Thread by @shayshinecastle

A few things on the consent agenda, including finalizing the ballot content. Consent normally means no discussion, but we've got 20 min for the Xcel deal and then 45 for Our Mayor, Our Choice.

There's also going to be a later discussion about what order council wants the ballot measures to be in. NEWR, since it's a tax, has to be first. (TABOR rules) But the rest are up to them.

OK, talking a bit about Our Mayor, Our Choice. Reminder: Council voted 7-2 to put this on the ballot on first reading, but there has to be a second vote.

In the meantime, county clerk said BoCo can't/won't conduct this election for Boulder.

So we'd have to pay for it ourselves. Looks like a potential $350K licensing fee (for a contractor/system) and $70K/year operation costs for that election. But that's really preliminary.

County clerk has said 2023 is too soon to implement ranked choice voting. So as a fix, staff is suggesting ballot language that leaves flexibility in WHEN that's implemented, if voters OK, until when the county clerk is ready

Looks like Xcel settlement stuff is going to be mixed in with Our Mayor, Our Choice stuff in this thread. Apologies; it's council, not me.

Nagle, who missed the past 3 meetings due to surgery, explaining why she's supporting the settlement.

I put my trust in Sam (Weaver) to inform my decision. He told me we could "end up with nothing" if we don't approve this settlement.

I know there are many people this is going to "burn a bridge with" and I'm sorry, Nagle says, but "I had to put my trust in somebody." Weaver and Yates did a great job.

Yates thanks Nagle for her "courageous" statement.

Back to mayor stuff: Yates says let's amend the current ballot measures to accommodate the county clerk's concern.

"The solution is in front of us. All we have to do is have ppl support that."

So if 2023 comes and the county clerk can do ranked choice voting, cool. If not, then council at the time could decide if the budget accommodates it, as Yates suggests.

Things are getting a little complicated bc of all the amendments. The way things have to be passed is very particular: First reading, second reading. If there are amendments, it restarts (I think) or council has to pass it on emergency (requiring 6 votes)

OK, they're pulling the Mayoral election off the consent agenda... V confusing now, I imagine, for people who don't watch every council meeting (and maybe some who do)

Young: "What we're doing to try and put this on the ballot is a favor" to the campaign.

"The last time I looked, favors are not part of how government is done."

This is bc, under the mid-cycle rule change council decided on July 21, the campaign did not submit enough signatures to make the ballot.

Under the original rules the city provided, they did.

They have not raised nearly the stink about this that Bedrooms did, probably bc council was more open to their issue. If that changes, I imagine they'll raise all kind of hell.

Anyway, back to Young. She dissented the first time and won't support putting it on the ballot now. "I feel really uncomfortable with putting this on the ballot in any way, shape or form."

She suggested a working group to "figure out what problem we're trying to solve."

Young: The licensing alone would be $350,000 plus $70,000 a year. That is just for the software. We are in a very constrained budgetary situation.

"The city clerks' office right now is down to three people," she says.

That would explain the variability in providing meeting links and such...

Young: "I have a responsibility to put things that make sense on the ballot and this thing makes no sense to me."

Wallach (the other dissenter last time): I think Young is underestimating the cost for running our own election. "I'm also very, very uncomfortable with the process of how this has unfolded...."

Yay, story time.

"Perhaps through no fault of their own, the sponsors did not obtain the signatures they needed to make the ballot," he says. But they wanted to work with us, so we did.

Wallach: But we're still changing the language. It's 9:37 on the final reading. We have last-minute info from the county clerk and unknown costs... When have we ever taken such a substantial action with so many unknowns?

I'm sure we can think of something...

Wallach: To say this is what we're doing unless we can't do it ... "this whole process has become a comedy of errors."

Friend: I asked at our retreat in January that we look at ranked choice voting and it was shot down with the rationale that it wasn't council's purview; citizen should look at it.

Friend: We're not doing them a favor; they're doing us a favor. We said go forth and look at it.

Asks for a straw poll.

Swetlik: When I look at this initiative, I see the potential for change. We should move forward. "Change doesn't happen unless there is attention (or a tension?) and a deadline is a good way to put attention (or a tension?) on things."

Maybe one of the amendments is to implement this in 2025...? Bc he keeps saying 5 years.

Really wish there was a presentation on this.

Brockett: The organizers did collect the signatures we told them they needed. This is not an arbitrary favor-granting process. Thousands of Boulderites expressed support for this fundamental idea.

Yes, we're still changing it, but they're minor amendments, not substantive changes, he says.

Yates: We're about to unanimously approve another ballot measure (NEWR) that we also amended to make it better. They were very gracious in that.

OK so the version maybe on the table now is: Ranked choice voting happens in 2023 unless the county says it can't.

Apologies this is so confusing. I'll sort through it for you. Eventually.

Ranked choice voting has not been done in a large Colorado city. They did it in Telluride and Basalt, but they hand-counted the votes. And v small populations there compared to here.

"Somebody's got to go first," Yates says. "It should be us." That will force the state legislature to move more quickly and make this easier in Colorado counties.

Weaver is with Young and Wallach. Why would we amend our constitution to say we'll do this maybe if it works out?

"I really don't feel like this is ready," Weaver says. We should get ranked choice voting for the entire council.

So we've got Friend, Brockett, Yates, Swetlik for and Weaver, Wallach, Young against.

Nagle and Joseph both TBD but they both went for it last time. Would be surprised if Nagle still does but I've been surprised before.

"I'm not going to support any flavor of this," Weaver says.

Straw poll time.

Nagle does not support but Joseph does, so that's a 5-member majority. Now to decide what version gets on the ballot ... bc (I think) an amended version can't make it on without 6 votes

So the original language (that council passed last time) will go on the ballot, requiring ranked choice voting by 2023... I believe it removes the language that clarifies it will only happen if the county clerk can do it.

It's a roll call vote, and it's complicated.
Friend votes against extending the UOT (Maybe Brockett did too?)
Young, Wallach, Weaver and Nagle vote against the mayoral ballot measure
Joseph and Swetlik vote against the Xcel settlement

Looks like I've got another ballot measure story to write. Le sigh. But yay for the will of the people!

Yates clearing up some confusion stemming from a Daily Camera article. They usually get it right, he says, but not this time.

I remember when Yates used to be a fan of mine. Good times.

Anyway, regarding e-scooters: That discussion and vote will happen later. I'll have some notes for you.

That's it for this very confusing consent agenda. @threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!