Better Boulder invited candidates for Mayor to answer questions about some of the biggest issues facing Boulder today, from housing and land use to transportation, downtown, public safety, climate resilience, and the city budget.

Below, you can compare their responses, question by question.

Click each candidate’s name to read their response. Responses are presented as submitted by the candidates.

In early 2025, the Boulder City Council passed an ordinance called Family-Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods to make it easier to build duplexes and triplexes in single-family home neighborhoods. Would you have voted yes or no on that ordinance? [If you were on city council when this vote occurred, did you vote to make it easier to build duplexes and triplexes?

Yes, I voted to pass the Family-friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods act to make it easier to build duplexes and triplexes. I believe the next step is to make it easier to build tiny homes. Tiny homes and tiny home communities are often seen as solutions targeted at the homeless, but this could be, if done well, a reasonable approach for Older Adults as well, especially if there can be tax incentives. It will be critical to ensure reasonable proximity to needed services to accelerate 15-minute neighborhoods. Not a “retirement community” per se, more a community targeted at retirees.

Yes. I was one of the people who spearheaded this initiative along with Lauren Folkerts.

Yes. Our housing crisis is exporting families and billions in wages. Zoning matters, but permit times make the difference on what gets built.

Yes. Boulder needs more housing choices, especially duplexes and triplexes that can help families and middle-income resident stay here.

Would you vote to reduce minimum lot sizes (or eliminate minimums entirely if you can meet all open space and set back requirements) in low-density zones to allow for greater housing density?

Yes, I would vote to reduce minimum lot sizes and be open to eliminating minimums entirely within Service Area I to allow for more density except for in the Urban Wildlife Interface area where I do not believe we should allow more density due to wildfire risk. We also need to revisit the permitting and bureaucratic burden to build ADUs. I would also advocate for lot diversification as well as explore ways to incentivize through reduced property taxes and fees for working families and essential workers.

Yes. I prefer plexes for greater density but am open to reducing lot sizes as well.

Yes. Boulder needs smart density and more housing choices.

Yes. No additional comment submitted.

Do you agree with this statement: In most circumstances, 3 traffic lanes (one each direction and a center turn lane) can carry as many cars as 4 lanes (two each direction with no center turn lane)?

As a person who uses a bike as my primary mode of transportation, I would be concerned about the room for bike lanes. I also do not agree with states like ‘most circumstances’ without specific metrics, locations, and/or cost projections. ‘Most’ could mean anything between 50 – 99%. Without specific locations, I would not agree with this statement.

Yes. No additional comment submitted.

Yes. It’s true at 10,000 vehicles per day and mostly true up to 20,000.

Yes. No additional comment submitted.

Are you committed to the build out of the Core Arterial Network?

I am committed to prioritizing what needs to be completed for the Core Arterial Network and crosswalking with need and funding available to complete it.

Yes. Absolutely! I’ve supported it from the beginning.

Yes, and we must enhance design to ensure public safety in all circumstances especially rapid fire evacuation across the system.

Yes. Completing the Core Arterial Network is essential to making biking, walking, and transit safer and more practical citywide.

Do you support the plan for Iris Avenue?

I remain conflicted about Iris Avenue Project given the financial constraints and lack of federal funding. There are also escalating urgent and important community and climate mitigation, not to mention the escalating climate chaos that will result in more billion dollar disasters. We cannot stretch ourselves too thin during these unprecedented polycrisis times.

Yes. I voted for it and my support hasn’t changed.

Yes, assuming we can conclusively demonstrate safe evacuation at this arterial and identify funding before final approval.

Yes. No additional comment submitted.

The 10-year Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update will be complete in weeks. What do you think of the plan? Do you think there are any missed opportunities or shortcomings? What 2-3 parts especially please you about the plan? How will you lead on implementing these important pieces of the plan?

I think the revised BVCP has made significant advancements with the future sections: agriculture and food systems; arts, culture, and economy; housing, natural infrastructure; and regional collaboration. These sections are much needed. Next steps are to crosswalk with department plans and budget projections.

Growth areas remain on the economic, ecological, and cultural realities that our city faces. Though I appreciate the food systems, natural infrastructure, and etc. I remain extremely concerned about the lack of community engagement at the end of the process and the lack of meaningful repair and atonement to our Tribal and Indigenous partners. The regional collaboration section could benefit from additional climate mitigation, water supply/infrastructure, and natural resources management.

Implementation, evaluation, and reporting will be essential to success. Specifically aligning council priorities, city wide strategic plan, and budgeting cycles will be a main focus for me as Mayor. In addition, stronger coordination with Boulder County and the respective Planning Boards is needed.

We are not only planning for 20 years but 150 more years – seven generations. Short term, disjointed policymaking got us here. It is time to plan beyond one generation.

I think the new comp plan is a major step forward. It was my retreat priority in 2024 to complete the plan by summer of 2026 and I’m thrilled to see the adoption process coming to a close. I think the most impactful change is allowing for more density and more uses across most of the city. If reelected, I will be pushing strongly for implementation action at the 2027 retreat to allow for more missing-middle housing types, more complimentary retail uses, and rezonings to realize the vision of the new comp plan.

