Blog

<h3>Hello Friends,</h3>Last week, Boulder City Council took its first formal vote on the 2027 Recommended Budget, a $552.6 million spending plan that touches nearly every city service, from police and fire to parks, pools, transportation, housing and open space.This year's budget is particularly challenging. The city is facing a projected $6.3 million General Fund shortfall, revenues are flattening, and labor, health insurance, utilities and other operating costs continue to rise. But balancing the numbers is only part of the conversation.This budget also raises bigger questions about priorities, core services and how Boulder makes these decisions. And notably, some of the city's advisory boards, including the Parks &amp; Recreation Advisory Board, where I serve, did not simply give their departmental budgets approval. Lastly, election season is here, and later this week I'll be releasing the Jenny on the Record Voter Guide. My goal is to make a complicated ballot a little easier to understand. I will list who the candidates are, where they fall on some of the biggest issues facing Boulder, and importantly, how would they have voted.I'll also break down some of the major ballot questions so you can see what you're actually being asked to vote on, and what it could mean for you. There is a lot on this year's ballot. Stay tuned.Here we go.<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8777: The 2027 City Budget</h3>Date of vote: 10/1/2026Outcome: Vote: 7–1YES: Brockett, Benjamin, Kaplan, Marquis, Schuchard, Speer and WinerNO: AdamsCategory: BudgetInformation: This is the main ordinance formally adopting the city's 2027 budget.<figure id="figure-kgmza2rksamuvze57k" data-full-width=""><img id="kgmza2rksamuvze57k" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/38zWJDNgYlup4GyP0LjpErMzobGtCs18fUslpPYSVsd8uw6xKoF6JpmbvVBckDEK.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/38zWJDNgYlup4GyP0LjpErMzobGtCs18fUslpPYSVsd8uw6xKoF6JpmbvVBckDEK.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8778: Property Tax Mill Levies</h3>Date of vote: 10/1/2026Outcome: Passed unanimously 8–0Category: BudgetInformation: This ordinance establishes the city's property-tax mill levy for taxes collected in 2027. The proposed total city levy is 11.648 mills, including general city operations, public safety, community housing and the permanent Parks &amp; Recreation fund.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-kzdqyozy6muvzf50k" data-full-width=""><img id="kzdqyozy6muvzf50k" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1fuB3w1I2PimhW9iO5yUjNtkd2ugfwICL1GA3hTtUPmD1M2ygFiLyDgy0iL71wGE.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/1fuB3w1I2PimhW9iO5yUjNtkd2ugfwICL1GA3hTtUPmD1M2ygFiLyDgy0iL71wGE.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Public Hearing: &nbsp;Ordinance 8779: Appropriating the Money</h3>Date of vote: 10/1/2026Outcome: Passed unanimously 8–0Category: BudgetInformation: This is the companion ordinance that actually appropriates the money needed to pay the city's expenses and liabilities in 2027.<figure id="figure-rx090u8uzmuvzfkct" data-full-width=""><img id="rx090u8uzmuvzfkct" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/34flTHtsdFHYXHo40AkK157rPfX4gk6XMHHlxzWbDeAaPxvNdchJ8j9EDk5aqMDC.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/34flTHtsdFHYXHo40AkK157rPfX4gk6XMHHlxzWbDeAaPxvNdchJ8j9EDk5aqMDC.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8780: Changes to City Fees and Taxes</h3>Date of vote: 10/1/2026Outcome: &nbsp;Vote: 7–1YES: Brockett, Benjamin, Kaplan, Marquis, Schuchard, Speer and WinerNO: AdamsCategory: BudgetInformation: This ordinance makes a long list of changes to fees and taxes throughout the Boulder Revised Code, touching everything from government administration and licensing to health and sanitation, transportation, parking, parks and public spaces.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-6svqkfk5u6muvzg0l2" data-full-width=""><img id="6svqkfk5u6muvzg0l2" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/cXKigKscljHSDQpxExnEmKaTPfvD807dg9ozhnMcS44U40c32ycI7H5QTHZ3i4F1.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/cXKigKscljHSDQpxExnEmKaTPfvD807dg9ozhnMcS44U40c32ycI7H5QTHZ3i4F1.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3> What Happened/Jenny’s Take</h3>Council considered four ordinances necessary to move the 2027 budget forward. The primary budget ordinance passed 7–1, with Councilmember Adams voting no. The ordinance setting property-tax mill levies and the appropriation ordinance passed unanimously, while the ordinance making various fee and tax changes also passed 7–1, with Adams opposed.This was the first reading. Final consideration and adoption are scheduled for October 15.The overall proposed city budget is $552.6 million, including approximately $417.2 million for operations and $135.4 million for capital spending.The General Fund, which pays for many of the services residents interact with most directly is approximately $200.5 million.Parks Said No: This part is personal for me because I serve on the Parks &amp; Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB). On September 28, PRAB voted 5–2 against recommending the proposed Parks &amp; Recreation budget and I was one of those five votes.It was not a vote against our Parks &amp; Recreation staff. They were given the difficult job of finding reductions while wages, utilities, chemicals and other costs continue to increase.My concern is where this trajectory is taking us.The proposed budget includes reductions to recreation services, including fewer fitness offerings and the elimination of child care at East Boulder Community Center. The city is also changing subsidized recreation access for lower-income residents.