02.23.21 City Council Study Session packet
M ayor
Sam Weaver
Council M e mbe rs
Aaron Brockett
Rachel Friend
Junie Joseph
Mirabai Nagle
Adam Swetlik
Mark Wallach
Bob Yates
Mary Young
Council Chambers
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
February 23, 2021
6:00 PM
Inte rim City M anage r
Chris Meschuk
City Attorne y
Thomas A. Carr
City Cle rk
Elesha Johnson
ST UDY S E S S ION
BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL
Consideration of options related to the governance and funding of library
services, including the formation of a library district
90 min
Xcel Energy Partnership Update and Municipalization Wrap-up 60 min
Council Discussion on Recruitment F irm Selection for the City A ttorney
Recruitment
15 min
2:45 hrs
City Council documents, including meeting agendas, study session agendas, meeting action
summaries and information packets can be accessed at https://bouldercolorado.gov/city-
council/council-documents. (Scroll down to the second brown box and click "I nformation Packet")
This meeting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live on
Municipal Channel 8 and the city's website and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m.
Fridays in the two weeks following a regular council meeting.
Boulder 8 TV (Comcast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed captioning for all live meetings
that are aired on the channels. The closed captioning service operates in the same manner as similar
services offered by broadcast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with
the television remote control. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on
Boulder Channel8.com. To activate the captioning service for the live stream, the "C C" button
(which is located at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the
channel is providing captioning services.
The council chambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening
devices. I ndividuals with hearing or speech loss may contact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-
800-659-3656.
Packet Page 1 of 73
Anyone requiring special packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions
may contact the City Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please
request special packet preparation no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting.
I f you need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting, please call
(303) 441-1905 at least three business days prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita interpretacion o
cualquier otra ayuda con relacion al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuniquese al (303) 441-
1905 por lo menos 3 negocios dias antes de la junta.
Send electronic presentations to email address: CityClerkStaff@bouldercolorado.gov no later
than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Packet Page 2 of 73
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
F ebruary 23, 2021
ST U D Y SE SSI ON I T E M
C onsideration of options related to the governance and funding of library services, including
the formation of a library district
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
David Farnan, Director of Library and Arts
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
L ibrary District Discussion
Addendum: 2019 Boulder P ublic L ibrary F unding Community P oll and Surv ey
Report
Packet Page 3 of 73
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Chris Meschuk, Interim City Manager
David Gehr, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Kara Skinner, Assistant Director of Finance
David Farnan, Library and Arts Director
DATE: February 23, 2021
SUBJECT: Study Session for February 23, 2021 - Consideration of options related to
the governance and funding of library services, including the formation of a library
district.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study session item is to provide council with a review of the
information that has been presented during several meetings and study sessions since
2018 about options for governance and funding of library services; to determine when
council would like to receive public input about forming a library district; and for council
to provide direction to staff on the desired path forward.
KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
The key issues for the study session are to inform council about:
• Options for governing the library, including the current approach as a municipal
library or as an independent library district.
• The process and procedures to form a library district.
• Strategies to fund library services for each form of governance.
• Impacts on the current city budget and delivery of internal services based on the
form of governance.
Secondary objectives of the study session are:
• To provide the opportunity for council members to ask questions about the
information presented and to request additional information to be presented in
April 2021 during a regular meeting with a public hearing, and
• For staff to receive direction from council about how to proceed with library
governance and funding discussion and decision.
Packet Page 4 of 73
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
There are two options for council to consider related to library governance. The form of
governance chosen will determine the available funding options. The following questions
are intended to provide framework for this discussion.
1. Does council have questions about the options for library governance?
2. Does council have questions about the process and procedures for forming a
library district?
3. Does council have questions about the funding options presented for either form
of governance?
4. Is there additional information that council directs staff to prepare for the April
2021 public hearing?
BACKGROUND
Council accepted the 2018 Boulder Public Library (BPL) Master Plan on September 4,
2018. The plan outlines community-driven goals for a ten year period and serves as guide
for how the library sustains outputs, meets growing demand, and builds a resilient and
sustainable future. It identifies two key development priorities to:
• Strategically address ongoing growth in demand and future needs identified for the
entire community with specific focus on youth as well as underserved community
members and neighborhoods.
• Sustain quality service and current service level needs created by past growth in
demand with adequate funding and address a backlog of facilities maintenance.
The plan indicates that more tax revenue is necessary to meet the community’s vision for
its library. A more stable form of funding is necessary to sustain high-quality library
services long term.
The Library Commission provided a foreword in the master plan that states: “[The
Library] Commission has concluded that a library district provides the most equitable,
accountable and reliable option for BPL’s long-term financial sustainability” (page 7 of
the master plan). Given the commission’s interest in a library district and to understand
the cost of providing library services and meeting the master plan goals, council directed
staff to hire consultants to perform a balanced and impartial analysis of funding
requirements for current library services, the cost of funding each master plan service
level and information about the process, structure, and asset allocation related to forming
a library district. This information was presented during the November 27, 2018 study
session.
Packet Page 5 of 73
Since then, the community conversation has continued with an advocacy group, the
Library Champions, putting forth a ballot proposal to form a library district for the 2019
election. The ballot proposal was ultimately pulled for 2019, with the understanding that
the city would conduct a poll to gauge community support which was completed and
presented at the May 7, 2019 regular meeting, and that city staff would commit to
recommending sustainable funding as a priority of the council which was discussed at
the June 18, 2019 regular meeting.
Supporting that priority, the 2019 library operating budget provided ongoing funding for
the “maintain service level” of the master plan and the initial 2020 library operating
budget provided funding to achieve the “meet community demand” service level.
Combined, the 2019 and 2020 budget increases were $700,000 of ongoing funding for
the library. Economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic required a significant
reduction to the 2020 and 2021 city operating budgets, eroding the growth achieved to
the library budget in 2019 and 2020. Additionally, construction cost escalation has
impacted the capital costs for the North Boulder branch library to meet the city’s net zero
energy goals, to complete the outdoor playground, pedestrian plaza, and maker space
which exceed the combined total project budget by approximately $2 million and
required a reduction in project scope. Approximately $1 million of ongoing,
annual operating funds are needed upon completion of the branch library which is
anticipated in 2022.
Staff presented updated information during the February 11, 2020 study session. The
presentation largely focused on the legal processes for forming a library district and the
decisions council may need to consider. It also provided financial context in terms of
potential impact for property owners and impact to the city’s general fund. The following
section provides a summary analysis.
ANALYSIS
Library District Formation
Library Districts may be formed by resolution or ordinance (“Resolution”), or through a
petition and election process. Table 1 compares the processes.
Packet Page 6 of 73
Table 1. Comparison of Forming a Library District by Resolution or Petition
FORMATION
STEP
RESOLUTION PETITION
ESTABLISHMENT
& DEFINING
SERVICE AREA
BOUNDARIES
A resolution is considered and
adopted by each governmental unit
involved (“Establishing Entities”). In
this case, the Establishing Entities
will be the city of Boulder and
Boulder County. The Library
District is established when the
resolution is adopted by each entity.
The resolution must describe the
legal service area of the Library
District and provide for electors to
approve the proposed mill levy.
A minimum of 100 eligible electors
residing in the proposed Library
District service area may submit a
petition to the county commissioners to
form a district.
The petition must include a request for
establishment, name of the District, the
Establishing Entities and contain a
description of the service area
boundaries and the proposed mill levy.
ELECTION
REQUIREMENTS
An election is not required to form
the Library District.
A TABOR election is required to
establish the mill levy with debt and
spending authorizations.
Upon receipt of the petition, the
Establishing Entities may adopt a
resolution establishing the Library
District (see, left column) or they may
submit the question of establishment to
a vote.
The Establishing Entities may require
an election to form the Library District
and a TABOR election.
APPOINTMENT OF
A GOVERNING
BOARD
Upon establishment of the Library
District, the Establishing Entities
appoint the first board of trustees
with 5 to 7 members.
Upon establishment of the Library
District, the Establishing Entities
appoint the first board of trustees with 5
to 7 members.
INTER-
GOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT (IGA)
The Establishing Entities and
Library District enter into a written
IGA within 90 days or as otherwise
agreed.
The IGA describes the terms for the
transition of library services to the
District including transfers of real
estate, employees, administrative,
maintenance, procurement,
insurance, employee benefits,
interim funding, future trustee
selection methods, and interim
funding.
The Establishing Entities and Library
District enter into a written IGA within
90 days or as otherwise agreed.
The IGA describes the terms for the
transition of library services to the
District including transfers of real
estate, employees, administrative,
maintenance, procurement, insurance,
employee benefits, interim funding,
future trustee selection methods, and
interim funding.
Packet Page 7 of 73
Financial Information
Library Funding
The total cost of providing library services includes:
• Annual operating budget
• Administrative overhead cost often referred to as “Cost Allocation”
• Capital project funding
The initial 2020 library operating budget was $9.1 million with $7.5 million in funding
coming from the city’s General Fund and $1.6 million coming from a 0.333 mill property
tax dedicated to the library in the Library Fund. The Library Fund is a combination of the
revenue from the 0.333 mill dedicated property tax, grant funds, and funds donated to the
library. Economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic required a significant reduction
to both the 2020 and 2021 city operating budgets. The 2021 library operating budget fell
by over 14 percent to $7.8 million with $6.4 million in funding coming from the city’s
General Fund and $1.4 million from the Library Fund. In addition to operating expenses,
the library also has administrative overhead expenses called Cost Allocation charges (see
Table 2) that are not included in the library operating budget. These expenses are not
shown in the library operating budget because the services are provided by General Fund
supported internal service departments such as Finance, IT, HR, etc. Since the library is
predominantly funded out of the General Fund there is no need to break out a separate
charge within the same fund. However, these overhead expenses need to be considered to
understand the full cost of running a library should it operate as a stand-alone entity.
TABLE 2. Cost Allocation Breakdown
Total Direct* Indirect
Communication $220,627 $161,440 $59,187
Council/Board Support $39,778 - $39,778
Legal $39,099 - $39,099
Finance/Risk $122,822 - $122,822
Human Resources $244,980 - $244,980
Information Technology $695,885 $37,054 $658,831
Insurance $101,254 - $101,254
Building
Maintenance/Custodial
$1,912,001 $1,075,315 $836,686
Total $3,376,446 $1,273,809 $2,102,637
* Expenses that will likely be eliminated from the General Fund with formation of a
Library District.
Capital and Unfunded Needs
Similar to other general fund departments, library capital funding has been generated on
an ad-hoc basis from sources such as bonds (e.g. 2011 capital improvement bonds),
capital improvement sales tax (e.g. 2017 Community, Culture, and Safety tax), and
Library Fund balance. The library has ongoing, unfunded, maintenance backlog and
capital needs that fluctuate in any given year. Depending on pace of
Packet Page 8 of 73
funding approved for the maintenance backlog and investment in new capital
projects each year, the annual estimated need ranges between $2.3 to $3.3 million. The
city is currently conducting a facilities master plan process and the results will
provide updated information regarding the library’s maintenance backlog.
In addition to capital maintenance, the current North Boulder capital expansion project
has been impacted by construction cost escalation resulting in an approximately $2
million reduction of project scope. Net zero energy goals, completion of the outdoor
playground, pedestrian plaza, and maker space were all removed from the construction
plan. Additionally, $1 million of ongoing, annual operating funds is projected to be
needed upon completion of the branch library which is anticipated in 2022.
In consideration of current costs as well as funding needs in the immediate future, the
total estimated cost to operate the library and maintain (pre-COVID) service levels going
forward is provided in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3. Library Total Costs
Current Operating Budget $7.8 million
Operating Deficit Resulting from COVID $1.3 million
Administrative Overhead (Cost Allocation) $3.4 million
Capital Maintenance (Incl. Deferred Maint.) $2.3 million
North Boulder Operating Costs $1.0 million
Total $15.8 million
Funding the Library
Strategies for funding the library according to varying governance structures is informed
by how revenues are generated through property tax and/or sales and use tax. A library
district would establish funding through taxpayer approved mill levies whereas a
municipal library could use a combination of property tax and sales and use tax as is
currently the case. For a library district, determining the property tax mill levy that would
generate enough revenue to cover the total cost of library services (depending upon the
service level desired) is based upon the number of tax payers who own property within
the service area boundary. In the original 2018 Library Financial Analysis, two service
areas boundaries were considered:
• City of Boulder city limits
• District boundaries that extended into Boulder County in alignment with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan area.
The Library Champions proposed a larger service area boundary that does not impinge
upon the service area of any other governmental entity (municipal or district library). It
includes the City of Boulder, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area, and several
voting precinct areas in Boulder County. A map of these service areas is Attachment A.
In 2018 approximately, 85 percent of BPL’s patron base fell within this larger service
area boundary. The actual geographic service area boundaries of a library district are
Packet Page 9 of 73
determined by the Establishing Entities, i.e. Boulder City Council and Boulder County
Board of County Commissioners, or in the citizen-initiated petition. The final library
district boundary must be aligned with voting precinct boundaries for election purposes.
Using the city boundary and the Library Champions’ expanded boundary as a base, it is
possible to explore various library funding scenarios depending upon the level of service
desired. A summary of a few potential scenarios is provided in Attachment B. The
scenarios are delineated by different characteristic including: 1) governance structures,
e.g. district or municipal; 2) service levels ranging from status quo to expanded service
levels, the latter as called for by the Library Champions and included in 2018 Library
Master Plan; 3) varying property tax mill levies and the sales and use tax equivalents –
sales and use tax is presented for reference; and 4) impacts to property owners within the
city and within the expanded boundary in the county. In general, the scenarios include
total library costs ranging from $10.1 million up to $20 million requiring mill levies
ranging from 0.56 mills up to 4.56 mills with subsequent property tax increases ranging
from 0.6 percent up to 5.3 percent as seen in the table below.
