The Boulder County Commissioners have certified ballot titles for two county and two district issues to appear on this fall's ballot. There will be a transit funding and open space funding tax request; Ballot Issue 1A asks for an extension of the .10% sales and use tax for open space until 2030 and Ballot Issue 1B asks for an extension of the .10% sales and use tax for transit improvement projects until 2024.
Vote for the 20-year (appreciation in property values) open space acquisition and maintenance tax please. I'm still reading the transit tax details; no opinion yet.
Official ballot title language and information on the November 6 mail ballot election is available on the Boulder County Clerk & Recorder's Web site at www.voteboulder.org/.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Details on the County tax issues were published in the legals today (not TABOR statements, so no analysis).
We've been over the County Open Space Tax before, so I just note on 1A that the ballot issue is for extension only, no increase in the tax. I wish we more readily knew how empty the County's pockets are, but I believe the extension is being floated in anticipation of the current revenue stream being bonded out to its current term. Also, my understanding is that the County is only now getting around to purchasing most potential properties in the rural preservation zones near East County areas affected by the SuperIGA.
1B is listed with a bunch of proposed projects, totalling $78 million, $59.6 million of that accounted from County funds. Here's what I see for the Lafayette/Erie area (County's projected share from new tax):
Colo 42, Empire to Baseline: $3.2M
Isabelle/Valmont, 75th-119th: $4M
South Boulder Road widening to 120th: $3.3M
Dillon Road widening, 96th to 104th: $250,000
County Line Road shoulders, Jasper to Colo. 7: $4M
Arapahoe shoulders, 119th to County Line: $400,000
96L Bus Route: $90,000
RTD L Route Enhancement: $80,000
Colo. 42 ped underpass at Paschal: $600,000
UPRR Rail to Trail conversion, preliminary work: $990,000
Coal Ck/Rock Ck Trail, Build trail from 120th to Flagg: $828,000
Because of prior discussions, this won't surprise any regulars on this blog.
I can't support an extension of the County OS tax for 20 years. There has been no official analysis of the real cost of OS to the residents of EastBoCo. My contention is we pay the taxes, but get little in return because we're on the far eastern border of the County.
Additionally, I'd like to see the cost of acquisitions separated from the cost of maintenance. I'd support a continuation of some level of taxation to provide maintenance to existing properties. I just can't support an open ended, unacccountable acquisition program that goes for another 23 years.
Regarding the transportation tax request, all projects listed are needed. Providing for good transportation is a necessary government service, and I'll support this extension. And, I like the idea it's a sales tax, because consumers from surrounding counties can help us pay for these improvements.
Whew, glad you agree on 1B, Doktorbombay. Infrastructure is a good investment, and a lot of these projects are needed. I do wonder if Louisville has straightened around the PCZD plan on the west side of 42, so that proposed Colo. 42 underpass connects to a trail or something...
As far as 1A, I'm not sure on the expiration dates of the current taxes, but let's assume that 1A is a 20 year extension to 1B's 15 year extension of the transportation tax. And let's assume all the 1B list of projects are funded out of the tax extension, not any residual pool of revenues from the current tax. With those assumptions, the total revenue that 1A would generate is on the order of $80 million. That seems like a lot, and it is. However, if you want to compensate rural preservation property owners, who have been forced by the SUperIGA and its predecessors to forgo annexation into adjacent or close-by municipalities, I really think this number is about right. The County is just getting around to some very premium properties on the edge of the cities and towns.
The alternative to adequately funding more acquisitions is to let the SuperIGA fall apart and tempt a new round of annexation wars. There are arguments to be made for that, I suppose, but I believe 1A is a good vote if (a) you prefer to have continuous buffers around and between the East County municipalities and/or (b) you believe County property owners in the rural preservation zones should be fairly compensated for their involuntary forebearance, past, present and future, from realizing their land equity.
Yes, you can sleep well, Alex. Knew you'd be relieved. (Actually, didn't think it would get your attention at all.)
On the OS issue - prior questionable promises don't give the OS tax a free pass. Rural property owners who subjected themselves to involuntary forebearance should've been aware of the risk of doing so. There should be no guarantee that rural property owners will be evenually bought out by OS, or anyone else for that matter.
Well, reason (a) is good enough for me (referencing last go-around on OS tax). But if you want to get into (b), just ask owners in the RP zones if they were asked before all the local governments froze their zoning and annexation status. I'd actually be surprised if many of those properties were conveyed to new owners at all since the IGAs took form. But maybe you know something that I don't.
