If you plan to fill out your ballot this weekend, take a few minutes to read Richard Valenty’s City Council candidate profiles and ballot issue analyses at his blog https://richardvalenty.com/election-2019/. Richard has been a student of Boulder politics for a couple of decades and understands the ins and outs of Boulder City Council campaigns, slates, supporters, and issues.

Remember: It’s too late to mail your ballot, so drop it off at one of many drop off locations offered by the County Clerk. Everything you need to know about voting logistics is available at the County Clerk’s election information page: https://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/information/

Take advantage of these free resources and happy voting!

Before you fill out your ballots this year, take a few minutes to read Richard Valenty’s City Council candidate profiles and ballot issue analyses at his blog https://richardvalenty.com/election-2019/ . Richard has been a student of Boulder politics for a couple of decades and understands the ins and outs of Bouder City Council campaigns, slates, supporters, and issues. Take advantage of this free help and happy voting!

Dear Blue Line readers,

The Blue Line won’t be doing any municipal election coverage this year. We’re just too busy to do it as well as we’d like to. We’re sorry if you were counting on it, but never fear because this year, as in previous years, Richard Valenty is again interviewing all of the Boulder City Council candidates and writing profiles of them. He is helping us out by hosting his articles on his blog, rather than us hosting them on the Blue Line. You can find his excellent profiles on his blog here.

Richard was a staff writer for the Colorado Daily from 2000-2008, and was elections editor from 2004-2008. He also worked at the State Capitol for eight years as a legislative aide for Sen. Rollie Heath and in a variety of positions with the Colorado Senate Democrats. So he knows what’s what.

Please visit Richard’s blog, https://richardvalenty.com/election-2019/, for the information you need to help you select candidates who share your values and concerns. Thank you!

The “Use Standards and Table” project involves changes to the Use Table component of zoning. The Use Table establishes which uses, i.e. office, apartments, retail, can exist within each zoning district, and what restrictions apply to those uses. For example, the Use Table establishes whether apartments or offices can exist in a single family zoning district. The proposed changes are discussed herein.

The “Large Homes and Lots” project changes the number of dwellings per lot in the RR, RE, RL-1 and other single-family zoning districts. Some aspects of these two projects overlap. On May 28^th 2019, the City Council held a study session to consider the changes under these two projects.

This document, developed by The Peoples League for Action Now (PLAN)-Boulder County, summarizes and explains the most significant elements of the Large Homes and Lots project.

A separate document, “Use Standards and Table—Impacts from Proposed City Code Changes” discusses the impacts of the Use Standards and Table project on single-family residential neighborhoods.

For questions, contact advocate@planboulder.org.

General Conclusions for Use Table Changes for RE, RR, RL-1 and Other Single-Family Zoning Districts

It is the opinion of PLAN-Boulder County that the changes proposed as part of the Large Homes and Lots project constitute upzoning, that is, elements of the zoning change enable more intensive development within zoning districts that are affected by this project.

Why

Council has given a variety of justifications for upzoning:

• Council has said it’s about affordability. But Council has consistently and assiduously avoided adopting measures that would enhance percentages of permanently affordable housing yielded from new development or redevelopment despite the value and additional profits Council creates for property owners with changes that increase the things they can do with their property.
• Council has said it’s about the environment—that we need to densify. This is the “let’s grow/consume our way to sustainability” approach. But Council consistently resists adopting meaningful measures like size caps on large houses, despite the vast resources they consume.

Effect

These changes will effectively upzone large areas of the City without calling it upzoning and so far these proposed changes are under the public’s radar; 1,628 lots in the RE, RR and RL-1 zoning districts will be affected.

The direction emanating from Council mostly supports speculative developers harvesting the profit from Boulder’s neighborhoods. Council displays callous disregard for retention of lower to middle income families and little consideration toward the people most directly affected—those living in the subject neighborhoods.

Be honest

If the City wishes to pursue densification for affordability and environmental purposes, then it should achieve those objectives rather than merely paying lip service to them and it should pursue those objectives transparently, by directly engaging the people most directly affected.

The powerful market forces that create the housing affordability challenges in Boulder are unlikely to abate. The underlying economics are that Boulder is a highly desirable market and there are plenty of deep-pocketed buyers who want to live here. In order to counter these market forces, City Council needs to employ more powerful mechanisms. Just building more of everything—the supply side economic approach that hasn’t worked over the past 40 years—won’t alter the underlying economics of deeper and deeper pockets queuing up to live here. Limiting the tools the City employs to the same set that it has employed for the past 20 years hasn’t changed the paradigm. City Council continues to employ the same approach but expects a different outcome.

Be bold

Council needs to be bolder. Demand permanent affordability in return for upzoning. Push the envelope— implement rent control and deed restrictions in return for development entitlement expansions engendered in this upzoning. Don’t make entitlement expansions by-right. It gives away the only leverage the community has to make substantial headway with respect to housing affordability.

Council should articulate a clear goal for these and future zoning changes. A good start would be to state:  When changes to the use of property enable a greater range of uses and development potential that result in increased value of affected properties, most of that value shall be captured for the community’s benefit in the form of housing that is permanently affordable to lower- to middle-income households, And the residents who will be affected by the changes shall be part of the decision-making.

Plan

These code change projects are occurring in isolation of where the City’s population is currently (108,500) and where it is projected to be in the near future relative to the current population planning target of 103,000. The impacts of more people are more traffic congestion, parking, taller buildings and how they affect views to the foothills, wear and tear on open space, and eroding levels of services for City provided facilities and services in the face of greater demands. The essence of planning is that it is done to guide growth and land uses according to where you want to be at some specified point in the future.  That isn’t happening with these projects, or generally.

The manner in which Council is pursuing this project is the opposite of planning.

Respect

It is striking that there has been no substantive discussion of a Neighborhood Planning process despite most of this Council having professed strong support for neighborhood concerns and Neighborhood Planning in their election campaigns.

There is a conspicuous indifference on the part of Council as to how their decisions affect their current constituents. Council seems to give greater weight to the interests of the corporations that want to bring much more growth to Boulder than to current residents.

Single-family zoning districts are where almost half of Boulder’s families live.  Therefore, this project should be a critical election issue.  If the majority of new City Council members elected in this coming November’s election support the zoning changes, the next Council will take the election result as a voter mandate to adopt the changes.

Portions of this project will be implemented this summer but even more intense changes will be implemented in 2020. It is crucial for community members to remember: It will be the newly elected City Council that will determine the extent of upzoning throughout Boulder. Community members must register their concerns with the current Council, both now, and again at the ballot box in November.

Project Details

This project makes changes to the RR, RE, RL-1 and other single-family zoning districts that will enable multiple homes on lots in zoning districts that are currently limited to single-family homes. It has two phases:

• Summer 2019: Proposed changes to RR and RE zoning districts include additional ADUs and the division of existing residential buildings into duplexes and triplexes. It will be implemented under the current Council.
• 2020: This phase will consider significant changes to the RR, RE, RL-1 and other single-family detached zoning districts, including more extensive permitting of duplexes and triplexes, subdivision of lots, and development of “cottage courts.”  It will be executed by the next Council.

PLAN-Boulder County Interpretations

PLAN-Boulder County has analyzed the study session discussion. Given that it was a study session, it wasn’t always clear what direction was given, but these are our interpretations with respect to the impacts of the proposed changes upon single-family neighborhoods. Single-family residential neighborhoods include zoning districts RL-1, RR-1, RR-2 and RE.  Readers should watch for subsequent clarifications from staff, Council and PLAN-Boulder County.

City Council gave the green light to City staff to continue with certain changes that will have significant impacts on single-family residential neighborhoods.  It does not appear there is widespread knowledge within affected neighborhoods and zoning districts that changes are being considered, let alone what the changes are and their implications for the affected neighborhoods.

