Blog

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

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

2026 Board & Commission Appointments

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

Public Hearing: Hogan-Pancost Annexation

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

Area III-Planning Reserve

<h3>Scorecard Update</h3>Before jumping into this week’s vote, a quick note about the scorecard. Based on feedback from readers, I’ll be updating how council votes are categorized. The scorecard will show issue-based rankings, focusing on how votes align with key policy areas that consistently shape Boulder’s future such as Land Use &amp; Density, Housing &amp; Affordability, Climate &amp; Sustainability, Transportation &amp; Mobility, Taxes &amp; Fees, and Process &amp; Procedural. The current scorecard accounts for the votes we have had to date.<figure id="figure-z7meta5ochmlfjvs5x" data-full-width=""><img id="z7meta5ochmlfjvs5x" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/dLQrJ6x2DGUy01eBrq8yrLyCEXFuTaRnQanW01mAlE3VT9Mw26wrQiSguRalQ3xp.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/dLQrJ6x2DGUy01eBrq8yrLyCEXFuTaRnQanW01mAlE3VT9Mw26wrQiSguRalQ3xp.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> The goal remains the same: to track how council members vote. This adjustment simply aims to make the framework clearer and keep attention on the decisions themselves. Now, on to this week’s vote.<h2>Public Hearing: Arapahoe Avenue Rezoning (5501 &amp; 5505 Arapahoe)</h2>Date of Vote: 2/5/2026Vote: Unanimous&nbsp;<figure id="figure-vw0rr87v6mlfjx7go"data-full-width><img id="vw0rr87v6mlfjx7go" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/bXJ3oR5F7S4yRoYfVipYWN43IcXzqAIwPKJ0FUhjXp6WzQxDR0QUtBAiupdx0SBb.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><h3> What Happened</h3>Council held a public hearing on ordinances to rezone two properties along Arapahoe Avenue at 5501 and 5505 Arapahoe from Business–Community (BC-1) and Industrial zoning to Mixed Use 4 (MU-4).The rezoning also includes adjacent right-of-way areas along Arapahoe Avenue and 56th Street.After public testimony and council discussion, the proposal was approved unanimously, allowing the sites to move forward under MU-4 zoning, which supports a broader mix of uses and typically allows more intensive redevelopment than the previous zoning.Background of PropertyFor decades, the most visible property on this block was the Boulder Dinner Theatre (BDT Stage) at 5501 Arapahoe Ave., &nbsp;a staple of Boulder’s cultural scene since its founding in 1977 by Ross Haley. The dinner theatre became one of Colorado’s longest-running performance venues, hosting musicals, plays, concerts, and community events for more than four decades. In 2022, the then-owners Gene and Judy Bolles sold the building and property to a real estate investment group, marking the beginning of the end of BDT Stage at that location. Under the sale agreement, the company was able to operate through a final season, but the sale signaled that its days in that building were largely finished and aligned with broader redevelopment plans for the corridor.&nbsp;Earlier history along this stretch of ArapahoeHistoric records from the broader 5500–5700 blocks of Arapahoe show that these addresses have long been part of Boulder’s early eastside commercial and social life. In the mid-20th century, the site and nearby parcels hosted businesses like Roxwood Park Cottages and other roadside establishments that served travelers and locals. This helps us reflect on the evolution of Arapahoe from a rural road into a significant urban corridor.What Was the Property Zoned Before this Change: The properties were primarily zoned BC-1 (Business–Community 1), with a portion of adjacent land zoned IG (Industrial–General). BC-1 (Business–Community 1) allows:This zoning is intended for auto-oriented commercial uses along major corridors, and typically includes, Restaurants and retail, Offices and service businesses, Entertainment venues (like the former Dinner Theatre), Auto-oriented commercial uses, Limited residential, usually secondary to commercial uses. Development under BC-1 tends to produce single-purpose commercial sites, large parking lots, and lower-intensity buildings. IG (Industrial–General) allows:Industrial zoning typically supports, Warehousing and light industrial uses, Flex industrial and commercial spaces, Contractor yards and service operations, Limited office or commercial uses tied to industrial activity These zones are focused on employment and service uses, not housing or mixed-use neighborhoods. MU-4 (Mixed Use) Zoning Allows: The new zoning, Mixed Use 4 (MU-4), is designed for major corridors and activity centers where the city expects future growth to occur. MU-4 allows Mixed-use buildings combining residential and commercial, Housing as a primary use, Offices, retail, restaurants, and services, Higher building intensity than BC-1 or IG, Development designed for more walkable, urban-style corridors. In short, MU-4 zoning makes it possible to build housing and mixed-use projects, rather than just standalone commercial or industrial uses.<h3> Why It Matters</h3> Rezoning decisions are important because they determine what type and scale of development can occur in the future. While no project is approved by this vote, the zoning change sets the framework for what may eventually be built at these locations along one of Boulder’s primary corridors.These corridor rezonings are part of a broader shift toward mixed-use redevelopment along major transportation routes, where the city expects future housing and commercial growth to occur.