Blog

<h3>Public Hearing: Metro Districts Framework (Ordinance 8748 &amp; Resolution 1378)</h3>Date of vote: 4/16/2026Outcome: Unanimously ApprovedCategory: Taxing District<h3> What Happened</h3>City Council held a public hearing and approved a new local framework to allow and regulate metro districts in Boulder.This included: Adoption of Ordinance 8748, establishing Boulder’s authority over metro districts and adoption of Resolution 1378, creating a model service plan for how they will operate.The goal is to shift metro districts from the default state-controlled process to a city-controlled process, giving Boulder more oversight over how and when they are used.Per the meeting presentation, a few key elements of the framework:<ul><li>Metro districts in Boulder will be primarily commercial (90%+), not residential-focused </li><li>Council must approve every service plan before a district is formed </li><li>The city will oversee the full lifecycle, including formation, financing, and major changes </li><li>These districts are intended to finance large-scale infrastructure upfront, with repayment through property taxes from the people who live and work in the district over time</li></ul>Council discussion focused heavily on governance, financial risk, and how these districts evolve over time. One notable concern raised is that metro districts are often initially controlled by one or two property owners (typically developers), who also elect the first board and over time, governance shifts as residents and tenants move in, but according to staff, conflicts during that transition are common.<h3>What It Means&nbsp;</h3>This is a big shift in how Boulder could fund future development.Metro districts are one of several financing tools alongside Tax Increment Financing (TIF- borrowing against future generated tax dollars the projects are expected to generate), General Improvement District (GID- lets a defined group of properties pay an extra tax to fund things like streets, landscaping, or parking that benefit their area).&nbsp;Metro districts are unique because they allow developers to fund infrastructure upfront and repay costs through a dedicated property tax (mill levy) over time. Boulder has approved a max of 65 mills. As a simple example, at $1 mill per $1000, on a $10 million commercial project, a metro district mill levy at the 65 mill maximum would be roughly $180,000 per year in additional property taxes. While metro districts fund infrastructure upfront, the ongoing tax burden often shows up in higher rents for tenants, meaning the businesses that lease these spaces could ultimately carry the cost.Boulders framework attempts to thread the needle by allowing the tool, but put guardrails around how it’s used in Boulder<h3>Pros and Cons of Metro Districts</h3>Potential Benefits<ul><li>Unlocks development Can make projects financially viable that otherwise wouldn’t happen</li><li>No upfront city cost Infrastructure is funded privately rather than by taxpayers broadly</li><li>Faster delivery of infrastructure Roads, utilities, and public improvements can be built earlier</li><li>Targeted financing Costs are paid by those within the district, not citywide</li><li>Economic development tool Adds another option alongside TIF, DDA, etc.</li></ul> Potential Risks and Concerns<ul><li>Governance starts with developers Early control often rests with a very small group of property owners </li><li>Long-term tax burden Property owners can face higher effective tax rates for decades </li><li>Complex and hard to unwind Once established, districts are difficult to modify </li><li>Potential misalignment over time As residents move in, priorities can shift, creating governance tension </li><li>Less transparency / understanding Many people don’t fully understand what they are paying for </li><li>Equity concerns Costs are concentrated within a project rather than shared</li></ul><h3> Jenny’s Take</h3>This is one of those tools that is neither inherently good nor bad, it is entirely about how it’s used.I appreciate that Council took the step to bring metro districts under local control rather than relying on the state default process. That process gives Boulder more ability to set expectations upfront.At the same time, the concerns raised during the meeting are real. The fact that these districts often start with very limited voter participation, can carry long-term financial impacts, and have such a high mill levy attached should not be taken lightly.Where I land right now is somewhere in the middle. I see the value as a targeted economic development tool, especially for commercial areas. But in a moment where we already have significant vacant commercial space across the city, this can’t just be about building more. These projects will need to be truly compelling, places people want to go, and accessible by all modes of transportation if they are going to succeed.So to me, this is something we need to use carefully, sparingly, and with clear guardrails. We need to watch how often this tool is used, whether the commercial-only intent holds, and how well the city manages long-term oversight once these districts are in place.<figure id="figure-cnlm83vd4hmsnt4v5r" data-full-width=""><img id="cnlm83vd4hmsnt4v5r" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/240mOB84Sd5eSVBEtMIbBpDznqT3KTRlzhGs3hpXE7U2ESQtqmhfhs6BTNPNqeYR.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="large" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/240mOB84Sd5eSVBEtMIbBpDznqT3KTRlzhGs3hpXE7U2ESQtqmhfhs6BTNPNqeYR.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> &nbsp;<h2>Dear Jenny</h2>Question from Kevin D.:I have recently been analyzing City of Boulder staffing levels between administrative roles and front-line workers. It raised concerns about whether the city may be overstaffed in administrative departments while under-resourcing essential services like street maintenance, policing, and parks operations.What are your thoughts on how the city is staffed, and should we be concerned about how resources are being allocated?