Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK, this is a revisit of Boulder's lobbying agenda. We last visited this Nov. 17.

You can read my thread here: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1328882…

Or, since you probably only care about SB-62, you can read my story on it here. Boulder is the main source of opposition to this; Boulder's lobbyists are certain it will pass anyway. boulderbeat.news/2021/03/20/bou…

If you're interested, you can see a full list of CO bills Boulder is weighing in on here: statebillinfo.com/SBI/index.cfm?…

And, lastly, here's the staff presentation for this discussion: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_5A_-…

First, Boulder lobbyist Carl Castillo (official title: Policy Advisor) is going over legislation that falls under the city's main priorities: Climate action, immigration and local control, and transportation

Anticipated legislation
- Lifting the 120% cap on customer-sited solar generation; which Boulder and Xcel agreed to jointly lobby for (Sen. Fenberg)
- Community Choice Energy study (Rep. Hooton)

Other work going on as part of the state's Greenhouse Reduction Roadmap
- Pathway to meet the HB19-1261 climate targets of 50% by 2030 and 90% by 2050
- GHG emission budgets for regional transportation plans to be proposed in May, considered in August

- Clean Energy Plan required of Xcel but other largest electric utilities have also committed to meeting the 80x30 goal, which together with Xcel supply 99% of the state's electricity
- Oil and gas rules that decreases emissions 50% by 2030 to be proposed in June, hearing in Dec

"Boulder is very much at the table" for these discussions, Castillo says.

Omg there's so much going on under transportation (in city speak, Sustainable Mobility)

CO contemplating 9 new fees for $4B in revenue over 11 years, including road usage, truck, electric vehicles, TNC, online retail order, personal car share, rentals, taxi, and AV safety fees

Also gas fee: $.02/gallon increase, and increases $.02 every two years to $.08. Additional diesel fee $.06/gallon increase, and increases $.01 every two years to $.08

18% of the ~$4B raised by these fees would go to EVs and 20% must be spent on multi-modal projects

Lots more numbers in the presentation, but I don't want to overwhelm you.

Castillo: Boulder will likely support this bill, but we've got to see what's in it first.

Weaver: I think we'll want to support this bill. It's not perfect but there's a lot of good stuff in there.

Brockett: All of the many efforts to increase transportation funding have floundered. "This is the one that may actually have legs."

Transportation in Boulder is chronically under-funded, too. The least in reserves of all the funds, the biggest cuts of any dept. during the pandemic.

Weaver: Some of this $$ will be set aside specifically for mitigating air pollution.

Castillo: Bc we're using fees here, state lawmakers can increase fees without voter approval. (Unlike taxes, cuz TABOR) Fees are revenues tied to specific impacts/costs.

OHHHHH, Northwest Rail mention!

"This is a project that has long been neglected by RTD," Castillo says. "There has been very significant reasons to believe it could be incorporated into Amtrak's northwest passenger rail."

Apparently Amtrak released a map that showed this rail line (connecting Boulder-Longmont to Denver) on it.

Combine that with the federal infrastructure plan and "there is reason to hope," Castillo says.

RTD is not hot on this rail bc (as I understand it) it would serve fewer ppl but cost more than current buses from Denver to Boulder. We just don't have the population to justify a rail line.

The best reporting on this (also referred to as Fastracks) comes from CPR's @nbminor. Seriously recommend you check out their work.

cpr.org/2021/02/12/rtd…

OK, last priority area: Undocumented immigrants and local control. Basically, repealing state laws that require certain IDs or proof of residency to access services, programs, etc.

Such as getting a license to start a business OR qualifying for affordable housing, as the other one tackles.

Two main bills Boulder is supporting:

SB21-199 (Senator Jaquez Lewis) removes barriers imposed in 2006 on state and local governments’ ability to provide benefits to undocumented immigrants. Also repeals 2003 Secure and Verifiable ID Act

SB21-077 (Sen. Gonzalez) Creates exemption to issue state commercial or professional licenses, certificates or registration

199's passage is not ensured, Castillo says. 77 likely to pass, tho.

OK, this is what ya'll came for: SB21-62: Managing Jail Population.

Essentially, it's ending cash bail for low-level crimes (which keeps poor ppl in jail) and keeps people out of jail before they're convicted of low-level crimes.

