This commentary is by members of the Downtown Development Authority Planning Group, a diverse group of business owners, nonprofit and community leaders, property owners, residents and community stakeholders who have participated in the city’s DDA planning process.
Over the past year, we have had the privilege of serving on a volunteer Planning Group asked to determine whether a Downtown Development Authority (DDA) could help address Boulder’s long-term economic challenges. Our responsibility was to ask difficult questions, evaluate the facts and decide whether this tool was the right fit for Boulder. That meant reviewing financial projections, studying Colorado law governing DDAs, examining successful DDAs across the state and comparing the long-term implications of establishing a DDA versus maintaining the status quo.
The proposal before City Council is not the result of a rushed process or a single study. The concept of a Downtown Development Authority has been discussed in Boulder for years as community leaders have explored ways to strengthen the long-term economic vitality of downtown and University Hill.
The details of this proposal are important and can be found at BoulderDDA.com. They deserve thoughtful review and discussion. But every detail ultimately leads back to one fundamental question:
What happens if we choose to do nothing?
Downtown Boulder and University Hill together are two of the city’s most important economic engines. Their success extends far beyond their boundaries. When these districts thrive, they create jobs, attract private investment, strengthen local businesses and generate tax revenues that help support services relied upon by residents throughout Boulder. Today’s data tells us these districts are losing momentum, reducing private investment, slowing economic activity and weakening the tax base that supports services throughout Boulder.
Since before the pandemic, inflation-adjusted revenues reveal a different trajectory for Downtown Boulder and University Hill than for the city as a whole. While the city’s General Fund property tax revenues have grown by approximately 10%, downtown property values have declined by nearly 20%. Inflation-adjusted sales tax revenues have also lagged behind the rest of the city, highlighting that Downtown Boulder and University Hill continue to face economic challenges that are different from those affecting other parts of the city.
These trends are not unique to Boulder. Remote work has fundamentally changed office demand. Consumer behavior continues to evolve. Competition among communities has intensified. Across Colorado and the country, cities are investing in their downtowns because they recognize that maintaining a healthy economic center requires intentional action. There is no macroeconomic trend suggesting these conditions will improve on their own.
Doing nothing is not preserving today’s Downtown Boulder and University Hill. It means accepting continued erosion of the tax base, private investment and economic activity that benefit the entire community.
To better understand the long-term implications, the Planning Group reviewed conservative 30-year financial projections using two different scenarios.
The first assumes current trends continue, with property values declining by approximately 1.5% annually and the underlying tax base gradually shrinking, resulting in lower revenues over time for the city, Boulder County, schools and the Library District.
The second assumes just 1% annual growth in property values driven by redevelopment, private investment and renewed economic activity. That seemingly small difference completely changes the long-term outlook. Instead of a shrinking tax base, the community benefits from a growing one. Even under this conservative scenario, schools, Boulder County, the City of Boulder and the Library District all receive more revenue than they would under the “do nothing” scenario, while the DDA generates dedicated resources to help create that growth in the first place.
The same pattern appears in projected sales tax revenues. If today’s trends simply continue, future growth is largely driven by inflation alone. Under the DDA scenario, modest real economic growth produces substantially greater long-term revenues while strengthening Downtown Boulder and University Hill for the benefit of all community members.
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. That’s why we believe the cost of doing nothing deserves just as much consideration as the cost of taking action.
The question isn’t whether a DDA captures future growth. The question is whether Boulder creates that future growth in the first place.
Economic development isn’t about redistributing today’s economy. It’s about creating tomorrow’s economy.
Across Colorado, DDAs have helped communities redevelop aging districts, attract private investment and revitalize their downtowns. Those successes demonstrate why a Downtown Development Authority has become one of the state’s most effective economic development tools. Boulder’s proposed Plan of Development applies those same proven principles to the unique needs of Downtown Boulder and University Hill.
That proposed Plan of Development focuses on encouraging redevelopment, strengthening connections between downtown and University Hill, investing in transportation and public spaces and creating the conditions necessary for long-term economic resilience.
Boulder has never been defined by standing still. Our community has always succeeded because previous generations were willing to invest in the future. The question before us is not whether change is coming. It already has. It is whether we will shape that future intentionally, or simply allow today’s trends to define the future of our community.
