Blog

Hello Friends,This week’s meeting included two public hearings, with three votes within them.At a high level, council addressed: A resident-driven annexation tied to fire protection and a new citywide framework for major events like Sundance. Both passed unanimously. Here’s what happened.<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Spring Valley Annexation (Resolution 1381) and Agreement with Water Association</h3>Date of vote: 6/18/2026Outcome: Passed UnanimouslyClassification: Procedural<h3>What Happened</h3> Council considered annexing about 43 acres (36 homes) in North Boulder into the city with Residential Estate (RE) zoning. Key points:<ul><li>Annexation triggered by resident petition (69% support)&nbsp; </li><li>Primary goal: connect homes to city water for fire protection&nbsp; Residents will pay 100% of infrastructure costs via a Local Improvement District&nbsp; </li><li>Includes major upgrades: New water mains, hydrants, and pump station and road improvements for emergency access&nbsp; </li><li>No new development allowed (no subdivision, no added units)&nbsp;</li></ul>Important nuance: This is an annexation by election (rare in Boulder), meaning that council sets terms now and residents vote later. In addition, there is a $1M state grant (DOLA)is tied to timing, creating urgency&nbsp;Public comment was mostly supportive. They had concerns raised about cost allocation fairness and potential conflicts of interest in land transfers.<figure id="figure-14v3tzqxwmms4to0ca" data-full-width=""><img id="14v3tzqxwmms4to0ca" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1dOKi15vVwSdzoVLQzOhBujOTlNA99oW6z5SbzN7HWmlQLxR7fp1ef4JPslx4Vxc.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/1dOKi15vVwSdzoVLQzOhBujOTlNA99oW6z5SbzN7HWmlQLxR7fp1ef4JPslx4Vxc.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Why It Matters</h3> Annexation as a Wildfire Strategy: This is less about growth and more about risk management. The neighborhood sits in a high wildfire exposure area. According to the neighborhood and studies completed, the current water system is not adequate for fire response. This annexation effectively improves fire readiness, protects existing homes, protects the city edge overall.&nbsp;It’s also notable that residents are self-funding the improvements and no additional density is being added. This is a service-driven annexation, not a growth play.<h3>Public Hearing: Special Festival Events Ordinance (8751)</h3>Date of vote: 6/18/2026Outcome: Passed UnanimouslyClassification: Procedural<h3>What Happened</h3> Council adopted new rules to prepare for large-scale events like the Sundance Film Festival. &nbsp;What this does:<ul><li>Creates a new category: “Special Festival Event”&nbsp;<ul><li>Multi-day&nbsp; </li><li>15,000+ attendees&nbsp; </li><li>Can span public + private property&nbsp; </li></ul></li><li>Establishes a centralized permitting process&nbsp; </li><li>Updates rules for:&nbsp;<ul><li>Mobile food vendors&nbsp; </li><li>Temporary signage&nbsp; </li><li>Event operations and safety&nbsp;</li></ul></li></ul>Key points: Events are limited to 14 days, signs allowed temporarily (with size, safety, and timing limits), permit will requires detailed plans for security, traffic, and vendors. The city says this will allow them to manage congestion and competing events.Public comment was minimal, but included some opposition to Sundance itself.<h3>Why It Matters</h3> A New Playbook for Big Events: Boulder is stepping into a new category with Sundance.This ordinance moves the city from ad hoc event handling to formal framework. It acknowledges that existing “special event” rules were too small-scale. According to the city, it will creates a system that is faster, more centralized, more flexible. This is potentially a shift toward economic activation and arts and culture investment.&nbsp;<h3> </h3><h3>Jenny’s Take</h3> These were both unanimous votes, but they tell two very different stories about where Boulder is headed. Spring Valley Annexation is a reminder that sometimes government’s role is simple, provide basic infrastructure and reduce risk. This appears to be a practical, resident-driven solution to a real safety issue.&nbsp;The Festival Ordinance, on the other hand, signals something bigger. Boulder is intentionally evolving and preparing for regional/national-level events. With that comes opportunity and also growing pains. The key question moving forward is whether Boulder can execute well, adjust quickly, and balance community character with economic opportunity.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-13wx9w77v7ms4ujk5n"data-full-width><img id="13wx9w77v7ms4ujk5n" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/18rh1YlEWYytwox1UQ9jD7vqXL8ijx4pmqME2ARqyJtJU7OJpAH2gsWA2r0ToAbm.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>Thank you for reading!<h3> Jenny</h3>

