Boulder’s open space trustees are calling for more transparency around how the city spends sales tax revenue dedicated to preserving open space.
At a meeting earlier this month, the five-member Open Space Board of Trustees raised concerns about a projected increase in transfers from the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) budget to cover general city services, such as legal, human resources and IT.
At issue is a longstanding practice known as “cost allocations,” which allows the city to charge OSMP and other departments for their share of central services. While these transfers have historically helped fund legal work and administrative support for open space matters, trustees said the projected increases warrant closer scrutiny. Some members are concerned that as overall open space spending remains relatively flat, and the city faces a budget shortfall, more of OSMP’s funding could be pulled away to cover other city needs.
Since 1967, when Boulder passed a dedicated open space sales tax, the revenue has helped pay for the acquisition of 46,000 acres of land and maintain more than 150 miles of trails. But some trustees suggested rising cost allocations could divert money away from that mission, particularly as the city grapples with flattening sales tax revenue and uncertainty over federal funding.
According to city projections, cost allocations will grow from about 8.5% of OSMP’s $32 million operating budget in 2024 to about 14% by 2031.
On July 9, a board majority approved a resolution calling for “greater transparency and accountability” from the city council on the increasing cost allocations.
“The projections of our cost allocation just march ever onward and upward,” Trustee Brady Robinson said during the meeting. “I’m not comfortable with the lack of transparency.”
Robinson said it’s unclear how much of the allocation directly supports open space purposes. He suggested the board should push for a cap on the percentage of the budget that could be spent on cost allocations.
“There has got to be a breakdown as to how much of the costs that we pay in allocation are actually directly related to the purposes of the open space department,” Board Chair Harmon Zuckerman said.
Trustee Michelle Estrella was the lone vote against the resolution. She said the board was too focused on future projections and warned against creating more administrative work for city staff by tracking every cost in detail. She also pushed back on the idea that the city was misusing open space funds. She said OSMP’s cost allocations are in line with other departments, suggesting there is nothing improper going on.
OSMP’s allocations are roughly in line with those for some other departments with dedicated sales tax funding, such as Parks and Recreation, which is also projected to see an increase in its cost allocations as a share of its budget.
Part of the increase, according to city budget officer Charlotte Huskey, reflects a two-year lag in updating cost allocations. The city is also phasing out a General Fund subsidy that had been covering a portion of these expenses. The increase also reflects conservative estimates for future growth. The projections are updated annually during the budget process.
The focus on OSMP’s budget comes as the city faces a projected $8 million to $10 million shortfall for 2025, prompting a citywide hiring freeze earlier this year. Although OSMP had already hired many of its seasonal staff, it has identified about $1.4 million in savings in its 2025 budget since the freeze began, according to a city official.
The city is also developing a long-term financial strategy aimed at reducing its reliance on dedicated sales taxes, which are vulnerable to economic downturns, disproportionately impact lower-income residents and limit how the city can spend its money in a budget crisis.
Despite concerns over OSMP’s cost allocation, the board voted unanimously to recommend a 2026 OSMP budget that includes the projected transfers, along with nearly $6 million in capital projects and a $36 million operating budget. Planned projects include a $1 million redesign of the Chautauqua Ranger Cottage and trailhead, an $834,000 upgrade to the Dry Creek Trailhead near Baseline Reservoir and the implementation of a vision for the historic Fort Chambers site.
The Boulder City Council is expected to review the proposed 2026 budget later this summer.
This is outrageous! Taxpayers expect their Open Space taxes to be dedicated to open space acquisition and maintenance – not used for balancing City of Boulder budget. How about taking more from the homeless budget and the transportation budget (you know, the folks that are bringing you the Iris bike lanes)?
Probably skimming and funneling departments that get dedicated sales tax funds to that massive city project on Broadway near North Boulder park. Seems like they are robbing peter to pay paul, but no one needs or wants paul. Did anyone vote on funding that project? How is it being funded? Do we even know what they are building there? Apartments? I digress. Open space is what defines Boulder in many ways. Voters have repeatedly voted for sales taxes for open space, and not other departments. Not sure why the city would divert any money from open space – that department manages most of the crown jewels and gems of Boulder!