&nbsp;And then there is Spruce Pool. Spruce will remain open in 2027 because approximately $134,000 in one-time General Fund money was identified to operate it. But there is currently no ongoing funding identified beyond 2027. Staff estimates approximately $140,000 would be needed to operate the pool in 2028.&nbsp;That means we're discussing the uncertain future of a longtime neighborhood amenity over roughly $140,000 in a city budget exceeding $550 million. I believe this warrants a much broader conversation about our priorities. Spruce has understandably received a lot of attention, but my concerns about the Parks budget go well beyond one swimming pool. We continue to face significant needs involving aging facilities and deferred maintenance while simultaneously continuing to approve capital budgets that include new infrastructure.At some point we have to ask: How many times can we raise fees, reduce hours and eliminate programs before we fundamentally change what residents receive from their Parks &amp; Recreation system? I don't believe the answer can simply be to continue trimming the services people actually use.I would rather see us aggressively explore other options, partnerships, philanthropy, sponsorships, programming changes, revenue opportunities, upcoming capital projects and a broader examination of how city resources are allocated before we accept the loss of community amenities as inevitable.PRAB's vote wasn't an isolated example of an advisory board questioning the budget. The Open Space Board of Trustees voted just 3–2 to recommend the proposed Open Space and Mountain Parks budget, with the dissenting members raising concerns about the use of Open Space tax revenue to pay for administrative services.&nbsp;The board also raised the same broader concerns as PRAB about the city's budget-review process, including whether advisory boards were receiving enough time and information to meaningfully perform their oversight roles.Our advisory boards exist, in part, to dig deeply into individual departments and subject areas in a way Council simply doesn't have time to do. When the people spending hours reviewing Parks, Recreation and Open Space budgets start raising concerns about priorities, transparency and the process itself, I think Council should pay attention, because the budget process is not working. Interestingly, this concern also surfaced during the Council meeting. Matt Benjamin described Boulder's budget process as "fully busted," arguing that October is simply too late to begin having meaningful conversations about major trade-offs.I agree with the larger point. By the time a $552 million budget arrives for a formal vote, most of the difficult decisions have already been made. Council, advisory boards and the public should be having these conversations months earlier, when there is still a meaningful opportunity to influence priorities, not after departments have already determined which positions, programs and services will be reduced.Boulder has a structural challenge that isn't going away. Costs are rising faster than some of our major revenue sources. We can continue responding by raising fees, eliminating positions, shortening hours and reducing services. But eventually, that strategy reaches its limit.We also need to talk seriously about growing revenue. That means supporting economic vitality. It means creating a downtown where people want to spend time and money. It means making Boulder a place where businesses can open, invest and succeed. It means looking at permitting and regulations that add unnecessary costs. It means supporting tourism and strengthening our sales-tax base. Because we cannot cut our way to long-term financial stability.I keep coming back to a pretty simple philosophy about local government: Take care of what we have. Maintain our parks and recreation facilities. Keep our pools operating. Maintain our streets and infrastructure. Fund public safety. Prepare for wildfire. Provide the basic services residents expect from their city. Then have an honest conversation about everything else. That's the budget conversation I hope Boulder has going forward.<figure id="figure-ux07sqocxmuvzgjls"data-full-width><img id="ux07sqocxmuvzgjls" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/26oWJWa3EnFXPHoMuTukh1p6qJ7npC4HxbCftKVT5dSvb2iZ2OXYfFWJB4k4UBzD.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>Founder, Jenny on the Record

