Thread by @shayshinecastle

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

Total: $369,017,595
Operating Budget: $288,249,901
($131,557,455 general fund;
$156,692,446 dedicated funds)

Capital Budget: $80,767,694
($70,359,248 dedicated funds;
$10,408,446 gov’t capital funds)

Transportation is going to get some more $$ (if council OKs it, which they likely will)

$500K for corridor study
$200K for Vision Zero implementation

On top of:
$130K for vision zero, including new engineer
$150K extra for snow and ice removal
$350K for median maintenance
$100K for potholes, repairs, etc.
Total extra for 2020: $1.43M

The $700K extra being proposed is bc council is abandoning a project to add doors to the east side of the municipal building, which Morzel had been pushing for. The doors were removed a few years ago.

Some discussion about the $350K being requested on median maintenance. Council wasn't happy with that last time. They wanted it to go to safety instead.

Bill Cowern: We've under-funded median maintenance for a long time and it's been a big concern of residents.

"Having gone through that process with the public, we would not want to fund less. That's the amount necessary to meet the minimum standards we came up with."

Yates: How much do we spend on median maintenance now?

About $1M now.

So a 39% increase.

"There's also a fairly substantial unfunded component around irrigation."

That was Cowern.

Most of the $350K is for labor; city relies heavily on contractors now.

Yates suggests using volunteer labor, considering all the passion in the community about medians.

"We're already taking advantage of a considerable amount of volunteer labor," Cowern says.

Brockett: I get that was an effort to figure out what the appropriate level of service for medians is, but we have similar problems with maintenance. Would it be possible to do $200K for medians and $150K to safety?

We'll deal with the funding we're given, Cowern says. But "anything less than this and the medians will look poor" and community will complain.

"But it would be better than before?" Brockett says.
Yes, Cowern agrees.

Carlisle: What's the plan going forward to reduce the need for median maintenance?
Cowern: This is much of our own doing. We put great landscaping in them, and then we have to maintain them. We're looking very critically at our capital projects looking forward.

Trying to make them less of a maintenance burden.

Carlisle: The thing that concerns me with median maintenance is when we have drought, mature trees dying.
Cowern: it has a lot to do with our irrigation. It has not been well maintained and is an unfunded need.

Morzel: Is irrigation addressed in this $350K?
Cowern: No. That's part of transportation's larger unfunded needs.

Honestly, this is city gov't at its most distilled. Talking about grasses and trees on street medians. Who else is gonna care about those things?

Ok, we're onto more complex transportation topics. 18 speed management programs in the queue, Cowern says, and at current funding, dept. can do 2 a year.

Brautigam jumping in: So much of what we already fund in transportation is part of Vision Zero, so it's hard to break it all out specifically in the budget (as council is requesting).

Some things council will be discussing tonight: the muni building doors, police, transportation, tourist dollars, reserves.

But we might do public hearing first.

Five people signed up! The most so far.

Mark Ricketson is back to talk about the airport; the city is taking more federal $$ to expand the airport (not using any of its own $$, and if the city rejects it, Boulder has to pay back all the federal $$ it has received over the years, about $100M)

The federal $$ also includes an agreement that the airport continues in its current form for ~20 years.

"We should not take that money," Ricketson says. "If we take that money, then the city is basically saying we're giving up control for another 20 years."

Carlisle asking him some qs. He's answering and Brautigam is correcting him.

The $$ is to repair the runway(s).

Kimberly Gibbs, a Quiet Skies advocate who has been featured extensively in the Times-Call bc of her issues with Vance Brand municipal airport, is also back to talk about the airport.

Evan Ravitz is back again. All repeats tonight. I wondered why there were 5 people signed up, which is unusually high for budget stuff. (Strangely; you think ppl would care more about where their $$ goes)

He uses some fancy words to say it's awful to be spending any $$ on medians when cyclists and pedestrians are being hit by cars and dying.

Adam Swetlik just walked in. Has not missed a meeting in months.

Council starting their discussion now. I am *dragging* Need hot chocolate.

Boulder uses some open space funding to pay for its consultations with indigenous peoples. Carlisle questioning why open space has to; she's not pleased that it comes from open space (and the general fund).

"I don't understand why it's all out of the general fund. The city is taking up the lands where these ppl were. It's not just the open space lands."

Morzel: Cindy makes a great point. The native ppl owned all the land the city is on. We have burial grounds just outside here and we use it for a park. Parks and rec pays for that.

Staff has said it's bc the tribes want to use open space, so open space helps pay for city's dealings with them.

