The Boulder City Council will decide Thursday whether to place a measure on the November ballot to create a downtown development authority. The proposed authority would use future tax revenue growth to spur investment downtown, leaving less available in the near term for other city needs.
The proposal has split councilmembers. Proponents see it as a needed tool to address stagnant sales tax revenue in the downtown core. Skeptics worry about making a financial commitment amid economic uncertainty and prioritizing downtown when the city faces other pressing needs.
The council began exploring the authority after making economic vitality a top priority at its 2024 council retreat. The proposal comes as sales tax revenue has remained flat for years, contributing to a projected $6.5 million hole in the city’s 2027 budget.
How the DDA would work, and who pays for it
To create a downtown development authority, or DDA, council must first refer a measure to the ballot. It then needs approval from businesses, registered voters and lessees within the district boundaries. The proposed district would include much of downtown around Pearl Street, as well as University Hill.
If approved, the district would be governed by a board of five to 11 directors, as set by Colorado law. The directors, who would oversee investments in the district, would be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by councilmembers.
The authority would use tax increment financing to capture a portion of future revenue growth and funnel it toward projects meant to attract visitors and increase spending. City officials and councilmembers said the money could pay for a “refresh” of the Pearl Street Mall, permanent public restrooms, event infrastructure and an expanded downtown ambassador program.
Tax increment financing is controversial because it temporarily diverts new revenue that might otherwise fund services across the city. Under the proposal, every city fund that relies on sales taxes could receive less revenue growth. This could affect general city services, recreation centers, open space, transportation, and arts and culture.
The mechanism works by setting a tax revenue “base year,” which city officials said would fall in late 2026 or early 2027. The base would reflect sales tax revenue from the previous 12 months. Its timing could significantly affect how much money the authority receives. Sales tax collections above that baseline would flow to the downtown authority for several years. The lower the baseline, the more future revenue the authority could capture and the less that would be available to other city funds.
For example, if the base year is established after Sundance’s 2027 debut, more of the festival’s additional sales tax revenue would remain with the city instead of flowing to the DDA.
A similar mechanism would apply to property tax revenue. Boulder County, the Boulder Valley School District and the Boulder Library District would continue to receive all the property tax revenue generated from the established baseline year. But half of the growth in property tax revenue within the district would go to the downtown authority instead of those taxing entities.
Over the first six years, the district is projected to capture between $3.5 million and $11.5 million in sales tax revenue, plus about $3.2 million in property tax revenue, according to city estimates. That is money that could instead support services like open space and transportation, or go to Boulder County, BVSD and the library district.
The authority would be in place for 30 years. It would keep the full sales tax increment during its first five years before sharing a portion with the city beginning in year six.
City projections assume the authority’s investments would stimulate development and increase property values, eventually generating more tax revenue for the authority, the city and other local governments than they would receive without it. Whether that happens would depend on the investments producing the projected economic growth.
“The projections demonstrate that even a 1% annual increase in long-term growth changes the trajectory for our community, with benefits for the DDA, the city, Boulder County, BVSD and the Library District,” proponents wrote in a recent opinion piece. The authors included the Boulder Chamber, Downtown Boulder Partnership and Create Boulder, along with several restaurant owners. “We believe the cost of doing nothing deserves just as much consideration as the cost of taking action.”
The Board of County Commissioners has not taken a formal position on the measure, according to a spokesperson. Neither has the Boulder Valley School District, a spokesperson said.
Boulder Library District Board of Trustees President Sylvia Wirba said in a letter to the council last week that the city has pursued the DDA without consulting the district, despite the Main Library’s central role downtown. Wirba asked the council to guarantee the library a share of the tax increment revenue and a seat on the board overseeing the district.
“If the DDA succeeds in increasing visitation and activity downtown, the [library district] may experience higher operating, maintenance, security, and facility costs without a corresponding source of revenue to offset those impacts,” Wirba wrote.
Creating a downtown development authority would also affect the city’s off-street parking assets, including its garages, which would be transferred to the district. City officials estimated those assets could generate about $44 million in revenue over six years, though nearly all of it would be needed to maintain parking operations.
Democracy concerns
Another point of contention involves how the authority would be set up and governed.
If councilmembers approve the ballot measure, an estimated 2,500 qualified electors would decide whether to create the authority. Eligible voters would include property owners, registered voters who live within the district and businesses that lease space there.
Under state law, a single property owner may cast multiple votes if they own businesses with different names. But someone who is a resident, a property owner and a business lessee within the district receives only one vote if all those roles are tied to the same registered voter, according to Brad Segal, president and founding partner of Progressive Urban Management Associates, a firm the city hired to advise it on the proposal.
The structure of the election is set by state law. But critics say a relatively small group of voters would make a decision affecting the city’s finances for decades, while residents elsewhere in Boulder would have no vote despite having approved some of the affected taxes.
