Opinion: Forecasting and decision- making


Some years ago I read Robert Rubin’s book, “In An Uncertain World.” Rubin focused on the process of decision-making when the results of that decision are anything but guaranteed. Many times we have to make choices based on very uncertain forecasts; the key is to do the analysis in the proper context, to give it the appropriate “frame.”
Last Thursday evening, the Boulder City Council was discussing the planning process for the Civic Center area that runs along Boulder Creek in downtown. The council is faced with some real issues here — many of the city’s buildings are already in the flood prone area, and climate change will almost certainly increase the frequency and severity of flood events. But how much more is not predictable with any level of certainty, at least not yet. So what is the council to do?
The council needs to take the perspective of looking back from 25 or 50 years in the future. Just as some are already asking about past decisions, we do not want our successors to ask why we didn’t consider more seriously the potential impacts of climate changes before we allowed or promoted building in an area of such high flood risk. Although the science may not be perfect, we can still ask “what if” questions: For example, what if the storms double in intensity and frequency? What if what are now very severe “500-year” storms (probability of 1/500 in a given year) occur much more frequently, like with 1/100 probability?
The decisions to build our current civic offices and other buildings in this area were made many decades ago. We now have the benefit of far better analytic tools and can create very accurate scenarios of what the future might bring. So let’s do our planning based on what we can reasonably expect from climate change, so that those who are around in the future won’t regret our decisions.
One other point — a few decades ago, when a lot of the flood regulations were being put into place, the city made the decision to not “channelize” our flood-prone creeks, and to leave them in their natural state insofar as possible. It would be unfortunate to have to reverse that decision in order to protect investments we make now without considering the effects of climate change. So it’s good news is that the city is now shifting toward making flood issues and the structural adequacy of city buildings the critical piece in the Civic Center planning process.

The council also discussed an example where forecasting went awry — the financial and attendance picture for the Pro Cycling Challenge race that took place in August. According to the City Council agenda item in June prior to the race, the expected direct sales tax benefit ranged from a low of $117,000 to a high of $470,000. But the actual result was only about $48,000 (as determined by a CU survey), a fraction of the minimum forecasted, and nowhere near the city’s direct costs of around $283,000. The attendance on Flagstaff, which was expected to be 30,000 or more, was actually only about 8-10,000, again a fraction of what was forecasted. A critical evaluation of the forecasting models seems to be needed.
The good news about the race was that it came off pretty much without a hitch, and there was no fire and no lightning storm to disrupt the final leg up Flagstaff. So city workers and the race organizers deserve plaudits. But the council needs to acknowledge, which they couldn’t seem to bring themselves to do last Thursday, that both attendance and financial returns were very far below expectations.
There needs to be a context shift about the opportunity cost of spending almost a quarter of a million dollars net on some professional entertainment, which for most spectators only lasted a few minutes, when other events are asked to pay their own way (the Bolder Boulder) or raise money for charity (the Bailey Hundo race.) There are alternative ways to spend the citizens’ money and staff’s time that have no Charter issues and more value. Just because something is scarce is not a reason to do whatever it takes to get it — that’s department store “sale” mentality, not a way to make decisions in the public sector.


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