In the summer of 2010, Boulder’s innovative Climate Smart Loan Program screeched to a halt, because the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) decided that the property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing mechanism amounted to a lien on any property enrolled in the program (read FHFA’s statements, and Boulder County’s response, both as PDFs).  Because of this, they said they were unwilling to purchase and securitize PACE encumbered mortgages.   In case you don’t remember, the FHFA oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored mortgage consolidation giants, through which nearly all consumer home loans pass at some point in their existence on the secondary market.  And if they won’t buy your mortgage, then you’re not going to get a loan.  This is unfortunate, since PACE financing programs had proven an effective way to get homeowners to make sensible long-term investments in energy efficiency and renewable generation, without having to take on the risk that future buyers would inappropriately undervalue the resulting savings.

However, the FHFA made this rule without engaging in any public process, and they were subsequently sued by the State of California and several cities and counties.  The case has finally made it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and while they have yet to make a ruling, the Court has directed the FHFA to begin collecting public input on the proposed rules.  The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has been involved in the suits and has had good ongoing coverage of the case:

• After the Earthquake and Before the Hurricane (8/29/2011)
• Be a part of PACEs revival (1/25/2012)
• PACE Lives! (1/26/2012)

The outcome of this case and the nature of the rules which are eventually adopted may have big effects on Boulder.  Energy efficiency retrofits and local small scale renewable energy installation are high-quality local job producing industries.  They allow our community to develop expertise that we can only hope will be in great demand in the near future.  They’re absolutely vital to meeting our climate action plan goals.  We have the financing mechanism in place to do this work; all we need is the go-ahead from the FHFA to get it underway.  We should comment on these rules loud and clear.

The notice of the proposed rulemaking has been posted in the Federal Register, in all its gory detail.  Details on how to submit comments can be found here.  The easiest way is to e-mail Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel: RegComments@fhfa.gov.  You must include “RIN 2590-AA53″ in the subject line of the message.  All comments must be received by March 26th, 2012.

Another resource to keep an eye on is PACE Now, a bi-partisan group advocating for PACE programs in congress.  They’re developing talking points, and have been working to get legislation passed which would protect PACE programs introduced in congress (like H.R. 2599, the PACE Assessment Protection Act of 2011… which unfortunately didn’t get very far).

It’s not crazy to think that the FHFA or some other federal agency might have a useful role to play in the regulation of PACE programs.  It’s important that the financing be set up to incentivize the most cost effective improvements first so as not to unduly burden future property owners, and to save as much energy as possible with a finite pool of funding (e.g. attic insulation and air sealing before solar panels…), but the outright ban is clearly far too broad.

Below is what I sent.  Post what you send in the comments if you feel so inclined!

Property Assessed Clean Energy financing programs, as have been initiated by many states and local governments, are a potentially transformative financing mechanism, enabling property owners to make good long term investments in energy efficiency and behind-the-meter renewable energy production.  They address a market failure, in that buyers often do not appropriately integrate a property’s energy costs into their price assessment.  So long as the state and local PACE programs are performance based, and incentivise both efficiency and renewables, preferring those investments which have the greatest (positive) net present value, given the financing rate which is available to the government entity sponsoring the program, they do not pose a significant risk to mortgage holders, and should be allowed in FHFA held mortgages.  Additionally, local energy efficiency and solar power installation provide high quality, skilled jobs which cannot be exported, stimulating the economies of the localities implementing the programs.  These types of energy efficiency and local renewables programs can go a significant way toward reducing the energy intensivity of our existing building stock, and help insulate the US economy from fluctuations in fossil fueled energy prices.

FHFA’s previous ruling has directly affected my community, stalling out energy efficiency programs here in Boulder, CO.  Rather than effectively banning these programs, I encourage the FHFA to work with the building retrofit industry and the state and local governments which have instituted these programs to develop guidelines which ensure the most cost effective use of PACE financing, including the use of before and after energy audits, and other energy efficiency retrofit best practices.

I was invited by the editors of the Blue Line to write this piece after they saw some of the comments I had written for a utility industry newsletter that’s been following Boulder’s initiative to form its own utility.   I must admit that I’m not familiar with all of the details and the history, but after spending nearly 40 years working in the electric business, I can offer a few insights.

The first thing to realize is that what we in the business call publicly-owned utilities are not a cure-all for the ills – real and perceived – of being served by a for-profit, or investor-owned, electric utility.  Research by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory shows that on average, there’s not much difference between the rates charged by investor-owned utilities and publicly-owned utilities though of course there are exceptions at both ends of the spectrum.  In some cases, local utility control leads to innovation and more responsive service as exemplified by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which serves Sacramento California, and Austin Energy, which serves Austin Texas.  In other cases, local utility control becomes enmeshed in city politics and utility revenues become a cash cow for the city, as is the case in Los Angeles, which has the largest municipal utility in the country.   Many of the country’s rural electric cooperatives are among the most risk-averse businesses you’ll find, while others have gotten themselves in financial trouble by taking on ancillary functions without understanding the businesses or the risks.

The second thing to realize is that a Boulder municipal utility will remain dependent on Xcel Energy for at least a decade and possibly longer.  Boulder will need Xcel’s transmission system to carry power from wherever it is produced, whether by fossil-fired plants, renewable energy plants or a combination of the two.  Since it sits squarely in the middle of Xcel’s Colorado electric grid, Boulder will need balancing services provided by Xcel’s fleet of power plants to ensure reliable service.  In all likelihood, Boulder will have to source at least a portion of its bulk power supply from Xcel for a period of time until other arrangements can be made.   Although this places Boulder in a less-than-ideal commercial position, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued a number of rules over the years that are intended to protect smaller utilities embedded in the service territories of larger ones.

A Boulder municipal utility will no longer be regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.  Instead, either the city council or a separate board will be responsible for management oversight, prices and terms of service.   On the positive side, a local regulator might be more willing to tolerate, or even require innovations that Xcel might be reluctant to go along with or the PUC might be reluctant to approve.  For example, some elements of the Smart Grid City idea could be implemented differently and at much lower cost.  On the other hand, local regulators could be more easily swayed by public opinion to take actions that negatively influence the municipal utility’s long-term viability.

Since the renewable energy content of electricity consumed by Boulder residents was a major issue in the decision to explore a municipal utility, it’s worth pointing out that electrons can’t be color-coded.   Renewable energy purchased from wind and solar farms enters the grid much like streams that enter a lake, and electricity withdrawn from the grid by business and residences behaves like streams that empty a lake.  There’s no way to direct the flow from one point to another without building expensive new transmission lines that neighbors don’t want anyway.  In fact, it’s entirely possible at least some of Boulder’s renewable energy could be purchased in Texas or portions of the Midwest that can’t physically deliver it to Boulder.   Consequently, Boulder residents need to get comfortable with the idea that the flow of physical energy out of a wind farm that has a contract with Boulder is separate and distinct from the flow of money to that wind farm.  Of course, renewable energy could also be purchased from solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses in Boulder and wind turbines that feed directly into the Boulder distribution system, which would keep some of the money spent on renewable energy purchases in the community.

Forming and operating a municipal utility is a complex, time-consuming and potentially risky undertaking.  If it’s handled badly or if it’s done for the wrong reasons, consumers are going to see higher costs while failing to enjoy any benefits.   If it’s done well, the citizens of Boulder have an opportunity to pursue distinct environmental and policy objectives that a large utility with service obligations across Colorado cannot.  My advice to those of you reading this article is to educate yourselves and stay engaged with the process.

Bavarian Solarpark (Wikimedia Commons)

Almost immediately after we empowered Boulder to form a utility, a spate of articles appeared in the national press talking about the relative costs of coal and renewables, and the trends in those costs. There was Krugman’s Here Comes Solar Energy Op-Ed in the NY Times, making the case that solar PV is already cheaper than coal-fired power once you remove all the subsidies we provide to both of them, and calling for the feds to fix regulation to make that clear. Boulder’s own RMI had a bit of commentary on Krugman’s opinion: it’d be nice if federal regulations were saner, but even without that fix, it makes sense to build this stuff now, and will only make more sense as time goes on and the balance of system costs (which currently make up 50% or more of the cost of a PV installation) are reduced through best practices, standardization and mass production.

From the industry side, GE’s Jeff Immelt also said that federal regulation was a little beside the point now… and that even without government support GE was going all-in, expecting something like 200GW of solar to be built in China and India by the end of the decade. That’d be a non-trivial amount of generation, on the order of 10 Three Gorges Dams, or as much power as the entire US nuclear generation fleet. Meanwhile NRG Energy, a nationwide and largely traditional fossil-fuel based independent power producer is planning to spend the overwhelming majority of its capital investment funds over the next few years on solar, mostly small utility projects (20-100MW) and distributed rooftop generation.

In the same vein, Xcel Energy’s recently filed 2011 Electric Resource Plan foresees essentially no new generation facilities being built until close to the end of the decade. Some of this is attributable to the soft economy, but many people are saying it’s just as much a consequence of energy efficiency, demand side management, and increasing distributed (behind-the-meter) generation coming on line. Unfortunately, Xcel’s Comanche 3 power plant added 750 megawatts of coal generation to the Colorado grid last year, and this lack of demand for more energy means the company is now walking away from the transmission lines that would have enabled large-scale solar-thermal with storage in the San Luis Valley. This means that the only way to shift Xcel’s power mix in the near future will be to accelerate the retirement of existing coal-fired generation, making room for more efficiency, wind, and solar.

