Matters Memo

City of Boulder City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: March 12, 2026 Agenda Title Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Formation Analysis and Initial Recommendations

Staff Contact • • •

Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Reegan Brown, Economic Development Strategy Manager, City Manager’s Office

Executive Summary The purpose of this item is to update City Council on the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) formation analysis and initial recommendations. The update includes an overview of DDAs and Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a summary of planning work completed to date in partnership with Progressive Urban Management Associates (PUMA) and community members, and preliminary recommendations related to funding strategy, governance structure, and potential impacts to existing General Improvement Districts (GIDs). It also outlines fiscal considerations and next steps. The city's expanded focus on economic development is a direct response to a challenging economic landscape: significant local, national, and international headwinds marked by rising commercial vacancy, declining property values, and a persistent flattening of sales tax revenues. This stagnation signals that our local economy has reached a vulnerable plateau.

At the center of this challenge lies our downtown core—extending from Pearl Street Mall through the Civic Area to University Hill. This corridor is the undisputed heartbeat of our local economy, yet it relies on the GIDs established over 50 years ago with a primary purpose of providing parking access. We have reached a generational inflection point with an opportunity to modernize our investment framework. The formation of a Downtown Development Authority (DDA) offers a powerful option for long-term transformational investment in the heart of our city and economy. The DDA is being evaluated as a long-term governance and financing tool within a defined boundary to support economic vitality, infrastructure investment, public realm improvements, and coordinated district stewardship. Unlike the city’s existing GID model, a DDA, if created, is uniquely authorized to capture and reinvest incremental growth in property and sales tax revenue through TIF. This allows the DDA to finance larger-scale, catalytic capital projects that would not be feasible under the current structure, positioning downtown Boulder, University Hill, and other areas within the geography under consideration for the DDA for long-term reinvestment and economic transformation. Importantly, the policy concepts outlined in this memo are preliminary and are intended to frame council discussion. City staff is not currently seeking final approval of a specific structure, but rather guidance on whether council supports continued refinement of the proposed approach through additional financial modeling, legal review, and community engagement. Based on council input, city staff will continue refining the draft Plan of Development (POD), complete financial analyses, and continue stakeholder outreach this spring, with the intent to return to council by June to consider referral of DDA formation and related funding measures to the qualified electors within the approved boundaries in November 2026.

Questions for Council 1. Does council have any questions regarding the governance structure and how the DDA would be implemented? 2. Does council support continued refinement of a coordinated funding strategy that includes a voter-approved mill levy paired with both property and sales tax TIF, subject to intergovernmental agreements with the city? 3. Does council support continued evaluation of a structural model in which the DDA would ultimately own and operate some or all the GIDs assets, while also analyzing alternative approaches related to GID impacts, including modification of a mill levy and asset ownership?

Alignment with City Plans and City Council History Sustainability, Equity and Resilience (SER) Framework and Citywide Strategic Plan Alignment Forming a DDA advances the Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience (SER) Framework and the 2024–2026 Citywide Strategic Plan by creating a dedicated, long-term funding and governance tool to support the vitality, infrastructure, and adaptability of the city’s central business area. SER Framework Goal Area The DDA supports all seven SER goal areas by enabling reinvestment in public safety, high-quality public spaces, multimodal accessibility, climate-aligned infrastructure, economic resilience, and transparent governance. Through strategic reinvestment of incremental revenue, the DDA provides a fiscally responsible mechanism to sustain Boulder’s central business area as a vibrant civic, cultural, and economic center. Citywide Strategic Plan The DDA advances adopted strategies under: • • • •

Livable (6b, 6c): Supporting housing-enabling infrastructure and high-quality public spaces. Accessible and Connected (7a, 7b, 8a, 8b): Funding multimodal and ADA-access improvements. Environmentally Sustainable (10b): Encouraging reinvestment in existing infrastructure and climate-aligned redevelopment. Economically Vital (14e, 15a): Strengthening businesses and long-term economic resilience.