Boulder's all about the cash bail reform parts, but has some concerns about the "arrest standards" part — that is, what crimes can you be arrested and jailed for BEFORE trial, vs. just being ordered to appear in court.

Boulder police chief Maris Herold has been a vocal opponent. The city itself took an official position of "amend." They want the arrest standards changed before supporting it.

That's my paraphrase. Gonna copy-paste text from the notes / presentation so you can see what the city is saying directly. I'll interpret for you.

"The city asks that the listing of entire categories of crimes in Section 1 of the bill (arrest standards) be struck and replaced with specified low-level crimes. Failing this, the city requests that all felonies be excluded from the scope of this section of the bill."

That is, ppl committing felonies would still be jailed pre-trial. (Of course, they could bail out if they had the money.)

"The city asks that subsection ((b)(IV)(A) & (B)) be struck in its entirety — requires police officers to record a reasonable suspicion of 'threat to safety' or 'unwillingness to cease and desist' in order to make an arrest in the event of a felony."

"Such determinations should instead be made by a judge or bond officer at a jail using an impartial risk assessment matrix, not a police officer in the field," the city says.

Many concerns over cops making these calls, plus the liability they could face.

"The city asks that the term 'firearm' be replaced with 'deadly weapons' (e.g., knives, machetes, etc.) in the same subsection"

That is, the bill still allows for crimes committed with guns to be jail-able offenses. The city wants to expand that to other weapons.

Lastly, 2 failures to appear would trigger arrest after next offense, rather than 3 (as in the bill text).

"In addition to the public safety concerns this threshold can create, it fails to acknowledge the level of work required of an officer to arrest an individual for FTA."

As I wrote in my story, council's Intergovernmental Affairs Committee decided to take an "amend" position. That is Wallach, Brockett, Weaver and Junie Joseph.

Brockett explaining their thinking now: We all felt that cash bail reform was an important thing to do, a very positive step forward. We shouldn't be keeping ppl in jail based on their ability to afford bail or not.

The "intentions" of the arrest standards "are moving in the right direction, for sure." But there are still concerns. "Threatening someone with a machete is nearly as serious as threatening them with a handgun."

"Our hope is we could get a few amendments done and then move forward" with this positive bill, Brockett says. But he notes those are his "personal" views.

Other council members were more opposed to the bill.

Like Wallach, who is speaking now. He wanted to take a position of "Oppose unless amended." And also said that if Boulder didn't get everything on its list, it should oppose the bill.

One quick note: The arrest standards DO NOT mirror jail population standards during COVID. Those are more restrictive than the standards in the bill, Sheriff Joe Pelle told me.

In fact, he said the arrest standards in the bill were more or less the ones Boulder used pre-pandemic. Still, there were a few changes he wanted to see; he's been working with the ACLU on language since June.

Weaver: "It's been interesting to watch the political dynamic go on, bc the Colorado Municipal League has changed its position a few times." They oppose, as does the Sheriffs association statewide, and the police association.

OK, we'll hear more about this during the public hearing, I'm sure. Gonna quickly go over some other changes to the city's lobbying agenda first.

Hmmmm, what's in my notes....

This! Staff suggesting Boulder revise Position 45 on supporting safe use/regulation of marijuana to include statement on high-potency THC products:

“Specific support for regulating high potency THC marijuana products (e.g., shatter & wax) so as to protect youth by creating limits on its production, messaging, and marketing and by increasing education on the dangers of such products”

Staff also suggesting Boulder create a new position of support for state/fed efforts that further city goals

Example: City could lobby for SB21-156: Nurse Intake of 911 Calls, a grant program that would pay nurses to divert 911 calls requiring medical care but NOT emergency...

... or ambulatory care.

One pilot would be established in county with 60K+ residents
leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-156

Also: HB21-1071: Instant Runoff Voting (basically sets up state rules for these elections so the county could run them, not the city. Would still be responsible for costs)

“After March 31, 2022, a system that has been tested and satisfies the standards promulgated by the secretary of state may be submitted for certification for use in an election using instant runoff voting. If the secretary of state certifies a system, the secretary is required...

...to negotiate and purchase, if possible, a single annual statewide license with the provider to allow each county that uses the voting system to conduct elections using instant runoff voting.”

