On open space
The validity of the open space return to Boulder County in relationship to the formation of the city/county is what is not being discussed so far.
First: There were questions concerning Broomfield's annexation powers; would the city/county of Broomfield be able to annex land working with the same perameters they operated under a city; specifically; 3 miles in each direction per year. This was the undecided question of the state proposal; and the reason that Dicero and Berens did NOT present the question on their first visit to the capitol in March. When it was publicized that BF would seek county status; commissioners in Adams and Boulder county had the question of annexation; and additionally, from Boulder county; the question of open space ownership and protection. During an April 1 meeting; it was decided by BF leadership to finalize their boundaries; and annexation limitations. From the acceptable standard of three miles; it was changed to 6 miles into the Weld county area. Also, it was agreed that all annexation had to be completed before Nov 2001; or any future annexations or deannexation would have to be approved by a vote from the residents of both counties.
Without a clear definition of annexation powers; the question would not have made it to ballot.
The absolute question from Boulder County was of open space; a question also from BF residents; especially those in Boulder County.
Boulder County wanted the open space parcel; BF residents wanted the open space parcel and the priveleges of usage in other Boulder County open areas. Without this decision there would never have been a ballot issue. The second obstacle had to be overcome.
The most important line in the IGA is that BOULDER COUNTY OFFICIALS WOULD NOT PUBLICLY OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF BF COUNTY. This is extremely important, considering the cash base of Interlocken.
The IGA agreement specifically states a cost to BF of 6.2 mil (ironically the same amount of tax money that Boulder county will lose from Interlocken--irony not necessarily a link). It was determined that Boulder County had contributed 6.2 mil to BF in the purchase of the open space that was within the boundaries of BF. This will be paid back at the rate of $250,000 over 20 years.
The open space would be visible on BF's Master Plan, but would be in the total ownership of Boulder County. This is photo cell; if it is not there; BF looks like pure development. With this included in the Master Plan, BF can use it in advertising, and claim this is part of BF. This is where Berens runs on a 40% open space platform; the actual is less than 10% within the city limits. So he tries to promote the parks as open space.
Secondly, BF residents would be permitted all the priveleges of open space usage in Boulder county.
Without these points Boulder would have fought vigorously against the BF county.
By Br Anon
The validity of the open space return to Boulder County in relationship to the formation of the city/county is what is not being discussed so far.
First: There were questions concerning Broomfield's annexation powers; would the city/county of Broomfield be able to annex land working with the same perameters they operated under a city; specifically; 3 miles in each direction per year. This was the undecided question of the state proposal; and the reason that Dicero and Berens did NOT present the question on their first visit to the capitol in March. When it was publicized that BF would seek county status; commissioners in Adams and Boulder county had the question of annexation; and additionally, from Boulder county; the question of open space ownership and protection. During an April 1 meeting; it was decided by BF leadership to finalize their boundaries; and annexation limitations. From the acceptable standard of three miles; it was changed to 6 miles into the Weld county area. Also, it was agreed that all annexation had to be completed before Nov 2001; or any future annexations or deannexation would have to be approved by a vote from the residents of both counties.
Without a clear definition of annexation powers; the question would not have made it to ballot.
The absolute question from Boulder County was of open space; a question also from BF residents; especially those in Boulder County.
Boulder County wanted the open space parcel; BF residents wanted the open space parcel and the priveleges of usage in other Boulder County open areas. Without this decision there would never have been a ballot issue. The second obstacle had to be overcome.
The most important line in the IGA is that BOULDER COUNTY OFFICIALS WOULD NOT PUBLICLY OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF BF COUNTY. This is extremely important, considering the cash base of Interlocken.
The IGA agreement specifically states a cost to BF of 6.2 mil (ironically the same amount of tax money that Boulder county will lose from Interlocken--irony not necessarily a link). It was determined that Boulder County had contributed 6.2 mil to BF in the purchase of the open space that was within the boundaries of BF. This will be paid back at the rate of $250,000 over 20 years.
The open space would be visible on BF's Master Plan, but would be in the total ownership of Boulder County. This is photo cell; if it is not there; BF looks like pure development. With this included in the Master Plan, BF can use it in advertising, and claim this is part of BF. This is where Berens runs on a 40% open space platform; the actual is less than 10% within the city limits. So he tries to promote the parks as open space.
Secondly, BF residents would be permitted all the priveleges of open space usage in Boulder county.
Without these points Boulder would have fought vigorously against the BF county.
By Br Anon