The plan is both good and incomplete. It provides approximately 35% more housing capacity than the existing plan but it does not provide any specific housing goals. Boulder provides permits for 350-400 houses each year. Therefore, nothing contained within this document would change the rate at which we actually construct housing. Areas where I am pleased with the changes are: New language regarding the City’s support of increasing housing supply. It will have a much greater impact during the next ten years than the map will. Second, Community assemblies as a new way to engage the general public, and I am a supporter of finding new opportunities for greater collaborative engagement and participation. Third, Single-unit attached housing within a simpler, more flexible framework. Our code needs to be readable and actionable.

Shortcomings of the plan include the same thing I would note about the 2025 Duplex Ordinance, we continually modify what is allowable under the ordinance, but we never address the underlying factors that determine if an infill development is financially feasible. Fees, timeframes for obtaining permits, and financing options for small developments. I would establish a housing delivery goal and publish a performance dashboard, permits issued and units constructed by type on a monthly basis, during the first 100 days. Hire the performance auditor who is currently authorized under our city charter. Hiring the auditor requires five votes from City Council and does not require a vote of the electorate. Use the auditor to conduct the first audit of the work program associated with the Comprehensive Plan. Create a funded work program from the Comprehensive Plan, each action item with an owner, a date, and a budget line item reported publicly on a quarterly basis. Publicly report median permit processing times and work towards reducing those times.

I think the updated Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan moves Boulder in the right direction. I especially support its emphasis on creating more housing choices, building more walkable neighborhoods, improving multimodal transportation, and allowing our commercial areas and neighborhoods to evolve over time. My biggest concern is making sure we actually implement the vision we have spent so much time developing. A comprehensive plan does not accomplish much if outdated zoning rules, unpredictable development review, and long permitting timelines make the housing and mixed-use projects we want nearly impossible to build.

As Mayor, I would work to align our zoning and land-use regulations with the goals of the plan, expand opportunities for missing-middle housing, simplify and speed up the permitting process for projects that follow our rules, and encourage neighborhood centers where people can access housing, restaurants, groceries, services, and transit without having to drive across Boulder. I also think we need to measure whether these policies are actually working by publicly tracking things like attainable housing production, permitting timelines, and improvements to walking, biking, and transit connectivity. Boulder has spent years deciding what we want our future to look like. I want to make sure we move from planning to implementation while continuing to protect the open space and environmental values that make Boulder special.

The City is exploring the creation of a Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to increase investment in our downtown area. Is this the right path for revitalizing downtown Boulder? What do you view as the pros and cons? Are there alternative approaches to improving the economic vitality of downtown Boulder that you are interested in exploring?

I come from a business family. Our family engineering company has existed since 1974. I am committed to strengthening our business community, supporting transition away from extractive and exploitive practices, and ensuring that people who work here can live here.

Unfortunately, the DDA’s formation would allow corporations not based in the City of Boulder to have more authority than our residents. Residents who have invested in the downtown area since its funding. During a time when our democracy is being tested, we must hold strong to the pillars of representative democracy in all our affairs.

Alternative approaches include a commercial vacancy tax on those properties that have sat empty for YEARS! I do not believe in blanket policies that disproportionately hurt small and locally owned businesses. I believe improving the economic vitality of downtown and anywhere else will require innovation in ways our city – and country – have never done before. But worry not, this is BOULDER where we did the Blue Line, bought the land for NCAR, and expanded the reach and depth of our state university. Bold ideas, deeper collaboration, and a willingness to expand the commons will be critical during this escalating polycrisis.

I voted in favor of the DDA because I think having a new entity that combines CAGID and UHGID with TIF financing could catalyze new vibrancy, activity and tax revenues from downtown. A lot of significant concerns were raised by community members, but I think they could be resolved successfully by carefully crafting the plan of development and the IGA with the city, along with having a more robust 50%/50% cost share between the DDA and existing taxing entities. Done well, a DDA will result in more future tax revenue for all. But if the DDA concept comes back in the future, we would need to do significant additional engagement with school district, the library district, the county and community members that would potentially be impacted. In the meantime, we should work hard on ways to ease permitting for new business as well as ways to decrease commercial vacancies and encourage commercial to residential conversions.

Yes the DDA was the correct tool. It was a victim of a process that rushed a large conversation through a pinhole in Council chambers and strangled it. Downtown has not recovered from COVID. Tax increment financing is a proven way to pay for downtown investment using downtown’s own growth.

If I were going to try this again, I would do the following things differently prior to asking people to vote on the DDA. Governance was never resolved. We asked people to approve an authority with a 30-year life and two 20-year extensions and we did not show them who would sit on the board, who would appoint the members to the board, or how they would be removed from the board. Merchants were the first group of people to ask this question. There was no good answer to their questions.

