Opinion: City Council goals — some perspectives


The Boulder City Council held its annual retreat last weekend, and as usual, many of the items brought up were ones that have been discussed many times before. Having been involved in Boulder politics for now almost 30 years, I thought I`d offer up my take on a few of these topics.
The “Planning Reserve,” 680 acres north of Jay Road and east of US 36, is once again being considered for annexations. It is the last significant area where new development could be allowed under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. So it has become the target for everything from big box stores to sports complexes.
The history of the Planning Reserve goes back to when I was on the council. To limit sprawl, many council members and civic organizations wanted to declare most of the unincorporated Boulder valley off limits to urban development. But this not-so-small portion was kept potentially open to assuage the development-oriented members of that council. Now some council members are pushing for a formal process to allow development there. Let`s be clear — there was no good reason, other than politics, to keep this area available for development. In my view, it would be far better to complete the original process, and make this area off limits also. All the latest fantasies notwithstanding, Boulder doesn`t need more sprawl.
The idea of building a conference center has emerged anew, in spite of two recent failures. When the St. Julien hotel was being planned, land to the east on Canyon was supposed to be designated for civic use. Being adjacent to a hotel, a conference center was the obvious use to consider. And the demolition of the old Oasis bar offered an opportunity to create a large site. But no one was willing to take on the developers and face the enormous costs, so the conference center idea was dropped.
Then someone got the bad idea of building a conference center in the Farmer`s Market area on 13th Street. It would have totally destroyed the ambiance, and required yet another hotel to be built. When it became clear that the project would have been a financial disaster even with free land from the city, it was also abandoned. Maybe it`s time to face up to the real financial and land use costs before wasting more time on this scheme.
I would like to see more attention paid to the city`s budget and finances. The fundamental conflict between General Fund (GF) departments, which compete for financial resources, and the dedicated fund departments, that have their own revenue sources, needs resolution. But let`s not kid ourselves. The voters will never approve removing earmarking of the revenue sources like the Open Space sales tax. They want some control over their elected officials about how the city`s revenues are allocated, and the council knows this — almost all recent tax ballot issues have been earmarked.
A simple solution might be to grant each of the GF line departments a percentage share of the GF revenues so that they can operate with the same long-term budgetary certainty as the dedicated fund departments. (This would include permanently settling how much the GF is to pay Open Space to manage the Mountain Parks.) This approach would allow department heads to manage for the long term, and not have to spend time planning for an annual budget fight.
Some council members made suggestions for financing capital improvements, but the underlying issues still haven`t been addressed. Impact fees for parks and libraries are still way too low. The transportation department still needs to implement parking fees in employment areas; these would equitably generate needed revenue while creating a strong incentive to car-pool. The city also needs an Adequate Public Facilities (APF) transportation rule. APF would require all new development to offset its new auto trips, and thereby avoid increasing congestion for existing residents and businesses. Fixing these areas should be a high priority; it`s unfortunate that they keep getting put on the back burner.
As to the council`s main focus, Boulder`s Clean Energy Future, the timing couldn`t be better. Xcel is in the process of planning for significant capital investments, and whether our solution ends up being with Xcel or through creation of a municipal utility (like Fort Collins or Colorado Springs), now is the time. Go for it!

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more