Opinion: The state of the state and TBD Colorado


On Monday I attended a very interesting meeting that was part of Governor Hickenlooper’s project called TBD (To Be Determined) Colorado. This is a citizen-based effort funded by donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. Its purpose, in short, is to make policy, revenue and expenditure recommendations to the Legislature and the governor to improve Colorado’s quality of life. Apparently 40 similar meetings are to be held statewide, with a second round of meetings in May as well as various follow-up events. Given the attendance at our local meeting, some thousands of people will ultimately be involved.
The meeting consisted of video presentations on a number of topics, including education, health, transportation, and the state budget. Each presentation was followed by a discussion in small groups with reporting out of some of each group’s conclusions. There was also a preliminary discussion about why we all value living in Colorado. The clear winner was, no surprise, the environment. Also high up were education, freedom, and lack of discrimination.
A few high/low-lights from the data presented:
Colorado’s population is expected to grow by nearly 50 percent over the next 25 years.
The state government has essentially no money to increase transportation capacity, and not enough to even do proper maintenance.
Colorado ranks 3rd in the nation in college graduates per capita, but only 24th in sending its own students on to college — we are a net graduate importer.
K-12 per-pupil funding is well below the national average; over the last 25 years, funding has shifted from having mostly come from local property taxes to almost 2/3 coming from the state.
Even assuming state revenues recover from the Great Recession, per-capita general fund revenues (most of what the state does except transportation), adjusted for inflation, are expected to drop by roughly 20 percent.
State Medicaid costs are expected to increase twice as fast as revenues, and the caseload is expected to continue to grow.
The TBD materials also provided a useful list of the Colorado constitution’s budget mandates, including our balanced budget requirement, TABOR (which includes both revenue and expenditure limitations as well as requirements for votes on taxes and bonding), the Gallagher Amendment (which requires a 45/55 split for residential/commercial property taxes and sets a fixed assessment rate on commercial property, thereby forcing assessment rates on residential properties to decline as values increase), gas taxes being dedicated to road expenditures, Amendment 23 (which forces increased state expenditures for K-12 education), the requirement for a “thorough and uniform” system of free public schools statewide, and of course the potential for other requirements or limitations through future citizen initiatives. Without arguing their merits or lack thereof, the combination of all these requirements certainly makes the job of providing adequate facilities and services more challenging.
While I was sitting there, I was thinking about what it might take to address some of these issues. And I was reminded of recent events at the Legislature:
The failure of a bill to force banks that are foreclosing on properties to show the real paperwork, and not just provide a say-so from some attorney; the recent passage by the Colorado senate of a bill that would give a 5 percent preference to in-state firms bidding on projects, which is pretty much guaranteed to force other states to do the same, thereby raising costs to the taxpayers without actually creating any economic benefit except to the bidders; the difficulty in dealing with our secretary of state and requiring county clerks to send out mail ballots to voters who didn’t vote in the prior election; and the unwillingness to completely discontinue unnecessary tax breaks, such as the enterprise zones which now encompass something like 70 percent of the state.
Given all this, I anticipate that the only way any of these statewide issues will be addressed is through citizen initiatives. And that will require many thousands of people becoming very informed, so as to be able to make the detailed arguments required to take on the powers that be who will be protecting their bureaucratic, economic and political turfs. I wish the TBD folks well in their endeavor – they have taken on a tough job, but it’s well worth a shot.


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