investment Fund to receive proceeds from debt issued under the authority
of Ballot Issue 2A that was approved by the voters on November 1.
A third category of supplemental appropriations is a negative appropriation, an example of which
is the city’s reduced federal grant funding in Affordable Housing.
In common usage in city meetings, the April/May and November/December budget
supplementals are also referred to as the First Adjustment to Base and Second Adjustment to
Base, respectively. The current year’s council-approved budget is the “base” in the term
Adjustment to Base or ATB.
In total, the city recommends $23.2 million in appropriations, of which $14.3 million come from
new revenues and $8.9 million come from fund balance. Most of the appropriations ($19.5
million or nearly 85 percent of the total) are in the city’s restricted funds, such as the Open
Space, Transportation, and Capital Investment Funds.
PUBLIC AND COUNCIL FEEDBACK
There were no questions following the first reading of Ordinance No. 7823. Additional
information was provided in Attachments B, C and D of Agenda Item 3C of the Nov. 15, 2011
City Council agenda packet. The packet is located at:
www.bouldercolorado.gov > Government > City Council > Council Agendas and Minutes >
2011 Agendas and Minutes > Nov. 15, 2011 Evening Agenda
or
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/City%20Council/Agendas/2011/11152011/11-
15_PM_COMBINED_WITHOUT_IP.pdf
ATTACHMENT
A. Ordinance No. 7823 relating to the supplemental appropriations to the 2011 Budget
Agenda Item 3H Page 3

ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 7823
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, MAKING
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2011 SETTING FORTH
DETAILS IN RELATION TO THE FOREGOING.
WHEREAS, Section 102 of the Charter of the City of Boulder provides
that: "At any time after the passage of the annual appropriation ordinance and after at
least one week's public notice, the council may transfer unused balances appropriated for
one purpose to another purpose, and may by ordinance appropriate available revenues not
included in the annual budget;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to make certain supplemental
appropriations for purposes not provided for in the 2011 annual budget; and,
WHEREAS, required public notice has been given;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, that the following amounts are appropriated
from additional projected revenues and from unused fund balances to the listed funds:
Section 1. General Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 586,059
Appropriation from Fund Balance Reserves 1,027,737
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 2,361,544
Increase in Revenue 237,350
Negative Appropriation (327,500)
Section 2. Lottery Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 16,224
Agenda Item 3H Page 4

Section 3. Planning and Development Services Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 115,000
Negative Appropriation (25,000)
Section 4. .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund (1992 Ballot Issue)
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 50,000
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 30,350
Increase in Revenue 484,000
Section 5. .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund (1995 Ballot Issue)
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 291,781
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 40,656
Section 6. Library Fund
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 121,505
Section 7. Recreation Activity Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $47,600
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 53,791
Negative Appropriation (291,781)
Section 8. Climate Action Plan Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 75,000
Section 9. Open Space Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 2,250,000
Section 10. Airport Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 23,805
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 180,054
Section 11. Transportation Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 2,843,000
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 4,231,028
Increase in Revenue 168,949
Negative Appropriation (590,000)
Agenda Item 3H Page 5

Section 12. Transportation Development Fund
Increase in Revenue $1,027,233
Section 13. Community Development Block Grant Fund
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $21,719
Negative Appropriation (146,845)
Section 14. HOME Fund
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $26,166
Negative Appropriation (157,424)
Section 15. Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $386,844
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 9,500
Negative Appropriation (90,000)
Section 16. Boulder Junction Improvement Fund
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 878,844
Section 17. Capital Investment Fund
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 3,190,500
Section 18. .15 Cent Sales Tax Debt Service Fund
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $518,500
Section 19. Water Utility Fund
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 321,816
Section 20. Wastewater Utility Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 1,000,000
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 50,000
Section 21. Stormwater/Flood Management Utility Fund
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 50,000
Agenda Item 3H Page 6

Section 22. Property and Casualty Insurance Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 119,578
Section 23. Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund
Increase in Revenue $ 119,578
Section 24. Fleet Replacement Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $1,250,000
Section 25. Facility Renovation and Replacement Fund
Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 152,000
Appropriation from Additional Revenue 2,500,000
Negative Appropriation (40,000)
Section 26. The City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City and covers
matters of local concern.
Section 27. If any part or parts hereof are for any reason held to be
invalid, such shall not affect the remaining portion of this ordinance.
Section 28. The Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be
published by title only and order that copies of this ordinance be made available in the
Office of the City Clerk for public inspection and acquisition.
Agenda Item 3H Page 7

INTRODUCED, READ, ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 15th day of November, 2011.
Attest:
______________________________
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
___________________________________
Mayor
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND
ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE this 6th day of December, 2011.
Attest:
_______________________________
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
__________________________________
Mayor
Agenda Item 3H Page 8

CONSENT ITEM – 3I

CENTRAL AREA GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CAGID)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a resolution amending the 2011 Downtown Commercial
District (DCD) Fund (formerly CAGID Fund) Budget.
PRESENTER/S
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer
Eric Nickell, Budget Director
Peggy Bunzli, Budget Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This budget supplemental resolution is the second to be presented to City Council in 2011 for the
Downtown Commercial District (DCD) Fund (formerly CAGID Fund) Budget. All
supplementals adjust only the 2011 budget and are considered “one-time” adjustments. As a
result, the item will have no direct or immediate impact on the 2012 budget, reserving the annual
budget process for consideration of ongoing budget requests so that all such requests may be
evaluated comprehensively.
A proposed resolution is provided as Attachment A to this packet. The Resolution contains two
requests for supplemental appropriations from fund balance. Detailed descriptions of the requests
are included in Attachment B. Attachment C shows the impact of this resolution on the DCD
fund balance.
Agenda Item 3I Page 1

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a supplemental appropriation to the 2011 DCD
Fund Budget.
Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Central Area General Improvement
District Board of Directors and convene as the Boulder Junction Access Commission
General Improvement District – Parking Board of Directors.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
This supplemental ordinance appropriates funding for capital projects that positively affect
economic, environmental or social sustainability in the community.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal - This resolution will appropriate $320,000 from fund balance to the Downtown
Commercial District (DCD) fund.
• Staff time for this process is allocated in the Budget Division’s regular annual work plan.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
The Downtown Commercial District Commission supports both requests.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Resolution amending the 2011 DCD Fund Budget
B. Descriptions of the supplemental requests
C. 2011 DCD Fund Activity Summary
Agenda Item 3I Page 2

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF
THE CITY OF BOULDER DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT FUND (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE CENTRAL
AREA GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND), MAKING
A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2011, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS
IN RELATION THERETO.
WHEREAS, the District desires to make fund balance transfers to continue and
complete projects previously authorized and approved; and
WHEREAS, the District also desires to make certain supplemental appropriations for
purposes not provided for in the 2011 Annual Appropriation Resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, ACTING AS
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CENTRAL AREA GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT, THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ACCOMPLISHED:
2011.
Attest:
Section 1.
Appropriation from Fund Balance $320,000
INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December,
______________________________
Secretary
________________________________________
Chair
Agenda Item 3I Page 3

BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL CATEGORIES
ATTACHMENT B
DESCRIPTIONS OF BUDGET SUPPLEMENTALS
Budget Supplemental from Fund Balance – Adjustments for new appropriation from a specific
fund’s available fund balance.
Budget Supplemental from Fund Balance Reserve - Adjustments for new appropriation from a
specific fund’s available fund balance where use is limited for specific purposes, typically due to
legal restrictions or management assignment.
Budget Supplemental from Additional Revenue -
Grants - Budget supplementals from grant revenues are required throughout the year
since either the grant was not anticipated and was therefore not incorporated into the
original budget or because the grant amount actually received was either more (or less)
than the amount included in the original budget.
Miscellaneous - This category includes annual unanticipated funds received for city
programs and services, including items such as donations, fundraisers, wildland fire
costs or cooperative agreements between municipalities. In addition, beginning in 2007,
reimbursements for some services (e.g. insurance proceeds, off-duty police officer
services, city-sponsored training programs) are now officially recognized as
miscellaneous revenues instead of reducing expenditures. Best practices accounting and
reporting standards require these revenues to be reflected through the formal
appropriation process.
Transfers to/from Other Funds – Transfers between funds requiring City Council approval.
Budget Adjustments Necessitated by Accounting Requirements – Adjustments required based on
generally accepted accounting and reporting requirements that occur during the final
adjustments to base.
Negative Appropriations – Adjustments reducing approved appropriations based on identified
reductions in revenue sources (e.g. grant funding reductions).
Agenda Item 3I Page 4

BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILS BY FUND
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (FORMERLY CAGID) FUND
Transfer(s) to Other Funds
Transfer to City of Boulder Capital Investment Fund - $300,000
City Council supported a capital investment ballot initiative to provide approximately
$48.2M in citywide capital funding without raising taxes. Voters approved the ballot
measure on Nov. 1, 2011. The City intends to utilize existing revenue sources for a
bond sale in early 2012. This request allows the Downtown Commercial District (DCD)
to start working on projects included as part of the ballot prior to the bond sale by
utilizing available funding from various sources. Funding will be transferred to and
accounted for in the Capital Investment Fund. After the bond sale, the $300,000 will be
reimbursed back to the DCD. This action transfers fund balance to the Capital
Investments Fund.
Transfer to Boulder Junction Access Commission General Improvement District (GID) –
Parking - $20,000
The Boulder Junction Access Commission GID-Parking was approved by the voters of the
district in November 2010. Appropriations for 2011 were not established during the
2011 budget process. This request establishes an appropriation for a loan to Boulder
Junction GID-Parking from the DCD Fund to cover 2011 operating expenditures for
Boulder Junction.
The 2011 operating expenditures include meeting expenses and consultant expenses
for Boulder Junction Access District’s financial analysis, district development
assumptions, district property tax projections, revenue and expense projections,
financing analysis for a shared garage, and peer review of the shared garage budget and
assumptions.
The loan from the DCD Fund to the Boulder Junction GID-Parking Fund is a ten year loan
to begin Dec. 15, 2011 and end Dec. 31, 2021. Annual payments will begin Dec. 31,
2012, at an annual fixed rate of 2.5%. The repayment funding source will be property
tax collections from the Boulder Junction GID-Parking Fund.
Agenda Item 3I Page 5

ACTIVITY BY FUND
Beginning
Fund
Balance as
of 2/25/2011
Estimated
Revenues
Including
Transfers In
ATTACHMENT C
2011 Fund Activity Summary - Revised Budget
Original
Approp.
Including
Transfers
Out
Carryover & 1st ATB
Change in
Estimated
Revenues
Change in
Approp.
Including
Transfers
Out
Change in
Estimated
Revenues
2nd ATB
Change in
Approp.
Including
Transfers
Out
Projected
Ending Fund
Balance
12/31/2011
Downtown Commercial District $ 1,771,607 $ 7,846,036 $ 8,256,638 $ - $ 455,301 $ - $ 320,000 $ 585,704
Totals $ 1,771,607 $ 7,846,036 $ 8,256,638 $ - $ 455,301 $ - $ 320,000 $ 585,704
Note:
The table above reflects the impact of the 2011 budget, including estimated revenues (with transfers in) and appropriations (with transfers out), on projected unreserved
fund balance.
Agenda Item 3I Page 6

CONSENT ITEM – 3J

BOULDER JUNCTION ACCESS COMMISSION GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT - PARKING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a resolution amending the 2011 Boulder Junction
Access Commission General Improvement District – Parking Fund Budget.
PRESENTER/S
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer
Eric Nickell, Budget Director
Peggy Bunzli, Budget Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This budget supplemental resolution is the first to be presented to City Council for the 2011
Boulder Junction General Improvement District (GID) – Parking Fund. All supplementals
adjust only the 2011 budget and are considered “one-time” adjustments. As a result, this item
will have no direct or immediate impact on the 2012 budget, reserving the annual budget
process for consideration of ongoing budget requests so that all such requests may be evaluated
comprehensively.
The Boulder Junction Access Commission GID-Parking was formed after approval by the voters
of the district in November 2010. Appropriations for 2011 were not established during the 2011
budget process.
The Boulder Junction Access Commission GID-Parking is to receive a loan from the Downtown
Commercial District (DCD) to cover 2011 operating expenditures for Boulder Junction Access
Commission GID-Parking; this request appropriates the loan proceeds received from DCD.
The 2011 operating expenditures include meetings and consultant fees for the District’s financial
analysis, development assumptions, property tax projections, revenue and expense projections,
financing analysis for a shared garage, and peer review of the shared garage budget and
assumptions.
Agenda Item 3J Page 1

The loan from the DCD Fund to the Boulder Junction Access Commission GID-Parking Fund is
a ten year loan to begin Dec. 15, 2011, and end Dec. 31, 2021. Annual payments will begin Dec.
31, 2012 at an annual fixed rate of 2.5%. The repayment funding source will be property tax
collections from the Boulder Junction Access Commission GID-Parking Fund.
A proposed resolution is provided as Attachment A to this packet. Attachment B shows the
impact of this resolution on the Boulder Junction Access Commission GID-Parking fund
balance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a supplemental appropriation to the 2011 Boulder
Junction Acccess Commission GID-Parking Fund Budget.
Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder Junction Access Commission
General Improvement District – Parking Board of Directors and convene as the City
Council.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
This supplemental ordinance appropriates funding for projects and services that positively affect
economic, environmental or social sustainability in the community.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal - This resolution will appropriate $20,000 from additional revenue in the Boulder
Junction Access Commission GID-Parking Fund.
• Staff time for this process is allocated in the Budget Division’s regular annual work plan.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
The Boulder Junction Access Commission GID Board supports this request.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Resolution amending the 2011 Boulder Junction Access Commission GID-
Parking Fund Budget
B. 2011 Boulder Junction Access Commission GID-Parking Fund Activity Summary
Agenda Item 3J Page 2

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF
THE CITY OF BOULDER, BOULDER JUNCTION ACCESS
COMMISSION GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT -
PARKING, MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2011, AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
WHEREAS, the District desires to make certain supplemental appropriations for
purposes not provided for in the 2011 Annual Appropriation Resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, ACTING AS
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BOULDER JUNCTION ACCESS COMMISSION
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - PARKING, THAT THE FOLLOWING BE
ACCOMPLISHED:
2011.
Attest:
Section 1.
Appropriation from Additional Revenue $20,000
INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December,
______________________________
Secretary
________________________________________
Chair
Agenda Item 3J Page 3

ACTIVITY BY FUND
Beginning Fund
Balance as of
2/25/2011
ATTACHMENT B
2011 Fund Activity Summary - Revised Budget
Estimated
Revenues
Including
Transfers In
Appropriations
Including
Transfers Out
Change in
Estimated
Revenues
Second ATB
Change in
Appropriations
Including
Transfers Out
Projected
Ending Fund
Balance
12/31/2011
Boulder Junction Access Commission General
Improvement District-Parking -
-
-
20,000
20,000
-
Totals $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $
-
Note:
The table above reflects the impact of the 2011 budget, including estimated revenues (with transfers in) and appropriations (with transfers out), on projected unreserved fund
balance.
Agenda Item 3J Page 4

CONSENT ITEM – 3K

AGENDA TITLE
K:\CCCO\2nd Read Memo Supp110-226.doc
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
Second reading and consideration of emergency Ordinance No. 7822 adopting
Supplement No.110, which codifies previously adopted Ordinance Nos. 7795, 7809,
7813, and 7814 and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as an amendment
to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
PRESENTER:
Office of the City Attorney
Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Boulder Revised Code (“B.R.C. 1981”) is the official book of laws of the City of Boulder.
Four times a year (quarterly), the City Council is asked to adopt supplements to the B.R.C.
1981. An ordinance format is used to bring ordinances that the City Council adopted in the prior
quarter into the B.R.C. 1981, and to insure that there is no question regarding what constitutes
the official laws of the City of Boulder. These supplement ordinances are approved as a matter
of routine by the City Council.
The text of Supplement No. 110 has been previously adopted by the following ordinances:
No. 7795 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANC E CONCERNING CHAPTER 2-7,
“CODE OF CONDUCT,” B.R.C. 1981 AMENDING SECT ION 2-7-15
REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF “CONFLICT OF INTEREST,”
AND AMENDING SUBSECTIONS (j), (k), (l) AND (m) OF CHAPTER
8-4-10, “ADVISORY COM MITTEES” REGARDING T HE
APPLICATION OF T HE CODE OF CONDUCT TO GENE RAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED
DETAILS
Agenda Item 3K Page 1

No. 7809 AN ORDINANCE ESTABL ISHING ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
FOR OUT-OF-CITY UTILITY PERMITS BY AMENDI NG TITLE 11,
“UTILITIES AND AI RPORT,” B.R.C. 1981 RELATED TO SECTION
11-1-15, “OUT-OF-CITY WATER SERVICE,” AND SECTION 11-2-10,
“OUT-OF-CITY SEWER SERVIC E,” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTI NG
FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
No. 7813 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE”, B.R.C.
1981, TO IMPLEMENT THE DOWNT OWN URBAN DESIGN PLAN,
AMENDING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR CANYON
BLVD., MODIFYING THE FLOOR AR EA RATIO ST ANDARDS IN
THE DT-5 ZONING DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH RELATED
DETAILS.
No. 7814 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6-14, “MEDICAL
MARIJUANA,” B.R.C. 1981, AND SE TTING FORTH RELATED
DETAILS.
FISCAL IMPACTS;
Budgetary: None
Staff Time: None beyond the time always allocated to code maintenance in the City
Attorney’s overall work plan.
Other considerations:
Economic: None
COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS:
Ongoing code maintenance is an essential and largely administrative obligation of the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests council consideration of this m atter and action in the f orm of the following
motion:
Motion to adopt emergency Ordinance No.7822 regarding Supplement No.110.
FORMAT NOTES:
Ordinance changes may be shown in strike out and double underline format.
DISCUSSION:
This supplement includes ordinances that have been adopted by the City Council in the last
supplement quarter. They are added to the official version of the B.R.C. 1981 by way of the
K:\CCCO\2nd Read Memo Supp110-226.doc
Agenda Item 3K Page 2

attached supplement ordinance. The City Council adopts each supplement ordinance to ensure
that a clearly identifiable version of the Boulder Revised Code is legislatively adopted.
The code amendments shown as part of this agenda item are intended to correct non-substantive
errors discovered through review of these ordinances and/or which may have occurred in
previously adopted ordinances already in the B.R.C. 1981. These changes are reflected in strike
out and double underline format along with a “Reason for Change”. Major and/or substantive
corrections or revisions are brought forward as a separate ordinance to City Council during the
normal course of future City Council business.
GENERAL AMENDMENTS:
The earmarking provisions of Section 3-2-39(d) were added to the code in compliance with the
imposition of the tax by the voters in 1992 that provided for earmarking the funds. By Ballot
Issue 2A passed in November, 2009, the tax was extended “indefinitely and without restriction to
continue to fund general fund services . . . “ By approval of that ballot issue, the earmarking
provisions for the tax in section 3-2-39(d) were eliminated by the voters, and should be
eliminated from the Code to be consistent with the 2009 vote. Subsequent sections will be
renumbered accordingly.
3-2-39 (d) Earmarked Revenues
d) From January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 the amount of sales and use tax
revenue attributable to the levy and collection of the 0.15 percent of sales and use tax
shall be used for general fund purposes. From January 1, 1994 through December 31,
1998, and thereafter for any remaining balances and interest thereon, the amount of sales
and use tax revenue attributable to the levy and collection of the 0.15 percent of sales and
use tax shall be set aside and used only for the following purposes:
(1) Forty percent shall be paid into a human services fund, to be expended only for
human services, including, without limitation, programs for health care, child
care, mental health services, services for youth, services for the elderly and
services for the disabled, prevention and mitigation of childhood physical and
sexual abuse and domestic violence, emergency shelter for the homeless, family
support services, job training, job development, and job placement. All such
expenditures shall be consistent with a human services master plan to be adopted
by the city council.
(2) Twenty percent shall be paid into a parks and recreation fund, to be expended as
set forth in this paragraph. Prior to the issuance of bonds supported by this fund,
the monies in the fund shall be paid into the permanent park and recreation fund.
After the issuance of such bonds, the monies of this fund shall be expended by the
city council for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest
and reserves, if any, on such bonds, for the following parks and recreation
projects: softball fields, soccer fields, and other parks and recreation capital
improvements, including, without limitation, refurbishment of parks and
recreation facilities, together with all necessary incidental appurtenant facilities,
structures, furnishings, and equipment. Any monies remaining in the fund on the
day following any principal payment date on the bonds shall be expended by the
K:\CCCO\2nd Read Memo Supp110-226.doc
Agenda Item 3K Page 3

city council to defray operations and maintenance costs associated with the
softball fields, soccer fields, and other parks and recreation capital improvements,
to the extent reasonably required therefor. Any monies thereafter remaining in the
fund shall be paid into the permanent park and recreation fund.
(3) Eight percent shall be paid into an environmental fund, to be expended only for
environmental projects, including, without limitation, a recycling center, a
hazardous waste drop-off center, and a pollution prevention program.
(4) Eight percent shall be paid into a youth opportunity fund, to be expended only for
culture and arts programs, recreation, sports, and other youth activities for young
persons who are otherwise underserved in such programs, and to enhance the
availability and attractiveness of such programs to young persons. Youth as used
in this paragraph means persons under the age of twenty-one, or through
graduation from high school, whichever comes first.
(5) Four percent shall be paid into an arts and cultural fund, to be expended only for
the arts, culture, and maintenance of city buildings used for the arts and culture,
including, without limitation, stabilization of arts and cultural services delivery
entities and development of arts and cultural programs, which may include,
without limitation, community outreach, arts in education, and access to arts and
culture by underserved populations. All such expenditures shall be consistent with
an arts and culture master plan and other relevant plans to be adopted by the city
council.
(6) The remaining twenty percent shall be available for appropriation for basic
municipal services, including, without limitation, parks and recreation facilities
refurbishment and municipal facilities refurbishment, but if the city council finds
that basic municipal services can be funded adequately without use of all or part
of this portion of the tax, then the portion of the tax not allocated to basic
municipal services shall be earmarked for and distributed to the five funds listed
above. After the issuance of bonds supported by the revenues described in this
paragraph, the revenues shall be expended by the city council for the payment of
the principal of, and premium, if any, and interest and reserves, if any, on such
bonds, together with all necessary incidental appurtenant facilities, structures,
furnishings, and equipment. Any such revenues on the day following any
principal payment date on the bonds may be used for any basic municipal services
purpose.
(7) For the year 1999 and thereafter, the city council may, after considering the
recommendations of a citizen review committee appointed for that purpose, adjust
the earmarking set forth in this subsection, except to the extent required for the
repayment of bonds.
ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance No. 7822
K:\CCCO\2nd Read Memo Supp110-226.doc
Agenda Item 3K Page 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COLORADO:
K:\CCCO\0 7822 Supp 110-226.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 7822
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING SUPPL EMENT
NO. 110 AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CORRECTIONS AND
AMENDMENTS AS AMENDMENTS TO THE BOULDER
REVISED CODE 198 1, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED
DETAILS.
BE IT OR DAINED BY THE CI TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOUL DER,
Section 1. Legislative Findings.
A. Supplement No. 110 amending the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (“B.R.C.”) has
been printed.
B. The City Council intends that this supplement be codified and published as a part
of the B.R.C.
C. Supplement No. 110 to the B.R.C. is a part of this ordinance and contains all of
the amendments to the B.R.C. enacted by the City Council in Ordinance Nos. 7795, 7809, 7813,
and 7814. The City Council intends to adopt this supplement as an amendment to the B.R.C.
D. The ordinances contained in Supplement No. 110 are available in printed copy to
each member of the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, and the published text of the
supplement, along with the text of this ordinance, is available for public inspection and
acquisition in the office of the city clerk of the City of Boulder, in the Municipal Building, 1777
Broadway, Boulder, Colorado.
Section 2. The City Council adopts Supplement No. 110 by this reference.
Section 3. The City Council orders that a copy of Supplement No. 110 as proposed for
adoption by reference herein be on file in the office of the city clerk of the City of Boulder,
Colorado, Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, City of Boulder, Boulder County, Colorado, and
may be inspected by any person at any time during regular business hours pending of the
adoption of this ordinance.
ATTACHMENT A
Section 4. The annotations, source notes, codifier’s notes, and other editorial matter
included in the printed B.R.C. are not part of the legislative text. These editorial provisions are
Agenda Item 3K Page 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provided to give the public additional information for added convenience. No implication or
presumption of a legislative construction is to be drawn from these materials.
Section 5. The B.R.C., or any chapter or section of it, may be proved by a copy certified
by the city clerk of the City of Boulder, under seal of the City; or, when printed in book or
pamphlet form and purporting to be printed by authority of the City. It shall be received in
evidence in all courts without further proof of the existence and regularity of the enactment of
any particular ordinance of the B.R.C.
Section 6. These provisions of the B.R.C. shall be given effect and interpreted as though
a continuation of prior laws and not as new enactments.
Section 7. Unless expressly provided otherwise, any violation of the provisions of the
B.R.C., as supplemented herein, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars or incarceration for not more than ninety days in jail, or by both such fine and
incarceration, as provided in section 5-2-4, “General Penalties,” B.R.C. 1981.
Section 8. Subsection 3-2-39(d), “Earmarked Revenues,” B.R.C. 1981 is no longer in
effect and is deleted in its entirety and subsequent sections are renumbered accordingly.
3-2-39 (d) Earmarked Revenues
d) From January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 the amount of sales and use tax
revenue attributable to the levy and collection of the 0.15 percent of sales and use tax
shall be used for general fund purposes. From January 1, 1994 through December 31,
1998, and thereafter for any remaining balances and interest thereon, the amount of sales
and use tax revenue attributable to the levy and collection of the 0.15 percent of sales and
use tax shall be set aside and used only for the following purposes:
K:\CCCO\0 7822 Supp 110-226.doc
Agenda Item 3K Page 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1) Forty percent shall be paid into a human services fund, to be expended only for
K:\CCCO\0 7822 Supp 110-226.doc
human services, including, without limitation, programs for health care, child
care, mental health services, services for youth, services for the elderly and
services for the disabled, prevention and mitigation of childhood physical and
sexual abuse and domestic violence, emergency shelter for the homeless, family
support services, job training, job development, and job placement. All such
expenditures shall be consistent with a human services master plan to be adopted
by the city council.
(2) Twenty percent shall be paid into a parks and recreation fund, to be expended as
set forth in this paragraph. Prior to the issuance of bonds supported by this fund,
the monies in the fund shall be paid into the permanent park and recreation fund.
After the issuance of such bonds, the monies of this fund shall be expended by the
city council for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest
and reserves, if any, on such bonds, for the following parks and recreation
projects: softball fields, soccer fields, and other parks and recreation capital
improvements, including, without limitation, refurbishment of parks and
recreation facilities, together with all necessary incidental appurtenant facilities,
structures, furnishings, and equipment. Any monies remaining in the fund on the
day following any principal payment date on the bonds shall be expended by the
city council to defray operations and maintenance costs associated with the
softball fields, soccer fields, and other parks and recreation capital improvements,
to the extent reasonably required therefor. Any monies thereafter remaining in the
fund shall be paid into the permanent park and recreation fund.
Agenda Item 3K Page 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3) Eight percent shall be paid into an environmental fund, to be expended only for
K:\CCCO\0 7822 Supp 110-226.doc
environmental projects, including, without limitation, a recycling center, a
hazardous waste drop-off center, and a pollution prevention program.
(4) Eight percent shall be paid into a youth opportunity fund, to be expended only for
culture and arts programs, recreation, sports, and other youth activities for young
persons who are otherwise underserved in such programs, and to enhance the
availability and attractiveness of such programs to young persons. Youth as used
in this paragraph means persons under the age of twenty-one, or through
graduation from high school, whichever comes first.
(5) Four percent shall be paid into an arts and cultural fund, to be expended only for
the arts, culture, and maintenance of city buildings used for the arts and culture,
including, without limitation, stabilization of arts and cultural services delivery
entities and development of arts and cultural programs, which may include,
without limitation, community outreach, arts in education, and access to arts and
culture by underserved populations. All such expenditures shall be consistent with
an arts and culture master plan and other relevant plans to be adopted by the city
council.
(6) The remaining twenty percent shall be available for appropriation for basic
municipal services, including, without limitation, parks and recreation facilities
refurbishment and municipal facilities refurbishment, but if the city council finds
that basic municipal services can be funded adequately without use of all or part
of this portion of the tax, then the portion of the tax not allocated to basic
municipal services shall be earmarked for and distributed to the five funds listed
Agenda Item 3K Page 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K:\CCCO\0 7822 Supp 110-226.doc
above. After the issuance of bonds supported by the revenues described in this
paragraph, the revenues shall be expended by the city council for the payment of
the principal of, and premium, if any, and interest and reserves, if any, on such
bonds, together with all necessary incidental appurtenant facilities, structures,
furnishings, and equipment. Any such revenues on the day following any
principal payment date on the bonds may be used for any basic municipal services
purpose.
(7) For the year 1999 and thereafter, the city council may, after considering the
recommendations of a citizen review committee appointed for that purpose, adjust
the earmarking set forth in this subsection, except to the extent required for the
repayment of bonds.
Section 9. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the City, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 10. The printed supplements cannot be distributed until the adopting ordinance
is effective. The laws of the City should be current and available to the residents of the City of
Boulder as soon as possible. Upon that basis, this ordinance is declared to be an emergency
measure and shall be in full force and effect upon its final passage.
Agenda Item 3K Page 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIR ST READING, AND ORDE RED PUBLISHED B Y
TITLE ONLY this 8 th day of November, 2011.
Attest:
______________________________
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\CCCO\0 7822 Supp 110-226.doc
____________________________________
Mayor
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSE D, ADOPTED AS AN EMER GENCY
MEASURE BY T WO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND OR DERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 6th day of December, 2011.
Attest:
______________________________
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
____________________________________
Mayor
Agenda Item 3K Page 10