TABLE 4. Library Funding Scenarios
Governance
Option
Service Level Cost Mills Sales/Use
Equivalent
Increase to
Property
Owners
City|County
Library District Expanded $20M 3.85* n/a 4.4% | 4.2%
Municipal
Dedicated tax
revenues
Expanded $20M 4.56* 0.59% 5.3% | -----
Municipal
Dedicated tax
revenues
Status Quo +
Unfunded Needs
$15.8M 3.53* 0.46% 4.1% | ----
Municipal Un-
Dedicated tax
revenues
Status Quo + Some
Unfunded Needs
$10.1M 0.56** 0.07%** 0.6% | ----
*0.333 dedicated property tax mills would be eliminated for City of Boulder property owners
**Represents incremental funding needed over current levels
Additionally, Attachment B provides projected annual dollar increases for both
residential and commercial property owners at assumed property values of $850,000.
This information was requested by council during the February 11, 2020 study session.
Staff reviewed commercial data including business personal property and determined that
41 percent of commercial properties are valued at less than $850,000 and the average
value of all commercial properties is $3.1 million.
Impacts from the Repeal of the Gallagher Amendment
At the November 2020 election, Colorado voters approved Amendment B which repealed
the Gallagher Amendment to the Colorado Constitution. With the repeal of the Gallagher
Amendment, assessment rates for all property types will remain the same as they are now
and projected future decreases in the residential assessment rate are eliminated. With this
Packet Page 10 of 73
change, property tax revenue will increase or decrease with a change in valuation alone
and not with changes in assessment rates unless changes in assessment rates are approved
by the voters. In the near term, approval of this amendment is expected to stabilize
property tax revenue. The Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property
Taxation predicts a decline in non-residential property values as a result of the economic
impacts of COVID, which would have triggered a decrease in the residential assessment
rate and therefore property tax revenue from both non-residential properties (declining
values) and residential (declining assessment rate).
Impacts to the City Budget
If a library district is formed, the city might realize direct savings to the General Fund of
approximately $6.4 million per year (at current 2021 budget). There is also the potential
for other indirect savings over time and a reduction in future city unfunded capital needs
because library facilities assets would no longer require General Fund support.
Additionally, the library district and the city may enter into an agreement for the city
to provide administrative overhead or Cost Allocation support services to the district
valued at $3 to 3.4 million per year. Any revenue the city receives from contracting with
the district could offset those costs for the city. However, if a library district is formed,
the city budget would not necessarily decrease. Council could decide to retain the funds
that would have been allocated to the Library and allocate them to other high priority
needs the city or it could decrease taxes.
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE
Members of the Council Agenda Committee requested the following information for the
memo.
2019 Library Survey
In the spring of 2019, The Center for Research and Public Policy was selected via a
competitive process in accordance with the city’s procurement policy to conduct a
telephone poll and online library survey and report the results. The results were presented
to council on May 7, 2019. The survey included the following areas for investigation:
• History, use of and relationship with the library;
• The library on meeting expectations of users;
• Perceptions of the library;
• Interest in the process for library funding to meet current and future
community needs;
• Overall, support or opposition to increased funding of the library;
• Support and opposition, at four different levels, to increased taxes for
library funding;
• Impressions of various approaches to funding of the library;
• Reaction to an independent library district; and,
• Demographics.
The detailed report and phone survey crosstabs are attached to the May 7, 2019 agenda
item. At the meeting, council questioned the methodology of the survey and the
Packet Page 11 of 73
interpretation of the results. City staff asked Bob Drake, a local Boulder survey expert
who has performed and interpreted many surveys for the city in the past for his
interpretation of the survey. Mr. Drake’s opinion is Attachment C. The Center for
Research and Public Policy’s response to Mr. Drakes opinion is also in Attachment D.
Department Funding Comparison
Attachment E is a funding comparison of the Library, Police, and Parks and Recreation
departments for 2002 through 2020.
NEXT STEPS
Next steps will be determined from council direction at this meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Service Area Maps with Library Card Households
B. Library Funding Scenarios
C. 2019 Poll - Drake Critique of Library Survey
D. 2019 Poll – Center for Research and Public Policy (CRPP) response to Drake
critique
E. Funding Comparison Library, Police, and Parks and Recreation 2002-2020
Packet Page 12 of 73
Cony Cre ek
Mi
d
dleSai
nt
Vrai
nCreekB e a v e r Creek
Brainard
Lake
Lefthand
Reservoir
LongLake
Mitchell
Lake
NF-112
Caribou
Ant el ope Creek CoonTr
a
ck
Cr
eek
JennyCreek
H
e
s
sieRd
ShelfRd
Eldora
GrandIsland
Hessie
NF-149
BaltimoreTolland
Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek
Ca v e Creek
MiddleSaintVrainCreek
Beaver
Reservoir
72
72SkiRd
Gresham
PeacefulValley
SouthSaint VrainCreek
RedRock
Lake
72
C o untyRoa d 1 0 0
GoldLakeRd
SawmillRd
L e ftha nd CanyonDr
Ward
DelondeCreek
Sher woodCreek
72
72
Pennsylvania Gu lch R d
NF-298
CountyRoad126N
SilverPoint Dr ColdSpri
n
gDr
Su g a rLoaf Rd
Sherwood Creek
72
TollandRd
Sayre
R
d
NF-149
ShoshoniCampRd
NF-512
RidgeRd
RidgeRd
BigSprin
g
sDrCounty
R
o
a
d128N
Magnol i aDr
Coun t y Ro a d 1 3 0
EldoradoAve
Nederland
Rollinsville
Phoenix
Cardinal
119
GambleGulch Rd
Upper Moon Gul c h R d Count
yRoad87
J
a
me
sCanyonDr
B alarat Rd
Jamestown
Raymond
Balarat
Riverside
GoldHill Rd
Lefthand C a ny on Dr
GoldHill
Rowena
Summerville
Gor don Creek
119
MagnoliaDr
Four mi le CanyonDr
PlattRogers
MemorialPark
Sugarloaf
Sunset
SunnysideSwitzerland
Park
Wallstreet
Bl
ackG
ul
ch
Rd
Lupine Pl
Rudi LnCount
y
Road
6
8 Twin
Si
s
t
ersRd
Count
y
Road97PlattRogers
MemorialPark
Wondervu
Pinecliffe
Pactolus
LincolnHills
Beaver Creek
7
SStVrain
Dr
BLM
Buckingham
ParkElysianPark
L e ftH an dCree k
De e r T ra ilRd
Sunshi
neCanyon
Dr ValleyLnPeakv iew R d
OldeStageRdBuckingham
Park
Sunshine
Glendale
Salina
Springdale
Four
mi
leCreek
119
Sugarl oaf
RdCrisman
Magnolia
Orodell
GrossReservoir
Lakes
hor
eD
r
Tunnel19RdFlagstaffRdWalkerRanch
Park
Eldorado
CanyonState
Park
Crescent
Village
Crescent
Miramonte
LillisLn
AselOpen
SpacePark
CoalCreek
TwinSpruce Left
Han
dCr
eekN41stStOxfordRdN49thSt
NimbusRdN39thSt StVrainRd
N55thStProspect Rd
N63rdStNe ls o n Rd
NFoothillsHwyNFoo th illsH w yAltona
19thStLonghornRd
KelsoRd
QuinceAve Fairw aysDr47thStMonarchRd
Valha l l a DrN49thStEagleTrl
N51stStBroadwayStNevaRd
JayRd
Violet Ave
Lee
H
i
llDr N63rdStNiwotRd
28
th
StNFoothillsHwy Dia go n a lHwy
BoulderOpen
Space&
MountainParks
Boulder
Reservoir
NaturalArea
CootLake
9thSt30thSt30thStArapahoeAve
AuroraAve AuroraAve13thSt6thSt23rdStCedarAve
NorwoodAve
ManhattanDrTabl
e
MesaDr
KalmiaAve
HawthornAve
DarleyAve
Bluebell Ave
WalnutSt
9thStBaselineRd BaselineRd
IrisAve
55thStCherryvaleRd61stStSouthBoulderRd28thStDen
v
e
r
-Boul
de
rTp
k
e
Diagonal H wySBr
oadwayStFoothillsPkwyValmontCity
ParkSouth
Universityof
Colorado-Boulder
Boulder
Municipal
Airport
Ara Boulder
Junction
Valmont
Boulder
Marshall
Lake
128
36
Marshal
l
RdEl dor a do S pr i ngsD
r
SFoothillsHwyBoulderOpen
Space&
MountainParks
Eldorado
Springs
Marshall
Rock Cr eek
Walnut Creek
93Highway93Plainview
MountainViewAve
Clover
Basin
Reservoir
N81stStSFordhamStSSunsetStOxfordRd OxfordRd
PlateauRd PlateauRd
RogersRd
NimbusRd DryCreekDrBostonAve
St VrainRd
N65thSt3rdAve
N73rdStNelsonRd
PikeRdAir
portRdN95thStN75thStSHoverStDi ago na lH w y
Lagerman
Agricultural
Preserve
VanceBrand
Airport
Marnett
Dominion
PhillipsRd
MonarchRd
ServiceRdN71stStN83rdStLookoutRdLookoutRd
JayRd N95thStNiwotRd Niwot RdN73rdSt
N75thStMineral Rd
D ia g ona lH w y
BoulderCountry
Club
BoulderOpen
Space&
MountainParks
MonarchPark
Niwot
Liggett
Hillcrest
Res
ValmontLake
Res
ParkLakeDrMainStWes tview DrS68thStWSouthBoulderRd N95thStN76thStWBaselineRd WBaselineRdBaselineRd
Ba
s
eli
neRd
ValmontRd
SouthBoulderRd
IsabelleRd
N75thStN75thStArapahoeRd
IndianPeaks
GolfCourse
Paragon
Estates
Louisville
Coa l Cr eek
Rock Creek
128
Eldorado Bl vd WMidwayBl
vdS88thStS66thStCount yR oad25DiscDr
CoaltonTrl
McCaslinBlvdMcCaslinBlvdDillonRd
Marshall
Rd
Northwe s tPkwy
CoalCreekGolf
Course
DutchCreek
Park
DavidsonMesa
OpenSpace
Park
CommunityPark
Superior
Great
Western
Reservoir
128
W112thAve
NSimmsStHeritageGolf
Course CountyRoad1UnionReservoirRecreationArea
DryCre e k
CountyRoad2 6
CountyRoad18AlpineStLashleyStGayStAtwoodSt2ndAve
SugarMill Rd
M is sou riAve
BostonAve
OxfordRdSBowenSt N119thStSShermanStQuail Rd
ProspectRd
QuicksilverRdFrancisSt
PikeRd
E9thAve
ECountyLineRdCountyRoad1CountyRoad1MainStN107thStEKenPr at tBlv d
EKenPratt Blvd
KenPrattBlvd
TheFoxHill
CountryClub
PleasantView
Ridge
Longmont
Panama
ReservoirNo1
52
CountyRoad3CountyRoad161/2
CountyRoad31/4BillingsAve
MonarchRd
N109thStNiwotRd
N115thStN115thStNiwot Rd
Lookout Rd
KenoshaRd
ECountyLineRdECountyLineRdN107thStN107thStCanfield
Gooding
Plumbs
Erie
7
AustinAve GreenMillRdVistaPkwy
VistaPkwyEEmmaSt
EriePkwy Eri e P k w y
EriePkwy
WSouthBoulderRd
ArapahoeRd
S120thStN120thStIsabelleRd
ECountyLineRdN107thStEBaselineRd
NorthwestPkwy
WanekaLake
Park
ErieMunicipal
Airport
Lafayette
W118thPlKohlStAshStW6th
Ave IrvingStW10thAve
MiramonteBlvd
WMidwayBlvd DexterStW1
st
Ave AspenStDaphneStCTCBlvdMainStW136thAve LowellBlvdEMidway BlvdAspenStW144thAve
S h e ridanPkwy
DillonRd DillonRd
EmpireRd
S120thStW120thAveW120thAveS112thStDen
v
e
r-
B
o
u
ld
e
r
Tp
keNorthwest Pk wy
RuthRoberts
Park
Carolyn
Holmberg
Preserve
RockyMountain
Metropolitan
Airport
Broomfield
121
36
W117thAve
W115thAve
EatonStWolffStSheridanBlvdW108thAve LegacyRidge
GolfCourse
CountyRoad26
CountyRoad31/2CountyRoad18
ECO-119
StVrainState
Park
Rinn
IdahoCreek
Jessum
CountyRoad12
CountyRoad10CountyRoad5CountyRoad7Wyn
dhamHill P k wy
HollySt
CountyRoad16
WetlandPark
Puritan
W156thAve
CountyRoad4
CountyRoad6
Prebl e Creek Pkwy SheridanPkwyCountyRoad7169thAveCountyRoad5 CountyRoad8
HuronStEriePkwy
Northwest Pkwy
Colorado
NationalGolf
Club
W estlakeDrW134th AveZuniStFederalBlvdW149thAve OrchardPkwyW128thAve
W144thAveHuronSt
HuronStHuronStZuniStW136thAve
W120thAve
Northglenn
LivingstonDrAlcottStHuronStW112thAve
FederalBlvdTheRanchGolf
Course
.Patron Locations Within Boulder County 0 1 2
Miles
Patrons shown on map: 113,564
Patrons within the city limits of
Boulder: 77,694
NOTE: If the patrons file listed a city
other than Boulder, those points are
grouped together at one location.
