Matters Memo

City of Boulder City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: April 9, 2026

Agenda Title Facilities Investment Strategy

Staff Contact • • • • •

Michele Crane, Deputy Director Facilities & Fleet Department Joanna Crean, Director Facilities & Fleet Department Ali Rhodes, Director of Parks & Recreation Charlotte Huskey, Budget Officer Krista Morrison, Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary The purpose of this item is to inform council on the state of our buildings across the city portfolio and share a high-level overview of the draft Facilities Investment Strategy with a focus on a category of buildings that should be prioritized for investment. The goal of the strategy is to chart a course – a building roadmap – over a 20-year planning horizon for every building to inform near-term investments. Since the city’s portfolio consists of over 75 buildings, with over half of them built before 1970 and many in failing condition, the buildings have been grouped into categories based on energy performance, funding sources, and uses. This helps to shift a very large funding problem into manageable clusters. The focus of this memo is on the first grouping, which is the priority buildings category. These 15 buildings are of most concern because they are failing and they are vital to

our community to support emergency response, community safety and provide core community services. The city’s three recreation centers fall into this category of buildings in addition to the Public Safety Building, Fire Stations, West Age Well and several core maintenance buildings. Due to failing conditions, the priority buildings need, at a minimum, roughly $20M over the next 5-6 years for capital major maintenance simply to keep the buildings operational for the next ten to fifteen years with no guarantees. Staff recommend this funding should be the first priority with existing sources. Funding details will be brought back for council consideration as part of the 2027 budget process. Ultimately, these priority buildings also need funding for major renovation or replacement. In total, this would cost approximately $500M and currently only $100M is funded, leaving a need of $400M. This will take many years to address with multiple strategies and approaches. Council recently discussed potential 2026 ballot measures which could directly support capital needs for priority buildings. However, even with additional funding sources through certain ballot measures, the needs outweigh potentially generated funding. As a result, any decisions made will result in tradeoffs for other buildings. Since there has been so much community conversation around our recreation centers specifically, we note that as part of our priority building category, all three recreation facilities require significant investment. This investment is to maintain current levels of service, reduce costly emergency maintenance, and meet current building and energy codes. To address the investment needs, staff developed two scenarios for each recreation center, in addition to a “no action” scenario. Each scenario offers varying levels of investment in each recreation center. While staff recommends investing in all three recreation centers, the investment scenarios are not yet grounded in financial capacity or the citywide context. Based on council feedback at the Study Session, staff will develop a mix of investment scenarios across the priority buildings demonstrating how projects may be accomplished over time utilizing existing funding and potential funds raised by proposed ballot measures. These scenarios will demonstrate what options are available and the tradeoffs that are needed depending on what levels of funding are available. The mix of investment scenarios will be considered by council as part of the potential 2026 ballot measures May 14 Study Session and the city’s annual budget process.

Questions for Council 1. Does council have any questions on what was presented on both the Facilities Investment Strategy and Recreation Center Scenarios? 2. Does council agree with staff’s recommendation to prioritize investing in minimum infrastructure (Major Maintenance) needs first with currently available funding? 3. Does council agree with staff’s proposed next steps to further develop a mix of investment scenarios across the priority buildings including recreation center options based on PRABs feedback? Based on feedback to these questions, specific next steps would be brought back as part of the 2026 ballot measures, 2027 budget development and the six-year CIP.

Alignment with City Plans and City Council History Sustainability, Equity and Resilience (SER) Framework and Citywide Strategic Plan Alignment SER Framework Goal Area Responsibly Governed. Funding city buildings that house the staff, equipment and programs that support a range of services including public safety, community recreation, older adult programs, maintaining streets, utilities, parks and staff delivering a wide range of programs across the community directly or indirectly supports all seven SER goal areas. Citywide Strategic Plan City facilities connect directly or indirectly to many of the Citywide Strategic Plan goals since the staff and programs that provide services to the community are housed in city buildings. The most direct connection is Strategy 10 which is to continue advancement toward the city’s goal of an 80% reduction in emissions. Specifically, within Strategy 10 is Priority Action 10(b) which is to prioritize climate-related elements in city-owned facilities and operationalize key climate-related elements of the Facilities Plan. The Facilities Investment Strategy is part of the implementation of the Facilities Plan, and it is based on data and modeling that includes balancing environmental sustainability, financial stewardship, and social responsibility.

