Local Issues

Socially Responsible Investment (SRI)

Boulder has a long history of investing with social responsibility.

Boulder invests its money in government and corporate bonds. Under its Socially Responsible Investment rules, the city says its portfolio excludes four kinds of company:

• fossil fuels, including pipeline construction and extraction
• firearms or weapons not used in national defense
• tobacco companies
• firms related to mass incarceration, private prisons and detention centers

The city publishes these rules, and every holding, in its quarterly investment report.

What has Boulder done before?

Boulder has taken stands before, through council resolutions, voter measures and the investment rules above.

• January 2003. The City Council passed Resolution 921 opposing a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and sent it to the President, the Vice President and Colorado's congressional delegation.
• June 2004. The city declared its support for negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons, as part of the Mayors for Peace campaign.
• 2006. Council passed Resolution 998, urging an end to combat operations in Iraq and the return of U.S. troops.
• November 2016. Boulder voters passed Ballot Issue 2H, a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks, with 53.9% of the vote.
• January 2017. Council made Boulder a sanctuary city for undocumented immigrants.

Many Boulderites are concerned that the current elected government of Boulder is not keeping in line with Boulder's SRI rules.

A Daily Camera op-ed by Guy Benintendi on September 23, 2026 identified six of the city's twelve corporate holdings that it argues break the SRI rules, or go against what Boulder voters have decided. The amounts below are from the city's own report, as of June 30, 2026.

The companies in question

The six holdings and why they are flagged

Company	City holds	Why it is flagged
Caterpillar	$8.0M	Makes equipment for the oil and gas industry, against the fossil-fuel rule. The city holds its finance arm. Its D9 bulldozers are sold to Israel's military through the U.S. government, and the army has used them to demolish Palestinian homes and destroy farmland. Human Rights Watch documented them in mass demolitions in Rafah, and the U.S. approved a new $295 million sale in February 2025. An armored bulldozer sold to a foreign army is a weapon not used in our national defense.
Cisco	$13.2M	Involved in running mass incarceration, against the incarceration rule. Supplies servers and communications systems to Israel's military, Ministry of Defense and police, and has equipped "digital hubs" in illegal West Bank settlements (Who Profits). Leaked internal documents show its Ministry of Defense sales nearly doubled, from $52 million in 2023 to $98 million in 2024 (Drop Site News).
Microsoft	$2.1M	Involved in running mass incarceration, against the incarceration rule. Israel's military intelligence Unit 8200 stored millions of intercepted Palestinian phone calls on Microsoft's Azure cloud (+972 Magazine). After the reporting, Microsoft cut the unit off from some cloud and AI services in September 2025.
State Street	$17.6M	Invests in every excluded industry: tobacco, fossil fuels, prisons and firearms. The largest shareholder in Lockheed Martin, which supplies the F-35s, F-16s and Hellfire missiles Israel uses in Gaza, with over $16 billion in Lockheed shares as of May 2024 (Responsible Statecraft).
PepsiCo	$11.7M	Not against the written rules, but makes the sugary drinks Boulder voters chose to tax.
Toyota	$13.2M	Not against the written rules, but its vehicles run on fossil fuels, against their spirit. Its vehicles, sold in Israel through its sole distributor, are used by the Israeli army, police and Border Police and by the occupation's Civil Administration in the West Bank, and Israeli firms armor Toyota chassis into military vehicles (Who Profits).

Together these are about $66 million, about 13.5% of the city's $486 million portfolio. The holdings are from the city's own report; every other claim links to its source.

On Gaza, Boulder City Council has refused

• February 2024. Council declined even to consider a Gaza ceasefire resolution. Only two members supported taking it up.
• February 2025. In an informal vote, council decided 6 to 3 not to revisit its investment policy to exclude more weapons makers.
• August 2025. Asked again, only one member supported revisiting it.

The question

Every candidate for Boulder mayor and City Council was asked one question.

The exact wording sent to candidates

"Do you think Boulder should divest from all corporations which are (A) noncompliant with the City's SRI criteria and (B) noncompliant with the will of the voters?" Choices: only (A); only (B); both (A) and (B); neither. Most candidates answered by naming companies instead, so their answers are shown that way below. (A) covers the first four companies above; (B) covers PepsiCo and Toyota.

