If you, too, want to play the Burlingame blame game, here is the set up: The cost of the Burlingame Phase I housing project doubled due to Aspen City Council discretionary decisions and a terrible cost estimate of infrastructure by city staff. It was NOT due to construction inflation, since it was a fixed bid. It was not due to a delay in starting Burlingame in 2005 instead of 2002, since the city’s cost to produce housing per square foot was less in 2005 than what the city paid in 2002.
In 2005 City Council got a fixed bid to build Burlingame Phase I for $150 a square foot, which included infrastructure inside the site. This contract got executed successfully with minor changes. At the time, city staff were responsible for estimating additional external infrastructure and future changes to the project.
At that time, the total cost estimate for Phase I was about $39 million.
The original cost increased by $20.1 million (per city staff memo) (as a result of) city changes to reduce the cost of units and add park, trail, bus, and green improvements that were primarily discretionary.
Additionally, the infrastructure, design and soft-cost estimate by city staff was wildly off. The total cost appears to have increased $17.4 million over and above the original estimate (per city staff memo).
So how do interested citizens find out whom to blame?
First, the CPAs (city political accountants) should publish a complete, transparent accounting of exactly what the $37.4 million cost increase includes, with no spinning allowed. There is no doubt some of the council’s increases in spending were good decisions, and there is no doubt the infrastructure cost more than the city could have estimated. But the only way to end the blame game is to reveal everything.
Second, those who made those decisions should justify what they’ve done and let the public agree or disagree, with the usual consequences. The explanation that city staff got distracted by the fixed bid and therefore lost track of the rest of the costs is too weak for words. The fixed bid to build the units was the only part of the project that worked effectively. Game over.
The next (phase of the) game is (the decision whether to) vote for the $50/$70/$90 million (depending on the estimate du jour) of tax money the city will ask for in November for housing. Questions to be answered include:
— How could the city have spent $35 million of money in the bank budgeted to complete Burlingame on dubious land purchases this year? That decision makes a bond necessary to build anything. The city has always used the fund as “pay as you build” cash for its housing. Some of these land purchases require upwards of $1 million-per-unit subsidies without any public discussion. At best, a terrible change in financial planning; at worst, a horrible waste of housing funds without public input. Anyone questioning the bond will be accused of trying to delay (completion of) Burlingame, while, ironically, the council could have started building already if they hadn’t already spent the money in the fund.
— How can we vote to bond millions based on city staff’s estimate of what housing will cost in the future? They try very hard, but construction estimating is not their thing. A fixed bid should first be obtained for the rest of Burlingame (including everything), and only then should citizens be asked to approve a tax increase to cover it. Shaw’s fixed estimate for Phases 2 and 3 was millions less than the city’s current estimate, and it should simply be updated.
— Is the city’s shotgun spending approach to affordable housing a permanent policy now? Bond after bond, tax increase after tax increase forever, as stated by some of our politicians? A multi-year plan showing real employment numbers, real goals, and real community input is just good government, before asking the public for tens of millions to spend. Our 2001 Community Plan goals for affordable housing are close to being met. The reported current “crisis” should be substantiated first by updating the 2001 community assumptions without cooking the numbers. Are $1 million-per-unit subsidies for affordable housing units in fact our only option, now?
Unfortunately, anyone questioning the current management of the affordable housing program will be accused of being an enemy of the people. Anyone demanding accountability of the government will be “personalizing” politics. Anyone not marching in lockstep to vote for the bond will be against the “affordable housing fabric of the community.”
Personally, I’ve created and worked on affordable housing for 15 years. It’s not so complicated once you get past the games. Before we give the government millions, we citizens should demand some straight answers.
Tim Semrau is a former city councilman (2001-2005), former chair of the housing board, former developer of affordable housing, and a current game player.
