Jill Grano is running for Boulder City Council on a platform of expanding workforce and middle-income housing, rebuilding public trust in city spending and strengthening the local economy.
Grano previously served on the council from 2017 to 2019, when she resigned to become director of community affairs for U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse. She has since acknowledged that her departure disappointed some voters.
“I calculated that I could better serve Boulder by helping build a congressional office than by casting losing votes,” Grano wrote on her campaign website. “Knowing what I know now about how the resignation landed for the people who elected me, I would not make that choice the same way.” She said her focus is now local.
Housing and real estate are central to Grano’s professional background and campaign. She worked as a real estate agent before joining Neguse’s office and returned to the field afterward while earning a master’s degree in housing and human geography from CU Boulder. Her graduate thesis, “Landscapes of Privilege,” examined 150 years of Boulder housing policy.
Her platform calls for more workforce and middle-income housing, as well as housing affordable to residents earning 40% or less of the area median income. Grano also serves on the Boulder Housing Partners Board of Commissioners and CU Boulder’s Center for Leadership board.
Her other priorities include filling commercial vacancies, rebuilding Boulder’s local economy and balancing the city’s budget. She opposes the proposed $400 million Recreation and Safety Bond, arguing that the city should conduct a more detailed analysis before returning to voters.
Grano is endorsed by the Boulder Progressives and prominent local Democrats, including Neguse, state Sen. Judy Amabile, state Rep. Junie Joseph, Mayor Aaron Brockett and several city councilmembers. She said, “I don’t really see myself as ‘progressive’ or ‘moderate’ in the Boulder context. I have always cared about issues that cross party lines.”
Grano first moved to Boulder in 2002, intending to transfer from William & Mary to CU Boulder. After becoming pregnant with her son, she completed college in Virginia and moved back to Boulder after graduating in 2007.
She lives in an Old North Boulder condo that is partly deed-restricted as affordable housing through Boulder Housing Partners. She and her girlfriend co-parent four children, ages 12, 10, 7 and 4.
Occupation: Real estate agent
Neighborhood: Old North Boulder
Rent or own?: Own
Answers to questionnaire:
Affordable housing: Market-rate homes are out of reach for many teachers, nurses, police officers and firefighters. What would you do to create more housing these middle-income residents can afford? What regulations, if any, would you change to lower the cost of building or renovating homes?
We need to get much more precise about housing than we have been. Too often, we get stuck on “build more or don’t build more.” But building more does not necessarily bring families back or create housing that our workforce can afford. We have built almost 4,000 units in the last decade, yet our non-student population has declined.
We need to look zone by zone at what’s getting built and who it’s serving. From there, we need to evaluate what’s getting in the way of the housing we need. We also have to work with CU to get more student housing built on or near campus. Student demand and investor interest mean some solutions on the Hill need to be different from those elsewhere.
Rewriting Title 9 is a top priority for me. We’ve layered on requirements and subjective reviews that favor big investors with time and capital over local owners. Our rules help shape capital flows, so we need to ask why certain zones keep producing luxury townhomes and condos, and what would encourage homes families and our workforce can afford. We also need to make smaller, owner-driven projects much easier.
Homelessness: What is one approach Boulder has not tried, or has not tried at scale, to address homelessness that you would bring to the council, and how should the city pay for it?
We often talk about homelessness and open drug use as though they are the same problem. They overlap, but losing your housing does not mean you have an addiction. We need different responses to different needs.
We already support a sober-living program serving up to 12 people. I would look at expanding that approach and adding other supported housing options for people with more complicated needs. It is often difficult to maintain sobriety when you are released back onto the street after rehab. People need somewhere stable to live and care teams who stay involved through that transition.
Boulder’s High Utilizer Initiative already coordinates care across agencies. I would build on that work, with persistent outreach to people who decline services and accountability for harmful behavior. I would also pursue shared city and county funding, including county behavioral-health tax dollars and eligible opioid-settlement funds. I would review existing spending for opportunities to fill these gaps.
I do not think Boulder should have to choose between compassion for people in crisis and safe, usable public spaces. We should measure whether people stay housed and experience fewer crises, then use those results to guide future decisions.
Governance: Boulder is entering its third straight year of budget cuts while facing a roughly $400 million backlog of major facility needs. How do you assess the problem, and what specific spending, revenue or management changes would you support?
Boulder’s budget problems are partly about the economy (declining sales tax revenue), but they’re also about choices we’ve made. We need to look at what we’re funding and whether our spending is doing what we intended. To this end, I support an independent performance auditor reporting to Council, with a small staff and a resident audit committee. We need to understand whether our programs are working and whether there are less expensive ways to get the same results.
