HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.27.26 PRAB Packet - revisedAGENDA
All agenda times are approximate
Approx total time: 2h50m to 3h20m
I.APPROVAL OF AGENDA (2 mins)
II.FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (3 mins), Page 2
III.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (15-45 mins)
A.This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or concerns to the
Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled later in
the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on the need
for parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers are limited to
three minutes. Depending on the nature of your matter, you may or may not receive a response
from the Board after you deliver your comments. The Board is always listening to and
appreciative of community feedback.
IV.CONSENT AGENDA (30 mins), Page 3
A.Approval of Minutes from June 22, 2026, Page 3
B.Updates from the Director of Parks and Recreation, Page 7
C.Parks and Recreation Operations Updates, Page 8
D.Parks and Recreation Planning, Design and Construction Updates, Page 9
V.ACTION ITEMS
A.None
VI.MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION
A.None
VII.MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (80 mins), Page 13
A.City Council Updates - Overview of June 25 Conversation and Next Steps
(30 mins)
B.BPR Fee Policy Overview (30 minutes)
C.CIP Tour Content and Scheduling (15 minutes)
D.Follow up on Liaison Timelines and Roles (5 minutes)
VIII.MATTERS FROM THE BOARD (40 mins), Page 151
A.Board Discussion of Role in 2026 Ballot Measures (30 minutes)
B.PRAB Matters (verbal) (10 minutes)
IX.NEXT BOARD MEETING:
A.August 24, 2026
X.ADJOURN
Fully Hybrid Meeting
6:00 p.m., July 27, 2026
Boulder Parks & Recreation
Advisory Board Members
2026-2027
Channing Benson
Andrew Bernstein
Yvonne Castillo
Dana Riess
Jennifer Robins
Michael Schreiner
Kyra Siegel
Mission Statement
BPRD will promote the health and
well- being of the entire Boulder
community by collaboratively
providing high-quality parks, facilities
and programs.
Vision Statement
We envision a community where
every member’s health and well-
being is founded on unparalleled
parks, facilities and programs.
Goals of the Master Plan
1.Community Health and Wellness
2.Taking Care of What We Have
3.Financial Sustainability
4.Building Community
5.Youth Engagement
6.Organizational Readiness
1
PRAB Future Board Items Agenda
August September October
Fully hybrid for members, staff and
community.
Fully hybrid for members, staff and
community.
Fully hybrid for members, staff and
community.
Regular Mtg
(c) Summaries
2)Courts Update – East Boulder
Community Park & Tom Watson
3)Barker Park Update
4)Chautauqua Update
5)Valmont Park Signs Update
6)Boulder Creek Renaming
Celebration
7)BPR Summer Games
2)Primos Park Update Report / Outdoor Pool
Highlights / Summer Facility
Feedback Form Report
2)Boulder Reservoir EWM Post
season Update
3)North Boulder Park Update
(a) Recommended Budget (Rev,
Exp, Fee Schedule)
2) Harbeck-Bergheim House Lease
(d/i) Review Proposed Fee Schedule
2) Harbeck-Bergheim House Lease
Season KPI's
(md)
Safe and Managed Public Spaces
(SAMPS) Program Overview
Regular Mtg
(mb) holiday meeting adjustments (if
or Topics Area Redevelopment Update presented to Planning Board (9/15)
City Council: Recommended Budget
Study Session (mid-September)
Reading (early October)
City Council: 2027 Budget Second
Reading and Public Hearing (late
October)
& Items of
Interest
Center Annual Maintenance Shutdown
8/29–9/7 South Boulder Recreation
Center Annual Maintenance Shutdown
AGENDA SETTING
The PRAB Chair, PRAB Vice Chair and BPR staff set the agenda for the next month on Thursday directly following the regular PRAB
meeting. PRAB members can submit agenda requests to the Chair and Vice Chair by Wednesday following the PRAB regular meeting
LEGEND
Action Item (a): A public hearing item to be voted on by the Board (public comment period provided).
Procedural Item: (p): An item requiring procedural attention.
Consent Item (c): An item provided in written form for consent, not discussion by the Board; any consent item may be called up by any
Board member for discussion following the consent agenda.
Discussion/Information Item(d/i): An item likely to be a future action item (or council item) and/or that benefits from an in-depth
discussion.
Matters from the Department (md): Items that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring as much in-depth
analysis.
Matters from the Board (mb): Items initiated by the Board that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring as
much in-depth analysis.
City Council Item (cc)
Other Boards and Commissions (obc)
Community Engagement and/or Events (e)
Holiday/Closure (h/c)
Italics indicate a tentative date or plan.
2
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Alison Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation
Bryan Beary, Senior Manager, Community Building and Partnerships
Mark Davison, Senior Manager, Planning
Denise Dawson, Senior Manager, Urban Parks
Jackson Hite, Senior Manager, Business Services
Matt Gazdik, Acting Senior Manager, Recreation
Scott Schuttenberg, Deputy Director
Erynn Simone, Senior Manager, Regional Facilities
SUBJECT: Consent Agenda
DATE: July 27, 2026
A.Approval of June 22, 2026, Minutes
3
CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the
following link: www.boulderparks-rec.org
Name of Board/Commission:
Date of Meeting:
Contact Information Preparing Summary:
Board Members Present:
Board Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Hoffmann, Shihomi Kuriyagawa, Jake Minden, Ali Rhodes, Scott Schuttenberg, Erynn Simone
Guests Present:
Type of Meeting:
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was present for the conduct of business.
A motion to approve the agenda with an amendment to remove Item B (Review of Proposed 2027
Budget) from the Matters from the Department section was made by Schreiner and seconded by
Robins. The motion passed 7-0.
Agenda Item 2: Future Board Items and Tours
Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation, reviewed upcoming agenda items and events including:
• City Council discussion of 2026 ballot measures (June 27)
• Boulder Symphony performance at the Bandshell (July 4)
• Tentative park naming celebration (July 23)
• Council second reading on ballot measures (August 6)
• Council discussion on next four-year strategic plan (August 13)
PRAB had no follow up questions or comments.
Agenda Item 3: Public Participation
In-Person
• Mary & Eric Durham: Spoke on Hogan Pancost land use; concerns regarding environmental
impacts, hydrology and cultural significance; expressed support for Indigenous-centered
botanic garden.
• Mark Holtzman (“Silent Bear”): Spoke on the Sand Creek Massacre.
• Jeff Hayas: Expressed support for botanical garden at Hogan-Pancost; commented on land
history, hydrology and moral responsibility.
• Jim O'Neill: Followed up on Boulder Community Rowing’s reservoir use fees; shared
concerns over cost structure and community benefit designation.
• Margaret “Marki” LeCompte: Shared support for botanical garden and concerns over
ecological and cultural impacts of tennis court placement.
• Benjamin Knapp: Shared support for botanical garden and commented on symbolic
importance and ecological value.
• Catherine Sundvall: Shared support for botanical garden at Hogan-Pancost.
4
• Maxx Lake: Shared support for Indigenous-themed botanical garden and importance of
accessibility and Indigenous art.
• Rylie Carbonneau: Shared support for Indigenous-themed botanical garden and the value of
showcasing native plants.
Virtual
• Lynn Segal: Commented on South Boulder Recreation Center funding, opposition to CU
South development and expressed concerns regarding a personal energy retrofit experience.
Board members expressed appreciation to public comment participants and asked clarifying questions
regarding environmental studies, cultural significance and the proposed uses for the East Boulder
Community Park site.
Agenda Item 4: Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes from May 18, 2026
• A motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Robins and seconded by Riess.
The motion passed 7-0.
B. Updates from the Director of Parks and Recreation
C. Parks and Recreation Operations
D. Planning, Design and Construction Updates
• Board members asked clarifying questions about workforce diversity reporting, the 2027
budget development process, current facility and maintenance needs and future project
planning.
Agenda Item 5: Action Items
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion related to Boulder Creek Park Naming
Kuriyagawa presented this item.
• No members of the public requested to speak during the public hearing.
• A motion to approve the name “Boulder Creek Park” for the property formerly known as
Civic Area was made by Robins and seconded by Siegel. The motion passed 7-0.
A. None
A. All Things Downtown: Civic Area East Bookend P3 Opportunity, Civic Area Park
Management Plan, Pearl, DDA and Barker
Kuriyagawa presented this item.
• Board members asked clarifying questions about project timelines, the public-private
partnership process and planned downtown improvements.
Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Board
A. Consideration of Parks and Recreation Funding Ballot Letter
B. PRAB Matters (verbal)
• Siegel: Encouraged board members to meet with the BOCO pickleball community; shared
her experience with open play, noted BOCO’s informal role in coordinating it, highlighted
its value to the broader community and supported expanding open play court access.
5
• Schreiner: Attended the Primos Park opening, noted its significance to the surrounding
community and thanked staff for their work.
• Robins: Announced that Benson will take over as liaison to PLAY Boulder Foundation
and mentioned she emailed staff regarding a concern at Flatirons Golf Course.
• Riess: Asked whether there was any follow-up regarding the Long-Term Strategic Liaison
role.
• Castillo: Reported visiting the South Boulder Recreation Center (SBRC) to swim but
could not due to a swim meet; visited Louisville Rec Center instead and expressed
concerns about the condition and material quality of that facility; emphasized the
importance of material selection for long-term maintenance and cleanliness in future
projects.
• Benson: Attended the 40th anniversary celebration of the Boulder Creek Path, met with
PLAY Boulder Foundation and will serve as liaison.
• Bernstein: Met with members of the BOCO pickleball community and visited city facilities
at various times to observe court usage and better understand community concerns.
Monday, July 27, hybrid
Agenda Item 10: Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Approved by: Attested:
________________________ ________________________
Bernie Bernstein Clarisa Collins
Board Member BPR Staff
Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________
6
B.Updates from the Director of Parks and Recreation
Recreation Guide Changes for Fall 2026:
Beginning with the Fall 2026 Recreation Guide, available at
https://bouldercolorado.gov/rec-guide, Boulder Parks and Recreation (BPR) will
transition from a detailed program catalog to a quarterly marketing prospectus focused
on targeting new customers. This change reflects how customers increasingly access
information and register for programs through SmartRec by Amilia, the department's
recreation management software and official source of program information.
BPR implemented SmartRec by Amilia in November 2025, replacing a recreation
management system that had been in place for more than a decade. While the transition
represented a significant change for both staff and customers, adoption has been strong.
SmartRec provides a more modern and intuitive user experience, enhanced self-service
capabilities and a streamlined platform for discovering, registering and paying for
recreation memberships, programs, facility reservations and other services. The system
has improved customer experience, increased operational efficiency and established a
stronger foundation for future data analysis, reporting and service delivery.
Customer data demonstrates a significant shift toward digital self-service. Approximately
96% of all online browsing and registration activity now occurs within SmartRec, while
usage of the digital Recreation Guide has declined by more than 80% in the past two
seasons since the SmartRec implementation. Customers spend more than ten times as
much time using SmartRec (6 minutes per user) than viewing the Recreation Guide (less
than 30 seconds per user), and fewer than 7% of registrations require staff assistance at
a recreation center or over the phone. In addition, payment security requirements no
longer allow staff to complete registrations over the phone, further reinforcing the
importance of online registration tools.
The preparation and development of the Recreation Guide also require a substantial
investment of staff time and resources. Producing and maintaining detailed program
information in both the Recreation Guide and SmartRec requires hundreds of staff hours
annually. Maintaining duplicate information across multiple platforms increases the
potential for inconsistencies when schedules, pricing, locations or program details
change.
Under the new approach, the Recreation Guide will continue to be produced and
distributed, but its primary purpose will be to promote programs, facilities, events and
seasonal opportunities rather than serve as a comprehensive activity catalog. The guide
will focus on storytelling, marketing and highlighting recreation opportunities while
directing customers to SmartRec for the most current information on schedules,
availability, pricing and registration. The Fall edition of the Recreation Guide features
over 20 departmental advertisements, nearly doubling the previous ad exposure for BPR
programs and promotions of facilities and programs.
This approach aligns with industry trends and practices adopted by many recreation
agencies, YMCAs, JCCs and neighboring municipalities that have reduced or eliminated
detailed seasonal catalogs in favor of digital registration platforms. The transition is
expected to improve information accuracy, reduce duplicative work and allow staff to
focus more time on customer service, program delivery, community engagement and
revenue-generating activities. With less space devoted to managing program details,
staff can now focus more intentionally on tracking engagement with the publication and
7
registration system to better understand how prospective customers discover BPR,
move toward purchase, and convert into first-time participants in our facilities and
programs.
BPR will continue to support customers who prefer printed materials by providing
Recreation Guides, staff assistance and printable program information generated directly
from SmartRec. The department views this transition as an opportunity to better align
communication tools with customer behavior while improving operational efficiency and
ensuring residents continue to have access to high-quality recreation information and
services.
C.Parks and Recreation Operations Updates
Boulder Reservoir East Access: Signage Update and Next Steps
The Boulder Reservoir team has noticed an increase in the potential for cyclist/vehicle
conflict at the east side of the South Shore Recreation Area. Navigating around or
through the reservoir continues to be a popular recreation activity; the growth in e-bikes,
which supports higher speeds, and the increased popularity of gravel bikes and group
rides are contributing to this concern. Boulder Parks and Recreation supports the use of
bikes, e-bikes and group rides on this multi-use path as they contribute to health and
well-being.
To address the concern initially, staff placed a rock and signs at the east gate asking
cyclists to dismount at the access point. The initial safety signage had messaging that
was inconsistent with city policy and reservoir plans. The city is not closing, limiting or
changing access to this corridor and is not charging cyclists to pass through. This aligns
with the 2012 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan and the 2018 South Shore Capital
Strategy, which both identify the Dam Road as a regional multi-use connection. Staff
have apologized to impacted cyclists for creating confusion and addressed this matter
promptly as inconsistencies were noticed.
Dismounting is not required and cyclists are asked to bike through the South Shore
Recreation Area slowly and single file. A path that would better protect water quality and
recreation access while supporting recreation activity around or through the reservoir is
planned but is currently unfunded.
Boulder Reservoir Days
Boulder Reservoir will host its first Community Days, offered on two Saturdays: July 25
and again on Sept. 26, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. This new event invites community members
to explore the reservoir and try the many recreation opportunities available through the
city and its on-site partners. Entry will be discounted to $5 per person or $10 per carload.
Partners will offer free and discounted activities all morning. That includes paddleboard
and small watercraft access with Rocky Mountain Paddleboard, sailing with Community
Sailing of Colorado, and snacks and refreshments at the Lakeside Café.
Avid4 Adventure and Colorado Junior Crew will also be on-site with watercraft demos,
giving families a hands-on way to try new activities and learn about their programs.
8
Rangers will be on-site to help with education about this natural area and picnic areas
will be open for community members to enjoy.
This event supports the 2022 BPR Plan's focus on building community, activating
department facilities and expanding access so more community members can discover
all the reservoir has to offer. PRAB members are encouraged to stop by and check it
out.
Annual Maintenance Closures
Each year, each of the three recreation centers closes for one week so that the city can
perform maintenance work that cannot occur while a facility is occupied due to noise,
smell or space access. This includes painting of all walls below 10 feet, carpet work, fire
system testing and more. These closures are scheduled for August, when outdoor pools
can support swimming and facility visitation is generally low.
•East Boulder Community Center (EBCC): Limited Pool Closure July 27–31,
2026: The pool filters will be replaced during this limited closure.
•North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC): Whole Facility Closure August 15–
23, 2026
o Lap Pool and Hot Tub: Begins August 1 and tentatively scheduled to reopen
early October
o Leisure Pool and Sauna: Begins August 8 and tentatively scheduled to
reopen August 31
The NBRC extended lap pool closure will address leaks in the system that are due to
aging infrastructure and plumbing connections. The project was intentionally scheduled
when user group needs are lower and outdoor facilities can support swimming, along
with opportunities at East Boulder Community Center and South Boulder Recreation
Center. The three-week closure of the leisure pool and sauna supports a rebuild of much
of the cedar sauna components (e.g. seats and safety casing around heating elements).
There will also be extensive repairs to the slide, which is leaking, and replacement of
drain grates at the end of their lifecycle.
•South Boulder Recreation Center (SBRC): Whole Facility Closure August 9 –
September 7, 2026
D.Parks and Recreation Planning, Design and Construction Updates
The following information is intended to provide the PRAB with relevant updates on
specific projects as they reach major milestones. This section is not all inclusive of all
current projects and only illustrates major project updates. For a complete list of all
current projects and details, please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.
Overview of Major Projects
Staff continue to work on the following projects and will update the PRAB as major
milestones are achieved, as outlined in Table 1:
9
Projects Status Next 2026 PRAB
Milestone
Note: Project schedules are subject to change based on factors such as weather, permitting,
material and resources, including funding and staffing, availability and changes in conditions.
System Planning
Park System Plan Overview Planning Q4
Park & Facility Renovation Plans
Boulder Junction Park Design Q4
Chautauqua Updates Design August (consent)
Boulder Creek Park: Design Development Design 2027
East Boulder Community Center Renovation Design July (consent)
North Boulder Park Renovation Design October (consent)
Pearl Street: Maintenance Upgrades and
Condition Assessment
Design September (consent)
Primos Park Design September (consent)
Barker Park Renovation Design August (consent)
Park Asset Management
Boulder Reservoir: ADA Dock Replacement Construction Q4
East Boulder Community Park: Racket
Courts
Design Monthly updates as
needed
Tom Watson: Pickleball Courts Construction Monthly updates as
needed
Valmont Park: Signs Design August (consent)
Table 1 Overview of Major Projects
Boulder Creek Park Renaming Celebration:
Following the PRAB’s approval of the name “Boulder Creek Park”, the community is
invited to celebrate the new name on Thursday, July 23 from 4 –6 p.m. at the Wildwood
Nature Exploration Area next to the bandshell. There will be brief remarks at 4:30 p.m.
followed by music from the Jenn Cleary trio as well as free dessert and kid activities.
PRAB members are welcome to attend and should have received a calendar invite via
email earlier this month.
Courts Update:
Tom Watson
The Tom Watson Courts Project has entered the construction phase. Site mobilization
and initial earthwork began in June, with construction activities continuing over the
coming months. Phase 1, which includes 12 Lighted Pickleball Courts, adjacent
walkways, three bench shelters, and a refinished basketball court is anticipated to be
completed in November. Project timelines are subject to change based on factors such
as weather and material availability.
10
Figure 1 Excavator at the Tom Watson Park Pickleball Courts construction site.
Planning and design for Phase 2 are also underway, with the goal of advancing into
permitting in early fall to support 2027 construction. Phase 2 timeline will be established
as design work is completed and permitting requirements are understood.
Phase 2 scope includes:
• New permanent restroom
• Community gathering plaza
• Refinished & expanded parking lot
• Refinished loop path
• Nature discovery play opportunities
More information on the project's construction schedule can be found on the City of
Boulder project webpage.
East Boulder Community Park – Racket Courts Project
The following updates reflect ongoing progress in the park’s design and development:
• The design contract has been finalized, and the Design Development phase has
begun. Staff are working with design consultants to advance the project's technical
details to create a final design for the site.
• Staff continue to actively monitor the site’s ecological conditions to support overall
environmental well-being, with a focus on wetland health and wildlife activity.
• Existing derelict structures slated for deconstruction have been tested for
contamination to ensure a safe deconstruction process, and required abatement will
occur at the end of August.
11
• BPR staff continue to meet with colleagues from Planning and Development
Services (P&DS) to work through permitting requirements for this complex site and to
identify opportunities for efficiency.
More information on the project's construction schedule can be found on the City of
Boulder project webpage.
South Boulder Recreation Center Courts Resurfacing
The multi-sport (tennis and pickleball) courts at the South Boulder Recreation Center are
tentatively scheduled to be resurfaced in late summer. As contractor availability is
confirmed, staff will coordinate with users about court closures during the project. This
resurfacing will support safe play of the existing courts in the short-term. This project
does not include the full refurbishment that will reduce maintenance and extend the life
of the courts; that effort is pending funding and site planning in this park.
Bill Bower Interpretive Area:
Staff hosted a donor appreciation event on July 13 to honor the many participants and
donors who made this project possible. Attendees included two PRAB members. The
project, led by the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), was supported by
donations of material and services from many local businesses, such as The Tree Farm,
Melton Design Build, Gold’s Concrete, Feeman Signs, Stantec and Rocky Mountain
Propeller. The city offers a special thank you to Tom Lindahl and Tom Piekenbrock, who
persevered through the process and helped the department develop a more streamlined
process for donors to follow in the future.
Figure 2 Members of MOAA in front of the newly installed Bill Bower Interpretive Area
12
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Alison Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation
Bryan Beary, Senior Manager, Community Building and Partnerships
Mark Davison, Senior Manager, Planning
Denise Dawson, Senior Manager, Urban Parks
Jackson Hite, Senior Manager, Business Services
Matt Gazdik, Acting Senior Manager, Recreation
Scott Schuttenberg, Deputy Director
Erynn Simone, Senior Manager, Regional Facilities
SUBJECT: Matters from the Department
DATE: July 27, 2026
A.City Council Updates on Long-Term Financial Strategy & 2026 Ballot Measures
The intent of this item is to provide an update as requested by the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB) related to the city's Long-Term Financial Strategy (LTFS) and
potential ballot measures under consideration for the November 2026 election.
On June 25, 2026, City Council Next shared an update on the LTFS with City Council,
including the results of statistically valid polling on potential ballot measures and
community engagement conducted through the Fund Our Future initiative (meeting
packet available here, Item 4A). The LTFS is a City Council priority and is prioritized to
support the city's long-term financial sustainability by identifying strategies to fund
existing assets, core services and future community needs.
Polling Results:
In May 2026, the city contracted with a polling firm to conduct a statistically valid survey
evaluating five potential ballot measures. The complete polling results are included in
Attachment A – Voter Poll Results of the June 25, 2026 City Council memo.
The polling also asked residents to identify which types of city infrastructure they believe
should receive increased investment. As shown in Attachment A – Voter Poll Results,
Slide 2, recreation-related facilities ranked among the community's highest priorities.
Recreation center renovations and replacements were selected by 47.5% of
respondents, making them the highest-ranked infrastructure investment, while parks,
playgrounds and tree canopy refurbishment were selected by 30.5% of respondents.
Ballot Measures:
Following the June 25 discussion, City Council directed staff to move forward with two
potential ballot measures for further consideration.
The first is the Recreation and Safety Bond, which would provide funding for critical
capital investments in city facilities. If approved by voters, the proposed $400 million
bond would address major investments in many of the city's 15 highest-priority buildings,
including replacement of the South Boulder Recreation Center, renovation of the North
Boulder Recreation Center and construction of a new Public Safety Building. Because of
the amount of debt proposed, this measure would also require a companion charter
amendment to modify the city's debt limitation from assessed value to actual value of
taxable property.
City Council did not advance the proposed Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund
Expansion. This measure would have expanded the existing Permanent Parks property
13
tax to provide approximately $7.5 million annually in additional funding for infrastructure,
operations and long-term maintenance while shifting a greater portion of funding to the
more stable property tax base. Based on polling results, Council chose not to move
forward with this measure in 2026, although it could be reconsidered as a future ballot
measure.
Council also directed staff to proceed with a Residential Vacancy Excise Tax measure.
Because this measure does not have a direct nexus to Boulder Parks & Recreation
funding or operations, it is not discussed further in this item.
As of the writing of this memorandum, the July 23, City Council agenda packet has been
published and includes the proposed ballot measure language for first reading of the
ballot measures. Because the council meeting occurs prior to the July 27 PRAB meeting,
and after publishing this packet, staff will provide a verbal update on the discussion, any
amendments and the outcome of council's action during the PRAB meeting.
Service Levels:
As part of the LTFS, the city conducted Fund Our Future community engagement
between March 31 and April 19, 2026. Participants were asked to prioritize funding
across 25 community-facing city services to help inform future budget decisions. This
link includes an activity that asked residents to prioritize city services for future funding.
Participants distributed 100 points across 25 services to indicate whether each should
receive less, the same or more funding. The results will help inform, but not determine,
the city's long-term budgeting and financial planning.
Among parks and recreation-related services, community priorities ranked as follows:
• #4 – Safe and Managed Public Spaces (SAMPS) / Encampment Abatement
• #11 – Youth and Older Adult Indoor Recreation
• #12 – Age Well Centers
• #13 – Indoor Aquatic Programming
• #16 – Youth Services Initiatives (YSI)
These results will help inform development of the city's Long-Term Comprehensive
Financial Plan and future budget decisions.
Next Steps:
City Council's schedule for considering potential ballot measures is as follows:
• July 23, 2026 First reading of proposed ballot measures
• August 6, 2026 Second reading and public hearing
• August 20, 2026 Continued second/third reading, if needed
• August 27, 2026 Final opportunity for Council approval
• September 4, 2026 Deadline to certify ballot measures to Boulder County
Any approved measures would appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. It is important to
note that the 2027 budget will be adopted before the November election. Accordingly,
the proposed 2027 budget assumes no additional voter-approved revenues. If a ballot
measure is approved, some funding would be incorporated through a 2027 Adjustment
to Base process, with most new investments expected to occur during development of
the 2028 budget rather than in 2027. As with most large capital projects in the city, it
takes an average of five years from the time funding is secured until the opening of a
facility due to the time associated with engagement, design, permitting and construction.
B. BPR Fee Policy Overview
14
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an overview of Boulder Parks &
Recreation's (BPR) Fee Policy (Attachment A & public-facing webpage) and how it
supports the department's mission and long-term financial sustainability. This discussion
also serves as an introduction to the 2027 fee development process and provides
context for the proposed 2027 fees that will be presented to the Parks & Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB) in August as a Matter from the Department.
Although parks and recreation fees are ultimately adopted through the City Manager
Rule process and PRAB action is not required, the Board plays an important advisory
role during the annual budget process. The fees proposed by staff directly influence
projected earned revenues that are incorporated into the City Manager's Recommended
Budget. As part of its September budget recommendation, PRAB will consider the
proposed budget, including the revenue assumptions associated with the recommended
fee schedule.
In accordance with Boulder Revised Code Section 8-3-8, BPR staff will collaborate with
the City Manager’s Office to issue a 15-day public notice before finalizing the updates.
The intent is for the new fees to take effect on January 1, 2027, in alignment with the
start of the City’s fiscal year and implementation of the 2027 budget.
Financial Context:
BPR's financial management has evolved over many years and is grounded in several
policy documents that have previously been shared with PRAB. Together, these
documents recognize that revenues have not kept pace with operating and capital costs
and recommend balancing affordability with long-term financial sustainability.
Key background documents include:
•Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization.
This citizen-led report established many of the financial principles that continue to
guide citywide budgeting and revenue decisions. An update on implementation of
these recommendations was provided to City Council on April 3, 2025 as part of
the update on the Long-Term Financial Strategy (Item 6A – Attachment C).
•Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King). This
analysis evaluated BPR's financial model, benchmarked Boulder against
comparable agencies, and identified opportunities to improve long-term financial
sustainability.
•Attachment D – 2022 BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies
Memorandum. This memorandum summarizes the consultant recommendations
and staff engagement that informed the financial strategies incorporated into the
2022 BPR Plan.
•2022 BPR Plan. The adopted BPR Plan identifies financial sustainability as one
of the department's foundational themes and provides the policy direction for
future fees, funding and investment decisions.
2023 Fee Policy:
In 2023, BPR developed a Fee Policy that was reviewed by both the PRAB and City
Council. The Fee Policy is in line with the 2022 BPR Plan Financial Sustainability
Theme, Goal 2: Close the Funding Gap; Initiatives 5, 6 and 8, and aligns with
Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA) best practice
as a Comprehensive Revenue Policy.
BPR provides a broad range of parks, recreation facilities, programs and services that
benefit the community in different ways. While many amenities are available free of
charge, others require user fees to support direct operations and reduce reliance on tax
revenues.
15
The Fee Policy establishes a consistent framework for determining the appropriate
balance between user fees and taxpayer support. Rather than setting fees solely based
on operating costs or market comparisons, the policy considers several factors,
including:
• Level of community benefit (Community benefit versus individual benefit)
• Supply and demand
• Market comparisons
• Residency / Non-residency priority
• Age-based prioritization with an emphasis on youth and seniors
• Accessibility and health promotions
• Value of program
• Alignment with BPR's mission and strategic priorities
• Availability of subsidy to support priority populations
The Fee Policy categorizes different program types, their associated level of community
benefit, a target cost recovery percentage, a definition and examples of programs that
are included.
One of the foundational concepts of the Fee Policy is cost recovery, or the percentage of
operating costs supported through user fees. Services that primarily provide an
individual benefit generally recover a greater share of their costs through fees, while
services that provide broader community benefit receive greater public subsidy. The
objective is not to maximize cost recovery for every service, but rather to achieve an
appropriate balance based on the public value of each service.
2027 Fee Changes:
As part of the 2027 budget process, staff are evaluating the current fee schedule using
both quantitative and qualitative information. This includes:
• Current fee levels and utilization trends
• Cost recovery
• Regional benchmarking (market research)
• Customer and staff feedback
• Opportunities to simplify memberships, passes, and fee structures
• Administrative efficiency and customer experience
2027 Fee recommendations are expected to focus on refining existing fee structures,
simplifying customer options and making targeted fee adjustments where appropriate to
reflect the increasing cost of providing services, including staffing, utilities, supplies and
chemicals, as well as market comparisons where BPR fees remain below those of
comparable providers. The overall goal is to maintain community access while
supporting long-term financial sustainability and responsible stewardship of public
resources.
Current Fee Schedule and Market Research:
To support the Board's review of the proposed 2027 fees, Attachment E includes the
department's current 2026 Fee Schedule. This document represents the officially
published fees adopted through the City Manager Rule process.
For recreation services, the most current fees are also reflected within the SmartRec
online registration system, which serves as the point-of-sale for memberships,
admissions, programs, facility rentals and other recreation services. Flatirons Golf
Course utilizes a separate point-of-sale system, and golf fees are maintained and
published separately on the golf course's website.
16
In addition to reviewing utilization, cost recovery and customer feedback, staff completed
a comprehensive 2026 Market Study for Rentals/Fees (Attachment F) during June
and July 2026. The analysis compared BPR fees with surrounding public agencies and
comparable providers offering similar parks and recreation services throughout the
region. The market research is provided as background information to demonstrate the
due diligence completed by staff and will help inform recommendations about where
adjustments are proposed. Market comparisons represent one of several factors
considered during fee development and are balanced alongside affordability, community
benefit, accessibility and the department's adopted Fee Policy. While market
comparisons help identify where BPR fees may be above or below comparable
providers, staff does not seek to simply match the market. Instead, recommendations
are developed using the principles established in the Fee Policy, balancing financial
sustainability with equitable access and the community benefit provided by each service.
PRAB's Role and Next Steps:
PRAB's role is to provide input on the proposed fees in relation to the department's
mission, community access, financial sustainability and the overall 2027 budget.
Following the PRAB meeting, staff will consider board input and finalize the 2027 Fee
Schedule. The fees will be formally updated through the City Manager Rule process,
which includes a 15-day public notice before finalizing the updates. The intent is for the
new fees to take effect on January 1, 2027, in alignment with the start of the city’s fiscal
year and implementation of the 2027 budget.
The anticipated schedule with the board is:
•July: Introduction to the Fee Policy and 2027 fee review process.
•August: Review proposed 2027 fee adjustments, membership refinements,
market benchmarking and public feedback.
•September: Action Item to recommend the City Manager’s Recommended
Budget for Parks & Recreation; approve expenditures from the Permanent Park
& Recreation Fund to City Council for appropriation; recommend the 2027 – 2032
Capital Improvement Program.
•Q4 2026: Public comment period on the proposed City Manager Rule.
•January 1, 2027: New fee schedule becomes effective.
Attachments & Hyperlinks:
1.June 25, 2026 City Council Agenda: Voter Poll Results of Potential 2026 Ballot
Measures – Attachment A
2.Attachment A: 2023 BPR Fee Policy
3.Attachment B: 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
4.April 3, 2025 City Council Agenda: Item 6A Long Term Financial Strategy –
Attachment C
5.Attachment C: 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
6.Attachment D: 2022 BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies
Memorandum
7.2022 BPR Plan
8.Attachment E: 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
9.Attachment F: BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
C.CIP Tour Scheduling
It is an annual PRAB practice to schedule a special meeting focused on a tour of
upcoming Parks and Recreation projects. The intent of the tour is to build board
awareness and understanding of upcoming major capital projects. At each site, staff will
provide a brief project overview and allow time for questions and discussion.
17
Members of the public who wish to attend the tour can listen at each location and travel
via their own transportation. There is no public comment at this special
meeting; however, community members may email the board with any timely feedback
or input at PRABadmin@bouldercolorado.gov. Attachment G provides the 2025 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Tour Itinerary for reference. The 2026 CIP Tour Itinerary
will be provided once it has been finalized.
For the 2026 Tour, staff recommend a tour of the following projects:
•Boulder Creek Park: Understand current project design and timeline
•Pearl Street Mall: Understand planned improvements
•Barker Park: Understand timeline and project scope.
In the meeting, staff would like to discuss options for the tour and schedule for late
summer or early fall.
D.Follow Up on Liaison timelines/roles
The role of Board Liaisons is to provide input on process and community engagement,
provide a deeper level of knowledge on a project in support of addressing community
questions to the board and to support board conversations on the topic at business
meetings and study sessions. The current Board Liaison assignments, staff sponsors
and anticipated timelines are provided in Table 2.
Plans and Initiatives Board Liaison Staff Sponsor Timeline
Pearl Street Kyra Siegel Mark Davison September
Civic Area Jenny Robins Mark Davison August
Long-Term Financial
Strategy
Dana Riess Jackson Hite July–September
Park System Plan Michael Schreiner Mark Davison Q4
Liaison
Table 2 2026-2027 Board Liaisons to BPR Projects
Attachments & Hyperlinks:
1.Attachment G: 2025 CIP Tour Itinerary
18
Policy Title Boulder Parks & Recreation Fee Policy
Administrative Policy
Number
05-02
Effective Date July 24, 2023
Last Amended N/A
Review Cycle Every 2 years
Inactive/Repealed N/A
Primary Audience BPR Staff and Supervisors with Fee Based programs
Policy Sponsor Jackson Hite, Parks and Recreation Sr. Manager – Business
Services
Director Approval Alison Rhodes, Parks and Recreation Director
Related Policies
Included Procedures,
Workflows, or other
I.Purpose of Policy:
The purpose of the fee policy is to establish clear and consistent guidance for how fees are set
and subsidies are awarded. In establishing a fee policy, BPR intends to create a standard
approach for all fees collected, develop transparent fee categories and definitions of the types of
access or programs which are subject to various fees, and create clear cost recovery targets.
The Fee Policy should be applied equitably to all programs, with an understanding that
additional support may be provided based on General Fund Subsidy as called for in the 2022
Parks and Recreation Plan. In determining the subsidy levels, BPR will provide subsidies based
on the level of funding available and the level of community benefit each program provides.
II.Background:
The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department promotes the health and well-being of
the entire Boulder community by collaboratively providing high quality parks, facilities and
programs.
BPR operates from five primary funds. These funds are the Recreational Activity Fund (RAF),
.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund (.25ST), General Fund, Permanent Park and Recreation Fund, and
Lottery Fund.
Recreation Activity Fund: A special revenue/quasi-enterprise fund that is specific to the Parks
and Recreation Department. The fund is the primary funding mechanism used to support
recreation centers and facilities and subsidize fees for services related to the provision of
recreation, reservoir and golf course services/programs that do not cover all their direct costs.
This fund is supported through user and participation fees, grants and donations, and an annual
subsidy transfer from the General Fund.
.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund: A special revenue fund that is specific to the Parks and Recreation
Department. The fund is primarily supported through a designated sales tax that was approved
by voters in 1995. In 2013 voters renewed the sales tax through 2035, with 85% of votes
supporting the tax. The fund supports multiple aspects of the department, including operations
Attachment A – BPR Fee Policy
1 of 8 19
and maintenance, administrative support services, renovation and refurbishment, and capital
improvements.
General Fund: The city’s largest fund that serves as the primary funding source for most
governmental services. BPR uses its portion for park operations, forestry and department
administration. The general fund is mostly supported through a blend of taxes, permits, fees,
and intergovernmental transfers. As a result of the fund’s heavy reliance on tax revenue and
pressure from other departments, the fund’s revenues, and ability to contribute to the
department’s budget can fluctuate, although it has been relatively stable over the years.
Permanent Park and Recreation Fund: A fund specific to the Parks and Recreation
department, this source of funding is permanent according to the City of Boulder’s charter and is
supported through earmarked property taxes, with the Parks and Recreation Department
receiving $0.01 for every dollar of property tax collected by Boulder County. These funds are
limited to the acquisition or permanent improvement of parkland, renovations, and refurbishment
of recreation facilities, and is a source of funds for capital improvements.
