[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Updates from Matt

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues – Here’s my attempt to catch up on the large variety of meetings and events that I’ve been, or will be, involved in on behalf of the city.  Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.  In a few cases, as you’ll
 see, I either will ask for council support or am suggesting that the city file a formal, written response on a particular issue.
 
 
National League of Cities Summer Policy Forum
For the past few years, NLC has held a summer meeting at which all of the policy committees meet both individually and together, along with NLC’s Board.  This year the meeting was the end of July in St. Paul.  Both Macon and I attended,
 he as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Policy Committee and I as a member of the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy Committee.
 
I also attended a day-long meeting of the University Communities Council, of which I’m also a member.  That group is trying to reinvigorate itself and we – including several people from Fort Collins – had good discussions about how to do
 just that, and make the UCC more relevant to the many cities that have universities/colleges, and thus share many similar issues of concern.
 
A major thrust of the entire meeting was to discuss NLC’s proposed shift in emphasis toward more lobbying and advocacy.  I’ll simply note that while some of this might be useful – at least lobbying of the administration – there was an apparent
 desire to reduce NLC’s other work in order to get both staff and members to focus almost entirely on advocacy.  This would have serious implications for the policy committees, and EENR was certainly not supportive, since we believe that while policy formulation
 is important, equally so is learning, sharing best practices, making contacts, hearing from experts, etc.  I’ve spoken with NLC’s executive director and several board members about these concerns, and the issue will be before the membership and board perhaps
 this year and next.  Should NLC really de-emphasize the policy committee work it remains to be seen if Boulder should remain active.
 
EENR heard a good presentation from the EPA and Army Corps regarding their proposed rule on Waters of the U.S.  This could be a big deal as EPA tries to resolve the key issue of which waterways they can regulate.  In general, and without
 any great expertise in this matter, I’d say that we would support a broad enough definition to protect as many waterways and wetlands as possible.  But there is considerable concern about how this might affect wastewater treatment plants, stormwater, ditches,
 etc.  Our staff is investigating this and I hope they will provide us with additional information.  NLC is formulating its response and our comments could be important.  So – ACTION: weigh in with NLC and the EPA regarding this issue.
 
EENR also held discussions on our continuing, major issue of climate change resilience and preparedness.  And we had a tour of St. Paul’s new light-rail line and the transit-oriented development it has spawned in an old downtown warehouse
 district.
 
I also snuck away from NLC for a couple of hours and met with a councilmember from Minneapolis and some staff regarding issues of common interest relating to energy, particularly reducing the carbon intensity of electric power and Boulder’s
 steps toward municipalization.
 
National League of Cities committee meeting in Fort Collins
My Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy Committee of NLC will hold its late summer meeting this week in Fort Collins.  This is the meeting at which EENR typically focuses in on its key issue(s), this year again including climate
 change resiliency.  We will also look at recommending changes to standing NLC Policy and also to the yearly set of resolutions that focus on specific and timely issues.
 
With the help of some of our staff, and as a member of the subcommittee that worked on draft language for policy and resolutions, we are suggesting strengthening the language on climate change, resilience, and creating a new policy calling
 for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  While I expect EENR to generally be supportive, we always need to be somewhat cautious and strategic with these policies/resolutions, since they can be controversial to some of NLC’s members; I’ve led
 two floor fights on EENR issues at the general business meeting as our record is one and one.  That said, I’ll be pushing for clearer and more direct language.
 
We’ll be hearing presentations from key players on the President’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience (on which Mayor Weitkunat of Fort Collins sits), the efforts of Fort Collins and Boulder (Brett KenCairn of our staff is
 invited) in climate change adaptation and resilience, and about the challenges of renewables from DOE, NREL and Fort Collins.  We’ll also hear about issues related to rail safety and the transport of hazardous materials since EENR is being asked to weigh in
 on a resolution on that topic.
 
