DPS Asks Denver Voters For $43.9 Million Annual Tax Increase

by Mark Smiley | Sep 29, 2026 | Main Articles

Mill Levy Would Fund Employee Pay, Career Education, And Student  Services As Voters Weigh Benefits Against Higher Property Taxes

by Mark Smiley

Tax Question: ­Denver Public Schools is asking Denver voters to approve an additional mill levy override in the November 2026 election. The ­measure would raise up to approximately $44 million annually, with much of the ­additional revenue directed toward employee compensation. DPS estimates the owner of a median valued Denver home would pay approximately $72 more per year.

Denver voters will decide this November whether to provide Denver Public Schools with an additional $43.9 million each year through a property tax increase, setting up a debate over employee compensation, student services, and how much more Denver property owners should be asked to contribute to the city’s public schools.

The Denver Public Schools Board of Education voted unanimously to place the mill levy override before voters. The proposal follows months of discussion about the district’s finances and recommendations from a citizen advisory committee assembled to consider both the need for additional revenue and how that money should be spent.

The largest share of the proposed revenue would go toward employee compensation. The advisory committee recommended approximately $25.8 million annually for salary increases for DPS employees. Another $4 million was recommended for career and technical education hubs, and $4.8 million for mental health and special education supports. Charter schools would receive approximately $9.3 million annually, reflecting requirements that charter schools receive an appropriate share of mill levy revenue.

For the owner of a median priced single-family home in Denver, DPS has esti­mated the measure would increase the school portion of the property tax bill by approximately $72 per year, or about $6 per month. Supporters argue that the relatively modest increase for an individual homeowner could collectively provide the district with meaningful resources to improve employee compensation, retain experienced teachers, and provide additional services for students.

Opponents and skeptical voters may view the question differently. Rather than focusing solely on the incremental cost of this particular measure, they are likely to consider the cumulative property tax burden Denver residents already face and ask whether a school district with a roughly $1.5 billion annual budget should find the money for its priorities within existing resources.

DPS officials have identified employee recruitment and retention as important reasons for seeking the additional revenue. The district has pointed to compensation gaps and difficulties filling certain positions, while educators have argued that competitive salaries are essential to keeping experienced teachers and other professionals in Denver schools. The issue also has roots in negotiations between DPS and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. The teachers union and district previously reached an agreement to pursue additional compensation through a ballot measure after educators did not receive their full cost of living increase in 2024.

Students And Staff: Denver Public Schools Superintendent Alex Marrero visits a classroom. DPS says competitive employee compensation is necessary to retain staff, while voters will have to decide whether those needs justify another increase in property taxes.

From the supporters’ perspective, teacher compensation is not simply an employee benefit. They argue that it directly affects what happens in the classroom. Schools that struggle to recruit and retain experienced teachers may face greater turnover, more vacancies, and difficulty maintaining consistent instruction. Supporters contend that better compensation can help DPS compete with surrounding school districts and other employers for qualified workers.

There are similar arguments for spending additional money on mental health and special education. Educators have told the district that students have increasingly complex needs requiring additional support. The proposed mill levy would provide approximately $4.8 million for those services. Another $4 million would support career and technical education programs intended to provide students with pathways into skilled occupations, apprenticeships, and careers that may not require a traditional four year college degree.

District officials also point to broader financial pressures. DPS has experienced declining enrollment, which affects the amount of state funding it receives. Officials have warned that enrollment losses and uncertainty surrounding future state and federal funding could create increasingly difficult budget choices in coming years. DPS approved a balanced budget of approximately $1.5 billion for the coming school year, but district officials have said the longer term financial outlook presents challenges.

Supporters therefore see the mill levy as a way to provide a stable local source of recurring revenue. They argue that allowing salaries to become less competitive could ultimately cost the district experienced employees and make it more difficult to recruit replacements. They also contend that investments in mental health, special education, and career training can provide benefits that extend beyond traditional classroom instruction.

There are substantial arguments on the other side. Denver residents already pay significant property taxes to support DPS, and the district currently collects approximately $288.6 million annually through previously voter approved mill levy overrides. Denver voters have approved three such overrides since 2012, including a $32 million measure in 2020 that provided money for nurses, teacher compensation, and hourly employees such as bus drivers and custodians.

Critics may reasonably ask how often the district should return to voters for additional operating revenue. Each individual increase may appear relatively small when expressed as a monthly cost for the average homeowner, but taxpayers ultimately pay the combined cost of school district, city, county, and other taxing measures.