Morzel: "Idk why we put the onus" on one dept rather than across the whole city.

We're talking about the muni: $2.3M spent so far in 2019 with $5M+ in remaining expenses for the rest of the year.

$2.3M + $5.4M = $7.7M this year in muni spending.

A large portion ($3.46M to Xcel) is bc Boulder is obligated to pay for engineering costs to plan the separation of the two systems.

$700K for ongoing legal/technical work, which Boulder also has to pay for.

We're really diving in here; I'm not sure I'm capturing it all. But basically: a bunch of $$ being spent this year bc a ton of work is being done.

Yates: When voters approved budget, they gave us $17M through 2022. By end of year, we'll be at $10.5M. Will the rest be sufficient for what remains?
Carr: Hard to say.

We're gonna talk airport now.
Yates: What agreements are we bound to now, since we've been accepting federal $$ for years?

We've had the airport since 1937, Cowern says.

While this would be taking on an additional $$ for the lifespan of the runway improvements (20 years), Cowern says, we've taken $106M in federal monies that don't have the same timeframe attached.

"This decision about taking or not taking (the $$) has no impact whatsoever on whether we're subject to federal regulations."

Morzel: Can we wait to take it to have a community discussion?
Cowern: "It's not a decision we can say we don't want your $$ now, we'll take it next year. We have to take it in the year they give it."

Cowern: I think what you're really asking me is could we engage in a robust public process about should we have an airport there?
Morzel: Whether we continue our commitment to keeping it an airport....

Cowern: "I question you could complete that public process in time to get that $$."
Morzel: I'm sure they'd come up with $$ at some point. They've been coming up with money since 1937.

Morzel: "I think there's a large discussion of, is this the best use of that land."

Asks for a list of the FAA obligations Boulder is subject to. There are 39 of them.

Brockett: There's also transportation uses at the airport. And it was invaluable during the 2013 flood and often in other kinds of emergencies. Yes, a lot is recreational, but don't forget those.

If staff says we might lose the funding if we delay, we need to listen to that, Brockett says. We have to repave the airport; we have $$ in front of us. "We should accept that money."

We could have a public process on having an airport, if ppl want. "I don't think we should engage in the process at the risk of losing the funding that allows us to (keep operating) the airport in a safe manner."

Weaver: If we don't take this $$ for repaving the runway, would that be a safety issue in the next year?
Airport manager answers. Prob not in the next year.

Weaver: Does the FAA require we have recreational uses at the airport? Could we keep it open just for emergencies?

Cowern: We are required to let all aircraft that fit the parameters of that runway take off and land. We could not restrict it in the way you describe.

Weaver: Why does this $$ have a duration period? But not the other $$?
Cowern: It's a Dif kind of grant. The expectation with this one is you have to keep the airport open for the lifespan of the project.

The grant assurances on the value of the land ($106M from the feds) "doesn't go away." Basically, we'll always have to pay it back if we decide we don't want an airport anymore.

Weaver: This is a maintenance function. I'm going to support taking the $$ but this could be a discussion for the next council, if it wants to.

Yates agrees. "What we're trying to do tonight is approve a budget. The q isn't whether or not we should have an airport. The q is should we allocate $400K to match that grant."

That $$ isn't from the city; the airport's fees pay for it.

No council members (maybe Morzel) want to halt that allocation. So airport = still here for 20 years. Moving on.

Library up now.

Library was given a bit of extra $$ this year (sorry; I don't remember how much!) but some members have appetite for giving them even more.

OK, I *do* know how much extra: $206,200

Cost estimates for NoBo branch will be available in January; that's what council is discussing now.

It's tricky bc the budget is being done now. But council can do an adjustment to the budget (part of routine adjustment to base they do every year) to get the branch extra $$ if it needs it, Brautigam says.

Morzel: We told the library last year we'd give them significantly more money. Can we use some of the $700K we're not spending on the municipal building doors for the library, specifically the North Boulder branch?

"The north Boulder community has been waiting for 31 years for a new library," she says.

Yates: It's too early to know how much $$ we need to give for that project. If we guess tonight, we'll be wrong. I'd rather wait and see what those numbers are and give them extra $$ next year.

Morzel: "We don't know what the number is but we know it's above what we estimated." So we should give them some of the $$ we're not spending on the doors.

Suggests $500K to the library of that door $$.

Kady Doelling, chief budget officer, says we can just keep the $700K unused until the first adjustment to the budget, likely in February

Weaver and Morzel on board with that.

So library funding is being left alone for right now.

Police and safety funding up for discussion now, followed by transportation.