Boulder City Limits
Comp Plan
Extend Area
Patrons
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Areas
Area I
Area II
Area III
Area III Annex
Area III Planning Reserve
Attachment A- Service Area Maps with Library Card Households
Packet Page 13 of 73
District Governance
|
Library Funding Elements
Currently
Funded?Amount
Library District
Full
Municipal Library
Dedicated Funding
Full
Municipal Library
Dedicated Funding
Partial
Municipal Library
Current Funding
Partial
Current Service Level 2021 Budget Yes $7.8 Million
Current Service Level Gap (due to Covid)No $1.3 Million
Overhead -Cost Allocation Yes $3.4 Million
North Boulder No $1.0 Million
"Expanded Services" per Master Plan No $3.2 Million
Deferred Maintenance No $2.3 Million
"Expanded Service"s per Master Plan No $1.0 Million
Full Costing per Master Plan, Library Champions $20.0 Million $20.0 Million $20.0 Million $15.8 Million $10.1 Million
Library Current Costing $15.8 Million
Gap Relative to Current Funding n/a $12.2 Million $8 Million $2.3 Million
(Incremental Cost Only)
Property Tax Boundary City + County City Only City Only City Only
Millage (11.981 current city rate)3.85 Mills 4.56 Mills 3.53 Mills 0.56 Mills1
Sales/Use Tax Rate Equivalent (3.86% current rate)n/a 0.59%0.46%0.07%2
City Property Owner
Increase per $100k in value|per $850k property value3 $25|$214 $30|$257 $23|$194 $4|$34
% Increase4 4.4%5.3%4.1%0.6%
County Property Owner
Increase per $100k in value|per $850k property value $28|$234 n/a n/a n/a
% Increase4 4.2%n/a n/a n/a
Potentially free up $6M+
for other city
programs/services
Potentially free up $6M+
for other city
programs/services
Potentially free up $6M+
for other city
programs/services
Gap will need to be
covered by reallocation or
tax increase
Potentially generate $2M+
in revenue for city for
providing admin. overhead
Potentially generate $2M+
in revenue for city for
providing admin. overhead
Potentially generate $2M+
in revenue for city for
providing admin. overhead
4 Based on avg. mill levy of 86 mills for city and 92 mills for county
1 Represents increment above 0.33 mills currently dedicated to Library needed to fund $2.3M gap
2 Represents increment above current city 3.86% Sales and Use tax needed to fund $2.3M gap
3 Asssumes current .33 mills dedicated to Library is eliminated in all scenarios except last scenario
Boulder Public Library
Funding Scenarios
OperatingCapitalAdditional Cost to Property Owner
Compard to Current Tax Rates
Financial Impact to City
Municipal Governance
Attachment B- Library Funding Scenarios
Packet Page 14 of 73
TO: Kady Doelling
FROM: Bob Drake
DATE: March 5, 2020
SUBJECT: Critique of 2019 Library Survey
While I am uncomfortable critiquing the survey and analysis of another market
research company, there are so many issues affecting its validity that you should be
aware of what some of them as you decide how to move forward exploring options to
appropriately fund the Library.
ANALYSIS OF SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
There are five areas of survey design I will address, as well as a final serious flaw in
the consultant’s analysis of their data.
The first design issue is that for survey results to be truly valid, surveys should
avoid identifying up front who the survey is being conducted for or what it's about.
For example the surveys I do simply inform respondents that they're being
contacted by Drake Research about important issues in your community. To
identify for whom the survey is being done and why creates a self-selecting sample,
where someone will take or not take the survey based on what the survey is about
and who is conducting the survey, as opposed to their willingness to simply take or
not take a survey. One can hypothesize that people interested in library issues are
more likely to take a survey about the library than are people who are not. Perhaps
that may be why results show that an extremely high 92% of City of Boulder
households use the library. Perhaps 92% actually do use the library. Given the
methodology, it’s hard to know for sure.
A second design issue is that while the survey in questions 11 through 14 ask
respondents how they would vote on different proposed levels of tax increases, this
appears not to be a survey of registered voters: the survey instrument and the
statement of methodology make no reference to any screening of respondents to be
registered voters. The only reference to vote behavior is in the second to last
question that asks how likely they are to vote on this issue. But even residents who
are not registered to vote can opine that they are likely to vote.
Attachment C- 2019 Poll - Drake Critique of Library Survey
Packet Page 15 of 73
A more significant issue with the survey is the order of the questions. The
consultant’s report even goes so far as to say on page 5 that the questionnaire
drafters carefully considered the order of the questions: “. . . . placement of
questions is carefully accomplished so that order has minimal impact.” I would argue
otherwise.
Whenever one does surveys on ballot issues, the ballot issue question itself should
be one of the first substantive questions asked in the survey. It is important to lead
with the ballot question so as to not bias the result of the ballot question by
providing information to voters that they may or may not receive by the time they
actually vote. Many voters often vote with a little information on issues on the
ballot. In the current survey, many statements that clearly could bias the responses
to the vote questions are asked prior to the vote questions being asked. See
questions 4-7 (which are appropriate questions to ask, but not before the vote
questions); the intro to questions 8 & 9 (pointing out the Master Plan urged the City
to create a dedicated and sustainable source of funding); and the intro to question
10, which says the Master Plan states that current funding does not meet library
needs). Reading these statements to survey respondents ahead of asking them how
they would vote on funding could well make them predisposed to say that they
will vote in favor of support for the library in the “vote/support” questions—Q10-
14 and Q17.
Ordering is also an issue in relation to question 10, which simply asks if without
knowing the exact amount of money required, how likely would respondents be to
support or oppose increased funding for the library in general. Looks like a pretty
innocent question, but it isn’t. Suppose a respondent answers, as 77% do, that
he/she would definitely or probably support increased funding for the Library in
general. Then in the next question when they ask about the $280 tax increase, some
people will likely say, for consistency sake, why yes, I'll vote for that because in the
previous question I said I would support increased funding.
Another highly significant flaw in survey design is the way this research company,
in the wording of questions 11 to 14, keeps asking sequentially lower levels of tax in
an attempt to find a level of tax people will support. This methodology is replete
with problems. Testing different levels should be done with split samples (where
different respondents to the same survey are asked different levels of taxation, with
no one respondent getting more than one level) to avoid what is known as the
anchoring affect, where people tend to anchor on the first level that they are given.
As drafted, the Library Survey first asks every respondent how they would vote on
a $280 property tax increase. Then, as a follow-up, those who reject $280 are asked
about a $220 tax increase. Those who reject that are presented with two other lower
levels--$160 and $90. But the problem is this: After being asked about, and
responding negatively toward, an initial $280 level of tax increase, a respondent
will, of course, be more likely to support a lower level. The question is, had they
been asked the lowest, $90 level, first, would 67% of respondents have said that
they would support that level of property tax increase as suggested on page 17 of
the report? I strongly suggest that might not be the case.
Attachment C- 2019 Poll - Drake Critique of Library Survey
Packet Page 16 of 73
Next, maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the poll, but there is no question on
the poll that asks if voters would support the creation of a new taxing district at a
tax level of X, or Y, or Z. The only question relating to a tax district is question 17,
where respondents are asked whether they would support or oppose the creation of
a new independent library district funded by a voter-approved property tax. And
only 45% say they would—without any mention of a level of tax increase associated
with creating a district. This figure does not bode well for voter approval of a
District. But on page 18 of their report, the consultants, by removing the “Don’t
know/Not sure’s,” claim that 65% of the people now support creating a District.
Really? The discussion in the paragraph below suggests otherwise.
The final significant flaw is in how the consultants interpret the results of their data.
In their analysis of this study, on pages 16 to 18 of the report, the authors
inexplicably suggest removing from the data all the “Don't know/Not sure”
respondents to questions 11, 12, 13 14 and 17, and re-computes the results to show
much higher results for library support.
Market researchers who conduct election polling would suggest that for analysis
purposes, those who say they “Don't know” or who are “Not sure” whether they
would support a particular issue should all be added into the “No/Against”
column. To use a court room analogy, if evidence of guilt is not found to be beyond
a reasonable doubt, one doesn’t convict—one does not remove the undecided jurors
from the jury to reach a verdict. When it comes to ballot issues, if one is not
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to vote in favor of something, then voters
will simply vote no, particularly on ballot tax initiatives. So all the “Don’t
know/Not sure’s” should be added to those saying they would vote against a level
of tax, as opposed to cavalierly removing those folks from the data to bump up
perceived support. The consultant’s analysis is truly baffling.
There is no better way to illustrate this than to look as the real life polling results
Talmey-Drake did for the Denver Post & Channel 4 News to aid their pre-election
night reporting on several ballot initiatives appearing on the November, 1998
Ballot—the only year I put together this analysis. As is clearly illustrated below, for
the last night’s polling results among “likely voters,” if one takes those who said
they were “Undecided,” and add them together with those who said they would
vote “No,” the polling results in most instances matched pretty well the actual
election result in the last column. Not always exactly, but pretty darn close. We
did the election polling for the Denver Post/Channel 4 News from 1982 (I joined
Talmey Research in 1987) till 2002 when Paul Talmey semi-retired. And what we
learned early on is that on ballot initiatives, an “Undecided/Not Sure” response in
pre-election polling is as good as a “No” vote on Election Day.
Attachment C- 2019 Poll - Drake Critique of Library Survey
Packet Page 17 of 73
Talmey-Drake Election Track Results
November 3, 1998
Election
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Mon Mon Day
25th 26th 27th 28th 29th 30th 31st 1st 2nd (likelies) Results
Sample = [400] [398] [402] [402] [402] [402] [402] [402] [402]
1. Parental notification:
For .................................. 63% 59% 61% 60% 61% 57% 56% 55% 57% 56% 55%
Against ........................... 33% 37% 35% 35% 35% 38% 39% 40% 39% 40% 45%
Undecided ...................... 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4%
2. Uniform livestock reg’s:
For .................................. -% -% -% 43% -% -% -% 44% 45% 40% 39%
Against ........................... -% -% -% 39% -% -% -% 40% 39% 49% 61%
Undecided ...................... -% -% -% 18% -% -% -% 16% 16% 11%
3. Hog farm regulation:
For .................................. -% -% -% 68% -% -% -% 67% 68% 65% 64%
Against ........................... -% -% -% 21% -% -% -% 25% 22% 27% 36%
Undecided ...................... -% -% -% 11% -% -% -% 8% 10% 9%
4. San Luis water meters:
For .................................. -% -% -% -% 24% 25% 30% 29% 28% 20% 24%
Against ........................... -% -% -% -% 59% 60% 54% 55% 55% 62% 76%
Undecided ...................... -% -% -% -% 17% 15% 16% 16% 17% 18%
5. Tuition tax credits:
For .................................. 43% 44% 45% 45% 45% 44% 45% 43% 41% 45% 40%
Against ........................... 48% 48% 47% 46% 46% 49% 47% 50% 52% 52% 60%
Undecided ...................... 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 7% 8% 7% 7% 3%
6. Voluntary term limits:
For .................................. -% -% 54% -% -% -% -% 55% 54% 49% 50.4%
Against ........................... -% -% 35% -% -% -% -% 33% 34% 43% 49.6%
Undecided ...................... -% -% 11% -% -% -% -% 12% 12% 8%
7. State tax surplus:
For .................................. 52% 50% 48% 49% 51% 50% 50% 46% 45% 43% 39%
Against ........................... 40% 41% 41% 40% 40% 43% 42% 46% 45% 51% 62%
Undecided ...................... 8% 9% 11% 11% 9% 7% 8% 8% 10% 6%
8. New Broncos Stadium:
1
For .................................. 52% 53% 55% 59% 58% 57% 56% 60% 61% 57% 57%
Against ........................... 42% 44% 40% 35% 36% 39% 39% 36% 36% 41% 43%
Undecided ...................... 6% 3% 5% 6% 6% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2%
1998 Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., Boulder, Colorado. All Rights Reserved.
Methodology: The Talmey-Drake Research/News 4 Election Track for November 2nd was conducted from
Saturday, October 31th, to Monday, November 2st. Each night approximately 134 telephone interviews were
conducted with registered voters in Colorado, and 402 interviews were conducted in total. The results shown in
the table above are for the total from the three nights of interviewing. A random sample of 402 has a margin of
error of plus or minus 4.9%. Talmey-Drake interviewed approximately 134 voters each night, the results of which
were added to the previous two nights interviewing to create a three-night moving average.
1 The size of Stadium Vote sample is 221 for the November 1st release.
Attachment C- 2019 Poll - Drake Critique of Library Survey
Packet Page 18 of 73
Attachment D- 2019 Poll - CRPP response to Drake critique
Packet Page 19 of 73
Attachment D- 2019 Poll - CRPP response to Drake critique
Packet Page 20 of 73
Attachment D- 2019 Poll - CRPP response to Drake critique
Packet Page 21 of 73
Attachment D- 2019 Poll - CRPP response to Drake critique
Packet Page 22 of 73
Attachment D- 2019 Poll - CRPP response to Drake critique
Packet Page 23 of 73
Attachment D- 2019 Poll - CRPP response to Drake critique
Packet Page 24 of 73
Funding Comparison
Library, Fire, Police, Parks and Rec
2002-2020
% = Annualized Growth
Inflation = Denver, Boulder, Greeley CPI, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
% = Annualized Growth
Inflation = Denver, Boulder, Greeley CPI, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Attachment E. Funding Comparison - Library, PD, Fire, P&R
Packet Page 25 of 73
% = Annualized Growth
Inflation = Denver, Boulder, Greeley CPI, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
% = Annualized Growth
Inflation = Denver, Boulder, Greeley CPI, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Attachment E. Funding Comparison - Library, PD, Fire, P&R
Packet Page 26 of 73
APRIL 2019
Prepared for:
The City of Boulder / Boulder Public Library
Prepared by:
The Center for Research & Public Policy, Inc.
BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
Photos courtesy of Boulder Public Library
603-309-3919 | info@crpp.com | crpp.com
Packet Page 27 of 73
2 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
All of the analyses, findings and recommendations contained within this report are the exclusive property
of the City of Boulder and the Boulder Public Library.
As required by the Code of Ethics of the National Council on Public Polls and the United States Privacy
Act of 1974, The Center for Research and Public Policy maintains the anonymity of respondents to
surveys the firm conducts. No information will be released that might, in any way, reveal the identity of
the respondent.
Moreover, no information regarding these findings will be released without the written consent of an
authorized representative of the City of Boulder or the Boulder Public Library.
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OWNERSHIP
Packet Page 28 of 73
3 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
Introduction
Methodology
Highlights
Summary of
Findings
Appendix
Page 4
Page 5
Page 7
History: Use and Relationship Page 10
Meeting Expectations Page 11
Library Perception Statements Page 11
Interest in the Process Page 13
Importance of Funding Page 15
Tax Implications Page 16
Approaches to Funding Page 17
Demographics Page 19
Page 22
Survey Instrument
Crosstabulations
Packet Page 29 of 73
4 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
The Center for Research & Public Policy (CRPP) is pleased to present the results to two surveys on behalf
of the City of Boulder and the Boulder Public Library. The surveys were conducted to collect citizen input
regarding the Boulder Public Library and views on meeting future demand for library services.
The research study included 500 completed phone surveys among residents of the City of Boulder as well
as surrounding areas. A second, identical, survey was completed by 1031 respondents online – also among
residents of the City of Boulder and surrounding areas.