Lottery Fund: A special revenue fund that accounts for State Conversation Trust proceeds that
are distributed to municipalities on a per capita basis. Money from the Lottery Fund must be
used only for the acquisition, development, and maintenance of new conservation sites or for
capital improvements or maintenance for recreational purposes on any public site.
III.Definitions:
Residency:
Resident: any individual who lives at an address located within the City of Boulder
service area.
Non-Resident: any individual who lives outside of the City of Boulder.
Resident/Worker: individuals who live or work in the City of Boulder are eligible for
Resident/Worker rates for facility entry. Resident or non-resident status applies for all
other types of programs.
Age Based Fee Groupings:
Youth: participants between 3 and 18 years old.
Adult: participants between 19 and 59 years old.
Senior: participants who are over the age of 60.
Household: any adults, seniors or youth residing at the same address. Proof of address
is required and no more than 8 members aged 19 or older.
Costing Definitions:
Attachment A – BPR Fee Policy
2 of 8 20
Cost Recovery: the collection of revenue to pay for the direct and/or indirect costs of
providing a service or program. The level of cost recovery will vary based upon the
service, type of program, program category benefit level, targeted skill level, market
costs and other factors.
Direct Costs: The costs directly related or attributed to providing a specific service.
Direct costs include staff time, materials and supplies directly related to providing the
service.
Indirect Costs: Costs incurred across the department that are not directly attributed to a
specific service but benefits the department as a whole. Indirect costs typically include
marketing expenses, software, utilities, space allocation, and management staff that
support a variety of services or programs.
Market Analysis: A point-in-time analysis or survey of prices charged by other
agencies, public and private for a similar service. Market Analysis is typically limited to
benchmark communities, local private business and non-profit organizations.
Subsidy: Funding provided by the city to offset the costs of a service to support a higher
level of community benefit. Based upon community input, subsidies are typically
awarded to programs that support low-income residents, people with disabilities, older
adults and youth.
Discounts: Discounts may be provided associated with marketing and/or volume-based
discounting to provide benefits to participants who are regularly using a service or
program.
Program Benefit Categories:
Attachment A – BPR Fee Policy
3 of 8 21
Community: Services that enhance the health, safety and livability of the community
and therefore require minimal obstacles to participation.
Recreation: Services that benefit a broad range of users and are targeted to promote
physical and mental well-being.
Individual: Services targeted to specific individuals or user groups with limited
community benefit.
IV.Policy:
The Department of Parks and Recreation’s Fee Policy represents a standardized approach to
program categorization and definitions, while aligning a clear subsidy level based on the level of
community benefit provided. Fees are an efficient and equitable way to distribute the costs
associated with providing services that exceed the ability of the tax base to support the costs.
This comprehensive policy will promote community understanding with clear fee practices and
financial sustainability. This Fee Policy was developed through the documentation of previous
policy guidance from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, includes guidance received
from the 2022 Parks and Recreation Plan, along with significant input from the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board, Community Connectors in Residence and City Council. This Fee
Policy identifies and informs the program types and a consistent method to assign services to
those types and includes the appropriate benefit level of subsidy and cost recovery target that
should be achieved. Tax subsidy provided each year from the General Fund and/or other
sources such as .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund should be allocated in a way that supports the cost
recovery targets based on available funding, which then directs the corresponding pricing
strategy each year.
The concept of cost recovery involves setting fees based on the total cost of providing the
service and factors in the program category benefit level so that the total funding received
(Taxes and User Fees) equals the total cost of providing a particular service. This is critical to
the financial sustainability of public parks and recreation.
V.Procedure:
The department will review fees and charges for all programs and services along with cost
recovery performance at least every two years as part of the annual citywide budget
development process. Once the cost to provide services is analyzed, each service area will
review cost recovery performance compared to stated goals within the Fee Policy. Total cost of
service as well as the department’s Service Delivery Model, market analysis, and feedback from
staff and participants, will inform any recommendations to the Department Director to update
fees.
The Department’s pricing strategy is based on several considerations:
•Level of Community Benefit
•Supply and Demand
•Market Comparisons
•Residency/Non-residency priority
Attachment A – BPR Fee Policy
4 of 8 22
•Age-based prioritization with an emphasis on youth and seniors
•Accessibility and health promotion
•Value of Program (availability of alternative providers, quality of program)
•Cost recovery philosophy
•Availability of subsidy to support age-based discount, community benefit recreation and
financial aid.
Each activity will be sorted into a program type. Each program type will have a minimum cost
recovery rate and a target cost recovery rate. Programs that are being introduced will likely be
at the minimum cost recovery rate; over the lifecycle of the program, the goal will be to achieve
the target cost recovery rate. While setting rates, staff must evaluate market rates and demand
for the activity to determine price sensitivity for any proposed price adjustments. If the price is
too high and/or there is little demand for the program, staff must consider the feasibility of
reducing costs, reducing fees or propose the elimination of the program. To minimize impacts to
participants, fee increases may be limited to 10% in a year for any community or recreation level
programs. Fee increases may be phased in over a 2-to-3-year period to minimize impacts to
participants.
When establishing fees, BPR will support fees that the market will bear, even if this exceeds the
cost recovery targets. Additionally, BPR will not undercut the market as it is not a good use of
subsidy and jeopardizes the overall health of the market. Programs with high demand should
also evaluate fee increases to improve cost recovery. Both tactics will allow the department to
reinvest in other program areas with lower cost-recovery goals, in turn allowing the department
to reduce the reliance on tax subsidy and reinvest in priority programs. During future updates to
the Fee Policy, BPR will adjust the cost recovery targets accordingly based on actual
performance.
To ensure there is equitable access for populations the community has prioritized, the
department will continue to subsidize access for low-income individuals, people with disabilities,
youth and seniors. The department is committed to maintaining financial aid programs to
qualifying Boulder residents, providing subsidized access to facilities and programs, as funding
allows.
All fee updates will be reviewed annually by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and for
consideration by City Council with the adoption of the operating budget each year. The City
Manager shall give notice regarding changes in fees by filing a schedule of fees with the City
Clerk and displaying the changed fees on the City’s website. Increases shall not take effect until
at least two weeks have passed since notice was given. Fees shall be in effect as of the
effective date specified in the schedule.
Fees may be temporarily discounted or reduced through special promotional pricing as warranted.
The City Manager may reduce fees from time to time as market conditions warrant, and may also
raise them again, so long as the fee never exceeds that specified in the fee schedule.
Attachment A – BPR Fee Policy
5 of 8 23
Below are the program types with associated category benefit level and cost recovery target
goals, definitions and examples of activities. These are examples of various types: they are not
all-inclusive lists and program offerings change over time.
Program
Type Category
Benefit
Recovery Services Included
Community 0% Access to parks, park
amenities, pathways and
natural areas. Open
access allows for self-
directed activity and does
not include supervision
or oversight by staff.
neighborhood, and
community parks,
skateparks,
playgrounds, multi-
use paths, non-
reserved outdoor
Grants,
Philanthropy
& Donations
Community Grants, philanthropy and
donations which further
the mission of the
department by providing
outside funding for a
specific focus which
increases access and/or
removes barriers to
Grants, Memorial
Benches, Tree
Donations, Project
Specific Donations
Special
Events
Community 10%+ Large-scale events that
appeal to a broad portion Holiday Lights
produced by the
department and/or city
intended for a specific
demographic within the
Sweetheart Dances,
Halloween Carnival
pre-registration required
for a niche market or
specific interest.
Typically provided by
non-department
Recreation
Services
Community 50%+ Foundational classes,
leagues and workshops beginner level sports,
Attachment A – BPR Fee Policy
6 of 8 24
and the primary goal of
introducing participants
to basic skills at a “learn
to” level; programs which
facilitate access to other
Youth Services
Initiative (YSI),
aquatics clinics
and workshops with
instruction provided at an
sports, enrichment
classes, youth sport
and workshops with
instruction provided at an
advanced level of
training and
development; private or
semi-private setting to
meet unique needs of an
sports, specialty
fitness, adult sports
leagues, competitive
team events, boating
Facility Entry
centers, indoor & outdoor
pools, outdoor swim
beaches and passive
recreation at Boulder
Reservoir where
monitored access is
provided for self-directed
activity with general
supervision and
oversight provided by
drop-in classes, swim
beach, passive
recreation at Boulder
Reservoir
Resale Items
consumable goods
available for purchase
food or concessions,
clothing, pro-shop
Contracted
Programming
Individual 100%+ Registered programs
offered by a non-
city/department agency
that operate under a
camps, Tennis
lessons
Golf Course
and related amenities of golf, cart rentals,
Rentals
equipment, park and
shelter reservations for a
rentals, facility
rentals, shelter
Attachment A – BPR Fee Policy
7 of 8 25
use by an individual,
group or organization.
private access
rentals
Commercial
Use
Individual 100%+ Fee based instruction,
education, care or
supervision on park land
provided by an individual,
summer camps or
nature programs held
exclusively at a park.
Attachments:
•Attachment A – Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule
Attachment A – BPR Fee Policy
8 of 8 26
CITY OF BOULDER
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
ON REVENUE STABILIZATION
Report to City Council
January 15, 2008
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
1 of 59 27
City of Boulder
Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization
Commission Members
Matthew Appelbaum
Steven B. Fisher
Susan Morris Graf
Thomas B. Hagerty
Dickie Lee Hullinghorst
Bruce Rothenberg
Michael Stutzer
Richard Wobbekind
City of Boulder Staff
Frank W. Bruno, City Manager
Kevin Burke, Deputy City Manager
Bob Eichem, Director of Finance
Kathy McGuire, Budget Officer
Jim Reasor, Budget Analysis Manager
Economic Consultants
Phyllis Resnick, Managing Director, R2 Analysis
William Kendall, President,
Center for Business and Economic Forecasting
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
2 of 59 28
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION (BRC)
ON REVENUE STABILIZATION
Report to City Council
January 15, 2008
Table of Contents
Document Page(s)
Introduction............................................................................................................. 1
Executive Summary.................................................................................................2
Chapter 1: The Problem..........................................................................................5
Colorado’s Public Finance Structure....................................................5
Sales Tax.......................................................................................6
Property Tax..................................................................................7
Policy Choices......................................................................................9
Earmarking....................................................................................9
Sunsets..........................................................................................9
Land Use.....................................................................................10
Costs of Growth..........................................................................11
Revenue Insufficiency (the Gap)........................................................12
Inflation and Consumption of Goods/Services...........................14
Demographic Shifts....................................................................16
The Gap’s Affect on Other Funds...............................................17
Summary............................................................................................20
Chapter 2: The Solution Framework.....................................................................21
Principles............................................................................................21
An Amount Framework......................................................................22
Structural Framework.........................................................................24
Summary............................................................................................26
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
3 of 59 29
Chapter 3: The Tools............................................................................................27
Policies...............................................................................................27
General........................................................................................27
Budget.........................................................................................29
Land Use.....................................................................................31
Nexus Funding............................................................................31
Legislative Agenda.....................................................................32
Taxes and Fees...................................................................................33
De-Brucing..................................................................................37
Development Excise Tax (DET).................................................37
New Sales and Use Taxes...........................................................38
New Property Tax.......................................................................38
Occupational Privilege Tax (Head Tax).....................................38
Accommodation Tax...................................................................39
Real Estate Transfer Tax.............................................................39
Food Tax Differential.................................................................40
Transportation Maintenance Fee.................................................40
Parks Maintenance Fee...............................................................40
Increase the Number of Sales Tax Auditors...............................40
Chapter 4: Revenue Scenarios..............................................................................42
Base Package....................................................................................44
Sample Scenario A......................................................................46
Sample Scenario B......................................................................47
Sample Scenario C......................................................................50
Enhanced Package............................................................................52
The 2030 Package.............................................................................53
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
4 of 59 30
Appendices:
Appendix A: Sales Tax Rates...................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Overview of Retail in Boulder.............................................B-1
Appendix C: BRC Presentation - August 9, 2006.....................................C-1
Appendix D: BRC Presentation - February 28, 2007...............................D-1
Appendix E: BRC Presentation - April 10, 2007.......................................E-1
Appendix F: Business Plan Terminology..................................................F-1
Appendix G: Revenue Options Examined – Working Document............G-1
Appendix H: “Winnowed” Essential Services..........................................H-1
Appendix I: “Winnowed” Desired Services...............................................I-1
Appendix J: Definition of Expanded General Fund...................................J-1
Appendix K: Transportation and Parks Maintenance Fees.......................K-1
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
5 of 59 31
Introduction
A central theme of the 2006 City Council retreat was financial issues associated with five
years of declining revenue and service levels. Consequently, the City Council articulated
an initiative for revenue stabilization and subsequently commissioned a Blue Ribbon
Commission with the following purpose:
Establish a long-term, balanced and stable revenue stream for the city
of Boulder that accomplishes public priorities, while allowing
flexibility to meet the varied and dynamic needs of the municipal
corporation in the next 20 years.
This commission of community leaders and public finance experts convened regularly
from July 2006 – December 2007 to accomplish this mission.
As the purpose statement notes, the commission was tasked with looking at a 20 year
planning period. For consistency, the commission used the year 2030 as its planning
horizon because it corresponded with the planning time frame of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
The work of the commission proved extremely challenging and took the group in
directions not anticipated at its commencement. Along the way, there were many
research projects, presentations and much brainstorming. The result was the creation of a
substantial body of analytical material that shaped the final recommendations.
Consequently, this final report is broken into an executive summary, four chapters and a
host of appendices.
The commission wishes to thank the 2006 City Council for its confidence and for giving
it the freedom to tackle this challenging issue that is sure to resonant throughout the state
of Colorado.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
6 of 59 32
Executive Summary
The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) projected revenue and expenditures for nine City of
Boulder funds from 2006 through 2030 as a starting point for its revenue stabilization
endeavor. The scope of this analysis did not include every city fund. Although most city
programs and services are reflected in the analysis, a few high profile programs were not
included due to the time constraints associated with development of detailed projections
for smaller funding sources and the inherent difficulty of projecting external funding
sources (see Appendix J for more detail). This modeling exercise revealed that Boulder’s
revenue would grow approximately three percent a year over the planning horizon while
expenditures are anticipated to grow at approximately four percent per year. This one
percent difference each year projected over 24 years results in a $90 million shortfall in
the expanded General Fund in the year 2030 assuming all expanded General Fund sales
taxes are renewed through the period. The expanded General Fund provides funding for
services and programs typically considered basic city services.1
The principle reasons for the growth differential is the decreasing productivity of sales
tax revenue and the above average inflation rate of government inputs. Specifically, the
BRC found that sales tax productivity will continue to decrease due to a flat inflation rate
associated with durable goods, durable goods diminishing as a percentage of personal
consumption, changing demographics leading to fewer purchases of sales tax eligible
products, and continuing increases in e-commerce. Conversely, the cost of municipal
inputs will outpace revenue growth due to inflation rates associated with energy (to
operate offices, recreation centers, libraries and fleets), building materials (oil for streets,
cement for sidewalks), and personnel (salaries, pensions, health care). These diverging
trend lines create an ever expanding gap.
This gap is compounded by the fact that 41% of Boulder’s expanded General Fund sales
tax rate is set to expire during this same planning horizon. Factoring this into the model
expanded the gap for the General Fund to $135 million a year in 2030 (in 2030 dollars).
This means, it will cost $135 million more than Boulder’s revenue system will generate
to provide the same bundle of services at the same service standard in 2030 as it did in
2006. Even if these expiring sales taxes are continued, the gap in 2030 will be $90
million. Furthermore, simply increasing sales tax rates, as has traditionally been the
revenue tool relied upon by municipalities in years past, can only solve the problem in the
short term, and continue over-reliance on a volatile revenue source.
Therefore, the BRC has recommended a three-prong approach to stabilizing revenues and
obtaining funding for implementing portions of Council-adopted Master Plans, creating a
solution framework comprising policies, revenue structure changes and increased revenue
amounts. The BRC identified thirty policies to improve Boulder’s fiscal climate towards
1 In Boulder, due to earmarked revenues, the General Fund does not support all of these services. Thus, for
this study, the concept of the expanded General Fund is used to capture General Fund expenditures, plus all
or some expenditures by the Library, HHS, Environmental Affairs, Arts, Parks and Recreation,
Transportation, and P&DS. See Appendix J for more detail.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
7 of 59 33
a more stable, efficient, flexible and strategic environment. Boulder should also make
meaningful changes to its revenue structure such that it decreases dependence upon sales
taxes and shifts towards revenue streams that are more stable and are more likely to grow
at a pace equal to expenditure inflation. Those revenue tools most likely to achieve these
criteria without further legislative changes on the state or national level are property
taxes, fees and sales taxes on services. Specifically, the BRC calls for the full de-Brucing
of the Boulder property tax, an increase in the development excise tax to a level at least
competitive with surrounding municipalities and ideally set at a rate that fully recovers
costs, and the exploration of a sales tax on selected services. Unfortunately, these
changes will not eliminate the gap entirely and increasing the total amount of revenue
generated must also be accomplished.
The BRC has identified the renewal of existing sales taxes as the top priority for revenue
stabilization in Boulder. There are six sales taxes set to expire during this planning
horizon that account for 41% of the city’s sales tax rate. Combined, this would be a loss
of $36 million dollars a year in 2008 dollars; to put this amount in perspective, this
equates to more than the entire Fire, Housing and Human Services and Library budgets
combined. Of most pressing concern is the expiration of the 0.38% General Fund sales
tax in 2011 and a second General Fund sales tax in the amount of 0.15% in 2012. The
General Fund pays for core services such as public safety and administration, but also
provides very significant transfers to Parks & Recreation, Library, Housing & Human
Services, Code Enforcement, and more. Renewing these sales taxes is critical.
Three sample alternative funding packages that take into consideration the size of the gap
in different years, the tax burden upon different constituencies, and the revenue
diversification necessary for stabilization have been provided as examples of how the gap
could be addressed. Unfortunately, the BRC was unable to provide city council with a
recommendation that cures these financial difficulties through 2030. The political, legal,
and financial variables are so significant over a 24 year period that it is unwise to lock-in
a complete solution now. Therefore, the BRC has provided a set of options that will
provide financial stability through the year 2017 and will set the stage for ongoing
financial planning.
It is hoped that this document will serve as the inaugural Comprehensive Financial Plan
for the City of Boulder. This document would be similar to, and perhaps eventually part
of, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. A comprehensive financial plan looks at the
fiscal big picture for this municipal corporation, is reviewed annually to reflect changing
economic and budgetary conditions, and provides multiple tools to guide the community
in sustaining its unique quality of life.
In addition, we recommend a comprehensive update be completed every five years to
determine if the gap has increased, decreased or is consistent with original projections
and assumptions.
A full reading of this report will unveil the very challenging financial future we face.
Tackling this challenge will require extensive public education and debate. The members
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
8 of 59 34
of the Blue Ribbon Commission stand willing to participate in both of those tasks and
thank the 2006 City Council for the opportunity to participate in this important work.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
9 of 59 35
The Problem
Boulder’s revenue instability, beyond that associated with the erratic
business cycle of a free market economy, is a product of Colorado’s
public finance structure and policy choices made by the city.
Specifically, any free market economy will suffer the peaks and
valleys of economic expansion and contraction. A government organization can expect
to see corresponding variations in its revenue stream; however, the scope and depth of
theses variations is impacted by the public finance mechanisms it uses and policy choices
it has made.
Moreover, revenue instability leads to service provision instability, which is the real
impact on the community. In order to stabilize the provision of services, we need to
understand the relationship between revenues and expenditures through the projected
timeframe of the year 2030. Our findings show a significant deficit (a gap) in the year
2030 due to demographic changes and incongruent revenue/expenditure trends. This gap
is exacerbated by expiring sales taxes. The ability to additionally incorporate master
plans that speak to growth and service enhancements thus becomes an even more
daunting problem. That being acknowledged, the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC)
respected its charge and attempted to resolve the projected gap and the provision of new
and enhanced services through less volatile revenue sources
COLORADO’S PUBLIC FINANCE STRUCTURE
There are three principal forms of taxation in public finance—income tax, property tax
and sales tax. Correspondingly, different levels of government in Colorado are
dependent upon one of these sources. The state primarily relies on income tax (although
it generates significant revenue from a state sales tax), county and school districts rely on
property tax (although counties are eligible to impose sales tax for certain limited
services such as open space), and cities are reliant on sales tax (although they do generate
a meaningful revenue stream from property taxes). Only the state can impose a pure
income tax. Cities can however impose a tax known as a head tax or occupational
privilege tax. In Colorado, Aurora, Denver, Greenwood Village, Sheridan and Glendale
have implemented a head tax.
This separation of revenue streams among divisions of government assists in spreading
the tax burden among different types of taxpayers thus addressing equity, benefit and
ability to pay issues. For individual government entities however, this reliance on one
form of public finance creates revenue instability. For municipal corporations, the
reliance upon sales tax has a number of de-stabilizing repercussions. Sales and use taxes
are the principal revenue source for the city of Boulder (comprising 47 percent of the
General Fund, 39% of the overall city budget, and 44% of the Expanded General Fund).
Property taxes are another major revenue source and provide 19% of the revenues in the
General Fund, 10% of the overall city budget, and 12% of the Expanded General Fund.
1
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
10 of 59 36
The BRC focused on the city’s funds that provide basic governmental services (excluding
water utility funds), including Police, Fire, Administrative Services, Parks and Recreation
and the Library. For the purpose of this study, these funds have been combined and are
referred to as the “Expanded General Fund”. See Appendix J for additional information
on the Expanded General Fund.
Sales Tax
Sales tax, and its companion the use tax, are assessed on tangible goods. For example,
refrigerators, cars and building materials are subject to sales or use tax. Boulder has a
2008 sales tax rate of 3.41 percent. This combines with the state sales tax rate of 2.9
percent, an RTD, Invesco Field at Mile High and SCFD sales tax rate of 1.2 percent and a
county sales tax rate of 0.65 percent for a total sales tax rate of 8.16 percent (see
Appendix A for a comparison of municipal sales tax rates). The impact of this revenue
source, and the municipalities’ dependence upon it, is that each municipality can grow its
revenue by growing the vendors who sell sales tax eligible goods. This in turn may lead
to land use decisions that create unintended consequences such as traffic congestion,
pollution or parking challenges. Of even further consequence, municipalities become
very competitive with one another for the large sales tax producers. This competition has
resulted in municipalities granting tax concessions or rebates that diminish the net
revenue gain of the development for the community. Because there is no system of
revenue sharing with sales tax on a state or regional level, this competition will continue
at a fierce clip specifically between Boulder, east Boulder municipalities and the city and
county of Broomfield.
Additionally, sales and use tax is a very volatile revenue source. The goods that are
eligible for sales taxation are often discretionary products. When economic times are
tight, consumers will more likely forego a new mp3 player, skis or night out on the town.
Likewise, in tough economic times, there is less new construction and acquisition of
business personal property, the lifeblood of the use tax. Boulder, like many Colorado
municipalities, has not seen as much of a dip in use tax revenue since lower interest rates
in the early part of the decade have facilitated some construction and invigorated the new
car market. Unfortunately, interest rates are also volatile and this situation can be
expected to change. Moreover, many of the items that are subject to sales tax are now
being purchased over the Internet—a vending location that is not required to pay sales
tax. This erodes the revenue generating power of this public finance mechanism for
municipalities even though cities are still required to provide programs and services to
those making the purchases over the Internet.
A distinct advantage of the sales and use tax is that a small change in the tax rate can
generate significant revenue. In 2008, one tenth of one percent sales tax rate is expected
to generate $2.5 million per year. The sales tax sounds and is very small when thinking
that a penny tax on a $10 purchase will generate over $2 million for the city. This makes
the sales tax a more palatable revenue source. Additionally, it is a tax that puts more
power in the consumer’s hands because in large part they control the purchases they
make and the location of those purchases. Lastly, since 50,000 workers commute into
Boulder daily, non-residents significantly contribute to sales tax revenues. For these
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
11 of 59 37
reasons, municipalities (Boulder included) look to the sales tax to fund both general and
specific programs and services. Sales tax is and will continue to be the workhorse of the
city’s revenue stream.
Property Tax
Property taxes are generally considered to be a more stable form of revenue than sales
tax. However, there are structural issues with property taxes in Colorado that lead to
revenue instability. These are the Gallagher and TABOR constitutional amendments -
Gallagher (named after the amendment sponsor Dennis Gallagher) and TABOR
(Taxpayers Bill Of Rights). Both of these amendments have a significant impact on the
city of Boulder’s property tax.
Gallagher
Property tax revenue is generated by a mill levy multiplied against the assessed valuation.
The Gallagher Amendment prohibits residential property owners from paying more than
45 percent of the total amount of property taxes in the state of Colorado. To accomplish
this, one must understand how property tax revenue is generated. Every property has an
“actual” value. This is more often known as its market value. How much is your house
worth? For businesses, it is the value of the land, building and equipment. Most
communities have far more houses than they have businesses. If one added up the actual
value of all the residences and compared it to the actual value for the business properties,
they would find significantly greater value in the residential stock than the commercial
stock. For Boulder, approximately 80 percent of the actual value is in residential and 20
percent is in business.
Rather than have two different property tax rates to accomplish the 45/55 split, the actual
value is translated into an “assessed” value and the same property tax (mill levy) is
applied to all properties (the state adjusts the assessment rate every other year to meet the
Gallagher requirement). Looking at the state as a whole, the actual value of residential
property is multiplied by 7.96 percent to arrive at the assessed value. Business property
is assessed at 29 percent. For 2007 property taxes, when these rates are applied to the
actual value in Boulder, commercial land owners pay 53 percent of the total property tax
bill and residential property owners pay only 47 percent. In other words, residential
property makes up 80 percent of the actual value of property in Boulder, but only pays 47
percent of the property tax. Another way of looking at this situation is that $100,000 in
actual value for a commercial property generates more than three times the property tax
revenue compared to a $100,000 residential property.
So from a city perspective, trying to either provide the greatest menu of services or
establish the smallest possible burden upon its voters, the public finance system in
Colorado is geared towards growing businesses and minimizing residential growth. If
those businesses also generate sales tax, either through retail sales or many employees
who buy taxable goods, it becomes even more desirable. For Boulder, this is one aspect
of the often debated “jobs/pops” debate. Boulder is very unusual among Colorado
municipalities in that it has as many jobs as it does residents. The impact of this
phenomenon will be discussed under the Policy Decisions subsection below.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
12 of 59 38
Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR)
The Taxpayers Bill of Rights (better known as TABOR), was adopted statewide in 1992.
It was largely characterized as “no increase in taxes without a vote.” Such a concept was
and is very popular. Unfortunately, there was more to this amendment. TABOR sets a
cap on the amount of revenue a municipality can receive regardless of its tax rate
structure. This means that if the sales tax and property tax rates stay absolutely constant
from one year to the next, but the businesses that generate sales tax and the value of
property grows faster than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus population growth, that
additional revenue must be returned (to whom is another matter that was not specified in
the amendment and will not be discussed here). Municipalities may keep this revenue
above the cap, but only through a vote of the residents. One strategy employed by many
Colorado municipalities is to vote to lift the revenue cap. The process is known as “de-
Brucing” after Douglas Bruce, an author of TABOR.
Boulder has de-Bruced all of its sales tax, but only the 2.0 mills of its property tax
dedicated to public safety services. De-Brucing the rest of its property tax would
generate approximately $6.7 million annually in 2008 dollars for general city, library,
affordable housing and park services. Therefore, it will be discussed at some length in
the solutions part of this document.
The link between TABOR and revenue instability can be found during the recovery from
a recession. Again, a revenue cap is established each year based upon the revenues
received from the prior year. During a recession, that cap gets lowered each year to form
a new tax baseline. This is known as the “ratchet effect.” When the economy recovers,
the municipality may only keep those dollars that match the CPI increase plus any
population growth over the previous year regardless of the fact that population may have
stayed stable over the recession and the CPI may not be growing at the same rate as the
economy. In the latter part of the 90s, economic growth far exceeded inflation. In that
case, municipalities had to return revenues over the cap. This led many communities
including Boulder to de-Bruce. However, as noted above, Boulder did not de-Bruce its
entire property tax. Therefore, when the economy expands, the revenue from property
taxes cannot expand at the same rate. The inability to retain excess property tax revenues
generated during good economic conditions, coupled with the lower taxable base due to
poor economic times, results in revenue instability.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
13 of 59 39
POLICY CHOICES
Revenue instability is also a result of various independent policy decisions with
interrelated and compounding effects. Earmarking, sunsets, land use decisions, and the
costs of growth are the specific policy choices that have had revenue de-stabilizing
impacts.
Earmarking
Earmarking is the practice of dedicating a revenue source to a specific expenditure item.
The General Fund is the accounting home of revenues not dedicated to a specific
purpose. This money can generally be used for any government operation as determined
by council. Earmarking forbids council to move money to fund programs and service
expenditures other than the specific purpose established by community election,
ordinance or council vote. As of 2008, Boulder had earmarked more than half of its 3.41
percent sales tax:
0.60% for Transportation
0.88% for Open Space
0.25% for Parks and Recreation
0.15% for certain programs within the General Fund
This earmarking is effective in garnering approval for new revenue for much loved
programs or services, but it has a huge impact on the ability to run the city government as
a single organization with efficiencies, priorities and best practices considered agency-
wide. By way of example, in the 2007 budget, the Open Space Fund, which is 93 percent
dependent upon sales and use tax, saw a 5.07 percent increase in revenues and was able
to fund most of its Master Plan’s Action Plan and some of its Vision Plan (see Appendix
F for descriptions of Master Plan and Business Plan terminology). The General Fund, on
the other hand, was forced to keep police officer positions unfilled in order to pay for
maintenance of its fleet. Earmarking reduced the ability to transfer funds such that
organizational priorities might take precedent over the priorities of special revenue funds.
Earmarking exacerbates instability because it limits flexibility. The inability to move
dollars around and address needs on an organization wide basis is impaired by this
practice. However, this assumes the dollars to be moved around would have existed if
earmarking was not in place. This may be a false assumption as the voters’ approval was
conditional upon receiving the specific service promised during the election.
Sunsets
A common practice associated with earmarking is establishing a date in which the tax
will expire. Like earmarking, this is a tactic to generate greater support for the tax
initiative. The city of Boulder has six sales tax initiatives that will expire prior to 2030.
The graph below illustrates these sunsets and identifies the amount of money that each
generates in 2008 dollars.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
14 of 59 40
Year of Expiration
currently $9.7 M/yr
currently $3.8 M/yr
currently $6.4 M/yr
currently $8.4 M/yr
currently $3.8 M/yr
currently $3.8 M/yr
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
New General Fund Ext. 0.15%
New Open Space 0.15%
Open Space 0.33%
Parks & Recreation 0.25%
Gen Fund Ext. 0.15%
General Fund 0.38%
These six taxes represent 41 percent of the sales tax rate in Boulder. In 2008, this
corresponds to a $36 million of city revenue. As an example of the magnitude of the
sunsetting sales taxes, this amount of revenue equates to more than the entire Fire,
Housing and Human Services and Library budgets combined. What makes this situation
problematic from an operational standpoint is that three of these taxes are for the General
Fund. The General Fund is the principal financial home to pay for administration, Police
and Fire, as well as provide the majority or significant operating budget to departments
such as the Library, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Development Services, and
Housing and Human Services. These core services are expected by residents and are
further expected to be provided in their base taxes (i.e. property tax, one percent general
fund sales tax, and .6 percent transportation sales tax). The fact that Boulder has become
so dependent upon expiring sales tax to provide a host of services leads to revenue
instability. On the flip side, sunsetting sales tax may provide an opportunity to redirect
that tax capacity to problem solving purposes.
Land Use
Land use decisions have also had the unintended consequence of contributing to revenue
instability. As noted in the Colorado Public Finance subsection, in our current public
finance system it is advantageous to focus upon growing jobs and businesses rather than
population, as businesses, particularly retail oriented, produce far more revenue than
residents. As noted in the Gallagher section, businesses make up 20 percent of actual
values in Boulder but pay 53 percent of property taxes. Businesses and their commuters
also generate approximately 35 percent of the sales tax. And the trend of in-commuters is
expected to grow. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan projects by the year 2030
there will be 11,700 more residents, but 22,700 more jobs. The totality of this business
weight is that the Boulder economy is more sensitive to variations in the business cycle.
Moreover, the retail sector, which contributes the sales tax, is not fully diversified and
has some growth weaknesses. Specifically, Boulder has less value retail. This is retail
that is able to provide budget pricing through high volume sales. It also is sometimes
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
15 of 59 41
referred to as “big box” or “large format” retail. Value retailers are large sales tax
producers and are under represented in Boulder. Fortunately, Boulder has high
representation in specialty (Pearl Street) retail and a renewed anchor in comparison
(Twenty Ninth Street) retail. However, population drives retail growth. While
population is expected to grow by 11,700 people over the next 22 years, this is quite
modest and consequently leads to modest growth in sales tax projections. A more
complete overview of retail can be found in Appendix B.
Costs of Growth
The debate regarding the cost of growth is not unique to the city of Boulder. It is a
controversial issue that is debated across the United States. There are two major
components of growth that impact the funds included in this study; capital costs and
ongoing operating costs.
The following is an excerpt from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
When permitting additional development or redevelopment, the city will consider
whether public facilities and services are adequate to reasonably maintain current
levels of service or service standards given the impacts of such additional
development or committed funding sources for such adequate facilities are
sufficient to ensure their provision in a timely fashion. Growth will be expected to
pay its own way, with the requirement that new development pay the cost of
providing needed facilities and an equitable share of services including affordable
housing, and to mitigate negative impacts such as those to the transportation
system.
In the city of Boulder, the most significant financial contributions toward the capital costs
for new growth as it relates to the funds covered in this report are collected through the
one time payment of development excise taxes (DET) that have been approved by the
voters. The amount of the tax increases each year by the increase in CPI for the previous
year. Due to the requirements of TABOR any increases over the inflationary amount
would have to be approved by the voters within the city. The concept of the tax is the
amount paid will buy into the existing capital assets of the city at an amount equal to the
impact of the new growth. The 2008 approved budget includes funds to update the DET
costs. Ongoing operational costs for new growth are contributed through increments in
sales tax, property tax or other taxes and fees paid to the City.
If the DETs and new incremental revenue are equal to the new costs of required capital
and ongoing operating costs then the net impact of the new costs of growth should be
zero. Therefore, there would be no impact the stability and balance of city revenues. If
there is a shortfall in either capital or operational revenues then current contributors to the
revenues are subsidizing the new growth. If excess revenues are collected then new
growth is contributing excess amounts to the City. The BRC found that the current costs
should be reviewed since the inflationary increases allowed each year have been
insufficient to keep up with actual costs and the DET amounts are falling farther behind
the actual costs.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
16 of 59 42
REVENUE INSUFFICIENCY (the Gap)
The Blue Ribbon Commission was tasked with addressing revenue instability and
identifying new revenue that accomplishes public priorities. Upon exploring this
concept, the commission felt that the task was as much about program and service
instability as it was revenue stability. The historic revenue gains of the late 1990s led to
significant program and service enhancements. The corresponding revenue decline in the
early part of this decade led to significant cutbacks in personnel and maintenance driving
service levels down and making programs very fragile. Consequently, it seemed logical
to the commission that the scope also be about program stability and setting the
framework for funding the current bundle of services, as well as master plan desires for
service and program enhancements.
The commission worked with two economists (William Kendall and Phyllis Resnick) to
project revenues and expenditures from 2006 through 2030. Without detailing every
assumption that went into these forecasts (details can be found in Appendices C, D and
E), the commission essentially projected growth using the 2030 Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, various inflation factors that corresponded with their sector, and
service consistency. In other words, we assumed the same bundle of services provided in
2006 would be provided in 2030. However, in order to provide the same bundle of
services in 2030, the 2006 base projection was adjusted to include funding for a few
critical city functions that were either unfunded or significantly under funded in 2006.
The four functions are essential to continue providing the same services to the
community and are referred to in this report as Identified Critical Deficiencies (see
Appendix J for more detail). The total estimated annual costs of the ICDs are $3.6 million
per year. The Identified Critical Deficiencies include:
•Fire Apparatus Replacement
•Software Replacement
•Facility Maintenance
•Facility Energy Costs
The magnitude of this gap can be scaled in a couple of ways. If the sunsetting sales taxes
are not renewed, we face a gap between revenues and expenditures of approximately
$135 million per year in the year 2030, as depicted in the chart on the following page.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
17 of 59 43
Expanded General Fund
2006 - 2030
Revenues Assume 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2024 Levies Sunset
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Total Revenue (With Tax Sunsets in 2011, 2012, 2015 & 2024)
Total Expenditures Incl. Critical Deficiencies & Growth
Another way of looking at this is that revenues are generally projected to grow at
approximately three percent per year whereas expenditures are projected to grow at a
approximately four percent per year. This sounds like a small difference. However,
expenditures are growing at a rate one-third faster and compounded each year for 24
years. Even with renewal of all expiring sales taxes, we still face a gap of approximately
$90 million per year in 2030, as depicted in the following chart.
