Council asks staff to poll voters on funding options to tackle $400M facilities backlog; staff recommends a $200M package

Boulder staff told the City Council Wednesday that the city’s current capital backlog for priority buildings totals roughly $500 million and that about $100 million of existing funding is already programmed, leaving an approximately $400 million unmet need.

To begin addressing that gap staff proposed five scenarios blending existing CCRS (cultural, community, recreation and safety) tax capacity and potential ballot measures, including expanding the parks and public improvement mill levy, a vacancy excise (second‑homes) tax, general fund debt authorization, and consolidating dedicated sales taxes into a more flexible public‑realm fund. Staff recommended polling a package that combines an increase and expanded use of the parks and public improvement mill levy (scenario C) with a targeted debt approach (scenario E) to create up to $200 million in maximum financing capacity.

“Because the CCRS tax was extended in perpetuity, we now have the capacity to extend plan debt and reduce annual debt service payment by stretching repayment to 20 years,” staff said when describing Scenario A uses of existing CCRS funding. Staff also noted CCRS revenue is roughly $13,900,000 annually and that some CCRS funds are already committed to projects such as East Boulder Community Center and fire stations.

Staff explained scenario C (a 1.352 mill increase to the permanent parks and recreation levy, expanding allowable uses) would raise an estimated $6.6 million annually and—if dedicated to debt service—could support around $80 million in financed capacity. Scenarios D and E illustrated additional debt approaches that require a charter amendment to change the city’s 3% assessed‑value debt cap to one based on actual taxable value, which staff recommended for the long‑term plan.

Council discussion focused on trade‑offs for residential versus commercial property impacts, how to phase projects and protect low‑income homeowners and small nonprofits, whether to test a larger $400M option, and poll design (split sample vs single question). Several council members urged inclusion of a general fund debt authorization question to preserve future flexibility; staff had recommended not bringing general‑fund debt forward this year because it does not generate revenue and would require offsetting service reductions if used.

Council direction: staff was asked to proceed with polling on the staff‑recommended package (including the parks/public improvement mill levy increase and debt approach) and to run split samples to test both $200M and $400M capacity options. Council also directed staff to draft charter amendment language (section 97) and provide legal analysis on debt limits and to prepare phasing and timing information for polling materials.

What’s next: Staff will work with the pollster and the city attorney to draft poll language, return polling results in late June, and present a recommended ballot package for council consideration this summer. The city emphasized that polling will include project phasing and timing to clarify when any tax or mill‑levy changes would take effect.