National League of Cities Executive Board
As noted above, I’m concerned about the direction NLC might be taking.  I’ve also been considering whether I should run for NLC’s executive board since this is essentially my last chance to do so, and it might allow me to weigh in a bit
 more forcefully on the proposed changes.  I have a fair chance of success, but NLC puts considerable emphasis on geographic, city size, and demographic diversity on the board, so luck plays a rather large role.  I’d add that NLC is also considering increasing
 the size of an already unwieldy board in later years, so most board member’s roles may well be diminished.  All that said there’s no harm in applying; if I don’t get it I can simply stay on EENR.
 
However, in order to run I need to get the support of the Colorado Municipal League board, of which I’m now a member – and I’ve been told that such support, while not certain, is likely, and I’ve been encouraged to run.  I also need – and
 here’s another ACTION item – support from our city council, and I intend to put that action on the agenda of the next council meeting and would very much appreciate your support.
 
Smart City Expo World Congress
We were invited to attend and speak at the Smart City Expo World Congress in Barcelona.  We had previously been invited a couple of years ago, and after about three months of emails I finally convinced them to pay for a good portion of
 our travel expenses and also to let someone other than Boulder’s mayor attend, which KC Becker did on our behalf.
 
This time the conversation was much easier, with the sponsors not only agreeing to the someone-other-than-the-mayor request, but also, quite surprisingly, offering to pay for several people to attend (with a few criteria for the attendees). 
 Discussing this with Jane, she felt that it would make sense to send a couple of her staff, and I asked Macon to attend as the council rep (since he has never done so before).  So far as I know all three will be going to the Expo and also, I hope, will be
 part of various panels.
 
Kauffman Foundation
We also got invited, for at least the second year, to attend a conference that is put on by the Kauffman Foundation.  This year the topic is Entrepreneurship: Making an Entrepreneurial City, and it will be held in Louisville.  Kauffman
 pays pretty much all expenses.  They also agreed to allow us to send someone other than the mayor and I asked George to go on our behalf.  Obviously Boulder is ahead of most cities in regard to fostering an entrepreneurial city, but we can no doubt learn from
 others, offer our experiences, and, importantly I think, get involved with the Kauffman Foundation, which is very generous with funding for many city-related projects.
 
Mayors Innovation Project
As I noted in a previous email, after being asked numerous times to attend, I finally decided to go to a meeting of the Mayors Innovation Project.  This is run by the University of Wisconsin – Madison, and the member cities generally looks
 like our peers in size, issues of concern, and progressive nature.  This meeting seemed particularly interesting since there were sessions on affordable housing, civic engagement, working with higher education partners (the meeting was held in Chapel Hill),
 retrofitting suburbia, and fostering entrepreneurship.
 
As expected, the side conversations with other mayors were also terrific, and I talked at length with some of them about homelessness and housing.  I knew a few people in advance, including Mayor Sloan of Golden, who considers this to be
 her favorite and most useful meeting.
 
I can’t possibly do a fair job of summarizing all of the discussions, although I think at least the presentations are available on MIP’s web site.  There were perhaps 70 people in attendance, including about 30 mayors, the rest being staff
 and some invited presenters.
 
I will, however, note that so many of the issues, concerns, attempts at solutions, controversies, etc. faced by many of these other cities were so very similar to Boulder’s, and so we can learn from them.  A few things stand out from my
 conversations:
 
Regarding homelessness, many of these cities share our issues.  I think it’s safe to say that they are quite certain that by providing a disproportionately high level of services for the homeless they attract a very disproportionate number
 of homeless and especially travelers/transients; that they are all looking for ways to make themselves less attractive to travelers/transients; that they believe that any possible solutions must be regional in nature and that counties must provide most of
 the support; that providing additional services will only attract more people in need.  While I certainly didn’t check with everyone, I think it’s safe to say that the number of affordable and transitional housing units that Boulder provides is way, way more
 than what others are even thinking of doing.
 
Regarding affordable housing, many of these cities are also relatively expensive, or very expensive, compared to their surroundings.  When asked, they all say their cities are simply more desirable places to live, and in some cases (Chapel
 Hill) have growth boundaries.  When I asked about how jobs might cause higher housing prices, most of them thought I was a bit crazy, as they are all actively trying to create more jobs within their cities.  Chapel Hill appears to have an equal amount of in
 and out-commuting daily, so their high housing prices are not caused by their jobs (but are probably affected by regional jobs outside the city).  Some of these cities are trying to create affordable housing in various ways, but nobody seems to have a great
 solution (expect for the presenter who suggested making his city a less desirable place to live
), and, as noted, Boulder appears to be doing much more than everyone in the realm of permanently affordable housing.
 