Franchise was never resolved. There are approximately 2500 registered voters within the boundaries of the DDA. These voters were asked to approve a structure that captured tax increments on sales taxes that the entire city voted to dedicate to open space, parks and transportation. Either remove these items from the DDA or ask voters in a city-wide advisory vote if they want to support the DDA. We did neither.

And merchants wanted to know what would be gained by supporting the DDA immediately and in the long run. Merchants were provided with a map of the DDA boundaries. If I brought the DDA back, I would speak about the board structure first, protect the dedicated increments, and include a two-year list of visible improvements.

In the interim, I would not wait. I would bring city employees back downtown occupancy is the least expensive vacancy solution available to us. I would fully fund the Clutch Consulting recommendations. And I would make the first two hours of garage use free, we already provide free Sunday parking. Downtown needs customers, not tolls.

I think a Downtown Development Authority could be a useful tool for revitalizing downtown Boulder, but I do not think creating another government entity automatically fixes the problems we are facing. Downtown needs more people living, working, shopping, eating, and spending time there. A DDA could help by creating a dedicated source of investment and giving downtown a focused organization responsible for long-term improvements, but I would be concerned about adding another layer of bureaucracy without clear goals, measurable results, and transparency about where the money is going.

I am interested in exploring a DDA, but I also think we need to address the underlying reasons downtown businesses struggle. We should make it easier to turn vacant or underused spaces into housing, restaurants, shops, and mixed-use development, streamline permitting for local businesses, improve walking, biking, and transit connections into downtown, and continue investing in a public realm that actually makes people want to spend time there. I would also like to see more housing in and around downtown because one of the best ways to create a healthier business district is to have more customers living within walking distance of it.

I do not care whether the solution is called a DDA or something else. I care whether it brings people back downtown, helps local businesses succeed, and produces results that Boulder residents can actually see.

Title 9 of our city code is our land use code. Some council and community members are advocating for a complete rewrite of this title. Do you support or oppose this, and do you think now is the right time to undertake this?

I support a re-write of Title 9. For too many years, previous councils have done what they can to fix here and there. However, given the current state of affairs, I believe it is necessary to revisit and reimagine the city code to meet this moment and create a pathway for future generations to be able to not only afford to live here but to be able to LIVE here with clean water, clean air, clean local food, meaningful work, etc. Now is the time to undertake this as next year the City of Boulder will update the Integrated Water Plan which should be the foundation upon which much is decided.

Yes, I do support this idea, and I think the time is right to get started on it! I’ve led the push over the last few years to remove outdated and overly complex rules from our code, but our land use code has accreted so many rules and regulations over the decades that compliance with them all can be very challenging for local property owners. A fresh start would provide the opportunity to start from scratch with simplified and common sense regulations instead and make things much easier for all going forward. That being said, I do want to continue to make some changes to the existing Title 9 code in the near term, particularly to implement the new comp plan as mentioned in the previous answer.

Support, this is the most critical component of this list. We have been working on a comprehensive plan for two years. Title 9 will deliver that plan or not. The code is the constraint. Boulder last updated their code in 1981, and we have layered upon it continually since then: Use Review, Site Review, Height Modification, Planning Board Call-ups, Historic Review on Any Building Over 50 Years Old, Then Floodplain Permits, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans, Inclusionary Requirements, and Form Based Standards on Top.

Each layer was put there with good intentions. No one has ever taken off a layer. Complexity itself is now the gatekeeper. There are documentation costs associated with it. Use Reviews typically go beyond 200 days. Jess Liu waited 408 days to get permission to convert a retail space on Pearl Street into a cafe, no opposition from anyone, no red flags, and said if she had known what she was getting into, she would never have signed the lease. Christine Ruch paid rent on an empty space for nine months while waiting to expand Fresh Thymes, then she closed all three of her locations. A conforming multifamily project takes four to eight months in Portland, Oregon and twelve to twenty-four months in Boulder, Colorado.

This is not just a housing problem; it is also a small business problem. They are both parts of the same issue. Yes, and now. This is another area where a performance auditor can help reform our systems.

I support rewriting Title 9, and I think now is probably the best opportunity Boulder has had in years to do it. Our land use code has accumulated decades of rules, exceptions, review processes, and zoning standards that can make relatively simple projects unnecessarily complicated and expensive. If Boulder says that we want more attainable housing, walkable neighborhoods, neighborhood-serving businesses, and development around transit, our code should actually make those things possible.

I would like to see Title 9 rewritten in plain language with clearer approval paths, fewer unnecessary discretionary reviews, and more flexibility for missing-middle housing and mixed-use development. At the same time, I do not want a rewrite to become another five-year planning exercise where nothing gets built while we debate every sentence. We just completed a major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, so this is the logical time to make sure our land use code actually reflects the future we just spent years planning for.

I would approach the rewrite with significant public input, clear timelines, and a focus on making it easier to build the kinds of projects Boulder says it wants while continuing to protect our open space, public realm, and quality of life.

