Thread by @shayshinecastle

Budget stuff! Here's the staff presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/5A_2020_B…

And here's the full proposed budget, if you need some reading material. (Actually pretty interesting and easy to understand, even if it's not exactly riveting. I recommend it.) www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2020_Reco…

Twitter appears to be out again. GDit.

I cannot send this one tweet I want to send RE: the budget.

OK, that is a breakdown of spending increases/decreases by dept. Put together by Kady Doelling, chief budget officer, at the request of Joni Teter, with the Library Commission.

The Library Champions have put together some great budget resources, btw.

Obviously they have an agenda (more $$ or a district for the library) so keep that in mind.

But seriously a great deep dive. The kind of stuff journalists should be doing, if we had time.

Biggest increase in 2020 budget is bc of capital projects that need done. Roughly $15M more than last year.

$565M in capital projects over the next 6 years; 145 projects.

Trying to keep tweets short bc the long ones aren't sending. Maybe we've reverted to 140 characters.

Firnhaber is back up to talk homeless services. The winter sheltering / coordinated entry hub will need a new space in 2021. The east Boulder lease (formerly Robb's Music) will be up.

Housing/human services got nearly $700K more this year to support housing for unhoused residents.

Staff asked for that last year to get more ppl into homes, which saves money and, you know, ends homelessness. Unhoused resident + house = Resident

Here's a diagram on how people go through the coordinated entry system.

"We continue to house enough people out of the shelter" so that we can do navigation services and sheltering in one place, Firnhaber says.

97 individuals have been housed this last year through Boulder Shelter and BHP.

One year ago, averaging 2-3 ppl per month getting housed. Now, 7.5 people per month.

Another thing that's getting better: Resources to keep ppl in their homes if they can't afford rent or a utility bill, etc.

"The reality is, we don't have enough shelter for everyone who comes to our community," Firnhaber says.

Last year, shelter was over capacity 2X. But sometimes, one location was over capacity and the other was under. So the city is working on coordination. If the Boulder Shelter and navigation services were co-located, that wouldn't happen, Firnhaber says.

But that will reduce capacity by 50 beds.

Brockett asks about overflow. No current program in place right now, Firnhaber says.

Max capacity would be 160. Right now, it's 210.

But city plans to house more than 50 people to reduce demand.

"You're also changing the standard," Jones says.

Interpreting Firnhaber's answer: Services for ppl here less than 6 mos. will be reduced. Services for those here longer, "even if they've been homeless for one day" will be more "comprehensive," Firnhaber says.

Weaver asking about "diversion services."

That's city-speak buying ppl bus tickets, plane tickets or putting them back with their family / placing them with friends.

Firnhaber says those are folks with "less challenges." Weaver challenging that. "I appreciate we're sorting more by vulnerability" but worried that ppl won't have a place to sleep in the winter.

It's better for them to have a bed than be on the streets, he says.

boulderbeat.news/2019/03/17/7-o…

That's the first-year data. Good stuff on how many ppl were housed vs. "diverted"

OK we're talking about Folsom Street bike lanes. There was a crash recently when a driver lost consciousness and injured a cyclist.

Basically, nothing would have stopped that from happening except a concrete barrier, which is dangerous to drivers/passengers, staff said. Any fixes will cost $$; that's why this is in the budget discussion.

These are all the corridors being looked at to improve bike facilities:

Iris Avenue
Broadway
Table Mesa Drive/S. Boulder Road
Yarmouth Avenue
Violet Avenue
Folsom Street
30th Street (north of Pearl)
55th Street
63rd Street
Valmont Road

Folsom Street has bollards, but that was never the permanent plan, transportation staff says.

Here's an example of separated bike lanes:

That's a cheaper option than elevating the bike lane above the street to sidewalk level, staff says, but it has some difficulties associated with maintenance. (Plowing)

Jones: Don't we have smaller machines for that?
City is purchasing one, but it has to be trucked around town, so it's less efficient, staff says.

Elevating bike lanes to be level with sidewalks are costlier upfront but cheaper and easier to maintain.

Jones: Are we going to look at the ROI of those two approaches?
Boulder has pursued elevated bike lanes so far, but could do something else faster if council wants.

Jones says she'll be off council in a couple weeks and I'm not gonna lie, I felt a little tear in my eye.

Idk why. It's an emotional time, ya'll. Dog sick, car broken down, bank account empty AF.

Carlisle: I opened the paper the other day and there were four (stories) about cyclists being hit.

