Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Maintenance Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder council adopts transportation maintenance fee after extended debate
Summary
After hours of debate about outreach, legal limits and timing, the Boulder City Council adopted Ordinance 8719 to establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee; the measure passed by roll call, 6–3, and staff said collection would follow further implementation steps and community engagement.
The Boulder City Council on Oct. 23 adopted Ordinance 8719, establishing a Transportation Maintenance Fee designed to offset the city’s transportation infrastructure maintenance costs.
Council members debated whether to delay approval to allow additional outreach to businesses and residents. Councilmember Matt Benjamin moved to table the ordinance to the first or second quarter of 2026 to permit broader engagement; that motion failed on a roll-call vote. Mayor Brockett later put the ordinance up for adoption and the council approved it by roll call, 6–3.
City staff and council members framed the debate as a balance between public engagement and the cost of delaying maintenance. Chris Hagland, principal project manager, said the fee would generate roughly $6.4 million in a full year and that “about two-thirds of that would go to pavement maintenance,” enabling the city to maintain its pavement condition and handle bridge, sidewalk and safety-asset needs. Deputy Director Valerie Watson told council the city’s pavement quality index is about 74 and that continuing to underfund maintenance would allow that condition to decline.
Supporters argued the fee is a key element of the city’s long-term financial strategy and that implementation would include further business-facing engagement on billing, exemptions and collection cadence. Opponents urged more upfront outreach and raised concerns about the underlying nexus study that supports fee levels; City Attorney Teresa Taylor Tate cautioned that changes to fee structure could require revisiting that study.
Staff said that, even with adoption, collection would not start immediately: implementation requires a follow-on enabling ordinance that sets billing details and a schedule. Budget Officer Charlotte Huskey noted the fee had been programmed into the 2026 budget at $2.25 million; she said postponing implementation would require budget adjustments and could delay planned maintenance work.
The council’s action authorizes staff to pursue the next steps for implementation and engagement. Council members who supported the ordinance said staff should use the post-adoption engagement period to solicit input on exemptions, billing frequency and practical business impacts; staff committed to returning to council with implementation details and to report on community engagement outcomes.