“A property owner who holds downtown real estate through multiple LLCs can get a ballot for each one, even living outside the country, while the 98% of Boulder residents whose citywide tax dollars are actually being redirected get no vote at all,” the Boulder Progressives wrote in a recent email urging residents to oppose the DDA.
Councilmembers appear divided
The measure has split the council, with several members saying in the week before the vote that they had not made up their minds.
Councilmember Nicole Speer said she wants to be more cautious about a 30-year commitment like a downtown development authority, particularly given the uncertain economic climate. She said she would prefer to wait a year.
“I am just not confident that the times we are in this year are conducive to setting this or the city up for success,” she said. “People don’t have enough money to pay for food that’s in their own kitchens, let alone the food that’s in somebody else’s kitchen,” she added, referring to restaurant spending.
Councilmember Taishya Adams said she’s getting more information about how much local tax dollars have already been invested in downtown. She said she is concerned that the ballot measure would be decided only by those inside the proposed district, leaving out city taxpayers whose money has already gone into downtown.
“I’m also concerned by creating pathways where corporations have more authority than people,” she said.
Councilmember Ryan Schuchard said he planned to wait until the meeting to decide.
“We need to transform Boulder’s commercial vacancies into sources of value for our community,” he said in a text message. “I support us being creative about exploring how to do that. My mind is on trying to really understand the problem and what evidence says will make a difference.”
Councilmember Tina Marquis also said she is still looking into it and could not yet share a position.
Mayor Pro Tem Tara Winer said she is torn about whether to support the measure, even though she believes it could be a valuable economic development tool.
“We haven’t brought the community along with us,” she said. “I don’t like voting on something when most of the community is against it.”
Councilmember Rob Kaplan said he is leaning toward referring the measure to the ballot but still has questions about the concentration of property ownership downtown, future revenue and cost-sharing arrangements, and how the city’s choice of a baseline year would interact with the Sundance Film Festival and the Tulagi music festival.
“I do think this is a potentially good tool,” Kaplan said. “It’s not without risk.”
Councilmember Matt Benjamin, who supports referring the measure to the ballot, said it may not solve all the city’s economic challenges, but the council needs to bring every possible solution to bear to “right the ship.” He described it as a “flywheel” that would generate economic growth.
“We don’t get any benefits by doing nothing,” he said.
Mayor Aaron Brockett said he supported sending the measure to the November ballot but wanted more time to work out the details of the DDA’s plan of development and an intergovernmental agreement, which would form the authority’s structural and legal backbone. He said the city should ensure that the transfer of parking assets supports its transportation goals and that future sales tax growth is shared with other city funds.
“I want to make it clear I’m not just a blank check supporter,” Brockett said. “But I would like to see it move forward in ways that prevent possible negative outcomes.”
A public hearing and vote on whether to refer the proposal to the November ballot is scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 6, as part of a broader package of potential ballot measures before the council.
So, the net consideration is:
We raise taxes > give that money to a NEW downtown bureaucracy to do something with but nobody knows what that ‘something’ is and, oh, it may be non-locals in control > be forewarned the plan may possibly takeaway money from Boulder services that we KNOW make the town better and make people want to move/live here (schools, rec centers, etc) … all so we can refresh downtown whereby no one is really complaining about it structurally, rather pointing to issues like homeless, open drug use, and especially empty office buildings.
That’s the plan? Serious question: how does this plan get real businesses back downtown, in those empty offices (~40% vacancy), 5 days a week with their employees, which we know historically actually supports the downtown district businesses? Aren’t the better questions to ask, How do we get these landlords who don’t have to lower rents to actually lower the rents? How does the city incentive Boulder innovators and businesses to move back downtown, to create new ideas and companies, etc?
I honestly don’t get this. It seems to just create more taxes, gov’t, and bureaucracy, and delays answers to some very real and pressing problems.
What he said.
It seems to me that the owners of downtown Boulder real estate want the rest of Boulder to bail them out of their vacancy/rent problem. I’m guessing that they will lose money and maybe their investment if they lower rents enough to get occupancy back up or remodel to create housing. Capitalism is great except when it’s you that’s suffering.
To be clear, BRL, is this DDA a new proposal to be distinguished from the $400 M potential tax ballot measure proposal to balance the unfunded liabilities in the city budget? I wonder if it is a distraction from that.
Was the DDA set up this way on purpose to promote the $400 M tax measure in an effort to make it more palatable to the voters in a dramatically changed and dismal tax friendly environment?
I wonder if the reason properties are empty is the high cost of rent that could not be sustained by local businesses. The Boulder artist coop operated for years on Pearl St before high rent drove them out. I bet lower rents would be the only needed incentive to get people into empty properties.