Listed below are the changes, with brief explanations, that PLAN-Boulder County considers to be significant and that we believe the public will be interested in knowing about and expressing their support or opposition thereto.

Appendix

PLAN-Boulder County has done a preliminary economic analysis of the affordability outcomes resulting from the creation of duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes (City Council has only discussed duplexes and triplexes but quadplexes were included in this analysis to better understand how density increases might affect housing affordability). The study area was the Newlands neighborhood.

Conclusions

Though Council has discussed conversion of existing houses into duplexes and triplexes, the reality is that houses are not readily adaptable to separated apartments without major reconfiguration, at which point, developers will likely opt to scrape the existing structure and replace it with a structure tailored to a plex configuration. Therefore, creation of duplexes and triplexes will realistically entail new construction. The cost of construction (Chart 1), independent of land cost, is so high that even when the land is free, a 50% AMI, four person household won’t be able to afford an 837 sf quadplex (Chart 4).

Quadrupling the density won’t even enable an 80 % AMI, four person household to buy a home (Chart 2). For a 1,116 sf triplex, the City would have to subsidize $2,169 per month ($26,033 per year) to span the affordability gap.

A 100% AMI household can only afford an 837 sf quadplex unit and they would need more than $142,000 for a down payment and closing. In order to afford a 1,675 sf unit, the City would have to subsidize $2,248 per month ($26,971 per year) to span the affordability gap (Chart 2).

A 50% AMI, four person household can’t even buy the land under a duplex, let alone the home (Chart 3).

With free land, an 80% AMI, four person household can only afford an 837 sf unit and they would need to raise $78,694 for a down payment and closing (Chart 4).

If the City were to promote creating 1,000 duplex housing units at 1,675 sf that would be affordable to 100% AMI, four person households, with each unit requiring $26,971 of annual subsidy, the total subsidy would be or $26,971,000 each year for 30 years. With approximately 42,200 households in Boulder, that would be a $639 average annual cost per taxpayer household paying that subsidy for 30 years.

This is the key issue—if Boulder wants to upzone to make housing affordable, in order for it to actually be affordable to relatively high-income households earning over $100,000 per year, each taxpayer household must be willing to pay over $600 per year for 30 years.

At best, increasing density will do nothing for low and moderate-income households without significant public subsidies. Increasing density only benefits households earning over $100,000.  But as more and more expensive housing is built and as more and more wealthy people buy it, affordable housing becomes more expensive because the AMI floor is raised.

At some point (like now) even the low and moderate-income people that the affordable housing program is intended to serve won’t earn enough to afford affordable housing. AMI rose 10% in 2018. In other words, Boulder’s AMI is rising faster than wages for people already living here who qualify for affordable housing.

Moreover, if these units end up being rented out by their purchasers, then landlord profit will be added to the ownership costs and of course rents will go up each year according to the market; whereas, a mortgage is fixed.

So why would City Council continue to promote increased density under the guise of creating affordable housing when the outcome is working against the stated purpose of the change?

This analysis establishes clearly that the proposed upzoning cannot provide affordable housing, even for an 80% AMI household, without a public subsidy.

Data Basis

The charts below illustrate “affordability” when upzoning to duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes in single-family neighborhoods. The values in the chart are based on the Newlands neighborhood.

In 2018 there were seven old houses sold in Newlands that were typical of scrapes—the houses had no intrinsic value—the value was entirely for the land. The average sale price/sf of the properties was $162.

A common Newlands lot size is 50 x 125 or 6,250[1] sf.  Based on the average cost/sf above, a 6,250 sf lot in 2018 would have been expected to sell for about $1,000,000 which was in fact, the case.

The presumption in the analysis is that current floor area limits would continue to apply. That would allow 3,350 sf of dwelling for a 6,250 sf per lot. A 3,350 sf structure can accommodate two 1,675 sf duplexes, three 1,116 sf triplexes or four 837 sf quadplexes.

This is a conservative estimate because it presumes that by increasing the number of units, the pro-rated land value per unit would fall proportionately. In reality, the pro-rated land value won’t fall in proportion to the density increase—it will fall less.

Construction costs are based on $300/sf. The cost to produce the structure (excluding land but including developer profit) is $373/sf.

The construction cost and developer profit used in the analysis suggests a minimum dwelling unit sale price of $675/sf including land costs.

Seven Washington School condominiums sold in 2018 for an average price of 647.63/sf.

“The Balsam” condominiums under construction are currently selling for about $1,000/sf.

Developer Profit is 20%.

Mortgage rate is 4.25%.

Operating cost, utilities, insurance, maintenance and property tax, is included.

The affordability factor used is the convention 30% of income.

Area Median Income (AMI) is based on Boulder County. For perspective, middle income is considered to be between 80% and 150% of Area Median Income (AMI). AMI is $108,600.

from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2018/2018summary.odn

[1] Lot size in this study is based on a common Newlands lot size though the zoning change would apply to an RL-1 lot twice the minimum lot size of 7,000 sf.  The small lot was chosen to illustrate the affordability outcome on a small lot with small units.  For a lot twice the RL-1 minimum (14,000 sf) there would still be the same number of units but they would be larger and even more expensive. For example, a 14,000 sf lot would be able to have 4,500 sf of floor area which would be three 1,529 sf triplexes rather than the 1,116 sf in the study model, 37% greater. The dwelling costs would also be about 37% greater for each type of unit in the model and the land costs would be 100% greater.

Chart 1: Unit creation cost

Chart 2: Affordability of dwelling and land and down payment/closing cost relative to household income

Chart 3: Affordability of land and down payment/closing cost relative to household income

Chart 4: Affordability of dwelling unit (no land) and down payment/closing cost relative to household income

The “Use Standards and Table” project involves changes to the Use Table component of zoning. The Use Table establishes which uses, i.e. office, apartments, retail, can exist within each zoning district, and what restrictions apply to those uses. For example, the Use Table establishes whether apartments or offices can exist in a single family zoning district. The proposed changes are discussed herein.

The “Large Homes and Lots” project changes the number of dwellings per lot in the RR, RE, RL-1 and other single-family zoning districts. Some aspects of these two projects overlap. On May 28^th 2019, the City Council held a study session to consider the changes under these two projects.

This document, developed by The Peoples League for Action Now (PLAN)-Boulder County, summarizes and explains the most significant elements of the Use Standards and Table project.

A separate document, “Large Homes and Lots Project—Impacts from Proposed City Code Changes” discusses the impacts of the Large Homes and Lots project on single-family residential neighborhoods.

For questions, contact advocate@planboulder.org.

Map of zoning districts. Click to see the original map at the City of Boulder website.

General Conclusions

It is the opinion of PLAN-Boulder County that the changes proposed as part of the Use Standards and Table project constitute upzoning, that is, elements of the zoning change enable more intensive development within zoning districts that are affected by this project.

Effect

What the Use Table changes don’t do, or rather, what City Council has failed to do, is capture the value created by Opportunity Zone designation for the community, especially for permanently affordable housing and preserving affordable business space. These are the objectives of the Opportunity Zone—to alleviate financial distress for vulnerable portions of communities. The moratorium (See Appendix A for background) was supposed to enable development of policies to capture the “Opportunity” in the Opportunity Zone and to ensure broadly shared community benefits rather than being primarily a hedge fund and investor windfall.