The phone survey (N=500) was conducted March 15 – 26, 2019. The online version of the survey (N=1031)
was conducted between March 15, 2019 through April 5, 2019
The survey included the following areas for investigation:
History, use of and relationship with the Boulder Public Library;
The Boulder Public Library on meeting expectations of users;
Perceptions of the Boulder Public Library;
Interest in the process for funding the Boulder Public Library to meet current and future community
needs;
Overall, support or opposition to increased funding of the library;
Support and opposition, at four different levels, to increased taxes for library funding;
Impressions of various approaches to funding of the library; and,
Demographics.
Section 2 of this report discusses the Methodology used in the study, while Section 3 includes Highlights
derived from an analysis of the quantitative research. Section 4 is a Summary of Findings from the survey.
Section 5 is an Appendix to the report containing the crosstabulations and the survey instrument employed.
1 INTRODUCTION
Packet Page 30 of 73
5 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
Using a quantitative research design, CRPP completed phone surveys among 500 residents of the City of
Boulder and surrounding qualifying areas. An online survey was also completed among 1031 residents of
Boulder and surrounding qualifying areas.
Survey design input was provided by the CRPP as well as library and city officials.
Survey design is a careful, deliberative process to ensure fair, objective and balanced surveys. Staff members,
with years of survey design experience, edit out any bias. Further, all scales used by CRPP (either numeric,
such as one through ten, or wording such as strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly
disagree) are balanced evenly. Additionally, placement of questions is carefully accomplished so that order
has minimal impact.
Telephone Survey
All telephone interviews were conducted during March 15 – 26, 2019. Residents were contacted by phone
between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the weekend. Respondents
qualified for the survey if they were a resident of Boulder or qualifying communities and were 18 years of
age or older.
All facets of the study were completed and managed by CRPP’s senior staff and researchers. These aspects
included: survey design, sample plan design, pretest, computer programming, fielding, coding, editing,
verification, validation and logic checks, computer analysis, analysis, and report writing.
All population-based surveys conducted by CRPP are approximately proportional to population
contributions within states, towns, and known census tract, group blocks and blocks. This distribution
ensures truly representative results without significant under-or-over representation of various geographic
or demographic groups within a sampling frame.
CRPP utilized a “super random digit” sampling procedure, which derives a working telephone sample of
both listed and unlisted telephone numbers. This method of sample selection eliminates any bias toward
only listed telephone numbers. Additionally, this process allows randomization of numbers, which equalizes
the probability of qualified respondents being included in the sampling frame. A “mixed access” sample of
both cell and landline phone numbers was utilized. English and Spanish speaking researchers were available.
Statistically, a sample of 500 completed surveys has an associated margin for error of +/- 4.5% at a 95%
confidence level.
Results throughout this report are presented for composite results – all 500 cases.
Online Survey
CRPP programmed an online version of the survey instrument. Boulder and qualifying Boulder-area
residents were encouraged to go to the online link and complete the survey. All online surveys were
completed between March 15 and April 5, 2019. The survey was available online in English and Spanish.
The link was posted on various websites including the Boulder Public Library site. Outreach to encourage
participation included posting the link on the library website, in the Boulder Public Library newsletter “BPL
Now”, in social media and on distributed postcard fliers.
2 METHODOLOGY
Packet Page 31 of 73
6 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
Overall
On several key, core questions held within this survey, CRPP presents two common views of resulting data
– one what depicts the questions that include the “unsure” or “don’t know” respondents and another view
that includes only those “with and opinion” where “unsure” and “don’t know” respondents are removed
from the data. It is not certain or conveyed that those who are unsure about a topic will “fallout” and decide
proportionally as those with an opinion have done, but it is the best guide available to estimate final outcomes
if there is to be an election, referendum or plebiscite. This is a function of messaging and communication.
All things equal and if messaging (on both sides of an issue) remains steady or constant, these results without
unsure respondents in the data may approximate the outcome.
Naturally and importantly, readers of this report should note that any survey is analogous to a snapshot in
time and results are only reflective of the time in which the survey was undertaken. Should concerted public
relations or information campaigns be undertaken during or shortly after the fielding of the survey, the
results contained herein may be expected to change and should be, therefore, carefully interpreted and
extrapolated.
Cross tabulations of data were developed and are included with this report. These compare core survey
questions by demographic subgroups such as: number of years living in or near Boulder, age, residents with
/without children, likeliness to vote in November 2019, ownership of a Boulder business, income, and
gender.
Each qualified resident who lives in Boulder or qualifying areas surrounding Boulder had an equal chance
for participating in the study. Statistical random error, however, can never be eliminated but may be
significantly reduced by increasing sample size.
Packet Page 32 of 73
7 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
ON HISTORY: USE AND RELATIONSHIPS
Overall, about one-half, 49.0%, of all telephone survey respondents reported being very frequent,
frequent or moderate Boulder Public Library users. Others considered themselves light or very
light users – 17.4% and 24.8%, respectively. Some, 8.0%, noted they or household members were
not Boulder Public Library users.
Impressively, 34.9% noted they considered themselves “advocates” of the library while 22.5%
noted they would consider themselves “loyal users”. Another 38.0% suggested they were
“satisfied” users. Together, 95.4% noted they were either advocates, loyal or satisfied. Just 1.7%
indicated they were dissatisfied with the Boulder Public Library, and 2.8% were unsure.
ON MEETING EXPECTATIONS
A large majority, 89.1%, noted that the Boulder Public Library meets their respective expectations
either always (44.8%) or most of the time (44.3%). Others suggested the library meets their
expectations sometimes (6.6%), seldom (1.3%) or never (1.1%). A few, 2.0%, were unsure.
ON LIBRARY PERCEPTIONS
There exists significant and positive impressions of the role the Boulder Public Library plays in
the community…
The library is important to the vitality of the Boulder and Boulder area – 96.8% agree
The library is an integral part of educating youth in Boulder and the Boulder area – 92.4%
The library contributes to a positive quality of life in Boulder and the Boulder area – 96.4%
The library contributes to lifelong learning – 96.6%
ON INTEREST IN THE PROCESS
Researchers described, to survey respondents, that the Boulder Public Library Master Plan
identified increasing community demand for library programs and expanded services and urged
the city of Boulder to create a dedicated and sustainable funding for the library to meet current
and future community needs.
They were told the city is embarking on a process to look at funding options and were asked how
closely they were following the process.
Just over one-quarter, 28.0%, noted they were following the process either very closely (6.0%) or
somewhat closely (22.0%). Nearly three-quarters, 71.6%, described how closely they were
following the process as either “not very closely” (25.6%) or “not at all” (46.0%).
Interest was significantly higher after the introduction of the process. Two-thirds (68.0%) noted
they were very (20.2%) or somewhat interested (47.8%) in the process. Others, 29.0%, were either
somewhat uninterested (13.2%) or not at all interested (15.8%). A few, 3.0%, were unsure.
3 TELEPHONE SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS
Packet Page 33 of 73
8 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY ON IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING
All survey respondents were presented with the following: “The Boulder Public Library is
currently primarily funded by property taxes and sales taxes that are paid in Boulder. The
Boulder Public Library Master Plan recognized that the library operates within an annual funding
process that does not meet continuing and growing numbers of cardholders and community
needs for increasing new programs, services, improved facilities and technology.
Researchers asked: “Without knowing the exact amount of money required to meet community
demand, how likely are you to support or oppose increased funding of the library in general?”
Just over three-quarters, 77.4%, suggested either definitely support (38.6%) or somewhat support
(38.8%). Others, 11.2%, suggested they would probably oppose (3.8%) or definitely oppose (7.4%)
increased funding. When unsure respondents are removed from the data, the support moves
from 77.4% to 87.4%.
TAX IMPLICATIONS
All respondents were presented with the following: “We have had an opportunity to present the
current and future needs of the Boulder Public Library in this survey. To meet needs identified in
the Boulder Public Library Master Plan, a property tax increase could be considered for
residential and local business property owners. For renters and business tenants, this may mean
an increase in rent.
Now we are asking you, as a resident of Boulder, Boulder Valley or the adjacent mountain
communities, to indicate your support or opposition to investment in the Boulder Public Library.
Your household’s share of the cost is put in terms of an average home valued at $850,000.00. Your
share of the cost may be more or less depending on the value of your home or business, and likely
less if you are a renter.”
At $280…
Respondents were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding
was $280.00 per year or about $23.33 per month. A total of 45.2% suggested they would definitely
(15.0%) or probably support (30.2%) such an increase. Another 38.2% reported they would
probably (15.2%) or definitely oppose (23.0%) such an increase.
Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the
data), support percent moves to 54.2% with 45.8% opposed.
At $220…
Respondents who were opposed or unsure at $280 were asked how they would vote if their
household tax increase for library funding was $220.00 per year or about $18.33 per month.
Another 4.6% move to support resulting in a new total of 49.8% who suggested they would
definitely or probably support such an increase.
Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the
data), total support percent grows to 58.8% with 41.2% opposed.
Packet Page 34 of 73
9 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY At $160…
Respondents who were opposed or unsure at $220 were asked how they would vote if their
household tax increase for library funding was $160.00 per year or about $13.33 per month.
Another 7.4% move to support resulting in a new total of 57.2% who suggested they would
definitely or probably support such an increase.
Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the
data), total support percent moves to 66.2% with 33.8% opposed.
At $90…
Respondents who were opposed or unsure at $160 were asked how they would vote if their
household tax increase for library funding was $90.00 per year or about $7.50 per month. Another
10.0% move to support resulting in a new total of 67.2% who suggested they would definitely or
probably support such an increase.
Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the
data), the total support percent moves to 76.2% with 23.8% opposed.
APPROACHES TO FUNDING
All respondents were asked, if taxes do increase to enhance library funding, if their preference
would be a property tax increase, a sales tax increase or some combination. The largest group of
respondents, 34.4%, suggested they would prefer some combination while 29.4% suggested they
preferred a sales tax increase and 15.4% said they would prefer a property tax increase.
Another approach was introduced by researchers. Each respondent was asked if they would
prefer a tax increase or a re-allocation of existing City of Bounder funds to the library by reducing
funding for other city programs, services or departments. A re-allocation was supported by 40.4%
of respondents while 25.6% indicated they preferred a tax increase. Some, 8.6%, offered that they
don’t support either a tax increase or a re-allocation. And, just over one-quarter, 25.4%, were
unsure.
The idea of an Independent Library District was introduced as follows: “To broaden the funding
base for the Boulder Public Library, there is an option to establish an Independent Library
District. The purpose of a library district is to share expenses among residents of the City of
Boulder, Boulder Valley and the adjacent mountain communities.” Support was approximately
two-to-one with 45.4% suggesting they strongly (20.8%) or somewhat supported the concept
(24.6%). One-quarter, 24.4% suggested they were somewhat opposed (7.2%) or strongly opposed
(17.2%). A large percentage, 30.2%, were unsure.
When unsure respondents are removed from the data, support increases to 65.0% with opposition
at 35.0%.
Packet Page 35 of 73
10 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
Readers are reminded that the narrative throughout this report refers to composite aggregate telephone
survey data – 500 residents. Text, tables and graphs throughout this report present these composite results.
The online survey results (N=1031) are also often displayed within tables and graphs held within this report.
HISTORY: USE AND RELATIONSHIPS
All respondents were asked to report how frequently they or their family uses the Boulder Public Library.
Nearly one-third of all telephone respondents, 31.6%, indicated they use the library very frequently or
frequently. The results are presented in the following table.
FREQUENCY OF LIBRARY USE PHONE ONLINE
Very frequent users 15.0 27.5
Frequent users 16.6 32.9
Moderate users 17.8 21.3
Light users 17.4 10.9
Very light users 24.8 5.9
You and household members are not users 8.0 1.4
Unsure 0.4 0.1
Library users were asked to describe their or their household’s relationship with the Boulder Public Library
as advocate(s), loyal user(s), satisfied user(s), or dissatisfied user(s). Over one-third, 34.9%, suggested they
were advocates. Results are displayed in the following table.
RELATIONSHIP WITH BOULDER
PUBLIC LIBRARY PHONE ONLINE
Advocate(s) – talking positively about the library in
your community
34.9 48.6
Loyal user(s) – likely to remain a long-term user 22.5 37.0
Satisfied user(s) 38.0 11.9
Dissatisfied user(s) 1.7 1.7
Unsure 2.8 0.8
4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Packet Page 36 of 73
11 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY MEETING EXPECTATIONS
Library users were asked how often the Boulder Public Library meets their expectations. A large majority,
89.1%, indicated the library meets their expectations either always or most of the time. Results are
displayed in the following table.
FREQUENCY OF MEETING
EXPECTATIONS PHONE ONLINE
Always 44.8 34.6
Most of the time 44.3 55.6
Total: Always and most of the time 89.1 90.2
Sometimes 6.6 8.2
Seldom 1.3 0.5
Never 1.1 0.2
Unsure 2.0 0.9
LIBRARY PERCEPTIONS
All respondents were asked, based on all they know or have heard, how strongly they agreed or disagreed
with several statements related to the Boulder Public Library. The following tables hold the results from
both the telephone and online surveys.
Telephone Survey
STATEMENTS STRONGLY
AGREE
SOMEWHAT
AGREE
TOTAL: STRONGLY
& SOMEWHAT
AGREE
The library is important to the
vitality of Boulder and the
Boulder area
89.0 7.8 96.8
The library is an integral part of
educating youth in Boulder and
the Boulder area
75.4 17.0 92.4
The library contributes to a
positive quality of life in Boulder
and the Boulder area
84.8 11.6 96.4
The library contributes to lifelong
learning 85.8 10.8 96.6
Packet Page 37 of 73
12 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Online Survey
STATEMENTS STRONGLY
AGREE
SOMEWHAT
AGREE
TOTAL: STRONGLY
& SOMEWHAT
AGREE
The library is important to the
vitality of Boulder and the Boulder
area
88.3 9.6 97.9
The library is an integral part of
educating youth in Boulder and the
Boulder area
73.4 18.7 92.1
The library contributes to a
positive quality of life in Boulder and
the Boulder area
87.0 10.1 97.1
The library contributes to lifelong
learning 84.4 12.4 96.8
Packet Page 38 of 73
13 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY INTEREST IN THE PROCESS
All respondents were presented with the following: “A recently adopted Boulder Public Library Master
Plan identified increasing community demand for library programs and expanded services and urged the
City of Boulder to create a dedicated and sustainable source of funding for library use to meet current and
future community needs.