<h3>Jenny’s Take</h3> This vote is pro-density. It is less about a single project and more about the continued direction of redevelopment along Arapahoe, where council appears aligned that mixed-use growth should continue.At the same time, Boulder already has a significant amount of underutilized mixed-use commercial space and empty apartments in that area. Many residents question whether simply adding more zoning capacity will actually deliver affordability or community benefits. Rezoning creates opportunity, but it doesn’t guarantee the outcomes people hope for.As always, my goal here is simply to track how decisions are made and how council votes shape Boulder’s long-term direction. Density votes matter, because zoning decisions quietly set the stage for what comes next. <h2>State Policy Highlight</h2><h3>Council Reviews State Housing Bill HB26-1001</h3> As part of council’s approval of Boulder’s 2026 Policy Statement on Regional, State, and Federal Issues, council discussed how the city should respond to pending state legislation, including HB26-1001, often referred to as the Home Act.The bill would significantly limit how much control cities have over housing development by allowing certain housing projects to move forward regardless of local zoning rules, including restrictions on density, height, and location.In practical terms, this means projects meeting state criteria could bypass many of Boulder’s local land-use standards. Housing built under the bill could also be entirely market-rate, beyond Boulder’s existing inclusionary housing requirements.Supporters argue the bill is needed to address Colorado’s housing shortage and speed production statewide. Critics, including several council members and myself, worry it would override Boulder’s long-standing local planning framework and reduce community input into where and how growth occurs. <h3>Jenny’s Take</h3> I strongly disagree with this bill. While increasing housing supply is an important statewide goal, HB26-1001 goes too far by stripping local governments of their ability to decide where and how growth should occur.Boulder has spent decades building community-supported plans that balance housing, infrastructure, environmental constraints, and neighborhood impacts. This legislation would override much of that local decision-making and replace it with a one-size-fits-all state mandate, regardless of community context or existing planning efforts.Housing solutions need to account for infrastructure, transportation, neighborhood compatibility, and community input, not simply remove local control in hopes that more market-rate development will solve affordability challenges.The question isn’t whether we need more housing. The question is whether the state should eliminate local authority to decide how that housing fits into our community. On that point, I believe Boulder should strongly oppose this bill. <h2>Dear Jenny,</h2> Question (from Mark B.) With the upcoming demolition of Sprouts, the Dark Horse, Carelli’s, Cosmos, the liquor store, BBQ, DQ and other businesses at the Williams Village shopping center, all to be replaced with denser redevelopment and less car-friendly retail, has the city studied whether losing affordable small-business retail harms Boulder’s sales tax base? That plaza is always busy and seems like an important revenue source. Answer: Great question and I hope residents continue raising concerns like this as redevelopment projects move forward.To my knowledge, the city has not released a clear, standalone analysis specifically examining the relationship between losing busy, affordable neighborhood retail centers and long-term impacts on sales tax revenue. Most public discussions instead focus on housing production, land-use goals, or transportation patterns rather than whether replacing high-volume, car-accessible retail with higher-rent mixed-use development will ultimately maintain or grow the city’s tax base.And you’re right about what many people experience on the ground: that shopping center is consistently active and supports multiple locally owned businesses that depend on convenience and customer volume. Places like this often generate steady, everyday sales tax revenue without drawing much attention.During last year’s campaign, some council members suggested that slowing sales tax growth was partly due to Boulder’s aging population. I respectfully disagree with that framing. Boulder didn’t suddenly forget how to shop.A more practical question is whether retail areas remain easy, safe, and convenient for everyday customers. If shopping becomes inconvenient or frustrating whether due to parking constraints, safety concerns, or access challenges. Many residents simply choose to shop elsewhere in neighboring communities. Cities around us are actively competing for those customers.The open question with redevelopments like Williams Village is whether future retail space will achieve the same level of activity as the current center, especially if rents increase, vacancies last longer, or access becomes more complicated during and after redevelopment. That matters because sales tax remains one of Boulder’s primary funding sources for city services.None of this means redevelopment is automatically wrong, cities evolve and sites change over time. But it does raise a fair policy question: how do we ensure redevelopment strengthens both housing supply and the long-term fiscal health of the city?That conversation is likely just beginning.<h3>-Jenny</h3>

