Banner

Jenny on the Record tracks Boulder City Council decisions, analyzes what’s on the agenda, and breaks down how your elected leaders vote clearly, objectively, and in plain language.

As a former candidate and lifelong community advocate, I’m here to bring transparency, context, and a balanced, results-focused perspective to local government. There are only about 20 City Council meetings until the next election, let’s stay informed!

I will be sending email updates the Monday after each Council meeting.


Accountability doesn’t end on Election Night, it STARTS there.

Jenny on the Record logo with a tree inside a green circle next to the text.

View of mountainous landscape with rugged peaks and buildings in the foreground under a partly cloudy sky.

Text

<p class="large">I am a longtime Boulder community leader, small business owner, and former City Council candidate. </p>
<p class="large">After years of running, serving, and working alongside Council members, I created <strong>Jenny on the Record</strong> to help residents stay informed, engaged, and empowered. This platform is about politics, clarity, and accountability. I believe Boulder deserves transparent, balanced leadership and that starts with giving residents the tools to see what’s really happening inside council chambers.</p>

Image

Recent blog posts

<p>Date of Vote: December 4, 2025<br></p><h2>What happened:<br></h2><p>Council voted unanimously for Ordinance 8733, the final 2025 budget adjustment (ATB2). This update reflects what actually occurred throughout the year including new grants awarded, reimbursements received, and transfers needed to complete projects already in motion. Nearly all of these dollars come from one-time sources, partnerships, or external funding, not new taxes. Total Supplemental Adjustment: $16,042,65.</p><figure id="figure-6e8kkx9kghmiwfugra" data-full-width=""><img id="6e8kkx9kghmiwfugra" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/39xriuN1fVh0QcZQdC9S33VAOAHSaDr7OXTyCQnvD76t86Zmr2rs1ckT1Vd8aGYT.png" alt="city council meeting" title="city council meeting" 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="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/39xriuN1fVh0QcZQdC9S33VAOAHSaDr7OXTyCQnvD76t86Zmr2rs1ckT1Vd8aGYT.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Why it matters:<br></h3><p>ATB2 shows how the City's priorities shifted in real time. Instead of what we expected to spend, this reflects what we had to spend, most notably in wildfire response, safety infrastructure, land acquisition, multimodal transportation, and water-resilience upgrades.</p><p>The adopted budget shows the plan. ATB2 shows the reality.<br></p><h3><strong>Top 5 Fund Changes: Where Revenue Came From &amp; Where It’s Going</strong></h3><h3><strong>1) Open Space Fund: $3.18M</strong><br></h3><p><strong>Revenue</strong>: $201k fuels-mitigation grant, $100K wildfire reimbursement, $2.6M fund balance</p><p><strong>Use</strong>: $2.63M mineral rights acquisition + mitigation &amp; stewardship work</p><h3><strong>2) Governmental Capital Fund: $1.95M</strong></h3><p><strong>Revenue</strong>: $1.5M Dairy sale, $657K radio infrastructure reimbursement, $99K insurance</p><p><strong>Use</strong>: Sundance capital upgrades ($1.5M) + Public Safety radio replacements</p><h3><strong>3) General Fund: $1.75M</strong></h3><p><strong>Revenue</strong>: $1M wildfire reimbursement, $400K ambulance non-compliance fees, $300K police OT reimbursement</p><p><strong>Use</strong>: Wildland readiness, EMS stabilization, police staffing backfill</p><h3><strong>4) Transportation Fund: $1.08M</strong></h3><p><strong>Revenue</strong>: $200K CU + $200K RTD partnership funding, $179K federal grants, $258K HOP adjustments</p><p><strong>Use</strong>: 30th Street multimodal &amp; Downtown Station work, plus streetlight acquisition overrun</p><h3><strong>5) Water Utility Fund: $1.39M</strong></h3><p><strong>Revenue</strong>: $900K wildfire-infrastructure grant, $388K broadband offset, $52K turf conversion</p><p><strong>Use</strong>: Climate + wildfire hardening, utility locator staffing, water-efficiency programs</p><h3>Special Note: Resolution 165: $100M Western City Campus Appropriation<br></h3><p>While separate from ATB2, <strong>Resolution 165</strong> was passed unanimously in the consent agenda on 12/4 and <strong><em>is one of the largest single appropriations the City has ever made.</em></strong> The Council convened as BMPA, to carry this through. This was not counted on my scorecard because it did not require a public hearing.</p><p>Boulder Municipal Property Authority (BMPA): A legally separate entity that City Council convenes as when purchasing or financing major capital assets on behalf of the City. It allows Boulder to issue financing such as Certificates of Participation (COPs) without voter approval, holds property during repayment, and lease facilities back to the City until the debt is fully paid. The City will make annual lease payments, similar to a mortgage, until the debt plus interest is fully repaid, most likely out of the general fund.</p><p><strong>Background</strong>: The Alpine-Balsam property, purchased in 2015 and being redeveloped under the Alpine-Balsam Area Plan, is the site for the new Western City Campus, a hub for consolidated City operations. Housing, flood protection, mobility improvements, and community uses will occupy the remaining parcels.</p><p>Resolution 161 (March 2025) authorized the City to issue $100M in Certificates of Participation (COPs). Resolution 165 as passed last week, appropriates the full $100M and activates it as spendable construction funding, turning authorization into execution.</p><p><br><img id="lw7g6iboagmiwfgdlj" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2fhqmGb27wC0lVnBG9IzRQJIhYWxvs7Dy3kCMHvDOmw7vWNYLOvQI1xst15Ph18y.jpeg" alt="city infrastructure" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2fhqmGb27wC0lVnBG9IzRQJIhYWxvs7Dy3kCMHvDOmw7vWNYLOvQI1xst15Ph18y.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" style="aspect-ratio: 16 / 9;"></p><h3>What to Watch<br></h3><p>As the Western City Campus moves forward, the public should watch how far over the $100M it grows, and how long-term debt service impacts future budgets. It will also matter whether consolidation produces operational savings sufficient to justify borrowing at this scale, and whether we see consistent transparency around spending, timeline, and overruns. In addition, Alpine-Balsam-related obligations (including outstanding tax settlements) should remain visible, as they have already required supplemental appropriation.</p><p>Full lifecycle investment: land + demolition + construction + infrastructure may eventually land in the $230M–$270M range depending on scope, inflation, and escalation.</p><p>This is a long horizon project. Oversight will matter. This is the moment where planning becomes a real financial obligation.<br></p><figure id="figure-uovsbkjs1miwfgj0t"><img id="uovsbkjs1miwfgj0t" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/3767bcz2uYNzqaNxjoIHIvS21mrljoUPN1AT5zxTlEaKJOev7wpGouR3IK7HNDNc.jpeg" alt="community gathering" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/3767bcz2uYNzqaNxjoIHIvS21mrljoUPN1AT5zxTlEaKJOev7wpGouR3IK7HNDNc.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h3>Jenny’s Take:<br></h3><p>8733 tells the story of the year we actually had. Wildfire, safety, land stewardship, water resilience, and transportation needs reshaped the budget. These dollars reflect recovery, adaptation, and infrastructure, not new programs or added growth.</p><p>Resolution 165 is bigger than a line item, it’s a <strong>generational spend</strong>. As Boulder moves forward with the Western City Campus, I believe the community deserves clear reporting on costs, milestones, overruns, and anticipated savings. The decisions we make now will shape budgets for decades.</p><p>The budget shows intention. The appropriations show impact. And $100 million deserves eyes on it every step of the way.<br></p>