The optimistic narrative that falls out of the articles above — that our energy systems are undergoing a transformation — seems plausible, and I hope that it’s true. Certainly it’s the one that the Boulder Light and Power effort is going to be built around. It’s comforting to see that we’re not alone on the world stage, and less daunting to imagine our job as facilitating an ongoing transformation, rather than starting one from scratch.

The Boulder vote should send a message to utilities around the country as well as other communities that are tired of inaction on climate goals. In Colorado, while Xcel is on track to have 25% renewable energy in their portfolio by 2020 (a commitment which has positioned them as the nation’s leading utility for wind power) they also just completed a new 750 MW coal plant that will be producing energy well into 2060. Boulder voters saw no reason to saddle their grandchildrens’ generation with technology that was developed by their great grandparents.

Read the entire article at The Energy Collective:  Case Study: Boulder Colorado Takes Action On Climate Change.

For 15 years, Kempton, who directs the University of Delaware’s Center for Carbon-Free Power Integration, has pushed the idea that fleets of electric vehicles — rather than being another big draw on the electric grid — could provide valuable backup power on demand to utilities. This would reduce the need for costly new generating plants, and help ensure a reliable supply of electricity.

Utilities pay each other billions of dollars a year for such backup power through wholesale electricity markets, and Kempton believes that a hefty slice of that pie could be paid to electric-vehicle owners instead. Some industry analysts agree that the approach, known as “vehicle-to-grid,” could take off; a December 2010 report from the business research firm Global Data conservatively projected a global market for vehicle-to-grid that would pay $2.3 billion to electric vehicle owners by 2012 — and $40 billion by 2020. Kempton and his colleagues have made some influential converts in policy circles, too. Marc Spitzer, a commissioner with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has described the plan as “the salvation of the automotive industry in the United States.”

Read the entire article at Miller-McCune:  Vehicle-to-Grid: A New Spin on Car Payments.

There sure are a lot of talking points flying around out there about Boulder’s move to create a municipal utility. And I know you’ve seen the online ads that Xcel is spending millions on. Here’s a point by point rebuttal to each and every lie and myth Xcel is spreading. Read this, and you’ll definitely be the most informed guy or gal at the bar tonight.

Read the entire article at the New Era News: Top Ten Lies About Municipalization.

(l-r) Stephen Keenan, Lisa Morzel, Fenno Hoffman, Dan King

The final PLAN-Boulder County City Council candidate forum on September 23, 2011 featured Stephen Keenan, incumbent Lisa Morzel, Fenno Hoffman, and Dan King discussing affordable housing, city financing, and whether the current council is violating property rights.

Moderator John Tayer again started off the program asking for a 90-second introduction from each candidate.

Stephen Keenan talked about roaming the state last year, and then living recently in Estes Park. But he said he’s spent half his life living and working on Pearl Street. He’s eager to get educated on ballot issues 2B/2C.

Lisa Morzel talked of her 12 years on council, saying she’s worked to make a compact, diverse community. She’s helped build the city’s financial reserves, worked on the Climate Action Plan, zero-waste initiatives, the open space management plan, and policies to strengthen the city’s economy. She says she has a comprehensive understanding of the issues, and she wants to forge ahead with action on energy, sustainable land use, and support of local business and the arts. She says as a geologist, she can take the heat.

Fenno Hoffman wants to get more people involved in forums like this one, to get engaged in issues and then to vote. He says he wants to be an inclusive voice, not an ideologue. He wants to make government more responsible, support the local economy and green business, make walkable neighborhoods, and plan for peak oil and climate change.

Moderator John Tayer (all photos by Zane Selvans)

Dan King is the co-owner of the Outlook Hotel. He talked of his esteem for his mother, who worked in a school cafeteria to support the family after his father died when King was four. As a council member, he would focus on the budget, not just for the immediate term but to ensure fiscal health over the next five to 10 years. He served on the Blue Ribbon Commission, and emphasized new ways to close the city’s funding gap and new ways to talk about the budget.

John Tayer then asked some questions of the candidates.

What is the major issue facing the city, and how would you address it?

King: The biggest issue is the funding gap, which blends with every other issue. We don’t have the financial resources we used to have. We need to find different approaches, different ways to provide services. Boulder can be a leader not just in energy, but also in funding for government.

Hoffman: The biggest issue facing the city is the same issue facing the US: how climate change will require us to adopt more affordable lifestyles and specifically more affordable housing. We need to make more compact neighborhoods to encourage walking, and make our labor source more local and more competitive. We can share our approach with the greater world and be a model.

Morzel: We need to define our long-term vision, especially regarding energy, and keep a strong financial position so that we can afford to be independent in energy. Coal is not the future, and continuing our current relationship with Xcel is not a good idea, as it commits us to a coal-based system for the next 50 years. [Ballot Issues] 2B/2C don’t take us directly to municipalization, but they will allow us to answer questions about the costs through FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and local court rulings. Without them, we have no leverage with Xcel. We need to find a 21^st-century solution to our energy needs.

Keenan: I grew up in northern New Jersey, so I’m comfortable studying the stock market. We’re losing our middle class, and middle-class people are no longer coming to Boulder. For the needy, we’re giving out fish, but we’re not teaching people how to fish. I used to be able to walk into any restaurant and get a job, but no longer. We’re losing social mobility. Housing has gotten less affordable, and we need to allow higher buildings in order to provide more affordable housing.

Speaking of affordable housing, what’s your take?

King: We have an affordable housing problem because Boulder is a great place to be. We’ve created a great community, and that creates demand. So we need to chip away at the problem, continuing our current programs. We need to look at transportation accessibility of affordable housing, and add density in some areas.

Hoffman: I work with people all over the world, and the best minds in the business can’t solve the affordable housing problem. The real crunch is in middle-class housing, which has different issues, including the current suburban configuration of most of our neighborhoods. We need to better optimize our housing supply for the people who live there, to replace our current one-size-fits-all housing model.

Candidate Lisa Morzel

Morzel: Originally I couldn’t afford a house in Boulder, so I built my own house with sweat equity, and it’s extremely efficient. We should look at the whole cost picture including energy costs. On council, I helped bring about the inclusionary housing ordinance. But we need to look at other solutions also: ADUs, OAUs, and group housing. We’re missing the middle class. CU could help, by buying houses on the Hill that are mis-managed and making them faculty or staff housing.

How can we solve our regional transportation problems?

Morzel: People working in the community should be able to live in the community, in functional housing. At San Juan del Centro, we had to work to make sure people had good access, even just across the surrounding streets. It’s important to keep affordable housing residents from being isolated, and we should spread the housing throughout the community.

Keenan: I helped bring the first mattresses to the homeless shelter at the old bus station at 9^th and Pearl. We’re providing the material needs of the homeless but not succeeding in giving them self-esteem. The downtown and library are being affected a lot. On transportation, I’m a walker and a biker. I don’t like FasTracks; it’s a slow train to Georgia.

Hoffman: We talk about transportation as its own issue, but it’s completely connected to land use. Transportation and planning are even different departments in the city, so there’s this mismatch. Our whole region is suburban, which makes it hard to serve with transit. People have to be able to walk to the stations. Currently there isn’t the zoning along the rail corridor to justify train service, and rail can cannibalize bus and other transit. We have to make sure to focus on service, not what particular vehicle it would use.

Morzel: Land use and transportation are definitely tied together. In particular, our open space program has helped to keep the city compact. We should also think about other ways to get around, like jitney services or organized hitchhiking. B-Cycle is good, but we need to get more people using it including visitors.

Should the city work to move people out of cars, and if so how?

Candidate Dan King

King: Absolutely. The fossil fuel age is coming to an end. We need a change to society, finding simpler ways to live. We’ll continue to struggle with it for the next 20 years. The great thing about Boulder is we take it seriously.

Hoffman: Everyone should stand up, look down, and see your feet! But we can’t expect people to walk from Table Mesa to Gunbarrel, say. So we need to start designing the city so it makes more sense to walk than to drive.

Morzel: I worked on the new pedestrian crossings with Tom Eldridge. We need to focus on the local: bike and pedestrian safety, access to buses, local grocery stores, small neighborhood retail.

Would you support regulations restricting plastic bag use in stores, or requiring a charge for them?

Hoffman: I wouldn’t support regulations, but we should encourage a charge for bags. The nickel charge on aluminum cans really helped reduce litter. It’s great to have all the young people engaged in this issue – they’re more engaged than the parents who drive them to the City Council meetings. We should remember, too, that there’s lots of plastic on the stuff inside the bags, so bags aren’t the only problem. This issue also takes time from some of the larger problems. Again, we’re trending in the right direction without regulations.

King: We’ve been on a zero-waste journey at our business since 2004. Eco-Cycle asked us to go with them to council to encourage action on the plastic bags, and we did it happily. I think the stores will welcome it, because not giving out bags cuts store costs.