Expanded General Fund
2006 - 2030
Revenues Assume 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2024 Levies are Reauthorized
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Total Revenue (With Reauthorizations of 2011, 2012, 2015 & 2024 Taxes)
Total Expenditures Incl. Critical Deficiencies & Growth
$90M
135M
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
18 of 59 44
The reasons for the insufficient revenue can be traced to demographic shifts and inflation.
The reasons for the outpacing expenditures are the ties to the inflation associated with the
inputs needed to provide municipal government services.
Inflation and Consumption of Goods/Services
Inflation associated with the bundle of goods and service provided by the city of Boulder
will grow quicker and greater than revenue. This is because the key expenditures in the
Boulder bundle of services are staff (who have health insurance, pension costs and labor
competition with multiple municipalities in the Denver metro market), utilities (gas and
electricity to run office buildings, recreation centers and libraries), and oil and cement
based inputs (pavement and sidewalk construction, fleet use). The inflation rate of these
inputs is far outpacing the inflation rate of sales and use tax growth. In the expanded
General Fund (noted in the graph above) the combined inflation rates were projected at
an average of four percent per year. This is far below the rates we have seen in the past
five years, but appeared more sustainable over a 20 year period.
On the revenue side, sales and use tax inflation is projected to grow at approximately
three percent per year. This is attributed to a decreasing productivity associated with
sales tax. Part of that is inflation while part of that is demographic shifts.
When sales taxes were first implemented as a public finance revenue tool in the 1950s,
durable goods as a percentage of personal income was quite high. Consequently, sales
taxes were assessed on durable goods. Sales taxes were not, and are not, assessed on
services. These are things such as health care, accountants and lawyers. However, it also
includes things such as labor on vehicle repairs, landscaping services, hair care and health
clubs. Since the 1950s, our economy has moved to service based consumption. As the
graph below indicates, services now make up 60 percent of our personal consumption.
So in short, we are taxing an industry that is making up a smaller and smaller percentage
of our economy. Thus, sales tax becomes less productive as a revenue tool.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
19 of 59 45
This declining productivity is compounded by the fact that inflation on durable goods is
also quite flat. By way of example, think of the cost of your personal computer. The
hardware has essentially cost the same or decreased over the last 10 years, however, the
machine’s capabilities have grown geometrically. On the service side, simply think about
the cost of health care over the past 10 years. The graph below illustrates this difference.
Consequently, we are not only taxing something that is making up a smaller and smaller
portion of our economy, the inflation rate on those goods will lag the overall inflation
rate, contributing to an even less productive sales tax.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
20 of 59 46
Implicit Price Deflators for Consumer and Government
Expenditures, 1990-2036
Source: Economy.com
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
19
9
0
19
9
1
19
9
2
19
9
3
19
9
4
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
0
0
=
1
0
0
Durables Nondurables Services GDP Government consumption expenditures and gross investment Nondefense State and local
Demographic Shifts
Boulder, like most cities across the country, is experiencing significant demographic
shifts. The population of the city is getting older. Boulder residents age 45-59 increased
from 15 percent of the total population in 1990 to 22 percent in 2000. Boulder’s median
age is expected to peak at 51 in 2030 compared to 35 in 2000. An older population
generally spends less money on sales and use tax eligible goods and more on non-taxable
services such as health care. An example of this impact on revenue can be seen when
comparing a household with occupants in their late thirties or early forties who will
generate approximately $250 a year in city sales tax compared to a household with 65
year old members who will generate only $150 per year. Understanding that Boulder has
approximately 45,000 households, the impact could be significant.
Boulder’s population is also becoming wealthier. The Boulder-Longmont median family
income was $81,600 in 2006 compared to $65,400 for the state and $59,600 for the
nation. Wealthier residents generate more sales tax. Households in the lowest 20 percent
of the income demographic generate about $100 per year in sales tax compared to $400
per household for those in the highest 20 percent.
An older population and a wealthier population create a teeter-totter condition on revenue
generation. In general, the two are equally weighted, but either demographic shift could
pull revenue generation associated with sales tax in their respective direction.
In the middle of this teeter-totter is another phenomenon in Boulder - increasing diversity
and a poverty level higher than the national average. Specifically, a rapidly growing
immigrant and non-native English speaking population is emerging in Boulder. As an
example, Boulder’s Latino population doubled from 4.5 percent in 1990 to 8.2 percent in
2000 with half born outside the United States. In 2000, 13.4% of Latinos, 69% of those
identified as White (non-Latino), and 10.3% of those identifying in the “other” race
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
21 of 59 47
ethnicity group in Boulder were below the poverty line; 14% of Boulder’s total
population is below poverty level – higher than the national average (estimated in 2002 in
12.1%). This places these groups’ revenue generation in the lowest 20 percent of
income. Furthermore, the type of retail (which generates sales tax) most desirable for the
lowest 20 percent income bracket is value retail – a component of our retail mix that is
significantly under-represented in Boulder. Value retail, also know as “big box” or
“medium box” retail, sells at lower prices but at considerable volume such that these
types of businesses generate significant sales tax revenue.
The diversity demographic shift is likely to raise questions regarding regressivity of
taxes. This is the aspect of taxation in which people with lower incomes pay a higher
portion of their income for taxes. Regressivity in the current Boulder revenue structure is
most likely found in the sales tax on food. The food sales tax represents 13% of total city
sales and uses taxes ($10,274,234 in 2006) and is one of the most stable and substantial
elements of Boulder’s revenue stream. To try to offset some of this impact the city offers
a sales tax rebate on food to qualifying individuals.
Another demographic shift affecting the revenue gap is real estate. Housing prices in
Boulder have appreciated an average of six percent per year over the last 20 years.
However, revenues associated with property taxes have not kept pace. The link between
real estate and government revenue is most clearly articulated in the property tax. In a
non-TABOR environment, the same mill levy (tax rate) should generate more money.
With the adoption of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) at the state level in 1992,
such revenue growth did not occur. Boulder voters could elect to lift this limit, and in
1998 they did for the two mills associated with public safety services, but not for the
entire 11.981 mills. Consequently, the city has had to reduce its property tax rate by 23
percent to stay within its TABOR cap. In other words, revenue growth associated with
property taxes has not been as productive as it could have been had Boulder been fully
de-Bruced.
With these inflation and demographic conditions, the revenue tools Boulder has
historically relied upon are becoming less productive. Consequently, revenue growth
over the planning period studied by the Blue Ribbon Commission will not keep up with
expenditure growth. As noted above, we anticipate an average expenditure growth of
four percent per year and a corresponding three percent growth in revenue per year over
that same period in order to keep the same bundle of services at the same service
standard. For the expanded General Fund, this creates a gap of $90-$135 million per year
in the year 2030 depending upon sales tax renewals. Other funds have variations on this
premise.
The Gaps’ Affect on Other Funds
When looking at transportation revenue and expenditures, the gap widens even quicker.
This is because transportation costs are expected to grow at twice the Denver-Boulder –
Greeley CPI rate. Compound this over 24 years and we are facing a transportation gap of
$15 million per year to essentially maintain the system. Our growth assumptions say we
will have another 11,000 residents and 22,000 commuters on that transportation system.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
22 of 59 48
This will certainly tax the road system in Boulder. However, we have not accounted for
demand management infrastructure such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and commuter rail
associated with Fast Tracks.
Transportation Fund Projection: 2006-2030
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
201
8
201
9
202
0
202
1
202
2
202
3
202
4
202
5
202
6
202
7
202
8
202
9
203
0
Total Revenues Total Expenditures
It is important to note that some commission members expressed skepticism that even
fully funding this gap would result in the maintenance of the transportation service level
we experienced in 2006 due to significant uncertainties in the costs and extent of
transportation improvements, and the difficulty of implementing large roadway
expansions.
Conversely, when looking at Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) and the Central
Area General Improvement District (CAGID) funds, there was much greater optimism
about their financial future. The OSMP gap is fairly narrow. First, expenditures are
based upon the 2006 bundle of services. So the expenditure line does not include any
growth associated with implementing the Action and Vision Plans of the Visitor Master
Plan which existing sales tax revenue are anticipated to significantly address. Second,
when the OSMP sales taxes expire in 2018 and 2019, the debt will be retired and plans do
not call for any further land purchases since the approved acquisition program should be
complete. According to OSMP staff, the 0.40% permanent sales tax should be sufficient
to fund ongoing maintenance needs.
$15M
Gap
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
23 of 59 49
Open Space Fund Projection: 2006-2030
Revenues Assume 2018 & 2019 Levies Sunset
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total Revenues Total Expenditures Incl. Growth
The CAGID principal revenue source is parking revenue (does not include revenue from
parking fines). The revenue line assumes the periodic increase in parking rates. The
expenditure line does not include funds used for capital improvements which are planned
to maintain the existing infrastructure. So while the fund is healthier than others, the
positive gap shown is somewhat misleading.
CAGID Fund Projection: 2006-2030
Note: 2006 baseline does not include sufficient CIP & Maintenance
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total Revenues Total Expenditures
$5.7M
Gap
$4.6M
Surplus
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
24 of 59 50
As a result of this information, the BRC decided to focus upon the expanded General
Fund and the Transportation Fund. The OSMP and CAGID funds did not receive any
further attention in terms of trying to solve this revenue gap problem.
SUMMARY
The city of Boulder is facing significant challenges in providing the same bundle of
services in 2030 as it did in 2006 due to unstable and less productive revenue sources.
Moreover, inflation associated with inputs is largely out of the control of the city and will
exceed revenue growth. The scale of the problem is significant and becomes more
significant each year as inflation rates compound and revenue streams expire. Therefore,
the balance of this report will focus upon what tools are available to address this situation
and the recommendations the BRC is providing to council as guidance for moving
forward.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
25 of 59 51
The Solution Framework
Chapter one outlined the state of our revenue structure and the
resulting projections of these systems in the year 2030. These findings
significantly changed the direction of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s
(BRC) work. Whereas the original charge focused upon revenue
stability and the renewal of expiring sales taxes, it was anticipated that such work would
enable the council to also pursue implementation of the departmental master plans.
Instead, the focus is upon preventing the erosion of services from their 2006 service level
while also trying to achieve that original charge. The BRC wrestled with several
approaches to crafting solutions. We settled on a framework that looks at the problem
from a policy, amount and a structure perspective.2
PRINCIPLES
Recognizing the “revenue stabilization” charge, the BRC first established a set of
principles that articulated just such a situation. The following were adopted as our ideal
revenue structure:
1. Earmark for capital needs only
2. Don't sunset revenues for ongoing operations and maintenance
3. Maximize flexibility
4. Reserve in good years to ensure stable services
5. Determine basic and core services in order to associate the appropriate revenue tool
6. Closely align who pays and who benefits
o Make proper use of taxes and fees to accomplish
o Clearly identify subsidies
7. Use the right capital financing tool for the right situation
o Pay as you go versus debt financing
o How to make the best use of the time value of money
8. Maximize diversification
9. Revenue system should be easy to administer
10. Revenue system should be equitable
11. Growth should pay its own way
12.Revenue rates must be regionally competitive
These principles set the stage for a series of policy discussions regarding how to manage
the large and complex finances of the city. Because the city will need to ask for large
sums of money in order to close the gap or fund enhanced programs and services, there
needs to be a demonstrated effort to the community that: 1) these solutions solve the
problem; 2) the city has explored efficiencies within its operations and is implementing
best practices; and 3) the municipal corporation has eliminated practices that create
wealth in one area of the organization and chronic shortfalls in another. Crafting of these
2 As a formatting note, bold text in this chapter represents additional findings that are incorporated in the
solutions chapter.
2
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
26 of 59 52
Amount Framework
Fiscally
Constrained
Amt Rev
generated by
existing rev
sources
Desireable
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
2006 2030
In
M
Essential
Sales Tax
Renewal
Fiscally
Constrained
Erosion The
Ga
various policies over the course of the commission work led to a context in which to
advance an amount and/or structure solution.
AN AMOUNT FRAMEWORK
As noted in the findings (Chapter 1), in order for the city to provide the same bundle of
expanded General Fund services at the same service standard in 2030 as it did in 2006
will require an additional $135 million per year more than what can be generated by
existing revenue sources. If all the expiring sales taxes within the Expanded General
Fund are renewed, that deficit drops to $90 million. These numbers are known as “the
gap.” One way of addressing this problem is to look at various revenue tools that will
generate $135 million more in the year 2030. This is an “amount” approach to the
problem. In other words, we have identified how much money we need and the solution
could simply be to devise a plan that raises an equivalent dollar amount. An amount-
focused solution is often associated with capital projects. For example, we want to build
a fire training center, conference center or develop a park. We know it will cost $X. We
submit a ballot measure to the voters. If they approve and all calculations are accurate,
the revenue tool raises the necessary amount and the project is completed. In this way,
the gap is an amount problem that necessitates an amount solution.
Additionally, funding of the various departmental master plans has also been looked at as
an amount problem thus far. The standard template for a departmental master plan calls
for an investment strategy (see Appendix F for definitions of “Essential” and “Desirable”
and other Business Plan terminology). The investment strategies look at what can be
accomplished in a
fiscally constrained
financial
environment, an
action plan funding
level or a vision
plan commitment.
The fiscally
constrained
investment strategy
assumes that
funding will remain
at a level such that
the existing bundle
of services and
existing service
standards will be
maintained. Prior
to the BRC
analysis, it was
anticipated that
revenue inflation
would keep pace or
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
27 of 59 53
outstrip expenditure inflation enabling fiscally constrained to remain an easy to achieve
baseline. Post BRC analysis, it is realized that in order to obtain the service levels
identified in the fiscally constrained investment plan, the gap between revenue and
expenditure inflation must be eliminated first. To fund the action plan or the vision plan,
it will take revenues at a level greater than the gap.
Recognizing that the basic gap (not including the additional essential and desirable
programs) in 2030 required as much as $135 million per year, the City Manager’s Office,
in conjunction with an assortment of department directors, reviewed the essential and
desirable services and programs found within each action plan of departments in the
expanded General Fund or Transportation Fund. The review group asked the
departments to standardize their plans over a 10 year planning horizon as this was
generally the average timeline of these plans. This resulted in the submittal of $12 million
in essential programs and $37 million in desirable programs (all in 2008 dollars)3. The
group reviewed these requests and winnowed the list down to $5 million in essential and
$12 million in desirable or $17 million total in 2008 dollars (these additional dollars
would become known as the enhanced package). Converting the 2008 dollars to 2030
values, the amount translates into $40 million. In the year 2030, the amount problem is
now $175 million per year more than what is anticipated to be generated.
So how to solve an amount problem? Particularly a non-capital one with a long planning
horizon. The typical answer is the stair-step approach. The stair-step approach notes that
service levels are currently behind standard. It then determines an amount that should get
the service back to an acceptable service standard now and for perhaps the political life of
the council and/or city manager. The voters approve and expenditures jump above the
trend line for a period of time. During such time, the underlying revenue problem of
three percent revenue growth versus four percent expenditure growth slowly erodes the
purchasing power and the service standard drops back below an acceptable level thus
prompting the case for further revenue increases. The graph below illustrates the stair-
step.
3 The BRC work commenced in July 2006. Since that time, two budgets have been adopted.
Consequently, the BRC and staff began using 2008 as a base year.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
28 of 59 54
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
202
4
2026
2028
203
0
in
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Stair Step Revenues Expenditures
The black line indicates the cost of the service at the acceptable standard. The orange
line indicates revenue growth assuming no change in existing rates. The green line
shows expenditures in the stair-step approach. This approach is certainly better than the
alternative if one is a fan of the services provided, but also leads to a challenging cycle
for all participants. One method of delaying the cycle is to create a ballot measure that
periodically ratchets up the tax rate. As an example, the voters in 2008 vote to increase
the tax rate by some increment believed to offset the erosion every so many years. The
measure is voted upon all at the front end. This puts all the political challenge on the front
end, but may be too big to overcome and additional legal research would have to be
completed to determine if this can be done in Colorado due to the one item per ballot
issue requirement. So what is the alternative?
STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK
The city has a number of revenue tools such as sales tax, property taxes and fees that
together make up our revenue structure. We learned from Chapter 1 that Boulder’s
current structure is primarily dependent upon sales and use tax which is quite volatile and
becoming decreasingly productive. Specifically, sales and use taxes are expected to grow
at about three percent per year on average over the next 22 years. This growth rate
accounts for both new retail outlets that sell sales-tax eligible goods and it also accounts
for the inflation in the price of those sales tax eligible goods. Expenditures during the
same projection period are expected to grow at four percent. This also has a component
in which the service units increase to maintain the same service standard, and it also
accounts for the inflation associated with these goods. In both cases the inflation is the
heavier weight than the pure expansion. Chapter 1 explains the reasons for this in some
detail. This inflation rate differential is captured in the below graph (previously shown in
Chapter 1), which assumes renewal of sunsetting sales taxes:
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
29 of 59 55
In order to solve a structural problem, you change the structure. In short, move off the
orange trend line (which is growing at three percent) and onto the black line (which is
growing at four percent). Just changing the sales tax rate will not accomplish this
because the underlying foundation of the sales tax is not capable of producing returns in
the four percent range. Changing the sales tax rate essentially translates into an amount
solution rather than a structure solution. Therefore, different revenue sources must be
examined.
The Blue Ribbon Commission looked at over 70 different revenue tools (see Appendix
G). Of those tools, only property taxes and occupational privilege taxes (i.e., head tax)
could generate the amount of money that is comparable to sales tax. Of those two taxes,
the property tax has shown the greatest potential for sustained revenue growth at or above
four percent.
Dr. Richard Wobbekind, from the University of Colorado Leeds Business School and a
member of this Blue Ribbon Commission, and his colleagues recently conducted some
research on housing in Boulder. One of their underlying findings is that real estate values
in Boulder have grown an average of six percent per year for the past twenty years.
Budget staff examined the revenue growth of property taxes during the last 10 years and
found an average growth rate of four percent per year. The TABOR constitutional
limitation that is still in place on most of Boulder’s property taxes accounts for the
difference in the growth rate between the real and the assessed values. Therefore an
increased dependence upon property taxes can affect a real move to the orange trend line
in the graph.
Additional research by budget staff also noted that fees in the last 10 years have averaged
a 5.9 percent increase per year. This reflects two important aspects of this revenue
source. First, fees are in the control of council and may be increased by ordinance rather
than community vote. Second, in times of economic downturn, such as was experienced
in the first half of this decade, governments rely more heavily upon fees. Therefore,
along with property tax, a greater dependence upon fees represents a revenue structure
more likely to keep pace with expenditure inflation
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Revenue (With Reauthorizations of 2011, 2012, 2015 & 2024 Taxes)Total Expenditures Incl. Critical Deficiencies & Growth
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
30 of 59 56
Two other sources have potential to diversify the revenue structure and grow at an
inflation rate similar to that of expenditures. First is sales tax on services. As noted in
Chapter 1, sales tax is currently assessed on durable goods. Durable goods have a very
low inflation rate whereas services have an inflation rate in excess of four percent. This
means, that adding services to those items eligible for sales tax would enable the sales
tax to migrate towards the expenditure inflation trend line. An approximate amount
of revenue that could be generated by sales tax on services was not known as of the
writing of this report. If it is determined that this possible revenue option should be
further considered, a study can be commissioned to determine what revenue could be
generated by including selected services in the tax base of the city. Additional research
would also need to be completed to determine if this change would be considered a tax
policy change to the current Boulder Sales and Use Tax Code. If it is, it would require a
ballot issue due to TABOR.
The last revenue tool that could cure the structure problem is the Real Estate Transfer
Tax (RETT). This is a tax assessed on real estate at the time it is sold. This revenue
source is the lifeblood for many mountain towns in Colorado. These taxes are paid by
the purchaser of real estate (typically a non-resident) based upon the value of the
transaction. There are significant real estate transactions that occur in Boulder each year.
Because real estate values in Boulder have grown an average of six percent per year over
the last 20 years, the inflation rate associated with this revenue tool would more closely
approximate the expenditure inflation trend.
As this subsection details, in order to solve the problem long term, a structural solution is
required. A structural solution will most likely increase dependency upon property taxes
and fees with potential for a sales tax on services and/or a real estate transfer tax.
Unfortunately, when TABOR passed, a RETT is prohibited and will require an
amendment to the Colorado Constitution, making it a greater challenge to employ this
tool. Even with these tools in place, the scale of the gap is so significant as to still
necessitate an amount solution in company with a structure solution.
SUMMARY
The framework necessary to solve this problem will require policy changes that
implement best financial practices, diversification to revenue tools whose inflation rate
more closely mirrors expenditure inflation, and periodic amount stair-steps. The Blue
Ribbon Commission’s recommendation is therefore built upon this framework.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
31 of 59 57
The Tools
Chapter 2 outlined the framework selected by the Blue Ribbon
Commission (BRC) to solve the gap problem and offer
opportunities for implementing departmental master plan program
and service enhancements. Prior to outlining a set of sample
revenue options or scenarios within this framework, the BRC
wanted to explain the tools considered and employed in those programs. The tools take
one of two forms - a policy or a tax/fee.
POLICIES
Money alone will not solve the financial challenges facing the city of Boulder. Therefore,
amount and structural solutions will only be successful if implemented in an environment
governed by sound fiscal policies. The BRC offers a set of fiscal policies that can serve
as a starting point for the city to create and/or maintain that environment, and
recommends that the council further analyze and fine-tune them
General Policies
1. In the absence of four percent revenue growth, trade-offs and reductions must
occur annually.
•This policy is purposely listed first as a grim reminder of the state of
affairs. Taking no action to solve the problem is an option, but it will
result in decreasing service standards or lost programs. The BRC cannot
emphasize enough that this is the primary finding of this study and
therefore, this policy must guide all further finance related action by the
city.
•Remember, four percent revenue growth keeps you even.
2.New services must have a corresponding gain in revenue or productivity,
otherwise trade-offs will be required to add any new services.
•This is essentially a corollary to the first policy. There will always be
demand for new or improved municipal services. The current state of
affairs does not enable such enhancements without a corresponding
increase in revenue or productivity.
3. Councils should consider that new services and programs can obtain funding by
reducing or eliminating funding for existing services that may no longer serve
public needs or may be of lower priority.
This follows on policies 1 and 2, reminding decision-makers that new
services may not always require new sources of revenue. Existing
services and programs should periodically be measured against new
community needs and desires, and thus may be cut or reduced. Service
standards may also need to be re-examined over time.
4.Diversify, Diversify, Diversify
•The BRC debated establishing benchmarks to guide the percentage of
revenue that should come from any one source of revenue, but decided in
favor of the flexibility principle with an incontrovertible mandate to
diversify the city’s revenue sources.
3
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
32 of 59 58
•The percent of revenues received from retail sales taxes (currently
approximately 44 percent of the Expanded General Fund), should not
increase without a substantial rainy day fund to offset inevitable market
downturns.
5.Taxes and fees should be comparable to surrounding municipalities;
•While Boulder offers a unique quality of life, its location in a major
metropolitan area demands that its financial policies cannot be developed
in isolation.
•Taxes and fees need to be competitive with surrounding jurisdictions in
order to preserve an employment, retail, and residential base necessary for
a sustainable economy.
•Of particular note to the BRC was the comparison of sales tax rates and of
development excise taxes. Both have significant revenue generating
capabilities, but should exist in a comparable form so as not to negatively
affect the Boulder economy.
6. Maintenance of infrastructure should not be tied to an expiring revenue source;
•In reviewing expenditure issues associated with expiring sale taxes, the
BRC noted occasions where the sales tax was funding operation and
maintenance functions in addition to debt service payments.
•If the corresponding sales tax is not renewed, the program or service
associated with the capital improvement plus the capital improvement
itself will face a rapid decline.
•This represents a false promise to the voters that the ballot item really has
a sunset because there is not adequate growth in other revenue sources to
absorb the additional operational and maintenance needs of new capital
projects.
•Furthermore, such a condition places those service or program users in a
tenuous situation of losing a good that was seen as a perpetual service
enhancement at the time of the election.
7.Funding of personnel should not be tied to an expiring revenue source;
•For the reasons noted in policy 6.
8.Earmark funds only for capital purchases and construction if possible;
•For the reasons noted in policy 6.
9.Different capital financing methods are appropriate for different situations;
•Pay as you go most appropriate when:
o Funding maintenance and relatively minor capital projects. The
city’s FAM (Facilities and Asset Management) division currently
uses this mechanism, but does not fund major capital replacement.
o Low inflationary times
•Debt financing most appropriate when:
o Major capital construction projects or purchases
o High inflation situations
o Immediate or lost opportunities
o Very low financing costs
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
33 of 59 59
10. Revenue expansion through economic development opportunities may reduce the
need for future tax increases.
•Economic development remains a critical part of any financial future for
Boulder. Growing the (economic) pie will increase revenue into city
coffers. However the net financial impact on the city needs to be analyzed
to determine if such development also results in long-term impacts,
infrastructure needs, and expenditures.
•The fewer changes to the revenue structure there are, the greater the need
to increase the number and/or scale of the existing revenue producers.
11.Efficiency studies on targeted city operations can be a useful and important tool,
and can help justify tax increases for continuing services.
•While there is great confidence in the city government to exercise good
management of tax dollars as evidenced by regular approval of tax
increases, those increases have typically been for service enhancements.
•The increases associated with the BRC work are necessary to maintain
services at current service levels. This is a more difficult sell to the voters.
•Consequently, voters need increased assurances that operational
efficiencies have been maximized prior to increased contributions.
Budget Policies
12.Need to think of city as a single company – not multiple financial holdings;
•The BRC noted the highly segregated nature of the city’s finances. The
General Fund is seen as the parent holding company where the city
manager governs while special revenue funds are similar to subsidiaries
with considerable autonomy.
•There is great disparity among the financial health of different
departments as a result.
•While earmarking limits the flexibility of funds, the General Fund is often
looked to for shortfalls or erosion losses for programs that have earmarked
revenues creating a compounding effect. For example, a program with an
earmarked revenue source finds that energy costs have outpaced revenue
gain or the community desires a program enhancement. It is presumed
that rather than reallocating within the earmarked fund, the General Fund
is responsible for the shortfall.
•The BRC recommends greater emphasis in budgeting that looks at the
health and program delivery of the entire city rather than the individual
funds.
13.Reduce number of restricted funds to provide greater budgeting flexibility;
•For the reasons noted in policy 12.
14.No General Fund subsidies to restricted funds for desirable or discretionary
programs when General Fund essentials not funded;
•In order to bring greater balance to the financial health of different funds,
the General Fund should reduce or eliminate transfers to funds which are
operating desirable or discretionary programs and services until such time
as essential programs and services are funded.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
34 of 59 60
•Such a policy could have a dramatic effect on quality of life departments
such as parks, recreation, open space, and libraries, and therefore must be
executed with some consideration for preserving an acceptable level of
programs and services.
15.No General Fund subsidies to restricted funds whose reserves exceed established
benchmarks;
•For reasons noted in policy 12. However, restricted fund reserves may be
appropriately built up over their benchmarks when allocated for approved
capital purchases.
16.One-time revenues for one-time expenditures;
•The use of reserve funds represents dollars that do not have a
replenishment source. In other words, they are one-time dollars.
Consequently, they should only be spent on one-time expenditures.
17.Expose hidden subsidies either by fully charging taxes or fees and then making
use of a rebate tool, or by making such subsidies specific budgetary line-items in
order to completely capture the value of those discounts or waivers.
•In an effort to achieve the revenue principle of equity, taxes and fees often
have a sliding scale. In some occasions, fees are completely waived. For
instance, if an admission fee to a city program is completely waived, the
cost of the program is subsidized by the other users or tax payers in
general.
•Because the fee is never collected, it can be unclear how much of a
subsidy or community benefit is being provided.
18.Revenues in excess of certain bond obligations should go to the General Fund
regardless of the fund in which the debt obligation is originated.
•In some cases, the revenue source earmarked to pay debt service generates
more money than the debt payment. In those instances, the excess money
is maintained in the same fund and appropriated for related programs.
•This perpetuates the fund focused nature of our current budget structure
and does not encourage a more city-wide perspective to program and
service needs.
•This policy would enable the next most pressing appropriation for the
municipal corporation to be funded ahead of the next most pressing need
of the earmarked fund.
•Note that this approach is not appropriate for all funds, such as utilities,
instances where there are legal requirements for debt coverage, and Open
Space, which has ongoing authority to purchase land.
19.Consider consolidation of reserves across the corporation (minus enterprise
funds). Consider increasing the ability of using reserve funds for short-term
loans.
•Due to the segregated nature of the city’s finance structure, there are
reserves associated with each fund. Consequently, when the reserves of
the entire municipal corporation are viewed in a consolidated fashion, the
corporation looks quite healthy. That is, there is quite a bit of cash-on-
hand.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
35 of 59 61
•Such a financial situation posses a challenge when asking for increased
taxes or fees from the voters.
•The ability to implement this recommendation will be difficult due to the
restrictions governing the earmarked revenues and other legal or current
policy requirements found in some funds.
Land Use Policies
20.Conversion of commercial or industrial use land to residential must pay attention
to the Gallagher assessed valuation offset now and 30 years from now;
•As noted in Chapter 1, commercial and industrial property is assessed at
more than three times the rate of residential property. If the actual value
of the property remains constant in the conversion, the city will see a 73
percent reduction in property tax revenue from that parcel.
•Recent conversions in Boulder however, have typically seen an increase in
actual value of the new residential property greater than three times the
previous value. This is due to increased density and the consistent
increase in residential property values in Boulder over time.
21.A balance of retail types (value, comparison, specialty and convenience) should
be pursued unless revenue sharing can offset;
•Consistent with policy 4’s call for diversification, balance among the
categories of retail will produce a more stable revenue system.
•Boulder has a healthy representation of comparison and convenience retail
(see Appendix B for further explanation). Increasing value retail will
improve the diversity of this revenue stream.
•Unfortunately, the cost of real estate will likely impede the ability to
increase value retail. Value retail is able to offer goods at budget prices
due to volume sales. To achieve volume sales, the retail establishment
must have significant square footage. Acquiring that in an expensive real
estate market is prohibitive.
•Consequently, revenue sharing with regional municipalities who have
conditions conducive to value retail in exchange for sharing revenue from
retail categories that are healthy in Boulder may be a sufficient off-set.
Nexus Funding
22.We remain committed to policy number 8. However, if earmarking occurs the
following should be considered.
•The BRC recognizes that asking voters for increased taxes or fees is
difficult when a specific expenditure is not identified. In this type of
election, the voter cannot determine if they will see an improvement in
aspects of government they value.
•The BRC suggests one way to overcome this dichotomy is to identify a
minimum bundle of expenditures associated with the revenue increase, yet
disclose that this revenue source will generate in excess of that
expenditure which in turn will be used to maintain existing services.
•In addition, the earmarking of all or a portion of the revenues should be
sunsetted as soon as possible.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
36 of 59 62
23.Earmarking of revenues if a fee must have a nexus to the expenditure (such as a
transportation maintenance fee for transportation).
•When earmarking is necessary, every attempt should be made to identify a
clear nexus, or benefit to those who are paying the tax or fee.
24.Earmarked revenue sources must be able to participate in rebate programs.
•BRC’s study of the financial system revealed that earmarked revenue
sources often do not participate in rebate programs offered by the city.
•For example, the city collects a 3.41 percent sales or use tax. The city
offers to rebate this tax for an economic vitality or charitable reason.
Earmarked sales taxes such as Transportation, Parks and Recreation, or
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) are not permitted to rebate the
amount because the expenditure is not permitted in accordance with its
enabling ordinance or tax passed by the voters. Therefore, the General
Fund must pay the full rebate creating a disproportionate burden.
•This leads to an imbalance in the financial health of the various funds.
Legislative Agenda
25.Monitor changes to TABOR and Gallagher amendments for negative impacts to
the local revenue structure.
26.Oppose state increases to sales tax or property taxes (or other traditional local
revenue taxes) without sharing income tax locally.
•As the state grapples with its own revenue issues, there will be greater
pressure to tap revenue tools traditionally the domain of local
governments.
•Recognizing there is an overall maximum tax burden that can be absorbed
by the populace, such utilization of traditional local revenue sources by the
state will diminish the city’s ability to address new or changing financial
needs.
27.Repeal the constitutional prohibition on Real Estate Transfer Taxes (RETT).
28. Repeal prohibition of collecting sales tax on Internet transactions.
29.Modify gasoline tax to be a percentage rather than flat rate.
•The gasoline tax is collected at the state level and redistributed to local
governments through the Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF).
•The gasoline tax is a fixed amount regardless of the price per gallon.
•As the price per gallon of gasoline increases, the amount of gasoline sold
often decreases.
•Because the rate is fixed, the amount of revenue generated by this tax
decreases. In order to maintain the transportation infrastructure that has
already been purchased based upon current or previous utilization, the
decrease in revenue negatively impacts ability to pay for infrastructure
associated with transportation.
30.Pass enabling legislation for admission tax on state college events.
•This is significant revenue potential for the city of Boulder.
•The University of Colorado is not required to collect the Boulder
admission tax on its events. This presents an equity issue as patrons to
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
37 of 59 63
these events utilize Boulder infrastructure to get to and from the event
incurring an expenditure impact that all Boulder taxpayers must cover.
•Furthermore, this tax is a pass through from the patrons and does not result
in diminished revenue for the university (assuming the admission tax has
no effect on the price elasticity of the ticket).
31.Pass enabling legislation for a local income tax.
•A pure income tax would provide greater flexibility in addressing equity,
regressivity, and collection issues.
This collection of policies is both specific and broad. The implementation of many of
these will likely require further policy and administrative discussion among those
respective branches of the city government. When in place, the BRC believes this will
create an environment that is most conducive to a stable and productive revenue
structure.
TAXES and FEES
Appendix G outlines approximately 70 different revenue options the Blue Ribbon
Commission explored for the purposes of solving this problem. While many tools were
feasible, the BRC developed a set of criteria to determine which taxes and fees were most
appropriate for this situation. Those criteria included the following:
•Stabilization – would this revenue source contribute towards improving
the stabilization of the city’s revenue system?
•Gap – Would the revenue source contribute towards eliminating the gap
associated with the expanded General Fund?
•Who Pays – Who bears the burden of this tax or fee?
•Revenue Potential – The scale of this problem is significant. Will the
revenue generated by the possible tax or fee generate an amount necessary
to make a noticeable impact on the problem?
•Issues and Equity – The BRC was challenged to think beyond traditional
revenue sources. Consequently, there were cases in which the revenue
proposal was not legal, administratively impossible or totally inequitable.
This category was designed to ask, can the issues be overcome?
Before reviewing the list, two important items need to be noted. First, the magnitude of
this problem is unlike any Boulder has faced. If the city was to address the $135 million
problem with a sales tax increase, it would require an increase of 1.7% in the rate (in
addition to renewing the existing expanded General Fund sales taxes). That’s a 50
percent increase by 2030.
Second, these listed revenue tools do not take into consideration additional tools that
could be considered after further analysis and discussion. For example, sales taxes on
services; Open Space Mountain Parks (OSMP) sales tax capacity; regional revenue
sharing, special districts, and market based sponsorships. A brief summary of each of
these follows.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
38 of 59 64
Expanding the sales tax base to include some services
As discussed in Chapter 1, sales tax is currently assessed on durable goods. Durable
goods are a smaller percentage of personal consumption and have a relatively flat
inflation rate. This diminishes the productivity of the sales tax. Conversely, services
represent approximately 60 percent of personal income and have an inflation rate greater
than four percent. Sales tax on services is also currently permitted by law. The principle
reason for not imposing such a fee is that services, and the vendors who provide them, are
generally pretty mobile. If Boulder unilaterally imposed a service tax on accounting
services, CPA’s could easily relocate their office to Louisville and continue to provide
the service to Boulder patrons.
However, there are services that have less mobility or that entail small transaction
amounts or sensitivity to a convenience factor. These include landscape services that are
performed at a Boulder location. They also might include dry cleaning service or a barber
shop. The BRC suggest that this complex and controversial issue be further analyzed,
perhaps at a more regional level.
Expiring Open Space Sales Taxes in 2018 and 2019
Another important revenue tool that is not immediately considered in the solution
recommendations are the two sales tax increments dedicated to OSMP. The first is 0.33
percent and is due to expire Dec. 31, 2018. The second is 0.15 percent and set to expire
Dec. 31, 2019. If these two sales taxes were combined, renewed and dedicated to the
General Fund, they would generate $12.3 million in 2008 dollars. This tax capacity is
extremely significant and the BRC noted its importance to the financial health of the city
in the outlying years of this study.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
39 of 59 65
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
199
7
199
8
1999
2000
2001
200
2
200
3
200
4
2005
Boulder Erie Lafayette Longmont Louisville
Lyons Nederland Superior Ward
Regional Revenue Sharing
Another important non-traditional revenue source with considerable potential is regional
revenue sharing of sales tax. The city of Boulder continues to be a participant in the
Boulder County Consortium of Cities’ Revenue Stability initiative. This group is
exploring revenue sharing models that would stabilize some of the cyclical effects of
sales tax revenues by sharing them across the region. When examining the sales tax
growth and decline across Boulder County (in the chart below), we see opposite peaks
and valleys between cities.