These properties don't turn over very frequently anyway, so you may be right. But, to those inclined to buy rural property to live on, rather than invest in, the IGA is most likely a selling point. If I owned acreage and intended to live on it for awhile, why would I want to be annexed? Especially if there is an eventual buyer (OS) almost guaranteed.
Point taken. However, my understanding is that many of the RP properties are still owned by families with a legacy in the County, who did not feel well-represented when City of Boulder open space politics spread out into the County. Norris Echternacht, for example, was the last person people thought would sell to the County, but now it's happened.
The analysis that would test my theory about 1A being necessary to secure RP property would be a list of all the SuperIGA sterilized property, a list of fair market values for those properties, a discount for any currently available or dedicated funds for these acquisitions, and some sort of factor on willingness of those property owners selling to the County. Does the County need $X million or some substantially smaller amount?
Seller willingness is hard to predict (because it can change drastically with time and politics, as with Echternacht), but some assessement is appropriate. RP property owners might be more favorable to working with the County if the approach taken was one of dealing on a completely open market, versus rolling the acquisition program out indefinitely on the basis of IGAs completely out of owner control (or as long as SuperIGAs will still get the votes on local governments).
So, again, I appreciate prior discussion of "forever" tax drawbacks, but this one is sunsetted and does good things, rather than tempting bad. My opinion.
I'd like some clarification on an assumption running through the OS tax discussion.
It would seem the assumption is that rural property owners have every right to expect that their land (probably purchased as agricultural) must either be valued at open space prices or annexable into cities, increasing the value as developable property.
Is it true that somehow those land owners, many of whom are aging and are dealing with possible estate issues, have a right to expect a guaranteed "windfall"? There are a couple of examples of this right here in the city.
Ask any developer and they will tell you that by itself, open space land acquisition is a form of growth management. It is also interesting that no one thought to try to tie together the Community Foundation report about housing prices in BC to OS acquisition. Was that too much of a stretch too?
Ironically, OS acquisition may have an unintended or intended consequence of supporting residential property values. Yet at the same time, I didn't here much lamentation for those who are falling below the poverty line for whom affordable housing is a problem. Also as residents get pushed out farther and farther east and commuting increases more and more, it is no wonder that the infrastructure needs more improvement, especially the east/west roadways.
FMV should not be depressed by open space or rural preservation. That's the way I look at it. I'll defend the way open space works as a market purchase program in Colorado to the extent that that assumption is true. My understand is that, despite the politics and collateral issues, the OS programs in our neck of the woods have a good record of paying FMV or better.
We should make a pact not to lose the progress made in earlier conversations on those collateral issues. While there is a vast assortment of criticisms that may be made in the name of supply and demand, I'm not sure there is any data to support those effects of open space in the East County (not Boulder proper, mind you) - at least in the magnitude claimed. Feel free to "do better" than Doktorbombay or me on the Community Foundation report, Kerry.
I agree with the statement about no data to support property value impact of OS in EastBoCo. I submit there is no positive impact. The property values in EastBoCo are more impacted by the flood of supply on the market in Weld and Broomfield, both of whom are appparently developing to build-out as quickly as the economy will allow.
There's little doubt the City of Boulder and the County are joined at the hip on OS purchases. And, lately some of the City's money went to purchase a conservation easement on land in Jefferson County. In the meantime, there are important parcels needing to be converted to OS in EastBoCo. If only we were within the view of the Boulder elite.
My point, EastBoCo gets a low priority on the OS list, and thus gets little direct benefit, if any. What would entice me to want to continue to fund this program that mostly benefits the City of Boulder?
Another reason to have districts for County Commissioner positions.
I respectfully disagree with the idea that East Boco is low piority for County puchases. Almost the entire buffer (in some places 5+ miles of contiguous OS) between Broomfield and Lafayette is County or joint owned. The large tract of land known as Rock Creek Farm and everyhing east to Flatirons Crossing is Couty owned. The huge tracts east of Superior. Teller Lakes. Several large 100+ are roperties north of Lafayette. they've already purchsed a lot of land in East Boco and more will be puchased in the future. You usually have to wait for someone to sell, though. The county has no control over this.
The low priority comment was not intended to read "no priority".
Everyone will see something different when they look at the OS map, as shown on their website. And, low, no, or too much are subjective.
I see a large concentration of OS land surrounding the Cities of Boulder and Longmont. I also see only approximately 3 miles, out of 20, of the Eastern County Line abutting OS.
My attention is also drawn to how much of the county, east of the mountains, is already colored some shade of green (the map shows OS in shades of green). Large pockets north and south of Lafayette, yes. East of Lafayette, not so much.
