[BoulderCouncilHotline] Comments on the 2023 Budget

[Wallach, Mark]

We have been asked to send our comments relating to the budget in a Hotline post and I am happy to comply. Those comments are as follows:

Before I address any issues relating to specific line items in the budget, I do have a couple of comments relating to the new format. By and large, it represents improvement over a 300-page (or more) treatise, and the work that has gone into creating this new system must have been prodigious. All greatly appreciated. However, …


i)                    The explanatory text on a departmental level that specifically details where expenses have increased, or cuts have been made, is a bit sparse and lacking in detail, unless you drill way down. I am doubtful that many people will do so.  A lot of what text there is appears to be relatively generic. I have attempted to drill down on a department level to get this narrative explanation, and, by and large, it is less than satisfying. There are, of course, exceptions: the narrative surrounding the Planning Department was quite useful, and the Utilities Department clearly articulated where their funds were being spent. Ditto the CIP Budget for Transportation. The budget may not be the place for detailing the Master Plan of each department, but there should be a clear statement of what increases will be used for (and how much) and, in the context of decreases in line items, what is being cut and why.


ii)                  An example of the need for some degree of explanation would be OSMP, where the decline in capital projects is quite precipitous, from $7.147MM in 2023 to $1.425MM by 2026. The budget section clearly sets out the expenditures it contemplates in 2023, but  I would like to understand the context in which these changes were occurring. In the absence of that context, it is difficult to have a view as to the appropriateness of this decline in the level of the department’s capital expenditure.



iii)                There are several instances where expenditures are listed as increasing or declining by well over 1,000%, and in a manner that clearly cannot be correct. It cannot be the case that pothole maintenance has declined by -8,713.69%, that snow and ice removal has increased by 1,980.16%, and that Biking and Path Maintenance has increased by 2,191% (if only that were true).  Transportation maintenance showed a decline of -4,833.67% and Administration a decline of -3,823.78% And CIP Management (which I assume is a new category), in two different charts shows an increase of more than 16,000 % in one chart and a record-setting increase of 102,085% in another. Finally, the breakdown by program shows an increase in the budget for Arts and Culture of 486%. Has the arts community been made aware of these good tidings? Obviously, this begs for some narrative clarity.




My more specific budget comments are set forth below:


i)                    The CIP budget discussion of the CCRS tax states that the 2023 budget includes $28MM of projects to be funded through the CCRS tax. We have previously discussed the possibility of bonding the future cash flows anticipated from the tax in order to circumvent the rapid inflation of construction costs. What is the status of this bond issuance? Will it occur in 2023?


ii)                  Wildlfire resilience is budgeted for $2.07MM, which is noted in the memo, although I could not find this in the budget itself (no doubt, my failure).  In view of the scope of the problem, this seems to me to be an extremely small expenditure for an extremely large problem. The memo acknowledges the gap between needs and resources, but this strikes me as too important to be dependent upon passage of the Climate Tax. Whether or not that tax passes (and I have every hope and expectation that it will), we need to dedicate more funds for this item.



iii)                Pursuant to page 12 of the memo we are providing $372K in funding for the community court program. I support this in concept, but want to know what metrics will be used to determine the success or failure of this investment.



iv)                 I am not sure of the purpose of allocating $750K for the operation of the day services shelter when we do not have a building, a location, a cost estimate to lease/purchase/renovate a structure, or an understanding of the staffing requirements and attendant costs to operate same.  The phrase “ready, fire, aim” comes to mind. It appears to be a line item intended to show seriousness of purpose to stand up such a facility more than to actually reflect the cost of operating a specific location. This would seem to be an item more suitable for a subsequent Adjustment to Base than a present allocation. Doing so would have no impact on actually identifying and developing such a facility, which been approved by Council, but it would be a recognition that we have a ways to go on this project. Symbolic appropriations are not an appropriate course of action.