How they answered: Mayor

• Divest from all: 1
• Partial: 2
• No divestment: 1
• No response: 2

Mayoral candidates and their answers

Candidate	Answer
Taishya Adams	Divest from all All six companies
Fred Smith	Partial Five of the six; keep PepsiCo
Lisa Ann Jacobs	Partial Toyota only
Aquiles La Grave	No divestment Asked in September, he did not say yes or no, but his reply implied a yes. Told how the city's holdings break its own rules, he called the case "pretty neat from that angle," and wrote: "I believe we must lead by our actions and make sure they align with our values," "We should follow the policies we've adopted," and "For me, the responsibility is straightforward. We must always put Boulder first. That means taking care of the public's money, honoring our commitments, and keeping our attention on the people we're elected to serve." He also wrote: "I'm not an investment advisor, so when it comes to individual investments I don't know what I'm talking about." On October 21, writing that "It came to my attention today that you run the website firstjustice.org," he told us: "I neither hold nor promote that position." We think it very likely his answer changed once he saw that five of these six holdings are tied to Israel's military and occupation, including its genocide in Gaza, as this page sets out. Correction: until October 21 this page listed him as "Divest from all." That was wrong.
Aaron Brockett	No response As mayor, opposed in an informal vote in February 2025 reconsidering the city's investment policy to exclude more weapons makers (Boulder Reporting Lab).
Jameson Goldstein	No response

How they answered: City Council

Thirteen candidates are running for five seats.

• Divest from all: 1
• Partial: 1
• No divestment: 5
• No response: 6

City Council candidates and their answers

Candidate	Answer
Lynn Segal	Divest from all All six companies
Benita Duran	Partial Caterpillar only
Sam Fuqua	No divestment
Ryan Jamieson	No divestment
Dave Martus	No divestment
Scott Rendleman	No divestment
Ryan Schuchard	No divestment As a council member, backed in an informal vote in February 2025 reconsidering the city's investment policy to exclude more weapons makers (Boulder Reporting Lab), but no longer backed it in August 2025 (Boulder Reporting Lab).
Lee Gilbert	No response
Jill Grano	No response
Rachel Rose Isaacson	No response
Tina Marquis	No response As a council member, opposed in an informal vote in February 2025 reconsidering the city's investment policy to exclude more weapons makers (Boulder Reporting Lab).
Jamillah Richmond	No response
Tara Winer	No response As a council member, opposed in an informal vote in February 2025 reconsidering the city's investment policy to exclude more weapons makers (Boulder Reporting Lab).

Answers as of September 28, 2026, except Aquiles La Grave's, corrected October 21, 2026. If a candidate who has not yet responded does, this page will be updated.

The full list of certified candidates is on the City of Boulder's election page.

CU South: a flood project built around CU's plans

CU South is the 308-acre former gravel pit at US 36 and Table Mesa Drive. CU bought it in 1996 (Boulder Reporting Lab). On September 21, 2021, City Council annexed it 6 to 1, by emergency ordinance. The city gets land for a flood project and about 155 acres; CU gets city water and sewer and the right to build on up to 129 acres, about 1,100 homes and 750,000 square feet of other buildings (City of Boulder; CU Boulder). Aaron Brockett voted yes.

• About 10% of CU's homes will be affordable. The deal sets aside 5 acres for an estimated 110 deed-restricted units. The city typically asks for 40 to 50% in large annexations (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Residents get less protection than they were promised. In 2018 council directed engineers to design for a 500-year flood, over CU's objection. In June 2020 it switched, unanimously, to a 100-year design (Boulder Reporting Lab). The 500-year design would have protected about 4,100 residents; the 100-year design protects about 2,300 (Boulder Beat).
• Residents pay. The project is paid from city stormwater and flood utility fees, with the Mile High Flood District. Its cost has grown from $63 million in 2022 to a $76.5 million construction contract in 2026 (Boulder Reporting Lab). The 2022 estimate included $4 million of earthfill (City of Boulder).
• Engineers dispute the design. Ben Binder, a licensed engineer, objects to a "three-story high-hazard dam" along Table Mesa Drive, a concrete floodwall and spillway along US 36, digging "below the level of groundwater," and an outlet tunnel under US 36, and says the project "is in dire need of an independent peer review" (Binder, 2025). Hydrologist Gordon McCurry found "key flaws" in an earlier version (KGNU, 2017). The city says a 500-year design was "not feasible given project constraints" and that groundwater systems like this one are "common engineering features" (City of Boulder).
• Voters were never asked about the dam. Two ballot measures, in 2021 and 2022, were about the annexation, and both failed (2021; 2022). The 2021 vote came after council had already annexed the land by emergency ordinance.
• It is still in court. Residents sued over the financing, lost in district court and the Court of Appeals, and asked the Colorado Supreme Court to hear the case on September 29, 2026. Construction was scheduled to begin in October (Boulder Reporting Lab).

