Blog

<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8749 – Arapahoe Avenue Safety Improvements</h3>Date of vote: 5/28/2026Outcome: Passed UnanimouslyClassification: Procedural<h3>What Happened</h3> Council held a second reading and public hearing on Ordinance 8749, which authorizes the city to acquire property interests needed for the Arapahoe Avenue Safety Improvements Project between 28th and 38th. The estimated total cost of the project is $12.07 million. The city received federal grant funds to implement the project and will provide a 20% match, $2.41 million, toward the total improvement costs. Matching funds are included in the approved Capital Improvement Program.The project includes protected bike lanes, multi-use paths, and transit improvements, while maintaining existing travel lanes. Because the current right-of-way is not wide enough, the city needs to acquire portions of adjacent properties, including easements and limited right-of-way. The ordinance allows the city to acquire those property interests through negotiation and purchase, and if necessary, through the power of eminent domain.Staff was clear that the intent is to negotiate in good faith with property owners and provide compensation based on fair market value. Eminent domain is not the preferred path, but the authority is being requested upfront to ensure the project stays on schedule and meets federal funding deadlines.This approach has been used in prior transportation projects, where the authority was granted but only used in limited cases when agreements could not be reached. After the public hearing and discussion, council voted to adopt Ordinance 8749. Here is a rendering of the proposed project.<figure id="figure-bo78vsyynms4v01oi" data-full-width=""><img id="bo78vsyynms4v01oi" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2cfDxhYt1ypReNa2s9V3j7mfxemQtJjobuCw5qE5hVbvWGCAVZhhiPe1o9lJELvu.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="large" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2cfDxhYt1ypReNa2s9V3j7mfxemQtJjobuCw5qE5hVbvWGCAVZhhiPe1o9lJELvu.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3> Why It Matters</h3> This is a good example of a vote that is procedural in nature but still carries real implications.On one hand, this is standard practice. Infrastructure projects often require small pieces of land, and having eminent domain authority in place helps avoid delays and ensures consistency across property owners.On the other hand, it raises a broader question about how and when the city uses its authority to acquire private property, even when the intent is to negotiate first.It also highlights the reality that many of Boulder’s transportation goals, especially around safety and multimodal access, depend on expanding beyond existing right-of-way, which is not always straightforward.<h3>Jenny’s Take</h3> This is one of those votes where everything is technically routine, but still worth paying attention to.The city is not saying it will use eminent domain. It is saying it needs the option available in order to deliver the project on time. That’s an understandable position, especially with federal funding deadlines in play.At the same time, this is a reminder of how projects move from concept to reality. Plans like protected bike lanes and safer corridors often sound simple, but they require real tradeoffs, coordination, and sometimes difficult negotiations with property owners.In this case, council supported giving staff the tools to move the project forward. The real test will be in how that authority is used. <h2> Bonus Topic: Airport (again)- Reopening the Decision</h2><h3>What Happened:</h3> Council did not take a formal vote on the airport last week, but they did take two separate “nods of five” that effectively reset the timeline.First, there was agreement (a nod of five) to bring the airport back for a formal public hearing, even though a prior straw poll in April had already given direction to continue operations. This passed 8-1. Second and more significantly, there was a separate nod of five directing staff what to study before that hearing. Council asked staff to come back with analysis on two paths:Accepting FAA grant funding, which may include long-term or perpetual obligations to keep the airport operating (a position we may already be in) Identifying alternative funding sources that would allow the city to maintain more local control and potentially avoid those FAA obligationsThat second nod of five is what changes the trajectory. It passed 5-3 with support from:Nicole Speer Ryan Schuchard Tina Marquis Mark Wallach Rob Kaplan Notably, Rob Kaplan’s vote represents a shift from the direction he supported in April. Tara Winer abstained from this poll.Because of this added scope, staff now needs time to develop both options, which means the public hearing is pushed out by several months.<h3> Why This Matters:</h3> This is no longer just about whether to hold a public hearing, it’s about reopening the core policy question.Instead of advancing the prior direction (continuing operations and allowing staff pursuing FAA grant funding which is a staff administrative function), council has asked staff to rebuild the decision framework, analyze alternatives, and return later. That has real implications including delays in securing funding, extended uncertainty around the airport’s future, issues with finalizing the upcoming budget conversations, and additional staff time, legal review, and cost.To date, these delays have already cost taxpayers approximately $150,000, and that number will continue to rise as the process stretches out and staff is unable to move forward with all funding opportunities.<h3>Jenny’s Take:</h3>The April straw poll provided direction. Staff could have been moving forward on funding, strategy, and long-term planning. Instead, we are now, revisiting the same question, expanding the scope of analysis, and delaying action in a fiscal environment where every dollar counts.If council wants a formal vote, that’s reasonable. But layering in new alternatives after direction has already been given effectively resets the decision, not just formalizes it. And that comes with a cost in time, in money, and in momentum. At some point, we have to decide whether we are making decisions or continuously studying them.<figure id="figure-aa0fj1bvjjms4v1pkz"data-full-width><img id="aa0fj1bvjjms4v1pkz" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/7aLQsfCMgAylqAqALpjELNzOAfi8Uz9fLrgdgh2ShZ6nPsrPwUQ4An6XQELG1Px7.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="large" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure> Thank you for reading!<h3> Jenny</h3>