Finally, regarding civic engagement, Chapel Hill had recently updated its comprehensive plan.  And in honor of the MIP meeting, a citizen’s group had taken out a half-page newspaper ad attacking that update; Chapel Hill’s mayor was good
 enough to provide copies for each of us.  His comment was simply that “the 300” had been running Chapel Hill for the past 30 years and did not get their way this time, due in very large part to the city’s determined effort to get thousands of people, including
 those who don’t usually do so, involved in the comp plan process.  Similar to Boulder the main issues revolved around growth, and in fact a large nine (or so) story apartment building was recently built on their main downtown street, with more such densification
 in the works.  And lest you think that Chapel Hill’s current mayor is some sort of developer, nothing could possibly be further from the truth.  All cities are different of course, and the context in which Chapel Hill made its decisions is unique to its time
 and place – but we might learn from it civic outreach approach.
 
I’m glad I finally got to an MIP meeting and I would encourage the next mayor to do so too, at least once in a while.  A couple of dozen cities are MIP members (which I think would cost $1000 to $2000 for Boulder) and the rest of the attendees
 just come when they can.  There are two meetings per year, although the winter meeting, always in January in Washington, DC, is probably impossible to attend given the Metro Mayors and council retreats that are held every January.  I’ll probably try to get
 to the MIP meeting next summer if I can, assuming the agenda – which almost certainly will continue the conversation on affordable housing – seems relevant to us.
 
WestConnect
Some months ago Jefferson County, Arvada, Broomfield and some others created the WestConnect  Coalition, whose purpose is to examine transportation options in the Broomfield to Golden corridor and, as you might imagine, focus on the Jefferson
 Parkway.  Interestingly, CDOT is funding a study in that corridor with, perhaps, an eye toward assisting the Parkway in some manner, unfortunately.
 
Thanks to the efforts of our friend Mayor Sloan of Golden, the Coalition agreed to add some “affiliate” members, including Boulder and Boulder County.  I’ve attended one meeting, which was largely focused on the group’s charter.  Suffice
 to say that there was disagreement, largely led by Golden but also by Superior, about how votes might be taken, what a consensus means, and the scope of the Coalition’s purview.
 
Both we and Boulder County have decided to stay in the Coalition as affiliate members – paying no dues – since it seems much better to be at the table, understand the conversation, ask questions, and watch the CDOT study unfold.  I’ll attend
 as I can, with both Tracy Winfree and Carl Castillo being kept up to date and able to attend as needed.
 
US36 MCC
Now that the NAMS (Northwest Area Mobility Study) is complete and the outcomes and priorities generally agreed upon by the US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition, there is a need to determine the group’s priorities and focus moving ahead. 
 This will be discussed at the upcoming meeting this week.
 
For us, it’s safe to note that our top priority is completion of the US36 BRT, which means not just construction but also service levels, appropriate buses, amenities, etc.  We’re also very concerned about the need for bi-directional BRT
 service on the I-25 stretch.  And of course we very much want at least two and preferably three of the arterial BRT routes to be implemented.  Some of our partners in the MCC will not surprisingly share some of our priorities but not others, given that these
 services affect us differently.  I also think it makes sense to consider adding some other Boulder County cities as full members of the MCC if they are interested, since the arterial BRT routes affect them in ways that US36 BRT does not.  I hope that the coalition
 stays together, and grows, even if not all members want to focus on all of the issues, since that will maximize our chances for success.
 
Metro Mayors Caucus
Work continues on two main issues, water and homelessness.  I’m on both subcommittees that are leading these efforts.  The full caucus heard a good presentation on water at our last meeting, and the next meeting in October will focus on
 homelessness.  Hard to know what, if anything, will come of these efforts, although any sort of focus on the regional nature of homelessness would of course be very helpful.
 