Boulder's $552 Million Budget Moves Forward

Airport, Historical Designations and Budget

<h3>The Record:&nbsp;</h3><h3>Public Hearing: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8757 amending Title 4, “Licenses and Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, allowing for Pedal-Cab Agency and Driver Licenses</h3>Date of vote: 9/3/2026Outcome: Passed unanimously 7–0Category: Procedural<h3>What Happened</h3>Council unanimously approved Ordinance 8757, creating a new licensing system for pedicab companies and drivers operating in Boulder. Staff said the change was prompted by an increase in pedicabs at large events and concerns about speeding, sidewalk obstruction and other safety issues. The new rules require companies to carry liability insurance and drivers to provide a valid license and driving record, undergo a background check and follow applicable bicycle laws. Pedicabs must also be human-powered, and operators cannot sell food, beverages or alcohol while operating.The program is expected to generate about $3,300 annually in licensing fees, which staff says are intended to cover the cost of administering the program without adding new employees. Councilmember Matt Benjamin questioned whether Boulder should be careful about adding another cost for businesses, prompting a broader discussion about making sure licensing fees reflect the city's actual regulatory costs.<h3>Why It Matters</h3>The primary argument for the ordinance is public safety. Code Compliance Manager Jen Ross told Council that Boulder has seen an increase in pedicab-related traffic incidents as well as more pedicabs operating during large events.Without a licensing system, the city hasn't had a reliable way to know who is operating, whether operators are properly insured or how to hold bad actors accountable. The new system changes that. Pedicab drivers will be required to carry their licenses while operating, Code Enforcement will be able to enforce licensing requirements, and Boulder Police will have an enforcement mechanism when operators violate bicycle traffic laws.The city manager will also have the authority to deny, suspend or revoke licenses for violations or noncompliance. Staff clarified that CU regulates pedicabs on campus, while Boulder's ordinance applies within the city's jurisdiction.<h3>Jenny's Take</h3>If pedicabs are carrying passengers on Boulder streets, requiring insurance, basic driver qualifications and accountability makes sense. I also appreciated Matt Benjamin raising the bigger question: Are we charging businesses what it actually costs to regulate them, or simply adding another fee? In this case, the fees appear modest and tied to the cost of administering the program, but that's a question worth asking every time Boulder creates a new one.<figure id="figure-fupji2o2mfmuc1ne7o" data-full-width=""><img id="fupji2o2mfmuc1ne7o" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/30IunAenpL32QXMKBFrPMo3GCghK0fIg4CxUpObHxgt3CNqmkHSkoQ7ZowKANBQo.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/30IunAenpL32QXMKBFrPMo3GCghK0fIg4CxUpObHxgt3CNqmkHSkoQ7ZowKANBQo.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>NOD OF FIVE VOTES:</h3> STATE-MANDATED LAND USE CHANGESCouncil also received an update on three significant changes to Boulder’s Land Use Code that will be coming over the next two years, driven by recent state legislation and, in one case, the city's eligibility for state affordable-housing funding. Staff emphasized that the changes are not all optional, the state has increasingly stepped into areas traditionally controlled through local zoning, and Proposition 123 ties compliance to access to affordable-housing dollars.&nbsp;The three areas are Proposition 123, Transit-Oriented Communities (HB24-1313), and the HOME Act. Proposition 123 will require Boulder to create a 90-day fast-track approval process for qualifying affordable-housing projects. To make that timeline possible, staff is recommending eliminating Planning Board call-ups and automatic public hearings for these projects, although an appeals process could still provide an avenue for a public hearing.&nbsp;Staff warned that without these changes, Boulder and affordable-housing partners like Boulder Housing Partners, Thistle, and Habitat for Humanity could lose eligibility for Proposition 123 funding.