Urging some more action.

Staff: Less expensive option (pouring a curb between cars, bikes) would be $5M. Elevating bike lane would be more.

Carlisle questions that a cement barrier is not safe for drivers.
Staff saying its a risk to drivers for anytime a car hits it. Anytime, not just when a cyclist was around. "Not consistent" with Vision Zero.

Weaver: Vehicles likely has airbags, likely has crumple zones, likely has seatbelts.

Talking about Jersey Blocks..? (I think those smaller concrete barriers?)

Ah yes, what I thought: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_ba…

Weaver: Whose more likely to die between a car hitting a Jersey Block and a cyclist being hit by a car?

"I'm sorry to rant, but this issue was shocking to me to see what happened to that person" who got hit on Folsom.

3 of the last 4 fatal crashes have been a car hitting a fixed object.

I haven't been attributing these staff quotes but I *think* it's Bill Cowern of the transportation dept.

Staff doesn't recommend concrete barriers on this part of Folsom bc of the curvature of the road; if drivers hit them, they would "stop abruptly."

Morzel talking about boulders along Norwood. Why won't that work on Folsom?
Cowern (I think): The speeds are lower on Norwood. This is an arterial.

Observation: This is the most pro-biking I've ever seen this council. They always were to some degree, but they used to talk more about cars and traffic speeds, etc.

Looks like they really *have* moved past Folsom, as they said they wanted to in a previous meeting.

Two options and their costs: Engage in Folsom corridor public process ($90K to $400K, unfunded) like staff has planned to do

Install separated bike lane improvements in this section ($5.3M, unfunded)

"If you're inclined" to put more $$ to transportation, we'll put it toward the highest-priority corridor or this corridor (Folsom) specifically, Cowern says.

Carlisle again criticizing the arguments to not use solid barriers bc of the danger to drivers. "It's apples to oranges" to compare that risk to the risk of drivers hitting cyclists.

Jones: "Keep in mind that somebody passing out and crossing both lanes is a freak accident. And probably not the standard to which" we work.

Weaver: We've just had it happen twice in a month!

Jones: "If our safety standard is to keep ppl from passing out and crossing lanes... we can't build our way out of that."

We have more accidents from ppl making left-hand turns.

Young want to continue with the staff's process. They'll look at the data and choose where to put the $$, she says. But tonight we could decide to fund a corridor plan.

What's the range for that cost? Young asks
This section of Folsom: $250K
Entire Folsom corridor: $500K

That applies (roughly) to other corridors as well.

Young bringing up lowering speed limits. "That's something easier we can do right now along this corridor."

Cowern: "It would be easier. I don't recommend you do that because I don't believe it will have tangible results."

Cowern says staff should complete study of lower speed limits and measurable benefits. Then we'll come back to you so you can make an informed policy decision.

Brockett: I would love for there to be something permanent and cheaper that we could do quickly. I'm not hearing that.

Cowern: Parking blocks. Those are relatively inexpensive. Not permanent, but still.

Downside: They move when cars hit them. End up in the bike lane, which cyclists have complained about in the past.

Brockett recommending staying the course on the staff plan and maybe prioritize the Folsom corridor and get some extra $$ for that.

Weaver talking about how cars "cut" the curve on Folsom, indicated by paint wearing away.

Recommends Jersey Blocks there, but ultimately thinks we should stay the course.

Yates' wife was the first person on the scene of that Folsom bike crash. This was "one of the most horrible situations she's ever seen." (She used to work in an emergency room.)

Yates said she came home covered in blood.

Wants to stay the course. "We don't need to act anecdotally." We need to follow the science and data.

Jones summarizing council's (maybe) consensus: We just passed a TMP. Let's go through the process BUT prioritize and speed things up.

Carlisle: It's with "some frustration" to see us talking about more studies.

I don't feel one way or the other about council's approach (though I'll feel differently if I get hit biking this stretch of road) BUT...

it's interesting to note where council is OK acting on anecdotes and where they're not.

They literally passed a moratorium based on a RUMOR of redevelopment of a shopping center in 2018.

Carlisle is at least consistent. She proposed that moratorium and is often OK acting without more study/process on this.

Carlisle proposed that moratorium and is often OK acting without more study/process on this. (Except not at Alpine and Balsam)

We're talking now about where bikes are allowed on the sidewalks and where not. It's controversial to suggest changes, Cowern says.

