Opinion: The importance of including Boulder citizens in city decisions

What started me off on this topic was an email I got from a friend regarding the Boulder City Council’s discussion of the tipped minimum wage issue at their recent meeting, and in particular the testimony of Rebecca Mitchell, professor at the Leeds School of Business at CU.

Prof. Mitchell provided an excellent critique of the city’s work, which, no surprise, supported the city’s proposal that favored the restaurants. But before she finished, her testimony was abruptly cut off after exactly two minutes.

Prof. Mitchell said her day job is to “evaluate whether the evidence supports the causal conclusion being drawn.” And she added, “The June 2026 report (done by city staff) does not do so. Instead, it reads as a post-hoc justification for policy direction that appears to already have been chosen.”

If I were on the council and considering a decision, and a CU professor took the time to come and testify, I would want to hear all she had to say, ask her questions, and probe the issues she raised. But that’s not how this council operates.

Instead, this council has strict rules as to how much time is allotted. People can be cut off in mid-sentence, and may not be able to finish what they had to say. Questions from council members are only allowed after all testimony is heard, which almost guarantees that these questions will be out of context. And even then, they are strictly limited. Extended discussions are not allowed.

What is the point of all these constraints? Clearly, it’s not to save time. Even if half the people testifying needed a bit of time to complete their comments, that might add 10 or so minutes to the meeting. And if some were immediately asked questions, wouldn’t the few extra minutes be worth it to hear something unexpected and useful?

Another example of this is the council’s abrupt decision to abandon efforts to regain control of the airport from the FAA. This whole process started back when the city engaged in discussions with the FAA as to whether the city’s 1991 acceptance of $5,800 to obtain an easement for a larger construction project somehow committed the city to keep the airport open in perpetuity.

Meanwhile, a group of citizens began gathering signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to force the city to stop accepting more money from the FAA and so regain control of the airport for possible conversion to housing. But after the citizens gathered more than enough valid signatures, the city sued the FAA. Then the citizens pulled their petition because of this lawsuit.

I just read through the judge’s 20-plus page decision. In summary, the judge ruled that the issue was not ripe for decision now because the city’s contractual obligation didn’t even potentially end until 2040, so there was no immediate “injury.” Though the city’s argument regarding the easement’s irrelevance seemed adequate to me, the city’s work on this “ripeness” issue seemed deficient. So, an appeal or new case might succeed.

But the council, apparently forgetting that thousands of signatures were gathered, just gave in to the FAA. The council should have put the issue on the ballot, thereby promoting a public discussion of the situation, the city’s efforts and appropriate next moves.

The current process to create a Downtown Development Authority is another example where a citizen vote would absolutely be appropriate. Even the city staff acknowledges that the DDA would be a “separate political subdivision under CRS 31-25-807 and the (city’s) Letter of Intent is expressly non-binding.”  FYI, the “Letter of Intent” is a very lengthy exposition of all the details of the DDA’s operations.

A quote from a friend (with whom I do not agree on many policy issues) succinctly captured the whole situation: “I have concluded that this DDA at this time is wrong; it is simply bad governance. … There is no magic to a DDA, only the removal of hard choices from the responsibility of our duly elected officials.”

There is no good reason why the council should avoid putting the DDA on the ballot for all the citizens of Boulder to vote on. They could have two ballot issues — one for the citizens, and another for the DDA property owners, etc., who must vote on it per state law. If the DDA fails either vote, it’s gone. And the council could avoid an almost guaranteed lawsuit by also including in the citizens’ ballot measure their proposed shifting of the tax increments of citizen-dedicated funds. Then, the citizens would have a real say.