Alignment with Additional City Plans The Facilities Investment Strategy is part of the implementation of the 2021 Facilities Plan. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework are key governing documents and are complimentary with the Facilities Plan guiding principles. Other key policies and plans have been considered,

including the racial equity plan and departmental plans (Parks & Recreation, FireRescue, Reimagine Policing, Transportation & Mobility, Utilities, OSMP). In addition, the Facilities Investment Strategy is connected to, building upon, and supporting the Long-Term Financial Strategy (LTFS). The LTFS is a two-year initiative and council priority that focuses on the development of a comprehensive financial strategy to help guide fiscal decision making and long-range financial health of the city. This multifaceted approach looks at revenue opportunities and services to address underfunded and unmet community needs. This work directly supports and builds upon the Facilities Investment Strategy.

City Council History The Facilities Investment Strategy is the continuation and implementation of the Facilities Plan (FP). On October 12, 2021, City Council accepted the city’s first Facilities Plan (formerly called Facilities Master Plan). This was a significant milestone since it was the first holistic view of the city’s entire building portfolio of over 75 buildings. Development of the plan was in part a response to council’s request to better understand needs in city buildings collectively rather than individually. Prior to this, individual department plans identified priorities for buildings and other infrastructure relative to their department needs but were unable to represent tradeoffs elsewhere and missed opportunities to leverage and consolidate both facilities and funding. The Facilities Investment Strategy also puts specific building needs in context of the entire building portfolio. In the Facilities Plan, the evaluation of city buildings is through the lens of three pillars of good asset management illustrated in Figure 1. Each pillar is supported by two guiding principles that are further defined by 19 key performance Figure 1 The Pillars of Asset Management metrics for city buildings. The pillars and principles are direct complement to the city’s Sustainability, Equity and Resiliency Framework, both of which reflect the city’s goals and values.

The Facilities Plan identified two key initiatives to guide policy direction for the city’s building portfolio to be financially sustainable while also meeting the goals of the other pillars. Maintain Well – This initiative is to be applied to buildings that are generally in fair condition with a Facility Condition Index (FCI) rating of ~10% or better. This would apply to any new or heavily renovated building. The policy direction is to proactively budget 2% of the building’s current replacement value (CRV) to fund future equipment replacements as these building age. Many city buildings will require investment to be put on a path to be maintained well. The goal of adopting practices and funding programs that adhere to the Maintain Well Initiative is to ensure smooth building operations, reduce maintenance costs and the overall total cost of ownership. This is ultimately the goal for all city buildings with priority placed on the city’s most vital and costly buildings. Consolidate Services – The city has accumulated many buildings, scattered across the community over time in response to growing needs and desires for more city services. The acquisition of buildings has outpaced the city’s ability to care for them. Buildings are very costly and, in some cases, replicating services across several buildings is inefficient. Consolidation of services, like we are doing at the Western City Campus (see Attachment A), addresses this inefficiency while achieving all the goals under the FP three pillars. It removes multiple failing buildings and a large unfunded liability from the city’s building portfolio which strategically lowers the total cost of owning and operating the city’s buildings. As stated in the Facilities Plan, consolidation opportunities will continue to be pursued as a strategy to achieve community goals and service standards while reducing the costs of owning and operating buildings.

Analysis This analysis provides a high-level overview of the Facilities Investment Strategy with a focus on a category of buildings that should be prioritized for investment. These buildings are vital to the community and are in failing condition. The analysis will go into more specific detail on the city’s three recreation centers which fall into this category of buildings alongside the Public Safety Building, Fire Stations, Age Well West and several core maintenance buildings. Current City Building Portfolio The city’s building portfolio consists of more than 75 buildings, with over half of them built before 1970. Since acceptance of the 2021 FP there have been several achievements towards improving the condition of the city’s building portfolio worth celebrating. The new Fire Station 3 and Fire-Rescue headquarters has been completed,

which improves service delivery and supports the city’s climate goals. The new allelectric building was constructed with steel reused from the old Boulder Community Hospital and is nationally recognized for community sustainability. The Western City Campus (WCC) is under construction, a project that is consolidating staff out of 12 buildings and achieving goals identified more than a decade ago. These projects successfully and comprehensively reflect the city’s values (see Attachment A for details). To achieve this is expensive, but not necessarily more expensive than the cost of spending more money on failing buildings and not achieving city goals. In addition to these projects, staff have been working on a Facilities Investment Strategy. The strategy is the implementation partner of the FP and a more specific building-by-building improvement plan and roadmap to address the city’s aging building infrastructure. This roadmap looks over a 20-year planning horizon to inform near-term investments in every building– within our 6-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to set realistic expectations for what can be achieved across all buildings and prioritize investment towards meeting important citywide goals. To be more manageable, the city’s portfolio is broken into categories of buildings defined largely by energy performance characteristics, funding sources, and uses (see Attachment B for details). The building categories, in no specific order are: 1. Maintenance Buildings and Shops 2. Leased Buildings 3. “New” Buildings 4. Utility Buildings 5. Parking Structures 6. Buildings being Vacated 7. Priority Buildings Development of an investment strategy for each category is in process and will be presented in the future. Staff focused on the priority buildings which are the subject of this analysis. Again, this is just one category within a still larger building portfolio and total investment strategy. Priority Buildings

