Before 2025, the City did not impose a fee for sidewalk construction. Instead, these costs were covered by the General Fund (sales and property taxes) and General Obligation bonds, typically repaid with tax revenue.
Historically, homeowners were responsible for repairing and maintaining their sidewalks. However, a 2020 audit report revealed that the City had neither proactively educated the public on these responsibilities nor enforced sidewalk repairs. The report also highlighted a significant shortage of inspections and inspectors.
In 2022, the special interest group Denver Deserves Sidewalks (DSD) proposed Ordinance 307 to establish a fee-based enterprise fund to develop the City’s sidewalk network over nine years. This ordinance also transferred the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance from homeowners to the City. The City strongly disagreed with DSD’s financial forecasts and the nine-year time frame, issuing a report that claimed DSD understated costs by $7.3 billion over nine years. Despite these concerns, Denver voters narrowly approved Ordinance 307 in 2022.
Ordinance 307 did not take effect immediately. In 2024, City Council amended Ordinance 307 to:
- Transition from a frontage-based fee to a flat fee of $150/year for most customers.
- Implement the fee starting January 2025.
- Eliminate the nine-year implementation timeline.
While both the original and amended versions of Ordinance 307 are well-intentioned, they suffer from a lack of transparency and financial accuracy. Key issues and questions for elected officials include:
- Uncertain delivery timeframe and program costs: The financial plan put forth in Ordinance 307 was completed by Denver Deserves Sidewalks, a group with an obvious agenda. The financial plan was not vetted by an independent expert. The City issued a report stating that this timeframe was not feasible given the revenue and bond projections from Denver Deserves Sidewalks. Rather than addressing this major discrepancy, City Council simply removed the 9-year time frame.
- Why did City Council remove the 9-year time frame, essentially acknowledging that voters were misled by the numbers in 307 and giving the City an unlimited amount of time to implement (“as soon as practicable”)? The 9-year timeframe is an important guardrail to hold the City accountable. This was a deceptive, bait-and-switch tactic.
- How much will it realistically cost to build out the sidewalk network in nine years? How will the City deliver the program (in-house, contractors, public-private partnership)?
- Future “privilege” fees: The amended ordinance says, “sidewalk fees are imposed for the privilege and benefit of using and accessing a complete network of city sidewalks.” This sets a dangerous precedent for starting to charge citizens a fee for the “privilege” of using basic, taxpayer-funded City infrastructure.
- What protections is Council putting in place against future fee increases for citizens using basic, taxpayer funded City infrastructure? Or should citizens expect to start being charged a fee for driving on city streets, using city traffic signals, or crossing city bridges?
- Lack of alternative solutions: Citizens could be paying the new sidewalk fee for decades without seeing any sidewalk work done in front of their house. Assume a citizen pays $150 per year, plus 4% annually for CPI, for 25 years. He/she will have paid over $6,000. Most homeowners could replace their entire sidewalk for far less and much faster.
- Why did City Council not explore alternative solutions like actually enforcing existing sidewalk law and requiring homeowners to maintain them? Also, use General Obligation bond funding to construct missing sidewalks.