What specific policy changes and incentives would you support to increase the supply and affordability of market-rate homes for middle-income households in the City of Boulder?

Middle income housing need only makes up 12% of the 10 year housing need in the city of Boulder. The largest block is the “affordable housing” block of 0%-50% of AMI which makes up 60% of the 10 year housing need in the city. Though the housing type for middle income is low, the housing demand for low income is much higher.

I agree with the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, that middle-income housing should not displace funds for low income housing assistance. Middle income housing policies disproportionately target people with fewer economic vulnerabilities (p. 34).

I agree with the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which stresses that middle-income programs should accompany benefits for low-income households. For too long, our city has had an either/or approach to our housing approach. We must create a middle income housing approach that does not detract from the already limited resources dedicated to assisting low income and permanently affordable housing.

Despite this overwhelming low-income need, the majority of the households in Boulder currently (~71%) are 1 or 2 person households with retirees and/or no kids. More than 40% of all households are severely burdened by their housing cost (housing cost accounts for more than 50% of income).

One solution is to connect retirees with students and/or working families to create intergenerational living situations that benefits everyone. Silver Nest, now HomeShareOnline, is a home sharing platform that connects older adults that have extra space in their home with compatible roommates. This increases income socialization on all sides.

I support additional rezonings to allow for denser housing along transit corridors. The data shows that most of the new apartments built in the last few years are affordable to people making around the Area Median Income, so we should continue to allow and encourage more of those to be built. Allowing for more middle-missing housing types can help allow for housing affordable to middle-income households — the Holiday Neighborhood where I live is a great example of that approach being successful. But the high price of land in Boulder makes middle-income ownership housing to build, which is why I support moving forward with the annexation of the Area III Planning Reserve. Given the lower land prices there, if done right, annexing that land could result in the construction of many hundreds of middle-income affordable ownership housing.

The demand side of housing assistance does not work without supply. We are continuously making the exact opposite error: we legislate the building type and believe we have solved the price issue. Suspend review fees for small infill projects, ADUs and tenant improvements; however, do not suspend excise taxes that fund parks and transportation. Waive all review fees at the time that a certificate of occupancy is issued to encourage builders to complete projects and not just apply for them.

Following this temporary suspension, establish a permanent program that publishes a review deadline for plans submitted for approval. If review deadlines are missed, require review fees to be refunded to the builder. If we are going to charge someone for providing them with services, then we must be accountable for providing those services. Develop pre-approved plan sets for duplexes and triplexes to eliminate the need for small builders to incur additional costs associated with hiring an architect.

Adjust inclusionary housing requirements for small projects. Requiring twenty-five percent of the units in a four-unit building to be affordable is not one unit; rather, it is one bill that can often cause the project that we claim we desire to fail. Remove parking minimum requirements for small units located adjacent to transit. Finally, publish the number of homes delivered annually at eighty to one hundred twenty percent of Area Median Income (AMI) with no subsidies. Currently, no one can provide you with this data.

I think Boulder’s middle-income housing crisis comes down to a pretty simple problem: we have made it extremely difficult to build the kinds of homes that middle-income people can actually afford. Teachers, nurses, first responders, small-business owners, and young families should not have to leave Boulder simply because the only new market-rate options that make financial sense to build are expensive apartments or multimillion-dollar homes.

I would start by allowing more missing-middle housing, including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage courts, smaller condos, and other modestly sized homes, in more parts of Boulder. I would allow greater housing density around transit corridors and commercial centers, reduce minimum lot sizes where appropriate, and make it easier to redevelop underused parking lots and commercial properties into mixed-use neighborhoods.

I also think we need to attack the cost of building housing itself. Projects that provide middle-income homes should receive expedited permitting, reduced fees, and predictable approval timelines rather than spending years navigating unnecessary review. I would support density and height incentives when developers voluntarily include homes affordable to middle-income households, and I would look aggressively at city-owned land, land trusts, employer-assisted housing, faith-community land, and partnerships with other public institutions as opportunities to lower the cost of land.

At the same time, I do not think we should take resources away from Boulder’s existing permanently affordable housing program for lower-income residents. Middle-income housing needs its own strategy centered on producing more attainable market-rate homes and bringing the underlying cost of construction down. Boulder cannot subsidize its way out of a housing shortage. If we want middle-income people to live here, we have to make it legal and financially realistic to build homes they can afford.

Do you think the current inclusionary housing fees used to produce permanently affordable housing are too high, too low, or just right? What changes would you make, if any, and why?

According to the data from DRCOG and state agencies, they’re too low. The need for more affordable housing is already dire and escalating with the rise of inflation and withdrawal of federal support. The city needs partners to quickly use any in-lieu funds it already has and will receive over the next 5-10 years to meet the many working families and essential workers who have the vouchers but lack housing availability.

I think the current inclusionary housing fees are appropriate. Through our housing authority Boulder Housing Partners and other partners Boulder has brought an average of 170 permanently deed-restricted units online per year over the last 6 years, and most of that is due to our inclusionary housing fees. I’m supportive of the changes to the program over the last few years, such as adding a middle-income component and changing IH calculations from unit-based to square footage-based.