City Council unanimously approves Arapahoe Avenue Rezoning 

<h2>Hello friends!</h2>At the January 22 meeting, City Council held two public hearings, one to update the city’s purchasing code, and another with far broader implications: advancing major zoning changes in several residential neighborhoods through the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.This week’s Dear Jenny features an interesting question about council priorities, and I think it’s a timely one.I hope you enjoy!Here we go. <h2>The Record:</h2><figure id="figure-qtr56x5cwmmkv9u74p" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="qtr56x5cwmmkv9u74p" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1e2S77BYqo1G798zoOr4DNadOETottseCHnr0WXEWFHo9E79U58C9VXAZ0tmFQTX.png" alt="boulder skyline" title="boulder skyline" 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/1e2S77BYqo1G798zoOr4DNadOETottseCHnr0WXEWFHo9E79U58C9VXAZ0tmFQTX.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>Council Approved: Ordinance 8731- Purchasing Procedures Update</h2>Date of Vote: January 22, 2026<h3>Vote: Unanimous | Ranking: Procedural</h3>What Happened: &nbsp;Council approved updates to the city’s purchasing and procurement code. The changes expand the City Manager’s authority to solicit and accept certain offers, enter into revenue-generating contracts, set bid-evaluation criteria (including equity and sustainability factors), and adopt administrative rules to implement and enforce purchasing policies.What it Means:In practice, it shifts more decision-making power from City Council to the City Manager’s office. That means:&nbsp;<ul><li>More flexibility and speed in contracting</li><li>Fewer individual purchasing decisions coming before council</li><li>Procurement standards (including sustainability and equity criteria) can change through administrative rules rather than public votes</li></ul><h3>Jenny’s Take</h3>This vote is about administration, but procedural changes still shape outcomes.Giving staff broader discretion should improve efficiency, but it also reduces transparency and public visibility into how large contracts are awarded, how vendors are evaluated, and how taxpayer dollars are ultimately spent.This is the kind of policy that won’t make headlines, but over time it quietly determines which businesses can compete, how costs are controlled, and how accountable the system remains. It’s worth keeping an eye on how these changes are used.<figure id="figure-05o2j0b0zcmkvae5ov" data-full-width=""><img id="05o2j0b0zcmkvae5ov" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1bnFjpiRE1LFw8dKOipEIkPv6qFmSHsTMb1vYUvZLgzlTLJ2FHr7tfh7PxabESVD.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/1bnFjpiRE1LFw8dKOipEIkPv6qFmSHsTMb1vYUvZLgzlTLJ2FHr7tfh7PxabESVD.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>Council Approved: Community Change Requests – BVCP Update</h2>Date of Vote: January 22, 2026<h3>Vote: Unanimous | Ranking: Far Left</h3>What Happened:&nbsp;Council voted unanimously to approve a list of community change requests to be studied as part of the upcoming BVCP update, with amendments. The staff recommendation options were to “Consider Further”, “Do Not Consider Further”, or rank as “Ineligible”. Link to packet here. This agenda item begins on page 67.What was submitted:<ul><li>34 total requests&nbsp;<ul><li>22 land-use designation changes</li><li>3 planning area map changes</li><li>9 policy/text changes</li></ul></li></ul> Staff recommendations:<ul><li>Consider Further: All requests that increase density</li><li>Do Not Consider Further: All requests to change land to open space</li><li>Do Not Consider Further or Ineligible: All policy requests except one</li></ul> Council amendments:<ul><li>Removed Request #10 the Sioux Drive / Frasier Meadows high-density expansion</li><li>Added back Policy Requests #26 (wildfire) and #27 (Agriculture water delivery) for staff review</li></ul> Public Comment:Seven residents spoke during public comment.Six of the seven speaking addressed and opposed the Sioux Drive / Frasier Meadows rezoning request directly, citing neighborhood impacts, scale, and concerns about advancing large zoning changes through the BVCP rather than a site-specific public process.Council’s removal of Request #10 followed this testimony. Policy Requests Council Added Back:Despite staff recommending denial, council voted to include the following two policy items for further review:<ul><li>Request #26- Regional Wildfire Mitigation Program</li></ul>A proposal calling for a funded, regional wildfire mitigation program addressing ignition sources, fuel management, structural hardening, and emergency response. Staff recommended denial because it goes beyond the BVCP’s “vision-level” scope into program design and implementation.<ul><li>Request #27- Agricultural Water Infrastructure Partnerships (Policy 9.01)</li></ul>A request to add policy supporting city-county partnerships with farmers, ranchers, and ditch companies to fund and upgrade agricultural water delivery systems. Staff also recommended denial because it extends beyond the plan’s scope and planning area. Examples of Policy Requests That Were Denied:Several substantial policy proposals were not advanced. For example:<ul><li>Request #30: Require resident initiation for annexation of Area II lands</li><li>Request #31: Clarify that community benefits do not automatically justify added building height</li><li>Request #32: Require resident initiation for Gunbarrel annexation</li><li>Request #33: Evaluate and revise land use map designations for accuracy, focusing on Open Space classifications, and enhance land use designation map legibility.