Boulder City Council on Thursday voted to place measures on the November 2026 ballot that would raise property taxes to pay for city facilities and recreation centers, tax homes that sit empty most of the year, and guarantee firefighters’ right to bargain collectively in the city charter.
Councilmembers split 4-4 on an ordinance that would have referred a measure creating a downtown development authority to the ballot. A tie vote means the measure fails. The authority would have temporarily redirected revenue growth away from city services and other public agencies toward downtown and University Hill.
Several business owners and groups spoke in favor of the measure during a public hearing ahead of the vote.
“Some of our biggest problems, which is helping the small businesses and doing something about our vacancy spaces, can be helped with the DDA,” Mayor Pro Tem Tara Winer said.
Councilmember Nicole Speer said the vote was a rare instance of Boulder Progressives and PLAN-Boulder County aligning against the same proposal. The two groups, one a progressive political organization, the other historically an advocate for open space preservation, are usually on opposite sides of policy debates in Boulder.
“I’m concerned that pushing this forward over some much united opposition is going to work in opposition to the success of the DDA,” Speer said.
Voting to refer the measure were Mayor Aaron Brockett, Winer and Councilmembers Matt Benjamin and Rob Kaplan. Opposing it were Councilmembers Taishya Adams, Tina Marquis, Ryan Schuchard and Speer.
Councilmembers unanimously referred a separate measure authorizing up to $400 million in debt, repaid through property taxes, to pay for city facilities and recreation centers. The measure, called the Recreation and Safety Bond, would cost about $400 a year for every $1 million in residential property.
Councilmembers acknowledged the measure faces long odds after a recent poll found it lacked majority support. But they argued it is necessary to address a $400 million backlog of unfunded building renovation and replacement projects. The measure would also move the city away from its reliance on sales taxes, which fall hardest on lower-income residents and swing with the economy.
The proceeds can be spent on “community recreation, safety infrastructure, and other capital projects as approved by City Council,” according to the ordinance. A city staff memo lists examples, including replacing the South Boulder Recreation Center, renovating the North Boulder Recreation Center and moving the West Age Well Center into it, building a new police and 911 facility, and renovating fire stations, the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building and the Municipal Service Center. But the list is not binding.
Councilmembers also referred a companion measure changing how the city calculates its debt limit.
The council voted 7-1 to refer the vacancy tax, which would apply to homes occupied 183 days or fewer a year. The goal is to encourage owners to rent or sell vacant homes, increasing the city’s housing supply. Revenue would go toward general city purposes. The tax would take effect Jan. 1, 2028, at $4,000 per unit a year, raising about $4 million annually based on a city estimate of 500 to 1,000 vacant homes. Speer voted against it.
The fourth measure would amend the city charter to guarantee full-time firefighters the right to bargain collectively. It came out of negotiations between the city and International Association of Fire Fighters Local 900, the union representing Boulder Fire-Rescue firefighters. Councilmembers approved it unanimously.
It’s unfortunate that the decision to sell the west age well property was made without out ever consulting the seniors who rely on this location for their community and nutrition through the eat well cafe. We only recently found out about this decision and had no time to organize against it like the south Boulder rec folks had to save their location. This is an untold story and a huge loss for the seniors of Boulder County.
$4M annually raised by the vacancy tax if passes which it most likely will. I have heard this amount described by at least one council member as an insignificant amount of revenue. Yet, this same city council proponent of the airport was figuratively wringing his hands and gnashing teeth over the prospect of paying 600k/year to fund the airport. Like it would be such an unbearable burden.
At least council barely eked out a good decision on the counterproductive DDA. It’s a fiction that we have a majority of progressives on council. These are the most clueless pro business as usual “progressives” ever.
Can we get a vacancy tax on businesses?
I think you mean commercial landlords.
We 100% need a commercial property vacancy tax. This is the only way we are ever going to see commercial rents come down. We must break the math that tells a landlord it’s better to kick out a long term tenant at renewal time and wait years for a tenant that can pay 2-4x more.