I'll agree with you there Dok. I'm not happy with the amount on the Eastern flank of Lafayette, either. This was my main point in opposing the Lowes/Waneka annexation. Few else really thought it was important. Which comes back to the relative opinion of too much or not enough.
The mountains have a lot of FS land and few parcel that would make sense for development. It might not be a fair comparison to aast Boco.
The City of Boulder started this whole thing 30 or more years ago. They certainly have had a jump on the eastern cities, who haven't adopted OS programs until recently.
The fruits of being the hub of power (Boulder) and the hub of growth (Longmont) in the County, respectively, are apparently, and not surprisingly, that your priorities end up being high on the priority list. We could all join in a fair critique of both 1A and 1B from that perspective. That's already happened in my mind.
However, I have to concur with Cyclorado that this is not because our part of the County has been forgotten. Ruth Roberts and Carolyn Holmberg (Rock Creek Farm) came to mind immediately earlier. But even more to the point, I am unaware of any open space purchase desired by Lafayette that has been turned down for County funding (Thomas OS was City only, but that's a saga unto itself). In my recent memory, the County has assisted Lafayette with the purchase of Adler/Fingru, Mayhoffer Field, Warembourg, Stevenson/Nelson, and the assembly of various other parcels to the east of the city (some funded entirely by the County). And there are plenty more still-to-be-acquired acres in Lafayette's Open Space and Trails Master Plan. The availability of willing sellers is a big factor in the timing of acquisitions, and the Rural Preservation zone has allowed the County to focus on areas other than the municipal fringe until recently.
Lowe's reportedly signed a contract to buy Chuck Waneka's land for well over $100,000 per undeveloped acre. If the City of Lafayette had attempted to buy it, with no substantiated prospect of any assistance from elsewhere, this would have broken the OS bank in Lafayette, and left us with hundreds of other acres in the same vicinity to cough up a comparable price. Believe me, there were people on both sides of that fence who love the eastern flank just the way it is. The problems are funding, funding, and funding.
Disappointment in what has yet to happen is not cause to abandon all hope in my book. I just hope we can afford to acquire the open space that is already planned on the books, and then have the luxury to look farther. It's going to be very expensive. Until funds are adequate to finish the job in our neck of the woods, and I believe this extension is part of that, rural preservation should no longer be assumed as the default. When the SuperIGA expires, all bets are off.
I think enough has been said about the Lowes/Waneka annexation. I didn't mean to start a discussion on that. I completely understand the cost was unreasonable as OS. I was just hoping for something more scaled down, at least. There is still a lot of open land out there, but not sure for how long. This is an area where we have little support from the county and it makes it hard to prioritize with limited funding. Maybe if we had proposed these areas earlier to the county it would have been different.
1B sounds great! I can't think of a road on that list that doesn't need some help. I am also surprised about the underpass of highway 42. This is something I have mentioned several times, in various areas, is needed, but I'm always told it is too expensive to even consider. Kudos to Louisville for trying to make it happen.
UPRR Rail to Trail conversion, preliminary work: $990,000
Oh GeeZ - they're at it again!
Two years ago the Longmont city council paid the BNSF to removed track through town, and now it needs it back. There won't be a train station in the downtown area or the much wanted end of track yard unless the city can find a way to pay to replace the track it removed.
Now the BoCC wants to do the same with UP rail.
I wonder how many know that there is track that runs from Smith Road and Quebec (the old Stapleton)all the way to Boulder? This is UP and GW track and its been interrupted in a number of places, but the tracks and right of way continue to exist.
Now the BoCC wants to turn it into bike trails. Will Toor's personal favorite.
Let's pay nearly a million to undo the future. To make a bike trail back into a rail trail will cost billions. Thanks Will.
This is an interesting observation about rails to trails projects. I actually agree that there is way too often an assumption that you want to get to the trails as soon as possible, that the rails are obsolete and undesireable.
And, yes, anything that changes from one mode of transportation to another is going to be costly, and doubly costly if you end up wanting a corridor converted again.
The thing about both roads and trails in Boulder County is that east-west routes are currently limited, and in high demand. The UPRR is a potential trail solution, and is very suitable for that use. I don't know what comes with the "preliminary" work (I was wondering this), but I don't think the cost is astronomical, relatively speaking, if it comes close to getting the trail in place.
The only remaining question is if this corridor will be desired for rail service in the future. The bridge at I-25 was cut about five years ago (I watched the last train cross back to the east across I-25). My understanding is that even the pie-in-the-sky long-range transportation plans do not call for this line to be put back in service.
Post a Comment