plan-boulder

Wildfire Resilience Project Summary

Wed, 21 Oct 2026 01:45:34 GMT

Wildfire Resilience

The following is a summary of the Wildfire Resilience portion of the October 22 study session meeting packet. It covers pages 34 through 65 of the packet, but does not cover the Risk Index Methodology shown in pages 66-101, which is complicated enough that it should be read in full. This summary will be helpful to PLAN-Boulder in considering our advocacy for wildfire resilience efforts, and we thought it might be helpful for the community, since it is a topic that is very much on the voters minds.

As PLAN-Boulder's priority, we will be advocating that the council policy direction is for every city department to carry their part of the financial burden of our wildfire programs as this issue moves forward.

Document Link: 10/22/2026 Packet

Overview

Core Framework

Wildfire Ready 2030 Staff propose a comprehensive framework to guide wildfire resilience efforts through 2030, organized around four strategies:

Fire Adapted Communities: Inspire homeowner action on hardening and defensible space via incentives and insurance alignment.
Resilient Landscapes: Reduce fuels on public/private lands (WUI).
Safe and Effective Wildfire Response: Strengthen evacuation, response, and ignition prevention to protect life safety.
Responsible Governance: Coordinate departments, diversify funding, track progress, and communicate results.

Key Components & Metrics

Inventory: Framework includes 137 projects across 25 programs, with 10 Tier 1 priority programs identified for immediate implementation (e.g., Wildfire Risk Reduction, Fuels Management, Evacuation Planning).
Geographic Prioritization: A Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Risk Index divides Boulder's western WUI into 12 sections rated as Highest, Very High, or High risk to guide investment.
Performance Measures: Staff developed 14 measures with targets for the end of 2030 , covering fuel loads, home hardening rates, evacuation times, and suppression success (e.g., "55% of homes in priority sections receive Detailed Home Assessment").
Tracking: Annual progress reporting is anticipated to utilize an adaptive management approach.

Financials & Enhancements

Current Investment: Approximately $10–11 million annually across ten city departments (existing baseline).
2027 Priority Enhancements: Staff identified four areas requiring additional investment for meaningful impact: Home Risk Reduction, Community Preparedness, Fuels Management in WUI, and Tactical Evacuation.
Need: Up to ~$1.85M in 2027 enhancements.
Funding Sources: Realigning Climate Tax Funds ($1.8M), Open Space Fund (up to $600k), and external grants (Federal, State, County; including potential $10M Community Wildfire Defense Grant).
Long-Term Financing: Staff will evaluate alternative financing mechanisms (e.g., property-based financing, bonds) to sustain long-term resilience beyond annual operating budgets.

Home Hardening Implementation Hub

A centralized, accessible web resource designed to help residents translate preparedness information into mitigation action.
Features instructional videos, project prioritization tools, cost information, and insurance guidance.
Targets all residents (owners/renters) regardless of whether they have completed a home assessment.

Equity & Climate Considerations

Equity: Highest risk is in the western WUI; hardening these areas protects everyone citywide. Vulnerable populations outside the WUI benefit indirectly from reduced fire spread risk. The Hub includes multi-modal resources for varying budgets and languages.
Climate/Sustainability: Programs balance community safety with ecosystem health (e.g., grazing, prescribed burning) to address interlinked hazards like drought and flash flooding.

Strategy Details

Fire Adapted Communities Program

FAC1: Wildfire Risk Reduction for Homes & Property

Desired Outcomes: Reduce ignition likelihood, increase survivability, reduce structure-to-structure spread, and increase insurability.
Scope: Includes IR1 (first row), IR2 (second row), and IR3 (interior) homes adjacent to WUI natural areas. ~2,000 parcels in 12 priority sections; ~10,000 across the broader WUI.
Aspiration: 100% of homes in WUI zones eligible for "Wildfire Prepared Home Essential" designation (an insurance-recognized standard valid for three years).
Key Targets by 2030:
Measure 1: 55% of homes in the 12 priority sections receive a Detailed Home Assessment (DHA) to qualify for WRAP grants (~400 DHAs completed annually).
Measure 2: 20% of homes in the 12 priority sections hardened to eligible standards.
Strategy: Engages homeowners through communication, risk understanding, and resourcing (grants/staffing). The plan notes that a regulatory trigger may be needed beyond voluntary models to reach 100%.
Current Annual Cost: $1.0M to $1.5M