Spring Valley Annexation and Special Events Ordinance

Hello Friends,Ballots for the June 30th Democratic Primary are arriving in mailboxes, and I’ve received quite a few questions about what is on the ballot and what these offices actually do. This guide is intended to provide a straightforward overview of the races you’ll see and why they matter.<h3>Jenny’s Pick Overview (Contested Races)</h3><h3>Statewide:</h3>Governor: Michael BennettTreasurer: Jeff BridgesSecretary of State: Jessie DanielsonAttorney General: Michael Dougherty<h3>Congressional District 2</h3>CU Regent: Edie Hooton<h3> Boulder County:</h3>County Treasurer: Rachel Friend There are also a few uncontested races. I want to recognize Representative to the US Congress Joe Neguse, Boulder County Sheriff Curtis Johnson, and Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann as extraordinary public servants that I am also honored to support. &nbsp;<h3>Election Information</h3>Election Day: Tuesday, June 30, 2026Ballots must be received by your County Clerk by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day. (Postmarks do not count.)You can:<ul><li>Mail your ballot early. </li><li>Drop it off at any official ballot drop box. </li><li>Vote in person at a Voter Service and Polling Center.</li></ul>If you haven’t received your ballot or need to register, update your address, or check your voter registration, visit <a data-mce-href="GoVoteColorado.gov" href="GoVoteColorado.gov" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GoVoteColorado.gov</a>.Who Can Vote?<ul><li>Registered Democrats receive a Democratic primary ballot. </li><li>Unaffiliated voters may choose to vote in either the Democratic or</li><li>Republican primary, but not both. </li><li>Registered Republicans vote in the Republican primary. </li><li>Minor party voters participate in their own party’s primary if applicable.</li></ul><h3>What’s on the Ballot</h3>GovernorJenny’s Pick: Michael Bennett. He is currently serving as a United States Senator for Colorado, a position he has held since 2009. He has a track record of working across the aisle to get things done, focusing on practical solutions rather than political extremes. He’s also deeply experienced in education and economic policy, with a reputation for prioritizing opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and long-term growth for Colorado.The Governor serves as Colorado’s chief executive, overseeing state agencies, proposing the state budget, signing or vetoing legislation, responding to emergencies, and setting the overall direction of state government. The next governor will inherit significant challenges, including balancing the state budget, addressing housing affordability, wildfire mitigation, transportation, education funding, and water resources.As you evaluate candidates, consider:<ul><li>Leadership and management experience </li><li>Budget and fiscal priorities </li><li>Public safety </li><li>Housing and land use </li><li>Education </li><li>Climate and wildfire resilience</li></ul><h3>Attorney General</h3>Jenny’s Pick: Michael Dougherty. His experience as the Boulder County District Attorney shows he can manage complex cases and bring a balanced, practical approach to the Attorney General role. He has built a strong reputation as a prosecutor who focuses on public safety while also supporting prevention and treatment programs to reduce repeat offenses.&nbsp;The Attorney General is Colorado’s chief legal officer. This office represents the state in court, enforces consumer protection laws, prosecutes certain statewide crimes, provides legal guidance to state agencies, and often becomes involved in major constitutional and public policy issues.The Attorney General also plays an important role in:<ul><li>Consumer protection </li><li>Environmental enforcement </li><li>Public corruption </li><li>Civil rights </li><li>Criminal justice </li><li>Multi-state litigation</li></ul><h3>Secretary of State</h3>Jenny’s Pick: Jessie Danielson. She is a Colorado State Senator that would bring a strong focus on protecting voters and ensuring secure, accessible elections for all Coloradans. Her legislative experience and emphasis on transparency and consumer protection show she would prioritize integrity, accountability, and public trust in the Secretary of State’s office.The Secretary of State oversees Colorado’s elections, campaign finance reporting, business registrations, and public records related to elections.Responsibilities include:<ul><li>Administering statewide elections </li><li>Maintaining election security </li><li>Registering businesses </li><li>Campaign finance transparency </li><li>Election certification</li></ul><h3> State Treasurer</h3>Jenny’s Pick: Jeff Bridges. He currently serves as a Colorado State Senator and has extensive experience in budgeting and financial policy at the state level. His background working on Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee demonstrates a strong understanding of fiscal management, making him well-suited to oversee the state’s finances as Treasurer.The State Treasurer manages Colorado’s financial assets and investments, oversees the state’s banking relationships, administers several financial assistance programs, and works to safeguard taxpayer dollars.