On our local ballots, we will have three measures from the City of Boulder, while some in our county will have a question to approve a St. Vrain Valley School District bond issue.

Two of these are relatively clear: raising City Council pay to make the role more accessible and allowing a school district to raise $739 million in bonds to build new schools and maintain old ones. The other two are the sort of bureaucratic ballot measures that can be hard to connect to the well-being of the average citizen, but they are nonetheless vital to the governance of our community.

Back in 1989, Boulder’s Charter was updated to lay out compensation for our mayor and the members of the City Council. Per that ordinance, each councilmember would receive $100 per weekly meeting. That amount increases every year based on the increases in the Consumer Price Index.

In 1990, our city’s councilmembers were paid $5,200. Three decades later that figure is closer to $12,500.

That’s no small sum, especially if it is considered as it was meant: a token payment for an act of service. Which, for a long time, is what sitting on the City Council was meant to be.

This arrangement was designed around the principle that our elected leaders should not be career politicians. Instead, our legislative body was meant to be filled with citizen-legislators who were, first and foremost, members of our community.

There is a lot to appreciate about this framework. Erecting barriers to prevent career politicians from using our community as a launching ground to higher office is a worthy objective. Similarly, ensuring that our elected officials retain ties to the community through their work is laudable.

The notion of citizen-legislators is a wholesome and idealistic model of local governance. And to an extent, it does work: Our current Council has several members who work in a variety of industries and retain strong connections to the community. And, generally speaking, Boulder has been blessed with great leaders over the years, and our current crop of leaders continues this trend.

But all the admirable ambitions in the world can’t make up for the fact that this model keeps the door on elected service firmly shut for those who cannot afford to work for such a low wage.

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C would increase Council pay to an amount based on the area median income. The pay structure would be 40% AMI for councilmembers and 50% for the mayor, or $35,120 for council members and $43,900 for the mayor, based on 2022 numbers.

Neither of these salaries would be a livable wage in Boulder, but they could provide many more citizens with the foothold necessary to consider making a bid for a seat.

Advocating for more fair compensation that could lead to more inclusive representation is not a commentary on those currently leading. It is simply an effort to face the exclusive nature of the current political model that exists in our city.

A small tweak to our Charter and a slight update to our budget could make a huge impact on who represents Boulder. Vote “yes” on city of Boulder Ballot Question 2C.

Question 2D is one of the bureaucratic measures that many might have a hard time understanding what it does and why it matters. Question 2D would give the Boulder City Council the ability to convene an executive session to discuss certain confidential topics.

For journalists like us, anything done beyond the public eye raises some skepticism. The City Council is an elected body designed to serve the public, therefore its meetings should be public.

But the fact of the matter is, some things must be private: discussions about property deals, conferring with an attorney for legal advice, making security arrangements, attending to personnel matters, and a few other specifics, defined by the Colorado Open Meetings Requirements.

As it stands, the Boulder City Council does not have the ability to go into an executive session — and any discussion between more than two council members is forbidden outside of an official meeting. This means that these conversations that are required to be confidential have to happen in a much more haphazard way, in a series of one-on-one conversations.

We are not at all implying that anything nefarious has occurred in any of these sorts of discussions, but the reality is, this sort of system creates much more room for secrecy than a clear protocol for executive sessions, which, while private, must be announced in a public meeting and must have the subject disclosed to the public.

In addition to creating more transparency, executive sessions will also make the job of our City Council members more efficient. Vote “yes” on City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D.

Like 2D, Question 2E is an administrative measure that might be hard to understand based solely on the ballot language. But at its most fundamental, it is about streamlining the jobs of our City Council members. Current rules have created unnecessary hoops that council members have to jump through to place people onto the boards and commissions that help run our city. Question 2E will make it easier to get these bodies up and running to assist the City Council, while also allowing our council members to focus on our city’s governance.

Vote “yes” on Question 2E.

The most important thing to understand about SVVSD’s bond measure — which would allow the school district to raise $739 million for new schools, maintenance, upgrades and security — is that it will not raise taxes.

This, of course, is possible because the past few years have seen a huge increase in property evaluations, which are used in determining how much we pay to the districts that have mill levies on our homes, including school districts. In other words, this isn’t a tax increase because our taxes already increased. Across Colorado, the average home increased in value by 37% in just two years.

That said, supporting investments in education is always necessary. We must make sure SVVSD has the tools to ensure all students have every opportunity to flourish. New schools, well-maintained classrooms and vital security are things we owe to our students.

An investment in our students is an investment in our future. If you live in SVVSD, vote “yes” on Ballot Issue 5C.

These four ballot measures are unlikely to have captured as much attention as the top ticket items this year. They have not generated as much debate or ire or excitement, but they are things that can and will improve our community.

— Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board