FAC2: Wildfire Resilient Building & Landscaping Standards

Goal: Track wildfire-resilient construction activity in high-risk areas.
Scope: New construction and significant remodels in IR1/IR2 zones.
Measure 3: Monitor the number of building permits issued annually that comply with International Wildland Urban Interface Code requirements.
Compliance is confirmed via a "Letter of Completion" issued by City staff.
Permit volume fluctuates based on market conditions and weather events prompting repairs.
Current Annual Cost: $0.5M to $1.0M

FAC3: Community Emergency Preparedness

Desired Outcomes: Educate residents on evacuation to save lives; strengthen neighbor-to-neighbor networks for vulnerable residents.
Aspiration: Reach 100% of homes across all 12 WUI priority sections with evacuation programming by 2030.
Measure 4: 75% of homes in the priority sections receive evacuation programming by 2030.
Programming includes route planning, grab list creation, and understanding emergency alert levels.
Strategy: Requires dedicated outreach staff, translated materials, sustained neighborhood presence, and partnerships to reach renters and non-English speakers.
Current Annual Cost: $0.25M to $0.5M

Resilient Landscapes Program

RL1: Wildfire Fuels Management in the WUI

Goal: Treat vegetation to keep fire manageable and protect the built environment. Work is ongoing after initial treatment for monitoring and reentry.
Aspiration: 100% of WUI natural areas (regardless of ownership) treated to prescription.
Measure 5 Target: 100% of city-owned acres in WUI natural areas across all 12 priority sections will be treated by the end of 2030.
Private Land Strategy: Requires cross-boundary partnerships, landowner agreements, and county/state/federal grants to manage private holdings (~30% of total acreage).
Current Annual Cost: $1.5M to $2.0M

RL2: Wildfire Fuel Breaks

Goal: Create landscape-scale fuel breaks west of the 1,500-foot WUI zone to intercept fire from the west before it reaches communities.
Aspiration: 100% of modeled wildfire approach pathways encounter a treated fuel break.
Measure 6 Target: 70% of modeled "wildfire approach pathways" from the west will encounter one or more landscape-scale fuel breaks in treated condition by the end of 2030.
Requirements: Needs land access agreements, sustained funding, and expanded contractor capacity. A network map must be completed to estimate resource requirements.
Current Annual Cost: $0.5M to $1.0M

RL3: Prescribed Fire Program

Goal: Reintroduce fire as a natural tool to reduce fuel loads within historic return intervals (5–15 years).
Aspiration: 100% of lands in range of historic variability.
Measure 7 Target (Burn Planning): 50% of city-owned land in priority WUI sections covered by a current burn plan by end of 2030.
Measure 8 Target (Burn Performance): 50% of available "burn days" will be utilized through end of 2030.
Requirements: State-level regulatory flexibility, expanded crew capacity, interagency associations, and community smoke tolerance engagement.
Current Annual Cost: $0.25M to $0.5M

Desired Outcomes (Across all programs)

Lower flame lengths and keep fire on the ground.
Slow the rate of wildfire spread.
Reduce burn severity and post-fire erosion impacts.
Maintain or improve ecosystem health.
Provide response crews more time and access before fire reaches structures.

Safe and Effective Wildfire Response Program

WR1: Effective Wildfire Response

Measure 9: Prevent wildfires from reaching the built environment by keeping them in the wildland.
Target: 90% of recorded wildland ignitions on city-managed and adjacent lands will be contained at or under 1 acre through 2030 .
Note: This target applies to typical conditions (not extreme weather). The document notes an aspiration where 99% might be achieved with additional capacity.
Definition: "Wildland ignition" refers to fires originating in vegetation outside the built environment within or adjacent to Boulder's WUI.
Current Annual Cost: $1.5M to $2.0M

WR2: Tactical Evacuation

This program distinguishes between planning and performance validation.