Downtown Development Authority Planning Group members:
- Jon Banis, Japango
- Tami Door, Downtown Boulder Partnership
- Eli Feldman, Conscience Bay Company
- Charlene Hoffman
- Justin Kalvin, Sundown Saloon
- Deborah Malden, Create Boulder
- Katie Olson, Art Source International & Boulder Connectors
- Danica Powell, Trestle Strategy Group
- Dakota Soifer, Cafe Aion
- Terri Takata-Smith, Downtown Boulder Partnership & Boulder Connectors
- John Tayer, Boulder Chamber
- Molly Winter, Downtown Boulder Community Initiatives Board, Boulder Connectors and Boulder resident
If it’s so beneficial to the city, why is the entire city not allowed to vote on it? We lose the future tax revenue and hand it off to business interests downtown, but get no say in it??
Nearly every major Front Range city that Boulder competes with for employers, visitors, housing investment, and talent already has a Downtown Development Authority or a similar tax-increment financing tool. Boulder is increasingly becoming the exception rather than the rule.
Across Colorado, Downtown Development Authorities have demonstrated a proven ability to catalyze long-term investment. Since 1982, Longmont’s Downtown Development Authority has helped facilitate more than $200 million in public and private investment. Fort Collins’ DDA has invested nearly $100 million in public improvements while leveraging decades of private redevelopment that transformed Old Town into one of Colorado’s most vibrant downtowns. More recently, Loveland established its own DDA to accelerate downtown revitalization, and Denver is expanding its Downtown Development Authority to support its post-pandemic recovery deploying $500,000,000. These communities recognize that healthy downtowns do not happen by accident, they require sustained investment and partnership.
Downtown Boulder is a rigged game. It’s already been substantially ruined by the outrageously inflated rents that are driving out popular local businesses that serve the needs and desires of residents. Now it’s mainly a hollow tourist trap. It literally gets worse every year. How will DDA investment help that? Boulder WAS vibrant because it was authentic and interesting, now it’s not.
Exactly.
This plan diverts future tax revenues from programs that all Boulder voters, not just commercial interests, have voted on and supported for years. First we were told a downtown hotel ( the St. Julien) would fix things. Next the hotels on the Hill were the promised solution. Then the City bent over backwards to get Sundance. Now the DDA wants to suck up all of that additional tax revenue for itself and for the benefit of private businesses.
A small group of voters will get to decide what happens to the tax funds that were voted on by ALL the people repeatedly. This is anti-democratic. Let all the people of Boulder decide on the DDA. If that can’t be done by resolution, then put this decision off until after the November election and let’s have a candidate debate about this idea.
This proposal will freeze funding for open space and many other programs at 2026 levels and divert the tax benefits of Sundance to downtown business interests. No thank you.
Downtown Boulder would be an economically sustainable endeavor if it catered more to local residents than tourists–with a mix of local businesses offering practical goods and services, as it did in the past. I’m talking about things like small grocery stores, pharmacies, art movie houses, and the return of the beloved arts and crafts cooperative. With mostly high-end boutiques and chain businesses, plus frequent tourist-oriented events, as well as a very frustrating parking situation, it’s more of a Disneyland for daytrippers than a community hub for city residents. And, I say this an almost lifelong resident of Boulder who lived and worked downtown for several years, including when it was a viable, local destination. I do not support the DDA as landlords and businesses need to provide the services and goods local people want, not what they think will attract big spenders from out of town.
I’ve read this twice and looked at your website and I can’t find an answer to this basic question: what does the DDA propose to *do* to reverse the trend downtown and thereby justify retaining a large portion of resulting tax revenue relative to having it go back to the city as a whole?
“Redevelopment, private investment and renewed economic activity” are meaninglessly generic. I think there is general support for the noncontroversial idea that increasing tax revenue is better for the city than decreasing tax revenue. If it’s possible to increase revenue to the city on top of tax increment financing that is great and the purpose of using such a vehicle.
The question is what a DDA can do and actually proposes to do that the city cannot do itself, and thereby gain tax revenue directly that is unencumbered and free to direct citywide? What is the ‘but for’ that justifies tax increment financing in the first place? How will this be cleanly separated from what will flow in from Sundance *not* as a result of any effort of a DDA?