The city is embarking on a process to look at funding options. This survey is an important part of that
process.”
All respondents were asked how closely they are, or have been, following the process to identify Boulder
Public Library funding needs and options. Each was asked if they were following the process very closely,
somewhat closely, not very closely or not at all. The following graph displays the cumulative totals for
those reporting very and somewhat closely as well as not very closely and not at all.
28.0%
71.6%
34.9%
64.4%
VERY AND SOMEWHAT CLOSELY NOT VERY CLOSELY OR NOT AT ALL
How Closely Following the Library Funding
Process?
Telephone Online
Packet Page 39 of 73
14 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Researchers also measured interest in the library funding process. All respondents were asked if they were
very interested, somewhat interested, somewhat uninterested or not at all interested in this process. The
following graph depicts the cumulative totals for very and somewhat interested as well as somewhat
uninterested and not at all interested.
68.0%
29.0%
83.3%
15.2%
VERY AND SOMEWHAT INTERESTED SOMEWHAT UNINTERESTED OR NOT AT ALL
Interest in the Library Funding Process
Telephone Online
Packet Page 40 of 73
15 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING
All survey respondents were presented with the following: “The Boulder Public Library is currently
primarily funded by property taxes and sales taxes that are paid in Boulder. The Boulder Public Library
Master Plan recognized that the library operates within an annual funding process that does not meet
continuing and growing numbers of cardholders and community needs for increasing new programs,
services, improved facilities and technology.
Without knowing the exact amount of money required to meet community demand, how likely are you to
support or oppose increased funding of the library, in general? Would you say…?”
More than three-quarters of all respondents, 77.4%, indicated they would definitely or probably support
increased funding of the library, in general. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure
respondents are removed from the data), the percentage in support moves to 87.4%.
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
IN GENERAL
PHONE
(PERCENT)
ONLINE
(PERCENT)
n=500 Total support
or opposition n=1031 Total support
or opposition
Definitely support 38.6 77.4 60.6 90.5 Probably support 38.8 29.9
Probably oppose 3.8 11.2 3.9 6.1 Definitely oppose 7.4 2.2
Unsure 11.4 3.4
77.4%
11.4%
90.5%
6.1%
DEFINITELY & PROBABLY SUPPORT DEFINITELY & PROBABLY OPPOSE
Support or Oppose Increased Libary Funding?
Telephone Online
Packet Page 41 of 73
16 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY TAX IMPLICATIONS
All respondents were presented with the following: “We have had an opportunity to present the current
and future needs of the Boulder Public Library in this survey. To meet needs identified in the Boulder
Public Library Master Plan, a property tax increase could be considered for residential and local
business property owners. For renters and business tenants, this may mean an increase in rent.
Now we are asking you, as a resident of Boulder, Boulder Valley or the adjacent mountain communities, to
indicate your support or opposition to investment in the Boulder Public Library. Your household’s share
of the cost is put in terms of an average home valued at $850,000.00. Your share of the cost may be more
or less depending on the value of your home or business, and likely less if you are a renter.”
Respondents were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was
$280.00 per year or about $23.33 per month. A total of 45.2% are in support with 38.2% opposed. Results
are displayed in the following table.
Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), the
support percent moves from 45.2% to 54.2%.
AVERAGE INCREASE OF
$280 / YEAR
PHONE
(PERCENT)
ONLINE
(PERCENT)
n=500 Total support
or opposition n=1031 Total support
or opposition
Definitely support 15.0 45.2 26.3 61.7 Probably support 30.2 35.4
Probably oppose 15.2 38.2 20.2 30.6 Definitely oppose 23.0 10.4
Unsure 16.6 7.8
Respondents who were opposed or unsure were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase
for library funding was $220.00 per year or about $18.33 per month. Support grows by 4.6% to 49.6%.
Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), total
support percent moves from 54.2% to 58.8%.
AVERAGE INCREASE OF
$220 / YEAR
PHONE
(PERCENT)
ONLINE
(PERCENT)
Total support Total support
Definitely support +0.6 49.8 0.3 66.7 Probably support +4.0 4.7
Packet Page 42 of 73
17 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Respondents who were opposed or unsure were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase
for library funding was $160.00 per year or about $13.33 per month. Support grows by 7.4% to 57.2%.
Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), the
total support percent moves from 58.8% to 66.2%.
Results are displayed in the following chart.
AVERAGE INCREASE OF
$160 / YEAR
PHONE
(PERCENT)
ONLINE
(PERCENT)
Total support Total support
Definitely support +0.6 57.2 0.3 76.0 Probably support +6.8 9.0
Respondents who were opposed or unsure were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase
for library funding was $90.00 per year or about $7.50 per month. Support grows by 10.0% to 67.2%.
Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), the
total support percent moves from 66.2% to 76.2%.
Results are displayed in the following chart.
AVERAGE INCREASE OF
$90 / YEAR
PHONE
(PERCENT)
ONLINE
(PERCENT)
Total support Total support
Definitely support +2.8 67.2 0.7 86.5 Probably support +7.2 9.8
APPROACHES TO FUNDING
All respondents were presented with various funding approaches or options the City of Boulder may
consider related to the Boulder Public Library. Respondents were asked their views on each.
Respondents were asked, if taxes do increase, if they would prefer a property tax increase, sales tax
increase or some combination. The largest group of respondents, 34.4%, suggested a combination of both
a sales and a property tax increase. The following table presents the results as collected.
PREFERENCE FOR PROPERTY
OR SALES TAX PHONE ONLINE
A property tax increase 15.6 23.9
A sales tax increase 29.4 19.5
A combination of property tax and sales tax
increase
34.4 32.8
Unsure 20.6 23.9
Packet Page 43 of 73
18 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
Respondents were also asked if they would prefer to see a tax increase or a re-allocation of existing city of
Boulder funds to the Library by reducing funding for other city programs, services and departments.
The largest group of respondents, 40.4%, noted a preference for a re-allocation of funds. Results are
shown in the folllowing table.
PREFERENCE FOR TAX INCREASE
OR RE-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS PHONE ONLINE
A tax increase to support increased library funding 25.6 37.9
A re-allocation of existing City of Boulder funds 40.4 35.9
I don’t support either a tax increase or a
re-allocation
8.6 4.5
Unsure 25.4 21.7
The idea of an Independent Library District was introduced as follows: “To broaden the funding base for
the Boulder Public Library, there is an option to establish an Independent Library District. The purpose
of a library district is to share expenses among residents of the City of Boulder, Boulder Valley and the
adjacent mountain communities. Thinking about this library funding option, how strongly would you
support or oppose a new Independent Library District that is funded by a voter-approved property tax?
Would you…?”
Support for an Independent Library District was nearly two-to-one – 45.4% to 24.4%. When undecided
respondents were removed from the data, the support percent moves to 65.0%. Results are displayed in
the following graph.
45.4%
24.4%
58.9%
14.4%
STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT SUPPORT STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT OPPOSE
Support or Oppose an Independent Library
District?
Telephone Online
Packet Page 44 of 73
19 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
The following are demographics collected among survey respondents from Boulder and the
qualifying communities included in both the online and phone surveys.
RESIDENT OF… PHONE ONLINE
The City of Boulder 74.0 78.1
Gunbarrel 6.2 7.1
Niwot 2.2 2.4
Mountains west of Boulder (Sunshine Canyon,
Gold Hill, Sugarloaf, or Jamestown
5.6 2.3
Altona Area (North Foothills) 2.2 0.6
Cherryvale and areas east 2.2 2.4
Unincorporated Boulder County 7.6 7.1
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY PHONE ONLINE
20 years or less 38.0 53.1
Over 20 years 62.0 46.9
EDUCATION PHONE ONLINE
Some high school --- ---
High school graduate or equivalent 4.6 0.9
Associates degree / trade or vocational certification 0.6 1.3
Some college 6.6 5.4
College graduate 34.6 28.6
Some post graduate 5.0 10.4
Post-graduate or professional degree 46.0 52.7
Prefer not to answer 2.4 0.8
RENT OR OWN PHONE ONLINE
Rent 28.4 26.2
Own 69.2 70.3
Prefer not to answer 2.4 3.5
Packet Page 45 of 73
20 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
AGE PHONE ONLINE
18 – 24 11.4 3.8
25 – 34 15.0 12.0
35 – 44 16.8 17.8
45 – 54 13.8 17.5
55 – 64 19.6 17.7
65 or older 12.0 28.8
Prefer not to answer 11.4 2.4
HAVE CHILDREN UNDER 18
LIVING IN HOME PHONE ONLINE
Yes 15.6 28.2
No 72.2 69.8
Prefer not to answer 12.2 1.9
CURRENTLY A STUDENT? PHONE ONLINE
Yes 7.6 6.0
GENDER PHONE ONLINE
Male 42.2 30.8
Female 56.8 64.4
Transgender female --- 0.1
Transgender male --- 0.4
Gender variant / non-conforming --- 1.1
Unsure / Prefer not to answer 0.8 2.7
Other / Not listed 0.2 0.5
Packet Page 46 of 73
21 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
INCOME LEVEL PHONE ONLINE
Under $50,000 10.8 17.6
$50,000 to less than $100,000 14.0 24.1
$100,000 to less than $150,000 9.4 17.2
$150,000 to less than $200,000 6.6 9.7
$200,000 to less than $250,000 --- 5.5
$250,000 to less than $300,000 1.8 2.4
$300,000 or more 2.2 3.5
Unsure 2.6 1.2
Prefer not to answer 52.6 18.9
RACE / ETHNICITY PHONE ONLINE
White 87.4 84.7
Black or African-American 1.0 0.8
Hispanic or Latino 0.6 3.8
Asian 0.6 4.1
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander ---- 0.3
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.2 0.4
Middle Eastern / North African --- 0.7
Other 1.2 1.0
None of these 1.0 0.4
Prefer not to answer 8.4 8.2
LIKELY TO VOTE ON ELECTION
DAY – NOVEMBER 2019 PHONE ONLINE
Very likely 94.4 92.7
Somewhat likely 3.4 3.1
Somewhat unlikely 0.6 0.5
Not at all likely 0.6 2.2
Unsure 1.0 1.5
OWN A BUSINESS IN OR NEAR
BOULDER? PHONE ONLINE
Yes 19.4 14.4
Packet Page 47 of 73
22 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY
INTERPRETATION OF AGGREGATE RESULTS
The computer processed data for this survey are presented in the following frequency distributions. It is
important to note that the wordings of the variable labels and value labels in the computer-processed data
are largely abbreviated descriptions of the Questionnaire items and available response categories.
The frequency distributions include the category or response for the question items. Responses deemed not
appropriate for classification have been grouped together under the “Other” code.
Each frequency distribution includes the absolute observed occurrence of each response (i.e. the total
number of cases in each category). Immediately adjacent to the right of the column of absolute frequencies
is the column of relative frequencies. These are the percentages of cases falling in each category response,
including those cases designated as missing data. To the right of the relative frequency column is the adjusted
frequency distribution column that contains the relative frequencies based on the legitimate (i.e. non-
missing) cases. That is, the total base for the adjusted frequency distribution excludes the missing data. For
many Questionnaire items, the relative frequencies and the adjusted frequencies will be nearly the same.
However, some items that elicit a sizable number of missing data will produce quite substantial percentage
differences between the two columns of frequencies. The careful analyst will cautiously consider both
distributions.
The last column of data within the frequency distribution is the cumulative frequency distribution (Cum
Freq.). This column is simply an adjusted frequency distribution of the sum of all previous categories of
response and the current category of response. Its primary usefulness is to gauge some ordered or ranked
meaning.
5 APPENDIX
Packet Page 48 of 73
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
F ebruary 23, 2021
ST U D Y SE SSI ON I T E M
Xcel Energy Partnership Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
J onathan Koehn, Interim Director of Climate Initiatives
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo
Packet Page 49 of 73
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: Chris Meschuk, Interim City Manager
Tom Carr, City Attorney
David Gehr, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Cheryl Pattelli, Chief Financial Officer
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel
Jonathan Koehn, Director of Climate Initiatives
Yael Gichon, Senior Energy Project Manager
Carolyn Elam, Energy Manager
Emily Sandoval, Communications Specialist
Lex Telischak, Electrical Engineer II
Robert Harberg, Project Manager
Michael Sweeney, Transportation Engineer
Heidi Joyce, Administration
DATE: February 23, 2021
SUBJECT: Study Session for February 23, 2021
Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Through its long-standing commitment to local climate action, the Boulder community has
adopted aggressive goals to mitigate the role energy plays in global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and to strengthen the community’s resilience in the face of climate change. Core to
this is achieving 100% renewable electricity supply by 2030 and 100 megawatts of installed local
renewable generation. In addition to ongoing policy efforts at the state and local level, as well as
investment in local energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, the community sought to
take control over its electricity supply through the municipalization effort.
Municipalization was the city's effort to bring clean, local, affordable, and reliable electricity to
the community by developing a community-owned local electric utility. Exploring the financial
feasibility, pursuing necessary legal efforts, and developing the engineering design for a
municipal electric utility have been a significant focus of the city for the past 10 years. On Nov.
3, 2020, after many months of negotiations between the City and Xcel Energy, voters approved a
new settlement agreement, signaling the community’s desire to pause municipalization efforts
and instead focus on partnering with Xcel Energy to advance Boulder’s clean energy and climate
goals.
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 1
Packet Page 50 of 73
Since the community vote, city staff have been working to close out the municipalization efforts
and to launch the new partnership. The purpose of this memo is to provide council and the
community with an update on progress to date including:
• Municipalization Project Close-out
o Final project expenditures and repayment of General Fund loan
o Documentation and records management
o Readiness to resume project at a future date, if necessary
• Xcel Energy Partnership Launch
o Franchise Status and Next Steps
o Project Governance
o Undergrounding
o Energy Partnership Progress
While this memo will provide an update on a number of key efforts associated with the Xcel
Energy Partnership as mentioned above, several notable accomplishments from the first months
of the partnership include:
• Began recruitment for Community Advisory Panel
• Completed preliminary cost analysis for LED streetlight conversion
• Began design work for first distribution undergrounding project
• Developed framework and began data collection for long-term undergrounding plan
• Integrated partnership work into Climate Mobilization Action Planning
• Stood up internal and joint working groups for distribution system planning
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
1. Does council have any questions about the goals and structure of the energy partnership
or any identified projects or programs?