<h3>Jenny’s Answer </h3>This is a great question, and I appreciate you sending it along. It’s exactly the kind of topic that deserves a closer look.It really comes down to this: are we set up to deliver services, or are we set up to manage the process?Because residents don’t experience the city through org charts. They experience it through outcomes. Are streets maintained, are facilities in good condition, are services reliable and accessible. If those things are not keeping up, then it is absolutely fair to ask whether enough resources are reaching the front lines.And this is where some of the data you’re pointing to becomes hard to ignore. If we have roughly 7 street maintenance technicians (not including contractors) yet we have 32 people in Communications and Engagement Department (which is responsible for how the city shares information with the public and how it gathers input from the community), that should at least prompt a pause. Not because one department is unnecessary, but because it raises a broader question about balance and priorities. In addition, per the data reviewed, 1 in 4 of the city employees has a title of manager or supervisor.&nbsp;The underlying concern is a fair one. Residents expect the city to prioritize core services like maintaining streets, public safety, and keeping facilities in good condition. If people feel those areas are under performing, it’s reasonable to ask whether staffing and funding are aligned with those priorities.For me, the takeaway is that we have more research to do, but that this is exactly the kind of question we should be asking as part of the broader budget conversation. How many people do we have doing the work residents see and rely on every day, and are we investing enough in those roles?I will continue to dig into the data with a clearer breakdown of how departments are structured, but the instinct behind the question is exactly right. Thank you for reading!<h3>- Jenny</h3>

Metro Districts Framework

<h3>Tip Credit: A Debate About Relief</h3>Council spent significant time discussing Boulder’s authority to modify the tip credit (tip offset). Here is some background and overall context:In 2019, Colorado passed Colorado House Bill 19-1210, which gave cities broad authority to set their own local minimum wage. Because the tip credit is part of how minimum wage is structured, this effectively gave cities the ability to modify it as well.In 2025, the state revisited this issue through Colorado House Bill 25-1008, reflecting growing concern about how different cities were approaching tipped wages. This bill was part of an ongoing effort to clarify. The bill allows jurisdictions with a higher minimum wage than the state’s minimum wage to increase their allowed tip offset, as long as the resulting base wage for tipped employees does not fall below the state’s base wage, which currently is $12.14.Boulder has already approved significant wage increases. The city’s minimum wage is set to rise approximately 24% in total, increasing 8% annually from 2025 through 2027, and then continuing to adjust with CPI. This means the tip credit conversation is happening on top of already locked-in cost increases for local businesses.Currently, Boulder’s tip credit is $3.02 and does not increase over time. As the minimum wage rises, the tip credit becomes a smaller share of total wages, meaning businesses receive less relative relief each year if no changes are made.Staff presented four options for how to manage the tip credit moving forward, and Council used straw polls to signal which directions they want staff to continue exploring. Option 1: Keep Tip Credit at $3.02 (Status Quo)Votes in favor: Tina Marquis, Taishya Adams, Aaron Brockett, Nicole Speer, Ryan Schuchard&nbsp;Tip credit stays flat Base wages rise faster than minimum wage in 2027 Businesses do not gain additional relief over time Reality: Costs keep rising, but the offset doesn’t keep pace Option 2A: Moderate Increase&nbsp;Votes in favor: Tara Winer, Mark Wallach, Matt Benjamin, Rob Kaplan, Tina Marquis, Aaron BrockettTip credit increases gradually by $0.25 in the first year and then gradually over time Tracks with minimum wage growth Reality: Base wages still increase at the same rate as minimum wage Option 2B: Larger IncreaseVotes in favor: Tara Winer, Mark Wallach, Matt Benjamin, Rob Kaplan, Tina MarquisThe tip offset increases by $0.62 in 2027 and then by CPI in the following years This is the stronger relief option, but with clearer tradeoffs Reality: Base wages still rise, but at a slower rate than minimum wage Option 3: Maximum Tip CreditVotes: NoneSets tip credit to the maximum allowed by the state Reality: Strongest support for businesses. Largest shift of risk onto employees&nbsp;<figure id="figure-ml64q66cmqmp4689o4" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="ml64q66cmqmp4689o4" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/b6ejfFqaajToKNdyujH16xy8yO5tunnBSM7lBcLvUG0n7wjpU21Q8a2ASkjhdvux.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/b6ejfFqaajToKNdyujH16xy8yO5tunnBSM7lBcLvUG0n7wjpU21Q8a2ASkjhdvux.