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

I am a longtime Boulder community leader, small business owner, and former City Council candidate. 
After years of running, serving, and working alongside Council members, I created Jenny on the Record 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.

Image

Recent blog posts

Hello Friends,After more than a year of studies, legal opinions, public hearings, straw polls, delays, and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars spent revisiting the same question, City Council finally made what was expected to be the defining decision on the future of Boulder Municipal Airport.This meeting centered on one fundamental question: Should Boulder continue operating its municipal airport and accept available FAA funding, or should it reject future FAA grants in an effort to preserve the possibility of closing the airport someday?After hours of discussion and approximately 70 public speakers, Council voted 8-1 to continue airport operations. However, one amendment adopted during the meeting means this issue will return to Council again. Given that fact, I am going to wait to classify this vote until the first grant is approved and this issue is concluded.<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Consideration of a motion to approve the continued operation of the airport in accordance with Boulder Revised Code 1981 sections 11-4 Airport</h3>Date of vote: 7/23/2026Outcome: Passed 8-1 with amendment<h3>What Happened</h3>City staff presented updated financial scenarios examining how the airport would perform under different funding models. At the heart of the discussion were two competing philosophies:Option 1: Continue operating the airport while accepting available FAA and CDOT grant funding to help maintain airport infrastructure.Option 2: Continue operating the airport but reject FAA grants, relying instead on local funding or limited state assistance in order to avoid expanding federal obligations. Staff also addressed the issue that has dominated nearly every airport conversation over the past two years: perpetuity.Many residents opposing FAA grants argued that accepting additional federal money would permanently give away the City's ability to determine the future of the airport. Staff and legal counsel explained that Boulder may already be operating under federal grant obligations due to grants accepted decades ago, including federal funding used to purchase airport property in 1959 and 1977, along with more recent FAA grants. Those obligations currently extend through at least 2040.Over the past eighteen months, Boulder has spent roughly $250,000 pursuing legal strategies surrounding this issue. While the City explored whether perpetual obligations could be challenged, the legal conclusion was essentially that the question is premature because Boulder remains contractually obligated through existing grant agreements until at least 2040.<h3> The Financial Scenarios</h3>Staff updated several funding models that compared airport finances through 2041. The key takeaway was straightforward:Scenario 1: Continue operating the airport while accepting FAA and CDOT grants. Generates about $29.3 million in grant funding and results in an estimated $8.4 million surplus by 2041, allowing nearly all planned capital improvements.Scenario 2: Continue operating without FAA grants. Grant funding largely disappears, only minimum maintenance is completed, and the airport is projected to run a $14.7 million deficit by 2041.Scenario 3A: Continue operating while preserving future closure options and accepting FAA grants. Produces nearly the same grant funding as Scenario 1 ($29.2 million) and ends with only a $735,000 deficit, making it the strongest option that preserves future flexibility.Scenario 3B: Reject FAA grants and rely primarily on state funding. Depending on the version, projected deficits range from approximately $7 million to $26 million, making these the least financially sustainable options.In short, staff's financial analysis consistently showed that accepting available FAA funding dramatically reduced the long-term cost of maintaining the airport compared with attempting to fund it locally.<h3>Public Comment</h3>Approximately 70 residents spoke during public comment.Supporters of continuing airport operations described the airport as:<ul><li>An important economic asset.