2. Does council have any questions or preferences around communications and future
updates on the energy partnership?
3. Does council have any questions about the municipalization wrap-up or repayment of the
general fund?
BACKGROUND
Using energy—to power homes and businesses, heat buildings and water, and get from place to
place—is the single greatest segment of greenhouse gas emissions and is a primary driver of the
climate crisis. According to the city’s 2019 greenhouse gas inventory, the overall energy sector
comprises nearly all community emissions (98%), a figure that has remained nearly constant
since the city began tracking emissions in 2005, even as emissions declined 21% in that time
frame.
In recognition of this reality, reducing energy emissions—through shifting energy generation
from fossil fuels to renewables, electrifying transportation and making buildings more efficient,
for example—has long been central to the city’s strategies to mitigate the climate crisis. At a
high level, the categories of city’s work in the energy sector are:
• High-performance buildings (e.g., energy efficiency and electrification)
• Clean mobility (e.g., electrified transportation, transit, VMT reduction)
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 2
Packet Page 51 of 73
• Clean energy sources (e.g., local renewable generation, municipalization, Xcel Energy
Partnership)
This work is guided by a set of community-created, broad energy goals and specific targets:
Energy Goals
• Renewable: The community will rapidly decrease its dependence on fossil fuels as an
energy source, supporting efficient and electrified buildings and vehicles.
• Local: Boulder will host a robust energy economy, with more control over its energy
supply, investments, and services, that meets the needs and expectations of its diverse
community.
• Accessible: Competitively priced energy and technology solutions will serve and help
improve the lives of all community members.
• Reliable and Secure: The energy supply will be stable, resilient, safe and protected
against threats.
Energy Targets 1
• 100% renewable electricity by 2030
• 100 MW of local, renewable generation by 2030
• 175 MW of local, renewable generation by 2050
History of Municipalization
Guided by these goals and targets, Boulder’s work in recent years has focused significantly on
clean energy sources. Electricity generation has consistently comprised more than half of
Boulder’s emissions, making it a key target for climate action. Between 2010 and 2020, the
city’s primary strategy to change how the community’s energy was generated was to bring local
control of electricity to the community through municipalization, the creation of a local, city-run
electric utility.
Municipalization, or Local Power, was a groundbreaking effort to bring clean, local, affordable
and reliable electricity to the community. While the community voted in 2020 to halt
municipalization and enter a new franchise agreement with Xcel Energy, the project has
provided significant benefit to the Boulder community.
Municipalization was, at first and throughout the project, a community-driven effort; the
community voted repeatedly in support of the municipalization effort over the past decade. In the
11 years since Boulder allowed its franchise to expire, hundreds of community members have
participated in technical working groups, attended events and helped shape the project. This
community-centered approach has boosted the community’s energy literacy, setting the stage for
successful engagement in the new Xcel Energy partnership. This amplification of energy literacy
has also fostered the energy expertise of local elected leaders, helping drive energy source
change legislation and conversation across the state.
1 Note: these targets will be updated as a part of the Climate Mobilization Action Plan process happening in 2021
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 3
Packet Page 52 of 73
When the city set out to create its own electric utility, there were few roadmaps to follow; a
Colorado community had not attempted municipalization for several decades. Now, thanks to the
efforts of the city and community, more is known about the process to municipalize, and the
possibility remains open for Boulder or another Colorado community in the future.
For additional history of municipalization, see ATTACHMENT A, History of
Municipalization.
Settlement and Community Vote
In Spring 2020, the city began discussions with Xcel Energy around a potential settlement.
Through a series of meetings, the parties outlined a settlement timeline and identified key
characteristics the city would need to achieve to entertain a potential settlement. Throughout the
late spring and into the summer of 2020, the parties negotiated two agreements: the franchise
agreement, and a settlement agreement that contains two sub agreements: the energy partnership
agreement and interconnection agreement. While all four agreements support the overall
partnership framework, they each serve unique purposes.
During the summer of 2020, the city hosted a series of town halls, allowing the public to provide
input into the negotiations. Staff utilized this input and continued negotiations through the
summer. On July 28, 2020, the city and Xcel Energy shared the results of the negotiations with
council and the community. After a public hearing, Council finalized the agreements on Aug. 21,
2020 and placed the new franchise agreement on the November ballot for voter consideration. In
addition to the franchise decision, council also asked voters to decide if the Utility Occupation
Tax, the source of funding for the municipalization efforts, should be repurposed and extended to
fund the partnership work with Xcel Energy.
On Nov. 3, 2020, the community voted to enter a new franchise with Xcel Energy, with the
negotiated settlement, partnership, and interconnection agreements, and additionally to repurpose
and extend the Utility Occupation Tax to fund the partnership efforts. With this decision, staff
began the process of winding down the municipalization project, which included:
• Close-out of all ongoing legal, engineering and management contracts
• Remittance of final payments to Xcel Energy and recovery of unspent deposits
• Repayment of General Fund
• Archival of all records, documents and datasets
• Final documentation and outline for next steps in the event the community were to elect
to restart the municipalization effort at a later date
Launching the Energy Partnership
Core to the new relationship between Boulder and Xcel Energy is the energy partnership, an
attachment to the settlement agreement between Xcel Energy and the City of Boulder. It lays out
the city’s and Xcel Energy’s mutual commitment to achieving the community’s clean energy
goals, including its goal of achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2030. The following section
provides more details on the launch of the energy partnership.
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 4
Packet Page 53 of 73
ANALYSIS
Energy Partnership Overview
The overarching goal of the city's energy partnership with Xcel Energy (partnership) is to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions associated with gas and electricity consumption, electrify, and boost
resilience and equity in Boulder. Specifically, Boulder and Xcel will work together to achieve
100% renewables by 2030 and eliminate electricity-sector emissions.
To accomplish this, the city and Xcel will share information and collaboratively innovate
projects that Xcel can scale across their system. They will also work with other partners like CU,
federal labs and other businesses to develop, test and promote new technologies. Projects in
Boulder will not cost customers outside of Boulder without state regulatory approval.
The city and Xcel will work together to access potential grant funding to help achieve the goals
of the partnership and will work together on regulatory changes that will make meeting the goals
of the partnership easier.
This section provides an overview of the various elements of the partnership and an update on
the status of each. Staff will continue to update Council and the community as work progresses
in each area.
Overarching Goals and Targets Guiding the Partnership
The city’s energy partnership (partnership) with Xcel Energy seeks to make significant progress
on Boulder’s clean energy and climate goals. The city and Xcel Energy are working together in a
partnership, aimed at helping the city achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030. The key
elements of the partnership include:
• Emission reduction targets for Xcel Energy:
o 2005 Baseline: 33.9 million tons emitted
o 2019 42% reduction: 19.5 million tons emitted (actual)
o 2022 52% reduction: 16.6 million tons emitted (target)
o 2024 61% reduction: 13.6 million tons emitted (target)
o 2027 67% reduction: 11.5 million toms emitted (target)
o 2030 80% reduction: 6.9 million tons emitted (requirement)
• A 20-year franchise with Xcel Energy, with opportunities to opt out in:
o 2023 if Xcel fails to meet the interim emissions target
o 2025 if Xcel fails to meet the interim emissions target
o 2026 for any reason
o 2028 if Xcel fails to meet the interim emissions target
o 2031 for any reason
o 2036 for any reason
• Descriptions of the visions and goals for the City of Boulder and Xcel Energy
• Collaborative distribution-level planning for local projects that will:
o Support the community’s energy goals and updated emissions reduction targets
o Increase access to local renewable energy
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 5
Packet Page 54 of 73
o Improve resilience and reliability
o Design solutions that are accessible and equitable
• A framework and process for collaboration between the city and Xcel Energy, including:
o Guiding principles of the partnership
o Information-sharing
o Governance
o Community engagement
• ~$33 million in undergrounding investment by Xcel Energy
Full partnership details are available online.
Since the November 2020 election, staff, in collaboration with Xcel Energy, have been working
to put in place the governance structure to support the partnership, detail a 2021 work plan and
initiate priority work in the areas of community engagement, undergrounding and distribution
system planning. This section details some key activities that are underway.
Franchise Status
On Dec. 21, 2020, Xcel Energy filed its application requesting Colorado Public Utilities
Commission’s (PUC) approval of the voter-approved franchise agreement. As allowed under the
process, three parties filed to intervene in the case – the Office of Consumer Council (OCC),
PUC Staff and a Boulder resident. The city also filed to intervene to ensure it was party to any
proceedings and able to provide any necessary support to Xcel Energy and the PUC during the
litigation process. At the time this memo was finalized, the PUC had not yet issued a notice
outlining the next steps in the case.
While this litigation could take up to 10 months to resolve, Xcel Energy and the city are
proceeding with all efforts outlined in the franchise and partnership agreements and will work
collaboratively to support the PUC process. Staff will provide updates to council and the
community throughout the process.
Distribution Planning
The purpose of this work is to develop and implement projects that improve the distribution
system in Boulder and allow for the deployment of innovative solutions and pilots that further
the city’s energy and equity goals. The city has set up a cross-departmental staff team of subject
matter experts to work with Xcel on distribution planning initiatives. The goal is to identify and
prioritize distribution related projects for implementation as part of the partnership based on a
core set of criteria and identify funding sources. Example projects include resilient infrastructure,
local generation, and storage initiatives, microgrid deployment, distribution system
improvements, electric vehicle deployments and associated infrastructure, electrification, and
hydrogen deployment.
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 6
Packet Page 55 of 73
Undergrounding
The Boulder community has long been committed to undergrounding the distribution system to
improve reliability and enhance resilience, as well as for aesthetic reasons. Achieving this goal
will likely require in excess of half a billion dollars in investment and take decades to
accomplish. Making progress towards this goal is a key priority under the new partnership with
Xcel Energy.
Under the franchise, 1% of the revenues Xcel Energy collects from the community are to be
reinvested through community-identified undergrounding projects. Available funds include 1%
of the revenues since the expiration of the 1990 franchise, plus annual amounts going forward.
This amounts to an estimated $33 million available for investment in the next 20 years, with
approximately $16 million of that to be invested in the next 5 years. Recognizing that this is a
fraction of what will be required to underground the system, staff have begun developing a
comprehensive undergrounding plan that will outline the criteria for project selection and the
preliminary investment priorities.
The goal of this work is to develop a clear and concise allocation of undergrounding funds and
approve criteria associated with their use that allows for the undergrounding of primary circuits,
neighborhood circuits, and reserves funding to be leveraged in collaboration with city projects to
stretch funds further. These funds will require city match to underground ineligible components
of any undergrounding project, such as communications infrastructure and services.
Draft criteria for prioritizing undergrounding projects, details on coordination with other city
infrastructure projects, proposed cost allocations, and other considerations can be found in
ATTACHMENT B, Undergrounding.
100% Renewable Electricity
A critical component of the franchise and partnership is the ability of the Boulder community to
achieve its goals of 100% renewable electricity and 100 MW of local generation by 2030. The
purpose and guiding principles of the partnership are, in part, to:
• Identify specific options that address the gap between Xcel Energy’s 80% carbon
emissions reduction by 2030 and Boulder’s 2030 goal of 100% renewable electricity
• Prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with gas and electric
consumption, electrification, resilience, and equity
• Work together to help Boulder add renewables to achieve its 100% renewables goal by
2030 and to reach zero electricity sector emissions
Shortly, Xcel Energy will file their Electric Resource Plan (ERP) with the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC). The ERP will outline Xcel Energy’s forecasted generation needs and
strategy for meeting those needs. While Xcel Energy has made a clear commitment to reduce its
GHG emissions 80% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, the ERP will be the first public-facing
roadmap for how the grid mix is expected to evolve between now and 2030. It will also serve to
clarify the gap that the partnership must address to achieve 100% renewable electricity for
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 7
Packet Page 56 of 73
Boulder. The ERP will also inform potential strategies and opportunities the community might
undertake as it seeks to close that gap.
Based on community feedback to date, staff have proposed the following principles to guide
strategies that will be considered:
• The pathway will not rely on greenhouse gas emissions accounting methodology alone;
in other words, the city would not procure unbundled Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)
as a means of claiming a GHG reduction.
• The pathway to 100% renewables must result in additional renewables and reduction in
fossil generation.
• The pathway must scale beyond Boulder.
• The pathway must consider the grid impact beyond production (i.e., aligning load with
when renewables are producing through a combination of local generation, storage and
conservation).
• The pathway must be flexible and adapt to new opportunities when they arise.
Over the course of 2021, one or more community working groups will be convened to develop
and review potential strategies that might be pursued. Opportunities to be discussed include, but
are not limited to, expanded distributed generation, community-scale generation, utility-scale
projects, emissions reduction strategies (e.g., conservation, sequestration), and storage and load
management. The community will also be engaged in establishing interim targets by which
progress will be measured, as well as the methodologies that will be used to measure success.
Climate Policy
A wide range of policies have been adopted at the state and regional levels to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, develop renewable energy resources, support alternatively fueled vehicles, and
promote more energy-efficient buildings and appliances, among other things. Although the
climate crisis ultimately requires effective national and international response, the actions taken
by states and regions play a vital role in developing and testing innovative solutions, delivering
near-term emission reductions, and laying the groundwork for broader action.
Boulder has played a vital role in advancing important climate policies and will utilize the Xcel
partnership and our broader policy collation, CC4CA, to prioritize and advance legislative and
regulatory actions. This includes climate policy that will not only make considerable advances in
Colorado’s climate-related efforts but enhance Boulder’s ability to achieve our specific climate
goals and targets.