Boulder City Council May 28th Special Meeting

Hello Friends, This week’s meeting included a procedural, unanimous public hearing vote on budget adjustment. But the real discussion happened during Matters from Mayor and Council, and it focused on something that is quietly shaping major outcomes: straw polls.<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8750- Adjustment to Base Budget</h3>Date of vote: 5/21/2026Outcome: Passed UnanimouslyClassification: Procedural<h3> What Happened</h3>Council held a second reading and public hearing on Ordinance 8750, the city’s first 2026 Adjustment to Base Budget. I reported on the second 2025 ATB in December. As previously mentioned, this is a standard biannual budget process where the city adjusts the adopted budget to account for things like grants received, project carryovers, unanticipated costs, and dedicated funds that need to be reappropriated.For 2026 ATB1, staff recommended $18,585,227 in total budget adjustments, including about $13.1 million from fund balance, $5.3 million in revenue from mid-year grants, and $129,054 in additional unbudgeted revenue. Staff emphasized that most of the fund balance use was restricted or already dedicated to specific purposes, not broad new spending. Notable items included a $4.0 million carryover in Housing and Human Services for delayed Affordable Housing Fund projects like Rally Flats, 34th Street, and Spine Road, and a $7.3 million allocation for radio replacements across Police, Fire-Rescue, Open Space, and other services, advancing a planned 2027–2028 replacement to support critical communications infrastructure.After the public hearing and discussion, council voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 8750.<h3>Bonus Topic: Matters from the Mayor and City Council</h3>Council had a candid conversation about how straw polls are being used (especially during study sessions) and whether they are doing more than intended. A few things were made clear:Straw polls are not formal votes&nbsp; They are used to test consensus and guide staff&nbsp;But here’s the tension. Council members are concerned that straw polls are increasingly being used on big policy questions, not just minor direction. They are also concerned that the polls are indicating early sentiment, which can be personally problematic for individual council members. But staff relies on straw polling direction to move work forward. That creates a gap. Straw polls are not supposed to decide important issues, but they are often deciding what happens next.<h3>Why It Matters</h3>This isn’t theoretical. We’ve already seen this play out across major issues over the last few months: AirportThe recent direction to continue operating the airport came through a straw poll. That moment should be shaping funding strategy, legal positioning, and the long-term use of the site. However, because a few council members are now questioning the process, the airport will be discussed again this Thursday, and the delay has already cost the city nearly $150k in taxpayer funds.This is an interesting issue because continuing to operate the airport reflects the existing land use and technically should not require a public hearing or a vote to maintain the status quo. It is not council’s job to manage the taking of grants, that is an administrative function that lies with staff. But given the level of community interest, council has chosen to revisit the conversation and may bring it back for a formal public hearing vote. Watch for this next conversation on Thursday.Ballot MeasuresAt the March 12 study session, eight potential ballot measure options were presented to council. All eight were polled, and council recommended four via majority straw poll. After the meeting, Tara Winer decided she wanted to withdraw one of the measures she had supported. Because she was the fifth vote, that change would have removed the option from the list. She submitted the request via hotline. Staff advised that the straw poll direction could not simply be overturned and needed to return through agenda setting. When the conversation was revisited at the May 7 study session, staff ultimately presented that the ballot measure option she had attempted to withdraw was not a viable option for a potential ballot measure.Tip CreditAnother straw poll signal that helped guide what staff modeled and will bring back was on tip credit. Four options were presented, including the status quo. There was not a clear majority for status quo, as most council members appeared to support expanding the credit. Tina Marquis then voted for the status quo to keep that option alive. During the May 21 meeting, council and staff agreed that the status quo should generally remain on the table, and that the options presented for direction should focus on new areas for staff exploration.<h3>Jenny’s Take</h3>This conversation gets to a bigger question: When is a decision actually made and what problem are we trying to solve?On paper, what matters is the final vote. Straw polls, or a nod of five, are meant to set direction, prioritize staff time, and shape what options come back. The issue is not that straw polls exist. They are a useful tool. The issue council has is how much they are doing without being treated like final decisions, and how council members are perceived politically before the final vote.If direction is given too early, it can quietly lock in a path. According to Council, if they later try to revisit it, it creates confusion for staff and the public. That tension was clear in this discussion.&nbsp;The three things solved in this conversation were the feedback about consensus by renaming straw polls to “non-binding nod of five”, a change in rules and procedure that will clarify that informational items are allowed to be brought to study sessions, and a request for staff to provide look ahead items on the agenda.&nbsp;In my opinion, a “Non-Binding Nod of Five” functions the same as a straw poll. It will be interesting to see how staff manages situations where a council member changes their position after giving that direction under a new name. I see this largely as an optics issue. Council is getting pressure from the community on the direction they are giving, so they are working to make it feel less like a vote.&nbsp;The real weight is the final vote, which is why I only track public hearing final reading votes. Council members can change their minds at any time before that. I do take issue that we are currently delaying important conversations and forward movement because the current process may make individual council members appear unfavorable to their voters.&nbsp; Council was elected by the community and should stand by any vote or poll taken throughout their term without needing to get so far in the weeds that we are focusing on a process that is primarily an image problem, instead of the large city issues that should be prioritized. I hope that this conversation puts this issue to rest so we can get to the real business of the city.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-daxf9niqa8ms4vejei" data-full-width=""><img id="daxf9niqa8ms4vejei" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/278UeTY1ScBkbUR61JVPqfbM9EE0D6XmpeyTn7CqOEGd9CzhAiOluDFLdtIJ4Vmf.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="large" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/278UeTY1ScBkbUR61JVPqfbM9EE0D6XmpeyTn7CqOEGd9CzhAiOluDFLdtIJ4Vmf.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Thank you for reading!<h3> Jenny</h3>

