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.
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?