Percent Change In Sales Tax & Use Tax Collection By City
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
40 of 59 66
11%13%10%10%3%-1% -1%7%4%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Percent Change In Sales Tax & Use Tax Collection as a Region
As sales tax from Boulder’s Crossroads Mall was declining and eventually completely
eliminated, Broomfield’s Flatiron’s Mall was rising. As sales tax revenue associated with
Louisville’s Home Depot is tapering off, Boulder’s Home Depot is growing. This pattern
can be seen in other areas and speaks to the regional nature of retail sales. Consumers are
fully willing and capable of driving to get the products they want at the price they desire.
This has land use implications as well as competitive undertones that can diminish the
overall productivity of sales tax (see Chapter 1 for a more detailed analysis). The BRC
recommends continued participation in this endeavor with an emphasis upon diversifying
revenues based upon retail type, such as value retail.
Special Districts
A revenue tool set aside by the BRC for addressing the gap was the use of special
districts. Special districts are commonly used in Colorado for Libraries, Parks and
Recreation, and Fire Departments. These districts primarily rely upon property taxes and
therefore have potential for revenue diversification and long term growth. However,
there are significant control issues associated with districts that were outside the scope of
the BRC. Control issues refer to the fact that special districts are not governed by the City
Council and therefore may be less responsive or create additional bureaucracies for
Boulder residents. Given the regional nature of library services and the subsidization of
unincorporated residents by municipal residents, this may be a candidate for special
district consideration in the future.
Market Based Sponsorships
The last viable revenue tool not considered in the immediate package of revenue
recommendations is the use of market based sponsorship. Market based sponsorships are
best described through examples. This is the naming rights on public facilities. It is the
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
41 of 59 67
selling of signage on bus stops and park benches. These had very little appeal to the BRC
and would require significant policy changes by the City Council. Consequently, it was
maintained in the inventory, but not used in the package of solutions.
In terms of the taxes and fees that were seriously considered by the BRC, here is a
brief overview:
De-Brucing
As described in Chapter 1, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) is a Colorado
Constitutional Amendment that was passed in 1992. This amendment limits revenue
growth to CPI plus new growth. Boulder voters have removed that limitation on the sales
tax and 2 mills of the nearly twelve mills before the credit in property tax. As a result, a
mill levy credit is calculated each year and for the 2007 tax year, the credit is equal to
23% of the total tax rate. As also noted earlier in this document, housing prices have been
rising an average of 6% per year for the last 20 years. However, revenue from property
taxes has lagged that trend due to the revenue limitations imposed by TABOR.
The commission felt this was the most viable revenue tool to reduce the gap due to its
revenue potential and proven political acceptability in Boulder and other governmental
jurisdictions. A fully de-Bruced property tax would generate $6.7 million in 2008.
Because this would increase property taxes paid to the city by approximately 30% when
fully implemented, the BRC suggested a phased approach in which one-quarter of the tax
is de-Bruced every two years. The phased-in approach also aligns with the “stair step”
approach necessary to close the gap as described earlier in this document As an
example, a complete De-Brucing of city property taxes would require a residential
property owner with a house valued at $500,000 to pay an additional $111 per year.
Development Excise Tax (DET)
The Development Excise Tax (DET) was another highly viable tax or fee. This is a
revenue tool designed to recover the cost of growth associated with new residential and
commercial development. The philosophy is that a new residential owner receives the
benefit of existing streets, utility infrastructure, parks and schools that previous tax payers
paid to create. Moreover, much of the infrastructure was oversized to handle some future
growth. Therefore, it is necessary for the new development to pay its share of this
infrastructure. In order to accomplish this, a development excise tax is imposed. This is
also referred in many communities as an impact fee or, as in the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado as an Adequate Facilities Charge. Regardless of the term, the mechanism is
designed to facilitate growth paying its own way.
Based upon a study done in 1998, the DET was significantly below the full cost recovery
of new growth. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends an immediate
commissioning of a new study to determine the full cost of recovery and/or a study of
comparable fees in adjacent municipalities. The BRC also recommends consideration of
assessing the DET against residential expansions, which are currently exempted. While
this revenue tool can be imposed as a fee and therefore adopted by ordinance, Boulder
has historically adopted these fees as a tax with voter approval. This provides the
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
42 of 59 68
greatest resistance to legal challenges, but it may compete with other tax initiatives
designed to eliminate the gap that are on the same ballot.
New Sales & Use Taxes
The sales and use tax is a very popular revenue tool because it generates substantial sums
of money at a very low rate. For the city of Boulder, a 0.10% sales tax (a penny on a $10
purchase) generates 2.5 million dollars each year. The majority of that revenue comes
from non-residents and employers. It also has a well established administrative system
for collection and audits. Lastly, there is some discretion associated with the sales tax.
In other words, a person can choose not to buy the product and avoid the charge.
Therefore, despite its decreasing productivity over the planning horizon, this revenue tool
is kept in the mix as a potential tool.
New Property Tax
The property tax is commonly considered to be widely disliked by citizens. This revenue
source, however, is extremely stable and for Boulder has the greatest potential to grow at
a rate comparable or greater than expenditure inflation. Moreover, property taxes in
Colorado are not heavily relied upon by local governments and are therefore considerably
lower than their out-of-state comparables. For those moving to Boulder from out-of-
state, this lower rate is often remarked upon. The BRC sees that as available tax
capacity. Conversely, the property tax is heavily relied upon by counties and school
districts as their principle form of revenue. Therefore, increased property tax rates by
cities diminish tax capacity these other entities may need and cannot find in other revenue
tools. For the city of Boulder, a one mill increase that is De-Bruced will currently
generate approximately $2.4 million dollars in revenue and would require a residential
property owner with a house valued at $500,000 to pay an extra $40 a year.
Occupational Privilege Tax (a.k.a. Head Tax)
Municipalities in Colorado are not permitted to collect an income tax. That right is
reserved for the state. However, cities may impose an occupational privilege tax (OPT).
This is also known as a head tax because of the way it is imposed. Specifically, the OPT,
in its pure form, imposes a flat dollar amount on each and every employee working in the
municipality. In addition, the employer must pay an equivalent tax per each employee
they employ. For example, if an employer had a hundred employees and the OPT was $2
per month, the employer would need to deduct from each employee $2 per month and
match it with $2 for each employee, for a total of $400 each month. In other words, it is
a tax per head rather than a percent of income.
The OPT is in place in Aurora, Denver, Glendale, Sheridan and Greenwood Village.
While the tax cannot vary based upon income level (in other words, the tax is $5 for those
making less than $100,000 and $5 for those making more than $100,000), a minimum
income threshold can be imposed upon which no one making less than that amount can
be charged the tax. For the City of Denver, that amount is $500 per month. For
Greenwood Village that amount is $250/month.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
43 of 59 69
Previous examinations of this tax in Boulder have identified three significant concerns: 1)
it places Boulder businesses at a competitive disadvantage to those in the region;
2)governments do not have to pay the employer portion and Boulder has a significant
government employment base; and 3) the impact on non-profits. Consequently, the BRC
considered this proposal assuming only employees pay the tax and not employers. In this
scenario, Boulder businesses would not have to pay it, but simply collect it from their
employees.
This revenue source is anticipated to generate approximately $1 million for every $1 OPT
per employee per month. This is a very steady revenue stream and is based upon the
number of employees working within the city. The fluctuations in job growth have some
volatility, but not as much as typically experienced with sales taxes.
Accommodation Tax
This is a tax assessed upon overnight stays in Boulder. It is often referred to as a
hotel/motel tax as that is the most common place it is assessed. For each one percent
increase in the accommodation tax, a corresponding $500,000 is projected to be
generated.
This tax has been partially (9% of the total revenues received) redirected to the Boulder
Convention and Visitors Bureau to help perpetuate tourism in Boulder. While the city
does not gain the entire accommodation tax, full hotels mean visitors in town spending
money on sales tax eligible goods. This is also why this tax is considered a good
candidate for funding a community conference center.
Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)
This is a tax imposed upon the sale of real estate. Think of it as a sales tax. With the
adoption of TABOR in 1992, new RETT’s were prohibited by constitutional amendment.
Therefore, those who had this tax in place could continue to impose it, but no other
jurisdiction could add it even if the voters of that community approved. This is a
particularly common tax in many Colorado ski towns. Real estate is commonly bought
and sold in the second home market prevalent in these communities. Moreover, the value
of these homes is quite high. Therefore, this is a very productive revenue tool.
Due to its constitutional prohibition, the BRC did not endeavor to determine the revenue
potential of this tool. However, because the tax is associated with real estate and
residential real estate values in Boulder have been growing an average of 6% per year
over the past twenty years, it is a prime candidate for a structural solution. Moreover,
there is support for going to the Colorado voters to repeal this prohibition among many
Colorado mountain towns who did not have a RETT in place prior to 1992. Therefore,
BRC recommends this issue be placed on the city’s legislative agenda for exploring and
building coalitions.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
44 of 59 70
Food Tax Differential
The Boulder sales tax is 3.41% in 2008. However, the Boulder sales tax rate on prepared
food—that is, food at restaurants—is 3.56% or another 0.15% higher. During its work on
this project, the BRC learned that the city and county of Denver has a prepared food sales
tax rate of 4.00%. This is 0.44% higher than the city of Boulder. While consumption of
prepared food is fairly volatile, the tax upon it is fairly inelastic and paid by a substantial
number of non-residents. The BRC therefore noted this revenue tool, although small, as
a good candidate for consideration, although it has been discussed as a possible source of
revenue for a conference center.
Transportation Maintenance Fee
This is a fee similar to a storm drainage utility fee. It is established to maintain city
streets, bike lanes, medians and sidewalks. Maintenance functions include repaving,
pothole repair, seal coating among others. The fee could be assessed based upon land use
type and size. The BRC suggests that it be a flat rate for residential, and based on traffic
generation for commercial/industrial properties. A summary of how the fee works and
the corresponding rates used for these purposes can be found in Appendix K. It is a fee
and therefore adopted by ordinance, however, it could be adopted as a tax by the voters.
Moreover, it would likely be assessed on the utility bill. The city of Fort Collins
considered this fee several years ago. It was legally challenged. The issue went to the
Colorado Supreme Court and was found to be a valid revenue tool for Colorado
municipalities. Since then, the city of Loveland has implemented such a fee but the city
of Fort Collins has not. Using the rates considered by Fort Collins, this fee would raise
approximately $2.3 million a year in 2007 dollars.
Parks Maintenance Fee
Similar to the Transportation Maintenance Fee, it is a fee that could be assessed on utility
bills to pay for the maintenance of existing parks. Unlike the transportation maintenance
fee, this fee would only be assessed upon residential properties due to the nexus between
park use and residency. Based upon rates considered by Fort Collins, this revenue tool
would generate approximately $900,000 a year. A full description of the fee can be
found in Appendix K.
Increase the Number of Sales Tax Auditors
One revenue tool that received consideration by the BRC was increasing the number of
sales tax auditors. The philosophy is that before asking for new money, collect the
dollars that are already authorized. In the city of Boulder, each auditor has historically
generated approximately $300,000 in revenue. As a result of this discussion, the Finance
department requested an additional sales tax auditor in the FY 2008 budget and it was
awarded. The increased revenue was used to offset erosion caused by inflation that is
associated with existing expenditures.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
45 of 59 71
Below is a table listing those taxes or fees that were seriously considered by the BRC
with a projected amount each would generate in 2008 dollars:
Revenue Option Unit $ Generated/yr $ in 2008
De-Bruce Remaining Property Tax 2.78 mills $6.7M $6.7M
Development Excise Tax (DET) at 1998 Tischler Rec Rates = $3 - 6M
Sales and Use Tax 0.10% $2.5M N/A
Property Tax 1 mill $2.4M N/A
Occupational Privilege Tax (Head Tax)
1$/ee/mo and
$1/er/mo $1.6M @ $5 = $8.0 M
Accommodation Tax 1% $500K N/A
Real Estate Transfer Tax 1% $7.5M N/A
Increase food sales tax differential rate 1% $2.7M
@ 0.44 =
$1.4M
Transportation Maintenance Fee
residential unit
& commercial
trip generation @ Ft Collins rate = $2.3 M
Parks Maintenance Fee residential unit @ Ft Collins rate = $900,000
Increase number of Auditors 1 FTE $300,000 N/A
In summary, these policies, taxes and fees were identified by the BRC as having the
greatest potential for eliminating the gap, increasing revenue stabilization, and perhaps
achieving programs and services recommended in various departmental master plans.
How they are packaged to accomplish these financial challenges is set forth in Chapter 4.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
46 of 59 72
REVENUE SCENARIOS
The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) presented its findings that
outlined the long-term financial problem to the City Council on April
10, 2007 (see Chapter 1). Subsequent to that meeting, the commission
focused upon developing solutions to sustain the financial future of the
city of Boulder (Chapter 2). These numerous meetings explored
various revenue tools that were then developed into the most plausible and sufficient
instruments (Chapter 3).
When the selected revenue tools were applied to eliminating the gap predicted for 2030,
plus funding essential and desirable items associated with various departmental master
plans, the scale of tax and fee increases was overwhelming and politically infeasible.
Consequently, the BRC reduced the solution time horizon to 2017 in order to address the
most pressing sales tax renewals and tackle some structural diversity issues. The BRC
recognizes a 2017 time horizon is half of what was charged to the commission. However,
the packages of sample scenarios set forth in this chapter, plus the ever changing
economic and political environment of public finance, necessitate regular monitoring of
the situation. In short, the BRC believes that this document should serve as the
foundation of an ongoing comprehensive financial plan. It is similar to, and perhaps
could be incorporated into the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). It could be
a comprehensive financial plan that would provide a long-range revenue and expenditure
forecast, an examination of the productivity and appropriateness of various revenue tools,
and a matching of anticipated expenditures against revenues that are available or requires
generation. In that sense, the BRC puts forth the following options.
First, generating sufficient revenue to eliminate the gap was identified as the first priority
of the BRC recommendations due to its focus on providing essential services that the
Boulder community already relies upon. For shorthand classification, the series of
recommendations to eliminate the gap over the next ten years is characterized as the
Basic Package. An important element of the gap is recognizing its annual growth. In
other words, the expanded General Fund (GF) gap in 2030 is $135 million, but how much
is it each year? Knowing this dictates the timing associated with the various options
presented. The graph below identifies the gap amounts for each year between 2009 and
2017.
4
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
47 of 59 73
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
50,000,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Short-range Funding Gap by Year
The reader will note that the growth is not linear. This is due to the expiring sales taxes
over this planning period. Of absolute essence to the financial feasibility of closing the
gap is the renewal of three existing sales taxes: the 0.38 percent which expires in 2011,
the 0.15 percent sales tax that expires in 2012; and the 0.25 percent sales tax that expires
in 2015. All of these sales taxes must be renewed and consideration should be given to
not earmarking the renewed taxes. Programs and services not in the General Fund which
currently rely upon these sales taxes will continue to require a transfer to their appropriate
account. However, putting all money from these sources in the General Fund will provide
the greatest degree of flexibility to address priorities on a citywide basis.
Again referring to the BRC charge, the commission offers a more general Enhanced
Package meant to “accomplish public priorities while allowing flexibility to meet the
varied and dynamic needs of the municipal corporation in the next 20 years.” The
enhanced package looks at funding essential and desirable programs and services found
within the Action Plans of the following Strategic or Master Plans (see Appendix F for an
explanation of Business Plan terminology):
•Municipal Court
•Economic Vitality
•Facility and Asset Management
(FAM)
•Fire
•Housing and Human Services (HHS)
•Library
•Parks and Recreation (P&R)
•Planning and Development Services
(P&DS)
•Police
•Transportation
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
48 of 59 74
For a more detailed listing of what programs and services are incorporated in the
Enhanced Package, see the corresponding section that begins on page 52.
BASE PACKAGE
Goal: Provision of the same bundle of services, plus the identified critical deficiencies
(described below), plus an increment for growth in population and employment,
at the same service standard in 2017 as was provided in FY 2008 with less
volatility in the revenue stream. This package is synonymous with eliminating
the 2017 gap.
Anticipated Gap in year 2017: For the expanded General Fund (see Appendix J)
• $44,000,000 assuming the expiration of the .38 and .15 GF Tax, and .25 P&R
• $18,000,000 assuming the .38, .15 and .25 are renewed
Highlighted Gap Expenditures: The base package is focused upon accomplishing
revenue diversity and curing the erosion that occurs when revenues grow at three
percent per year but expenditures grow at four percent per year. Most of the
reason that expenditures increase at four percent is due to the inflation of
municipal inputs (personnel, energy, asphalt and cement), but there are also some
increases due to population and job growth accounted for in the gap. In order to
provide the same bundle of services in 2017 as was provided in 2008 at the same
service standard, the ratio of certain services to levels of population/use needs to
be maintained (for example, maintaining the number of police officers per 1,000
people).
Funding the gap also provides revenue for four Identified Critical Deficiencies
(ICD) without changing the overall service standard. In other words, there are
capital or core operational items in place in FY2008, but no funding mechanism
to replace them as they wear out and need to be replaced. The ICDs are:
• Develop a fire apparatus replacement mechanism to replace the vehicles that
are currently in the stations when their useful life expires;
• Develop a software replacement mechanism to replace software that is
currently in use to operate the city when the software exceeds its life
expectancy and/or the vendor no longer supports it (ex: financial software,
human resources software, police records software);
• Increase FAM (Facility and Asset Management) fees to fund 50 year
replacement and ongoing maintenance of most existing facilities (see the 2005
FAM Master Plan for additional detail); and,
• Increase funding to match the inflation costs associated with energy and fuel.
Recommended Policies: The commission recommends a series of policies that embrace
best practices, principles of a stable revenue stream, and identified efficiencies that
should reduce the gap. Those policies are listed with brief explanations in Chapter 3. The
BRC finds these policies a compliment to the revenue tools identified and essential to a
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
49 of 59 75
successful long term solution to these financial challenges. Recognizing that the BRC
did not have the time, nor the knowledge to understand all the intricacies and challenges
associated with implementing these policies, the BRC still believes that the adoption will
reduce the gap. Consequently, the BRC recommends under funding the basic package by
$1 million as an incentive to accomplish these recommendations. To make the transition
of these policies from paper to practice, the BRC encourages council and staff to set to
work immediately tackling policy implementation.
Revenue Tool Options: The Blue Ribbon Commission presents three revenue tool sample
scenarios for council’s consideration in addressing the gap. These options identify each
revenue tool recommended (an explanation of the tool can be found in Chapter 3), the year
it is recommended to take effect (so as to correlate with the anticipated gap at that time),
and the amount it is anticipated to generate in the year 2017 (the recommended planning
horizon). Renewal of the three sales taxes (General Fund .38 and .15 along with the Parks
and Recreation .25) is the highest recommended revenue tool action of the BRC. For this
reason, these three revenue tools are found in each of the options presented and account for
60 percent of the revenue generated. These taxes cannot be taken for granted. However,
because they are already in place, little analysis was afforded to them in these options.
In order for council and the public to properly analyze each sample scenario, the BRC has
provided a pro-con subsection, a burden analysis and a diversification analysis. The
burden analysis subsection examines who would be impacted by the recommended taxes
or fees. The burden analysis for each scenario has been completed to indicate who will
bear what portion of the incremental burden from any new tax, fee or other type of
revenue that may be considered.4 Some of the revenues are fairly straight forward while
others required making reasonable assumptions. This analysis segregates the burden into
three categories of taxpayers: residents, visitors (includes non-resident sales taxpayers
and non-resident employees) and employers. The diversity analysis speaks to the BRC
charge to create a “balanced and stable revenue stream.” Of principle concern will be the
option’s ability to reduce dependency on sales tax and implement revenue tools that have
a better opportunity to inflate at the expenditure rate.
Lastly, the BRC is recommending the implementation of de-Brucing the full city of
Boulder property tax and increasing the development excise tax (DET) by a small amount
pending further study. Both of these revenue tools have been proven to be politically
feasible in Boulder, capable of growing at four percent or greater each year, decrease
dependence upon sales tax, and generate a meaningful amount to close the gap.
Consequently, in addition to renewal of the three aforementioned sales taxes, de-
4 While it may be helpful to have a burden analysis of the current revenues received by the expanded
general fund, this is a very complex exercise and requires additional detailed analysis. Current revenues
are not based on incremental revenue but on revenue structures that have evolved over the decades that the
city has been in existence. There are well over one hundred individual lines items that would have to be
analyzed and there was not time to complete an analysis of this size. Due to the number and types of
revenues and the large amount of assumptions that would have to be made, it is questionable that the final
product would be of the quality desired. In the end, it was determined this analysis was not essential for
completing the Blue Ribbon Commission report.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
50 of 59 76
Brucing the property tax and increasing the DET are highly recommended by the
BRC.
Sample Scenario A
Sample Scenario A Year Effective 2017 Amount/Yr
Renew GF .38 Sales Tax 2012 $13,000,000
Renew GF .15 Sales Tax 2013 $ 5,100,000
Renew P&R .25 Sales Tax 2016 $ 8,500,000
De-Bruce over 6 years 2009-2015 $ 9,300,000
Increase DET $500K 2009 $ 600,000
Increase Sales Tax .10 2010 $ 3,400,000
Institute Trans Maint Fee 2009 $ 2,900,000
Institute Park Maint Fee 2009 $ 1,100,000
Total New $43,900,000
Total Minus Renewals $17,300,000
Pros and Cons
Pros
•52 percent of sales tax paid by non-residents or employers;
•De-Brucing may be more politically acceptable than other taxes since
Boulderites have de-Bruced some of the property tax already and supported
de-Brucing the county’s property tax, and phased in to reduce impact;
•Increase dependency on property tax which has greatest potential to grow at
four percent per year;
•DET revenue currently under market and full cost recovery rates; and
•Fees proven legally valid.
Cons
•Could require eight ballot questions to implement; that number could be
reduced to five if council implements DET as a fee, transportation
maintenance and park maintenance fees by ordinance rather than by election;
•Increases the sales tax rate; and
•Asks for park maintenance fee on top of P&R sales tax renewal.
Burden Analysis
Not counting the renewals, 20 percent of this sample scenario continues to rely upon
sales tax. The proposed sales tax increases generate about $3.4 million and would likely
continue the 48/25/27 split among residents/visitors/employers in payment. The other 80
percent of the revenue generated by this proposal would be associated with de-Brucing,
increasing the DET, and imposing transportation maintenance and parks maintenance
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
51 of 59 77
fees which fall on property owners in some form or fashion. De-Brucing property tax
would result in approximately a 30 percent increase in city property tax revenues. In
addition, property tax is a more stable revenue source than sales taxes and is projected to
grow 4% each year.
The maintenance fees generate the equivalent of 1.66 mills if they were property tax.
Property tax burden is split 45 percent residential and 55 percent businesses in
accordance with the Gallagher amendment. The DET is assessed on new development,
of which 80 percent is historically associated with residential development. So while the
DET burden would fall on residents and employers, it would be self-imposed as the
property owner chooses development. In summary, the burden of the new revenue would
breakdown as follows: 51 percent resident; 5 percent visitor; and 44 percent employer.
Revenue Diversity
2008 Revenue Sources - $149 million
Includes: General Fund, .15 & .25 Cent Sales Tax,
Planning & Development Services, Library, Recreation
Activity, and Transportation Funds
Fees
12.7%
Sales Tax
44.2%
All Other
Revenue
21.2%
Other
Taxes
9.7%
Property Tax
12.2%
2017 Revenue Sources - $215 million
Includes: General Fund, .15 & .25 Cent Sales Tax,
Planning & Development Services, Library, Recreation
Activity, and Transportation Funds
Fees
13.4%
Sales Tax
41.7%
ll Other
Revenue
19.4%
Other
Taxes
9.1%
Property Tax
16.3%
These pie charts illustrate the revenue diversity of the 2008 revenue system versus the
diversity of the revenue system in the year 2017 under Sample Scenario A. This would
decrease reliance on sales tax somewhat and shift that dependence towards property taxes
and fees. Both of these latter revenue tools are more likely to grow at an inflation rate
similar to expenditures. Of the three options, this one has the greatest continued reliance
on sales tax.
Sample Scenario B
Takes Sample Scenario A and trades the new sales tax for a one mill increase in the
property tax; increases DET such that at least $1 million more is generated in 2009;
imposes an increase in the sales tax differential on prepared food, deletes maintenance
fees, and increases the accommodation tax with the assumption that all new dollars go to
the General Fund.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
52 of 59 78
Sample Scenario B Year Effective 2017 Amount/Yr
Renew GF .38 Sales Tax 2012 $13,000,000
Renew GF .15 Sales Tax 2013 $5,100,000
Renew P&R .25 Sales Tax 2016 $8,500,000
De-Bruce over 6 years 2009-2015 $9,300,000
Increase DET ($1M) 2009 $1,200,000
Increased Prepared Food Diff .044 2009 $1,900,000
Increase Property Tax 1 mill 2010 $3,000,000
Increase Accommodations Tax (2.0%) 2011 $1,300,000
Total New $43,300,000
Total Minus Renewals $16,700,000
Pros and Cons
Pros
•Brings prepared food sales tax differential in line with Denver;
•Accommodation tax still below Colorado tourist towns;
•No transportation or parks fee;
•De-Brucing may be more politically acceptable than other taxes since
Boulderites have de-Bruced some of the property tax already and supported
de-Brucing the county’s property tax, and could be phased in to reduce
impact;
•Increase dependency on property tax which has greatest potential to grow at
four percent per year; and
•DET revenue under market and full cost recovery.
Cons
•Would require eight ballot questions to implement; that number could be
reduced to seven if council implements DET fee by ordinance rather than by
election;
•Increases dependency upon volatile sales (prepared food) and accommodation
tax;
•Increased accommodation tax not shared with Boulder Convention and
Visitors Bureau (BCVB); this tax was also eyed as a revenue source for the
conference center;
•Property tax one of most disliked taxes and competes with county and school
district; and
•Food differential a candidate for Conference Center funding.
Burden Analysis
De-Brucing property tax would result in approximately a 30 percent increase in city
property tax revenues. In addition, property tax is a more stable revenue source than
sales taxes and is projected to grow 4% each year.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
53 of 59 79
This option also calls for a one mill increase in the property tax. Again, it is assumed that
the property tax burden is split 45 percent on residential and 55 percent on employers.
This proposal also includes a meaningful bump in the DET that would be borne by
property owners who develop their property. The other two revenue tools (sales tax
differential on prepared food and accommodation tax dedicated to the General Fund)
would fall mostly on visitors. In summary, the revenue burden would break down as
follows: 44 percent resident; 11 percent visitor; and 45 percent employer.
Revenue Diversity
2008 Revenue Sources - $149 million
Includes: General Fund, .15 & .25 Cent Sales Tax, Planning
& Development Services, Library, Recreation Activity, and
Transportation Funds
Fees
12.7%
Sales Tax
44.2%
All Other
Revenue
21.2%
Other
Taxes
9.7%
Property Tax
12.2%
2017 Revenue Sources - $215 million
Includes: General Fund, .15 & .25 Cent Sales Tax, Planning
& Development Services, Library, Recreation Activity, and
Transportation Funds
Fees
11.6%
Property Tax
17.7%
Other
Taxes
10.0%
ll Other
Revenue
19.5%Sales Tax
41.2%
These pie charts illustrate the revenue diversity of the 2008 revenue system versus the
diversity of the revenue system in the year 2017 with Sample Scenario B. Sample
Scenario B would decrease reliance on sales tax somewhat and shift that reliance almost
entirely towards property tax. While this has great potential to keep pace with the
inflation rate of expenditures, it also results in the burden being borne more by residents
and employers.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
54 of 59 80
Sample Scenario C
Transfer as much burden to visitors and new residents as possible while maintaining the
de-Brucing revenue tool.
Sample Scenario C Year Effective 2017 Amount/Yr
Renew GF .38 Sales Tax 2012 $13,000,000
Renew GF .15 Sales Tax 2013 $5,100,000
Renew P&R .25 Sales Tax 2016 $8,500,000
De-Bruce over 6 years 2009-2015 $9,300,000
Increase DET ($500K) 2009 $600,000
Increased Prepared Food Diff .044 2009 $1,900,000
Increase Accommodations Tax (2.0%) 2014 $1,300,000
Head Tax $4 Total 2010 $4,000,000
Total New $43,700,000
Total Minus Renewals $17,100,000
Pros and Cons
Pros
•Brings prepared food sales tax differential in line with Denver;
•Implements a head tax which is borne 50 percent by non-residents;
•Accommodation tax still below Colorado tourist towns;
•No transportation or parks fee;
•De-Brucing may be more politically acceptable than other taxes since
Boulderites have de-Bruced some of the property already and supported de-
Brucing the county’s property tax, and it can be phased in to reduce the
impact;
•Increased dependency on property tax which has greatest potential to grow at
four percent per year; and
•DET revenue under market and full cost recovery.
Cons
•Would require eight ballot questions to implement; that number could be
reduced to seven if council implements DET fee by ordinance rather than by
election;
•Increases dependency upon volatile sales (prepared food) and accommodation
tax;
•Increased accommodation tax not shared with BCVB; was also eyed as a
revenue source for the conference center;
•Food differential a candidate for Conference Center funding;
•Head tax creates a competitive disadvantage for Boulder employers since not
imposed elsewhere in Boulder or Broomfield County; and
•50 percent of head tax borne by in city residents.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
55 of 59 81
Burden Analysis
This proposal takes Sample Scenario B and exchanges the increased mill levy for a head
tax that would be completely borne by the employees. Boulder’s employment base is
approximately 50 percent residents and 50 percent non-residents. This shifts the burden
accordingly and imposes no burden directly upon the employer with the exception of
collection obligations. De-Brucing property tax would result in approximately a 30
percent increase in city property tax revenues. In addition, property tax is a more stable
revenue source than sales taxes and is projected to grow 4% each year. The DET remains
in the mix but at a lower level. While 80 percent of this tax is borne by residents, it is
typically borne by new residents. In this instance, the burden is shared: 44 percent
resident; 25 percent visitor; and 31 percent employer.
Revenue Diversity
2008 Revenue Sources - $149 million
Includes: General Fund, .15 & .25 Cent Sales Tax, Planning
& Development Services, Library, Recreation Activity, and
Transportation Funds
Fees
12.7%
Sales Tax
44.2%
All Other
Revenue
21.2%
Other
Taxes
9.7%
Property Tax
12.2%
2017 Revenue Sources - $215 million
Includes: General Fund, .15 & .25 Cent Sales Tax, Planning
& Development Services, Library, Recreation Activity, and
Transportation Funds
Fees
11.6%
Sales Tax
41.1%
ll Other
Revenue
19.4%
Other
Taxes
11.6%
Property Tax
16.3%
These pie charts illustrate the revenue diversity of the 2008 revenue system versus the
diversity of the revenue system in the year 2017 under Sample Scenario C This would
decrease reliance on sales tax to the smallest portion of any option. That reliance would
be transferred to property tax and the “Other Taxes” categories. While the property tax is
likely to grow at a similar inflation rate to expenditures, the head tax will only grow
based on the number of new jobs (according to the BCVP, jobs are anticipated to grow by
approximately 1% annually for a total of 122,000 by 2030.) unless it is also adjusted
annually by some factor such as the Consumer Price Index.
These three revenue tool scenarios are packages the BRC has created that address
diversification, growth, timing and burden while eliminating the 2017 gap. The BRC
anticipates that City Council will desire to mix and match the revenue tools in an effort to
develop a package that eliminates the gap but meets other concerns or strategies.
Therefore, the commission has outlined the most prominent tools in Chapter 3. However,
it is probably prudent that any package drafted by council have a subsequent diversity,
timing, growth and burden analysis conducted for comparison purposes.
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
56 of 59 82
ENHANCED PACKAGE
Part of the original purpose of the BRC was to identify revenue sources to help fund
departmental master plans. These master plans provided a blueprint for enhancing city
programs and services to improve the quality of life in Boulder. Although the discovery
of a potentially large gap in funding basic services became a critical concern of the BRC,
being able to provide enhanced city services as delineated in the master plans is also
critical.
City departments were asked to resubmit their 2008 Budget Action Plans assuming a 10
year planning horizon. Those submittals identified $12 million annually in essential
programs and services. Those same submittals identified $37 million a year in desired
programs and services. Many of these requests were to increase the service standard of
existing programs from below standard to standard.
The City Manager’s Office, in partnership with an Executive Advisory Board (made up
of several department directors), prioritized these requests into $5 million per year in
essential programs and services and $12 million per year in desired programs and
services. A graphical representation of this “winnowing” process can be seen below with
the resulting list found in Appendix H & I:
Action Plan Submittals
$12 Million Essential
$37 Million Desirable
CMO/Strategy EAB
Business Plan Filters
$5 Million Essential
$42 Million Desirable
CMO/Strategy EAB
Winnowing
$5 Million Essential
$12 Million Desirable
BRC Revenue Feasibility
$8.5 Million Total
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
57 of 59 83
The BRC reviewed these requests and found many of them to be very important
additions. Consequently, the commission suggests raising another $8.5 million (50% of
the items shown in Appendix H & I) through the various revenue tools identified in
Chapter 3. The $8.5 million will obviously not fund all of the programs listed and some
additional prioritization will need to take place. Connecting programs or services in these
lists to various revenue tools identified in the base package may assist in this
prioritization and could improve the likelihood of adoption by the voters.
Funding the Enhanced Package
It should be noted that the 2017 and 2030 funding gaps do not include any funding to
enhance city programs and services. The inclusion of the $8.5 million enhanced package
(as shown in Appendices H & I) would increase the 2017 funding gap from $44 million
to $56 million and the 2030 funding gap from $135 million to $155 million. The $8.5
million enhanced package would require a significant infusion of new ongoing revenue.
For illustrative purposes, in addition to the revenue increases specified in Sample
Scenarios A, B or C, funding the enhanced package would require:
•A new 0.35% sales tax or,
•A new 3.54 mills of property tax or,
•A new or additional Occupational Privilege Tax of $5.31 per month for both the
employee and employer or,
•A combination of portions of the revenue mechanisms shown above plus
increases in other taxes and fees (in particular DET since some of the enhanced
needs are growth-related), along with potentially significant trade-offs of existing
services/programs for newer ones.
THE 2030 PACKAGE
While a full analysis of revenue options for 2030 wouldn’t be appropriate due to the
considerable uncertainties inherent in such long-range forecasting, the BRC felt a broad
overview should be presented to show the impact of eliminating the currently projected
gap between 2017 and 2030. It is clear to the BRC that the anticipated $135 million
funding gap in 2030 cannot be completely addressed solely through additional sales taxes
(or any single revenue source). To close the projected 2030 gap, the Commission
assumes that the short-range funding gap in 2017 has been resolved through
implementation of a variety of revenue and policy strategies, and that these would
continue through the 2017 to 2030 period and thus help reduce the long-range 2030
funding gap.
The BRC would also like to point out the potential of an additional revenue source
associated with the current Open Space sales tax capacity. There are two sales taxes
associated with the acquisition of Open Space that are set to expire at year-end 2018 and
2019. Open Space and Mountain Park’s staff indicated that upon the expiration of these
taxes, land acquisition will become secondary to operational concerns. This 0.48 percent
sales tax capacity provides an opportunity to substantially eliminate a significant portion
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
58 of 59 84
of the remaining gap beyond 2019. Therefore, the Commission suggests completing
further analysis regarding pursuing re-authorization of the expiring Open Space sales
taxes but redirecting them to the General Fund in order to decrease the long-range
funding gap.
Assuming the 2017 gap in the base package of programs and services is resolved (and
assuming permanent approval of ongoing revenues) would lower the $135 million
funding gap in 2030 to $70 million. The potential re-authorization of expiring OSMP
sales taxes as General Fund revenues would further decrease the 2030 funding gap to $48
million (in 2030 dollars).
Closing this remaining $48 million gap would require an additional 0.95% sales tax
increase (if funded entirely through sales taxes). This would be on top of any sales taxes
and other taxes/fees that are part of the continuing set of revenue tools used to close the
2017 gap. When added to the existing 3.41% sales tax, the 2030 rate would be at
minimum 4.36%, and, assuming that no other taxing entity increases their rates, the total
sales tax rate for goods purchased within the city of Boulder would be at least 9.11%.
However, it is important to note that this remaining $48 million gap only reflects funding
for the base package of services at current levels of service. The BRC believes that it is
unrealistic to plan to provide only current programs and services from now through 2030.
To fund any additional programs and/or services, or improve current service levels, will
require additional new revenues and/or very significant trade-offs, as was discussed
above in the section titled, “Funding the Enhanced Package.”
