Boulder’s cost of living has increased somewhat since this image from the 1870s, but is the proposed pay raise for City Council and the Mayor starting after the 2026 election the right idea?
At its simplest, City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C would increase pay for Boulder City Council members after the 2026 election to $40,880 in the first year, and the Mayor of Boulder to $51,100. The new rates would be based on 40% of Area Median Income (AMI) for Council members, and 50% AMI for the Mayor. The new pay rates would then be adjusted over time based on changes to the AMI.
The Boulder City Council referred this measure to the ballot. It would amend the Boulder City Charter, and would pass with a simple majority of City of Boulder voters.
How Would Passing 2C Change Pay and Spending?
Currently, all Council members including the Mayor earn a stipend of $244.14 per meeting, and multiplied by 52 meetings per year the total for 2024 would be $12,695.28 according to City of Boulder information. The current stipend is adjusted annually based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
If 2C passes, aggregate pay for the eight Council members would equal $327,040 in its first full year, compared to $101,562.24 using this year’s formula (although there will probably be some inflation between now and 2026), for a increase in pay of $225,477.76 between now and 2026. The Mayor would make $51,100 as opposed to $12,695.28, for an increase of $38,404.72. Combined, increasing the pay for Council and the Mayor would increase this category of spending by $263,882.48 in its first full year compared to 2024, and this general new pay level would continue into the future unless it’s altered (rough example, possibly in the ballpark of $2.6 million total over 10 years).
Is Council a Full-Time or Part-Time Job?
City Council members don’t work a set number of hours per week. They typically meet as a body once per week, with exceptions, for study sessions or business meetings. Those meetings could be relatively short, but also might run into late in the evening if there are lots of agenda items or controversial topics that attract testimony from the public. Members in theory should spend significant time preparing for the meetings, and they should be in touch with the local issues of the day. They get a lot of input from Boulder residents, they often attend local events, and they might meet or interact with other public officials and agencies. The laws and policies and issues coming from other levels of government – federal, state, county, special district – might be directly relevant to the City of Boulder.
The Mayor has a few unique responsibilities on top of the duties of a Council member, including running the Council Agenda Committee, running Council meetings, and being the face of the city – which probably means they’ll get invited to more events or contacted more often by the media. This normally means Mayors would spend more time on the job than a “regular” Council member. 2C would not increase the pay of the Mayor Pro Tem, who should at least be prepared to fill in for the Mayor, beyond the pay of a Council member.
I was a city beat reporter for a number of years, so I feel OK sharing anecdotal observations here and this paragraph is not intended to be hard science. I’ve talked with many Council members, and many of them have said Council can be like a part-time job but some periods require more time than others. While not offering precise numbers, some of them have suggested it’s along the lines of 20-30 hours per week. I also know anecdotally that some members put in more time on city issues than others, but some members might also have more time available than others. Some members might be retired, but others might have families to raise, or might need to hold another job(s) to make ends meet.
How Do Other Cities Pay Their Councils?
Pay for City or Town Councils in Colorado vary widely depending on the city or town, and for a few examples:
- Longmont has a population relatively similar to Boulder, and recently increased pay to $1,500 a month for Council members ($18,000 per year) and $2,000 a month for the Mayor ($24,000 per year), along with a cost of living increase every two years, per the Longmont Times-Call.
- Denver is a much bigger city than both Boulder and Longmont, and the Mayor and Council jobs are considered full-time positions. Denver’s Mayor currently makes $205,990.58, while the President of City Council earns $123,846.44, and the 12 other Members of City Council take in $110,595.76 (per Colorado Politics).
- Ft. Collins is a college town like Boulder, but its population is about 170,000, compared to Boulder’s roughly 105,000. Its Mayor makes 75% AMI ($62,400), Mayor Pro Tem 60% AMI ($49,920), and Council members make 50% AMI ($41,600).
2C Pro:
- The current Boulder City Council pay rate is low, relative to the job’s time requirements and pressure, and there’s no current recognition in the pay structure that the Mayor probably has a larger work burden.
- Increasing pay rates might allow more people who aren’t retired or wealthy to justify running for Council or Mayor.
- The cost of living in Boulder is extremely high, and increasing pay might help some Council members meet reasonable expenses.
2C Con:
- The City Council has proposed a pretty big pay increase, which would more than triple current Council pay and more than quadruple the Mayor’s pay. Also, some of today’s Council members might still be on Council when the raise goes into effect.
- Boulder City Council has traditionally been considered a part-time civic position for people interested in service, not a full-time professional position.
- Increasing Council pay would require a new type of city spending now and into the future, when the city has many other needs. If 2C passes, this spending on Council members would probably reach $1 million total within just four years of its going into effect.
Richard’s Take
I’m extremely ambivalent on Ballot Question 2C, so I won’t be doing a recommendation, not even “neutral.” You shouldn’t vote based on any one person’s opinion anyway, but I hope you’ll hear me out here.
