On Nov. 5, Boulder voters will decide three key local ballot measures that could change how the Boulder City Council functions.
Ballot Question 2C proposes increasing pay for councilmembers. Currently, their compensation falls below minimum wage when considering the hours they work. If passed, the mayor’s salary would be set at 50% of the area median income (AMI), while other councilmembers would receive 40%. In 2024 dollars, this would equate to about $51,000 for the mayor and $41,000 for councilmembers, according to city officials. The new salaries wouldn’t take effect until December 2026, meaning the raise wouldn’t necessarily benefit current councilmembers, though some may seek reelection in 2025 or 2026.
Ballot Question 2D would allow the entire nine-member council to meet privately under certain conditions, such as receiving legal advice or discussing property negotiations. Currently, councilmembers cannot meet in groups larger than two without the meetings being public, as required by Colorado’s open meetings law. The measure would also permit councilmembers to privately interview finalists for city manager, city attorney and municipal judge. This measure would take effect Jan. 1, 2025.
Ballot Question 2E gives the council more control over setting the term lengths and eligibility requirements for members of city boards and commissions. It would also allow the council to remove board members for “conduct unbecoming a member,” among other reasons, broadening current criteria. Four boards would be exempt from these changes: the Arts Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Open Space Board of Trustees and Planning Board. These changes would take effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
County ballot measures and candidates
Two Boulder County measures are on the ballot for some voters. Ballot Question 6C would create a public improvement district in Eldorado Springs. Ballot Issue 6D would raise property taxes for resurfacing roads in a public improvement district north of Gunbarrel.
For the Board of County Commissioners, Democratic Commissioner Marta Loachamin is running for reelection against Republican Donald Lewis for District 2. (Boulder Reporting Lab was unable to find a website for Lewis.) For District 1, Commissioner Claire Levy is running unopposed.
State and regional ballot measures
At the state and regional level, two ballot measures stand out for Boulder residents:
Proposition 131 would create all-candidate primaries and implement ranked-choice voting for most state and federal general elections. In Boulder, a predominantly Democratic area, this could make traditional primaries less relevant, with the general election becoming the main contest using ranked-choice voting. Views on this measure among local election experts — including those who worked on Boulder’s move to instant runoff voting in mayoral races — are mixed.
Regional Transportation District Ballot Issue 7A would allow RTD to retain all the sales tax revenue it collects, even if it exceeds limits set by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Failure of this measure could jeopardize planned bus service expansions in Boulder in 2025, according to Boulder’s representative on the district’s board. The measure’s failure could mean an approximately $25 refund for taxpayers at the end of the year.
For more on the many ballot measures at the state level, read the many voter guides by other statewide media organizations.
State candidates on the ballot
Due to Boulder’s political landscape, nearly every state race was effectively decided in the Democratic primary. However, one notable race remains competitive: House District 19. A rundown of races:
In House District 10, Democrat Rep. Junie Joseph, a family lawyer and former Boulder City Councilmember, is running against Republican William DeOreo, a water engineer and former member of the city’s Water Resources Advisory Board.
In House District 11, Democratic Rep. Karen McCormick, who ran unopposed in the primary, is running against Republican Kathy Reeves.
In House District 12, Democratic Rep. Kyle Brown, who ran unopposed in the primary, is running against Republican Mark Milliman.
In House District 49, Democrat Lesley Smith, a University of Colorado regent, is running against Republican Steve Ferrante, a businessman and pastor from Estes Park.
In Senate District 17, Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, who ran unopposed in the Democratic primary, is running against Republican Tom Van Lone.
In Senate District 18, Democrat Rep. Judy Amabile will face Gary Swing of the Unity Party.
For the State Board of Education, Kathy Gebhardt, former president of the Boulder Valley Board of Education, will compete against Libertarian Ethan Augreen, a write-in candidate. (Boulder Reporting Lab was unable to find links to campaign websites for some state candidates.)
For the at-large seat on the CU Board of Regents, Elliott Hood, a lawyer and Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board member, faces off against T.J. Cole (Unity Party), Eric Rinard (Republican) and Thomas Reasoner (Approval Voting Party).
The only truly competitive race within Boulder County is in House District 19, which includes parts of Boulder and Weld counties. This district, where about half the voters are unaffiliated, will see Democrat Jillaire McMillan, co-founder of Blue Trail Engineering, face off with Republican Dan Woog, a former Erie trustee and state representative. McMillan was selected by a Democratic Party vacancy committee in August, after State Rep. Jennifer Parenti, a first-term Democrat from Erie, announced in July that she was not running for reelection, citing the job’s conflicts with her values.
For more information on these candidates, check out our full candidate profiles:
Vote No On Proposition 129
As a dog lover and an owner of a veterinary care center, the treatment of pets is at the center of my world. Supporting veterinarians and veterinary technicians to perform at the highest level is of foremost concern – including ensuring there are adequate veterinary professionals to staff the various clinics and hospitals. But Colorado Proposition 129 is NOT THE ANSWER. The Proposition, which will appear on the November 5, 2024 ballot, purports to create a new veterinary professional – a Veterinary Professional Associate – who can avoid the robust and necessary medical training required to care for our pets. There is no structure to provide evaluation and certification for of this new veterinary professional nor is there an accredited curriculum. Instead, it is contemplated that online classes and a single semester internship would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements. An individual certified under this new regimen would then be permitted to diagnose diseases and perform complicated procedures, including surgeries. Not shockingly, this effort is driven by private equity and corporations looking to cut costs and drive revenues to dubious corporate-funded online college programs.
If, as the corporate backers of Proposition 129 claim, the purpose of the effort is to address shortfalls in veterinary professionals, there are far more efficient avenues to achieve this result. The Proposition has some backing from animal rescue organizations because these institutions need increased access and more cost-efficient avenues to spaying and neutering services. This result can be achieved through the regulatory framework already in place. Colorado law currently registers veterinary technicians and veterinary technician specialists. These registrations already have curriculum requirements and defined performance allowances. Rather than create a whole new professional designation with ambiguous and undefined requirements and authorizations and doing an end-around existing regulations, the better solution is to simply expand the services of veterinary technicians and ensure the appropriate training programs for in-demand services such as sterilizations. Veterinary technicians are the backbone of veterinary healthcare and have already dedicated their lives at significant costs to care for animals. A new corporation-created professional should not be permitted to displace them in the name of cost reductions. This veterinary technician-focused solution is quicker, tested, less expensive, protects jobs, meets the needs of animal rescues, and avoids the money-influenced injection of corporate cost-reduction programs into our state animal care landscape.
The very veterinary professionals that Proposition 129 purports to help have come out against the effort. The Colorado Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association and veterinarians across the state are sounding the alarm regarding the dangers of Proposition 129 and the health risks it poses to our companions.
Here in Boulder, we love our pets. And loving our cats and dogs means supporting the professionals that care for them. Proposition 129 does not do that. It simply provides a cheaper path for private equity companies and corporations to own every aspect of pet care at the cost of quality petcare. Please vote no on Proposition 129.