Too much. And to make this clear, I am making a gut judgment, not a measurement; the City has never produced the data to help us determine if that is true or not. You ask me what I believe. First credit, inclusionary housing has worked. The City of Boulder currently provides 4,326 permanently affordable housing units 8.9% of all units available in the City, over half way towards achieving the 15% objective. The cash-in-lieu does not provide the “loophole” that many believe it does. According to the City’s own calculations, a 100-unit development generates approximately 25 affordable units on-site, however the developer’s cash contribution generates an additional 30-40 affordable units. Therefore, continue to use the cash-in-lieu mechanism.

Now consider what developers are doing today. Developers generally elect to pay in lieu of constructing units. This is revealed preference, and indicates that the on-site requirement is not economically viable. Additionally, we are approving construction of 350-400 homes each year in a community that has identified a housing unit deficit. An on-site requirement of 25% for a structure that will never be built results in zero affordable units.

While I can’t demonstrate that inclusionary zoning is the limiting factor causing the housing shortage, neither can anyone else; as no one has ever quantitatively assessed it. Therefore, calibrate the on-site requirement downward at the small project level, where 25% of a four-unit development is not one unit – it is a financial obligation. Shift the focus of our 15% affordable housing objective to middle-income families, whom we are not currently serving. Finally, conduct the elasticity analysis anyway, so this becomes less of a matter of opinion.

I do not think Boulder should weaken its Inclusionary Housing program. It has created permanently affordable homes and remains one of the most important tools we have for helping lower-income residents stay in Boulder. At the same time, I think we need to be realistic about the fact that every additional fee placed on housing increases the cost of getting that housing built. If our requirements become so expensive that projects no longer make financial sense, we are not creating more affordable housing, we are just reducing the amount of housing that gets built.

I would like to see a system where the burden is more closely tied to the size, value, and type of project, with luxury development carrying a larger share while middle-income and genuinely affordable housing receive stronger incentives and lower barriers. I also think Boulder should look at whether requirements based more on residential square footage would make more sense than simply counting units, because we should not discourage the construction of smaller homes.

My goal is to protect and grow Boulder’s permanently affordable housing program while making sure the way we fund it does not unintentionally make the broader housing shortage worse.

Powerful e-bikes known as “e-motos” have become popular with many community members, particularly teenagers, but some concerns have been raised about their safety on the streets and multi-use paths due to their speed and weight. Should the city be regulating their use more? What type of regulation would you propose?

The city should be enforcing existing policies and strengthen them in collaboration with the state. The police department has 6 e-bikes?!?!?! We pay a significant amount of our budget to the police and yet the current discussion is on a new building.

We don’t need police officers in their office, we need them on the streets. We also need to strengthen accountability for the caregivers that purchase these e-motos and allow their children to ride them illegally.

Definitely. These vehicles are already illegal for teenagers to use, and we need to get the word out about that. We should be partnering with CU, the school district and others to educate the public that these heavy, powerful vehicles aren’t appropriate for young people and their use is in fact against the law. I’ve been glad to see steps being taken in that direction, like flyers that CU is handing out and the recent educational video that the Boulder Sheriff’s office did that included Boulder PD. We need to continue and step up that work.

If we are thinking about the same type of e-motos, and I suspect we are, I would ban them.

I think Boulder needs to draw a much clearer line between an e-bike and an e-moto. A Class 1 or Class 2 e-bike that tops out at 20 miles per hour is a useful transportation tool, and I do not want to make it harder for people to choose biking over driving. An e-moto capable of going 40 or 50 miles per hour is a completely different vehicle and should not be treated like a bicycle simply because it happens to be electric.

Boulder already prohibits e-motos on multi-use paths and bike lanes, so I think our biggest problem is enforcement rather than a lack of rules. I would focus on enforcing existing vehicle classifications and speed limits, particularly the 15 mile-per-hour limit on multi-use paths, and making sure high-speed e-motos are registered, insured, and road-legal before they can be operated on public streets. I would also support more education for teenagers and parents and require retailers to clearly explain where the vehicles they sell can legally be ridden.

I do not think the answer is banning e-bikes or discouraging electric transportation. The goal should be to make biking and other alternatives to driving easier while treating high-speed electric motorcycles like the motor vehicles they actually are.

Acknowledging that the job of governing requires skillful navigation of competing priorities, what do you think are the city government’s current top three priorities? What do you think their top three priorities should be?

City of Boulder governmental priorities include addressing deferred maintenance of essential buildings, addressing budget constraints, and wildlife mitigation. Though the city budget would suggest transportation and policing.

As Mayor, my focus areas would include good governance (eg accountability, transparency, and reporting), climate resilience (eg wildfires mitigation, water, and food systems), and climate disaster response (eg energy shut offs, floods, wildlife).

