In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal on pension plans not meeting their targets, it was reported:

===
In Boulder, Colo., the city eliminated 100 positions and consolidated city programs as a way of compensating for three reductions in the state’s investment forecast and a rise in pension contributions, as the economy sputtered. It also stopped planting tulips in most areas and shifted to less expensive wildflowers as a way of making an additional $1.7 million in pension payments, according to the city’s chief financial officer, Bob Eichem. “You do more with less,” Mr. Eichem said.
===

The WSJ article came out after the recent proposed budget was publicly announced, so the quote from Mr. Eichem seems a bit hypocritical. Here we are in one year reversing almost half of those cuts. Does anyone in city government even consider the impact of hiring 48 new employees and having to provide for their pensions? Nothing in this article indicates that.

"But Muniz said if the deal is approved by Congress, it will provide a critical platform for future global non-proliferation agreements."

That's a complete misrepresentation of the bill before Congress, which is to VOID the executive agreement signed by President Obama. This bill has support by over half of each house. What it may not have is 60 votes in the Senate to get past a filibuster so the Senate can vote on it. If it does get past the filibuster, the bill will be passed. President Obama will then veto it. Congress does not have the 2/3 votes in the Senate to override.

So instead of "approving" the deal, Congress will have disapproved it by majorities of both houses. But political maneuvering will still allow the deal to go through. If the Iran deal was structured as a treaty requiring the Senate to approve it by a 2/3 vote of the Senate, it would have never gone through. By not going the treaty route, the deal can be overridden simply by a pen stroke from a future president.

This is just another example of how hostile Boulder is to companies once they reach a certain size. Cost and lack of suitable office space are just the beginning. Things like the proposed head tax will just make it even harder. Boulder prides itself on its startup culture, but if the city makes it impossible to grow a company here, ultimately why not just start it someplace where it can grow to begin with?

I love how we have to give them free use of our money by putting in a pre-paid amount up front. Many people will set up accounts and rarely use them, so that money is free for the tolling company to use n the meantime. Why can't they bill after the trip is actually taken?

So if you have multiple passengers and forget to flip the transponder into HOV mode you pay full price. If you then drive by yourself and forget to flip the transponder back into Toll mode what happens? Do the police charge you more if they pull you over? How will they know? If the tolling company can take pictures to determine the number of passengers, why have a special transponder in the first place?

What if you're using 36 for for a short length but fail to exit at one of the approved exit points? Do you get charged for the full length of the toll lanes on 36?

This just shows what incredible chumps voters in Boulder County were in the first place for voting for FasTracks. RTD always knew the county would vote for anything with "rapid transit" attached to it, so they scheduled our piece of the pie last. Even at the time of the election, studies pointed out the revenue would be insufficient to meet the promised schedule, but of course nobody in the county listened.

As for the 2008 recession being a factor, if it actually was then it just shows that RTD was lying to us all along. Sure, revenues went down a bit for a couple of years, but if this delayed by decades the plan for Boulder County then the original proposal was a lie and inadequate all along. Besides, well before the 2008 recession hit FasTracks was already facing major revenue shortfalls and cost overruns.

<div id="idc-comment-msg-div-980154571" class="idc-message"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(980154571)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.dailycamera.com%2Fnews%2Fboulder-flood%2Fci_28360775%2Fboulder-scientist-ties-severity-colorados-2013-flood-climate#IDComment980154571&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Boulder%20scientist%20ties%20severity%20of%20Colorado's%202013%20flood%20to%20climate%20change%20-%20Boulder%20Daily%20Camera" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(980154571)">Close MessageOn Nov. 15, 2013, Dr. Trenberth did an interview on NPR Science Friday where he discussed how much climate change was to blame for extreme events such as Typhoon Halyan <a href="http:// (http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/11/15/2013/gauging-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-hurricanes.html" target="_blank"> <a href="http://(http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/11/15/2013/gauging-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-hurricanes.html" target="_blank">(http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/11/15/2013/gauging-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-hurricanes.html ). At about 11:30 min he said the effect due to global warming was at about the 5% to 10% level. In another part of the interview (around 7:00 min) he said there was a large amount of natural variability and the effects of climate change are still "small trends in that large variablity".

So is this new paper saying anything different? Has Dr. Trenberth increased the percentage due to climate change, and if so, why? Unfortunately this article gives us no clue, and of course the paper itself which we taxpayers no doubt funded a great deal of is behind a $32 paywall.

In practice, higher salaries for the council won't get more diverse councilors. If you look at who actually gets elected to the council, they all have years of previous experience in various voluntary unpaid positions. Very few people will vote an unknown to a council seat who hasn't demonstrated an interest in city affairs. Councilors are people who in the past either made the sacrifice or could afford to subidize these activities out of their own pocket. If this is essentially a "prerequisite" to be elected to the council, then finally paying them when they get to the council won't actually get a more diverse group on the council.

There are a limited number of neighborhood "nodes" where Centurylink has fiber to the neighborhood, and then DSL to homes from there. Depending on distance, you can get 40/18 service for about $36/month. These were installed by US West but never turned on until years later.

I don't know what's going to become of the fiber to the home that Xcel installed everywhere in Boulder during the "smart grid" mess. Right now it's just used to read our electric meters every 10 or 15 minutes. I would think it could be converted to carry the internet. Even if extra equipment is required, the fiber is already there and that's most of the cost.

It would be a nice deal for Google Fiber to pick up. They like taking over existing but failed fiber. But I suppose the Xcel fiber will remain locked up as long as the city and Xcel fight over municipalization.

$41,900 is just the starting salary for a BA. After four years it's $51,000. The starting salary for a MA is $53,500, after four years it's $65,000. Given the difference I don't know why a young teacher wouldn't stay in college an extra year or two for the MA -- it's easily worth the extra tuition. These are for the lowest category of pay. A BA with four years can earn up to $77,200, a MA with 4 years can earn up to $92,800. The highest a PhD can earn is $100,000. I don't know what it takes to get these higher salaries, though, and I assume it's rare.

While these aren't STEM salaries, they're in line with most other professions. Nobody should expect to buy a home or even a condo on what they make their first year out of college.

The just replaced salary schedule is at http://bvsd.org/HR/Documents/Negotiated%20Agreeme... .

Say the stranded costs are $150 million (on the low end) and that we pay them off over five years by increased rates to Xcel. From the RFP, Boulder uses 1,518,124,000 KWh per year. To raise $30,000,000 per year, our rates have to go up by 2 cents per KWh. Since we will be buying less power from Xcel over the five years, that number will probably have to be front-loaded to 3 or 4 cents per KWh.

The city promises us that they won't do the deal if the rates on day one are higher than what we pay now to Xcel. If they choose rates to pay off the stranded costs, how is this possible?