The DDA proponents need to clearly state how the DDA will function & impact programs previously put to vote for all city members.
A previous Opinion by Mike Mills July 7, 2026 are quite concerning & warrant a deeper dive into possible solutions before a few people vote on a 30-year commitment.
“According to city staff, the DDA would divert between $35 million and $103 million from BVSD, between $23 million and $66 million from Boulder County, and between $4.6 million and $13 million from the library district over 30 years. None of those entities participated in designing this proposal or agreed to its terms. These figures assume a 50% split of property tax increment between the DDA and existing taxing entities — a split that depends on intergovernmental agreements that cannot be negotiated until after the DDA is created. Absent those agreements, state law gives the DDA the full increment.
This DDA proposal threatens funding for open space, wildfire management, rec centers, transportation, schools and libraries. Council should not rush to approve a 30-year diversion of public revenue when fewer than 2,500 people would receive a ballot while 98% of Boulder residents would not.”-Mike Mills
I appreciate the Planning Group’s willingness to confront an important reality: doing nothing is not a strategy. Downtown Boulder and University Hill are economic, cultural and civic assets. Their future affects businesses, workers, residents and public institutions throughout Boulder.
The commentary makes a persuasive case that Boulder must act. However, it does not yet establish that this particular Downtown Development Authority—with its proposed financial and governance structure—is the best way to act.
Several readers have raised important questions about voting rights, diverted tax revenue, the kind of downtown we are attempting to create and whether the DDA has identified specific investments capable of producing its projected growth. Those questions should not be dismissed as opposition to revitalizing downtown. They are questions of democratic legitimacy, public accountability and responsible stewardship.
The comparisons with Longmont, Fort Collins, Loveland and Denver are valuable. They demonstrate that DDAs can be effective economic-development tools. But the success of a DDA in another city does not, by itself, prove that Boulder’s proposed DDA will produce similar results. We need to understand what those authorities actually funded, what growth can reasonably be attributed to their investments and how their governance and accountability structures compare with what Boulder is proposing.
The decisive question is the “but-for” question:
What development, private investment or economic activity will occur because of this DDA that would not otherwise occur?
That distinction is particularly important because Boulder is already anticipating economic activity associated with Sundance, new hotels and eventual post-pandemic recovery. Growth generated independently should not automatically be attributed to the DDA or used to justify redirecting future public revenue.
Before Boulder makes a commitment that could shape public investment for decades, the proposal should pass a clear public-value test:
What specific investments will the DDA make during its first five years?
What measurable outcomes will those investments be expected to produce?
How will DDA-generated growth be distinguished from economic activity that would have occurred without it?
What revenue might otherwise support the city, county, schools, libraries, open space, transportation and other public priorities?
How will small businesses, residents, workers and University Hill be protected from becoming secondary to the interests of major property owners?
What accountability measures will apply if the anticipated growth does not materialize?
We must also ask what kind of downtown we are trying to create. Economic growth cannot be the only measure of success. A thriving downtown should serve the people who live here—not only tourists and occasional visitors. It should include local businesses, practical services, cultural institutions, housing, accessible public spaces and compelling reasons for Boulder residents to return regularly.
The Planning Group has answered one important question: Why must Boulder act?
It has not yet answered the question that should determine whether this proposal moves forward:
Why is this DDA—and this particular financial and governance structure—the most responsible, equitable and effective way to act?
Until that question is answered with greater specificity, evidence and enforceable accountability, skepticism should not be characterized as support for standing still. It is part of the careful public examination that a consequential, decades-long commitment deserves.
These are such great points, along with those of others above. The main problem will be that our elected officials are not sufficiently interested or engaged enough to suss out the answers to any of these considerations. They will passively review the package that staff sends them and call it a day. Since their understanding and interest in these issues is extremely limited, they will simply follow staff’s recommendations – so we already know where this is going.
With all the super intelligent and informed people in this city who have a much deeper understanding of these issues, it baffles me why none of them run for city council. Community members are desperate for informed city council members and we just don’t get that here. And in the case of those few council members who are relatively well informed, they prefer to not rock the city staff boat and simply defer to their vision. We all deserve much better representation than what we are getting.
Suspicious anonymous opinion piece! Why is the writer’s identity kept secret?
The piece is not anonymous. All the authors are listed at the end.