Alignment with Additional City Plans The DDA formation effort is also consistent with the goals and implementation strategies identified in the following adopted plans and studies: • • • • • • •

Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework Boulder Citywide Strategic Plan (2024-2026) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (including the 2026 update) Boulder Improvement District Analysis (2025) Downtown Boulder Vision Plan (2023) City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan (2019) City of Boulder Racial Equity Plan (2021)

• • • • • • • • •

Boulder Parks & Recreation Master Plan (2022) Civic Area Master Plan (2015) Civic Area Phase II (2026) Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (updated 2016) Downtown Boulder Retail/Vibrancy Study (2018) Core Arterial Network University Hill Alley Enhancement Plan (2018) ULI TAP Final Report (2023) Alpine-Balsam Area Plan (2019)

City Council History During the 2024 City Council retreat, council identified improving quality of life and strengthening connections between Boulder’s commercial areas as a priority. Several council members emphasized supporting healthy commercial districts—particularly downtown and University Hill—with targeted investments in beautification, transportation and bicycle infrastructure, lighting, signage, landscaping, trash removal, space activation, safety and reducing commercial vacancies. Council identified economic development as a priority, including strategies and financial tools to support small businesses, revitalize our commercial areas, and strengthen the city’s tax base. In response to these priorities, city staff, in partnership with PUMA, completed the Improvement District Analysis (Attachment A). The analysis evaluated Boulder’s existing GIDs and assessed options to better align district governance, funding, and services with current community needs and long-term economic conditions. A central finding of the analysis was that while the GID model remains effective for maintenance and service delivery, it lacks the financial mechanisms necessary to fund larger scale, transformational reinvestment due to its limited scope and lack of ability to use tools like TIF to bring enhancement to the downtown area. The exploration of a DDA emerged as a potential tool to address this gap by providing a sustainable, growth-based revenue source and enhanced governance structure. On April 24, 2025, City Council held a study session (study session memo included as Attachment B) to report findings from the Improvement District Analysis and to discuss next steps related to council’s priority of “Commercial Area Connections and Quality of Life Improvements.” City staff provided context on existing projects and initiatives, outlined the DDA as a key recommendation, and sought council direction on whether to proceed with further exploration. Council expressed general support for continuing to evaluate formation of a DDA.

On July 24, 2025, staff provided City Council an update on several economic development financing strategies, including the DDA. During this meeting staff provided an update on the process, community engagement strategies, and upcoming key milestones. Throughout this process, the Downtown Management Commission and the University Hill Commercial Area Management Commission have been engaged in key milestones. Both commissions have provided feedback on the existing GID structures, funding considerations, and governance implications, and have expressed support for continued exploration of a DDA framework as a potential evolution of the current GID model.

Analysis As part of the update on our DDA formation efforts, and as council considers whether this is the appropriate next step for supporting Boulder’s central business area, it is helpful to understand how the city’s existing commercial district structure evolved and why this moment presents an opportunity to modernize that framework. A study area map for the proposed DDA boundary is shown below.

Over the past five decades, the city has utilized GIDs to finance infrastructure and services within defined commercial areas. The Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) and the University Hill General Improvement District (UHGID) were

