Boulder Parks and Recreation has been slowly decreasing services for years, but the cuts may become more noticeable next year as expenses continue to outpace revenues.
In 2026, the city’s Parks and Recreation Department has an operating budget of around $36 million in 2026 to oversee 86 parks and plazas, 42 playgrounds, three rec centers, two outdoor pools and 1,800 acres of natural areas. The department also manages Boulder Reservoir, Flatiron Golf Course and Valmont Bike Park, plus various community initiatives.
While the department is looking for ways to increase revenue, director Ali Rhodes told Boulder Reporting Lab that current projections show service levels cannot be maintained in 2027.
“We’ve exhausted the options to not reduce services,” Rhodes said.
The city has already had to cut services due to tightening budgets, Rhodes said, such as reducing trash services in small neighborhood parks and reducing hours at outdoor pools and rec centers, which are operating at fewer hours than in 2019. Last year, Spruce Pool closed weeks early due to budget constraints.
“It’s not that 2027 is different, it’s just that it may not be as discrete,” said Rhodes.
She said revenues have been projected mostly flat since 2014, while costs have continued to rise.
That pressure reflects broader city finances. Sales tax revenue — Boulder’s largest funding source — has flattened, property tax growth is at its slowest pace in more than a decade, and more than $50 million in federal funds remain undistributed, adding uncertainty to future budgets.
For Parks and Recreation, those rising costs range from trash service to chemicals for pools, which have grown by 11% and 30%, respectively, over the last year. Minimum wage will continue to increase by 8% in 2026 and 2027, a change that can help the city offer competitive pay but raises operational costs for seasonal workers.
Rhodes has noted that classes and operating hours may also have to be reduced, and fitness class minimum attendance requirements may have to increase.
Rec centers moved to a membership system last November, with increased daily adult rates and reduced subsidies. The new system generated $1 million in sales between Nov. 14 and Dec. 31, Jackson Hite, the Parks and Rec senior manager for business services, told the department board in January. Rhodes said January sales also looked good, but it is too early to say how much of an impact the new system will make financially.
Rhodes does not plan to raise service prices for underserved or vulnerable communities such as youth, older adults, low-income households and people with disabilities, to match market rates.
“That’s the role of public parks and recreation,” she said. Boulder has plenty of private gyms and businesses. “It’s not part of their mission to reduce financial, ability or transportation barriers.”
To best manage taxpayer dollars, the department uses a benefits model to evaluate the public impact of a service. Public parks, for example, promote the city’s health, build connections and increase property values.
“The community doesn’t pay user fees for those. They pay with their taxes because everybody’s benefiting,” said Rhodes.
Other services benefit an individual or a small community, such as boat permits at Boulder Reservoir or private lessons. Able-bodied adult residents often pay the full cost, sometimes also inclusive of recovery fees, and that’s where the department has been increasing user costs. Discounts are offered for youth, older adults, people with disabilities and people who need financial aid. The city has been using this benefits model since 2014.
Rhodes said public surveys echo the commitment to serve marginalized groups. However, the parks and recreation financial aid program has seen double-digit growth, but funding has not kept pace.
The department is also looking at ways to cut costs, such as investing in in-house construction and irrigation teams, which are cheaper in the long run than contracting. Rhodes added that a potential ballot measure to allow redistribution of tax dollars to increase flexibility would benefit parks and recreation, even for department-specific funds. For example, the permanent Parks and Recreation Fund can only be used for acquisition or capital projects and cannot help with day-to-day operating expenses.
The financial challenges make the department very cautious in pursuing options for the South Boulder Recreation Center, which is in need of a roughly $30 million replacement.
“It’s part of the reason it’s not moving as quickly as people want,” Rhodes said. On top of building costs, the department also has to consider operating costs, maintenance and energy consumption, “so we’re not in this position in 40 years.”
“You don’t just go spend millions of dollars without being thoughtful about what that means for future expenses,” Rhodes added.