Although the BRC suggests it is important to fund the programs and services in the $8.5
million Enhanced Package, this amount represents only 50% of the original $17 million
program and service enhancements reflected in Appendix H & I. And the $17 million
enhancement list itself was originally $49 million but was reduced to reflect only the
highest priority needs necessary to maintain current levels of service, maintain the city’s
inherent governmental responsibilities and provide an acceptable level of desirable
services. Further, this Enhanced Package represents enhancements considered essential
and desirable only through the 2017 period. Given the long-term projections in the city’s
Master Plan Action Plans and Vision Plans, and changes in community needs and
expectations of local government, the city should anticipate that additional funding needs
and demands for new programs and services will obviously emerge over the next 22
years.
The challenge for any long-range projection model rests with the major unknown factors
that could subsequently occur and potentially impact the forecast. If an annual fiscal
review is conducted using the format in this document and a comprehensive update of
this report is completed every five years, the financial outlook will become clearer and
plans can be created to proactively address new issues that may arise
Attachment B – 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Report
59 of 59 85
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
1
Balancing Community Needs with the Financial Realities
As the update to the City of Boulder’s Parks & Recreation Master Plan is nearing completion, it
is clear that balancing the needs of the community with the financial realities of the city will be
of paramount importance if the goals of the master plan are to be successfully implemented.
Master Plan Themes
The following are the identified themes for the update to the master plan that impact community
needs and finances.
1.Community Health & Wellness
2. Taking Care of What We Have
3.Financial Sustainability
4. Building Community Relationships
5.Youth Engagement & Activity
6.Organizational Readiness
7.Equity & Resilience
Of these goals, Community Health & Wellness, Building Community Relationships, Youth
Engagement & Activity, and Equity & Resilience are front facing initiatives that require an
ongoing commitment of time and resources to accomplish.
On the other side, Taking Care of What We Have, Financial Sustainability and Organizational
Readiness are the City’s back of the house commitment to ensuring that parks and recreation
facilities and services can continue to be provided.
These themes strike at the heart of the balance question between needs and resources.
Existing Issues
BPR is currently dealing with a significant number of issues that impact the delivery of parks and
recreation facilities and programs in the future. The pandemic has exacerbated many of these
issues. The material for this section was derived from information included in the draft master
plan update document and additional back-up data provided by BPR.
Continuing to Serve a Growing Market
•Boulder’s population in 2020 was 108,091 (including CU students). The population is
projected to grow to 123,000 by 2040.
•Boulder County’s senior population (age 60+) is expected to nearly double to 28% of
the total population by 2040.
•There will be a significant increase in the Latinx community in the city from 10% in
2019 to potentially just over 30% by 2040 (based on state wide projections).
•The population of the northern Front Range is also projected to grow at a fast pace
during this time period.
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
1 of 15 86
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
2
• While the primary focus of BPR is to serve the residents of Boulder, non-residents make
up approximately 25% of program and facility users.
• The growing market will result in an increasing demand for recreation facilities,
programs and services. The overall population increase in Boulder will require a greater
capacity for services as well as additional specific services focused on seniors and the
Latinx community. This will likely require additional funding to meet these needs.
Note: The demographic information was derived from the 2021 Needs Assessment
Report as part of the Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update.
Providing a Full complement of Recreation Amenities
• BPR manages a wide range and quantity of facilities.
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
2 of 15 87
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
3
Offering a Full Complement of Recreation Programs
• BPR offers a wide range of recreation programs with strong enrollment numbers, even
with an overall decline in participation since 2017.
• BPR contracts out youth sports, tennis, dance, and some summer camp programs.
Dealing with Increasing Operations Costs
• Staffing costs continue to increase with a commitment to pay a living wage for full-time
as well as part-time positions. The impact of minimum wage increases and the need to
attract and retain good employees has also affected costs. The average annual growth
rate in staffing costs for the next 5 years is projected to be 5%. Staffing is the greatest
operational cost for BPR as well as most all parks and recreation agencies.
• Utility costs have also continued to increase especially in the last two to three years.
This has a significant impact on BPR’s operations budget. The average annual growth
rate in overall operating costs (minus staffing) for the next 5 years is projected to be 4%.
• Goods and service costs have seen a dramatic impact in the last few years due in part to
the pandemic and this is projected to continue for the next couple of years at a minimum
of 4% per year if not higher.
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
3 of 15 88
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
4
• BPR is also assessed interdepartmental charges for services that saw large increases
from 2016 through 2019. However, charges have dropped sharply in 20202 and 2021
due to the pandemic and lower budget numbers. It is projected that these charges will
grow by 3% per year for the next 5 years.
• It is recognized that the pandemic had an impact on certain operating costs in 2020 and
2021. While costs were showing a steady increase until 2020, with the pandemic
overall costs have declined due to reduced programs and services as well as the limited
operation of facilities. However, post pandemic BPR will need to be prepared for
significant increases in operating costs again. This will need to be matched with the
realization that revenues are only projected to increase by 2% to 3% for the next five
years.
Funding Increased Capital Replacement Costs
• BPR utilizes an Asset Management Plan to track parks and recreation assets and
estimate capital replacement value (CRV).
o In 2021 BPR had a CRV value of $298,476,655.
o Based on spending 2-3% of CRV annually on capital repairs and replacement,
BPR has as an estimated total maintenance backlog of $20,579,515. BPR
currently expends $5.6 million annually for this purpose leaving it $1.9 million
short.
o There are also approximately $177,935,000 in unfunded capital projects.
o Operations and maintenance or preventative maintenance funding should be 4%
of the CRV annually or $11.9 million and is only being funded at $8.6 million
annually resulting in a shortfall of $3.3 million.
o The city’s Urban Forestry Strategic Plan indicates the urban tree canopy is also
an asset but since it has an appreciating value, it was not included in the backlog
of operations and maintenance calculations above. The required funding for
maintaining the urban tree canopy is not in place.
Stagnant Earned Revenues
• BPR has strong service delivery and fee policies in place.
o Service Costing Methodology is detailed out.
o Service Delivery Framework modeling is in place to determine what programs
should be offered and how they are best provided.
o Program Prioritization, Subsidization, and Cost Recovery (RPI) guides
programming efforts and the calculation of the rate of cost recovery.
o The cost recovery level for recreation programs increased from an average of
82% from 2007-2011 to 92% from 2017-2019.
• There have been issues with pricing some services beyond what the market will bear.
• Despite these policies there is still a negative gap between yearly program revenues and
expenditures. As a result, BPR will need to consider some or all of these options:
o Increased program fees
o Increased program subsidy
o Adjusting service levels
• Grants have helped with funding for a number of services including:
o Facility Access
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
4 of 15 89
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
5
o EXPAND/Inclusion
o Sports
o Youth Sports Initiative
• Financial aid is available through general fund subsidy and partially supported through
an annual competitive grant from the Health Equity Fund, as the Recquity program.
These sources fund facility access (up to 100% of fee) and 50% of program fees.
Additionally, BPR accepts the PLAY Boulder Foundation’s PLAYpass, which provides
low-income youth with $250 program credit annually towards reduced fees."
• In 2019, $96,392 in financial aid for parks and recreation programs was delivered in the
following manner:
o Age groups were rather evenly split on receiving aid with the exception of Older
Adults (seniors) who received aid primarily through third-party payers.
Age Group Percentage of Aid
o Financial aid was distributed to programs in the following areas. The EXPAND
program (recreation for people with disabilities) was the greatest recipient of aid
followed by Youth Services Initiative and Gymnastics.
Program Division Percentage of Aid
o 82% of the financial aid was given to residents of Boulder and the balance went
primarily to people living in communities in close proximity to the city.
• In addition to recreation program aid, in 2019 a total of $430,496 in subsidy was
provided for entry to BPR facilities and for courses provided at those locations ($50,561
of the total). Membership age categories by percentage were primarily families.
Age Group Percentage of Aid
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
5 of 15 90
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
6
• It is estimated that up to 90% of older adult (senior) programming is paid through a
third-party payer. This includes Silver Sneakers, Silver & Fit and New Active.
Insurance reimburses BPR at a standard rate per visit, but this is a discounted rate over
the stated user fees. However, a major portion of this market would likely not be
participating in BPR programs or facilities without these services.
• The city offers a Wellness Pass to employees to utilize BPR facilities and programs at a
reduced rate. There is reimbursement to BPR for the value of the pass built into the
General Fund subsidy to the RAF but at a reduced rate from the established fees.
Funding Sources
• BPR utilizes a number of sources for funding operations and capital projects. In 2021
the total BPR budget was $29,936,362. Funding sources include:
Source Funding % Description
(RAF) grants, donations, and general fund
supports operations, maintenance, and
Fund revenues for capital projects
state lottery funds for capital and
Note: The Capital Development Fund makes up the balance of the funding percentage.
• BPR is currently utilizing these available resources to their full capability. Over the last
5 years funding levels have remained mostly flat.
• Future funding from these sources is projected to increase only slightly for the next five
years with annual growth projected to be 2.8%.
• BPR utilizes an extensive number of partnerships for programs and services.
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
6 of 15 91
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
7
Community Input
Community members were given the opportunity to respond to a survey to guide the master plan
process. The following are some of the key findings from the survey instrument.
Population Groups and the Importance of Providing Programming for Each
This response indicates the importance of providing programs for population groups that
traditionally have lower fees and consequently contribute to a lower rate of cost recovery.
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
7 of 15 92
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
8
Given the Opportunity to Allocate $100 Tax Dollars, the Following Were the Priorities
Clearly the priority is on maintaining and renovating existing facilities and removing financial
barriers to participation in existing programs and services, over adding park land or constructing
new facilities.
Impact of Spending Tax Dollars for Various Groups in the Community
Respondents believe that their tax dollars would be best spent on youth/teens and seniors with
the lowest impact being on adults.
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
8 of 15 93
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
9
Support for BPR Funding Options
For funding, the preferred options are clearly continuing to rely on existing sources with minimal
support for a new sales tax.
Benchmark Comparisons
Boulder information and data on operations was provided by BPR and compared with the
National Recreation and Park Association through their annual Agency Performance Review
data.
Comparisons with 2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review Data
Measure National National
Population
65,000-
Population
65,000-
FTEs per 10,000 Residents
8.5 10.2 22.1 22.2
Operating Expenditures per
Capita
$87 $101 $216 $216
Revenue per Capita $26 $36
$93 $104
Revenue/Expenditure
(cost recovery)
28.7%
29.1% 42.2% 48.4%
Tax Expenditures per
Capita
$59 $62 $92 $111
Operating Expenditures per
FTE
$97,508 $102,050 $95,647 $97,394
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
9 of 15 94
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
10
How Boulder Compares
• BPR has performance data that is very similar to other agencies in Colorado with
comparable sized populations with the following exceptions:
o Revenue per capita is 12% higher. This is due in part to the strong emphasis on
revenue production.
o The cost recovery level is 15% higher. This is the result of more aggressive cost
recovery standards that were instituted after the 2008-2009 Great Recession.
o The rate of tax expenditures per capita is approximately 20% higher. This is due
to increased staffing costs (livable wage), greater levels of maintenance, a
commitment to environmentally sustainable practices, and the higher cost for
goods and services.
It is important to realize that Colorado’s performance data metrics are much higher than
the national numbers.
• Other 2019 NRPA national benchmark information includes:
o For a typical agency staffing costs make up 54% of an operating budget but for
BPR it is 64%. BPR has higher staffing expenditures due to the number and
diversity of parks and recreation facilities that are operated and maintained and
the higher market rates of compensation of employees.
o For a typical agency 44% of the operations budget is for parks and 43% is for
recreation, while 13% is for other. For BPR, 38% is for parks and 44% is for
recreation and 18% is for other. The “other” category is higher for BPR due to
administrative costs, community outreach, volunteers, partnerships, planning and
interdepartmental charges.
o Typical agencies derive 60% of their operating expenditures from general fund
tax support while BPR is only 19%. Earned income is 24% of most agencies
funding but for BPR it is 45%. Dedicated levies are 11% of most agencies’
budgets but for BPR it is 30%. With BPR’s commitment to generating higher
levels of earned income and the ability to pull funding from dedicated levies, the
reliance on the general fund is much lower.
Moving Forward
Operations Philosophy
• Balancing need with funding is a common issue for most communities as they determine
the future direction for parks and recreation facilities and services. The impacts of the
pandemic have only made this more difficult.
• BPR has an outstanding operational foundation and history of providing parks and
recreation services to the community. This includes a strong staff, a variety of facilities,
and great programs, which is backed up with very strong financial policies and
performance data to help make decisions. This is a step ahead of most departments
nationally and allows for well thought out decisions to be made.
• It is likely that BPR will need to further prioritize its allocation of resources for parks,
facilities, as well as programs and services, with a recognition that it is probably not
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
10 of 15 95
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
11
financially viable to do all the traditional as well as new services that are being requested
by the public. Many larger parks and recreation agencies are working through this
difficult process that requires extensive planning, public input, and staff time to
accomplish. The implementation process often requires 5 years or more.
• BPR is currently a regional provider of parks and recreation services with a significant
percentage of users being non-Boulder residents. The future role of BPR in offering
services to non-residents will need to be determined along with the effect on fees
(increasing non-resident fees, demand pricing, etc.) and operating budgets. For
communities that have more of a regional focus, there has been a re-evaluation of the need
and financial impact of taking on this responsibility. There has been a movement toward
having counties start to pay cities for use by their residents when they are in unincorporated
areas.
• Community partnerships are an important area of emphasis for BPR and allows for a
broader range of services to be delivered to the community. In the future there will need
to be an increased focus on partnerships if facilities and services are going to grow.
Partnerships have a much larger role in parks and recreation agencies across the country
but doing this well requires a willing and competent partner, a positive cost/benefit
analysis, clear policies, and a detailed partnership agreement to be in place. This all takes
time, staff, and money to accomplish.
• Any significant change to the method, types, or quantity of parks and recreation services
that will be provided in the future will require continued public input and discussion if
these efforts are going to be successful.
Funding
• BPR has a very diversified funding plan that has a low reliance on the city’s general fund
compared to most communities. The Department has a high rate of earned income, and
several sources of dedicated funding for certain aspects of operations as well as capital
improvements.
• It should not be expected that BPR will be able to lower is reliance on the general fund
below its current level and the need to increase services for certain groups of the
population (youth, teens, seniors, lower income, and people with disabilities) could likely
require an increase from this funding source and/or outside funding from other
organizations.
• Despite the low reliance on general fund tax dollars, the ability to generate additional
dollars from earned income will be difficult with fees and charges for many services that
are perceived as being high for the market and contributing to reduced participation from
some segments of the community (hence the need for an increase in financial aid
administered through a sliding scale). BPR has a very high cost recovery rate compared
to most agencies as many have not focused on this aspect of funding or maximized the
potential for earned income. However, it is unrealistic to expect much of any increase in
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
11 of 15 96
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
12
the current cost recovery rate in the future due primarily to higher staffing and operations
costs.
• Even though BPR has a number of dedicated tax funding sources, there are limitations on
how these funds can be used that can result in less flexibility in how dollars are utilized
for parks and recreation in general. With the level of funding from these sources this
directs a sizeable portion of the operating budget to certain uses. Having dedicated tax
funding sources in place is still not common for most parks and recreation agencies but is
an area that is receiving increased emphasis by agencies as a way to guarantee funding
sources and levels.
• BPR has actively pursued grant opportunities for a variety of parks and recreation
services and this needs to continue. Increasingly, larger departments are employing a
fulltime staff person(s) who’s primary job is to pursue grant opportunities.
Operations Budgets
• BPR has strong management and budgeting practices in place that allows for the effective
utilization of financial resources as well as tracking of expenditures and revenues.
Industry best practices have reinforced the importance of having comprehensive
budgeting policies and practices in place.
• BPR has a well detailed service delivery and fee policy in place. However, simplifying
these policies and methodologies would be helpful. Many agencies do have similar
policies, but they are generally much more streamlined.
• Integrating additional cost center accounting into the budgeting process will help BPR
define the actual cost of operation and management of not only programs but also
individual facilities and parks. There is a strong movement in public agencies to adopt
this form of budgeting to better define the true cost of service for individual programs
and facilities.
• Contracting for more and more programming, operations and maintenance services has
become a definite trend with public parks and recreation agencies. However, this has not
always been the most cost-effective approach, has at times resulted in inconsistent
services, and requires on-going monitoring with strong contracts. BPR should continue
to complete a cost/benefit analysis for possible additional contract opportunities in the
future.
• BPR should continue to provide opportunities for financial aid for those that have limited
ability to pay, however this is currently being done at a high rate which may be more
difficult to sustain in the future. The aid should continue to be for both facility
admissions as well as programs and services. It should include internal department-based
aid (Recquity) as well as external aid through PLAY Boulder Foundation and the Health
Equity Fund. Establishing consistent policies and benefits from all sources will be
important. The cost of providing internal aid should be budgeted and tracked on an
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
12 of 15 97
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
13
annual basis. There should also be some level of payment for services required from the
recipient (sliding scale based on income) as well as a maximum level of benefit per
person per year. BPR does have a maximum level of benefit for its program, but external
providers do not. The question of providing financial aid to non-residents should also be
examined. Most agencies have some form of financial aid or scholarship, but programs
vary widely as do the requirements. There has been a strong effort to have these
programs funded by outside organizations rather than through the department’s budget.
BPR’s commitment to financial aid is at a very high rate compared to other communities
and managing this process from administration to actual funding will be important for the
future. This will require consistent funding sources that support financial aid on a multi-
year basis.
• Reducing budgets in any significant manner will require that staffing levels be lowered,
and operational costs related to utilities minimized. This is a major challenge as the
potential loss of staff directly impacts the level of service and lowering utility costs
usually requires capital investment for more efficient systems. During the Great
Recession of 2007-2008, and the pandemic, agencies were forced to reduce staff, this
often occurred with administrative staff or was associated with a reduction in
programming or facilities.
• With a greater emphasis on controlling staffing costs, parks and recreation agencies have
become much more reliant on the use of volunteers for select programs and facility
operations. This has resulted in some challenges maintaining a consistent level of
available volunteers, defining appropriate roles, completing background checks, and
training. Having an effective volunteer program requires one or more fulltime staff to
manage and coordinate the program. BPR has made great use of volunteers up this point
(2,424 volunteers contributing 19,130 hours in the last five years) and this will need to
continue to grow in the future.
• The BPR budget has a line item for interdepartmental charges which grew substantially
from 2016 through 2019 and then saw a significant reduction in 2020 and 2021 due to the
pandemic. More and more cities (especially those in larger communities) are saddling
parks and recreation budgets with these charges which are calculated by others with no
ability for a department to manage. Some agencies do not include these charges in their
cost of service or cost recovery calculations.
• BPR should track the annual costs of providing any services for other city departments
when these do not directly relate to the department’s mission.
Capital Budgets
• The public has clearly indicated that they want to see BPR take care of what they have
with less emphasis on new parks and facilities. This is a very common refrain from most
communities these days and has become the focus of most capital funding efforts.
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
13 of 15 98
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
14
• BPR has a very strong Asset Management Plan that is based on a capital replacement
value for all the assets. This identifies the yearly spending that is required (2% to 3% of
the CRV) to handle capital replacement and repairs. While most agencies have a list of
deferred maintenance items as well as a robust CIP budget, relatively few have a
comprehensive asset management system on the level of BPR. At times this results in
facilities that are not well maintained or simply can no longer meet the needs of the
community.
• Based on the Asset Management Plan the amount of money being spent of O&M as well
as capital repair and replacement needs to be increased to the industry standards noted
above. While the goal is notable, most agencies simply do not have the ability to even
cover their deferred maintenance issues with on-going funding sources. They either
prioritize needs or have a bond issue to fund the bulk of the concerns.
Recreation Programs and Services
• BPR should continue to utilize the Service Delivery model to determine how best to
provide recreation programs and services to the community. This needs to emphasize:
o Programs that are best provided by in-house staff.
o Programs that are more appropriate for contract providers but still utilize city
facilities.
o Programs that are the sole responsibility of other providers or organizations.
These could be taking place at city facilities or at locations that are owned by
other organizations.
Although not yet common, this approach to providing programs is gaining more support
by other agencies with the realization that public parks and recreation departments cannot
be the sole provider of all activities.
• BPR should continue to explore additional partnerships with other communities in the
area to provide a regional approach to providing certain specialized services such as
special needs and some youth services. This will require clear funding and operations
agreements as well as staff time to put in place and monitor. There has to be a
recognition that partnerships are often difficult to establish and manage and are not
always successful. Establishing partnerships for recreation programming is now a
standard method for expanding services, especially with limited budgets.
• BPR needs to continue to emphasize the tracking of program metrics while adding a
metric that indicates programming provided by age and population categories. Having
more robust program metrics is a definite trend among parks and recreation agencies.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
• With the public indicating a lower priority for developing new amenities and a greater
emphasis on maintaining existing facilities, the need to maximize the use of current
facilities becomes paramount. BPR’s Asset Management Plan deals with many of the
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
14 of 15 99
Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
15
physical plant issues. However, functional obsolescence is also a concern and
increasingly agencies are conducting an assessment of existing parks and recreation
facilities ability to meet department and community recreation uses and needs. From this
facility updates and renovation priorities are developed.
• To ensure facilities are being utilized to their full potential the following tasks are often
completed:
o A capacity analysis is completed to determine not only the carrying capacity of an
amenity (this is especially true for athletic fields) but also the current rate of
utilization measured against the capacity.
o Establishing clear priorities of use for facilities in general as well as specific
spaces or amenities. This helps with potential over use issues as well as
underutilization.
• With operational budget concerns, agencies have begun to look at either having contract
management of existing facilities or the outright lease (usually at below market rates) of
facilities to other organizations. However, the city or district is still the owner, has
certain maintenance responsibilities as well as capital replacement, and has limited input
into the specific services that are offered.
• Since the focus for BPR will be on maintaining existing facilities, the priority for
developing new facilities will be low. If there are to be any new facilities the approach is
likely to include:
o Reliance on other providers to be the owners and operators with possible low-cost
ground leases on city property.
o Equity partnerships with non-profit and public sector organizations to assist with
the development of facilities.
This approach has been utilized by other public agencies with varying levels of success.
The strength of the agreement, the level of financial contribution, and the goals of the
partnering entity can impact the outcome.
• If there is an interest in adding new facilities, the focus should be on those that have the
ability to generate levels of income above the direct cost of operation (high cost
recovery). As an example, these could include event centers and outdoor adventure park
or ropes courses. There are opportunities to have equity partners build and operate these
facilities with low ground leases while still paying a significant annual rate of revenue to
the city based on a percentage of gross proceeds. These P3 arrangements are starting to
be more prevalent with parks and recreation agencies across the country.
Attachment C – 2022 BPR Financial White Paper (Ballard King)
15 of 15 100
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department
From: Design Workshop
Date: August 30, 2021
Project Name: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Project #: 6444
Subject: Financial Overview and Funding Strategies Memorandum
This Memorandum represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan Update. This memorandum informs the current financial needs of The Department and is
intended to inform the ability to develop implementation strategies to be contained the final version of the Master Plan.
During the process of conducting research for this memorandum, a number of other issues and questions were
uncovered that merit additional discussion in the Needs Assessment phase of the planning process. The final content
of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this memorandum but will not consist entirely of it.
Introduction & Memorandum Purpose
This Financial Overview and Funding Strategies Memorandum is part of the 2021 Boulder Parks and Recreation
Department Master Plan Update. This memorandum fulfills scope deliverable 4.2, providing a brief outlook of the
Department’s existing financial situation, including cost recovery, subsidization, and fund management, its capital
budget as it relates to the Department’s portfolio of assets, as well as recommending funding and policy strategies to
achieve the identified Master Plan outcomes. The information contained in this memorandum will be used to inform the
strategies and recommendations of the Master Plan update. This memorandum provides background and information
on the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department’s (BPR or the Department) current and projected funding sources,
Departmental policies and management strategies, and financial outlook. In addition to providing an assessment of the
Department’s current and projected operating state, this memorandum evaluates alternative funding and revenue
generating strategies that may be employed to support BPR’s overall financial position.
Parks and Recreation Funding
The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department’s (“BPR” or “the Department”) 2021 approved budget was
$29,936,362. Figure 1 illustrates BPR’s 2021 budget by funding source.
Figure 1. Boulder Parks and Recreation 2021 Budget. Source: City of Boulder 2021 Budget.
BPR is funded through a diverse set of city funds that include capital project funds, special revenue funds, enterprise
funds, and government funds. Each fund provides revenues that BPR then utilizes to fund expenditures out of each
fund. BPR maintains a balance of monies within each fund, meaning that expenditures from each fund may be higher
or lower than the fund’s annual revenues. The following section provides a summary of fund revenue sources, uses,
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Urban Design
Strategic Services
1390 Lawrence Street
Suite 100
Denver, Colorado 80204
303.623.5186
303.623.2260 fax
designworkshop.com
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
1 of 22 101
and fund goals/objectives. Revenues from each fund are contributed on an annual basis to support BPR’s operating
budget.
General Fund
The general fund is the city’s largest fund and serves as the primary funding source for most governmental services.
The fund “accounts for the revenues and expenditures necessary to carry out basic governmental activities of the city
such as public safety, human services, legal services, administrative services, and others which are not required to be
accounted for in another fund.”1 The general fund is mostly supported through a blend of taxes (sales, use, marijuana,
property, etc.), permits, fees, and intergovernmental transfers.2 The General Fund is a critical source of funding for the
Department, accounting for between 14% and 18% of the Department’s budget between 2016 and 2021.3 As a result
of the fund’s heavy reliance on tax revenue and pressures from other city Departments, the fund’s revenues, and ability
to contribute to the Department’s budget can vary widely. In 2021, the General Fund is budgeted to contribute
$4,057,219 in revenues to the Department’s approved budget.4
Recreational Activity Fund
The Recreational Activity Fund (RAF) is a special revenue/quasi-enterprise fund that is specific to the Parks and
Recreation Department.5 The fund is the primary funding mechanism used to support recreation centers and facilities
and subsidize fees for services related to the provision of recreation, reservoir and golf course services/programs that
do not cover all their direct costs.6 The fund is supported through user and participation fees, grants and donations,
and an annual subsidy transfer from the General Fund and other funds when required. General Fund subsidy
contributions accounted for between 13% and 16%, or on average $1.5 million, of the RAF’s total revenues between
2016 and 2021. The RAF is the primary source of funding for the Department, accounting for between 24% and 37% of
the Department’s budget between 2016 and 2021.7 As a result of the RAF being reliant on user and participation fees,
the fund has decreased by $3.8 million, or 32%, in 2020 due to recreational programs and services impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, the RAF is budgeted to contribute $10,126,789 in revenues to the Department’s
approved budget.8
Lottery Fund
The Lottery Fund is a special revenue fund that accounts for State Conservation Trust Fund proceeds that are
distributed to municipalities on a per capita basis. Money from the Lottery Fund must be used only for the acquisition,
development, and maintenance of new conservation sites or for capital improvements or maintenance for recreational
purposes on any public site.9 BPR receives approximately 42% of the City’s annual fund allocation, with the remainder
of funds going to Open Space and Mountain Parks and the Tributary Greenways Program. The Lottery fund comprises
a small portion BPR’s annual funding, accounting for between 1% and 2% of the Department’s budget between 2016
and 2021.10 In 2021 the Lottery Fund is budgeted to contribute $428,000 in revenues to the Department’s approved
budget.11
0.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund
The 0.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund is a special revenue fund that is specific to the Parks and Recreation Department. The
fund is primarily supported through a designated sales tax that was approved by voters in 1995.12 In 2013 voters
renewed the sales tax through 2035, with 85% of votes supporting the tax. The fund supports multiple aspects of the
Department, including operations and maintenance, administrative support services, renovation and refurbishment,
and capital improvements.13 The 0.25 Cent Sale Tax Fund is the second largest source of funding for BPR, accounting
1 City of Boulder 2021 Budget. Pg. 301.
2 Parks and Recreation Funds – 2021 Approved Fund Chart
3 City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021
4 Ibid.
5 Parks and Recreation Funds – 2021 Approved Fund Chart
6 Ibid.
7 City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021
8 Ibid.
9 Parks and Recreation Funds – 2021 Approved Fund Chart
10 City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021
11 Ibid.
12 Parks and Recreation Funds – 2021 Approved Fund Chart
13 Ibid.
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
2 of 22 102
for between 27% and 32% of the Department’s budget between 2016 and 2021.14 In 2021, the 0.25 Cent Sales Tax
Fund is budgeted to contribute $8,119,584 in revenues to the Department’s approved budget.15
Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund
The Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund is a capital project fund that is specific to the Parks and Recreation
Department. The fund is permanent according to the City’s charter and is supported through earmarked property tax
revenues, with the Parks and Recreation Department receiving $0.01 for every dollar of property tax collected by
Boulder County.16 The fund is used to support the acquisition and development of park land, renovations, and
refurbishment of recreation facilities, and is a source of funds for capital improvements. All appropriations of the fund
must be recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and appropriated by City Council. The
fund is a smaller, but critical component to the Department’s funding, as most fund monies are used for capital
improvement projects. Between 2016 and 2021 the fund contributed between 10% and 13% of the Department’s
approved budget.17 In 2021, the fund is budgeted to contribute $3,625,061 in revenues to the Department’s approved
budget.18
Other Funding Sources
In addition to the funds outlined above, there are three additional funding sources that have contributed to BPR’s
annual funding: The Capital Development Fund, the Community, Culture, & Safety Tax, and the Boulder Junction
Improvement Fund. All three funds have been used for capital improvement projects for BPR facilities as well as land
acquisitions for additional parks space throughout the City.
The Capital Development Fund “accounts for development fee proceeds to be utilized for the acquisition,
construction, and improvement of facilities necessary to maintain the current level of public amenities
such as police, fire, library, human services, municipal offices, streets, and parks and recreation.”19 Between 2016 and
2021 the fund contributed between 0% and 8% of the Department’s budget. In 2021, the fund is budgeted to contribute
$1,000,000 in revenues to the Department’s capital budget.20
The Community, Culture, and Safety Tax was a ballot initiative approved in 2017 that extended 0.3 percent sales and
use tax to raise funds for a specific list of city facility and infrastructure projects including the Scott Carpenter Pool and
Visitor Services Center at the Boulder Reservoir. The sales tax measure was approved for four years and in 2018
contributed $4.2 million in revenues towards BPR’s budget. The measure is anticipated to be on the ballot for
reapproval by Boulder voters in the fall of 2021, renamed the Capital Renewal Tax. If approved, the measure would
provide additional funding for a list of Citywide capital projects through 2036. In 2021 the tax did not contribute any
funds to the Department.
The Boulder Junction Improvement Fund was created in 2012 to fund land acquisition and facility development in the
Boulder Junction area. The fund was supported through excise tax and construction-use tax. In 2016 the fund
contributed $750,000 to the Department’s capital budget, with an additional $350,000 in 2017.21 In 2021 the fund did
not contribute any funds to the Department. This funding will be used to build the Boulder Junction Pocket Park soon.
Trends in Fund Revenues & Expenditures
Boulder Parks and Recreation Fund Revenue Contributions: 2016-2021
14 City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021
15 Ibid.
16 Parks and Recreation Funds – 2021 Approved Fund Chart
17 City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021
18 Ibid.
19 Boulder 2021 Budget, pg. 301
20 City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021
21 City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2017
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
3 of 22 103
Table 1. BPR Revenue by Source, 2016-2021. Source: City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021.
Revenues from BPR’s funding sources, illustrated in Table 1 have remained mostly constant between 2016 through
2021. The lack of revenue increases creates a challenging operating environment for BPR as departmental overhead
and expenditures rise on a near annual basis due to inflation, while the revenues used to support the department’s
operations remain mostly flat. As BPR’s operating costs, list of backlogged maintenance, and unfunded capital projects
continue to grow, BPR’s need for additional revenue from funding sources will continue to grow.
Boulder Parks and Recreation Expenditure Trends: 2016-2021
Table 2: BPR Expenditures by Fund Source, 2016-2021. Source: City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021.
Table 3: BPR Expenditures by Category, 2016-2021. Source: City of Boulder Budgets, 2016-2021.
While BPR’s funding from 2016 through 2021 has remained mostly flat, the Department’s expenditures, illustrated in
Table 2 and Table 3, have risen on an almost annual basis. The Department’s revenues have decreased, on average
0.4% since 2016 while the Department’s expenditures, including capital, have increased on average, 7.3%. Not
including capital, expenditure growth averages approximately 1% a year for a total increase of 2.5% between 2016 and
2021. While most BPR funds carry a balance enabling yearly expenditures to exceed revenue sources, the significant
imbalance between the annual growth of revenues and annual growth of expenditures is not sustainable. In addition to
expenditure increases due to inflation, BPR is faced with the increasingly difficult challenge of managing rapidly rising
personnel, maintenance, energy, materials, and operational costs, aging infrastructure and facilities, and a growing
demand for parks and recreational amenities.
Funding Source Outlook: 2022-2026
Revenues from BPR’s funding sources are projected to remain mostly flat over the next 5-year period, increasing on
average 2.8% annually through 2026.22 Projections of revenues by funding source were sourced from the City of
Boulder’s 2021 fund projections generated by the City’s Central Budget Department. Behavioral changes brought on
by the coronavirus pandemic have altered retail spending, work habits, recreational habits, and other fee- and tax-
generating activities, negatively affecting funding streams used for BPR’s operations, maintenance, and capital
improvements. Figure 2 depicts BPR’s total projected revenues from 2022 through 2026. Both the City and the
Department have taken conservative approaches to budgeting and fund forecasting, prioritizing equitable service
delivery of existing programs, maintenance of staffing levels to support needed levels of service and programming, and
critical capital infrastructure projects.23
22 City of Boulder 2021 Budget
23 PRAB 2022 Budget Strategy Meeting Slides. April 12, 2022.
Revenue By Fund Source 2016 Actual 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Approved Average Annual Growth Rate: 2016-2021
General Fund 4,756,495$ 4,947,886$ 4,941,554$ 5,374,180$ 5,101,605$ 4,057,219$ -2.6%
Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund 2,788,813$ 2,885,822$ 3,368,238$ 3,556,124$ 3,676,718$ 3,625,061$ 5.6%
Recreation Activity Fund (RAF)10,071,525$ 10,051,124$ 10,441,586$ 10,697,934$ 6,716,806$ 10,126,789$ 3.9%
.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund 9,251,802$ 8,872,324$ 9,244,567$ 9,453,084$ 9,300,057$ 8,119,584$ -2.4%
Lottery Fund 428,000$ 428,000$ 428,000$ 428,000$ 428,000$ 428,000$ 0.0%
Other Sources 750,000$ 350,000$ 730,922$ 7,897,425$ 2,869,767$ 1,000,000$
Total Funding 27,296,635$ 27,185,156$ 28,423,945$ 29,509,322$ 25,223,186$ 26,356,653$ -0.4%
Expendatures by Fund Source 2016 Actual 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Approved Average Annual Growth Rate: 2016-2021
General Fund 4,578,314$ 4,622,802$ 4,924,220$ 5,274,365$ 4,972,526$ 4,057,219$ -1.9%
Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund 2,155,153$ 1,557,196$ 1,301,910$ 5,918,450$ 2,637,767$ 6,401,761$ 79.5%
Recreation Activity Fund (RAF)10,109,628$ 10,022,566$ 10,875,866$ 10,985,374$ 6,816,875$ 9,625,921$ 2.4%
.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund 6,721,028$ 8,485,336$ 7,541,144$ 7,844,869$ 12,802,820$ 8,423,460$ 9.6%
Lottery Fund 229,907$ 788,034$ 283,932$ 798,623$ 399,978$ 428,000$ 63.4%
Other Sources 750,000$ 350,000$ 30,922$ 7,322,425$ 2,169,767$ 1,000,000$
Total Funding 24,544,030$ 25,825,934$ 24,957,994$ 38,144,106$ 29,799,733$ 29,936,361$ 6.7%
Expendature by Category 2016 Actual 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Approved Average Annual Growth Rate: 2016-2021
Personnel $13,248,981 $13,505,323 $14,393,997 $14,891,500 $12,319,471 $13,275,661 0.5%
Operating $7,041,703 $6,480,862 $7,204,891 $6,586,798 $6,299,473 $6,967,128 0.2%
Interdepartmental Charges $587,529 $596,281 $1,073,375 $1,103,327 $1,030,431 $1,153,573 17.9%
Capital $2,915,817 $4,891,467 $2,285,822 $15,562,480 $10,150,358 $8,540,000 108.9%
Total Expendatures 23,794,030$ 25,825,934$ 24,958,086$ 38,144,106$ 29,799,733$ 29,936,361$ 7.3%
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
4 of 22 104
Figure 2. BPR Projected Revenues, 2022-2026. Source: City of Boulder 2021 Budget.
General Fund
BPR’s General Fund allocation is projected to increase minimally over the next five-year period, with an annualized
growth rate of 1.7% through 2026.24 While funding is anticipated to grow, there exists much uncertainty around the
impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the City’s economic position and revenue streams. Because the General Fund
is the primary funding source for most city services, the fund’s ability to support BPR’s budget may shift drastically on a
year-by-year basis due to change in the city’s economic position, pressures from other city Departments, and City
Council priorities.
Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund
Funding from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund is projected to gradually grow over the next five-year-period,
increasing on average 3% annually through 2026. While the fund’s reliance on property tax revenues makes it
susceptible to regional and national economic shifts, property tax within the City of Boulder is projected to grow at an
annual average rate of 3% from 2022-2026. Because the fund is a primary source of revenues for Capital Improvement
Projects, any change in revenues may adversely impact the Department’s ability to address the needs of the
department’s assets to remain safe, updated and accessible.
Recreation Activity Fund
Funding from the RAF is predicted to remain mostly flat over the next five-year-period, with an average annual
increase of 4% through 2026.25 The COVID-19 pandemic has created uncertainty around the future of recreation
programs and services. Because the RAF is funded primarily through fee revenues, the continued reduction of
programs and services are likely to have a significant impact on the health of the fund moving forward, while the
reintroduction of services will have positive impact of the health of the fund. Additionally, because the fund is supported
in part through an annual transfer from the city’s General Fund, changes in the city’s economic position may result in
decreased financial support.
0.25 Sales Tax Fund
Funding from the 0.25 Sales Tax Fund is predicted to grow through 2027 based on sales and use tax projections. With
an annualized growth rate of 3.7% based on city projections, the fund is growing at a slightly higher rate than
inflation.26 The projections used to calculate growth of the fund account for future population growth within Boulder,
however, increases to sales tax revenue associated with population growth are minimal and remain mostly even with
increases due to inflation. Because the fund is driven by sales tax revenues, the coronavirus pandemic’s impact on
consumer spending and the undetermined timeline of when the economy may fully reopen is likely to impact the fund’s
24 City of Boulder 2021 Budget.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
5 of 22 105
revenues and ability to support ongoing operations and maintenance, capital improvement projects, and refurbishment
projects.
Lottery Fund
Funding from the lottery fund is projected to remain constant through 2026.27 Because funding allowances are
calculated on a per capita basis, as the population of Boulder continues to shift, funding allocated through the lottery
fund will continue to align with the population of Boulder.
Departmental Policies and Management Strategies
BPR Service Costing Methodology
The 2014 Boulder Parks and Recreation master plan provided policy direction related to the use of community
resources. As Boulder Parks and Recreation implemented the master plan, staff identified a standard methodology for
calculating the total cost of providing services, including identifying direct and indirect costs. The Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB) informed the development of this methodology and approved the definitions and assumptions
as part of developing BPR’s Recreation Priority Index.
Cost Definitions:
BPR uses the following definitions when calculation and analyzing costs. BPR utilizes PRAB-approved assumptions to
within their costing methodology. Of particular importance is that indirect expenses are applied proportionate to facility
or program budgets.
•Capital costs include expenses over $50,000 for major maintenance and enhancing public infrastructure by
correcting current facility deficiencies and constructing new service-delivery infrastructure
•Direct facility costs include the personnel and non-personnel expenses including department R&R (restoration and
refurbishment) associated with the operation and maintenance of the City’s parks and recreation facilities. These
costs are incurred daily and include: staff; materials and supplies; financial, utilities and water fees; custodial
services
•Direct program costs include the personnel and non-personnel expenses specific to a department program. These
costs are incurred only when a program is provided and include instructor salaries and program-specific supplies
required for participation. These costs adjust according to program participation or demand and are expended as
needed.
•Indirect costs are those that department incurs regardless of whether or not it provides a specific service to the
community. Overhead personnel and non-personnel expenses associated with the day-to-day operation of the
department may include:
-Administration
-Business Services
-Internal Support Services (Human Resources, Information Technology, City Attorney, Risk Management,
Finance)
-Service Management/Coordination/Supervision
-Operating costs include expenses to provide community services. There are indirect and direct operating
costs.
Service Delivery28
To create clarity on how and why recreational programs are offered as well as how BPR should prioritize its limited
funds available for programming, the Department created the Service Delivery Framework. The framework acts as a
methodology to evaluate how and what programs and services BPR should pursue and how to best offer those
services. BPR programming is evaluated using the Service Delivery Framework. Components of programming are
evaluated both on an ongoing basis and every two to three years to assess if a program should change, continue, or
be discontinued. The framework is broken into eight components that aim to answer specific questions
27 Ibid.
28 Parks and Recreation Service Delivery Handbook
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
6 of 22 106
about the program being evaluated:
•Organizational Philosophy: How does the program align with BPR’s themes, long-range goals, and initiatives?
•Identify Customer Needs and Interests: Why is BPR offering the service? Who is BPR providing the service for?
What is BPR’s target audience expecting from programming?
•Identify Market Niche/Partner Opportunities: Are there like services in the service area? What is BPR’s market
position? How much competition exists? Are there opportunities to invest in programs to increase revenue or exit
programs to decrease expenses? What opportunities exist to collaborate with outside partners?
•Consider Available Monies, Staff, and Infrastructure: What resources are required for program? How much will the
program cost to operate? What are the staffing requirements?
•Design & Plan Service: What is required for the management of the program (i.e., supplies, marketing,
registration, contingency plan, service flow, risk management, etc.)?
•Deliver Service: How is the program viewed within the three phases of participation (anticipation, participation,
reflection)?
•Evaluate Service: How successful and/or enjoyable did participants feel the program was?
•Implement Changes: What are the opportunities to enhance revenue or expand service?
Program Prioritization, Subsidization, and Cost Recovery
In response to the 2014 Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan, BPR developed the Recreational Priority
Index (RPI) as a simplified method to allow recreation program managers and decision makers to compare the relative
importance of BPR programs in relation to one another. In addition to prioritizing programs, the RPI methodology
enables BPR to set targets around cost recovery and pricing relative to a program’s RPI score29
The RPI methodology is based off a 100-point scale developed around the three factors of BPR Themes,
Sustainability, and Delivery Method and Reach. Within the three factors are six criteria for rating BPR programs,
including: substitutability, community health and wellness, building community and relationships, targeted goal, reach,
and delivery method. Scoring is intended to be performed within a program or program group to allow for an even and
accurate comparison between and ranking of similar program types. The RPI scoring process examines:
•Delivery Method and Reach Factors: How many registrations does the program receive during its peak season
(e.g., whichever season registrations are highest for that program)?
•Delivery: Is the program delivered by the Department or facilitated by a non-BPR entity?
•Substitutability Factor: In Boulder County, is the program executed exclusively by BPR or do other program
providers exist?
•Community Health and Wellness: To what degree does the program equitably impact the community’s health and
wellness?
•Builds Community Relationships: To what degree does the program impact and build relationships within the
community?
•Targeted Goals: Does the program accomplish goals established through the 2014 Parks and Recreation Master
Plan?
Scoring is completed using an internal scoring matrix. A program’s score is used to impartially assign subsidization
amounts to individual programs. The RPI utilizes a three-category scoring system illustrated in Figure 3.
29 BPR Recreational Priority Index Internal White Paper
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
7 of 22 107
Figure 3. BPR Categories. Source: Boulder Parks and Recreation.
Based on the category and RPI score, each program is assigned cost recovery goal. The cost recovery goal is used to
set program fees, ensuring that BPR has justification in assigning subsidy level. However, the RPI methodology does
not ensure that total program revenues earned are sufficient to balance the Department’s budget.
Table 4: Cost Recovery by Program, 2016-2021. Source: Boulder Parks and Recreation
Revenue Cost
Actual
Cost
Recovery
Revenue Cost
Actual
Cost
Recovery
Revenue Cost
Actual
Cost
Recovery
Revenue Cost
Actual
Cost
Recovery
Contracted Programs (Dance/Sports)34,155$ $- N/A 22,435$ $- N/A 38,555$ $- N/A 31,715$ $- N/A
Camps (Includes Contracted Camp Programs)368,254$ 257,772$ 143%512,339$ 264,429$ 194%565,426$ 331,269$ 171%N/A
EXPAND/Inclusion 186,168$ 627,404$ 30%184,464$ 661,446$ 28%224,030$ 661,465$ 34%198,221$ 650,105$ 30%
Fitness 170,363$ 433,553$ 39%213,193$ 485,568$ 44%231,441$ 493,546$ 47%204,999$ 470,889$ 44%
Golf 1,334,060$ 1,233,072$ 108%1,260,757$ 1,327,668$ 95%1,323,970$ 1,442,275$ 92%1,306,262$ 1,334,338$ 98%
Gymnastics 742,145$ 599,949$ 124%723,160$ 667,302$ 108%770,517$ 666,436$ 116%745,274$ 644,562$ 116%
Mind & Body Pilates 65,463$ 32,392$ 202%58,140$ 29,529$ 197%64,942$ 30,897$ 210%62,848$ 30,939$ 203%
Pottery 250$ 250$ 100%1$ 991$ 0%1$ 3,326$ 0%84$ 1,522$ 6%
Recreation Centers (includes Aquatics / Mind &
Body Programs 3,449,455$ 4,074,308$ 85%3,450,003$ 4,252,042$ 81%3,615,673$ 4,210,300$ 86%3,505,044$ 4,178,883$ 84%
Reservoir 996,116$ 866,418$ 115%1,065,727$ 988,847$ 108%1,114,344$ 969,066$ 115%1,058,729$ 941,444$ 112%
Sports 1,085,392$ 658,100$ 165%1,163,309$ 677,179$ 172%1,116,222$ 595,844$ 187%1,121,641$ 643,708$ 174%
YSI 54,955$ 315,630$ 17%186,044$ 468,790$ 40%309,381$ 607,400$ 51%183,460$ 463,940$ 40%
Total 8,486,776$ 9,098,849$ 93%8,839,572$ 9,823,791$ 90%9,374,502$ 10,011,824$ 94%8,418,277$ 9,360,331$ 90%
2017 2018 2019 3 Yr. Average
Program Area
Figure 4: BPR Cost Recovery by Year. Source: Boulder Parks and Recreation
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
8 of 22 108
Since Implementing the RPI program, BPR has been able to increase cost recovery significantly, from an average cost
recovery of 83% between 2007 and 2011, to an average of 90% between 2017 and 2019. Figure 4 illustrates BPR’s
total cost recovery between 2007 and 2019. This analysis only considers direct costs and does not consider BPR’s
allocation of indirect expenses by a percent of total budget. When broken down by program, as shown in Table 6, BPR
is achieving revenues in excess of direct costs for both general and adult programming such as Pilates, the Reservoir,
and Gymnastics. Revenues from these programs offset revenues lost by community and recreation programs that are
not intended to achieve higher levels of cost recovery, such as EXPAND/Inclusion, Fitness, Mind and Body, and YSI.
While sports programs appear to achieve a high level of cost recovery, most adult softball and soccer maintenance
expenses are allocated to the 0.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund, while revenues are allocated the Recreational Activity Fund.
This split in expenses versus revenues for sports programming results in the overall cost recovery of programs
appearing higher than they are.
Despite offset revenues from high cost recovery programs, BPR is still experiencing a negative gap between yearly
program revenues and expenses. This shortfall is due in part to targeted low cost recovery, community benefit
programming such as EXPAND/Inclusion and YSI programs that are subsidized through the General Fund. These
programs are not intended to be profitable and achieve intentionally low levels of cost recovery. BPR’s program
revenue shortfall of $846,115 is primary due to program expenses outpacing revenues, requiring BPR to consider one
or more of three options: increase program fees, increase program subsidy, or adjust service levels.
In addition to funds received through programs achieving high cost recovery, BPR has successfully leveraged grants
and other forms of financial support to deliver certain programs. Table 7 details grants support from 2017 through 2019
for facility access, EXPAND/Inclusion, Sport, and YSI programming. Since 2017, BPR has successfully increased the
grant funding, allowing for facility access, EXPAND/Inclusion and YSI programs to achieve year over year increases in
grant funding.
Table 5: Grant Support by Program. Source: Boulder Parks and Recreation
Asset Management
In 2018 BPR implemented its Asset Management Program (AMP) in response to strategies developed in the
Department’s 2014 Master Plan. The purpose of the AMP is to “promote effective use of financial and physical
resources by developing a proactive and systematic approach to managing [BPR’s] inventory of assets.”30 Assets
tracked under the AMP include only assets maintained, and purchased by BPR, such as park-related infrastructure
(i.e., courts, playgrounds, and picnic/shade structures), secondary assets (i.e., park furniture, lighting, trails, and trees )
and a large inventory of building and facility‐related assets for properties like recreation centers and aquatic facilities.31
Facilities and Fleet are separately responsible for tracking systems within buildings and vehicle assets. However, the
department’s AMP allows BPR to coordinate among many city departments on shared assets.
To objectively assess an asset’s overall condition, BPR developed a unique condition assessment to be performed
every one-to-three year that catalogs the physical condition of an asset to determine its maintenance needs and
remaining useful life. The assessment employs a “pre‐determined asset scorecard which simplifies asset inspections
by providing a user-friendly visual rating scale for each inspection topic.”32 The scorecard uses a rating scale with the
following categories:
30 Parks and Recreation Department – Asset Management Program, 2018
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid. Pg. 17
2019
Program Cost Grant Support Percent Grant
Support Program Cost
Grant Support
Percent Grant
Support Program Cost
Grant Support
Percent Grant
Support
Facility Access 2,529,187$ $ 115,900 4.6%2,571,682$ $- 0.0%2,561,337$ $150,000.00 5.9%132,950$
EXPAND/Inclusion 627,404$ 61,658$ 9.8%661,446$ 55,292$ 8.4%650,105$ $90,212.00 13.9%69,054$
Sports 658,100$ -$ 0.0%677,179$ 2,375$ 0.4%643,708$ -$ 0.0%2,375$
YSI 315,630$ 54,955$ 17.4%468,790$ 186,044$ 39.7%463,940$ $301,303.00 64.9%180,767$
Total $ 4,130,321 116,613$ 3% $ 4,379,097 243,711$ 6% $ 4,319,090 $391,515 9%$188,554
2017 2018
Program Area Average
Support
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
9 of 22 109
•Serious: Very poor condition = missing components, immediate safety concern and must be removed from public
use until repaired.
•Poor: Fair condition = no safety concerns but condition is below our expectation or is showing rapid deterioration.
•Fair: Decent condition = asset’s condition is what we would expect but requires regular assessments to ensure
proper maintenance.
•Good: Good condition = asset’s condition is better than our expectation.
•Excellent: Excellent condition = new asset.
The Asset Management Program is currently in the process of assessing the condition of all BPR assets. While the
scoring method for each asset varies, the assessment process enables an even level of comparison of all BPR assets.
To allow for further clarity around how the Department should prioritize investment strategies that “incorporate
preventative maintenance, repairs, and replacement of assets within annual and long‐term budgets and resource
Constraints,” BPR has developed a proposed scoring system named the Asset Criticality Scoring System. While the
Asset Criticality Scoring System has not been finalized or implemented, the system is intended to be used in tandem
with an asset’s condition assessment and “attempts to establish a numeric score representative of an asset or facility’s
criticality, or importance, to the community and to the overall parks and recreation system.”33 The asset critically score
is based off a 0-to-100-point scale calculated by averaging two sub scores:
•Property Score: Intended to determine the importance of the property where the asset is installed. The Property
Score is comprised of the following:
o Master Plan Designation Score: based on the property’s BPR Master Plan category.
o Property Usage Score: based on observed use as compared to property capacity.
o Audience Score: based on observed user groups who interact with the property.
•Asset Score: Intended to determine the value of the specific asset to the property’s operations. The Asset Score is
comprised of the following:
o Asset Utility Score: based on the level of impact an asset has on the property’s ability to function.
o Asset Usage Score: based on observed use of an asset.
Figure 5 illustrates how the sub‐scores work together to produce an overall asset criticality score.
Figure 5. Asset Criticality Scoring Methodology. Source: Parks and Recreation Asset Management Program, 2018.
The combination of the Asset Critically score and Asset Condition assessment score are used to identify funding
priorities that focus on “highly critical assets in less-than-ideal condition to bring the Department’s overall asset
inventory to a desired level of service.”34 Scores should be interpreted using the quadrants illustrated in Figure 6,
where the “top right quadrant, shown in green, as well as the bottom right column in yellow, illustrate assets of various
criticality to the Department that are also in relatively good condition, not likely requiring prioritization for immediate
33 Ibid. pg. 24
34 Ibid. pg. 30.
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
10 of 22 110
resource allocation” while the “the bottom left quadrant of this chart, in red, represents assets in poor condition that are
not comparatively critical to the BPR mission.” Funding and resource allocation should be prioritized for assets falling in
the top left quadrant of the graph, indicating “assets that are highly critical to the Department, but are also in
comparatively lesser condition.”35
Figure 6. Asset Criticality and Condition Scoring Quadrants. Source: Parks and Recreation Asset Management Program, 2018.
Capital Management & Capital Investment
In 2015 BPR developed the Capital Investment Strategic Plan for 2016-2026 that provided answers to five key
questions critical to the financial sustainability of the Department:
1.What assets does BPR own?
2.What are the assets worth?
3.What condition are the assets in?
4.What is the asset’s remaining service life?
5.What is the infrastructure funding gaps?
BPR defines assets “to include all physical built infrastructures necessary to support the social, economic and
environmental services provided by the Department to meet the park and recreation needs of the community.”36 As of
2021, BPR manages over 100 facilities on 1,861 acres. As part of the Capital Management process, BPR tracks
individual assets’ Current Replacement Value (CRV) to calculate an asset’s total value. In addition to CRV, BPR also
tracks each asset’s total backlog of deferred maintenance.
An asset’s CRV and backlogged maintenance are used in conjunction to calculate an asset’s Facility Condition Index
(FCI) score. The FCI score is used to assess an asset’s overall condition and prioritize limited funds for critical capital
repairs and/or replacement. BPR uses the scale shown in Table 8 to measure the condition an asset. The goal of BPR
is “reach a desired FCI for built assets between 0.06 and 0.08.”37
Facility Condition Index Score Asset Condition
0.00 – 0.05 Excellent
0.07 – 0.10 Good
0.15 – 0.18 Fair
0.25 – 0.35 Poor
0.50 – 1.0 Terrible
Table 6. Asset Condition Scorecard. Source: BPR Capital Investment Strategic Plan 2016-2026.
35 Ibid. pg. 30
36 BPR Capital Investment Strategic Plan 2016-2016, Pg. 7.
37 Ibid. Pg. 11
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
11 of 22 111
To maintain assets in their current good to excellent condition and align with industry standards on facility maintenance
and best practices, BPR established that they must invest approximately 2-3 percent each year of the total CRV.
Investments at the lower end of the range allows repairs and replacement critical to health and safety concerns, while
the higher end of the range allows for more frequent replacement assets and more modern parks system.38
Summary of Policies Enacted to Support 2014 Master Plan Recommendations
BPR has implemented multiple strategies and policies in response to financial sustainability policy recommendations
made by the 2014 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The following section summaries BPR’s actions in response to
the 2014 Master Plan’s recommendations.
Policy One
BPR shall categorize service using a recreation priority index based on the organizational mission, target population
served, service outcomes, contributions to the Boulder sustainability framework, partnership value and redundancy
with services provided by others in the community to guide offerings.
Actions in Response to Policy One
•In 2015, with consultant input and PRAB support, BPR adopted the Recreation Priority Index (RPI), enabling a
subject methodology to determine community benefit and inform subsidy levels and cost recovery targets.
•BPR implemented a Service Delivery Model whereby programs are evaluated annually to assess minimum
enrollment levels, monitor private recreation programs in the community, and consider eliminating programs with
poor enrollment and ample competing private options.
•Since 2015, the department has spun off to partners several services including Dance, Pottery Lab, specialized
camps and select competitive sports.
Policy Two
BPR shall determine the actual cost of an activity or service using a standardized method that encompasses
consistency of data inputs and analysis methods.
Actions in Response to Policy Two
•BPR adopted standard costing definitions to ensure a consistent and standard methodology for calculating the
total cost of providing services, including direct and indirect costs.
•BPR used a third-party software to assign all direct and indirect costs to services.
Policy Three
BPR shall establish cost recovery rates and associated pricing. Fees shall be based on the recreational priority index,
community versus individual benefit, cost to provide services and the prevailing market for comparable service.
Actions in Response to Policy Three
•In 2020, the RAF Chart of Accounts was updated to identify all direct revenues and expenses associated with
programs and facilities.
•Programs for people with disabilities and those with low-income are highly discounted, afforded by subsidies from
the General Fund and Health Equity Fund.
•Recreation facility fees increased in 2016, 2018 and 2020 with adults nearing full cost recovery, and discounts on
that fee for youth, older adults, multi-visit passes. Financial Aid is available for those who qualify.
•Since the implementation of the RPI and Service Delivery Model, cost recovery for programs has increased from
an average of 82% between 2007 and 2011 to an average of 92% between 2017 and 2019.
•PRAB supported fees that market will bear. For services that are categorized recreational or exclusive that charge
a fee in excess of the cost, market fees are continued.
38 Ibid. 14
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
12 of 22 112
BPR Financial Outlook
The following section provides a forward-looking assessment of the BPR’s financial outlook through 2026.
Current Replacement Value, Maintenance Backlog, and Facility Condition Index
As of 2021, BPR manages over 100 facilities and parks on 1,861 acres of land. As part of the 2021 Master Plan update
process, BPR assets were re-evaluated to asset their present-day Current Replacement Value. In addition to updating
the CRV, each facilities’ backlog of maintenance was calculated to determine each facility’s Facility Condition Index.
This assessment and analysis was completed with the data and assumptions that are available now, but is not a
detailed assessment of every asset. As the department continues to implement the AMP and complete more detailed
condition assessments, the CRV and backlog values will be updated.
BPR’s CRV has increased from $226,027,148 in 2016 to its current 2021 value of $298,476,655. Increases to BPR’s
CRV are due to the construction of new facilities, the inflation of costs within the construction industry, increases to
materials costs, and a better understanding of the Department’s assets since the 2016 CRV numbers were developed.
As of 2021, BPR has an estimated total maintenance backlog of $20,579,515. Using the updated 2021 CRV and
backlog maintenance numbers, an updated FCI of 0.069 was calculated. The 0.069 FCI places BPR in the Good to
Excellent range of the industry standard for asset condition values.
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) and Planned Capital Improvement Projects
Between 2022 and 2027 BPR has $25,708,500 in planned capital improvement projects currently scheduled. Table 9
delineates planned capital projects by year into BPR’s four capital categories: Capital Enhancement, Capital
Maintenance, Planning Studies, and New Capital.
Table 7. BPR Planned Capital Projects 2022-2027. Source: BPR CIP Worksheet
BPR is currently not meeting the goal set by the 2016 Capital Investment Strategic Plan of spending between 2-3% of
CRV annually on capital repairs and replacement. This shortfall in capital is experienced only when BPR funds are
considered, and does not include other one-time infusions of cash, such as the CCS tax, which are unpredictable and
vary by year. When updated to account for the Department’s total 2021 CRV of $298,476,655, BPR should be
spending between $6 and $9 million annually on capital repairs and replacement. Between 2016 and 2020, BPR spent
on average $5.6 million, or 1.9% of CRV, on capital improvements and renovation and refurbishment of facilities. In
order to meet the recommended level of spending, BPR would require an additional $1.9 million to reach its targeted
expenditure level of $7.5 million, or 2.5% of CRV. When one-time infusions of cash are included in analysis, BPR does
reach its targeted capital expenditure level of $7.5 million, however, these one-time infusions support only action level
capital improvements and not basic capital repairs and renovations.
BPR has experienced a similar shortfall of funds spent on annual O&M expenditures. Based off the Department’s 2021
CRV of $298,476,655 and the industry standard of allocating approximately 4% of CRV to O&M or ongoing
preventative maintenance, the Department should be spending approximately $11.9 million on O&M. Between 2016
and 2020 BPR spent on average $8.6 million, or 2.9% of CRV on O&M, resulting in a $3.3 million gap between current
and recommended O&M expenditures.
To meet recommend spending goals for capital projects and O&M, BPR would have required, on average, an
additional $5.2 million annually between 2016 and 2020. Given the greater gap in O&M expenditures versus capital
expenditures, BPR must prioritize increasing funds available for O&M expenditures. Figure 7 depicts BPR’s current
expenditures (BPR funds only) compared to recommended expenditures, illustrating the $1.9 million gap between
current and recommending capital spending and the $3.3 million gap between current and recommending O&M
spending.
Project Type
Capital Enhancement 54%2,238,000$ 60%2,510,000$ 57%2,945,000$ 34%821,500$ 18%1,100,000$ 32%1,150,000$
Capital Maintenance 43%1,790,000$ 38%1,570,000$ 37%1,932,000$ 61%1,495,000$ 32%1,932,000$ 68%2,495,000$
Planning Studies 4%150,000$ 2%100,000$ 1%60,000$ 5%120,000$ 1%60,000$ 0%-$
New Capital 0%-$ 0%-$ 5%240,000$ 0%-$ 49%3,000,000$ 0%-$
Total Capital Expendatures 100%4,178,000$ 100%4,180,000$ 100%5,177,000$ 100%2,436,500$ 100%6,092,000$ 100%3,645,000$
2022 Projected 2023 Projected 2024 Projected 2025 Projected 2026 Projected 2027 Projected
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
13 of 22 113
Figure 7. Average BPR Expenditures 2016-2020 compared to recommended expenditure levels for Capital and O&M.
To quantify gaps in funding for targeted capital repair and replacement, an analysis was performed that looked at
current projected capital expenditures from 2022 through 2027. These expenditures were compared with updated
targets for repair and replacement based off updated 2021 CRV estimates. The results of the analysis, illustrated in
Table 10, show that for nearly every year through 2027, BPR requires additional funds to meets its capital repair and
replacement goals. Due to the method by which BPR tracks CRV, appreciation is based on the current replacement
value for the same asset in present day costs, and as a result BPR’s assets appreciate over time. As BPR’s asset
portfolio continues to appreciate, and as assets continue to age, increasingly more funds will be required to maintain its
assets.
Table 8. Additional Funds Required to Meeting Capital Repair and Replacement Targets. Source: BPR CIP Worksheet.
BPR Financial Projection: 2022-2026
Table 7 illustrates BPR’s projected funding and expenses through 2026. Data on funding sources was collected from
the City of Boulder’s fund balance and allocation projections within the City’s 2021 Approved Budget document.
Assumptions used to calculate BPR’s projected uses of funds were developed through a review of past year over year
shifts in expenditures, living wage increases for both employees and contractors, competition with other front range
communities for residents and employees, data available from the Department’s 2022 CIP Plan, and feedback
received from BPR finance staff.
Based on these projections and as illustrated in Table 11, BPR is anticipated to have a minor budget surplus through
2025 and a minor budget shortfall in 2026. It is important to note that while BPR is anticipated to have a minor surplus,
the projected expenditures within Table 11 do not account for unforeseen capital or operating cost expenditures, or the
additional funds required to meet 2021 CRV repair and replacement goals or to achieve goals established with this
master plan.
As indicated by the imbalance of BPR’s projected average annual expense growth rate (5.8%) and projected funding
growth rate (2.8%), funds required to meet 2021 CRV repair and replacement goals and annual O&M spend goals,
$20,579,515 in backlogged maintenance, and approximately $177,935,000 million in unfunded capital projects, BPR is
faced with the challenging task of continuing to serve the community and operate its facilities with an increasingly
strained budget. BPR must be prepared to identify and implement other revenue generating activities and/or strategies
in the coming years to supplement its current funding sources.
Projected Capital Expenditures 2022 Projected 2023 Projected 2024 Projected 2025 Projected 2026 Projected 2027 Projected
Total 4,178,000$ 4,180,000$ 5,177,000$ 2,436,500$ 6,092,000$ 3,645,000$
2% of CRV 5,969,533$ Additional Funds Required to Meet 2% Goal 1,791,533$ 1,789,533$ 792,533$ 3,533,033$ -$ 2,324,533$
3% of CRV 8,954,300$ Additional Funds Required to Meet 3% Goal 4,776,300$ 4,774,300$ 3,777,300$ 6,517,800$ 2,862,300$ 5,309,300$
Recommended Expenditures
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
14 of 22 114
Table 9. BPR Projected Funding & Expenditures, 2022-2026. Source: 2021 Boulder City Budget
BPR Unfunded Capital Projects
As part of its capital planning strategy, BPR tracks all unfunded capital projects. Unfunded capital projects are sorted
into three alternative plans based on the City’s financial planning approach:
•Fiscally Constrained: plans that prioritize spending within current budget targets.
•Action: plans that include extra services and/or capital improvements that should be pursued when additional
funding becomes available.
•Vision: plans that include the complete set of services and facilities desired by the community.
Table 12 illustrates BPR’s total unfunded capital projects and annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
associated with each plan’s projects. Based on a review of BPR strategic plans created since 2014 and completed and
funded capital projects, as of 2021 BPR has approximately $177,935,000 in unfunded capital projects. As BPR’s
facilities continue to age and demand for parks and recreation resources continues to rise, BPR’s ability to allocate
funding for unfunded projects is likely to become increasingly challenging. While these projects vary regarding critical
need and purpose, there is a clear need for additional funding to accomplish the replacement, repairs, and new
development necessary for BPR to meet the full expectations and needs of the community.
Table 10. BPR Unfunded Capital Projects by Plan Type. Source: BPR 2021-2026 Ongoing Unfunded Project List.
Funding Gaps Based on Unfunded Capital Needs
To demonstrate the amount of funds required for BPR to accomplish its unfunded projects outlined by the Fiscally
Constrained, Action, and Vision Plans, a What if analysis was performed based on the Department’s current funding
and expenditure projections. The analysis examined what types of funding would be required if BPR desired to
implement all unfunded Fiscally Constrained, Action, and Vision projects, along with their respective increases in
annual operating and maintenance, over the next five-year period.
The analysis, illustrated in Table 13, produced the order of magnitude of additional funding by year, that would be
required to accomplish each plan as well as fund each plan’s reoccurring annual maintenance. The analysis
demonstrated that, based off current funding and expenditures projections, BPR would require an additional $1.7
million to accomplish all Fiscally Constrained projects, $36.3 million to accomplish all Action projects, and $130 million
to accomplish all Vision projects.
Projected Source of Funds 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Average Annual Growth Rate: 2022-2026
General Fund 6,022,134$ 6,160,678$ 6,302,410$ 6,447,403$ 6,447,403$ 1.7%
Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund 3,768,701$ 3,814,229$ 3,999,724$ 4,037,548$ 4,246,162$ 3.0%
Recreation Activity Fund (RAF)10,363,792$ 10,592,911$ 10,917,767$ 11,163,416$ 11,539,680$ 2.7%
.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund 8,540,881$ 8,916,426$ 9,315,081$ 9,638,130$ 9,893,899$ 3.7%
Lottery Fund 428,000$ 428,000$ 428,000$ 428,000$ 428,000$ 0.0%
Total 29,123,508$ 29,912,244$ 30,962,982$ 31,714,497$ 32,555,144$ 2.8%
2.71% 3.51% 2.43% 2.65%
Projected Use of Funds 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Average Annual Growth Rate: 2022-2026
Personnel 13,939,444$ 14,636,416$ 15,368,237$ 16,136,649$ 16,943,481$ 5%
Operating 7,245,813$ 7,535,646$ 7,837,071$ 8,150,554$ 8,476,577$ 4%
Interdepartmental Charges 865,000$ 890,950$ 917,679$ 945,209$ 973,565$ 3%
Capital 4,178,000$ 4,180,000$ 5,177,000$ 2,436,000$ 6,092,000$ N/A*
Total 26,228,257$ 27,243,012$ 29,299,987$ 27,668,412$ 32,485,623$ 5.8%
Projected Available Funding 2,895,251$ 2,669,232$ 1,662,995$ 4,046,085$ $69,521
Plan Type Capital Cost Annual O&M
Fiscally Contrained Plan 11,935,000$ 232,000$
Action Plan 43,000,000$ 945,000$
Vision Plan 123,000,000$ 3,600,000$
Total 177,935,000$ 4,777,000$
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
15 of 22 115
Table 11. Funding Gaps Required to Meet Unfunded Project Needs. Source: 2021 Boulder City Budget, 2021-2026 BPR Ongoing Unfunded
Project List.
Comparative North American Parks and Recreation Summary
As part of the Master Plan update process, three comparable North American Parks and Recreation Departments were
interviewed to better understand how other Departments are maintaining consistent levels of service for their
communities, despite budgetary constraints, capital needs, and cost increases.
Fort Collins Recreation Department - Fort Collins, CO
The Fort Collins Recreation Department operates 971 acres of parkland and serves a population of 165,000 people.
Over the past several years, the Fort Collins Recreation Department has been developing funding increases through
revenue generation. The goal of the Department is to be mostly self-sufficient, generating enough revenue to cover
operating costs. Prior to 2020, the Department was averaging between 70% and 74% cost recovery through program
fees alone. The remaining 25% to 30% of staff and daily operating costs are funded through the City’s General Fund.
To meet their self-sustaining financial goals, the Department has worked diligently to increase participation in their
facilities and membership passes.
The Department does not have a formal approach to cost recovery; however, they plan on establishing a formal cost
recovery strategy for each program to help programmers better understand the overhead costs associated with their
individual programs. Some programs, like their adaptive recreation programs, are subsidized by higher revenue
programs like recreational sports programs. Membership and pass sales constitute a key part of the Department’s
funding strategy. Passes are sold in one month, six month, or annual increments and allow the passholder to use any
facility. Passholders also receive discounts on fitness classes which drives fitness participation. There are daily fees for
facility use by non-pass members, however, pass fees do not differ between residents and non-residents.
Program fee increases are staggered incrementally every two to three years between programs. Fee increases for
certain sets of programs with more cost-sensitive participants, such as seniors, are staggered over longer periods of
time to avoid significantly impacting a participant’s ability to pay. The Department takes a market approach to fee
structuring, regularly comparing internal fees within the area to private operators offering similar services. Fees for
certain programs for key user groups, such as seniors and low-income residents, are subsidized directly from the City’s
General Fund.
During the past five-years, program capacity has been mostly flat. Due to budget constraints, the Department has been
prioritizing programs that generate more revenue, with programs that do not qualify for a General Fund subsidy and do
not recoup their costs being phased out. The Department’s highest revenue-generating activities are from their indoor
ice rink. Because the ice rink is only one of a few in the northern Colorado area, it attracts competitive skating,
coaching, the Colorado State University hockey team, and adult and youth hockey teams from throughout the region.
Fee based rink access amongst these groups provides the Department with significant excess revenue. Other revenue
drivers for the Department come from their seasonal outdoor water parks and from third-party sports leagues that
operate in their facilities.
Capital funding for the Department is generated through voter-approved tax measures while program expansions have
typically been funded through sales tax initiatives. While all major maintenance projects for their facilities are funded
through a dedicated operations and services fund, smaller everyday repairs and lifecycle replacement of equipment
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Projected Funding 29,123,508$ 29,912,244$ 30,962,982$ 31,714,497$ 32,555,144$
Projected Expendatures 26,228,257$ 27,243,012$ 29,299,987$ 27,668,412$ 32,485,623$
Balance 2,895,251$ 2,669,232$ 1,662,995$ 4,046,085$ 69,521$
Fiscally Contrained Plan 2,619,000$ 2,619,000$ 2,619,000$ 2,619,000$ 2,619,000$
Action Plan 9,545,000$ 9,545,000$ 9,545,000$ 9,545,000$ 9,545,000$
Vision Plan 28,200,000$ 28,200,000$ 28,200,000$ 28,200,000$ 28,200,000$
Fiscally Contrained Balance $276,251 $50,232 $956,005 $1,427,085 $2,549,479
Action Balance $6,649,749 $6,875,768 $7,882,005 $5,498,915 $9,475,479
Vision Balance $25,304,749 $25,530,768 $26,537,005 $24,153,915 $28,130,479
Total Funding Gap $31,678,248 $32,356,303 $35,375,015 $28,225,745 $40,155,437
Unfunded Capital Projects
Funding Gaps by Plan Type
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
16 of 22 116
and amenities are funded through a recreation reserve account that the Department has built up over time. The City of
Fort Collins has a policy in place preventing the Recreation Department from allowing advertising in all facilities except
for the Ice Rink. The Department’s marketing and communications team reaches out to potential sponsors each time
they host special events and large community events in the facility.
South Suburban Parks and Recreation District – Littleton, CO
The South Suburban Parks and Recreation District serves approximately 157,000 residents in the Town of Bow Mar,
Town of Columbine Valley, City of Littleton, City of Sheridan, City of Centennial west of 1-25, City of Lone Tree, and
unincorporated portions of Douglas County, Jefferson County and Arapahoe County. The Department manages 125
parks and multiple facilities on 3,800 acres of land.
Over the past 15 years, the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District (SSPRD) has increased their allocated
funds for capital projects from $2 million to $10 million. While the Department previously operated with substantial
deferred maintenance, a voter-approved 2 mil tax levy increase approved in 2014 within their service area in
combination with a rapid rise in property taxes has enabled SSPRD to allocate significant funds towards reduction of
deferred maintenance and implementation of capital projects.
