City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2K: $400 Million Bond Measure

The South Boulder Rec Center has been in the news recently as an aging building that might need full replacement. Passing 2K might get area residents a new center with a lap pool, but there are other high-dollar items mentioned in this ballot measure.

At its simplest, passing Issue 2K would allow the City of Boulder to issue up to $400 million in new bonds, and would impose property taxes on city property owners for up to $32,500,000 annually to pay down the debt. The bonds would be used to finance capital improvement projects (more on this below), and the maximum debt repayment cost (principal and interest) would be $650 million.

This ballot measure would pass with a simple majority of 50% (plus one) of the vote.

Why 2K? (or, Y2K)

The City of Boulder clearly owns facilities that are not brand-new or state-of-the-art. According to a city report outlining information from its Facilities Master Plan released in 2021: “The average age of the city’s facilities is 47 years. Over half were built before the 1970s. Seven are over 95 years old, and ten are over 60 years old.”

As a common observation, facilities or hard goods inevitably deteriorate or become less-than-ideally-useful over time. As with most physical things that are well-used, there’s a point at which people should consider whether it makes sense to do maintenance or upgrades on an older facility, or if it needs to be completely replaced.

A list of city facilities rated “D” or “E” condition in 2021, from the city’s Facilities Master Plan

Even in 2021, a fair number of city facilities were rated at grades of “D” or “E” for their overall condition (see chart at right). And in 2025, the consultants Perkins & Will released a Building Condition Assessment Report on Boulder’s North, South, and East recreation centers – a document of more than 300 pages with specific details and photos of areas of concern. It’s far too long to outline here, but here are general intro statements for the two rec centers identified in Issue 2K:

North: The entire facility is dated with signs of major structural issues at the natatorium exterior walls and roof parapet. The aging roof system in the pool area needs attention at the perimeter for weather tightness. Several areas throughout the facility show proof of roof leaks. ADA compliance is not met in several areas and will require further evaluation. Many exterior windows show wear of sealant both at the exterior and interior and it is recommended to replace the sealant where needed. It is strongly recommended to further evaluate the natatorium exterior walls/ envelope for repair or replacement. The City of Boulder has also received a door blower test from a 3rd party consultant. The results of this test show significant air leakage throughout the facility.
South: The entire facility is dated with minimal renovations & improvements over the years. There appear to be signs of materials containing asbestos that will take further analysis for abatement. The pool shell shows several areas of continual cracking and repair. The roof paneling appears to be nearing the end of its life. The pool area shows areas of failing paint & drywall construction along with several areas of rusting structural steel. Exterior windows show signs of gaps and air filtration. Accessibility is a major concern as some areas will require upgrading to current standards. Fitness spaces are undersized and do not meet the space needs for the current demand.

For a quick section about problems with the Public Safety building from the City of Boulder:

“The building’s heating, electrical and plumbing systems are well past their replacement cycles, resulting in regular disruptions and the need for emergency repairs. Frequent leaks are causing concerns about the potential for mold. The elevator does not work consistently. The building does not have adequate covered parking to keep expensive vehicles and equipment protected from the elements and it is too small to support current needs.”

Those who read the paragraph above and thought, “well, that doesn’t seem like $170 million to me” might find a video available at this link interesting for perspective, because the city’s envisioning a new facility that would be a very large upgrade from the old one.

But back to Issue 2K – as most people don’t buy a new car or a new house every year, city officials need to decide when and how to fund maintenance or replacements for aging facilities. This ballot measure has identified primarily large-scale projects described in the next section.

What Would This Measure Finance?

The ballot title language says the bonds would be used to finance “construction, renovation, or replacement of community recreation, safety infrastructure, and other capital projects, such as” the projects listed below. The words “such as” are bold-faced here because it means the ballot title does not legally preclude using the bonds toward other projects not listed below, and there are those who would say “such as” could mean these projects aren’t guaranteed at all.

Rough cost estimates for the projects listed below are from a City webpage on this bond measure proposal (linked here). This link includes short videos describing why the city believes the projects are necessary. City officials are giving the explanations and the videos seem promotional, but readers might find them helpful for quick explanations and perspective.

Replacement of the South Boulder Recreation Center, including a lap pool. Estimated cost from the City of Boulder – $65 million.
The North Boulder Recreation Center, including aquatics amenities and improvements needed to co-locate West Age Well Senior Center from its current location at 9th and Arapahoe to the North Boulder Rec Center. Estimated cost – $72 million
Fire stations (to sustain emergency and wildfire response capabilities). Estimated costs – $5 million for Station 1 and $2 million for Station 5
A new Public Safety Building for police and 911 services. Estimated cost – $170 million.
Penfield Tate II Municipal Building. Estimated cost – $30 million
The Municipal Service Center (to support infrastructure services, such as snow removal, utility maintenance, and city street operations). Estimated cost – $100 million

What Would 2K Cost Taxpayers?

Per a city outline on the ballot measure – “if the city bonds for the full amount, the owner of a $1 million residential property would pay an additional $400 on their annual property taxes.” Even if 2K passes, it’s not certain that the city would bond for the whole $400 million at once, however, several of the key items have big price tags – notably the Public Safety facility at $170 million.

The ballot measure does not have a technical “sunset” date, but the same city outline says, “When the debt is paid in full, the bond retires and the additional property tax ends.”

There is a “de-Brucing” statement in the ballot measure title for 2K, named after Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights drafter Douglas Bruce, that would mean the revenue collected under 2K would not be subject to revenue collection and spending limits under TABOR.

How Else are Relevant Projects Funded in Boulder?