<h3>University of Colorado Regent (Congressional District 2)</h3>Jenny’s Pick: Edie Hooton. She previously served in the Colorado House of Representatives. She has focused on education, environmental issues, and policies impacting families and students. She brings a strong commitment to student success and ensuring the university remains accessible and affordable. Her focus on thoughtful governance and long-term planning would help guide the university system in a way that balances academic excellence with responsible oversight.The Board of Regents governs the University of Colorado system, including Boulder, Denver, Colorado Springs, and Anschutz Medical Campus. Because CU is one of Colorado’s largest public institutions, these elections often have long-lasting impacts on higher education and research.Regents are responsible for:<ul><li>Hiring and evaluating the university president </li><li>Approving major budgets </li><li>Setting tuition policies </li><li>Long-term strategic planning </li><li>Protecting the university’s academic mission</li></ul><h3>Boulder County Treasurer</h3>Jenny’s Pick: Rachel Friend. She previously served on Boulder City Council, where she worked on local policy, budgeting, and community priorities. Her experience with municipal finances and decision-making would position her well to manage county funds responsibly and bring a thoughtful, transparent approach to the Treasurer role.Although this office receives less public attention, the County Treasurer has an important responsibility managing county funds, collecting property taxes, investing public dollars, and ensuring revenues are distributed appropriately to schools, municipalities, libraries, and special districts.The office focuses on:<ul><li>Property tax collection </li><li>Investment of county funds </li><li>Financial accountability </li><li>Distribution of tax revenues </li><li>Fiscal stewardship</li></ul> I hope this guide helps make your ballot a little easier to navigate.Most importantly, make a plan to vote and be sure your ballot is received by 7:00 p.m. on June 30. Thank you for reading!<h3> Jenny</h3>

2026 Democratic Primary Election Voter Guide

<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8749 – Arapahoe Avenue Safety Improvements</h3>Date of vote: 5/28/2026Outcome: Passed UnanimouslyClassification: Procedural<h3>What Happened</h3> Council held a second reading and public hearing on Ordinance 8749, which authorizes the city to acquire property interests needed for the Arapahoe Avenue Safety Improvements Project between 28th and 38th. The estimated total cost of the project is $12.07 million. The city received federal grant funds to implement the project and will provide a 20% match, $2.41 million, toward the total improvement costs. Matching funds are included in the approved Capital Improvement Program.The project includes protected bike lanes, multi-use paths, and transit improvements, while maintaining existing travel lanes. Because the current right-of-way is not wide enough, the city needs to acquire portions of adjacent properties, including easements and limited right-of-way. The ordinance allows the city to acquire those property interests through negotiation and purchase, and if necessary, through the power of eminent domain.Staff was clear that the intent is to negotiate in good faith with property owners and provide compensation based on fair market value. Eminent domain is not the preferred path, but the authority is being requested upfront to ensure the project stays on schedule and meets federal funding deadlines.This approach has been used in prior transportation projects, where the authority was granted but only used in limited cases when agreements could not be reached. After the public hearing and discussion, council voted to adopt Ordinance 8749. Here is a rendering of the proposed project.<figure id="figure-bo78vsyynms4v01oi" data-full-width=""><img id="bo78vsyynms4v01oi" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2cfDxhYt1ypReNa2s9V3j7mfxemQtJjobuCw5qE5hVbvWGCAVZhhiPe1o9lJELvu.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/2cfDxhYt1ypReNa2s9V3j7mfxemQtJjobuCw5qE5hVbvWGCAVZhhiPe1o9lJELvu.