This is bc of the cyclist that got hit in a crosswalk after riding on the sidewalk. 38th/Arapahoe area.

Cops said s/he was at fault bc bikes not allowed on the sidewalks there.

@Twitter whatever the hell is going on with this site is making my job very difficult. Have to edit tweets 2-3X before they will send. No discernible pattern as to why.

@Twitter I believe council is punting the bikes-on-sidewalks discussion to next council.

@Twitter The list of things this council has passed to the next is enough to fill an entire yearlong agenda.

@Twitter Crap, now Twitter is tagged in all my tweets. That's gonna be annoying. Maybe you should fix that, Twitter.

@Twitter Only two speakers for the budget public hearing! Man ppl never turn out for this.

@Twitter I blame myself: I haven't written anything on the budget. Too busy with election stuff.

@Twitter There is one other public hearing for this budget: Oct. 15

@Twitter Travis Cullen up first. I've never seen him here before. He says it's been a "long time since he's been here."

@Twitter "Not a dollar or penny should be spent on informing cyclists they should be in traffic," he says. (That's RE: the sidewalk thing)

@Twitter He's recounting the time he got hit by a car while biking.

@Twitter "Car traffic is a 20th Century phenomenon."

@Twitter Ok, took a break to get some water. Morzel asked a q about who pays for development impacts. Uses truck trips from 311 Mapleton as an example.

@Twitter That was in regard to street wear-and-tear.

@Twitter Cowern: There's an assessment after every redevelopment by the right-of-way inspector to determine impacts.

@Twitter Would be billed back to developer. but "assumption is they're not going to damage our streets."

Much laughter from the audience.

@Twitter OK, glad we're tackling this: The $700K budget item to re-install doors on the east side of the municipal building. (Where we're at now.)

@Twitter Morzel (who pushed for this) asked why it is costing so much.

@Twitter It's an "exterior vestibule" staff says.

@Twitter Many costs for "foundation and exterior work" plus flood proofing.

@Twitter This is a landmarked building, too, so that adds cost.

@Twitter Let's frame this $700K in another way, since we talked about homeless services earlier:

@Twitter 35 unhoused persons could be placed in housing (with supportive services) for one year with this much $$.

@Twitter (Avg. cost is $20K per year, per person. Vs. $43K to pay for all the needs of an unhoused person: fire, hospital bills, police, jail, cleanup, etc.)

@Twitter Morzel: "It just seems pretty inflated. I'd like to see it come back somewhat reduced" or at least a breakdown of costs.

@Twitter That was RE: the door project, btw.

@Twitter Young to Morzel: Would you be open to doing 3 corridor plans for the price of a door?

@Twitter Young: This will pay for three corridor plans.

@Twitter We stan.

@Twitter Morzel: We've put $2M into our sister city plaza and "no one uses it except by ppl who camp there and leave it a mess."

@Twitter "Idk how else to activate that space." Wants staff to come back with an activation plan.

@Twitter "Right now, it's a dead zone."

@Twitter Asks for better patrolling of the area.

To staff: How are you going to clean that up, make it a welcoming place so the taxpayers of Boulder feel it was a good investment?

Brautigam: We clean that area, patrol it, landscape it. It's a public area; anyone can be there.

References hiring private security guards or cops.

Won't be ready before the next reading of the budget. Morzel wants it before she leaves council; Brautigam can't promise that.

Morzel: There's human feces all over the place. It's not being taken care of the way it needs to be.

Carlisle: The cost is high but Morzel makes a good point. It leads right to the Dushanbe Teahouse, our first sister city gift.

References city's reserve fund. "I keep trying to spend this money."

Weaver has no opinion on funding the doors vs. corridor studies. He wants to fund the latter no matter what.

$11M going into a new fund created this year for capital projects. (IT, facilities and assets, etc.)

That's a transfer from the general fund. To the Governmental Capital Fund.

Doelling: The $$ has "historically been there" in the general fund for these things; we're just "setting it aside" in a different source.

The city's reserves goal is just for general fund. This year will hit 20% of that general fund total. This is for emergencies, etc.

We were able to recover from the floods more quickly as a city bc we had healthy reserves.

The reserves has been a target of council for awhile, but Brautigam always persists. Weaver suggests using it for transportation stuff.

Getting a little bit into the weeds right now.

Weaver: How much is the Vision Zero budget for 2020?

Cowern: "Much of the money" we spend in transportation are related to Vision Zero, even basic maintenance.