A legislative body, like a City Council, can operate in complete open-minded altruism, only trying to do the business of “the people.” But I’m not Polyanna, and I know complete open-minded altruism is rare or maybe impossible, plus individuals can be extremely altruistic on chosen issues. On the other end of the spectrum, legislative bodies can use their power to a) perpetuate their own power; b) try to forge their worldviews into binding laws and practices despite reasonable opposition; c) appoint their supporters to key positions; and/or d) use legislative power to benefit their supporters.
Usually in practice, it winds up somewhere between Pink Floyd’s “do-goody-good” and a cold “to the victor go the spoils.” But to me, there’s an intangible point where a legislative body takes its power farther than their majority status justifies.
For me, that point was passed in 2022 when the Council majority and factional supporters pushed a ballot measure to move most municipal elections from the traditional odd-numbered years to even-numbered years.
It seemed to me at the time like a pretty obvious factional power grab, and on top of that, I saw posts on social media suggesting a ballot measure that failed in a prior odd-year would have passed in an even-year – which to me is decidedly not an altruistic reason to change an election system. It will also move Council campaigns from the main attraction of odd-year elections to a much lower billing on crowded even-year ballots, and I’m sure it will mean less detailed discussion on issues that really matter if you live here. It crossed my personal line, and I still think we’re going to wind up regretting it, maybe as soon as 2026 when we first see the gigantic ballots.
So, I initially wanted to be much meaner on 2C, even though I knew it probably wasn’t fair to take my disgust with this misguided factional power grab out on Council members who didn’t support it, or on the pay rate for Council members of the future who might wind up as perfectly great public servants.
But as I was starting work on this post in early September, a Boulder City Council member was physically attacked and injured for standing up to a troubled individual who was shouting racist insults at a restaurant opening ceremony. Yep, that’s pretty altruistic! Even worse, getting punched in the face might not have been the worst form of on-the-job abuse she’s suffered in the past year.
The assault made me reminisce about what the life of a public official is really like, because I’ve known or witnessed first-hand the good and the bad. I’m never even been an elected official, but I’ve faced physical danger and been verbally abused as a public employee, plus my work has included long hours, being part of making difficult decisions, and controversy.
It’s a win and lose business for everyone – officials have to consider or at least hear/read wide varieties of input from very different individuals or groups, and even majorities don’t always get what they want. Plus, while I believe the concept of “mandate” gets overused sometimes, winning an election probably shows that some number of people want the elected body to do certain things.
I wrote in my 2023 voter guide that current Council pay was “lame,” and I haven’t changed my mind. But 2C is a proposed tripling of pay for the eight Council members and a quadrupling for the Mayor. It would put Council members in about the same pay range as newer state legislators, while a Mayor would make more than what a Senate President or Speaker of the House makes today. I might have preferred something more incremental, along the lines of what Longmont just did, but I wouldn’t call that hard science. And I think it’s fair to note that Boulder’s most current budget discussions indicate at bare minimum considerations of a need to be careful with spending, with no guarantee it will get any better into the future.
The other primary reason I’m going to stop far short of recommending a “yes” vote on 2C is because I haven’t been completely happy with the way the city’s been operating in recent years. I don’t think I’m alone, since I’m sensing general malaise among at least a segment of the population about crime and squalor in town. Personally, I’ve been in mega-cities with some element of danger and wouldn’t even trade Boulder for Denver right now, but would I recommend spending time in Central Park or the western Creek Path once the sun sets? That wouldn’t have been a question for me five years ago, but it is now. Furthermore:
- Some of Boulder’s crime rates are currently trending down like much of Colorado – the pandemic screwed everything up at first – but that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been too much property crime in recent years. It’s great that lots of people ride bikes in Boulder, myself included, but what good is it if your bike gets stolen while unattended?
- The faction generally running things right now fought against a simple 2023 measure in Safe Zones 4 Kids, and I couldn’t help thinking much of this was out of a general opposition to enforcement – an approach that ignored legitimate concerns from those who just wanted clear, safe paths and underpasses.
- Boulder had the only major council in Colorado that supported the extreme land-use bill SB 23-213, in which the state would have usurped large chunks of land use policy from local governments, who in theory should take informed input from local residents.
- It looks like we’re about to change Iris Avenue – the busiest east-west street in north Boulder – from four general auto traffic lanes to two, and the weird mish-mash of bollards and yield signs on Quince west of 19th reminds me of a driving test course for marijuana users. I’d prefer reality to trump ideology, not the other way around.
I’ve covered and followed city politics for a long time. I fully accept not everyone should agree on every issue, and most people will find disagreement with something no matter the Council member or Council majority. I also know fairly well how much time a caring Council member will spend on city issues, plus they are called upon to deal with angry citizens and make occasional really hard decisions.
If City Council was just a simple hourly job, I’d have no problem supporting a generic simple raise in pay. But governance can easily become a hybrid of actual work and pursuing agendas, and city politics have just been too factional for my taste lately. The use of political power can get someone what they want, but it can also spark equal and opposite reactions from the aggrieved. 2C might pass no matter what I say anyway, but if it doesn’t and anyone wants my support for future proposals, throw me a political bone once in a while!