Residents can share their thoughts during the city’s Fund Our Future initiative in March and April. Rhodes said that residents can also help by volunteering or donating to the PLAY Foundation, which gives scholarships for low-income youth to engage in recreation and supports the city’s tree health.
Maybe if the city hadn’t stopped taking the $100,000s annual revenue from the FAA to pay for the airport operations and not spent $100,000s on an ill-advised lawsuit against the FAA, it would have a little more flexibility in its budget.
Apparently the 100 billion dollar Alpine-Balsam development to build new offices for our city government along with “right-sizing” main driving arteries are more important than taking care of our citizens’ needs: potholes, parks, rec centers, safety, etc. Citizens should have voted on that project. It probably would not have passed.
The ‘we’re broke’ narrative is a choice, not an inevitability. The city is sitting on $53M for a fancy energy retrofit at East Boulder while letting South Boulder Rec literally fall apart with $0 in funding (not to mention [sic ;)] the $224 million being spent on the Alpine-Balsam administrative office park). This isn’t a lack of money; it’s a lack of fairness and an inefficient use of our parks & rec money. It’s time for the city to stop hiding behind budget silos and prioritize basic neighborhood needs over luxury upgrades elsewhere.
Maybe if the Rec didn’t have such poor services for actual working-class families, instead of prioritizing almost exclusively elder and single adults without children, we would pay for the membership and they would not be in this situation. We DO still occupy a significant percentage of this population.
Boulder as a whole continues to dig its grave of being burdened with elderly services costs far outpacing revenue in the present and getting worse over the next few decades. To have childcare that only aids stay-at-home parents or nannies…nope nope nope. You deserve this, Rec Center. Do better.
Juliette,
What you are saying makes no sense and does not apply to why the SOBO Rec Center is not being repaired and/or has been erroneously presented to the public as a physical disaster only to justify prioritizing the East Rec Center. The City has made the choice to put their ongoing funding into the East Rec Center despite the fact that the SOBO Rec Center serves a large geographical area and lots of families with children who do have working parents like yourself that enjoy what this Center has to offer. It is not a big, fancy place but a place which many locals have come to love due to their long time association with the Center and friendships they have made through attending activities there with and without their family members.
I am at one of the 3 rec centers every day & inefficiencies are easy to find. Front desks are over staffed with multiple employees ‘on the clock’ watching YouTube, doing their homework, and socializing with each other. Lifeguards are over staffed with multiple employees simultaneously in the break room reading novels. The city won’t allow swim teams to provide their own life guards. While property tax rates may be flat, new housing units subject to property tax are popping up annually. Most employers are reducing or eliminating office space, why is the city spending so much on this “priority”? No one wants to see Iris (one of just a few East-West corridors) reduced to one lane. I’m a cyclist and bike commuter and don’t want a bike lane on Iris. I prefer keeping the periphery neighborhood streets friendly for bikes, instead of cut thru angry traffic due to the inevitable backups on Iris. Do the decision makers bike commute & use the rec centers? The community needs main arterial roads for cars, quiet side streets for bikes, places to swim & recreate. The city serves the community. Boulder is becoming increasingly hard for families, not just financially, but for things for kids to do. We’re constantly driving East for birthday parties, activities, & sports teams. The math is simple. Waste money on frivolous projects = reduce rec centers and rec center services = reduce families in Boulder = lose the community = exclusive resort town.
I am not surprised that sales revenue is down. Besides groceries, we make few purchases in Boulder. Stores we used to patronize have closed. We don’t need high end ski wear! Moderately priced basics are no longer available here. I realize some of those were due to factors beyond local control, such as Macys, JoAnns, and Bed, Bath and Beyond.
Last summer we visited Durango and it was a delight to shop in locally-owned fabric, art supply, and craft stores that we lack. The downtown was vibrant and attractive.
Maybe the city or Downtown Boulder should do something to incentive local businesses that serve our interests? Or smaller chain stores that sell reasonably-priced clothes and shoes? If sales revenue is the problem then give some attention to the needs of residents.