Ballot Information: November 3, 2026 Election

What are the voters being asked?

The City of Longmont is asking voters to:

• Approve a 0.33% increase to the existing public safety sales and use tax, increasing the current public safety sales and use tax to 3.86%.
• Approve a 2.44 mills increase on property tax.
• Allow the City to keep and spend tax revenue that exceeds the spending limits imposed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).

This dedicated public safety tax will be used to hire more firefighters, police officers, dispatchers, and support staff and to purchase the equipment, vehicles and facilities to provide public safety services.

Why is this needed?

The community population has grown from 86,651 in 2009 to 104,178 in 2025 which represents a 20.2% increase. Over this same period, police calls for service have increased from approximately 78,000 in 2009 to 93,173 in 2025, or a 19.5% increase and fire calls for service increased from 6,771 to 12,594 (86% increase).

As a result of the growth in our community and the number of people who visit and work here, there are increases in 911 calls for fire and police services. These calls for service include:

• Violent crime, including sex assaults and domestic violence
• Traffic volume, accidents and fatalities
• Demand for fire and emergency medical services
• Computer fraud and other technology-related crimes

What would this cost residents?

• The increase of 0.33% is equal to approximately 33 cents per $100 spent on taxable goods.
• The increase of 2.44 mills is equal to approximately $75 annual property tax on a $500,000 house.

What staff will be hired with the funds?

Over the next ten years, the City would add 43 Police positions, 31 Fire positions and 12 positions in Collaborative Services.

What will be purchased with the funds?

At this time the following are planned pending voter approval:

• New Fire Station 7 on the southwest side of town, with a new fire engine and all the equipment needed
• Rehabilitation and expansion of Fire Station 4
• Two fire rescue trucks and equipment
• Equipment, uniforms and training needed for each new firefighter and police officer
• New storage building for reserve fire apparatus and equipment
• Police vehicles

Arguments for and Against

Those IN FAVOR Believe

1. This tax is necessary to provide the fire and police services needed for our growing community.
2. More firefighters, and police officers are required to meet the increased 911 demands.
3. Additional facilities, vehicles, equipment and training are required to meet these demands, and provide the services that are critical to the community.

Those OPPOSED Believe

1. Additional tax revenue generated by population growth should cover the cost of additional fire and police services.
2. The City should redirect funding from other programs and services to meet public safety needs.
3. All increases to sales and property taxes should be avoided.

This is how this issue will appear on the ballot:

SHALL CITY OF LONGMONT TAXES BE INCREASED $19.5 MILLION ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL YEAR AND BY WHATEVER ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS AS ARE GENERATED ANNUALLY IN EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR FROM THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL MILL LEVY OF NOT TO EXCEED 2.44 MILLS (AS ADJUSTED) BEGINNING WITH TAX COLLECTION YEAR 2027 AND AN ADDITIONAL CITY SALES AND USE TAX IMPOSED AT A RATE OF 0.33% BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2027, WITH THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES BEING USED EXCLUSIVELY TO MAINTAIN AND INCREASE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE CITY OF LONGMONT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROVIDING FUNDS FOR: POLICE OFFICERS AND PERSONNEL FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PREVENTION; POLICE OFFICERS TO ENSURE SAFETY OF OFFICERS AND TO IMPROVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE; EMERGENCY DISPATCHERS FOR 911 RESPONSE; FIREFIGHTERS TO ENSURE SAFE AND SUFFICIENT RESPONSE TO EMERGENCIES; PERSONNEL TO SUPPORT EMERGENCY PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONDERS; AND PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES AND FACILITIES TO ENSURE SAFETY; AND SHALL ORDINANCE O-2026-53 AUTHORIZING SUCH TAX INCREASES BE APPROVED, AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO INCREASE THE MILL LEVY AUTHORIZED BY THIS QUESTION BEGINNING IN TAX COLLECTION YEAR 2028 AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER TO OFFSET ANY REVENUE REDUCTIONS CAUSED BY ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY OR STATUTORILY REQUIRED TAX CREDITS, PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, REDUCTIONS IN THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL VALUATION USED TO DETERMINE ASSESSED VALUATION, OR REDUCTIONS IN THE ACTUAL VALUE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSMENT RATE IS APPLIED THAT ARE ENACTED AFTER THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS BALLOT QUESTION OR ARE OTHERWISE SET FORTH IN C.R.S. §§ 29-1-1701, ET SEQ., OR C.R.S. §§ 39-1-101, ET SEQ., AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AND INVESTMENT INCOME THEREON BE COLLECTED AND SPENT WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY LIMITATION CONTAINED WITHIN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?