The 2-mil tax levy generates between $6 million and $7 million per year, all of which is dedicated to the Department’s
operations and maintenance. To manage deferred maintenance and capital replacement each year, SSPRD allocates
$8-10 million for capital expenditures annually. In addition to generating $40 million in revenue, bond proceeds have
been used to fund the construction of a new $63 million recreation facility. This facility has the capacity to hold more
year-round programs, and in turn generate more revenues for the Department.
Each year SSPRD performs an evaluation of trending recreational programs to capitalize on new revenue generating
projects. Individual programmers have the authority to make decisions on fee increases for individual programs as well
as program prioritization. For programs that are typically found in the private sector, there are generally less fee
increases due to increased competition. However, fee increases are more common amongst programs where SSPRD
has limited area competition. The only programs within SSPRD that are subsidized are senior programs and a portion
of the youth programs. The Department uses a market approach to determine which programs to subsidize, and to
what extent, through surveying program participants’ willingness to pay at other providers. In total the department
generates roughly $28 million in revenues from fees annually.
In additional to traditional revenue sources, each year SSPRD also applies for public and private grant programs,
including scientific and cultural arts grants to fund some specific programs and offset costs for redevelopment. The
Department has an employee whose primary job function is to apply for grant programs each year. Most recently, three
ice rinks in their new recreation facility were funded through a grant matching program. In addition to grants, SSPRD
also pursues naming rights and sponsorship opportunities from area businesses.
Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation Department - Ann Arbor, MI
The City of Ann Arbor’s Parks and Recreation Department operates 163 parks and 15 park facilities. Currently, the
Department is receiving funds from a six-year millage approved by voters in 2016. The millage provides funding for
large scale capital projects and operating costs to maintain a consistent levels and quality of service for the community.
Language within the millage states that 60% to 80% of revenue will be budgeted toward maintenance, and the other
12% to 40% of revenue shall be allocated toward capital projects, including rebuilds of existing facilities.
To preserve millage revenues, the Department strategically targets local non-profit partners to raise funds for capital
projects and maintenance. Recently, the Department partnered with a local non-profit to fund the development of a
skatepark, with 10% of each dollar raised being allocated to an endowment used for annual maintenance costs. As the
endowment has received additional fund contributions and gained earning from interest, it has grown to be capable of
covering most maintenance costs.
The Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation department also works with local developers to solicit cash contributions for
parks related projects. Non-mandatory contributions are stated in the development agreement prior to the developer
receiving a certificate of occupancy. The cash contribution is determined by the costs associated with maintenance
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
17 of 22 117
from increased use and demand for facilities. The funds from these contributions are allocated towards parks nearby
the development, or larger parks used by most Ann Arbor residents. Despite the fact that the cash contribution is
voluntary, many developers still choose to participate.
The Department’s program revenues have grown over the last ten years. Resulting revenue from programs is used to
offset the program costs, however, oftentimes the Department is unable to achieve full cost recovery. None of the
Department’s programs are entirely funded through their General Fund as program revenues are sufficient to cover
many program costs. Added amenities offset expense increases and help subsidize losses associated with the
subsidized communities and facilities, such as the City’s senior centers. One of these amenities includes Michigan’s
largest livery operation which has grown from bringing in $10,000 per year to over $1 million.
The Department’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes a scoring matrix where projects are scored against each
other to identify improvements for discussion. Additional criteria they consider are use levels and popularity. The
department references a model of their assets where they can see what assets are beyond their useful life. Because of
the high number of facilities and capital needs, the Department follows a strategic plan for all capital improvements and
unexpected projects. Capital projects are funded through the city’s capital improvements budget. The department
allocates funds into certain categories of capital improvements instead of specific projects, and acts in accordance with
that plan. This provides flexibility for fund allocation and approval from the city.
The Department has considered the idea of partnering with sponsors; however, they do not have the staff to support
soliciting corporate sponsors. Additionally, facility sponsorships are not abundant in Ann Arbor and can be seen as
outside of the communities’ values with regards to community parks and recreation.
Funding and Revenue Generating Strategies
Additional Funding Opportunities: Grant Programs
Multiple public and private grant programs exist that can be used to fund park programs, operations, and capital
development. While the Department has been successful in raising grant funds over the past several years, additional
public and private grant opportunities are available.
Table 12: Grant and Fundraising Contributions, 2016-2020. Source: Boulder Parks and Recreation.
The following section provides a summary of grant programs that are applicable to BPR and could provide additional
funding opportunities for both programming and capital projects.
Transportation Alternatives Fund:
Any local or regional governmental agency engaging in transportation or recreational trails are eligible to apply to this
program. The program is administered through the Colorado Department of Transportation and provides funding for
programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility,
community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation, recreational trail program projects. There is a
required minimum match of 20% of funds. Applicants must meet the requirements for both general eligibility and
demonstrate benefits to the community through enhanced safety, improvements to transportation investment,
improvements to state and regional economy, expansion of recreational opportunities, improvements to transportation
equity. The project must hold a low risk and be at the regional or local level. The minimum request is $50,000 and the
maximum is $1,851,289 for CDOT Region 4 (Boulder) in 2021.
Grant / Donation Source Grant / Donation
Amount Grant / Donation Source Grant / Donation
Amount Grant / Donation Source Grant / Donation
Amount Grant / Donation Source Grant / Donation
Amount Grant / Donation Source Grant / Donation
Amount
Forestry (Community)1,330$ Forestry (Community)2,575$ Forestry (Community) 9,800$ Forestry (Community) 8,330$ Forestry (Community) 2,513$
EXPAND/Inclusion 5,776$ EXPAND/Inclusion 61,658$ EXPAND/Inclusion 55,292$ EXPAND/Inclusion 94,129$ EXPAND/Inclusion 63,450$
YSI 36,639$ YSI 54,955$ YSI 186,044$ YSI 311,353$ YSI 147,211$
Memorial Bench 15,000$ Civic Area 97,075$ Sports (PLAY Donation)2,375$ Golf- Clock Donation 11,000$ Boulder Reservoir (PLAY)147,036$
Knight Foundation 201,400$ Natural Lands Lois Webster Grant 1,308$ Volunteer Services 1,500$ EV Station Reservoir 18,000$ History Colorado 101,196$
Special Events Winter Skate 2,500$ Memorial Bench 18,000$ Donations for North Boulder Park 34,319$ EV Station Scott Carpenter Pool 18,000$ Memorial Benches 6,000$
Columbia Cemetary Donation 317$ Special Events Lights 9,940$ Health Equity Fund- Facility Access 650,105$ Rotary Club Peace Garden 42,750$ Health Equity Fund- Facility Access 75,000$
State Grant Columbia Cem 24,300$ Community Outreach (PLAY)999$ Health Equity Fund- Facility Access 150,000$ Special Events 500$
Memorial Bench 6,000$ Memorial Bench 9,000$ Natural Lands 500$
NBRC Platform Tennis (PLAY)6,800$ Special Events 2,500$
Special Events 750$ State Grant Columbia Cem 16,200$
Total 262,962$ Total 269,811$ Total 953,984$ Total 681,262$ Total 543,406$
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
18 of 22 118
Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program:
This program, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, is open to state and local government agencies who
represent a jurisdiction of at least 50,000 and are listed as one of the 497 urbanized areas set by the U.S. Census
Bureau. This grant funds acquisition and/or development of public parks and recreational areas in underserved
neighborhoods. The award amount ranges from $250,000 to $750,000. There must be partners involved and funds are
expected to be matched at a 1:1 ratio or more.
Kubota Hometown Proud Grant Program
This program is open to any city, town, municipality, or nonprofit for the purpose of renovating public space for a
community project. The grant provides $100,000 and use of Kubota equipment.
Non-Motorized Trails Grant Application:
This program, administered by Colorado Park & Wildlife, supports the construction, maintenance, or planning and
support for non-motorized trails in Colorado. Applicants must be local, county or state governments, recreation and
metro districts, and non-profit organizations. Projects are awarded up to $250,000 in construction, $250,000 in
maintenance, and $45,000 in planning and support. All projects are expected to match funding at a minimum ratio of
1:3 with 30% of matched funding in cash.
Colorado Great Outdoors Program:
The Colorado Great Outdoors Program offers grants for outdoor recreation and land conservation in Colorado. Some
of these grants include:
•Community impact grants – Funding the development and revitalize parks, trails and other outdoor projects
connecting the community to the outdoors.
•Stewardship Impact Grants – Funding land and recreation projects that improve ecological and recreational
spaces.
•Local Park and Outdoor Recreation Grants – Funding up to $60,000 for park development, land acquisition and
park maintenance.
•Land Conservation Grants – Funding for improvements to landscapes, waterways, habitat on publicly accessible
land.
•RESTORE Colorado Grant – Awarded to programs that restore natural habitat including river corridors, wetlands,
grasslands, sagebrush, big game migration routes, and forests.
•Conservation Service Corps - $1,000,000 is annually awarded to hire conservation service corps for trail
maintenance and natural land improvements. Cities, counties, and parks and recreation districts are eligible to
apply.
Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grants:
This program provides matching grants for state, county, and local governments who develop public outdoor recreation
areas and facilities. This includes land acquisition, facility development, facility reclamation, and analytical studies on
opportunities. The maximum request is $750,000 and requires a matching ratio of 1:1.
National Endowment for the Arts:
The National Endowment for the Arts offers grant opportunities for projects that provide artistic and cultural
opportunities to the community. These grants include:
•Grants for Arts Projects – Funding is provided for projects including events and activities. Funds range from
$10,000 to $100,000 and require cost share/matching.
•Our Town – Funding is provided for integrating arts, culture, and design into projects to strengthen communities.
Funds range from $25,000 to $150,000 and require cost share/matching.
•Challenge America – Funding is provided for projects that provide arts opportunities to underserved populations.
Funds are set at $10,000 and require cost share/matching.
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
19 of 22 119
Gates Family Foundation Parks and Recreation Grants
This program funds projects that build parks, trails, and open space for public recreation. Funds are also allocated to
environmental education programs and conservation of water resources and habitat. Previous awards have ranged
from $10,000 to $150,000. The Gates Family Foundation also offers strategic grants and impact investments.
Colorado Watershed Restoration Grants:
Funds are allocated to projects restoring watersheds and streams along with flood mitigation and stream management.
Department of Interior – Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Management:
Funding ranges from $5,000 to $50,000 for this program aimed at land and aquatic resource conservation and
protection of biodiversity.
Revenue Generating Development Opportunities
As parks and recreation Departments throughout the country continue to balance increasing costs with decreasing
funding, many have pursued new development opportunities to create additional streams of revenue for their
Department. The following section summarizes emerging revenue generating opportunities within parks and recreation.
Ropes Courses / Adventure Parks
Ropes courses & adventure parks have grown in popularity throughout the past decade due to their high profit margin
and ability to attract visitors.39 Ropes courses can attract a variety of user groups depending on the height of the
course. “Low” ropes courses are generally 1 to 10 feet in height and meant for younger, less experienced, participants.
“High” ropes courses are generally 15 to 60 feet in height and are designed to provide more mentally and physically
challenging environments for older, more experienced participants.40 High ropes courses are divided into two
categories: belayed and non-belayed. Belayed high ropes courses allows visitors to move around the course while
wearing a harness that attaches to a belay system while non-belayed rope courses do not require the use of a
harness.
Depending on design and level of difficulty, ropes courses can appeal to a wide variety of user groups including
individual adults, families, and corporate users leveraging the course for teambuilding activities. This wide range of
user groups can enable continuous facility usage both during the week and on the weekend, with high/low ropes
course providers reporting an average of 216.5 operating days in 2019. Ropes course programming can also be
supplemented by a variety of additional programming options including, but not limited to, ground-based team building
activities, zip lines, climbing walls, nature walks, retail, concessions, and picnic/pavilion space.41 Space requirements
for ropes course will vary depending on the design and additional amenities chosen for the course.
Performance Amphitheater / Event Lawn
An amphitheater and event lawn can be an excellent way to further activate park space while also generating
additional revenue and entertainment opportunities for the community. While the Boulder Bandshell and Sunrise
Amphitheatre (operated by Open Space and Mountain Parks) provide opportunities to host smaller outdoor events,
Boulder currently lacks a larger pavilion / event lawn that could be used to attract regional concerts and performances.
Additionally, the Boulder Bandshell is limited in what activities are permitted due it being a historic resource.
Amphitheaters can vary regarding design and complexity, ranging from minimalist shells or pavilions to technology
infused sound and lighting stages. Seating is normally limited to a surrounding event lawn which can range in size
between one and forty acres, though some amphitheaters have an enclosed pavilion with fixed seating. Outdoor
amphitheaters can be located on either flat or sloped land, with the opportunity to leverage changes in grade to create
tiered seating and improved sightlines for guests located further away from the pavilion.
39 State of the Industry Preliminary Report - Adventure Park Insider
40 Tips for Starting a Ropes Course Business, Softplay LLC
41 State of the Industry Preliminary Report - Adventure Park Insider
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
20 of 22 120
Pavilions have become a popular programming element of parks spaces. Red Butte Gardens in Salt Lake City, Utah
holds more than 30 events per year, ranging from symphony performances and community theater to national touring
performers and musicians.42
eSports Facility/Space
eSports is a type of competitive sporting event using video games. Over the past decade, eSports has become a $1.1
billion dollar industry, with teams and individuals competing globally in web-based and in-person competitions. As the
popularity of eSports has grown, so have the spaces used to facilitate competition. Recently, dedicated eSports
facilities have begun to be developed throughout the U.S., with municipalities and colleges and universities developing
their own dedicated competition spaces. Currently, Northern Colorado and the Denver Metro area is lacking a defined
eSports competition space. With a captive market in the CU Boulder eSports Team and other area amateur teams,
BPR may have an opportunity to dedicate and rent out space within one of its facilities for eSports competitions.
Fundraising Resources
Parks and recreation Departments throughout the country often rely on community fundraising and support to
supplement funding and drive community backed initiatives. While the PLAY Boulder Foundation has become
increasingly sophisticated as it relates to community fundraising, additional opportunities exist to further raise financial
support from within the community. The following resources provide best practices and strategies around fundraising
for parks and recreation Departments.
•The National Recreation and Park Association: Park and Recreation Professionals’ Guide to Fundraising43
•Parks Pride: A Manual for Community Based Fundraising44
Findings & Recommendations
BPR has made significant strides since the 2014 Master plan in improving the Department’s approach to cost recovery,
capital planning, program prioritization, and asset management. While the Department’s planning methodologies have
become more sophisticated, they have also become more cumbersome and time consuming to understand, update,
and use. In addition, while BPR has consistently met the public expectations around programs and facilities, increased
financial pressure from aging assets, deferred capital projects, increasing personnel and operating costs, and
unfunded capital projects will require the Department to increase cost recovery and revenue generation wherever
possible. BPR must continue to pursue cost recovery within its programs and creative means of revenue generation to
reduce reliance on tax funded support.
The following are findings and recommendations related to Department’s financial position and operating strategies:
•Reduce reliance on the city’s General Fund and other tax supported funding streams. Three of BPR’s five funding
sources are supported primarily through tax revenues. Because tax revenue sources are susceptible to shifts in
the economy, as exhibited by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, BPR should continuously evaluate
alternative revenue sources and opportunities to recuperate costs through user fees and other avenues.
•While BPR has developed a clear methodology to plan, prioritize, and evaluate programming, the current Service
Delivery Framework is cumbersome to use and difficult to understand. A simplified version of the framework
should be developed to enable program managers to plan, evaluate, and modify their programs on an annual
basis.
•BPR should track facility cost recovery to determine to what degree membership rates cover overhead operating
costs.
•Simplify the RPI scoring system and number of tiers of cost recovery. Currently, the number of tiers tied to cost
recovery is both confusing and difficult to keep track of if a program manager is managing multiple programs.
42 Concerts, Red Butte Garden
43 National Recreation and Park Association: Professional's Guide to Fundraising
44 Park Pride: A Manual for Community Based Fundraising
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
21 of 22 121
Additionally, while the RPI suggests a cost recovery rate, that does not necessarily correlate to the amount of
subsidy available and BPR should ensure available subsidy dollars matches target cost recovery rates.
•Annually update the Department’s CRV numbers to ensure the appropriate funds are being spent on capital repair
and replacement activities.
•Track O&M related expenses as additional budget category to the Department’s existing categories (i.e.,
personnel, operating, interdepartmental charges, and capital) to ensure that sufficient funds are being spend on
O&M annually as determined by the Department’s CRV.
•Track annual cost recovery targets by program against actuals to ensure cost recovery targets are being met.
•Continue to develop a strong relationship with the PLAY Boulder Foundation. The PLAY Boulder Foundation has
made significant strides in fundraising over the past several years. BPR should continue to grow its relationship
with PLAY to ensure alignment between the two organizations to best facilitate community fundraising.
•Evaluate innovative revenue generating programming and facility development on an annual basis. Cost/benefit
analysis and financial assessments should be used to evaluate new programming and development.
•Investigate alternatives to the PASS recreational that enables a simplified costing process.
•Pursue both private and public grant funding on an annual basis to supplement Departmental revenues and
identify funding opportunities for currently unfunded projects.
Attachment D – BPR Funding Overview & Financial Strategies Memorandum
22 of 22 122
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
This fee schedule provides detail in support of the BPR Fee Policy for the department’s
facilities and operations. The Definitions found in the Fee Policy apply throughout this document
and are incorporated by reference.
Subsidy Levels
To advance equity by lowering barriers and supporting access based on the priorities identified
in the 2022 BPR Plan, subsidy is provided to programs that support low-income residents,
people with disabilities, older adults and youth.
Other Facility Use and Services
Any other Boulder Parks and Recreation facility or service not listed specifically in this fee
schedule or elsewhere shall be available at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation
Department Director. The Director or their designee will determine the applicable fees and
necessary requirements.
Administrative Fees:
Category Policy Summary
Facility Daily Entry &
Punch Passes
•Daily passes are non-transferable
•No refunds for passes under $25
•Refund = pro-rated amount minus $25 fee
•Punch cards expire 2 years from purchase
Memberships
•No refunds for monthly, seasonal, or annual memberships once
paid.
Refund Exceptions
(Pro-rated refund
may apply)
•Verified medical condition
•Permanent move more than 15 miles from Boulder
Membership Pause •Annual memberships may be paused 1–3 months per year for a
$25 fee per pause
Program Transfers
•Transfers allowed before 2nd class if space available
•$5 fee (waived if same-day registration)
•Price differences between programs applies
Program Refunds
Single-Day
•Withdrawals allowed, but no refunds
•Refund allowed if course costs over $25 → Refund = amount
paid minus $25 processing fee
Program Refunds –
Multi-Day
•Pro-rated refund (minus $25) may be requested before 2nd class
•No refunds after 2nd meeting
1 of 16 123
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
Staffing
Additional fees may be charged for events, rentals, and reservations that require staff above
and beyond those that are regularly scheduled to work. An additional premium applies for
staffing that must take place outside of regular operational hours, recognizing it requires a shift
in regular scheduling and management support to administer.
Specific fees are based on the approximate cost of staff as follows:
Staff Category 2025 Hourly Rate
per Employee
Proposed 2026 Hourly
Rate per Employee
Seasonal & Temporary (Non-Standard)
Staf
$24.50 $27.00
Standard Operations Staf $40.00 $43.00
Standard Management Staff $61.00 $65.00
Overtime/Outside o Operating Hours 2x multiplier 2x multiplie
Fees by Program Type
I. Open Access
Access to parks, park amenities, pathways and natural areas. Open access allows
for self-directed activity and does not include supervision or oversight by staff.
No fees are associated with the use of Open Access facilities.
II. Grants, Philanthropy & Donations
Grants, philanthropy and donations which further the mission of the department by
providing outside funding for a specific focus which increases access and/or
removes barriers to participation.
No fees from customers are associated with this revenue category, though a portion
of funds may be due to pass-through organizations.
III. Special Events
Large-scale events that involve reservation of department facilities and parks.
Depending on the intended audience of the event, any of the 3 community benefit
levels may apply.
Typically, most Community and Recreation level programs are produced by the
department and/or city, that fees would primarily apply for Special Events with an
Individual Benefit level. Citywide Special Events Office may have additional fees
beyond fees charged for Parks and Recreation facilities, programs, and staff.
2 of 16 124
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
a. Special Event Fees
Special Events 2025 Per Day Proposed 2026 Per Day
50 – 250 people $300.00 $350.00
251 – 1,000 people $500.00 $550.00
1,001 – 5,000 people $1,250.00 $1,375.00
5,001 – 50,000 people $2,000.00 $2,200.00
50,000+ people $2,500.00 $2,750.00
Glen Huntington Bandshell 2025 Per Day Proposed 2026 Per Day
50 + people $900.00 $1,000.00
Special Event Locations: Boulder Creek Path, Central Park, East Boulder Community
Park, North Boulder Park, Harlow Platts Park
b. Reservoir Events
2025 Per Day
April 1 – Oct 31
Proposed
2026 Per
Day April 1
– Oct 31
2025 Per Day
Nov 1 – March 31
Proposed
2026 Per Day
Nov 1 –
March 31
Full facility closure $15,000.00 $16,000.00 $7,500.00 $8,000.00
Reservoir Basic site $400.00 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00
Reservoir Premier
site
$600.00 $600.00 $300.00 $300.00
½ Parking Lot
(double for full)
$250.00 $250.00 $125.00 $125.00
Restrooms N/A $200.00 $200.00 $200.00
Reservoir Lake
Access
2025 Per Hour
April 1 – Oct 31
Proposed
2026 Per
Hour April
1 – Oct 31
2025 Per Hour
Nov 1 – March 31
Proposed Per
2026 Hour
Nov 1 –
March 31
Reservoir Lake
closure inside no
wake area
$75.00 $100.00 $50.00 $50.00
Reservoir Lake
wake area ½
$500.00 $500.00 $250.00 $250.00
Reservoir Lake
wake area Full
N/A N/A $500.00 $500.00
3 of 16 125
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
Picnic Fees 2025 Basic
Site per
Event
Proposed 2026
Basic Site per
Event
2025
Premier Site
per Event
Proposed 2026
Premier Site per
Event
Silver*
Up to 100 people
$400.00 $775.00 $440.00 $875.00
Gold*
Up to 200 people
$625.00 $1,375.00 $685.00 $1475.00
Platinum
*Up to 300 people
$800.00 $2,175.00 $880.00 $2,275.00
Platinum add-on’s $250 for each
group of 50 people
(or portion thereof)
over 300
attendees
A-la-carte fees for
extra tables, grills,
canopies, etc.
$250 for each group
of 50 people (or
portion thereof) over
300 attendees
A-la-carte fees for
extra tables, grills,
canopies, etc.
Per participant
impact fees over
allotted number of
guests
$5.00
per
participant
$10.00
per participant
$5.00
per
participant
$10.00
per participant
Notes on Picnic Fees:
*In 2025, base fee plus a cost per participant at $5 per person
In 2026, Picnic Fees include up to 100 people for Silver; 200 people for Gold; and $300 for
Platinum. This results in no cost change from 2025 rates for 75 people with Silver; 150 people
with Gold; 275 people with Platinum. Picnic fees include canopy setup, take down, tables,
grill, and waste containers.
Per car participant
fee for picnics only
$10.00 $10.00
Room Rentals: 2025 Per Hour Proposed 2026 Per Hour
Main building dining
room
$200.00 $200.00
Outdoor patio $50.00 $50.00
c. Valmont Events
Valmont hosts limited Special Events during a typical year, so for each of those
instances applicable fees will be calculated based on the projected impact, staff
resources, and exclusivity of the rental based on the principles and targets in the
Fee Schedule and Fee Policy.
4 of 16 126
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
IV. Recreation Services
Fees associated with recreation programs and services are determined based upon
the department’s Service Delivery Model and may be updated each program
session.
Rates are published in the Recreation Activity Guide each registration session.
V. Facility Entry
Access to recreation centers, pools, and other facilities are structured under a per
facility membership model with an All-Access Pass option. Visitors may pay for
individual daily entries, packages of “punches” to be used for entrance, or
memberships that allow unlimited use during a set time period.
a.General Definitions:
i.Resident Fee: Rate reflects a discount for those who live within the city
limits of Boulder. City of Boulder resident is defined as your primary legal
residence for purposes of property tax calculation and voter registration.
ii.Household: Any adults, seniors or youth residing at the same address.
The package may not include more than 4 household members. Anyone
18 years old and over must provide proof of same-address residency.
iii. Additional Annual Pass Family Members: First family member pays
highest full price; additional family residing at the same address qualify for
50% off. Unlimited Annual passes only, purchased at the same time.
iv.Military and Public Service Discounts: A 15% discount on monthly or
annual passes is available to Active Military & Veterans; Local, State,
Federal Government employees within the city of Boulder; and Library,
School District and University employees within the City of Boulder.
v. Silver Sneakers, Renew Active, One Pass, Silver & Fit: These
programs encourage older adults to participate in physical activities that
will help them to maintain greater control of their health. Many insurance
companies offer these benefits to their members which allows them to
access the Boulder recreation centers and participate in drop-in activities.
This does not include registered programs (see Section IV – Recreation
Services above). Court access is no longer included with 3rd party
memberships due to lack of reimbursement.
vi.Promotional Discounts: promotional discounts will vary throughout the
year as temporary, limited-time rates designed to encourage participation,
attract new users or promote specific programs or seasons. Promotional
discounts are typically applied during marketing campaigns or special
events and do not alter the base fee structure.
5 of 16 127
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
b. Single Drop-in Visit:
i. Centers: Includes one-time entry to East Boulder Community Center,
North Boulder Recreation Center and South Boulder Recreation Center.
This fee does not include court reservations.
ii. Outdoor Pools: Includes entry to both Scott Carpenter Pool and Spruce
Pool for the day.
Ages
2025 Daily Entry
Fee
Proposed 2026
Recreation Centers
Daily Entry Fee
Proposed 2026
Outdoor Pools Daily
Entry Fee
Adult (18-59) $12.00 $15.00 $15.00
Older Adult (60+) $9.00 $11.00 $12.00
Youth (2-17) $7.00 $9.00 $11.00
Group Daily (4 entries;
max 2 adults)
$32.00 $32.00 $35.00
c. Boulder Explorer 10-Pack: Includes 10 entries to the recreation centers,
outdoor pools and Boulder Reservoir. Does not include court reservations.
Ages 2025 Non-
Resident Rate
Proposed 2026
Non-Resident
Rate
2025
Resident
Proposed 2026
Resident
Adult (18-59) $114.00 $139.00 $96.00 $129.00
Older Adult (60+) $85.00 $99.00 $72.00 $89.00
Youth (2-17) $66.00 $79.00 $56.00 $69.00
d. Monthly Pass: Boulder Rec Center Membership
i.Includes unlimited entry to East Boulder Community Center, North
Boulder Recreation Center and South Boulder Recreation Center.
Additional household members can be added for $10 per person per
month. This membership does not include court reservations.
Ages 2025 Non-
Resident Rate
Proposed 2026
Non-Resident
Rate
2025 Resident Proposed
2026 Resident
Adult (18-59) $87.00 $87.00 $72.00 $72.00
Older Adult (60+) $65.00 $65.00 $54.00 $54.00
Youth (2-17) $52.00 $52.00 $43.00 $43.00
Household $139.00 $139.00 $115.00 $115.00
6 of 16 128
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
e. Monthly Pass: RecPlus Membership
i.Includes entry to the recreation centers, outdoor pools and Boulder
Reservoir. Does not include court reservations. Additional household
members can be added for $10 per person per month.
Ages 2025 Non-
Resident Rate
Proposed 2026
Non-Resident
Rate
2025 Resident Proposed
2026 Resident
Adult (18-59) $87.00 $129.00 $72.00 $103.00
Older Adult (60+) $65.00 $99.00 $54.00 $79.00
Youth (2-17) $52.00 $77.00 $43.00 $62.00
Household $139.00 $205.00 $115.00 $164.00
f. Annual Pass: Boulder Rec Center Membership
i.Includes unlimited entry to East Boulder Community Center, North
Boulder Recreation Center and South Boulder Recreation Center.
Additional household members can be added for $100 per person on an
annual payment plan. This membership does not include court
reservations.
Ages 2025 Non-
Resident Rate
Proposed 2026
Non-Resident
Rate
2025 Resident Proposed
2026 Resident
Adult (18-59) $907.00 $945.00 $756.00 $756.00
Older Adult (60+) $680.00 $709.00 $567.00 $567.00
Youth (2-17) $548.00 $567.00 $453.00 $453.00
Household $1,451.00 $1,499.00 $1,209.00 $1,209.00
g. Annual Pass: RecPlus Membership
i.Includes entry to the recreation centers, outdoor pools and Boulder
Reservoir. Does not include court reservations. Additional household
members can be added for $100 per person on an annual payment plan.
Ages 2025 Non-
Resident Rate
Proposed 2026
Non-Resident
Rate
2025 Resident Proposed
2026 Resident
Adult (18-59) $907.00 $1,399.00 $756.00 $1,119.00
Older Adult (60+) $680.00 $1,089.00 $567.00 $871.00
Youth (2-17) $548.00 $839.00 $453.00 $671.00
Household $1,451.00 $2,239.00 $1,209.00 $1,791.00
h. Outdoor Pools Seasonal Access:
i.Includes unlimited entry to Scott Carpenter Pool and Spruce Pool for the
season.
7 of 16 129
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
Ages 2025 Non-
Resident Rate
Proposed 2026
Non-Resident
Rate
2025 Resident Proposed
2026 Resident
Adult (18-59) $261.00 $289.00 $216.00 $232.00
Older Adult (60+) $195.00 $229.00 $162.00 $184.00
Youth (2-17) $153.00 $219.00 $126.00 $175.00
Household $417.00 $469.00 $342.00 $375.00
i. Boulder Reservoir Fees:
i. Daily Entry Fees - High Season (Friday before Memorial Day through
Labor Day):
Ages 2025 Daily Entry Fee Proposed 2026 Reservoir
Daily Entry Fee
Adult (18-59) $12.00 $12.00
Older Adult (60+) $9.00 $12.00
Youth (2-17) $7.00 $12.00
Two People/Ca - $20.00
Household (4) / Car (5) $32.00 $30.00
+ additional carload over 5 people - $5.00
Per/person
Bike/Walk Fee - $5.00
Per/person
ii. Flank Season & Twilight Entry Fees:
Season 2025 Individual Proposed
2026
Individual
2025 Carload Proposed
2026
Carload
Flank Season* $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 $10.00
Twilight Entry** $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 $10.00
Large Vehicle fee –
buses, vans, etc. * **
$10 + $3 for every person over
10 people
*April 1 to Thursday before Memorial Day & Tuesday after Labor Day to October 31
** 6:00 pm to facility close
*** Large Vehicle Fee – only during Flank Season
8 of 16 130
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
iii. Boulder Reservoir:
1.Includes unlimited entry to Boulder Reservoir.
Ages 2025 Non-
Resident Rate
Proposed
2026
Non-
Resident
Rate
2025 Resident Proposed
2026
Resident
Adult (18-59) $435.00 $439.00 $362.00 $352.00
Senior (60+) $325.00 $349.00 $273.00 $279.00
Youth (2-17) $261.00 $329.00 $217.00 $263.00
Household $695.00 $699.00 $580.00 $559.00
VI. Resale Items
Consumable and non-consumable goods available for purchase at BPR facilities.
Resale items change throughout the year based on the season, availability of
product and price. All resale items will be priced at 100% recovery of direct costs or
higher. Discounting may be used to reduce inventory.
Examples of resale items include: locks, swim diapers, goggles, charcoal, etc.
VII.Contracted Programming
Registered programs offered by a non-city/department agency that operate under a
revenue share/profit split. If city staff are managing registration and payment, a
revenue split of at least 30% to the city is expected with 70% to the partner, whereas
if the partner is handling those tasks, the revenue split would be at least 20% to the
city and 80% to the partner. It is expected that contractors support department
priorities of supporting participation among youth, seniors, people with disabilities
and low incomes to encourage a greater diversity of participation.