Council Approval of Ordinance 8733 (ATB2): How They Voted

<p>Date of Vote: November 20, 2025</p><h2>What happened:</h2><p>City Council unanimously approved the final Use Review for the Williams Village II redevelopment project at Baseline &amp; 30th. This approval allows the mixed-use, multi-building redevelopment of the current Williams Village shopping center site. The project includes several hundred new residential units, ground-floor commercial space, and a heavily pedestrian-oriented internal design.</p><p>The application triggered a special use review because it exceeded certain thresholds in the code, primarily maximum residential density, building height parameters, and site layout changes that required enhanced review. After multiple rounds with Planning Board and significant design revisions, Council approved the final plan without additional conditions. Council approved the measure unanimously.</p><figure id="figure-x8etyn5mtmidexj8r" data-full-width=""><img id="x8etyn5mtmidexj8r" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1fFChvpP030BFjlF9h924tMSjpgPmbiUyDWrDOPSbl1ydIImItydaWhwZPmwbvuL.png" alt="Boulder redevelopment" title="Boulder redevelopment" 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="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1fFChvpP030BFjlF9h924tMSjpgPmbiUyDWrDOPSbl1ydIImItydaWhwZPmwbvuL.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>Why it matters:</h2><p>Williams Village II will be one of the larger redevelopment projects Boulder has approved in recent years, bringing hundreds of new homes near major transit corridors and campus. Supporters view it as an opportunity to add needed housing and revitalize an aging commercial site.</p><p>However, the project also highlights Boulder’s deeper tensions around density, parking minimums, transportation ideology, and commercial viability. The final design is extremely pedestrian-centric (including a woonerf-style layout), and commercial success may hinge on accessibility, parking, and neighborhood impacts.</p><p>This vote is a case study in how Boulder’s land-use decisions are increasingly shaped not just by zoning or need, but by ideological pushes in design requirements, even when developers raise feasibility concerns.</p><figure id="figure-qy2abghahamidf7yci" data-full-width=""><img id="qy2abghahamidf7yci" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/33GcKtYqzgeslXhYnVG6KsOlOrbf2D6fiUOYtKO0JGMRo7qJVNZC8gANzUNJmqq8.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="1:1" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/33GcKtYqzgeslXhYnVG6KsOlOrbf2D6fiUOYtKO0JGMRo7qJVNZC8gANzUNJmqq8.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>Jenny’s Take:</h2><p>I went into this process expecting to rank this vote as center-left. I support redevelopment of this area, and the site absolutely needs reinvestment. But after watching both Planning Board and Council discussions, it became clear the final design was driven more by planning ideals than by what’s realistically feasible.</p><p>Council directed the developer toward a woonerf-style (“cars last”) design, pushed for multiple experimental circulation concepts, and asked them to “invent something” when they raised concerns. The result is a beautiful plan, but one that may create real-world issues:</p><ul><li>Commercial viability with very limited, inconvenient parking</li><li>Overflow parking into the already-impacted Martin Acres neighborhood<br></li><li>No on-site affordable-housing requirements</li><li>Design decisions driven more by ideology than functionality</li></ul><p>I hope it succeeds. But Boulder should ground major redevelopment in feasibility, accessibility, and long-term neighborhood impact, not experiments that place the burden on residents, nearby communities, and small businesses. Based on these issues I am ranking this vote at <strong>far-left.</strong></p><p><br></p>