CONSENT ITEM – 3L

AGENDA TITLE
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
an ordinance amending Section 2-3-11, “Planning Board,” B.R.C. 1981, to allow for
appointment of temporary alternates to the Planning Board due to an appearance of
impropriety or a conflict of interest under Chapter 2-7, “Code of Conduct,” B.R.C. 1981,
or an anticipated absence, and setting forth related details.
PRESENTERS
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning
Tom Carr, City Attorney
David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is for the council to consider an ordinance that will allow the
mayor, with consent of the council, to appoint alternate board members to the Planning Board
when there are conflicts of interest, appearances of impropriety, or because of scheduled
absences from Planning Board meetings.
Recently, this issue was brought to light in relation to both the brewery ordinance changes and
development activities in the vicinity of the Boulder Country Day School. Given the
connections within the community, it has been difficult to put together a quorum or full board to
hear such matters. Also, both the Charter and the code require the Planning Board pass matters
by at least four votes: when there are fewer board members, unanimous or near unanimous
decisions of the board are required.
Agenda Item 3L Page 1

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to introduce and order published by title only an ordinance amending Section 2-
3-11, “Planning Board,” B.R.C. 1981, to allow for appointment of temporary alternates to
the Planning Board due to an appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest under
Chapter 2-7, “Code of Conduct,” B.R.C. 1981, or an anticipated absence, and setting
forth related details.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic - Effective Planning Board operations assist in operating an efficient
development review process.
• Environmental – The changes proposed are procedural in nature and are not expected to
result in any environmental impacts.
• Social - The ability to appoint board members when sitting board members are
disqualified by absence or because of a disqualification due to a conflict of interest,
appearance of impropriety, or absence narrows the debate on applications. A process
where the mayor, with consent of the council, is permitted to appoint board members
from past membership will help insure that there is a broader discussion and
consideration of matters that come before the board.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – There is no fiscal impact anticipated by this proposed code change.
• Staff time – This ordinance will be implemented using existing staff resources.
BACKGROUND AND PLANNING BOARD FEEDBACK
At its November 3, 2011, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council consider an
ordinance that would allow the mayor, with consent of the council, to appoint alternate board
members from among the past board membership in the event that sitting board members are
unable to participate because of a conflict of interest, a recusal due to an appearance of
impropriety, or because of a scheduled absence.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of this agenda item is to consider adding a provision permitting appointment of
alternates to the Planning Board for times when there are conflicts of interest, recusals because of
Agenda Item 3L Page 2

appearances of impropriety, or absences. The provision presented in the proposed ordinance is
similar to a provision that was provided for the Landmarks Board in 1995. See Ord. 5712.
The Planning Board has discussed how conflicts of interest or scheduled absences among board
members impact the ability of the board to carry out provisions of the land use code. Often
residents who serve on the board may have ties to applicants or opponents to land use
applications that create either conflicts of interest or are permitted to recuse themselves on
matters that may create appearances of impropriety. This, combined with the fact that the board
members are volunteers that have other obligations that they are required to fulfill, can lead to
meetings where there is just a quorum to hear the matter.
The city Charter and the Boulder Revised Code require that the Planning Board have at least four
votes to take action on any manner. Operating with a quorum and the four vote requirement
often is not a problem when dealing with projects that are noncontroversial. However, from time
to time, the board finds itself dealing with a controversial matter and only a quorum. The board
recognizes that it would be helpful to have the ability to request that the mayor, with consent of
the council, appoint alternates to fill the board.
This provision is intended to be used for items of importance so that the board can, at a
minimum, reach a quorum or, potentially, a full board. It is not intended to be used if a board
member is simply out of town or ill. If a board member requests appointment of an alternate due
to a real or perceived conflict of interest or absence, and the board authorized a replacement, past
eligible board members would be contacted by staff to determine a former board member’s
availability and willingness to serve. The alternate board member would only sit on the board
for the particular item in which the current board member has a conflict or during an absence.
For example, in the case of a conflict of interest, the current board member would recuse him or
herself and the alternate board member would be seated in his or her place to hear that particular
item. Once the agenda item is completed the alternate member would be dismissed and the
current board member would join the board for the remainder of the meeting.
The ordinance would allow the board to ask the mayor, with consent of the council, to appoint
former board members who remain eligible to serve the board under the city Charter and city
ordinances. For example, former board members holding a position on another city board or who
have moved outside of the city limits would not be considered eligible for appointment.
Interest has been expressed that the appointment of alternate board members be done in a nonpolitical
manner. The administrative practice used in the past for the Landmarks Board is
intended to avoid that problem. That process is described above.
In order to be clear about the appointment process, staff has drafted a proposed amendment to
the council’s procedural rules that clearly states the process for appointment. It is based on
Landmarks Board’s past practice. Since the Planning Board is a larger body, a provision has
been added that sets a rule to address a situation when more than one member has departed at the
same time. Language for this rule change is shown in Attachment B.
Agenda Item 3L Page 3

If the council chooses to pass the proposed ordinance, staff will recommend that it also amend its
procedural rules to implement this ordinance. Staff will provide the council with a
recommended motion to do this at the second reading of this ordinance.
MATRIX OF OPTIONS
The City Council may approve, modify or not pass the proposed ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
A Proposed ordinance
B. Proposed change to council procedures
Agenda Item 3L Page 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COLORADO:
K:\PLPB\o-PB alternates in case of conflict.DOC
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-3-11, “PLANNING
BOARD,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ALLOW FOR APPOINTMENT OF
TEMPORARY ALTERNATES TO THE PLANNING BOARD
DUE TO AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY OR A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER CHAPTER 2-7, “CODE OF
CONDUCT,” B.R.C. 1981, OR AN ANTICIPATED ABSENCE,
AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
Section 1. Section 2-3-11, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
2-3-11 Planning Board.
(a) The City of Boulder Planning Board consists of seven members appointed by the city
council for five year terms.
(b) The secretary of the board may be a member of the board or may be the city manager.
(c) Four members of the board constitute a quorum. An affirmative vote of at least four
members is necessary to authorize any action of the board.
(d) The chair and at least two members may call special meetings.
(e) The board's functions are those established in the charter, this code, and other ordinances
of the city, including, without limitation:
(1) To review and approve or disapprove changes to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan;
(2) To review and recommend to the city council regarding proposed historic districts
as prescribed by section 9-11-5, “Landmarks Board Designation Public Hearing,”
B.R.C. 1981;
(3) To review and recommend to the city council regarding the city's capital
improvements plan; and
(4) To perform all the functions prescribed by title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981.
(f) The mayor, with the consent of the City Council, may appoint former board members as
alternates to hear matters under title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, when the mayor
Agenda Item 3L Page 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
finds that there will be an absence due to an appearance of impropriety or a conflict of
interest under chapter 2-7, “Code of Conduct,” B.R.C. 1981, or due to an anticipated
absence of a board member. An alternate board member may be appointed pursuant to
the following standards and procedures:
(1) The board member with the conflict of interest, a recusal because of an
appearance of impropriety, or anticipated absence shall inform the board at a
meeting prior to the meeting when the item where such conflict or recusal exists is
to be considered or the time of an anticipated absence;
(2) If the board or chair finds it necessary to appoint an alternate board member as set
forth above, the board or chair shall request that the mayor appoint an alternate
member from among the former members of the board; and
(3) The alternate board member shall only be authorized to act upon the matters that
have been requested by the full board and authorized by the mayor.
Section 2. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 3. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 6th day of December 2011.
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\PLPB\o-PB alternates in case of conflict.DOC
____________________________________
Mayor
Agenda Item 3L Page 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this _____ day of ___________ 20___.
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\PLPB\o-PB alternates in case of conflict.DOC
____________________________________
Mayor
Agenda Item 3L Page 7

IX. Nominations and Elections
ATTACHMENT B
A. Nominations. Nominations for mayor and acting mayor (generally referred to as deputy
mayor) are made orally. No second is required, but the consent of the nominee should have been
obtained in advance. Any person so nominated may at this time withdraw his or her name from
nomination. Silence by the nominee shall be interpreted as acceptance of candidacy.
B. Order of Vote. A motion then is made and seconded to close the nominations and acted on as
any motion. The voting is accomplished by raising of hands unless there is only one nomination
and a unanimous vote for the candidate. The names shall be called in alphabetical order or
reverse alphabetical order depending upon a flip of a coin by the clerk, who shall thereafter
alternate the order for all further election ballots during the same meeting.
C. Ballots. If it is the desire of the council to use paper ballots rather than a voice vote, such a
procedure is proper. However, since there is no provision for a secret vote, each ballot must be
signed by the council member casting the vote.
D. Elimination Process. If any of the candidates nominated receives five votes on the first ballot,
such person is declared elected. If none of the candidates receives five votes on the first ballot,
the candidate (plus ties) receiving the lowest number of votes is dropped as a candidate unless
this elimination would leave one candidate or less for the office. If this elimination would leave
one candidate or less for the office, another vote is taken, and once again the candidate (plus ties)
receiving the lowest number of votes is dropped as a candidate unless this elimination would
leave one candidate or less for the office. In the event that one candidate or less is left for the
office after the second vote, a flip of a coin shall be used in order to eliminate all but two
candidates for the office.
E. Impasse Process. In the event that neither of the two final candidates receives five votes on the
first ballot on which there are only two candidates, another vote shall be taken. If no candidate
receives five votes on the second such ballot, the candidate who receives the votes of a majority
of the council members present shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives such a
majority vote, the meeting shall be adjourned for a period not to exceed twenty-four hours, and
new nominations and new ballots shall be taken. If no candidate receives five votes on the first
ballot at the adjourned meeting on which there are only two candidates, another vote shall be
taken. If no candidate receives five votes on the second such ballot, the candidate who receives
the votes of a majority of the council members present shall be declared elected. If no candidate
receives a majority vote on the second such ballot at the adjourned meeting, a flip of a coin shall
be used to determine which of the two final candidates shall be declared elected as mayor or
deputy mayor.
F. Boards and Commissions. Elections to fill positions on boards or commissions shall be
conducted in the same manner. However, a majority of the council members present rather than a
majority of the full council is sufficient to decide an election of this nature. Each board or
commission vacancy shall be voted on separately. In the event that the Boulder Revised Code
Agenda Item 3L Page 8

provides for the appointment of temporary alternate Board Members, such members shall be
appointed as follows: The most recently departed member of the board needing a temporary
alternate, who is eligible and able to serve, shall be appointed. In the event that more than one
member departed at the same time, alternates shall be chosen in reverse alphabetical order, with
appointments alternating between the eligible and able former members who departed at the
same time. In the event that the most recently departed member is not eligible or able to serve,
the next previously departed member shall be chosen, applying the procedure above if there is
more than one potential appointee.
G. Advertising of Vacancies After Partial Terms. Prior to advertising board and commission
vacancies, when a person has already served on the board or commission and is seeking
reappointment, council should make the decision of whether or not to advertise that particular
vacancy.
Agenda Item 3L Page 9

CONSENT ITEM – 3M

CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to
order published by title only an ordinance amending Title 3, “Revenue And
Taxation,” B.R.C. 1981, to clarify the definition of “Taxable Services” with respect
to downloaded software and on-line data bases.
PRESENTER/S
Tom Carr, City Attorney
Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer
Kathy Haddock, Senior Assistant City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1981, the City decided to tax the sale of and the purchase for use of computer
software. The definition of software adopted included terms which appear to be intended
to cover all then known means of software delivery. In 1999, council added another
definition of computer software to include computer instructions as a housekeeping item
to clarify taxable items for taxpayers. In 2009, Ball Aerospace challenged an assessment
of the software tax because it obtained its software downloaded from the internet rather
than on discs. On August 24, 2011, the Boulder County District Court ruled that the City
Council’s intent in the Code definition of computer software included only software on a
physical medium and excluded downloaded software. The practical effect of this
decision is to eliminate the city’s software tax, since virtually all software is now
delivered via download over the internet. The court also linked taxation of on-line
databases to the same definition and also excluded it from the city’s sales and use tax.
The proposed ordinance would make the council’s intent clear that all software,
regardless of the means of delivery, and on-line databases are intended to be subject to
the city’s sales and use tax.
K:\FIAD\First Read Agenda memo Software Ord.-.doc
Agenda Item 3M Page 1

Key Issue Identification
Whether council wishes to continue taxing computer software and access to online
databases.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion: Motion to introduce, complete first reading, and order
published by title only an ordinance amending Title 3, “Revenue And Taxation,”
B.R.C. 1981, to clarify the definition of “Taxable Services” with respect to
downloaded software and on-line data bases.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic – Passing this ordinance would not result in any new revenue to the
city, but would avoid the loss of at least $ 2.9 million.
• Environmental – Passing this ordinance could have a minimal adverse
environmental effect if by taxing only software acquired on disk, purchasers were
encouraged to buy software over the internet and avoid the use of disposable
packaging. Staff believes that most buyers have or will switch to downloaded
software for reasons independent of the tax.
• Social – None.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – Failure to pass the amendment would result in the loss of tax revenue.
• Staff time – No additional staff time would be necessary to implement the
amended ordinance if passed.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
Not Applicable.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
None.
BACKGROUND
In 2009, the city audited Ball Aerospace for the period between January 1, 2006 and
January 1, 2009. The city issued an assessment for $426,067.19, which was later
reduced to $422,790.59 after review of protests from Ball Aerospace. Ball Aerospace
appealed the revised assessment to the state district court. The primary ground for appeal
was Ball’s claim that the city’s sales and use tax ordinance should apply only to software
that is purchased in a physical form and not to software downloaded from the internet.
K:\FIAD\First Read Agenda memo Software Ord.-.doc
Agenda Item 3M Page 2

The city’s use tax relies on the definition of “taxable services.” In 1981, the City Council
amended the city’s use tax ordinance to include the following definition:
Section 3-1-1, B.R.C. 1981
"Taxable services" means: . . .
(f) Computer software contained on cards, tapes, discs, coding sheets, or other machinereadable
or human-readable form, including software that has been modified, so long as
the price of the modifications does not exceed twenty-five percent of the price of the
unmodified software and excluding software created specifically for the user.
In 1999, the council added a definition of computer software as a housekeeping measure
to clarify the issue for taxpayers as follows:
"Computer software" means computer instructions as described in the
definition of "taxable services" in this section. Computer software is
subject to taxation in accordance with that definition and the provisions of
chapter 3-2, “Sales and Use Tax,” B.R.C. 1981
The city has relied on this language to tax all software regardless of the method of
delivery as well as online databases.
On August 24, 2011, Judge Lael Montgomery issued an opinion and order granting Ball
Aerospace’s motion for summary judgment. The decision construed the city’s definition
of taxable services to apply only to software that was delivered via some physical
medium. The reasoning of the court was that council meant to limit the phrase “or other
machine-readable or human-readable form” to be modified by “cards, tapes, discs, coding
sheets” rather than an expansion of those means of delivery. The court did not address
the definition added in 1999. The court then attached this faulty reasoning to on-line
databases. The city has appealed this decision. It will be at least a year before the Court
of Appeals issues a decision on the appeal. In the interim, the Finance Department needs
guidance to handle ongoing audits, tax assessments and refund requests.
While it is difficult to determine the full financial impact of the decision, because
taxpayers do not differentiate software tax payments based on the method of delivery, the
Finance Department estimates that if the city were to change its policy and collect tax
only on software purchased on disk, the city would lose at least $2.9 million in annual tax
revenue. This number is likely to grow, because the trend for some time has been
toward downloading software.
Staff has been assessing potential options for the city. The city has never interpreted the
taxation of computer software to be limited to that contained on a physical medium, but
taken the phrase “other human-readable or machine-readable form” to include
downloaded software. Virtually no one purchases software on cards, tapes, discs or
coding sheets any longer. Staff proposes the attached amendment to clarify the city’s
K:\FIAD\First Read Agenda memo Software Ord.-.doc
Agenda Item 3M Page 3

intent to tax all software purchased for use in the city, regardless of whether it is
downloaded or purchased on a disk.
We do not believe that the amendment would be subject to the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of
Rights and therefore require a public vote. The relevant TABOR language is as follows:
[D]istricts must have voter approval in advance for . . . any new tax, tax rate increase,
mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a
property class, or extension of an expiring tax, or a tax policy change directly causing a
net tax revenue gain to any district.
Colorado Const. Art. 10, § 20 (4)(a)(emphasis added).
Amending the ordinance would not be a tax policy change. The city has consistently
construed this ordinance to apply to downloaded software and database access. While the
court’s decision rejected this interpretation, the amendment would not be a change in the
city’s tax policy. The Colorado Supreme Court has explained that “tax policy change” is
“an undefined ‘catch-all’ phrase attempting to encompass any district action that is the
equivalent of a new tax or a tax rate change that would not be covered by the more
specific requirements listed before it.” Mesa County v. State, 203 P.3d 519, 529 (Colo.
2009). The amendment would not be the equivalent of a new tax, but a clarification of
the city’s intent with respect to an old tax.
In addition, to be subject to TABOR, the tax policy change must cause “a net tax revenue
gain.” In Mesa County, the Court held that TABOR’s voter approval requirements do not
apply to policy modifications that would have only a de minimis impact on a district’s
revenues. Requiring an election for a de minimis revenue gain would “make any
legislative action in the revenue arena nearly impossible and cripple the government’s
ability to function.” The Court provided little guidance as to what constituted a de
minimis revenue gain. It simply stated that the voters could not have intended, when
passing TABOR, that the government be required to hold elections that cost more than
the additional revenue obtained. Id. Since the city has always collected this tax, the
amendment would yield no new revenue above that previously collected. Thus, the
amendment would not result in a “net tax revenue gain.”
ANALYSIS
The council’s decision in 1981 to tax software involved an intense public process and
faced significant opposition from the business community. Nevertheless, the council
decided to tax software. The clarification to include “computer instructions” to the
definition in 1999 was considered a housekeeping item by council. The Ball Aerospace
decision will ultimately eliminate this tax as most if not all software is downloaded over
the internet. Council can choose to acquiesce and not clarify its intent or adopt the
proposed ordinance to clarify that the tax does not depend on the method of delivery.
ATTACHMENT A Proposed Ordinance.
K:\FIAD\First Read Agenda memo Software Ord.-.doc
Agenda Item 3M Page 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K:\FIAD\0-software definition amendment(t)-.doc
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-1-1, “GENERAL
DEFINITIONS, B.R.C. 1981 REGARDING DEFINITION OF
“COMPUTER SOFTWARE” AND “TAXABLE SERVICES”
AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
Section 1. Findings: The City Council finds as follows:
ATTACHMENT A
A. Section 1. Section 3-1-1, B.R.C. 1981 defines computer software as a taxable
service upon which the city imposes a sales and use tax on such software purchased and used in
the city of Boulder as follows:
"Computer software" means computer instructions as described in the definition
of "taxable services" in this section. Computer software is subject to taxation in
accordance with that definition and the provisions of chapter 3-2, "Sales and Use
Tax," B.R.C. 1981.
Under the definition of “taxable services” computer software is included as follows:
“Taxable service” means
…
(f) Computer software contained on cards, tapes, discs, coding sheets, or other
machine-readable or human-readable form, including software that has been
modified, so long as the price of the modifications does not exceed twenty-five
percent of the price of the unmodified software and excluding software created
specifically for the user.
B. The provision regarding taxable services including computer software was
adopted on July 7, 1981 and the definition of “computer software” was adopted on August 3,
1999 as a “housekeeping measure that will clarify code interpretation for taxpayers” and “to add
an explicit definition of the term ‘computer software;’”
C. In 2009 A taxpayer challenged the city’s taxation of computer software
downloaded from the internet arguing that because it was not contained on a card, tape, disc or
coding sheet, the city did not mean to tax it as a taxable service;
D. On August 24, 2011, the Boulder County District Court issued a ruling agreeing
with the taxpayer and holding that the intent of the council of defining computer software
contained on “cards, discs, tapes, coding sheets, or other human-readable or machine-readable
form” was to limit computer software subject to the city’s tax as only that software “contained
on” a physical media, and not software downloaded from the internet;
Agenda Item 3M Page 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. The court’s ruling did not address the 1999 clarification added by council that
computer software included “computer instructions” without limiting the manner in which those
instructions were transmitted to the taxpayer’s computer;
F. There is nothing in the records of the city or the city’s interpretation of Chapter 3-
2 “Sales and Use Tax,” B.R.C. 1981 that indicates council intended to differentiate between
software delivered on a physical medium and software downloaded from the internet or to tax
one and not the other, or to exclude on-line data bases from the city’s sales and use tax;
G. This was never the council’s intent; and the city currently collects about $2.9
million in tax from computer software;
H. Since at least 1981 to the present, the city of Boulder has consistently taxed all
software and on-line data bases, regardless of the method of delivery;
I. The council passes this ordinance to clarify that the city has always and should
continue to tax all software, including on-line data bases, purchased or downloaded for use in the
city of Boulder without regard to the method of delivery;
COLORADO:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
Section 2. Section 3-1-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended by revising the
following definitions, to read:
“Computer software” means computer instructions as described in the definition of "taxable
services" in this section regardless of method of delivery. Computer software is subject to
taxation in accordance with the that definition of “taxable services” in this section and the
provisions of Chapter 3-2, “Sales and Use Tax,” B.R.C. 1981.
…
“On-line data bases” means computer instructions that are accessed remotely for a fee and
provide the taxpayer with information on equipment of the taxpayer. On-line data bases are
subject to taxation as “computer software” in accordance with the definition of “taxable
services” in this section and the provisions of chapter 3-2, “Sales and Use Tax,” B.R.C. 1981.
…
"Taxable services" means:
(a) Transmission of intrastate electronic messages originating within the City by means of
microwave, telephone, telegraph, or cable transmission, including cable, microwave, or
other television service for which a charge is imposed, except that for mobile
telecommunications services, the definition of taxable services shall be as set forth in the
Federal Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act, 4 U.S.C. sections 116 to 126, as
K:\FIAD\0-software definition amendment(t)-.doc
Agenda Item 3M Page 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
amended, which provides that taxes on mobile telecommunications services are to be
collected and remitted to the jurisdiction where the customer's primary use of said
services occurs, regardless of where the mobile telecommunications services originate,
pass through, or terminate;
(b) Provision of access to transmission and switching equipment to transmit interchange
telephone calls to, from, and within the City;
(c) Gas, electricity, steam, and heat for domestic, manufacturing, or commercial
consumption and not for taxable resale;
(d) Meals purchased or sold in any restaurant, eating house, hotel, residential facility, school
commissary, cafeteria, lodge, church, drugstore, club, resort, or any place at which meals
or food are sold regularly or occasionally or that is required by law to have food or meals
available for sale;
(e) Labor used to render tangible personal property sold or leased into a form usable by the
purchaser or lessee and the charge for connecting or installing taxable services for the
purchaser or lessee; and
(f) Computer software in any contained on cards, tapes, discs, coding sheets, or other
machine-readable or human-readable form, including software that has been modified, so
long as the price of the modifications does not exceed twenty-five percent of the price of
the unmodified software and excluding software created specifically for the user.
Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 4. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by
title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk
for public inspection and acquisition.
K:\FIAD\0-software definition amendment(t)-.doc
Agenda Item 3M Page 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 6th day of December 2011.
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\FIAD\0-software definition amendment(t)-.doc
____________________________________
Mayor
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this ____ day of ________, 20__.
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
____________________________________
Mayor
Agenda Item 3M Page 8

CONSENT ITEM – 3N

CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only an ordinance authorizing and directing the acquisition of property
interests located at 5864 Rustic Knolls Dr, by purchase or eminent domain proceedings.
PRESENTER/S:
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Tom Carr, City Attorney
Kathy Haddock, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
Tracy Winfree, Director of Transportation
Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator
Timothy Head, Airport Manager
Doug Newcomb, Property Agent
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
City Council authorization is requested for litigation to proceed with eminent domain if
the city’s negotiations to purchase property interests located at 5864 Rustic Knolls Drive
are not successful. The city will continue to attempt to purchase the property by good
faith negotiations with property owners; however this ordinance allows filing of a
condemnation action in the event negotiations continue to be unsuccessful.
Acquisition of the entire property, or the through-the-fence agreement property interests,
at 5864 Rustic Knolls Dr. is necessary to comply with requirements of the Federal
Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regarding residential through-the-fence agreements
(“RTTFs”) at public-use airports. By the 3 rd quarter of 2012, the city must meet certain
standards for control of airport operations and development, and submit an access plan
showing that it does not have any RTTFs that do not comply with FAA regulations. The
city cannot meet these requirements without either purchasing or acquiring through
condemnation the property or the interests in the RTTF located at 5864 Rustic Knolls
Drive.
Agenda Item 3N Page 1

The staff is asking for council authorization to obtain either the entire property or only
the property interests related to the RTTF. City Council authorized acceptance of grant
funds from the Colorado Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division to pay for
up to $270,000 of the acquisition price. Staff believes authority to condemn the property
is necessary in this circumstance as informal negotiations and efforts to provide the city’s
appraisal to the property owner have been unsuccessful. Such authority will allow staff
to commence the formal negotiations which are a prerequisite to filing the court action.
The proposed ordinance and legal descriptions regarding this request are included in
Attachment A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to introduce and order published by title only an ordinance authorizing and
directing the acquisition of property or property interests in the through-the-fence
agreement located at 5861 Rustic Knolls Drive, by purchase or eminent domain
proceedings, and setting forth related details.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS OF THE
PROJECT:
• Economic: The 2008 Airport Economic Impact Study, published by CDOT
Aeronautics, estimated that Boulder Municipal Airport contributes more than $60
million annually to the Boulder economy, supports approximately 729 jobs, and
enhances the economic diversity of the area. In addition, the airport is completely
self-sufficient due to lease revenue and federal funding, and does not receive any
general fund revenues. Complying with the interim policy adopted by the FAA is a
requisite to obtaining grant funds in 2013 and beyond.
• Environmental: If the city elects to purchase the parcel, such purchase will allow the
city to preserve it in its natural state and enhances safety by providing an additional
buffer between the runway and neighbouring houses.
• Social: Acquisition of the parcel or RTTF agreement will ensure that the airport
complies with federal regulations and remains a public-use airport for the Boulder
community. This will enable the airport to continue its various community endeavors
such as its ties with Rocky Mountain Rescue; Civil Air Patrol; University of Colorado
Flying Club; ROTC, Deaf Pilots Association; Cub Scouts of America; and area nonprofits.
Agenda Item 3N Page 2

OTHER IMPACTS:
• Fiscal: The total project cost is anticipated to be paid with $270,000 fromCDOT
grant funds and the remainder through the Airport Fund.
Fiscal impact of eminent domain: The potential cost of eminent domain may
include additional attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees for filing the action, and
a valuation hearing, if necessary. It is too early to determine the precise fiscal
impact of a potential eminent domain action. If the acquisition can be obtained
without eminent domain, the City Attorney’s Office will process the matter inhouse,
requiring only consultation with a condemnation attorney. If eminent
domain is required for this property, the City Attorney’s Office will retain outside
counsel with expertise in condemnation.
• Staff time: The staff time needed to complete this project is included within the
existing work plan if the RTTF property interest can be acquired by negotiation. If
eminent domain is required, staff time will be minimal as outside counsel will be
retained.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
The city has received letters from neighbors in Rustic Knolls with multiple concerns
about the use of the RTTF, including that it is being used to move planes from the airport
for the owner’s commercial benefit, and that the use is not being limited to one airplane
owned by the property owner as required by the terms of the RTTF. Neighbors are also
concerned for their properties because of a waterway being filled in to level the ground
for the traversing of the airplanes from the airport to the property. The owner of the
glider operations has noticed damage to an airport gate, likely caused by transportation of
snow mobiles to the parcel, which is in violation of the terms of the RTTF.
BACKGROUND:
City Issues with RTTF: The city staff has had concerns about the location of the RTTF
for several years. The RTTF is on the north side of the runways, on the opposite side of
the airport from the existing taxiway and businesses. Use of the RTTF presents an unsafe
situation for the land owner and other aircraft utilizing the airport, as there is not a
taxiway from the RTTF to the existing airport travel patterns. Airplanes traversing the
airport outside of the taxiways creates a dangerous condition for planes using the
runways and can damage the lights and other safety equipment used to make use of the
runways comply with FAA requirements. The FAA stated that a new taxiway would
need to be built to meet FAA safety requirements in order for the RTTF to be used to
access the airport. The cost of such a taxiway is estimated at a minimum of one million
dollars. A major reason for the expense is the topography at either end of the runways,
which does not allow the clearance required. Accessing the existing taxiway around the
east end of the runway would require purchasing city open space land and property from
a ditch company, as well as moving enough dirt to fill in a 60-foot drop in topography.
See Attachment B showing the runway clearance zones in yellow. Attachment C is an
aerial of the airport area showing the RTTF property in orange. Both attachments are
oriented the same, with north on the left side.
Agenda Item 3N Page 3