Boulder City Council May 21st Regular Meeting

The May 7th City Council meeting included two public hearings that each play a different role in how Boulder evolves. One was a straightforward preservation decision. The other was a broader code cleanup that, while technical, touches a lot of moving pieces.<h2>The Record:&nbsp;</h2><h3>Public Hearing: Historic Landmark Designation (745 University Ave)</h3>Date of vote: 5/7/2026Outcome: Passed UnanimouslyClassification: Procedural<figure id="figure-8b5a10xwasmp43588o"data-full-width><img id="8b5a10xwasmp43588o" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/33OYMwn56exSJj1TRXEUyLqSkYjj2WNkAr9cUzFAkcRV7dKhNIga6EkF2Pu5F8WP.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure><h3>What Happened</h3>Council held a public hearing to designate the property at 745 University Avenue as an individual historic landmark under Boulder’s preservation code. The process followed the standard quasi-judicial format with staff presentation, public comment, and council deliberation. Council ultimately approved the designation. <h3>Public Hearing: Ordinance 8745 (Code Cleanup and Clarifications)</h3>Date of vote: 5/7/2026Outcome: Passed 5-1Classification: Density<figure id="figure-xu90ew32xomp434dsb" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="xu90ew32xomp434dsb" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/bHJJj4tD9Abfafc1U9cHZO3KX6fN8cTC6j8yyCsQwru85yzqNDhy3494YCodf4v1.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/bHJJj4tD9Abfafc1U9cHZO3KX6fN8cTC6j8yyCsQwru85yzqNDhy3494YCodf4v1.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> <h3>What Happened</h3>The second public hearing was the second reading and consideration of Ordinance 8745, which amends multiple sections of city code, including:<ul><li>Title 7 (Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Parking)&nbsp; </li><li>Title 9 (Land Use Code)&nbsp; </li><li>Title 10 (Structures)&nbsp;</li></ul>The purpose of the ordinance is to:<ul><li>Fix errors in existing code&nbsp; </li><li>Clarify language&nbsp; </li><li>Adjust certain standards related to height, use, and form&nbsp;</li></ul>This is what’s often referred to as an “omnibus” or “code cleanup” ordinance. It doesn’t introduce one major policy shift, but instead bundles a series of smaller technical changes across the code. Some notable updates discussed:Use Table and StandardsThe use table was updated seven years ago to include a combined floor area limit, driven by concerns about too much office space in business districts. &nbsp;In practice, this has created a significant administrative burden for small businesses trying to obtain licenses. Staff recommended removing this requirement.&nbsp;Accessory DwellingsClarifies utility requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).&nbsp;AMPS ParkingAllows parking in an existing driveway when a garage is converted to living space.&nbsp;Site Review / Height ModificationsExpands eligibility for height modification requests for three-story buildings. This amendment would allow for applications to increase building height from 38’ to 55’. There are currently nine categories that qualify for consideration; this adds a tenth for Community, Cultural, Educational, Recreation, and Entertainment uses. Here is the breakdown of the new structures that could apply for a height limit modification under this change:<figure id="figure-36hjzbapqlfmp42zc25"><img id="36hjzbapqlfmp42zc25" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/cMGxAlt6qjijg7mxHeFBW8Wq6j48q8lM2uFL0LbrxGfUlCHKUlHIsNKfnQ6Mt1tI.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="no-rounded" data-aspect="3:2" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/cMGxAlt6qjijg7mxHeFBW8Wq6j48q8lM2uFL0LbrxGfUlCHKUlHIsNKfnQ6Mt1tI.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure><h3>What It Means&nbsp;</h3>Landmark Designation&nbsp;Historic designation decisions are permanent. Each one incrementally shapes:<ul><li>Preservation of Boulders history&nbsp; </li><li>Character of existing neighborhoods&nbsp; </li><li>The balance between preservation and future growth&nbsp;</li></ul>Even when they move forward without much debate, they are long-term land use decisions. Ordinance 8745This is where things get more nuanced. Boulder has adopted roughly 25 land use code amendments over the past five years. Staff works on the amendments to the code which is part of an ongoing process as the city responds to real-world implementation and feedback. These updates adjust development standards that remove friction points or, in some cases, introduce new ones. Here is a list of the 25 amendments over the last five years:<figure id="figure-kledbq1odemp4315fu" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="kledbq1odemp4315fu" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/28oeDwORkax6xhv0mlgy5IcFWzORXN0Kgmbe0Y5gX1Ju0W0FdnfZck8hZOwcAWJz.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/28oeDwORkax6xhv0mlgy5IcFWzORXN0Kgmbe0Y5gX1Ju0W0FdnfZck8hZOwcAWJz.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>When the city proposes these changes in this format, where everything is bundled together, it can be difficult to fully evaluate the impact of each individual change.<h2>Jenny’s Take</h2>On the first public hearing, I’m aligned with council.This was a straightforward application of the historic preservation process. The criteria were met, the process worked as intended, and these designations help protect the character of existing neighborhoods.On the second public hearing, I’m aligned with Mark. Not because code cleanup isn’t important, it is, but because of how these packages function in practice. Bundling a wide range of changes into a single ordinance makes it easier to move them forward without fully vetting each one. Some are truly clerical. Others have meaningful policy implications.The height modification change is a good example. Expanding the categories eligible to move from 38’ to 55’ significantly broadens where that increase can occur. In my view, the range of uses included here is too broad for something presented as a technical update.When Mark asked why this was being brought forward as part of a code cleanup, the response from staff was fairly vague. That’s a signal worth paying attention to. A “cleanup” ordinance can quietly shape how the land use code operates going forward. I think it’s reasonable to slow down just enough to make sure each change is doing exactly what we intend.In this case, while I agree with the majority of the code changes, I would have preferred pulling the proposed amendment to 9-2-14(b) out of Ordinance 8745 and directing staff to bring it back as a separate work plan item for more focused discussion.<h3> The Scorecard</h3> The scorecard is the main tracker for major votes from each Council meeting. It will be updated every other week to keep you current on how Council decisions are shaping Boulder.<figure id="figure-1x5sme9qlmp433wec" data-full-width=""><img id="1x5sme9qlmp433wec" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/11N7vVUxcCCHGYB6Dpl55KKFnDppMeGSyJrXythw6SZR1KhI5cqnL2CV2ADNwANn.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/11N7vVUxcCCHGYB6Dpl55KKFnDppMeGSyJrXythw6SZR1KhI5cqnL2CV2ADNwANn.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> &nbsp;&nbsp; Thank you for reading!<h3>Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record&nbsp;