“The measure would also move the city away from its reliance on sales taxes, which fall hardest on lower-income residents and swing with the economy.”
Property taxes as well as endless fees also fall hard on lower income residents. Landlords who own rental properties just pass on increases to tenants. In Boulder the ratio of renters to home owners is 53% to 47% while the state average is 63% of housing is occupied by owners and 37% by renters. Property taxes over sales taxes might offer more predictability to governments but they are still regressive.
Of income, property and sales tax the area that most needs most attention to address the historically unprecedented wealth inequality is income tax which need to happen at the state level.
I encourage everyone to do some research on Berkley’s implementation of the vacancy tax. I agree with the concept – but Berkley anticipated $4M but took in $1.5M due to exclusions they didn’t anticipate. Then it got wiped out by lawsuit costs, the immense added administration costs. They were overwhelmed with appeals and had to hire someone to deal with just appeals. Then there’s all the other administration costs including a new system to implement, integration, and enforcement. There was also a massive amount people just essentially didn’t pay it knowing it was toothless to the tune of $1.5M. So it worked out to actually costing the city more and had no impact on vacancy rates. If someone has a second home or vacation home in Boulder, a $6000 tax doesn’t matter one bit to them.
We don’t need to be the first to implement every unproven idea. Let San Fran and Berkley work out the kinks and see where the lawsuit goes.
Also, shifting the tax income from sales to property taxes means taxing the residents more and the visitors left paying less. My mortgage just went up 10%. They keep talking about affordable homes for the people who don’t live hear by raising taxes on the people that do live here. I’m from NY where everyone retires and moves out of NY because of property taxes.
Maybe they should manage the city better. Other cities like Broomfield seem to have new businesses popping up left and right. Why is Boulder going the opposite way?
Granted, I’m no economist, but why are people allowed to “appeal” the vacancy tax in Berkeley? Are people allowed to appeal income and sales taxes they don’t like? Sounds crazy.
To your question at the end, why is Boulder going the opposite way of Broomfield? I’d guess that private equity investors saw the value in hogging most of Pearl Street real estate hostage so they could manipulate commercial rental leases into the stratosphere. I doubt Broomfield holds the cachet of Boulder, but that may be changing as Pearl Street becomes ever more a haven for tax write-offs for international outdoor retailers and other big corporate chains.
@MC I’d like to read more about Berkeley CA’s implementation of their vacancy tax. Can you recommend a good article (link) that summarizes their situation?
Both tax measures will fail if voters think things through. I don’t say this because I am anti-tax, but because I think the city hasn’t been spending money wisely. Storefronts are empty, yet the city spends more to restrict vehicles from coming into town (see: mess on Baseline). We NEED out of town visitors to shop, stay and play here, not feel like they are unwelcome unless they are cyclists.
Does council want to make housing MORE expensive here? That’s exactly what a property tax increase will do. Landlords will not simply eat the increase – they’ll pass it along! At least with sales taxes you can choose to consume less or select less expensive items to reduce your tax burden.
And the vacancy tax on second homes is interesting in concept, but misses out on the biggest pot of money – vacant commercial spaces! If those spaces were taxed after being vacant for X amount of time, you can bet rents would come down, and businesses would open here. Businesses WANT to be here, but it often doesn’t make sense with rents, permitting, contractor premiums etc. etc. Boulder is a hard town to have a physical business.
Thankfully the DDA failed. We have other levers to pull first to improve our downtown (see: vacant commercial spaces tax).
I thought we wanted houses to be vacant so that we could rent them out to Sundance attendees?
Bob Yates wrote an excellent column on the Residential Vacancy Tax Ballot issue in his recent monthly Boulder Newsletter. Basically, he was stating the reasons that enforcement of the Ordinance would cost more in City staff hours than the rewards. I agree that a Vacancy Tax needs to be placed on vacant commercial properties.
https://mailchi.mp/46e707e0f960/mvqb9788ey-6751335?e=d5adaaabd0
link above to Yate’s newsletter.