Opinion: Boulder needs to include we citizens in city decision

I attended the Monday evening meeting of the four bodies that review and approve the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update. The final item, changing the land use designations for existing established neighborhoods to allow massive densification, was very revealing. Both the County Commissioners and County Planning Commission were concerned about the impacts on these neighborhoods. But the majority of both the City Council and City Planning Board were ready to push forward to allow densification. I was appalled by their lack of concern for what their constituents who live there actually want and the total lack of interest in giving them a direct say (like voting) on the matter.

On the budget issues, the South Boulder Recreation Center needs a complete rebuild, or possibly replacement, and our city is trying to sort out how to pay for it. But it is far from the only building that is old or deteriorating. Boulder first looked at the problem with the 2021 Boulder Facilities Master Plan, a 101-page document. Some of the Summary points are worth quoting:

“WE HAVE AN AGING PORTFOLIO. The City of Boulder currently has 1,870,326 gross square feet (GSF) spread across 76 buildings, with an average building age of 47 years. Seven of these buildings are over 95 years old and ten are over 60 years old. There are 41 buildings between 30 to 60 years old…

“WE’VE NEGLECTED OUR BUILDINGS. Reactive (deferred) maintenance costs are skyrocketing, and (the current) approach will do nothing to address deferred renewal needs in buildings …

“STATUS QUO IS NOT AN OPTION. Costs to maintain this portfolio of buildings will soon spiral out of control…”

These alerts did not immediately stimulate a commitment to look at the budget to see how these failures happened and what excesses exist, where reduction might yield the money to fix things. I’m referring to the large increases in number of staff, especially at the upper levels, and in total and per-capita spending.

This Master Plan was redone in 2023, with the following as its apparent (and sensible) guiding principle: “It recommends that after a large capital investment in a building, ongoing annual funding be provided to maintain the building well into the future, plan for future capital renewal needs and building adaptation which will result in savings in operations and maintenance budgets.”

The 2023 Plan also recommended consolidation of facilities: “Consolidation of roughly 25% of the building portfolio to two centralized campuses results in a reduction of the Unfunded Liability across the entire portfolio of more than 60% and stabilizes future liabilities.”

Viewed in a vacuum, this sounds logical. But whether it made sense to move Boulder’s main government center out of downtown to Alpine/Balsam is an entirely different matter. The apparent excess of government employees, at least when compared to neighboring cities, deserved some very serious inspection before deciding. So, to me, it looks like the cart before the horse. Increasing these concerns, the City admits that many of its other buildings also need work, with 15 of them in serious need, including the East Boulder Community Center.

As I’ve pointed out previously, Boulder’s budget has increased, on a per-capita, inflation-adjusted basis, by about 25% in the last 10 years, without accounting for Alpine/Balsam. The combination of the need to fund the deferred maintenance and replacement of many buildings, and this massive spending increase (apparently mostly on increasing numbers of city staff), both point in the same direction — it’s time for a serious evaluation of our budget. To do this well and in a way that the citizens trust will require involving educated, informed citizens who are invested in our community’s welfare, but are not part of the government, so don’t have an investment in preserving the status quo.

Regarding another potentially huge cost — a wildfire igniting buildings in Boulder — I recently heard (secondhand) that some friends found a bag of cigarette lighters and some bottle caps used as ashtrays in the Open Space west of Boulder. And we just had the Bluebell Fire just south of Chautauqua and the Goat Trail fire just west of North Boulder; the causes are still undetermined. But I don’t remember any lightning storms, so I assume they were humans.

I think the council should take a very serious look at this issue of human-caused fires. We need to radically increase efforts to prevent them, along with the work to reduce damage potential. The cost of wildfires is so huge that whatever it takes will seem well worth 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: Why is Boulder sending out another biased survey?

No doubt many of you remember the surveys the city of Boulder sent out a couple of years ago that appeared to be so biased as to be essentially useless other than as propaganda pieces. Well, last Friday I and many others received another one of these sell-jobs enticingly titled “Family-Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods.”  Translating, this means adding the maximum density to the still surviving lower-density parts of Boulder that the council can do without violating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. FYI, the BVCP cannot be changed without the consent of the County Commissioners, who have a lot more sense and are not advocates of unlimited growth at any cost. Fortunately, this limits the damage the “progressives” can cause, at least for the immediate future. In addition to the cavalier attitude of some of our council members about unilaterally changing the character and livability of our neighborhoods, the survey offends by asserting that this is an attempt to address housing cost...
Read more

Comments from readers on my column on the ‘Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods’ survey

I received many times the usual number of comments regarding my recent column on the “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey and the willingness of some council members to ignore what the apparent majority of citizens respondents want. These came to me directly and also via NextDoor. Here are some of them, occasionally with edits for length and style: “Thank you for your editorial/letter about growth in Boulder. I thought I was the only one noticing and concerned about it!!” “The ‘progressives’ who have taken control of Boulder just seem to be developers in disguise.” “Neighborhood densifying: nothing has been said about PARKING — a disaster for those who do not have a driveway to park.” “Why do the ‘progressives’ just want to stuff more and more people (and cars) into Boulder? It just makes no sense.” “Collectively the community survey delivered a statistically significant ‘against’ the proposed changes … two to one not in favor, for instance...
Read more