News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Tuesday August 11th 2020

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

Council Passes Jefferson Parkway Resolution


By

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)
Loading...

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.