&nbsp;</li><li>A training ground for future commercial, military, and public safety pilots.</li><li>An important part of Boulder's aerospace ecosystem.</li><li>A critical resource during floods, wildfires, medical emergencies, and search-and-rescue operations.&nbsp;</li></ul> Those opposed to accepting FAA funding focused primarily on:<ul><li>Aircraft noise.&nbsp; </li><li>Leaded aviation fuel.&nbsp; </li><li>Concerns over future land use.&nbsp; </li><li>The belief that accepting additional FAA grants could permanently limit Boulder's ability to repurpose the airport property.&nbsp;</li></ul>As with many airport meetings, public testimony reflected two very different visions for the airport's future.<h3>Council Action</h3>Council ultimately voted 8-1 to continue operating Boulder Municipal Airport. Before final approval, however, Council adopted an amendment proposed by Nicole Speer requiring that the next FAA grant agreement will return to Council for approval before acceptance. That amendment passed 6-3. In favor: Speer, Marquis, Schuchard, Brockett, Adams, WallachOpposed: Benjamin, Winer, KaplanWhile the amendment does not stop the City from accepting FAA grants, it adds another level of Council review before the next grant can be accepted.<h3>Why It Matters</h3>The vote largely settles the question of whether Boulder intends to continue operating its airport. It also acknowledges the financial reality presented by staff: maintaining airport infrastructure without federal assistance would place substantially greater costs on local taxpayers.However, because the next FAA grant must now return to Council for approval, the issue is unlikely to disappear entirely. Staff will need to determine how to implement the amendment, and the future grant decision will become political discussions rather than routine administrative actions.<h3> </h3><h3>Jenny's Take</h3>My opinion is that, overall, we are simply not in an economic position to be turning away money.&nbsp;This November, voters will likely see numerous tax measures from the City, County, and State. We owe it to taxpayers to manage the budget responsibly before asking them for more.Frankly, it surprises me that some of Council's strongest advocates for “fiscal responsibility”, including Nicole Speer and Mark Wallach, could argue that rejecting millions of dollars in available infrastructure funding is financially prudent. Whether someone likes the airport or not, it is one of the City's assets, and we have an obligation to maintain the infrastructure we already own.Another argument that repeatedly surfaced throughout the evening struck me as particularly odd: that this decision should be left to future councils or future generations. Why? Is this Council somehow less capable than those that came before it? Are today's challenges somehow less important than tomorrow's?The question is before us now. Continuing to postpone difficult decisions has become one of Boulder's defining habits. We have a long history of deferring maintenance, allowing infrastructure to deteriorate, and ultimately asking taxpayers to pay significantly more later. This was an opportunity to do the responsible thing today instead of continuing to kick the can down the road.I am also concerned about the amendment requiring Council approval of the future FAA grant. Because of that amendment, the City immediately missed out on a $150,000 grant, and it leaves the future feeling less certain than it otherwise would have been. Staff will now spend additional time and resources determining how to administer the amendment and bringing the future grant approval back to Council yet again. To me, the amendment felt more ideological than practical, and despite what appeared to be a decisive conclusion on airport operations, it ensures this conversation will continue consuming time, money, and staff resources.Finally, the meeting ended on an unexpected note. Councilmember Mark Wallach announced his resignation from City Council. Whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him, Mark dedicated many years to public service and was never afraid to engage deeply on difficult policy issues. I respect his service to Boulder and am genuinely disappointed to see him leave the Council. His departure marks the end of an era and will undoubtedly change the dynamics of the Council moving forward. Thank you for reading!<h3>-Jenny</h3>