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3> Why It Matters</h3> This is a good example of a vote that is procedural in nature but still carries real implications.On one hand, this is standard practice. Infrastructure projects often require small pieces of land, and having eminent domain authority in place helps avoid delays and ensures consistency across property owners.On the other hand, it raises a broader question about how and when the city uses its authority to acquire private property, even when the intent is to negotiate first.It also highlights the reality that many of Boulder’s transportation goals, especially around safety and multimodal access, depend on expanding beyond existing right-of-way, which is not always straightforward.<h3>Jenny’s Take</h3> This is one of those votes where everything is technically routine, but still worth paying attention to.The city is not saying it will use eminent domain. It is saying it needs the option available in order to deliver the project on time. That’s an understandable position, especially with federal funding deadlines in play.At the same time, this is a reminder of how projects move from concept to reality. Plans like protected bike lanes and safer corridors often sound simple, but they require real tradeoffs, coordination, and sometimes difficult negotiations with property owners.In this case, council supported giving staff the tools to move the project forward. The real test will be in how that authority is used. <h2> Bonus Topic: Airport (again)- Reopening the Decision</h2><h3>What Happened:</h3> Council did not take a formal vote on the airport last week, but they did take two separate “nods of five” that effectively reset the timeline.First, there was agreement (a nod of five) to bring the airport back for a formal public hearing, even though a prior straw poll in April had already given direction to continue operations. This passed 8-1. Second and more significantly, there was a separate nod of five directing staff what to study before that hearing. Council asked staff to come back with analysis on two paths:Accepting FAA grant funding, which may include long-term or perpetual obligations to keep the airport operating (a position we may already be in) Identifying alternative funding sources that would allow the city to maintain more local control and potentially avoid those FAA obligationsThat second nod of five is what changes the trajectory. It passed 5-3 with support from:Nicole Speer Ryan Schuchard Tina Marquis Mark Wallach Rob Kaplan Notably, Rob Kaplan’s vote represents a shift from the direction he supported in April. Tara Winer abstained from this poll.Because of this added scope, staff now needs time to develop both options, which means the public hearing is pushed out by several months.<h3> Why This Matters:</h3> This is no longer just about whether to hold a public hearing, it’s about reopening the core policy question.Instead of advancing the prior direction (continuing operations and allowing staff pursuing FAA grant funding which is a staff administrative function), council has asked staff to rebuild the decision framework, analyze alternatives, and return later. That has real implications including delays in securing funding, extended uncertainty around the airport’s future, issues with finalizing the upcoming budget conversations, and additional staff time, legal review, and cost.To date, these delays have already cost taxpayers approximately $150,000, and that number will continue to rise as the process stretches out and staff is unable to move forward with all funding opportunities.<h3>Jenny’s Take:</h3>The April straw poll provided direction. Staff could have been moving forward on funding, strategy, and long-term planning. Instead, we are now, revisiting the same question, expanding the scope of analysis, and delaying action in a fiscal environment where every dollar counts.If council wants a formal vote, that’s reasonable. But layering in new alternatives after direction has already been given effectively resets the decision, not just formalizes it. And that comes with a cost in time, in money, and in momentum. At some point, we have to decide whether we are making decisions or continuously studying them.<figure id="figure-aa0fj1bvjjms4v1pkz"data-full-width><img id="aa0fj1bvjjms4v1pkz" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/7aLQsfCMgAylqAqALpjELNzOAfi8Uz9fLrgdgh2ShZ6nPsrPwUQ4An6XQELG1Px7.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"/></figure> Thank you for reading!<h3> Jenny</h3>

Arapahoe Avenue Safety Improvements

