The taxes and fees required to construct an identical 2,000 square-foot single-family home range from $24,295 in Colorado Springs to $101,616 in Boulder, a more than fourfold gap, according to a report published in September 2026 by the Common Sense Institute. The study examined 16 Colorado cities and found that local policy choices, not just market conditions, drive significant variation in what it costs to break ground on new housing. Denver landed near the middle of the pack at $47,376, ranking ninth among the cohort.
Water and sewer system development charges emerged as the largest single expense in nearly every city, with fast-growing Front Range suburbs imposing the steepest bills. Thornton's combined water and sewer fees hit $57,203, the highest in the group and nearly three-quarters of the city's total $79,503 regulatory cost stack. Impact fees, largely missing from Denver's schedule, added substantial costs in mid-sized cities including Greeley, Windsor, Loveland, Berthoud, and Johnstown. Mandatory affordable housing fees appeared in just two cities: Denver charges $8.18 per square foot for homes larger than 1,600 square feet, while Boulder's cash-in-lieu rate reaches $15.73 per square foot, nearly double Denver's. The 16-city average total stood at $51,732 per home.
The burden relative to home prices fell hardest on moderately priced suburbs rather than the state's most expensive markets. Castle Rock's fee stack equaled 19% of its median home price, the highest ratio in the cohort, followed by Thornton at 17% and Aurora and Greeley at 14% each. Boulder's $101,616 in fees, though the largest dollar amount, represented just 9% of the city's $1.1 million median price. Grand Junction posted the lowest ratio at 5.5%, while Colorado Springs, Lone Tree, and Denver clustered near 6%. The report also documented striking differences in permitting timelines: Denver takes an average of 210 days to approve a major residential development plan review, more than four times longer than Colorado Springs' 51 days and more than ten times the cohort's ex-Denver median of 20 days. At a 7% construction loan rate, each additional month of delay adds roughly $1,750 in carrying costs per home.
The report finds that cities with lower total fees permit substantially more housing: the seven cheapest-to-build-in cities permitted an average of 13.9 housing units per 1,000 residents in 2025, compared with 3.1 units per 1,000 residents in the seven most expensive cities, a 4.5-fold difference. The authors argue that infrastructure and public services require funding, but note that necessary costs shouldn't justify every existing practice. They explain that unclear standards, prolonged reviews, and unpredictable approvals favor larger firms capable of weathering failed projects and carrying greater overhead, while smaller builders and new market entrants face steeper barriers. As competition narrows, communities lose not only production capacity but also the range of ideas, products, and price points that competition can deliver.
Colorado should continue supporting local governments in streamlining reviews and rethinking how housing is governed, the report recommends. The state is already backing the use of artificial intelligence and other technology to speed entitlement and permitting through the Department of Local Affairs, and has paired Proposition 123's expedited-review requirements with grants to help communities implement fast-track systems. The authors argue that policymakers must measure not just the cost of building but the cost of failing to build, since housing supports workers, expands the tax base, shortens commutes, and allows families to stay in their communities. Every home built carries a cost, they conclude, but so does every home prevented.