Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Broomfield council backs amendments to RTD modernization bill, citing ridership and representation concerns
Loading...
Summary
The city and county of Broomfield voted 8–1 to take an ‘amend’ position on Senate Bill 26150, a regional transit governance bill that would change RTD board composition and add a mandate to grow ridership. Council members pressed for clearer definitions and safeguards for lower-ridership suburbs.
Broomfield’s City and County Council voted 8–1 to ask for amendments to Senate Bill 26150, a bill that would change Regional Transportation District (RTD) board composition and add a district‑wide mandate to grow ridership.
John Whiting, the city’s strategic initiatives manager, told the council that "around 575 bills have been introduced so far" this legislative session and summarized SB 26150’s major provisions, including a reduction in elected board seats and new reporting and paratransit requirements. He warned the changes could dilute representation for lower‑ridership communities that nonetheless contribute tax funding to RTD.
Council members repeatedly raised concern about how the bill would use ridership data to redraw representation. Council member Ward moved that the council take an "amend" position on SB 26150; staff summarized six amendment topics the council sought, including protections for suburban representation, vacancy appointment procedures, signature thresholds, and compensation and vacancy rules. Sarah Grant, deputy director of community development — transportation, said "I think that there is not a lot of clarity around that," referring to how ridership would be calculated and used in districting.
Supporters of the motion said adding guardrails could protect smaller jurisdictions. Ward and others asked staff to work with the sponsors on amendment language. The motion passed 8–1.
Next steps: staff will assist in drafting potential amendment language if the council decides to take a formal position at future meetings.
Outcome and procedural note: the council’s vote was an expression of a municipal position, not a legislative amendment; any statutory changes would be made by the General Assembly and governor.

