Voters in Monument, Colorado, face one of the fullest local ballots in the town’s recent history on Tuesday, November 3. They will elect a new mayor, fill five of the seven seats on the Town Council, and decide a tax question that could reshape how the fast-growing town pays for roads, bridges, sidewalks, and stormwater work. The mayor’s race is the only contested candidate race on the town ballot, but the tax measure, known as Ballot Issue 2B, gives every Monument voter a substantive policy decision to make, whether or not their council race is contested.
Monument sits in El Paso County, north of Colorado Springs, in an area where growth, traffic, and infrastructure have been constant topics at Town Hall. The November ballot brings those topics together in a single election: leadership, because the mayor is stepping aside after six years in town government, and money, because the council is asking voters to approve a dedicated revenue stream for capital projects. How voters answer both questions will shape the town’s next budget cycle and its longer-term plan for growth.
Who is running for mayor and town council in Monument
The mayoral race pits two sitting council members against each other. Laura Kronick, who sits for Residential District 1, and Kenneth Kimple, who sits for District 2, are both running for mayor. The seat is open because Mayor Mitch LaKind announced on August 26 that he would not seek a second term as mayor, ending six years in elected town office that began with service as a trustee in 2020 and continued as mayor from 2022. LaKind’s departure, after the town’s conversion to home rule, leaves the top job open at a moment when the council is also turning over heavily.
That turnover is striking. Five of the council’s seven seats are up on November 3: the mayor’s seat, two at-large seats, and the two district seats. Dan DeBoo is the only candidate for the District 1 seat. Marco P. Fiorito, who holds the District 2 seat under a term expiring this year, is the only candidate to succeed himself, making him the one incumbent on the ballot for the seat he already occupies. Alex Valderrama and Scott Gilson are the only candidates for the two at-large seats, which puts both on course to join the council.
In other words, six candidates filed for five seats, and only the mayor’s race drew more candidates than there are places to fill. Voters will therefore have a real choice at the top of the ballot, but the rest of the council will largely be settled by the filing process rather than by a contested vote. That pattern is common in small-town elections, where the work of governing is demanding and the pool of willing candidates is limited, but it also means the mayoral contest carries extra weight: the winner will lead a council that includes several newcomers and only one returning district member.
How Monument’s council terms and staggered seats work
The town’s election page explains the term structure that will apply to the winners. The mayor, the District 1 member, and the District 2 member will each be elected to four-year terms. For the two at-large seats, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes will be elected to a four-year term, and the candidate receiving the second-highest number of votes will be elected to a two-year term. Assigning one shorter at-large term preserves the charter’s staggered structure and ensures the two at-large seats do not expire at the same time in future elections.
Staggering matters because it prevents a complete turnover in a single election cycle. If every seat expired together, a single election could replace the entire council at once, losing institutional memory about ongoing projects, negotiations, and budget commitments. By keeping some seats on a different cycle, the town retains continuity even in an election like this one, where five seats are on the ballot. The mayoral winner, whoever it is, will therefore work with a council that mixes new members with a returning district member, and with at-large members whose terms will end at different times.
Town elections in Monument are held in November of even-numbered years and are coordinated and administered by El Paso County. The Town Clerk serves as the designated election official for the town. Because this is a coordinated mail-ballot election, the practical deadline is strict: ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on November 3, and postmarks do not count. Voters who mail a ballot late in the final week risk it arriving too late, which is why county guidance in past elections has advised against mailing ballots after late October and has pointed voters instead to drop boxes and in-person options where available.
What Ballot Issue 2B would do to Monument’s construction tax
Ballot Issue 2B, referred to voters by the Town Council through Ordinance No. 19-2026, proposes increasing the town’s use tax on construction and building materials and construction equipment from 2.0 percent to 3.5 percent, matching the town’s existing 3.5 percent sales tax rate on retail purchases. The official ballot title estimates the increase at 2,272,500 dollars annually, beginning January 1, 2027, with whatever additional amounts the tax rate generates in later years.
The tax would not apply to every purchase in town. Under the ballot language, the increased use tax is collected on construction and building materials and construction equipment only when a building permit or right-of-way permit is requested, and only when a municipal sales tax of 3.5 percent was not already collected where the materials or equipment were purchased. In practical terms, it is aimed at construction activity that brings materials into Monument from elsewhere, rather than at ordinary retail shopping, which already carries the town’s sales tax.
All revenue from the increase would be spent on capital projects, including streets, roads, bridges, and sidewalks, and stormwater improvements. That dedication is central to how the measure has been presented: supporters describe it as a way to make growth pay for the infrastructure growth requires, rather than as a general increase to fund day-to-day operations. The ballot title also asks voters to authorise the town to collect, retain, and spend the revenue as a voter-approved revenue change under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, the provision known as TABOR, which requires voter approval for tax revenue increases of this kind.
Why the council put the tax question to voters
The council referred the measure to the ballot by a vote of 6-1 on August 17. On October 19, the council then voted 7-0, on a motion by Mayor LaKind, for Resolution 77-2026, which expresses the council’s support for Ballot Issue 2B and leaves the final decision to voters. The resolution says the added revenue will provide a dedicated source of funding for capital projects including streets, roads, bridges, sidewalks, and stormwater improvements, and it encourages residents to review the ballot language and available information before casting their votes.