Next: 493 acres north of town

The Area III-Planning Reserve is about 493 acres of mostly undeveloped land north of the city, with room for up to 8,700 homes. The city owns about 220 acres; private owners hold the rest. The city's own consultants put the roads, pipes and other infrastructure it would need at up to $1 billion, and no one has said who pays (Boulder Reporting Lab).

• January 20, 2026. Planning Board voted 4 to 3 that there was no sufficient community need to expand.
• February 12, 2026. Council voted 7 to 2 that there is. Yes: Aaron Brockett, Tina Marquis, Ryan Schuchard, Tara Winer, Matt Benjamin, Rob Kaplan and Nicole Speer. No: Taishya Adams and Mark Wallach, who has since resigned (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• March 2026. Planning Board reversed itself, 4 to 3, and planning went ahead (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• June–August 2026. The ten-year update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan moved more land out of Area III, the rural area where urban development is not allowed, and into Area II, which can be annexed: parcels along Broadway at the south end of town "within proximity of the CU South annex," and properties at 6710 Arapahoe Road (Left Hand Valley Courier; Boulder County).
• July 23, 2026. Council voted 8 to 1 to keep the 179-acre Boulder Municipal Airport open indefinitely. Mark Wallach cast the only no vote and resigned from council on the spot: "I will not be a party to the surrender of our valuable airport land in perpetuity" (Boulder Reporting Lab). He had pushed for years to turn the airport into housing: in 2022 he wrote to council that its 179 acres "could ultimately support 2,500 – 3,500 units of primarily affordable and middle-income housing" (Council Hotline, October 18, 2022; see also Boulder Beat, 2021).

Area III is Boulder's rural buffer, and it is being opened piece by piece. The Planning Reserve is the first large break in it. Once it is annexed and built, the land around it, and the parcels already moved next to CU South, are next.

Boulder Urban Renewal Authority: blight first, a Sundance venue, housing maybe

The Boulder Urban Renewal Authority is studying about 160 acres of East Boulder for urban renewal: roughly 75 parcels east of the railroad, around 30th Street, Pearl Street and Foothills Parkway, running north to Valmont Road and along Walnut Street (City of Boulder). The city calls it Boulder Junction Phase II. At the authority's September 4, 2026 meeting, city staff reported that a survey of the area "identified 8 statutory blight factors" (Citizen Portal meeting summary).

That word matters. Under Colorado law, property taken by eminent domain can be handed to a private developer only in an area found blighted on at least five of the statutory factors (C.R.S. 31-25-105.5). The survey found eight. Once City Council makes a blight determination, an owner has just 30 days to challenge it in court, and the city then has seven years to start the project. City staff have described using urban renewal, together with a developer-proposed metropolitan district, to pay for the infrastructure a planned "Pearl Arts District" needs (Citizen Portal, May 20, 2026).

Developer Conscience Bay Co. wants to turn its four-block site at 3550 Frontier Avenue, at Pearl and Foothills parkways, into the "Pearl Arts District": a performing-arts venue of 1,750 seats (2,500 standing) built to screen films, a hotel of up to 165 rooms, about 500 apartments, and retail, at an estimated cost of more than $630 million (KUNC). The developer pitches the venue as filling a gap for the Sundance Film Festival, which arrives in Boulder in January 2027 (Boulder Reporting Lab).

