Citizen Portal
Sign In

Boulder Council adds emergency ordinance to agenda, meets in executive session and adopts ordinance 8687

Boulder City Council · February 15, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a Feb. 13 special meeting the Boulder City Council unanimously approved amending the agenda to add an emergency ordinance (Ordinance 8687), voted 8–0 to hold an executive session under Colorado’s open meetings law for legal advice on emerging federal guidelines, and adopted the ordinance by emergency measure on the consent agenda.

Boulder Mayor Brockett opened a Feb. 13 special meeting and asked the council for a motion to amend the agenda to add “item 2b,” an introduction, first reading and emergency-adoption motion for an ordinance described as Ordinance 8687, which would amend the city code to expand the list of facilities for which persons may be suspended for conduct endangering the health, safety or welfare of users or visitors.

The motion to amend the agenda was made and seconded and carried unanimously on a show of hands (8–0). Council then voted 8–0 to convene an executive session under Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-6-402(4)(b) to receive legal advice on “emerging federal guidelines.” After the executive session, no council member raised concerns that improper matters were discussed.

The council returned to the public meeting and approved the consent agenda. The consent vote adopted, by emergency measure, Ordinance 8687 (recorded in the meeting as ordinance 86 87) as item 2a on the consent agenda. The roll-call votes recorded in the meeting transcript show affirmative votes from the mayor and eight council members. The mayor then adjourned the special meeting at 05:58 p.m.

The executive session was convened under CRS 24-6-402(4)(b), which permits a public body to meet in private for a conference with its attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. The agenda item description on the record identified the purpose as legal advice on “emerging federal guidelines.” City staff did not disclose the specific legal questions discussed in the executive session in public after reconvening.

The council did not identify any members opposing the emergency adoption or listing any conditions attached to the ordinance during the public vote. Minutes show the emergency-adoption vote and the executive-session vote both passed unanimously. The special meeting closed immediately after the consent action.