Measure 10 (Evacuation Planning): By the end of 2028 , 100% of city evacuation polygons will feature current RSET assessments and complete polygon attribute documentation.
Timeline: Remaining polygons are scheduled for updated assessments by the end of 2027; mock evacuations in high-risk neighborhoods validate clearance times.
Measure 11 (Evacuation Performance): The Average Required Safe Evacuation Time ( RSET ) will be 2.5 hours for the 12 WUI priority sections, maintained through 2030 .
Definition: RSET is calculated using traffic modeling and accounts for detection, alerts, milling time (time to move toward exit), and drive time to safety.
Current Annual Cost: $0.05M to $0.25M

WR3: Ignition Prevention & Utility Hardening

Measure 12 (Ignitions): Aiming for a 10% reduction in the five-year rolling average of human-likely wildfire ignitions compared to the 2021–2025 baseline by the end of 2030 .
Baseline: Approximately 43 human-likely ignitions per year (based on city responses).
Measure 13 (Utility Hardening): Undergrounding 20 miles of overhead utility lines in and around Boulder by the end of 2030 , coordinated with Xcel and PUC.
Goal: Reduce human-caused and electrical utility-caused ignitions to zero eventually.
Current Annual Cost: $0.5M to $1.0M

Responsible Governance Program

RG1: Wildfire Communications & Engagement

Primary Goals & Outcomes

Community Awareness: Increase understanding of wildfire risk, home hardening, and risk reduction.
Action Motivation: Help residents feel informed to complete preparedness actions (e.g., defensible space).
Resource Connection: Link community members with Wildfire Ready resources.
Trust Building: Establish pub lic trust in the city’s wildfire resilience work.

Measurement & Targets (Measure 14)

Metric: A multi-question survey instrument tracks self-reported contributions rather than claiming City communications solely caused actions.
Target: By the end of 2030 , 55% of surveyed residents engaged in wildfire preparedness should report that City information made them more likely or better informed to take mitigation/risk-reduction action.
Focus: There is a specific emphasis on increased participation among residents in priority wildfire-risk areas.
Current Annual Cost: $0.25M to $0.5M

Methodology & Engagement Channels

Touchpoints: Interactions include the Wildfire Ready Hub, webpages, newsletters, social media, community events, preparedness walks, home assessments (WRAP), presentations, and direct staff engagement.
Evaluation Results: Data will be assessed over time and segmented by geography/risk area to identify gaps in reach and effectiveness.
Aspiration: To ensure residents consistently receive, understand, and use wildfire information, supported by sustained, repeated engagement across multiple channels.

2026 Candidate Endorsements

Mon, 28 Sep 2026 21:42:18 GMT

PLAN-Boulder Country 2026 Candidate Endorsements

Mayor

Aquiles La Grave

Aquiles is a long-time Boulder resident who has served our community on boards and commissions, non-profits and grassroots organizing. PLAN-Boulder County is endorsing Aquiles for Mayor because of his focus on these important issues: how council interacts and listens to the public; greater transparency around how the city spends taxpayer dollars; and an independent city auditor with the ability to publicly evaluate city performance; and more attention on public safety. Also of importance to our organization and its members is Aquiles’ support of environmental programs, including clean air, water and energy. Boulder was once an environmental leader, but the environment seems to have fallen off the council’s radar. He has played a leadership role in addressing the wildfire threat to Boulder. He opposes the $400 million Recreation and Safety Bond property tax and bond issue currently on the ballot, with a final cost of over $600 million including the finance charges!

PLAN-Boulder joins many community organizations and individuals who feel that Boulder is heading in the wrong direction, and making questionable management decisions that are challenging our financial and environmental stability. Aquiles says “Boulder doesn’t need more promises. It needs a mayor who knows how to organize people, get things done and stick around for the results”. We think Aquiles is the change agent we need to do just that.

Candidate Website

Candidate Questionnaire

Taishya Adams

Taishya is a current City council member who has focused concerns on environmental issues and social justice. Our support for Taishya is based on her outspoken concern for the future of our water supply, which is an issue of highest priority to PLAN-Boulder.

