20 hours Ago
Earlier this year, the February 6 city council agenda provided notice for Boulder’s first executive session with the opaque explanation: “ pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) for conference with attorneys for the City for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding meeting management and the First Amendment.” This behind-closed-door session was actually about how the council was finally going to wrest control of its meetings back from the protesters, after a year-plus of almost constant disruptions. I’m happy to see this finally happening, though, in my opinion, it did not require instituting executive sessions, which I don’t support because their privacy encourages bad behavior and deal cutting.
Colorado statute 24-6-402(4) states that the public notice of an executive session requires “identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized...
” Given this strong requirement for transparency, I cannot see why the city was not more forthright. Why not just say that the meeting is to receive legal advice on how to minimize the kind of disruption that had been occurring without violating anyone’s free speech rights? In contrast, for an example of transparency, notice of an agenda item was sent out Wednesday for Thursday night’s council meeting “authorizing the city attorney to appoint Ft. Collins City Attorney’s Office as Special Counsel to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute complaint 2025-001 related to a code of conduct violation filed pursuant to § 2-7-10(c) B.
R.C. 1981.
” The actual agenda was immediately amended to include all the information, including the full complaint against Councilmember Taishya Adams. In March the council is scheduled to consider a $66 million bond issue to fund the South Boulder Creek flood control dam to be built on the CU South property. Currently, it is supposed to be an “emergency measure,” so it can be brought up, considered and passed in one meeting.
Boulder Charter Section 17 states that an emergency measure must be, “for the preservation of the public peace, health, or property, and then only by a two-thirds vote of the council members present. The facts showing such urgency and need shall be specifically stated in the measure itself.” It’s now more than a decade after the 2013 flood, and planning for this dam has gone on for years.
So how can this be an “emergency” justifying “such urgency”? The only thing I found was in the Minutes of a November 5, 2024, meeting between city staff members and various consultants on the project. In it, city staff reference a “hard requirement” for construction to start in “Quarter 2 of 2025.” I asked both council and staff, including the Public Works director, what this is, but , so far, have received zero clarification.
This sudden urgency seems disconnected from reality, given that, from what I’ve heard, the city does not have any of the permits or approvals from the host of entities that regulate this project. According to the CU South Annexation Agreement, approvals are needed from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado State Engineer’s Office and the City of Boulder.
Required permits include USACE/EPA 404 Individual Permit (including USFWS Consultation), FEMA CLOMR, CDOT Right of Way Permit and Landowner Agreement, Colorado Dam Safety Engineer Design Approval, and City of Boulder wetland/floodplain permits. CDOT may be especially problematic. Water retained behind this very expensive dam must be drained shortly after any flood and must flow under U.
S. 36. Boring a tunnel is problematic because recent explorations have found large boulders.
Thus, it may require digging a trench across U.S. 36, which will obviously shut it down (partially or fully) for this construction, currently of unknown duration.
Regarding the fantasy-based “densification” push at the state level to allegedly make housing “more affordable” (oops, now it’s “more attainable”), some local governments are pushing back. As reported by CPR, officials in Westminster, Arvada, Colorado Springs and Northglenn have suggested that they won’t follow some of the Legislature’s densification laws. Reasons include inadequate infrastructure, unreliable transit and loss of neighborhood character.
To quote CPR : Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally said during a City Council meeting earlier this month in which she and other members directed city staff to not to comply with three of the new laws. “I believe this is total overreach by our state government who should have a billion other things to be looking at, not how we run our cities,” she added. I say, “Good for Westminster!” Steve Pomerance is a former member of the Boulder City Council.
Email [email protected] ..