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure><h3>Timeline Split&nbsp;</h3>Staff had the timing of the Public Hearing vote set for June 18. They asked the council if this was approved and the result was to delay. This delay was requested for a few reasons, members of council want more data, they want more student representation at the public hearing, and the Mayor is out of town for the June date.Move forward with June date: Tara Winer, Mark Wallach, Matt Benjamin, Rob KaplanDelay: Tina Marquis, Taishya Adams, Aaron Brockett, Nicole Speer, Ryan Schuchard&nbsp;<h3>Jenny’s Take (Timing)</h3>I fall firmly in the “move forward” camp. Delaying action doesn’t pause the pressure, it just means businesses absorb another year of rising costs without relief. Uncertainty is worse than change. Right now, restaurants and small businesses don’t know: What the policy will be, when it will change, or how to plan for it. That uncertainty makes it harder to hire, price, and operate.The policy itself is incremental. None of the options on the table are extreme: No one supported the maximum (Option 3). The real choices are modest adjustments. This is exactly the kind of policy you should move forward on and refine over time.Businesses are already adjusting (without help). Restaurants are already: Raising prices, cutting hours and reducing staff where they can. Delaying relief means those adjustments continue without any policy support. Waiting doesn’t protect anyone, it just guarantees higher costs hit first.<h3>Jenny’s Take (Tip Credit Overall)</h3>With wages increasing 8% next year and continuing upward: Doing nothing means the tip credit becomes less meaningful over time. The question isn’t whether to act, it’s how much to adjust the balance. From my perspective: Option 1 doesn’t hold the line, it actually allows pressure to build. Option 3 goes too far in the other direction. The real decision is somewhere in between. This is not a debate about whether to help businesses, it’s about how much relief is appropriate without overcorrecting.It’s also worth noting that support for delay and lack of restaurant support came from some council members who, during prior campaigns, expressed strong support for Boulder’s restaurant community. These votes may feel misaligned with those earlier commitments, particularly for small business owners looking for near-term relief.<h3>Public Hearing: Festival Amendment (Short-Term Rentals): Ordinance 8743 amending Sections 10-3-19, "Short-Term Rentals," permitting tenants to apply for Festival Lodging Rental Licenses and 4-20-18, ”Rental License Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding an associated fee; and setting forth related details</h3>Date of vote: 4/2/2026Outcome: Unanimously ApprovedCategory: Procedural<figure id="figure-geryunpkkmp46hps6"data-full-width><img id="geryunpkkmp46hps6" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3aLSFUlryoWPW0Ic0Yy6YEg8Q04LKLiyCDgRJdKdVA40oZyTph0XlqWxb0CG6Prc.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure><h3> What Happened</h3>Council held a public hearing and unanimously approved the ordinance allowing tenants to apply for festival lodging rental licenses.<h3> What It Means&nbsp;</h3>This is actually a more significant shift than it might sound. The new license allows tenants (not just owners) to operate short-term rentals, requires property owner consent, applies to non-primary residences and vacant rentals, is limited to festival periods (+10 days before / +9 days after), and maintains safety and occupancy requirements. The intent is clear: Increase lodging supply during major events without turning housing into full-time short term rentals.<h3>Jenny’s Take</h3>This was a unanimous vote, but not necessarily a simple policy. On paper, it’s a targeted and reasonable expansion. It supports tourism, creates income opportunities, and keeps guardrails in place. But this only works with property owner consent. &nbsp;Lease agreements will need to evolve, owners and tenants will need to negotiate terms and questions around liability, revenue sharing, and control will come into play.Things to watch:Will landlords allow it or broadly prohibit it? How will renters and owners structure agreements? Does this create opportunity or friction?<h3>The Scorecard</h3>The scorecard is the main tracker for major votes from each Council meeting. It will be updated every other week to keep you current on how Council decisions are shaping Boulder.<figure id="figure-tg1w0odsajmp46fw37" data-full-width=""><img id="tg1w0odsajmp46fw37" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3bHY98sr6xv7t2mBxVjh9iBfoHlik2hnk3tFD5hi0LGky5425Mq9Qs9JoycCew4a.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3bHY98sr6xv7t2mBxVjh9iBfoHlik2hnk3tFD5hi0LGky5425Mq9Qs9JoycCew4a.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> &nbsp; Thank you for reading!<h3>Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record&nbsp;

Tip Credit and Sundance Short Term Rentals

While this newsletter typically focuses on tracking City Council votes and outcomes, there has been so much happening behind the scenes that I thought it warranted a special edition. While we wait for the next round of City Council votes, a lot is unfolding that will shape Boulder’s future in meaningful ways.Over the past few weeks, Council and Planning Board have been digging into major issues, from how we fund our city long-term, to how we plan for growth under the BVCP, to whether previously protected areas should be brought into active planning.At the same time, I had the opportunity to participate as a delegate in the county, congressional, and state assemblies, where candidates for the primary ballot were selected and broader political priorities began to take shape. While not all of these moments involved final votes, they are where direction is set, tradeoffs are debated, and the groundwork is laid for the decisions that ultimately come before voters and Council. So let’s get into it!