Denver voters will decide Nov. 4 whether to authorize nearly $950 million in general-obligation debt for the Vibrant Denver bond package, a proposal that comes as the City faces a $200 million budget shortfall for its 2025–26 fiscal period.
Mayor Mike Johnston framed the bond as an investment in the City’s long-term fiscal health. “A moment of economic uncertainty is exactly the time to do a bond,” he said. “It’s a stimulus to the City’s economy.”
Bond Precedents
Denver is following both its own use of large bonds in 2007 and 2017 and the precedent of other Colorado cities that have relied on voter-approved debt to fund capital improvements.
Under Article XI of the Colorado Constitution, municipalities must obtain voter approval to issue general-obligation bonds backed by property tax revenue, said Carolynne White, a shareholder with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck in Denver. General-obligation bonds can be applied to capital projects serving a public purpose.
Denver Chief Financial Officer Nicole Doheny said the distinction between city projects for a “public purpose” versus operational costs can cause confusion. “Cities use bonds to fund major capital investments, like new bridges, parks and recreation centers, that would be too expensive to fund out of a city’s annual budget,” she said. “The City typically looks to infrastructure funding as one way to help support local jobs and economic activity during downturns.”
Also appearing on Colorado ballots this November are three other general-obligation bonds, with two focused on education.
Voters in the San Luis Valley will consider a $30 million bond for the Alamosa School District to upgrade facilities and improve safety and technology. In the Loveland area, voters will weigh in on a $99 million bond for the Thompson School District for building repairs, safety improvements and updated learning spaces. Voters in the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District will decide on a $30 million bond and a 1.5% sales tax to fund fire stations, equipment and staffing.
Collectively, these measures illustrate the continued use of voter-approved debt as a municipal finance tool, even amid broader debates about public borrowing limits and taxpayer accountability.
General-obligation bonds, including the Vibrant Denver, Alamosa, Thompson and Carbondale bonds, require cities to pay annual debt service from total revenues. In the past, some Colorado cities have opted for revenue bonds, which are payable from specified project revenues, White said. That structural distinction often determines the level of taxpayer exposure and the scope of voter oversight.
Campaign Finance and Compliance
Still, some question whether bonds are a wise legal or economic strategy.
Jason Bailey, the founder of Citizens for No New Debt, believes governments that take on debt drain the public budget to pay for debt service, including interest, fees and other financial overhead. “When we use debt, we cut our budget in half — half for actual service, half for debt service,” he said. Citizens for No New Debt is a nonpartisan public service campaign pushing back on government debt throughout Colorado.
Bailey is especially concerned that government debt preys on the poor and the young. “The next generation of young adults deserve a better world than a world full of debt to be repaid,” he said.
In October, Bailey filed campaign finance complaints with both the Denver clerk and the Colorado secretary of state. The complaints challenge whether the City’s outreach campaign complies with state prohibitions on using tax funds to advocate for the Vibrant Denver package. The Denver clerk dismissed the complaint, saying more information was required, and the office of the Colorado secretary of state filed a motion to dismiss, stating, “Because the allegations relate to a municipal campaign finance matter, the division lacks the authority to pursue the complaint.”
Oversight and Regulatory Framework
“Generally, all municipal records, including those related to bond transactions, are public,” said White, with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. Ultimately, elected officials are held responsible through the mechanism of elections.”
Regarding oversight, she added, “There is a complicated set of requirements for drawing down on bond funds, involving a bond trustee and state as well as federal regulations.” When private companies develop bond-funded projects, “agreements approved to implement them are typically performance-based,” White said. “Revenues don’t flow unless and until required milestones are met and the incremental new tax revenues are generated.”
Compliance obligations under federal securities laws also apply to municipal issuers, including continuing disclosure.
Balancing Cuts with Investments
The Vibrant Denver bond package, if passed in total, would fund 59 capital projects across five categories: health and human services, parks and recreation, housing, facilities and transportation. Each category is presented to voters as a separate ballot question and requires a simple majority to pass.
If approved, the bonds would be funded by property tax revenue already dedicated to debt service, and Denver’s overall debt obligations would increase from 15 to 30 years. The City’s debt obligation remains below the 3% debt limit set in the Denver City Charter.
Even as Denver cuts operating costs to close its general fund gap, the mayor suggests the Vibrant Denver projects will stimulate job growth through infrastructure improvements. “Like any family facing tough times, you also have to invest,” he said. “You plant while you’re pruning.”