The concern for what the changes do arises from City Council’s rush to lift the moratorium and how that has short circuited the extensive community outreach recommended by Planning Board’s subcommittee for the Use Standards and Table project.  Further, the nature of some of the changes, such as the extreme expansion of Efficiency Living Units (ELUs), constitute upzoning without calling it upzoning.  Changing the zoning by redefining what can occur under the zoning name is deceptive—characterizing the changes simply as Use Table Changes doesn’t adequately and transparently alert the public to the significance of the project.  Most people in Boulder do not know that the development limitations they understand to apply to the zoning districts in which they live will change dramatically, to substantially more intensive development in some circumstances (ELUs in high density residential zoning districts for example).

Lost Opportunity Zone

Council’s continued shirking of meaningful measures to capture the value created for investors by the Opportunity Zone and Use Table changes risks transforming the zone into the Lost Opportunity Zone.  That, in essence, renders the Use Table project largely ineffective with respect to the Opportunity Zone.

The powerful market forces that create the housing affordability challenges in Boulder are unlikely to abate.  The underlying economics are that Boulder is a highly desirable market and there are plenty of deep pocketed buyers who want to live here.  In order to counter these market forces, City Council needs to employ more powerful mechanisms.  Just building more of everything—the supply side economic approach that hasn’t worked over the past 40 years—won’t alter the underlying economics of deeper and deeper pockets queuing up to live here.  Limiting the tools the City employs to the same set that it has employed for the past 20 years hasn’t changed the paradigm.  City Council continues to employ the same approach but expects a different outcome. (See Appendix A for background)

The Opportunity Zone offers a way to shift the paradigm.  The combination of investment capital specifically focused on the zone, with land use changes that capture that capital for affordability, should be a no-brainer.  Council needs to be bolder.  Demand enhanced affordability for business and housing development in the Opportunity Zone.  Where Council entertains expanding development intensity, as they are with ELUs, push the envelope. Implement rent control and deed restrictions in return for development entitlement expansions.  Don’t make entitlement expansions by-right. It gives away the only leverage the community has to make substantial headway with respect to housing affordability.

Council should articulate a clear vision for the Opportunity Zone.  A good start would be to state:  No significant loss of units or displacement of people or businesses shall result from development or redevelopment.

Council should also articulate a clear goal for these and future zoning changes.  A good start would be to state: When changes to the use of property enable a greater range of uses and development potential that result in increased value of affected properties, most of that value shall be captured for the community’s benefit in the form of housing that is permanently affordable to lower to middle income households.

Plan

The zoning changes and the issues Council seeks to address are being treated as stand-alone problems, resulting in a series of ad hoc decisions, one after another, under pressure from Council to make decisions before the Council changes after the November election.  But the issues are inter-related and need to be integrated with the affordable housing program, Opportunity Zone planning, the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, the update to the Transportation Master Plan, etc.

The extent of the changes is considerable.  The current draft plan for Use Table changes for just the newly proposed “L” Limited Use category affects 33 conditions across 26 of the 27 city zoning districts.  That’s a total of 173  conditions affected by just the “L” category changes.  Consequently, it is unclear just how large-scale and wide-ranging these alterations change zoning.  They are happening mostly under the radar, and because the changes are so complex, the public is largely unaware and the ramifications of the changes are not widely understood, including, PLAN-Boulder County is convinced, by Council members.

The zoning changes and the issues Council seeks to address are being treated as stand-alone problems, resulting in a series of ad hoc decisions, one after another, under pressure from Council to make decisions before the Council changes after the November election.  But the issues are inter-related and need to be integrated with the affordable housing program, Opportunity Zone planning, the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, the update to the Transportation Master Plan, etc.

The extent of the changes is considerable.  The current draft plan for Use Table changes for just the newly proposed “L” Limited Use category affects 33 current use categories across 26 of the 27 city zoning districts.  That’s a total of 173 use conditions affected by just the “L” category changes.  It is clear that the changes represent large-scale and wide-ranging alterations to zoning.  They are happening mostly under the radar, and because the changes are so complex, the public is largely unaware and the ramifications of the changes are not widely understood, including, PLAN-Boulder County is convinced, by Council members.

The presumption for zoning changes should be that one size won’t fit all. It would be better to consider changes that are desirable and then evaluate where they will work best.  Decisions about citywide desired outcomes should be made through subcommunity and neighborhood planning processes that can contemplate the uniqueness of different areas.  This truncated process effectively reduces future subcommunity and neighborhood area planning to irrelevance.

Moreover, these code change projects are occurring in isolation of where the City’s population is currently (108,500) and where it is projected to be in the near future relative to the current population planning target of 103,000.  The impacts of more people are more traffic congestion, difficult parking, taller buildings that affect views to the foothills, wear and tear on Open Space, and eroding levels of services for City-provided facilities and services in the face of greater demands.  The essence of planning is that it is done to guide growth and land uses according to where we want to be at some specified point in the future.  That isn’t happening with these projects, or generally.

The manner in which Council is pursuing this project is the opposite of planning.

Respect

There is a conspicuous indifference on the part of Council as to how their decisions affect their current constituents.  Council seems to give greater weight to the interests of the corporations that want to bring much more growth to Boulder than to current residents.

The most intense work on this project will occur in 2020.  It is crucial for community members to remember: It will be the newly elected City Council that will determine the extent of upzoning throughout Boulder.  Community members must register their concerns with the current Council, both now, and again at the ballot box in November.

Project Details

In February 2019, City Council adopted an emergency moratorium in the area of the City designated as an Opportunity Zone. Opportunity Zones are a creation of the Trump Administration’s 2017 tax bill.

At the time they imposed the moratorium, Council was concerned that investors taking advantage of Opportunity Zone benefits would finance projects that would result in gentrification, which would eradicate existing relatively affordable housing and business space.  Council also wanted to explore how the capital sources and tax advantages specific to the Opportunity Zone might be leveraged to satisfy certain community priorities such as affordable housing.

Work on the “Use Standards and Table” project was already underway when City Council adopted the moratorium, and the Planning Department was tasked with prioritizing the review of eighteen different zoning districts represented within the Opportunity Zone as an expedient way to lift the moratorium as quickly as possible.  The changes made to these zones will be applied citywide as soon as they are approved as part of the Opportunity Zone project.

This project changes the building uses allowed in various zoning districts, thereby altering the zoning.  It will have citywide affect. The Use Table project has two phases:

• Summer 2019: Changes to zoning districts within the Opportunity Zone that will then be applied to those same zoning districts where they occur elsewhere in the City.
• 2020: Citywide changes to zoning districts that do not occur in the Opportunity Zone.

PLAN-Boulder County Interpretations

PLAN-Boulder County has analyzed the study session discussion.  Given that it was a study session, it wasn’t always clear what direction or nod was given, but these are our interpretations with respect to the impacts of the changes under consideration.  Readers should watch for subsequent clarifications from staff, Council and PLAN-Boulder County.

City Council gave the green light to city staff to continue with certain changes that will have significant impacts on the City.  It does not appear there is widespread knowledge within affected zoning districts that changes are being considered, let alone what the changes are and their implications for the affected areas.

The significant items that Council is moving forward with are as follows:

• Eliminating restrictions on Efficiency Living Units (ELUs) citywide. This has vast impacts and is discussed in detail later in this document.
• Lifting the moratorium in the Opportunity Zone industrial zoning districts. The substantive Use Table change that Council is moving forward with will allow convenience retail in industrial zoning districts.
• Continuing the moratorium for residential zoning districts within the Opportunity Zone until Council determines policies that resolve gentrification concerns.

Other consequential Use Table changes are proposed under the Large Homes and Lots project.

Listed below are the significant changes, with explanations, that the public will be interested in knowing about and expressing their support or opposition thereto.