</li></ul><h3>Jenny’s take:</h3>I am extremely concerned about how much zoning policy is being shaped through the BVCP community change request process.The comprehensive plan is supposed to be a high-level, long-range vision document. In practice, it is increasingly being used to quietly advance large-scale zoning changes that later move forward with far less public attention when the actual code amendments appear.Even with the Sioux Drive portion removed, we are still talking about major land-use changes affecting entire neighborhoods and public assets like the Iris ballfields, bundled into a technical planning process most residents will never follow.If the city wants to pursue significant up-zoning, it should do so directly, clearly, and with project-specific public engagement, not through a planning framework that quietly sets the table for future decisions most people won’t realize have already been made.That is why I am ranking this vote Far Left: not because of one parcel, but because of the broader direction systematically expanding density through a process that minimizes visibility, limits meaningful public participation, and reshapes neighborhoods long before residents understand what’s happening. Council had the chance to review and remove whatever they so chose. What troubles me was the inconsistency in how specific properties were treated.When the Sioux Drive / Frasier Meadows request came up, Tara introduced its removal, and council agreed by straw poll (7–2, with Nicole and Ryan asking for more information). Yet when Mark raised concerns about the Iris property, pointing out that rezoning the entire parcel now could cause the city to lose long-term leverage over publicly owned land, the council dismissed the idea of adding safeguards or conducting further evaluation.One property received caution and restraint. The other, publicly owned land tied to community assets like the ball fields, moved forward without similar concern.That contrast, plus the sheer amount of upzoning council allowed to move forward, is hard to ignore.When this comes back in the spring, it will be critical that residents pay attention. Decisions made now will determine whether the city preserves flexibility over that land or quietly gives it up through zoning changes before the public fully understands what is at stake.Some may argue this vote was merely procedural, not ideological. I strongly disagree.Votes like this are the first real steps in shaping the future of our city. Approving evaluations for this many high-density zoning changes in a single motion is not neutral. It sets direction. It signals priorities. And it lays the groundwork for what will later be presented as “already vetted” or “previously considered.”That is why this vote matters. This is not procedural. This is how the future land map of Boulder is drawn, one “technical” vote at a time.<figure id="figure-8su4ol2qs4mkv9mevi" data-full-width=""><img id="8su4ol2qs4mkv9mevi" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/194dx45ID6FTzD7syBckteIF225pdi3xEEPYyz3tSUbDxwxnvcNBelAlvtRChZgr.png" alt="community park" title="community park" 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/194dx45ID6FTzD7syBckteIF225pdi3xEEPYyz3tSUbDxwxnvcNBelAlvtRChZgr.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>Quick Recap: Non-Public-Hearing Votes</h2>In addition to the public hearing items, the Boulder City Council approved several procedural and administrative actions that did not include formal public testimony.<ul><li>2026 council committee appointments</li><li>Utility easements at Alpine-Balsam</li><li>Scheduling of a future special meeting</li><li>A formal council letter to Xcel Energy</li></ul>Council unanimously approved sending a formal letter to Xcel Energy outlining concerns with the city’s franchise and energy partnership. The letter focuses on reliability problems (including recent power shutoffs and outages), Xcel’s failure to meet 2022 and 2024 emissions targets, slow progress on partnership commitments like fleet electrification and streetlight acquisition, rising affordability issues for residents and businesses, and public-health risks tied to the legacy operations and cleanup of the Valmont coal plant. It also sets expectations for future performance and makes clear that council will evaluate Xcel’s progress on climate goals, wildfire mitigation, affordability, and system reliability as part of future decisions about the franchise agreement.&nbsp;I support council putting these concerns in writing, but letters alone don’t change outcomes. &nbsp;Xcel has heard many of these same issues before reliability, wildfire risk, emissions targets, affordability and progress has been slow. What will matter is whether council is willing to tie future franchise decisions and regulatory leverage to measurable performance, not just promises. If this letter becomes part of a clear accountability framework, it could be meaningful. If not, it risks being another well-written document that makes residents feel heard without materially improving service, safety, or costs. Warmly,<h3>Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record&nbsp;

