Boulder voters this November will decide whether to raise city property taxes for the first time in nearly three decades to pay for replacing and repairing aging city buildings.
Ballot Issue 2K, known as the Recreation and Safety Bond, has split the field of candidates running for the Boulder City Council and has become the most contested question on the city’s ballot.
It would allow the city to borrow $400 million and pay off the debt with new property tax revenue. The Boulder City Council unanimously referred the measure to the ballot earlier this year as the city grapples with another tight budget, due in part to flattening sales tax growth and rising expenses.
The measure has become a proxy for a larger debate about the city’s financial stewardship. Proponents see it as a means for the city to catch up on years of deferred maintenance across its more than 75 buildings and address aging facilities before their condition worsens and repairs become even more expensive.
Critics question why taxpayers should be asked to pay a large new property tax after years in which the city did not adequately fund building maintenance, framing the measure as a bailout.
City of Boulder voters this year will also decide on a tax on vacant homes and a measure affirming collective bargaining rights for firefighters. They will choose among 19 candidates for five council seats, including mayor.
Ballots go out to voters on Oct. 2. Here’s what you should know about the measure.
How it would work
The measure would allow the city to borrow $400 million, with a maximum repayment cost of $650 million when including interest. The money would go toward “financing the construction, renovation, or replacement of community recreation, safety infrastructure, and other capital projects.”
The debt would be repaid through property taxes over a 20-year term. If the city borrowed the maximum amount, the owner of a home valued at $1 million would pay about $400 a year, according to estimates by city officials. The owner of commercial property valued at $1 million would pay about $1,600 a year.
The city’s maintenance backlog for about 15 high-priority buildings is about $20 million, according to recent estimates. The measure would help cover major repairs, such as replacing mechanical, plumbing and HVAC systems.
It would also help modernize or replace city buildings. Such modernization includes renovations to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, adding all-gender restrooms, meeting energy efficiency codes and other upgrades.
As part of the ballot measure language, the city has listed several projects it intends to pay for with the money, though they are not binding. The projects include:
- $170 million for the Public Safety Center and 911 Dispatch. This would mean building a new police and 911 dispatch hub at a different location. However, City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde told councilmembers on Sept. 24 that the city is negotiating a deal to lease or purchase a building for the police department, a deal she said “would significantly” reduce the cost of providing a new location.
- $100 million for the Municipal Services Center in East Boulder. The city has said its service area for city vehicles is too small, the roofing and electrical systems are outdated, and it lacks energy efficiency.
- $72 million for the North Boulder Recreation Center. This includes expanding the fitness area, renovating showers and moving the West Age Well Senior Center into the building.
- $65 million for the South Boulder Recreation Center. This would replace the facility with a new one that includes a lap pool.
- $30 million for the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building. This would fix failing systems and convert offices vacated by the move to the Western City Campus at Alpine-Balsam into other uses, such as community gathering spaces. The Boulder City Council is expected to keep meeting in the building after the new Western City Campus opens.
- $5 million for Fire Station 1 near the city’s downtown and $2 million for Fire Station 5 in North Boulder. This includes renovating living quarters, windows, electrical systems, boilers and roofs, as well as adding contamination controls to reduce firefighters’ exposure to carcinogens.
How the city fell behind on maintenance
The city has more than 75 buildings with an average age of nearly 50 years. Historically, each department managed its own buildings, with little money set aside for routine maintenance and renovations, according to city officials.
Industry standards recommend setting aside or spending 2% to 4% of a building’s current replacement value each year on maintenance and renovations, according to city officials. For years, Boulder spent only about 0.5%.
Limited funding has left the city paying for emergency repairs that cost more over the long term than proactive maintenance. Delaying roof or plumbing replacements, for example, leads to leaks that rot floor joists, destroy drywall and cause mold, driving up costs.
“When you start getting behind on system replacements, and you get into this very reactive mode, it actually gets just more and more costly to take care of because once a piece of equipment like a pump or a motor has failed, it likely has also disturbed or degraded other systems around it,” Michele Crane, the city’s deputy facilities director, told Boulder Reporting Lab.
Why critics question the city’s maintenance record
In 2021, the city adopted a facilities plan aimed at getting a handle on the maintenance problem.
Part of the plan called for consolidating buildings, which would make them easier to maintain. For instance, the $366 million Alpine-Balsam development will allow the city to sell or repurpose about a dozen buildings.
But the project has also become part of the argument against the bond. Residents have questioned the Western City Campus’ cost, arguing that the project is over budget, and criticized the city for moving ahead with the $366 million project when it is struggling to take care of the buildings it already has.
City officials say the campus is not over budget and that the consolidation of city operations will reduce long-term costs. They estimate the city will move out of buildings with about $12 million in deferred maintenance and reduce the total building square footage the city must maintain.
