OMG last item: Update on the city attorney search!
Friend, Yates (subcommittee) recommending continuing the search process. They didn't get enough applicants (12) and were apparently unhappy with the 2 finalists.
City is going to rewrite its marketing or whatever documents to better highlight the "exciting" things Boulder is doing and re-release it with, hopefully, broader reach.
Friend says they would like to have the post filled by October.
I've not seen this happen before — but I've only done one of these, for the city manager. We got 60 applicants for that and only 12 for city attorney.
Wallach: Why do we think we'll get a better pool of candidates if we try again?
Friend: I'd hate to use the word better. Our previous candidates were competent attorneys.
HR director Jen Sprinkle: We would look at candidates from municipalities that are more similar to Boulder. We'll have a dif approach in advertising, including social media campaign.
Before, Sprinkle says, we were looking in the state of Colorado. But I think we can look for candidates nationally.
Wallach: I understand why we'd want a municipal attorney, but should that be disqualifying?
Sprinkle: Certainly, private sector attorneys would be welcome to apply.
Prob would take a big pay cut, tho. Even tho city attorney is one of the highest paid positions. ($200K+)
Wallach asking more qs. Still doesn't believe we'll get more applicants, which... we might not. I guess we'll see.
Young: I do think municipal experience is critical. The person would have to be learning the city as well as what it's like to be a municipal attorney.
Just want to point out that the same firm did our city manager search and city attorney search. So it's unlikely their methodology changed in between. 60 candidates vs. 12.... maybe ppl just aren't interested.
Quick update on board and commission vacancies:
2 on HAB, 1 on downtown mgt commission
Nagle/Brockett will notify ppl who have applied in past years and open it to new folks as well.
HAB = Housing Advisory Board
Brockett responding to Young's concerns last week that maybe there's an issue with HAB since it has a lot of turnover. The 2 resignations were ppl moving out of town.
Jump-starting this thread on the Boulder Rez resolution, bc it's so damned interesting and somewhat unprecedented. We rarely get pushback on neighbor opposition from the city.
Some background: The visitor center at the Rez got a serious redo in recent years, after the 2012 Parks & Rec master plan ID'd it as a need.
That included a restaurant/bar, to meet the goals of the 2017 concept plan for the new facility:
“extending shoulder season use opportunities, establishing partnerships with various groups to expand programming and offset construction and operating costs...
This is part of larger effort to stop unsheltered people from living in public places, including with increased removal of homeless camps. It was last discussed May 11 as part of annual homeless update. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1392280…
How the city's camping ban works right now is that it requires "activities of daily living" before cops can consider it violated, so they can't remove tents that aren't being lived/slept in overnight.
Moving on to consent agenda, which has quite a few things we're going to talk about.
All 3 law enforcement type things are on here, so I'll do a super quick rundown of those.
No booze on open space or parks land
Since mid 1980s, applies to public places within city limits - makes it hard to enforce on most OSMP land, which is not within city limits
Exemptions: Coot Lake, Boulder Reservoir, Flatirons Golf Course, East Mapleton Ball Fields, and Stazio Recreation Complex
Can get a permit, typically for special events (Boulder Creek Fest)
I'll prob tweet a bit of open comment tonight, since it looks like a lot of Gunbarrel folks are here to speak against the Celestial Seasonings project.
Planning Board approved that 6-0 (with conditions) on June 17.
Actually, let's just go ahead and look at that project now, shall we?
As a reminder, a call-up is where council votes to review a Planning Board decision. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll overturn it (that's incredibly rare) but they might want to have their own input.