Limit Single-Family Dwelling Units In High Density Residential Zones

Appendix

Last year, when City Council members and the public learned that staff had applied for and received Opportunity Zone designation under a federal program to promote private investment in low-income urban and rural communities, City Council imposed a moratorium so the City could consider land use changes that would benefit the community and prevent undesirable development outcomes such as displacement and gentrification arising from Opportunity Zone investment-driven development.

The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade created an Opportunity Zone program that provides communities with the resources and tools necessary to ensure these new investment opportunities not only benefit investors but also combat economic disparity and satisfy social needs.  The June 25th Colorado Opportunity Zone Update provides a link to the Community Strategy Playbook from the non-profit Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) that recommends approaches for both weak and strong markets. It advises communities with weak markets to make zoning changes that offer incentives for desired development and those with strong markets (Boulder) to apply guardrails; for example, a higher inclusionary housing rate to protect against the loss of affordable housing through gentrification or zoning changes that limit high profit enterprises that do not serve the needs of the community.

Staff’s recommended route for the Eldo-to-Walker trail consists of trail segments N1, N2, and N4 (click on the map to view the report with the full-sized image).

On November 27th, 2018, a three agency working group consisting of Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS), City of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP), and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommended that a trail be built from Eldorado Canyon State Park to Walker Ranch on the north side of Eldorado Canyon from Eldorado Springs to Walker Ranch (the “Eldo-to-Walker” trail). While the Eldo-to-Walker trail is of interest to many people in its own right, we are interested in it because it is the last segment needed to develop the Indian Peaks Traverse (IPT), a 60+ mile, non-motorized, back country trail connecting Boulder to Winter Park.

To be clear, the IPT has not yet been approved by any land management agency, but a grassroots group of hikers, trail runners, backpackers, conservationists, and mountain bikers are working toward making the IPT a reality. Approval of the Eldo-to-Walker trail will complete the land manager permissions necessary to create an iconic trail experience that we can all enjoy from our back doors.

The Indian Peaks Traverse uses many existing trails (black dashed lines), but also needs a few remaining unbuilt sections (green dashed lines). Eldo-to-Walker is the last trail segment that has not received land manager permission. Note the trail on this map was conceptual and drawn before the current recommendation by staff (figure above), which provides an accurate alignment. Click to view a larger version.

Of course, there are still many challenges left to address. While we understand that the three agencies probably had a tough time coming to agreement on the issues within the scope of the feasibility assessment, we believe that there are several critical issues that were not within scope that should be discussed now to ensure that all interests are heard and respected and that good decisions are made in the coming months. You can see more about the big issues before staff made this recommendation here.

First, it is worth noting that staff’s proposed decision makes an important, but implicit, tradeoff by selecting a trail alignment on the north side of the canyon that will have fewer environmental impacts, but will also be a lesser recreation experience. We accept staff’s decision because putting people on a south side alignment would have introduced human use into an area where people have not historically recreated or traveled.

Our community has strong environmental values that we collectively support. However, selecting the lower environmental impact north alignment does not allow for separation of use types (as the south side could have), nor does it provide a loop trail from Eldorado Canyon State Park (which a south side alignment would have enabled). In part because of this tradeoff, we believe that it is crucial to discuss some of these and other issues possibly associated with this trail today—before the staff recommendation is discussed by the Open Space Board of Trustees (February 13th) and the County Commissioners (sometime in March).

The Eldorado Canyon State Park management team and residents of the town of Eldorado Springs have raised concerns at the open house and through other community forums that should be seriously addressed. We attempt to identify some of those issues below and propose some solutions that we hope will become part of the conversation in the coming months.

Issue #1: There are too many people already

This is certainly true. At peak visitation times, the park reportedly has a line to get in that can take up to two hours to clear. This leads to upset park goers, unhappy Eldorado Springs residents, stressed state park staff, and competition for scarce parking for the Eldorado Springs pool. However, beyond the first short stretch of each trail in the park, there is rarely a crowding issue on the trails themselves as the trails are not the reason picnickers or climbers come to the park. Most trail users are climbers accessing specific routes or picnickers walking only a short way, typically quite close to the trailhead. Climbers in particular rarely if ever go beyond the Rincon turn-off of the Eldorado Canyon Trail, and thus would probably never use the new proposed parallel trail.

Importantly, the IPT would not likely increase these problems. No mountain biker is likely to wait in their car for 2 hours, when they can simply park further away and ride past traffic to get into the state park. The same holds true of trail runners who can park further away and get in a nice warm up before beginning the ascent up the north side of the canyon. Nevertheless, we offer the following solutions, hoping this process can ease existing crowding problems at the park.

Solution A: Build an extension to the “streamside” trail. Much of the concern about crowding has to do with difficulty in accessing trailheads, picnic areas, and climbing routes. There is currently a short trail on the north side of South Boulder Creek starting at the park entrance at the east terminus of the park that acts as a climbing route access trail. The state park is exploring upgrading that trail and extending it west to the visitor center at the west terminus of the park. Such a trail would immediately become the most attractive feature of the park (at least for non-climbers), would increase trailhead and picnic area accessibility, would provide an easy trail alternative for pedestrians from the park visitor center, and reduce conflict from pedestrians on the road with cars. Since Boulder County and the City of Boulder have both identified a regional trail through Eldorado Canyon State Park as a priority, it seems appropriate that they express their willingness to support the state park in implementing this streamside trail improvement.

Oscar Vogel at the streamside trail in Eldorado Canyon State Park in July, 2018. Photo credit: Jason Vogel

Issue #2: There is too much parking pressure at the state park

Closely tied to Issue #1, this concern is more specifically about where one can park a car. It is worth noting that existing users—predominantly climbers and picnickers—typically have a lot of heavy stuff with them and need a parking spot within a reasonable distance of their destination. On the other hand, the trail runners and mountain bikers likely to be attracted to this new regional trail opportunity do not need to park close to the trail head and can cover longer distances quickly, without the need to carry anything with them.

Solution B: Develop an Eldorado Springs Shuttle. This has already been explored tentatively by Boulder County, the state park, and others. The idea is to use a remote destination, perhaps one of the lots at the Marshall Mesa trail head, the parking at Fairview High School, or elsewhere, and run a bus from that remote parking to OSMP trailheads along the route, the Eldorado Springs pool, and the state park trailheads. Similar shuttles have been successfully implemented recently by Boulder County for the Hessie trailhead outside of Nederland and by the City of Boulder for the Chautauqua trailhead at the foot of the Flatirons. While this is an excellent solution for the long standing crowding problems in Eldorado Canyon State Park, it is unlikely to be utilized by mountain bikers in particular.

Solution C: Create the most attractive possible trail into the State Park. If you don’t want people driving into the state park, give them an alternative to driving. If the alternative is attractive enough, people will use it. There are six OSMP trailheads within a 5 to 25 minute distance of the state park if you are a trail runner or mountain biker, including the parking at the end of CO67 (known as the Ashram Road), the Doudy Draw trailhead, the South Mesa trailhead, the Marshall Mesa trailhead, the Flatirons Vista trailhead, and the Greenbelt Plateau trailhead. If you provide a pleasant, backcountry trail experience for trail runners, equestrians, and mountain bikers to access the state park, many of them will use it.

Solution D: Educate trail users on how to access the state park. Most people take the most obvious solution available to them under most circumstances. If accessing the Eldo-to-Walker regional trail and the IPT is billed as a regional trail that should be accessed via a shuttle or from another parking area, people will follow that advice, especially after getting caught in Eldorado Springs traffic the first time they visit. Provide adequate advertising on trails sites like Hiking Project, MTB Project, TrailForks, and various Front Range recreation-related Facebook groups that represent running clubs, sporting groups, and advocacy organizations, and people will go where land managers need them to. The Hessie and Chautauqua shuttles are a testament to the effectiveness of this strategy.

