Denver councilmembers propose limits on transportation fund spending
The proposed rules would tie spending to adopted city plans, require at least half to go to capital projects and restrict transfers to the General Fund.
Published at
Denver Councilmembers Shontel Lewis and Flor Alvidrez have proposed rules that would tie spending from the Transportation and Mobility Special Revenue Fund to adopted city plans and require at least half of the fund’s spending to go to capital projects. The sponsors’ proposal would also restrict transfers to the General Fund and carry unused balances forward each year.
The proposal names Denver’s Vision Zero Action Plan, Safe Routes to School Action Plan and Denver Moves plans for bikes, pedestrians and trails, and transit as guides for eligible spending. It would allow transfers to the General Fund only for unused money when the special revenue fund is terminated. The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure would present proposed annual uses to its advisory board for review and comment. Eligible capital projects could include pedestrian improvements, protected bike or accessibility lanes, traffic calming, bus-stop infrastructure, transit reliability projects and dedicated bus lanes.
The sponsors’ presentation cites spending decisions as reasons for the proposal. It says $200,000 was spent in 2024 to remove protected bike infrastructure downtown and $100,000 in 2025 to replace a vetted Alameda Avenue safety design after nearby residents objected. It also says the 2026 budget allocated $8.4 million to parking-related contracts. A Denver7 report described the Alameda figure as an estimated redesign cost within a roughly $575,000 project budget funded through a mix of RISE bond and Vision Zero resources. The Denver Streets Partnership, which worked with the councilmembers on the proposal, describes the $8.4 million as slated for a parking-ticket appeals system.
The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure has previously objected to the draft’s breadth. In August, spokesperson Nancy Kuhn told The Denver Post that the department shared the councilmembers’ goals but considered the ordinance “too restrictive.” The sponsors’ presentation says discussions with the department and transportation advocates continued, but does not identify agreed changes.
As of Oct. 30, the proposal was pending. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agenda scheduled ordinance item 26-1654 for consideration on Nov. 4; that agenda does not establish committee action or full City Council adoption.