<h3> Fund Our Future: Long-Term Financial Strategy Council Study Session Date of Meeting: 3/12/2026</h3><h3>What happened</h3> Council reviewed a proposed Downtown Development Authority (DDA) as part of the Fund Our Future initiative. A DDA is a special district that can reinvest funding within a defined area to support infrastructure and economic vitality. One of its primary tools is Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which captures the increase in tax revenue from new development and reinvests it back into the district rather than the general fund.Staff outlined a potential 30-year structure (extendable), combining TIF, a possible mill levy, and parking revenue to fund major investments in downtown and University Hill. Council asked for more detail on boundaries, financial guardrails, impacts to other taxing entities (like BVSD), and what specific projects would be funded. June is shaping up to be the key decision point on whether to move this toward a ballot.Council then shifted to a broader discussion of potential 2026 tax measures, using a straw poll to narrow what staff should explore further. Council approved 4, 5, 6, and 8 (below) for further exploration.<h3>Why This Matters</h3> There is clear movement toward shaping a 2026 ballot strategy. Rather than pursuing sweeping structural changes, Council is focusing on more incremental tools, specifically a vacancy tax, increased debt capacity, potential property tax adjustments, and continued reliance on fees. There was no outright rejection of new revenue options, but the discussion made clear that voter tolerance, affordability, and trust will be critical. There is also broad recognition that some of the more complex ideas simply aren’t ready for a 2026 ballot.<h3>Potential Ballot Measures (Council Direction and What They Mean)</h3> Sales Tax on Services: Unlikely Expands Boulder’s sales tax beyond goods (like retail purchases) to include services (like legal, consulting, or personal services). This would significantly broaden the tax base but is a major structural shift that would require statewide alignment and extensive public buy-in. Shift from Sales Tax to Property Tax: Unlikely Reduces reliance on sales tax and increases reliance on property tax to fund city services. The goal is more stable revenue, but it would shift more of the burden onto homeowners and property owners. Public Realm Mill Levy: Unlikely A property tax increase dedicated specifically to funding public spaces, things like streetscapes, parks, civic areas, and downtown improvements. Funds would be restricted to these types of visible community investments. Residential Vacancy Tax: Moving Forward A tax on homes that sit vacant for extended periods, intended to encourage owners to rent or occupy them. The idea is to increase housing availability, though projected revenue is relatively small. Increase General Fund Debt Limits: Moving Forward Allows the city to borrow more money (issue debt) backed by existing revenues to fund large infrastructure projects now, rather than waiting to pay for them over time. This does not immediately raise taxes but creates long-term repayment obligations. Increase Property Tax Cap (Mill Levy Increase): Moving Forward Raises the maximum property tax rate the city is allowed to collect, generating additional ongoing revenue for general city services. Consolidate Sales Tax Funds into a “Public Realm Fund”: Unlikely Combines several existing, restricted sales tax revenues into a single, more flexible fund. This would allow the city to shift money between priorities more easily but reduces strict voter-directed spending protections. Expanded Use of Fees : Moving Forward Increases or adds fees (like transportation or development impact fees) that are charged directly rather than approved by voters. These are often tied to specific services but can function similarly to taxes in practice.<figure id="figure-wlrgifjaymp45x9ry" data-full-width=""><img id="wlrgifjaymp45x9ry" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/25xqLccBvmKijRXnNLkD7fpAehM3QOnxz9mTiApOZyS7Mti17m2JcKhvrCXEdpa6.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 75% 50%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="75%" data-positiony="50%" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/25xqLccBvmKijRXnNLkD7fpAehM3QOnxz9mTiApOZyS7Mti17m2JcKhvrCXEdpa6.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 75% 50%;"></figure><h3> Jenny’s take</h3> These decisions will shape what you may be asked to vote on in 2026. My view: these tools could unlock needed investment, but we need to be extremely cautious. Debt creates long-term obligations, and expanding taxes or fees without clear accountability will be a tough sell. Any ballot measure should come with strong safeguards, clear outcomes, and real evidence that the community supports it.<h3>BVCP Joint Study Session (Council + Planning Board) Date of Meeting: 3/26/2026</h3><figure id="figure-6ybj7sddnmp45w1ui" data-full-width=""><img id="6ybj7sddnmp45w1ui" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/30YJxdK61ZYB6VFt5b4WFbbsoR2komBa8EThWPAeQFE8ntYQ23ICWjQAGOr8t8Iz.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="3:2" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/30YJxdK61ZYB6VFt5b4WFbbsoR2komBa8EThWPAeQFE8ntYQ23ICWjQAGOr8t8Iz.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3> What happened </h3>Council and Planning Board reviewed the draft Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) alongside an update from BVSD: enrollment has dropped by 3,600 students since 2017, with further declines projected.According to Staff, the BVCP draft proposes:<ul><li>A simplified land use framework </li><li>15-minute neighborhoods </li><li>35% increase in housing capacity </li><li>11% increase in job capacity</li><li>Public comment closes April 6, with adoption expected in June.</li></ul> <h3>Why This Matters</h3> The core tension remains: More housing and flexibility vs. preserving neighborhood character and capacity.There was also growing recognition that Boulder cannot fully avoid growth pressures and current policies may not be delivering intended outcomes.