FAA Issues with RTTF: The FAA has a history of concerns about airports with RTTFs
because of the safety issues related to airplanes traversing airport property outside of
approved taxiways. Since 1989, the FAA has strongly discouraged RTTFs. In 2009, it
determined that all RTTFs should be eliminated due to widespread compliance issues.
There was an outcry by users of airports where RTTFs used established taxiways and
believed they should not be regulated because of RTTFs that created dangerous access
routes to an airport. The proponents of RTTFs worked with members of Congress to
introduce a bill that would allow RTTFs under certain circumstances.
Rather than implement the 2009 decision by the 2011 deadline, the FAA determined it
needed additional time to evaluate all RTTFs at airports around the country, and adopted
an interim policy that requires airports to submit proof that current RTTFs meet federal
requirements as a prerequisite to receiving FAA funds starting in 2012. The Boulder
airport relies on FAA funds that it would receive in 2013, but cannot meet the terms of
the interim policy with the existing RTTF because of the safety violations created by the
location of the existing RTTF.
Property Owners Regarding RTTF: According to FAA regulations, the RTTF owner is
responsible for infrastructure improvements involving RTTF compliance. Since 2006,
when the current owners bought the property and made plans to build a hangar and
increase the use of the RTTF, the city has made numerous attempts to work with the
owner of the RTTF to either acquire the RTTF interest or acquire the entire parcel.
When the bill was introduced to allow RTTFs under certain circumstances, the city
offered not to oppose the 5864 Rustic Knolls property owner’s use of the RTTF if it
complied with the terms of the bill. The first step of that process would be for the
landowner to obtain approval from the FAA for construction of a safe taxiway from the
RTTF to the airport taxiway. The city has also requested that the owner comply with
other FAA requirements, such as establishing an expiration date on the RTTF and
implementing access fees. All of those offers and requests have been refused by the land
owner.
Since 2008, the owners have obtained approval from the county to build a residence and a
hangar on the property, obtained a building permit, and drilled a well on the property.
However, there has been no attempt to use the building permit and it has since expired.
The city has made several efforts to acquire the property or the RTTF by agreement, but
those efforts have been unsuccessful.
CDOT Funding: When the FAA interim policy was adopted and there did not appear to
be any resolution available with the property owner, the city sought and obtained grant
funds from the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) of up to $300,000
(with a required $30,000 match by the city) to acquire the entire property.
CDOT’s interest in the entire property, rather than just the RTTF interests, relates to its
policy to acquire properties surrounding airports that are in the safety zone around
runways. The FAA also encourages airports to obtain property around the airport to
provide a development, noise, and safety buffer; this property is the logical next
Agenda Item 3N Page 4

acquisition because of its immediate proximity to the runway. The Rustic Knolls
property is within the safety zone, and has had two significant airplane incidents adjacent
to the property and a brush fire from a third airplane when it was engulfed in flames.
Upon receiving the grant, a formal appraisal of the property was obtained, and the city
Property Agent has made numerous attempts since August to contact the property owners
to discuss the appraisal. The property owners had not responded to any such contacts by
phone or e-mail until the Property Agent received an indirect response last week.
However, it does not appear that such response is likely to lead to settlement of the RTTF
issues.
ANALYSIS:
The city must submit its access plan in 2012 to comply with interim policies of the FAA
in order to avoid losing federal funding. Staff is asking for permission to acquire the
entire property. If the landowner has an interest in constructing a residence on the
property without a hangar or use of the RTTF, the city could acquire just the RTTF
interest to accommodate the landowners. However, if the city acquires just the RTTF
rights rather than the entire parcel, the FAA RTTF requirements would be met, but it is
likely that the CDOT grant would not be useable because it was approved for acquisition
of the entire parcel. The RTTF has a nominal value of about $5,000 because it cannot be
used legally without significant expense.
Acquisition Process
In order for the city to acquire the RTTF to meet the FAA requirements, Colorado law
requires that the city pay the property owners fair market value of the interest acquired.
The city is also required to pay the cost of the property owner’s appraisal. If after
following the formal negotiation process for acquiring the RTTF or all of the property
interests, the city and property owners cannot agree on the fair market value, the city may
bring an eminent domain action.
Eminent domain is the authority of the city to bring an action to secure private land for a
public purpose provided that fair compensation is provided to the landowner. The terms
“eminent domain” and “condemnation” are used synonymously.
Approval of the proposed ordinance does not require an eminent domain action to be
filed in the court now or in the future. However, in order to be able to meet the terms of
the FAA’s interim policy to obtain needed grant funds in 2013, staff is requesting the
authority to use eminent domain if necessary. Attached is an ordinance which, if adopted,
will allow the project to proceed.
NEXT STEPS:
If Council approves the ordinance, the Property Agent will commence the formal
negotiation process to acquire the property. If such negotiations are not successful, the
city attorney’s office will have filed an action in eminent domain in the Boulder District
Court for the court to determine the fair market value of the property.
Agenda Item 3N Page 5

ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposed ordinance with legal description
Attachment B: Drawing of airport with business part of airport in orange, runway
clearance areas in yellow, and hangars shown in red and blue.
Attachment C: Aerial of airport and surrounding property
Agenda Item 3N Page 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
K:\AIAD\o-CONDEMNATION of TTF-341.doc
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS LOCATED AT 5864
RUSTIC KNOLLS DRIVE BY PURCHASE OR EMINENT
DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS.
WHEREAS the City Council finds and recites as follows:
A. The city of Boulder, through its Public Works/Transportation Department, has
recommended that the city proceed with acquiring the property located at 5864 Rustic Knolls
Drive or the through-the-fence agreement associated with the property.
B. The acquisition is necessary to comply with policies of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regarding through-the-fence arrangements, including the one between the
city and 5864 Rustic Knolls Drive.
C. The city has applied for and obtained a grant from the Colorado Department of
Transportation to pay up to $300,000 of the acquisition price.
D. The legal description of the parcel to be acquired is set forth in Exhibit A attached
to and incorporated into this ordinance.
E. It is necessary to obtain the property or through-the-fence property interest as
soon as reasonably practicable in order to ensure federal funding is not put in jeopardy and that
the city is able to meet the FAA requirements for receipt of grant funds and operation of the
airport.
F. The acquisition of the property or the interest in the through-the-fence agreement
is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city and others
who use the Boulder airport and its environs.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 3N Page 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COLORADO:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
Section 1. City Council authorizes the city manager and/or the city manager’s designees
and agents to formally negotiate for the acquisition of the property described in Exhibit A or any
parts thereof, as they may be adjusted to accommodate the project.
Section 2. City Council authorizes the city attorney, and/or his or her designee, to
acquire the property or through-the-fence agreement property interests described herein for the
city by the exercise of the city’s power of eminent domain should negotiations for the acquisition
of the property interests not be successful, and further authorizes the initiation of condemnation
proceedings to acquire the above-designated property or property interests for the city.
Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 4. The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only
and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 6 th day of December 2011.
Attest:
City Clerk
K:\AIAD\o-CONDEMNATION of TTF-341.doc
Mayor
Attachment A
Agenda Item 3N Page 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this ____ day of _____________, 2012.
Attest:
City Clerk
K:\AIAD\o-CONDEMNATION of TTF-341.doc
Mayor
Attachment A
Agenda Item 3N Page 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Legal Description – 5864 Rustic Knolls Drive:
K:\AIAD\o-CONDEMNATION of TTF-341.doc
EXHIBIT A
Attachment A
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE
6TH P.M.; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 189.56 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 89
DEGREES 41 MINUTES EAST, A DISTANCE OF 69.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79
DEGREES 10 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 172.57 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 71 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 89.21 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
126.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 215.80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4
OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 43.96 FEET TO
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF
THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 40
MINUTES WEST, A DISTANCE OF 652.32 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 22 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO.
Agenda Item 3N Page 10

Attachment B
Runway Environment
Runway Protection Zone
Agenda Item 3N Page 11
Airport Structures

Attachment C
Agenda Item 3N Page 12

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM – 5A

CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt emergency
ordinance 7825 concerning the Utility Occupation Tax, extending and increasing the tax rate
up to an additional $1.9 million, and making the additional funds available to support local
government services and to fund the costs of further exploration of and planning for both the
creation of a municipal electric utility and acquiring an existing electric distribution system, as
approved by the voters in the Nov. 1, 2011 general municipal election, by the revision of
Chapter 3-13 “Utility Occupation Tax,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth related details.
PRESENTERS
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item was read on first reading on November 15, 2011. The purpose of this item is to
consider an ordinance that will implement changes to the Utility Occupation Tax approved by
the voters at the Nov. 1, 2011 election. If approved, the attached ordinance will levy an increase
and extension of the Utility Occupation Tax on public utility companies that deliver energy to
customers in the form of electricity and gas. The attached ordinance outlines the amendments to
Title 3, Chapter 13 to the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) and sets forth the related details.
In order for this ordinance to become effective on Jan. 1, 2012, an emergency finding is required
and was provided in the ballot measure.
Agenda Item 5A Page 1

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to adopt emergency ordinance 7825 concerning the Utilities Occupation Tax, extending
and increasing the tax rate up to an additional $1.9 million, and making the additional funds
available to support local government services, and to fund the costs of further exploration of
and planning for both the creation of a municipal electric utility and acquiring an existing
electric distribution system, as approved by the voters in the Nov. 1, 2011 general municipal
election, by the revision of Chapter 3-13 “Utility Occupation Tax,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting
forth related details.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic: The projected revenue from levying the voter-approved Utility Occupation Tax
increase and extension will support local government services and fund the costs of further
exploration of and planning for the possible creation of a municipal electric utility and
acquiring an existing electric distribution system.
The discussion of Boulder’s energy future has focused on the economic risks and
opportunities associated with near-term energy decisions. In light of projected increases in
fossil fuel prices and concerns regarding the long-term availability of these supplies, it is
imperative to begin planning for and investing in alternative energy resources to secure
Boulder’s economic future.
Boulder’s current economic vitality has benefited from considerable growth of “clean
energy” companies in recent years. Continuing to position the city as an innovation hub for
clean energy will have important economic benefits. A further study of the feasibility of
municipalization of the electric utility will need to be undertaken to create a greater degree
of certainty of costs. If these costs end up being too high, the municipal utility option may
be determined to be infeasible or undesirable, leading to a decision not to proceed. This
revenue source will help the council make an informed decision.
• Environmental: The municipal electric utility may provide more opportunities to create and
implement alternative energy sources, demand side management, and energy efficiencies
that will help the city meet its carbon reduction goals.
The energy discussion in Boulder is driven by concerns about the environmental impact of
our current energy system. The high percentage of the current energy supply that comes
from coal combustion results in a very carbon-intensive electricity supply. The resulting
greenhouse gas emissions are a significant contributor to climate change. While Boulder’s
efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions will not have any significant impact at the
global (or even regional) level, Boulder residents have consistently expressed their
commitment to doing their part within a global effort, and to demonstrate leadership in the
Agenda Item 5A Page 2

hope that others will follow. Without changing the fuel mix of its electricity supply, it will
be difficult for Boulder to achieve its current goal of emission reductions based on the
Kyoto protocol, let alone deeper reductions in the future. Switching to cleaner fuel sources
and renewable resources is essential to our environmental future.
The decision to create a municipal utility will provide greater flexibility and control for
Boulder to decide how it wants to invest its energy dollars in an environmentally responsible
manner, allowing it to determine the appropriate tradeoff between cost and benefit based on
local concerns and priorities.
• Social: The tax will be passed through to nonresidential and residential customers at all
income levels. The rising cost of fossil fuels will impact household, business, and
institutional budgets, in potentially significant ways. This is especially true for lowerincome
households. Prudent planning to ensure price stability over time can help to manage
and mitigate this impact.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal: The fiscal impact to the city is covered in the text of the Aug. 17, 2010 agenda
packet for second reading of Ordinance No. 7751 that approved the placement of the ballot
issue to implement the Utility Occupation Tax on the Nov. 2, 2010 election. The agenda
memo can be located at
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Clerk/Agendas/2010/08_17_2010/3F.pdf
Expert estimates project that the process of creating a municipal utility will cost between $3
million and $6 million dollars, extending over the next three to five years. The General Fund
cannot sustain this level of expenditure without impacting core services.
• Staff Time: The staff time needed to complete the background work for ballot issues will be
completed with existing staff resources, supplemented with expertise provided by
independent consultants.
QUESTIONS:
Subsequent to first reading of this item, a council member requested clarification on whether the
limitation that was part of the ballot that provided the increase in the occupation tax would be
used only “for the purpose of funding the costs of further exploration of and planning for both
the creation of a municipal electric utility and acquiring an existing electric distribution system”
should be added to the occupation tax ordinance.
Answer:
References to the occupation tax have been provided in the legislative intent provision. Also, the
city is required to comply with all of the limitations that were included in the ballot measure that
was approved by the voters. If the council is interested in further clarifying this issue, the
ordinance can be amended to include provisions that clearly delineate how the revenues are to be
Agenda Item 5A Page 3

dedicated to specific purposes. There is a similar provision for the sale and use tax in section 3-
2-39, “Earmarked Revenues,” B.R.C. 1981. Such an amendment could read as follows:
3-13-9 Dedicated Revenues.
(a) General Fund Revenue. The amount of the occupation tax revenue
attributable to the ballot measure passed by the voters in 2010 (Ord.
No. 7751) and extended in time by the voters in 2011 (Ord. No, 7804)
shall be used for general revenue needs of the city.
(b) Revenue for Electric Utility Exploration and Planning for Creation.
The amount of the increase in the occupation tax revenue attributable
to the ballot measure passed by the voters in 2011 shall be used for
the purpose of funding the costs of further exploration of and
planning for both the creation of a municipal electric utility and
acquiring an existing electric distribution system.
The council may adopt this amendment at second reading if it is done as an emergency measure.
The council may also conduct another reading on this item as well. At the time this memo was
published, there was no meeting scheduled for December 20, 2011. Assuming that there are no
additional meetings in December, a third reading will delay implementation of the tax until after
the first of the new year. Therefore, if council chooses to add this amendment, staff recommends
that it complete final adoption on December 6 and adopt as an emergency measure as proposed.
ANALYSIS
This proposed ordinance implements the increase and extension of the Utility Occupation Tax
passed by voters on Nov. 1, 2011. The tax is imposed on any utility delivering gas or electricity
in the city, unless the utility is paying a fee under a franchise, license or permit issued by the city.
The ordinance increases the tax by $1.9 million dollars to a total of $6 million dollars per year
and extends the tax from its original expiration of Dec. 31, 2015 to the earlier of (1) Dec. 31,
2017, (2) when the city decides not to create a municipal utility, or (3) when it commences
delivery of municipal electric utility services. The additional revenue will be used to start the
next efforts in the city’s municipalization exploration. The revenue associated with the original
tax is to be used for general fund purposes.
The Utility Occupation Tax is a tax on the utility’s revenues collected from the sale of natural
gas and electricity, which is then passed on to the customer through tariffs that have been
authorized by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The occupation tax electric
surcharge is calculated according to a formula included in Xcel Energy’s electric tariff (See,
Colo. PUC No. 7 Electric, Sheet No. 101 – 101B). Xcel Energy’s gas and electric tariffs each
include a provision by which Xcel Energy is permitted to pass the tax through to the customer.
The council placed the original Utility Occupation Tax measure on the ballot last year to replace
lost revenues associated with the franchise fee payments that the city gave up when it did not
renew the franchise with Xcel Energy. The tax was approved by voters on Nov. 2, 2010.
Agenda Item 5A Page 4

In August of this year, the council placed a measure on the ballot asking voters to approve an
increase and extension of the Utility Occupation Tax. The purpose of the increase is to fund the
costs associated with the further exploration of municipalization of the electric distribution
system.
At the Nov. 1, 2011 election, the voters passed two measures related to Boulder’s efforts to
explore the municipalization of the electric system. The first measure, put forward to the voters
in Ordinance No. 7804, creates the general framework, bonding authority, limitations, and
governance of a city light and power utility. The second measure, put forward to the voters in
ordinance No. 7808, creates the authority for the city to extend and increase the utility
occupation tax that was passed by the voters in the November 2010 election.
It is possible that the annual amount of revenue from the tax may be higher than
municipalization-related costs in any one year. It will be difficult to predict how much will be
needed in any given year. In subsequent years, the council can set the Utility Occupation Tax at
a lower rate than that approved by voters if the fund balance for municipalization exceeds the
amount of revenue anticipated as necessary to continue forward with municipalization efforts.
If the measure is adopted as an emergency measure, it can be effective on Jan. 1, 2012, which is
a typical start time for taxation measures. If the measure is finally adopted as a standard
ordinance on Dec. 6, 2011, it will be effective on Jan. 6, 2012 and prorated for the year of 2012.
In order for this ordinance to become effective on Jan. 1, 2012, an emergency finding is required
and was provided in the ballot measure.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Emergency Ordinance 7825
Agenda Item 5A Page 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COLORADO:
K:\CMEN\o-7825 - occup tax -1148.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 7825
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE
UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX, EXTENDING AND
INCREASING THE TAX RATE UP TO AN ADDITIONAL $1.9
MILLION, AND MAKING THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS
AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SERVICES, AND TO FUND THE COSTS OF FURTHER
EXPLORATION OF AND PLANNING FOR BOTH THE
CREATION OF A MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY AND
ACQUIRING AN EXISTING ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM, AS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN THE NOV. 1,
2011 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, BY THE REVISION
OF CHAPTER 3-13 “UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX,” B.R.C.
1981; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
Section 1. Purpose and Findings.
The purpose of this ordinance is to implement the tax and conditions approved by the
electors on November 1, 2011.
Section 2. Chapter 3-13, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read as follows.
3-13-1 Legislative Purpose, Findings, and Intent.
(a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to implement the city’s utility occupation tax,.
(1) pPassed by the voters on November 2, 2010 as a replacement for a fee paid under
franchise agreement with a utility provider;
(2) Amended by the voters on November 1, 2011 to increase the amount of the tax
and extend the tax to December 31, 2017.
(b) Findings. The city council finds that:
ATTACHMENT A
(1) The occupation of delivering electricity and natural gas within the city is the
exercise of a taxable privilege;
(2) The levy of the taxes imposed by this chapter is to replace a franchise fee and
therefore should not be assessed against any public utility obligated to pay a
franchise fee; and
(3) The revenue collected should be limited to amounts reasonably expected to be
collected under a franchise, and to collect additional revenue for the purpose of
Agenda Item 5A Page 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K:\CMEN\o-7825 - occup tax -1148.doc
funding the costs of further exploration and planning for the creation of a
municipal utility and acquisition of an existing electric distribution system.
(c) Intent. The city council intends to use the funds collected pursuant to this tax for general
fund purposes during the time when the city explores a clean energy future with more
stable energy rates and to implement such plans by placing choices for the city’s energy
supply before the voters before the end of 2015., and for the purpose of funding the costs
of further exploration and planning for the creation of a municipal utility and acquisition
of an existing electric distribution system. The city council intends to give full effect to
the ballot measures approved by the voters.
3-13-2 Imposition of Occupation Tax.
(a) Payment of the Tax Required. No utility delivering electricity and gas to residential,
commercial or industrial customers shall fail to pay to the city manager the utility
occupation tax, prescribed by subsection (c) of this section, unless such person is
obligated to pay a comparable fee under a franchise agreement or other license or permit
agreement with the city.
(b) Original Tax Effective Date and Expiration Date. The utility occupation tax of
$4,100,000 was shall be effective January 1, 2011., and shall expire on December 31,
2015.
(b)(c) Extension and Increase Dates. The increase in the amount of the utility occupation tax
shall be effective January 1, 2012 and expire on the earlier of: (1) December 31, 2017, (2)
when the city decides not to create a municipal utility, or (3) when the city commences
delivery of municipal electric utility services.
(dc) Tax Rate. The utility occupation tax effective January 1, 2010 2012 shall be
$4,100,0006,000,000, adjusted annually as provided in section 3-13-3 of this title.
3-13-3 Adjustments.
(a) Limitations on Tax Increases. Beginning January 1, 2012, the maximum annual tax rate
increase shall be the lesser of three percent or the average amount of rate increases made
by public utility companies delivering natural gas or electricity in the city in the previous
year as calculated pursuant to subsections (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) Annual Utility Rate Study. The city manager shall review the rate tariffs filed by all
investor-owned public utility companies delivering gas or electricity in the city.
(1) The city manager shall list all electrical rates in the electrical tariff expressed in
terms of cents per kilowatt hour from lowest to highest and select from that list
the median electric rate. If there is more than one investor-owned electric utility
company delivering electricity in the city, the city manager shall ascertain the
Agenda Item 5A Page 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
median electrical rate for each such company and then produce an average median
rate charge for electricity in the city.
(2) The city manager shall ascertain the standard rate per decatherm charged by each
public utility company delivering gas in the city. If there is more than one
investor-owned gas utility company delivering gas in the city, the city manager
will average the standard rate per decatherm for each such company to produce an
average standard rate per decatherm charged for delivering gas in the city.
(c) Rate Calculation Method. Annually, the city manager shall calculate an average increase
by comparing the rates determined in subsection (b) above with comparable rates charged
in the previous calendar year to produce a percentage average increase for each such rate.
The city manager shall then average those rate increases and compare that average to
determine whether it is greater than or less than three percent. The utility occupation tax
shall then be increased by the lesser of the two percentages. The city manager will
recommend any such tax increase, subject to the limitations of this section, to the city
council concurrent with the annual budget process.
(d) Tax Increase Date. The effective amount of tax due shall be increased as of January 1, of
each year.
3-13-4 Payment of Tax.
Utility occupation tax payments shall be remitted to the city manager in equal monthly
installments not more than thirty (30) days following the end of each month. The first payment
following the increase effective January 1, 2012 shall be due February 29,March 31, 20112012.
Initial and final payments shall be prorated for the portions of the months at the beginning and
end of the term of this utility occupation tax.
3-13-5 Designation of Tax.
Persons taxed under the provisions of this chapter are hereby authorized to reflect this tax under
the title of “Utility Occupation Tax.”
3-13-6 Enforcement of Tax Liability
(a) Tax Constitutes a First Lien. The utility occupation tax imposed by this chapter is a first
and prior lien on tangible personal property in which the person responsible to remit the
tax has an ownership interest, subject only to valid mortgages or other liens of record at
the time of and prior to the recording of notice of tax lien as provided in subsection 3-2-
27(c), B.R.C. 1981.
(b) Enforcement. The provisions of sections 3-2-22, “Penalties for Failure to File Tax
Return or Pay Tax (Applies to Entire Title),” 3-2-27, “Tax Constitutes Lien,” 3-2-29,
“Sale of Business Subject to Lien,” 3-2-30, “Certificate of Discharge of Lien,” 3-2-31,
“Jeopardy Assessment,” 3-2-32, “Enforcing the Collection of Taxes Due (Applies to
Entire Title),” 3-2-33, “Recovery of Unpaid Tax by Action at Law,” 3-2-34, “City May
K:\CMEN\o-7825 - occup tax -1148.doc
Agenda Item 5A Page 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
be a Party Defendant,” 3-2-35, “Injunctive Relief,” 3-2-36, “Obligations of Fiduciaries
and Others,” and 3-2-38, “Limitations,” B.R.C. 1981, providing for enforcement of
collection of taxes due, govern the authority of the city manager to collect the utility
occupation tax imposed under this chapter.
3-13-7 Duties and Powers of City Manager.
The city manager is authorized to administer, including through the adoption of administrative
policies and guidelines, the provisions of this chapter and has all other duties and powers
prescribed by section 3-2-17, “Duties and Powers of City Manager,” B.R.C. 1981. In addition,
the city manager is authorized to enter into an agreement with persons authorized to tax under
this ordinance to establish procedures for tax collection, payment to the city and the reasonable
set up and collection charges that will be owed to such person.
3-13-8 Tax Not on Interstate Commerce; Not a Franchise.
The tax provided in this chapter is upon occupations and businesses in the performance of local
functions and is not a tax upon functions relating to interstate commerce. None of the terms of
this chapter mean that the city has granted any provider a franchise.
Section 3. The City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to preserve the public
peace, health or property and an emergency exists due to the desire to implement the utility
occupation tax approved by the voters on November 1, 2011, by January 1, 2011. There is
insufficient time for this implementing ordinance to become effective as of January 1, 2012, as
authorized in the ballot measure. Therefore the City Council orders that this ordinance be passed
as an emergency measure and that the ordinance be effective on January 1, 2012.
Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 5. The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only
and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
K:\CMEN\o-7825 - occup tax -1148.doc
Agenda Item 5A Page 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 15th day of November 2011.
Attest:
_________________________
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\CMEN\o-7825 - occup tax -1148.doc
______________________________
Mayor
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY
MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 6th day of December 2011.
Attest:
_________________________
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
______________________________
Mayor
Agenda Item 5A Page 10

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM – 5B

CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011
AGENDA TITLE:
Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 7826 amending Title 9,
Land Use Code B.R.C. 1981, regarding definitions and use standards for breweries, brewpubs,
distilleries and wineries.
PRESENTERS:
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Bev Johnson, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider adoption of an ordinance amending the
Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.), 1981, to accommodate changes in the brewery, distillery and
winery industries in Boulder and, more specifically, to allow food service where alcohol is
served (Attachment A). Council approved Introduction and First Reading of the ordinance on
November 15, 2011.
There are currently 11 breweries, wineries and distilleries in Boulder’s industrial districts. All of
these manufacturing facilities have tap or tasting rooms where the general public may buy or
sample the products produced on the site. In response to the growth of these businesses, some
brewers have approached the city about adding food service to their tap or tasting rooms. While
the tap and tasting rooms are permitted under state alcohol licensing, Boulder’s Land Use Code
(Title 9, B.R.C.) restricts the location, size and function of restaurants in the industrial districts.
Amendments to the Land Use Code are proposed to respond to these emerging trends in the
brewery, distillery and winery industries and to encourage food service where alcohol is
Agenda Item 5B Page 1

consumed. The combination of manufacturing, tours and product tasting attracts visitors from
throughout the region and contributes to the city’s economic vitality. Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policy 5.13, Responsive to Changes in the Marketplace, recognizes
that development regulations can impact the ability of businesses to respond to changes in the
marketplace and states that the city will work with local businesses to make sure regulations and
review processes provide a level of flexibility and are responsive to evolving industry sectors.
While the economic benefit of these uses remains important, it also must be balanced with the
city’s desire to encourage “eating while drinking,” consistent with responsible alcohol
consumption practices.
The following goals for the project were identified by staff to guide the analysis and
development of proposed changes to the land use code.
1. Support and accommodate the evolving nature of the microbrewery, distillery and winery
industry and acknowledge their role in promoting tourism;
2. Support and encourage food service as a complementary use to the consumption of beer,
wine and spirits;
3. Minimize impacts to adjacent residents and businesses;
4. Prevent non-industrial uses from dominating industrial zones;
5. Provide more clarity in the Land Use Code relative to uses; and
6. Align the Land Use Code with state liquor laws and licensing.
The proposed changes to the code include new definitions for these types of manufacturing uses,
restrictions on the size of tap and tasting rooms, and new standards for restaurants at the
manufacturing facilities. With these code changes, brewpubs in the commercial districts would
be allowed to distribute or sell some of their products off-site consistent with state law
(distribution is currently prohibited in commercial zone districts).
Key Issues
The following questions are suggested to help guide council’s discussion on this item:
1. Does council generally support the intent of the proposed Land Use Code changes to
allow food service in breweries, wineries and distilleries in the industrial districts as
detailed in the above goals?
2. Does council agree with the code changes as proposed? Or, would council want to
consider potential amendments related to the following:
� a maximum square footage of a restaurant in a brewery, winery or distillery
(see page 10 for potential size);
� a minimum separation requirement, or buffer, between a brewery,
distillery or winery and a nearby school? (see page 19 for potential language);
� other changes?
Agenda Item 5B Page 2

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 7826 amending Title 9, “Land Use Code” B.R.C. 1981
related to the following sections:
1) Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions”;
2) Table 6-1. “Use Table” in subsection 9-6-1(d); and
3) Subsection 9-6-5(b), “Temporary Lodging, Dining, Entertainment, and Cultural Uses.”
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) reflects the following changes to Title 9, “Land Use
Code” B.R.C. 1981:
1. Add new definitions to Section 9-16-1, “Definitions”
a. Definitions are proposed for the following uses of land: brewery, distillery, and
winery. The definitions define the manufacturing use characteristics and place
limitations on the size of a tap room or tasting room that may be on the property,
which is the greater of 30 percent of the floor area or 1000 square feet.
b. A definition is proposed for a brew pub, which is a retail liquor license that
essentially operates as a restaurant, with accessory beer manufacturing. The beer
produced on the site is sold at the restaurant or, in limited amounts, for off-site
consumption consistent with state law.
c. Tap rooms and tasting rooms are defined as accessory uses 1 of breweries, where the
sale of products may occur. As described in the Analysis section below, the state
statutes allow tap rooms, known as “sales rooms” under the state liquor law, to be
associated with breweries if they also have a wholesaler’s license. Wineries and
distilleries are permitted to sell their products, along with food and other
merchandise, under their state manufacturer’s license.
2. Amend the use modules and requirements in the Use Table in Section 9-6-1,
“Schedule of Permitted Land Uses” to reflect the new definitions proposed above.
a. Brew pubs are proposed to be added to the same use modules as restaurants 2 .
1 Accessory use means a use located on the same lot as the principal building, structure or use to which it is related
and that: (1) Is subordinate to and customarily found with the principal use of the land; and (2) Is operated and
maintained for the benefit or convenience of the occupants, employees and customers of or visitors to the premises
with the principal use.
2 The B.R.C. defines a restaurant as “an establishment provided with a food preparation area, dining room
equipment and persons to prepare and serve, in consideration of payment, food or drinks to guests.”
Agenda Item 5B Page 3

. Breweries, wineries and distilleries would continue to be allowed uses 3 in the
industrial zoning districts if they are under 15,000 square feet and do not have a
restaurant.
c. Breweries, wineries and distilleries that are less than 15,000 square feet in size and
have a restaurant are permitted as conditional uses 4 in all of the industrial zoning
classifications.
d. Breweries, wineries and distilleries that are 15,000 square feet or greater in size (with
or without a restaurant):
� Are permitted pursuant to a Use Review 5 to address compatibility issues in the
Industrial-Service zone districts. The Industrial-Service district contains a wide
variety of uses that are oriented to serving the light industrial needs of the
residents and businesses of the city.
� Are permitted as conditional uses in the Industrial-General and Industrial-
Manufacturing areas. These are the areas where industrial type uses are
anticipated to occur in the city.
� Are prohibited in the Industrial-Mixed Services zone districts. These areas
tend to be smaller scale industrial areas on the edge of a main street
commercial area and may include residential and limited office uses. A large
brewery, winery or distillery would not be appropriate in this zone district.
3. Add new use standards for restaurants in breweries, distilleries and wineries to
Section 9-6-5, “Temporary Lodging, Dining, Entertainment & Cultural Uses.”
Additional use standards are proposed to regulate restaurants in breweries, distilleries
and wineries in industrial zones. Those standards include the following:
� The restaurant is limited to 30 percent of the total floor area of the facility or
1,000 square feet, whichever is greater, including any outdoor seating or
accessory sales areas;
� Parking shall meet the requirements for restaurants or taverns (Section 9-9-6,
Table 9-4, “Supplemental Parking Requirements for Nonresidential Uses in
All Zones” B.R.C. 1981); and
� The use may operate daily between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m;
unless the extended hours are approved through a use review process.
3 An allowed use is a use type that is permitted by right in the respective zoning district.
4 A conditional use is an administrative use type that is subject to applicable standards outlined in sections 9-6-2
through 9-6-9, “Specific Use Standards,” B.R.C. 1981.
5 A use review is a discretionary use type that is subject to both the applicable standards outlined in sections 9-6-2
through 9-6-9, “Specific Use Standards,” B.R.C. 1981 as well as the “Criteria for Review” in section 9-2-15, “Use
Review,” B.R.C. 1981.
Agenda Item 5B Page 4

COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND IMPACTS
� Economic: The proposed ordinance will benefit the existing brewery, distillery and
winery industries in the city by providing more flexibility for them to grow and evolve
with the broader industry.
� Environmental: Allowing breweries, distilleries and wineries to provide food service in
tap and tasting rooms will not have any substantial impact on the city’s environmental
sustainability.
� Social: Allowing breweries, distilleries and wineries in the industrial areas to provide
food service in tap and tasting rooms will have a health and public safety benefit by
encouraging food consumption where alcohol is served.
OTHER IMPACTS
� Fiscal: Supporting the growth in the brewery, distillery and winery industries will have a
positive affect on city revenue.
� Staff time: The proposed code changes will not have any substantial affect on staff time.
FIRST READING QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE
Question: What other uses would be allowed by right on the proposed Avery Brewing Company
site in Gunbarrel? Which uses in the industrial zones would not be considered good neighbors to
a school (good uses to be adjacent to a school)?
Response: The site that Avery Brewing Company is considering for the development of a
new brewery is in the general industrial zone district (I2 use module). See Concept Plan for
case number LUR2011-00066 at:
www.bouldercolorado.gov > City A – Z > Planning & Development Services > Current
Projects Under Review
The lists below include some of the various uses that would be allowed in that zone (see
section 9-6-1, “Schedule of Permitted Uses,” B.R.C.1981, for the complete list of uses).
The following uses are allowed by right in the I2 use module (do not require land use
review unless they meet the size threshold for site review):
1. Manufacturing uses
2. Warehouse or distribution facilities
3. Wholesale businesses
4. Essential municipal and public utility services
5. Government facilities
6. Animal hospitals or veterinary clinics
7. Animal kennels
8. Building material sales

11. Building and landscape contractors
12.Cleaning and laundry plants
13. Cold storage lockers
14. Equipment repair and rental with outdoor storage
15. Lumber yards
16. Firewood operations
17. Greenhouse and plant nurseries
The following are conditional uses allowed in the I2 use module (allowed if criteria
specific to the use are met):
1. Transitional housing facilities
2. Temporary outdoor entertainment
3. Day shelter (a safety plan is required if located within 600 feet of a school)
4. Emergency shelter (a safety plan is required if located within 600 feet of a school)
5. Overnight shelter (a safety plan is required if located within 600 feet of a school)
6. Convenience retail sales
7. Temporary sales
8. Fuel service stations or retail fuel sales
9. Sales and rental of vehicles
10. Outdoor storage of merchandise
11. Recycling collection facilities - small
The following uses may be allowed through Use Review (the use is demonstrated to be
appropriate in the proposed location):
1. Congregate care facilities
2. Custodial care facilities
3. Residential care facilities
4. Fraternities, sororities and dormitories
5. Boarding houses
6. Hostels
7. Public and private offices providing social services
8. Campgrounds
9. Building material sales >15,000 square feet
10. Outdoor storage
11. Recycling centers and large collection facilities
12. Recycling processing facilities
13. Self-service storage facilities
Question: Why should the city allow more flexibility for restaurants in breweries, distilleries
and wineries and not for other restaurants in the industrial districts?
Response: This is a unique circumstance since tap and tasting rooms and the service of
alcohol are currently allowed in breweries, wineries and distilleries under the manufacturer’s
or wholesaler’s licenses they receive through the state. Consistent with the city’s adopted
policy regarding responsible alcohol consumption, the intent of the proposed change would
be to encourage food consumption where alcohol is served. In addition, the proposed
Agenda Item 5B Page 6

amendment would make the city’s Land Use Code more consistent with state law which
specifically allows wineries and distilleries to serve food under a Manufacturer’s License
(CRS §12-47-402(3) and (6)).
Over the past several years, the city has eased some of the regulations for restaurants in
industrial zones. In 2008, the city extended the allowed hours of operation for restaurants
located in industrial zones and removed limits on exterior signage. In addition, new
provisions were added to allow industrial service centers including restaurants in industrial
districts.
Question: What is the city’s ability to place restrictions on festivals at breweries, distilleries or
wineries? Would private parties, receptions or other private events be allowed?
Response: Outdoor events fall under the category of “Temporary Outdoor Entertainment”
and are allowed as conditional uses in the industrial zones (see “Use Table” in section 9-6-1,
B.R.C. 1981). The code requires a landowner to apply for Administrative Review of any
proposed temporary outdoor entertainment, according to the procedures outlined in section 9-
2-2, “Administrative Review Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981. The use standards that must be met
are outlined in section 9-6-5(c), B.R.C. 1981 and include limitations on the frequency of
events, setback and fencing location requirements. Temporary Outdoor Entertainment
permits are also contingent upon city determination that the use will not adversely affect the
required parking or result in unsafe conditions or unacceptable levels of congestion. In
addition, a manufacturer would need to apply for a “temporary modification” to their
Wholesaler’s license, through the state, to hold an outdoor event at the site or to allow
alcohol consumption in the parking lot. The temporary modification would allow them to
expand their licensed premise for the duration of an event.
Indoor spaces dedicated for private receptions or banquets are considered “Indoor
Amusement Establishments” in the city code (section 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981)
and are prohibited in all industrial zones.
Question: What schools or businesses would be affected by a 500 foot rule?
Response: Staff located all of the registered primary and secondary schools in the city
relative to the industrial districts on a map and roughly identified the area within a 500 foot
radius of the property line of each school (Attachment J). Only two schools and one
planned preschool are currently located within 500 feet of an industrial zone. The two
existing schools include the Boulder Country Day School and the Boulder Preparatory High
School (Boulder Valley School District), which are both in Gunbarrel (Attachment I). In
addition, the Acorn School is planning to locate in an industrial zone adjacent to and within
500 feet of the Boulder Beer Company at 2845 Wilderness Place. Preschools do not trigger
the state’s 500 foot rule that may be imposed on retail licensees.
Question: How is the 500 foot rule currently measured by state law? Is that distance sufficient
to protect an adjacent school?
Agenda Item 5B Page 7

Response: The 500 foot rule as provided for in Colorado State Statute (CRS) §12-47-
313(1)(d), requires a premise subject to a retail liquor license to be setback from schools.
State law also grants local authorities or municipalities discretion, in the form of an
ordinance, with the ability to eliminate or reduce the distance restrictions imposed by this
section of the state statutes for any class of retail license (as listed in CRS §12-47-309(1)), or
may eliminate one or more types of schools or campuses from the application of the distance
restriction.
The 500 foot setback, if applied under the state law, is computed by direct measurement from
the nearest property line of the land used for school purposes to the nearest portion of the
building in which liquor is to be sold, using a route of direct pedestrian access, measured as a
person would walk safely and properly, without trespassing, with right angles at crossings
and with observance of traffic regulations and lights 6 .
Question: Is the city required to follow the state’s method of measuring a 500 foot setback?
Response: No, but it is necessary to have a rational basis for how the setback is measured.
Question: Would the existing breweries, distilleries and wineries be grandfathered in if the city
imposed a 500 foot setback rule?
Response: The alternate amendment as written (page 16) would grandfather in all of the
existing breweries, distilleries and wineries since none of them are currently located within
500 feet of a school. Likewise, if a school moved to within 500 feet of an existing brewery,
distillery or winery, the rule would not apply.
Question: How much land does Avery Brewing Company need for its new brewery?
Response: Avery Brewing Company representatives have indicated that they need at least a
five acre parcel for their proposed uses.
Question: How much vacant industrial land is available in the city? How much industrial land
has the city rezoned to a non-industrial land use?
Response: There are 1,784 acres of privately owned industrial land inside the city limits. 133
acres of industrial land in the city (29 parcels) are currently vacant, and approximately one
half of that acreage is owned by either Celestial Seasonings or Western Disposal. Of the
remaining vacant land, only four parcels are at least five acres each in size. Since 1996, the
6 Also see, Code of Regulations 1 C.C.R. 203-2: Measurement of Distance: Except as provided for in 12-47-313
C.R.S., no license shall be issued to or held by any person where malt, vinous, or spirituous liquor is sold if the
licensed premises is located within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the principal campus of any
college, university or seminary; said distance to be computed by direct measurement from the nearest property line
of the land used for school purposes to the nearest portion of the building in which malt, vinous, or spirituous
liquors are to be sold, using a route of direct pedestrian access, measured as a person would walk safely and
properly, without trespassing, with right angles at crossings and with the observance of traffic regulations and
lights.
Agenda Item 5B Page 8

city has rezoned 183 acres of land from industrial zoning to another land use (residential,
commercial or public). This includes the sites for the Boulder Country Day School, the
Peloton, Stazio Ballfields and Boulder Junction.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
Planning Board reviewed the proposed ordinance on October 20, 2011 (see draft board minutes
in Attachment H). A. Shoemaker and D. Powell recused themselves from the discussion due
to the appearance of impropriety since their children attend Boulder Country Day. B. Holicky
also recused himself because of the fact that his company’s client will be immediately affected
by the proposed changes. The remaining four board members voted to support the proposed land
use code amendments as proposed by staff with a few minor amendments. Those amendments
have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance.
Approximately 30 people associated with the Boulder Country Day School attended the Planning
Board meeting and a few representatives of the attendees spoke at the public hearing. The
school representatives expressed concern about the proposed relocation of Avery Brewing to a
site adjacent to the school in Gunbarrel. They expressed the view that the city should require a
brewery, distillery or winery to be at least 500 feet from a school. The board did not support a
500 foot setback requirement. Board members noted that, since the potential conflict is with
alcohol consumption in tap and tasting rooms (which the city does not have authority over), it
does not seem appropriate to place the restriction on food service. A board member noted that
any potential alcohol abuse problems might likely occur in the evening hours when school is not
in session. Board members agreed that any potential conflicts should be addressed on a case-bycase
basis and encouraged the school to continue to work with Avery Brewing through the
concept and site plan review phases of that particular project. The board also noted that it will
look closely at the compatibility issue when the Concept Plan for the proposed development is
discussed in December 2011.
The board requested that staff analyze the following additional issues before going to City
Council for First Reading:
1. Should there be a maximum square footage for a restaurant in a brewery, distillery or
winery since the 30 percent threshold could result in a very large restaurant in some
cases?
Response: A maximum square footage for restaurants in breweries, distilleries or
wineries was initially considered, however, it was difficult to find a basis for any
particular size limitation. Instead of identifying a maximum size for restaurants, staff
modified the proposed parking requirements to be the same as for all restaurants and
taverns (Section 9-9-6, Table 9-4, B.R.C. 1981). Under these parking standards (greater
of one per three seats or one space per 400 square feet of building space), it would be
very difficult to have a very large restaurant on a manufacturing site. For example, a
restaurant the size of the Cheesecake Factory (see figure 1 below), in a 23,000 square
foot brewery (30%) would require roughly 150 parking spaces for both the restaurant and
the brewery uses.
Agenda Item 5B Page 9

Figure 1: Approximate sizes and hours of operation of other restaurants in town
Restaurant Location Zone Approx. Size No. of seats
Total/outdoor
Walnut Brewery 1123 Walnut DT-5 6,000 sf
Southern Sun 627 S. Broadway BC-2 5,100 sf
Bacaro 919 Pearl DT-2 5,500 sf 167/22
Café Gondolier 1710 Pearl DT-2 4149 sf 139/20
Brassierie Ten Ten 1011 Walnut DT-5 2,800 sf 126/16
Café Mediterranean 1003 Walnut DT-5 7,980 sf 231/60
Cheesecake Factory 1401 Pearl DT-5 7,430 sf 275/28
If council would like to limit the size of a restaurant, a maximum of 5,000 square feet is
recommended since this would allow for a reasonably sized restaurant without being
overly restrictive.
2. Should a separation requirement be considered to prevent the potential concentration of
these businesses in certain areas? What would the availability of public transit to these
sites be like?
Response: Although there is the potential for these types of businesses to cluster in
certain areas of the city, staff does not recommend addressing this concern at this time.
The concentration of breweries, distilleries and wineries in certain locations could have
both positive and negative implications for the businesses as well as the community. The
breweries and brewpubs in Fort Collins, for example, are concentrated in the north part of
the city near the main commercial area, making them easily accessible by pedestrians and
bicyclists. The concentration of the breweries in one general area also makes the
businesses more attractive to and convenient for tour groups. The potential impacts of
the concentration of these uses in one area include noise, traffic, overconsumption of
alcohol and other public nuisances. However, some of the breweries, distilleries and
wineries in Boulder are currently located near one another (e.g. Upslope Brewery and
Bookcliff Winery, Redstone Meadery and 303 Vodka), pose few conflicts and likely
benefit from their close proximity. In addition, given the start-up nature of the industry
and the difficulty in finding suitable industrial space for expansion at this time (e.g.
Avery Brewing), further restrictions on the location of these businesses may inhibit their
growth and expansion in Boulder.
The public transit to the breweries wineries, and distilleries in the industrial districts
would vary based on the location. For example, the North Boulder industrial districts are
easily accessible by the SKIP. Several routes, including the JUMP, HOP, BOUND, 208
and 206, provide service to some of the East Boulder industrial districts.
The Planning Board suggested that staff solicit feedback from the local Beverage License
Authority (BLA) on the larger implications of the proposed changes. The proposed changes to
the Land Use Code were presented to the BLA at its November 16, 2011 meeting (see comments
from the board below).
Agenda Item 5B Page 10

Beverage Licensing Authority
The proposed changes to the land use code were presented to the Beverage Licensing Authority
for comment on November 16, 2011. In general, members of the board were not supportive of
the changes to the code, primarily because it would make it easier for the brewers, distillers and
winemakers to operate tap and tasting rooms in the industrial districts. Board comments
included the following:
1. The tap and tasting rooms are largely unregulated and operating under a “loophole” in the
state statutes;
2. The city should impose not only a 500 foot rule on the tap and tasting rooms but also on
breweries, distilleries and wineries (and include universities in the definition of schools);
3. There should be more control over alcohol sales at the manufacturing facilities, similar to
that over brewpubs and other retail licensees;
4. The proposed code changes will make the problems in the industrial areas worse;
5. The police should be consulted on this issue, since the tap and tasting rooms in the
outskirts of the city may disperse police resources and draw them away from the
downtown and the Hill where they are already needed;
6. There was concern about the possibility of these manufacturers concentrating in the same
area and facilitating the practice of bar-hopping as in the Downtown;
7. Boulder should make more effort to control over-servicing at bars;
8. There was concern that parking standards alone would not be sufficient to limit the size
of tap and tasting rooms;
9. The city should go about these code changes more carefully and do it right;
10. Concern was expressed about these uses using up too much industrial property in the city;
11. Staff should consult with the state and get its input on this issue; and
12. Late closings should be prohibited altogether and not just subject to Use Review.
Staff response: Police records indicate few nuisance complaints or other violations at any of the
existing breweries, distilleries and wineries in the city. In addition, the state has been consulted
on this issue as the proposal was developed.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
A meeting was held with local brewers, distillers and winemakers on August 18, 2011 to present
the preliminary changes to the Land Use Code. Representatives of seven local businesses
attended the meeting and provided comments. Although the proposal was well-received, several
attendees expressed concern with an initial proposal to set limitations on the amount of on-site
sales at wineries and distilleries in the industrial districts. The wineries and distilleries in the city
are primarily small, upstart businesses with very limited initial production. These businesses
enter the market initially by attracting people to tasting rooms and selling products directly from
the manufacturing site. A limit on the amount of on-site sales would impact their ability to get
their businesses off the ground. After that meeting, the proposed code change was amended to
exclude any limitation of on-site sales from distilleries and wineries. Written comments from
some of the manufacturers are included in Attachment G.
Concerns have been expressed by representatives of the Boulder Country Day School on
Nautilus Court in Gunbarrel about the proposed location of the Avery Brewing Company on an
Agenda Item 5B Page 11

adjacent industrial site (Attachment G). These concerns were raised after representatives of the
brewery met with school representatives about a preliminary concept plan for the site that would
include a brewery and restaurant. (Since that initial meeting, the brewing company has
submitted a Concept Plan to the city for review.) At a meeting with city staff on October 10,
2011, school representatives noted that they had met with brewery representatives several times
to discuss the plan and work through their concerns. They also indicated that they feel that it is
important for the city to adopt a 500-foot buffer requirement between any brewery and a school.
Representatives of the school also spoke during Public Participation at the November 15, 2011
City Council meeting and provided the following additional comments on the proposed
amendments:
� The proposed ordinance would not be consistent with the intent of state law. The city
should be consistent with state law regarding retail liquor licenses and require breweries
to be at least 500 feet from any school.
� Tap rooms have evolved into “complexes” and may continue to evolve. What if the
restaurant becomes a sports bar?
� Festivals at the brewery would have an impact on after-school and weekend productions
at the school.
BACKGROUND
The Front Range of Colorado and the nation are experiencing substantial growth in the craft
brewing, micro-distilling and urban winemaking industries. Until the past couple of decades,
nearly all malt, spirituous and vinous liquors in the U.S. were produced by very large companies
or, in the case of wineries, concentrated in agricultural regions suitable for grape production. A
small number of micro-distilleries began emerging in the 2000s with an emphasis on small, local
production of unique, handcrafted spirits and liquors.
The brewery and distillery industries, however, are no longer dominated by a small number of
large producers. The industry is now largely characterized by small entrepreneurial businesses
serving localized or regional markets and communities. Most of the local manufacturers begin
with very low production volumes and sell their products primarily to local retailers, or directly
to the consumer from their manufacturing sites.
A micro-brewery or “craft” beer brewery is a small, independent and traditional brewery which
focuses on producing distinctive beers from traditional ingredients like malted barley. Craft
brewers are distinguished from the large nation-wide breweries by their innovative and
individualistic approaches to beer making.
According to the Brewer’s Association, a national trade group representing the craft brewing
industry and located in Boulder, there has been an exponential growth in demand for craft beer
just over the past few years. The number of craft brewers in the U.S. has gone from eight in
1980 to over 1,790 today with an increase of approximately 165 breweries since June 2010 (see
Figure 2 below). The Brewers Association also lists 725 breweries in planning throughout the
country today compared to 389 a year ago.
Agenda Item 5B Page 12

Figure 2: Craft Brewers in the U.S.
Over the past few years, the industry has gained substantial popularity in Colorado. Based on
2010 statistics, the Brewer’s Association lists Colorado as 4 th in the nation for the number of
residents per craft brewery with over 118 breweries (Attachment B). The Front Range, in
fact, is becoming unofficially known as the “Napa Valley” of the craft brewing industry
(Attachment D).
The craft beer industry has been in Boulder since the 1970’s when the Boulder Beer Company
became Colorado’s first modern-day craft brewery. Today, five craft breweries and four
brewpubs are located in Boulder (Attachment C). While many craft brewers have traditionally
operated restaurants or brewpubs in Boulder’s commercial districts, where beer is manufactured
and sold exclusively on-site to restaurant patrons, the rise in demand for craft beer products has
lead the businesses into the industrial zones as manufacturing and distribution becomes the
principal use of the site.
Although not yet as abundant as craft breweries, micro-distilleries are also growing in popularity
in Colorado. Similar to microbrewers, craft distillers distinguish themselves in the marketplace
by creating niche products primarily distributed and sold to local and regional retailers. Prior to
2000, there were no licensed micro-distilleries in Colorado – today, there are over 14 in the state,
two of which are located in Boulder.
Agenda Item 5B Page 13

Four small wineries and one meadery (considered a winery) are also located in Boulder
(Attachment C). Urban wineries are a somewhat recent phenomenon whereby a wine producer
grows grapes in a rural location or buys grapes from a vineyard and then transports them to an
urban facility for crushing, fermentation, aging and bottling. The Colorado Wine Association
lists 22 urban wineries in the Front Range alone.
The general intent of the retail uses at the breweries, distilleries and wineries is to introduce
and market their products to the general public and, in effect, serve a clientele much broader
than the local industrial neighborhood. Many of the breweries, distilleries and wineries are
included in regional beer, wine or distillery tours and have become part of a burgeoning
tourism industry in the state.
As the breweries, wineries and distilleries facilities become popular destinations for
residents, local employees and tourists, all of these manufacturing facilities in the industrial
districts are including tap or tasting rooms where samples of their products are sold and
consumed on-site. Two of the older breweries in town (Boulder Beer and Twisted Pine)
operate restaurants at the manufacturing facilities as a result of earlier site plan approvals.
Some of the manufacturers periodically have live music in the tap or tasting rooms or host
outdoor events with music in their parking lots. In addition, most of the manufacturers sell
some of their products on-site for off-site consumption.
Because of the city’s zone restrictions, none of the manufacturers prepare and sell their own
food for consumption on-site. Instead, the manufacturers occasionally provide food at the
site through a local caterer or mobile food vendor. Brewpubs (e.g. Mountain Sun, Walnut
Brewery, Southern Sun), which are primarily restaurants, are located in the commercial
zones and prohibited from distributing their products off-site.
ANALYSIS
In response to the popularity of the breweries, distilleries and wineries in the city, some of the
manufacturers have approached the city about adding restaurants to their tap or tasting rooms.
Currently, Boulder’s Land Use Code restricts the location, size and function of restaurants in the
industrial districts in order to preserve industrial land for manufacturing and research and to
concentrate commercial uses in the city’s activity centers. Consequently, most of the brewers,
distillers and winemakers would not be able to meet the use standards for restaurants in the
industrial districts. This issue places some of the business owners in a difficult economic
position and in a position of remaining very small or moving to a city with a less restrictive
zoning code.
Current Use Limitations in the Industrial Districts
The purpose of the industrial districts is to provide opportunities for the location of industries of
various types and uses including service and repair, research and manufacturing. Boulder has
four industrial zone districts which including the following:
Agenda Item 5B Page 14

Industrial – Service: Service industrial areas primarily used to provide to the
community a wide range of repair and service uses and
small-scale manufacturing uses.
Industrial – General: General industrial areas where a wide range of light
industrial uses, including research and manufacturing
operations and service industrial uses are located.
Industrial – Manufacturing: Industrial manufacturing areas primarily used for
research, development, manufacturing, and service
industrial uses in buildings on large lots.
Industrial – Mixed Services: Industrial areas on the edge of a main street commercial
area, which are intended to provide a transition between a
main street commercial area and established industrial
zones.
While the manufacture of beer, wine and distilled spirits are allowed in all of the above districts,
Boulder has traditionally limited commercial uses in these zones. Other than service industrial or
vehicle-related uses, most retail sales in the industrial districts are considered accessory to the
primary industrial use of the land and 1) must be subordinate to and customarily found with the
principal use of the land, and 2) operated for the benefit or convenience of the employees and
customers or visitors to the principal use of the property (Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981).
Restaurants or food service at a manufacturing site are further restricted in their location, size
and market in order to limit the commercial use of the industrial properties, prevent loss of
manufacturing space in the city and to retain the vitality of the city’s commercial areas and retail
base.
Some of the current uses at the breweries, distilleries and wineries are allowed either by-right
(e.g. tap and tasting rooms) or through review (see table below). All restaurants in the industrial
districts are subject to specific use standards and must go through Administrative Review
(Section 9-2-2, B.R.C. 1981). The intent of the use standards for restaurants, as outlined in
Section 9-6-5(b)(3) of the code is to limit the amount of commercial use in the industrial districts
and to prevent negative impacts on parking and neighboring residential zones.
Current Uses at
Breweries, Distilleries
and Wineries
1. Manufacturing uses <
15,000 square feet
2. Manufacturing uses >
15,000 square feet
3. Tap and tasting rooms
where the products are
served (beer, spirits, or
wine)
Current Code Requirements (Industrial Zones)
Allowed in all industrial zones
Allowed in IG, IM
Prohibited in IMS
Requires Use Review in IS
Considered an accessory by-right use – subordinate to and
customarily found with the principal use.
4. Restaurants Considered a “Conditional Use” in the industrial zones and
subject to use standards in B.R.C. 9-6-5(b)(3) (see below)
Agenda Item 5B Page 15

Current Uses at
Breweries, Distilleries
and Wineries
Current Code Requirements (Industrial Zones)
5. Live music Indoors: Considered an accessory use in the industrial zones as
long as the music isn’t the primary attraction (e.g. tickets sold).
Outdoors: “Temporary outdoor entertainment” is a conditional
use in the industrial zones and limited to 2 consecutive weeks in
any 3-month period.
Current Use Standards for Restaurants in the Industrial Districts – Subsection 9-6-
5(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981.
The following criteria will apply to any restaurant use located in an Industrial district:
(A) The use is intended generally to serve the industrial area in which it is located;
(B) The use is not located along a major street or higher classification street as shown in
appendix A, “Major Streets,” of this title;
(C) In the IMS district only, the use shall be limited to a maximum size of 2,000 square feet of
floor area;
(D) Parking for restaurants in industrial districts shall meet the minimum number of offstreet
parking spaces per square foot of floor area for nonresidential uses. The indoor
and outdoor seating requirements of Section 9-9-6(b), “Off-Street Parking
Requirements,” shall not be applied to industrial service centers;
(E) The use may operate daily between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.; and
(F) No person shall operate the use between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., unless
the use is:
(i) Approved through a use review process; and
(ii) Located more than five hundred feet from an adjacent residential use or zone.
Policy Guidance
Several policies in the BVCP support a change to the Land Use Code to accommodate changes
to the beer, wine and liquor manufacturing industries. The BVCP policy most relevant to this
issue concerns the city’s responsiveness to changes in the marketplace:
BVCP Policy 5.13: Responsive to Changes in the Marketplace
The city recognizes that development regulations and processes have an impact on the ability
of business to respond to changes in the marketplace. The city will work with the local
business community to make sure regulations and development review processes provide a
level of flexibility to allow for creative solutions while meeting broader community goals.
This could involve modifying regulations to make them more responsive to emerging
technologies, and evolving industry sectors.
In 2004, City Council adopted Resolution 960 which recognizes the city’s responsibility to
provide leadership in reducing the adverse impacts of alcohol abuse on the community. A study
session in 2009 identified a goal for the city to modify city policies and regulations in order to
reduce over-consumption of alcohol in the community, allow for congenial places for people to
socialize, keep people safe, and minimize impacts to adjacent uses. Although the primary issue
that initiated these policy discussions stemmed from an incident that occurred in a private
residence, the general goal of reducing alcohol abuse and its associated impacts provide general
Agenda Item 5B Page 16

policy guidance in terms of promoting food consumption where liquor is served and minimizing
external impacts through land use regulation.
State Alcohol Law
The manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol are regulated by the State of
Colorado through the Department of Revenue, Liquor and Tobacco Enforcement Division. The
Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) authorize the issuance of several classes of liquor licenses.
The licenses most relevant to this discussion include the following:
1. Manufacturer’s License – for the manufacture and sale of malt, vinous or spirituous
liquors;
2. Wholesaler’s License – for the retail sale of beer or liquor;
3. Brew Pub License – for the manufacture of malt liquors that are primarily consumed
on site; and
4. Limited Winery License – for the manufacture and sale of not more than 100,000
gallons annually of vinous liquors.
There are two beverage licensing authorities in Colorado which include the Colorado
Department of Revenue and the various local licensing authorities.
1. State Requirements for Beverage Licensing. All alcohol establishments for the
manufacturing, wholesaling, and retail sales, whether through a restaurant, tavern, or a
liquor store require a license from the State of Colorado.
2. Local Licensing Authorities. The powers of the local beverage licensing authority (the
“local authority”) are more limited. The ability to regulate at the local level is
specifically granted by the state legislature. The standards for the grant, denial, and
renewal requirements are set in state statute. The local authority is authorized by the state
to issue licenses for a number of retail outlets that include retail liquor stores, hotel and
restaurants, taverns and brew pubs, to name a few. See C.R.S. § 12-47-309(1).
The C.R.S. specifically define different types of alcohol manufacturing or sales establishments
for the purposes of licensing. The following state definitions provide guidance for shaping
changes to the city’s code:
“Brew pub” means a retail establishment that manufactures not more than one million eight
hundred sixty thousand gallons (60,000 barrels) of malt liquor on its licensed premises or
licensed alternating proprietor licensed premises, combined, each calendar year.
“Brewery” means any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured, except brew pubs
licensed under this article.
“Distillery” means any establishment where spirituous liquors are manufactured.
Agenda Item 5B Page 17

“Limited winery” means any establishment manufacturing not more than one hundred
thousand gallons, or the metric equivalent thereof, of vinous liquors annually within
Colorado.
“Sell at wholesale” means selling to any other than the intended consumer of malt, vinous,
or spirituous liquors. “Sell at wholesale” shall not be construed to prevent a brewer or
wholesale beer dealer from selling malt liquors to the intended consumer thereof, or to
prevent a licensed manufacturer or importer from selling malt, vinous, or spirituous
liquors to a licensed wholesaler.
“Vintner’s restaurant” means a retail establishment that sells food for consumption on the
premises and that manufactures not more than two hundred fifty thousand gallons of wine
on its premises each year.
“Winery” means any establishment where vinous liquors are manufactured; except that the
term does not include a vintner’s restaurant licensed pursuant to §12-47-420 (C.R.S.).
Manufacturer’s Licenses
All of the local breweries, wineries and distilleries in the city (except for brew pubs) are
authorized to manufacture their products under a state Manufacturer’s License. Manufacturer’s
Licenses have a number of requirements that are different from retail licenses and, unlike retail
licenses, are issued by the state. See C.R.S. § 12-47-402(3) and (6).
Under a Manufacturer’s License, distilleries and wineries are authorized to serve and sell
beverages of its own manufacture, as well as food and nonalcoholic beverages for consumption
on the licensed premises or to be taken off the premises by the consumer. Wineries may also
ship wine directly to personal consumers.
A license for a brewery to manufacture malt liquors, however, is different from that for wineries
and distilleries. Most notably, there is not specific authority under the statute to provide tap
rooms at a brewer’s manufacturing facility. C.R.S. § 12-47-402(1). Instead, a malt liquor
manufacturer must obtain a Wholesaler’s License in addition to a Manufacturer’s License in
order to sell its products to the consumer on the site. In addition to allowing a manufacturer to
directly distribute their products to retail license holders, a Wholesaler’s License also allows the
manufacturer to have a “sales room” for the purpose of selling malt liquor. See C.R.S. § 12-47-
406(1)(b) and 1 Colo. Code Regs. § 203-2. Manufacturer’s licenses for brewers do not explicitly
authorize the sale of food, therefore, food sales, such as through a restaurant, can be regulated
through zoning regulations.
The 500-Foot Rule
Under state law, there is a rule that prohibits liquor licenses to be granted by the local beverage
licensing authority to retail liquor stores located within 500 feet of a school (e.g. public or
parochial school or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary). See C.R.S. §
12-47-407(5) and 12-47-313(1)(d). The City of Boulder has exercised this authority in areas
around the University of Colorado and Boulder High School. The 500-foot rule, however, does
not apply to Manufacturer’s or Wholesaler’s Licenses. See C.R.S. § 12-47-313 (1)(d)(III).
Agenda Item 5B Page 18

