Steve Pomerance

Proposition CC, on the ballot this November, would allow the Colorado state government to keep all tax revenues above the population-plus-inflation limit approved by Referendum C in 2005, which got rid of the ratchet effect of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR. The state forecasts that Prop CC would allow the state to keep about $310 million for 2019-2020 and $342 million for 2020-2021 that otherwise would be refunded to the taxpayers. House Bill 1257, which put Prop CC on the ballot, says this money is for public schools, higher education, roads, bridges and transit. As KC Becker, Speaker of the House and a Boulder representative, commented in The Colorado Sun, “Is this the long-term fix to any of the state’s long-term issues? No, it’s not,” but “I think it’s a necessary, important part of it.” But the real problem is that most of Colorado’s huge unfunded needs are caused by growth and development not paying its way, and Prop CC fails to implement any of the necessary fixes....

This year Boulder will be updating its Transportation Master Plan, so now is the time to focus on what needs to be done. The key fact is that we are past the inflection point on the hockey stick-shaped graph of congestion versus traffic. In other words, we’ve used up the capacity of our roads, so a little more traffic produces a whole lot more congestion. Just look at the huge numbers of cars stacked up for long stretches on Colo. 93, U.S. 36, Arapahoe Road, the Diagonal Highway, etc., in the morning or evening, and the jams during lunch hour in many places around town. Also, many local interior roads that had no real congestion some years ago now have delays through multiple signal cycles at many times during the day. Having just reviewed the current 2014 TMP, and having been involved in the original plan and its updates, as well as having studied some innovative strategies in other places, here are some suggestions for the city council and staff: First, set standards that you...

Some seriously flawed initiatives to pay for transportation and schools are on the ballot: Proposition 110 raises our taxes for 20 years, but generates only enough money to meet a fraction of the growth-related transportation needs generated during that time. Proposition 109 borrows $3.5 billion for roads, to be paid off by diverting our existing taxes from other uses. Amendment 73 constitutionally changes our tax rates and raises an excessive $1.6 billion per year to fund education costs, yet completely ignores the almost half a billion dollars per year cost of building new schools to address our growing population. None of these initiatives makes any attempt to address the underlying cause of these huge funding gaps: Colorado’s growth is not paying its way. If we actually required new development to fully mitigate its impacts, most of the need for these tax-and-debt increases would go away. I realize that the idea of requiring developers to solve the problems that they create i...

Many claims have been made about what Boulder’s recent survey really means regarding attitudes toward growth. Just looking at the survey responses gives one impression, but carefully reviewing the survey document itself to see whether it provides accurate and complete background material gives quite another. Unfortunately, much of the material for the growth questions was simply inadequate, and, as a result, respondents would likely choose answers that were more pro-growth than if they were given better information. It’s not that what the survey said was wrong, but, in many instances, what was missing was far more important than what was included. Here are some examples; see what you think: The “Background” for the growth management questions states that by 2040 we may see an additional 18,000+ more residents and a similar number of more jobs. But these numbers are not even close to what Boulder could be if fully built out. How would survey respondents know this, since the “Backgro...

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 reven...

I just received a copy of a draft “Safety Analysis” report that the Boulder city government prepared in May. It analyzes the accidents that occurred during 2012-2014 on Folsom, Iris, 55th, and 63rd Streets — the streets that were up for “right sizing”— and the potential for avoiding crashes by altering the street layout, which the report calls “correctible” crashes. An observation (that also applies to the Housing Boulder debacle earlier this year) is that when there is insufficient information and analysis, the discussion quickly degenerates into an “I’m right and you’re wrong” food fight of little benefit to anyone. So, given the focus on auto safety, as well as that of bike-riders and pedestrians, this “Safety Analysis” absolutely should have been completed and disseminated prior to the council’s single decision meeting. On Folsom, which had the most crashes by far, the total number of potentially “correctible” crashes during 2012-2014 was 16 out of 242 total crashes (6.6 perc...

In a recent presentation, the City of Boulder’s planning director identified sustainability and resilience as two concepts critical for defining Boulder’s future. But is there a real commitment to take the necessary actions? I suspect that the full implications of these concepts will be ignored, and that our future will be business as usual — more and more growth and development without any requirement to maintain the qualities that make Boulder great. The Brundtland Commission of the United Nations defined sustainability well: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It’s obvious that “meeting the needs of the present” cannot mean continually allowing conditions to deteriorate. But that is just what we are doing. For example, continuing to allow more residential development without adequate funding to provide libraries, parks, recreation centers, and schools is not...