Candidate Website

Candidate Questionnaire

Jameson "Jamo" Goldstein

We would like to recommend consideration of Jameson Goldsmith’s candidacy for Mayor. Jameson is an articulate CU Business School student and entrepreneur, with an admirable grasp of Boulder issues for a young candidate. He has said he is willing to take on a leadership role because his generation will be the one to deal with the inability of our generation to deal with climate change and poor governance.

Candidate Website

Candidate Questionnaire

Ranked Choice Voting

The election for Mayor uses Ranked Choice Voting. In this election there are five candidates running for Mayor, and you can select your 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice and so on. Here is more information on Ranked Choice Voting from Boulder County:

All 1st choice rankings are counted. If no candidate has more than 50% of the 1st choice rankings, the candidate with the fewest 1st place votes is eliminated, and those ballots then have their 2nd place votes counted. This elimination process continues until a candidate has more than 50% of the vote. We only use your 2nd, 3rd, etc. choice if your higher ranked choice(s) are eliminated. If you do not have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. preferences for this contest, you do not need to fill in those columns. You only need to fill in the number of columns for the candidates you prefer and in the order you prefer them. It is important to note that ranking other candidates does NOT harm your 1st choice.

We are ranking Aquiles as our first and strongest choice, and Taishya as our second choice. We urge you to do the same. You do not have to rank all five candidates if they do not meet your expectations as candidates.

For more details on Ranked Choice Voting go to: https://bouldercolorado.gov/guide/ranked-choice-voting-guide

City Council

New faces

PLAN-Boulder is endorsing two new faces for City Council. Both have experience in analyzing and managing the finances of large organizations, and both are focusing on the challenges facing Boulder’s financial future. They both support the addition of an Independent City Auditor as an important step in getting the city back to a stable financial condition. Both describe themselves as pragmatic, and willing to work with anyone to solve Boulder’s problems. PLAN-Boulder sees the need for new representation on Boulder’s City Council, and we endorse Dave Martus and Ryan Jamieson to help lead the way for required changes.

David Martus

Dave has built his career in institutional finance, including as a Senior Portfolio Manager at Colorado PERA, where he helped steward the retirement savings for hundreds of thousands of Colorado teachers, state troopers and public employees, including City of Boulder employees. His approach to issues is to inform himself, listen to a wide range of viewpoints and build consensus to actually solve problems. He has 40 years of the kind of financial expertise the council has been missing and a solid, pragmatic approach to leadership that is what Boulder government needs.

Candidate Website

Candidate Questionnaire

Ryan Jamieson

Ryan is a cybersecurity consultant supporting climate resilience, simpler zoning, fiscal stewardship and housing affordability. He spent four and one half years in the Army, including in Iraq. Ryan worked for about six years as an internal auditor at American Express. He founded Knit Security three years ago to provide cybersecurity consulting and services to businesses. A central focus of his campaign will be addressing what he calls the city’s “Kafkaesque” bureaucracy, and he calls for revising our 900+ page city code to simplify it. He supports adding an Independent City Auditor to help evaluate what our community priorities are and how to establish a budgeting process with identified goals, costs, evaluation and assigned responsibility. “Both the Army and Amex were big lessons in navigating bureaucracy effectively, and my time as an auditor taught me the value of the role,” he said.

Candidate Website

Candidate Questionnaire

Some continuity

PLAN-Boulder recognizes the need for some continuity in promoting change in our city council leadership. We are endorsing Tina Marquis, Tara Winer and Ryan Schuchard, three incumbents that have been most responsive to issues of great concern to PLAN-Boulder.

Tina Marquis

Most of us are familiar with Tina after her 4 years of service on the City Council and two terms on the Boulder Valley School District Board of Education. Her priorities cover the range of issues that are front and center in this 2026 election. Tina makes herself exceptionally well informed on the details of issues that come before council and is more responsive to constituents than many other council members. We especially appreciate her engagement with the neighbors on University Hill who are trying to deal with the impacts of the state mandate to eliminate occupancy limits, and the damage occurring from outside investors buying up residential properties and converting them to high occupancy student rentals.