The timing of the proposal could also present a challenge for DPS. In 2024, Denver voters overwhelmingly approved a $975 million DPS bond, the largest in the district’s history. That money was designated for capital purposes including building maintenance, air conditioning, safety improvements, and technology rather than employee salaries or ongoing operations.

Bonds and mill levy overrides finance different types of expenses, making the current proposal substantially different from the 2024 bond. Nevertheless, some voters may look at the broader picture and question being asked to approve another significant school funding measure less than two years after authorizing nearly $1 billion in borrowing.

There is also a question of long-term sustainability. Employee raises represent recurring expenses. Once salaries increase, those higher costs generally remain in the district budget year after year. The mill levy would likewise produce recurring revenue, but critics may question whether increasing property taxes is the best long term method for financing employee compensation, particularly at a time when DPS enrollment has been declining.

The proposed $43.9 million represents only a relatively small portion of DPS’s approximately $1.5 billion annual budget, and that fact provides arguments for both sides. Supporters can contend that a comparatively small increase in overall district funding could produce meaningful improvements in compensation and student services. Critics can argue that a district with a budget of that size should be able to identify $43.9 million through reprioritizing existing spending.

The debate is further complicated by Colorado’s system for financing public education. Schools receive funding through a combination of local property taxes and state revenue, meaning decisions made at the state level can have significant effects on local school district budgets. DPS officials say the district has become increasingly dependent on local property taxpayers as the financial environment for public education has changed.

For voters, the November decision ultimately comes down to priorities and competing concerns. A yes vote would mean higher property taxes in exchange for approximately $43.9 million in additional annual school funding. The largest portion would be directed toward employee compensation, with additional money supporting career and technical education, mental health, special education, and charter schools.

Supporters will argue that approximately $6 per month for the owner of a median priced Denver home is a reasonable investment in attracting and retaining teachers, supporting students, and maintaining the quality of Denver’s public schools. They will also argue that failing to remain competitive on compensation could result in staffing shortages and greater turnover that ultimately affect students.

Opponents are likely to argue that Denver taxpayers have repeatedly supported DPS funding measures and that the district should demonstrate it can meet its priorities within the substantial resources it already receives. They may also point to the cumulative effect of property tax increases at a time when housing affordability and the overall cost of living remain concerns for many Denver residents.

The question does not offer voters an especially simple choice. Competitive teacher compensation and adequate student services are important to the quality of Denver’s schools. Property tax affordability, fiscal accountability, and careful use of public money are also legitimate concerns.

The November election will give Denver voters the final say on whether the benefits DPS says would come from an additional $43.9 million each year are worth the additional cost to property owners.

Denver Bets $100 Million On ­Downtown’s Next Chapter

by Mark Smiley | Aug 20, 2026 | Main Articles

Jobs, Housing, And Redevelopment Form City’s Strategy For Reviving Urban Core

by Mark Smiley

Denver leaders are confronting a down­town economy that looks mark­edly different from the one that existed before the pandemic. Office towers remain partially empty as hybrid work continues to reshape the workplace. Restaurants and retailers have had to adjust to reduced weekday foot traffic, while declining commercial property values have created additional concerns for property owners, lenders, and city government.

The Johnston administration’s response is an ambitious combination of job creation, business recruitment, housing development, and public investment designed to help downtown adapt to those changes. In July, Mayor Mike Johnston unveiled the Denver Jobs Agenda, a $100 million economic development initiative with a goal of creating 10,000 jobs over three years. The program includes workforce development, incentives for businesses, and a $40 million effort to attract major employers to Denver or encourage existing companies to expand.

At the same time, Denver is supporting efforts to give obsolete or underused office buildings a second life as housing. One of the most prominent examples is High Fidelity Plaza, where the Downtown Denver Development Authority approved a $63 million low-interest loan toward the redevelopment of two largely vacant office towers at 621 and 633 17th Street. Plans call for the buildings to be converted into a mixed-use development containing more than 700 apartments as well as restaurants, retail, childcare, and other amenities.

The two initiatives illustrate Denver’s broader strategy: attract more employers and workers while simultaneously creating a larger residential population downtown. City officials believe those goals can complement rather than contradict each other. More employers could increase daytime activity and support downtown businesses, while additional residents could create demand for restaurants, stores, and services during evenings and weekends. A more diverse mixture of workers, residents, and visitors could also make downtown less dependent upon the traditional five-day-a-week office population.

