Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Measures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council and staff weigh extensions and new taxes: CCRS extension, public realm tax and vacant‑property proposal under review
Summary
Council and the Financial Strategy Committee discussed three possible ballot proposals — extension of the .3% community, culture, resilience & safety (CCRS) sales tax, a new public‑realm property tax, and a vacant‑property excise/fee — and agreed to continue polling and analysis; staff will return with poll results June 26.
Get email alerts on the Ballot Measures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff and the Financial Strategy Committee presented three ballot options the city is exploring for potential voter consideration: (1) an extension of the city’s existing 0.3% community culture resilience and safety (CCRS) sales and use tax, (2) creation of a public‑realm property tax (an increase to the permanent parks levy described as roughly 1.352 mills, estimated to raise about $7 million annually), and (3) a vacant‑property excise tax or vacancy fee targeted at second homes and long‑term vacant single‑family houses.
Charlotte Heskey summarized staff modeling and the committee’s recommendations. The CCRS extension would generate an estimated $13–15 million annually beginning in 2037 (the current CCRS tax expires Dec. 31, 2036); staff would include a debt authorization element to enable advancing priority capital projects. The public‑realm proposal would expand the permanent parks tax to support parks, sidewalks, bike lanes and civic areas and allow flexibility for capital or maintenance needs. The vacant property concept could be structured either as a voter‑approved excise (examples discussed used a per‑unit figure near $7,000 yielding a rough first‑year order‑of‑magnitude of $2.0–$3.4 million based on single‑family water‑usage screening) or as a municipally adopted vacancy fee (which would require a nexus study before adoption and could be used to offset government service costs such as emergency response, code enforcement or sidewalks).
Council and staff discussed tradeoffs and timing. Several council members and staff urged caution about putting too many questions on the ballot at once in a period of economic uncertainty. Council also prioritized the need for clear messages to voters, outcomes measures, and attention to legal/administrative lift (nexus study, TABOR requirements and potential litigation risk). The council directed staff to include the CCRS extension and the public‑realm option in the polling; the vacancy tax/fee drew mixed views but the council asked staff to continue scoping further analysis (nexus study and legal review) so it can be a candidate for future consideration.
Staff will share poll results and recommended ballot language at a June 26 meeting; final ballot order must be certified to the county by early September if measures move forward. The council’s informal straw polling at the session signaled support for continued exploration of the CCRS extension and for a polling‑based approach to the public‑realm option; the vacancy concept received minority support for immediate polling but majority support for continued staff scoping.