Boulder City Council May 7th Regular Meeting

<h3>Public Hearing: Metro Districts Framework (Ordinance 8748 &amp; Resolution 1378)</h3>Date of vote: 4/16/2026Outcome: Unanimously ApprovedCategory: Taxing District<h3> What Happened</h3>City Council held a public hearing and approved a new local framework to allow and regulate metro districts in Boulder.This included: Adoption of Ordinance 8748, establishing Boulder’s authority over metro districts and adoption of Resolution 1378, creating a model service plan for how they will operate.The goal is to shift metro districts from the default state-controlled process to a city-controlled process, giving Boulder more oversight over how and when they are used.Per the meeting presentation, a few key elements of the framework:<ul><li>Metro districts in Boulder will be primarily commercial (90%+), not residential-focused </li><li>Council must approve every service plan before a district is formed </li><li>The city will oversee the full lifecycle, including formation, financing, and major changes </li><li>These districts are intended to finance large-scale infrastructure upfront, with repayment through property taxes from the people who live and work in the district over time</li></ul>Council discussion focused heavily on governance, financial risk, and how these districts evolve over time. One notable concern raised is that metro districts are often initially controlled by one or two property owners (typically developers), who also elect the first board and over time, governance shifts as residents and tenants move in, but according to staff, conflicts during that transition are common.<h3>What It Means&nbsp;</h3>This is a big shift in how Boulder could fund future development.Metro districts are one of several financing tools alongside Tax Increment Financing (TIF- borrowing against future generated tax dollars the projects are expected to generate), General Improvement District (GID- lets a defined group of properties pay an extra tax to fund things like streets, landscaping, or parking that benefit their area).&nbsp;Metro districts are unique because they allow developers to fund infrastructure upfront and repay costs through a dedicated property tax (mill levy) over time. Boulder has approved a max of 65 mills. As a simple example, at $1 mill per $1000, on a $10 million commercial project, a metro district mill levy at the 65 mill maximum would be roughly $180,000 per year in additional property taxes. While metro districts fund infrastructure upfront, the ongoing tax burden often shows up in higher rents for tenants, meaning the businesses that lease these spaces could ultimately carry the cost.Boulders framework attempts to thread the needle by allowing the tool, but put guardrails around how it’s used in Boulder<h3>Pros and Cons of Metro Districts</h3>Potential Benefits<ul><li>Unlocks development Can make projects financially viable that otherwise wouldn’t happen</li><li>No upfront city cost Infrastructure is funded privately rather than by taxpayers broadly</li><li>Faster delivery of infrastructure Roads, utilities, and public improvements can be built earlier</li><li>Targeted financing Costs are paid by those within the district, not citywide</li><li>Economic development tool Adds another option alongside TIF, DDA, etc.</li></ul> Potential Risks and Concerns<ul><li>Governance starts with developers Early control often rests with a very small group of property owners </li><li>Long-term tax burden Property owners can face higher effective tax rates for decades </li><li>Complex and hard to unwind Once established, districts are difficult to modify </li><li>Potential misalignment over time As residents move in, priorities can shift, creating governance tension </li><li>Less transparency / understanding Many people don’t fully understand what they are paying for </li><li>Equity concerns Costs are concentrated within a project rather than shared</li></ul><h3> Jenny’s Take</h3>This is one of those tools that is neither inherently good nor bad, it is entirely about how it’s used.I appreciate that Council took the step to bring metro districts under local control rather than relying on the state default process. That process gives Boulder more ability to set expectations upfront.At the same time, the concerns raised during the meeting are real. The fact that these districts often start with very limited voter participation, can carry long-term financial impacts, and have such a high mill levy attached should not be taken lightly.Where I land right now is somewhere in the middle. I see the value as a targeted economic development tool, especially for commercial areas. But in a moment where we already have significant vacant commercial space across the city, this can’t just be about building more. These projects will need to be truly compelling, places people want to go, and accessible by all modes of transportation if they are going to succeed.So to me, this is something we need to use carefully, sparingly, and with clear guardrails. We need to watch how often this tool is used, whether the commercial-only intent holds, and how well the city manages long-term oversight once these districts are in place.<figure id="figure-cnlm83vd4hmsnt4v5r" data-full-width=""><img id="cnlm83vd4hmsnt4v5r" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/240mOB84Sd5eSVBEtMIbBpDznqT3KTRlzhGs3hpXE7U2ESQtqmhfhs6BTNPNqeYR.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/240mOB84Sd5eSVBEtMIbBpDznqT3KTRlzhGs3hpXE7U2ESQtqmhfhs6BTNPNqeYR.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> &nbsp;<h2>Dear Jenny</h2>Question from Kevin D.:I have recently been analyzing City of Boulder staffing levels between administrative roles and front-line workers. It raised concerns about whether the city may be overstaffed in administrative departments while under-resourcing essential services like street maintenance, policing, and parks operations.What are your thoughts on how the city is staffed, and should we be concerned about how resources are being allocated?<h3>Jenny’s Answer </h3>This is a great question, and I appreciate you sending it along. It’s exactly the kind of topic that deserves a closer look.It really comes down to this: are we set up to deliver services, or are we set up to manage the process?Because residents don’t experience the city through org charts. They experience it through outcomes. Are streets maintained, are facilities in good condition, are services reliable and accessible. If those things are not keeping up, then it is absolutely fair to ask whether enough resources are reaching the front lines.And this is where some of the data you’re pointing to becomes hard to ignore. If we have roughly 7 street maintenance technicians (not including contractors) yet we have 32 people in Communications and Engagement Department (which is responsible for how the city shares information with the public and how it gathers input from the community), that should at least prompt a pause. Not because one department is unnecessary, but because it raises a broader question about balance and priorities. In addition, per the data reviewed, 1 in 4 of the city employees has a title of manager or supervisor.&nbsp;The underlying concern is a fair one. Residents expect the city to prioritize core services like maintaining streets, public safety, and keeping facilities in good condition. If people feel those areas are under performing, it’s reasonable to ask whether staffing and funding are aligned with those priorities.For me, the takeaway is that we have more research to do, but that this is exactly the kind of question we should be asking as part of the broader budget conversation. How many people do we have doing the work residents see and rely on every day, and are we investing enough in those roles?I will continue to dig into the data with a clearer breakdown of how departments are structured, but the instinct behind the question is exactly right. Thank you for reading!<h3>- Jenny</h3>