Issue #3: Mountain bikers will flock to this new trail opportunity

While impossible to know for sure, we believe this concern is overblown. Typically, a new trail will receive a lot of attention when it first opens. But this trail is not proposed as a “bike optimized” trail. Bike-optimized trails cater to mountain bikers by constructing trails more interesting to mountain bikers, such as bike-only trails, downhill-only trails, and bike-specific features (jumps, berms, rollers, technical features, and alternate lines). Such bike optimized trails are currently being built nearby in Jefferson County (Dakota Ridge Open Space and White Ranch Open Space), Clear Creek County (Floyd Hill Open Space), and the City of Idaho Springs (Area 28). These bike optimized trail systems may be a regional draw for mountain bikers, but the proposed Eldo-to-Walker trail provides no compelling draw for the casual mountain biker, and may even prove boring in comparison as well as requiring a level of fitness prohibitive to many users.

Regional connectivity is the real draw of the IPT and Eldo-to-Walker. The staff-proposed trail connecting Eldorado Canyon State Park to Walker Ranch has an elevation profile that will make most cyclists look elsewhere because the route will require steep mandatory climbing and perhaps even hike-a-bike sections (to be determined).

The staff proposal for Eldo-to-Walker includes a significant climb in either direction, requiring real fitness. The Walker Ranch Loop is also typically considered an advanced-to-expert level trail, which would be attractive mainly to advanced mountain bikers.

The Eldo-to-Walker trail and the full IPT will be attractive to a different kind of trail user. Yes, it will include mountain bikers, but also trail runners, hikers, equestrians, backpackers, and others. Additionally, it is important to note, as the three agencies have, that the Boulder community has made several explicit decisions not to allow mountain bikes to access most of the trails nearest to the City of Boulder, suggesting the Eldo-to-Walker regional trail as a more appropriate alternative to near-town trail access. The plans that cite the desirability of an Eldo-to-Walker regional trail include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, the OSMP Visitor Master Plan, the OSMP West Trail Study Area (TSA), the OSMP Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw TSA, the BCPOS Walker Ranch Management Plan, the State’s 2016-2026 Colorado State Trails Plan, and the state’s Colorado the Beautiful program.

Issue #4: Mixing users will cause use conflict

We are concerned about the possibility of use conflict. The staff proposal eliminates one of the biggest sources of potential use conflict—sharing uses between non-expert picnickers and higher speed mountain bikers for the first mile or so of the Eldorado Canyon Trail. This first stretch of trail gains nearly 1000 feet from the canyon floor over a very short distance. But the proposal on the table is to keep the existing Eldorado Canyon Trail as a pedestrian-only trail and build a new “parallel” trail that will cross the current trail one time. Problem solved. But there is still the possibility of use conflict on the state park road.

Solution E: Implement Solution A (the streamside trail extension) and/or Solution C (opening up other trails leading into OSMP managed lands). Conflicts on the state park road can be ameliorated with solutions offered above, including trail connections to remote parking. We hope that OSMP and BCPOS understand their crucial role in resolving this issue because they will be an important source of funding and/or management permission to achieve the solutions mentioned here. Notably, BCPOS and OSMP can apply for State Trails Program funding to build trails on their land, but it is our understanding that the state park—ironically—cannot apply for State Trails Program funding (this is the most significant source of funding for trails in Colorado). Collaboration between all three agencies to implement either the political solution of opening OSMP trails or the financial solution of streamside (or both) will be necessary.

Conclusion

We hope this thought piece has raised some issues and laid out some facts that you, the reader, have found thought provoking. We also hope this article will lead to a deepening and maturing of the conversation around how to make the Eldo-to-Walker trail and the IPT successful. In the final analysis, we believe that the staff recommendation for an Eldo-to-Walker trail on the north side of the canyon represents an environmentally responsible, win-win solution that will bring political attention and resources to bear on long-standing Eldorado Springs and state park issues while providing a long-sought-after regional trail connection. We remain optimistic and believe that this new trail opportunity will become the most significant improvement to trail-based recreation in Boulder County as the final segment of the IPT.

We write today as members of a grassroots organization promoting a non-motorized, back country trail from Boulder to Winter Park. We call this proposed trail the Indian Peaks Traverse (IPT) and we recently incorporated as a 501(c)(3) not-for profit corporation to support the concept and the land management agencies that will be crucial to realizing this vision. We are a group of optimistic Boulder County and Grand County citizens who love adventure, history, conservation, and recreation.

photo courtesy Jason Vogel

The final missing link of the IPT, from Eldorado Canyon to Walker Ranch (the “Eldo-to-Walker” trail), is under consideration by a three-agency working group, with a final decision expected in March 2019. The agencies are Boulder County, the City of Boulder and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Details about the Eldorado Canyon to Walker Ranch Connection Feasibility Study can be found on the county’s website.

click to view full size map

We wanted to weigh in with some thoughts about where we stand and how to move forward in support of getting to yes on this critical final link.

There is a lot of enthusiasm about building a multi-use trail from Eldorado Canyon State Park to Boulder County’s Walker Ranch and the enthusiasm is understandable. This connection has been discussed for a very long time—it varies from 5 years to 15 years to 29 years depending on whom you talk to. Any way you slice it, this regional trail opportunity has been through the most thorough vetting process of any trail that we are aware of. A consulting team of ERO Resources Corporation and Contour Logic has been assessing the feasibility of multiple Eldo-to-Walker routes under careful supervision by all three agencies since 2014.

The enthusiasm is also due to the high expectations for this trail. For example, the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP), in their 2011 West Trail Study Area Plan, identified Eldo-to-Walker as one of only two trails in that area that mountain bikes should get access to (Chapman Drive was the other).

And, Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) also identified Eldo-to-Walker as a regional trail worth pursuing in its 2013 Walker Ranch Management Plan update. In that plan, Boulder County went so far as to suggest extending the regional trail to the west across the burn area and Tom Davis Gulch to connect with the Gross Reservoir Road.

These two documents (the OSMP area plan and the BCPOS management plan) have provided the management direction that makes the IPT possible. Following their staff’s recommendations, both the Boulder City Council and the Boulder County Commissioners approved recommendations to explore this trail. So a big “thank you” to the agencies for working over such a long period of time to make the IPT possible!

On top of the local support, Eldo-to-Walker was selected by Governor John Hickenlooper and his administration as one of the “the Colorado 16” (16 in 2016) priority regional trails in the 2016-2026 Colorado State Trails Plan and in the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Colorado the Beautiful Program. Understandably, this support at the state level has added to the enthusiasm.

photo courtesy Jason Vogel

Of the 450 public comments on the Eldo-to-Walker trail received by the agencies, 86.2% of respondents were supportive of a trail and 13.8% were against. This is a pretty compelling majority. Of the 450 respondents, 261 were primarily mountain bikers, and, not surprisingly, not one was against the trail. Of the 94 self-identified hikers, 65.6% favored the trail.

What we find more interesting, however, is that a majority of respondents who do want a trail express an alignment preference (advocating for either a north or a south alignment or for a loop). Of bikers, 59.8% express a preference. And of hikers who support a trail, 65.9% express a preference. But in our opinion, the evidence to select one option over another is pretty thin. The county has not yet published the consultant’s report, we have not heard significant testimony from staff or the consultants on the various qualities of the different alignments, and the public has not been allowed to tour the alignments themselves (with a few exceptions).

We consider ourselves engaged but neutral observers of the debate over north versus south—either alignment would allow for the IPT to exist, as we stated in our organizational response to the county’s call for public comments. But we do have a number of concerns that we feel need to be addressed in order to intelligently select between the north and south alignments. And surprisingly, very few of these issues appear to be part of the conversation so far—at least publicly. So perhaps it’s time to put some of these issues on the table since we believe they are so crucial.