Keenan: I’m going to digress here. I have a friend whose ill father stayed at Dan’s hotel for almost nothing when he was ill. Dan’s a great guy. He also knows complex financial instruments.

Morzel: I produce less than five bags of trash per year – actually now I’m down to two. Everybody can do this. I favor a fee on bags: it’s getting the polluter to pay. We should also reduce Styrofoam in the waste stream. Remember, plastic is virgin oil.

What’s your stand on Ballot Issues 2B/2C?

Keenan: This is why I’m running. We could stay with Xcel month-to-month indefinitely, but if these pass it will force Xcel to come to the table to negotiate. But I don’t want to buy old poles and wires, because of the news coming out regarding magnetism and gravity. We should condemn the Valmont plant.

Candidate Fenno Hoffman

Hoffman: I’m still conflicted. I’ve looked at the city data, but I still have questions so I can’t commit. I’m worried about Boulder becoming energy isolationists, like the isolationists during World War II. Maybe it’s better to participate in the broader discussion? We should remember that our impact is tiny relative to all the coal plants China is building.

King: I support the ballot items. The city has done a good job of getting the issue to this point. Remember, it’s a process, so we don’t yet know the answer. And municipalization is not a solution in and of itself. We have to focus on our broader goals, and create a model for others to follow.

Do you support a commercial energy conservation ordinance, like SmartRegs but for commercial buildings?

Morzel: Staying on the municipalization issue for a moment, I agree the city has done a great job. And the citizens’ group has shown that we can achieve a 66% CO₂ emissions reduction at rate parity. Now, to the question: SmartRegs has had outstanding success. Landlords are updating their buildings and reducing their CO₂ emissions. We can do the same in the commercial realm. We should work with the business community – it’s a different situation than residential buildings. We’ve done well at reducing solid waste in the residential area, but not so well in commercial. But it’s in businesses’ interest because it will save them money.

Following up on that, can you also talk about how to address solid waste?

Hoffman: Businesses are pretty happy with the recycling program we have. We focus on the energy usage of a building, but let’s look at the bigger picture: why is that building that way to begin with? For example, the separation of housing and commercial buildings doesn’t always make sense. We should look at the bigger picture, especially mixed use.

King: Our hotel has been zero-waste for a long time, because I want to but also because it’s good for the bottom line, both in terms of the costs and the public profile. I’m concerned about regulations, but SmartRegs were a place where regulations made sense. The city put its money where its mouth is with incentives to landlords. But commercial is indeed different, and the regulations need to be different. We need to convince business owners that conservation is the best thing for their businesses.

Candidate Stephen Keenan

Keenan: In my work I’ve gotten to know all the big commercial landlords. But I’m seeing favoritism in recent developments, especially with the Daily Camera site. The city attorney and city manager have lied about this. The landlords don’t trust the city staff, the city bureaucracy. We need more outreach to the big commercial landlords. We should be able to get the landlords on board.

What’s the best use for the Planning Reserve?

King: You mean, besides a Walmart? Just kidding! We should set it aside for something of great community value. If Naropa needed it, that would be worthy of consideration. But a big health club, no.

Morzel: It’s called a reserve for a reason. There’s lots of available land already in Area I, like all the parking lots, and there’s Area II land. Area III is for future generations. For Naropa, we need more creative thinking. For instance, in North Boulder we could assemble small pieces like the Armory and underdeveloped properties on Broadway. What student wants to be way up in Area III? There would also be a transportation problem. We need a library in North Boulder, so a partnership with Naropa on that could work well.

Hoffman: Naropa is the only viable use I see right now. We should do what we have to do to keep Naropa in the city. If we trust council to set our electric rates, then we should trust council with the planning reserve, so I’m okay with changing to a two-body approval process. If we’re not going to open the Planning Reserve in order to keep the town compact, we may need to be more flexible with our zoning.

King: On the issue of a library in north Boulder, when I think library I think of a stack of books, but it’s much more: access to computers, a community center, an after-school learning center. We need to change the messaging, talk about it as a resource for an under-served population.

Morzel: The planned north Boulder library is where it is because it’s next to the city’s largest mobile-home park. It’s very useful for non-English speakers and the economically disadvantaged. It helps bridge the digital divide.

Keenan: The main library is one of the finest buildings downtown. In the ‘80s there was a proposal to move the main library out to 55^th St, and we can thank John Spitzer for saying no to that. This building is more than a library – the homeless use it a lot. I don’t know where Area III is. I need to learn about zoning.

There followed a few questions from the audience.

A lot of the residences in new developments downtown are “luxury” condos. Why don’t we build more, smaller units?

Hoffman: I would support that. But it makes more sense in some of the neighborhoods surrounding downtown, which we’re currently downzoning.

Morzel: I worked with Tom Eldridge to get residential downtown, but it’s disappointing because it’s not affordable. The average size is about 1600 square feet. My four-person family lived in 400 square feet. We should look at making smaller, less expensive units.

Fenno Hoffman said we should optimize the size of housing, increasing density. Where should density go?

King: It makes sense on transit corridors, but we have to be sure we’re not creating ghettos. But I’m not a planner, so I won’t pretend to be one.

Keenan: I do support dense development. We have a vibrant Section 8 program, but the city subsidies are huge. And what about housing for working people? We need to allow buildings to go higher. PLAN–Boulder County had great imagination in 1955 with the blue line and open space, but now they’re opposed to increased building height. There are places it would make sense, like the Transit Village. I lived in Copenhagen; they know how to design things, and they have plenty of high buildings.

What’s the relationship between land use and peak oil?

Morzel: How big a town do we want to be? Density increases population, requires more city services, and that costs money. We’re about done with adding density. Denser housing should be balanced by density relief, for growing local food, for example. I used to grow 30% of my own food. How many people moving to Boulder want to live in dense housing? And we don’t want to take out mobile home parks or other entry-level housing.

Do we need more density?

Hoffman: You have to keep in mind the effective population of Boulder is really 170,000 when you consider in-commuters. We’re fooling ourselves when we say 100,000. Our impact spreads all over the region. On the Blue Line’s Community Questionnaire, I said the ideal population for Boulder was 25,000, because that’s the number our water supply will be able to support with climate change. Density is not a one-size-fits-all solution; we need single-family dwellings also. But living in a dense area can be very desirable.

King: I agree with Fenno.

Keenan: I believe in Orchard Grove and the other mobile home parks. I’d like to see the population stay at 100,000, but the climate here brings people in. We can’t shut the gate.

What is your stand on ballot item 2A, the $49 million bond issue?

Hoffman: I support it, but we need to do long-term revenue management. Our system of dedicated funding is a problem. We should pay better attention to the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission.

King: I was on the Blue Ribbon Commission, and we recommended doing what 2A does, so I support it. The money will come from the retirement of existing long-term bonds. People ask if this is evidence of deferred maintenance. We do have deferred maintenance, but that’s due to the recession, the way you might put off buying a new car when your income goes down. But deferred maintenance is starting to catch up with us. I also support priority-based budgeting.

Morzel: I also support 2A. But we need to tread lightly on dedicated funding: people vote for open space, parks, libraries because they want them. For general funds, we should pass a general fund tax. Let’s not lose our dedicated taxes – people won’t go for it, for one thing, and they also lead to better discipline.

Has the current council been violating property rights?

Keenan: I like the current council. It’s not corrupt. But medical marijuana is a new thing, bringing in revenue. It really has a use as medicine, but we’re leaving the MMJ industry high and dry. We rushed it. We also should support establishment of a state bank for the MMJ industry.

Morzel: No, council hasn’t violated property rights. We have to make sure what one person does doesn’t infringe on others. I supported the compatible development rules. It’s about mutual respect, like respect for the environment or a lifestyle. The city has been balanced in listening to both sides of the issues.

Hoffman: In the development world, you hear talk about infringement of property rights. Remember, when the Boulderado was built it blocked the view of the Flatirons, and beloved buildings at CU block views, so we need to be careful. It’s a balancing act.

What’s your vision for Boulder in 30 years, and how will you have helped make it so?

King: It will still be a wonderful place, with its great environment and access to it. There will be a changed culture of consumerism. We’ll define success as other than the amount of stuff we have, or the kind of car we have. We’ll be forced to make this change.

Keenan: City attorney Tom Carr was hired to address the problems on the Hill, but he has room for improvement.

Morzel: Boulder will be compact, sustainable, inclusive. I grew up in Kansas City and when I came to Boulder, I couldn’t believe how little diversity it had; we need more people of color. Boulder will be financially secure and independent. It will still be leading in sustainability and helping to create a better world.

Hoffman: In 30 years, I’ll be in my mid-80s. I hope I’m not in a retirement community in Lafayette, spending my day on a bus to go shopping. I hope I’m in my own apartment where the grandchildren can walk over to visit, and I can walk with them to go get some ice cream. They’ll get ice cream, and I’ll get bourbon.

Mayor Susan Osborne and Deputy Mayor Ken Wilson

Editor’s note: This debate between the Mayor and Deputy Mayor first appeared in a series of emails among University Hill neighbors, of which both are members, on their list serve. Emails, authored separately by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, have been reformatted here to facilitate comparison. — Mary Young.