Concerns have been expressed by staff and parents associated with the Boulder Country Day
School in Gunbarrel about the potential development of a brewery and restaurant on a site
adjacent to the school. The concerns are related to the impacts that a restaurant use could
potentially have on a neighboring school use. It is staff’s view that this is an issue that can be
dealt with as part of the Concept Plan Review and Site Plan Review processes. Planning Board
agreed with staff on this issue in its recommendation. If, however, council wishes to address the
issue in general by applying a 500-foot rule to any restaurant in an industrial district associated
with a brewery, winery or distillery, the following use standard could be added to 9-6-5(b)(3.5)
in the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) that would create a separation between the restaurant
use and a school. This standard, however, would not apply to tap or tasting rooms.
(E) Any restaurant use located in a brewery, distillery or winery in the industrial district
shall be located at least five hundred feet from any public or private elementary school,
junior or senior high school. The distance is to be computed by direct measurement from
the nearest portion of the building used for school purposes to the nearest entry to such
restaurant or any permanent outdoor seating area of the restaurant, using a route of
direct pedestrian access. The separation requirements of this section shall not apply
when a school moves to within five hundred feet of an existing brewery, distillery or
winery.
Brewpubs and Vintners Restaurants
Under state law, a brewpub license allows the sale of malt, vinous and spirituous liquors for
consumption on the premises. Brewpubs are distinguished from breweries in that they are
primarily retail establishments and production of beer is limited to no more than 60,000 barrels
per year. Brewpubs are also required by law to sell food as a part of their on-premises business
operation and must constitute at least 15 percent of the gross on-premises food and drink income
of the brewpub. The state statutes define restaurants associated with urban wineries as “vintner’s
restaurants” with a separate class of license, which is similar to that for brewpubs.
Other Jurisdictions
Tap rooms and tasting rooms are a ubiquitous function of breweries, urban wineries and small
distilleries throughout the country. Restaurants are also becoming a common use associated with
these small manufacturing facilities. Zoning provisions for breweries, wineries and distilleries in
other cities throughout the state (including Denver, Fort Collins, Aurora, and Pueblo) and the
country (Seattle, Portland, Eugene) were reviewed by staff and the following commonalities
were found among the local laws (Attachment F):
1. Breweries and distilleries are generally defined as manufacturing uses and restricted
to industrial zones.
2. Brewpubs are considered restaurants and generally restricted to commercial zones.
3. Tap rooms and tasting rooms are considered accessory uses to the manufacturing use
and allowed by right.
4. Restaurants are allowed on the premises of the manufacturing facility but limited to a
percentage of the total floor area of the facility (typically 20 – 30 percent).
5. Most communities which define “brewery” distinguish large breweries from
microbreweries in terms of production sizes. Large breweries are generally those
producing over 60,000 barrels of beer annually and microbreweries produce less.
Agenda Item 5B Page 19

6. Brewpubs are typically limited to a production limit of 4,000-9,000 barrels per year
(which is much less than that allowed by the State of Colorado).
ATTACHMENTS
A Draft Ordinance
B Brewery Statistics
C Breweries, Distilleries, Wineries and Brewpubs in Boulder
D Colorado Breweries and Brewpubs
E Brewer’s Association Definitions
F Other City Code Provisions for Breweries
G Public Comment
H Planning Board minutes – October 20, 2011
I Gunbarrel Schools In and Near Industrial Zones
J Map of Breweries, Wineries and Distilleries Relative to Schools
Agenda Item 5B Page 20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COLORADO:
K:\PLCU\o-7826 - Breweries.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 7826
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,”
B.R.C. 1981, REGARDING DEFINITIONS AND USE
STANDARDS FOR BREWERIES, BREWPUBS,
DISTILLERIES AND WINERIES, AND SETTING FORTH
RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
Section 1. Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended by the
addition of the following definitions, to read:
“Brewery” means a use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license issued under § 12-47-401, et
seq., C.R.S. and does not include any retail type liquor license under § 12-47-309, et seq., C.R.S.
on the lot or parcel, that is primarily a manufacturing facility, where malt liquors are
manufactured on the premises, that may include a tap room that is less than or equal to thirty
percent of the total floor area of the facility or one thousand square feet, whichever is greater.
“Brewpub” means an establishment that is primarily a restaurant where malt liquor is
manufactured on the premises as an accessory use. A brewpub may include some off-site
distribution of its malt liquor consistent with state law.
“Distillery” means a use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license issued under § 12-47-401, et
seq., C.R.S. and does not include any retail type liquor license under § 12-47-309, et seq., C.R.S.
on the lot or parcel, that is primarily a manufacturing facility, where spirituous liquors are
manufactured that may include a tasting room that is less than or equal to thirty percent of the
total floor area of the facility or one thousand square feet, whichever is greater.
“Taproom” means a use associated with and on the same premises as a brewery, at which guests
may sample the manufacturer’s products and consume other nonalcoholic beverages.
“Tasting room” means a use associated with and on the same premises as a winery or distillery,
at which guests may sample the manufacturer’s products and consume other nonalcoholic
beverages.
“Winery” means a use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license issued under § 12-47-401, et
seq., C.R.S. and does not include any retail type liquor license under § 12-47-309, et seq., C.R.S.
on the lot or parcel, that is primarily a manufacturing facility, where vinous liquors are
manufactured that may include a tasting room that is less than or equal to thirty percent of the
total floor area of the facility or one thousand square feet, whichever is greater.
Agenda Item 5B Page 21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 2. Table 6-1, “Use Table” in subsection 9-6-1(d), B.R.C. 1981, is amended by
the addition of the following lines to the table, to read as set forth below. For the columns in the
use table that are omitted, the use shall be classified as a prohibited use.
K:\PLCU\o-7826 - Breweries.doc
USES I1
(IS)
I2
(IG)
I3
(IM)
Breweries, distilleries or wineries < 15,000 square feet and
without a restaurant A A A A
Breweries, distilleries or wineries < 15,000 square feet and
with a restaurant C C C C
Breweries, distilleries or wineries with or without a
restaurant > 15,000 square feet
U 1
I4
(IMS)
C C *
Agenda Item 5B Page 22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Section 3. Table 6-1, “Use Table” in subsection 9-6-1(d), B.R.C. 1981, is amended as follows:
Use Modules R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 MH M1 M2 M3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 D1 D2 D3 I1 I2 I3 I4 P A
….
Restaurants (general) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C C C C n/a n/a 9-6-5(b)
Restaurants, brewpubs and taverns no
larger than 1,000 square feet in floor area,
which may have meal service on an
outside patio not more than 1/3 the floor
area, and which close no later than 11:00
p.m.
Restaurants, brewpubs and taverns no
larger than 1,500 square feet in floor area,
which may have meal service on an
outside patio not more than 1/3 the floor
area, and which close no later than 11:00
p.m.
Restaurants, brewpubs and taverns over
1,000 square feet in floor area, or which
close after 11:00 p.m., or with an outdoor
seating area of 300 square feet or more
Restaurants, brewpubs and taverns that
are: over 1,500 square feet in floor area,
outside of the University Hill general
improvement district; over 4,000 square
feet within the University Hill general
improvement district; or which close after
11:00 p.m.
Restaurants, brewpubs and taverns in the
University Hill general improvement district
that are greater than 1,500 square feet and
do not exceed 4,000 square feet in floor
area, and which close no later than 11:00
p.m.
K:\PLCU\o-7826 - Breweries.doc
* * * * * U A * * A A A n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Specific
Use
Standard
* * * * * n/a * * * * A * U A A A A A A C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 9-6-5(b)
* * * * * U * * * U A U n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
* * * * * n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a U U A A A A A U n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 9-6-5(b)
Agenda Item 5B Page 23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Restaurants, brewpubs and taverns with
an outdoor seating area of 300 square feet
or more within 500 feet of a residential
zoning district
….
K:\PLCU\o-7826 - Breweries.doc
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a U U U U U U U U n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Agenda Item 5B Page 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 4. Subsection 9-6-5(b), “Temporary Lodging, Dining, Entertainment, And
Cultural Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(b) Restaurants And Taverns: The intent of this subsection is to ensure that restaurant and
tavern owners and operators in close proximity to residential districts are informed of the
effects upon neighboring residential properties of operating a business, and are educated
about ways to mitigate, reduce, or eliminate potential impacts of a restaurant or tavern
operation upon neighboring properties.
The applicant shall include all areas inside the restaurant measured to the inside surface
of the outside walls, except for floor area that is used exclusively for storage that is
located on another floor of the building, when determining whether the floor area
thresholds under section 9-6-1, “Schedule Of Permitted Land Uses,” B.R.C. 1981,
necessitate review under this subsection.
(1) Restaurants And Taverns In The DT-1, DT-2, And DT-3 Zoning Districts And
Portions Of The BMS Zoning District: Owners and operators of restaurant and
tavern uses permitted as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review in the DT-1,
DT-2, and DT-3 zoning districts and those portions of the BMS zoning district
that are outside of the University Hill General Improvement District are required
to organize and participate in a meeting with the surrounding property owners
pursuant to section 9-2-4, “Good Neighbor Meetings And Management Plans,”
B.R.C. 1981.
(2) Restaurants And Taverns In The University Hill General Improvement District
Within The BMS Zoning District: The following criteria apply to restaurants and
tavern uses permitted as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review in the BMS
zoning district that is also located within the University Hill General
Improvement District:
K:\PLCU\o-7826 - Breweries.doc
(A) Meeting With Surrounding Property Owners Required: Restaurant and
tavern owners and operators shall be required to organize and participate
in a good neighbor meeting with the surrounding property owners
pursuant to section 9-2-4, “Good Neighbor Meetings And Management
Plans,” B.R.C. 1981.
(B) Preparation And Distribution Of A Proposed Management Plan: The
owner or operator shall prepare a proposed management plan, pursuant to
section 9-2-4, “Good Neighbor Meetings And Management Plans,” B.R.C.
1981, and present it to the surrounding property owners at the neighbor
meeting.
(3) Restaurants in the Industrial Districts: The following criteria will apply to any
restaurant use located in an Industrial district except as provided in paragraph
(b)(3.5) of this section:
Agenda Item 5B Page 25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
K:\PLCU\o-7826 - Breweries.doc
(A) The use is intended generally to serve the industrial area in which it is
located;
(B) The use is not located along a major street or higher classification street as
shown in appendix A, “Major Streets,” of this title;
(C) In the IMS district only, the use shall be limited to a maximum size of two
thousand square feet of floor area;
(D) Parking for restaurants in industrial districts shall meet the minimum
number of off-street parking spaces per square foot of floor area for nonresidential
uses. The indoor and outdoor seating requirements of Section
9-9-6(b), “Off-Street Parking Requirements,” shall not be applied to
industrial service centers;
(E) The use may operate daily between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 p.m.; and
(F) No person shall operate the use between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.,
unless the use is:
(i) Approved through a use review process; and
(ii) Located more than 500 feet from an adjacent residential use or zone.
(3.5) Restaurants in Breweries, Distilleries and Wineries: The following criteria will
apply to any restaurant use located in a brewery, distillery or winery in an
industrial district:
(A) The restaurant shall be limited to a maximum size of thirty percent of the
total floor area of the facility, or one thousand square feet, whichever is
greater, including any outdoor seating or accessory sales areas;
(B) Parking for the restaurant shall meet the parking requirements for
restaurants or taverns in section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981;
(C) The use may operate daily between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.;
unless the extended hours are approved through a use review process;
(D) If the restaurant requires a use review, the applicant shall demonstrate that
it meets use review criteria in paragraphs 9-2-15 (e)(1),(3), (4), and (5)
“Use Review,” B.R.C. 1981 as well as the use standards in paragraph
(b)(4) for outdoor seating areas within five hundred feet of a residential
use module; and
(4) Restaurants And Taverns With Outdoor Seating Within Five Hundred Feet Of A
Residential Use Module: The following criteria apply to any outdoor seating area
that is within five hundred feet (measured from the perimeter of the subject
property) of a residential use module. Outdoor dining areas that are within the
Agenda Item 5B Page 26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
K:\PLCU\o-7826 - Breweries.doc
BMS, DT, and I zoning districts are also subject to the provisions of subparagraph
(b)(4)(A), (b)(4)(B) or (b)(4)(C) of this section, when applicable.
(A) Size Limitations: Outdoor seating areas shall not exceed the indoor seating
area or seating capacity of the restaurant or tavern.
(B) Parking Required: Parking in compliance with section 9-9-6, “Parking
Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be provided for all outdoor seating areas
except those located in general improvement districts.
(C) Music: No outdoor music or entertainment shall be provided after 11:00
p.m.
(D) Sound Levels: The outdoor seating area shall not generate noise exceeding
the levels permitted in chapter 5-9, “Noise,” B.R.C. 1981.
(E) Trash: All trash located within the outdoor dining area, on the restaurant
or tavern property, and adjacent streets, sidewalks, and properties shall be
picked up and properly disposed of immediately after closing.
Section 5. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 6. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 15th day of November 2011.
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
____________________________________
Mayor
Agenda Item 5B Page 27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 6th day of December 2011.
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\PLCU\o-7826 - Breweries.doc
____________________________________
Mayor
Agenda Item 5B Page 28

Attachment B
Agenda Item 5B Page 29

Breweries, Distilleries, Wineries and Brewpubs in Boulder
Attachment C
Name Location Zone
Breweries
Asher Brewing 4699 Nautilus Ct. Unit 104 IG
Avery Brewing 5763 Arapahoe IG
Boulder Beer 2880 Wilderness Place IG
Twisted Pine 3201 Walnut IG
Upslope
Distilleries
1501 Lee Hill Dr. IS-1
Boulder Distillery and Clear Spirit
Co. (303 Vodka)
2500 47 th St. #10 IS-1
Roundhouse Spirits Distillery
Wineries
5311 Western, Ste 180 IG
Augustina’s Winery 4715 N.Broadway, B-3 IS-1
Bookcliff Vineyards 1501 Lee Hill, #17 IS-1
Boulder Creek Winery 6440 Odell Place IG
Redstone Meadery 4700 Pearl, Unit 2A IS-1
Settembre Cellars 1780 Grape
Brewpubs
BJ’s Restaurant and Brewhouse 1125 Pearl St. DT-4
Los Oasis 2027 13 th St. DT-4
Mountain Sun 1535 Pearl St. DT-2
Southern Sun 627 S. Broadway BC-2
Walnut Brewery 1123 Walnut St. DT-5
Agenda Item 5B Page 30

Agenda Item 5B Page 31

Agenda Item 5B Page 32

Agenda Item 5B Page 33

Attachment D
Agenda Item 5B Page 34

Agenda Item 5B Page 35

Brewer’s Association Definitions
Attachment E
The craft beer industry is defined by four distinct markets: brewpubs, microbreweries,
regional craft breweries, and contract brewing companies.
Microbrewery: A brewery that produces less than 15,000 barrels (17,600 hectoliters) of
beer per year with 75% or more of its beer sold off site. Microbreweries sell to the
public by one or more of the following methods: the traditional three-tier system
(brewer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer); the two-tier system (brewer acting as
wholesaler to retailer to consumer); and, directly to the consumer through carryouts
and/or on-site tap-room or restaurant sales.
Brewpub: A restaurant-brewery that sells 25% or more of its beer on site. The beer is
brewed primarily for sale in the restaurant and bar. The beer is often dispensed
directly from the brewery's storage tanks. Where allowed by law, brewpubs often
sell beer "to go" and /or distribute to off site accounts. Note: BA re-categorizes a
company as a microbrewery if its off-site (distributed) beer sales exceed 75 percent.
Contract Brewing Company: A business that hires another brewery to produce its beer.
It can also be a brewery that hires another brewery to produce additional beer. The
contract brewing company handles marketing, sales, and distribution of its beer,
while generally leaving the brewing and packaging to its producer-brewery (which,
confusingly, is also sometimes referred to as a contract brewery).
Regional Brewery: A brewery with an annual beer production of between 15,000 and
6,000,000 barrels.
Regional Craft Brewery: An independent regional brewery who has either an all malt
flagship or has at least 50% of it's volume in either all malt beers or in beers which
use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.
Large Brewery: A brewery with an annual beer production over 6,000,000 barrels.
From: www.brewersassociation.org > craft brewing statistics > market segments
Agenda Item 5B Page 36

Other City Code Provisions for Breweries
City Definitions Limitations
Denver Brewery: A facility at which malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors are manufactured
on the premises, bottled, and sold on the same premises.
Brewpub A specific type of eating and drinking establishment. A facility at which
malt, vinous or spirituous liquors are manufactured on the premises, bottled, and
sold on the same premises as where the eating and drinking services are provided.
No more than 30% of the manufactured product may be sold to off-premises
customers. The volume of liquor manufactured on the premises of the brewpub
shall not exceed 300 gallons/day each calendar year.
Aurora Brewery – means any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured and
production exceeds 60,000 barrels of malt liquor per year, but shall not mean a
“brewepub” or “microbrewery”.
Brewpub – means a retail establishment that manufactures not more than 9,000
barrels of malt liquor on its licensed premises each calendar year.
Microbrewery – means any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured and
packaged on or off-premises, manufacturing more than 9,000, but less than 60,000
barrels of malt liquor on its licensed premises each calendar year.
Pueblo Brewpub means an establishment that is primarily an eating place which includes
the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water,
malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The
brewing operation does not include the production of any other alcoholic beverage.
The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed 30%
of the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce
more than 4,000 barrels or 124,000 gallons of beer or ale per year.
Microbrewery means an establishment that is primarily used for producing beer
and may include retail or food service as an accessory use. The brewing operation
processes water, amlt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and
fermenting. The brewing operation does not include the production of any other
alcoholic beverage. The brewery shall not produce more than 8,000 barrels or
Fort
Collins
248,000 gallons of beer or ale per year.
Not defined
Attachment F
Restaurants are allowed as an accessory use in the
industrial districts as long as they are operated
partially or entirely within the structure containing
the use by right, the gross floor area within such
structure utilized by the accessory use is no greater
than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the
structure containing the primary use by right.
Restaurants and tap rooms at breweries considered
an accessory use and shall not exceed 30% of the
gross floor area of the principal structure.
Restaurants allowed in the industrial zones (with
size limitations) subject to Planning and Zoning
Board review.
Agenda Item 5B Page 37

Portland,
OR
Seattle,
WA
Eugene,
OR
Not defined Retail sales in industrial zones are a conditional use
and limited by a maximum square footage
(generally 3,000 sq. ft.).
Not defined Size limit of 3,000 sq.ft. is applied to drinking
establishments in some industrial zones:
Restaurants allowed as an accessory use in the
industrial districts but limited to 15–20% of the
gross floor area.
Agenda Item 5B Page 38

Public Comment
Attachment G
The following written comments are from Jackie Thompson, owner of the Boulder Creek
Winery
Summary of Land Use Issues
Wineries
1. Zoning Designation: "Industrial Manufacturing" vs. "Agri-tourism"
The first issue thwarting the success of wineries in Boulder County is the "manufacturing"
zoning designation assigned to it for lack of anything more fitting under current Land Use Code.
(Keep in mind that Boulder's codes were written in the Post-Prohibition era during which the US
wine industry had not yet recovered, and wineries had not yet re-established anywhere in the
state of Colorado). This land use designation is ill-fitting for several reasons:
� Over the past twenty-five years the wine industry, nationwide, has evolved from a wineas-beverage
industry to a wine-as-activity industry ... Agri-tourism.
� Wine production, and more specifically, grape processing, is an agricultural activity that
is largely seasonal in nature and does not involve the intensity of activities often
associated with industrial manufacturing operations.
� Tasting room activities, a common component of winery operations, are not at all
"manufacturing" in nature, and often include educational components such as tours,
historical and scientific displays, and hands-on activities such as traditional grape stomps,
classes, and workshops.
� Winery tourism is a thriving national industry that is best located where tourists are likely
to find it.
� Wineries are highly sought-after venues for high-end events such as weddings, charity
fund-raisers, and private events of all sorts. Industrial parks are not proper settings for
such events.
2. "Colorado Wine Trail" Signage
Compounding the issue of our forced location in Industrial Manufacturing parks (where out-oftown
guests are least expecting to find us) is the repeated denial by Boulder County of our
requests for a "Colorado Wine Trail" sign, part of the Colorado TODS Program (Tourist
Oriented Directional Signs).
The "Colorado Wine Trail" signage program is a collaborative effort of the Colorado
Department of Agriculture and the Colorado Tourism Office designed to promote and facilitate
tourist visits to winery tasting rooms. It is fashioned after similar, highly successful, Wine Trail
programs in dozens of other states across the US.
For over a decade, Colorado wineries in all other areas of the state have been granted approval
for wine trail signs as part of the Colorado TODS Program. Boulder County, however, has twice
denied our formal request for a Wine Trail sign on Highway 119.
Agenda Item 5B Page 39

Every week new customers come into our tasting room and tell us how hard it is to find us, and
suggest that we put signage out on the 119 Diagonal Highway (as though we have never thought
to do this!). Worse yet, we get numerous calls from people driving around trying to find us.
Some of these people succeed in finding their way to us, but others simply never make it in.
Others still, we are sure, give up trying to find us and never even call ... a total waste of their
time and gasoline; a total loss to us of a new customer; and a total loss to Boulder of potential tax
revenue.
Agenda Item 5B Page 40

Dear City Council and Planning Board Members,
I am a parent of a student who attends Boulder Country Day's Preschool program and I also am
fortunate enough to live about half a mile from the Boulder Country Day campus so I am a local
resident. I am writing to express my concern regarding the change of existing Land Use Codes-
which exist to keep children safe- to accomadate the building of a massive brewery directly
across the street from Boulder Country Day School.
I can not imagine why the City would consider amending Land Use Code to allow an alcohol
sales based business to operate in the direct vicinity of a school. Would this be under
consideration if the school was a BVSD school and not an independent school? I hope the
Council is aware that this school includes a Preschool with children as young as three years old
and goes to the Eighth grade. My daughter rides her bike to school (with her father or I). Would
you allow your child to ride to and from school with a bar across the street from their school?
Would you feel safe? How would you feel if you were leaving school with your toddler on your
hip and your preschoolers hand in yours when people are stumbling to their cars across the
street? Would this be even considered if the school across the street was Heatherwood?
The existing Land Use Code exists for a reason. We all want Avery Brewery to remain in
Boulder and fully support its right to expand and grow. Personally, I drink responsibly but we all
know that is not true to everyone. If it was, these statistics wouldnt exist:
-81.7% of sex offenders committed their crimes while under the influence of alcohol*
-76% of violent crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol*
-Nearly 40% of car fatalities are caused by drivers under the influence. Thats one person nearly
every 50 minutes.**
This is WHY the current Land Use Code exists. People do not always behave in a safe manner
when they are drinking alcohol: they are dangerous behind the wheel of a car and often become
inappropriately uninhibited. As a society, we dont consider it safe to locate alcohol focused
businesses right across the street from schools, and so we empower our elected officials to keep
such preposterous things from occurring.
I fully believe that The City of Boulder can work with Avery Brewing to find a SAFE and
APPROPRIATE location for them to expand. Across from a school is not acceptable or safe and
should not even be a consideration for a brewery. I look forward to seeing this matter resolved
with the interest of the children's right to a safe learning environment protected.
Regards,
Diedre Paterno Pai
Agenda Item 5B Page 41

This e-mail is in regards to the plans to build a brewery and 300 person restaurant next to the
Boulder Country Day School. I have great respect for both the school (where one of my sons
attends) and Avery Brewery. I write this because I have directly relevant experience to what it is
like to run a business next to a school. Boulder Prep School purchased the commercial
condominium directly adjacent to the commercial condominium where my business. We are
located only 3000 feet from the proposed development of the Avery facility next door to BCD.
Running my business next to a Boulder Prep has been very challenging. The students wonder
around the building, climb on and over anything including: cars, trucks, tools, storage containers,
and even on the roof. They run out into the street chasing one another; they put on headphones
and walk out into the street in a daze oblivious to oncoming traffic; and then the yelling begins
between the drivers and the students. In fact, one of the students was hit by a car crossing the
road recently.
As you may know, traffic is already heavy around the BCD school. As much as you try to watch
children, they often can get away from you (especially preschool and grammar school children)
and I can't overestimate the danger from having school traffic combined with the traffic from
what will have to be the largest restaurant for miles. Of course, traffic is also a danger with
children, but inject alcohol into the situation and I think the only logical conclusion is that this
will be a dangerous situation. Indeed, I was somewhat shocked that there is not legislation or
zoning to address such a situation.
It seems clear to me having lived next to the school now for 5 years that a large scale brewery
with semi and delivery trucks coming and going combined with 300 person restaurant serving
customers drinking is a bad mix. Add to that the smells and odors form the brewery traveling
downwind towards the school and it seems unfair to the school that has built an organization for
15 years and now would likely be run out of their location because of a zoning changes. It also
seems short sided of the brewery to want to be next door to a school.
I’m sure that Avery is struggling to find a place to move in the city. Indeed I have been trying to
find a place to move for over two years to escape the school that moved in next door to me, but
Boulder’s rules and regulations combined with the high price of real estate make it very
challenging to find a place to move and stay in the city, so I feel for both Avery and BCD. That
said I don’t think they are a good fit to be neighbors.
Thank you.
Ty Melton
Dear Planning Board Members,
As a parent of a child at a nearby school, and frequent user of the Boulder County Open Space
within Twin Lakes Office Park, I am writing to add my name to a large list of concerned families
who have just been made aware of the possibility of Avery Brewery Company building a large
industrial facility and tap room restaurant on Nautilus Court in Boulder,
Agenda Item 5B Page 42

It appears that neighbors and local businesses -which will be directly impacted by this
development-have been denied fair, rightful and timely access to the discussion and planning
process. A large scale facility as currently proposed (including their stated expansion plans) will
have a wide range of direct health, congestion, environmental and safety impacts within the
immediate community.
A facility of such scale as proposed by the brewing company, cannot legally comply with
Colorado State liquor laws and licensing, which insist on a 500-foot setback from any school.
I implore to you readdress this issue as a planning board and vote against any amendment to the
current land use code within office parks that singularly and unfairly benefits brewers, distiller
sand vintners.
Respectfully,
Suzanne Balog
Dear Ms. Johnson, Mr. Shoemaker, Ms. Powell, Mr. Holicky, Ms. Young, Mr. Plass, and Mr.
Brockett,
I am a parent of two children at Boulder Country Day School in Gunbarrel. We were just
informed this morning that Avery Brewing Company has a contract on 2 lots of land directly
west of the BCD Campus. Overall, I am strongly opposed to having this type of establishment in
such close proximity to the school. I have a few concerns regarding the amendment for the land
use code for this property. There has been no attempt to notify anyone regarding the amendment
to the code other than the brewer, distiller, or vintner. Secondly, the City has established goals
for the Land Use Code amendment analysis: 1) minimize impacts to adjacent residents and
businesses; and, 2) align the Land Use Code with state liquor laws and licensing. We have not
seen the City undertake an analysis of either or both goals.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter,
Regards,
Susan Brooker
Dear Members of the Boulder Planning Board,
We are City of Boulder residents, and the parents of 2 children who attend Boulder Country Day
School at 4820 Nautilus Court in Boulder.
We are very concerned about the possible amendment of the Land Use Code that would permit
the operation of a restaurant, in connection with a brewery, in an industrial/business park. We
are alarmed that the proposed Land Use Code amendment would be reviewed at a planning
board meeting without provisions that would protect our schools by requiring that the location of
such an operation be at least 500 feet away. Please consider undergoing a detailed analysis of
the impact the proposal would have on adjacent businesses and residents, especially schools.
Agenda Item 5B Page 43

Thank you very much,
Eugenie and Kerr Holbrook
Dear Planning Board Members & Whomever Else This May Concern:
As you know, Avery Brewing Company is proposing to build a 40,000 sq. foot brewery, tap
house and 350 person restaurant on the land immediately opposite Boulder Country Day School
and across from the Twin Lakes Open Space.
May I initially respectfully state that as an interested tax payer, business owner in the area, and
parent of a child who will be severely impacted, I did not receive, but would have greatly
appreciated, reasonable notice of this proposal sufficient to allow me the opportunity to
investigate the potential impact this proposed use will certainly have on this community.
That being said, I would like now to raise certain concerns. Frankly, this situation seems to fall
squarely in violation of Colorado’s liquor laws that, for very real and obvious reasons, prohibits
granting an on-premise liquor license to any licensee whose building which sells alcohol
beverages is located within 500 feet of a school. The proposed structure, by whatever definition,
will sell alcohol AND is within 500 feet of the school’s property line.
Obviously as a parent at the school I must object strongly to this; primarily for the safety and
welfare of the children immediately across the street.
However, one cannot ignore the burgeoning traffic, the very real potential for drunk drivers, the
noise (they presumably do special events), the smell, 18 wheelers and delivery vans delivering
supplies to the brewery, the massive structures contemplated, the impact on the open space-- all
of these things will place a very real and significant burden on the neighborhood as a whole.
I am not opposed to the Gunbarrel area having a decent restaurant (goodness knows), and
certainly have nothing against Avery Brewing. But this amendment to the Code could have
unintended detrimental impact not only on the BCD community, but also future neighborhoods
and other similarly situated schools, churches, etc. Especially since notice and a reasonable
opportunity for the public to respond has, at this time, been denied. I would request at the very
least, the Planning Board undertake further, more detailed analysis of the impact this will have,
now and in the future.
Respectfully,
Roslyn J. Kitchen
Planning Board,
I am respectfully emailing today to voice my concern as it relates to a potential Land Use Code
amendment that would allow a tap room, tasting room and/or restaurant in the immediate vicinity
of Boulder County schools.
Agenda Item 5B Page 44