For a few examples of other means of funding rec centers and public safety facilities in Boulder:

The City of Boulder’s Parks and Recreation department budget for 2026 was about $41 million. Funding sources for Parks and Rec include a 0.25% sales and use tax, property taxes, user fees, grants, lottery funds, and the city’s General Fund.
City voters have passed a 0.3% sales and use tax for Community, Culture, Resilience & Safety (CCRS) projects multiple times, most recently in 2025 with an estimate of $15 million revenue for the first year. The 2025 measure extended the tax into perpetuity. Ballot measures approving CCRS tax extensions also came with authorization for increased debt. Ballot language for the most recent CCRS measure said the funds could be used for rec center renovations and replacements, and fire and police facility renovations and replacement, among other things.
Capital Facility Impact Fees on new construction are used to help fund rec centers, fire and police needs, and other things maybe not relevant to this bond measure.
City of Boulder General Fund: The 2026 General Fund was about $195 million. General Fund revenue “can” be used for facilities maintenance, but uses of this fund can be discretionary unless there are hard requirements to do something specific.

Proponent Points

The City of Boulder has a large backlog on capital needs like repairs or replacements, though there’s some debate over needs and timing. Passing 2K would allow the city to start work on projects sooner rather than later.
Some city facilities are said to be in fairly bad shape and in need of timely work, full replacement, or projects for modernization.
Several of the projects listed are for public safety facilities, and the main Public Safety building project would be a big upgrade in functionality for a city that’s grown since the current facility was built.
Better recreational facilities make for a more enjoyable city for residents and visitors.

Opponent Points

It’s a tax increase on property owners, and some people might be cash-short on financial ability to pay for this increase even though they own valuable property assets
City taxpayers just approved in 2025 a Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety (CCRS) sales tax and bonding authorization into perpetuity (forever). Some of the same general types of facilities listed in this year’s bond measure are also listed generally as eligible uses for CCRS money.
Boulder County might also have a property tax increase on this year’s ballot to fund child care services. Two increases would be tougher to handle than one for some taxpayers.
There’s a potential for using lots of money in debt servicing, perhaps as much as $250 million, and you don’t get hard goods for your interest payments.
Bond markets have been fluctuating recently, with the potential for higher interest rates on bonds Boulder might issue.

Richard’s Take

I’m likely to vote against this measure, but not without some waffling. To frame what’s to follow, I often ask myself, “Is this the only possible solution?” when faced with ballot measures, and I’m not yet convinced that 2K is the only way forward. Plus, it’s asking city property owners for a lot of money during tough times for many.

But on the other hand, I interviewed nearly every Council and Mayoral candidate, and a few of them had reasonably compelling points in favor of 2K, along the lines of the old TV commercial that said “you can pay me now, or pay me later.” Nothing seems to be getting cheaper, including hard goods and capital projects, and sometimes there is a cost to inaction if it involves delaying maintenance which might lead to worse damage down the road.

I don’t feel comfortable telling residents or business owners to approve a significant increase in property taxes right now, but I feel like it’s a legitimate position if voters want to spend their money to have better facilities faster. So my real recommendation here is to look at the numbers and make a well-informed decision that suits your budget and/or desires, not to look to me for an endorsement.

On my down side, the ask for a sizable new tax that might be in place for the rest of my life feels a little bit like a gut punch, given some recent history. Boulder voters narrowly passed a Library District property tax in 2022 with sales pitches including that this would “free up” perhaps $9 million per year in General Fund revenue. Well, if this freed-up revenue could have been directed straight toward the South Boulder Rec Center, principal on a complete replacement could have been paid off in about seven years. I fully understand that’s not how it works, but I’m throwing this number out for perspective.

Boulder voters also just approved a permanent extension of the CCRS tax and a debt limit increase. That’s maybe $15 million per year available forever for capital projects, unless for some reason someone passes a ballot measure to repeal it – or, principal on the proposed North Boulder Rec / Age Well relocation project in about five years. Obviously interest on this and other projects would push actual costs a lot higher, and the city has current CCRS priorities, but CCRS language literally says revenue could be used for rec center and public safety projects.

While some of the Council candidates I interviewed supported 2K, others had questions and criticisms. So, are there other ways to fund these projects? I have to believe, for example, that some smaller projects listed in 2K could be financed with CCRS even if not immediately. South Boulder Rec is getting the lion’s share of the press right now, and I can’t help thinking the city could finance it as its next CCRS project and not only get Boulder a nice facility, but it would also take care of one black eye the city’s running around with over this issue. A number of candidates also balked at the $170 million price tag for a new public safety facility, with some adding that the actual land on which it would sit has yet to be identified.

But I’ll quote myself on something I wrote last year about CCRS: “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.” I still mean it, and that’s why I’m not megaphoning hard-core opposition to 2K. The Daily Camera recently ran a story that seemed compelling to me about poor conditions at the Public Safety facility, while most Boulderites have seen and heard a number of reports about conditions at South Boulder Rec Center.

Still, if anyone from “the city” is reading this, I need good things in my personal life as well, like struts. Riding in my car right now feels like skiing moguls at A-Basin, and I can’t ask taxpayers for help with this. I won’t even try to deny that there’s inflation hitting municipal infrastructure costs right now, but the same goes for little old me and probably many others in my general situation.

There are ever-present choices in life when it comes to hard goods. When do we repair, and when do we replace? Can we live with things that are not in perfect order, like by deferring maintenance? Will it cost more in the long run NOT to fix or replace? Are there urgent health or safety issues if we don’t act?

All fair questions, but whether Boulder voters pass 2K or not, these questions will still be there in years to come because infrastructure by definition always ages. Perhaps this year’s community discussions over 2K will help guide next steps if it doesn’t pass.