These buildings play an essential role in supporting delivery of services to our community. First and foremost, these buildings support public safety and emergency first response (Public Safety Building and Fire Stations). They provide vital community services (Recreation Centers and Age Well Services). They house Municipal Services, our staff and equipment that keep fresh water flowing through pipes, floodways clear, streets plowed and all our city vehicles operating. The 2021 Facilities Plan provided a grading system which scored buildings on each of the 19 key performance indicators identified to arrive at a grade for all city buildings (see Appendix D of the FP). The table in Figure 2 is a current re-grading of the Priority Buildings from the list and shows how some scores have shifted in the past five years. There have been some necessary infrastructure investments in buildings which have

Figure 2: Current Scoring of Priority Buildings in contrast to 2021 scores

helped lift their score, but most have remained in the same condition or worsened. Conditions at East and North Boulder Recreation Centers and Age Well West have declined. The Public Safety Building, which houses the Police Department, 911 dispatch/call center, victim services and many more critical public safety functions, remains at the very bottom of the list and in worst condition. The condition of these buildings is further highlighted by the number of service requests received to fix things that are broken as depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Top Five Buildings Service Requests 2023-2025 YTD

These Priority Buildings also show up again when we look at how the 2025 Emergency Major Maintenance Funding was spent in 2025, shown in Figure 4, with most of it directed towards the Public Safety Building.

Figure 4: 2025 Emergency Capital Maintenance Funding Distribution

The city has been shifting towards more proactive maintenance to stay ahead of building equipment and system failures, but this has been a slow process in the face of a challenging financial environment and increasing building emergencies that divert staff

attention and resources. In general, these charts reflect that the city’s building portfolio has continued to decline faster than our ability to care for it. As a result, we are faced with a significant challenge, without an easy solution; there is a very large unfunded need across several critical buildings. This is not unique to the City of Boulder. The backlog of building maintenance across U.S. public infrastructure has been identified as a nationwide crisis with roughly $1 trillion in deferred maintenance needs. One prime universal culprit is cost escalation of building equipment and materials greatly outpacing revenue and funding sources. Due to the failing conditions, there is an urgent, bare minimum cost to just keep the buildings operating. This funding is needed to address leaking pipes, elevators that aren’t passing inspections, electrical systems faulting, and fire detection and alarm systems malfunctioning. Estimated costs to make necessary urgent repairs as well as equipment and system replacements in these priority buildings are roughly $20M at the low end and potentially as high as $40M. Figure 4 shows how the total range of minimum infrastructure investment is needed by building.

Figure 4: Minimum urgent infrastructure costs in priority buildings

The minimum infrastructure needs for EBCC, FS2 and FS4 will be addressed through their larger, currently funded capital projects. It is critical that these projects remain on track to address urgent equipment and system replacements. The remaining buildings

reflect $10M - $30M in unfunded needs. The gap between low to high estimates reflects the difference between what staff are certain that need to be repaired or replaced versus what additional potential risks exist but are not yet fully quantified. This is most notable again at the Public Safety Building where there are clear equipment replacements that must be made, but there are also numerous areas of concern in this building that have not yet been fully investigated. The “known unknowns” create concern that the funding need may grow to be much larger than expected. These immediate infrastructure projects that appear in the city’s budget under the Facilities and Fleet Major Maintenance CIP are being developed and will be brought forward through the 2027 budget process. Projects and associated costs will be spread out over the six-year CIP period with the most urgent coming forward to be considered for funding in 2027. When bringing forward more immediate, near-term major maintenance projects staff are intentional to avoid sunk costs when possible and when a larger known capital investment for a building is in its near future. It is anticipated that completing these projects will help buy time to then make the major investments over the horizon of the 20-year plan of the Facilities Investment Strategy. Ultimately, the priority buildings need to be fully renovated or replaced to continue to support core community services. The total capital cost to fully renovate or replace