<h3>Jenny’s take</h3> I understand that this plan is meant to be aspirational. But I think we also need to ground it more clearly in the reality of where Boulder is today. In many parts of the city, we already function as 15-minute neighborhoods, and we currently have a significant amount of vacant retail and underutilized space. At the same time, we are working within very real constraints, particularly around water, infrastructure, and environmental limits that need to be more directly acknowledged in the plan.I also think it’s important to recognize who tends to show up in these processes. The people advocating for change are often the most engaged and influential in shaping direction, while those who may prefer to work within our existing structure are less likely to participate or feel heard. That dynamic matters, and it can skew outcomes in ways that don’t fully reflect the broader community.On BVSD, I don’t believe enrollment declines are purely demographic. We lost families to private schools during COVID when schools closed, and many didn’t return. That has real impacts on both enrollment and funding, and it should be part of this conversation. Overall, I think this plan contains many good ideas, but without a clearer implementation roadmap, stronger alignment with our existing assets, and more explicit consideration of constraints, it risks being only visionary and not actionable. <h3>Planning Board Meeting: Area III Planning Reserve Date of Meeting: 3/24/2026</h3><h3>What happened</h3> Planning Board originally voted 4–3 against moving forward with planning work in the Area III Planning Reserve by pausing the initiative for a few years. City Council then weighed in and voted 7–2 in favor, which sent the item back to Planning Board for reconsideration. On the second review, the Planning Board created Laura Kaplan changed her vote, flipping the outcome and resulting in approval to move forward with additional planning work. This means the city will now begin spending time and resources to further study and explore these areas. &nbsp;The shift appears to have been driven less by new data and more by a change in framing. Planning Board discussed a drafted statement that included specific, though ultimately unenforceable, guardrails around middle-income housing and affordability, which may have provided enough comfort for a vote change. Combined with strong Council direction, in my opinion, the vote change reads more as a policy shift than a data-driven one.<h3>Why This Matters</h3> This is a meaningful vote change, not just in outcome, but in process. While the argument that delaying planning doesn’t eliminate future growth pressure has merit, the reversal raises important questions about consistency and decision-making. The city has already commissioned studies indicating that Boulder can meet its near-term housing needs through infill within the existing footprint. Moving forward with additional planning in the reserve despite that analysis creates a disconnect between the data we’re collecting and the decisions being made.This does not mean development is imminent, but it does open the door and signals a shift toward exploring growth beyond current boundaries.<h3>Jenny’s take</h3> What concerns me most is the inconsistency between the data and the decisions we’re making. Why are we now choosing to move forward with additional planning in the reserve given the information in the studies? At some point, we have to either trust analysis or stop asking for it.I understand the argument about planning ahead, but this feels less like proactive planning and more like shifting direction without a clear justification. This decision didn’t come from new data or a changed condition, it came from a vote flip.Meanwhile, Boulder is facing very real, immediate challenges: financial constraints, aging infrastructure, declining school enrollment, and maintaining the assets we already have. Choosing to spend public resources exploring expansion, despite prior analysis suggesting it’s not needed yet, raises real questions about priorities.We should be focused on getting our existing system right before expanding beyond it.<h3>Caucus &amp; Assembly: Who’s on the Ballot</h3><figure id="figure-7rkyvzng09mp45uw17"><img id="7rkyvzng09mp45uw17" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/32PzX1WG0rh4Wi3T28RY1pITm6SrKGaMxQb98QQYorKNgE95enU93F1ugu4MLQIm.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/32PzX1WG0rh4Wi3T28RY1pITm6SrKGaMxQb98QQYorKNgE95enU93F1ugu4MLQIm.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>I had the honor of being elected as a delegate to both the Boulder County Assembly and the Democratic State Assembly in Pueblo. It was an energizing experience to be part of the process firsthand.As a quick explanation of how candidates get on the ballot in Colorado, there are three primary paths:Caucus &amp; Assembly Only: Candidates participate in precinct caucuses and advance to county and state assemblies, where delegates vote. Those who receive 30% or more of the delegate vote automatically secure a spot on the primary ballot. Caucus &amp; Assembly + Petition: Candidates who receive at least 10% at assembly can still qualify for the ballot by collecting the required number of petition signatures. Petition Only: Candidates can bypass the assembly process entirely and gather enough voter signatures to qualify directly for the ballot.Many candidates pursue both the assembly and petition routes to ensure access. While the assembly helps determine ballot order and signals early party support, the final decision ultimately rests with voters in the primary.Statewide Race Results for June Primary Ballot Governor: Phil Weiser (90.2%) vs. Michael Bennet (petition) U.S. Senate: Julie Gonzales (74%+) vs. John Hickenlooper (petition) Attorney General: Jena Griswold (41.8%) David Seligman (40.6%) Michael Dougherty (17.6%, petition) Hetal Doshi (petition) Secretary of State: Amanda Gonzalez (63.1%) vs. Jessie Danielson Treasurer: Jeff Bridges (43.7%) Brianna Titone (29%, just missed/did not petition) John Mikos (27%, just missed/did not petition)Federal &amp; Regent CD2: Joe Neguse CU Regent: Kubs Lalchandani (39%) Edie Hooton (37%) Chris Larsen (22% did not petition) Murray Smith (may qualify via petition)Boulder County Treasurer (only contested race): Jen Kaaoush (48.1%) Rachel Friend (41.8%) Bill Van Dusen (10%, may petition)Uncontested County Offices: County Commissioner District 3: Ashley Stolzmann Clerk &amp; Recorder: Molly Fitzpatrick Assessor: Cynthia Braddock Coroner: Jeff Martin Surveyor: Kayce Keane Sheriff: Curtis JohnsonState Legislature (Uncontested Seats) Colorado House: HD10: Junie Joseph HD12: Kyle Brown HD49: Lesley SmithColorado Senate: SD15: Janice Marchman SD17: Katie Wallace<h3>Why This Matters</h3> The outcomes ultimately go to voters, but being there made it clear how much groundwork is laid at this stage. The energy, the debates, and the alignment happening now will shape the races and the policy direction. We’ll be watching in the months ahead.Bottom Line All of the above sets real direction across the board. From how we fund the city, to how we plan for growth under the BVCP, to decisions about whether to expand beyond our existing footprint, the groundwork is actively being laid. At the same time, the candidates who will shape state and local policy are now set for the primary ballot. These moments define what choices are ultimately put in front of voters and how Boulder evolves from here. Thank you for reading!<h3>Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record

The Record: Special Edition

Aerial View above Boulder Colorado looking southwest towards University of Colorado and Flatiron Mountains

<h3>Boulder City Council Meeting</h3>March 5, 2026 The March 5 City Council meeting opened with extensive public comment focused largely on two issues: the future of the South Boulder Recreation Center and concerns about the city’s contract with Flock automated license plate reader cameras. Residents spoke passionately about maintaining neighborhood recreation facilities and about privacy concerns related to surveillance technology. City staff confirmed that a study session on recreation center funding and long-term facilities planning is scheduled for April 9, which will include discussion of the South Boulder Rec Center and broader financial strategies for city facilities. Council members also discussed how decisions regarding the Flock camera contract fall under the authority of the City Manager, while City Council retains authority to set policy related to privacy and surveillance technology. Aside from public comment and routine business, the meeting included one official public hearing related to the annual appointment of members to the city’s boards and commissions.<h2> The Record:</h2><h3>Public Hearing: 2026 Board &amp; Commission Appointments</h3> Date of Vote: March 5, 2026 Vote: Unanimous Classification: Procedural<h3> What Happened</h3> City Council held its annual public hearing to approve appointments to Boulder’s boards and commissions, volunteer bodies that advise the city on issues such as arts funding, housing, water policy, planning, and urban renewal. During the meeting, council members nominated applicants for each open seat and voted on the nominees. Candidates must receive a majority of council votes to secure an appointment. Once all seats were filled, council took a final vote to approve the full slate of appointments. The motion to approve the 2026 appointments passed unanimously. Council also noted that this year saw a particularly strong pool of applicants, reflecting continued civic participation from Boulder residents.<h3> Why This Matters</h3> Boulder’s boards and commissions are made up of volunteer residents who review policies, projects, and programs before they reach City Council. These groups provide subject-matter expertise, community perspective, and detailed analysis on issues such as housing, transportation, water, parks, historic preservation, and economic development. Because many policy discussions begin at the board level, the individuals appointed to serve on these bodies help shape the recommendations and ideas that ultimately influence City Council decisions.<h3> 2026 Board &amp; Commission Appointments</h3> Arts Commission Montserrat Palacios Kate Cimino Beverage Licensing Authority Leah Roberts Board of Zoning Adjustment Craig Hammond Boulder Junction Access District Sage Dalton Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) Catherine Bean Michael Leccese Bwembya Chikolwa Bill Shrum Anja Richmond Stephanie Chen Chester Harvey Chris Maughan Carla Graubard Tara Winer Design Advisory Board Lee Johnson Downtown Management Commission Don Poe Carol Brewer Environmental Advisory Board Monica Crosby Daniel Howard Housing Advisory Board Shira Feinberg Brendan Selby David Garabed Housing Authority Ann Cooper Michael Block Human Relations Commission Alejandra Nieland Zavala Landmarks Board Alex Weinheimer Open Space Board of Trustees Morgan Lommele Parks &amp; Recreation Advisory Board Eliza Blood Channing Benson Planning Board Max Lord Transportation Advisory Board Mike Mills Water Resources Advisory Board Marcia Greenblatt (Appointments take effect April 1, 2026.) <h2>Jenny’s Take</h2> Board and commission appointments may not attract the same attention as major policy votes, but they play an important role in how Boulder’s local government works. These volunteer boards are often where policy discussions begin. They review proposals, debate trade-offs, and make recommendations before issues ever reach the City Council. Because of that, the people who serve on these boards can have a meaningful influence on how issues are framed and what options ultimately come before council. Boulder is fortunate to have many residents willing to volunteer their time and expertise in these roles. When boards function well, they bring thoughtful analysis and community perspective into the decision-making process, helping ensure that council has the information needed to make informed choices for the community.