Basically, Boulder County would have to run the election for us, but we'd still pay for it. $70K

Voters OK'd instant runoff elections for the mayor, starting in 2023. boulderbeat.news/2020/11/03/2e-…

And two other bills Boulder is supporting:
HB21-1117, which would allow the city to require on-site affordable housing

HB21-1162, which would allow Boulder to ban and/or regulate styrofoam products. There's a state pre-emption on that.

Gah, that was a lot. And we haven't even started the public hearing!

Read through my @ and saw a good point: There ARE law enforcement agencies who support SB-62, like AG Phil Weiser and some individual sheriffs and district attorneys.

DA Michael Dougherty and Sheriff Joe Pelle didn't give their individual positions, but it was clear in talking to them they didn't have the same level of concern with this bill that, say, Chief Herold did.

Did I just hear a Wallach sigh?

Wallach: Part of the issue we're dealing with here is that a lot of the rising crime is being committed by ppl for whom jail is not an answer: those suffering from addiction and mental illness.

Is there any legislation to help with that? he asks

Adam Eichberg, one of the city's outside lobbyists: There's a lot of convo on mental illness and addiction treatment. There's stimulus $$ coming for those.

"Those conversations are absolutely happening. You raise an interesting point not only about crime but COVID. Folks' mental health is suffering, and I think state lawmakers are recognizing that," Eichberg says.

Also a good point (which I made in the story): There are so many contributing factors to rising crime, as Sheriff Pelle noted. Drawing a direct line to jail restrictions and increased crime is not at all accurate, he told me.

DA Dougherty echoed that: “It’s too easy to say there’s restrictions at the jail so crime has gone up. The data doesn’t reflect that.”

Crime *has* gone up in Boulder, according to local data. But, as Pelle said, there are so many factors: less ppl out and about, abandoned businesses and buildings, cars sitting idle, economic downturn, etc. And, basically no court proceedings until recently.

Back to discussion.
Friend: I'm confused how this bill increases officer discretion. Right now, they exercise discretion all the time in who to stop, who to arrest, etc. There's discretion all up and down the criminal justice system.

Which, as critics have noted, leaves room for discrimination. As we've seen happens in Boulder and elsewhere:

There was supposed to be a link there but I can't find it. Anyway, shows that Black and Latinx residents are much more likely to be stopped, ticketed, arrested and jailed than white ones in Boulder. Daily Camera stories from 2014, 2016 and 2019

Castillo answered Friend that Chief Herold is concerned this bill will give police more discretion bc it will be up to them to determine who poses a public threat (and therefore should be arrested rather than issued a summons)

A couple clarifications from council members: Council NOT discussion gun control legislation tonight; that's April 20.

And council NOT opposing SB-62. Again, their official position is Amend.

Brenda Ritenour going over the public hearing rules. What a sweetie. She says we have "great participation tonight." Which means: Lots of people.

Full list of speakers: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/April_6_P…

It's been a minute since we've had a really long public hearing. Like, months.

Dana Steiner: Use your platform to request that our state lawmakers pass this bill as soon as possible.... I am begging you to listen to actual survivors rather than lobbyists or police.

While in an abusive relationship, there were many things that would have protected me, Steiner says. "Locking up more of my neighbors for low-level offenses was not one of those things. "

Misha Toor quoting some stats that I hope someone will send me.... *please*

Dan Williams, a local attorney who co-wrote an op-ed on this: This bill was crafted by civil rights experts, cooperating with victims' rights organizations.

"Watering down this bill is the opposite of Boulder being a progressive force ... It's abandoning our allies."

Here's that op-ed, co-authored by Annett James of the Boulder County NAACP. dailycamera.com/2021/04/06/gue…

Neil Sandhu: Every police interaction is already colored by bias. The solution is not simply to arrest everybody.

Darren O'Connor: Rather than recognizing the global pandemic or economic crisis are likely the source of (rising crime), Boulder biz owners and police chief Maris Herold effectively yelled 'Lock 'em up' ... even tho jail exacerbates poverty.

Darren also echoing the statements of many so far tonight, asking where is the outrage over mass (and increasing) incarceration and its disproportionate impact on communities of color and low-income residents, rather than an anomalous year of increased crime.

