Opinion: A solution for open space, a Band-Aid for transportation


Boulder’s open space program has probably provided more benefits to Boulder residents than any other single program. Our prime water supply, the 55-foot height limit, the Blue Line, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, etc. all are important. But open space has provided us with unparalleled protection from sprawl and fantastic access to the outdoors.
On Tuesday night, the City Council discussed options for extending the current open space taxes. Low interest rates and favorable land prices make this the time to go full out to complete the property purchase program. Here’s the way I see it:
The council has already identified a long list of properties that it wants to acquire, called the Accelerated Acquisition Plan, estimated to cost nearly $90 million. It includes very visible parcels along the road to Lyons, and others east and south of town. In addition, the council is looking to open space to purchase oil and gas drilling rights, help build a regional trail network, and increase opportunities for local food production (like Long’s Gardens.) These will likely cost nearly $30 million more. Given expected fund balances, to finance all this would require about a 0.20 percent sales tax to continue for 20 years after the current 0.33 percent and 0.15 percent taxes expire in 2018 and 2019. Interest rates and prices are near low points, so now is the time to buy!
Of course, the land and trail networks need to be maintained. The permanent 0.40 percent open space tax is barely adequate to pay for the maintenance on the current parcels. And the city manager wants to end what is called the general fund transfer, originally $1.2 million from the general fund to the open space department to pay for maintenance of mountain parks, which were transferred to open space in 2000. To address both these issues, an increase in the permanent open space sales tax of at least 0.05 percent would be necessary. If started in 2020, the result would be a reduction in the overall open space tax rate of over 25 percent.
The council is also interested in providing additional funds to the transportation department to enhance street and bikeway maintenance, and possibly to provide some free bus service in Boulder, both worthy objectives. These issues have been on the table since at least 2009, but the thinking has been shortsighted. Neither of the current proposals — another sales tax increase or a fee on property — set charges based on actual use and so neither provides any incentive to change behavior, an essential ingredient if we are to deal with future traffic growth. Besides, the tax approach, apparently the most favored, would not charge our many tax-exempt governmental institutions (CU, the federal labs, the school district, etc,) that contribute a significant amount to Boulder’s traffic.
Worse, both these approaches fail to comprehensively address the long-term growth in traffic. To do this would include implementing user fees — likely parking charges, because the city can legally do these — to completely fund maintenance and additional transit (and replace the current 0.6 percent sales tax); requiring new development to offset the traffic it generates by paying to have other properties reduce their traffic; coming to agreement with RTD on the cost of providing free bus service; and expanding the Transportation Master Plan to deal with the expected 60,000 additional jobs and additional housing. (By the way, it seems rather futile to add housing to try to improve affordability, when housing prices are being pushed up by commercial development that the city is subsidizing and encouraging.)
To do this kind of long-range comprehensive thinking, the council needs to restore cross-departmental integration to its planning and be much more involved in policy creation. For example, good transportation policy requires consideration of economic development, housing, city boundary expansion, and water supply. Making decisions about future open space tax rates requires a detailed understanding of the projected fiscal situation. To operate at this level, the council and staff need to work more directly together to explore options and evaluate the pros and cons, rather than the council giving general (and sometimes vague and contradictory) direction and the staff doing the work on their own. Then, at meetings, council members will be more up to speed on all the details and tradeoffs . This approach has worked in the past, has helped prevent unnecessary polarization, and supports the creative thinking that produces effective solutions.

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