The top priority of city government should be the safety and health of it’s residents. This is safety in the fullest sense of the world — making sure that our first responders have the resources to help people in crises and emergencies, but also that our drinking water is healthy to drink, that residents are protected from floods and wildfire, that our transportation system is safe to use, etc.

Second, the city should be providing services that maintain and improve the quality of life for residents. Think of city parks, open space trails, affordable housing, small business permitting and support, etc.

Finally, the city should be providing all of these services with a careful eye to equity, sustainability and resilience, ensuring that everyone has fair access to those services and that they are done in ways that support the city’s success both immediately and long into the future. A city is a forever project and we can’t afford short term thinking about how it is run.

While there are always areas for improvement, I think that the city follows these priorities in its operations. The shift to outcome based budgeting over the last few years has ensured that limited city resources are carefully prioritized. Safety comes first, followed by the key services that residents rely on and appreciate, all done in a way that serves all of our residents and works towards a thriving and sustainable future.

The way you judge a government is based upon its budget and its calendar. In terms of judging the city today based on those criteria, the top three issues for the city are the $650 million bond and the capital program behind it; land use policy (which took 18 months to develop a comprehensive plan and continues to be an ongoing process of modifying codes); and managing underperformance downtown and across public spaces.

It is now five years since the Marshall Fires occurred. The funding for wildfire is currently $1.5 million per year; yet, the voters are being asked to provide $650 million for buildings.

Downtown. Rather than funding the symptoms identified by Clutch Consulting (e.g., funding police overtime), fully fund the Clutch Consulting recommendations. Bring city employees back downtown – occupancy is the least costly solution to putting feet back on Pearl Street. Provide two hours of free parking in city garages. All of these actions do not require establishing a new district or tax.

Governance & performance. Establish a performance auditor that has been approved in the charter. Publish dashboard reports for the few metrics that indicate if the city is working effectively – time to issue permits – number of homes constructed – response time – cost per outcome. At present, we cannot determine if our own signature programs are working. This is not a data problem. It is a transparency and trust problem.

Wildfire adaptability – with a deadline. Retrofit WUI-1 & WUI-2 to meet the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home Essential Standard within three years. The essential standard is focused on embers – embers are what cause fires. The money already exists. The climate tax funds wildfire resilience through 2040. Currently $1.5 million annually with grant limits of $2,000 per property. This is a nudge – not a retrofit. Scale it up to address the magnitude of the problem – stack it with the county’s wildfire mitigation sales tax & federal grants – set a deadline. If a city can come up with $650 million for buildings – it can come up with the money to keep them standing.

I think the City’s current priorities are largely centered around long-term financial stability and our backlog of infrastructure needs, public safety and homelessness, and housing affordability. Those are all important issues, but I think Boulder sometimes spreads its attention across so many projects that it becomes difficult to tell what we are actually trying to accomplish.

If I had to set three priorities for the next City Council, mine would be housing affordability and availability, economic vitality and government efficiency, and safe multimodal transportation. On housing, I want us to focus on actually producing more homes, especially middle-income and missing-middle housing, rather than continuing to study a problem we already understand. On economic vitality, I want Boulder to become a city where opening a business, building housing, or improving a property does not require navigating years of unpredictable permitting and regulatory hurdles. That also means taking a serious look at our budget and making sure residents are getting measurable results from the money we already spend.

Finally, I think transportation should be about giving people real choices. Walking, biking, and public transit should be safe and practical enough that someone can choose not to drive without making their life significantly harder. I do not think governing means pretending every issue can be the number one priority. It means deciding what matters most, setting measurable goals, and being willing to hold ourselves accountable for whether we actually accomplish them.

What are three areas of the city budget that you think are ripe for cutting? Are there changes in process or budget allocations that would you actively pursue if you were elected?

Three areas for budget cuts: (1) staffing – more than 30 communications staff while only 6 staff focused on our food systems is a micro example of a macro problem; (2) unfunded projects that are not urgent and important; and (3) technology. In the City of Longmont, their AXON contract will result in $16 million over 10 years. Given the size of the City of Boulder, that cost could be as high as $32 million.

As Mayor, I would advocate for stronger financial analysis, valid/reliable research and evaluation of existing projects, budget vs. actuals, and ongoing financial planning during policy decision making. I would also support an independent city audit.

I have served on the Audit Committee in hopes that we were going to do just that. Turns out, that was not the case at all as numbers are not at the staffing and project level. Another opportunity is shifting to a two year budget cycle that is aligned with BOTH the citywide strategic plan, department plan/budgets, and council priorities.

I’ll highlight one area that could be cut, which is in community engagement. Our community expects thorough and high quality outreach from it’s government and we should continue that. But, there have been some outreach experiments that haven’t been successful and shouldn’t be repeated so that their budget can be used for other things going forward.

Revenues have been flat or declining for two years now, and the city budget is being reduced accordingly, with reductions to different departments based on reducing non-essential services. An area that definitely needs additional funds is wildfire preparedness and prevention. I’ll be going into this year’s budget season with a careful eye towards adding resources in that area.