From what I understand, and can be seen in other comments, property owners such as Tebo just keep jacking up the rents and that forces businesses out. Sounds like that is mostly greed that is strangling the city – not sure how they become incented to change. The vacant properties are a write-off against their massive gains.
This entire issue feels insane. Downtown doesn’t need “revitalizing”; giving it a fresh coat of paint, a new public toilet, or more “ambassadors” doesn’t fix the root problem of the rent being too dang high. A handful of landlords are greedier than the market can bare.
So how do we fix that problem? How do we incentivize these landlords to extort or business community less? A vacancy tax. We must punish the behavior of letting so many storefronts sit vacant for so long. We must break the calculus the tells the landlord “it’s better to kick my tenant out and wait 3 years for a unicorn that will pay 10x”.
We know there are plenty of businesses that want to be on Pearl. They simply cannot afford these extortionate rates. We know this because they were here! These businesses were already a part of our thriving community until landlords jacking up rates on renewal forced them out.
I am so worried that we will make a 30 year commitment to starve BVSD, open space, and other critical programs of tax revenue – just for corporate landlords to get further tax breaks to support their bad behavior. They have not been good citizens of our communities and we should not kowtow to them further. The only way out of this mess is to get serious and enact a serious vacancy tax on commercial property.
Love it. If Boulder is contemplating a vacancy tax on homes, why not on business property?
A Downtown Development Authority creates a powerful tool for investing in revitalization. As a downtown resident, I am all for this opportunity. Regarding who votes for it, the property owners in the district are the ones whose property taxes could be affected and that is why they are the ones whose taxes vote on it – this no different than any “district tax”.
This article paints a rather negative picture of this proposal. It would have been helpful if it provided, for example, info on how this tool has been used by other cities to bring life back to their downtown areas. Ft Collins has had a DDA for decades. The transformation catalyzed by their DDA made the downtown a place you want to go. There are many other examples along the front range as well. Moreover, there is a lot of info on the website for City of Boulder about how the DDA would work, the kinds of projects that could happen, and the kind of oversight that would be in place – none of that has not been clearly described in this article.
The Pearl Street and University Hill areas are iconic in Boulder, and are deteriorating due to funding maintenance issues as well as little investment funding to for revitalization. The DDA would provide a tool for such efforts. The heart of our city deserves this chance and I hope the city council members will have the vision and courage to move the proposal forward for a vote in November.
All good case studies, but how is our downtown ‘suffering’? The bottom floors/retail seems solid. It’s the second floors that are dark and not occupied. This idea seems to be addressing a problem we don’t have — the mall is fine. It’s the rents and the lack of office/business that’s the problem.
What do you mean by “investing” exactly? We don’t need street revitalization. We need to get rid of this grotesque over financialization of every storefront on Pearl Street and elsewhere downtown. The banking system is the problem. They force property owners into contracts that leads to charging exorbitant rents to business owners, and lock them into those contracts forever. I sincerely hope this new task force gets to the heart of this issue. We need to normalize the economy again. No one is winning here except the big banks and financiers.
Property owners pass any tax increases to their tenants. I am not sure for the DDA but for the BID election a property owner got as many votes as they had properties which gives an unfair advantage to a few individuals who own multiple properties such as WW Reynolds or Tebo Properties.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/08/01/downtown-boulder-office-space-vacancies-high-rents-doom-loop/
I think it is difficult to get an apples to apples comparison in how other cities in the region have funded their downtowns. For instance, in Ft Collins the DDA is a 5 mill levy. Boulder already has two mill levy’s, CAGID at 3.5 mills and the BID at 3.87 mills. Ft Collins does not charge for the first two hours parking downtown and if you get a ticket it costs $10. Boulder has raised its parking rates twice in the last year and the first ticket costs $30. CAGID received $6.3M in parking revenue in 2023 and had a starting fund balance of $16M. Ft Collins received $2.8M in parking revenues. In short Ft Collins seems to be doing more with less money than Boulder.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/12580/download?inline
Other cities in area that do not charge to park downtown are Longmont, Lafayette, and Louisville.
Downtown Boulder receives $700,000 from the city to provide maintenance for the downtown area.
I am not sure if you are on the Downtown Management Commission board. Regardless, I have been disappointed in the commission’s lack of oversight on the downtown. The board only meets once every two months even though the city website says it meets once a month. It is also hard to tell what the role of the Economic Vitality Office is to the DMC.
Very useful information — as opposed to the talking points and vague rhetoric of the DDA boosters. I hope you are sending all your detailed analysis to city council members since they seem to have few clues. Once again city council is getting the bums rush into deciding massive issues with long term consequences for which they have very limited information. Per usual Aaron is the only one with significant understanding of what council is doing.
Wouldn’t a vacancy tax achieve the same goals but much more simply?