&nbsp;The second change involves the state's Transit-Oriented Communities law, which requires Boulder to demonstrate that its zoning allows a state-determined amount of housing near qualifying transit corridors. Depending on whether Boulder's existing zoning meets that calculation, additional density or zoning changes may be necessary.&nbsp;The third is the HOME Act, which creates new requirements allowing qualifying entities such as certain nonprofits, governmental entities and educational institutions to develop housing on qualifying properties. Implementing it could require Boulder to change height limits, definitions, permitted uses and other development standards.&nbsp;While this item was technically informational and no ordinance was adopted, Council was asked for direction on staff's proposed approach. Council gave unanimous nods of five on staff's recommendations for the first two items and a 6–2 (No-Tara Winer and Nicole Speer) nod on the final item. Because each received majority support, all three will move forward for staff to develop the necessary code changes and bring them back through the formal adoption process. Proposition 123 changes are expected first, with staff anticipating Council review in October; the transit-oriented changes are expected in 2027 if needed, and HOME Act changes in 2027 or early 2028.&nbsp;Council did not actually change Boulder's zoning code Thursday night, but it did give staff the green light to begin drafting changes that could significantly alter how housing projects are reviewed, where housing can be built, and how much opportunity the public and Planning Board have to weigh in before certain projects are approved.RESTAURANT TASK FORCE MOVES FORWARDCouncil also gave a unanimous nod of five to move forward with the creation of a restaurant task force. The idea is to bring restaurant owners and other stakeholders together to take a broader look at the challenges facing Boulder’s restaurant industry and identify potential solutions. Given the recent conversations around the tip credit, rising operating costs, permitting and the overall health of Boulder’s restaurant community, this could provide an opportunity to look at the industry’s challenges more comprehensively rather than addressing them one issue at a time.Boulder talks a lot about supporting local businesses, but our restaurants in particular are facing pressures from nearly every direction. A task force is only valuable if it ultimately leads to action, but getting the people who are actually operating these businesses at the table is a good place to start.COUNTY COMMISSIONER BALLOT MEASUREMayor Aaron Brockett asked Council to add a discussion about the Boulder County ballot measure that would expand the Board of County Commissioners from three members to five, saying he wanted to see whether Council wished to take an official position.&nbsp;Brockett said he personally supports the measure and argued that county government has a significant impact on both the city and Boulder residents. Several councilmembers questioned whether it was appropriate for the city to weigh in on another governing body's structure, particularly since the County Commissioners had not taken positions on changes to Boulder's own governance. Others argued that the County is such an important partner that the city has a legitimate interest in the issue. Council ultimately voted 5–3 (No - Ryan Schuchard, Nicole Speer, Matt Benjamin) to direct the city to take an official position in support of the ballot measure.One interesting detail worth noting: support for the measure itself and support for the City taking a position weren't necessarily the same thing. Matt, for example, said he personally supports expanding the commission but didn't believe the City Council should officially weigh in. Nicole opposed both the City taking a position and the measure itself.<h3>The Scorecard</h3><figure id="figure-c4m25bpvumuc1odks" data-full-width=""><img id="c4m25bpvumuc1odks" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1efzOWtcCIvE3UnmBxOGUtptcvvemYtlRGlav1pkNduB5Z7YRB9Zpw1zUhLlZysD.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/1efzOWtcCIvE3UnmBxOGUtptcvvemYtlRGlav1pkNduB5Z7YRB9Zpw1zUhLlZysD.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Thank you for reading!<h3>Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record&nbsp;