• The housing may never come. In February 2026 city planning staff raised concerns that the homes could be left to later phases, or not built at all (KUNC).
• No affordable share has been reported for the 500 apartments (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• A new taxing district pays for the streets. A metropolitan district, a quasi-governmental body with its own board, would issue tax-exempt bonds for streets, sidewalks and lighting, repaid from property taxes inside the district. Council must approve its service plan (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• What is there now goes. The site holds Sanitas Brewing, which was closing, a coworking space, a gym, pickleball courts, a hardware store and other small businesses (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Where it stands. It needs the land rezoned from industrial to mixed use. Planning Board backed the rezoning in late September 2026; City Council votes later (BizWest; KUNC). The first phase, with the venue, is expected around 2031.
• The urban renewal plan comes next. Staff told the authority in September that an impact report and urban renewal plan should come to its board in November 2026, with negotiations over tax increment financing running into February 2027 and city hearings targeted for spring 2027. The authority only advises; creating an urban renewal area takes public hearings and a City Council vote (Citizen Portal; City of Boulder). If you own, rent or run a business in the area, watch for the mailed notice and come to those hearings.

"Affordable housing" that working people cannot afford

Boulder needs housing its workers can afford. What council approves is something else. Council writes the zoning and the building rules, so what gets built is its choice. Its record is high-density, high-priced apartments that serve developers, with the affordable homes paid off in cash.

• The 25% rule builds almost nothing on site. Boulder requires 25% of new homes to be permanently affordable, but developers "almost always" pay a fee instead. In 2023 the city's own inclusionary housing manager said only two projects since 2020 had proposed affordable homes on site, and: "With the requirement of 25%, we literally get nothing" (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Big approvals, no affordable homes. 303 student apartments on the Millennium Hotel site, with none affordable on site and about $18.9 million paid instead (Boulder Reporting Lab). 427 units replacing the Dark Horse at Williams Village, approved by council 9 to 0 in November 2025, with none affordable on site (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Promises shrink. 2504 Spruce went from 13 affordable homes out of 101 at concept to 4 out of 52 at approval (Boulder Reporting Lab). The former Silver Saddle site went from 45% affordable to 24% (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Council does not say no. Tracking every vote from December 2023 to late 2025, Boulder Reporting Lab found council "never denied a site review plan for a housing project," and in one case overrode Planning Board's denial (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• "Affordable" is priced above working wages. The city's own cap for an "affordable" one-bedroom at 60% of area median income is $1,687 a month (City of Boulder). That is 52% of a Boulder retail salesperson's median pay of $38,700, and 56% of a fast-food worker's (Bureau of Labor Statistics; the percentages are our arithmetic). The typical Boulder rent is $2,399 (Zillow, August 2026).
• Most of Boulder's workers cannot live here. The city says 70 to 80% of its workforce, about 70,000 people, lives outside the city (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• The goal is far off. 8.9% of Boulder's homes were permanently affordable at the end of 2025, against a goal of 15% by 2035 (City of Boulder).

The city's answer is that the fees fund affordable rentals elsewhere, mostly through Boulder Housing Partners, and that 2025 brought a record $21.38 million in awards and 242 new affordable homes (City of Boulder). That is real, and it is public money doing the work: the developers' share is paid and walked away from, and the luxury units go up regardless.

Big buildings, smaller services

• Ballot Issue 2K. The city would borrow up to $400 million and repay up to $650 million, through a property tax of up to $32.5 million a year. The largest item is a $170 million police and 911 building. The project list adds up to $444 million, more than the bond, and the ballot says only "such as" (City of Boulder). It has no money for Spruce Pool or any operating costs (Boulder Reporting Lab). Our voter guide says No on 2K.
• Alpine-Balsam. The former hospital site began as a $40 million purchase in 2015. The city's own cost sheet now budgets $368.2 million for the whole campus, $108.6 million of it interest (City of Boulder). In 2019 one building's renovation estimate was $48–58 million (Boulder Beat); two months later it was $90–120 million (commentary in Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Meanwhile, the cuts. The 2026 budget cut crisis-response paramedics, street outreach and mobile-home repair grants (Boulder Reporting Lab). The 2027 budget proposes 13 layoffs, shorter pool hours and an end to child watch, while adding three police lieutenants (Boulder Reporting Lab).

Who decides

Developers do not need to win every vote. They need access, and they have it.