Priority Based Budgeting, and I think this is already underway. Create a list of every service provided along with their costs. Then assign a score to each service. Did a law require us to provide that service or was there an option to change the way we provide it? This will show us many things that most people do not realize.

Most of our budget can’t be cut. Sales tax revenues for open space, transportation and parks are dedicated by voters. Enterprise funds are used for water and sewer operations. The General Fund is an ample fund that must be targeted correctly. Anyone who names three large areas of spending reductions without telling you what fund those reductions come from is telling you a story.

That being said, we need to look at staffing levels, we need to look at tools that increase efficiency and throughput, and we need to look at nice-to-haves rather than must haves.

I do not think cutting the budget should mean randomly taking a percentage out of every department. I think we should start with the spending that residents are least likely to notice disappearing. The first area I would look at is outside consulting, repeated studies, and planning work on issues where Boulder has already spent years determining what needs to be done. There is a point where another study stops being due diligence and starts becoming a substitute for action.

Second, I would take a hard look at administrative overhead, long-vacant positions, management layers, and internal costs that have grown faster than the services residents actually receive. I would much rather protect firefighters, police officers, permitting staff, transportation services, and housing programs than preserve a position simply because it has historically existed in the budget.

Third, I would scrutinize lower-priority capital expansions and new amenities while we still have a significant backlog of maintenance on infrastructure and facilities we already own. I do not think it makes sense to keep adding new obligations while putting off repairs and eventually asking taxpayers to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to catch up.

The process itself also needs to change. I want residents to be able to see what individual programs cost, what outcome each program is supposed to produce, and whether it is actually producing that outcome. I would support regular performance reviews and sunset dates for discretionary programs so funding does not automatically continue forever without justification. Boulder has a large budget. Before asking residents for more money, I think we have an obligation to prove that we are getting everything we can out of the money they already give us.

As you’ve watched Boulder’s Council over the past five to ten years, among the hundreds of decisions they’ve made, which one do you most celebrate? And which one do you most regret?

Over the last 5-10 years, I celebrate the following policy decisions: raised council pay which allows for more socioeconomic and geographic representation increased minimum wage, and the creation of the Boulder Police Oversight Panel formation.

Over the last 5-10 years, I regret the lack of multipronged approach to homelessness that aligns with the Housing First framework; lack of meaning use of agriculture portfolio to address food access; and the latest BVCP update which lacked consistent community engagement, underestimated the time needed for the 4-body negotiations and voting process, the uneven data provided the frame problems, and lack of prioritization and financial forecasting projections.

I think there’s a huge amount to celebrate, so it’s hard to pick just one! I’ll pick a category, which is all the steps we’ve taken to increase housing options in Boulder, from allowing ADU’s by right, duplexes and triplexes on transit corridors, shifting regulations to encourage more, smaller units, rezoning on transit corridors, removing parking minimums, the list goes on and I’ve been proud to be a leader on those efforts throughout the process.

One regret I have is not about making a decision but about the timing of making it. The disruptions at city council meetings in 2024 and 2025 were incredibly challenging for council and for the community. We made a series of rules changes over that period that helped somewhat, but it was a more comprehensive set of changes that I led the way on in the summer of 2025 that finally brought those disruptions under control. If I could change something, it would be to have instituted those changes much earlier.

Maybe on a different year I would answer something else, but in 2026 I would say our Sanctuary City designation and expressed commitment to make our most vulnerable residents safe. The lack of will by the City Council to question or review our Flock contract.

The decision I most celebrate is Boulder’s continued investment in wildfire resilience and climate preparedness, particularly the work behind the updated Community Wildfire Protection Plan and programs that help homeowners harden their properties against wildfire. I think protecting Boulder’s natural environment also means acknowledging that wildfire, drought, and extreme weather are real threats that require practical local action. I support environmental policy that produces measurable improvements in resilience rather than simply setting ambitious goals on paper.

The decision I most regret is Boulder’s use of Flock automated license plate reader cameras. I support giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep people safe, but I do not think public safety requires creating a system that continuously records the movements of ordinary people who are not suspected of committing a crime. I am especially concerned about how data can be shared, retained, or used outside the circumstances Boulder originally intended. I would rather invest in targeted policing and technology that helps officers solve crimes without normalizing mass surveillance.

Boulder, like many small cities, has a weak mayor/strong city manager system. How do you see the role of the mayor currently, and what would you change within the bounds of our current system?

Currently, the mayor role is undefined and ceremonial. Now that the city has an elected mayor, I believe the role needs to evolve towards stronger vision, accountability to councilmembers, boards/commission, community members, and business.

The mayor is a ‘team captain’ who needs to hold the line of our policies, build bridges across communities, speak truth even when it’s not convenient, and ensure that we are ‘walking our talk’ on sustainability, equity, and resilience.

I am a big believer in the council-manager form of government. Having the elected mayor lead the legislative branch of government while the city manager leads the executive branch is a very successful structure that avoids the politicization of day to day decisions and puts city operations in professional hands. There’s a reason that all but four cities in Colorado use the system.