Candidate Website

Candidate Questionnaire

Tara Winer

Tara has an unusual ability to reach out to, and work with everyone. She has always given PLAN-Boulder’s issues respectful consideration and makes a real effort to understand the details. “If you feel strongly about something, then your goal is to get four other people to agree with you. If you’re not sure how you feel about something, then you get to hear from a lot of people – not only the smart people on Council, but also the smart constituents give you their opinion, and it helps you to figure out how you feel about something,” said Winer. These are characteristics that we find critical to good governance, and better governance in the city of Boulder is a critical requirement for our next council.

Candidate Website

Candidate Questionnaire

Ryan Schuchard

PLAN-Boulder and Ryan have had different positions on the density of housing during Ryan’s first term. We still have more to discuss and resolve about how transportation policies will work for our entire range of citizens. We are endorsing Ryan because of his leadership in bringing several issues of great concern to PLAN-Boulder to the city council. Most importantly, he was the only council member to engage with the issue of toxic Coal Ash that will be removed from the Valmont Power Station by Xcel Energy. He made sure this matter was included in the discussion with Xcel regarding their performance on the requirements for continuing their franchise. Ryan was also instrumental in making sure that the issue of the future of the Boulder Airport received a public hearing. And he was one of the votes to reject the formation of a Downtown Development Authority that proposed taking an increment of revenue from our restricted funds, including Open Space, without any approval of the citizens that voted to restrict the funds.

Candidate Website

Candidate Questionnaire

2026 Ballot Issue Endorsements

Sun, 27 Sep 2026 21:42:28 GMT

PLAN-Boulder County 2026 Ballot Issue Endorsements

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2J - No

PLAN-Boulder County does not support the Residential Vacancy Tax.

We see it as a means to extract limited funds from “other “ people and we are not sure this will produce the objectives that are hoped for. In any case, administering it will be costly and likely complicated. We need to simplify Boulder government, not make it more complicated and costly.

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2K - No

PLAN-Boulder County opposes Ballot Issue 2K, the city’s $400 million bond issue supported by property tax, that adds up to $650 million in total costs with interest.

We do strongly support addressing the long-accumulating deferred maintenance of city facilities, and in particular, the buildings identified as high priorities, including the Public Safety Building and the South Boulder Recreation Center; however, we do not support throwing $650 million at something that is so ill-defined as the proposal that is Ballot Issue 2K. We want to see enough data on design and costs to know that we won’t be stuck with projects with huge increases over the preliminary cost estimates.

Two notable high profile examples of what happens when projects are undertaken without adequate preparation are the Alpine-Balsam West Campus and South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation, both of which are troubled by huge increases in the projected costs. We voters are unwilling to go along with the city’s “Trust us” attitude on Ballot Issue 2K, and are reluctant to let the city spend more millions of dollars without adequate financial guardrails. Come back to us next year with a better-defined proposal.

Boulder County Ballot Question 200 - Yes

PLAN-Boulder County endorses increasing the Boulder County Board of Commissioners from three members to five members.

Boulder County is large and diverse. Currently three at-large County Commissioners make decisions for more than 330,000 residents across every city, town, and rural area. Boulder County’s population has more than doubled since the 1970s, yet Boulder County has used a three-commissioner, at-large election model since the county was formed in 1861.

We feel that the expansion of the number of commissioners will ensure fairer, more balanced representation. It would allow better focus on the diverse needs and perspectives of residents across the county, from the urban areas to the rural farms, from the mountains to the plains. It would allow greater capacity for more commissioner outreach, problem-solving and attention to the unique priorities of different communities. And five commissioners would provide for broader perspectives and positions in board deliberations over county issues.

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A – No Position

PLAN-Boulder County does not take a position on the Boulder County Early Childhood Care and Education Issue.

We clearly see the need for more financial support for early childhood care and education. At the same time, we acknowledge that we are asking for more and more taxes from our citizens who are already challenged by the difficult financial conditions created by state and federal financial policies. It is a worthy issue, and we recommend that each voter assess their own support based on their financial ability to take on more taxes.

Colorado Proposition 137 - No

Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation

PLAN-Boulder County urges a NO vote on this issue. While the title of this measure sounds appealing, it has many flaws. The measure takes from the State’s General Fund the sales tax revenues collected on sporting goods and allocates them to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the Great Outdoors Colorado Program without providing clear guidance on their use.

