2026 Ballot Issue Endorsements
PLAN-Boulder County 2026 Ballot Issue Endorsements
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2J - No
PLAN-Boulder County does not support the Residential Vacancy Tax.
We see it as a means to extract limited funds from “other “ people and we are not sure this will produce the objectives that are hoped for. In any case, administering it will be costly and likely complicated. We need to simplify Boulder government, not make it more complicated and costly.
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2K - No
PLAN-Boulder County opposes Ballot Issue 2K, the city’s $400 million bond issue supported by property tax, that adds up to $650 million in total costs with interest.
We do strongly support addressing the long-accumulating deferred maintenance of city facilities, and in particular, the buildings identified as high priorities, including the Public Safety Building and the South Boulder Recreation Center; however, we do not support throwing $650 million at something that is so ill-defined as the proposal that is Ballot Issue 2K. We want to see enough data on design and costs to know that we won’t be stuck with projects with huge increases over the preliminary cost estimates.
Two notable high profile examples of what happens when projects are undertaken without adequate preparation are the Alpine-Balsam West Campus and South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation, both of which are troubled by huge increases in the projected costs. We voters are unwilling to go along with the city’s “Trust us” attitude on Ballot Issue 2K, and are reluctant to let the city spend more millions of dollars without adequate financial guardrails. Come back to us next year with a better-defined proposal.
Boulder County Ballot Question 200 - Yes
PLAN-Boulder County endorses increasing the Boulder County Board of Commissioners from three members to five members.
Boulder County is large and diverse. Currently three at-large County Commissioners make decisions for more than 330,000 residents across every city, town, and rural area. Boulder County’s population has more than doubled since the 1970s, yet Boulder County has used a three-commissioner, at-large election model since the county was formed in 1861.
We feel that the expansion of the number of commissioners will ensure fairer, more balanced representation. It would allow better focus on the diverse needs and perspectives of residents across the county, from the urban areas to the rural farms, from the mountains to the plains. It would allow greater capacity for more commissioner outreach, problem-solving and attention to the unique priorities of different communities. And five commissioners would provide for broader perspectives and positions in board deliberations over county issues.
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A – No Position
PLAN-Boulder County does not take a position on the Boulder County Early Childhood Care and Education Issue.
We clearly see the need for more financial support for early childhood care and education. At the same time, we acknowledge that we are asking for more and more taxes from our citizens who are already challenged by the difficult financial conditions created by state and federal financial policies. It is a worthy issue, and we recommend that each voter assess their own support based on their financial ability to take on more taxes.
Colorado Proposition 137 - No
Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
PLAN-Boulder County urges a NO vote on this issue. While the title of this measure sounds appealing, it has many flaws. The measure takes from the State’s General Fund the sales tax revenues collected on sporting goods and allocates them to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the Great Outdoors Colorado Program without providing clear guidance on their use.
The measure fails to focus expenditure of these funds on the most important and efficient means of reducing wildfire risks: investing in Home Hardening and reducing grass and forest fuels along the Wildland-Urban Interface, areas where large investments are genuinely needed. By removing an estimated $175 million to $180 million from the General Fund, Proposition 137 takes away from the legislature the ability to allocate state revenues to the state’s highest priorities.
In addition, the measure provides no transparency, oversight, or accountability to the legislature or to voters to ensure focused spending on the reduction of wildfire risks and the state’s greatest conservation needs.
For more information see: https://noprop137.com/opposition