Boulder City Council July 23rd Special Meeting

Hello Friends,After more than three hours of deliberation, City Council unanimously approved the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), as amended. This marks one of the most significant planning efforts Boulder undertakes and will help guide the city's growth and development for the next 20 years. As this was not a final approval of the document, I am not yet tracking it in the scorecard.If you only look at the final 9-0 vote, you might think the meeting was uneventful. It wasn't. Numerous straw polls and amendment votes throughout the evening shaped the final plan that Council ultimately approved.Over the last several weeks, the Planning Board and Boulder County Commissioners proposed numerous Conditions of Approval and Recommended Amendments to the BVCP.A Condition of Approval means that the body requiring the condition will approve the BVCP only if this change is included. If another approving body, such as City Council, does not accept that condition, the body that imposed it must reconsider its approval because it conditioned its vote on that language being included. The plan does not fail, but it returns to that body for reconsideration.A Recommended Amendment is different. Council may approve, modify, or reject it. If Council rejects the amendment, it simply falls away and does not move forward. There will be more conversation about these conditions and amendments over the next few months as the document cycles back through the approving bodies. I am going to start this Record a little different and begin with Jenny’s Take, as I think it is important to set the stage for the votes that you will see below.<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Jenny's Take</h3>Council Member Nicole Speer captured what I believe was one of the most important themes of the evening. Here is a snapshot of her comments: "Over the last two years, our community has invested so much time and energy into this plan. We created a thoughtful, balanced vision together through an inclusive process. Seeing major changes come forward at the last possible minute makes it difficult to evaluate them in the context of the full plan and sends the wrong message to the community that participated in good faith. To support changes of this scale, I need a process that is fair, predictable, and transparent. Tonight, my decision to oppose these last-minute amendments is based on my responsibility to the inclusive process we promised the community and the trust they placed in us."I share many of those concerns. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is one of the most consequential policy documents the city adopts. It establishes the vision that will guide land use, housing, transportation, economic development, environmental stewardship, and neighborhood character for decades. Because of its significance, I believe major policy changes should be introduced through the same transparent and inclusive public process that shaped the rest of the plan.Overall, I was concerned by the number and scope of the Planning Board's late-stage amendments. Many of them proposed significant changes to core policies involving housing, industrial land, airport operations, and future land use. While boards and commissions play an important advisory role and amendments are a valuable part of the process, changes of this magnitude deserve ample public notice, meaningful community engagement, and careful deliberation before becoming part of the city's long-term vision. I also believe the Future Land Use Map deserves the closest attention going forward. Although the BVCP does not rezone property, the land use designations adopted in this plan will influence future zoning decisions, redevelopment proposals, and where additional housing may be contemplated over the next twenty years. In many ways, these maps are the foundation upon which future councils will make land use decisions.I appreciate the time Council devoted to carefully reviewing every proposed condition and amendment before unanimously approving the BVCP as amended. This meeting wasn't simply about adopting a planning document, it was about defining the values and vision that will guide the future of the Boulder Valley. As the plan moves through its final approval process, I hope the same commitment to transparency, collaboration, and thoughtful public engagement continues to guide every step.<h3>Public Hearing: City Council public hearing and consideration of a motion to approve the major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan</h3>Date of vote: 6/25/2026Outcome: Passed Unanimously <h3> Conditions of Approval</h3>Housing Policy: "Full Spectrum" vs. "Affordable"&nbsp; This debate involved the language describing housing diversity. The Planning Board and Boulder County Commissioners proposed replacing references to "a full spectrum of housing types" with language emphasizing more affordable housing types and prioritizing middle-income housing.City staff recommended retaining the original language, explaining that limiting the policy to specific housing types could unintentionally constrain future housing strategies and reduce flexibility as community needs evolve. Staff also noted that middle-income housing is already addressed elsewhere in the plan.Council ultimately rejected the proposed changes on a 5-4 vote, retaining the original Policy 82 language. In Favor of Keeping the Original Language: Aaron Brockett, Matt Benjamin, Rob Kaplan, Taishya Adams, and Nicole Speer. Airport PolicyThe next topic was Policy 79, which addresses the future role of the Boulder Municipal Airport. At its June 16 meeting, the Planning Board approved substantial revisions to the airport policy, including removing references to flight training, aerial firefighting, and emergency medical flights while adding language related to noise management, cleaner aviation fuels, and electric aircraft. These changes were introduced during the Planning Board's final deliberations after the BVCP had been under development for many months.Council ultimately rejected the Planning Board's proposed airport revisions on a 6-3 vote.Council Members Voting to Retain the Original Policy: Tina Marquis, Nicole Speer, Rob Kaplan, Matt Benjamin, Aaron Brockett, and Taishya Adams. Beyond the airport itself, this discussion highlighted an important governance question: When should significant policy changes be introduced? Several council members expressed concern that substantial amendments to a years-long planning effort should receive adequate public review before becoming part of the city's long-range policy.Tribal Nations &amp; Indigenous PeoplesThe Boulder County Commissioners submitted three Conditions of Approval focused on tribal engagement, governance, and historical context.They proposed revising Policy 102 by removing the words "American Indian" from the title so it would simply reference Federally Recognized Tribal Nations, while also expanding the policy to apply to both the city and county.They also proposed modifying Policy 103 by removing references to the county's ongoing engagement with local Indigenous peoples, leaving that commitment as a city policy.Council approved both of these