Boulder open-space board recommends $37.3 million operating budget, seeks clearer cost accounting

Boulder’s Open Space Board of Trustees recommended a $37.3 million 2027 operating budget for Open Space and Mountain Parks and unanimously urged city leaders to explain shared costs more clearly and involve the board earlier in future budget reviews. The recommendations came at the board’s Sept. 23 meeting; City Council still must consider the proposed budget.

The board voted 3-2 to recommend $37,337,922 from the Open Space Fund for operations. It also voted 3-2 to recommend $5,500,438 in capital appropriations from the Open Space Fund and $350,000 from the City’s Lottery Fund. Trustees Robinson and Glenn opposed the recommendations; the other three trustees voted in favor. These were recommendations to Council, not final appropriations.

In a separate unanimous motion, trustees asked Council and the city manager to involve the board earlier in the next budget cycle and provide an accessible explanation of the cost-allocation method, major cost drivers, funded services and significant year-over-year changes. They said they had less than a month to review the city manager’s recommended budget, compared with months of draft information and opportunities for input in prior years.

Trustees said the budget materials did not make clear what services OSMP was paying for through cost allocation, why those charges were increasing or whether the amounts were reasonable. Their request was for information to assess the charges, not a finding that they were improper. Members also pointed to rising shared costs alongside planned reductions in OSMP staffing and contracted expenses.

Staff described cost allocation as about 13% of the proposed operating budget. The charges pay for services provided by other city departments, including legal, finance and information technology, and cover more than a dozen internal-service departments. Staff said the charges are calculated using measures that can include staff positions or operating budgets.

Staff said projected cost-allocation growth is largely tied to salary and benefit costs for non-OSMP city employees, using consistent salary assumptions across the organization. The proposal assumes reductions in OSMP positions and contracted budgets; staff said other OSMP operating costs were expected to grow by less than 3% annually. The meeting did not establish a comparable 2026 budget figure or an exact year-over-year change in cost-allocation charges.

The board authorized its chair or a delegate to present its concerns to Council. The chair said he planned to raise them at the Oct. 1 in-person meeting. Staff said Council was scheduled to consider the city manager’s recommended budget that day, with a second reading set for Oct. 15.