Boulder City Council April 16th Meeting

<h3>Tip Credit: A Debate About Relief</h3>Council spent significant time discussing Boulder’s authority to modify the tip credit (tip offset). Here is some background and overall context:In 2019, Colorado passed Colorado House Bill 19-1210, which gave cities broad authority to set their own local minimum wage. Because the tip credit is part of how minimum wage is structured, this effectively gave cities the ability to modify it as well.In 2025, the state revisited this issue through Colorado House Bill 25-1008, reflecting growing concern about how different cities were approaching tipped wages. This bill was part of an ongoing effort to clarify. The bill allows jurisdictions with a higher minimum wage than the state’s minimum wage to increase their allowed tip offset, as long as the resulting base wage for tipped employees does not fall below the state’s base wage, which currently is $12.14.Boulder has already approved significant wage increases. The city’s minimum wage is set to rise approximately 24% in total, increasing 8% annually from 2025 through 2027, and then continuing to adjust with CPI. This means the tip credit conversation is happening on top of already locked-in cost increases for local businesses.Currently, Boulder’s tip credit is $3.02 and does not increase over time. As the minimum wage rises, the tip credit becomes a smaller share of total wages, meaning businesses receive less relative relief each year if no changes are made.Staff presented four options for how to manage the tip credit moving forward, and Council used straw polls to signal which directions they want staff to continue exploring. Option 1: Keep Tip Credit at $3.02 (Status Quo)Votes in favor: Tina Marquis, Taishya Adams, Aaron Brockett, Nicole Speer, Ryan Schuchard&nbsp;Tip credit stays flat Base wages rise faster than minimum wage in 2027 Businesses do not gain additional relief over time Reality: Costs keep rising, but the offset doesn’t keep pace Option 2A: Moderate Increase&nbsp;Votes in favor: Tara Winer, Mark Wallach, Matt Benjamin, Rob Kaplan, Tina Marquis, Aaron BrockettTip credit increases gradually by $0.25 in the first year and then gradually over time Tracks with minimum wage growth Reality: Base wages still increase at the same rate as minimum wage Option 2B: Larger IncreaseVotes in favor: Tara Winer, Mark Wallach, Matt Benjamin, Rob Kaplan, Tina MarquisThe tip offset increases by $0.62 in 2027 and then by CPI in the following years This is the stronger relief option, but with clearer tradeoffs Reality: Base wages still rise, but at a slower rate than minimum wage Option 3: Maximum Tip CreditVotes: NoneSets tip credit to the maximum allowed by the state Reality: Strongest support for businesses. Largest shift of risk onto employees&nbsp;<figure id="figure-ml64q66cmqmp4689o4" data-full-width="" class=""><img id="ml64q66cmqmp4689o4" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/b6ejfFqaajToKNdyujH16xy8yO5tunnBSM7lBcLvUG0n7wjpU21Q8a2ASkjhdvux.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/b6ejfFqaajToKNdyujH16xy8yO5tunnBSM7lBcLvUG0n7wjpU21Q8a2ASkjhdvux.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure><h3>Timeline Split&nbsp;</h3>Staff had the timing of the Public Hearing vote set for June 18. They asked the council if this was approved and the result was to delay. This delay was requested for a few reasons, members of council want more data, they want more student representation at the public hearing, and the Mayor is out of town for the June date.Move forward with June date: Tara Winer, Mark Wallach, Matt Benjamin, Rob KaplanDelay: Tina Marquis, Taishya Adams, Aaron Brockett, Nicole Speer, Ryan Schuchard&nbsp;<h3>Jenny’s Take (Timing)</h3>I fall firmly in the “move forward” camp. Delaying action doesn’t pause the pressure, it just means businesses absorb another year of rising costs without relief. Uncertainty is worse than change. Right now, restaurants and small businesses don’t know: What the policy will be, when it will change, or how to plan for it. That uncertainty makes it harder to hire, price, and operate.The policy itself is incremental. None of the options on the table are extreme: No one supported the maximum (Option 3). The real choices are modest adjustments. This is exactly the kind of policy you should move forward on and refine over time.Businesses are already adjusting (without help). Restaurants are already: Raising prices, cutting hours and reducing staff where they can. Delaying relief means those adjustments continue without any policy support. Waiting doesn’t protect anyone, it just guarantees higher costs hit first.