Local reporting that compared Monument’s rate with ten Front Range towns of similar size found that Monument taxes construction materials at 2 percent, a lower rate than any of the ten comparison towns. If Ballot Issue 2B passes, the town’s rate would move to the middle of that group. Supporters argue that this context matters: Monument is not being asked to adopt an unusually high tax, but to bring an unusually low rate up to the rate already applied to retail purchases in town, at a time when the general fund is forecast to face pressure and when road and drainage work remains unfinished.
That argument connects to specific projects voters may recognise. Local coverage of the town’s May polling noted that support for the measure rose sharply once voters heard that funds would be locked to roads and infrastructure, that developers and builders would bear much of the cost, and that the money could help finish long-discussed work such as the widening of Jackson Creek Parkway. Whether a voter finds that argument persuasive depends on whether they trust that the dedication to capital projects will hold, and whether they believe construction costs will ultimately be passed on to homebuyers and renters rather than absorbed by builders.
The case against the tax, and what critics say
Opposition to a tax increase rarely needs a single spokesperson to be real, and in Monument the concerns follow familiar lines. A higher use tax on building materials raises the cost of building, and critics argue that at least part of that cost will eventually reach the people who buy or rent new homes, even if builders pay the tax first. Others argue that a town should prioritise spending within existing revenue, or sequence capital projects more slowly, rather than raising a rate during a period when households already face higher housing and construction costs.
The Libertarian Party of El Paso County’s voter guide, which reviewed measures on the November 3 ballot, recorded opposition to Issue 2B, reflecting a view that tax increases should be resisted even when dedicated to infrastructure. That position does not, by itself, represent all opponents, and many voters who oppose the measure may do so for practical rather than ideological reasons. But it illustrates that the ballot question is genuinely contested in the community, even though the council itself voted unanimously to support it in October. A unanimous council vote in support of putting a question to voters, or even in support of the measure, is not the same as unanimous public support, and the election result will show how far the council’s view matches the electorate’s.
Another caution comes from the town’s own polling. In May 2026, a survey of 636 respondents conducted for the town found that support for a 1.5 percentage-point increase stood at only 39 percent, with 55 percent opposed, when the question was asked cold. After respondents heard the town’s case for the tax, including the dedication to roads and the argument that developers would bear much of the cost, support climbed to 64 percent and opposition fell to 31 percent. Reporting on the survey stressed that the later figure measures persuadability under favourable framing, because later questions presented the case for the tax before re-asking support. It is therefore not a prediction of the election result. It is, however, a useful reminder that how voters first hear about a tax measure, and what information reaches them before they vote, can shift opinion substantially.
Growth, development, and the wider context in Monument
Ballot Issue 2B does not arrive in isolation. The same August 17 council meeting that referred the tax to the ballot also dealt with two major development decisions, illustrating the growth pressures behind the infrastructure debate. The council refused a 205-home subdivision beside land used by the United States Air Force Academy, while approving 354 apartments and townhomes on Old Denver Road. Those decisions, taken together, show a council trying to manage where and how growth happens, not simply whether it happens.
For voters, that context links the candidate races to the tax question. The next mayor and council will oversee the 2027 budget, which is scheduled for adoption on December 7 by the council now sitting, and will carry forward the Monument 2040 plan, which was due to be finalised after a September open house. They will also decide how capital-project revenue, if voters approve it, is actually sequenced: which streets are repaired first, which stormwater improvements take priority, and how quickly the town moves on projects that residents have waited for. A vote for a candidate and a vote on Ballot Issue 2B are therefore related but distinct choices. A voter can support the tax while preferring one mayoral candidate over the other, or oppose the tax while supporting either candidate, and the ballot allows both combinations.
What happens next after November 3
If Ballot Issue 2B passes, the higher rate would take effect on January 1, 2027, and the town would begin collecting the additional revenue on qualifying construction materials and equipment under the permit-based rules described in the ballot language. The first-year estimate of 2,272,500 dollars would then be tested against actual construction activity, which can rise or fall with the housing market and with the pace of development approvals. If the measure fails, Monument would keep its 2 percent construction use tax, the lowest in the comparison group cited in local reporting, and the council would need to find other ways to fund capital projects, delay some work, or return to voters with a revised proposal.
Either way, the new mayor and council will take office with major decisions already in motion. The budget, the long-range plan, and the ongoing debate about growth and infrastructure will not wait for newcomers to learn the job. That is part of why this election, though local and largely uncontested in its council races, matters beyond Monument’s borders as an example of how small towns govern growth: through a mix of candidate choice, direct votes on taxes, and the slow work of turning ballot language into paved streets and working storm drains.
Voters who have not yet returned a ballot should remember the deadline that governs this election. Ballots must reach the county clerk by 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3. A postmark on that date is not enough. Checking a ballot’s status, using a drop box, or voting in person where available are the safest ways to ensure a vote on the mayor, the council, and Ballot Issue 2B is counted.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from The Monument Independent, Town of Monument and The Badger.