Figure 5: Capital Project Cost Breakdown by Building

these buildings is estimated to be more than $500M in today’s dollars. Of that $500M, $100M is funded through the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety (CCRS) tax to support the East Boulder Community Center (EBCC), Fire Station (FS) 2 and Fire Station 4 replacements. This leaves still more than $400M currently unfunded. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of capital costs, funded and unfunded by building. The cost projections reflect capital projects that would generally achieve citywide goals like energy efficiency, accessibility and inclusivity and support current service levels. This price tag does not necessarily cover full-service levels or other unmet needs identified in department plans. Staff are committed to tackling the larger capital investment challenge and bringing forward solutions. The approach must be both strategic and incremental over time as there is not enough funding or resources to take care of all our building needs at one time. In working towards a solution, staff have developed a dynamic investment model as a tool. This model allows for real-time manipulation of different capital project scenarios shown over a 20-year planning window. Various scenarios for when large capital projects may be constructed can be input with immediate results showing cost escalation impacts, minimum investment needs as some projects are delayed, GHG emissions impacts, and the potential to input debt capacity, revenue streams and cash flow curves. Based on council feedback at the March 12th Study Session on ballot initiatives, these financial variables can be worked into the investment model alongside current funding availability. Focus on Recreation Centers Boulder’s recreation centers, built between 1972 and 1992, serve as essential indoor community hubs that support physical and mental well-being, social connection, affordability, and intergenerational access. However: •

Buildings are beyond ideal renovation and replacement cycles, with rapidly deteriorating infrastructure and outdated energy systems.

•

Construction inflation, emergency maintenance, and constrained revenues have intensified the funding challenges.

•

Operations are increasingly subsidized, with 2025 cost recovery ranging from 48–68%.

•

Ongoing maintenance is underfunded, with $1.65M spent in 2025 versus a $2.5M “Maintain Well” target.

Recent long-range planning efforts (Facilities Plan 2021, Boulder Parks & Recreation Plan (BPR) 2022, Long-Term Financial Strategy, Indoor Recreation Needs Assessment

2025) all conclude that current funding is insufficient to maintain service levels, let alone meet community expectations for aquatics, warm water wellness, cardio/strength spaces, and youth amenities. City staff have worked to develop scenarios specifically for the three recreation centers which were presented to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) on March 31. Following is a summary of the background and much of the analysis shared with the PRAB; the full memo can be accessed here. PRAB memo Current Facility Conditions East Boulder Community Center (EBCC) (built 1992) •

No major renovations in 30+ years; systems failing; major capital phased project underway

•

Age Well wing renovation funded; remainder has a significant funding gap. [NOTE: see paragraph on following page for details on current project]

•

Highest share of visits by older adults.

•

2025 cost recovery from user fees and rentals: 68%; $618K additional revenues from program fees, grants and subsidy.

North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC) (built 1973; renovated 2002, 2015) •

Requires immediate, unfunded repairs ($2–5M).

•

High accessibility via transit and paths; high usage from financial-aid recipients and strong gymnastics program.

•

2025 cost recovery: 66%; $775K additional revenues from program fees, grants and subsidy.

South Boulder Recreation Center (SBRC) (built 1972; renovated 1999) [NOTE: See paragraphs on following page for more details on current condition] •

Critical pool and building system failures in 2025 required >$2M in emergency repairs (defunding other needs).

•

Smallest and least flexible facility; lacks a system-wide “anchor” revenue generator.

•

2025 cost recovery: 48%; $809K additional revenues from program fees, grants and subsidy.

