Editor’s note: The story below has been clarified to note that Boulder Chamber leadership urged Boulder City Council to explore sustainable and just funding mechanisms for transportation infrastructure while also considering the city’s economic vitality as a whole.
Boulder City Council on Tuesday showed enthusiasm for city efforts — like Vision Zero, the Pedestrian Plan and the build out of the low-stress walk and bike network — designed to help people walk, bike and travel more safely and comfortably, as well as reach their daily destinations.
As staff continues to work on an update to the Transportation Master Plan, which guides the city’s transportation and sustainability efforts, council weighed in on components of the city’s transportation planning efforts, as well as how to fund ambitious goals.
The draft Safe Streets Report examines and analyzes Boulder’s traffic crashes in an effort to prevent them in the future, and council applauded the data in the report and the ways it could be used to improve safety in the city.
“This is a phenomenal report,” Councilman Aaron Brockett said. “We’ve come so far. The hard data is amazing.”
However, a city needs assessment identified tens of millions of dollars in unmet transportation needs: $22.7 million in unmet annual needs related to essential services and $20.8 million in one-time capital expenditures, according to a staff memo to council.
Transportation’s dedicated sales tax is not keeping up with inflation, and the city is facing increased competition for regional, state and federal funding, according to the staff memo.
“If we don’t do anything, we will continue to defer maintenance, … our services will not meet community expectations, and our transportation goals will become wishful thinking,” said Chris Hagelin, city senior transportation planner.
A funding working group identified six mechanisms for funding, two of which rose to the top and earned the most consensus among the group.
One of the recommendations that garnered the most support was a transportation utility fee or a similar transportation maintenance fee. Such fees are typically included on utility bills and calculated based on the types of vehicle trips generated by the land use, such as residential or office. The other recommendation was a countywide regional transportation tax.
Loveland has transportation maintenance fee based on the length of lot frontages. Councilman Sam Weaver said he liked the idea of basing commercial property calculations on trip generation, while basing residential calculations on the length of property frontages.
Mayor Suzanne Jones said the fees could provide a steady, dependable funding source. Brockett echoed that, saying that the city has a lot of transportation needs and, though enhancements are needed, there are existing maintenance issues that have been neglected.
“A lot of our streets are not in very good shape,” Brockett said. “It’s an experience issue, but it’s also a safety issue.”
Councilwoman Mirabai Nagle said the city was not built around bikes and pedestrians, and said council needs to remember there are working class community members who rely on cars. The fee, she said, would increase the expenses to live in the city.
“It’s already expensive to live here,” Nagle said. “Taxes are getting higher on our homes.”
Added Councilwoman Mary Young: “It’s death by a thousand cuts.”
Council discussed ways to make the fee more progressive based on various factors, such as home size, and implementing rebates.
Another one of the six proposals was a tax or fee on vehicles miles traveled — something council last month declined to explore locally. The staff memo to council noted the fee would more likely be implemented at state or federal levels.
Council also discussed roadway user fees, or congestion fees, which could come in the form of cordon, corridor or parking fees, for example. The funding working group recommended against the city implementing such fees by itself and without regional support because they would put the city at a regional disadvantage economically. There also were concerns about equity because people with lower incomes who travel into the city for work would be disproportionately affected.
Jones pointed to the approach on U.S. 36 as a model for success.
“It worked on so many different levels, and that’s what we’re trying to replicate on the other corridors,” she said.
Council members also discussed both the value of regional partnerships and the need to ensure regional approaches still allow some degree of city control over the taxes that city residents pay.
John Tayer, president and CEO of the Boulder Chamber, cautioned council against further burdening residents and businesses with taxes to fund city initiatives — like a dedicated open space tax — without looking at the bigger picture of economic vitality.
In a letter sent to council before the meeting, he noted that 76% of the city’s business community comprises small businesses, or those with fewer than 10 employees. He also noted the projection for a state economic downturn and how that would work against businesses in conjunction with Boulder’s high sales taxes.
“(W)e already hear of businesses that make the decision to expand or relocate outside of Boulder based on our community’s high tax burden,” he wrote. “We can expect that sentiment to be even more resonant during an economic downturn.”
However, he also urged council to explore sustainable and just funding mechanisms for transportation infrastructure, which he described as “critical needs.”
The Transportation Master Plan is slated to be finalized and adopted by council in late summer.