Jude Landsman: If Boulder is really committed to its racial equity plan, then they will support SB21-62

Kristen Eller: There's concerns being stated that this will increase racial discrimination in policing. "But there's so many racial justice advocates saying that this bill is needed. They're screaming at the top of their lungs that this is needed."

I wondered when this MLK quote would make an appearance. Mylene Vialard (Speaker No. 11) is the first to reference it.

Lizzy Ford: The reality is that most crimes committed — the things the prison industrial complex profits off of — are a result of institutional lack of care.

Jacob Tennyson: Many folks are incarcerated pre-trial for so long that they lose their jobs, their homes and even their ability to see their children.

Plus, we could free up $$ spent on jailing ppl to redistribute to community-oriented programs that actually help us rather than harm us, Tennyson says.

Marcos Ospina: "We all must work to get to know our neighbors. All our neighbors. *We* keep us safe. People don't belong in cages. Hard stop."

Heather Bowler: "When I think of the offenses that will be part of the amendment ... that arrest is not protecting anyone. It isn't jails that protect us. We protect each other."

Lindsey Loberg, from Boulder's HRC: If the intent is to further racial equity, support the equity folks who worked on this. "Trust that people know what's best for them. Don't undermine the work and act like they don't know what they're doing."

Quick check in: We're at Speaker No. 17 and no one opposed to SB-62 so far. All have asked for Boulder to support without amendments.

SarahDawn Haynes connecting abolition to climate change. She knows what Boulder cares about.

Kurtis William Hessel citing the recent California Supreme Court ruling against cash bail: latimes.com/california/sto…

I've been told Boulder is a good place, Hessel says. Would a good place oppose or change this legislation? If it goes above national criminal justice reform efforts, as Mayor Weaver said, "good."

Jackson Galloway making a point I've been thinking about but haven't found a good link to support yet: The risk assessment matrices used by courts are themselves biased bc the data they use have flaws built in.

Matthew Dubois: "Boulder shouldn't be pegging ourselves to the middle of where things are heading" with criminal justice reform. "We should be leading. ... To me it seems silly to not be on. the right side of this issue."

Renee Morgan: If this bill was really going to backlash on POC — one of the arguments of the city, since victims of crimes are more likely to be POC — they would be opposing it. But they're not. They're unanimously supporting this.

Elisabeth Epps: "In the months of meaningful deep work ... there has been one city from which opposition has disproportionately emanated: Boulder, CO."

"Arresting, caging and setting cash (bail) has never kept me safe," Epps, a Black woman, says. Majority-white opponents "talking over and for" BIPOC residents that worked on this bill, is "disgusting" and "racist dog whistling."

Q from Friend about bill language.
Epps: You can always arrest for risk to the community OR a failure to cease and desist the crime, for felonies.

Friend: What about for municipal code violations?
Epps: This bill is not going to allow arrest for code violations that don't rise the the level of felonies.

"It's OK to name that. ... There are many thousands of ppl in cages for behaviors that we're uncomfortable with. ... Those are not going to rise to the level of arrestable offenses."

"If we're going to bring our neighbors home, these are the folks we're starting with," Epps says.

The mayor said earlier that this goes above and beyond national efforts, Epps says. "Yes it does. And we should be proud of that."

More qs from Brockett to clarify what constitutes an arrestable offense under this bill.

Epps clarifying that DA Dougherty has been very helpful in crafting the language that set those exemptions.

Rebecca Wallace, who also worked on this bill, echoing that. Sheriff Pelle and DA Dougherty are not opposed, Wallace says. Only Herold is.

"We remain why this would be persuasive."

Wallace: Herold wasn't here before the pandemic; she says she is standing up for victims, but not a single victim org is against this.

"Survivors of crime can speak for themselves."

"We primarily crafted it with Boulder's arrest standards that were in place before the pandemic," Wallace says.

Weaver: Why is the statewide sheriffs org opposed to this?
Wallace: I worked as closely with the sheriffs association as one could since June of last year.

"There has always been tension between who police might want to put in jail and who sheriffs believe their jail beds should be reserved for," Wallace says.