Council Approval of the Williams Village II Redevelopment: How They Voted

<h2>Transportation Funding / Approved Citywide Transportation Maintenance Fee</h2><p>Date of Vote: October 23, 2025</p><h2>What happened:</h2><p>The Boulder City Council passed the 2026 budget, which includes a newly approved property-based transportation maintenance fee.&nbsp;</p><p>Residential detached dwellings are slated to pay approximately $54 per year; multifamily dwellings about $42 per unit.</p><p>Non-residential properties will be charged based on the “trip-generation” model (e.g., 1,000 sq ft of retail or office space is charged a set amount).</p><p>The fee is projected to raise around $6.4 million annually, starting mid-year 2026.</p><figure id="figure-1jnc66h6mi0mx579"data-full-width><img id="1jnc66h6mi0mx579" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/dMplcvGDScKIDbkwotjDutvhsOAGxvC6FtiILwAixaVYyBmnQRWmC0Z5UrJxH7lz.png" alt="Boulder, Colorado" title="Boulder, Colorado" 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="null" data-positionY="null" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure><p><br></p><h2>Why it matters:</h2><p>The city argues that its transportation system like roads, sidewalks, multi-use paths, and signals are becoming seriously underfunded, with existing sales tax streams insufficient to keep up. This fee represents a new dedicated revenue stream, shifting cost burdens from more general taxes to a property-based assessment.</p><p>Because the fee was passed as part of the budget and not via a voter-approved ballot measure, many view it as a hidden tax. For residents, small business owners, and property-owners, this means an additional annual charge regardless of income, use, or the broader tax burden.</p><figure id="figure-vbz8ji4z6gmi0nsxx1"><img id="vbz8ji4z6gmi0nsxx1" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/214NpXSzwrdGFn7wJDSNpvF03muyAzPNYUM9d6nMuJpszxKHxVFVsc1RcXHpeeL8.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 50% 25%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="50%" data-positiony="25%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/214NpXSzwrdGFn7wJDSNpvF03muyAzPNYUM9d6nMuJpszxKHxVFVsc1RcXHpeeL8.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 50% 25%;"></figure><h2>Jenny’s Take:</h2><p>I opposed this fee and would have voted <strong>no.</strong></p><p>First, because the nature of the fee is effectively a tax, and taxes of this sort demand voter approval. Doing this through a budget line item circumvents that democratic check.</p><p>Second, I believe our existing budget resources, including sales and use tax revenue and other general funds, should be sufficient to cover core transportation infrastructure maintenance. We should not place another separate burden on residents and property-owners to fill a budget gap created by rising costs or deferred maintenance.</p><p>The shift from general tax funding to a property-based fee changes the policy principle: It makes infrastructure costs into monthly or annual fees rather than shared public investment. That is a direction I find troubling, especially for longtime residents and small business owners who already carry a large share of Boulder’s cost-of-living pressures.</p><p><strong>In short:</strong> Infrastructure is essential, but how we pay for it matters. When a fee targets property owners directly and bypasses the ballot, it raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and fiscal priority. Boulder must ensure every dollar of existing revenue is accounted for before layering on new fees.</p><p><br></p>

Boulder's New Transportation Utility Fee: How they voted

Mountain town nestled below Flatirons. Residential community in Boulder, Colorado with dramatic Rocky Mountain backdrop.