Hello Friends, This week’s meeting included a procedural, unanimous public hearing vote on budget adjustment. But the real discussion happened during Matters from Mayor and Council, and it focused on something that is quietly shaping major outcomes: straw polls.<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8750- Adjustment to Base Budget</h3>Date of vote: 5/21/2026Outcome: Passed UnanimouslyClassification: Procedural<h3> What Happened</h3>Council held a second reading and public hearing on Ordinance 8750, the city’s first 2026 Adjustment to Base Budget. I reported on the second 2025 ATB in December. As previously mentioned, this is a standard biannual budget process where the city adjusts the adopted budget to account for things like grants received, project carryovers, unanticipated costs, and dedicated funds that need to be reappropriated.For 2026 ATB1, staff recommended $18,585,227 in total budget adjustments, including about $13.1 million from fund balance, $5.3 million in revenue from mid-year grants, and $129,054 in additional unbudgeted revenue. Staff emphasized that most of the fund balance use was restricted or already dedicated to specific purposes, not broad new spending. Notable items included a $4.0 million carryover in Housing and Human Services for delayed Affordable Housing Fund projects like Rally Flats, 34th Street, and Spine Road, and a $7.3 million allocation for radio replacements across Police, Fire-Rescue, Open Space, and other services, advancing a planned 2027–2028 replacement to support critical communications infrastructure.After the public hearing and discussion, council voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 8750.<h3>Bonus Topic: Matters from the Mayor and City Council</h3>Council had a candid conversation about how straw polls are being used (especially during study sessions) and whether they are doing more than intended. A few things were made clear:Straw polls are not formal votes&nbsp; They are used to test consensus and guide staff&nbsp;But here’s the tension. Council members are concerned that straw polls are increasingly being used on big policy questions, not just minor direction. They are also concerned that the polls are indicating early sentiment, which can be personally problematic for individual council members. But staff relies on straw polling direction to move work forward. That creates a gap. Straw polls are not supposed to decide important issues, but they are often deciding what happens next.<h3>Why It Matters</h3>This isn’t theoretical. We’ve already seen this play out across major issues over the last few months: AirportThe recent direction to continue operating the airport came through a straw poll. That moment should be shaping funding strategy, legal positioning, and the long-term use of the site. However, because a few council members are now questioning the process, the airport will be discussed again this Thursday, and the delay has already cost the city nearly $150k in taxpayer funds.This is an interesting issue because continuing to operate the airport reflects the existing land use and technically should not require a public hearing or a vote to maintain the status quo. It is not council’s job to manage the taking of grants, that is an administrative function that lies with staff. But given the level of community interest, council has chosen to revisit the conversation and may bring it back for a formal public hearing vote. Watch for this next conversation on Thursday.Ballot MeasuresAt the March 12 study session, eight potential ballot measure options were presented to council. All eight were polled, and council recommended four via majority straw poll. After the meeting, Tara Winer decided she wanted to withdraw one of the measures she had supported. Because she was the fifth vote, that change would have removed the option from the list. She submitted the request via hotline. Staff advised that the straw poll direction could not simply be overturned and needed to return through agenda setting. When the conversation was revisited at the May 7 study session, staff ultimately presented that the ballot measure option she had attempted to withdraw was not a viable option for a potential ballot measure.Tip CreditAnother straw poll signal that helped guide what staff modeled and will bring back was on tip credit. Four options were presented, including the status quo. There was not a clear majority for status quo, as most council members appeared to support expanding the credit. Tina Marquis then voted for the status quo to keep that option alive. During the May 21 meeting, council and staff agreed that the status quo should generally remain on the table, and that the options presented for direction should focus on new areas for staff exploration.