Pedal-Cabs and Nods of Five

Eminent Domain and Sale of Parking Lot

<h3>Well friends, this meeting was a big one.</h3>Council took up some of the most significant policy questions we'll see this year, and by the end of the evening had referred four major ballot measures to voters while rejecting another that many downtown businesses believed could help revitalize our local economy. Let's take them one by one.&nbsp;<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8758 submitting to the electors of the city of Boulder at the Regular Municipal Coordinated Election on Tuesday November 3, 2026, the question of authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds for financing community recreation, safety infrastructure, and other capital projects</h3>Date of vote: 8/6/2026Outcome: Passed 8-0Category: Taxes and Fees <h3>What Happened:</h3>Council unanimously voted to place a $400 million General Obligation Bond (with a maximum payback of $650 million) on the November ballot. If approved by voters, the bonds would finance recreation facilities, public safety infrastructure and other capital projects and would be repaid through an increase in property taxes.Council made one amendment to the ballot language, replacing the word "aquatics" in the &nbsp;South Boulder Recreation Center with the more specific term “lap pool.”<figure id="figure-3uz03s09wmsoqlef1" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="3uz03s09wmsoqlef1" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/36stYxPCwbAT4CLIUtxw3Qge4yhdqspcQkXkxqopJTKgHuPRbpINvy3lt4EGiLCr.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/36stYxPCwbAT4CLIUtxw3Qge4yhdqspcQkXkxqopJTKgHuPRbpINvy3lt4EGiLCr.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>&nbsp;Public Hearing: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8762 submitting to the electors of the city of Boulder at the Regular Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday November 3, 2026, the question of authorizing an amendment of the Boulder Home Rule Charter to modify the calculation of the city’s debt limitation</h3>Date of vote: 8/6/2026Outcome: Passed 8-0Category: Taxes and Fees <h3>What Happened:</h3>Council unanimously approved a Charter amendment that would modify how the City's debt limit is calculated.This measure is directly tied to the bond proposal. Without this Charter change, the City would not have the legal authority to issue the amount of debt contemplated under the $400 million bond package.<figure id="figure-zjkf8ifnhwmsoqmw1n" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="zjkf8ifnhwmsoqmw1n" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/37XYznBTMTNLdRMKkuKBMhgjKwi0x2LozhikO7iTw40NsyMWK1UQZLVsBXvHZt16.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/37XYznBTMTNLdRMKkuKBMhgjKwi0x2LozhikO7iTw40NsyMWK1UQZLVsBXvHZt16.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3> Public Hearing: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8759 submitting to the electors of the city of Boulder at the Regular Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday November 3, 2026, the question of raising taxes in the city of Boulder by the adoption of a Vacancy Excise Tax imposed on homes that are occupied for 183 days or less per year, with such amount to increase annually in accordance with the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood Consumer Price Index to support general city services</h3>Date of vote: 8/6/2026Outcome: Passed 7-1Category: Taxes and Fees<h3> What Happened:</h3>Council voted to place a Vacancy Excise Tax on the November ballot.The proposed tax would apply to homes occupied 183 days or fewer each year, with revenues supporting general city services.Councilmember Nicole Speer cast the lone "no" vote. A concern with this one is that similar taxes are currently being challenged in court in other communities.<figure id="figure-avmjivi1zomsoqo5vm" data-full-width=""><img id="avmjivi1zomsoqo5vm" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/35B4ZDxKO6OOaLJgh7NjkZvJZV5StBP2GUxpJ7HW1jnqBR6FBe5v6cuzvaYCrurn.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/35B4ZDxKO6OOaLJgh7NjkZvJZV5StBP2GUxpJ7HW1jnqBR6FBe5v6cuzvaYCrurn.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Public Hearing: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8761 submitting to the electors of the city of Boulder at the Regular Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday November 3, 2026, the question of amending the Boulder Home Rule Charter to add a new Section 73, “Collective Bargaining for Firefighters,” creating a charter guaranteed right for full-time fire department employees to bargain collectively</h3>Date of vote: 8/6/2026Outcome: Passed 8-0Category: Other<h3>What Happened:</h3>Council unanimously referred a Charter amendment that would establish a charter-protected right for full-time Boulder firefighters to collectively bargain.