Youth of today have so many complex issues to address - it is my hope that as a community we
can find ways to support all of our children as they learn to navigate the world and make
thoughtful, responsible decisions. With this potential amendment, that could seem like only a
minor edit of local code to many people, let us all give thoughtful attention to focus on the best
interest of children as they are our future.
What may seem like an insignificant issue of simply allowing alcohol to be served in the close
proximity of Boulder County schools (and really beyond that geography) can have unintended
consequences. There are many studies that show exposure to basic alcohol logos and basic
branding increases under-age drinking. Let Boulder County be a leader in our nation in
terms of establishing solid, effective municipal codes that ensure the safety of school
children while also encouraging our economy to thrive.
Please do not allow alcohol serving establishments and the marketing that comes along with
them to be within a close proximity of all of our Boulder County schools. . . . may we set the
standards for the entire US as we work to help set safety standards for our children in Colorado.
Thank you for all you do in your roles on the Planning Board.
Respectfully,
Jacqueline Noel
Boulder County resident
Dear Planning Board Members,
I recognize that you are in the midst of reviewing the viability of a brewery across from Boulder
Country Day. I would like to add my voice to discourage this moving forward. I'm a BCD
parent so naturally am concerned about the plans for a restaurant/brewery/tap room across the
street from my 7-year old's school for a great many common-sense reasons, which probably don't
need to be listed (however, am happy to do so if you feel it would be helpful for the record).
Thank you for your open minds and open doors on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Natalie Rekstad-Lynn
Planning Board,
I am emailing today to voice my concern about a potential land use code amendment that would
allow a tap room, tasting room, tavern and/or restaurant in the immediate vicinity of Boulder
County schools.
My understanding of current zoning regulations is that restaurants (establishments who sell food
or drink for consumption on the premises) are permitted in industrial zones but that taverns
(establishment who sell alcoholic beverages at retail for consumption on the premises as the
Agenda Item 5B Page 45

principle activity) are prohibited. [Zoning Regulations of Alcoholic Beverages in Title 9 of the
Boulder Revised Code].
It is my opinion that the prevailing prohibition in the zoning code delivers value in protecting our
community and youth from negative consequences of co-locating establishment who sell
alcoholic beverages at retail for consumption on the premises as the principle activity near
schools or industrial zones.
I believe this potential land use code amendment would negatively impact the safety for
children in Boulder County schools and therefore respectfully request that no such
amendment be approved. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Chris Ringwald
To Whom it May Concern:
My husband Joseph and I (Melissa) are sending this communication to voice our concerns on
building a Brewery/Restaurant on the land across the street from Boulder Country Day school.
The concern is not the project itself but where it will be located.
This location is an already congested area and parking is limited both in BCD lot itself and on
the street. There are many other businesses surrounding the area which bring in traffic as well
and the speed of their travel through that area at times is aggressive. When parked on the street
we are very aware and careful when opening our car doors and unloading our children that cars
can come around those curves at any speed and might not see us.
That being said we understand that the Brewery/Restaurant is to be a large facility and would
bring in potential hundreds of extra vehicle in that area including supply trucks, garbage trucks
etc. This in our opinion raises the street safety concern to a high level and adding alcohol to that
mix can have a bigger impact.
From what we understand there is a request/recommendation into the City Council to amend the
Land Use Code to better accommodate the food service restrictions in the brewery, distillery and
winery industries in Boulder. This could potential impact other school or daycare facilities in
Boulder that have vacant land in their surrounds as well, so we are speaking out for them as well
(generically speaking).
Kind Regards,
Melissa Pichette
Joseph Pichette
Agenda Item 5B Page 46

Good Afternoon,
I write in opposition to the proposed amendment to Title 9 of Boulder’s Land Use Code.
This change would allow breweries, distilleries, and wineries to operate restaurants in industrial
districts as a matter of right. Presently the code permits such a use only conditionally. The
current code is preferable to the amendment being considered for several reasons.
The restaurant business will, more often than not, make a bad neighbor for the typical
business operating on land zoned as IS, IG, IM, or IMS. Restaurant operations commonly entail
heavy and consistent foot and vehicle traffic, above average noise and odor, and the potential for
public disorder brought on by the over-consumption of alcoholic beverages. The restaurant
business also hosts special events like concerts, fundraisers, and even weddings, which place
additional burdens on adjacent land uses. Established businesses in the industrial areas have
built their operations to comport with existing law and located their businesses where they can
best bring their own goods and services to market.
And they are successful in their operations; industrial uses are economically beneficial to
the community. The impact that these businesses have on our local economy should be
supported rather than invaded. Restaurants are valuable to the community, but encouraging the
growth of this, or any, type of business should not come at the expense of other members of the
community.
The impact to industrial users is not confined to financial or operational matters. The
proposed changes discount the safety of adjacent land owners, their employees, and the general
public too highly. Industrial areas are built without regard for ensuring safe foot traffic because
pedestrians are not characteristic of industrial uses. Among most industrial areas a pedestrian is
simply one who walks from the nearest bus stop or parking lot into the office. This is not so for
restaurants, particularly those whose role in the community is meant to encourage growth in
tourism. Ensuring the public safety will mean building expensive new infrastructure including
sidewalks, drainage systems, and traffic control devices.
And the industrial districts are poor venues for tourists in any event. So what does this cost
gain the community? It is counter-intuitive to most travelers and tourists that they might find
pleasure and repose for their leisure hours by visiting areas where manufactories, offices, and
research facilities are most common. Better to facilitate tourism by focusing on those areas
where tourists already frequent than to build new tourist-friendly infrastructure in the out-lying
industrial districts.
But perhaps the biggest reason to resist the urge to amend the Land Use Code lies in the
value of the current system. At present, a business owner may yet build the type of restaurant the
amendment hopes to encourage in an industrial area, so long as that business owner can satisfy
the city that the use should be conditionally granted. It is just that the burden be on the
individual restaurateur to prove that the conditional use is appropriate in the specific
circumstances attendant on the land and its neighbors. When restaurant use in industrial areas is
a conditional use, the city can specify the means in which the restaurant may be operated to
minimize its impact on adjacent land owners. This gives the city the chance to mitigate all of the
concerns enumerated above; the safety of the community can be assured, the adjacent land
Agenda Item 5B Page 47

owners can be heard, the local infrastructure can be improved on a small, targeted scale to
accommodate the new use. But the proposed amendment would upset this balance. By giving
breweries, distilleries, and wineries the right to build restaurants in industrial areas, the exception
is elevated to the rule. The city will have fewer opportunities in that case to ensure that
restaurant operations will be safe and beneficial to the community and that such operations will
not be ruinous to established industrial users.
The great success of the micro-brewery and winery industries in this community shows just
how little the city needs to change in order to support these interests. Restaurants are notoriously
difficult businesses to build successfully. Should the city alter the Land Use Code, permit a use
adverse to industrial businesses, and risk grave effects on the industrial economy all for a gamble
on a few restaurants?
I say no.
Thank You,
Matthew Tindle, Esquire
CO Bar# 40671
Dear Planning Board,
I’m writing in support of the Brewery, Winery and Distillery ordinance as written. The
Denver/Boulder area has become known as the “Napa Valley” of microbreweries, and for good
reason. The craft beer that is turned out by the area is among the best in the world. Boulder
should be proud to support brewers and distillers such as Asher, Upslope, Avery, Boulder Beer,
Twisted Pine, 303 Vodka, Redstone Meadery, Bookcliff Vineyards and others.
Unfortunately, the Land Use Code Does not support the serving of food within the industrial
districts – the only zone where these uses are really allowed. Since the right to have a tap room
(otherwise known as a
“bar”) is protected under state law for these uses, the land use code effectively bans food in
industrial districts, but allows the sales of alcohol. This is a bad business model, as it does not
allow our much loved breweries and vintners to keep up with the national model (seen in such
cities as San Francisco, Denver, Portland, Durango and throughout the country). Just as
importantly, it forces the focus in the tap rooms to be entirely on drinking. Allowing restaurants
instead of just bars would make these businesses more family friendly, more community based,
and frankly – more fun.
Please pass this ordinance and allow food in our community’s tap rooms.
It’s better for everyone.Thanks for your time.
Cheers,
Matt Cutter
Founder
matt@upslopebrewing.com
C 720/227-5722
Agenda Item 5B Page 48

Dear Planning Board,
I’m writing in support of the Brewery, Winery and Distillery ordinance as written. The
Denver/Boulder area has become known as the “Napa Valley” of microbreweries, and for good
reason. The craft beer that is turned out by the area is among the best in the world. Boulder
should be proud to support brewers and distillers such as Asher, Upslope, Avery, Boulder Beer,
Twisted Pine, 303 Vodka, Redstone Meadery, Bookcliff Vineyards and others.
Unfortunately, the Land Use Code Does not support the serving of food within the industrial
districts – the only zone where these uses are really allowed. Since the right to have a tap room
(otherwise known as a “bar”) is protected under state law for these uses, the land use code
effectively bans food in industrial districts, but allows the sales of alcohol. This is a bad business
model, as it does not allow our much loved breweries and vintners to keep up with the national
model (seen in such cities as San Francisco, Denver, Portland, Durango and throughout the
country). Just as importantly, it forces the focus in the tap rooms to be entirely on drinking.
Allowing restaurants instead of just bars would make these businesses more family friendly,
more community based, and frankly – more fun.
Please pass this ordinance and allow food in our community’s tap rooms. It’s better for
everyone.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
David Myers
Chairman of the Mead
Redstone Meadery
Hello. I’m writing to support the staff recommendation to allow sales of food in breweries. Beer
and food go together.
Will Murray
Agenda Item 5B Page 49

From: Ulla Merz [mailto:ulla@bookcliffvineyards.com]
Thank you for your response Bev.
The only concern I had about the zoning changes is the limit of the square footage for the
restaurant space. As I understand it, the limit is set to 1,000 square feet.
I don't have the experience what size is needed for a restaurant to be profitable to be operated.
Currently the limit is derived from the square footage of the location; this is probably because we
talk about zoning which deals with spaces. Another option is to size the restaurant based on the
Agenda Item 5B Page 50

production. This may be harder for zoning to deal with, but this is easily accessible information
as we all file excise tax.
I just want to make sure that the restaurant can be profitable on its own right as a restaurant.
Ulla
I represent Avery Brewing Company (“Avery”) and I strongly object to the inclusion of a rule
requiring a 500’ distance between alcohol manufacturing facilities and schools for three main
reasons. First, such a rule is nonsensical since it would, in effect, only preclude such
manufacturing facilities as a brewery from serving food within 500’ of a school. Such
manufacturing facilities are licensed by the state and the current 500’ rule under C.R.S. §12-47-
319 only applies to establishments that have been issued liquor licenses by the local licensing
authority. As such, alcohol manufacturing facilities can currently manufacture and sell their
products within 500’ of schools pursuant to state law; they just can’t sell food through a
restaurant undercurrent Boulder law. Second, the proposed 500’ rule is an effort to control land
use in one specific instance (Avery Property and Boulder Country Day School Property). A site
review or other review specific to the Avery property would be the appropriate place to address
impacts on adjacent owners and users. The proposed code change is not the correct forum for
this analysis and a one size fits all 500’ rule is not an efficient and flexible method of land use
regulation in this instance. Third, the 500’ rule could result in thwarting the intent of the code
change which is to expand the use of industrial property with respect to allowing restaurant use
associated with alcohol manufacturing facilities. The proposed 500’ rule could result in a
situation where strict application would make it difficult for any manufacturers to comply and
thus be able to have restaurants as an ancillary use to their breweries, wineries or distilleries,
which is the very intent of the code change.
Moreover, the current state statutory 500’ rule under C.R.S. §12-47-319 is not absolute but
rather it is discretionary. C.R.S. § 12-47-319(1)(d)(III) states “[t]he local licensing authority of
any city and county, by rule or regulation, the governing body of any other municipality, by
ordinance, and the governing body of any other county, by resolution, may eliminate or reduce
the distance restrictions imposed by this paragraph (d) for any class of license, or may eliminate
one or more types of schools or campuses from the application of any distance restriction
established pursuant to this paragraph (d).”
If the Planning Board feels compelled to recommend that a 500’ rule apply to the code change at
issue, then such a rule should at lease have discretionary application.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Patrick Perrin
660 Arapahoe Ave
Boulder, CO 80302
Agenda Item 5B Page 51

Dear Council Members:
I am writing as a concerned parent and Boulder country resident. You are considering allowing
Avery Brewery build a tap room across the street from an established school. There is usually a
500 foot buffer zone between a school and brewery but tap or tasting rooms have an unfair
exemption from this ruling. A tap / tasting room is used the same way for alcohol consumption
and should not be near a school zone with little kids being picked up with the possibility of a car
accident when someone is drinking and driving. This exemption should not be allowed. BCD
was present before Avery bought this land. Please use common sense and act as if your child
was attending this school.
"Booze and kids don’t mix!"
Sincerely,
Hilarie Gutierrez, M.D.
Rocky Mountain Medical Imaging
Dear Council,
We request that you change the land use code for breweries to include language that requires a
500 ft. buffer from schools.
Thank you,
Chris and Michele Burke
Dear City Council,
I recognize that you are in the midst of reviewing the viability of a brewery across from Boulder
Country Day. I would like to add my voice to discourage this moving forward. I'm a BCD
parent so naturally am concerned about the plans for a restaurant/brewery/tap room across the
street from my 7-year old's school for a great many common-sense reasons, which probably don't
need to be listed (however, am happy to do so if you feel it would be helpful for the record).
Thank you for your open minds and open doors on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Natalie Rekstad-Lynn
Dear members of the council:
I am a parent of two young kids (3 & 5) who are attending a a school next to the land that Avery
Brewery has put a purchase contract on to build its new brewery and restaurant.
Agenda Item 5B Page 52

First of all, we do understand through research and informative meetings that there is a loophole
in the state licensing for breweries, wineries, and distilleries that allows the selling and
consumption of alcohol in Tap or Tasting rooms right next to a school, without the 500ft buffer.
Large Tap or Tasting Rooms (have evolved into bars) right next to a school, in all concerns, is
not a good idea. We can regulate business but we can't control people's behavior when they are
under the influence of alcohol.
We, as concerned parents for the general welfare of children in the city of boulder is in need of
your help and your better judgement. Let's put some needed regulations back to safe guard the
future of our country, the children, while trying to help Boulder local business grow locally.
I beg you to put the 500ft buffer back into land use code for breweries if the code was going to
be changed, that would close the loophole.
Boulder is a great place to raise kids and let's keep the school safe and 500ft away from any
alcohol.
Yours sincerely,
Meiyi Putman
Dear Council Members –
I am writing to express my concern over Avery Brewing Company’s request to change the Land
Use Code to allow them to build a brewery with a “Tasting Room” directly across the street from
Boulder Country Day School which has over 330 children attending daily in grades Preschool -8.
I am the parent of a six year old first grader at Boulder Country Day. I am also a Boulder
business owner who has been in the restaurant business for over 30 years. I have owned and/or
operated quick serve restaurants, full service restaurants, bars and even a “tasting room.” I have
first-hand knowledge of the business being proposed.
When I initially heard of Avery’s plan, I wondered how they could build what is proposed given
the standard requirement for bars and consumption of alcohol to be at least 500 feet from
schools. I was truly shocked to hear some sort of loophole had been created to allow breweries
with “tasting or tap rooms” to be exempt from this 500ft requirement. I continue to put “tasting
room” in quotes because, having operated a tasting room and also having visited many other
tasting rooms over the years, I know they have the same potential for alcohol-related issues that
traditional bars have. I believe each one of you understands that tasting isn’t just “tasting” - It’s
drinking. You might ask the Boulder, Longmont, Denver or Fort Collins Police how many
DUI’s they have given out – or should have - to people after they have visited “tasting or tap
rooms.”
I certainly respect Avery’s desire to do business in Boulder and understand the income benefit to
Boulder County, however there are any number of empty buildings or lots available with a
Boulder PO that are not next door to children. Choosing to put a Brewery and tasting room/bar
directly across the street from 330 kids ages 3 to 14 is simply irresponsible on Avery’s part.
Agenda Item 5B Page 53

Allowing them to modify the rules to do this would be equally irresponsible on your part. I am
sure many of you have children or grandchildren in elementary school; would you want them
placed in this situation?
If Avery Brewing Company is allowed to do what they are proposing, there will be adults
driving, biking or walking under the influence of alcohol next door to three-year-olds. There
WILL be alcohol related incidents with children involved. I hesitate to imagine how grave these
incidents could be. It is up to you to do whatever you can to prevent this from happening.
Where there is consumption of alcohol, there will eventually and always be people who abuse
that consumption of alcohol – I speak from 30 years of food and beverage industry experience.
Even if you allow Avery to build a brewery and tasting bar on this property, the 500ft rule that
every other bar and restaurant must observe should be strictly enforced. This loophole must be
closed.
Thank you for your time –
Buddy Brown
North Star Foods, LLC
TriStar Ventures, LLC
d.b.a. Carl's Jr. & Hardee's
Lund Brown Enterprises, LLC
Agenda Item 5B Page 54

Agenda Item 5B Page 55

Dear City Council Members,
Again, I want to thank you for allowing me to address the City Council at last Tuesday’s
meeting.
I am sending you two items that may prove helpful as you consider the Land Use Code
amendment up for review.
The first is a follow up to the question that was asked to me by Macon Cowles regarding the
activity on campus after the normal dismissal time of 3:30pm. The second is a copy of the
Power Point presentation I used that evening.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends.
Sincerely,
Mike Shields
Michael D. Shields, Head of School
Boulder Country Day School
Agenda Item 5B Page 56

Agenda Item 5B Page 57

CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
October 20, 2011
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
Attachment H
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Aaron Brockett
Bill Holicky
Willa Williford (formerly Johnson)
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker, Chair
Mary Young
STAFF PRESENT:
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning & Sustainability
Clay Douglas, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Bev Johnson, Planner II
Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
Heidi Schumm, Civil Engineer I
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
TRACK 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Subdivision of the property located at 1685 38th Street, TEC2011-00004. 1685 38th
Street
The board did not call this item up.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Agenda Item 5B Page 58

……….
B. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on proposed amendments to Title
9, “Land Use Code”, B.R.C. 1981, regarding use standards and for breweries,
brewpubs, distilleries and wineries.
A. Shoemaker and D. Powell recused themselves from 5B item due to the appearance of
impropriety since their children attend Boulder Country Day. B. Holicky also recused due to the
fact he his client will be immediately affected by the outcome of item 5B.
W. Williford joined the meeting.
Staff Presentation
B. Johnson presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
1. Clif Harold, 2440 Pearl Street. Executive Director of the Boulder Economic
Council. He spoke in support the staff recommendation and noted that the code
change is common sense and necessary for businesses that are vital to Boulder’s
economy – natural food and tourism.
2. Mike Shields, 4820 Nautilus Ct, pooled time with Eric Shannon, 700 Yellow
Pine, and Tony Eam Law, 4724 Bella Vista Drive – Head of School for Boulder
Country Day (BCD). He outlined the school’s history and mission and implored the
board to consider a 500 ft. setback for these types of businesses operating near
schools to keep the children safe.
3. Buddy Ketchner, 1801 13 th Street, pooled time with Stephen Katke, 5637 Rim
Rock Court and Cindi Hart, 4464 Hogan Ct – On the board of BCD. He asked the
board to close loophole of 500 ft. of selling liquor from schools for the safety of the
children.
4. Joe Brooker, 9470 Owl Lane, pooled time with Ilena Sica, 1001 North Street, and
Eugenie Holbrook, 912 Juniper Ave – Chairman of the BCD board. He also asked
to close loophole of 500 ft. of selling liquor from schools to give buffer. He cited the
Thunderbird issue as a possibility for another loophole during Site Review, if this
isn’t added in the code. He also asked for the 500 ft. measurement be made from the
school’s property boundary and that it should include tap rooms and bars. He asked
to sit down with staff to help craft proper language.
5. Peter Weber, Coburn, 6318 Jay Road – Architect for the Avery Brewery project.
He supports the ordinance and spoke to the fact there aren’t a lot of places to eat in
Gunbarrel. He also supports staff recommendation for having items like this dealt
with at the site review level. He also noted the 500 ft. is specific to the restaurant, not
taprooms.
6. Steve Breezley, 370 Rendezvous – Director of Operations for Avery Brewery. He
spoke on Adam Avery’s behalf and asked for the code change because food helps
control liquor consumption in a responsible manner. Avery supports staff
recommendation.
Agenda Item 5B Page 59

7. Matt Cutter, 1501 Lee Hill #20 – Founder of Upslope Brewing. He explained how
they use food trucks to help provide food for their patrons and that this code change
will help reduce liability, so he supports the staff recommendation.
8. Jeff Brown, 4168 Amber Place – President of Boulder Beer. He agrees with the
need for the opportunity and option to provide food for patrons. He spoke of the
concern for the land use code changes that could change his neighborhood from
Industrial to Mixed Use with the new development at Pearl and 30 th .
9. Patrick Perrin, 660 Arapahoe – Council for Avery Brewery. He supports staff
recommendation for code change, does not support the 500 ft. restriction. The
restriction would prohibit the food from being 500 ft., not the tap room or brewing
elements. He noted that the 500 ft. rule applies for a city issued license and
discretionary whether to apply, eliminate or reduce the rule.
10. Katherine Wittenberg, 1790 Baseline Road –Parent of student at BCD. She
reemphasized that the children are across the street from a brewery and restaurant and
implored the board to keep the 500 ft. rule.
Board Discussion
The board addressed the following questions, as posed by staff:
1) Does the board support the proposed definitions for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries, tap
rooms, tasting rooms and wineries?
The board agreed unanimously.
2) Does the board support the proposed change to the use table?
The board agreed unanimously.
3) Does the board support the proposed use standards for restaurants, breweries, wineries and
distilleries?
W. Williford asked for item 3.5A to be amended with “1000 sq. or greater” per the potential
discrepancy in the proposed definitions and proposed ordinance. The City Attorney
responded that staff will review and amend that discrepancy, if needed.
T. Plass would like staff to consider whether there should be a maximum size, with
additional requirements, as larger restaurants will have larger impacts. A. Brockett agreed
and suggested a graded percentage as the square footages got larger. W. Williford would
support that suggestion.
4) Does the board support an additional use standard to require a 500 ft. restaurant set back
from schools?
A. Brockett understands where the parents of Boulder Country Day are coming from, but the
intersection of state liquor law and local authority does not lend itself well to the 500 ft.
Agenda Item 5B Page 60

setback in this circumstance. He noted that the potential source of problem is the tap
room/tasting room, so it doesn’t seem right to place greater restriction than what the state
currently regulates. Therefore he would not support the additional restriction.
T. Plass agreed. He also noted that since the rule is in regards to restaurants with food and
not to the liquor in the tasting room, it this does not seem to be appropriate to limit the loop
hole that was cited during the public hearing.
W. Williford agreed with what has been said thus far and is disinclined to put restrictions on
restaurants. She encouraged BCD to continue to work with Avery through the other
regulatory avenues. She will support the staff recommendation.
M. Young also agreed with what has been stated and will support the city’s desire to support
responsible drinking, therefore will support the staff recommendation.
T. Plass noted that the potential abuses would likely happen when school is not in session.
He did have concerns about the broader implications in regards to the concentration of these
facilities in a given area, as well with the size limitations. He questioned what the public
transit will be for facilities in industrial areas, recommended getting the police involved for
the issues regarding large restaurants/large taprooms and suggested that staff go the to
Beverage License Authority to get their input on the larger implications. He does agree that
serving food with liquor is good and also agreed with speaker from Boulder Economic
Council.
A. Brockett noted that the compatibility issue with Avery Brewery Concept Plan and BCD
will be closely reviewed when it come through in December.
On a motion by W. Williford, seconded by A. Brockett, the Planning Board approved 4-0, (B.
Holicky, D. Powell and A. Shoemaker recused) to recommend to City Council the approval of
the proposed amendments to Title 9, “Land Use Code”, B.R.C. 1981, regarding definitions and
use standards for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries and wineries, per the staff memorandum.
T. Plass asked if the board agreed that the staff be directed to review the implications he outlined
under board discussion.
Agenda Item 5B Page 61

Attachment I
Agenda Item 5B Page 62

Breweries, Wineries and Distilleries Relative to Schools
Attachment J
Agenda Item 5B Page 63

REFERENCE MATERIALS

Approved by Council 10/19/04
Council Working Agreements
Council Process:
• The Council will work on general discipline in being prepared to ask questions and make
comments.
• The Council asks the Mayor to intervene if discussion on agenda items extends beyond a
reasonable time frame.
• The council will engage in the practice of colloquy to fully explore the different sides of a
specific point.
• The Mayor will ask the city clerk to set the timer lights for council members if
discussions begin to exceed efficient debate. Members should respect the lights as a time
reminder, but will not be bound by them as absolute limits.
• Rather than restating a point, council members should simply say “I agree.”
• The council agenda committee may, with advance notice, adjust each public speaker's
time to two rather than three minutes during public hearings for items on which many
speakers want to address the council.
• Council members will grant each other permission to mentor and support each other on
how each person contributes to the goal of being accountable for demonstrating
community leadership.
• In order to hear each other respectfully and honor the public, council will avoid body
language that could convey disrespect, side conversations, talking to staff, whispering to
neighboring council members, passing notes, and leaving the council chambers.
• Regarding not revisiting past discussions, the council should check-in with fellow
members periodically to ensure that this is not an issue.
Council Communication:
• Council members agree to keep quasi-judicial roles scrupulously clean between members
of boards and members of council, like expressing ideas to board members on things
coming before the Board, and carefully disclose or recuse themselves when they're is
involvement with board members on a topic.
• Council agrees to e-mail the city manager about issues that they run into that staff or
boards may be working on so that the manager can be actively involved in managing
issues and keeping the full council informed well in advance of items coming before
council for action.
• Members will keep the full council informed on issues from committees, public groups or
other agencies that they are following, the a hot line e-mails, brief verbal reports at the
end of council meetings or other means.
• The Council will find ways to support majority council decisions and adequately inform
the public, through response letters that explain how divergent points of view were heard
and honored in decisions, via standard e-mail responses for hot issues, by occasional
council Letters to the Editor to clarify the facts, or by seeking out reporters after meetings
to explain controversial decisions.
Council Committees
• Council goal committee meetings will be scheduled to accommodate the council
members on the committee.
• Notice of the times and places for each goal committee meeting will be noticed once per
month in the Daily Camera.
• The council agenda will include time for reports from committees under Matters from
Members of Council, noting that written communications from the committees are
appropriate as well.