<h3>Jenny’s Take</h3>This conversation gets to a bigger question: When is a decision actually made and what problem are we trying to solve?On paper, what matters is the final vote. Straw polls, or a nod of five, are meant to set direction, prioritize staff time, and shape what options come back. The issue is not that straw polls exist. They are a useful tool. The issue council has is how much they are doing without being treated like final decisions, and how council members are perceived politically before the final vote.If direction is given too early, it can quietly lock in a path. According to Council, if they later try to revisit it, it creates confusion for staff and the public. That tension was clear in this discussion.&nbsp;The three things solved in this conversation were the feedback about consensus by renaming straw polls to “non-binding nod of five”, a change in rules and procedure that will clarify that informational items are allowed to be brought to study sessions, and a request for staff to provide look ahead items on the agenda.&nbsp;In my opinion, a “Non-Binding Nod of Five” functions the same as a straw poll. It will be interesting to see how staff manages situations where a council member changes their position after giving that direction under a new name. I see this largely as an optics issue. Council is getting pressure from the community on the direction they are giving, so they are working to make it feel less like a vote.&nbsp;The real weight is the final vote, which is why I only track public hearing final reading votes. Council members can change their minds at any time before that. I do take issue that we are currently delaying important conversations and forward movement because the current process may make individual council members appear unfavorable to their voters.&nbsp; Council was elected by the community and should stand by any vote or poll taken throughout their term without needing to get so far in the weeds that we are focusing on a process that is primarily an image problem, instead of the large city issues that should be prioritized. I hope that this conversation puts this issue to rest so we can get to the real business of the city.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-daxf9niqa8ms4vejei" data-full-width=""><img id="daxf9niqa8ms4vejei" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/278UeTY1ScBkbUR61JVPqfbM9EE0D6XmpeyTn7CqOEGd9CzhAiOluDFLdtIJ4Vmf.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/278UeTY1ScBkbUR61JVPqfbM9EE0D6XmpeyTn7CqOEGd9CzhAiOluDFLdtIJ4Vmf.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Thank you for reading!<h3> Jenny</h3>

Budget - Adjustment to Base

The May 7th City Council meeting included two public hearings that each play a different role in how Boulder evolves. One was a straightforward preservation decision. The other was a broader code cleanup that, while technical, touches a lot of moving pieces.<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Historic Landmark Designation (745 University Ave)</h3>Date of vote: 5/7/2026Outcome: Passed UnanimouslyClassification: Procedural<figure id="figure-8b5a10xwasmp43588o"data-full-width><img id="8b5a10xwasmp43588o" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/33OYMwn56exSJj1TRXEUyLqSkYjj2WNkAr9cUzFAkcRV7dKhNIga6EkF2Pu5F8WP.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 to designate the property at 745 University Avenue as an individual historic landmark under Boulder’s preservation code. The process followed the standard quasi-judicial format with staff presentation, public comment, and council deliberation. Council ultimately approved the designation. <h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8745 (Code Cleanup and Clarifications)</h3>Date of vote: 5/7/2026Outcome: Passed 5-1Classification: Density<figure id="figure-xu90ew32xomp434dsb" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="xu90ew32xomp434dsb" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/bHJJj4tD9Abfafc1U9cHZO3KX6fN8cTC6j8yyCsQwru85yzqNDhy3494YCodf4v1.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/bHJJj4tD9Abfafc1U9cHZO3KX6fN8cTC6j8yyCsQwru85yzqNDhy3494YCodf4v1.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> <h3>What Happened</h3>The second public hearing was the second reading and consideration of Ordinance 8745, which amends multiple sections of city code, including:<ul><li>Title 7 (Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Parking)&nbsp; </li><li>Title 9 (Land Use Code)&nbsp; </li><li>Title 10 (Structures)&nbsp;</li></ul>The purpose of the ordinance is to:<ul><li>Fix errors in existing code&nbsp; </li><li>Clarify language&nbsp; </li><li>Adjust certain standards related to height, use, and form&nbsp;</li></ul>This is what’s often referred to as an “omnibus” or “code cleanup” ordinance. It doesn’t introduce one major policy shift, but instead bundles a series of smaller technical changes across the code. Some notable updates discussed:Use Table and StandardsThe use table was updated seven years ago to include a combined floor area limit, driven by concerns about too much office space in business districts. &nbsp;In practice, this has created a significant administrative burden for small businesses trying to obtain licenses. Staff recommended removing this requirement.