Building the U.S. 36 HOV lane is important, but the privatization approach is a huge mistake. CDOT is setting up a no-win situation: the goals of private business are to maximize revenues (from tolls); to minimize costs (on snow removal and maintenance); to limit risk (by financing its investment by selling bonds, and thus reduce its exposure); and to avoid downsides (by eliminating free HOV2, and obstructing innovation that might reduce toll revenues). The public’s goals are exactly the opposite. This arrangement is nothing like a multi-year lease for a restaurant, where the terms are pretty standard, good deals can be struck because competition is strong, and the leased space is not a critical public asset. This is a one-time 50-year no-exit monopoly on essential infrastructure. Worse, the concessionaire is collecting tolls on one lane but doing the maintenance on all lanes, creating an inherent conflict. With a 600-page Concession Agreement plus numerous side agreements (guarant...

Both of the announced candidates to replace term-limited State Rep. Claire Levy have asked me what I thought were the pressing state issues. It’s always nice to be asked for one’s opinion, but the more I thought about it, the longer the list has become. Here’s an abbreviated version: Roads and Schools – The proposed 0.7-cent state sales tax for transportation is exactly the wrong way to go. The legislature needs to impose statewide impact fees on new development to fund all new capacity needs, whether roads or transit. For the small remaining deficit, which is mostly maintenance costs, do some form of user fee (gas tax and/or VMT tax), as it is the most equitable and efficient. The proposed statewide school tax increase only addresses operating costs. So put impact fees in place to raise the money to build the new schools for the millions of additional residents expected over the next decades; that way existing residents don’t have to pay over and over. And get rid of the 2001 capi...

On Tuesday night the City Council had a useful discussion on possible sales tax ballot items for the open space and transportation departments and the general fund. Their discussions yielded significant improvements over the proposal that was floated at previous meetings. And many council members have finally acknowledged that there are some serious problems coming for the city’s transportation system that are not going to be solved by a few million additional dollars a year. Paramount of these is dealing with the impacts of growth and shifting funding to some form of user fee. But there was still the vestige of the idea that, just because Boulder voters re-approved in 1997 a 0.33 percent sales tax for open space, now set to expire in 2018, that they will meekly accept a new 0.33 percent sales tax that is partially for other purposes. Boulder voters are much more focused on how their money will be spent and whether there is real value to be gained, than whether the new taxes add up...

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 incr...

In December I wrote about the Boulder City Council’s need to determine how they intend to fund the massive transportation needs that will be created by the 60,000 more jobs and thousands of new residents expected under “reasonable” build-out of the city. Last week I had the pleasure of participating in a PLAN-Boulder panel discussing the city’s proposed Transportation Maintenance Fee, a stopgap measure to make up for deficits in funding road maintenance and paying for increased transit. My fundamental issue with the TMF is that it provides no incentive for people to reduce their auto trips: The TMF charges properties based on statistical averages rather than charging real drivers for actual behavior. The city has expressly decided to avoid creating any incentive with this charge, even though they know that incentives work — in downtown Boulder parking is costly, so people have shifted away from single-occupant-vehicle use. I have been involved with local politics long enough to kno...

To better understand how the city of Boulder should fund our transportation budget shortfall, it’s helpful to look at how we pay for water here in Colorado. Water systems are funded through tap fees paid by new development, and user fees (water rates) paid by all system users. Tap fees pay for water rights, reservoirs, treatment plants, etc. needed to serve new development to prevent lowering of the level of service (LOS). Water rates pay for the electricity, chemicals, personnel, etc. needed to deliver water. Water rates can also correct for the inevitable inaccuracies in tap fees, which are set based on expected use rather than actual consumption. We accept paying for our own water, and indirectly paying for the water that we use at restaurants, golf courses, etc., because we understand that these fees pay for the costs of a limited commodity in a reasonable and equitable way. We treat public transportation facilities in a completely different manner. Only about 20-25 percent of ...

Boulder is facing some major issues for its transportation system, including growth issues, capacity issues, funding issues, and energy issues. Although the developed part of Boulder has very little vacant land, the potential for redevelopment is still huge. Some planning estimates envision 60,000-plus more jobs to “reasonable buildout” on top of the current 50-70,000 in-commuters (the exact number is uncertain), plus many thousands more new residents. Our major streets are close to capacity, as we notice at rush hour or with the fall influx of students. At the recent council transportation study session, city staff outlined millions of dollars of annual needs that will not be met unless additional funding is provided. Finally, transportation accounts for over 20 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. If we are not going to go the way of most cities, and end up with traffic jams on potholed streets, a lot of money will have to be invested and new regulations will have to be insti...