2024 City of Boulder election: Ballot measures on council pay, privacy and powers over boards explained

With ballots received or in the mail, the Nov. 5 election is fast approaching. City of Boulder voters will decide on three local measures referred to the ballot by the Boulder City Council that address council pay, privacy and powers over boards and commissions. There are no city council seats up for grabs this year, though four will be on the ballot in 2025, before even-year elections kick in the following year .

All Colorado House and Senate races representing the City of Boulder, and most countywide races, were determined in the competitive Democratic primary in June . Judy Amabile won the seat for Senate District 18, Junie Joseph retained her seat for House District 10, Lesley Smith won the vacant seat for House District 49, and Kathy Gebhardt won a seat on the state Board of Education. The seats either have no competitor or none with a chance of winning, based on the area’s politics.

While many state news outlets have published voter guides on state measures, this summary focuses on the City of Boulder’s ballot. Two Boulder County measures, which deal with public improvement districts in areas north of Gunbarrel and in Eldorado Springs, are also not covered here.

Ballot Question 2C: Council pay

Currently, Boulder City Councilmembers earn about $12,700 annually, which amounts to less than minimum wage when considering the hours some members report spending on city business.

Under Ballot Question 2C , the mayor’s salary would be set at 50% of the area median income (AMI), while other councilmembers would earn 40%. This would translate to approximately $51,000 for the mayor and $41,000 for councilmembers, in 2024 dollars, according to city officials.

The change would take effect in December 2026. By that time, the council could be made up of entirely new members, though some will likely seek reelection in 2025 or 2026, the year the city will begin holding council elections in even years .

Proponents say higher pay could attract more working-class candidates, potentially increasing socioeconomic diversity on the council. The proposed pay scale would align with some other cities in Colorado. For instance, Fort Collins pays its councilmembers 50% of the AMI, after voters approved a similar ballot measure. Denver councilmembers earn more than $100,000 .

“Our whole community benefits by investing in getting more workers, renters, and low- and middle-income people to serve on City Council,” Mayor Pro Tem Nicole Speer wrote in her newsletter. She said such people “have the most experience living with and navigating broken government policies” and “have the most insight into where they are failing and how we can improve them.”

Critics have raised concerns about the budget impact, especially as city revenues flatten while expenses rise . Council salaries are funded from the city’s General Fund, a pot of money the city can allocate at its discretion to a wide range of priorities.

Councilmember Mark Wallach, the only councilmember to oppose the measure, said the optics are “poor in an environment where we’re going to be cutting programs and services.” Moreover, former Councilmember Bob Yates speculated in his newsletter last month that the pay increase could lead to councilmembers overstepping into “city administration that is best left to professional, nonpolitical staff members.”

Ballot Question 2D: Executive sessions

Currently, Boulder’s charter does not allow councilmembers to meet privately as a group. Instead, small groups of one or two councilmembers meet with city attorneys and other officials to discuss issues like legal advice. These small groups are intended to comply with Colorado’s open meetings law, which allows no more than two councilmembers to discuss public business privately.

Ballot Question 2D would allow the entire nine-member council to hold private meetings, with certain limitations set by state law. Topics allowed for discussion would include property deals, legal advice, security issues, negotiations and personnel matters. The measure also allows councilmembers to privately interview finalists for the job of city manager, city attorney or municipal judge. These positions are hired and overseen by the city council. The measure would take effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

Supporters argue councilmembers are already meeting in small, private groups, but the process is inefficient since city officials might hold the same meeting multiple times, two members at a time. Proponents say allowing executive sessions would streamline these out-of-chambers discussions, similar to how it works in other local governments, like the Board of County Commissioners. State law would still require that the general subject of each private meeting be disclosed to the public, potentially providing more transparency than the current system, which does not require any disclosure when one or two councilmembers meet with city officials.

Opponents argue that the current process is working just fine, as councilmembers meet privately several times per year. Councilmember Lauren Folkers, the only councilmember to oppose the measure, said she might have supported a more limited version for matters such as purchasing, lease and sale agreements, as well as lawsuits. Beyond that, she said, the public’s right to be involved in deliberations outweighs the convenience of private meetings.

Ballot Question 2E: Boards and commissions

Boulder’s charter limits the city council’s ability to manage its nearly two-dozen advisory boards and commissions. These volunteer-led groups provide advice on issues ranging from park management to land-use planning, and some have significant powers, such as the authority to dispose of open space , deny housing projects or revoke a liquor license .

Ballot Question 2E would give the Boulder City Council more power over setting term lengths and eligibility for members of boards and commissions. These changes currently require voter approval. The proposal would also allow councilmembers to remove board members for “conduct unbecoming a member, and any other reason not prohibited by law,” which is a broader set of criteria than what the current charter allows. Four boards would be exempt from the new rules: the Arts Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Open Space Board of Trustees and Planning Board. The changes would take effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

Supporters — including all councilmembers — say the measure would make it easier to manage and fill board positions, especially those with persistent vacancies. For instance, shorter term limits could attract more people who may have limited availability to participate.

But the broad powers to remove board members could discourage participation, according to the Boulder Progressives, which is opposing the measure. The organization also stated in its voter guide that the measure could “make the work of boards and commissions less meaningful and easier to ignore.”

The post 2024 City of Boulder election: Ballot measures on council pay, privacy and powers over boards explained appeared first on The Boulder Reporting Lab .