Introductory Remarks from the Mayor

In the past year we have gone as far as we can go in our studies of municipalization. The next step is to determine actual costs and economic feasibility.  There is a clear process to do this, although it will take time and money. Whether or not to go forward to determine feasibility is the question before our community this fall.

I strongly support taking this next step and will vote yes on 2B and 2C. No expert, no consultant can tell us today the actual cost to municipalize; the estimates of costs from the most experienced people in the country vary widely. Once the actual costs are known, unequivocal language in the ballot issue stops the sale of bonds if not economically feasible.

There is a world-wide movement going on as cities and countries innovate to reduce their carbon impact. We can look to Germany and Denmark, or to Austin and Marin County in the United States, for examples of approaches. Municipalization, I believe, is our surest way to be a leader in this movement. Below are my top ten reasons for a municipal utility.

Introductory Remarks from the Deputy Mayor

I would like to offer some counterpoint to Mayor Osborne’s well written points on municipalization. This is a debate (and vote) where good people have different opinions. We all have the same goals – more renewable energy and a smaller carbon footprint for Boulder and beyond. How we get there is the issue. As an electrical engineer with 35 years of experience in the utility industry, I am convinced that if we vote to form a municipal electric utility it will not bring about what people are dreaming.

Top Ten Reasons to Municipalize (or Not)

1. Boulder has the legal authority under the Colorado Constitution and the city charter to municipalize utility services in the city.

Mayor: Every twenty years Boulder voters get to decide whether or not to sign a new long-term franchise agreement with Xcel Energy, a regulated monopoly. That time is now and, after an intensive year of work, city studies and analysis show that creation of a municipal utility may be financially feasible.  The current ballot measure will allow us to get firm numbers on the cost to acquire the local distribution system, as well as a determination of other costs. At any time during the process, Boulder could decide not to proceed with creating a local utility if creating a utility turned out to be too costly.

Twenty-nine Colorado towns and cities, including neighbors Longmont, Lyons, Loveland, Fort Collins and Estes Park, run successful municipal utilities. Boulder certainly could, too.

Deputy Mayor: It is true that many cities in Colorado have municipal power utilities. However, none of them have municipalized in at least 40 years. Ft. Collins formed its municipal power utility 75 years ago. None of the 29 Colorado municipal power utilities has a debt load associated with acquiring their distribution grid. They make capital investments in modernizing their grids, as we would need to do. But if you overlay on Ft. Collins or the other municipal power utilities the kind of debt load we will take on, their utility would be way under water. A friend of mine is a council member in Ft. Collins. He said at a party last week: “Why do you want to form a muni? They aren’t that great.” He is also a professor in the engineering department at CSU.

2. Municipalization will allow decisions about Boulder’s fuel mix to be made here in Boulder based on the values of Boulder residents and businesses.

Mayor: Decisions are currently made by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This regulatory reality and the business reality of an investor-owned utility based in Minneapolis hamstring Boulder’s efforts to reduce our carbon footprint, localize our power supply and develop our own initiatives. A municipal utility, without the constraints of either the PUC or the driving need for investor profit, can operate as a service focused on providing direct benefit to its customers.

Deputy Mayor: It is quite true that if we were a muni we could make our own decisions on fuel mix. Xcel has a state mandated (and Xcel supported) 30% Renewable Energy Standard (RES). Ft. Collins is struggling to find a way to get to a 10% RES. It’s all about money. We would be a broke municipal power utility for the first ten years with a huge debt load for 30 years. We simply wouldn’t have the money to fund large renewable energy projects or to purchase more costly renewable energy.

3. Municipalization supports innovation and our home-grown energy businesses.

Mayor:In the past decade, Boulder has attracted an array of clean tech businesses. A local utility would have the opportunity to tap into the wealth of knowledge and cutting edge products and services that are now being developed in our town. The enthusiastic support from many clean tech Boulder businesses for municipalization has been important to our effort.

Deputy Mayor: I have evaluated many cities with municipal power utilities. None of them have any more innovation in green energy than Boulder. Ft. Collins for example. They have some great companies in smart grid and renewables, but so do we. Show me an example where a city with a muni is way ahead of Boulder. Another related issue: It is true that Xcel recently reduced rebates for Solar Rewards that caused rooftop solar companies to cut staff. Would the city be able to sustain higher rebates than Xcel when it is a muni? I proposed that instead of fighting Xcel with additional tax money (Ballot Issue 2B) we use the money to increase rebates. Unfortunately that option is not on the table now.

4. Municipalization will save money on some basic utility services.

Mayor: For example, Boulder is in the unenviable position of paying for the electricity costs for the city’s street lights, but can neither control the type of fixture used nor the maintenance of the lights. This profit center for the utility increases costs to the city. As another example, during the negotiations for the 1990 franchise Boulder pushed for the establishment of a fund to bury overhead power lines. Such a fund became part of our franchise and all other Xcel franchises in Colorado. While this was a step forward, Xcel retained the right to use its own contractors, creating another profit center at local government cost.

Deputy Mayor: The model that city consultants have created, which shows us paying less for electricity than we currently do is very optimistic and highly unlikely. It is grossly underestimating acquisition and separation costs and is optimistic on operations costs. Controlling our costs for street lighting would be good, but will have associated costs for a muni. Burying power lines is expensive. It is true that Xcel does it at high cost, but they were giving us $1 million per year for free when we were under franchise. A city muni would need to replace that money.

5. Municipalization will lead to a cleaner and more renewable energy mix.

Mayor: One fact is certain – Xcel, regardless of the renewables it adds to its system, is inextricably tied to coal for its base power. Xcel’s recent billion dollar investment in a new coal-fired plant in Pueblo indicates that Xcel will be burning coal for decades into the future.  As a municipal power utility, Boulder, taking cost and reliability as considerations, would be able to choose its fuel mix. By tapping the wholesale electricity market, Boulder will benefit from highly competitive energy prices, while choosing fuel sources that reduce carbon emissions.

Deputy Mayor: There is absolutely no guarantee that municipalization will lead to more renewable energy for the city. Again, it’s all about money. The models that advocacy groups have created that show high levels of renewables are experimental and have never been used to provide power to even a modest sized city. Ft. Collins, Longmont and other Colorado municipal power utilities are even heavier into cheap coal than Xcel. It is unfortunate, but true that while new wind generation is cheaper than new coal generation, new wind is more expensive than existing coal generation buy quite a bit. I am skeptical that a new municipal utility, with no transmission and no generation of its own, could buy a cleaner mix at anywhere near the same price. If we had formed one 75 years ago, this would be a great discussion and we could see if we could do that. I don’t think we could even attempt it for a decade with a start up municipal power utility.

6. Municipalization will eventually allow for the full development of local energy resources.

Mayor: As long as Boulder is an investor-owned utility customer, any local energy production is required to be sold to Xcel at wholesale rates that is then sold to others at retail rates by the company. Individuals and businesses can use energy produced on site, but any surplus energy is bought by the utility at wholesale rates. This sort of purchasing scheme makes sense for a profit-making business, but is a strong disincentive for local distributed energy production. A municipal utility, with a strong focus on local production, would be free to develop pricing incentives.

Deputy Mayor: I would love to see the city develop more local energy resources. We have good solar, indifferent wind and maybe other resources that could be considered. I work on smart grid projects because smart grids are the way we can integrate more local renewables in the future. Municipalization will not lead to more development of local resources in the short run. If we are paying off a huge debt to acquire Xcel’s grid, how can we invest in local renewables?

7. Municipalization could lead to the optimization of the smart grid.

Mayor:It remains to be seen whether Boulder would purchase the smart grid system installed by Xcel, or look for a more current technology. In any case, a local utility would be focused on serving its customers and supporting demand side management programs with customer monitoring devices – currently a missed opportunity with the existing system.

Deputy Mayor: Xcel’s SmartGrid City is providing increased reliability to Boulder. The IBM smart city analysis said this in detail. If we municipalize, SmartGrid City will be broken because it depends on Xcel’s back office systems – which we would not and could not acquire. It would take us many years to re-create the current smart grid or build another one. They are expensive and not easy to implement.

8. Municipalization plays to Boulder’s strength in innovation.

Mayor:While maintaining a AAA bond rating, Boulder has a history of bold and innovative actions. Whether it’s pioneering circulator shuttles, being the first in the state to use tax increment financing to redevelop an aging shopping center, building a clean, green, high- head hydroelectric system, imagining a new neighborhood on the site of a defunct drive-in theater, or figuring out how to build a remarkable and trend setting open space system, this community has had the creativity and will to shape its future. Each example has involved controversy, risk and a financial commitment. Each example has yielded positive community results.

Deputy Mayor: My fear is that if we vote to municipalize it will put a chill on innovative businesses in Boulder. There will be a period of 5 to 7 years where we are fighting Xcel in court over acquiring their assets. Uncertainty is bad for businesses. Will the rates go up? Will reliability go down? No one will know for 5 to 7 years.

9. Municipalization is the only path to meeting our Kyoto carbon reduction goal.

Mayor: While Boulder businesses and citizens are making heroic efforts to reduce energy use, it has become clear that we will only reach our Kyoto carbon reduction goal by fundamentally changing our energy supply mix – in addition to reducing consumption through efficiency and conservation. The path toward a more localized and clean energy supply can only be achieved through municipalization.