• A former councilmember picks whose signs line 28th Street. In September 2025 a City Council campaign asked Tebo Properties, which calls itself "one of the leading commercial real estate owners and developers in Boulder County" with "more than 250 properties" (Tebo Properties), to put its signs on Tebo's properties along 28th Street. The reply, in writing: "My good friend, Bob Yates, is in charge of allowing yard signs being put on my properties, and I understand as of last Friday, that he agreed to a fourth candidate being allowed to do so, and that is the maximum I will allow." Bob Yates is a former Boulder councilmember. A private owner may choose which signs go on his land; the point is who he hands that choice to. (Source: email from Tebo Properties, September 23, 2025, on file with First Justice Then Peace.)
• The big landlords fund the ballot fights that shape growth. City campaign filings show Tebo Properties gave $7,500 and WWR Companies (W.W. Reynolds, which says it owns, manages or leases "over 3 million square feet," W.W. Reynolds) $10,000 in 2015 to defeat Measures 300 and 301, which would have let neighborhoods vote on land-use changes and made new development pay its own way. Tebo entities gave against the city's bid to take over Xcel's grid in 2013 and 2017, and $1,000 in 2022 to defeat the repeal of the CU South annexation (City of Boulder campaign filings; CPR on Measures 300 and 301).
• And the candidates. Gifts to city candidates are capped at $100, so they show who is courted, not who is bought. In 2025 the Tebo family gave to Mark Wallach and Rob Kaplan. In 2026 the Tebo family has given to Tara Winer, Ryan Jamieson and mayoral candidate Aquiles La Grave (City of Boulder campaign filings).
• Council members from the business. Mark Wallach's city biography said he "was a corporate and real estate attorney and ultimately became a real estate developer in New York City" (City of Boulder, archived). Rob Kaplan's says his "background in commercial real estate," as "both a landlord and a tenant," shapes his view of the city (City of Boulder).

Xcel: the "green deal" that kept Boulder on Xcel's grid

For ten years Boulder fought to run its own electric utility. Voters approved it in 2011 and backed it again in 2013 and 2017 (Boulder County official results: 2011, 2013, 2017). By September 2020 the city had spent $28.75 million on the effort, staff time included (Boulder Beat). Then City Council traded it away.

• The deal was made under a non-disclosure agreement. Councilmember Bob Yates first met Xcel's Colorado president in July 2019. The city signed a non-disclosure agreement with Xcel on April 30, 2020, which barred it from sharing Xcel's confidential information, "including the company's emission reduction planning, even through an open records request." Xcel was allowed to review talking points and to send changes to a slide shown to City Council (Boulder Weekly, from records obtained under the open records law).
• It was sold as green. Council voted 6-2 in August 2020 to send the new 20-year franchise to voters (Boulder Beat). The campaign for it called itself the Committee for Boulder's Great Green Deal (Boulder Beat), and it passed with 53.3% (Boulder County official results).
• What Boulder gave up. The city dropped its court cases and its federal application, capped the price of any future takeover at $200 million, and tied itself to Xcel until 2041. Leaving early takes six of nine council votes or a vote of the people (Boulder Beat; City of Boulder).
• What Xcel promised, and missed. The "green deal" set carbon targets, not a renewable-energy requirement: a 52% cut by 2022 and 61% by 2024. Xcel missed both, and "The agreement imposes no penalties for missing the targets" (Boulder Reporting Lab). City Council's own letter in January 2026: "Two missed milestones out of two is not a positive start" (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• And the lights go out. In 2024 Boulder customers averaged 630 minutes without power, against about 350 for Xcel customers statewide. In Longmont and Fort Collins, which run their own utilities, it was 19 and 11 minutes (Boulder Reporting Lab). Xcel has cut power to Boulder in wildfire weather again and again since April 2024; one shutoff cut power, backup included, to the city's wastewater system (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Council will not leave. The franchise lets the city leave for any reason at its five-year mark (Boulder Reporting Lab). Council's January 2026 letter calls the shutoffs "simply not acceptable," yet, as Boulder Reporting Lab reported, it makes clear that "the city is not seeking to exit its franchise agreement with Xcel" (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Xcel does not keep its own rules. Xcel nearly tripled its heat pump rebates under Colorado's Clean Heat Plan (installer's summary). One Boulder homeowner had a heat pump installed after the increase, but because of a contractor error the invoice and the rebate application showed different dates. Xcel's own form says that when they do not match, "the application will be returned" (Xcel rebate application). Xcel did not return it. It paid at the old, lower rate, refused the corrected invoice and called that its final decision. The state Public Utilities Commission passed along Xcel's answer and closed the complaint. (Source: correspondence on file with First Justice Then Peace.)

