Thread by @shayshinecastle

Young is here. She previously emailed to say she wouldn't be, and even shared her thoughts on tonight's study session (and annexation agreement). Not sure what prompted the change.

Joseph is not here, tho.

And Yates. Bc they're not allowed to be here for this, per charter rules. Since they've recused.

That means they get all of Sept. 14 and Sept. 21 off, too!

Anyway, we're doing the CU South annexation first reading. You can catch up here: boulderbeat.news/2021/04/17/cu-…

I might have gotten a little too into the weeds; I wanted to keep this a high-level look for those who don't really know that much about CU South. But hopefully it's organized in such a way that the most relevant information is toward the top.

Basically (and I'm talking REAL basic here) CU wants to build out a southern campus. For that, it needs water/sewer services that Boulder has.

Boulder needs land for flood mitigation. CU has that. (They own this 308 acres)

Bc CU is a state entity, they really don't have to do anything Boulder asks in terms of building regulations, etc.

So basically everything Boulder wants CU to do has to be in the annexation agreement. Which is why this has been so tricky.

Nagle wants to not vote tonight.

"This is an issue that is so much larger than us. It deserves to be in the people's hands for a vote. I don't think it is correct to be voting on something that doesn't technically exist. The annexation is in draft form; it's not final."

Her motion is to pull it off the agenda.

What she means by going to the voters is that there's a ballot measure put forward be community members, long-time opponents of annexation / development here. They have been asking council not to do annexation until after November. boulderbeat.news/2021/07/17/cit…

Nagle's motion fails. Every council member votes to not pull this item off the agenda.

I didn't get to finish my quick summary earlier, but essentially (again, very basic) the central thing we're haggling over is what is Boulder willing to accept to get flood protection here?

Again, it's in the primer.

Swetlik has asked a few qs, but the answers will be posted to Hotline. So I'll cover those when I have answers for them; prob fold them into the primer.

Young on why she wants this to move forward: "I have been involved with flood mitigation since being on Planning Board .... way back on 2009 when the S Boulder Creek study was approved by Planning Board."

"This is something that's been on the books since the 90s," Young says. "This has been a long, long, long, long process. It isn't something that is being done quickly." (That's in response to what opponents are saying: It's being rushed and "steamrolled" through)

We considered putting annexation on the ballot, Young says, "but we couldn't." (Annexations aren't done by popular election; they're OK'd by city council)

And, responding to Nagle, Young says the reason this is a DRAFT agreement, not a final form, is that there "is a real concerted effort" to get public feedback.

This particular issue has been dividing the slow-growth camp. Current council members and candidates in candid conversations admit the need to do flood protection, but also say they are facing intense pressure from ppl who are normally their supporters.

One person told me there are people who will no longer speak to them because of the muni (council voted to put a settlement on the ballot) and they expect similar treatment on CU South.

We've got a vote. First reading passes 6-1, with Nagle dissenting.

Public hearing is Sept. 14. It's scheduled for FOUR HOURS.

Council will vote Sept. 21

Anyway, that's all for CU South tonight. Until next month.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!