<h3>Jenny’s Take (Tip Credit Overall)</h3>With wages increasing 8% next year and continuing upward: Doing nothing means the tip credit becomes less meaningful over time. The question isn’t whether to act, it’s how much to adjust the balance. From my perspective: Option 1 doesn’t hold the line, it actually allows pressure to build. Option 3 goes too far in the other direction. The real decision is somewhere in between. This is not a debate about whether to help businesses, it’s about how much relief is appropriate without overcorrecting.It’s also worth noting that support for delay and lack of restaurant support came from some council members who, during prior campaigns, expressed strong support for Boulder’s restaurant community. These votes may feel misaligned with those earlier commitments, particularly for small business owners looking for near-term relief.<h3>Public Hearing: Festival Amendment (Short-Term Rentals): Ordinance 8743 amending Sections 10-3-19, "Short-Term Rentals," permitting tenants to apply for Festival Lodging Rental Licenses and 4-20-18, ”Rental License Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding an associated fee; and setting forth related details</h3>Date of vote: 4/2/2026Outcome: Unanimously ApprovedCategory: Procedural<figure id="figure-geryunpkkmp46hps6"data-full-width><img id="geryunpkkmp46hps6" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3aLSFUlryoWPW0Ic0Yy6YEg8Q04LKLiyCDgRJdKdVA40oZyTph0XlqWxb0CG6Prc.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="true"/></figure><h3> What Happened</h3>Council held a public hearing and unanimously approved the ordinance allowing tenants to apply for festival lodging rental licenses.<h3> What It Means&nbsp;</h3>This is actually a more significant shift than it might sound. The new license allows tenants (not just owners) to operate short-term rentals, requires property owner consent, applies to non-primary residences and vacant rentals, is limited to festival periods (+10 days before / +9 days after), and maintains safety and occupancy requirements. The intent is clear: Increase lodging supply during major events without turning housing into full-time short term rentals.<h3>Jenny’s Take</h3>This was a unanimous vote, but not necessarily a simple policy. On paper, it’s a targeted and reasonable expansion. It supports tourism, creates income opportunities, and keeps guardrails in place. But this only works with property owner consent. &nbsp;Lease agreements will need to evolve, owners and tenants will need to negotiate terms and questions around liability, revenue sharing, and control will come into play.Things to watch:Will landlords allow it or broadly prohibit it? How will renters and owners structure agreements? Does this create opportunity or friction?<h3>The Scorecard</h3>The scorecard is the main tracker for major votes from each Council meeting. It will be updated every other week to keep you current on how Council decisions are shaping Boulder.<figure id="figure-tg1w0odsajmp46fw37" data-full-width=""><img id="tg1w0odsajmp46fw37" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3bHY98sr6xv7t2mBxVjh9iBfoHlik2hnk3tFD5hi0LGky5425Mq9Qs9JoycCew4a.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3bHY98sr6xv7t2mBxVjh9iBfoHlik2hnk3tFD5hi0LGky5425Mq9Qs9JoycCew4a.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> &nbsp; Thank you for reading!<h3>Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record&nbsp;