<h2>Inclusionary Housing / Redevelopment Impact Fee</h2><p>Date of Vote: November 7, 2025</p><h2>What happened:</h2><p>City Council voted <strong>(7-2)</strong> to approve a new $11-per-square-foot impact fee on single-family home demolitions, replacements, and large additions. The money will go toward Boulder's affordable-housing fund as part of the city's inclusionary-housing program.&nbsp;</p><p>Homes under 2,000 square feet and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are exempt, and the first 500 square feet of an addition is excluded. Staff estimate the fee could generate around $1.2 million annually for affordable-housing initiatives.</p><figure id="figure-a5mck9v0fmhwjp7mp"data-full-width><img id="a5mck9v0fmhwjp7mp" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/31ovhqDYCBmT899fGY6WReeZktkbCgDdE411luHZsJEPVRaTkQJlOjmNGBjwL1rY.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="null" data-positionY="null" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure><p><br></p><h2>Why it matters:<br></h2><p>This ordinance extends inclusionary-housing requirements into the single-family redevelopment space - an area previously not subject to such fees. Supporters argue it helps offset the loss of smaller, more affordable homes and ensures that wealthier redevelopment contributes to the city's affordability goals.</p><figure id="figure-cl6i6cgf7mhwjpctw"><img id="cl6i6cgf7mhwjpctw" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2FPgqoRbhDuTWTNK46aq8Zac5Cqvyr6VUcJReNAvSr26Ph1LNabyBu9jyVdfmiUV.jpeg" alt="affordable housing" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2FPgqoRbhDuTWTNK46aq8Zac5Cqvyr6VUcJReNAvSr26Ph1LNabyBu9jyVdfmiUV.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><p>Opponents, however, warned that this adds another financial burden on long-time residents trying to renovate, expand, or stay in their homes - particularly seniors and families.</p><h2>Jenny's Take:<br></h2><p>I would have voted <strong>no</strong> on this measure. Not because I oppose funding affordable housing - <em>I strongly support it - </em>but because I believe this particular approach crosses a line that makes it harder for existing residents to remain in Boulder. Boulder cannot afford to keep over-charging the very people who make this city a community.</p><p><br></p>

Boulder's New Housing Impact Fee: How they voted

Panoramic view of a south Boulder, Colorado neighborhood at dawn with the Flatirons and mountains behind. Autumn foliage.

<p>Welcome to <strong>Jenny on the Record</strong> – Tracking Boulder’s decisions and giving the community a voice.&nbsp;</p><p>Hi friends, The campaign may be over, but Boulder’s story isn’t. Over the past few years, I’ve run with and against every current Council member. I’ve seen what promises were made, what priorities were set, and how hard it is for the community to keep track once the yard signs come down. That’s why I've launched <strong>Jenny on the Record</strong>, a biweekly newsletter that breaks down what City Council is voting on, how they voted, and what it means for you. No fluff, just facts. Context, clarity, and accountability.</p><figure id="figure-rrkq0mkf9bmhxixzou"><img id="rrkq0mkf9bmhxixzou" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2110587698/photo/ballot-box-with-american-flag-background.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=oMDqoWKGpLJmWiahj4hNsf_SrfE2h3HJYqEk7Kc2qsM=" alt="ballot box with american flag background" title="ballot box with american flag background" 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="null" data-positionY="null" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure><h2>The Need for Accountability</h2><p>Each issue will include:&nbsp;</p><p><strong>• The Record </strong>– a plain-language breakdown of the week’s key votes.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>• Jenny’s Take</strong> – my perspective as a moderate voice who believes in balance, not extremes.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>• Dear Jenny</strong> – your questions, comments, and frustrations about what’s happening in our city. </p><p>My goal isn’t to stir outrage, it’s to rebuild trust. Because the more we understand what’s happening in council chambers, the better equipped we are to shape Boulder’s future. Thank you for continuing to be part of this community. Let’s hold our leaders accountable together — vote by vote, promise by promise.&nbsp;</p><p>Warmly, </p><p><strong>Jenny Robins </strong></p><p><em><strong>Founder, Jenny on the Record</strong>&nbsp;</em></p><figure id="figure-lqk2pzwxurmhxiy48j"><img id="lqk2pzwxurmhxiy48j" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/26echHLZ5oqgrGwzvJH3xIQKXnpQ89hl7wtyfs4JWPcNMq0UW5G2EwGfj33DxiGc.jpeg" alt="team collaboration" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/26echHLZ5oqgrGwzvJH3xIQKXnpQ89hl7wtyfs4JWPcNMq0UW5G2EwGfj33DxiGc.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><p><br></p>

Accountability didn’t end on Election Night. It starts now.

Contact form

<h3>Contact Jenny</h3>
<p>Questions? Comments? Complete the form below to get in touch with Jenny.</p>