But while the mayor is not the head of daily operations they have an incredibly important role as the leader of the city council and the public face of the city. In my five years as mayor, I have taken a collaborative approach to the role to ensure that all voices are heard on council, and that we work with staff and community to find the best solutions for the entire city. I am not shy to use my voice and state my opinions, but I don’t pretend to have all of the answers.

I think the city is best served when we all work together to solve our common problems, and it’s resulted in major accomplishments, like the housing ones I listed in the previous answer. I think the mayor’s role in the community is incredibly important as well and should involve constant outreach. For my part I accept every invitation that I receive unless I’m already booked and have visited hundreds of classrooms, businesses, non-profits and other organizations. Making sure the city is well represented to the media and to regional and national organizations is key as well.

All to say that the daily work of the mayor in a council-manager form of government is multi-faceted but critically important and I think the current structure serves the city well.

We have mistakenly equated the absence of executive authority with the absence of leadership. A mayor in Boulder has the same voting rights as every other member of the city council; however, the role would not exist if it was simply another council member. In fact, voters chose to change the way they elect their mayor. Voters now directly elect the mayor. Therefore, a citywide mandate for an elected official should carry some weight.

Not a strong-mayor system. Not command and control. However, leadership – organizing the people, institutions and capacity of this city around getting things done.

The job has three obligations: Be the interface of trust between City Hall and the community. This trust is currently broken. The message from residents is not subtle, they will not provide this institution with more funds unless they know exactly what they will receive in return. Trust is not a communications problem and you cannot message your way out of it. It’s the cumulative result of doing what you say you’ll do, and when you can’t, explaining why and treating people like adults.

Make Council successful. All of it. Major decisions properly paced and properly prepared. Nothing consequential should arrive half-baked. No one should be forced into a false choice because of a faulty process. The mayor shouldn’t dictate how eight other people vote, but the mayor can certainly create the conditions for nine people to make good decisions together.

Drive accountability in public. When government asks for extraordinary amounts of money, it owes people an explanation of what it plans to do differently. When costs increase dramatically, someone needs to explain why.

I see the Mayor’s role as setting direction, building consensus, and making sure Council turns broad goals into actual results, while respecting that the City Manager is responsible for day-to-day operations. I do not think Boulder needs a Mayor who pretends to be a chief executive when our system does not give the office that authority.

I would use the position much more aggressively to set clear Council priorities, organize agendas around those priorities, and publicly track whether we are actually making progress on issues like housing, public safety, transportation, and economic vitality. I would also make the Mayor’s office more accessible by communicating regularly with residents, businesses, neighborhood groups, and city staff instead of allowing major decisions to feel like they happen inside City Hall.

Within our current system, I think the Mayor can be much more effective simply by providing focus, accountability, and leadership.

Is there anything else you want us to know about your candidacy and how it relates to Better Boulder’s mission?

I agree with the Better Boulder statement about high-quality, safe, and affordability. My mayoral focus remains laser focused on short term need to respond to the escalating polycrisis while creating pathways for long term intergenerational sustainability.

During my 11 years on council and 5 years as mayor, I have pushed steadily for Better Boulder’s priorities, and we have made huge progress on many of them including key initiatives related to housing, land use, and transportation. I would be honored to receive Better Boulder’s support again for a final two year term as mayor and continue to make progress in all of those areas. Thank you for your consideration!

Yes. One thing. I’ve been housing insecure in Boulder. I’ve been food insecure in Boulder. I don’t say that often and I’m not looking for anything from it — but when Better Boulder talks about who gets to live here, I’m not describing a constituency. I stayed. Most people in that position don’t. That’s the 3,600 children who have left our schools and the 60,000 people who drive in every morning to work in a city they can’t afford to live in. They aren’t an abstraction to me. They’re the version of my life where it went the other way.

I’d also be the first Latino mayor in Boulder’s history. I don’t offer that as a credential. I offer it as a fact about the room. During the duplex hearings, a councilmember said out loud that our public process overrepresents people who already own homes. That’s true – and it’s true of the dais too. Boulder makes housing policy with almost nobody at the table who has been on the receiving end of it. That produces predictable blind spots, and no amount of good intention corrects for it.

It’s also why I care so much about measurement. When you’ve been the person a policy failed, you stop being satisfied with whether we passed something. You want to know whether it worked. That’s the whole campaign. It comes from somewhere.

I am running because I think Boulder can protect what makes this city special while still becoming more affordable, dynamic, and welcoming to the people who want to build a life here. I believe that means allowing more housing choices, making it easier to open and grow local businesses, improving walking, biking, and transit, and cutting through unnecessary permitting and regulatory delays.

As Mayor, I would focus heavily on implementation and measurable results rather than allowing good ideas to get stuck in years of studies and process. I want Boulder to remain environmentally responsible and community-oriented while becoming a city where middle-income families, young people, entrepreneurs, and longtime residents can realistically afford to stay and succeed.