• What are the ecological concerns around the north and south alignments? We have heard that there may be some opposition to the south alignment related to ecological concerns, but very few people have any real knowledge of the area and its resources. It will be important to develop more information on this alignment. If there are significant ecological concerns for either/both alignments, it is absolutely necessary that such information be shared with the public. It is our experience that the majority of Boulder citizens and outdoor enthusiasts alike respect the environment and would not willingly advocate for an environmentally harmful option. Hopefully, we will see this information in the consultant’s report and staff’s analysis as well.
• How can we minimize user conflict in the first mile or so of either alignment? Both alignments would climb from the canyon floor very steeply, one on a proposed new alignment and the other on the old Rattlesnake Gulch Trail. Based on our own anecdotal research, the speed of mountain bikers heading downhill, especially given the observed and likely demographics of hikers on either trail (tourists, families with kids, and other non-expert trail users) creates a situation ripe for user conflict. However, the likely solutions on the north and south alignments will be different (reconstructing Rattlesnake Gulch versus perhaps separated use of two trail alignments). It is critical that this conversation be included as part of the decision on which alignment should move forward so we don’t select a trail doomed to fail.
• Can we make Eldo-to-Walker a good regional trail connector? The current south alignment climbs steeply up the canyon on the old Rattlesnake Trail, then meanders a long distance and ends up at the top of the BCPOS Crescent Meadows trail head at Walker Ranch. The north alignment also currently climbs steeply up the canyon and then heads toward Walker Ranch. Unfortunately, this trail then drops almost the full vertical distance back down to South Boulder Creek along the existing Eldorado Canyon Trail, very far from the nearest trail head. It appears that alignments to extend this trail to the Ethel Harrold trail head were previously considered, but were dismissed by staff. We’d like to understand more about the tradeoffs here. If the north alignment is chosen, we believe the functionality of Eldo-to-Walker as part of the regional IPT would be greatly enhanced if the trail headed to the Ethel Harrold trail head instead of dropping back down to South Boulder Creek. Read an anecdote about this out-of-your way trail segment here.
• How will trail users get east/west through Eldorado Canyon State Park? This issue is perhaps the most crucial of them all. In our conversations with state park staff, they are clearly concerned about use conflict, crowding, and safety on the road going through the park. But again, the solutions to this issue may look very different for the north versus south alignments. A north alignment may require construction of a brand new “creek side” trail, which may be a great thing for the state park, but could be costly. Conversely, an off-road connection on the south side already exists, but would require opening the Fowler Trail and Goshawk Ridge Trail to mountain bikes. Which of these ideas is more feasible? What are the tradeoffs? We hope this issue can also be addressed as part of the Eldo-to-Walker assessment.

In summary, neither the public nor the IPT Coalition has yet received enough information to constructively engage in a discussion of whether the north side or south side trail alignment makes more sense. We encourage BCPOS, OSMP, and Eldorado Canyon State Park to provide more information and to address our questions. This will help us assess which trail alignment is more feasible given all management objectives (i.e., minimizing ecological impacts, reducing conflict, providing a high quality trail experience, ensuring the trail can effectively connect to other trails to avoid parking and crowding issues in Eldorado Canyon State Park, and facilitating regional trail connectivity, among others).

We are hopeful that the consultant report and staff’s analysis will provide answers to these important questions. And if it doesn’t, we hope that staff will consider these critical issues in a meaningful way so we as a community can choose an alignment with the best chance of success in both the near- and long-term.

Normally, statewide ballot issues are not of substantially greater interest to Boulder County than to the rest of the state. That may not be the case in the battle between Proposition 112 and Amendment 74, which primarily, but not exclusively, pertain to oil and gas exploration. The results of these measures could have sizable impacts in other counties statewide, but could definitely impact Boulder County very heavily one way or another.

Some people will naturally view these ballot measures from one of two frames—environmental/health protection or business/financial interests. However, there are pages and pages of detail that a voter might wish to know about the finer points of these issues, and this article will supply information plus links for additional reading.

Proposition 112: 2,500-foot Setbacks

Your ballot title will say Colorado Proposition 112 is a statutory measure with two provisions related to oil and gas development minimum distances:

• Require any new oil or gas development in Colorado to be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government.
• Authorize the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement.

This might be enough information for some voters to make their decision, but the state Blue Book section on 112 alone adds four pages to the discussion, and reading all the studies and news and opinions could keep a person busy well into 2019. But this election’s over on Nov. 6, 2018, so let’s focus on a few subcategories.

Land Use

Yes, Prop 112 touches on Boulder locals’ favorite topic—land use. Perhaps the most basic tangible development, should 112 pass, would be to keep new wellbores at least 2,500 feet from buildings or vulnerable areas (defined in the next section below). However, this is not 2,500 feet in only one direction—the setback requirement would be in all directions from buildings or vulnerable areas.

Current state setbacks are 500 feet from homes, and 1,000 feet for “high-occupancy buildings” such as schools, hospitals, correctional facilities, and child care centers, as well as neighborhoods with at least 22 buildings. Since these setbacks are in all directions, 500-foot setbacks cover 18 acres, 1,000-foot setbacks cover 72 acres, and 2,500-foot setbacks would cover 450 acres, according to the Blue Book. Also, Prop 112 does not apply to federal land.

The above paragraph illustrates why 112 opponents say very high percentages of the remaining land would be off-limits to new oil and gas development if 112 passes. For example, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) released an assessment in July 2018 saying up to 85 percent of non-federal land in Colorado would be closed off under 112.

However, it is possible to locate a wellbore 2,500 feet or more from a building or vulnerable area and still access oil or gas that would be closer than 2,500 feet if the drilling went straight down. The practice of “horizontal drilling” can access oil or gas in which the underground resources are closer to a building or vulnerable area, though horizontal drilling is more expensive.

Colorado School of Mines associate professor of economics Peter Maniloff recently released a report titled “A Note on the Impacts of Proposition 112.” According to his report, 42 percent of the subsurface would be available for new oil and gas exploration, using the assumption that companies could access natural resources up to a mile away from wellbores through horizontal drilling. Maniloff’s report suggests nearly three times the potential subsurface availability, as a percentage, than COGCC’s assessment of 15 percent surface availability.

Prop 112 would also allow local governments to enact setbacks that are more than 2,500 feet. If two or more local governments with jurisdiction over the same geographic area establish different buffer zone distances, the larger buffer zone governs.

In addition to setbacks between wellbores and buildings or water sources, 112 also pertains to any type of new oil and gas development, including flowlines between oil and natural gas facilities, the treatment of associated waste, or entering abandoned wells.

What Is a “Vulnerable Area?”

According to Prop 112 text, the new setbacks would apply to buildings but also to “vulnerable areas,” including “playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government.”

Negative Environmental and Health Factors

The environmental and health impacts of living near a fracking operation, or siting operations near vulnerable areas like lakes or streams, probably represent the strongest concerns of most 112 proponents. There is also a tremendous amount of information out there. Readers can get their info from ultra-geeky studies, from 112 proponent or opponent web sites that are likely to be largely one-sided, from activists or industry professionals who might also be opinionated, or from TV commercials that always seem to feature women and children playing in lush suburban back yards telling us that fracking is safe. The impacts listed below include links to some of the sources out of the many that are available, but isn’t intended to supply a complete list of all possible impacts. Those looking for opposing views can find other reports on the Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development website.