both established in 1970 to address specific challenges facing those districts at the time. CAGID was created in response to state parking minimum requirements and concerns that downtown’s historic buildings could be replaced with surface parking lots. Through CAGID, property owners agreed to tax themselves to finance structured parking and related improvements, preserving downtown’s character while maintaining access and economic vitality. UHGID was similarly formed to provide shared parking and maintenance services for the University Hill commercial area. Each of these districts were intentionally designed to address a targeted infrastructure need and have contributed meaningfully to the development and maintenance of the respective areas. While UHGID and CAGID have successfully fulfilled their original purposes, the economic, cultural, and physical context of Boulder’s commercial centers has shifted. Over the past several years, the city has experienced significant economic headwinds, including a global pandemic, related high levels of office vacancy rates, and changing patterns of activity that reflect broader structural shifts in work and retail. The downtown, including University Hill, is experiencing a prolonged period of economic stagnation, resulting in flattening sales tax growth and weakening commercial property values. Meanwhile, expectations related to safety, maintenance, accessibility, and high-quality public spaces have increased. Recent hotel and conference center developments on the Hill necessitate continued investment in activation, connectivity, and long-term economic sustainability. At the same time, major parking-related debt within CAGID has been retired, creating a natural inflection point to reconsider how district revenues are structured and reinvested. With the Sundance Film Festival relocating to Boulder beginning in 2027, the city has a timely opportunity to align governance and reinvestment tools with increased national visibility and economic activity in its central business area. While the GID model remains effective for targeted infrastructure, it was not designed as a long-term economic revitalization tool and does not include a mechanism to capture and reinvest growth in property values over time. The current structure does not generate sufficient revenue to fund major capital investments, redevelopment partnerships, public space redesign, or other transformational projects. A DDA differs in both scale and purpose. By capturing future tax increment, it creates the financial capacity to bond against projected revenue streams and deliver catalytic projects that can reshape our central business area’s long-term economic trajectory. This tool is specifically intended under state statute to promote reinvestment, redevelopment, and revitalization — in addition to providing enhanced maintenance and operations for the DDA area.

Colorado statute also allows a DDA to levy up to five (5) mills with approval of qualified electors in the geographic area of the DDA. Unlike an Urban Renewal Authority, a DDA does not require a finding of blight and does not have the power of eminent domain. DDA Planning Group and Process for Formation To help shape this effort from the outset, a community-based Planning Group was convened at the beginning of the DDA exploration process. The group includes community members that represent the geographic area of the DDA in various ways and meets monthly to provide strategic input, creative direction, and real-time feedback on structure, funding, governance, and study area boundaries. A list of current Planning Group members is included as Attachment C. In addition to informing technical considerations, the group has provided critical input that has helped shaped the policy recommendations and framework for DDA creation. A brief summary of key Planning Group considerations: •

•

• • •

The DDA should reflect established community priorities and current fiscal realities. The group has encouraged building on the city’s previously conducted planning and engagement over the past decade rather than initiating a new process, synthesizing prior plans and studies to inform draft POD themes and priorities. This represents a pivotal moment for downtown and University Hill, with decisions made now shaping our central business area’s trajectory for the next 30 years and beyond, and its continued role as a regional economic engine. The importance of refining the DDA’s boundary maps and continuing direct outreach with affected property owners to ensure clarity and transparency. There is little appetite for an additional mill levy, underscoring the need for a thoughtful and fiscally sensitive funding approach. A strong preference for a simple and streamlined governance structure that does not introduce unnecessary complexity.

Formation and funding of a DDA require approval by qualified electors (residents, property owners, lessees, and designation representatives within the boundaries). The process beings with feasibility analysis and stakeholder outreach, followed by drafting of the POD, which serves as the DDA’s guiding framework and implementation roadmap. If there is sufficient interest, City Council would consider an ordinance to establish the DDA, hold a public hearing, and refer the question of formation to the qualified electors. A majority vote is required to create the DDA. DDAs are established with an initial 30-year term and may be extended in two additional 20-year increments.

