NEDERLAND — The ballots for the Nederland municipal election were tallied on Tuesday, April 7, 2026, signaling the end of a short three-month campaign for Mayor between two residents who have worked together on the Board of Trustees (BOT) for four years, and who proved to have split the Nederland electorate directly down the middle.  

The unofficial abstract of votes for the April 7 election was posted by Town officials on the front window of Town Hall late Tuesday night, yet indicated a rather unprecedented turn of events: the numbers showed Mayor Billy Giblin one vote ahead of Mayor Pro Tem Nichole Sterling.

According to the first count, Sterling earned 257 votes and Giblin eked out ahead with 258. As for the Trustee seats, candidate Andrew Joslin earned 380 votes and Matthew Kennedy won 316; as there are more seats available than there are candidates, both will be awarded the position on the BOT.  

Colorado Revised Statute 31-10-1207 states that a recount is necessary “if it appears, as evidenced by the survey of returns, that the difference between the highest number of votes cast in the election and the next highest number of votes cast in the election is less than or equal to one-half of one percent of the highest number of votes cast in the election.”

As of the writing of this article, Giblin is not claiming victory as he feels the results may constitute a recount. Town staff is currently assessing the matter; if a recount is ordered the official results may not be announced until this Friday, April 10. 

Giblin from Old Town and Sterling from Big Springs have worked together since September of 2022, when both were sworn in —Giblin, as Mayor, by special election, and Sterling by appointment against four other candidates for Trustee. 

Giblin won the 2022 special election by a margin of 39 votes against Tom Mahowald, battling for the Mayoral seat left vacant by Julian Taylor, who resigned shortly after being elected in the official municipal election. Giblin ran and won again in 2024; Mahowald was his only competition for the position that year as well. 

Back in 2022, Sterling described herself as a “voracious learner” whose experience in grant development, business operations, and finance would be the most strategic fit for the Board. Sterling was one of seven candidates for Trustee in 2024, and won one of the four available seats with 333 votes, the most of any candidate.

Over the last four years the Town of Nederland has expanded on the BOT’s operations, and its working relationship with its advisory boards, in order to complete major planning and developmental documents which outline the Town’s goals —and the actions to achieve them— for the next several years.

Now that the Town is seemingly close to committing to action on several major developments —from the Big Springs Emergency Egress project to the purchase of Eldora Mountain Resort— the electorate had to decide who was going to lead it into this potential new wave of change. 

Giblin and Sterling each ran campaigns that were closely aligned with their personalities and styles of leadership. Giblin ran on having a “common sense approach” to leadership, and presented himself as the person with the right “temperament” for what’s to come.

In the months leading up to the election, Giblin highlighted the many local endorsements he’s received —including from Congressman Joe Neguse, County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann, and many local Mayors— and casually met with townsfolk as he ran his daily errands, making himself open and available. 

Sterling launched a campaign website which described her leadership style as one of “clarity and determination,” and outlined her actions on many issues, including the Eldora acquisition, on providing affordable housing, and on supporting Town staff.

During her campaign, Sterling hosted livestreams to an online audience, during which she would expand on some of the issues highlighted on her website or answer questions directed to her from the public. 

Sterling’s first video was a direct reply to one of Giblin’s main talking points used throughout his campaign —and used by him in the prior election against Mahowald— stating that if he was not voted Mayor he would subsequently be “voted off” the BOT. This was meant to entice voters who liked both candidates to vote for Giblin so that both candidates could remain on the Board. 

“This is not exactly true,” Sterling said. “If I were to win, Billy can still participate on the BOT; he can run to be appointed and still participate in that way.” Despite this clarification, Giblin has continued to post online that he would be off the BOT if he were to lose the Mayoral race. 

There is still a seat available on the Board after Tuesday’s election and there is no legal reason for why either Giblin or Sterling would not be able to apply for that seat.

During her campaign Sterling had expressed to the Planning Commission her intention to continue on as a Trustee, even if she weren’t voted Mayor — (under the same scenario, Giblin did not specify whether he would run again for Trustee).  

Both candidates posted online rather heavily when compared to previous elections. Giblin’s posts received some engagement with a limited amount of criticism; his most popular post on Nedheads resulted in 12 comments, three of which were regarding Giblin’s previously challenged statement about being “voted off” the BOT. 

Residents also asked Giblin questions which he directly answered within the comment section, opposite of the strategy utilized by Sterling, in which she directed all questions asked in the comment section of her posts to her website. Sterling detailed this strategy as a means to maintain posterity, accommodating all Nederland voters as some may not have access to certain community pages.

This approach garnered some scrutiny from the public, with some residents online opining that Sterling’s approach was stifling open discourse —an opinion also expressed in some of Giblin’s campaign posts, in which he wrote: “people in our community are not just data points, and FAQs are not an effective way to communicate.” 

Sterling’s most popular campaign post on Nedheads, in terms of engagement, resulted in 55 comments. Over 24 of the comments were either direct expressions against the controversial subject matter of AI, or were questions directed at Sterling from a place of scrutiny. Sterling replied on eight different comments that the commenter’s question had been posted and answered on her website. 

 Both candidates also posted physical campaign signs in yards all across the Town, though Sterling’s were notably targeted and removed illegally by unidentified vandals.

This marks the second recent election during which campaign signs have been targeted. Back in 2024, signs supporting the leasing of Town-owned land for the construction of a new childcare center —an initiative which Sterling strongly supported— were reportedly removed from several private yards. 

In the days leading up to the election, Sterling announced that she would be available to the public at Knotted Root on Sunday, and at Busey Brews on Monday; Giblin was also out and about right up to Election Day, as he was spotted at Ned General on Monday.

The discourse online really heated up in those final days when a post on Nedheads by a community member sparked a response from candidate Sterling which resulted in a spirited debate that left the Nederland community divided and page moderators to consider their rules regarding posts about local politics. 

On Monday, April 6, a resident —who has worked adjacent to both Giblin and Sterling on the Nederland Downtown Development Authority— alluded to Sterling’s campaigning style as being “aggressive.” The post stated that each candidate’s campaigning style also represented how they have governed and will govern in the future.     

Sterling posted a response that same afternoon, calling out the post for using the word “aggressive” in a misogynistic context, as the word is often levied against women, particularly those in positions of power.

The response is difficult to classify as part of Sterling’s online campaign —despite urging supporters to get others to vote— as the decision to respond was arguably a personal and emotional one, outside of the range of politics. Sterling had even acknowledged that the post may cost her votes, but that she felt it necessary to speak up. 

“We must keep bringing awareness to this issue,” Sterling wrote. “We must continue to advocate for the women in our lives to be the leaders they are without repercussion.” 

As of Tuesday night the post has garnered over 100 reactions and 80 comments, the majority of which were in support of Sterling’s message. Some commenters shared similar experiences that synced with a lot of the data Sterling provided, including a Harvard Business Review study which found that 76% of the usage of the word “aggressive” in 200 business performance reviews was applied to women. 

The post did little to quell any further scrutiny, however, as many commenters failed to acknowledge any misogyny —accidental or intentional— and some outright called the candidate aggressive and claimed she was playing the victim in the final hours of the election to earn sympathy votes. 

Others levied questions about Sterling’s business dealings and about the legality of the placement of some of her campaign signs, which she answered directly within the comment section. The original poster who called Sterling’s campaigning “aggressive” also responded by denying any purposeful misogynist intent.