Opinion: We really need some new people on the Boulder City Council

I’ve tried to avoid commenting on elections because I’d rather focus on issues than personalities. But times change … so here are some of the many recent events that show we really, really, really need some new blood on our council/mayor.

Item #1: The council added an “executive session” to their agenda for last week. Per a recent charter change, such sessions allow the full council to meet behind closed doors to consider legal issues. But their announcement contained no details regarding what they were considering.

Since 2001, the Colorado Open Meetings Law has required state and local public bodies to provide notice of the topic for an executive session, “in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized.” And in 2020, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that the Town of Basalt violated the COML for failing to provide the necessary details. But, although I raised the issue with the council, no details emerged. Apparently, they don’t care.

Item #2: The council has decided that their opinions on state-level initiatives matter so much that they need to publish their opinions. They did this with the graduated income tax measure on the ballot for this November. But they didn’t bother to expose any of the numerous flaws this measure contains.

For example, the tax rates go up by small percentages up to $500k income, then take a large bump up for the next bracket, for no apparent reason. Also, because there is no inflation adjustment, everyone will gradually move up in their bracket and so pay a higher percent of their income in taxes. Eventually, they will be pushed into the next bracket, further increasing their real taxes.

Worse, the initiative eliminates our constitutional limit on total tax revenues; the 1991 TABOR amendment currently limits those increases to inflation plus population. Thus, refunds will never happen, and an increasing amount of money will be collected and spent.

Item #3: This lack of attention to our finances is consistent with the council’s ignoring the $400 million building maintenance and replacement issue, which has been on their plate for many years. Rather than continually setting aside money to deal with the building issue, the council allowed both the city’s operating budget and staffing to increase by around 20% over the last 10 or so years. Then they approved the huge Alpine-Balsam project, way over $100 million, just when downtown vacancies are increasing, which could have been a cheaper and better approach to staff offices.

Item #4: In the memo to the Water Resources Advisory Board for last week’s meeting, city staff stated, “This project has a current estimated cost of $76.5M. Of note is that the estimated cost of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project as increased from the previous estimate of $66 million due to delays in project financing resulting from ongoing litigation.”

This is complete nonsense! The fundamental problem is that city staff failed to consider that, unlike the rest of Boulder’s flood projects, almost none of the water comes from inside the city. The current fees, based on “impervious surface” of people’s in-city lots, are unrelated to the need for this dam. Therefore, they seemingly violate the rule for fees — there must be a “rational nexus” between what the fees are being charged for and the measures for which they are paying. Thus, they are, I think, pretty clearly illegal.

As to delays, the dam was approved in early March last year. Then it took the city staff about three months to submit their materials for the first approval, then about six months for the next one, and then further delays because they didn’t figure out how to address the issues around water running under U.S. 36, etc. But council refuses to acknowledge and address this poor project management.

To solve the financing problem and speed things up, the staff could propose a tax-funded bond. But that would require them to go to the voters, which they seem terrified of doing. And legitimately so, since it’s now clear that an upstream design or possibly even floodproofing the buildings still susceptible to flooding would be much cheaper and better. (I note that Frasier Meadows already floodproofed their buildings and garages, further reducing the benefit of a dam.)

But the council sits on their hands and does nothing. The idea of revisiting their flawed decision of a few years ago is apparently just too much to contemplate. So, let’s vote in some new people who will act responsibly and responsively, and listen to us citizens.