Boulder City Council January 22nd Votes: Purchasing Procedures Update and Community Change Requests - BVCP Update

<h2>Happy New Year!</h2>It feels like forever since I’ve reported on a City Council vote. After the Council break, January 8th was our first voting meeting since December 4. Due to the nature of this Special Meeting, there was a lot of votes taken this meeting so stay with me! Council did meet jointly with Planning on December 11, but no votes were taken.Now, let’s get to it. <figure id="figure-n2ah3f7f4rmkbc7c9c"><img id="n2ah3f7f4rmkbc7c9c" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2157292407/photo/downtown-boulder-co.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=t0sY56RC1lH1Vn_SfLv7dC92CfUC4PnJtw3UwZfmuf0=" alt="Downtown Boulder, CO" title="Downtown Boulder, CO" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 5% 85%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="5%" data-positiony="85%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2157292407/photo/downtown-boulder-co.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=t0sY56RC1lH1Vn_SfLv7dC92CfUC4PnJtw3UwZfmuf0=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 5% 85%;"></figure><h2>Public Hearing Votes - January 8, 2026 </h2>Outcome: Unanimous Approval on All Public Hearing ItemsAt its January 8, 2026 Special Meeting, the Boulder City Council unanimously approved all items that came forward as public hearings. While these votes were largely procedural, they included binding legal actions related to annexation, special district governance, and permanent changes to city code.I am classifying all votes as “procedural” because they don’t reflect ideological direction or policy preference. These are staff driven actions Council is required to take to execute existing law, approve contracts, settle litigation, adopt technical code updates, or complete statutory processes like annexations and district budgets. In most cases, any council, progressive or moderate, would vote the same way. Since these votes don’t signal a governing philosophy, they are classified as procedural.Why This Was a Special Meeting and Why Special Districts MatterThis meeting was designated a Special Meeting because Council needed to act in multiple legal roles, each governed by different state statutes and timelines:<ul><li>City Council (municipal legislative authority)</li><li>Downtown Commercial District Board (a special improvement district)</li><li>Knollwood Metropolitan District Board (a metropolitan district)</li></ul>Special districts are independent governmental entities created under state law to finance or manage specific services or infrastructure (such as downtown improvements, utilities, or development-related costs). They can levy fees or taxes within their boundaries and operate separately from the city’s general fund even though City Council members often serve as the governing board.If this sounds familiar, I covered how metro districts and special districts work in more detail in my last newsletter, which I encourage readers to revisit for a deeper dive.<h2>The Record: </h2><figure id="figure-qhzx7y8rlpmkbdh856" data-full-width=""><img id="qhzx7y8rlpmkbdh856" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/4V2EDwR53riJQq4ii7vkDorDQyt4hWYM1Sgl0dfpgFjBKm2zGR5dtf8TyWgzI4oj.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/4V2EDwR53riJQq4ii7vkDorDQyt4hWYM1Sgl0dfpgFjBKm2zGR5dtf8TyWgzI4oj.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Council Approval of Annexation of 915 5th Street (LUR2024-00062) </h3>Date of vote: January 8, 2025<figure id="figure-hewxoy946vmkbdi1fd" data-full-width=""><img id="hewxoy946vmkbdi1fd" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/23goq6BhS2yfzsLFMr08CQNfgZi8k0RXpXVZ6Z2aYewSRlXD6laAMOMZjhAbXIUp.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/23goq6BhS2yfzsLFMr08CQNfgZi8k0RXpXVZ6Z2aYewSRlXD6laAMOMZjhAbXIUp.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>What Happened:&nbsp;</h3>Council approved:<ul><li>Two Findings of Fact resolutions confirming the annexation met state statutory requirements</li><li>Two final (second-reading) annexation ordinances, formally bringing the property into the City of Boulder</li><li>A final ordinance consenting to inclusion in the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, enabling municipal water service</li></ul>Why the city agreed to annex:<ul><li>Met state annexation criteria</li><li>Was contiguous to the city</li><li>Allowed the property to receive city water service, which cannot occur without annexation</li><li>Applied a consistent Residential–Estate (RE) zoning