Janury 10
January 20/21
January 24
January 31
Master Plans - begin at 5pm;
Roundtables 4:30
Energy Future Roundtable from 4:30-6 pm in Council Chambers
scheduled prior to Study Session
6:30 pm start? 1) Pre-Retreat Council
Work Plan 2) Capital Investment Strategy
Update
Friday; 4-
8pm;
City Council Annual Goal Setting Saturday 8-
Retreat
5pm
1) Municipal Court Study Session (1.5
hours) and 2) Transportation Maintenance
- Retreat Follow up??
1) Boulder's Energy Future Next Steps
2) Climate Action Plan 2.0
1) Security/Workplace Violence training
for Council and directors - 4-6 pm
February 14 2) Fire Master Plan (Crean - 1.5 hours)
1) YOAB DINNER; 5-6 p.m.
2) Capital Investment Strategy 6 p.m.
3) Chautauqua Discussion (Driskell) -
move to 28th?
4) Civic Center Preliminary Discussion
February 28 (could be flexible in moving)
B&C Interviews (also hold Thursday,
March 13 March 8 and Thursday, March 15)
March 27 NO MEETING - SPRING BREAK
April 10 (Passover
April 6-14; okay to have
meeting on 10th) Boulder Junction/Pollard Site
April 24
2011 Study Sessions
DATE
**December 6
TOPIC/SUBJECT TIME TELEVISE
(Council Meeting Energy Future Roundtable from 4:30-6 pm in Council Chambers
Date)
scheduled prior to City Council Meeting
Housing 1st and Related Homeless
? Decide by
December 13 Issues
11/30
December 27 NO MEETING - HOLIDAYS
2012 Study Sessions (Requests only, items not confirmed)
1) Boulder's Energy Future Next Steps -
roundtable, 4:30-6 p.m.
2)Spring Revenue Update and Budget
Process (Eichem - 30 min.)
3) Potential Ballot Measures and Report
from Charter Committee
11/30/20113:10 PM

2011 Study Sessions
DATE TOPIC/SUBJECT TIME TELEVISE
May 8 City Leases and Budget Process
Floodplain Management by Jeff Arthur/Mo
May 22 Rait (1.5 hours) 1.5 hours
May 29 P&R 5-year Master Plan Update/Fees
June 12 Work Plan Check-in
June26 COUNCIL RECESS
July 10 COUNCIL RECESS
July 24 Boulder's Energy Future Next Steps
July 31 Arts & Library Master Plan
August 14 Budget/Capital Improvement Projects
Mobile Home Park Strategy (1.5 hours)
August 28 and Muni. Court check-in (1 hour)
September 11 2013 Recommended Budget (Nickell) Televise
September 25
October 9
2013 Recommended Budget, Study
Session #2 if needed (Nickell - 1.5 hours) Televise
October 23 Boulder's Energy Future Next Steps
October 30
November 13
November 27
December 11
December 25
PENDING:
Green Tags Mo Rait
Police Master Plan Mark Beckner
Transportation Master Plan Tracy Winfree
No Meeting - Christmas
11/30/20113:10 PM

January 3, 2012 Est. time
CAO to
Prepare
Ordinance?
CONSENT:
Minutes
Resolution Continuing the IGA
Establishing Rocky Flats
Stewardship Council Y
Resolution Energy Performance
Contract Financing Phase III
Second Reading of Ord, No. ___
Directing the Acquisition of
Property Interests at 5864 Rustic
Power
Point
Timing
Issues
Contact
Current IGA
Expires
2/13/12 Carl Castillo x3009
Duane Hudson x1812,
Joe Castro
Knolls Drive
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Second Reading and
Consideration of Ordinance No.
Y N N/A Kathy Haddock x3020
7824 Concerning Regulation of
Maureen Rait, Laurel
Vehicles and Traffic and Parking
Olsen-Horen, Bill
Infractions. 1 hour Y 10 min.
Cowern
MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER:
Community Survey Results
Presentation 1 hour
MATTERS FROM CITY ATTORNEY:
Patrick Von Keyserling,
Jean Gatza x4907
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND MEMBERS:
Motion to Adopt State and
Federal Legislative Agenda
CALL-UPS:
N Carl Castillo x3009
January 17, 2012 Est. time
CAO to
Prepare
Ordinance?
CONSENT:
2nd Reading: Ordinance to Allow
Temporary Alternates for Board
Meetings???? N
1st Reading: Congregate Care
Ordinance Y
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Power
Point
Boulder Reservoir Master Plan
Consideration of Changes to
TVAP Connections Plan and
Section Drawings for Pearl
1 hour N 10 min
Parkway and Junction Place N
Timing
Issues
Contact
Jessica Vaughn, Sara
Finfrock x4085
David Driskell, Jean
Gatza, Sara Finfrock
x4085
Jeff Dillon, Kirk
Kincannon, Sally
Dieterich
David Driskell, Sam
Assefa, Sara Finfrock
x4085
MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER:
Economic Update 30 min. Bob Eichem
Update on Boulder Junction
David Driskell, Trish
Implementation: Key Public
Jimenez, Sara Finfrock
Improvements and Funding 30 min. N 10 min.
x4085
MATTERS FROM CITY ATTORNEY:
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND MEMBERS:
CALL-UPS:
January 20/21 - Council Retreat
Chautauqua

2010-2011 City Council Goals
REVISED JANUARY 2011
Boulder’s Energy Future – Note: Highlighted Section is new
The city’s top priority for 2011 is to develop a vision and framework to guide planning
and decision making about Boulder’s energy future, and to analyze and make decisions
about potential options for achieving the community’s vision. The project’s overarching
goal is:
To ensure that Boulder residents, businesses and institutions have access to
energy that is increasingly clean, reliable and competitively priced.
In charting Boulder’s energy future, the following objectives will be used to evaluate
success:
Boulder’s energy future will:
� Ensure a stable, safe and reliable energy supply
� Ensure competitive rates, balancing short-term and long-term interests
� Significantly reduce carbon emissions and pollutants
� Provide energy customers with a greater say about their energy supply
� Promote local economic vitality
� Promote social and environmental justice
Specific actions to be accomplished in 2011 are:
1) Develop a November 2011 Ballot Measure through a series of community
engagement opportunities, intensive research efforts and council discussions to
establish the city’s options or preferred option for its energy future; and
2) Conduct Analysis to Inform Development of a 2012 Action Plan which would be
implement council and voter direction as established in the November 2011 vote.
ADDITIONAL COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Affordable Housing
� Receive the Affordable Housing Task Force recommendations on program goals
and strategies in August. Based on council decisions regarding these
recommendations, develop an implementation plan for the updated Affordable
Housing Strategy.
� Conduct a study session in 4Q, 2011 to review approaches to addressing the
maintenance and preservation of mobile home parks as affordable housing options
and staff recommendations on a comprehensive approach to addressing mobile
home park issues

Climate Action Plan
� Focus on success of projects and programs already underway, especially
implementation of SmartRegs and Energy Smart, and work to reduce energy
consumption in the commercial and industrial sectors
� Maximize utilization of Xcel’s SmartGrid: part of localization strategy
� Fund transportation projects that reduce greenhouse gas impacts
� Integrate Climate Action Plan with BVCP
University Hill Revitalization
� Continue work of Ownership Group to develop comprehensive revitalization
strategy
� Investigate formation of a general improvement district, including the commercial
area and part of the residential area to control trash and other problems
� Change boundaries of BMS land use to coincide with UHGID through BVCP
process
� Support private development and investment in Hill area, including potential
partnership for redevelopment on city-owned properties
� Partner with CU to consider opportunities for properties in the Hill area
� Provide an opportunity to explore big ideas
Boulder Junction Implementation
� Continue to implement key elements of Boulder Junction by: coordinating with
public and private development, including RTD and its selected developer and the
developer of the 3100 Pearl project; refining financial commitments which
prioritize and phase in key public improvements, and advancing the Access and
TDM Districts.
� Design key public improvements in greater detail; refine project costing and
prioritize projects for phasing.
� Prioritize city actions to facilitate private investment
� Focus additional planning work on reconsidering use for Pollard site
Capital Investment Strategy
� Develop a capital investment strategy that commits unallocated existing revenues
to address deficiencies first and high priority enhancements second.
� Consider asking voters for bonding authority based on existing revenues as early
as Nov 2011.
� Establish a stakeholder committee which would provide advice to staff and City
Council regarding potential new revenues for an expanded capital investment
strategy, with the potential for a 2012 ballot item.
Waste Reduction

� Update Waste Reduction Master Plan, focusing on innovative solutions such as
“waste to energy;” reduction of commercial waste stream; and reduction of toxic
materials.
Homelessness
� Continue to participate in the implementation of the Ten Year Plan to Address
Homelessness, including balancing long term and short term service needs and
investing new available resources in the Housing First model.
� Continue to work with emergency service providers such as Carriage House,
Shelter for the Homeless and Boulder Outreach for Homeless Overflow to
coordinate emergency services.
Sustainable Agriculture and Local Food Systems
� Identify lands for potential food production
� Continue efforts to identify and address constraints of the Farmer’s Market, and to
explore potential for development of a year-round market facility
� Create a stronger policy framework for sustainable agriculture in the BVCP
update
Mapleton Early Childhood Center
� Continue to work with community service providers, BVSD and Head Start to
identify opportunities for meeting a range of family needs and incomes for early
childhood programs and services which address the achievement gap.
OTHER CITY GOALS AND WORK PLAN ITEMS
In addition, the City Council endorsed the staff work plan for 2011 which includes
completion of the five year update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, land use
and zoning code changes, studies in support of water budgets, engagement with the
Colorado Chautauqua Assocation regarding their planning efforts, work with CU related
to their ten-year facilities master plan, a Congressional field hearing on sustainability, a
critical facilities flood ordinance, and investigation of opportunities to support capital
investment in the community. The full 2011 work program is detailed in the attached
spreadsheet.
Realizing the magnitude of the work plan, the City Council also directed staff to utilize
additional staff resources, if any, on background investigations to support Civic Center
planning.
Council will reconvene in June 2011, to review progress on the Council goals and to
address prioritization of projects.

General
City of Boulder Proposed Work Plan January - March 2011
Boulder Valley Comp. Plan - 5 yr. update^ STAFF CC -SS CC - PH
1st Qtr. - 2011 2nd Qtr. 2011 3rd Qtr. 2011 4th Qtr. 2011
Carter Lake Pipeline STAFF CC - IP
Chautauqua Study Session^
Children & Youth Study Session Follow Up CC - IP CC - IP
Comcast Franchise Renewal CC - IP CC
Community Survey Developed Administered Results
Compatible Development Implementation Rpt.
Drought Planning & Response Plan Update
IBM Connector Trail - IGA
CC - PH
Keep it Clean Partnership - IGA CC - PH
Legislative Agenda^ CC - SS
Medical Marijuana
Code Update CC - PH
CC - SS
CC - IP
Sales & Use Tax Audit/ Rev. STAFF CC - IP
Open Space - Disposal of Eldorado Fire Station site
STAFF/ PUBLIC PROCESS CC
75th Street Wastewater Treatment Facility STAFF CC - IP
State of the Court Presentation CC - Presentation
University of Colorado at Boulder
Wastewater Re-Use CC - IP
Master Plan STAFF CC - MATTER
Grandview STAFF CC - MATTER
University Hill - issues CC - IP CC - Matter
Valmont Butte Site Management and Remediation^
CC - MATTER
Water and Ditch Rights STAFF CC - PH
Water Budget Study for Industrial, Commercial &
Institutional Customers (ICI)
Water Conservation and Municipal Water Budgets
West Trail Study Area (West TSA) CC - PH
STAFF/ PUBLIC PROCESS CC - IP
CC - IP
Boulder Junction Implementation
Financial Plan^ CC - IP CC - via budget
Private/ Public Development^ CC - IP CC - via budget
TDM & Parking Access GID's^ CC - IP
Code Changes/ Updates
Bike Share ^ CC - ACTION CC - ACTION
2012 ICC Building, Fire and Energy Codes STAFF/ PUBLIC PROCESS CC ACTION
Café Seating^ CC - PH
Community Gardens/ Solar Generation Fac. CC - PH
Contractor Licensing CC - PH
Mobile Food Vending CC - PH
Public Works Design & Construction Standards
Update
CC ACTION
RH-2 Zone District
Tree Protection CC
CC - PH

City of Boulder Proposed Work Plan January - March 2011
1st Qtr. - 2011 2nd Qtr. 2011 3rd Qtr. 2011 4th Qtr. 2011
Wind Generation Facilities PB/ CC
SoDA, Downtown Zone Districts & Site Review
Criteria for Height Modifications
CC - PH
Out-of-City Utility Permits CC - PH
Code Enforcement
Graffiti Enforcement and Regulations CC - IP
Rental Housing Enforcement/Smart Regs Impl. STAFF/ PUBLIC PROCESS CC - SS
Smoking in Public Places STAFF/ PUBLIC PROCESS CC - PH
Snow Removal Ordinance
Development Review - Potential Call Ups/
Annexation Applications
CC - PH
Boulder Community Hospital Potential Call up
Daily Camera Site CONCEPT PLAN
First Christian Church - 950 28th Street CONCEPT PLAN Potential Call up
Gunbarrel Town Center CONCEPT PLAN
Harper Hollow - annexation application CC - PH
Hogan Pancost - Annexation/ Site Review CONCEPT PLAN
Junior Academy CONCEPT PLAN Potential Call up
RTD Bus Facility at Boulder Junction CONCEPT PLAN
Waterview Apts. (63rd/ Arapahoe) CONCEPT PLAN
955 Broadway/ 1715 Aurora - multi family
Economic Vitality/ Downtown/ Uni Hill
CONCEPT PLAN
Civic Use Task Force IV CC STAFF
Diagonal Plaza
ULI TAP/ CC - Matter
13th/15th- Streetscape Improvements
CC - IP
Federal Lab Partnerships/ MOU's CC
Randolph Center Condominium Association
University Hill Revitalization
STAFF CC - Consent
Innovation District^ STAFF ULI TAP
14th Street - Lot Redevelopment^ STAFF CC
Residential Service District^
Energy
STAFF CC - IP CC STAFF
Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Agreement CC - IP
Boulder's Energy Future^ CC ROUNDTABLE / SS CC - PH
Congressional Field Hearing on Sustainability^
Local Environmental Action Division (LEAD)
Council Participation
Program evaluation check in CC - IP
Sustainability IGAs
Finance/ Budget
CC
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)^ CC - Matters CC -SS and action
City Wide Ballot Issues (CIP, etc)^ CC - SS CC - SS CC - SS
Construction Use Tax - Imp. & Training^ STAFF CC - IP
2012 Recommended Budget^ CC - SS CC - PH
Purchasing procedures STAFF CC - IP
Flood Management and Mitigation Program
Boulder Creek Flood Map Updates STAFF/ PUBLIC PROCESS CC - PH
Critical Facilities Flood Ordinance STAFF/ PUBLIC PROCESS
CC - PH

City of Boulder Proposed Work Plan January - March 2011
Multi-hazard mitigation plan update CC - IP
1st Qtr. - 2011 2nd Qtr. 2011 3rd Qtr. 2011 4th Qtr. 2011
Wonderland Creek at Foothills Parkway, STAFF CC - IP
Four Mile Fire/ Potential Flood Impac CC - IP
South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Plan STAFF/ PUBLIC PROCESS CC - PH
Master Plans
Boulder Reservoir Master Plan CC
DUHMD/ PS Master Plan CC - IP CC - Present
FAM Master Plan Update CC ACTION
Fire Master Plan STAFF CC - SS
Greenways Master Plan Update STAFF CC - PH
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update STAFF CC
Police Department Master Plan Update
Waste Reduction Master Plan
STAFF CC
Master Plan CC - SS
6400 Arapahoe Annexation^ CC - PH
Water Utility Master Plan
Social Sustainability
Affordable Housing
CC - PH
Inclusionary Housing/ Program Review CC STAFF
Mobile Home Park Strategies STAFF CC- PH
Task Force CC - UPDATE Recommendation STAFF
Homelessness - 10 yr. plan implementation STAFF
Mapleton Early Childhood Center CC - IP CC - Matter
Transportation Related
Broadway/Euclid CC - IP CC - IP
DRCOG-TIP Coordination STAFF CC - via budget
Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines review STAFF CC - ACTION
Transportation Demand Management (TDM),
Parking, BVSD & RTD Coordination
STAFF CC - IP
Transportation Capital Construction STAFF CC - IP
Transportation Master Plan Implementation CC - IP IP (Metrics & Mult
Regional Transportation Issues/ US 36 STAFF CC - IP
Urban Wildlife/ Integrated Pest Mgmt. Issues
Integrated Pest Mgt. Policy Revision^
Nuisance Mosquito Pilot Evaluation
Urban Wildlife Plan - Bear/Lion^ CC- direction CC - acceptance
KEY:
CC = City Council Public Hearing or Matter
CC = Information Packet Memo (IP)
CC = Consent Item
STAFF
^ = Cross Departmental Item
IP = Information Packet
SS = Study Session
BVSD = Boulder Valley School District
CEAP = Community & Environment Assessment Process
CIP = Capital Improvement Plan
DRCOG = Denver Region Council of Governments
DUHMD = Downtown/ University Hill Management District
FAM - Facilities and Asset Management
GID = General Improvement District
ICC = International Code Council
ICI = Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Customers
IGA = Inter Governmental Agreement
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
CC - IP
CC - PH

INFORMATION PACKET

INFORMATION PACKET
TO: Mayor Osborne and Members of Council
FROM: Dianne Marshall, Administrative Specialist III
DATE: November 30, 2011
SUBJECT: Information Packet
1. Call Ups
A. Vacation of a 2,876 square foot portion of an existing utility easement at
6350 Gunpark Dr. for a relocated water line (ADR2011-00197).
2. Internal Information Item
A. 2011/2012 Youth Opportunities Program Annual Grant Allocations
B. 2012 Human Services Fund Allocations
C. Update on Bridge House Relocation Efforts
3. Boards and Commissions Minutes
A. Arts Commission – September 21, 2011
B. Arts Commission – October 3, 2011
C. Arts Commission – October 19, 2011
D. Beverages Licensing Authority – September 27, 2011
E. Beverages Licensing Authority – October 19, 2011
F. Planning Board – November 3, 2011
G. Water Resources Advisory Board – September 19, 2011
4. Declarations
A. Nick Helburn Declaration
B. Small Business Saturday in Downtown Boulder Declaration
Complete copies of all items listed above are available for review at www.bouldercolorado.gov, Central
Records and the Main Public Library’s Reference Center. If you have any questions, please call the City
Manager’s Office at 303-441-3090.

INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Matt Applebaum and Members of Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning + Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Chandler Van Schaack, Associate Planner
Date: December 6, 2011
Subject: Call-Up Item: Vacation of a 2,876 square foot portion of an existing utility easement
at 6350 Gunpark Dr. to allow for relocation of an existing water line (ADR2011-
00197).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant requests vacation of a 2,876 square foot portion of an existing twenty five-foot
utility easement at 6350 Gunpark Dr (refer to Attachment B for exact location). The easement
was originally dedicated for a water line; however, the current redevelopment proposal for the site
requires the water line to be relocated (a new easement for the relocated water line has been
dedicated through a separate instrument). The existing water line will be disconnected following
approval of the development proposal, so there will be no public need for the portion of utility
easement to be vacated.
The proposed vacation was approved by staff on November 11, 2011. There are two scheduled
City Council meetings, on November 15 th and December 6 th , within the 30 day call up period.
CODE REQUIREMENTS:
Pursuant to the procedures for easement vacations set forth in subsection 8-6-10(b), B.R.C. 1981,
the city manager has approved the vacation of a 2,876 square foot portion of the existing twenty
five-foot utility easement. The date of final staff approval of the easement vacation was November
11, 2011 (refer to Attachment D, Notice of Disposition). This vacation does not require approval
through ordinance based on the following criteria:
� It has never been open to the public; and
� It has never carried regular vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Call Up Item 1A Page 1

The vacation will be effective 30 days later on December 11, 2011 unless the approval is called up
by City Council.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None identified.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
� Economic: No economic impact is anticipated, as the Applicant is paying for the relocation of
the existing water line.
� Environmental: No impacts are anticipated through this utility easement vacation.
� Social: None identified.
BACKGROUND:
6350 Gunpark Dr. is located in Gunbarrel in the IG (Industrial- General) zone district and is
comprised of a 3 acre through lot (refer to Attachment A, Vicinity Map). The property is
encumbered by several utility easements and a sidewalk easement, with the subject easement
extending southwest from the eastern property line to the center of the site (please refer to
Attachment B, Site Plan).
The portion of easement to be vacated was originally dedicated for a water li ne in 1992. The site
has since changed ownership, and the current owner is proposing to expand the existing building to
accommodate the prim ary Backpacker’s Pantry office and warehousing facility (the project is
currently under review, case number TEC2011-00020). T he water lin e located in the subject
portion of easement will be disconnected, eliminating the need for the easement in that location. A
new easement for the r elocated water line has been dedicated through a separate instrum ent.
Given the f act that there will no lo nger be a need f or the easem ent following relocation of the
water line for which it was intend ed, failure to vacate the requested portion of easement would
cause hardship to the property owner by limiting the development potential of a significant portion
of the property.
ANALYSIS:
Staff finds the proposed vacation of a 2,876 square foot portion of an existing twenty five-foot
Utility Easement consistent with the standard set forth in subsection (b) of section 8-6-10,
“Vacation of Public Easements”, B.R.C. 1981. Specifically, staff has determined that no public
need exists for the portion of easement to be vacated due to the fact that the water line for which
the easement was originally dedicated will be disconnected and a new easement has been
dedicated to allow for its relocation.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Notice of the vacation will be advertised in the Daily Camera within the 30 day call up period.
Staff has received no written or verbal comments adverse to the vacation.
Call Up Item 1A Page 2

NEXT STEPS:
If the requested vacation is not called up by City Council then the Deed of Vacation (Attachment
C) will be recorded. If the requested vacation is called up and subsequently denied the applicant
will be limited to development outside of the easement.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Vicinity Map
B: Site Plan showing portion of easement to be vacated
C: Deed of Vacation with Exhibit A (Legal Description and Map of the portion of the Utility
Easement to be vacated)
D: Administrative Notice of Disposition
Call Up Item 1A Page 3

Attachment A: Vicinity Map
Call Up Item 1A Page 4

Call Up Item 1A Page 5

Call Up Item 1A Page 6

Call Up Item 1A Page 7

Call Up Item 1A Page 8

Call Up Item 1A Page 9

To: Mayor Appelbaum and City Council
INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Karen Rahn, Director, Housing and Human Services
Cindy Smith, Children Youth and Families Division Manager
Alice Swett, Youth Opportunities Coordinator
Date: December 6, 2011
Subject: Information Item: 2011 - 2012 Youth Opportunities Program Annual Grant
Allocations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum presents the allocation of 2011 Youth Opportunities Program (YOP) annual
grant funds (Youth Opportunities Fund). A total of $195,842 has been allocated to 13 community
agencies. Funding recommendations were developed by the Youth Opportunities Advisory
Board (YOAB), comprised of 16 Boulder resident high school students. Youth benefiting from
grant funds typically perform local volunteer work in exchange for receiving financial support.
Annual grant allocations were approved by the city manager in July 2011.
FISCAL IMPACT
In 2011, the Youth Opportunities Fund received an allocation of $195,842 for annual grants. The
allocations described in this memorandum utilize all such funding. No additional funding is
required.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Social: All funds provide cultural, recreational or educational activities for middle and high
school age city resident youth. Some grantees are providing after school and summer
opportunities for youth whose life circumstances present barriers to success, including
immigrant and low-income youth. Research has shown that the greater the number of out-ofschool
time activities a young person is involved in, the less likely they are to engage in risky
behaviors. Since the YOP's inception in 1995, youth have provided over 67,000 hours of
local volunteer work valued at more than $493,000 at current minimum wage, including
volunteering at community events, educating peers, working in neighborhoods, helping in
schools and supporting non-profit agencies.
Information Item 2A Page 1

The YOP fosters strong community relationships, which research has shown to serve as a
protective factor for youth of color. This increased resiliency supports increased high school
graduation rates, improved earnings potential, less involvement with law enforcement, and
increased self-sufficiency.
BACKGROUND
The Youth Opportunities Fund was established after passage of the 0.15 percent sales and use tax
in 1992. Eight percent of the funds collected through this tax were allocated for the Youth
Opportunities Fund. In 2009, a ballot initiative extended the 0.15 percent sales and use tax
indefinitely and without restriction to continue “to fund, without limitation, fire, police, library,
parks, human services, and other general fund purposes.”
The YOP's mission is to strengthen the community through empowering youth, providing
enrichment opportunities for youth, encouraging youth civic participation and community
service, and advising city government. Funds are allocated each year to provide cultural and
educational opportunities for city resident middle and high school age youth. Measures are taken
to ensure there are no duplications with funding from the city’s Human Services Fund.
Using guidelines and priorities identified in the Housing and Human Services Master Plan and
the Social Sustainability Strategic Plan, the YOP has identified the following focus areas to
address community needs. Annual grant applicants all addressed at least one of these areas:
• Address key issues identified in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey results, for example:
mental health, substance use, harassment, health disparities based on sexual orientation or
ethnicity, etc.;
• Promote youth voice by engaging youth in structured aspects of civic life and/or in
community dialogue on social issues;
• Provide after-school, evening, and/or summer opportunities that likely would not
otherwise be available to youth;
• Provide services particularly to middle school or Latino youth;
• Provide transportation to help youth access cultural, educational or recreational
opportunities or employment;
• Provide employment-related education opportunities for youth; and
• Support city-sponsored after-school activities.
The priority for all Youth Opportunities Fund funding is to support programs serving youth who
are low-income, youth who are immigrants or youth with disabilities/who are differently-abled.
ANALYSIS:
Fifteen annual grant proposals totaling $174, 881, were received in 2011. Nine of those
proposals requested two-year grants. Thirteen proposals were funded either fully or partially for
one year, totaling $153,008. Combined with the $31,952 allocated for two years in the 2010
process, a total of $184,960 will be distributed in the 2011-2012 academic year. Two-year grant
funds allocated in 2011 will result in $42,834 for three agencies in 2012-2013. The total amount
allocated in 2011 is $195,842.
Information Item 2A Page 2

2012 Funding Allocations
2011Youth Opportunities Program Annual Grant Allocations
Agency Project 2011-12 2012-13
Boulder Judo Training Center Aim Higher Program $14,750
Boulder Museum of Contemporary
Art
The Studio Project $11,255
Boulder Valley Women's Health
Center
Sexual Health & Aids Awareness Peer
Education (SHAPE)
$14,086 $14,509
Boulder Youth Body Alliance
(BYBA)
Peer Education Program $7,803
Growing Gardens Cultiva Youth Project $14,474
I Have a Dream Foundation of
Boulder County
Leading Through Service Program $8,000
Moving to End Sexual Assault
(MESA)
Peers Building Justice Program (PBJ) $10,000
OpenArts Education Links (Ed Links) Program $4,500
Out Boulder
BOLD (Boulder OUT Leadership
Development)
$12,500 $12,875
Partners of Boulder County Mentoring Program $15,000 $15,450
Colorado Youth Program Adventure Club $15,000
Wildlands Restoration Volunteers WRV Youth Stewardship Initiative $10,640
YWCA of Boulder County Puente (Bridge) Program $15,000
Next Steps
Total $153,008 $42,834
Grand Total $195,842
Contracts with successful applicants are executed. Funded programs receive half of their funding
in September (allocated in the 2011 budget). Mid-year reports are due in January. On approval of
the mid-year report, agencies receive the second half of their funding in February. Final reports
are due in September.
For further information on the Youth Opportunities Fund, please contact Alice Swett, 303-441-
4349 or swetta@bouldercolorado.gov
Information Item 2A Page 3

To: Mayor Appelbaum and City Council
INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Karen Rahn, Director, Housing and Human Services
Wanda Pelegrina Caldas, Human Services Fund Administrator
Date: December 6, 2011
Subject: Information Item: 2012 Human Services Fund Allocations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform city council of the human services agencies and
programs funded through the 2012 Human Services Fund (HSF). The total amount to be
allocated is $2,158,858 for 54 programs administered by 39 agencies. Fourteen applications were
not funded. Two agencies requested an appeal, but did not meet the Appeal Policy’s criterion of
presenting new information upon which to base the appeal. The recommended allocations of
these funds were developed and approved by the HSF Technical Review Committee (TRC). The
recommendations were approved by the city manager in early November 2011.
The HSF awards are made annually to support operating costs of human services safety net and
prevention and early intervention programs designed to reduce the need for future, more
expensive, treatment services. The TRC’s recommendations are made following guidance
provided in the Housing and Human Services Master Plan (HHSMP), approved by City Council
in 2005.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2012 approved budget allocates $2,207,689 from the general fund to support the HSF. With
City Council’s approval, an additional $117,716 will be allocated from the existing HSF
Emergency and Transitional Reserve through a budget adjustment in March 2012 to provide a
one year transition buffer for nonprofits to reduced funding levels for the HSF in 2014.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic: Over $2.1 million will be allocated for operating expenses to human services
agencies serving Boulder residents in 2012. Many services provide support that allows
lower income families and individuals to remain housed, employed and productive
members of the community.
• Social: HSF funding provides a safety net of basic services, ensuring physical and mental
health care, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent supportive housing; and
programming to assist Boulder residents achieve self-sufficiency and self-reliance.
Additionally, HSF funds promote a system of prevention and early intervention designed
Information Item 2B Page #1

to preclude more costly treatment services before problems become acute. Residents
served by agencies receiving HSF funding are disproportionately low income earners,
who are under-represented and underserved, and are diverse in terms of age and ethnic
and racial background.
BACKGROUND
The 2012 allocations represent the 18 th year of the HSF, established after passage of the 0.15
percent sales and use tax in 1992 and the subsequent development of the HHSMP, originally
approved by City Council in 1994 and updated in 2005. Beginning in 1992, 40 percent of the
funds collected through this tax were used to fund human services. In 2009, a ballot initiative
extended the 0.15 percent sales and use tax indefinitely and without restriction to continue “to
fund, without limitation, fire, police, library, parks, human services, and other general fund
purposes.”
The HHSMP calls for human services funding in specific issue areas employing defined content
and service delivery themes. These themes include:
• promotion of healthy nurturing families;
• provision of home, school, and community based services;
• provision of comprehensive, intensive and flexible services; and
• balance among prevention, intervention and treatment strategies.
In addition, four guiding principles underlie funding allocations of the HSF:
• ensuring basic, life-sustaining needs of all residents are met;
• supporting a quality environment that promotes a livable community for all residents;
• respecting diversity and seeking elimination of discrimination; and
• promoting the independence and self-reliance of community members.
To accomplish these broad goals, six priority areas are identified in the HHSMP. Five of these
areas are funded through the HSF. Funding for the sixth area (support for human relations efforts
and diversity education, cultural events and social engagement) is allocated annually by the
Human Relations Commission through a separate process. Since 2005, Boulder’s economy has
been worsening, placing additional strain on human services and the safety net and increased
number of applications and total dollar amount requested for HSF support.
Applications are made through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process in the spring
of odd-numbered years. Over the past two years, four of the major funders in the county
(Boulder County, the City of Boulder, the City of Longmont and Foothills United Way) have
collaborated to bring their RFPs in closer alignment, a goal of the Boulder County Human
Services Strategic Plan. This alignment is intended to streamline RFPs, make it easier for
applicants to apply to each of the funders, and to provide common reporting requirements so that
county-wide outcomes for services can be more effectively evaluated. As a result of this effort,
the four funders piloted a common online application in 2011. Three of the funding partners
issued applications through this common application and the fourth, Foothills United Way, will
be issuing its three-year online application next year.
Applications are made to the HSF biannually and contracts are entered between the city and
successful applicants on an annual basis. Each contract contains outcomes to be achieved by the
funded program. Progress on achieving these outcomes is required to be reported annually.
To evaluate proposals, the city manager appoints a resident advisory committee, the HSF TRC
(Attachment A), comprised of experts in local human services, business and financial
Information Item 2B Page #2

management, and general nonprofit operations. The TRC interviews applicants, deliberates and
makes funding recommendations based on guidelines set out in the HHSMP.
ANALYSIS
2012 Awards
Applicants were invited to submit proposals in five HSF priority areas. From 69 proposals
submitted, 54 were selected for funding, as listed below. Proposed funding allocations are spread
across issue areas and target funding ranges specified in the HHSMP. Proposals approved for
funding are listed in the following tables.
Priority Area: Early Childhood - Targeted prevention and early intervention programs focused on parenting, prenatal and
infant care and child development.
Agency Program Request Approved
Boulder County Public Health GENESIS $141,356 $100,000
Intercambio Uniting Communities El Grupo de Familias $12,500 $11,000
Mental Health Partners
Circulo de la Vida Familiar $70,701 $62,645
Community Infant Program $70,351 $62,982
Parenting Place Family Strengthening $5,000 $5,000
Voices For Children Growing Your Child $7,560 $0
Total Early Childhood $307,468 $241,627
Priority Area: Child Care and Preschool - Affordable, accessible, high quality child care, nurturing and preschool programs.
Agency Program Request Approved
Acorn School for Early Childhood
Development
Scholarship Assistance Program $65,000 $0
Boulder Day Nursery Early Learning Programs $65,000 $62,000
Children's House Preschool First Chance Scholarship Fund $27,000 $22,050
Dental Aid Preschool Education, Prevention & Treatment $4,500 $4,500
Family Learning Center Early Childhood Program $58,698 $56,989
New Horizons Cooperative Preschool Bilingual Education $46,000 $42,000
YWCA of Boulder County Children's Alley $72,188 $68,750
Total Child Care and Preschool $338,386 $256,289
Priority Area: School Age - School-based and school-linked services (K-12) providing physical and mental health care,
parenting support, conflict resolution and other services to children, youth and families.
Agency Program Request Approved
BVSD / Boulder High School ¡Adelante! After School Program $44,000 $43,432
BVSD / Casey Middle School Casey Community Learning Center $22,000 $22,000
BVSD / Teen Parents Program Teen Parent Program $32,000 $25,000
Dental Aid Children and Youth Oral Health $27,500 $25,000
Family Learning Center Ignite Your Potential $12,115 $11,762
I Have a Dream Foundation Boulder Dreamer Program $20,000 $0
Medicine Horse Medicine Horse Youth Program $11,280 $11,280
Mental Health Partners Boulder Child, Adolescent Services $103,088 $99,213
Partners of Boulder County Mentoring Program $5,000 $0
Total School Age $276,983 $237,687
Information Item 2B Page #3