Deputy Mayor: Municipalization is not the only path to meet our Kyoto goals. Kyoto goals are pretty much old hat anyway. We have higher goals at the state level now. I want to see us work with Denver, Aurora and other cities to move the whole state forward. Municipalizing will take us out of the state discussion on renewable energy.

10. Municipalization is an investment in Boulder’s future, a legacy project.

Mayor: While there are unknowns about the costs to municipalize, there should be no doubt that if the effort proves feasible in the present, future generations will reap the benefit. There will come a point when the acquisition bonds are repaid and the city will be its own master in regard to our energy fuel mix and tailored programs to increase reliability, lower cost, promote renewables and support local green businesses.

Deputy Mayor: Investment in Boulder’s Future – a legacy project? As an engineer I feel obligated to tell people that I am convinced that going down the municipalization path is a train wreck. It would be a legacy of a very bad decision. If I thought otherwise, I would be an advocate rather than a skeptic.

(l-r) Mark Gelband, George Karakehian, Suzanne Jones, Tom Johnston

The second PLAN-Boulder County forum for City Council candidates (September 16, 2011) featured Mark Gelband, incumbent George Karakehian, Suzanne Jones, and Tom Johnston squaring off over municipalization and affordable housing, among other issues, before a packed audience at the Boulder Public Library.  Moderator David Grimm, former CIO for the City of Boulder, kicked off the discussion by giving each candidate 90 seconds for an introduction.

Moderator David Grimm (all photos by Zane Selvans)

Mark Gelband said Boulder needs a new voice on council.  He described himself as an environmentalist who eats organic vegetables and produces his own energy with solar panels on his roof, but he sees a chasm between the leadership in the city and the economic needs of many Boulder residents, such as young families and those on fixed incomes.  He said he wants to support entrepreneurs who understand that being green and growing a business can go hand-in-hand.

George Karakehian said that when he was first running for council in 2009, he campaigned on the platform of getting the city on a new course.  The city has made progress since then, he said, but there’s more to do.  His priorities are promoting good jobs, improving the transportation infrastructure, keeping city finances on track, promoting economic vitality, and seeing that city taxes are well spent.  He emphasized keeping jobs and shopping dollars in Boulder, and being friendly to both the environment and business.

Suzanne Jones said she’s running for council because she loves Boulder.  She cited open space, the Pearl Street Mall, and the bicycle transportation network as things she loves and the kinds of policies she wants to further.  She spoke of her 20 years of public policy experience, locally on the Environmental Affairs Board and on the city’s Blue Ribbon Commission, and as regional director of the Wilderness Society.  She promised to find solutions that work “on the ground” for issues like land use and energy.

Tom Johnston said he’s retired, will be 73 years old by election day, and has lived in Boulder for 53 years.  He was on the YMCA board for nine years, and was active with the Jaycees and Scouts.  He feels it’s time for less government, and listed flashing crosswalks and traffic circles as examples of places where the city has overreached.  He is particularly concerned about the city’s request for $49 million in bonding authority to address deferred maintenance, asking rhetorically whether this indicates mis-management of city finances.  He said council should focus on city issues.

David Grimm then asked the candidates a series of questions.

What is the most important city issue today, other than municipalization, and why?

Gelband: The biggest environmental issue is the 60,000 single-occupancy vehicles per day on US 36.  We should look at how city policies have created that problem, and how changing them can help solve it.  In-commuting and affordable housing go hand-in-hand, and the way to meet demand for affordable housing is by increasing the supply of housing.

Karakehian: Economic vitality is paramount.  The city has bucked the economic trends so far, but it runs on sales tax to fund transportation, parks, and so on, and I’m the one to have on council to protect the revenue stream.  We also need to be sure to retain the jobs at the federal labs and good relations with CU.

Candidate Suzanne Jones

Jones: I agree with the previous two, but municipalization really is the biggest issue.  Energy — where we get it and how we use it — is the critical factor for the economy and the planet.  Boulder is at a historic junction; it’s an opportunity for the city to set itself up for the future by unleashing innovation, growing technological know-how in the city, and set an example for others.

Johnston: Municipalization is the right idea at the wrong time.  Most of all it’s an economic concern: why are we risking millions of dollars when the city needs it elsewhere, such as for affordable housing?  Jobs and affordable shopping (and the loss of revenue to big-box stores like Costco outside of Boulder) are other “spokes in the wheel” to be considered in conjunction with affordable housing.

What are the next steps for the city regarding reducing carbon emissions?

Karakehian: For the next five years, our hands will be full with municipalization if 2B/2C pass.  I’d like to work to get people off the grid first, and then see how things look.  Programs available through the county and Xcel can help with that.

Jones: We should reduce our energy usage, and look at where it’s coming from.  We should address emissions from transportation, including exploring a community-wide Eco Pass.  Solar gardens are another good option.  Let’s get creative; businesses are out there looking to unleash new ideas.

Johnston: 60,000 single-occupancy vehicle trips a day on one highway is crazy.  We should correct the transportation system, getting people to walk and bike and take cars off the road.  With enough rooftop solar, maybe we wouldn’t need a grid.  Are we buying a dinosaur?

Gelband: How many people in this room have gotten a HERS rating on their houses?  [Not many hands up.]  How many people buy 100% Windsource power?  [Lots of hands up.]  How many people’s houses are completely net-producing to the grid?  [Few hands up.]  The first step happens at home.  Go home and do these things: improve your own life, walk your talk.  Before asking the city to spend $300-600 million, consider what you’re doing on your own.

Do you advocate a commercial energy conservation ordinance?

Jones: Yes.  This is pivotal; everyone should do their part to save energy.  First we should address commercial buildings in a way that minimizes the burden but creates strong incentives, and follow up with regulations.

Johnston: I’m for less government.  Government shouldn’t be legislating to individuals — individuals can do the right thing on their own, as Mark has just shown.  You can’t even cut down a tree in this city without calling a certified arborist!

Gelband: The city talks out of both sides of its mouth on this issue.  Additional regulation of commercial buildings would hurt those least able to afford it.  When I was a landlord, I passed additional cost on to my tenants, and the same would happen here.

Candidate George Karakehian

Karakehian: When SmartRegs came before council, I was worried.  The votes for it were there, so my job was to get it to the place where it was negotiated with the landlords and BARHA, not forced.  We extended the time period for compliance, and we did a review of the cost for owners and it was reasonable.  As a result there have been few complaints.  I’d approach the commercial side the same way.  And I’d also work to address owner-occupied residential buildings.

Identify one successful development in Boulder, and one unsuccessful development, and explain your thoughts.

Johnston: Valmont Park, with the new bike park and dog area, has been a shining star.  The only downside is the old egg farm building — it’s nice it’s being reused, but it’s an eyesore.  The RTD FasTracks project has been a fiasco.

Gelband: The Holiday neighborhood has been a success: it has a mix of housing, it’s relatively affordable, walkable, a place for young families.  But people are concerned about the amount of permanently affordable housing there, which reduces the number of market-rate units.  An unsuccessful project is Two Nine North on 30th Street.  There’s nothing interesting, pleasing, or valuable about it.  The Twenty Ninth Street Mall is unsuccessful.  The transit village, with the depot placed where the train can’t get to it, is looking unsuccessful.

Karakehian: Speaking of the depot, I moved it the first time with the Jaycees, when the city was planning to tear it down.  How things have changed!  But getting to the question, the Peloton is a poster child of bad development, and it hasn’t been very financially successful, to boot.  Red Oak Park and the west end of Pearl Street are examples of good development: they’re walkable and fit in well.

Jones: I agree with most of those.  Holiday is a shining example of mixed use.  It’s a place you want to go to, with community parks and gardens, on mass transit.  Red Oak Park is also great.  The Peloton is too big and seems plopped in the middle of nowhere.  For better development in the future, we should look at micro-zoning for mobile home parks, and allowing more ADUs as a way to keep the feel of neighborhoods but add housing.

What is the best use for the Area III Planning Reserve?

Gelband: I don’t know the best use, but it should be some sort of commercial use, and also a place my 75-year-old father could walk.  It should be open to development.  Another big-box store would be good.  I can’t buy underwear for my kids at Nordstrom’s; I go to Target.  Another big-box to compete with Target would help working people.

Karakehian: I don’t know the best use either.  The area is unique and provides an opportunity available nowhere else in the community.  It’s the last piece of Boulder’s puzzle, so any use would have to rise to the top.  If Naropa really were going to leave Boulder for want of space, that would qualify.  Naropa is part of Boulder’s brand.

Jones: The best use is as a reserve, left to those who come after us to develop if necessary.    We should focus on infill opportunities first, before opening Area III.

Johnston: It’s time to sell our open space land in Jefferson County so we can afford to buy a reserve.

What is the ideal population for Boulder?

Karakehian: The population feels pretty good right now.  When I moved to Boulder in the ‘70s from Fort Collins for a girl (who’s now my wife), I frankly didn’t care for it.  But I love Boulder for what it is now.  I love the parks and the open space, and I brag about the place, so we don’t need to be changing it much.  We are who we are; we should have nice quiet growth.