Tip Credit and Sundance Short Term Rentals

While this newsletter typically focuses on tracking City Council votes and outcomes, there has been so much happening behind the scenes that I thought it warranted a special edition. While we wait for the next round of City Council votes, a lot is unfolding that will shape Boulder’s future in meaningful ways.Over the past few weeks, Council and Planning Board have been digging into major issues, from how we fund our city long-term, to how we plan for growth under the BVCP, to whether previously protected areas should be brought into active planning.At the same time, I had the opportunity to participate as a delegate in the county, congressional, and state assemblies, where candidates for the primary ballot were selected and broader political priorities began to take shape. While not all of these moments involved final votes, they are where direction is set, tradeoffs are debated, and the groundwork is laid for the decisions that ultimately come before voters and Council. So let’s get into it!<h3> Fund Our Future: Long-Term Financial Strategy Council Study Session Date of Meeting: 3/12/2026</h3><h3>What happened</h3> Council reviewed a proposed Downtown Development Authority (DDA) as part of the Fund Our Future initiative. A DDA is a special district that can reinvest funding within a defined area to support infrastructure and economic vitality. One of its primary tools is Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which captures the increase in tax revenue from new development and reinvests it back into the district rather than the general fund.Staff outlined a potential 30-year structure (extendable), combining TIF, a possible mill levy, and parking revenue to fund major investments in downtown and University Hill. Council asked for more detail on boundaries, financial guardrails, impacts to other taxing entities (like BVSD), and what specific projects would be funded. June is shaping up to be the key decision point on whether to move this toward a ballot.Council then shifted to a broader discussion of potential 2026 tax measures, using a straw poll to narrow what staff should explore further. Council approved 4, 5, 6, and 8 (below) for further exploration.<h3>Why This Matters</h3> There is clear movement toward shaping a 2026 ballot strategy. Rather than pursuing sweeping structural changes, Council is focusing on more incremental tools, specifically a vacancy tax, increased debt capacity, potential property tax adjustments, and continued reliance on fees. There was no outright rejection of new revenue options, but the discussion made clear that voter tolerance, affordability, and trust will be critical. There is also broad recognition that some of the more complex ideas simply aren’t ready for a 2026 ballot.<h3>Potential Ballot Measures (Council Direction and What They Mean)</h3> Sales Tax on Services: Unlikely Expands Boulder’s sales tax beyond goods (like retail purchases) to include services (like legal, consulting, or personal services). This would significantly broaden the tax base but is a major structural shift that would require statewide alignment and extensive public buy-in. Shift from Sales Tax to Property Tax: Unlikely Reduces reliance on sales tax and increases reliance on property tax to fund city services. The goal is more stable revenue, but it would shift more of the burden onto homeowners and property owners. Public Realm Mill Levy: Unlikely A property tax increase dedicated specifically to funding public spaces, things like streetscapes, parks, civic areas, and downtown improvements. Funds would be restricted to these types of visible community investments. Residential Vacancy Tax: Moving Forward A tax on homes that sit vacant for extended periods, intended to encourage owners to rent or occupy them. The idea is to increase housing availability, though projected revenue is relatively small. Increase General Fund Debt Limits: Moving Forward Allows the city to borrow more money (issue debt) backed by existing revenues to fund large infrastructure projects now, rather than waiting to pay for them over time. This does not immediately raise taxes but creates long-term repayment obligations. Increase Property Tax Cap (Mill Levy Increase): Moving Forward Raises the maximum property tax rate the city is allowed to collect, generating additional ongoing revenue for general city services. Consolidate Sales Tax Funds into a “Public Realm Fund”: Unlikely Combines several existing, restricted sales tax revenues into a single, more flexible fund. This would allow the city to shift money between priorities more easily but reduces strict voter-directed spending protections. Expanded Use of Fees : Moving Forward Increases or adds fees (like transportation or development impact fees) that are charged directly rather than approved by voters. These are often tied to specific services but can function similarly to taxes in practice.<figure id="figure-wlrgifjaymp45x9ry" data-full-width=""><img id="wlrgifjaymp45x9ry" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/25xqLccBvmKijRXnNLkD7fpAehM3QOnxz9mTiApOZyS7Mti17m2JcKhvrCXEdpa6.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 75% 50%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="75%" data-positiony="50%" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/25xqLccBvmKijRXnNLkD7fpAehM3QOnxz9mTiApOZyS7Mti17m2JcKhvrCXEdpa6.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 75% 50%;"></figure><h3> Jenny’s take</h3> These decisions will shape what you may be asked to vote on in 2026. My view: these tools could unlock needed investment, but we need to be extremely cautious. Debt creates long-term obligations, and expanding taxes or fees without clear accountability will be a tough sell. Any ballot measure should come with strong safeguards, clear outcomes, and real evidence that the community supports it.<h3>BVCP Joint Study Session (Council + Planning Board) Date of Meeting: 3/26/2026</h3><figure id="figure-6ybj7sddnmp45w1ui" data-full-width=""><img id="6ybj7sddnmp45w1ui" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/30YJxdK61ZYB6VFt5b4WFbbsoR2komBa8EThWPAeQFE8ntYQ23ICWjQAGOr8t8Iz.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="3:2" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/30YJxdK61ZYB6VFt5b4WFbbsoR2komBa8EThWPAeQFE8ntYQ23ICWjQAGOr8t8Iz.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3> What happened </h3>Council and Planning Board reviewed the draft Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) alongside an update from BVSD: enrollment has dropped by 3,600 students since 2017, with further declines projected.According to Staff, the BVCP draft proposes:<ul><li>A simplified land use framework </li><li>15-minute neighborhoods </li><li>35% increase in housing capacity </li><li>11% increase in job capacity</li><li>Public comment closes April 6, with adoption expected in June.</li></ul> <h3>Why This Matters</h3> The core tension remains: More housing and flexibility vs. preserving neighborhood character and capacity.There was also growing recognition that Boulder cannot fully avoid growth pressures and current policies may not be delivering intended outcomes.