designation, with no discretionary rezoning request</li></ul> Property &amp; Ownership: The packet identifies the applicant/owner as a private property owner. The site totals approximately 0.96 acres, annexed in two phases for technical compliance with state annexation lawJenny’s take: This was not a policy-driven upzoning or redevelopment decision, it was an annexation tied to service provision. Still, annexations quietly expand city boundaries and long-term service obligations, which is why they deserve transparency even when they’re uncontested. <h3>Council Approved Knollwood Metropolitan District: 2025 Budget Appropriation</h3>Date of vote: January 8, 2025<figure id="figure-59jbtlktc9mkbdio0a" data-full-width=""><img id="59jbtlktc9mkbdio0a" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/4sEidPRood09UFW986QkOanLhKFErDDIRv9Ha0d0CkITGockobFbrCApUgRCmTLL.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/4sEidPRood09UFW986QkOanLhKFErDDIRv9Ha0d0CkITGockobFbrCApUgRCmTLL.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>What Happened:&nbsp;</h3>Council approved a resolution appropriating funds already within the district to pay existing operating expenses and liabilities for the 2025 fiscal yearWhat this does not do:<ul><li>Does not approve new debt</li><li>Does not authorize new development</li><li>Does not raise new taxes</li></ul> Why this matters: Metro districts can collect revenue and incur obligations independently of the city’s general fund. Annual budget approvals are legally required and are one of the few times the public sees these entities on a council agenda.Jenny’s take: Metro districts aren’t inherently good or bad, but they are powerful. If you want a refresher on how they work and why oversight matters, see my last newsletter for a full explanation. <h3>Council Approval of Ordinance 8721: Development Fees, Landscaping, Water &amp; Wildfire Code Updates </h3>Date of vote: January 8, 2025<figure id="figure-04mw5gn69tmkbdj95v" data-full-width=""><img id="04mw5gn69tmkbdj95v" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/19Za2DiHsIhGh1gOZpQ5mG9uP1azwSRKVrvCSlrBD8XKjGlvWy64peqackjdmqHQ.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/19Za2DiHsIhGh1gOZpQ5mG9uP1azwSRKVrvCSlrBD8XKjGlvWy64peqackjdmqHQ.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>What Happened:</h3>This ordinance finalized a bundle of code amendments across multiple titles of the Boulder Revised Code.Development Application Fees. What Changed: The ordinance updates and aligns development application fees to better reflect:<ul><li>Actual staff review time, Technical complexity of applications, Updated cost recovery assumptions</li><li>Adjustments to site review and use review fees</li><li>Updates to building and planning-related application charges</li><li>Changes intended to reduce subsidy from the general fund for private development review</li></ul>&nbsp;These fees are paid by applicants, not taxpayers at large.<h3>Practical Examples:</h3>Landscaping &amp; Water Standards The ordinance strengthens requirements such as:<ul><li>Limits on high-water-use turf</li><li>Increased use of low-water or native plant species</li><li>Updated irrigation efficiency standards</li><li>Clearer rules around landscape area calculations</li></ul>These standards primarily affect new development and significant remodels, not routine home maintenance.Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) Code Provisions:Updates to Boulder’s modified WUI Code include:<ul><li>Enhanced defensible space standards</li><li>Vegetation management requirements near structures</li><li>Fire-resistant material expectations in high-risk areas</li><li>Alignment with updated wildfire risk mapping</li></ul>These provisions are intended to reduce structural ignition risk in wildfire-prone areas. especially at the city’s edges.Water Conservation &amp; Service RequirementsThe ordinance also updates:<ul><li>Requirements to avoid waste of water</li><li>Maintenance obligations for service lines and fixtures</li><li>Authority for enforcement when water systems are not properly maintained</li></ul>In practice, this strengthens the city’s ability to require repairs or efficiency upgrades when water loss or misuse is identified.Jenny’s take: This ordinance is a reminder that many of Boulder’s biggest policy shifts happen through technical code changes, not sweeping resolutions. The goals are broadly supported, but the real test will be how these standards are implemented, especially for homeowners, small builders, and legacy properties. <figure id="figure-25f1s8utmumkbc7hn5"><img id="25f1s8utmumkbc7hn5" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1630473265/photo/aerial-view-of-boulder-city-colorado-usa.