Streetlights
The city’s streetlighting system uses more than 4 million kWh of electricity annually. While the
city has installed high-efficiency LED fixtures for all new city streetlights, the legacy system,
nearly 4700 fixtures that are owned by Xcel Energy, has yet to be converted. The city and Xcel
Energy have launched a project to explore solutions to achieving the community’s vision for a
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 8
Packet Page 57 of 73
streetlighting system that is reliable, delivers the performance and lighting quality needed to
provide for the safety and security of the community, that mitigates the community’s GHG
emissions and that is cost effective to the city.
Multiple pathways are being considered to include:
• LED conversion through Xcel Energy’s existing program with and without up-front
investment from the city
• Developing an alternative program offering and rate design in coordination with Xcel
Energy and other communities that could be presented to the PUC
• Acquisition of the streetlighting system by the city and subsequent retrofit
Xcel Energy has provided the city with a preliminary cost analysis for converting the streetlights
under their existing program – the option that requires no up-front cost to the city.2 Based on the
analysis, approximately 60% of the city’s lights could be converted to LED; however, despite the
reduced energy consumption, the city is not expected to realize annual bill savings due to the
structure of the rates associated with streetlights. The study will serve as a baseline for
comparison for the other pathways. The next step will be to conduct a full audit of the system
and the estimate the cost for potentially acquiring the system and to create an accurate record of
the city’s entire streetlight inventory.
Governance
The Agreement provides for a joint governance structure between the city and Xcel Energy,
consisting of three main bodies:
• Executive Team - Responsible for oversight of the partnership and for ensuring the
successful communication and collaboration necessary to achieve the identified
programs, projects, initiatives, and goals. The Executive Team ensures that the
partnership activities are in support of Boulder’s goals and directs the remedy of
challenges through adjustments to workplan priorities and resource allocations.
• Project Oversight Team – Provides the organizational authority to implement programs
and projects, to include the assignment of staff and allocation of financial resources.
Provides guidance towards the successful implementation of initiatives and reviews and
prioritizes new projects and programs.
• Advisory Panel – Comprised of appointed community members, the Advisory Panel
provides guidance to the city and Xcel Energy to ensure the activities undertaken as part
of the partnership support the community’s vision, guiding principles and goals.
Both organizations have appointed members to the Executive Team and the Project Oversight
Team. The Project Oversight Team members have been meeting regularly to stand up topic
specific working groups – Distribution System Planning, Undergrounding, Streetlights – and to
2 Xcel Energy’s current program is only available for cobra-head-style lights. These are the ones typically found
along streets and roadways. They do not currently offer a retrofit option for the styles of lights that are commonly
found in pedestrian areas.
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 9
Packet Page 58 of 73
identify near-term priorities for consideration by the Advisory Panel. The Executive Team is
scheduled to begin meeting regularly starting in April 2021. In addition to staffing the joint
governance bodies, the city has also chartered an internal Steering Committee to strengthen
cross-departmental collaboration, as well as working groups of subject matter experts in specific
topic areas.
Advisory Panel
The Advisory Panel (Panel) is to serve as the touchpoint to the community to make sure that
anticipated effects of projects on various customers within the city are considered and evaluated
prior to a decision by the Project Oversight Team. The Panel is not a decision-making body. The
Panel is not intended to be composed of experts in electric utility operations or energy
technology, but rather a representative customer base for services provided by the electric and
gas utility and of residents and businesses impacted by electric and gas utility operations. Its
purpose is to assimilate information from various sectors of the community to make
recommendations after considering varying viewpoints that inform the final decision on the
projects identified by the Project Oversight Team.
In January 2020, the application process was opened to community members and business
representatives interested in serving on the Panel. The application period will close Feb. 26,
2020. Staff and Xcel Energy conducted extensive outreach to support recruitment. As of Feb. 8,
the city had received 62 applications. Representatives from the city and Xcel Energy will begin
reviewing applications and conducting phone interviews in early March with a goal of selecting
up to 15 panel members by the end of March. The Panel would then convene starting in April
and meet quarterly.
Given the significant interest in participating in the Panel, as demonstrated by the number of
applications already received, staff will be inviting applicants not selected for the Panel to
participate in other engagement opportunities.
Communications
Communication Goals
The partnership with Xcel Energy is a new development in the community’s energy future
trajectory, and will require consistent, clear and timely communication throughout the
partnership. The city’s communication work is guided by several goals.
• Develop a successful, collaborative relationship with Xcel Energy: The city will seek to
foster open communication channels with Xcel Energy to ensure, when appropriate,
consistent messaging and information on the progress of the partnership.
• Leverage strategic communication to support a successful partnership: While the ultimate
success of the partnership depends significantly on the ability to deliver projects,
legislative victories and emissions reductions, strategic communication support can boost
community understanding of the partnership’s progress. Sharing facts about project
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 10
Packet Page 59 of 73
successes, learnings and progress can build community understanding of for this new
effort.
• Provide timely, clear and consistent communication: The Partnership is one of City
Council’s stated priorities. The next several months include many opportunities to
educate the public about the partnership and its progress. Consistent communications
during important events, as well as during lull periods, will support broad community
understanding of the partnership.
• Make the partnership accessible to the average resident or business: While energy issues
impact each of us, few have the technical background to understand the details. The city
will seek to make the partnership accessible through using plain language, avoiding
jargon and always writing with the audience in mind.
• Leverage what we’ve learned in 10 years of municipalization communication: The city’s
energy future pathway has changed, but there are significant communication learnings
that will inform communication about this new approach. These include prioritizing
transparency, avoiding “cheerleading,” providing consistent, clear information and being
responsive to community interest and questions.
• Ensure that communication regarding the partnership integrates with other climate
communication: Communication about the partnership should fit within the city’s broader
efforts to communicate about its climate efforts.
Communication and Engagement Tactics
To achieve these goals, the city will offer a suite of communications and engagement
opportunities.
• Inform
o Twice-monthly Climate and Energy email newsletters will feature content about
the partnership
o Social media posts to boost community awareness
o Media outreach, press releases to both local and, when appropriate, industry and
national publications
o Quarterly community meetings
o Community newsletter articles
o Topic-specific webinars
• Consult
o City of Boulder – Xcel Energy Partnership Community Advisory Panel
Application closed Feb. 26
First board meeting in April
o As needed: technical working groups
As needed, the city and Xcel Energy will stand up working groups to
address specific issues and questions. These working groups will provide
participation opportunities for Boulder’s community of energy experts.
o Opportunity to share thoughts directly with City Council, city staff and Xcel
Energy via email
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 11
Packet Page 60 of 73
Keeping council informed
Council has articulated a significant interest in keeping informed on the partnership. Staff are
committed to ensuring council remains apprised of the partnership’s progress and proposes the
following approach:
• Annual study session on the partnership to provide a high-level overview of partnership
activities and progress towards the city’s goals and targets
• Information Packets as needed to detail more urgent updates, emerging issues and project
milestones
• Email updates via Heads Ups and the Climate and Energy Newsletter
• Council participation in periodic community meetings
• Correspondence with staff as needed
Municipalization Wrap-Up
Opt-out of the Franchise
The settlement agreement effectively suspends the city’s efforts to municipalize. However, the
franchise agreement has provisions for the city to opt-out of the franchise in the future. If it is
determined that continuing with the partnership is no longer in the best interest of Boulder,
council would need to decide whether to recommence the municipalization effort, and in
particular the funding mechanism necessary to continue that process. The opt-out provisions
included in the settlement agreement are as follows:
1. Non-Performance Based: The city can opt-out of the franchise for any reason on the 5-,
10- or 15-year anniversaries of the franchise.
2. Performance Based: They city may opt-out if Xcel Energy does not perform by:
o Failing to meet the benchmarks established for calendar years 2022, 2024, 2027
and 2030.
o Failing to meet the 2030 Commitment 3 after notice and a 90-day cure period.
City staff will continue to closely engage with the community as the partnership activities
progress and will communicate with council and the community if it appears the consideration of
exercising an opt-out should be discussed and considered in the future. This will be largely
informed by specific conditions described below.
Conditions for Recommencement of Municipalization
The settlement agreement establishes the base for recommencement of municipalization if the
city exercises an opt-out or the franchise expires. The conditions are as follows:
3 The “2030 Commitment” shall mean, collectively, (i) the filing by the Company with the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission on or before March 31, 2021, and to thereafter diligently seek approval of, a clean energy plan
pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 25-7-105 and 40-2-125.5 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the generation
of electricity sold to the Company’s Colorado electricity customers by 80 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2030 and
which seeks to achieve providing its Colorado customers with energy generated from 100 percent (100%) clean
energy sources by 2050; and (ii) following, approval thereof by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, to
thereafter diligently and consistently implement such clean energy plan, as approved.
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 12
Packet Page 61 of 73
1. The existing PUC decisions prevail, and no further PUC action is necessary until after the
separation of the system.
2. The Case Management Order 4 for discovery in any condemnation case will apply.
3. The list of assets to be acquired in a condemnation is the existing list plus any changes to
the system disclosed as part of the data sharing regarding the operation of the distribution
system serving Boulder including an annual updated GIS model.
4. The maximum purchase price for the assets acquired from Xcel Energy for the Boulder
system is established as $200 million, adjusted by CPI for the distribution system and the
NCAR and Gunbarrel substations.
5. Agreement for load interconnection at the six substations serving the Boulder System and
the specifics for each substation.
6. Boulder may purchase its streetlights without exercising an opt-out.
7. Agreements for sale of substation assets at NCAR and Gunbarrel and for specific
substation service at Boulder Terminal substation that effectively allow Boulder to
separate, acquire, and operate the distribution system.
Wrap-up efforts
Closing out the municipalization project includes the following:
1. Any remaining funds previously appropriated for the municipalization project will be
used to pay back the general fund or repurposed for the energy partnership. A final
accounting of expenditures is included in this memo.
2. Documentation of municipalization work activities and archiving of pertinent records is
underway and will be completed in the first half of 2021. All documentation has been
archived and housed in the city’s file system.
3. An internal work product of the history of the legal components of the municipalization
project and potential next steps has been generated with links to important documents to
provide for ease of reference of material and contact of staff and consultant team
members in a potential future opt-out scenario.
4. Xcel Energy will provide the city with updated mapping and data concerning the
distribution system so the city can maintain and update its separation plan.
5. Engineering designs have been completed for the distribution separation and substation
separation and the city’s debts are paid to Xcel Energy for this work.
6. If the franchise is approved by the PUC, the parties will dismiss the pending
condemnation case and the appellate case. Both cases are currently held in abeyance.
4 A Case Management Order (CMO) is a process required in the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure for each case.
This specific CMO refers to the discovery and briefing deadlines for the first phase of the condemnation action.
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 13
Packet Page 62 of 73
FISCAL IMPACT
As part of the municipalization wrap-up, historic funding summaries and final expenditures are
included in ATTACHMENT C, Municipalization Funding and Expenditures.
Repayment to the General Fund
Prior to 2018, in addition to Utility Occupation Tax (UOT) funding, council allocated funds from
the General Fund to supplement staffing and additional unplanned litigation and transition
expenses that were not part of the project’s original feasibility and formation budget. The
$1,445,211 cumulative balance (see ATTACHMENT C, Municipalization Funding and
Expenditures) drawn from the General Fund will be repaid to the General Fund from the
unexpended UOT fund balance of $1,452,757. This fund balance will transfer from the UOT to
the General Fund reserves.
Repurpose of the UOT
Voters passed an extension of the UOT, that was previously allocated for municipalization, in
conjunction with the franchise renewal. The UOT will be repurposed to implement activities
associated with the energy partnership. This funding is uniquely positioned to carry out the goals
of the partnership which are detailed in this memo. While staff has discussed investment
philosophies for this budget, a detailed numerical breakdown is not yet developed. Staff’s current
thinking includes the following:
1. Actions that allow Boulder to achieve its energy-related goals and targets, specifically
100% renewable electricity by 2030.
2. Funding projects that can be scaled up over time.
3. Including studies aimed at meeting the goals.
4. Focusing on ways to impact the source of our energy and creative ways for the city to
invest in the clean energy future.
5. Leveraging undergrounding fees and other Xcel Energy resources that are available to the
community.
6. Upgrading street lighting.
7. Investing in distribution system innovations to increase resilience, such as MicroGrids
8. Serving our energy burdened residents through community programs.
The partnership is in its infancy. The governance structure is being finalized, the advisory panel
forming, and planning for community involvement underway. Staff acknowledges that more
specific funding priorities and a detailed budget will evolve as the partnership matures over the
coming months. Staff will report to council through its next update.
NEXT STEPS
As mentioned, staff will continue to update council through information packets, heads up,
confidential memos as necessary, and an annual study session on both the litigation of the
franchise agreement as important decisions are made by the PUC and the partnership activities as
they evolve and develop. The table below highlights select milestones throughout 2021 related to
the partnership.
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 14
Packet Page 63 of 73
2021 Key Milestones for the Partnership
Timeframe Key Milestones
By End of January • Appoint Members to Governance Teams –
complete
• Begin Advisory Panel Recruitment –
complete
• Develop Communication Plan – complete
• Charter initial Working Groups – complete
By End of March • Seat Advisory Panel
• Develop Year 1 Community Engagement
Plan
• Finalize methodology for reviewing
undergrounding projects, including
reliability metrics
• Launch study of electrification as an
alternative to gas line
replacement/expansion
By End of Q2 • Renewable Electricity Community Working
Group(s) underway
• Phase 1 Undergrounding Plan drafted
• Streetlight LED conversion strategy
finalized
• Community progress reporting, including
quarterly meetings fully underway
By End of 2021 • Preliminary project priorities identified for
addressing 2030 renewable gap and interim
targets finalized
• 5-Year undergrounding priorities identified
and initial project(s) underway
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Municipalization History
ATTACHMENT B: Undergrounding
ATTACHMENT C: Municipalization Funding and Expenditures
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 15
Packet Page 64 of 73
Local Power was a highly complex multi-year effort. This section provides only a high-level
history of the project. For more details on Local Power history, please browse City Council
archives (search for 'municipalization') and the city's Energy Future litigation records archive.
2010: Municipalization Begins
The City of Boulder began exploring the creation of a local electric utility, a process called
municipalization, in 2010, after voters directed the city to allow its franchise agreement with
Xcel Energy to expire. At that time, the Boulder community was seeking ways to shift how its
electricity was produced. Xcel Energy's energy mix in 2010 was over 98% coal, which posed
significant challenges to achieving the community's greenhouse gas reduction targets.