2026 Board & Commission Appointments

<h2>Public Hearing: Hogan-Pancost Annexation</h2>(5399 Kewanee Dr. &amp; 5697 South Boulder Rd.) Date of Vote: 2/19/2026 Vote: Unanimous (Procedural)<figure id="figure-529p4ivschmlzgq6jt" data-full-width=""><img id="529p4ivschmlzgq6jt" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/39FxnVtHhGDNEHLTMZUgav5YyuQTcXWib3ZH2uA8YQKtj7aWUFvfbV1HRzPbZKsu.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/39FxnVtHhGDNEHLTMZUgav5YyuQTcXWib3ZH2uA8YQKtj7aWUFvfbV1HRzPbZKsu.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure><h3>What happened</h3> City Council held a public hearing on an annexation request for approximately 24.04 acres of city-owned land located at 5399 Kewanee Drive and 5697 South Boulder Road, including portions of the 55th Street right-of-way.The bundled action items included:Adopting Resolution 1370 (findings of fact and conclusions) Adopting Ordinance 8734 on second reading (annexation + initial zoning) Amending the BVCP Land Use Map for the roughly 19 acres west of 55th Street from Low Density Residential to Park, Urban and Other (PK-U/O) Planning Board previously recommended unanimous approval, and Council also approved the package unanimously.Important historical context: The property has been city-owned since 2019, when Council purchased it to support parks &amp; recreation uses and flood mitigation on the western portion of the site.No specific development plan was approved with this vote, this action primarily aligns jurisdiction and long-range planning designations.<h3> What it means</h3> Why the annexation mattersAnnexation + zoning + BVCP map changes are the formal mechanics that:<ul><li>Bring land fully under City of Boulder jurisdiction</li><li>Establish the city’s regulatory authority</li><li>Align long-range land use expectations</li></ul>In this case, the city is positioning the west-of-55th acreage for parks, recreation, and flood management purposes, consistent with the 2019 acquisition strategy.City staff also described the area as a “special opportunity” tied to future expansion of East Boulder Community Park.<figure id="figure-p1l5zaaqj9mlzp8r5q"data-full-width><img id="p1l5zaaqj9mlzp8r5q" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1b4uskRFqu5JKbR3ELxB1m2UyaWOZJkZrxgMbEGxzNTQhI6PASNHg1Vl5DyOd5nn.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure><h3>Why Council voted yes</h3>Alignment with prior Council direction Because the property was already purchased in 2019 for public purposes, the annexation largely formalizes an existing policy path.Administrative clean-up The BVCP map previously showed Low Density Residential, a designation from when the land was privately owned. Updating the map removes that mismatch.Enables future capital planning Bringing the site into city limits allows Parks &amp; Recreation and Utilities to move forward with future site work when funding and design are ready.<h3>Jenny’s take</h3> This is best understood as a procedural vote with strategic implications. Council was not deciding whether to build anything specific on the site. Instead, they were aligning the map, aligning the zoning, and bringing city-owned land fully into city jurisdictionUnanimous votes like this typically signal the Council &nbsp;views the action as foundational. That said, these “quiet” steps matter.Because the property was purchased in 2019 specifically for parks/recreation and flood purposes, this vote continues to move the site down that pipeline. Future concepts discussed publicly have included potential East Boulder Community Park expansion elements (including possible tennis court relocation), though those decisions are still ahead.It is also fair to view this as a positive step forward for service delivery. Boulder’s Parks &amp; Recreation system has acknowledged level-of-service gaps in several areas, &nbsp;including court space, as the community grows. Actions that preserve and prepare land for future park infrastructure help keep options open to meet that demand.Bottom line: procedural now, but it narrows the runway and expands the city’s ability for what comes next.