The police issues include expanding the Homeless Outreach Team on the police dept, doing something about discarded needles in the community, staffing for the dept, etc.

There's a slide with numbers on it for the cost to clean up needles, but it's not included in the publicly available presentation, and I can't see far enough to read the TV screen it's posted on.

Yvette Bowden, head of community vitality and parks/rec, said the dept stepped up its visits to parks after the council's recent discussions needle debris.

Carey Weinheimer, interim police chief, going over some staffing numbers. (again, a slide I don't have access to and can't see).

184 police officers in Boulder

Over past 20 years: Late 1990s, public safety tax passed and staffing increased by 24 officers by 3-year period. That was extended in 2002, the largest single increase in staffing in recent members.

181 pre-recession; 173 during recession (to 2013) 176 in 2014, 182 this year

182 is the number in the dept. master plan.
8 vacant jobs in the dept but it "underscores" what the actual vacancy is.
16 officers in training (so can't patrol alone), 11 officers on light duty (injuries, family leave, etc)
149 officers that are "fully capable"

Dept is having trouble with turnover and filling vacancies. In past years, "we weren't able to get enough qualified applicants."

Takes 44 weeks to fully train an officer. 2-3 month hiring cycle.

Boulder has highest average age of police officers (43) than 30 peer communities.

National shortage of cops, so there's a lot of competition, Weinheimer says.

Morzel: Is it accurate that you have a lower number of officers on the ground than in previous years?
Weinheimer: Not exactly. 149 fully capable officers is 3 better than last year.

Weaver and Morzel asks about backup for the HOT (homeless outreach team)

2 officers make up HOT; one is on leave, another is on light duty. Functions "haven't gone away completely," with the light-duty officer doing work from the office and mall officers have "taken up some of the slack."

"There really is no backup at this point," Weinheimer says. But the dept is meeting with housing and human services to discuss the approach and if other dept can back it up

"That is not necessarily where we want to put out police resources. We have a role." But we can get the same or better outcome with different resources.

Yates: Back when we implemented this, it was thought that HOT would be short-lived and then human services would take over when the day came. Maybe that day has come.

Carlisle: Is there $$ to do that outreach in this budget, if we take it away from police?
Brautigam: No. We have to figure out what staffing looks like, etc. provide info to us and we could do it in adjustment to budget next year

We're 90 min behind schedule, just FYI.

This would never happen if Mayor Jones was here.

Weaver: Do we want to increase the budget to fund needle collection and/or syringe safety?

Brockett: It seems like we do need to devote additional resources, but I hear that cleanup has increased recently without more $$.

Do we need more?

Yates: I didn't hear a request for $$, but can we ask staff that if you need more $$, just ask us?
Brautigam: Absolutely.

Morzel, Nagle want to wait to give police extra staffing $$ until the master plan is finished, next year.

OK, we're talking convention and visitor's bureau money. Their budget is $2M; but much less actually comes from the city itself. Most is tax $$ from tourists, hotels, etc.

Yates: Last year, we took 12% out of their budget.

He's going over what CVB supports, and how much of it is local: $92.5K in grants to local orgs in 2019, less than in 2017-2018 bc we reduced their budget

Went to Colorado Latino Festival, environmental film festival, Boulder open studios tours, Flatirons food/film festival, Boulder Phil, Boulder Ballet, Versatility Dance Festival

Also, Yates says, CVB has funded Chautauqua shuttle for the past three years.

"As we look at the CVB as a source of funding, I want us to be cognizant of the fact that we cut the discretionary budget by 12% last year and if we cut further, it would come out of these things."

1990s, CO state tourism funding was cut by $12M.
Two years later: $1.4B drop in tourism revenue.
Five years: $2B a year in revenue drop

CO lost 30% of tourism market to other states.

It's a cautionary tale, Yates says. "There's a direct correlation on what we spend on tourism and receive in tourism." Tourists spend a lot here which pays for a huge bit of our budget.

Carlisle: How much is the CVB rent?
Yates looking for that.

$11,000 a year in occupancy costs
They lease space from the Boulder Chamber of Commerce

Weaver: How many employees?
10-11

Yates: They cut a job when we reduced their budget last year

Some discussion over the increase in revenue and how to compare those numbers, bc the city changed how tourist dollars were allocated in recent years.

Doelling: We're seeing a pretty significant increase in accommodations tax bc of the new hotel rooms.

Didn't know this: Tax $$ from Airbnb and short-term rentals doesn't go to CVB. It goes to affordable housing.

