City of Boulder officials are working out how to bill residents and businesses for a new transportation maintenance fee that city council approved last fall, with payments potentially beginning as early as mid-2026.
The rollout follows one of the more contentious votes taken by Boulder City Council last year. The council voted 6-3 on Oct. 23 to adopt the fee. Mayor Aaron Brockett and Councilmembers Matt Benjamin, Lauren Folkerts, Tina Marquis, Ryan Schuchard and Nicole Speer voted in favor. Councilmembers Taishya Adams, Mark Wallach and Tara Winer opposed it.
The concept of the fee dates back to a 2008 report to the Boulder City Council that provided options for stabilizing the city’s revenue sources. The relatively small per-property fee is expected to generate about $6.4 million annually in future years and would be used specifically for transportation maintenance, including streets, sidewalks, multi-use paths and bridges. Still, critics argued the fee, which was first publicly discussed last fall, moved forward too quickly and caught parts of the business community off guard.
City officials have said the amount each property owner will pay is meant to reflect a property type’s estimated wear and tear on roads and other transportation infrastructure, not how much an individual household or business actually travels. The estimates are based on a review of local transportation survey data, not real-time monitoring of travel behavior at specific properties.
City spokesperson Aisha Ozaslan told Boulder Reporting Lab that studies were conducted using local and national data to measure how many in-person trips a property generates, including walking, cycling, scootering, driving and using the bus.
The fee varies by property type. For example, a detached single-family home would pay $54 a year, while a multi-unit dwelling would pay $42 per unit per year.
Non-residential properties would pay a fee per 1,000 square feet, with proposed annual rates of $160 for commercial properties, $71 for office space and $32 for industrial uses. Certain institutions will be exempt from the fee, including CU Boulder and Boulder Valley School District, but will be invited to contribute voluntarily.
Whether the payments will be added onto the existing utility bills or processed through a new portal is still being discussed with the City Manager’s Office, according to Chris Hagelin, principal project manager for transportation mobility. Funds will be designated for maintaining pavement, repairing bridges or maintaining sidewalks and multi-use paths, among other purposes.
Other planned uses include fully funding a pavement management program to maintain streets every seven to eight years, instead of 10, as well as resurfacing an additional seven miles annually and improving accessibility through curb repairs and additional sidewalk ramps, according to city officials.
The Boulder City Council approved the fee as part of the city’s 2026 budget. It is estimated to generate about $2.3 million in 2026 and $6.4 million annually in future years.
The city’s transportation projects budget is funded primarily through sales and use tax revenue, like most of the city’s budget. This main source of city revenue has plateaued. Transportation Advisory Board Vice Chair Darcy Kitching said that because sales tax revenue has not kept pace with inflation and rising labor costs, “We do need something that is going to be able to cover that gap.”
City staff are planning additional outreach to residents and businesses at the council’s request, following concerns raised by the Boulder Chamber about public engagement and costs.
“I’m grateful some of the councilmembers heard our concerns,” Jonathan Singer, a policy adviser for the Boulder Chamber, told Boulder Reporting Lab. He said the chamber supports maintaining city streets but remains concerned about what he called the city’s limited recent engagement with businesses and the added costs.
Ideas under consideration include creating a webpage or dashboard showing returns on investment and holding one-on-one meetings with businesses. Updates will be available through the city’s Transportation and Mobility newsletter and the fee’s dedicated webpage.
Finding new funding sources for the city and transportation is great, though it would be much better to assess a fee based on Vehicle Weight (incorporating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law) and Actual Miles Traveled at annual vehicle registration time instead of guessing by structure & location. But I recognize that can only be accomplished at the state/CDOT level rather than locally.
“Funds will be designated for maintaining pavement, repairing bridges or maintaining sidewalks and multi-use paths, among other purposes.”
Does this mean funds will be deposited to a specific fund used only for these purposes. Or funds will be deposited to the general fund where they can be distributed to any projects.
Either way there will never be any guarantee the funds are used as intended.
Classic bait and switch by another Colorado government entity.
Why does this new tax not have to be voted on?
So the city needs more money and rather than examine trimming expenses it decides unilaterally to put its hands in taxpayer pockets… again? How original… Sarcasm intended. Here’s an idea – shrink city staff.
They call it a “fee” & as such can enact at an administrative level. Much like what they did after the flood to our water/wastewater/flood charges. I suggested to utilities leaders at a meeting that they put a tax for flood repairs & upgrades. It didnt take a second for them to reply “we dont need to take it to the voters, we can initiate it at an administrative level”. That’s their work around.
Not a tax, it is a fund
Confusing– the city wants to form 15-min neighborhoods to get us out of our cars but we will still have to pay this tax when our cars sit in the garage/on the street? And what about the 60-70,00 in commuters– property owners subsidize them? And businesses pay per 1,000 sq ft– which will be passed on to consumers or the businesses will leave and our current flat tax will be rolling downhill fast. Was this not considered?
Why doesn’t the City of Boulder put forward a “tax”on out of state plates? CU students rip up our roads with their cars….they park all over the hill ….and they pay zero. Why not tag all out of state plates and if that plate is still here in 30 days it gets ticketed or fined. You can go online in the meantime and get a temporary add to your current plates from out of state that has a fee involved so that you….who is driving on roads that WE pay for pay something for that continued privilege. That would be a generator of revs that could be directed directly to road repair and paving. Get after CU and their fiefdom they are not helping the City of Boulder at all.