Public Hearing: Hogan-Pancost Annexation

<h3>Council Approved: Consideration of a motion to determine if there is sufficient community need as defined in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to warrant further consideration of a Service Area Expansion Plan for the Area III-Planning Reserve</h3>Date of Vote: February 12, 2026 Vote: Approved (7-2) <figure id="figure-durpzd2vwnmlzh7e5g" data-full-width=""><img id="durpzd2vwnmlzh7e5g" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1brwasv7wkom6bc6pxYTCw2zTQeJbkLPKfsH93m9mKd8JcdtpsQPdcVTCeGcNHit.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1brwasv7wkom6bc6pxYTCw2zTQeJbkLPKfsH93m9mKd8JcdtpsQPdcVTCeGcNHit.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>What Happened</h3>City Council held a special meeting on February 12 to decide whether Boulder should continue studying a potential future expansion of city services into the Area III Planning Reserve. This vote did not approve development or expansion, it determined whether staff should continue studying expansion as a long-term option. If pursued in the future, expansion areas could potentially accommodate up to 8,700 housing units. Council voted 7–2 to continue the study, with Council members Adams and Wallach voting no. The Planning Reserve, a part of Area III, includes roughly 493 acres of land primarily north of the city near US-36. Much of this land remains in agricultural, open space, or low-density rural use, and ownership is split among private landowners, Boulder County, and City of Boulder Open Space and Parks holdings. At the meeting, staff presented updated housing need data using forecasts from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), the regional body that coordinates growth and transportation planning across the Denver metro area. Staff reported that the middle-income ownership housing gap is about 19%, smaller than previously assumed, and emphasized that current city boundaries already have capacity to meet projected housing demand. DRCOG forecasts Boulder will need to accommodate about 9,500 additional housing units by 2032, and staff analysis indicates this need can largely be met without expanding into Area III. Prior to Council’s vote, the Planning Board voted 4–3 on February 5 to recommend pausing expansion study, with ml Robles, Jorge Boone, Laura Kaplan, and Kurt Nordback voting to delay moving forward. Board members recommended evaluating whether recent zoning and housing policy changes inside the city can meet community needs before pursuing expansion. Both Planning Board members and Boulder County similarly emphasized focusing first on existing planning and development efforts before expanding outward. <figure id="figure-p7b1f3rkimlzh82pa" data-full-width=""><img id="p7b1f3rkimlzh82pa" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/4m7H45k0tIzFbsrfTMY806PxiCe9lqYZrD4AT2ayqxQk7Vk0neIBUNV7vruXmURl.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="1:1" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/4m7H45k0tIzFbsrfTMY806PxiCe9lqYZrD4AT2ayqxQk7Vk0neIBUNV7vruXmURl.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure>Council members voting yes generally stated: <ul><li>Boulder has fallen behind on housing production and should not delay exploring options.</li><li>The study keeps long-term flexibility open and does not commit the city to expansion.</li><li>Expansion takes many years, so beginning analysis now helps development in the future.</li><li>Studying expansion now does not prevent other work from continuing.</li></ul>Council members voting no generally stated: <ul><li>Staff already demonstrated projected needs can be met inside the existing service area.</li><li>The city is already managing major planning and infrastructure commitments.</li><li>Planning Board and county recommended pausing.</li><li>Studying expansion now risks diverting staff time and money from urgent in-city priorities.</li></ul>Environmental and water supply impacts remain uncertain, with concerns raised that expanding service areas could increase long-term water demand, infrastructure footprint, and environmental pressures at a time when Boulder is already grappling with climate resilience and sustainability challenges. <h3>What it Means</h3>By voting yes, Council directs staff to continue planning steps that include feasibility and planning work estimated to cost up to $500,000, before any expansion decision occurs. That funding will go toward studies, not housing construction or infrastructure delivery. Important to note, because Planning voted 4-3 against, now that Council approved, this item will have to go back to Planning to review again. If Planning maintains the majority against, the Service Area Expansion Plan will be paused. This decision from Council comes while Boulder faces major financial and infrastructure commitments, including recreation center investments, Alpine-Balsam redevelopment, transportation funding, deferred maintenance across departments, and other long-term obligations that will shape the city’s finances and services for decades. Rather than adding another major planning track now, many residents question whether Boulder should first resolve these large, existing commitments and see current housing and land-use changes take effect before opening the door to expansion discussions. The concern is about ensuring the city’s biggest current challenges are addressed successfully before taking on new ones. <h3>Jenny’s Take</h3>While the vote to continue studying expansion does not commit Boulder to growth, the decision to move forward now, before establishing clear guardrails on affordability or guarantees that any expansion would actually deliver the housing outcomes we say we want is concerning. Staff’s own data shows the middle-income ownership gap is smaller than previously assumed, and planning staff confirmed that the city’s existing area already has capacity to meet the forecasted need without immediate expansion. Planning Board members and county partners also urged a pause, recommending we first assess whether recent zoning and policy changes inside current boundaries can produce the housing outcomes Boulder needs. Yet Council voted to proceed anyway. At the same time, Boulder currently has roughly 600 homes for sale and about 2,000 rental units available, with around 1,300 rentals listed under $3,000 per month, the price range most often associated with “missing middle” households earning roughly $60,000–$120,000 annually. Council’s direction includes no requirement that future work deliver concrete affordability outcomes, types of housing the missing middle is looking for, or guardrails ensuring taxpayers see results rather than just more studies. There is no guarantee that spending roughly half a million dollars on feasibility work will produce housing affordable to working families, or that this effort won’t delay addressing more urgent priorities inside the city where people already live and work. In a fiscally constrained environment, with major investments needed and underway, in my opinion, it would have been more prudent to pause and link further planning to specific affordability outcomes rather than open-ended studies. On this question, I agree with the Planning Board, the County, and Council members Adams and Wallach that now was not the right moment to continue down a path with limited guardrails and uncertain benefit.