• Fracking contributes to air pollution, which may impact people living closer to the wellbore more than those living farther away.
• Fracking fluid may contaminate groundwater.
• According to the Denver Post, there were 619 Colorado spills reported to COGCC in 2017, with 93,000 gallons of oil spilled into soil, groundwater and streams, along with 506,000 gallons of “produced water,” waste from drilling and hydraulic fracturing that emerges from deep underground and contains chemicals. This follows 529 spills in 2016, 792 in 2014 and 624 in 2015.
• High-pressure wastewater disposal may contribute to induced earthquakes.
• Exposure to pollutants for those living near a fracking operation may have negative impacts on the health of fetuses and infants.
• Fracking operations can release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas and the primary component of natural gas, into the atmosphere. (Colorado has adopted methane capture rules requiring companies to “find and fix methane leaks and install equipment to capture most of the emissions,” according to the Denver Post.)

Natural Gas Environmental Positives

While Boulder County and Colorado are steadily increasing solar and wind energy generation, the state still relies heavily on fossil fuels for electricity. According to the Governor’s Energy Office, more than 23 percent of electricity generated in Colorado was natural gas-fueled in 2016. Coal still ranked number one at about 55%, and burning coal can release particulates into the air, along with mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and various other heavy metals, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Coal-burning plants can be retrofitted to limit harmful emissions, but these retrofits are costly and certain utilities might choose to shutter coal plants rather than spend the money to retrofit.

In Colorado and nationwide, natural gas has cut into coal’s market share for electric generation, primarily for cost and environmental reasons. The State of Colorado passed the “Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act” in 2009, which in part called for transitioning coal-fired facilities to natural gas. For example, the Valmont plant east of the Boulder city limits stopped burning coal in March 2017, while natural gas-fueled generation continues.

Coal ash (a byproduct of burning coal) can foul water sources, and burning coal releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that can contribute to climate change. Coal ash may contain “amounts of silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and calcium oxide (CaO), as well as traces of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury,” according to a Boulder County report on the Valmont plant.

Also, certain vehicles run on compressed natural gas. According to the Colorado Energy Office, this reduces smog-forming emissions compared to petroleum by 20-45%.

Can We Just Get to 100% Renewable Energy?

Colorado voters passed the first voter-approved renewable energy standard in the nation in 2004, setting the state’s standard at 10%. Also, the state General Assembly has passed subsequent bills increasing the investor-owned utility renewable standard to 30%, and setting electric co-ops at 20%. While many public officials speak about much higher future renewable standards, the state’s current renewable energy portfolio, including hydroelectric, is about 23%. Xcel Energy, the largest investor-owned utility operating in the state, has released a plan that includes a goal of 55% renewables by 2026, but Xcel does not provide electricity statewide.

In short, Colorado is nowhere near 100% renewable yet. While wind and solar prices per kilowatt-hour are decreasing, new wind turbines, solar arrays, transmission lines and other needs still cost significant money. 

What Are the Economic Factors?

Colorado clearly has natural gas resources. According to the Colorado Energy Office, in 2016 Colorado ranked 6^th among U.S. states in marketed natural gas, producing more than 1.7 million cubic feet, and had the third-largest gas reserves in the country.

The possible economic impacts of Prop 112 are subject to debate, and claims might depend on detail or who’s providing the information. The Colorado Petroleum Council released a study in 2017 saying 232,900 Colorado jobs were “directly or indirectly attributable” to oil and gas in 2015, which contributed $31.38 billion to the state’s economy. However, some of the job categories might not be dependent on Prop 112 results, such as asphalt shingle production or gas station operations.

Nonetheless, it is common for industry sectors to include indirect jobs as part of an employment report. A recent study from the Common Sense Policy Roundtable suggested that passing 112 might cost the state up to 43,000 jobs in the first year. However, its chart on employment impact by sector had only 23 percent for oil and gas extraction, followed in order by: retail trade; professional, scientific, and technical services; health care and social assistance; construction; accommodation and food services; state and local government; other services; administrative, support, waste management, and remediation services; real estate and rental and leasing; and “all other industries.”

On the other side, current economic activity related to fracking may not translate into long-term viability. A recent New York Times story detailed some of the financial challenges, including steep production decline rates for new wells, and high levels of debt allowing companies to remain in operation.

Oil and gas in Colorado has also been subject over time to boom and bust cycles, including times where the pricing of resources relative to the cost of operations made new exploration less profitable. The pro-112 campaign notes that “including related businesses, oil and gas employs less than 1% of the state’s workforce.”

Obviously, some areas of the state currently have more oil and gas activity than others. The Daily Camera recently ran a story called “A Tale of Two Counties…,” detailing differences between how Boulder County and its neighbor, Weld County, regard and value oil and gas. In short, the story reported that Weld had 12,486 oil and gas jobs in the first quarter of this year, according to the state Department of Labor and Employment, while Boulder County had less than 100. Not surprisingly, the Weld County Commissioners do not support Prop 112, while the Boulder County Commissioners do.

Why Hasn’t the State Legislature Taken Care of This Already?

Colorado energy laws are primarily found in state statutes, while COGCC has the authority to promulgate rules that, in short, regulate oil and gas operations. COGCC established the state’s current 500/1,000 foot setbacks through the rulemaking process. State legislators can propose new oil and gas laws, but in recent years proposed laws of significant impact have had little chance of passing. Bills such as HB 17-1256 and 18-1352 would have expanded the setbacks for schools to include the property boundary, not just the building. HB 18-1355 and 18-048 pertained to local control. The bills all died.

Opponents to 112 will say the state already has stringent oil and gas laws, and some will claim they’re the toughest in the nation. Without getting into rankings, readers can examine Colorado Revised Statutes Title 34, and scroll down to section 60, to check what’s already on the books, and after finishing, readers can go back to the COGCC website and look through established rules.

The state’s initiative process allows citizens to run an issue by the voters if the legislature can’t or won’t do what they want. For example, Amendment 37 established our first renewable energy standard, but it came after the legislature defeated bills several years in a row. Prop 112 supporters are following a similar path.

Proposition 112 Pros and Cons

Pro

• Health is a primary human concern, and studies have shown potential health impacts to families living near oil and gas operations.
• Fracking waste is a pollutant, and high-pressure fluid injection has been linked to earthquakes.
• Oil and gas companies may increase exploration within Boulder County, putting locals at greater risk for health or quality of life impacts.
• Companies may still be able to explore for oil and gas despite new setback requirements, by using horizontal drilling.
• We should increase our use of renewable energy and electric vehicles, not rely on fossil fuels.

Con

• The setbacks proposed under 112 are much larger than current law, and may put much of the state off-limits to new exploration.
• Colorado has historically been an extractive industry state, and these industries provide natural resources, jobs, and economic activity, all of which Prop 112 could impact.
• Oil and gas activity within the U.S. can decrease our reliance on resources from foreign nations.
• We’re not ready for 100% renewable energy, so we’ll need fossil fuels if we want to maintain relevant parts of our standard of living.

On the Web

Proposition 112 proponents: https://corising.org

Proposition 112 opponents: https://www.protectcolorado.com

Amendment 74: Governments Liable for Fair Market Value

State Amendment 74, as the name suggests, would amend the Colorado Constitution by adding 11 words to the existing section on “takings,” found in Article II, section 15. The 11 words are bold-faced within this sentence from the initiative text: “Private property shall not be taken or damaged, or reduced in fair market value by government law or regulation for public or private use, without just compensation.”

While this is not a large volume of wording to add to our voluminous Constitution, the impact, if 74 passes, could be immense. As a measure that adds to our Constitution, it will require 55 percent voter approval to pass, and would require another successful ballot initiative or a successful court challenge to be overturned.

Amendment 74 could easily be seen as an attempt to prevent or minimize restrictions on oil or gas development. Ballotpedia quoted a registered proponent for 74, Chad Vorthmann of the Colorado Farm Bureau, as saying, “These measures are about protecting Colorado’s farmers and ranchers from extremist attempts to enforce random setback requirements for oil and natural gas development.”