EBCC – Additional Details on Current Condition: EBCC was identified as a project for major capital investment of $53M as part of the community approved Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety Tax (CCRS). The EBCC project is moving forward with a phased construction approach to address failing building infrastructure and code compliance improvements first in the Age Well space. This first phase will also improve resilience for the building, better supporting community sheltering and other needs in times of disaster or severe weather. Construction in the Age Well wing is planned to start in 2027 and is estimated to cost $10M. The second phase of design and construction for the remainder of the EBCC has a funding gap to provide the current level of service. Without additional funding for the EBCC project, the community may experience service reductions. SBRC – Additional Details on Current Condition: Staff have evaluated the SBRC carefully. Based on deep experience with renovations and knowledge of the facility, staff do not recommend a renovation of this facility. The existing building’s design presents the greatest challenge to efficiently and economically renovating the building. It is a complex form and split level. The current building does not meet modern Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards or building code requirements. Any area that is renovated is required to meet current code standards. In most cases, this means requiring more square footage in bathrooms, shower areas, general circulation areas, around pool decks, etc. It would be impossible to meet current code’s space requirements and provide the same amount of square footage for recreation activity in the current building. This means the building requires expansion to achieve the same services and meet code requirements and herein lies the real challenge with a complex building form. An addition to the SBRC quickly becomes complicated. While quite feasible, the cost to add onto this current, inaccessible structure compared to building a new building is significant. Retrofitting mechanical and electrical systems is also challenging and costly when compared with building new and to meet code. For this facility and site, a new building is the more cost-effective way to meet code and provide for accessibility. Investment Need All three facilities require significant investment to maintain current levels of service and to meet building and energy codes. There is also an annual operating gap to invest in the facilities to avoid these challenges in the future and to provide the current levels of recreation services. There has been significant work to inform choices ahead about levels of service and funding strategies. The PRAB memo includes an overview of the policy foundations, decisions to date, and engagement upon which this work is built.

Community Input on Recreation Needs In 2025, the city completed the Indoor Recreation Needs Assessment to evaluate all three recreation centers and to inform the funded EBCC renovation. This needs assessment included research and community engagement. The work informed very high-level conceptual ideas for the future of recreation and high-level feasibility that inform the scenarios being proposed. This assessment references past plans including the 2021 Facilities Plan, the 2012 Indoor Recreation Facility Assessment, the 2015 Aquatics Feasibility Study, and the 2022 BPR Plan. The synthesis of plans recommends the following levels of service for indoor recreation activities across the city’s system of facilities: •

•

• • • • •

Maintaining existing levels of service for cold water lap swimming. The level of service for aquatics must be carefully examined as operating expenses for public swimming pools are escalating rapidly due to the costs of utilities, staffing, chemicals and materials. Without additional funding for new facilities, and as advised by the 2015 Aquatics Feasibility Plan and 2025 Indoor Recreation Needs Assessment, staff have focused on optimizing usage of existing pool space. The vision scenarios of the 2015 Aquatics Feasibility Plan and 2022 BPR Plan, which include the full set of amenities desired by the community without regard to resources or viability, include an additional aquatic facility for training and competitive swimming needs. These needs cannot be met within the current system of recreation facilities and given the significant financial needs to take care of existing facilities, are likely only possible through partnership. As such, staff have been coordinating with the Boulder Community Aquatics Coalition to preliminarily explore the feasibility of a partnership. This work is related to but separate from the overall indoor recreation programming within the three recreation centers. Improving levels of service related to warm water activities including swim lessons, warm water wellness, aquatic fitness, and recreational swimming. Improving cardio and weight training rooms, which are currently undersized at all locations limiting participation and revenue. Improving spaces for young people, including child watch and birthday party spaces. Maintaining or improving most dry recreation areas including gymnasiums, group exercise and multi-purpose spaces. Exploring additional amenities at locations including opportunities for intergenerational programming including age-well center co-location, gymnastics/ninja rooms, dance rooms, teaching or catering kitchens, youth/teen spaces, walk/jog tracks, indoor sports fields, arts and craft studios, spin rooms, nature rooms, and a licensed pre-school.

A full review of the Indoor Recreation Needs Assessment is also available in the October 27, 2025 PRAB Packet (pg 82). It is important to note that this needs assessment does not consider the needs of future community members. According to the Community Profile developed for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update, the city’s population may grow to be about 147,000 by 2040. About 16% of community members are aged 60 and older and this group is growing. Population growth, an aging community, and increasing diversity will place additional demand on recreation services and require expanded capacity and thoughtful investment to ensure facilities remain accessible, inclusive, and responsive to evolving community needs. These demographic trends also have important implications for how the city plans and invests in its recreation facilities system: •

•

•

EBCC: the service area for EBCC is anticipated to experience the greatest residential growth in the coming decades. This location presents a strong opportunity to serve future demand through a balanced mix of aquatics, including both lap and leisure swimming, and to accommodate increased participation from a growing and more diverse population. NBRC: location and accessibility make NBRC well-suited for further co-location with Age Well Services, supporting intergenerational connection, lifelong health, wellness, and social connection for a growing older adult population. SBRC: a large geographic area is served by SBRC with the potential to reach additional residents with unique amenity. Future investment in this location presents an opportunity to address unmet needs, expand access, and provide services to a broader portion of the community.