I would take a closer look at consultant spending and temporary programs we’ve continued funding, while prioritizing core services and maintenance. Before approving major building projects, we need realistic estimates, ongoing operating costs, and alternatives. When costs or plans change substantially, those decisions should come back to Council.
I support investing in recreation and public-safety facilities, but I don’t support the $400+ million bond package as presented. We need a phased plan that explains what needs fixing now and what needs replacing or expanding.
Getting empty commercial spaces occupied and helping local businesses succeed would strengthen our sales-tax base. But that takes time. We still have to make hard choices with the money we actually have.
Flock: Would you end Boulder’s use of automated license plate readers, yes or no? Why or why not?
I would not renew our contract with Flock, and would not choose a new ALPR system until we have had a robust community conversation about data and privacy. I don’t support sharing residents’ information across jurisdictions or with other entities without very clear limits and oversight. We need to understand what level of surveillance residents are comfortable with. Where do we draw the line? That conversation will inform my decision.
I am grateful that our Police Chief and DA are refusing Trump administration demands for information, but our privacy shouldn’t depend on who happens to be in office or whether someone is willing to say no. The safeguards need to be built into the system itself. I want to understand whether an ALPR system can provide public-safety benefits while meeting that standard. I haven’t gotten a clear answer on that yet.
Finally, we need to look beyond license plate readers. Removing city cameras would not resolve questions about privately collected data or information the city can obtain elsewhere. We need clear rules about what information the city collects and shares. We cannot call ourselves a Sanctuary City if we are sharing information across jurisdictions without a community conversation.
Wildfire: Should Boulder adopt an ordinance requiring owners of existing homes and homeowners associations in high-risk areas to harden their properties against wildfire, yes or no? If yes, what should it require? Is the city doing enough to push Xcel Energy to prevent or limit wildfire-related power shutoffs? What more should it do?
No to an immediate blanket mandate requiring every home and HOA in WUI 1 & 2 to meet comprehensive standards on a 3-5 year timeline. I support the goal of communitywide wildfire resilience, but the implementation must be legally defensible and developed in cooperation with residents. Most residents that I have talked to in these zones do not even know that there might be an expensive mandate coming their way.
I would establish a public process committee to help develop an approach that gets us closer to our wildfire resilience goals and that does not place a significant financial burden on residents. Before adopting more expensive requirements, we need realistic cost estimates, guaranteed financial assistance, and protections against displacement.
On Xcel, the city has made progress, but I would push for stronger follow-through. We need public milestones for grid improvements that reduce ignition risk and limit the number of customers affected by shutoffs, including targeted undergrounding.
We need more advance notice about power shutoffs and a more targeted approach that limits disruptions to businesses, seniors, and essential infrastructure. We also need reliable updates on when power will be restored and a plan to support residents who depend on powered medical equipment.
Local businesses and downtown: Many local businesses, especially downtown, are struggling with rising costs and stagnating sales. What city policy would you change to help businesses stay open and reduce commercial vacancies, and what would you do to bring more customers downtown?
We need to make it easier for local businesses to open and try something new. Rewriting Title 9 is a top priority for me. I would simplify changes of use, make temporary shops and pop-ups easier, and speed up reviews for adaptive reuse. Long, unpredictable reviews cost money, especially for a local owner paying rent while waiting to open.
I would strengthen the city’s economic vitality office so local owners have more help finding space, navigating permits, and staying open. The office should pursue grants for small businesses and court larger companies to fill vacant offices. We can no longer rely on Boulder’s beauty and charm to attract businesses when there are more affordable and welcoming cities around us.
I would also reform zoning to discourage more luxury townhomes and condos that sit empty and encourage more smaller homes our workforce can afford. More people living near downtown means more regular customers for local businesses.
Finally, we need to get the basics right. People need to feel safe going downtown and to the Hill, which means clean, safe public spaces and a greater emphasis on curbing open drug use.
Closer: Imagine it is November 2027, one year after your election. What is one specific thing you will have accomplished?
I would like to help rebuild public trust in Boulder city government. That would mean residents believe their voices matter, their tax dollars are being spent responsibly, and the city follows through on what it promises.
That is not the answer I would have given before I began this campaign, but it has become a top priority because I have never seen public trust so low. As members of council, the community is our constituent, our customer, and our sole reason for being. We need to earn back trust through more inclusive decisions, wiser spending, and better communication.
Of course, I would like to do more than that, but that is my top priority in year one.