Opinion: Following the money

The city council recently approved pay raises for Boulder’s city manager and attorney. They both received “equity” raises, apparently to bring them up to comparable levels with others in similar positions. They also received “very high” performance ratings and 4 percent permanent “performance” salary increases. The totals were a 9 percent increase for the manager, to $236,508, and a 5 percent increase for the attorney, to $203,839. Does the council really think that the city’s performance was that great? And why were these not just bonuses, so as to leave room for future flexibility? Besides, matching other cities’ salaries, and then raising them, will unnecessarily escalate all salaries when others cities follow suit.
The 2014 Boulder Transportation Master Plan shows a very significant funding gap between expected revenues and what is needed to reduce vehicle-miles-traveled and prevent congestion increases. The TMP calculates that this would require almost doubling expected revenues, and states, “Even with the additional funding from the 2013 sales tax approval, the ability to make capital investment in the transportation system has clearly fallen short of the amount needed to achieve our transportation goals and objectives . . . . Work prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission in 2007 shows that with increasing costs for operations and maintenance, these functions could consume the entire transportation budget within a few years. The 2013 sales tax increase for transportation will help delay this event, but without a new long-term and stable revenue source, the ability to invest in enhancements will decline over time.” My translation — unless something radically changes, traffic jams will be permanent.
Stanford University faced a similar situation, but took an innovative “revenue neutral” approach: They combined charges for auto use with incentives for alternatives. Per their transportation planner, in 2000, Stanford wanted to expand their already huge campus, adding 2 million square feet of buildings and 3,000 residential units. Santa Clara County told Stanford to mitigate its traffic impacts by either funding intersection improvements or cutting peak demand. Stanford chose the latter, implementing a transportation demand management program.
They reduced commuter single-occupancy vehicle use from 64.4 percent to 39.3 percent (a 39 percent reduction); peak hour trips were also reduced, even with increased population. Stanford avoided building 3,100+ parking spaces, reportedly saving $107 million, plus it avoided the cost of the intersection improvements. Stanford’s only “stick” was charging for parking — e.g. $300-$800 for an annual parking permit. Its “carrots” included up to a $300 incentive not to drive and free transit passes. New campus development paid $85 per square foot for transportation mitigation measures. All with no “right-sizing”!
Boulder’s inclusionary housing program is supposed to require that residential developers provide 20 percent of their new housing as permanently affordable, but that is not exactly what happens. A large rental development (most residential projects being built are rental) can meet the “20 percent” requirement by paying for the equivalent of one affordable unit off-site for every five on-site. But the developers pay on the basis of 75 percent, not 100 percent, of the actual difference between the market price and the price that would be affordable for someone in the eligible population. To make up for this gap, affordable housing providers use various sources of mostly public money so that more units can be provided than the cash the developers paid would cover. So the developers are getting a deal, the citizens are not getting what they think, and our taxes make up (most of) the difference.
The city’s $9.53 per square foot jobs-housing linkage fee also is rather low. The city calculates the full subsidy required to provide one affordable unit at $186,671. So 20,000 square feet of new office space (potentially well over 100 new employees) barely pays for the subsidy on one unit.
Weeks ago, the council put a 7.5 percent tax on short-term rentals (STRs) on the ballot. Then the city council voted that STRs would become illegal unless the tax passes. But this condition is not in the ballot language. So STR owners might vote no to avoid the tax, not knowing that voting no could completely eliminate their right to do STRs. And voters who don’t like STRs and think that the tax will inhibit STRs might vote yes, not knowing that a no vote might get them what they really want — no STRs at all. (Confusingly, the city website says that “lodging taxes” are 9.5 percent and that STRs are already “unlawful.”)
For all this, the council wants us to raise its pay by $10,000 per member per year just for getting elected, roughly doubling the current pay, plus health benefits.

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