Leslie Glustrom of Clean Energy Action, a leading voice against the deal, warned in 2020 that "Xcel is protecting its investments in fossil fuels and slow walking the transition to renewable generation" (Utility Dive). A few months later: "I have just seen enough of Xcel that I don't trust them" (Boulder Weekly).

The deal's defenders say the city's takeover was running out of money and road in 2020, and that a city utility would still depend on Xcel's transmission lines. Both are fair points. Neither explains why the price of leaving was capped, the green targets carry no penalty, and council, with the lights going out, has chosen not to leave.

Closed doors

Boulder says it wants to hear from residents. More and more of the talking happens where residents cannot hear it.

• A forum where the conversations were not shown. On October 8, 2026, City Council replaced its regular study session with a "Community and Council Forum" on power reliability and Xcel. The city said "only selected community members will be allowed to participate in discussion," and that "Small group discussions will not be livestreamed" (City of Boulder). In the city's recording, staff set aside "about 50 minutes" for those small groups, each with council members in it; the public sees only staff's summary of what was said afterwards.
• A police oversight panel that closes its doors every month. The Police Oversight Panel's agendas list a "Closed Session" at every meeting, including September 14 and October 12, 2026, with no topic and no legal citation given (October 12 agenda). Its by-laws reserve the closed session for reviewing police misconduct cases (panel by-laws). Colorado's Open Meetings Law covers advisory bodies like this one. It requires a closed "executive session" to be announced with the specific legal citation and the matter to be discussed, approved by two-thirds of the members present, and electronically recorded, and it bars any formal action inside it (C.R.S. 24-6-402).
• And the panel is being cut out anyway. Since late 2025, Boulder police have closed misconduct complaints without the panel's review when the department and the city's monitor agree. "Under that process, the department closed at least 21 complaints against officers before the monitor or the panel reviewed them," and some panel members say the process "lacked transparency" (Boulder Reporting Lab).

Public business should be done in public. If a meeting is listed as virtual, it should be virtual. If it is recorded, the recording should be posted. If a body goes behind closed doors, it should say why, under which law, and keep the recording the law requires.

Tipped workers' pay

Boulder lets restaurants pay tipped workers less than the minimum wage, as long as tips make up the difference. That gap is called the tip credit, or tip offset, and in Boulder it is $3.02 an hour. In 2026 the city minimum wage is $16.82 and the base wage for tipped workers is $13.80. Both are scheduled to rise in 2027, to $18.17 and $15.15 (City of Boulder).

A 2025 state law let Boulder widen the gap. Restaurant owners asked for it, and council weighed options that would have slowed or frozen tipped workers' base pay. By the city's own estimate, most tipped workers would have earned $500 to $3,000 less in 2027 (Boulder Reporting Lab). On July 30 council took no action, so the raises go ahead, but councilmembers have said they could revisit it next year (Boulder Reporting Lab).

We support shrinking the tip credit, not widening it. A smaller tip credit means higher base pay. When pay depends on tips, workers carry the risk: income that swings from week to week, wages withheld, and, in a peer-reviewed study, more sexual harassment from customers (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2022). Servers and bartenders in the states with the lowest tipped wage were poor at nearly twice the rate of those in the seven states with no tip credit at all (Economic Policy Institute, 2014), and restaurants in those seven states are still in business. The real risk in raising base pay is a "service charge" on the bill that never reaches the staff, and Colorado law does not stop it. A mandatory service charge is not a tip: the restaurant keeps it unless it tells customers the money goes to the servers (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment). Since January 2026, restaurants only have to disclose how a service charge is divided (HB25-1090). We support a rule that service charges belong to the workers who serve. Minnesota already treats a mandatory charge as the employee's unless customers are clearly told otherwise (Minn. Stat. 177.23).

• On council, backed keeping the raises before the July 30 meeting: Taishya Adams and Ryan Schuchard (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Opposed slowing them at the June 6 candidate forum: Jill Grano, Benita Duran, Rachel Rose Isaacson and Ryan Schuchard (Boulder Reporting Lab).
• Open to slowing them in June: Aaron Brockett, Tina Marquis and Tara Winer. All three said on July 30 that they no longer supported slowing them.