This public domain image isn’t a Boulder fire station, but the city’s CCRS program that Issue 2A hopes to extend is currently funding capital projects for Boulder fire stations.

At its simplest, passing this ballot measure would extend an existing 0.3% City of Boulder sales and use tax into perpetuity (no sunset date). The existing program is called Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety (CCRS), and in very short, it funds capital improvement projects along with nonprofit grants. The tax is expected to generate about $15 million per year, of course depending on economic activity.
There is a very basic list of types of projects this measure could fund in the ballot title, including but not limited to:

  • Enhancements of roads, paths, bike lanes and sidewalks
  • Recreation center renovations and possibly replacements
  • Snow and ice response
  • Parks and playground refurbishments
  • Fire and police facility renovations and replacement
  • Critical bridge replacement
  • Open space trail and trailhead improvements

Boulder City Council put this measure on the ballot, and it would pass with a simple majority. If it fails, the existing tax would still be in effect until 2036. There is a separate ballot measure in 2025 (Issue 2B) which would increase the city’s debt authority, with repayment revenue coming from the tax extension, but voters can vote for one measure but not the other if they so choose.

If voters approve the tax extension (2A), it would go into effect even if the new debt authorization measure (2B) fails, but the debt authorization would not go into effect without passage of the tax extension.

What Is CCRS?

Boulder has basically had this tax and this program since 2014, although the name has changed slightly. Voters approved the 0.3% tax in 2014, then extended it again in 2017 and 2021. The 2021 Ballot Issue 2I extended the tax until 2036.

The title of CCRS gives a reasonably good idea of the types of projects that the revenue will fund. In very brief, projects are typically for infrastructure or capital improvements. For example, the city has a current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for CCRS projects, since the tax is already in effect, and this graphic shows what funding was authorized for 2024-2029. Visit the CIP webpage for more detailed outlines and images of the projects mentioned below: https://stories.opengov.com/cityofboulderco/published/GdNFy0Rug

CCRS has also included a requirement for 10% of revenue to be used for nonprofit capital improvement grants, which is listed on the fifth line of the above graphic. Passing the tax extension would continue this 10% requirement past 2036.

Just for illustration, CCRS has awarded past grants for facilities projects to local nonprofits including: New Horizons School; Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center; YMCA and YWCA; Attention Homes; Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence; Bridge House; Harvest of Hope Pantry; Out Boulder County; Boulder Day Nursery; Boulder JCC; Museum of Boulder; All Roads (formerly Boulder Shelter for the Homeless); and Center for People with Disabilities.

For much more information about CCRS past, present, and future, visit https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/community-culture-resilience-and-safety-tax

Ballot Measure Title

The following language is what voters will see on their ballot for 2A:

WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES, SHALL THE EXISTING COMMUNITY, CULTURE, RESILIENCE, AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.3 PERCENT, INITIALLY SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2036, BE EXTENDED IN PERPETUITY, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, WITH THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX EXTENSION AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON, STARTING JANUARY 1, 2026, TO BE USED TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

ROADS, PATHS, BIKE LANES, TRAILS, AND SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENTS; RECREATION CENTER RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS; SNOW AND ICE RESPONSE; PARKS AND PLAYGROUND REFURBISHMENTS; FIRE AND POLICE STATION RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS; CRITICAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS; AND OPEN SPACE TRAIL AND TRAILHEAD IMPROVEMENTS;

AND USE UP TO 10 PERCENT OF SUCH TAX REVENUE TO FUND A GRANT POOL FOR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION PROJECTS THAT SERVE THE PEOPLE OF BOULDER AND RELATED COSTS INCLUDING GRANT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COSTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND TIMING ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL;

AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL THE TAX REVENUES AND ANY EARNINGS FROM THE REVENUES CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?

The last paragraph above means the revenue collected under this tax extension will not be subject to TABOR, and the city will be authorized legally to keep and spend what it collects without needing to issue refunds to taxpayers. This TABOR exemption is already in place for CCRS, but it’s necessary to include it in the ballot language again for revenue collected beyond the 2036 sunset date of the 2021 tax extension.

2A Pros:

  • If 2A passes, the city will be able to count on significant revenue for capital improvement projects far into the future, possibly without going back to the ballot.
  • Facilities and infrastructure almost always reach a point at which they’re outdated, functionally obsolete, or maybe even hazardous. It’s good to replace or update them so they’re useful and safe, and that takes funding.
  • 2A is an extension of an existing tax, so it won’t increase local tax rates.
  • Local nonprofits can do valuable work for the city and its residents, and nonprofits need adequate facilities that could be funded through 2A grants.

2A Cons:

  • Extending the 0.3% tax into perpetuity means taxpayers of the future might be saddled with a tax they didn’t approve and might not need. While there is a chart in this write-up of needs through 2029, who’s to say what will be needed in 2059?
  • Some people say sales taxes are regressive, imposing greater burdens on people of lower income than those of higher income.
  • It’s possible that the city might still ask for future tax increases for other capital improvement needs, even if this extension passes.

Richard’s Take

I’ll probably vote YES on the CCRS tax extension, with perhaps an apology to whoever is re-reading this piece in 2059 (that was a joke, folks). But seriously, it would be a very long-term commitment going into an uncertain future, so I won’t be surprised or even really disappointed if people vote against it in 2025.

However, while I don’t blindly believe in many “truisms,” I do know from painful and costly experience that buildings and infrastructure inevitably develop problems. That’s the biggest reason I’ll probably vote for the extension. Buildings and infrastructure deteriorate with use and the elements; over the course of decades they could become out of date or functionally obsolete; and chances are really good that there will be needs in the long-term that most of us haven’t thought of yet.

I must admit that the proposal to extend the tax into perpetuity gave me pause, but I begrudgingly wound up understanding why that made some sense. Items like new buildings, major additions, path construction, or high-level renovations are already costly, and the costs of construction and materials seem to be increasing with time. It seems likely to me that the city will need some major projects over the course of decades, and if they’re taking on a high-dollar project it will need to be financed with interest. With a stable tax to back up the loans, these projects will be within the realm of possibility in reasonable time.

Furthermore, I remembered that the 0.3% tax already extended to 2036 based on how city voters voted in 2021. Therefore, passing the extension would really not have any impact on tax burdens until at least 2037, and even then, it wouldn’t increase tax rates by itself since it’s an extension of something we’ve had since 2014. Could we use the 0.3% tax for something else in 2037? Probably, but facility and infrastructure quality is a core responsibility of government and I don’t have a vision of some better, more appropriate use of the funding at this time.

If we hope to have a city to be proud of, it will be a good thing for residents and visitors alike to have well-maintained and relatively modern city/nonprofit buildings and infrastructure. The funding from the tax extension should help ensure that at least a good number of capital projects will be possible.

And don’t laugh, but if future residents or councils or city managers come to understand that this source of revenue isn’t needed any more, or if needs that are more pressing pop up, they can propose another ballot measure to repurpose or reduce or cancel this tax. It’s been said that Boulder voters never met a tax they didn’t like, but it’s possible that the consequences of our “new abnormal” might require us to take fresh looks at how we tax and what we fund into the future. But I’m still very certain that buildings and infrastructure will need maintenance or replacement over time, so I’ll support 2A.