Thread by @shayshinecastle

Getting a quick CU South annexation negotiation update. Friend, Weaver are going to be added to the negotiation team, as a means of having some public input (since they represent residents).

Well, that's the idea anyway. We'll see what council says.

Yates: "I fully endorse" this idea. Those two have been serving on the CU South process subcommittee. Yates says this would be similar to the Weaver/Yates team that sat in on Xcel negotiations.

Which some residents did not love.

It's a useful tool, Yates says. "I think we should use it whenever staff is in negotiations" with an outside party.

Weaver and Friend will need replaced on that process subcommittee; Yates volunteers. He served on a previous version with ex-councilwoman Cindy Carlisle.

Wallach on board with this approach, as is Brockett, who also volunteers for the process subcommittee "unless someone else wants it."

Friend: My overall goals are to protect people from flooding and getting maximum community benefit from annexation.

Young cool with all this, too.

Weaver: "Having the political lens" and council input on behalf of the public is helpful in negotiations like this.

Friend: I know there are community members who weren't super stoked on Weaver and Yates doing the Xcel negotiations, and might not be for this either. Are there any legal issues with doing this?

No, Carr says. As long as they aren't speaking behalf of council or directing action, it's fine. They're just serving as informal advisors. There was no issue then, there isn't one now.

Friend: I want the public to know we're sensitive to this. Please contact us with your concerns. It's my intention to be very transparent and loop the public in "frequently and fairly."

Surprise public hearing! To appoint Yates, Brockett to that process subcommittee, following Friend and Weaver's official resignation from that.

Neighborhood liaison Brenda Ritenour is going to share a link to tonight's meeting just in case anyone wants to speak to this.

Council gonna move on in the meantime.

I'd be v surprised if anyone NOT already in the meeting participates in either of these public hearings. But I've been wrong before.

I wanted to share the phone number and link with you, but they took that info down before I could capture it, so....

Laura Tyler, from South Boulder Creek Action Group, praising council's work on CU South. Supports new committee members and Weaver, Friend negotiating in the annexation.

To be clear, the motion is ONLY for appointing Yates, Brockett to the subcommittee. Since Weaver, Friend are informally consulting, no official appointment needed.

Phone number to join public hearings: 312.626.6799

Link is tinyurl.com/y6ax54rg

Just realized it's only 9:30. Usually it would be 11:30 at this point in the meeting, so maybe some of you will participate after all.

Two new people!

Paul Culnan upset about the surprise public hearing. "How many people are still watching this right now?"

This has been an issue in the past. Council working to address it; I'm not sure how.

You're in a tough spot, Culnan says, with CU South, no matter how you vote. "Doing the process this way doesn't help things. The optics are bad."

Brad Segal, Lynn Segal's brother (whom I've never heard from before): I don't often agree with my sister, but I do this time. (Lynn already spoke about the process; I was trying to find the phone number and link)

"It does not look good," Brad Segal. "I'm trying to be a reasonable citizen." Also says he wasn't v comfortable with Yates, Weaver negotiations on Xcel.

Another new person! Margaret LeCompte, with Save South Boulder, and anti-annexation group.

"I didn't get notice of this meeting until maybe 10 min ago," LeCompte says. "I'm absolutely infuriated. ... I'm usually a pretty reasonable" resident of the city. "I feel incredibly in the dark."

This process definitely not the best, as has been revealed in the past. Staff's defense is that these surprise public hearings, when they happen in person, would only be open to those already in attendance.

Which is fair: Unlikely you could get down to chambers in the time it took staff to post the link and phone number. (Weaver mentioning that now).

But, like I already said, council has admitted the surprise public hearing thing is overall not great. So changes should be coming.

Weaver clarifying that the CU South process itself is not changing. (Although adding he and Friend to negotiations is new)

Brockett: I have to say based on public testimony and my thoughts before that, I'm uncomfortable having a vote to appoint Yates and himself to that subcommittee. Can we push it that vote?

Friend: Having been pretty passionately involved in CU South, I "completely appreciate" the alarm you feel when the topic comes up.

That being said, when Weaver and I were appointed a year ago, Friend says, I don't even remember a public hearing. I just want to make sure we don't cause unnecessary delays.

Wallach asking if Yates/Brockett's appointment to the process subcommittee can be delayed.
Yes, Carr says. We can make the next study session a special meeting.

Joseph agrees with Brockett: "I did at first feel uncomfortable with the process, but I didn't fully understand it anyway."

"If postponing it would help community members ... I would say why not."

Yates: I would observe earlier this evening we appointed a council subcommittee on consent without a public hearing, so we do that all the time. (The city attorney search committee)

BUT thinks council should wait to honor community members. Suggests March 2 meeting — noting that this may impact negotiations and/or this Friday's process subcommittee meeting.

Young echoes that last point from Yates.

Weaver suggests continuing this public hearing to March 2. He and Friend will remain on the process subcommittee in that case. But first he wants to hear what staff would prefer.

Joe Taddeucci: I think it would be good to keep this Friday's meeting, just bc the schedule is so tight this year.

Wallach: Can you work with staff on negotiations so we don't lose these two weeks, and resign from the process subcommittee after Friday's meeting?
Carr says yes.

Friend likes Yates' suggestion about putting this on consent agenda, so ppl can call, email or speak at open comment. Idk that we should use council's time for appointments when only 2 council members have volunteered to fill 2 spots.

Brockett echoes that. If we hear from everybody that we're the worst possible members of this committee, then we can make it its own public hearing.

Boy this is a long thread about process.

Where we stand now: Weaver, Friend will officially resign from the subcommittee after Friday's meeting. Appointment of Yates, Brockett to those seats will be on the consent agenda for March 2.

If you have Feelings, write or call them in, or sign up for open comment. No public hearing on this unless people are super upset about Yates/Brockett on that group.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!