Blog

<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;

January 8th Boulder City Council Special Meeting: Key Decisions and Their Impact

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

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

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

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

<h2>Transportation Funding / Approved Citywide Transportation Maintenance Fee</h2>Date of Vote: October 23, 2025<h2>What happened:</h2>The Boulder City Council passed the 2026 budget, which includes a newly approved property-based transportation maintenance fee.&nbsp;Residential detached dwellings are slated to pay approximately $54 per year; multifamily dwellings about $42 per unit.Non-residential properties will be charged based on the “trip-generation” model (e.g., 1,000 sq ft of retail or office space is charged a set amount).The fee is projected to raise around $6.4 million annually, starting mid-year 2026.<figure id="figure-1jnc66h6mi0mx579"data-full-width><img id="1jnc66h6mi0mx579" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/dMplcvGDScKIDbkwotjDutvhsOAGxvC6FtiILwAixaVYyBmnQRWmC0Z5UrJxH7lz.png" alt="Boulder, Colorado" title="Boulder, Colorado" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="large" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="null" data-positionY="null" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure> <h2>Why it matters:</h2>The city argues that its transportation system like roads, sidewalks, multi-use paths, and signals are becoming seriously underfunded, with existing sales tax streams insufficient to keep up. This fee represents a new dedicated revenue stream, shifting cost burdens from more general taxes to a property-based assessment.Because the fee was passed as part of the budget and not via a voter-approved ballot measure, many view it as a hidden tax. For residents, small business owners, and property-owners, this means an additional annual charge regardless of income, use, or the broader tax burden.<figure id="figure-vbz8ji4z6gmi0nsxx1"><img id="vbz8ji4z6gmi0nsxx1" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/214NpXSzwrdGFn7wJDSNpvF03muyAzPNYUM9d6nMuJpszxKHxVFVsc1RcXHpeeL8.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 50% 25%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="50%" data-positiony="25%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/214NpXSzwrdGFn7wJDSNpvF03muyAzPNYUM9d6nMuJpszxKHxVFVsc1RcXHpeeL8.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 50% 25%;"></figure><h2>Jenny’s Take:</h2>I opposed this fee and would have voted no.First, because the nature of the fee is effectively a tax, and taxes of this sort demand voter approval. Doing this through a budget line item circumvents that democratic check.Second, I believe our existing budget resources, including sales and use tax revenue and other general funds, should be sufficient to cover core transportation infrastructure maintenance. We should not place another separate burden on residents and property-owners to fill a budget gap created by rising costs or deferred maintenance.The shift from general tax funding to a property-based fee changes the policy principle: It makes infrastructure costs into monthly or annual fees rather than shared public investment. That is a direction I find troubling, especially for longtime residents and small business owners who already carry a large share of Boulder’s cost-of-living pressures.In short: Infrastructure is essential, but how we pay for it matters. When a fee targets property owners directly and bypasses the ballot, it raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and fiscal priority. Boulder must ensure every dollar of existing revenue is accounted for before layering on new fees.

Boulder's New Transportation Utility Fee: How they voted

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

<h2>Inclusionary Housing / Redevelopment Impact Fee</h2>Date of Vote: November 7, 2025<h2>What happened:</h2>City Council voted (7-2) to approve a new $11-per-square-foot impact fee on single-family home demolitions, replacements, and large additions. The money will go toward Boulder's affordable-housing fund as part of the city's inclusionary-housing program.&nbsp;Homes under 2,000 square feet and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are exempt, and the first 500 square feet of an addition is excluded. Staff estimate the fee could generate around $1.2 million annually for affordable-housing initiatives.<figure id="figure-a5mck9v0fmhwjp7mp"data-full-width><img id="a5mck9v0fmhwjp7mp" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/31ovhqDYCBmT899fGY6WReeZktkbCgDdE411luHZsJEPVRaTkQJlOjmNGBjwL1rY.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="large" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="null" data-positionY="null" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure> <h2>Why it matters: </h2>This ordinance extends inclusionary-housing requirements into the single-family redevelopment space - an area previously not subject to such fees. Supporters argue it helps offset the loss of smaller, more affordable homes and ensures that wealthier redevelopment contributes to the city's affordability goals.<figure id="figure-cl6i6cgf7mhwjpctw"><img id="cl6i6cgf7mhwjpctw" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2FPgqoRbhDuTWTNK46aq8Zac5Cqvyr6VUcJReNAvSr26Ph1LNabyBu9jyVdfmiUV.jpeg" alt="affordable housing" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2FPgqoRbhDuTWTNK46aq8Zac5Cqvyr6VUcJReNAvSr26Ph1LNabyBu9jyVdfmiUV.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure>Opponents, however, warned that this adds another financial burden on long-time residents trying to renovate, expand, or stay in their homes - particularly seniors and families.<h2>Jenny's Take: </h2>I would have voted no on this measure. Not because I oppose funding affordable housing - I strongly support it - but because I believe this particular approach crosses a line that makes it harder for existing residents to remain in Boulder. Boulder cannot afford to keep over-charging the very people who make this city a community.

Blog

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

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

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

Council Approval of the Williams Village II Redevelopment...

Boulder's New Transportation Utility Fee: How they voted

Boulder's New Housing Impact Fee: How they voted