changes.Finally, the County requested removing the four-page "50 Years of Planning" historical narrative from the BVCP, arguing that it presented an incomplete history of planning in the Boulder Valley. Staff opposed deleting the section, explaining that it was intended to provide planning context, not serve as a comprehensive history, and suggested it could instead be moved to a companion website if the approving bodies could not reach agreement.Council rejected removing the historical narrative on a 7-2 vote, with Tara Winer and Mark Wallach voting in favor of its removal.Housing &amp; Future Land UseThe Boulder County Commissioners proposed several Future Land Use Map changes affecting Area II properties. Their proposal would have redesignated several properties from Neighborhood 1 to Rural to better reflect their existing character and long-term planning objectives.After discussion, Council approved the recommendation with an amendment, applying the Rural designation only to the Area II properties in Gunbarrel while leaving the remaining Area II properties unchanged. The amendment passed 7-2, with Matt Benjamin and Nicole Speer voting no.<h3>Amendments</h3>In addition to the Conditions of Approval, Council considered 14 Recommended Amendments submitted by the Planning Board (11), County Planning Commission (3), and Boulder County Commissioners (1). Unlike Conditions of Approval, these were advisory recommendations that Council could approve, modify, or reject individually.Planning Board Recommendations<ul><li>Future of Transportation: Remove airport from the listing of transportation services. Council denied this change 8-1&nbsp; </li><li>Industrial Land Use: Proposed allowing residential uses as a supporting use within the Industrial Future Land Use designation. Staff opposed the change, citing conflicts with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the city's goal of preserving industrial land for employment uses. Council passed 7-1 </li><li>Welcome to the Plan: Adjusts the words from “move around” to “access destinations and opportunities”. Council passed 8-1 </li><li>Future of Housing: Adds small houses to small lots as new text. Amendment added by Tara Winer to include multi-unit buildings near transit. Council passed 6-3 </li><li>Future Land Use Strategy: Added "streets" to the definition of accessible areas, which staff supported. Council passed 8-1 </li><li>15-Minute Neighborhoods: Proposed requiring monitoring of progress toward 15-minute neighborhoods. Staff viewed this as an operational commitment rather than policy and did not recommend the change. Council denied this change 8-1&nbsp; </li><li>Neighborhood 1: Proposed removing language that new development should maintain compatible massing and setbacks with surrounding neighborhoods. Staff opposed removing these protections,saying they were important to preserving neighborhood character while allowing additional housing. County Commissioners denied this one so council did not consider. </li><li>Parks: Added language encouraging efficient parking design and recognizing transit stops as part of park access. Staff supported these changes. Council passed 5-4</li></ul> Future Land Use Map (3 amendments):<ul><li>Change the Unity Church and Goose Creek Plaza area from Neighborhood 1 to Neighborhood 2.&nbsp; </li><li>Redesignate 18 East Boulder properties from Innovation &amp; Production Hub to Industrial (contingent on allowing housing in Industrial areas).&nbsp; </li><li>Redesignate 10 East Boulder properties from Industrial to Innovation &amp; Production Hub.&nbsp; </li><li>Staff opposed all three map changes, stating they conflicted with the recently adopted East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and had not gone through public review. Council denied all three these changes due to the fact that no community engagement was done for these last minute changes.</li></ul>Boulder County Commissioners RecommendationAdd language clarifying that the city may provide limited utility services outside city limits when necessary to address health and safety concerns. Staff noted this authority already exists under state law, but did not object to adding the clarification. Council passed this 7-2County Planning Commission RecommendationsRevise the energy policy to specifically reference renewable energy generation. Council passed this 8-1Boulder City Council RecommendationsRob Kaplan introduced this amendment to section 89- Fire Adapted Communities. The city and county are committed to creating and sustaining a fire adapted community through a coordinated, region-wide approach to fire and wildfire resilience and prevention throughout the Boulder Valley. Strategies will address the full spectrum of fire and wildfire risk, including urban conflagration, while enhancing public safety, promoting equitable protection and supporting efficient and effective response and recovery. The city considers an integrated approach to wildfire risk, including emergency management planning and egress capacity, when evaluating development that affects residential density within mapped wildfire ignition zones. Council approved this change 8-1What Happens Next?Although City Council voted to approve the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the process is not yet complete. Because the BVCP is a joint planning document between the City of Boulder and Boulder County, four approving bodies must adopt the exact same version of the plan before it becomes final. Here's what happens next: Step 1: Staff prepares a revised draft. City staff will incorporate all of the amendments approved by City Council and compare them with the actions previously taken by the Planning Board, Boulder County Planning Commission, and Boulder County Commissioners. Staff will prepare a revised version that reflects Council's direction.Step 2: The revised plan returns to the Planning Board and Boulder County Commissioners in July. Both bodies will review the changes made by Council and determine whether they agree with the revised language. If they concur, they will vote to adopt the updated version.Step 3: Final adoption by City Council.Once all of the approving bodies have agreed &nbsp;on identical language, the plan returns to City Council for final adoption. If additional changes are made during the reconciliation process, Council will have the opportunity to review those changes before taking its final vote.June 25 was a major milestone, but it was not the final chapter. There will be at least one more opportunity for Council and the public to review the final reconciled plan before the BVCP is officially adopted. Thank you for reading!<h3> -Jenny</h3>

Boulder City Council June 25th Special Meeting

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>

Boulder City Council June 18th Regular Meeting

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>

Boulder City Council May 28th Special Meeting

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>

Boulder City Council May 21st Regular Meeting

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;

Boulder City Council May 7th Regular Meeting

<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

Contact form

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