If approved, council would certify the election results, appoint the initial DDA Board, and authorize the establishment of governance documents and bylaws. The Board would then finalize and adopt the POD and initiate implementation consistent with the approved funding mechanisms. The POD functions as the DDA’s strategic framework – comparable to a business plan – establishing priorities, services categories, capital investment strategies, and operational guardrails. City staff is drafting the POD in collaboration with community members and refining high-level investment themes. Should formation be approved, the POD would be finalized and formally adopted by the DDA Board appointed by council. Themes emerging for the POD include strengthening multimodal connections between downtown, University Hill, the Civic Area, Alpine-Balsam, and surrounding neighborhoods; investing in high-quality, climate-responsive public spaces that reflect Boulder’s natural identity and creative culture; revitalizing commercial spaces and supporting small businesses; expanding housing and everyday amenities that serve residents and workers; and building a coordinated system for long-term district stewardship that aligns partners, funding tools, and capital delivery systems. The POD will translate these themes into a clear and actionable framework to guide reinvestment decisions over time. Key Policy Considerations Based on the analysis conducted to date and the work of the Planning Group and PUMA, city staff have identified several core policy questions that will shape whether and how a DDA could be formed. The recommendations outlined below are preliminary and subject to further financial modeling, legal review, stakeholder input, and operational analysis. At this stage, city staff is seeking council’s guidance on whether these represent the appropriate policy directions to continue refining, rather than final approval of any specific structure. Funding Strategy State statute provides two primary financing tools that may be utilized with a DDA, including a qualified elector approved mill levy and TIF. While each tool can function independently, city staff’s preliminary analysis indicates that a coordinated approach utilizing a mill levy in combination with both property and sales tax TIF would provide the most stable and effective long-term funding framework. Council direction is requested on whether this integrated strategy should continue to be refined. Mill Levy Authority A DDA has the statutory authority to levy up to five (5) mills of property tax within the boundaries with approval from qualified electors. A mill levy is not required for formation

of a DDA; however, if pursued, it would appear as a separate TABOR ballot question authorizing the DDA to impose a property tax within the district boundary. The primary purpose of including a mill levy would be to establish a stable and predictable base of revenue to support the area’s operations, administration, maintenance, and early-phase investments. Because TIF revenues accumulate gradually as economic growth occurs, relying solely on TIF can limit near-term capacity. A mill levy provides immediate operational stability and ensures that the DDA can deliver consistent stewardship and visible improvements while longer-term increment revenues build. For properties currently within CAGID, one potential approach would be to structure the DDA mill levy as a replacement for part of or all the existing CAGID mill levy rather than an additional tax. For properties within the DDA that are not currently subject to a GID mill levy, approval of a DDA mill levy would represent a new property tax. This distinction is important for council’s consideration as it weighs both the potential benefits of expanded investment and the cost implications for property owners. Based on Planning Group feedback, there is limited interest in a mill levy within the downtown that exceeds the current CAGID mill levy. Therefore, the initial staff guidance is to further explore replacing the existing CAGID mill levy (3.674 mills) with a new DDA mill levy at the same level. For CAGID property owners, this would represent no increase in taxes and would generate approximately $2.0 million annually within the current DDA study area. Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) The primary financing mechanism available to a DDA is TIF. TIF allows a DDA to capture future growth in tax revenues above an established base year and reinvest that increment within the geographic area. Council may consider applying TIF to property tax, sales tax, or both. When a DDA is formed, a base year for the property within the DDA is typically established for both property taxes (based upon the assessor's last property valuation certification) and sales tax (based upon sales tax collection in the twelve-month period prior to approval of the DDA's plan). The additional revenue generated above the base — the increment — is captured and reinvested within the DDA geographic area. For property tax TIF, tax increment is captured from all taxing entities that levy a property tax within the boundaries. This includes the city, Boulder County, Boulder Valley School District, and the Boulder Library District. Redirecting incremental property tax revenue has implications for those entities and impact is generally mitigated through a revenue sharing agreement to balance consistent investment within the DDA area with certainty for taxing entities.