Another core part of the facilities plan called for setting aside 2% of a building’s current replacement value each year for maintenance of buildings that are new or recently renovated.
Open Boulder, a group that endorses city council candidates, has argued the city never seriously funded its own plan. The group said the city should have been budgeting about $11.5 million a year, or 2% of the replacement value of its entire building portfolio when the plan was adopted. The 2027 budget includes $1.8 million related to setting aside 2% of a building’s current replacement value for maintenance, according to city officials.
Open Boulder said the city must “prove the discipline exists before asking voters to trust it again.”
But Crane said the city has been phasing in this maintenance funding as buildings are upgraded, as specified in the plan. After adopting the plan, the city began setting aside 2% of the replacement value of the Brenton Building at Alpine-Balsam, which it renovated in 2018, and Fire Station 8, built in 2015 near the Boulder Reservoir, for example.
“We are actually following our plan,” Crane said. “The [facilities] plan suggests that we have to bring a building into good condition before we make that investment” in ongoing maintenance. Otherwise, she said, the city risks throwing “good money after bad.”
Crane said the bond would accelerate the process for maintaining buildings.
“We have buildings in poor condition that need a large level of investment before we can be in a really good position to just maintain them well,” Crane said. “And without the bond measure, there are going to be some harder choices.”
Why the measure is viewed as a long shot
A recent poll found the measure lacked majority support. About 45% of likely voters said they would support it, according to a survey of about 400 likely voters conducted June 2-9 by Probolsky Research, a California-based firm.
The city rarely seeks property tax increases. The City of Boulder’s mill levy has not increased since 1997, according to Charlotte Huskey, the city’s budget officer. That year, voters approved a 2-mill increase for public safety purposes. The measure, which included a sales tax component, passed with about 53% support, according to records provided by the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder.
Property taxes are “widely disliked by citizens,” in part because of the burden they place on residents and business owners, according to a 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission report. Sales taxes, by comparison, are also paid by visitors.
Voters have approved or extended city sales taxes and taxes on specific products, such as vaping devices and sugary drinks, seven times since 2016. Five of those measures extended existing sales taxes.
How the measure is dividing candidates
Five incumbents on the Boulder City Council are running this year. All five voted to refer the measure to the ballot.
At a Boulder Chamber candidate forum on Aug. 26, candidates were asked to briefly explain where they stand on the measure.
Candidates who supported the measure
Tina Marquis: “We need to focus on catching up with our deferred maintenance and then we can move on with a fiscally sustainable plan that relies less on large taxes like this,” she said.
Tara Winer: “The thing that happened that changed my mind to say ‘yes’ was for maybe a year, we’ve had everybody from South Boulder who has kids who swim or who swim come to our city council meeting and beg for a lap pool,” the mayor pro tem said.
Ryan Schuchard: “This will resolve crucial deferred maintenance that is growing more expensive every day in our police station, firehouses, and rec centers, as part of 15 total buildings, in the cheapest way possible over their net lifetime,” he said.
Aaron Brockett: “Our police and our firefighters and our recreation centers are in buildings that are failing and not allowing them to do their jobs,” the mayor said. “This would replace them and allow the city to provide critical services.”
Sam Fuqua: “We can value engineer some savings and the cost of waiting will only be higher,” he said.
Fred Smith: “I have no problem with the tax,” he said. “But we should be looking for more revenue.”
Taishya Adams: “We must address the deferred maintenance on our essential buildings,” said Councilmember Adams, who is running for mayor. “This includes safety. This includes health. This includes our capacity to be able to have the services that we so desperately need.”
Adams said she is now opposing the measure. During a candidate forum on Sept. 2, she said she has not met with a community member who supports the measure and raised concerns about how future water supplies factor into cost predictions.
Candidates who oppose the measure or raised concerns
Many challengers oppose the measure, arguing that voters have not received enough information about how the money would be spent or that it will cost too much.
Ryan Jamieson: “I don’t think we’re ready for that burden yet,” he said.
Scott Rendleman: “It would be the largest tax increase that Boulder has faced,” he said.
Lynn Segal: “This will cause you to not be able to spend as much on sales tax revenue … to pay for all of our services,” she said.
Lisa Ann Jacobs: “I did focus groups and not a single person wanted higher taxes,” she said.
Rachel Rose Isaacson: “Before it goes to the ballot, I think that we need a more detailed transparency about how the plan is going to be carried out,” she said. Isaacson has since said she supports the bond measure.
Jill Grano: “We need infrastructure investment and I hope to bring something back after we have done a more detailed analysis,” she said. “This is not just deferred maintenance.”
Benita Duran: “I’m not in favor because I think it’s an incredible cost for residents, but for commercial property owners as well,” she said. “It’s just such a significant cost that doesn’t have enough information and detail attached to it in terms of the expenditures.”