Jones: We’re a great city, with strongly held values, and we’ve gotten a lot of things right.  We’re a good size, and increases should be modest, along transit corridors.

Johnston: The perfect population is 100,001, because more federal funds are available for cities over 100,000.  More growth will come, but we have a nice community — we’ve done it right, so why mess it up?

Gelband: I love Boulder with its open space and as a place where you can walk or bike to work.  I don’t know the ideal population, but the current jobs-housing balance is a problem.  Florence, Italy is one of the most beautiful places in the world; it has the same geographic area as Boulder, but the population is 400,000.  We don’t want 400,000 people here, but the pressure will be for more density.

How should our affordable housing program be changed, and why?

Jones: Our goal is for 10% of the housing stock to be permanently affordable, and we’re currently at 6%.  We won’t solve the problem, but we need to keep chipping away at it.  The inclusionary zoning program needs more funding to be able to do more, and we should also loosen the zoning for ADUs and OAUs.

Johnston: Using “Boulder” and “affordable housing” in one sentence is a paradox.  We need to look beyond just affordable housing to also providing jobs and affordable shopping — a whole program.  Maybe instead of seven sister cities, Boulder should have two sister cities and some sister neighborhoods, inside the city.

Candidate Mark Gelband

Gelband: The city speaks out of both sides of its mouth on this.  We want affordable housing, but we just passed the compatible development rules that reduce the ability for people to create ADUs and OAUs.  My family would love to build a carriage house for the woman who provides us child care, but the rules prevent it.  The city downzoned Whittier and we’re about to downzone Goss-Grove, despite that these neighborhoods have the opportunity to provide affordable family housing.

Karakehian: I championed the affordable housing task force to look at this.  New taxes for affordable housing won’t fly, so we need to look at public-private partnerships and provide incentives.  Allowing more ADUs and OAUs is also a good idea.  And why are we putting affordable housing on the most expensive corner in Boulder Junction?  We could provide more housing if we put it in lower-cost places.

How would you like Boulder to be different in 30 years?

Candidate Tom Johnston

Johnston: At 73 years old, projecting 30 years into the future is hard!  The city is a wonderful place to live, but it should be more responsible to its commitments, like providing promised parks in Table Mesa and by the Elks Lodge.  We have $170 million in deferred maintenance; we should show fiscal responsibility and take hold of our financial problems.

Gelband: First, I’d like to see a greater diversity of voices representing the community, in the geographic sense and in perspective — a mobile home resident, for example.  Second, we should get beyond our false dichotomy between the environment and the economy.

Karakehian: I’d like to see better transportation infrastructure, because that 60,000 trips on US 36 we’ve been talking about will only increase.  I’m on a county master plan task force for transportation to address this and keep us from becoming a gridlocked city.  We need to create walkable neighborhoods and add development on transit routes.

Jones: I’d like more of the same, but even better: more bikes, more walking, bus rapid transit, fewer cars (and I want those to be hybrids!).  I want a cutting-edge energy system that can be a model for the nation; a vibrant university and government labs; a diversity of people and economic levels.  I want to have met our zero-waste goals and our Kyoto goals, and I want us to be an incubator for businesses.  And I want us to part of a vibrant region, beyond just Boulder.

At the end there was time for just a few questions from the audience.

What is your position on ballot items 2B and 2C?

Gelband: I’m unequivocally not supporting them.  It’s not prudent to spend $300 million to $600 million on lines and poles, and not get one kilowatt of renewable energy out of it.  There are no limits on the bonding amount, it will double the utility tax, and we’ll litigate it for five years.  Put solar on roofs, and even in my backyard, instead.

Karakehian: I have concerns about getting into a five-year battle during which we won’t do anything to green our power supply.  Let’s work to get people off the grid, before buying the grid.  CU is talking about getting off the utility accounts, and it’s 5-10% of the city’s use.  In other words, the utility’s biggest rate-payer could go away, which would be devastating.  There are good off-ramps, but we’ll spend $10 million and not green our energy supply at all.  The city shouldn’t be in the risk business!

Jones: I’m enthusiastically voting for it.  I don’t see it as locking us into a path, but as opening a door.  We’ll get a ruling early on from FERC regarding costs, so the risk is low.  The occupation tax increase is modest, about $1/month.  If the items pass, we’ll have more options and better negotiating power, and Xcel can always come back with a better offer, or we could take a hybrid approach.

Johnston: I’ll vote no.  Every tax is modest until you add them all together, and we only get 45 cents back on a dollar of tax investment.  It’s not the time to invest in something so uncertain.

Who are your political heroes?

Karakehian: Tom Eldridge.  Tom was the person who affected me the most politically, he was great for Boulder, and he was my best friend.

Jones: Will Toor.  He has a great mind, a willingness to hear people out, and he’s always looking for good solutions.  He’s truly of this city.

Johnston: Barry Goldwater.  I’m a political conservative, a registered Republican.  In 1964, I was told if I voted for Goldwater, we’d be at war within six months.  I did, and we were.  Locally, if there’s any politician I admire, it’s Bob Greenlee.

Gelband: Bill Clinton.  During his administration, the country was prospering, and Clinton knew how to bring people together.  He had challenges in his personal life, but it was a hopeful time.  That works for me: I’m a hopeful person, I was born an optimist, I love life.

Please express your political philosophy in a bumper sticker.

Jones: A mix of “Work hard and do good things” and “Work hard, play hard.”

Johnston: “Less government, more responsibility.”

Gelband: “Trust people to do good things.”

Karakehian: “Two more years!”  More seriously, “Common sense in government.”

The final PLAN-Boulder County candidate forum will be held at noon on Friday, September 23rd in the main library’s Boulder Creek Room.  It will feature candidates Fenno Hoffman, Stephen Keenan, Dan King, and Lisa Morzel, with moderator John Tayer.

(l-r) Jonathan Hondorf, Ken Wilson, Kevin Hotaling, Tim Plass, Daniel Ziskin

Friday September 9th, PLAN-Boulder County held the first of three City Council candidate fora at the Boulder Public Library. The room was packed, with people standing in the back, listening to Tim Plass, Daniel Ziskin, Jonathan Hondorf, Ken Wilson and Kevin Hotaling define their platforms. John Tayer acted as moderator. Each candidate was first allowed to introduce themselves for 90 seconds. This was followed by about an hour’s worth of pre-selected questions from PLAN-Boulder, and the last half hour was dedicated to audience questions vetted by Alan Boles.

Tim Plass currently serves on the Planning Board, and prior to that served on the Landmarks Board. He said he’s running in part because both Susan Osborne and Crystal Gray are bowing out of the race. He’s very excited about the Boulder Light and Power initiatives (2B/2C) and wants to be a part of it. Loves Boulder, wants to help make sure we maintain our open space policies and keep the built environment high quality. Wants to keep our local economy strong.

Daniel Ziskin described himself as a physicist and earth scientist, and related the story of his awakening as an environmentalist while mourning the loss of an urban woodland back east.

Jonathan Hondorf, a local developer, wants to focus on our energy, environment and economy. He praised the city’s past bold policy actions, and urged us not to retreat into the status quo.

Ken Wilson, the only incumbent candidate in the group, was elected to council 4 years ago, and became deputy mayor 2 years ago, with support from Mayor Susan Osborne. He said he feels like he’s only now really gotten up to speed with the many complex issues facing the city, and wants to stick around for another term to apply that understanding. He’s previously served on the Water Resources Advisory Board, and has a technical background in electrical engineering and biology. He said the city has some very aggressive goals — and that’s good. He wants to keep it up.

Kevin Hotaling appeared to be the youngest member of the panel, by a solid 10-20 years. He said he’s a web designer, and also works as a consultant to people all over the country producing biodiesel. He said he values living a sustainable lifestyle, and is proud that the city makes this possible. He believes that the city has seen a decade of controversies and divisive politics, driven by pandering to special interests, and that it’s time to bring people back together.

Moderator John Tayer (all photos by the author)

PLAN-Boulder County Questions

Q: What should we do to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

Daniel Ziskin suggested that perhaps we could target our home energy efficiency audits by taking an aerial photograph of the city shortly after a new snowfall, to see which roofs the snow has melted off most quickly — those are the ones that need more attic insulation. He said we should improve the efficiency of our neighborhoods.

Jonathan Hondorf said we need to reduce energy demand, and not just from residences, as commercial and industrial customers actually use 75% of the electricity in Boulder. We need to work on transportation challenges, getting people out of single occupancy vehicles. Need to create incentives for people to do the right (low carbon) thing in their transportation choices.

Ken Wilson recounted working on SmartRegs with the Boulder Area Rental Housing Association, helping make sure that it was a negotiation, instead of just something that got forced upon landlords. Since commercial/industrial energy use is 3 times as great as residential, it will be even more important to get it right. We’ve learned from the residential program and negotiation process, and can do it well. Efficiency is the biggest target to aim for in energy.

Q: What do you think about the possibility of a commercial SmartRegs program?

Kevin Hotaling questioned whether these kinds of regulations really end up changing behavior, or are they just a source of yet more bureaucracy? He doesn’t believe that they work in general. Not in favor of a commercial SmartRegs program.