YES/IN FAVOR
NO/AGAINST

Is this a TABOR issue?

Yes. Information about this issue will appear in the TABOR notice compiled and delivered by the County Clerk.

Link to full text of the issue

What are the voters being asked?

This ballot question asks voters if they want to amend the City Charter to protect lands owned and used for open space purposes. This would be the same Charter-level protection currently used for City park lands and water rights. This does not create a new standard, it extends the existing one to open space lands, with identified exceptions.

Today, the City’s Home Rule Charter requires voter approval for the sale or conveyance of land owned and used for park purposes and water rights. This protection has been in the City Charter since 1989. Open space lands have certain protections in City Code, but unlike park land and water rights, City Council can independently approve the sale or conveyance of City-owned open space land without voter approval.

If this measure passes, any proposed sale or conveyance of City-owned open space would require voter approval. Exceptions to this include public roads, utilities, life-essential infrastructure, open space operations, and the sale or conveyance of structures. For example, the City may need to widen a road, making it safer for cars and bikes. Or the City may need to replace a bridge or sell a farmhouse. These would not require voter approval.

How are open space lands currently protected?

Currently, City lands owned and used for open space purposes are protected by ordinances approved by City Council and formalized in City Code.

These include:

• Any proposed sale or conveyance of qualifying open space land must follow the formal open space disposition process in City Code, Section 14.52.030.
• City-owned open space lands can also be protected with property-specific deed restrictions or conservation easements.
• City Council can, on its own, change City Code or approve the sale or conveyance of open space without a public vote.

What would this cost residents?

This change does not create a new tax or increase existing taxes. In the future, if open space is proposed for sale or conveyance, there would be a cost to conduct the required election.

Arguments for and Against

Those IN FAVOR Believe

1. Like parks and water rights, open space lands should be protected with voter approval.
2. Including open space in the City Charter allows voters to have a direct role in proposed open space sales or conveyances.
3. Longmont’s open spaces are valuable community assets that provide outdoor recreation, support local agriculture, and protect healthy ecosystems and wildlife.

Those OPPOSED Believe

1. Longmont should leave the City Home Rule Charter unchanged.
2. Open space lands should remain flexible in their ability to be sold or conveyed in the best interests of the City.
3. Adding a voting requirement for the sale or conveyance of open space to the City Charter could complicate other City operations, including land exchanges or partnerships with neighboring cities or counties that involve selling or conveying open space land interests.

This is how this question will appear on the ballot:

Shall the City of Longmont Home Rule Charter be amended by revising section 13.2 to add open space to lands that cannot be sold or conveyed without voter approval, with exceptions for public roads, utilities, life-essential infrastructure, open space operations, and the sale or conveyance of structures on such lands?

YES/IN FAVOR

NO/AGAINST

Is this a TABOR issue? 

No.

Link to full text of the issue

What are the voters being asked?

Voters are being asked whether they would want to adopt ranked voting for City Council and Mayoral elections beginning with the 2029 municipal election, allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference instead of selecting only one.

Currently, Longmont Mayoral and Councilmember candidates who receive the most votes wins, even if that candidate does not receive a majority of all votes cast. This is called the plurality voting method. In races with three or more candidates, this can result in a winner supported by less than half of voters.

This measure would replace that system with ranked voting methods (also called ranked-choice voting or instant-runoff voting) for City Council and Mayoral races. It could also use the single transferable vote method for multi-candidate contests such as the at-large race if Ballot Question 3D is also approved. Ranked methods would only be implemented if the Colorado Secretary of State has certified equipment and rules for these voting methods.

