[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Jefferson Parkway resolution

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues -- As I noted at our recent discussion, I have a number of serious concerns about the potential agreement with Jefferson County re the Parkway and Section 16.  Since we will be considering a specific resolution on this issue on Tuesday (and won't have much time at that meeting for a full discussion), I thought I'd list some specific ideas on how any agreement might be sufficiently improved to justify our relinquishing all opposition to the Parkway and its extraordinarily harmful impacts:

-- definitively require that Section 16 will be permanently preserved (deeded to the wildlife preserve would be best)
-- require that the mineral interests in Section 16 be protected, else the surface protection may well be meaningless
-- require that Jeffco -- and this is admittedly tricky to describe -- fully support the on-going maintenance of a non-tolled Highway 93, including support of safety, congestion, and related transit improvements
-- require that Arvada will not annex any portion of Highway 93 or use it to reach properties adjacent to 93
-- require that the private land on the east side of 93 be acquired (in some joint fashion) as open space, or at minimum be allowed no additional development potential
-- require that all Jeffco open space lands adjacent to 93 be kept undeveloped/unsold/unconverted
-- require that the Denver Water Board property be kept undeveloped
-- seriously consider arranging any agreement with Jeffco in such a manner that both Boulder's and Golden's separate MOUs are voided if either one is not fully implemented;  basically Boulder and Golden should be supporting each other, instead of acquiescing to Jeffco's (apparently successful) divide and conquer strategy
-- opt out of contributing to the cost of purchasing Section 16; this should be borne by Boulder County (always remembering that 1/2 of that comes from the city), or even better by Arvada, which seems remarkably absent from these agreements and any costs

And one question: a bit of research indicates that a portion of Section 16 (105 acres; about 1/6) is designated by the State Land Board as in its Stewardship Trust.  What, if any, implication does that have regarding cost of purchase, ability to purchase, and protection of the land whether purchased or not?

Thanks -- Matt