Yates: And $$ from the CU hotel/conference room won't go to CVB either, right?
Brautigam: Yes but I don't remember where
Yates: To subsidize nonprofits that will use the conference center.

Carlisle: Does the university give a portion of admission taxes to the city now?
Doelling: It depends on the type of event.
Carlisle: What's making them change their mind?
Yates: This is accommodation tax, not admission.

Brautigam: It was part of the negotiations with us bc we asked them to make their conference center bigger than they wanted to, so nonprofits could use it. Groups often say there isn't a large enough space in town.

That project has yet to be built, btw.

Back to CVB revenue. Weaver: It has increased 7% year-over-year between 2013 and 2019

I like the programs they fund, but we should keep in context the pool of $$ has grown, but do services need to grow, too?

Said something about how much $$ should go to tourism marketing/efforts, etc.

Yates: It's relatively flat.

Yates: If we cut, the first things that will go are these extra programs bc they are outside their mission. Their mission is tourism. They're doing these extra things.

Right now, there are requests by the city to fund things like the Jaipur Literature Festival. If we cut, how can we ask them for $$?

"It's a way for the accommodations tax to fund community amenities."

Brockett: Part of the danger here is as you reduce funding, you get a short-term boost but in the long-term you'll likely end up with smaller revenues overall.

Carlisle: So you think a minor adjustment to this budget is going to make Boulder a less desirable place?

Brockett: To some degree.

Carlisle talking about overcrowding at Eldorado.

"I don't think we're going to lose our destination status."

"The story Yates told is a fire sale story."

"This community has been built in university, federal labs and entrepreneurial endeavor. Tourism is fine; there's a place for it. But in terms of letting it keep growing and growing and growing" I don't think is what we want.

Brockett: I don't think growing is the goal. It's about keeping us where we are now.
Yates: This is a budget discussion. Not about how many hotels we want.

Carlisle: This is the place for this discussion. We don't get reports throughout the year unless we ask for them.
Yates/Brockett: There was a report earlier this year.
Carlisle: Unless we ask for them.
Yates/Brockett: That was a regularly scheduled report.

Tense AF in here.

Yates: The CVB is looking for community programs to fund. When the city asks for $$, they usually say yes.

Morzel might ask for $$ for her municipal doors and the sister city plaza.

But she notes she doesn't have support for those, given the cost. "They were far more expensive than I ever anticipated."

We're talking a bit about that and the presence of unhoused residents in the area. Bowden, of parks and rec, is back up talking about what can be done with no extra $$.

Morzel: A few years ago you did wonders with the bandshell by adding lighting and making it more safe.
Bowden: We'll get creative.

This is RE: the sister city plaza on the east side of the building. That's where the doors would open up to.

OK we're moving on to other budget things bc we are TWO HOURS behind at this point.

Yates recommending taking half of the $$ planned to be added to the city's reserves ($700K) and putting it toward transportation. Then the muni doors $$ could be put to the library next year.

Or maybe this year, which Morzel prefers.

I don't know what the next council's dedication to the North Boulder library will be.

I thought we were done with CVB but Carlisle bringing it up again. Calls it a "shadow board."

Given the amount of increases in revenue, we should be spending those $$ "for the things we are looking at up here."

Yates: Revenue has bounced around, not consistently increased. We can have an interesting discussion about if they spend their money wisely, but I don't want to cut based on the false premise that their budget has increased exponentially.

Carlisle: I don't see it bouncing around as much as you do.

"In a general sense, when something is growing like this, when do you stop? How big is it allowed to be?"

Weaver: Let's make a request of the CVB for $$ for the sister city plaza, rather than cutting their budget. Whatever the parks dept is going to do, I'm sure they can use more $$.

Back to transportation: Brockett asks Cowern where the dept. would put $500K extra?
Council wants a corridor study, but that might not be what the dept wants.

He had a really long answer and I don't really know what he said in a distilled form.

I'm sorry.

But Brockett asks if council can be more flexible with funding and let transportation dept / advisory board decide

Yates agrees.

Cowern: "We will all be thrilled and honored" with more $$.

Weaver makes another request to look at reducing the amount of $$ for median maintenance. "Safety is more important than beautification."

Yates, too. "There are some vocal community members who would like to see our medians look better, but for every one of those there are prob 10-20 who write us who say I want to see our roads in better shape."

Any median maintenance should focus on "established" trees, Carlisle says, to keep them from dying.

So council is giving transportation $700K to spend on whatever it wants (kinda) so long as it improves safety. Could be maintenance, speed management, bike infrastructure improvements, etc.

Council votes to pass the budget for another reading.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.