David Martus: “My no vote on ballot measure 2K is a vote of no confidence,” he wrote in an email to Boulder Reporting Lab after the forum. “The community deserves better, simply put, before being asked to approve the largest tax increase in Boulder’s history for an ill-defined list of projects without including options, including lower-cost alternatives.”
Aquiles La Grave: “No plan, no budget, no trust,” he said. “It’s nuts.”
Correction, September 30, 2026 10:36 am: A previous version of this story indicated that Rachel Rose Isaacson opposed the ballot measure. She said she opposed the measure at a Boulder Chamber forum but has since said she supports it. A previous version of the story also stated that the city's property taxes have not gone up since 1997, according to Charlotte Huskey, the city’s budget officer. Huskey said the city's mill levy has not increased since 1997. The story was also updated to clarify the amount of money the city set aside for maintenance in the 2027 budget and the cost estimate for the Alpine-Balsam development.
The statement that Boulder hasn’t increased its property tax since 1997 deserves some important context.
In 2022, voters approved the Boulder Public Library District, whose new 3.5 mill property tax took effect in 2023. While the City’s existing 0.33 mill library levy was eliminated, homeowners still saw a substantial net increase, roughly $200+ annually on a $1 million home at the time.
More importantly, the library had previously consumed more than $10 million annually from the City’s General Fund. When the new district assumed those costs, that money was freed for other City purposes. Rather than visibly redirecting those millions toward the very facilities now described as deteriorating, that money seems to have simply disappeared into the broader General Fund. Where did those savings go, and why weren’t they used to address these capital needs before asking taxpayers for another $400 million?
This also comes after a decade in which the overall property tax burden has already risen substantially. Across Boulder County, total property taxes collected increased roughly 70% from 2015 to 2024.
The proposed $170 million Public Safety Center illustrates why greater scrutiny matters. The City is now considering an existing building alternative that it says could “significantly” reduce the cost. If one of the largest projects can potentially be accomplished for substantially less, what savings might be found across the rest of the package?
Boulder has legitimate capital needs. But before asking voters to authorize $400 million in borrowing, and up to $650 million with interest, we should have an independent, fiscally disciplined review of these projects, their alternatives and their costs.
The City needs to demonstrate financial transparency and discipline first, not ask taxpayers to write a $400 million blank check and figure out the efficiencies later.
Thank you, Jorge. This is spot on.
This may be the first time in decades that elected officials vote to increase property taxes…but the fact is property taxes (in the form of assessments) have been rising for at least two decades. Where does our money go? To build the new municipal building? We need an independent auditor tracking tax dollars. Its time to stop the big black hole that is Boulder budgets.
Yes, the city council has completely mismanaged our budget and this is a hard pill to swall, but this is the only offer on the table to save the South Boulder rec center, so I am a yes vote.
This is a false choice and one our political leaders and City Staff want to lead you to. South Boulder Recreation Center gets saved through community engagement, prioritization and addressing the financial inefficiencies and bloat in the City. Did you know that the City has 4 city managers, did you know we have 32 communications people, did you know we have 7 landscape architects on staff, did you know the City spends millions on consultants every year, did you know City Council directed staff to spend additional untold money studying area three even though staff recommended against it at this time….the list goes on and on. I’m not suggesting any or all of these areas be cut, I’m just suggesting that the City needs to take a much harder look at everything before holding our Rec Centers hostage for $400M. I truly sorry you feel this way and am confident there’s another way when this bond measures fails to keep south Boulder rec center open.
Saying “the city’s property taxes have not increased since 1997” is technically framed, but pretty misleading in the real-world sense of what homeowners actually pay. Boulder’s effective city mill levy rose materially after the 2008 TABOR measure, and voters have also approved substantial property-tax increases through BVSD and the Library District. On top of that, rising assessments have pushed actual tax bills much higher even when mill rates didn’t change.
So while it may be true that Boulder hasn’t passed a conventional new city mill-levy increase since 1997, that is very different from saying Boulder property owners haven’t seen repeated tax increases since then.
Boulder had a significant property tax increase when the Library District was formed – it is misleading to say there hasn’t been one by the City itself. People are still paying for that. And the $15 million saved in the city budget has evaporated and been used for the basic budget instead of saving for the infrastructure
Thank you. It is factual to say that the city has not increased its property tax mill levy in three decades, while voters have approved multiple sales tax increases during that time. The broader property tax burden on Boulder County residents is a distinct and important issue, but it is not the focus of this story.
Decades, not years, of mismanagement by past councils and administrations. I’m glad this current council is facing up to the facts and providing a solution.
If this doesn’t pass, what gets closed? Does stuff just get punted down the road (again)?