In the end, "there was a real split" among sheriffs on the bill. "It was dramatically" whittled down to get their support. But "Boulder played a huge role in this ... starting putting tremendous pressure on sheriffs for their neutral stance."

"Nothing changed about the bill," Wallace says. Primarily attributing sheriff's change to pressure from police, and primarily in Boulder.

Weaver re-asking Friend's question about the AND vs OR in the bill language for when police can arrest ppl.

Wallace explaining that AND. "Does that make sense?"
Weaver: No it does not.

Weaver: So it's any felony AND a suspicion of risk/likely to reoffend.
Wallace: Yes. That means for low-level felonies and victim offenses — precisely what was happening in Boulder prior to COVID; officers already had discretion — there can be arrests.

Wallace also stating that the bill contains language that there is no liability for officers making those calls.

Joseph asking why changing the "firearm" wording to "deadly weapons" (to the list of arrestable offenses) is problematic.
Wallace: I don't think that's a non-starter, but I'd ask what offenses you think aren't already covered by victims offenses.

"I would challenge they don't exist," Wallace says. But we're willing to talk about it.

The biggest issue we have, Wallace says, is making all felonies automatically arrestable offenses, which the amendments would do. The bill would give officers discretion for lower-level felonies.

Brockett asking a q that was hard to follow, but I believe was basically about a list of crimes that would be arrestable or not. Does the bill need changed or is it just about education? Like an FAQ or something?

Wallace: I've been working with DA Dougherty on this. My guess is that they're not going to think it's a good idea to list every crime. It's hundreds of crimes; they already fit in buckets, and there's an effort underway to recategorize some.

"We are saying, essentially, any victim crime, any felony at all, you can always arrest when there's a safety risk," Wallace says.

Brockett: I do think this is where some of the confusion comes from. "If one does not have a familiarity with all those categories, then one is not so sure."

Wallace: "We could make the language clearer. Maybe that would bring some comfort to folks on this council."

Young q: How does a police officer assessment of risk, being mad eon the fly, not introduce more bias?
Wallace: Right now, officers have broad discretion to either arrest ppl or issue a summons on a lot of crimes. That's the current situation.

Wallace: When we talked to law enforcement about the factors they used to determine that, we came back to: is this person going to hurt someone else? Or keep offending?

"The goal is to reduce bias by narrowing and clarifying the categories that can be considered," Wallace says.

Young: Did you say the bill could be clarified further?
Wallace: We've heard enough misinformation, some of which I think is intentional, but we would of course be open to clarifying language.

Young: And you have not looked at our proposed amendments?
Wallace: We did, earlier this week. We had not received those until we reached out.
Young: So you're open to looking at and considering them?
Wallace: We have looked at them.

"We still say we want officers making reasoned decisions in the field on who they arrest," Wallace says.

"Particularly after decades of felonization, where we have racheted those up. What were misdemeanors are now felonies. ... The ACLU would be strongly opposed to the felony amendment Boulder is considering."

Aaron Clark: "The folks that are impacted are not in the conversation tonight. ... We are listening to the local opposition only."

Katie Farnan: "I have been a victim of property crime, and no one deserves to go through that. But mass incarceration and wealth-based detention angers me more. And those are primarily experienced by POC."

After the shooting, Katie says, I am convinced more than ever that we need to put resources not to cops and courts and jail but toward the community, to preventing crime.

If this bill were really going to increase crime, why would prosecutors be in vocal support? Why would AG Phil Weiser be in support? asks Denise Maes.

RE: concerns over police discretion and racial bias: "Don't speak for communities of color," Maes says. "Let them speak for themselves. And they are in strong support of this bill."

Ralph Burns: "Does Boulder's racial equity plan carry any weight?" If so support SB21-62.

Eric Budd: "Boulder must not uphold progress for the entire state."

LOLOL Chelsea Castellano killing me by pre-writing councilman Bob Yates' opening remarks for a panel on policing he's hosting next week, in which council changes their position to support SB21-62.

Yates does not look amused, but I sure am.

Alyssa Soares is our last speaker. In favor of SB21-62.... as she says "every single speaker here tonight spoke in favor of SB62 as written."

"Have the courage to change your mind."

That ends the public hearing. Weaver suggesting how to handle the vote: Break it into two parts, with one vote on the policy statement, and then give feedback on specific bills/positions to lobbyist Castillo.