That dependence became a significant weakness after 2020. Denver’s downtown office market continues to struggle with elevated vacancies as employers reconsider how much space they need in an era of hybrid work. Properties that once commanded significant prices have changed hands at substantially lower valuations, creating challenges for building owners and lenders and potentially affecting the city’s commercial property tax base.

The situation has left Denver facing a question confronting downtowns throughout the country: What should a central business district become if office workers no longer fill its buildings five days a week?

The Johnston administration has chosen to take an active role in answering that question. Rather than relying exclusively on private investment and market forces, the city is using incentives, loans, and economic development programs to encourage both employment growth and redevelopment.

Office values in downtown Denver have fallen dramatically since the pandemic, with some properties selling for a fraction of their previous value. City officials hope redevelopment incentives and office to residential conversions will help reverse the trend.

Supporters argue that government involvement is warranted because allowing large portions of downtown to deteriorate could have consequences extending well beyond individual property owners. Vacant buildings can reduce surrounding property values, weaken nearby restaurants and retailers, and diminish tax revenue. Those conditions, supporters contend, can discourage additional private investment and create a cycle that becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to reverse. From that perspective, public investment today could help protect a much larger economic asset over the long term.

The strategy nevertheless raises legitimate questions about how much financial risk taxpayers should assume. Critics question whether public money should be used to provide incentives to corporations or financing for privately owned real estate developments, particularly when Denver faces other demands on city resources. Homelessness, public safety, aging infrastructure, and neighborhood services remain significant concerns throughout the city.

There is also debate over whether office-to-residential conversions will meaningfully address Denver’s housing affordability problem. Many apartments created through such projects are expected to rent at market rates rather than being dedicated primarily to lower-income residents. Supporters of the conversion strategy counter that adding residents at a range of income levels can still strengthen downtown by increasing the number of people patronizing businesses and using the area outside traditional office hours.

The debate therefore extends beyond whether individual projects are worthwhile. It centers on what role city government should play in reshaping downtown during a period of unusually rapid economic change.

At first glance, spending money to attract office employers while simultaneously helping convert offices into apartments can appear contradictory. The city’s approach, however, reflects an acknowledgment that downtown Denver will probably need both. Not every office tower is obsolete, and employers will continue to require office space. At the same time, the pre-pandemic model in which tens of thousands of commuters arrived downtown each morning and departed each evening appears unlikely to return in exactly the same form.

A successful downtown of the future may therefore need a broader mixture of employment, housing, entertainment, restaurants, retail, and public spaces. The Denver Jobs Agenda represents an effort to strengthen the employment side of that equation, while office conversions such as High Fidelity Plaza are intended to strengthen the residential side.

Whether those investments will generate enough private development and economic activity to justify their cost remains uncertain. That makes accountability and measurable results particularly important.

Mayor Mike Johnston has made downtown revitalization a major focus of his administration, combining job-creation programs, business incentives, and redevelopment financing in an effort to attract employers, residents, and investment to Denver’s urban core.

The Denver Jobs Agenda comes with a clearly stated target of creating 10,000 jobs over three years. Redevelopment projects can likewise be evaluated by the housing they produce, private investment they attract, occupancy they achieve, and economic activity they generate. Other measurements will take longer to assess, including commercial property values, retail occupancy, downtown foot traffic, and tax revenue.

Those benchmarks should eventually provide a clearer picture of whether Denver’s strategy is producing a lasting recovery and whether the public investments are encouraging economic activity that otherwise would not have occurred.

Denver’s leaders are betting that a combination of jobs, residents, and private investment can create a downtown that is less dependent on the traditional office economy. Supporters see public involvement as necessary to accelerate that transition and prevent further deterioration. Critics question whether taxpayers are assuming too much of the cost and risk for projects involving private businesses and property owners.

Both sides agree on at least one point: downtown Denver remains an important economic and civic center whose future will affect far more than the property owners and businesses located within its boundaries.

What is clear is that Denver is no longer waiting for downtown to return to its pre-pandemic form. City leaders are committing significant public resources to help shape what comes next. The next several years should determine whether that investment succeeds in creating a more active and resilient downtown, and whether Denver taxpayers receive an adequate return on one of the city’s most ambitious economic development efforts in years.

The 28-story office tower at 621 17th Street is one of two historic downtown buildings slated for conversion into housing as Denver attempts to revive its struggling central business district after years of elevated office vacancies.