It is important to note that increases in property values that are currently a part of the base (i.e. normal appreciation/growth), continue to flow to the taxing entities. In other words, property tax growth on the base is not a part of the increment. The premise is that the DDA is only collecting the increment on new investment that has occurred as a result of DDA investment, intervention, or other action. Staff has begun the coordination process with the overlapping taxing entities and based on council feedback, will accelerate over the next several months. For sales tax TIF, tax increment is limited to City of Boulder sales taxes within the area. The city, as a part of conditions of establishing a DDA, could implement revenue sharing agreements or other tools to define the increment in a manner that lessens the impact on the city’s funds, while providing a certain investment level for the DDA. Should council wish to pursue sales tax TIF, city staff would return with a proposed framework outlining fiscal guardrails, oversight mechanisms, and potential revenuesharing parameters. Preliminary financial modeling (Attachment D) illustrates the potential scale and timing of TIF revenues under two growth scenarios over a 30-year term. These scenarios are not forecasts, but planning assumptions intended to demonstrate the sensitivity of revenues to economic performance. Under a conservative assumption of 1% real growth, TIF revenue begins at approximately $296,400 in Year 1, grows to approximately $3 million annually by Year 10, and reaches roughly $9.6 million annually by Year 30, generating an estimated $142.8 million over the full term. This scenario demonstrates that even modest growth can generate a meaningful long-term funding source, though revenues ramp up gradually in the early years. Under a stronger, but still plausible, 2.5% real growth scenario reflecting sustained recovery and reinvestment, revenues increase more rapidly. Year 1 revenue is projected at approximately $744,500. By Year 10, annual revenue exceeds $8.1 million, and by Year 30 it surpasses $30 million annually, generating approximately $418 million over 30 years. The graphs below illustrate the difference in annual revenue ramp-up and cumulative revenue under these scenarios.

While both scenarios demonstrate substantial long-term potential, they also underscore that TIF revenues are sensitive to economic conditions. Downtown property and sales tax performance has declined in inflation-adjusted terms in recent years, reinforcing the

importance of pairing TIF with a stable funding source during early implementation (mill levy). Utilizing both property and sales tax TIF diversifies DDA revenue sources and strengthens its long-term funding outlook. When complemented by a mill levy that provides operational stability, this approach enables a DDA to sustain core functions while incrementally building the resources needed for future capital investments. At the same time, this approach carries implications for city funds and for other taxing entities. Accordingly, city staff’s preliminary recommendation is to continue refining this integrated funding model, contingent on council’s direction, with an emphasis on fiscal safeguards, intergovernmental coordination, and clear parameters to be established through the POD and any required intergovernmental agreements if a DDA is approved by the qualified electors. Governance Structure Governance structure is a foundational decision in DDA formation as it determines where operations and management reside and how closely the DDA’s work is integrated with the city. Under Colorado state statute, a DDA may be structured in a couple different ways. It may operate under a municipality, with city staff managing the finances, administration, and day-to-day operations. Alternatively, it may operate as a standalone entity. Under both options, the DDA is still governed by aboard appointed by City Council. In the standalone model, the DDA may establish its own staff entity or live under an existing organization to provide management services. After evaluating these options, city staff, PUMA, and the Planning Group recommend pursuing a standalone DDA structure. Given the scale and duration of the proposed financing tools, and recognizing existing city staff workload and constraints, establishing an independent authority would allow the DDA to build focused capacity without diverting city staff from other strategic priorities. In addition, this effort has been intentionally community-led with sustained engagement from community members. A standalone model reinforces that foundation and places strategic leadership and accountability within the DDA itself, while still maintaining formal city oversight. As provided in the state enabling statute, if formed, the DDA would be governed by an independent board comprised of stakeholders representing the geographic area of the DDA and appointed by City Council. Council would retain appointment authority and at least one seat on the board and would approve the POD and any intergovernmental agreement, ensuring continued alignment with citywide priorities. This framework is designed to balance community-led decision-making with meaningful city and council oversight.

