For the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic, Boulder’s city manager is recommending cuts to spending from the General Fund, the city’s largest source of discretionary money, to help balance the books.
Overall, the proposed $521 million budget for 2026 has an operating budget slightly larger than last year’s, but trims programs across city departments and eliminates 19 mostly vacant positions. The cuts are intended to close a projected $7.5 million shortfall in the General Fund.
The reductions come as sales tax revenue, Boulder’s largest single revenue stream, flattens, and more than $50 million in federal funds has yet to be dispersed, creating added uncertainty for city finances.
“This budget, barring the pandemic, is truthfully the hardest budget I’ve ever worked on in my professional career,” City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde told the Boulder City Council on Sept. 11. “When you’re faced with such hard trade-offs and you know that so many in community are facing difficult economic realities, it makes every budgetary decision that much tougher.”
Among the notable cuts: three positions, including two filled paramedic positions, on the city’s recently created crisis response team, leading to a temporary pause in the city’s non-police response and reduced hours; a reduction to the city’s street outreach program for homeless residents; fewer dollars to buy new open space lands; reduced trips on the Chautauqua summer shuttle; the loss of two positions from the city’s encampment removal program; and less money for grants to support mobile home repairs.
The budget also reflects the end of federal stimulus support under the American Rescue Plan Act. Elevate Boulder, the city’s direct cash assistance program, will likely sunset at the end of the year unless the city finds private funding. Building Home, which provides housing retention and peer support for recently housed people, will continue with a one-time allocation from the city’s eviction prevention program.
In addition to cuts, the city manager is recommending new fees, some with significant policy implications.
One proposal is a transportation fee for property owners, calculated by a “person-trip generation” methodology. It would raise about $2 million in 2026 for projects such as repaving roads, fixing bridges and repairing sidewalks, according to city officials.
Another would apply to owners who demolish single-family homes and replace them with larger ones. The $15-per-square-foot charge, based on the added square footage above 500 square feet, would raise about $400,000 for affordable housing in 2026.
Other fee proposals include a 50-cent increase in hourly parking in city garages and on-street spaces; higher water, wastewater and stormwater rates; increases to business licensing, permit and historic preservation fees; and higher entry fees at recreation centers and the Scott Carpenter pool.
During a Sept. 11 study session, several councilmembers said they were concerned about the fee hikes, with some stating the council has yet to debate the proposed fees, which will require their approval.
“It seems like it’s a pretty big policy decision,” Councilmember Matt Benjamin said of the detached home fee.
“I’m not a fan of lots of fees,” Councilmember Tara Winer said of proposed business fees and parking rate increases. “Where does it end?”
Despite those reservations, councilmembers in recent years have rarely made major changes to the city manager’s proposed budget, which takes months to prepare. At last week’s city council meeting, staff cautioned that because the budget is balanced on paper, even small changes could unbalance it. Councilmember Nicole Speer compared the process to a “Jenga Tower” and urged her colleagues to suggest alternative cuts if they want to avoid new fees or restore programs.
The plan also includes funding for programs many councilmembers support: More than $2 million for wildfire mitigation, partially using open space tax revenue to pay for Boulder Fire-Rescue’s Wildland Unit; and a $2 million one-time allocation for public safety and transportation infrastructure during the Sundance Film Festival, set to debut in Boulder in the winter of 2027. This money will pay for upgrades to fire, EMS and police equipment, along with traffic and crowd control barriers, signal equipment and signage, according to a city official.
The city council will hold a public hearing on the recommended 2026 budget on Oct. 9.
Regarding the Alpine-Balsam redevelopment plan … . The city spent $40 million to purchase this property, and the city has not kept the citizens of Boulder up on the continuing cost of this project. How much additional funds have been spent on this project. Is this project on, or over budget? Are the proposed funds, that have been put aside for this project, still on course to meet that proposal, or are we going to see a much higher cost … needing more funding, from the citizens … increase in taxes. WE, the people of boulder, CO., need to be kept up on this project .. as it could become a much more expensive project than originally planned.
Agreed. All such projects have cost overruns. Especially when the city launches a vanity project with little pre-planning.
I guess when council makes it a habit to steer clear of significant policy decisions, something as clear cut as a fee on major renovations seems like a big deal. This is more low-hanging fruit. Good thing staff had the nerve to put it in the budget because this timid council would have been hard pressed to figure it out on their own. Please do this. Boulder shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden for people coming here from across the country to retire and build their dream homes. I’m surprised it would only add that much revenue to the budget, though.
Wasn’t there also some serious chatter at the city about raising the salaries of staff? Because despite all the people falling through the cracks in Boulder or hanging on by their fingernails, staff is the most important asset in this city. That’s what they keep telling us anyway.
There are so many things in these fee proposals that are concerning. First, one can only wonder how a budget shortfall of this magnitude was not foreseen. And, one wonders where funds such as the millions previously allocated to the library (but now collected by the Library District via a dedicated mill levy in perpetuity) have gone. Anything that raises property taxes across the board should be a non-starter. Older residents will be forced out of their longtime homes by these increases–but maybe that’s intentional! The Alpine-Balsam extravaganza would have been a great site for senior housing but now will be primarily dedicated to city offices with a view that will only be occupied for about 10 hours/day. How much money has been spent on the continual revision of lanes on Folsom? How have the thousands of new small unit apartments helped with affordability for families in Boulder? As a longtime resident, I have never seen Boulder so mismanaged as in the last several years. Please vote for Wallach, Kaplan, and Robins for City Council so we can maybe have confidence and competence restored to city government.
My Dear Patricia Kenney: I agree with you … completely!
Thank you
wally
What percent of vehicles traveling Boulder’s street daily are from out of the city? Why not look at fees for employers who have employees who drive from out of town to work?
Maybe a $50/month per employee with out of Boulder zip codes; with the funds targeted at street repair and maintenance. Those incoming vehicles add to congestion, air pollution and noise, in addition to wear and tear on our streets as well as filling parking spaces.
Lol, that would bankrupt CU. Maybe CU should pay some commensurate portion, though, to maintain our crumbling roads and fix the ozone problem caused by the huge daily influx of their workforce . Some genius at CU could figure out that cost. Our streets look like hell. What will the Sundance attendees think??
But the City Council members are getting a very large salary increase in 2026.