UN Climate Change Summit / NY Climate Change Conference
We were honored to be invited to the United Nations Climate Summit that will be held in NY later this month.  Since this would be a somewhat expensive trip I checked with Jane and she felt it was very important that we attend.  The invitation
 was clearly nontransferable, so I’ll be heading to the Summit in a few weeks (and unfortunately missing the study session on the 23rd).  Very luckily, I happened to mention this to Jonathan Koehn, who was just about to make plans to go to NY the
 day prior to the Summit to speak at a climate change conference being put on by the NY Attorney General and some others, and to speak on a panel entitled: “Leading by Example: State and Local Governments as Catalysts for Action on Climate Change.”  Jonathan
 had managed to get some travel assistance from that conference.  So in order to save both money and staff time, I’ll be attending both events.  I really don’t yet know what role, if any other than as an attendee, I’ll have at the UN Summit, but it is important
 that Boulder continue to be recognized as a key player in climate change issues.
 
Related to the UN Summit, a few weeks ago we were asked to record a short video for the World Wildlife Fund explaining why we believe that climate change mitigation is such a critical issue.  WWF is creating a video with such testimonials
 from a number of mayors and hopes to use it in some way at the Summit.  Thanks for Patrick von Keyserling and other staff for helping me out with this.
 
 
Colorado Leadership Forum
Next week the first Colorado Leadership Forum, sponsored by Governing Magazine, will be held in Denver.  I was invited to speak on a panel regarding innovative revenue generation tactics.  Not quite sure why I was chosen, although it’s
 possible I was recommended by my friend Tom Clark, who heads the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation and who is also on the panel, along with Henry Sobanet, the governor’s budget director.  This will, thankfully, be Q & A not talking heads and should,
 I hope, be interesting; I’ve had some help thinking this through from Bob Eichem.
 
CML Mayors’ Summit
Also next week the Colorado Municipal League will hold its second (I think) Mayors’ Summit.  I passed on the first one, but now as a CML board member I guess I need to attend.  And I’ve also been invited to speak on a panel regarding “building
 a team with your council.”  Now I claim no great expertise in this matter, other than to note that the first and most important step is to have a great group of councilmembers!  But I do think that we all, and those who have come before us, have figured out
 a number of ways to help make the team work better, including CAC, a rotating mayor pro-tem, sharing of committee assignments and speaking opportunities, and, of course, most importantly, respecting one another.  And we should be proud that CML has recognized
 that our council is a fine example of a team that does work well together.
 
Urban Renewal Committee at CML
Last year – pretty much every year, in fact – at the state legislature there was yet another effort to “reign in” what some see as urban renewal area designations that are inappropriate and/or unfairly affect tax revenue, especially related
 to the county share.  Boulder’s position has always been to support URAs but to acknowledge that they could be improved upon – and we led the effort a few years ago to restrict URAs from being formed in greenfields.  CML has a committee working on this issue,
 and Metro Mayors will almost certainly weigh in as well, since last year’s legislative effort – which would have essentially required some tax sharing with the counties – was vetoed by the governor, who then turned to the various parties and asked them to
 come up with a better approach.  So I invited myself onto the CML committee, which will meet later this week, and I’ll try to be part of any Metro Mayors discussions, since this is an important issue for us and for our legislative delegation.
 
Wells Fargo
I got invited to speak on a conference call with a large group of leaders from Wells Fargo’s Government and Community Relations Group on the topic of sustainability, including climate change adaptation, water issues, high performance building,
 and clean technology.  As always, it’s very good for Boulder to be recognized as a leader in these areas.
 
EPA Clean Power Plan
Last month the US EPA held hearings in Denver regarding their proposed Clean Power Plan.  Both Macon and I spoke at the hearing.  I focused on how cities are doing their best to mitigate and adapt to the impact of climate change (I noted
 the role of NLC and the work of my EENR committee), and how the EPA regulation – while of course too little and too late – was an essential start.  And I noted that Boulder had determined that, no matter our success in other mitigation efforts, it was essential
 to greatly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.  We were asked – ACTION item – to send a formal response to the EPA on this matter and I hope that we will do so.
 
 
With that, I sure hope I didn’t forget anything!
--Matt