Taken together, these factors highlight the importance of planning for a recreation system that addresses current conditions and can meet the needs of a growing and changing community over the long term. Recreation Center Scenarios To address needs, staff developed two scenarios for each recreation center, in addition to a “no action” scenario. Each scenario offers varying levels of investment in each recreation center. They consider various factors, including impact on citywide goals as outlined in the SER Framework, 2021 Facilities Plan and 2022 BPR Plan. They also consider Total Cost of Facility Operations and annual operating expenses. Staff included estimated capital cost ranges for each scenario to indicate the general magnitude of investment for each scenario. CAUTION: These are preliminary, high-level estimates intended for planning purposes only; actual costs will depend upon amenities

included, square footage and year of construction. The ranges reflect that these projects are not fully developed; the specific project funding request is variable. “No Action” Scenario Overview: First, it is important to highlight what happens if the city continues with the current trajectory. Not making a major investment in buildings is a choice. Without significant investment in each facility, the city will continue to spend on failing buildings, service levels will decrease and subsidy needs will increase over time. As large-scale building infrastructure fails, such as sewer systems, building envelopes, and pool shells, parts of buildings or entire buildings will close. The resulting decrease in services and impact on community wide goals are significant. Based on the blend of data, research, and community engagement in multiple years’ worth of planning, staff recommend that this current approach should not be considered as a long-term strategy and that funding must be identified to improve all three recreation centers along with other critical buildings in the city’s portfolio. Scenario A Overview: This scenario models the minimum levels of investment needed within the existing facilities to renovate and meet current codes and minimize increasing operating costs. As operating costs continue to rise faster than available funding, the city is struggling to cover current service levels. To maintain recreation services, the city has increasingly relied on user fees, but this approach is no longer enough to support operating hours or meet the growing need for discounted and free access. Without new revenue, the city will have to reduce levels of service. These scenarios should be carefully considered if no new funding becomes available for facility investments and operations. Scenario B Overview: This scenario considers how investments might support indoor recreation needs for the next fifty years and meet citywide goals. Using research, community engagement and policy information from planning documents referenced earlier, these options strive to modernize the facilities and address unmet recreation needs across the community, even if they require additional capital and operating funding. Options balance community needs, climate goals and initiatives, and providing services system and citywide. South Boulder Recreation Center Staff recommend replacement, not renovation, due to building complexity, inaccessibility, and code compliance infeasibility. (See “Current Facility Condition” section for more details.) Since SBRC serves a large geographic area, future

investment in this location presents an opportunity to address unmet needs, expand access, and provide services to a broader portion of the community. SBRC Scenario A – New dry-focused facility, no pool • 35,000–40,000 sq ft; $30–50M • May include current amenities such as gymnasium and space for cardio and strength training; may also address unmet needs such as indoor track, spaces for young people • Eliminates lap swimming at SBRC • Significant energy and operating savings from no aquatic systems SBRC Scenario B – New full-service recreation center with pool • 40,000–55,000 sq ft; $45–65M • Maintains existing aquatics level of service • Improves user experience and accessibility • Higher operating and maintenance costs than Scenario A East Boulder Community Center Staff recommend EBCC Scenario B because it continues to provide current service levels with two pools. The service area for EBCC is expected to experience the greatest residential growth in the coming decades. This location presents a strong opportunity to serve future demand through a balanced mix of aquatics, including both lap and leisure swimming, and to accommodate increased participation from a growing and more diverse population. EBCC Scenario A – Minimum renovation, modernization of amenities/building, one pool • 55,000–65,000 sq ft; $60–70M • Only lap OR leisure pool retained • Warm water pool favored due to high community demand • Meets code but reduces diversity of aquatic offerings EBCC Scenario B – Full renovation, two pools • 65,000–70,000 sq ft; $70–80M • Adds up to two lap lanes and expanded warm-water amenities • Significant improvements to older adult wellness and swim lessons North Boulder Recreation Center Staff recommend NBRC Scenario B regardless of options chosen for EBCC or SBRC. The location and accessibility of NBRC makes it well-suited for further co-location with

Age Well Services, supporting intergenerational connection, lifelong health, wellness, and social connection for a growing older adult population. NBRC Scenario A – Minimum renovation, modernization of amenities/building • 60,000–70,000 sq ft; $50–70M • Retains existing aquatic facilities • No warm-water expansion • Pools remain gas-heated unless additional funds electrify them NBRC Scenario B – Full renovation with Age-Well co-location • 70,000–75,000 sq ft; $65–85M • Adds ~15,000 sq ft Age-Well Center, enabling consolidation and eliminating West Age Well Center • Potential warm-water expansion • Significant long-term operational savings and service enhancements System-Wide Options Figure 6 outlines a combination of options for system-wide investment in the recreation centers. To be clear, there are many combinations of options that could be considered. However, for illustrative purposes the options here include: • • •