Yeah, not sure why CU is exempt when many bring their cars
This is a tax, and an ill conceived one at that. The city council is simply naming it a fee to avoid TABOR. Why should elderly shut ins pay the same as a family with several cars and a garage full of ebikes and scooters? This is idiotic. Perhaps the council should take another look at the budget and work more within the city’s existing tax revenue.
This is rich. So I need to pay to park in front of my house (I live in west Pearl) but I also need to to pay a property tax for the road in front of my house? Here’s an idea… since I’m not the only person who uses the road how about having tolls everywhere? Here’s another idea. Live within your means, Boulder!
This maintenance and transportation fee is the lamest excuse for a property tax increase I’ve seen. “Hey everybody, we did a study and found out your home owes us money.”
Moose is spot on..why should non driving elders pay a fee?
Because determining who should actually pay these fees based on usage would require effort – and that is anathema to this city council. The thrust for council is efficiency, and they achieve that by simplifying their job. They engineered themselves hefty pay raises last year and simultaneously whittled down the average length of city council meetings by about half, so less time to consider details of policies or programs or anything else. But, hey, the process is efficient! Plus, they all revere staff to the point that they typically will support anything they recommend so there’s not much need to think for themselves.
Fitting that BRL included that photo of the infestation of those white posts all over Boulder. Get rid of those ill conceived barriers and the fee will go down easier… wasted money .
With any luck, the new fees can fund upgrading those to concrete, maybe they’ll seem less confusing to drivers that way.
They’re put in place to reduce speeds and increase safety for other road users. Agreed that concrete barriers would be far more effective than a white post that gets driven over and ripped out so often, though it would add to the cost significantly.
Nah, leave them up, I am tired of you speeding through my neighborhood.
The worst part is that they started with flexible white plastic wands but then replaced them with solid steel pipes painted white so they look pretty much like the old plastic, and extreme danger. A recent social media post from a long time Boulder bicycling activist shows that he was unaware of the switch. They obstruct bikes and cars and make it impossible to plow so ice accumulates around them in bad weather.
So far in the comments, I haven’t seen a compelling argument against this aside from locals being disgruntled by a fee. We have a budget gap that needs closed somehow, and arguing to cut city spending is easy to say from the perspective of not actually understanding how the city budget operates.
The compelling argument against is the policy of circumventing voter approval of a tax by enacting a “fee” and doing it in a rush before the recent council elections. The vote to roll the matter over for consideration in 2026 failed by a 5-4 vote. That would likely have a different outcome now. How many more “fees” are to come?
This CC has been the most anti-car that I have seen. For me, this is the first I have heard of this, although I did stop watching the CC meetings last year after all the chaos went on. I am not suprised, although I find it interesting that they are willing to spend millions on ripping up Iris to make a few cyclists happy, but for something that is good for our vehicles, they make US pay more. I have a tiny bit more faith that his new council won’t be so anti-car as the old one, but we will see how that plays out this year.
Building safe infrastructure as an alternative to driving I would argue is pretty pro car actually as it decreases congestion on said roads and is much cheaper to maintain than roads. Lowering speeds meanwhile is better for actual people, including those driving cars. Aside from noise and air pollution in a residential area (Iris) accidents become both less likely and less consequential.
The fee should be based on usage and also the type of vehicle one drives. It does make sense to me, though, that if something is good for you, you should be the one paying for it according to how much you use that infrastructure. Especially if you are doing a lot of driving in this case. Some people only drive when necessary and plan ahead to combine as many tasks as possible so they only have to drive a couple of times/week. Others jump in their cars multiple times a day because it is so convenient not to have to think about anything else. And, of course, many people use their cars to commute to work and that certainly causes wear and tear on our roads. Why should we all be treated the same? But, sure, even for those of us who try to be conscientious about driving, (or don’t drive at all) it would be a benefit and “good for our vehicles” not to drive on bad roads.
Myself and many if not most cyclists OPPOSE this. One reason is that it will cause overflow traffic on parallel routes Glenwood and Kalmia Aves, which are now peaceful bike routes. The city admits this and plans speed bumps on them. It is Community Cycles behind this idiocy. They seem to think that we want to cycle on the most polluted and dangerous routes and anger drivers. They are bullies. I have other examples.
I wonder if we’re actually going to see any improvements to our roads after this fee/tax? There was a budget surplus in the past but roads just got worse. North Boulder roads look like in a third world country.
How soon until they all get knocked over?
It’s a shame the council won’t prioritize road maintenance within the existing budget or bring it to a vote like the sales tax extensions for open space.
This town is constantly acting like it has no money. Where’s our money? Someone should do an audit of our departments. Our roads suck. Our power is cut for days now. Our commercial spaces are largely vacant yet we keep building more dense blocks of buildings with no shade. What’s going on here?
We already pay to live and work here. This could have easily come out of a tourist hotel/airbnb small tax. Let each tourist pay .25 and council would have gotten even more money.
Does the City Council actually budget for snow removal? Last I heard, they didn’t have any money for it.
It’s one of those stories that makes me so glad I moved (was priced out) of Boulder years ago. I’m all for bike lanes, but sadly, some of the counterprodctive & dangerous road-diet/ bollard/curb concepts are leaking out of Boulder and contaminating the surrounding L-burbs now.
The pearl clutching here is just crazy. Our infrastructure is great, the residents of the city clearly wants more of it, the city needs funding. Less than 5 bucks a month per home seems totally reasonable. Dare I say – cheap?
If sales and use tax revenues are down, seems like the correct move is to incentivize and facilitate consumers and businesses rather than increase costs for those groups.