The measure fails to focus expenditure of these funds on the most important and efficient means of reducing wildfire risks: investing in Home Hardening and reducing grass and forest fuels along the Wildland-Urban Interface, areas where large investments are genuinely needed. By removing an estimated $175 million to $180 million from the General Fund, Proposition 137 takes away from the legislature the ability to allocate state revenues to the state’s highest priorities.

In addition, the measure provides no transparency, oversight, or accountability to the legislature or to voters to ensure focused spending on the reduction of wildfire risks and the state’s greatest conservation needs.

For more information see: https://noprop137.com/opposition

2026 City Council Candidates Forum

Fri, 18 Sep 2026 22:26:04 GMT

Watch the video recording of the Sept. 2, 2026 Forum to get to know who is running for Mayor and the 5 open City Council seats .

2026 Boulder Budget - Costly Projects

Sun, 19 Oct 2025 02:47:36 GMT

Several projects in the works deserve a closer look.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

Boulder’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) oversees a broad range of improvements in Boulder from streets and utilities to city owned buildings. For buildings, the Facilities Master Plan (FMP) [1] guides decisions on whether to perform deep retrofits or demolish and build new, but it overlooks a third, more sustainable option: ongoing maintenance.

South Boulder Recreation Center

The South Boulder Recreation Center, built in 1972, has served for more than five decades and received limited maintenance. Years of neglect have led to several system failures, including the boiler that heats the pool, as well as general wear and tear typical of an institutional building. A third-party condition report [2] from 2025 found some minor structural issues but noted that the facility remains in relatively good shape. Despite its better energy efficiency and generally sound condition, the South Boulder Recreation Center is currently slated for replacement. However, the city has not yet determined what the new facility will include or how much it will cost.

South Boulder Recreation Center

East Boulder Recreation Center

The East Boulder Recreation Center, built in 1992, has been identified as deficient in both function and energy efficiency [1]. To address these shortcomings, the city is proposing a deep energy retrofit that would "place the facility on a path toward environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and financial stewardship". The total cost of this retrofit is estimated at $53 million [3].

In the 2026 budget, the city plans to raise daily recreation center rates by 25% in 2026 [4].

East Boulder Recreation Center

West Campus

The new West Campus will be located on the former site of Boulder Community Hospital, a property the city purchased in 2015 for $40 million [5]. Demolition of the hospital was completed in 2023 at an estimated cost of $16 million [6]. The Pavilion medical office building on the site, originally 62,500 square feet, was initially intended to serve as new office space for up to 250 city staff members. The rest of the property is slated for housing and mixed-use development. In 2020, the cost to convert the Pavilion into city offices was estimated between $49 million and $58 million [6].

With recent increases in staff, plans for the site have since expanded. The Pavilion will now include an additional 55,100 square feet, including a new fourth floor [7]. With these changes, the estimated cost of converting the Pavilion into city offices has risen dramatically to $140 million [8]. Much of the funding for this project is already in place after a $100 million bond sale in 2025. [8][9]

Alpine-Balsam West Campus

Sources

[1] Facilities Master Plan

[2] Recreation Center Building Report 2025

[3] 2025 Budget p316

[4] Boulder Reporting Lab 9/11/2025

[5] 2016 Budget p143

[6] 2020 Budget p171

[7] Planning Board Item 6A p44

[8] 2025 Budget p317

[9] 2026 Budget Government Capital Fund

2026 Boulder Budget - Overview

Fri, 17 Oct 2025 21:01:29 GMT

2026 is a watershed moment for Boulder's budget.

Like so many of our fellow community members, PLAN-Boulder County is alarmed by the trends of our city’s financial condition. We have spent the past half year analyzing the data that is available through the city’s budget website, and have found that Boulder’s budget priorities are heading in the wrong direction . Boulder is at a fiscal crossroads, and the warning signs are clear. City government is growing more expensive, tax revenues are stagnating, and new “fees” are being quietly fast-tracked to fill the gap without voter approval or much public scrutiny. At the same time, major capital projects are ballooning in size and cost, even as basic maintenance needs are deferred.