v)                  CCRS will generate more than $10MM/year. However, looking at the Visualization chart for CCRS funds for the years 2024-28, we show a total of only $19MM for projects during this five-year period. I assume that is because the funds have not yet been allocated to specific projects. If so, would the chart not be clearer with a category of “unallocated funds” included for each year?



vi)                 56% of the budget of the Finance Department goes towards “internal services”. Could this be explained in a bit more detail? How does that charge relate to operating and personnel expenses?



vii)               Given the restoration of so many services in this budget, why do we increase the police budget at less than the increase in inflation, which may lead to the curtailment of services? In addition, under “Training” there is a 9% increase in personnel, but an 8% decrease in the “Operations” component of that line item. Is there anything we need to know here?



viii)             The line item for Economic Vitality and District Management has decreased by $85K. Any particular reason for the decline?



ix)                 There was a decline of 30% in the Operating Budget for Facilities and Fleets and an increase of 54% in the CIP of that department. If this represents a shift in priorities, please explain.



x)                   We raise and distribute large sums of money from Commercial Development Linkage Fees from commercial developers and Cash-in-Lieu payments from residential development, which contributes to the development of affordable housing in Boulder. Yet I cannot find any mention of these funds, their amount, how and to whom they are distributed, and the results of that investment (again, that could be my inability to source the information, rather than its unavailability). But, assuming that information is not in the budget, should there not be more detail about this important community investment? We show a line item of approximately $14MM for affordable housing. How much of this comes from the General Fund? How much from developer-generated fees? How much from government grants? It would be good to have some understanding of this.



xi)                 The budget for the airport has been increased by a multiple of more than 5x from 2022 ($347K to $1.812MM), the largest component of which are capital improvements ($950K). The airport is a complex and controversial subject. My first question is whether these capital improvement funds are sourced from the City’s revenues, or represent the acceptance of federal grants for that purpose. The difference is quite substantial in the context of our forthcoming larger conversation as to what we wish to do with the airport. The acceptance of grants binds us more closely to the FAA and has implications for our ability to even consider alternative uses of that property. I would argue that we should not be taking FAA grants until we have seen the Master Plan for the airport and have had that larger conversation as to its use and configuration.  So, to repeat: what is the source of the CIP funds for that facility? My second question is: what is the pressing need that requires us to increase the airport budget by more than 500% before even a discussion of the Master Plan? Is there any other department or facility in the City of Boulder that is experiencing a 5x increase in its budget?



xii)               One general question that cuts across departmental lines: do we monitor and control the use of outside consultants? We clearly spend several million dollars on consultants on an annual basis, and this does not include obviously necessary expenditures on projects such as engineering services for CU South. Is anybody tracking this? What are the standards by which we determine that the retention of outside consultants is warranted/necessary? And how do we monitor these expenditures to determine if they have provided the value we would wish? Under Transportation and Mobility, the CIP program is budgeted to incur an expense of $8.6MM in consultants, against expenditures of $23.6MM for CIP Management (which is what?) and a Capital Improvement Program of $9.5MM. I assume those last two line items are cumulative, as it would be hard to imagine spending $8.6MM on consultants against a $9.5MM CIP. There is simply no clarity here, and there should be some explanation as to what is being spent here.



xiii)             In light of the very substantial increases that so many departments and programs have received, the increase for Arts seems a bit meager. I would like for us to have done better.



xiv)             Finally, the staff memo raises the issue of a number of potential priorities for which there is no apparent funding source. A rough estimate is that these priorities represent $12-20MM in potential expenditures (perhaps more). While this will be an interesting and important conversation for a later time (you think?) it would have been appreciated if some possibilities for addressing these problems (other than the prospect of a 14% sales tax or speculative funds from the creation of a Library District) could have been mentioned. The suspense is killing me.


I apologize in advance if any of these questions result from my failure to use the site correctly and to drill down to the appropriate level of detail. Nevertheless, I look forward to our conversation on the budget, and the input we may receive from the community.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://webappsprod.bouldercolorado.gov/mailing-lists/mailman-archive/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20220922/378c9f9f/attachment.html