Recognizing that a newly formed authority would require time to establish operational systems and administrative capacity, city staff anticipates a one- to two-year transition period before the DDA operates fully independently. During this ramp-up phase, city staff would provide administrative and financial support to ensure continuity, statutory compliance, and establishment of sound financial controls. Targeted consultant assistance may also be utilized to support governance development, operational support, and implementation planning. This phased transition approach is intended to minimize operational risk while positioning the DDA to function as a stable, accountable, and community-rooted entity over the long term. GID Structure and Asset Ownership Formation of a DDA raises important questions regarding the future of the city’s existing GIDs (CAGID and UHGID) and the ownership and operation of GID-funded parking structures. Based on analysis to date and feedback from the Planning Group, city staff’s preliminary recommendation is to further evaluate a model in which the DDA owns and operates all or some of UHGID and CAGID’s parking assets. This approach would consolidate governance, align operations and capital planning under a single districtfocused authority, and reinforce the principle that revenues generated within the geographic area are reinvested directly into area’s priorities. Under a DDA ownership model, UHGID and CAGID could be dissolved and assets transferred to the DDA following a structured transition period. Consolidation may strengthen bonding capacity, provide clearer accountability, and better integrate parking operations with broader revitalization, economic development, and public realm strategies. GID dissolution and asset transfer involves statutory, financial, and sequencing considerations that must be fully analyzed before advancing a final recommendation. To provide comprehensive analysis and inform next steps, city staff is also evaluating alternative structural approaches. One alternative would retain city ownership of the assets while granting the DDA operational authority through an intergovernmental agreement. This model preserves municipal ownership and long-term control while allowing the DDA to coordinate operations with district strategy. However, it may limit flexibility in capital structuring and bonding compared to full DDA ownership. A second alternative would maintain the GIDs as asset-owning entities, potentially with modified mill levies or narrowed scopes of responsibility, while the DDA focuses on reinvestment and broader district initiatives. While this approach preserves the existing

statutory structure of the GIDs, it may introduce governance complexity if roles and authorities are not clearly delineated. Across all models, a consistent principle is that the parking system should function as an enterprise, meaning that parking revenues should continue to fully cover parking asset maintenance, operations, and capital costs. Downtown parking structures were developed largely through GID property taxes paid by downtown stakeholders and represent significant public investment. Regardless of ownership structure, ensuring that benefits remain focused on the downtown district and the taxpayers who financed them is important. At the same time, adding a DDA introduces the potential for an additional layer of governance. Without careful design, overlapping authorities could create duplication, confusion regarding roles and responsibilities, or gaps in service delivery. The POD would serve as the primary guiding document to define scope, capital priorities, and coordination requirements, and any asset transition or operational structure would be formalized through intergovernmental agreements to ensure stewardship, financial transparency, and clarity around parking rate-setting authority. City staff is seeking council direction on whether to continue refining the DDA ownership and operation model of current GID assets as the preferred structural approach, while completing additional legal and financial analysis of alternative configurations before bringing forward a final recommendation.

Anticipated Fiscal and Workplan Impacts This effort is included in the City Manager’s Office workplan and would have fiscal implications tied primarily to the structure and scope of TIF within the proposed DDA boundary. Under TIF, the city continues to receive sales and property tax revenues generated from the established base year; only the incremental growth above that base is captured by the DDA. As a result, the city’s existing baseline revenues remain unchanged unless economic activity declines within the DDA. The portion of city sales tax eligible to generate increment would be defined in the POD and could not be modified without formal amendment. If council elects to authorize sales tax TIF in whole or in part, a revenue-sharing framework may be established through an intergovernmental agreement to mitigate impacts to the General Fund and provide fiscal guardrails. Property tax TIF similarly redirects incremental growth above the base year and requires coordination with other taxing entities whose revenues would be affected.

Ongoing engagement with Boulder Valley School District, Boulder County, and the Library District will continue as part of proposal refinement. Importantly, the city would retain significant oversight authority. Council would appoint the DDA board, approve the POD, and review and approve any intergovernmental agreements. Council would also approve the DDA’s annual budget and authorize borrowing to provide continued transparency and accountability over revenue allocation and expenditures. From a workplan perspective, advancing DDA formation and transition planning will require additional near-term city staff capacity for legal structuring, financial analysis, intergovernmental coordination, and community engagement. Should qualified electors approve formation, a phased transition period is anticipated during which city staff would provide administrative and financial support while the DDA establishes independent operational capacity with support from a consultant team.