Brockett clarifying that the first part (the policy statement) doesn't address specific bills. It just outlines Boulder's values/priorities.

Unanimous agreement to pass that. Now we're turning to specific bill positions.

Friend: We're on the heels of a police officer laying down his life. I'm not interesting in maligning officers or our PD. I'm interested in improving our criminal justice system.

"It's hard for me to square anything shy of support" for SB62 with the city's mandate to take clear and concrete steps toward racial equity, Friend says.

Friend: "We need to be careful that public safety includes ppl accused of crimes. It's not either we protect residents OR we protect criminals; we have to protect everyone that lives here."

"Our criminal justice system needs reform, from the front end to the back end," Friend says. "Any chance we have to do so," we should take it. Supports SB21-62 without amendments "or with many fewer amendments."

Brockett: Hearing from communities of color how this "could make a significant dent" in something that disproportionately impacts BIPOC "is compelling."

"This is a time to take a concrete step," Brockett says.

Also wants to switch to a position of support with "some smaller amendments" like clarifying language, the deadly weapons change and the failure to appear change.

Wallach: "I do not believe we are gutting the bill. We were proposing amendments that we believe would actually improve it."

They were "reasonable attempts to balance the needs of the community with reasonable attempts to determine who should be (jailed) and who should not."

"I would have been more persuaded if I had heard ( arguments tonight) from business owners who have experienced theft and break-ins," Wallach says.

Yates agrees with Wallach. Shocker.

Amendments "curbed the excesses of the bill that tied the hands" of police, Yates says.

"I'm a little troubled with a state bill" telling home-rule cities "who they may or may not arrest," Yates says. We should decide that level. "It may be less arrests, it may be more."

Yates: "I think our position is pretty progressive. Perhaps not as progressive as some of the speakers tonight would wish. But it's certainly more progressive than opposition."

"We're trying to improve the bill," Yates says. Encourages continued work on the amendments.

Good time to note that lobbyists have said this bill is likely to pass, and that Boulder doesn't have a ton of influence, since its opposition is somewhat isolated. But that may have changed.

Joseph also in favor of a Support position, with amendments. "Even the ACLU, as they were speaking today, they were saying 'it could be better' So let's do the work, make it better."

"We have to do whatever we can to protect" the non-white population, Joseph says. "If that means going back to work on this bill, we should do it."

Weaver: "I believe our position is a pretty good one. I did not sign on to the Metro Mayors Caucus, which is straight up opposing this bill."

It's "well worth the time to discuss" which felonies are deserving of arrest. I believe arson and car theft, for example, "deserves to go before a judge, at the very least," Weaver says.

But he does agree with Brockett that one of the amendments, regarding officer discretion, should be removed.

"We can play a role of trying to make sure this passes in the main of how it was written, but to clarify" some of the language. Weaver wants to stick with an Amend position.

Wallach can get on board with that, he says. Friend cannot: She wants to support and keep working on it.

Story time with Young.

"I do think that something right out of the gate that is perfect and doesn't need amendments is like writing a novel in the first draft and it's good to go," Young says. Which would be a good analogy IF THIS WAS THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE BILL.

She wants a position of Support with amendments, after more work.

Swetlik: "Idk enough to say what is a substantive change and what is not, so I will defer to those who have been working on this bill for a year."

"I'm not looking to make any substantive changes... but it's pretty clear we're having some miscommunications. .. There's some mess to clear up, Swetlik says.

Would Support with amendments.

So far Friend, Brockett, Young, Joseph and Swetlik tending that way.

Yates, Wallach, Weaver want to stick with current position, Amend.

Lobbyist Castillo summing it up: Support with amendments, keeping the ones about deadly weapons and failure to appear. And work on clarifying what offenses are automatically arrestable vs. subject to officer discretion/summons.

But not necessarily majority agreement on that last one.

Wallach: "I can support that, as long as we have a process for getting that clarification and expressing our views."

6 in favor of Support with Amendments; 2 opposed — Swetlik and Friend, bc they want just straight Support.

So Boulder has changed its official position on SB21-62.

At the end of the day, not sure how much it matters since it was likely to pass anyway. But I'll speak to some folks and find that out for you.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.