But Vision Zero-specific budget was $200K in 2019, plus an adjustment to base of $200K. Will be $200K in 2020 plus $85K adjustment and one engineer for $130K.

So... $455K?
How's my math?

I feel that it's not good.

$415K, my calculator tells me. I'm ashamed. I got an A in calculus. I should be able to do this.

Brockett asking why so much more $$ is going to median maintenance rather than street repair?
Lots of complaints, is the answer.

That's things like mowing/trimming and weed control. Boulder doesn't use pesticides, so it costs more to maintain.

Brockett doesn't support spending $700K to add doors to this building. "I'd rather see that $700K in the budget to go toward transportation-related things."

Esp. safety.

But maybe not corridor plans.

Morzel: You said we picked up 7 acres of medians in the past couple of years?
Cowern: That's from new development like Diagonal Crossing.

"We're considering doing not so much landscaping in our future projects."

Yates also doesn't want to spend $700K on the doors.

Put it in transportation.

Medians are a "nice to have" not a "need to have," Yates says. Potholes are a safety issue. We need to prioritize that.

Apparently $350K of the $600K extra transportation is getting was supposed to go to median maintenance. Yowza.

Our first q about community vitality! From Morzel. That dept does economic vitality but also all the parking and access stuff.

Yvette Bowden taking this. She's the head of parks & rec / community vitality. They were combined a couple years ago? Or last year?

$1.2M in the budget to update some city kiosks. Those belong to the general fund, but community vitality runs the programs.

It's costing $25K/mo to repair one of the kiosks, apparently. I wish I knew what kiosks they were talking about.

Maybe parking kiosks...?

Yes. Parking pay stations, per the budget. Page 167 of 299.

Carlisle: Where does the $$ go from parking tickets?
Bowden: To the general fund.
Carlisle: How much is that annually?
Doelling doesn't know; they'll bring that number back next time.

Boulder is reducing its total number of kiosks; moving to app/online payment for parking.

Council discussing what to fund with the $$ that was going to go into reserves this year. Transportation, council says. Maybe corridor studies.

Brautigam: The $1.5M is not going to solve the transportation needs. The numbers aren't comparable. Just a caution there. We're tackling transportation funding in 2020.

Brockett wants to leave reserves funding alone, get it to 20% and we met our goal, yay.

Carlisle: When we're talking about new medians, development needs to pay.

"As long as we have the growth we are experiencing, we're always going to be looking for money for it."

"Why does it come back on the taxpayer?"

Staff asking for clarification on where council wants to shift $$ around so revised budget can come back for second reading.

Brautigam putting in another word that the cost of the municipal building doors can't be reduced that much.

"We're not going to get the doors we want."

Yates suggested a straw poll on the doors but not a lot of appetite for that.

Morzel referencing airport upgrades for $5.8M.
Feds are paying for $5.4M of that; the other $400K comes from airport fees.

Airport has long been a target of Morzel. "It serves less than 100 residents in the city of Boulder."

Apparently Boulder would have to pay the FAA $100M for that land if it wanted to sell it for development.

I haven't had time to fact-check that; Morzel just references how much $$ we've taken from the feds for the airport. She's proposing we don't take the federal $$.

Doelling: If we don't take this $$, we're in default on all previous monies we've taken from feds and would owe over $100M back.

Cowern: We've agreed with the feds that we would keep operating the airport. That includes rebuilding the runway. We're not spending city $$ on that.

"It would be legal exposure" if we decided to default.

This is very interesting info; I'll add it into Mark Wallach's profile. He also proposed developing the airport and referenced a much lower cost to the FAA.

Jones: You don't have council support for this, Lisa. Let's move on.

Council isn't really doing much tonight; just providing feedback to staff. Again, second public hearing Oct. 15

Carlisle bringing up the Convention and Visitor Bureau budget. Council took a chunk of that last year, I believe.

No ordinance needed to shift funds from that to something else, Doelling says. Carlisle is going to make a proposal next time.

Yates: First $100K of their funds going out is grants. CVB cuts will come out of the community.

Carlisle: That's the first $100K. As we get more hotel rooms, they should be paying more. The arts is crying, as is the library, for more $$.

Yates: The next $75K is the Chautauqua Access Management Plan

Jones cuts in. Council moves to pass the budget on first reading. (Still one or two more to go)

Carlisle dissents.

Doesn't say why.

That wraps this very long budget discussion. But more fun to come in a new thread!

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!