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=LgZiyCIEcpvjMk0oHZa7zTV2nXeQQHOJUVCZrCLWvrI=" alt="Aerial view of Boulder City, Colorado, USA." title="Aerial view of Boulder City, Colorado, USA." 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" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1630473265/photo/aerial-view-of-boulder-city-colorado-usa.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=LgZiyCIEcpvjMk0oHZa7zTV2nXeQQHOJUVCZrCLWvrI=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>Quick Recap: Non-Public-Hearing Votes </h2>In addition to the public hearing items, the Boulder City Council approved several procedural and administrative actions that did not include formal public testimony.<ul><li>Xcel Energy letter<ul><li>Postponed. Council said they postponed the Xcel letter to review and strengthen it and residents pushed them in public comment to make it tougher. The meeting was dominated by the City’s presentation praising its own response to the windstorm and power shutoff. Voting that same night on a letter demanding accountability from Xcel would have most likely disrupted that narrative and reopened uncomfortable questions about what the City itself could have done better. We will need to watch this at the next meeting to be sure the city is holding Xcel accountable.</li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Settlement agreement<ul><li>Approved a $91,332 settlement related to a 2025 water main break that damaged a private residence, avoiding litigation and additional legal costs </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>City fiber lease extension<ul><li>Approved a 20-year extension of an existing lease for use of four strands of city-owned dark fiber connecting several downtown municipal and commercial buildings, with modest rent adjustments and updated maintenance terms </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Sundance Institute agreement<ul><li>Approved a governing festival and city services agreement with the Sundance Institute, authorizing staff to finalize operational details tied to downtown use and city support </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>EV charger permitting policy<ul><li>Adopted a resolution affirming support for electric vehicle adoption while formally opting out of the state’s EV Charger Permitting Model Code, preserving local control over permitting standards </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Code housekeeping ordinance<ul><li>Adopted an emergency ordinance codifying previously approved ordinances and technical corrections into the Boulder Revised Code (no new policy changes)</li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>First-reading land use actions (no final approval yet)<ul><li>Introduced (first reading only):<ul><li>An annexation ordinance for property near Kewanee Drive / South Boulder Road</li><li>Rezoning ordinances for 5501 and 5505 Arapahoe Avenue (BC-1 → MU-4)</li></ul></li><li>These items will return for public hearings and second readings before any final approval </li></ul></li></ul><img id="5msio4qlvmkbc7jm6" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg selected" style="aspect-ratio: 16 / 9;" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2156966176/photo/environmental-concept-with-hand-holding-planet-earth-showing-sustainable-and-eco-friendly.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=FUa4_NPJuF0nOR3XA5X87H877pa-EocMxW9zuPxM4NQ=" alt="renewable energy" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2156966176/photo/environmental-concept-with-hand-holding-planet-earth-showing-sustainable-and-eco-friendly.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=FUa4_NPJuF0nOR3XA5X87H877pa-EocMxW9zuPxM4NQ=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-selected="1"><h2>Final Thought </h2>This Special Meeting was about closing the loop on decisions already underway. Annexations, district governance, and code changes that now carry legal force.Unanimous votes don’t mean low impact. They often mean consensus on steps that quietly shape the city for decades.That’s why I keep a record.<h3>-Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record&nbsp;

Blog

2026 Board & Commission Appointments

Public Hearing: Hogan-Pancost Annexation

Area III-Planning Reserve

City Council unanimously approves Arapahoe Avenue Rezoning

Boulder City Council January 22nd Votes: Purchasing Proce...

January 8th Boulder City Council Special Meeting: Key Dec...