In the aftermath of COVID staffing levels have increased significantly, serving as a major contributor to the 2026 budget shortfall. This post details the issues: 2026 Boulder Budget - Staffing

In that same time period sales tax revenues have declined, which is covered in this post: 2026 Boulder Budget- Sales Tax

In order to deal with the reduction in sales tax revenue, city services like transportation maintenance are now being moved to fees on property. Read about it in this post: 2026 Boulder Budget - Transportation Maintenance Fee

Another contributors to budget woes are projects that grow in scope, described here: 2026 Boulder Budget - Costly Projects

2026 Boulder Budget - Staffing

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 20:13:34 GMT

Since the pandemic staffing levels have risen significantly.

Staffing Levels

Between 2019 and 2025 the city of Boulder increased staffing by 191 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees. Graph 1 shows 1426 FTE in 2019 and 1539 FTE in 2023 for a net increase of 113 FTE.

In 2024 the Library was spun off reducing staff by 78 FTE. Those positions were distributed to other departments and by 2025 the workforce was once again at 1539.

Even though 2026 is an austerity budget, overall staffing rises to 1548 with the addition of city council members as full time employees.

The total increase from 2019 to 2026 is 200 FTE. This representing a 14% increase in headcount.

Graph 1 - Staffing Levels (FTE)

Table 1 - Staffing Levels (FTE) by Department 2015-2026

Source:

Staffing Changes

From 2019 to 2025 some departments experienced significant changes.

Two departments effectively ceased to exist over this period:
The City Clerk’s Office was folded into the City Manager’s Office
Library & Arts was spun off into a Library district.
Planning, Housing & Sustainability shows a -12% change as a result of moving code enforcement to the Police department.
Communications grew 116% over that period.

The increase in staff size seen between 2019 and 2025 has the knock-on effect that support services also have to grow to service the additional FTEs. Table 2 shows the changes to staff size for each department. The 4 fastest growing departments are providing primarily internal support to themselves and public facing departments.

Resources required to support a growing workforce are not limited to additional FTEs but also includes employment benefits such as health insurance, pensions, real estate required to house the additional FTEs and Information Technology to provide digital support .

Table 2 - Staffing Changes from 2019 to 2025

2026 shows little growth among departments except for:

In 2024 Ballot item 2C passed, which increases City Council pay to 40% of AMI. This accounts for the +9 FTE in City Council numbers
The big change is moving 24 FTE to Planning, Housing & Sustainability (PHS)
Community Vitality transfers parking enforcement to PHS.
Police transfer code enforcement positions to PHS.

Table 3 - Staffing Changes from 2025 to 2026

Source:

Staffing Costs

The costs of increasing staff size over the last 6 years as well as changes proposed for the 2026 budget can be seen in the Combined Budget Summary shown in Graph 2 and Table 4. This summary aggregates the costs of personnel, internal services, operating expenses, debt service and capital projects.

What this data shows is:

From 2019 to 2025 the cost of personnel rose from $149M to $205M or 37%.
The cost of internal services increased from $17M in 2019 to $62M in 2025 or 264%.
For 2026 the amount devoted to capital projects will be sharply lower than the previous 3 years.
In the face of no staff reductions, the capital budget is absorbing all of the cuts, mainly for Facilities & Fleet.

Graph 2 - Combined Budget Summary

Table 4 - Combined Budget Summary 2017-2026

Source:

Peer Cities

When looking at the performance of an institution it is useful to compare them to their peers.

The comparative metric for Table 5 is FTEs per 100,000 residents of a city.

In this group Boulder is in the top 5 for most FTE per resident.

Table 5 - Staffing Levels Among Peer Cities

Source:

FTE Data: 2025 budget documents downloaded from the peer cities
Population Data: https://worldpopulationreview.com/

2026 Boulder Budget - Sales Tax

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 02:23:30 GMT

Boulder sales tax revenue is flat and is anticipated to decline in coming years.

Sales tax is the largest source of revenue in the city budget, funding a broad range of programs. In recent years sales tax growth has slowed peaking in 2023.