Well I certainly won’t vote for any of the city council members who support this when they come up for re-election. I am so tired of this city endlessly catering to tourists vs the people who actually live here. Every time I go to Pearl Street it is packed with people. So, seriously, what are they talking about? What matters to me? My local parks, libraries, schools, open space, and the local businesses nearby that I walk to every day. That’s why I live here. And I know for certain I’m not the only one. Wasn’t bringing Sundance to town supposed to boost downtown and uni hill businesses? Thirty years! And I, a tax paying resident, don’t get a vote??
I worry about losing funding for our mountain parks and open space, our recreation centers, which need major money to rebuild, repair, etc.
This sounds like a really stupid idea to me.
The city could do this without creating a district, the money comes out of existing revenue anyway, so the city wants money to go to this project, it can just appropriate as part of the budgeting process, not pushing the exact same money to some undemocratic commission. The council should keep its authority over money intended for infrastructure such as downtown improvements.
The article in the Daily Camera noted that this initiative might come with sales tax increase, mill levy, and parking increases to be able to fund. That’s pure head in the sand about what is really at the core of this issue.
I live in Boulder and would much rather go to those now thriving downtown areas like Lafeyette, Louisville or Longmont where parking is free, sales tax is low, and the food is good value.
THAT is why Boulder has lost its mojo, as none of that is true for downtown now: parking is expensive and impossible, buying something from a retailer has a high sales tax penalty, and the restaurants have become super expensive and of mediocre quality. So many of our Boulder friends say the exact same. Solve that…and downtown will be back in the mix. Continue to drive up the price to play and it downtown Boulder will continue to slide.
Flat revenue from sales tax needs further study, both a tough marketing problem and math. Math first. Boulder as everywhere has been in a period of inflating prices for the last half-dozen years. Sales tax revenue is a percent of cumulative prices paid. If revenue is flat during rising prices, then transactions — unit sales — are falling, and precipitously. The marketing problem: how to survey people who no longer come to Boulder and particularly downtown to find out why. Office vacancy is obvious, but what of visitors who no longer visit? Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam as a frustrated intelligence officer: “We can’t find them. We ask, are you VC? If they say yes, we kill them.” I love Boulder, moved here as a 3-year-old in 1952, and after 2005 gradually moved east, now downsized in Lafayette. I have become a non-visitor because it is too hard to get to downtown, thanks to Boulder’s anti-transportation policies including the new road blockades. Just one data point here, but Boulder myopians would do well to listen to conversations in the surrounding outer darkness. Lou Barnes, loubarnes222@gmail.com
Why would we lock money into downtown long term with a separate authority to spend it? If tax revenues increase, why not let council invest more in downtown one year, and something else other years? It’s all money coming in, why would we give away authority to spend it where needed most as determined by our elected officials?
Thank you Marcus for succinctly stating the obvious- Why???
This seems like an unnecessary mechanism to force future councils to allocate money towards downtown, and 30 years is a pretty significant commitment to a plan like this when we’re living through a period of rapid change. I’d want to see some very clear escape clauses for the city to jump ship if funds were needed elsewhere and clear explanations as to why the city can’t just allocate more capital to the projects they think justify the creation of the DDA.
I’ve read every comment posted so far. It’s telling that the only one who sees this as a positive thing is someone who lives in the proposed DDA. Pearl St was a visionary project 50 years ago but Boulder has grown and can support multiple nexuses. Why is all our attention and spending focused on PS when people would rather have easily accessed, quality spaces and services distributed throughout the city? Did anything come of the 2025 discussion on the 15 minute neighborhood? Or was that just an exercise in engagement modeling? Should we be looking at better uses for all the strip mall spaces? I’d support a well articulated plan (not that I get a vote). There is none that I’ve seen, for even 5 years, let alone 30 years. If you want to see the results of a city-wide vision (that did take 30 years, in a city about the same size as Boulder), look at Pontevedra in Spain. Peripheral and underground parking and less thru traffic led to lower pollution, healthier residents (they walked more), zero traffic fatalities since 2011, more businesses and an INCREASE in population and tax base. A vision that benefits the wider community, consistently applied over a long time would have lots of support. City council please let’s avoid this narrowly focused, ill-defined “plan”.
Why not address the fact that downtown Boulder has become a free for all, where anyone can go and do whatever they want to, making it really difficult for people to visit Pearl Street and enjoy it? It’s full of people camping on sidewalks, open drug use, off-leash dogs, motorized vehicles in pedestrian zones, people littering the creek banks with feces and trash — you name it. We’ve not seen law enforcement anywhere downtown for 8 years. When we last did, we thanked them profusely and told them we hoped they were enforcing some rules. Boulder is not a place people can enjoy when there’s no respect for the area and if nobody cares about other people. If we’re going to throw money at it, let’s give it to the police department, insist they hire more officers specifically for downtown, and ensure that they are doing their jobs and are actually enforcing the laws.