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:…
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.…
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!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Shay Castle

Shay Castle Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shayshinecastle

11 Aug
Totally forgot there was another item, bc there was no notes for it and no presentation: A quick discussion on racial equity training for city council.
Brockett: The racial equity guiding coalition has been talking for months about how we hold ourselves accountable for the work we've committed to do, specifically the bias and microaggression training we've been assigned.
The coalition is recommending that council members write a couple sentences about what the training meant to them, Brockett says. Those will be posted online, on the council's page.
Read 28 tweets
11 Aug
Last order of biz: Deciding if DAB/TAB should get a say on development projects?

Staff presentation:…
DAB = Design Advisory Board
TAB = Transportation Advisory Board
Council brought this up at their retreat. DAB sometimes weighs in on projects, if council asks them to. TAB doesn't.

Both are actually excluded from touching on land use in their charters.
Read 42 tweets
11 Aug
Moving into the study session now, which Brockett is leading. Lucky you, facilities master plan is up first!

Yates and Joseph have joined us, and Young is out.
omg NRV is a woman after my own heart. I am "geek-ily excited that we're talking about facilities," she says.
Read 90 tweets
10 Aug
It's Tuesday, Twitter. City council study session, preceded by the first reading vote of the CU South annexation.

The big news, of course, being the recusal of two council members: Yates and Joseph. (Also, Young is absent tonight.)
Study session should be pretty standard. Two topics:
- Facilities master plan (yay!)
- Council will weigh whether DAB/TAB should play a role in development projects?
I have been waiting for this facility master plan (Boulder's first) ever since facilities and fleet was broken into a new department and I got a look at all the data they got.

Reader, this plan did not disappoint.
Read 4 tweets
7 Aug
The mystery of Bob Yates' recusal from CU South Annexation the other night has been solved: Yates just emailed to say the "prior work" he did with the law school warrants a recusal.

"I do this out of an abundance of caution and to avoid any appearance of impropriety."
This holds true for "upcoming council decisions" as well, Yates wrote, meaning (presumably) the annexation vote itself.
2 Planning Board members were switched out for subs (former members) bc of their affiliations with CU.

Lupita Montoya is a researcher and former assistant prof at CU; Lisa Smith also appears to be faculty at CU Denver.
Read 12 tweets
4 Aug
Moving on: When will council ever be back for in-person meetings? It was supposed to be July 13, but there were technical difficulties.

Those are fixed, so here we are.
But, as NRV says, now we've got rising COVID cases and new CDC recommendations.…
"My position on coming back ... has evolved as we've seen some of these changes in the COVID variant rise," NRV says.
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!