VIII. Golf Course
The fees for Flatirons Municipal Golf Course year-round are:
a. Per Round (Monday through Thursday)
Ages 2025 9 Hole
Proposed 2026
9 Hole
2025
18 Hole
Proposed 2026
18 Hole
Adult (18 – 59) $30.00 $31.00 $48.00 $56.00
Senior (60+) $24.00 $26.00 $40.00 $45.00
Youth (17 and under) $20.00 $22.00 $30.00 $35.00
b. Per Round (Friday to Sunday) & Holidays
9 of 16 131
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
Ages 2025 9 Hole Proposed 2026
9 Hole 2025 18 Hole Proposed 2026
18 Hole
Adult (18 – 59) $33.00 $34.00 $53.00 $63.00
Senior (60+) $29.00 $31.00 $47.00 $53.00
Youth (17 and under) $24.00 $26.00 $34.00 $40.00
c. Annual Pass:
Ages 2025 Per Year Proposed 2026 Per
Year
Adult (18 – 59) $1,650.00 $2,000.00
Senior (60+) $1,320.00 $1,600.00
Junior (11 to 17) $425.00 $475.00
Children (10 and under free w/ paying adult)
d. Value Plan Card:
Ages 2025 Per
Pass
Proposed
2026 Per
Pass
2025 9
Hole w/
Value
Plan
Proposed
2026 9 Hole
w/ Value Plan
2025 18
Hole w/
Value
Plan
Proposed
2026 18
Hole w/
Value Plan
Adult (18 –
59) $699.00 $800.00
$9.00
per
round
$10.00
per round $12.00
per round
$14.00
per round
Senior (60+) $599.00 $700.00
e. Tournament Fees
Time 2025 Per Player Proposed 2026
Per Player
Weekday Tournament* $78.00 $106.00
Weekend Tournament* $83.00 $140.00
Add-On’s based on market
rate+
Customized with Golf Staff
*Includes 1 round per person; 1 cart for every 2 players
f. Other Fees:
Practice Range Balls 2025 Per Bucket
Proposed 2026
Per Bucket
Small – ~40 balls $8.00 $9.00
Medium – ~75 balls $11.00 $12.00
Large – ~100 balls $14.00 $15.00
10 of 16 132
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
Carts (per person) 2025 9 Hole
Proposed 2026
9 Hole 2025 18 Hole
Proposed 2026
18 Hole
Riding Cart with GPS $15.00 $15.00 $20.00 $22.00
Push Carts $5.00 $7.00 $7.00 $9.00
Rental Clubs 2025 9 Hole
Proposed 2026
9 Hole
2025 18
Hole
Proposed 2026
18 Hole
Standard Clubs $10.00 $20.00 $20.00 $30.00
Performance Clubs $35.00 Termed $50.00 Termed
IX. Rentals
Space, facility, equipment, park reservations for a use by an individual, group or
organization.
a. Reservoir-Specific User Groups, Events and Picnics
Youth Group per Hour Adult Group per Hour
2026 User Group Rate $215 $310
2025 Rates $185.00 284.00
Add Ons 2025 Per Day Proposed 2026 Per Day
Fire Extinguishe $10.00 $12.00
Ice tub $20.00 $20.00
Charcoal Grill $40.00 $40.00
Picnic Tables $20.00 $20.00
20’ x 20’ canopy $350.00 $350.00
20’ x 30’ canopy $400.00 $450.00
Equipment Use 2025 Per Hou Proposed 2026 Per Hour
Loade / Tractor $85.00 $90.00
Personal Water Craft $30.00 $40.00
Motor Boat $50.00 $60.00
b. Boating
11 of 16 133
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
Decontaminations 2025 Per Craft Proposed 2026 Per
Craft
Small craft $20 $20.00
Large craft $50-$250 (depends on severity) $75.00-$350
(depends on severity)
Annual Boat Storage:
Mooring
2025 Per Boat Fee Proposed 2026
Per Boat Fee
Rack $380.00 $380.00
Gravel $830.00 $900.00
Paved $945.00 $1,000.00
Wet $1,110.00 $1,200.00
Season – 7 days per
week:
2025 Per Boat Fee Proposed 2026
Per Boat Fee
Powered 50-499 HP
(excluding class 5 boats)
$735.00 $750.00
Powered 1-49 HP and Sail
boats
$315.00 $350.00
Class 5 boats $735.00 $950.00
Weekday – Mon – Fri
(excludes holidays)
2025 Per Boat Fee Proposed 2026
Per Boat Fee
Powered 50-499 HP $400.00 $400.00
Small Watercraft 2025 Non-
Resident Rate
2025
Resident/Worker Proposed 2026 Per
Craft
Weekday (Mon – Fri &
excludes holidays)
$45.00 $40.00 $45.00
7 days per week $70.00 $60.00 $70.00
c. Outdoor Sport Fields & Tournaments
12 of 16 134
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
Rental Space 2025 Youth
Group per Hour
Proposed
2026 Youth
Group per
Hour
2025 Adult
Group per Hour
Proposed
2026 Adult
Group per
Hour
Inline Hockey Rink $16.00 $18.00 $19.00 $21.00
Horseshoe Pits $27.00 $30.00 $32.00 $35.00
½ Multi-purpose /
Satellite /Recreation Field
$18.00 $20.00 $25.00 $28.00
Multi-purpose / Satellite /
Recreation Field
$28.00 $31.00 $35.00 $39.00
Baseball & Softball
Diamond / Soccer Fields
$35.00 $39.00 $44.00 $48.00
Premier Field $67.00 $74.00 $88.00 $97.00
Add Ons
Lights $45.00 $50.00
per hou
$45.00 $50.00
per hou
Painting & Striping $38-110 $90 per field
at Premier;
$110 per field
at Satellite
$38-110 $90 per field
at Premier;
$110 per
field at
Satellite
Garbage At Cost At Cost
+ 10%
At Cost At Cost
+ 10%
Portalet Rentals At Cost At Cost
+ 10%
At Cost At Cost
+ 10%
Added Prep Costs See staff rates See staff
rates
See staff rates See staff
rates
Cost Multipliers:
Daily rate is equivalent to 7.5 hours booked
Multi Day/Tournament rate is equivalent to 6 hours booked over multiple days
Multi-Purpose / Satellite / Recreation Field: Aurora 7 Park, Arapahoe Ridge Park, Columbine
Park, Foothills Community Park, East Boulder Community Park, Harlow Platts Community Park,
Keewaydin Meadows Park, Martin Park, North Boulder Park, Tantra Park, Summitt Middle
School, Tom Watson Park, Valmont Regional Park
Baseball & Softball Diamond / Soccer Field: East Mapleton Ballfields, Gerald Stazio Softball
Fields, Pleasant View (Fields 2-12)
Premier Fields: East Boulder Community Park (artificial turf only), Pleasant View (Field 1),
Scott Carpenter Park
d. Outdoor Space Rentals
13 of 16 135
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
2025 Resident
per Day
Proposed
2026
Resident per
Day
2025 Non-
Resident per
Day
Proposed
2026
Non-
Resident per
Day
Park Shelters $110.00 $120.00 $135.00 $150.00
lcohol Permit $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00
Parking Lots $100.00 $110.00 $100.00 $110.00
Chautauqua Lawn Life events only: Free permit & deposit required
Valmont Park 2025 Resident
per day
Proposed
2026
Resident per
Day
2025 Non-
Resident per
Day
Proposed
2026 Non-
Resident per
Day
Shelter - 3 hours $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00
Park Shelters: Foothills Community Park, Harlow Platts Park, Martin Park, North Boulder Park
Parking Lots: full closure of a parking lot is per day
e. Outdoor Court Rentals:
Court Type 2025 Fee Per Hour Proposed 2026 Fee Per Hour
Sand Volleyball Court $30.00 $33.00
Pickleball Court $6.00 $10.00
Handball Court $8.00 $10.00
Tennis Court $6.00 $10.00
Tennis Court with Lights $10.00
Platform Tennis Court $5.00 $10.00
Basketball Court $33.00 $36.00
f. Indoor Space Rentals
2025 Resident
per Hour
Proposed 2026
Resident per
Hour
2025 Non-
Resident per
Hour
Proposed
2026
Non-Resident
per Hour
Small Room Rental $40.00 $44.00 $50.00 $55.00
Large Room $65.00 $71.00 $80.00 $88.00
Specialty Recreation
Facility
$80.00 $84.00 $100.00 $105.00
Basketball ½ Gym $50.00 $55.00 $63.00 $68.00
Basketball Full Gym $110.00 $120.00 $135.00 $145.00
14 of 16 136
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
EBCC Ballroom $250.00 $275.00 $250.00 $300.00
EBCC Kitchen Surcharge Surcharge
Valmont Farmhouse $125.00 $150.00 $125.00 $150.00
NBRC Gymnastics
Room
$2,575.00 /
day
$2,575.00 / day $2,575.00 / day $2,575.00 / day
Small rooms: SBRC Lobby and Stretching Room; Indoor Racquetball Court, Community
Lounge (youth)
Large rooms:
All Centers: meeting or classroom space
EBCC: 1/3 of ballroom
NBRC: 2/3 of multipurpose room
SBRC: Ninja Studio, Community Lounge (adult)
Specialty Recreation Space: not normally rented except for special occasions:
Full multipurpose room, dance rooms, aerobics room, yoga room, childcare room
g. Aquatics
Rental Space 2025 Youth
per Hour
Proposed
2026 Youth
per Hour
2025 Adult per
Hour
Proposed 2026
Adult per Hour
Pool Patio $35.00 $44.00 $42.00 $55.00
Indoor Lap Lane 25yd $14.00 $16.00 $16.00 $18.00
Outdoor Lap Lane –
25yd
$16.00 $18.00 $20.00 $22.00
Scott Carpenter Lap
Lane 50m
$27.50 $30.00 $33.00 $36.00
Leisure Pool Space $64.00 $70.00 $80.00 $88.00
Cabana Rental 2025
Resident
Proposed
2026
Resident
2025 Non-
Resident
Proposed 2026
Non-Resident
Rental + admission fee
per person
4 hour rental
$65.00 $79.00 $75.00 $90.00
Birthday Parties
(Outdoor Pools)
2025 Fee 2026
Proposed
Fee
2025 2026 Proposed
Fee
Designated space for 2
hours + swimming
$200 base
price
up to 20 ppl;
$5/addt’l
person up to
40
$250 1-20ppl;
$320 21-30
ppl;
$370 31-40
ppl
$250 base
price
up to 20 ppl;
$5/addt’l
person up to
40
$300 1-20 ppl;
$370 21-30 ppl;
$420 31-40 ppl
15 of 16 137
Attachment E – 2026 BPR Fee Schedule
X. Commercial Use
User groups and other entities rent space from the department and provide
programming outside the scope of BPR services. Commercial Users are required to
submit an Annual Customer Application.
Administrative fee for Annual Customer Application: $50.00, to be waived in 2026.
Commercial use fees (see b. below) may apply in place of the standard rental fee
listed elsewhere in this schedule at staff discretion.
a.Rentable Properties
For all 1+ year leases such as Boulder Reservoir Main Building Restaurant Space,
Flatirons Golf Course Food and Beverage Space, Harbeck House, etc., staff issue a
formal Request for Proposal with lease terms agreed upon by the Department and
confirmed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (leases up to 3 years) and
City Council (leases over 3 years).
The department’s preference is a base rent plus a percentage of revenue, with
tenant responsible for all utilities.
b.Park Commercial Use Program
Renters that are operating a program in public-access park space for commercial
gain, including collection of admission fees, participation fees, or donations for
participation are considered Commercial Users.
Commercial Users are invoiced for 5% of gross receipts collected for the program
occurring in City of Boulder park space. Payment of invoiced fees shall be due
quarterly to seasonally (based on permit type) and is required for permits to be
issued or remain valid for the following quarter or season. Gross receipt totals may
be prorated by the estimated proportion of use occurring in City of Boulder park
spaces.
Soliciting or general fundraising is prohibited in park spaces.
16 of 16 138
BPR Market Study
Comparison for
Rentals/Fees
PP
A
B
J
u
l
y
2
0
2
6
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
1 of 14 139
Access
Fees
Drop-Ins &
Passes
Internal
Rental
Spaces at
Recreation
Facilities
Aquatic
Facilities
Outdoor
Admissions
& Rentals
Athletic
Fields,
Courts &
Park
Shelters
Boulder
Reservoir
Admissions,
Permits, &
Rentals
Flatirons
Golf Course
Rounds of
Golf, Carts
& Passes
Market Study Overview
•Comparison of BPR rental rates and fees with those of local municipalities, state parks, and
public and private organizations.
•External benchmarking based on geographic proximity, comparable services, amenities, and
facility offerings.
BP
R
2
0
2
6
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
:
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
/
F
e
e
s
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
2 of 14 140
BPR Access Fees:
Daily Drop-In
Recreation Centers
Market Study
•Current BPR rates are based on a 2026 market comparison of recreation facilities using BPR age
categories.
•Several municipalities increased daily admission fees for 2026.
•BPR rates exceed municipal rates, reflecting different discount and funding models.
•BPR rates are at or below comparable local for profit and non-profit facilities.
Resident Non-Resident
Adult/General Youth Senior Household Adult/General Youth Senior Household
BPR Example Age 18-59 Age 2-17 Age 60+ Daily 4- Pack Age 18-59 Age 2-17 Age 60+ Daily 4- Pack
BPR Current Rate $15 $9 $11 $32 $15 $9 $11 $32
Fort Collins, CO 10 8 8 N/A 12 10 10 N/A
Louisville, CO 8.5 6.5 6.5 18 14 10.75 10.75 45
Westminster, CO 6 5 5 N/A 10 9 9 N/A
South Suburban PRD, CO 7 5.75 5.75 19 9.75 7.75 7.75 25
Foothills PRD, CO 6.5 4.75 5.5 20 8.5 6.5 7.5 30
Broomfield, CO 5 3.5 4 N/A 7.75 6.25 6.25 N/A
Erie, CO 6 4 4 15 7 5 5 20
CO Athletic Club 40 40 40 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
YMCA of Northern Co (Mapleton/Arapahoe)15 10 15 N/A 15 10 15 N/A
BP
R
2
0
2
6
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
:
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
/
F
e
e
s
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
3 of 14 141
BPR Access Fees:
Recreation Facilities
Adult Passes
Market Study
•Comparison is based on adult monthly and annual Recreation Center passes only. Outdoor pools and
the Boulder Reservoir have separate pricing structure.
•BPR pass rates are higher than municipal rates due to differences in funding models.
•Several municipalities increased pass fees for 2026.
•Municipal rates reflect resident pricing, while for-profit and non-profit organizations are based on flat-
rate or tiered pricing models.
BP
R
2
0
2
6
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
:
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
/
F
e
e
s
Monthly Annual
BPR Example: Boulder Rec Center Membership
Resident Rate
Unlimited Visits-
Adult
Resident Rate
Unlimited Visits - Adult
BPR Current Rate $72 $756
CO Athletic Club 126 1,512
YMCA of Northern Colorado: Mapleton/Arapahoe 80 880
Fort Collins, CO 50 450
Louisville, CO 49 515
Erie, CO 40 384
South Suburban PRD, CO 45 450
Broomfield, CO 33 396
Foothills PRD, CO 3 month-126 229
Westminster, CO 35 399
Crunch 9.99 - 29.99 119.88 - 359.88
Planet Fitness 15-24.99 180-299.88
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Monthly Pass Price (Adult)
Private BPR Public
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on
currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
4 of 14 142
Aquatic Spaces:
Outdoor Pool Admission,
Rentals & Pool Parties
Description
Outdoor Pool
Admission Daily
Drop-In
Indoor Lap Lane
Rental
Indoor/Outdoor Pool Lap
Lane
50 meter
Cabana Rentals for
Outdoor Pools Indoor Pool Parties
Outdoor Pool Party &
Private Pool Rentals
BPR Example
Scott Carpenter
Pool
EBCC/NBRC/SBRC
Lap Lane: 25 yd Scott Carpenter Pool Scott Carpenter Cabana
Indoor
EBCC/NBRC/SBRC
Outdoor Pool Party
Scott Carpenter Pool
BPR Current Rate $15 $18 $36 $79 / 4 hr $250 / 20 ppl / 2 hr
Outdoor Pool Party
$250 / 20 ppl /2 hr
CU N/A
120/hr. for 8 lanes
(comp. average $15) N/A N/A N/A
Outdoor Pool & Deck
120 / 150 ppl / per hr
Denver 3.5 20 N/A N/A 150 - 175 / 25 ppl / 2 hr N/A
Lakewood 5
18
16 (high school) N/A N/A 150 / 10 ppl / 3 hr
Full facility rates based on
location and guest total
Foothills PRD 6.5
187.50 for 10 lanes
(comp average 18.75)N/A
60 / 3 hr
90 / 7.5 hr
195 / 20 ppl / 2 hr room
all day pool access
Private After hours Indoor
Indoor- 650 / 150 / 2 hr
Outdoor- 400 / 150 / 2hrs
Golden 11.50 15 N/A N/A 200 / 20 ppl / 2.5 hr
Outdoor Pool Party
275 / 20 ppl / 2 hr
Broomfield 5 8 N/A 105 / 3.5 hr 123 / 25 ppl / 2 hr
Private After hours Outdoor
600 / 100 ppl / 3.5 hr
Erie N/A N/A N/A N/A 144 / 20 ppl / 4 hr
Private After hours Indoor
500 / 75 ppl / 2 hrs
Fort Collins 10 13.88 $27.76 N/A 130 / 10 ppl / 2 hr
Private After hours Outdoor
738 / 400 ppl / 2 hr
Lafayette 10 N/A N/A 65 / day 125 / 10 ppl / 3 hr
Sunset Swim (6-8pm)
75 / 10 ppl / 2 hr
APEX Arvada 5.75 15 30 33 / 2 hr
240 / 40 ppl / 1.5 hr room
all day indoor access
Outdoor Pool Party
250 / 25 ppl / 2 hr
Market Study
•Comparison rates reflect resident, adult, or flat-rate pricing; rentals are compared hourly.
•BPR daily rates exceed municipal rates due to different pricing structure and funding.
•Lap lane rental rates are competitive with most municipalities and CU Boulder.
•Cabana rentals and pool parties align with the market.
•BPR does not offer after hour or full facility rentals.
BP
R
2
0
2
6
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
:
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
/
F
e
e
s
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
5 of 14 143
Rental: Internal Spaces
Description Small Space/Medium Large Space Extra Large Space
Studio/Multi-purpose
Space Gymnasium
Half Gymnasium
Rental
BPR Example
Multi-purpose Classroom
Stretching Room 1/3 EBCC Ballroom EBCC Ballroom
Dance or Aerobics
Studio/Community Lounge Basketball Gym 1/2 Gymnasium
Square Feet Up to 2,000 2,000-5,000 4,500+ 1,000+ 5,000-8,500 2,500-4,250
Rental Capacity PPL 1-100 100-150 150+ Varies Varies Varies
Function
Small conference
classroom/multi-purpose
room
Large conference/
party space
Large conference/
party space Multi-purpose space Gymnasium 1/2 Gym Rental
BPR Current Resident
Rate $44 $71 $275 $84 $120 $55
Public Average Resident
Rate 39 186 158 43 104 53
Boulder JCC 90-225 107
414-942 Rates vary
by date/time 85 90-250 N/A
BVSD Rate: Adult
(Elem/MS/HS)31/31/31 See multi-purpose 46.50/71 41/43/80.50 54.50/68/88.50 N/A
CU Boulder 36-60 70 Variable 60-70 60 Per Court N/A
BP
R
2
0
2
6
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
:
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
/
F
e
e
s
Market Study
•Comparison rates reflect resident, adult, or flat-rate pricing; rentals are compared hourly.
•Spaces categorized by square footage, capacity, and intended use.
•BPR medium and studio space rates are aligned with market rates.
•Boulder JCC, BVSD, and CU Boulder
•Provide the best market comparison for proximity and room types/purpose
•BVSD charges a staggered large group surcharge on top of base rate for 50+ people
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
6 of 14 144
Rental: Fields &
Park Shelters
Market Study
•Field rental rates are hourly. Resident/Adult rates are used as the standard comparison; however, Youth
rentals for BPR account for 75% of all rentals so are also listed for comparison.
•BPR field rental rates are higher than surrounding municipalities resident average rate, but Youth rates are
comparable to most municipalities
•BPR adult field rental adult rates are lower than BVSD adult rate and CU Boulder rates
•Provide the best market comparison for proximity, rental types & condition
•BPR Shelter Day Rate is below surrounding communities. OSMP $53/hr. Resident BP
R
2
0
2
6
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
:
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
/
F
e
e
s
Description Small Field
Multi-Purpose/
Satellite/
Recreation Field Premier Field
Baseball
Diamond/ Soccer
Field
Field Rental
Add-On
Field Rental
Add-On
Field Rental
Add-On
Park Shelter
per Day
BPR Example
½ EBCC Multi
Purpose North Boulder Park
Pleasant View Field/
Scott Carpenter
Gerald Stazio East
Mapleton Pleasant
View
Field "Touch
Up"
Lining/ Painting
Field Porto/Trash/
Fencing Lights
Harlow Platts
Park
BPR Adult Current
Rate $28 $39 $97 $48 $90-110 At Cost +10% $50 $120
BPR Youth Current
Rate $20 $31 $74 $39 $90-110 At Cost +10% $50 N/A
BVSD Rate: Adult N/A 72 163 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A
BVSD Rate: Youth N/A 36 76 36 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Denver Rate: Adult N/A 35 100 35 N/A N/A 35 97
Denver Rate: Youth N/A 10 50 10 N/A N/A 35 N/A
Public Resident
Average Rate 19 30 67 40 40 15-100 40 191
CU Boulder N/A 50-100 125 120 N/A N/A
Yes- No
Posted Fee N/A
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
7 of 14 145
2026 Courts:
Tennis, Pickleball &
Basketball
Market Study
•Comparison uses municipal resident, adult, or flat-rate pricing. Rates are hourly.
•BPR outdoor tennis, pickleball, and basketball court rental rates align with the municipal
market.
•No-fee and some court access locations are offered on a first-come, first-served (FC/FS)
basis. Racquetball court access is generally included with facility admission.
Description Tennis Court-Outdoor Pickleball Court-Outdoor Basketball Court Racquetball Court
BPR Example NBRC - Tennis Court NBRC- Pickleball Court EBCC Basketball Court Outside NBRC Racquetball Court
BPR Current Rate 10 10 36 Free w/Admission
BVSD Rate: Adult (Elem/MS/HS)13.50 N/A 53 N/A
CU Boulder 20 N/A 20 Free w/Admission
Apex Center Arvada 10 10 N/A N/A
Aurora 10 10 N/A N/A
Broomfield 6 N/A 42 N/A
Erie 5 5 N/A Free w/Admission
Foothills Park & Recreation Littleton 15 15 N/A N/A
Fort Collins 8 8 N/A N/A
Lafayette FC/FS FC/FS N/A N/A
Louisville FC/FS FC/FS N/A N/A
Loveland 9 9 N/A N/A
South Suburban PRD Littleton 10 12 30 N/A
Westminster 12 12 N/A Free w/Admission
BP
R
2
0
2
6
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
:
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
/
F
e
e
s
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
8 of 14 146
Body of Water State or Municipal Fee Season Annual Pass
Powerboats
Allowed Non-Vehicle Entry Fee Vehicle Fee
Add'l
Boat Fee Per person fee Wake Information Additional Information
Boulder Reservoir Municipal
Peak: Memorial Day-
Labor Day
Flank: April 1-May 21 &
Sept 8-Oct 31
$352R $439NR Adult
$263R $329NR Youth (Ages 2-17)
$279R $349 Senior (Ages 60+)
$559R $699NR Household (5ppl) Yes
Peak & Flank Season:
Run/Walk/Cycle $5 per person
No Access Fee November 1 to
March 31
Peak Season:
$20 2ppl in Car, $30 Carload (3-5ppl) + $5 each
over 5 people
Flank Season & Twilight Entry (6pm-Close):
$10 Carload up to 10ppl + $3 each over 10ppl
No Access Fee November 1 to March 31
Peak Season :
$12 for 1 Individual in Car
Flank Season & Twilight Entry
(6pm-Close):
$5 for 1 Individual in Car
No Access Fee Nov 1 to Mar 31
Designated wakeless
area, days and times
that are fully
wakeless, days and
times that are "low
wake" restricted.
Aurora Reservoir Municipal Year-round
$75R $85 NR, $65R $75NR Senior
Additional Vehicle w/Pass $50 No gas powered No
$10/day weekdays, $15/day weekends/holidays,
$10/day off-season
$20 for
trailered
boats, no
fee for
SWC N/A
Wakeless boating
only
Bear Creek Lake Park Municipal Year-round
$80 General, $50 Senior (62+)
Additional Vehicle w/Pass $30 <10HP No $10 Weekend $15 Holiday, $5 Seniors No N/A
Designated no wake
zones but no other
days/times specified
Durango/Nighthorse Municipal Mid April-early Nov
$80 Household , $70 Senior (62+)
Additional Vehicle w/Pass $40/$35S
$25 Walk/Bike Yes $5 $10 Per Vehicle No N/A
Mon/Wed/Fri &
Before 10am No
Wake
$25/day School Busses,
5-Punch Passes for
Vehicles Walk/Bike
Standley Lake Municipal Year-round $65, $35 Seniors Vehicle Entrance No N/A
$7, $5 Seniors per day Parks Entry, $10 day
Paddle Pass Includes Entry
$10 Per
Paddle
Craft N/A
No trailered
watercraft allowed
Boating season is only
May 1-Sept 30 though
fees remain in place year
round.
Union Reservoir Municipal Year-round
$85 R $200 NR, Additional Vehicle
$65R $140 NR, $55R $128NR Senior
(55+)Yes but wakeless$2
$10 Weekdays/$15 Weekends, +$2 each over 10
people
$5
smallcraft
/$10
trailered N/A All wakeless
Walk in only Nov 1-Feb
28, but fees still apply.
Carter Lake County Year-round
$100/Vehicle R, $70 Senior
$130/Vehicle NR, $200/ Car + Boat R,
$260/Car + Boat NR Yes not listed $10/Vehicle
$10/traile
red
watercraf
t N/A
Designated no wake
zones but no other
days/times specified
Managed by Larimer Co,
Similar fees to
Horsetooth Reservoir.
ANS decon fees not listed
Horsetooth Reservoir County Year-round
$100/Vehicle R, $70 Senior
$130/Vehicle NR, $200/Car + Boat R,
$260/Car + Boat NR Yes not listed $10/Vehicle
$10/traile
red
watercraf
t N/A
Designated no wake
zones but no other
days/times specified
Managed by Larimer Co,
Similar fees to Carter
Lake. ANS decon fees not
listed
Barr Lake State Year-round
$80 Permanent Tag, $70 Senior (64+)
$120 Family Hang Tag, $70 Senior <10HP $4 $10-$12 Vehicle No N/A
Wakeless boating
only
Only low powered fishing
vessels, sailboats, and
SWC allowed
Boyd Lake State Year-round
$80 Permanent Tag, $70 Senior (64+)
$120 Family Hang Tag, $70 Senior Yes $4 $10-$12 Vehicle No N/A
Designated areas of
the lake for wakeless
and for skiing. No
specific wakeless
days/times
Chatfield Reservoir State Year-round
$80 Permanent Tag, $70 Senior (64+)
$120 Family Hang Tag, $70 Senior
Yes, only on
main reservoir $4 $10-$12 Vehicle No N/A
Divided into zones for
each type of activity.
No other days/times
specified.
SWC allowed on any
water inside of park,
powerboats only allowed
on main reservoir. Full-
Service Marina
Cherry Creek Reservoir State Year-round
$80 Permanent Tag, $70 Senior (64+)
$120 Family Hang Tag, $70 Senior Yes $4 $10-$12 Vehicle
State
Registrati
on Fee N/A
Designated no wake
zones but no other
days/times specified
2026 Front Range Recreational Water
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
9 of 14 147
Reservoir: Boat Permits & Aquatic
Nuisance Species (ANS) Protocol
Location
Large Powered Watercraft
Season Permit
Small (Un)Powered
Watercraft
Season Permit
Small Watercraft
Season Permit ANS Fee
BPR Example
Powered Watercraft 50-499 HP
Excluding Class 5 Boats
Sailboat
Powered 1-49 HP
Kayak
Canoe
Stand Up Paddleboard Decontamination
Boulder Reservoir Current Rate
7 days $750
Weekday $400
7 days $350
Weekday N/A
7 days $70
Weekday $45
Fees range between $20-$350
based on watercraft
size/severity
Aurora Reservoir
Pass for trailered watercraft only
w/electric motor, no gas motors $20 No Fee No Listed Fee
Union Reservoir Not Allowed
$70 R/$132 NR Trailered
($10 Day)
$35 R/$70 NR SWC
($5 Day)- No Listed Fee
Standley Lake N/A
N/A No Trailered
Watercraft
Annual $125, Senior Pass
$100, ($10 Day)
w/ season pass or daily entrance
fee
Horsetooth Reservoir/Carter Lake
Annual Fee
$25 in-state/$50 out of state
Chatfield Reservoir
Annual Fee
$25 in-state/$50 out of state
Cherry Creek Reservoir
Annual Fee
$25 in-state/$50 out of state
BP
R
2
0
2
6
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
:
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
/
F
e
e
s
Market Study:
•Boulder Reservoir is unique in being one of the few municipalities to allow
powerboats over 10HP
•BPR provides Lake Patrol services during all operating hours.
•Comprehensive Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) program includes boat
inspections and decontamination services during facility hours.
•Colorado Parks & Wildlife state funding & fee structures are not comparable
Annual Vehicle Pass $80.00 Fixed, $120.00 Family Hang Tag (disc available),
Plus: State Annual Boat Registration: $36.25-$76.25 Per Boat Length, +ANS Fee
N/A indicate no offering, comparable or published data. 2026 rates based on current published data. Vehicle permit discounts at state parks based on income, age, disabilities and veterans.
$200/Car+Boat R, $260/Car +Boat NR, $155 Car + Boat Senior, Plus:
State Annual Boat Registration: $36.25-$76.25 Per Boat Length, +ANS Fee
Annual Vehicle Pass $80.00 Fixed, $120.00 Family Hang Tag (disc available),
Plus: State Annual Boat Registration: $36.25-$76.25 Per Boat Length, +ANS Fee
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
10 of 14 148
Description
Shelter Rentals/Picnic
Per Day
BPR Example – Premier Site
Rental package fees vary based on
attendance and amenities & included
tables, grill, canopy(s) & waste containers
Boulder Reservoir Current
$875-Silver up to 100 ppl
$1475-Gold up to 200 ppl
$2,275-Platinum up to 300 ppl
Aurora Reservoir
$150/ day -Small, plus admission fee
$300/day Medium, plus admission fee
$350/day Large, plus admission fee
Barr Lake, Brighton $150 (100 ppl), plus admission fee
Boyd Lake, Loveland
$90-weekdays, plus admission fee
$180-weekends, up to 200ppl,
plus admission
Waneka Lake, Lafayette
$126 (75ppl) Medium Peak, 1 Shelter
$252 (150 ppl) Large Peak,
both E&W Waneka Shelters
Union Reservoir, Longmont $115 full day, weekday only
Reservoir: Picnics & Storage
Market Study: Picnics/Shelters
•Comparison is based on high season rental rates for covered shelters
near water.
•BPR rates are above market due to differences in amenities, capacity,
and set-up.
Market Study: Boat Storage
•Boulder Reservoir annual storage fees align with the broader regional market.
•Boulder Reservoir storage requires a seasonal permit pass.
Location Covered Uncovered Wet Mooring
Boulder Reservoir Current N/A
$380-Rack w/boat permit
$900-Dry Gravel w/Permit
$1000-Dry Paved w/Permit
$1200/ season,
dry trailer
storage included
Union Reservoir N/A
$635R $1,256NR,
$605R $1,184NR S/season N/A
Carter/Horsetooth N/A N/A N/A
Boyd Lake- will not operate in
‘26 due to contract expiration N/A
2025: $75/mo. $400/season
(w/ season pass only) 2025: $265/mo.
Boyd Lake Boat RV & Storage-
will not operate in 2026 N/A
2025: $90/mo. back-in
$110/mo. drive-thru N/A
Chatfield Marina N/A
$468-$820/ 6-month rate, based
on boat size
$200-400/Wk
courtesy dock
Louisville Boat & RV Storage N/A
$60-95/mo.
$420-$665/season
$648-$1026/year N/A
Recreational Storage
Solutions-Erie
$90-$240/mo. back-in/covered
$187.50-$225/mo. pull-thru/cov
$275-550/mo. indoor garage
$35-112.50/mo. back in
$63-126 mo. pull-thru $230-265/mo.
Boulder RV & Boat Self
Storage N/A
$90-$130/mo. back-in per size
$105-$135/mo. pull thru per size N/A
Arapahoe Self Storage-
Boulder $200/mo. $165/mo.N/A
StorQuest Self Storage-
Boulder $259/mo.N/A
N/A
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
11 of 14 149
12
Flatirons Golf Course:
Rounds of Golf & Passes
Course Location
9 Hole Weekday
Rate
9 Hole Weekend
Rate
18 Hole Weekday
Rate
18 Hole Weekend
Rate Annual Pass Value Plan Notes/Cart Fees
Flatirons Golf Course Current Rate Boulder $31 $34 $56 $63
$2000 Adult
$1600 Senior
$475 Youth
$800 Adult
$700 Senior
18 holes/$22 per cart rider
9 holes/$15 per cart rider
Nominal surcharge per round for
value plan passes
Indian Peaks Golf Course Lafayette 36 41 58-68 81-89 Family Plan aft 5pm 9/$14 18/$23 per cart rider
Coal Creek Golf Course Louisville 32 35 59 70 Monarch Junior Season $650 Preferred Loyalty $200
2 freeguest rounds with pass
9/$14 18/$23 per cart rider
South Suburban GC Centennial 31 33 61 63
Adult $1050 M-F
Senior/Junior $875
Couples $1,375
10 Punch $240/$440
20 Punch $460/860
30 Punch $660/1260
Punch card has 9/18 holes fees noted
Has Resident and Non-Resident Fees
9/$13 18/$26 per cart rider
Ute Creek Golf Course-Dynamic
Pricing Longmont 29-ϯϲല ϯϬല-36 74-84 77-92
$1905
$2615 w/cart
10 Punch $450
20 Punch $800
Must take cart on weekends
9/$15 18/$20 per cart rider
Twin Peaks Golf Course -Dynamic
Pricing Longmont 19-36 40 60 ϲϲല
$1430
$2140 w/cart
10 Punch $360
20 Punch $640 9/$15 18/$20 per cart rider
Walnut Creek Golf Preserve Westminster 31 40 55 ϳϮല
$3,300 M-F Unlimited
$3,800 Unlimited 50-Cap
N/A Walnut and Legacy pass
9/$13 18/$22 per cart rider
Legacy Ridge GC Westminster 24 30-ϰϱല 34 39-65
$1,800 M-F Unlimited with cart
$2,350 Unlimited with cart College Pass $750
Walnut and Legacy pass
9/$10 18/$15 per cart rider
Broadlands Golf Course Broomfield ϯϱല ϰϬല ϲϬല 75 By request 10 Punch $350 9/$10 18/$20 per cart rider
WestwoodsGC Arvada 30 36 55 68 $2,500 M-Th $3,500 M-Th cart 15 Punch $701.25 M-T9/$14 18/$23 per cart rider
ThorncreekGC – Dynamic Pricing Thornton 25-30 30-32 43-52 50-ϲϬല $2,300 M-F $3,675 Unlimited $660 Annual cart rent 9/$13 18/$20
Collindale/Southridge GC Ft Collins 25 ϯϭല ϱϭല ϲϭല
$700 plus surcharge $6/$12
$2,500 Super Pass
Premier Card- discount
3 courses 16-30% off
9/$12 18/$19 per cart rider
Surcharge single rider $4/ $7
Foothills GC Denver 29 33 ϱϭല 61 N/A N/A 9/$12 18/$24 per cart rider
Fossil Trace Golden N/A N/A 140 ϭϳϱല Golden Resident $70/$85 Twilight $95/$110 Ratesinclude cart
Riverdale Dunes Brighton 31 31 49-52 59-62 N/A 5/10 punch $185/$360 9/$11 18/$19 per cart rider
Market Average 30 36 63 79
Market Study
•Comparable courses increasingly utilize dynamic pricing models.
•BPR 9-hole rates align with the market; 18-hole rates are below half of comparable courses.
•Annual pass and value plan offerings vary widely based on access, benefits, and cart inclusions.
•Cart fees are aligned with the market, with 9-hole fees trending toward higher end.
N/A indicates that no offering, comparable, or published data is available. 2026 rates are based on currently published information.
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
12 of 14 150
Thank you.
13
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
13 of 14 151
14
Description Amenity Bike Lessons/Programing Fee Bike Facility Rental Fee for Events/Use Picnic Shelter Disc Golf Facility Rental Fee
Disc Golf Lessons/
Programing Fee Skate Park Facility Rental Fee
BPR Example Valmont Park 303 Dirt Bike Camps Entire Valmont Bike Park Glades Shelter Entire Disc Golf Course Entire Valmont Skate Park
BPR Current Rate Valmont Park
Contracted Groups/Skills/Camps 30% Revenue Share
Youth Focused Groups Flat fee of $5.00/Rider
$2,000 for the day, Exclusive Use, and if 50+ppl
+ COB Special Event Permit:
50–250 ppl $350, 251–1,000 ppl $550
$120R $150NR
3HR Block
$200/Day Exclusive Use,
plus if 50+ppl COB Special
Event Permit 50–250 ppl:
$350 NA
Entire Use of Skate Park Fee based on
Use, Time and Impact to Public
Contracted Groups/Skills/Camps 30%
Revenue Share
City of Denver
Ruby Hill Bike Park, Barnum Bike
Park and Montbello Skills Course
Group/Instructional Permit Fee:
Non-Profits: 1-10ppl: $18.75/ 11-20ppl: $37.59/ 21-30ppl: $56.25/ 31-
40ppl: $75.00
Other Groups: Above cost x2
Events Permit Fee (+51 ppl)
Non-Profits: 51-100ppl: $175/2HR Partial Close,
101ppl+ $350/2HR Full Closure
Other Groups: Above cost x2
Erie, CO Coal Creek Disc Golf Course N/A N/A
Disc Golf Shelter
$13-16.25 HR
$300 Half-Day R/ $375 NR
$500 Full Day R/ $625 NR
2026 Fees not yet listed.
2025 Fees below
$50 half day
$100 full day
$250 Annual Fee for Private
Lesson Coaches w/ Insurance N/A
Crown Mountain, El Jebel, CO Crown Mtn. Bike Park BMX Track
Private Coaching- up to 5ppl per Group:
1.50HR $150, 2HR $200, 3HR $300
Organizational Pass: Clinics, Group Classes or camps at the park:
$100/Day (11HRs/max of 25pp/day) $50/HR, $650/Day (Max 13HR Rental)
Town of Castle Rock
Ryolite Bike Park Cycling & Disc
Golf
Special Event "Trail Fee"* $500 to $1,500/Day
Special Event App Fee $150
Ryolite Disc Park is free to
play and no fee to rent is
listed
Town of Minturn, CO Minturn Bike Park N/A
Can be rented for a Camps, Clinics, Races but can
not be rented out exclusivly for special events like
Birsthday Parties- no rate is listed to rent facility
Evergreen Park & Rec District Buchanan Park Disc Golf Course N/A N/A
2025 Fee: $25 1 HR Beginner
Class, which includes use of
discs
Town of Dillon Dillon Disc Golf Course N/A N/A
Tournament Reservation:
$50 Special Event Permit
Application
Otherwise Free to Public
Winter Park Resort Trestle Bike Park -Private
Private Coaching- up to 3ppl per Group:
Full Day $404 (24HR Prebook), $424 (No PB), $45 (Add to Lift Ticket)
Half Day $229 (24HR Prebook), $269 (No PB), $45 (Add to Lift Ticket)
Full Day Clinics: $184-$219 Learn
to Downhill 1/2 Day Package=$199 Lift/Lesson/Renta+E+D15:J15
Single Person Fee to Ride Track: Off PEAK-Aug 1-
Sept 28: $100/2 days
PEAK: $69 1 Day Adult /$54 Child/$59 Military
(with 2 day adv) $79 1 Day Adult
/$60 Child/$64 Military (w/o 2 day adv)
$98/2 Day Pass (After 7/31)
Single Person Seasonal Pass: $469 Adult +23/
$379 (13-22) /$279 C (5-12) / $349 Military
Ft Collins Launch Indoor Skate Park-Private N/A
Event Rental- Up to 12ppl:
$90 1HR / $165 2HR / $225 3HR
2026 Bike, Disc Golf & Skate Park Rentals
Attachment F – BPR 2026 Market Study Comparison for Rentals and Fees
14 of 14 152
Attachment G – PRAB 2025 BPR Projects Field Trip
BPR Projects Field Trip
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Friday, October 24, 2025
The intent of the tour is to build board awareness and understanding of upcoming major capital projects. At
each site, staff will provide a brief project overview and allow time for questions and discussion.
There is no public participation at this meeting. Members of the public who wish to attend the tour
can listen at each location and travel via their own transportation.
The tour will begin at the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building parking lot.
Topic Start Time (a.m.) End Time (a.m.) Location Tour Lead
Brief tour overview 9:00 9:05 parking lot Scott Schuttenberg
Civic Area -
Concept Plan 9:05 9:25 Civic Area Shihomi Kuriyagawa
Van departure 9:25 9:35
North Boulder Park -
Schematic Design 9:35 10:00 North Boulder Park Bill Wildenberg
Travel 10:00 10:20
EBCC - Facility
Renovation & Park
10:20 10:45 Community
Center
Tina Dalton
Return to Civic Area 10:45 11:00
153
3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Matters from the Board
DATE: July 27, 2026
A.Board Discussion of Role in 2026 Ballot Measures (30 mins)
B. PRAB Matters (verbal) (10 mins)
154