&nbsp;Accessory DwellingsClarifies utility requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).&nbsp;AMPS ParkingAllows parking in an existing driveway when a garage is converted to living space.&nbsp;Site Review / Height ModificationsExpands eligibility for height modification requests for three-story buildings. This amendment would allow for applications to increase building height from 38’ to 55’. There are currently nine categories that qualify for consideration; this adds a tenth for Community, Cultural, Educational, Recreation, and Entertainment uses. Here is the breakdown of the new structures that could apply for a height limit modification under this change:<figure id="figure-36hjzbapqlfmp42zc25"><img id="36hjzbapqlfmp42zc25" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/cMGxAlt6qjijg7mxHeFBW8Wq6j48q8lM2uFL0LbrxGfUlCHKUlHIsNKfnQ6Mt1tI.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="no-rounded" data-aspect="3:2" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/cMGxAlt6qjijg7mxHeFBW8Wq6j48q8lM2uFL0LbrxGfUlCHKUlHIsNKfnQ6Mt1tI.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure><h3>What It Means&nbsp;</h3>Landmark Designation&nbsp;Historic designation decisions are permanent. Each one incrementally shapes:<ul><li>Preservation of Boulders history&nbsp; </li><li>Character of existing neighborhoods&nbsp; </li><li>The balance between preservation and future growth&nbsp;</li></ul>Even when they move forward without much debate, they are long-term land use decisions. Ordinance 8745This is where things get more nuanced. Boulder has adopted roughly 25 land use code amendments over the past five years. Staff works on the amendments to the code which is part of an ongoing process as the city responds to real-world implementation and feedback. These updates adjust development standards that remove friction points or, in some cases, introduce new ones. Here is a list of the 25 amendments over the last five years:<figure id="figure-kledbq1odemp4315fu" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="kledbq1odemp4315fu" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/28oeDwORkax6xhv0mlgy5IcFWzORXN0Kgmbe0Y5gX1Ju0W0FdnfZck8hZOwcAWJz.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/28oeDwORkax6xhv0mlgy5IcFWzORXN0Kgmbe0Y5gX1Ju0W0FdnfZck8hZOwcAWJz.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>When the city proposes these changes in this format, where everything is bundled together, it can be difficult to fully evaluate the impact of each individual change.<h2>Jenny’s Take</h2>On the first public hearing, I’m aligned with council.This was a straightforward application of the historic preservation process. The criteria were met, the process worked as intended, and these designations help protect the character of existing neighborhoods.On the second public hearing, I’m aligned with Mark. Not because code cleanup isn’t important, it is, but because of how these packages function in practice. Bundling a wide range of changes into a single ordinance makes it easier to move them forward without fully vetting each one. Some are truly clerical. Others have meaningful policy implications.The height modification change is a good example. Expanding the categories eligible to move from 38’ to 55’ significantly broadens where that increase can occur. In my view, the range of uses included here is too broad for something presented as a technical update.When Mark asked why this was being brought forward as part of a code cleanup, the response from staff was fairly vague. That’s a signal worth paying attention to. A “cleanup” ordinance can quietly shape how the land use code operates going forward. I think it’s reasonable to slow down just enough to make sure each change is doing exactly what we intend.In this case, while I agree with the majority of the code changes, I would have preferred pulling the proposed amendment to 9-2-14(b) out of Ordinance 8745 and directing staff to bring it back as a separate work plan item for more focused discussion.<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-1x5sme9qlmp433wec" data-full-width=""><img id="1x5sme9qlmp433wec" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/11N7vVUxcCCHGYB6Dpl55KKFnDppMeGSyJrXythw6SZR1KhI5cqnL2CV2ADNwANn.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/11N7vVUxcCCHGYB6Dpl55KKFnDppMeGSyJrXythw6SZR1KhI5cqnL2CV2ADNwANn.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> &nbsp;&nbsp; Thank you for reading!<h3>Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record&nbsp;

Historic Landmark Designation and Code Clean Up

<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>