Equity Analysis This effort is utilizing the city’s Engagement Strategic Framework and Racial Equity Instrument (REI) to guide analysis and decision-making. City staff have partnered with a Downtown Community Connector who serves on the Planning Group, as well as Community Connectors in Residence, to ensure perspectives from historically excluded communities are incorporated into the development of recommendations. Although the DDA boundary is geographically limited, equity can be advanced through board appointments, program design, and funding priorities. Council-appointed board members provide an opportunity to ensure diverse representation and lived experience. The POD may prioritize small business support, grants or technical assistance for underrepresented entrepreneurs, culturally responsive placemaking, and improvements that enhance accessibility and safety. As the POD is further refined, city staff will continue applying the REI framework to funding, governance, and implementation decisions to ensure reinvestment supports inclusive economic opportunity within the DDA. The results of the REI will be presented alongside other analyses in June.

Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability Considerations The formation of a DDA, as presented in this update, is a governance and financing action and does not in itself create direct material climate, resilience, or sustainability impacts. Future impacts would be contingent upon council direction regarding formation of a DDA and specific projects and investments identified in the POD. If formed, the DDA could support climate-aligned investments such as multimodal transportation

improvements, energy-efficient infrastructure upgrades, and climate-responsive public spaces within the area. Any such projects would undergo separate analysis and review to evaluate their specific climate and sustainability impacts at the time they are proposed.

Community Engagement This process has been intentionally community-led and builds on prior planning and engagement efforts in the downtown, University Hill and surrounding areas. Rather than starting from scratch, the DDA formation effort has drawn heavily from existing plans, previous outreach, and long-standing community conversations about vitality in Boulder’s central business area, economic resilience, public realm improvements, and investments. A consistent theme raised by the Planning Group and community partners has been the importance of not overburdening residents, businesses, and property owners with duplicative engagement, particularly given the significant amount of outreach that has already occurred in recent years. To that end, the engagement strategy has focused on targeted, meaningful touchpoints that add value and fill gaps, rather than repeating past processes. As referenced above, a Planning Group of 15–20 individuals representing business owners, property owners, the Downtown Community Connectors, nonprofit partners, and other key stakeholders within the study area has been convened to guide the effort, evaluate policy options, shape the POD, and serve as conduits to their respective networks. In addition, city staff hosted DDA information sessions in late January that were open to the public. Nearly 50 participants across sessions provided input on the process and emerging themes for the POD. Consistent with the broader community engagement strategy, outreach efforts include interviews and roundtables with key stakeholders, and the use of a dedicated DDA formation webpage to provide transparent, up-to-date information. City staff will continue to conduct intentional outreach to property owners and businesses both within the existing study area and in areas where boundary adjustments are under consideration. This outreach will include direct communication, small-group meetings, and targeted outreach to ensure community members understand the potential implications of inclusion and have meaningful opportunities to provide their input prior to finalizing the boundary map. An additional round of information sessions is planned this spring to share the refined boundary map and POD themes and gather final input before council consideration. If the effort advances to a TABOR election, community leadership will continue to be central, with the Planning Group evolving into DDA “champions” to help educate electors and lead outreach efforts should council approve the consideration of the ordinance to set ballot measures.

Next Steps for City Council If council chooses to move this initiative forward, the next major step will be consideration of the ordinance to set a ballot measure that could include questions to 1) create the DDA; 2) enable TIF; and 3) consider part of or a complete replacement of the GID’s mill levies. Timing for bringing the ordinance to City Council is expected in late spring or early summer. Adoption of the ordinance, through first and second readings, would formally identify the proposed DDA boundaries and include draft ballot language for the DDA formation questions. It’s notable that the POD, which provides the policy and operating guidance for the DDA cannot be formally adopted until after a DDA has been formed and its board established. Following council action, the measure would proceed to the November election. In accordance with state statute, only qualified electors within the approved DDA boundaries would be eligible to vote on formation of the DDA and any associated tax or revenue measures. If approved by qualified electors, subsequent steps for council would include certification of the election results, appointment of the initial DDA Board, establishment of bylaws and governance documents, and initiation of implementation consistent with the adopted POD and approved funding mechanisms.

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 A - Improvement District Analysis Report B - April 24, 2025 Improvement District Analysis Study Session Memo C - List of Planning Group Members D - Financial Projections Memo