Option 1 – Renovation/New Build of 3 Recreation Centers with Pools (includes scenarios: EBCC B + NBRC B + SBRC B) Option 2 – Renovation/New Build of 3 Recreation Centers but SBRC without Pool (includes scenarios: EBCC B + NBRC B + SBRC A) Option 3 – Renovation/New Build of 3 Recreation Centers but EBCC with 1 Pool (includes scenarios: EBCC A + NBRC B + SBRC B)

Figure 6: Recreation Center System-Wide Investment Options

Capital costs range from approximately $165M to $230M, with $53M already funded. Operating costs are projected to increase by approximately 8% to 18%, which would require approximately $200,000 to $500,000 annually in new revenues to fund expenses. In addition, aligning with the industry standard of allocating 2% of Current Replacement Value (CRV) for ongoing capital renewal would require an estimated $2.7 million to $3.1 million in additional annual funding across the three recreation centers to maintain these buildings well. Lower operating cost scenarios are primarily achieved by reducing or eliminating a pool at one location, as co-locating aquatic facilities is the most effective strategy to reduce energy consumption, mechanical and equipment costs, maintenance needs, and staffing requirements. If sufficient funding cannot be identified to support a sustainable system, the more fiscally responsible approach would be to strategically divest from one or more recreation center locations, rather than continuing to invest in facilities that cannot be maintained or operated effectively. This decision would have meaningful impacts on service delivery and access, and the city would face challenges in achieving its goal of being a Healthy and Socially Thriving community with a reduced indoor recreation footprint. Overall, the options all represent both significant funding needs for both capital and operating expenses to maintain and improve recreation services to the level desired by the community. At the March 31, 2026, Study Session, the PRAB discussed these three questions:

1. Based upon your understanding of community feedback and data that formed various city plans, such as the 2022 BPR Plan and 2025 Indoor Recreation Needs Assessment, what questions do you have about the facility alternatives and their impacts on recreation Levels of Service? 2. Recognizing that there are significant funding gaps for both capital and operating, what feedback does the PRAB have on potential of reducing or simply maintaining Levels of Service? 3. Does PRAB support the recommendation to further study the options to determine feasibility for major investments in all three recreation centers? Staff will provide a summary of the PRAB’s feedback before the Study Session. Summary & Staff Recommended Next Steps The recreation center scenarios identify that significant funding is needed for both capital and operating expenses to maintain and improve recreation services to the level desired by the community. This is true as we zoom back out and look at how the other priority buildings support delivering both essential and desired levels of service to the community in terms of public safety, protection, resilience and maintenance of basic public infrastructure like water and streets. Funding capacity is the essential layer to successfully evaluate all options and tradeoffs for each of our 15 priority buildings. Again, the priority buildings are only one category of the 75+ building portfolio. Assessment of current funding capacity alongside additional revenue generating ballot measures is the next step to refining and bringing back options of city building investment for council consideration. Staff recommend proceeding with further evaluation of funding approaches for a mix of the priority buildings, including the recreation center options. As we plan for the longer-term investment in the priority buildings, failures will continue to happen unless we also invest in the minimum capital maintenance needs to keep the building operational. Staff recommend minimum capital infrastructure needs to be prioritized first and supported with currently available funds. The specific major maintenance projects will be identified as part of the 2027 budget development and the six-year CIP. While we focus on the priority buildings category now, the city will also need to consider options for how to invest or divest in buildings in the other categories over the next couple of years. This work will continue to be paired with the LTFS as new revenue or service reductions will need to be considered to address the significant funding needs.

Anticipated Fiscal and Workplan Impacts Based on council feedback, staff will develop investment scenarios across a mix of priority buildings. The mix of investment scenarios will be considered by council as part of the potential 2026 ballot measures May 14 Study Session. The minimum capital infrastructure needs that are recommended to be prioritized first will be identified as part of the 2027 budget development and the six-year CIP. Staff will also continue development of the Facilities Investment Strategy in conjunction with the Long-Term Financial Strategy.