Data provided by the city [1] shows revenue by location. Graph 1 shows sales/use tax collections:

Inside the city of Boulder peaking in 2022 at $86.2M
Outside the city (online, catalog and other sales) rising 86% to $51.5M in 2024.
In Gunbarrel - peaking in 2023 at $8M
From the County Clerk (auto sales) - flat at $6M
All other Boulder rising 47% to $14M

For a city like Boulder that has traditionally been a regional retail hub, to have declining sales within the city is a troubling trend. There are several causes that are worth considering:

The loss of businesses due to changes in land use that pushes housing into areas previously zoned for commercial and industrial.
Changes to transportation and land use that drive consumers out of the city
Social issues that make shopping in Boulder a less desirable proposition.
The transition from brick and mortar to online shopping.

In the face of declining sales tax the city is on a path to create new funding sources through fees on property instead of consumption. The 2026 budget proposes a Transportation Maintenance Fee .

Graph 1 - Sales/use tax 2017 to 2024.

Table 1 - Change in sales/use tax collection from 2019 to 2024.

Table 2 - Sales/Use tax collection by geography (2017-2024)

Sources

2026 Boulder Budget - Transportation Maintenance Fee

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 02:23:25 GMT

The 2026 Budget is set to levy a new fee on all property in Boulder.

Transportation Maintenance Fee

The 2026 Boulder budget includes a new fee that will be levied on all properties in Boulder [1]. The purpose of this fee is to assess the fair share of a property on the transportation system.

Single family homes will pay $54 per year. Multi family will pay $42 per year for every dwelling in a building. Commercial rates for a variety of categories including Retail, Office and Industrial will be calculated on a square foot basis. Private schools will pay on a per student basis.

The University of Colorado, Boulder Valley School District and RTD are exempt from the fee. As are Amazon Delivery, UPS, FedEx and DHL.

Since this surcharge is a fee and not a tax, there is no requirement for a vote under TABOR. Likewise, annual increases of the fee require only a vote of the council.

For reference, Boulder has used fees (service charges) to fund maintenance and expansion of the Water system for over 10 years. Over this period service charges have steadily increased. Table 1 below shows the inflation of water service charges.

The long term financial strategy process that gave birth to this new fee seeks to “Protect underfunded core city services like parks, transportation and public safety”. This involves moving funding for these services from sales tax revenues such as the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety (CCRS) tax to fees levied on properties in Boulder. [2]

In fact, the CCRS which was originally promoted as a way to deal with the backlog of transportation maintenance, is seeking renewal in the upcoming election. Not because it is expiring, but because the city is currently maxed out on its bonding capacity and by extending the expiration date of the CCRS will be able to borrow more money.

The Transportation Maintenance Fee is the first service to get a dedicated fee. For the city, fixed property based fees are desirable because they can be levied on every property equally without any need to consider the condition, size or value of the property.

In many ways this class of fee is an equivalent of a Lump-Sum tax, where everyone pays the same, regardless of income, wealth or even how much they actually use the transportation system. Lump-Sum taxes are a classic example of a regressive tax.

When the Transportation Maintenance Fee takes effect, expect significant yearly increases. In coming years, it is very likely that parks, public safety and city facilities will receive their own dedicated fees that will inflate, unabated into the future. For local businesses, the Transportation Maintenance Fee repr esents an additional headwind in comparison to on-line retail and will be passed along to the consumer through increased prices. It is also worth noting that sales taxes will not be reduced as a result of this fee.

Sources:

Water Service Charges

Service fees on monthly water bills in the City of Boulder have risen steadily at a rate of 5 to 12% on an annual basis. Over the last 10 years the monthly total of these fees has risen 163%.

According to the city website: "Utility revenue increases are considered by City Council in October of each year as part of the citywide budget process. Rates are set so that sufficient revenues are generated to support operations, maintenance and improvements for each of the city utilities."

Table 1. Water Service Charges - 2015 to 2025

Data in Table 1 was extracted from historical water bills on a residential property with a 7,000 square foot lot size and a 3/4" meter. These fees are flat rate, which is to say that they are charged regardless of whether the property uses 0 or 20,000 gallons in a month.