However, neither the initiative text nor the ballot title limits consideration of reduction in fair market value to oil and gas operations alone. Opponents of 74 say this would open the doors for property owners to sue over a wide range of government decisions that could be seen as reducing fair market value of a property holding. For example, Boulder locals could easily imagine a property owner suing a local government for limiting development on his or her site. Or, a local government’s decision to disallow a type of commercial facility due to health, safety, or aesthetic reasons could trigger a lawsuit against said government.

Even if property owners were to only invoke 74 in case of oil and gas exploration, the results could be especially harmful to the Boulder County government and municipal governments within the county that might try to enact fracking moratoriums. Many Boulderites have read the recent story “A Tale of Two Counties…” about the differences between Boulder and Weld counties when it comes to approving or favoring oil and gas exploration. Boulder County has taken oil and gas action in the past; it seems far more likely to take action again in the future than a top natural gas-producing county like Weld, and therefore seems more likely to face lawsuits under 74 than Weld County.

The financial penalties of a successful lawsuit could range from significant to disastrous for a government, depending on factors such as the size of the settlement, the size of the government, or its financial reserves. While not all lawsuits are successful, governments could also face legal expenses in attempting to stave them off in court.

The most common historical example cited in opposition to 74 is from Oregon’s experience. In 2004, Oregon’s Ballot Measure 37 passed, but it was overturned just three years later with Measure 49. A single paragraph on 37 in “Ballot Measures 37 (2004) and 49 (2007) Outcomes and Effects” from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development sums up some of the problems in a few sentences:

“The effect that Measure 37 had on the land use program cannot be overstated. The measure itself was brief at 1½ pages, and contained many ambiguities. State and local government were faced with carrying out a voter-approved mandate with no clear procedures and virtually no legislative guidance. The potential consequences of a misstep were enormous in terms of liability – the measure gave property owners the ability to collect monetary compensation unless government acted within 180 days of the filing of a claim, and the total amount of claims exceeded $17 billion.” (Emphasis added.)

Large-scale anti-fracking sentiment is a relatively new phenomenon, historically speaking. With the relatively new calls for setbacks or local control have come proposals for bills to, like Amendment 74, hold local governments liable for impacts to fair market value. For example, this year’s Colorado General Assembly deliberated on House Bill 18-1150 and Senate Bill 18-009 (basically the same bill in both chambers), but both bills were defeated in committee. Readers shouldn’t be surprised to see similar bills again in 2019 if Amendment 74 doesn’t pass.

Amendment 74 Pros and Cons

Pro

• Owners of mineral rights and property owners have reasonable expectations of return on their investments.
• Oil and gas exploration can contribute to jobs and economic activity, also reducing US reliance on foreign sources of fuels.
• It’s possible for a local government to overreach with regulations, and Prop 74 would provide aggrieved property owners with a path for recourse.

Con

• Health and safety for residents of a community is a primary concern, and a legitimate reason for government action despite all other factors.
• The amendment language does not limit lawsuits to being over oil and gas only, so lawsuits might take place over issues such as zoning or commercial development denials.
• Successful lawsuits could damage the ability of a local government to meet its other responsibilities, and even unsuccessful lawsuits may cut into fiscal sustainability.
• In worst-case scenarios, the financial damages to a government could be catastrophic.
• The threat of being sued may persuade certain governments from making otherwise prudent decisions.
• Amendment 74 would go in the state Constitution, meaning it could not be amended without going back to voters.

On the Web

Proponents of Amendment 74: https://coloradosharedheritage.com/

Opponents of Amendment 74: https://no74.co/

Overcrowding at the Boulder County Jail has long been an issue, and anyone who really wants to get into the weeds can read a 2016 study called “Jail Overcrowding in Boulder County” to learn more. In short, Issue 1A would fund construction of a new alternative sentencing facility near the jail to help ease the overcrowding, and would fund expansion of alternative sentencing programs.

If voters approve Issue IA, a 0.185% countywide sales and use tax that currently funds flood recovery efforts would be extended from its current Dec. 31, 2019 sunset date. The revenue would then be used for the alternative sentencing facility and programs until Dec. 31, 2024—a five-year extension of the 0.185% tax. The Boulder County resolution for 1A estimates it would generate about $10 million in annual revenue over five years.

A recent budget approximation for the project (should 1A pass), based on square footage estimates and costs from the county architect, includes the following:

• New 46,000 square foot, 250 bed Alternative Sentencing Facility (for work release, day reporting, home detention, community corrections):​​ $21.6 million.
• New intake building (booking room, intake holding cells and waiting area, screening rooms, office space):​ $8.5 million.
• Administrative building addition (office space, training room, employee break room, locker rooms): $7 million.
• Remodel old administrative building (larger courtroom, inmate visitation, office space for medical and mental health staff):​ $5 million.
• Remodel existing Building C (convert to “transitions” classification for inmates preparing to re-enter the community): ​$6 million.

According to the 2016 study, there is no single reason for current jail overcrowding, but it suggested a few contributing factors, including: a) increases in the number of women and people with special needs; b) backlogs in the work release program resulting in lower-risk individuals taking up high-risk beds; and c) increased lengths of stay for populations such as the mentally ill, substance users, and the chronically homeless.

So, could jail overcrowding be mitigated with alternative sentencing facilities and programs? The 2016 study notes that the jail population at that time included “offenders who aren’t high risk, weren’t convicted of a person crime, and/or committed misdemeanors or municipal-level offenses,” and recommended forming an alternative sentencing department, among other measures.

Also, roughly 140 individuals are currently housed in two Boulder halfway houses. If 1A passes, the county would be able to build a minimum-security facility able to house an estimated 250 individuals, including those currently in the halfway houses. For perspective, readers may wish to visit Larimer County’s webpage on alternative sentencing programs, which notes that alternative sentencing costs about “$40 a day per person, whereas incarceration at the County Jail is estimated at $118 a day per person.”

If 1A is defeated, the 0.185% tax for flood recovery would continue until it sunsets on Dec. 31, 2019.

Issue 1A Pros and Cons

 Pro

•  Alternatives to incarceration can be cost-efficient, since keeping people in jail is expensive.
• The current county jail is often occupied at or near capacity, so the facility that 1A would fund would give staff more space in which to perform its complete range of duties.
• Jail may not be the best place for people who are not deemed dangerous criminals, and alternatives to jail can be beneficial to those individuals.
• 1A would extend an existing tax, so passing it would not increase local tax rates.

 Con

•  Extending a tax that would otherwise sunset could be considered equivalent to a tax increase.
• Using the 0.185% tax for this purpose is very different than the original purpose (flood recovery) of the 2014-19 tax.

Question 2I would amend City Charter section 78, to incorporate changes regarding the timeline for the city’s planning department to submit yearly budget recommendations. Under current Charter language staff interpretation, the planning department (now known as Planning, Housing and Sustainability) must submit its capital improvement program (CIP) recommendations 60 days before the first public hearing on the yearly budget. Under 2I, the 60-day requirement would be reduced to 30 days.

Folks who follow city government understand that there are a number of departments and boards that could have capital improvement needs or considerations. According to the city memo on 2I, changing the timeline to 30 days before the first public hearing on the budget would factor in “the need to review the CIP with respective boards and the executive budget team prior to Planning Board consideration.”

Question 2I Pros and Cons

Pro

• Passing 2I would give the city’s planning department and planning board more time for input and recommendations from other departments and boards before finalizing budget recommendations.

 Con

• Other people involved in the budget process would have less time to evaluate planning department recommendations before the first public hearing on the budget.