Candidate Tim Plass

Tim Plass disagreed with Hotaling. He said he believes that good regulation is possible, and supports SmartRegs. He reiterated the fact that the commercial sector is the majority of our energy use, so it has to be tackled if we really want to reduce GHG emissions. However, as with the residential, we have to find an ordinance that works. Residential SmartRegs was a good learning experience. We need to communicate well with businesses, and find money up front to help finance the investment in efficiency. As with the residential program, there are lots of split incentives between landlords and tenants that need to be addressed for efficiency to be improved.

Daniel Ziskin recalled that when serving on the Environmental Advisory Board (prior to the SmartRegs program’s development) he put a property up for rent. The safety inspection for the rental license was onerous, but there was nothing in the way of an energy efficiency inspection, which he found shocking. He mentioned it to the board that it was a big missing piece in the rental process. Ziskin stressed that he wasn’t taking credit for any of the ensuing hard work, just that he put the idea out there way back when.

Ken Wilson favored more voluntary measures, and mentioned a program called Ten For Change, in which businesses voluntarily sign up to reduce their energy usage by 10% over the course of a year.

Jonathan Hondorf felt that businesses are struggling and shouldn’t be burdened with more requirements right now. Given the right environment people will voluntarily come forward to do the right thing with respect to energy efficiency.

Q: What is your position on the Boulder Light and Power initiatives (2B/2C)?

Jonathan Hondorf was involved in the citizen’s modeling effort, looking at technical and financial feasibility. He is enthusiastically supportive of the ballot measures. He emphasized the absolute need to get away from fossil fuels, and the scale of the global problems that result from GHG emissions. However, he also stressed that whatever our solution is, it must also work for businesses, as they are the majority of our energy use. He was confident that the ballot measures would pass, and that the city would move ahead.

Ken Wilson said he’d spent many years working at Bell Labs, and with other utilities and telecommunications companies over the years. He does not believe that a Boulder municipal utility will work, expects Xcel to drag the process out, and make it as expensive as possible for the city. Would rather spend all that time working on “real” renewable energy. Stated that other municipal utilities aren’t doing the kinds of things that we want to do with ours.

Kevin Hotaling asked where are we going to get the most tangible results in the least amount of time, and suggested that the energy business environment is more complex than it seems. He said he wad worked on a financial analysis with others at CU that showed it wouldn’t work, and expects the municipal utility to eventually declare bankruptcy if it is formed.

Tim Plass put himself out there as a strong supporter of 2B/2C. He said that he had been to many, many learning sessions, and believes that the extensive analysis done by the city shows that it’s feasible both technically and financially. Moreover, voting yes in November gives us the full range of options to explore and improves our bargaining position with Xcel.

Candidate Daniel Ziskin

Daniel Zisken was also a strong proponent of municipalization, and agreed with Tim Plass. He founded an organization called Ratepayers United of Colorado. He has intervened at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, and believes that a swift transition to renewables is not only the right thing to do with respect to climate change, but that it is also in the best interest of the ratepayers. Xcel has invested billions in coal plants, and is incapable as an institution of being supportive of wind and solar power at scale.

Kevin Hotaling responded directly to Ziskin‘s enthusiastic support by claiming that nobody had projected the revenues for the putative municipal utility, at which point Jonathan Hondorf broke in to give him a smackdown. Hondorf claimed that as a member of the financial modeling team he could personally attest to the fact that they did project revenues, and the municipal utility comes out well both technically and financially. He further noted that the vote in November isn’t an either/or decision — we’re not voting on whether to create a muni, we’re voting on whether we even want to seriously consider it as one of the options on the table.

Q: What are some examples of the best and worst new land developments in Boulder in recent years? Describe why you think they are good/bad.

Ken Wilson identified Washington Village as an example of both the good and the bad. The project was very controversial, and resulted in a lot of conflict in the neighborhood, lost time, and lost money for the developer. He said people are uneasy with increases in density, and that we especially need to do a better job of integrating new and dense developments with alternative transportation infrastructure. In the end though, he feels that Washington Village has worked out great.

Tim Plass felt that the Holiday Neighborhood on North Broadway has clearly worked. It’s got some increased density, aligned with a transit corridor. It’s animated NoBo, and made it into a destination. He thought that the city did a good job of facilitating the process by buying up the old theater site. Plass was not a fan of the Peloton. Felt it was too monolithic, isolated and has also turned out not to be financially successful for the developer. On Washington Village, he said that regardless of the ultimate outcome, the process was clearly a disaster — long, drawn out, and stressful for everyone involved. He suggested that involving neighborhoods in the planning process from the beginning could avoid a lot of that kind of pain in the future.

Daniel Zisken focused on the 29th Street Mall. He liked that it was a brownfield re-development, and that it’s easily accessed via the Hop. He disliked the fact that it was all chain stores, surrounded by a “sea of asphalt”, and that the development as a whole seems very car oriented. He said he believes that there are higher value uses for that land, and that he’s sad the city ceded so much power to the developers, and essentially let them build whatever they wanted.

Candidate Jonathan Hondorf

Jonathan Hondorf agreed with Plass about NoBo and the Holiday Neighborhood being a good example of modestly higher density development that’s still livable and interesting. He said he was concerned about the Transit Village Area Plan, and questioned whether density is necessarily the answer to our housing problems. He suggested that increasing density was not going to be good for families that want to live in Boulder. He wants to see any new density made accessible and convenient without relying on cars. Said we have a lot of power via the ordinances that control our built environment, and held up SmartRegs as an example of regulation that’s working.

Q: What’s your take on the Area III Planning Reserve?

Kevin Hotaling suggested that it was inappropriate to pit historic preservation against development, and thought that by developing outlying areas, like the planning reserve, we might be able to relieve some of the pressure on our historic districts. He said he believed we should allow small scale development on open space, and that we really don’t need to buy up every last acre of land in the county.

Daniel Ziskin thought that there’s been enough discussion of Area III for the time being. Now is clearly not the time to develop it. We should set it aside for another 5-10 years, and revisit the question then. More importantly, he felt that we need to change the way that development is debated. He would rather see people have to demonstrate the value of their planned development, instead of the city having to defend the value of the open space.

Ken Wilson said he’d support changing the development review process to include just the Planning Board and City Council (two body review), instead of involving the outlying communities and the county as well (four body review). He questioned the need to get permission from other cities for our own planning decisions. Wilson also mentioned concerns that we may lose Naropa University, if a suitable site for them to grow and consolidate their campus isn’t available.

Jonathan Hondorf seemed confident that Area III will never be developed, as open space preservation is very entrenched at this point. He supported the 4-body review process, saying that there’s an interaction between us and the other communities around us, and that our decisions do affect them.

Tim Plass said that nearby land is a very limited resource, and that he supports the 4-body review process. He noted that green field development can never really be undone, so decisions need to be made very carefully.

Q: Boulder’s population today is about 100,000. What’s the ideal number?

Tim Plass said it’s impossible to come up with an absolute number, and that at any population, the quality of life will depend strongly on the built environment. At the same time, he said he doesn’t want Boulder to become a “big city,” and would rather we remain a town in character. Additional population needs to be accommodated within our existing geographic boundaries by modestly increasing density, and building more small, efficient units. He was not in favor of increasing the 55′ height limit.

Jonathan Hondorf was also skeptical than anyone could really come up with the right number. He agreed with Plass that we should keep our open space boundaries and height limit intact indefinitely, and allow those to define our urban form. He didn’t want to risk making people feel like “rats in a maze.” He suggested that increasing density does decrease the quality of life, and said we need to prioritize the creation of more affordable housing within our city, lest we become a kind of boutique community, inaccessible to mere mortals.

Daniel Ziskin said that rather than focusing on managing our population per se we should work on reducing the number of in/out commuting trips, as it’s not just the number of people, but what their daily activity pattern is that affects our quality of life.

Q: What do you think about the city’s recent affordable housing report?

Daniel Zisken felt that having a cap on equity in affordable housing was a boon to buyers, but that it doesn’t help people bootstrap themselves out of poverty — once you’ve bought into affordable housing, that’s pretty much where you’ll stay, as the value of your home cannot increase at the same rate as other properties in the city. He felt that the allowable equity increase should be better indexed to the cost of living, and wondered whether it might not be possible for the city affordable housing program to somehow kick in money directly to subsidize the purchase of market price homes instead.

Candidate Ken Wilson

Ken Wilson said he thought the city was doing pretty well with its affordable housing goals, so far as they go, but that we were doing a poor job of creating “workforce housing” that can appeal to young families who currently get priced out of the local market, and end up exiled to Broomfield and the L-burbs. We’ve got options for the top and the bottom of the income spectrum; now we need to work on filling in the middle. At the same time, he noted that these cost of living issues are intimately tied up with people’s transportation decisions, and wondered if we might not be able to solve some of this problem by giving people cheaper, more convenient transit options.

Q: What’s the right balance between transportation and land use planning?

Kevin Hotaling said he felt that those with modest incomes were being hurt by our affordable housing policies, driving their costs of living up. He suggested that we might consider some “tentpole density” scattered in limited areas around the city, to help create some housing supply and thus reduce prices.

