News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Tuesday July 16th 2019

Support the Blue Line

Subscribe to the Blue Line

That's what she said

city council transportation energy municipalization xcel housing urban planning april fools bicycles climate action election 2011 density boulder county open space affordable housing election agriculture renewables CU local food climate change election 2013 development jefferson parkway youth pedestrian election 2015 preservation Rocky Flats election 2017 recreation BVSD immigration mountain bikes boards and commissions decarbonization transit urban design GMOs fracking plan boulder farming fires wildlife colorado politics downtown architecture smart regs new era colorado plutonium natural gas journalism homeless planning board transit village parking commuting ghgs radioactive waste land use taxes rental height limits coal historic preservation april fools 2015 walkability historic district diversity energy efficiency Neighborhoods population growth flood students growth North Boulder gardens arts education election 2010 election 2018 solar bus water supply zoning University Hill nutrition RTD bike lane electric utility library safety sprawl groundwater water quality election 2012 affairs of the heart april fools 2016 renewable energy organic flood plain planning reserve mayor zero waste blue line wetlands county commissioners hogan-pancost politics electric vehicle hazardous waste transportation master plan obama longmont ballot right-sizing street design colorado legislature solar panels PV recycling golden comprehensive plan climate smart loan diagonal plaza Mapleton campaign finance bears flood mitigation conservation easement epa food boulder junction congestion pesticide road diet drought election 2016 planning inequality bus rapid transit flooding oil daily camera climate change deniers automobile PUC children ecocycle community cycles BVCP Newlands community league of women voters wind power public health ken wilson david miller sam weaver mlk crime civil rights boulder creek west tsa contamination city attorney al bartlett public spaces green points technology EV Orchard Grove marijuana Whittier arizona

Council Passes Jefferson Parkway Resolution


photo courtesy COB

UPDATE: Text of the final resolution is posted below.

Will the Jefferson Parkway be built or not?  Does Boulder have any leverage or not?  Is the proposed route of the parkway contaminated with plutonium or not?  The December 21, 2010 Boulder City Council consideration of a resolution to respond to the Jefferson County Commissioners’ offer meandered around these questions, sometimes circling back with different answers.

The rationale for the resolution is that supporting Jefferson County’s contribution of $5M toward the acquisition of Section 16 in exchange for dropping opposition to the Jefferson Parkway helps rein in development along Highway 93, protects Boulder’s other open space investments, ensures a wildlife corridor, and makes sense because the parkway is going to be built and there is little Boulder can do, other than pursue costly and uncertain legal measures.

In many cities, these discussions would have taken place in executive session and the citizens wouldn’t have had the privilege of watching the deliberations.  On the other hand, showing your cards in a public hearing makes negotiating trickier.  Perhaps that explains the fascinating little roller coaster ride experienced by observers of council members (Ageton and Becker were absent) and County Commissioner Will Toor as they grappled with the intent and language of the resolution.

There were assertions that the parkway is a sure bet – the  proponents have DRCOG approval and there is really nothing stopping them. (Darn.)  But the current financing climate is so tight right now that the parkway isn’t going anywhere.  (Yay.)  But then again the Europeans take a longer view on investing and might just go for it. (Darn.)  Either Rocky Flats is contaminated and unfit for any development (Darn?), or it was cleaned up years ago with billions of dollars in federal mitigation funds (Yay?).

We did learn that demanding an EIS as part of the agreement with Jefferson County would constitute opposition to the parkway, so could not be an element of the resolution.  Also, Will Toor told the council that Boulder County, in its parallel resolution, stipulated that the county’s neutral position depended on the parkway relying on private funds only.  Opposition to the parkway could be resumed if the parkway proponents seek public funds.

Ultimately, because the resolution is only a statement of intent to negotiate with Jefferson County and not a binding intergovernmental agreement in itself, council unanimously supported the resolution, with a handful of changes reflecting concerns raised at the meeting.  We will provide the text of the final resolution as an addendum to this article when the resolution becomes available.

Text of the final resolution, provided by the City Clerk’s office.

Rate this article: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Reader Feedback

One Response to “Council Passes Jefferson Parkway Resolution”

  1. Eva Kosinski says:

    I’m not sure once Boulder County put themselves under the aegis of the DRCOG and the various Intergovernmental Agreements, that it is going to get much of a say at all. When it comes down to it, we’d only have a small number of votes when Denver’s interests are concerned. I wish we’d thought about this before chaining ourselves to this regionalism thing. There are times when our interests are NOT the same, and we are stuck.

    I would like to hear more about the plutonium issue involved in the areas bordering Rocky Flats. I applied for a job years ago with a company whose job it was to make instruments designed to help them find all the unaccounted for stuff they believe got buried at the Flats, and the idea of digging near there makes my skin crawl.

What do you think? Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.