<figure id="figure-0izkfx9npmsoqp0xs" data-full-width=""><img id="0izkfx9npmsoqp0xs" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1ewrbdVtHsFLL7rc5JKzEwvCK3gCGqOOEIi5tSpTZ1HI0XcZv5rD06BstEp075iK.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/1ewrbdVtHsFLL7rc5JKzEwvCK3gCGqOOEIi5tSpTZ1HI0XcZv5rD06BstEp075iK.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Public Hearing: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8763 (1) determining the necessity of establishing the Boulder Downtown Development Authority, and (2) submitting to the qualified electors of the proposed Boulder Downtown Development Authority at the Regular Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday November 3, 2026, the question concerning the formation of the Boulder Downtown Development Authority and a ballot issue to waive applicable revenue and spending limits in the city of Boulder, Colorado, declaring the necessity for an election on November 3, 2026, concerning the formation of such authority pursuant to Colo. Const. Art. X, Sec. 20 and statutory revenue limitations for such authority, allowing the city to pledge tax increment funds on behalf of the Boulder Downtown Development Authority, determining organizational aspects of the Boulder Downtown Development Authority board</h3>Date of vote: 8/6/2026Outcome: Failed &nbsp;4-4Category: Districts<h3>What Happened:</h3>After hours of passionate testimony from restaurant owners, retailers, commercial property owners and downtown advocates asking Council to let voters decide whether to establish a Downtown Development Authority, the proposal failed on a 4-4 vote.Those voting against the measure cited concerns that there had not been sufficient community engagement and expressed concern that future tax increment revenues could otherwise benefit taxing entities such as parks, transportation and open space.Supporters argued that the DDA represented one of the few meaningful economic development tools available to help reinvest in a downtown that continues to face significant challenges.Because the ordinance failed, the question will not appear on the November ballot.<figure id="figure-7btgwkl0nfmsoqq9xl" data-full-width=""><img id="7btgwkl0nfmsoqq9xl" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/20rqKT1bJPzgDdVqjtb3GgHl2ztoDpRB6FPyg6ermZk2xL1m1KkyDE8anWFLwNIr.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/20rqKT1bJPzgDdVqjtb3GgHl2ztoDpRB6FPyg6ermZk2xL1m1KkyDE8anWFLwNIr.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Public Hearing: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Adoption: Consideration of one or more motions to: (1) approve or amend conditions of approval to the BVCP update made by the Planning Board; and (2) approve or amend conditions of approval to the BVCP update made by the Board ofCounty Commissioners; and (3) approve or amend recommended amendments to the BVCP update made by the Planning Board, County Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners.</h3>Date of vote: 8/6/2026Outcome: Passed 8-0Category: Density<h3>What Happened:</h3>Council unanimously approved the remaining conditions of approval and amendments necessary to complete adoption of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, bringing this multi-year planning effort to its conclusion.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-mvvyt1n388msoqrafl" data-full-width=""><img id="mvvyt1n388msoqrafl" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/17QRwvCtJDc9J4FPsiQ27FdCSHWvnYreUndhKRdeaUyrE3wwWPqbFTkHQFsyMnO3.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/17QRwvCtJDc9J4FPsiQ27FdCSHWvnYreUndhKRdeaUyrE3wwWPqbFTkHQFsyMnO3.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3> Jenny's Take</h3>As I left Council Chambers Thursday night, I couldn't shake one question: How much debt is too much? In just the past few years, Boulder has committed itself to an extraordinary number of major financial obligations including: The South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project, bonding backed by the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety (CCRS) tax, Alpine-Balsam redevelopment, major recreation center investments, among others. And now Council is asking voters to authorize another $400 million+ in borrowing.To be clear, many of these projects may be worthwhile on their own. But taken together, I believe residents deserve a much more transparent explanation of how all of these commitments fit together before being asked to take on another generation of debt.Throughout the discussion, Council suggested that if this bond package does not pass, services and projects will have to be reduced. But before asking taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars, I think residents deserve answers to some fundamental questions.What projects are absolutely essential? Which are priority? Which projects could be phased over a longer period of time? How much money could be generated through consolidation once Alpine-Balsam is completed? Which City buildings could eventually be sold and how can those funds help? Where can operational efficiencies be found? How much are our increasingly stringent building and energy requirements adding to construction costs? Most importantly, what alternatives were seriously considered before concluding that another $400-650 million in debt was the answer?This conversation becomes even more frustrating because we've spent years hearing about the City's Long-Term Financial Strategy. After all of that work, is the big reveal really just asking taxpayers for another $650 million? That doesn't feel like a long-term “strategy”. It’s just another funding request by asking the community for a blank check.&nbsp;<h3>A Bigger Governance Problem</h3>Looking back over the last decade, I noticed something interesting. Not because Council's priorities changed. But because they largely didn't. Here are the priorities for the last 10 years:2017- Affordable housing, climate, transportation, civic area, economic vitality2018- Housing affordability, homelessness, transportation, climate, financial sustainability2019- Housing strategy, climate mobilization, racial equity, Vision Zero, economic recovery2020- COVID response, economic recovery, homelessness, climate, police reform2022- Housing, homelessness, transportation, occupancy reform, Area III planning, living wage, airport, broadband, crime reduction, mental health response, small business support2025- Fund Our Future, BVCP, homelessness, economic vitality, climate, transportation, governance, financial strategy, community safety, recreation investment&nbsp;2026- Wildfire resilience, Fund Our Future implementation, BVCP completion, tipped wage review, Xcel reliability, Sundance preparation Housing. Climate. Transportation. Homelessness. Financial strategy. These priorities appear year after year. Yet with only a few exceptions, I don't think most residents would say we've seen the kind of measurable progress one would expect after nearly a decade of focusing on the same issues. Nowhere in these priorities can you find, basic infrastructure, public safety, and only general references to economic vitality.&nbsp; Every new Council understandably comes in with new ideas and new passions. During the annual retreat, priorities are established, staff pivots, and the focus shifts again. I think Boulder needs a different model. We should establish three permanent priorities that never change regardless of who is elected.1. A Strong Local Economy: Because without a healthy tax base, everything else becomes harder.2. Maintaining Our City's Infrastructure: Roads. Parks. Recreation facilities. Water infrastructure. Buildings. Taking care of what we already own.3. Public Safety: Residents should never have to wonder whether basic safety services are adequately funded.Every Council should absolutely pursue its own priorities and policy initiatives, but only after these core responsibilities are being adequately met.The irony of the evening was not lost on me. Council voted unanimously to ask taxpayers to assume hundreds of millions of dollars in additional debt. Then, just minutes later, it voted down one of the few economic development tools intended to generate future investment in downtown Boulder and help repay the debt they just approved for the ballot.&nbsp;Was the DDA proposal perfect? No. Could it have been improved? Absolutely. But there were three months between now and Election Day to continue working with businesses, property owners, residents and community partners to make it work.Instead, the conversation ended before voters even had the opportunity to weigh in. Just one meeting ago, restaurants were left with no relief on the tip credit. This week, downtown businesses left without a DDA. And over the weekend, several businesses, including the beloved Lindsay's Boulder Deli, were vandalized. At some point we have to ask ourselves: How much more can Boulder businesses be expected to absorb before we stop asking businesses to carry the burden and start making economic vitality a governing principle instead of simply a campaign promise? <h3>Thank you for reading!</h3><h3>-Jenny</h3>

Ballot Measures Bond and DDA

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>

Blog

Boulder's $552 Million Budget Moves Forward

Airport, Historical Designations and Budget

Pedal-Cabs and Nods of Five

Eminent Domain and Sale of Parking Lot

Ballot Measures Bond and DDA

Boulder Municipal Airport Decision