Voters would rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting only one. If no candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are recounted for each voter’s next-ranked choice. This process repeats until one candidate has a majority of the remaining active ballots.

What would this cost residents?

There is no increase in taxes due to this change. There will be increased election costs estimated to be an additional $60,000 to $80,000 for the first RCV election and an estimated $35,000 to $50,000 for subsequent elections. There will also be additional costs estimated at $50,000 for voter education efforts.

Arguments for and Against

Those IN FAVOR Believe

1. Ranked choice voting can ensure the winning candidate has support from a majority of voters, rather than winning with a fraction of the vote in a crowded field. Supporters argue this gives officials a stronger mandate and better reflects overall voter preference.
2. Because voters can rank a preferred candidate first without “wasting” their vote, supporters argue ranked voting may encourage more candidates to run and reduce concerns about vote-splitting among similar candidates.
3. Ranked voting encourages more civil campaigning, since candidates have an incentive to appeal to a broad range of voters — including those who may rank them second or third — rather than focusing only on a narrow base.
4. Ranked voting eliminates the need for a separate runoff election in races without a majority winner, which can save on the cost and lower turnout typically associated with runoff elections.

Those OPPOSED Believe

1. Ranked voting is more complex than the current system and may lead to voter confusion, particularly for voters who are unfamiliar with ranking candidates rather than choosing one.
2. There are concerns about “ballot exhaustion”: if a voter does not rank every candidate and all of their ranked choices are eliminated before a winner is determined, their ballot is no longer counted in later rounds. Opponents argue this could mean some voters’ ballots do not factor into the final result.
3. A change in voting methods should originate from a citizen-led petition rather than a Council-referred measure, because a Council-driven process may be perceived differently by voters than a citizen-initiated effort.
4. The increased costs associated with an Ranked Choice Voting election could be directed elsewhere to help address more urgent needs.

Question as it will appear on the ballot:

Shall the City of Longmont Home Rule Charter be amended by adopting a new section 2.10 of the Charter to provide for the use of Ranked Choice Voting (ranked voting methods) where possible to elect future mayors and councilmembers of the City of Longmont starting in November 2029?

YES/IN FAVOR

NO/AGAINST

Is this a TABOR issue?

No.

Link to full text of the issue

What are voters being asked?

If Ranked Voting passes, this ballot issue would adjust two City Council terms. The At-Large Councilmember seat elected in 2027 will serve a two-year term rather than a four-year term. Also, the Ward 2 Councilmember seat elected in 2029 will serve a two-year term rather than a four-year term. In subsequent elections all three At-Large Councilmembers will be elected at once and Wards 1, 2 and 3 will be elected at once. If Ranked Voting does not pass, this realignment will not be implemented.

What would this cost residents?

There is no increase in taxes due to this change and no increased costs from this change.

Arguments for and Against

Those IN FAVOR Believe

1. Aligning the terms allows more clarity on Ward versus At-Large representation.
2. Voter education will be easier if the terms are aligned.
3. Aligning the terms will allow for Single Transferable Vote (also known as ‘Proportional RCV’) method of rank voting in the At-Large City Council contest. This would result in political leaders who are more representative of the population.

Those OPPOSED Believe

1. We should not amend the City Home Rule Charter, as it is the governing doctrine for Longmont.
2. This is an unnecessary measure. Council elections work fine as they are currently aligned.
3. This realignment unnecessarily reduces two different full 4-year terms to a 2-year terms, making them “lame duck” terms.

Question as it will appear on the ballot:

Shall the City of Longmont Home Rule Charter be amended by amending section 3.6 of the Charter to realign the cycle on which members of the Longmont city council are elected so that the three councilmembers elected at-large are elected in one electoral cycle and the three councilmembers elected from wards are elected in another electoral cycle, with such electoral cycles alternating from then on, with such realignment contingent upon voter approval of the measure on the November 3, 2026 City of Longmont ballot requiring the use of ranked choice voting to elect city council members when possible?

YES/IN FAVOR

NO/AGAINST

Is this a TABOR issue?

No.

Link to full text of the issue