Since our July 2022 update, the transportation sales tax ballot issue passed, extending the sales tax in perpetuity at the same level of 0.1%. Subdivision paving is not included, but rather, the Commissioners asked that we work with them on a ballot funding proposal for 2023. The County workgroup that was proposed by the Commissioners more than six months ago has not transpired.

SPC co-founder Liz Marr spoke at the February 23 Boulder County Commissioners townhall meeting and we share her statement below:

I have lived in unincorporated Boulder County for half of the 40 years I’ve lived in the area. I am speaking on behalf of the Niwot Community Association, the Subdivision Paving Coalition and BoCoFIRM founder Chuck Wibby.

For over 25 years, there has been no funding mechanism for full maintenance of the 150 miles of paved roads in over 100 subdivisions in unincorporated Boulder County, which includes Hygiene Heights. That is because of a 1996 change to the Comprehensive Plan that shifted the responsibility to property owners, long after the subdivisions were already approved and developed by the county. Property owners were not consulted about the policy change and for years, it sat percolating until the roads degraded to the point that residents began to take notice. And for the past 12-15 years discussions with 8 different Commissioners have ensued, along with work groups, coalition building, failed ballot initiatives and lawsuits.

It’s critical that the Commissioners recognize the overarching political and economic background that has made that policy untenable not only historically, but even more so, now.

Many affected subdivisions were built around areas of business that were annexed into the City of Boulder, including the IBM property near Niwot and many commercial properties in Gunbarrel. Over time, both the City and the County have benefitted from the higher commercial property tax rate and sales tax associated with the retail entities that have come with commercial growth, but the choice to exclude the residential properties from city limits left the County with the responsibility of subdivisions. A significant benefit at the time of development, particularly around the IBM plant, was offering options for employees and their families to live close to their workplaces.

In parallel, growth concerns led to the County and Cities’ open space voter-approved initiatives. Today, these open spaces contribute greatly to our county’s quality of life, sustainability, and climate resilience. However, one cannot undo the past economic development decisions that have led to unincorporated subdivisions holding limited political clout, in comparison to city populations.

Built during the 1960s through 1980s, many unincorporated subdivisions have roads that have never been repaved. Had the County continued to fully maintain the roads, the cost could have been absorbed via general funds allocated to the annual transportation budget. Now, decades later, most of the roads have degraded to the point that they will need to be completely rebuilt. At a total cost of $100 million by the County’s own estimates, we have been told the County is not able to absorb such a cost from general funds.

The property owners in Boulder County’s unincorporated subdivisions do not have the political or financial capability to resolve the issue alone. If a tax were to be levied against only those affected homeowners, the average cost would be nearly $10,000 per property or nearly $700 annually over a 15-year period. Not only is that unfeasible politically, but it’s also unfair and would potentially force some property owners out of their homes.

Given the historical context and the current high cost to remediate the degraded roads, our position is simple: We support a county-wide funding solution for the rehabilitation of the paved subdivision roads in unincorporated Boulder County. We oppose any funding framework that would be solely the burden of the 10,600 affected residential property owners.

SPC leadership has met three times with the County, most recently on July 7 with all three Commissioners.

The County conducted an opinion poll in the spring of 2022 to assess voter opinion on a number of issues as well as evaluate the viability of potential ballot measures. 

• The County tested nine different ballot options, including four different transportation funding scenarios (three sales tax and one mill levy) as well as fire mitigation, emergency services, health services and affordable housing.

• The County retail transportation sales tax, which is a substantial funding mechanism, sunsets in 2024, therefore needs to be included on the 2022 ballot. The poll tested a straight extension at the current .1% rate as well as increased rates of .3% and .7% (which included subdivision roads). Of the three options, the extension fared the best and would likely pass, while neither of the increases showed enough support to place on this year’s ballot. A 1.38 County-wide mill property tax for roads and bridges that would address subdivision paving and funnel a portion back to Cities was the least popular of all nine ballot issues tested. You can review the opinion poll results in detail here.

• Based on the polling outcomes, the Commissioners plan to place a transportation sales tax extension (not increase) on the 2022 ballot. They do not support a transportation mill levy (addressing subdivision paving) against the transportation sales tax extension because the two measures could cannibalize votes. 

We made it very clear that SPC is unlikely to continue down the path of cooperation if 1) subdivision paving funding is not addressed on the 2023 ballot and 2) the County does not provide active support in working with the Cities to help ensure its passage. While they are unable to give an absolute guarantee, the Commissioners have committed to working with SPC to develop a viable funding mechanism to place on the 2023 ballot. Based on the Commissioners' current thinking, that funding may come by way of a subsequent retail transportation sales tax measure. On a positive note, the Commissioners seem to recognize that placing the financial burden solely on subdivision property owners is untenable and are instead focused on a County-wide funding solution, a position SPC has consistently advocated.

The SPC met with the Commissioners (BOCC) Department Director 

and with Public Works (BoCo PWD) Director 

(previously Transportation)

We discussed the funding options we previously proposed with the following answers:

• • • • Subdivision Paving funding will not be included in an upcoming overall County infrastructure measure

      • Subdivision Paving funding will likely not be included in a Transportation infrastructure measure  

      • The most viable strategy is for the SPC, BOCC and BoCo PWD to work together on a Ballot Initiative 

The SPC met with the Commissioners (BOCC) Department Director 

and with Public Works (BoCo PWD) Director 

(previously Transportation)

We discussed the funding options we previously proposed with the following answers:

• • • • Subdivision Paving funding will not be included in an upcoming overall County infrastructure measure

      • Subdivision Paving funding will likely not be included in a Transportation infrastructure measure  

      • The most viable strategy is for the SPC, BOCC and BoCo PWD to work together on a Ballot Initiative 

• BoCo PWD will complete cost analysis for subdivision paving

• SPC will meet again with the County in March to discuss funding and ballot options 

• SPC, BOCC and  BoCo PWD will hold an information meeting open to the public some time in the spring

In mid December the SPC met with:

The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)

        Public Works (BoCo PWD) Director 

(previously Transportation) 

• • • • • • We discussed the funding options currently under consideration 

          • We asked that Subdivision Paving funding be included in an overall County infrastructure measure 

          • Alternatively, we asked that it be included in an overall Transportation infrastructure measure