In 2011, voters approved charter amendments and funding to explore the creation of a local
electric utility. If created, the utility would serve Boulder customers, much like city-run utilities
in Longmont, Fort Collins, Loveland and Estes Park. While other Colorado communities had
municipalized in the past, Boulder's effort was the first attempt in several decades.
Voter-approved charter amendments included several conditions that must be met before the city
could create a local electric utility.
•Rates must be equal or less than those offered by Xcel Energy at the time of acquisition.
•The utility must have sufficient revenue to cover operating costs and debt, plus carry a
reserve of 25% of the debt amount, referred to as “Debt Service Coverage Ratio.”
•Reliability must remain comparable to that being offered by Xcel Energy.
•There must be a plan to increase renewables.
•There must be a plan to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
2011 to 2014: Analysis Demonstrates Local Power's Feasibility
In the project's early years, the city conducted robust feasibility analysis, answering the
question Can the city municipalize? The city's analysis demonstrated that could municipalize at
reasonable cost and that a local electric utility could dramatically reduce the carbon intensity of
the community's electricity generation.
The analysis conducted by staff, consultants, and community stakeholder groups and reviewed
by an independent third-party reviewer have demonstrated that these requirements can be met
given currently available information. The presentation of these analyses and the third-party
review led to a Council decision in August 2013 to pursue acquisition of Xcel Energy's electric
utility assets.
2015 to 2018: City Seeks State Regulatory Approval
In order to create a local electric utility, the city sought to modify the existing electricity system
that served Boulder. To do so, the city planned to purchase portions of Xcel Energy's existing
infrastructure, through a process called condemnation, and create a separate electric delivery
system that would serve only Boulder customers. This separation plan required state approval.
ATTACHMENT A: Municipalization History
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 16
Packet Page 65 of 73
The city filed its original separation application at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) in 2015. Much of the work between 2015 and 2017 focused on gaining PUC approval.
The commission granted conditional approval in fall 2017. In 2017, voters passed an extension
and an increase in funding for municipalization efforts as well as a requirement for a final
community vote.
2019 to 2020: Local Power Takes Shape
After state regulators unconditionally approved the city's separation plan in 2019, the
city promised to give voters the final say on whether the city would complete municipalization.
In this period, the city's efforts shifted to developing a clear picture of the financial, technical and
operational details and providing these key details to the community.
Two items comprised the bulk of this work: developing detailed engineering plans for the
separation and beginning the process to condemn necessary portions of Xcel Energy's electric
infrastructure under the city's eminent domain powers. In fall 2020, the city completed its
detailed separation plan. The city's condemnation case was in the appeals process when the 2020
election occurred.
The city also updated cost estimates including those for electricity supply, received indicative
pricing for power supply, completed transmission to load system impact studies for substation
facilities and approved an ordinance that allowed the city to begin the process of acquiring existing
Xcel Energy facilities, including condemnation if necessary.
2020: Voters Direct City to Sign New Franchise with Xcel Energy
In spring 2020, representatives from the City of Boulder and Xcel Energy began negotiations to
settle the city's municipalization effort. While negotiations were ongoing, the city and Xcel
Energy hosted a series of town halls to share information and get feedback on the potential
settlement. City Council decided to place a new franchise on the ballot and Boulder voters
approved the franchise and a partnership-funding measure in November 2020.
ATTACHMENT A: Municipalization History
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 17
Packet Page 66 of 73
Coordinating undergrounding with other city infrastructure projects presents the best opportunity
to maximize the impact of the underground fund, since many of the costs associated with
undergrounding, such as trenching, permitting, and restoration can be shared with or fully borne
by the city project and project impacts to the public can be minimized by synchronizing
construction. For this reason, staff have reviewed the transportation and water-utility planned
capital improvements and developed a list that could be conducive for coordinated
undergrounding. Staff is now working with Xcel Energy to prioritize this list using the draft
evaluation criteria, outlined in Table 1, and to develop high-level cost estimates to inform the
undergrounding plan. The first project that has been identified for potential undergrounding is
the North Broadway Reconstruction Project. Xcel Energy is currently developing the
undergrounding design and cost estimate for this work.
Table 1 – Draft Criteria for Undergrounding Project Evaluation and Prioritization
Criteria Description Evaluation Approach Example
Scoring
Metric
Risk Mitigation Mitigate risk for loss of life,
property, or resources
through hazard elimination
Overhead and
aboveground assets in or
proximate to:
•Areas of fire risk
•Flood conveyance
•Roadways
•Tree canopy
10-High
potential for
loss of life or
property
5-Moderate
potential for
loss of
electrical
equipment
1-Low risk
Reliability Improve system reliability
through asset replacement
and improvement
•Outage mapping
•Failure forecasts
based on vintage,
types of assets
•Options to upgrade
system as
undergrounding
takes place
# of properties
that stand to
benefit *
Reliability
improvement
from avoiding
specific type of
outages
Equity Improve reliability and
enhance services, for any
underserved,
underrepresented and
frontline communities
•Community
mapping
Equity index
Cost
Effectiveness
Reduce costs for
undergrounding and/or
other infrastructure projects
through synergistic efforts
•Project and
opportunity
identification
•Area plans,
planned
redevelopment
($ saved +
Future
disruptions
avoided +
value of other
benefits)/cost
ATTACHMENT B: Undergrounding
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 18
Packet Page 67 of 73
Criteria Description Evaluation Approach Example
Scoring
Metric
Legal
Considerations
Identify potential legal risks
to underground projects and
develop mitigation strategy
• Easements
• Rights-of-way
• Annexation
Risk rating
Project Scale Determine total cost of
project, timeline and
number of customers
affected.
• Number and types
of customers
impacted, capacity
and energy served
• Time to complete
• Degree to which
project planning
has already been
undertaken
TBD
Project Impact Degree of disruption and
impact to the community to
the community
• Ability to
minimize public
impact both near-
term and in the
future
• Ability to integrate
with other city
projects and
priorities
Number of
people
impacted +
duration of
impact –
opportunity to
mitigate
through
synergies with
other projects
Community
Benefits
Underground project pairs
with other community
initiatives to maximize
value of investment (e.g.
broadband / fiber-to-home,
improved viewshed).
• Flood and
Stormwater Master
Plan
• OSMP Master Plan
• Transportation
Master Plan
• Community Plans
• Ongoing CIP and
City Projects
# and value of
synergistic
benefits
Undergrounding distribution mainlines will yield the largest benefit in terms of reliability as
these collectively serve the largest number of customers and provide backup to other parts of the
system. Improving this infrastructure’s reliability will go a long way for improving the customer
experience in and around Boulder. Staff are working with Xcel Energy to review historical
reliability data to develop a prioritized list of projects. Staff has proposed that 35% of the
undergrounding funds be reserved for these types of projects.
ATTACHMENT B: Undergrounding
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 19
Packet Page 68 of 73
Staff has proposed that 20% of the underground fund be reserved for projects identified through
community engagement for which other sources of funding have been identified. These funding
sources could include other city funds, grants or community contributions. It is envisioned that
the undergrounding fund would provide up to 30% of cost share for these types of projects.
Finally, 10% of the fund would be held in reserve to address any cost overages or for other
unanticipated needs. Table 2 provides a summary of the staff’s proposed allocation of the fund.
Staff may revise the distribution of funding between project types as more information becomes
available on current system reliability, as well as Boulder and Xcel Energy’s planned
maintenance work in the coming years.
Table 2 - Summary of Proposed Undergrounding Allocations
Project Type Percent Allocation
Coordinated with City Capital
Improvement Projects
35%
Mainline Projects 35%
Other Projects 20%
Reserved for Project
Overages
10%
Another consideration is that the undergrounding of the electric power system will require the
undergrounding of CenturyLink telecommunications facilities as well as customer premise
service work. Costs for this type of work may not covered by the Xcel Energy undergrounding
fund. Staff will identify potential funding sources for these costs and provide recommendations
as part of the budget process.
ATTACHMENT B: Undergrounding
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 20
Packet Page 69 of 73
2012-2017
In 2011, Boulder voters approved a Utility Occupation Tax (UOT) to research and fund the
creation of a local electric utility. 2017 marked the end of the initial funding of the
municipalization efforts. The May 17, 2018 City Council information packet provides a
summary of spending and accomplishments achieved in 2012-2017. During 2012-2017,
expenditures totaled $13,249,341. $11,804,130 was funded by the Utility Occupation Tax and
$1,445,211 was funded from the General Fund. The $1,445,211 balance drawn from the General
Fund will be repaid to the General Fund reserves with the closing of the 2020 books. Chart 1
below summarizes the 2012-2017 funding and actual expenditures for the local
power/municipalization efforts.
*$1,445,211 will be repaid to the GF reserves in 2020 from the unexpended UOT fund balance
2018-2020
In 2017, Boulder voters authorized the City of Boulder to extend and increase the UOT through
2022 to continue funding costs associated with forming a municipal electric utility. The five-year
tax increase was to provide funding for essential engineering, litigation and staff work in
anticipation of Go/No-Go vote in 2022. The local power/municipalization work and associated
funding plan anticipating a Go/No-Go vote in 2022 was suspended when Boulder voters passed
two ballot measures in November 2020: 1) to pause the city’s ongoing efforts to create a
municipal electric utility and enter a new 20-year franchise with Xcel Energy; and 2) amend and
repurpose the UOT. Chart 2 summarizes the funding and actual expenditures of the 2018-2020
local power/municipalization efforts. High-level project milestones and associated costs related
to the 2018-2020 phase of the project may be found in Chart 3.
Chart 2
Chart 1
ATTACHMENT C: Municipalization Funding and Expenditures
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 21
Packet Page 70 of 73
Category QTR1 QTR2 QTR3 QTR4 QTR1 QTR2 QTR3 QTR4 QTR1 QTR2 QTR3 QTR4
Electric Utility Development Administration $ 3,829,523
City Council Meeting and Public Hearing regarding proposed agreements with Xcel Energy 100%O
File Xcel agreements and updated asset list with the Colorado PUC 100%O
Update to City Council on Load Interconnection Agreement and Separation Engineering (Information Packet)100%O
Boulder files notice regarding proposed process to resolve outstanding issues with the Colorado PUC 100%O
Boulder files additional documents with the Colorado PUC as outlined in the notice 100%O
PUC Decision and Order 100%O
Communications and Engagement $ 256,736 %
Communications and Engagement Working Group 100%O
Develop 2018-2019 Communications and Engagement Strategic Plan 100%O
Separation Engineering - Distribution and Substation Interconnection $ 6,448,259 0%
Load Interconnection Application Submitted to Xcel Energy 100%O
City Agrees to Load Interconnection Study Scope, Cost and Schedule 100%O
Load Interconnection Study Completed 100%O
FERC Interconnection Application 100%O
FERC Decision and Order 100%O
Execute Vendor Support Contracts for Boulder Substation Work 100%O
Complete Boulder Substation Separation Design 100%O
Negotiate Agreement for Xcel Energy Substation Separation Design 100%O
Xcel Energy Completes Substation Separation Design 100%O
Complete Work Plan for Xcel Energy Distribution Separation Scope of Work 100%O
Negotiate Scope of Work and other Terms of Distribution Separation Design, Cost Estimate, Construction Timeline and Bidding 100%O
Xcel Energy Completes Distribution Separation Design, Cost Estimate, Construction Timeline and Bidding Work 100%O
Execute Vendor Support Contracts for Boulder Distribution Separation Work 100%O
Complete Boulder Distribution System Separation Design, Cost Estimate, and Construction Timeline 100% O
Acquisition and Condemnation $ 824,927
Appraisals 100%O
Condemnation Ordinance Adopted by City Council 100%O
Good Faith Negotiations 100%O
File Condemnation Case in District Court - Court Dismissed 100%O
Re-file Condemnation Case in District Court #
Xcel Energy Motion to Dismiss Re-filed Condemnation Case and Boulder Response #
District Court Consideration of Motion to Dismiss Re-filed Condemnation Case #
District Court Case Management Order for Re-filed Condemnation Case #
Condemnation Trial and Verdict #
Integrated Power Supply and Transmission Service $ 21,290
Advertise Request for Indicative Pricing 100%O
Receive Vendor Provided Indicative Pricing 100%O
Analyze Integrated Power Supply and Transmission Options and Develop Strategy #
Integrated Power Supply and Transmission Request for Proposals 100%O
Integrated Power Supply and Transmission Proposals Submitted 100%O
Negotiate Integrated Power Supply and Transmission Service #
Network Integrated Transmission Service Application #
Network Integrated Transmission Service Agreement #
Transition Planning - Startup and Ongoing O&M $ 395,051
Refine Future Utility Operations Vision/ Plan #
Issue Requests for Information, Qualifications and Pricing for Utility Startup and Operations Services #
Information, Qualifications and Pricing for Utility Startup and Operations Services Responses #
Evaluate and Negotiate Startup and Utility Operations Services #
Tracking Worksheet Electric Utility Development
2/11/2021
2020 Goals2019 Goals
2018-20
Expenditures Estimated Progress
2018 Goals
O Completed Milestone
Δ Anticipated Milestone on Schedule
# Anticipated Milestone Delayed Indefinetly Based on Settlement Agreement
Chart 3
ATTACHMENT C: Municipalization Funding and Expenditures
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 22
Packet Page 71 of 73
2021-2025
General Fund portion of UOT to be replaced by franchise fee
On December 15, 2020, following the election, council adopted amendments to the current
Utility Occupation Tax (UOT) to remove the tax associated with the general fund and replace it
with the franchise fee and amendments to make the tax code consistent with the voter approved
changes to the purpose and the extension of the Utility Occupation Tax. More details can be
found in the council memo.
ATTACHMENT C: Municipalization Funding and Expenditures
Item 2 - Xcel Energy Partnership/Franchise
Update and Municipalization Wrap-up
Page 23
Packet Page 72 of 73
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
F ebruary 23, 2021
ST U D Y SE SSI ON I T E M
C ouncil Discussion on Recruitment Firm Selection for the City Attorney Recruitment
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Elesha J ohnson, City C lerk
B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M
Added at 2/22/21 C A C meeting
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
No Attachments Available
Packet Page 73 of 73