<h3>Jenny’s take</h3> I understand that this plan is meant to be aspirational. But I think we also need to ground it more clearly in the reality of where Boulder is today. In many parts of the city, we already function as 15-minute neighborhoods, and we currently have a significant amount of vacant retail and underutilized space. At the same time, we are working within very real constraints, particularly around water, infrastructure, and environmental limits that need to be more directly acknowledged in the plan.I also think it’s important to recognize who tends to show up in these processes. The people advocating for change are often the most engaged and influential in shaping direction, while those who may prefer to work within our existing structure are less likely to participate or feel heard. That dynamic matters, and it can skew outcomes in ways that don’t fully reflect the broader community.On BVSD, I don’t believe enrollment declines are purely demographic. We lost families to private schools during COVID when schools closed, and many didn’t return. That has real impacts on both enrollment and funding, and it should be part of this conversation. Overall, I think this plan contains many good ideas, but without a clearer implementation roadmap, stronger alignment with our existing assets, and more explicit consideration of constraints, it risks being only visionary and not actionable. <h3>Planning Board Meeting: Area III Planning Reserve Date of Meeting: 3/24/2026</h3><h3>What happened</h3> Planning Board originally voted 4–3 against moving forward with planning work in the Area III Planning Reserve by pausing the initiative for a few years. City Council then weighed in and voted 7–2 in favor, which sent the item back to Planning Board for reconsideration. On the second review, the Planning Board created Laura Kaplan changed her vote, flipping the outcome and resulting in approval to move forward with additional planning work. This means the city will now begin spending time and resources to further study and explore these areas. &nbsp;The shift appears to have been driven less by new data and more by a change in framing. Planning Board discussed a drafted statement that included specific, though ultimately unenforceable, guardrails around middle-income housing and affordability, which may have provided enough comfort for a vote change. Combined with strong Council direction, in my opinion, the vote change reads more as a policy shift than a data-driven one.<h3>Why This Matters</h3> This is a meaningful vote change, not just in outcome, but in process. While the argument that delaying planning doesn’t eliminate future growth pressure has merit, the reversal raises important questions about consistency and decision-making. The city has already commissioned studies indicating that Boulder can meet its near-term housing needs through infill within the existing footprint. Moving forward with additional planning in the reserve despite that analysis creates a disconnect between the data we’re collecting and the decisions being made.This does not mean development is imminent, but it does open the door and signals a shift toward exploring growth beyond current boundaries.<h3>Jenny’s take</h3> What concerns me most is the inconsistency between the data and the decisions we’re making. Why are we now choosing to move forward with additional planning in the reserve given the information in the studies? At some point, we have to either trust analysis or stop asking for it.I understand the argument about planning ahead, but this feels less like proactive planning and more like shifting direction without a clear justification. This decision didn’t come from new data or a changed condition, it came from a vote flip.Meanwhile, Boulder is facing very real, immediate challenges: financial constraints, aging infrastructure, declining school enrollment, and maintaining the assets we already have. Choosing to spend public resources exploring expansion, despite prior analysis suggesting it’s not needed yet, raises real questions about priorities.We should be focused on getting our existing system right before expanding beyond it.<h3>Caucus &amp; Assembly: Who’s on the Ballot</h3><figure id="figure-7rkyvzng09mp45uw17"><img id="7rkyvzng09mp45uw17" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/32PzX1WG0rh4Wi3T28RY1pITm6SrKGaMxQb98QQYorKNgE95enU93F1ugu4MLQIm.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/32PzX1WG0rh4Wi3T28RY1pITm6SrKGaMxQb98QQYorKNgE95enU93F1ugu4MLQIm.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>I had the honor of being elected as a delegate to both the Boulder County Assembly and the Democratic State Assembly in Pueblo. It was an energizing experience to be part of the process firsthand.As a quick explanation of how candidates get on the ballot in Colorado, there are three primary paths:Caucus &amp; Assembly Only: Candidates participate in precinct caucuses and advance to county and state assemblies, where delegates vote. Those who receive 30% or more of the delegate vote automatically secure a spot on the primary ballot. Caucus &amp; Assembly + Petition: Candidates who receive at least 10% at assembly can still qualify for the ballot by collecting the required number of petition signatures. Petition Only: Candidates can bypass the assembly process entirely and gather enough voter signatures to qualify directly for the ballot.Many candidates pursue both the assembly and petition routes to ensure access. While the assembly helps determine ballot order and signals early party support, the final decision ultimately rests with voters in the primary.Statewide Race Results for June Primary Ballot Governor: Phil Weiser (90.2%) vs. Michael Bennet (petition) U.S. Senate: Julie Gonzales (74%+) vs. John Hickenlooper (petition) Attorney General: Jena Griswold (41.8%) David Seligman (40.6%) Michael Dougherty (17.6%, petition) Hetal Doshi (petition) Secretary of State: Amanda Gonzalez (63.1%) vs. Jessie Danielson Treasurer: Jeff Bridges (43.7%) Brianna Titone (29%, just missed/did not petition) John Mikos (27%, just missed/did not petition)Federal &amp; Regent CD2: Joe Neguse CU Regent: Kubs Lalchandani (39%) Edie Hooton (37%) Chris Larsen (22% did not petition) Murray Smith (may qualify via petition)Boulder County Treasurer (only contested race): Jen Kaaoush (48.1%) Rachel Friend (41.8%) Bill Van Dusen (10%, may petition)Uncontested County Offices: County Commissioner District 3: Ashley Stolzmann Clerk &amp; Recorder: Molly Fitzpatrick Assessor: Cynthia Braddock Coroner: Jeff Martin Surveyor: Kayce Keane Sheriff: Curtis JohnsonState Legislature (Uncontested Seats) Colorado House: HD10: Junie Joseph HD12: Kyle Brown HD49: Lesley SmithColorado Senate: SD15: Janice Marchman SD17: Katie Wallace<h3>Why This Matters</h3> The outcomes ultimately go to voters, but being there made it clear how much groundwork is laid at this stage. The energy, the debates, and the alignment happening now will shape the races and the policy direction. We’ll be watching in the months ahead.Bottom Line All of the above sets real direction across the board. From how we fund the city, to how we plan for growth under the BVCP, to decisions about whether to expand beyond our existing footprint, the groundwork is actively being laid. At the same time, the candidates who will shape state and local policy are now set for the primary ballot. These moments define what choices are ultimately put in front of voters and how Boulder evolves from here. Thank you for reading!<h3>Jenny</h3>Founder, Jenny on the Record

Blog

Boulder City Council May 28th Special Meeting

Boulder City Council May 21st Regular Meeting

Boulder City Council May 7th Regular Meeting

Boulder City Council April 16th Meeting

Tip Credit and Sundance Short Term Rentals

The Record: Special Edition