Priority Area: Domestic Violence and Child Abuse - Support services for children, youth and families who are at risk for or
are experiencing family violence, sexual abuse, neglect and other problems. Collaborative efforts integrating services are
encouraged.
Agency Program Request Approved
Blue Sky Bridge Child Advocacy Program $30,000 $25,000
Boulder County Legal Services
Legal Services for Victims of Domestic
Violence
$20,000 $18,000
Mental Health Partners MESA Prevention Education $29,563 $28,426
SPAN
Domestic Violence Victim Services Program $82,400 $60,000
Outreach Counseling & Community Education $38,070 $38,070
Violence Prevention Education Program for
Children and Youth
$8,930 $8,505
St. Vrain Family Center SAFE Services $7,600 $7,216
Voices for Children CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) $11,220 $5,000
Total Domestic Violence and Child Abuse $227,783 $190,217
Priority Area: Critical Infrastructure - Critical human services infrastructure for low-income or chronically disabled
residents.
Agency Program Request Approved
Attention, Inc.
Runaway & Homeless Youth
Adolescent Residential Care
$25,000
$20,000
$30,000
Boulder County AIDS Project Care Services $35,000 $30,000
Boulder County Legal Services
Critical Legal Services for Low-Income
Residents
$22,000 $18,497
Boulder Outreach for Homeless
Boulder Outreach for Homeless Overflow $40,000 $20,000
Overflow Medical Respite Boulder $20,000 $5,000
Boulder County Cares $15,000 $15,000
Boulder Shelter for the Homeless
Housing First
Winter Shelter & Transition Program
$12,000
$75,000
$12,000
$62,294
Transitional Housing $8,000 $8,000
Bridge House (formerly Carriage House
Community Table)
Basic Needs $25,000 $17,257
Care Connect
Recruitment & Outreach Services
Safety Net
$8,560
$32,045
$0
$32,045
Home Care $22,000 $22,000
Center for People With Disabilities Independent Living Program $18,000 $18,000
Advocacy Services $5,500 $5,000
Circle of Care Project Circle of Care Project $45,000 $0
COB Senior Services
Senior Resources/Bilingual Caseworker
Bill Payer/Organizer
$49,419
$21,342
$22,013
$0
Clinica (People's Clinic)
Primary Health Care for Low-Income Boulder
Residents
$400,000 $350,000
The Collaborative Community FOCUS Offender Reentry Mentoring Program $12,000 $5,000
Community Action Development Corp. Circles Campaign $25,000 $5,000
Community Food Share Food Procurement and Distribution $10,000 $5,000
Dental Aid High-Risk Adult Assured Access $95,000 $70,406
El Centro Amistad El Centro Amistad $45,000 $17,638
Information Item 2B Page #4

Priority Area: Critical Infrastructure continued
Agency Program Request Approved
Emergency Family Assistance
Basic Needs $55,650 $53,750
Association Shelter Program Emergency & Transitional $55,650 $53,750
Growing Gardens Fresh Food, Families and Fitness $22,000 $0
Intercambio Uniting Communities Uniting Communities $33,000 $30,000
Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder
County
Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder County $30,000 $25,000
Meals on Wheels Home Delivered Meal Program $30,000 $0
Mental Health Partners Psychiatric Emergency & Adult Services $187,604 $180,388
OUTBoulder SpeakingOUT $10,000 $0
Special Transit
Easy Rider Travel Training Program
Mobility Management Program
$7,500
$10,000
$0
$0
Stand Up For Kids Outreach & Drop-In Center $200,000 $0
There With Care Family Support Program $10,000 $0
Veterans Helping Veterans Now Outreach and Support $20,000 $10,000
Women's Health Subsidized Family Planning & GYN $116,000 $110,000
Total Critical Infrastructure $1,873,270 $1,233,038
Subtotal HSF $3,023,890 $2,158,858
Human Relations Commission Allocation $42,000 $42,000
Total HSF $3,065,890 $2,200,858
The TRC considered multiple factors in judging individual proposals, including the value of the
programming to Boulder residents, relative need compared to other programs, redundancy with
other community programs, collaboration with complementary service providers,
appropriateness of the budget compared to stated outcomes, diversity of funding sources and
historic ability of applicants to achieve outcomes and to raise other funding. The TRC is also
guided by target percentages for each of the HHSMP priority areas.
Based on these guiding principles and factors, the TRC determined that 14 of the 2012 HSF
applications either did not fit within the HSF funding criteria, were more appropriate for funding
through other sources including private enterprise or foundations, did not meet minimum
application submission criteria or were funded through other city sources.
The following agencies were not selected for 2012 funding:
• Voices For Children - Growing Your Child
• Acorn School - Scholarship Assistance
• I Have A Dream - Boulder Dreamers
• Partners of Boulder County - Mentoring
• OUTBoulder - SpeakingOUT
• Stand Up For Kids - Outreach and Drop-In Center
• There With Care - Family Support
• COB Senior Services - Bill Payer/Organizer
• Care Connect - Recruitment and Outreach
• Circle of Care - Circle of Care Project
• Growing Gardens - Fresh Food, Families and Fitness
• Meals on Wheels - Home Delivered Meals
• Special Transit - neither Easy Rider Travel Training nor Mobility Management
Information Item 2B Page #5

The Acorn School and Meals on Wheels were not funded based on their access to other funds
through the City of Boulder. The Acorn School received $960,000 from the education excise tax
toward the purchase and development of an early childhood learning center at Wilderness Place.
Meals on Wheels has an ongoing contract with the City of Boulder to provide meal delivery
services. The TRC determined that under their current contract, Meals on Wheels could take
better advantage of providing consistent services to their clients.
Circle of Care and StandUp For Kids requested an appeal, but did not meet the Appeal Policy
criterion of presenting new information not known at the time of the applicant interview upon
which to base the appeal. Both appeals were denied.
The city manager approved the recommendations on Nov. 3, 2011.
Two-Year Budget Cycle
The HSF is administered biannually, generally making first year awards for programs based on
proposals submitted in April of odd-numbered years. TRC deliberations typically occur in April,
May and June with an appeals process, if necessary, held in late summer. The implementation of
the online common application delayed the release of the 2012 Request for Proposals and
subsequent processes by six weeks.
HSF allocations in odd-numbered years (e.g., 2013) are based on the previous even-year (e.g.,
2012) allocation. If an agency complies with the required reporting and is progressing pursuant
to its contract, it will automatically receive the same award amount in the second year of the
funding cycle without going through a competitive application process. Contracts with agencies
awarded HSF support are negotiated annually.
NEXT STEPS
Contracts between the city and successful applicants will be negotiated and executed before the
end of 2011. Funded programs will receive half of their HSF funding in January or early
February of 2012. At the end of six months, funded agencies are required to report on progress
they have made on achieving the outcomes contained in their contracts. Once six-month reports
are approved, agencies receive the second half of their 2012 funding.
For further information on the HSF, please contact Karen Rahn, 303-441-3161 or
RahnK@bouldercolorado.gov.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Technical Review Committee (TRC) Members
Information Item 2B Page #6

2011 Technical Review Committee (TRC) Members
Ardie Dickson, former nonprofit pre-school director
ATTACHMENT A
Art Figel, systems analyst at the University of Colorado with expertise in business management
Dr. Stephanie Greenberg, human services research consultant and analyst
Will Murray, community member with local nonprofit expertise
Amy Zuckerman, Human Relations Committee member with expertise in business leadership
Information Item 2B Page #7

To: Mayor Appelbaum and City Council
INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Karen Rahn, Director, Housing and Human Services
Valerie Watson, Human Services Planner
Date: December 6, 2011
Subject: Information Item: Update on Bridge House Relocation Efforts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since February 2011, the Department of Housing and Human Services (HHS) has been assisting
Bridge House (formerly Carriage House Community Table) in its process to identify a property
that meets the agency’s need to relocate its day shelter/service center. In April 2011, a Bridge
House relocation committee, comprised of members from Bridge House, the City of Boulder,
Boulder County, the University of Colorado and the Boulder research and business communities,
began meeting to help identify properties that could meet the growing needs of the agency and its
services. A larger facility would enable Bridge House to better serve its clients and meet the
goals of the Boulder County 10-Year Plan to Address Homelessness.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff assistance to Bridge House is within the scope of the current HHS workplan and budget.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic: Because of the limited size of the current day shelter, Boulder’s homeless
population often occupies public places (such as the city’s main library, University of
Colorado buildings and outdoor spaces including the Boulder Creek pathway system, Pearl
Street Mall and Central Park). This can discourage potential shoppers and users of other
downtown amenities by creating an environment that is perceived to be unwelcoming or
intimidating, thus reducing sales tax revenue.
• Social: A larger facility would increase Bridge House’s capacity to deliver day services to the
homeless and near-homeless of Boulder, thus facilitating individuals’ and families’
Information Item 2C Page 1

movement into more stable daily living. Such stability would enable some of Boulder’s most
vulnerable residents to become fully participating members of the larger community.
BACKGROUND
The Bridge House Board of Directors has been searching for a larger site for the last two years.
The current facility, a 1,250 square-foot carriage house, at 1120 ½ Pine Street, is too small to
accommodate the 120 people it currently serves each day. The day services provided in the Pine
Street facility are physically separated from the agency’s Community Table dinner program, as
these meals are provided in nearby churches. Overcrowding in the current location forces Bridge
House clientele to use the facility in shifts. This results in use of alternative public indoor and
outdoor spaces. Other organizational inefficiencies caused by the size limitations of the current
facility include the inability to have confidential conversations with clients, provide support
services, store adequate supplies and provide adequate work space in the building for staff.
According to the Bridge House strategic plan, a larger facility would enable it to serve more
people at one time during the day, increase service hours, serve evening meals, add more space
for case management, provide space for complementary service providers’ staff to offer on-site
services and provide large meeting rooms to host therapeutic group and other community
meetings.
The Bridge House relocation committee, formed in April 2011 to assist Bridge House in
identifying and assessing appropriate potential sites, meets every two weeks with representatives
of Bridge House (staff and board), several City of Boulder departments (Housing and Human
Services, Community Sustainability and Planning, Downtown University Hill Management
Division - Parking Services, Open Space and Mountain Parks), Boulder County Community
Services, members of Boulder’s research and business communities (Downtown Management
Commission, Downtown Boulder Inc.) and members of the University of Colorado’s School of
Architecture and Planning. The focus of the committee has been on identifying and reviewing
potential properties. The Bridge House Board of Directors will make final decisions on what
properties to move forward with.
ANALYSIS
A process to identify and assess potential sites was developed by the Bridge House and the
relocation committee. To date, approximately 36 properties have been identified and analyzed by
the committee. The process listed below has resulted in four properties being considered in
greater detail by the Bridge House Board of Directors:
A. Site Identification: Potential sites are located, analyzed (see review process below) and
feasible sites are forwarded to the Bridge House Board of Directors for further consideration.
B. Review Process:
1. property of interest is identified through city staff, relocation committee or Bridge House;
2. property is evaluated against zoning and services map;
3. property is evaluated and scored against property matrix criteria;
4. zoning and land use questions are assembled and submitted to Community Sustainability
and Planning staff;
Information Item 2C Page 2

5. relocation committee reviews preliminary property matrix scoring;
6. relocation committee discusses feasibility of subject property;
7. comments from HHS and Planning staff, relocation committee, and others are forwarded
to Bridge House site location team (board and Bridge House advisory members);
8. Bridge House site location team determines next steps;
9. Bridge House Public Relations Committee reviews each property for public relations
concerns;
10. relocation committee and staff provide additional information as needed; and
11. feasible sites reviewed by full Bridge House Board for possible action.
C. Zoning and Services Map - In order to identify and assess potential sites, a zoning and
services map identifies zoning compatible for day shelters. The map also identifies: bus routes,
agencies serving homeless and near-homeless, public facilities, schools, day cares, adjacent
zoning and 600-foot buffer-zones surrounding parks, schools and child care centers (Attachment
1).
D. Property Assessment Matrix - Bridge House developed an assessment matrix that compares
properties. Components of the matrix include: proximity to other services commonly used by
Bridge House clientele, adequacy of the site’s size, compatible zoning, potential timing issues,
cost per square foot, availability of financing, and affordability of property and potential
neighborhood issues (Attachment 2). High scoring properties are referred to the Bridge House
Board of Directors for further evaluation.
Previous Properties Considered
A tour of ten properties deemed to be feasible and desirable took place in May 2011. Several of
these properties were evaluated further but are no longer being considered:
1. 1724 Broadway
The Bridge House Board determined this site was desirable and submitted a Conditional
Use Review to the city. A “Good Neighbor” meeting, hosted by Bridge House Board and
staff, was held on May 25, 2011. Community input included support and concerns of
safety related to the site’s proximity to Boulder High School. Subsequent to the meeting,
the Bridge House Board of Directors opted not to pursue this site.
2. 2805 Broadway
No formal notice of interest was filed regarding this site. Informal communication from
adjacent property owners indicated strong objection to this use and no further action has
been taken.
3. 2880 Diagonal
This site, which was subject to a foreclosure action, was assessed and deemed desirable.
The property was purchased through an auction in September 2011 by another party and
is no longer under consideration.
Information Item 2C Page 3

Current Status
There are no properties currently under serious consideration. Properties that become available
are reviewed by the committee. The Bridge House Board of Directors is committed to locating a
site that meets the defined criteria and is the most appropriate site, preferably in 2012. In the
interim, the agency is seeking temporary, free or inexpensive office space close to its current
location. The plan is for this space to accommodate Bridge House’s new Ready to Work
Program and some of its administrative staff.
NEXT STEPS
City staff will continue to assist Bridge House in identifying and assessing available properties
that meet zoning and other identified criteria. Viable sites will proceed through the appropriate
process which will be determined based on city zoning and use requirements of the properties
under consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Zoning and Services Map
2. Property Assessment Matrix
Information Item 2C Page 4

Information Item 2C Page 5

Bridge House Property Assessment Matrix
Property Adjacencies Meets Staff Rating PR Rating Zoning Timing Value Financing Affordability Neighborhood
Space needs $/sq ft Issues
Key:
Adjacencies Space needs PR Rating Zoning
1=very close to other services and locations 1= 7000 sq ft or greater 1= No known PR issues 1= use by right
5=moderately close to other services 5= 5000 sq. ft. 5= known PR issues, but no schools 5= conditional use review
10=far from other services 10= less than 4000 sq ft 10 = PR nighmare 10= use prohibited
Timing Value Financing
1= no knowing timing issues 1=>$250/finished sq.ft. 1= Financing with favorable terms
5= timing of availability problems 5=

NAME OF COMMISSION: Boulder Arts Commission
DATE OF MEETING: September 21, 2011
CITY OF BOULDER
Boards and Commissions Minutes
NAME/EXTENSION OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Gregory Ravenwood (x4113)
MEMBERS: Janet Salmons, Anna Salim, Brandy LeMae, Linda Haertling, Richard Turbiak
STAFF: Greg Ravenwood, Valerie Maginnis, Jason Fell
COMMUNITY MEMBERS: Melissa Gordon, Robin Beeck, Ken Bernstein, Chloe Bennon, Karen Kelly, Pat Connolly, Lillian Myers,
Kirsten Wilson, Sarah Crockanell, Emma Watkins, Laura Kruegel, Jane Shepard, Nancy Parker
TYPE OF MEETING: Regular
SUMMATION:
Call to Order: 5:32 p.m.
Minutes: August 17, 2011, meeting minutes were approved as received.
Public Art: The Broadway Euclid/18 th underpass project was presented and approved. The tile mural project “Diversity Supports the
World,” intended for the wall between the library’s south wing and the labyrinth walking path was presented and discussed. A decision
to fund the project’s installation was deferred as the project could not begin until spring 2012.
Discussion Items: Maginnis presented a plan to move forward in her position as Arts Director to support of the mission of the Art
Commission, and also reviewed the status of the 2011 operating budget.
Reports: Written reports from BMoCA and the Dairy Center for the Arts were reviewed.
Arts in Education Grant Project Update: A letter of clarification from the Boulder YEP Program as to changes in their grant project
was reviewed. The Commission asked that further budgetary details be provided at the next meeting.
Arts and Business Collaborative Grant Project Update: Beeck and Salinger provided an update on the Digital Media
Symposium project which would take place February 16-19, 2012. A grant budget report should be completed by end of March, 2012.
Grant Question & Answer Session: The Commission provided advice on grant preparation for Karen Kelley, Pat Connolly, Kirsten
Wilson, Laura Kruegel, Jane Shepherd and Lillian Meyers.
Grant Budget Reports: The Commission approved final reports from these organizations: BCSIS (2009 Arts in Education – Aurora 7
Interactive Mosaic Sundial), Paula Kehoe (2011 Arts in Education – Kids ArtWalk Boulder and Youth Services Initiative Art Show)
and Alan O’Hashi (2009 Mini-Grant – Cordially, Georgia O’Keeffe)
Meeting Adjourned: 8:40 p.m.
TIME AND LOCATION OF ANY NEXT MEETINGS: 4 p.m., Monday, October 3, 2011. North Meeting Room, Boulder Public
Library, 1001 Arapahoe Avenue
Boards and Commissions Minutes 3A Page 1

NAME OF COMMISSION: Boulder Arts Commission
DATE OF MEETING: October 3, 2011
CITY OF BOULDER
Boards and Commissions Minutes
NAME/EXTENSION OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Gregory Ravenwood (x4113)
MEMBERS: Janet Salmons, Anna Salim, Brandy LeMae, Linda Haertling, Richard Turbiak
STAFF: Greg Ravenwood, Valerie Maginnis, David Mallett
COMMUNITY MEMBERS: None
TYPE OF MEETING: Special - Planning
SUMMATION:
Call to Order: 4:07 p.m.
Big Picture Changes: Maginnis reviewed funding of the Arts Department and issues the department and Commission will be tasked
with achieving in 2012. She spoke to the need to stay on agenda during meetings and recommended the creation of an assortment of Ad
Hoc Committees to delve into and work on particular topics (Public Art, Cultural Master Plan, Digitization of Grant Forms, Marketing
and Public Relations). She voiced enthusiasm for creating a grant FAQ document to post online which might alleviate some of the time
taken up in regular meetings by grant question and answer sessions. Maginnis also spoke to the need to create a funding source for the
public art program.
Residency Requirements for Grant Applicants: The Commissioners reviewed previous discussions about this issue and narrowed
the field of options, settling on a residency requirement of “Boulder Valley as defined in the Comprehensive Plan” which was approved
unanimously.
Arts & Business Collaborative Grant Schedule: After discussion of the topic, the Commission agreed to continue on with the
schedule of grant reviews as in previous years (first round August, final round November), but to add an earlier session (possibly
February) to dialog with potential grant proponents.
AD Hoc Committees: This topic was picked up again. The afore-mentioned committees were populated: (Public Art – Salim and
Haertling; Cultural Master Plan – Salmons and Turbiak; Grant Digitization: LeMae; Marketing and Public Relations: Salim and
LeMae). Ravenwood requested that the committees meet with the Arts Manager on a regular basis so that institutional knowledge as to
the status of projects and the pathway to decision-making could be retained in the Arts Department.
Digital Grant Process: The topic was discussed. The Commissioners emphasized their determination to see the grant forms digitized
and Maginnis pledged to compile priorities and present them to prospective vendors before the end of October.
Public Art Policy: The commission discussed various aspects: creating a mechanism for the public art selection, implementation,
maintenance, collection file; setting the vision goals for locating art; and partnering with other city departments and private enterprises
to create public art opportunities.
Cultural Master Plan: Maginnis provided details of the process for creating a Cultural Master Plan, noting that July 31, 2012, had
been set as the date that initial master plan components would be presented before City Council.
PR and Partnerships Salmons stated her desire to see the Arts Commission and Arts Departments programs touted in public forums.
The Commission and staff discussed options to highlight the Arts Department’s accomplishments. Salmons recommended that the
Commissioners consider offering “business of arts workshops” in partnership with Boulder County Arts Alliance and offered to
schedule a discussion with BCAA Director Charlotte LaSasso.
Meeting Adjourned: 7:05 p.m.
TIME AND LOCATION OF ANY NEXT MEETINGS: 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 19, 2011. North Meeting Room, Boulder
Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe Avenue
Boards and Commissions Minutes 3B Page 1

NAME OF COMMISSION: Boulder Arts Commission
DATE OF MEETING: October 19, 2011
CITY OF BOULDER
Boards and Commissions Minutes
NAME/EXTENSION OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Gregory Ravenwood (x4113)
MEMBERS: Janet Salmons, Anna Salim, Brandy LeMae, Linda Haertling, Richard Turbiak
STAFF: Greg Ravenwood, Valerie Maginnis
COMMUNITY MEMBERS: Sarah Crockarell, Bruce Borowsky, Bekah Smith, Warren Hammond, Amanda Berg Wilson, Rebecca
Easts, Laura Kruegel, Kevin Shuck
TYPE OF MEETING: Regular
SUMMATION:
Call to Order: 5:40 p.m.
Review of Minutes: The September 21 minutes were approved as received. The October 3 minutes were approved as amended.
Arts in Education Grant Project Update: A project update from the Boulder YEP Program was reviewed and approved.
Arts in Education Grant Proposals: Grant projects approved were: Blue Moon Dance Company (Creativity, Dance Education and
the Future) $3000; Boulder Ballet (Poetry in Motion) $750; Boulder High School (Curators + Artists + Critics = Galleries) $2770;
Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art (Art Stop on the Go) $3000; Boulder Philharmonic Orchestra (Music of the Beatles & French
Impression Concerts) $3000; CU College of Architecture and Planning (Human Centered Design and the Art of Math) $3000;
Playback Theater (Community Conversations for Niwot’s Arrow) $1120; Betsy Tobin (Expanding Horizons Onstage and Off) $3000;
Amanda Berg Wilson (Songs of China) $3000. Grant projects declined were: Boulder Ensemble Theater Company and New Horizons
Cooperative Preschool. Grant projects pending were Boulder Chorale, Boulder Digital Arts and September High School; these projects
would decided upon at the November 16 meeting after the proponents supplied additional information requested by the BAC.
Mini-Grant Proposals: Grant projects approved were: Matt Beard (Stop Hitting Yourself: A Night of Sketch Comedy) $1000;
Elizabeth Robinson (Rubber Stamp Poem Tags) $500. Grant projects declined were: Chamber Music Society of Boulder (Claire
Huangcy Project).
Theater Rental/Marketing Assistance Proposals: Grant projects approved were: Art as Action, Inc. (Beautiful Mistake) $3000; Band
of Toughs (Silver and Gold (A Community-Building Holiday Performance Event) $1000; Devil’s Thumb Productions (Accomplice)
$3000; Madhause, Inc. (DOTMATRIX) $2390.
Grant Budget Reports: The Commission approved final reports from these organizations: Boulder High School (2010 Arts in
Education – Heavy Metal Teens in Motion); Boulder Philharmonic Orchestra (2009 Arts in Education – Discovery Concert 2010);
Rebecca Bradford/The Bradford Creative (2011 Theater Rental/Marketing Assistance – The Improv Sampler); John-David Johnson
(2011 Mini-Grant – The Third Policeman); New Horizon’s Preschool (2010 Arts in Education – Cool Moves/Movimientos Chidos);
Parlando School for the Arts (2011 Arts in Education – Boulder Music Teachers Professional Development Workshop); Betsy Tobin
(2010 Arts in Education – Expanding Horizons Onstage and Off).
Macky Auditorium Rental: Boulder Philharmonic’s request for rent-free space at Macky Auditorium on Saturdays, October 8, 2011
and January 14, 2012 were approved.
Discussion Items: Ravenwood presented a draft form of application for scholarships to the Americans for the Arts Convention and a
proof for a full-page ad in Artscape for the Commission to consider. Also presented was a letter from Wrecking Ball Theater explaining
a suspension of their grant project; the organization returned their grant check with the letter.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:28 p.m.
TIME AND LOCATION OF ANY NEXT MEETINGS: 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 16, 2011. North Meeting Room, Boulder
Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe Avenue
Boards and Commissions Minutes 3C Page 1

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 1

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 2

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 3

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 4

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 5

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 6

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 7

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 8

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 9

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3D Page 10

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3E Page 1

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3E Page 2

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3E Page 3

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3E Page 4

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3E Page 5

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3E Page 6

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3F Page 1

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3F Page 2

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3F Page 3

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3F Page 4

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3F Page 5

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3F Page 6

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3F Page 7

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3G Page 1

Boards and Commissions Minutes 3G Page 2

Council Appointments to Committees: 2011 ASSIGNMENTS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS:
Boulder County Consortium of Cities: Ken Wilson, alternate George Karakehian
Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee (CML): Matt Appelbaum, KC Becker, alternate Carl Castillo
Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG): Macon Cowles, alternate KC Becker
Housing Authority (Boulder Housing Partners): Suzy Ageton
Metro Mayors Caucus: Susan Osborne
National League of Cities: Matt Appelbaum
Resource Conservation Advisory Board: Lisa Morzel
Rocky Flats Stewardship Council: Lisa Morzel, alternate Carl Castillo, second alternate Eric Stone
CU/City Oversight Group: Crystal Gray, Ken Wilson and George Karakehian
US 36 Mayors and Commission Coalition: Susan Osborne, alternate Suzy Ageton
US 36 Commuting Solutions Suzy Ageton
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ken Wilson
REGIONAL STUDY COMMITTEES:
Beyond the Fences Coalition Lisa Morzel
Northwest Rail Environmental Assessment Team: Suzy Ageton
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS:
Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art (BMoCA): Macon Cowles, alternate George Karakehian
Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau: Crystal Gray, alternate Susan Osborne
Dairy Center for the Arts: George Karakehian
Downtown Business Improvement District Board: KC Becker and Ken Wilson
INTERNAL CITY COMMITTEES:
Audit Committee: Susan Osborne, George Karakehian, Lisa Morzel
Boulder Valley School District Issues: Crystal Gray, Lisa Morzel, George Karakehian
Evaluation Coordinators: Ken Wilson, Matt Appelbaum
Civic Use/9th & Canyon: Crystal Gray and Lisa Morzel
Legislative Committee: Matt Appelbaum, Crystal Gray. KC Becker, Susan Osborne
Charter Committee: Suzy Ageton, KC Becker, Lisa Morzel
Council Budget Action Plan Committee: Matt Appelbaum, Crystal Gray, KC Becker
SISTER CITY REPRESENTATIVES:
Jalapa, Nicaragua: Lisa Morzel
Kisumu, Kenya Lisa Morzel
Llasa, Tibet: Suzy Ageton
Dushanbe, Tajikistan: Susan Osborne, alternate George Karakehian
Yamagata, Japan: Ken Wilson
Mante, Mexico: KC Becker
Yateras, Cuba: Crystal Gray, alternate Macon Cowles
Sister City Sub-committee: Crystal Gray and Lisa Morzel

Council Appointments to Committees: 2011 ASSIGNMENTS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS:
Boulder County Consortium of Cities: Ken Wilson, alternate George Karakehian
Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee (CML): Matt Appelbaum, KC Becker, alternate Carl Castillo
Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG): Macon Cowles, alternate KC Becker
Housing Authority (Boulder Housing Partners): Suzy Ageton
Metro Mayors Caucus: Susan Osborne
National League of Cities: Matt Appelbaum
Resource Conservation Advisory Board: Lisa Morzel
Rocky Flats Stewardship Council: Lisa Morzel, alternate Carl Castillo, second alternate Eric Stone
CU/City Oversight Group: Crystal Gray, Ken Wilson and George Karakehian
US 36 Mayors and Commission Coalition: Susan Osborne, alternate Suzy Ageton
US 36 Commuting Solutions Suzy Ageton
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ken Wilson
REGIONAL STUDY COMMITTEES:
Beyond the Fences Coalition Lisa Morzel
Northwest Rail Environmental Assessment Team: Suzy Ageton
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS:
Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art (BMoCA): Macon Cowles, alternate George Karakehian
Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau: Crystal Gray, alternate Susan Osborne
Dairy Center for the Arts: George Karakehian
Downtown Business Improvement District Board: KC Becker and Ken Wilson
INTERNAL CITY COMMITTEES:
Audit Committee: Susan Osborne, George Karakehian, Lisa Morzel
Boulder Valley School District Issues: Crystal Gray, Lisa Morzel, George Karakehian
Evaluation Coordinators: Ken Wilson, Matt Appelbaum
Civic Use/9th & Canyon: Crystal Gray and Lisa Morzel
Legislative Committee: Matt Appelbaum, Crystal Gray. KC Becker, Susan Osborne
Charter Committee: Suzy Ageton, KC Becker, Lisa Morzel
Council Budget Action Plan Committee: Matt Appelbaum, Crystal Gray, KC Becker
SISTER CITY REPRESENTATIVES:
Jalapa, Nicaragua: Lisa Morzel
Kisumu, Kenya Lisa Morzel
Llasa, Tibet: Suzy Ageton
Dushanbe, Tajikistan: Susan Osborne, alternate George Karakehian
Yamagata, Japan: Ken Wilson
Mante, Mexico: KC Becker
Yateras, Cuba: Crystal Gray, alternate Macon Cowles
Sister City Sub-committee: Crystal Gray and Lisa Morzel