Boulder City Council on Oct. 9 voted 6‑1 to approve on first reading Ordinance 87‑19, which would add section 8‑2‑26 to the Boulder Revised Code to authorize a transportation maintenance fee to pay for underfunded and unfunded capital maintenance of the city’s transportation system.

The fee is intended to be charged to residential and nonresidential property owners based on a property’s proportional use of the transportation system (measured as person trips). The ordinance was introduced by Council member Nicole (motion) and seconded by Lauren; Council member Waller cast the lone no vote on first reading.

Why it matters: City staff told the council that sales tax — the city’s primary transportation revenue source — has flattened and can be volatile, leaving a growing gap between available funding and the cost of maintaining pavement, sidewalks, bridges and other assets. Staff and consultants said the TMF would create a predictable revenue stream that could be indexed and adjusted annually, and that implementing the fee in 2026 would allow the city to begin closing an estimated maintenance funding gap.

Staff presentation and debate: Charlotte Husky, the city’s budget officer, framed the TMF as part of the long‑term financial strategy to diversify revenue beyond sales tax. Chris Eidlin, principal project manager in Transportation and Mobility, said the city’s fee study — conducted by consultant Tishler Bice — sets rates by property type using person‑trip methodology and targets roughly $6,400,000 in annual revenue. Eidlin told the council the methodology is meant to be legally defensible: “The purpose of tonight’s public hearing is to introduce the first reading of the transportation maintenance fee or TMF ordinance 87 19, which would establish 8 dash 2 dash 26 as part of the Boulder revised code.”

Valerie Watson, deputy director of Transportation and Mobility, and Garrett Slater, senior engineering manager for capital projects, described the maintenance shortfall. Slater said prior boosts in capital funding produced measurable improvements in pavement condition and said the TMF money would let the city increase resurfacing and extend asset life. Staff said current annual pavement spending of about $5 million should be roughly $8 million to maintain a pavement condition index (PCI) goal of 75; without new revenue, the PCI is projected to fall toward about 60 by 2034.

Public input and stakeholder concerns: Two public commenters spoke in favor: Sue, representing Community Cycles, said, “The TMF represents sound fiscal policy,” and highlighted safety and climate co‑benefits of maintained multimodal infrastructure. A second public commenter, Lynn Siegel, voiced support for maintenance but said developers should help pay. Council members asked detailed questions about exemptions, indexing, administrative collection and whether the fee would cover operational items such as snow and ice response. Staff and consultants said snow and ice removal is not readily linked to the person‑trip nexus used in the fee study and would require a different legal justification; they said the TMF is focused on capital maintenance (pavement, bridges, sidewalks, paths, bus stops, markings).

Exemptions, waivers, and intergovernmental options: Staff said mobile homes were exempted in the study methodology and that state and federal institutions are not required to pay city fees, though voluntary intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) are possible. Staff reported initial outreach to the University of Colorado and Boulder Valley School District but said no IGAs have been drafted.

Next steps and implementation: Staff said the second reading is scheduled for Oct. 23. If adopted, implementation tasks include choosing a collection mechanism (utility billing was discussed), finalizing fee rounding and categories, establishing any waivers, and beginning partial 2026 collection (staff estimated a partial year of revenue in 2026). The ordinance approved on first reading was identified as Ordinance 87‑19.

“The fee can be enacted by council. It does not require going to the citizens for a vote,” staff noted during the presentation, and consultants emphasized the nexus study would need to be updated if council changes the dollar target for recovery. The council’s vote on Oct. 9 approved the ordinance on first reading by a 6‑1 tally.