Tim Plass said he thought we had a good affordable housing program, but that of course it could be made better, and more efficient. He said we need to keep our inclusionary zoning (PDF) ordinance, but find a broader base of funding for the program as a whole. He suggested that eventually, we would probably have to bring this back to the voters to decide where the money would come from, and how much there would be.

Jonathan Hondorf pointed out that as it is today, the creation of affordable housing units is dependent on new development for funding, and most developers choose to do cash-in-lieu (paying the city instead of making some of their units permanently affordable). With slow or declining rates of development in town, we can’t be simultaneously anti-growth and supportive of affordable housing. Hondorf also questioned the need to subsidize affordable housing in town for so-called middle income households earning $90-$100k/year.

Q: What should we do about the commute hour congestion on US-36?

Jonathan Hondorf pointed out that we’ve been talking about getting rail service between Denver and Boulder for close to 40 years, and we thought it was too expensive way back when at $45 million. He said we need to build better regional transit service, and align RTDs financial incentives such that as the service is used more, they can respond by providing more and better service. He decried the recent reductions in service as being counterproductive for the region.

Kevin Hotaling said that the creation of more density locally would alleviate many of these transportation problems.

Ken Wilson said he thinks that transit along the US-36 corridor is a huge issue. It needs to work much better. Density can incentivize transit use, but it doesn’t work well if people are still using their cars to get to transit. He also mentioned the need to figure out how to make rail viable without making a mess of the county by developing all along the rail line.

Q: Should the city keep trying to shift people away from using cars?

Ken Wilson was enthusiastically in favor of continuing efforts to get people to bike, walk and use transit. For many years he commuted by bus into downtown Denver. He wondered if we might not be able to get better transit education into the Boulder Valley School District.

Tim Plass emphasized the need to make it convenient not to drive, with great bike and pedestrian environments and connections. He voiced his support for a community-wide Eco-pass program, and said that we really need to work on getting the commuter rail line built, that we’d regret not doing it later.

Daniel Ziskin didn’t want any coercive anti-car measures, and also emphasized making biking and walking and transit much easier to use. He came out against the train, and suggested instead that we make the bus work better, as it’s so much cheaper. In particular he was supportive of implementing the planned Bus Rapid Transit corridor along 36.

Q: Should the city ban plastic shopping bags, or require a fee to provide them?

Candidate Kevin Hotaling

Kevin Hotaling was strongly opposed to a ban on plastic bags, and said he didn’t think it would work. He suggested that this type of regulation can only really work when the regulated entities are large and few, and that it would be a mess with the large number of retailers and consumers that would be affected. He said that instead we should use voluntary measures, and stay away from heavy handed government.

Daniel Ziskin highlighted his activity with Better Bags Colorado, attempting to get a tax imposed on single use bags, but new tax can’t be imposed without appeal to the voters, because of TABOR. He said that it’s clearly a blind spot, as someone somewhere is already paying for the bags — we just need to make that cost transparent to the consumer.

Jonathan Hondorf suggested looking at a deposit system, like the ones we’ve used successfully for glass bottles and cans to incentivize re-use and recycling.

Ken Wilson said he had hoped that we would get functional biodegradable bags by now, and that he was disappointed that it hadn’t happened. He agreed that some kind of deposit system would be good, and that he’d really like to see us move away from using so much disposable plastic. He said that “voluntary” programs just don’t work on issues like this — the default behaviors are just too strongly ingrained.

Tim Plass noted that lots of young people had been speaking to council about the issue, and that we ought to do something, but it’s not clear what will really work.

Q: Who are your political heroes, and why?

Tim Plass: Locally, Susan Osborne (Boulder’s current mayor). She’s great at bringing people together, and figuring out a solution that works.

Jonathan Hondorf: Senator Rollie Heath for taking the incredible position that we should raise taxes to fund education!

Ken Wilson: Also Senator Heath, for his ability to work both sides of the aisle.

Kevin Hotaling: Not really a politician, but Dr. Paul Farmer, a Harvard MD who has dedicated his life to public health in Haiti, now working in Rwanda.

Daniel Ziskin: This isn’t likely to be a popular response… but president Obama, for having the courage to take a leap of faith in the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. He wasn’t in favor of them, but attempted to bridge the gap with Republicans by supporting them. Unfortunately, it didn’t work.

Questions from the audience

Q: Would you support discontinuing mandatory parking minimums?

Jonathan Hondorf said that if we’re going to change our transportation systems, we have to change our parking policies. He was supportive of reducing parking requirements.

Ken Wilson was philosophically in agreement, but pointed out the need to deal with overflow and the potential effects on adjacent neighborhoods. He pointed out that CU cut down on their parking, and saw a tremendous increase in bike usage by students, so maybe it can work elsewhere too.

Kevin Hotaling said that a big reason he moved to Boulder was so he could get rid of his car, but not everyone is willing to do that. You can’t force people to do it. On a related note, he suggested that we might consider integrating the fleet of city vehicles into a carshare program, as the city of Philadelphia has done.

Daniel Ziskin mentioned that he has served on the board of the local eGo Carshare, and worked with developers trying to get a few dedicated carshare parking spots on 28th, and Boulder One Plaza.

Q: What about creating more affordable rental properties?

Kevin Hotaling noted that even excluding the students the median age in Boulder is 35, and that most of that half of the city’s population rents. He said that building rental properties doesn’t seem to be a possibility that’s open to developers, and we need more of it. By preventing larger rental properties from being created, we restrict the rental market and drive prices up, hurting our younger residents.

Tim Plass said that a large portion of the affordable housing program is rental units, and that owning your own home really isn’t the right option for a lot of people. Plass again pointed out that we need a better funding stream to support our affordable housing goals, especially on the rental side.

Daniel Ziskin pointed out that lots of homes have extra space already (finished basements, carriage houses, etc), and added that we should make it quick and easy to develop those spaces and rent them out legally. This would both help the renter market, and give homeowners some needed revenues.

Q: The city is requesting $49 million in bonds to finance deferred maintenance. Is this a good idea? Shouldn’t we have just budgeted for it along the way?

Tim Plass responded that certainly it would have been better that way, but we are where we are today, and this infrastructure needs work. He’s in favor of ballot measure 2A.

Q: Should we have additional restrictions on nighttime and off-trail access to our open space?

Daniel Ziskin said we were asking for trouble letting people wander around in the dark, that it was an issue of personal safety and that we would eventually get in trouble for it. He also said he thought it was bad for wildlife. He was also in favor of more restricted off-trail access.

Jonathan Hondorf noted that open space is also used by non-Boulderites. He was in favor of allowing night time use, but restricting off-trail use.

Ken Wilson said that we’d built a good visitor plan, and that people hate it when you take away things they’ve gotten used to having. Additional restrictions will upset a lot of people. Lots of people like night time running and full moon climbs, especially in the summer.

Q: Should we allow short-term rentals for less than 30 days? If so, should we tax them as we do hotels?

Ken Wilson: It’s unclear how we can enforce any rule we make here, but we’re definitely getting pushback from neighbors who are annoyed at the practice.

Kevin Hotaling: You can’t legislate this kind of thing. How can you tell the difference as a city between a visiting friend, family, and new friend that you just happen to have met on the internet?

Daniel Ziskin: We have lodging taxes, and this sounds like informal, black market hotel rooms. Would rather see it controlled by the city, and not done under the table.

Jonathan Hondorf: Lots of people are apparently doing this, and it needs to be regulated, but it’s not clear what the right way to move forward is.

Tim Plass: We’ve certainly got budget issues, and it would be great to get this as a revenue stream for the city, but the real problem here is the impact on the quality of life for neighbors. That’s what we need to address.

Q: How can we create affordable “congregate care housing” within Boulder for older residents?

Tim Plass: There are a few sites around town that are potentially open for this kind of development, and as a congregate care facility — if that’s what they really are — they’d be allowed 3x the zoned density.

Q: If elected, how do you see Boulder in 30 years?

Jonathan Hondorf: Our open space, quality of life, and our research labs and university are all good. I’d like to keep them and see more of the same. The biggest changes we’ll see in that time span is hopefully in our energy and transportation systems.

Ken Wilson: The physical city will be similar, with 1% or less annual population growth. We should be leaders in renewable energy and efficiency at both the state and national levels.

Kevin Hotaling: The rate of change today is huge and increasing. There’s no way to know what the world will be like in 30 years. Renewable energy and transportation will be utterly transformed in that timespan, so we need to maintain flexibility.

Tim Plass: The city will still be recognizable in 30 years, still compact, and surrounded by open space. Every once in a while you’ll see an electric car on the road, but mostly it’ll be bikes and pedestrians and transit. Hopefully we’ll have a diverse set of vibrant neighborhoods. I’d like to see lots of clean energy, and distributed generation. The people of Boulder 30 years from now should be more diverse, with a broader range of ages, races.

Daniel Ziskin: As a geophysicist, I believe that we are sliding down the tail of the end of the Oil Age. We should be localizing our food supply and increasing our energy resilience. We might see change come as a gradual increase in petroleum prices, or could be a series of shocks. We need to prepare for this new world.