Equity Analysis The Facilities Investment Strategy is being developed in partnership with the Long-Term Financial Strategy (LTFS). The comprehensive LTFS will help guide us forward as we seek to establish an equitable, resilient and stable fiscal strategy to meet our greatest needs as a community. One of the guiding principles is equity, described as financial policies and implementation advance racial equity and reduce burdens on historically disadvantaged groups. In March and April 2026, the city is kicking off the community engagement (Fund Our Future) related to LTFS. It is important that the community is at the center of the conversation of what are core, essential services and what acceptable performance looks like. Eight engagement sessions invite community members to participate, including specific sessions engaging Community Connectors in Residence, youth, older adults, and Spanish-first participants. Community engagement for 2025 Indoor Recreation Needs Assessment included a robust plan to reach out to a broad and inclusive cross-section of community members to understand and confirm community values, priority indoor recreation activities, desired amenities, and barriers to access. To ensure decisions considered both who is impacted and who benefits, the City’s Racial Equity Instrument was also applied to both the design of the engagement process and the evaluation of emerging recommendations. As existing buildings are renovated or rebuilt Universal Design is best practice in design and construction. In general, city buildings do not meet current accessibility standards and modern building codes. A large portion of the major investment across all priority building projects will be to make these buildings accessible and designed to meet people’s needs.

Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability Considerations In the Facilities Plan, the evaluation of city buildings is through the lens of resilience and sustainability, which is carried forward in the Facilities Investment Strategy. As the

Facilities Investment Strategy further develops, one primary goal is to understand how to meet electrification goals and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals. Key considerations related to this memo are: •

•

•

•

•

The $20M recommended to fund critical infrastructure will do little to further our GHG emissions and electrification goals. Staff will switch to the latest technology (heat pumps and hybrid heat pumps for example) where possible but are severely limited by existing electrical infrastructure. All city facilities accounted for 27% of total municipal GHG emissions in 2024 – this excludes emissions from processes related to water and wastewater (source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from City Operations and Facilities Data Dashboard | City of Boulder). The 15 priority buildings outlined here represent 35% of the facilities total (or roughly 10% of the total municipal GHG emissions). Figure 7 shows the breakdown of the priority buildings, with recreation centers being approximately 6% of total municipal emissions, and the remainder of the priority buildings being 4%. Even if the three recreation centers became all electric tomorrow, the overall emissions reduction would be significantly less than 6% of municipal emissions because our electric grid is still heavily fossil fuel based. The primary way to reduce our facilities GHG emissions total and meet our targets is through large capital building projects that reduce natural gas consumption and to continue our advocacy for Xcel Energy to move to an allrenewable electric grid. It’s worth noting here that after electricity the second largest source of municipal emissions comes from consumption-based emissions (this represents everything the city consumes from paper and computers to asphalt) followed by natural gas and gasoline.

Figure 7: GHG Emissions by building grouping

In relation to resilience efforts, it’s worth noting that the city was recently awarded $1M for the “East Boulder Community Center Improvements Project” as requested through the Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending process. This funding will help with the emergency management activities that are hosted at the East Boulder Community Center. These upgrades will include HVAC upgrades to allow for better air circulation and management of airflow within the facility; improvement of restrooms; and installation of flooring and other internal design features that will allow for easier and more effective restoration after emergency sheltering activities.

Community Engagement There has been extensive community engagement in plans that help inform the Facilities Investment Strategy including the 2022 Parks & Recreation Plan and 2025 Recreation Needs Assessment. The Long-Term Financial Strategy – Fund Our Future community engagement recently kicked off in March and will continue in April. Information gathered through this process will inform the Facilities Investment Strategy as well as future discussions with the community as part of the annual budget process.

Next Steps for City Council Proposed next steps are to take feedback from council and develop investment scenarios across a mix of the priority buildings discussed. This includes the recreation center scenarios along with other buildings that also layer in potential funding options based on currently available sources and those that could be generated through ballot items being explored. The mix of investment scenarios will be considered by council as part of the potential 2026 ballot measures May 14 Study Session. Staff will also be developing the 2027 budget and again, based on council feedback at the study session, staff will develop the Facilities CIP accordingly. Staff will continue development of the Facilities Investment Strategy and the other building categories for council consideration of policy choices and further discussion in the future.

Digital Accessibility The City of Boulder is committed to digital accessibility. Some content may not be fully accessible due to technical limitations or issues. For alternate formats or accommodations, please visit Accessibility | City of Boulder or contact accessibility@bouldercolorado.gov.

Attachments Attachment A – Western City Campus and Fire Station 3 Overview Attachment B – Building Groups Summary and Mythology